Section

3

3. Alternatives

ALTERNATIVES
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-1 Volume II 

3.0 Alternatives 

The Springfield Rail Improvements Project Build Alternatives place rail traffic on the

three existing routes in different configurations, as well as include two tracks for high‐

speed rail. The No‐Build Alternative includes the continuation of existing freight service

along with intercity passenger service between Chicago and St. Louis including the

currently planned and funded improvements.  Existing Amtrak service will be

improved with high‐speed rail (HSR) service through much of the corridor (between

Joliet and St. Louis) following completion of upgrades to the existing tracks that were

approved by a 2004 Record of Decision (ROD) (Dwight to St. Louis improvements)

(Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),

2003) and 2011 FONSI (Joliet to Dwight improvements) (FRA, 2011).   

This section describes the alternatives assessed in detail in Chapter 5 of Volume II of this

Final EIS and the screening process used to identify these alternatives. In Chapter 2 of

Volume II of this Final EIS, Purpose and Need, a series of goals and objectives were

defined.  Measures of success in meeting the goals and objectives were used to compare

potential alternatives. The criteria are described in Section 3.1.  The No‐Build Alternative

and the Build Alternatives undergoing screening are defined in Sections 3.2 and 3.3,

respectively.  The alternatives screening is described in Section 3.4 and its results are

presented in Section 3.5.

3.1 Tier 2 Alternatives Screening Process 

3.1.1 Alternatives Screening and Selection Process 

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

for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project. The Illinois Department of Transportation

(IDOT) and FRA developed the screening criteria specifically for this project.  The

screening criteria were applied to the project alternatives identified in the Tier 1 Final

EIS. The screening criteria considered the following:

 The purpose and need of the Springfield Rail Improvements Project;

 The goals and objectives established for the project in the Purpose and Need;

 Minimizing impacts to humans and the natural environment; and

 Minimizing costs.

Table 3‐1 lists the Springfield Rail Improvements Project screening objectives and the

corresponding criteria, as well as the units or methodology used to quantify or

characterize these criteria. Quantitative criteria were measured in appropriate units such

as number, time, or dollars, while qualitative criteria that cannot be captured adequately

by a single number are encapsulated in a brief narrative description.  Each of the

alternatives that passed the Tier 1 screening (Volume 1, Section 3.3.5) was evaluated
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-2 Volume II 

through this Tier 2 screening. Some of the Tier 2 screening criteria are the same as those

used in the Tier 1 screening.  However, more detailed analysis was conducted for the

Springfield Rail Improvements Project alternatives at Tier 2 because of a greater level of

available engineering detail and environmental information.  Some of the screening

criteria from Tier 1 were not included in Tier 2, because for those criteria additional

information is not necessary or relevant at the Tier 2 level.  Additionally, screening

criteria were added to address the specific Springfield Project needs. Differences in

impacts and costs from Tier 1 to Tier 2 are a result of the more detailed analysis

undertaken for Tier 2.  

Table 3‐1. Tier 2 Objectives and Screening Criteria

Objective Criteria and Measures 

Safety  Train/Vehicle Accidents at Grade

Crossings (# of predicted accidents)

Congestion  Vehicle Traffic delay (# of minutes of

vehicle delay)

Livability and commercial activity

 Predicted sound levels (Amount of time

horns are blown per day (# of minutes)

 Reduce rail traffic through the Medical

District and downtown (qualitative

discussion)

Lifecycle and capital costs  Present value cost (dollars)

 Capital cost (dollars)

Operational issues  Number of at‐grade crossings

Impacts to existing development  Right‐of‐way Impacts (acres of right‐of‐way

required)

Impacts to social and economic

resources

 Residential and commercial displacements

(# of displacements)

 Parcels with changes in access (# of parcels)

 Neighborhood severances and public

services (qualitative discussion)

Note: Criteria not included in the Tier 1 Screening are in bold.

Screening based on railroad operational criteria is included in Tier 1. There are no

operational differences between the Tier 2 Build Alternatives.  

A discussion of the Tier 2 screening criteria that are not included in Tier 1 is provided

after Table 3‐1.  The items with bold text are new criteria not included in the Tier 1

screening.   

3.1.1.1 Safety

Annual vehicle/train accidents, including injuries and fatalities, for each grade crossing

were predicted for each alternative using U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT)

Grade Crossing Accident Prediction  method described in the summary of the IDOT
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-3 Volume II 

Rail‐Highway Crossings Resource Allocation Procedure‐Revised, (June 1987) and Rail‐

Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure: User’s Guide, Third Edition, (August 1987).

3.1.1.2 Congestion

Daily traffic delays at grade crossings were computed for future conditions for all

alternatives based on forecast traffic volumes and gate closure times.

