Chicago to Council Bluffs – Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System 

Planning Study 

Tier 1 Service Level

DRAFT 

Environmental Impact Statement

October 2012

Federal Railroad Administration

Council Bluffs – Chicago

Omaha

Draft EIS Signature Page
This page intentionally left blank
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-1 October 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 BACKGROUND

The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT), in conjunction with the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), is evaluating alternatives for the expansion of intercity passenger rail 

service from Chicago, Illinois, through Iowa, to Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska 

(the Project). Intercity passenger rail service provides “connectivity between major urban 

centers” (MWRRI, September 2004). Iowa DOT’s evaluation is documented in this Chicago 

to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study (the Study) Tier 1 

Service Level Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which evaluates the No-Build 

Alternative and the Build Alternative as described in Section ES.3. Past planning documents 

identified a “Chicago to Omaha” corridor, so for the purposes of this analysis, the corridor 

reference will remain as previously designated; however, the project name will include 

“Council Bluffs” in the title. For passenger rail projects, this Tier 1 EIS focuses on broad 

corridor and service level issues, while subsequent Tier 2 analyses will focus on the details of 

a specific project or action.

ES.1.1 History

The existing rail lines that are proposed to be used to provide passenger service from 

Chicago, Illinois, through Iowa, to Omaha, Nebraska, were all in place by 1871 and were 

initially constructed to carry passengers and to haul a variety of freight. Most of the 

passenger service along these routes began in the 1850s, 1860s, and 1870s. By the 1880s, 

commuter rail service in Chicago had been developed in a hub-and-spoke pattern, extending 

30 to 40 miles in 15 different directions from downtown Chicago. This hub-and-spoke 

system is still operating today as Chicago’s Metra. Intercity passenger rail service generally 

was terminated by the 1970s, when railroad passenger service declined nationally, and was 

consolidated into Amtrak. 

The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) was established in 1991 as part of federal 

transportation acts that included a broader national effort to support high-speed rail 

investment. Sponsors of the MWRRI included Amtrak and nine Midwest transportation 

agencies of the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-2 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

As a result of the MWRRI and the national high-speed rail initiative, numerous corridors 

were identified and refined, with Chicago as the hub. Between 1996 and 2004, a single 

transportation plan was developed that included all of these corridors; this plan is known as 

the Midwest Regional Rail System. The nine passenger rail corridors in the Midwest 

Regional Rail System are (see Figure ES-1):

• Chicago to Detroit/Grand Rapids/Port Huron, Michigan

• Chicago to Cleveland, Ohio

• Chicago to Cincinnati, Ohio

• Chicago to Carbondale, Illinois

• Chicago to St. Louis, Missouri

• St. Louis, Missouri, to Kansas City, Missouri

• Chicago to Quincy, Illinois

• Chicago to Omaha, Nebraska

• Chicago to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and to St. Paul, Minnesota/Green Bay, 

Wisconsin

In 2009 and 2010, Iowa DOT and Illinois DOT, in conjunction with FRA, evaluated 

alternatives for the corridor extending from Chicago Union Station to Iowa City, Iowa, with 

the completion of the Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service Tier 1 Service 

Level Environmental Assessment. On October 28, 2010, FRA awarded Iowa DOT and 

Illinois DOT a grant of $230 million to proceed with the Chicago to Iowa City corridor 

Tier 2 Project Level studies and construction activities. 

In 2010 and 2011, additional studies were completed for the MWRRI prior to 

commencement of the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System 

Planning Study. These studies included MWRRI corridor alternatives analysis, capital cost 

updates, operating equipment configurations and performance standards, advanced train 

control, and public outreach. The Chicago to Omaha corridor (the Corridor) was included in 

these studies. Subsequent to these studies, Iowa DOT and FRA concluded that analysis for 

speeds up to 110 miles per hour (mph) is warranted for the Chicago to Omaha Corridor, and 

would include a maximum of seven round-trips per day. 

Full implementation of the MWRRI would significantly improve Midwest passenger rail 

service by upgrading existing rail lines to permit frequent, reliable, efficient, high-speed 

passenger train operations that would provide through-service and connectivity in Chicago to 

locations throughout the Midwest region. With full implementation (estimated to occur in 

2025), the Midwest Regional Rail System would encompass approximately 3,000 route miles 

in the sponsor states and would attract approximately 13.6 million passengers annually. 

Approximately 90 percent of the Midwest region’s population would be within an hour’s ride 

of a Midwest Regional Rail System rail station and/or within 30 minutes of a Midwest 

Regional Rail System feeder bus station.

On October 14, 2011, FRA agreed to a phased implementation approach for the Chicago to 

Iowa City corridor. Illinois DOT is proceeding with the Tier 2 studies for the portion of the 

corridor extending from Chicago to Quad Cities with a terminus in Moline, Illinois. Iowa 

DOT would conduct Tier 2 studies for the portion of the corridor from the Quad Cities to 

Iowa City.
La k e M ic h ig a n

I A

I L

I N

M N

N E

O H

W I 

Fort

Dodge

Sioux

City

Cedar

Falls

Iowa

City

Champaign

Danville

Carbondale

Mattoon

Bloomington

Lafayette

Kokomo

Waterloo

Muncie

Paducah

Ludington

Holland

Kalamazoo

Cadillac

Mount

Pleasant

Midland

Anchorville

Howell

Kirksville

Lima

Youngstown

Des Canton

Moines

Cedar

Rapids

Peoria

Springfield

Rockford

Chicago

Evansville

Gary

Fort

Wayne

South

Bend

Indianapolis

Kansas

City

Overland Park

Topeka

Louisville

Lexington-Fayette

Grand

Rapids Lansing

Ann

Arbor

Flint

Livonia

Warren

Minneapolis

St.

Paul

Springfield

Independence Kansas

City

St.

Louis

Lincoln

Omaha

Cincinnati

Columbus

Dayton

Toledo

Akron

Cleveland

Chatham

Windsor

Green

Bay

Madison Milwaukee

Midwest Regional Rail System

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

DATE

FIGURE

October 2012

ES-1

*Indiana DOT is evaluating additional passenger rail service to South Bend and to Louisville.

**In Missouri, current restrictions limit train speeds to 79 mph.

Sources: Routes, IDOT; State/County/City Boundaries, Census/TIGER 2010; Lake, NHD

0 50 100

I

Miles

Rail Corridor*

110 mph top speed

90 mph top speed **

79 mph top speed

Feeder Bus Route
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-4 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

While the Chicago to Iowa City service and Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha service may 

ultimately use the same corridor from Chicago to Iowa City for implementation, the level of 

service under consideration is different. From Chicago to Iowa City, service was evaluated at 

a maximum of 5 round-trip trains per day at speeds up to 79 mph, while the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha service is being evaluated for a maximum of 7 round-trip trains per 

day at speeds up to 110 mph. The higher maximum speed and frequency of service for the 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha service would result in additional impacts, and, therefore, 

require additional study. For analysis purposes in this Tier 1 EIS, the passenger rail service 

from Chicago to the Quad Cities is assumed to be constructed and in operation.

ES.1.2 Study Area

The Corridor extends from Chicago Union Station, in downtown Chicago, Illinois, on the 

east to a terminal in Omaha, Nebraska, on the west. The Study Area consists of the five 

previously established passenger rail routes between Chicago and Omaha that pass through 

the states of Illinois and Iowa (Figure ES-2).

ES.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

ES.2.1 Purpose

The Project and the Midwest Regional Rail System are intended “to meet current and future 

regional travel needs through significant improvements to the level and quality of passenger 

rail service,” as defined by the MWRRI in its Midwest Regional Rail System Executive 

Report of September 2004. The Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail 

System would provide competitive passenger rail transportation between Chicago and 

Omaha to help meet future travel demands in the Study Area. The Project would create a 

competitive passenger rail transportation alternative to the available automobile, bus, and air 

service and would meet needs for more efficient travel between major urban centers by:

• Decreasing travel times

• Increasing frequency of service

• Improving reliability 

• Providing an efficient transportation option

• Providing amenities to improve passenger ride quality and comfort

• Promoting environmental benefits, including reduced air pollutant emissions, 

improved land use options, and fewer adverse impacts on surrounding habitat and 

water resources

ES.2.2 Need

The need for the Project stems from the increasing travel demand resulting from population 

growth and changing demographics along the Corridor, as well as the need for competitive 

and attractive modes of travel. Population in the Study Area is increasing and becoming more 

urbanized, with expanded access to, and demands for public transportation. The population is 

also aging and is increasingly seeking alternative modes of transportation. Currently, the 

predominant mode of travel in the region is the automobile, estimated to account for 

approximately 98 percent of travel between city pairs in the Study Area. 
Lake 

Michigan

Omaha

Naperville

Moline

Iowa

Des City

Moines

Council

Bluffs

Chicago

Des Moines River

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦72

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦57

I o w a

I l l i n o i s

M N

N e b r a s k a

W i s c o n s i n

Missouri River

Wisconsin River

St. Clair River

Illinois River

Missouri River

Mississippi River

DATE

FIGURE

Study Area

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012

ES-2

0 20 40

I

Miles

Route 1 (Canadian National Railway,

former Illinois Central)

Route 2

(Union Pacific Railroad,

former Chicago & 

North Western)

Route 3

(Canadian Pacific Railway

and BNSF Railway, 

former Milwaukee Road)

Route 3 Abandoned Portion

Route 4

(Iowa Interstate Railroad

and CSX Transportation,

former Rock Island)

Route 5

(BNSF Railway, former

Chicago, Burlington &

Quincy)
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-6 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Intercity passenger rail service would provide an option to highway and air travel between 

major urban centers in the face of a growing and aging population and increasing congestion 

on Midwest highways and at Midwest airports. A one-way trip by automobile between 

Chicago and Omaha along I-80 or I-88, at posted interstate speeds, would take about 8 hours

during off-peak hours. The cost of driving round-trip between Omaha and Chicago with one 

day of parking in either Omaha or Chicago would be approximately $550 to $575.

I-80 is also a major truck route in the region. Between 2010 and 2030, vehicle miles traveled 

in Iowa on I-80 are expected to increase by more than 65 percent. If no capacity 

improvements are made, nearly 75 percent of I-80 in Iowa would be bordering on unstable 

traffic flow, at or beyond capacity, resulting in stop-and-go traffic conditions.

Air service in the Study Area is currently available between the major cities of Chicago 

Moline, Des Moines, and Omaha. Direct flight service between Chicago and Omaha is 

served by American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and U.S. Airways, with 

typical flight times ranging from 1 hour and 20 minutes to 1 hour and 40 minutes. Tickets 

purchased with 2 weeks advanced notice typically cost between $210 and $1,400.

Bus service is provided in a majority of mid-to-large sized cities, with intermittent service in 

smaller towns. Service between Chicago and Omaha, with multiple stops, was provided by 

Greyhound, although its routes were taken over by Burlington Trailways in August of 2012. 

Typical bus service includes two trips per day: one in the early morning and one in the late 

evening, with an average travel time of about 9 hours and 30 minutes. Bus ticket prices vary 

from $40 to $126. Megabus.com, a subsidiary of Coach USA, is a low-fare express bus 

service that recently added daily service between Chicago and Omaha with stops in Iowa 

City and Des Moines. Megbus.com provides two round-trips per day: one in the morning and 

one in the late evening. 

Current passenger rail service from Chicago to Omaha is part of Amtrak’s long-distance 

service on the California Zephyr, with arrival and departure times late at night or early in the 

morning, and travel times of approximately 8 hours and 55 minutes from Chicago to Omaha, 

and approximately 9 hours and 36 minutes from Omaha to Chicago. Tickets purchased with 

2 weeks advanced notice typically cost $69 to travel from Chicago to Omaha and $108 to 

travel from Omaha to Chicago. 

Inclement winter weather in the Study Area often creates conditions that impact both 

highway and air travel, creating a need for an alternative mode that is less prone to winter 

service interruptions.

ES.2.3 Decisions to be Made

Iowa DOT and FRA must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) due 

to the proposed use of FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program funds for the 

Project. FRA has issued guidance supporting a tiered NEPA approach that includes Tier 1 

NEPA documents followed by Tier 2 NEPA documents. With a tiered approach, the Tier 1 

NEPA document evaluates impacts of a broad-scale project with focus on more qualitative 

than quantitative impacts. Following completion of the Tier 1 NEPA document and the 

associated decision document, Tier 2 NEPA documents are developed to evaluate 

quantitatively the environmental impacts within one or more specific sections.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-7 October 2012

The purpose of this Tier 1 EIS is to provide environmental resource and regulatory agencies, 

the public, and decision makers with a full understanding of the service-wide environmental 

impacts of the Project alternatives. Decisions to be made through this Tier 1 EIS process 

include selection of a preferred corridor and identification of communities served by station 

stops, frequency of service, speed of service, and plan for potential phased implementation of 

service. Prior to implementation of passenger rail service between Chicago and Omaha, 

Tier 2 NEPA documents will be developed for the sections identified in Section ES.7, Next 

Steps.

