Section

3

3. Alternatives

ALTERNATIVES
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-1 Tier 1 Final EIS 

3.0 Alternatives 

This Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 FEIS) includes an evaluation of

five alternatives for the Chicago to St. Louis High‐Speed Rail (HSR) Corridor Program:  

the No‐Build Alternative and four Build  Alternatives.  The Build (HSR) Alternatives

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.  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 will be provided between Joliet and St. Louis and will begin following

completion of several upgrades to the existing tracks that were approved by a 2004

Record of Decision (ROD) (Dwight to St. Louis improvements) (issued by FRA and

FHWA) and a 2011 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (Joliet to Dwight

improvements) (issued by FRA).  The limited HSR service resulting from those

improvements will include up to three daily passenger round trips allowing for 110 mph

passenger trains between Joliet and Alton, with 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 Chicago and San Antonio,

Texas, over the Chicago to St. Louis corridor under the No‐Build Alternative.  In

comparison, the Build (HSR) Alternatives would include eight daily round trips

allowing for 110 mph intercity passenger service for the entire route between Chicago

and St. Louis.  One additional non‐HSR Texas Eagle daily passenger round trip would

continue to operate under the HSR Build Alternatives.

This chapter: discusses the screening process that was used to identify the alternatives

that were carried forward for analysis; describes each of the alternatives that were

carried forward for further analyses, as well as the alternatives that were considered and  

dismissed as part of the screening process; and compares the estimated costs of the

alternatives.  This information is included in the following sections:

 Section 3.1 describes the alternatives screening process and assumptions;  

 Section 3.2 discusses the No‐Build Alternative;   

 Section 3.3 describes the Build Alternatives, including eliminated alternatives; and

 Section 3.4 compares the costs of the Build Alternatives carried forward.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-2 Tier 1 Final EIS 

3.1 Tier 1 Alternatives Screening Process 

3.1.1 Alternatives Screening and Selection Process 

The purpose of the screening process was to identify reasonable alternatives to evaluate

in detail in this Tier 1 Draft EIS.  A set of screening criteria was developed specifically

for this program.  The screening criteria were applied to the Build Alternatives to

determine if any of the identified alternatives should be eliminated from further

consideration.  The screening criteria were developed based on the following:

 the goals and objectives established for the program in the Purpose and Need (i.e.,

increase passenger rail ridership through infrastructure/equipment  improvements

to improve travel time, frequency and reliability of service, and safety from Chicago

to St. Louis);

 avoiding and minimizing impacts to humans and the natural environment; and

 minimizing maintenance and operational costs.

Table 3.1‐1 summarizes the major program elements for the Tier 1 No‐Build Alternative

and the Build (HSR) Alternatives.  The Chicago to Joliet, Springfield, and Alton to St.

Louis routing alternatives are listed in Section 3.3.  Exhibit 3.1‐1 depicts the areas studied

during the alternatives screening process.  More detailed maps of the potential

alternative routes studied in the Chicago, Springfield, and St. Louis portions of the study

corridor are provided in Sections 3.3.4 through 3.3.6.  The program elements listed in

Table 3.1‐1 are the same for all of the alternatives evaluated through this screening

process.  The No‐Build Alternative was not screened as part of the alternative screening

process, because it is retained for comparison purposes to the other alternatives that

were evaluated.  More detailed discussions regarding individual improvements

associated with the No‐Build and Build Alternatives are discussed in Section 3.2 and 3.3.  

After evaluating improvements to the Chicago to St. Louis corridor that would allow

high speed trains to travel at 125 mph, this alternative was dismissed due to the

magnitude of improvements that would be required to support trains traveling at that

speed.  Such improvements would require a substantial number of grade separations,

additional curve treatments, and further signal and warning system upgrades.  The

additional construction requirements would make it cost prohibitive and result in more

impacts to the human and natural environments.  It was not anticipated that ridership

would increase substantially compared to the 110 mph option to support the extra costs

and environmental consequences.

3.1.2 Tier 1 Screening Objectives and Criteria 

Key objectives and criteria were developed for screening the initial range of alternatives.  

The criteria were developed to evaluate the alternatives based primarily on their ability

to meet the purpose and need of the program, but also to help identify any alternatives

that may have disproportionate costs and/or environmental impacts.  The screening

criteria were used to help identify any alternatives with fatal flaws.  The end result of the

screening process was a set of the most reasonable alternatives, which were evaluated in

more detail l in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-3 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 3.1‐1. Design Elements of the Program Alternatives

Program 

Element1

No-Build Alternative 

(Design Year 2030) 

Build Alternatives 

(Design Year 2030) 

Passenger Round

Trips per Day 52 93

Maximum

Operating Speed

For 3 of the 5 passenger round

trips: up to 110 mph between Joliet

and Alton; up to 79 mph north of

Joliet and south of Alton.  For the

remaining 2 passenger round trips:

up to 79 mph between Chicago

and St. Louis.

Up to

110 mph

Up to

125 mph

Number of

Mainline Tracks

1 track through most of the

corridor

2 tracks (minimum) throughout the

corridor

Alternative

Routes

Use existing Chicago to St. Louis

Amtrak route

Evaluate alternative routes between

Chicago and Joliet, through

Springfield, and between Alton and

St. Louis

Grade Crossings

Enhanced warning devices at

grade crossings south of Joliet as

part of the 2004 Record of Decision

(ROD) improvements and the

Dwight to Joliet Environmental

Assessment.

Additional

grade crossing

treatments,

including grade

separations.

Where speeds

exceed 110 mph,

close or grade

separate

crossings.

Station Upgrades

Station upgrades at Dwight,

Pontiac, Lincoln, Carlinville,

Alton, and Springfield as covered

in 2004 ROD

Additional station improvements,

including potential passenger grade

separations

New Stations None

Between Chicago and Joliet, for

routes other than the existing Amtrak

route, a new suburban station would

be provided.  A new station between

Alton and St. Louis would also be

considered.

1  The information in this table was developed with a focus on screening the alternate route

alignments.  The remaining program elements were developed in the Service Development Plan.

2  Passenger service under the No‐Build Alternative will include three HSR round trips between

Chicago and St. Louis, one non‐HSR round trip between Chicago and St. Louis, and one non‐

HSR Texas Eagle round trip.  Texas Eagle service is between Chicago and San Antonio, Texas.

3  Passenger service under the Build Alternatives would include eight HSR round trips between

Chicago and St. Louis and one non‐HSR Texas Eagle round trip.
Exhibit 3.1-1. Map of overall Study Corridor for the Alternatives Screening. 
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-5 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 3.1‐2 lists the Tier 1 Draft EIS screening objectives and their corresponding criteria,

as well as the units or methodology used to quantify or characterize these criteria.  The

screening criteria were developed by first considering the overall purpose and need for

the program, then determining specific goals and objectives of the program, and finally

identifying what factors might influence each of those objectives.  Once those factors

were identified, specific qualitative and quantitative parameters were developed to

compare the alternatives.  Quantitative criteria were measured in appropriate units such

as alternative route length, travel time, or dollars, while qualitative criteria that could

not be captured adequately by a single number were encapsulated in a brief narrative

description.

Table 3.1‐2. Tier 1 Objectives and Screening Criteria

Objective Criteria and Measures 

Meet Purpose and Need

(increase passenger rail

ridership through

improved travel times,

frequency and reliability

of service, and improve

safety.)

 Length (miles)

 Travel time (minutes)

 Connectivity to other intercity passenger rail, intermodal services to

improve mobility to important business/leisure destinations (qualitative

discussion)

 Safety (qualitative discussion based on ridership data)

Minimize operational and

construction issues

 Operational issues (qualitative discussion, including host railroad’s

readiness/ability to accommodate high speed passenger rail

 Potential conflicts with freight and other passenger service)

 Number of at‐grade crossings

 Construction issues (qualitative discussion)

Minimize capital and

maintenance costs

 Capital cost, including right‐of‐way (dollars)

 Maintenance cost (dollars)

Minimize environmental

impacts (natural,

socioeconomic, and

cultural resources)

 Existing and planned development [land use compatibility (qualitative

discussion), right‐of‐way impacts (acres of right‐of‐way required)]

 Natural resources1 [Water resources (# of crossings), floodplain impacts

(# of crossings), wetlands (acres of wetlands in right‐of‐way), and

threatened and endangered species impacts (number of species)]

 Social and economic resources [environmental justice (EJ) impacts (areas

where EJ population >50%)2, community and neighborhood impacts

(qualitative discussion), buildings directly impacted (# of buildings

potentially displaced)3

 Cultural and recreational resources [historic resources (# of resources),

recreational/potential Section 4(f)/6(f) resources impacts (# of adjacent

resources)

1A 200‐foot buffer was used for the screening of natural resources to ensure that all resources

falling within the anticipated right‐of‐way and those immediately adjacent were considered.

2 A 1000‐foot buffer was used to identify potential EJ populations adjacent to the alternatives.  

3To determine potential numbers of buildings displaced, number of cultural resources sites, and

number of recreational properties, the existing and anticipated new right‐of‐way boundaries were

utilized.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-6 Tier 1 Final EIS 

The goal was to establish a set of criteria by which to uniformly compare all Tier 1

alternatives, regardless of geographic location.  Additional information related to how

the screening was conducted for each of the objectives is provided after Table 3.1‐2.

3.1.2.1 Meet Purpose and Need

The general purpose and need for the program, as discussed in Chapter 2, is to promote

a meaningful increase in passenger rail ridership between Chicago and St. Louis by

improving/modernizing existing infrastructure to support high speed rail, reducing rail

travel times, and increasing reliability and frequency of rail service.  Providing

improved rail service and reducing the overall reliance on automobiles as the primary

mode of transportation would offer improved transportation choices, reduced fuel

consumption, reduced air quality impacts, and improved safety.  Several factors

influence rail ridership.  Some of the factors considered during the screening process

that were expected to affect overall ridership changes include length of the alternative

route, travel time, connectivity to other intercity passenger rail, and reliability and

frequency of service (i.e., more trainsets/round trips).  Ridership data is included in

Section 3.3.3 in Table 3.3‐2, including a comparison of changes in ridership for each

mode of transportation under the No‐Build and Build Alternatives.

Length

In order to maximize the ridership potential for the high‐speed rail corridor, the lengths

of the various alternatives were compared.  The length of the alternative was one

indicator that could influence travel times that would affect ridership based upon on‐

time performance and adverse travel along the various alternatives.  The alternative

lengths were obtained from GIS mapping data sources.

Travel Time

Travel time estimates for each alternative were developed using available track chart

speed data.  Additionally, existing curve radii was estimated from aerial photography to

determine the maximum operating speeds through the existing curves.  The proposed

improvements anticipated for each alternative included sufficient infrastructure to

maintain the desired speeds along each alternative in order to create a consistent

comparison.  More detailed analysis of the alternatives’ travel times, including

geometrics and capacity restrictions, was conducted for those alternatives carried

forward for detailed evaluation in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.  Those travel times are contained

in Section 3.3.3 in Table 3.3‐1.

Connectivity to Other Intercity Passenger Rail and Intermodal Service

Alternatives were evaluated to assess their connectivity to other passenger rail and

intermodal service.  Where applicable, endpoint stations were rated “good” if they

accommodate other intercity passenger rail and intermodal service, and “poor” if they

do not.  Connectivity was considered because it is important that passengers using the

proposed high speed rail service are able to get to their work/leisure destinations along

the proposed route easily.  Otherwise, people would continue to use other modes of

transportation for convenience purposes, even if the travel times and/or costs associated

with those other modes may be somewhat higher.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-7 Tier 1 Final EIS 

3.1.2.2 Minimize Operational and Construction Issues

Operational Issues

Operational issues, including host railroad’s readiness/ability to accommodate high

speed passenger rail, potential conflicts with freight and other passenger service, and

number of at‐grade crossings were considered for each alternative.  In order for intercity

passenger trains to operate at maximum efficiency, there should be limited interference

from at‐grade highway‐rail or rail‐rail crossings and freight, intercity passenger, and

commuter operations along the alternative.  These conflicts between freight and

passenger trains can create capacity and operational conflicts.  Travel time, reliability,

and costs could be affected by capacity and operational issues.

Alternative alignments were reviewed based on the difficulty/anticipated costs that

would be expected in order for a host railroad to be able to accommodate high‐speed

passenger rail service on their tracks.  An alternative was not eliminated solely for

requiring substantial infrastructure improvements and/or operational changes in order

to allow host railroad’s to be able to accommodate high‐speed passenger trains.  

However, the magnitude of the required improvements was considered on a relative

basis amongst the alternatives.  

At‐grade crossings also have an impact on operations along the alternatives.  The

number of at‐grade highway‐rail crossings and at‐grade rail‐rail crossings were

quantified based on GIS data from the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) Grade

Crossing database.  At‐grade highway‐rail crossings provide conflict points for rail

traffic increasing safety concerns along the alternative and vehicle delays along the

roads being crossed.  Minimization of these conflict points benefits both highway and

rail users.

