Section 6

6. Comments and Coordination

COMMENTS AND 

COORDINATION
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-1 Volume II

6.0 Comments and Coordination 

A scoping coordination letter describing the Springfield Project and requesting

comments was forwarded to the state and federal resource agencies on September 3,

2010.  The scoping letter and agency responses are in Appendix A.  The Springfield Rail

Improvements Project was included as part of the Tier 1 Chicago to St. Louis High‐

Speed Rail Draft Environmental Impact Statement Notice of Intent (NOI).  The NOI was

published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2011.  

Since February 2011, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), in conjunction

with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), has been conducting a Tier 1 Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) for the Chicago to St. Louis High‐Speed

Rail Project and a Tier 2 project‐level evaluation for the Springfield Rail Improvements

Project. A scoping coordination letter describing the project and requesting comments

and upcoming scoping meeting attendance was forwarded to the state and federal

resource agencies in February 2011. The agency scoping letter responses and

cooperating agency responses are located in Appendix E of the Tier 1 Draft EIS. In

March 2011, an initial round of public open house meetings were held within the

corridor to introduce the studies to the public, explain the EIS process and timeline, and

get input. After these meetings the study team spent the next several months developing

alternatives. In late October and early November 2011, public hearings were held in the

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

public coordination information may be found in Section 8.0 of the Tier 1 Final EIS.  

6.1 Agency Coordination 

A coordination letter describing the Springfield Rail Improvements Project was mailed

to federal, state and local agencies on September 3, 2010 (see Appendix A).  This letter

explained the purpose of the project, the project location, potential project alternatives

and requested any concerns or specific issues that should be addressed in the NEPA

document.  

6.1.1 Federal Agency Coordination 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  The Rock Island District of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers responded to the September 3, 2010, coordination letter on October 8, 2010.  

Since the Springfield Rail Improvements Project does not involve any Corps’

administered land, no further Rock Island real estate coordination is necessary.  

However, further coordination may be necessary for potential impacts to waters of the

U.S. and/or wetlands.  Also, coordination was suggested with the Illinois Historic

Preservation Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Illinois Emergency

Management Agency.   

U.S. Department of Commerce.  The Regional Director of the Chicago Regional Office of

the Economic Development Administration responded on November 2, 2010.  They

expressed no concerns or issues that needed to be addressed regarding the high‐speed

rail service from Chicago to St. Louis.  
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-2 Volume II

U.S. Department of Interior.  The Rock Island Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service responded on November 9, 2010.  A list of potential federally‐listed threatened

and endangered species was provided to assist in the assessment of suitable habitat

within the project area.  

6.1.2 State Agency Coordination 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources.  The Division of Ecosystems and Environment

responded on September 10, 2010 via electronic mail that the project team should use

their Eco‐Cat program to identify any potential state‐listed threatened and endangered

species.  

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.  The Acting Deputy Director responded on

September 16, 2010, and had no objections to the proposed project.  The potential for a

NPDES permit and a permit from the Division of Public Water Supplies was mentioned

as a courtesy, if warranted.   

Illinois Department of Agriculture.  The Acting Chief responded on September 17, 2010,

stating that they have no comments towards the evaluation and selection of a high‐

speed railroad corridor through Springfield.

Illinois Emergency Management Agency.  The Regional Coordinator responded via

electronic mail on September 17, 2010, with concerns for safety from hazardous

materials along the 10th Street corridor.   

Illinois State Geological Survey.  The Director and State Geologist provided information

on coal mines and poorly drained soils within the project area.  No concerns or issues

with the project were noted.  

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.  The Deputy State Historic Preservation Offices

submitted a letter on October 4, 2010.  Their concerns related to the possible adverse

effects of the project on National Historic Landmarks within the project area.  If any

adverse effects are proposed, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the

National Park Service would need to participate in the Section 106 consultation process.   

6.1.3 Local Governments 

The project included input from a Steering Committee composed of representatives of

Springfield, Sangamon County, IDOT and Senator Durbin’s office.  This Committee met

as needed.  