3.1.1.3 Improve Livability and Commercial Activity

The amount of time that train horns blow for grade crossings was computed for future

conditions for all alternatives based on current horn blowing procedures used by the

railroads and Amtrak and the number of forecast trains.

Each of the alternatives was evaluated with regard to whether they reduced rail traffic

through the Mid‐Illinois Medical District and through downtown.  

3.1.1.4 Present Value and Capital Costs

Capital costs were estimated for each alternative. Capital costs are for design, land

acquisition, and construction; they do not include operations and maintenance costs.  

A present value cost analysis using USDOT procedures and analysis inputs (OMB

Circular No. A‐94; EPA Publication EPA 420; USDOT Guideline: Treatment of the Value

of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic Analysis; USDOT

Memorandum: Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis; USDOT Memorandum:

Treatment of Value of Life and Injuries in Preparing Economic Evaluations) was

prepared for a 75‐year project life.  Annual costs including operations and maintenance

costs, were computed for each year of the anticipated project life.  These include:

 Crossing maintenance, crossing rehabilitation and structure rehabilitation.

 Delays based on the traffic delay calculations and an average hourly delay cost.

 Cost for collisions, injuries and fatalities at highway grade crossings as computed

by the crash prediction model.

 Emissions and fuel costs as a result of delayed rail and vehicles.

 Incident, injury, and fatality costs for hazardous material releases. Information on

hazardous material releases from railroad cars is tabulated by the USDOT.  This

information was used to compute an average of incidents, costs, injuries, and deaths

per train mile traveled.  This was used to predict the number and cost of incidents

in the study area for the various alternatives (Illinois Commerce Commission, 2001‐

2010).   

These annual costs were escalated to account for inflation (1.8 percent per year for

operations and maintenance, 3.0 percent per year for construction) and any anticipated

increases because of rail and vehicle traffic growth.  The present value of these annual
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-4 Volume II 

costs was computed using the discount rate (4.5 percent per year) and anticipated

project life of 75 years.

3.1.1.5 Operational Issues

The number of remaining at‐grade rail crossings and grade separation bridges in the

study area were determined for each of the alternatives. There are no other rail

operational differences among the alternatives selected for detailed environmental

analysis. All of the alternatives selected for detailed environmental analysis improve UP

operations by adding a second track through Springfield. All of the alternatives selected

for detailed environmental analysis would have the same length, speed, travel time, and

switching requirements.  

3.1.1.6 Impacts to Existing Development

The number of acres of required new right‐of‐way was computed for each alternative.  

This included right‐of‐way for new grade separations, crossing improvements, and track

improvements.  

3.1.1.7 Impacts to Social and Economic Resources

New right‐of‐way requirements along the alternatives were used to determine the

number of displacements along each alternative.  As part of this analysis, previous

stakeholder comments obtained through the Springfield Rail Improvements Project

were assessed to assist in identifying other social and economic impacts such as

neighborhood severances and public service disruptions.

The alternatives were also compared as to whether the rail lines passed through

residential neighborhoods and whether they affected access to critical community

buildings.  

3.2 No-Build Alternative 

The No‐Build Alternative consists of maintaining the existing rail and street facilities

after completion of the improvements approved by the FRA in the 2004 Record of

Decision (ROD Improvements) and the 2011 FONSI (see the Tier 1 Final EIS Volume I,

Section 3.2).  No additional grade separations would be constructed.  Quad gate (gates in

all four quadrants of the crossing to minimize opportunities for drivers to drive around

the gates when down) installation along 3rd Street as part of the ROD Improvements

would allow for a quiet zone for the 3rd Street corridor (UP). The No‐Build Alternative

would have a substantial increase in freight rail traffic compared to existing.  

3.3 Build Alternatives 

The alternatives considered for the Chicago to St. Louis High‐Speed Rail Project are

described in Section 3.3 of Volume I of the Tier 1 Final EIS, including reasons for

eliminating several potential alternatives. The analysis in Tier 1 eliminated the following

Springfield Build Alternatives (described in Section 3.3.5.1 of Volume I of the Tier 1 Final

EIS):  
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-5 Volume II 

 Alternative 3 – UP and CN relocation to 10th Street  

 Alternative 4 – Split passenger and freight traffic in different corridors

 Alternative 5 – Split passenger and freight traffic with CN relocation to 10th Street  

Screening of these alternatives and reasons for their elimination are included in Section

3.3.5.2 of Volume I of the Tier 1 Final EIS.

The following build alternatives were retained for Tier 2 analysis.

3.3.1 Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 – consists of adding a second track to the existing 3rd Street corridor to

accommodate UP freight and passenger (HSR) traffic.  This alternative includes three

subalternatives, each of which includes a specific combination of grade separations and

grade crossing closures (see Table 3‐2). The subalternatives are:  

 1A – Double track UP on 3rd Street – grade separation at passenger station (Exhibit

3‐1).

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

(Exhibit 3‐2).

