ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES

Section 5

5. Environmental Consequences
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-1 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.0 Environmental Consequences 

In addition to the No‐Build Alternative, impacts for four Build Alternatives

(Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D) were evaluated that extend

from Chicago, IL to St. Louis, MO and are comprised of various combinations of the

seven sections described in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.7.1 and illustrated in Exhibit 3.3‐10.  

The descriptions of these full‐length Build Alternatives and the sections that they are

comprised of are presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.7.2.  

The impacts presented in this chapter are based on a Tier 1 level of analysis which does

not involve detailed design and field surveys.  Although these impacts are presented at

this level for the Springfield area, they are also presented in Volume II of this document

as part of the more detailed analysis associated with the Tier 2 Environmental

Evaluation for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project.   

It is important to note that the Tier 2 level of analysis in Springfield is more detailed than

the Tier 1 level of analysis.  As result, a direct comparison cannot be made between the

Tier 1 impacts presented in Volume I and the Tier 2 impacts presented in Volume II for

the Springfield area.  Any differences in impacts in the Springfield area between the Tier

1 and Tier 2 studies are a result of their different levels of analysis.

Since the publication of the Tier 1 DEIS, this chapter has been revised to include the

additional impacts that would be associated with the straightening of some curves along

the existing railroad alignment within Sections 3, 6, and 7 in order to accommodate the

higher train speeds of 110 mph.   

5.1 Land Use Impacts 

5.1.1 No-Build Alternative 

Although some land use changes would be likely under the No‐Build Alternative,

attempting to estimate such changes would be speculative.  Therefore, no additional

potential impacts were quantified for the No‐Build Alternative.  While there would be

no displacements or additional right‐of‐way needed for the No‐Build Alternative, the

long‐term land use benefits discussed below for the Build Alternatives would not be

realized under the No‐Build Alternative.

5.1.2 Alternative A 

5.1.2.1 Regional Implications

Alternative A would utilize existing rail corridors that serve established cities and

villages.  As a result, no direct major influences in land use are anticipated at the

regional level.  The direct impact on land use and development would be a function of:  

land available for development or redevelopment; regional and local markets; and the

plans, zoning ordinances, and economic development programs of local government.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-2 Tier 1 Final EIS 

These potentials would occur in each of the cities where there would be a station stop for

high‐speed rail service.

Alternative A would provide an alternative to driving or flying for business or personal

activities and would reduce travel time for thousands of trips along the corridor.  Over

1.5 million residents live within a five‐mile radius of six of the stations in the corridor:

Chicago, Joliet, Bloomington‐Normal, Springfield, Alton, and St. Louis.  Each of these

communities offers unique economic, educational, medical, and cultural opportunities.  

By facilitating access to these corridor communities, high‐speed rail service could

enhance the way people live, work, shop, go to school, interact with other businesses

and services, and choose to participate in cultural and recreational activities.

Improved rail service would increase the opportunities and convenience of attending

universities or visiting medical centers.  Decreased commuting time could provide part‐

time students with options for living at home to save money, and opportunities for

people to obtain work in other communities along the corridor.  Students and workers

could also use high‐speed rail service for weekend trips and for traveling to research

and conference centers, such as in Springfield.  Similarly, since Bloomington and

Springfield would be more quickly accessible from Chicago, the way some businesses

view these areas as places to locate and to market could change.  Access to major

medical centers would be enhanced, especially for those traveling long distances for

specialized and/or frequent medical care.  High‐speed rail service would also expand

possibilities for one‐day field trips for school and special interest groups.  The presence

of these opportunities could create an environment favorable for new economic activity

and investment.  New businesses considering relocation in Illinois stress the importance

of local transportation options, the work force within a reasonable commuting time, and

access to nearby cities and markets.

Beneficial long‐term land use impacts are expected to occur as a result of program

implementation.  A more efficient and safer transportation facility would be completed

that yields greater user benefits in respect to travel time, traffic congestion, traveler

safety, energy consumption, and travel reliability.  Improved transportation efficiency

under Alternative A would also benefit communities along the HSR corridor.  As a

result of this improvement, land development would be expected to increase along or

near the HSR corridor through conversion of low density residential and zoned rural

land to more intensive uses, such as higher density residential and commercial uses.  As

a result of the change in the intensity of the land use, employment opportunities,

earnings, and tax collection would also increase.

5.1.2.2 Rural Areas and Small Communities

Freight trains currently pass through all of the communities where high‐speed rail

service would operate.  Freight trains are longer and heavier than the proposed high‐

speed rail trains.  Impacts from high‐speed rail service would be nominal compared to

the No‐Build Alternative, considering freight train traffic would be the same with either

the No‐Build or Alternative A.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-3 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Concern has been expressed about safety where there are established land uses on either

side of the railroad tracks that attract pedestrian movement across or along the right‐of‐

way.  Of particular concern are children who are used to walking to school or

recreational activities by trespassing on the railroad right‐of‐way.  

In January 2004, FHWA and FRA issued a ROD for a 2003 Chicago ‐ St. Louis High‐

Speed Rail Project FEIS allowing improvements in the Dwight to St. Louis portion of the

HSR corridor to be advanced.  In addition to the 2004 ROD improvements, a 2011

EA/FONSI was approved to allow proposed improvements to a section of the UP track

between Joliet and Dwight.  The projects that have advanced based on the 2004 ROD

and 2011 FONSI are described in Chapter 3 Alternatives, Table 3.2‐1.  IDOT and FRA are

now evaluating the provision of a full double‐track corridor between Chicago and St.

Louis in this Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 Final EIS.   

As part of the 2004 ROD, IDOT agreed to contact each community in the Chicago to St.

Louis High‐Speed Rail corridor south of Dwight to discuss the possibility of fencing

along the railroad tracks.  If a community was interested in having fencing installed,

IDOT coordinated with that community to determine the location, style, and height of

the proposed fencing as well as whether the fencing would be on one or both sides of

the railroad tracks.  If an agreement could be reached, fencing was to be installed.  

Fencing was not installed unless agreed to by the local community.

If the project would impact any existing fencing or fencing that was installed as part of

the 2004 ROD, that fencing would be replaced.   Where fencing was not already installed

as part of the 2004 ROD, fencing would be considered within many of the urbanized

areas as part of Alternative A.  Where fencing is provided, it would be designed to

provide the best possible protection to discourage trespassing and to direct pedestrians

to a nearby warned crossing, usually within one block of the existing crossing.  IDOT

would work with local communities on the detailed design of fencing.  Communities

with historic qualities and unique architecture could request more decorative fencing

along the railroad.  Fencing would not be installed unless agreed to by the local

community.

5.1.2.3 Displacements

The HSR corridor under Alternative A would run on existing rail lines and on a second

mainline track adjacent to existing rail lines.  In the majority of the study corridor under

Alternative A, proposed improvements would occur within the existing right‐of‐way

and would not require additional right‐of‐way.  However, there are areas that the right‐

of‐way would need to be modified and widened.

An adverse long‐term land use impact under Alternative A would be the conversion of

currently developed residential and commercial areas to rail and associated right‐of‐way

uses and the displacement of residences and businesses within the proposed right‐of‐

way.  Using aerial photography, areas of new proposed right‐of‐way for the HSR were

evaluated to determine the number of buildings that may need to be relocated.  Some of

the buildings in the new right‐of‐way were residential homes, farm silos, sheds, barns,
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-4 Tier 1 Final EIS 

and outbuildings.  These numbers are subject to change during the final design and

acquisition phase as these are aerial estimates.  The results are shown in Table 5.1‐1.  

Under Alternative A, 183 buildings would be displaced.  Based on the Tier 1 evaluation,

Alternative A would not impact sensitive land use facilities (i.e., schools, hospitals, or

churches).

Table 5.1‐1.  Buildings Potentially Displaced by Alternative A

Section Number of Buildings 

Potentially Displaced

Full Length

Alternative 183

1 38

3 58

4 8

6 72

7 7

In addition, Alternative A would require between 642 to 658 acres of proposed new

right‐of‐way in which land use changes could occur (Table 3.3‐6).  Right‐of‐way

acquisition could also result in the fragmentation of larger parcels along the HSR

corridor, which could no longer support existing land uses.  Since these are estimates

based on review of aerial photography, these numbers are subject to change during Tier

2 studies and the final design and acquisition phase.  Displacement impacts would not

be significant as commercial and industrial uses are typically located along railways,

and these uses buffer residential development from the railroad.  In some instances,

relocation of the displaced residences and businesses could result in loss of existing

open space as replacement homes could be constructed on existing vacant lands.  The

majority of the land in the more densely developed affected areas is currently zoned for

residential and commercial mixed land uses.  Therefore, this would not result in major

changes to anticipated land uses in the study corridor.

5.1.2.4 Land Use Compatibility

Many counties and cities within the study corridor have developed long‐term

comprehensive land use and transportation plans that focus on economic growth and

physical growth and development.  Examples of these plans that consistently support

rail transportation improvements in their communities include the GoTo 2040

Comprehensive Regional Plan (Chicago Metropolitan Agency For Planning, 2010), the

Bloomington‐Normal Long‐Range Transportation Plan 2035 (McLean County Regional
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-5 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Planning Commission, 2007), the Springfield Comprehensive Plan (Springfield‐

Sangamon County Regional Planning Commission, 2000), the Logan County

Comprehensive Plan (Logan County Regional Planning Commission, 2006), the Will

County 2030 Transportation Plan (CH2M HILL Inc., 2009), the Madison County 2020

Land Use And Resource Management Plan (Madison County Planning and

Development Department, 2000), and the St. Louis Metropolitan Area Regional

Transportation Plan 2040 (East‐West Gateway Council of Governments, 2011).  The HSR

Program would generally compliment these future plans.

Local plans focus on permitted land uses and development scale within land use zones.  

Because Alternative A is adjacent to the existing transportation corridors, the majority of

the adjacent land uses are related to commercial or industrial uses.  Where Alternative A

would be located within areas zoned for residential there would be a land use

inconsistency.  However, the alignment would be adjacent to the existing corridors and,

as discussed in the following Section 5.2, Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice

Community Impacts, field reviews, meetings, and coordination with community leaders

would be conducted to minimize any potential impacts to community routes and

facilities.

Alternative A would convert some agricultural lands to a transportation‐related use,

which would not be consistent with the local plans and policies that are related to the

protection and conservation of agricultural lands.  As described above, the design of the

alternatives has been adjacent to existing transportation corridors to the extent possible

to minimize agricultural impacts.  In addition, the HSR station areas would encourage

higher densities, which would protect agricultural lands by reducing sprawl.  Impacts

on agricultural lands are described in Section 5.4, Agriculture.

Effects related to increased density around the HSR stations would promote transit‐

oriented development.  The stations could help revitalize the downtown areas of

communities along the study corridor, including Chicago, Joliet, Bloomington‐Normal,

Springfield, St. Louis, and others, and associated impacts would be beneficial.  

Development of parking to accommodate demand at the HSR stations would evolve as

the number of passengers increases, would be consistent with applicable plans, and

would be compatible with adjacent land uses.  The additional parking would therefore

result in negligible impacts.  IDOT and the operators would work with local

communities to meet their needs for circulation improvements to support the expanded

passenger ridership.

Overall, the proposed HSR Alternative A would be highly compatible with local and

regional plans that support rail systems and transit‐oriented development.  This

Alternative would also provide improved inter‐modal connectivity with existing local

and commuter transit systems.

5.1.3 Alternative B 

Alternative B would have similar land use impacts to those listed under Alternative A

above.  However, Alternative B would require more right‐of‐way acquisition and
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-6 Tier 1 Final EIS 

displacements than Alternative A.  Alternative B would require approximately 678 acres

of proposed new right‐of‐way.  Potential displacements for this alternative are shown in

Table 5.1‐2 and include 238 buildings.   

Table 5.1‐2.  Buildings Potentially Displaced by Alternative B

Section Number of Buildings 

Potentially Displaced

Full Length

Alternative 238

1 38

3 58

5 63

6 72

7 7

Since the listed displacements are estimates based on review of aerial photography,

these numbers are subject to change during Tier 2 studies and the final design and

acquisition phase .  Based on the Tier 1 evaluation, Alternative B would not impact

sensitive land use facilities (i.e., schools, hospitals, or churches).

Impacts to land use compatibility under Alternative B would be similar to those under

Alternative A.  Local community comprehensive plans support rail transportation

improvements.  Alternative B may have slightly more impacts than Alternative A

because it includes Section 5 in the City of Springfield, which has a small section of

proposed new alignment that is not along existing rail corridor.  Where Alternative B

would be located within areas zoned for residential there would be a land use

inconsistency.  However, the majority of the alignment would be adjacent to the existing

rail corridors and, as discussed in Section 5.2, Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice

Community Impacts, field reviews, meetings, and coordination with community leaders

would be conducted to minimize any potential impacts to community routes and

facilities.   

5.1.4 Preferred Alternative C 

Preferred Alternative C would have similar land use impacts to those listed under

Alternative A above.  However, Preferred Alternative C would require more right‐of‐

way acquisition and displacements than Alternatives A or B.  Preferred Alternative C

would require between 700 and 716 acres of proposed new right‐of‐way.  Potential

displacements for this alternative are shown in Table 5.1‐3 and include 262 buildings.   
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-7 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 5.1‐3.  Buildings Potentially Displaced by Preferred Alternative C

Section Number of Buildings 

Potentially Displaced

Full Length

Alternative 262

2 117

3 58

4 8

6 72

7 7

Since these are estimates based on review of aerial photography, these numbers are

subject to change during Tier 2 studies and the final design and acquisition phase.  

Based on the Tier 1 evaluation, Preferred Alternative C would not impact sensitive land

use facilities (i.e., schools, hospitals, or churches).

Impacts to land use compatibility under Preferred Alternative C would be similar to

those under Alternative A.  Local community comprehensive plans support rail

transportation improvements.  Preferred Alternative C may have slightly more impacts

than Alternative A because it includes Section 2 in the City of Chicago and Chicago

suburbs, which has a new alignment that is not along the existing Amtrak rail corridor.  

Where Preferred Alternative C would be located within areas zoned for residential

there would be a land use inconsistency.  However, the majority of the alignment would

be adjacent to the existing rail corridors, Section 2 has existing commuter rail service,

and, as discussed in Section 5.2, Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Community

Impacts, field reviews, meetings, and coordination with community leaders would be

conducted to minimize any potential impacts to community routes and facilities.   

5.1.5 Preferred Alternative D 

Preferred Alternative D would have similar land use impacts to those listed under

Alternative A above.  However, Preferred Alternative D would require more right‐of‐

way acquisition and displacements than the other three alternatives.  Preferred

Alternative D would require approximately 736 acres of proposed new right‐of‐way.  

This is the highest acreage of proposed new right‐of‐way of all the alternatives.  

Potential displacements for this alternative are shown in Table 5.1‐4 and include 317

buildings, also the highest of all of the alternatives.   
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-8 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 5.1‐4.  Buildings Potentially Displaced by Preferred Alternative D

Section Number of Buildings 

Potentially Displaced 

Full Length Alternative 317

2 117

3 58

5 63

6 72

7 7

Since these are estimates based on review of aerial photography, these numbers are

subject to change during Tier 2 studies and the final design and acquisition phase.  

Based on the Tier 1 evaluation, Preferred Alternative D would not impact sensitive land

use facilities (i.e., schools, hospitals, or churches).

Impacts to land use compatibility under Preferred Alternative D would be similar to

those under Alternative A.  Local community comprehensive plans support rail

transportation improvements.  Preferred Alternative D may have slightly more impacts

than Alternative A because it includes Section 2 in the City of Chicago and Chicago

suburbs, which has new alignment that is not along existing Amtrak rail corridor, and

Section 5 in the City of Springfield, which has a small section of proposed new

alignment that is not along existing rail corridor.  Where Preferred Alternative D would

be located within areas zoned for residential there would be a land use inconsistency.  

However, the majority of the alignment would be adjacent to the existing rail corridors,

Section 2 has existing commuter rail service, and, as discussed in Section 5.2,

Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Community Impacts, field reviews, meetings,

and coordination with community leaders would be conducted to minimize any

potential impacts to community routes and facilities.   

5.1.6 Summary of Land Use Impacts 

Table 5.1‐5 contains a summary of the land use impacts for comparison of the program

alternatives.  Preferred Alternative D would have the highest area of new right‐of‐way

and number of displacements.  Therefore, Preferred Alternative D would have the

highest likelihood for land use conversions along the corridor from residential and

commercial uses to rail and associated right‐of‐way uses.  Furthermore, Preferred

Alternative D would have the highest potential for land use incompatibility because it

contains both Section 2 and Section 5, which would follow new routes along primarily

existing railroad corridors between Chicago and Joliet and through Springfield.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-9 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Alternative A would have the lowest amount of new right‐of‐way, potentially displace

the least amount of people, and the entire route runs along existing Amtrak alignment.  

Alternative A would have the lowest probability for impacts to land use.

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

Alternative 

Number of 

Buildings 

Potentially 

Displaced 

Proposed New 

Right-of-Way 

(Acres) 

Land Use Compatibility – 

Proposed New Routes* 

Alternative A 183 642‐658 None

Alternative B 238 678‐679 Section 5 ‐ Springfield

Preferred

Alternative C 262 700‐716 Section 2 – Chicago to Joliet

Preferred

Alternative D 317 736‐737

Section 2 and Section 5

Chicago to Joliet and

Springfield

No‐Build 0 0 None

*A proposed new route is defined as another existing railroad route that is not used by Amtrak.