ES.2.4 Other Transportation Projects

In addition to the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System 

Planning Study, numerous transportation projects in and near the Study Area are in various 

stages of development. These major transportation projects for passenger rail, commuter rail, 

tollways, and interstate travel include the following:

• MWRRI corridors that are currently funded and under development at various 

stages of planning and implementation:

o Chicago to Detroit (Pontiac), Michigan

o Chicago to St. Louis, Missouri

o St. Louis, Missouri, to Kansas City, Missouri

o Chicago to Moline, Illinois (the Illinois portion of the Chicago to Iowa 

City project)

o Chicago to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Twin Cities, Minnesota, to Duluth, 

Minnesota

• Metra projects that include improvements and expansion of commuter rail service 

in the Chicago metropolitan area

• The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority’s capital programs for improvements to 

existing tollways, development of new tollways, improvements to rebuild and 

restore the existing system, and the recently constructed south extension of I-355 

into Will County.

• Numerous localized interstate improvement projects of both Illinois DOT and 

Iowa DOT.

ES.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The screening criteria and multi-step process used to evaluate the range of route alternatives

proposed for consideration for the Study, and the results of the alternatives analysis are 

summarized in this section. Subsequent to the route screening process, options for service 

(speeds, frequencies, and station stops) were identified, reviewed, and screened, and design 

options for route connectivity through the Des Moines, Iowa, area and the Council Bluffs, 

Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, area were considered. The No-Build Alternative and Build 

Alternative (including its phased implementation) are also described in this section. 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-8 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

ES.3.1 Initial Range of Route Alternatives

The range of route alternatives evaluated included the No-Build Alternative and existing or 

former freight-only or freight-passenger routes that may have been previously identified by 

the MWRRI and other studies.

The No-Build Alternative, five previously established passenger rail routes in the Corridor 

(Route Alternatives 1 through 5), and the combination of Route 4 and Route 5 (Route 

Alternative 4-A) compose the initial range of route alternatives proposed for consideration 

for the Study. These route alternatives are shown in Figure ES-3, including the major cities 

through which they travel. The No-Build Alternative is included to provide a basis of 

comparison to the other route alternatives.

ES.3.2 Screening Process

The screening process included two steps: an initial coarse-level screening to identify 

whether any route alternative is hindered by major challenges (and would thus be eliminated 

from further evaluation) and a subsequent fine-level screening to evaluate each route 

alternative in greater quantitative and qualitative detail. This two-step screening process was

intended to allow the Tier 1 EIS to focus on only those route alternatives that would meet the 

purpose and need for the service and that are reasonable and feasible. 

ES.3.2.1 Coarse-Level Screening of Route Alternatives

The coarse-level screening process for evaluating the initial range of alternatives relied on 

four broad screening criteria that were used to compare the merits and drawbacks of each 

route alternative. These four criteria and the subcriteria used for coarse-level screening are as 

follows:

• Meeting the purpose and need (addressing travel demand based on population 

served, and providing a time-competitive route) 

• Technical feasibility (addressing physical and operational considerations,

including major construction efforts and freight train traffic conflicts)

• Economic feasibility (addressing economic considerations of benefit/cost ratio, 

and anticipated revenue and project costs)

• Environmental concerns (addressing substantial concerns with respect to impacts 

on the natural and human environment, including major challenges, sensitive 

areas, and right-of-way (ROW) acquisition requirements)

A conservative 500-foot wide buffer was applied to each of the route alternatives analyzed in 

the coarse-level screening. Unreasonable alternatives were eliminated from further 

consideration.
§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦55

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦90

I o w a I o w a

I l l i n o i s I l l i n o i s

K a n s a s K a n s a s

M i n n e s o t a M i n n e s o t a

M i s s o u r i M i s s o u r i

W i s c o n s i n W i s c o n s i n

Nebraska Nebraska

Route Alternative 3 Route Alternative 5/4-A

Route Alternative 2

Route Alternative 4/4-A

Route Alternative 5

Route Alternative 1

Council Council

Bluffs Bluffs

Osceola Osceola

Slater Slater

Ames Ames

Fort Dodge Fort Dodge

Cedar Rapids Cedar Rapids

Dubuque Dubuque

Marion Marion

Waterloo Waterloo

Burlington Burlington

Galesburg Galesburg

Iowa City Iowa City

Galesburg Galesburg

Moline Moline

Osceola Osceola

Savanna Savanna

Rockford Rockford

Chicago Chicago

Elgin Elgin

Joliet Joliet

Naperville Naperville

Omaha Omaha

DeKalb DeKalb

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

DATE

FIGURE

Route Alternatives

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

Tier 1 Service Level EIS

October 2012

ES-3

0 20 40

I

Miles

Route 1

Route 2

Route 3

Route 4

Route 5

Route Hybrid
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-10 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

ES.3.2.2 Fine-Level Screening of Route Alternatives

Fine-level screening was conducted to determine which remaining route alternatives would 

be carried forward for detailed evaluation in this Tier 1 EIS. During fine-level screening, 

route alternatives carried forward from the coarse-level screening were screened for their 

ability to offer the highest potential ridership; the least potential construction, operating, and 

maintenance cost; and the least potential impact on the natural and human environment. This 

screening relied on the four broad screening criteria and subcriteria noted above, with 

additional subcriteria as noted below, which were used to compare the merits and drawbacks 

of each route alternative:

• Meeting the purpose and need (addressing potential ridership and refinements to 

running times)

• Technical feasibility (addressing general infrastructure improvements required for 

desired passenger train speeds and schedules, and to maintain existing and future 

freight train services)

• Technical/Economic feasibility (addressing challenging alignment or grading 

problems to meet speed and capacity requirements; establishing conceptual costs 

for structures; and determining the number of new and expanded grade crossings 

and grade separations) 

• Economic feasibility (determining high-level project costs; addressing alignment, 

structures, and grade crossings; and determining operating and maintenance costs)

• Environmental concerns (refining conceptual ROW acquisition in relation to 

demolition/disruption of structures, developments, agricultural resources, or 

features of the existing built environment such as homes, businesses, farms, and 

historic properties; and determining substantial impacts on key environmentally 

sensitive areas in the categories listed below)

o Streams

o Floodplains

o Wetlands

o Farmland

o Threatened and endangered species

o Cultural resources

o Potential Section 4(f)/6(f) protected properties

o Environmental justice

o Noise and vibration

o Hazardous materials

In order to estimate potential impacts in the fine-level screening process, a preliminary 

impact area was identified for each route alternative. Existing ROW was assumed to be 

100 feet wide throughout each route alternative. A buffer ranging from 25 to 50 feet wide 

was then applied where necessary to accommodate additional track needs, to promote 

efficient track maintenance, and to mitigate any operating disruptions generated by passenger 

trains. 

Fine-level screening was applied to the remaining alternatives, and the one or more 

alternatives that passed through the fine-level screening process were carried forward for 

detailed evaluation under the Tier 1 NEPA process.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-11 October 2012

ES.3.3 Results of Route Alternative Screening Process

The coarse-level screening process eliminated Route Alternative 3 from further consideration 

because it would have the highest cost; require a substantial permitting effort; result in 

unacceptably high impacts on landowners because of the ROW needs; and cause extensive 

impacts on communities, infrastructure, wetlands, streams, and wildlife habitat. The finelevel screening process eliminated Route Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 from further 

consideration because of not attracting the necessary ridership to generate adequate revenue; 

having excessive potential construction, operating, and maintenance costs; and having 

substantial impacts on the natural and human environment. Therefore, Route Alternative 4-A 

is the only route alternative carried forward for further analysis in the Tier 1 EIS. Below is a 

summary providing the rationale for carrying forward Route Alternative 4-A.

ES.3.3.1 Route Alternative 4-A

When compared to the other route alternatives considered, Route Alternative 4-A:

• Meets project purpose and need (purpose and need)

• Has relatively low construction complexity and relatively low construction costs 

(technical and economic feasibility)

• Has grade-crossing complexity similar to all route alternatives (technical 

feasibility)

• Does not appear to require a new bridge over the Mississippi River (technical and 

economic feasibility)

• Is the shortest route alternative (purpose and need)

• Has a competitive passenger-train travel time (purpose and need)

• Serves the largest population (purpose and need)

• Has the highest ridership and farebox revenue forecast (purpose and need, and 

economic feasibility)

• Has direct access to Chicago Union Station (technical and economic feasibility)

• Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues (environmental concerns)

ES.3.4 Description of Alternatives

The No-Build Alternative and the Build Alternative carried forward for analysis in this Tier 1 

EIS are described below.

ES.3.4.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would consist of the current trackage and operations with the 

present level of maintenance and no appreciable change to current track configuration or 

operations. The No-Build Alternative would not involve construction and operation of 

intercity passenger rail service from Chicago to Omaha, but independently planned 

construction of passenger rail service from Chicago to Moline would still occur. This project 

is referred to as the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program and includes operation of 

two round-trips per day at speeds of up to 79 mph, a connection to join BNSF Railway 

(BNSF) and Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS) track near Wyanet, Illinois, as well as 

improvements at Eola Yard in Eola, Illinois. Construction for the Chicago to Quad Cities 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-12 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Expansion Program is anticipated to commence in 2013 and the service to be operational by 

2015. 

Other transportation projects in the vicinity of the proposed Chicago to Council BluffsOmaha Regional Passenger Rail System could occur independently, with or without the 

Project. Sections 1.5 and 3.26.2 of the Tier 1 Draft EIS provide more information on these 

projects.

Under the No-Build Alternative, other forms of long-distance and regional transportation,

such as commercial airline and bus services, are assumed to continue operating within the

Corridor in the same manner as current operations. 

The No-Build Alternative would not meet the project purpose and need because intercity 

passenger rail service would not be reestablished in Iowa City or Des Moines, there would 

not be an attractive alternative to highway or airline travel; and congestion of these modes of 

transportation in the Corridor would not be reduced.

The No-Build Alternative was retained for detailed analysis to allow equal comparison to the 

Build Alternative carried forward and to help decision makers and the public understand the 

consequences of taking no action. Additionally, NEPA requires consideration of no action to 

serve as a baseline for comparison with the proposed action and other alternatives carried 

forward. 

ES.3.4.2 Build Alternative

The Build Alternative, which is the Preferred Alternative for this Project, consists of the 

improvements associated with Route Alternative 4-A to accommodate up to seven round-trip 

passenger trains per day at maximum speeds of up to 110 mph. The Build Alternative, shown 

in Figure ES-4, is approximately 475 miles long and consists of tracks currently owned and 

operated by four rail carriers between Chicago and Omaha. The BNSF and IAIS railways 

own and operate the vast majority of trackage in the Study Area, while Amtrak and Union 

Pacific Railroad (UP) own and operate relatively short distances within the metropolitan 

areas of Chicago, Des Moines, and Omaha/Council Bluffs. Figure ES-4 also shows the route 

of the California Zephyr; this service is anticipated to continue regardless of whether the 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Project is constructed.

For the Build Alternative to function efficiently, improvements would be required, including 

infrastructure upgrades, at-grade roadway crossings, stations, and layover and maintenance 

facilities. 
Des Moines River

Lake 

Michigan

Omaha

Naperville

Moline

Iowa

Des City

Moines

Council

Bluffs

Chicago

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦39

§ ̈¦35

§ ̈¦94

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦380

§ ̈¦72

§ ̈¦29

§ ̈¦74

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦57

I A

I L

I N

M N

N E

W I 

Missouri River

Wisconsin River

St. Clair River

Illinois River

Missouri River

Mississippi River

DATE

FIGURE

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Build Alternative

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012

ES-4

0 20 40

I

Miles

Amtrak's California 

Zephyr Route

Build Alternative
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-14 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The Build Alternative would include construction of new main track, sidings, and connection 

tracks; upgrades to existing track to enable faster passenger train speeds and the desired 

passenger train service reliability; and installation of wayside signaling systems. Throughout 

the Corridor, connections to the existing main track would be required for meet/pass events, 

access to industries, and capacity for maintenance-of-way activities. Detailed capacity 

modeling will be conducted during Tier 2 analysis to identify more specific requirements for 

revisions of and improvements to the wayside signal system, crossovers and interlocking 

plants, and connection tracks in order to provide adequate capacity for the proposed 

passenger trains. In consideration of existing infrastructure, train traffic, roadways, urban 

land uses, and abandoned rail corridors, a few alignment options within the Corridor were 

identified. There are multiple alignment options through East Des Moines, Iowa, and across 

the Missouri River between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, as well as multiple 

station location options in Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Omaha. 