 1C – Double track UP on 3rd Street– some grade separations on all corridors (Exhibit

3‐3).

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C include closure of 3rd Street parallel to the UP tracks from

Ash Street to Union Street. This consists of abandoning 3rd Street in areas where it is

immediately adjacent to the track and the existing UP right‐of‐way width is less than 66

feet.  This would require that the street right‐of‐way and any property with access only

from 3rd Street be purchased.  There are several reasons for this requirement as detailed

below.

 From approximately Monroe Street to south of Laurel Street the UP right‐of‐way is

approximately 30 feet wide.  Two tracks at 13.5 foot centers would leave only about

8 feet from the centers of the track to the right‐of‐way line.  In other areas north of

Monroe Street, the right‐of‐way is wider but would not accommodate UP’s design

requirements for spacing and clearance.  

 Illinois legal horizontal clearance requirement (Title 92 I.A.C.) is 8 feet in general

and 9 feet for poles.  The UP requirement is 9 feet.  There is insufficient width

within the existing right‐of‐way to provide these clearances with two tracks.

 Since 3rd Street exists on both sides of the track in most of the segment from Monroe

Street to Laurel Street, there are vehicles and pedestrians immediately adjacent to

the railroad right‐of‐way. There are also numerous residences and businesses that

front directly onto 3rd Street.  
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-6 Volume II 

 Springfield requested that a concrete barrier and chain link fence be constructed on

both sides of the UP track in the 3rd Street corridor to prevent vehicle and pedestrian

encroachment onto the UP right‐of‐way in areas where residences and businesses

front directly on 3rd Street.  To provide the minimum clearances listed above,  

   
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-7 Volume II 

Table 3‐2.  Tier 2 Alternatives
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-8 Volume II 

Exhibit 3‐1.  Alternative 1A

   
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-9 Volume II 

Exhibit 3‐2.  Alternative 1B  
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-10 Volume II 

Exhibit 3‐3.  Alternative 1C  
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-11 Volume II

it would be necessary to place this fence and barrier on 3rd Street, off of existing

railroad right‐of‐way.  This arrangement results in the following concerns:

 A fence and barrier at the minimum clearance point from Monroe Street to

Laurel Street could complicate UP track maintenance since there would be

limited space for personnel, equipment, and materials.

 Third Street would be reduced to a width less than 16 feet.

 The barrier and fence on both sides of the track could trap trespassers with no

easily accessible escape route or place of refuge.    

 Crossing signals and gates would need to be installed at each of the cross

streets.  The installation of vehicle and pedestrian gates would require that 3rd

Street be relocated further away from the track at the at‐grade crossings. This

would require the acquisition of right‐of‐way and result in intersections on both

sides of, and immediately adjacent to, the rail crossings.  

Resolution of these issues results in other actions that are part of this alternative,

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C include abandoning 3rd Street in areas where it is

immediately adjacent to the track and the existing UP right‐of‐way width is less than 66

feet.  This would require that the street right‐of‐way and any property with access only

from 3rd Street be purchased.  Purchase and abandonment of 3rd Street provides the

following advantages from the perspective of rail operations as well as pedestrian and

vehicle circulation:  

 Elimination of most of the concerns associated with pedestrian and vehicle traffic

immediately adjacent to the railroad.

 A 15 feet track center and a service road could be provided for the UP, improving

its maintenance activity and operations.  

 Elimination of the 3rd Street intersections with cross streets adjacent to the track.    

 Closing 3rd Street would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic on any other

streets since its purpose is to serve trips with destinations on 3rd Street.  

The passenger station along 3rd Street for Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would be at the

site of the existing Amtrak Station and would extend to the block immediately to the

north.  The alternatives include a grade separation at Jefferson Street to provide the

required 500 feet station platform length (see Exhibit 3‐4). Station parking (minimum 100

spaces) would be located immediately east of the station in the block between Jefferson

and Washington streets.  
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-12 Volume II 

Exhibit 3‐4.  Passenger Station on 3rd Street
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-13 Volume II 

3.3.2 Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would relocate UP freight and passenger (HSR) traffic to the 10th Street

corridor and add a second track.  This alternative includes two sub‐alternatives, each of

which includes a specific combination of grade separations and grade crossing closures.  

(See Table 3‐2). The subalternatives are:

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

(Exhibit 3‐5).

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

south of North Grand Avenue, some grade separations on 19th Street (Exhibit 3‐6).

Alternative 2B was developed at the request of the UP to evaluate the cost, impacts, and

benefits of eliminating all at‐grade crossings where the NS and UP would operate in

adjacent, parallel corridors (North Grand Avenue to Stanford Avenue).

