TIER 1 DRAFT EIS 

PUBLIC HEARINGS SUMMARY

Appendix

H

Public Hearings Summary
Chicago‐St. Louis High‐Speed Rail H‐i   Tier 1 Final EIS

Appendix H Table of Contents 

H.1 Introduction....................................................................................H‐1

H.2 Comments Summary.........................................................................H‐2

List of Appendices 

Federal Register Notice of Availability

Public Hearing Resource Agency and Public Comment Disposition Table
Chicago‐St. Louis High‐Speed Rail   H‐1   Tier 1 Final EIS

H.1 Introduction 

H.1.1 Project Overview 

IDOT proposes to improve high speed passenger rail service between Chicago, Illinois and St.

Louis, Missouri, including the rail lines through Springfield, Illinois. The proposed project

includes the following: 1) development of double tracking along the existing Amtrak railroad

corridor to improve high‐speed passenger service reliability and safety, 2) an increase in the

number of trips between Chicago and St. Louis, and 3) improvements to railroad crossings,

signals, and stations. The Tier 1 EIS presented the Program’s purpose and need, identified all

reasonable alternatives, described the affected environment, analyzed the potential

environmental impacts of all the reasonable alternatives and the no action alternative, and

identified appropriate mitigation measures to minimize the potential environmental impacts.

H.1.2 Publication of the Tier 1 Draft EIS 

The Tier 1 Draft EIS was made available for public review on Friday, June 29, 2012. FRA

established a 45‐day public comment period for the Tier 1 Draft EIS that expired on Monday,

August 20, 2012.

IDOT and FRA communicated the availability of the Tier 1 Draft EIS through several means:  

 Federal Register:  The Federal Register for June 29th, 2012 included a notice of

publication of the Tier 1 Draft EIS and is included as the Federal Register Notice of

Availability appendix.

 Electronic Invitation: The notice was sent out to local communities and stakeholders,

and provided information on the public hearings including purpose, location, and times.

Newspaper Advertisements:  The ads were published in local newspapers, and

provided information on the public hearings including purpose, location, and times.

Newsletter: A newsletter, the third for this project, highlighting the availability of the

Tier 1 Draft EIS was published and distributed in communities near the project.

Website:  FRA and IDOT created websites for the Chicago to St. Louis High‐Speed Rail

Program (which was referenced in all of the above media). The websites included project

background and links to the Tier 1 Draft EIS, allowing the full document and appendices

available for download or review at www.fra.dot.gov and www.idothsr.org.

Electronic and hard copies of the Tier 1 Draft EIS were available for review at a variety of

locations, including the websites and local libraries.  Federal, state, and local agencies received a

distribution letter and either a hard copy or electronic copy of the entire document. FRA and

IDOT also made copies of the Tier 1 Draft EIS available upon request during the public

comment period. Distribution totaled 124 hardcopies and 119 electronic copies.

H.1.3 PUBLIC HEARINGS 

FRA’s NEPA implementation guidelines call for public hearings in the vicinity of a proposed

project once a Draft EIS has been made available. Given the length of the proposed rail corridor,

FRA decided to convene five public hearings in the major communities along the proposed
Chicago‐St. Louis High‐Speed Rail   H‐2   Tier 1 Final EIS

route:  Chicago, Joliet, Bloomington, Springfield, and Alton. These meetings were held in

August 2012.  

The public hearings were publicized in all of the above‐mentioned notices regarding the project

and the Tier 1 Draft EIS. Meeting locations were as follows:

 Joliet

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Jacob Henry Mansion / Victorian Ballroom  

15 South Richards Street / Joliet / 60433  

 Chicago

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Chicago Union Station / The Union Gallery  

500 W. Jackson Street / Chicago / 60661  

 Bloomington

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Marriott Hotel / Redbird D  

201 Broadway Street / Normal / 61761  

 Springfield

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

President Abraham Lincoln Hotel / Ballroom  

701 East Adams Street / Springfield / 62701  

 Alton

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Holiday Inn / Ballroom  

3800 Homer Adams Parkway / Alton / 62002  

All of the public hearings were held from 4:00 PM. to 7:00 PM.  In all, 386 people signed‐in at

these five public hearings, with the highest attendance (224 people) occurring at the Springfield

hearing. Hearing attendees were requested to sign‐in at the meetings. Each hearing was an

“open house” where attendees could view exhibit boards showing the project and interact with

IDOT and FRA staff in attendance. Attendees wishing to make comments were invited to

complete a comment card or provide their statement to a court reporter.

H.2 Comment Summary 

The Public Hearing Resource Agency and Public Comment Disposition Table appendix

provides a summary of public and agency comments and responses.  The matrix contains all

IDOT and FRA responses to the comments received at the public hearings, as well as all public

and agency comments received during the 45‐day comment period for the Tier 1 Draft EIS.
Federal Register Notice of Availability

FEDERAL REGISTER 

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
38882 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2012 / Notices 

interchanges at S.R. 62/Port Road and 

Utica-Old Salem Road. 

The actions by the Federal agencies, 

and the laws under which such actions 

were taken, are described in the 

Supplemental Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (SFEIS) for the 

project, approved on April 20, 2012, in 

the FHWA Revised Record of Decision 

(Revised ROD) issued on June 20, 2012, 

and in other documents in the FHWA 

administrative record. A Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

and Section 4(f) Evaluation were 

previously issued for the Project on 

April 8, 2003 and were followed by the 

issuance of a Record of Decision on 

September 6, 2003. The SFEIS, Revised 

ROD, and other project records are 

available by contacting FHWA, the 

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, or the 

Indiana Department of Transportation at 

the addresses provided above. The 

SFEIS and Revised ROD can be viewed 

and downloaded from the project Web 

site at www.kyinbridges.com, or viewed 

at public libraries in the project area. 

This notice applies to all Federal 

agency decisions as of the issuance date 

of this notice and all laws under which 

such actions were taken, including but 

not limited to: 

1. General: National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 

U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128]. 

2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671(q)]. 

3. Land: Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]; Farmland 

Protection Policy ACT (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 

4201–4209]. 

4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section 

1536]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act [16 U.S.C. 661–667(d)]; Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C. 703–712]. 

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 

U.S.C. 470(aa)–470(ll)]; Archeological 

and Historic Preservation Act 

[16 U.S.C. 469–469(c). 

6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)– 

2000(d)(1)]; Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Act of 

1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq., Pub. L. 

91–646) as amended by the Uniform 

Relocation Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100–17); 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low Income 

Populations, February 11, 1994.. 

7. Wetlands and Water Resources: 

Clean Water Act (Section 404, Section 

401, Section 319) [33 U.S.C. 1251– 

1377]; Land and Water Conservation 

Fund (LWCF) [16 U.S.C. 4601–4604]; 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) [42 

U.S.C. 300(f)–300(j)(6)]; Rivers and 

Harbors Act of 1899 [33 U.S.C. 401– 

406]; Emergency Wetlands Resources 

Act, [16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931]; Wetlands 

Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(M) and 

133(b)(11)]; Flood Disaster Protection 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001–4128. 

8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 

Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 

Floodplain Management; E.O. 11593 

Protection and Enhancement of Cultural 

Resources; E.O. 13287 Preserve 

America; E.O. 13175 Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). 

Issued on: June 20, 2012. 

Jose Sepulveda, 

FHWA Division Administrator, Frankfort, KY 

40601. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15931 Filed 6–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice of Availability of a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, for 

the Chicago, IL to St. Louis, MO High 

Speed Rail Corridor Program 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) United State 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to 

advise the public that a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft 

EIS) has been prepared for the Chicago, 

Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri High 

Speed Rail Corridor Program. The Draft 

EIS includes a Tier 1 corridor-level 

evaluation and a Tier 2 project-level 

evaluation for the Springfield Rail 

Improvements Project. FRA is the lead 

federal agency and the Illinois 

Department of Transportation (IDOT) is 

the lead state agency for the 

environmental review process. 

IDOT proposes to improve high speed 

passenger rail service between Chicago, 

Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri, 

including the rail lines through 

Springfield, Illinois. The proposed 

including the development of double 

tracking along the existing Amtrak 

railroad corridor to improve high-speed 

passenger service reliability and safety, 

and to increase the number of trips 

between Chicago and St. Louis, as well 

as including improvements to railroad 

crossings, signals, and stations. 

The Draft EIS presents the Program’s 

purpose and need, identifies all 

reasonable alternatives, describes the 

affected environment, analyzes the 

potential environmental impacts of all 

the reasonable alternatives and the no 

action alternative, and identifies 

appropriate mitigation measures to 

minimize the potential environmental 

impacts. 

DATES: Written comments on the 45-day 

Draft EIS should be provided to IDOT 

on or before Monday, August 20th, 

2012. Public hearings are scheduled to 

occur in August, 2012 in Chicago, IL, 

Springfield, IL, Alton, IL, Joliet, IL, and 

Bloomington, IL at times and dates to be 

announced on the High Speed Rail 

Program’s Web site at http:// 

www.idothsr.org/. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

Draft EIS should be sent directly to 

Joseph Shacter, Illinois Department of 

Transportation, 100 West Randolph 

Street, Suite 6–600, Chicago, Illinois 

60601, or submitted through the High 

Speed Rail Program’s Web site at http:// 

www.idothsr.org/, or via email with the 

subject line ‘‘Draft EIS’’ to 

Joseph.Shacter@Illinois.gov. Comments 

may also be provided orally or in 

writing at the public hearings. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea E. Martin, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Office of Railroad 

Policy and Development, Federal 

Railroad Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., MS–20, 

Washington, DC 20590; email: 

andrea.martin@dot.gov; telephone: 202– 

493–6201 or Joseph Shacter, Illinois 

Department of Transportation, 100 West 

Randolph Street, Suite 6–600, Chicago, 

Illinois 60601; email: 

Joseph.Shacter@Illinois.gov; telephone: 

312–793–2116. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed High Speed Rail Program 

would include the development of 

double track along the existing Amtrak 

railroad corridor between Chicago, 

Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri to 

improve high-speed passenger service 

reliability and safety, and to increase the 

number of trips, as well as include 

improvements to railroad crossings, 

signals, and stations. These proposed 

improvements are in addition to those 

improvements associated with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2012 / Notices 38883 

January 8, 2004 Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Chicago-St. Louis HighSpeed Rail Program and the 2011 

Environmental Assessment (EA)/ 

Finding of No Significant Impacts 

(FONSI) concerning improvements to 

the existing track and the construction 

of additional side tracks. 

Implementation of those improvements 

is currently underway. 

The current Chicago to St. Louis 

Corridor operates on a single track that 

is shared by both traditional freight and 

Amtrak passenger rail service. The EIS 

identifies and evaluates the 

environmental and transportation 

impacts associated with route 

alternatives and corridor-wide capacity 

enhancements, including double-track. 

IDOT and FRA are using a tiered 

environmental process to evaluate the 

proposed Program. A tiered 

environmental process is a phased 

environmental review used in the 

development of complex projects. 

Under this process, the Draft EIS 

addresses broad, corridor-level issues 

and alternatives. Tier 2 environmental 

documents address individual 

component projects of the Selected 

Alternative carried forward from the 

Tier 1 environmental process. 

Concurrently with this Tier 1 study of 

the full Chicago to St. Louis Corridor, 

IDOT and FRA are conducting a Tier 2 

analysis for the portion of the High 

Speed Rail corridor in Springfield, IL. 

The corridor alternatives retained in 

the Draft EIS are the result of a 

screening process that used several 

evaluation criteria developed 

specifically for the Program. The 

screening criteria determined the route 

options that should be eliminated from 

further consideration. The four 

alternatives and no-build retained 

utilize combinations of the existing 

Amtrak passenger rail routes between 

Chicago and Joliet, Illinois, the City of 

Springfield, Illinois, and approaching 

St. Louis, Missouri and allow for eight 

daily round trips at 110 miles per hour 

(mph) on two tracks. 

Other improvements identified in the 

Draft EIS include sidings, pedestrian 

grade separations at the stations, and 

grade separations along major roadways. 

After the public comment period for the 

Draft EIS and following completion of 

the Final EIS, individual component 

projects along the corridor would be 

advanced and studied in greater detail 

as Tier 2 project-level evaluations in the 

tiered environmental review process. 

A Tier 2 project-level evaluation for 

improvements in Springfield is also 

included within the Draft EIS. The 

Springfield Rail Improvements Project 

has been advanced concurrently as a 

component of the overall corridor 

program. The Tier 2 evaluation 

considers the environmental and 

transportation impacts of rail routes 

through the City of Springfield, Illinois; 

addressing safety, noise, and traffic 

delays that would result from increased 

volumes of both passenger and freight 

rail traffic on the three north-south rail 

corridors that pass through the City of 

Springfield. 

This Draft EIS has been prepared by 

FRA and IDOT consistent with the 

provisions of Section 102(2)(c) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR part 1500 et seq.), and FRA’s 

Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545; 

May 26, 1999). 

Copies of the Draft EIS are available 

online at FRA’s Web site: http:// 

www.fra.dot.gov and IDOT’s Web site: 

http://www.idothsr.org/; the document 

is also available for viewing at the 

following locations along the Corridor: 

• Hayner Library, 326 Belle Street, 

Alton, IL 62002 

• Atlanta Public Library District, 100 

Race Street, Atlanta, IL 61723 

• Auburn Public Library, 338 West 

Jefferson Street, Auburn, IL 62615 

• Bloomington Public Library, 205 East 

Olive Street, Bloomington, IL 61701 

• Blue Island Library, 2433 York Street, 

Blue Island, IL 60406 

• Fossil Ridge Public Library, 386 West 

Kennedy Road, Braidwood, IL 60408 

• Brighton Memorial Public Library, 

110 North Main Street, Brighton, IL 

62012 

• Carlinville Public Library, 510 North 

Broad Street, Carlinville, IL 62626 

• Chatham Area Public Library, 600 

East Spruce Street, Chatham, IL 62629 

• Chenoa Public Library District, 211 

South Division Street, Chenoa, IL 

61726 

• Chicago Public Library-Harold 

Washington, 400 South State Street, 

Chicago, IL 60605 

• Prairie Creek Public Library, 501 

Carriage House Lane, Dwight, IL 

60420 

• East Alton Public Library, 250 

Washington Avenue, East Alton, IL 

62024 

• East St. Louis Public Library, 5300 

State Street, East St. Louis, IL 62203 

• Elkhart Public Library District, 121 

East Bohan Street, Elkhart, IL 62634 

• Manhattan-Elwood Public Library 

District, 240 Whitson Street, 

Manhattan, IL 60442 

• Frankfort Public Library District, 

21119 South Pfeiffer Road, Frankfort, 

IL 60423 

• Girard Township Library, 201 West 

Madison Street, Girard, IL 62640 

• Six Mile Regional Library District, 

2001 Delmar Avenue, Granite City, IL 

62040 

• Hartford Public Library District, 143 

West Hawthorne Street, Hartford, IL 

62048 

• Joliet Public Library, 150 North 

Ottawa Street, Joliet, IL 60432 

• Lemont Public Library, 50 East Wend 

Street, Lemont, IL 60439 

• Lexington Public Library District, 207 

South Cedar Street, Lexington, IL 

61753 

• Lincoln Public Library, 725 Peking 

Street, Lincoln, IL 62656 

• Lockport Public Library, 121 East 8th 

Street, Lockport, IL 60441 

• Madison Public Library, 1700 Fifth 

Street, Madison, IL 62060 

• Mount Hope-Funks Grove Public 

Library, 111 South Hamilton Street, 

McLean, IL 61754 

• Midlothian Public Library, 14701 

South Kenton Avenue, Midlothian, IL 

60445 

• Mokena Community Public Library, 

11327 West 195th Street, Mokena, IL 

60448 

• New Lenox Public Library, 120 

Veterans Parkway, New Lenox, IL 

60451 

• Normal Public Library, 206 West 

College Avenue, Normal, IL 61761 

• Acorn Public Library District, 15624 

South Central Avenue, Oak Forest, IL 

60452 

• Odell Public Library District, 301 East 

Richard Street, Odell, IL 60460 

• Orland Park Public Library, 14921 

South Ravinia Avenue, Orland Park, 

IL 60462 

• Pontiac Public Library, 211 East 

Madison Street, Pontiac, IL 61764 

• William Leonard Public Library 

District, 13820 Central Park Avenue, 

Robbins, IL 60472 

• Sherman Public Library District, 2100 

East Andrew Road, Sherman, IL 

62684 

• Springfield Lincoln Library, 326 

South Seventh Street, Springfield, IL 

62701 

• St. Louis Central Library, 1310 Olive 

Street, St. Louis, MO 63103 

• Summit Public Library District, 6233 

South Archer Road, Summit, IL 60501 

• Tinley Park Public Library, 7851 

Timber Drive, Tinley Park, IL 60477 

• Towanda District Library, 301 South 

Taylor Street, Towanda, IL 61776 

• Venice Public Library, 325 Broadway 

Avenue, Venice, IL 62090 

• Grand Prairie of the West Public 

Library District, 142 West Jackson 

Street, Virden, IL 62690 

• Williamsville Public Library, 141 

West Main Street, Williamsville, IL 

62693 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

38884 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2012 / Notices 

1SMRC states that it is a wholly owned 

subsidiary of TCW, which is currently controlled by 

the Estate, and that it is anticipated that the TCW 

stock held by the Estate will be distributed to the 

Trust in the near future. 

2SMRC indicates that, because it is likely that the 

acquisition transaction will close prior to the 

Board’s issuance of a decision on TCW’s 

continuance-in-control petition, TCW has entered 

into a Voting Trust Agreement pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 1013, under which the shares of SMRC will be 

deposited in a voting trust. 

• Wilmington Public Library District, 

201 South Kankakee Street, 

Wilmington, IL 60481 

• Wood River Public Library, 326 East 

Ferguson Avenue, Wood River, IL 

62095 

Issued in Washington, DC on June 25, 

2012. 

Corey W. Hill, 

Director, Rail Project Development and 

Delivery. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15993 Filed 6–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. FD 35640] 

Wyoming Connect Railroad LLC— 

Acquisition and Operation 

Exemption—Union Pacific Railroad 

Company 

Wyoming Connect Railroad LLC 

(WCR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified 

notice of exemption under 49 CFR 

1150.31 to acquire by lease from Union 

Pacific Railroad Company and to 

operate approximately 18.5 miles of rail 

line between milepost 0.0 at or near 

Yoder and milepost 18.5 at or near 

South Torrington, in Goshen County, 

Wyo. 

The transaction is scheduled to be 

consummated on or after July 15, 2012 

(30 days after the notice of exemption 

was filed). 

WCR certifies that its projected 

annual revenues as a result of this 

transaction will not exceed those that 

would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier 

and will not exceed $5 million. 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke will not 

automatically stay the effectiveness of 

the exemption. Petitions to stay must be 

filed no later than July 6, 2012 (at least 

7 days before the exemption becomes 

effective). 

