Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-1 May 2013

CHAPTER 4

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

This chapter includes a summary of agency coordination, tribal coordination, and public 

involvement that have taken place during the development of this Tier 1 EIS. Agency 

comments are summarized in Section 4.1 and include responses, tribal input is summarized 

in Section 4.2, and public input is summarized in Section 4.3.

4.1 AGENCY OUTREACH

Agency coordination has included interaction through email notices, email responses, 

in-person meetings, and teleconferences, as described in this section. For this Study, agencies 

are categorized as public entities with decision-making authority for the public.

4.1.1 Early Coordination

An early coordination (EC) packet and invitation to the agency scoping meeting was 

provided to the following entities, which are considered reviewing agencies:

• Federal agencies

o Federal Aviation Administration

o Federal Emergency Management Agency

o Federal Highway Administration

o Federal Transit Administration

o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

o U.S. Coast Guard

o U.S. Department of Agriculture

o U.S. Department of Army

o U.S. Department of Homeland Security

o U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

o U.S. Department of Interior

o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

o U.S. Geological Survey

• Illinois agencies

o Illinois Commerce Commission

o Illinois Department of Agriculture

o Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity

o Illinois Department of Human Services 

o Illinois Department of Natural Resources

o Illinois Division of Aeronautics

o Illinois DOT Bureau of Railroads

o Illinois DOT Districts

o Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-2 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

o Illinois Historical Preservation Agency (Illinois State Historic 

Preservation Office)

o Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs

o Illinois Nature Preserves Commission

o State of Illinois

• Iowa agencies

o Iowa Agriculture Development Authority

o Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship

o Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs

o Iowa Department of Human Services

o Iowa Department of Natural Resources

o Iowa Department of Public Health

o Iowa DOT Districts

o Iowa Economic Development Authority

o Iowa Environmental Protection Commission

o Iowa State Parks Bureau

o Iowa State Preserves Advisory Board

o Iowa Transportation Commission

o State Historical Society of Iowa (Iowa State Historic Preservation Office)

o State of Iowa

• Nebraska agencies

o Nebraska Department of Aeronautics

o Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

o Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services

o Nebraska Department of Natural Resources

o Nebraska Department of Roads District 2

o Nebraska Department of Roads Rail and Public Transportation

o Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

o Nebraska State Historical Society (Nebraska State Historic Preservation 

Office) 

o State of Nebraska

Agency input on the Study and Project was received during the agency scoping meetings on

February 21, 2012, in Ames, Iowa, and on February 22, 2012, in Chicago, Illinois, as well as 

through responses to the EC packet distributed on April 1, 2012. Appendix O contains 

meeting notes from the agency scoping meetings and communications received from the 

agencies.

Summary of Comments

Federal and state resource agencies provided guidance concerning potential environmental 

requirements, including permitting and approvals needed for the Project. The following is a 

summary of federal and state resource agency concerns:

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) indicated that a formal notice and 

airspace review may be required.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-3 May 2013

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) noted that recent remapping 

data of floodplain boundaries is available electronically and that FEMA could 

help FRA acquire the latest data. FEMA stated that it is likely that new mapping 

would be required in a few years to address climate change.

• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) indicated that it is involved in several 

intermodal projects in the Midwest, including station improvements in Moline, 

Illinois, and Dubuque, Iowa.

• Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had a safety concern regarding 

whether the proposed high-speed passenger rail service would be on dedicated 

tracks or share tracks with freight rail.

• U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) expressed interest regarding bridge crossings and 

whether the Arsenal Bridge across the Missouri River would be used for this 

Project. Locations and plans for bridges over navigable waterways of the U.S. 

must be approved by USCG prior to construction and a permit must be acquired. 

The permit application should include sufficient information to allow a thorough 

assessment of the environmental impact of any improvements to the bridge and its 

immediate approaches. 

• U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 

indicated that it would distribute the Notice of Intent and the early coordination 

packet to appropriate Department of Interior Bureau personnel.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 7 indicated that it would

serve as the lead USEPA agency for this Project. It recommended that the analysis 

focus on improvements needed for rail as well as support facilities and stations, 

and that it consider impacts on existing passenger rail service from Chicago 

through Omaha to the west coast. USEPA noted that the Tier 1 EIS should 

address potential impacts on wetlands and other waters of the U.S. protected 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, growth-related development impacts,

community and wildlife impacts such as noise/vibration and safety, and 

cumulative impacts on resources of concern.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Rock Island Office indicated that it 

would likely be the lead for USFWS input and that it will compile information 

from other USFWS offices. The agency noted that coordination would be needed 

concerning potential impacts on threatened or endangered species and their 

habitat. Of particular concern is the Hine’s emerald dragonfly. Wetland impacts 

would need to be assessed, as would noise and vibration impacts on wildlife, 

especially migratory birds.

• Illinois Department of Natural Resources (Illinois DNR) commented that it has a 

database that could be accessed through an agreement that would assist in the 

review of potential environmental impacts of alternatives.

• Iowa State Historic Preservation Office (Iowa SHPO) indicated that based on 

information provided to date, it was unclear whether any historic properties in 

Iowa would be affected by any of the considered route alternatives. The agency 

noted that a section of Route Alternative 4 between Davenport and Iowa City, 

Iowa, is one of the earliest railroad lines constructed in Iowa, with minimal 

change in alignment since construction in 1855; it also noted two historic railroad 

events along the section. 
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-4 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

• Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) indicated that several 

permits and approvals would likely be needed for the Project, including water 

quality, air quality, waste, and wetlands.

• Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (Nebraska DNR) noted that impacts 

on floodways/floodplains in Nebraska would need to be assessed and addressed 

via a floodplain development permit.

• Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) commented regarding impacts 

on wetlands, streams, and riparian habitats. NGPC encourages that impacts on

these resources be avoided and minimized, and that any unavoidable impacts on

these habitats be mitigated. It indicated that coordination with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) was needed if any fill materials will be placed into 

any wetland or stream. 

Representatives from counties and local municipalities generally noted their support for the 

Project, primarily for economic purposes, with a preference for route alternatives within or 

near their jurisdiction. For those instances where route alternatives did not include the 

representatives’ counties and local municipalities, a combination of route alternatives or a 

connection line from their municipalities to the route alternative was proposed as a solution 

for local access to the proposed passenger rail system. Route Alternative 4 or 4-A through the 

Quad Cities, Iowa City, and Des Moines was generally favored based on a small sample size 

of representatives from counties and local municipalities; some representatives specifically 

recommended a route alternative, whereas others identified the cities along the route 

alternative.

Table 4-1 provides a full list of the agencies providing comments, documents the issues 

raised, summarizes the comments, and notes the responses. Comments received from 

resource agencies are organized first by the agency making the comment (ordered by federal, 

state, county/region/regional governmental organization, and then local municipality), and 

then by the issue(s) introduced by the agency. Individual comments may apply to more than 

one issue; for those comments, multiple issues will be identified adjacent to the comments. In 

some instances, comments for a particular issue are lengthy; if additional paragraphs are 

included without an issue noted adjacent, the comment applies to the previously identified 

issue. For some comments, brackets denote information added to the comment for 

clarification; the bracketed text was not part of the original comment. The Final Scoping 

Report, which includes comments received prior to the completion of the report, is available 

on Iowa DOT’s Study webpage under Resources at 

http://www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha/resources.html.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-5 May 2013

Table 4-1. Summary of Agency Scoping Comments

Agency Issue Comment Response

Federal

Federal 

Aviation 

Administration

Agency 

Coordination

Permitting and 

Approvals

FAA has reviewed the furnished material and has no 

comments regarding environmental matters.

The Project may require formal notice and airspace review 

under Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, Objects 

Affecting Navigable Airspace. Use the Notice Criteria Tool 

on FAA’s website, and check multiple locations along the 

route for potential conflicts with public-use and military 

airports.

Comment noted.

The conceptual level of design during Tier 1 of the NEPA

process does not include sufficient information for use of 

the Notice Criteria Tool. Section 3.27.4.11 of the Tier 1 EIS 

notes that this effort would be conducted during Tier 2 

studies.

Federal 

Emergency 

Management 

Agency

Floodplains Recent remapping data of floodplain boundaries is available 

electronically, and FEMA could help FRA acquire the latest 

data. FEMA stated that it is likely that new mapping would 

be required in a few years to address climate change.

Comments noted.

Federal Transit 

Administration

General, Station

Facilities and 

Upgrades

FTA is involved in several intermodal projects in the 

Midwest, including station improvements in Moline, 

Illinois, and Dubuque, Iowa.

Comment noted.

Transportation 

Security 

Administration

Rail (Operations) How can “high-speed” trains operate on existing rail 

routes? Will these routes be dedicated to these passenger 

trains, or will they be shared with the railroads currently 

operating on them?

The existing rail lines are owned by the freight railroads. 

This Study is evaluating the need for improvements to 

existing rail and supporting infrastructure in order to host 

high-speed passenger trains as well as the current freight 

trains. The rail lines could be shared, with sidings used to 

divert and hold a train while another train uses the main 

line, or separate tracks could be provided for passenger 

trains and freight trains.

U.S. Coast 

Guard

Permitting and 

Approvals, EIS 

Process

Locations and plans for bridges over navigable waterways

of the U.S. (Missouri and Mississippi rivers) must be 

approved by USCG prior to construction, and a permit must 

be acquired. The permit application should include 

sufficient information to allow a throughout assessment of 

the environmental impact of the bridge and its immediate 

approaches. USCG recommends that the permit application 

discuss the impacts of procedures for constructing 

cofferdams, sand islands, falsework bents, etc., that will be 

employed to build the new bridge and demolish the old 

bridge. The NEPA document should contain data on the 

Section 3.27 of the Tier 1 EIS identifies potential known 

permits and approvals to help expedite future 

environmental review and permitting during the Tier 2 

NEPA process. The Tier 2 NEPA documents would involve 

close coordination with USCG on any new bridge or bridge 

improvements across navigable rivers. The Tier 2 NEPA

documents would contain details to help facilitate future 

permitting. The permit application would contain known 

details of temporary construction methods; if not known at 

the time of application, USCG would likely condition 

permit approval upon receipt of these details. FRA would 
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-6 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Agency Issue Comment Response

number, size, and types of vessels currently using the 

waterway. This data should be compared with past and 

projected future trends on the use of the waterway.

How is the Study looking at major bridges across the route?

What does this Project have to do with the Chicago to Iowa 

City project that would use the Arsenal Bridge across the 

Mississippi River?

then provide this information to USCG at a later date, once 

the methods are known and prior to implementation.

The Study identifies major structures that might need to be 

built or rehabilitated, especially those for Mississippi River

and Missouri River crossings. For example, the Iowa 

Interstate Railroad route crosses the Mississippi River on 

the Arsenal Bridge, and Union Pacific Railroad is building 

a new bridge at Clinton, Iowa. The Study looks at 

alternative routes and specifically river crossing locations to 

determine the gross needs for expansion, reconstruction, or 

replacement.

The Chicago to Iowa City project was split into two phases. 

The Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program passenger 

rail project (ending in Moline, Illinois) has state funding 

from Illinois, and NEPA is ongoing under Illinois DOT’s

direction. The Moline to Iowa City, Iowa, phase will be 

managed by Iowa DOT, but a state match in funding will 

need to be allocated to progress the project. The completion 

of the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program will 

determine the next steps for the Moline to Iowa City phase.

Relevant data for the Chicago to Iowa City project will be 

used for this Project.

U.S. 

Department of 

Interior

Agency 

Coordination

The USDOI Office of Environmental Policy and 

Compliance will distribute the Notice of Intent and the 

early coordination packet to appropriate Department of 

Interior Bureau personnel.

Comment noted.

U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency –

Region 7

Rail (Operations), 

Transportation 

(Current Train 

Traffic), Rail 

Upgrades, Noise, 

Safety, and several 

other relevant 

environmental 

resources

Existing track and current railroad operations represent a 

baseline condition. New track, track that connects between 

existing routes, and new track geometries for safety and 

facilitation of higher-speed trains should receive focused 

analysis above the existing condition. Likewise, the EIS 

should examine the environmental impacts of the stations

and support facilities associated with each of the route 

alternatives.

Chapter 2 (Alternatives) of the Tier 1 EIS addresses

baseline conditions (considered to be the No-Build 

Alternative), including known future commitments such as 

the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program

improvements and operations. Locations where new track is 

needed for higher speeds are considered in the Tier 1 EIS, 

as are station locations and support facilities to the extent 

known.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-7 May 2013

Agency Issue Comment Response

Project Purpose

and Need

EIS Process

Wetlands,

Socioeconomic,

Noise and 

Vibration, Safety,

Cumulative 

Impacts

The Purpose and Need statement indicates that the Study 

will evaluate “alternatives for the reestablishment of 

intercity passenger rail service from Chicago, Illinois, 

through Iowa, to Omaha, Nebraska.” Since intercity 

passenger rail service currently exists between Chicago and 

Omaha, the term “re-established” is inappropriate. 

The statement also notes that the Proposed Action seeks to 

“create a competitive rail transportation alternative to the 

available automobile, bus, and air service and would meet 

needs for more efficient travel.” USEPA recommends

clarifying the statement by inserting “passenger” after 

“rail.”

The Tier 1 process would be expected to eliminate some of 

the alternatives from further consideration based on specific 

criteria (such as operating and maintenance costs, ridership, 

and safety issues). The Tier I EIS should evaluate how the 

proposed high-speed service will interface with existing 

service through Omaha to San Francisco.

USEPA Region 7 would be the lead for USEPA input on 

the NEPA process for this Project

Tier 1 considerations should include 1) selection of the 

alternative corridors most likely to achieve the lowest 

environmentally damaging practical alternative under Clean 

Water Act (CWA) Section 404, 2) growth-related 

development impacts, 3) potential for community and 

wildlife impacts, such as noise/vibration and safety, and 

4) cumulative impacts on resources of concern. Future 

“Tier 2” or project-level analyses will address site-specific 

environmental impacts of the high-speed train system. 

Integrating the requirements of NEPA and CWA Section 

404 in Tier 1 should serve to expedite the environmental 

review and permitting process in Tier 2.

Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need) of the Tier 1 EIS addresses

this comment by eliminating the “reestablishment” 

terminology.

Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need) of the Tier 1 EIS addresses

this comment by inserting “passenger” before “rail.”

Chapter 2 (Alternatives) of the Tier 1 EIS addresses the 

alternatives identification and screening process to carry 

forward one or more alternatives for detailed evaluation 

under the NEPA process. The Tier 1 EIS addresses

potential impacts on the California Zephyr operations.

Comment noted.

Sections 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, and 3.27 of the Tier 1 EIS 

consider the issues noted and refer to CWA requirements to 

help expedite future environmental review and permitting 

during the Tier 2 NEPA process.
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-8 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Agency Issue Comment Response

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife

Service

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

EIS Process

Wildlife, Noise and 

Vibration

Route (Route 

Alternative 4), 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

Wetlands

USFWS data indicate that the species on the list enclosed 

with USFWS’s comment letter may occur in the counties in 

the Study Area. The list includes descriptions of the habitat 

requirements, which may be used to help determine if there 

is suitable habitat within the Study Area. In order to address 

potential impacts on federally listed species on the enclosed 

list, USFWS recommends that FRA initiate the Section 7 

process by obtaining an official species list and following 

the steps outlined at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered for Region 3 

(Illinois and Iowa) and http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/endspp/ for Region 6 (Douglas County, Nebraska)

USFWS Rock Island District will likely be the lead on input 

from USFWS for this Project and will compile input from 

other USFWS offices.

USFWS recommends that the project be evaluated for 

potential impacts on wildlife, particularly migratory birds, 

from increased noise and vibration resulting from increases 

in train frequency and speed for the alternatives considered. 

We are particularly interested in the feasibility of Route 

Alternative 4 because the portion of the route between 

Chicago and Joliet, Illinois could be combined with a 

potential alternative for the Chicago to St. Louis high-speed 

rail project. The Chicago Field Office has previously 

identified this potential alternative, carrying passengers east 

of Joliet, because it would eliminate adverse impacts on the 

Hine’s emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) located 

in the Lower Des Plaines River Valley. Improvements to 

the portion of the route between Joliet and Chicago could 

serve both high-speed rail projects and eliminate impacts on

the Hine’s emerald dragonfly.

National Wetlands Inventory maps indicate that there may 

be wetlands within and adjacent to the Study Area for all 

potential alternatives. USFWS recommends that USACE be 

contacted for assistance in delineating the wetland types 

Thank you for providing the list of species by county. The 

potential for species and habitat presence along the corridor 

was reviewed during the Tier 1 process; however, potential 

impacts will not be determined until Tier 2 analysis. If 

potential adverse impacts on threatened or endangered 

species are identified, the need for formal Section 7 

consultation with USFWS will be documented in the Tier 2 

process, where construction-related effects and activities of 

the preferred alternative can be more definitively assessed 

to determine whether there would be an adverse effect.

Comment noted.

Section 3.20 of the Tier 1 EIS considers impacts on natural 

habitats and wildlife, including the effects of increased 

noise and vibration.

Based on your comment, the specific locations of the seven 

critical habitat units in Illinois designated for the Hine’s 

emerald dragonfly were reviewed. Route Alternative 4, 

referenced in your comment, passes no closer than 

2.8 miles from the units for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly.

Consequently, no adverse impacts on the dragonfly are

anticipated along this route. Coordination with USFWS will 

continue throughout this Study to address potential impacts 

on threatened or endangered species.

USACE has been contacted regarding the Tier 1 EIS. The 

Tier 1 EIS relies on data, maps, and aerial photographs to 

assess various resources, including wetlands; no field 

surveys were conducted during this Tier 1 Study. GIS was
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-9 May 2013

Agency Issue Comment Response

and acreage within the project boundary. Priority 

consideration should be given to avoid impacts on

wetlands. Project activities that would alter wetlands may 

require a Section 404 permit. Unavoidable impacts will 

require a mitigation plan to compensate for any losses of 

wetland functions and values.

used to predict potential wetland impacts. During the Tier 2 

NEPA process, field studies would be performed to confirm 

wetland boundaries. USACE would be contacted again 

during the Tier 2 process as well as the Section 404 

permitting process.

State

Illinois

Illinois 

Department of 

Natural 

Resources

Agency 

Coordination

Illinois DNR requests that coordination occur in the same 

manner as for the Chicago to St. Louis project. Illinois 

DNR also asks that FRA acquire its database information to 

screen route alternatives for resources in their vicinity and 

to coordinate on those resources.

Illinois DNR was contacted to request the database 

information for route alternative review.

Iowa

Iowa 

Legislative 

District 26

Jobs, Routes 

(Location Specific)

Iowa Legislative District 26 urges Iowa DOT to seriously 

consider Route Alternative [2] through Clinton, a 

Mississippi River city that would provide a good layover

option. The City is well equipped to handle any and all 

requirements of a passenger rail project and could field a 

large, skilled workforce.

Comment noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

Iowa State 

Historic 

Preservation 

Office

EIS Process, 

Historical 

Properties

Iowa SHPO understands that the purpose of the Tier 1 

process does not involve consultation regarding specific 

construction activities, and that those consultations will 

occur as part of the Tier 2 process and perhaps in separate 

Section 106 consultation documents.

Based on information provided to date, it is unclear whether 

any historic properties in Iowa would be affected by any of 

the considered route alternatives. However, the rail segment 

from Davenport to Iowa City (along Route Alternative 4) is 

one of the earliest railroad lines constructed in Iowa, and 

the alignment has changed minimally since its original 

construction in 1855. This segment also hosted two 

significant historic events: the Mormon exodus from the 

State of Illinois, and John Brown’s last trip through Iowa 

prior to the raid at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Iowa 

SHPO looks forward to further consultation on this Project.

Comments noted.

Section 3.11 of the Tier 1 EIS addresses the railroad and 

historic events in consideration of potential Section 106 

effects and NEPA impacts of the Project. The Tier 2 NEPA 

process would involve further consultation for 

determination of Section 106 and NEPA impacts, including 

any required mitigation.
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-10 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Agency Issue Comment Response

Nebraska

Nebraska 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality

Permitting and 

Approvals

Water Quality

Waste

Wetlands

Air Quality

Permitting and 

Approvals

As with any facility, permits may be required prior to 

beginning construction or operation. At a minimum, FRA

should be aware of the possible requirements for the 

following permits:

A Construction Storm Water Permit will be required if 

there is greater than 1 acre of disturbance of land, which is 

likely with this Project.

Wastes generated from construction and/or demolition 

during this Project must be properly disposed at a permitted 

landfill or recycled.

USACE should be contacted regarding Section 404 needs.

Any contamination of city roadways will require prevention 

and/or clean-up per the City of Omaha specifications.

Depending on the final route and location in Douglas 

County as well as installation of stationary equipment,

NDEQ Title 129 (outside of city limits) and/or Omaha Air 

Quality Control regulations (inside of city limits) would 

apply to the following: 

• Land clearing and construction-disposal of waste 

materials by open burning.

• Asbestos assessment and abatement prior to any 

structure demolition.

• Fugitive dust control during all land clearing and 

construction activities.

• Construction and/or operating permits for 

stationary engines, boilers, emergency generation

equipment, and other equipment. 

Until further along in the planning process, it is unknown 

whether there may be additional regulatory 

requirements. NDEQ strongly urges FRA to contact it to 

determine other requirements. It has been NDEQ’s

experience that early and open communication helps 

facilitate the permitting process.

Comments noted. Section 3.27 of the Tier 1 EIS identifies

potential known permits and approvals to help expedite 

future environmental review and permitting during the 

Tier 2 NEPA process.

