Executive Summary 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Illinois Department of Transportation (DOT) and Iowa DOT, in conjunction with the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are evaluating alternatives to reestablish 

passenger rail service between Chicago, Illinois, and Iowa City, Iowa, via the Quad Cities 

of Illinois and Iowa. The proposed passenger rail service would have two round trips per 

day (four passenger trains per day) from Chicago to Iowa City with a stop in the Quad 

Cities and other intermediate locations and would attract approximately 187,000 

passengers per year. The Chicago to Iowa City passenger rail service would be part of the 

Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI), an initiative of nine Midwest states and 

Amtrak to establish an intercity passenger rail system in the Midwest. Chicago would be 

the hub of the MWRRI and a series of high speed and conventional speed rail corridors 

would provide land based connectivity with the major Midwest population centers. The 

Chicago to Iowa City passenger rail service would be one section of the Chicago to 

Omaha corridor and is planned for conventional speed (79 mile per hour). 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is a Tier 1 Service Level EA which addresses the 

service level issues that would be part of the initial operations of two round trip passenger 

trains per day. Future Tier 2 Project Level analyses would be prepared for specific project 

level activities required to implement the Chicago to Iowa City passenger rail service. 

These project level activities include the evaluation and selection of specific station 

locations and designs, identification and evaluation of specific track improvements, and 

evaluation of the location of specific construction activities such as sidings and new 

connecting track. The purpose for the proposed passenger rail service is to re-introduce 

passenger rail service in Iowa City and the Quad Cities to increase regional mobility, 

reduce roadway congestion, meet future travel demands, and provide an affordable modal 

option for the communities served. 

In addition to the No-Build Alternative, Illinois DOT and Iowa DOT evaluated two 

different alternatives for providing passenger rail service from Chicago to Iowa City. 

Both alternatives would use a combination of existing passenger rail and freight rail 

alignments to provide passenger service. The Route A Alternative would connect 

Chicago’s Union Station to Iowa City using rail lines owned by Amtrak, BNSF Railway 

Company (BNSF), and Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS). This alternative would require 

the construction of a new connection between the BNSF and IAIS rail lines near Wyanet, 

Illinois. The Route A Alternative would reestablish passenger rail service to Geneseo, 

Illinois; the Quad Cities (Moline, Illinois); and Iowa City, Iowa; and would provide 

expanded passenger service to the existing stations in La Grange Road, Naperville, 

Plano, Mendota, and Princeton, and Illinois. The Route B Alternative would connect 

Chicago’s Union Station to Iowa City using tracks owned by Amtrak, Canadian National 

(CN), Metra, CSX Transportation (CSX), and IAIS. The Route B Alternative would not 

require any new connections. It would provide new passenger rail service to; Morris, 

LaSalle, Geneseo, Illinois; Quad Cities , Illinois; and Iowa City, Iowa; and would 

provide expanded passenger service to the existing station in Joliet, Illinois. 
September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

ii Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 

The Route A Alternative would provide a shorter and faster route than the Route B 

Alternative, and because of the more competitive travel time, the Route A Alternative 

would attract a higher ridership than the Route B Alternative. Almost half of the Route A 

Alternative (110 miles out of a total of 219 miles) currently supports 79 mph intercity 

passenger service and would not require any improvements. Far less of the Route B 

Alternative (42 miles out of a total of 238 miles) currently supports passenger trains, 

which means that the Route B Alternative would require more improvements to the track 

structure and grade crossings than the Route A Alternative. 

Both the Route A and Route B Alternatives would divert a substantial number of 

passengers from automobiles to the passenger trains, providing some congestion relief on 

the regional highway system. Both the Route A and Route B Alternatives would have an 

increase in rail traffic of four additional passenger trains per day, which would add to the 

existing train related noise and vibration effects. However, in several locations the track 

structure would be improved which would reduce the noise impact. In addition, 

improvements to the track in the Quad Cities area would allow for an increase in the train 

speed through the communities which would further reduce noise impacts. The warning 

systems at the at-grade crossings would be improved as needed by installing gates and 

flashing lights at public crossings and upgrading to constant time warning circuitry. This 

would allow communities to pursue quiet zones if the communities so desired. Illinois 

DOT and Iowa DOT selected the Route A Alternative as the preferred alternative since it 

requires fewer miles of track improvements, is a shorter and faster route, provides better 

ridership, has fewer adverse environmental impacts and provides for more environmental 

benefits than the Route B Alternative. 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment iii 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CN Canadian National Railway Corporation 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CSXT CSX Transportation Company 

CTC centralized traffic control 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWR continuous welded rail 

CWTD constant warning time activation 

dBA A-weighted decibels 

DNR Department of Natural Resources 

DOT Department of Transportation 

DTC direct traffic control 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EJ environmental justice 

EJ&E Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act

ESA U.S. Endangered Species Act 

et seq. and the following 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

iv Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 

FHWA U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway 

Administration 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FR Federal Register 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

ft foot or feet 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

GBV ground-borne vibration 

GHG human-generated greenhouse gas 

GIS Geographic Information Systems 

HSIPR High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

IA Iowa 

IAIS Iowa Interstate Railroad 

IC&E Chicago & Eastern Railroad 

IL Illinois 

ILCS Illinois Compiled Statutes 

Illinois EPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 

1991 

Ldn day-night noise level 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

たin microinch(es) 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

mph miles per hour 

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

MWRRI Midwest Regional Rail Initiative 

MWRRS Midwest Regional Rail System 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrogen oxides 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment v 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

O3 ozone 

Pb lead 

PHMSA U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PL Public Law

PM-10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in 

diameter 

PM-25 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter 

Preferred Alternative Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS 

Project reestablishment of passenger rail service between 

Chicago, Illinois, and Iowa City, Iowa 

PTC positive train control 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

ROW right-or-way 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

Section 4(f) Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 

Section 6(f) Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act 

of 1965 

Section 106 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act, as amended 

Section 404 Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

TOD transportation-oriented development 

TPD trains per day 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

vi Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 

TWC track warrant control 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USC United States Code 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VdB vibration decibels 

VOC volatile organic compound 
Table of Contents 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment vii 

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... I

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. III

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.2 PROJECT HISTORY ....................................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 PROJECT AREA .............................................................................................................. 1-4

1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................. 1-4

1.5 DECISIONS TO BE MADE .............................................................................................. 1-5

1.6 CONNECTED ACTIONS ................................................................................................. 1-5

1.7 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PERMITS ............................................................... 1-5

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................. 2-2

2.3 TWO ROUND-TRIP TRAINS PER DAY SCENARIO ....................................................... 2-2

2.3.1 Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) ......................................... 2-3

2.3.2 Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) ............ 2-6

2.4 FIVE ROUND-TRIP TRAINS PER DAY SCENARIO ....................................................... 2-8

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......... 3-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.2 Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives – Two Round-trip Trains per Day 

Scenario .............................................................................................................. 3-5

3.2.3 Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives – Five Round-trip Trains per Day 

Scenario .............................................................................................................3-10

3.3 SOCIOECONOMICS ......................................................................................................3-13

3.3.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-15

3.3.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-15

3.3.3 Five Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-17

3.4 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ..................................................................3-19

3.4.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-20

3.4.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-20

3.4.3 Five Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-22
Table of Contents 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

viii Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 

3.5 LAND USE, ZONING, AND PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS ..............................................3-22

3.5.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-22

3.5.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-22

3.5.3 Five Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-24

3.6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY .....................................................................................3-24

3.6.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-25

3.6.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-26

3.6.3 Five Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-27

3.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION ................................................................................................3-27

3.7.1 Noise Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................3-28

3.7.2 Ground-borne Vibration ......................................................................................3-38

3.8 AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................3-47

3.8.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-48

3.8.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-49

3.8.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-52

3.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ...............................................................................................3-55

3.9.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-56

3.9.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-56

3.9.3 Five Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-57

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................3-59

3.10.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................3-59

3.10.2 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-59

3.10.3 Two Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-60

3.10.4 Five Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-60

3.11 PARKS AND FEDERALLY OR STATE-LISTED NATURAL AREAS ..............................3-61

3.11.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-61

3.11.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-61

3.11.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-62

3.12 SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES .........................................................................................3-64

3.12.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-64

3.12.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day ..........................................................................3-64

3.12.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-65

3.13 WATERWAYS ................................................................................................................3-66

3.13.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-66

3.13.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-66

3.13.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-67
Table of Contents 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment ix 

3.14 WETLANDS ....................................................................................................................3-69

3.14.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-69

3.14.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-69

3.14.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-70

3.15 WATER QUALITY ...........................................................................................................3-70

3.15.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-70

3.15.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-70

3.15.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-71

3.16 FLOODPLAINS ...............................................................................................................3-71

3.16.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-71

3.16.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-72

3.16.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-72

3.17 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .............................................................3-72

3.17.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-73

3.17.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-73

3.17.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-75

3.18 ENERGY USE/CLIMATE CHANGE ................................................................................3-77

3.18.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-77

3.18.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-77

3.18.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-78

3.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ..........................................................................................3-78

3.19.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-78

3.19.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-78

3.19.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-79

3.20 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES .................3-79

3.20.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-79

3.20.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-79

3.20.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-80

3.21 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ......................................................................3-80

3.21.1 No-Build Alternative ...........................................................................................3-82

3.21.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-83

3.21.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day .........................................................................3-83

3.22 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ...............................................................................................3-83

CHAPTER 4 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ...................................................................... 4-1

4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 PUBLIC AND AGENCY OUTREACH .............................................................................. 4-1 
Table of Contents 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

x Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 

CHAPTER 5 NEXT STEPS........................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 PROJECT SECTIONS ..................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 ADDITIONAL STUDIES ................................................................................................... 5-2

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 6-1

Figures

Figure 1-1 Potential Intercity Passenger Rail Routes, Chicago to Quad Cities and Iowa City ..................... 1-7

Figure 1-2 MWRRI System .......................................................................................................................... 1-8 

Figure 2-1 Wyanet Connection .................................................................................................................... 2-9

Figure 2-2 Station Locations to be Determined – Geneseo ....................................................................... 2-10

Figure 2-3 Proposed Station Locations – Moline and Iowa City ................................................................ 2-11

Figure 2-4 Station Locations to be Determined – Peru and Morris ............................................................ 2-12

Figure 3.2-1 Regional Transportation Network .......................................................................................... 3-12

Figure 3.3-1 Economically Distressed Counties ........................................................................................ 3-18

Figure 3.7-1 Noise and Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................. 3-44

Figure 3.7-2 Noise and Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................. 3-45

Figure 3.7-3 Noise and Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................. 3-46

Figure 3.8-1 Ozone PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas ...................................................................................... 3-53

Figure 3.8-2 PM10 Maintenance Areas ..................................................................................................... 3-54

Figure 3.9-1 Environmental Constraints..................................................................................................... 3-58

Figure 3.11-1 State Wildlife Management Areas, Illinois and Iowa ............................................................ 3-63

Figure 3.13-1 National Rivers Inventory Areas .......................................................................................... 3-68

Figure 3.17-1 Indian Bat Critical Habitat .................................................................................................... 3-76

Charts

Chart 3.7-1 FTA Noise Impact Criteria ....................................................................................................... 3-29

Tables

Table 3.2-1 Total Trips in the Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha Corridor, for the Year 2000 ............................ 3-3

Table 3.2-2 Summary of Highway/Rail at-Grade Crossings......................................................................... 3-3

Table 3.2-3 Rail/Rail At-Grade Crossings for Route B ................................................................................. 3-3

Table 3.2-4 Total Ridership and Estimated Diversions, Based on Two Round-Trip Trains per Day ............ 3-7

Table 3.3-1 Population Changes in the Project Area ................................................................................. 3-14

Table 3.7-1 Summary of Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................ 3-30

Table 3.7-2 Noise Condition Definitions ..................................................................................................... 3-31
Table of Contents 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment xi 

Table 3.7-3 Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternative ................. 3-33

Table 3.7-4 Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the Route B Alternative ................... 3-35

Table 3.7-5 Impact Threshold Contour Distances ...................................................................................... 3-37

Table 3.7-6 Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3-39

Table 3.7-7 Incremental Increase in Ground-borne Vibration Impacts Associated with the Preferred 

Alternative .................................................................................................................... 3-41

Table 3.7-8 Incremental Increase in Ground-borne Vibration Impacts Associated with the Route B 

Alternative .................................................................................................................... 3-42

Table 3.7-9 Distances to Category 2 Ground-Borne Vibration Impacts ..................................................... 3-43

Table 3.8-1 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas within the Project Area ............................................. 3-47

Table 3.8-2 Estimated Changes in Air Pollutants from Diversion of Vehicle and Plane Trips 

(tons per year).............................................................................................................. 3-49

Table 3.8-3 Summary of General Conformity Determination for Preferred Alternativea

 ............................. 3-50

Table 3.8-4 Estimated Changes in Air Pollutants from Diversion of Vehicle and Plane Trips 

(tons per year).............................................................................................................. 3-51

Table 3.8-5 Summary of General Conformity Determination for Route B Alternativea

 ............................... 3-51

Table 3.8-6 Estimated Changes in Air Pollutants from Diversion of Vehicle and Plane Trips 

(tons per year).............................................................................................................. 3-52

Table 3.17-1 Federally Listed, Threatened, and Endangered Species within the Project Area ................. 3-73

Table 4-1 Public Meetings ........................................................................................................................... 4-1

Table 4-2 Written Coordination .................................................................................................................... 4-4

Table 4-3 Agency Coordination ................................................................................................................... 4-6
 Chapter 1

Purpose and Need 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 1-1

CHAPTER 1 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

This chapter describes the history of the project, the project area, the purpose of and need 

for the project, decisions to be made based on this document, connected actions, 

applicable regulations, and permits and approvals that are expected to be required prior to 

construction. 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Illinois Department of Transportation (DOT) and Iowa DOT, in conjunction with the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), are evaluating alternatives for the 

reestablishment of passenger rail service between Chicago, Illinois, and Iowa City, Iowa 

(the Project), which is part of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI). See 

Section 1.2, Project History, for more information about the MWRRI. 

As described in more detail in Section 2.1, Introduction, the service plan identified in the 

MWRRI calls for an ultimate service level of five round-trips per day (for a total of 

10 passenger trains per day [TPD]); however, consistent with the incremental approach 

adopted by the MWRRI, Illinois DOT and Iowa DOT are proposing an initial service 

level of two round-trips per day (four passenger TPD). In addition, the MWRRI envisions 

an ultimate train speed of 90 miles per hour (mph) for the maximum authorized track 

speed on the section from Chicago to Wyanet1 and a maximum authorized track speed of 

79 mph from Wyanet to Iowa City when operating five round-trip TPD. For the initial 

service, Illinois DOT and Iowa DOT are proposing 79 mph on the entire route. The initial 

service was evaluated by Amtrak in its feasibility studies (Franke et al., 2008a; Franke et 

al., 2008b). Illinois DOT and Iowa DOT have determined that the initial service level 

would provide viable stand-alone service and would have independent utility; that is, 

developing the initial service does not force Illinois DOT or Iowa DOT to expand the 

service elsewhere. As addressed in Chapter 2, Alternatives, two alternatives have been 

identified for the section from Chicago to Wyanet where multiple rail lines are present. 

Because only one rail line connecting Wyanet to Iowa City currently exists, only one 

alternative has been identified for this section (see Figure 1-1, Potential Intercity 

Passenger Rail Routes, Chicago to Quad Cities and Iowa City). 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) is a Tier 1 service level analysis. The EA evaluates 

both the initial service and the ultimate build-out proposed in the MWRRI, as well as the 

two alternative routes and the No-Build Alternative. At this time, Illinois DOT and Iowa 

DOT are proposing only the initial service on the route from Chicago to Iowa City. The 

operating agreements with the host railroads and Amtrak address only the initial service 

level. Any future increase in service levels will necessitate additional compliance with 

 

1

 There is no station stop at Wyanet; however, Wyanet is where the alignment transitions to the Iowa 

Interstate Railroad. 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

1-2 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] 

4321 et seq.). 

1.2 PROJECT HISTORY 

The MWRRI was established in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (Public Law [PL] 102-240) and its reauthorization in 

1998 with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (PL 105-178). 

ISTEA and TEA-21 included a broader national effort to support high-speed rail 

investment. Nine transportation agencies across the Midwest and Amtrak sponsored the 

MWRRI: 

• Illinois Department of Transportation 

• Indiana Department of Transportation 

• Iowa Department of Transportation 

• Michigan Department of Transportation 

• Minnesota Department of Transportation 

• Missouri Department of Transportation 

• Nebraska Department of Roads 

• Ohio Rail Development Commission 

• Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

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

were identified, with Chicago as the hub. A number of studies were completed to identify 

and refine the corridors. Between 1996 and 2004, the MWRRI was refined from a series 

of individual corridors into a transportation plan. Numerous studies were also completed 

with regard to bus service integration into the MWRRI; financial, economic, market, and 

transportation analysis; infrastructure and capital costs; operating costs; and institutional 

and organizational issues. These efforts culminated in 2004, when the MWRRI issued the 

MWRRI Project Notebook (Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., 

2004a) and the Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) Executive Report 

(Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., 2004b). Since 2004, efforts 

have progressed to develop the various corridors. In 2006, Chapter 11, Benefit Cost and 

Economic Analysis, of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook was 

updated (Transportation Economics & Management Systems, 2006a). The reports issued 

from these studies included the following passenger rail corridors in the MWRRS (see 

Figure 1-2): 

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

• Chicago to Cleveland, Ohio 

• Chicago to Cincinnati, Ohio 

• Chicago to Carbondale, Illinois 

• Chicago to St. Louis, Missouri 

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

• Chicago to Quincy, Illinois 

• Chicago to Omaha, Nebraska 
 Chapter 1

Purpose and Need 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 1-3

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

Wisconsin 

The Chicago to Iowa City corridor is a portion of the Chicago to Omaha corridor. The 

MWRRI includes many high-speed (110-mph) passenger rail corridors, but the Chicago 

to Iowa City service is planned for conventional speed (79 mph) and not high speed. The 

Project includes two round-trip TPD at maximum authorized track speeds of up to only 

79 mph between Chicago and Iowa City. Depending on the specific route selected, under 

the MWRRI plan a portion of the Chicago to Iowa City corridor would be upgraded in 

the future to allow for maximum authorized track speeds of 90 mph when operating 

five round-trip TPD. 

The existing railroads that are proposed to be used to provide passenger service were all 

in place by 1862 (Colton, 1862; Wikipedia, 2009a; Wikipedia, 2009b; Wikipedia, 2009c) 

and are among the oldest railroads in the region. The railroads were initially constructed 

to carry passengers and to haul a variety of freight and have evolved into very busy 

railroads. Most of the passenger service along these routes began when the rail lines were 

constructed and generally was terminated between the 1950s and the 1970s, when 

railroad passenger service declined nationally. However, one section (between Chicago 

and Naperville) has been providing regular commuter rail service since 1863 (Wikipedia 

2009a). This section is on the alignment of the Preferred Alternative, discussed in 

Chapter 2, Alternatives. 

As stated in the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook (Transportation 

Economics & Management Systems, Inc., 2004b), full implementation of the MWRRI 

would significantly improve Midwest passenger rail service by: 

• Upgrading existing rail rights-of-way (ROW) to permit frequent, reliable, 

high-speed passenger train operations 

• Accommodating operation of a hub-and-spoke2 passenger rail system that 

provides through-service and connectivity in Chicago to locations throughout 

the Midwest region 

• Introducing modern train equipment that offers improved amenities operating 

at speeds of up to 110 mph 

• Providing multimodal connections and feeder bus systems to improve access 

to the rail system 

• Introducing a contracted rail operation that improves efficiency, reliability 

and on-time performance 

With full implementation (estimated to occur in 2025), the MWRRS would encompass 

approximately 3,000 route miles in the sponsor states and would attract approximately 

13.6 million passengers annually. Approximately 90 percent of the Midwest region’s 

population would be within an hour’s ride of an MWRRI rail station and/or within 30 

 

2

 A hub-and–spoke passenger rail system is one that provides transportation to a central location. From 

this central location (the hub), one can travel to various other destinations (the spokes). 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

1-4 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

minutes of an MWRRS rail station (Transportation Economics & Management Systems, 

Inc., 2004b). 

1.3 PROJECT AREA 

The Project area consists of existing rail corridors between Chicago and Iowa City. The 

proposed build alternatives include combinations of the existing freight and passenger 

lines of Amtrak, Metra, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), Canadian National Railway 

Corporation (CN), CSX Transportation Company (CSXT), and Iowa Interstate Railroad 

(IAIS). One new connection would be required in Wyanet for the Preferred Alternative 

(Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS), which would leave the existing ROW and would 

require acquisition of approximately 7 acres of land3. 

1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of the Project, and of the MWRRI, is to expand existing and develop new 

regional passenger rail service to help meet future travel demands in the Midwest. The 

Project would expand and create a rail transportation alternative to automobile, bus, and 

air and would meet needs for more efficient travel by: 

• Decreasing travel times 

• Increasing frequency of service 

• Improving reliability 

• Providing amenities to improve passenger ride quality and comfort 

There is a need to reduce the congestion and the transportation-related effects of further 

population growth over the long term. Many communities between Chicago and Iowa 

City have experienced rapid growth since 2000 and have seen increased congestion on 

roadways (Franke et al., 2008a; Franke, et al. 2008b). As discussed in Section 3.3, 

Socioeconomics, the Project area population increased by 15 percent between 1970 and 

2008 (U.S. Census Bureau, August 5, 2009). 

In addition to roadway congestion, the University of Iowa and nationally recognized 

hospitals are located in Iowa City, and approximately 20 percent of the University of 

Iowa student body (about 30,000 students) is from Illinois. Furthermore, the Quad Cities 

area (a region comprising the cities of Moline, East Moline, and Rock Island, Illinois; 

Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa) offers numerous tourist attractions, including the 

Mississippi River, river boating, riverboat casinos, and the Rock Island Arsenal as well as 

museums and other cultural attractions (Franke et al., 2008b). Approximately 60 percent 

of the visitors to the Quad Cities are from the Chicago area (Franke et al., 2008a). Bus 

service and personal automobile are currently the only two modes of transportation that 

provide a direct connection for individuals traveling between Chicago and Iowa City. The 

nearest commercial airport to Iowa City is in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which is approximately 

30 miles north of Iowa City. The passenger rail service will fulfill a need for a 

 

3

 A dispute exists between BNSF and the adjacent property owner with respect to the ownership of the 

parcel in question. This Tier 1 Service Level EA takes no position with respect to the dispute and has 

therefore identified the parcel as a potential acquisition. The alternatives alignments for the connection 

and the associated site-specific impacts will be evaluated in a Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document. 
 Chapter 1

Purpose and Need 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 1-5

transportation alternative to and from these areas while relieving congestion on existing 

infrastructure. 

1.5 DECISIONS TO BE MADE 

Illinois DOT, Iowa DOT, and FRA must comply with NEPA due to the proposed use of 

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program funds for the Project. “The NEPA process 

is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of 

environmental consequences, and take actions that protect, restore, and enhance the 

environment” (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500.1). NEPA requires the 

evaluation of a proposed project to determine if impacts on the environment will be 

significant. If it is determined through the EA that no significant impacts will result from 

the proposed action, then a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued by the 

sponsoring federal agency. 

FRA has issued guidance supporting an approach that includes service level NEPA 

documents followed by project level NEPA documents, which can be accomplished with 

a tiered NEPA approach (FRA, August 14, 2009). With a tiered approach, the Tier 1 

Service Level NEPA document evaluates impacts of a project as a whole, with focus on 

more qualitative than quantitative impacts. Following completion of the Tier 1 Service 

Level NEPA document and the associated decision document, Tier 2 Project Level 

NEPA documents are developed to evaluate quantitatively the environmental impacts 

within one or more specific sections. 

The purpose of this Tier 1 Service Level EA is to provide FRA and the public with full 

understanding of the service-wide environmental impacts of the alternatives developed to 

meet the Project purpose and need. Prior to implementation of passenger rail service 

between Chicago and Iowa City, Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents will be 

developed for the sections identified in Chapter 5.0, Next Steps. 

1.6 CONNECTED ACTIONS 

The Project is part of the MWRRI although it proposes only the expansion or addition of 

passenger rail service between Chicago and Iowa City. The implementation of passenger 

rail service along the other corridors included in the MWRRI is connected to the Project, 

but would be evaluated separately. 

1.7 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PERMITS 

The following Federal regulations, statutes, and orders apply to and were focused on 

during preparation of this Tier 1 Service Level EA for the Project: 

• Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 USC § 1251-1376) 

• Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17) 

• Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (42 Federal Register [FR] 

26951) 

• Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetland (42 FR 26961) 

• Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629) 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

1-6 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

• Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with 

Limited English Proficiency (65 FR 50121) 

• Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts (64 FR 28545 and 49 CFR Part 260.35) 

• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC § 4321 et seq., signed 

January 1, 1970) 

• Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500–1508) 

• Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC 

§ 303) 

• Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 USC § 460) 

• Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC § 401) 

• Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 USC 

§ 470) 

• Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC § 1344) 

• Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 

1970, as amended (42 USC § 61) 

• Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Final Rule 

(40 CFR 222 and 229) 

Illinois DOT and Iowa DOT would be required to obtain the following permits prior to 

the start of any construction that is needed: 

• Section 404 General or Individual Permits – The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) administers the Clean Water Act (CWA) on behalf of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Section 404 permits are 

needed for projects involving the discharge of dredge or fill material into 

waters of the U.S., which include wetlands and surface waters with a 

connection to a navigable waterway. 

• Section 401 Water Quality Certification – This section of the CWA requires 

an applicant for an action that may result in discharges into waters of the U.S. 

to obtain clearance for this discharge from the state. Section 401 water quality 

certifications will be needed for both Illinois and Iowa. 

Since the focus of this Tier 1 Service Level EA focuses on the broader impacts of the 

Project as a whole, the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents are expected to identify 

additional state and local level permits and approvals that are needed based upon specific 

activities to be completed. State and local permits and approvals will be discussed in the 

Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. 

 
Proposed Track Connection

Wyanet, IL

Union

Station

BNSF

Morris

Peru--La Salle

Princeton

Mendota

Plano Naperville

Joliet

Geneseo

Wyanet

La Grange Rd

IAIS

IAIS

CSXT

METRA

Cedar Rapids

Iowa City

Quad Cities

Rockford

Chicago

Peoria

Mississippi River

Lake Michigan

WILL

COOK

LA SALLE

HENRY

BUREAU

KANE

DE KALB

GRUNDY

DU PAGE

KENDALL

ROCK ISLAND

CEDAR

SCOTT

JOHNSON

MUSCATINE

55

57

88

74 39

380

65

90

43

94

290

155

I l l i n o i s

I o w a

W i s c o n s i n

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

1-1

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Potential_Intercity_Passenger_Rail_Routes.mxd\sept09\jcm

Potential Intercity Passenger Rail Routes,

Chicago to Quad Cities and Iowa City

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

25 12.5 0 25

Miles

Scale

Source: Feasibility Study on Proposed Amtrak Service

Quad Cities to Chicago - January 7, 2008

Chicago to Iowa City - April 18, 2008

Legend

Existing AMTRAK Station

Proposed AMTRAK Station

Route A Alternative

Route B Alternative

Routes A & B Alternative

BNSF-Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway

CSXT-CSX Transportation

IAIS -Iowa Interstate Railroad
DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

1-2

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Midwest_Regional_Rail_Routes.mxd\sept09\jcm

MWRRS

Not to Scale Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

Source: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2004b

Midwest Regional Rail System Executive Report
 Chapter 2

 Alternatives 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 2-1

CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the alternative actions considered for implementing the proposed 

passenger rail Project between Chicago, Illinois, and Iowa City, Iowa. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, the Project is part of the MWRRI to 

develop and operate a Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS). The MWRRI envisions 

a rail network of more than 3,000 route-miles to serve nine states (Illinois, Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Nebraska) with a combined 

population of 60 million people, a fifth of the total population of the United States. 

Portions of the 3,000-mile, MWRRS are part of the national High Speed Rail system 

designated under the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (consisting of the 

existing Northeast Corridor and ten major corridors identified for potential high-speed 

rail projects). Chicago would serve as the hub for nine corridors in the MWRRS noted in 

Chapter 1 and shown in Figure 1-2. 

Secondary corridors and branch lines connected to these corridors would provide 

passenger rail service to other cities and towns including Quincy, Illinois; Green Bay, 

Wisconsin; Pontiac, Michigan; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Holland, Michigan; and Port 

Huron, Michigan. The system would provide scheduled service to other regional centers 

including Springfield, Illinois; Madison, Wisconsin; Kalamazoo, Michigan; Lansing, 

Michigan; Toledo, Ohio; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Indianapolis, Indiana; Iowa City, Iowa; 

Des Moines, Iowa; Omaha, Nebraska, and Jefferson City, Missouri. 

A feeder passenger-bus system, with service schedules coordinated with the passenger 

rail service, would connect smaller towns and cities with the passenger rail corridors. 

With the full implementation of the MWRRS, planned passenger rail routes, and 

complementary feeder bus service, approximately 90 percent of the Midwest region’s 

population would be within an hour’s ride of a MWRRS rail station and /or within 30 

minutes of a MWRRS feeder bus station. Passenger rail service in each of these corridors 

would be implemented in increments. 

The proposed Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service is Phase 3 (of seven 

phases) of the MWRRI and is part of the proposed Chicago to Omaha corridor. A 

feasibility study was completed by Amtrak for the corridor between Chicago and the 

Quad Cities of Iowa and Illinois. Subsequently, a feasibility study was completed by 

Amtrak for the extension of service between the Quad Cities and Iowa City. During the 

development of these studies, Illinois DOT, Iowa DOT, host railroads, local government 

representatives, and advocacy groups were consulted to develop alternatives for the 

passenger rail service (Franke et al., 2008a; Franke et al., 2008b). 

The proposed Chicago to Iowa City Intercity passenger rail service would result in the 

reestablishment of intercity passenger rail service between Chicago and the Quad Cities 
Chapter 2 

Alternatives 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

2-2 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

and to Iowa City. The Project would benefit the communities by providing transportation 

options and improving connectivity to Chicago. The Project would serve a market that is 

not currently served and provide an affordable and competitive modal option. 

The MWRRI plan for service levels on the Chicago to Iowa City corridor is for five 

round-trip passenger TPD. However, consistent with the incremental approach adopted 

by the MWRRI for the development of the MWRRS, Illinois DOT and Iowa DOT 

propose to initiate passenger service on the corridor at two round-trip passenger TPD. 

Both the two round-trips per day initial service level and the five round-trips per day 

ultimate service level are considered in this assessment. 

The evaluation of the five round-trips per day scenario is included in this Tier 1 Service 

Level EA because this is the ultimate service level that Illinois DOT and Iowa DOT, as 

well as the MWRRI, envision at some point in the future. However, since the High Speed 

Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) grant application only requests the funding required for 

the initial service level, and all of the improvements required for the ultimate service 

level have not been fully defined, Illinois DOT and Iowa DOT recognize that this Tier 1 

Service Level EA may need to be revisited before the ultimate service level of five 

round-trip passenger TPD is implemented. The implementation of the initial service level 

of two round trips per day would have independent utility and would not necessitate the 

ultimate service level of five round-trip TPD, nor would it foreclose any future 

opportunities for passenger rail service in the region. 

2.2 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

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

with the present level of maintenance and no appreciable change to current track 

configuration or operating conditions. The No-Build Alternative would not meet the 

Project purpose and need because passenger rail service would not be reestablished in the 

Quad Cities or Iowa City, there would not be an attractive alternative to highway or 

airline travel, and congestion of these modes of transportation in the Chicago to Quad 

Cities and Iowa City area would not be reduced. 

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

the two round-trip TPD and five round-trip TPD scenarios and to help decision-makers 

and the public understand the consequences of taking no action. Additionally, NEPA 

requires consideration of no action to serve as a baseline comparison with the proposed 

action and other alternatives seriously considered. 

2.3 TWO ROUND-TRIP TRAINS PER DAY SCENARIO 

Initial passenger service would begin with two round-trip TPD. Future passenger rail 

service operations could increase to five round-trip TPD; the impacts of five round-trip 

TPD are discussed in Section 2.4, Five Round-trip Trains per Day Scenario. 

Feasibility studies were previously conducted to identify a range of potential alternative 

routes. Three alternatives were considered for the two round-trip TPD scenario: Route A 

(Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS), Route B (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island-CSXT-IAIS), and an 

alternative route through Chicago to New Lenox to Metra/Rock Island (Franke et al., 

2008a; Franke et al., 2008b). Route C, which was eliminated from further consideration, 
 Chapter 2

 Alternatives 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 2-3

would use Metra’s Southwest Service route from Chicago through New Lenox. A 

connection from the Southwest Service route to the Metra Rock Island District route 

would be required because these two routes are grade separated. This alternative was 

dismissed from further consideration because the land needed to construct the connection 

includes part of a public park; local officials indicated vigorous opposition to use of 

parkland for the proposed connection (Franke et al., 2008a) 

The No-Build, Route A, and Route B alternatives were retained for detailed study. The 

following text identifies activities associated with both of the alternatives. 

2.3.1 Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

The Amtrak feasibility study indicated that the Route A Alternative (Chicago through 

Wyanet to Quad Cities to Iowa City) should be the Preferred Alternative because this 

route is currently used to provide Amtrak service on the portion of this line from Chicago 

through Princeton and would require fewer capital improvements than Route B 

Alternative (Franke et al., 2008a; Franke et al., 2008b). The Preferred Alternative 

consists of using the tracks of three rail carriers: Amtrak (1.6 miles), BNSF (115.3 miles), 

and IAIS (102.3 miles) to provide passenger rail service between Chicago and Iowa City 

(see Figure 1-1). The passenger rail service would use the Arsenal Bridge to cross the 

Mississippi River. USACE owns and operates the Arsenal bridge, but IAIS is responsible 

for the track and signal maintenance across the bridge. 

The Project would provide two round-trip passenger TPD travelling at speeds of up to 

79 mph. The Route A Alternative would provide passenger rail service from Chicago to 

existing Amtrak stations at La Grange Road, Naperville, Plano, Mendota, and Princeton; 

expanding existing passenger rail service between Chicago and Princeton and introducing 

passenger rail service to Geneseo, the Quad Cities, and Iowa City, where there is 

currently no passenger rail service. 

The Chicago through Wyanet route section is currently used by Amtrak as part of the 

long distance California Zephyr and Southwest Chief passenger service to the west coast 

and for regional intercity passenger service on the Illinois Zephyr and the Carl Sandburg 

to Quincy, Illinois. Amtrak currently operates an average of eight TPD on the section of 

BNSF rail line between Chicago and Wyanet (four westbound and four eastbound). The 

maximum speed for passenger rail service on the BNSF rail line is currently 79 mph. The 

BNSF line is used by Metra commuter trains from Chicago’s Union Station to Aurora, 

Illinois, (an average of 81 commuter TPD) and by freight trains (an average of 35 TPD 

between Chicago and Eola Yard in Aurora, and an average of 18.5 TPD west of the Eola 

Yard through Wyanet). The IAIS line from Wyanet to Iowa City is not currently used for 

passenger rail service, but is used by freight trains (an average of 10 TPD through 

Wyanet to the Quad Cities, and an average of six TPD from the Quad Cities to Iowa 

City). 

The BNSF line is mostly double and triple track, is signalized, and is under centralized 

traffic control (CTC). The IAIS line is single track, is non-signalized, and operates under 

track warrant control (TWC). 

The Route A Alternative would include track upgrade, construction of a connection track, 

installation of a CTC system including a wayside signal system and remote control 
Chapter 2 

Alternatives 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

2-4 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

switches, and provision of station facilities at Geneseo1, Illinois; the Quad Cities; and 

Iowa City (Franke et al., 2008a; Franke et al., 2008b). 

Track Upgrades 

The existing Amtrak track from Union Station in Chicago to its connection with the 

BNSF track (1.6 miles) and the BNSF track from Chicago to Wyanet (115.3 miles) is in 

excellent condition and would not require any upgrade to support train service at speeds 

of up to 79 mph2. The IAIS track from Wyanet to Iowa City is currently a mixture of 

jointed rail and continuous welded rail (CWR). Approximately 9 miles of the IAIS track 

between Wyanet and Iowa City consists of jointed rail; this would be replaced with 

CWR. There are also a few joints still remaining within the CWR sections that would be 

welded, and worn CWR at two curve locations that would be replaced prior to 

implementing the proposed passenger rail service. Many of the crossties would need to be 

replaced and the track would need to be resurfaced (correcting the alignment of the rails 

to make them smooth by compacting the ballast and straightening and leveling the track). 

Most existing curves would require an increase in superelevation to allow higher train 

speeds. At-grade crossing protection would be upgraded to support the proposed 79 mph 

operation (Franke et al., 2008a; Franke et al., 2008b). 

Most of the track rehabilitation from Chicago to Iowa City would be completed within 

the existing railroad grade, but some ditching, minor bridge and culvert work, elimination 

of mud spots in the track, and shoulder work as warranted to support speed upgrades may 

be required outside the existing railroad grade. 

Wyanet Connection 

Approximately 1 mile southwest of Wyanet, the BNSF Railway track is grade-separated 

over the IAIS track; there is currently no connection between the tracks. To permit 

straightaway train movements a connection track (approximately 4,000 feet long) would 

be constructed in the northwest quadrant of the intersection (see Figure 2-1). The 

connection would be designed to accommodate a train speed of 50 mph. Approximately 7 

acres of ROW would be required for the proposed connection. 

Wayside Signals and Remote Control Switches 

The existing IAIS track from Wyanet to the Quad Cities and from the Quad Cites to Iowa 

City is non- signalized TWC territory. A CTC wayside signal system, compatible with 

future positive train control (PTC) overlay equipment, would be installed along these 

route sections. Dispatcher-controlled power switches would be installed at existing and 

new freight sidings for passenger service. Tree and brush clearing would be performed as 

needed to provide necessary sight distances for the wayside signal system. Upgrades as 

warranted will be implemented to the IAIS’s dispatching center. Both BNSF and IAIS’s 

dispatching offices will be automatically notified as trains from one railroad are being 

routed onto the other railroad. 

 

1

 The Geneseo Station was identified in the Amtrak feasibility study and was not included in the 

MWRRI study. As a result, the MWRRI documents, including the MWRRI SDP, do not include a 

station at Geneseo. 

2

 See Section 3.21 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts for a discussion concerning improvements required 

at the BNSF Eola Yard in Aurora, Illinois. 
 Chapter 2

 Alternatives 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 2-5

At-grade Roadway Crossings 

The existing Amtrak track from Union Station in Chicago to its connection with the 

BNSF track and the BNSF track from Chicago to Wyanet is in excellent condition and 

would not require any at-grade crossing upgrade to support train service at speeds of up 

to 79 mph. Due to the increased speed (from 40 mph to 79 mph) on the Wyanet to Iowa 

City section, approximately 180 public and private at-grade crossing would be improved. 

Tree and brush clearing would be performed at crossings where needed to address sight 

distance issues. Public at-grade crossing warning devices would be upgraded to constant 

warning time devices (CWTD), and at a minimum, flashing light signals with gates 

would be provided. 

Additional safety measures (for example, medians or quad gates) would be considered for 

locations with problematic geometric conditions or chronic accident histories. Potential 

crossing closures/consolidations or grade separations would be identified for areas with 

multiple crossings nested together within a short distance. All private at-grade crossings 

would be upgraded to provide, at a minimum, passive warning signage. Private industrial 

or other heavily used private at-grade crossings would use flashing light signals with 

gates where warranted by traffic volumes and site conditions. Farm and other lowvolume private at-grade crossings would use passive warning signage at all locations and 

would also include locked gates at locations where there are multiple tracks, sight 

distance issues, or other significant risk factors. Crossings with humps would be graded 

to eliminate the potential for hanging up low-clearance equipment. Crossing 

improvements or closings will be evaluated in subsequent Tier 2 Project Level NEPA 

documents. 

Station Facilities 

The proposed passenger rail service would continue to use existing stations at La Grange 

Road, Naperville, Plano, Mendota, and Princeton, Illinois. Amtrak stations are proposed 

at Geneseo and Moline, Illinois; and Iowa City, Iowa (Franke et al., 2008a; Franke et al., 

2008b). 

A site for an Amtrak station in Geneseo has not yet been determined (see Figure 2-2). 

Construction and operation of the Geneseo Amtrak station will be evaluated in 

subsequent Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. 

The Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District, along with the City of 

Moline, is planning to construct an Amtrak station near the existing bus station in 

downtown Moline as part of Centre Station, a transit oriented development (see Figure 

2-2). The Centre Station site is also being studied for a commuter rail station and could 

develop into an intermodal transit facility, linking passenger rail, commuter rail, local and 

regional bus, water taxi, and other non┽transit modes of transportation such as 

automobiles and bicycles (S.B. Friedman and Company, July 2009). 

The potential for reacquiring and remodeling the former passenger rail service terminal in 

Iowa City, near Wright Street and Dubuque Street, for use as an Amtrak station is being 

explored (see Figure 2-3). The former station is currently being used for non-rail 

purposes. 
Chapter 2 

Alternatives 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

2-6 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

An overnight train storage track location in Iowa City would be identified. A small 

building facility would be needed for train crews, storage of cleaning equipment, and 

communications. Standby power and potable water would also be required. Several sites 

for the storage track are being explored and will be evaluated in subsequent Tier 2 Project 

Level NEPA documents. 

Other Infrastructure Improvements 

The IAIS crossing of the BNSF line at Colona would be improved to increase the 

operating speed of the proposed passenger rail service trains. Currently, train speeds at 

this crossing are limited to 10 mph. Improvements would also be implemented at the 

Rock Island Yard to reduce congestion from switching operations. Relocation of the 

Rock Island Yard to Silvis is also under consideration (Hanson Professional Services, 

Inc., July 3, 2008). 

Schedule 

The proposed passenger rail service would provide an alternative to highway or air 

transportation between Chicago, the Quad Cities, and Iowa City. A typical passenger rail 

service train departing Chicago would arrive in the Quad Cities in approximately 

3.3 hours and in Iowa City in approximately 5 hours. The typical time of travel and 

distances between stations, and a preliminary passenger train schedule is provided in 

Appendix A. 

2.3.2 Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

The Route B Alternative consists of using the tracks of five rail carriers: Amtrak 

(1.6 miles), CN (1.0 miles), Metra/Rock Island District (39.4 miles), CSXT (54.0 miles), 

and IAIS (142.2 miles) to provide passenger rail service between Chicago and Iowa City. 

The Project would provide two round-trip passenger TPD travelling at speeds of up to 

79 mph. The Metra/Rock Island line is used for Metra commuter passenger service 

between Chicago and Joliet (54 TPD). There is currently no passenger rail service 

between Joliet and Iowa City. The CSXT line is currently used for freight trains 

(six TPD) from Joliet to Utica, Illinois. An average of 10 freight TPD operate on the IAIS 

line between Utica and Moline; an average of six freight TPD operate on the IAIS line 

between Moline and Iowa City. 

The Project would include track upgrade, installation of a wayside signal system and 

remote control switches, and provision of station facilities at Morris, La Salle, Geneseo, 

and Moline, Illinois, and Iowa City, Iowa. A station stop is also proposed for the existing 

Amtrak station at Joliet. A connection track would not be required near Wyanet, as the 

existing IAIS track continues both east and west of Wyanet. 

Track Upgrades 

The existing Metra/Rock Island District track from Union Station in Chicago to its 

connection with the CSXT track in Joliet is in excellent condition and would not require 

any upgrade to support train service at speeds of up to 79 mph. The CSXT track from 

Joliet to the IAIS track in Bureau is in various states of condition; the majority of this 

track is jointed rail with crossties that are insufficient to support the higher speed of the 

proposed passenger rail service. All of the remaining jointed rail and crossties in poor 

condition would need to be replaced to support the proposed passenger rail service. The 
 Chapter 2

 Alternatives 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 2-7

entire line from Joliet to Bureau would be resurfaced; this would include increasing the 

superelevation of curves for higher speed as required. With the exception of a short 

section of jointed rail at Bureau, the IAIS line from Bureau to Wyanet consists of CWR 

track. The jointed rail would be upgraded to CWR track and crossties would be replaced 

(Franke et al., 2008a). 

The Metra/Rock Island District track is used for commuter trains from Chicago to Joliet. 

The Metra/Rock Island line is double track to Joliet and is controlled via CTC. The 

CSXT section of this route (west of Joliet) is used by freight trains. Due to a heavy 

concentration of industrial rail customers west of Joliet, local train traffic is heavy, with 

numerous turnouts and sidings. The CSXT line is single track; sidings at Rockdale and 

Seneca provide opportunities to pass. 

Most of the track rehabilitation from Chicago to Wyanet would be completed within the 

existing railroad grade, but some ditching, minor bridge and culvert work, elimination of 

mud spots in the track, and shoulder work as warranted to support curve speed upgrades 

may be required outside the existing railroad grade. 

The Route B Alternative would use the existing IAIS line from Wyanet to Iowa City (the 

same line as under the Route A Alternative). Track upgrades along this section would be 

the same as described under Route Alternative A. 

Wyanet Connection 

A connection track would not be required for the Route B Alternative, as this alternative 

would use the existing IAIS line from Utica, Illinois to Iowa City. 

Wayside Signals and Remote Control Switches 

The existing CSXT and IAIS track from Joliet to Wyanet is non-signalized. A CTC 

wayside signal system compatible with the future PTC overlay would be installed along 

these route sections. Remote controlled switches would be installed at ten siding tracks. 

The Amtrak feasibility study recommends conducting a train traffic flow simulation on 

the CSXT section to determine if additional line or switching capacity would be required 

(Franke et al., 2008a). 

At-grade Roadway Crossings 

The existing Amtrak-owned track from Union Station in Chicago to its connection with 

CN’s St. Charles Airline (0.8 miles) and the CN section to 16th Street Tower have no 

at-grade highway/rail crossings. Metra’s Rock Island Subdivision between 16th Street 

Tower and Joliet has several at-grade road crossings. The route is in excellent condition 

and would not require any at-grade crossing upgrade to support train service at speeds of 

up to 79 mph (Franke et al., 2008a). Due to the increased speed (from 40 mph to 79 mph) 

from Joliet to Utica on CSX’s New Rock Subdivision and from Utica to Iowa City 

section, more than 180 at-grade public and private at-grade crossing would be improved. 

Tree and brush clearing would be performed at crossings where needed to address sight 

distance issues. Public at-grade crossing warning devices would be upgraded to CWTD 

and at a minimum flashing light signals with gates would be provided. 