An original and 10 copies of all 

pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 

35640, must be filed with the Surface 

Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001. In 

addition, a copy of each pleading must 

be served on Thomas F. McFarland, 208 

South LaSalle St., Suite 1890, Chicago, 

IL 60604. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at 

www.stb.dot.gov. 

Decided: June 21, 2012. 

By the Board. 

Richard Armstrong, 

Acting Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Unit. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15798 Filed 6–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. FD 35641] 

Sisseton Milbank Railroad Company— 

Acquisition and Operation 

Exemption—SLA Property 

Management Limited Partnership and 

Sisseton Milbank Railroad, Inc. 

Sisseton Milbank Railroad Company 

(SMRC), a noncarrier, has filed a 

verified notice of exemption under 49 

CFR 1150.31 to acquire from SLA 

Property Management Limited 

Partnership and Sisseton Milbank 

Railroad, Inc., their interests in, and to 

operate, an approximately 37.1-mile rail 

line between approximate railroad 

milepost 0.9 in or near Milbank and 

approximate railroad milepost 38.0 in or 

near Sisseton, in Grant and Roberts 

Counties, S.D. 

This transaction is related to a 

concurrently filed petition for 

exemption in Docket No. FD 35642, 

Twin Cities & Western Railroad 

Company, the Estate of Douglas M. 

Head and the DMH Trust fbo Martha M. 

Head—Continuance in Control 

Exemption—Sisseton Milbank Railroad 

Company, in which Twin Cities & 

Western Railroad Company (TCW), the 

Estate of Douglas M. Head (Estate), and 

the DMH Trust fbo Martha M. Head 

(Trust) seek Board approval to continue 

in control of SMRC upon SMRC’s 

becoming a Class III rail carrier.1

The parties expect to consummate the 

transaction on or after July 16, 2012.2

SMRC certifies that its projected 

annual revenues as a result of this 

transaction do not exceed those that 

would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier 

and will not exceed $5 million. 

If the verified notice contains false or 

misleading information, the exemption 

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) 

may be filed at any time. The filing of 

a petition to revoke will not 

automatically stay the effectiveness of 

the exemption. Petitions to stay must be 

filed no later than July 6, 2012 (at least 

seven days before the exemption 

becomes effective). 

An original and ten copies of all 

pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 

35641, must be filed with the Surface 

Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20423–0001. In 

addition, a copy of each pleading must 

be served on Rose-Michele Nardi, 

Weiner Brodsky Sidman Kider, PC, 1300 

Nineteenth Street NW., Fifth Floor, 

Washington, DC 20036–1609. 

Board decisions and notices are 

available on our Web site at 

‘‘www.stb.dot.gov.’’ 

Decided: June 26, 2012. 

By the Board. 

Rachel D. Campbell, 

Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Derrick A. Gardner, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15957 Filed 6–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. MCF 21046] 

Professional Transportation, Inc.— 

Asset Acquisition—CUSA ES, LLC and 

CUSA CSS, LLC 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Notice of Finance Application. 

SUMMARY: Professional Transportation, 

Inc. (PTI or Applicant), an interstate 

passenger motor carrier (MC–217444), 

has filed an application under 49 U.S.C. 

14303 to acquire the assets of two 

interstate motor passenger common 

carrier subsidiaries of noncarrier Coach 

America Holdings, Inc.—CUSA ES, LLC 

(MC–463168) and CUSA CSS, LLC (MC– 

522544) (collectively, Coach America 

Subsidiaries). On June 5, 2012, Michael 

Yusim, an individual, filed a letter in 

opposition, asserting that the public 

interest would not be served by 

allowing the transaction to proceed 

without certain Department of Labor 

proceedings first being completed. A 

copy of this notice will be served on Mr. 

Yusim. Persons wishing to oppose the 

application must follow the rules set 

forth at 49 CFR 1182.5 and 1182.8. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

August 13, 2012. Applicant may file a 

reply to any comments by August 28, 

2012. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Public Comment Disposition Table

RESOURCE AGENCY 

AND PUBLIC COMMENT 

DISPOSITION TABLE
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Parsons Response

JOLPH1 Tier 1 General - Opposes 

Project

Kohevar, Dan Is the cost benefit ($ spent-4 billion) to the ratio of riders really worth doing this project? By the 

numbers: I can't see it being worth it. Don't build it!!! 

This comment that indicates oppositi

JOLPH2 Tier 1 General - 

Funding/Cost

Barker, Pat Would like to see funding for next phase of study. The current construction to impleme

three round trip passenger trains per Joliet and Alton, is funded by both stawith a combination of both state and Springfield Rail Improvements is statset aside for final design of the Springfunding would be required to compleadditional Tier 2 studies in the corridunknown but could come from a comsources.

JOLPH2 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Routes

Barker, Pat Prefer heritage corridor alternative. The Heritage Corridor route (i.e., Sec

as part of the Preferred Alternative. Pthe rationale for the selection of the (Section 2). 

JOLPH3 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Mueller, CharlesPlainfield

I am a resident of Joliet, 60435. I heard about this through the newspaper. I think the public hearing was somewhat helpful and somewhat informative also. 

Comment noted. No response neede

JOLPH3 Tier 1 General - 

Funding/Cost

Mueller, CharlesPlainfield

My problem is that I'm --as I was telling the gentleman down there, is that I'm skeptical about any funding coming into our area. Who pays the rest of the funding, number one. Number two, have private sources been checked into to have a public/private alternative for the funding. 

The current construction to implemethree round trip passenger trains per Joliet and Alton, is funded by both stawith a combination of both state and Springfield Rail Improvements is statset aside for final design of the Springfunding would be required to compleadditional Tier 2 studies in the corridunknown but could come from a comsources.

JOLPH3 Tier 1 General Mueller, Charles

Plainfield

And then who maintains it? How does it get maintained. Some of that might be in the books but some of it is still fuzzy and unclear. 

Maintenance agreements would havprogram moves forward. It is likely thinfrastructure in the corridor with fin

JOLPH3 Tier 1 Purpose and Need Mueller, Charles

Plainfield

And when you live in Will County, when you have the whole airport issue that's been sitting out there for years and years and years and it is going nowhere -- and it probably will go nowhere -- the question I have, will this really help the transportation system? Highway? Air? Train service? Will it make it better in the long run? Is it needed in the long-run? IS it necessary?

As stated in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of thmade annually within the Chicago to automobile and air travel, with only ocontributes to high congestion, reducemissions and energy consumption, timproving high speed passenger rail stravel options would occur. Increased improvement in traveler safety in the emissions and energy consumption. 

JOLPH4 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Brooks, Herbert And in general the public hearing was very informative as well as planned and I say that because Matt 

was very helpful. He answered many questions for me, and here as a Will County Commissioner we get a lot of questions about these kind of projects, quick-take, what's going to happen to my property. Matt 

was very helpful. He put my mind at ease. They are not going to take my house. He answered questions very, very thorough for me. 

Comment noted. No response neede

Joliet Public Hearing - August 8, 2012, Jacob Henry Mansion - Victorian Ballroom, 15 South Richards Street, Joliet, IL 6043

h-1
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Parsons Response

Joliet Public Hearing - August 8, 2012, Jacob Henry Mansion - Victorian Ballroom, 15 South Richards Street, Joliet, IL 6043

JOLPH5 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Bresica, Dan Tony was very informative. Never hesitated to answer a question. Excellent Presentation. Comment noted. No response neede

JOLPH6 Tier 1 General Anonymous, Good info. Keep up the good work. Comment noted. No response needeJOLPH7 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Lang, Bill Being an avid cyclist and I have used all the Illinois Amtrak routes with my bicycle, I would like to see 

more bicycles allowed on trains. This allows for personal transportation upon arrival at destination. We need a full range of transpiration options from Chicago to St. Louis + return. Auto-phone-bus-train. We need high speed rail to encourage people to use rail vs. driving. Highways are too congested and with population growing, rail, Chicago speed passenger service will become a must. 

Comment noted. No response neede

JOLPH8 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Mueller, CharlesPlainfield

Well, I've been attending these things, to me it seems like it was three days after Columbus discovered America. I was playing around with it before I moved out here. I moved out here from the south side of Chicago in 1996. In the 1990's they were talking about high-speed rail, what they would have to do, and I know it's probably going through big metropolitan areas. You would be tearing down so many houses and that's a no-no. But I hate to say it but -- and I know there is a lot of work involved -- but it seems to be going along very slowly. 

The 2004 ROD improvements are undallow for three round trip passenger Joliet and Alton. The 2004 ROD improimprovements evaluated in this Tier these future studies has not yet been forward, the improvements identifieand over several years. 

JOLPH8 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Routes

Mueller, CharlesPlainfield

Secondly, we are talking about Chicago to St. Louis and you have all of these residential areas and farms and factories, and I never hear any of the railroads talking about Chicago to Los Angeles, because now that makes sense to me. You have got the property out there where there is space. We have got a couple trains running now. Improve those now before it gets to Chicago or Joliet or Springfield, where it is jammed and they can't do anything. 

Comment noted. The scope of the EIS Chicago and St. Louis. The consideratof the EIS. 

JOLPH9 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project/Alternative -Routes

Johnson, Russell I support using the Talgo Seares & railcars. I support using the Rock Island route Chicago to Joliet. IDOT is still considering what type of 

Rock Island District route (i.e., SectioSection 3.5 of the FEIS describes the Alternative.

JOLPH10 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Anonymous, I am totally in favor of high speed rail + all types of public transportation. I take the Amtrak + Metra 

whenever possible for my destination.

This comment that indicates support 

h-2
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

CHIPH1 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Ayers, Charles I would think that supposedly the U.S. is innovators and everything. We're way behind in high-speed rail 

traffic. Europe has it. Japan has it. Even China has it. Why are we not on that list? We should be. We've been, like I say, innovators in all technology, and we're way behind. Air travel is getting ridiculous. If this is true that they can do it in under four hours to St. Louis, why, I could see where it would take traffic away front he airlines. You could waste that much time getting in and out of the airport, and this is downtown to downtown. I think it's a great thing. I think we're about 20 years too late pushing it. Thank you very much. Have a good day.

This comment that indicates support 

CHIPH3 Tier 1 Alternatives Laing, Chris 

Advocate

There are good arguments for each alternative. I believe the alternatives should focus on passenger/customer satisfaction, social and environmental impact, and cost to taxpayers. I am sure no matter the decision the city population would adjust and city planners will accommodate. 

Comment noted. No response neede

CHIPH3 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Routes

Laing, Chris Advocate

I will caution that in regards to the Chicago-Joliet connection that the integrity and timeliness of the existing Metra Rock Island service be maintained and allowed to grow. In order to obtain 10-daily round trips for Chicago-St. Louis service along the Rock Island route could severely hinder Metra Service and I must oppose this decision as a Metra employee and user of the Rock Island route.

The Rock Island District route (i.e., Sethe Tier 2 evaluation, a more detailed will include coordination with Metra. improvements will be included to en

CHIPH4 Tier 1 General - Opposes 

Project

Dionesotes, Donald Matt is a good man. Listened to everything I said and responded when appropriate and sensibly. But I 

am still critical of spending big bucks which may be wasted because development - I believe - will not occur. Please put me on mailing list.

This comment that indicates oppositi

CHIPH5 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Bornal, Frank Amtrak Worker

It is a great thing for the state, as well as the country to advance into the 21st Century as far as high speed rail. It will bring the state together as with high speed rail will bring business and the travel industry together faster. I'm 100% being high speed rail and welcome the opportunity to use it. 

This comment that indicates support 

CHIPH6 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Kahler, Harvey Unaware of 2 MT + sidings, explains higher cost than 1 expected. 2 MT saves times lost reducing & 

recovering speed, reduced speed through passing tracks with 3-4 passenger & UNK freight meets and overtakes, about 6 miles of less than 110 MPH each occurrence. 2 MT also avoids delays with less than punctual service for various reasons. I would urge the CN alternative into Chicago & invest in grade separations that would allow expansion of Metra HC service to relieve demand on BNSF. CN alt allows closest walk to downtown Joliet. Another costly improvement, apparently needed, is new McArthur Bridge into Saint Louis. ? What speed would be allowed for HS turnouts with 61' point rails

Speed through turnouts is subject to it is assumed that the speed through 

CHIPH7 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Peterson, Jerry The most important priority is double tracking entirely from Chicago to St. Louis. This double track 

should be designed to accommodate high-speed for the future.

This comment that indicates support 

CHIPH8 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

White, Keith The project has been studied to death and the vast majority of the current schemes do little to get this 

much needed transportation improvement off the drawing boards. We do not need any more consultants, think-tank organizations or political demography as the people are fed up with the slow, arcane and useless studies that have been going on for forty plus years. Build this HSR corridor NOW!!

This comment that indicates support 

CHIPH9 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Kliewer, Laura MWRRI Advocate

Would have been better if there were people stationed at key places along the way asking "can I answer any questions?" Most all the consultants were sitting down at the tables; had to approach them. 

Comment noted. No response neede

Chicago Public Hearing - August 9, 2012, Union Station - Ballroom, 210 South Canal Street, Chicago, IL 60606

h-3
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Chicago Public Hearing - August 9, 2012, Union Station - Ballroom, 210 South Canal Street, Chicago, IL 60606

CHIPH9 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Kliewer, Laura MWRRI Advocate

Although I understand (from information provided from one of the consultants) that station location identification is not necessarily part of an EIS, that is a critical component for ridership, & public support. In particular, for this DEIS, there are "unknowns". If the Rock Island alternative between Chicago & Joliet is chosen, where will a station between those 2 locations be? Access to Midway from such a station could be a critical component, as well as ease of access for the surrounding population. One of the best aspects of the current system in Springfield is that it is "downtown" within easy walking distance to the capital & other key sites. If the chosen alternative does indeed avoid downtown (as is noted in the flyer) that is a huge problem. 

Potential new station locations would Chicago and St. Louis suburban statiostudies. In Springfield, the Tier 2 Evalpassenger rail corridor from 3rd Stree

CHIPH9 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Kliewer, Laura MWRRI Advocate

Also, while the purpose of the meeting is to inform people about the alternatives on the route, I think a lot more constructive information would have been helpful - some history of where IL has come (increase in service, etc.) & also how it fits in the broader regional plan. 

Comment noted. No response neede

CHIPH10 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Routes

Savoy, Morrell From a passenger train operations perspective I feel the best alternative is 4B. Building a connection to 

Union Station to scale gives an all passenger controlled route between Chicago and Joliet. This will lead to a more consistent operation. It also lends better utilization of the Englewood project. Option 4D subjects passenger trains to potential freight delays. A single track connection between CUS and SCAL has benefit to other passenger routes.

Alternative 4B was eliminated from fPlease refer to Section 3.5 of the FEIS of the Preferred Alternative. 

CHIPH11 Tier 1 

and 2

Alternatives - Routes

Darling, Philip MWHSR Member

Very informative of issues involved and how they're being dealt with to assure all concerns are addressed and dealt with. Chicago-Joliet: I support current C Heritage corridor for its simplicity and serving existing Amtrak service route. It would appear to be the least complicated and cost. Springfield: Tenth St would be less costly, closely paralleling existing service and causing less public inconvenience. St. Louis: Option 1A is less complicated and would be less costly although 1B would probably have more physical advantage while maybe increasing costs and more time consuming to accomplish.

Please refer to Section 3.5 of the FEIS of the Preferred Alternative. The Her

selected as part of the Preferred Alteselection of the Preferred Alternative 

CHIPH12 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Lang, Ray Strongly support the implementation of high-speed rail in Illinois. Look forward to seeing faster more 

frequent service. I do not have a preference for route alignments - only a desire to see increased service!

This comment that indicates support 

CHIPH13 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Routes

Decker, Ronald MR. DECKER: One, the Chicago-Joliet route should be the fastest and shortest one, which is probably the 

route through Lemont. 

Based on further evaluation, there is between Chicago and Joliet. See Sectthe Preferred Alternative. The HeritaSection 1) was not selected as part of 

CHIPH13 Tier 2 Alternatives - 

Routes

Decker, Ronald Two, the route through Springfield should be the line as close to the State capitol as possible if that 

would generate more business. 

Please refer to Volume II of this FEIS through Springfield. 

CHIPH13 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Decker, Ronald Three, there should be a stop in East St. Louis which would provide an easy transfer to the St. Louis light 

rail line and, if necessary, stop in East St. Louis rather than Alton. That's my comment.

The Preferred Alternative does not pnew station locations would require Louis suburban station location woul

CHIPH14 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Kyle, William Need Power Point presentation to bring everyone up to speed on the progress being made. More over, 

we need information on impediments being encountered and ideas for overcoming same. Lastly, we need information on the best estimate on when we might see a true Chicago to St. Louis high-speed rail line.

The 2004 ROD improvements are undallow for three round trip passenger Joliet and Alton. The 2004 ROD impro

improvements evaluated in this Tier these future studies has not yet been forward, the improvements identifieand over several years. 

CHIPH15 Tier 1 General Anonymous, We desperately need new, refurbished train equipment. Chicago Union Station was last refurbished in 

1990, now 22 years later everything's falling apart, from the filthy carpet at the boarding lounges, to the bathrooms, tiles, ceiling, dirty platforms that never get power washed. For first time train passengers coming to Chicago its a bad first impression.

Comment noted. No response neede

h-4
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Chicago Public Hearing - August 9, 2012, Union Station - Ballroom, 210 South Canal Street, Chicago, IL 60606

CHIPH16 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Routes

Anonymous, Route 4D between Chicago & Joliet makes the most sense. Seems like there'll be less conflict with 

freight trains.

Alternative 4D, the Rock Island DistriAlternative. Please refer to Section 3selection of the Preferred Alternative

CHIPH17 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Routes

Anonymous, Very informative, and I feel that plan 4B would be the best option out of Chicago from a freight 

congestion stand point and option 1A coming into St. Louis.

Alternative 4B was eliminated from fPlease refer to Section 3.5 of the FEIS of the Preferred Alternative. 

CHIPH18 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Anonymous, Appreciated this session/time/information. As a contractor look forward to seeing/following more 

information on participating in "doing business" on/with HSR Project.

Comment noted. No response neede

CHIPH19 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Anonymous, More additional notice of this hearing would be nice Comment noted. No response neede

CHIPH20 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Anonymous, Very well displayed information put together very well. Study was very good information Comment noted. No response neede

CHIPH21 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Anonymous, Advocacy Organization

Would prefer a PowerPoint presentation explaining each chart followed by a Q&A Comment noted. No response neede

CHIPH22 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Anonymous, Increasing retail options within walking distance of stations would help attract more regular riders. Comment noted. The scope of the EIS 

Chicago and St. Louis. The consideratof the EIS. 

