SUMMARY

Summary
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-1 Tier 1 Final EIS 

S.0 Summary 

This Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) addresses the proposal by

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

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

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

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

(HSR) Corridor Program has been prepared by IDOT and the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, to satisfy the requirements of the National

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S.1 Background 

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

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

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

century regional passenger rail system.   

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

HSR Corridor.  The Selected Alternative from the EIS included improvements along the

existing Chicago to St. Louis Amtrak route, with 110‐mile per hour high‐speed rail

service south of Dwight, Illinois.  Selected improvements included 12 miles of double

track, 22 miles of freight sidings, station enhancements, one grade‐separated crossing,

and enhanced warning devices at 174 crossings.  No action was selected between

Chicago and Dwight.  FHWA and FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in January

2004, allowing improvements in the Dwight to St. Louis portion of the corridor to be

advanced.  Section 2.1.3 discusses the projects that have advanced based on the 2004

ROD.
Exhibit S.0-1. Program Location 
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-3 Tier 1 Final EIS 

In 2011, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed and FRA issued a Finding of

No Significant Impact (FONSI) for track improvements from Joliet to Dwight.  These

improvements include upgrading approximately 36 miles of existing track and

associated crossings to accommodate 110 mph high‐speed rail passenger trains, the

addition of six miles of double track, approximately two miles of new side track, and

about 12 new turnouts.

S.2 Purpose and Need 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

emissions and energy consumption.   

In addition to the Tier 1 level  corridor‐wide needs from Chicago to St. Louis, the large

number of grade crossings in Springfield results in issues specific to that portion of the

study area, including safety, vehicle, and pedestrian delays.  These needs are detailed in

Volume II, Tier 2 Environmental Evaluation of the Springfield Rail Improvements

Project.

S.3 Alternatives Considered 

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

five alternatives that were evaluated: a No‐Build Alternative and four HSR Build

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

S.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative includes the 2004 ROD HSR improvements from Dwight to St.

Louis and the 2011 EA/FONSI HSR improvements from Joliet to Dwight.  The limited

HSR service resulting from these improvements will include passenger trains at speeds

up to 110 mph between Joliet and Alton, with the remaining portions of the corridor

allowing speeds of up to 79 mph.     

S.3.2 Build Alternatives 

The four Build Alternatives that were 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
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-4 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

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

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

improvements to railroad crossings (including rail to rail grade separations and

pedestrian grade separations at the train stations), signals, and stations.  The potential

locations of highway to rail grade separations has also been identified that will be

studied in greater detail during the Tier 2 studies.  In developing these four Build

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

 Section 1 – Existing Amtrak Route from Chicago to Joliet

 Section 2 – Proposed Other Existing Route (i.e., Rock Island Route) from Chicago

to Joliet  

 Section 3 – Existing Amtrak Route from Joliet to Springfield

 Section 4 – Existing Amtrak Route through Springfield  

 Section 5 – Proposed Other Existing  Route through Springfield  

 Section 6 – Existing Amtrak Route from Springfield to Alton

 Section 7 – Existing Amtrak Route from Alton to St. Louis

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

sections as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

range from three hours and 51 minutes to four hours and 10 minutes, which would

result in a maximum decrease in travel time of one hour and 47 minutes over existing

conditions.   

S.3.3 Tier 1 Preferred Alternative 

Tier 1 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.  
§ ̈¦§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦ § ̈¦

§ ̈¦ ¡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

CRAW JASPER

BOND

MADISON

FAYETTE

ST.

CLAIR WAYNE

MONROE JEFFERSON

LAWRENCE

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

 Exhibit S.3-1. Build Alternative Sections between Chicago and St. Louis
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-6 Tier 1 Final EIS 

As a result, the Tier 1 selection of the Preferred Alternative 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).  Because the Tier 1 study did not result in a selection between

Sections 4 and 5 that travel through Springfield, two Tier 1 Preferred Alternatives were

advanced, including both Section 4 and Section 5, for further consideration in the Tier 2

studies1.

S.3.3.1 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

in train‐dragonfly collisions.  Section 2, however, would not result in any impacts to the

Hine’s emerald dragonfly.

S.3.3.2 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.

S.3.3.3 Cost

Section 2 costs $200 to $500 million less than Section 1 primarily due to the need for the

four flyovers.

S.3.3.4 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.  

                                                     

1 The Tier 2 evaluation (Volume 2) resulted in a selection of a 10th Street corridor alternative.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-7 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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.

S.3.3.5 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.

 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.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-8 Tier 1 Final EIS 

S.4 Summary of Impacts 

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

Resources Alternative A Alternative B Preferred 

Alternative C 

Preferred 

Alternative D No-Build 

Buildings Displaced 183 238 262 317 0

Community Facilities 0 0 0 0 0

Environmental Justice

>50% Minority Census

Blocks

38 44 83 89 0

Environmental Justice

>50% Poverty Census

Tracts

3 3 10 10 0

New Right‐of‐Way 642‐658 ac 678‐679 ac 700‐716 ac 736‐737 ac 0

Prime Farmland Soils 1,807 ac 1,804 ac 1,903 ac 1,900 ac 0

Historic Sites 7 6 6 5 0

Archaeological Sites 0 0 0 0 0

Forest 237.8 ac 236.1 ac 254.3 ac 248.1 ac 0

Prairie Remnants 233.1 ac 233.1 ac 233.1 ac 233.1 ac 0

Protected Natural Areas 17.44 ac 17.44 ac 17.74 ac 17.74 ac 0

Critical Habitat – Hine’s

Emerald Dragonfly

3.7 ac 3.7 ac 0 0 0

Noise Sensitive Receptors 215 682 339 806 Not

Applicable

Vibration Sensitive

Receptors

269 302 249 282 Not

Applicable

Surface Water 203 203 191 191 0

Special Status Streams:    

Biologically Sensitive

Streams #/ft 5/805 5/805 5/805 5/805 0

Illinois Natural Areas

Inventory Streams #/ft 6/1,004 6/1,004 6/1,004 6/1,004 0

Nationwide Rivers

Inventory Streams #/ft 3/554 3/554 3/554 3/554 0

Navigable Waterways

#/ft 6/829 6/829 7/883 7/883 0

Wellhead Protection Areas 2 2 2 2 0

Floodplains #/acres 37/80.0 37/80.0 44/85.2 44/85.2 0

Wetlands #/acres 58/49.9 58/50.3 71/55.0 71/54.9 0

Special Waste Sites 179 195 260 276 0

Section 4(f) Properties 10 10 14 14 0

Costs (millions) $5,212‐$5,532 $5,414‐$5,493 $4,912‐$5,232 $5,114‐$5,193 0
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-9 Tier 1 Final EIS 

S.4.1 Land Use/Socioeconomic Impacts 

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

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

displacements (183) and acres of new right‐of‐way (642‐658) while Preferred Alternative

D would result in the most displacements (317) and acres of new right‐of‐way (736‐737).  

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

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

Preferred Alternatives C and D would potentially result in greater impacts to low‐

income and minority populations than Alternatives A and B.  The No‐Build Alternative

would result in no displacements or impacts to environmental justice populations.