Additional safety measures (for example, medians or quad gates) would be considered for 

locations with problematic geometric conditions or a chronic accident history. Potential 
Chapter 2 

Alternatives 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

2-8 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

crossing closures/consolidations and grade separations would be identified for areas with 

multiple crossings nested together within a short distance. All private at-grade crossings 

would be upgraded to provide at a minimum passive warning signage. Private industrial 

or other heavily used private at-grade crossings would utilize flashing light signals with 

gates where warranted by the traffic volumes and site conditions. Farm and other low 

volume private at-grade crossings would utilize passive warning signage at all locations 

and also include locked gates at locations where there are multiple tracks, sight distance 

issues or other significant risk factors. Crossings with humps would be graded to 

eliminate the potential for hanging up low-clearance equipment. Crossing improvements 

or closings will be evaluated in subsequent Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. 

Station Facilities 

The proposed passenger rail service would continue to use an existing Amtrak station at 

Joliet. Additional stations are proposed for Morris and La Salle on the CSX section (see 

Figure 2-4). Similar to the Route A Alternative, Amtrak stations are proposed at Geneseo, 

Moline, and Iowa City along the IAIS (see Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3) (Franke et al., 

2008a). 

Similar to the Route A Alternative, Route B would require an overnight train storage 

track location, a small building facility for train crews, storage of cleaning equipment, 

and communications; and standby power and potable water. 

Other Infrastructure Improvements 

The IAIS crossing of the BNSF line at Colona and access through the Rock Island Yard 

area would be improved to increase the operating speed of the proposed passenger rail 

service trains, as discussed in the Preferred Alternative. Relocation of the Rock Island 

Yard to Silvis is also under consideration (Hanson Professional Services, Inc., July 3, 

2008). 

Table A-5 in Appendix A provides a comparison of estimated order of magnitude capital 

costs of Route A and B alternatives. Schedule 

A typical passenger rail service train departing Chicago would arrive in the Quad Cities 

in approximately 5 hours and in Iowa City in approximately 6.5 hours. The typical time 

of travel and distances between stations, and a preliminary passenger train schedule is 

provided in Appendix A. 

2.4 FIVE ROUND-TRIP TRAINS PER DAY SCENARIO 

Operation of the Chicago to Iowa City intercity passenger rail service is proposed to 

begin with an initial service level of two round-trip TPD, as discussed in Section 2.3, 

Two Round-trip Trains per Day Scenario. The ultimate service level for the Chicago to 

Iowa City intercity passenger rail service, as specified in the MWRRI Project Notebook, 

is five round-trip TPD. The five round-trip TPD are anticipated to operate at 90 mph from 

Chicago to Wyanet on BNSF and at 79 mph from Wyanet to Iowa City on IAIS. A 

separate Tier 1 Service Level NEPA document and analysis would be required prior to 

increasing the train frequency and train speeds. The 90 mph operational speed will be 

addressed in that Tier 1 Service Level NEPA document. 
Proposed Track Connection

Wyanet, IL Wyanet

IAIS

BNSF

IAIS

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

2-1

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Wyanet_Connection.mxd\sept09\jcm

Wyanet Connection

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

0.25 0.125 0 0.25

Miles

Scale

Legend

Proposed Wyanet Connection
Geneseo

Geneseo

80

80

6

82

82

I l l i n o i s

Station Locations to be Determined - Geneseo DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

2-2

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Station_Locations_to_be_Determined_Geneseo.mxd\sept09\jcm

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

Scale

Legend

Routes A & B Alternative

6,000 3,000 0 6,000

Feet
I o w a

To Iowa City

To Chicago

Mississippi River

Rock Island Moline

Rock Island Arsenal

74

74

92

12th

Illinois 16th

15th

7th

19th

18th

5th

River

23rd

6th

19th

7th

River

I l l i n o i s

Proposed Station Locations - Moline & Iowa City DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

2-3

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Proposed_Station_Locations.mxd\sept09\jcm

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

To Chicago

End of

Proposed

Service

I o w a Iowa City

University Heights

6

1

921

1

6

1

Benton

Riverside

Melrose

Highland

Market

Burlington

Muscatine

Governor

Gilbert

Dodge

Bowery

Rochester

Dubuque

Sycamore

Evans

2nd

Grand

Byington

Gilbert

2,000 1,000 0 2,000

Feet

Scale

Legend

Proposed AMTRAK Station

Routes A & B Alternative

IAIS - Iowa Interstate Railroad

Source: Feasibility Study on Proposed

Amtrak Service

Quad Cities to Chicago - January 7, 2008

Chicago to Iowa City - April 18, 2008
I l l i n o i s

Peru

La Salle

Oglesby

Spring Valley

Dalzell

39

39

6

251

71

351

351

Station Locations to be Determined - Peru & Morris DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

2-4

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Station_Locations_to_be_Determined_Peru_Morris.mxd\sept09\jcm

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

I l l i n o i s

Morris

80 80

6

47

47

Scale

Legend

Route B Alternative

6,000 3,000 0 6,000

Feet
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-1

CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

3.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the existing social, economic, and environmental conditions in the 

Project area, which serve as a baseline for comparing the potential impacts of the 

proposed action and alternatives. Under the No-Build Alternative, passenger rail service 

would not be developed between Chicago and Iowa City. This chapter identifies 

mitigation options that could be used to eliminate or minimize some of the potential 

environmental consequences that would result from implementation of one of the build 

alternatives. 

To describe the existing conditions and environmental consequences, 17 resourcespecific topics have been identified. These resources are discussed in individual sections 

of this chapter, each of which identifies the geographic area analyzed in the EA. Specific 

topics discussed include transportation; socioeconomics; environmental justice; land use, 

zoning, property acquisition; public health and safety; noise and vibration; air quality; 

hazardous materials; cultural resources; Section 4(f) resources; wetlands; waterways; 

water quality; floodplains; threatened and endangered species; energy use and climate 

change; and management areas. Additional sections at the end of this chapter address 

construction impacts, irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources, and indirect 

and cumulative impacts. 

3.2 TRANSPORTATION 

3.2.1 Affected Environment 

This sub-section describes the existing transportation environment between Chicago, 

Illinois, and Iowa City, Iowa. The discussion focuses on four major components: 

• The regional transportation network 

• Highway crossings 

• Navigation 

• Freight rail 

Regional Transportation Network 

The proposed Project is along one of two rail corridors between Chicago, Illinois, and 

Iowa City, Iowa. The Route A Preferred Alternative is along an approximately 219-mile 

corridor that includes 115 miles on trackage owned by BNSF, 102 miles on trackage 

owned by IAIS, and 2 miles on Amtrak. The Route B Alternative corridor is 

approximately 238 miles long, 54 miles of which are on tracks owned by the CSX 

Corporation, 1 mile on Canadian National, 2 miles on Amtrak, and 39 miles on 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-2 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Metra/Rock Island. The remaining 142 miles are on the same IAIS trackage as that for 

Route A. 

The proposed Project would share track with freight trains and other passenger trains 

between Wyanet and Chicago. The current freight operation consists of between 18 and 

35 TPD on the BNSF tracks, and 6 to 10 TPD on the IAIS tracks. Amtrak currently 

operates about eight passenger TPD on the BNSF line between Halsted (about 2 miles 

west of Chicago’s Union Station) and western Illinois. Freight rail traffic on the CSX line 

runs between 6 and 10 TPD. However, within the Chicago metropolitan area, Amtrak and 

Metra both operate on CSX lines, and run between 50 and 100 passenger TPD. 

Chicago, which lies at the eastern end of the Project, is a metropolitan area of more than 

9 million people. On the western end of the Project are the metropolitan areas of Iowa 

City and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and the Quad Cities of Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa, 

and Rock Island and Moline, and East Moline, Illinois. Though the population of this 

area is just over one-half million people, it is an important destination in the Midwest. 

The University of Iowa has an annual enrollment of more than 30,000 students, and the 

University of Iowa Hospital is nationally recognized. Cedar Rapids, which is not along 

the proposed rail corridor but would be accessible from a feeder bus service from Iowa 

City, is becoming an important energy center that serves new industries that manufacture 

or transport wind turbine components. 

The region is connected with an extensive transportation network (see Figure 3.2-1, 

Regional Transportation Network) that includes air, rail, bus, and automobile routes. 

Airports served by major airlines are located in Chicago (O’Hare and Midway Airports), 

Moline (Quad City International Airport), and Cedar Rapids (Eastern Iowa Airport), 

which serves the Cedar Rapids-Iowa City metro area. Currently, Quad City International 

offers five round-trips daily to Chicago through two carriers flying regional jets; and the 

Eastern Iowa Airport offers eight daily round-trips, also through two carriers. 

Although passenger rail service is available in the region, there is no direct service to the 

Quad Cities or Iowa City area. The nearest available passenger rail service would be 

Amtrak in Galesburg, Illinois, which is about 60 miles southeast of Rock Island. This 

Project seeks to enhance and expand passenger rail service. 

Bus service is available for travel to surrounding communities, although regional travel is 

limited. Currently, there are only two round-trips available from Iowa City to Chicago. 

The predominant mode of travel in the region is the automobile. Highway access between 

Iowa City and the Quad Cities to Chicago is afforded through Interstates 80 and 88 

(portions of which are toll road), as well as a number of federal and state highways. Table 

3.2-1 shows the total trips in the Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha corridor for the year 2000. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-3

Table 3.2-1 

Total Trips in the Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha Corridor, for the Year 2000 

Mode of Travel 

Reason for Travel 

Total Percent of 

Business Non-business Total 

Air 270,000 452,000 722,000 1.4% 

Bus 5,000 118,000 123,000 0.2% 

Auto 12,324,000 38,738,000 51,062,000 98.0% 

Rail 32,000 149,000 181,000 0.3% 

Total 12,631,000 39,457,000 52,088,000 

Note: 

Data modified from Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., 2006a, Midwest Regional 

Rail Initiative Project Notebook, Exhibit 4-10. (Values have been rounded to nearest 1,000 trips and 

adjusted to remove estimated travel to Quincy, Illinois). 

Highway Crossings 

The BNSF, CSX, and IAIS tracks cross a number of rural and urban roadways between 

Chicago and Iowa City. These crossings, summarized in Table 3.2-2, include both public 

and private roadways. Private roads include farmstead entrances as well as entrances to 

trackside industries and commercial properties. 

Table 3.2-2 

Summary of Highway/Rail at-Grade Crossings 

Location Public 

(Rural) 

Public 

(Urban) 

Private 

(Rural) 

Private 

(Urban) Pedestrian 

Route A 

 Chicago to Wyanet 31 82 15 3 26 

Route B (New Lenox to North Utica) 

 Chicago to North Utica 1 14 59 19 1 25 

Route A and B 

 Wyanet to Iowa City 36 97 33 17 3 

TOTALS 

Route A 67 179 48 20 16 

Route B 50 159 52 18 28 

Note: 

1Crossing data between North Utica and Wyanet were not available. 

In addition to highway/rail at-grade crossings, the Route B alternative alignment also 

crosses three other rail lines at-grade, as shown in Table 3.2-3. 

Table 3.2-3 

Rail/Rail At-Grade Crossings for Route B 

Location Railroad No. of tracks 

Englewood Norfolk Southern 3 

East Joliet Canadian National/Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway (CN/EJ&E) 2 

Joliet BNSF, CN, Union Pacific Railroad 4 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-4 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Navigation 

The proposed action also crosses two navigable waterways – the Des Plaines River and 

the Mississippi River. Route B, which includes a major portion of trackage owned by 

CSX, crosses the Des Plaines River at Joliet via a vertical lift bridge. The river 

historically supported commercial barge traffic between Lake Michigan and the 

Mississippi River via a system of locks and dams. The Surface Transportation Board1

estimated that approximately 15 vessels per day pass through the Lockport Lock, which 

is upstream of the CSX bridge. 

The Government Bridge, or Arsenal Bridge, spans the Mississippi River connecting Rock 

Island, Illinois, and Davenport, Iowa, adjacent to Mississippi River Lock and Dam 15. 

The bridge is a steel truss that carries two lanes of roadway and a single railroad track. 

The bridge includes a swing section, mounted on the center wall of the lock, to 

accommodate traffic navigating the locks. The average bridge operation takes 

13 minutes. Most operations take around 8 to 9 minutes, but some operations can take up 

to 30 minutes. The longer operations are for barges that are too long for the lock and that 

have to be uncoupled and moved through the lock in two stages. 

The bridge is normally kept in the “closed” position; that is, it is open to vehicular and 

rail traffic. Boat traffic using the locks usually requires the bridge to be “turned” (that is, 

opened) approximately 3,000 to 4,000 times during a year (9 to 10 months). The locks are 

closed from mid/late December to late February/early March. The bridge operator is 

connected to the IAIS radio system. 

The bridge is owned and operated by the federal government, and FRA has no official 

jurisdiction. 

Freight Rail 

While BNSF has operated for years with a mix of freight and passenger trains, the Iowa 

Interstate Railroad primarily hauls freight and only authorizes an occasional excursion 

passenger train on its tracks. 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway

BNSF currently operates approximately 18.5 TPD on the double-track Mendota 

Subdivision that includes the section between Wyanet and Montgomery (near Aurora). 

Due to fluctuations in traffic levels, BNSF has operated up to 34 TPD recently. Most of 

these trains are simply moving from western origins and destinations to eastern and 

generally move along this section at track speed (normally 50 to 60 mph). At 

Montgomery, the average freight train volume virtually doubles with 35.0 TPD operating 

east of this junction with a maximum volume of 52.0 TPD. 

Currently, the Chicago Subdivision is double-tracked to West Eola then triple tracked to 

Chicago Union Station. West Eola is the location where the 80 plus TPD of Metra’s 

commuter fleet enter the BNSF system. Because of this volume, it is often necessary to 

hold trains on the BNSF main track west of Montgomery especially during the morning 

and evening peak hour periods. This situation is complicated by the fact that many BNSF 

 

1

 Surface Transportation Board, July 2008. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Canadian National 

Railway Company Acquisition of the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railway. STB Finance Docket 35087. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-5

freight trains enter and depart the Chicago Subdivision at East Eola where they connect to 

the CN/EJ&E alignment. The relatively slow track speed at this connection requires 

ample time in order to move the time-sensitive intermodal and coal traffic through this 

congested section. Scheduled Amtrak trains are “caught up” within these commuter peaks 

and occasionally incur delays. 

In a separate action, BNSF has proposed that a fourth main track be constructed from 

West Eola to East Eola that would move the location where many BNSF trains enter and 

leave the BNSF network and enter or leave the CN/EJ&E alignment. Because the staging 

of BNSF freight trains is now affected by current commuter train volumes, the 

improvements to the physical plant at Eola are considered as a prerequisite for the 

addition of trains, such as those for the proposed Chicago to Iowa City service, to the 

BNSF network. 

Iowa Interstate Railroad 

According to IAIS officials, IAIS operates up to 10.0 TPD on the section between Iowa 

City, Iowa and Utica, Illinois (located just east of La Salle, Illinois) with several trains 

entering and leaving the IAIS main track and 6.0 TPD between Utica and their Burr Oak 

Yard located near Blue Island. Many IAIS trains require the use of the main track to 

switch cars going to or coming from industries that have spur tracks. 

3.2.2 Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives – Two Round-trip Trains per Day 

Scenario 

The proposed Chicago to Iowa City passenger service is described in two documents: 

• Feasibility Study on Proposed Amtrak Service from Chicago to Iowa City, 

Iowa, via Quad Cities (an addendum to the Feasibility Report on Proposed 

Amtrak Service, Quad Cities–Chicago) (Franke et al., 2008c) 

• Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Project Notebook (Transportation 

Economics & Management Systems, Inc., 2004a) 

As noted in Chapter 2, Alternatives, two corridors were carried forward for detailed 

evaluation: 

• Route A Alternative, the Preferred Alternative, with proposed service from 

Chicago’s Union Station on BNSF’s Chicago and Mendota Subdivisions 

through La Grange, Naperville, Aurora, Plano, Mendota, and Princeton, with 

a new connection to the IAIS rail line at Wyanet, and continuing to Geneseo, 

Moline/Rock Island, and Iowa City 

• Route B Alternative, with proposed passenger service from Chicago’s Union 

Station on CN’s St. Charles Air Line, on Metra’s Rock Island Subdivision to 

Joliet, thence on the CSX rail line to Utica, and on the IAIS rail line through 

Wyanet toward Iowa City as described in Alternative A. This route is 

19 miles longer than Route A. 

The two round-trip passenger trains would travel daily at a maximum operating speed of 

79 mph. The proposed schedule calls for a 4 hour 58 minute run-time along Route A and 

a 6 hour 24 minute run time along Route B. 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-6 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

The option to support five round-trips per day assumed that the trackage from Chicago to 

Wyanet would be upgraded to 90 mph, and that the Wyanet to Iowa City section would 

be upgraded to 79 mph. This schedule contemplates operating five round-trips daily on a 

3 hour 23 minute run time for a three-stop schedule and 3 hour 40 minute run time for a 

seven-top schedule. Overall average velocity is 65.5 mph for the three stop schedule and 

60.0 mph for the seven stop schedule. 

No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, the local and regional transportation networks would not 

change. It is expected that automobile travel would continue to increase, as would travel 

by air, largely due to normal growth. Bus travel would also increase, although perhaps 

not at the same rate as travel by auto. Highway/rail at-grade crossings would not be 

affected, other than by increased freight rail and automobile traffic. The No-Build 

Alternative would not impact local traffic patterns at the station locations. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

Regional Transportation Network

The purpose of the Project, and of the Midwest Regional Rail System, is to expand 

existing, and develop new, regional passenger rail service to help meet future travel 

demands in the Midwest. Development of the proposed passenger rail service would 

provide an additional mode of travel choice for the potential rider. As such, the Project 

would impact the regional transportation network by: 

• Diverting riders from auto, bus, or air travel modes to rail 

• Increasing traffic volumes on the local road network near train stations in 

Iowa City and Moline 

• Increasing rail traffic at highway/rail at-grade crossings 

In studies conducted by Amtrak in 1998, the annual ridership for new rail service 

between Iowa City and Chicago, and the Quad Cities and Chicago, was estimated to be 

76,100 and 110,800, respectively. The portion of this ridership attributable to the service 

between Iowa City and Chicago is shown in Table 3.2-4. More than two-thirds of these 

trips are due to diversion from auto, air, and bus trips. While the majority of these 

diverted trips are from auto, they effectively reduce auto’s market share by only a 

fraction of a percent. Twenty-four percent of the diverted trips are from air, with the 

remaining 9 percent from bus (Transportation Economics Management [TEMS], 1998). 

The Project would also generate induced demand. These are new trips that come about 

because of the convenience and low cost of the new rail service. The amount of induced 

demand has been estimated by Amtrak and MWRRI, respectively, to range between 

5 and 10 percent (TEMS, 1998; Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., 

2004). 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-7

Table 3.2-4 

Total Ridership and Estimated Diversions, Based on Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Mode Estimated diversion, 

Route A 

Estimated diversion 

Route B 

Air 42,000 32,000 

Auto 117,000 88,000 

Bus 16,000 12,000 

Induced demand 13,000 10,000 

Total ridership 187,000 147,000 

The operations of two round-trips per day could potentially impact local traffic patterns at 

the station locations. The traffic volumes on the local road network would increase along 

with the demand for parking. Details on the impact to the local road network and parking 

availability will be discussed in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. Mitigation for 

any permanent impacts will be indentified in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA review. 

The Amtrak Feasibility Study projected 256 round-trip riders per day on the ChicagoQuad Cities-Iowa City service on this nine-station route. The amount of trips per station 

would vary depending on the population served, demand, and other factors. The proposed 

passenger rail service would use existing stations at Chicago (Union Station), La Grange 

Road, Naperville, Plano, Mendota, and Princeton, Illinois. Amtrak stations are proposed 

at Geneseo and Moline, Illinois; and Iowa City, Iowa. 

Because the existing stations along this route are active stations, the proposed service is 

expected to have minimal impact on them with regard to the local road network and 

parking demand. 

A new Amtrak station would be needed in Geneseo (population 6,500) to serve the city 

and the surrounding communities. There are currently two potential station sites located 

in Geneseo. The City of Geneseo currently owns one of the sites and the other site is the 

old depot station which is privately owned. 

There is an ongoing study proposing a new intermodal transit center in downtown Moline 

that would provide for an Amtrak station. A major regional bus station and terminal is 

currently operating in downtown Moline. The study is developing the estimated parking 

space needs and a concept for a future parking garage to serve an intermodal facility. 

Commuter rail service is being considered as part of the study. The new Amtrak station in 

Moline would serve the Quad Cities area which has an approximate population of 

377,626. 

The Amtrak station in Iowa City is proposed to be located at the Old Rock Island Depot 

and would serve the Iowa City area which has an approximate population of 140,000. 

The depot currently has approximately 20 parking stalls. There is a county-owned 

parking garage approximately one block away with 300 spaces and a city-owned parking 

garage approximately two blocks away with 300 spaces, as well as on-street parking. The 

Old Rock Island Depot is two blocks from the Court Street Transportation Center, which 

provides local and regional bus service. 

The regional transportation network would generally benefit from the proposed new rail 

service. Highway congestion would be relieved, and riders would have an additional 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-8 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

mode of travel choice. Details on the impact to the local road network and parking 

availability will be discussed in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. Mitigation for 

any permanent impacts will be identified in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA review. 

Highway Crossings

On July 28, 2009, FRA issued a Discussion Draft for Public Outreach titled 

“Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail.” This 

document provides guidance on crossing safety for both public and private crossings and 

provides a tiered approach to safety measures based on passenger train speed. 

For the two round-trip TPD service level, the proposed Chicago to Iowa City passenger 

service falls within the Tier IA category for conventional service, 0 to 79 mph, as 

described in the Appendix of the guidance document. Tier 1A safety measures include: 

• Encouraging closures of redundant crossings 

• Requiring automated warning devices (and supplemental measures where 

warranted) at public crossings 

• Considering automated warning devices or locked gates at private crossings 

• Allowing cross bucks and yield signs for private crossings where conditions 

permit 

All at-grade crossings affected by the new service would be evaluated and modified as 

appropriate to be consistent with the guidance documents. 

Navigation

According to Coast Guard regulations, vessel traffic on the Des Plaines River and 

Mississippi River would have precedence over railroad operations at the bridge. 

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not affect navigation. Passenger and freight rail 

traffic using the bridge could be delayed slightly in the event of a vessel passing through. 

Freight Rail

BNSF trains impact the proposed Chicago to Iowa City passenger service at two 

locations. At Colona, the BNSF crosses the IAIS at a rail/rail at-grade crossing. This 

crossing was formerly a diamond crossing but was revised to a series of turnouts that 

enable BNSF to operate at 30 mph and IAIS at 10 mph through the interlocking.2 

Between East Moline and Rock Island, the IAIS operates on a trackage right on an 

approximately 5-mile-long section of BNSF trackage. BNSF operates a road switcher 

over this trackage once a day (out, plus the return movement). This train occasionally 

holds the main track while awaiting clearance to cross the Mississippi River on the Iowa, 

Chicago & Eastern Railroad (IC&E) bridge located just south of the Arsenal Bridge. 

Chapter 2 discusses the infrastructure requirements necessary to operate passenger trains 

through Colona and through the yard between East Moline and Rock Island at higher 

velocities more appropriate for passenger train operation. 

 

2

 An interlocking is an arrangement of signal equipment so interconnected that train movements must 

succeed ach other in safe, proper sequence. It may be operated manually or automatically. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-9

Analysis of the meets and passes3 on the single track IAIS for the proposed passenger 

train service indicates that several miles of double tracking would be required between 

Mineral and Annawan, Illinois, near Green River, Illinois, and near Walcott, Iowa. This 

infrastructure would be necessary to minimize delay to opposing passenger trains only. 

Additional infrastructure to accommodate the six to 10 freight trains that operate daily on 

the IAIS would be over and above the physical plan improvements anticipated for the 

passenger trains. As with the BNSF network, a detailed simulation of the proposed 

network would be required to identify the requisite improvements to the physical plant 

for both the added passenger and freight train volumes. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

Regional Transportation Network

Portions of Alternative B would operate on sections of CSX’s New Rock Subdivision, 

Metra’s Rock Island Subdivision, CN’s St. Charles Air Line, and Amtrak’s Union 

Station. The two round-trip passenger TPD are envisioned to operate out of Union Station 

thence onto Metra’s Rock Island Subdivision. However, no direct connection exists 

between these two railroads. To operate trains between these two destinations, it would 

be necessary to duplicate the reverse movement now employed by three round-trip 

Amtrak TPD that use the former Illinois Central route in and out of the Greater Chicago 

area. 

This movement requires that as the passenger train enters Union Station from the St. 

Charles Air Line; the train must first pull west of Halsted Avenue then back 0.8 mile into 

Union Station. To depart Union Station, the outbound train must first back up the same 

0.8 mile before reversing its course of action at Halsted Avenue and proceeding across 

the Chicago Ship Canal Drawbridge to the 16th Street Tower area. Trains en route to the 

southern Illinois area on the former Illinois Central continue east on the St. Charles Air 

Line, whereas passenger trains en route to Metra’s Rock Island Subdivision would use an 

existing connecting track at the 16th Street tower area to proceed south and then west. 

Following the CN/EJ&E merger, most freight train activity associated with CN’s St. 

Charles Air Line has been relocated to other corridors within the Greater Chicago area. 

Consequently, little impact on existing or potential freight operations is envisioned under 

Alternative B. CSX impacts are similar to those described in the section above that 

focuses on the IAIS. 

The Amtrak Feasibility Study projected two round-trips per day on the Chicago-Quad 

Cities-Iowa City service on this seven-station route. The number of trips per station 

would vary depending upon the population served, demand, and other factors. The 

proposed rail service would use existing stations at Chicago (Union Station) and Joliet. 

Amtrak stations are proposed at Morris, La Salle, Geneseo, Moline, and Iowa City. 

A new Amtrak station would be needed in Morris and La Salle to serve the cities and the 

surrounding communities. Morris and La Salle have approximate populations of 

12,000 and 9,800, respectively. 

 

3

 A meet and pass is when two trains approach from opposite directions and pass, one using a siding. 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-10 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

The impacts to the local traffic patterns at the station locations at Geneseo, Moline, and 

Iowa City for the Route B Alternative would be the same as those identified in the 

Preferred Alternative. 

Details on the impact to the local road network and parking availability at the station 

locations will be discussed in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. Mitigation for 

any permanent impacts will be indentified in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA review. 

Impacts on highway crossings, navigation, and freight rail traffic would be similar to 

those discussed for the Preferred Alternative. 

3.2.3 Impacts of Proposed Action and Alternatives – Five Round-trip Trains per Day 

Scenario 

Regional Transportation Network 

At the ultimate MWRRI operational level of five round-trip TPD, the same station 

locations would potentially be affected as under the initial two round-trip TPD scenario. 

However, when capacity is increased from two to five round-trip TPD, additional 

ridership could impact parking requirements and the local road network. Impacts on 

parking and the local road network will be further evaluated at the station locations in the 

Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. 

For the five round-trip TPD scenario, the annual ridership for new rail service between 

Iowa City and Chicago was estimated by MWRRI to be 505,000 (Transportation 

Economics & Management Systems, Inc., 2004a). Diversions would be in a similar 

proportion to those generated by the two round-trip TPD scenario and would be 334,000, 

81,000, and 40,000 for auto, air, and bus, respectively. Data were not available to 

compare the route alternatives. 

Highway Crossings

For the five round-trip TPD Preferred Alternative, the maximum speed on the BNSF 

between Chicago and Wyanet would be increased from 79 mph to 90 mph. This speed 

falls within the Tier 1B category for Emerging High Speed Rail, 80 to 110 mph, as 

described in the Appendix of the guidance document. Tier 1B safety measures are more 

rigorous than the Tier 1A and include: 

• a requirement for demonstrated effort and results for crossing closures; 

• a sealed corridor where, in addition to automated warning devices, all lanes of 

travel are blocked by supplemental measures (such as four-quadrant gates, 

median arrangements, one-way paired streets, etc.); and, 

• either automated warning devices or locked gates with dispatcher control over 

entry at private crossings. 

Navigation

The five round-trip TPD scenario would not impact current or future navigation 

activities. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-11

Freight Rail

The MWRRI schedule provides for five round-trip passenger TPD between Chicago’s 

Union Station and Iowa City, and only considers the use of the Preferred Alternative 

alignment. As described above, MWRRI envisions operating trains at 90 mph between 

Halsted Avenue and Wyanet on the BNSF system, and at 79 mph on the IAIS. According 

to BNSF officials, the difference between two round-trip TPD and five round-trip TPD is 

considerable, and will require careful simulations of the network before the infrastructure 

necessary to support the additional six trains can be identified, costs estimated, and funds 

allocated. This is because more than 125 trains operate daily on the section between 

Aurora (Eola) and Chicago’s Union Station, all at a maximum operating speed of 70 mph 

in this congested corridor. In addition to the change in operating speed, there may not be 

sufficient capacity to handle the additional passenger train volume. General “rules-ofthumb” for capacity limits indicate that roughly 35 TPD can operate on a single track 

railroad, 70 TPD on a double track railroad and 110 TPD on a triple track railroad. With 

many more trains now operating on the Chicago Subdivision, considerable infrastructure 

may be required to accommodate the proposed ultimate MWRRI schedule. 

BNSF has also indicated that the carefully orchestrated schedule of the current Amtrak 

and Metra programs allows for a “window” of track maintenance to occur during the 

morning and evening peak hours. Should any passenger train schedule (as proposed by 

either Amtrak or by MWRRI) impact these windows, it may be necessary to adjust the 

work window to night-time periods. 

Should maintenance activity be shifted to night-time hours, this action would likely 

increase the noise level to residents living adjacent to the BNSF corridor while 

maintenance is being performed. Other factors, such as increased ambient light levels, 

higher costs to perform similar maintenance tasks, and safety and labor agreement issues, 

would need to be addressed if sufficient opportunities for maintenance are not available 

during daytime hours. 

Increasing the FRA class of track rating from 4 to 5 in order to accommodate 90-mph 

operation would also necessitate more frequent maintenance activity that must be 

accomplished with a higher level of precision. Nighttime maintenance may be required 

even if daytime windows are available due to BNSF’s effort to meet these more stringent 

track safety standards. 

If the Route B Alternative is ultimately selected for development of the new rail service, 

expansion of that service from two to five round-trip TPD would have a similar effect on 

existing trains now using those tracks. Careful simulations of the network would be 

needed to support the additional trains. Details on the impact on existing freight and 

passenger rail operations would be discussed in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA 

documents. Mitigation for any permanent impacts will be indentified in the Tier 2 Project 

Level NEPA review. 
Morris

Peru--La Salle

Princeton

Mendota

Plano Naperville

Joliet

Geneseo

Wyanet

La Grange

Cedar Rapids

Iowa City

Quad Cities

Rockford

Chicago

Peoria

Mississippi River

Lake Michigan

Quad City

International

Cedar Rapids

Municipal

Chicago O'Hare

International

Chicago Midway

20

52

34

61

30

30

24

218

6

6

67

20 151

34

34

80

90

94

55

57

88

74 39

380

65

80

90

43

94

280

290

155

I l l i n o i s

I o w a

W i s c o n s i n

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

3.2-1

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Regional_Transportation_Network.mxd\sept09\jcm

Regional Transportation Network

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

25 12.5 0 25

Miles

Scale

Legend

Airport

US Highway

Interstate
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-13

3.3 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The Project area corridor from Chicago to Iowa City, via the Quad Cities, comprises 11 

counties in Illinois (Bureau, Cook, De Kalb, Du Page, Grundy, Henry, Kane, Kendall, La 

Salle, Rock Island, and Will) and four counties in Iowa (Cedar, Johnson, Muscatine, and 

Scott). These counties have a combined 2008 estimated population of nearly 8.4 million 

(U.S. Census Bureau, August 5, 2009). The Project area population increased by 

15 percent between 1970 and 2008. The population of four counties in the Project area 

(Bureau, Cook, Henry, and Rock Island) declined between 1970 and 2008, while the 

population of seven counties (De Kalb, Du Page, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Will, and 

Johnson) increased by more than 25 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, February 1982; U.S. 

Census Bureau, 1991; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a; U.S. Census Bureau, August 5, 2009). 

Table 3.3-1 shows population change in the Project area compared to Illinois, Iowa, and 

United States. 

The major cities from east to west within the Project area corridor include the following 

(with 2008 estimated populations): 

• Chicago (2,853,114) 

• Cicero (80,414) 

• Downers Grove (49,250) 

• Joliet (146,125) 

• Naperville (143,117) 

• Aurora (171,782) 

• Quad Cities (377,626) 

• Iowa City (67,831) 

Approximately 30 smaller cities and villages are located within the Project area corridor. 

Most of these cities and towns lost population between 1970 and 2008. The exceptions 

are the suburban cities outside of Chicago (Downers Grove, Lisle, Joliet, Minooka, 

Montgomery, Naperville), a few towns in rural Illinois (Colona, Earlville, Marseilles, 

Sandwich, and Seneca), rural Iowa (Atalissa, Durant, Walcott, and West Liberty), and 

Iowa City. Population growth was strong in suburban Chicago and Iowa City, and was 

slow or fluctuating in other cities and towns. During this time, the population of Illinois 

increased by 16 percent, the population of Iowa grew by 6 percent, and population in the 

United States increased by nearly 50 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, February 1982; U.S. 

Census Bureau, 1991; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a; U.S. Census Bureau, August 5, 2009). 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-14 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Table 3.3-1 

Population Changes in the Project Area 

County 

Population Population Change, Percent 

1970 2000 2008 1970-2000 1970-2008 2000-2008 

Illinois 

Bureau 38,541 35,503 34,933 -7.9 -9.4 -1.6 

Cook 5,492,369 5,376,741 5,294,664 -2.1 -3.6 -1.5 

De Kalb 71,654 88,969 106,321 24.2 48.4 19.5 

Du Page 491,882 904,161 930,528 83.8 89.2 2.9 

Grundy 26,535 37,535 47,958 41.5 80.7 27.8 

Henry 53,217 51,020 49,569 -4.1 -6.9 -2.8 

Kane 251,005 404,119 507,579 61.0 102.2 25.6 

Kendall 26,374 54,544 103,460 106.8 292.3 89.7 

La Salle 111,409 111,509 112,474 0.1 1.0 0.9 

Rock Island 166,734 149,374 146,886 -10.4 -11.9 -1.7 

Will 249,498 502,266 681,097 101.3 173.0 35.6 

State of Illinois 11,113,976 12,419,293 12,901,563 11.7 16.1 3.9 

Iowa

Cedar 17,655 18,187 18,079 3.0 2.4 -0.6 

Johnson 72,127 111,006 128,094 53.9 77.6 15.4 

Muscatine 37,181 41,722 42,504 12.2 14.3 1.9 

Scott 142,687 158,668 164,690 11.2 15.4 3.8 

State of Iowa 2,824,376 2,926,324 3,002,555 3.6 6.3 2.6 

United States 203,211,926 281,421,906 304,059,724 38.5 49.6 8.0 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, February 1982; U.S. Census Bureau, 1991; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a; 

U.S. Census Bureau, August 5, 2009. 

The diversity of employment by industry sector in the Project area varies between urban 

and rural areas. Employment in the urban area of Chicago is the most diverse, with no 

dominant sector. Employment in rural counties of Illinois and Iowa is more dependent 

upon retail trade and manufacturing. Farm employment makes up a larger percentage of 

employment in Cedar County, Iowa, and Bureau and Henry counties, Illinois as 

compared to the rest of the counties in the Project area (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 

April 23, 2009). 

From 2000 to 2008, the unemployment rate in the Project area has generally exceeded the 

national rate in Illinois counties and been generally lower than the national rate in Iowa. 

Unemployment in Cook, Grundy, and La Salle counties in Illinois has consistently 

exceeded state and national rates from 2000 to 2008; unemployment in De Kalb, Du 

Page, Kane, Kendall, and Will counties has consistently been lower than the state 

average. In Iowa, unemployment in Scott County has consistently exceeded the state 

average from 2000 to 2008, but not the U.S. rate; unemployment in Cedar and Johnson 

counties has consistently been lower than the state average. The unemployment rate 

generally bottomed out in 2006 and has increased in 2007 and 2008 (Illinois Department 

of Employment Security, no date; Iowa Workforce Development, April 21, 2009). 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-15

The U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued guidance to 

determine economically distressed areas under the priority language in the Highway 

Infrastructure Investment appropriation of the Recovery Act. In accordance with the 

Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended, the guidance 

provides that an area is economically distressed if it has a per capita income of 80 percent 

or less than the national average, or if it has an unemployment rate that is, for the most 

recent 24-month period for which data are available, at least 1 percent greater than the 

national average (FHWA, August 24, 2009). FHWA has determined that in Illinois, 

DeKalb County is economically distressed due to per capita income, and LaSalle and 

Grundy counties are economically distressed due to unemployment (FHWA, August 6, 

2009). Economically distressed counties are shown in Figure 3.3-1. 

3.3.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would consist of operating the current passenger rail service 

from Chicago to Quincy, St. Louis, or Carbondale and Omaha via southern Iowa with the 

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

operating conditions. Passenger rail service from Chicago to Iowa City via the Quad 

Cities would not be implemented. Existing socioeconomic conditions (population change, 

employment, economically distressed counties, and the existing transportation options) 

would continue. 

3.3.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day 

Under this alternative, two daily round-trip trains (four TPD) would operate from 

Chicago to Iowa City, as described in Chapter 2. These trains would operate at a 

maximum speed of 79 mph. 

An economic impact study and cost-benefit analysis conducted by MWRRI anticipates 

substantial beneficial economic impacts on the Midwest United States through 

investment in the establishment and operation of the MWRRS. Economic benefits would 

be derived from construction and upgrade of rail infrastructure, permanent job creation to 

operate the system, and improved community connectivity and regional mobility. More 

localized economic impacts would be derived from the construction and operation of the 

proposed passenger rail service from Chicago to Iowa City via the Quad Cities 

(Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., November 2006a; 

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., November 2006b). 

The construction industry would benefit from implementation of the Project through 

temporary jobs and the purchase of construction materials. Manufacturers would benefit 

through the purchase of rail and rail equipment. Employment would increase in retail 

trade, health care and social assistance, and accommodation and food services. The real 

estate, rental and leasing, and finance and insurance industries would also benefit 

(Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., November 2006a; 

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., November 2006b). 

Establishment of the proposed passenger rail service would reduce travel times by rail 

between these cities, would improve the mobility of the population in the Chicago-Iowa 

City corridor, and would reduce congestion on other modes of travel. Implementation of 

the rail system would bring environmental benefits (such as a reduction in air pollutants 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-16 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

and energy use) and improved freight-rail transportation safety (through improved track 

conditions, installation of signaling, and enhanced at-grade crossing protection). 

Investment in the proposed passenger rail service would improve accessibility to markets 

and generate a benefit in terms of increased economic value, as services became more 

easily or cheaply traded. Changes in accessibility would increase the long-term demand 

for goods and services, while creating new business and commercial development 

opportunities. Establishment of the proposed passenger rail service would support 

existing manufacturing and service industries and foster the growth of new small 

businesses across the Project due to improved access among communities. This would 

encourage large businesses to distribute their operations more widely across the Midwest 

and reap the benefit of providing more efficient operations in the now more accessible 

smaller communities. These communities provide a high quality of life for residents in 

terms of lower cost housing, good schools, friendly and secure neighborhoods, and less 

congested highway systems (Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., 

November 2006a; Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., November 

2006b). 

As the gateway to their communities, passenger rail stations would provide considerable 

joint development potential. For example, the proposed station at Moline would be 

developed near an existing bus station set within transportation oriented development. An 

opportunity exists to tie the new Amtrak service into the region’s existing bus transit 

service and other pedestrian, bicycle, and river ferry transportation. Increased train 

operations would encourage the service industry (such as restaurants and hotels) to locate 

at or near the station. This activity would generate both commercial and residential 

development. The station would be located near other attractions, specialty shopping and 

dining, municipal and civic facilities, and riverfront trails, contributing to the 

revitalization of the historic heart of Moline (Transportation Economics & Management 

Systems, Inc., November 2006b; S.B. Friedman, July 15, 2009). Similar opportunities for 

redevelopment would exist in Geneseo and Iowa City. 

Property values would increase near stations and would benefit communities through 

increased state and local tax revenue. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

Under this alternative, a connection at Wyanet in Bureau County would be constructed, 

track would be upgraded, wayside signaling would be installed, and grade crossing 

protection would be enhanced in Bureau, Henry, La Salle and Rock Island counties in 

Illinois, and in Scott, Muscatine, Cedar, and Johnson counties in Iowa. New Amtrak 

stations would be constructed in Geneseo (Henry County), Moline (Rock Island County), 

and Iowa City (Johnson County). This construction activity would provide a temporary 

boost in employment in these counties, including the economically distressed LaSalle 

County. 

The Preferred Alternative would enhance passenger rail service from Chicago to 

Princeton and reestablish service from Chicago to Iowa City, via the Quad Cities. Service 

would be provided at existing Amtrak stations in Chicago, La Grange, Naperville, Plano, 

Mendota, and Princeton, and at proposed stations in Geneseo, Moline, and Iowa City. 

Operation of the service would provide economic benefits at existing and proposed 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-17

stations through job creation, opportunities for joint development near the stations, 

increased economic activity in these communities, and increased mobility of residents in 

these cities and towns, especially in the rural counties that are dependent upon limited 

economic and employment opportunities. Construction of the Wyanet Connection and the 

upgrade of the rails, crossties, signalization, and grade crossing protection would cost an 

estimated $51 million (Franke et al., 2008a; Franke et al., 2008b). The cost of station 

construction has not yet been estimated. 

Impacts from specific construction and operational activities would be evaluated in 

subsequent Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

Under this alternative, track would be upgraded, wayside signaling would be installed, 

and grade crossing protection would be enhanced in Will, Grundy, LaSalle, Bureau, 

Henry, and Rock Island counties in Illinois, and in Scott, Muscatine, Cedar, and Johnson 

counties in Iowa. This construction activity would provide a temporary boost in 

employment in these counties, including the economically distressed Grundy and LaSalle 

counties. 

The Route B Alternative would reestablish service from Chicago to Iowa City, via Joliet 

and the Quad Cities. Service would be provided at existing Amtrak stations in Chicago 

and Joliet, and at proposed stations in Morris, LaSalle, Geneseo, Moline, and Iowa City. 

Operation of the service would provide economic benefits at existing and proposed 

stations through job creation, opportunities for joint development near the stations, 

increased economic activity in these communities, and increased mobility of residents in 

these cities and towns, especially in the rural counties that are dependent upon limited 

economic and employment opportunities. Upgrade of the rails, crossties, signalization, 

and grade crossing protection would cost an estimated $109 million (Franke et al., 2008a; 

Franke et al., 2008b). The cost of station construction has not yet been estimated. 

Impacts from specific construction and operational activities would be evaluated in 

subsequent Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. 

3.3.3 Five Round-trip Trains per Day 

Implementation of the ultimate service level envisioned by the MWRRI (five round-trip 

trains, 10 TPD) would generate additional economic activity beyond the initial service 

level of two round-trip TPD. Additional track improvements and at-grade crossing 

protection would generate temporary construction employment. Operation of five roundtrip TPD would require increased staffing of train and support operations. Additional rail 

equipment needs would generate manufacturing employment. Increased revenue from 

operation of the additional trains and associated retail activity would generate additional 

tax income for state and local governments. The ultimate service level of five round-trip 

TPD would improve mobility to a greater degree than the initial service level of two 

round-trip TPD. 

Impacts of the five round-trip TPD scenario would be evaluated in subsequent Tier 1 

NEPA documents before the increased level of service would be implemented. 
Union

Station

BNSF

Morris

Peru--La Salle

Princeton

Mendota

Plano Naperville

Joliet

Geneseo

Wyanet

La Grange Rd

IAIS

IAIS

CSXT

METRA

Cedar Rapids

Iowa City

Quad Cities

Rockford

Chicago

Peoria

Mississippi River

Lake Michigan

LA SALLE GRUNDY

DE KALB

Proposed Track

Connection

Wyanet, IL

55

57

88

74 39

380

65

80

90

43

94

290

155

190

I l l i n o i s

I o w a

W i s c o n s i n

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

3.3-1

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Economically_Distressed_Counties.mxd\sept09\jcm

Economically Distressed Counties

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

25 12.5 0 25

Miles

Scale

Legend

Existing AMTRAK Station

Proposed AMTRAK Station

Route A Alternative

Route B Alternative

Routes A & B Alternative

Economically Distressed County

BNSF-Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway

CSXT-CSX Transportation

IAIS -Iowa Interstate Railroad
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-19

3.4 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 assures that individuals are not excluded from 

participation in public involvement activities, denied the benefits of a project, or 

subjected to discrimination in any way on the basis of race, color, age, sex, national 

origin, disability, or religion. This Project is being developed in full compliance with 

Title VI. 

The Executive Order (EO) 12898 on environmental justice directs that federal actions 

must be assessed to determine if disproportionately high and adverse human health and 

environmental impacts (such as those noted below) may affect minority or low income 

populations: 

• bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death; 

• air, noise, and water pollution and soil contamination; 

• destruction or disruption of manmade or natural resources; 

• destruction or diminution of aesthetic values; 

• destruction or disruption of community cohesion or a community’s economic 

vitality; 

• destruction or disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and 

services; 

• vibration; 

• adverse employment effects; 

• displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations; 

• increased traffic congestion; isolation, exclusion, or separation of minority, 

vulnerable age, or low-income individuals within a given community or from the 

broader community; and, 

• the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits of 

USDOT programs, policies, or activities. 

To meet the requirements of EO 12898, the socioeconomic composition of each of the 

alternative corridors was examined. Minority or low income populations have been 

identified to assess potential disproportionate impacts on these groups. In addition, 

specific types of impacts were examined with respect to their potential to 

disproportionately impact these social groups, regardless of where the impact might 

occur. Minority and low income populations were determined by relative population 

measures using county and place (city or village) information from Census 2000. 

Minority and low income populations were evaluated by comparing their percentage in 

each county in the alternative corridor to the percentage in the state, and the percentage in 

each place to the percentage in the corresponding county. 

Minority populations are substantially higher than the State average in seven counties in 

the Project area (Cook, De Kalb, Du Page, and Kane in Illinois, and Johnson, Muscatine, 

and Scott in Iowa). Johnson County, Iowa, also has a population whose income below the 

poverty level is substantially above the State average. See Appendix B for detailed 

demographic information for all counties in the Project area. 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-20 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

More detailed census data was used to determine potential environmental justice impacts 

in areas where potential noise impacts were identified in Moline, East Moline, and Iowa 

City (see Section 3.7, Noise). Analysis of census block group data, the most detailed level 

available for income, identified areas of poverty in East Moline, Moline, and Iowa City. 

The population whose income is below the poverty level is substantially higher than the 

county average in two of the three census block groups in East Moline and Moline and in 

one of the six census block groups in Iowa City (U.S. Census, 2001b). 