CHIPH22 Tier 1 Alternatives Anonymous, The Alton to St. Louis segment should be focused on due to the current time being one of the greatest 

delays and slow areas in the system. 

If the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Prograbe advanced incrementally. As noted in the St. Louis area is one section tha

CHIPH22 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Anonymous, Will more express service be included? Potential train schedules will be eval

if eight HSR round trips were operatiprovide express service. As noted in Ctrains only stopping at Chicago, Joliet

CHIPH23 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Anonymous, Local design professional

I'm most concerned about this project providing an effective alternative mode of transportation that will keep pace with the word's best systems. Too many stops seem to be currently presented. It is imperative that this system leg maintains a focus on transportation between Chicago and St. Louis. The prime metro areas and basis of population and not pander to the multitude of small, rural communities along the way. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, traicurrently do, with the exception of SuIt is likely that if eight HSR trips were provide express service. As noted in Ctrains only stopping at Chicago, Joliet

CHIPH23 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Anonymous, Local design professional

Maximum efficiency is what draws riders most and helps keep costs at an attractive level. I hope to see a focus on express service options. Grade separation at all costs! This helps with speed & safety, of course, while also providing state of the art look & feel. This will be a monumental achievement for HSR in the U.S. and needs to look and function that way. Don't forget that we are amongst the heart of auto enthusiasts, so please spare no costs to show the Midwest, U.S. and North America what high (er) speed rail can offer. 

Potential train schedules will be evalif eight HSR round trips were operatiprovide express service. As noted in Ctrains only stopping at Chicago, JolietAppendix E of the FEIS identifies gradseparation in future Tier 2 studies. 

CHIPH24 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project/Alternatives - Routes

Anonymous, Amtrak Official

The idea of double track is great and alternate routes from CUS station - JOL as well as St. Louis to Merchants Bridge

This comment that indicates support 

CHIPH25 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Anonymous, I support double tracking the route. State should have partial ownership and dispatching control of the 

line

This comment that indicates support 

CHIPH26 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Anonymous, Need the double track ASAP! This comment that indicates support 

h-5
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

BMIPH1 Tier 1 General - Opposes 

Project

Anonymous, There is no need for another rail the one we have works just fine. This comment that indicates oppositi

BMIPH2 Tier 1 General - 

Funding/Cost 

Stevens, Gary I would appreciate funding being neutral to the overall budget for IDOT. Tolls should be increased on the 

highways to cover their costs and to decrease congestion to lower collisions and accidents. Then the money that is normally given to highways could be applied to improving passenger train connections.

The source of future funding for the but cold come from a combination of tolls on highways to pay for HSR imp

BMIPH2 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Routes

Stevens, Gary I would also like passenger trains to the Chicago and St. Louis airports from central Illinois. I would 

appreciate having a train reach Chicago by 8 am from central Illinois so businessmen people could have a longer day to use the train to get to Chicago.

The scope of the EIS is to evaluate imand downtown St. Louis. The considescope of the EIS. Precise schedules foHaving a train arrive in downtown Chin future Tier 2 studies. 

BMIPH3 Tier 1 Noise and 

Vibration

Anonymous, We are concerned regarding the noise the trains are making from the time they hit the city limits until 

they exit. We're looking forward to the new gates being installed and get the noise level under control.

Comment noted. Establishing quiet zgrade crossings) was not evaluated in 

BMIPH4 Tier 1 Noise and 

Vibration

Anonymous, Trains are still making way too much noise in our residential area. One train last week blew his horn at 

max noise level, 32 times in a 3 block area.

Comment noted. Establishing quiet zgrade crossings) was not evaluated in 

BMIPH5 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Anonymous, Hanson official very informed and answered questions I had about keeping old track. Comment noted. No response neede

BMIPH6 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Feeney, Steve Matt Heyen was very helpful in explaining everything that I wanted to know about crossing sites at grain 

elevators. He offered to send me the information I needed.

Comment noted. No response neede

BMIPH7 Tier 1 General - 

Consultation Process

Anonymous, Thanks for letting me know about the project. Comment noted. No response neede

BMIPH8 Tier 1 Alternatives Sicks, Jennifer

Local Govt Staff

Local governments in McLean County are interested in further examination of HSR impact on two regional transportation project; the county's portion of the statewide historic route 66 bicycle trail, and the McLean/Bloomington/Normal East side highway, currently in Phase 1 engineering. Portions of the route 66 Trail are already in place, and construction of a section between Normal and Towanda is programmed for summer 2013. The realignment of 1800 N and the crossing configuration, and the track configuration on Towanda will substantially impact this project.

As part of the Tier 1 studies, detailed improvements is not available at this available during the Tier 2 studies. Tdetermined. During the more detailewith MCRPC regarding the project's pProject and the East Side Highway. 

BMIPH8 Tier 1 Alternatives Sicks, Jennifer

Local Govt Staff

The East side highway interchange alternatives at I-55 will also be substantially impacted by the HSR alternatives in McLean County. 

The role of the Tier 1 EIS is to identify based on the anticipated double tracsufficient to detail whether or not thPart of the next level of study, referreneeded to determine these impacts. County during the more detailed Tier Side Highway Project and any measuthese impacts.

BMIPH9 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Reece, Sonja I'm in favor of reliable service - It's like "pretty much on time" service. If it can go faster, that would be a 

bonus.

Improvements included with the Prefreduced travel time, increased frequeachieved primarily by adding additionexcess of 110 mps would require closwhich is not considered a cost-effect

Bloomington Public Hearing - August 14, 2012, Marriot - Ballroom, 201 Broadway Street, Normal, IL 61761

h-6
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Bloomington Public Hearing - August 14, 2012, Marriot - Ballroom, 201 Broadway Street, Normal, IL 61761

BMIPH10 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Brandt, Larry So called experts say passenger rail in the US is of 19th century technology. The facts are: passenger rail 

moves people per mile for less money than any other form of transportation. Air corridors are saturated with planes - airports are obsolete and overcrowded and experts state also that building more is also not an option. The fact is existing highways are in bad repair with no means of keeping them in good repair. With sources of fossil fuel dwindling and exploring for more being ultra expensive, it is my opinion that rail travel, both conventional and high speed are indeed the best mode to be fully backed and funded for future travelers in our great country.

This comment that indicates support 

BMIPH11 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Treadway, Roy Some useful detail was missing on the information given. The alternatives chosen so far seem like the 

correct ones. I have no preference for one alternative or the other in the Chicago area based on the information given. I support moving forward on improvements in the Chicago - St. Louis corridor for more higher speed trains. I have grave reservations about the need or efficiency of an all new 220 mile per hour train service. No response needed, but keep me informed.

This comment that indicates support 

h-7
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

SPI1 Tier 1 General - 

Funding/Cost

Anonymous, This project will never happen due to the cost. Also, the time of travel reduction from Chicago to St. 

Louis is not cost efficient.

This comment that indicates oppositi

SPI2 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Anonymous, Just interested in seeing what is being proposed. The most important thing to me is the need for a double track, which is being proposed. This comment that indicates support 

SPI2 Tier 1 General - 

Funding/Cost

Anonymous, But the freight railroads will get benefits from the double track, too. So I think they should pay a greater 

share of the cost. 

The high speed rail improvements thneeded to operate passenger service improvements are not needed to sup

SPI3 Tier 1 Cultural Resources Dumbrowski, 

Rebecca & JP 

I am writing to express my concern for Williamsville, Illinois as relates to the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the high speed rail Chicago to St. Louis. Section 4, Exhibit 4.5-1Historic Architectural Resources shows a red marker in Williamsville, IL but it is not labeled on the map nor documented in the listing of historic sites. Within a few feet from the existing tracks is the old and restored Williamsville Train Depot that currently houses the Williamsville Library. A few yards immediately south of it is the Williamsville Historical society and museum that is contained in two converted railroad boxcars. Both of these historical resources would be destroyed under a double tracking plan and as such double tracking through Williamsville should not be allowed to happen. Currently there are no other buildings in the town available to house the thousands of historical documents and artifacts, nor is there one available to house the public library. Mr. J Frank Prather was 

the son of John Prather, one of the earliest settlers of Sangamon County, IL. He founded the Williamsville State Bank, was one of the founders of the Illinois national Bank, and was a founder and long-term president of the American shorthorn Cattle Breeders Association. He was a significant landowner in 

The role of the Tier 1 EIS it to identify along the corridor. The Tier 2 study wand minimize those impacts. If an immeasures will be identified that may measure deemed necessary.

Springfield Public Hearing - August 15, 2012, Abraham Lincoln Hotel and Conference Center - Ballroom, 701 East Adams Street, Spring

h-8
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

ALT1 Tier 1 General - Opposes 

Project/Safety

Kelting, A. I am against increasing speed on the tracks for safety reasons. I think the money could be spent in other 

places more wisely, for example improving Amtrak and making sure it is there in the future. Many of the people I have seen going on Amtrak are poor and probably not interested in going 110 mph, but dependability would be their main interest. Safety is mine.

This comment that indicates oppositi

represents 97.5 percent of the trips wtransportation when compared to aircorridor is expected to improve as traadditional trains operating in the corHowever, the implementation of a strisk. 

ALT2 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Bernett, Derek As a Republican that travels frequently, I never understand the resistance to public funding of rail 

passenger infrastructure when we pour billions into highways, the FAA, and airports. Full speed ahead on HSR rail, I say. I'm a licensed comm pilot and a trained locomotive engineer and rail is the most efficient city-to-city transportation available. Thank you for the public information. You all are doing an awesome job. 

This comment that indicates support 

ALT3 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Winslade, James It would be helpful if more information was directed to residents or small communities along the route. I 

live in Brighton, Illinois, 62012, and we are getting bits and pieces of information from varies sources. 

Public engagement was a key elemenHearings in August 2012, two rounds Fall of 2011. Outreach efforts and mewebsite, letters to public officials and 

ALT4 Tier 1 General Kelting, Marie I need to read the whole draft because I haven't done that yet. And I'm concerned about the cost as far 

as being effective for me to use once it happens. Right now a good portion of the time it's cost effective if it's just me traveling. 

The exact fare for the high speed rail estimate of travel times and costs by the FEIS. 

ALT4 Tier 1 General - Safety Kelting, Marie And I am concerned about possible accidents because of the high speed train. We have enough 

accidents, but they are saying it's supposedly part of the thing, but I'd like to make sure that the intersections in rural areas as well is very well marked. We don't need any more. 

As stated in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of thmade annually within the Chicago to automobile and air travel, with only ocontributes to high congestion, reducemissions and energy consumption, timproving high speed passenger rail stravel options would occur. Increased improvement in traveler safety in the emissions and energy consumption. 

ALT5 Tier 1 General - 

Funding/Cost

Anonymous, Trains are a form of interstate commerce. Healthcare, education, the environment, and other subjects 

that Congress has used our tax dollars for are not any form of commerce. Trains should receive tax dollars equivalent to the highway trust fund, not from Congress each year. 

Comment noted. No response neede

ALT5 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Anonymous, I hope Illinois serves as an example to expand train service that will be an increasing demand. Since the 

1980’s I have said that the automobile was invented to replace the horse, not the horse and trolley and train. High speed trains will be a tremendous help in ridership. In fact, I feel we will get from DT St. Louis to DT Chicago quicker than flying air from airport to airport and then heading DT. Thank you. 

This comment that indicates support 

ALT6 Tier 1 General Anonymous, I know funding is always a problem, but it's good to see the momentum continuing. Just have to wonder 

where we'd be if this had been done 20, 30, 40, even 50 years ago.

Comment noted. No response neede

ALT7 Tier 1 Purpose and Need Anonymous, 1) Need. Seems questionable. It will be beneficial for tourists/casual visitors to Chicago, but useless to 

business travelers for locations in the suburbs. 

Section 2 of the FEIS discusses the PuImprovements to the high speed rail transportation modes. Rail ridership increase even more with the propose

ALT7 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Anonymous, 2) Information to residents is nonexistent. Local officials are not passing the word. I found out when 

crews showed up to locate property lines, then the Internet provided a wealth of information. Basically, the local officials need to hold public meetings to discuss the issue. 

Public engagement was a key elemenHearings in August 2012, two rounds Fall of 2011. Outreach efforts and mewebsite, letters to public officials and 

Alton Public Hearing - August 16, 2012, Holiday Inn – Ballroom 3800 Homer Adams Parkway, Alton, IL 62002

h-9
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Alton Public Hearing - August 16, 2012, Holiday Inn – Ballroom 3800 Homer Adams Parkway, Alton, IL 62002

ALT7 Tier 1 Land Use Anonymous, 3) Track 6 has very little information in Tier 1 study. Need more detail on the plans for acquisition of 

residents and other property along the track. 

The role of the Tier 1 EIS is to identify acquisition along the corridor based oengineering at this point is not sufficinext level of study, referred to as Tiedetermine impacts. At that point, if amitigation may be identified along wrelocation assistance. 

ALT7 Tier 1 General - 

Funding/Cost

Anonymous, 4) Use of taxpayer money to improve assets of private company is questionable. The high speed rail improvements th

needed to operate passenger service improvements are not needed to sup

ALT8 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Anonymous, Keep pushing this alignment forward. We need transportation alternatives to highways. Having the 

trains go over 100 is a plus. Once the travel is closer to what a car can go from St. Louis to Chicago, people will take the train. More frequent trains spread out throughout the day is also a big plus to increase ridership. Good luck

This comment that indicates support 

ALT9 Tier 1 General Anonymous, Everything seems copacetic. You never know for sure. Comment noted. No response neede

h-10
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

OC1 Tier 1 General Scarfino, Gail I am wondering if the "high speed" train and the "bullet train" are the same or different projects. The Build Alternatives evaluated in th

speeds of up to 125 mph through poIDOT is evaluating the Chicago-St. Loconcept. This service, at speeds up to corridor, or a combination of both, amph concept is intended as a complerail service that is being evaluated by 

OC1 Tier 1 General - 

Schedule/Alternatives - Program Elements

Scarfino, Gail I am also wondering when the estimated completion dates are for Chicago to St. Louis and how long the 

trip will be shaved down to. Thanks

The 2004 ROD improvements, which by 2015 and will reduce the trip time five hours 30 minutes to four hours athe improvements evaluated in this Tfinal design, or construction. As a resdate. Under the Preferred Alternative end travel time, would be just under 

OC2 Tier 1 General - Schedule Noll, Mae I am just a regular citizen & train patron who lives in Springfield IL. I was wondering what the long term 

time line looked like for completion of HSR St L to Chicago.

The 2004 ROD improvements, which by 2015. With the exception of Sprinare currently not funded for Tier 2 stthere are not estimate available for a 

OC2 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Noll, Mae I am looking forward to seeing the IL HSR complete! This comment that indicates support 

OC2 Tier 1 General Noll, Mae I know there are some road blocks. What are the best and worst case scenarios for seeing this become a 

reality? Thank you!

Following the completion of the Tier detailed engineering and environmen

are complete, the project can proceeall these step are complete, constructhere is no funding identified for thes

OC3 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Williams, Otis why no station in east st louis.remembering relay station TRRA EADS bridge? The Preferred Alternative does not p

new station locations would require 

OC4 Tier 1 General - Opposes 

Project

Madison, DennisMadison & Asociates, Inc.

This new high speed line is a total waste of taxpayer dollars in a state that is broke, as well as the new Alton, IL depot station, being built on a new site in. The old station handled the meager rider needs without spending hundreds of thousands on a new station. And, on top of all of that, AMTRAK needs a subsidy to exist...total BS!!

This comment that indicates oppositi

OC5 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

McClure, Matthew I am a huge proponent of high-speed rail as are many of my friends and relatives. It is great to see the 

State of Illinois and the Federal Government working in concert to recognize HSR aids everyone, even those who don't use it, but reducing congestion and improving the quality of life for all. I write this email as a proponent with some expertise as my 1986 dissertation at the University of Chicago entitled, "The Evolution of Metropolitan Chicago's Railway Pattern 1957-1986" gave me considerable field and research experience in understanding Chicago's rail system.

This comment that indicates support 

Online Comments Received through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Website www.idothsr.org or Written Comment

h-11
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Online Comments Received through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Website www.idothsr.org or Written Comment

OC5 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Routes

McClure, Matthew I have a couple of suggestions. Neither route north of Dwight is especially compelling. Both the ex-RI 

route and the ex-GM&O routes have numerous rail and road crossings. The current ex-GM&O route (current Heritage Corridor) is choked with at-grade rail crossings and is always slow. It also shares space with HC Metra trains. The ex-RI has fewer rail crossings, but is also busy with RI District trains. Instead, consider routing east at Dwight along the Norfolk Southern route east to Kankakee. This route could feed into the broad ex-IC right-of-way (now CN). This ROW was once 3-4 tracks. There is plenty of room for two dedicated tracks adjacent to the CN. Especially important is that the last 29.4 miles into the South Loop are road and rail crossing free. CN is planning to pull all its trains from this original lakefront route. From a new Millennium Park station (to relieve congestion from Union Station) there is enough room for dedicated main tracks with wide track centers for HSR. These lines would feed down to Grand Crossing where the moribund ex-NYC ROW to the east could be utilized for Indiana and Michigan services following a connector track down to the CN. This would make for a single HSR entry into the city that trains east to Michigan and Indiana, south to Champaign and Carbondale, and southwest to St. Louis could all utilize. Yes, the distance toward St. Louis would be greater, but service reliability would be far 

Routes to Kankakee were eliminated for the Tier 1 DEIS. The Notice of Inteadditional information. Additionally, Chicago and Joliet to improve operat

OC6 Tier 1 Cultural Resources Dombrowski , 

Rebecca

I am writing to express concern for Williamsville, Illinois as relates to the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the High-Speed Rail from Chicago to St. Louis. Section 4, Exhibit 4.5-1 Historic Architectural Resources shows a red marker in Williamsville, IL but it is not labeled on the map nor documented in the listing of historic sites. Within a few feet from the existing tracks is the old and restored Williamsville Train Depot that currently houses the Williamsville Library. A few yards immediately south of it is the Williamsville Historical Society and Museum that is contained in two converted railroad boxcars. Both of these historical resources would be destroyed under a double tracking plan and as such double tracking through Williamsville should not be allowed to happen. Currently there are no other buildings in the town available to house the thousands of historical documents and artifacts, nor is there one available to house the public library. Mr. J. Frank Prather was the son of John Prather, one of the early settlers of Sangamon County, Illinois. He founded the Williamsville State Bank, was one of the founders of the Illinois National Bank, and was a founder and long-term President of the American Shorthorn Cattle Breeders Association. He was a significant 

One of the roles of the Tier 1 EIS is to along the corridor based on the propengineering at this point is not sufficimention located in Williamsville wouthe next level of study, referred to as determine impacts. At that point, if amitigation of the impact may include deemed necessary.

