Section

3

3. Alternatives

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

3.0 Alternatives 

This Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 DEIS) includes an evaluation

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

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

Alternatives being evaluated would utilize different routes in three areas: between

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

Build (HSR) Alternative routes would utilize combinations of the existing passenger rail

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

other existing rail lines.  The No‐Build Alternative includes the continuation of intercity

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

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

limited HSR service will be provided between Joliet and St. Louis and will begin

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

2004 Record of Decision (ROD) (Dwight to St. Louis improvements) and 2011 Finding of

No Significant Impact (FONSI) (Joliet to Dwight improvements).  The limited HSR

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

round trips allowing for 110 mph passenger trains between Joliet and Alton, with

remaining portions of the corridor allowing speeds of up to 79 mph.  One additional

non‐HSR daily passenger round trip will continue to operate between Chicago and St.

Louis, and one non‐HSR Texas Eagle daily passenger round trip will continue to operate

between Chicago and San Antonio, Texas, over the Chicago to St. Louis corridor under

the No‐Build Alternative.  In comparison, the Build (HSR) Alternatives would include

eight daily round trips allowing for 110 mph intercity passenger service for the entire

route between Chicago and St. Louis.  One additional non‐HSR Texas Eagle daily

passenger round trip would continue to operate under the HSR Build Alternatives.

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

have been carried forward for analysis in this Tier 1 DEIS; describes each of the

alternatives carried forward for further analyses, as well as the alternatives that have

been considered and were dismissed as part of the screening process; and compares the

estimated costs of the alternatives.  This information is included in the following

sections:

 Section 3.1 describes the alternatives screening process and assumptions;  

 Section 3.2 discusses the No‐Build Alternative;   

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

 Section 3.4 compares the costs of the Build Alternatives carried forward.

3.1 Tier 1 Alternatives Screening Process 

3.1.1 Alternatives Screening and Selection Process 

The purpose of the screening process is to identify reasonable alternatives to evaluate in

detail in this Tier 1 DEIS.  A set of screening criteria has been developed specifically for
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-2 Tier 1 DEIS 

this program.  The screening criteria have been applied to the Build Alternatives to

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

consideration.  The screening criteria have been developed based on the following:

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

increase passenger rail ridership through infrastructure/equipment  improvements

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

to St. Louis);

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

 minimizing maintenance and operational costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

screening process.  The No‐Build Alternative is not being screened as part of the

alternative screening process, because it will need to be retained throughout this Tier 1

DEIS for comparison purposes to the other alternatives that have been evaluated.  More

detailed discussions regarding individual improvements associated with the No‐Build

and Build Alternatives are discussed in Section 3.2 and 3.3.  

After consideration to improve portions of the Chicago to St. Louis corridor for high

speed trains capable of traveling 125 mph, this alternative was dismissed due to the

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

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

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

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

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

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

and environmental consequences.

3.1.2 Tier 1 Screening Objectives and Criteria 

Key objectives and criteria have been developed for screening the initial range of

alternatives.  The criteria were developed to evaluate the alternatives based primarily on

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

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

screening criteria have been used to help identify any alternatives with fatal flaws.  The

end result of the screening process is a set of the most reasonable alternatives, which are

being evaluated in more detail later in this Tier 1 DEIS.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-3 Tier 1 DEIS 

Table 3.1‐1. Design Elements of the Program Alternatives

Program 

Element1

No-Build Alternative 

(Design Year 2030) 

Build Alternatives 

(Design Year 2030) 

Passenger Round

Trips per Day 52 93

Maximum

Operating Speed

For 3 of the 5 passenger round

trips: up to 110 mph between Joliet

and Alton; up to 79 mph north of

Joliet and south of Alton.  For the

remaining 2 passenger round trips:

up to 79 mph between Chicago

and St. Louis.

Up to

110 mph

Up to

125 mph

Number of

Mainline Tracks

1 track through most of the

corridor

2 tracks (minimum) throughout the

corridor

Alternative

Routes

Use existing Chicago to St. Louis

Amtrak route

Evaluate alternative routes between

Chicago and Joliet, through

Springfield, and between Alton and

St. Louis

Grade Crossings

Enhanced warning devices at

grade crossings south of Joliet as

part of the 2004 Record of Decision

(ROD) improvements and the

Dwight to Joliet Environmental

Assessment.

Additional

grade crossing

treatments,

including grade

separations.

Where speeds

exceed 110 mph,

close or grade

separate

crossings.

Station Upgrades

Station upgrades at Dwight,

Pontiac, Lincoln, Carlinville,

Alton, and Springfield as covered

in 2004 ROD

Additional station improvements,

including potential passenger grade

separations

New Stations None

Between Chicago and Joliet, for

routes other than the existing Amtrak

route, a new suburban station would

be provided.  This also is the case for  

East St. Louis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 3.1‐2 lists the Tier 1 DEIS screening objectives and their corresponding criteria, as

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

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

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

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

factors were identified, specific qualitative and quantitative parameters have been

developed that are being used to compare alternatives.  Quantitative criteria have been

measured in appropriate units such as alternative route length, travel time, or dollars,

while qualitative criteria that could not be captured adequately by a single number have

been encapsulated in a brief narrative description.

Table 3.1‐2. Tier 1 Objectives and Screening Criteria

Objective Criteria and Measures 

Meet Purpose and Need

(increase passenger rail

ridership through

improved travel times,

frequency and reliability

of service, and improve

safety.)

 Length (miles)

 Travel time (minutes)

 Connectivity to other intercity passenger rail, intermodal services to

improve mobility to important business/leisure destinations (qualitative

discussion)

 Safety (qualitative discussion based on ridership data)

Minimize operational and

construction issues

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

readiness/ability to accommodate high speed passenger rail

 Potential conflicts with freight and other passenger service)

 Number of at‐grade crossings

 Construction issues (qualitative discussion)

Minimize capital and

maintenance costs

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

 Maintenance cost (dollars)

Minimize environmental

impacts (natural,

socioeconomic, and

cultural resources)

 Existing and planned development [land use compatibility (qualitative

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

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

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

threatened and endangered species impacts (number of species)]

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

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

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

potentially displaced)3

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

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

resources)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.2.1 Meet Purpose and Need

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

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

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

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

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

mode of transportation would offer improved transportation choices, reduced fuel

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

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

process that are expected to affect overall ridership changes include length of the

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

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

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

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

Length

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

of the various alternatives have been compared.  The length of the alternative was one

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

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

lengths were obtained from GIS mapping data sources.

Travel Time

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

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

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

improvements anticipated for each alternative included sufficient infrastructure to

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

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

geometrics and capacity restrictions, is being conducted for those alternatives carried

forward for detailed evaluation in this Tier 1 DEIS.  Those travel times are contained in

Section 3.3.3 in Table 3.3‐1.

Connectivity to Other Intercity Passenger Rail and Intermodal Service

Alternatives have been evaluated to assess their connectivity to other passenger rail and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.2.2 Minimize Operational and Construction Issues

Operational Issues

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

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

number of at‐grade crossings have been considered for each alternative.  In order for

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

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

passenger, and commuter operations along the alternative.  These conflicts between

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

reliability, and costs could be affected by capacity and operational issues.

Alternative alignments have been reviewed based on the difficulty/anticipated costs that

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

passenger rail service on their tracks.  Even if it would require a large effort in terms of

infrastructure improvements and/or operational changes in order to allow host

railroad’s to be able to accommodate high speed passenger trains it does not

automatically disqualify the alternative.  However, a host railroad’s inability to readily

accommodate high speed passenger service is being evaluated due to the additional

costs that may be necessary to maintain the host railroad operational capacity or to

relocate freight operations to other existing routes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

rail users.

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

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

also identified as major infrastructure improvements along the alternatives should any

doubled tracked at‐grade crossing exist.  At these locations, it is being assumed that

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

operation efficiencies along both the alternative and crossing railroad.  By providing

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

flyovers would result in increased construction costs and potential for additional

impacts to existing natural, cultural, and human resources due the wider right‐of‐way

required in those areas.