5.1.7 Mitigation 

Right‐of‐way purchases conducted pursuant to a federally funded program would

follow the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as

amended, (Uniform Relocation Act) (42 USC 4601 et seq.), and U.S. DOT regulations, 49

CFR Part 24, which applies to all federal or federally assisted activities that involve the

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

would implement the provisions of the State of Illinois Relocation Assistance Plan in

accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act.

5.2 Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice 

Community Impacts 

5.2.1 Methods for Evaluating Impacts 

Potential socioeconomic impacts include:

 Changes to neighborhood or community cohesion such as splitting neighborhoods,

isolating a portion of a neighborhood, or separating residents from community

facilities or changes to community/neighborhood travel patterns and accessibility

 Potential displacements of households, businesses, recreation areas, and community

facilities
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-10 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Changes to the regional and/or local economy from employment opportunities,

construction expenditures, and increased rail operations.

Potential environmental justice impacts include any change that would cause

disproportionate adverse effects on low‐income and/or minority populations.

5.2.2 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No‐Build Alternative, construction would not occur; therefore, there would

be no impacts from construction.  There would be no displacements and no impacts to

low‐income or minority population.  The long‐term socioeconomic benefits discussed

below for the build alternatives would not be realized under the No‐Build Alternative.

5.2.3 Alternative A 

Increases in train speeds along the high‐speed rail corridor may require grade

separations at some crossings, temporary crossing closures during construction,

increases in the level of grade, or increased traffic warnings and protection.  All of those

changes have the potential to impact community cohesion, access to community

facilities, and vehicle routes.  Information on ambulance, police, fire, school district, and

agri‐businesses would be considered when making any crossing treatment

recommendations.  Access to properties would be maintained.  Field reviews, meetings,

and coordination with community leaders would be conducted to provide additional

background information about each crossing to minimize any potential impacts to

community routes and facilities.

Construction activity could create a temporary increase in traffic congestion and

disruption of patterns and accessibility in neighborhoods and communities.  There may

be temporary inconveniences to people living in areas surrounding construction.  

Additional traffic and noise from construction may also temporarily diminish quality of

life for nearby residents.  These adverse impacts would be temporary during the

construction phase.

The majority of the HSR Program occurs on existing rail lines and existing right‐of‐way,

therefore the number of potential displacements would be minimized.  However, there

are areas that the right‐of‐way would need to be modified and widened.  

As previously indicated in Table 5.1‐1, Alternative A would result in approximately 183

displacements. Most of the displacements occur in the major communities along the

route, which would have sufficient housing opportunities both for sale and for rent to

accommodate those displaced.  Neighborhoods in the dense, urban areas that lose 1 or 2

households in a neighborhood may not experience any changes to community or

neighborhood cohesion.  However, in rural areas, housing along the proposed program

route is in small clusters.  The loss of 1 or 2 households in a small neighborhood

community could be meaningful.  It is anticipated that, when possible, many of the

displaced families would prefer and attempt to relocate in the same general area.  IDOT

would comply with the Uniform Relocation Act and would provide “just compensation”

for any property acquisition.  There do not appear to be any community facilities (i.e.,
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-11 Tier 1 Final EIS 

schools, hospitals, or churches) in the proposed right‐of‐way, so there are no anticipated

impacts to community facilities.

Alternative A would have direct impacts to employment throughout northern and

central areas of Illinois and portions of Missouri near St. Louis.  The location of new

employment would depend on which companies are hired to do the work.  A high

proportion of the work would most likely be in Northeastern Illinois near Chicago,

because there are major engineering, manufacturing, and construction firms in this area

of the state.  The overall program would create jobs, both in the production of materials

and equipment used and the on‐site construction activities.  During the construction

period, communities along the route would benefit from the construction crews

spending money at local hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and shops.  The wages that

individuals and firms receive while working would have indirect impacts on the

economy.  Their wages would be recycled throughout the economy as workers buy

houses, furniture, groceries, and clothes.  These expenditures create new jobs and

increased sales in the economy, producing a multiplier effect on the economy.  The

geographic distribution of these economic impacts would depend on the location of

firms supplying the labor and materials, but they have the potential to be dispersed

throughout Illinois and to some extent the Midwest.

The operation of the HSR system would result in the creation of new jobs for ticket

agents and other railroad personnel from increased services at existing stations.  The

impacts from expenditures for operations would most likely be concentrated in the

communities that the line would serve.  The HSR system would also increase the flow of

travelers between cities along the route and enhance economic activity in communities

with stations on the line (Chicago, Summit, Joliet, Dwight, Pontiac, Normal, Lincoln,

Springfield, Carlinville, Alton, and St. Louis).  Many of the HSR system passengers

would likely be commuters, whose travel may have occurred whether or not the high

speed rail was in place.  However, there would be recreational or tourist‐oriented

induced ridership of people travelling for weekend trips to Chicago, St. Louis, or even

historic areas of Springfield.  Other communities with stations may experience small

increases in economic activity from induced ridership.  Detailed information on

ridership is available in Chapter 3.

Along the Alternative A corridor, there are three Census Tracts with greater than 50

percent of the population below the poverty line.  The low‐income tracts are located in

Cook County and McLean County.  Of the 38 Census block groups with minority

populations of 50 percent or greater, approximately 63 percent of them are located along

the corridor in Cook County.  Table 5.2‐1 shows geographic distribution of low‐income

and minority populations by section.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-12 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Populations

Section 

Census Tracts Census Block Groups 

Total 

Affected 

Populations Below 

Poverty Line (>50)1

Total 

Affected 

Minority Populations 

(>50)2

Full Length Alternative 132 3 230 38

1 36 0 53 24

3 45 1 95 6

4 12 0 18 0

6 35 0 58 3

7 4 2 6 5

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010

1 Tracts in this column have 50 percent or more of the population below the poverty line.

2 Block groups in this column have 50 percent or more of the population identified as a minority.  

Except for the St. Louis and Chicago area, no new proposed right‐of‐way occurs in low‐

income or minority block groups identified in Table 5.2‐1, so there are no anticipated

disproportional displacements of those populations.  The buildings that could

potentially be displaced around downtown St. Louis do not appear to be neighborhoods

or residences.  In Chicago, no low‐income tracts would be impacted by the proposed

right‐of‐way; however, approximately 18 Block Groups with minority populations

greater than 50 percent also have areas near proposed right‐of‐way.  There is the

potential for some minority populations to be displaced around Chicago.  Whether these

displacements would result in disproportionate impacts cannot be determined as part of

this Tier 1 level of study.  However, this determination will be made during the more

detailed Tier 2 studies.

5.2.4 Alternative B 

The employment, economic, and operation impacts from the HSR Program would be

realized on a regional level because of the extensive scope of the program.  Economic,

employment, and operation impacts associated with Alternative B would be similar to

those discussed under Alternative A.

There is a potential for a greater number of displacements (approximately 238), and the

impacts would be similar to Alternative A because of the track shift near Springfield.

However, impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A since most

of the displacements occur in the major communities along the route.  There do not

appear to be any community facilities (i.e., schools, hospitals, or churches) in the

proposed right‐of‐way, so there are no anticipated impacts to community facilities.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-13 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Alternative B includes approximately six more block groups than Alternative A with

minority populations greater than 50 percent that would be impacted.  New proposed

right‐of‐way occurs in minority block groups around Chicago and St. Louis, so there is a

potential for minority populations to be displaced.  In addition, new proposed right‐of‐

way occurs in St. Louis in low‐income neighborhoods identified in Table 5.2‐2.  

However, the buildings that could potentially be displaced around downtown St. Louis

do not appear to be neighborhoods or residences.  Approximately 18 Block Groups in

the Chicago area with minority populations greater than 50 percent have areas in the

proposed right‐of‐way.   Whether these displacements would result in disproportionate

impacts cannot be determined as part of this Tier 1 level of study.  However, this

determination will be made during the more detailed Tier 2 studies.

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

Populations

Section 

Census Tracts Census Block Groups 

Total 

Affected 

Populations 

Below Poverty 

Line (>50)1

Total 

Affected 

Minority 

Populations (>50)2

Full Length

Alternative 133 3 230 44

1 36 0 53 24

3 45 1 95 6

5 13 0 18 6

6 35 0 58 3

7 4 2 6 5

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010

1 Tracts in this column have 50 percent or more of the population below the poverty line.

2 Block groups in this column have 50 percent or more of the population identified as a

minority.  

5.2.5 Preferred Alternative C 

The employment, economic, and operation impacts from the HSR Program would be

realized on a regional level because of the extensive scope of the program.  Economic,

employment, and operation impacts associated with Preferred Alternative C would be

similar to those discussed under Alternative A.

There is a potential for a greater number of displacements (approximately 262) because

of the route chosen through Chicago.  The area is more densely populated, and, thus,

there is a greater potential for displacements.  There also appear to be more
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-14 Tier 1 Final EIS 

neighborhoods with row houses and townhouses.  More than half of the displacements

occur in Cook County, which would have sufficient housing opportunities both for sale

and for rent to accommodate those displaced.  There do not appear to be any

community facilities (i.e., schools, hospitals, or churches) in the proposed right‐of‐way,

so there are no anticipated impacts to community facilities.

Preferred Alternative C includes approximately seven more tracts and 45 more block

groups with minority populations greater than 50 percent than Alternative A that would

be impacted.  New proposed right‐of‐way occurs in low‐income and minority block

groups identified in Table 5.2‐3 near Chicago and St. Louis.  In Chicago, approximately

32 block groups that have greater than 50 percent minority and five census tracts with

greater than 50 percent below poverty have potential displacements in the right‐of‐way.  

The buildings that could potentially be displaced around downtown St. Louis do not

appear to be neighborhoods or residences.   Whether these displacements would result

in disproportionate impacts cannot be determined as part of this Tier 1 level of study.  

However, this determination will be made during the more detailed Tier 2 studies.

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

Minority Populations

Section 

Census Tracts Census Block Groups 

Total 

Affected 

Populations Below 

Poverty Line (>50)1

Total 

Affected 

Minority 

Populations (>50)2

Full Alternative 167 10 294 83

2 71 7 117 69

3 45 1 95 6

4 12 0 18 0

6 35 0 58 3

7 4 2 6 5

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010

1 Tracts in this column have 50 percent or more of the population below the poverty line.

2 Block groups in this column have 50 percent or more of the population identified as a

minority.

5.2.6 Preferred Alternative D 

The employment, economic, and operation impacts from the HSR Programwould be

realized on a regional level because of the extensive scope of the program.  Economic,

employment, and operation impacts associated with Preferred Alternative D would be

similar to those discussed under Alternative A.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-15 Tier 1 Final EIS 

There is a potential for the greatest number of displacements (approximately 317) under

this alternative because of the more densely populated route chosen through Chicago

and the construction of new tracks through Springfield.  However, Cook County and

Sangamon County are major metropolitan areas, which would have sufficient housing

opportunities both for sale and for rent.  There would be sufficient housing to

accommodate those displaced.  There do not appear to be any community facilities (i.e.,

schools, hospitals, or churches) in the proposed right‐of‐way, so there are no anticipated

impacts to community facilities.

Under Preferred Alternative D approximately 7 more tracts and 51 more block groups

with minority populations greater than 50 percent than Alternative A that would be

impacted.  New proposed right‐of‐way occurs in low‐income and minority block groups

identified in Table 5.2‐4 near Chicago and St. Louis.  In Chicago, approximately 32 block

groups that have greater than 50 percent minority and 5 census tracts with greater than

50 percent below poverty also have displacements in the right‐of‐way.  The buildings

that could potentially be displaced around downtown St. Louis do not appear to be

neighborhoods or residences.   Whether these displacements would result in

disproportionate impacts cannot be determined as part of this Tier 1 level of study.  

However, this determination will be made during the more detailed Tier 2 studies.

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

Minority Populations

Section 

Census Tracts Census Block Groups 

Total 

Affected 

Populations Below 

Poverty Line (>50) 

Total 

Affected 

Minority 

Populations (>50) 

Full Alternative 168 10 294 89

2 71 7 117 69

3 45 1 95 6

5 13 0 18 6

6 35 0 58 3

7 4 2 6 5

5.2.7 Summary of Socioeconomic and Community Impacts 

Table 5.2‐5 contains a summary of the socioeconomic and community impacts for

comparison of the Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives

C and D).  Preferred Alternative D has the possibility to displace the greatest number of

people; furthermore, it has the highest potential to displace low‐income and minority

populations because it would require the highest acreage of new right‐of‐way among all

the alternatives.  In addition, it passes through a more densely populated part of

Chicago.  Alternative A would potentially displace the least amount of people and

would potentially impact the smallest number of low‐income and minority populations.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-16 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Alternative A requires the lowest acreage for new proposed right‐of‐way.  Although all

of the Build Alternatives have the potential to impact environmental justice populations,

there is not enough information available at this Tier 1 level of analysis to make a

determination as to whether or not they would result in disproportional impacts.  A

more detailed analysis will be conducted during the Tier 2 studies to determine these

impacts and to ensure compliance the Executive Order 12898.

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

Alternatives and Sections

Build Alternative/ 

Section 

Number of Buildings 

Potentially 

Displaced 

Census Tracts 

with Populations 

Below Poverty 

Line (>50) 

Census Block 

Groups with 

Minority 

Populations 

(>50) 

Alternative A 183 3 38

Alternative B 238 3 44

Preferred Alternative

C 262 10 83

Preferred Alternative

D 317 10 89

No‐Build 0 NA NA

Chicago to Joliet Sections

1 38 0 24

2 117 7 69

Joliet to Springfield Section

3 47 1 6

Springfield Sections

4 8 0 0

5 63 0 6

Springfield to Alton Section

6 34 0 3

Alton to St. Louis Section

7 7 2 5

5.3 Energy 

5.3.1 Energy Consumption during Construction 

5.3.1.1 No‐Build Alternative  

The No‐Build Alternative would not require any construction.  Therefore, no changes in

energy consumption are expected.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-17 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.3.1.2 Build Alternatives  

During construction of any of the Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and

Preferred Alternatives C and D), additional energy would be expended beyond what

would be used for normal rail operations.  This additional energy would be consumed

on a short‐term basis by construction of improvements required to implement the HSR

service and by construction‐related delays to existing freight, Metra commuter, and

Amtrak passenger service.  However, as described below, once the HSR service begins,

long‐term energy savings would be realized.

5.3.2 Energy Consumption during Operation 

The Build Alternatives were evaluated in terms of their potential to realize savings in

energy consumed by all major modes of transportation in the study corridor.  As noted

in Section 4.3, under existing conditions, travel by rail is the most energy efficient mode

of transportation.  As a result, any substantial increase in rail ridership associated with

any of the Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and

D) that would shift ridership from the other less efficient modes of transportation would

result in conservation of travel‐related energy.

The estimated passenger‐miles of travel by mode and alternative are shown in Table 5.3‐

1.  For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that Alternatives A and B, and

Preferred Alternatives C and D would have same ridership and passenger‐miles of

travel.   

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

Alternative Rail Automobile Bus Air Total 

Existing (2010) 114 6,499 26 140 6,779

No‐Build (2030) 203 7,871 35 236 8,345

A, B, C

(Preferred), or D

(Preferred)

328 7,753 31 214 8,326

As Table 5.3‐1 shows, when comparing the No‐Build Alternative with the Build

Alternatives, there would be an increase in rail passenger‐miles while the other three

modes of transportation would experience a decrease.  This could be attributed to a shift

in ridership from the other three modes to rail.   

The future energy use of all the modes in the corridor was estimated by calculating the

total passenger‐miles of travel projected for 2030 by mode for the No‐Build and Build

Alternatives, and then applying the same energy consumption rates that were used for

the existing conditions, as described in Section 4.3.  Annual energy consumption by

mode and alternative is summarized in Table 5.3‐2.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-18 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 5.3‐2.  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 5.3‐2 show that the total energy consumption from intercity

passenger travel under the No‐Build Alternative would be higher than the Build

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

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

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

net decrease in energy consumption.  As previously mentioned, this could be attributed

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

5.4 Agriculture 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires federal agencies to assess a project’s impact

on farmland by coordinating with the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources

Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) to complete a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment

(LESA).  Sites are evaluated using a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form that uses

a point system to score the agricultural quality of the project corridor, including the

presence or absence of prime farmland soils.  Sites receiving a score of less than 160

points do not require further evaluation.  If a site scores greater than 160 points, then

new alternatives should be proposed.  Federal agencies may also deny funding to state

and local agencies for projects with high LESA scores; however, this is not required.   

5.4.1 No-Build Alternative 

No impacts.   

5.4.2 Build Alternatives 

Coordination has not yet been conducted with the USDA NRCS but will be completed

as part of the program development.  Because the proposed HSR corridor closely

follows existing railroad tracks, few impacts to farmland would occur.  Soils classified as

“prime farmland” would be acquired; however, impacts to agricultural operations along

the corridor would be minimal.   

Impacts to soils classified as prime farmland would range from 1,804 acres (Alternative

B) to 1,903 acres (Preferred Alternative C), a difference of approximately 99 acres.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-19 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Alternative A would convert 449 acres of prime farmland soils to right‐of‐way,

Alternative B would convert 461 acres, Preferred Alternative C would convert 498 acres,

and Preferred Alternative D would convert 510 acres of prime farmland soils to right‐

of‐way.  The remaining impacts are to soils within existing right‐of‐way.   These impacts

are listed in Tables 5.4‐1 and 5.4‐2.  Sections in Cook, Madison, St. Clair, and St. Louis

counties  were excluded because they are completely within urban boundaries within

these counties, thus exempting them from consideration under the Farmland Protection

Policy Act.

