APPENDIX Q

TIER 1 DRAFT EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 1 May 2013

Table 1. Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Tier 1 Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

5267 Public 

Involvement Scott Koch

Greater Des 

Moines 

Convention & 

Visitors 

Bureau

Do you have a twitter account or anything I can tweet out? What 

about Facebook?

Hello, Thank you for your interest in the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Information about the project can 

be found by following the Iowa DOT Twitter at https://twitter.com/iowadot. In 

addition, Share Links built into the project website at 

www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha/ will have updated information you can share 

through Facebook and Twitter. Thank you for your comment.

5263

Noise – Loud 

Rail Traffic; 

Safety – Grade 

Crossings

Frank 

Salomon

Greater Des 

Moines 

Convention & 

Visitors 

Bureau

Greetings. In reading the new draft EIS, part 7, I was pleased to find 

awareness that grade-crossing and noise are concerns. SAFETY 

GATES: I ask you to make sure in particular that four-part gates and 

other safety measures are written firmly into the project core, and not 

left as expensive loose ends for municipalities to cover. A few feet 

from my house, on Greenwood Ave. (IA 52246), rails with NO gates 

at all run across the access way to a children's day care center. This 

is already frightening, with freight trains, and with high-speed traffic 

it would become deadly. NOISE: As I understand it, four-part gates 

would obviate the requirement that locomotives sound their horns at 

the crossing. Horns, and not motor noise, are the main noise impact 

here. The rails apparently also need an additional improvement to 

mitigate screeching wheels. Please understand that I am generally 

pro-rail, but only if HSR in undertaken with FULL concern for 

environmental needs. Highways already compromise a lot of real 

estate; let's not let rails add to the problem. Thanks for your 

attention. Frank Salomon

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. 

Grade Crossings:

Based on criteria developed by the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) as part 

of implementation of a new intercity passenger rail service, gates and flashing lights 

will be required for every public crossing along the entire route, including crossings 

that now only have flashing lights and/or passive signage. For speeds of 79 mph or 

less, gates are installed on 2 quadrants rather than 4. If the speeds are ultimately 

higher than 79 mph, there will be a requirement to install additional safety 

mechanisms at the crossings. 

Noise:

A locomotive is required to sound their horn for safety purposes, unless a 

community has established a Quiet Zone status. For a community to become a 

Quiet Zone community, the local jurisdiction must work with the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) as well as the host railroad to determine eligibility for a 

community becoming a Quiet Zone designee. Typically, additional safety 

improvements are required at crossings and the cost is the responsibility of the local 

community. Since that initial request must come directly from the city officials, we 

recommend that you continue to work with your local officials to discuss options 

for establishing Quiet Zone(s).

5379

Safety – Public; 

Transportation –

Highway 

Congestion

Paul Weihe

Students 

Concerned 

About the 

Environment

Thank you for posting the EIS document, for the proposed highspeed rail line between Chicago & Omaha. I am unsure if it contains 

answers to two questions. Would you please respond either with 

answers by email, or direct me to the relevant page(s) of the 

document on which such answers can be found? 1. Assuming the 

proposed line is built, fewer people will be driving the route by 

personal vehicle (automobile). Would there be a difference (based on 

established statistics) in resultant deaths, due to fewer automobile 

fatalities? I would assume that more people riding the rails would 

lead to fewer dying in automobiles on the route. 2. Assuming the line 

is not built, would it be safe to assume that more people would be 

driving more highway miles? If so, would more highway 

routes/lanes/wider highways result? More highway interchanges? 

More parking lots built? And, have those impacts been quantified 

and included in your EIS? I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Based on the study criteria we did 

not research how a proposed new regional passenger rail service would affect 

highway fatality rates on the current highway system. It would make sense that 

statistically as you decrease ADT (Average Daily Traffic) on a roadway, you are 

likely to increase safety. When we go through the exercise of determining a 

benefit-cost ratio for this route, which will occur over the next few months, we will 

take into consideration the values for human life, human injury, and property 

damage. My thoughts are that the volume of passenger rail are so low compared 

with over all traffic that we'll need to address capacity and growth regardless of 

whether we have passenger rail or not.

Our major highways and interstates are seeing more annual traffic each year and so 

it is likely that if we don’t have alternative transportation options, the traveling 

public will use what exists. The benefit-cost ratio does include a monetized value 

for avoided highway congestion on a per-passenger-mile basis, which incorporates 

broad measures for avoided highway maintenance, avoided highway construction, 

and avoided travel time delay. It does not measure for avoided parking lot 

construction. If other options don’t exist, it is likely that the Iowa Department of 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 2 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

Transportation will have to plan for improvements necessary for the additional 

traffic, which could lead to additional lanes, more interchanges, etc.

5405 Safety - Public Brian Recker Individual

Will this system have security? All the conveniences and cost 

savings that can be attained by travelling by rail are negated if 

people are afraid to ride it. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Amtrak, who would likely be the 

operations provider for this service, is under the jurisdiction of the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA). Amtrak also maintains a police force that works 

with TSA on various protocols to insure safety of travelers. Amtrak and the TSA 

employ various methods including pre-trip screening of passenger manifests and 

random surveillance aboard trains and at stations, often in cooperation with local 

law enforcement. Amtrak trains are also subject to the laws and regulations of other 

authorities like the Drug Enforcement Agency and U.S. Border Patrol, who may 

also act to protect trains and passengers.

5408 Tier 2 Study Rodney 

Wurgler

US Coast 

Guard

Ms. Amanda Martin, My office is trying to determine if any new 

bridge will be built for this proposed project or are you planning to 

rehabilitate any bridges for this project?

Thank you for taking the time to provide comments as part of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study (the Study). Iowa DOT has 

conducted analyses of Route Alternative 4-A concerning bridge crossings of 

navigable rivers that could require USCG permits. Based on the information 

prepared for the 2010 Chicago to Iowa City Passenger Rail Service application 

submitted to FRA, and the preliminary analysis completed thus far on the Study, we 

do not anticipate replacing or conducting any major rehabilitation to the 

Government Bridge in Moline, Illinois, which crosses the Mississippi River. At this 

time in the Study, we do not know specific infrastructure requirements for crossing 

the Missouri River and have identified two potential locations for crossing the river 

between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska (see the Draft EIS, Figure 2-

4): either at the non-operational CN Railway (former Illinois Central) crossing or at 

or adjacent to the operational Union Pacific Railroad crossing. Since this Study is 

being evaluated under NEPA through a Tier I EIS, it does not involve detailed 

engineering to specifically identify a Missouri River bridge crossing location and 

what would need to be done with rail bridges over navigable waters. We are 

deferring the detailed analysis until Tier 2, when we can obtain the necessary 

funding to perform the planning and engineering analyses to determine the specific 

location of the Missouri River bridge, and whether a new bridge or reconstruction 

of an existing bridge would be required. After acquiring funding for Tier 2, we 

would be conducting Tier 2 environmental analyses concerning the environmental 

impacts associated with the alignment (including the crossing of navigable waters), 

as well as determining permitting needs with the USCG.

5486 Corrections to 

the Document

Corey 

Hlavacek Individual

Iowa DOT Staff, In browsing the PDF document “Chapter 2 

Alternatives,” 

(http://www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha/pdfs/draftEIS/Chapter%2

02%20Alternatives.pdf) I noticed that the map “Figure 2-1” was 

plotted incorrectly or in a way that may cause confusion for 

unfamiliar reviewers. Galesburg, IOWA is correctly plotted in its 

approximate location, however no rail lines, especially the IAIS, run 

through the town. In addition, the map has the city of Osceola, 

Illinois plotted correctly in its location. Again, neither IAIS nor 

BNSF pass through Osceola, Illinois. Osceola, Iowa is significant 

because the California Zephyr runs through it on BNSF Railway 

Company’s Tracks, while Galesburg, Illinois is a big hub for BNSF 

Railway Company and a pass-through location for two State of 

Illinois sponsored AMTRAK routes and two long distance Amtrak 

routes. Also see Figure ES-3 

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Figures ES-3 and 2-1 in the Final 

EIS were revised to remove Galesburg, Iowa, and Osceola, Illinois. When these 

figures were updated, Des Moines, Iowa, was added to both figures.

• Yes, the state of Iowa does have the ability to potentially enter into a privatepublic partnership or alternative funding option, but the Iowa Department of 

Transportation has not explored these options for the Chicago to Council BluffsOmaha passenger rail service.

• Iowa cannot enter into a design build arrangement.

• Iowa would probably consider it, if it is shown to be feasible, desirable, and legal.

• Food and beverage service will be offered. The service design is too conceptual to 

determine whether there are two classes of service, and since contract negotiations 

with Amtrak haven’t even begun on the Illinois side, it’s unknown what they will 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

http://www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha/pdfs/draftEIS/ExecutiveSu

mmary.pdf. I thought you might like to consider this as you prepare 

for public meetings and a future tier II EIS. I also, have a few 

questions for you: • Does the Iowa Department of Transportation 

hold the power to enter into public-private partnerships or alternative 

financing facilities, or would that power need to be granted by the 

legislature? Understanding that the Chicago – Omaha route is 

significantly rural which would reduce investor interest, will there be 

any investigation into private interests that may be willing to enter 

into a design, finance, build, operate arrangement (or some 

combination thereof)? • Also, would the operation of the route be put 

out for bid? I know that the state of Illinois contracts for service with 

Amtrak due to a number of labor and host railroad considerations. 

However, as proven in other states Amtrak may not be the most 

competitive operator of passenger services depending on the 

circumstances (i.e. MARC - Bombardier Transportation, VRE –

Keolis, New Mexico Rail Runner Express and TRE – Herzog, etc.). • 

Finally, will consideration be given to the offering food and 

beverage service and two classes of service (business vs. coach)? 

Respectfully, Corey Hlavacek

determine to establish.

5433 Public 

Involvement Anonymous Individual

You state that there will be 3 public meetings but there are no times 

listed for the meetings. What would the proposed start and stop times 

be? Would these be 'open house' meetings or a formal structured 

meeting?

The dates, times, and locations were listed on the website and noted on meeting 

announcements. The meetings are a combination of open house style, including a 

formal presentation with a question and answer session.

5443 Routes – Route 

Alternative 1 Arthur Roche Individual

I live near Dubuque, and am disappointed that the more northernly 

alternative was dropped. With a 90 minute commute to Iowa City 

from Dubuque, the train from there to Chicago would not be a big 

improvement over driving.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Due to the fact that the majority 

of the service to get from Chicago to Dubuque is in the State of Illinois, the Illinois 

Department of Transportation (ILDOT) is the lead agency for that effort. The 

ILDOT has recently discussed providing a service from Chicago to Dubuque and is 

currently analyzing the feasibility of providing the improvements necessary for 

future service. The City of Dubuque is also working with the State of Illinois and 

Iowa to determine the necessary steps to be ready for a potential station stop in the 

City of Dubuque. 

As part of the Alternatives Analysis portion of our study, we performed a thorough 

analysis of the CN (Canadian National) route from Chicago to Dubuque, through 

Waterloo, Fort Dodge and on to Council Bluffs. Based on the Alternative Analysis 

exercise and additional analysis through the development of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, it was determined that the preferred route for 

expanded intercity passenger rail is Route 4A, along the Iowa Interstate Railroad 

across Iowa. The following reasons are noted in the Draft EIS: 

1) Has low construction complexity and low constructions costs

2) Has modest grade crossing complexity

3) Does not require a new bridge over the Mississippi River

4) Is the shortest route alternative

5) Has close to the shortest travel time

6) Serves a large population

7) Has a direct connection to Union Station in downtown Chicago

8) Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues

All of the analysis performed was reviewed and completed in cooperation with the 

FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) and the ILDOT (Illinois Department of 

Transportation).
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 4 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

5478

Support the 

Project; Routes 

– Location 

Specific 

Comment

Mark Moore Friends of the 

Depot

Dear Sirs; I am past chairman of Friends of the Depot in Burlington, 

Iowa. We are very interested in the Chicago-Omaha route going 

through here and using the BNSF mainline to Omaha. The California 

Zephyr serves us, and is being patronized heavily now. Its on time 

performance is improving and is a strong ridership going both 

directions. A dedicated Chicago Omaha train through here is a must. 

It would be patronized heavily, and is necessary to provide a 

commuter type service that would have strong on time performance 

and convenient boarding times both directions. We are planning to 

re-open our large waiting room, restart the restaurant here, and make 

our depot a community center. This will become a key stop on this 

Amtrak route. I work with Derrick James heavily and am forwarding 

this to him as well. Brian Perkins is our district manager in 

Galesburg and works with us as well. We also would like to see a 

Burlington / St. Louis train again, which is a route of high potential. 