At‐grade rail‐rail crossings create coordination conflicts between railroad operators since

one railroad is dependent upon the crossing controller’s schedule.  These crossings were

also identified as major infrastructure improvements along the alternatives should any

doubled tracked at‐grade crossing exist.  At these locations, it was assumed that railroad

flyovers would be provided to eliminate the conflict point and to improve rail operation

efficiencies along both the alternative and the crossing railroad.  By providing flyovers,

the impacts associated with rail operations would be removed.  However, flyovers

would result in increased construction costs and potential for additional impacts to

existing natural, cultural, and human resources due the wider right‐of‐way required in

those areas.

Construction Issues

The alternatives were compared based on the degree to which rail infrastructure

construction would impact existing freight, intercity passenger, and commuter rail

operations.  Elements such as delay to existing freight and passenger operations,

temporary construction requirements, and closures necessary for construction were

assessed on a three level scale.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-8 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Low Construction Impact Rating – existing rail traffic can be accommodated over

multiple existing tracks in the corridor; some schedule delays for passenger and/or

rail service, infrastructure improvements can be generally completed with few

reroutes or cancellations.  Few, if any, temporary construction projects would be

necessary.

 Medium Construction Impact Rating – most existing rail traffic can be

accommodated, but would have extended times in which alternate routes or

transportation would be necessary during construction; schedule delays become

more prevalent.  Temporary construction projects necessary to maintain rail traffic

would be increased.  Service cancellations and/or reroutes would begin affecting

some adjacent transportation systems.  

 High Construction Impact Rating – nearly all existing rail traffic would have to be

rerouted based on the complexity and intensity of the infrastructure improvements.  

Schedule delays would affect not only the alternative route, but adjacent routes

because of the additional detour traffic.  Temporary construction requirements may

be similar to the medium rating due to the increased closures.  However, the

additional service cancellations would affect a larger geographic area of

transportation systems during the overall infrastructure improvement construction

period.

3.1.2.3 Minimize Capital and Maintenance Costs

Capital Cost

The capital costs for the alternatives were developed based on the required

infrastructure improvements identified as necessary to accommodate high‐speed

passenger traffic.  These costs were divided into various similar construction activities,

quantities along each alignment identified, and unit costs then applied.  For screening

purposes, an order of magnitude of estimated costs was used to compare the

alternatives.  More detailed information regarding costs is included in Section 3.4 of this

Tier 1 Final EIS.

The following types of costs were evaluated:

 Rolling Stock;

 Maintenance Facilities;

 Station Facilities;

 Roadways;

 Removal;

 Pavement and Appurtenances;  

 Structures;

 Rail;

 Earthwork ;
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-9 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Track;

 Crossovers and Turnouts;  

 Signaling;

 Structures;

 Miscellaneous Items;

 Program Implementation Costs;

 Construction plans and specification costs;

 Construction engineering costs were estimated as a percentage of construction

cost;  

 Program management costs;

 Right‐of‐Way Costs; and

 Contingencies.

Maintenance Cost

Maintenance costs were derived by determining estimated costs to maintain one mile of

track per year. The cost estimates for each alternative considered during the screening

process are reported in Tables 3.3‐3, 3.3‐4, and 3.3‐5.  Estimated maintenance costs for

the alternatives that were carried forward in the Tier 1 Draft EIS are provided in Section

3.4.2.

3.1.2.4 Minimize Environmental Impacts

Existing and Planned Development

Potential land use conflicts may arise for alternatives that are within residential areas

and near schools.  Existing and planned land uses were evaluated to provide a general

assessment regarding the linear miles of residential development and the number of

schools adjacent to each alternative.  New stations may be required for alternatives that

shift passenger service to alternative routes through Chicago, Springfield, and/or St.

Louis and thereby bypass existing stations in those communities.  Additional land use

studies would be conducted during Tier 2 studies to confirm that the locations of any

proposed stations and other infrastructure features that could conflict with existing

and/or planned land uses are adequately addressed.

The amount of new right‐of‐way anticipated to be acquired was estimated for each

alternative studied.  The proposed new right‐of‐way areas were evaluated to determine

which resources may be impacted in those areas.  The cost estimates provided in Section

3.4.2 include costs for acquiring land for the new right‐of‐way needed.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-10 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Minimize Impacts to Natural Resources

The evaluation of alternatives related to the natural resources screening criteria was

focused on order of magnitude differences.  More detailed surveys and analyses of

impacts are provided in Chapter 5 of this Tier 1 Final EIS.  Impacts would be further

defined in subsequent Tier 2 documents for the Build Alternatives selected for further

evaluation.

Digital mapping from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was used to

inventory existing surface water features.  The number of surface water crossings was

quantified for each alternative.

Digital floodplain mapping from FEMA was used to inventory the existing floodplains.  

The number of floodplain crossings was quantified for each alternative.

Digital National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) were used to inventory existing wetlands.  The approximate acreage of

wetlands affected was quantified for each alternative.

Information from the Illinois Natural Heritage Database was used to identify specific

locations of threatened and endangered species sightings and habitat.  Species that

would be potentially impacted are listed for each alternative.

Minimize Impacts to Social and Economic Resources

U.S. Census information for 2010 was used to identify minority populations adjacent to

the alternatives.  American Community Survey data was used to identify low‐income

populations, which include persons living below the poverty level.  Minority

populations included non‐white persons.  Block group data was used for minority data

and census tract data was used for low‐income data.  For screening purposes, areas

adjacent to the alternatives where the minority or low‐income populations exceeds 50

percent were identified as areas where there may be a potential for disproportionate

impacts.  More detailed analyses would be conducted in subsequent Tier 2 studies after

more specific design information is available to better assess the study corridor for

potential disproportionate impacts.

Community and neighborhood impacts include disruption to neighborhoods and

physical barriers or divisions of established communities that would affect those who

live or work in the area.  Where additional right‐of‐way would be required, those areas

were evaluated qualitatively to determine if an alternative would divide or disrupt

communities or potentially cause displacements.   The number of at‐grade crossings was

one consideration in this qualitative analysis.  The number of buildings directly

impacted was tabulated since not enough information was available at this level to fully

determine displacements.   

Minimize Impacts to Cultural and Recreational Resources

Cultural resources include historic and pre‐historic resources that are listed or eligible

for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-11 Tier 1 Final EIS 

effects of their undertakings on historic properties listed or eligible for listing on the

NRHP.  Sites listed on the NRHP are also subject to Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department

of Transportation Act.  Historic resources include historic buildings, bridges, districts,

archaeological sites, and sites that could be considered sacred to Native American

groups.  Data from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) and the Illinois

State Archaeological Survey was used to inventory historic resources.  The number of

historic resources that could potentially be affected by each alternative was quantified.

Public lands such as parks, forest preserves, nature preserves, Illinois Natural Area

Inventory sites, and other lands adjacent to the rail corridor that may qualify as a

Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) recreational resource were identified and inventoried.  Illinois

Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) databases, maps, GIS data, and aerial

photography were consulted to assist in identifying any Section 4(f) recreational and

Section 6(f) resources in the study corridor.  The number of facilities where right‐of‐way

would be required was quantified for each alternative.

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 stipulates that U.S.

Department of Transportation agencies, including FRA, cannot approve the use of land

from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public

and private historical sites unless the following conditions apply:

 There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land.

 The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting

from use.

Properties falling under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)

Act of 1965 were also considered during the screening process.  The LWCF was enacted

to establish a funding source to assist the States and Federal agencies in meeting present

and future outdoor recreation demands and needs.  Section 6(f) of the Act requires that

all properties “acquired or developed, either partially or wholly, with LWCF funds”

must be maintained as such in perpetuity.  Section 6(f)(3) states that those properties

acquired or developed with LWCF funds shall not be converted to a use other than

public outdoor recreation without the approval of the Secretary of the Department of the

Interior, acting through the National Park Service and at the request of the state

delegate/State Liaison Officer.

3.2 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative consists of the existing passenger train route between Chicago

and St. Louis, including all committed improvements to the existing intercity passenger

rail system and the complementary intercity highway and aviation services and facilities

in the Chicago to St. Louis corridor.  The No‐Build Alternative includes those

improvements discussed in the following sections that are anticipated to be completed

through the year 2030.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-12 Tier 1 Final EIS 

3.2.1 Passenger Rail Service under the No-Build Alternative 

Amtrak operates the intercity passenger rail service in the study corridor.  As part of this

alternative existing Amtrak service would be maintained.  Existing service consists of

five daily round trips between Union Station in Chicago and the Amtrak Station in St.

Louis.  None of the round trips include HSR.  Scheduled one‐way travel time through

the study corridor currently ranges from five hours and 20 minutes to five hours and 57

minutes (See Table 3.2‐2 at the end of this section for additional travel time comparison

data with the No‐Build and Build Alternatives).

In January 2003, IDOT completed an EIS for the Chicago to St. Louis 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 improvements in the 2003 FEIS included

double tracking several areas along the route, addition and/or extension of freight

sidings, station enhancements, grade‐separated crossings, and enhanced warning

devices at multiple crossings.  In January 2004, FHWA and FRA issued a ROD allowing

for these improvements  to the Dwight to St. Louis portion of the corridor.  The projects

that have advanced based on the 2004 ROD are described below.  No action was selected

between Chicago and Dwight.  Table 3.2‐1 summarizes the improvements approved in

the 2004 ROD and subsequent studies.

The 2004 ROD approved improvements all occur along the existing route and when

complete are expected to provide service that will provide three HSR round trips per

day, plus two non‐HSR trips.  The 2004 ROD improvements include upgrading several

sections of track between Dwight and St. Louis to allow trains to operate at 110 mph.  

The improvements include addition of double tracks, upgrades to and/or extension of

existing sidings, crossovers, grade crossing surfaces, signals and warning systems,

stations, and addition of new high speed trains.

As part of the ROD improvements, six new trainsets capable of operating at up to

110 mph will be purchased for use on the Chicago to St. Louis corridor.  Each trainset is

expected to consist of five cars, including new coach and business class seating, as well

as food service.  Two new high‐horsepower diesel locomotives will likely be used on

each trainset.  The equipment purchased for the new high‐speed service will undergo

extensive performance testing and simulated operations on the corridor prior to their

entry into passenger service.

In addition to the 2004 ROD improvements, a 2011 Environmental Assessment

(EA)/FONSI was approved to allow proposed improvements by IDOT and UP

associated with the “Track Improvement Project”, which involves a series of proposed

improvements to a section of the UP track between Joliet and Dwight, Illinois extending

across portions of Will County, Grundy County, and northeastern Livingston County.  

The project passes through the Illinois communities of Joliet, Elwood, Wilmington,

Braidwood, Godfrey, Braceville, Gardner, and Dwight.  Table 3.2‐1 summarizes the

improvements approved in the 2004 ROD and  2011 FONSI that have been completed or

are programmed for completion and considered part of the No‐Build Alternative.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-13 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

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

Summary of Infrastructure Improvements under the No-Build Alternative through 2030 

2004 ROD Approved Improvements (Dwight to St. Louis)

Track upgrades were approved between Dwight and St. Louis to allow up to 110 mph passenger service.

The 2004 ROD improvements include:

 addition of double tracks and/or reconstruction of existing tracks covering approximately 183 miles;

 upgrades to and/or extension of 13 existing sidings;

 upgrades to existing crossovers and grade crossing surfaces;

 enhanced warning devices/signals at 174 grade crossings;

 rehabilitation/replacement of stations at Dwight, Pontiac, Lincoln, Springfield, Carlinville, and Alton;

 addition of six new high speed trainsets; and

 installation of Positive Train Control (PTC) on the Dwight to Q Tower section of line.

In 2010, FRA awarded $1.1 billion to IDOT for the Chicago to St. Louis corridor to complete some of the

2004 ROD‐approved projects between Dwight and St. Louis.  These improvements began in 2011.  Track

upgrades completed to date include improvements completed between Godfrey and Dwight using the

Track Renewal Train (TRT) including: new rail and ties, realignment of several curves to support high

speed trains; and installation of new concrete panels at grade crossings.  All new double track sections

and/or extended parallel sidings will be constructed on 20‐foot track centers.

2011 FONSI Approved Improvements (“Track Improvement Project”) (Joliet to Dwight)

Track upgrades were approved between Joliet and Dwight to allow up to 110 mph passenger service.

The 2011 FONSI improvements include:  

 a new and upgraded second mainline track from Joliet to Elwood (track improvements to the existing

double tracks between MP 36.7 and MP 38.50, and a new second mainline track between MP 38.50 and

MP 44.69);

 a new freight siding between MP 55.0 and MP 57.13 (referred to as the Mazonia Siding), which will

include  a new turnout and approximately 12,200 feet of track;

 addition of seven crossovers/turnouts to the existing double‐tracked area between MP 36.7 and MP

38.50;

 upgrades to existing crossovers, grade crossing surfaces, signals and warning systems, and stations;

 addition of six new high speed trainsets;

 acquisition of additional right‐of‐way for a second mainline track; and

 improvements to the existing Dwight Siding, which include reconstruction of 2.6 miles of siding with

an expanded centerline of 20 feet.