OC7 Tier 1 General - Opposes 

Project

Linhardt, Marc Ridership levels will be minimal. As an example my wife and I go to Detroit four or five times a year and 

there is no chance we would take a Chicago-Detroit train. First we don't live next to Union Station so there is that commute and then our final destination in Detroit is suburban so somebody would have to pick us up or we would have to rent a car. The train trip might be quicker than driving, but once you include all the add-ons it might take 50% longer via train. Even Intra-city trains such as the el can not even compete with buses on a cost per passenger basis. Furthermore Illinois can not afford its portion of the costs, regardless of whether the federal government can. No Build is the only correct choice.

This comment that indicates oppositi

OC8 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Woods, Ellen Bravo and thanks to the policy makers and the politicians that are partnering to make this ESSENTIAL 

addition to the infrastructure of our nation a REALITY.

This comment that indicates support 

OC8 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Wood, Ellen Please advise regarding any plans to integrate freight into this process. As part of developing this Tier 1 FEIS, 

railroads occurred. Additionally, freigorder to maintain the ability of freighthe speed and number of high speed railroads will continue as the Program 

OC9 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Beck, George When constructing second track, track centers should be wide enough to allow wide loads to pass and to 

keep train equipment apart at least 12 feet. Also extra precautions should be taken to prevent "HEAT KINKS".

Proposed track centers for new constin the St. Louis area. The proposed trare 20 feet. Your comment regarding 

OC10 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Ernst, Robert I am in total support of upgrading this rail line and others. This comment that indicates support 

h-12
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Online Comments Received through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Website www.idothsr.org or Written Comment

OC11 Tier 1 General Perryman, Nick Will it ever happen? Following the completion of the Tier 

detailed engineering and environmenare complete, the project can proceeall these step are complete, constructhere is no funding identified for thes

OC12 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Peterson, Jerry I hope 2 tracks are being built between Chicago and St. Louis This comment that indicates support 

OC13 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Arbolino, Jennifer I agree that the route planned between Chicago and Springfield should be built to accommodate the 

highest speed possible within fiscal restraints. We must plan for a significant improvement in service. For example, a 2 hour trip would attract more riders, more support and more interest. A 4-5 hour trip would hardly impress anyone who might alternately drive a car.

The project's goal is to optimize perfomph will require that all grade crossior grade separated. Under the Preferestimated end-to-end travel time woSt. Louis.

OC14 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Farris, Jeffrey I have a scheduling conflict with the public meeting in Alton, but wanted to let you know I fully support 

the St. Louis-Chicago high-speed rail corridor. I'm anxiously awaiting my first trip to Chicago on the new line.

This comment that indicates support 

OC15 Tier 1 General - Opposes 

Project

Anonymous STOP BUILDING HIGH SPEED RAIL!!!!

The survey sent out by IDOT was biased for High Speed Rail and presented the question with significant bias. Any survey stating the State wants high speed rail is significantly inaccurate.

This comment that indicates oppositi

OC15 Tier 1 General - Safety Anonymous It is a true shame that people's lives and property are less valuable than the high speed rail. Shame on 

the lawmakers for not valuing the lives of their constituents. Closing off crossings in the rural areas so ambulances and fire trucks have to travel greater distances, which are crucial in those areas, can cost lives, livestock and property.

As stated in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of thmade annually within the Chicago to automobile and air travel, with only ocontributes to high congestion, reducemissions and energy consumption, timproving high speed passenger rail stravel options would occur. Increased improvement in traveler safety in the emissions and energy consumption. 

OC15 Tier 1 General - 

Funding/Opposes Project

Anonymous Since Amtrak posts a deficient year after year, who will be subsidizing the high speed rail when it fails to 

make a profit or break even? Tax payers will be paying enough to bail out the broke State of Illinois. Please do not tax us any more.STOP HIGH SPEED RAIL!!!!!

This comment that indicates oppositito implement the 2004 ROD improve

trains per day to operate at speeds uboth state and federal funds. This Tiestate and federal funds. The Tier 2 evstate funded only. Some state fundinSpringfield Rail Improvements. Howecomplete that final design. Finally, thcorridor at this time. The source of fcombination of federal, state, local, a

OC16 Tier 1 General - 

Safety/Opposes Project

Anonymous STOP HIGH SPEED RAIL.

The automobile/train and person/train deaths will increase but will not be reported due to the current reporting by rail roads. When has there been a publicly published number of train/auto or train/people accidents? Never, because they don't want the number of suicides published. It's high.

This comment that indicates oppositirepresents 97.5 percent of the trips wtransportation when compared to aircorridor is expected to improve as traadditional trains operating in the corHowever, the implementation of a strisk.

h-13
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Online Comments Received through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Website www.idothsr.org or Written Comment

OC16 Tier 1 General - 

Funding/Opposes Project

Anonymous I don't want to have to pay more in taxes to subsidize another rail road like we do for Amtrak, who keeps 

draining money from working citizens.STOP HIGH SPEED RAIL.

This comment that indicates oppositito implement the 2004 ROD improvetrains per day to operate at speeds uboth state and federal funds. This Tiestate and federal funds. The Tier 2 evstate funded only. Some state fundinSpringfield Rail Improvements. Howecomplete that final design. Finally, thcorridor at this time. The source of fcombination of federal, state, local, a

OC17 Tier 1 

and Tier 2

General - Supports Project

Harnish, Rick This letter serves as the Midwest High Speed Rail Association’s comment regarding the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that has been prepared for the Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri High Speed Rail Corridor Program. The Midwest High Speed Rail Association supports the proposed investments outlined in the document, with several modifications that would allow for faster and more frequent trains in the future. MHSRA believes that sufficient travel demand exists to warrant making these investments today. As such, the implementation plan outlined in in Section 7 is too conservative. The State should expedite construction of the Chicago – Springfield improvements outlined in the DEIS, with modifications as suggested below. 

This comment that indicates support 

OC17 Tier 1 

and Tier 2

Alternatives - Program Elements

Harnish, Rick Our greatest concern is that this DEIS will be viewed as the State of Illinois’s long-term goal for the 

corridor. This DEIS calls for an express trip time of 3 hours 50 minutes with only 9 daily round-trips. The long-term goal should be a Chicago – St. Louis trip time of less than 2 hours with at least hourly service. MHSRA recognizes that this aggressive service goal cannot be accomplished within the existing heavyhaul freight corridor studied in the DEIS. A new corridor, dedicated to high-speed passenger trains, will be needed for most of the route. We applaud IDOT for conducting a separate feasibility study for a 220-mph Core Express line that would achieve the 2-hour trip time. 

Corridor improvements that would reSt. Louis is beyond the scope of this sevaluating the Chicago-St. Louis 220 service, at speeds up to 220 mph, macombination of both, and could servithat is being evaluated by this EIS. 

OC17 Tier 1 

and Tier 2

Alternatives - Program Elements

Harnish, Rick There are three locations at which this DEIS suggests the construction of new infrastructure. Any new 

infrastructure constructed as part of this corridor plan should be constructed to also serve as the urban access for 220-mph Core Express trains in the future. 

The scope of this study was to evaluaEvaluating improvements to accommproject. As noted above, IDOT is cond220 mph project concept.

OC17 Tier 1 

and Tier 2

Alternatives Harnish, Rick Those three locations are as follows: Chicago Access: The DEIS does not adequately address the 

constraint created by the 21st street bridge over the Chicago River. This bridge has a very low river clearance and must be raised for small pleasure craft. The DEIS suggests a new bridge will be built alongside the existing bridge, but does not address how the clearance issues caused by the 16th Street bridge and the Orange Line bridge will be addressed. This oversight represents a serious flaw in the overall plan. The two routing options from Joliet to Chicago cannot be properly evaluated without a developing a true plan for this bridge. The St. Charles Airline bridge is substantially higher than the 21st Street bridge and may offer a better solution. 

The 21st Street bridge will be further 

OC17 Tier 1 

and Tier 2

Alternatives -Routes

Harnish, Rick MHSRA requests that Option 4B, which includes a new, direct connection from the St. Charles Airline into 

Union Station, be returned as an active option and that any further planning around the 21st Street bridge consider the needs of Core Express trains. 

Alternative 4B was eliminated from fPlease refer to Section 3.5 of FEIS for the Preferred Alternative. Improvembeyond the scope of this project. 

h-14
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Online Comments Received through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Website www.idothsr.org or Written Comment

OC17 Tier 2 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Harnish, Rick Springfield Routing: MHSRA supports making short-term improvements to the 3rd Street corridor 

needed to improve trip times, reliability and safety until the 10th Street corridor is constructed. MHSRA requests that the 10th Street corridor be designed and constructed to: • Eliminate highway grade crossings • Allow for passenger trains to access Decatur and Champaign • Create separate passenger tracks, with provisions for future electrification.

Please refer to Volume II of this FEIS through Springfield. 

OC17 Tier 1 

and Tier 2

Alternatives - Program Elements

Harnish, Rick Mississippi River Bridge: The DEIS correctly identifies the need for additional railroad capacity over the 

Mississippi River at St. Louis. MHSRA requests that any new bridge or improvements to an existing bridge be designed to serve as the crossing point for Core Express trains. 

Improvements to accommodate Core project. 

OC17 Tier 1 

and Tier 2

Alternatives - Routes

Harnish, Rick Additionally, the State should consider the potential of leaving the existing corridor south of Springfield. 

This would overcome the challenge presented in the Macoupin Bottoms and the additional curvature present south of Springfield. It would then eliminate duplicating state investment when the State moves to construct 220- mph track linking these cities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

The Preferred Alternative generally fstudies, the modification to some exievaluated further to determine if chahigher speeds (up to 110 mph). 

OC19 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Pedraza, Bill As a citizen of Illinois, I am pleased to know that we are taking a bold step in bringing high speed rail to 

the Midwest. After learning about the various construction periods and the alternate routes that are being considered, I get the sense that our state representatives are reaching out and listening to our comments regarding the future of passenger rail in Illinois. I am also gratified to see our tax dollars being used wisely to build a better future for all by investing in our transportation infrastructure. I look forward to the start of this new service in the near future.

This comment that indicates support 

OC20 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Bell, Ed Kudos to the people of Illinois (where I was born and raised) for seeing the benefits of this investment. 

Sadly, the people of my current state of residence did not.

This comment that indicates support 

OC21 Tier 1 General Hein, Wally It appears to me Illinois and California are leading the nation in high speed rail projects! Comment noted. No response needeOC22 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Wind, David what is the layout or position of the second track you are going to build through Alton IL. I was at a public 

meeting concerning this today. One of your representatives told me that there was detailed info on the proposed layout of the second rail line on this website but I can find nothing here.

A second track east of the existing traAppendix A of the document provideadditional track throughout the corri

OC24 Tier 1 

and Tier 

2

Alternatives - Routes/ General - Opposes Project

Grieser, Dale This is in regard to the location of the high speed rail road tracks through Springfield Illinois (including 

other tracks). I believe the Alternative 2A to be the best choice for the good of Springfield. However, I have never thought building a high speed rail line between St. Louis and Chicago was a good idea. I think it is a big waste of public funds. I hope it never happens. 

This comment that indicates oppositi

OC25 Tier 1 

and Tier 2

Alternatives - Routes

Tornatore, Gregory I am writing to comment on the draft Chicago-St. Louis EIS. I am concerned with the portions of the 

document that address the portions of the route south of Springfield. The State of Illinois is currently conducting a feasibility study for a 220 mph high speed rail line that also includes this segment. I do not think that it would be prudent to go forward with the proposed land taking and investment in track and other improvements proposed in this segment of the UPRR route. Two other studies have already been completed which include this segment under the auspices of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. While both looked at the UPRR alignment currently used by Amtrak, neither selected it. The problems with it include: > > * It is a number of miles longer than other historic rail routes, thus inherently slower. > * It is a strategic UPRR freight route which would be unsuitable for sharing with 220 mph trains, especially with the hourly, or better, service assumed in those other studies > * The state’s agreement with UPRR limits speed to 110 mph and a limited number of daily trains (not all of them even being allowed to operate at 110 mph). > * It has significant curvature, which will limit trains to less than 110 mph, never mind future upgrade to 220 mph. > * Several miles through the Macoupin Bottoms are not 

The Build Alternatives evaluated in thspeeds of up to 125 mph through poIDOT is evaluating the Chicago-St. Loconcept. This service, at speeds up to corridor, or a combination of both, amph concept is intended as a comple

rail service that is being evaluated by the existing rail corridor. During Tier including south of Springfield, will be curves could be made to allow for hig

h-15
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Online Comments Received through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Website www.idothsr.org or Written Comment

OC25 Tier 1 

and Tier 2

Alternatives - Program Elements

Tornatore, Gregory In the Northeast Corridor Amtrak has recently developed what it calls a “stair step” approach to 

implementing 220 mph high speed rail. This should be considered for Springfield-St. Louis as well. Making a major investment in double-tracking the current UPRR/Amtrak alignment would be inconsistent with that concept. My concern is that if a large investment is made in double tracking the UPRR for passenger operations it is likely to be very difficult to justify subsequent investment in another route for 220 mph operation. In truth, Illinois does not need two very closely parallel double track routes south of Springfield. I have no problem with moving forward with the segment north of Springfield; Illinois needs a double track railroad between Chicago and Springfield via Normal, whether a new route via Champaign is built, or not. > > 

The proposed infrastructure improveincrementally. The sequence of the sadditional service being provided and infrastructure required. 

OC25 Tier 1 

and Tier 2

Alternatives - Program Elements

Tornatore, Gregory The scope of the portion of the Tier 1 EIS covering the route south of Springfield should be revised to 

analyze a broader range of alignments and, perhaps, an evaluation factor added for suitability for future upgrade as part of a 220 mph operation. The other feasibility studies found very straight routes south of Springfield that have little or no freight operations (daytime freight curfews would be possible). To minimize costs those alignments would not need to be initially made free of grade crossings (as would eventually be necessary for operation at speeds above 110 or 125 mph). These alignments would bypass existing stations at Carlinville (the village’s population is about 6000; a stop could be established to serve the area a few mile to the east) and Alton (it should be replaced by a station more centrally located in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis metropolitan area). > > 

The scope of this study was to evaluaEvaluating improvements to accommproject. 

OC25 Tier 2 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Tornatore, Gregory Finally, the major improvements that are planned for the segment through Springfield should be 

designed so that the 10th Street alignment can accommodate high speed trains coming from Champaign, and eventually become passenger-only (avoiding the need to mix trains designed for 220 mph operation with major freight train operations), with no at-grade crossings, with UPRR freights routed via the 19th Street alignment. The description of the alignment recommended in the Tier 1 EIS may well be general enough to cover this concept, although the description should be revised to allow for the possibility of splitting passenger and freight trains coming from Chicago on the UPRR route. Presumably, this concept would need to be analyzed in Tier 2.

Please refer to Volume II of this FEIS through Springfield. 

OC26 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Routes

Twitchell, Doug 1. On Page 6-9, it says: "As sensitivity analysis to support this assumption, UP evaluated the full double 

tracking of the corridor and then also evaluated the corridor if two segments of the route remained with single track. These two segments are located in the Macoupin Bottoms and near Alton, where construction may be more costly and impacts more significant, and they total 16 miles." This statement indicates that these two segments have such impact and costs that an alternative sensitivity analysis was made. However, the segments are never mentioned (at least in the same manner) in the Affected Environment section or the Environmental Consequences section, nor is the additional cost indicated in the Alternative section. Finally, the potential lack of double track on these sections is not mentioned as a possible alternative in the description of the alternatives. It seems that if these sections really are so important as to warrant running a sensitivity analysis, then they should appear in the other sections. It is possible that they do appear on the various maps, but since the sections are never identified by name on the maps (e.g., labeled as "Macoupin Bottoms"), it is difficult to determine if they are mentioned. If the environmental analysis did not find significant impacts on these two segments, then the statement 

The impacts included in the Tier 1 FEconstructed through the Macoupin Btest in this area to determine the impremained single track based on the amentioned as background informatiowill include a more detailed analysis 

OC26 Tier 1 General Twitchell, Doug 2. On page 6-5 it discusses a "Services Outcomes Agreement" and a "maintenance agreement" between 

IDOT and UP. Could these documents be made publicly available on idothsr.org? 

These documents are not available fo

h-16
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Online Comments Received through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Website www.idothsr.org or Written Comment

OC26 Tier 1 Alternatives Twitchell, Doug 3. On Page 6-10 it says that UP and IHB expect to interchange traffic at Argo using a connection being 

constructed in 2012. Later, on page 6-19, when discussing traffic between Chicago and Joliet, it discusses UP trains operating "all the way to the new connection at Brighton Park." Using "the" here makes it seem to refer back to some connection already discussed, but it couldn't be the one at Argo. I couldn't find any discussion of a new connection at Brighton Park. 

A new connection is planned at BrighEnvironmental & Transportation Efficpart of the Tier 1 EIS. 

OC26 Tier 1 General Twitchell, Doug 4. Exhibit 6.1-9 on Page 6-25 does not match its caption. It is the same stringline as in Exhibit 6.1-8 

instead of the one showing traffic between Bloomington and East St. Louis.

Exhibit 6.1-9 will be corrected in the 

OC27 Tier 1 Land Use Miller, Kendall 

Evergreen FS Inc. 

I am the General Manager of Evergreen FS Inc., a farm cooperative serving the needs of thousands of farmers in Dewitt, Livingston, Macon, McLean and Woodford Counties. I just became aware of the proposal to expand the rail lines running adjacent to properties that we operate. Due to the late date of being made aware of this proposal, I was unable to attend any of the recent public hearings on the topic. I wish to express the concern of our patrons and owners regarding the proposed rail expansion that is being discussed through some of the counties mentioned above. Evergreen FS currently owns, leases, or operates facilities in towns that appear to be impacted by this expansion including Lexington, Chenoa, Towanda, McLean Grain Elevator, and a fertilizer facility that lies South of the town of McLean Illinois. In each of these various locations, we operate facilities that appear to be negatively impacted by the addition of a second proposed railroad line, or in the instance of Towanda, a proposed “pull out” set of tracks for a train to occupy while another train passes the area. First let me say that we are not opposed to progress and improved service to the area, however, we do have serious concerns regarding the potential dislocation of major components of our grain elevator facilities, as well as safety and other 

The role of the Tier 1 EIS it to identify along the corridor. The Future Tier 2 to avoid and minimize those impactsmitigation measures will be identified any other measure deemed necessar

OC27 Tier 1 Land Use Miller, Kendall 

Evergreen FS Inc. 