Now it has no service, and would be a heavily patronized route if 

restarted. The Mark Twain Zephyr used to travel this route daily. We 

are hoping to renovate it and bring it here for display.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. We understand and agree the 

importance of the existing California Zephyr service that currently runs through 

Burlington, Iowa. That service is considered long distance service and is not 

funded by the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). As part of longdistance service, the California Zephyr is funded by Amtrak and Amtrak is 

responsible for all decisions associated with that service. Recently, Iowa DOT 

partnered with BNSF and Amtrak to apply for federal funding to provide upgrades 

to track infrastructure to provide better on-time performance of that service and 

better serve the customers who want to utilize long distance service. 

The Chicago to Omaha route which Iowa DOT is proposing would expand service 

in Iowa and provide a passenger rail service referred to as Intercity Passenger Rail 

Service (500 miles or less in length and provides daily round trip travel options). 

This service is in addition to the long-distance service provided by Amtrak and is 

not intended to replace the current California Zephyr. Expanded intercity service 

could ultimately provide seven round-trip trains per day to Des Moines, IA and five 

round-trip trains per day to Council Bluffs, IA/Omaha, NE. Based on many years 

of planning the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, with eight other Midwest states, it 

was determined that a regional route from Chicago to Omaha would meet the needs 

of intercity passenger rail service for the State of Iowa. As part of the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha study, we were required by the FRA (Federal Railroad 

Administration) to analyze all of the existing or previously established passenger 

rail routes from Chicago to Omaha. Based on the Alternative Analysis exercise 

and additional analysis through the development of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, it was determined that the preferred route for expanded intercity 

passenger rail is Route 4A, along the Iowa Interstate Railroad across Iowa. The 

following reasons are noted in the Draft EIS:

1) Has low construction complexity and low constructions costs

2) Has modest grade crossing complexity

3) Does not require a new bridge over the Mississippi River

4) Is the shortest route alternative

5) Has close to the shortest travel time

6) Serves a large population

7) Has a direct connection to Union Station in downtown Chicago

8) Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues

We also note your comments regarding additional passenger rail service to St. 

Louis. In closing, the California Zephyr provides a very important transportation 

service to the state of Iowa. Any new intercity service being introduced from 

Chicago to Council Bluffs/Omaha would ultimately allow even more citizens the 

option to use passenger rail as an alternative mode and provide an additional 

efficient and cost effective travel option.

5484 Routes –

Routing Process

Leroy 

Perkins Individual

Good Morning!! Thanks for the note. However, you still didn't give 

any answer as to the present thought - Is it planned to leave the 

South route in place if there becomes a North route?? Leroy

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. We understand and agree the 

importance of the existing California Zephyr service that currently runs through 

Burlington, Iowa. That service is considered long distance service and is not 

funded by the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). As part of longdistance service, the California Zephyr is funded by Amtrak and Amtrak is 

responsible for all decisions associated with that service. Recently, Iowa DOT 

partnered with BNSF and Amtrak to apply for federal funding to provide upgrades 

to track infrastructure to provide better on-time performance of that service and 

better serve the customers who want to utilize long distance service. 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 5 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

The Chicago to Omaha route which Iowa DOT is proposing would expand service 

in Iowa and provide a passenger rail service referred to as Intercity Passenger Rail 

Service (500 miles or less in length and provides daily round trip travel options). 

This service is in addition to the long-distance service provided by Amtrak and is 

not intended to replace the current California Zephyr. Expanded intercity service 

could ultimately provide seven round-trip trains per day to Des Moines, IA and five 

round-trip trains per day to Council Bluffs, IA/Omaha, NE. Based on many years 

of planning the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, with eight other Midwest states, it 

was determined that a regional route from Chicago to Omaha would meet the needs 

of intercity passenger rail service for the State of Iowa. As part of the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha study, we were required by the FRA (Federal Railroad 

Administration) to analyze all of the existing or previously established passenger 

rail routes from Chicago to Omaha. Based on the Alternative Analysis exercise 

and additional analysis through the development of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, it was determined that the preferred route for expanded intercity 

passenger rail is Route 4A, along the Iowa Interstate Railroad across Iowa. The 

following reasons are noted in the Draft EIS:

1) Has low construction complexity and low constructions costs

2) Has modest grade crossing complexity

3) Does not require a new bridge over the Mississippi River

4) Is the shortest route alternative

5) Has close to the shortest travel time

6) Serves a large population

7) Has a direct connection to Union Station in downtown Chicago

8) Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues

In closing, the California Zephyr provides a very important transportation service to 

the state of Iowa. Any new intercity service being introduced from Chicago to 

Council Bluffs/Omaha would ultimately allow even more citizens the option to use 

passenger rail as an alternative mode and provide an additional efficient and cost 

effective travel option.

5485 Routes –

Routing Process

Leroy 

Perkins Individual

Good Morning!! A while back I e-mailed a question but to date have 

not heard back as to the thoughts on the question. I'll send it along 

again and see if you folks are really reading these - Question = If a 

new route is decided upon in the North part of the state or midcentral, will that do away with the present South route,... OR will it 

remain and we will then have two (2) routes through the state??

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. We understand and agree the 

importance of the existing California Zephyr service that currently runs through 

Burlington, Iowa. That service is considered long distance service and is not 

funded by the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT). As part of longdistance service, the California Zephyr is funded by Amtrak and Amtrak is 

responsible for all decisions associated with that service. Recently, Iowa DOT 

partnered with BNSF and Amtrak to apply for federal funding to provide upgrades 

to track infrastructure to provide better on-time performance of that service and 

better serve the customers who want to utilize long distance service. 

The Chicago to Omaha route which Iowa DOT is proposing would expand service 

in Iowa and provide a passenger rail service referred to as Intercity Passenger Rail 

Service (500 miles or less in length and provides daily round trip travel options). 

This service is in addition to the long-distance service provided by Amtrak and is 

not intended to replace the current California Zephyr. Expanded intercity service 

could ultimately provide seven round-trip trains per day to Des Moines, IA and five 

round-trip trains per day to Council Bluffs, IA/Omaha, NE. Based on many years 

of planning the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, with eight other Midwest states, it 

was determined that a regional route from Chicago to Omaha would meet the needs 

of intercity passenger rail service for the State of Iowa. As part of the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha study, we were required by the FRA (Federal Railroad 

Administration) to analyze all of the existing or previously established passenger 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 6 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

rail routes from Chicago to Omaha. Based on the Alternative Analysis exercise 

and additional analysis through the development of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement, it was determined that the preferred route for expanded intercity 

passenger rail is Route 4A, along the Iowa Interstate Railroad across Iowa. The 

following reasons are noted in the Draft EIS:

1) Has low construction complexity and low constructions costs

2) Has modest grade crossing complexity

3) Does not require a new bridge over the Mississippi River

4) Is the shortest route alternative

5) Has close to the shortest travel time

6) Serves a large population

7) Has a direct connection to Union Station in downtown Chicago

8) Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues

In closing, the California Zephyr provides a very important transportation service to 

the state of Iowa. Any new intercity service being introduced from Chicago to 

Council Bluffs/Omaha would ultimately allow even more citizens the option to use 

passenger rail as an alternative mode and provide an additional efficient and cost 

effective travel option.

5560

Cultural 

Resources; 

Routes – Route 

Alternative 4A; 

Cumulative 

Impacts; Public 

Involvement

Carol Preston Homestead

Iowa

Amanda, I reviewed some of the material of Tier 1 study and it 

appears that the route 4A is the most favored at this point. I live in 

Homestead and would be affected significantly by this choice. 

(1)First I would like to request/suggest that meetings with the 

communities involved would be implemented soon. Often many of 

us can't make it to the meetings in Chicago, Des Moines or Council 

Bluffs, nor do many have access to internet for the online meetings. 

(2)Looking at the map, our village of Homestead would be quite 

severely impacted by passenger trains, 14 trips a day, running 80-

110 mph. This would impact our quality of life, generating much 

more noise and impact our properties with regards to values, and 

potential for structural damage due to vibration. Approximately 3/4 

of the village would be very strongly impacted. Many homes in the 

village are historic and on the National Register of Historic 

Properties. No external changes to the historic properties can be 

made without permitting and approval by the Amana Colonies Land 

Use District. Please tell me how you plan to address those issues 

and if property owners would be compensated.

(3)Please provide a map of the current right of way and in 

comparison, the future right of way if this route is chosen? What are 

the policies affecting property owners, if this routes puts a home in

the vibration contour and severe-moderate noise zone? 

(4)One more question about the map. I was looking at this map 

showing the potential passenger train routes, one that would go 

through Homestead. 

http://www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha/pdfs/draftEIS/Appendix%

20B%20-%20Chapter%203%20Figures_pt%202%20of%203.pdf 

The area to the north and west of Homestead is marked on this map 

as USFWS land. I thought it was Amana owned land. Can you tell 

me where this information was acquired?

Again, I would like to encourage this project to reach out to the 

impacted communities for one on one conversations about the 

impact of a passenger trains.

Responses below are keyed to numbered paragraphs above only for the purpose of 

showing/tracking the responses.

(1) Iowa DOT has held meetings with communities upon request. Please contact us 

to arrange a meeting.

(2) Iowa DOT realizes that communities along the proposed rail corridor would

experience increased noise and vibration levels. Based on a review of modeled 

noise and vibration contours shown on Appendix B Figure 82 that includes 

Homestead, there is potential for increased noise and vibration impacts from the full 

implementation of the Build Alternative. The majority of Homestead properties 

appear to be outside the severe noise impact contour and vibration impact contour. 

The Tier 1 Final EIS includes information in Appendix P on the interim 

implementation phase where four round trip passenger trains would be scheduled to 

pass through this portion of the project area at speeds of up to 79 mph; 

consequently, the noise contours would be narrower in the Homestead area 

according to Noise Condition 15. This would be the last phase of the Project that 

would be implemented within a 20-year planning horizon. 

During Tier 2 NEPA review, detailed design information would be generated to 

facilitate development of a Tier 2 noise and vibration study identifying the specific 

projected impacts. Where severe noise impacts (as defined by FTA/FRA methods) 

are predicted to occur, a noise mitigation analysis may be performed. There is some 

potential that noise mitigation measures will be evaluated using Iowa DOT cost 

effectiveness metrics, similar to how highway traffic noise mitigation is evaluated. 

This process compares the estimated noise reduction of a noise abatement measure 

(typically a noise wall) and its construction cost. Results of that evaluation are 

compared with a cost effectiveness threshold. If the modeled noise wall does not 

provide the minimum noise reduction, or exceeds the cost thresholds, it is not 

considered eligible for implementation. In those circumstances, noise mitigation 

measures would have been considered to be not reasonable and feasible. Typically, 

acquisition and direct compensation are not noise or vibration impact mitigation 

strategies. 

The Tier 1 process involved a desktop review of databases of properties listed on, or 

eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. During Tier 2, 

cultural resource studies would also be conducted to review all properties not 

previously evaluated for listing on the NRHP. The potential for adverse impacts to 

NRHP eligible and listed properties would be evaluated during Tier 2. If adverse 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 7 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

effects would be projected to occur, these impacts would be addressed through the 

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultation process.

(3) Detailed maps of right-of-way (ROW) boundaries were not acquired for the 

approximately 500-mile corridor during Tier 1, but would be acquired during the 

Tier 2 process. Boundaries of needed ROW would be estimated during Tier 2 as 

detailed design information is developed. Refer to the FRA guidance entitled, 

“Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act in Implementing the 

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program”, dated August 13, 2009. This 

guidance document provides an overview of the environmental review process for 

Tiered NEPA reviews for high-speed intercity passenger rail projects. Because of 

the speed regimes proposed for this project, FRA approved the use of FTA noise 

and vibration impact assessment methods (FTA, May 2006); Section 3.8.1 of the 

Tier 1 Draft EIS provides additional information on the methods used for 

characterizing the noise and vibration environment and predicting impacts.