The first component of the 2011 FONSI includes improvements to the existing track to

support the extension of the 110‐mph speed limit for passenger trains on the corridor to

the section between Dwight and Joliet and includes track upgrades, crossing upgrades,

new turnouts, and other related work.  The second component includes a new and

upgraded second mainline track between Joliet and Elwood (i.e., track improvements to

the existing double tracks between MP 36.7 and MP 38.50, and a new second mainline

track between MP 38.50 and MP 44.69).  In approximately the northernmost two miles of

the FONSI project area, which are already double‐tracked, the track improvements will
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-14 Tier 1 Final EIS 

include the addition of seven crossovers/turnouts.  The third component of the 2011

FONSI, located between MP 55.0 and MP 57.13, consists of a new siding track adjacent to

the north side of the existing single mainline track. (Note: The siding is located in the

City of Braidwood, but for purposes of consistency with the FONSI/EA, will be referred

to as the Mazonia Siding.)  A new turnout and approximately 12,200 feet of track will be

constructed for the Mazonia Siding.  The 2011 FONSI improvements are programmed

for implementation as funding is available.

After the original 2011 EA for the Joliet to Dwight section was published, IDOT revised

the track improvement project to include the acquisition of additional right‐of‐way for

the second mainline track and improvements to the existing Dwight Siding.  The

improvements to the Dwight Siding track include reconstruction of a 2.6‐mile siding

track adjacent to the existing single mainline track with an expanded centerline distance

of 20 feet (from 14 feet).  No new right‐of‐way will be acquired for the Dwight Siding

reconstruction.  The revisions to the 2011 EA were minor in nature.  Additional analyses

were conducted and the new information was incorporated into the final 2011 FONSI

decision for the project.

In 2010, the FRA awarded IDOT approximately $1.1 billion for the Chicago to St. Louis

corridor to improve the corridor between Dwight and St. Louis.  These improvements

include many of the ROD approved improvements discussed above in Table 3.2‐1.  

Subsequent to the initial $1.1 billion award, FRA awarded over $200 million in

additional funds to IDOT for HSR improvements in the Chicago to St. Louis corridor.  In

September 2010, construction began upgrading existing track using the Track Renewal

Train (TRT) to prepare the route for operations at up to 110 miles per hour.  The track

upgrades began in Godfrey and proceeded north to just south of Lincoln, excluding the

Springfield Area.  In 2011, the TRT was used to upgrade tracks between Lincoln and

Dwight.  The 2010‐2011 improvements included the installation of new rail, concrete

ties, and stone ballast that support the new rail and ties; new high‐speed turnouts;

realignment of several curves to support future higher speeds; and installation of new

concrete panels at grade crossings.  All new double track sections and/or sidings being

extended to become part of the overall double track system are being constructed and/or

planned to include 20‐foot track centers.

Rail improvements are also planned for other sections of the corridor, including

reconstruction/extension of existing sidings, signal enhancements, improved grade

crossings, and new or restored station facilities with technology enhancements.  These

additional improvements are expected to be completed to support high‐speed passenger

rail service between Dwight and Joliet as early as 2012.  Improvements to portions of the

corridor south of Dwight will be ongoing through 2015.  High speed passenger rail

service will be implemented incrementally as specific segments of track are improved

and approved for up to 110 mph service.

All of the improvements approved in the 2004 ROD and 2011 FONSI are considered part

of the No‐Build or baseline conditions.  The ROD and FONSI projects, which are located

from Joliet southward, are at various stages of implementation.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-15 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Also, considered part of the No‐Build Alternative is the new intermodal facility near

Joliet, Illinois constructed by UP.  This facility will enable UP to continue to increase

freight traffic on their line south of Joliet.  The number of daily freight trains will

gradually increase from about five to about 22.

In addition to track upgrades, and to support the higher speeds, a modified Incremental

Train Control System (ITCS) that will include the use of cab signal displays on board

locomotives will be implemented in the initial 110 mph segment between Dwight and

Pontiac.   Ultimately, an upgraded train control system meeting Federal Positive Train

Control (PTC) program requirements will be implemented throughout the entire

corridor to support 110 mph speeds.

Fencing along all rail improvements will be provided at all road crossings per Illinois

Commerce Commission (ICC) requirements.  Additional fencing may be provided in

developed areas, subject to approval of local municipalities.  Protective vandalism

fencing will be provided on all overhead highway bridges.

No substantial changes in station stops, equipment, or grade crossing treatments will

occur with this alternative beyond those previously approved changes.  The only other

improvements planned as part of the No‐Build Alternative consist of regular

maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing tracks.

HSR trains will stop at all of the stations currently served by the existing Chicago ‐ St.

Louis Amtrak route (i.e., Chicago Union Station, Summit, Joliet, Dwight, Pontiac,

Bloomington/ Normal, Lincoln, Springfield, Carlinville, Alton, and St. Louis).  South of

Dwight, maximum operating speed will be 110 mph once all of the ROD improvements

are completed.

No substantial improvements/upgrades have been approved to date between Chicago

and Joliet.  Therefore, under the No‐Build conditions between Chicago and Joliet, the

existing maximum operating speed of 79 mph will be maintained and no major physical

improvements will be made north of Joliet.  However, with the improvements

completed or approved for completion south of Joliet, the No‐Build Alternative would

still improve the overall passenger service between Chicago and St. Louis.

The estimated one‐way end‐to‐end travel times for the partial HSR trips under the No‐

Build Alternative is 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 route prior to these

improvements being completed.  Travel times by transportation mode under the No‐

Build Alternative are provided in Table 3.2‐2.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-16 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Mode 

Estimated Travel Times (Hours: Minutes) 

Existing 

Conditions 

No-Build 

Alternative2

Potential Time 

Saved vs. Existing 

(No-Build) 

Passenger Rail 5:20 to 5:57 4:30 to 4:45 0:50 to 1:12

Automobile 5:00 to 5:20 5:00 to 5:20 0:00

Air1 2:00 to 2:15   2:00 to 2:15   0:00

Bus 5:10 to 8:40 5:10 to 8:40 0:00

1Air travel times in this table include one hour to one hour and 15 minutes of actual flight time

plus one hour to indicate the average minimum time expected for airport security and

boarding gates.

2 It is assumed that there will be no change in travel time for automobile, air, and bus travel

between existing conditions and future 2030 conditions.

3.2.2 Annual Ridership Estimates 

Annual ridership estimates were developed for each of the modes of transportation

currently used between Chicago and St. Louis for the No‐Build Alternative.  Anticipated

changes in ridership estimates are based on several factors including travel times,

reliability and frequency of service, and connections to other modes of transportation.  

Table 3.2‐3 contains ridership estimates for all four modes of transportation under the

existing and No‐Build Alternative conditions.  Section 3.2.3 contains additional

discussions regarding ridership.

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

Mode 

Annual Ridership (Number of Trips) 

2010 

Existing Conditions 

2030 

No-Build Alternative 

Total Trips Percent of 

Total Total Trips Percent of Total 

Passenger Rail 641,587 1.3% 1,079,690 1.7%

Automobile 49,440,179 97.5% 60,057,139 96.6%

Air 542,751 1.1% 913,026 1.5%

Bus 99,809 0.2% 134,087 0.2%

Total 50,724,326    62,183,942   
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-17 Tier 1 Final EIS 

3.2.3 Purpose and Need Assessment of the No-Build Alternative 

A summary of the effectiveness of the No‐Build Alternative at meeting the individual

elements of the purpose and need is provided below.

3.2.3.1 Ridership (Travel Time, Frequency, and Reliability)  

 Based on initial ridership estimates, passenger rail ridership under the No‐Build

Alternative would account for 1.7 percent of all trips between Chicago and St. Louis

in 2030 compared to 2.8 percent under the Build Alternatives.  The No‐Build

Alternative would provide some increase in ridership compared to the existing

conditions.  However, the full ridership potential would not be realized under the

No‐Build Alternative when compared to the Build Alternatives due to longer travel

times.  Therefore, although the No‐Build Alternative will improve the passenger

service compared to existing conditions, it will not fully meet the purpose and need

of the proposed program.

 Under the No‐Build Alternative, rail passenger travel time between Chicago and

St. Louis will decrease up to one hour and 12 minutes relative to existing conditions.  

However, compared to the proposed Build Alternatives with overall travel times of

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, the No‐Build

Alternative travel times are still less than the ultimate goal for the HSR service

within the entire Chicago to St. Louis corridor.  Without additional rail capacity

improvements in the corridor, beyond what is planned with the No‐Build

Alternative, increased frequencies and reliability of passenger rail service will not be

fully realized.  Rail communication and signal systems will continue to be upgraded

under the No‐Build Alternative, which will improve some of the reliability and on‐

time performance issues.  However, the improvements under the No‐Build

Alternative would not provide enough increase in annual passenger rail ridership to

meet the overall purpose and need of the program, especially when compared to the

full build alternatives.

 Currently, the on‐time performance of rail service in the Chicago to St. Louis

corridor is unreliable and those reliability issues are expected to increase over the

next 10 years.  With the construction of the new Joliet Intermodal Terminal, it is

anticipated that the number of freight trains on the tracks will double on the Chicago

to St. Louis corridor.  This additional traffic will exacerbate issues coordinating

freight and passenger rail potentially affecting businesses and passengers relying on

rail service along the route.

 Increased numbers of slow moving trains could result in adverse social and

economic impacts to local communities due to automobile delays at crossings as well

as delays in delivering freight and passengers/workers to their destinations on time.  

Vehicle congestion is already an issue in some of the cities, specifically Springfield,

where there are at‐grade rail crossings on major through streets.  Long trains delayed

or moving slowly on tracks can simultaneously block almost all of the crossings on

that track, and traffic queues can block vehicles on intersecting streets.  This

adversely affects the quality of life and inhibits economic activity.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-18 Tier 1 Final EIS 

3.2.3.2 Safety

 Overall passenger safety in the study corridor will increase as travelers divert from

automobile to rail since rail is a safer mode of 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.

 Slow moving trains in urban areas may interfere with emergency vehicle response

times in the surrounding areas, especially where emergency response stations are

located in areas where at‐grade rail crossings are frequently blocked.

The No‐Build Alternative will not meet the purpose and need of this program.  

However, the No‐Build Alternative was carried forward in the Tier 1 Draft EIS for

comparison purposes to the proposed Build Alternatives described below.

3.3 Build Alternatives 

This section briefly describes each of the potential build alternatives that were

considered during the screening process described in Section 3.1, identifies which

alternatives were carried forward for further study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS, and discusses

the reasons the other alternatives were eliminated.  Section 3.3.1 discusses the overall

program elements for the entire Chicago to St. Louis high speed rail alternatives.  

Section 3.3.3 assesses the Build Alternatives in relation to the purpose and need for the

program.  Sections 3.3.4 through 3.3.6 discuss three areas along the overall Chicago to St.

Louis corridor where alternative routes were considered, some of which were carried

forward for further evaluation in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.  Finally, the Build Alternatives

carried forward in the Tier 1 Draft EIS are described in more detail in Section 3.3.7.

3.3.1 Program Elements for the Proposed High Speed Rail Corridor 

Several program elements were incorporated during the alternatives development

process to help identify potential alternatives that are cost effective while producing

major travel time reductions.  These include:

 Use of existing rail infrastructure where possible (eliminating the need for all new

track and right‐of‐way);

 Use of diesel‐powered trains limiting top operating speeds to 110 mph; and

 Improvements and additions to enhance track capacity and train operations that are

cost effective, such as provision of new train control and communication systems;

provision of double track to allow for HSR trains traveling in opposite directions to

pass each other with minimal delay; provision of additional siding track, as well as

upgrading and extending existing siding track; and treatment of selected highway‐

railroad grade crossings.

One of the key elements of the Build Alternatives is to provide a minimum of double

tracking for the entire Chicago to St. Louis Corridor.  Up to 47 trains per day (18 intercity

passenger and 29 freight) are projected to be operating in the study corridor under the
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-19 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Build Alternative between Joliet and St. Louis where the corridor is primarily single

track.  At these train frequencies, it was determined that two tracks would be required to

maintain reliable passenger service and to maintain No‐Build condition freight levels of

service.  (See Section 6.1.2.1 for a discussion of railroad operation performance under the

No‐Build and Build Alternatives.)  The Build Alternatives would provide double

tracking for the entire length of the study corridor, whereas the No‐Build Alternative

would only provide a second track at the existing double‐tracked locations, and those

approved for double tracking and/or siding extensions in the 2004 ROD and 2011

FONSI.  In addition, a parallel maintenance access road would be constructed along the

length of the railroad.  Several areas within the study corridor already contain a second

track and/or sidings, with additional double tracking and sidings approved to be

constructed as part of the 2004 ROD and 2011 FONSI improvements within the existing

passenger rail corridor.  All new double‐tracking would be at 20‐foot track centers.

Most of the study corridor between Joliet to Springfield and Springfield to Venice

primarily runs through rural areas, but also goes through several smaller cities and

communities.  Improvements to the existing route would be completed in those areas

with no alternative routes being considered.  However, as mentioned in Section 3.1,

there are three areas where alternative routes for the proposed high speed passenger

trains were evaluated due to the increased potential for community impacts due to

larger populations and existing development, additional crossings, and increased

potential for conflicts with freight trains.  These include the section from Chicago to

Joliet, the section through Springfield, and the section from Alton to St. Louis.  Those

areas were evaluated for alternative routes as part of the screening process described in

Section 3.1 to determine if there would be opportunities to improve the overall

passenger rail service, while reducing overall impacts to the human and natural

environments, minimizing costs.  The need to reduce potential conflicts with an

increasing number of freight trains also led to studying alternative routes.  The three

areas where additional alternative routes were considered are discussed in Sections 3.3.4

through 3.3.6.