IDOT Bureau of Railroads representatives served on the Steering Committee. Meetings

were held to update the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on the progress of the

project.   Coordination with state and federal environmental agencies is included in

Appendix A.   
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-3 Volume II

6.2 Technical Committee 

A Technical Committee met as needed to discuss the project. Members of this

Committee included representatives of the Steering Committee plus:

 Norfolk Southern Railroad

 Illinois Midland Railroad

 Kansas City Southern Railroad

 Union Pacific Railroad

 Canadian National Railroad

 Amtrak

 Illinois Commerce Commission

6.3 Public Involvement Activities 

Public engagement has been a key element in the success of the Springfield Rail

Improvements Project. The project team has worked to connect with the project’s

interested and impacted parties through a variety of communications and outreach

tactics. The principal aim has been to educate and inform the public about the project’s

process, activities, and findings. To this end, a website has been maintained, newsletters

distributed, email broadcasts sent out, displays circulated, and community presentations

facilitated. Key stakeholders and their constituents have been directly engaged in the

study through a series of stakeholder interviews and the formation of four advisory

groups.   

Direct engagement of the general public has also been a critical component of the project

team’s public involvement efforts.  Two public open houses, each of which were

attended by roughly 300 people, were held.  These open houses provided a means to

both inform the public and solicit its input at key milestones in the project. Tools to gain

public input, including a project email, a telephone hotline, and the maintenance of a

direct mail repository were developed.  

6.3.1 Stakeholder Interviews 

Stakeholders’ input were sought to learn about community issues that could impact the

project and to gain insights on effective public outreach and engagement activities.  

Seventeen key informant interviews were conducted with municipal, business, and

community stakeholders in the first eight weeks of the project. These meetings

introduced stakeholders to the project; obtained their initial thoughts on the project; and

helped the team become aware of key issues, opportunities, and the best methods to

engage constituents.  

6.3.2 Stakeholder Advisory Groups 

Four distinct stakeholder groups were identified and formed into corresponding

advisory committees: Business, Community, Medical, and Public Officials. Fifteen

representatives from the area chamber of commerce, local businesses, and professional
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-4 Volume II

trade organizations came together to form the Business Advisory Group. The

Community Advisory Group consists of 20 members serving on behalf of 15

neighborhood associations, a bicycle/pedestrian advocacy group, and several civic and

faith‐based organizations. Delegates from the region’s largest health care providers

participate in the Medical Advisory Group. Lastly, the Public Officials Advisory Group

includes elected officials such as city aldermen, county board members, and state and

federal representatives, as well as agents from the regional planning commission, park

district, and mass transit district.  

All four advisory groups have convened three times since the beginning of the project

(February 2010, April 2010, and November 2010).  Advisory group members serve as

liaisons between the project team and their respective constituencies. They also provide

guidance on the best ways to attain public input. Advisory group meeting summaries

are made available to the public via the project website.  

6.3.3 Communications, Outreach, and Engagement 

As previously mentioned, a variety of tools have been employed in order to inform and

educate the public.   

Project Website

This includes a comprehensive project website that contains information on every aspect

of the project as well as meeting summaries, a presentation calendar, and information

presented at both open houses.  The project website has had more than 14,000 visits

since it was launched in April 2010.   

Newsletters

Project newsletters are another means of communicating with the public.  Three

newsletters were written and distributed prior to the issuance of the Draft EIS (see

Appendix E).   The first newsletter served as an introduction to the project and

advertised the first open house.  The second newsletter reported on public input results

from the first open house.  The third newsletter provided an update on the project and

announced the second open house.  The newsletters are distributed to approximately

2,800 people and are also sent via email to a list of about 500 individuals.  This same

email list has received additional e‐broadcasts about open houses and website updates.  

Email

The project also has an email account that is checked daily and has received 50 emails to

date.  The nature of the email messages range for presentation requests to comments

regarding the proposed alternatives.  Messages are logged in a database and responded

to as necessary.  Additionally, the project has received 12 letters from individuals,

businesses, and organizations, representing the interests of neighborhoods, property

owners, professional associations, businesses, and the Mid‐Illinois Medical District.  

Community Presentations
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-5 Volume II

Since the project’s onset, 21 community presentations have been made, reaching nearly

1,000 people.  Presentations have been hosted by neighborhood associations, faith‐based

groups, the local school district, and civic, trade, and professional organizations.  By

going into the community to share project information, answer questions, and obtain

feedback, exposure to a wider audience of constituents has been gained than those who

would normally self‐select to attend project meetings.  

Table 6‐1.  Community Presentations  

ORGANIZATION DATE

APPROX.