With the limited time I have had to research the project, it appears that at Towanda that at least three of our permanent structures and possibly more would be within the “set-back” that would be required to be relocated if the project were to be completed as proposed. Many of these structures are an integral part of our business and would cause severe disruption of the traffic flow and business conducted if we are forced to make significant changes. I assume that property owners who may be forced to relocate would be adequately compensated for the cost of removal, relocation, and business interruption during this process, although I have been unable to confirm that this will be the case. I understand that we are “early” in the process and key components of funding, environmental impact, property acquisition, etc are yet to be decided; but we do hope that our voices will be heard at a later date if and when the project moves along toward a more concrete proposal. 

Right-of-way purchases conducted pthe Uniform Relocation Assistance anRelocation Act) (Title 42 United Stateapplies to all federal or federally assiproperty or the displacement of residprovisions of the State of Illinois ReloUniform Relocation Act. A more detafuture Tier 2 studies. 

OC27 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Miller, Kendall Evergreen FS Inc. 

As a property owner that will most definitely be impacted by this proposal, I would ask you to please include us (to my attention at the address indicated below) in any future mailings, notifications, or communications about the project so that we can be in attendance at future meetings to learn and participate to a greater extent in this process. Thank you for registering our concerns and written comments regarding the Draft EIS.

Individuals submitting comments on list and will receive updates as milest

OC29 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Brubaker, Kevin Environmental Law & Policy Center

On behalf of the Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC), I am writing to offer comments for the record in the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("dEIS"). For more than fifteen years our organization has been a vocal supporter of high-speed rail in the Midwest and along this corridor. We commend you for the work now taking place to bring 110 mph service to the corridor and for planning this next round of improvements in capacity and speed. 

This comment that indicates support 

h-17
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Online Comments Received through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Website www.idothsr.org or Written Comment

OC29 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Routes

Brubaker, Kevin Environmental Law & Policy Center

I. Access to Union Station: As you work to determine the preferred alternative from Joliet to Chicago, we urge serious consideration of the Rock Island route ("Alternative 4"). In our August 3, 2000 comments on the earlier Environmental Impact Statement for this corridor, we stated the following: "ELPC therefore requests that lot examine whether a connection to Union Station is feasible from the Rock Island line, a route that may prove preferable by offering less freight rail congestion and eliminating concerns raised by community leaders in Lockport. " A dozen years later, the freight congestion problems have only gotten worse while the cost to alleviate the congestion has risen dramatically. 

Alternative 4D, the Rock Island DistriPreferred Alternative. Please refer to for the selection of the Preferred Alte

OC29 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

Brubaker, Kevin Environmental Law & Policy Center

Planning for the best approach to Chicago should not be done in a vacuum but should consider a host related: • High-speed trains from Detroit to approach Union Station without delays. Work is about to begin on an Environmental Impact Statement for rail improvements between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac. Meanwhile, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan have received federal funds to study for improvements between Union Station and Porter, Indiana. • A feasibility study is about to be released for 220 mph service between Chicago, Indianapolis, and St. Louis via Champaign. While it is premature to determine whether this particular proposal will prove feasible, planning for high-speed rail access to Chicago should be done in a way that contemplates major increases in speed and capacity in the future • The CREATE program has designated a "passenger express corridor" along the Rock Island Railroad between downtown and Belt Junction, then continuing along the Metra Southwest Service corridor. • An Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared for the Grand Crossing Rail Project to address the need for, among other things, Amtrak's City of New Orleans, Illini, and Saluki services to have a direct approach to Union Station. • Metra has plans for a variety of improvements to rail service on its 

Undertaking a study of the entire ter

OC29 Tier 1 Alternatives Brubaker, Kevin 

Environmental Law & Policy Center

2. Implementation Plan:Quite properly, this dEIS focuses almost exclusively on the potential impacts of a full build-out of the proposed project. While the Implementation Plan contained in Section 7 of the dEIS provides a rough outline of potential action steps, more analysis is necessary in order for IDOT and the public to identify those investments that can bring the most benefit for the least cost. This analysis should also identify the degree to which Metra and freight railroads benefit from the projects, thereby providing guidance on the appropriate share of the investment cost they should bear. The dEIS notes that "it is unlikely that a full double track corridor or a complete set of improvements listed in the Tier I DEIS would be necessary to support the initial incremental improvements along the corridor." We look forward to the time when the analysis is available to identify which investments will bring with them which benefits. In other words, we need value engineering as well as environmental documentation before investments can be made wisely.

Future Tier 2 studies will further eval

the staging needed to achieve the fuThe high speed rail improvements thneeded to operate passenger service improvements are not needed to supproject is intended to provide for the handle increased passenger service w

OC29 Tier 1 Energy Brubaker, Kevin 

Environmental Law & Policy Center

3. Environmental Benefits: We believe that in several instances the dEIS understates the benefits of highspeed rail to the environment. Section 5.3's analysis of energy consumption by high-speed trains appears to be based on the energy consumption of existing trains summarized in Table 4.3-1. In fact, modern locomotives and bi-level passenger cars are likely to be more efficient than existing rolling stock which is often decades old. Moreover, these figures are based on average load factors for each mode of transportation. In fact, high-speed trains along this corridor are likely to experience higher load factors than the average intercity train did in 2008. And on the other side of the equation, passengers who shift from automobiles to trains are likely to come from vehicles with below average occupancy levels; a business person travelling alone is more likely to find high-speed trains an attractive alternative from both a price and productivity perspective than is a large family. 

The Tier 1 EIS did not identify the exaspeed service; therefore the energy sdata will be provided in future Tier 2 

h-18
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Online Comments Received through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Website www.idothsr.org or Written Comment

OC29 Tier 1 Air Quality Brubaker, Kevin 

Environmental Law & Policy Center

These same flaws apply to the air quality impacts described in Section 5.7. If more cars are taken off the road and if trains themselves are more crowded and more efficient, then the emissions reductions summarized in Table 5.7-2 are also understated. We also note that Table 5.7-1 appears to only show the emissions increases due to train operations but does not offset these with the reduction in emissions from other modes. * * * Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. We look forward to continuing to work with the Illinois Department of Transportation to bring faster, safer, more convenient rail service to Illinois and the Midwest.

Comment noted. The FEIS acknowledrelated to less automobile travel in thquantified. 

OC30, OC33-36, OC38-49, OC51-59, OC60-66, OC67-74, OC76-82

Tier 1 

and Tier 

2

General - Supports Project

Multiple1 Thank you for giving the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) that has been prepared for the Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri High Speed Rail Corridor Program. Fast, frequent and dependable trains are critical to maintaining a vibrant economy. I applaud the State of Illinois for taking a leadership role in the development of high-speed rail in the Midwest. The investments outlined in the DEIS are urgently needed. The State should expedite construction of these improvements, with modifications as suggested below. 

This comment that indicates support 

OC30, OC33-36, OC38-49, OC51-53, OC55-59, OC60-66, OC67-74, OC76-82

Tier 1 

and Tier 

2

Alternatives - Routes

Multiple2 1) Please develop a detailed plan for building a replacement for or parallel of the 21st Street bridge. As 

part of that planning, please return Option 4B, which includes a new, direct connection from the St. Charles Airline into Union Station, as an active option. 

Alternative 4B was eliminated from fPlease refer to Section 3.5 of FEIS for the Preferred Alternative.

OC30, OC33-36, OC38-49, OC51-53, OC55-59, OC60-66, OC67-74, OC76-82

Tier 2 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Multiple3 2) Please design the new 10th Street corridor in Springfield, IL to: * Eliminate highway grade crossings * 

Allow for passenger trains to access Decatur and Champaign * Create separate passenger tracks, with provisions for future electrification.

Please refer to Volume II of this FEIS through Springfield. 

OC30, OC33-36, OC38-49, OC51-53, OC55-59, OC60-66, OC67-74, OC76-81

Tier 1 

and Tier 

2

Alternatives - Program Elements

Multiple4 3) Please design any new bridge or improvements to an existing bridge to serve as the crossing point for 

220-mph Core Express trains.

Improvements to accommodate Core project. 

OC50 Tier 1 Biological 

Resources

Scheibelhut, David Thank you for giving the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) that has been prepared for the Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri High Speed Rail Corridor Program. Responsible management of design and construction of track improvements is necessary to safeguard the prairie remnants adjacent to the tracks. To protect these remnants I request: 1. New sidings and track be built on the right of way of past tracks. (The railroad was once completely double tracked between Joliet and the Alton Cutoff). 2. Prairie remnants should be surveyed and, as much as possible, be marked out of bounds for construction activities. Parking areas and places for holding construction materials and equipment should be outside of prairie remnants. These restrictions should be part of construction plans and clearly communicated to contractors.

Avoidance and minimization measure2 studies. 

h-19
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Online Comments Received through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Website www.idothsr.org or Written Comment

OC51 Tier 1 

and Tier 

2

General - Supports Project

Zabaly, Nicholas It is essential to the economic future of Illinois, and the entire Midwest, that rail infrastructure be 

continue to be improved. As the nation increasingly must seek energy efficient and user-affordable transportation alternatives in the coming decades, rail will need to take a larger share of the passenger mix. The improvements highlighted in the Draft EIS are commendable, and should be viewed as the first step toward a comprehensive plan to make the Midwest one of America's transportation leaders. As a user of Illinois' existing rail systems, both local/state-supported and long-distance Amtrak, the planned improvements will have a beneficial impact on my life, so I am very pleased with the progress being made. Thank you for striving to improve passenger rail in the Midwest, and please include plans for further improvements to true high-speed rail in your developments moving forward.

This comment that indicates support 

OC54 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Osness, Glen Thank you for giving the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) that has been prepared for the Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri High Speed Rail Corridor Program. Fast, frequent and dependable trains are critical to maintaining a vibrant economy. I applaud the State of Illinois for taking a leadership role in the development of high-speed rail in the Midwest. The investments outlined in the DEIS are urgently needed. The State should expedite construction of these improvements, with modifications as suggested below. 

This comment that indicates support 

OC54 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Osness, Glen It's great to see service improvements on this line which connects two of the largest cities in America via 

Springfield. Hopefully there will be double-track service with electric powered trains on this route soon. This could be an important beginning for a Chicago based Midwest Regional System involving electricpowered trains on existing tracks from Chicago to St. Louis, Indianapolis/Cincinnati, Detroit/Pontiac and Milwaukee/Madison. 

Electrification of the corridor is beyo110 mph HSR service. IDOT is conducmph High Speed Rail Express project 

OC54 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Osness, Glen An airport shuttle could also be included that would provide direct service from Union Station to the 

O'Hare Transfer station on the Metra North Central line.

Evaluating an airport shuttle service does not include a shuttle service comfrom offering such services. 

OC59 Tier 1 

and Tier 

2

Alternatives - Program Elements

Olson, Layton 4) Please design the entire system and ROW assets to enable the system, surrounding communities, 

regions and the state benefit from fiber and wireless communication sharing, linked with; economic development, as well as to improve signaling and train management and world-class communication services for riders and transportation-oriented development., in concert with regional planning agencies all along the corridor, and with University of Illinois and other parties developing virtual infrastructure modeling and management tools for built and natural environment assets at grade, below grade and in the air.

Comment noted. No response neede

OC66 Tier 1 

and Tier 

2

General - Supports Project

Thompson, Jim I'm not an Illinois resident, but am from Iowa. I feel the progress made in Illinois toward developing high 

speed rail, especially to Iowa's borders, but other states too, will encourage not only Iowa, but these same other states, to build out a Midwest high speed rail network. The benefits have already been enumerated elsewhere, so I'll assume you know them. So, please seriously consider the Midwest High Speed Rail Association's proposals for the DEIS for the Chicago – St. Louis 110mph double tracking project.

This comment that indicates support 

OC72 Tier 2 Alternatives Ratliff, Jerry 4) I am curious how you will redo Springfield as it is residential trackage- switching to the other depot? The passenger trains in Springfield w

along 10th Street. 

OC73 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Woodard, Gwen 4) I'd like to see Northwest Indiana included prior to Indianapolis. Gary, Indiana is the largest city in NWI 

and should be considered in the planned route.

The scope of the EIS is to evaluate imand downtown St. Louis. The considescope of the EIS. 

OC74 Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Tomzik, David 4) increase the number of trains to hourly service and work to reduce the travel time even further. The Preferred Alternative includes ni

to-end travel times are projected to bcompared to the No-Build Alternative

h-20
Comment

er ID

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Online Comments Received through the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Website www.idothsr.org or Written Comment

OC75 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Geigner Jr., Charles As we speak my wife of 11 years and 3 year-old son are getting off the Texas Eagle at the Normal, IL 

station... We are from Bloomington/Normal and plan to return to that area someday in the future; however, we are now currently living in Dallas, TX. The reason I am taking the opportunity to write to you is to show strong support for double tracking the Chi - St. Louis regional corridor.I will keep this brief because I think I am preaching to the choir when I say: it makes no sense to have trains that travel 110 mph if every 30 miles they have to pull into a siding and stop and wait for an opposing train! Thank you for your time, and good luck on this historical project!

This comment that indicates support 

OC76 & 77

Tier 1 Alternatives - 

Program Elements

Multiple 4) Please add more train lines to Lemont Illinois to Chicago and throughout other stops for the state. The proposed infrastructure improve

considered sufficient to accommodatactivity in the corridor. Additional evstudies to confirm this. It should be nselected as part of the Preferred Alte

h-21
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

LCRPC1 Tier 1 General - Supports 

Project

Will D'Andrea Thank you for the opportunity to review the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The Logan County Regional Planning 

Commission would like to make IDOT and FRA aware of the fact that the adopted Logan County Comprehensive Plan does make the following statement: “The Plan supports the implementation of highspeed passenger rail service via Amtrak, which may provide alternative commuting options both to residents of the greater Lincoln area, and to persons from outside the County wishing to travel to Lincoln and Logan County”. Given the limits of the scope of the Tier 1 review, the Logan County Regional Planning Commission does not have any specific comments at this time. We do look forward toward an opportunity to review a Tier 2 review when it is available. Thank you.

Comment noted. No response neede

Logan County Regional Planning Commission

h-22
Overall 

Comment No.

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

OC18 Tier 1 Section 4(f) Russell, Paul E. 

MCRPC

As the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the agency responsible for coordinating long range planning throughout McLean County, this Commission has reviewed the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and offers the following comments. The Tier I DEIS does not discuss or appear to consider the proposed the McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway that extends from the Village of McLean to approximately 2.5 miles north of the Village of Towanda. The McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway project began in the late 1990's. In 1999, McLean County and the municipalities of Bloomington, Normal, Chenoa, Lexington, Towanda, and McLean entered into an intergovernmental agreement for the development of a bikeway in McLean County. The Project Development Report for this bikeway was approved by the Illinois Department of Transportation in September of 2008. McLean County received funding for a section from Shirley to Fox Creek Road in southwest Bloomington in 2009, with construction of the bikeway taking place in 2010. McLean County received notification of ITEP funding in October of2010 for a section from Normal to Towanda. Phase II engineering is currently underway for this section with construction planned for the summer of 2013. 

The role of the Tier 1 EIS is to identify based on the anticipated double tracsufficient to detail whether or not thimpacted. Part of the next level of stdetail needed to determine these imMCRPC during the more detailed Tier Route 66 Bikeway and any measures impacts. 

OC18 Tier 1 Section 4(f) Russell, Paul E. 

MCRPC

Further areas of concern that we have about the interaction of the projects are as follows: As previously mentioned, construction of the bikeway between the Town of Normal and the Village of Towanda is planned for 2013. We are currently developing plans for this construction project, but we need to have plan details for the high speed rail improvements at the intersection of Airport Road and U.S. Route 66 to move forward. We do not want to build a piece of the bikeway at this location in 2013 and have it removed by a intersection reconstruction project in immediate future; however, this project is very important to the community and a long term delay in the project is not desirable either. The participating municipalities would like a commitment on the planned timeframe for the intersection improvements to enable this section of the bikeway to move forward. Delays in the section of the project could also impede funding opportunities for future sections of the bikeway.

As part of the Tier 1 studies, detailed improvements is not available at this available during the Tier 2 studies. Tdetermined. During the more detailewith MCRPC regarding the project's pProject. 

OC18 Tier 1 General - Safety Russell, Paul E. 

MCRPC

The need for safety and security fencing along this section of the bikeway is also a concern for the participating municipalities. If it is determined that fencing is required, the cost of such fencing installation and maintenance should be the responsibility of the High-Speed Rail project, as the fencing is not required to protect the bikeway as previously approved in the Project Development Report. 

IDOT will coordinate with MCRPC thrregarding safety issues for both proje

OC18 Tier 1 Section 4(f) Russell, Paul E. 

MCRPC

Coordination between the McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway project and the High-Speed Rail project is currently underway. Representatives from IDOT, McLean County, and the engineering consultant teams for the U.S. Route 66 Bikeway project and the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail met on June 8, 2012, in Bloomington, Illinois and on June 21 , 2012, in Chicago, Illinois to discuss the projects. We anticipate that these discussions will continue, but believe that this direct coordination effort should be reflected and supported in the formal Tier I Environmental Statement.

Those coordination meetings were pwhich are currently underway. These the improvements that are proposed 2 studies, IDOT will continue to coordpotential impacts to the U.S Route 66 

McLean County Regional Planning Commission

h-23
McLean County Regional Planning Commission

OC85 Tier 1 Transportation Russell, Paul E. 

MCRPC

In its capacity as Metropolitan Planning Organization and agency responsible for coordinating long-range planning throughout McLean County, this Commission has reviewed the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and offers the following comments for consideration. The Tier I DEIS does not discuss or appear to consider the proposed East Side Highway near Bloomington-Normal in McLean County, Illinois. The East Side Highway has been studied since the late 1990' s. A Feasibility Study was completed in 2005 and a Corridor Study was completed in 2009. Currently, an Environmental Assessment for the East Side Highway project is underway. The Environmental Assessment will be available for public review tentatively in the spring of 2013, and the study will be completed in 2014. The East Side Highway Environmental Assessment is led by McLean County, with a Project Study Group composed of IDOT District 5, FHW A, McLean County, the City of Bloomington, Town of Normal, and the McLean County Regional Planning Commission. An extensive Context Sensitive Solutions process has been employed for the study, and the public has been actively engaged.McLean County and the East Side Highway Project Study Group request that the Tier I DEIS be revised to acknowledge potential impacts of 

The role of the Tier 1 EIS is to identify based on the anticipated double tracsufficient to detail whether or not thPart of the next level of study, referreneeded to determine these impacts. County during the more detailed Tier Side Highway Project and any measuthese impacts.

OC85 Tier 1 Transportation Russell, Paul E. 