Rail passenger travel time between Chicago and St. Louis would be from between three

hours and 51 minutes and four hours and 10 minutes under each of the Build

Alternatives.  This compares to the No‐Build Alternative with overall travel times of a

minimum of four hours and 30 minutes.  The Build Alternatives would therefore result

in an additional 35‐ to 39‐minute travel time savings compared to the No‐Build

conditions.  Travel times for the Build Alternatives are provided in Table 3.3‐1.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-20 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Mode 

Estimated Travel Times (Hours: Minutes) 

Existing 

Conditions Build Alternatives2 Potential Time Saved vs. Existing (Build) 

Passenger Rail 5:20 to 5:57 3:51 to 4:10 1:29 to 1:47

Automobile 5:00 to 5:20 5:00 to 5:20 0:00

Air1 2:00 to 2:15   2:00 to 2:15   0:00

Bus 5:10 to 8:40 5:10 to 8:40 0:00

1Air travel times in this table include one hour to one hour and 15 minutes of actual flight time

plus one hour to indicate the average minimum time expected for airport security and

boarding gates.

2 It is assumed that there will be no change in travel time for automobile, air, and bus travel

between existing conditions and future 2030 conditions.

3.3.2 Annual Ridership Estimates 

Annual ridership estimates were developed for the Build Alternatives.  Anticipated

changes in ridership estimates are based on several factors including travel times,

reliability and frequency of service, and connections to other modes of transportation.  

During the initial screening of alternatives in the Chicago, Springfield, and St. Louis

sections of the study corridor, factors that might influence ridership the most, such as

travel times and connectivity to other passenger transit, were collectively considered in a

qualitative manner to help identify which of the potential alignment options would have

the most potential to increase ridership.  Ridership data was later quantified for each of

the full length Build Alternatives that were studied in detail in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.  

Because there is no measurable difference in ridership expected between the full length

Build Alternatives carried forward, the ridership data is considered the same for each

Build Alternative for comparison with the No‐Build Alternative.  Table 3.3‐2 contains

ridership estimates for all four modes of transportation under the existing, No‐Build

Alternative, and Build Alternative conditions for comparison.  Sections 3.3.3 contains

additional discussions regarding ridership for the alternatives considered in the Tier 1

Draft EIS.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-21 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Chicago and St. Louis

Mode 

Annual Ridership (Number of Trips) 

2010 

Existing Conditions 

2030 

Build Alternatives 

Total Trips Percent of 

Total Total Trips Percent of Total 

Passenger Rail 641,587 1.3% 1,707,109 2.7%

Automobile 49,440,179 97.5% 59,547,865 95.7%

Air 542,751 1.1% 826,284 1.3%

Bus 99,809 0.2% 120,366 0.2%

Total 50,724,326    62,201,624   

3.3.3 Purpose and Need Assessment of the Build Alternatives 

A summary of the effectiveness of the full length Build Alternatives (discussed in

Section 3.3.7) at meeting the purpose and need is provided below.  All of the Build

Alternatives would meet the purpose and need for the program, with at least some

variation in how well each alternative would meet the purpose and need, the total

benefits offered by each alternative, and the overall environmental consequences

associated with them.  The summary tables in Sections 3.3.4 through 3.3.6 provide a

general comparison of the potential impacts of the alternatives considered during the

alternatives screening process.  As noted above, all of the build alternatives would meet

the purpose and need. However, the alternative sections carried forward in the Chicago,

Springfield, and St. Louis portions of the study corridor were those that were expected

to perform better against the purpose and need criteria and measures identified in Table

3.1‐2.  More detailed discussions regarding the differences between the Build

Alternatives that were carried forward for further study are discussed in the affected

environment and environmental consequences sections.

The following summarizes the anticipated effectiveness of the Build Alternatives at

meeting the primary components of the purpose and need for the program.

3.3.3.1 Ridership (Travel Time, Frequency, Reliability)

Based on initial ridership estimates, passenger rail ridership under the Build

Alternatives would account for 2.8 percent of all trips between Chicago and St. Louis in

2030 compared to 1.7 percent under the No‐Build Alternative.  This increase in ridership

would allow each of the Build Alternatives to fully meet the purpose and need of the

program.

Rail passenger travel time between Chicago and St. Louis would be between three hours

and 51 minutes and four hours and 10 minutes under the Build Alternatives.  This

compares to the No‐Build Alternative with overall travel times of a minimum of four
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-22 Tier 1 Final EIS 

hours and 30 minutes.  The Build Alternatives could therefore result in an additional 35‐ 

to 39‐minute travel time savings compared to the No‐Build conditions.  Compared to the

existing conditions, travel times would be up to one hour and 47 minutes lower under

the Build Alternatives.

Capacity improvements provided for with the Build Alternatives would allow for

increased train frequencies and improved reliability.

3.3.3.2 Safety  

Overall passenger safety in the study corridor will increase as more travelers divert from

automobile to rail since rail is a safer mode of travel.  More passengers are expected to

divert under the Build Alternatives compared to the No‐Build Alternative.

Each of the Build Alternatives that were carried forward would meet the purpose and

need of the program.

3.3.4 Alternative Route Screening for Chicago to Joliet 

3.3.4.1 Initial Range of Alternatives Chicago to Joliet

A set of 16 potential alternate routes between Chicago and Joliet were identified for

screening by reviewing potentially available railroad corridors that provide a route

between Chicago and Joliet.  Exhibits 3.3‐1 through 3.3‐4 depict the initial range of

alternatives studied during the screening process between Chicago and Joliet.

The following is a brief description of each of the alternative routes that were considered

during the screening process from Chicago to Joliet:

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 1 ‐ Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) to Chicago Union

Station

This alternative would include utilizing the existing BNSF rail from Joliet Union Station

to the Canadian National (CN) (north of the entrance to Corwith Yard), the CN to

Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union Station.  

Improvements would include:  

 Construction of a crossover south of Joliet Union Station;  

 A new double track connection from the BNSF at the CN north of the entrance to

Corwith Yard;  

 Additional tracks at Joliet yard and the Amtrak connection near 21st  Street;  

 Station improvements including a new Amtrak platform at the Joliet Transportation

Center and a new suburban Amtrak station (location undetermined); and  
Exhibit 3.3-1. Initial Range of Chicago to Joliet Alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) 
Exhibit 3.3-2. Initial Range of Chicago to Joliet Alternatives (Alternatives 4A – 4E)
Exhibit 3.3-3. Initial Range of Chicago to Joliet Alternatives (Alternatives 5A – 5D) 
Exhibit 3.3-4. Initial Range of Chicago to Joliet Alternatives (Alternatives 6A – 6D) 
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-27 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Potential flyovers at Indiana Harbor Belt (IHB) west of Summit, Belt Railway

Company (BRC) east of Cicero Avenue, Corwith Yard entrance, and Norfolk

Southern/CSX Transportation (NS/CSX) near Western Avenue.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 2 ‐ CN to Chicago Union Station  

This alternative would include utilizing the current Amtrak route along the CN from

Joliet Union Station, to Amtrak south of Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union

Station.  Improvements would include:  

 Additional track at the connection to Amtrak near 21st Street; and

 Potential flyovers at IHB west of Summit, BRC east of Cicero Avenue, BNSF north of

Corwith Yard; and CSX/NS near Western Avenue.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 3 ‐ Metra Southwest to Chicago Union Station

This alternative would include utilizing the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter

(NIRC) Rock Island District (RID) from Joliet Union Station to NS (NIRC) north of New

Lenox, NS (NIRC) to Amtrak south of Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union

Station.  Improvements would include:  

 Additional track at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID connection at Joliet

Union Station, NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union Street, NS (NIRC)

around Landers Yard, NS (NIRC) from north of New Lenox to just north of 143rd

Street in Orland Park (9.6 miles), and between 43rd Street and 41st Street in Chicago;  

 Station improvements including relocating the platforms at Joliet Union Station as

well as the proposed Transportation Center, and location and construction of a new

suburban Amtrak station;  

 A new double track connection of the NIRC RID to the NS (NIRC) north of New

Lenox; and  

 Potential flyovers at EJ&E railroad east of Joliet, IHB/CSX  near Ridgeland Avenue,

CN near 83rd Street, and CSX between Damen Avenue and Western Avenue.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra regarding sharing of

this route with high speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those

accommodations.  Additionally, Metra SouthWest Service would be shifted to the RID at

around 75th Street.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4A ‐ Metra Rock Island

This alternative would include utilizing the NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to the

LaSalle Street Station.  Improvements would include:  

 An additional tracks at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID connection at Joliet

Union Station and NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union Street;  

 Station improvements including relocating the platforms at Joliet Union Station as

well as the proposed Transportation Center and construction of a new suburban

Amtrak Station; and  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-28 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Potential flyovers at EJ&E east of Joliet and St. Charles Air Line (SCAL) near 16th

Street.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra regarding sharing of

this route with high speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those

accommodations.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4B ‐ Metra Rock Island  

This alternative would utilize the NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to SCAL, the

SCAL to Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union Station.  

Improvements would include:

 Additional track at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID connection at Joliet

Union Station, NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union Street, and the

existing single track connection between the NIRC RID and SCAL;  

 Station improvements including relocating the platforms at Joliet Union Station as

well as the proposed Transportation Center and location and construction of a new

suburban Amtrak station;  

 A new double track connection between the SCAL and Amtrak south of Chicago

Union Station; and  

 Potential flyovers at EJ&E east of Joliet and CN near 16th Street.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and SCAL (25 percent

BNSF, 25 percent UP, and 50 percent CN) regarding sharing of this route with high

speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those accommodations.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4C ‐ Metra Rock Island  

This alternative would utilize the NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to the NS near 63rd

Street in Chicago, the NS to NS (NIRC) near 43rd Street in Chicago, the NS (NIRC) to

Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union Station.  

Improvements would include:

 Additional track at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID connection at Joliet

Union Station and NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union Street; station

improvements including relocating the platforms at Joliet Union Station as well as

the proposed Transportation Center and location and construction of new suburban

Amtrak Station;  

 A new double track connection from the NIRC RID to the NS near 63rd Street in

Chicago; and

 A potential flyover at EJ&E east of Joliet.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and NS regarding

sharing of this route with high speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those

accommodations.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-29 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4D ‐ Metra Rock Island

This alternative would utilize the NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to the NS near

40th Street in Chicago, the NS west to NS (NIRC) near 40th Street in Chicago, the NS

(NIRC) to Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union

Station.  Improvements would include:

 Additional track at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID connection at Joliet

Union Station, NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union Street, and the

existing single track connection from the NIRC RID to the NS near 40th Street in

Chicago, station improvements including relocating the platforms at Joliet Union

Station as well as the proposed Transportation Center and location and construction

of a new suburban Amtrak Station;  

 Construction of a new double track connection from the NS to the NS (NIRC) near

40th Street in Chicago; and

 A potential flyover at EJ&E east of Joliet.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and NS regarding

sharing of this route with high speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those

accommodations.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4E ‐ Metra Rock Island  

This alternative would utilize the NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to SCAL, the

SCAL to the BNSF, and BNSF to Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station, and Amtrak to

Chicago Union Station.  Improvements would include:  

 Additional track at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID connection at Joliet

Union Station, NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union Street, and at the

existing single track connection between the NIRC RID and SCAL; station

improvements including relocating the platforms at Joliet Union Station as well as

the proposed Transportation Center and location and construction of a new

suburban Amtrak Station; and  

 Potential flyovers at EJ&E east of Joliet and at SCAL connector at CN near 16th

Street.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and SCAL (25 percent

BNSF, 25 percent UP, and 50 percent CN) regarding sharing of this route with high

speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those accommodations..

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 5A ‐ Metra Rock Island Elgin, Joliet & Eastern (EJ&E) to CN  

This alternative would utilize the NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to the CN (EJ&E)

east of Henderson Avenue in Joliet, the CN (EJ&E) to the CN near Matteson, the CN to

the SCAL, the SCAL to the BNSF, the BNSF to Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station,

and Amtrak to Chicago Union Station.  Improvements would include:  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-30 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Additional track at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID connection at Joliet

Union Station, NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union Street, and EJ&E

from Nelson Road to west of Wolf Road (5 miles); and  

 Station improvements including relocating the platforms at Joliet Union Station as

well as the proposed Transportation Center and location and construction of a new

suburban Amtrak Station.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and SCAL (25 percent

BNSF, 25 percent UP, and 50 percent CN) regarding sharing of this route with high

speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those accommodations.  The CN would

not share the EJ&E with passenger trains.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 5B ‐ Metra Rock Island EJ&E to CN

This alternative would utilize the NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to the CN (EJ&E)

east of Henderson Avenue in Joliet, the CN (EJ&E) to the CN near Matteson, the CN to

the SCAL, the SCAL to Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago

Union Station.  Improvements would include:

 Additional track at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID connection at Joliet

Union Station, NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union Street, EJ&E from

Nelson Road to west of Wolf Road (5 miles), and EJ&E from west of Sauk Trail to

East of IL 50 (5.7 miles);  

 Station improvements including relocating the platforms at Joliet Union Station as

well as the proposed Transportation Center and location and construction of a new

suburban Amtrak Station; and  

 Construction of new double track connections at NIRC RID to the CN (EJ&E) in

eastern Joliet and at SCAL to Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station.