The proposed passenger rail service would continue to use existing Amtrak long-distance or 

Illinois-state-sponsored service stations at Chicago Union Station, La Grange Road, 

Naperville, Plano, Mendota, and Princeton, Illinois; and potentially at Omaha, Nebraska. 

New stations or reuse and modification of existing or past stations are proposed at Geneseo 

and Moline, Illinois; Iowa City, Grinnell, Des Moines, Atlantic, and Council Bluffs, Iowa; 

and potentially Omaha, Nebraska. 

An overnight train layover and light maintenance facility would be required in the Des 

Moines and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas, and interim layover and light 

maintenance facilities may be required at Moline or Iowa City depending on implementation 

strategies. Specific sites for layover and light maintenance facilities will be evaluated in 

subsequent Tier 2 NEPA documents. 

There are approximately 850 at-grade roadway crossings on the Build Alternative. Grade 

crossing surfaces and warning systems would need to be improved to meet safety standards 

for passenger trains traveling at 110 mph. All crossings would undergo diagnostic studies 

during Tier 2 analysis for improvement needs. The crossing analysis would evaluate all 

crossings with potential for closure under the Build Alternative. Warning devices would be 

installed based on speed-dependent criteria. Existing warning devices would be reused where 

practical if they conform to the speed-dependent criteria.

ES.3.4.3 Service Options of Build Alternative

An iterative process was conducted for determining the optimum number of round-trips per 

day, train speeds, and types and numbers of station stops for the Build Alternative. The 

process considered ridership and revenue, as well as general operation and maintenance 

costs, as maximum frequency and speed increased and as station stops were added. Service 

options considered between two and seven round-trips per day between Chicago and Omaha, 

and also between Chicago and Des Moines; maximum speeds of between 79 and 110 mph;

and two types of station stop service. Standard-stop service would involve a train stopping at 

all identified station stops, and selected-stop service would involve a train stopping at only 

some identified station stops. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-15 October 2012

Service options were compared based on estimated travel times, ridership, revenue, and 

general operation and maintenance costs. The primary criteria used to screen the service 

options were the ridership and revenue forecasts because they are indicative of 

competitiveness with other modes of transportation. As anticipated, the 110 mph design 

speed resulted in the quickest trips and the highest estimated ridership. Iowa DOT selected 

the optimum service option for full implementation, and eliminated other considered options 

that did not have adequate ridership and revenue, and did not have sufficient station stops.

Operations under the Build Alternative would ultimately include a combination of standardstop and selected-stop service. Selected-stop station stops would be Chicago Union Station, 

Naperville, Princeton, and Moline, Illinois; Iowa City, Des Moines, and Council Bluffs, 

Iowa; and Omaha, Nebraska. Standard-stop service would include the selected-stop locations

as well as station stops at La Grange Road, Plano, Mendota, and Geneseo, Illinois, and 

Grinnell and Atlantic, Iowa. There would be up to seven round-trip passenger trains per day 

travelling between Chicago and Des Moines, with five of these round-trips continuing to 

Omaha. The passenger trains would travel at speeds of up to 110 mph, with travel time 

averaging under 7 hours from Chicago to Omaha and under 5 hours from Chicago to Des 

Moines. These travel times are competitive with the personal automobile. 

ES.3.4.4 Phased Implementation

Based on experience with other passenger rail projects, FRA anticipates that the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha Project would be incrementally funded and that construction and 

operations would be implemented in phases. The specific phasing of the Project is not known 

at this time but would be determined as funding is allocated to the Project.

The Project is anticipated to expand from the baseline of two round-trips per day from 

Chicago to Moline at a maximum speed of 79 mph (included in the Quad Cities Expansion 

Program passenger rail project) and service extended to Iowa City (included in the Chicago 

to Iowa City project). The Project would then be extended westward sequentially from Iowa 

City, to Des Moines, to Council Bluffs, and then to Omaha. At a maximum speed of 79 mph, 

average travel times between Chicago and Omaha would be approximately 8 hours, and 

between Chicago and Des Moines would be approximately 6 hours.

The speed and the frequency of round-trips would increase with subsequent implementation 

phases up to a maximum of 110 mph and up to seven round-trips per day from Chicago to 

Des Moines, with five of the round-trips extending from Chicago to Omaha. The ultimate 

proposed implementation would be realized over many years of phased implementation as 

federal and state funds are allocated to the Project. 

ES.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS

This section summarizes the potential impacts of the No-Build Alternative and the Build 

Alternative based on the detailed analysis of the social, economic, and environmental 

resources documented in Chapter 3 of the Tier 1 EIS. As discussed in Section ES.3, the 

No-Build Alternative does not meet the Project purpose and need, but was retained for 

detailed analysis to allow equal comparison to the Build Alternative. 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-16 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The existing railroad ROW along the Corridor was assumed to be 100 feet wide; although the 

actual ROW varies, this assumption was determined to represent a reasonable average width. 

A buffer was then applied to accommodate additional track needs to promote efficient track 

maintenance and reduce operating disruptions. The existing ROW and estimated additional 

ROW that would be necessary for track and siding construction and improvements at station 

locations constitutes the Potential Impact Area. The anticipated amount of additional ROW 

required was conservatively estimated to allow for future design and to accommodate design 

constraints. Consequently, the Potential Impact Area overestimates the area that would be 

directly impacted by Project construction to account for estimated ROW needs and multiple 

potential alignments in particular areas. 

The summary of potential impacts described in this section is based on the ultimate proposed 

implementation of the Build Alternative, providing new passenger rail service between 

Chicago and Omaha, with anticipated speeds up to 110 mph, and seven round-trips per day.

The initial implementation phase of the Project, as described previously, less ROW for 

improvements would generally result in fewer impacts and fewer benefits than that of the 

ultimate proposed implementation. As the Project extends westward, more impacts and 

benefits would occur within or adjacent to the Potential Impact Area. 

Table ES-1 summarizes the potential impacts of the No-Build Alternative and the Build 

Alternative based on the detailed analysis of the social, economic, and environmental 

resources documented in Chapter 3 of the Tier 1 EIS. The potential impacts associated with 

each resource are described in the text that follows Table ES-1. 

Table ES-1. Summary of Potential Impacts

Resource Topic No-Build Alternative Build Alternative

Transportation Increased traffic congestion on 

highway system

Competitive transportation alternative; 

reduced freight traffic interference

Land Use, Zoning, and 

Property Acquisitions

Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

Impacts on land use, primarily on 

industrial and farmland 

Agricultural Resources Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

3,190 acres prime farmland; 840 acres 

statewide important farmland

Socioeconomic 

Environment

Minor improvements to 

socioeconomic conditions (Chicago 

to Quad Cities only)

Economic benefits provided through 

job creation, joint development, 

improved accessibility, and increased 

economic activity (Chicago to Omaha)

Title VI and 

Environmental Justice

No disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts

Beneficial economic and mobility 

impacts; potential impacts on 

Environmental Justice population area 

in Des Moines

Elderly and People with 

Disabilities

New accessible service between 

Chicago and Quad Cities

New accessible service between 

Chicago and Omaha

Public Health and Safety

Improvements to at-grade crossings 

and signals (Chicago to Quad 

Cities)

Improvements to at-grade crossings 

and signals (Chicago to Omaha)

Noise and Vibration Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

1.6 noise impacts per mile;

7 vibration impacts per mile

Air Quality Increase in pollutant emissions over 

time due to fewer modal shifts

Decrease of most pollutant emissions 

due to increased modal shifts
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-17 October 2012

Resource Topic No-Build Alternative Build Alternative

Hazardous Waste and 

Waste Disposal

Minor impacts (much less than 

Build Alternative)

Minor impacts on 3 Superfund sites, 

34 leaking underground storage tanks, 

27 Non-National Priorities List sites, 

and 1 wastewater treatment facility site

Cultural Resources No Project impacts

60 historic properties (37 buildings,

1 structure, 3 bridges, and 19 historic 

districts)

Parks and Federally or 

State-Listed Natural Areas No Project impacts 44 parks, 24 recreation areas, and 22 natural areas

Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Properties No Project impacts

44 public parks, 21 public recreation 

areas, 8 public refuges, and 60 historic 

properties

Visual Resources and 

Aesthetic Quality

Minor impacts on sensitive 

receptors 

Impacts on visual resources (parks, 

natural areas, riparian corridors) and 

sensitive receptors in Des Moines

Waterways and Water 

Bodies Minor impacts

Streams :104,150 linear feet

Lakes: 32 acres

Ponds: 33 acres 

Wetlands Minor impacts

238 acres (1 acre aquatic bed, 84 acres 

emergent, 33 acres scrub-shrub, and 

120 acres forested)

Water Quality Minor potential impacts

24 streams on 303(d) list of impaired 

water bodies; more impacts than 

No-Build Alternative

Floodplains Minor impacts 1,657 acres

Topography, Geology, and 

Soils Minor impacts

More impacts than No-Build 

Alternative, but minor impacts on 

Loess Hills 

Natural Habitats and 

Wildlife Minor impacts

178 acres of natural terrestrial habitat; 

aquatic habitat impacts; increase in 

noise and vibration, train collisions, 

and water pollution

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Suitable habitat for federally and 

state-listed species

Suitable habitat for federally and statelisted species with potential for impact 

from constructing a new Missouri 

River crossing

Energy Use and Climate 

Change

Increase in energy consumption and 

greenhouse gas emissions due to 

fewer modal shifts

Long-term decrease in energy 

consumption and greenhouse gas 

emissions due to increased modal shifts

Construction Impacts Minor, temporary impacts Substantially more impacts than 

No-Build, but temporary in nature

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable Commitments 

of Resources

Minor commitments of land, 

construction materials, financial 

resources, and energy consumption 

by automobiles

Substantial commitments of land, 

construction materials, financial 

resources, and energy consumption
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-18 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Resource Topic No-Build Alternative Build Alternative

Short-Term Use versus 

Long-Term Productivity

Short-term construction impacts of 

other projects, including benefit of 

construction employment; minimal 

reduction in long-term productivity 

of natural resources; and 

improvement in transportation 

network

Short-term construction impacts 

(including benefit of construction 

employment) and reduction in air 

pollutant emissions and long-term 

productivity of natural resources 

beyond that of the No-Build; improved 

long-term socioeconomic productivity 

through transportation network 

enhancement

Indirect and Cumulative 

Impacts

Increase in vehicular traffic 

congestion and decrease in air 

quality and energy 

Reduced traffic congestion and vehicle 

emissions; reduced ridership of other 

transportation modes; improved air 

quality and safety; indirect impacts on 

parks, natural areas, and wildlife; 

increased chance of hazardous material 

incidents and water pollution; transitoriented development near stations

Note: All potential impacts shown are preliminary and have been evaluated at a Tier 1 level of analysis. 

Impacts will be reviewed and revised as necessary within future Tier 2 NEPA documents.

ES.4.1 Transportation

The Build Alternative would attract a projected ridership of approximately 1,294,000 

passenger trips per year. The Build Alternative is projected to divert 919,500 automobile

trips, 218,500 bus passenger trips, and 27,500 plane passenger trips per year, and would also 

generate an induced demand estimated to be approximately 128,500 passengers per year;

reducing fuel usage, air pollutants, and non-passenger rail transportation system congestion 

in the Study Area. 

Typical travel times for the Build Alternative would be approximately 6.5 hours. This would 

provide a competitive transportation alternative to the automobile and bus service, and would 

be competitive in fares compared to air service. A one-way trip between Omaha and Chicago 

would take about 8 hours by automobile at posted interstate speeds, approximately 9.5 hours 

by bus, and approximately 1.5 hours by plane. Under the No-Build Alternative, traffic 

congestion, air pollutants, and fuel usage would continue to worsen.

ES.4.2 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisition

Within the Study Area, the majority of land uses within urbanized areas are industrial in 

nature and currently adjacent to existing freight rail lines. As a result, few direct or indirect 

impacts on sensitive uses are anticipated from the Build Alterantive. Most improvements 

would be located adjacent to existing rail lines and stations. The stations along the rail line 

are anticipated to enhance transportation-oriented development. New ROW would be 

acquired for the Build Alternative at station locations, maintenance facilities, and in areas 

where a new parallel track would be required. The Build Alternative would also include 

Des Moines Design Option 3, an option for a southeast alignment through Des Moines, Iowa,

that would require substantial property acquision, and would run parallel to the Southeast 

Connector. Although this area is industrial in character, sensitive land uses that would be 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-19 October 2012

directly impacted include an established residential neighborhood and Chester Field Park. 