NUMBER 

ATTENDED

1. Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team 02/26/10 8 

2. Faith Coalition for the Common Good (Steering Committee) 03/15/10 4 

3. Regional Planning Commission 03/17/10 25 

4. IDOT Teamsters 03/19/10 450 

5. Hawthorne Place Neighborhood Association 03/24/10 28 

6. Union Baptist Church 03/25/10 35 

7. Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce (Board of Directors) 03/29/10 35 

8. Springfield Area Transportation Study 04/01/10 25 

9. Randall Court Neighborhood Association 04/06/10 9 

10. Pillsbury Mills Neighborhood Association 04/07/10 10 

11. Springfield Area Transportation Study Policy Committee 04/08/10 20 

12. Pioneer Park Neighborhood Association 04/12/10 8 

13. Harvard Park Neighborhood Association 04/14/10 55 

14. Springfield School District 04/19/10 65 

15. Sacred Heart Griffin High School 04/28/10 8 

16. Enos Park Neighborhood Improvement Association 05/11/10 35 

17. Rotary Club 05/19/10 30 

18. City of Springfield Community Relations Commission 05/20/10 10 

19. Lincoln Park Neighborhood Association 05/20/10 22 

20. American Institute of Architects 06/02/10 14 

21. Capital Area Association of Realtors 06/22/10 13 

Kiosks

Four large‐scale (seven foot) display kiosks that change locations about every six to eight

weeks were also created.  The kiosks’ eight panels describe the project’s purpose and

background, timeline and project team, current and future rail conditions, and how to
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-6 Volume II

get involved.  Beginning in April 2010, the kiosks were displayed at various locations in

and around the project area, including local hospitals, civic and municipal buildings,

churches, and White Oaks Mall.

6.3.4 Public Open Houses Prior to Draft EIS 

Two public open houses were held prior to the release of the Draft EIS to correspond

with: 1) an initial discussion of the project’s purpose and needs, and 2) the development

of preliminary alternatives.  These interactive sessions have given interested citizens and

stakeholders opportunities to examine detailed project information and to share their

corridor preferences and concerns.   They have also provided settings for residents to

meet with and ask questions.

1.  April 20, 2010 Open House

The first open house was held on Tuesday, April 20, 2010, and had more than 290 people

in attendance.   Meeting notices in the form of letters, flyers, and posters were sent to all

four stakeholder advisory groups, elected officials, and approximately 120 area

churches. The first newsletter included the open house announcement, and a postcard

was sent as an email‐broadcast.  The website’s home page and Facebook page also

featured event announcements. Radio advertisements ran on WMAY, WTAX, WFMB,

and WUIS along with newspaper ads in The Illinois Times, Springfield Business Journal,

Capital City Courier and Pure News.  A press advisory was distributed to local media

contacts and generated an interview on WMAY the day before the open house and an

article in The State Journal‐Register the day of the meeting.  The four kiosks displayed

open house flyers and were at Memorial Medical Center, Prairie Capital Convention

Center, the city’s Municipal Building, and the Lincoln Library.  Additionally, door

hangers were distributed to residences immediately adjacent to the three rail corridors.  

At the first open house, participants learned about the project’s purpose and need,

technical activities and engagement process as well as shared their community values

and context, concerns, and desires with the project team.  To capture public input, the

attendees were asked to complete a comment form and to visit a public input station

where they could post their thoughts about the project for all to see.  A total of 108

comment forms were completed.  Respondents, 86 percent of whom were city residents,

indicated that they found the open house to be well planned and worth their time.  In

addition, they characterized the project team as informative, helpful, and prepared.   

On the comment form’s two open‐ended questions, respondents were able to share a

wide range of perspectives.  The first question asked what would make the project a

success.  Ninety‐one people answered this question and stated in order of preference

(with the last two bullets tied):

 Routing Springfield’s rail (freight) traffic out of town,

 Conducting the study in a fair and neutral manner,

 Informing the community of the project’s activities and findings, and

 Locating rail traffic along the city’s eastern corridors.
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-7 Volume II

The second open‐ended query simply asked for any additional comments or questions.  

Fifty‐four people shared their insights, with most focusing on:

 Concerns about noise and vibration impacts,

 Appreciation for the project team’s community involvement efforts,

 Suggestions for keeping the public informed,

 A desire to move rail (freight) traffic out of town, and

 Concerns about public safety.