Construction Issues

The alternatives have been compared based on the degree to which rail infrastructure

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

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

temporary construction requirements, and closures necessary for construction have been

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

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

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

rail service, infrastructure improvements can be generally completed with few

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

necessary.

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

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

transportation would be necessary during construction; schedule delays become

more prevalent.  Temporary construction projects necessary to maintain rail traffic

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

some adjacent transportation systems.  

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

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

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

because of the additional detour traffic.  Temporary construction requirements may

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

additional service cancellations would affect a larger geographic area of

transportation systems during the overall infrastructure improvement construction

period.

3.1.2.3 Minimize Capital and Maintenance Costs

Capital Cost

The capital costs for the alternatives are being developed based on the required

infrastructure improvements identified as necessary to accommodate high‐speed

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

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

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

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

Tier 1 DEIS.

The following types of costs are being evaluated:

 Rolling Stock;

 Maintenance Facilities;

 Station Facilities;

 Roadways;

 Removal;

 Pavement and Appurtenances;  

 Structures;

 Rail;

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

 Track;

 Crossovers and Turnouts;  

 Signaling;

 Structures;

 Miscellaneous Items;

 Program Implementation Costs;

 Construction plans and specification costs;

 Construction engineering costs were estimated as a percentage of construction

cost;  

 Program management costs;

 Right‐of‐Way Costs; and

 Contingencies.

Maintenance Cost

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

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

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

the alternatives carried forward in this Tier 1 DEIS are provided in Section 3.4.2.

3.1.2.4 Minimize Environmental Impacts

Existing and Planned Development

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

and near schools.  Existing and planned land uses are being evaluated to provide a

general assessment regarding the linear miles of residential development and the

number of schools adjacent to each alternative.  New stations may be required for

alternatives that shift passenger service to alternative routes through Chicago,

Springfield, and/or St. Louis and thereby bypass existing stations in those communities.  

Additional land use studies will be conducted during subsequent environmental

documentation to confirm that the locations of any proposed stations and other

infrastructure features that could conflict with existing and/or planned land uses are

adequately addressed.

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

alternative studied.  The proposed new right‐of‐way areas have been evaluated to

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

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

Minimize Impacts to Natural Resources

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

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

impacts are provided in Chapter 5 of this Tier 1 DEIS.  Impacts will be further defined in

subsequent Tier 2 documents for any Build Alternatives selected for further evaluation.

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

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

quantified for each alternative.

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

The number of floodplain crossings is quantified for each alternative.

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

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

wetlands affected is quantified for each alternative.

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

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

be potentially impacted are listed for each alternative.

Minimize Impacts to Social and Economic Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

percent have been identified as areas where there may be a potential for

disproportionate impacts.  More detailed analyses would be conducted in subsequent

Tier 2 studies after more specific design information is available to better assess the

study corridor for potential disproportionate impacts.

Community and neighborhood impacts include disruption to neighborhoods and

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

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

have been evaluated qualitatively to determine if an alternative would divide or disrupt

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

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

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

determine displacements.   

Minimize Impacts to Cultural and Recreational Resources

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

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

National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account the

effects of their undertakings on historic properties listed or eligible for listing on the
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-11 Tier 1 DEIS 

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

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

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

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

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

historic resources that could potentially be affected (i.e., physical take) by each

alternative is quantified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

will be required is quantified for each alternative.

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

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

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

and private historical sites unless the following conditions apply:

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

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

from use.

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

Act of 1965 have also been considered during the screening process.  The LWCF was

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

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

requires that all properties “acquired or developed, either partially or wholly, with

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

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

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

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

delegate/State Liaison Officer.

3.2 No-Build Alternative 

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.1 Passenger Rail Service under the No-Build Alternative 

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

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

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

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

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

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

comparison data with the No‐Build and Build Alternatives).

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

corridor.  The Selected Alternative from the EIS included the provision of three daily

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

high‐speed rail service south of Dwight, Illinois.  Proposed improvements in the 2003

FEIS included double tracking several areas along the route, addition and/or extension

of freight sidings, station enhancements, grade‐separated crossings, and enhanced

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

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

advanced.  The projects that have advanced based on the 2004 ROD are described below.  

No action was selected between Chicago and Dwight.  Table 3.2‐1 summarizes the

improvements approved in the 2004 ROD and subsequent studies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

stations, and addition of new high speed trains.

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

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

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

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

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

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

entry into passenger service.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004 ROD Approved Improvements (Dwight to St. Louis)

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

The 2004 ROD improvements include:

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

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

 upgrades to existing crossovers and grade crossing surfaces;

 enhanced warning devices/signals at 174 grade crossings;

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

 addition of six new high speed trainsets; and

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

In 2010, the Chicago to St. Louis corridor was awarded $1.1 billion to complete some of the 2004 ROD‐

approved projects between Dwight and St. Louis.  These improvements began in 2011.  Track upgrades

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2011 FONSI improvements include:  

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

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

MP 44.69);

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

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

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

38.50;

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

 addition of six new high speed trainsets;

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

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

an expanded centerline of 20 feet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for implementation as funding is available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

decision for the project.

In 2010, the Chicago to St. Louis corridor was awarded $1.1 billion to improve the

corridor between Dwight and St. Louis.  These improvements include many of the ROD

approved improvements discussed above in Table 3.2‐1.  Subsequent to the initial $1.1

billion award, FRA has awarded over $200 million in additional funds for HSR

improvements in the Chicago to St. Louis corridor.  In September 2010, construction

began upgrading existing track using the Track Renewal Train (TRT) to prepare the

route for operations at up to 110 miles per hour.  The track upgrades began in Godfrey

and proceeded north to just south of Lincoln, excluding the Springfield Area.  In 2011,

the TRT was used to upgrade tracks between Lincoln and Dwight.  The 2010‐2011

improvements included the installation of new rail, concrete ties, and stone ballast that

support the new rail and ties; new high‐speed turnouts; realignment of several curves to

support future higher speeds; and installation of new concrete panels at grade crossings.  

All new double track sections and/or sidings being extended to become part of the

overall double track system are being constructed and/or planned to include 20‐foot

track centers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and approved for up to 110 mph service.

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

considered part of the No‐Build or baseline conditions for the current Tier 1 DEIS.  The
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-15 Tier 1 DEIS 

ROD and FONSI projects, which are located from Joliet southward, were at various

stages of implementation as of January 2012.

Also, considered part of the No‐Build Alternative for this Tier 1 DEIS is the new

intermodal facility near Joliet, Illinois constructed by UP.  This facility will enable UP to

continue to increase freight traffic on their line south of Joliet.  The number of daily

freight trains will gradually increase from about five to about 22.

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

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

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

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

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

corridor to support 110 mph speeds.

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

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

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

fencing will be provided on all overhead highway bridges.

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

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

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

maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing tracks.

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

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

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

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

are completed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

up to one hour and 12 minutes faster than the existing route prior to these

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

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

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

Mode 

Estimated Travel Times (Hours: Minutes) 

Existing 

Conditions 

No-Build 

Alternative2

Potential Time 

Saved vs. Existing 

(No-Build) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

boarding gates.

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

between existing conditions and future 2030 conditions.

3.2.2 Annual Ridership Estimates 

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

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

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

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

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

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

discussions regarding ridership.

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

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

Mode 

Annual Ridership (Number of Trips) 

2010 

Existing Conditions 

2030 

No-Build Alternative 

Total Trips Percent of 

Total Total Trips Percent of Total 

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

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

Air 542,751 1.1% 913,026 1.5%

Bus 99,809 0.2% 134,087 0.2%

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

3.2.3 Purpose and Need Assessment of the No-Build Alternative 

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

elements of the purpose and need is provided below.

3.2.3.1 Ridership (Travel Time, Frequency, and Reliability)  

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

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

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

Alternative would provide some increase in ridership compared to the existing

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

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

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

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

of the proposed program.