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

Build Alternatives

Build 

Alternative 

Number of 

Buildings 

Potentially 

Displaced 

Proposed New 

Right-of-Way 

(Acres) 

Census Tracts 

with 

Populations 

Below Poverty 

Line (>50%) 

Census Block 

Groups with 

Minority 

Populations 

(>50%) 

Alternative A 183 642‐658   3 38

Alternative B 238 678‐679 3 44

Preferred

Alternative C 262 700‐716 10 83

Preferred

Alternative D 317 736‐737 10 89

No‐Build 0 0 0 0

S.4.2 Energy 

Table S.4‐3 presents the annual energy consumption by mode and alternative.

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

Alternative Rail Automobile Bus Air Total 

Existing (2010) 199 22,754 69 411 23,433

No‐Build (2030) 354 27,558 93 692 28,697

A, B, C (Preferred), or

D (Preferred) 572 27,143 83 628 28,426

The results in Table S.4‐3 show that the total energy consumption from intercity

passenger travel under the No‐Build Alternative would be higher than the Build
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-10 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Alternatives.  Although the Build Alternatives would result in an increase in energy

consumption compared to the No‐Build Alternative with regard to rail transportation,

all of the other three modes would experience a decrease, thereby, resulting in an overall

net decrease in energy consumption.  This overall net decrease could be attributed to a

shift in ridership from the other three less energy efficient modes to rail.

S.4.3 Agriculture 

Table S.4‐4 presents the impacts to prime farmland soils for the No‐Build Alternative

and each Build Alternative.  As indicated in the table, the total acres of impacts between

all the Build Alternatives varies by 99 acres with Alternative B resulting in the fewest

impacts with 1,804 acres and Preferred Alternative C resulting in the greatest impacts

with 1,903 acres.  Because all of the Build Alternatives would follow the existing railroad

tracks, no farms would be bisected by any of the alternatives.  The increase in train

traffic along the corridor could result in increased delays at railroad crossings, as farm

vehicles would be required to stop more frequently for trains crossing roadways.  The

No‐Build Alternative would not impact any farmlands or prime farmland soils.

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

Alternative Existing ROW 

Acres Impacted 

Proposed New ROW 

Acres Impacted 

Total Acres 

Impacted 

A 1,358 449 1,807

B 1,343 461 1804

C (Preferred) 1,405 498 1,903

D (Preferred) 1,390 510 1,900

No‐Build 0 0 0

S.4.4 Cultural Resources 

In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, each

alternative was evaluated for potential impacts to historic architectural and

archaeological resources.  A file search was conducted to identify any properties within

the study corridor that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP).  Table S.4‐5 shows the number of NRHP listed/eligible

architectural resources that would be potentially impacted by the program alternatives.  

Alternative A would impact the most historic architectural resources (7) while Preferred

Alternative D would impact the least (5).  The No‐Build Alternative would not impact

any historic architectural or archaeological resources.  More detailed field surveys for

potentially eligible properties that are not currently listed on the NRHP and the

determination of effects will be conducted during Tier 2 studies.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-11 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Section Alternative A Alternative B Preferred 

Alternative C 

Preferred 

Alternative D 

No-Build 

1 2 2  ‐  ‐  0

2  ‐  ‐  1 1 0

3 3 3 3 3 0

4 1  ‐  1  ‐  0

5  ‐  0  ‐  0 0

6 1 1 1 1 0

7 0 0 0 0 0

Total 7 6 6 5 0

With regard to known archaeological resources, potential impacts were considered

where proposed improvements (construction activity) would physically impact the

property on which the resource lies or would be immediately adjacent to the

construction activity such that temporary impacts could result.  Because the resources

lay belowground, noise, vibration, and visual impacts were not considered.

One site, 11MP4, located adjacent to Section 6 in Macoupin County is adjacent to an area

were construction activities would occur.  As a result, all four Build Alternatives would

potentially impact this one archaeological resource.  Further evaluation will be required

during Tier 2 studies to determine if the construction would have an adverse effect on

the resource.  In addition, Tier 2 studies will include a survey of potential archaeological

resources in all areas to be disturbed.

S.4.5 Natural Resources 

S.4.5.1 Forests, Prairie Remnants, and Illinois Natural Areas

Each alternative was evaluated for potential impacts to natural resources such as forest,

prairie remnants, and protected natural areas.  Table S.4‐6 shows the impacts to these

resources for each alternative.  With regard to impacts to forest, Alternative B would

result in the fewest impacts (236.1 acres) while Preferred Alternative C would result in

the greatest impacts (254.3 acres).  All of the Build Alternatives would impact 233.1 acres

of prairie remnants.  They would also result in nearly the same impacts to protected

natural areas (17.44 to 17.74 acres).  There are six natural areas located within the

construction limits of the Build Alternatives: Hickory Creek Barrens Nature Preserve

(0.3 acre), Funks Grove Nature Preserve (0.9 acre), Thaddeus Stubblefield Grove Nature

Preserve (6.9 acres), Hitts Siding Prairie Nature Preserve (0.6 acres), Funks Grove Land

and Water Reserve (7.9 acres), and Denby Prairie Nature Preserve (1.14 acres).  As

indicated in Table S.4‐6, Alternatives A and B would impact 17.44 acres of these natural

areas while Preferred Alternatives C and D would impact 17.74 acres.  The No‐Build

Alternative would not impact any forests, prairie remnants, or protected natural areas.    
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-12 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

S.4.5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

As indicated in Table S.4‐6, Alternatives A and B would impact approximately 3.7 acres

of USFWS designated Critical Habitat for the federally and state endangered Hine’s

emerald dragonfly.  Preferred Alternatives C and D would not impact any Critical

Habitat.  Analysis of the impacts to this habitat will be addressed in more detail in the

Tier 2 environmental documentation.  In addition to the potential direct loss of Critical

Habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly, the only other notable impact to the species

could be the potential increase in train‐dragonfly collisions due to the increase in the

number of round trips associated with several of the alternatives.   

Based on the IDNR EcoCat database and coordination with USFWS and IDNR, there are

no Critical Habitats of other federally listed species located within the study corridor

that could be impacted by any of the program alternatives.  Based on Natural Heritage

Data Base records of occurrences, the federally and state endangered leafy prairie clover

and the federally threatened and state endangered Meadʹs milkweed occur within the

existing and proposed ROW.  However, this Tier 1 level of documentation did not

include detailed fieldwork to identify potential habitats and/or populations of

threatened and endangered species.  Therefore, conclusions about impacts to listed

species or their habitat cannot be made at this time.  Further coordination with USFWS

and IDNR will continue during the Tier 2 studies.     

Species listed as threatened or endangered by the state, which have recorded

occurrences within the existing or proposed right‐of‐way based on the Natural Heritage

Data Base, are included in Chapter 5, Table 5.6‐3 and Exhibits 5.6‐1 through 5.6‐3.  Most

of the records for state listed species occur in Sections 3 and 6.  Since these sections are

included in all the Build Alternatives, there is little difference in the species records for

each alternative.  All of the species listed in Table 5.6‐3 are present in the right‐of‐way of

Alternatives A and B, with the exception of Mead’s milkweed, which is only known for

Section 2.  All species listed in Table 5.6‐3 are also present in the right‐of‐way of

Preferred Alternatives C and D, with the exception of the leafy prairie clover, which is

only known for Section 1.

Alternative Forest Prairie Remnants 

Protected 

Natural 

Areas 

Designated Critical 

Habitat (Hines 

Emerald Dragonfly) 

A 237.8 233.1 17.44 3.7

B 236.1 233.1 17.44 3.7

C (Preferred) 254.3 233.1 17.74 0

D (Preferred) 248.1 233.1 17.74 0

No‐Build 0 0 0 0
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-13 Tier 1 Final EIS 

The No‐Build Alternative would not impact any federal and state threatened and

endangered species.