Many open house attendees not only completed comment forms, but also visited the

public input station to answer questions about their project concerns, desires, and

values.  Because some participants had strong affiliations with the 3rd Street, 10th Street

or 19th Street railroad corridors, they were encouraged to direct their responses to the

corridors they cared about most.  They were also given an option of answering more

broadly, which involved providing responses that focused on the city as a whole.  

One hundred eighty‐six responses were received to the first question posed at the public

input station, which was, “What concerns do you have about increasing rail traffic near

where you live, work, and play?”  The top five areas of concern overall were:

 Compromised public safety,

 Damaging noise and vibration impacts,

 Traffic delays,

 Negative effects on the local economy, and

 Increased neighborhood division and destruction.

The second question asked people to articulate their desires for railroad corridor and

neighborhood improvement.  A total of 200 responses were given with the top four

improvement desires being:

 Spur economic development,

 Route train (freight) traffic outside of town,

 Increase green space and recreation options along the impacted

corridors/neighborhoods, and

 Improve traffic flow.

The last question addressed by open house attendees was on how to best accommodate

increasing rail traffic and what values should be used in making an alternative

recommendation. Respondents posted 171 comments, which revealed the most

important values as:   

 Doing what is best for Springfield’s economy,

 Promoting public safety,

 Protecting and enhancing neighborhoods, and
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-8 Volume II

 Improving traffic flow.

2.  November 16, 2010 Open House

The second open house was held on Tuesday, November 16, 2010, and was attended by

309 citizens.  The main purpose of this open house was to:

 Present the alternatives for accommodating increasing rail traffic;  

 Share the evaluation factors in the alternative selection process; and  

 Obtain public input on which alternative would best serve Springfield.  

The open house was announced in the project’s third newsletter and was mailed to

approximately 2,800 people.  Advisory group members were sent letters and an email

message; flyers were mailed to elected officials; approximately 120 area churches were

sent posters; and an announcement was sent to 500 people via an e‐broadcast.  The

website and Facebook page were updated with an open house notice.  Radios ads ran on

WMAY, WTAX, WFMB, and WUIS.  Newspaper ads were featured in The Illinois

Times, Springfield Business Journal, and Capital City Courier.  Flyers were made

available on the project’s kiosks, which were at the County Municipal Building,

Springfield Art Association, Abundant Faith Christian Center, and Pilgrim Rest

Missionary Baptist Church. Additionally, the Faith Coalition for the Common Good

circulated an email to its 200 members; St. John’s Hospital notified its 3,600 employees;

and Memorial Medical Center included an announcement in its newsletter to 4,500

employees. Earned media included an article in The State Journal‐Register and a radio

interview with WTAX, both the day before the open house.  

Attendees were encouraged to visit 12 display stations, three of which featured

information on the proposed alternatives for accommodating rail traffic.  The other

stations featured project information; historic structures; noise and vibration; corridor

redevelopment opportunities; land acquisition process; high‐speed rail; non‐viable

alternatives; railroad safety; and public engagement.  The alternative stations displayed

descriptions, maps, and technical comparisons based on evaluation factors such as

traffic delays, expected crash frequency, and estimated displacements.  These three

stations represented variations of the following alternatives:

 Double track 3rd Street;  

 Shift 3rd Street rail traffic to 10th Street; and

 Shift 3rd Street and 19th Street rail traffic to 10th Street.

6.3.4.1 Comment Form Results

A total of 233 comment forms were received – 199 at the open house, 31 via the project’s

website, and three via mail and electronic mail.  

Respondents were asked to select the alternative that they thought would best address

Springfield’s need to accommodate increasing rail traffic.  With 220 responses to this

question, approximately 47 percent of the respondents selected one of the two

alternatives that involved shifting both 3rd Street and 19th Street rail traffic to 10th
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-9 Volume II

Street.  Forty‐two percent selected one of two alternatives that involved shifting only 3rd

Street to 10th Street; and the remaining respondents, 11 percent, favored one of three

alternatives to double track 3rd Street.