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and SCAL (25 percent

BNSF, 25 percent UP, and 50 percent CN) regarding sharing of this route with high

speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those accommodations.  The CN would

not share the EJ&E with passenger trains.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 5C ‐ Metra Rock Island EJ&E/CN

This alternative would utilize the NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to the CN (EJ&E)

east of Henderson Avenue in Joliet, the CN (EJ&E) to the CN near Matteson, the CN to

the NS near 75th Street, the NS to the NS (NIRC) near 43rd Street in Chicago, the NS

(NIRC) to Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union

Station.  Improvements would include:

 Additional track at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID connection at Joliet

Union Station, NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union Street, EJ&E from

Nelson Road to west of Wolf Road (5 miles), EJ&E from west of Sauk Trail to East of

IL 50 (5.7 miles);  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-31 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Station improvements including relocating the platforms at Joliet Union Station as

well as the proposed Transportation Center and location and construction of a new

suburban Amtrak Station; and

 Construction of new double track connections at NIRC RID to the CN (EJ&E) in

eastern Joliet and at CN to NS near 75th Street.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and NS regarding

sharing of this route with high speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those

accommodations.  The CN would not share the EJ&E with passenger trains.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 5D ‐ Metra Rock Island EJ&E/UP  

This alternative would utilize the NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to the CN (EJ&E)

east of Henderson Avenue in Joliet, the CN (EJ&E) to the UP near Chicago Heights, the

UP to the NS near 80th Street, the NS to the NS (NIRC) near 74th Street, the NS (NIRC)

to Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union Station.  

Improvements would include:  

 Additional track at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID connection at Joliet

Union Station, NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union Street, EJ&E from

Nelson Road to west of Wolf Road (5 miles), EJ&E from west of Sauk Trail to East of

IL 50 (5.7 miles), from south of 80th Street to north of 74th Street, and from 41st to

43rd Street;

 Station improvements including relocating the platforms at Joliet Union Station as

well as the proposed Transportation Center and location and construction of a new

suburban Amtrak Station; and

 Construction of new double track connections at NIRC RID to the CN (EJ&E) in

eastern Joliet and at CN (EJ&E) to the UP near Chicago Heights; potential flyovers at

IHB near Dolton and at CN/CSX near 163rd Street.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and NS regarding

sharing of this route with high speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those

accommodations.  The CN would not share the EJ&E with passenger trains nor would

the UP.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 6A ‐ New Alignment Connector to EJ&E/CN

This alternative would utilize a new alignment from the UP south of Zurich Road south

of Joliet to a utility corridor between Bradford Road and Edison Road south of Joliet,

along the utility corridor to the CN (EJ&E) southeast of Joliet, the CN (EJ&E) to the CN

near Matteson, the CN to the SCAL, the SCAL to the BNSF, the BNSF to Amtrak south of

Chicago Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union Station.  Improvements would

include:

 Additional track from Nelson Road to west of Wolf Road (5 miles) and from west of

Sauk Trail to east of Illinois 50 (5.7 miles); station improvements including

construction of a new Joliet high speed rail station along Illinois 53 south of Joliet

and location and construction of a new suburban Amtrak Station; and  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-32 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Construction of a new double track alignment from the UP south of Zurich Road to

the CN (EJ&E) southeast of Joliet (3 miles).   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra, NS, and SCAL (25

percent BNSF, 25 percent UP, and 50 percent CN) regarding sharing of this route with

high speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those accommodations.  The CN

would not share the EJ&E with passenger trains..

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 6B ‐ New Alignment Connector to EJ&E/CN  

This alternative would utilize a new alignment from the UP south of Zurich Road south

of Joliet to a utility corridor between Bradford Road and Edison Road south of Joliet,

along the utility corridor to the CN (EJ&E) southeast of Joliet, the CN (EJ&E) to the CN

near Matteson, the CN to the SCAL, the SCAL to Amtrak south of Chicago Union

Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union Station.  Improvements would  include:  

 Additional track from Nelson Road to west of Wolf Road (5 miles and from west of

Sauk Trail to east of Illinois 50 (5.7 miles); station improvements including

construction of a new Joliet high speed rail station along Illinois 53 south of Joliet

and location and construction of a new suburban Amtrak Station; construction of a

new double track alignment from the UP south of Zurich Road to the CN (EJ&E)

southeast of Joliet (3 miles); and  

 Construction of a new double track connection at SCAL to Amtrak south of Chicago

Union Station.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra, NS, and SCAL (25

percent BNSF, 25 percent UP, and 50 percent CN) regarding sharing of this route with

high speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those accommodations.  The CN

would not share the EJ&E with passenger trains.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 6C ‐ New Alignment Connector to EJ&E/CN

This alternative would utilize a new alignment from the UP south of Zurich Road south

of Joliet to a utility corridor between Bradford Road and Edison Road south of Joliet,

along the utility corridor to the CN (EJ&E) southeast of Joliet, the CN (EJ&E) to the CN

near Matteson, the CN to the NS near 75th Street, the NS to the NS (NIRC) near 43rd

Street in Chicago, the NS (NIRC) to Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station, and

Amtrak to Chicago Union Station.  Improvements would include:  

 Additional track from Nelson Road to west of Wolf Road (5 miles) and from west of

Sauk Trail to east of Illinois 50 (5.7 miles);  

 Station improvements would include construction of a new Joliet high speed rail

station along Illinois 53 south of Joliet and location and construction of a new

suburban Amtrak Station;  

 Construction of a new double track alignment from the UP south of Zurich Road to

the CN (EJ&E) southeast of Joliet (3 miles); and  

 Construction of a new double track connection at CN to NS near 75th Street.   
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-33 Tier 1 Final EIS 

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra, NS, and SCAL (25

percent BNSF, 25 percent UP, and 50 percent CN) regarding sharing of this route with

high speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those accommodations.  The CN

would not share the EJ&E with passenger trains.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 6D ‐ New Alignment Connector to EJ&E/CN  

This alternative would utilize a new alignment from the UP south of Zurich Road south

of Joliet to a utility corridor between Bradford Road and Edison Road south of Joliet,

along the utility corridor to the CN (EJ&E) southeast of Joliet, the CN (EJ&E) to the UP

near Chicago Heights, the UP to the NS near 80th Street, the NS to the NS (NIRC) near

74th Street, the NS (NIRC) to Amtrak south of Chicago Union Station, and Amtrak to

Chicago Union Station.  Improvements would include:  

 Additional track from Nelson Road to west of Wolf Road (5 miles), from west of

Sauk Trail to east of Illinois 50 (5.7 miles), and from south of 80th Street to north of

74th Street, from 41st Street to 43rd Street; station improvements would include

construction of a new Joliet high speed rail station along Illinois 53 south of Joliet

and location and construction of a new suburban Amtrak Station;

 Construction of a new double track alignment from the UP south of Zurich Road to

the CN (EJ&E) southeast of Joliet (3 miles),  

 Construction of a new double track connections at CN (EJ&E) to the UP near

Chicago Heights; and  

 Potential flyovers at IHB near Dolton and CN/CSX near 163rd Street.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and NS regarding

sharing of this route with high speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those

accommodations.  The CN would not share the EJ&E with passenger trains.

For the Chicago to Joliet alternatives that would require use of the existing Metra routes,

Metra station improvements would be necessary to allow Amtrak trains to safely

operate through the station area.  The following RID and Heritage Corridor (HC) Metra

stations north and east of Joliet would require improvements under the Build

Alternatives:

 HC Stations

 Lockport

 Romeoville (Planned Station)

 Lemont

 Willow Springs

 Summit

 RID Stations
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-34 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 New Lenox

 Mokena

 Hickory Creek

 Tinley Park – 80th Avenue

 Tinley Park

 Oak Forest

 Midlothian

 Robbins

 Blue Island – Vermont Street

 103rd Street – Washington Heights

 95th Street – Longwood

 Gresham

 Auburn Park (Planned Station)

Improvements could include:

 Pedestrian gates with escape areas to prevent pedestrian track access when trains are

present;

 Inter track fencing including extensions beyond platform areas to address pedestrian

flows from parking areas;

 Platform end diversions to channel pedestrian flow away from tracks and behind

pedestrian gates;

 Platform relocation to correct pedestrian flow problems and eliminate staggered

platforms;

 Mid‐platform crossing elimination  to allow pedestrian crossings only at gated areas;

 Another Train Warning System with light and audible warning systems;

 Improved station speaker systems to alert pedestrians of approaching trains;

 Upgrade passive signage with brighter colors and more conspicuous location; and

 Grade separated pedestrian platform access where possible at high volume stations.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-35 Tier 1 Final EIS 

3.3.4.2 Screening Results for Chicago to Joliet Alternatives

This section summarizes the results of the Tier 1 screening of alternatives in the Chicago

to Joliet portion of the study corridor and provides reasons for eliminating alternatives

from further consideration.  Information and data developed for the Tier 1 screening

process is summarized in Table 3.3‐3.  The alternatives that were eliminated are

indicated with red shading in the cell containing the alternative names in Table 3.3‐3.  

Orange shaded cells in the table indicate the primary reasons for eliminating those

alternatives, and yellow shaded cells indicate secondary reasons.

The Chicago to Joliet Tier 1 screening alternatives that were carried forward for further

study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS  based on the alternatives screening conducted for this

program include:  

 Chicago to Joliet Alternative 2; and

 Chicago to Joliet 4D

These two alternatives are discussed in more detail as part of the overall Build

Alternative descriptions in Section 3.3.6.

The Tier 1 screening eliminated the following alternatives from further consideration:

 Chicago to Joliet Alternative 1 primarily because of poor travel time, operational

issues, and anticipated difficulties related to the host railroad’s readiness to

accommodate high speed passenger service on their tracks.

 Chicago to Joliet Alternative 3 primarily because of operational issues, anticipated

difficulties related to the host railroad’s readiness to accommodate high speed

passenger service on their tracks, higher potential right‐of‐way impacts because of a

section of existing single track, potential Section 4(f) impacts, and generally a higher

potential for environmental impacts.

 Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4A primarily because of a lack of accessibility to

passenger rail and anticipated difficulties related to the host railroad’s readiness to

accommodate high speed passenger service on their tracks.

 Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4B primarily because of operational issues and

anticipated difficulties related to the host railroad’s readiness to accommodate high

speed passenger service on their tracks.

 Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4C primarily because of operational issues.  (Alternative

4D is similar to 4C, but the potential connection to the NS railroad at 40th Street is

considered a more viable option than providing a new connection at the Englewood

flyover.)

 Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4E primarily because of poor travel times and

operational issues.  This alternative includes the backup maneuver into Union

Station currently used by Amtrak’s Illini‐Saluki‐New Orleans trains.
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-36 

Table 3.3‐3. Summary of Chicago to Joliet Tier 1 Screening
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-37 

Table 3.3‐3. Summary of Chicago to Joliet Tier 1 Screening (continued)
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-38 Tier 1 Final EIS

 Chicago to Joliet Alternatives 5A through 5D primarily because of poor travel times,

operational issues, and anticipated difficulties related to the host railroad’s readiness

to accommodate high speed passenger service on their tracks.  Alternative 5D also

has a high number of at‐grade highway‐rail crossings and costs substantially more

than the other Alternative 5s.

 Chicago to Joliet Alternatives 6A through 6D primarily because of poor travel times,

connectivity to passenger rail, operational issues, and anticipated difficulties related

to the host railroad’s readiness to accommodate high speed passenger service on

their tracks.  Alternative 6D also has a high number of at‐grade highway‐rail

crossings and costs substantially more than the other Alternative 6s.

3.3.5 Alternative Route Screening for Springfield 

3.3.5.1 Initial Range of Springfield Alternatives

Several options exist for routing passenger and freight trains through Springfield on

existing and/or potential new railroad alignments.  As part of preliminary work

completed for a separate study referred to as the “Springfield Rail Improvements

Project” (http://springfieldrailroad.com/newsite/), a broad range of alternatives were

pre‐screened prior to the screening of alternatives for the Tier 1 EIS.  The Springfield Rail

Improvements Project was funded by IDOT and managed by the City of Springfield.

The preliminary alternatives previously studied were established using input from that

project’s Steering Committee, advisory groups, and public meetings in April and

November 2010.  The pre‐screening process eliminated 10 preliminary alternatives from

further study based on their inability to meet the objectives of the project, as measured

by projected vehicle crashes, delays, and train horn noise, or because they would have

disproportionate costs and/or environmental impacts.  At the conclusion of the

“Springfield Rail Improvements Project” pre‐screening process, five alternatives

remained for further evaluation in thescreening process.  Exhibits 3.3‐5 through 3.3‐7

depict the five alternatives that were studied during the current screening process in

Springfield.