The passenger station along 10th Street for Alternatives 2A and 2B would be on the east

side of the rail corridor on the block between Adams and Washington streets.  An

overhead pedestrian crossing would provide access to the platforms.  These alternatives

include closing the Adams Street crossing to provide the required 500 feet station

platform length (see Exhibit 3‐7). Station parking (minimum 100 spaces) would be

located east of the station between Adams and Jefferson streets.  

3.4 Springfield Tier 2 Screening of Alternatives 

The Springfield‐specific Tier 2 screening criteria were applied to the No‐Build

Alternative and to Alternatives 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, and 2B. All of the alternatives, including

the No‐Build Alternative, include a substantial increase in passenger and freight rail

traffic, and this is reflected in the screening comparison. The results of the screening

analysis are described in the paragraphs that follow.

3.4.1 Safety 

Reducing the number of crossings and improving crossing protection are the primary

ways to improve safety.  As stated in the purpose and need, the 3rd Street Corridor

(Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C) also has additional pedestrian safety concerns.  

The anticipated number of vehicle‐train crashes in the design year 2030 is shown for

each alternative in Table 3‐3.  These were predicted using USDOT Grade Crossing

Accident Prediction based on the method published in summary of the IDOT Rail‐

Highway Crossings Resource Allocation Procedure‐Revised, (June 1987) and Rail‐Highway

Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure: User’s Guide, Third Edition, (August 1987).
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-14 Volume II 

Exhibit 3‐5.  Alternative 2A

   
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-15 Volume II 

Exhibit 3‐6.  Alternative 2B    
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-16 Volume II 

Exhibit 3‐7.  Passenger Station on 10th Street
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-17 Volume II 

Table 3‐3. Predicted Crashes

Alternative Predicted Crashes per Year (2030)

No‐Build 1.30

1A 1.42

1B 1.31

1C 0.58

2A 0.26

2B 0.08

Alternatives that consolidate rail traffic on corridors with grade separations at the

busiest streets (2A and 2B) would have the lowest projected number of crashes.  Simply

building more grade separations without consolidating rail operations (Alternatives 1B

and 1C) is not as effective as consolidating rail operations and building grade

separations (2A and 2B).  Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would fence the UP right‐of‐way

only, leaving the 10th Street and 19th Street corridors subject to existing level of trespass.  

Alternatives 2A and 2B would fence both of Springfield’s remaining north‐south

corridors, reducing trespass opportunities throughout Springfield.   

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would not fully address the 3rd Street pedestrian safety

issues because rail traffic would remain on the 3rd Street corridor.  Closing 3rd Street

would eliminate the problem of the street immediately adjacent and parallel to the

tracks.  The issue of the busy corridor through a dense residential area with numerous

pedestrian attractions would remain however. Alternatives 2A and 2B would remove

rail traffic from the 3rd Street corridor, eliminating the issue.    

3.4.2 Congestion 

As with safety, the alternatives that consolidate rail traffic and provide grade

separations at busy streets would be the most effective at reducing vehicle congestion

resulting from trains blocking crossings.  

Anticipated daily vehicle delays in 2030 as a result of trains blocking at‐grade crossings

were computed for each alternative. These are shown in Table 3‐4.

Table 3‐4. Vehicle Delays

Alternative Vehicle Delay in vehicle ‐minutes per day

No‐Build 47,500

1A 45,900

1B 28,500

1C 18,900

2A 13,500

2B 7,100

   
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-18 Volume II 

Alternatives 2A and 2B would have the fewest delays of the Tier 2 alternatives.  This is

because of the consolidation of rail traffic in the 10th Street corridor and construction of

grade separations at the busiest streets.  Consolidation would move trains off of the 3rd

Street corridor which is crossed by more vehicles than the 10th Street corridor.  The 10th

Street corridor also has more effective existing grade separations.   

Alternatives 1C, 2A, and 2B fully grade separate Carpenter Street, Madison Street,

Jefferson Street, Ash Street and South Grand Avenue, five of the busiest east‐west

arterials in Springfield.  Traffic on these streets would no longer be stopped by trains.  

3.4.3 Livability and Commercial Activity 

3.4.3.1 Train Horn Blowing

The large number of at‐grade street crossings in Springfield produces frequent train

horn blowing, which can affect livability.  The most effective ways to reduce the

frequency of train horns is to consolidate rail traffic to corridors that have fewer at‐grade

crossings and/or to create quiet zones.   

The predicted duration of train horn blowing in minutes per day for each alternative is

shown in Table 3‐5.  This was calculated based on the number and duration of horn

blowing for each train as it approaches each crossing in Springfield.  Horn blowing

sequences are prescribed by law.  Alternatives 1C, 2A, and 2B would have no horn

blowing since quiet zones would be implemented for all rail corridors.  