The 220 responses to this question are organized in the Table 6‐1:

Table 6‐2.  Public Response Summary ‐ Alternative Which Best Addresses

Accommodating Increasing Rail Traffic

Alternative

Number of

respondents

choosing the

alternative

Percentage of

respondents

choosing the

alternative

Alternative 3B: Shift 3rd Street and 19th Street tracks to 10th Street

corridor; fully grade separated; two new grade separations on 19th

Street corridor; Quiet zones along corridor; close six streets along 10th

Street.

53 24 percent

Alternative 3A: Shift 3rd Street and 19th Street tracks to 10th Street

corridor; five new grade separations on 10th Street corridor; two new

grade separations on 19th Street corridor; Quiet zones along corridor;

close four streets along 10th Street.

50 23 percent

Alternative 2A: Shift 3rd Street to 10th Street; five new grade

separations on 10th Street corridor; two new grade separations on 19th

Street corridor; Quiet zones along all corridors; close four streets

along 10th Street.

50 23 percent

Alternative 2B: Shift 3rd Street to 10th Street; fully grade separate

south of North Grand; two new grade separations on 19th Street

corridor; Quiet zones along all corridors; close six streets along 10th

Street.

43 19 percent

Alternative

Number of

respondents

choosing the

alternative

Percentage of

respondents

choosing the

alternative

Alternative 1B: Double Track 3rd Street; seven new grade separations;

Quiet zone along 3rd Street corridor.

10 4 percent

Alternative 1A: Double Track 3rd Street; no new grade separations;

Quiet zone along 3rd Street corridor.

8 4 percent

Alternative 1C: Double track 3rd Street ‐ seven new grade separations;

five new grade separations on 10th Street corridor; two new grade

separations on 19th Street corridor; Quiet zones along all corridors.

6 3 percent

Evaluation Factors

After selecting their top alternative, respondents were asked to choose the top three

factors that they used in their decision‐making.  The available choices included the

factors being considered in the alternative selection process.  As indicated by the
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-10 Volume II

comment forms, the top three factors were traffic delays, public safety, and corridor

redevelopment (Table 6‐3).

Table 6‐3.  Public Response Summary ‐ Factors Considered in Alternative Selection

Factors considered in choosing an alternative Total number of responses

received

Traffic Delays 164

Public Safety 163

Corridor Redevelopment   101

Environmental Impacts 88

Displacements 82

Costs 76

The comment form also contained a section for respondents to add any additional

comments about the alternatives or the factors used in the selection process.  One

hundred and sixteen, about half, of the submitted comment forms included remarks in

this section.

Of those who completed this section, 40 percent used this opportunity to describe why

Alternative 1, double tracking 3rd Street, was not the best choice.  Citizens cited reasons

that generally centered on the following:

 Negative impacts on the local economy, especially on the Medical District;

 Disruption to business operations and traffic flow in the downtown area; and  

 Overall devastation to Springfield’s downtown, including historical sites.  

Another 16 percent of the comments revealed support for consolidating 3rd Street traffic

to 10th Street (either Alternative 2 or 3) because it would create redevelopment and

economic development opportunities, both along an abandoned 3rd Street and along an

expanded 10th Street corridor; and it would improve traffic flow within and through the

city.

There were several comments, approximately seven percent of the total provided in this

section, which demonstrated concern for or opposition to consolidating rail onto the

10th Street corridor. Reasons cited include the following:  

 Further division between the East Side and West Side of Springfield;

 Impacts on traffic flow and emergency medical access due to road closures; and

 Negative effects on Lanphier High School and the surrounding area.  
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-11 Volume II

Close to 10 percent of the comments focused on which factors to consider in the selection

process.  Respondents mentioned displacements, corridor redevelopment, vibration and

noise, public safety, tourism, people with disabilities, a minimal number of

overpasses/underpasses, and long‐term planning for Springfield. The remaining

comments ranged from suggestions on re‐routing the rail corridor out of Springfield or

completely underground, to remarks on high‐speed rail.  

6.3.5 Springfield Public Hearing 

The Public Hearing for the Tier 2 Springfield Rail Improvements Project was held on

August 15, 2012, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Abraham Lincoln Hotel and

Conference Center in Springfield, Illinois. The Public Hearing documentation including:

the Notice of Availability; local newspaper advertisements; newsletter; Springfield

Public Hearing sign‐in sheets; the informational boards displayed at the Hearing; and

the comment disposition table for public comments received at the Public Hearing, can

be found in Appendix F. The comment disposition table in Appendix F also includes

responses to comments received during the Draft EIS comment period.