NDEQ will be coordinated with on additional permitting 

concerns for the Tier 2 Project that would occur in 

Nebraska.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-11 May 2013

Agency Issue Comment Response

Nebraska 

Department of 

Natural 

Resources

Surface Water, 

Floodplains, 

Permitting and 

Approvals

EIS Process

Nebraska DNR’s statutory responsibilities include surface 

water right administration, groundwater well registration,

and floodplain management programs. Based on Nebraska 

DNR’s initial review of the five potential route alternatives, 

it does not believe that the route alternatives will have 

significant impact on Nebraska’s surface water and 

groundwater resources. Floodway/floodplain impacts 

should be addressed if any segment requires infrastructure 

in a floodway/floodplain. During the Tier 2 stage (design 

and construction), a floodplain development permit would 

be required from the City of Omaha and/or Douglas County 

before any construction can begin in a floodplain within 

their jurisdiction.

FRA should keep Nebraska DNR informed about Project 

progress and the availability of the Tier 1 EIS.

Comments noted. Section 3.27 of the Tier 1 EIS identifies

potential known permits and approvals to help expedite 

future environmental review and permitting during the 

Tier 2 NEPA process. Nebraska DNR would be coordinated 

with on additional permitting concerns for the Tier 2 project 

that would occur in Nebraska.

Nebraska 

Game and 

Parks 

Commission

Wetlands, Streams, 

Wildlife Habitats

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

NGPC has concerns for impacts on wetlands, streams, and 

riparian habitats. NGPC encourages that impacts on these 

resources be avoided and minimized, and that any 

unavoidable impacts on these habitats be mitigated. 

Coordination with USACE should occur regarding the need 

for a Section 404 permit if any fill materials will be placed 

into any wetland or streams as a result of the proposed 

project.

Several state-listed threatened and endangered species are 

known to occur in the Missouri River, including the pallid 

sturgeon, lake sturgeon, and sturgeon chub. If the rail line 

crosses the Missouri River on an existing bridge structure, 

adverse impacts are not likely to occur. However, if a new 

bridge structure is needed on a new alignment or 

modification of an existing structure requires disturbance in 

the river, then there is a potential to impact these species. 

NGPC recommends that any construction in the river occur 

outside the primary migration and spawning period for the 

species listed above.

Sections 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, and 3.20 of the Tier 1 EIS address 

potential impacts on wetlands, streams, and riparian 

habitats. During development of the Potential Impact Area 

for the Project, these resources were considered, and there

was a broad attempt to avoid and to minimize the 

incorporation of those habitats within the area potentially 

disturbed by construction. The Tier 2 stage would look in 

detail at avoidance and minimization of impacts, and 

identify mitigation if impacts are unavoidable.

If potential adverse impacts on threatened or endangered 

species are identified in Tier 2 analysis, formal Section 7 

consultation with USFWS for impacts on federally listed 

species will be conducted; coordination will also occur with 

NGPC for state-listed species. Details of construction

timing and techniques would not be determined until the 

Tier 2 stage, where construction-related effects and 

activities of the preferred alternative can be more 

definitively assessed to determine whether there would be 

an adverse effect.
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-12 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Agency Issue Comment Response

Migratory Birds Under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, construction

activities in habitats that would otherwise result in the 

taking of migratory birds, eggs, young, and/or active nests 

should be avoided. The federal Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act provides for protection of the eagles that use 

habitat along the Missouri River. If it is determined that 

migratory birds, including bald and golden eagles, could be 

impacted by the proposed Project, FRA should coordinate 

with USFWS.

Migratory birds could be impacted by the Project;

coordination will occur with USFWS to reduce the potential

of a take of a migratory bird. This coordination and 

planning would occur during Tier 2 analysis when more 

specific details of the Project area known.

County/Region/Regional Governmental Organization

Illinois

Henry County, 

Illinois

Energy Use Public transportation is a viable solution to burning less fuel

while moving more people.

Comment noted.

Iowa

Cass County, 

Iowa

Routes (General), 

Funding of the 

Project

Is this Project going to happen and is the route the only 

question? Is this plan self-financing, or is this plan going to 

cost the taxpayer through federal and state subsidies?

The Tier 1 EIS provides high-level analysis of route 

location, speed, and station locations. Additional Tier 2 

studies are needed to identify localized impacts. The system 

would require federal and state financing.

City 

Development 

Board, Iowa

Economy, 

Economic Impacts

Iowa needs to invest in this Project. More highway and 

airport traffic creates additional automobile dependency, 

more congestion, and scattered development patterns. 

Passenger rail service that is fast and frequent reduces 

energy consumption and minimizes future disturbances to 

the natural environment (including farmland). This Project 

would enhance quality of life across the central portion of 

the state and help promote smart growth in that area.

Comments noted.

Des Moines 

Metropolitan 

Planning 

Organization,

Des Moines, 

Iowa

Transportation Would the alternatives analysis process address highway 

traffic?

Modal review of ridership, indirectly addressing highway 

traffic, is addressed in the alternatives analysis process as 

part of the Tier 1 EIS and is discussed in Chapter 2 and 

Section 3.1. The configuration of how the system would 

work, including impact on highway traffic and potential 

modifications of the highway system in areas with at-grade 

crossings, would be addressed during the Tier 2 NEPA

process. 

Johnson 

County, Iowa

EIS Process Johnson County, Iowa, officials are not aware of any 

environmental impacts and do not have any comments at 

this time concerning the Tier 1 EIS process.

Comments noted.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-13 May 2013

Agency Issue Comment Response

Muscatine 

County, Iowa

Route (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternatives 4 and 

4-A), Support

Muscatine County, Iowa, officials want to convey their 

strong support of passenger rail from Chicago to Omaha via 

the BNSF to Iowa Interstate Railroad via the Wyanet 

Connection in Illinois into Iowa [Route Alternatives 4-A 

and 4]. This corridor has been analyzed and repeatedly 

demonstrated its technical, economic, and environmental 

feasibility. With its proximity to Interstate 80, the route can 

reduce traffic congestion and air emissions by providing a 

passenger transportation alternative to cars along this 

corridor. The proposed route is consistent with the 2040 

Quad Cities Long Range Transportation Plan (June 2011), 

Iowa Region 9 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (June 

2009), Bi-State Region Transit Development Plan (2011), 

and the 2011 Comprehensive Economic Development 

Strategy (CEDS) for the Bi-State Region. 

As an important economic driver, passenger rail service can 

play a key role in retaining business and industry and 

encouraging expansion with greater connectivity to Chicago 

and Omaha. This route also provides for improved railroad

infrastructure to benefit freight and passenger 

transportation. It would also promote quality of life 

opportunities for Bi-State Region citizens as an alternative 

to driving to destinations along the route. 

Comment noted. Thank you for the information on plans 

applicable to Route Alternatives 4 and 4-A. See Chapter 2 

(Alternatives) for a summary of the alternative screening 

and selection process.

Comments noted.

Southern Iowa 

Council of 

Governments, 

Iowa

Route (Location 

Specific), Rail 

(Operations, 

Upgrades)

The Southern Iowa Council of Governments is concerned 

about the existing passenger route through southern Iowa 

being eliminated in favor of a more northern route. Millions 

of dollars have been spent on track upgrades and depot 

renovations for the Amtrak route through southern Iowa, 

and the economic impact of having Amtrak stops in this 

region is great. Although expansion of passenger rail is 

desirable through Iowa, it should be accomplished while 

maintaining the existing California Zephyr route through 

southern Iowa.

Comment noted. The California Zephyr is an Amtrak longdistance service operating under congressional 

appropriations, with decisions made by Amtrak’s governing 

board in consultation with Congress. State-supported trains 

such as the proposed Chicago to Omaha service are 

independent from the California Zephyr service and federal 

operating funds authority. 

Nebraska

Douglas 

County, 

Nebraska

Route (Location 

Specific)

The route needs to connect Omaha to Des Moines and to 

Iowa City at a minimum.

Comment noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-14 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Agency Issue Comment Response

Local Municipality

Illinois

City of Dixon, 

Illinois

Public 

Involvement,

Route (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternative 2), 

Support

Thank you for providing the online public meeting. With 

the Union Pacific (UP) mainline through Dixon, the City 

supports the UP line being the preferred route [Route 

Alternative 2]. The City would be pleased to provide 

accomodations for future public meetings.

Comments noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

City of Silvis, 

Illinois

Routes (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternative 4), Use 

of the Project

The present route will be going through the small town of 

Silvis but will serve thousands of people in the Quad City 

area.

Comments noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

Iowa

City of 

Bettendorf, 

Iowa

Support, Routes 

(Location Specific, 

Route Alternative 

4-A)

Transportation, Air 

Quality

The City of Bettendorf conveys strong support of passenger 

rail from Chicago to Omaha via Route Alternative 4-A. 

This corridor has been analyzed for the last decade through 

the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative and subsequent studies 

and repeatedly demonstrated its technical, economic, and 

environmental feasibility. 

This route alternative has the greatest population and 

potential riders. Its proximity to I-80 will reduce traffic

congestion and air emissions by providing a passenger 

transportation alternative to cars along this corridor. The 

proposed route is consistent with the 2040 Quad Cities

Long Range Transportation Plan (June 2011), Iowa 

Region 9 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (June 

2009), Bi-State Region Transit Development Plan (2011), 

and the 2011 Comprehensive Economic Development 

Strategy (CEDS) for the Bi-State Region.

Comments noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

Comments noted.

City of 

Burlington, 

Iowa

Rail (Upgrades, 

Improvements), 

Route (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternative 5), 

Station Facilities

The City of Burlington believes that the southern route 

[Route Alternative 5] best meets the needs of this Study. 

There recently has been a new bridge built across the 

Mississippi River, and the rail is being upgraded within the 

Burlington area. Also, Burlington has two [main] lines that 

are available on Route Alternative 5. Burlington has a depot 

that could be made available for passenger service.

Comments noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-15 May 2013

Agency Issue Comment Response

City of Center 

Point, Iowa

Route (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternative 2)

Route Alternative 2 would have the most passengers 

coming from the Chicago area to Iowa State University. 

Ames still has an existing station that could be used.

Comments noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

City of 

Clinton, Iowa 

(Planner)

Route (Location 

Specific), 

Economic Impacts

I suggest that passenger rail service be established through 

Clinton, Iowa, with a station stop in the city. Passenger rail 

will bring about many economic development possibilities.

Comments noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

City of 

Clinton, Iowa

(Council 

Member)

Route (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternative 2)

Route Alternative [2] looks great to me. Comment noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

City of 

Council Bluffs, 

Iowa

Route 

(Alternatives), 

Route (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternatives 4 and 

4-A), Station

Facilities

The City would like to propose potential locations for a 

terminus in Council Bluffs. As a historical rail center, the 

City is concerned with the environmental impacts of routes 

that will lead to additional traffic through Council Bluffs.