Analysis of census block data, the most detailed available for demographic characteristics 

of the population, identified minority and low income populations in East Moline, 

Moline, and Iowa City. Twelve census blocks in Moline were studied; 11 of these blocks 

have percentages of minority and low income populations are substantially above the 

community average. The minority population in this area consists of Hispanic (nine 

blocks), some other race (nine blocks), two or more races (five blocks), blacks (two 

blocks), and Asian (one block). Eight of the blocks include multiple minority population 

categories (U.S. Census, 2001a). 

All eight of the census blocks studied in East Moline have minority and low income 

populations that are substantially above the community average. The minority and low 

income population in this area consists of Hispanic and some other race (all eight blocks), 

and black and two or more races (two blocks). All eight of the census blocks include 

multiple minority population categories (U.S. Census, 2001a). 

In Iowa City, three of the blocks studied have minority and low income populations that 

are substantially above the community average. The minority and low income population 

in this area consists of Hispanic, two or more races, black, American Indian, Asian, and 

some other race. Two of the blocks include multiple EJ population categories (U.S. 

Census, 2001a). 

3.4.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would consist of operating the current Amtrak passenger rail 

service from Chicago to Quincy, St. Louis, or Carbondale and Omaha via southern Iowa 

with the present level of service and no appreciable change to the current track 

configuration or operating conditions. Passenger rail service from Chicago to Iowa City 

via the Quad Cities would not be implemented. Existing conditions (such as air quality 

and noise) would continue; minority and low income populations would not have access 

to the increased mobility that the proposed passenger rail service would provide. 

3.4.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day 

Under this scenario, two round-trip TPD (four TPD) would operate from Chicago to Iowa 

City, as described in Chapter 2. These trains would operate at a maximum speed of 

79 mph. Various resource-specific impacts were considered in relation to their potential 

effect on minority and low income populations. Air quality impacts would be negligible, 

and appreciable impacts to water quality and public safety are not anticipated. 

Severe noise impacts (as defined by the Federal Transit Administration – see Section 3.7, 

Noise and Vibration) are anticipated to increase by approximately 0.7 per mile. However, 

the severe noise impacts are not considered a significant impact to the noise environment 

because there is less than one severe impact per mile over the proposed route and the 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-21

impacts are distributed along the entire route, affecting large urban areas, small cities and 

villages, and rural areas. Approximately half of the severe noise impacts are anticipated 

in communities with minority and low income populations substantially above local 

averages, roughly one-third would occur in communities without minority and low 

income populations substantially above local averages, and the remainder of the impacts 

would occur in unincorporated or rural areas. 

The greatest changes in noise impacts were observed in the Moline area (Moline and East 

Moline) where existing train traffic is relatively low (making the additional passenger 

trains proportionally more significant) and the trains are limited to speeds of 10 to 

20 mph (the duration of a noise event due to a passing train is longer). Substantial 

numbers of impacts were also observed in Iowa City. East Moline and Iowa City have 

minority and low income populations. Minority and low income populations were 

identified in parts of Moline. Though many of the noise impacts are anticipated to occur 

in census block areas with minority and low income populations some of the impacts 

would occur in areas without minority and low income populations. Many of the census 

block areas immediately adjacent to noise impacts do not have minority and low income 

populations, and many census block areas near the route with minority and low income 

populations would not be affected by severe noise impacts. 

Many of the anticipated severe noise impacts would be diminished by proposed track and 

signal improvements in the Quad Cities to increase the passenger rail speed through the 

communities. These improvements would also improve the speed for the current freight 

trains. The speed increases would reduce the number of noise receptors that would be 

impacted (see Section 3.7, Noise and Vibration). 

The proposed passenger rail system would provide greater mobility and employment 

opportunities to residents of communities throughout the Project area (see Section 3.3, 

Socioeconomics), benefitting all residents, including minority and low income 

populations. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

Minority and low income populations along the Preferred Alternative route would not be 

disproportionately impacted by severe noise impacts. The largest number of noise 

impacts would occur in East Moline, Moline, and Iowa City. The Preferred Alternative 

would provide increased mobility and employment opportunities to Chicago, Cicero, 

Downers Grove, Naperville, Aurora, Plano, Mendota, Princeton, Geneseo, East Moline, 

Moline, Davenport, Iowa City, and other smaller cities and rural areas along the proposed 

route. 

Impacts from specific construction and operational activities would be evaluated in 

subsequent Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. 

 Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

Minority and low income populations along Route B would not be disproportionately 

impacted by severe noise impacts. The largest number of noise impacts would occur in 

East Moline, Moline, Marseilles, and Iowa City. The Route B Alternative would provide 

increased mobility and employment opportunities to Chicago, Joliet, Geneseo, Moline, 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-22 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Davenport, Iowa City, and other smaller cities along the proposed route, benefitting all 

residents, including minority and low income populations. 

3.4.3 Five Round-trip Trains per Day 

Implementation of the ultimate service level envisioned by the MWRRI (five round-trip 

TPD) would generate additional severe noise impacts beyond the initial service level of 

two round-trip TPD. The geographic distribution of these impacts would not likely differ 

substantially from the two round-trip TPD scenario. The ultimate service level of five 

round-trip TPD would improve mobility and employment opportunities to a greater 

degree than the initial service level of two round-trip TPD. 

Impacts from the five round-trip TPD scenario would be evaluated in subsequent NEPA 

documents before the increased level of service would be implemented. 

3.5 LAND USE, ZONING, AND PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS 

The setting along the Preferred Alternative and Route B Alternative consists of a mix of 

urban, suburban, and rural areas. Both Alternatives begin in the heavily developed urban 

and suburban industrial, commercial, and residential areas of Chicago. The rail corridors 

for both Alternatives continue though Illinois and Iowa in predominately rural areas with 

scattered urban areas. The westward progression of the rail corridor passes though 

residential, commercial, and industrial areas of Moline, Davenport, and Iowa City. 

Zoning designations vary along the corridor by community. 

Rural areas within the corridor are predominately agricultural. In the vicinity of the 

proposed Wyanet Connection, existing land use includes agricultural, riparian area, and 

parkland. 

3.5.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would require no additional property and would not impact 

land use or zoning. Farmland would not be affected. 

3.5.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

The Preferred Alternative includes track upgrade from Wyanet to Iowa City and 

construction of a connection track at Wyanet. The Preferred Alternative would also 

include proposed station facilities at Geneseo, Moline, and Iowa City. The anticipated 

need for land acquisition is as follows: 

• From Chicago to Wyanet, the existing rail line is currently used for freight 

and passenger trains and is in excellent condition. Track upgrades would not 

be required; land acquisition is not anticipated along this section. 

• Approximately 1 mile southwest of Wyanet, the track is grade-separated; 

there is currently no connection between the BNSF and IAIS tracks. A 

connection track (approximately 4,000 feet long) would be constructed in the 

northwest quadrant of the intersection. The connection would be designed to 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-23

accommodate a train speed of 50 mph. Approximately 7 acres of ROW would 

be acquired for the proposed connection. 

• From Wyanet to Iowa City, the rail line is currently used for freight trains. 

Along this section of the Preferred Alternative, minimal land acquisition 

would be required in areas where track curves need to be straightened for 

safety reasons, or where minor bridge and culvert work is needed. The land 

acquired would be adjacent to the existing rail lines; existing adjacent land 

uses would likely continue and future land use patterns would not change due 

to the proposed operation of two round-trip TPD. 

• Construction of station facilities at Geneseo and Moline would require land 

acquisition. The potential locations of the station facilities would be adjacent 

to the existing rail lines. A location for the proposed station in Geneseo has 

not yet been selected, but it is anticipated that the station would be located 

adjacent to the rail line in an area compatible with commercial use. No 

adverse impacts to land use are anticipated. The proposed Amtrak station in 

Moline would be constructed adjacent to the rail line at an existing bus station 

in an emerging transportation-oriented development (TOD). The proposed 

Amtrak station is anticipated to enhance efforts to develop TOD at this 

location into an intermodal transit facility, linking passenger rail, commuter 

rail, local and regional bus, water taxi, and other non-transit modes of 

transportation such as automobiles and bicycles (S.B. Friedman and 

Company, July 2009). 

• It is anticipated that the former Iowa City passenger train depot adjacent to 

the ISIS rail line would be acquired and refurbished for the proposed Amtrak 

station in Iowa City. The former depot is located in a commercial area and 

land use change would negligible. 

Construction of the Wyanet Connection would require the acquisition of approximately 7 

acres; approximately 2 acres of farmland would be acquired for ROW. A USDA 

farmland conversion impact rating form (AD 1006) was completed, with a preliminary 

score of 90. Conservative assumptions were used in developing the form because of the 

preliminary nature of the connection concept; as alternatives for the connection are 

further developed, the form will be revised. Revision of the form and coordination with 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service for their review of the form and completion 

of Part IV will be performed and documented in Tier 2 Project Level NEPA Documents. 

The preliminary form is included in this EA as Appendix G. Some incremental loss of 

farmland could also occur in areas where ROW would need to be expanded for track 

upgrades. 

Specific construction and operational land use impacts from the Preferred Alternative 

would be evaluated in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA Documents. 

Route B Alternative (AMTRAK-CN-METRA/ROCK ISLAND DISTRICT-CSXT-IAIS) 

The Route B Alternative would include track upgrades and proposed station facilities at 

Morris, La Salle, Geneseo, Moline, and Iowa City. The anticipated need for land 

acquisition is as follows: 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-24 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

• From Union Station to Joliet, the track is in excellent condition and no 

upgrade would be required. Therefore, no land acquisitions are needed. 

• From Joliet to Wyanet, the track is in various states of condition and would 

need upgrades that could potentially require land acquisition. The upgrades 

would be constructed within the existing rail line ROW when possible, and 

acquisition is anticipated to only occur adjacent to existing tracks. 

• A connection track would not be required near Wyanet, as the existing track 

continues both east and west of Wyanet. 

• From Wyanet to Iowa City, track upgrades would be the same as described 

under the Preferred Alternative. The upgrades needed to the track would 

occur within railroad ROW when possible. Minimal land acquisition would 

be required in areas where track curves need to be straightened for safety 

reasons and where minor bridge and culvert work is needed; acquisition is 

anticipated to only occur adjacent to existing tracks. 

• Additional stations are proposed at Geneseo, Morris, and La Salle. 

Construction of these stations would require land acquisition; locations for the 

proposed stations have not yet been selected, but it is anticipated that the 

stations would be located adjacent to the rail line in an area compatible with 

commercial use. No adverse impacts to land use are anticipated. 

• Similar to the Preferred Alternative, stations are proposed at Moline and Iowa 

City, with impacts occurring as discussed above. 

Land adjacent to the rail lines would likely be able to continue to support current land use 

and proposed future use. Although the Wyanet connection would not occur and affect 

farmland for ROW conversion, some incremental loss of farmland could occur in areas 

where ROW would need to be expanded for track upgrades. Specific construction and 

operational land use impacts from the Route B Alternative would be evaluated in the Tier 

2 Project Level NEPA Documents. 

3.5.3 Five Round-trip Trains per Day 

The ultimate service level of five round-trip TPD could require additional sidings to 

support a heavier volume of traffic on the Chicago to Iowa City corridor. Additional land 

would be acquired as needed, with acquisitions anticipated to occur adjacent to existing 

tracks. Land adjacent to the rail lines would likely be able to continue to support current 

land use and proposed future use. The proposed station locations would be the same as 

described for two round-trip TPD and the land use impacts would be similar. Farmland 

impacts, specific construction, and operational land use impacts from the five round-trip 

TPD scenario would be evaluated in future NEPA documents. 

3.6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

The Preferred Alternative Project area consists of an existing freight rail line from 

Chicago to Wyanet and from Wyanet to Iowa City. The rail line from Chicago to Wyanet 

is also used for passenger rail service, and for commuter rail traffic from downtown 

Chicago to Aurora. The rail line passes through approximately 40 miles of urban area 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-25

from Chicago to Aurora; west of Aurora to Wyanet (approximately 70 miles), the line 

passes through towns and rural areas. The rail line crosses numerous two- to four-lane 

roads and highways with at-grade and grade-separated crossings. These crossings have 

various forms of warning devices, from actively protected grade crossing predictor 

technology (constant time warning systems) with gates and flashing light signals, to 

passively protected lights- and bells-only crossing signals. Some of the rural crossings 

have only cross-buck warning signs. The BNSF rail line from Chicago to Wyanet is 

signalized and is under CTC.4 Freight train speeds generally range from 50 to 60 mph and 

the maximum passenger train speed is 79 mph (Franke et al, 2008a). 

The IAIS line from Wyanet to Iowa City (approximately 107 miles) passes through a 

mixture of urban areas (Quad Cities and Iowa City), small towns, and rural areas. This 

rail line is not signalized and is under TWC.5 The current maximum speed for freight 

trains is 40 mph; currently, passenger trains do not operate on this track. Trains on some 

track sections in the Quad Cities and Iowa City operate at speeds of 10 to 25 mph. Many 

of the crossings are actively protected by grade crossing predictor technology with gates 

and flashing light signals, but there are numerous crossings with only cross-buck warning 

signs (Franke, 2008a; Franke, 2008b). 

The Route B Alternative Project area consists of the Metra/Rock Island rail line from 

Chicago to Joliet, the CSXT rail line from Joliet to Utica, and the IAIS line from Utica to 

Wyanet. The Metra/Rock Island rail line from Chicago to Joliet is currently used for 

passenger and commuter rail service, and is under CTC. Passenger rail service operates at 

a maximum speed of 79 mph. The CSXT rail line from Joliet to Utica and IAIS rail line 

from Utica to Wyanet are used for freight traffic operating at speeds of up to 40 mph. The 

CSXT section is not signalized and operates under TWC and direct traffic control 

(DTC).6 The IAIS from Utica to Wyanet is not signalized and is under TWC (Franke, 

2008a; Franke, 2008b). 

Hazardous material is currently transported by freight trains on the aforementioned rail 

lines; Amtrak does not transport hazardous material. 

3.6.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would consist of operating the current passenger rail service 

from Chicago to Princeton and other destinations beyond the Project area on the BNSF 

line and from Chicago to Joliet and other destinations beyond the Project area, with the 

present level of crossing protection and no appreciable change to the current track 

configuration or operating conditions. Passenger rail service from Chicago to Iowa City, 

via the Quad Cities would not be implemented. The No-build Alternative would not 

impact public health and safety. The safety of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic 

would not be enhanced as the grade-crossing signals would not be upgraded or replaced. 

 

4 Centralized traffic control is a system of railroad operations by means of which the movement of trains 

through blocks on a designated section of track is directed by signals controlled by a designated point 

(Franke et. al 2008a). 

5

 Traffic warrant control is a method to authorize train movement on a main track within specified limits 

in a territory designated by a timetable (Franke et. al 2008a). These tracks are not signalized. 

6

 Direct traffic control consists of a block or series of blocks of tracks where a train dispatcher 

authorizes track occupancy (Franke et. al 2008a). 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-26 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Travel from Iowa City and the Quad Cities to Chicago would continue to be mostly by 

private automobile. 

3.6.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day 

Under this scenario, two round-trip TPD (four TPD) would operate between Chicago and 

Iowa City, as described in Chapter 2. These trains would operate at a maximum speed of 

79 mph. Safety measures designed to reduce the risk of accidents would be incorporated 

in accordance with FRA, FHWA, and State of Illinois and Iowa regulations. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

The existing BNSF rail line from Chicago to Wyanet would not require any 

improvements. Amtrak passenger trains currently operate on this line at maximum speeds 

of 79 mph; the line is signalized, and is under CTC. 

Wayside signaling7 would be installed on the IAIS rail line from Wyanet to Iowa City. 

Traffic control would be upgraded to CTC. Advance warning circuitry for active crossing 

protection (gates and flashing lights) would be upgraded where needed for higher speed 

trains. Line of sight clearing8 would be increased as needed at all at-grade crossings 

(Franke, 2008a; Franke, 2008b; FHWA, November 2002; Illinois DOT, December 2002; 

Illinois DOT, December 2006; FHWA, December 2007). 

Adding the Preferred Alternative’s four additional train trips on existing, active rail lines 

would have no appreciable negative impact on public health and safety. The Preferred 

Alternative would instead improve public health and safety by upgrading grade-crossing 

signal equipment and provide a safe, efficient modal choice for travel from Iowa City and 

the Quad Cities to Chicago. By diverting some commuter traffic from Interstate 80, area 

highways, and local roads between Chicago and Iowa City, the Preferred Alternative 

would likely reduce congestion and improve safety on the roads and highways. The 

safety of hazardous material transportation by freight trains would improve on the IAIS 

rail line from Wyanet to Iowa City due to track and crossing protection upgrades. 

Impacts from specific construction and operational activities would be evaluated in 

subsequent Tier 2 Project Level NEPA Documents. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

The existing Metra rail line from Chicago to Joliet would not require any improvements. 

Amtrak and Metra passenger trains currently operate on this line at maximum speeds of 

79 mph and the line is signalized. 

Wayside signaling would be installed on the CSXT and IAIS rail lines from Joliet to 

Wyanet. Traffic control would be upgraded to CTC. Advance warning circuitry for active 

crossing protection (gates and flashing lights) would be upgraded where needed for 

 

7

 Wayside signaling comprises the integration of signal hardware located along the track right of way 

(such as track circuits to detect trains, signal displays, powered switch machines, train stops, and 

constant time warning systems) and communication systems between train operators and dispatchers 

that safely control the movement of trains and warn traffic at grade crossings. 

8

 Clearing of all obstacles, including vegetation, to provide a clear line of sight to motorists crossing 

train tracks. The line of sight required at a crossing depends upon train speeds and vehicle type. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-27

higher speed trains. Line of sight clearing would be increased as needed at all at-grade 

crossings (Franke, 2008a; Franke, 2008b; FHWA, November 2002; Illinois DOT, 

December 2002; Illinois DOT, December 2006; FHWA, December 2007). 

Safety equipment upgrades from Wyanet to Iowa City, as discussed in the Route A 

Alternative, would also be required for the Route B Alternative. However, the Route B 

Alternative would require wayside signaling, crossing protection upgrades, and line of 

sight clearing over a greater distance of rail line than the Route A Alternative. 

Similar to the Preferred Alternative, adding four additional train trips on existing, active 

rail lines for the Route B Alternative would have no appreciable negative impact on 

public health and safety. The Route B Alternative would instead improve public health 

and safety by upgrading grade-crossing signal equipment. By diverting some commuter 

traffic from Interstate 80, area highways, and local roads between Chicago and Iowa City, 

the Route B Alternative would likely reduce congestion and improve safety on the roads 

and highways; safety improvements would occur in an area south of the Preferred 

Alternative between Chicago and Wyanet, but in the same area between Wyanet and 

Iowa City. The safety of hazardous material transportation by freight trains would 

improve on the CSXT rail line from Joliet to Utica and on the IAIS rail line from Utica to 

Iowa City due to track and crossing protection upgrades. 

Impacts from specific construction and operational activities would be evaluated in 

subsequent Tier 2 Project Level NEPA Documents. 

3.6.3 Five Round-trip Trains per Day 

In addition to signaling and crossing protection upgrades described in the two round-trip 

TPD scenario, additional upgrades would be needed to support the operation of five 

round-trip TPD at a maximum speed of 90 mph from Chicago to Wyanet. At-grade 

crossings that require active protection (gates and flashing lights) would also require 

supplemental safety devices, such as active advance warning signs with flashers, active 

advance turn restriction signs, median separations, wide-raised medians, barrier wall 

systems, curb islands, four quadrant traffic gate systems, and train detection systems 

(FHWA, November 2002; FHWA, December 2007). 

Adding five round-trip TPD (10 additional train trips) on existing, active rail lines in the 

Chicago area would have no appreciable negative impact on public health and safety. 

Areas west of Chicago would see more of a relative increase in traffic. The risk of 

accidents could increase from the additional trains and higher train speeds between 

Chicago and Wyanet. However, the safety upgrades that would be implemented could 

reduce the risk of accidents. 

Impacts from the five round-trip TPD scenario would be evaluated in a subsequent Tier 1 

Service Level NEPA document before the increased level of service would be 

implemented. 

3.7 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

This section discusses the methodology and potential impacts related to the operational 

airborne noise and ground-borne vibration impacts from the Project. Both the noise and 

vibration analyses followed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines published 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-28 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

in “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (May 2006). The FRA published 

virtually identical guidance for assessing noise and vibration from high speed passenger 

trains in 2005. 

A Screening Noise Assessment was performed using aspects of the General Noise 

Assessment in accordance with FTA guidelines. Both existing and future rail traffic were 

evaluated in order to assess the incremental, Project-related effects of airborne noise. 

Analysis results identified a limited number of potential noise impacts throughout the 

Project corridor. Noise from horns and wheel-rail interaction (wayside noise) contribute 

to the projected noise impacts. The methodology used to assess Project-related noise is 

based on guidance provided by the FRA for use in Tier 1 NEPA review. 

The General Vibration Assessment described here was also prepared in accordance with 

FTA guidelines using FRA vibration assessment methods. The purpose of this assessment 

is to determine the number of potential ground-borne vibration (GBV) impacts associated 

with the proposed Project at vibration-sensitive land uses throughout the Project corridor. 

Refer to Appendix C for a discussion of basic vibration and acoustical concepts, 

methodology details, etc. 

3.7.1 Noise Evaluation Criteria 

The FTA and FRA established similar procedures and guidelines for assessing train 

noise. Train noise is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA) as a function of 

time. The time descriptor used in this train noise assessment is the day-night noise level 

(Ldn). The Ldn can be thought of as a 24-hour average noise level that penalizes noise 

events that happen at night because most people are more annoyed by noise at nighttime 

than during the daytime. 

This Tier 1 Service Level NEPA noise assessment only assessed Project-related noise at 

land uses where overnight sleep occurs (primarily residences),which is consistent with 

FRA guidance for Tier 1 Service Level NEPA reviews. Residences were identified by 

visual inspection of digital aerial photographs; no windshield surveys were performed. 

This EA also performed a cursory review of land use adjacent to the Project corridors to 

determine where parks abut the rail lines. Visual inspection of digital aerial photographs 

and a limited internet search identified a number of parks adjacent to the rail corridors. 

There may be other small parks that were not picked up at this level of analysis. The 

impact assessments, discussed later in this subsection, use the term receptors to refer to 

land uses where overnight sleep occurs; each noise or vibration impact identified later in 

this subsection represents a single receptor, or land use where overnight sleep occurs. 

Analysis results show that the incremental increase in the distance to the noise impact 

contour (the point at which noise impacts are no longer predicted to occur) in most 

instances is less than 20 feet. This small incremental change is nominal at this level of 

analysis, and impacted parks will be identified using the residential noise impact 

contours. Therefore the actual noise effect upon parks is minimal because the incremental 

change in noise is so small. The Project would not introduce a noise source that is 

unfamiliar in the parks (for the purposes of this analysis, diesel locomotives are assumed 

to sound the same). Therefore, this incremental increase does not merit a site-specific 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-29

discussion of Project-related noise impacts at parks. Refer to Section 3.11, Parks and 

Federally or State-listed Natural Areas, for additional information. 

The FTA noise impact criteria are defined by two curves, representing severe and 

moderate noise impacts, which are defined below. 

• Severe Impact. A significant percentage of people are highly annoyed by 

noise in this range. Noise mitigation would normally be specified for severe 

impact areas unless it is not feasible or reasonable (unless there is no practical 

method of mitigating the impact). 

• Moderate Impact. In this range, other project-specific factors are considered 

to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These 

factors include the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and 

number of noise-sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor-indoor sound 

insulation, and the cost-effectiveness of mitigating noise to more acceptable 

levels. 

The FTA noise impact criteria are summarized in Chart 3.7-1 below. The chart illustrates 

existing noise exposure and Project-related noise exposure, and demonstrates that FTA 

noise impact thresholds vary with existing noise levels. Although the chart below 

references all three land use categories used by FTA, this analysis focused on Category 2 

(land uses where overnight sleep occurs). 

Chart 3.7-1 

FTA Noise Impact Criteria 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-30 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

The first step in the noise assessment is to identify existing noise levels. This assessment 

used methods published by FTA (2006) and FRA (2005) to estimate existing noise levels 

based on factors such as proximity to roadways, highways, and railroads, and also by 

population density. In accordance with FTA guidance, the highest estimate of existing 

noise levels produced by these methods was incorporated into this analysis. In 

accordance with FTA and FRA guidance, this analysis used the existing noise level to 

identify the noise impact threshold. The noise impact threshold is determined by locating 

the measured or estimated existing noise level in a table published by FTA and FRA; the 

table identifies noise impact thresholds corresponding to the existing noise levels. Using 

the methods described above, this analysis determined an existing noise Ldn of 62 dBA 

for lands immediately adjacent to the rail line everywhere throughout the Project 

corridors. 

The range of train volumes and speeds present in the Project corridors was summarized 

as a series of eight traffic conditions (A through H), as shown in Table 3.7-1. This 

allowed the corridor to be subdivided into sections with similar train traffic 

characteristics. A series of “traffic conditions,” or zones, were established throughout the 

rail line; each traffic condition represents a range of similar rail traffic and surrounding 

land use (and existing noise levels). Assigning traffic conditions to the Project corridor 

allowed it to be logically subdivided into sub-sections, simplifying the noise analysis. 

Table 3.7-1 

Summary of Traffic Conditions 

Traffic Condition Trains per Day No. of Locomotives No. of Cars Speed 

Freight Trains 

A 10.0 2.9 125.3 40 

B 10.0 2.9 125.3 15 

C 18.5 2.6 90.7 60 

D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

F 36.0 2.6 74.8 37 

G 36.0 2.6 74.8 60 

H 36.0 2.6 74.8 60 

Passenger Trains 

A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

C 7.8 1.5 9.8 60 

D 53.7 1.0 12.7 60 

E 53.7 1.0 12.7 60 

F 89.1 1.0 11.4 37 

G 89.1 1.0 11.4 60 

H 89.1 1.0 11.4 60 

Future Passenger Trains 

A 4.0 1.0 8.0 79 

B 4.0 1.0 8.0 15 

C 4.0 1.0 8.0 79 

D 4.0 1.0 8.0 60 

E 4.0 1.0 8.0 60 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-31

Traffic Condition Trains per Day No. of Locomotives No. of Cars Speed 

F 4.0 1.0 8.0 37 

G 4.0 1.0 8.0 70 

H 4.0 1.0 8.0 55 

In general, Traffic Condition A was defined for the rail sections from Iowa City to 

Wyanet along Route A (except the vicinity of Moline which was assigned Traffic 

Condition B), and from Wyanet to Joliet along Route B. Traffic Condition C includes the 

rail sections from Wyanet to Aurora along Route A. Traffic Condition D was assigned to 

the sections between Joliet and Englewood along Route B. Traffic Condition E was 

assigned and from Englewood to Chicago along Route B. Conditions F through H were 

assigned from Aurora to Chicago along Route A. 

The range of development density present throughout the Project corridor was simplified 

into the three land use categories used in the FRA horn noise model (rural, suburban, and 

urban). The shielding assumptions used in that model for each respective land use were 

also incorporated into this analysis. A series of “noise conditions” were then created by 

combining traffic conditions and the three categories of development density. Table 

3.7-2, below, summarizes the Noise Condition definitions. Figure 3.7-1, Figure 3.7-2, and 

Figure 3.7-3 at the end of this section show the assigned Noise Conditions. 

Table 3.7-2 

Noise Condition Definitions 

Noise Condition Traffic Condition Development Density 

1 A Rural 

2 A Suburban 

3 B Suburban 

4 A Urban 

5 C Rural 

6 C Suburban 

7 D Urban 

8 D Suburban 

9 E Urban 

10 F Urban 

11 G Urban 

12 H Urban 

Assigning noise conditions to the Project corridor allowed it to be logically subdivided 

into sub-sections with similar rail traffic, building-induced shielding characteristics, and 

existing noise levels, and therefore similar noise impact thresholds—thus simplifying the 

noise analysis. The moderate noise impact threshold was 59 dBA and the severe noise 

impact threshold was 64 dBA, both on an Ldn basis. 

The FRA grade crossing database was incorporated in this assessment. It was used to 

identify the locations of public at-grade rail crossings where locomotive horns are used, 

and also to identify where quiet zones exist. Based on the FRA database, this analysis 

assumes that a quiet zone exists between Chicago and Aurora on the Preferred 

Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS ). In addition, the FRA grade crossing 

database indicates that all crossings appear to be grade-separated between Chicago and 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-32 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Englewood on Alternative B (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS). 

These portions of the Project area comprise much of Noise Condition 9. Horns are 

apparently not used on any Noise Condition 9 rail sections, therefore, locomotive horn 

analyses were not performed for Noise Condition 9. 

The FRA locomotive horn noise model does not allow a modeler to model several 

different trains at the same time, and was therefore not used on this analysis. The horn 

noise contours were created using methods in the FTA and FRA guidance documents, 

and incorporating some of the features of the FRA horn noise model (the 1/4-mile 

contour distance, and the shielding equations). 

No-Build Alternative 

This analysis assumes that train-induced noise does not change anywhere throughout the 

Project area under the No-Build Alternative. Consequently, no new noise impacts are 

projected to occur beyond those that could occur due to other projects. 

Two Round-trip Trains per Day 

Both the existing and proposed (two round-trip passenger TPD) rail traffic was assessed; 

this allowed the analysis to identify the incremental increase in train noise effects on 

residential land uses in the Project area reported in the sections below. This portion of the 

analysis is based on the proposed addition of two round-trip passenger TPD at 79 mph 

from Chicago to Iowa City. Existing noise impacts were determined by modeling existing 

train traffic and plotting the resulting noise impact contour. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS)

Table 3.7-3 presents the incremental increase in noise impacts at residential land uses 

adjacent to the Preferred Alternative. The table presents noise impacts predicted to occur 

in each municipality along the Preferred Alternative, and sorts the impacts as moderate or 

severe grade crossing and wayside (wheel/rail) noise impacts. The portion of the route 

unique to Route A is distinguished from the portion of the route that would be the same 

for Routes A and B (defined as “Common Section”). The entire corridor was evaluated; 

rural areas are listed as unincorporated in the table below. 

Analysis results show a low incremental increase in noise impacts per mile associated 

with the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is projected to result in: 1.5 new 

moderate noise impacts per mile; 0.7 new severe noise impacts per mile, and a combined 

average total of 2.1 noise impacts per mile. On this basis, the incremental increase in train 

noise is not considered to be significant for this analysis. 

Table 3.7-3, below, shows that the distribution of Project-related noise impacts is 

scattered throughout the Project corridor. Areas with high existing traffic volumes and 

quiet zones are expected to experience a minor incremental increase in train noise 

associated with the Preferred Alternative. Conversely, areas with low existing traffic 

volumes, slow trains, and fewer or no quiet zones are expected to experience a larger 

incremental increase in train noise associated with the Preferred Alternative. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-33

Table 3.7-3 reflects the trend of a low incremental increase in noise impacts in Chicago 

where train volumes are already higher than elsewhere in the project corridors (refer to 

the traffic summary in the table above) but much of the area along the Preferred 

Alternative consists of a quiet zone. Analysis results show that municipalities in the Quad 

Cities, where train speeds and volumes are low and quiet zones do not exist, are likely to 

experience a larger incremental increase in train noise levels and corresponding impacts 

associated with the Preferred Alternative. The influence of quiet zones on the magnitude 

of the incremental increase in train noise impacts suggests they represent an opportunity 

to mitigate many of the predicted impacts. Mitigation opportunities are discussed at the 

end of Section 3.7.1. 

Table 3.7-3 

Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternative 

Municipality 

Moderate Severe 

Total 

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside 

Alignment A 

Arlington 1 2 3 

Aurora 1 1 

Berwyn 3 2 5 

Brookfield 3 5 8 

Chicago 8 5 13 

Clarendon Hills 2 4 6 

Downers Grove 6 1 7 

Earlville 8 2 10 

Hinsdale 2 2 

Leland 2 6 8 

Lisle 1 1 

Malden 1 3 4 

Mendota 3 1 1 5 

Montgomery 4 4 

Naperville 1 1 2 

Plano 10 5 15 

Princeton 1 1 2 

Riverside 13 10 23 

Sandwich 10 4 1 15 

Somonauk 3 1 1 5 

Western Springs 3 3 6 

Westmont 4 4 

Wyanet 6 1 7 

Unincorporated 5 9 5 12 31 

Common Section 

Annawan, IL 3 1 4
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-34 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Municipality 

Moderate Severe 

Total 

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside 

Atalissa, IA 3 6 9

Atkinson, IL 4 4

Carbon Cliff, IL 1 1 2

Colona, IL 9 2 3 1 15

Davenport, IA 17 15 1 2 35

Durant, IA 9 9

East Moline, IL 39 8 4 51

Geneseo, IL 12 1 13

Green River, IL 1 1

Iowa City, IA 1 6 1 9 17

Mineral, IL 1 3 4

Moline, IL 37 4 6 3 50

Rock Island, IL 2 1 6 9

Sheffield, IL 2 2

Silvis, IL 2 2

Stockton, IA 1 2 3 6

Walcott, IA 7 7

West Liberty, IA 4 4

Wilton, IA 5 1 6

Unincorporated 10 4 6 2 22

Alternative A Totals 224 93 75 67 459

317 142 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS)

Table 3.7-4 presents the incremental increase in noise impacts at residential land uses 

adjacent to the Route B Alternative. The table presents noise impacts predicted to occur 

in each municipality along the Route B Alternative, and sorts the impacts in to moderate 

and severe grade crossing and wayside (wheel/rail) noise impacts. The number of 

moderate and severe noise impacts in unincorporated, rural areas is also quite low due to 

the low density of development in these areas. The portion of the route unique to Route A 

is distinguished from the portion of the route that would be the same for Routes A and B 

(defined as “Common Section”). The number of moderate and severe noise impacts in 

unincorporated, rural areas is also quite low due to the low density of development in 

these areas. 

The incremental increase in noise impacts per mile associated with the Route B 

Alternative is not significant. The table below shows that the distribution of Projectrelated noise impacts is also scattered throughout the Project corridor. Unlike the 

Preferred Alternative, the Route B alternative does not contain a quiet zone in the 

Chicago metro area. As a result, train noise impacts are predicted to be higher along this 

alternative. Consistent with the Preferred Alternative, areas with low existing traffic 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-35

volumes, slow trains, and no quiet zones are expected to experience a larger incremental 

increase in train noise associated with the Route B Alternative. 

Table 3.7-4 

Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the Route B Alternative 

Municipality 

Moderate Severe 

Total 

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside 

Alignment B 

Blue Island 5 4 1 1 11 

Bureau Junction 5 5 10 

Chicago 12 12 13 11 48 

De Pue 4 4 

Joliet 2 2 2 6 

La Salle 2 2 4 

Marseilles 18 4 4 4 30 

Midlothian 2 1 3 

Minooka 12 12 

Mokena 5 1 1 7 

Morris 10 10 

New Lenox 1 1 2 

North Utica 5 2 7 

Oak Forest 5 1 6 

Ottawa 6 2 8 

Peru 2 2 

Rockdale 1 1 

Seneca 2 2 

Spring Valley 1 1 

Tinley Park 1 1 2 

Tiskilwa 2 1 3 

Unincorporated 1 3 5 9 

Common Section 

Annawan, IL 3 1 4 

Atalissa, IA 3 6 9 

Atkinson, IL 4 4 

Carbon Cliff, IL 1 1 2 

Colona, IL 9 2 3 1 15 

Davenport, IA 17 15 1 2 35 

Durant, IA 9 9 

East Moline, IL 39 8 4 51 

Geneseo, IL 12 1 13 

Green River, IL 1 1 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-36 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Municipality 

Moderate Severe 

Total 

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside 

Iowa City, IA 1 6 1 9 17 

Mineral, IL 1 3 4 

Moline, IL 37 4 6 3 50 

Rock Island, IL 2 1 6 9 

Sheffield, IL 2 2 

Silvis, IL 2 2 

Stockton, IA 1 2 3 6 

Walcott, IA 7 7 

West Liberty, IA 4 4 

Wilton, IA 5 1 6 

Unincorporated 10 4 6 2 22 

Alternative B Totals 268 69 83 40 460 

337 123 

 

The Route B Alternative is projected to result in: 1.4 new moderate noise impacts per 

mile; 0.5 new severe noise impacts per mile, and a combined total of 2.0 noise impacts 

per mile. On this basis, the incremental increase in train noise is not considered to be 

significant for this analysis. 

Table 3.7-4 also reflects the trend of a high incremental increase in noise impacts in 

Chicago and in the Quad Cities. The number of noise impacts in unincorporated, rural 

areas is comparable to the Preferred Alternative. The absence of quiet zones on the Route 

B Alternative and its influence on the magnitude of the incremental increase in train noise 

impacts also suggests that they represent an opportunity to mitigate many of the predicted 

impacts. Mitigation opportunities are discussed at the end of Section 3.7.1. 

Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

The MWRRI envisions five round-trip TPD, at 90 mph, from Chicago to Wyanet, 

Illinois; and at 79 mph from Wyanet to Iowa City, Iowa. This level of increased train 

activity was assessed in this Tier 1 Service Level NEPA review to help inform the reader 

of the likely potential impacts from the implementation of the MWRRI’s ultimate vision. 

(A separate NEPA analysis would be required prior to increasing the train numbers and 

speeds.) 

Five round-trip TPD were evaluate using the same methods and modeling approach as 

described in the previous section, but with increased future passenger train traffic. Table 

3.7-5 presents a simple comparison of noise contour distances under each of the ranges of 

rail traffic. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-37

Table 3.7-5 

Impact Threshold Contour Distances 

Noise 

Condition 

Existing 

Moderate 

Impact 

4-TPD 

Moderate 

Impact 

10-TPD 

Moderate 

Impact 

Existing 

Severe 

Impact 

4-TPD 

Severe 

Impact 

10-TPD 

Severe 

Impact 

 Wayside Contour Distances (ft) 

1 274 295 324 126 136 149 

2 200 212 229 126 136 149 

3 264 296 336 179 207 245 

4 183 194 210 126 136 149 

5 391 408 432 180 188 199 

6 266 275 287 180 188 199 

7 203 210 203 104 108 104 

8 222 229 222 143 149 143 

9 203 210 203 104 108 104 

10 281 286 281 149 152 149 

11 256 261 256 134 137 134 

12 256 261 256 134 137 134 

 Grade Crossing Contour Distances (ft)

1 377 404 441 258 285 323 

2 349 375 410 200 206 229 

3 504 570 647 291 336 391 

4 323 348 381 174 189 210 

5 436 458 483 318 342 371 

6 405 426 450 225 239 255 

7 505 520 505 291 301 291 

8 541 556 541 316 326 316 

9 505 520 505 291 301 291 

10 720 731 720 444 452 444 

11 613 621 613 366 372 366 

12 613 624 613 366 374 366 

Note: Italicized contour distances do not include a shielding correction because the corrected distance is 

less than FRA-assumed threshold distance for applying shielding in areas with the specified density of 

development. 

The table above shows that the incremental increase in noise impact contour distances 

associated with the five round-trip TPD scenario is greatest in noise condition 3 areas 

where train speeds are slow and development density and shielding is classified as 

suburban. The incremental increase in noise impact contours is least in noise condition 9 

areas where development density is high and train volumes are high. 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-38 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Noise Mitigation Opportunities 

As shown above, the presence or absence of quiet zones has a great effect on the 

predicted number of train noise impacts. Locomotive horn use at public at-grade 

crossings causes the majority of the predicted noise impacts. Therefore, minimizing 

locomotive horn use in the Project area represents the greatest opportunity to mitigate 

potential Project-related noise impacts. The Project would upgrade some electronic 

circuitry through installation of constant time circuitry (warning lights) at public at-grade 

roadway-rail crossings. In effect, the Project would install the electronic infrastructure for 

quiet zones. Municipalities predicted to experience an increase in train noise impacts can 

choose to initiate the process of developing quiet zones, to take advantage of the 

infrastructure provided by the proposed Project. 

The largest concentration of anticipated noise impacts would be in the Quad Cities 

region. The following additional receptors would be impacted under either alternative 

route: 56 in East Moline; 58 in Moline; 10 in Rock Island; and 36 in Davenport. The 

increase in receptors would be primarily due to the slow speed of the existing track 

configuration through the Quad Cities area. Colona, IL would also see an additional 

20 receptors impacted primarily due to the slow current track speed at the crossing of the 

IAIS and the BNSF rail lines. 

However, track improvements would be made in both the Quad Cities and in Colona to 

improve the fluidity of the passenger trains and to increase the passenger rail speed 

through the communities. In the Quad Cities, track signals would be improved through 

East Moline, Moline, Rock Island, and Davenport to allow for an increase in passenger 

train speeds from the current 10 to 15 mph constraint to 40 mph. In addition, a passenger 

train by-pass of the Rock Island yard would be constructed to reduce the delays to the 

passenger trains through the yard. In Colona, the crossing of the BNSF and IAIS rail lines 

would be reconstructed to increase the track speed on the IAIS from the current 10 mph 

to 40 mph. These improvements in the Quad Cities and Colona would also improve the 

speed for the current freight trains. The speed increases would reduce the number of 

noise receptors that would be impacted because the duration of a locomotive horn use 

(pass-by) event would be shorter. 

3.7.2 Ground-borne Vibration 

This section summarizes potential ground-borne vibration (GBV) impacts associated with 

the proposed Project. Existing and future rail traffic scenarios were analyzed, and the 

incremental increase in ground-borne vibration associated with the proposed Project was 

identified. (Refer to Appendix C for background information on vibration and additional 

methodology details.) Only GBV was evaluated. For the purposes of this assessment, 

ground-borne noise (which is different than both air-borne noise and ground-borne 

vibration, and can be estimated using FTA/FRA methods) was not addressed; this is 

consistent with vibration analyses performed for FRA on other Tier 1 service-level 

HSIPR projects. 

Based on the daily train counts for the current and anticipated rail usage, and the number 

of locomotives per train, the number of vibration events may range from less than 30 

(infrequent) to more than 70 (frequent) events per day depending on location. FTA 

recommends, however, that the frequent-event criterion be applied for line-haul freight 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-39

trains because of the lengthy vibration event caused by the rail cars. Since both Routes A 

and B contain qualifying line-haul freight traffic, the frequent-event criterion of 72 

vibration decibels is applied in this assessment. In this section, vibration decibels (VdB) 

relative to a reference of 10-6 inches per second (1 たin/sec) are used. The frequent-event 

criterion represents the most conservative case. 

Both existing and proposed (future) operations were evaluated to assess the potential 

vibration impact along Routes A and B. The future use scenario includes passenger trains 

moving at 79 mph, along with existing freight train traffic, on welded track. A potential 

90-mph passenger train scenario on Route A was partially analyzed only for the five 

round-trip TPD scenario, and potential impact distances are provided for comparison 

purposes. 

The assessment began with a data gathering task and construction of a geographic 

information system (GIS) for the Project. The railroad alignments, surface geology, aerial 

photography, and train traffic data (the number of locomotives and rail cars) were among 

the critical information gathered. Geology sources included GIS data and maps available 

at the Iowa Geological Survey and Illinois State Geological Survey Web sites. Train 

traffic data were compiled during the noise assessment. The traffic conditions developed 

for use in the noise assessment documented in the first part of this section were also 

applied in the vibration analysis. The traffic conditions, described in 

Table 3.7-6, refer to sections of rail which have specific combinations of train speed and 

frequency (although for the vibration assessment the frequent-event criterion is assumed). 

Table 3.7-6 

Traffic Conditions 

Traffic Condition Location 

Speed (mph) 

Existing Future 

A Aurora; Wyanet to Moline; Moline to Iowa City 40 79 

B Moline 15 15 

C Aurora to Wyanet 60 79 

D Englewood to Joliet 60 60 

E Chicago to Englewood 60 60 

F Chicago to West Side 37 37 

G West Side to Eola 60 70 

H Eola to Aurora 60 55 

Once the necessary datasets had been gathered, the vibration impacts for existing and 

future scenarios were analyzed. The generalized ground surface vibration curves (see 

Figure 10-1 in the FTA guidance document) provide the distance from track centerline 

the point where ground-borne vibration levels fall below impact thresholds; this is the 

vibration impact contour. In order to determine the distance to potential impacts at 

Category 2 thresholds, the generalized (reference) ground-surface vibration curve needs 

to be adjusted to more accurately fit the actual conditions. 

The GBV reference curve most applicable to this Project assumes a locomotive powered 

passenger or freight train traveling at 50 mph on CWR, over soil that is inefficient at 

transmitting vibration. Given the actual geologic conditions and the current and future 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-40 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

train speeds, adjustments for geology and train speed were needed. (Note: it is assumed 

that all existing jointed track would be replaced with CWR.) 

The surface geology of the area generally consists of a mixture of silt, sand, gravel, and 

floodplain sediments, all of which are assumed to be non-efficient at transmitting 

vibration for this assessment, and glacial till, which is assumed to be a stiff clay efficient 

at transmitting vibration. The approximate linear extent of efficient and non-efficient soil 

that each traffic condition section transects was calculated and a VdB adjustment applied 

to the section. The reference vibration curve adjustment factors for existing use, future 

79-mph, and future 90-mph scenarios are provided in Appendix C. The 90-mph scenario 

applies only to the five round-trip TPD scenario. Once the adjustments were applied to 

the ground-borne vibration reference curve, the distance to the vibration impact threshold 

contours was determined. 

This Tier 1 Service Level NEPA vibration assessment only assessed Project-related 

ground-borne vibration at land uses where overnight sleep occurs (primarily residences) 

for the same reasons as noted in Section 3.7.1. 

A cursory review of land use adjacent to the Project corridors was also performed to 

determine where parks abut the rail lines. Visual inspection of digital aerial photographs 

and a limited search of the internet identified a number of parks immediately adjacent to 

the rail corridors. There may be other small parks that were not identified at this 

screening level. While the receptor database in GIS includes the parks noted above, 

vibration analysis results are not presented on a site-specific basis. If vibration impacts 

are predicted to occur at a park, that park is simply reported as an impact in the analysis 

results table. 

No-Build Alternative 

This analysis assumes that train-induced ground-borne vibration does not change 

anywhere throughout the Project area under the No-Build Alternative. Consequently, no 

new vibration impacts are projected to occur beyond those that could occur due to other 

projects. 

Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Both the existing and proposed (two round-trip TPD) rail traffic was assessed; this 

allowed the analysis to identify the incremental increase in ground-borne vibration effects 

on residential land uses in the Project area for Routes A and B. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS)

Table 3.7-7 presents the incremental increase in vibration impacts, as defined by FTA, at 

residential land uses adjacent to the entire Preferred Alternative. The table presents 

vibration impacts predicted to occur in each municipality along the Preferred Alternative. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-41

Table 3.7-7 

Incremental Increase in Ground-borne Vibration Impacts 

Associated with the Preferred Alternative 

Municipality No. of Impacts Municipality No. of Impacts 

Alignment A Common Section 

Arlington, IL 8 Atalissa, IA 20 

Aurora, IL 23 Davenport, IA 304 

Berwyn, IL 51 Durant, IA 53 

Brookfield, IL 55 Iowa City, IA 174 

Chicago, IL 110 Stockton, IA 27 

Cicero, IL 24 Walcott, IA 56 

Clarendon Hills, IL 35 West Liberty, IA 40 

Downers Grove, IL 81 Wilton, IA 35 

Earlville, IL 19 Annawan, IL 27 

Hinsdale, IL 41 Atkinson, IL 25 

La Grange, IL 38 Geneseo, IL 61 

Leland, IL 23 Mineral, IL 20 

Lisle, IL 44 Sheffield, IL 21 

Malden, IL 10 Unincorporated 58 

Mendota, IL 32 

Montgomery, IL 28 

Naperville, IL 68 

Oswego, IL 16 

Plano, IL 13 

Princeton, IL 5 

Riverside, IL 39 

Sandwich, IL 33 

Somonauk, IL 34 

Western Springs, IL 33 

Westmont, IL 31 

Wyanet, IL 20 

Unincorporated 93 

Vibration Impacts Associated with Alternative A 1,928 

Analysis results identified approximately 9 vibration impacts per mile associated with the 

Preferred Alternative. Train-induced ground-borne vibration levels reach the impact 

thresholds determined in this analysis during the 79 mph train pass-by. The Project 

proposes to introduce two round-trip trains at this speed each day. Therefore there would 

be four train pass-by events at this speed. Analysis results also show that the number of 

vibration impacts in each municipality is related to the density of residential development 

in areas adjacent to the rail line. 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-42 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS)

Table 3.7-8 presents the incremental increase in ground-borne vibration impacts, as 

defined by FTA, at residential land uses adjacent to the Route B Alternative. The table 

presents vibration impacts predicted to occur in each municipality along the route. The 

number of vibration impacts in unincorporated rural areas is quite low due to the low 

density of development in these areas. 

Table 3.7-8 

Incremental Increase in Ground-borne Vibration Impacts 

Associated with the Route B Alternative 

Municipality No. of Impacts Municipality No. of Impacts 

Alignment B Common Section 

Bureau Junction, IL 24 Atalissa, IA 20 

De Pue, IL 74 Davenport, IA 304 

Joliet, IL 28 Durant, IA 53 

La Salle, IL 55 Iowa City, IA 174 

Marseilles, IL 195 Stockton, IA 27 

Minooka, IL 54 Walcott, IA 56 

Morris, IL 119 West Liberty, IA 40 

North Utica, IL 44 Wilton, IA 35 

Ottawa, IL 102 Annawan, IL 27 

Peru, IL 41 Atkinson, IL 25 

Rockdale, IL 19 Geneseo, IL 61 

Seneca, IL 28 Mineral, IL 20 

Spring Valley, IL 18 Sheffield, IL 21 

Tiskilwa, IL 27 Unincorporated 58 

Unincorporated 52 

Vibration Impacts Associated with Alternative B 1,801 

Analysis results identified approximately 8 vibration impacts per mile associated with the 

Route B Alternative. Train-induced ground-borne vibration levels reach the impact 

thresholds determined in this analysis during the 79 mph train pass-by. The Project 

proposes to introduce two round-trip trains at this speed each day. Therefore, there would 

be four train pass-by events at this speed. The number of impacts per mile for Alternative 

B is slightly less than the number of impacts per mile calculated for the Preferred 

Alternative. Analysis results show that the number of vibration impacts is related to the 

density of residential development in areas adjacent to the rail line. 

Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

The MWRRI envisions five round-trip TPD, at 90 mph, from Chicago to Wyanet, 

Illinois; and 79 mph from Wyanet to Iowa City, Iowa. This level of increased train 

activity was assessed in this Tier 1 Service Level NEPA review to help inform the reader 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-43

of the likely potential impacts from the implementation of MWRRI’s ultimate vision. (A 

separate NEPA analysis would be required prior to increasing the train numbers.) 

The five round-trip TPD scenario was evaluated using the same methods and modeling 

approach as described in the previous section, but with increased future passenger train 

traffic. Error! Reference source not found. presents a simple comparison of vibration 

impact contour distances for existing conditions, 79 mph train service, and 90 mph train 

service. 

Table 3.7-9 

Distances to Category 2 Ground-Borne Vibration Impacts 

Scenario 

GBV 

Impact 

Level 

(VdB) 

Distance to Impact Level (ft) 

Traffic 

Cond. 

A 

Traffic 

Cond. 

B 

Traffic 

Cond. 

C 

Traffic 

Cond. 

D 

Traffic 

Cond. 

E 

Traffic 

Cond. 

F 

Traffic 

Cond. 

G 

Traffic 

Cond. 

H 

Existing Use 72 212 119 281 499 504 380 450 560 

Future Use: 

79 mph 72 370 119 352 499 504 380 509 520 

Future Use: 

90 mph 72 414 119 394 685 700 380 620 773 

The table above shows that as the train speed increases, the distance to the ground-borne 

vibration impact contour also increases. Areas outside of, or beyond the vibration impact 

contour are predicted to experience train-induced ground-borne vibration levels below the 

FTA/FRA vibration impact threshold. Traffic condition B represents the portion of the 

Quad Cities area that imposes a 15 mph speed limit on trains, therefore the distance to the 

vibration impact contour does not change. The distance to the vibration impact contour 

for Traffic condition F also does not change. Traffic condition F represents a portion of 

the Preferred Alternative near downtown Chicago where new traffic will average 37mph. 

For purposes of this assessment, this average speed was also applied to existing traffic. 

Appendix C contains a more detailed discussion of the noise and vibration analyses, and 

presents figures depicting the ground-borne vibration contours and projected impacts 

along Alternative Routes A and B. 
ILLINOIS

INDIANA

Chicago

Lake Michigan

Naperville

Joliet

Will

Cook

La Salle Lake

Kane

DeKalb

Kendall

Grundy

DuPage

Kankakee

Leland

Earlville

Posen

Plano

Lisle

Seneca

Ottawa

Morris

Mokena

Cicero

Berwyn

Aurora

Robbins

Naplate

Minooka

Somonauk

Rockdale

Hinsdale

Riverside

New Lenox

Oak Forest

Montgomery

Midlothian

Marseilles

Tinley Park

Blue 

Island

Ingalls 

Park

Boulder Hill

Westmont

Sandwich

La Grange

Earlville

Brookfield

Calumet Park

Downers 

Grove

Western

 Springs

Clarendon Hills

Noise and Traffic Conditions

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

3.7-1

(\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_1_NoiseConditions.mxd) 9/14/2009 -cas

Noise Conditions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0 5 10

Miles

Map Location

Illinois

Iowa

Noise 

Condition

Traffic 

Condition

Development 

Density

1 ARural

2 A Suburban

3 B Suburban

4 AUrban

5 CRural

6 C Suburban

7 DUrban

8 D Suburban

9 EUrban

10 F Urban

11 G Urban

12 H Urban
Bureau

Henry

Putnam

La Salle

DeKalb

Wyanet

Malden

Leland

De Pue

Mineral

Mendota

Annawan

Tiskilwa

La Salle

Atkinson

Sheffield

Princeton

Earlville

Arlington

North Utica

Spring Valley

Bureau Junction

80

39

88

180

Geneseo

Ottawa

Naplate

Earlville

Noise and Traffic Conditions

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

(\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_1_NoiseConditions.mxd) 9/14/2009 -cas

Noise Conditions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0 5 10

Miles

Map Location

Illinois

Iowa

3.7-2

Noise 

Condition

Traffic 

Condition

Development 

Density

1 ARural

2 A Suburban

3 B Suburban

4 AUrban

5 CRural

6 C Suburban

7 DUrban

8 D Suburban

9 EUrban

10 F Urban

11 G Urban

12 H Urban
IOWA

ILLINOIS

Henry

80

Bettendorf

Wilton

Rock Island

Scott

Muscatine

Cedar

Johnson

74

Moline

88

Silvis

Colona

Geneseo

Green Rock

East Moline

Carbon Cliff

Moscow

Downey

Durant

Walcott

Atalissa

Stockton

Davenport

Iowa City

West Liberty

Noise and Traffic Conditions

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

(\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_1_NoiseConditions.mxd) 9/14/2009 -cas

Noise Conditions

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0 5 10

Miles

Map Location

3.7-3

Illinois

Iowa

Noise 

Condition

Traffic 

Condition

Development 

Density

1 ARural

2 A Suburban

3 B Suburban

4 AUrban

5 CRural

6 C Suburban

7 DUrban

8 D Suburban

9 EUrban

10 F Urban

11 G Urban

12 H Urban
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-47

3.8 AIR QUALITY 

EPA regulates air pollution in accordance with primary and secondary National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the Clean Air Act, as amended. Iowa 

DNR and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency regulate air pollutants and 

operate air monitors throughout each state. Illinois developed Illinois Ambient Air 

Quality Standards that are similar to the NAAQS. Iowa uses the NAAQS to measure air 

quality. The NAAQS currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: 

carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), particulate matter, 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Particulate matter has been further defined by size. There are 

standards for particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10) and smaller 

than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5). Most O3 forms as a result of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) reacting with sunlight. Areas of the 

country where air pollution levels persistently exceed the national ambient air quality 

standards are designated as nonattainment areas. 

The Project area comprises the following counties in Illinois: Cook, Du Page, Kane, 

Kendall, De Kalb, La Salle, Bureau, Henry, Will, and Grundy, and the following counties 

in Iowa: Johnson, Cedar, Muscatine, and Scott. Table 3.8-1, below, and Figure 3.8-1 and 

3.8-2, at the end of this section, display the counties in the Project area that are currently 

designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas by EPA (EPA, August 6, 2009). 

Table 3.8-1 

Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas within the Project Area 

Critical Pollutants County State Status 

Particulate matter less than 10 microns 

in diameter (PM-10) 

Cook County – Lyons Township 

and Southeast Chicagoa

IL Maintenance 

Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns 

in diameter (PM-2.5) 

Cook County IL Nonattainment 

Du Page County IL Nonattainment 

Grundy County – Aux Sable and 

Goose Lake Townships 

IL Nonattainment 

Kane County IL Nonattainment 

Kendall County – Oswego 

Township 

IL Nonattainment 

Will County IL Nonattainment 

8-hour ozone Cook County IL Nonattainment 

Du Page County IL Nonattainment 

Grundy County – Aux Sable and 

Goose Lake Townships 

IL Nonattainment 

Kane County IL Nonattainment 

Kendall County – Oswego 

Township 

IL Nonattainment 

Will County IL Nonattainment 

Notes: 

a

 Also locally referred to as McCook and Lake Calumet, respectively. 

In 2006, USEPA lowered its 24-hour ambient air quality health standard for fine 

particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or smaller, known as PM-2.5, from 65 

to 35 micrometers per cubic meter of air. Possible contributors of PM-2.5 include 

industrial combustion as well as vehicle exhaust. The Iowa DNR monitors air quality 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-48 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

within Scott County, and based on that monitoring, had recommended that part of Scott 

County be designated as nonattainment for PM-2.5. EPA concurred with that 

recommendation. In December 2008 EPA signed a final rule, and proposed to publish it 

in the Federal Register, with new designations for nonattainment areas, including the 

listing of part of Scott County as nonattainment. The Federal Register notice is currently 

under review and has not been published as of the date of this EA. 

A federal agency must make a determination that a federal action conforms to one or 

more applicable state implementation plans (SIP) to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. 

General conformity emissions thresholds, defined in 40 CFR 51, Subpart W, are defined 

by the nonattainment or maintenance status for each criteria pollutant in the Project area. 

The applicable de minimis9 thresholds for the proposed passenger rail service are as 

follows: 

• O3, 100 tons per year of either NOx or VOC 

• PM-2.5, 100 tons per year 

• PM-10, 100 tons per year 

If emissions from an action are below these thresholds, conformity analysis is not 

required. 

In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, EPA also regulates 

air toxics. Many air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile 

sources, non-road mobile sources (such as airplanes or locomotives), and stationary 

sources (such as factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are those 

pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, 

such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Research 

into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing; the EPA is in the process of assessing the 

risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. 

Emissions of air toxics from diesel engines are expected to be measured as a subset of 

either particulate matter (PM) and/or hydrocarbons (HC). EPA has established emission 

standards for these pollutants for newly manufactured and remanufactured locomotives. 

These standards are dependent on the date a locomotive is first manufactured; the most 

stringent set of standards applies to locomotives originally manufactured in 2015 and 

later. The vast majority of PM emitted by locomotive diesel engines is in the form of PM10. EPA is projecting that the PM-10 and HC emissions from the passenger locomotive 

fleet are already on an accelerating downward trend, and will drop by much more than an 

order of magnitude over the next three decades as a result of EPA’s emissions standards. 

3.8.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not appreciably worsen air quality in the near future. 

Over time, air quality would worsen as congestion increases on the roads and highways 

between Chicago and Iowa City. 

 

9

 A de minimis impact is defined as a minor, trifling impact. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-49

3.8.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

The Preferred Alternative route passes through three counties in Illinois that are in 

nonattainment for PM-2.5 and 8-hour O3: Cook, DuPage, and Kane counties, and 

Oswego Township in Kendall County. Southeast Chicago and Lyons Township in Cook 

County are also listed as a maintenance area for PM-10. The remainder of the counties 

along Route A are in attainment for all criteria pollutants. 

The Preferred Alternative, with four additional train trips per day along the Chicago to 

Iowa City corridor, would result in a negligible increase in emissions. The Preferred 

Alternative would have no significant impact on current or future air quality standards or 

lead to the establishment of a nonattainment area. Implementation of the two round-trip 

TPD scenario on the Preferred Alternative Route would potentially improve the air 

quality in the region by diverting approximately 117,000 vehicle trips from the roads and 

highways and 8.4 million airline passenger-miles between Chicago and Iowa City. Table 

3.8-2 illustrates the potential changes in air emissions from operation of the additional 

trains and the reduction in emissions from diversion of trips from vehicle and plane to rail 

over the entire length of the route between Chicago and Iowa City. The amount of HC 

and CO would decrease; NOx, PM-10, and PM-2.5 would increase. Emissions of carbon 

dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, would decrease. 

Table 3.8-2 

Estimated Changes in Air Pollutants from Diversion of Vehicle and Plane Trips 

(tons per year)a

Pollutant Additional Train Emissions 

Reduction in Emissions 

Net Change 

Vehicles Planes 

HC 5.06 -11.55 -0.45 -6.94

CO 22.03 218.56 -2.81 -199.34

NOx 108.51 -9.61 -8.99 89.90

PM-10 2.82 -0.45 0.00 2.36

PM-2.5 2.73 -0.45 0.00 2.28

CO2 8,417.51 -8,381.63 -2,036.46 -2,000.59

Notes: 

a Calculations of emissions from vehicles (including a mix of automobiles, light trucks, and sport utility 

vehicles) and trains were performed using EPA emission factors (Energy Information Administration, no 

date; EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, April 2009; EPA, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, August 2005; FHWA, Office of Natural and Human Environment, April 2005; U.S. Department 

of Energy, no date; EPA, Technology Transfer Network, no date). 

Emissions from the Preferred Alternative would be well below the de minimis threshold 

for all nonattainment and maintenance areas within the Project area and general 

conformity analysis would not be required. Table 3.8-3 displays emissions within 

nonattainment and maintenance areas from the Preferred Alternative. 

Should EPA publish the Federal Register notice regarding Scott County, Iowa in the near 

term and if a portion of Scott County is formally designated as nonattainment for PM-2.5, 

general conformity for the new 24-hour PM-2.5 standard does not apply until one year 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-50 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

after the effective date of the nonattainment designations that consider that standard. In 

addition, the contribution from the Project would be well below the de minimis threshold 

of 100 tons per year, so that general conformity would not apply in any case. 

Table 3.8-3 

Summary of General Conformity Determination for Preferred Alternativea

Pollutant Route Miles in 

Area 

De Minimis 

Threshold 

Train Emissions 

Increase 

Net Emissions 

Changeb

Chicago PM-2.5 and O3 Nonattainment Areac

HC 46 100 1.06 -1.87 

NOx 46 100 22.79 18.19 

PM-2.5 46 100 0.57 0.46 

Lyon Township (McCook) PM-10 Maintenance Area 

PM-10 4 100 0.05 0.04 

Notes: 

a

 All numbers are in tons per year 

b

 Includes reduction in vehicle and plane emissions from trips diverted 

c

 The Chicago nonattainment area includes the counties and townships listed in Table 3.8-1 and shown in 

Figure 3.8-1. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in some air toxics emissions along the rail line, 

but these would be sporadic and diffuse. This fact, as well as the anticipated decline in 

MSAT emissions from locomotives, indicates that the air toxics effects of implementing 

the proposed passenger rail service would be minimal. 

Specific impacts from construction and operational activities would be evaluated in the 

Tier 2 Project Level NEPA Documents/Review. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

The Route B Alternative would cross two counties in Illinois that are in nonattainment for 

PM-2.5 and 8-hour O3: Cook, and Will counties; Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships 

in Grundy County are also in nonattainment for these pollutants. An area in Southeast 

Chicago (Lake Calumet) in Cook County is also listed as a maintenance area for PM-10. 

The remainder of the counties along Route B are in attainment for all criteria pollutants. 

The Route B Alternative, with four additional train trips per day along the Chicago to 

Iowa City corridor, would result in a negligible increase in emissions. The Route B 

Alternative would have no significant impact on current or future air quality standards or 

lead to the establishment of a nonattainment area. Implementation of the two round-trip 

TPD scenario on the Route B Alternative would potentially improve the air quality in the 

region by diverting approximately 92,000 vehicle trips from the roads and highways and 

6.6 million airline passenger-miles between Chicago and Iowa City. Table 3.8-4 

illustrates the potential changes in air emissions from operation of the additional trains 

and the reduction in emissions from diversion of trips from vehicle and plane to rail over 

the entire length of the route between Chicago and Iowa City. The amount of HC and CO 

would decrease (the decrease of HC would be less compared to the Preferred 

Alternative); NOx, PM-10, and PM-2.5 would increase. CO2 would decrease. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-51

Table 3.8-4 

Estimated Changes in Air Pollutants from Diversion of Vehicle and Plane Trips (tons per 

year) 

Pollutant Additional Train Emissionsa

Reduction in Emissionsb

Net Change 

Vehicles Planes 

HC 4.32 -9.09 -0.35 -5.11

CO 18.82 -171.86 -2.21 -155.25

NOx 92.70 -7.56 -7.07 78.07

PM-10 2.41 -0.36 0.00 2.05

PM-2.5 2.33 -0.36 0.00 1.98

CO2 7,191.05 -6,590.69 -1,600.08 -999.72

Notes: 

a Calculations of emissions from vehicles (including a mix of automobiles, light trucks, and sport utility 

vehicles) and trains were performed using EPA emission factors (Energy Information Administration, no 

date; EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, April 2009; EPA, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, August 2005; FHWA, Office of Natural and Human Environment, April 2005; U.S. Department 

of Energy, no date; EPA, Technology Transfer Network, no date). 

Emissions from the Route B Alternative would be well below the de minimis threshold 

for all nonattainment and maintenance areas within the Project area and general 

conformity analysis would not be required. Table 3.8-5 displays emissions within 

nonattainment and maintenance areas from the Route B Alternative. 

Should EPA publish the Federal Register notice regarding Scott County, Iowa in the near 

term and if a portion of Scott County is formally designated as nonattainment for PM-2.5, 

general conformity for the new 24-hour PM-2.5 standard does not apply until one year 

after the effective date of the nonattainment designations that consider that standard. In 

addition, the contribution from the Project would be well below the de minimis threshold 

of 100 tons per year, so that general conformity would not apply in any case. 

Table 3.8-5 

Summary of General Conformity Determination for Route B Alternativea

Pollutant Route Miles in 

Area 

De Minimis 

Threshold 

Train Emissions 

Increase 

Net Emissions 

Changeb

Chicago PM-2.5 and O3 Nonattainment Areac

Hydrocarbons 60 100 1.09 -1.22 

NOx 60 100 23.37 19.76 

PM-2.5 60 100 0.59 0.50 

Southeast Chicago (Lake Calumet) PM-10 Maintenance Area 

PM-10 4 100 0.03 0.02 

Notes: 

a

 All numbers are in tons per year 

b

 Includes reduction in vehicle and plane emissions from trips diverted 

c

 The Chicago nonattainment area includes the counties and townships listed in Table 3.8-1 and shown in 

Figure 3.8-1. 

The Route B Alternative would result in some air toxics emissions along the rail line, but 

these would be sporadic and diffuse. This fact, as well as the anticipated decline in 

MSAT emissions from locomotives, indicates that the air toxics effects of implementing 

the proposed passenger rail service would be minimal. 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-52 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Specific impacts from construction and operational activities would be evaluated in the 

Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. 

3.8.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

At the ultimate MWRRI operational level of five round-trip TPD, the route would cross 

the same counties that are in nonattainment areas as discussed above. Additional 

emissions would be produced from the 10 TPD, but more vehicles would be diverted 

from the roads as compared to two train trips per day. Implementation of the five roundtrip TPD scenario would potentially improve the air quality in the region by diverting 

approximately 345,000 vehicle trips from the roads and highways between Chicago and 

Iowa City. 

Table 3.8-6 illustrates the potential changes in air emissions from operation of the 

additional trains and the reduction in emissions from diversion of trips from vehicle and 

plane to rail. The amount of HC and CO would decrease (the decrease would be less as 

compare to the Preferred Alternative); PM-10-, PM-2.5, and NOx would increase. CO2

would decrease. 

An evaluation of emissions in nonattainment and maintenance areas compared to de 

minimis thresholds for general conformity would be completed and documented 

subsequent NEPA documents before the increased level of service would be 

implemented. 

Table 3.8-6 

Estimated Changes in Air Pollutants from Diversion of Vehicle and Plane Trips 

(tons per year) 

Pollutant Additional Train Emissionsa

Reduction in Emissionsb

Net Change 

Vehicle Plane 

HC 12.97 -34.07 -0.88 -21.98

CO 59.50 -644.49 -5.55 -590.53

NOx 293.03 -28.35 -17.77 246.91

PM-10 7.61 -1.34 0.00 6.27

PM-2.5 7.38 -1.34 0.00 6.04

CO2 22,731.77 -24,715.07 -4,024.44 -6,007.74

Notes: 

a Calculations of emissions from vehicles (including a mix of automobiles, light trucks, and sport utility 

vehicles) and trains were performed using EPA emission factors (Energy Information Administration no 

date; EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality April 2009; EPA, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality August 2005; FHWA, Office of Natural and Human Environment April 2005; U.S. Department of 

Energy no date; EPA, Technology Transfer Network no date). 
Proposed Track

Connection

Wyanet, IL

Union

Station

BNSF

Morris

Peru--La Salle

Princeton

Mendota

Plano Naperville

Joliet

Geneseo

Wyanet

La Grange Rd

IAIS

IAIS

CSXT

METRA

Cedar Rapids

Iowa City

Quad Cities

Rockford

Chicago

Peoria

Mississippi River

Lake Michigan

55

57

88

74 39

380

65

80

90

43

94

280

290

155

190

I l l i n o i s

I o w a

W i s c o n s i n

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

3.8-1

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Nonattainment_Areas.mxd\sept09\jcm

Ozone & PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

25 12.5 0 25

Miles

Scale

BNSF-Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway

CSXT-CSX Transportation

IAIS -Iowa Interstate Railroad

Legend

Existing AMTRAK Station

Proposed AMTRAK Station

Route A Alternative

Route B Alternative

Routes A & B Alternative

Nonattainment Area
ETRA

Chicago

Lake Michigan

Chicago

Alsip

Darien

East Chica

Oak Lawn

Harvey

Lemont

Dolton

Cicero

Hinsdale

Oak Forest

Burbank

Worth

Lyons

Orland Park

Burr Ridge

Goodings Grove Calumet City

Downers Grove

Westmont

Palos Hills

Berwyn

Riverdale

Justice

Bridgeview

Brookfield

Crestwood

Palos Heights

Midlothian

La Grange

Blue Island

Hickory Hills Evergreen Park

Summit

Westchester

Western Springs

Chicago Ridge

La Grange Park

Lombard

Woodridge

Forest Park

90

55

57

94

88

55

94

45

20

41

6

83

171

7

912

43

50

152

1

I l l i n o i s

I n d i a n a

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

3.8-2

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Maintenance_Areas.mxd\sept09\jcm

PM10 Maintenance Areas

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

3 1.5 0 3

Miles

Scale

BNSF-Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway

CSXT-CSX Transportation

IAIS -Iowa Interstate Railroad

Legend

Existing AMTRAK Station

Proposed AMTRAK Station

Route A Alternative

Route B Alternative

Routes A & B Alternative

Maintenance Area
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-55

3.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL 

Hazardous materials are substances that, because of their quantity, concentration, or 

physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present a substantial danger to 

public health or the environment if released. Hazardous materials are regulated by EPA 

and other federal agencies under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA). State agencies also regulate hazardous materials. Hazardous 

material sites include Superfund, which is EPA’s inventory of abandoned, inactive, or 

uncontrolled hazardous waste sites regulated under CERCLA; hazardous waste 

generators or storage sites; and leaking underground storage tanks. The State of Illinois 

refers to hazardous waste, potentially infectious medical waste, and industrial process 

waste or pollution control waste as “special waste.” Typically, construction activities and 

railroad operations are unlikely to disturb hazardous material sites located more than 

500 feet from the rail line. 

Because the section from Chicago to Wyanet on the existing BNSF line is in excellent 

condition and is currently used for Amtrak passenger rail service at speeds up to 79 mph, 

no construction would be needed on this rail section to support the proposed Chicago to 

Iowa City intercity passenger rail service. Amtrak passenger rail service trains do not 

transport hazardous materials. In the last 10 years, ending May 31, 2009, there have not 

been any releases of hazardous material from Amtrak trains in Illinois during rail 

accidents (FRA, August 31, 2009; U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), May 18, 2009). Therefore, no 

hazardous material sites would be impacted along this rail section. 

The analysis of hazardous material sites focused on confirmed areas where construction 

would be required to support the proposed passenger rail service: an area approximately 

1 mile southwest of Wyanet where a connection from the BNSF tracks to the IAIS tracks 

would be constructed and limited areas of construction outside of the existing ballast 

grade (minor bridge and culvert work and superelevation of curves), but generally within 

the existing railroad ROW. Therefore, hazardous material sites were identified within 1 

mile of the proposed Wyanet connection and within approximately 500 feet of the 

existing IAIS rail line from Wyanet to Iowa City and existing IAIS and CSXT rail lines 

from Joliet to Wyanet (see Figure 3.9-1, Environmental Constraints). 

Two hazardous material sites were identified within 1 mile of the proposed Wyanet 

connection. A leaking underground storage tank at the Esther Jaggers estate is located 

west of the intersection of U.S. Highway 6 and County Road 8 (approximately 0.8 mile 

northeast of the intersection of the IAIS and BNSF rail lines). A conditionally exempt 

small quantity generator of hazardous waste (the Wyanet Body Shop) is located near 

South West Street and West 4th Street (approximately 0.9 mile northeast of the 

intersection of the IAIS and BNSF rail lines); there have not been any reported spills at 

the body shop (EPA, June 8, 2009; Illinois Environmental Protection Agency [Illinois 

EPA], May 15, 2003). 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-56 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

From Wyanet to Iowa City, there are approximately 232 hazardous material sites within 

500 feet of the IAIS rail line. These include storage tanks, generators of hazardous waste, 

leaking underground storage tanks, and cleanup of hazardous waste sites. There are three 

Superfund sites: one in Sheffield, Illinois; one in Moline, and one in Davenport (EPA, 

June 8, 2009; Illinois EPA, May 15, 2003; Iowa DNR, no date). 

From Joliet to Wyanet, there are approximately 132 hazardous material sites within 

500 feet of the IAIS and CSXT rail lines. There are two Superfund sites along this route: 

one in Joliet southwest of the Amtrak station, and one in Peru, Illinois (EPA, June 8, 

2009; Illinois EPA, May 15, 2003). 

3.9.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would consist of operating the current passenger rail service 

from Chicago to Wyanet and from Chicago to Joliet with the present level of 

maintenance and no appreciable change to the current track configuration or operating 

conditions. Hazardous material hauling by freight traffic and hazardous material sites 

near rail lines would not be impacted. 

3.9.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day 

Reconstruction of rail lines could potentially impact hazardous material sites if additional 

ROW would be needed to upgrade the rail line for the proposed passenger rail service. 

The trains would operate in a variety of urban and rural environments. Operation of the 

two round-trip TPD would minimally increase the chance of a hazardous material 

incident during refueling or maintenance operations or from a spill during operation of 

the trains. Impacts under each alternative are addressed below. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

Two hazardous material sites are located nearly 1 mile from the intersection of the IAIS 

and BNSF rail lines where the proposed connection at Wyanet would be constructed. 

Depending on the design of the connection, ground as close as 0.7 mile to the known sites 

could be disturbed. The proposed connection would be constructed south of the Hennepin 

Canal. Due to the distance between the leaking underground storage tank (LUST) and the 

connection, and the presence of the canal between the LUST and the connection, 

construction would not impact contaminated soil associated with the hazardous material 

sites or remediation of the site. 

Reconstruction of the rail line between Wyanet and Iowa City could potentially be 

impacted by approximately 232 hazardous material sites (and any additional sites 

identified before construction begins) within 500 feet of the rail line. Impacts from 

specific construction activities would be evaluated in subsequent Tier 2 NEPA 

documents. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

Reconstruction of the rail line between Joliet and Wyanet could potentially be impacted 

by approximately 132 sites between the Amtrak station in Joliet and the Wyanet 

connection and the 232 hazardous material sites between Wyanet and Iowa City (and any 

additional sites identified before construction starts) within 500 feet of the rail line. 

Construction could potentially affect remediation of hazardous material sites adjacent to 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-57

or near the rail line. Impacts from specific construction activities would be evaluated in 

subsequent Tier 2 NEPA documents. 

3.9.3 Five Round-trip Trains per Day 

As discussed in the two round-trip TPD scenario, reconstruction of rail lines could 

potentially impact hazardous material sites if additional ROW is needed for upgrades to 

the rail lines. The trains would operate in a variety of urban and rural environments. 

Operation of the five round-trip TPD would minimally increase the chance of a 

hazardous material incident during refueling or maintenance operations, or from a spill 

during operation of the trains. 
Proposed Track Connection

Wyanet, IL

Wyanet

Hennepin Canal Parkway

IAIS

Hennepin Canal State Trail BNSF

IAIS

Pond Creek

Pond Creek

Hennepin Canal

Wyanet Body Shop

Esther Jaggers Estate

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

3.9-1

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Environmental_Constraints.mxd\sept09\jcm

Environmental Constraints

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

0.25 0.125 0 0.25

Miles

Scale

Legend

Hazardous Materials Site

NHDFlowline - Big Bureau Creek

Proposed Wyanet Connection

Trail

Streams

State Park

100-year Floodplain
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-59

3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

3.10.1 Introduction 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, 

requires that federal actions be reviewed for their potential impact to significant historic 

resources; the term “historic property” can apply to both architectural and archaeological 

resources and applies to properties that have already been listed in the National Register 

of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been formally determined to be eligible for listing on 

the NRHP. NEPA involves Section 106 compliance to ensure that projects involving 

federal decisions and/or funds account for potential impacts to significant historic 

resources. 

The Illinois and Iowa DOTs advised their respective State Historic Preservation Offices 

(SHPOs) of the Project, in accordance with NEPA (see Appendix E). FRA subsequently 

consulted with the Illinois and Iowa SHPOs and several Native American Tribes per the 

requirements of Section 106, albeit without any discussion of specific adverse effects to 

historic properties (see Appendix E). Since the current NEPA analysis is at the service 

level, specific Project impacts are not known. That being the case, Section 106 

consultation regarding adverse effects to historic properties is not applicable at this time. 

The Iowa SHPO responded in writing to the NEPA scoping letter on September 3, 2009. 

In their response letter, they informed the FRA that the rail section that passes through 

Iowa is one of the earliest railroad lines constructed in the State of Iowa and that the 

location of this rail line has not changed very much since its construction in 1855. They 

also informed FRA of two historic events that took place along this rail section. One of 

these events was the migration of Mormon families from Illinois to Utah in what became 

known as the Mormon Handcart Expedition. Mormon families used this section of the 

rail line to get to the starting point of their exodus in Iowa City, which began on June 9, 

1856 and continued into early 1860. The other notable historic event, which happened in 

1859, was the departure from Iowa of the abolitionist John Brown and his followers, who 

used this segment of the railroad in their migration to Canada. 

The Applicant sponsored a review of previously identified cultural resources in, and 

adjacent to, the existing ROW for each Project alternative. The Applicant gathered 

information from Iowa SHPO, the Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist, and the Illinois 

State Museum. Previous evaluations of historic architectural resources for the rail 

corridor indicate that there are historic properties within and adjacent to the rail ROWs. 

Some of these historic properties are listed on the NRHP, such as the proposed passenger 

depot in Iowa City, or have been formally determined to be eligible for listing on the 

NRHP, such as the Arsenal Bridge across the Mississippi River at Rock Island. NRHP 

eligible archaeological sites were also identified in and adjacent to the existing rail ROW 

for each Project alternative. The list of known historic properties within the rail corridor 

(and available at these repositories as of August 2009) are shown in Table E-1 in 

Appendix E, Cultural Resources Property Listing. 

3.10.2 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact known historic properties. 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-60 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

3.10.3 Two Round-trip Trains per Day 

An ongoing analysis of noise and vibration associated with the Project on adjacent 

buildings and structures is being conducted. Adverse effects on structures resulting from 

noise and vibration are not expected to occur because the existing alignments would 

remain unchanged. During this ongoing analysis, however, structures may be identified 

for some type of mitigation. If modification is planned for historic properties, these 

modifications may be considered potential adverse effects on those properties and require 

Section 106 consultation to determine the preferred method of treatment. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

Alternative A, the Preferred Alternative, proposes to replace the existing steel rail, wood 

ties, and ballast with new materials from Wyanet, Illinois, to Iowa City and to construct a 

new connection at Wyanet between the BNSF and IAIS tracks. The replacement of 

existing rail, ties, and ballast, a common practice that is essential to operation and 

maintenance of any railroad, would not likely represent any adverse effects to historic 

properties. A new station would be constructed in Geneseo, Illinois. At this time, any 

specific impacts associated with construction of the Wyanet Connection are unknown; 

therefore any specific adverse effects to historic properties are not known. Also, any 

adverse effects to historic properties associated with noise or vibration mitigation efforts 

are not known. Once the Project construction and operations footprint of the Wyanet 

Connection is known, as well as any potential for mitigation activities on historic 

properties, consultation would occur between the FRA, the Applicant, and the consulting 

parties, and surveys would be performed. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

Alternative B also proposes to replace the existing steel rail, wood ties, and ballast with 

new rails and ties in order to upgrade the line for passenger service between Joliet and 

Iowa City. New stations would be constructed in Illinois at Morris, Peru-La Salle, and 

Geneseo. The replacement of existing rail, ties, and ballast, similar to that called for in 

Alternative A, would not likely represent any adverse effects to historic properties. At 

this time any specific impacts associated with construction of new stations are unknown; 

therefore any specific adverse effects to historic properties are not known. Any adverse 

effects to historic properties associated with noise or vibration mitigation efforts are also 

not known. Once the Project construction and operations footprint of the new stations is 

known, as well as any potential for mitigation activities on historic properties, 

consultation would occur between the FRA, the Applicant, and the consulting parties, and 

surveys would be performed. 

3.10.4 Five Round-trip Trains per Day 

The effect on historic properties of five round-trip TPD, the ultimate service level, are 

assumed to be the generally the same as those of the two round-trip TPD scenario. Slight 

increases in noise and vibration are possible with the higher level of service and would be 

evaluated as part of a separate Tier 1 Service Level EA for the five round-trip TPD 

scenario. 

Although specific Project components are not currently known, this scenario could call 

for infrastructure improvements within existing ROW, such as sidings and signal 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-61

upgrades. The locations of these activities, once defined, would require (as with other 

possible construction activities off of the rails, ties, and ballast) a review for historic 

properties and trigger consultation among FRA, the Applicant, and the consulting parties. 

3.11 PARKS AND FEDERALLY OR STATE-LISTED NATURAL AREAS 

Parks, wildlife management areas, and nature preserves are private and public lands that 

have rare plants, animals, and other unique natural features, or that contain habitat for 

spawning and nursery areas, nesting and feeding areas, or wintering areas. They are 

permanently protected by federal or state law. 

Federally or state-designated natural areas exist within the Project area but outside the 

ROW and are not expected to be permanently affected. Figure 3.11.1 shows state 

management areas for Illinois and Iowa. As with the wildlife management areas and 

preserves, parks also exist within the Project area but outside the ROW. A limited review 

of a sample data set (Google, 2009) indicates that public parks do abut the ROW at 

distinct points along each route alternative. 

3.11.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact parks or federally or state-designated natural 

areas. 

3.11.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Any impacts on parks or federally or state-designated natural areas would be temporary 

during construction and would cease after construction is completed. These potential 

impacts on management areas, refuges, preserves, and parks will be further analyzed in 

the Tier 2 Project NEPA documents. The greatest potential for temporary impacts would 

be during culvert replacement or bridge work or during construction of passenger stations 

or the layover facility in Iowa City. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

Along the Route A Preferred Alternative, one state level management area exists within 

1 mile of the ROW in Illinois. One state level management area is also located within 

1 mile of the ROW in Iowa. No federally designated nature preserves or wildlife refuges 

are known to exist along the alignment for Illinois or Iowa. At least 20 parks exist 

adjacent to the ROW in both states. Additional review of community parcel data along 

the ROW may likely indicate other parks abutting the ROW. Two parks exist within the 

Wyanet Connection area; the Hennepin Canal Parkway and Hennepin Canal State Trail 

(see Figure 3.9-1, Environmental Constraints, from the previous section). Alternatives for 

the Wyanet Connection are still in development; these alternatives and their potential 

impacts on Hennepin Canal Parkway and Hennepin Canal State Trail will be evaluated 

fully in a Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document. At this time, no impacts are anticipated. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

Along the Route B Alternative, four state-level management areas exist within 1 mile of 

the ROW in Illinois. Furthermore, the Pecumsaugan Creek-Blackball Mines Nature 

Preserve in Illinois is directly adjacent to the railroad ROW. This preserve has been 

designated critical habitat for the Indiana Bat (see Figure 3.17-1, in Section 3.17, 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-62 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Threatened and Endangered Species). In Iowa, one state level management area is located 

within 1 mile of the alignment. No federally designated nature preserves or wildlife 

refuges are known to exist along the alignment in Iowa. 

Approximately 15 parks exist adjacent to the route B Alternative through both states. 

Additional review of community parcel data is likely to indicate other parks abutting the 

ROW. 

3.11.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

The ultimate MWRRI operational level of five round-trip TPD would potentially have the 

same affect as the initial scenario of two round-trip TPD. However, when capacity is 

increased from two to five round-trip TPD, additional sidings and operational 

modifications would be required and would have the potential to impact more resources 

than the two round-trip TPD scenario. For areas where sidings, culvert extensions, or any 

work outside of the existing railroad grade would occur, impacts on other resources 

(including parks) will be further analyzed in the Tier 2 Project NEPA documents. 
Proposed Track Connection

Wyanet, IL

Union

Station

BNSF

Morris

Peru--La Salle

Princeton

Mendota

Plano Naperville

Joliet

Geneseo

Wyanet

La Grange Rd

IAIS

IAIS

CSXT

METRA

Cedar Rapids

Iowa City

Quad Cities

Rockford

Chicago

Peoria

Mississippi River

Lake Michigan

55

57

88

74 39

380

65

90

43

94

290

155

190

I l l i n o i s

I o w a

W i s c o n s i n

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

3.11-1

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Environmental_Constraints.mxd\sept09\jcm

State Wildlife Management Areas, Illinois and Iowa

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

25 12.5 0 25

Miles

Scale

Legend

Route A Alternative

Route B Alternative

Routes A & B Alternative

State Wildlife Management Area
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-64 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

3.12 SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 (49 USC 

303) grants special protection to four specific types of property. One type of protected 

property is historic sites, which are defined as historic properties that are included in or 

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The other three types of protected properties are 

publicly owned parks, publicly owned refuges for wildlife and/or waterfowl, and publicly 

owned recreational areas. 

Section 4(f) forbids the Secretary of Transportation from approving projects that require 

the conversion of land from these protected properties (termed “use”) unless it can be 

clearly demonstrated that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to use of land from 

the property and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the 

property resulting from such use, or the Administration determines that the use of the 

property, including any measure(s) to minimize harm (such as any avoidance, 

minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures) would have a de minimis impact. A 

direct use occurs when there is a physical incorporation of land into a transportation 

facility. A constructive use occurs when a project does “not incorporate land from a 

section 4(f) resource, but the project's proximity impacts are so severe that the protected 

activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under section 4(f) 

are “substantially impaired” and the resource can no longer perform its designated 

function (49 USC 303). 

A variety of Section 4(f) properties are located within the Project area. As discussed in 

Section 3.10, Cultural Resources, there are historic features along the existing railroad, 

such as the NRHP-eligible Arsenal Bridge over the Mississippi River and the NRHPlisted railroad depot in Iowa City. A variety of other Section 4(f) properties exist outside 

of the ROW along the existing railroad corridors, such as the depot in Iowa City. 

As discussed in Section 3.11, Parks and Federally or State-Listed Natural Areas, there are 

a number of parks, wildlife refuges, and wildlife management areas found outside of the 

rail ROW in the vicinity of the three rail corridors that may be Section 4(f) properties. 

Examples of these types of Section 4(f) properties include parks, such as Klatt Park in 

Plano, Illinois; recreation areas such as Copley Playground in Aurora, Illinois; and 

wildlife management areas, such as the Heritage Woods Forest Preserve in Naperville, 

Illinois. 

3.12.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not require the use of land from any Section 4(f) 

properties. 

3.12.2 Two Round-trip Trains per Day 

The Route A Preferred Alternative and Route B Alternative both pass through the 

vicinity of Section 4(f) properties. At this time, no use, either direct or constructive, has 

been identified of any Section 4(f) property located outside of the rail ROW. If use of any 

Section 4(f) property is identified, then coordination would be conducted between FRA 

and the officials with jurisdiction over the specific 4(f) property in accordance with the 

Section 4(f) process found in 23 CFR 774. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-65

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

The single known location where construction would occur outside of the existing ROW 

is at the proposed track connection at Wyanet; however, no Section 4(f) properties have 

been identified at that location. Based on the description of the proposed work and a 

review of Section 4(f) resources, it appears that there would be no use of Section 4(f) 

properties located outside of the ROW for the Preferred Alternative; however, this 

conclusion is not yet final because areas of new ROW required to allow for improved 

safety are not known. 

Other than at the Wyanet connection, the proposed work would be limited to the rail and 

tie replacement upgrades that would not alter the historic character of the railroad. At this 

time, the Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to affect the integrity of any existing 

historic bridge structures. FRA, Illinois DOT, and Iowa DOT are working through the 

Section 106 process, and it appears likely that there would be no use of any Section 4(f) 

properties within the rail corridor ROW as a result of the implementation of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

FRA, Illinois DOT, and Iowa DOT will continue to work closely with the relevant 

officials with jurisdiction over Section 4(f) properties through the Tier 2 NEPA process 

to confirm compliance with Section 4(f) regulations. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

Based on the description of the proposed work and a review of Section 4(f) resources, it 

appears that there would be no use of Section 4(f) properties located outside of the ROW 

for the Preferred Alternative; however, this conclusion is not yet final because areas of 

new ROW required to allow for improved safety are not known. 

The proposed work for the Route B Alternative would be limited to the rail and tie 

replacement upgrades that would not alter the historic character of the railroad. At this 

time, the Route B Alternative is not anticipated to affect the integrity of any existing 

historic bridge structures. FRA, Illinois DOT, and Iowa DOT are working through the 

Section 106 process, and it appears likely that there would be no use of any Section 4(f) 

properties as a result of the implementation of the Route B Alternative. 

FRA, Illinois DOT, and Iowa DOT will continue to work closely with the relevant 

officials with jurisdiction over Section 4(f) resources through the Tier 2 NEPA process to 

confirm compliance with Section 4(f) regulations. 

3.12.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Increasing passenger train traffic to five round-trip TPD along either the Preferred 

Alternative or Route B Alternative would not result in any known uses of Section 4(f) 

properties outside of the ROW. Modifications to signal systems or structures along the 

railroad that would be needed as a result of the increased speeds to 90 mph would be 

reevaluated in the future, when the specific nature and location of work is determined, to 

verify that no historic, park, recreation, or waterfowl or wildlife preserve properties 

eligible for Section 4(f) protection within the ROW would be compromised through 

upgrade implementation. Whereas vibration levels would increase slightly as discussed in 

Section 3.7, Noise and Vibration, these increases would not be of a magnitude that would 

result in a constructive use of Section 4(f) properties adjacent to the railroad. 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-66 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

3.13 WATERWAYS 

Several perennial and intermittent waterways are crossed by the rail line. Major surface 

perennial waterways include the Mississippi River, Green River, Des Plaines River, Fox 

River, Du Page River, and the Little Vermillion River along with several other, smaller 

perennial streams. Two rivers close to the Project area have been listed on the 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI): Big Bureau River in Illinois and Cedar River in 

Iowa. The NRI is a listing of free-flowing river segments in the United States that are 

believed to possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values 

judged to be of more than local or regional significance. Under a 1979 Presidential 

directive, and related Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) procedures, all federal 

agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate actions that would adversely affect one or more 

NRI segments. 

For navigational purposes, both the Mississippi River and the Des Plaines River are 

important components of the inland water system and both support commercial 

navigation. Bridges already exist over these rivers, and no modifications would be 

required to support the additional passenger trains. Navigation on these waterways is 

discussed further in Section 3.2, Transportation. 

3.13.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact waterways. 