MCRPC

Details of possible interaction between these projects follow. The purpose of the East Side Highway is to improve local and regional mobility and access in the Bloomington-Normal area. Approximately 129 alternatives were developed and screened during the Environmental Assessment study. To date, four alignments remain. The East Side Highway is envisioned as a four-lane freeway with interchanges connecting to Interstates 55 and 74, with multiple intermediate interchanges to provide local access. Two interchange options at I-55 near the proposed location of the High-Speed Rail will be studied in the Environmental Assessment. One Connects to Northtown Road; the second connects to Ziebarth Road. Only one of these interchanges would be constructed. For the Northtown Road interchange, the intersection of Airport Road and US 66 must be realigned to the west. The East Side Highway Environmental Assessment will consider the proposed location of the High-Speed Rail. 

Comment noted. No response neede

OC85 Tier 1 Transportation Russell, Paul E. 

MCRPC

Coordination between the East Side Highway and the High-Speed Rail projects is currently underway. Representatives from IDOT, McLean County, and the engineering consultant teams for the East Side Highway Environmental Assessment and the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail met on June 21, 2012, in Chicago, Illinois, to discuss the projects. 

Comment noted. No response neede

OC85 Tier 1 Section 4(f) Russell, Paul E. 

MCRPC

The Tier I DEIS should also consider impacts on the continuing Historic Route 66 Bicycle Trail project. McLean County is the lead agency in this effort, which also includes the municipalities of Bloomington, Normal, Chenoa, Lexington, Towanda and McLean. A portion of the trail project connecting Normal and Towanda is programmed for construction in the summer of 20 13. This section of the trail will be substantially impacted by the rail improvements between the Town of Normal and the Village of Towanda. Continuing coordination between the high-speed rail project and the trail project is essential. Thank you for considering our comments.

As part of the more detailed Tier 2 stMcLean County regarding the High-SSide Highway Project. 

h-24
Overall 

Comment No.

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

OC83 Tier 1 Section 4(f) Brown , Gene C. 

Town of Normal 

Town of Normal has reviewed the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The comments below are submitted on behalf of the Town of Normal. The Tier I DEIS does not discuss or appear to consider the proposed the McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway that extends from the Village of McLean to approximately 2.5 miles north of the Village of Towanda. The McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway project began in the late 1990's. In 1999, McLean County and the municipalities of Bloomington, Normal, Chenoa, Lexington, Towanda, and McLean entered into an intergovernmental agreement for the development of a bikeway in McLean County. The Project Development Report for this bikeway was approved by the Illinois Department of Transportation in 

September of 2008. McLean County received funding for a section from Shirley to Fox Creek Road in 

southwest Bloomington in 2009, with construction of the bikeway taking place in 2010. McLean County received notification of ITEP funding in October of2010 for a section from Normal to Towanda. Phase II 

engineering is currently underway for this section with construction planned for the summer of 2013. McLean County and the municipalities participating in the project request that the Tier I DEIS be revised 

The role of the Tier 1 EIS is to identify based on the anticipated double tracsufficient to detail whether or not thimpacted. Part of the next level of stdetail needed to determine these imMCRPC during the more detailed Tier Route 66 Bikeway and any measures impacts. 

OC83 Tier 1 Section 4(f) Brown , Gene C. 

Town of Normal 

Further areas of concern that we have about the interaction of the projects are as follows: As previously mentioned, construction of the bikeway between the Town of Normal and the Village of Towanda is planned for 2013. We are currently developing plans for this construction project, but we need to have 

plan details for the high speed rail improvements at the intersection of Airport Road and U.S. Route 66 to move forward. We do not want to build a piece of the bikeway at this location in 2013 and have it removed by a intersection reconstruction project in immediate future; however, this project is very important to the community and a long term delay in the project is not desirable either. The participating municipalities would like a commitment on the planned timeframe for the intersection improvements to enable this section of the bikeway to move forward. Delays in the section of the project could also impede funding opportunities for future sections of the bikeway.

As part of the Tier 1 studies, detailed improvements is not available at this available during the Tier 2 studies. Tdetermined. During the more detailewith MCRPC regarding the project's pProject. 

OC83 Tier 1 Safety Brown , Gene C. 

Town of Normal 

 The need for safety and security fencing along this section of the bikeway is also a concern for the participating municipalities. If it is determined that fencing is required, the cost of such fencing installation and maintenance should be the responsibility of the High-Speed Rail project, as the fencing is not required to protect the bikeway as previously approved in the Project Development Report.

IDOT will coordinate with MCRPC thrregarding safety issues for both proje

OC83 Tier 1 Section 4(f) Brown , Gene C. 

Town of Normal 

Coordination between the McLean County - U.S. Route 66 Bikeway project and the High-Speed Rail project is currently underway. Representatives from IDOT, McLean County, and the engineering consultant teams for the U.S. Route 66 Bikeway project and the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail met on June 8, 2012, in Bloomington, Illinois and on June 21 , 2012, in Chicago, Illinois to discuss the projects. We look forward to participating in the successful completion of this project and will put forth every effort possible to ensure that outcome.

Comment noted. No Response need

OC84 Tier 1 Transportation Brown , Gene C. 

Town of Normal 

Town of Normal has reviewed the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The comments below are submitted on behalf of the Town of Normal. The Tier I DEIS does not discuss or appear to consider the proposed East Side Highway near Bloomington-Normal in McLean County, Illinois. The East Side Highway has been studied since the late 1990's. A Feasibility Study was completed in 2005 and a Corridor Study was completed in 2009. Currently, an Environmental Assessment for the East Side Highway project is underway. The Environmental Assessment will be available for public review tentatively in the spring of 2013, and the study will be completed in 2014. The East Side Highway Environmental Assessment is led by McLean County, with a Project Study Group composed of IDOT/District 5, FHWA, McLean County, the City of Bloomington, Town of Normal, and the McLean County Regional Planning Commission. An extensive Context Sensitive Solutions process has been employed for the study, and the public has been actively engaged. The Town of Normal and the East Side Highway Project Study Group request that the Tier 1 DEIS be revised to acknowledge potential impacts of Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail implementation on the proposed East Side Highway, 

The role of the Tier 1 EIS is to identify based on the anticipated double tracsufficient to detail whether or not thPart of the next level of study, referreneeded to determine these impacts. County during the more detailed Tier Side Highway Project and any measuthese impacts.

Town of Normal

h-25
Town of Normal

OC84 Tier 1 Transportation Brown , Gene C. 

Town of Normal 

Details of possible interaction between these projects follows below. The purpose of the East Side Highway is to improve local and regional mobility and access in the Bloomington-Normal area. Approximately 129 alternatives were developed and screened during the Environmental Assessment study. To date, four alignments remain. A map of these remaining alignments is attached. The East Side Highway is envisioned as a four-lane freeway with interchanges connecting Interstates 55 and 74, with multiple intermediate interchanges to provide local access. Two interchange options at I-55 near the proposed location of the High-speed Rail will be studied in the Environmental Assessment. One connects to Northtown Road; the second connects to Ziebarth Road. Only one of these interchanges would be constructed. For the Northtown Road interchange, the intersection of Airport Road and US 66 must be realigned to the west. The East Side Highway Environmental Assessment will consider the proposed location of the High-Speed Rail.

Comment noted. No response neede

OC84 Tier 1 Transportation Brown , Gene C. 

Town of Normal 

 Coordination between East Side Highway and the High-Speed Rail projects is currently underway. Representatives from IDOT, McLean County, and the engineering consultant teams for the East Side Highway Environmental Assessment and the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail met on June 21, 2012, in Chicago, Illinois, to discuss the projects.

Comment noted. No response neede

h-26
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

NRCS1 Tier 1 Farmland NRCS The proposed project as outlined in the EIS will have minimal impacts on prime farmland in Illinois. We 

have completed a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (Federal Form AD-1006) for the corridor from Shipman IL to Godfrey IL in Jersey, Macoupin and Madison Counties. As the project progresses, we will need to complete additional ratings when corridor alignments have been finalized.Our contact for the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating process is Tim Prescott at (217) 353-6637. Please contact him directly if you have questions or need additional information.

Comment noted. No response needeShipman to Godfrey is related to imp

United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

h-27
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Tier 1 Safety Stead, Michael 

ICC

This text has been modified in the FE

Illinois Commerce Commission Transportation Bureau/Rail Safely Section

ICC1 Section 4 (Affected Environment) of the Tier 1 DEIS document: Section 4.16.2.2 (Highway-Rail Crossing) 

indicates that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) have regulatory jurisdiction over safety at crossings, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act of 1966. In Illinois, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has regulatory jurisdiction over safety at crossings. In addition, no mention is made of pedestrian-rail crossings or private highway-rail or pedestrian-rail crossings. This section needs to be rewritten to include that information. A suggested rewrite is noted below:There are two kinds of crossings: highway-rail and pedestrian-rail. Where a roadway, sidewalk or pedestrian trail/bikeway crosses the track at the same elevation, this is called a “grade” crossing. Where a roadway, sidewalk or pedestrian trail/bikeway passes over the tracks via an “overpass” bridge structure or passes under a railroad track via an underpass bridge structure, these crossings are referred to as “grade separated.”The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and FRA have regulatory jurisdiction over safety at crossings, pursuant to the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (HSA) (23 USC 401 et seq.). The HSA governs the distribution of federal funds to states aimed at eliminating hazards at highway-rail grade crossings. USDOT has issued regulations that address crossing safety and provides federal funding for the installation and improvement of warning devices through state departments of transportation. In addition to federal oversight and funding, states also monitor crossings and, in many cases designate funding to complement the federal funds.Jurisdiction over highway-rail grade crossings falls primarily to the states. This authority is set forth in the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (FHWA 2007a). Each state department of transportation is required to periodically inspect highway-rail grade crossings and to determine the adequacy of warning devices at each location, as well as to order safety improvements. USDOT oversees and approves the state determinations.

h-28
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Illinois Commerce Commission Transportation Bureau/Rail Safely Section

ICC2 Tier 1 Safety ICC General - No information is shown for the installation of warning signs or automatic warning devices at 

pedestrian-rail grade and private highway-rail grade crossings. Based upon diagnostic reviews conducted at all crossings located within the Dwight to St. Louis portion of the Chicago-St. Louis Corridor, for which FRA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in January 2004, it is our understanding that these types of crossings are scheduled to receive safety improvements. The proposed improvements should be included in the DEIS.

The proposed warning devices at the to Appendix E.

ICC3 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-4 - Why are Four Quad Gates proposed for the Stephen Street grade crossing (MP 25.15) under 

the “No-Build” option?

The information regarding this crossicomment.

ICC4 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-4 - Why are no warning devices shown for the West 135th Street grade crossing (MP 28.95) under 

the “No-Build” and Build” columns?

The information regarding this crossicomment.

ICC5 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-17 – The Washington Street grade crossing (MP 73.95) is listed as being equipped with Four Quad 

Gates under “Existing”. Our records show the crossing is currently equipped with standard flashers and gates (Gates).

The information regarding this crossicomment.

ICC6 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-27 - There appears to be a duplicate entry for Sangamon Avenue. The railroad bridge that carries 

UP tracks over Sangamon Avenue (MP 182.80) is also listed on page E-26.

The information regarding this crossicomment.

ICC7 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-28 - There is an entry for Iles Avenue (MP 187.35) with no crossing protection listed under the 

three conditions. According to the ICC and FRA databases, this crossing has been closed since December 2001.

The information regarding this crossicomment.

In Illinois, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has regulatory jurisdiction over safety at all public crossings (625 ILCS 5/18c-7401). No public road, highway, street, sidewalk or pedestrian trail/bikeway shall be constructed across the track of any rail carrier at grade, nor shall the track of any rail carrier be constructed across a public road, highway, street, sidewalk or pedestrian trail/bikeway at grade, without permission of the ICC.The ICC also has the power to require the separation of grades at any proposed crossing where a public road, highway, street, sidewalk or pedestrian trail/bikeway may cross the tracks of a rail carrier.All warning signs or automatic warning devices installed at public crossings in Illinois must meet the minimum requirements of 92 Illinois Administrative Code 1535. In addition, all warning signs or warning devices installed at crossings must comply with FHWA’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (23 CFR 646.214[b][1[). The MUTCD provides standards for the types of warning devices that must be installed at all highway-rail grade crossings (FHWA 2007b). FRA issued regulations under its railroad safety authority that impose minimum standards for highway-rail grade crossings (49 CFR 234-236). FRA maintains information for each highway-rail grade crossing based on information provided by the states and the railroads. FRA and FHWA coordinate research efforts related to highway-rail grade crossing collisions and provide guidance and solutions to problems.

h-29
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Illinois Commerce Commission Transportation Bureau/Rail Safely Section

ICC8 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-31 - Four Quad Gates are proposed for Allen Road (MP 216.08) under the No-Build and Build 

options. It should be noted that local highway authority agreed to voluntary close this crossing (Commission Order T12-0048).

The information regarding this crossicomment.

ICC9 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-33 - Four Quad Gates are proposed for Gilworth Lane (MP 234.57) under the No-Build and Build 

options. It should be noted that local highway authority has voluntary closed this crossing (Commission Order T12-0007).

The information regarding this crossicomment.

ICC10 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-35 - An existing public grade crossing is not listed (Evans Street, Wood River, AAR/DOT #294453D, 

MP 264.20). Please note that an agreement is out to the parties regarding the voluntary closure of this crossing.

The information regarding this crossicomment.

ICC11 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-35 – E. 7th Street (MP 265.2) is a private crossing according to ICC and FRA records. The information regarding this crossi

comment.

ICC12 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-35 – The Pontoon Road (MP 272.64) grade crossing has been replaced with a Railroad-Under 

grade separation (Commission Order T02-0067).

The information regarding this crossicomment.

ICC13 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-35 - Four Quad Gates are proposed for 20th Street (MP 275.05) under the No-Build and Build 

options. This crossing has been closed since March 2011 (Commission Order T02-0067).

The information regarding this crossicomment.

ICC14 Tier 1 Safety ICC Page E-36 – Four Quad Gates are proposed for 2 grade crossings in St Clair County (Missouri Avenue and 

Trendley Avenue) under the No-Build and Build options. Diagnostic reviews of these crossings for proposed improvements were not included under the ROD project. Which railroad owns these crossings?

These crossings are not located along Appendix E.

h-30
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

ACC1 Tier 1 Permits Corps of Engineers 

Chicago District

In the event that a Corps permit is requested in the future, the Corps must be provided with all coordination documentation for any alternative selected that would affect the Hine's emerald dragonfly, designated critical habitat for the Hine's emerald dragonfly, or other species yet to be identified within the project area.

A statement was added in Section 5.1provided with this information when 

ACC2 Tier 1 Alternatives

Biological Resources

Corps of Engineers Chicago District

Table 3.3-3 indicates the wetland acreage for each alternative. The alternatives that contain the lowest acreage of wetlands are: 2, Sa, 5b, 5c, 6a, 6b, and 6c with acreages ranging from 9.06 to 10.20 acres. For the two alternatives that were carried forward for further consideration, Table 3.3-3 indentified 10.2 acres of wetlands for Alternative 2 (Section 1) and 21.57 acres of Alternative 4d (Section 2).

As noted in the comment, Alternative the alternatives with the lowest wetlwetlands than the alternative with thacres). Although Alternative 4D wouimportant to note that, as indicated iwere used in determining whether an other alternatives with the lowest weprimary reasons for their elimination Secondary reasons for their eliminatipassenger travel time; connectivity to route; schools within the 200-foot coalignment; floodplain impacts/crossincultural resources within the proposethe combination of these primary analternatives outweighed the single re

ACC3 Tier 1 Alternatives

Biological Resources

Corps of Engineers Chicago District

Table 5.11-1 identified 1.1 acres of wetland impact for Section 1 and 5.6 acres of wetland impact for Section 2. The amount of wetland acreage present within each alternative corridor does not necessarily correspond with the amount of anticipated wetland impact, so it is difficult to use the acreage totals in Table 3.3-3 as a factor in dismissing any of the alternatives (with the possible exception of Alternative 1 with 73 .12 acres).

 Due to the number (16) and lengths evaluated in this section, it was not plimits of each alternative and conduc200 foot wide corridor was used to ceach alternative. Once the 16 alterndesign was conducted on the remainthat were narrower than the original were then used to refine the wetland explains why the wetland impacts prTable 5.11-1. Although there may be between the two studies, it is assumewetland impacts would remain the sahighest wetland impacts would be thalternative designs and wetland studanalysis. Given the preliminary natu

ACC4 Tier 1 Alternatives

Biological Resources

Corps of Engineers Chicago District

In addition, Alternatives A and B (Section 1) involve a potential direct impact to designated critical habitat for Hine's emerald dragonfly, whereas Alternatives C and D (Section-2) do not result in this impact. Potential wetland impacts for Alternatives A and B in Section 1 are less than those in for Alternatives C and D in Section 2. As such, Alternatives A and B would be more favorable from a wetland impacts perspective, but Alternatives C and D would be more favorable from a Section 7 perspective. This could create a potential point of conflict.

Alternatives C and D (which include SAlternatives. The reasons for this deFEIS.

Department of the Army, Chicago District, Corps of Engineers

h-31
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

Department of the Army, Chicago District, Corps of Engineers

ACC5 Tier 1 Alternatives

Section 4(f)

Corps of Engineers Chicago District

The Joliet to Alton section has 2 alternatives around the Springfield area, but the remainder of this section contains only 1 alternative. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie is located along the route. As stated in the document, Midewin is the first national tallgrass prairie in the country. Midewin is well known as being a high quality resource for the region.

The Tier 1 DEIS estimates that the iminvolve a narrow strip of land generalong totally approximately 0.6 acre. Aexisting railroad right-of-way. Based bisected by the existing railroad correvaluate other new alignments or excompletely avoid the prairie. Such alimpacts to other resources and/or opmore detailed engineering analysis wdetermine if these impacts can be m

ACC6 Tier 1 Alternatives

Biological Resources

Corps of Engineers Chicago District

Due to the difference in wetland acreages listed in Table 3.3-3 and the potential impact acreages listed in Table 5.11-1 as well as the potential conflict point between wetland impacts and Section 7 impacts in choosing a preferred alternative, additional alternatives should be retained.

See responses to comments ACC2, ACadditional alternatives were retained 

ACC7 Tier 1 Alternatives

Section 4(f)

Corps of Engineers Chicago District

Due to the high quality nature of Midewin, the feasibility of alternatives that avoid impacts to this resource should be investigated.

See response to comment ACC5. 

h-32
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

USEPA1 Tier 1 Purpose and Need USEPA The background, current conditions and developing conditions that warrant considering the proposed 

HSR project are concisely presented and provide some clarification of this complex rail system.We understand that the Purpose and Need for this proposal is not to improve freight train operations in this corridor and that simply acknowledging this connected action is sufficient and adequate at this point in the DEIS.An increased ridership is projected for the 2030 horizon year. This raises some questions not addressed in the presentation. What is the minimum increase in ridership needed to support this project? Assuming the project is very successful in attracting new rail travelers, what maximum capacity will the proposed build rail system be able to accommodate? What is the ridership growth potential of this build proposal before additional system construction would be needed? If built as proposed, the projected ridership could vary dependent upon the fares charged. The DEIS indicates that this HSR proposal (maximum speed of 110 miles per hour) is an incremental step toward much higher speeds in the more distant future. The FEIS should discuss what factors would influence the pursuit of further upgrades to passenger train speeds in this corridor.