Table 5.4‐1.  Prime Farmland Soil Impacts by Section

Section Right-of-Way Type County Acres Impacted 

1 Construction in Proposed New ROW Will 0

1 Construction in Existing ROW Will 2

2 Construction in Proposed New ROW Will 49

2 Construction in Existing ROW Will 49

3 Construction in Proposed New ROW Will 1

3 Construction in Existing ROW Will 86

3 Construction in Proposed New ROW Sangamon 23

3 Construction in Existing ROW Sangamon 105

3 Construction in Proposed New ROW McLean 109

3 Construction in Existing ROW McLean 396

3 Construction in Proposed New ROW Logan 46

3 Construction in Existing ROW Logan 205

3 Construction in Proposed New ROW Livingston 12

3 Construction in Existing ROW Livingston 49

3 Construction in Proposed New ROW Grundy 26

3 Construction in Existing ROW Grundy 102

4 Construction in Proposed New ROW Sangamon 5

4 Construction in Existing ROW Sangamon 24

5 Construction in Proposed New ROW Sangamon 17

5 Construction in Existing ROW Sangamon 9
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-20 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Section Right-of-Way Type County Acres Impacted 

6 Construction in Proposed New ROW Sangamon 126

6 Construction in Existing ROW Sangamon 131

6 Construction in Proposed New ROW Macoupin 99

6 Construction in Existing ROW Macoupin 248

6 Construction in Proposed New ROW Jersey 2

6 Construction in Existing ROW Jersey 10

Table 5.4‐2.  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 1,804

C (Preferred) 1,405 498 1,903

D (Preferred) 1,390 510 1,900

No‐Build 0 0 0

As the HSR corridor would follow the existing railroad tracks, no farms would be

bisected by any of the Build 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 program proposes safety

upgrades at railroad crossings along the corridor.  These safety upgrades would include

the installation of safety features such as flashing lights, warning bells, and gates, to

warn motorists of approaching trains.  The improved safety at these crossings would

positively impact farm vehicles.  During the Tier 2 studies, measures to avoid and

minimize farmland impacts will be evaluated.

5.5 Cultural Resources 

This section identifies the potential for program activities to have an adverse effect

(impact) on resources protected by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

An adverse effect is found when a Federal action alters, directly or indirectly, any of the

characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the

National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the propertyʹs

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Examples of

adverse effects that could occur as result of this program include:

 Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property;
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-21 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Removal of the property from its historic location;  

 Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the

propertyʹs setting that contribute to its historic significance; and

 Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of

the propertyʹs significant historic features.

Properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the NRHP are also protected under Section

4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act.   

5.5.1 Historic Architectural Resources 

5.5.1.1 No‐Build Alternative

No impacts.

5.5.1.2 Build Alternatives

The properties identified in Section 4.5.1 were reviewed for potential impacts.  Potential

impacts were considered where proposed improvements (construction activity) would

physically impact the property on which the resource lies.  

A list of potentially impacted historic architectural resources is provided by section in

Table 5.5‐1 while Table 5.5‐2 presents the number of these resources potentially

impacted for each alternative.  Following these tables is a detailed discussion of each

property by section.  Further evaluation will be needed during the Tier 2 studies in order

to identify potentially eligible historic properties that are currently unknown and to

make determinations of effect in accordance with Section 106.

Table 5.5‐1.  Potentially Impacted Historic Architectural Resources

Resource City/County Section 

Lockport Historic District Lockport/Will 1

Joliet Steel Works Joliet/Will 1

Hamilton Park Chicago/Cook 2

Dwight Chicago and Alton Railroad Depot Dwight/

Livingston 3

Bridge over Market Street FAU6359

carrying Southern Pacific Railroad

Bloomington/

McLean 3

Lincoln Courthouse Square Historic

District

Lincoln/ Logan 3

Susan Lawrence Dana House   Springfield/

Sangamon

4

Route 66, Girard to Nilwood Macoupin 6
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-22 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 5.5‐2.  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

Section 1

Lockport Historic District  

This district, bounded by Seventh, Eleventh, Canal and Washington Streets, was added

to the NRHP in 1975 based on its engineering significance and association with

significant events.  Improvements in this area would include construction of a second

track, and the acquisition of an additional right‐of‐way at this crossing between Seventh

and Ninth Streets (Exhibit 5.5‐1).  Direct impacts to the Gaylord Building are not

anticipated.

Joliet Steel Works (Joliet)

The site of a former steel mill that was dismantled in the 1930s, the site is now owned

and maintained by the Forest Preserve District of Will County.  The site was added to

the NRHP in 1991 based on its association with events that made a significant

contribution to history.  The site includes a 1.5 mile interpretive trail through the

remains of the mill, as well as a picnic shelter and restroom.  Improvements in this

section would include the construction of a third track, including several areas where

additional strips of right‐of‐way would be required (Exhibit 5.5‐2).   

Section 2

Hamilton Park (513 West 72nd Street, Chicago)  

This 30‐acre park in the Englewood neighborhood is located adjacent to the west side of

Section 2, between 72nd and 74th Streets.  The park, owned by the Chicago Park District,

includes a swimming pool; baseball/softball diamonds; basketball, handball, and tennis

courts; a playground; and a gymnasium.  It was listed on the NRHP in 1995.  

Improvements in this area would include construction of an additional track and would

require a strip of additional right‐of‐way approximately 20 feet wide, totaling

approximately 0.6 acres (Exhibit 5.5‐3).

   
Exhibit 5.5-1. Potential Impacts to the Lockport Historic District 
Exhibit 5.5-2. Potential Impacts to the Joliet Steel Works Historic Site
Exhibit 5.5-3. Potential Impacts to the Hamilton Park
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-26 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Section 3

Dwight Chicago and Alton Railroad Depot (119 West Main Street, Dwight)  

This depot was originally built in 1891 and was added to the NRHP in 1982 based on its

Richardsonian Romanesque style and its association with significant events.

Improvements in this area would include construction of a second track, including the

potential acquisition of additional right‐of‐way from the property (Exhibit 5.5‐4).

Bridge over Market Street FAU6359 carrying Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) Railroad

(Bloomington)  

This bridge, owned by Union Pacific, which carries three tracks over Market Street in

Bloomington, was constructed in 1889.  It was evaluated by IDOT and placed on the

Historic Bridge List, which meant that it was determined to be eligible for the NRHP

based on its engineering/bridge type.  Improvements in this area, which includes

construction of a second mainline track, would occur within existing railroad right‐of‐

way, but could include alterations to this existing structure (Exhibit 5.5‐5).   

Lincoln Courthouse Square Historic District  

This district, roughly bounded by Sangamon, Pekin, Chicago, Delaware, Broadway, and

Pulaski Streets, was added to the NRHP in 1985 based on its architectural significance

and association with significant events.  The proposed alignment passes through the

district and the existing Amtrak station is a contributing resource for the district, as is

the former Gulf, Mobile and Ohio (GMO) Railroad Freight Station.  Improvements in

this area would include construction of a second track, including additional right‐of‐way

on both sides of the track (Exhibit 5.5‐6).   

Section 4

Susan Lawrence Dana House (301 Lawrence Avenue, Springfield)  

The Dana‐Thomas House, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, was completed in 1904.  The

site was added to the NRHP in 1974 based on its architectural significance; it became a

National Historic Landmark in 1976 and a State Historic Site in the 1980s.  

Improvements in this area would include the construction of a second track, including

additional right‐of‐way from the local street (South 3rd Street) in front of the property

(Exhibit 5.5‐7).  These improvements would result in the loss of access to the carriage

house and backyard.

Section 6

Route 66, Girard to Nilwood  

After being designated as part of Route 66 in 1926, this section was quickly replaced in

1930 with a new alignment to the east.  This section crosses the proposed alignment in

two locations.  Just south of Girard, Route 66, now named Cambridge Road, crosses the

railroad in a section where no improvements are proposed.  The second crossing occurs

in Nilwood, where Route 66, now Morean Street, crosses the railroad in the center of

town.  Improvements in this area would include construction of a second track,

including the acquisition of additional right‐of‐way at this crossing (Exhibit 5.5‐8).   
Exhibit 5.5-4. Potential Impacts to the Dwight Chicago and Alton Railroad Depot 
Exhibit 5.5-5. Potential Impacts to the Bridge Over Market Street 
Exhibit 5.5-6. Potential Impacts to the Lincoln Courthouse Square District 
Exhibit 5.5-7. Potential Impacts to the Susan Lawrence Dana House
Exhibit 5.5-8. Potential Impacts to Route 66, Girard to Nilwood 
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-32 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.5.1 Archaeological Resources 

5.5.1.1 No‐Build Alternative

No impacts.

5.5.1.2 Build Alternatives

The properties identified in Section 4.5.2 were reviewed for potential impacts.  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

where construction activities would occur.  Further evaluation will be required during

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

resource.  As noted in Section 4.5.2, this evaluation was based only on previously‐

identified resources.  Additional investigations will be required during Tier 2 studies to

identify potential archaeological resources.

5.6 Natural Resources 

5.6.1 No-Build Alternative 

No impacts.

5.6.2 Build Alternatives 

5.6.2.1 Geology and Soils

The program is not likely to have a negative impact on geology and soils, except for

agricultural soils that would be acquired for new right‐of‐way (discussed in Section 5.4,

Agriculture).  Thick deposits of glacial till and loess are found throughout the study

corridor, and in some places these deposits may contain unconsolidated materials.  

Appropriate construction techniques will be incorporated into the design to ensure

stability in these areas.  Soil erosion could occur during construction but will be

minimized by the implementation of BMP’s.   

Because the southern end of the program, particularly Madison County, is in proximity

to the New Madrid Seismic Zone, consideration should be given to design features that

would prevent potential earthquake damage.

5.6.2.2 Ecological Resources

Wildlife Habitat

Impacts to forested areas, prairie, and native vegetation would result in loss of wildlife

habitat.    However, the impacts to wildlife habitat and associated wildlife species,

including migratory birds, would primarily be limited to narrow, linear strips of edge

habitat that are immediately adjacent to the existing and active railroad right‐of‐way.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-33 Tier 1 Final EIS 

As a result, habitat fragmentation would not result from this proposed project.  In

addition, the wildlife species typically inhabiting these areas will likely be considered

edge species that are associated with disturbed conditions and have become habituated

to railroad activity.   

Regarding noise and vibration impacts, the project is not expected to result in significant

increases when compared to existing conditions.  In the case of vibration, passenger

trains generate much less vibration than freight trains.  Moreover, as previously

mentioned, the wildlife species that currently inhabit the corridor are likely to be

habituated to the existing noise and vibration levels.  As a result, any increase in noise

and vibration that would be associated with the any of the Build Alternative is not

expected to significantly impact wildlife species.

For the same reasons previously given for wildlife species in general, the Build

Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D) are also not

expected to result in significant impacts to migratory birds and their habitat.  However,

more detailed evaluations of these impacts, along with further coordination with

USFWS and IDNR, will be conducted during the Tier 2 studies.

Forests

Impacts to forests within the construction limits are listed by section and alternative in

Tables 5.6‐1 and 5.6‐2.  Forest locations were determined using land cover data sets for

Illinois (http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdihome/webdocs/landcover/gap.html).  Forest

fragmentation and its detrimental effect on wildlife habitat is not a major concern for

this program as it would follow existing right‐of‐way and no forest blocks would be

bisected.  As shown in Table 5.6‐2, all alternatives would impact forests.  Alternative A

would impact 237.8 acres of forest, Alternative B would impact  236.1 acres, Preferred

Alternative C would impact 254.3 acres, and Preferred Alternative D would impact

248.1 acres.

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

*Hickory Creek Barrens Nature Preserve

**Funks Grove Nature Preserve (0.9 acre), Thaddeus Stubblefield Grove Nature Preserve (6.9

acres), Hitts Siding Prairie Nature Preserve (0.6 acre), and Funks Grove Land and Water Reserve

(7.8 acres)

***Denby Prairie Nature Preserve

Section Forest Prairie Remnants Protected Natural 

Areas 

Designated Critical Habitat 

(Hines Emerald Dragonfly) 

1 5.9 0.0 0.0 3.7

2 22.9 0.0 0.3* 0.0

3 75.3 216.9 16.2** 0.0

4 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 148.8 16.2 1.14*** 0.0

7 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-34 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Prairie

The majority of all the program alternatives would pass through agricultural land.  

IDOT maintains a list of prairie remnants that occur along roadways and railways

(http://www.dot.state.il.us/desenv/environment/roadsideprairie.html).  As shown in

Table 5.6‐2, all Build Alternatives would impact 233.1 acres of documented prairie

remnants.   

5.6.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

Designated Critical Habitat within the proposed alternatives:  Hine’s emerald dragonfly

(E) – Alternatives A and B in Section 1 would impact approximately 3.7 acres of the

USFWS designated Critical Habitat Unit 7 for the federally endangered Hine’s emerald

dragonfly (Tables 5.6‐1 and 5.6‐2).  The location of the Critical Habitat Unit 7 is shown in

Exhibit 4.6‐11 while the general description of habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly

is presented in Appendix C.  As shown in Exhibit 4.6‐11, the other Critical Habitat Units

that are located along this portion of Section 1 fall mostly outside of the one‐mile wide

study area and, therefore, would not be impacted by Alternatives A and B.  Preferred

Alternatives C and D would not impact any Critical Habitats.    

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 through the

Section 1 corridor associated with Alternatives A and B.   

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 stage.     

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 0.0

D (Preferred) 248.1 233.1 17.74 0.0

No‐Build 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-35 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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 Table 5.6‐3.  General descriptions of habitat for these species

are presented in Appendix C.  The location of these species records is shown on Exhibits

5.6‐1 through 5.6‐3.  There are no known occurrences of federally threatened or

endangered species within the existing or proposed right‐of‐way other than the

designated Critical Habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly.  Most of the records for

state listed species within the right‐of‐way occur in Sections 3 and 6.  Since these sections

are included in all alternatives, there is little difference in the species records for each

alternative.  All 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 5.6‐3are 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.

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

and Proposed ROW

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Number of 

Records Section

Mammal

Franklin’s Ground Squirrel  Spermophilus franklinii Threatened 8 3 and 6

Birds

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Endangered 1 3

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Endangered 5 3

Reptile

Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Endangered 10 3

Fish

River Redhorse Moxostoma carinatum Threatened 2 3

Invertebrates

Eryngium Stem Borrer Papaipema eryngii Endangered 8 3

Hineʹs Emerald Dragonfly Somatochlora hineana Endangered 1 1

Salamander Mussel Simpsonaias ambigua Endangered 2 3

Spike Elliptio dilatata Threatened 2 3

Plants

Blazing Star Liatris scariosa var. ieuwlandii Threatened 9 2 and 6

Bunchflower Melanthium virginicum Threatened 4 6
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-36 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

and Proposed ROW (continued)

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Number of Section 

Ear‐leaved Tomanthera auriculata Threatened 12 3 and 6

Large Ground Astragulus crassicarpus Endangered 2 6

Leafy Prairie Dalea foliosa Endangered 1 1

Mead’s Milkweed Asclepias meadii Endangered 2 2

Oklahoma Grass Calpogon Endangered 7 3

5.6.2.4 Natural Areas

The Illinois Nature Preserves Commission maintains a list of the protected areas of

Illinois.  Six natural areas are located within the construction limits of the program

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 acre), Funks Grove Land and Water Reserve (7.9

acres), and Denby Prairie Nature Preserve (1.14 acres).  Impacts to protected natural

areas are identified by section and alternative in Tables 5.6‐1 and 5.6‐2.  As shown in

Table 5.6‐2, Alternative A and B are the alternatives with the least impact to protected

natural areas (17.44 acres); Preferred Alternatives C and D would impact 17.74 acres.   

5.7 Air Quality 

5.7.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative would not cause any air quality impacts.  When evaluating

pollutant emissions in this section, the No‐Build Alternative is used a baseline to

compare the impacts of the Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred

Alternatives C and D).