The Iowa Interstate Railroad route through the Quad Cities, 

Iowa City/Cedar Rapids metropolitan area, Des Moines 

metropolitan area, and ending in the Omaha/Council Bluffs

metropolitan area [Route Alternatives 4-A and 4] would 

serve most of Iowa’s population centers. The Study should 

strongly consider terminating the route in Council Bluffs 

and should consider the opportunity of establishing a multimodal terminus of the passenger rail line to bus, Eppley 

Airfield, a bike system, and the interstate system. An 

optimum location for a terminus is the area northeast of the 

Lake Manawa/Iowa Highway 192 exit (west of the Iowa 

Interstate Intermodal Facility and north of the east I-29 and 

I-80 interchange) with access to both interstates, buses, and 

bike/pedestrian system. This area is suitable for 

redevelopment, and there could be some synergism with the 

proposed interstate reconstruction and planned 

improvements.

Review of potential station locations is part of the Study 

and involves coordination with the cities of Council Bluffs 

and Omaha.

Comments noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

Coordination with the City of Council Bluffs has occurred,

and additional coordination would occur to review potential 

terminus locations as the Study progresses into Tier 2 

analysis.

City of 

Creston, Iowa

Rail (Speed) Unless a high-speed route is established, the best manner 

for moving more people between Chicago and Omaha 

would be to add service at opposite times of the current 

Amtrak schedule.

The need for improvements to existing rail and supporting 

infrastructure to host high-speed trains is being evaluated 

for this Study.
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-16 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Agency Issue Comment Response

City of Durant, 

Iowa

Route (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternative 4-A)

Rail (Operations)

The City of Durant likes a combination of Route 

Alternatives 4 and 5; this allows the route to be shortened

and to not have more than three station stops in Iowa.

What are the speeds being considered? Will it run on 

existing track? The City of Durant has five crossings to 

consider; who will be responsible for maintaining the gates 

and signals—the railroad or the city? The City does not

have room in its budget for additional expenses; currently, 

Iowa Interstate Railroad maintains all but one signal. How 

many times a day will the train go through?

Route Alternative 4-A, the combination of Route 

Alternatives 4 and 5, is reviewed in detail in the Tier 1 EIS.

The speeds being considered are 79, 90, and 110 miles per 

hour. The use of existing track and understanding where 

improvements are needed, as well as maintenance 

requirements/responsibility and operational frequency were

studied and are documented in Chapter 2 (Alternatives) of 

the Tier 1 EIS. A more detailed evaluation would continue 

during the Tier 2 NEPA process.

City of Fort 

Madison, Iowa

Route (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternative 5)

The City of Fort Madison prefers Route Alternative 5 to 

bring benefits of development to the most economically 

distressed part of Iowa.

Comment noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

City of Grand 

Junction, Iowa

Economic Impacts, 

Transportation 

(Current Train 

Traffic)

Rail (Operations), 

Station Facilities, 

Routes (Alternative 

Route) 

Rail 

(Improvements)

The City of Grand Junction is trying to promote itself as a 

“train town” for historical, tourism, and economic

development purposes, and has a significant east-west 

double-tracked Union Pacific (UP) line that intersects with 

a north-south track that starts in the City and continues up 

into northwest Iowa (big for grain shippers) but also 

connects through Fort Dodge and up into northern Iowa and 

Minnesota.

One option is for a route from Dubuque to Fort Dodge, 

Iowa, and then down to Grand Junction along the UP, and 

then along the UP over to Omaha [a combination of Route 

Alternatives 1 and 2]. The UP route [Route Alternative 2] 

would provide Iowans with the best access points through 

Clinton (Mississippi River city), Cedar Rapids (Iowa City 

metropolitan area), Ames (along the Ames-Des Moines 

business corridor), and perhaps a stop in Carroll, which has 

great infrastructure and a station.

Please provide more information on this Project concerning 

its high-speed rail component and any proposed stations

along the routes.

Comments noted.

Comments noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

The Study webpage at

http://www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha/ provides 

additional information on the Study. Chapter 2 

(Alternatives) of the Tier 1 EIS provides detailed 

information on the speeds evaluated and potential station

locations.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-17 May 2013

Agency Issue Comment Response

Routes (Location 

Specific)

Support

One existing highway overpass is located in Greene County 

(US 30 on the east side of Grand Junction), and another is 

being built in the City of Jefferson (Highway 4).

Any route would be good for the State of Iowa, but the City 

is hoping the route will either encompass Des Moines, 

Ames, or Fort Dodge in Central Iowa.

Comment noted.

Comment noted.

City of 

Grinnell, Iowa 

(Mayor)

Route (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternatives 4 and 

4-A)

Support, Economic

Impacts, Jobs, 

Transportation

Funding the Project

Routes (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternative 4/4-A), 

Jobs,

Transportation

The obvious best choice of routes would be the Iowa 

Interstate Railroad through Iowa City to Des Moines with 

an intermediate stop in Grinnell [Route Alternatives 4-A 

and 4].

The community of Grinnell would like to express strong 

support for the proposed passenger rail route from Chicago 

to Omaha via Iowa City and Des Moines. The system 

would attract and retain business and population, especially 

young people, and help Iowans connect more easily within 

the state as well as throughout the country. Passenger rail 

would expand the transportation options for all Iowans with 

a safe, reliable, cost-effective way to travel, especially with 

rising prices at the pump. Passenger rail is a smart 

economic investment for the state.

With federal funds covering about 80 percent of the start-up 

costs, The City of Grinnell joins with the Greater Des 

Moines Partnership in supporting continued funding of the 

Iowa DOT Passenger Rail Fund Program. 

The proposed route through Iowa City and Des Moines 

would give better access to Grinnell College students who 

come here from all over the country and would also provide 

better access for employees who commute from the Des 

Moines and Iowa City metropolitan areas. Proximity to I-80 

would facilitate access to stations, allowing the rail line to 

more conveniently serve a larger population.

Comments noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

Comments noted.

Comment noted.

Comments noted. 
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-18 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Agency Issue Comment Response

City of 

Grinnell, Iowa 

(Council 

Member)

Routes (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternative 4), 

Transportation

Energy Use, 

Transportation, 

Economic Impacts, 

Jobs

The proposed rail system needs to be faster than a car to 

attract enough ridership. The former Rock Island route 

makes the most sense to be centrally located in Iowa and 

compliment the interstate system with the potential for 

quick access to stations.

This idea would help lower our dependency on oil and 

would help connect smaller Midwestern cities with larger 

cities and reduce the number of cars needed. Development 

of this system would be an economic boom to all parties 

involved.

Comments noted.

City of Iowa 

City, Iowa 

Route (Location 

Specific), Support

The City of Iowa City is in full support of a passsenger rail 

system that includes Iowa City in the route, or at least close 

proximity (40 miles).

Comment noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

City of Lake

City, Iowa

Transportation, 

Support, Use of the 

Project

The Chicago to Omaha rail service would be great for the 

Midwest.

Comments noted.

City of 

Marengo, Iowa

Route (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternative 4), 

Support

The City of Marengo strongly supports expanded passenger 

rail service and Route Alternative 4 because rail users are 

typically college students and this route would pass through 

the college communities of Des Moines, Grinnell, and Iowa 

City.

Comments noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

City of Mount 

Vernon, Iowa

Routes (Location 

Specific, Route 

Alternative 2,

Route Alternative 

4), Jobs, Use of the 

Project, 

Transportation

The ideal route would connect Omaha to Des Moines, Iowa 

City, Cedar Rapids, Clinton, and then through the northern 

suburbs of Chicago to downtown Chicago. This would be 

the blue route [Route Alternative 4] connecting to the red 

route [Route Alternative 2] at Cedar Rapids through a 

connection along the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway 

(CRANDIC) line, which would be a very popular trip for 

commuters. University of Iowa students would provide for 

a lot of traffic to the northern suburbs of Chicago.

Comments noted. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives) for a 

summary of the alternative screening and selection process.

City of Ogden, 

Iowa

Transportation The City of Ogden feels that the concept of a good rail 

service from Omaha to Chicago is important. It is the right 

thing to do for efficient transportation and would be 

desirable as an alternative to both driving and flying.

Comment noted.

City of Roland, 

Iowa

Transportation, 

Oppose the Project

Chicago to eastern and central Iowa is already well served 

by Megabus at a fare that is less than a train, at a speed that 

is equivalent to a train, and without any state tax dollars.

Comment noted.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-19 May 2013

Agency Issue Comment Response

Nebraska

City of Omaha, 

Nebraska

Cumulative 

Impacts

Project Purpose

and Need

How will this Project affect other forms of transportation,

such as air travel?

What prompted this Study? Is there a needs statement?

It is anticipated that some demand for other forms of 

transportation would be slightly reduced by this Project. A 

demand model was used to anticipate future changes in 

demand by different travel modes.

The MWRRI Study identified the Chicago to Omaha 

corridor as a prime route for high-speed rail. A needs 

statement has been developed for the Project and was 

available for public and agency review during the online 

scoping meeting. An updated and expanded version of the 

needs statement is included in Chapter 1 (Purpose and 

Need) of the Tier 1 EIS and will be available for review.

Other States

Village of 

Yellow 

Springs, Ohio

Support This is a great idea. Comment noted.
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-20 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-21 May 2013

4.1.2 Cooperating Agencies

On May 17, 2012, FRA extended an invitation to 24 federal and state agencies to become 

cooperating agencies for this Tier 1 EIS. Invitation letters were sent to specific agencies 

based on FRA and Iowa DOT’s identification of reviewing agencies that may have an 

interest in the Project because of the potential for intergovernmental issues and/or the 

potential for impacts within that agency’s legal jurisdiction. Cooperating agencies:

• Participate in coordination meetings.

• Raise concerns about any relevant technical studies that may be needed for the 

Project.

• Provide information on alternatives.

• Assist the lead agency (FRA) in determining appropriate and practicable 

mitigation when appropriate. These measures should reflect avoidance, 

minimization, and compensation.

• Review pre-draft and pre-final documentation and comment as early as 

practicable on environmental issues of concern.

Agencies that agreed to serve as cooperating agencies on this Project are:

• FHWA Iowa Division

• FTA Region V

• USACE Rock Island District

• USCG District 8

• U.S. Department of the Army, Rock Island Arsenal

• USEPA Region 5

• USEPA Region 7

• USFWS Rock Island

• Illinois DNR

• Iowa SHPO

On October 24, 2012, a teleconference was conducted with cooperating agencies prior to 

completion of the Tier 1 Draft EIS to discuss the proposed approach for NEPA compliance 

as well as other environmental requirements. The Tier 1 Draft EIS was issued to these 

agencies, along with other agencies and the public, and comments from cooperating agencies 

were considered during preparation of the Tier 1 Final EIS. Section 4.4 includes a summary 

of comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS, Appendix O has been supplemented with specific 

agency comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS, and Appendix Q includes a table of comments on 

the Tier 1 Draft EIS and responses to those comments. FRA anticipates that these agencies 

would continue to be cooperating agencies through participation in future Tier 2 NEPA 

processes associated with the Project. 

4.1.3 Milestones

Iowa DOT coordinated with both reviewing and cooperating agencies from Illinois, Iowa, 

and Nebraska at selected Project milestones during this Study. These milestones are 

1) purpose and need, 2) alternatives to be analyzed, and 3) alternatives to be carried forward. 