S.4.6 Air Quality 

The proposed improvement would impact the counties of Cook, Will, and Grundy in the

northeastern Illinois nonattainment area, and the counties of Jersey, Madison, St. Clair,

and St. Louis in the St. Louis nonattainment area.  While the proposed program would

increase diesel locomotive emissions, these increases would be offset by decreases in

regional mobile source auto vehicle miles traveled (VMT).  The program‐generated net

increases in predicted annual pollutant emissions, from high‐speed rail passenger

service, in nonattainment areas would all be below general conformity de minimis

threshold values.  Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, EPA considers project‐

generated emissions below these de minimis values to be minimal.  Such projects do not

require formal conformity determinations.  With regard to greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions, the Build Alternatives would reduce CO2 emissions by 22,200 tons/year

versus the No‐Build Alternative.  As a result, the program is not anticipated to result in

significant adverse impacts to public health related to air pollutants and air toxics or

contributions to GHG emissions.

S.4.7 Noise and Vibration 

As indicated in Table S.4‐7, Alternative A would impact the fewest noise sensitive

receptors (215) while Preferred Alternative D would impact the most (806).  With

regard to vibration, Preferred Alternative C would impact the fewest sensitive receptors

(249) while Alternative B would impact the most (302).   

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

Alternative Number of Noise Sensitive 

Receptors* 

Number of Vibration 

Sensitive Receptors 

A 215 269

B 682 302

C (Preferred) 339 249

D (Preferred) 806 282

*Train noise impacts were evaluated based on projected noise level increases relative to

baseline (No‐Build Alternative) conditions at noise‐sensitive receptors.  Therefore, no impacts

are identified for the No‐Build Alternative.

S.4.8 Water Quality 

S.4.8.1 Surface Water

Preferred Alternatives C and D would result in the fewest surface water crossings (191)

while Alternatives A and B would result in the most crossings (203) (Table S.4‐1).  The

No‐Build Alternative would not impact surface waters.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-14 Tier 1 Final EIS 

S.4.8.2 Special Status Streams

All of the Build Alternatives would result in the same impacts to Biologically Sensitive

Streams (five crossings/805 feet), Illinois Natural Areas Inventory Streams (six

crossings/1,004 feet), and Nationwide Rivers Inventory Streams (three crossings/554

feet).  With regard to Navigable Waterways, Alternatives A and B would cross six

waterways (829 feet) while Preferred Alternatives C and D would cross seven

waterways (883 feet) (Table S.4‐1).  The No‐Build Alternative would not impact any

special status streams.

S.4.8.3 Wells Crossings

All of the Build Alternatives would cross the same number of Wellhead Protection Areas

(2) and Non‐Community Water Supply Well Setbacks (5) (Table S.4‐1).  The No‐Build

Alternative would not impact wells.

S.4.8.4 Floodplains

Table S.4‐8 shows that Alternatives A and B would have the least impacts to floodplains

(37 crossings and 80.0 acres) while Preferred Alternatives C and D would have the

greatest impacts (44 crossing and 85.2 acres).  The number of perpendicular crossings are

similar between all of the Build Alternatives (29 and 30).  The No‐Build Alternative

would not impact floodplains.

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

Alternative 

Number of 

Floodplains Crossed 

Number of 

Perpendicular 

Crossings 

Total Floodplain 

Impact (Acres) 

A 37 30 80.0

B 37 30 80.0

C (Preferred) 44 29 85.2

D (Preferred) 44 29 85.2

No‐Build 0 0 0

S.4.9 Wetlands 

For this Tier 1 level of analysis, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping was used

to determine potential wetland impacts.  Field investigations were not conducted to

verify this information.  Therefore, wetland delineations will need to be conducted

during the Tier 2 environmental documentation.  The wetland communities that would

be impacted by the program alternatives are palustrine (i.e., freshwater) emergent

(PEM), palustrine forested/scrub‐shrub (PFO/PSS), palustrine unconsolidated bottom

(PUB) (i.e., ponds), and riverine (i.e., rivers).  Table S.4‐1 shows that Alternatives A and
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-15 Tier 1 Final EIS 

B would have the least total impacts to wetlands (58 wetlands totaling approximately 50

acres) while Preferred Alternatives C and D would have the greatest impacts (71

wetlands totaling approximately 55 acres).  Out of all the NWI wetland communities

impacted, PFO/PSS wetland communities would have the greatest impacts.  The No‐

Build Alternative would not impact any wetlands.

S.4.10 Utilities 

The Build Alternatives would require the relocation of utilities in the corridor.  The

estimated cost to relocate these utilities has been included in the program cost estimates.

S.4.11 Visual and Aesthetic Quality Impacts 

Table S.4‐10 on the following page shows the relative visual impacts to each of the

landscape units along the Build Alternatives.  Most of the landscape units would have

minor/negligible impacts from all of the Build Alternative except for the Chicago, Joliet,

and Springfield areas, which would have moderate impacts.  The No‐Build Alternative

would not result in visual impacts.

S.4.12 Special Waste 

A database search was conducted to identify special waste sites that may be impacted by

the program.  Table S.4‐11 shows that Alternative A would potentially impact the fewest

number of sites (179) while Preferred Alternative D would impact the most sites (276).  

The No‐Build Alternative would not impact special waste sites.

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

Alternative Number of Special Waste Sites 

A 179

B 195

C (Preferred) 260

D (Preferred) 276

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

This section identifies the potential for program activities to impact resources protected

by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and Section 6(f) of the

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 such as public parks, recreation

areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic properties.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-16 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table S.4‐10.  Visual Resource Impact Summary

Landscape 

Unit 

No-Build 

Alternative Alternative A Alternative B Preferred Alternative C 

Preferred 

Alternative D 

Chicago Area     

Joliet Area     

Will County     

Grundy

County

    

Livingston

County

    

McLean

County

    

Bloomington‐

Normal Area

    

Logan County     

Sangamon

County

    

Springfield

Area

    

Macoupin

County

    

Madison

County

    

St. Louis Area     

  Major

  Moderate

  Minor/Negligible

For the Tier 1 analysis, potential impacts were considered when any portion of a Section

4(f) resource was to be acquired by the program or would physically abut the existing or

proposed right‐of‐way limit.  These impacts do not represent an official determination of

Section 4(f) “use”.  Historic resources were not included as potential Section 4(f)

properties for this analysis because a determination of adverse effect would need to be

conducted, which will not occur until the Tier 2 stage, along with official determination

of Section 4(f) “use”.  Table S.4‐12 shows that Alternatives A and B would result in the

least impacts to Section 4(f) properties (10) while Preferred Alternatives C and D would

impact the most (14).  The No‐Build Alternative would not impact Section 4(f)/6(f)

resources.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-17 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Section Alternative A Alternative B 

Preferred 

Alternative C 

Preferred 

Alternative D No-Build 

1 4 4  ‐  ‐  0

2  ‐  ‐  8 8 0

3 4 4 4 4 0

4 0  ‐  0  ‐  0

5  ‐  0  ‐  0 0

6 2 2 2 2 0

7         0

Total 10 10 14 14 0

Only one Section 6(f) property, the I&M Canal Trail, may be impacted by Alternative A

or B (Section 1).  Coordination with IDNR and NPS will be required during the Tier 2

study to determine whether these impacts constitute a conversion of protected uses

under Section 6(f) of the LWCF.