Table 3‐5. Horn Blowing

Alternative Horn Blowing minutes/day (2030)

No‐Build 314

1A 151

1B 151

1C 0

2A 0

2B 0

3.4.3.2 Reduce Rail Traffic Through Medical District and Downtown

Springfield has a long‐held goal to eliminate rail traffic in the 3rd Street corridor (UP) and

to consolidate rail traffic in the 10th Street corridor (NS) (see Springfield Railroad

Consolidation Study, 2005; and The 10th Street Solution, 2011). The 3rd Street and 19th Street

(CN) corridors are the most residential of the three corridors in Springfield; the 10th

Street corridor is the least residential.  The 3rd Street corridor passes through downtown,

the State Capital Complex and the Mid‐Illinois Medical District.  The rail corridor

inhibits planned development in the Medical District because of the reluctance to

construct medical, academic or research structures too close to the tracks (Springfield

Area Transportation Study, 2010).  Development in downtown, especially residential

development is restricted by the 3rd Street rail corridor.  Much of the 10th Street corridor

passes through the east edge of downtown and a warehouse and industrial area.  

Springfield’s comprehensive plan calls for relocation of the 3rd Street corridor to 10th
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-19 Volume II 

Street and construction of an intermodal station on 10th Street.  Alternatives 2A and 2B

achieve this goal and are consistent with Springfield’s plan since they eliminate rail

traffic on 3rd Street and consolidate on 10th Street.   

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would increase rail traffic through downtown and the

center of the Medical District.  These alternatives also would not reduce the number of

rail corridor barriers that divide Springfield in that all three corridors continue to carry

rail traffic.  These alternatives would leave rail traffic on the 3rd Street corridor which has

a higher concentration of important community facilities than the 10th Street corridor.    

Alternatives 2A and 2B would eliminate rail traffic from downtown and shift it away

from the center of the Medical District.  These alternatives eliminate operations on one of

the rail corridor barriers and mitigate the effects of the other two by constructing grade

separations at critical locations on both 10th and 19th streets.     

3.4.4 Present Value and Capital Costs 

3.4.4.1 Annual and Rehabilitation Costs

Annual and rehabilitation costs were computed for each alternative using the

assumptions shown in Table 3‐6. The project design year is 2030. It is anticipated that the

project will retain a useful life beyond 2030, and thus the analysis length extends past

2030 to 75 years from completion of construction.

Table 3‐6. Annual and Rehabilitation Cost Assumptions

Annual and Rehabilitation Costs Footnote Reference

Service Life 75 Years 1

Base Year for Costs 2011 2

Inflation Rate 1.80 Percent 3

Construction Inflation 3.00 Percent 4

Discount Rate 4.50 Percent 3

Fatality Cost $5,800,000 Each Occurrence 5

Injury Cost $1,000,000 Each Occurrence 5

Collision Cost $50,000 Each Occurrence 5

Auto Delay Cost $15.00 Per Hour 6

Truck Delay Cost $50.00 Per Hour 6

Percent Trucks 7 Percent 7

VOC Emissions Cost $1,700 Per Ton 6

NOx Emissions Cost $4,000 Per Ton 6

Fuel Cost $3.33 Per Gallon 8

VOC Emissions 0.05 Pounds Per Hour of Idling 6

NOx Emissions 0.01 Pounds Per Hour of Idling 6

Vehicle Traffic Growth 2.00 percent Per Year 7

Rail Traffic Growth 1.20 percent Per Year 9

Crossing Signal Maintenance $12,000 Per Year 10

Crossing Rehab $200,000 Each 10
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-20 Volume II 

Anticipated Structure life is 75 years 1

Structure rehabilitation every 25 years at 20 percent of structure cost 10

Grade crossing and signal rehabilitation every 10 years 10

Hazardous materials spill frequency and cost 11 1   Anticipated Service Life of Improvement

2   Current Year

3   Office of Management and Budget Circular A‐94

4    IDOT Five‐year Program

5   DOT Guideline: Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic Analysis

6   EPA Publication 420: Idling Vehicle Emissions

7   IDOT Traffic maps

8   Current National Average

9   Recent Average National Growth

10 Discussions with UP and CN railroads

11 Federal Railroad Administration – Office of Hazardous Materials Safety

  

These costs were not intended to be a comprehensive estimate of cost, but rather a

means to compare the long‐term costs of different alternatives.  The costs do not include

items that are common to all alternatives, such as street and track maintenance and train

operations.  The items included in the annual and rehabilitation cost comparison are:

 Crossing Maintenance

 Vehicle Delays

 Vehicle‐Train Collisions

 Emissions

 Hazardous Material Spills

 Fuel

 Structure Rehabilitation

 Grade‐Crossing Rehabilitation

Service life of 75 years was chosen since it is IDOT’s standard design service life for

some of the most costly components like the bridges, retaining walls and storm sewers

for the trackwork, and grade separations.  It is longer than the service life of some

components such as track and shorter than the service life of other components like

right‐of‐way (one‐time cost).  Rehabilitation costs account for the cost items that can

recur over the service life such as replacement and rehabilitation of track crossing

signals.  The annual costs were escalated to account for inflation and anticipated

increases from rail and vehicle traffic growth.  The present value of the cost was

computed using the discount rate.  The estimated annual and rehabilitation costs for the

various alternatives are shown in Table 3‐7.
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-21 Volume II 