New ROW would be required for the No-Build Alternative at station locations and at Wyanet 

and the Eola Yard in Illinois.

ES.4.3 Agricultural Resources

Impacts of the Build Alternative within rural areas primarily include impacts to agriculture, 

including approximately 3,190 acres of prime farmland and approximately 840 acres of 

farmland of statewide importance. These impacts would be relatively minor linear amounts 

that would be needed for adding parallel track and siding to the existing railroad grade. No 

severances of existing farmland would occur. The No-Build Alternative would have minimal 

impacts on farmland.

ES.4.4 Socioeconomic Environment

Although the Build Alternative would cause some temporary disruptions to existing 

businesses and neighborhoods during construction, it would provide long-term economic 

benefits to communities through job creation, potential for joint development, and increased 

economic activity. Under the No-Build Alternative, modest improvements to socioeconomic 

conditions would be realized since there would be increased service between Chicago and the 

Quad Cities, but not in the remainder of the Corridor.

ES.4.5 Title VI and Environmental Justice

Throughout most of the Study Area, there would be no anticipated disproportionate adverse 

human health or environment effect on minorities or low-income populations because a 

majority of the project improvements would be within or adjacent to existing ROW. 

However, the Build Alternative includes an optional alignment through Des Moines 

(Des Moines Design Option 3) that would impact both minority and low-income populations. 

During Tier 2 analyses, refinements in the design options could avoid or minimize impacts 

on adjacent minority and low-income populations. The Build Alternative would provide

benefits for these populations through improved accessibility, mobility and employment 

opportunities. Under the No-Build Alternative, impacts on environmental justice populations 

are not anticipated.

ES.4.6 Elderly and People with Disabilities

There would be no anticipated permanent adverse impacts on the existing transportation 

services and general mobility of elderly persons and persons with disabilities because a 

majority of the project improvements would be within or adjacent to existing ROW. The 

Build Alternative would provide an additional means of accessible public transportation for 

the elderly and disabled populations, support expanded transit operations for efficient use of 

the transit system, and increase the availability of transportation options that connect to other 

cities beyond their immediate region. The No-Build Alternative would not result in 

permanent adverse impacts on the transportation and mobility of the elderly and people with 

disabilities, although there would be some benefits by providing service through the Chicago 

to Quad Cities Expansion Program. 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-20 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

ES.4.7 Public Health and Safety

The Build Alternative would include additional track and substantial track and signal 

upgrades, to address public health and safety, and to limit conflicts with existing freight rail 

service. A centralized traffic control (CTC) system, including a wayside signal system and 

remote control switches would also be installed where needed. The Build Alternative would 

provide a safe and efficient mode choice for travel from Chicago to Omaha. The No-Build 

Alternative would contribute to increased train operations between Chicago and the Quad 

Cities. Consequently, the potential for at-grade conflicts would increase and upgraded 

warning or traffic control devices would be required to help protect the safety and health of 

workers and the public.

ES.4.8 Noise and Vibration

The Build Alternative is projected to result in 1.0 new moderate noise impact per mile; 

0.6 new severe noise impact per mile, and a combined total of 1.6 noise impacts per mile

over approximately 500 miles. Of the 839 noise impacts predicted to occur under the Build 

Alternative, 547 of them are attributed to locomotive horn use, and they occur in areas where 

locomotive horns are currently in use (with many of them occurring under the No-Build 

Alternative). The analysis does not account for any change in at-grade intersections to gradeseparated intersections where horns would not be required. Implementing quiet zones has the 

potential to further reduce these impacts. Because of the preliminary nature of this Tier 1 

analysis and the acknowledgement that upgrade of some at-grade intersections would be 

known during Tier 2, these grade-crossing impacts are not considered significant. The 

remaining 292 noise impacts attributable to the Build Alternative are associated with wayside 

noise and are spread throughout the corridor (equivalent to less than one noise impact per 

mile), which makes mitigation challenging and potentially impractical in some areas based 

on the consideration of feasibility and reasonableness of noise barriers for a few receptors. 

Given the minimal number of noise impacts per mile, and the potential that many of the 

impacts may not occur either through conversion of at-grade intersections to grade-separate 

intersections or through use of quiet zones, noise impacts under either the No-Build 

Alternative or the Build Alternative are not considered significant. 

The vibration analysis identified approximately 7 vibration impacts per mile associated with 

the Build Alternative. On a Project-wide basis, 7 additional vibration impacts (due to 14 daily 

pass-by events) per mile are not considered significant. However, the number of vibration 

impacts is projected to dramatically increase in more densely populated portions of the study 

area, particularly where train speeds may reach 100 mph. The magnitude of the incremental 

increase in vibration impacts attributable to the Project is considered to be significant.

Under the No-Build Alternative, only 40 severe noise impacts are estimated to occur. The 

Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would contribute to slightly increased noise and 

vibration along this portion of the Chicago to Omaha route. The overall number of projected 

vibration impacts under the No-Build Alternative is quite low, and not considered to be 

significant.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-21 October 2012

ES.4.9 Air Quality

Impacts on air quality are unavoidable because the Build Alternative would include new train 

service. However, impacts on emissions, energy consumption, and climate change would be 

beneficial overall because this additional rail service is anticipated to replace some passenger 

vehicles, and bus and plane trips along a similar route. Trains produce fewer emissions per 

passenger than other modes of transportation. Year 2020 projections indicate that operation 

of the Build Alternative would directly impact the air quality by reducing hydrocarbon (HC)

emissions by approximately 95 tons per year and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 

approximately 1.8 tons per year. In addition, carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emission, would decrease by approximately 15,824 tons per year. Nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) emissions, the only GHG emission that would increase with the Build Alternative, 

would increase by approximately 283 tons/year. 

A general conformity analysis included the assessment of air quality impacts of the Build 

Alternative in the counties which currently qualify as maintenance or nonattainment, all of 

which are in the Chicago area. The slight increase in NOx emissions is balanced by a 

reduction in emissions of HC, particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter 

(PM-10), and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5). This

reduction would help the counties and states with their air quality management. Although the 

resulting net emissions are below the de minimis threshold, this general conformity analysis 

would need to be verified in the Tier 2 NEPA analyses. Under the No-Build Alternative,

another viable and energy efficient transportation mode such as passenger rail service would 

not be provided. Therefore emissions of pollutants generated by vehicles and planes are 

expected to increase due to anticipated worsening traffic congestion.

ES.4.10 Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal

Because of track and crossing upgrades, the safety of hazardous material transportation by 

freight trains would improve under the Build Alternative along the entire Corridor, and 

would experience minor improvements under the No-Build Alternative between Chicago and 

the Quad Cities. The Build Alternative would impact three National Priority List (NPL) 

Superfund sites, 27 non-NPL sites, 34 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, and 

one wastewater treatment facility. For the No-Build Alternative, it is anticipated that there 

would be only minimal impacts on hazardous material or waste sites.

ES.4.11 Cultural Resources

The Potential Impact Area includes 60 historic resources (37 buildings, one structure, three

bridges, and 19 historic districts) either listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) or eligible for listing on the NRHP. As the Project proceeds into the Tier 2 NEPA 

process, avoidance of these properties would be considered. 

Based on a review of cultural resources within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), resources 

outside but near the Potential Impact Area were also reviewed for indirect impacts, such as 

visual intrusion or audible impacts, as a result of construction activities and future operation 

of the passenger rail system. Depending on the proximity of cultural resources to operating 

trains, structures may be identified for protection from noise and vibration impacts and 

incompatible visual intrusions. If the Project would require modification of historic
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-22 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

properties, these modifications may be considered potential adverse effects and require 

further Section 106 consultation to determine the preferred method of treatment (mitigation).

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to 

slightly increased noise and ground vibration along this portion of the Chicago to Omaha 

route. At a Tier 1 analysis, no impacts on significant cultural resource properties were 

anticipated to occur for the Wyanet Connection and Eola Yard improvements. The Chicago 

to Quad Cities Expansion Program has the potential to affect historic properties within and 

between the aforementioned cities, but the impacts would be addressed as part of the Tier 2 

NEPA process and Section 106 consultation for that project.

ES.4.12 Parks and Federally or State-Listed Natural Areas

The Potential Impact Area includes 44 parks, 24 recreational resources, and 22 natural areas. 

In most instances, only a very small portion of the resources are within the Potential Impact 

Area, which was developed with a sufficient buffer to facilitate design refinement and likely 

reduction of the area during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. There are three parks (Tiffin City Park in 

Tiffin, Iowa; Twin Creek Park in Pleasant Hill, Iowa; and Waterworks Park in Des Moines, 

Iowa) and two natural areas (Zoo Woods Forest Preserve in Riverside, Illinois, and Correll 

Wildlife Area near Adair, Iowa) that are transected by the Build Alternative. In addition, 

there are six locations where there are parks, recreation areas, or natural areas on opposite 

sides of the Build Alternative. As the Project proceeds into Tier 2 analysis, avoidance of 

these properties would be considered and unavoidable impacts will be further analyzed. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to 

slightly increased air emissions and noise in parks, recreation areas, and natural areas along 

this portion of the Corridor. At a Tier 1 analysis, no impacts on parks or recreation areas 

were anticipated to occur for the Wyanet Connection and Eola Yard improvements, but some 

prairie areas would likely be disturbed to construct the Wyanet Connection.

ES.4.13 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties

The Potential Impact Area includes 44 public parks, 21 public recreational resources, 8 

public refuges, and 60 private and public historic properties. In most instances, only a very 

small portion of the resources are within the Potential Impact Area, which was developed 

with a sufficient buffer to facilitate design refinement and likely reduction of the area during 

Tier 2 NEPA analysis. In some cases, properties protected by Section 4(f) are transected by 

the Potential Impact Area. As the Project proceeds into Tier 2 analysis, avoidance of these 

properties would be considered and unavoidable potential impacts would be further analyzed. 

It is not anticipated that these impacts would be substantial and result in a constructive use of 

these Section 4(f) resources; further evaluation of the potential impacts will be addressed 

during Tier 2 analysis when more details of the design and operation are known.

The Potential Impact Area also includes three individual parks and five park districts or 

community park departments that received Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). 

During Tier 2 analysis, coordination will occur with the administering agencies to determine 

if lands within the Potential Impact Area were improved with LWCF funding. If any areas 

are considered to be LWCF lands, potential impacts will be addressed during Tier 2 analysis.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-23 October 2012

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to 

slightly increased air emissions and noise in this portion of the Study Area; environmental 

analysis for this project will evaluate its potential for Section 4(f) impacts. At a Tier 1 

analysis, no direct use or constructive use impacts were anticipated to occur for the Wyanet 

Connection and Eola Yard improvements. 

ES.4.14 Visual Resources and Aesthetic Quality

Only small portions of visual/scenic resources would be within the Potential Impact Area 

because additional ROW would be abutting the existing ROW rather than being on new 

alignment. As a result, alteration of these resources and effects on the views of those 

resources would most likely be minimal. In addition, the expansive Mississippi and Missouri 

Rivers would provide unique scenic views as the passenger trains travel on the bridges over 

these water resources. Views of scenic resources would also be provided by adjacent parks, 

recreation areas, natural areas (including the Loess Hills), perennial stream corridors, historic 

buildings, and views of urban and rural small town character. The Build Alternative follows 

existing railroad alignments and would travel by residential areas containing sensitive visual 

receptors. However, those residents are currently accustomed to views of the railroad 

facilities. Des Moines Design Option 3 would result in visual impacts to the sensitive visual 

receptors in the neighborhood that it would bisect. Under the No-Build Alternative, it is 

anticipated that there would be minimal or no direct impacts on visual/scenic resources and 

sensitive residential visual receptors because of little or no additional ROW acquisition.

ES.4.15 Waterways and Water Bodies

The Build Alternative would cross, or otherwise impact, approximately 104,150 linear feet of 

waterways. In addition, 32 acres of lakes and 33 acres of ponds would potentially be 

impacted. For the No-Build Alternative, including the Wyanet Connection and the Eola Yard 

in Illinois, there would be minimal impacts on waterways and water bodies.

ES.4.16 Wetlands

Based on National Wetlands Inventory mapping, there would be potential impacts on 

approximately 1 acre of aquatic bed wetland, 84 acres of emergent wetlands, 33 acres of 

scrub-shrub wetlands, and 120 acres of forested wetlands, totaling 238 acres of potential 

wetland impacts within the Potential Impact Area. For the No-Build Alternative, including 

the Wyanet Connection and the Eola Yard in Illinois, there would be minimal impacts on 

wetland areas.