S.4.14 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

It is anticipated that the program would result in negligible indirect impacts for the

following reasons:

 The program would utilize existing rail corridors and train stations and, therefore,

would not result in the development of new access or train stations in areas that

previously did not have any passenger rail service.  

 It is anticipated that the increased ridership would have a minimal effect on

inducing development around the existing train stations, which are already located

in developed/urbanized areas.  Any induced growth that may occur would be

limited to the built‐up areas in the immediate vicinity of the train stations and would

likely include small restaurants and/or retail shops that would be attracted by the

increase in transit passengers and potential customers.  Any potential growth that

may occur would be controlled by the local, state, and federal agencies that would be

responsible for approving such development and permitting the impacts to any

regulated resources that may be impacted.

With regard to natural, cultural, agricultural, and socioeconomic resources, it is

anticipated that the program would result in negligible cumulative impacts for the

following reasons:

 Because the Chicago‐St. Louis High‐Speed Rail Program would involve primarily

the addition of a second track that would parallel the existing track, the majority of

the impacts would be within the existing right‐of‐way and in previously disturbed

areas.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-18 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Any new impacts outside of the existing track’s footprint and right‐of‐way would be

relatively narrow, linear, and distributed over a long distance (i.e., 284 miles).  As a

result, the impacts to any given resource (e.g., natural, cultural, agricultural, or

socioeconomic) within any given area (e.g., ecosystem, watershed, community) is

expected to be relatively small and would have a negligible cumulative effect when

added to any other project impacts in those areas.

 The vast majority of the study corridor has been, currently is, and will continue to be

farmland.  The remaining study corridor is mostly comprised of highly developed

urban areas that would not contribute to cumulative impacts.  The only areas that

may be experiencing land use changes that could contribute to cumulative impacts

would be the suburban areas associated with the major metropolitan areas such as

Chicago, Springfield, and St. Louis.  The potential for this program to generate land

use changes in and around the project study corridor from farmland/undeveloped

land to suburban or urban land is minimal due to the fact that the rail corridor

already exists and the program would help to reduce growth pressures on non

urban land by focusing on already built out areas and reducing traffic on the regions

roadways and highway infrastructure.

The most notable known projects that would result in cumulative impacts along the

study corridor when added to this program are the high‐speed rail improvements from

Dwight to St. Louis associated with the 2004 ROD and the high‐speed rail improvements

from Joliet to Dwight associated with the 2011 EA/FONSI.  Although minimal, the

cumulative negative impacts associated with these projects would primarily be limited

to prime farmland, vegetation/habitat, wetlands, and streams that are located along the

existing railroad corridor.  With regard to air quality, these projects are expected to

provide an overall cumulative benefit.  The high‐speed rail facility is expected to

provide service to motorists who would otherwise travel between Chicago and St. Louis

by automobile.  This shift in travel mode is expected to reduce overall vehicle emissions.  

These projects would also result in a cumulative benefit of removing automobiles from

congested roadways and improving safety by shifting automobile travelers to a safer

mode of transportation.

S.4.15 Travel Benefits 

S.4.15.1 No‐Build Alternative   

Travel Time, Frequency, and Reliability  

Existing passenger rail travel time between Chicago and St. Louis ranges from five hours

and 20 minutes to five hours and 57 minutes.  Under the No‐Build Alternative,

passenger rail travel time is expected to range from four hours and 30 minutes and four

hours and 45 minutes.   

Rail communication and signal systems would continue to be upgraded under the No‐

Build Alternative, which would improve some of the reliability and on‐time

performance issues.  However, the limited capacity (i.e., the single track through most of
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-19 Tier 1 Final EIS 

the corridor) would continue to affect reliability and on‐time performance and limit the

ability to add additional trains through the corridor.

With limits on travel time, passenger rail capacity, and reliability that remain with the

No‐Build Alternative.  Ridership in 2030 is forecast to be approximately 1.1 million

passengers with the No‐Build Alternative, an increase of over 400,000 passengers

compared to existing conditions.    

Safety

Overall passenger safety in the corridor would increase in that the passenger miles

traveled by rail in the corridor is expected to rise to 203 million passenger miles from the

existing 114 million passenger miles.  To the extent that this increase represents a

diversion from automobile travel, the safety risk to travelers would decrease in that rail

travel is safer than automobile travel.

However, fewer travelers are expected to divert from automobile to rail under the No‐

Build Alternative compared to the Build Alternatives.  As a result, the No‐Build

Alternative would have a lesser impact on increasing safety than the Build Alternatives.

S.4.15.2 Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D)

Travel Time, Frequency, Reliability

Rail passenger travel time between Chicago and St. Louis would decrease from a range of

four hours and 30 minutes to four hours and 45 minutes, to three hours and 51 minutes to

four hours and 10 minutes.  The Build Alternatives could therefore result in an additional

35‐ to 39‐minute travel time savings compared to the No‐Build Alternative.

With the Build Alternatives, three additional passenger round trips would be operated

daily.  

The Build alternatives would include the addition of a second track through most of the

corridor (Dwight to St. Louis), rail‐to‐rail grade separations, and added capacity north of

Joliet, as well as associated signal improvements.  These features would address the

reliability‐related issues due to train interference that are not addressed by the No‐Build

Alternative.   

Safety

Overall passenger safety in the corridor would increase in that the annual passenger

miles traveled by rail in the corridor is expected to rise to 328 million passenger miles

(Year 2030) from the existing 114 million passenger miles.  This is 125 million passenger

miles greater than with the No‐Build Alternative.  To the extent that this increase

represents a diversion from automobile travel, the safety risk to travelers would

decrease in that rail travel is safer than automobile travel.  Annual passenger miles by

automobile are projected to decrease by 118 million passenger miles compared to the

No‐Build Alternative.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-20 Tier 1 Final EIS 

With additional trains operating in the corridor, the possibility of train collisions is

increased.  However, the installation of a positive train control signal system, increasing

the advanced warning time, and construction of grade separations would mitigate this

risk.

Additional Travel Benefits

Improvements to passenger rail service improve its competitiveness with other modes of

travel.  When compared to the other transportation modes, the Build Alternatives would

provide more access to intermediate markets along the corridor except for automobile

travel, which currently provides access along the entire corridor via the interstate

interchanges.  Between Chicago and St. Louis, the Build Alternatives would provide

improved access to nine intermediate markets via the train stations while air and bus

travel currently provides access to only two markets (Bloomington/Normal and

Springfield).  With regard to trip service, the Build Alternatives would provide for safe

use of cell phones and internet access for diverted automobile drivers.  As for air travel,

although cell phone and internet access is available at airports, there are more

restrictions/limitations regarding their use during flight.  With regard to cost and

service, Build Alternatives would provide higher quality service than bus travel and rail

service under the No‐Build Alternative at a lower cost than air travel.

S.4.16 Transportation Impacts 

S.4.16.1 Freight Rail Service Impacts

The No‐Build Alternative includes conditions as exist in 2012, plus the completion of

construction of track upgrades, capacity improvements, and signal improvements

between Joliet and St. Louis per the 2004 ROD improvements and 2011 Dwight to Joliet

EA.  IDOT and UP have coordinated extensively on these changes so that the projected

freight, as well as the No‐Build Alternative’s intercity passenger service, can operate

with current or improved reliability relative to existing conditions.

