Chicago to St. Louis Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

Transcription

1 Chicago to St. Louis Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Document April 2012 Illinois Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

2 Table of Contents 1.0 PROJECT DEFINITION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS PROJECT SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH FURTHER INFORMATION List of Figures Figure 1. High Speed Rail EIS Study Area... 2 Figure 2. Chicago to Joliet Tier 1 Alternatives... 4 Figure 3. Chicago to St. Louis EIS Flow Chart List of Tables Table 1. Environmental Issues to Consider... 7 Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS iii Scoping Document

3 1.0 Project Definition The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) are jointly preparing a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri High-Speed Rail Corridor Program. The EIS is also incorporating a Tier 2 assessment of the portion of the overall corridor in Springfield, Illinois. The expected outcome of this combined assessment is the release of a Tier 1 Record of Decision for the entire Chicago to St. Louis corridor and a Tier 2 Record of Decision for the Springfield Railroad Corridor. The Springfield Railroad Corridor project could then proceed to implementation without additional Tier 2 environmental studies. This approach takes into account the urgency seen by IDOT, the City of Springfield, and the local community for moving Springfield improvements quickly to implementation, while meeting the careful and systematic decision-making requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), with associated stakeholder involvement. The project corridor is illustrated in a map on Figure 1. The objectives of the proposed Chicago to St. Louis project are to meet current and future regional travel needs through significant improvements to passenger rail service from Chicago to St. Louis. The proposed service improvements to be considered within the EIS are in addition to the first phase of improvements, which were examined in a previous Chicago to St. Louis HSR EIS process (from 2003) and are currently being constructed between Chicago and St. Louis under a grant/cooperative agreement funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). This work is supported by a 2004 FRA Record of Decision (ROD) and by additional NEPA documents covering specific improvement areas and reevaluations, as needed. The current improvements include infrastructure (e.g. track) improvements, communications and signaling installation, stations improvements, and new passenger equipment procurement. These improvements will allow passenger rail speeds to increase from 79 mph to a maximum of 110 mph over a portion of the corridor, and other enhancements. The Tier 1 EIS, being conducted in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR ) for tiering large, complex transportation projects, will examine: Alternative passenger rail routes between Chicago and Joliet, Illinois through Springfield, and into St. Louis will be considered. Alternatives will consider existing routes, alternative routings, and the No-Build Alternative. The locations where alternative routes may be considered are shown in Figure 1 and are described in more detail below Additional infrastructure improvements between Joliet and St. Louis to support additional passenger trains and the anticipated growth in freight rail traffic, including adding a second track where this does not already exist Increasing the number of passenger and freight trains Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 1 Scoping Document

4 Figure 1. High Speed Rail EIS Study Area Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 2 Scoping Document

5 Improvements that would allow the maximum safe train speed to rise above the 110 mph, if appropriate The Norfolk Southern-Canadian National rail alignment between Chicago and Dwight, Illinois was considered in the 2003 Chicago to St. Louis HSR EIS for the Corridor as an alternative route for passenger trains. It was included in the earlier document because it would have potentially served a proposed South Suburban Airport. This route will not be considered in the current study because it would divert intercity passenger rail service from the larger populations currently served in the Chicago-Joliet corridor, and the South Suburban Airport area is served by an existing commuter rail service to Chicago. In addition, the Norfolk Southern Railroad does not support the introduction of high-speed passenger rail to its facilities because the capacity of the corridor to carry trains is limited and difficult to expand. Thus, only the existing passenger route will be examined between Joliet and Dwight. Sixteen build alternatives between Chicago and Joliet will be assessed as part of the Tier 1 EIS. Alternatives to be considered are shown in Figure 2. The Tier 2 component in Springfield is considering routing alternatives for the highspeed passenger service, the redistribution of forecasted passenger and freight traffic among the three railroad corridors that currently pass though Springfield, a reduction in the number of at-grade railroad crossings and methods to reduce vehicle/train collisions and reduce vehicle delays due to crossings blocked by trains. In addition to the proposed increase in frequencies related to the high-speed passenger program, freight traffic through Springfield is expected to increase significantly over the next several years. The Springfield component of the EIS will analyze alternatives for accommodating the growing freight and passenger rail traffic through Springfield. There are currently three north-south railroad corridors through Springfield, generally along: Third Street (owned by Union Pacific (UP)) Tenth Street (primarily owned by Norfolk Southern (NS)) Nineteenth Street (primarily owned by Canadian National (CN)) Alternatives to be considered are shown in Figure 2. Existing rail passenger service uses the Third Street corridor. There are 68 at-grade crossings along these three corridors within the Springfield study limits. They cause traffic congestion and create safety issues when trains traverse the city. A new Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) intermodal rail yard near Joliet, Illinois is anticipated to generate increased freight traffic on the Third Street corridor. The combination of increased passenger trains and increased Union Pacific freight trains would likely require a second track on Union Pacific s Third Street corridor to accommodate the greater number of freight and passenger trains. Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 3 Scoping Document