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

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

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

three hours and 51 minutes to four hours and 10 minutes for an overall travel time

decrease of up to one hour and 47 minutes over existing conditions, the No‐Build

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

full build alternatives.

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

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

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

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

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

freight and passenger rail potentially affecting businesses and passengers relying on

rail service along the route.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.3.2 Safety

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

automobile to rail since rail is a safer mode of travel.  However, fewer passengers are

expected to divert under the No‐Build Alternative compared to the Build

Alternatives, which would have overall travel times that are expected to be

substantially shorter than automobile travel times.

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

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

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

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

However, the No‐Build Alternative is being carried forward in this Tier 1 DEIS for

comparison purposes to the proposed Build Alternatives described below.

3.3 Build Alternatives 

This section briefly describes each of the potential build alternatives that have been

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

alternatives are being carried forward for further study in this Tier 1 DEIS, and discusses

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

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

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

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

Louis corridor where alternative routes have been considered, some of which were

carried forward for further evaluation in this Tier 1 DEIS.  Finally, the Build Alternatives

carried forward in this Tier 1 DEIS are described in more detail in Section 3.3.7.

3.3.1 Program Elements for the Proposed High Speed Rail Corridor 

Several program elements have been incorporated during the alternatives development

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

major travel time reductions.  These include:

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

track and right‐of‐way);

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

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

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

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

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

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

railroad grade crossings.

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

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

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

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

these train frequencies, it was determined that two tracks would be required to maintain

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

(See Section 6.1.2.1 for a discussion of railroad operation performance under the No‐

Build and Build Alternatives.)  The Build Alternatives would provide double tracking

for the entire length of the corridor, whereas the No‐Build Alternative would only

provide a second track at the existing double‐tracked locations, and those approved for

double tracking and/or siding extensions in the 2004 ROD and 2011 FONSI.  In addition,

a parallel maintenance access road would be constructed along the length of the

railroad.  Several areas within the corridor already contain a second track and/or sidings,

with additional double tracking and sidings approved to be constructed as part of the

2004 ROD and 2011 FONSI improvements within the existing passenger rail corridor.  

All new double‐tracking will be at 20‐foot track centers.

For most of the corridor between Joliet to Springfield and Springfield to Venice, the

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

and communities located in the corridor.  Improvements to the existing route would be

completed in those areas with no alternative routes being considered.  However, as

mentioned in Section 3.1, there are three areas where alternative routes for the proposed

high speed passenger trains have been evaluated due to the increased potential for

community impacts due to larger populations and existing development, additional

crossings, and increased potential for conflicts with freight trains.  These include the

section from Chicago to Joliet, the section through Springfield, and the section from

Alton to St. Louis.  Those areas have been evaluated for alternative routes as part of the

screening process described in Section 3.1 to determine if there would be opportunities

to improve the overall passenger rail service, while reducing overall impacts to the

human and natural environments, minimizing costs.  The need to reduce potential

conflicts with an increasing number of freight trains also led to studying alternative

routes.  The three areas where additional alternative routes have been considered are

discussed in Sections 3.3.4 through 3.3.6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mode 

Estimated Travel Times (Hours: Minutes) 

Existing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

boarding gates.

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

between existing conditions and future 2030 conditions.

3.3.2 Annual Ridership Estimates 

Annual ridership estimates were developed for the Build Alternatives.  Anticipated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the full length Build Alternatives (see Section 3.3.7) being studied in detail in this Tier 1

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

length Build Alternatives being carried forward, the ridership data is considered the

same for each Build Alternative for comparison with the No‐Build Alternative.  Table

3.3‐2 contains ridership estimates for all four modes of transportation under the existing,

No‐Build Alternative, and Build Alternative conditions for comparison.  Sections 3.3.3

contains additional discussions regarding ridership the alternatives considered in this

Tier 1 DEIS.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-21 Tier 1 DEIS 

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

Chicago and St. Louis

Mode 

Annual Ridership (Number of Trips) 

2010 

Existing Conditions 

2030 

Build Alternatives 

Total Trips Percent of 

Total Total Trips Percent of Total 

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

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

Air 542,751 1.1% 826,284 1.3%

Bus 99,809 0.2% 120,366 0.2%

Total 50,724,326    62,201,624   

3.3.3 Purpose and Need Assessment of the Build Alternatives 

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

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

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

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

benefits offered by each alternative, and the overall environmental consequences

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

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

alternatives screening process.  In general, the alternative sections carried forward in the

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

expected to provide the best fit for meeting the purpose and need and overall goals of

the program.  Those alternatives that would have been less likely to fully reach the

overall goals of the program have been eliminated as part of the screening process.  

More detailed discussions regarding the differences between the Build Alternatives

carried forward for further study are discussed in the affected environment and

environmental consequences sections of this Tier 1 DEIS.

The following summarizes the anticipated effectiveness of the Build Alternatives at

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

3.3.3.1 Ridership (Travel Time, Frequency, Reliability)

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

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

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

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

program.

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

and 51 minutes and four hours and 10 minutes under the Build Alternatives.  This
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-22 Tier 1 DEIS 

compares to the No‐Build Alternative with overall travel times of a minimum of four

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

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

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

the Build Alternatives.

Capacity improvements provided for with the Build Alternatives will allow for

increased train frequencies and improved reliability.

3.3.3.2 Safety  

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

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

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

Each of the Build Alternatives carried forward in this Tier 1 DEIS will meet the purpose

and need of the program.

3.3.4 Alternative Route Screening for Chicago to Joliet 

3.3.4.1 Initial Range of Alternatives Chicago to Joliet

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

screening by reviewing potentially available railroad corridors that provide a route

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

alternatives studied during the screening process between Chicago and Joliet.

The following is a brief description of each of the alternative routes that have been

considered during the screening process from Chicago to Joliet:

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

Station

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

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

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

Improvements would include:  

 Construction of a crossover south of Joliet Union Station;  

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

Corwith Yard;  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 2 ‐ CN to Chicago Union Station  

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

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

Station.  Improvements would include:  

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

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

Corwith Yard; and CSX/NS near Western Avenue.

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

This alternative would include utilizing the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter

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

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

Station.  Improvements would include:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

suburban Amtrak station;  

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

Lenox; and  

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

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

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra regarding sharing of

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

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

around 75th Street.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4A ‐ Metra Rock Island

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

LaSalle Street Station.  Improvements would include:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Street.   

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra regarding sharing of

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

accommodations.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4B ‐ Metra Rock Island  

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

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

Improvements would include:

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

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

existing single track connection between the NIRC RID and SCAL;  

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

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

suburban Amtrak station;  

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

Union Station; and  

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

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

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

speed rail passenger service and the specifics of those accommodations.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4C ‐ Metra Rock Island  

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

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

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

Improvements would include:

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

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

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

the proposed Transportation Center and location and construction of new suburban

Amtrak Station;  

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

Chicago; and

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

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and NS regarding

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

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

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4D ‐ Metra Rock Island

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

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

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

Station.  Improvements would include:

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

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

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

Chicago, station improvements including relocating the platforms at Joliet Union

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

of a new suburban Amtrak Station;  

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

40th Street in Chicago; and

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

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and NS regarding

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

accommodations.

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4E ‐ Metra Rock Island  

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

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

Chicago Union Station.  Improvements would include:  

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

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

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

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

the proposed Transportation Center and location and construction of a new

suburban Amtrak Station; and  

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

Street.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

suburban Amtrak Station.   

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

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

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

not share the EJ&E with passenger trains.

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

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

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

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

Union Station.  Improvements would include:

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

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

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

East of IL 50 (5.7 miles);  

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

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

suburban Amtrak Station; and  

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

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

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

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

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

not share the EJ&E with passenger trains.