5.7.2 Build Alternatives 

The Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D)

would result in an increase in rail operations between Chicago, Illinois and St. Louis,

Missouri.  Increases in diesel train emissions would be offset by decreases in regional

roadway vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicular congestion.  This section discusses

the potential impacts of the Build Alternatives related to increases in diesel locomotive

emissions from the additional diesel train service, idling and moving trains near

stations, and train operations and associated service at maintenance and/or storage

facilities.
Lake

Michigan

Spike (2)

Unusual Concentration of Invertebrates (2)

Blazing Star (3)

Mead's Milkweed (2)

Blazing Star (2)

Leafy Prairie Clover (1)

Ear-leafed Foxglove (4)

Loggerhead Shrike (1)

Upland Sandpiper (5)

Blanding's Turtle (10)

Ear-leafed Foxglove (2)

Eryngium Stem Borer (6)

Oklahoma grass pink orchid (5)

River Redhorse (2)

Salamander Mussel (2)

Tallgrass Prairie (6)

Dry Sand Prairie, Midwest Type (2)

Moist Sand Prairie, Midwest Type (2)

Oklahoma grass pink orchid (2)

Moist Sand Prairie, Midwest Type (3)

Unusual Concentration of Invertebrates (2)

Wet Prairie, Midwest Type (2)

Tallgrass Prairie (2)

6

30

34

52

12

20

45

14

41

12

6

45

30

52

41

55

90

294

355

WILL

COOK

KANE

KANKAKEE

LIVINGSTON

LASALLE

DUPAGE DEKALB

KENDALL

FORD IROQUOIS

GRUNDY

U.S. Highway

Interstate Highway

Species Occurrence (# of occurrences)

Study Corridor

County Boundary

Not To Scale

Exhibit 5.6-1. State Threatened and Endangered Species Records and Prarie Remnant Locations (1 of 3)
Not To Scale

Tallgrass Prairie (2)

Spike (2)

Unusual Concentration of Invertebrates (2)

Franklin's Ground Squirrel (1)

150

36

51

24

136

150

150

51

55

39

74

72

474

155

155

155

474

72

155

MCLEAN

LOGAN

MACON

TAZEWELL

DEWITT

PIATT

WOODFORD

PEORIA

SANGAMON

LIVINGSTON

MASON

MENARD

MARSHALL

CHRISTIAN MOULTRIE

LASALLE

STARK

U.S. Highway

Interstate Highway

Species Occurrence (# of occurrences)

Study Corridor

County Boundary

Exhibit 5.6-2. State Threatened and Endangered Species Records and Prarie Remnant Locations (2 of 3)
High Prairie (1)

Ear-leafed Foxglove (6)

Franklin's Ground Squirrel (7)

High Prairie (6)

Large Ground Plum (2)

Blazing Star (4)

Bunchflower (4)

ST. LOUIS

ST. CHARLES

67

50

40

36

55

72

70

270

64

72

MACOUPIN

MADISON

BOND

MONTGOMERY

MORGAN

SANGAMON

GREENE

CHRISTIAN

JERSEY

CLINTON

ST. CLAIR

SCOTT

FAYETTE

U.S. Highway

Interstate Highway

Species Occurrence (# of occurrences)

Study Corridor

County Boundary

Not To Scale

Exhibit 5.6-3. State Threatened and Endangered Species Records and Prarie Remnant Locations (3 of 3)
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-40 Tier 1 Final EIS 

As documented in this section, the Build Alternatives are unlikely to cause or exacerbate

a violation of applicable NAAQS, or measurably increase air toxics or MSAT levels. It is

also unlikely that the construction of a Build Alternative, which would follow state and

local regulations regarding construction activities and equipment, would cause a

violation of the applicable standards.  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 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  

5.7.2.1 Nonattainment Air Quality Impacts

The Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D)  

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 Build Alternatives would increase diesel

locomotive emissions, these increases would be offset by decreases in regional mobile

source auto VMT and modest increases in average driving speeds.   

Emissions of criteria air pollutants from diesel locomotives were estimated based upon

fuel consumption data from the Air Quality Technical Report for the 2000 Chicago ‐ St.

Louis High‐Speed Rail Project EIS (Parsons, 2000) and fuel‐consumption‐based emission

rates published by the EPA (EPA, 2009).  Among the multiple locomotive types

considered in that report, the type assumed to consume fuel at the greatest rate was

selected.  This assured a conservative analysis pending the development of more

detailed and up‐to‐date assumptions in future environmental studies.

Table 5.7‐1 shows that program‐generated net increases in predicted annual pollutant

emissions, from high‐speed rail passenger service, in nonattainment areas are all below

general conformity de minimis threshold values.  Pursuant to the General Conformity

Rule, EPA considers program‐generated emissions below these de minimis values to be

minimal.  Such programs do not require formal conformity determinations.

5.7.2.2 Potential Local Air Quality Impacts

Along the Rail Right‐of Way

The Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D)

would increase the emissions of diesel exhaust and associated directly‐emitted air

pollutants along the rail line.  However, the spatial and temporal density of these

emissions would not be nearly sufficient to cause or substantially contribute to localized

violations of applicable NAAQS.

For example, the technical documentation for the Carbon Monoxide Screen for

Signalized Intersections (COSIM) Version 3.0 establishes pre‐screen criteria for

determining whether or not a COSIM analysis is warranted for a roadway intersection.  

For the Chicago area, the pre‐screen threshold associated with the worst‐case (closest)

receptor distance is an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 16,000 for one leg of the

intersection.  Associated CO emission factors (grams per mile per vehicle) range from  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-41 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

in Nonattainment Areas1

Pollutant Context

Operational Emissions2 (tons/yr) 

Chicago 

Nonattainment 

Area (ozone, 

PM2.5)

St. Louis 

Nonattainment 

Area (ozone, 

PM2.5) 

Granite City 

Nonattainment 

Area (Pb)

VOC

Build 3.5 2.6 N/A

No‐Build 1.1 0.5 N/A

Program Net 2.4 2.1 N/A

De Minimis Threshold 100 100 N/A

Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A

NOx

Build 104.7 77.8 N/A

No‐Build 31.9 15.1 N/A

Program Net 72.8 62.7 N/A

De Minimis Threshold 100 100 N/A

Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A

PM2.5

Build 2.4 1.8 N/A

No‐Build 0.7 0.3 N/A

Program Net 1.7 1.5 N/A

De Minimis Threshold 100 100 N/A

Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A

Pb

Build N/A N/A 0.00003

No‐Build N/A N/A 0.00001

Program Net N/A N/A 0.00002

De Minimis Threshold N/A N/A 25

Threshold Exceeded? N/A N/A No

1 Diesel fuel consumption rates from “Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail Project, Air Quality

Technical Report, Appendix A”, prepared by DeLeuw, Cather for Illinois Department of

Transportation, October 1998.

2 Emission rates are from USEPA estimates for 2035 (USEPA, 2009).

3 General Conformity De Minimis Threshold values from 40 CFR §93.153.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-42 Tier 1 Final EIS 

10.2 to 22.1.  By comparison, consider high‐speed passenger train service along the study

corridor.  Assume eight daily round‐trips and a reasonable worst‐case (low) travel speed

of 40 mph due to a localized speed constraint.  For 4,000‐horsepower locomotives

emitting CO at the maximum rate permitted under federal regulation, total CO

emissions per mile per day along this portion of the corridor would be equivalent to

approximately 46 to 100 daily motor vehicles, well below the 16,000 ADT trigger for

COSIM analysis at roadway intersections.  This means program‐generated increases in

wayside train activity would not be expected to be sufficiently large to cause or

substantially contribute to a localized violation of the CO NAAQS.  Similar reasoning

would apply to PM2.5 – another criteria air pollutant that can be associated with localized

impacts – as well as air toxics.  

At Train Stations

The Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D) are

anticipated to increase vehicular (automobile) traffic near the proposed station locations.  

However, while the proposed program would substantially enhance passenger train

travel speeds over an extended route, the frequency of service would be relatively

modest.  This would tend to reduce the temporal concentration of motor vehicles

associated with trips to and from train stations along the corridor.  Consider the COSIM

pre‐screen threshold introduced in the previous paragraph. Among the stations that

would be served by high‐speed rail along the study corridor, Chicago’s Union Station

would likely be the one with the highest proportion of rail passenger trip origins and

destinations.  It is reasonable to expect an increase of no more than approximately 600

daily automobile trips to and from Union Station as a result of the program.  This

prediction is based upon annual passenger mile data provided in Section 5.3 of this

document, published data on station passenger access modes, and reasonably

conservative assumptions about relationships between the rate of passenger access to

the station and passenger miles associated with the proposed program.  Six hundred

daily automobile trips along a single section of roadway adjacent to Union Station

would represent less than 4 percent of COSIM’s 16,000‐ADT pre‐screening threshold.  

Therefore, the program would not be expected to generate additional automobile traffic

related to station patronage sufficient to cause or substantially contribute to a violation

of the CO NAAQS. Similar reasoning would apply to PM2.5 – another criteria air

pollutant that can be associated with localized impacts – as well as air toxics.

At‐Grade Crossings

The Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D) may

increase vehicular delays at some at‐grade crossings. However, given the relatively short

length and rapid passages of high‐speed passenger trains and modest predicted

increases in the rates of train service, it is unlikely that these delays would result in any

substantial impact on air quality levels. Delays could include closures of crossing gates

as much as 90 seconds before each high‐speed train crosses the affected at‐grade

intersection.  Allowing for complete passage of the train and brief periods to complete

the lowering and raising of gates, delays of approximately 110 seconds per train passage

would be typical for an on‐road vehicle approaching the at‐grade crossing just as the
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-43 Tier 1 Final EIS 

gates are lowered. Delays would be shorter for vehicles approaching after initial closure

of the crossing.  By comparison, average vehicle delays of up to 30 to 75 seconds per

cycle are typical for multi‐phase stoplight‐controlled intersections. Assuming eight high‐

speed passenger train round trips per day, high‐speed passenger train passages would

be responsible for crossing closures lasting about two percent of each 24‐hour day.  The

percentage would be slightly higher if only daytime and evening hours were

considered.  

Maintenance/Storage Yards

The additional trains associated with the Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and

Preferred Alternatives C and D) would increase maintenance and storage requirements

and possibly train operations at these yards. However, it is unlikely that the small

increase in these operations would adversely impact nearby sensitive land uses.  

It is also unlikely, given the small projected increase in emissions from the increase in

rail service and the offset of these emissions by decreases in vehicular emissions, that the  

program would substantially increase regional emissions of ozone precursors, air toxics,

or GHG.

5.7.2.3 Construction Impacts

In general, construction‐related effects of the Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B

and Preferred Alternatives C and D) would be limited to short‐term increased fugitive

dust and mobile‐source emissions during construction. State and local regulations

regarding dust control and other air quality emission reduction controls would be

followed.   

5.7.2.4 Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would also be generated during the construction

phase of the program.  However, these emissions are likely to be relatively minor given

the nature and size of the program, and the limited duration of the construction

activities.

CO2 is the primary GHG of concern with respect to fossil fuel combustion in general and

transportation emission sources in particular.  Table 5.7‐2 summarizes predicted

emissions for four alternative modes of transportation utilized by travelers within the

study corridor.  These emission values were derived from mass emission rates per

passenger mile (CCP/CNT, 2006) published by the Center for Clean Air Policy and

Center for Neighborhood Technology and estimated/predicted annual passenger‐miles

of travel from Tables 5.3‐1 of this Tier 1 Final EIS.

This table demonstrates that increases in CO2 emissions associated with increased rail

service are expected to be more than offset by reductions in CO2 emissions due to

reduced use of other transportation modes.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-44 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

within the Study Corridor   

Mode 

Emissions (metric tons/yr) 

Build No-Build Difference 

Rail 34,060 19,320 14,730

Automobile 1,863,830 1,892,330  ‐28,500

Bus 1,980 2,220  ‐240

Air 60,260 66,400  ‐6,140

Totals 1,960,130 1,980,270  ‐20,150

5.7.3 Conclusion 

While the proposed program would increase diesel locomotive emissions, these

increases would be offset by decreases in regional mobile source auto vehicle miles

traveled (VMT) and modest increases in average driving speeds.  The program‐

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

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

minimis threshold values.  Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, the USEPA

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 20,150 metric 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.

5.8 Noise and Vibration 

The noise and vibration analysis was undertaken to identify and evaluate the potential

noise and vibration impacts.  Impacts were assessed in accordance with the guidelines

set forth in the FRA High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact

Assessment manual (USDOT, 2005).  The evaluation methods in the Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual (USDOT,

2006) and the CREATE Noise Model (USDOT, 2006) were also used for estimating noise

and vibration levels attributable to freight trains since the FRA manual does not address

this issue.  The goals of this noise and vibration analysis were to identify the potential

for impacts and to determine their order of magnitude.

5.8.1 Operation Noise Impact Criteria 

The criteria in High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment

(USDOT, 2005) were used to assess baseline (No‐Build Alternative) ambient noise levels

and future noise impacts from train operations.  They are founded on well‐documented

research on community reaction to noise and are based on change in noise exposure  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-45 Tier 1 Final EIS 

using a sliding scale.  As the existing level of ambient noise increases, the allowable level

of project noise increases, but the total allowable increase in community noise exposure

is reduced.  This reduction accounts for an unexpected result ‐‐ noise exposure levels

that are less than the existing noise exposure can still cause impact.  The FRA noise

impact criteria are applicable to three categories of land use and are summarized in

Table 5.8‐1.

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

Criteria

Land Use 

Category 

Noise Metric 

(dBA) Description of Land Use Category 

1 Outdoor Leq(h)1

Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended

purpose.  This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet,

and such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as

well as National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor use.

2 Outdoor Ldn

Residences and buildings where people normally sleep.  This category

includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to

noise is assumed to be of utmost importance.

3 Outdoor Leq(h)1

Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use.  This

category includes schools, libraries, and churches where it is important

to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and

concentration on reading material.  Buildings with interior spaces

where quiet is important, such as medical offices, conference rooms,

recording studios, and concert halls fall into this category.  Places for

meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, and

museums.  Certain historical sites, parks, and recreational facilities are

also included.

Source:  USDOT, 2005

1 Leq for the noisiest hour of rail‐related activity during hours of noise sensitivity (i.e., when these

facilities are in use).

Ldn is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas and hotels (Category 2).  

The maximum 1‐hour Leq during the period that the facility is in use is used for other

noise sensitive land uses such as National Historic Landmarks with significant outdoor

use (Category 1) or schools (Category 3).  There are two levels of impact included in the

FRA criteria, as shown in Exhibit 5.8‐1.  The interpretation of these two levels of impact

is summarized below:

 Severe:  Severe noise impacts are considered ʺsignificantʺ as this term is used in the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations.  Noise

mitigation will normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there is no

practical method of mitigating the noise.  
Source:  USDOT, 2005

Exhibit 5.8‐1.  Noise Impact Criteria for High Speed Rail Projects
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-47 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 Moderate: In this range, other program‐specific factors must be considered to

determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation.  These other

factors can include the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and

number of noise‐sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor‐indoor sound

insulation, and the cost‐effectiveness of mitigating noise to more acceptable levels.

Although the curves in Exhibit 5.8‐1 are defined in terms of the program noise exposure

and the existing noise exposure, it is important to emphasize that the increase in the

cumulative noise – when the program noise is added to baseline noise – is the basis for

the criteria.  Exhibit 5.8‐2 shows the noise impact criteria for Category 1 and 2 land uses

in terms of cumulative noise exposure increase.

Exhibit 5.8‐2 shows that the criterion for impact allows a noise exposure increase of 10

dBA if the baseline noise exposure is 42 dBA or less but only a 1 dBA increase when the

baseline noise exposure is 70 dBA.  As the existing level of ambient noise increases, the

allowable level of program noise increases, but the total allowable increase in

community noise exposure is reduced.  As a result, program noise exposure levels that

are less than the existing noise exposure can still cause an impact.

5.8.2 Operation Vibration Impact Criteria 

The criteria in High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

(USDOT, 2005) were used to evaluate vibration impacts from train operations.  The

evaluation of vibration impacts can be divided into two categories: (1) human

annoyance, and (2) building damage.

5.8.2.1 Human Annoyance Criteria

Table 5.8‐2 presents the criteria for various land use categories as well as the frequency

of events.  The criteria are related to ground‐borne vibration causing human annoyance

or interfering with the use of vibration sensitive equipment.  The criteria for acceptable

ground‐borne vibration are expressed in terms of RMS velocity levels in VdB and are

based on the maximum levels for a single event (Lmax).  Unlike the noise impact criteria,

vibration impacts are not subcategorized as moderate and severe.

All of the sensitive receptors within the  study corridor, (i.e., residences, churches,

historical buildings, and cemeteries) fall under Land Use Category 2 or 3.  Train activity

varies throughout the corridor.  The FRA criteria for “Infrequent Events” were used

through most of the corridor where the number of daily trains is projected to be below

70.  Through Springfield, along Section 5 (10th Street Corridor), more than 70 trains per

day are projected.  Therefore, the criteria for “Frequent Events” were used for Section 5

(see Table 5.8‐2).
Source: USDOT, 2005

Exhibit 5.8‐2. Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by Criteria
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-49 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Land Use Category 

Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels (dB 

re 1 micro-inch/sec) 

Frequent1 Events Infrequent2 Events 

Category 1:  Buildings where vibration would

interfere with interior operations. 65 VdB3 65 VdB3

Category 2:  Residences and buildings where

people normally sleep. 72 VdB 80 VdB

Category 3:  Institutional land uses with

primarily daytime use.

75 VdB 83 VdB

Source: USDOT, 2005.

1 Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day.

2 Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day.   

3 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive

equipment such as optical microscopes.  Vibration‐sensitive manufacturing or research will

require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels.  Ensuring lower vibration

levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors.

5.8.2.2 Building Damage Criteria

Normally, vibration resulting from a train passby would not cause building damage.  

However, damage to fragile historic buildings located near the right‐of‐way can be a

concern.

Vibrations generated by surface transportation are mainly in the form of surface or

Raleigh waves.  Studies have shown that the vertical component of transportation‐

generated vibrations is the strongest, and that peak particle velocity (PPV) correlates

best with building damage and complaints.

The FRA provides a vibration damage threshold criterion of 13 mm/s (0.50 in/sec,

approximately 102 VdB) PPV for fragile buildings and 3 mm/s (0.12 in/sec,

approximately 90 VdB) PPV for extremely fragile historic buildings, for typical

construction equipment operation (USDOT, 2005).  The FRA recommends these criteria

be used as a damage threshold for the fragile structures located near the right‐of‐way of

a high speed rail project.  High speed rail trains would generate a vibration level of 90

Vdb within 10 feet of the centerline of the track.  Therefore, vibration impacts to fragile

buildings from high speed rail passenger trains are not anticipated.

5.8.3 Noise Impacts during Operation 

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

baseline (No‐Build Alternative) conditions at noise‐sensitive receptors.  Depending upon

the land use, this increase was measured in terms of either one‐hour equivalent sound
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-50 Tier 1 Final EIS 

level (Leq(h)) or the day‐night sound level Ldn.  The analysis accounts for the operation of

both the HSR and freight trains, rail/wheel noise, and train horn noise.