Implementation of the Build Alternatives is not expected to result in a change in the

number of freight trains operating in the Chicago ‐ St. Louis corridor.  Freight traffic is

more dependent on markets and demand than capacity.  Some freight train scheduling

modifications to prevent conflicts with passenger rail service proposed for the Build

Alternatives.  The increased frequency of passenger trains will further restrict freight

movements, so capacity and other improvements will be required to accommodate both

freight and passenger service.    

S.4.16.2 Commuter Rail Service Impacts

Commuter rail service in the Chicago area currently operates on Sections 1 (Metra

Heritage Corridor) and 2 (Metra Rock Island District).  No other commuter rail service

operates in the corridor.  Metra has no plans for changing or expanding the existing

service along Metra’s Rock Island District, used by Alternatives C and D.  There is also

no intercity passenger service currently operated via the Metra Rock Island District.  For

Alternatives A and B (using Metra Heritage Corridor north of Joliet), Amtrak service in

the No‐Build Alternative would remain largely similar to the current service, with the
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-21 Tier 1 Final EIS 

operation of five Amtrak round trips.  Metra does have plans to expand service along

the Metra Heritage Corridor, possibly adding six trains per day.  In addition, Metra

intends to add a new station between Lemont and Lockport.  The assumed capacity

improvements for the high speed service will be developed further in the Tier 2 process

to provide appropriate additional capacity, but not for the additional commuter service.  

Further improvements (crossovers, segments of new trackage, etc) could be developed

and analyzed to support the future additional commuter rail service.

Implementation of the Build Alternatives would not result in changes in the number of

commuter trains operating daily.  The Build Alternatives could result in additional

intercity passenger trains operating, potentially affecting commuter rail service.  

S.4.16.3 Impacts to Rail Service during Construction

Under the No‐Build Alternative, construction would be limited to regular maintenance

activities, and improvements as planned by the 2004 ROD improvements.  Therefore,

impacts to railroad operations would be minimal.

In general, construction activities for the Build Alternatives would affect rail traffic by

reducing operating train speeds through the construction zones, adding to rail travel

time and, in turn, cost.  This would occur when adding new siding tracks, double‐tracks,

and connection tracks.  The other impact would be schedule adjustments for existing

operations to create windows of opportunity for temporary shutdown of rail operations

on selected track sections, such as when the new turnouts are being placed for the

passing sections and new sidings, or when there is a potential safety risk, such as during

the construction of a flyover.  During construction, there may be track outages that

would interrupt intercity passenger rail service.  As necessary, bus service would be

provided along the corridor to replace intercity passenger rail service lost during

construction.

S.4.16.4 Highway‐Rail Grade Crossings Impacts

Based on the 2004 ROD and 2011 EA, at‐grade highway‐rail crossings through most of

Sections 3 through 7 (Joliet to East St. Louis) will be upgraded to provide four‐quadrant

gates and roadway configuration/approach improvements based on crossing

diagnostics.  Under the No‐Build Alternative, no further modification to grade crossing

warning devices in the study corridor would be made.

Under the Build Alternatives, most crossings in the corridor would require some type of

improvement to accommodate the upgraded service.  For example, where additional

tracks are to be added, crossing surfaces, gates, and other equipment must be modified.   

The Build Alternatives would increase vehicular delay at highway‐rail grade crossings

for the following reasons:

 Additional intercity passenger rail service:  Gate down time would increase

because the number of passenger trains operating in the corridor would increase

from 10 per day to 18 per day.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-22 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Increase in advance warning time:  All crossings will be equipped with constant

warning time.  Currently, crossing gates are activated approximately 20 to 30

seconds prior to a train reaching the grade crossing.  For high‐speed passenger

trains, crossing gates would be activated sooner, possibly up to 90 seconds before a

train reaches the crossing.  This increase in time would cause additional vehicular

delay for motorists using the highway‐rail grade crossing.  As part of

implementation of the 2004 ROD improvements, coordination with the Illinois

Commerce Commission is underway to determine the length of time required for the

gates to be activated before a train reaches a crossing.

 The combination of additional trains and longer gate down times would increase the

amount of time that a crossing is blocked by approximately 20 minutes per day.

Every highway‐rail crossing in the study corridor was evaluated for its suitability for

grade separation to alleviate the potential for vehicle delays at crossings.  Potential grade

separation locations were identified based on setting (urban or rural) and their predicted

exposure factor, a function of train and vehicular volumes.  At the conclusion of this

evaluation, 101 crossings were identified in the study corridor for potential grade

separation, which would be evaluated further during Tier 2 analysis.

S.4.16.5 Impacts to Vehicular Crossings during Construction

Vehicular traffic would be temporarily affected at locations where grade crossings

would be separated, modified, or improved.  While the exact construction zones are not

known at this time, temporary lane closures or roadway closures would be required to

construct some of the proposed improvements.  The grade crossing improvements

would, at a minimum, require traffic to slow down as it passes through the construction

zone while new warning devices and other improvements are installed.  In some cases,

temporary diversion of traffic to adjacent crossings could be required.  Construction of

grade separations would be staged to minimize street closures.   

Where impacts to vehicular traffic exists, emergency services, schools, businesses, and

other activities requiring vehicular access would be affected by potential delays or

detours.  However, construction related impacts on vehicular traffic would be

temporary.  Traffic maintenance planning would be coordinated with schools and

emergency service providers.

S.4.16.6 Station Access and Parking Impacts

The Build Alternatives could potentially involve proposed parking expansions and

station improvements to accommodate the increase in ridership.  It is anticipated,

however, that there would be no access or traffic congestion problems associated with

the Build Alternatives.

Potential new stations will be evaluated in suburban Chicago (between Chicago and

Joliet) and St. Louis (between St. Louis and Alton).  If this program moves forward, the

potential location for these stations would be evaluated in Tier 2 studies.  It is assumed
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-23 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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..

S.5 Summary of Potential Mitigation Measures 

Table S.5‐1.  Potential Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation 

Land Use Long Term ‐ IDOT will implement the provisions of the State of

Illinois Relocation Assistance Plan in accordance with the Uniform

Relocation Act as mitigation measures where ROW acquisitions

and land use changes occur.

Cultural Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more

detailed impact determinations from Tier 2 studies.  

Natural Resources

Short Term ‐ Avoidance, minimization, and best management

practices implementation will reduce adverse impacts.  

Long Term – Coordination will continue through the Tier 2 level

with the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission regarding the

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of any impacts to prairies.  

Coordination will continue through the Tier 2 level with the

USFWS and INDR regarding the avoidance, minimization, and

mitigation of any impacts to state and federal threatened and

endangered species in the study corridor.  Upland forests will be

replaced on a 1:1 ratio in accordance with IDOT policy ʺD&E‐18

Preservation and Replacement of Treesʺ.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-24 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table S.5‐1.  Potential Mitigation Measures (continued)

Impact Mitigation 

Construction Air Quality:

Short Term ‐ State and local regulations regarding dust control and

other air quality emission reduction controls will be followed

during construction.