The five alternatives through Springfield that passed the Tier 1 screening process were

also evaluated against Tier 2 level screening criteria.  The Tier 2 screening process and

criteria for the “Springfield Rail Improvements Project” alternatives is described in the

separate Tier 2 Environmental Evaluation for Springfield contained in Volume II of this

EIS.

The following is a brief description of each of the alternative routes that was considered

during the screening process in Springfield:

Springfield Alternative 1  

This alternative would leave UP freight trains and Amtrak passenger trains on Third

Street.  An additional track would be provided.  
Exhibits 3.3-5. Initial Range of Springfield Alternatives (Alternative 1)
Exhibit 3.3-6. Initial Range of Springfield Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3)
Exhibit 3.3-7. Initial Range of Springfield Alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5)
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-42 Tier 1 Final EIS

Springfield Alternative 2  

This alternative would shift UP freight trains and Amtrak passenger trains from Third

Street to Tenth Street abandoning the Third Street corridor from near Ridgely Avenue to

South of Iles Avenue.  Additional tracks would be provided along Tenth Street.

Springfield Alternative 3  

This alternative would shift UP freight trains and Amtrak passenger trains from Third

Street to Tenth Street as well as CN, I&M and KCS freight trains from the Nineteenth

Street corridor to the Tenth Street corridor.   The Third Street corridor from near Ridgely

Avenue to South of Iles Avenue would be abandoned as would the Nineteenth Street

corridor from north of Clear Lake Avenue to near Stanford Avenue.  Additional tracks

would be provided along Tenth Street.

Springfield Alternative 4  

This alternative would shift UP freight trains to Tenth Street and leave Amtrak

passenger trains on Third Street.  Additional tracks would be provided along Tenth and

Third Streets.

Springfield Alternative 5  

This alternative would shift UP freight trains to Tenth Street and leave Amtrak

passenger trains on Third Street.  This alternative would also shift CN, I&M and KCS

freight trains from the Nineteenth Street corridor to the Tenth Street corridor.  

Additional tracks would be provided along Tenth and Third Streets.

3.3.5.2 Screening Results for the Springfield Alternatives

This section summarizes the results of the Tier 1 screening of alternatives in the

Springfield portion of the study corridor and provides reasons for eliminating

alternatives from further consideration in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.  Information and data

developed for the Tier 1 screening process is summarized in Table 3.3‐4.

The alternatives that were eliminated are indicated with red shading in the cell

containing the alternative names in Table 3.3‐4.  Orange shaded cells in the table indicate

the primary reasons for eliminating those alternatives, and yellow shaded cells indicate

secondary reasons.  The Springfield Tier 1 screening alternatives that were carried

forward for further study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS  based on the alternatives screening

conducted for this program include:  

 Springfield Alternative 1; and

 Springfield Alternative 2.

These two alternatives are discussed in more detail as part of the overall Build

Alternative descriptions in Section 3.3.6.
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-43 

Table 3.3‐4. Summary of Springfield Tier 1 Screening
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-44 

Table 3.3‐4. Summary of Springfield Tier 1 Screening (continued)
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-45 Tier 1 Final EIS

The Springfield Tier 1 screening eliminated the following alternatives from further

consideration:

 Springfield Alternative 3 was eliminated because of lack of support from the CN

Railroad, the high capital costs, and the large area of right‐of‐way required.  This

alternative had the fewest environmental justice and neighborhood impacts, but

constructing the grade separations on the CN corridor included within Alternatives

1 and 2 was seen as a more cost effective way to mitigate these issues.    

 Springfield Alternative 4 was eliminated because of the operational issues associated

with introducing crossovers in the UP line north and south of the City, the high

capital cost, and the community impact.  This alternative was among the highest in

terms of length of rail corridor through residential neighborhoods and

environmental justice areas.  The alternative did not provide any notable advantage

relative to the other alternatives.   

 Springfield Alternative 5 was eliminated because of the operational issues associated

with introducing crossovers in the UP line north and south of the City and the

increased length of CN track.  This alternative also would have the highest capital

cost and the largest area of new right‐of‐way required.  This alternative was among

the highest in terms of length of rail corridor through residential neighborhoods.  It

did not provide any notable advantages relative to the other alternatives.

3.3.6 Alternative Route Screening for Alton to St. Louis 

3.3.6.1 Initial Range of Alternatives Alton to St. Louis

In the St. Louis area, there are two rail bridges over the Mississippi River that could be

used to route passenger trains into and out of the St. Louis Station.  Ultimately, seven

alternative route options were identified between Alton and St. Louis that were included

in the screening process.  Exhibits 3.3‐8 and 3.3‐9 depict the initial range of alternatives

studied during the screening process between Alton and St. Louis.

The following is a brief description of each of the alternative routes considered during

the screening process between Alton and St. Louis:

Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1 ‐ MacArthur Bridge ‐ This alternative would utilize the

current Amtrak route on the UP to the TRRA near East St. Louis and the TRRA across

the MacArthur Bridge into the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  Freight trains would continue

their current use of bridges.  Improvements would include:

 Construction of a double track east approach to the MacArthur Bridge;

 New elevated railroad deck on the MacArthur Bridge including new western

approach; and  

 New double track connection to St. Louis Amtrak Station.
Exhibit 3.3-8. Initial Range of St. Louis Alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2) 
Exhibit 3.3-9. Initial Range of St. Louis Alternatives (Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 4) 
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-48 Tier 1 Final EIS

Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1A ‐ MacArthur Bridge ‐ This alternative would utilize the

current Amtrak route on the UP to the TRRA near East St. Louis and the TRRA across

the MacArthur Bridge into the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  Freight trains would continue

their current use of bridges.  Improvements would include:

 Construction of a double track parallel to the existing track east of the approach to a

new double track structure;  

 Construction of a new double track structure adjacent to the north side of the

existing MacArthur Bridge;

 New double track east and west approaches to the new bridge; and  

 New double track connection to St. Louis Amtrak Station.

Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1B ‐ MacArthur Bridge ‐ This alternative would utilize the

current Amtrak route on the UP to the TRRA near East St. Louis and the TRRA across

the MacArthur Bridge into the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  Freight trains would continue

their current use of bridges.  Improvements would include:

 Construction of a double track parallel to the existing track east of the approach to a

new four track structure;

 Construction of a new four track structure adjacent to the north side of the existing

MacArthur Bridge;

 New east and west approaches to the new bridge; and

 New double track connection to St. Louis Amtrak Station. Alton to St. Louis  

Alternative 2 ‐ Merchants Bridge – For passenger trains, this alternative would utilize the

UP to the TRRA Merchants Bridge, the TRRA down the west side of Mississippi River to

the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  Freight trains would continue their current use of bridges.  

An East St. Louis Station is not feasible with this alternative.  Improvements would

include:

 Construction of a new double track connection from the UP to the TRRA Merchants

Bridge in Venice, Illinois;  

 Replacement of the Merchants Bridge superstructure including approaches;  

 Double tracking the TRRA from near North Market Street to near Gratiot (including

the TRRA elevated south of the Arch to Gratiot); and  

 Speed improvements (25‐30 mph to 60 mph) from the west end of the Merchants

Bridge approach to the beginning of the TRRA elevated south of the Arch.

Alton to St. Louis Alternative 3 – Directional Alternative – This alternative would route

northbound passenger trains on the TRRA track on the west side of the Mississippi

River.  Southbound passenger trains would use the UP and TRRA tracks on the East side

of the Mississippi River.  Freight trains would continue their current use of bridges.   
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-49 Tier 1 Final EIS

Other optional directional changes under Alternative 3 could include having westbound

UP Southern Pacific Chicago‐St. Louis (SPCSL) IM freight trains use the MacArthur

Bridge and eastbound UP SPCSL IM freight trains use the Merchants Bridge.  Under this

option all other freight trains would continue their current bridge usage.      

An East St. Louis Station is not feasible with this alternative.  Improvements would

include:  

 Construction of a new double track connection from the UP to the TRRA Merchants

Bridge in Venice, Illinois;

 Replacement of the Merchants Bridge superstructure including approaches;  

 Double tracking the TRRA from near North Market Street to near Gratiot (including

the TRRA elevated south of the Arch to Gratiot);

 Speed improvements (25‐30 mph to 60 mph) from the west end of the Merchants

Bridge approach to the beginning of the TRRA elevated south of the Arch; and  

 Construction of a double track east approach to the MacArthur Bridge.  

Alton to St. Louis Alternative 4 – Dispatcher Directional Alternative – This alternative would

route passenger trains over either the Merchants Bridge or the MacArthur Bridge based

on dispatcher discretion in reaction to actual traffic levels and available capacity.  

Freight trains would continue their current use of bridges.  An East St. Louis Station is

not feasible with this alternative.  Improvements would include:  

 Construction of a new double track connection from the UP to the TRRA Merchants

Bridge in Venice, Illinois;  

 Replacement of the Merchants Bridge superstructure including approaches; double

tracking the TRRA from near North Market Street to near Gratiot (including the

TRRA elevated south of the Arch to Gratiot);  

 Speed improvements (25‐30 mph to 60 mph) from the west end of the Merchants

Bridge approach to the beginning of the TRRA elevated south of the Arch; and  

 Construction of a double track east approach to the MacArthur Bridge.

3.3.6.2 Screening Results for Alton to St. Louis Alternatives

This section summarizes the results of the Tier 1 screening of alternatives in the Alton to

St. Louis portion of the study corridor and provides reasons for eliminating alternatives

from further consideration in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.  Information and data developed for

the Tier 1 screening process is summarized in Table 3.3‐5.  The alternatives that were

eliminated are indicated with red shading in the cell containing the alternative names in

Table 3.3‐5.  Orange shaded cells in the table indicate the primary reasons for

eliminating those alternatives, and yellow shaded cells indicate the secondary reasons.

The Alton to St. Louis Tier 1 screening alternatives that were carried forward for further

study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS based on the alternatives screening conducted for this

program include:  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-50 

Table 3.3‐5. Summary of Alton to St. Louis Tier 1 Screening
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-51 

Table 3.3‐5. Summary of Alton to St. Louis Tier 1 Screening (continued)
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-52 Tier 1 Final EIS

 Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1A; and

 Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1B.

These two alternatives are discussed in more detail as part of the overall Build

Alternative descriptions in Section 3.3.6.

The Tier 1 screening eliminated the following alternatives between Alton and St. Louis

from further consideration:

 Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1 primarily because of construction issues with adding

another deck on the existing MacArthur Bridge;

 Alton to St. Louis Alternative 2 primarily because of its higher construction costs,

poor construction impact rating, more at‐grade highway‐rail crossings, and potential

effects to Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Park; and

 Alton to St. Louis Alternatives 3 and 4 primarily because they would require

improvements along two railroad routes, resulting in much higher overall costs,

while still potentially affecting the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Park.

3.3.7 Tier 1 Build Alternatives from Chicago to St. Louis 

As a result of the alternative screening process, seven individual sections of alternative

alignments remained available for consideration to be improved and utilized for high

speed passenger trains within the Chicago to St. Louis corridor.  This included two

sections in Chicago (Alternative 2 and Alternative 4D carried forward from the Chicago

to Joliet screening alternatives); one section between Joliet and Springfield, two sections

in Springfield (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 carried forward from the Springfield

screening alternatives), one section between Springfield and Alton, and finally one

section between Alton and St. Louis (Alternatives 1A and 1B, which share the same

alignment and are carried forward from the Alton to St. Louis screening alternatives).  

Each of these sections is described in Section 3.3.7.1 below.   

In order to provide full length alternatives to study, the individual alignment sections

were pieced together using the available combinations to create four complete, or full

length, alternative alignments between Chicago and St. Louis.  Although looking at the

individual sections was. beneficial to help identify potential problem areas that might

require additional attention; for overall comparison purposes, the full length alternatives

were also studied to ensure that the overall goals and objectives of the high speed rail

program are fulfilled and that the impacts to human and natural environments are

considered at all levels.  The full length Build Alternatives are described in Section

3.3.7.2 below.

3.3.7.1 Description of the Alignment Sections between Chicago and St. Louis

The individual sections used to create the full length alternatives include:

 Section 1 – Existing Route Chicago to Joliet (Previously referred to as the Chicago to

Joliet Alternative 2 during the Tier 1 screening process);
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-53 Tier 1 Final EIS

 Section 2 – Proposed New Route Chicago to Joliet (Previously referred to as the

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4D during the Tier 1 screening process.)

 Section 3 – Existing Route Joliet to Springfield;

 Section 4 – Existing Route through Springfield (Previously referred to as the

Springfield Alternative 1 during the screening process);

 Section 5 – Proposed New Route through Springfield (Previously referred to as the

Springfield Alternative 2 during the screening process);

 Section 6 – Existing Route Springfield to Alton; and

 Section 7 – Existing Route Alton to St. Louis (Previously referred to as Alton to St.

Louis Alternative 1A and 1B during the Tier 1 screening process).

Exhibit 3.3‐10 shows the location of the individual alignment sections used to create the

full‐length Build Alternatives from Chicago to St. Louis.