(4) The area you refer to was identified as the Mark Twain National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex and the shape file was acquired through Iowa Department of 

Natural Resources (Iowa DNR). This complex includes Port Louisa National 

Wildlife Refuge along the Mississippi River Flyway that also includes the Iowa 

River Study Corridor of 50,000 acres along 45 river miles within Tama, Benton, 

and Iowa counties. Of the 50,000 acres, only 10,000 are owned by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and managed by Iowa DNR, who also owns and manages 

land in the Corridor for Wildlife Management Areas and other purposes. Much of 

the land in the corridor is privately owned. The boundary shown is the figure you 

referenced is representative of the Study Corridor boundary. Iowa DNR is 

developing a management plan for the corridor that will delineate the specific 

boundaries of Federally owned and state owned lands by category. According to 

Iowa DNR, the actual federal wildlife refuge and state lands were reported to be 

outside the area of the rail corridor. The management plan and boundary 

information will be used during Tier 2 to address potential impacts to federal, state, 

and local owned conservation lands.

5535 Cultural 

Resources Joe Cory City of West 

Des Moines

Under Appendix B - Chapter 3 Figures - Part 3 Figure 117, The map 

shows several pink dots representing Historic Sites and I'm just 

curious if there is more explanation of these? Phone is 515-222-3492 

or email is fine. Thanks!! Joe

The introduction to Chapter 3 referenced the Appendix B figures, but lacked a 

discussion of the various items in the legend. Section 3.11.2 referenced the 

Appendix B figures and noted that they showed historic sites, but none that were 

archaeological because of confidentiality requirements. To clarify, geographic 

information system (GIS) databases of sites listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP), or that were evaluated and determined to be eligible for 

listing on the NRHP, were acquired from the State Historic Preservation Offices of 

Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska. These sites were plotted in a GIS developed for the 

project and plotted on aerial photographs along with the Potential Impact Area (an 

area that includes existing ROW and estimated additional ROW that would be 

necessary for track and siding construction and improvements at station locations). 

The locations were represented as a pink dot on the Appendix B figures, but were 

not field verified. Those sites within the Potential Impact Area were identified and 

included in Table 3.11-1. The future Tier 2 studies would include field verification 

of the historic site locations and surveys for previously unevaluated properties. 

Sections 3.11.4 and 3.11.5 provided additional information on how the historic sites 

would be addressed in Tier 2.

5569

Routes –

Location 

Specific 

Comment

Coleman 

Weidenbusch Individual

Why would you terminate at Omaha when the state capitol is less 

than 50 miles further? Omaha - Lincoln is a potential commuter 

market.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. At this time, the State of 

Nebraska has not shown an interest in partnering with the state of Iowa to study 

service beyond the state line. Based on many years of planning the Midwest 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 8 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

Regional Rail Initiative, with eight other Midwest states, it was determined that a 

regional route from Chicago to Omaha would meet the needs of intercity passenger 

rail service for the State of Iowa. When Iowa applied for the funds to support this 

study, we contacted the State of Nebraska, but they requested not to be a partner on 

the effort nor provide any support for the study. We know there is some interest by 

some communities in Nebraska to continue to service, but there has been no 

discussion of state support at this time.

5663

Oppose the 

Project; 

General; 

Funding of the 

Project; Safety –

Grade Crossings

Anonymous Individual

For the cost of studying this boondoggle the IDOT could probably 

invest the cost and give everyone a free ride on the Mega Bus 

forever. On top of that it would be much quicker, safer(including 

those grade crossing accidents) and fuel and time efficient to run 

several bus trips a day when people want to go rather than running a 

mostly empty train once a day. My children ride the Express Busses 

on the Baltimore - New York corridor rather than AMTRAK. The 

bus is faster than the regular train and a small fraction of the fare of 

the faster train. Of course Amtrak in general -- like your proposal --

is a large capital cost to the tax payer and a permanent drain on the 

taxpayer to operate. Possibly a hundred years from now, or maybe a 

few decades sooner if the East stops using coal, someone might 

convince the UP that passenger service on their medium speed 

double track line would be profitable. Until then forget about 

wasting money on passenger train service in Iowa.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. As a transportation agency, we 

look at all modes of transportation and the future modal needs of the citizens and 

traveling public. Based on many years of planning the Midwest Regional Rail 

Initiative, with eight other Midwest states, it was determined that a regional 

intercity passenger rail route from Chicago to Omaha would meet a need of the 

increasing demand on our congested highways and airports. Although the Mega 

Bus (which is a private entity) is an option for folks traveling from Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha, it is not always the most viable option. As transportation 

planners, we must consider all options and the future demands on our entire 

transportation system. Passenger rail does provide an economical service as well as 

being ADA (American Disabilities Act) compliant, with Wi-Fi capabilities and 

reliable during inclement weather. 

5590

Routes –

Location 

Specific – Des 

Moines

Ryan 

Galloway

Hatch 

Development 

Group

Iowa DOT: Please consider the feasibility of moving the California 

Zephyr Route to the Route 4A as this will increase the overall 

ridership since it will allow Des Moines area residents to access both 

Chicago and Colorado via Amtrak. The distance and hassle of 

driving to Osceola in order to take Amtrak to either Chicago or 

westward to Colorado is prohibitive for most Central Iowans. Thank 

you, Ryan Galloway Hatch Development Group

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. The California Zephyr service is 

considered long distance service and is not funded by the Iowa Department of 

Transportation (Iowa DOT). As part of long-distance service, the California Zephyr 

is funded by Amtrak and Amtrak is responsible for all decisions associated with that 

service. Recently, Iowa DOT partnered with BNSF and Amtrak to apply for federal 

funding to provide upgrades to track infrastructure to provide better on-time 

performance of that service and better serve the customers who want to utilize long 

distance service. 

The Chicago to Omaha route which Iowa DOT is proposing would expand service 

in Iowa and provide a passenger rail service referred to as Intercity Passenger Rail 

Service (500 miles or less in length and provides daily round trip travel options). 

This service is in addition to the long-distance service provided by Amtrak and is 

not intended to replace the current California Zephyr. Expanded intercity service 

could ultimately provide seven round-trip trains per day to Des Moines, IA and five 

round-trip trains per day to Council Bluffs, IA/Omaha, NE. The California Zephyr 

is only a one round trip per day service and runs at different times of the day than 

what we anticipate for the new Intercity Passenger Rail service. As well, we plan to 

phase the new Intercity service over many years due to the costs associated with the 

additional capital needs to implement the service, so it will take many years to fully 

implement the service along the full corridor. The existing BNSF line (which hosts 

the California Zephyr) has the necessary infrastructure right now for the one trip per 

day the California Zephyr requires.

5666

Support the 

Project; Routes 

– Location 

Specific 

Comment; 

Funding of the 

Alex Nagel

Canadian 

Pacific 

Railway

To All Concerned: As a native Iowan, it is vitally important to me 

(and incredibly great to see) that IDOT is taking the lead in 

supporting new passenger rail service in the Chicago - Omaha 

corridor to supplement the service already provided via the current 

BNSF mainline route. I think this is something that Iowa has 

NEEDED for decades since that fulcrum day of May 1, 1971 (which 

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. As part of the Alternatives 

Analysis portion of our study, we performed a thorough analysis of all the other 

potential routes from Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha (CN, UP, Old Milwaukee 

line, IAIS and BNSF). Based on the Alternative Analysis exercise and additional 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 9 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

Project I remember all too well as an 11-year old). That said, I can 

understand IDOT's position that it believes that the best route across 

Iowa to supplement the current service via BNSF would be to utilize 

the Iowa Interstate (IAIS) mainline route as it serves the Quad Cities, 

Iowa City, and Des Moines. Certainly, from a sheer population 

standpoint, this is the way you would have to go if using those 

parameters in the decision-making process. However, at the same 

time, I would strongly URGE IDOT not to make a hasty decision on 

this. The reason being is that the monumental cost that will be 

incurred in upgrading the IAIS mainline from Wyanet, Illinois 

(where the future connection will be built to connect IAIS with 

BNSF) to Council Bluffs to F.R.A. Class IV standards that would 

allow 79 mph passenger operation. You are not only talking about 

new rail, ties, and ballast but also new signaling AND quite possibly 

PTC (positive train control) that will be mandated after 2015. These 

are huge undertakings to raise this mainline from Class III to Class 

IV and the cost could be prohibitive I fear. Towards that end, I 

would strongly encourage IDOT to take another look at Union 

Pacific's ex-CNW "Overland Route" mainline across Iowa and 

Illinois. This is a mainline that already has the infrastructure in place 

to handle 79 mph (or faster) passenger trains. The problem here, of 

course, is that UP has historically had a hostile relationship with 

Amtrak and the "Overland Route" mainline can see anywhere from 

60-80 trains a day in the Chicago - Missouri Valley segment (most 

trains now use the "cutoff" from Missouri Valley via Blair to 

Fremont which means less traffic on the old CNW passenger main 

from Missouri Valley to Council Bluffs). But you still do serve very 

strong population centers such as Clinton, Cedar Rapids, Ames, 

Boone, and Carroll. I would also not entirely discount the CN (exIC/ICG/CC/IC) Iowa Division mainline either as the CN has done 

considerable work on the Iowa Division after the former ICG let the 

Iowa Division go to hell in the early 1980's. You do not have nearly 

the amount of freight traffic on the CN's Iowa Division save for 

337/338 between Kirk Yard in Gary, Indiana and Waterloo and the 

Waterloo - Ft. Dodge (567/568) trains plus the unit grain and ethanol 

trains that originate in various locations. The problem here, of 

course, is the "dark" segment from Tara to Council Bluffs; currently 

limited to 49 mph for freight. Considerable work would have to be 

done on this segment to get it passenger-ready. Ironically, however, 

it is the stretch from Denison to Council Bluffs where the CN and 

UP mainlines run basically side-by-side where a paired track 

arrangement could be worked out that would vastly enhance capacity 

for UP and tip the scales in favor of UP's route across Iowa. Again, I 

STRONGLY urge IDOT to look at the options here. Let's not also 

forget either that the proposed Amtrak service from Chicago to 

Dubuque NEEDS to be extended to Waterloo! In the final analysis, 

however, the bottom line is that Iowa NEEDS passenger rail service 

in the Chicago - Omaha corridor to supplement the service already 

provided on BNSF's mainline across Iowa. My home state has 

basically been living in the dark ages as far as passenger rail service 

is concerned since May 1, 1971 and it's high time that situation 

changes. Please feel free to contact me anytime if you have any 

questions or concerns....

analysis through the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it 

was determined that the preferred route for expanded intercity passenger rail is 

Route 4A, along the Iowa Interstate Railroad across Iowa. The following reasons 

are noted in the Draft EIS: 

1) Has low construction complexity and low constructions costs

2) Has modest grade crossing complexity

3) Does not require a new bridge over the Mississippi River

4) Is the shortest route alternative

5) Has close to the shortest travel time

6) Serves a large population

7) Has a direct connection to Union Station in downtown Chicago

8) Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues

All of the analysis performed was reviewed and completed in cooperation with the 

FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) and the ILDOT (Illinois Department of 

Transportation).

You can view this document at the following link:

http://www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha/pdfs/draftEIS/Appendix%20A%20-

%20Alternatives%20Analysis%20Report%20(For%20Print).pdf
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 10 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

5669 Support the 

Project

Kelly 

Hingtgen Individual

I am wondering if you have any information on the proposed railway 

to Dubuque? Is this still an option or from what I am reading; there

is only one alternative route? Council Bluffs to Omaha as you have 

listed. Thank you for your help

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Due to the fact that the majority 

of the service to get from Chicago to Dubuque is in the State of Illinois, the Illinois 

Department of Transportation (ILDOT) is the lead agency for that effort. The 

ILDOT has recently discussed providing a service from Chicago to Dubuque and is 

currently analyzing the feasibility of providing the improvements necessary for 

future service. The City of Dubuque is also working with the State of Illinois and 

Iowa to determine the necessary steps to be ready for a potential station stop in the 

City of Dubuque. 

As part of the Alternatives Analysis portion of our study, we performed a thorough 

analysis of the CN (Canadian National) route from Chicago to Dubuque, through 

Waterloo, Fort Dodge and on to Council Bluffs. Based on the Alternative Analysis 

exercise and additional analysis through the development of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement, it was determined that the preferred route for 

expanded intercity passenger rail is Route 4A, along the Iowa Interstate Railroad 

across Iowa. The following reasons are noted in the Draft EIS: 

1) Has low construction complexity and low constructions costs

2) Has modest grade crossing complexity

3) Does not require a new bridge over the Mississippi River

4) Is the shortest route alternative

5) Has close to the shortest travel time

6) Serves a large population

7) Has a direct connection to Union Station in downtown Chicago

8) Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues

All of the analysis performed was reviewed and completed in cooperation with the 

FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) and the ILDOT (Illinois Department of 

Transportation).