Noise and Vibration:

Short Term:

 Perform all construction in a manner to minimize noise and

vibration;  

 Use newer equipment with improved noise muffling, and

periodic inspection;

 Perform independent noise and vibration monitoring to

demonstrate compliance with the noise limits, and

modify/reschedule activities if maximum limits are exceeded at

residential land uses;

 Avoid hauling and unloading operations through residential

neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible;

 Construction lay‐down or staging areas should be selected in

industrially zoned districts;

 Turn off idling equipment;

 Minimize construction activities during evening, nighttime,

weekend, and holiday periods;

 Comply with all local noise and vibration ordinances and

obtain all necessary permits and variances;

 When possible, limit the use of construction equipment that

creates high vibration levels, such as vibratory rollers and

hammers, operating within 130 feet of building structures;

 Require vibration monitoring during vibration‐intensive

activities;

 Restrict the hours of vibration‐intensive equipment or activities

such as vibratory rollers so that impacts to residents are

minimal.

Water Quality/Erosion Control:

Short Term ‐ BMPs will be utilized to protect water quality. Runoff

from construction sites must be diverted from directly entering

streams during and after construction. Any impervious areas

resulting in a small reduction in recharge area will be mitigated

using stormwater retention/detention basins.

Floodplains Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more

detailed impact determinations from Tier 2 studies.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-25 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table S.5‐1.  Potential Mitigation Measures (continued)

Impact Mitigation 

Wetlands Long Term ‐ A conceptual wetland mitigation plan will be

developed to compensate for unavoidable impacts.  Coordination

with the USACE, the USFWS, and the IDNR will be required to

determine specific mitigation requirements to adequately

compensate for wetland losses pending final design to quantify

actual wetland impacts.

Noise and Vibration Long Term  

 Wheel treatments;

 Rail treatments;

 Vehicle treatments;

 Building insulation;

 Noise barriers;

 Maintenance‐

 Rail grinding on a regular basis, especially on rails that

tend to develop corrugations;

 Wheel truing to re‐contour the wheel and remove wheel

flats.  This can result in a dramatic vibration reduction.  

However, significant improvements can be gained from

simply smoothing the running surface.  Install wheel‐flat

detector systems to identify vehicles that are most in need

of wheel truing;

 Implement vehicle reconditioning programs, particularly

with components such as suspension systems, brakes,

wheels, and slip‐slide detectors;

 Relocation of Special Trackwork;

 Ballast Mats;

 Resiliently Supported Ties;

 High Resilience Fasteners;

 Floating Slab Trackbed.

Visual and Aesthetic

Quality

Long Term ‐ Views from trains into private spaces would be a

positive visual impact and views of trains and new rail lines would

be considered a minor adverse visual impact.  IDOT will determine

potential ways to help reduce minor impacts, such as planting

vegetation screens or providing aesthetically pleasing features as

part of the HSR design.   

Special Waste   Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more

detailed impact determinations from Tier 2 studies.

Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more

detailed impact determinations from Tier 2 studies.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-26 Tier 1 Final EIS 

S.6 Implementation Plan 

The Tier 1 Final EIS presents several improvements along the Chicago to St. Louis

corridor to meet the purpose and need of the program.  A corridor program of this size

and scope is rarely implemented at once, and, instead, typically requires incremental

steps to logically advance the program.  As such, the State of Illinois has developed an

implementation plan to help guide the identification and selection of staged

improvements within the corridor that can be advanced as part of the corridor wide

development plan.  Ahead of any future projects, should federal funding be utilized,

Tier 2 environmental documents must  be completed to assess the individual component

projects of the Selected Alternative carried forward from the Tier 1 EIS.  Within these

Tier 2 environmental documents, design alternatives will be evaluated, potential

environment impacts will be identified, and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate

those identified impacts will be documented.  

The following is a list of anticipated Tier 2 environmental studies.  The list is organized

from north to south.  Logical termini for the projects are based on the extent of major

infrastructure improvements and station locations.  Tier 2 project limits will be

identified using train operation modeling where additional improvements are necessary

to support service level increases (Exhibit S.6‐1).  The sequence of construction will be

based on the results of train traffic modeling.  The scope of each Tier 2 environmental

document may change depending on future funding and implementation decisions and

additional design.  Upon initiation of each Tier 2 project, IDOT, in coordination with

FRA, will determine the environmental class of action:  Categorical Exclusion (CE),

Environmental Assessment (EA), or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

 Chicago to Joliet – This Tier 2 environmental document (EIS) will include additional

track, sidings, culvert and bridge improvements, signal improvements, commuter

rail station improvements, HSR station improvements, rail flyovers, rail connections

and a parallel structure across the Chicago River at 21st Street to improve capacity

and reliability for identified incremental service additions.  

 Joliet to Springfield ‐ This Tier 2 environmental document (EIS) will include

additional track, sidings, culvert and bridge improvements and roadway grade

separations to improve capacity and reliability for identified incremental service

additions.  It is possible that this approximately 140‐mile section would be divided

into smaller sections in advance of initiating Tier 2 studies through this area.  These

smaller sections could potentially be advanced as CEs or EAs.

 Springfield ‐ This Tier 2 environmental document is part of the overall Chicago to St.

Louis Tier 1 Final EIS (included as Volume II).

 Springfield Flyover ‐ This Tier 2 environmental document (EA) will include new

track alignment and a railway flyover structure to separate the UPRR and NSRR at‐

grade crossover to improve capacity and reliability along the corridor.  
Exhibit S.6‐1. Staged Improvements  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-28 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Springfield Flyover to St. Louis Area ‐ This Tier 2 environmental document (EIS) will

include additional track, sidings, culvert and bridge improvements and roadway

grade separations to improve capacity and reliability for identified incremental

service additions.  It is possible that this approximately 100‐mile section could be

divided into smaller sections in advance of initiating Tier 2 studies through this area.  

These smaller sections could potentially be advanced as CEs or EAs.

 St. Louis Area ‐ This Tier 2 environmental document (EIS) will include new

doubletrack approaches to an increased capacity Mississippi River crossing to

improve capacity and reliability for identified incremental service additions.  The

Tier 2 environmental document will evaluate alternatives for an increased capacity

Mississippi River crossing.  A new double track connection to the Merchants bridge

will also be include to provide redundant access in the system for the Mississippi

River crossing and to provide construction staging and future maintenance routes.  

 Station Improvements – Tier 2 environmental documents (EAs) will be prepared for

proposed improvements at the HSR stations in Joliet, Dwight, Pontiac, Normal,

Lincoln, Carlinville and Alton.  Each station would be a separate project.  Proposed

station improvements include pedestrian grade separation structures to provide

access to both platforms and to avoid pedestrians crossing tracks at‐grade,

additional parking requirements and additional station capacity requirements for

identified incremental service additions.

S.7 Comments and Coordination 

The environmental process for the Chicago to St. Louis High‐Speed Rail Corridor

Program Tier 1 EIS began in February 2011.  A scoping coordination letter describing the

program and requesting comments and attendance to upcoming scoping meetings, held

on March 1st and 3rd, 2011, was forwarded to the state and federal resource agencies in

February 2011.  The agency scoping letter responses and cooperating agency responses

are located in Appendix F.  The Tier 1 Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail

Environmental Impact Statement Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal

Register on February 14, 2011, and a copy is located in Appendix G.  In March 2011, an

initial round of public meetings was held within the corridor to introduce the study to

the public, to explain the EIS process and timeline, and to get input.  After these

meetings, the study team spent the next several months developing alternatives.  In late

October and early November 2011, a second round of public meetings was held in the

cities of Joliet; Bloomington; Springfield; Carlinville; and Alton.