6 Figure 2. Chicago to Joliet Tier 1 Alternatives Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 4 Scoping Document

7 Figure 3. Springfield Alternatives Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 5 Scoping Document

8 Build alternatives to accommodate this increase in rail traffic in Springfield will be assessed in both Tier 1 (as a part of the larger project) and the Tier 2 components of the EIS. Build alternatives under consideration include: Adding a second track to the Third Street corridor Moving the Third Street and Nineteenth Street corridor trains to the Tenth Street corridor, consolidating Springfield s rail traffic into one corridor Moving just the Third Street corridor trains to the Tenth Street corridor Consolidation of Third Street or Third Street and Nineteenth Street freight trains onto the Tenth Street corridor, with passenger trains remaining on the Third Street corridor Four build alternatives will be assessed in the Tier 1 EIS from Alton to St. Louis. Alternatives to be considered include: Utilizing the UPRR, the Terminal Railroad Association (TRRA), and MacArthur Bridge to the St. Louis Amtrak station Use of the Merchant Bridge and the TRRA on the west side of the river to the Amtrak station Use of both the above routes splitting the passenger train flow directionally Allowing dispatcher discretion to choose between the two routes based on route congestion The No-Build Alternative (no-action alternative) is being used as a baseline for comparison of all build alternatives within the EIS. The No-Build Alternative includes travel opportunities on alternative modes, auto, air, and intercity bus, as well as passenger rail with the improvements previously planned and funded for implementation prior to the completion of the proposed work in this EIS. Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 6 Scoping Document

9 2.0 Environmental Review Process The EIS will be developed in accordance with CEQ regulations (40 CFR part 1500 et seq.) implementing the NEPA (42 U.S.C et seq.), and FRA s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545; May 26, 1999). NEPA requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision-making processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to these actions. The FRA and IDOT will use a tiered process, as provided for in 40 CFR and in accordance with FRA guidance, in the completion of the environmental review of the Project. Tiering is a staged environmental review process applied to environmental reviews for complex projects. In the EIS, FRA and IDOT will consider and minimize the impacts of the proposed action to both the human-made and natural environments. The human-made environment includes residences, businesses, agriculture, neighborhoods, noise, transportation systems, and community and land use conditions of the area. The natural environment consists of features including streams, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and wildlife. Specifically, FRA and IDOT propose to consider the issues outlined below with either a quantitative or qualitative impact assessment, as indicated within Table 1. Table 1. Environmental Issues to Consider Level of Detail Issue Areas Use GIS or other published data with field check Detailed data gathering required Field Surveys Quantitative impact assessment Descriptive impact assessment Description Transportation X X 1) Include the service development plan. 2) Address benefits of reduced passenger rail travel time; improved passenger rail service reliability; improved passenger rail capacity, improved rail safety, and reduced vehicle emissions and energy use for travel between St. Louis and Chicago. These are to evaluate how each alternative meets the purpose and need. 3) Impacts on intercity rail, air, and bus service; intercity automobile travel; freight and commuter rail operations; other automobile operations; and navigable water operations. Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 7 Scoping Document

10 Table 1 (continued). Environmental Issues to Consider Level of Detail Issue Areas Use GIS or other published data with field check Detailed data gathering required Field Surveys Quantitative impact assessment Descriptive impact assessment Description Social/Economic (including Environmental Justice) Energy X X X Agriculture X X X Cultural Resources X X X X X (EJ) General: Present general population and employment information identifying population concentrations along the line, land use plans (including new sensitive resources next to tracks and new rail-related development), and residential concentrations, parks, and other public facilities along the lines). Impacts to be considered include displacement, adverse travel, community cohesion, community service function and access, safety, and economic benefits of construction and operation, as well as related visual, noise and vibration impact. Environmental Justice (EJ): Assessment of potential for EJ groups to suffer inequitable impacts compared to other groups. Consider the equitability of service benefits to environmental justice and other groups. The study will consider conformance with the local planning agency s land use plans and impacts to planned development and critical community facilities will be considered. Anticipated consumption of energy during construction, and the anticipated change in transportation energy usage (including operation and maintenance costs) in intercity corridor travel resulting from implementation and operation of the build alternatives. Energy usage calculated from the start of project construction through the design year, including air, bus, rail, and automobile travel. Farmland taken (active and soils) or adversely impacted. Other types of agricultural impact are not expected to be of concern. Archaeology: Number of known and potential sites affected; coordination with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Native American Tribes; Historic: Displacement, visual, noise, vibration, and economic impacts; coordination with SHPO and native American Tribes. Programmatic Agreement (PA) or Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) at FEIS. Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 8 Scoping Document