A total of 224 people signed in at the Springfield public hearing. Of those attending, 193

filled out a comment form. More than two‐thirds of the respondents were residents,

followed by frequent travelers, business owners, and non‐residential adjacent property

owners. Most comment form responders learned about the public hearing through

“word of mouth,” closely followed by newspaper ads, and media outlets. The media

outlets included, newspaper articles, particularly in the State Journal‐Register in

Springfield, radio, and television.  

The majority of comments about all of the retained alternatives related to traveling

through Springfield. The overwhelming majority of respondents support the 10th Street

alternative, which would shift Union Pacific freight trains and Amtrak passenger trains

from 3rd Street to 10th Street, and abandoning the 3rd Street corridor from near Ridgely

Avenue to south of Iles Avenue. Several people submitted prepared letters and/or

signed letters, totaling more than 30, with the same text on each one. In the letters, they

“applaud IDOT’s recommendation” and believe Alternative 2A, the 10th Street corridor,

is in the best interest of Springfield because it will make their community “safer, better

connected, and more prosperous.”  

There were several additional comments about the hearings themselves, with several

respondents mentioning that they were worthwhile. Instead of commenting on the

retained alternatives a few respondents mentioned the need for high‐speed rail.   

Of about 450 comments received from the public during the Draft EIS public comment

period and the Public Hearing, only about 2 percent of commenters opposed the project

and/or the preferred alternative. These comments focused on maintaining passenger rail

service on 3rd Street and moving 3rd Street freight trains to 10th Street. Other comments

suggested that the project is a waste of tax dollars, or the train traffic in Springfield

should be moved outside of the city limits. These comments include Comment Numbers
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-12 Volume II

– OC24, OC73, OC78 and OC81; and SPI1, SPI21, SPI22, and SPI 161. These comments

are located in Appendix F.   

6.3.6 Comments on the Tier 2 Draft EIS 

The Notice of Availability for the Tier 2 Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register

on June 29, 2012. The public comment period was 45 days thereafter, and closed on

August 20, 2012.

Comments during this public review period of the Tier 2 Draft EIS were received from

the parties listed below. Responses to these comments are organized by topic and

presented in Appendix F.  

Atteberry, Gregory

Barber, Charlie

Bland, Jeff

Cahnman, Sam ‐ Alderman, Ward 5

Casey, Roxanne

Dennison, Jeffrey

Ferry, Bruce

Fulgenzi, Jeff

Heideman, Shelly

Jordan, Leroy

Joyce, Kathy

McEvoy, Aaron

McFarland, Scott ‐ District 186 School Board

Morris, Gus

Myers, Steve

Poskin, Polly ‐ President, Harvard Park

Neighborhood Assoc.

Raybien, Corey

Sale, Dan ‐ Capital Area Association of

Realtors

Traeger, Sr. Mary Jean

Vinson, Larry  

Darling, Philip ‐ MWHSR Member

Decker, Ronald  

Bringuet, Dennis ‐ Ace Sign Co.

Peters, James ‐ Coldwell Banker Commercial

McNeese, Wes

Jacobson, Jerry ‐ Save Old Springfield

Radwine, David ‐ Sangamo Club

Arnberger, Kevin ‐ CK Dairy Dreams

Piland, Marilyn  

Hoda, Pat ‐ HieroGraphix Production, Inc.

Hinckley, Pam

Steiner, Jill

Wise, Cheryl ‐ GIS Solutions, Inc.

Engelhart, Marla ‐ Lincoln Tower

Apartments

England, Kevin

Curtis, Ed ‐ Memorial Health System

Williams, Robert ‐ Springfield Police

Department

Isringhausen, Geoff ‐ Isringhausen Imports,

Inc.

Hearring, Liz

Anderson, Owen and Karen

Fustin, Ken ‐ Springfield Fire Department

OʹShea, Paul ‐ City of Springfield Office of

Planning and Economic Development

Rogers, Glen D.