Section 8 of this document summarizes agency and public comments relative to the Tier

1 EIS, and provides responses submitted to those comments.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-29 Tier 1 Final EIS 

S.8 Tier 2 Environmental Evaluation: Springfield Rail 

Improvements Project (Volume II) Summary 

S.8.1 Springfield Background 

Multiple alignment options are available for the High‐Speed Rail corridor through

Springfield.  In addition, the existing and projected rail traffic on the three north‐south

corridors through Springfield causes vehicle traffic congestion, safety risks and other

problems.  These problems are primarily related to the multiple at‐grade crossings in the

three north‐south corridors.  The crossings block vehicle traffic, increase risk of crashes

and require trains to blow horns. Concurrent with the Tier 1 analysis, the Tier 2 analysis

through Springfield analyzed alternatives for enhancing UP rail line capacity and to

accommodate and reduce the effects of the increasing high‐speed passenger and freight

train traffic on the on the three north‐south rail corridors in Springfield.   

The north limit of the Springfield project is the south right‐of‐way line of Sangamon

Avenue.  The structure over Sangamon Avenue would not be affected by any of the

Springfield alternatives and provides an easily recognized project limit for the public.   

The south project limit is the north right‐of‐way line of Stanford Avenue.  The track

arrangements and rail operations are the same for all alternatives at this point, and it

provides an easily recognized project limit for the public.  The Springfield Project

includes an evaluation of vehicle congestion, public safety and other problems along all

three of the north‐south rail lines through Springfield.  

S.8.2 Springfield Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the Springfield Rail Improvements Project is to enhance rail line capacity

to accommodate and reduce the effects of the increasing high‐speed passenger and

freight train traffic on the three north‐south rail corridors that pass through Springfield:

the Union Pacific (UP), Norfolk Southern (NS), and Canadian National (CN)/Illinois &

Midland (I&M) (Exhibit S.8‐1).  The purpose includes reducing rail line effects by

improving safety, reducing congestion, and enhancing community livability and

supporting commercial activity.  

Based on the need for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project, the following goals

and objectives were established.

 Provide a route through Springfield that achieves the purpose of the Chicago to St.

Louis High Speed Rail Program.  

 Enhance rail line capacity and provide for future capacity needs to accommodate

growing passenger train traffic.  

 Improve safety and reduce congestion by reducing the number of at‐grade street

crossings in the study area with a focus on those streets with the highest traffic

volumes.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-30 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Exhibit S.8‐1.  Existing Railroad Corridors
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-31 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Improve livability and commercial activity by reducing train horn noise throughout

Springfield  and reducing the barrier effect of the rail lines on neighborhoods,

downtown and the Medical District.   

 Minimize rail operational issues, impacts to existing development, operations,

maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital costs, and impacts to social and economic

resources due to the recommended alternative.

S.8.3 Springfield Alternatives Considered 

Two alternatives, later refined to five sub‐alternatives, were carried from the Tier 1

screening to Tier 2 screening for additional analysis.  

Alternative 1 – Double track the existing 3rd Street corridor to accommodate UP freight &

passenger (HSR) traffic.  This alternative includes three sub‐alternatives, each of which

includes an alternative specific combination of grade separations and grade crossing

closures.  

 1A – Double track UP on 3rd – grade separation at passenger station.

 1B – Double track UP on 3rd – some grade separations on UP corridor only.

 1C – Double track UP on 3rd – some grade separations on all corridors.

Alternative 2 – Relocate UP freight and passenger (HSR) traffic to the 10th Street corridor.  

This alternative includes two sub‐alternatives, each of which includes a specific

combination of grade separations and grade crossing closures.   

 2A – Relocate UP to 10th – some grade separations on 10th and 19th.

 2B – Relocate UP to 10th – grade separation or closure of all crossings on 10th south

of North Grand Avenue, some grade separations on 19th.

The alternatives were compared as to how well they achieve the project purpose and

need, primarily related to safety, traffic delays, horn noise, costs and number of at‐grade

street crossings.  They were also compared as to number of residential and commercial

displacements.  

Based on this analysis, Alternatives 1A, 1B and 1C were determined to be not reasonable

and Alternatives 2A and 2B were carried forward for more detailed analysis.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-32 Tier 1 Final EIS 

S.8.4 Summary of Springfield Impacts 

Table S.8‐1.  Environmental Impact Summary of Alternatives 2A and 2B  

Impact Category

Alternative No‐Build

Alternative 2A 2B

Right‐of‐Way Acquisition (Acres) 42.0 42.6 0

Displacements      

     Residential 117 117 0

     Commercial 53 56 0

Access Changes 28 40 0

Farmland Conversion (Acres) 0 0 0

Cultural Resources      

     National Register Listed (or Eligible) Sites 0 1(3) 0

     Known Archaeological Sites 0 0 0

Noise Receptors Affected      

     Moderate Impact 9 9 5,978

     Severe Impact 9 9 1,789

Natural Resources      

     Threatened/Endangered Species  (Number of

Species) 0 0 0

     Natural Areas (Number) 0 0 0

     Native Vegetation (Acres) 0 0 0

Affected Lakes and Streams 0 0 0

100‐yr. Floodplains Crossings 0 0 0

Wetlands (Acres) 0 0 0

Parks (Number) 0 0 0

Special Waste Sites (Number within one block)      

    CERCLIS(1) 2 2 0

    LUST(2) 20 20 0

Capital Cost (Million) $315 $338 $0

(1)Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System.  

(2)Leaking Underground Storage Tank.

(3) Current access to the Great Western Railroad Depot will be relocated to the west along the same block.  

Therefore, there will be no permanent impact to this structure.   

Only those categories with impacts are discussed below.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-33 Tier 1 Final EIS 

S.8.4.1 Land Use/Socioeconomic Impacts

The number of residential and commercial displacements is shown in Table S.8‐5.  These

relocations area a result of about 42 acres of right‐of‐way required for the additional

railroad tracks and grade separations. Springfield has sufficient comparable housing and

commercial space available for these relocatees.  Right‐of‐way purchases would be

conducted in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Relocation Act) (Title 42 United States Code

Sections 4601‐4655), as amended, and the U.S. Department of Transportation

implementing regulations, which apply to all federal or federally assisted activities that

involve the acquisition of real property or the displacement of residences or businesses.   

Also shown are the number of properties which would have their existing street access

changed.  Most of these access changes are because of grade separations and would

reduce the number of access points to the property.  

Residential and business relocations will likely affect a small percentage of minority

and/or low‐income individuals.  However, the cumulative impacts are not anticipated to

be disproportionate for the retained alternatives (2A or 2B).

S.8.4.2 Cultural Resources

The Great Western Railroad Depot at Monroe and 10th Street is a two‐story, brick,

Italianate‐style structure. It was constructed in the 1850s and is considered eligible for

the National Register under Criteria A (commerce), B (in relation to Lincoln), and C.  

The property abuts the existing railroad R.O.W., but this presents no change from its

historic setting.  Vibration studies have assessed no structural impact to the property for

the retained alternatives.  However, Alternative 2B would provide an underpass along

Monroe Street which would relocate the existing access to the Depot further to the west

within the same block.  Since Alternative 2A is the Preferred Alternative, the effects

assessment on this property is “No Adverse Effect.”  