5599

Economic 

Impacts; 

Funding of the 

Project; Safety –

Grade 

Crossings; Rail 

– Current Rail 

Traffic

Deana Cavin City of Durant, 

IA

As a small city, our biggest concerns are the speed the trains will 

travel through our city, and the maintenance of the crossings, as well 

as the # of trains. Our city is split by the Rock Island Line tracks. 

Existing trains travel 45 mph through town or faster. There have 

been numerous times in the last 6 months where all our crossings 

were blocked by a train. This severely impedes our emergency 

vehicles from getting from side of the city to the other or even out 

into the rural areas they cover. We also do not want the 

responsibility of maintaining the crossings or upgrading the existing. 

We had hoped the passenger rail would actually by pass the City of 

Durant since we would not have any depot for passengers to load or 

unload. What are the plans for small towns affected by passenger 

rail? We certainly do not want an increase in the number of trains 

passing through. Personally, I feel it is unfair that larger metropolis 

cities are favored and will benefit the most. The smaller cities, once 

again, will just be run over, and we are struggling to survive now 

with DNR compliance for waste water and storm water 

requirements. Then the cutting of commercial property taxes.....when 

do little cities get a chance to be heard? We have to travel miles and 

miles to even get to a public hearing. Some may view this as exciting 

news, however, small city governments view it as another hammer 

coming down on them with little choice to oppose.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. 

Based on the Alternative Analysis exercise and additional analysis through the 

development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it was determined that 

the preferred route for expanded intercity passenger rail is Route 4A, along the Iowa 

Interstate Railroad across Iowa and through Durant. The following reasons are 

noted in the Draft EIS: 

1) Has low construction complexity and low constructions costs

2) Has modest grade crossing complexity

3) Does not require a new bridge over the Mississippi River

4) Is the shortest route alternative

5) Has close to the shortest travel time

6) Serves a large population

7) Has a direct connection to Union Station in downtown Chicago

8) Has no unreasonable environmental resource issues

All of the analysis performed was reviewed and completed in cooperation with the 

FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) and the ILDOT (Illinois Department of 

Transportation).

There are currently freight trains that go through Durant on the Iowa Interstate line 

and even though the new passenger trains will add to that volume there are some 

aspects of this new service that we would like to mention. Initially we will only 

introduce 4 new trains per day (2 round trips). There will likely be a train that runs 

early morning, late morning and then those 2 trains will run again in the evening 

and late evening. Another aspect to consider is that the passenger trains are much 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 11 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

shorter in length than most freight trains and due to the on-time performance 

requirements associated with passenger trains, they will not be stopping in the 

towns that do not have a station stops. This will allow the passenger train to 

quickly pass through town and not cause much of crossing interruption.

As part of the infrastructure requirements with introducing new passenger trains, 

each public crossing will have flashing lights and gates, so there will be even more 

protection for the traveling public at each crossing. This will provide additional 

safety from all the rail activity on the line (freight and passenger). Those improved 

crossings will be paid for and maintained by the State of Iowa in an agreement with 

the host railroad (Iowa Interstate) and the passenger operator (likely Amtrak). The 

communities along the line will not have to bear any additional costs associated 

with these improvements.

All of the public involvement activities associated with this project have been inperson at the designated venues as well as on-line. We also have provided the 

public the opportunity to view documents at many local libraries and they can call 

our toll-free hotline to ask questions and make comments or provide comments via 

e-mail, phone or in writing.

5637 Rail – Speed Amelia Lobo Individual

110 MPH is slow for a modern rail system. What would be required 

to upgrade to high-speed rail? Could it be done on the same system?

Even at 75/100 mph, it is better than what we have. It's time!

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. The proposed system is a shared 

use corridor, using existing freight rail to host passenger rail for speeds greater than 

110 mph, a separate track would be required and costs would be very high and 

prohibitive.

5638

Routes –

Location 

Specific – Des 

Moines; 

Funding of the 

Project

Kevin Collier Individual

I appreciate the opportunity for IDOT planners to visit Des Moines 

and speak; however, the potential for non-implementation of plans to 

route Des Moines have been implied throughout the study. I am 

afraid that Des Moines residents will not have access to the 

passenger rail. As part of the feasibility study, I am concerned why 

the capital city of Des Moines was not chosen as a major city of 

implementation in the funding scope. It is also unfortunate that 

federal funds were not allocated to the state of Iowa. I hope that with 

responses to the Des Moines forum will encourage lenders to fund 

Iowa transit. Des Moines and other cities in Iowa have the potential 

to become world-class cities and it is high-time that lenders 

understand and realize Iowa's potential. I feel that farm life in Iowa 

will not be comprised. Question: Why is it the state of Iowa ranks 

[low] in funding for public transportation? Why does the state of 

Iowa have difficulty matching federal fund requirements?

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. This study does look at a future 

new intercity passenger rail service from Chicago all the way to Council BluffsOmaha. One major reason that route 4A, which is the Iowa Interstate Railroad 

route that goes through Iowa, was deemed as the preferred route alternative was due 

to the fact that it did go through the most densely populated communities in the 

state (including the Des Moines metro area). 

Incremental Service:

Due to the funding commitment associated with a corridor, which is almost 500 

miles, we will have to implement the service incrementally. Phase 1 of service 

(Chicago, IL to Moline, IL) is currently being implemented by the State of Illinois 

and they hope to have service up and running by the end of 2015. Iowa has 

received the federal funding to implement Phase 2 (Moline, IL to Iowa City, IA) but 

we currently do not have the required 20 percent state funding match to use those 

funds. If the legislature chooses to provide that match money, we can move 

forward with implementing Phase 2. 

Future Phases:

As part of this study, we will prepare an implementation plan, which will discuss 

our 20 year future plan for additional incremental phases to complete the service. 

Those phases would include Phase 3 (Iowa City to Des Moines) and two additional 

phases. Depending on the success of Phase 1 & 2, we could ideally plan to obtain 

the necessary federal and state funding to move forward with the Phase 3.

Iowa has public transit available in all 99 counties

Fifteen states currently provide state supported intercity passenger rail and Iowa is 

poised to be the next state to add service assuming we obtain the necessary funding 

match for Phase 2.

5640 Transportation –

Alternative Paul Jagnow Individual First of all, thank you for making the information available, and for giving us a chance to comment on-line. I question the viability of a 

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 12 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

Transportation 

Mode; Funding 

of the Project

program that gets me to a point in another city, and then just drops 

me there. The proposed service is not significantly faster than 

driving, and if I drive, I can go where I need to be...with out getting 

stuck at the train station. The latter is not convenient. Overall cost of 

using the rail system seems like it might be more expensive (and 

slower) than driving. That's especially true if I have to rent a car or 

take long taxi rides to get to my ultimate destination. That begs the 

question, why would people use the rail system? What I see lacking 

in the presentations is the cost of using the system, the cost of 

building it, and the yearly cost of running the system. If the system 

cannot support itself, it is my opinion that it should not be built. I 

suspect very strongly that the system will be a huge tax burden that 

will last forever. If it were a "money maker", someone in private 

industry would already be implementing it. Since that's not 

happening, it would suggest that it's a money-losing, not a moneymaking proposition. I'd rather see the money spent on interstate 

system updates that would help all of us, not on a system that will 

have limited usefulness and limited appeal. So, how about some 

financial projections. Is it money maker, or a tax burden forever? 

What's the cost of using the system, when overall travel costs (like 

taxi fare) are included? It appears to me that there is an effort to 

engage us with details that might be very irrelevant so that we don't 

think about the potential tax burden or the real cost of using the rail 

system. The latter items need more visibility. They are, to my way of 

thinking, the main issues. Regards, Paul

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Below is information prepared in 

attempt to answer your questions. 

Competition with auto travel:

We have determined through our analysis that a new intercity passenger rail service 

is competitive with auto travel. Also a key component of implementing intercity 

passenger rail is to provide transit connections to and from the station; these are 

being developed by the cities with station stops involved in the study. A new 

intercity passenger rail service will also be required to comply with a 90% on-time 

performance standard. That means the service is required to be on-time 90% of the 

time with very limited delays in a given time period. This standard is implemented 

through an agreement signed by the host railroad, service operator and state.

Feasibility of the service:

Up to this point in the study we have provided information to show which route 

would be preferred for service and the potential environmental impacts associated 

with a new service on that particular route. We will be going through an extensive 

analysis process next to determine feasibility. We do not determine feasibility by 

merely asking the citizens of the state if they will utilize the service once it is 

implemented. The next documentation process in the project to ultimately 

determine service use and financial feasibility is referred to as the Service 

Development Plan (SDP). The SDP provides much more detailed documentation of 

the feasibility of the service with the following documents: benefit/cost ratio, 

financial plan, conceptual engineering, final ridership and revenue forecasting and 

implementation plan. Ultimately as part of this effort, we must show the feasibility 

of this service or the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will not allow us to be 

eligible for future federal funds. Many states and regions in the U.S. want to 

facilitate new intercity passenger rail service and ultimately will compete to seek a 

federal funding source to support those efforts, just like Iowa, so we must provide 

detailed analysis to show that a service we are requesting funding for, is truly 

feasible.

5647

Routes –

Location 

Specific –

Grinnell

Barb Rhoads Individual

Hello Amanda, I attended the public hearing at the Council Bluffs 

Public Library on 12-13-12 regarding the Chicago to Council BluffsOmaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. The 

presentation was very well done and was very informative. Your 

department has done a lot of work. I just wanted to take this 

opportunity to express my input: I interpret this study is to reveal 

that the impact of the passenger rail system "as proposed' would be a 

feasible transportation alternative to traveling by car, bus, or air. I 

believe this proposed passenger rail system is not a feasible 

alternative to current modes of transportation here in Iowa. The 

information provided so far does not justify moving forward with the 

project. There is not a proven demand or need for this rail system in 

Iowa. People saying they would use the system if it were in place 

does not demonstrate a Need for the system. I believe the burden of 

the massive expense to the State and Federal budget to pay for this 

does not justify the relatively small benefit that a rail system from 

Chicago to Omaha would provide.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Up to this point in the study we 

have provided information to show which route would be preferred for service and 

the potential environmental impacts associated with a new service on that particular 

route. We will be going through an extensive analysis process next to determine 

feasibility. We do not determine feasibility by merely asking the citizens of the 

state if they will utilize the service once it is implemented. The next documentation 

process in the project to ultimately determine service use and financial feasibility is 

referred to as the Service Development Plan (SDP). The SDP provides much more 

detailed documentation of the feasibility of the service with the following 

documents: benefit/cost ratio, financial plan, conceptual engineering, final ridership 

and revenue forecasting and implementation plan. Ultimately as part of this effort, 

we must show the feasibility of this service or the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) will not allow us to be eligible for future federal funds. Many states and 

regions in the U.S. want to facilitate new intercity passenger rail service and 

ultimately will compete to seek a federal funding source to support those efforts, 

just like Iowa, so we must provide detailed analysis to show that a service we are 

requesting funding for, is truly feasible.

5771

Tier 2 Study; 

Threatened & 

Endangered 

Species; 

Robert 

Stewart

US 

Department of 

Interior

Dear Mr. Szabo: The Department of the Interior has reviewed the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Department of 

Transportation (DOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for 

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System 

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. The Draft EIS was reviewed in 

consideration of your comments. The issues of potential concern were identified in 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 13 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

Wildlife; 

Agency 

Coordination; 

Wetlands

Planning Study Tier 1 Service Level, from Chicago, Illinois through 

Iowa and Omaha, NE, and offers the following comments provided 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. General Comments The 

Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, has primary responsibility for the management of the 

nation’s fish and wildlife resources. The Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956, as amended, requires the Secretary to determine the policies 

and procedures necessary to implement fish and wildlife laws 

efficiently and in the national public interest. 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a). 