Distance‐to‐impact contours were developed for the different land use categories and

existing noise levels.  Based on this methodology, the distance used to evaluate the noise

impacts to sensitive receptors varied throughout the corridor.  These distances were then

used to identify and tabulate the number of sensitive receptors that would be impacted

as a result of the HSR Program.  A summary of projected noise impacts is provided in

Table 5.8‐3.  The results in Table 5.8‐3 represent a fairly conservative estimate in terms of

the number of projected impacts.  This is mainly due to the fact that maximum operating

speed (i.e., 110 mph for intercity passenger rail service) was assumed throughout the

corridor.  In future studies, when more detailed analysis will be conducted, operating

speeds through certain impacted areas will be evaluated further prior to making a final

determination on mitigation.  The sections with the highest number of projected impacts

are sections 2 and 5.  These are the two sections within the study corridor that are

located within more urbanized areas and where intercity passenger rail service does not

currently exist.  Additionally, additional freight trains would be shifted to Section 5 as

part of Alternative B and Preferred Alternative D.  Overall for the corridor‐wide

alternatives, projected noise impacts range from 215 to 806.  Of the 540 impacts

identified in Section 5, 149 are severe impacts, and 391 are moderate impacts.

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

Section 

Alternative 

A B C (Preferred) D (Preferred) 

1 6 6 Not part of Not part of

2 Not part of Not part of 130 130

3 82 82 82 82

4 73 Not part of 73 Not part of

53,4 Not part of 540 Not part of 540

6 54 54 54 54

7 0 0 0 0

Total 215 682 339 806

1 All impacts are moderate except within Section 5.

2Train 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.

3 149 Severe Impacts, 391 Moderate Impacts.

4 Impacts in Section 5 do not recognize noise level reductions associated with the implementation

of quiet zones which is considered as part of the Springfield Rail Improvements Project Tier 2

Environmental Evaluation.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-51 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.8.4 Vibration Impacts during Operation 

The FRA and FTA procedures provide a calculation method for predicting vibration

levels for a generalized assessment.  Freight trains generate higher vibration levels than

high‐speed rail passenger trains.  Therefore, it could be concluded that the HSR Program

would not result in any vibration impacts since freight trains operate throughout the

corridor.  Nonetheless, the corridor was evaluated to determine vibration impacts if

there were only high speed rail trains operating.  Additionally, through Springfield

along Section 5 (10th Street Corridor), the vibration impacts associated with freight train

activity were evaluated since that section would include the relocation of freight trains

from 3rd Street to 10th Street.

Table 5.8‐4 lists the distances from the track centerline that vibration impacts are

predicted by land use type for both freight and high speed rail passenger trains.  These

distances were developed using the generalized vibration curves in the FRA and FTA

manuals.   

Table 5.8‐4.  Comparison of Ground Vibration Impact Curves

Ground Vibration Estimation Techniques 

Distance to Human Annoyance (feet) 

Residential Commercial 

FTA Generalized Curve for Freight Trains 1 150 110

FRA Generalized Curve for High Speed

Passenger Trains 2 50 25

1 The selected distances used to determine impacts along Section 5 (10th Street Corridor –

Springfield).

2 The selected distances used to determine impacts along Sections 1 through 4, 6, and 7.

Annoyance vibration impacts would occur at residences located 150 feet or closer to the

proposed track between through Springfield along Section 5 and 50 feet or closer to the

proposed track through the remainder of the corridor.  For commercial and institutional

uses, annoyance vibration impacts would occur at structures located 110 feet or closer to

the proposed track through Springfield along Section 5 and 25 feet or closer to the

proposed track through the remainder of the corridor.  The annoyance impact criteria

for residences and commercial/institutional property established by the FRA apply to

vibrations inside building structures.  Table 5.8‐5 provides a summary of the number of

vibration sensitive structures that would be impacted.  Section 5 has the most impacts.  

As part of Alternative B and Preferred Alternative D, intercity passenger rail service

and UP freight trains will be shifted to Section 5.

The building damage criteria of 0.50 inch per second would not be exceeded at any

building along the corridor due to train passbys.  Therefore, the program is not expected

to cause damage, due to vibration, to any buildings in the corridor.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-52 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Section 

Alternative 

A B C (Preferred) D (Preferred) 

1 60 60 Not part of

Alternative C

Not part of

Alternative D

2 Not part of

Alternative A

Not part of

Alternative B

40 40

3 82 82 82 82

4 73 Not part of

Alternative B

73 Not part of

Alternative D

5 Not part of

Alternative A

106 Not part of

Alternative C

106

6 54 54 54 54

7 0 0 0 0

Total 269 302 249 282

1 Unlike the noise impact criteria, vibration impacts are not subcategorized as moderate and

severe.

2 The Build Alternatives were evaluated to determine vibration impacts from high speed rail

trains.  Additionally, through Springfield along Section 5 (10th Street Corridor), the vibration

impacts associated with freight train activity were evaluated since that section would include the

relocation of freight trains from 3rd Street to 10th Street.

Throughout the corridor, the vibration levels would be 5 to 10 VdB higher when there

are crossovers, turnouts, jointed track, switches, or other special trackwork present.  

These conditions can cause annoying transients in the vibratory level characterized by a

repetitive sounding, “thump‐thump...thump‐thump” that one would experience during

a train passby.  Vibration mitigation may be required for the areas were these conditions

exist.

5.8.5 Noise Impacts during Construction 

Trucks and machinery used for construction produce noise that may affect some land

uses and activities during the construction period.  Individuals inhabiting the homes

along the corridor would at some time experience perceptible construction noise from

implementation of the program.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-53 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.8.6 Vibration Impacts during Construction 

Two types of construction vibration impact were analyzed: (1) human annoyance and (2)

building damage.  Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises

significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time.  

Building damage can be cosmetic or structural.  Fragile buildings such as historical

structures are generally more susceptible to damage from ground vibration.  Normal

buildings that are not particularly fragile would not experience any cosmetic damage

(e.g., plaster cracks) at distances beyond 30 feet based on typical construction equipment

vibration levels.  This distance can vary substantially depending on the soil composition

and underground geological layer between vibration source and receiver.  In addition,

not all buildings respond similarly to vibration generated by construction equipment.  

The potential for vibration annoyance and building damage was analyzed for major

vibration producing construction equipment that would be used.

Vibration levels produced by construction equipment were obtained from High Speed

Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (USDOT, 2005).  Based on the

typical vibration levels listed in Table 5.8‐6, calculations were performed to determine

the distances at which vibration impacts would occur according to the criteria discussed

in Section 5.8.2.  Table 5.8‐7 shows the results of those calculations.  The distances shown

in Table 5.8‐7 are the maximum distances at which short‐term construction vibration

impacts may occur.  Mitigation measures would need to be considered if construction

equipment were to operate near wood‐framed buildings within the distances shown in

Table 5.8‐7.

Table 5.8‐6.  Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment PPV 1 at 25 feet (in/sec) Approximate Velocity 

Level2 at 25 ft (VdB) 

Large bulldozer 0.089 87

Loaded trucks 0.076 86

Vibratory compactor/roller 0.210 94

Source:  USDOT, 2005.

1 Peak particle ground velocity measured at 25 feet unless noted otherwise.

2 RMS ground velocity in VdB referenced to 1 micro‐inch/second.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-54 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 5.8‐7.  Construction Equipment Vibration Impact Distances

Equipment Distance to Vibration 

Annoyance 1

(feet)

Distance to Vibration 

Building Damage 2

(feet)

Large bulldozer 43 15

Loaded trucks 40 13

Small bulldozer  ‐‐  ‐‐ 

Auger/drill rigs 45  ‐‐ 

Vibratory hammer 130 25

Vibratory compactor/roller 73 26

1 This is the distance at which the RMS velocity level is 80 VdB or less at the inside of the building

structure.  When propagating from the ground surface to the building structure foundation, there

is a vibratory coupling loss of approximately 5 dB; however, this loss is offset by the building

amplification in light‐frame construction.  Thus, no additional adjustments are applied.

2 This is the distance at which the peak particle velocity is 0.20 inch/sec or less.

“—“ indicates distance is less than 10 feet.

5.8.7 Mitigation during Construction 

Noise and vibration impacts caused by construction activities are temporary.  However,

construction mitigation measures may be required to minimize these impacts.  

Construction activities conducted during daytime hours will have a lesser impact than

nighttime construction.  However, there may be locations where nighttime construction

would be unobtrusive, such as commercial areas where the land use is unoccupied

during nighttime hours, or industrial areas that are generally not sensitive to noise and

vibration.  Nighttime construction may be necessary to avoid unacceptable disruptions

to current rail operations or street traffic during daytime hours.  Once details of the

construction activities become available, the contractor would need to work with local

authorities to develop an acceptable approach to minimize interference with the

business and residential communities, traffic disruptions, and the total duration of the

construction.

There are a number of measures that can be taken to minimize intrusion without placing

unreasonable constraints on the construction process or substantially increasing costs.  

These include noise and vibration monitoring to ensure that contractors take all

reasonable steps to minimize impacts when near sensitive areas; noise testing and

inspection of equipment to ensure that all equipment on the site is in good condition and

effectively muffled; and an active community liaison program.  The community liaison

program should keep residents informed about construction plans so they can plan
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-55 Tier 1 Final EIS 

around periods of particularly high noise or vibration levels and should provide a

conduit for residents to express any concerns or complaints.

The following are possible control measures that can be implemented in order to

minimize noise and vibration disturbances at sensitive areas during construction:

 Use newer equipment with improved noise muffling and ensure that all equipment

items have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement measures, such as

mufflers, engine covers, and engine vibration isolators intact and operational.  

Newer equipment will generally be quieter in operation than older equipment.  All

construction equipment should be inspected at periodic intervals to ensure proper

maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers and shrouding,

etc.).

 Perform all construction in a manner to minimize noise and vibration.  Utilize

construction methods or equipment that will provide the lowest level of noise and

ground vibration impact, e.g., avoid impact pile driving near residences and

consider alternative methods that are also suitable for the soil condition.  The

contractor should be required to select construction processes and techniques that

create the lowest noise levels.

 Perform independent noise and vibration monitoring to demonstrate compliance

with the noise limits, especially in particularly sensitive areas.  Require contractors to

modify and/or reschedule their construction activities if monitoring determines that

maximum limits are exceeded at residential land uses.

 Conduct truck loading, unloading and hauling operations so that noise and

vibration are kept to a minimum by carefully selecting routes to avoid going through

residential neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible.

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

districts.  If industrially zoned areas are not available, commercially zoned areas may

be used, or locations that are at least 100 feet from any noise sensitive land use such

as residences, hotels and motels.  Ingress and egress to and from the staging areas

should be on collector streets or greater (higher street designations are preferred).

 Turn off idling equipment.

 Minimize construction activities during evening, nighttime, weekend, and holiday

periods.  Permits may be required in some cities before construction can be

performed in noise sensitive areas between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

 The construction contractor should be required by contract specification to comply

with all local noise and vibration ordinances and obtain all necessary permits and

variances.

It is expected that ground‐borne vibration from construction activities would cause only

intermittent localized intrusion along the rail corridor.  Processes such as earth moving

with bulldozers, the use of vibratory compaction rollers, and the operation of vibratory

pile drivers can create annoying vibration.  There are cases where it may be necessary to

use this type of equipment in close proximity to residential buildings.  Following are
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-56 Tier 1 Final EIS 

some procedures that can be used to minimize the potential for annoyance or damage

from construction vibration:

 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 (e.g., weekdays during daytime

hours only when as many residents as possible are away from home).

A combination of the mitigation techniques for equipment noise and vibration control as

well as administrative measures, when properly implemented, can be selected to

provide the most effective means to minimize the effects of construction activity

impacts.  Application of the mitigation measures will reduce the construction impacts;

however, temporary increases in noise and vibration would likely occur at some

locations.

5.8.8 Mitigation during Operation 

5.8.8.1 Train Noise Mitigation

As this program progresses, a more detailed noise analysis would be required.  During

the future Tier 2 studies, the following mitigation measures should be considered and

applied as appropriate:

Wheel Treatments

A major source from steel‐on‐steel high speed train systems is the wheel‐rail interaction.  

Various wheel designs and other mitigation measures to reduce the wheel noise include:  

resilient or damped wheels, spin‐slide control systems, and maintenance.

Rail Treatments

Rail surfaces that are degraded over time due to wear generate noise levels that are

significantly higher than those produced by a well‐maintained system.  Roughness of

rail surfaces can be eliminated by grinding rails.

Vehicle Treatments

Vehicle noise mitigation measures can be applied to various mechanical systems

associated with ventilation and passenger comfort.  Fan noise can be a major noise

source.  Fan quieting can be accomplished by installation of one of several new designs

of quiet, efficient fans.   The vehicle body design can also provide shielding and

absorption of noise generated by the vehicle components.

Building Insulation

In cases where rights‐of‐way are restricted, the only practical noise mitigation measure

may be to provide sound insulation for the building.  The most effective treatments are
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-57 Tier 1 Final EIS 

to caulk and seal gaps in the building and to install windows that are specially designed

to meet acoustical transmission‐loss requirements.

Noise Barriers

Noise reduction can be achieved by using noise barrier walls in areas along the corridor

where significant train noise impacts have been identified.  If the noise barrier walls are

implemented prior to  construction, the walls could then also serve as an effective means

of mitigating construction noise impacts as well.  The cost‐effectiveness and optimum

height of the walls would need to be determined by specific acoustical analysis for each

area of impact identified.  An important consideration in determining areas where noise

mitigation might be questionable is whether the railroad corridor existed many years

before any of the residential developments that have encroached upon the right‐of‐way.  

Sensitive land uses may be less sensitive to train noise because of its established, long

history in the communities, and because of the services the rail operation provides to the

communities.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1974) has indicated that

these considerations would likely reduce community reactions to noise.  Before

implementation of a mitigation measure such as noise barrier walls, the FRA guidelines

recommend that the community’s agreement should be obtained.  Some communities

would rather not have a wall because of adverse visual effects.  

5.8.8.2 Train Vibration Mitigation

As the program progresses, a more detailed vibration analysis would be required to

determine:

 the soil characteristics and the efficiency at which the vibration propagates through

the ground at various locations along the alignment,

 the most appropriate method of vibration mitigation, and  

 the extent where mitigation would be required at specific locations.

In order to ensure that vibration is reduced to an acceptable level, the following

mitigation measures should be considered and applied according to the results of the

final design study:

5.8.8.3 Maintenance  

Wheel and rail surfaces that are degraded over time due to wear generate vibration

levels that are significantly higher than those produced by a well‐maintained system.  

However, these conditions are not uncommon on rail systems.  Up to 20 VdB of

vibration reduction can be gained when comparing new or well‐maintained rail systems

to older systems showing wear.  The following measures would help to minimize

vibration impacts if done regularly:

 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
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-58 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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 and other Special Features

Crossovers, turnouts, and other special trackwork that cause an irregular rail surface

should be considered for relocation to less vibration sensitive areas when feasible.  The

use of special “spring‐loaded rail frogs” should be considered at turnouts and

crossovers that cannot be relocated away from residential and commercial structures.  

The special frogs incorporate mechanisms that close the gaps between running rails.  

Frogs with spring‐loaded mechanisms and frogs with movable points can significantly

reduce vibration levels near crossovers.

Ballast Mats

Ballast mats are rubber or another type of elastomer pads that are placed under the

ballast.  The mat must be placed on a concrete pad to be effective.  They will not be

effective if placed on the soil or the sub‐ballast.  Ballast mats can provide up to 10 to 15

VdB of reduction at frequencies above 35 to 40 hertz, but are generally ineffective at

frequencies below 35 hertz.

Resiliently Supported Ties

This is a system that consists of concrete ties supported by rubber pads.  The rails are

fastened directly to concrete ties using standard rail clips.  This measure can provide a

10 VdB reduction at frequencies in the 15 to 40 hertz range.

High Resilience Fasteners

These are used in conjunction with a concrete slab base. The fastener must be very

compliant (resilient) in the vertical direction.  If standard resilient fasteners are used

(vertical stiffness of 200,000‐lbs/inch; stiffness refers to the compressibility of the resilient

material), little or no improvement in the vibration level would be achieved.  Special soft

fasteners with a vertical stiffness in the 30,000‐lbs/inch range would reduce vibration

levels as much as 5 to 10 VdB at frequencies above 30 to 40 Hz.

Floating Slab Trackbed

This type of trackbed consists of a concrete base with 5‐foot long floating concrete slabs

supported above the base using resilient isolation elements such as rubber or similar

elastomeric pads.  The effectiveness of this method depends on the resonant frequency

of the resilient pads and the mass of the concrete slab.  These have been shown to be

very effective at frequencies in the 5 to 20 hertz range.  However, this method is very

expensive and would normally be considered only in areas where irregular surfaces

exist.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-59 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.9 Water Quality/Resources

5.9.1 No-Build Alternative 

No impacts

5.9.2 Build Alternatives 

5.9.2.1 Surface Water

Tables 5.9‐1 and 5.9‐2 present the number of surface water crossings for each section and

alternative, respectively, and the type of structure (i.e., culvert or bridge) that is

currently being used to cross the surface water.  These tables also identify the number of

crossings that would require some level of improvements.  Because Sections 4 and 5

have no surface water crossings and all of the alternatives include Sections 6 and 7, the

only difference in surface water crossings between the alternatives is due to the

difference between Sections 1 and 2.  Alternatives A and B would have 203 surface water

crossings while Preferred Alternatives C and D would have 191.  Each of the surface

water crossings has been evaluated on a cursory level to determine its ability to

accommodate the proposed improvements.  These improvements may include

extending culverts, widening existing bridges, constructing new bridges that are

adjacent and parallel to the existing bridges, and/or reconstruction of the existing

structures.  Based on this evaluation, Alternatives A and B would have 132 crossings

requiring improvements while Preferred Alternatives C and D would have 127

crossings requiring improvements.  Each of these crossings will be evaluated in more

detail in Tier 2 to ensure that they can accommodate the additional track and are both

structurally and hydraulically sufficient.  