11 Table 1 (continued). Environmental Issues to Consider Level of Detail Issue Areas Use GIS or other published data with field check Detailed data gathering required Field Surveys Quantitative impact assessment Descriptive impact assessment Description Natural Resources (including Threatened and Endangered Species) Air Quality X X (T&ES) Noise/Vibration X X Water Quality/Resources X Floodplains X X X X X X General: Acres used outside of existing railroad right-of-way by available GIS categories of habitat, including wetlands and prairie remnants plus qualitative discussions of wildlife impact. Threatened and Endangered Species (T&ES): Known species sightings and species with habitat in the area and potential for impact. Detailed focus on Hine s emerald dragon fly and other species of concern identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Air quality conformity; emissions by trains, bus, and automobile; and change in overall transportation emissions. Include greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions. Address air toxics. Carbon Monoxide (CO) hot-spot analysis at a single worstcase at-grade crossing in each non-attainment area. Develop noise (with and without horn blowing) and vibration impact contours from moving and braking trains along the corridors given the operations scenarios and count of sensitive resources affected by type. Limited background measurements at sensitive receptors by type of receptor area (urban, suburban, and rural). Address the type and reasonableness of potential mitigation. Cumulative impacts will need to add reasonably foreseeable additions to freight service, including operations and trackwork. Number of stream crossings and length of relocation, number of other water bodies affected. General description of types of potential impacts to water quality and habitat. Potential water quality impacts in general terms with right-of-way maintenance, water flow maintenance, Best Management Practice (BMP) mitigation commitments, potential for disruption of groundwater and well-head protection areas. Identification of areas of floodplain used and potential for adverse effect. Consideration of impacts of induced floodplain development to be included. Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 9 Scoping Document

12 Table 1 (continued). Environmental Issues to Consider Level of Detail Issue Areas Use GIS or other published data with field check Detailed data gathering required Field Surveys Quantitative impact assessment Descriptive impact assessment Description Wetlands X X X Utilities X X Visual and Aesthetic Quality Special Waste (Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal) Special Lands (including Section 4(f) Resources) Safety and Security X X X X X X X X X X X Potential impacts identified. Potential avoidance, minimization, mitigation strategies also will be identified Focus on utilities within the right-of-way that would need to be moved; as well as trunk lines, pipelines, treatment plants, and substations. Assume that the relocation of local distribution utilities is not important to the Tier 1 decision. Change in views from new vertical elements where passenger service does not now exist, New views from trains into private spaces. Number of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites affected and, in particular, any that would substantially affect project cost because of associated clean-up. Assessment of potential properties and commitment to avoid 4(f) and 6(f) properties, and evaluation of noise, vibration, and visual impacts for potential constructive use. Focus on safety as it relates to grade crossings and the rail line passing through developed areas. Effects on pedestrians, bicyclists and persons with disabilities will be considered. It can be presumed that such issues as facility security do not need to be addressed in detail until Tier 2, but include discussion of general guidelines for facility design that enhance safety and security. Permits X Identify & list Construction Impacts X Customary list Indirect and Cumulative Effects X X X Traffic Delays X X X X Cumulative impacts include impacts from increased freight service above the baseline, other proposed trackwork improvements along corridors, potential for induced development in station areas (indirect impacts), and other foreseeable significant projects along the corridor. Indirect and cumulative impacts addressed by environmental issue type. Springfield Alternatives, including the effects on emergency vehicles. Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 10 Scoping Document