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

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

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

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

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

Station.  Improvements would include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

suburban Amtrak Station; and

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

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

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and NS regarding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improvements would include:  

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

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

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

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

43rd Street;

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

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

suburban Amtrak Station; and

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

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

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

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and NS regarding

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

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

UP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

southeast of Joliet (3 miles); and  

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

Union Station.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amtrak to Chicago Union Station.  Improvements would include:  

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

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

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

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

suburban Amtrak Station;  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chicago Union Station.  Improvements would include:  

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

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

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

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

and location and construction of a new suburban Amtrak Station;

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

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

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

Chicago Heights; and  

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

This alignment would require additional coordination with Metra and NS regarding

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

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

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

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

operate through the station area.  Specific improvements would be determined during

the Tier 2 environmental study.  The following RID and Heritage Corridor (HC) Metra

stations north and east of Joliet would require further study in Tier 2 environmental

studies to determine the appropriate improvement types:

 HC Stations

 Lockport

 Lemont

 Willow Springs

 Summit

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

 New Lenox

 Mokena

 Hickory Creek

 Tinley Park – 80th Avenue

 Tinley Park

 Oak Forest

 Midlothian

 Robbins

 Blue Island – Vermont Street

 103rd Street – Washington Heights

 95th Street – Longwood

 Gresham  

Improvements could include:

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

present;

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

flows from parking areas;

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

pedestrian gates;

 Platform relocation to correct pedestrian flow problems and eliminate staggered

platforms;

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.4.2 Screening Results for Chicago to Joliet Alternatives

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

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

further consideration in this Tier 1 DEIS.  Information and data developed for the Tier 1

screening process is summarized in Table 3.3‐3.  The alternatives that are being

eliminated are indicated with red shading in the cell containing the alternative names in

Table 3.3‐3.  Orange shaded cells in the table indicate the primary reasons for

eliminating those alternatives, and yellow shaded cells indicate secondary reasons.

The Chicago to Joliet Tier 1 screening alternatives that are being carried forward for

further study in this Tier 1 DEIS due to best meeting the screening criteria and purpose

and need for this program include:  

 Chicago to Joliet Alternative 2; and

 Chicago to Joliet 4D

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

Alternative descriptions in Section 3.3.6.

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

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

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

accommodate high speed passenger service on their tracks.

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

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

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

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

potential for environmental impacts.

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

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

accommodate high speed passenger service on their tracks.

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

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

speed passenger service on their tracks.

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

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

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

flyover.)

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

operational issues.  This alternative includes the backup maneuver into Union

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

than the other Alternative 5s.

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.5 Alternative Route Screening for Springfield 

3.3.5.1 Initial Range of Springfield Alternatives

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

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

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

Project”, a broad range of alternatives were pre‐screened prior to the screening of

alternatives in this Tier 1 DEIS.  The preliminary alternatives previously studied were

established using input from that project’s Steering Committee, advisory groups, and

public meetings in April and November 2010.  The pre‐screening process eliminated 10

preliminary alternatives from further study based on their inability to meet the

objectives of the project, as measured by projected vehicle crashes, delays, and train

horn noise, or because they would have disproportionate costs and/or environmental

impacts.  At the conclusion of the “Springfield Rail Improvements Project” pre‐screening

process, five alternatives remained for further evaluation in this Tier 1 DEIS screening

process.  Exhibits 3.3‐5 through 3.3‐7 depict the five alternatives that are being studied

during the current screening process in Springfield.

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

also being evaluated against Tier 2 level screening criteria.  The Tier 2 screening process

and criteria for the “Springfield Rail Improvements Project” alternatives is described in

the separate Tier 2 Environmental Evaluation for Springfield contained in Volume II of

this EIS.

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

during the screening process in Springfield as part of this Tier 1 DEIS:

Springfield Alternative 1  

This alternative would leave UP freight trains and Amtrak passenger trains on Third

Street.  An additional track would be provided.  

Springfield Alternative 2  

This alternative would shift UP freight trains and Amtrak passenger trains from Third

Street to Tenth Street abandoning the Third Street corridor from near Ridgely Avenue to

South of Iles Avenue.  Additional tracks would be provided along Tenth Street.
Exhibits 3.3-5. Initial Range of Springfield Alternatives (Alternative 1)
Exhibit 3.3-6. Initial Range of Springfield Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3)
Exhibit 3.3-7. Initial Range of Springfield Alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5)
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-42 Tier 1 DEIS

Springfield Alternative 3  

This alternative would shift UP freight trains and Amtrak passenger trains from Third

Street to Tenth Street as well as CN, I&M and KCS freight trains from the Nineteenth

Street corridor to the Tenth Street corridor.   The Third Street corridor from near Ridgely

Avenue to South of Iles Avenue would be abandoned as would the Nineteenth Street

corridor from north of Clear Lake Avenue to near Stanford Avenue.  Additional tracks

would be provided along Tenth Street.

Springfield Alternative 4  

This alternative would shift UP freight trains to Tenth Street and leave Amtrak

passenger trains on Third Street.  Additional tracks would be provided along Tenth and

Third Streets.

Springfield Alternative 5  

This alternative would shift UP freight trains to Tenth Street and leave Amtrak

passenger trains on Third Street.  This alternative would also shift CN, I&M and KCS

freight trains from the Nineteenth Street corridor to the Tenth Street corridor.  

Additional tracks would be provided along Tenth and Third Streets.

3.3.5.2 Screening Results for the Springfield Alternatives

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

Springfield portion of the corridor and provides reasons for eliminating alternatives

from further consideration in this Tier 1 DEIS.  Information and data developed for the

Tier 1 screening process is summarized in Table 3.3‐4.

The alternatives that have been eliminated are indicated with red shading in the cell

containing the alternative names in Table 3.3‐4.  Orange shaded cells in the table indicate

the primary reasons for eliminating those alternatives, and yellow shaded cells indicate

secondary reasons.  The Springfield Tier 1 screening alternatives that are being carried

forward for further study in this Tier 1 DEIS due to best meeting the screening criteria

and purpose and need for this program include:  

 Springfield Alternative 1; and

 Springfield Alternative 2.

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

Alternative descriptions in Section 3.3.6.

The Springfield Tier 1 screening eliminated the following alternatives from further

consideration:

 Springfield Alternative 3 is being eliminated because of lack of support from the CN

Railroad, the high capital costs, and the large area of right‐of‐way required.  This

alternative had the fewest environmental justice and neighborhood impacts, but

constructing the grade separations on the CN corridor included within Alternatives

1 and 2 was seen as a more cost effective way to mitigate these issues.    

  
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-43 

Table 3.3‐4. Summary of Springfield Tier 1 Screening
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-44 

Table 3.3‐4. Summary of Springfield Tier 1 Screening (continued)
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-45 Tier 1 DEIS

 Springfield Alternative 4 is being eliminated because of the operational issues

associated with introducing crossovers in the UP line north and south of the City, the

high capital cost, and the community impact.  This alternative was among the

highest in terms of length of rail corridor through residential neighborhoods and

environmental justice areas.  The alternative did not provide any notable advantage

relative to the other alternatives.   

 Springfield Alternative 5 is being eliminated because of the operational issues

associated with introducing crossovers in the UP line north and south of the City

and the increased length of CN track.  This alternative also would have the highest

capital cost and the largest area of new right‐of‐way required.  This alternative was

among the highest in terms of length of rail corridor through residential

neighborhoods.  It did not provide any notable advantages relative to the other

alternatives.

3.3.6 Alternative Route Screening for Alton to St. Louis 

3.3.6.1 Initial Range of Alternatives Alton to St. Louis

In the St. Louis area, there are two rail bridges over the Mississippi River that could be

used to route passenger trains into and out of the St. Louis Station.  Ultimately, seven

alternative route options were identified between Alton and St. Louis that have been

included in the screening process.  Exhibits 3.3‐8 and 3.3‐9 depict the initial range of

alternatives studied during the screening process between Alton and St. Louis.

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

the screening process between Alton and St. Louis:

Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1 ‐ MacArthur Bridge ‐ This alternative would utilize the

current Amtrak route on the UP to the TRRA near East St. Louis and the TRRA across

the MacArthur Bridge into the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  Freight trains would continue

their current use of bridges.  Improvements would include:

 Construction of a double track east approach to the MacArthur Bridge;

 New elevated railroad deck on the MacArthur Bridge including new western

approach; and  

 New double track connection to St. Louis Amtrak Station.

Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1A ‐ MacArthur Bridge ‐ This alternative would utilize the

current Amtrak route on the UP to the TRRA near East St. Louis and the TRRA across

the MacArthur Bridge into the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  Freight trains would continue

their current use of bridges.  Improvements would include:

 Construction of a double track parallel to the existing track east of the approach to a

new double track structure;  

 Construction of a new double track structure adjacent to the north side of the

existing MacArthur Bridge;
Exhibit 3.3-8. Initial Range of St. Louis Alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2) 
Exhibit 3.3-9. Initial Range of St. Louis Alternatives (Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 4) 
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-48 Tier 1 DEIS

 New double track east and west approaches to the new bridge; and  

 New double track connection to St. Louis Amtrak Station.

Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1B ‐ MacArthur Bridge ‐ This alternative would utilize the

current Amtrak route on the UP to the TRRA near East St. Louis and the TRRA across

the MacArthur Bridge into the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  Freight trains would continue

their current use of bridges.  Improvements would include:

 Construction of a double track parallel to the existing track east of the approach to a

new four track structure;

 Construction of a new four track structure adjacent to the north side of the existing

MacArthur Bridge;

 New east and west approaches to the new bridge; and

 New double track connection to St. Louis Amtrak Station. Alton to St. Louis

Alternative 2 ‐ Merchants Bridge – For passenger trains, this alternative would

utilize the UP to the TRRA Merchants Bridge, the TRRA down the west side of

Mississippi River to the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  Freight trains would continue

their current use of bridges.  An East St. Louis Station is not feasible with this

alternative.  Improvements would include:

 Construction of a new double track connection from the UP to the TRRA Merchants

Bridge in Venice, Illinois;  

 Replacement of the Merchants Bridge superstructure including approaches;  

 Double tracking the TRRA from near North Market Street to near Gratiot (including

the TRRA elevated south of the Arch to Gratiot); and  

 Speed improvements (25‐30 mph to 60 mph) from the west end of the Merchants

Bridge approach to the beginning of the TRRA elevated south of the Arch.

Alton to St. Louis Alternative 3 – Directional Alternative – This alternative would route

northbound passenger trains on the TRRA track on the west side of the Mississippi

River.  Southbound passenger trains would use the UP and TRRA tracks on the East side

of the Mississippi River.  Freight trains would continue their current use of bridges.   

Other optional directional changes under Alternative 3 could include having westbound

UP Southern Pacific Chicago‐St. Louis (SPCSL) IM freight trains use the MacArthur

Bridge and eastbound UP SPCSL IM freight trains use the Merchants Bridge.  Under this

option all other freight trains would continue their current bridge usage.      

An East St. Louis Station is not feasible with this alternative.  Improvements would

include:  

 Construction of a new double track connection from the UP to the TRRA Merchants

Bridge in Venice, Illinois;

 Replacement of the Merchants Bridge superstructure including approaches;  
Chicago - St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-49 Tier 1 DEIS

 Double tracking the TRRA from near North Market Street to near Gratiot (including

the TRRA elevated south of the Arch to Gratiot);

 Speed improvements (25‐30 mph to 60 mph) from the west end of the Merchants

Bridge approach to the beginning of the TRRA elevated south of the Arch; and  

 Construction of a double track east approach to the MacArthur Bridge.  

Alton to St. Louis Alternative 4 – Dispatcher Directional Alternative – This alternative would

route passenger trains over either the Merchants Bridge or the MacArthur Bridge based

on dispatcher discretion in reaction actual traffic levels and available capacity.  Freight

trains would continue their current use of bridges.  An East St. Louis Station is not

feasible with this alternative.  Improvements would include:  

 Construction of a new double track connection from the UP to the TRRA Merchants

Bridge in Venice, Illinois;  

 Replacement of the Merchants Bridge superstructure including approaches; double

tracking the TRRA from near North Market Street to near Gratiot (including the

TRRA elevated south of the Arch to Gratiot);  

 Speed improvements (25‐30 mph to 60 mph) from the west end of the Merchants

Bridge approach to the beginning of the TRRA elevated south of the Arch; and  

 Construction of a double track east approach to the MacArthur Bridge.

3.3.6.2 Screening Results for Alton to St. Louis Alternatives

This section summarizes the results of the Tier 1 screening of alternatives in the Alton to

St. Louis portion of the corridor and provides reasons for eliminating alternatives from

further consideration in this Tier 1 DEIS.  Information and data developed for the Tier 1

screening process is summarized in Table 3.3‐5.  The alternatives that are being

eliminated are indicated with red shading in the cell containing the alternative names in

Table 3.3‐5.  Orange shaded cells in the table indicate the primary reasons for

eliminating those alternatives, and yellow shaded cells indicate the secondary reasons.

The Alton to St. Louis Tier 1 screening alternatives that are being carried forward for

further study in this Tier 1 DEIS due to best meeting the screening criteria and purpose

and need for this program include:  

 Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1A; and

 Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1B.

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

Alternative descriptions in Section 3.3.6.

The Tier 1 screening eliminated the following alternatives between Alton and St. Louis

from further consideration:

 Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1 primarily because of construction issues with adding

another deck on the existing MacArthur Bridge;
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-50 

Table 3.3‐5. Summary of Alton to St. Louis Tier 1 Screening
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-51 

Table 3.3‐5. Summary of Alton to St. Louis Tier 1 Screening (continued)
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-52 Tier 1 DEIS

 Alton to St. Louis Alternative 2 primarily because of its higher construction costs,

poor construction impact rating, more at‐grade highway‐rail crossings, and potential

effects to Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Park; and

 Alton to St. Louis Alternatives 3 and 4 primarily because they would require

improvements along two railroad routes, resulting in much higher overall costs,

while still potentially affecting the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Park.

3.3.7 Tier 1 Build Alternatives from Chicago to St. Louis 

As a result of the alternative screening process, seven individual sections of alternative

alignments remain available for consideration to be improved and utilized for high

speed passenger trains within the Chicago to St. Louis corridor.  This includes two

sections in Chicago (Alternative 2 and Alternative 4D carried forward from the Chicago

to Joliet screening alternatives); one section between Joliet and Springfield, two sections

in Springfield (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 carried forward from the Springfield

screening alternatives), one section between Springfield and Alton, and finally one

section between Alton and St. Louis (Alternatives 1A and 1B, which share the same

alignment and are carried forward from the Alton to St. Louis screening alternatives).  

Each of these sections is described in Section 3.3.7.1 below.   

In order to provide full length alternatives to study in this Tier 1 DEIS, the individual

alignment sections have been pieced together using the available combinations to create

four complete, or full length, alternative alignments between Chicago and St. Louis.  

Although looking at the individual sections is beneficial to help identify potential

problem areas that might require additional attention; for overall comparison purposes

in this Tier 1 DEIS, the full length alternatives are also being studied to ensure that the

overall goals and objectives of the high speed rail program are fulfilled and that the

impacts to human and natural environments are considered at all levels.  The full length

Build Alternatives are described in Section 3.3.7.2 below.

3.3.7.1 Description of the Alignment Sections between Chicago and St. Louis

The individual sections used to create the full length alternatives include:

 Section 1 – Existing Route Chicago to Joliet (Previously referred to as the Chicago to

Joliet Alternative 2 during the Tier 1 screening process);

 Section 2 – Proposed New Route Chicago to Joliet (Previously referred to as the

Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4D during the Tier 1 screening process.)

 Section 3 – Existing Route Joliet to Springfield;

 Section 4 – Existing Route through Springfield (Previously referred to as the

Springfield Alternative 1 during the screening process);

 Section 5 – Proposed New Route through Springfield (Previously referred to as the

Springfield Alternative 2 during the screening process);

 Section 6 – Existing Route Springfield to Alton; and
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-53 Tier 1 DEIS

 Section 7 – Existing Route Alton to St. Louis (Previously referred to as Alton to St.