3.13.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Although most impacts on waterways would be temporary, it is possible for some 

waterways to experience permanent impacts if a waterway crossing structure is replaced, 

such as conversion of a crossing from a bridge to a culvert or during construction of a 

station or the layover facility in Iowa City. Temporary impacts would cease immediately 

after the activity is completed. Specific construction impacts will be evaluated in the 

Tier 2 Project NEPA documents as final design is determined. Impacts on waterways 

would be minimized by following Best Management Practices (BMPs) and state 

standards for culvert replacement. Permits and approvals would be required from 

USACE, Illinois EPA, and Iowa DNR. Waterways are not expected to be impacted 

during operation of the Project. Impacts on navigation are not anticipated, therefore no 

U.S. Coast Guard permit would be needed. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

There are a total of 120 waterway crossings on Alternative A (based on National 

Hydrography Dataset flowlines, U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 1999). Of these 

crossings, 61 are intermittent waterways and 59 are perennial streams or connector 

waterways. The Route A Alternative would cross Big Bureau Creek, which is designated 

under the NRI about 2 miles south of the crossing (see Figure 3.13-1). Cedar River in 

Iowa is also designated under the NRI less than 1 mile from where the Project would 

cross the river. The NRI segments are not directly crossed by the project so no impacts 

are expected to these areas and BMPs would be implemented to avoid downstream 

impacts on the NRI segments. Most impacts to waterways would be temporary; however, 

permanent impacts could occur during construction of the Wyanet connection as it would 

cross a section of Pond Creek (see Figure 3.9-1). Detailed impact analysis to this 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-67

waterway will be evaluated in the Tier 2 Project NEPA documents when design 

alternatives have been developed for the Wyanet Connection. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

There are a total of 128 waterway crossings on Alternative B (based on National 

Hydrography Dataset flowlines, USGS, 1999). Of these crossings, 60 are intermittent 

waterways and 68 are perennial streams or connector waterways. The Route B 

Alternative would cross Big Bureau Creek, which is designated under the NRI less than 

1 mile north of the project crossing (see Figure 3.13-1). Cedar River in Iowa is also 

designated under the NRI less than 1 mile from where the Project would cross the river. 

These NRI sections are not directly crossed by the alignment and impacts to these 

segments are not likely to occur. The Route B Alternative would require more track 

modifications and safety upgrades for the passenger rail which could result in a higher 

chance of impacting waterways. 

3.13.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

At the ultimate MWRRI operational level of five round-trip TPD, the same waterways 

would have the potential to be affected as under the initial two round-trip TPD scenario. 

However, when capacity is increased from two to five round-trip TPD, additional sidings 

and operational modifications would be required and would likely have the potential for 

additional impacts on waterways. The Tier 2 Project NEPA documents will further 

evaluate impacts on areas where construction of sidings or culvert extensions or any work 

outside of the existing railroad grade may occur. Waterways are not expected to be 

impacted during project operation at five round-trip TPD. 
Big Bureau Creek

Wyanet

IAIS

IAIS

ity

Quad Cities

Mississippi River

Cedar River

88

80

74

280

80

74

280

74

6

150

67

30

61

34

52

34

67

67

30

61

67

6

6

6

I o w a

I l l i n o i s

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

3.13-1

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\NRI.mxd\sept09\jcm

National Rivers Inventory Areas

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

10 5 0 10

Miles

Scale

Legend

Route A Alternative

Route B Alternative

Routes A & B Alternative

Nationwide Rivers Inventory
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-69

3.14 WETLANDS 

Section 404 of the CWA provides protections for waters and wetlands of the United 

States. Illinois DNR regulates activities in wetlands in Illinois under the Illinois Wetland 

Policy Act of 1989. In Iowa, a joint permit between Iowa DNR and USACE is needed for 

any work within wetlands. 

3.14.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not affect wetlands. 

3.14.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Wetlands along the existing ROW for the Project alternatives were identified using U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping and 

were identified within 100 feet of each route. No field evaluations were performed for the 

Tier 1 Service Level analysis, but they will be conducted during the Tier 2 Project Level 

NEPA review. Although the change in rail operations would not cause a loss in wetlands, 

the construction of sidings and layover or station facilities as well as culvert/bridge 

replacement could result in the direct loss of existing wetland areas. Wetlands would be 

avoided to the extent practicable, but bridge repair and culvert replacement or other 

modifications may be required for track safety. Impacts would be minimized by using 

BMPs and by following state standards for culvert replacement. Temporary wetland 

impacts as a result of Project construction would be related to culvert replacement and 

bridge work. Mitigation for permanent impacts would occur through mitigation site 

development or purchase of wetland mitigation credits. Wetlands are not expected to be 

impacted during rail operations of two round-trips per day. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

There are 144 identified NWI wetlands along the Route A Alternative alignment (within 

100 feet of the alignment). The majority of these wetlands are palustrine emergent or 

palustrine forested wetlands. Wetlands would be avoided to the extent practicable, but 

bridge repair or culvert replacement and other operational modifications may be required 

for track safety. These modifications have a potential for impacting wetlands. Limitations 

on track design at the Wyanet connection (see Figure 3.9-1) or the layover facility in 

Iowa City may preclude complete avoidance of all wetlands. Though no NWI wetlands 

are shown at the Wyanet Connection, a field review would be performed during the 

Tier 2 Project Level NEPA process to determine if wetlands exist that would be impacted 

by construction of the connection. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

There are 263 identified NWI wetlands along the Route B Alternative alignment (within 

100 feet of the alignment). The majority of these wetlands are palustrine emergent or 

palustrine forested wetlands. Wetlands would be avoided to the extent practicable, but 

bridge repair or culvert replacement and other operational modifications may be required 

for track safety. The Route B Alternative would require more track modifications and 

safety upgrades for the passenger rail which could result in a higher chance of impacting 

wetlands. 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-70 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

3.14.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

At the ultimate MWRRI operational level of five round-trip TPD, the same wetlands 

would have the potential to be impacted as under the initial two round-trip TPD scenario. 

When capacity is increased from two to five round-trip TPD, however, additional sidings 

and operational modifications would be required that would have potential to impact 

wetlands. Impacts on wetlands would be evaluated in areas where construction of sidings 

or culvert extensions or any work outside of the existing railroad grade would occur. No 

wetlands are expected to be impacted by rail operations of five round-trips per day. 

3.15 WATER QUALITY 

Impacts on water resources are evaluated in accordance with the CWA (33 USC 1251 et 

seq.) and EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (43 FR 

47707). It is not likely that construction or operation of the rail line would permanently 

impact water quality. 

Any temporary impacts on water quality would cease after construction is completed. 

Temporary impacts on water resources would be minimized by the use of BMPs. 

Temporary impacts will be further evaluated in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA review 

when specific construction locations are known. Discharge of stormwater during 

construction would be addressed under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System permitting and/or with BMPs. Furthermore, Section 401 water quality 

certifications for construction would be obtained from each state during the Tier 2 Project 

NEPA review. 

Operation and maintenance activities as a result of the Project, including ditch cleaning, 

mowing, and spraying, have the potential to affect surface water quality. Possible 

negative effects of improper maintenance include erosion and siltation and the overuse or 

spill of herbicides. The risks for these potential effects would be similar for both build 

alternatives and for the No-Build Alternative. Potential hazardous materials spills 

resulting from operational changes are described in Section 3.9, Hazardous Materials. 

3.15.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not affect water quality. 

3.15.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Construction of the project has a potential to temporarily impact water quality as culverts 

or bridges are being replaced or other modifications are made near water resources. The 

potential to impact water quality would be avoided or minimized by the placement of 

approved BMPs. Operation of the two round-trip TPD would minimally increase the 

chance of a hazardous material incident during refueling or maintenance operations or 

from a spill during operation of the trains. Additionally, operation and maintenance 

activities in conjunction with the Project, such as mowing and spraying, have the 

potential to affect surface water quality, though these practices would not change from 

current practices. 

The Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents will assess the potential for construction to 

create pathways for groundwater pollution or any new potential sources of groundwater 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-71

pollution as defined in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/3 et seq.) 

or in Iowa’s Groundwater Protection Act (Iowa Code 2003: Section 455E). 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

Construction and operation of the Route A Alternative would pose slight risks to water 

quality. Bridge repair, culvert replacement, or other operational modifications may be 

required for track safety and may affect surface or groundwater quality. Maintenance of 

the ROW has the potential to affect surface water quality, though these practices would 

not change from current practices. Increased chances of temporarily impacting water 

quality could occur at the Wyanet Connection where the Route A Alternative would cross 

Pond Creek. Detailed impact analysis to this waterway and chances to impact water 

quality will be evaluated in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

Section 3.13, Waterways, describes the nature of anticipated impacts on waterways which 

have the potential to impact water quality. The Route B Alternative impacts would be 

similar to the Route A Alternative impacts. However, the Route B Alternative would 

require more track modifications and safety upgrades for the passenger rail which results 

in a higher likelihood of impacting wetlands. 

3.15.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

At the ultimate MWRRI operational level of five round-trip TPD, water quality impacts 

would be affected the same as under the initial scenario of two round-trip TPD. However, 

when capacity is increased from two to five round-trip TPD, additional sidings and 

operational modifications would be required and would have the potential to temporarily 

impact water quality at more locations during construction. Impacts on water quality will 

be further evaluated in the Tier 2 Project NEPA documents for areas where sidings, 

culvert extensions, or any work outside of the existing railroad grade would occur. 

3.16 FLOODPLAINS 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management, offers federal protection to floodplains. These 

policies require federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term, 

adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to 

avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a 

practicable alternative. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has primary responsibility for 

identifying flood-prone areas. FEMA data were utilized to assess the Project area for 

flood areas within Zone A. FEMA Zone A floodplains and FRA base floodplains are both 

defined as areas with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding; these are considered 100-

year floodplains for the purpose of this analysis. Coordination with the Illinois DNR or 

the Iowa DNR would be initiated for any construction that encroaches into a Zone A 

flood area. 

3.16.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact Zone A floodplains. 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-72 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

3.16.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Because the Project would be on existing rail, most impacts in Zone A floodplains would 

be temporary. In some locations along the IAIS, limited track improvements such as 

culvert replacement and bridge repair could potentially occur in some Zone A 

floodplains. The track improvements would be designed to avoid any permanent impacts 

to floodplains. Temporarily affected areas would be restored following construction. 

Details on work within Zone A floodplains will be discussed in the Tier 2 Project Level 

NEPA documents. Stations, the layover facility in Iowa City and passing siding would 

generally be located outside of any floodplains, but depending on the specific 

configuration and location, could potentially impact a floodplain. To the extent that a 

floodplain could not be reasonably avoided, the design and construction of any required 

facilities would occur in coordination with the appropriate floodplain administrator to 

avoid any impacts to the base floodplain. Project operation is not expected to impact 

floodplains at two round-trip TPD. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

The Route A Alternative would cross several floodplain areas. Most impacts on Zone A 

floodplains would be temporary; however, permanent impacts could occur during 

construction of the Wyanet connection as it may cross a small portion of the Zone A 

floodplain of Pond Creek. The design and construction of any bridge or culvert 

replacements would be coordinated with the appropriate floodplain administrator to avoid 

any impacts to the base floodplain Potential impacts from specific construction activities 

will be further evaluated in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents. 

Route B Alternative (AMTRAK-CN-METRA/ROCK ISLAND DISTRICT-CSXT-IAIS) 

The Route B Alternative would cross several floodplain areas. Most impacts on Zone A 

floodplains would be temporary and would cease when construction is completed. The 

design and construction of any bridge or culvert replacements would be coordinated with 

the appropriate floodplain administrator to avoid any impacts to the base floodplain 

Potential impacts from specific construction activities will be further evaluated in the 

Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents 

3.16.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

At the ultimate MWRRI operational level of five round-trip TPD, the same floodplains 

would have the potential to be affected as under the initial scenario of two round-trip 

TPD. However, when capacity is increased from two to five round-trip TPD, additional 

sidings and operational modifications would be required and would have the potential to 

impact floodplains. Impacts on these floodplains will be further evaluated in the Tier 2 

Project Level NEPA documents for areas where sidings, culvert extensions, or any work 

outside of the existing railroad grade would occur. Project operation is not expected to 

impact floodplains at five round-trip TPD. 

3.17 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) is the primary 

legislation that provides protections to threatened and endangered species in the United 

States. The ESA is administered by USFWS, which has a key responsibility for managing 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-73

species designations and protections granted under the ESA. As defined by the ESA, 

“endangered” refers to species that are “in danger of extinction within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of [their] range,” while “threatened” refers to 

“those animals and plants likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of their ranges” (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Plant 

species and varieties (including fungi and lichens), animal species and subspecies, and 

vertebrate animal populations are eligible for listing under the ESA. 

Along with the ESA, state regulatory agencies can grant protection to species to further 

protect species. In Illinois, the Illinois Endangered Species Board advises Illinois DNR 

on state-listed threatened and endangered species. In Iowa, the Natural Resource 

Commission and Iowa DNR are responsible for administering Iowa’s program to protect 

state-listed threatened and endangered species. 

3.17.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact threatened and endangered species. 

3.17.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Eleven federally listed ESA species are listed in the counties the Project would cross and 

may be found within the Project area. Error! Reference source not found. summarizes 

those species and their status. These species are listed as endangered or threatened. 

Table 3.17-1 

Federally Listed, Threatened, and Endangered Species within the Project Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Status State 

Western prairie fringed orchid Platanthera praeclara Threatened IA 

Prairie bush clover Lespedeza leptostachya Threatened IA, IL 

Eastern prairie fringed orchid Platanthera leucophaea Threatened IA, IL 

Indiana bata Myotis sodalist Endangered IA, IL 

Higgin’s-eye pearlymussel Lampsilis higginsii Endangered IA, IL 

Decurrent false aster Boltonia decurrens Threatened IL 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus Endangered IL 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly Somatochlora hineana Endangered IL 

Leafy-prairie clover Dalea foliosa Endangered IL 

Mead’s milkweed Asclepias meadii Threatened IL 

Lakeside daisy Hymenopsis herbacea Threatened IL 

Sources: Illinois – http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/illinois-cty.html and 

Iowa – http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/iowa_cty.html 

Note: 

a Critical habitat has been designated in LaSalle County, Illinois. 

In addition to ESA protection, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) were implemented to offer protection to avian 

species. The MBTA makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, or sell 

migratory birds. The BGEPA prohibits anyone from taking bald eagles, including their 

parts, nests, or eggs, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior. The BGEPA 

provides for criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, 

offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, 

any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.” 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-74 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

This also pertains to impacts that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a 

previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s 

return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or 

interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death, or nest 

abandonment. The primary means for mitigating potential impacts on migratory birds, 

bald eagles, and golden eagles would be scheduling construction to minimize impacts. 

During operation of the Project, train collisions would have the greatest chance to affect 

mobile species. Since numerous trains already travel the existing alignments, adding two 

TPD would only slightly increase the chance of collision. Operation of the rail may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect any threatened, endangered or candidate 

species during project operations. 

As part of the project, particularly from Wyanet west to Iowa City, tree and brush 

clearing is expected to occur to improve crossing site distance for both vehicle and train 

traffic. This work would be conducted during specific time periods to comply with 

MBTA and BGEPA. Specific time intervals and locations requiring clearing will be 

identified during the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA analysis when specific areas requiring 

clearing have been identified. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

All of the species listed in Error! Reference source not found., except for the lakeside 

daisy, have been identified within counties that would be crossed by Route A. In addition 

to federally listed species, numerous state-listed species are found in the counties that the 

Route A Alternative would cross and may be found within the Project area. Specific 

construction impacts for listed and candidate species will be evaluated further in the 

Tier 2 Project Level NEPA review. Although it is not likely that impact would occur on 

threatened and endangered species, a field review may be needed during the Tier 2 

Project Level NEPA analysis in the location of the Wyanet Connection to ensure that any 

listed species do not exist in the area. The MBTA and BGEPA will also be addressed in 

the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA review for any tree or brush clearing that may occur for 

the project. Based on avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures (such as 

construction timing), and the limited amount of work that would occur outside of the 

existing ROW, the Project construction may affect but is not likely to adversely affect 

threatened and endangered species. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

The 14 species identified in Error! Reference source not found. have been identified 

within counties that would be crossed by the Route B Alternative. Furthermore, critical 

habitat (the Pecumsaugan Creek-Blackball Mines Nature Preserve, (Figure 3.17-1) for the 

endangered Indiana bat has been designated in LaSalle County, Illinois, along Route B. 

Similarly to the Route A Alternative, numerous state-listed species may be found within 

the counties along Route B and may be within the Project area. 

Although these species are listed in the Project counties, habitat for these species may or 

may not be crossed by Routes A and B. Both alternatives would follow the existing rail 

line; and most work would be limited to track and tie replacement and would not occur 

outside of the existing railroad grade. The greatest potential for impact would be during 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-75

any culvert replacement; bridge work; upgrading of passenger stations; and construction 

of the Wyanet connection and the layover facility in Iowa City. Based on avoidance, 

minimization and mitigation measures (such as construction timing), and the limited 

amount of work that would occur outside of the existing ROW, the Project construction 

may affect but is not likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species. 

3.17.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

At the ultimate MWRRI operational level of five round-trip TPD, the same species would 

have the potential to be affected as under the initial scenario of two round-trip TPD. 

However, when capacity is increased from two to five round-trip TPD, additional sidings 

and operational modifications would be required and would have the potential to impact 

threatened and endangered species. Areas where sidings, culvert extensions, or any work 

outside of the existing railroad grade would occur would need to be surveyed for the 

presence of threatened and endangered species and their habitats. In addition, the current 

federal and state species lists would need to be reviewed for the addition or removal of 

any of the species listed in Error! Reference source not found.. 

Since numerous trains already travel the alignment, adding five TPD would only slightly 

increase the chance of collision. Operation of the rail may affect, but is unlikely to 

adversely affect, any threatened, or endangered species during Project operations. 
Peru--La Salle

Princeton

CSXT

Pecumsaugan Creek-Blackball Mines Nature Preserve

80

39

80

39 180

52

6

34

52 34

71

251

170

89

23

26

92

29

351

179

351

89

23

23

29 71

29

23

26

23

71

26

I l l i n o i s

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

3.17-1

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Critical_Habitat.mxd\sept09\jcm

Indiana Bat Critical Habitat

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

5 2.5 0 5

Miles

Scale

Legend

Route A Alternative

Route B Alternative

Routes A & B Alternative

Pecumsaugan Creek-Blackball Mines Nature Preserve
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-77

3.18 ENERGY USE/CLIMATE CHANGE 

Climate change is any measured change in climate over a long period of time. Climate 

change can be attributed to different causes, such as natural factors (for example, changes 

in the sun’s energy or slow changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun), natural processes 

within the climate system (for example, changes in ocean circulation), or human activities 

that change the atmosphere’s makeup (for example, burning fossil fuels) and the land 

surface. In the U.S., energy-related activities account for three-quarters of our humangenerated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mostly in the form of carbon dioxide 

emissions from burning fossil fuels. More than half the energy-related emissions come 

from large stationary sources such as power plants, and about a third comes from 

transportation (EPA, 2009). 

The primary mode of travel between Iowa City and Chicago is by automobile. Air service 

does exist between the Quad Cities and Chicago, but once again automobile travel is the 

dominant form of transportation. 

3.18.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not increase GHGs from train traffic. However, 

passenger trains would not be as readily available to the public, resulting in use of 

automobiles for transportation. The No-Build Alternative would not decrease vehicle use; 

thus, over time there would be slight increase in GHG emissions. 

3.18.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

As described in Section 3.2, Transportation, and Section 3.8, Air Quality, the Project 

would divert trips from automobiles to passenger rail resulting in a net reduction fuel 

usage. The Project would decrease the emissions of GHGs, primarily carbon dioxide 

(CO2). 

Implementation of the Project would also require indirect consumption of energy for the 

processing of materials, for construction activities, and for operation of the passenger rail 

service. The Project is expected to reduce vehicle congestion on area highways. This 

would result in less direct and indirect vehicular operational energy consumption under 

Alternatives A and B than under the No-Build Alternative. Therefore, postconstruction 

operational energy requirements should offset construction and maintenance energy 

requirements and result in a net savings in energy usage. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

The Route A Alternative would decrease automobile traffic by 16.5 million passenger -

miles per year and reduce airline travel by 8.4 million passenger-miles per year. GHG 

emissions would decrease by approximately 2,001 tons per year. Fuel consumption 

would decrease by approximately 266,000 gallons per year. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

The Route B Alternative would have similar impacts on climate change and GHG 

emissions as the Route A Alternative. Automobile traffic would decrease by 13.0 million 

passenger-miles and reduce airline travel by 6.6 million passenger-miles per year; GHG 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-78 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

would decrease by approximately 1,000 tons per year. Fuel consumption would decrease 

by approximately 159,000 gallons per year. 

3.18.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

At the ultimate MWRRI operational level of five round-trip TPD, a higher potential to 

decrease GHGs would exist by removing more vehicle traffic from highways and roads. 

Implementation of the ultimate service level of five round-trip TPD would divert 

approximately 48.8 million passenger-miles per year and reduce airline travel by 16.6 

million passenger-miles per year; GHG would decrease by approximately 6,008 tons per 

year. Fuel consumption would decrease by approximately 1,500,000 gallons per year. 

3.19 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

Impacts from construction of an alternative would be temporary in nature and would 

occur during and immediately following construction. The time required for construction 

impacts to dissipate varies by the type of construction activity and resources affected. 

Most construction impacts cease immediately with completion of construction. 

3.19.1 No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, no changes would be made to existing railroad 

operations and no passenger rail service would be added between Chicago and Iowa City. 

Therefore, no construction impacts would be associated with the No-Build Alternative 

except for ongoing maintenance and other regularly scheduled activities. 

3.19.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Construction activities for signal improvements; track and tie upgrades; and bridge and 

culvert repair, rehabilitation, and replacement would result in temporary impacts on the 

environment. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

During construction, ground disturbance would result in the removal of vegetation from 

some areas, and BMPs would be implemented to minimize both wind and water erosion 

of exposed soil. Areas would be revegetated as soon as practicable to maintain long-term 

stability. In addition to vegetation clearing, construction would have temporary impacts 

on waterways, wetlands, and floodplains, but these impacts would be temporary in nature 

and predominantly limited to bridge and culvert replacement activities. Necessary 

permits and approvals would be acquired, and implementation of their requirements 

would minimize impacts from construction. 

Where work at road crossings is required, localized transportation patterns may be 

affected temporarily by the presence of equipment and by temporary crossing closings 

while the track and ties are upgraded. As the majority of the work would be limited to the 

existing railroad grade, construction impacts are anticipated to be minimal. In addition, 

because the railroads are currently operating, any closures would need to be kept to the 

shortest time possible to allow continued train operations during construction. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-79

The equipment necessary to perform construction activities would also have a temporary 

impact on air quality in the immediate vicinity of construction, but these impacts would 

cease immediately with completion of construction. 

The approximately 4,000-foot-long Wyanet connection would require the construction of 

a new connector track between the BNSF and IAIS rail lines. This area would be the 

largest construction area outside of the existing railroad grade. The impacts at the Wyanet 

connection would be temporary and similar to those described above but would be of a 

longer duration than for other construction activities. 

At this time, it is not feasible to evaluate all of the impacts of construction as they are 

dependent on final design or the construction contractor. Impacts related to staging areas, 

stockpiling and storing equipment and materials, construction timing, methods and 

equipments, and disposal sites will be discussed in the Tier 2 Project Level NEPA 

documents. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

The construction impacts for the Route B Alternative would be similar to those of the 

Preferred Alternative, excluding the impacts at the Wyanet connection. As a result, the 

construction impacts for the Route B Alternative would be slightly less than those for the 

Preferred Alternative. 

3.19.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Increasing train traffic to five round-trip TPD and speeds to 90 mph from Chicago to 

Wyanet would require the construction of additional sidings and signal upgrades. The 

construction impacts would be similar to those described for two round-trip TPD but 

would require more new construction, similar to construction at the Wyanet connection, 

for the sidings. Segment-specific impacts of construction will be addressed in the Tier 2 

Project Level NEPA documents. 

3.20 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources directly relate to the trade-offs of 

implementing a project versus not implementing a project. Commitments of resources 

that are considered wholly or in part to be irreversible and irretrievable include land 

resources, construction materials, energy resources, and financial resources. 

3.20.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not result in an irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of land resources, construction materials, and financial resources. However, 

energy resources would continue to be consumed by automobile travelers between 

Chicago and Iowa City at a slightly higher rate than with the build alternatives, as 

described in Section 3.18, Energy Use/Climate Change. 

3.20.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Both of the build alternatives would result in an irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources as described below. 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-80 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

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

commitment of land for the Wyanet connection. The land would be converted from its 

current condition to a railroad grade and track. 

Construction materials would consist largely of steel, concrete, ballast rock, and wood. 

Whereas the use of these materials would be largely irretrievable, these resources are not 

in short supply and many of the materials could be recycled for other projects when they 

no longer meet the design needs for passenger rail service. 

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

gas, electrical, and manpower expenditures for construction, operation, and maintenance. 

These resources are generally irretrievable. 

In addition to the above resources commitments, federal and state financial resources 

would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed to the Project for the development of 

Tier 2 Project NEPA documentation, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. 

These financial resources would no longer be available for other federal or state projects. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island District-CSXT-IAIS) 

With the exception of the land resource requirement for the Wyanet connection, the 

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources would be the same for the Route B 

Alternative as for the Preferred Alternative. 

3.20.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

With the increase in passenger rail service to five round-trip TPD and 90 mph train 

speeds from Chicago to Wyanet, additional land resources, construction materials, energy 

resources, and financial resources would be irreversibly and irretrievably committed. The 

use of these resources would be similar to the use described for the Preferred Alternative, 

with additional land resources and construction materials being committed for the 

construction of additional sidings needed to maintain train movement. Additional energy 

resources would also be committed for this new construction as well as during the 

operation and maintenance of the railroad. Federal and state financial resources would 

again be irreversibly and irretrievably committed for the development of NEPA 

documentation, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. 

3.21 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

CEQ regulations require that indirect and cumulative impacts, in addition to direct 

impacts, be evaluated for a proposed action. 

As defined in CEQ regulations, indirect impacts are those impacts that: 

... are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, 

but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing 

effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other 

natural systems, including ecosystems (40 CFR 1508.8b). 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-81

As defined in CEQ regulations, cumulative impact are those impacts on the environment 

that: 

... [result] from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions 

taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The primary types of projects associated with cumulative impacts relative to the Project 

are the completion of the development of the Midwest Regional Rail System itself, 

roadway improvement projects, the construction of the Eola Yard, and the 

implementation of other high-speed intercity passenger rail projects. Track 1a (Final 

Design/Construction) and Track 1b (Preliminary Engineering/NEPA) projects in Illinois 

and Iowa are: 

• Illinois: Midwest Train Equipment Fleet – This project would provide new 

rolling stock for the Midwest states of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, 

Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

• Illinois: Chicago Terminal Limits for the Midwest Regional Rail System – 

This project would provide final design and construction for the Quad Cities, 

Milwaukee, and Detroit as well as preliminary design and NEPA work for the 

St. Louis, Detroit, and Milwaukee corridors. 

• Illinois: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor – Joliet to St. Louis 

Meet Resolution Project – This project would complete the first phase of 

ground work for the high-speed rail corridor; it would include final design, 

rehabilitation and construction of existing sidings, new sidings, and 

development of a second main line to accommodate train meet points 

associated with the high-speed rail corridor as well as accompanying signal, 

bridge, and crossing work. 

• Illinois: Improvements Proposed for the BNSF Eola Yard in Aurora – 

Improvements are proposed to improve the flow of train traffic on the BNSF 

line from Chicago to Aurora. This triple-track line is currently used for BNSF 

freight trains, Metra commuter trains, and Amtrak passenger trains. Metra 

commuter trains depart and arrive at the Hill Yard/Aurora Transportation 

Center using two lead tracks, which join the double-track BNSF main lines at 

the west end of Eola Yard. Departing and arriving Metra trains block the main 

BNSF lines, delaying BNSF and Amtrak trains. The Hill Yard lead track 

would be extended to the east end of Eola Yard, freeing up one of the BNSF 

main lines. Two yard lines would be extended to ensure that trains in the Eola 

Yard can clear the BNSF line. This would allow BNSF and Amtrak trains to 

operate on this BNSF main line, reducing delays through this congested area. 

Because of the high number of freight, commuter, and intercity passenger 

trains currently operating on the BNSF rail line between Chicago and Aurora, 

the improvements to the BNSF Eola Yard in Aurora are needed before the 

service to Iowa City could commence. A separate HSIPR grant application 

was submitted by Illinois DOT on August 24, 2009, for funds to pursue the 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-82 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

BNSF Eola Yard improvements. These improvements, which are one part of a 

suite of Chicago Terminal improvements, are needed to reduce congestion 

and improve the on-time performance of the current passenger trains as well 

as accommodate the new Chicago to Iowa City service. Because the Eola 

Yard improvements have independent utility and will be pursued irrespective 

of the Chicago to Iowa City service, the Eola Yard improvements will be the 

subject of a separate NEPA evaluation (State of Illinois, August 24, 2009). 

• Illinois: Amtrak Illinois Zephyr Galesburg Congestion Relief Project – This 

project would construct three new BNSF tracks in Galesburg for staging 

freight trains to improve passenger train service, build a third main line track 

through the Galesburg passenger station to improve efficiencies, and install a 

new connection between Brookfield and Mendota. 

• Iowa: Ottumwa Subdivision Capitalized Maintenance – This project would 

reduce temporary speed restrictions of the California Zephyr (Amtrak 5 and 

6) on the BNSF Ottumwa Subdivision across southern Iowa. The California 

Zephyr operates between Chicago’s Union Station and Amtrak’s Emeryville 

station located just outside San Francisco, California. The Zephyr serves 

seven states, (Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and 

California). 

• Iowa: Ottumwa Subdivision Crossover Improvements – This project would 

improve the service performance of the California Zephyr, consisting of two 

daily Amtrak trains (Amtrak 5 and 6) that operate between Chicago’s Union 

Station and Amtrak’s Emeryville station. 

Illinois has one Track 3 (Planning) project, which consists of studying the feasibility of 

220 mph high-speed express passenger service between Chicago and St. Louis. Iowa also 

has one Track 3 project, which seeks funding for the planning effort for the complete 

MWRRI corridor from Chicago to Omaha. 

Specific roadway improvement projects within or crossing the rail corridors are 

numerous and are not identified in this Tier 1 analysis. However, during Tier 2 NEPA 

analyses, a more detailed review at potential indirect and cumulative impacts of projects 

would be conducted. 

3.21.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would result in a slight indirect impact due to the lack of 

passenger rail service between Chicago and Iowa City. This indirect impact would 

primarily be in the form of increased traffic congestion over time as travelers between 

Chicago and Iowa City would continue to use existing roadways. In addition, the NoBuild Alternative would have a slight negative contribution to cumulative impacts by 

continuing the dependence on personal automobiles on highways for travel between 

Chicago and Iowa City. Selection of the No-Build Alternative would not result in the 

elimination of any of the projects listed above with the exception of the MWRRI corridor 

from Chicago to Omaha which includes the section from Chicago to Iowa City. 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-83

3.21.2 Two Round-Trip Trains per Day 

The indirect and cumulative effects of Alternative A are similar to those of Alternative B. 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

The Preferred Alternative would have the potential for several beneficial indirect effects 

along the route. First, implementation would help to reduce traffic congestion on existing 

roadways by diverting some potential motorists from the roadways to the passenger 

trains; this would also slightly reduce vehicle emissions. There is also the potential for 

transit-oriented development of other services near the proposed stops; this would likely 

further reduce traffic congestion and emissions. 

When considered collectively with the projects listed above, the Preferred Alternative 

would have a slight beneficial contribution to cumulative impacts by improving overall 

air quality and reducing roadway congestion and would have the potential for increased 

transit-oriented development. Should construction of this Project occur simultaneously 

with some of the above listed projects, existing passenger and freight rail services could 

see temporary increases in delays and congestion but overall train traffic would be 

maintained throughout construction. 

Route B Alternative (Amtrak-CN-Metra/Rock Island and District-CSXT-IAIS) 

The indirect and cumulative impacts of the Route B Alternative would be of the same 

nature as those of the Preferred Alternative, but the impacts would be of a slightly 

reduced magnitude due to lower ridership projections and the longer distance of the route. 

3.21.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

Whereas increasing passenger rail service from two round-trip TPD to five round-trips 

per day would require infrastructure improvements and construction in new areas, overall 

the beneficial indirect and cumulative impacts of the two round-trip TPD scenario would 

be expected to increase in magnitude. This increase is expected as a result of the further 

decrease in personal vehicles traveling the roadways between Chicago and Iowa City due 

to increased passenger rail service, as well as transit-oriented development of other 

services near the proposed stops. 

3.22 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

Route A (the Preferred Alternative) is the environmentally preferable alternative; when 

compared to the Route B Alternative it requires fewer miles of track improvements, is a 

shorter and faster route, would provide better ridership, and would provide more 

environmental benefits. 

The Route A Alternative is 219 miles long and would require approximately 102 miles of 

track upgrade, as compared to a route length of 238 miles for the Route B Alternative, 

with 196 miles of track upgrade required. The Route A Alternative would attract a 

projected ridership of 187,000 compared to 147,000 on the Route B Alternative. The 

Route A Alternative is projected to divert 117,000 vehicle trips, 16,000 bus passenger 

trips, and 42,000 plane passengers per year, reducing fuel usage and non-passenger rail 

transportation system congestion in the Project area. The Route B Alternative would 

divert 92,000 vehicle trips, 12,000 bus passenger trips, and 33,000 plane passengers per 
Chapter 3 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

3-84 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

year, reducing fuel usage and non-passenger rail transportation system congestion to a 

lesser extent than the Route A Alternative. Traffic congestion would continue to worsen 

under the No Build Alternative. 

Both the Route A and Route B Alternatives would provide economic benefits through job 

creation, potential for joint development, and increased economic activity. There would 

be no disproportionate impacts to minorities and low income populations. The passenger 

rail service would provide increased mobility and employment opportunities throughout 

the Project area. These improvements would not be realized and socioeconomic 

conditions would not change under the No-Build Alternative. 

In general, existing adjacent land uses would likely continue and future land use patterns 

would not change due to either Build Alternative. The proposed Amtrak station in Moline 

is anticipated to enhance transportation-oriented development adjacent to the rail line at 

an existing bus station. Construction of the Wyanet Connection for the Route A 

Alternative would require the acquisition of approximately 7 acres of land, including 

approximately 2 acres of farmland. Land use would not change under the No-Build 

Alternative. 

Both Build Alternatives would improve public health and safety by upgrading gradecrossing signal equipment and providing a safe, efficient modal choice for travel from 

Chicago to Iowa City, through the Quad Cities. Noise impacts would increase under both 

Alternatives; the areas impacted between Chicago and Wyanet would differ, but the total 

number of impacts would be approximately the same. The safety benefits provided by the 

Build Alternatives would not be realized under the No-Build Alternative. Noise 

conditions would not change with the No-Build Alternative. 

Annual emissions of HC and CO would be reduced to a greater extent with the Route A 

Alternative (7 tons and 199 tons, respectively), as compared to the Route B Alternative (5 

tons and 155 tons, respectively). Annual emissions of NOx, PM-10, and PM-2.5 would 

increase under both alternatives. Due to anticipated worsening congestion, emissions of 

pollutants generated by vehicles and planes are expected to increase with the No-Build 

Alternative. 

The Route A Alternative has fewer hazardous material sites near the route (approximately 

232 versus 364 for the Route B Alternative). Hazardous material sites would not be 

affected by the No-Build Alternative. Because of track and crossing upgrades, the safety 

of hazardous material transportation by freight trains would improve under both the 

Route A and B Alternatives, but would remain unchanged under the No-Build 

Alternative. 

No impacts are expected to cultural resources, parks, and federally or state-listed natural 

areas; site specific analysis will take place during the tier 2 evaluation of specific 

Projects. 

Approximately 120 waterways would be crossed by the Route A Alternative, compared 

to 128 by the Route B Alternative. Based on a National Wetlands Inventory review, there 

are 144 wetlands within 100 feet of the Route A Alternative, and 263 wetlands within 

100 feet of the Route B Alternative. The Wyanet Connection is needed only for the Route 

A Alternative and would include work outside of the existing ROW near Pond Creek and 
 Chapter 3

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 3-85

its floodplain, a trail, and a parkway. The Route B Alternative is adjacent to critical 

habitat of the threatened Indiana bat. The No-Build Alternative would not impact 

waterways, wetlands, or threatened and endangered species. 

GHG emissions would decrease by 2,001 tons per year under the Route A Alternative 

and fuel usage would decline by 266,000 gallons per year as compared to the No-Build 

Alternative. GHG emissions would decrease by 1,000 tons per year under the Route B 

Alternative and annual fuel usage would decline by 159,000 gallons per year as compared 

to the No-Build Alternative. 
 Chapter 4

Comments and Coordination 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 4-1

CHAPTER 4 

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the efforts and events conducted for agency coordination, public 

meetings, tribal coordination, and public involvement during the development of this 

Tier 1 EA. Coordination and consultation with agencies, stakeholder groups, and the 

public was initiated early in the study to incorporate their comments and concerns into 

the development and analysis of the project purpose and need, alternatives, and potential 

resultant environmental impacts. 

4.2 PUBLIC AND AGENCY OUTREACH 

Representatives from Iowa DOT, Illinois DOT, and the community coordinated closely 

on the Project. The public meetings held to date (Table 4-1) helped to gain public support 

for the Project. Since Project initiation the public and communities along the proposed 

routes have shown overwhelming support for the Project, as reflected in Table 4-2, 

Written Coordination. The communities along the route have encouraged support of the 

Project from their residents. The Project would increase jobs and provide an alternative 

transportation route within the communities and has been strongly supported by local 

officials. 

Public coordination included stakeholder meetings, briefings, and conference 

presentations. Table 4-1 lists the public coordination that occurred for the Project. A 

public information meeting to obtain public comments on this Tier 1 EA will be held 

September 29, 2009, at Moline Centre Station from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Comments and 

materials from this meeting will be added to this section after the meeting, and the 

comments will be considered for inclusion in the FRA decision document. 

Table 4-1 

Public Meetings 

Date(s) Coordination Type of Coordination 

August 25, 

2009 

May 26, 2009 

March 24, 2009 

January 27, 

2009 

Urban Transportation Policy 

Committee Meeting 

Public Meeting 

June 15, 2009 

June 13, 2009 

Region 9 Transportation 

Policy Commission Meeting 

Public Meeting 

June 18, 2009 

April 16, 2009 

February 19, 

2009 

Iowa Quad City Joint 

Chamber Transportation 

Committee 

General update at meeting 

April 18, 2009 Illinois Transportation 

Planning Conference 

Presentation 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Coordination 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

4-2 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Date(s) Coordination Type of Coordination 

March 25, 

2009 

Bi-State Regional 

Commission 

Public Meeting 

July 29, 2009 Governors’ Midwest Rail 

Plana

Eight Midwest Governors and Chicago Mayor signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the Chicago 

Hub High Speed Rail Corridor 

July 26, 2009 Governor Culver’s Iowa 

Unlimited Train a

Meeting at future Quad City station 

March 27, 

2009 

Congressmen Hare and 

Braley meet with passenger 

rail supporters a

Meeting 

November 21, 

2008 

Quad City Coalition met 

with legislatures at Wyanet 

Connection a

Site Visit 

May 19, 2008 Quad City Rail 1st

Anniversary a

Meeting 

October 2007 Iowa Transportation 

Commission and DOT 

Commission 

Presentation outlined passenger rail service efforts; 

community updates were given, and the Amtrak corridor 

studies were described. The Quad Cities described their 

efforts for passenger rail – they were working with the 

Illinois DOT. Dubuque, Iowa City and Des Moines also 

described their passenger rail efforts. 

June 2008 Iowa Transportation 

Commission and DOT 

Commission 

Presentation outlined the importance of passenger rail 

and DOT initiatives. The funding for passenger rail 

projects and pertinent legislation was also described. 

August 2008 Iowa Transportation 

Commission and DOT 

Commission 

Sue Czeshinski from the Dubuque Convention and 

Visitors Bureau described the proposed rail alignment 

from Chicago to Dubuque, the committees involved in 

the planning process as well as activities and outcomes 

involved in their projects and community coalitions and 

tourism. 

May 11, 2009 Iowa Transportation 

Commission and DOT 

Commission 

This presentation provided basically the same 

information from the presentation given in June of 2008 

June 24, 2003 Iowa Transportation 

Commission and DOT 

Commission, Sioux City 

The Sierra Club asked why there isn’t a lot more 

passenger rail in Iowa. ICE responded that while a 

modest investment in rail infrastructure can have a huge 

benefit to moving freight, the incremental investments 

required for passenger service are substantial. 

July 8, 2003 Iowa Transportation 

Commission and DOT 

Commission, Creston, IA 

Dr. Forkenbrock discussed passenger rail in Europe and 

rising demand in U.S. 

July 23, 2003 Iowa Transportation 

Commission and DOT 

Commission, Council Bluffs, 

IA 

Dr. Forkenbrock discussed need for shorter haul 

passenger service and passengers and freight sharing 

rails. 

July 30, 2003 Iowa Transportation 

Commission and DOT 

Commission, Spencer, IA 

Discussion of need for society to invest in passenger rail, 

and that it may be feasible only in large population areas. 

September 9, 

2003 

Iowa Transportation 

Commission and DOT 

Commission, Davenport, IA 

Some of the focus from the earlier meetings has been on 

the high speed rail between Chicago and Des Moines. 

There is a lot to be said about passenger rail. 

September 30, Iowa Transportation Discussion of why inter-modalism (i.e. using intercity 
 Chapter 4

Comments and Coordination 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 4-3

Date(s) Coordination Type of Coordination 

2003 Commission and DOT 

Commission, Mount 

Pleasant, IA 

busses in combination with passenger rail) should be a 

key focus in transportation today. 

October 7, 

2003 

Iowa Transportation 

Commission and DOT 

Commission, Cedar Rapids, 

IA 

Discussion of the need for interstate cooperation to make 

passenger rail viable. 

October 21, 

2003 

Iowa Transportation 

Commission and DOT 

Commission, Mount 

Pleasant, IA 

California, which was always held up as the biggest 

proponent of automobiles, has now become the largest 

producer of public passenger rail in the country. Los 

Angeles has become a leader in public rail transit simply 

because you can’t get anywhere with a private 

automobile. 

February 2000 Iowa DOT Iowa’s Rail System Plan 

2004 Iowa DOT Held Public Outreach meetings for the modal system 

plans. Established Iowa DOT Office of Rail 

Transportation webpage. www.iowarail.com 

2004, 2005, 

2006 

Iowa DOT Iowa State Fair information booths

2007 Iowa DOT Meetings with regional and local supporters of Amtrak 

routes to Chicago, on-going since 2007 

2007 Iowa DOT Iowa legislation passed to join the Midwest Interstate 

Passenger Rail Compact (MIPRC) 

April 18, 2007 Iowa DOT Media Event – Release of Amtrak Feasibility Study for 

Chicago to Iowa City route 

2008 Iowa DOT Formation of the statewide Passenger Rail Advisory 

Committee

2009 Iowa DOT Iowa Connections website highlighting passenger rail 

expansion in Iowa. 

http://www.iowadot.gov/IowaPassengerRail/index.htm 

undated Iowa DOT Presentations to Iowa Metropolitan Planning 

Organization/Regional Planning Affiliations – held 

quarterly 

June 24, July 

27, & 

September 23, 

2009 

Iowa DOT Iowa Governor Culver rides train across Iowa promoting 

passenger rail awareness 

April 1, 2009 Iowa Passenger Rail 

Advisory Committee 

(PRAC) 

Meeting with members in Ames, IA 

April 30, 2009 Iowa Passenger Rail 

Advisory Committee 

(PRAC) 

Conference call with members 

August 14, 

2009 

Iowa Passenger Rail 

Advisory Committee 

(PRAC) 

Meeting with members in Ames, IA 

November 18, 

2009 

Iowa Passenger Rail 

Advisory Committee 

(PRAC) 

Meeting with members in Ames, IA 

Source: 

a Quad Cities Passenger Rail Coalition. 2009. http://www.quadcitychamber.com/qcrail/index.htm. 

 Chapter 4

Comments and Coordination 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 4-5

Agency/Department Date Regarding 

Passenger Rail and Greater Des 

Moines Partnership a

become a member of the Midwest Business 

Coalition for Passenger Rail. 

Resolution from the Quad Cities 

Audubon Society 

June 6, 2007 Passenger rail transportation between the 

Quad Cities and Chicago would reduce the 

amount of automobile traffic and 

consequently reduce carbon dioxide 

emissions which contribute to global 

warming. 

Resolution from Bettendorf City 

Council a

June 5, 2007 The Bettendorf City Council encourages 

area residents to advocate their support for 

passenger rail by joining the Quad City 

Passenger Rail Coalition 

YPN Creative Council a May 23, 2007 Encourages members and area young 

professionals to advocate their support for 

passenger rail. 

Bettendorf Chamber of Commerce 

Resolution 

May 20, 2007 Encourages all citizens and interested parties 

to indicate their support for his effort by 

joining the QC Rail Coalition. 

Midwest High Speed Rail 

Association a

May 11, 2007 The Midwest High Speed Rail Association 

would like to applaud the creation of the 

Quad Cities Passenger Rail Coalition. 

Iowa DOT a April 3, 2007 On Feb. 20, 2007, the Illinois DOT 

requested that Amtrak conduct a feasibility 

study to resume services between Chicago 

and Quad Cities. The Iowa DOT respectfully 

requests that the study be extended to 

include service to Iowa City, Iowa. 

Source: 

a Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008c. Feasibility Study on Proposed Amtrak Service 

from Chicago to Iowa City, Iowa, via Quad Cities (an addendum to December 5, 2007, Feasibility 

Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, Quad Cities-Chicago). 

Early agency coordination with federal, state, and local government agencies was 

initiated on August 19, 2009, to commence the NEPA analysis of the Project. An 

example of the early coordination letter sent to federal state, and local government 

agencies as well as the written comments received from those agencies can be found in 

Appendix F, Comments and Coordination. A specialized set of early coordination letters 

were sent to the Iowa and Illinois SHPO and potentially interested Tribes. SHPO and 

tribal coordination letters as well as the written comments received from the SHPOs and 

tribes can be found in Appendix E, Cultural Resources. 

The federal and state agencies consulted regarding the Project include: 

• Federal Aviation Administration 

• Federal Emergency Management Agency 

• Federal Highway Administration 

• Federal Railroad Administration 

• Federal Transit Administration 

• Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

• U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Coordination 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

4-6 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

• State Historical Society of Iowa 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

• U.S. Coast Guard 

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 

• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

• State Historical Society of Illinois 

• Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

• Illinois Commerce Commission 

Tribal coordination was also conducted as part of this Tier 1 EA. Early coordination 

letters were sent from the Federal Railroad Administration to the following tribal parties: 

• Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 

• Forest County Potawatomi 

• Citizen Potawatomi Nation 

• Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation 

• Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians 

• Hannahville Indian Community 

• Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma 

• Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri 

• Sac and Fox Nation of Mississippi in Iowa 

• Ho-Chunk Nation 

• Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 

• Otoe-Missouria Tribe 

• Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska 

• Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 

Table 4-3 lists letters received from federal and state agencies. 