The Secretary has additional responsibilities to protect and manage 

the nation’s fish and wildlife resources under other statutory 

authorities, namely: the Bald and Golden Eagle Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 

668-669(d); the Endangered Species Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 

1531-1543; and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-

711. To ensure the adequate and equitable protection, mitigation of 

damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources, Federal 

Railroad Administration/U.S.DOT, Iowa DOT should consult with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and State natural resource 

agencies to identify necessary studies. FWS has participated in 

scoping meetings for this Project and is aware that required studies 

will be addressed during the Tier 2 phase of this project. Most 

mitigation measures represent commitments for further coordination 

with this agency during Tier 2 studies as more detailed information 

on the design of the Project is developed. Fish and Wildlife Trust 

Resources There are significant public resources that must be 

protected or enhanced in some areas affected by the proposed 

project. In this regard, FWS concerns with the proposed Regional 

Passenger Rail System from Chicago to Omaha and associated 

supporting development include potential adverse impacts to federal 

trust fish and wildlife resources and their supporting riparian, 

wetland, and terrestrial habitats. Particularly important are potential 

effects of project operation on the terrestrial environment, wetlands 

habitat, and migration pathways. In addition, lands managed as part 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System are located near the project 

and may be affected by project impacts to rivers (Mississippi River 

and Missouri River) and surrounding landscapes. Threatened & 

Endangered Species Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 requires that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by 

Federal agencies not jeopardize federally threatened or endangered 

species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Listed 

species for counties in Illinois and Iowa (Region 3), and Nebraska 

(Region 6), may be viewed at 

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

http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/ endspp/ for Region 6. At a 

minimum, project evaluations should contain delineations of whether

or not habitat for these species occurs within project boundaries, or 

will be affected by project construction and subsequent operation. In 

cases where these species are known to occur or potential habitat is 

rated moderate to high, surveys may be necessary. Please contact 

this office for further information should these species or their 

habitats be identified in the project area, or be affected by project 

activities. As of August 9, 2007, the bald eagle is no longer included 

on the list of threatened and endangered species, but it remains 

the document and will be more fully described and evaluated in Tier 2 studies and 

documents.
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 14 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The bald eagle is a potential resident in 

parts of the project area and nests have been historically documented 

in the project area. Project evaluations should include potential 

impacts to the bald eagle and its habitat. For more information 

concerning the bald eagle protection, or if impacts to this species are 

expected, the USFWS should be contacted. Migratory Birds We 

recommend that the project be evaluated for potential impacts to 

wildlife, particularly migratory birds, from increased noise and 

vibration resulting from increases in train frequency and speed for 

the alternatives considered. If you have questions regarding these 

comments, please contact Heidi Woeber, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1511 47th Avenue, Moline, IL 61265, (309) 757-5800, ext. 

209.

5909 Public 

Involvement Dennis Witt Individual

Can you send me any other additional information as I wasn’t able to 

attend any of the meetings, send this out to me if you could? Thank 

you.

Mailed meeting materials

5777

Wetlands; 

Corrections to 

the Document

Mike Hayes USACE

Andrea: In giving this a quick read, I'm very surprised that this 

project appears to be already down to one 'build' alternative 

(Alternative 4/4-A) after the Tier I analysis . Could that be true, or 

am I misunderstanding something? Also, I noted on Figure ES-3 that 

evidently there is a city called Galesburg in central Iowa along 

Alternative Route 4/4-A about where Des Moines used to be. I'm 

familiar with Galesburg, Illinois, but in over 25 years of working in 

the 404 Regulatory arena in Iowa, I never realized there was a 

Galesburg in that state! Considering mitigation for unavoidable 

impacts to wetlands and waters, they need to realize there are very 

few wetland mitigation banks in Iowa. There are no stream 

mitigation banks in the state and there are no "in-lieu-fee" programs 

in effect.

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. During the NEPA scoping 

process, several options for providing passenger rail service were identified as 

“route alternatives,” and these alternatives were reviewed and screened for their 

ability to meet the purpose and need for the project, their technical feasibility, their 

economic feasibility, and environmental concerns related to their construction and 

operation. The results of this screening process were documented in an Alternatives 

Analysis Report. A draft of that report was made available to public and agency 

reviewers online through the project website 

(http://www.iowadot.gov/chicagotoomaha) and was revised in response to 

comments received. After reviewing and screening the route alternatives and 

considering public and agency input, it was determined that only one route 

alternative (4-A) was reasonable and feasible for carrying forward for detailed study 

in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The Draft EIS also evaluated the No Build Alternative and 

addressed potential impacts of initial implementation of the Build Alternative, 

increased impacts as the passenger rail service expanded, and impacts of full 

implementation. Consequently, FRA believes that NEPA requirements for analysis 

of alternatives were met in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. 

Figures ES-3 and 2-1 in the Final EIS were revised to remove Galesburg, Iowa, and 

Osceola, Illinois, and to add Des Moines, Iowa. 

In recognition of your comment concerning potential wetland mitigation options, 

which may vary by state and USACE jurisdiction, the following sentence was 

added in Section 3.16.5, Potential Mitigation Measures, in the second paragraph, 

after the second sentence: “The mitigation strategies to be identified and selected 

will account for the fact that not all mitigation options are available to all states and 

USACE Districts.”

5782

Routes –

Alternative 

Route; Rail –

Current Rail 

Traffic; 

Phasing/Phased 

implementation

Lawrence 

Malmin Individual

To the D.O.T. Study Group.

Thanks for your very thorough work & generous deadline.

Please let me know @ your convenience, if Iowa underwrites the 

AMTRAK Zephyr. I did not think of this question during the Des 

Moines hearing. Most of the people in your audience experienced 

quality rail service before AMTRAK as well as AMTRAK today. 

Have any of the Study Committee members ridden regular 

AMTRAK, ACELA or European rail?

Thank you for your comment on the Chicago to Omaha Regional Passenger Rail 

System Planning Study. Public comments provide valuable input and contribute to 

the development of a complete environmental analysis. We appreciate your input 

and participation in the project. The Iowa Department of Transportation does not 

provide any state funding to support the California Zephyr service. That service is 

managed by a cooperative effort between Amtrak and the BNSF (Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe) Railroad. Any changes to the California Zephyr would be 

determined by Amtrak. Due to the federal requirements associated with introducing 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 15 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

Iowa is known as “Fly-Over Country” & Central Iowa is the 

“Missing Link” for Passenger Rail Service... not something to be 

proud of. 

Three of us @ the Botanical Center hearing, including Wally Taylor 

felt the study group focused on one option, which is the most 

expensive, will not be funded by the State, would take decades to 

complete and require State subsidies. The person next to me & his 

wife drove hundreds miles to catch AMTRAK’s (Northern route). 

Even a hundred & eighty mile round trip from Ames to Osceola, is 

not convenient. Iowa is shamefully behind other States, because of 

AMTRAK’s rigid positions.

Could you to suggest in your final report that AMTRAK consider 

routing trains two days a week through central Iowa where potential 

riders are, to test the market? That would still leave AMTRAK 

service five days a week where the people aren’t. (Pardon my 

grammar.) The Zephyr avoids Iowa population centers, thousands of 

new riders and income. Unfortunately, the federal government 

tolerates and funds such gross inefficiencies.

If you would suggest movement, on this issue, via your Study, it 

would be to your considerable credit. Connector service from the 

Mississippi to the Missouri, with first class rail cars, would be worth 

market testing. Improvements for speed could follow. Much of the 

route would easily tolerate sixty mph & there is almost no freight 

traffic from Ia. City west.

Several IARP members plan to lobby Legislators in person, but 

that’s not likely to go anywhere unfortunately.

new passenger rail service on an existing freight railroad (sidings, crossovers, 

station accommodations, signaling, crossing safety, etc.) it is highly unlikely that 

Amtrak would do a test run of service on the Iowa Interstate Railroad, in its current 

condition, to test the market.

The study team we have assembled for this particular study brings many years of 

transportation planning, environmental planning and railroad engineering 

experience and expertise as well as riding Amtrak as a passenger.

An alternatives analysis was conducted to evaluate several potential routes, and 

preliminary cost information was considered in comparing the routes. Route 

Alternative 4A had the next to lowest implementation cost and the highest projected 

revenue of the alternatives evaluated.

5769

Agency 

Coordination; 

Corrections to 

the Document

Kristen 

Andersen

Metra 

Commuter 

Rail

Metra is still preparing comments to the Draft EIS, and unfortunately 

our response will not be ready by the end of the comment period on 

12/26/12. We will submit our comments in January.

Your agency responded on December 21, 2012 that Metra would be submitting 

comments on the subject document. We find no record of your comment submittal, 

and the comment period closed on December 26, 2012. We are in the process of 

addressing comments and preparing the Tier 2 Final EIS. To maintain our schedule, 

we would appreciate receipt of any comments from Metra by February 1, 2013. 

Thank you.

6046 Joe Cothern

US 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency

In accordance with our responsibilities under Section 309 of the 

Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Regions 5 and 7, have reviewed 

the Federal Railroad Administration's Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement on the Planning Study for the Regional Passenger Rail 

System. This DEIS was assigned a Council on Environmental 

Quality identification number of20120354. Our review has 

concluded that adequate analysis of environmental issues relevant to 

the selection of the preferred alternative was performed. Therefore, 

EPA has assigned a rating of Lack of Objections to the DEIS. A 

copy of EPA's rating system is enclosed for your information. To 

assist the FRA in enhancing the Final EIS, and to focus Tier II 

analysis, EPA provides the following comments: 1. Coarse and Fine 

level screening occurred within corridors that were 500 foot wide 

and 100 foot wide (plus a buffer of 25-50 feet), respectively (ES. 3 

.2.1, ES. 3 .2.2.2). However the table of impact (ES-1) does not 

clearly indicate at what scale the potential impacts are accounted. 

EPA recommends that the FEIS more clearly describe the study 

envelopes of: existing Right of Way, Right of Way (plus any 

additional included study area) for the fine screening, and the 500 

Thank you for your participation in the review process and for providing comments 

on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The following are responses to your 

numbered comments:

1. Your comment on the coarse and fine level screening discussion from the 

Executive Summary also applies to Sections 2.1.4.1 and 2.1.4.2 in Chapter 2. Table 

ES-1 noted in your comment was derived from Table 2-4, and the information 

provided in Tables ES-1 and 2-4 was reported by resource in Chapter 3. Whereas 

the coarse and fine level screening results were determined through GIS analysis of 

set corridor dimensions and focused on resources that would be primarily affected 

from construction disturbance, the values calculated for the Build Alternative were 

based on GIS analysis of the Potential Impact Area and modeling of projected 

passenger rail operations. As noted on page ES-16 and also page 2-17, “The 

existing ROW and estimated additional ROW that would be necessary for track and 

siding construction and improvements at station locations constitutes the Potential 

Impact Area.” The Potential Impact Area was wider and includes more area than 

the fine-level screening corridor to account for design options reviewed during 

development of the Build Alternative. Page 2-18 notes “There are multiple 

alignment options through East Des Moines, Iowa, and across the Missouri River 

between Council Bluffs, Iowa and Omaha, Nebraska, as well as multiple station 

location options in Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Omaha. Consequently, the 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 16 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

foot study area in the coarse screening. 2. ES. 4.22 (Energy Use and 

Climate Change) predicts considerable decreases in automobile and 

bus passenger-miles per year and resultant decreases in greenhouse 

gasses. This section also predicts an automobile fuel decrease of 

approximately 12 million gallons. Does these predictions account for 

the increased diesel fuel usage for the rail system?

3. Section 2.2.2.2 (Station Stops). Vitally important to air quality 

analysis in Tier II studies, will be the amount of time spent by the 

train at these stations, the emission factors of the locomotives while 

idling, the land-use/human population at that location, and the 

baseline air quality condition (attainment/nonattainment/maintenance) at those stops. EPA invites FRA to use of 

spatial data tools such as NEPAssist (http: 

//nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/entry.aspx) to help convey the 

potential impact of rail system pollutant sources upon receptors near 

these stops. 4. Section 3.1 0.2 provides some general information on 

three Superfund sites. For additional information on these sites, and 

most recent points-of-contact please refer to the following fact

sheets: http:/ /www.epa.gov/region07 /cleanup/npl files/iad98068793 

3 .pdf, http://www .epa.gov/region07 /cleanup/npl files/iaOOO 

1610963 .pdf and, http://www .epa.gov/region07 /cleanup/npl 

files/iaOOO 161 0963 .pdf. 5. The Draft EIS states that there will be 

a connection built for the BNSF and Amtrak lines and ancillary 

facilities built around Wyanet, Illinois. Currently, there are no 

existing facilities, nor a connection between BNSF and Amtrak 

lines. Further examination and information related to environmental 

and public health impacts should be included in the Tier II 

documents. This analysis should include noise, air emission 

(especially diesel), storm water run-off, implications to local traffic 

and any impacts to sensitive populations. Thank you for the 

opportunity to review and provide comments on the DEIS. If you 

have questions or require additional clarification, please contact 

Shanna Horvatin at 312-886-7887, or myself at 913-551-7148.

Potential Impact Area includes all alignments and locations currently under 

consideration.” 

The exact ROW boundaries of the railroad corridors were not known at the time the 

evaluations occurred, and as noted previously, the exact boundaries of ROW needed 

to construct the improvements are unknown during Tier 1. However, the current 

and future needed ROW would be delineated to address impacts during Tier 2 

projects. 