Louis Alternative 1A and 1B during the Tier 1 screening process).

Exhibit 3.3‐10 shows the location of the individual alignment sections used to create the

full‐length Build Alternatives from Chicago to St. Louis.

Each of the sections are described in more detail, including the primary proposed

improvements anticipated within each section, in the following paragraphs:

 Section 1 ‐ Chicago to Joliet on Existing Route ‐ This section of the alternatives would

include utilizing the current Amtrak route along the CN from Joliet Union Station, to

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

Improvements would include: additional track at the connection to Amtrak near 21st

Street; potential flyovers at IHB west of Summit, BRC east of Cicero Avenue, BNSF

north of Corwith Yard; and CSX/NS near Western Avenue.

 Section 2 ‐ Chicago to Joliet using Rock Island Route ‐ This section would utilize the

NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to the NS near 40th Street in Chicago, the NS

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

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

would include: additional track at the existing single track UP to NIRC RID

connection at Joliet Union Station, NIRC RID from Joliet Union Station to near Union

Street, and the existing single track connection from the NIRC RID to the NS near

40th Street in Chicago, station improvements including relocating the platforms at

Joliet Union Station as well as the proposed Transportation Center and location and

construction of a new suburban Amtrak Station; construction of a new double track

connection from the NS to the NS (NIRC) near 40th Street in Chicago; and a potential

flyover at EJ&E east of Joliet.  Neither Metra nor the NS has determined whether

they would support sharing this route with high speed rail passenger service.

 Section 3‐ Joliet to Springfield ‐ This section would utilize the existing Amtrak route

between Joliet and Springfield.  Proposed improvements would include: addition of

a second mainline track from north of Mississippi Street in Elwood to the NS

crossing in Dwight including at‐grade crossing modifications; installation of

approximately four miles of siding from north of Braidwood to Mazonia; addition of

a second mainline track from NS crossing in Dwight to Sangamon Avenue in

Springfield including at‐grade crossing modifications; construction of a 12,500 ft.

siding between O’Dell and Dwight; construction of a 12,500 ft. siding between O’Dell

and Bunge; construction of a 20,000 ft. siding between Lexington and Chenoa;

construction of a 25,000 ft. siding from north of Towanda to south of Towanda;

construction of approximately 2.5 miles of siding between Atlanta and McLean;

construction of approximately 1.4 miles of siding from Williamsville to south of

Elkhart; construction of a 10,000 ft. siding from the Sangamon River to Sangamon

Avenue; construction of a 12,500 ft. siding on the I&M from Andrew south;

replacement of the Ridgely diamond with a crossover; and station improvements in

Dwight, Pontiac, and Lincoln.
§ ̈¦§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦ § ̈¦

§ ̈¦ ¡s

§ ̈¦

¡s ¡s

§ ̈¦ § ̈¦

¡s

§ ̈¦

¡s

¡s

§ ̈¦

¡s

¡s

¡s

§ ̈¦ ¡s

§ ̈¦

")

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦ § ̈¦

§ ̈¦ ¡s

")

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

§ ̈¦

¡s

¡s

ST.

CHARLES

ST.

LOUIS

ST.

LOUIS CITY

JEFFERSON

Elgin Arlington Heights

Chicago Naperville Aurora

Joliet

Moline

Morris

Peru Wilmington

Kankakee

Dwight

Galesburg

Pontiac

Peoria

Bloomington

Normal

Lincoln Champaign

Decatur

Springfield

Taylorville Mattoon

Carlinville

Litchfield

Effingham

Vandalia

Alton

Centralia

OGLE

WILL

LASALLE

BUREAU

HENRY

GRUNDY

MERCER PUTNAM

MCLEAN TAZEWELL FULTON

CHAMPAIGN

LOGAN

PIATT

STARK

KNOX

MARSHALL

LIVINGSTON

WARREN IROQUOIS

PEORIA WOODFORD

CARROLL

KANE DEKALB

COOK

ROCK

ISLAND

KENDALL

KANKAKEE

FORD

MENARD

MASON

DEWITT SCHUYLER

BROWN

DOUGLAS

CASS

CUMBERLAND

CALHOUN

CLAY

JERSEY EFFINGHAM

GREENE

CLINTON

EDWARDS WABASH

WASHINGTON

RICHLAND

DUPAGE

WHITESIDE LEE

MCDONOUGH

VERMILION

MACON

SANGAMON

EDGAR MORGAN

CHRISTIAN

MOULTRIE

SCOTT

COLES

SHELBY

MACOUPIN MONTGOMERY

CLARK

CR AW JASPER

BOND

MADISON

FAYETTE

ST.

CLAIR WAYNE

MONROE JEFFERSON

LAW R E N C E

MARION

108

267

45

30 52

51 24

45

51

136

58

36

50

52

34

290

294

88

94

57

80

55

80

355

39 55

74

57

72

55

55

70 270

64

70

57

88

80

Legend

Section 1

Section 2

Major Road

County Boundary

Municipality

Section 3

Section 4

Section 5

Section 6

Section 7

Springfield

Springfield

Leland Grove

Jerome

Grandview

Southern View
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-55 Tier 1 DEIS 

 Section 4 – Springfield on Existing 3rd Street Route ‐ In this section, both Amtrak

passenger trains and UP freight trains would remain on the existing Third Street

route through Springfield.  This alternative would leave UP freight trains and

Amtrak passenger trains on Third Street and would include no improvements to the

Tenth or Nineteenth Street corridors.  Proposed improvements would include the

addition of a second mainline track and station improvements.

 Section 5 ‐ Springfield using 10th Street Route ‐ In this section, UP freight trains and

Amtrak passenger trains would be shifted from Third Street to Tenth Street resulting

in abandonment of the Third Street corridor (Section 4 above) from near Ridgely

Avenue to South of Iles Avenue.  Proposed improvements include additional tracks

and a new Springfield Station.

 Section 6 – Springfield to Alton ‐ This section would utilize the existing Amtrak

route between Springfield and Alton.  Propose improvements in this section include:

addition of a second mainline track from south of Stanford Avenue to north of

Virden including at‐grade crossing modifications; construction of a grade separation

with the NS north of I‐72; construction of a grade separation at Woodside Road in

Sangamon County; construction of a grade separation at Iron Bridge Road in

Sangamon County; construction of a 10,000 ft. siding at Nilwood; addition of a

second mainline track from Nilwood to Nicholas Street in Carlinville including at‐

grade crossing modifications; construction of a 12,500 ft. siding between Carlinville

and Plainview; addition of a second mainline track from south of Rinaker Road in

Macoupin County to north of Illinois 16 in Shipman including at‐grade crossing

modifications; construction of a 12,500 ft. siding north of Illinois 16 at Shipman;

construction of a 12,500 ft. siding at Godfrey including at‐grade crossing

modifications; addition of a second mainline track from Pearl Street in Godfrey to

Wood River including at‐grade crossing modifications; replacement of diamond

with crossover at NS in Wood River; replacement of diamond with crossover at

TRRA at WR Tower; additional siding near Seventh Street in Wood River; and

station improvements at Carlinville.  The Alton Station will be relocated by another

project.  The City of Alton received a Transportation Investment Generating

Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant that would be used to relocate the Alton train

station to a different location.

 Section 7 – Alton to St. Louis ‐ This section would utilize the existing Amtrak route

from near Alton to the St. Louis Amtrak Station in downtown St. Louis.  

Improvements in this section would depend on which of the two remaining Alton to

St. Louis options in this section are selected based on either the Tier 1 or subsequent

Tier 2 study.  The primary difference in these two options is at the Mississippi River

crossing.  The options include construction of a new double track structure just

upstream of the existing MacArthur Bridge (Option 1A) or construction of a new

four track structure just upstream of the existing MacArthur Bridge (Option 1B).  