Iowa DOT continued to coordinate with the reviewing and cooperating agencies throughout 

the Tier 1 NEPA process, including at the fourth milestone, selection of the preferred 
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-22 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

alternative. Coordination at these Project milestones helped guide the Study, especially 

alternatives identification and evaluation.

At each Project milestone, Iowa DOT coordinated with the reviewing and cooperating

agencies by distributing information for their review. Coordination for milestone 1 was 

completed after the purpose and need statement was developed. A packet of information, 

including the purpose and need statement, was distributed to the agencies prior to the scoping 

meeting for the agencies’ review and comment. Coordination for milestones 2 and 3 occurred 

after coarse-level and fine-level screening of the alternatives was conducted. The results of 

the screening were documented in the Alternatives Analysis Report (Appendix A), which 

was made available to the agencies for review and comment. The Tier 1 Draft EIS addressed 

milestone 4, selection of the preferred alternative, and was made available to all reviewing

and cooperating agencies. Comments by all agencies were considered in preparing the Tier 1 

Final EIS. 

4.2 TRIBAL OUTREACH

Coordination with Illinois DOT and NDOR was conducted to compile a list of tribes and 

Native American groups, whose tribal ranges included the portions of Illinois, Iowa, and 

Nebraska along the route alternatives shown in Figure 2-1. A coordination packet that 

described the Study and Project and included a figure of the route alternatives was mailed to 

representatives of each tribe and Native American group on May 17, 2012, by FRA. FRA, as 

the lead federal agency, is responsible for offering government-to-government consultation 

with tribes and ensuring that treaty and trust responsibilities to tribes are considered in the 

review of the proposed route alternatives. This packet was the same as the EC packet sent to 

resource agencies (see Appendix O). The following is the compiled list of the tribes and 

Native American groups to which the packet was sent:

• Ho-Chunk Nation

• Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska

• Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma

• Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas

• Miami Tribe of Oklahoma

• Omaha Tribe of Nebraska

• Otoe-Missouria Tribe

• Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma

• Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

• Ponca Tribe of Nebraska

• Sac and Fox Nation of Mississippi in Iowa

• Sac and Fox Nation of Mississippi in Kansas and Nebraska

• Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma

• Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

• Yankton Sioux Tribe

In addition to the tribes and Native American groups listed above, an information packet was 

sent to the Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs. Feedback from tribes and Native 

American groups was considered as part of the Study, is documented in this Tier 1 EIS, and 

establishes coordination for future interaction on the Project as part of Tier 2.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-23 May 2013

At the request of the Yankton Sioux Tribe, additional Sioux Tribes of the region were sent 

EC packets on July 5, 2012. The following is the compiled list of additional Sioux Tribes 

contacted: 

• Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation

• Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe

• Crow Creek Sioux Tribe

• Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota

• Lower Brule Sioux Tribe

• Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota

• Oglala Sioux Tribe

• Prairie Island Indian Community Mdewakanton Dakota Sioux of Minnesota

• Rosebud Sioux Tribe

• Santee Sioux Nation

• Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community of Minnesota

• Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation

• Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota

• Upper Sioux Community

Comments received from tribes and Native American groups during preparation of the Tier 1 

Draft EIS are organized by tribe or group and are summarized below.

The Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas does not currently have sufficient staffing to provide input on 

the Project and deferred to other tribes and Native American groups with similar historical 

ties. The tribe acknowledged FRA’s compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act.

The Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska reviewed the route alternatives and indicated that it has

cultural properties in some of the areas that could undergo construction. According to oral 

tradition, the tribe lived in the area in the prehistoric period and in the early years of the 

historic period. If any burial sites or other cultural properties are found, the tribe must be 

notified immediately.

The Yankton Sioux Tribe noted that the proposed route alternatives fall within its ancestral 

lands and is requesting further coordination for conducting a traditional cultural property 

(TCP) study and including other Sioux tribes in the region as part of Project coordination.

Further coordination would occur during the Tier 2 NEPA process.

Section 4.4 includes a summary of comments received on the Tier 1 Draft EIS, including 

those from tribes and Native American groups, and Appendix Q includes a table of 

comments on the Tier 1 Draft EIS and responses to those comments. 

Future consultation with tribes and Native American groups would occur during Tier 2 

through FRA via government-to-government interaction.

4.3 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

At the onset of the Study, Iowa DOT conducted a Stakeholder Analysis to identify public 

stakeholders in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska who may be affected by or have data related to 

the Study. The contact information for these stakeholders was entered into a database as a 
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-24 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

starting point for stakeholder outreach. As more members of the public engaged in the Study 

through the public outreach process, the stakeholder database expanded. All identified 

stakeholders are receiving updates at Study milestones via one or more of the outreach tools

described in Section 4.3.1 and will be invited to the public meetings. In addition, these 

outreach tools are being used to notify the Study Team of public activity. The Agency and 

Stakeholder Involvement Plan developed for the Study includes details of the outreach plan 

(Iowa DOT, March 2, 2012).

4.3.1 Outreach Tools 

A variety of outreach tools are being used to notify public stakeholders about the status of 

this Study and to provide opportunities for input. These include both a Study webpage on 

Iowa DOT’s website, a Project website for hosting online meetings, a toll-free Study

information line, an online community tool kit, and an email mailing list.

The Study webpage on Iowa DOT’s website (http://www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha)

includes general Study information, the Tier 1 EIS schedule, maps of the initial range of 

route alternatives, resources (including a media webinar, a community tool kit, an online 

survey, the Notice of Intent, news releases, documents produced for the Study, and links to 

other resources), in-person public meeting information and links to the online public meeting,

materials from previous meetings, a link to an online comment form, links to promote the 

sharing of Study information through Facebook and Twitter, and contact information. As 

new information becomes available, it is posted on the Study webpage.

A Project website with a unique URL (http://chicagotoomaha.com/) is used specifically for 

hosting online public meetings. This website is not always active, and hosts only the most 

current information. For example, when public scoping was completed, the scoping 

information was moved to Iowa DOT’s Study webpage

(http://www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha/resources.html), and the next topic, results of the 

alternatives analysis screening process and public meetings to review the findings of the 

analysis, was then posted on the Project website (http://chicagotoomaha.com/).

A toll-free Study information line (1.800.488.7119) is also available to provide general Study 

updates, to provide opportunities for public participation, to record comments on the Study, 

and to allow callers to join the Study mailing list, with notification via email and receipt of 

information via email or postal mail, based on commenter preference. The information line is 

updated at each Study milestone to provide the most current and up-to-date Study 

information to stakeholders. An online community tool kit was developed with informational 

brochures on the Study, the NEPA process, and opportunities to get involved for use by 

interested stakeholders and community groups. The community tool kit included a survey 

that was used by stakeholders and community groups to solicit input from their memberships 

via the Internet, mobile devices, or postal mail from April 13 to September 1, 2012 (see 

Section 4.3.4 for the community survey results). Finally, Project email messages are sent at 

key milestones to all stakeholders identified through the Stakeholder Analysis and to those 

requesting to be added to the Study mailing list. Email invitations have been sent to invite 

participation at online and in-person public meetings and to announce the launch of the 

online community tool kit. Table 4-2 summarizes the outreach tools and use by stakeholders 

from February 2012 through January 21, 2013. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-25 May 2013

Table 4-2. Outreach Tools and Usage Summary

Outreach Tool Usage February 2012 Through

January 21, 2013

Study webpage 10,835 unique visitors

Project website 6,508 unique visitors

Facebook 1,006 posts

Twitter 166 tweets and 56 retweets

Study information line 23 calls

Community surveys 1,934 completed surveys

Project emails sent 37,200 emails

To announce online and in-person meetings, press releases and media advisories have been

released to all print media outlets statewide in Illinois and Iowa, and to the Omaha World 

Herald and Lincoln Journal Star in Nebraska at all Study milestones, public participation 

opportunities, and comment periods. This media strategy resulted in 66 earned media 

mentions in local and national news outlets from February 2012 through January 21, 2013. 

In addition to press releases, advertisements have been placed in the following newspapers to 

announce the public meetings and avenues to review information and provide comments:

• Ames Tribune (Ames, IA) 

• Burlington Hawk Eye (Burlington, IA) 

• Cedar Rapids Gazette (Cedar Rapids, IA) 

• Davenport Quad-City Times (Davenport, IA)

• Des Moines Register (Des Moines, IA)

• Dubuque Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA) 

• Fort Dodge Messenger (Fort Dodge, IA)

• Iowa City Press-Citizen (Iowa City, IA) 

• Osceola Sentinel-Tribune (Osceola, IA) 

• Taylorville Breeze Courier (Taylorville, IL)

• Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier (Waterloo, IA) 

To accommodate language and communication barriers, all information, including video 

scripts from public meetings, can be requested by mail and can be translated to Spanish or 

other languages by request.

4.3.2 Scoping Meeting

Iowa DOT, in conjunction with FRA, hosted an online open-house meeting from February 13 

to April 16, 2012, for the public to understand and comment on the scope of the Study and 

the initial range of route alternatives. The online scoping meeting was held on the Project

website (http://chicagotoomaha.com/). Public comments from the online scoping meeting 

were collected through online comment forms, email messages, letters mailed or faxed to 

Iowa DOT, and the toll-free Study information line. Based on automatic electronic login 

recordation for the online open-house meeting, there were 2,789 attendees, and 994 

comments were collected.
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-26 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Many of the comments contained multiple issues and concerns. Each issue was identified and 

assigned a unique code, and subtopics were assigned as warranted; where appropriate, similar 

concerns were grouped into categories. For example, “economic impact” was identified as a 

common topic, and subtopics for that issue included local benefits, improvement of business

and job opportunities, and several others. If a comment required an immediate response, such 

as a media inquiry, or if a comment included questions concerning the scoping period or 

public meetings, a response was drafted and provided either by telephone, email, or letter. A 

subject matter expert reviewed the issues and codes, and provided summary information to 

preparers of the Tier 1 EIS to ensure that the relevant issues are addressed in the NEPA

document. Individuals providing public comment were not identified for privacy reasons.

The key comments for each resource topic are summarized here. Expanded summaries of 

comments by resource topic are provided in the Final Scoping Report in bullet format; in 

many instances, subtopics have been combined to consolidate similar comments.

Very few public comments expressed concern with potential impacts on the natural and 

physical environment, either from not constructing the Project or from constructing and 

operating the Project. The majority of commenters supported development of the Project and 

cited a variety of reasons for their support, including fuel efficiency, reliability, safety, 

comfort, competitive cost, and economic development. Those not in favor of the Project gave 

several reasons, including that current bus service is sufficient and that taxpayer funds should 

not be used for the Project. However, there were several commenters indicating support for 

the Project if no taxpayer funds were used. Commenters identifying themselves as retirees 

and/or college students typically supported the Project. Key comments by issue are identified 

below:

• Agricultural Resources – The use of existing ROW should be maximized in 

order to minimize the use of farmland and other land uses.