Table 3‐7. Present Value of Annual and Rehabilitation Costs (Millions)

Alternative Delays Crashes Emissions Crossing

Maintenance Rehabilitation HAZMATSpills Total

No‐Build $300 $89 $1.1 $26 $48 $0.9 $467

1A $270 $96 $1 $26 $55 $0.9 $450

1B $168 $83 $0.6 $25 $63 $0.9 $341

1C $110 $42 $0.4 $23 $64 $0.9 $241

2A $80 $18 $0.3 $20 $54 $0.9 $173

2B $42 $5 $0.2 $12 $42 $0.9 $103

Alternatives 2A and 2B would have the lowest present value costs of the Tier 2

alternatives, primarily because of the reduced delay and accident costs.  

3.4.4.2 Capital Cost

Capital costs for each alternative were estimated based on the required infrastructure

improvements, including station improvements and grade separations included to

accommodate increased freight and high‐speed passenger traffic and are shown in Table

3‐8. These costs consist of construction, right‐of‐way, engineering and utility relocation.  

Construction quantities were computed for each of the major items of construction, and

average unit prices were applied to these quantities.  An appropriate contingency was

added along with engineering costs.  Land acquisition costs were based on assessed

values and include appraisal, preparation of documents, condemnation and relocation

costs.

Table 3‐8.  Capital Cost for Each Alternative

Double Track 3rd Street Alternatives

Work Item Alternative 1A Alternative 1B Alternative 1C

3rd Street Track Work $33,000,000 $33,000,000   $33,000,000

Non‐Recoverable 2004 Record of Decision

(ROD) Costs 0 0    0

Station Improvements (not including ROD) $19,000,000 $19,000,000   $19,000,000

Bridge Replacement

Bridge at Capitol Street   $5,300,000   $5,300,000    $5,300,000

Bridge at Dodge Street   $4,200,000   $4,200,000    $4,200,000

Bridge at 9th Street   $8,800,000   $8,800,000    $8,800,000

Total $18,300,000 $18,300,000   $18,300,000

3rd Street Grade Separations

Ash Street Underpass at 3rd Street   $14,700,000    $14,700,000

South Grand Overpass at 3rd Street   $23,000,000    $23,000,000

South Grand Underpass at 3rd Street
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-22 Volume II 

Jefferson Street Overpass at 3rd Street   $22,700,000   $22,700,000    $22,700,000

Jefferson Street Underpass at 3rd Street t

Madison Street Overpass at 3rd Street   $22,500,000    $22,500,000

Madison Street Underpass at 3rd Street

Carpenter Overpass at 3rd Street   $22,100,000    $22,100,000

Carpenter Underpass at 3rd Street

5th Street Underpass at 3rd Street   $14,800,000    $14,800,000

6th Street Overpass at 3rd Street   $47,600,000    $47,600,000

6th Street Underpass at 3rd Street

Total $22,700,000 $167,400,000    $167,400,000

10th and 19th Street Grade Separations

Ash Street Underpass at 10th Street   $17,800,000

Jefferson Street Underpass at 10th Street   $14,200,000

Madison Street Underpass at 10th Street   $14,500,000

Carpenter Street Underpass at 10th Street   $15,100,000

North Grand Overpass at NS (North Align)   $18,400,000

Ash Street Underpass at 19th Street   $ 8,600,000

South Grand Underpass at 19th Street $9,500,000

Total $98,100,000

    

UP At‐Grade Crossings (Quiet Zone) $19,800,000 $13,700,000 $13,700,000

NS At‐Grade Crossings (Quiet Zone)    $14,900,000.00

CN At‐Grade Crossings (Quiet Zone)    $13,200,000.00

GRAND TOTAL   $113,000,000   $251,000,000    $377,000,000

Shift UP to 10th Street Alternative

Work Item   Alternative 2A Alternative 2B

10th  Street Track Work $88,200,000 $88,200,000  

Non‐Recoverable ROD Cost 0   0  

Station Improvements   $21,000,000 $21,000,000  

Bridge Replacement

5th Street Underpass at 10th Street   $11,300,000   $11,300,000  

6th Street Underpass at 10th Street   $10,600,000   $10,600,000  

South Grand Underpass at 10th Street   $5,800,000   $5,800,000  

Cook Street Underpass at 10th Street   $7,000,000   $7,000,000  

Sangamon Underpass at UP

Total $34,700,000 $34,700,000  

Grade Separations

Laurel Street Underpass at 10th Street   $13,200,000   $13,200,000  

Ash Street Underpass at 10th Street   $17,800,000   $17,800,000  
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-23 Volume II 