Provision of additional rail capacity over the Mississippi River will need to be

studied in more detail a Tier 2 study.  The following describes the two options still

being considered in this section:
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-56 Tier 1 DEIS 

 Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1A ‐ MacArthur Bridge ‐ This alternative would

utilize the current Amtrak route on the UP to the TRRA near East St. Louis and

the TRRA across the MacArthur Bridge into the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  

Freight trains would continue their current use of bridges.  Improvements would

include construction of a double track parallel to the existing track east of the

approach to a new double track structure, construction of a new double track

structure adjacent to the north side of the existing MacArthur Bridge, new

double track east and west approaches to the new bridge; and new double track

connection to St. Louis Amtrak Station.

 Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1B ‐ MacArthur Bridge ‐ This alternative would

utilize the current Amtrak route on the UP to the TRRA near East St. Louis and

the TRRA across the MacArthur Bridge into the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  

Freight trains would continue their current use of bridges.  Improvements would

include construction of a double track parallel to the existing track east of the

approach to a new four track structure, construction of a new four track structure

adjacent to the north side of the existing MacArthur Bridge, new east and west

approaches to the new bridge; and new double track connection to St. Louis

Amtrak Station.

More detailed exhibits of the Build Alternatives are provided in Appendix A.

3.3.7.2 Description of Full‐length Build Alternatives from Chicago to St. Louis

This section describes the location of each of the four full length Build Alternatives

carried forward in this Tier 1 DEIS, extending from Chicago to St. Louis.  The proposed

improvements associated with each full length alternative are described under each of

the individual sections making up those alternatives described in the previous section,

Section 3.3.6.1.  The environmental consequences of these four alternatives are described

in the environmental consequences sections under each resource category in Chapter 5

of this Tier 1 DEIS.

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

Alternative A would begin at Chicago Union Station and follow the existing Amtrak

route through the entire corridor ending at the existing St. Louis Amtrak Station.  This

alternative would utilize Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

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

Alternative B would begin at Chicago Union Station and follow the existing Amtrak

route from Chicago to northern Springfield.  In northern Springfield, the proposed route

would break off to the southeast following a small section of proposed new alignment

that would connect to the existing rail following the 10th Street corridor in Springfield.  

The alternative would then follow the existing 10th Street corridor through Springfield

before reconnecting with the existing route south of Springfield, where it would

continue southward and eventually end at the existing St. Louis Amtrak Station.  This

alternative would utilize Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-57 Tier 1 DEIS 

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

Alternative C would begin at Chicago Union Station and follow the existing Amtrak

route before connecting onto the NS (NIRC) route.  The alignment would follow the NS

(NIRC) route and then connect to NS and follow it to near 40th Street in Chicago where it

connects onto the NIRC‐RID route.  The route would then continue southward to the

Joliet Union Station.  From Joliet Union Station the alignment would follow the existing

Amtrak route southward finally end at the St. Louis Amtrak Station.  This Alternative

would utilize Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.

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

Alternative D would begin at Chicago Union Station and follow the existing Amtrak

route before connecting onto the NS (NIRC) route.  The alignment would follow the NS

(NIRC) route and then connect to NS and follow it to near 40th Street in Chicago where it

connects onto the NIRC‐RID route.  The route would then continue southward to the

Joliet Union Station.  From Joliet Union Station the alignment would follow the existing

Amtrak route southward to northern Springfield, where it would break off to the

southeast following a small section of proposed new alignment that would connect to

the existing rail following the 10th Street corridor in Springfield.  The alternative would

then follow the existing 10th Street corridor through Springfield before reconnecting with

the existing route south of Springfield, where it would continue southward and

eventually end at the existing St. Louis Amtrak Station.  This alternative follows Sections

2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.

Table 3.3‐6 provides a summary of the estimated amount of new right‐of‐way that

would be required with construction of each of the four Build Alternatives carried

forward.  The amount of new right‐of‐way required is reported because it typically

directly affects the overall impacts associated with a project.  This is because land

acquisition and subsequent construction within new right‐of‐way areas typically

involves additional impacts to the affected environment when compared to construction

that stays within existing right‐of‐way areas.  For example, where new right‐of way is

required in areas that are already developed, costs can be higher due to higher property

costs, building displacements, and existing infrastructure/utilities requiring relocation.  

Alternatively, acquisition and subsequent construction within new right‐of‐way areas

within rural or previously undeveloped areas often results in additional impacts to

desirable natural resources, farmland, and/or open spaces.  The impacts to various

resources of concern are discussed throughout Chapter 5 of this Tier 1 DEIS.   
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-58 Tier 1 DEIS 

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

Section ID (Tier 1 

Screening Name) 

Number of Acres of New Right-of-Way Required 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

No‐Build (Baseline)    

Chicago to Joliet Sections

1(2) 62 62

2 (4D)    120 120

Joliet to Alton(Excluding Springfield) Sections

3 and 6 252 252 252 252

Springfield Sections

4 6 to 22 6 to 22

5    42 to 43 42 to 43

Alton to St. Louis Section

7 (1A) 16 16 16 16

7 (1B) 16 16 16 16

TOTAL: 336 to 352 372 to 373 394 to 410 430 to 431

Note:  The total amount of right‐of‐way required under each Build Alternative is

provided as a range because there are various improvement options that could be

constructed within the individual Springfield sections.

3.3.7.3 Stations

Table 3.3‐7 summarizes the station improvements planned as part of the 2004 ROD

improvements which are assumed to be in place under the No‐Build Alternative, and

the station improvements that are proposed as part of the build alternatives.

Additionally, potential new stations in suburban Chicago (between Chicago and Joliet)

and St. Louis (between St. Louis and Alton) will be evaluated in Tier 2 studies.  It is

assumed that the location of new stations would be located immediately off of the

highway (e.g., I‐294 in Chicago and I‐270 in St. Louis).  Provision of suburban stations

adjacent to the highway system would increase the attractiveness of intercity passenger

rail service because it will enhance passenger accessibility to HSR service, allowing

potential travelers an additional option of not travelling to downtown to board a train.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-59 Tier 1 DEIS 

Table 3.3‐7. Summary of Station Improvements

Station No-Build Alternative Build Alternatives 

Chicago No Change No Change

Summit No Change No Change1

Joliet

Station improvements are

being advanced by a city‐led

effort.  Details of the

proposed improvements are

not available at this time.

No change beyond

improvements included with

the No‐Build Alternative.

Dwight

New station, platform, and

parking at existing station

site.

Additional station and

platform improvements,

passenger grade separation.

Pontiac

New station, platform, and

parking at a site located one

block south of the existing

station.

Additional station and

platform improvements,

parking, and passenger grade

separation.

Bloomington‐Normal

Station improvements are

being advanced by a city‐led

effort.  Construction is

currently underway.

No change beyond

improvements included with

the No‐Build Alternative.

Lincoln

Renovate existing station,

new platform and parking at

existing station site.

Additional station and

platform improvements,

parking, and passenger grade

separation.

Springfield To be determined. To be determined2.

Carlinville

New station, platform,

passenger grade separation,

and parking at existing

station site.

No change beyond

improvements included with

the No‐Build Alternative.

Alton

New station, platform,

passenger grade separation,

and parking at a site located

south of the existing station.

Additional station and

platform improvements and

parking.  City is considering

relocation of station to a

different location.

St. Louis No Change No Change

1The Summit Station is located along Alternatives A and B only.

2 Station improvements for Springfield are discussed further in the Tier 2 Environmental

Evaluation in Volume II for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project.  
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-60 Tier 1 DEIS 

3.4 Costs 

3.4.1 Capital Costs 

The capital costs for the alternatives have been developed based on the required

infrastructure improvements identified as necessary to accommodate high‐speed

passenger traffic.  These costs have been divided into various similar construction

activities, quantities along each alignment identified, and unit costs then applied.  Costs

are estimated in 2011 dollars.  The following types of costs are being evaluated:

 Rolling Stock.  Rolling Stock was estimated based on unit costs for locomotives and

coaches as required by ridership forecasts.