• Air Quality – More use of rail service would maximize fuel efficiency while 

minimizing impacts on air quality. Buses are reported to have a higher rate of 

passenger mileage per gallon of fuel than passenger trains and fewer emissions of 

carbon dioxide.

• Climate Change – Passenger rail service would slow climate change.

• Cumulative Impacts – Economic, environmental, and social pros and cons 

should be considered. In addition to assessing impacts of constructing and 

operating the passenger rail system, the following should be assessed: reduced 

highway and airport congestion, improved transportation safety, and the resulting 

public and private development.

• Drugs/Crime – The Study should address potential increases in drug use and 

crime at station stops and along the route alternatives.

• Economic Impacts – The Study should evaluate not only costs of the Project but 

also the direct and indirect cost benefits, such as reducing highway traffic, 

improving transportation safety, reducing airline rates through competition, and 

stimulating the economy. In addition, quality of life improvements for those who 

cannot afford their own vehicles should be evaluated. A Project benefit would be 

better commuting and interconnection of young professionals to help reduce outmigration. In addition, high-speed rail service would better link cities’ economies. 

Noted concerns are that the Project could pull money from Iowa to spend in 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-27 May 2013

Chicago and that the Project is not affordable given the current budget deficit. The 

passenger rail service should be accomplished without affecting the route for the 

California Zephyr; it would be economically detrimental if the Amtrak service 

were adversely affected.

• Elderly – Passenger rail service would be useful for seniors who cannot drive or 

do not want the stress of driving in congested traffic, especially for rural residents 

traveling to cities.

• Energy Use – Passenger rail service would be more energy efficient, less 

dependent on foreign oil, and cleaner than individual vehicles that often have only 

one occupant. However, buses offer more miles per passenger per gallon of fuel

than trains. Passenger rail with fuel is not as energy and carbon efficient when 

compared to Europe’s use of electric power for rail operations.

• Environmental Justice – The passenger rail service should be accomplished 

without affecting the route for the California Zephyr, which goes through some of 

the poorest counties in Iowa; it would be economically detrimental to low income

populations if the Amtrak service were adversely affected.

• Funding of the Project – Because private railroads are the main beneficiary of an 

upgraded, shared route, they should help fund the Project. The Project would need

to be subsidized, would not likely meet its ridership estimates and goals, and 

would lose money. Funding should be focused on one route alternative based on 

existing infrastructure. Passenger rail needs better funding from the Federal 

government, which spends a great deal of money to support the airport and 

highway systems.

• General – This Project would help revitalize a system that worked more than a

century ago and works well in Europe. The passenger rail system should be 

planned to account for existing rail operations and local transit systems. In 

addition, community support for stations should be considered during system 

planning.

• Health – Public transportation benefits public health and transportation safety.

• Jobs – In addition to construction jobs, the passenger rail system would lead to 

permanent jobs both directly and indirectly. Regional connectivity would be 

improved and would allow young professionals in Iowa to stay in the state while 

developing local careers. Businesses will want to be near station depots, and the 

stations would assist in recruiting potential employees to an area.

• No-Build Alternative – The alternative to not build the passenger rail system is 

the appropriate option because of the current budget deficit.

• Noise – Trains are loud and would increase noise levels along the selected route

alternative, which is a disadvantage for those living along the route alternative.

• Oppose the Project – The Project should be privately funded or not constructed. 

Do not use tax dollars to fund the Project; use tax dollars for better uses, such as 

education. The use of a bus system is a better option. The Project would transport 

problems from Chicago to rural areas and should not be developed.

• People with Disabilities – As a nation, we have done little to accommodate 

people who cannot drive a vehicle.

• Project Need – There is no need for a system that cannot support itself without 

tax dollars. There is a need for affordable, regional travel beyond what is 
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-28 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

available from expensive airline fares. A commuter-type service is needed 

between the most populated parts of Iowa, including Des Moines (the state 

capital). Given existing bus service, there is no need for passenger rail service.

• Project Purpose – There is no purpose for the Project because passenger rail 

service is not needed.

• Property Acquisition – Available ROW should be used to the maximum extent 

possible to minimize property acquisition. A dedicated, direct route requiring 

acquisition by eminent domain may be the only solution for an efficient passenger 

rail system. The passenger rail system should be located along existing interstate 

ROW; this would minimize ROW acquisition and be along a fairly straight and 

flat route.

• Public Involvement – The public involvement website is easy to use and 

informative, with good visuals. The displays on the public website are difficult to 

read. A demonstration train should be used for operations to allow the public to 

better understand the passenger rail concept.

• Rail – Freight Rail – Passenger rail must be given priority over freight 

operations to be efficient. Route Alternatives 1 and 4 have relatively little freight 

traffic, whereas Route Alternatives 2 and 5 have heavy freight traffic that could 

interfere with passenger traffic. A separate, dedicated passenger rail line should 

be installed to avoid conflicts with freight trains.

• Rail – Improvements and Rail – Upgrades – Vast improvements and upgrades 

to tracks, sidings, signals, and other infrastructure would be required. Route 

alternatives with more, current upgrades could be more economical to modify 

than antiquated routes. Costs to upgrade, reconstruct, or build new bridges need to 

be considered. In addition, upgrade of tracks to the highest possible speed during 

initial construction needs to be considered. Slower service is fine because it would 

require fewer upgrades and cost less to get the Project going.

• Rail – Operations/Speed – The most important operational issues are reliability 

and cost, followed by scheduling. Air travel is more vulnerable to terrorism than 

rail travel. Overnight travel would be good between Omaha and Chicago, and an 

early morning departure would also be recommended. The faster the trains can 

operate, the more efficient and attractive the system would be compared to air, 

bus, and single vehicle travel. The schedules for this passenger rail service and 

Amtrak’s California Zephyr should be integrated.

• Routes – Alternative Route/Locations – While planning this system, the 

potential for a north-south intersecting route such as Minneapolis-Des MoinesKansas City should be considered. Service to Sioux Falls should be included. 

Instead of this Project, a light rail running from Iowa City to Waterloo should be 

considered. The service should be expanded from Omaha to Lincoln. A 

combination of route alternatives should be used, such as Route Alternatives 4 

and 5 with a connection in Wyanet, or Route Alternatives 2 and 3 with a 

connection between Cedar Rapids and Ames. Both Iowa City and Ames should be 

included on the selected route alternative. Because there is already Chicago to 

Omaha service, the route should run from Chicago to Kansas City. The route 

should be created from Chicago to Dubuque to Cedar Rapids to Iowa City to Des 

Moines to Omaha.
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-29 May 2013

• Routes – Route Alternative 1 – Route Alternative 1 would come close to many 

of the largest population centers and would provide service to the University of 

Northern Iowa.

• Routes – Route Alternative 2 – Route Alternative 2 could be the least expensive 

route alternative for upgrade based on improvements by Union Pacific. Route 

Alternative 2 would help transit at multiple colleges and includes depots that 

could be reused.

• Routes – Route Alternative 3 – Much of Route Alternative 3 would have to be 

replaced and would not be an economical option, requiring much property 

acquisition. The Illinois portion of the route alternative has much freight traffic, 

making it an unattractive option.

• Routes – Route Alternative 4 – Route Alternative 4 would be along major 

population centers and near I-80, which would facilitate quick access to stations. 

The route alternative would travel by many colleges, which would make this route 

alternative convenient. Des Moines, as the Iowa state capital, would be a key city 

along Route Alternative 4 as would the Quad Cities area and Iowa City.

• Routes – Route Alternative 5 – Route Alternative 5 has several disadvantages as 

it has the least number of urban centers and a high amount of freight traffic with 

no dedicated passenger lines, and it already has passenger rail service. The 

southernmost route would likely have less winter weather impact than the more 

northern routes. A commuter-type service is needed on this route alternative.

• Routing Process – One route should be selected based on what has already been 

improved for the route, and funding should be obtained for the entire route. 

Routing should be used that would increase frequencies to maximize investments 

in present infrastructure. Analysis should be conducted on where people both in 

and out of state live and will most likely want to travel.

• Safety – There are concerns with high-speed rail passenger trains sharing tracks

with freight trains. Very good grade-separated crossings should be provided. 

Passenger rail service should reduce highway traffic accidents by reducing 

congestion, provide an alternative safer method for winter travel, and decrease 

drinking and driving incidents and distracted drivers. Something like the 

Transportation Security Administration should be provided to address security 

issues for safe travel of the public.

• Schedule – The Study should be completed, and the Project should be constructed 

and operating. Iowa is several years behind Illinois in the planning and 

construction of passenger rail service.

• Station Facilities and Upgrades – The Study should consider better/fewer

station stops at key population centers, convenient access, secure stations and 

parking with free or low-cost parking, amenities at and around the stations, and 

convenient access to rental cars and mass transit. The passenger trains should 

support transit of bicycles. The service should have sufficient stops beyond those 

for major cities. Reuse/upgrade of existing station facilities should be considered, 

as should station locations in areas near current mass transit centers.

• Support the Project – Many support passenger rail service because it would be

dependable, fast, safe, progressive, efficient, and greener compared to other 

modes of transportation. Although buses provide a relatively inexpensive travel 
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-30 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

option, they are often late due to traffic and can be crowded. The younger 

generation is in favor of transit options because of the capability to use laptops, 

cell phones, etc. Regional passenger rail service would provide options for 

business trips and vacations, commuting, and travel by college students, senior 

citizens, and travelers who cannot afford a car.

• Train Amenities – Trains are more comfortable, roomy, and frequently more 

suited to community access than other forms of transportation. Trains need 

working restrooms, food and beverage service, a variety of seating arrangements, 

tables, and Wi-Fi for Internet users. People should be able to take more luggage 

than on an airplane and have the option to store bicycles on the train. There 

should be multiple departure times and on-time service.

• Transportation – Bus Service – Funds for rail would be better spent on 

upgrading our busing system to make buses more energy efficient. Efficient bus 

service would make choosing passenger trains less likely. Buses are crowded, 

uncomfortable, and make too many stops. Buses have a better on-time record than 

Amtrak with less carbon dioxide output than trains. The rail option is too 

expensive for families compared to buses. If passenger rail is developed, it should 

tie into convenient bus service from passenger rail stations to other cities not 

served by rail.

• Transportation – Current Train Traffic – The ongoing conflict between 

Amtrak operations on freight routes suggests a certain incompatibility and 

inefficiency between freight and passenger rail services. Amtrak, an existing 

passenger rail service, should be invested in rather than a new system. Amtrak is 

unreasonably priced, takes too long, is not reliable, and does not serve the main 

population centers in Iowa. Potential impacts on the California Zephyr system as 

a result of implementing a regional passenger rail system should be considered; 

any new system should be accomplished while maintaining the existing service.

• Transportation – General – Instead of passenger rail, it would be better to invest 

in a mode that people will continue to use, such as highways. The passenger rail 

service should be developed, and inter-urban rail or bus rapid transit should 

connect with other population centers to help reduce congestion on our highways. 