Additional analysis of ridership forecalikely that when the Preferred AlternThe additional ridership forecasting awhat incremental improvements (e.gshould be implemented first. The Pretrips per day could accommodate oveloading. At this time, future expansioHSR passenger round trips per day is 

USEPA2 Tier 1 Alternatives USEPA We commend the provision of screening selection comparison charts such as Table 3.3-3 and similar 

tables, Table 3-12, in the Springfield Tier 2 DElS. They assist understanding what factors went into certain decisions.Because both the Merchants and the MacArthur Bridges over the Mississippi River are to be reconstructed, the FEIS should clearly commit to both Alton to St. Louis alternatives and include the impacts of both bridge improvements in the environmental analysis.

The Merchant Bridge Alternative(s) wprocess and were not carried forward Section 3.3.6 of this Tier 1 FEIS). 

USEPA3 Tier 1 Transportation USEPA We appreciate that project impacts and costs are concisely summarized in Table 5.22-1.

Freight Trains - The Purpose and Need section of the DEIS acknowledges the increased freight train operations associated with this project. However, the impacts of changes in freight operations are not discussed in the DEIS. These changes in freight operations include increase in the number of trains, length and speed of trains and shifts in time of day to accommodate HSR. These changes resulting from this project are direct impacts, add their own direct and indirect impacts, and should be fully addressed in the NEP A analysis. Section 6.3 (HSR train operations impacting freight rail service) does not address these project-related changes to freight operations. Subjects such as air quality, wildlife impacts, noise, vibration, crossing delays in urban and rural settings, and accident/spills/safety should be included in the impacts analysis. Regarding HSR impacts on freight trains, we recommend the FEIS include discussion of the compression wave and air turbulence impacts of HSR trains on passing freight trains, particularly those trains carrying containers. This air turbulence should also be discussed for its potential impacts to pedestrians (flying debris) and vehicles at crossings.

The increase in the number of freight additional trains are projected with owildlife, vibration or accident/spills/sactivity that should be attributed to tdelay impacts associated with adjustinformation available at this time to ifreight trains operating in the corridoanalysis of the potential impacts of aStudy. Typically, these effects can be aerodynamic design of the locomotiv

USEPA4 Tier 1 Alternatives USEPA Major Bridges - The DEIS describes some design consideration for the three major river crossing bridges, 

the Chicago River at 21st Street and the St. Louis Merchants and MacArthur bridges over the Mississippi River, but impacts are not addressed. We recommend the FEIS specify all impacts associated with these reconstructions.

Because this is a Tier 1 level of study, other bridges to provide specific impalternative during the preliminary scrFEIS). Impacts are included as part o

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5

h-33
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5

USEPA5 Tier 1 Alternatives USEPA Access Road - There is no DEIS discussion concerning impacts related to the access road to be 

constructed the entire length of the rail corridor, which is mentioned on page 3-19. While such a road may be simple by comparison to the railroad work, this should be studied to assure possible impacts are fully considered. One area may be threatened and endangered species and their habitats. Other topics that should be addressed in the NEP A documents for this construct include but are not limited to waterway crossings where applicable, stormwater runoff, dust particulate matter and safety.A significant number of Special Waste sites are noted within 200 feet of the rail right-of-way (ROW) (Table 5.14-2 and Appendix D). Most of these will only be a problem if construction disturbs them, and this is one specific reason the access road needs to be included in this NEPA analysis.

An access road is included as part of Sections in Appendix A of this Tier 1 Fwith this access road are included.

USEPA6 Tier 1 Biological 

Resources

USEPA Threatened and Endangered Species - Summary information on page S-II and Section 5.6.2.3 addresses 

impacts to threatened and endangered species. After acknowledging critical habitat impacts and potential increased direct hit losses for the federally listed Hine's emerald dragonfly in proposed Section I, between Chicago and Joliet, the summary concludes "that this potential increase would have a minimal overall impact on the species." The DEIS does not provide information to support such a statement. The DEIS states, based upon computer database research, "there are no other critical habitats or known habitats or populations of other federally listed species located within the study corridor that could be impacted by any program alternatives. However, this Tier 1 level of documentation did not include detailed fieldwork to identify potential habitats and/or populations of threatened and endangered species."Table 5.6-3 and Exhibit 5.6-1 indicate that there is some knowledge of State Threatened and Endangered Species along the corridor south of Joliet. While the project intent is to remain on existing ROW, we recommend that FRA undertake a field analysis in this area. We believe gathering such information is prudent now so that options to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts can be considered in the FEIS. We 

The statement "that this potential incspecies." was removed from this Tier Dragonfly Monitoring, Chicago to St. been summarized in Section 4.6.3 of identified as the Preferred AlternativSection 2, they would avoid any impadragonfly. Additional and more detaspecies will be conducted, as needed

USEPA7 Tier 1 Biological 

Resources

USEPA Migratory Birds - The DEIS analysis does not address protection of migratory birds, which is a concern for 

the corridor. Recent studies by the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) confirm that railroad corridors do have an impact on wildlife including migratory birds. We recommend further coordination with FWS and IDNR to address these impacts, including but not limited to impacts at the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie.

Sections 4.6.2.3 and 5.6.2.2 of this Tidiscussion regarding migratory birds analysis of migratory birds and furtheconducted during the Tier 2 studies.

USEPA8 Tier 1 Socioeconomics USEPA Environmental Justice - The DEIS provides limited information on Environmental Justice (EJ). The EJ 

Section simply identifies the number of qualifying EJ census blocks, with no accounting for numbers of people or households in those census blocks that may be impacted, Table 5.2-1. The DEIS lacks support for a conclusion of "no disproportionate impacts."

The level of EJ analysis is acceptable fthat more detailed analysis and conc"no disproportionate impacts" statem

USEPA9 Tier 1 Noise and 

Vibration

USEPA Sensitive Noise Receptors - The noise and vibration impacts to receptors, especially EJ communities, are 

important. We commend the construction and operation reductions and mitigations presented on pages 5-54 through 5-58, and recommend these be clearly committed to in the FEIS. However, the noise analysis in Section 5.8.3 only considers train horn noise, and does not include the rail/wheel noise and distinct HSR noise(s) of operating trains at faster speeds. Here again, the freight traffic with heavy loads will contribute differently than the HSR trains and should be included in these DEIS impacts. We recommend the FEIS clearly delineate all project noise and vibration, so that impacts to sensitive community facilities and wildlife can be appropriately considered both in terms of decibels and increased numbers of HSR and freight trains. The DEIS is unclear as to the distance from the HSR corridor that was analyzed for sensitive receptors. Please clarify this in the FEIS.

In addition to the train horn noise, thand the noise associated with the opanalysis extended out as far as necesfluctuates throughout the corridor. Sprovide clarification.

h-34
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5

USEPA10 Tier 1 Transportation USEPA At-Grade Crossings - Appendix E presents the extensive list of rail crossings through the entire corridor. 

Most are grade separated and some additional ones, such as in Springfield, are being considered for grade separation. We recommend the FEIS discuss how increased speed and frequency of trains will affect users of the many at-grade private or commercial "access crossings. "

Impacts to users of the at-grade crosand FEIS.. 

USEPA11 Tier 1 Water 

Quality/Resources

USEPA Surface Water Crossings - Some of the 216 stream crossings will be replaced and others lengthened to 

accommodate the additional tracks. We recommend the FEIS commit to using bridging and/or threesided open bottom culverts for waterway crossings wherever possible, to retain natural functions and avoid disturbing stream beds.

The Tier 1 level of analysis lacks the dnecessary to make specific commitmstream crossings. This information w

USEPA12 Tier 1 Transportation USEPA Sustainability - We commend your agency for its consideration of sustainability concepts, Section 6.1.1.4, 

and recommend those concepts be clearly committed to in the FEIS and included in project contracting documents. These include commitments to maintenance, energy efficiency, water use minimization, green buildings, and corridor development synergies.

For a Tier 1 level of analysis, Section consideration and general commitmesustainable measures will continue a

USEPA13 Tier 1 Mitigation USEPA We commend the inclusion of Table S.5-1 as a concept. We recommend it be expanded in the FEIS to list 

all project mitigation commitments and their associated implementation schedules, locations, responsible parties, and monitoring/maintenance/adaptive management.

The Tier 1 level of analysis lacks the dof mitigation commitments. The mopresented in the Tier 2 studies.

USEPA14 Tier 1 Water 

Quality/Resources

USEPA The DEIS mentions wellhead protection areas as a concern, but does not discuss how the proposal will 

avoid, minimize, mitigate impacts to wellhead protection areas. While these may be Tier 2 level details for final resolution, the Tier 1 document should discuss how these might be approached.

Section 5.9.2.5 of this Tier 1 FEIS has regarding measures to avoid, minimiarea.

USEPA15 Tier 1

andTier 2

General USEPA We commend the DEIS for its many clear and helpful exhibits. However, some exhibits are too small or 

poorly labeled to convey adequate information, including but not limited to: Exhibits 6.1-6 and 6.1-8 and the Springfield Tier 2 DEIS Exhibits 4-4 and 4-5. The Tier 1 DEIS includes stringline diagrams, Exhibits 6.1-4, through 6.1-9, which are more appropriately put in a technical appendix, as they are not selfexplanatory to the general reader. The Springfield Tier 2 DEIS exhibits in Section 5 are insufficiently labeled to clearly describe the alternatives.

Exhibits 4-4 and 4-5 in the Tier 2 FEIS improve clarity. The exhibits 5-1 and Alternative 2A (5-1) and any differendescription of the Preferred AlternatEvaluation. Exhibits 6.1-4 through 6.description of a stringline diagram ha

h-35
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

USDOI1 Tier 1 Alternatives USDOI 3.3.4.2 – Screening Results for Chicago to Joliet Alternatives

This section summarizes the results of Tier One screening of alternatives in the Chicago to Joliet portion of the project and provides reasons for eliminating alternatives from further consideration. Two alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 4D, are proposed to be carried forward for further study in Tier One based on meeting the screening criteria and purpose and need.The information and data developed for the Tier One screening process (summarized in Table 3.3-3) does not support the elimination of all alternatives except for Alternatives 2 and 4D. Specifically, Alternatives 4A through 4C should be retained because for some of the criteria for which they were eliminated, these alternatives performed as well (or nearly as well) as Alternative 4D, which is being retained. Some of these criteria include: operational issues, estimated average number of trains per day, capital cost, wetland impacts, and environmental justice. Alternatives 4A through 4C also performed better than Alternative 2 for some criteria such as: capital cost, right of way impacts, and threatened and endangered species impacts. Similarly, Alternative 3 should be strongly considered for retention because it performed as well (or nearly as well) as Alternatives 4D and Alternative 2 for several criteria. As noted in previous correspondence, Alternative 2 would impact the Hine’s emerald dragonfly and its critical 

The primary reasons why Alternativein Section 3.3.4.2 and presented in Tadiscussed in Section 3.5 of this Tier 1 have been identified as the Preferred alternatives were identified as the Primpacts to the Critical Habitat of the 

USDOI2 Tier 1 Section 4

Affected Environment

USDOI Subsection 4.6 – Natural Resources

4.6.3 – Threatened and Endangered SpeciesThis section discusses critical habitat for the endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly. Alternatives 1 and 2 intersect or are adjacent to designated critical habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly. Please see the attached figure prepared by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, based on the project shapefiles that were provided by FRA and FWS’s own data on critical habitat locations. None of the other Chicago to Joliet alignments would impact federally threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat.

Comment noted. No response neede

USDOI3 Tier 1 Biological 

Resources

USDOI Subsection 5.6 - Natural Resources

5.6.2.2 – Ecological ResourcesThe Affected Environment section (Section 4) contains information about the habitat and wildlife located within the project corridor, including: birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic species. However, the Environmental Consequences section does not provide information about the wildlife that could be impacted by the proposed project (besides federal and state listed species). Wildlife identified in Section 4 should be discussed in the Tier One Final EIS. In particular, impacts to migratory birds should be discussed in detail as the project would result in the loss of suitable habitat (e.g., forest, prairie, and wetland). Additionally, migratory birds could be impacted by noise generated from the project. This issue will be furtherdiscussed in Subsection 5.8. 

This section also briefly discusses the impacts on wildlife habitat. Impacts to forest, prairie remnants, and protected natural areas are discussed. However, the discussion of protected natural areas focuses mostly on prairie remnants and state protected natural areas (e.g., nature preserves). The Tier One Final EIS should focus on all natural areas that are providing wildlife habitat along the corridor. It would be 

Section 5.6.2.2 of this Tier I FEIS was potential impacts to wildlife, includinimpacts. This Tier 1 level of analysis wildlife habitat along the corridor. Apart of this Tier 1 study but will be ev

United States Department of the Interior

h-36
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

United States Department of the Interior

USDOI4 Tier 1 Biological 

Resources

USDOI 5.6.2.3 – Threatened and Endangered Species

Limited information is provided about the potential impact to the federally endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly, though the impacts to its critical habitat and impacts to flying adults via collisions with trains are noted. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has provided substantial information regarding potential impacts to this species in our prior correspondence on this project, since we first reviewed the 2003 EIS and including our most recent comments on the 2011 Dwight to Joliet EA. These comments are enclosed and all comments regarding impacts to the Hine’s emerald dragonfly should be incorporated in the Tier One Final EIS. We agree that further coordination on threatened and endangered species impacts will continue during the Tier Two stage of the project, for all federally listed species (as suitable habitat may occur within the proposed right-of-ways). We anticipate that review of the habitat assessments and associated floristic quality assessments discussed in our November 10, 2011, correspondence with FRA regarding the Joliet to Dwight Project EA and FONSI will be needed to determine if suitable habitat is present for other federally listed species throughout the alternative corridors.The Draft EIS should clarify that the Hine’s emerald dragonfly occurs not only in designated critical habitat but is additionally known to occur around critical habitat units 4 and 7.Table 5.6-3, which lists state threatened and endangered species, should include the Hine’s emerald dragonfly, which is also a state endangered species. The EIS should also be edited to clarify that the state listed species leafy prairie clover is also federally listed as endangered, and the state listed Mead’s milkweed is federally listed as a threatened species. The leafy prairie clover has at least three 

 As discussed in Section 3.5 of this TieSection 2) have been identified as the alternatives were identified as the Primpacts to the Critical Habitat of the of analysis, more detailed informatiodragonfly can not be provided at this Hine's Emerald Dragonfly Monitoring2010 report has been included in Secstudies, further coordination with USconducted as needed for all federally project area. All USFWS comments/cdragonfly have been included in AppSections 4.6.3 and 5.6.2.3 of this Tier discussion regarding the critical habitshow all of the critical habitat units.Table 5.6-3 and Section 5.6.2.3 of thithe comments provided regarding ththe Mead's milkweed.

USDOI5 Tier 1 Noise and 

VibrationBiological Resources

USDOI Subsection 5.8 – Noise and Vibration

Noise impacts to wildlife resources, particularly migratory birds, are not discussed in this section. Several studies indicate that noise can adversely affect migratory birds (we can provide reference materials to FRA if requested). The Tier One Final EIS should evaluate the potential impacts to wildlife, particularly migratory birds, from increased noise and vibration resulting from increases in train frequency and speed for the alternatives considered. These impacts should be addressed in either Subsection 5.6 or 5.8.

Section 5.6.2.2 of this Tier 1 FEIS has the potential noise impacts to wildlif

USDOI6 Tier 1 Biological 

Resources

USDOI Subsection 5.17 - Permits

This section includes the statement that “if endangered species are identified during program implementation, all activity in the immediate area would cease.” We assume this statement should read “if previously unknown occurrences of endangered species are identified during program implementation, all activity in the immediate area would cease. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be initiated as required by section 7 of the ESA.”For all federally listed species and critical habitat already known to occur in the project area, we anticipate continuing to work with FRA through the Tier 2 and informal consultation process to avoid and minimize impacts to listed species in compliance with section 7 of the ESA.

Section 5.17 of this Tier 1 FEIS has be

h-37
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

United States Department of the Interior

USDOI7 Tier 1 Indirect and 

Cumulative

USDOI 5.19.2 – Build Alternatives

In regard to indirect impacts, the Tier One Draft EIS focuses on the project’s potential to induce development in the vicinity of the train stations and determined that the project would result in negligible indirect impacts. The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service believes this assessment of indirect impacts is narrow in scope and that FRA should expand its assessment of indirect impacts. Specifically, FRA should consider the indirect impacts to wildlife and their habitats. Examples of these indirect impacts would be the loss or fragmentation of forested, wetland, or prairie habitats and the associated loss of wildlife. Potential impacts of noise on wildlife could also be considered as there are areas identified within the corridor with concentrations of migratory birds that could be affected (e.g., Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie). The Tier Two Final EIS should fully assess all possible impacts to wildlife resources. Similarly, the Tier Two Final EIS should fully assess all possible impacts to wildlife resources as related to cumulative impacts. The Tier One Draft EIS indicates that cumulative impacts to natural resources would be negligible. Without additional information on the habitats described in the Draft EIS, specifically for information on these natural resources outside of the project corridor, we cannot concur with FRA’s assessment.

The impacts to wildlife would primarthat are immediately adjacent to the result, habitat fragmentation would wildlife species typically inhabiting tthat are associated with disturbed coactivity. Section 5.6.2.2 of this Tier 1 regarding the potential noise impacts Based on the level of analysis for a Ti5.19.2.1 of this Tier 1 FEIS, it is anticicumulative impacts to natural resourimpacts to natural resources will be estudies. 

USDOI8 Tier 1 Biological 

Resources

USDOI Subsection 5.21 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

This section is confusing, in that it appears to say that impacts to prairie and forested habitats are irreversible, but that the build alternatives would not result in irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources for natural areas, threatened or endangered species, or water resources. We do not agree with this assessment since prairie and forested habitats are natural areas which could provide habitat for listed species. We note also that this section should recognize that extirpation of a federally listed species from its critical habitat would represent an irretrievable commitment of resources. The Tier Two Final EIS should be updated to consider all wildlife resources.

Section 5.21 of this Tier 1 FEIS has bethis section.

USDOI9 Tier 1 Mitigation USDOI Subsection 5.23 – Potential Mitigation Measures

This section discusses mitigation for impacts to prairies, federal and state listed species, and wetlands. However, this section does not discuss mitigation for impacts to forested areas or migratory birds (from loss of habitat or noise impacts); mitigation for these should be discussed in the Tier Two Final EIS.