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

Section Culverts Bridges Total Require Improvement 

1 18 7 25 8

2 4 9 13 3

3 83 31 114 82

4 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0

6 49 14 63 42

7 0 1 1 0

Total 154 62 216 135
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-60 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Alternative Culverts Bridges Total Require Improvement 

A 150 53 203 132

B 150 53 203 132

C

(Preferred) 136 55 191 127

D

(Preferred) 136 55 191 127

No‐Build 0 0 0 0

5.9.2.2 Drainage Basins

The Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D)

would traverse ten major drainage basins.  There would be little difference in overall

impacts to these drainage basins by the Build Alternatives.  Specific impacts to surface

water and water quality that could affect these drainage basins are discussed in Sections

5.9.1 and 5.9.3, respectively.  

5.9.2.3 Water Quality

The building of bridges and placement of culverts can negatively impact stream

hydraulics, bank stability, flow velocity, and streambed morphology.  The improper

placement of structures can accelerate levels of erosion and sedimentation leading to the

alteration of downstream aquatic habitat.   

Clearing and excavation of construction sites can result in impacts to water quality by

increasing levels of sediment deposition, turbidity, heavy metals, organic chemicals, and

debris, while also lowering dissolved oxygen levels.  Long‐term maintenance of railway

vegetation could result in impacts to streams from runoff of herbicide sprayed on

vegetation.    

The greatest impact to streams would come from soil disturbance following construction

due to erosion and siltation.  BMPs must be utilized to protect water quality. Runoff

from construction sites must be diverted from directly entering streams during and after

construction.   

Construction activities will comply with all spill prevention control and

countermeasures requirements per the requirements of the United States Environmental

Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) regulations under the Clean Water Act (i.e., 40 CFR Part

112, Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan

Requirements) and Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA).  Operations will

comply with the spill prevention and countermeasures as required by local well head

protection ordinances.  These response and prevention activities include the training of
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-61 Tier 1 Final EIS 

personnel in spill response activities, stationing of spill control kits, the proper storage

and handling of petroleum products, and notification requirements in the event of a

spill.

5.9.2.4 Special Status Streams

IDNR Biologically Significant Streams

Streams considered biologically significant that would be impacted are listed by section

and alternative in Tables 5.9‐3 and 5.9‐4.  The tables show that all the impacts to

biologically significant streams would be limited to Section 3, which is the longest

section.  Because all of the alternatives include Section 3, they would all have the same

impacts to biologically significant streams (i.e., five crossings and 805 feet).  The No‐

Build Alternative would not impact biologically significant streams.

Table 5.9‐3.  Special Status Stream Impacts by Section

Section 

Biologically 

Significant Streams 

Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory streams Navigable Waters 

Illinois Natural 

Areas Inventory 

Streams 

# of 

Crossings 

Length

(ft) 

# of 

Crossings 

Length

(ft) 

# of 

Crossings 

Length 

(ft) 

# of 

Crossings Length

(ft) 

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 1 54 0 0

3 5 805 3 554 5 685 6 1,004

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 1 144 0 0
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-62 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 5.9‐4.  Special Status Stream Impacts by Alternative

Nationwide Rivers Inventory

Impacts to NRI stream segments are listed by program section and alternative in Tables

5.9‐3 and 5.9‐4.  The tables show that all the impacts to NRI streams would be limited to

Section 3, which is the longest section.  Because all of the alternatives include Section 3,

they would all have the same impacts to NRI streams (i.e., 3 crossings and 554 feet).  The

No‐Build Alternative would not impact NRI streams.

Navigable Waters

Navigable waters that would be impacted are listed by section and alternative in Tables

5.9‐3 and 5.9‐4.  Preferred Alternatives C and D would have the most impacts with

seven crossings and 883 feet while Alternatives A and B would have the least impacts

with six crossings and 829 feet. The No‐Build Alternative would not impact navigable

waters.    

Illinois Natural Areas Inventory Streams

INAI streams that would be impacted are listed by section and alternative in Tables 5.9‐3

and 5.9‐4.  The tables show that all the impacts to INAI streams would be limited to

Section 3, which is the longest section.  Because all of the alternatives include Section 3,

they would all have the same impacts to INAI streams (i.e., six crossings and 1,004 feet).  

The No‐Build Alternative would not impact INAI streams.

5.9.2.5 Groundwater

This analysis focuses on potential impacts of the Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and

B and Preferred Alternatives C and D) on municipal and private water supplies.  There

Alternative 

Biologically 

Significant Streams 

Nationwide Rivers 

Inventory streams Navigable Waters 

Illinois Natural 

Areas Inventory 

Streams 

# of 

Crossings 

Length 

(ft) 

# of 

Crossings 

Length 

(ft) 

# of 

Crossings 

Length 

(ft) 

# of 

Crossings 

Length

(ft) 

A 5 805 3 554 6 829 6 1,004

B 5 805 3 554 6 829 6 1,004

C

(Preferred) 5 805 3 554 7 883 6 1,004

D

(Preferred) 5 805 3 554 7 883 6 1,004

No‐Build 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-63 Tier 1 Final EIS 

are no sole source aquifers as defined by section 1424(E) of the Safe Drinking Water Act

in Illinois within the study corridor.  No measurable change to the available

groundwater supply is anticipated for any of the Build Alternatives; any impervious

areas associated with the Build Alternatives would represent a small reduction in

recharge area that can be mitigated by stormwater retention/detention basins.   

This program would not create any new potential routes for groundwater pollution or

any new potential sources of groundwater pollution as defined in the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/3, et seq.  Accordingly, the program is not

subject to compliance with the minimum setback requirements for community water

supply wells or other potable water supply wells as set forth in 415 ILCS 5/14, et seq.

The Build Alternatives cross the recharge or setback zone areas of the Community Water

Supply (CWS) Wellhead Protection Areas for the communities of Normal and Lincoln

(United Water Illinois).  Because the Build Alternatives utilize the existing railroad

corridor, these Wellhead Protection Areas cannot be avoided.  During the more detailed

Tier 2 studies, however, site specific design options can be evaluated that could

minimized these impacts.  Mitigation measures will include compliance with all spill

prevention control and countermeasure requirements per the USEPA’s regulations

under the Clean Water Act (i.e., 40 CFR Part 112, Oil Pollution Prevention; Spill

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan Requirements) and Illinois Emergency

Management Agency (IEMA).  Operations will comply with the spill prevention and

countermeasures as required by local well head protection ordinances.  These response

and prevention activities include the training of personnel in spill response activities,

stationing of spill control kits, the proper storage and handling of petroleum products,

and implementing notification requirements in the event of a spill.  The right‐of‐way of

the Build Alternatives also cross the setback zone for non‐CWS wells at two locations in

Section 1, two locations in Section 2, and three locations in Section 3.  These crossings are

summarized in Table 5.9‐5.   

Table 5.9‐5.  Well Crossings by Alternative

Alternative Wellhead Protection Areas 

Crossed 

Non-CWS Well Setback 

Zones Crossed 

A 2 5

B 2 5

C (Preferred) 2 5

D (Preferred) 2 5

No‐Build 0 0

Each alternative crosses groundwater resources designated as shallow sand and gravel

aquifers.  Alternatives A and B cross 117 miles, and Preferred Alternatives C and D

cross 110 miles of this resource.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-64 Tier 1 Final EIS 

The Build Alternatives also cross the watersheds of Lake Springfield, Lake Bloomington

and Lake Evergreen, which serve as the CWS for the cities of Springfield, and

Bloomington respectively.  All alternatives cross the Zone 1 water protection areas

associated with the 0.25‐mile buffer zone for the communities of Granite City,

Wilmington, East St. Louis and Streator.

No pollutants, such as PNAs and heavy metals, would migrate to groundwater sources.  

No groundwater impacts are anticipated as a result of the Build Alternative

improvements.  See Section 5.9.3 regarding spill prevention and control measures that

would help protect and minimize potential impacts to groundwater resources..

The No‐Build Alternative would not result in any impacts to groundwater resources.

5.10 Floodplains 

5.10.1 No-Build Alternative 

No impacts.

5.10.2 Build Alternatives 

Table 5.10‐1 summarizes the floodplain impacts for each section while Table 5.10‐2

shows the total floodplain impacts for each alternative.  The number of crossings that are

perpendicular to the floodplain are also indicated.  Crossings not indicated as

perpendicular to the floodplain are considered parallel encroachments.  

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

Section Number of 

Floodplains Crossed 

Number of 

Perpendicular 

Crossings 

Total Floodplain 

Impact (Acres) 

1 6 5 3.6

2 13 4 8.8

3 19 16 56.6

4 0 0 0

5 0 0 0

6 12 9 19.8

7 0 0 0
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-65 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 5.10‐2.  100‐Year Floodplain Impacts 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

Alternatives A and B would both result in floodplain impacts totaling 80.0 acres.  

Preferred Alternatives C and D would both have a greater impact on floodplains, with

floodplain impacts totaling 85.2 acres.   

5.10.2.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts

Floodplain impacts will be avoided to the extent possible, although the linear nature of

this program limits the potential for avoiding all floodplains.  During the design phase,

there will be opportunities to avoid and/or minimize floodplain impacts by designing

bridges to span 100‐year flood zones or portions of them.  In addition to bridging

floodplains, disturbance (direct and indirect, temporary and permanent) may be

minimized by other design features such as steeper side slopes and/or retention walls to

reduce the disturbance footprint.   

5.11 Wetlands 

5.11.1 No-Build Alternative 

No impacts.

5.11.2 Build Alternatives 

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping was used to analyze potential wetland

impacts; GIS was used to overlay NWI mapping with the proposed construction limits

to measure wetland impacts.  Field investigations were not conducted to verify this

information.  Wetland delineations will be conducted during the Tier 2 environmental

documentation.  The wetland communities that would be impacted by the Build

Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D) 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) based on the

Cowardin classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979).              
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-66 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Wetland impacts calculated by wetland community type for each section are shown in

Table 5.11‐1.  Wetland impacts for Alternatives A through D are shown in Table 5.11‐2.   

Table 5.11‐1.  NWI Wetland Impacts by Section

Section 

Riverine 

Acres/# of 

Wetlands 

PUB 

Acres/# of 

Wetlands 

PEM 

Acres/# of 

Wetlands 

PFO/PSS 

Acres/# of 

Wetlands 

Total 

Acres/# of Wetlands 

1 0/0 0/0 1.1/2 0/0 1.1/2

2 2.7/7 0.3/2 2.4/3 0.3/3 5.6/15

3 3.2/5 0.6/2 2.6/6 13.9/10 20.3/23

4 0/0 0/0 1.3/1 0/0 1.3/1

5 0/0 0/0 1.2/1 0/0 1.2/1

6 0.2/1 0.7/4 5.1/7 11.0/12 17.0/24

7 6.1/1 0.6/2 0.9/1 3.1/4 10.7/8

Table 5.11‐2.  NWI Wetland Impact by Alternative  

Alternative 

Riverine 

Acres/# of 

Wetlands 

PUB 

Acres/# of 

Wetlands 

PEM 

Acres/# of 

Wetlands 

PFO/PSS 

Acres/# of 

Wetlands 

Total 

Acres/# of 

Wetlands 

A 9.0/7 1.9/8 11.0/17 28.0/26 49.9/58

B 9.5/7 1.9/8 10.9/17 28.0/26 50.3/58

C (Preferred) 12.2/14 2.2/10 12.3/18 28.3/29 55.0/71

D (Preferred) 12.2/14 2.2/10 12.2/18 28.3/29 54.9/71

No‐Build 0 0 0 0 0

Alternative A, which would impact 58 NWI wetlands totaling 49.9 acres, would have the

least impact.  Preferred Alternative C would impact 71 NWI wetlands totaling 55.0

acres and would have the greatest impact.  The majority of the impacts would be to

PFO/PSS wetland communities.      

5.11.2.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Impacts

Wetland impacts will be avoided to the extent possible.  However, because the Build

Alternatives would involve construction of new tracks adjacent to existing tracks, the
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-67 Tier 1 Final EIS 

feasibility of realigning the route to avoid wetland impacts is limited.  Where avoidance

is not possible, disturbance (direct and indirect, temporary and permanent) will be

minimized using the best technology available and best management practices.   

Areas adjacent to existing tracks may have been previously filled or disturbed during

railroad construction and maintenance, and wetland impacts could be minimized if new

construction occurs within or contiguous to existing right‐of‐way.  Construction will

remain within previously disturbed areas as much as possible to minimize impacts.  

Minimization of impacts can also be accomplished by reducing the disturbance limits in

the vicinity of existing wetlands through various design features, such as bridges,

steeper side slopes, and/or retention walls to minimize the disturbance footprint.  

Riverine wetlands, normally adjacent to larger streams, would likely be bridged, which

will minimize impacts.     

During the final design phase, a functional assessment will be conducted for each

wetland that would be impacted.  These assessments will identify higher quality

wetlands and will determine if site‐specific design techniques would be feasible to

minimize impacts.     

Prior to construction, site‐specific erosion and sediment control plans will be developed

to minimize impacts to each wetland affected.  Impacts from silt and sediment will be

minimized through adherence to erosion control measures specified in current IDOT

guidance.  Erosion control fencing or other techniques will be used to prevent sediment

discharges from construction areas adjacent to wetlands.  All ground disturbing

activities, including access roads and staging areas, will be restricted from wetland

areas.    

5.11.2.2 Compensatory Mitigation

A conceptual wetland mitigation plan will be developed to compensate for unavoidable

impacts.  Coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Fish and Wildlife

Service, and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources will be required to determine

specific mitigation requirements to adequately compensate for wetland losses.  

Mitigation may be provided by purchasing credits from an established wetland

mitigation bank if an approved bank is available.  If an approved bank is not available,

the conversion of non‐wetland areas into wetlands may be required.  Mitigation

requirements will be determined during the permitting process following completion of

final design and right‐of‐way plans.

5.12 Utilities

5.12.1 No-Build Alternative 

No impacts.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-68 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.12.2 Build Alternatives 

The Build Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D) will

require the relocation of utilities in the corridor.  The estimated cost to relocate these

utilities has been included in the program cost estimates.  

5.13 Visual and Aesthetic Quality Impacts 

Table 5.13‐1 shows the relative impacts to each of the landscape units described in

Section 4.13.  The overall magnitude of impacts to visual resources for each component

is described in the sections that follow.

Table 5.13‐1.  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
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-69 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.13.1 No-Build Alternative 

There would be no direct impacts to existing visual quality along the proposed Chicago

to St. Louis HSR Corridor under the No‐Build Alternative.  Aesthetic consequences from

development of the corridor and right‐of‐way would not occur and would therefore not

impact existing residential areas, undeveloped forested areas, agricultural areas, natural

areas, or historic sites.

5.13.2 Build Alternatives 

5.13.2.1 Alternative A

Given that the majority of the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor runs on or parallel to

existing rail alignment and bridges, impacts to existing scenic quality and to visual

receptors in Will, Grundy, Livingston, McLean, Logan, Sangamon, Macoupin, and

Madison counties and the Bloomington‐Normal and St. Louis Area landscape units

would be negligible.  Minor adverse impacts under Alternative A could be caused from

proposed grade separations (new vertical elements), sound walls, and/or fences

associated with the corridor in the residential, commercial, or unique landscapes within

these landscape units.  Visual intrusion of these structures can negatively affect property

values and enjoyment of open space.

Adverse visual impacts from proposed elevated grade separations and flyovers (new

vertical elements) under Alternative A would be highest in the Northeast Morainal

landscape region (Chicago area and Joliet area landscape units) and in the Springfield

area landscape unit because these areas have the most need and funding for proposed

elevated grade separations and because more visual receptors exist in these areas.  

Alternative A has approximately nine proposed elevated grade separations in the

Chicago area/Joliet area landscape units and approximately 12 in the Springfield area

landscape unit.  The locations and receptors most sensitive to these potential grade

separations would be residential land use and unique landscapes, such as natural areas

and historic sites.

In some locations, elevated grade separations and flyovers can intrude on views,

although they may not block them completely.  Tall HSR stations can create shadows

that could have negative impacts on some areas under some conditions.  The final

design process would include coordination with local jurisdictions and take into

consideration all applicable design guidelines as part of a collaborative process related

to construction of HSR structures, including elevated grade separations, fencing, and

stations.  Structures would be designed to be attractive architectural elements or

features, would incorporate local design elements, and would add visual interest to the

streetscapes near them.  Visual impact mitigation would be determined at the Tier 2

level at locations where the impact is notable.   

Portions of existing greenways, natural areas, historic sites, and Historic Route 66 are

located in proximity to the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor.  In most instances, the

proposed corridor would run relatively perpendicular to existing and proposed facilities

and, therefore, would not impact large portions of any one facility.  The majority of the
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-70 Tier 1 Final EIS 

corridor runs on existing rail alignment, and impacts to surrounding scenery and to

visual receptors would be negligible.

Most of the adverse visual impact associated with the Build Alternatives (Alternatives A

and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D) would occur during the construction phase.  

These short‐term adverse impacts would be due to the presence of heavy equipment,

construction materials, and non‐vegetated areas that would be visible.  Proper

construction techniques would be utilized to help reduce short‐term visual impacts and

long‐term lingering effects of construction.   

Train lighting on the HSR corridor would be intermittent and directed along the

guideway, which should not cause glare impact on nighttime views.  Construction and

operation of the HSR corridor would have temporary impacts related to sources of light

and glare during construction, a minor increase the ambient light levels in nearby areas,

and an increase in skyglow, which can adversely affect nighttime star viewing.  Design‐

related measures, such as shielding and altering light direction, would be used where

appropriate to avoid and minimize potential impacts, while providing adequate lighting

for safety and security.