 Maintenance Facilities.  Unit costs were developed for a maintenance facility.  Two

maintenance facilities were assumed and all alternatives had the same maintenance

facility costs.  It is assumed that a new maintenance facility would be required in St.

Louis and either a new facility or expansion of the existing Amtrak maintenance

facility would be required in Chicago.

 Station Facilities.  Lump sum costs were assumed for facility improvement

requirements at Chicago Suburban Stations, Pontiac, Dwight, Lincoln, Springfield,

Carlinville, and Alton stations.  East St. Louis Station costs were provided by others.

 Roadway.  Since the improvements to the alternatives would affect crossing

roadways or highway structures, costs were developed for these general items:

 Removal – Removal items include all surface elements of the existing roadway

down to existing sub‐base.

 Pavement and Appurtenances –Unit values for pavement, sidewalk, retaining

walls, drainage roadway signals, fencing lighting and landscaping were

developed to provide costs for the replacement of items impacted by the rail

improvements.  These items were quantified on a normalized location basis for

at‐grade crossings or highway bridge replacements based on the linear length of

the improvement and applied to the number of at‐grade crossings or highway

bridge replacements.

 Structures – Pedestrian and highway structures were both necessary for the

alternatives studied.  Unit cost values were developed for each type of structure

and applied where required based on the alternative infrastructure

improvement.

 Rail.  The majority of the improvement costs for each alternative were the rail

infrastructure required to support the high‐speed passenger service.  The rail costs

were divided into these general categories:

 Earthwork – Earthwork requirements were developed based on cross sections for

alternatives.  Where mapping data is not available, normalized earthwork values

were used to estimate the earthwork requirements.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-61 Tier 1 DEIS 

 Track – Unit costs for track were applied to all alternatives based on their overall

length of main and/or siding track for track upgrade costs.  Track drainage unit

costs were included in all urbanized areas where open ditches would not be

used.  Unit costs were applied to additional mainline and siding track based on

available simulation results.  For alternatives where simulation data was

unavailable, additional needs were estimated based on potential congestion.

 Crossovers and Turnouts – Unit costs were developed and applied based on the

number necessary as identified from the simulation analysis.  For those

alternatives where simulation analysis was unavailable, those costs were

estimated based on per mile costs for turnouts and crossovers from similar

alternatives where simulation data was available.  

 Signaling – The alternatives along the corridor vary between those that have

baseline installations of advanced train signaling and at‐grade protection devices

to those that have had no upgrades.  Unit costs for each were identified and

applied to the alternatives.  In those areas where baseline signals will need to be

installed, relocation costs were assumed as part of the unit costs for those items.

 Structures – Most railroad structures along the alternatives had unit costs

applied to the linear footage of the bridge where new or replacement structures

will be necessary along the alternatives.  Major river crossing structures were

reviewed on an individual basis to develop planning level costs for the

improvements required for those alternatives.

 Miscellaneous Items – Fencing costs were developed for all urbanized areas

where infrastructure improvements would be required based on simulation

analysis.  Crossing surface costs were included as linear items at crossing

locations and clearing and removal items included on a unit cost basis.  Utility

costs were included along the alignment as a linear item dependent upon the

location of the alternative and the expected presence of utilities.  Railroad force

account work necessary during construction of the alternative was included as a

percentage of the construction cost.

 Program Implementation Costs.  Preliminary engineering and environmental costs

were estimated at  two percent of construction cost including all work necessary to

secure all permits, NEPA approvals, etc.

 Construction plans and specification costs were estimated at nine percent of

construction cost for a traditional design‐bid‐build procurement process.  

 Construction engineering costs were estimated at eight percent of construction

cost.  

 Program management costs were estimated at two percent of construction cost.  

 Right‐of‐Way Costs.  The right‐of‐way costs were estimated for the footprint of the

required infrastructure improvements.  The land required for the alternative was
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-62 Tier 1 DEIS 

determined based on typical sections of track required, including the number of

main tracks, siding tracks, access roads adjacent required roadway improvements or

footprints of anticipated flyovers.  These typical sections were then applied along the

alternatives, schematic level construction limits determined, and the differences

between the existing right‐of‐way along the alternatives and the construction limits

identified.  Separate land values were applied for urban and rural right‐of‐way and

included in the capital costs of the alternative.  Because land values are substantially

higher in Chicago, factors for Chicago urban land were differentiated from

downstate urban land within the cost estimate.

 Contingencies.  A contingency was added to allow for items and conditions that

cannot be determined at this level of analysis.  A contingency of 30 percent was

applied to all construction and land acquisition costs.  A contingency of 20 percent

was applied to all rolling stock costs.

The Chicago to Joliet alternative costs have been developed based on track mile costs,

estimated infrastructure improvements and new connection and flyover costs where

applicable.  Other construction and right‐of‐way costs have been estimated on a per mile

or per location basis for the type of infrastructure estimated.  The most substantial cost

impact item is the flyovers estimated along the routes.  For consistency in the estimates,

any location an alternative crossed a double track, it was assumed that a flyover would

be required.  A prototype flyover was developed for typical cost and right‐of‐way

impacts.

For the Chicago to Joliet portion of the alternatives that would require use of the existing

Metra routes, Metra station improvements would be necessary to allow Amtrak trains to

safely operate through the station area.  Specific improvements will be determined

during the next level of environmental documentation.  While the scope of the

improvements is not yet determined, it is possible to estimate the likely total cost based

on recent similar improvements to the Metra UP West Line considering the respective

number of stations.  Using this data, $5 Million dollars was estimated for the Heritage

Corridor and $15 Million dollars is estimated along the Rock Island District.

In the Alton to St. Louis study corridor, the majority of the cost would be for bridge

crossing improvements over the Mississippi River along with the cost of elevated

structures and grade crossing improvements along the alternatives.  The directional

Alternatives 3 and 4 are higher in cost since they require upgrades to rail facilities on

both the east and west side of the Mississippi River.  Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 2 are

comparable.

Table 3.4‐1 shows the estimated capital costs for the Build Alternative sections being

considered in this Tier 1 DEIS.  Table 3.4‐2 shows the costs for each full length

alternative based on the costs of the individual sections making up each alternative.
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-63 Tier 1 DEIS 

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

Build Alternative Section 

(Tier 1 Screening Name) 

Cost in Millions (2011) 

No‐Build (Baseline) $0

Chicago to Joliet Sections

1 (2) $1,576

2 (4D) $1,046

Joliet to Alton(Excluding Springfield) Sections

3 and 6 $2,479

Springfield Sections

4 (1) $113 to $377

5 (2) $315 to $338

Alton to St. Louis Section

7 (1A) $525

7 (1B) $546

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

Build Alternative (Sections) Cost in Millions (2011) 

No‐Build (Baseline) 0

Alternative A (Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7) $4,693 to $4,978

Alternative B (Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, 7) $4,895 to $4,939

Alternative C (Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7) $4,163 to $4,448

Alternative D (Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7) $4,365 to $4,409

3.4.2 Maintenance Costs 

Annual maintenance cost estimates have been developed for the Build Alternatives with

consideration given to the shared use of the rail by both freight and high speed

passenger trains.  The costs are “steady state” costs, (i.e., the annual costs of maintaining

the track at the class of rail that will result from all proposed upgrades having been

completed to support high speed trains).  Maintenance costs are based on the average

estimated costs to maintain one mile of rail each year.

The total annual maintenance cost per track mile includes:

 Track maintenance (“operating”) expenses;

 Cyclic capital expenditures for track;

 Bridge & building costs (maintenance and capital); and

 Communications and signals costs (maintenance and capital).

The estimated maintenance cost for the Build Alternatives is assumed to be $48,000 per

mile per year.  The costs in Tables 3.4‐1 and 3.4‐2 above include the first year of

maintenance costs.  However, all subsequent years throughout the life of the rail would
Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail 3-64 Tier 1 DEIS 

require an additional $48,000 per track mile per year to maintain the infrastructure.  This

cost would be shared by various freight and passenger train users based on a corridor

maintenance agreement between the owner of the rail and each user.