ES.4.17 Water Quality

The Build Alternative would cross 24 of the 28 streams on the 303(d) List of Impaired 

Waters (water quality limited waters) within the Study Area. The Build Alternative could 

potentially affect the water quality of several water resources, as would the No-Build 

Alternative, but to a lesser extent. Potential water quality impacts could be caused by soil 

erosion from stormwater runoff, fill material placed in water resources, and construction of 

bridges and culverts or culvert extensions. In addition, potential pollutant runoff and spills 

from operation and maintenance activities could potentially reach adjacent water resources. 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-24 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The avoidance or minimization of water quality impacts would be accomplished in 

appropriate areas by the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). 

ES.4.18 Floodplains

The Build Alternative would cross and permanently encroach on several 100-year floodplain 

areas as a result of adding track and siding, bridge additions or replacements, and culvert 

replacements or extensions. Approximately 1,657 acres of 100-year floodplains would be

within the Potential Impact Area. For the No-Build Alternative, including the Wyanet 

Connection and the Eola Yard in Illinois, there would be minimal impacts on 100-year 

floodplains. 

ES.4.19 Topography, Geology, and Soils

The topographic conditions are not expected to pose an adverse challenge to the Build 

Alternative since it is adjacent to an existing railroad grade, and minimal cut and fill would 

be required. Bedrock encountered in the Potential Impact Area would increase construction 

costs, but would not be an insurmountable challenge for the project. In addition, the Build 

Alternative would not impact the underground mining entrances located in the Des Moines, 

Iowa area. The grading operations of the Build Alternative would impact various soil types, 

most of which are silt loams and silty clay loams, which would not pose adverse construction 

challenges. It is anticipated that there would be no impacts from topography, geology, or 

soils having characteristics that would adversely affect the No-Build Alternative.

ES.4.20 Natural Habitats and Wildlife

It is estimated that approximately 178 acres of natural terrestrial habitat areas would be 

directly impacted by the Build Alternative, in addition to the aquatic habitats (waterways, 

water bodies, wetlands) previously discussed. Because the proposed widening activities abut 

the existing ROW, impacts from the alternative would be relatively minimal and linear, and 

would not further fragment remaining large parcels of natural habitat areas. 

The wildlife species that are present along the rail corridor have been continually exposed to 

train traffic in varying degrees. Some animal species may become accustomed to these noise 

and vibration occurrences, while others may not. It is also anticipated that the increase in the 

frequency of trips and speed of train traffic may also increase the potential for train collisions 

with mobile animal species and migratory birds. During the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, 

coordination with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (Illinois DNR), Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources (Iowa DNR), and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission 

(NGPC) would take place to determine potential locations of migratory bird and/or eagle 

occupancy within the Study Area, in addition to determining seasonal nesting, roosting, and 

foraging requirements of potentially affected species. The increase in train traffic and 

railroad ROW could also increase the chances of water quality/pollutant-related impacts on 

wildlife and their habitats.

Under the No-Build Alternative, the number of noise and vibration occurrences, potential 

collision impacts, and water quality/pollutant-related impacts on wildlife and their habitats 

would be fewer than those of the Build Alternative. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-25 October 2012

ES.4.21 Threatened and Endangered Species

The Build Alternative would have no impacts on designated critical habitats (DCHs) of any 

federally listed threatened or endangered species. It is also possible that one or more new 

bridge structures could be needed across the Missouri River, which is suitable habitat for the 

federally endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) and piping plover species

(Charadrius melodus). In addition, it is likely that the upland and riparian woodland areas in 

the Iowa counties of the Study Area may potentially provide suitable foraging and roosting 

habitat for the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), although there is no DCH for this 

species in the Study Area. The Build Alternative would result in minimal linear impacts to 

wooded areas, rather than fragmenting large parcels of woodlands. The Build Alternative 

would also result in minor linear impacts on the Eola Road Marsh, which contains habitat for 

four state-listed endangered species. The number of noise and vibration occurrences, 

potential collision impacts, and water quality/pollutant-related impacts would increase over 

existing conditions with the implementation of the Build Alternative. 

Although it is anticipated that the potential impacts on federally or state-listed threatened or 

endangered species from the Build Alternative would not result in adverse effects, field 

surveys and coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Illinois DNR, 

Iowa DNR, and NGPC will take place during the Tier 2 NEPA studies to determine the 

potential for the existence of, and impacts on threatened or endangered species in the Study 

Area. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, it is anticipated that there would be no adverse effects on 

federally listed species, and may have potential minor impacts on state-listed species, if only 

temporary, at the Eola Road Marsh. In addition, the number of noise and vibration 

occurrences, potential collision impacts, and water quality/pollutant-related impacts on 

potential threatened and endangered species would be fewer than those of the Build 

Alternative. 

ES.4.22 Energy Use and Climate Change

Implementation of the Build Alternative would have the potential to provide energy savings 

and would reduce the transportation system’s impact on GHG emissions. Based on a 

preliminary passenger rail forecast, the Build Alternative would provide a net reduction on 

energy consumption and GHG emissions through diverted trips from automobiles, buses, and 

trains to new passenger rail service. Ridership and modal diversion forecasts indicate that the 

Build Alternative would decrease automobile traffic by approximately 434.9 million 

passenger-miles per year and reduce bus travel by approximately 103.3 million passengermiles per year. CO2, the main GHG emission, would decrease by approximately 15,824 tons 

per year, and automobile fuel consumption would decrease by approximately 12 million 

gallons per year. Under the No-Build Alternative, passenger train service would not be as 

readily available to the public west of Moline, resulting in the continued reliance of 

automobiles, buses, and planes for transportation for this portion of the Study Area. As a 

result, energy consumption and GHG emissions would likely continue to steadily increase.
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-26 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

ES.4.23 Construction Impacts

Typical main line improvements proposed for the Build Alternative include construction of 

an additional track through much of the Study Area to increase rail capacity and limit 

conflicts with existing rail operations. Other construction activities include an upgrade of the 

rails, cross ties, signalization, and grade crossing protection throughout the Potential Impact 

Area. Construction of these improvements would result in temporary construction impacts, 

including increases in waste disposal, potential impacts to water quality, air quality, 

increased noise levels, vibration, dust, traffic congestion, visual changes, and disrupted 

access to properties and neighborhoods. Under the No-Build Alternative, temporary 

construction impacts would be similar to those of the Build Alternative, but to a lesser extent.

ES.4.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Construction of the Build Alternative would result in the irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of land where additional ROW is needed. The land would be converted from its 

current condition to a railroad grade and track. Construction materials would consist largely 

of steel, concrete, ballast rock, and wood. Whereas the use of these materials would be 

largely irretrievable, these resources are not in short supply and many of the materials could 

be recycled for other projects when they no longer meet the design needs for passenger rail 

service. Several energy resources would be committed to the Project, including petroleum, 

natural gas, electrical, and manpower expenditures for construction, operation, and 

maintenance. These resources are generally irretrievable. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to 

some commitment of resources for that project for constructing the Wyanet Connection and 

Eola Yard improvements. Also, energy resources would continue to be consumed by 

automobile travelers between Chicago and Omaha at a slightly higher rate than with the 

Project.

ES.4.25 Short-Term Vs. Long-Term Productivity of the Environment

The Build Alternative could contribute to potential short-term construction impacts related to 

hazardous materials and waste disposal, water quality, air quality, noise and vibration, 

property access, and traffic and pedestrian delays/detours. In addition, short-term 

employment, use of materials to construct the project, and purchases of goods and services 

generated by project construction could create a short-term increase in the local economy that 

would end once the construction phase is completed. 

In the region between Chicago and Omaha, the addition and enhancement of passenger rail 

service would contribute to improvements in the transportation network and access within the 

region by providing competitive passenger rail service that would meet the needs of 

increased future travel demand and more efficient travel between major urban centers. With 

the Build Alternative, long-term benefits would include a reduction in air pollution emissions 

as a result of passenger rail service replacing automobile, bus, and plane trips; and decreased 

congestion on local streets and highways. Other long-term benefits would include improved 

accessibility within the region, economic benefits through employment opportunities, 

potential for transit-oriented development, increased economic activity, improvements in 

safety for at-grade crossings.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-27 October 2012

In addition to some permanent impacts to waterways, water bodies, wetlands, floodplains, 

plant communities, natural habitat, and wildlife; other long-term losses/effects on the 

productivity of the environment would include the following:

• Removal of existing farmland from productivity

• Reduction of the local tax base as a result of acquiring farmland, commercial, and 

industrial property for additional railroad ROW

• Potential economic impacts on other modes of public transportation

• Potential acquisition of park land, recreation land, and natural areas

• Noise and vibration impacts on sensitive receptors

• Collision impacts on wildlife 

The No-Build Alternative would contribute to short-term and long-term impacts and benefits

similar to those of the Build Alternative, but to a lesser extent.

ES.4.26 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Construction and operation associated with any phase of the Build Alternative has the 

potential to cause indirect impacts. The following is a summary of potential indirect impacts 

identified through evaluation of various environmental resources: 

• Increased noise and ground vibration, as well as air emissions, and visual and 

aesthetic impacts could potentially result in indirect impacts of reduced use of 

nearby parks, recreation areas, and natural areas. Section 4(f) properties could be 

indirectly affected by noise, ground vibration, aesthetics, and access issues. 

Additionally, there could be indirect impacts on wildlife through reduced use of 

areas near train operations and increased potential for wildlife collisions. 

Threatened or endangered species could potentially be indirectly affected by 

noise, vibration, air emissions, and water quality impacts affecting habitat.

• Indirect effect of reducing ridership on current transportation services, such as 

intercity bus and flight service, by offering a competitive alternative to these 

modes. Diverted trips from these modes to passenger rail service may have 

implications to the viability of these modes in the future. 

• Potential indirect positive impacts include a slight reduction in vehicular 

congestion on I-88 and I-80 within the Study Area. This would have positive 

impacts on air quality, safety and reduce future delays due to congestion. 

• Commencement of passenger service and modification of at-grade crossings 

could indirectly affect traffic flow from previous traffic conditions.

• Increased chance of a hazardous material incident, which could also affect water 

quality as railway contaminants or accidental chemical/fuel spills from operations 

and maintenance activities could reach water resources adjacent to, or 

downstream of the project area. 

• Noise and vibration from passenger rail traffic could cause indirect impacts to 

cultural resources by affecting visitor experience. Induced transit-oriented 

development in the vicinity of station areas may indirectly affect nearby cultural 

resources.

• Potential indirect impacts to downstream water bodies and wetlands could occur 

from culvert and/or bridge replacements.
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-28 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

• Transit-oriented development could result indirectly from the construction and 

use of station locations.

• Indirect impacts on adjacent land uses from changes in traffic flow at rail 

crossings and near future station sites. Temporary traffic indirect impacts would 

occur through closings during construction and rerouting traffic through adjacent 

neighborhoods and business areas. Increased travel time and delay for local 

residents and potential economic impacts to businesses that depend on convenient 

accessibility. Potential increased congestion and traffic delays near crossings with 

new passenger rail service. 

• Temporary increase in GHG emissions from construction activities from on-site 

equipment as well as increased delays and congestion from automobile and bus 

traffic. 

• Indirect positive impacts on air quality from contributing to the development of a 

more complete multi-modal transportation system within the Study Area and 

encouraging changes in long-term travel behavior and advocacy for more energy 

efficient modes of transport that improve air quality. 

• Upgrades to rail infrastructure may indirectly benefit existing freight service.

Cumulative impacts from other projects in the region would also occur. The majority of 

projects are linear transportation projects, often occurring either in existing ROW or adjacent 

to existing ROW. It is likely that many of these projects would be affecting drainage and 

could involve impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. In rural areas, it is likely that 

the other projects may be affecting farmland, natural areas, and wildlife habitat primarily 

through expansion of existing corridors. 

When considered collectively with other projects in the region, the Build Alternative would 

have a slight beneficial contribution to cumulative impacts by improving overall air quality 

and reducing roadway congestion and would have the potential for increased transit-oriented 

development. Should construction of this Project occur simultaneously with some of the 

other projects in the region, existing passenger and freight rail services could see temporary 

increases in delays and congestion but overall train traffic would be maintained throughout 

construction. 