Table 4-3 

Agency Coordination 

Date Coordination Key Comments 

Illinois EPA September 3, 2009 We have no objections to the project; however, a 

permit may be required from the Division of 

Water Pollution control. If more than 1 acre is 

disturbed during construction, a construction site 

activity stormwater National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit will also be 

required from the division. Solid and hazardous 

waste must be properly disposed of or recycled. 

Iowa State Historical Society a

September 3, 2009 We look forward to consulting with FRA for this 

project and determining whether this project will 

affect any significant historic properties. 
 Chapter 4

Comments and Coordination 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 4-7

Date Coordination Key Comments 

U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Coast Guard 

September 3, 2009 Route A does not appear to cross any river until it 

reaches the Mississippi River. However, Route B 

appears to cross the Illinois Waterway at several 

locations; please advise this office of the 

proposed crossings of the Illinois River. Both 

proposed routes will cross the Mississippi River 

on the Rock Island Railroad and Highway 

Drawbridge at mile 482.9. This drawbridge also 

crosses Lock 15. The EA should include the 

impact of drawbridge operations. If the other 

crossings of the Illinois River require 

drawbridges, they also need to be addressed. 

EPA, Midwest Region 5 September 1, 2009 The Tier 1 review should adequately assess the 

goals it intends to achieve (selecting the preferred 

alternative, identifying station stops, and 

identifying logical next steps) and should 

compare the environmental impacts of each 

alternative. 

Illinois Commerce Commission 

Transportation Division/Rail 

Safety Section 

August 28, 2009 We recommend 1) along the IAIS corridor, a 

review of all highway-rail grade crossings for 

potential safety improvements, including the 

elimination of redundant crossings; 2) along the 

BNSF corridor, a diagnostic review at all 

crossings equipped only with crossbuck warning 

and yield signs; and 3) a review of existing 

pedestrian-rail and private highway-rail grade 

crossings for possible safety improvements. 

Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS-Iowa) 

August 28, 2009 Please take into account any erosion which may 

occur in any work done within or outside the 

existing rail. 

NRCS-Illinois August 26, 2009 I would expect this project to have no significant 

impacts on prime agricultural lands in Illinois. 

Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) 

August 25, 2009 You will need to know where the public-use and 

military airports are in the project area in order to 

judge whether a project requires airspace review. 

Illinois State Historical Societya

September 1, 2009 Your proposal summary is acceptable to the 

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency provided 

that once individual sites are approved they will 

be submitted for review. 
Chapter 4 

Comments and Coordination 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

4-8 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Date Coordination Key Comments 

USACE – Rock Island District September 2, 2009 1. No further Rock Island District real estate 

coordination is necessary. 

2. Any proposed placement of dredged or fill 

material into waters of the U.S. (including 

jurisdictional wetlands) requires Department of 

the Army authorization under Section 404 of the 

CWA. When detailed plans are available, submit 

an application packet to the Rock Island District. 

3. The responsible federal agency should 

coordinate with the Illinois Historic Preservation 

Officer and with the State Historical Society of 

Iowa to determine impacts on historic properties. 

4. Contact the USFWS Rock Island field office to 

determine if there would be impacts on federally 

listed endangered species and, if so, how to avoid 

or minimize impacts. 

5. Contact the Illinois Emergency Management 

Agency and the Iowa Emergency Management 

Division to determine if the proposed project may 

impact areas designated as floodway in Illinois 

and Iowa, respectively. 

6. If your proposal includes building a train 

station in downtown Moline, there appear to be 

many LUST and site remediation program 

cleanup sites. A Phase I and/or II environmental 

site assessment may be required. 

Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources

September 17, 2009 We would ask that Best Management Practices be 

used to control erosion and protect water quality 

near the project. 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

September 22, 2009 The Purpose and Need for this HSR project is 

comparable to and consistent with goals of the 

FRA funding program for a Track 2 program 

seeking to establish a passenger service corridor 

that may eventually upgrade to HSR service. 

Note: 

a These documents are in Appendix E, Cultural resources. 
 Chapter 5

 Next Steps 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 5-1

CHAPTER 5 

NEXT STEPS 

As stated in Chapter 1 and throughout this Tier 1 Service Level EA, additional NEPA 

documentation, studies, and design must occur so location-specific impacts can be 

identified and minimized before the Project can be implemented. This chapter describes 

how FRA, Illinois DOT, and Iowa DOT plan to complete the additional documentation 

and design needed to advance the Project. 

5.1 PROJECT SECTIONS 

As funding becomes available, the design and Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documentation 

will be advanced for sections of the Project. Separate Tier 2 Project Level NEPA 

documentation will be prepared for each of the sections identified with two round-trip 

trains per day. At this time, the Tier 2 Project sections are anticipated to be as follows, 

but may be combined or modified based upon available funding. 

Tier 2 Project sections required regardless of alternative selected: 

• Illinois Track Improvements – This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will 

include the track, tie, culvert, and bridge improvements or replacement to bring 

existing track to the standards needed for 79 mph passenger trains along the 

alignment in Illinois. 

• Iowa Track Improvements – This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will 

include the track, tie, culvert, and bridge improvements or replacement to bring 

existing track to the standards needed for 79 mph passenger trains along the 

alignment in Iowa. 

• Geneseo, Illinois, Station – There is currently no passenger train station in 

Geneseo. This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include the evaluation 

of station location alternatives and design. 

• Iowa City, Iowa, Station – This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will 

include the evaluation of the repurchase and remodel of the existing station in 

Iowa City. Should acquisition not be possible, an evaluation of station locations 

and design would be conducted in-lieu of the analysis of remodeling the existing 

station. 

• Moline, Illinois, Station – There is currently no passenger train station in Moline. 

This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include the evaluation of station 

location alternatives and design. 

• Iowa City, Iowa, Layover Facility – There is currently no layover facility in 

Iowa City. This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include the evaluation 

of station location alternatives and design. Alternatives considered may include 

areas outside of existing railroad ROW. 

• Colona, Illinois, Improvements – This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document 

will evaluate alternatives and design to improve the BNSF crossing in Colona. 
Chapter 5 

Next Steps 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

5-2 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

• Rock Island, Illinois, Yard Bypass – This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document 

will evaluate alternatives and design for a yard bypass track to allow passenger 

trains to avoid traveling through the Rock Island yard.

• Silvis, Illinois, Bypass – If the Rock Island yard bypass is not implemented, a 

Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will evaluated alternatives and design for 

improvements to the existing track alignments in Silvis. 

Additional Tier 2 Project sections needed if the Preferred Alternative is selected: 

• Wyanet Connection – This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will present 

alternatives and design for the connection between the BNSF and IAIS Railroads 

near Wyanet, Illinois. See the Wyanet Connection discussion in Section 2.3.1, 

Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) for more information on 

this connection. 

• Eola, Illinois, Yard Improvements – This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document 

will include the evaluation of alternatives and design to improve the flow of train 

traffic on the BNSF line from Chicago to Aurora. This double-track line is 

currently used for BNSF freight trains, Metra commuter trains, and Amtrak 

passenger trains. 

Additional Tier 2 Project sections needed if the Route B Alternative is selected: 

• Morris, Illinois, Station – There is currently no passenger train station in Morris. 

This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include the evaluation of station 

location alternatives and design. 

• Peru-La Salle, Illinois, Station – There is currently no passenger train station in 

Peru-La Salle. This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include the 

evaluation of station location alternatives and design. 

Project sections have not yet been identified for the ultimate five round-trip trains per day 

operational level. The uncertainties that exist for this operational level make 

identification of sections difficult and impractical at this time. Prior to the 

implementation of the five round-tip trains per day scenario, a supplemental Tier 1 

Service Level NEPA document will be developed for the route from Chicago to Iowa 

City. This will be followed by Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents for implementation. 

5.2 ADDITIONAL STUDIES 

In Tier 2 of the NEPA process, multiple documents will be developed. These documents 

are anticipated to be a mixture of environmental assessments for areas such as the 

Wyanet connection, and categorical exclusions for areas with minimal effects. The 

specific type of NEPA document has not yet been determined for each of the sections. 

In addition to NEPA documentation for the Project sections, design will be advanced and 

numerous studies will be completed as part of the Tier 2 process to determine the specific 

nature and quantity of impacts. The design process will consider avoidance and 

minimization of impacts to sensitive environmental resources. Based upon the Project 

section, the following studies may be required: 

• Wetland delineations and Section 404 permitting 
 Chapter 5

 Next Steps 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 5-3

• Cultural resources surveys and Section 106 consultation 

• Threatened and endangered species surveys 

• Engineering surveys 

• Noise analysis 

• Section 4(f) resource evaluation 

• Phase I Environmental Site Assessments 

• Air emissions analysis in non-attainment areas 

In addition to the various studies, mitigation for impacts will also be developed. 

Anticipated types of mitigation include wetland mitigation, construction timing 

restrictions for threatened and endangered species, implementation of a stormwater 

pollution and prevention plan, implementation of best management practices, and 

documentation of historic railroad structures. 
 Chapter 6 

 References 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 6-1

CHAPTER 6 

REFERENCES 

Chapter 1, Purpose and Need 

40 CFR 1500.1, Purpose. 

42 USC 4321 et seq. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 

Colton, G. Woolworth. 1862. Map Showing the Location of the Galena and Chicago 

Union Railroad with Its Branches and Connections in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, 

and Iowa. New York. 

Federal Railroad Administration. August 14, 2009. HSIPR NEPA Guidance and Table. 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/2271. Retrieved on August 14, 2009. 

Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008a. Executive Summary: Feasibility 

Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, Quad Cities-Chicago. 

Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008b. Executive Summary: Feasibility 

Study on Proposed Amtrak Service from Chicago to Iowa City, Iowa, via Quad Cities 

(an addendum to December 5, 2007, Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, 

Quad Cities-Chicago). 

PL 102-240. December 13, 1991. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 

1991. 

PL 105-178. June 8, 1998. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. 

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2004a. Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative Project Notebook. 

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2004b. Midwest Regional Rail 

System Executive Report. 

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2006a. Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative Project Notebook, Chapter 11, Benefit Cost and Economic Analysis, 

replacement for June 2004 version. 

U.S. Census Bureau. August 5, 2009. Population Estimates July 1, 2008. 

http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html. Retrieved on September 3, 2009. 

Wikipedia. 2009a. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago,_Burlington_and_Quincy_Railroad. Retrieved 

on September 10, 2009. 

Wikipedia. 2009b. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago,_Rock_Island_and_Pacific_Railroad. Retrieved 

on September 10, 2009. 

Wikipedia. 2009c. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_and_Missouri_Railroad. 

Retrieved on September 10, 2009. 
References 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

 6-2 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2, Alternatives 

42 USC 4321-4347, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 

Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008a. Executive Summary: Feasibility 

Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, Quad Cities-Chicago. 

Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008b. Executive Summary: Feasibility 

Study on Proposed Amtrak Service from Chicago to Iowa City, Iowa, via Quad Cities 

(an addendum to December 5, 2007, Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, 

Quad Cities-Chicago). 

Hanson Professional Services, Inc. July 3, 2008. Moline-Rock Island Metropolitan Rail 

Study. Final Report. 

http://www.moline.il.us/departments/planning/economic/pdf/Rail%20Study/moline%

20report.pdf. Retrieved on August 14, 2009. 

S.B. Friedman and Company. July 2009. Draft Quad Cities TOD + Intermodal Plan. 

Chapter 3, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

40 CFR 1508.7. Cumulative Effects. 

40 CFR 1508.8b. Indirect Effects. 

43 FR 47707. Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards. 

20 ILCS 830, 17 Ill. Adm. Code 1090, Illinois Wetland Policy Act of 1989. 

415 ILCS 5/3 et seq. Illinois Environmental Protection Act. 

16 USC 470 et seq. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 1966, as 

amended. 

16 USC 668-668d. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended.

16 USC 703-712. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended.

16 USC 1531 et seq. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 

33 USC 1251 et seq. Clean Water Act. 

49 USC 303. Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. April 23, 2009. Total Employment by Industry 2001 to 

2007. 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis/default.cfm?selTable=CA25N&series=NAICS. 

Retrieved on September 4, 2009. 

Energy Information Administration. N.d. Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. 

Government: Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program (Fuel and Energy 

Source Codes and Emission Coefficients. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html. Retrieved on September 14, 

2009. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management. 

EO 12088. Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (43 FR 47707). 
 Chapter 6 

 References 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 6-3

EPA. 2009. Climate Change: Basic Information. 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html#emissions. Retrieved on 

September 3, 2009. 

EPA. June 8, 2009. Facility Registry System Query Form. 

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/fii/fii_query_java.html. Retrieved on August 27, 

2009. 

EPA, July 31, 2009. Nonattainment Status for Each County by Year. 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/. Retrieved on September 1, 2009. 

EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. August 2005. Emission Facts: Average 

Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and 

Light Trucks, EPA420-F-05-022. 

https://www.whatcomsmarttrips.org/pdf/Emission%20Facts%202005.pdf. Retrieved 

on September 14, 2009. 

EPA, Office of Transportation and Air quality. April 2009. Technical Highlights: 

Emission Factors for Locomotives, EPA-420-F-09-025. 

http://www.epa.gov/OMS/regs/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf. Retrieved on 

September 14, 2009. 

EPA, Technology Transfer Network, Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emissions Factors. 

N.d. Emissions Factors & AP 42. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html. 

Retrieved on September 14, 2009. 

FHWA. November 2002. Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group. 

FHWA. December 2007. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (including 

revisions dated December 2007). Part 8. Traffic Controls for Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part8/part8-toc.htm. Retrieved on 

September 1, 2009. 

FHWA. August 6, 2009. Economically Distressed Areas Maps. 

http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/hepgis_v2/GeneralInfo/Map.aspx. Retrieved on 

September 7, 2009. 

FHWA. August 24, 2009. FHWA Supplemental Guidance on the Determination of 

Economically Distressed Areas under the Recovery Act. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/guidancedistressed.htm. Retrieved on 

September 7, 2009. 

FHWA, Office of Natural and Human Environment. April 2005. Assessing the Effects of 

Freight Movement on Air Quality at the National and Regional Level, Final Report. 

FRA. July 28, 2009. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger 

Rail. Discussion draft issued for public outreach. 

FRA. August 31, 2009. Ten Year Accident/Incident Overview by 

Railroad/Region/State/County. 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/Query/tenyr2a.aspx. Retrieved 

on August 31, 2009. 
References 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

 6-4 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008a. Executive Summary: Feasibility 

Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, Quad Cities-Chicago. 

Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008b. Executive Summary: Feasibility 

Study on Proposed Amtrak Service from Chicago to Iowa City, Iowa, via Quad Cities 

(an addendum to December 5, 2007, Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, 

Quad Cities-Chicago). 

Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008c. Feasibility Study on Proposed 

Amtrak Service from Chicago to Iowa City, Iowa, via Quad Cities (an addendum to 

December 5, 2007, Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, Quad Cities–

Chicago). 

FTA. May 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment – Final Report, FTA-VA-90-

1003-06. Washington, DC: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. 

Google. 2009. Google Maps. http://maps.google.com/. Retrieved on September 4, 2009. 

Illinois Department of Employment Security. N.d. Local Area Unemployment Statistics. 

Annual Averages for Counties. http://lmi.ides.state.il.us/laus/laushis.htm. Retrieved 

on September 2, 2009. 

Illinois DOT. December 2002. Bureau Design Environmental Manual. Chapter 7 

Railroad Coordination. 

http://www.dot.state.il.us/desenv/BDE%20Manual/BDE/pdf/chap07.pdf. Retrieved 

on September 1, 2009. 

Illinois DOT. December 2006. Bureau of Local Roads and Street Manual. Chapter 40 

Railroad Grade Crossings. http://www.dot.state.il.us/blr/manuals/Chapter%2040.pdf. 

Retrieved on September 1, 2009. 

Illinois EPA. May 15, 2003. Bureau of Land Remediation Sites Interactive Map. 

http://maps.epa.state.il.us/website/remediation/viewer.htm. Retrieved on August 18, 

2009. 

Iowa Code 2003, Section 455E. Iowa Groundwater Protection Act. 

Iowa DNR. N.d. Iowa DNR Interactive Mapping. LUST Sites. 

http://programs.iowadnr.gov/ims/website/lust_sites/viewer.htm. Retrieved on August 

18, 2009. 

Iowa Workforce Development. April 21, 2009. Historical Labor Force, Employment and 

Unemployment Data. Counties. 

http://www.iowaworkforce.org/lmi/laborforce/etables/historica/historic.htm. 

Retrieved on September 2, 2009. 

PHMSA. May 18, 2009. Incident Reports Database Search for Amtrak in Illinois. 

https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/IncidentReportsSearch/Search.aspx. Retrieved on 

August 30, 2009. 

S.B. Friedman and Company. July 2009. Draft Quad Cities TOD + Intermodal Plan. 

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2004a. Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative Project Notebook. 
 Chapter 6 

 References 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service September 2009 

Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment 6-5

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2006a. Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative Project Notebook, Chapter 11, Benefit Cost and Economic Analysis, 

replacement for June 2004 version. 

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2006b. Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative Benefit Cost & Economic Analysis. 

Transportation Economics Management (TEMS) 1998. June 1998. Iowa Rail Route 

Alternatives Analysis. 

U.S. Census Bureau. February 1982. Census of Population 1980. Volume 1, 

Characteristics of the Population. 

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1980.htm. Retrieved on 

September 3, 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1991. Census of Population and Housing 1990, Summary Tape 

File 1. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_tabId

=DEC2&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=228242914933. Retrieved on 

September 3 and 4, 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001a. Census 2000 Summary File 1. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_tabId

=DEC1&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=270314226706. Retrieved on 

September 3, 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001b. Census 2000 Summary File 3. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000

_SF3_U&_lang=en&_ts=270667236879. Retrieved on September 3, 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. August 5, 2009. Population Estimates July 1, 2008. 

http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html. Retrieved on September 3, 2009. 

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. N.d. 

Transportation Energy Data Book, Download Edition 2B. 

http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/download28.shtml. Retrieved on September 14, 2009. 

USFWS. Revised September 2007. Iowa – County Distribution of Federally Threatened, 

Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/iowa_cty.html. Retrieved on 

August 19, 2009. 

USFWS. Revised February 2009. Illinois County Distribution – Federally Endangered, 

Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate Species. 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/illinois-cty.html. Retrieved on 

August 19, 2009. 

USGS. 1999. National Hydrography Dataset. Department of the Interior, United States 

Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia (GIS Dataset). 

 
References 

September 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

 6-6 Tier 1 Service Level Environmental Assessment

Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination 

Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008c. Feasibility Study on Proposed 

Amtrak Service from Chicago to Iowa City, Iowa, via Quad Cities (an addendum to 

December 5, 2007, Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, Quad CitiesChicago). 

Quad Cities Passenger Rail Coalition. 2009. “Quad Cities Passenger Rail Coalition.” 

http://www.quadcitychamber.com/qcrail/index.htm. Retrieved on September 9, 2009. 

 
APPENDIX A 

COMPARATIVE DATA FOR THE ALTERNATIVES 

CONTENTS 

Table A-1 Typical Time of Travel Preferred Alternative 

Table A-2 Chicago to Iowa City Preferred Alternative 

Table A-3 Typical Time of Travel Route B Alternative 

Table A-4 Chicago to Iowa City Route B Alternative 

Table A-5 Estimated Cost of Route A and B Alternatives 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
 

A-1 

COMPARATIVE DATA FOR THE ALTERNATIVES 

Table A-1 shows the typical time of travel and distances for the Preferred Alternative (Route A Alternative) at a maximum operating 

speed of 79 miles per hour. 

Table A-1 

Typical Time of Travel Route A Alternativea

Daily Origin/Destination by Stationb Cumulative Time of Travelc Travel 

Distance 

Cumulative Travel 

Distance 

Depart Chicago -- -- -- 

Depart La Grange Road, Illinois 17 minutes 13.7 miles 13.7 miles 

Depart Naperville, Illinois 34 minutes 14.7 miles 28.4 miles 

Depart Plano, Illinois 59 minutes 23.1 miles 51.5 miles 

Depart Mendota, Illinois 1 hour, 27 minutes 31.6 miles 83.1 miles 

Depart Princeton, Illinois 1 hour, 49 minutes 21.1 miles 104.2 miles 

Depart Geneseo, Illinois 2 hours, 44 minutes 36.6 miles 140.8 miles 

Depart Moline, Illinois 3 hours, 22 minutes 19.1 miles 159.9 miles 

Arrive Iowa City, Iowa 4 hours, 58 minutes 59.3 miles 219.2 miles 

Time of travel, Chicago to Iowa City 4 hours, 58 minutes 219.2 miles 

Notes:

a

 Table A-1 illustrates the typical time of travel for the proposed westbound trips. 

b

 Source: Franke et al., 2008a; Franke et al,. 2008b; IAIS track chart not dated; BNSF Railway Company January 1, 2005. 

c

 Additional schedule improvements are possible with additional infrastructure improvements. 
A-2 

Table A-2 shows the preliminary passenger train schedule for the Preferred Alternative (Route A Alternative) at a maximum operating 

speed of 79 miles per hour. 

Table A-2 

Chicago to Iowa City Preferred Alternative 

(Chicago-Naperville-Mendota-Princeton-Geneseo-Moline-Iowa City) 

Morning 

Westbound

Evening 

Westbound Station Morning Eastbound

Evening 

Eastbound

9:30 AM 6:30 PM DP a Chicago, IL ARb 12:00 PM 10:00 PM

R

c

 9:47AM R 6:47 PM DP La Grange Road, IL DP D

d

 11:32 AM D 9:32 PM

R 10:04 AM R 7:04 PM DP Naperville, IL DP D 11:17 AM D 9:17 PM

10:29 AM 7:29 PM DP Plano, IL DP 10:53 AM 8:53 PM

10:57 AM 7:57 PM DP Mendota, IL DP 10:25 AM 8:25 PM

11:19 AM 8:19 PM DP Princeton, IL DP 10:05 AM 8:05 PM

12:14 PM 9:14 PM DP Geneseo, IL DP 9:12 AM 7:12 PM

12:52 PM 9:52 PM DP Moline, IL DP 8:40 AM 6:40 PM

2:28 PM 11:28 PM AR Iowa City, IA DP 7:02 AM 5:02 PM

Source: Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008b. Executive Summary: Feasibility Study on Proposed Amtrak Service from Chicago to Iowa 

City, Iowa, via Quad Cities (An addendum to December 5, 2007 Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, Quad Cities-Chicago. 

Notes: 

a

 DP – Departing 

b

 AR – Arriving 

c

 R – LaGrange Road and Naperville Westbound stop only to receive passengers 

d

 D – Naperville and LaGrange Road Eastbound stop only to discharge passengers 
 

A-3 

Table A-3 shows the preliminary passenger train schedule for the Route B Alternative at a maximum operating speed of 79 miles per 

hour. 

Table A-3 

Typical Time of Travel Route B Alternativea

Daily Origin/Destination 

by Stationb

Cumulative Time of 

Travelc

Travel Distance Cumulative Travel Distance

Depart Chicago -- -- --

Depart Joliet, Illinois 1 hour, 21 minutes 42.0 miles 42.0 miles

Depart Morris, Illinois 1 hour, 58 minutes 19.0 miles 61.0 miles

Depart La Salle, Illinois 3 hours, 9 minutes 39.3 miles 100.3 miles

Depart Geneseo, Illinois 4 hours, 7 minutes 59.5miles 159.8 miles

Depart Moline, Illinois 4 hours, 48 minutes 19.1 miles 178.9 miles

Arrive Iowa City, Iowa 6 hours, 24 minutes 59.3 miles 238.2 miles

Time of travel, Chicago to Iowa City 6 hours, 

24 minutes 

 238.2 miles 

Notes:

a Table A-3 illustrates the typical time of travel for the proposed westbound trips.

b Source: Franke et al., 2008a; Franke et al., 2008b, IAIS Track chart, Wyanet to Iowa City, not dated.

c

 Additional schedule improvements are possible with additional infrastructure improvements.
A-4 

Table A-4 shows the preliminary passenger train schedule for the Route B Alternative at a maximum operating speed of 79 miles per 

hour. 

Table A-4 

Chicago to Iowa City Route B Alternative 

(Chicago-Joliet-Morris-LaSalle-Geneseo_Moline-Iowa City) 

Morning 

Westbound 

Evening 

Westbound Station Morning Eastbound 

Evening 

Eastbound 

9:22 AM 6:35 PM DP a Chicago, IL ARb 1:54 PM 11:59 PM

R

c

 10:43AM R 7:56 PM DP Joliet, IL DP D

d

 12:35 PM D 10:40 PM

11:26 AM 8:39 PM DP Morris, IL DP 11:44 AM 9:49 PM

12:48 AM 10:01 PM DP LaSalle, IL DP 10:13 AM 8:18 PM

2:04 PM 11:17 PM DP Geneseo, IL DP 9:05 AM 7:10 PM

2:49 PM 12:02 AM DP Moline, IL DP 8:29 AM 6:34 PM

4:44 PM 1:57 AM AR Iowa City, IA DP 6:32 AM 4:37 PM

Source: Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008b. Executive Summary: Feasibility Study on Proposed Amtrak Service from Chicago to Iowa 

City, Iowa, via Quad Cities (An addendum to December 5, 2007 Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, Quad Cities-Chicago. 

Notes: 

a

 DP – Departing 

b

 AR – Arriving 

c

 R – Joliet Westbound stops only to receive passengers 

d

 D – Joliet Eastbound stops only to discharge passengers 
 

A-5 

A comparison of cost for the Preferred Alternative and the Route B Alternative is provided in Table A-5. The comparison was made 

at feasibility study level and has not been updated to reflect actions needed that were identified after the completion of the feasibility 

studies. 

Table A-5 

Estimated Cost of Route A and B Alternatives 

Proposed Actions Cost ($millions) 

Route A 

Cost ($millions) 

Route B 

Construct connection track at Wyanet from BNSF to IAIS 5.6 0.0a

Replace jointed rail with continuous welded rail 17.1 41.5 

Replacement of crossties 6.0 11.4 

Resurfacing track 1.3 2.3 

Miscellaneous track, bridge, culvert, drainage, and roadbed work 2.5 4.9

Upgrade circuits of grade crossing warning devices 2.6 4.0

Install wayside signal system, remote control switches 13.1 25.6

Contingencies on items above 2.2 19.2b

Iowa City layover facility 0.3 0.3 

Total 50.7 109.2 

 Source: Franke et al. 2008a; Franke et al. 2008b. 

a

 A connection track would not be required for the Route B Alternative. 

b

 Includes $5.0 million for capacity mitigation.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
 

APPENDIX B 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE DATA TABLES 

CONTENTS 

Table B-1 Hispanic or Latino Population by State and County 

Table B-2 Population by Race - State and County 

Table B-3 Poverty - State and County 

Table B-4 Population Below the Poverty Level, Census Blocks in which Severe Noise Impacts 

Occur 

Table B-5 Hispanic Population, Census Blocks in which Severe Noise Impacts Occur 

Table B-6 Population by Race, Census Blocks in which Severe Noise Impacts Occur 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Table B-1

Hispanic or Latino Population by State and County

Population Area Total Population Hispanic or Latino Percentage

United States 281,421,906 35,305,818 12.5%

Illinois 12,419,293 1,530,262 12.3%

Iowa 2,926,324 82,473 2.8%

Bureau County, Illinois 35,503 1,732 4.9%

Cook County, Illinois 5,376,741 1,071,740 19.9%

DeKalb County, Illinois 88,969 5,830 6.6%

DuPage County, Illinois 904,161 81,366 9.0%

Grundy County, Illinois 37,535 1,552 4.1%

Henry County, Illinois 51,020 1,467 2.9%

Kane County, Illinois 404,119 95,924 23.7%

Kendall County, Illinois 54,544 4,086 7.5%

La Salle County, Illinois 111,509 5,791 5.2%

Rock Island County, Illinois 149,374 12,791 8.6%

Will County, Illinois 502,266 43,768 8.7%

Cedar County, Iowa 18,187 171 0.9%

Johnson County, Iowa 111,006 2,781 2.5%

Muscatine County, Iowa 41,722 4,973 11.9%

Scott County, Iowa 158,668 6,445 4.1%

Source: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data

B-1 of B-7
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Table B-2

Population by Race - State and County

 Total Total Percentage Total Total Total Total Total Total

United States 281,421,906 211,460,626 75.1% 34,658,190 2,475,956 10,242,998 398,835 15,359,073 6,826,228

Illinois 12,419,293 9,125,471 73.5% 1,876,875 31,006 423,603 4,610 722,712 235,016

Iowa 2,926,324 2,748,640 93.9% 61,853 8,989 36,635 1,009 37,420 31,778

Bureau County, Illinois 35,503 34,365 96.8% 116 61 182 10 455 314

Cook County, Illinois 5,376,741 3,025,760 56.3% 1,405,361 15,496 260,170 2,561 531,170 136,223

DeKalb County, Illinois 88,969 78,704 88.5% 4,084 197 2,087 58 2,440 1,399

DuPage County, Illinois 904,161 759,924 84.0% 27,600 1,520 71,252 217 28,166 15,482

Grundy County, Illinois 37,535 36,442 97.1% 71 90 114 4 487 327

Henry County, Illinois 51,020 49,077 96.2% 583 52 127 6 669 506

Kane County, Illinois 404,119 320,340 79.3% 23,279 1,255 7,296 144 42,870 8,935

Kendall County, Illinois 54,544 50,658 92.9% 718 105 480 12 1,842 729

La Salle County, Illinois 111,509 105,896 95.0% 1,723 191 598 26 1,908 1,167

Rock Island County, Illinois 149,374 127,742 85.5% 11,260 410 1,524 45 5,612 2,781 

Will County, Illinois 502,266 411,027 81.8% 52,509 1,038 11,125 162 18,219 8,186

Cedar County, Iowa 18,187 17,909 98.5% 34 34 55 5 47 103

Johnson County, Iowa 111,006 100,051 90.1% 3,223 313 4,578 48 1,116 1,677

Muscatine County, Iowa 41,722 37,852 90.7% 294 128 345 7 2,525 571

Scott County, Iowa 158,668 140,481 88.5% 9,689 500 2,502 32 2,606 2,858

Source: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data

1.6%

0.6%

1.5%

1.4%

1.8%

1.0%

2.2%

1.3%

1.0%

1.9%

1.7%

0.9%

2.4%

Percentage Percentage

1.9%

1.1%

9.9%

1.3%

1.3%

5.8%

5.5%

10.6%

1.3%

1.3%

3.1%

2.7%

0.3%

3.6%

3.8%

1.7%

3.4%

0.02%

0.02% 1.6%

6.1%

1.0%

0.02%

0.03%

0.03%

0.03%

0.04%

0.3%

4.1%

0.8%

1.6%

Percentage

0.14%

0.04%

0.03%

0.03%

0.05%

0.07%

0.02%

0.01%

0.01%

0.04%

0.02%

1.8%

0.9%

0.5%

1.0%

2.2%

4.8%

2.3%

7.9%

0.3%

0.2%

Percentage Percentage

3.4%

1.3%

0.17% 0.5%

0.88%

0.25%

0.31%

3.6%

0.10%

0.24%

0.17%

0.22%

0.29%

0.2%

2.9%

0.7%

6.1% 0.32%

0.31%

0.28%

0.19%

5.8%

1.3%

1.5%

7.5%

10.5%

3.1%

0.2%

1.1%

Percentage

12.3%

15.1%

2.1%

0.3%

0.21%

0.27%

0.17%

0.19%

0.31%

White alone Black or African American alone American Indian and Alaska Asian alone Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Some other race alone Two or more races

26.1%

4.6%

0.9%

2.5%

1.6%

B-2 of B-7
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Table B-3

Poverty - State and County

Total Population Income in 1999 below poverty level Percentage

United States 273,882,232 33,899,812 12.4%

Illinois 12,095,961 1,291,958 10.7%

Iowa 2,824,435 258,008 9.1%

Bureau County, Illinois 34,940 2,537 7.3%

Cook County, Illinois 5,285,159 713,040 13.5%

DeKalb County, Illinois 81,025 9,203 11.4%

DuPage County, Illinois 889,343 32,163 3.6%

Grundy County, Illinois 37,029 1,786 4.8%

Henry County, Illinois 50,346 4,038 8.0%

Kane County, Illinois 397,285 26,587 6.7%

Kendall County, Illinois 54,251 1,636 3.0%

La Salle County, Illinois 108,216 9,894 9.1%

Rock Island County, Illinois 144,505 15,523 10.7%

Will County, Illinois 491,997 24,225 4.9%

Cedar County, Iowa 17,862 989 5.5%

Johnson County, Iowa 102,859 15,406 15.0%

Muscatine County, Iowa 40,936 3,632 8.9%

Scott County, Iowa 155,520 16,329 10.5%

Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data

B-3 of B-7
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Table B-4

Population Below the Poverty Level, Census Blocks in which Severe Noise Impacts Occur

Block Group Town Total

Income in 

1999 below 

poverty 

level

Percent 

below 

poverty

Percent 

below 

poverty, 

city

Block Group 2, Census Tract 206, 

Rock Island County, Illinois

East 

Moline 2,190 632 28.9% 13.9%

Block Group 1, Census Tract 207, 

Rock Island County, Illinois

East 

Moline 761 231 30.4% 13.9%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 207, 

Rock Island County, Illinois

East 

Moline 991 122 12.3% 13.9%

Block Group 1, Census Tract 214, 

Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 1,233 129 10.5% 9.5%

Block Group 1, Census Tract 223, 

Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 1,152 384 33.3% 9.5%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 223, 

Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 1,190 299 25.1% 9.5%

Block Group 1, Census Tract 15, 

Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 1,461 86 5.9% 21.7%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 15, 

Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 1,156 116 10.0% 21.7%

Block Group 1, Census Tract 16, 

Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 3,500 1,609 46.0% 21.7%

Block Group 1, Census Tract 17, 

Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 972 80 8.2% 21.7%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 17, 

Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 726 64 8.8% 21.7%

Block Group 3, Census Tract 17, 

Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 1,232 311 25.2% 21.7%

Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) Sample Data

B-4 of B-7
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Table B-5

Hispanic Population, Census Blocks in which Severe Noise Impacts Occur

Block Group City name Total Hispanic Percent City percent

Block 2062, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 206, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 82 44 53.7% 15.2%

Block 2065, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 206, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 85 31 36.5% 15.2%

Block 2066, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 206, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 77 51 66.2% 15.2%

Block 1006, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 207, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 59 34 57.6% 15.2%

Block 2000, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 207, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 47 16 34.0% 15.2%

Block 2004, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 207, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 46 11 23.9% 15.2%

Block 1004, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 214, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 49 0 0.0% 11.9%

Block 1011, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 214, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 54 10 18.5% 11.9%

Block 1018, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 214, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 19 9 47.4% 11.9%

Block 1022, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 214, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 47 2 4.3% 11.9%

Block 1035, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 214, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 26 10 38.5% 11.9%

Block 1017, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 20 9 45.0% 11.9%

Block 2010, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 68 61 89.7% 11.9%

Block 2011, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 23 21 91.3% 11.9%

Block 2014, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 52 20 38.5% 11.9%

Block 2015, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 38 23 60.5% 11.9%

Block 2023, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 66 56 84.8% 11.9%

Block 2024, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 47 43 91.5% 11.9%

Block 1042, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 15, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 114 6 5.3% 2.9%

B-5 of B-7
Table B-5

Hispanic Population, Census Blocks in which Severe Noise Impacts Occur

Block Group City name Total Hispanic Percent City percent

Block 2018, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 15, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 42 1 2.4% 2.9%

Block 2022, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 15, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 31 0 0.0% 2.9%

Block 1025, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 16, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 83 0 0.0% 2.9%

Block 1004, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 17, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 27 0 0.0% 2.9%

Block 2002, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 17, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 11 0 0.0% 2.9%

Block 3002, Block Group 3, Census 

Tract 17, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 72 3 4.2% 2.9%

Source: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data

B-6 of B-7
Table B-6

Population by Race, Census Blocks in which Severe Noise Impacts Occur

Block Group White alone

 City name Total Total Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent

Block 2062, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 206, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 82 41 10 12.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 30 36.6% 1 1.2%

Block 2065, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 206, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 85 56 8 9.4% 4 4.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 15 17.6% 2 2.4%

Block 2066, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 206, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 77 50 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 25 32.5% 2 2.6%

Block 1006, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 207, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 59 23 4 6.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 29 49.2% 3 5.1%

Block 2000, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 207, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 47 28 5 10.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 11 23.4% 3 6.4%

Block 2004, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 207, Rock Island County, Illinois East Moline 46 35 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 11 23.9% 0 0.0%

Block 1004, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 214, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 49 47 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 4.1%

Block 1011, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 214, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 54 44 3 5.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 13.0% 0 0.0%

Block 1018, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 214, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 19 12 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 31.6% 1 5.3%

Block 1022, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 214, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 47 45 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.1%

Block 1035, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 214, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 26 24 1 3.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 3.8% 0 0.0%

Block 1017, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 20 9 3 15.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.0% 0 0.0% 5 25.0% 2 10.0%

Block 2010, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 68 24 2 2.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 42 61.8% 0 0.0%

Block 2011, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 23 2 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 19 82.6% 2 8.7%

Block 2014, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 52 36 1 1.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 11 21.2% 4 7.7%

Block 2015, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 38 24 1 2.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 13 34.2% 0 0.0%

Block 2023, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 66 46 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 19 28.8% 1 1.5%

Block 2024, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 223, Rock Island County, Illinois Moline 47 37 1 2.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 19.1% 0 0.0%

Block 1042, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 15, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 114 90 10 8.8% 0 0.0% 7 6.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 6.1%

Block 2018, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 15, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 42 41 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.4% 0 0.0%

Block 2022, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 15, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 31 31 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Block 1025, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 16, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 83 75 1 1.2% 0 0.0% 5 6.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 2.4%

Block 1004, Block Group 1, Census 

Tract 17, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 27 27 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Block 2002, Block Group 2, Census 

Tract 17, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 11 11 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Block 3002, Block Group 3, Census 

Tract 17, Johnson County, Iowa Iowa City 72 66 3 4.2% 1 1.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.4% 1 1.4%

Source: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data

1.7%

1.7%

1.7%

1.7%

1.7%

1.7%

1.7%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.3%

1.3%

City pct

2.5%

2.5%

2.5%

2.5%

2.5%

2.5%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.8%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

0.0%

0.0%

City pct

7.5%

7.5%

7.5%

7.5%

7.5%

7.5%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3.7%

3.7%

City pct

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3.7%

3.7%

3.7%

3.7%

3.7%

3.1%

3.1%

3.1%

3.1%

3.1%

3.1%

3.1%

3.1%

3.1%

3.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

7.3%

7.3%

7.3%

3.1%

3.1%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.2%

0.2%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

0.3%

5.6%

5.6%

5.6%

5.6%

5.6%

1.4%

1.4%

5.6%

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

1.4%

5.6%

1.4%

1.4%

City pct

2.3%

2.3%

2.3%

2.3%

1.4%

1.4%

Two or more races

Black or African 

American alone

American Indian and 

Alaska Native alone Asian alone

Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific Islander Some other race alone

2.3%

2.3%

1.4%

City pct City pct

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

0.4%

7.3% 0.4%

7.3%

7.3%

B-7 of B-7
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
APPENDIX C 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

CONTENTS 

Noise and Vibration Methodology 

Preferred Alternative Noise and Vibration Contour Maps 

Route B Alternative Noise and Vibration Contour Maps 

Preferred Alternative and Route B Alternative Joint Segment Noise and Vibration 

Contour Maps
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
NOISE AND VIBRATION METHODOLOGY
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
1 

Noise and Vibration

This section discusses the methodology and potential impacts related to the operational 

airborne noise and vibrations from the proposed Chicago to Iowa City Project. The noise 

analysis followed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines published in “Transit Noise 

and Vibration Impact Assessment” (May 2006). The FRA published virtually identical guidance 

for assessing noise and vibration from high speed passenger trains in 2005. The Project team 

performed a Screening Noise Assessment using aspects of the General Noise Assessment and 

General Vibration Assessment in accordance with FTA guidelines. Both existing and future rail 

traffic were evaluated in order to assess the incremental, Project-related effects of airborne 

noise. Analysis results identified a limited number of potential noise impacts throughout the 

Project corridor. Noise from horns and wheel-rail interaction (wayside noise) contribute to the 

projected noise impacts. The methodology used to assess Project-related noise is based on 

guidance provided by the FRA for use in Tier 1 NEPA review. 

1.0 Noise Evaluation Criteria 

The FTA and FRA established similar procedures and guidelines for assessing train noise. Train 

noise is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA) as a function of time. The time 

descriptor used in this train noise assessment is the day-night noise level (Ldn). The Ldn can be 

thought of as a 24-hour average noise level that penalizes noise events that happen at night 

because most people are more annoyed by noise at nighttime than during the daytime. 

This Tier 1 Service-level (programmatic) NEPA noise assessment assessed Project-related 

noise at land uses where overnight sleep occurs (primarily residences); this is consistent with 

FRA guidance for Tier 1 Service-level NEPA review. Residences were identified by visual 

inspection of digital aerial photographs; no windshield surveys were performed. The impact 

assessment, discussed later in this document, uses the term receptors to refer to land uses 

where overnight sleep occurs; each noise impact identified later in this report represents a 

single receptor, or land use where overnight sleep occurs. 

This EA also performed a cursory review of land use adjacent to the Project corridors to 

determine where parks abut the rail lines. Visual inspection of digital aerial photographs and a 

limited search of the Internet identified a small number of parks immediately adjacent to the rail 

corridors. There may be other small parks that didn’t get picked up at this screening-level of 

analysis. Analysis results show that the incremental increase in the distance to the noise impact 

contour (the point at which noise impacts are no longer predicted to occur) in most instances is 

less than 20 feet. This small incremental change is nominal at this level of analysis, and 

impacted parks will be identified using the residential noise impact contours. Therefore the 

actual noise effect upon parks is minimal because the incremental change in noise is so small. 

Also, the Project will not introduce a noise source that is unfamiliar in the parks, (for the 

purposes of this analysis, diesel locomotives are assumed to sound the same). Therefore, this 

incremental increase does not merit a site-specific discussion of Project-related noise impacts at 

parks. Refer to Section 3.11, Parks and Federally or State-listed Natural Areas for additional 

information. 

The FTA noise impact criteria (summarized in Figure 1, FTA Noise Impact Criteria) are defined 

by two curves, representing severe and moderate noise impacts, which are defined below. 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

2 

Severe Impact. A significant percentage of people are highly annoyed by noise in this 

range. Noise mitigation would normally be specified for severe impact areas unless it is 

not feasible or reasonable (unless there is no practical method of mitigating the impact). 

Moderate Impact. In this range, other project-specific factors are considered to determine 

the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. Other factors include the 

predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of noise-sensitive 

land uses affected, existing outdoor-indoor sound insulation, and the cost-effectiveness 

of mitigating noise to more acceptable levels. 

The FTA noise impact criteria are summarized in Chart 1 (FTA Noise Impact Criteria) below. 

The chart illustrates existing noise exposure and project-related noise exposure, and 

demonstrates that FTA noise impact thresholds vary with existing noise levels. Although the 

chart below references all three land use categories used by FTA, this analysis focused on 

Category 2 (land uses where overnight sleep occurs). 

Chart 1 FTA Noise Impact Criteria 

The first step in the noise assessment is to identify existing noise levels. This assessment used 

methods published by FTA (2006) to estimate existing noise levels based on factors such as 

proximity to roadways, highways, and railroads, and also by population density. Per FTA 

guidance, the highest estimate of existing noise levels produced by these methods was 

incorporated into this analysis. In accordance with FTA and FRA guidance, this analysis used 

the existing noise level to identify the noise impact threshold. The noise impact threshold is 

determined by locating the measured or estimated existing noise level in a table published by 

FTA and FRA; the table identifies noise impact thresholds corresponding to the existing noise 

levels. Using the methods described above, this analysis determined an existing noise Ldn of 62 

dBA for lands immediately adjacent to the rail line everywhere throughout the Project corridors. 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

3 

The range of train volume and speeds present in the Project corridors were summarized into a 

series of eight traffic conditions (A through H), as shown in Table 1. This allowed the corridor to 

be subdivided into sections with similar train traffic characteristics. A series of “traffic 

conditions”, or zones, were established throughout the rail line; each traffic condition represents 

a range of similar rail traffic and surrounding land use (and existing noise levels). Assigning 

traffic conditions to the Project corridor allowed the corridor to be logically subdivided into subsections, simplifying the noise analysis. 

Table 1 

Summary of Traffic Conditions 

Traffic Condition Trains per Day No. of Locomotives No. of Cars Speed 

Freight Trains 

A 10.0 2.9 125.3 40 

B 10.0 2.9 125.3 15 

C 18.5 2.6 90.7 60 

D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

F 36.0 2.6 74.8 37 

G 36.0 2.6 74.8 60 

H 36.0 2.6 74.8 60 

Passenger Trains 

A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 

C 7.8 1.5 9.8 60 

D 53.7 1.0 12.7 60 

E 53.7 1.0 12.7 60 

F 89.1 1.0 11.4 37 

G 89.1 1.0 11.4 60 

H 89.1 1.0 11.4 60 

Future Passenger Trains 

A 4.0 1.0 8.0 79 

B 4.0 1.0 8.0 15 

C 4.0 1.0 8.0 79 

D 4.0 1.0 8.0 60 

E 4.0 1.0 8.0 60 

F 4.0 1.0 8.0 37 

G 4.0 1.0 8.0 70 

H 4.0 1.0 8.0 55 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

4 

In general, Traffic Condition A was defined for the rail sections along Route A from Iowa City to 

Wyanet (except the vicinity of Moline which was assigned Traffic Condition B), and from Wyanet 

to Joliet along Route B. Traffic Condition C includes the rail sections from Wyanet to Aurora 

along Route A. Traffic Condition D was assigned to the sections between Joliet and Englewood 

along Route B. Traffic Condition E was assigned from Aurora to Chicago along Route A, and 

from Englewood to Chicago along Route B. Conditions F through H were assigned from Aurora 

to Chicago along Route A. 

The range of development density present throughout the Project corridor was simplified into 

the three land use categories used in the FRA horn noise model (rural, suburban, and urban). 

The shielding assumptions used in that model, for each respective land use, were also 

incorporated into this analysis. A series of “noise conditions” were then created by combining 

traffic conditions and the three categories of development density. Table 2, below, summarizes 

the Noise Condition definitions. Figures C-1 through C-3 show the assigned Noise Conditions. 

Table 2 

Noise Condition Definitions 

Noise Condition Traffic Condition Development Density 

1 A Rural 

2 A Suburban 

3 B Suburban 

4 A Urban 

5 C Rural 

6 C Suburban 

7 D Urban 

8 D Suburban 

9 E Urban 

10 F Urban 

11 G Urban 

12 H Urban 

Assigning noise conditions to the Project corridor allowed the corridor to be logically subdivided 

into sub-sections with similar rail traffic, building-induced shielding characteristics, existing noise 

levels, and therefore noise impact thresholds (thus simplifying the noise analysis). The 

moderate noise impact threshold was 59 dBA and the severe noise impact threshold was 64 

dBA, both on an Ldn basis. 