Monroe Street Underpass at 10th Street   $14,700,000  

Washington Street Underpass at 10th Street   $15,900,000  

Jefferson Street Underpass at 10th Street   $14,200,000   $14,200,000  

Madison Street Underpass at 10th Street   $14,500,000   $14,500,000  

Carpenter Street Underpass at 10th Street   $15,100,000   $15,100,000  

North Grand Underpass at UP (North Align)   $14,000,000   $14,000,000  

North Grand Overpass at NS (North Align)   $18,400,000   $18,400,000  

Ash Street Underpass at 19th Street   $8,600,000   $8,600,000  

South Grand Underpass at 19th Street   $9,500,000   $9,500,000  

Total $125,300,000 $155,900,000  

UP/NS At‐Grade Crossings (Quiet Zone) $14,900,000 $7,600,000  

CN At‐Grade Crossings (Quiet Zone) $13,700,000 $13,700,000  

New NS Yard $17,300,000 $17,300,000  

GRAND TOTAL   $315,000,000   $338,000,000  

Costs include engineering, land acquisition, and construction in 2010 dollars.

3.4.5 Operational Issues 

At‐grade street crossings provide conflict points for rail traffic, increasing safety

concerns, and vehicle delays.  Minimizing these conflicts benefits both street and rail

users.  The number of at‐grade street crossings for each alternative is shown in Table 3‐3.  

Alternatives 2A and 2B would have the fewest crossings.  Grade separations require the

maintenance of bridges. The number of new grade separations for each alternative is

shown in Table 3‐9. Alternative 1C has the most grade separations.     

Table 3‐9.  Number of At‐Grade Street Crossings and New Grade Separations

Alternative Number of At‐Grade Street

Crossings

Number of New Grade

Separations

No‐Build 68 0

1A 67 1

1B 60 8

1C 52 16

2A 32 10

2B 28 12

There are no other operational differences among the Build Alternatives. The

operational issues associated with the No‐Build are explained in Volume I of the Tier 1

Final EIS and are primarily related to insufficient capacity for the total freight and high‐

speed rail traffic on the one existing track in the UP’s 3rd Street corridor.  

3.4.6 Right-of-Way Required 

Additional right‐of‐way would be required for all of the alternatives, see Table 3‐10.  

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would require the least new right‐of‐way of the Build

Alternatives.    
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-24 Volume II 

Table 3‐10.  Additional Right‐of‐Way

Alternative Right‐of‐Way Required (acres)

No‐Build 0

1A 6.0

1B 13.7

1C 21.6

2A 42.0

2B 42.6

Right‐of‐way requirements are higher for Alternatives 2A and 2B because of the need to

acquire property for the new UP corridor parallel to the existing NS corridor.  

3.4.7 Impacts to Social and Economic Resources 

The residential and commercial displacements associated with each alternative are

shown in Table 3‐11.  The parcels with changes to current access are also listed. In most

cases, this involves the loss of one of multiple access points to the property.  The number

of displacements includes properties that lost all access points.

Table 3‐11. Displacements and Access Changes

Alternative Displacements Parcels with   Total Residential Commercial Access Changes

No‐Build 0 0 0 0

1A 36 4 135 175

1B 102 31 219 352

1C 162 42 248 452

2A 117 53 28 198

2B 117 56 40 213

Alternatives 1B and 1C would have the largest number of displacements and parcels

with changes in access. Alternative 1A would have the fewest. Alternatives 2A and 2B

would have similar numbers of displacements and Alternative 2B has more parcels with

a change in access than 2A.   

Alternatives 1A and 1B would not address the issues of neighborhood connectivity and

access to critical community buildings along the 10th Street and 19th Street corridors since

they do not include any new grade separations in these corridors.  

Important community buildings, such as fire, ambulance, police, and medical facilities

exist along each of the corridors, primarily along 3rd Street and 10th Street.  Rail traffic

frequently blocks neighborhood access to these facilities which in some instances, such

as schools, are present to primarily serve that neighborhood.  As stated in the purpose

and need, the number of these facilities along the 3rd Street and 10th Street corridors are:  

3rd Street (1A, 1B, 1C) ‐   96

10th  Street (2A, 2B) ‐ 50

Total 146
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-25 Volume II 

Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C would maintain rail traffic along both the 3rd Street and 10th

Street corridors so that all 146 of these facilities remain affected.  Alternatives 2A and 2B

would reduce the number of facilities affected by rail traffic to 50 along 10th Street.

3.4.8 Tier 2 Screening Results 

The results of the Tier 2 screening process are summarized in Table 3‐12.