2. The predictions did account for the increased diesel fuel usage by railroad 

locomotives. The text in the Executive Summary was derived from Energy Use and 

Climate Section 3.22.4, which contains summarized information from Air Quality 

Section 3.9.4 and Appendix F. Appendix F provides emission calculations and fuel 

consumption information in gallons per year for various transportation modes, 

including new passenger rail. A sentence referencing Appendix F has been added 

to Section 3.22.4.

3. In the Tier 2 studies, the time trains spend idling at stations, the emission factors 

of the locomotives, the surrounding land use and human population at the station 

areas, and baseline air quality in those station areas will be considered in the air 

quality analysis (in addition to other appropriate factors) as well as the information 

provided by the NEPAssist tool. 

4. The information cited for the three Superfund sites has been reviewed and 

Section 3.10.2 has been updated with the supplementary information. Section 

3.10.4, which addresses potential impacts of the Build Alternative, was also revised 

to account for the updated site conditions and address the likelihood of impacts 

based on recent cleanup efforts at these three sites.

5. The Potential Impact Area for this Tier 1 EIS included the connection area west 

of Wyanet, Illinois. Figure 39 in Appendix B shows this connection area including 

a riparian corridor, streams, wetlands and floodplain (according to GIS data), and 

farmlands. Consequently, these potential impacts were included within the overall 

impacts reported for the Build Alternative. Environmental impacts associated with 

the Wyanet Connection, as well as the need for permitting, are being addressed as 

part of the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program Tier 2 NEPA documents 

currently under preparation by Illinois DOT. If there is a need for further 

improvements to the Wyanet Connection as part of the Chicago to Council BluffsOmaha Regional Passenger Rail System Program, they will be addressed in future 

Tier 2 evaluations and NEPA documentation.

6090

Rail –

Improvements; 

Rail – Current 

Rail Traffic; 

Station 

Facilities & 

Upgrades; 

Public 

Involvement; 

Routes – Route 

Alternative 4; 

Agency 

Coordination

Alexander 

Clifford Metra

Dear Ms. Martin: Metra offers the following comments regarding the 

Chicago to Council Bluffs - Omaha Tier I Service Level Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

1. The document states that Alternative 4, which utilizes Metra Rock 

Island District (RID) track between Chicago and Joliet, is "neither 

reasonable or feasible" because it lacks a connection to Chicago 

Union Station (CUS). However, the Chicago - 51. Louis High Speed 

Rail Final E15, released in late October, identified the RID as the 

preferred route between Joliet and Chicago. A connection would be 

added between the RID and Norfolk Southern/SouthWest Service 

track at 40th Street, allowing trains to enter CUS. Chicago - Omaha 

service utilizing the RID could also use this connection, and utilize 

additional track and signals along the corridor added to 

accommodate the St. Louis service. 

2. Metra understands that capacity modeling will take place during 

the Tier 2 study. Thorough analysis is critical in order to fully 

identify the track and signal improvements and additional right-ofway needed to support the new service in addition to existing and 

Thank you for your participation in the review process and for providing comments 

on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The following are responses to your 

comments:

1. The rationale for eliminating Route Alternative 4 for not being reasonable or 

feasible because it lacks a connection to CUS remains valid for the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha passenger rail project (the Project) because the connection 

does not yet exist. Although, as specified in your letter, a new connection from 

Metra’s Rock Island District track to CUS is proposed, the connection still needs to 

be evaluated in a Tier 2 NEPA document and designed and constructed. The 

proposed connection would require land acquisition in an urban setting. In addition, 

the capacity and level of service of the proposed connection is unknown. 

Consequently, the potential exists that the connection might not be present, or may 

not have adequate capacity, which would affect planning and design for the Project. 

The comparison of route alternatives for the Project was conducted based on the 

review of existing conditions, including the lack of a Wyanet Connection. Costs (as 

well as other evaluation criteria) for that connection under Route Alternative 4-A 

were included in the consideration of the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha project, 

as were costs for the connection to CUS in Route Alternative 4. The construction of 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 17 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

proposed freight, commuter, and intercity passenger trains on the 

route, especially in the congested Chicago - Aurora segment. Here, 

capacity is particularly constrained during peak commuter traffic 

periods in the morning and afternoon. Metra wants to ensure that 

capacity is preserved for future expansion of Metra service in this 

successful and growing commuter corridor. Metra strongly 

recommends that the project team work closely with the BNSF and 

other railroad owners in the study area, so that the next phase of 

analysis accurately reflects current and future demands on the rail 

network. As noted in the Tier 1 EIS document, Preliminary 

Engineering and an Environmental Assessment of a proposed 

extension of commuter service on the BNSF to Oswego are currently 

underway. The potential addition of Metra traffic on this segment of 

the line needs to be considered during Tier 2 when determining 

infrastructure improvements and right-of-way costs for the Chicago -

Omaha service. Currently, the south side of CUS is at capacity 

during much of the day, with a limited ability to accommodate 

additional trains. Recommendations to address this issue were 

developed as part of the CUS Master Plan study, and also include the 

relocation of Metra's SouthWest Service from CUS to LaSalle Street 

Station, as proposed in the CREATE Program. These 

recommendations, their timeline for implementation, and previous 

proposals for new train service that would utilize the south platforms 

of CUS, should be considered during the Tier 2 analysis. 

3. Metra requests that additional efforts should be made to include 

all stakeholders in the process early and often during subsequent 

portions of this study. If you have any questions, or would like to 

arrange a meeting or conference call, don't hesitate to contact me 

directly or Lynnette Ciavarella at (312) 322-8022 or 

Iciavarc@metrarr.com to facilitate this conversation.

a connection between Route Alternative 4 and CUS is not reasonable or feasible for 

the Project based upon the anticipated ridership and revenue the service is expected 

to generate.

2. Tier 2 will include detailed capacity modeling and a thorough analysis of track 

and signal improvements, and the ROW needed to support the new service in 

consideration of existing passenger and freight service. FRA, Iowa DOT, and 

Illinois DOT will work closely with railroad owners and operators to accurately 

capture current and future demands on the rail network. The Tier 2 evaluations will 

include consideration of ongoing projects such as commuter service on the BNSF to 

Oswego, the relocation of Metra’s SouthWest service, and a potential connection 

from Metra’s Rock Island District track to CUS. 

3. Additional coordination will be occurring with all stakeholders as the process 

continues for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha passenger rail project.

5774

Station 

Facilities & 

Upgrades, 

Corrections to 

the Document, 

Elderly, People 

with 

Disabilities, 

Cumulative 

Impacts, Rail 

Improvements, 

Phasing/ Phased 

Implementation, 

Tier 1 Study

Alan Kline Individual

GENERAL COMMENTS: While the intended Project is needed, 

desired by a significant percentage of the public, and long overdue, 

the Draft EIS is an incredible mish-mash of ineptitude, poor 

judgment, and overblown planning. The project plan is poorly 

focused, and staging is not well defined. The goal of the Draft EIS 

appears to be the creation of an overblown project with unnecessary 

construction which would provide little utility to the Project, but 

considerable profit to the consultant and contractors. Overall, the 

adverse environmental effects of the proposed project, at the initial 

level of service, are virtually nil. Reducing the level of construction 

needed in the initial stages would allow the entire Chicago-Omaha 

route to be implemented at a much earlier time. 

The Draft EIS places far too much emphasis on traffic headed 

towards Chicago, and does not recognize the added utility which 

would be provided by appropriate direct connections at Omaha. 

I agree that the BNSF-IAIS alternative is not only the ideal 

alternative for this project, but the only feasible routing. This option 

serves the greatest number of Iowans at the lowest possible cost. 

Iowa DOT and its consultants showed extreme incompetence and 

poor judgment by even including the ex-Milwaukee Road route in 

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study (the Chicago to Council BluffsOmaha Study). 

Based on many years of planning the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, with eight 

other Midwest states, it was determined that a regional route from Chicago to 

Omaha would meet the needs of intercity passenger rail service for the State of 

Iowa. As part of the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Study, we were required by 

the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) to analyze all of the existing or 

previously established passenger rail routes from Chicago to Omaha. The National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires a review of a range of 

alternatives; consequently, all previously established routes were initially 

considered. Based on the Alternative Analysis exercise and additional analysis 

through the development of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it was 

determined that the preferred route for expanded intercity passenger rail is Route 

Alternative 4-A. Although a Tier 1 NEPA analysis was conducted on a Chicago to 

Iowa City route, it is considered to be a separate (although related) project, as is the 

Chicago to Quad Cities component of the route that is being studied under a Tier 2 

analysis by the Illinois Department of Transportation. As you noted in your 

comment, relevant information for those studies was incorporated in the Chicago to 

Council Buffs-Omaha Study. Although NEPA and FRA environmental regulations 

requires the evaluation of a rail program from its termini, the information from 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 18 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

the initial consideration of routes for the Project. Given the fact that 

more than two-thirds of the route in Iowa has been dismantled for 

many years and that the route, when in service, missed virtually 

every population center of consequence in both Iowa and Illinois 

(excepting Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs), the route should 

never have reached even the initial stage of consideration. This poor 

judgment and lack of competence is repeated throughout the 

document. 

The goal of the Project at this stage should be to deliver an initial 

level of service--two to four trains per day over the entire route--in 

the shortest possible timeframe and at the lowest possible cost. The 

EIS should not address any issues related to the ultimate goal of 

seven trains per day, and the possible construction issues related to 

that goal, until the initial level of service is in operation and the 

demand for expanded service is evident. The initial level of service 

can be achieved with minimal construction in Iowa--primarily 

layover facilities and stations--and can be achieved entirely within 

the footprint of existing railroad properties. 

The Executive Summary states the assumption that the ChicagoMoline portion of the route is in operation. Essentially, the ChicagoMoline planning documents are incorporated by reference. Despite 

this, the EIS wastes considerable time and resources reinventing the 

wheel, and covers the same territory covered by the previous 

Chicago-Iowa City documents. Because the Chicago-Iowa City 

portion of the route has been covered by previous Tier 1 documents, 

repeating that study in this document is a waste of time and financial 

resources. As stated above, further studies that may be necessary for 

increased service can be delayed until such time as the demand for 

that service warrants. 

It also appears that virtually no input was sought from the railroads 

which actually own the lines over which the proposed service would 

operate. For example, the EIS makes assumptions about the width of 

Iowa Interstate's right-of-way. Wouldn't it have been relatively 

simple, and make the document much more accurate, to actually 

contact the railroad and seek specific information? Considering the 

fact that the CEO of IAIS' parent company is on record offering his 

company's support to this Project, it should have been easy to obtain 

the railroad's cooperation. The document also makes certain 

projections and assumptions with regard to future levels of freight 

service on the IAIS--also without any basis in factual evidence from 

the railroad. I believe that the sections of the EIS which deal with 

added infrastructure would be far more credible if they were based 

on the real-world experience of the people who actually own and 

operate these railroads, and not on the hypotheses of academics, 

bureaucrats and consultants. While the Draft EIS is replete with 

copies of letters and email from various public agencies, I have yet 

to find any from IAIS, BNSF, or UP. 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 

Additional tracks: The current level of freight service on the Iowa 

previous studies was used to reduce the effort needed for an analysis of the entire 

corridor. 

Railroads have been contacted and involved with evaluating the feasibility of the 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Project. However, a detailed analysis of existing 

right-of-way is beyond the scope of a Tier 1 analysis because the details of project 

design and selection of specific locations for stations, layover facilities, and 

maintenance facilities are not yet known. These elements of the Project will be 

further evaluated during Tier 2 analyses, as noted in Chapter 5 of the Tier 1 EIS. 

Thank you for your specific comments on station locations, crossing locations, and 

layover/maintenance facility locations. Your input will be considered in 

development of an additional study, called the Service Development Plan (SDP). 

The SDP will publish in tandem with the final Tier 1 Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Study. This SDP describes the 

operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, organization, implementation 

schedule, finances and economics of a regional passenger railroad transportation 

service proposed to operate between Chicago, Illinois, and Council Bluffs, Iowa. 