Each of the sections are described in more detail, including the primary proposed

improvements anticipated within each section, in the following paragraphs:

 Section 1 ‐ Chicago to Joliet on Existing Route ‐ This section of the alternatives would

include utilizing the current Amtrak route along the CN from Joliet Union Station, to

Amtrak south of Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union Station.  

Improvements would include: additional track at the connection to Amtrak near 21st

Street; potential flyovers at IHB west of Summit, BRC east of Cicero Avenue, BNSF

north of Corwith Yard; and CSX/NS near Western Avenue.

 Section 2 ‐ Chicago to Joliet using Rock Island Route ‐ This section would utilize the

NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to the NS near 40th Street in Chicago, the NS

west to NS (NIRC) near 40th Street in Chicago, the NS (NIRC) to Amtrak south of

Chicago Union Station, and Amtrak to Chicago Union Station.  Improvements

would include: additional track at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID

connection at Joliet Union Station, NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union

Street, and the existing single track connection from the NIRC RID to the NS near

40th Street in Chicago, station improvements including relocating the platforms at

Joliet Union Station as well as the proposed Transportation Center and location and

construction of a new suburban Amtrak Station; construction of a new double track

connection from the NS to the NS (NIRC) near 40th Street in Chicago; and a potential

flyover at EJ&E east of Joliet.  Neither Metra nor the NS has determined whether

they would support sharing this route with high speed rail passenger service.

 Section 3‐ Joliet to Springfield ‐ This section would utilize the existing Amtrak route

between Joliet and Springfield.  Proposed improvements would include: addition of

a second mainline track from north of Mississippi Street in Elwood to the NS

crossing in Dwight including at‐grade crossing modifications; installation of

approximately four miles of siding from north of Braidwood to Mazonia; addition of

a second mainline track from NS crossing in Dwight to Sangamon Avenue in

Springfield including at‐grade crossing modifications; construction of a 12,500 ft.
§ ̈¦§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦ § ̈¦

§ ̈¦ ¡s

§ ̈¦

¡s ¡s

§ ̈¦ § ̈¦

¡s

§ ̈¦

¡s

¡s

§ ̈¦

¡s

¡s

¡s

§ ̈¦ ¡s

§ ̈¦

")

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦ § ̈¦

§ ̈¦ ¡s

")

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

¡s

¡s

ST.

CHARLES

ST.

LOUIS

ST.

LOUIS CITY

JEFFERSON

Elgin Arlington Heights

Chicago Naperville Aurora

Joliet

Moline

Morris

Peru Wilmington

Kankakee

Dwight

Galesburg

Pontiac

Peoria

Bloomington

Normal

Lincoln Champaign

Decatur

Springfield

Taylorville Mattoon

Carlinville

Litchfield

Effingham

Vandalia

Alton

Centralia

OGLE

WILL

LASALLE

BUREAU

HENRY

GRUNDY

MERCER PUTNAM

MCLEAN TAZEWELL FULTON

CHAMPAIGN

LOGAN

PIATT

STARK

KNOX

MARSHALL

LIVINGSTON

WARREN IROQUOIS

PEORIA WOODFORD

CARROLL

KANE DEKALB

COOK

ROCK

ISLAND

KENDALL

KANKAKEE

FORD

MENARD

MASON

DEWITT SCHUYLER

BROWN

DOUGLAS

CASS

CUMBERLAND

CALHOUN

CLAY

JERSEY EFFINGHAM

GREENE

CLINTON

EDWARDS WABASH

WASHINGTON

RICHLAND

DUPAGE

WHITESIDE LEE

MCDONOUGH

VERMILION

MACON

SANGAMON

EDGAR MORGAN

CHRISTIAN

MOULTRIE

SCOTT

COLES

SHELBY

MACOUPIN MONTGOMERY

CLARK

CR AW JASPER

BOND

MADISON

FAYETTE

ST.

CLAIR WAYNE

MONROE JEFFERSON

LAW R E N C E

MARION

108

267

45

30 52

51 24

45

51

136

58

36

50

52

34

290

294

88

94

57

80

55

80

355

39 55

74

57

72

55

55

70 270

64

70

57

88

80

Legend

Section 1

Section 2

Major Road

County Boundary

Municipality

Section 3

Section 4

Section 5

Section 6

Section 7

Springfield

Springfield

Leland Grove

Jerome

Grandview

Southern View
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-55 Tier 1 Final EIS 

siding between O’Dell and Dwight; construction of a 12,500 ft. siding between O’Dell

and Bunge; construction of a 20,000 ft. siding between Lexington and Chenoa;

construction of a 25,000 ft. siding from north of Towanda to south of Towanda;

construction of approximately 2.5 miles of siding between Atlanta and McLean;

construction of approximately 1.4 miles of siding from Williamsville to south of

Elkhart; construction of a 10,000 ft. siding from the Sangamon River to Sangamon

Avenue; construction of a 12,500 ft. siding on the I&M from Andrew south;

replacement of the Ridgely diamond with a crossover; and station improvements in

Dwight, Pontiac, and Lincoln.

 Section 4 – Springfield on Existing 3rd Street Route ‐ In this section, both Amtrak

passenger trains and UP freight trains would remain on the existing Third Street

route through Springfield.  This alternative would leave UP freight trains and

Amtrak passenger trains on Third Street and would include no improvements to the

Tenth or Nineteenth Street corridors.  Proposed improvements would include the

addition of a second mainline track and station improvements.

 Section 5 ‐ Springfield using 10th Street Route ‐ In this section, UP freight trains and

Amtrak passenger trains would be shifted from Third Street to Tenth Street resulting

in abandonment of the Third Street corridor (Section 4 above) from near Ridgely

Avenue to South of Iles Avenue.  Proposed improvements include additional tracks

and a new Springfield Station.

 Section 6 – Springfield to Alton ‐ This section would utilize the existing Amtrak

route between Springfield and Alton.  Propose improvements in this section include:

addition of a second mainline track from south of Stanford Avenue to north of

Virden including at‐grade crossing modifications; construction of a grade separation

with the NS north of I‐72; construction of a grade separation at Woodside Road in

Sangamon County; construction of a grade separation at Iron Bridge Road in

Sangamon County; construction of a 10,000 ft. siding at Nilwood; addition of a

second mainline track from Nilwood to Nicholas Street in Carlinville including at‐

grade crossing modifications; construction of a 12,500 ft. siding between Carlinville

and Plainview; addition of a second mainline track from south of Rinaker Road in

Macoupin County to north of Illinois 16 in Shipman including at‐grade crossing

modifications; construction of a 12,500 ft. siding north of Illinois 16 at Shipman;

construction of a 12,500 ft. siding at Godfrey including at‐grade crossing

modifications; addition of a second mainline track from Pearl Street in Godfrey to

Wood River including at‐grade crossing modifications; replacement of diamond

with crossover at NS in Wood River; replacement of diamond with crossover at

TRRA at WR Tower; additional siding near Seventh Street in Wood River; and

station improvements at Carlinville.  The Alton Station will be relocated by another

project.  The City of Alton received a Transportation Investment Generating

Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant that would be used to relocate the Alton train

station to a different location.

 Section 7 – Alton to St. Louis ‐ This section would utilize the existing Amtrak route

from near Alton to the St. Louis Amtrak Station in downtown St. Louis.  

Improvements in this section would depend on which of the two remaining Alton to
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-56 Tier 1 Final EIS 

St. Louis options in this section are selected based on either the Tier 1 or subsequent

Tier 2 study.  The primary difference in these two options is at the Mississippi River

crossing.  The options include construction of a new double track structure just

upstream of the existing MacArthur Bridge (Option 1A) or construction of a new

four track structure just upstream of the existing MacArthur Bridge (Option 1B).  

Provision of additional rail capacity over the Mississippi River will need to be

studied in more detail in a Tier 2 study.  More detailed exhibits of the Build

Alternatives are provided in Appendix A.

3.3.7.2 Description of Full‐length Build Alternatives from Chicago to St. Louis

This section describes the location of each of the four full length Build Alternatives that

were carried forward, extending from Chicago to St. Louis.  The proposed

improvements associated with each full length alternative are described under each of

the individual sections making up those alternatives described in the previous section,

Section 3.3.6.1.  The environmental consequences of these four alternatives are described

in the environmental consequences sections under each resource category in Chapter 5.

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

Alternative A would begin at Chicago Union Station and follow the existing Amtrak

route through the entire corridor ending at the existing St. Louis Amtrak Station.  This

alternative would utilize Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

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

Alternative B would begin at Chicago Union Station and follow the existing Amtrak

route from Chicago to northern Springfield.  In northern Springfield, the proposed route

would break off to the southeast following a small section of proposed new alignment

that would connect to the existing rail following the 10th Street corridor in Springfield.  

The alternative would then follow the existing 10th Street corridor through Springfield

before reconnecting with the existing route south of Springfield, where it would

continue southward and eventually end at the existing St. Louis Amtrak Station.  This

alternative would utilize Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7.

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

Alternative C would begin at Chicago Union Station and follow the existing Amtrak

route before connecting onto the NS (NIRC) route.  The alignment would follow the NS

(NIRC) route and then connect to NS and follow it to near 40th Street in Chicago where it

connects onto the NIRC‐RID route.  The route would then continue southward to the

Joliet Union Station.  From Joliet Union Station the alignment would follow the existing

Amtrak route southward finally end at the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  This Alternative

would utilize Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

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

Alternative D would begin at Chicago Union Station and follow the existing Amtrak

route before connecting onto the NS (NIRC) route.  The alignment would follow the NS

(NIRC) route and then connect to NS and follow it to near 40th Street in Chicago where it

connects onto the NIRC‐RID route.  The route would then continue southward to the

Joliet Union Station.  From Joliet Union Station the alignment would follow the existing
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-57 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Amtrak route southward to northern Springfield, where it would break off to the

southeast following a small section of proposed new alignment that would connect to

the existing rail following the 10th Street corridor in Springfield.  The alternative would

then follow the existing 10th Street corridor through Springfield before reconnecting with

the existing route south of Springfield, where it would continue southward and

eventually end at the existing St. Louis Amtrak Station.  This alternative follows Sections

2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.

Table 3.3‐6 provides a summary of the estimated amount of new right‐of‐way that

would be required with construction of each of the four Build Alternatives carried

forward.  The amount of new right‐of‐way required is reported because it typically

directly affects the overall impacts associated with a project.  This is because land

acquisition and subsequent construction within new right‐of‐way areas typically

involves additional impacts to the affected environment when compared to construction

that stays within existing right‐of‐way areas.  For example, where new right‐of way is

required in areas that are already developed, costs can be higher due to higher property

costs, building displacements, and existing infrastructure/utilities requiring relocation.  

Alternatively, acquisition and subsequent construction within new right‐of‐way areas

within rural or previously undeveloped areas often results in additional impacts to

desirable natural resources, farmland, and/or open spaces.  The impacts to various

resources of concern are discussed throughout Chapter 5.   

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

Section ID (Tier 1 

Screening Name) 

Number of Acres of New Right-of-Way Required 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

No‐Build (Baseline)    

Chicago to Joliet Sections

1(2) 62 62

2 (4D)    120 120

Joliet to Alton(Excluding Springfield) Sections

3 and 6 520 520 520 520

Springfield Sections

4 6 to 22 6 to 22

5    42 to 43 42 to 43

Alton to St. Louis Section

7 (1A) 54 54 54 54

7 (1B) 54 54 54 54

TOTAL: 642 to 658 678 to 679 700 to 716 736 to 737

Note:  The total amount of right‐of‐way required under each Build Alternative is

provided as a range because there are various improvement options that could be

constructed within the individual Springfield sections.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-58 Tier 1 Final EIS 

3.3.7.3 Stations

Table 3.3‐7 summarizes the station improvements planned as part of the 2004 ROD

improvements which are assumed to be in place under the No‐Build Alternative, and

the station improvements that are proposed as part of the build alternatives.

Additionally, potential new stations in suburban Chicago (between Chicago and Joliet)

and St. Louis (between St. Louis and Alton) would be evaluated in Tier 2 studies.  It is

assumed that the location of new stations would be easily accessible from the highway

and arterial system.  Provision of suburban stations adjacent to the highway system

would increase the attractiveness of intercity passenger rail service because it will

enhance passenger accessibility to HSR service, allowing potential travelers an

additional option of not travelling to downtown to board a train.  Between Chicago and

Joliet, use of an existing Metra station also would be considered.

Table 3.3‐7. Summary of Station Improvements

Station No-Build Alternative Build Alternatives 

Chicago No Change No Change

Summit No Change No Change1

Joliet

Station improvements are

being advanced by a city‐led

effort.  Details of the

proposed improvements are

not available at this time.

No change beyond

improvements included with

the No‐Build Alternative.

Dwight

New station, platform, and

parking at existing station

site.

Additional station and

platform improvements,

passenger grade separation.

Pontiac

New station, platform, and

parking at a site located one

block south of the existing

station.

Additional station and

platform improvements,

parking, and passenger grade

separation.

Bloomington‐Normal

Station improvements are

being advanced by a city‐led

effort.  Construction is

currently underway.

No change beyond

improvements included with

the No‐Build Alternative.

Lincoln

Renovate existing station,

new platform and parking at

existing station site.