5.13.2.2 Alternative B

Impacts under Alternative B would be similar to those under Alternative A.  Given that

the majority of the corridor runs on or parallel to existing rail alignment and bridges,

impacts to existing scenic quality and to visual receptors would be negligible.  Adverse

visual impacts under Alternative B would be highest in the Northeast Morainal

landscape region (Chicago area and Joliet area landscape units) and in the Springfield

area landscape unit because these areas have proposed elevated grade separations.  

Alternative B has approximately nine proposed elevated grade separations in the

Chicago area/Joliet area landscape units and approximately nine in the Springfield area

landscape unit.  The locations most sensitive to these grade separations would be

residential land use and unique landscapes.  There would be slightly less impacts from

proposed elevated grade separations under Alternative B than under Alternative A.   

A short section of proposed new alignment along Section 5 in the Springfield area under

Alternative B would introduce views from trains into private spaces and would

introduce views of trains and a new rail line into residential, commercial, and industrial

spaces.  This would be a negative visual impact.

5.13.2.3 Preferred Alternative C

Impacts under Preferred Alternative C would be similar to those under Alternative A.  

Given that the majority of the HSR corridor runs on or parallel to existing rail alignment

and bridges, impacts to existing scenic quality and to visual receptors would be

negligible.   

Adverse visual impacts under Preferred Alternative C would be highest in the

Northeast Morainal landscape region (Chicago area and Joliet area landscape units) and

in the Springfield area landscape unit because these areas have proposed elevated grade
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-71 Tier 1 Final EIS 

separations.  Preferred Alternative C has approximately 24 proposed elevated grade

separations in the Chicago area/Joliet area landscape units and approximately 12 in the

Springfield area landscape unit.  The locations most sensitive to these grade separations

would be residential land use and unique landscapes.  Preferred Alternative C would

have the most impacts from proposed elevated grade separations of all the alternatives.   

5.13.2.4 Preferred Alternative D

Impacts under Preferred Alternative D would be similar to those under Alternative A.  

Given that the majority of the HSR corridor runs on or parallel to existing rail alignment

and bridges, impacts to existing scenic quality and to visual receptors would be

negligible.  

Adverse visual impacts under Preferred Alternative D would be highest in the

Northeast Morainal landscape region (Chicago area and Joliet area landscape units) and

in the Springfield area landscape unit because these areas have proposed elevated grade

separations.  Preferred Alternative D has approximately 24 proposed elevated grade

separations in the Chicago area/Joliet area landscape units and approximately nine in

the Springfield area landscape unit.  The locations most sensitive to these grade

separations would be residential land use and unique landscapes.  There would be

slightly more impacts from proposed elevated grade separations under Preferred

Alternative D than under Alternative A.   

A short section of proposed new alignment along Section 5 in the Springfield area under

Preferred Alternative D would introduce views from trains into private spaces and

would introduce views of trains and a new rail line into residential, commercial, and

industrial spaces.  This would be a negative visual impact.

5.14 Special Waste

5.14.1 No-Build Alternative 

No impacts

5.14.2 Build Alternatives 

A database of special waste sites was generated and further analyzed to determine

which sites were most likely to represent a special waste concern for the Build

Alternatives (Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D).  The sites of

interest included but were not limited to the following:

 Underground Storage Tanks (UST)

 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

 Dry Cleaners

 RCRA TSDF

 Large Quantity Hazardous Waste Generators
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-72 Tier 1 Final EIS 

 CERCLIS

 Brownfields

 Manufactured Gas Plants

 Landfills

The data was processed to identify any site located within 200 feet of the existing or

proposed right‐of‐way.  The sites within the database are generally plotted based on the

geocoded location of the street address. It is not possible to determine if a site boundary

is actually shared with the right‐of‐way due to the limitations of geocoded data and the

lack of detailed right‐of‐way mapping.  Additionally, some duplication of data is

inherent due to the overlapping nature of multiple program relationships.  Tables 5.14‐1

and 5.14‐2 list the number of special waste sites identified by section and alternative.  A

listing of the special waste sites is included in Appendix D.  As indicated in Table 5.14‐2,

Preferred Alternative D would impact the most sites (i.e., 276) while Alternative A

would impact the least number of sites (i.e., 179).

During the Tier 2 studies, more detailed measures to avoid and minimize impacts to

special waste site will be evaluated.  

Table 5.14‐1.  Special Waste Sites by Section

Section Number of Special Waste Sites 

1 41

2 122

3 91

4 5

5 21

6 18

7 24

Table 5.14‐2.  Special Waste Sites by Alternative

Alternative Number of Special Waste Sites 

A 179

B 195

C (Preferred) 260

D (Preferred) 276

No‐Build 0
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-73 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.15 Section 4(f)/6(f) and Parklands 

5.15.1 No-Build Alternative 

This alternative would have no impacts to Section 4(f)/6(f) properties, and no impacts to

parklands.

5.15.2 Build Alternatives 

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

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

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965.

5.15.2.1 Section 4(f) Impacts

The FHWA Section 4(f) regulation at 23 CFR 774.17 identifies that a “use” of a Section

4(f) resource occurs:

 When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility;  

 When there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statuteʹs

preservationist purposes as determined by 23 CFR 774.13(d); or  

 When there is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property as determined by the

criteria in §774.15.

For this analysis, potential impacts (i.e., uses) were considered when any portion of a

Section 4(f) resource was to be acquired by the program.  A list of potentially impacted  

Section 4(f) resources by section is provided in Table 5.15‐1 while Table 5.15‐2 presents

the total number of these resources that would be impacted for each alternative.  

Following these tables, a detailed discussion is provided of each property by section.    

Historic resources listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP that would be adversely

affected by the program are also considered potential uses under Section 4(f); a

discussion of the potential impacts to these resources is provided in Section 5.5.  During

Tier 2 studies, detailed impacts at each location will be evaluated to determine if a “use”

is anticipated.  A Section 4(f) Evaluation to identify avoidance alternatives and

minimization measures would occur if a use is possible.

   
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-74 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Resource County Section 

Official with 

Jurisdiction 

Impact Area 

(acre) 

Hoyne Park Cook 1 Chicago Park

District 0.3

Summit Park Cook 1 Summit Park

District 3.3

Centennial and

I&M Canal Trail   Will 1 IDNR 3.8

Ping Tom

Memorial Park Cook 1 & 2 Chicago ParkDistrict 0.9

Hamilton Park Cook 2 Chicago Park

District 0.6

Lyle Park Cook 2 Chicago Park

District 0.3

Vogt Woods Park Cook 2 Tinley Park Park

District 0.4

Midlothian

Meadows Cook 2

Forest Preserve

District of Cook

County

1.7

St. Mihiel

Reservation Cook 2

Forest Preserve

District of Cook

County

5.0

Pilcher Park Will 2 Joliet Park

District 2.9

Hickory Creek

Forest Preserve Will 2

Forest Preserve

District of Will

County

7.2

Midewin National

Tallgrass Prairie Will 3 U.S. Forest

Service 0.6

Funks Grove Land

and Water Reserve/

Funks Grove

Nature Preserve/

Stubblefield

Woodlots Nature

Preserve

McLean 3 IDNR 2.9

Edward R.

Madigan State

Park/Railsplitter

Park

Logan 3 IDNR 1.3

Unnamed Park

(Sherman, IL) Sangamon 3 Unknown 0,001

Interurban Trail

(Chatham to

Springfield)

Sangamon 6 IDOT 0.4

Denby Prairie

Nature Preserve Macoupin 6 IDNR 1.14
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-75 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Section and Alternative

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 0 0 0 0

Total 10 10 14 14 0

Section 1

Hoyne Park  

This 2.7‐acre park in the McKinley Park Community, is located adjacent to the north side

of the Section 1 alignment at Hoyne Avenue.  The park, owned by the Chicago Park

District, includes a baseball field, three basketball courts, a fieldhouse, grass play areas,

and a playground.  Improvements to this elevated section of track would be related to

modifications of the 35th Street/Archer Avenue station (Exhibit 5.15‐1).  This would

require the acquisition of an approximately 40‐foot wide strip (approximately 0.4 acres)

of right‐of‐way from the park.

Summit Park  

This 46‐acre park in the Village of Summit, is located adjacent to the south side of the

Section 1 alignment.  The park, owned by the Summit Park District, includes a

splash/spray park, a disc golf course, an exercise path, three baseball fields, a soccer

field, two tennis courts, two basketball courts, a playground, a dog park, a picnic area,

and miniature golf.  Improvements in this area would include construction of a potential

flyover at Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad and would require a strip of additional right‐of‐

way ranging from 50‐100 feet wide, totaling approximately 3.3 acres (Exhibit 5.15‐2).   

Centennial Trail/I&M Canal Trail  

This 61‐mile long pedestrian/bicycle trail follows the former towpath for the Centennial

Trail/Illinois and Michigan Canal.  A section of the trail parallels the Section 1 alignment

between East 2nd Street in Lockport and Columbia Street in Joliet, a distance of 4.4 miles.  

Within Lockport, the trail is maintained by the Lockport Township Park District; the

remainder is maintained by the Forest Preserve District of Will County.   
Exhibit 5.15-1. Potential Impacts to Hoyne Park
Exhibit 5.15-2. Potential Impacts to Summit Park
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-78 Tier 1 Final EIS 

The southernmost section is located within the Joliet Steel Works Historic Site (see

Section 4.5).  Improvements in this section would include construction of a siding,

including several areas where additional strips of right‐of‐way would be required,

totaling approximately 3.8 acres (Exhibit 5.15‐3).   

Section 2

Ping Tom Memorial Park  

This 12‐acre site, located along the South Branch of the Chicago River in the Armour

Square neighborhood, was originally a Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad yard.  

The park includes a playground, community gathering areas, and Chinese landscape

design elements.  Improvements in this area would include construction of a new bridge

across the river to accommodate construction of an additional track.  This would require

the acquisition of a approximately 15‐foot strip of right‐of‐way from the southern end of

the park, totaling approximately 0.9 acres (Exhibit 5.15‐4).  This park would also be

impacted by Section 1.

Hamilton Park  

This 30‐acre park in the Englewood neighborhood is located adjacent to the west side of

Section 2, between 72nd and 74th Streets.  The park, owned by the Chicago Park District,

includes a swimming pool; baseball/softball diamonds; basketball, handball, and tennis

courts; a playground; and a gymnasium.  Improvements in this area would include

construction of an additional track and would require a strip of additional right‐of‐way

approximately 20 feet wide, totaling approximately 0.6 acres (Exhibit 5.15‐5).  Hamilton

Park is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Lyle Park  

This linear park in the Auburn Gresham neighborhood is located in former Chicago &

Western Indiana Railroad right‐of‐way, extending for three blocks, from 76th Street to

79th Street between S. Wallace Street and Metra.  The southern boundary of the park is

adjacent to the Section 2 alignment.  The park includes open space and a small

playground toward its northern end.  Improvements in this area would include

construction of an additional track and would require a strip of additional right‐of‐way

(approximately 0.3 acres) from the southern end of the park (Exhibits 5.15‐6).   

Vogt Woods Park  

This 29‐acre park in the Village of Tinley Park, is located adjacent to the north side of the

Section 2 alignment near 171st Street.  The park, owned by the Tinley Park District,

includes a picnic shelter, a baseball field, a soccer/football field, a playground, a large

wooded area, and a recreation building.  Improvements in this area would include

construction of an additional track along the length of the park (Exhibit 5.15‐7).  The

majority of this construction would occur within the existing right‐of‐way; however,

approximately 0.4 acres of additional right‐of‐way would be required from the

southwest corner of the park.   
Exhibit 5.15-3. Potential Impacts to Centennial Trail / I&M Canal Trail 
Exhibit 5.15-4. Potential Impacts to Ping Tom Park
Exhibit 5.15-5. Potential Impacts to Hamilton Park
Exhibit 5.15-6. Potential Impacts to Lyle Park
Exhibit 5.15-7. Potential Impacts to Vogt Park
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-84 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Midlothian Meadows  

This 455‐acre park in located in Oak Forest, adjacent to the southeast side of the Section

2 alignment, is part of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County.  The park includes

four large picnic shelters and a bike path.  Improvements in this area would include

construction of an additional track along the entire northwest boundary.  A portion of

this activity would require the acquisition of an approximately 45‐foot wide, 1,500‐foot

long strip of right‐of‐way from the park, totaling approximately 1.7 acres (Exhibit 5.15‐

8).  

St. Mihiel Reservation  

This 3,800‐acre park located in Oak Forest, adjacent to the southeast side of the Section 2

alignment, is part of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County.  The park includes a

parking area, hiking trails, and three ponds.  Improvements in this area would include

construction of an additional track, requiring a strip of new right‐of‐way ranging from

20 to 50 feet wide, along the entire 2‐mile long northwest boundary, totaling 5.0 acres

(Exhibit 5.15‐9).   

Pilcher Park  

This 640‐acre park located in the City of Joliet, adjacent to the north side of the Section 2

alignment, is owned by the Joliet Park District.  The park includes playground areas,

picnic grounds, hiking trails, bicycle trails, and cross country ski trails.  Improvements in

this area would include construction of an additional track, requiring a strip of new

right‐of‐way approximately 25 feet wide and 4,700 feet long, totaling 2.9 acres (Exhibit

5.15‐10).   

Hickory Creek Preserve  

This 1,542 acre park located in overlapping portions of Frankfort, New Lenox, and

Mokena, is owned by the Forest Preserve District of Will County.  The park includes

picnic areas, hiking, and a bike path, which provides a connection to the Old Plank Road

Trail to the south.  Improvements in this area would include construction of an

additional track, requiring a strip of new right‐of‐way approximately 70 feet wide and

4,300 feet long, totaling approximately 7.2 acres (Exhibit 5.15‐11).

Section 3

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie  

This 20,000‐acre property was established in 1996 on the site of the former Joliet Arsenal.  

Most of the property is now owned by the U.S. Forest Service.  Cleanup efforts by the

U.S. Army have allowed 7,200 acres of the property to be opened to the public for

recreation.  The property has 22 miles of trails for non‐motorized recreation and allows

hunting in limited areas.  As shown in Exhibit 5.15‐12, the existing Union Pacific rail line

bisects the property, running north‐south, for approximately 3.8 miles.  The existing

railroad right‐of‐way through the property is approximately 75 feet wide and includes a

single track throughout.  
Exhibit 5.15-8. Potential Impacts to Midlothian Meadows
Exhibit 5.15-9. Potential Impacts to St. Mihiel Reservation 
Exhibit 5.15-10. Potential Impacts to Pilcher Park
Exhibit 5.15-11. Potential Impacts to Hickory Creek Forest Preserve
Exhibit 5.15-12. Potential Impacts to Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-90 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Improvements would include the construction of a second track throughout the limits of

the property.  Through a majority of the property, construction would occur within the

existing right‐of‐way.  At the southern end of the property, a strip of additional right‐of‐

way, approximately 4 feet wide and approximately 0.7 miles long on the east side of the

existing right‐of‐way, would be required to accommodate the second track.  This would

require acquisition of approximately 0.6 acres of land from the property.  Coordination

with the U.S. Forest Service will be required during Tier 2 studies to confirm that this

area meets the requirements of a wildlife or waterfowl refuge under Section 4(f).  

Funks Grove Land and Water Reserve/ Funks Grove Nature Preserve/ Stubblefield

Woodlots Nature Preserve  

This 1,000+ acre natural area provides an example of the virgin forests once isolated on

the prairies of the Midwest.  Today it hosts over 5 miles of hiking trails and the Sugar

Grove Nature Center.  This IDNR‐owned site has also been designated a National

Natural Landmark by the National Park Service.  Improvements in this area would

include construction of an additional track along the entire southeast boundary,

including the acquisition of narrow strips of right‐of‐way of varying widths, totaling 2.9

acres (Exhibit 5.15‐13).   

Edward R. Madigan State Park/Railsplitter Park  

A 974‐acre park just south of Lincoln, the park includes picnic, fishing, canoeing, and

hiking facilities.  As shown in Exhibit 5.15‐14, the existing railroad right‐of‐way splits

the property running northeast‐southwest, for approximately 3,700 feet.  The existing

railroad right‐of‐way through the property ranges from 90‐100 feet wide and includes a

single track throughout. The alignment borders the park up to its northern boundary at  

Salt Creek.  Improvements would include the construction of a second track, adjacent to

the length of the property, approximately 1.2 miles.  Through a portion of this area,

additional right‐of‐way would be required from the park, totaling approximately 1.3

acres of property.  Due to the need to construct a new railroad bridge over Salt Creek,

additional temporary right‐of‐way would be required in the approach to Salt Creek.   

Unnamed Park (Sherman, IL)

This 13‐acre park in Sherman is located along South 1st Street adjacent to the east side of

Section 3 (Exhibit 5.15‐15).  The park includes a soccer field, a basketball court, and a

baseball/softball field.  Improvements in the area would include construction of an

additional track and would require the acquisition of a narrow strip of additional right‐

of‐way totaling 0.001 acre. Section 6

Interurban Trail  

This 8‐mile paved trail parallels the proposed alignment from Walnut Street in Chatham

to just north of I‐72 on the southern edge of Springfield.  Approximately 4.8 miles of the

10‐foot wide path is located immediately west of the rail line and crosses Lake

Springfield on a separate bridge.  Improvements throughout this section, shown on

Exhibit 5.15‐16, include the construction of a second track, with the majority occurring

within the existing right‐of‐way or additional right‐of‐way to the east.  There is one

section near I‐72, where a narrow strip of new right‐of‐way, approximately 10 feet wide

and 1,700 feet long (0.4 acres), would be acquired adjacent to the Trail.
Exhibit 5.15-13. Potential Impacts to Funks Grove/Stubblefield Nature Preserve
Exhibit 5.15-14. Potential Impacts to Edward Madigan State/ Railsplitter State Park
Figure 5.15‐15.     Potential Impacts to Unnamed Park (Sherman)
Figure 5.15‐16.     Potential Impacts to Interurban Trail
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-95 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Denby Prairie Nature Preserve

This 2.5 acre nature preserve in Macoupin County is located between Alton Road and

Section 6 (Exhibit 5.15‐17).  The Nature Preserve is owned by the Illinois Department of

Natural Resources and is home to vegetation characteristic of the Carlinville Section of

the Western Forest‐Prairie Natural Division.  Improvements in this area would include

construction of an additional track and would require the acquisition of a narrow strip

of additional right‐of‐way totaling 1.14 acres.