Schisler, Lori  

Whalen, Sharon

Feipel, Sheila ‐ AmeriCALL

Communications

Kriel, Jack

Mehl, Fredric and Cynthia

Oxtoby, Caroline

Scheuermann, Cal

Stephens, Donn

Rogers, Glen & Betty

Tucker, Gary

Miller, Lynn

Ernst, Donald
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-13 Volume II

Higginbotham, Michelle ‐ Coldwell Banker

Commercial Devonshire Realty

Phillips, Tim

Truax, Paul  

Bastas, Bob and Yolanda

Terry, Sue

Knox, Judy

Randolph, Roger

Manes, Jim

Stewart, Steve

Woomer, Anne

Ahlers, Gaye  

Shufeldt, Warren & Gabrielle

Hodel, Ross

Mitchell, Harry

Ernst, Lisa ‐ The Real Estate Group

Sables, Jan

Mapes, Tim ‐ Speaker Michael J. Madiganʹs

Office

Sale, Daniel ‐ Capital Area Association of

REALTORS

Sewell, Kirk

Dirksen , Julie A.

Malany, Lee ‐ Advisory Council, Rotarian

Disaster Assistance Agency

Krager, Don ‐ Bank & Trust Company

Knight‐Anderson, Ruth ‐ Near South

Neighborhood Association

Cavanagh, Tom ‐ Sangamon County

Treasurer and Capital Township Supervisor

Chiles, Phil

Johnson, Sharon

Collins, Josh

Bailey, Craig

Koller, Carol

Lauder, Winifred

Van Fossan, Eloise and Donald  

Jones, Linda

Peters, James

Zahn, Michael D. ‐ International Union of

Operating Engineers Local 965

Antonacci, Gianni and Sarah  

Roulson, Lee & Sandra

Barker, J. Michael ‐ Springfield Electric

Supply Company

Stephens, Judy and Harvey

Sumner, Martha

Chronister, Linda

Chronister, Grady

Singleton, James and Mary Anne

Simpson, Nancy & Bill

Dimond, Richard

Metz, Elfi

Kelsheimer, Judith A.  

Logue, Anne  

Donels , Bill and Sue

Rogers, Barbara

Collins, Paula

Morrison, Mary

Harnish, Rick

Cook, Emil

Stephens, Mary Beth

OʹBrien, Thomas

Whiston, Brian ‐ Crawford, Murphy & Tilly

Inc.

Van Meter, Andy ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Goleman, Andy ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Fulgenzi, John ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Sausaman, Daniel ‐ Sangamon County

Board Office

Ratts, Jason ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Forysth, Abe ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Mendenhall, David ‐ Sangamon County

Board Office

Boyster, Chris ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Musgrave, Sarah ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

OʹNeill, John ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-14 Volume II

Krell, Tim ‐ Sangamon County Board Office

Briggity, Kimberly ‐ Sangamon County

Board Office

Davsko, Sue ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Smith, Todd ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Ridgeway, Ann

Barnes, Sondra

Mueller, Mark

Levalley, John

Reynolds, Will

Rayburn, Corey

Grady, Pat ‐ Democrat Precinct Committee

Person‐Member of Hanson Rail Study

Group/Springfield South Corridor

Neighborhood Association

Isringhausen, Jennifer ‐ Isringhausen

Imports

Fulgenzi, Linda ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Montalbano, Sam ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Ruzic, Rose ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Sam, Snell

Bunch, Clyde ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Good, Jim ‐ Sangamon County Board Office

Hall, Craig ‐ Sangamon County Board Office

Stumpf, Greg ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Moore, Tim ‐ Sangamon County Board

Office

Logue, Anne

Halstead, Janet ‐ Frank Lloyd Wright

Building Conservancy

Drum, Nicholas

Farmer, Michael ‐ City of Springfield Office

of Planning and Economic Development

Barker, Robert ‐ Barker Real Estate

McMenamin, Joe ‐ City of Springfield

Castir, Mike ‐ Isringhausen Imports

Carver, Michael

Heimlich, Charles

Sanderson Jr., Richie

Aiello, Joe

Grieser, Dale

Stratton, Nicholas

Brissenden, Phyllis

Corkery, Richard

Dresch, Tim

Hamle, Mike

Arnold, Kenel

Farrell, Jennifer

Hannah, LaVerne

Turner, A.

Langfelder, Josh ‐ Sangamon County

Recorder

Bilyu, Bruce  

Compton, Janet

McConley, Donald

Thernton, Robert

Lewis, Tom

Hichinon, Mona

Pratt, Casey

Davis, Brian

Johnson, David

Zahrn, Timothy C.