The passenger transportation service contemplated in this SDP would be 

incrementally implemented from east to west, and through frequency increases, 

until it ultimately delivers four round-trips per day between the end point cities, 

operating at a maximum speed of 79 mph. The service would be owned and 

operated by the States of Iowa and Illinois. The SDP is a component of a Tier 1 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Chicago to Council Bluffs/Omaha, 

Nebraska corridor. This EIS contemplates a further increase of passenger rail 

service in this corridor consisting of a geographic extension from Council Bluffs to 

Omaha; a frequency increase to seven round trips per day between Chicago and Des 

Moines, Iowa, and five round trips per day between Des Moines and Omaha; and an 

increase in maximum speed to 110 mph. In developing this plan, all of the railroads 

impacted by the selection of Route Alternative 4-A were consulted.

Phased implementation is planned for the passenger rail service between Chicago 

and Council Bluffs-Omaha to enable Iowa DOT, Illinois DOT, and FRA to provide 

incremental project funding as it becomes available. This would involve launch of 

an initial service consisting of two daily round trips operating at 79 mph between 

Chicago and Moline, which is currently under development by the Illinois DOT 

with an anticipated start of service in 2015. Subsequently, in Phase 2 these two 

daily roundtrips would be extended westward to Iowa City in 2017, and in Phase 3 

to Des Moines in 2022. Phase 4 would establish four daily roundtrips between 

Chicago and Des Moines in 2025, and Phase 5 would extend these 4 round trips to 

Council Bluffs in 2030. A long-term goal for the corridor is to implement 110 mph 

maximum speed service with seven round trips serving Des Moines and five round 

trips to Omaha, but no implementation schedule has been established at this time. 

All future planning, design, and construction activities would be outlined in the 

Program Implementation Schedule generated for each phase of the Service.

Your specific comments will also be considered when Tier 2 studies are performed 

to address design details and decisions not known at this time during the Tier 1 

NEPA process.
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 19 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

Interstate is such that the initial proposed service, at 79mph, should 

easily be accommodated by the existing rail line, and no additional 

main track construction is required. The length and location of 

existing sidings, as indicated by the current IAIS timetable, appears 

to be quite adequate for the initial level of service. Comment from 

the IAIS is required to confirm or deny this assumption. 

Mississippi River crossing: There is no need to consider any plan 

for construction of a new bridge across the Mississippi River. The 

existing Government Bridge ("Arsenal Bridge") is entirely adequate 

for any level of service anticipated in the foreseeable future. The 

bridge is well-maintained by the Army, and I have heard nothing to 

indicate that the bridge, assuming that the level of maintenance 

continues, is nearing the end of its useful life. Constructing a new 

bridge that would be connected to the IAIS line presents nearly 

insurmountable financial, political and environmental issues. 

Fortunately, those issues need not be considered. 

Iowa City station: The existing depot structure in Iowa City (exRock Island; currently owned by IAIS) is vacant and presently on 

the real-estate market. Acquiring this facility for the project offers an 

opportunity to renovate a historic structure with no environmental 

impact, returning the structure to its original intended purpose. 

Iowa City layover facility: The Iowa Interstate recently vacated its 

Iowa City locomotive facility, and because the Iowa City layover 

facility is intended only as an interim facility, it may be possible to 

use the existing facility on a short-term basis with minimal 

modifications. It also seems reasonable to think that IAIS would be 

willing to discuss the use of a track within the existing yard for use 

as a layover track. Neither of these possibilities would create any 

adverse environmental effects. One locomotive idling at the existing 

locomotive facility would have far less environmental impact than 

the half-dozen engines which might have been present at any given 

time, during previous use of the facility by the IAIS and Rock Island. 

Des Moines routing options: The most important issues to be 

considered are improvements to the Union Pacific-owned section of 

line between East Des Moines (IAIS milepost 353.2) and the point 

where IAIS ownership resumes, a short distance west of the junction 

with UP's north-south mainline (UP CPU074). Comments 

suggesting an overpass crossing the UP at this point are simply 

unrealistic in terms of constructability and cost. It would be far more 

productive to discuss with UP options which could improve the flow 

of both passenger and freight traffic through this area. Vacant land, 

formerly used for railroad purposes, exists between SE 14th Street 

and the Des Moines river and could be used for a layover facility. 

While this would require a short reverse move from a downtown 

station, the use of push-pull trainsets would minimize this issue, and 

this location for a layover facility would eliminate the need to handle 

diesel fuel in the downtown area. 

Des Moines station location: A public comment included in the 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 20 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

Draft EIS suggests that the station be located near Waukee, citing the 

Jordan Creek Town Center shopping mall and the west campus of 

Des Moines Area Community College as reasons. I strongly urge 

that no consideration whatever be given to this suggestion. Jordan 

Creek mall and the DMACC campus are local destinations which 

would produce little if any ridership for an intercity service. Further, 

a far-western station location removes the service from the vast 

majority of the metro area population, would require significant 

changes to existing public transit services, and would require 

considerable driving from Altoona, Ankeny and Indianola, among 

other cities. Removing the station location to such a far-western 

location would also introduce significant adverse environmentaljustice (Title VI) effects, as it would render use of the service by a 

large portion of the minority community either impractical or 

impossible. 

It makes far more sense to locate the Des Moines station in the 

downtown location suggested by the Draft EIS. The downtown area 

offers a far wider range of attractions which would induce intercity 

passenger traffic, is the heart of the Des Moines business 

community, and is centrally located to attractions in other parts of 

the metro area. While it would be historically desirable to acquire 

and renovate the existing Rock Island depot, this may not be the 

ideal alternative for this Project. It is not clear that the current owner 

would be willing to sell at a price that makes economic sense for this 

project. Further, the existing depot is located about one and one-half 

blocks east of the new Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority 

"Central Station" hub--a significant distance for passengers with 

children and/or luggage, the elderly and disabled, and for anyone 

during times of adverse weather. It may make more sense to acquire 

the properties between Fifth and Sixth avenues, north of the IAIS 

tracks, to construct a new facility. These properties, owned by Polk 

County and Wells Fargo, are currently in use as parking lots, and 

thus would not require demolition of existing buildings. In this case,

the rail station would be located directly across the street from the 

transit hub. The station should be sized to accommodate future 

passenger rail service between Minneapolis/St. Paul and Kansas 

City. It would also make environmental and economic sense to 

construct a facility which could also accommodate intercity buses 

(replacing the existing, decrepit intercity bus depot in Des Moines) 

as well as shuttles to Des Moines International Airport. In short, 

locating as many public urban and intercity transportation options as 

possible, in a two-square-block area, presents an unmatched 

opportunity to the project. 

Council Bluffs station and/or terminal: I do not support any 

implementation of the project which would terminate the service, 

even for a short term, in Council Bluffs. It is imperative that the 

service connect at the earliest possible time to Amtrak services at the 

Omaha depot. The Draft EIS gives little consideration to passengers 

who may wish to travel to the western end of this Project and then 

connect to existing Amtrak service at Omaha. Requiring such 

passengers to use a connecting bus from Council Bluffs to Omaha, 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 21 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

or worse still, requiring those passengers to provide their own 

connection, damages the traffic potential of the western end of the 

route. Requiring such a connection on an interim basis would 

damage the credibility of the service in such a way that regaining 

those passengers would be difficult when through service to Omaha 

is established. If a Council Bluffs station is established, Finally, if a 

Council Bluffs station could be justified financially and politically, 

just across the river from Omaha, consideration should also be given 

to a Davenport station, just across the river from Moline. Council 

Bluffs/Omaha routing issues: The only logical route from the IAIS to 

Omaha is: onto the UP at Council Bluffs, across the UP Missouri 

River bridge, and cross over onto the BNSF to access the Amtrak 

depot. There appears to be no need to construct a new bridge across 

the Missouri River; again, confirmation from the UP is required. 

Omaha depot: There are no acceptable station sites in Omaha, with 

the exception of the existing Amtrak depot. As pointed out above, it 

is imperative for passengers of this Project to have the most 

convenient possible connection to and from Amtrak's California 

Zephyr at Omaha. No location other than the existing Amtrak depot 

offers such a convenient connection. Using the existing depot 

eliminates any need for major construction--the only construction 

necessary would be a crossover from the westward BNSF main to 

the eastward BNSF main, which has the platform at the Amtrak 

depot. Construction of this crossover would be within existing 

railroad rights-of-way and have no adverse environmental impact. 

Use of the Omaha Union Station does not appear possible or 

feasible. The building has been converted to other uses, and 

passengers coming to that station from the existing Amtrak depot 

would need to cross both the BNSF and UP main tracks. Pedestrian 

grade crossings would undoubtedly be unacceptable to both carriers, 

and constructing a pedestrian underpass would be prohibitively 

expensive, particularly in comparison to use of the existing Amtrak 

station. ADA issues would also have a significant cost impact on 

such an underpass. The old Burlington station is far too large for the 

initial stage of the proposed project, and requires extensive structural 

repairs and renovation, making it financially infeasible for this 

project. At some point, should this service prove successful enough 

to justify the seven round-trip level of service, Amtrak, the city of 

Omaha, and the Nebraska and Iowa DOT's may wish to revisit the 

subject. However, this is not an appropriate time. 

Suggestions to locate an Omaha depot at any location other than the 

existing Amtrak depot appear to be nothing more than a failure by 

the project team to envision this service as an interconnecting part of 

the national passenger rail system, and an effort by the consultants to 

inflate the cost of the project and therefore, their profit.

5766

Support the 

Project, 

Corrections to 

the Document, 

NEPA, 

Alternatives, 

Wallace L. 

Taylor

Sierra Club, 

Iowa Chapter

To Whom It May Concern: The following comments on the Tier 1 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for passenger rail are 

submitted on behalf of the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club. The 

Sierra Club is the nation’s largest grassroots environmental 

organization with over 600,000 members. Its Iowa Chapter has 

approximately 5,000 members. 

Thank you for taking the time to provide us with comments as part of our Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement effort for the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha 

Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study. Your comments focus on the 

alternatives analysis component of the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (Draft EIS), and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 22 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

Cultural 

Resources, 

Transportation –

Highway 

Congestion, 

Elderly, People 

with 

Disabilities, 

Parks, Section 

4(f), Energy Use

The Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club enthusiastically supports 

passenger rail and supports its expansion in Iowa. We support public 

transportation solutions that are more efficient users of transportation 

fuels. By reducing the amount of fuels used, our reliance on fossil 

fuels is reduced. The extraction of fossil fuels destroys the 

environment. The combustion of fossil fuels creates greenhouse 

gases that cause climate change. The benefits of reduced reliance on 

fossil fuels include reduced air pollution. Public transportation, such 

as rail, results in reduced vehicle miles traveled and reduced 

infrastructure devoted to cars and congestion. These solutions also 

preclude building more highways that go through natural areas and 

historical sites. Additionally, public transportation benefits those 

who do not own and drive a car, including elderly, disabled, and 

low-income families. 

With regard to the EIS, we agree with the initial decision to examine 

alternative routes using preexisting rail lines. Using existing rail 

lines would obviously have less impact than constructing a new 

route that would impact formerly unused land and resources. We are 

concerned, however, that the analysis of alternatives is inadequate 

and does not comply with NEPA and its accompanying regulations. 

The analysis of alternatives is contained in Appendix A of the Draft 

EIS, rather than in the body of the document. Thus, the only 

alternatives “analysis” in the body of the Draft EIS is a comparison 

of the preferred alternative and the no build alternative. That means 

there is actually no analysis of alternatives in the Draft EIS itself. 

And even the analysis of alternatives in Appendix A is inadequate, 

especially with respect to environmental concerns. Environmental 

impacts, of course, are the raison d’etre of an EIS. But the Draft EIS 

for this project spends only a few very short paragraphs discussing 

these impacts in the course-level screening, and for the fine-level 

screening adds nothing more than a chart adding up the number of 

environmental resources that might be impacted by each alternative. 

There is no description or comparison of the nature and extent of the 

relative impacts of each alternative on the environment. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 

et seq., “declares a broad national commitment to protecting and 

promoting environmental quality.” Robertson v. Methow Valley 

Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 348, 109 S.Ct. 1835 (1989). NEPA 

explains that policy as follows: The Congress, recognizing the 

profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all 

components of the natural environment, particularly the profound 

influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, 

industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding 

technological advances and recognizing further the critical 

importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the 

overall welfare and development of man, declares that it is the 

continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with 

State and local governments, and other concerned public and private 

The response below addresses your comments. 