Compared to Europe, our passenger train system seems outdated and needs to be 

improved to become a viable service. The rail system should be electrified.

• Transportation – Highway Congestion – The majority of college students in 

Iowa are from out of state and have only automobiles for traveling between home

and college; providing rail service would reduce roadway congestion. Congestion 

in the Chicago area is a disincentive to driving; people in Iowa would more likely 

travel to Chicago via passenger rail. With the main population centers along I-80, 

providing a passenger rail service in this area should help alleviate highway 

congestion.

• Use of the Project – The Study should review the demographics around stations

and along route alternatives to help select the route alternatives and stations for 

the most use. The passenger rail system could be used most regularly by 

commuters, but also by college students, retirees, vacationers, patients visiting 

hospitals, and people attending sporting events and traveling on holidays. The 

system would get more use in the future as other connections are established. Use 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-31 May 2013

of the system could increase during the winter when driving and airline travel are 

restricted. Use would likely be highest for the route alternative along the largest 

population centers. If the travel times, costs, and stops are not reasonable, do not 

build it because there would not be enough use to justify the costs.

• Water Quality – The passenger rail system would be a good environmental and 

economic move to reduce energy expenditures and environmental impacts on air 

and water quality.

4.3.3 Alternatives Analysis Meetings

A set of three public information meetings was held in May 2012 to obtain input from the 

public on preliminary results from screening the initial range of route alternatives (see 

Figure 2-1). The Draft Alternatives Analysis Report (FRA and Iowa DOT, April 27, 2012)

was available for review on the Project website the week of the meetings. Chapter 2 of this 

Tier 1 EIS includes a summary of the Alternative Analysis process and presents the results of 

the process.

The public information meetings were conducted both through in-person open-house 

meetings held in three locations and through an online, self-directed open-house meeting. 

In-person meetings were conducted on Tuesday, May 1, 2012, at Chicago Union Station in 

Chicago, Illinois; Wednesday, May 2, 2012, at the State Historical Society Building in Des 

Moines, Iowa; and Thursday, May 3, 2012, at the Mid-America Center in Council Bluffs, 

Iowa. The in-person meetings were held from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. each evening. The online 

open-house meeting was available from May 1 through May 21, 2012, on the Project 

website. The in-person and online open-house meetings were hosted by Iowa DOT, which 

illustrated the various route alternatives, explained the process used to evaluate the route 

alternatives, discussed results of the alternatives analysis, and helped Iowa DOT, FRA, and 

Illinois DOT gain public input on the route alternatives. Based on sign-in sheets for the inperson meetings and automatic electronic login recordation for the online meeting, there 

were 163 in-person attendees and 5,177 online attendees.

During the comment period for the alternatives analysis, 208 comments were received from 

agencies, organizations, and the public. The majority of commenters noted that they would 

use the project and cited a variety of reasons, including personal or business travel. In 

addition, 134 commenters noted their support for the Project, including a preference for 

Route Alternative 4 or Route Alternative 4-A, as well as potential economic benefits. Six

comments were submitted by those who were not in support of the Project. Non-supportive 

comments cited the use of taxpayer money and the lack of a market for long-term use. The 

Alternatives Analysis Report was supplemented with comments and responses, was finalized, 

and is included in Appendix A.

In addition to the public information meetings, two Stakeholder Meetings were held with 

municipal representatives, elected officials, and community leaders. The Stakeholder 

Meetings were hosted by Iowa DOT from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 2, 2012, at 

the State Library in Des Moines, Iowa, and on Thursday, May 3, 2012, at the Mid-American 

Center in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Formal invitations were sent to municipal representatives, 

elected officials, and community leaders asking them to meet with the project team to discuss 

the same information that was presented at the in-person and online open-house meetings. 
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-32 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

4.3.4 Community Survey Results

Public opinion of the full implementation of the Preferred Alternative from Chicago to 

Omaha was gathered through an online community survey. This survey was qualitative in 

nature and reflects the opinion of only those who elected to respond. A total of 1,934

completed surveys were submitted during the survey period, which was April 13 through 

December 26, 2012; the survey remained open until the end of the comment period on the 

Tier 1 Draft EIS. As shown in Table 4-3, the vast majority of respondents would use the 

service for business travel or both business and personal travel, support the establishment of 

regional passenger rail, and think it will have a positive economic impact.

Table 4-3. Community Survey Results Summary

Questions and Possible Responses Number of Responses Percentage of 

Responsesa

When traveling to destinations in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska, which of the following transportation 

options do you use most often?

Bus 49 2.7%

Car 1,697 92.0%

Passenger Rail 47 2.5%

Plane 47 2.5%

I don’t know 5 0.3%

When traveling to destinations in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska, which of the following transportation 

options would you prefer to use?

Bus 19 1.0%

Car 337 18.5%

Passenger Rail 1,340 73.7%

Plane 47 2.6%

I don’t know 77 4.2%

If improved regional passenger rail were available from Chicago, Ill., through Iowa to Omaha, Neb., 

including four to five round-trips during the day with greater than 90 percent on-time performance

and travel times similar to a car, would you use the service?

Yes 1,654 88.0%

No 41 2.2%

Maybe 169 9.0%

I don’t know 14 0.8%

If improved regional passenger rail were available from Chicago, Ill., through Iowa to Omaha, Neb., 

why would you use rail service?

Business Travel 383 20.5%

Personal 680 36.3%

Both 764 40.8%

I would not use the service 44 2.4%

Do you think there will be a positive economic impact on Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska associated 

with regional passenger rail service?

Yes 1697 90.1%

No 50 2.7%

Not Sure 136 7.2%

Do you currently use passenger rail service?

Yes 565 30.3%

No 1,299 69.7%
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-33 May 2013

Questions and Possible Responses Number of Responses Percentage of 

Responsesa

Which of the following would be the most important consideration when planning a regional 

passenger rail system from Chicago through Iowa to Omaha?

Cost of transportation 506 30.4%

Accessibility 203 12.2%

Convenience 255 15.3%

Cost to taxpayers 77 4.6%

Economic development 122 7.3%

Job creation 36 2.2%

Environmental benefits 130 7.8%

Increased travel options 269 16.1%

Other 69 4.1%

How important are the following elements in selecting a passenger rail route alternative?

a. Train speed

Not At All 93 5.0%

Moderately 1,014 54.5%

Extremely 719 38.6%

No Opinion 35 1.9%

b. Costs to residents in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska

Not at all 153 8.2%

Moderately 903 48.6%

Extremely 763 41.0%

No opinion 40 2.2%

c. Costs of travel

Not at all 23 1.3%

Moderately 661 35.8%

Extremely 1,141 61.8%

No opinion 21 1.1%

d. Impacts to the natural environment (wetlands, streams, air quality, etc.)

Not at all 168 9.1%

Moderately 717 38.9%

Extremely 890 48.3%

No opinion 67 3.7%

e. Impacts to the built environment (homes, towns, businesses, schools, etc.)

Not at all 205 11.1%

Moderately 915 49.6%

Extremely 644 34.9%

No opinion 80 4.4%

If regional passenger rail service were available to you, how important would the following factors be 

in choosing passenger rail service in place of other modes of travel?

a. Travel times

Not at all 42 2.3%

Moderately 730 39.4%

Extremely 1,062 57.2%

No opinion 20 1.1%

b. The cost of travel options

Not at all 31 1.7%

Moderately 616 33.2%

Extremely 1,191 64.3%

No opinion 15 0.8%
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-34 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Questions and Possible Responses Number of Responses Percentage of 

Responsesa

c. The experience of traveling by train

Not at all 167 9.1%

Moderately 749 40.7%

Extremely 864 47.0%

No opinion 58 3.2%

d. Opportunities during travel to work or socialize

Not at all 247 13.4%

Moderately 784 42.4%

Extremely 745 40.4%

No opinion 70 3.8%

e. Decreased environmental impacts versus other travel modes.

Not at all 129 7.0%

Moderately 666 36.2%

Extremely 962 52.3%

No opinion 82 4.5%

f. Reliability of service

Not at all 20 1.1%

Moderately 345 18.7%

Extremely 1,456 78.7%

No opinion 29 1.5%

g. Frequency of use

Not at all 57 3.1%

Moderately 871 47.2%

Extremely 858 46.6%

No opinion 57 3.1%

h. Proximity of service to your home, destination, etc.

Not at all 58 3.4%

Moderately 667 39.2%

Extremely 929 54.7%

No opinion 46 2.7%

Do you support the establishment of regional passenger rail service from Chicago through Iowa to 

Omaha?

Yes 1,725 92.9%

No 78 4.2%

Not Sure 54 2.9%

Would you like to join our mailing list to receive more information on the study?

Yes 678 43.0%

No 904 57.0%

4.4 TIER 1 DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT PROCESS

After the Tier 1 Draft EIS was published, Iowa DOT and FRA held public hearings in the 

vicinity of the proposed Project. The public hearings were held in three major communities 

along the proposed route—Chicago, Illinois; Des Moines, Iowa; and Council Bluffs, Iowa—

in December 2012. Specific meeting dates and locations were as follows:

• Chicago, Illinois

o Tuesday, December 11, 2012

o Union Station
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-35 May 2013

o Great Hall Gallery

o 500 West Jackson Street

• Des Moines, Iowa

o Wednesday, December 12, 2012

o Des Moines Botanical Center

o Oak/Willow Room

o 909 Robert D. Ray Drive

• Council Bluffs, Iowa

o Thursday, December 13, 2012

o Council Bluffs Public Library

o Conference Room A/B

o 400 Willow Avenue

All of the public hearings were held from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. Hearing attendees were asked to 

sign in at the meetings. In all, 152 people signed in at the three public hearings, with the 

highest attendance (74 people) occurring at the Des Moines, Iowa, hearing. Each hearing 

included a formal presentation at 5:30 p.m., followed by a question-and-answer session 

concluding at 6:15 p.m. Iowa DOT and consultant staff were available for discussion 

between 4:00 and 5:30 p.m., and then following the question-and-answer session between

6:15 and 7:00 p.m. Discussions were held with attendees at the information boards and aerial 

maps of the Study Area. Attendees wishing to provide comments were invited to complete 

and submit a comment form either in person or through direct mail, or to use one of the many 

other Project comment mechanisms, discussed below.

At all three public hearings, the same information was presented. The purpose of the public 

hearings was for Iowa DOT to receive public input on the Tier 1 Draft EIS, including the 

Project’s purpose and need, all reasonable alternatives, the affected environment, and the 

potential environmental impacts of the alternatives considered. Iowa DOT also explained the 

basis for selection of the Build Alternative and the No-Build Alternative.

In addition to the public hearings, Iowa DOT hosted an online open-house meeting from 

November 9 through December 26, 2012, on the Project website 

(http://chicagotoomaha.com/) for those who were unable to attend the in-person public 

hearings or who preferred not to attend. Through a series of web pages, the online visitor had 

the opportunity to review all the information boards, watch videos from Iowa DOT staff, and 

provide comments. The online open-house meeting presented the same information as the 

public hearings. The online open-house meeting garnered 910 unique visitors through the end 

of the comment period on December 26, 2012.