The Tier 2 screening eliminated the following alternatives:

 Alternatives 1A and 1B were not reasonable because of their high annual and

rehabilitation costs, and high train horn duration. They did not effectively meet the

project purpose and need as measured by vehicle‐train crashes and vehicle delay.

They also had the highest community and neighborhood impacts and, as shown in

Volume I of the Tier 1 Final EIS Section 3.3.5.2, most affected the environmental

justice communities. These alternatives also were not effective in addressing

pedestrian safety concerns along 3rd Street.  Alternative 1B had the second highest

number of displacements and parcels with access changes.  

 Alternative 1C was not reasonable because of its high number of  at‐grade street

crossings, high capital costs, its large number of  displacements and changes in

access, and it did not have any benefits in safety or reduction in vehicle delay

compared to Alternative 2A or 2B.  It also had a high number of community and

environmental justice impacts.  It had the highest total number of displacements

and parcels with access changes. This alternative also had higher present value

costs than Alternative 2A or 2B.   

Since these were found not to be reasonable in the screening process, they are not

considered further in this Final EIS; they are not assessed in detail in Chapter 5 of this

Final EIS.   

3.5 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study 

Alternatives 2A and 2B are the alternatives brought forward and analyzed in detail in

the Final EIS since they achieve the project purpose and need while minimizing capital

and present value costs and impacts to social resources. These alternatives best meet the

project purpose and need by minimizing at‐grade street crossings and the predicted

car/train crashes. They also are effective in reducing vehicle delays. Normal train horn

blowing would be eliminated by these alternatives and they have the lowest annual and

rehabilitation costs. Both of these alternatives eliminate rail traffic from downtown, the

Medical District and the neighborhoods along 3rd Street. They reduce the barrier effect of

the 10th Street and 19th Street corridors by building new grade separations in both rail

corridors.     
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-26 Volume II 

3.6 Preferred Alternative 

Alternative 2A has been identified as the Preferred Alternative based on the following

comparison of Alternatives 2A and 2B.

Purpose and Need

Alternative 2B would have lower delays, crash rates, and present value costs, but this

results primarily from constructing new grade separations at Monroe and Washington

streets and closing Capitol Avenue and Enos Street. The grade separations both have a

benefit/cost ratio much less than 1.0. The grade separations and street closures create

undesirable access and adverse travel issues as discussed in Section 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.2.  

There are no differences between the alternatives with respect to track capacity,

livability, and commercial activity or downtown and Medical District Division.

Impacts

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

commercial displacements and more parcels with a change in access.  

Alternative 2B changes the access to the Great Western Railroad Depot due to the

construction of an underpass grade separation along Monroe Street.  

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

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

impacts.   

Cost

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

Description

Alternative 2A consists of relocating the existing UP freight and passenger rail corridor

to a new location parallel to the NS tracks on 10th Street. The improvement consists of

constructing two UP tracks at 20 foot centers in a 75 foot right‐of‐way. The NS right‐of‐

way would be 65 feet wide with one main track and provision for a future track at 15

feet from the main track. The existing underpasses at Cook Street, South Grand Avenue,

5th Street, and 6th Street would remain and be modified as necessary to accommodate the

new track.

New grade separations would be constructed at the following locations:

 Ash at 10th (underpass)

 Laurel at 10th (underpass)

 Madison at 10th (underpass)

 Jefferson at 10th (underpass)
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-27 Volume II 

 Carpenter at 10th (underpass)

 North Grand at new UP track (underpass)

 North Grand at NS (overpass)

 Ash at CN (19th Street) (underpass)

 South Grand at CN (19th Street) (underpass)

The existing rail crossings would be closed at 10th Street and:

 Jackson

 Adams

 Reynolds

 Miller

 Enterprise  

Streets would be closed at the following locations:

 Princeton at 6th

 9th at Ash

 10 1⁄2 at Ash

 9th at Laurel

 10 1⁄2 at Laurel

 Division at new UP

 Reservoir at new UP

 10th at North Grand

 Michigan at North Grand

 Wirt at Ash

 McCreery at South Grand

Improvements would be made to the remaining at‐grade crossings to allow

implementation of quiet zones on the CN, UP, and NS rail corridors in the project area.  

The new rail passenger station would be located adjacent to the 10th Street rail corridor

north of Adams Street. The cost and impacts for the station are included with the overall

project. The existing NS rail yard would be purchased. Costs are included in overall

project costs.   

Rail traffic would be eliminated from the existing UP corridor from north of Ridgely

Avenue to south of Iles Avenue. Portions of Ridgely Avenue, Factory Street, Iles

Avenue, and Burton Drive would be realigned to accommodate the track improvements.  

Summary

Alternative 2A has been identified as the Preferred Alternative because it achieves the

project purpose and need at a lower capital cost and with fewer impacts than

Alternative 2B.  
Springfield Rail Improvements Project 3-28 

Table 3‐12. Summary of Springfield Tier 2 Screening