5.15.2.2 Section 6(f) Impacts

As described in Section 4.5, property acquired or developed with LWCF funds may not

be converted to non‐outdoor recreation use without approval of the National Park

Service (NPS).  Actions that trigger a conversion include:

 Property interests are conveyed for private use or non‐public outdoor recreation

uses.

 Non‐outdoor recreation uses (public or private) are made of the project area, or a

portion thereof, including those occurring on pre‐existing rights‐of‐way and

easements, or by a lessor.

 Unallowable indoor facilities are developed within the project area without NPS

approval, such as unauthorized public facilities and sheltering of an outdoor facility.

 Public outdoor recreation use of property acquired or developed with LWCF

assistance is terminated.

As noted in Section 4.5, two recreation sites, the Centennial Trail/I&M Canal Trail and

Beaver Dam State Park, were identified as receiving LWCF grants and are, therefore,

potentially eligible for protection under Section 6(f).  Beaver Dam State Park would not

be impacted by the program.  As described in Section 5.15.1, the Centennial Trail/I&M

Canal Trail may be impacted permanently by the program.  Coordination with IDNR

and NPS will be required during the Tier 2 study to whether these impacts constitute a

conversion of protected uses under Section 6(f) of the LWCF.

5.16 Safety and Security 

5.16.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No‐Build Alternative, no changes to rail operations safety and security and

crossing safety are planned beyond the improvements included in the 2004 Record of

Decision.

5.16.2 Build Alternatives 

5.16.2.1 Rail Operations Safety and Security

Train Operations

FRA’s Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 213) are based on classifications of track that

determine maximum operating speed limits, inspection frequencies, and standards of  
Figure 5.15‐17.     Potential Impacts to Denby Prairie Nature Preserve
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-97 Tier 1 Final EIS 

maintenance, among other issues. Higher track classes require more stringent

maintenance standards to support higher allowable maximum operating speed.  

The proposed maximum speed for the Chicago‐St. Louis HSR passenger service is 110

mph, or FRA Class 6.  The proposed improvements, described in Section 3.16.6 would

bring the rail infrastructure in the selected corridor into compliance with FRA standards

for Class 6.  The Service Development Plan, summarized in Chapter 6, includes all

maintenance and monitoring activities required for Class 6 operations.

Passenger Areas

At this time, all existing stations are proposed to remain in service.  Tier 2 will consider

the need to upgrade or potentially relocate stations in the corridor.  That evaluation will

also consider the potential need for safety improvements at each station.

Yard/Service Areas

Amtrak would continue to utilize existing yard and maintenance facilities in the Chicago

area to store and maintain trains and equipment.  No physical improvements to these

facilities are proposed at this time.  If needed improvements are identified during Tier 2,

the potential impact of those improvements will be evaluated at that time.

Amtrak has identified the need for a new maintenance facility in the St. Louis area to

support the expanded passenger service.  A location for this facility has not yet been

identified.  The location of this site will be determined during Tier 2, with evaluation of

impacts to be completed at that time.

The Tier 2 will also include a safety and security evaluation for yard/service areas to

identify any improvements (physical or operational) required to minimize risks to

passengers, the general public, and infrastructure.

5.16.2.2 Crossing Safety

Rail‐Rail Crossings

Each of the rail‐rail crossings has been evaluated for its ability to accommodate the

proposed service.  The crossings identified in Table 5.16‐1 have been identified for

upgrade as part of this program.  For existing grade‐separated crossings, improvements

are required to accommodate the additional proposed tracks.  The at‐grade crossings

identified in the table are proposed for grade‐separations.

All upgrades would be completed in compliance with relevant safety standards.  For the

existing grade‐separated crossings, this would not have a substantive effect on safety.  

Crossings proposed for grade‐separation would realize a substantial improvement in

safety as the potential conflict between trains on adjacent tracks is eliminated.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-98 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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

Section Milepost HSR Alignment 

Railroad Crossing Railroad Existing Grade 

1 5.10 CN Baltimore & Ohio Railroad At‐Grade

1 6.60 CN Grand Trunk Railroad At‐Grade

1 7.90 CN Chicago Belt Railroad At‐Grade

1 13.20 CN Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad At‐Grade

1 35.45 CN Elgin Joliet & Eastern Railroad Under

2 16.28 NIRC Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Over

2 16.33 NIRC Grand Trunk Western Railroad Over

2 33.09 NIRC Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Over

2 38.96 NIRC Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railroad At‐Grade

6 187.40 UP Norfolk Southern At‐Grade

7 281.16 UP Metrolink Over

7 0.00 UP Gulf Mobile & Ohio Railroad Over

7 0.00 UP Illinois Central Railroad Over

Highway‐Rail Crossings

Most crossings in the corridor would require some type of improvement to

accommodate the upgraded service.  Where additional tracks are to be added, crossing

surfaces, gates, and other equipment must be modified.   

Based on the 2004 Record of Decision, all at‐grade highway‐rail crossings in Sections 3

through 7 would be upgraded to provide four‐quadrant gates where they are not

already present.  This program would include the installation of four‐quadrant gates at

all remaining at‐grade crossings.  See Appendix E for a complete listing of crossings and

proposed crossing protection.

Section 3.16.6.3 evaluated every highway‐rail crossing for its suitability for grade‐

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

predicted exposure factor, a function of train and vehicular volumes.  Section 3.16.6.3

identifies 101 crossings in the study corridor for potential grade separation, which will

be evaluated further in Tier 2.

All proposed grade‐separated highway‐rail crossings would include sidewalks to

facilitate safe pedestrian access.

Fencing that would direct pedestrians to bridges/underpasses will be proposed for some

locations in urbanized areas as part of the program. Coordination between IDOT and the

affected communities would take place during Tier 2 to determine the location, style,

and height of the proposed fencing. Community cohesiveness and aesthetics would be

balanced with increased safety in a cooperative fashion.

5.17 Permits 

There will be permit requirements for construction of the Build Alternative associated

with the crossing and filling of water resources and wetlands.  Section 404 permits will
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-99 Tier 1 Final EIS 

be needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for wetlands where filling occurs.  As

part of any Section 404 permit submittal, the Corps will be provided with all

coordination documentation for any alternative selected that would affect the Hineʹs

emerald dragonfly and its Critical Habitat or any other threatened and endangered

species yet to be identified.  In addition, a Section 401 water quality certification will

have to be obtained from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Permits from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources,

will be required for construction activity in and around streams and floodplains.

It is anticipated that the Preferred Alternatives (Preferred Alternatives C and D) for this

program will result in the disturbance of one or more acres of total land area.  Therefore,

it will be subject to the requirement of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permit for stormwater discharges from the construction sites.  The

NPDES program requires a Notice of Intent, the development of a Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and the submission of a Notice of Termination when final

stabilization of the construction site has been achieved.  The SWPPP would identify

potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of

stormwater discharges from the construction site and would describe and ensure the

implementation of practices which would be used to reduce the pollutants in discharges

associated with construction site activities and assure compliance with the terms of the

permit.  Permit coverage for the program will be obtained either under the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from

Construction Site Activities (NPDES Permit No. ILR10), or under an individual NPDES

permit.

If previously unknown occurrences of endangered species are identified during

program implementation, all activity in the immediate area would cease.  Coordination

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be initiated as required by Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, and appropriate state or federal permits would be

sought.

Local agencies follow federal, regional, and state permitting requirements and

procedures.

5.18 Construction Impacts 

5.18.1 No-Build Alternative 

No impacts.

5.18.2 Build Alternatives 

In general, construction activities for HSR corridor improvements would impact rail

traffic by reducing operating speeds through the construction zones that would add to

rail travel time and, in turn, increase cost.  This would occur in the case of siding tracks,

double‐tracks, and addition of tracks for alternative connections.  There would also need

to be  schedule adjustments of existing operations to create windows of opportunity for
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-100 Tier 1 Final EIS 

construction activities including temporary shutdown of rail operations on selected

track sections for limited times.  Any necessary track work would need to be constructed

prior to relocation of rail traffic.  This work would be completed in stages.

Permission from the railroad owners would be required for any construction that would

take place within the railroad right‐of‐way.  Schedule adjustments would be required

when construction activities would either directly impact the mainline track, 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.  

Vehicular traffic would be temporarily impacted at locations where grade crossings

would be separated, modified, or improved.  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 might be required.

Construction of grade separations would be staged to minimize street closures.  This

would be accomplished primarily by closing the outside lanes during retaining wall and

bridge abutment construction while maintaining traffic on the inside lanes.  The adjacent

parallel streets would be used for detour traffic during street closures.  Another option is

to construct a temporary detour around the construction site. This would reduce the

amount of adverse travel but add to the total program cost.

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, all of the construction related impacts on vehicular traffic would be

temporary and are considered minor.

All station and platform modifications would be phased and constructed prior to

relocation of passenger traffic.

5.19 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

5.19.1 No-Build Alternative 

No impacts.

5.19.2 Build Alternatives 

5.19.2.1 Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts are defined as the effects of the proposed project that occur at a

different time or location from the direct impacts of the project.  Typically, indirect

impacts are associated with a project’s potential to induce development.  For

transportation projects, this usually involves the creation of new or significantly

improved access to areas that are relatively undeveloped.  The new/improved access

then has the potential to induce commercial, residential, and/or business development.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-101 Tier 1 Final EIS 

The potential future impacts to natural, cultural, and socioeconomic resources that may

be associated with the induced development are then considered indirect impacts.  For

this Tier 1 level of analysis, a general qualitative assessment was conducted for the HSR

Program in order to determined if and where potential indirect impacts could occur.  

For this program, the assessment of indirect impacts focused on the program’s potential

to induce development in the vicinity of the train stations.  Based on this initial

assessment, 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.

The evaluation of potential indirect impacts as part of the 2003 FEIS for the Chicago‐St.

Louis High‐Speed Rail Program resulted in a similar conclusion stating that

“Implementation of the Preferred Alternative is not expected to substantially alter

development patterns in the corridor and near stations.”

A more detailed analysis of indirect impacts could be conducted at the Tier 2 level.

5.19.2.2 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from

the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non‐federal) or person

undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR § 1508.7).  Because this is a Tier 1 level of

analysis and due to the extent of the program length (i.e., 284 miles), this cumulative

impacts assessment did not involve a detailed and qualitative analysis of specific past,

present, and future projects along the entire corridor but a more qualitative assessment

of the program’s overall potential for cumulative impacts.  With regard to train service

along the existing corridor, the primary issue would be the potential cumulative impacts

associated with noise when considering the anticipated increase of freight trains in

addition to the increase in HSR passenger trains.  When conducting the noise analysis

for this program, both freight and HSR passenger trains were included (see Section 5.8).  

As a result, the noise analysis addresses cumulative impacts.   
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-102 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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 HSR Program would involve primarily the addition of a second track

that would parallel the existing track, the majority of the impacts would be within

the existing right‐of‐way and in previously disturbed areas.

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

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

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

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

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

added to any other project impacts in those areas.

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

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

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

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

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

Chicago, Springfield, and St. Louis.

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

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

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

from Joliet to Dwight associated with the 2011 EA.  The 2004 ROD improvements are in

various stages of development and include the provisions for three daily round trips

along the existing Chicago to St. Louis Amtrak route, with 110 mph high‐speed rail

service south of Dwight, 12 miles of double track, 22 miles of freight sidings, station

improvements, one grade‐separated crossing, and enhanced warning devices at 174

crossings.  Because most of these improvements will occur within the existing right‐of‐

way and/or within previously disturbed areas, the cumulative effect of adding these

impacts to the impacts associated with this project are anticipated to be minimal.   

The proposed 2011 EA improvements from Joliet to Dwight 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.  Because most of

these improvements will occur within the existing right‐of‐way and/or within

previously disturbed areas, the cumulative effect of adding these impacts to the impacts

associated with this program are anticipated to be minimal.   

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
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-103 Tier 1 Final EIS 

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.

If deemed necessary, a more detailed analysis of cumulative impacts could be conducted

at the Tier 2 level.

5.20 The Relationship between Local Short-Term Uses 

and Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations [40CFR 1502.16] require a

discussion of the “relationship between short‐term uses of the environment and the

maintenance and enhancement of long‐term productivity” as part of an EIS. NEPA

requires the evaluation of a project to determine whether long‐term benefits are worth

the short‐term adverse effects.

In the preparation of this Tier 1 Final EIS, all significant short‐ and long‐term

environmental relationships created by program alternatives have been quantified in

light of the avoidance, minimization, and compensation of unavoidable impacts on

resources. In addition to wetlands, wildlife, air quality, water, farmland, and

historical/archaeological factors, quantified resources include options of societal land

use and development.  Those commitments are represented by secondary and

cumulative developments anticipated as a consequence of implementation of the

program.  

The long‐term enhancement and benefits of the HSR corridor transportation system

improvements would occur at the expense of short‐term, temporary construction

impacts on nearby residents, businesses, and motorists.  Those short‐term effects would

include, but are not limited to, traffic congestion and delays, aesthetic degradations

resulting from construction equipment, energy consumption during construction,

restricted access to residences, and localized noise, air and water pollution.  Based on

standard environmental specifications made part of construction contracts as directed by

this Tier 1 Final EIS, they would not have a lasting impact on the environment.  

Short‐term gains to the local economy would occur during construction resulting from

hiring local firms and labor, and local services and supplies.  In the long‐term, any of the

build alternatives would increase the railroad’s system capacity and passenger services

and improve safety, traffic congestion and delays from Chicago to St. Louis.

While the program would require a commitment of resources in the short‐term railroad

construction, it would conform to national and regional planning and would result in

long‐term benefits by accommodating anticipated train and vehicular traffic volumes,

reducing air emissions through an efficient flow of rail and vehicular traffic, and limiting

encroachment into sensitive environmental resources by utilizing existing right‐of‐way

to the extent possible.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-104 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.21 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of 

Resources 

To fulfill NEPA requirements of a consolidated discussion of environmental

consequences to focus on any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources,

the following includes the worst case for the program Build Alternatives (Alternatives A

and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D).    

The irreversible commitment of resources is the use of non‐renewable resources

including fossil fuels, manufactured structural materials, and land converted to long

term business and industrial use.  A commitment of resources is irreversible when its

primary or secondary impacts limit the future option for a resource.  The proposed site

and facilities and the energy required to build and operate the facilities represent

irreversible commitments of resources.  An irretrievable commitment refers to the use or

consumption of resources that is neither renewable nor recoverable for later use by

future generations.  Irretrievable commitments of resources cause the lost production or

use of renewable resources such as timber, rangeland, or wildlife habitat.  

Although it is technically feasible to remove a railroad embankment and restore the

landscape, one must assume that the utility of the program right‐of‐way would warrant

its indefinite maintenance and operation to serve the transportation need.  Construction

associated with the Build Alternatives would necessarily involve the clearing of

terrestrial vegetation and placing fill within the right‐of‐way.  As the right‐of‐way is

allowed to revegetate, hedgerow and grassland habitats would reestablish themselves.  

Other potential habitats would be irretrievably lost in those areas where the rail

embankment is widened to provide additional track.  Even with the implementation of

mitigation measures, impacts to high quality remnant prairie communities, wetlands,

water resources, and critical habitat for threatened and endangered species would be

irreversible.  The loss of woody vegetation, particularly mature trees and large shrubs,

would be irreversible in a reasonable time‐frame as the revegetation process requires

from 15 to 25 years for the development and growth of mature hedgerow woody species

and from 15 to 150 years for forested communities to reach a level as areas that would be

removed during construction.  Also, the restored habitat is often less diverse than

similar natural communities.

Some land for additional right‐of‐way such as prime farmland would also be

irretrievably and irreversibly committed for conversion to railroad.  The loss of urban,

disturbed land, and non‐prairie grassland communities would be retrievable as these

areas are readily replaceable.   

The Build Alternatives would result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of

construction materials, such as steel, concrete, ballast rock, and wood.  Though largely

irretrievable, these resources are not in short supply and many of the materials could be

recycled for other projects when they no longer meet the design needs of the passenger

or freight rail service.  In addition, energy resources (fuel) and financial resources would

be committed to the program for construction, operation, and maintenance.    
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 5-105 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.22 Summary of Impacts and Costs 

Table 5.22‐1 summarizes the impacts and costs for each of the Build Alternatives

(Alternatives A and B and Preferred Alternatives C and D).  The No‐Build Alternative

would not result in any impacts.

Table 5.22‐1.  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 5-106 Tier 1 Final EIS 

5.23 Potential Mitigation Measures 

Table 5.23‐1 summarizes potential mitigation measures for the program.  Mitigation will

be further identified and commitments will be finalized in Tier 2 studies.

Table 5.23‐1.  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 5-107 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 5.23‐1.  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 5-108 Tier 1 Final EIS 

Table 5.23‐1.  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.