Freitag, Beverly

Randall, David

Stratton, Charlie

Foster, Kevin

Schackman, Bill

Smith , Timothy B. ‐ The Dana ‐ Thomas

House Foundation  

Butt, David ‐ Sangamon County OEM

Roney, Wayne

Clark, Mechill

Ledage, Lynn

Jackson, Kimberly

Tornatore, Gregory  

Mahoney, Ed ‐ RE/MAX Professionals  

Schmit, John and Patricia  

Warren , Brad  
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-15 Volume II

Stone, Jim ‐ Sangamon County Department

of Public Health

Spear, Bethany  

Augspurger, Pat  

Lucas , David  

Mendenhall, Carole  

Maier, Linda ‐ The Real Estate Firm, Inc.

Pittman, Julie

Zang, Jean E.

Roderick, Donna

Hamende, William

Moore, Terry

Boedigheimer, Janette

Robisch, Lou

Berns, Molly

Reed, Kelly

Magmuso, Jay C.

Goulet, Joe

Pearson, Tracy

Lindsey, Christine  

Watts, Mary Beth

Elston, Cassie

Rice, Fatina

Huber, Mary

Bosie, Annette

Grady, Pat ‐ Springfield South Corridor

Neighborhood Association

Wilday, Jeffery ‐ Downtown Springfield,

Inc.

Rahn, Douglas ‐ Memorial Medical Center

Harnish, Zach

Logan, Wills

Maholland, Marlene

Kushak , Marilyn A. ‐ Mid‐West Family

Broadcasting

Hasara , Karen  

Haines , Nancy  

Brake , Teri  

Barber, Nancy  

Augspurger, Don  

Sims, Norman ‐ SSCRPC

Goldin, Dave

Rygh, Tom

Goodrow, Richard

Carr, Dennis

Kudlacik, Harriet  

Back, William

Barshis, Jan

Roach, John

Egan, Sally

LeBeau, Jon  

Warner, Timothy  

Shelton, James

Hart, Robert

Israel, Robert

Ebbinghouse, Aaron

Zabaly, Nicholas

Simmons, Hillery

Lyons, Joe

Holman‐Gomez, Brent

Shinners, Karen

Fisher, Andrew ‐ Website Designer

Kriston, Ira

Olson, Layton

McCarter, Daniel

Schaaf, Kevin

Weaver, Barry

Self, Charles

Kaplan, David

Weese Young, Shirley

Thompson, Jim  

Christensen, Colleen  

Mier, Charles

Johnson, David

Ryckbost, Paul

Hein, Chris

Ratliff, Jerry  

Woodard, Gwen

Tomzik, David

Miofsky, Christopher

LaPorte, Cinthia  

Michael, Dave

Guenther, Erich
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 6-16 Volume II

Soenson, Leland

Wedra, Art

Hutchison, Bill

Houston, J. Michael ‐ Office of the Mayor

Dixon, Louis H.

Morrison, Mary

Morrison, Steve

Wilhite, Ann

Riffey, Darrell & Sharon

Allen, John

Groves, Linda

Schober, Albert & Barbara

Jobe, Cory M. ‐ City of Springfield Ward 6

Stuart, Robert A. ‐ Brown, Hay and

Stephens

Squires, Frank ‐ Springfield Mass Transit

District  

Buscher, Mike ‐ The Real Estate Group

Musso, Todd ‐ Capital Area Association of

Realtors

Hansen, Eric ‐ SSCRPC

Higginbotham, Todd A.  

Combs, Steve ‐ Enos Park, I.C.O.N Coalition

Wallace, Char

Russell, Lou Ann

Boer, Michael ‐ Mid‐Illinois Medical District

Isringhausen, Luke ‐ Isringhausen

Koch, Susan ‐ University of Illinois at

Springfield

Dorsey, Kevin J. ‐ SIU School of Medicine

Shepherd, Michael

Sandstrom, Steward ‐ The Greater

Springfield Chamber of Commerce

Langfelder, James ‐ City of Springfield

Alonzo, Loretta ‐ Illinois Association of

Realtors

Wheeland, Linda ‐ Springfield Area

Transportation Study

Goodmen, Joseph

Brake, Gloria

Illinois Commerce Commission

United States Environmental Protection

Agency  

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

Harris, Jeff – Norfolk Southern