S.8.4.3 Noise

Noise impact assessments were made for each of the retained alternatives, and the

number of moderate and severe noise impact locations was calculated using the Federal

Transportation Administration (FTA) guidance manual is Transit Noise and Vibration

Impact Assessment (FTA‐VA‐90‐1003‐06, May 2006). Moderate and severe noise impacts

are based on absolute and relative decibel levels and are defined by the FTA

S.8.4.4 Special Waste

Alternatives 2A and 2B both affect the same number of CERCLIS and LUST sites.  

However, these sites are not anticipated to present significant impairments to rail

improvements associated with Alternatives 2A or 2B.   
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-34 Tier 1 Final EIS 

S.8.4.5 Travel Benefits and Transportation Impacts

There are no differences among the Springfield alternatives regarding:

 Rail service alternatives

 Travel time

 Service levels/frequencies

 Ridership/revenue

S.8.4.6 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (EO 12898), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations (February 11, 1994), directs FRA to

identify and address any disproportionate and adverse impacts on minority and/or low‐

income populations that could result from the implementation of the Preferred

Alternative proposed in Volume II of the Environmental Impact Statement. In addition,

an Environmental Justice Analysis Technical Report was prepared pursuant to the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.2(a), Final DOT Environmental Justice

Order, issued May 2, 2012.  Environmental Justice communities are known to occur

along the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2B based on the most recent census data.  

Build Alternatives

Consolidating UP rail traffic onto the 10th Street Corridor would result in adverse

disruption to communities of concern, in that unlimited access across the track would no

longer exist in the study area and road closures would cut off access.  Rail traffic has

long existed on the 10th Street Corridor, and the proposed action, while accommodating

the predicted increase in rail traffic, would remain on an existing rail alignment except

for the section between Ridgely Avenue and Phillips Street.    

Improvements at remaining at‐grade crossings and construction of new grade

separations would offset adverse impacts from road closures along the 10th Street

corridor by creating safer railroad crossings for vehicles and pedestrians with four

quadrant gates that won’t allow crossing while trains are present. Grade separations will

eliminate delays caused by train traffic, as well as safer crossings.    

Relocations likely would affect about 23 minority residences and five minority‐owned

businesses; comparable housing for the displaced residents is available within close

proximity to the railroad corridor.  Available space is also within close proximity for

businesses which choose to relocate in the same vicinity.   

Minority displacements are about 20 percent of the total residential displacements, and

minority‐owned businesses likely to be displaced are about 10 percent of total business

displacements.  Included in the commercial designation for both the Preferred

Alternative and Alternative 2B are three government or non‐profit establishments: the

Illinois Environmental Protection (EPA), the Salvation Army, and Planned Parenthood.

Nearby property appears to be available for these facilities to relocate. The Salvation

Army is moving to a new location at 100 N. 9th Street independently of this project.

Positive impacts to Springfield, the communities of concern and neighborhoods would

result from the elimination of 32 at‐grade crossings, improvements to remaining at‐
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-35 Tier 1 Final EIS 

grade crossings, and the elimination of train horn blowing.  Benefits from these actions

center on increased safety, reduced delays and general noise reduction city‐wide.  New

grade separations would increase safety not only for vehicular traffic but also

pedestrians traveling across these railroad crossing locations. Safety would also increase

for vehicular and pedestrian traffic from proposed improvements to at‐grade crossings

remaining along the 10th and 19th Street Corridors.  The proposed at‐grade crossing

treatments would support elimination of blaring noise from train horns traveling

through Springfield’s communities.  

The Preferred Alternative or Alternative 2B would allow for the creation of quiet zones

throughout Springfield that would greatly enhance livability for all residents.  Safety

will also be enhanced for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians by the construction of

nine grade separations on the most highly traveled roadways.  The remaining at‐grade

crossings would have four‐quadrant railroad crossing gates so that access across the

track is secured while trains are present.  The construction of the nine grade separations

and the abandonment of the 3rd Street tracks would greatly reduce delay times for

traffic traveling east or west through Springfield.  

The relocation of the 3rd Street Corridor to the 10th Street Corridor under the Preferred

Alternative or Alternative 2B would encourage potential opportunities for commercial

expansion and development of businesses around the Medical District along 3rd Street.  

Other opportunities would also be possible along the abandoned 3rd Street Corridor,

such as a city‐wide pedestrian/bike path or parkway for additional green space.  This

enhancement to the community could provide the opportunity for businesses to cater to

needs of additional visitors to the Downtown area and the Lincoln sites.  

In addition, a multimodal facility, consisting of a train station and transit hub for buses

and taxi service, has been planned by Springfield for the 10th Street Corridor.  This

facility is intended to provide services and jobs to Springfield’s east side.  This complex

is proposed to be constructed on about four city blocks and may contain restaurants,

shops, office space, a daycare facility, meeting rooms, and parking.  This facility

conforms to Springfield’s Downtown Redevelopment Plan and Springfield’s 2030

Comprehensive Plan.  

Therefore, because the benefits to communities of concern in the project area were

determined to outweigh the adverse effects to these communities, no disproportionately

high and adverse human health and environmental effects to Environmental Justice

populations are anticipated to result from implementation of the project.

S.8.5 Springfield Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 2A is the Recommended Alternative for the following reasons:

 Alternative 2A would have lower capital cost than Alternative 2B.

 Alternative 2B would have lower delays and crash rates and, but this results

primarily from constructing new grade separations at Monroe and Washington

Streets and closing Capitol Avenue and Enos Streets.  The grade separations both
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail S-36 Tier 1 Final EIS 

have a benefit/cost ratio much less than 1.0.  The grade separations and street

closures create undesirable access and adverse travel issues.  

 Alternative 2B would require more right‐of‐way acquisition, and would result in

more commercial displacements and more parcels with a change in access.  

 There are no other anticipated differences between the impacts for Alternatives 2A

and 2B including environmental justice concerns, Section 4(f) properties, noise or

vibrations impacts.

S.8.7 Summary of Mitigation

Table S.8‐2.  Mitigation  

Resource 

Impacted Mitigation 

Land Use

IDOT would implement the provisions of the State of Illinois

Relocation Assistance Plan in accordance with the Uniform

Relocation Act as mitigation action where ROW acquisitions and

land use changes occur.

Social/Economic

Any adverse impacts of the proposed project would not be

disproportionately borne by minority or low‐income populations

yielding no need for mitigation action.

Cultural

The Section 106 process would continue with Memoranda of

Understanding for any adverse effects to National Register or

National Register eligible sites pending SHPO’s review of this

Draft Document.  

Natural Resources

Avoidance, minimization, and best management practices

implementation would reduce adverse impacts. Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act consultation would be ongoing to protect

threatened and endangered species in the project area.

Air

Quality

IDOT’s Standard Specification on dust control would be

implemented during construction to limit dust emissions during

construction.  

Noise and

Vibration

Quiet zones would be enacted throughout the City on all rail

corridors traversing the town.  

Water

Quality/Resources

Best Management Practices would be utilized to protect water

quality.  Almost all runoff from construction would be diverted

directly into the City’s combined sewer system during and after

construction and treated by the Springfield Metro Sanitary District.

Visual and

Aesthetic Quality

Views of trains and new rail lines would be considered a minor

adverse visual impact. IDOT would determine potential ways to

help reduce minor impacts, such as planting vegetation screens or

providing aesthetically pleasing features as part of the design.  

Special Waste Special waste sites purchased for additional right‐of‐way would be

remediated prior to construction of the proposed action.