The FRA grade crossing database was incorporated in this assessment. It was used to identify 

the locations of public at-grade rail crossings where locomotive horns are used, and also to 

identify where quiet zones exist. Based on the FRA database, this analysis assumes that a quiet 

zone exists between Chicago and Aurora on Alternative A (the northern route). In addition, 

according to the FRA grade crossing database all crossings appear to be grade-separated 

between Chicago and Englewood on Alternative B (the southern route). These portions of the 

Project area comprise much of Noise Condition 9. Therefore, horns are apparently not used on 

any Noise Condition 9 rail sections, and locomotive horn analyses were not performed for Noise 

Condition 9. 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

5 

The FRA locomotive horn noise model does not allow a modeler to model several different 

trains at the same time, and was therefore not used on this analysis. The horn noise contours 

were created using methods in the FTA and FRA guidance documents, and incorporating some 

of the features of the FRA horn noise model (the 1/4-mile horn noise zone distance, and the 

shielding equations). 

1.1 No-Build Alternative 

This analysis assumes that train-induced noise does not change anywhere throughout the 

Project area under the No-Build Alternative. 

1.2 Two Round Trip Trains per Day 

Both the existing and proposed (two round trip passenger TPD) rail traffic was assessed; this 

allowed the analysis to identify the incremental increase in train noise effects on residential land 

uses in the Project area – which is reported in the sections below. This portion of the analysis is 

based on the proposed addition of two round-trip passenger TPD at 79 mph from Chicago to 

Iowa City. Existing noise impacts were determined by modeling existing train traffic and plotting 

the resulting noise impact contour. 

1.2.1 Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

Table 3 presents the incremental increase in noise impacts at residential land uses adjacent to 

the Preferred Alternative. The table presents noise impacts predicted to occur in each 

municipality along the Preferred Alternative, according to moderate and severe grade crossing 

and wayside (wheel/rail) noise impacts. The portion of the route unique to Route A is 

distinguished from the portion of the route that would be the same for Routes A and B. The 

entire corridor was evaluated; rural areas are listed as unincorporated in the table below. 

Table 3 

Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternative 

Municipality 

Moderate Severe 

Total 

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside 

Alignment A 

Arlington 1 2 3 

Aurora 1 1 

Berwyn 3 2 5 

Brookfield 3 5 8 

Chicago 8 5 13 

Clarendon Hills 2 4 6 

Downers Grove 6 1 7 

Earlville 8 2 10 

Hinsdale 2 2 

Leland 2 6 8 

Lisle 1 1 

Malden 1 3 4 

Mendota 3 1 1 5 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

6 

Municipality 

Moderate Severe 

Total 

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside 

Montgomery 4 4 

Naperville 1 1 2 

Plano 10 5 15 

Princeton 1 1 2 

Riverside 13 10 23 

Sandwich 10 4 1 15 

Somonauk 3 1 1 5 

Western Springs 3 3 6 

Westmont 4 4 

Wyanet 6 1 7 

Unincorporated 5 9 5 12 31 

Common Section 

Annawan, IL 3 1 4

Atalissa, IA 3 6 9

Atkinson, IL 4 4

Carbon Cliff, IL 1 1 2

Colona, IL 9 2 3 1 15

Davenport, IA 17 15 1 2 35

Durant, IA 9 9

East Moline, IL 39 8 4 51

Geneseo, IL 12 1 13

Green River, IL 1 1

Iowa City, IA 1 6 1 9 17

Mineral, IL 1 3 4

Moline, IL 37 4 6 3 50

Rock Island, IL 2 1 6 9

Sheffield, IL 2 2

Silvis, IL 2 2

Stockton, IA 1 2 3 6

Walcott, IA 7 7

West Liberty, IA 4 4

Wilton, IA 5 1 6

Unincorporated 10 4 6 2 22

Alternative A Totals 224 93 75 67 459

317 142 

Analysis results show a low incremental increase in noise impacts per mile associated with the 

Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is projected to result in: 1.5 new moderate noise 

impacts per mile; 0.7 new severe noise impacts per mile, and a combined average total of 2.1 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

7 

noise impacts per mile. On this basis, the incremental increase in train noise is not considered 

to be significant for this analysis. The table above shows that the distribution of Project-related 

noise impacts is scattered throughout the Project corridor. Areas with high existing traffic 

volumes, and quiet zones are expected to experience a minor incremental increase in train 

noise associated with the Preferred Alternative. Conversely, areas with low existing traffic 

volumes, slow trains, and fewer or no quiet zones are expected to experience a larger 

incremental increase in train noise associated with the Preferred Alternative. 

Table 3 reflects the trend of a low incremental increase in noise impacts in Chicago where train 

volumes are already higher than elsewhere in the corridor but much of the area along the 

Preferred Alternative consists of a quiet zone. Analysis results show that municipalities in the 

Quad Cities, where train speeds and volumes are low, and quiet zones do not exist, are likely to 

experience a larger incremental increase in train noise levels and corresponding impacts 

associated with the Preferred Alternative. The influence of quiet zones on the magnitude of the 

incremental increase in train noise impacts suggests they represent an opportunity to mitigate 

many of the predicted train noise impacts. 

1.2.1.1 Route B Alternative (AMTRAK-CN-METRA/ROCK ISLAND DISTRICT-CSXT-IAIS) 

Table 4 presents the incremental increase in noise impacts at residential land uses adjacent to 

the Route B Alternative. The table presents noise impacts predicted to occur in each 

municipality along the Route B Alternative, and sorts the impacts in to moderate and severe 

grade crossing and wayside (wheel/rail) noise impacts. The portion of the route unique to Route 

B is distinguished from the portion of the route that would be the same for Routes A and B. The 

number of moderate and severe noise impacts in unincorporated, rural areas is also quite low 

due to the low density of development in these areas. 

Table 4 

Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the Route B Alternative 

Municipality 

Moderate Severe 

Total 

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside 

Alignment B 

Blue Island 5 4 1 1 11 

Bureau Junction 5 5 10 

Chicago 12 12 13 11 48

De Pue 4 4 

Joliet 2 2 2 6 

La Salle 2 2 4 

Marseilles 18 4 4 4 30 

Midlothian 2 1 3 

Minooka 12 12 

Mokena 5 1 1 7 

Morris 10 10 

New Lenox 1 1 2 

North Utica 5 2 7 

Oak Forest 5 1 6 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

8 

Municipality 

Moderate Severe 

Total 

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside 

Ottawa 6 2 8 

Peru 2 2 

Rockdale 1 1 

Seneca 2 2 

Spring Valley 1 1 

Tinley Park 1 1 2 

Tiskilwa 2 1 3 

Unincorporated 1 3 5 9 

Common Section 

Annawan, IL 3 1 4 

Atalissa, IA 3 6 9 

Atkinson, IL 4 4 

Carbon Cliff, IL 1 1 2 

Colona, IL 9 2 3 1 15 

Davenport, IA 17 15 1 2 35 

Durant, IA 9 9 

East Moline, IL 39 8 4 51 

Geneseo, IL 12 1 13 

Green River, IL 1 1 

Iowa City, IA 1 6 1 9 17 

Mineral, IL 1 3 4 

Moline, IL 37 4 6 3 50 

Rock Island, IL 2 1 6 9 

Sheffield, IL 2 2 

Silvis, IL 2 2 

Stockton, IA 1 2 3 6 

Walcott, IA 7 7 

West Liberty, IA 4 4 

Wilton, IA 5 1 6 

Unincorporated 10 4 6 2 22 

Alternative B Totals 268 69 83 40 460 

337 123 

The Route B Alternative is projected to result in: 1.4 new moderate noise impacts per mile; 0.5 

new severe noise impacts per mile, and a combined total of 2.0 noise impacts per mile. On this 

basis, the incremental increase in train noise is not considered to be significant for this analysis. 

The table above shows that the distribution of Project-related noise impacts is also scattered 

throughout the Project corridor. Unlike the Preferred Alternative, the Route B alternative does 

not contain a quiet zone in the Chicago metro area. As a result, train noise impacts are 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

9 

predicted to be higher along this alternative. Consistent with the Preferred Alternative, areas 

with low existing traffic volumes, slow trains, and no quiet zones are also expected to 

experience a larger incremental increase in train noise associated with the Route B Alternative. 

Table 4 also reflects the trend of high incremental increase in noise impacts in Chicago and in 

the Quad Cities. The number of noise impacts in unincorporated, rural areas is comparable to 

the Preferred Alternative. The absence of quiet zones on the Route B Alternative and its 

influence on the magnitude of the incremental increase in train noise impacts also suggests that 

they represent an opportunity to mitigate many of the predicted train noise impacts. 

1.2.2 Five Round-Trip Trains Per Day 

The MWRRI envisions five round-trip trains per day (TPD) – at 90 mph, from Chicago to 

Wyanet, Illinois; and 79 mph from Wyanet to Iowa City, Iowa. This level of increased train 

activity was assessed in this Tier 1 Service-level (programmatic) NEPA review to help inform 

the reader of the likely potential impacts from the complete implementation of the MWRRI 

vision. (A separate NEPA analysis would be required prior to increasing the train numbers and 

speeds.) 

Five round-trip TPD were evaluate using the same methods and modeling approach as 

described in the previous section, but with increased future passenger train traffic. Table 5 

presents a simple comparison of noise contour distances under each of the ranges of rail traffic. 

Table 5 

Impact Threshold Contour Distances 

Noise 

Condition 

Existing 

Moderate 

Impact 

4-TPD 

Moderate 

Impact 

10-TPD 

Moderate 

Impact 

Existing 

Severe Impact 

4-TPD Severe 

Impact 

10-TPD 

Severe Impact 

 Wayside Contour Distances (ft) 

1 274 295 324 126 136 149 

2 200 212 229 126 136 149 

3 264 296 336 179 207 245 

4 183 194 210 126 136 149 

5 391 408 432 180 188 199 

6 266 275 287 180 188 199 

7 203 210 203 104 108 104 

8 222 229 222 143 149 143 

9 203 210 203 104 108 104 

10 281 286 281 149 152 149 

11 256 261 256 134 137 134 

12 256 261 256 134 137 134 

 Grade Crossing Contour Distances (ft) 

1 377 404 441 258 285 323 

2 349 375 410 200 206 229 

3 504 570 647 291 336 391 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

10 

Noise 

Condition 

Existing 

Moderate 

Impact 

4-TPD 

Moderate 

Impact 

10-TPD 

Moderate 

Impact 

Existing 

Severe Impact 

4-TPD Severe 

Impact 

10-TPD 

Severe Impact 

4 323 348 381 174 189 210 

5 436 458 483 318 342 371 

6 405 426 450 225 239 255 

7 505 520 505 291 301 291 

8 541 556 541 316 326 316 

9 505 520 505 291 301 291 

10 720 731 720 444 452 444 

11 613 621 613 366 372 366 

12 613 624 613 366 374 366 

Note: Italicized contour distances do not include a shielding correction because the corrected distance is less than 

the FRA-assumed threshold distance for applying shielding in areas with the specified density of development. 

TPD means trains per day. 

The table above shows that the incremental increase in noise impact contour distances 

associated with the five round trip TPD scenario is greatest in noise condition 3 areas where 

train speeds are slow and development density and shielding is classified as suburban. The 

incremental increase in noise impact contours is least in noise condition 9 areas where 

development density is high and train volumes are high. 

1.2.3 Noise Mitigation Opportunities 

As shown above, the presence or absence of quiet zones has a large effect on the predicted 

number of train noise impacts. Locomotive horn use at public-at grade crossings causes the 

majority of the predicted noise impacts. Therefore, minimizing locomotive horn use in the 

Project area represents the greatest opportunity to mitigate potential Project-related noise 

impacts. The Project would upgrade some electronic circuitry due to installation of constant time 

circuitry (warning lights) at public at-grade roadway-rail crossings. In effect, the Project would 

install the electronic infrastructure for quiet zones. Municipalities predicted to experience an 

increase in train noise impacts can chose to initiate the process of developing quiet zones, and 

to take advantage of the infrastructure provided by the proposed Project. The largest 

concentration of anticipated noise impacts would be in the Quad Cities region. The following 

additional receptors would be impacted under either alternative route: 56 in East Moline, 58 in 

Moline, 10 in Rock Island, and 36 in Davenport. The increase in receptors would be primarily 

due to the slow speed of the existing track configuration through the Quad Cities area. Colona, 

IL would also see an additional 20 receptors impacted primarily due to the slow current track 

speed at the crossing of the IAIS and the BNSF rail lines. 

However, track improvements would be made in both the Quad Cities and in Colona to improve 

the fluidity of the passenger trains and to increase the passenger rail speed through the 

communities. In the Quad Cities, track signals would be improved through East Moline, Moline, 

Rock Island and Davenport to allow for an increase in passenger train speeds from the current 

10 to 15 mph constraint to 40 mph. In addition, a passenger train by-pass of the Rock Island 

yard would be constructed to reduce the delays to the passenger trains through the yard. In 

Colona, the crossing of the BNSF and IAIS rail lines would be reconstructed to increase the 

track speed on the IAIS from the current 10 mph to 40 mph. These improvements in the Quad 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

11 

Cities and Colona would also improve the speed for the current freight trains. The speed 

increases would reduce the number of noise receptors that would be impacted because the 

duration of a locomotive horn use (pass-by) event would be shorter. 

2.0 Ground-borne Vibration 

This section summarizes potential ground-borne vibration (GBV) impacts associated with the 

proposed Project. The General Vibration Assessment described here was prepared in 

accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines (“Transit Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment,” May 2006); FRA has very similar vibration assessment methods. The 

purpose of this assessment is to determine the number of potential ground-borne vibration 

(GBV) impacts associated with the proposed Project at vibration-sensitive land uses (receptors) 

throughout the Project corridor. 

Existing and future rail traffic scenarios were analyzed, and the incremental increase in groundborne vibration associated with the proposed Project was identified. 

2.6 Human Response and Perception of Vibration Levels

GBV can be a serious concern for residents or at facilities that are vibration-sensitive, such as 

laboratories or recording studios. The effects of GBV include perceptible movement of building 

floors, interference with vibration sensitive instruments, rattling of windows, shaking of items on 

shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. 

Vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions. However, human response to vibration is a 

function of the average motion over a longer (but still short) time period, such as one second. 

The root mean square (RMS) amplitude of a motion over a one second period is commonly 

used to predict human response to vibration. For convenience, decibel notation is used to 

describe vibration relative to a reference level. In this section, vibration decibels (VdB) relative to 

a reference of 10-6 inches per second (1 たin/sec) are used. 

In contrast to airborne noise, GBV is not a phenomenon that most people experience every day. 

The background vibration level in residential areas is usually 50 VdB or lower—well below the 

threshold of perception for humans, which is around 65 VdB. Levels at which vibration interferes 

with sensitive instrumentation such as nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) equipment and other 

optical instrumentation can be much lower than the threshold of human perception. Most 

perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within a building such as the operation of 

mechanical equipment, movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of 

perceptible GBV are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. 

Vibration as it relates to railway movements is generally caused by uneven interactions between 

the wheels of the train and the railway surfaces. Examples of this include wheels rolling over rail 

joints and flat spots on wheels that are not true. These uneven interactions result in vibration 

that travels through the adjacent ground. This vibration can range from barely perceptible to 

very disruptive. Consistent with other FRA Tier 1 Service-level NEPA vibration assessments, 

ground-borne noise was not evaluated in this analysis. 

2.6.1 FTA Vibration Criteria 

The FTA recognizes three land use categories for assessing general vibration impacts. 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

12 

Land Use Category 1 – High Vibration Sensitivity: This category includes buildings 

where low ambient vibration is essential for operations within the building that may be 

well below levels associated with human annoyance. Typical Category 1 land uses 

include vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hospitals, and university 

research operations. Category 1 also includes special land uses, such as concert halls, 

television and recording studios, and theaters, which can be very sensitive to vibration 

and ground-borne noise. The FTA has developed special vibration levels for these land 

uses. 

Land Use Category 2 – Residential: This category includes all residential land uses and 

any building where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. 

Land Use Category 3 – Institutional: This category includes schools, churches, other 

institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still 

have the potential for activity interference. 

The criteria for GBV used in this assessment are shown in Table 6. 

Table 6 

Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Criteria 

Land Use Category Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels 

(VdB re 1 micro inch/sec) 

Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2Infrequent Events3

Category 2: Residences and buildings 

where people normally sleep. 

72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 

Source: FTA, “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (May 2006) (FTA-VA-90-1103-06), page 8-3. 

Notes: 

1

 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this 

category. 

2

 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most 

commuter trunk lines have this many operations. 

3

 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events per day. This category includes most commuter 

rail branch lines. 

4

 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical 

microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define the 

acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the 

HVAC systems and stiffened floors. 

Table 6 includes impact criteria for all three event frequencies defined by FTA. Based on the 

daily train counts for the current and anticipated rail usage, and the number of locomotives per 

train, the number of vibration events may range from less than 30 (infrequent) to over 70 

(frequent) events per day depending on location. FTA recommends, however, that the frequentevent criterion be applied for line-haul freight trains because of the lengthy vibration event 

caused by the rail cars. Since both Routes A and B contain qualifying line-haul freight traffic, the 

frequent-event criterion is applied in this assessment. The frequent-event criterion represents 

the most conservative case. 

2.6.2 Methodology 

A General Vibration Assessment was performed in accordance with the FTA guidance 

document (2006). Only GBV was evaluated. For purposes of this assessment ground-borne 

noise, (which is different than both air-borne noise and ground-borne vibration, and can be 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

13 

estimated using FTA/FRA methods),was not addressed; this is consistent with vibration 

analyses performed for FRA on other Tier 1 service-level HSIPR projects. Both existing and 

proposed (future) operations were evaluated to assess the potential vibration impact along 

Routes A and B. The future use scenario includes passenger trains moving at 79 miles per hour 

(mph), along with existing freight train traffic, on welded track. A potential 90 mph passenger 

train scenario on Route A was partially analyzed for a future 5 train/day scenario, and potential 

impact distances are provided for comparison purposes 

The assessment began with a data gathering task and construction of a geographic information 

system (GIS) for the Project. The railroad alignments, surface geology, aerial photography, and 

train traffic data (number of locomotives and rail cars per train) were among the critical 

information gathered. Geology sources included GIS data and maps available at the Iowa 

Geological Survey and Illinois State Geological Survey websites. Train traffic data were 

compiled during the noise assessment. The traffic conditions developed for use in the noise 

assessment documented in the first part of this section were also applied in the vibration 

analysis. The traffic conditions, described in Table 7, refer to sections of rail which have specific 

combinations of train speed and frequency (although for the vibration assessment the frequentevent criterion is assumed). The frequent event vibration impact threshold is lower than the 

infrequent event vibration impact threshold. This adds an element of conservatism to the 

analysis. 

Table 7 

Traffic Conditions 

Traffic Condition Location 

Speed (mph) 

Existing Future 

A Aurora; Wyanet to Moline; Moline to Iowa City 40 79 

B Moline 15 15 

C Aurora to Wyanet 60 79 

D Englewood to Joliet 60 60 

E Chicago to Englewood 60 60 

F Chicago to West Side 37 37 

G West Side to Eola 60 70 

H Eola to Aurora 60 55 

Once the necessary datasets had been gathered, the vibration impacts for existing and future 

scenarios were analyzed. The generalized ground surface vibration curves (Figure 10-1 in the 

FTA guidance document) provide the distance from track centerline within which potential 

receptors (impacts) should be counted at various vibration decibel (VdB) levels. In order to 

determine the distance to potential impacts at Category 2 thresholds, the generalized 

(reference) ground surface vibration curve needs to be adjusted to more accurately fit the actual 

conditions. 

The ground-borne vibration reference curve most applicable to this Project assumes a 

locomotive-powered passenger or freight train traveling at 50 mph on CWR, over soil that is 

inefficient at transmitting vibration. Given the actual geologic conditions and the current and 

future train speeds, adjustments for geology and train speed were needed. (Note: it is assumed 

that all existing jointed track would be replaced with CWR.) The surface geology of the area 

generally consists of a mixture of silt, sand, gravel, and floodplain sediments, all of which are 

assumed to be non-efficient at transmitting vibration for this assessment, and glacial till, which is 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

14 

assumed to be a stiff clay and efficient at transmitting vibration. The approximate linear extent of 

efficient and non-efficient soil that each traffic condition section transects was calculated and a 

weighted average vibration decibel (VdB) adjustment applied to the section. The reference 

vibration curve adjustment factors for existing use, future 79 mph, and future 90 mph scenarios 

are provided in Tables 8 through 10, respectively. The 90 mph scenario applies only to the five 

round trip TPD option. 

The information contained in Tables 8 through 10, on the following pages, was used to adjust 

the ground surface vibration reference curve and determine an appropriate estimate of vibration 

levels for this Project. The new ground-borne vibration curves, based on the adjustment factors, 

are shown in Charts 2 through 4, which follow. The distance to the ground-borne vibration 

impact contour was established using Charts 2 through 4. 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

15 

Table 8 

Reference Vibration Curve Adjustment Factors (Existing Use) 

Reference Curve Assumptions: 

Vehicle Type: Locomotive Powered Passenger or Freight 

Speed (mph): 50 

Track: Continuously Welded Rail (CWR) 

Geology: Normal soil, inefficient at transmitting vibration 

Traffic Condition A (Aurora; Wyanet to East Moline; Moline to Iowa City):

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight 

Speed (mph): 40 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 303,853 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 659,853 Linear Ft 

 Total 963,706 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: -1.9 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 3.2 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 1.2 dB 

Traffic Condition B (East Moline to Moline): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight 

Speed (mph): 15 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 38,554 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 28,805 Linear Ft 

 Total 67,359 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: -10.5 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 5.7 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: -4.7 dB 

Traffic Condition C (Aurora to Wyanet): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 60 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 89,277 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 246,281 Linear Ft 

 Total 335,558 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 1.6 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 2.7 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 4.2 dB 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

16 

Traffic Condition D (Englewood to Joliet): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Passenger 

Speed (mph): 60 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 146,328 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 21,454 Linear Ft 

 Total 167,782 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 1.6 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 8.7 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 10.3 dB 

Traffic Condition E (Chicago to Englewood): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 60 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 24,628 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 2,883 Linear Ft 

 Total 27,511 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 1.6 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 9.0 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 10.5 dB 

Traffic Condition F (Chicago to West Side): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 37 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 21,120 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 0 Linear Ft 

 Total 21,120 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: -2.6 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 10.0 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 7.4 dB 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

17 

Traffic Condition G (West Side to Eola): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 60 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 125,101 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 38,579 Linear Ft 

 Total 163,680 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 1.6 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 7.6 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 9.2 dB 

Traffic Condition H (Eola to Aurora): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 60 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 16,368 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 0 Linear Ft 

 Total 16,368 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 1.6 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 10.0 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 11.6 dB 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

18 

Table 9 

Reference Vibration Curve Adjustment Factors (Future 79 mph Use) 

Reference Curve Assumptions: 

Vehicle Type: Locomotive Powered Passenger or Freight 

Speed (mph): 50 

Track: Continuously Welded Rail (CWR) 

Geology: Normal soil, inefficient at transmitting vibration 

Traffic Condition A (Aurora; Wyanet to East Moline; Moline to Iowa City):

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 79 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 303,853 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 659,853 Linear Ft 

 Total 963,706 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 4.0 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 3.2 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 7.1 dB 

Traffic Condition B (East Moline to Moline): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 15 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 38,554 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 28,805 Linear Ft 

 Total 67,359 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: -10.5 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 5.7 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: -4.7 dB 

Traffic Condition C (Aurora to Wyanet): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 79 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 89,277 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 246,281 Linear Ft 

 Total 335,558 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 4.0 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 2.7 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 6.6 dB 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

19 

Traffic Condition D (Englewood to Joliet): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 60 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 146,328 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 21,454 Linear Ft 

 Total 167,782 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 1.6 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 8.7 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 10.3 dB 

Traffic Condition E (Chicago to Englewood): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 60 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 24,628 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 2,883 Linear Ft 

 Total 27,511 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 1.6 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 9.0 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 10.5 dB 

Traffic Condition F (Chicago to West Side): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 37 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 21,120 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 0 Linear Ft 

 Total 21,120 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: -2.6 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 10.0 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 7.4 dB 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

20 

Traffic Condition G (West Side to Eola): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 70 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 125,101 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 38,579 Linear Ft 

 Total 163,680 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 2.9 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 7.6 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 10.6 dB 

Traffic Condition H (Eola to Aurora): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 55 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 16,368 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 0 Linear Ft 

 Total 16,368 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 0.8 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 10.0 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 10.8 dB 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

21 

Table 10 

Reference Vibration Curve Adjustment Factors (Future 90 mph Use) 

Reference Curve Assumptions: 

Vehicle Type: Locomotive Powered Passenger or Freight 

Speed (mph): 50 

Track: Continuously Welded Rail (CWR) 

Geology: Normal soil, inefficient at transmitting vibration 

Traffic Condition A (Aurora; Wyanet to East Moline; Moline to Iowa City):

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 90 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 303,853 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 659,853 Linear Ft 

 Total 963,706 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 5.1 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 3.2 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 8.3 dB 

Traffic Condition B (East Moline to Moline): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 15 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 38,554 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 28,805 Linear Ft 

 Total 67,359 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: -10.5 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 5.7 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: -4.7 dB 

Traffic Condition C (Aurora to Wyanet): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 90 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 89,277 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 246,281 Linear Ft 

 Total 335,558 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 5.1 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 2.7 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 7.8 dB 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

22 

Traffic Condition D (Englewood to Joliet): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 90 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 146,328 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 21,454 Linear Ft 

 Total 167,782 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 5.1 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 8.7 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 13.8 dB 

Traffic Condition E (Chicago to Englewood): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 90 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 24,628 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 2,883 Linear Ft 

 Total 27,511 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 5.1 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 9.0 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 14.1 dB 

Traffic Condition F (Chicago to West Side): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 37 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 21,120 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 0 Linear Ft 

 Total 21,120 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: -2.6 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 10.0 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 7.4 dB 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

23 

Traffic Condition G (West Side to Eola): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 90 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 125,101 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 38,579 Linear Ft 

 Total 163,680 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 5.1 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 7.6 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 12.7 dB 

Traffic Condition H (Eola to Aurora): 

Train Type: Locomotive Powered Freight and Passenger 

Speed (mph): 90 

Track: CWR (same as reference case) 

Geology: Till 16,368 Linear Ft 

 Sand/Gravel/Sed 0 Linear Ft 

 Total 16,368 Linear Ft 

Reference Curve Adjustment Factors: 

Increased Speed: 5.1 dB, calc. per FTA guidance 

Track: 0 dB 

Geology: 10 dB, for till (efficient soil) 

 0 dB, for sand/gravel/sediment (inefficient soil) 

 10.0 dB, weighted average over section 

Total Adjustments: 15.1 dB 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

24 

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

10 100 1000 10000

RMS Velocity Level (VdB)

Distance from Track Centerline (ft)

Chart 2

Ground Surface Vibration Curves - Existing Use

Reference Curve 

(50mph)

Traffic Condition A

Traffic Condition B

Traffic Condition C

Traffic Condition D

Traffic Condition E

Traffic Condition F

Traffic Condition G

Traffic Condition H
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

25 

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

10 100 1000 10000

RMS Velocity Level (VdB)

Distance from Track Centerline (ft)

Chart 3

Ground Surface Vibration Curves - Future 79mph Use

Reference Curve 

(50mph)

Traffic Condition A

Traffic Condition B

Traffic Condition C

Traffic Condition D

Traffic Condition E

Traffic Condition F

Traffic Condition G

Traffic Condition H
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

26 

This Tier 1 Service-level NEPA vibration assessment only assessed Project-related groundborne vibration at land uses where overnight sleep occurs (primarily residences) for the same 

reasons as noted in the introduction to Section 3.7. 

2.6.2.1 No-Build Alternative 

This analysis assumes that train-induced ground-borne vibration does not change anywhere 

throughout the Project area under the No-Build Alternative. Consequently, no new vibration 

impacts are projected to occur beyond those that could occur due to other projects. 

2.6.2.2 Two Round Trip Trains per Day 

Both the existing and proposed (two round trip TPD) rail traffic was assessed; this allowed the 

analysis to identify the incremental increase in ground-borne vibration effects on residential land 

uses in the Project area for Routes A and B. 

2.6.2.3 Preferred Alternative (Route A – Amtrak-BNSF-IAIS) 

Table 11 presents the incremental increase in vibration impacts, as defined by FTA, at 

residential land uses adjacent to the entire Preferred Alternative, including rural areas. The table 

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

10 100 1000 10000

RMS Velocity Level (VdB)

Distance from Track Centerline (ft)

Chart 4

Ground Surface Vibration Curves - Future 90mph Use

Reference Curve 

(50mph)

Traffic Condition A

Traffic Condition B

Traffic Condition C

Traffic Condition D

Traffic Condition E

Traffic Condition F

Traffic Condition G

Traffic Condition H
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

27 

presents vibration impacts predicted to occur in each municipality along the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Table 11 

Incremental Increase in Ground-borne Vibration Impacts 

Associated with the Preferred Alternative 

Municipality No. of Impacts Municipality No. of Impacts 

Alignment A Common Section 

Arlington, IL 8 Atalissa, IA 20

Aurora, IL 23 Davenport, IA 304 

Berwyn, IL 51 Durant, IA 53 

Brookfield, IL 55 Iowa City, IA 174 

Chicago, IL 110 Stockton, IA 27 

Cicero, IL 24 Walcott, IA 56 

Clarendon Hills, IL 35 West Liberty, IA 40 

Downers Grove, IL 81 Wilton, IA 35 

Earlville, IL 19 Annawan, IL 27 

Hinsdale, IL 41 Atkinson, IL 25 

La Grange, IL 38 Geneseo, IL 61 

Leland, IL 23 Mineral, IL 20 

Lisle, IL 44 Sheffield, IL 21 

Malden, IL 10 Unincorporated 58 

Mendota, IL 32 

Montgomery, IL 28 

Naperville, IL 68 

Oswego, IL 16 

Plano, IL 13 

Princeton, IL 5 

Riverside, IL 39 

Sandwich, IL 33 

Somonauk, IL 34 

Western Springs, IL 33 

Westmont, IL 31 

Wyanet, IL 20 

Unincorporated 93 

Vibration Impacts Associated with Alternative A 1,928

Analysis results identified approximately 9 additional vibration impacts per mile associated with 

the Preferred Alternative. This increase is not considered to be significant for this analysis. 

Analysis results also show that the number of vibration impacts in each municipality is related to 

the density of residential development in areas immediately adjacent to the rail line. 
Appendix C Noise and Vibration 

28 

2.6.2.4 Route B Alternative (AMTRAK-CN-METRA/ROCK ISLAND DISTRICT-CSXT-IAIS) 

Table 12 presents the incremental increase in ground-borne vibration impacts, as defined by 

FTA, at residential land uses adjacent to the Route B Alternative. The table presents vibration 

impacts predicted to occur in each municipality along the Route B Alternative. The number of 

vibration impacts in unincorporated, rural areas is also quite low due to the low density of 

development in these areas. 

Table 12 

Incremental Increase in Ground-borne Vibration Impacts 

Associated with the Route B Alternative 

Municipality No. of Impacts Municipality No. of Impacts 

Alignment B Common Section 

Bureau Junction, IL 24 Atalissa, IA 20 

De Pue, IL 74 Davenport, IA 304 

Joliet, IL 28 Durant, IA 53 

La Salle, IL 55 Iowa City, IA 174 

Marseilles, IL 195 Stockton, IA 27 

Minooka, IL 54 Walcott, IA 56 

Morris, IL 119 West Liberty, IA 40 

North Utica, IL 44 Wilton, IA 35 

Ottawa, IL 102 Annawan, IL 27 

Peru, IL 41 Atkinson, IL 25 

Rockdale, IL 19 Geneseo, IL 61 

Seneca, IL 28 Mineral, IL 20 

Spring Valley, IL 18 Sheffield, IL 21 

Tiskilwa, IL 27 Unincorporated 58 

Unincorporated 52 

Vibration Impacts Associated with Alternative B 1,801

Analysis results identified approximately 8 additional vibration impacts per mile associated with 

the Route B Alternative. This increase in the number of vibration impacts is slightly less than the 

number of vibration impacts calculated for Route A, and is also not considered to be significant 

for this analysis. Analysis results show that the number of vibration impacts is related to the 

density of residential development in areas immediately adjacent to the rail line. 

2.6.3 Five Round-Trip Trains per Day 

The MWRRI envisions five round-trip TPD – at 90 mph, from Chicago to Wyanet, Illinois; and 

79 mph from Wyanet to Iowa City, Iowa. This level of increased train activity was assessed in 

this Tier 1 Service-level (programmatic) NEPA review to help inform the reader of the likely 

potential impacts from the complete implementation of the MWRRI vision. (A separate NEPA 

analysis would be required prior to increasing the train numbers.) 

Five round-trip TPD scenario was evaluated using the same methods and modeling approach 

as described in the previous section, but with increased future passenger train traffic. Table 13 
Noise and Vibration Appendix C 

29 

presents a simple comparison of vibration impact contour distances for existing conditions, 79 

mph train service, and 90 mph train service. 

Table 13 

Distances to Category 2 Ground-Borne Vibration Impacts 

Scenario 

GBV 

Impact 

Level 

(VdB) 

Distance to Impact Level (ft) 

Traffic 

Cond. A 

Traffic 

Cond. B 

Traffic 

Cond. C 

Traffic 

Cond. D 

Traffic 

Cond. E 

Traffic 

Cond. F 

Traffic 

Cond. G 

Traffic 

Cond. H 

Existing Use 72 212 119 281 499 504 380 450 560 

Future Use: 

79 mph 72 370 119 352 499 504 380 509 520 

Future Use: 

90 mph 72 414 119 394 685 700 380 620 773 

The table above shows that as the train speed increases, the distance to the ground-borne 

vibration impact contour also increase. Note that the distance to the vibration impact threshold 

remains the same under traffic conditions B and F. Traffic condition B represents the portion of 

the Quad Cities area that imposes a 15 mph speed limit on trains, therefore the distance to the 

vibration impact contour does not change. Traffic condition F represents a portion of the 

Preferred Alternative near downtown Chicago where the average speed of future traffic is 37 

mph. For purposes of this assessment, the same average speed was applied to existing traffic. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

NOISE AND VIBRATION CONTOUR MAPS 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 1

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 2

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 3

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 4

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 5

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 6

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 7

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 8

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 9

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 10

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 11

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 12

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 13

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 14

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 15

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 16

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 17

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 18

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 19

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 20

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 21

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 22

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 23

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 24

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 25

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 26

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 27

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 28

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 29

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route A Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 30 30

County Boundary
ROUTE B ALTERNATIVE 

NOISE AND VIBRATION CONTOUR MAPS 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 1 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 2 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 3 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 4 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 5 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 6 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 7

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 8 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 9 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 10 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 11 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 12 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 13 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 14 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 15 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 16 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 17 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 18 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 19 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 20 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 21 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 22 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 23 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 24 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 25 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 26 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 27 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 28 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 29 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 30 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 31 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 32 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 33 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 34 County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE

CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Route B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

Sheet of 35 35 County Boundary
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND ROUTE B ALTERNATIVE JOINT SEGMENT 

NOISE AND VIBRATION CONTOUR MAPS 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 1 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 2 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 3 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 4 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 5 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 6 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 7 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 8 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 9 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 10 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 11 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 12 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 13 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 14 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 15 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 16 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 17 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 18 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 19 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 20 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 21 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 22 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 23 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 24 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 25 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 26 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 27 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 28 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 29 heet of 30

County Boundary
VIBRATION and NOISE CONTOURS and IMPACTS

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

September 2009

Rts A & B Alternative

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_7_3_VibNoiContours15K.mxd) 9/22/2009 -csers

0 0.5 1

Miles

Vibration Impacts

Vibration Impact - Future

Noise Impacts

Moderate - Future

Severe - Future

Noise Contours

Moderate Level - Existing

Moderate Level - Future

Severe Level - Existing

Severe Level - Future

Vibration Contours

Existing Contour

Future Contour

Map Location

S 30 heet of 30

County Boundary
APPENDIX D 

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES 

CONTENTS 

Table D-1 Route A Alternative - Hazardous Material Sites by Community 

Table D-2 Route B Alternative - Hazardous Material Sites by Community 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Table D-1

Route A Alternative

Hazardous Material Sites by Community

Total Superfund RCRA

Wyanet IL 2 0 2 3

Sheffield IL 14 1 5 1

Mineral IL 3 0 0 1

Atkinson IL 5 0 1 1

Geneseo IL 41 0 4 5

East Moline IL 12 0 9 5

Moline IL 24 1 16 10

Illinois subtotal 101 2 37 26

Davenport IA 19 1 14 12

Walcott IA 13 0 5 1

Durant IA 22 0 7 2

Wilton IA 14 0 3 2

Atalissa IA 2 0 0 0

West Liberty IA 8 0 5 1

Iowa City IA 9 0 5 0

Iowa subtotal 87 1 39 18

Total 188 3 76 44

Sources:

Notes:

a

 Superfund and RCRA sites are a subset of EPA sites

b

 Sites within approximately 500 feet (either side) of railroad line

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 8, 2009. Facility Registration System. Accessed 

August, 27, 2009. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/fii/fii_query_java.html

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. May 15, 2003. Remediation Sites. Accessed August 18, 

2009. http://maps.epa.state.il.us/website/remediation/.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Undated. Iowa DNR Interactive Mapping - LUST Sites. 

Accessed August 18, 2009. http://programs.iowadnr.gov/ims/website/lust_sites/viewer.htm.

City State

State 

Remediation Sitesb

EPA Sitesa,b

D-1 of D-2
Table D-2

Route B Alternative

Hazardous Material Sites by Community

Total Superfund RCRA

Joliet IL 21 1 15 6

Minooka IL 5 0 4 2

Morris IL 9 0 2 2

Seneca IL 5 0 0 3

Marseilles IL 8 0 4 5

Ottawa IL 19 0 12 6

Utica IL 3 0 1 2

La Salle IL 4 0 1 6

Peru IL 8 1 4 0

Spring Valley IL 3 0 1 1

Depue IL 0 0 0 2

Bureau IL 0 0 0 1

Tiskilwa IL 8 0 1 3

Wyanet IL 2 0 2 3

Sheffield IL 14 1 5 1

Mineral IL 3 0 0 1

Atkinson IL 5 0 1 1

Geneseo IL 41 0 4 5

East Moline IL 12 0 9 5

Moline IL 24 1 16 10

Illinois subtotal 194 4 82 65

Davenport IA 19 1 14 12

Walcott IA 13 0 5 1

Durant IA 22 0 7 2

Wilton IA 14 0 3 2

Atalissa IA 2 0 0 0

West Liberty IA 8 0 5 1

Iowa City IA 9 0 5 0

Iowa subtotal 87 1 39 18

Total 281 5 121 83

Sources:

Notes:

a

 Superfund and RCRA sites are a subset of EPA sites

b

 Sites within approximately 500 feet (either side) of railroad line

EPA Sitesa,b

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 8, 2009. Facility Registration System. Accessed August, 27, 

2009. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/fii/fii_query_java.html

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. May 15, 2003. Remediation Sites. Accessed August 18, 2009. 

http://maps.epa.state.il.us/website/remediation/.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Undated. Iowa DNR Interactive Mapping - LUST Sites. Accessed 

August 18, 2009. http://programs.iowadnr.gov/ims/website/lust_sites/viewer.htm.

State 

Remediation Sitesb City State

D-2 of D-2
APPENDIX E 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

CONTENTS 

Figure E.1 Historic Properties within one-half mile of Rail Corridor 

Table E-1 Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of 

Project Alignment 

FRA Letters to SHPOs and Tribes 

SHPO and Tribal Response Letters 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
FIGURE E.1 

HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE 

OF RAIL CORRIDOR
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
ILLINOIS

IOWA

Bureau La Salle Kendall

Will

Henry

Rock Island

Muscatine

Scott DeKalb Kane

DuPage

Cook

Putnam

Grundy

Johnson Cedar

Lake Michigan

88

74

55

57

80

90

39

94

294

280

290

180

355

190

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

FIGURE

September 2009

E.1

Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-file\GISProj\134_oma\115305_CHI-IC\map_docs\mxd\Figure3_10_Cultural.mxd) 9/14/2009 --csers

0 10 20 30

Miles

Historic Properties in Illinois

Historic Properties in Iowa

Railroad

Interstate

Chicago

County

State

INDIANA ILLINOIS

MISSOURI

IOWA

Historic Properties

within one-half mile of rail corridor
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
TABLE E-1 

HISTORIC PROPERTY AND POTENTIALLY HISTORIC 

PROPERTY WITHIN 620 FEET OF PROJECT ALIGNMENT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Table E-1

Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of Project Alignment

Site Number State County Site Name Site Type Status

675 IA Johnson Grocery Building(s) Not evaluated

678 IA Johnson 703 East Bowery Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1010 IA Johnson 806 Clark Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1012 IA Johnson 816 Clark Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1013 IA Johnson 823 Clark Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1015 IA Johnson 830 Clark Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1044 IA Johnson Delta Delta Delta House Building(s) Not evaluated

1045 IA Johnson 520 North Clinton Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1046 IA Johnson Dey House Building(s) Not evaluated

1074 IA Johnson Paine House Building(s) Not evaluated

1401 IA Johnson 630 North Dodge Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1402 IA Johnson Conroy, Joanne, House Building(s) NRHP listing

1403 IA Johnson 707 North Dodge Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1404 IA Johnson 715 North Dodge Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1405 IA Johnson 720 North Dodge Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1406 IA Johnson Prizler House Building(s) NRHP listing

1407 IA Johnson 727 North Dodge Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1408 IA Johnson 802 North Dodge Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1413 IA Johnson 828 North Dodge Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1525 IA Johnson 602 North Dubuque Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1527 IA Johnson 612 North Dubuque Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1529 IA Johnson 616 North Dubuque Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1531 IA Johnson 629 North Dubuque Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1532 IA Johnson Sigma Nu Fraternity Building Building(s) Not evaluated

1533 IA Johnson Gamma Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity Building(s) Not evaluated

1534 IA Johnson Sigma Chi Fraternity Building(s) Not evaluated

1536 IA Johnson Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity Building(s) Not evaluated

1537 IA Johnson Phi Kappa Sigma Fraternity Building(s) Not evaluated

1538 IA Johnson 720 North Dubuque Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1539 IA Johnson Kappa Sigma Fraternity Building(s) Not evaluated

1540 IA Johnson Phi Delta Theta Fraternity Building(s) Not evaluated

1542 IA Johnson Beta Theta Phi Building(s) Not evaluated

1712 IA Johnson 520 North Gilbert Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1715 IA Johnson 606 North Gilbert Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1717 IA Johnson 614 North Gilbert Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1721 IA Johnson 629 North Gilbert Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1723 IA Johnson 711 North Gilbert Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1726 IA Johnson 715 North Gilbert Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1727 IA Johnson 718 North Gilbert Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1730 IA Johnson 824 North Gilbert Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1732 IA Johnson 828 North Gilbert Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1757 IA Johnson Close House Building(s) NRHP listing

1788 IA Johnson 629 North Governor Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1865 IA Johnson 627 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1867 IA Johnson 633 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1868 IA Johnson 635 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

Preferred Alternative and Route B Alternative

E-1
Table E-1

Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of Project Alignment

Site Number State County Site Name Site Type Status

1870 IA Johnson 638 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1871 IA Johnson 640 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1872 IA Johnson 641 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1873 IA Johnson 645 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1874 IA Johnson 649 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1875 IA Johnson 650 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1878 IA Johnson 654 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1879 IA Johnson 655 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1883 IA Johnson 670 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1884 IA Johnson 676 South Governor Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2118 IA Johnson 610 North Johnson Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2119 IA Johnson 611 North Johnson Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2120 IA Johnson Barns-Crowley House Building(s) NRHP listing

2121 IA Johnson 616 North Johnson Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2122 IA Johnson 617 North Johnson Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2123 IA Johnson 619 North Johnson Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2124 IA Johnson Cilek, Lorada E., House Building(s) NRHP listing

2125 IA Johnson 624 North Johnson Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2126 IA Johnson 628 North Johnson Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2157 IA Johnson McConnell, Joseph, House Building(s) Not evaluated

2161 IA Johnson Kirkwood House Building(s) NRHP listing

2200 IA Johnson 533 North Linn Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2274 IA Johnson 713 North Lucas Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2275 IA Johnson 722 North Lucas Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2276 IA Johnson 727 North Lucas Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2301 IA Johnson 809 Maggard Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2306 IA Johnson 821 Maggard Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2307 IA Johnson 827 Maggard Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2604 IA Johnson 803 Roosevelt Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2607 IA Johnson 815 Roosevelt Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2609 IA Johnson 816 Roosevelt Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2611 IA Johnson 822 Roosevelt Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2613 IA Johnson 826 Roosevelt Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2615 IA Johnson 838 Roosevelt Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2616 IA Johnson 839 Roosevelt Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2635 IA Johnson 1011 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2636 IA Johnson 1014 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2637 IA Johnson 1021 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2638 IA Johnson 1027 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2639 IA Johnson 1111 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2640 IA Johnson 1115 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2641 IA Johnson 1120 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2642 IA Johnson 1122 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2643 IA Johnson 1126 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2645 IA Johnson 1203 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2646 IA Johnson 1204 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2647 IA Johnson 1210 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

E-2
Table E-1

Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of Project Alignment

Site Number State County Site Name Site Type Status

2648 IA Johnson 1211 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2649 IA Johnson 1214 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2650 IA Johnson 1220 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2651 IA Johnson 1221 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2652 IA Johnson 1224 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2654 IA Johnson 1228 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2655 IA Johnson 1231 Sheridan Avenue Building(s) Not evaluated

2658 IA Johnson 710 South Summit Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2659 IA Johnson 715 South Summit Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2660 IA Johnson 718 South Summit Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2661 IA Johnson 725 South Summit Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2662 IA Johnson 730 South Summit Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2663 IA Johnson 733 South Summit Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2664 IA Johnson 802 South Summit Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2665 IA Johnson 803 South Summit Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2667 IA Johnson Powers, Jamie, House Building(s) NRHP listing

2669 IA Johnson 818 South Summit Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2709 IA Johnson 705 South Summit Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2710 IA Johnson 709 South Summit Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2778 IA Johnson 620 North Van Buren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2779 IA Johnson 621 North Van Buren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2780 IA Johnson 622 North Van Buren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2781 IA Johnson 630 North Van Buren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2790 IA Johnson Vogt House Building(s) NRHP listing