Station development associated with the Project has the potential to result in induced 

development in close proximity to the stations. However, station locations will be selected 

through coordinated efforts with local city/county/metropolitan area planners to help ensure 

that the sites and opportunities presented for growth development are suitable to handle 

increased traffic and other demands, minimizing the potential for adverse cumulative 

impacts. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to 

slightly increased air emissions, energy consumption, and noise along this portion of the 

Chicago to Omaha route. Potential direct, or indirect, and cumulative impacts of those 

improvements are being addressed in Tier 2 NEPA documents currently underway. The NoBuild Alternative would result in a slight indirect impact due to the lack of passenger rail 

service between Moline and Omaha. This indirect impact would primarily be in the form of 

increased traffic congestion as travelers between Moline and Omaha would continue to use 

existing roadways. In addition, the No-Build Alternative would have a slight negative 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-29 October 2012

contribution to cumulative impacts by continuing the dependence on personal automobiles on 

highways for travel between Moline and Omaha, and to a more limited extent, between 

Chicago and Moline. 

ES.4.27 Permits

Construction of the Build Alternative would likely require the following federal, state, and 

local permits and approvals:

• Section 404 Permit – USACE

• Section 401 Water Quality Certification – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, Nebraska 

Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ)

• Section 9 Bridge Permit – USCG

• Section 10 Permit – USACE

• Section 402 NPDES Permit – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, NDEQ

• Section 408 Approval – USACE

• Floodplain Development Permit – DNRs of each state, and local jurisdictions

• Air Pollution Control Permits – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, NDEQ

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 40 CFR 

Part 61 – Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, NDEQ

• Iowa Sovereign Lands Construction Permit – Iowa DNR

• Formal Notice and Airspace Review – Federal Aviation Administration

The No-Build Alternative would also require a majority of these same permits.

ES.5 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION

Table ES-2 introduces potential mitigation for impacted resources, as identified through the 

Tier 1 NEPA process. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will be identified 

and discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA 

documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction.

Table ES-2. Potential Mitigation

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Transportation

Signal upgrades to address safety concerns at intersections and to limit 

disruption of existing freight rail service. Specific mitigation measures,

to the extent required, will be discussed in Tier 2 NEPA documents.

Land Use, Zoning, and

Property Acquisition

Where property acquisition cannot be avoided, the provisions of the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act

will be followed. During Tier 2 analyses, the extent of land use, zoning, 

and property acquisition impacts will be analyzed for potential mitigation 

issues that may be identified through agency coordination and public 

involvement.

Agricultural Resources

As part of the Tier 2 NEPA process, coordination would take place with the 

NRCS. Form NRCS-CPA-106, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for 

Corridor Type Projects, would be required to determine if farmland impacts 

are above the threshold level for consideration of farmland protection 

measures. 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-30 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Socioeconomic Environment

In the Tier 2 analysis, potential impacts on socioeconomic conditions

(neighborhoods, community facilities, businesses, employment) will be 

identified along with strategies to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these 

impacts. In addition, public involvement and agency coordination activities 

may result in identification of potential mitigation needs.

Title VI and Environmental 

Justice

Potential mitigation measures will be determined in the Tier 2 NEPA

studies, if it is determined that adverse human health or environmental 

effects occur to minority and/or low-income populations, and if those 

effects are determined to be disproportionately high.

Elderly and People with 

Disabilities

Adverse impacts on the elderly and people with disabilities could be 

mitigated by providing beneficial ADA compliant services and facilities 

for those populations. A more detailed analysis of adverse impacts on the 

elderly and disabled populations, mitigation measures, and the public 

involvement process will be provided in the Tier 2 NEPA documents. 

Public Health and Safety

Due to the increased speed of the proposed passenger rail service, the Tier 2 

NEPA studies will address safety measures and strategies to protect the 

health and safety of passengers, as well as motor vehicles and pedestrians,

at existing or new at-grade crossings.

Noise and Vibration

Minimizing locomotive horn use would be the greatest opportunity to 

mitigate potential noise impacts. Other mitigation measures could include

upgrading of some electronic circuitry through installation of constant time 

circuitry (warning lights) at public at-grade roadway-rail crossings. 

Municipalities can choose to initiate the process of developing quiet zones 

to take advantage of the infrastructure provided by the proposed project.

Air Quality

Mitigation such as policy changes or converting fleet vehicles to alternative 

fuels may be required for NOx emissions due to its output being above the 

de minimis. All other emissions are below their de minimis thresholds. 

General air quality conformity analysis modeling may be required in Tier 2 

NEPA documents to verify these findings.

Hazardous Waste and Waste 

Disposal

Potential impacts on or from NPL Superfund sites and other non-NPL sites 

will be further evaluated in the Tier 2 NEPA studies, to determine level of 

risk and potential mitigation or cleanup procedures. Mitigation 

requirements may include safety procedures and protection of human 

health and the environment to help ensure that there would be no further 

contamination of adjacent sites, and to provide a safe working environment 

during construction. In addition, solid waste materials generated during 

construction could be recycled or properly disposed of.

Cultural Resources

If, during the preparation of Tier 2 NEPA documents, it is determined that 

the project will adversely affect NRHP-eligible historic resources, 

mitigation measures may be developed in accordance with the terms of a 

PA between FRA and consulting parties, including the ACHP and SHPOs. 

Potential mitigation measures could include recordation of site information, 

improvement of other sites, changes in project design, or other options. 

Parks and Federally or StateListed Natural Areas

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will be discussed in 

Tier 2 NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified. Potential 

mitigation measures may include replacement of equipment and facilities, 

purchase of similar properties, planting of woodlands, or development of 

wetlands in nearby locations.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-31 October 2012

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Properties

During the preparation of Tier 2 NEPA documents minimization and 

mitigation measures for adverse impacts will be determined, to the extent 

required, through consultation with the official of the agency owning or 

administering the resource. Potential mitigation measures could include 

replacement of equipment and facilities in another location within existing 

parkland, purchase of similar properties, planting of woodlands, or 

development of wetlands in nearby locations.

For 6(f) LWCF lands that cannot be avoided, mitigation would include

replacement property that is of at least equal fair market value as the 

impacted property, and of reasonably equivalent usefulness for recreation 

purposes.

Visual Resources and 

Aesthetic Quality

Through the public involvement process, residents’ concerns about the 

potential views of the railroad facilities will be determined. Mitigation and 

impact minimization efforts will be addressed in more detail in the Tier 2 

NEPA documents. Mitigation could include consideration of measures such 

as appropriate re-vegetation of disturbed areas of the scenic resources,

visual screening of railroad facilities from adjacent residential areas, 

appropriate landscaping, and aesthetic design of new stations that would 

complement and blend with the context of the surrounding visual 

environment. In addition, mitigation for land disturbance within the Loess 

Hills area could include buffer zones and re-establishing native vegetation. 

Mitigation measures could also include shaping areas to blend into the 

natural character of the surrounding hills.

Waterways, Water Bodies, and 

Wetlands

Mitigation options for unavoidable impacts on waterways, water bodies, 

and wetlands will be discussed in more detail during the Tier 2 NEPA 

documents. Mitigation measures could include mitigation banking, in-lieu 

fees, and on-site or off-site mitigation. During the design process, 

coordination will take place with the USACE and appropriate state resource 

agencies to develop mitigation strategies. 

Water Quality

The Tier 2 NEPA documents would address mitigation measures and 

control of pollutants and sediments in regard to the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plans (SWPPPs), and Best Management Practices (BMPs). In 

addition, each state’s required Section 401 Water Quality Certifications 

would be addressed. Impacts on mapped or unmapped water wells, 

including proper abandonment of the wells (such as plugging and sealing) 

to prevent groundwater pollution would also be addressed. 

Floodplains

During the Tier 2 NEPA process, coordination with the State Emergency 

Management Agencies (SEMAs), the DNRs of each state, and local 

floodplain administrators would be initiated to discuss floodplain 

development permitting and potential mitigation measures, such as restoring 

natural and beneficial floodplain values by seeding with native vegetation, 

and proper design of bridges and culverts so as to not restrict flood flows. 

Topography, Geology, and 

Soils

No requirements for mitigation related to topographic, geologic, and soil 

conditions are anticipated, with the exception of impacts on the Loess Hills 

area as discussed under Visual Resources. Specific impacts and potential 

mitigation measures will be investigated and evaluated in further detail in 

the Tier 2 NEPA documents.
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-32 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Natural Habitats and Wildlife

During the Tier 2 process, avoidance and minimization of impacts would be 

assessed, and unavoidable impacts to natural habitats would be coordinated 

with the state agencies to determine compliance with regulatory 

requirements and potential mitigation measures to offset impacts, which 

could include restrictions on construction activities in specific areas during 

the breeding/nesting seasons. Coordination with Iowa DNR will also take 

place regarding mitigation of woodland impacts, which require replacement 

according to Iowa Code 314.23, Environmental Protection.

Threatened and Endangered 

Species

During the Tier 2 process, avoidance and minimization of impacts would be 

assessed. If it is determined, through Section 7 consultation with USFWS,

that the Build Alternative could have the potential to affect a federally listed 

species, a biological assessment would be prepared to determine the Build 

Alternative’s potential effect on one or more species. When a potential 

impact to a federally listed species is identified, the USFWS would prepare 

a biological opinion on whether the proposed activity would adversely 

affect (jeopardize the continued existence of) a listed species. Mitigation 

measures for unavoidable adverse impacts would be determined as part of 

the formal consultation.

Avoidance and minimization of impacts on state-listed species would also 

be assessed during the Tier 2 NEPA documents. If it is determined that 

unavoidable impacts on state-listed species would occur, coordination with 

the Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and NGPC, as appropriate, would take place

to determine potential mitigation measures. 

Energy Use and Climate 

Change

Mitigation may not be required for energy and climate change due to the 

positive impact and the diverted trips from other modes of transportation,

lowering the overall amount of CO2 emissions along the Study Area.

Verification will be made during the Tier 2 NEPA studies.

Construction Impacts

Impacts from construction activities will be reviewed and mitigation will be 

considered during the development of the Tier 2 NEPA documents. The 

potential for Project construction impacts may be mitigated through the 

following measures:

• Waste Disposal – Recycling of construction debris, testing of 

hazardous waste encountered, and properly disposing of waste 

materials.

• Water Quality – Management of stormwater runoff, 

implementation of BMPs for control of soil erosion and other 

pollutants, and proper storage of hazardous materials away from 

water resources.

• Air Quality – Adherence to construction permit conditions and all 

state and local regulations, which may include prohibitions against 

burning of construction debris, and control measures to limit 

pollution if tree trunks and limbs are permitted to be burned on 

site. 

• Noise and Vibration – Equipping and maintaining muffling 

equipment for trucks and other construction machinery.

• Access – Development of a traffic mitigation plan for construction 

sequencing, including special provisions to accommodate 

emergency vehicle access to the site and adjacent properties. 

• Traffic and Safety – Coordination with Illinois DOT, Iowa DOT, 

and the Nebraska Department of Roads as well as local 

jurisdictions to develop and implement a traffic control and safety 

plan.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-33 October 2012

Impacted Resource Potential Mitigation

Indirect and Cumulative 

Impacts

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will be discussed in 

Tier 2 NEPA documents as specific indirect and cumulative impacts are 

identified.

Permits

During the Tier 2 studies, specific mitigation measures will be explored in 

more detail when more specific construction impacts are known, and will be 

implemented as appropriate per each individual permit and approval.

ES.6 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

Agency coordination, tribal coordination, and public involvement have taken place during 

the development of this Tier 1 EIS.

ES.6.1 Agency Outreach

Agencies are categorized as public entities with decision-making authority for the public. 

Agency coordination has included interaction through email notices, email responses, 

in-person meetings, and teleconferences. An early coordination (EC) packet and invitation to 

the agency scoping meeting was provided to 14 federal agencies, 13 Illinois state agencies, 

14 Iowa state agencies, 9 Nebraska state agencies, and several county/regional and municipal 

governmental organizations within or near the various route alternatives. Agency input on the 

Study and Project was received during the agency scoping meetings on February 21, 2012, in 

Ames, Iowa, and on February 22, 2012, in Chicago, Illinois, as well as through responses to 

the EC packet distributed on April 1, 2012. Federal and state resource agencies provided 

guidance concerning potential environmental requirements, including permitting and 

approvals needed for the Project. Representatives from counties and local municipalities 

generally noted their support for the Project, primarily for economic purposes, with a 

preference for route alternatives within or near their jurisdiction.

ES.6.2 Tribal Outreach

Coordination with Illinois DOT and the Nebraska Department of Roads was conducted to 

compile a list of Native American groups, including tribes, whose tribal ranges included the 

portions of Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska along the route alternatives. A coordination packet 

that described the Study and Project and included a figure of the route alternatives was 

mailed to representatives of each of 15 Native American groups, including tribes, on May 17, 

2012. At the request of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, 14 additional Sioux Tribes of the region 

were sent EC packets on July 5, 2012. 

The Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas does not currently have sufficient staffing to provide input on 

the Project and deferred to other Native American groups, including tribes, with similar 

historical ties. The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska reviewed the route alternatives and 

indicated that it has cultural properties in some of the areas that could undergo construction.

The Yankton Sioux Tribe noted that the proposed route alternatives fall within its ancestral 

lands and is requesting further coordination for conducting a traditional cultural property 

(TCP) study and including other Sioux tribes in the region as part of Project coordination. 
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-34 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

ES.6.3 Stakeholder Outreach

At the onset of the Study, Iowa DOT conducted a Stakeholder Analysis to identify public 

stakeholders in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska who may be affected by or have data related to 

the Study. The stakeholder database expanded as more members of the public engaged in the 

Study through the public outreach process. All identified stakeholders are receiving updates 

at Study milestones via various outreach tools, including a Study webpage on Iowa DOT’s 

website, a Project website for hosting online meetings, a toll-free Study information line, an 

online community tool kit (including a community survey), and an email mailing list.

To announce online and in-person meetings, press releases and media advisories have been 

released to all print media outlets statewide in Illinois and Iowa, and to the Omaha World 

Herald and Lincoln Journal Star in Nebraska at all Study milestones, public participation 

opportunities, and comment periods. This media strategy resulted in 52 earned media 

mentions in local and national news outlets from February through September 17, 2012. 

In addition to press releases, advertisements have been placed 11 newspapers throughout the 

Study Area to announce the public meetings and avenues to review information and provide 

comments.

Iowa DOT, in conjunction with FRA, hosted an online open-house meeting from February 13 

to April 16, 2012, for the public to understand and comment on the scope of the Study and 

the initial range of route alternatives. The online scoping meeting was held on the Project

website (http://chicagotoomaha.com/). Public comments from the online scoping meeting 

were collected through online comment forms, email messages, letters mailed or faxed to 

Iowa DOT, and the toll-free Study information line. Based on automatic electronic login 

recordation for the online open-house meeting, there were 2,789 attendees, and 994 

comments were collected.

Very few public comments expressed concern with potential impacts on the natural and 

physical environment, either from not constructing the Project or from constructing and 

operating the Project. The majority of commenters supported development of the Project and 

cited a variety of reasons for their support, including fuel efficiency, reliability, safety, 

comfort, competitive cost, and economic development. Those not in favor of the Project gave 

several reasons, including that current bus service is sufficient and that taxpayer funds should 

not be used for the Project. However, there were several commenters indicating support for 

the Project if no taxpayer funds were used. 

A set of three public information meetings was held in May 2012 to obtain input from the 

public on preliminary results from screening the initial range of route alternatives. The 

public information meetings were conducted both through in-person open-house meetings 

held in three locations and through an online, self-directed open-house meeting. During the 

comment period for the alternatives analysis, 208 comments were received from agencies, 

organizations, and the public. The majority of commenters noted that they would use the 

project and cited a variety of reasons, including personal or business travel. In addition, 

134 commenters noted their support for the Project, including a preference for Route 

Alternative 4 or Route Alternative 4-A, as well as potential economic benefits. Six comments 

were submitted by those who were not in support of the Project. Non-supportive comments 

cited the use of taxpayer money and the lack of a market for long-term use. In addition to the 

public information meetings, two Stakeholder Meetings were held in May 2012 with invited 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-35 October 2012

municipal representatives, elected officials, and community leaders to discuss the same 

information that was presented at the in-person and online open-house meetings. 

Through an online community survey, which began April 13, 2012, public opinion of the 

proposed service was gathered. This survey was qualitative in nature and reflects the opinion 

of only those 826 people who elected to respond. The survey will remain open until the end 

of the comment period on the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The vast majority of respondents indicated 

that they would use the service for business travel or both business and personal travel, 

support the establishment of regional passenger rail, and think it will have a positive 

economic impact.

ES.6.4 Future Opportunities for Input

Another opportunity for agencies; Native American groups, including tribes; and 

stakeholders to review route alternatives and the potential impacts associated with their 

implementation will be during the public comment period for this Tier 1 Draft EIS. A public 

hearing will be held at three locations during the comment period; an online open-house 

meeting will be provided as an option for those unable to attend, or who prefer not to attend, 

the in-person public hearing. Comments received by the close of the comment period will be 

included in the official record for the Study. 

ES.7 NEXT STEPS

ES.7.1 Tier 1 Completion

This Tier 1 Draft EIS has been issued to solicit public, resource agency, and tribal input on 

the preferred alternative. Comments received on the Draft EIS during the comment period 

will be used to prepare and issue a Tier 1 Final EIS that will address these comments. 

Subsequent to distribution of the Final EIS, a Record of Decision (ROD) will be developed, 

documenting the decision of selecting the preferred alternative and the mitigation measures 

that will be implemented in subsequent phases of the Project. Most mitigation measures 

represent commitments for further coordination with the public, resource agencies, and 

Native American groups, including tribes, during Tier 2 studies as more detailed information 

on the design of the Project is developed.

ES.7.2 Tier 2 Sections

As funding becomes available, Tier 2 studies and NEPA documentation would be advanced 

for logical sections of the Project. Separate Tier 2 NEPA documentation would be prepared 

for each of the sections identified. Each of the sections would have independent utility and, 

therefore, could be improved with or without improvements to other sections. Preliminary 

design and NEPA documentation would be conducted in support of those Tier 2 studies 

because such details are necessary to identify the land area that would be disturbed during 

construction activities. At this time, the following Tier 2 sections are anticipated, but these 

sections may be combined or modified in the future based on available funding:

• Chicago to Aurora, Illinois, Track Improvements 

• Aurora, Illinois, to the Wyanet Connection near Wyanet, Illinois, Track 

Improvements
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-36 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

• Wyanet Connection near Wyanet, Illinois, to Iowa City, Iowa, Track 

Improvements 

• Mississippi River Bridge

• Iowa City, Iowa, Station 

• Iowa City, Iowa, Layover and Maintenance Facility 

• Iowa City to Short Line Yard, Des Moines, Iowa, Track Improvements 

• Grinnell, Iowa, Station 

• Des Moines, Iowa, Short Line Yard Improvements 

• Des Moines, Iowa, Station 

• Des Moines, Iowa, Layover and Maintenance Facility 

• Des Moines to Council Bluffs, Iowa, Track Improvements 

• Atlantic, Iowa, Station 

• Council Bluffs, Iowa, Station 

• Omaha, Nebraska/Council Bluffs, Iowa, Layover and Maintenance Facilities

• Council Bluffs, Iowa, to Omaha, Nebraska, Track Improvements 

• Missouri River Bridge 

• Omaha, Nebraska, Station 

ES.7.3 NEPA Documents and Additional Studies

Multiple NEPA documents would be developed during the Tier 2 NEPA process. These 

NEPA documents are anticipated to be a mixture of Environmental Assessments for areas 

such as the Missouri River crossing between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, 

and Categorical Exclusions for areas with minimal effects. The specific class of NEPA 

document has not yet been determined for each of the Tier 2 sections. Public input would be 

considered in the NEPA and design processes.

In addition to NEPA documentation for evaluation of the Tier 2 sections, numerous studies 

would be completed as part of the Tier 2 NEPA process to determine the specific nature and 

quantity of impacts. The analyses would consider avoidance and minimization of impacts on 

sensitive environmental resources. For each Tier 2 section, the following studies may be 

required:

• Detailed local-level alternatives analysis

• Wetland delineations and Section 404 permit identification

• Cultural resources surveys and Section 106 consultation

• Threatened and endangered species surveys

• Engineering surveys 

• Noise and vibration analysis

• Section 4(f) evaluation

• Phase I Environmental Site Assessments

• Air emissions analysis in non-attainment areas

• Station-area traffic studies
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Executive Summary

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ES-37 October 2012

ES.7.4 Mitigation Planning and Project Commitments

Potential mitigation for impacts is summarized in Section ES.5. Specific mitigation during 

the Tier 2 process would be determined in consultation with the federal or state agency 

responsible for assessing impacts on a given resource. As needed, formal consultation would 

occur with resource agencies to address obligations to minimize and mitigate impacts, such 

as those obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). During the Tier 1 process, the primary 

commitments are to work with the public, resource agencies, and Native American groups, 

including tribes, to identify specific mitigation measures during the Tier 2 process and 

subsequently implement those measures. 

ES.7.5 Phased Implementation

Based on experience with other passenger rail projects, FRA anticipates that the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha Project would be incrementally funded and that construction and 

operations would be implemented in phases. Funding initially could be allocated for

improvements of facilities to support speeds lower than a maximum of 110 mph, or to 

improve/construct particular stations and maintenance and layover facilities. Service initially 

could start with fewer stations, at lower speeds, and with fewer round-trips. As more funding 

is allocated to the Project, further improvements could be implemented to expand service. 

The specific phasing of the Project is not known at this time but will be determined as 

funding is allocated to the Project.

The Project is anticipated to commence with two round-trips per day from Chicago to Moline 

at a maximum speed of 79 mph; this phase could occur independently as part of the Quad 

Cities Expansion Program passenger rail project. The Project would then be extended 

westward from Moline to Iowa City, to Des Moines, to Council Bluffs, and then to Omaha. 

The speed and the frequency of round-trips would increase with subsequent implementation 

phases up to a maximum of 110 mph and up to seven round-trips per day from Chicago to 

Des Moines, with five of the round-trips extending from Chicago to Omaha. The ultimate 

proposed implementation would be realized over many years of phased implementation as 

federal and state funds are allocated to the Project.
Executive Summary Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ES-38 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Tier 1 Service Level EIS i October 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SHORT FORMS...................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED...................................................................................................1-1

1.1 History........................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Study Area .................................................................................................................1-5

1.3 Purpose and Need .....................................................................................................1-7

1.3.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................1-7

1.3.2 Need............................................................................................................1-8

1.4 Decisions to be Made...............................................................................................1-12

1.5 Other Transportation Projects ..................................................................................1-12

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Route Alternatives Development and Screening........................................................2-1

2.1.1 Initial Range of Route Alternatives ..............................................................2-1

2.1.2 Screening Methodology...............................................................................2-2

2.1.3 Screening Criteria........................................................................................2-2

2.1.4 Screening Process ......................................................................................2-4

2.2 Description of Alternatives .......................................................................................2-13

2.2.1 No-Build Alternative...................................................................................2-13

2.2.2 Build Alternative.........................................................................................2-15

2.2.3 Preferred Alternative..................................................................................2-25

2.3 Summary of Potential Impacts .................................................................................2-25

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................3-1

3.1 Transportation............................................................................................................3-3

3.1.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements................................................3-3

3.1.2 Affected Environment ..................................................................................3-3

3.1.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...................................................................3-6

3.1.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .........................................................................3-6

3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures......................................................................3-7

3.2 Land Use, Zoning, and Property Acquisitions ............................................................3-7

3.2.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements................................................3-7

3.2.2 Affected Environment ..................................................................................3-8

3.2.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...................................................................3-9

3.2.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .........................................................................3-9

3.2.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-11
Table of Contents Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 ii Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.3 Agricultural Resources.............................................................................................3-11

3.3.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-11

3.3.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-12

3.3.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-13

3.3.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-13

3.3.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-13

3.4 Socioeconomic Environment....................................................................................3-14

3.4.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-14

3.4.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-14

3.4.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-16

3.4.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-17

3.4.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-19

3.5 Title VI and Environmental Justice...........................................................................3-19

3.5.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-19

3.5.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-20

3.5.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-21

3.5.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-21

3.5.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-23

3.6 Elderly and People with Disabilities..........................................................................3-23

3.6.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-23

3.6.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-23

3.6.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-26

3.6.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-26

3.6.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-27

3.7 Public Health and Safety..........................................................................................3-27

3.7.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-27

3.7.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-28

3.7.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-29

3.7.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-29

3.7.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-30

3.8 Noise and Vibration..................................................................................................3-31

3.8.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-31

3.8.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-38

3.8.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-38

3.8.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-44

3.8.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-52
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Tier 1 Service Level EIS iii October 2012

3.9 Air Quality ................................................................................................................3-53

3.9.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-52

3.9.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-54

3.9.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-55

3.9.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-55

3.9.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-57

3.10 Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal....................................................................3-57

3.10.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-57

3.10.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-58

3.10.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-59

3.10.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-59

3.10.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-61

3.11 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................3-62

3.11.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-62

3.11.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-63

3.11.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-64

3.11.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-64

3.11.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-67

3.12 Parks and Federally or State-Listed Natural Areas ..................................................3-67

3.12.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-68

3.12.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-68

3.12.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-69

3.12.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-69

3.12.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-70

3.13 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties ................................................................................3-70