Following the last public hearing, a Stakeholder Meeting was held with municipal 

representatives, elected officials, and community leaders. The Stakeholder Meeting was

hosted by Iowa DOT from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m. on Friday, December 14, 2012, at the Chamber 

of Commerce Boardroom in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Formal invitations were sent to municipal 

representatives, elected officials, and community leaders asking them to meet with the 

project team to discuss the same information that was presented at the in-person public 

hearings and online open-house meeting. 
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-36 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comments on the Project were collected through comment forms submitted at the in-person 

public hearings, comment forms or letters mailed or faxed to Iowa DOT, online comment 

forms, email messages, and the toll-free Study information line. For comments containing 

multiple issues and concerns, each issue was identified and assigned a unique code, and 

subtopics were assigned as warranted; where appropriate, similar concerns were grouped into 

categories. For example, “economic impact” is a common topic, and subtopics for that issue 

include local benefits, improvement of business and job opportunities, and several others. If a 

comment required an immediate response, such as a media inquiry, or if a comment included 

questions concerning the comment period or public hearings, a response was drafted and 

provided either by telephone, email, or letter. Comments received by the close of the 

comment period, which ended on Wednesday, December 26, 2012, were included in the 

official record for the Project. Individuals providing public comment were not identified for 

privacy reasons.

A subject matter expert reviewed the issues and codes, and provided summary information. 

The key comments for each resource topic are summarized here; in many instances, 

subtopics have been combined to consolidate similar comments.

Very few public comments expressed concern with potential impacts on the natural and 

physical environment, either from not constructing the Project or from constructing and 

operating the Project. The majority of commenters supported development of the Project and 

cited a variety of reasons for their support, including fuel efficiency, reliability, safety, 

comfort, competitive cost, and economic development. Those not in favor of the Project gave 

several reasons, including that current bus service is sufficient and that taxpayer funds should 

not be used for the Project. Key comments by issue are identified below: 

• Air Quality – More use of rail service would maximize fuel efficiency while 

minimizing impacts on air quality. 

• Climate Change – Passenger rail service would slow climate change.

• Corrections to the Document – Rail lines were incorrectly plotted inside town 

limits of Galesburg, Illinois, and Osceola, Iowa; the Study should have used more 

data from the Chicago to Iowa City Tier 1 study instead of re-inventing the wheel. 

• Cultural Resources – Commenters were concerned with potential impacts on

historic homes and buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places and 

requested that coordination be conducted with the Amana Colonies Land Use

District.

• Cumulative Impacts – Economic, environmental, and social pros and cons 

should be considered. In addition to assessing impacts of constructing and 

operating the passenger rail system, the following should be assessed: reduced 

highway and airport congestion, improved transportation safety, and the resulting 

public and private development.

• Drugs/Crime – There would be increases in drug use and crime at station stops 

and along the route.

• Economic Impacts – The Project would have positive economic impacts for the 

communities through which the route runs and for the State; the Project would 

spur economic development; and passenger rail travel is a more cost-effective 

means of travel. Some commenters expressed concerns about the negative 

impacts on smaller communities. 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-37 May 2013

• Elderly – The passenger rail service would be useful for seniors who cannot drive 

or do not want the stress of driving in congested traffic, especially for rural 

residents traveling to cities.

• Energy Use – Passenger rail service would be more energy efficient and would 

allow the country to be less dependent on foreign oil; and passenger rail travel is 

cleaner than vehicle and air travel.

• Funding of the Project – Commenters thought that the Project would need to be 

subsidized, would not likely meet its ridership estimates and goals, and would 

lose money. Passenger rail needs better funding from the Federal government, 

which spends a great deal of money to support the airport and highway systems. 

Many commenters also expressed concerns about spending taxpayer dollars on 

funding the construction and ongoing operation of the Project, although others 

were in favor of raising the gas tax to fund it.

• General – This Project would help revitalize a system that worked more than a 

century ago and works well in Europe. The passenger rail system should be 

planned to account for existing rail operations and local transit systems. In 

addition, community support for stations should be considered during system 

planning. 

• Jobs – In addition to construction jobs, the passenger rail system would lead to 

permanent jobs both directly and indirectly. Regional connectivity would be 

improved and would allow young professionals in Iowa to stay in the state while 

developing local careers. Businesses will want to be near station depots, and the 

stations would assist in recruiting potential employees to an area.

• Natural Resources – The State should consult with local communities and with 

state environmental experts with groups such as the Iowa Environmental Council 

and Iowa Sierra Club whenever the project requires landscape modifications that 

affect wetlands, wildlife refuges, and other environmentally sensitive areas.

• Noise – There would be increased noise levels along the route, which is a 

disadvantage for those living along the route.

• Oppose the Project – The Project should be privately funded or not constructed.

The Project might transport problems from Chicago to rural areas.

• Parks – Commenters expressed an interest in the Project connecting them to other 

recreational opportunities in the state if they could bring their bikes on board the 

passenger train.

• Phased Implementation – The Study should look at the initial level of service 

rather than the ultimate goal.

• Property Acquisition – Concern was expressed about the coordination of private 

property acquisition and compensation.

• Public Involvement – Commenters asked about meetings and comment methods, 

requested materials, and stated that they enjoyed the in-person and online 

meetings.

• Rail – Current Rail Traffic – Concerns were noted about the current freight 

traffic in communities and about the funding of Amtrak’s California Zephyr.

• Rail – Improvements and Rail – Improvements – Vast improvements and 

upgrades to tracks, sidings, signals, and other infrastructure would be required. 

Route alternatives with more current upgrades could be more economical to 
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-38 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

modify than antiquated routes. Costs to upgrade, reconstruct, or build new bridges 

need to be considered. In addition, upgrade of tracks to the highest possible speed 

during initial construction needs to be considered. 

• Rail –Speed – The faster the trains can operate, the more efficient and attractive 

the system would be compared to air, bus, and single-vehicle travel. 

• Routes – Alternative Route/Locations – The route should cross the Missouri

River using the UP bridge. The Study Area should be extended into Nebraska to 

connect the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to other Big Ten schools. Commuter 

lines for service to Ames and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, should also be evaluated. 

Connections should be provided to Lincoln, Nebraska; Sioux City, Iowa; Kansas 

City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri; St. Louis, Missouri; and Minneapolis, 

Minnesota.

• Routes – Route Alternative 1 – Commenters were disappointed that Route 

Alternative 1 was dropped from the evaluation.

• Routes – Route Alternative 4/4-A – Route Alternative 4/4-A would be along 

major population centers and near I-80, which would facilitate quick access to 

stations. The route alternative would pass many colleges, which would make this 

route alternative convenient. Des Moines, as the Iowa state capital, would be a 

key city along the route alternative as would the Quad Cities area and Iowa City.

• Routes – Route Alternative 5 – Commenters expressed their desire for the 

passenger rail service to be on Route Alternative 5 because of the improvements 

to the Burlington Station in Burlington, Iowa.

• Routing Process – Commenters asked whether the establishment of the Chicago 

to Council Bluffs-Omaha service would eliminate the California Zephyr in the 

southern part of Iowa. Routing should be used that would increase travel 

frequency in order to maximize investments in the present infrastructure. 

• Safety – Commenters expressed concerns about high-speed rail passenger trains 

sharing tracks with freight trains and thought that very good grade-separated 

crossings should be provided. Passenger rail service should reduce highway 

traffic accidents by reducing congestion, providing an alternative safer method for 

winter travel, and decreasing drinking and driving incidents and distracted drivers. 

The passenger rail system should have security screening for riders.

• Schedule – Implementation of the Project should be expedited. 

• Station Facilities and Upgrades – The trains should stop at better/fewer station 

stops in key population centers and should have convenient access, secure stations 

and parking with free or low-cost parking, amenities at and around the stations, 

and convenient access to rental cars and mass transit. The passenger trains should 

support transit of bicycles. The service should have sufficient stops beyond those 

for major cities. Reuse/upgrade of existing station facilities should be considered, 

as should station locations in areas near current mass transit centers.

• Support the Project – Many support passenger rail service because it would be

dependable, fast, safe, progressive, efficient, and greener compared to other 

modes of transportation. Although buses provide a relatively inexpensive travel 

option, they are often late due to traffic and can be crowded. The younger 

generation is in favor of transit options because of the capability to use laptops, 

cell phones, etc. Regional passenger rail service would provide options for 
Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 4-39 May 2013

business trips and vacations, commuting, and travel by college students, senior 

citizens, and travelers who cannot afford a car. 

• Train Amenities – Desired amenities on trains include working restrooms, food 

and beverage service, a variety of seating arrangements, tables, and Wi-Fi for 

Internet users. Trains should also be able to accommodate more luggage than 

airplanes and have the option to store bicycles on the train. 

• Transportation – Alternative Transportation Mode – Commenters expressed 

an interest in having an additional and energy-efficient transportation mode 

available to them.

• Transportation – Bus Service – Passenger rail service is preferable to bus 

service.

• Transportation – Highway Congestion – Rail service would reduce roadway 

congestion. Congestion in the Chicago area is a disincentive to driving; people in 

Iowa would more likely travel to Chicago via passenger rail. With the main 

population centers along I-80, providing a passenger rail service in this area 

should help alleviate highway congestion and accidents.

• Use of the Project – The passenger rail system could be used most regularly by 

commuters, but also by college students, retirees, vacationers, patients visiting 

hospitals, and people attending sporting events and traveling on holidays. Use of 

the system could increase during the winter when driving and airline travel are 

restricted. Use would likely be highest for the route alternative along the largest 

population centers. 

• Wetlands – Additional coordination would need to occur with USACE and other 

agencies for wetland areas.

Several resource agencies provided comments; Appendix O has been supplemented with 

agency comments, and Appendix Q includes the comments and responses to the comments.

4.5 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INPUT

The scoping period and public comment period on the Tier 1 Draft EIS provided 

opportunities for agencies; tribes and Native American groups; and stakeholders to review 

route alternatives and the potential impacts associated with their implementation. Section 4.4 

described the public hearing and comment period. The comments were reviewed and used to 

create this Tier 1 Final EIS, which has been issued in the same manner as was the Tier 1 

Draft EIS. The Tier 1 Final EIS will be available for review for 30 days, and FRA can take 

no action for implementing the proposed action during the comment period. Subsequent to 

the end of the comment period, FRA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) to document its

decision on a proposed action. The ROD will address public input on the Tier 1 Final EIS

and will document the selected alternative as well as specific mitigation measures and other 

environmental commitments. The issuance of the ROD will complete the Tier 1 process.

Commencement of Tier 2 is dependent on the allocation of federal funding, with state 

contributions, for various sections of the Project. Chapter 5, Next Steps, provides a detailed 

discussion of the potential sections of the Project and the opportunity for additional 

involvement during Tier 2. 
Chapter 4, Comments and Coordination Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4-40 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

This page intentionally left blank