2888 IA Johnson Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Passenger Station Building(s) NRHP listing

2918 IA Johnson Jenn and Potter House and Garage Building(s) Not evaluated

2919 IA Johnson Gilmore House and Garage Building(s) Not evaluated

2920 IA Johnson Peterson House and Garage Building(s) Not evaluated

2921 IA Johnson Yagla House Building(s) Not evaluated

2922 IA Johnson Cleveland House Building(s) Not evaluated

2923 IA Johnson Bullard House Building(s) Not evaluated

3003 IA Johnson Adams Trust House Building(s) Not evaluated

5519 IA Scott The Castle Building(s) Not evaluated

2439 IA Scott Mairet, Ruth E., House Building(s) Not evaluated

4479 IA Scott 2306 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4481 IA Scott 2312 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4483 IA Scott 2316 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4485 IA Scott 2322 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4487 IA Scott 2326 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4477 IA Scott 2302 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4473 IA Scott 2222 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4475 IA Scott 2226 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4480 IA Scott 2311 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4482 IA Scott 2315 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4484 IA Scott 2321 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4486 IA Scott 2325 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4476 IA Scott 2301 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

E-3
Table E-1

Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of Project Alignment

Site Number State County Site Name Site Type Status

4478 IA Scott 2305 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4472 IA Scott 2221 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

4474 IA Scott 2252 Pacific Street Building(s) Not evaluated

595 IA Scott Ebeling, Henry, House Building(s) NRHP listing

411 IA Scott 0 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

448 IA Scott 1426 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1709 IA Scott St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church Complex District NRHP listing

1712 IA Scott St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church Complex--St. Mary's Church Building(s) NRHP listing

1710 IA Scott St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church Complex--Rectory Building(s) NRHP listing

443 IA Scott 1400 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

444 IA Scott 1400 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1711 IA Scott St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church Complex--Convent Building(s) NRHP listing

5029 IA Scott St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church Complex--Parish School Building(s) NRHP listing

408 IA Scott Hose Station # Seven Building(s) Not evaluated

442 IA Scott Hose Station #7 Building(s) NRHP listing

407 IA Scott 1332 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

441 IA Scott Fennern, Henry P., House Building(s) NRHP listing

440 IA Scott 1330 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

438 IA Scott Commercial Building Building(s) Not evaluated

437 IA Scott 1304 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

505 IA Scott Littig Brothers/Mengel and Klindt/Eagle Brewery Building(s) NRHP listing

590 IA Scott Walter-Gimbel House Building(s) NRHP listing

589 IA Scott Paustian, Henry, House Building(s) NRHP listing

436 IA Scott 1228 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

435 IA Scott 1224 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

433 IA Scott 1217 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

2187 IA Scott St. Joseph's Rectory/St. Kunigunde Church Building(s) Not evaluated

2188 IA Scott St. Joseph's Church Building(s) NRHP listing

537 IA Scott St. Joseph's Catholic Church Building(s) NRHP listing

503 IA Scott Heinz, Bonaventura, House (second) Building(s) NRHP listing

588 IA Scott St. Joseph's Convent Building(s) Not evaluated

5192 IA Scott Saint Joseph's School Building(s) Not evaluated

502 IA Scott Heinz, Bonaventura, House (first) Building(s) Unknown

431 IA Scott 1122 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

430 IA Scott 1105 West 4th Street Building(s) Not evaluated

429 IA Scott Saengerfest Halle Building(s) NRHP listing

428 IA Scott Hackner's Incorporated Building(s) Not evaluated

2651 IA Scott 621 Vine Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2652 IA Scott 625 Vine Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2653 IA Scott 629 Vine Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2650 IA Scott 517 Vine Street Building(s) NRHP listing

586 IA Scott Hamann, Ferdinand, Saloon Building(s) NRHP listing

427 IA Scott Beenck Apartments Building(s) Not evaluated

584 IA Scott 928 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

585 IA Scott 929 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

583 IA Scott 924 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

500 IA Scott Ruhl, Lucas, House Building(s) NRHP listing

E-4
Table E-1

Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of Project Alignment

Site Number State County Site Name Site Type Status

582 IA Scott 923 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

499 IA Scott Randolph, Joseph, House Building(s) NRHP listing

498 IA Scott 918 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

580 IA Scott 916 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

581 IA Scott 917 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

497 IA Scott 916 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

496 IA Scott 912 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

579 IA Scott 913 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

578 IA Scott 907 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

495 IA Scott Otten, John G., House Building(s) NRHP listing

577 IA Scott 904 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

576 IA Scott 903 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2667 IA Scott 614 Warrant Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2669 IA Scott 629 Warren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2671 IA Scott Dohrman, Henry, House Building(s) NRHP listing

2662 IA Scott 510 Warren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2664 IA Scott 518 Warren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2665 IA Scott 520 Warren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2666 IA Scott 613 Warren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2668 IA Scott 617 Warren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2670 IA Scott 625 Warren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2663 IA Scott 513 Warren Street Building(s) NRHP listing

575 IA Scott 830 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

494 IA Scott 832 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

574 IA Scott 826 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

573 IA Scott 824 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

493 IA Scott 826 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

572 IA Scott 820 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

492 IA Scott 822 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

571 IA Scott Burrage House Building(s) NRHP listing

426 IA Scott Commercial Building Building(s) Not evaluated

491 IA Scott 818 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

570 IA Scott 814 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

490 IA Scott 816 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

569 IA Scott Hellerich, John, House Building(s) NRHP listing

568 IA Scott Commercial Building Building(s) NRHP listing

489 IA Scott 810 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

488 IA Scott 806 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

567 IA Scott 802 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1374 IA Scott 614 Brown Street Building(s) NRHP listing

566 IA Scott Goettsch House Building(s) NRHP listing

487 IA Scott 802 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1372 IA Scott Commercial Building Building(s) NRHP listing

1373 IA Scott 518 Brown Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1375 IA Scott Petersen-Hanssen House Building(s) NRHP listing

425 IA Scott Commercial Building Building(s) Not evaluated

1371 IA Scott 511 Brown Street Building(s) NRHP listing

E-5
Table E-1

Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of Project Alignment

Site Number State County Site Name Site Type Status

486 IA Scott Schriebel, George, House Building(s) NRHP listing

565 IA Scott Ochs, Francis, House Building(s) NRHP listing

564 IA Scott Andressen, H. H., House Building(s) NRHP listing

485 IA Scott 726 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

563 IA Scott 723 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

484 IA Scott 724 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

483 IA Scott 720 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

562 IA Scott 717 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

482 IA Scott 716 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

561 IA Scott Rothschild, Emanuel, House Building(s) NRHP listing

560 IA Scott 711 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

559 IA Scott 708 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

481 IA Scott 710 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1832 IA Scott 618 Gaines Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1835 IA Scott Richmond House Building(s) NRHP listing

1837 IA Scott 630 Gaines Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1830 IA Scott 614 Gaines Street Building(s) Not evaluated

1831 IA Scott Witt, Henning, House Building(s) NRHP listing

1826 IA Scott 518 Gaines Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1827 IA Scott 520 Gaines Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1828 IA Scott 522 Gaines Street Building(s) NRHP listing

558 IA Scott 705 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1823 IA Scott 510 Gaines Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1825 IA Scott 514 Gaines Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1836 IA Scott 627 Gaines Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1833 IA Scott 619 Gaines Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1834 IA Scott 623 Gaines Street Building(s) NRHP listing

1824 IA Scott 511 Gaines Street Building(s) NRHP listing

557 IA Scott Clausen, Frederick (Fritz) George, House Building(s) NRHP listing

480 IA Scott Ruch, John, House Building(s) NRHP listing

556 IA Scott Lorenzen, Jens, House Building(s) NRHP listing

555 IA Scott Lischer, Henry, House Building(s) NRHP listing

479 IA Scott Hahn, Wulff, House Building(s) NRHP listing

554 IA Scott Hageboech, Gustav, House Building(s) NRHP listing

553 IA Scott 619 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

478 IA Scott Bahls, John, House Building(s) NRHP listing

552 IA Scott 613 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

477 IA Scott 610 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

551 IA Scott Vacant Lot Building(s) NRHP listing

420 IA Scott Commercial Building Building(s) Not evaluated

476 IA Scott 606 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

412 IA Scott McKnight's Building(s) Not evaluated

475 IA Scott Hartmann, Friedrich, House Building(s) NRHP listing

2709 IA Scott 624 Western Ave Building(s) NRHP listing

2706 IA Scott 520 Western Ave Building(s) NRHP listing

2708 IA Scott Petersen, Lavinius W., House Building(s) NRHP listing

2703 IA Scott 508 Western Ave Building(s) NRHP listing

E-6
Table E-1

Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of Project Alignment

Site Number State County Site Name Site Type Status

2705 IA Scott 514 Western Ave Building(s) NRHP listing

5488 IA Scott Bi-Centennial Center Building(s) Not evaluated

2710 IA Scott 625 Western Ave Building(s) NRHP listing

2707 IA Scott 529 Western Ave Building(s) NRHP listing

2704 IA Scott 509 Western Ave Building(s) NRHP listing

550 IA Scott Hirschel, A. J. and H. O. Seiffert House Building(s) NRHP listing

549 IA Scott 528 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

418 IA Scott Haak, Ferd - Victor Animatograph Company Building(s) Not evaluated

548 IA Scott 521 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

474 IA Scott 518 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

417 IA Scott Greyhound Press Building(s) Not evaluated

547 IA Scott 514 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

473 IA Scott 514 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

545 IA Scott Lambrite-Iles-Petersen House Building(s) NRHP listing

546 IA Scott Decker, W. H., House Building(s) NRHP listing

544 IA Scott Matthey, Dr. Heinrich E., House Building(s) NRHP listing

2587 IA Scott 512 Scott Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2592 IA Scott 625 Scott Street Building(s) NRHP listing

410 IA Scott Glass Company Building(s) Not evaluated

2588 IA Scott Kurmeier, Henry, House Building(s) NRHP listing

2589 IA Scott Mattrey, Dr. Henry, Stables Building(s) NRHP listing

543 IA Scott Mueller, Edward C., House Building(s) NRHP listing

416 IA Scott Scott County Jail Building(s) Not evaluated

472 IA Scott 424 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

542 IA Scott 421 West 6th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

471 IA Scott 420 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

470 IA Scott 418 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

469 IA Scott 416 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

540 IA Scott Claussen-Mueller House Building(s) NRHP listing

468 IA Scott 412 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

467 IA Scott 408 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2496 IA Scott Ruser, William, House Building(s) NRHP listing

466 IA Scott 402 West 5th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

541 IA Scott Steffen, August, Sr., House Building(s) NRHP listing

2492 IA Scott 526 Ripely Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2493 IA Scott Mueller, Christian, House Building(s) NRHP listing

2489 IA Scott 512 Ripley Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2487 IA Scott Scott County Jail Building(s) NRHP listing

2497 IA Scott 633 Ripley Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2494 IA Scott Struck-Richter House Building(s) NRHP listing

2495 IA Scott Best, Louis P., House Building(s) NRHP listing

2490 IA Scott Apartment Building Building(s) NRHP listing

2491 IA Scott 517 Ripley Street Building(s) NRHP listing

2488 IA Scott Apartment Building Building(s) NRHP listing

465 IA Scott Automotive Garage Building(s) NRHP listing

538 IA Scott Frahm, Henry, House Building(s) NRHP listing

415 IA Scott Walsh Flats/Langworth Building Building(s) NRHP listing

E-7
Table E-1

Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of Project Alignment

Site Number State County Site Name Site Type Status

406 IA Scott Langworth, Warren, Inc. Building(s) Not evaluated

1886 IA Scott Raphael, Jacob, Building Building(s) NRHP listing

1885 IA Scott Union Electric Telephone and Telegraph Building(s) NRHP listing

1884 IA Scott Frahm, Mathias and Sons' Brewery: Ice House Building(s) Not evaluated

5487 IA Scott Police Headquaters Building(s) Not evaluated

519 IA Scott Barrows, Edward S., House Building(s) NRHP listing

414 IA Scott Davenport City Hall Building(s) NRHP listing

518 IA Scott Stewart, J.W., House Building(s) NRHP listing

413 IA Scott Frey Apartments Building(s) Not evaluated

2138 IA Scott Davenport Commercial Club Building(s) Not evaluated

2139 IA Scott American Telephone and Telegraph Company Building Building(s) NRHP listing

4051 IA Scott St. Anthony's Catholic Church Complex: St. Anthony's Catholic Church Building(s) NRHP listing

4052 IA Scott St. Anthony's Catholic Church Complex: St. Anthony's School Building(s) NRHP listing

5524 IA Scott Ambulance Barn Building(s) Not evaluated

4053 IA Scott St. Anthony's Catholic Church Complex: St. Anthony's Rectory Building(s) NRHP listing

42 IA Scott St. Anthony's Catholic Church Complex District NRHP listing

517 IA Scott Webb House Building(s) Not evaluated

464 IA Scott City Market Building(s) NRHP listing

515 IA Scott Kimball-Stevenson House Building(s) NRHP listing

1284 IA Scott Young, Colonel Joseph, Block Building(s) NRHP listing

1285 IA Scott Wupperman Block/I.O.O.F. Hall Building(s) NRHP listing

1286 IA Scott Old City Hall Building(s) NRHP listing

1287 IA Scott Cook, Clarissa C., Library/Blue Ribbon News Building Building(s) NRHP listing

1280 IA Scott Forrest, John, Block Building Building(s) NRHP listing

1281 IA Scott Democrat Building Building(s) NRHP listing

1282 IA Scott Hibernia Hall Building(s) NRHP listing

1283 IA Scott Worley, Philip, House Building(s) NRHP listing

5024 IA Scott United States Post Office and Court House Building(s) NRHP listing

2380 IA Scott Burtis Opera House Building(s) Not evaluated

402 IA Scott Burtis-Kimball House Hotel Building(s) Unknown

2403 IA Scott Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Railroad Elevated Track Structure NRHP listing

520 IA Scott Bettendorf, W.P., House Building(s) Not evaluated

5460 IA Scott Sickles, Preston and Nutting Company Building Building(s) NRHP listing

5457 IA Scott Matthews Building Building(s) NRHP listing

5458 IA Scott National Biscuit Company Building(s) NRHP listing

5459 IA Scott Smith Brothers and Burdick Company Building(s) NRHP listing

5454 IA Scott Sieg Iron Company (First Building) Building(s) NRHP listing

5455 IA Scott Kerker Paper Box Company Building(s) NRHP listing

5453 IA Scott Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Railroad Elevated Rail Bed Structure NRHP listing

5448 IA Scott Davenport Paper Box Company Building(s) NRHP listing

5449 IA Scott Ewert and Richter Express and Storage Company (West Building) Building(s) NRHP listing

5450 IA Scott Ewert and Richter Express and Storage Company (East Building) Building(s) NRHP listing

5451 IA Scott Neu, Vincent J., Auto Dealership Building(s) NRHP listing

1984 IA Scott Newhall, Lucian, House Building(s) NRHP listing

5456 IA Scott Sieg Iron Company (Second Building) Building(s) NRHP listing

1983 IA Scott Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Freight Station Building(s) NRHP listing

5452 IA Scott Halligan Coffee Company Building(s) NRHP listing

E-8
Table E-1

Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of Project Alignment

Site Number State County Site Name Site Type Status

5222 IA Scott Crescent Macaroni and Cracker Company Building Building(s) NRHP listing

5223 IA Scott Crescent Warehouse Historic District District NRHP listing

227 IA Scott Ditzen Apothecary Building(s) Not evaluated

229 IA Scott Commercial Building Building(s) Not evaluated

230 IA Scott Building Building(s) Not evaluated

403 IA Scott Bettendorf Metal Wheel Company Building(s) Not evaluated

2104 IA Scott Phoenix Bridge Structure Not evaluated

211 IA Scott Centennial Bridge Not evaluated

644 IA Muscatine Second Knights of Pythias Hall and Opera House Building(s) NRHP listing

648 IA Muscatine Wilton Candy Kitchen Building(s) NRHP listing

649 IA Muscatine Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroad - Wilton Depot Building(s) NRHP listing

670 IA Muscatine 209 East 3rd Street Building(s) Not evaluated

671 IA Muscatine 205 East 3rd Street Building(s) Not evaluated

672 IA Muscatine 203 East 3rd Street Building(s) Not evaluated

673 IA Muscatine Grocery Store Building(s) NRHP listing

674 IA Muscatine I.O.O.F. Lodge Building Building(s) NRHP listing

675 IA Muscatine Citizen's Savings Bank Building(s) NRHP listing

676 IA Muscatine Boot and Shoe Store and Sewing Machine Shop Building(s) NRHP listing

677 IA Muscatine Furniture Store Building(s) NRHP listing

678 IA Muscatine Furniture Store Building(s) NRHP listing

679 IA Muscatine Drug Store Building(s) NRHP listing

680 IA Muscatine Bank and I.O.O.F. Hall Building(s) NRHP listing

681 IA Muscatine West Liberty State Bank Building(s) NRHP listing

682 IA Muscatine First Knights of Pythias Hall/Opera House Building(s) NRHP listing

683 IA Muscatine Hardware Store Building(s) NRHP listing

684 IA Muscatine Boot & Shoe Store Building(s) NRHP listing

685 IA Muscatine Millinery Shop Building(s) NRHP listing

686 IA Muscatine Barber Shop Building(s) NRHP listing

687 IA Muscatine Grocery Store Building(s) NRHP listing

688 IA Muscatine Grocery and Auto Repair Shop Building(s) NRHP listing

689 IA Muscatine Lumber Yard Building(s) NRHP listing

690 IA Muscatine West Liberty Co-operative Creamery Company Building(s) NRHP listing

691 IA Muscatine Commercial Building Building(s) Not evaluated

695 IA Muscatine Evans, P.R./Schafer Grain Company Elevator and Office Building(s) NRHP listing

696 IA Muscatine Office Building Building(s) NRHP listing

697 IA Muscatine Auto Garage Building(s) NRHP listing

698 IA Muscatine Tire/Liquor Store Building(s) NRHP listing

699 IA Muscatine Masonic Temple Building(s) NRHP listing

700 IA Muscatine Masonic Temple/Schooley Furniture Store Building(s) NRHP listing

701 IA Muscatine West Liberty Fire Station and City Hall Building(s) NRHP listing

702 IA Muscatine Bakery Shop Building(s) NRHP listing

703 IA Muscatine Agricultural Implement Store Building(s) NRHP listing

704 IA Muscatine Grocery Store Building(s) NRHP listing

705 IA Muscatine Tailor/Dry Cleaning Store Building(s) NRHP listing

706 IA Muscatine Grocery Store/Hardware Warehouse Building(s) NRHP listing

707 IA Muscatine Movie Theater Building(s) NRHP listing

708 IA Muscatine Restaurant Building(s) NRHP listing

E-9
Table E-1

Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of Project Alignment

Site Number State County Site Name Site Type Status

709 IA Muscatine 319 North Spencer Street Building(s) NRHP listing

710 IA Muscatine Auto Garage Building(s) NRHP listing

711 IA Muscatine Sheet Metal/Tin Shop Building(s) NRHP listing

712 IA Muscatine 314 North Spencer Street Building(s) Not evaluated

713 IA Muscatine 214 East 3rd Street Building(s) Not evaluated

714 IA Muscatine 210 East 3rd Street Building(s) Not evaluated

716 IA Muscatine Commercial Building Building(s) NRHP listing

717 IA Muscatine Commercial Building Building(s) NRHP listing

718 IA Muscatine Dry Goods & Millinery Shop Building(s) NRHP listing

719 IA Muscatine Drugstore Building(s) NRHP listing

720 IA Muscatine Grocery Store Building(s) NRHP listing

721 IA Muscatine Unknown Block Building Building(s) NRHP listing

722 IA Muscatine Meat Market Building(s) NRHP listing

723 IA Muscatine Bakery Shop Building(s) NRHP listing

724 IA Muscatine Burkhart, G., Building Building(s) NRHP listing

725 IA Muscatine Jewelry Store Building(s) NRHP listing

726 IA Muscatine Chesebrough Building Building(s) NRHP listing

727 IA Muscatine Iowa State Bank and Trust Company Building(s) NRHP listing

731 IA Muscatine 114 East 4th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

732 IA Muscatine 108 East 4th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

733 IA Muscatine 106 East 4th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

734 IA Muscatine True Value Hardware Building(s) NRHP listing

735 IA Muscatine 118 West 4th Street Building(s) NRHP listing

740 IA Muscatine 316 North Spencer Street Building(s) Not evaluated

744 IA Muscatine West Liberty Commercial Historic District District NRHP listing

879 IA Muscatine Castle, The Building(s) Not evaluated

925 IA Muscatine Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Railroad -- West Liberty Depot Building(s) Not evaluated

784 IL Rock Island Multicomponent scatter NRHP listing

37 IL Rock Island John Deer Mound Group Mound group Not evaluated

417 IL Rock Island 1126 15th St., East Moline Building(s) Not evaluated

418 IL Rock Island 1128 15th St., East Moline Building(s) Not evaluated

419 IL Rock Island 1501 13th St., East Moline Building(s) Not evaluated

421 IL Rock Island 13th St. and 18th Ave., East Moline Building (church) Not evaluated

420 IL Rock Island 821 1st St., Silvis Building(s) Not evaluated

24 IL Bureau Rabe Site Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

19 IL Bureau W.H. Brown Site #1 Prehistoric village Not evaluated

20 IL Bureau W.H. Brown Site #2 Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

35 IL Bureau Archaic/Woodland scatter Not evaluated

34 IL Bureau Archaic scatter Not evaluated

205 IL La Salle Branch Site Building(s) Not evaluated

311 IL La Salle Historic scatter Not evaluated

85 IL Kendall Paleo/Archaic scatter Not evaluated

911 IL Kendall Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

115 IL Kendall Beecher Road Structure Not evaluated

114 IL Kendall Beecher Road Archaic scatter Not evaluated

121 IL Kendall Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

Preferred Alternative

E-10
Table E-1

Historic Property and Potentially Historic Property Within 620 feet of Project Alignment

Site Number State County Site Name Site Type Status

38 IL Kendall Archaic scatter Not evaluated

34 IL Kendall Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

214 IL DuPage Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

213 IL DuPage Multicomponent Not evaluated

293 IL DuPage Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

61 IL Bureau Woodland scatter Not evaluated

75 IL Bureau Bosnich 3 Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

238 IL Bureau Potential Mound Prehistoric mound HSRPA Burial Law

236 IL Bureau Loceyville Townsite Historic scatter Not evaluated

199 IL Bureau Historic feature Not evaluated

233 IL La Salle Historic feature Not evaluated

665 IL La Salle Bierbaum Prehistoric burial Not evaluated

1072 IL La Salle Woodland scatter Not evaluated

269 IL La Salle Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

270 IL La Salle Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

243 IL La Salle Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

244 IL La Salle Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

210 IL La Salle Shaver Site Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

221 IL La Salle Rat Run Site Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

434 IL Will Birds Bridge Prehistoric Not evaluated

1541 IL Will Woodland scatter Not evaluated

59 IL Will Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

64 IL Will Gougar Site Multicomponent Not evaluated

87 IL Will Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

77 IL Will Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

283 IL Will Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

282 IL Will Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

638 IL Will Archaic scatter Not evaluated

2814 IL Will Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

2813 IL Will Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

2268 IL Will Historic scatter Not evaluated

679 IL Cook Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

218 IL Cook Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

237 IL Cook Hickory Street Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

206 IL Cook Yankee Woods SE Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

620 IL Cook Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

236 IL Cook Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

235 IL Cook St. Mihiel Pond (southwest) Prehistoric scatter Not evaluated

147 IL Cook Multicomponent Not evaluated

Route B Alternative

E-11
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
FRA LETTERS TO SHPOS AND TRIBES
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 






 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 

CHICAGO TO IOWA CITY 

INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE 

Nine Mid-West states, under the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) have been 

actively developing an improved and expanded passenger rail system in the Midwest. As 

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

were identified with Chicago, Illinois as the hub. 

The Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service Project (Project) is one part of 

the vision established by the MWRRI to expand existing service and develop new 

regional passenger rail service to help meet future travel demands in the Midwest. The 

Project would expand and create a rail transportation alternative to automobile, bus, and 

air travel between Chicago and Iowa City, Iowa. 

MWRRI is currently considering two Build Alternatives and a No-Build Alternative. 

Both Build Alternatives would provide two-round trip passenger trains per day traveling 

at speeds of up to 79 mph. Both Build Alternatives include track upgrade, installation of a 

wayside signal system and remote control switches, and provision of station facilities at 

Geneseo, Illinois, the Quad Cities and Iowa City. 

The Route A Alternative (Chicago to Wyanet to Quad Cities to Iowa City) is the 

preferred alternative. It consists of using the tracks of three rail carriers: Amtrak (0.8 

miles), BNSF (110.1 miles), and IAIS (107.4 miles) to provide passenger rail service 

between Chicago and Iowa City, Iowa. Alternative Route A would expand existing 

passenger rail service between Chicago, and Wyanet, Illinois, and introduce passenger 

rail service between Wyanet and Iowa City. The Route A Alternative requires the 

construction of less than one mile of track near Wyanet to provide a connection between 

the BNSF and the IAIS lines. 

The Route B Alternative consists of using the tracks of five rail carriers: Amtrak (0.8 

miles), CN (1.4 miles), Metra/Rock Island District (38.5 miles), CSXT (54.3 miles), and 

IAIS (130.2 miles) to provide passenger rail service between Chicago and Iowa City, 

Iowa. The Project would provide two-round trip passenger trains per day traveling at 

speeds of up to 79 mph. There is currently no passenger rail service on any of the Route 

B Alternative track. Station facilities are proposed for Joliet, Illinois; Morris, Illinois; 

and La Salle, Illinois. A connection track would not be required near Wyanet, as the 

existing IAIS track continues both east and west of Wyanet. However, more track would 

need to be upgraded than the Route A Alternative. 

The No-build Alternative would consist of operating the current track with the present 

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

operating conditions. The No-build Alternative is retained for detailed analysis to allow 

equal comparison to the Route A and Route B alternatives and to help decision-makers 

and the public understand the consequences of taking no action. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Proposed Track Connection

Wyanet, IL

Union

Station

BNSF

Morris

Peru--La Salle

Princeton

Mendota

Plano

Naperville

Joliet

Geneseo

Wyanet

La Grange Rd

IAIS

IAIS

CSXT

NIRC (IAIS)

Cedar Rapids

Iowa City

Quad Cities

Rockford

Chicago

Peoria

Miississippi River ssissippi River

Lake Michigan

88

74

55

57

39

80

90

380

94

280

43

290

190

I l l i n o i s

I o w a

W i s c o n s i n

Potential Intercity Passenger Rail Routes,

Chicago to Quad Cities and Iowa City

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

FIGURE

August 2009

1

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Potential_Intercity_Passenger_Rail_Routes.mxd\aug09\jcm

10 0 10 20 5

Miles

Scale

Legend

Existing AMTRAK Station

Proposed AMTRAK Station

Route A Alternative

Route B Alternative

Routes A & B Alternative

IAIS - Iowa Interstate Railroad

NIRC - Northeast Illinois Rail Corp.

Source: Feasibility Study on Proposed

Amtrak Service

Quad Cities to Chicago - January 7, 2008

Chicago to Iowa City - April 18, 2008
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
I o w a

To Iowa City

To Chicago

Mis Mississippi River sissippi River

Rock Island Moline

Rock Island Arsenal

74

74

92

12th

Illinois 16th

15th

7th

19th

18th

5th

River

23rd

6th

19th

7th

River

I l l i n o i s

Proposed Station Locations DATE

FIGURE

August 2009

2

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Proposed_Station_Locations.mxd\aug09\jcm

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

To Chicago

End of

Proposed

Service

I o w a Iowa City

University Heights

6

1

921

1

6

1

Benton

Riverside

Melrose

Highland

Market

Burlington

Muscatine

Governor

Gilbert

Dodge

Bowery

Rochester

D

ubuque

Sycamore

Evans

2nd

Grand

Byington

Gilbert

2,000 1,000 0 2,000

Feet

Scale

Legend

Proposed AMTRAK Station

Routes A & B Alternative

IAIS - Iowa Interstate Railroad

Source: Feasibility Study on Proposed

Amtrak Service

Quad Cities to Chicago - January 7, 2008

Chicago to Iowa City - April 18, 2008
Tribal Consultation Mailing List

Mr. Wilfrid Cleveland 

President 

Ho-Chunk Nation 

P.O. Box 667 

Black River Falls, WI 54615 

Cc: Ms. Suzette La Mere, Ho-Chunk Nation 

Mr. Louis DeRoin 

Chairperson 

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska 

3345 Thrasher Road #B 

White Cloud, KS 66097-4028 

Mr. Lawrence P. Murray 

Chairperson 

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma 

R1, Box 721 

Perkins, OK 74059 

Mr. John Shalton 

Otoe-Missouria Tribe 

RR 1, Box 61 

Red Rock, OK 74651 

Cc: Barbara Childs-Walton – Otoe-Missouria 

Tribe 

Mr. Homer Bear, Jr. 

Chairman 

Sac and Fox Nation of Mississippi in Iowa 

349 Meskwaki Road 

Tama, IA 52339-9629 

Cc: Mr. Johnathon Buffalo, Sac and Fox Nation 

of Mississippi in Iowa 

Mr. John Blackhawk 

Tribal Chairperson 

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 

Box 687 

Winnebago, NE 68071 

Mr. Matthew Wesaw 

Chairperson 

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians 

58620 Sink Road 

Dowagiac, MI 49047 

Mr. Steve Ortiz 

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation 

Government Center 

16281 Q Road 

Mayetta, KS 66509 

Ms. Twen Barton 

Chairperson 

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri 

305 N. Main Street 

Reserve, KS 66454 

Cc: Deanne Bahr - Sac and Fox Nation of 

Missouri 

Ms. Kay Rhoads 

Principal Chief 

Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma 

Route 2, Box 246 

Stroud, OK 74079 

Cc: Sandra Massey - Sac and Fox Nation of 

Oklahoma 

Mr. Kenneth Meshigaud 

Chairperson 

Hannahville Indian Community 

N14911 Hannahville Boulevard Road 

Wilson, MI 49896 

Mr. John A. Barrett 

Chairperson 

Citizen Potawatomi Nation 

1601 S. Gordon Cooper Drive 

Shawnee, OK 74801 

Mr. Phillip Shopodock 

Chairperson 

Forest County Potawatomi 

P.O. Box 340 

Crandon, WI 54520 

Mr. John P. Froman 

Chief 

The Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 

118 S. Eight Tribes Trails 

P.O. Box 1527 

Miami, OK 74355 
SHPO AND TRIBAL RESPONSE LETTERS 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 

This Page Intentionally Left Blank 


APPENDIX F 

COORDINATION LETTERS 

CONTENTS 

Written Coordination 

Coordination Letter Sent by Iowa and Illinois DOTs 

Agency Correspondence 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
WRITTEN COORDINATION
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 























This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
COORDINATION LETTERS SENT 

BY IOWA AND ILLINOIS DOTS 

 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 


 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service August 2009 

Tier 1 Environmental Assessment 1

PURPOSE AND NEED 

Nine Midwest states, under the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) have been 

actively developing an improved and expanded passenger rail system in the Midwest. As 

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

were identified with Chicago, Illinois as the hub. 

Between 1996 and 2004, the MWRRI in the Midwest was refined from a series of 

individual corridors into a transportation plan known as the Midwest Regional Rail 

System . Numerous studies were completed for bus service integration into the system; 

financial, economic, market and transportation analysis; infrastructure and capital costs, 

operating costs; and institutional and organizational issues. These efforts culminated in 

2004 when the MWRRI issued the Midwest Regional Rail System Executive Report

(Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2004b) and the MWRRI Project 

Notebook (Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2004a). 

With full implementation of the MWRRI (estimated 2025), it would encompass 

approximately 3,000 route miles in the sponsor states; provide approximately 90 percent 

of the Midwest region’s population within an hour’s ride of a rail station and/or 30 

minutes of a feeder bus station; and attract approximately 13.6 million passengers 

(Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2004b). Since 2004 work has 

progressed on the various corridors. In 2006, Chapter 11, Benefit Cost and Economic 

Analysis, of the MWRRI Project Notebook was updated (Transportation Economics & 

Management Systems 2006). 

The Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service Project is one part of the 

vision established by the MWRRI to expand existing and develop new regional passenger 

rail service to help meet future travel demands in the Midwest. The Project would 

expand and create a rail transportation alternative to automobile, bus, and air by: 

• Decreasing travel times 

• Increasing frequency of service 

• Improving reliability 

• Providing amenities to improve passenger ride quality and comfort. 

Many communities between Chicago and Iowa City have experienced rapid growth since 

2000 and have seen increased congestion on roadways (Franke et. al 2008a and Franke et. 

al 2008b). There is a need to reduce this congestion and the effects of further population 

growth over the long term. 

In addition, the University of Iowa and nationally recognized hospitals are located in 

Iowa City, Iowa and approximately 20 percent of the University of Iowa student body, 

approximately 30,000 students, is from Illinois. The Quad Cities area offers numerous 

tourist attractions including the Mississippi River, river boating, riverboat casinos, the 

Rock Island Arsenal as well as museums and other cultural attractions (Franke et. al 

2008b). Approximately 60 percent of the visitors to the Quad Cities are from the Chicago 
August 2009 Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service 

2 Tier 1 Environmental Assessment

area (Franke et. al 2008a). The passenger rail service will fulfill a need for a 

transportation alternative to and from these areas while relieving congestion on existing 

infrastructure. 

ALTERNATIVES 

Four alternatives were considered: the No-Build Alternative, Route A (Amtrak-BNSFIAIS), Route B (Amtrak -CN- Metra/Rock Island-CSXT-IAIS), and an alternative route 

through Chicago to New Lenox to Metra/Rock Island. An alternative route from 

Chicagothrough New Lenox that would require taking public park land was dismissed 

from further consideration; the No-Build, Route A, and Route B alternatives were 

retained for detailed study. 

2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

The No-build Alternative would consist of operating the current track, with the present 

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

operating conditions. The No-build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of 

the project because it would not result in practical, attractive passenger service schedules. 

Travel times would not decrease, frequency of service would not increase, reliability of 

service would not improve, and amenities to improve passenger ride quality and comfort 

would not improve. Passenger rail service would not provide an attractive alternative to 

highway or air line travel, and congestion of these modes of transportation in the Chicago 

to Quad Cities and Iowa City area would continue. 

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

the Route A and Route B alternatives, and to help decision-makers and the public 

understand the consequences of taking no action. 

2.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (ROUTE A – AMTRAK-BNSF-IAIS) 

The Amtrak feasibility study indicated that the Route A Alternative (Chicago to Wyanet 

to Quad Cities to Iowa City) would be the preferred alternative because of existing 

Amtrak service on the portion of this line from Chicago to Wyanet and lower capital 

improvement requirements than Alternative Route B. The Preferred Alternative consists 

of using the tracks of three rail carriers: Amtrak (0.8 miles), BNSF (110.1 miles), and 

IAIS (107.4 miles) to provide passenger rail service between Chicago and Iowa City, 

Iowa. The Project would provide two-round trip passenger trains per day travelling at 

speeds of up to 79 mph. The Chicago to Wyanet route segment is currently utilized by 

Amtrak as part of the California Zephyr and Southwest Chief passenger service routes. 

The maximum speed for passenger rail service on the Chicago to Wyanet route segment 

is currently 79 mph. The Project would expand existing passenger rail service between 

Chicago, Illinois and Wyanet, Illinois, and introduce passenger rail service between 

Wyanet, Illinois and Iowa City, Iowa, where there is currently no passenger rail service 

provided. 
 

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service August 2009 

Tier 1 Environmental Assessment 3

The Project would include track upgrade, construction of a connection track, installation 

of a wayside signal system and remote control switches, and provision of station facilities 

at Geneseo, the Quad Cities and Iowa City. 

2.3 ROUTE B ALTERNATIVE (AMTRAK-CN-METRA/ROCK ISLAND 

DISTRICT-CSXT-IAIS) 

The Route B Alternative consists of using the tracks of five rail carriers: Amtrak (0.8 

miles), CN (1.4 miles), Metra/Rock Island District (38.5 miles), CSXT (54.3 miles), and 

IAIS (130.2 miles) to provide passenger rail service between Chicago and Iowa City, 

Iowa. The Project would provide two-round trip passenger trains per day travelling at 

speeds of up to 79 mph. There is currently no passenger rail service on any of the Route 

B Alternative track. 

The Project would include track upgrade, installation of a wayside signal system and 

remote control switches, and provision of station facilities at the Geneseo, the Quad 

Cities and Iowa City. Station facilities are also proposed for Joliet, Morris, and La Salle. 

A connection track would not be required near Wyanet, as the existing IAIS track 

continues both east and west of Wyanet; however, more track would need to be upgraded 

than the Route A Alternative. 

REFERENCES 

Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008a. Executive Summary: 

Feasibility Report on Proposed Amtrak Service, Quad Cities-Chicago. 

Franke, M.W., R.P. Hoffman, and B.E. Hillblom. 2008b. Executive Summary: 

Feasibility Study on Proposed Amtrak Service from Chicago to Iowa City, Iowa, 

via Quad Cities (An addendum to December 5, 2007 Feasibility Report on 

Proposed Amtrak Service, Quad Cities-Chicago. 

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2004a. Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative Project Notebook 

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2004b. Midwest Regional Rail 

System Executive Report. 

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2006. Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative Project Notebook – Chapter 11, Replacement for June 2004 version. 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Proposed Track Connection

Wyanet, IL

Union

Station

BNSF

Morris

Peru--La Salle

Princeton

Mendota

Plano

Naperville

Joliet

Geneseo

Wyanet

La Grange Rd

IAIS

IAIS

CSXT

NIRC (IAIS)

Cedar Rapids

Iowa City

Quad Cities

Rockford

Chicago

Peoria

Miississippi River ssissippi River

Lake Michigan

88

74

55

57

39

80

90

380

94

280

43

290

190

I l l i n o i s

I o w a

W i s c o n s i n

Potential Intercity Passenger Rail Routes,

Chicago to Quad Cities and Iowa City

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

DATE

FIGURE

August 2009

1

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Potential_Intercity_Passenger_Rail_Routes.mxd\aug09\jcm

10 0 10 20 5

Miles

Scale

Legend

Existing AMTRAK Station

Proposed AMTRAK Station

Route A Alternative

Route B Alternative

Routes A & B Alternative

IAIS - Iowa Interstate Railroad

NIRC - Northeast Illinois Rail Corp.

Source: Feasibility Study on Proposed

Amtrak Service

Quad Cities to Chicago - January 7, 2008

Chicago to Iowa City - April 18, 2008
This page left intentionally blank.
I o w a

To Iowa City

To Chicago

Mis Mississippi River sissippi River

Rock Island Moline

Rock Island Arsenal

74

74

92

12th

Illinois 16th

15th

7th

19th

18th

5th

River

23rd

6th

19th

7th

River

I l l i n o i s

Proposed Station Locations DATE

FIGURE

August 2009

2

Z:\Projects\IDOT\115305_ARRA_HighSpRailGrant_App\map_docs\mxd\Proposed_Station_Locations.mxd\aug09\jcm

Chicago to Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Service

To Chicago

End of

Proposed

Service

I o w a Iowa City

University Heights

6

1

921

1

6

1

Benton

Riverside

Melrose

Highland

Market

Burlington

Muscatine

Governor

Gilbert

Dodge

Bowery

Rochester

D

ubuque

Sycamore

Evans

2nd

Grand

Byington

Gilbert

2,000 1,000 0 2,000

Feet

Scale

Legend

Proposed AMTRAK Station

Routes A & B Alternative

IAIS - Iowa Interstate Railroad

Source: Feasibility Study on Proposed

Amtrak Service

Quad Cities to Chicago - January 7, 2008

Chicago to Iowa City - April 18, 2008
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
Iowa Agency Coordination Distribution List

Name JobTitle Agency Address1 Address2 City State PostalCode Phone Fax

Mr. Mark Schenkelburg Environmental Specialist Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust Street Airports Division, ACE-615B Kansas City MO 64106

Mr. Dick Hainje Regional Director Federal Emergency Management Agency 9221 Ward Parkway Suite 300 Kansas City MO 64114-3372

Lubin Quinones Iowa Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 105 6th Street Ames IA 50010 (515)-233-7300

Mr. Darrell Tisor Regional Administrator Federal Railroad Administration 901 Locust Street Suite 464 Kansas City MO 64106 (816)329-3840

Ms. Joan Roeseler Federal Transit Administration 901 Locust Street Suite 404 Kansas City MO 64106 (816)329-3920

Ms. Christine Spackman** Environmental Services Division Iowa Department of Natural Resources 502 East 9th Street Des Moines IA 50319

Ms. Kathleen Moench Section 6(f) Funds Coordinator Iowa Department of Natural Resources 502 East 9th Street Des Moines IA 50319

Nick Chevance Environmental Coordinator Planning and Compliance Office National Park Service 601 Riverfront Drive Omaha NE 68102-4226 (402)221-7285

Ms. Barbara Mitchell Deputy SHPO State Historical Society of Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs 600 East Locust Des Moines IA 50319

District Engineer*** U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clock Tower Building Rock Island IL 61201

District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 190th 5th Street East St. Paul MN 55101-1638

Kayla Echert-Uptmor Omaha District Planning Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attention: CENWO-PM-A 1616 Capital Ave. Omaha NE 68102-4901

Ms. Martha Chieply Omaha District Regulatory Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ATtention: CENWO-OD-R 12565 W Center Road Omaha NE 68144-3869

Roger Wiebusch Commander (OBR) U.S. Coast Guard 1222 Spruce Street St. Louis MO 63103

Mr. Richard Sims State Conservationist U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service 210 Walnut Street Des Moines IA 50309

Mr. James P. Ryan Supervisory Project Manager U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 210 Walnut Room 239 Des Moines IA 50309-4015 (515)284-4015

Mr. Andrew Boeddeker* HUD Regional Office U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 400 State Avenue Gateway Tower II Kansas City KS 66101-2406 (913)551-5582

Mr. Robert F. Stewart Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance U.S. Department of Interior P.O. Box 25007 (D-108) Denver Federal Center Denver CO 80225-0007 (303)445-2500 (303)445-6320

Willie R. Taylor Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Department of Interior Main Interior Building, MS 2340 1849 C Street NW Washington DC 20440

Mr. Joe Cothern National Environmental Policy Act Team U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 901 North 5th Street Kansas City KS 66101

Mr. Richard C. Nelson Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1511 47th Avenue Moline IL 61265

Mr. Steve Anschutz U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 203 W 2nd St Grand Island NE 68801

***For written correspondence send to district engineer; in Rock Island District - for email/phone correspondence contact Neal Johnson or assigned project contact.

*HUD is contacted at the regional office to determine if there are housing projects in the area that have HUD funding. The KS contact will provide information on Public Housing and the Des Moines contact will provide information on the Multi-family Housing projects. The Iowa Department of Economic 

Development or the larger municipalities could be contacted for information on Community Block Grant projects.

** Need to submit 5 copies for distribution related to wetlands, water quality, air quality, regulated materials, and floodplains.
This page left intentionally blank.








Illinois Agency Coordination Distribution List

Name JobTitle Agency Address1 Address2 City State PostalCode

Federal Aviation Administration

Ms. Janet M. Odeshoo Deputy Regional Administrator Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Region V 536 South Clark St., 6th Floor Chicago IL 60605

Mr. Norman Stoner Illinois Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 3250 Executive Park Drive Springfield IL 62703

Marisol R. Simon Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration, Region V 200 West Adam Street, Suite 320 Chicago IL 60606

Ms. Maggie Cole Illinois Department of Natural Resources 2050 W. Stearns Road Bartlett IL 60103

Mr. Steve Hamer Illinois Department of Natural Resources One Natural Resources Way Springfield IL 62702

Nick Chevance Environmental Coordinator 

Planning and Compliance Office National Park Service 601 Riverfront Drive Omaha NE 68102-4226

Ms. Anne Haaker Deputy State Historical PreservatState Historical Society of Illinois #1 Old State Capital Plaza Springfield IL 62701-1507

Mr. Ron Abrant U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District 111 North Canal Street, 6th Floor Chicago IL 60606-7206

Donna Jones U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District- Regulatory BrClock Tower Bldg, P O Box 2004 Rock Island IL 61201

Wayne Hannel U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District- Regulatory BrClock Tower Bldg, P O Box 2004 Rock Island IL 61204

Roger Wiebusch U.S. Coast Guard, Bridge Office Eight Coast Guard District 1222 Spruce Street Suite 2. 107F St. Louis MO 63103-2832

Rear Admiral Peter V. Neffenger Commander U.S. Coast Guard Ninth Coast Guard District 1240 East 9th Street Cleveland OH 44199-2060

Mr. William Gradle State Conservationist U.S. Department of Agriculture 2118 W. Park Court Champaign IL 61821

Ms. Beverly Bishop Deputy Regional Director U.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevOffice of Regional Director, Ralph 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago IL 60604-3507

Willie R. Taylor

Director, Office of 

Environmental Policy and 

Compliance

U.S. Department of Interior Main Interior Building, MS 2340 1849 C Street NW Washington DC 20440

Mr. Douglas P. Scott Director Illinois Environmental Protection Agency P.O. Box 19276 Springfield IL 62794-9276

Mr. Ken Westlake National Environmental Policy 

Act Team U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago IL 60604

Shawn Cirton U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chicago Field Office 1250 S. Grove Ste. 103 Barrington IL 60010

Terry Savka Illinois Deparment of Agriculture Bureau of Land and Water Resourc State Fairgrounds, P.O. Box 19281 Springfield IL 62794-9281

Yellow highlighting indicates agencies contacted by both Iowa and Illinois DOTs
This page left intentionally blank.
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 




















APPENDIX G 

PRELIMINARY FARMLAND CONVERSION 

IMPACT RATING FORM 

CONTENTS 

USDA Form AD-1006 (10-83) Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank 
U.S. Department of Agriculture

FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING

PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request

Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved

Proposed Land Use County And State

PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS

Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?

(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form).

Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size

Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA

Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS

Yes No

Acres: % Acres: %

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating

Site A Site B Site C Site D

A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly

C. Total Acres In Site

PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information

A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland

C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted

D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value

PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion

 Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)

PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)

Maximum

Points

1. Area In Nonurban Use

2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use

3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed

4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government

5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area

6. Distance To Urban Support Services

7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average

8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland

9. Availability Of Farm Support Services

10. On-Farm Investments

11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services

12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use

TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 90

PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) TBD

Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local

site assessment) 90

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) TBD

Site Selected: Date Of Selection

Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

Yes No

Reason For Selection:

(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)

This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

Preliminary

9/22/09

Chicago-Iowa City Intercity Passenger Rail Federal Railroad Administration

Railroad Connection Bureau County, Illinois

7.0

2.0

9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0 0 0 0

15

10

4

20

5

10

10

10

5

1

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0

0

000 0
This Page Intentionally Left Blank