3.13.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-70

3.13.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-71

3.13.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-71

3.13.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-71

3.13.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-72

3.14 Visual Resources and Aesthetic Quality ..................................................................3-73

3.14.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-73

3.14.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-73

3.14.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-75

3.14.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-75

3.14.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-78
Table of Contents Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 iv Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.15 Waterways and Water Bodies..................................................................................3-78

3.15.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-78

3.15.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-79

3.15.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-80

3.15.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-80

3.15.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-81

3.16 Wetlands..................................................................................................................3-82

3.16.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-82

3.16.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-82

3.16.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-83

3.16.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-84

3.16.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-85

3.17 Water Quality ...........................................................................................................3-85

3.17.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-85

3.17.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-85

3.17.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-86

3.17.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-87

3.17.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-88

3.18 Floodplains...............................................................................................................3-88

3.18.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-88

3.18.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-89

3.18.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-89

3.18.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-90

3.18.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-90

3.19 Topography, Geology, and Soils..............................................................................3-91

3.19.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-91

3.19.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-91

3.19.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-93

3.19.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-93

3.19.5 Potential Mitigation Measures....................................................................3-94

3.20 Natural Habitats and Wildlife....................................................................................3-95

3.20.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements..............................................3-95

3.20.2 Affected Environment ................................................................................3-96

3.20.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative .................................................................3-97

3.20.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .......................................................................3-99

3.20.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-101
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Tier 1 Service Level EIS v October 2012

3.21 Threatened and Endangered Species....................................................................3-102

3.21.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-102

3.21.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-102

3.21.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-106

3.21.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-107

3.21.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-110

3.22 Energy Use and Climate Change...........................................................................3-111

3.22.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-111

3.22.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-111

3.22.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-112

3.22.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-112

3.22.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-113

3.23 Construction Impacts .............................................................................................3-113

3.23.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-113

3.23.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-113

3.23.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-114

3.23.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-114

3.23.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-117

3.24 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .....................................3-118

3.24.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-119

3.24.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-119

3.24.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-119

3.24.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-119

3.24.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-120

3.25 Short-Term Use Vs. Long-Term Productivity of the Environment...........................3-120

3.25.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-120

3.25.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-120

3.25.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-120

3.25.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-121

3.25.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-122

3.26 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts............................................................................3-122

3.26.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-123

3.26.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-124

3.26.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-126

3.26.4 Impacts of Alternative .............................................................................3-126

3.26.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-129
Table of Contents Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 vi Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.27 Permits...................................................................................................................3-130

3.27.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements............................................3-130

3.27.2 Affected Environment ..............................................................................3-130

3.27.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative ...............................................................3-130

3.27.4 Impacts of Build Alternative .....................................................................3-130

3.27.5 Potential Mitigation Measures..................................................................3-135

CHAPTER 4 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .............................................................................4-1

4.1 Agency Outreach .......................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Early Coordination .......................................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Cooperating Agencies ...............................................................................4-21

4.1.3 Milestones .................................................................................................4-21

4.2 Tribal Outreach ........................................................................................................4-22

4.3 Stakeholder Outreach ..............................................................................................4-23

4.3.1 Outreach Tools..........................................................................................4-23

4.3.2 Scoping Meeting........................................................................................4-25

4.3.3 Alternatives Analysis Meetings ..................................................................4-31

4.3.4 Community Survey Results .......................................................................4-31

4.4 Future Opportunities for Input ..................................................................................4-34

CHAPTER 5 NEXT STEPS..................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Tier 1 Completion.......................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Tier 2 Sections ...........................................................................................................5-1

5.3 Additional Studies ......................................................................................................5-3

5.4 Mitigation Planning.....................................................................................................5-4

5.5 Project Commitments.................................................................................................5-5

5.6 Phased Implementation .............................................................................................5-5

CHAPTER 6 LIST OF PREPARERS...................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Federal Railroad Administration.................................................................................6-1

6.2 Iowa Department of Transportation............................................................................6-1

6.3 Illinois Department of Transportation .........................................................................6-2

6.4 HDR Engineering, Inc. and HNTB Corporation ..........................................................6-3

CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................7-1

INDEX...................................................................................................................................................I-1
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Table of Contents

Tier 1 Service Level EIS vii October 2012

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Counties Traversed by Routes in the Study Area ...............................................................1-7

Table 1-2. Population Change..............................................................................................................1-8

Table 1-3. Total Trips by Mode for the Year 2020................................................................................1-9

Table 1-4. Population 65 Years of Age and Over.................................................................................1-9

Table 2-1. Coarse-Level Screening Criteria .........................................................................................2-4

Table 2-2. Fine-Level Screening Criteria..............................................................................................2-6

Table 2-3. Route Alternative Comparison .......................................................................................... 2-11

Table 2-4. Summary of Impacts ......................................................................................................... 2-26

Table 3.1-1. Total Trips by Mode for the Year 2020.............................................................................3-3

Table 3.1-2. Total Rail Ridership by Diverted Travel Mode..................................................................3-7

Table 3.3-1. Farmland Impacts .......................................................................................................... 3-13

Table 3.8-1. Summary of Traffic Conditions....................................................................................... 3-35

Table 3.8-2. Noise Condition Definitions ............................................................................................ 3-36

Table 3.8-3. Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................... 3-37

Table 3.8-4. Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the No-Build Alternative.......... 3-38

Table 3.8-5. Incremental Increase in Ground-borne Vibration Impacts Associated with the 

No-Build Alternative........................................................................................................ 3-42

Table 3.8-6. Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the Build Alternative................ 3-45

Table 3.8-7. Incremental Increase in Ground-borne Vibration Impacts Associated with the 

Build Alternative.............................................................................................................. 3-50

Table 3.8-8. Distances to Category 2 Ground-Borne Vibration Impacts............................................. 3-52

Table 3.9-1. Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas within the Project Area .................................... 3-55

Table 3.9-2. Summary of General Conformity Determination for the Build Alternative (2020) ........... 3-56

Table 3.9-3. Build Alternative – 2020 Estimated Changes in Air Pollutants from Diversion of 

Passenger Vehicle, Bus and Plane Trips (Tons per Year).............................................. 3-56

Table 3.10-1. Hazardous Material and Waste Sites Impacts.............................................................. 3-60

Table 3.11-1. Historic Resources within the Potential Impact Area................................................... 3-65

Table 3.15-1. Impacts on Waterways and Water Bodies ................................................................... 3-81

Table 3.16-1. Impacts on Wetlands (by type)..................................................................................... 3-84

Table 3.18-1. 100-Year Floodplain Impacts ....................................................................................... 3-90

Table 3.20-1. Natural Habitat Area Impacts ....................................................................................... 3-99

Table 3.21-1. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................. 3-103

Table 3.21-2. Illinois State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Study Area .................. 3-106

Table 3.21-3. Illinois State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Potential Impacts ........... 3-109

Table 4-1. Summary of Agency Scoping Comments............................................................................4-5

Table 4-2. Outreach Tools and Usage Summary ............................................................................... 4-24

Table 4-3. Community Survey Results Summary............................................................................... 4-32
Table of Contents Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 viii Tier 1 Service Level EIS

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Midwest Regional Rail System...........................................................................................1-3

Figure 1-2. Study Area .........................................................................................................................1-6

Figure 2-1. Route Alternatives Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha........................................................2-3

Figure 2-2. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Build Alternative ......................................................... 2-16

Figure 2-3. Des Moines Design Options ............................................................................................ 2-19

Figure 2-4. Missouri River Crossing Design Options, Council Bluffs, IA, and Omaha, NE................. 2-20

Figure 2-5. Proposed Station and Maintenance Locations, Des Moines and Council Bluffs/Omaha . 2-21

Figure 2-6. Proposed Station Locations, Grinnell and Atlantic ........................................................... 2-22

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 3.8-1. FTA Noise Impact Criteria............................................................................................ 3-32

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Alternatives Analysis Report

Appendix B Chapter 3 Figures

Appendix C Socioeconomic Environment

Appendix D Title VI and EJ

Appendix E Noise and Vibration

Appendix F Air Quality

Appendix G Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal

Appendix H Cultural Resources

Appendix I Parks and Federally or State-Listed Natural Areas

Appendix J Section 4(f) and 6(f) Properties

Appendix K Waterways and Water Bodies

Appendix L Water Quality

Appendix M Natural Habitats and Wildlife

Appendix N Threatened and Endangered Species

Appendix O Agency Coordination
Abbreviations, Acronyms,

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study and Short Forms

Tier 1 Service Level EIS ix October 2012

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND SHORT FORMS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACS American Community Survey

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADT average daily traffic

APE Area of Potential Effect

ASARCO American Smelting and Refining Company, Inc.

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BMP Best Management Practice

BNSF BNSF Railway

BTUs British Thermal Units

CAA Clean Air Act of 1970

CBIS Council Bluffs Interstate System

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 

Information System

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

COGs Councils of Government

Corridor Chicago to Omaha corridor

CTA Chicago Transit Authority
Abbreviations, Acronyms, 

and Short Forms Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 x Tier 1 Service Level EIS

CTC Centralized Traffic Control

CTS Coralville Transit System

CWR continuously welded rail

DART Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority

dB decibels

dBA A-weighted decibels

DCHs Designated Critical Habitats

DOT Department of Transportation

EA Environmental Assessment

EC early coordination

EcoCAT Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool of Illinois DNR,

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental 

Procedures

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FRS Facility Registry System

FRSA Federal Rail Safety Act

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934
Abbreviations, Acronyms,

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study and Short Forms

Tier 1 Service Level EIS xi October 2012

GBV ground-borne vibration

GHG greenhouse gas emissions

GIS geographic information system

HC hydrocarbons

HIRTA Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

I-29 Interstate 29

I-480 Interstate 480

I-80 Interstate 80

I-88 Interstate 88

IAIS Iowa Interstate Railroad

ICT Iowa City Transit

IFPA Illinois Farmland Preservation Act

IGWS Iowa Geological and Water Survey

Illinois DNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Illinois DNR/OWR Illinois Department of Natural Resources/Office of Water Resources

Illinois EPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Iowa DNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources

INAI Illinois Natural Areas Inventory

INPC Illinois Nature Preserves Commission

ISGS Illinois State Geological Survey

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

Ldn day-night noise level

Leq equivalent noise level

LEP limited English proficiency
Abbreviations, Acronyms, 

and Short Forms Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 xii Tier 1 Service Level EIS

LUST leaking underground storage tank

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

MAPA Metropolitan Area Planning Agency

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

MetroLINK Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District

MGT million gross tons

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MSA metropolitan statistical area

MSATs Mobile Source Air Toxics

MWRRI Midwest Regional Rail Initiative

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NCSD Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division

NDEQ Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

NDOR Nebraska Department of Roads

Nebraska DNR Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

NEMA Nebraska Emergency Management Agency

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NGPC Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOI Notice of Intent

NOx nitrogen oxides
Abbreviations, Acronyms,

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study and Short Forms

Tier 1 Service Level EIS xiii October 2012

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priorities List

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

O3 ozone

OHW ordinary high water

OHWMs Ordinary High Water Marks

OLE Office of Location and Environment

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PA Programmatic Agreement

PAB Palustrine Aquatic Bed

Pb lead

PEM Palustrine Emergent

PFO Palustrine Forested

PL Public Law

PM particulate matter

PM-2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter

PM-10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter

PRA Pittman-Robertson Act

Project the expansion of intercity passenger rail service from Chicago, Illinois, 

through Iowa, to Omaha, Nebraska

PSS Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
Abbreviations, Acronyms, 

and Short Forms Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 xiv Tier 1 Service Level EIS

PTC Positive Train Control

PWEDA Public Works and Economic Development Act

Quad Cities East Moline, Moline, and Rock Island, Illinois, and Davenport and 

Bettendorf, Iowa

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROD Record of Decision

ROW right-of-way

RTA Regional Transportation Authority

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SEATS Special Needs and Elderly Assisted Transportation System

SEMAs State Emergency Management Agencies

SES SouthEast Service

SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP state implementation plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide

STAR Line Suburban Transit Access Route

STS Special Transit Service

Study Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

SWITA Southwest Iowa Transit Agency

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

TCE Trichloroethylene

TCP traditional cultural property

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Abbreviations, Acronyms,

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study and Short Forms

Tier 1 Service Level EIS xv October 2012

TSA Transportation Security Administration

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

TWC track warrant control

UP Union Pacific Railroad

UP-NW Union Pacific Northwest

UP-W Union Pacific West

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOCs volatile organic compounds

VMT vehicle miles traveled

WA Wilderness Act
Abbreviations, Acronyms, 

and Short Forms Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 xvi Tier 1 Service Level EIS

This page intentionally left blank