Alternatives Analysis and NEPA Process

The focus of a Tier 1 analysis, as governed by Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) requirements, is to address the broader questions relating to cities and 

stations served, route alternatives, service levels, types of operations, ridership 

projections, and major infrastructure components. FRA determined that it was 

necessary to do a Tier 1 analysis because of the complexity of managing the NEPA 

process for such a large-scale project (approximately 500 miles in length; traveling 

through Illinois, Iowa, and into Omaha, Nebraska). A Tier 1 study allows FRA and 

other agencies to utilize an initial phase that focuses on the broad issues, such as 

purpose and need, general location (corridors), land use implications of alternative 

routes, environmental fatal flaws, etc.; before expending the resources that are 

needed for subsequent detailed analyses of the many Tier 2 subsections that are 

necessary in a lengthy corridor such as this. As such, the Tier 1 broad analysis of 

route alternatives is a valid approach for complying with NEPA on large-scale 

projects (Guidelines on the Use of Tiered Environmental Impact Statements for 

Transportation Projects, prepared for AASHTO by PB Americas, Inc. and Perkins 

Coie LLP, June 2009). As noted in Attachment E of the Alternatives Analysis 

Report in the response to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources comment, 

the intent of the environmental screening process at the Tier 1 level was to identify 

environmental fatal flaws; and that purpose and need, engineering, and cost 

considerations were the main drivers for screening out alternatives. 

Key environmental resources were evaluated in a study area around each route 

alternative corridor, based on publicly available data such as open-source aerial 

imagery and geographic information system (GIS) data. The corridors considered 

in the Tier 1 Alternatives Analysis are substantially wider than the Right-of-Way 

(i.e. impact area) that is expected to be needed for the project. This width leaves 

flexibility for specific alignments within the corridor to be determined in Tier 2, 

when a higher degree of engineering is available, and also allows for avoidance and 

minimization of impacts within the corridor.

The Alternatives Analysis report was included as an appendix because it is a 

lengthy methodical discussion of the information that was considered in the 

analysis, and as such, is more appropriate as an appendix item. (Council on 

Environmental Quality, NEPA’s Forty Most Asked Questions [25a]) . Section 2.1 

of the Tier 1 Draft EIS includes much of the information derived from the 

Alternatives Analysis Report, as a summary of the analysis and conclusions, and 

was revised in the Tier 1 Final EIS in response to comments on the Draft EIS. 

Although the route alternatives were evaluated and screened down to one 

reasonable and feasible route alternative for evaluation in the Tier 1 Draft EIS, the 

Draft EIS still evaluated other alternatives being considered. For example, different 

routes are still under consideration in the Des Moines metropolitan area and the 

Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area. The specific locations of some stations, 

layover facilities, and maintenance facilities are as yet unknown, and the Draft EIS 

and Final EIS included an evaluation of impacts at these different locations. An 

operational regime of speeds up to 110 miles per hour (mph) was evaluated for 

potential impacts, noting that phased implementation would commence at slower 

speeds. 

Section 4(f) Analysis
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 23 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including 

financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster 

and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions 

under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and 

fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and 

future generations of Americans. 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a). 

NEPA has in fact become the “basic national charter for protection 

of the environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1. Compliance with NEPA 

ensures that federal agencies will consider significant environmental 

impacts of federal action, make available the relevant information, 

and open to public scrutiny their decision making process. Churchill 

County v. Norton, 276 F.3d 1060, 1072 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Section 102(2) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2), is “one of the ‘actionforcing’ provisions intended as a directive to ‘all agencies to assure 

consideration of the environmental impact of their actions in 

decisionmaking.’” Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 409, 96 

S.Ct. 2718 (1976)(quoting Conference Report on NEPA, 115 Cong. 

Rec. 40416 (1969)). The provision also ensures that “agencies act 

according to the letter and spirit of the Act.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a). 

NEPA does not mandate a particular outcome for a proposed project. 

Rather, it is a procedural statute that prescribes the process by which 

the agency is to reach an informed decision. Robertson, 490 U.S. at 

350-51, 109 S. Ct. at 1846. 

In reviewing an agency’s efforts to comply with NEPA a court must 

determine whether the agency took a “hard look” at the 

environmental impacts of a project before acting. Sierra Club v. 

Kimbell, 623 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2010). An agency takes a hard look 

when it “obtains opinions from experts outside the agency, gives 

careful scientific scrutiny, and responds to all legitimate concerns 

that are raised.” Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 

U.S. 360, 377, 109 S.Ct. 1851 (1989). But the agency cannot take a 

hard look and then “ignore what it saw.” Audubon Soc. of Cent. 

Arkansas v. Dailey, 977 F.2d 428, 436 (8th Cir. 1992). 

An EIS must discuss reasonable alternatives “to the proposed 

action.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(iii). The alternatives analysis is the 

“heart of the environmental impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. 

NEPA demands that the agency “rigorously explore and objectively 

evaluate all reasonable alternatives.” 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14. The 

“existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an 

environmental impact statement inadequate.” Resources Ltd. v. 

Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 1307 (9th Cir. 1994). 

The cursory treatment given to the alternatives in this case does not 

satisfy these requirements. Appendix A of the Draft EIS also states 

that each of the five alternatives impacts Section 4(f) properties. 

Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 303, prohibits the 

Secretary of Transportation from approving a project that requires 

the use of a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl 

refuge, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local 

Although Route Alternative 4-A could potentially impact slightly more Section 4(f) 

resources than other alternatives, the analysis was based on a buffer without 

conceptual engineering, allowing flexibility in design to avoid or minimize impacts 

on the resources. The potential impacts identified do not constitute a Section 4(f) 

“use”. A determination still needs to be made during Tier 2 as to whether certain 

properties are protected under Section 4(f). Additionally, a determination of 

adverse effect would need to be conducted for historic resources for determining a 

Section 4(f) “use” and this effort would not be conducted until Tier 2. 

Consequently, a Section 4(f) evaluation could not be conducted during Tier 1; full 

evaluations or other Section 4(f) documentation would be developed during Tier 2 

along with NEPA documentation for individual Project sections. 

Because Illinois forest preserves, which are considered to be a Section 4(f) resource, 

exist on both sides of the railroad ROW for all route alternatives, the potential exists 

for all route alternatives to impact Section 4(f) properties. Although not reported in 

the Alternatives Analysis Report, Route Alternative 3 that was eliminated from fine 

level screening also passed through potential Section 4(f) properties, including 

parks and forest preserves. Consequently, there is no feasible and prudent 

avoidance alternative when considering the route alternatives analyzed.

Similar to Section 4(f) properties, a detailed analysis of specific impacts on Section 

6(f) properties was deferred until Tier 2. FRA, Iowa Department of Transportation 

(Iowa DOT), and Illinois Department of Transportation (Illinois DOT) will evaluate 

impacts on Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) properties, with the design process 

avoiding the properties when possible and minimizing the impacts if the properties 

are unavoidable. Close coordination with the officials that have jurisdiction of the 

properties would be performed during Tier 2 concerning any potential impacts and 

the need for specific mitigation.

Changes documented in the Final EIS

Since issuance of the Draft EIS, comments on the document have been reviewed in 

consideration of updating the document to create a Final EIS. Iowa DOT has 

drafted a Service Development Plan (SDP), a planning document that addresses the 

rationale for and details of the proposed passenger rail service, including a plan for 

phased implementation of the service, an operating plan for each phase of service, 

and a capital and financial plan for determining the types and amounts of funding 

needed for each phase of service. The SDP has an approximate 20-year planning 

horizon, but under phased implementation, full implementation of the Project would 

extend beyond 20 years. Therefore, Iowa DOT, in coordination with FRA, decided 

to focus the SDP on the interim implementation phase, which is the phase of the 

Project that would be implemented within this 20-year planning horizon. The 

interim implementation phase would likely include four round-trips per day at 79 

mph between Chicago and Council Bluffs, while full implementation would be five 

to seven round-trips per day at 110 mph between Chicago and Omaha. The Final 

EIS has been updated with discussions on the interim implementation phase. 

Chapter 2, Alternatives, has been revised to account for the SDP and other 

clarifications concerning the alternatives analysis process. For example, further 

information has been added to Section 2.3 to indicate that the potential impacts 

presented in Table 2-4 are overestimated based on the conservative analysis 

performed for the Study.

The Draft EIS assessed impacts of train service at speeds up to 110 mph and noted 

that phased implementation (with less service, fewer stops, and slower speeds) 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 24 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

significance unless: (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to 

using the land; and (2) the program or project includes all possible 

planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use. 

FRA regulations require that, for projects subject to the Section 4(f) 

requirement, the 4(f) evaluation must document why there is no 

“feasible and prudent” alternative and the planning measures taken 

to “minimize harm” to the property resulting from the use. 49 C.F.R. 

§ 266.19(b)(4). An EIS should document compliance with applicable 

requirements, including Section 4(f). Id. 

FRA must determine whether there is no feasible and prudent 

alternative before using a protected resource. Citizens to Preserve 

Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 91 S.Ct. 814 (1971). “The 

intent of Congress in enacting Section 4(f) was to ensure that the 

protection of parkland was given prime importance in considering 

where to build federal roads and highways [and other transportation 

projects].” Id. at 412-13. The language of Section 4(f) “is a plain and 

explicit bar to the use of federal funds for construction of [projects] 

through parks – only the most unusual situations are exempted.” Id. 

at 411. (emphasis added). 

In relation to transportation alternatives, an alternative is infeasible 

if, “as a matter of sound engineering,” that alternative cannot be 

constructed along the planned route. Id. at 411. An alternative is 

imprudent if there arises “unusual factors” or “cost or community 

disruption” as a result of “extraordinary magnitudes” that argue 

against building a [project] along such a route. Id. at 413. If no 

feasible and/or prudent alternative is available, [FRA] must also find 

that the plans for the project minimize the harm to the protected 4(f) 

resources. Id. at 411. 

The Supreme Court has developed a three-step analysis for a court to 

review FRA’s decision to use resources protected by Section 4(f). Id. 

at 416-17. First, the reviewing court determines whether the FRA 

acted within the scope of its authority. This requires that the agency 

understand that the scope of its authority was limited to approving a 

use of land where there were no feasible and prudent alternatives and 

all possible planning had been undertaken to minimize harm to the 

4(f) resource. Id. at 416. Second, the reviewing court must determine 

that the agency’s decision was not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” based on the 

relevant factors. Id. A searching and careful inquiry must be made; 

however, the reviewing court is not to substitute its own judgment 

for that of the agency. Id. Third, the court must determine whether 

the agency followed the necessary procedural requirements. Id. at 

417. 

With respect to the Draft EIS in this case, there was not even an 

attempt to undertake the required Section 4(f) analysis, let alone an 

adequate analysis. Thus, the Draft EIS does not comply with the law 

and regulations. 

would result in fewer impacts. The Final EIS includes a quantitative evaluation of 

operational impacts at a train speed of up to 79 mph with up to four round-trips per 

day between Chicago and Council Bluffs (see Section 3.28). 

Conclusion

In conclusion, FRA believes that the approach for evaluating alternatives and 

documenting the results in the Draft EIS and Final EIS complies with NEPA 

requirements, and that Section 4(f) requirements have been met during the Tier 1

process. During Tier 2, the Project will be further developed with the consideration 

of environmental impacts in maximizing the extent of reconstruction within existing 

ROW. Environmental impacts will be avoided when possible, minimized when 

avoidance is not possible, and mitigated for as needed, with coordination between 

the transportation agencies and managing authorities of the resources. The refined 

project footprint will be developed in consideration of Section 4(f) properties, with 

avoidance of use being a key factor. Tier 2 NEPA documentation will include 

consideration of alternatives within the preliminary impact area defined in Tier 1, 

with adjustments made as warranted. 
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Interim Implementation Phase

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 25 May 2013

Comment

Number

Draft

EIS Topic

Commenter Affiliation Comment Response

The failure to prepare an adequate examination of alternatives and to 

prepare a Section 4(f) analysis cannot be explained away with the 

argument that minor revisions to the basic preferred route will be 

made in the Tier 2 EIS. The appropriate examination of alternatives 

and Section 4(f) analysis must be done with respect to all of the 

alternatives, not just the preferred alternative. The fact of the matter 

is that in the Draft EIS only one alternative – the preferred 

alternative – is being examined and only that alternative will be 

considered in the Tier 2 EIS. This process does not comply with 

NEPA. 

In the end it may well be that the preferred alternative – Alternative 

4A – will be the best one. But the NEPA process should not be 

manipulated to ensure that the preferred alternative is the only one 

appropriately considered. 

Passenger rail in the Midwest is so necessary and its expansion is so 

important that it deserves to be implemented properly. Thank you for 

considering these comments. Please keep the Iowa Chapter of the 

Sierra Club informed of any further actions on this project.
Appendix Q, Draft EIS Comments and Responses 

Interim Implementation Phase Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

May 2013 26 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

This page intentionally left blank