Additional station and

platform improvements,

parking, and passenger grade

separation.

Springfield To be determined. To be determined2.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-59 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 3.3‐7. Summary of Station Improvements (continued)

Station No-Build Alternative Build Alternatives 

Carlinville

New station, platform,

passenger grade separation,

and parking at existing

station site.

No change beyond

improvements included with

the No‐Build Alternative.

Alton

New station, platform,

passenger grade separation,

and parking at a site located

south of the existing station.

Additional station and

platform improvements and

parking.  City is considering

relocation of station to a

different location.

St. Louis No Change No Change

1The Summit Station is located along Alternatives A and B only.

2 Station improvements for Springfield are discussed further in the Tier 2 Environmental

Evaluation in Volume II for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project.  

3.4 Costs 

3.4.1 Capital Costs 

The capital costs for the alternatives were developed based on the required

infrastructure improvements identified as necessary to accommodate high‐speed

passenger traffic.  These costs were divided into various similar construction activities,

quantities along each alignment identified, and unit costs then applied.  Costs were

estimated in 2011 dollars.  The following types of costs were evaluated:

 Rolling Stock.  Rolling Stock was estimated based on unit costs for locomotives and

coaches as required by ridership forecasts.

 Maintenance Facilities.  Unit costs were developed for a maintenance facility.  Two

maintenance facilities were assumed and all alternatives had the same maintenance

facility costs.  It is assumed that a new maintenance facility would be required in St.

Louis and either a new facility or expansion of the existing Amtrak maintenance

facility would be required in Chicago.

 Station Facilities.  Lump sum costs were assumed for facility improvement

requirements at Chicago Suburban Stations, Pontiac, Dwight, Lincoln, Springfield,

Carlinville, and Alton stations.  East St. Louis Station costs were provided by others.

 Roadway.  Since the improvements to the alternatives would affect crossing

roadways or highway structures, costs were developed for these general items:

 Removal – Removal items include all surface elements of the existing roadway

down to existing sub‐base.

 Pavement and Appurtenances –Unit values for pavement, sidewalk, retaining

walls, drainage roadway signals, fencing lighting and landscaping were

developed to provide costs for the replacement of items impacted by the rail
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-60 Tier 1 Final EIS 

improvements.  These items were quantified on a normalized location basis for

at‐grade crossings or highway bridge replacements based on the linear length of

the improvement and applied to the number of at‐grade crossings or highway

bridge replacements.

 Structures – Pedestrian and highway structures were both necessary for the

alternatives studied.  Unit cost values were developed for each type of structure

and applied where required based on the alternative infrastructure

improvement.

 Rail.  The majority of the improvement costs for each alternative were the rail

infrastructure required to support the high‐speed passenger service.  The rail costs

were divided into these general categories:

 Earthwork – Earthwork requirements were developed based on cross sections for

alternatives.  Where mapping data is not available, normalized earthwork values

were used to estimate the earthwork requirements.

 Track – Unit costs for track were applied to all alternatives based on their overall

length of main and/or siding track for track upgrade costs.  Track drainage unit

costs were included in all urbanized areas where open ditches would not be

used.  Unit costs were applied to additional mainline and siding track based on

available simulation results.  For alternatives where simulation data was

unavailable, additional needs were estimated based on potential congestion.

 Crossovers and Turnouts – Unit costs were developed and applied based on the

number necessary as identified from the simulation analysis.  For those

alternatives where simulation analysis was unavailable, those costs were

estimated based on per mile costs for turnouts and crossovers from similar

alternatives where simulation data was available.  

 Signaling – The alternatives along the corridor vary between those that have

baseline installations of advanced train signaling and at‐grade protection devices

to those that have had no upgrades.  Unit costs for each were identified and

applied to the alternatives.  In those areas where baseline signals will need to be

installed, relocation costs were assumed as part of the unit costs for those items.

 Structures – Most railroad structures along the alternatives had unit costs

applied to the linear footage of the bridge where new or replacement structures

will be necessary along the alternatives.  Major river crossing structures were

reviewed on an individual basis to develop planning level costs for the

improvements required for those alternatives.

 Miscellaneous Items – Fencing costs were developed for all urbanized areas

where infrastructure improvements would be required based on simulation

analysis.  Crossing surface costs were included as linear items at crossing

locations and clearing and removal items included on a unit cost basis.  Utility
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-61 Tier 1 Final EIS 

costs were included along the alignment as a linear item dependent upon the

location of the alternative and the expected presence of utilities.  Railroad force

account work necessary during construction of the alternative was included as a

percentage of the construction cost.

 Program Implementation Costs.  Preliminary engineering and environmental costs

were estimated at two percent of construction cost including all work necessary to

secure all permits, NEPA approvals, etc.

 Construction plans and specification costs were estimated at nine percent of

construction cost for a traditional design‐bid‐build procurement process.  

 Construction engineering costs were estimated at eight percent of construction

cost.  

 Program management costs were estimated at two percent of construction cost.  

 Right‐of‐Way Costs.  The right‐of‐way costs were estimated for the footprint of the

required infrastructure improvements.  The land required for the alternative was

determined based on typical sections of track required, including the number of

main tracks, siding tracks, access roads adjacent required roadway improvements or

footprints of anticipated flyovers.  These typical sections were then applied along the

alternatives, schematic level construction limits determined, and the differences

between the existing right‐of‐way along the alternatives and the construction limits

identified.  Separate land values were applied for urban and rural right‐of‐way and

included in the capital costs of the alternative.  Because land values are substantially

higher in Chicago, factors for Chicago urban land were differentiated from

downstate urban land within the cost estimate.

 Contingencies.  A contingency was added to allow for items and conditions that

cannot be determined at this level of analysis.  A contingency of 30 percent was

applied to all construction and land acquisition costs.  A contingency of 20 percent

was applied to all rolling stock costs.

The Chicago to Joliet alternative costs were developed based on track mile costs,

estimated infrastructure improvements and new connection and flyover costs where

applicable.  Other construction and right‐of‐way costs were estimated on a per mile or

per location basis for the type of infrastructure estimated.  The most substantial cost

impact item was the flyovers estimated along the routes.  For consistency in the

estimates, any location an alternative crossed a double track, it was assumed that a

flyover would be required.  A prototype flyover was developed for typical cost and

right‐of‐way impacts.

For the Chicago to Joliet portion of the alternatives that would require use of the existing

Metra routes, Metra station improvements would be necessary to allow Amtrak trains to

safely operate through the station area.  Specific improvements would be determined

during the Tier 2 studies.  While the scope of the improvements is not yet determined, it

is possible to estimate the likely total cost based on recent similar improvements to the
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-62 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Metra UP West Line considering the respective number of stations.  Using this data, $5

Million dollars was estimated for the Heritage Corridor and $15 Million dollars was

estimated along the Rock Island District.

In the Alton to St. Louis study corridor, the majority of the cost would be for bridge

crossing improvements over the Mississippi River along with the cost of elevated

structures and grade crossing improvements along the alternatives.  The directional

Alternatives 3 and 4 are higher in cost since they require upgrades to rail facilities on

both the east and west side of the Mississippi River.  Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2 are

comparable.

Table 3.4‐1 shows the estimated capital costs for the Build Alternative sections that were

considered in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.  Table 3.4‐2 shows the costs for each full length

alternative based on the costs of the individual sections making up each alternative.

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

Build Alternative Section 

(Tier 1 Screening Name) 

Cost in Millions (2011) 

No‐Build (Baseline) $0

Chicago to Joliet Sections

1 (2) $1,900

2 (4D) $1,600

Joliet to Alton(Excluding Springfield) Sections

3 and 6 $2,561

Springfield Sections

4 (1) $113 to $377

5 (2) $315 to $338

Alton to St. Louis Section

7 (1A) $638

7 (1B) $694

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

Build Alternative (Sections) Cost in Millions (2011) 

No‐Build (Baseline) 0

Alternative A (Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7) $5,212 to $5,532

Alternative B (Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, 7) $5,414 to $5,493

Alternative C (Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7) $4,912 to $5,232

Alternative D (Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7) $5,114 to $5,193
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-63 Tier 1 Final EIS 

3.4.2 Maintenance Costs 

Annual maintenance cost estimates  were developed for the Build Alternatives with

consideration given to the shared use of the rail by both freight and high speed

passenger trains.  The costs are “steady state” costs, (i.e., the annual costs of maintaining

the track at the class of rail that will result from all proposed upgrades having been

completed to support high speed trains).  Maintenance costs were based on the average

estimated costs to maintain one mile of rail each year.

The total annual maintenance cost per track mile includes:

 Track maintenance (“operating”) expenses;

 Cyclic capital expenditures for track;

 Bridge & building costs (maintenance and capital); and

 Communications and signals costs (maintenance and capital).

The estimated maintenance cost for the Build Alternatives is assumed to be $48,000 per

mile per year.  The costs in Tables 3.4‐1 and 3.4‐2 above include the first year of

maintenance costs.  However, all subsequent years throughout the life of the rail would

require an additional $48,000 per track mile per year to maintain the infrastructure.  This

cost would be shared by various freight and passenger train users based on a corridor

maintenance agreement between the owner of the rail and each user.

3.5 Preferred Alternatives 

Alternatives C (Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7)  and D (Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7), both of which

include Section 2, have been identified as the Preferred Alternatives based on the

following comparison of Section 1 (i.e., Canadian National (CN) railroad) and Section 2

(i.e., Rock Island District (RID) railroad). Because all of the Alternatives A, B, C, and D

include Sections 3, 6, and 7, the impacts and performance measures within these sections

are the same for all of the alternatives.  Therefore, there were no differentiating factors

that could be used in selecting one alternative over another based on these sections.  

Because the Tier 1 study did not include a selection between Sections 4 and 5 that travel

through Springfield, two Preferred Alternatives had to be selected with one including

Section 4 and the other including Section 5.  As a result, the selection of the two

Preferred Alternatives was limited to comparing the differences in impacts and

performance measures between the alternatives that include Section 1 (i.e., Alternatives

A and B) and the alternatives that include Section 2 (i.e., Alternatives C and D).

3.5.1 Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly 

Section 1 would impact 3.7 acres of Critical Habitat for the federally and state

endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly.  Because the Critical Habitat is on both sides of

the existing railroad alignment and immediately adjacent to the right‐of‐way, these

impacts would be difficult to avoid and mitigate.  In addition, the USFWS has expressed

concern regarding the project’s impacts to the Critical Habitat and the potential increase
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-64 Tier 1 Final EIS 

in train‐dragonfly collisions.  Section 2, however, would not result in any impacts to the

Hine’s emerald dragonfly.

3.5.2 Operational 

Operational performance of the Preferred Alternatives to achieve acceptable on‐time

performance standards was of high importance when selecting an alternative.  

Currently, Amtrak is pursuing relief from the Surface Transportation Board for failure of

the CN railroad (Section 1) to properly dispatch Amtrak trains to avoid delays.  The RID

railroad (Section 2) is dispatched by Metra, which more clearly understands the needs

for on‐time performance on a passenger rail line.  While Section 2 has considerably more

traffic than Section 1, the Metra trains are on a fixed timetable with a 95% on‐time

performance record.   Section 1 has unpredictable freight traffic including shipper

servicing which makes on‐time performance more difficult to achieve.  Incremental

infrastructure improvements to Section 2 can be made to preserve or enhance on‐time

performance in a shorter time frame at a lower cost.  Section 1 requires that four costly

and time consuming flyovers be constructed to preserve or enhance on‐time

performance.  In comparison, the Section 2 requires only one flyover at the EJ&E

Railroad.

3.5.3 Cost 

Section 2 costs $200 to $500 million less than Section 1 primarily due to the need for the

four flyovers.

3.5.4 Public Policy 

If Amtrak service is no longer on Section 1, two Chicago Region Environmental and 

Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Project flyovers on that route may not be needed.  

The ability to reprioritize limited CREATE resources for more urgent projects would be

of significant public benefit as well as reduce the total cost of the CREATE program.  

Additional infrastructure investment along Section 2 would not only benefit the High‐

Speed Rail Program but also would place that investment in a publicly owned corridor.

3.5.5 Summary 

Alternatives C and D, both of which include Section 2, have been identified as the

Preferred Alternatives based on the following reasons:

 Avoids Critical Habitat of the federally and state endangered Hine’s emerald

dragonfly.

 More passenger friendly dispatching.

 Fewer unpredictable train events to affect on‐time performance.

 On‐time performance can be preserved or enhanced with smaller incremental

improvements in a shorter time frame at lower cost.

 Total cost is less.

 Allows potential CREATE program reprioritization or program cost savings.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-65 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Invests public funds in a publically owned transportation corridor.

It should be noted for the Preferred Alternatives that while the MacArthur Bridge is

recognized as the preferred route for the Chicago – St. Louis High‐Speed Rail Program,

it is recognized that the Merchants Bridge also plays an important role in serving as an

alternate route during maintenance or unexpected disruptions, and also as a key part of

the St. Louis area rail network providing potential benefits to both freight and passenger

traffic.

It should also be noted that during the Tier 2 studies for Section 2, alternative

connections that would provide access to Union Station could be considered if that

connection would be deemed better than the connection at 40th Street.