Section 5.23 of this Tier 1 FEIS has beforests. Potential mitigation measureTier 2 study when more detailed info

h-38
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

United States Department of the Interior

USDOI10 Tier 1 Biological 

Resources

USGS In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) had specific comments on wildlife.

4.6.2.3 WildlifePg. 4-32: The document provides a cursory description of wildlife that may be impacted; however, the information on bird species and population trends is limited. We suggest the Final EIS include the data and information available in the USGS Breeding Bird Survey, and in Sauer et al, 2011. The USGS Breeding Bird Survey includes routes that are close to the project area.The locations of the routes can be found on the internet athttp://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/results/routemaps/routeMapStatic.htmlThe list of species for each route can be found onhttps://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/PublicDataInterface/index.cfmRoutes can be found on http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/results/routemaps/routeAssignMap.cfm.Additional information on the trends in bird populations can be found at http://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html and in the publication: Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L.Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link, 2011, The North American Breeding BirdSurvey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2010. Version 12.07.2011 USGS Patuxent WildlifeResearch Center, Laurel, MD; available online at http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs.

More detailed information and analywill be provided during the Tier 2 stu

h-39
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

IHPA1 Tier 1 

and

Tier 2

Cultural Resources IHPA We have reviewed the referenced documents in accordance with our responsibilities pursuant to section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. First, let me say that I really appreciate the time and effort that the Federal Railroad Administration, the Illinois Department of Transportation and the various consultants have devoted to this project to ensure cultural resources are fully considered during this planning process.These documents adequately identify historic resources and possible effects thatwill occur as a result of project implementation.We understand that for the Phase I for the project as a whole from Joliet to theMississippi River, a literature search for historic properties was all that was performed but that a more in depth look at properties and affects to them will becompleted as a part of the Phase II Environmental Impact Statement.For the Springfield Tier 2 portion, we concur that the 10th Street Corridor willhave minimal adverse effects to historic properties as compared to the 3rd Streetcorridor. We urge the 10th Street Corridor be adopted as the preferred alternative.

Comment noted. No response neede

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

h-40
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

IDNR1 Tier 1 Biological 

Resources

Hamer, Steve Illinois Department of Natural Resources

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Tier 1 for the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail. We offer the following comments for your consideration. The main thought that should continue to be considered as this project progresses through the planning and design phase, is to implement the "avoidance and minimization" concept of impacts to natural resources on the landscape. In the DEIS, reference is made to the continued coordination with IDNR for studies/surveys to be completed concerning prairie remnants, state listed species and wetlands. Results of those surveys will be made available for review and comment as the project progresses during the Tier 2 phase. Currently, coordination efforts are ongoing for the Eryngium stem borer (state listed insect) that is present within the proposed improvements along the UPRR tracks, between Dwight and Pontiac Illinois. Application for an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) has been submitted and is being processed at this time. In keeping with the resource policies established by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the Interagency Wetland Policy Act allows a three year time period for wetland impact determinations and wetland compensation plans to be 

Comment noted. No response neede

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

h-41
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

IEPA1 Tier 1 Water 

Quality/ResourcesSpecial Waste

Bonnett, LisaIEPA

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor. The Agency has no objections to the project; however a permit will be required from the Division of Water Pollution Control for modifications to any existing sewer or the construction of new sewer mains or connections. In addition, a Section 401 water quality certification will have to be obtained. If one or more acres are disturbed during construction, a construction site activity stormwater NPEDS permit will be required as well. Please contact AI Keller at 217-782-0610 with questions. Also demolition, asbestos and lead paint should be addressed before actual repairs are preformed to ensure proper abatement is done if needed. If demolition and/or abatement are needed, notification will be required 10 days prior to the project start date. Contact Alan Grimmett for all questions on this matter at 217-557-1438. In addition, solid and hazardous waste must be properly disposed of or recycled.

Comment noted. No response neede

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

h-42
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

USGC1 Tier 1 Permits Striffler, Scot 

Ninth Coast Guard District

I am responding to the Draft EIS and request for comments regarding the Tier 1 evaluation for the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program. Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District, would only be involved for aspects of the Program within the Chicago to Joliet portion of the study. Our Area of Responsibility includes Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal, Des Plaines River, and Chicago River northward of Lockport Lock in Lockport, IL (approximate river mile 291.0 and above). The alternatives carried forward within the Chicago to Joliet area (#2 and #4D) appear to include utilization of the existing AMTRAK bridge and facilities over South Branch of Chicago River (between Canal Road and 18th Street on the river). The drawbridge provides 10-feet of vertical clearance for vessels in the closed position. The existing AMTRAK bridge is the only drawbridge on South Branch of Chicago River required to open for every commercial tug/barge passage between downtown Chicago and Lockport, as well as for other commercial or recreational vessels that cannot pass under the drawbridge in the closed position. It is our understanding the existing drawbridge carries Union Pacific freight trains, AMTRAK trains, and other local commuter trains into Union Station. It is a very busy crossing for both rail and vessel traffic. Efficient management 

Comment noted. No response neede

United States Coast Guard, Ninth Coast Guard District

h-43
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

USDOC1 Tier 1 Socioeconomics Tamayo, Jeannette 

US Department of Commerce

Thank you for your letter July 3, 2012 requesting Economic Development Administration (EDA) comments with regards to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri High-Speed Rail Corridor Program. EDA's mission is to generate jobs, help retain existing jobs and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in economically distressed areas. This is accomplished through grant programs that are available to rural and urban areas experiencing high unemployment, low income or other severe economic distress. At this point, EDA does not have any concerns or issues that need to be addressed regarding the DEIS for the high-speed rail service from Chicago to St. Louis. If you have any other concerns or questions, you may contact Robin D. Bush, Coordinator, Environmental &Strategic Analysis at 312-353-8143 ext. 146. EDA encourages investments that will significantly benefit areas experiencing or threatened with substantial economic distress and has the potential to increase high wage jobs and private sector investment. We appreciate your recognition of EDA and its programs.

Comment noted. No response neede

United States Department of Commerce

h-44
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

RR1 Tier 1 Alternatives METRA Metra supports the conclusion of the DEIS that further study is required to determine whether the 

CN/Heritage Corridor or the Metra/Rock Island District and Norfolk Southern route is preferable for the operation of HSR service between Joliet and Chicago. Metra requests the opportunity to provide input at all appropriate opportunities during this more detailed Tier 2 evaluation. Metra supports the development and analysis of the "Further improvements ... to support future additional commuter rail service," as described in the Summary (S-20).

Comment noted. No response neede

RR2 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

METRA In the subsequent Tier 2 studies, additional efforts should be made to include all stakeholders, especially 

right-of-way owners in the process early and often during the studies.

Comment noted. No response neede

RR3 Tier 1 Transportation METRA S-19 The text asserts that Metra has no plans for changing or expanding the existing service along the 

Rock Island District. Note that Metra is currently embarking on a strategic planning effort and final determination of what service modifications or expansions are reflected in the resulting strategic plan have not yet been determined. Furthermore, Metra reserves the right to consider service expansions in the future in order to meet passenger demand and operating requirements. (see also 6-45)

As the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Progrcontinue.

RR4 Tier 1 Transportation METRA S-20 Note that Metra's plans to construct the new Romeoville Station on the Heritage Corridor, 

referenced as "a new station between Lemont and Lockport," are not dependent on the proposal to increase commuter service on this line. The current phrasing suggested they are related. (see also 6-45)

Comment noted. The text related to Corridor has been modified in the FE

RR5 Tier 1 Transportation METRA S-22 Why is it assumed that the additional vehicular traffic that necessitates proposed parking 

expansions would not create any access or traffic congestion problems associated with the Build Alternatives?

Planning for the intercity passenger sevaluation of parking. Additional parprojected that it will be needed. Basimpacts to vehicular access around th

RR6 Tier 1 Alternatives METRA 1-2 This list of anticipated decisions does not clearly reflect that the selection of the preferred alternative 

from Chicago to Joliet routing is subject to a further Tier 2 Analysis. This should be reflected to address this more clearly.

A Preferred Alternative has been iden

RR7 Tier 1 Transportation METRA 3-33 Note that the proposed Metra HC station at Romeoville (135th Street) and the proposed Metra 

Rock Island station at Auburn Park (78th Street) should be reflected in this list that would require further study in Tier 2 environmental studies. These stations are currently being designed, but appropriate accommodations should be reflected into the station designs.

These stations will be added to the re

RR8 Tier 1 Alternatives METRA 3-53 Section 1 and Section 2- The text does not discuss the congestion at the 21st Street vertical lift 

bridge. There are over 100 passenger, freight and yard movement trains a day that use this bridge. This bridge is a source of train congestion and delays. The EA evaluated building a new double track bridge over the Mississippi River at the Merchants Bridge location that has 64 trains a day. Since this bridge has over 100 trains a day, the bridge and the associated track interlocking plants on both sides of the bridge should be evaluated. Since there are more trains over this bridge than the Merchants Bridge, it would be logical for the study to consider adding a second double track bridge at the Chicago 21st Street Bridge location which would reduce running time a little, significantly reduce train delays and thus improve ontime performance. There is an operational double track railroad bridge that does not have tracks connecting to it anymore, the C&WI bridge just north of Torrence Avenue and 126th Street in Chicago over the Calumet River. This railroad bridge is a few feet longer than the existing 21st Street railroad bridge. Section - 2 The study does not address track and route capacity issues between 40th Street on the Metra RID and also on the NS between 40th Street and the 21st Street Chicago River Vertical Lift 

The 21st Street bridge as well as otheevaluated in a future Tier 2 studies. 

RAILROADS

h-45
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

RAILROADS

RR9 Tier 1 Alternatives METRA 3-58 The assumption that a new station between Chicago and Joliet should be developed at I-294 ignores 

the fact that new highway entrance/exit ramps on 1-294 would likely be impossible or incredibly expensive due to existing geography including bridges over the Des Plaines River and the Sanitary & Ship Canal. The current access from I-294 to the Metra Willow Springs Station via 75th Street, Willow Springs Road, Archer Avenue and Market Street provides easy access to an existing rail station location in this vicinity from an existing highway interchange that could be easily signed to provide clear motorist direction to the station. We recommend removing or revising this reference accordingly. The need to analyze impacts in the Tier 2 study to existing Metra stations on both routes between Joliet and Chicago should be mentioned. Also, it may be better to analyze utilizing an existing Metra station that is convenient to the Interstate Highway system for HSR trains instead of building a new station. Passengers could easily transfer to and from Metra trains at that station in addition to Joliet. It would also reduce track maintenance problems associated with station platforms at an additional location. Pedestrian grade crossing improvements or pedestrian grade separations at Metra stations should be considered in 

Text related to future station location294 was made to indicate that access as part of determining where a future an existing Metra station is also now existing Metra stations, including the comment, was included in Section 3.in the FEIS. 

RR10 Tier 1 Alternatives

General - Funding/Costs

METRA 3-62 Since this appears to account for the largest source of variation in the cost estimates between 

alternatives, the description in the first non-bulleted paragraph could be made clearer to the reader by specifically citing the number of flyovers proposed in each of the two Chicago to Joliet segments. The Joliet EJ&E flyover may negatively impact Metra's Joliet Coach Yard. This impact and related cost are not included in the document. There is no mention of potential additional crossovers on 3rd mainline track 

on the Metra RID alignment in the report. The potential construction of pedestrian underpasses at Metra stations is not mentioned nor included in the cost estimate. The current 2012 under construction Tinley Park 80th Avenue pedestrian tunnel underpass has a cost of $2 Million.

The description on page 3-62 of the Dthe cost estimate and is not intended to Metra's Joliet Coach Yard would hAdditional crossovers were included estimates for the Program, including Estimated costs for improvements thwere also included in the overall alte

RR11 Tier 1 Alternatives

General - Funding/Costs

METRA 3-62-4 The cost estimates do not appear to reflect additional costs for commuter station reconstruction 

when new grade separations are constructed on adjacent roadways. If this cost is reflected in the 

estimates, it should be clearly identified. The following locations proposed for highway grade separations may impact adjacent commuter rail station facilities:ID Crossing Name Station Name1265 West 95th Street Longwood (95th Street)1261 West l03rd Street Washington Heights (103rd Street)1252 West Vermont Street Vermont Street1244 139th Street Robbins1241 147th Street Midlothian1231 Oak Park Avenue Tinley Park1229 80th Avenue 80th Avenue554 West 135th Street Romeoville (proposed)

In the Tier 1 study, no grade crossing crossings has been developed where the future. It is assumed that these fMany of these crossings may never blocal support, or other reasons that mseparation costs were included for a for some of the studies that would re

RR12 Tier 1 Transportation METRA 6-13 Table 6.1-4 "Trains Per Day - Chicago to Joliet (Section2)" and the associated text need to be 

corrected. On an average basis, Metra operates an average of 23 engine and deadhead movements between LaSalle Street Station and our 47th Street Yard. This table also does not reflect that IAIS operates three round-trips a day and yard movements out on the mainline, CSX operates one round trip a day and Chicago Rail Link operates two round trips a day for a total average of 12 freights a day on the RID mainline. Table 6.1-4 is also missing the freight and passenger traffic on the NS between 40th Street and the 21st Street vertical lift bridge over the Chicago River along with the over 100 trains a day on this bridge. The CREATE Program will connect the SWS to Metra's Rock Island District around 75th Street and those 30 scheduled trains a day will operate into LaSalle Street Station. The corresponding engine and deadhead movements between LaSalle Street Station and 47th Street Yard would double to 46 movements on weekdays. This future impact on Rock Island District mainline and yard movements is not discussed in the report and should be added. A third mainline track from Gresham northward may be needed if HSR trains are also on this route.

Text in Chapter 6 has been modified 

h-46
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

RAILROADS

RR13 Tier 1 Transportation METRA 6-33 The text description for improvements in the "Build Alternatives" needs to add information about 

track and signal improvements on both routes between Joliet and Chicago and that this should be investigated in further detail in the Tier 2 analysis.

This text has been modified to clarifie

RR14 Tier 1 Transportation METRA 6-34 The text description for improvements in the "Build Alternatives" needs to add information about 

station improvements on both routes between Joliet and Chicago and that this should be investigated in further detail in the Tier 2 analysis.

This text has been modified to clarifie

RR15 Tier 1 Transportation METRA 6-35 Do the ridership estimates accurately account for the fact that travel within the Metra service area 

on Amtrak trains is only permitted for persons connecting from other Amtrak service (i.e. Chicago to Joliet Amtrak trips are only allowed to be purchased in combination with a trip from Chicago to somewhere beyond the Metra service territory)?

Yes, this assumption is included in th

RR16 Tier 1 Transportation METRA 6-47.1 In addition to 23 engine or train deadhead moves to and from the yard facilities at 47th Street, the 

Metra Rock Island District operates four inbound and five outbound deadhead moves between LaSalle Street and Blue Island and one inbound deadhead move between Joliet and Blue Island. This should be made clear in the first paragraph on this page. Note that overnight and weekend storage and servicing of Rock Island District trains is also performed at the Blue Island Coach Yard. This should be made clear in the first paragraph on this page. Add the following text: The CREATE Program will connect the SWS to Metra's Rock Island District around 75th Street and those 30 scheduled trains a day will operate into LaSalle Street Station. The corresponding engine and deadhead movements between LaSalle Street Station and 47th Street Yard would double to 46 movements on weekdays. This future impact on Rock Island District mainline and yard movements is not discussed in the report and should be added. A third mainline track from Gresham northward may be needed if HSR trains are also on this route. The potential Rock Island District grade separation over the EJ&E may impact Metra's Joliet Coach Yard. The coach yard has a yard track on the south side of the mainline tracks in addition to the yard tracks north 

Text has been added to Chapter 6 to 

RR17 Tier 1 General METRA 6-48 In the "Section 6.6.2", the text references "Appendix D", when it should reference "Appendix E" 

instead.

This correction has been made in the 

RR18 Tier 1 Public 

Involvement

METRA 8 This section does not reflect coordination efforts with the railroad owners. Descriptions of these 

efforts should be added to this chapter. In the subsequent Tier 2 studies, additional efforts should be 

made to include all stakeholders, especially right-of-way owners in the process early and often during the studies.

Information has been added to Chapoperating railroads. During future Tirailroads will continue.

RR19 Tier 1 Alternatives CREATE Partners, Rail Tier 1 DEIS. As you know, the CREATE (Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency) 

Program is a public/private partnership between the U.S. DOT, the State of Illinois, City of Chicago, Metra, Amtrak, and the nation's freight railroads. A program of regional and national significance, CREATE consists of 70 separate yet interrelated projects, including roadway and rail overpasses and underpasses, improvements to existing viaducts and grade crossings, and upgrades to tracks, switches, and signal and dispatch systems. The benefits of the program include improved passenger rail service, reduced freight rail congestion to boost regional and national economic competiveness, reduced motorist delay due to rail conflicts at grade crossings, enhanced public safety, enhanced economic development, creating and retaining jobs, improved air quality, and reductions in noise from idling or slow-moving trains. The CREATE partners have identified ten improvement projects that intersect with the High-Speed Rail (HSR) alternatives under consideration. The table below lists the ten projects with the project number, project name and DEIS Alternative that causes the potential CREATE/HSR conflict. In the following pages, we have attached more detailed information on each of these CREATE projects and 

In future Tier 2 studies additional cooensure compatibility between CREATHSR Program improvements.

h-47
Overall 

Comment Number

DEIS Volume

DEIS Section/Topic Commenter Comment Response

RAILROADS

RR20 Tier 1 Alternatives Vena , Jim 

CN

In June, IDOT and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to address, among other matters, various routing alternatives for IDOT's proposal to improve high-speed rail (HSR) passenger service between Chicago and St. Louis. IDOT has asked parties to comment on the DEIS by August 20, and CN appreciates the opportunity to do so. The DEIS includes a Tier l corridor-level evaluation that includes numerous routing alternatives, including several alternatives for the portion of the route between Chicago Union Station (CUS) and Joliet. Of those, the DEIS has recommended two options for further consideration: the current route, largely over CN, on which 10 Amtrak trains now run daily (Alternative 2), and a route using Metra's Rock Island Line (Alternative 4D). CN understands that after the comment period IDOT and FRA will fully review the alternatives analysis and include a recommendation for the preferred CUS-Joliet route to be used for HSR and other Amtrak trains as part of the final Environmental Impact Statement that is expected by the end of this year. The DEIS recognized that at-grade rail-rail crossings create significant concerns and noted that "it is being assumed that railroad flyovers would be provided to eliminate conflict point[s] and improve rail 

The Rock Island District Route has beSee Section 3.5 of the FEIS. Future Tiseparating the Rock Island District fro

h-48