13 A Tier 1 evaluation is completed at a sufficient level of engineering and environmental detail to assist decision makers in selecting a preferred overall Chicago to St. Louis project alternative. Tier 1 includes preparing a draft and final EIS that will disclose potential environmental and social effects (evaluated at a planning level) of the proposed improvements. The final EIS will conclude with a Record of Decision (ROD) by FRA that states the Selected Alternative to be carried forward into Tier 2 analysis. The Tier 1 EIS focuses on broad issues, including: Defining the specific purpose and need for the project Defining a study area that will encompass reasonable build alternatives Identifying overall project goals and objectives that improvements should achieve and reflecting them in the project purpose and need Identifying the range of reasonable build alternatives to be assessed, including alignments, right-of-way requirements, infrastructure and equipment requirements, and operational changes Developing evaluation criteria to measure the potential for each alternative to meet the purpose and need and goals and objectives Describing the environmental impacts associated with the alternatives Identifying the timing and sequencing of independent actions that can be taken to implement each alternative Selecting a Preferred Alternative for more detailed evaluation in Tier 2 studies The Tier 1 process identifies components of the overall rail improvement program that can be advanced independently through Tier 2 studies. The second tier could involve the preparation of one or more NEPA documents including EISs; Environmental Assessments (EAs); or Categorical Exclusions (CEs) for specific stand alone projects that have independent utility within the overall program. For each Tier 2 project, the engineering analysis completed during the Tier 1 process would be supplemented to verify the general layout, preliminary design and footprint of the project, as well as associated right-of-way requirements. Additionally, Tier 2 would include detailed studies of possible methods to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on environmental resources within the project footprint. The Tier 2 environmental document(s) would serve as the basis for a decision on whether to proceed with the design and possible construction of each project. As noted in Section 1.0, a more detailed Tier 2 analysis of the Springfield Railroad Corridor will be incorporated into the Chicago to St. Louis Tier 1 EIS to provide the opportunity for Springfield improvements to proceed as quickly as possible. Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 11 Scoping Document

14 Figure 3 presents a flow chart illustrating the process and relationship of the Tier 1 EIS and the Tier 2 level analysis for the Springfield Rail Corridor. Figure 3. Chicago to St. Louis Tier 1 EIS Flow Chart Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 12 Scoping Document

15 3.0 Project Schedule and Milestones A project schedule has been developed to guide the progress and development of the study. Below is an overview of the proposed project schedule by major milestones: Notice of Intent: February 2011 Public Meetings on Scoping: March 2011 Purpose and Need Development: June - July 2011 Draft Scoping Report: July 2011 Alternatives Analysis: June 2011 February 2012 Public Meetings on Draft Scoping Report and Alternatives: October 2011 Final Scoping Report: April 2012 Draft EIS Development: November May 2012 Public Hearing on Draft EIS: June 2012 Final EIS Development: June 2012 November 2012 ROD Issuance: December 2012 The purpose and need statement for the overall EIS is anticipated to be completed in July Upon finalization of the purpose and need statement by FRA and IDOT, it will then be used to assess and compare alternatives. A series of public meetings was held in the fall of 2011 to discuss the scoping report, purpose and need, and alternatives. In spring 2012, a public hearing will be held to solicit comments on the Draft EIS. A Record of Decision is anticipated to be completed by the end of Items completed to date for the Chicago to St. Louis corridor study include: Publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on February 14, 2011 Public Scoping Meetings for the EIS: March 1, 2011: Joliet, IL March 2, 2011: Bloomington-Normal, IL March 3, 2011: Springfield, IL Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 13 Scoping Document

16 March 8, 2011: Carlinville, IL March 9, 2011: Alton, IL Agency Scoping Meetings for the EIS: March 1, 2011: Joliet, IL March 3, 2011: Springfield, IL Responses to Scoping Meeting public comments Publication of the first project newsletter Establishment of the project s public information web site ( Draft Stakeholder Involvement Plan, including future involvement activities in Springfield Draft Statement of Purpose and Need, including incorporation of the Springfield Tier 2 components Identification of the range of alternatives to be considered in the full corridor, including alternatives already being considered in Springfield Draft alternatives analysis methodology Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement outline, including the Springfield Tier 2 components. Initiation of data collection on the characteristics of the full corridor including: Population and land use data from counties and communities along corridor Railroad facilities and operations data Aerial photography and topographic survey data for corridor Initiation of coordination with the Missouri Department of Transportation Sending of letters to environmental resource and regulation agencies to initiate coordination Contacts with various Native American tribes with interest in the project Public Alternative and Screening Criteria Meetings for the EIS: October 24, 2011: Springfield, IL Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 14 Scoping Document

17 October 25, 2011: Joliet, IL October 27, 2011: Bloomington, IL November 2, 2011: Carlinville, IL November 3, 2011: Alton, IL Publication of the second project newsletter Responses to Alternatives and Screening Criteria public commentscoordination with railroad owners along the Chicago and St. Louis alternatives Draft Alternatives Screening Criteria, Assumptions and Methodology for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Draft Alternatives Analysis for Tier 1 and Tier 2 Draft Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences for Tier 1 and Tier Tier 2 Tasks for EIS The Tier 2 analysis for Springfield will be conducted in a parallel process with the Tier 1 EIS schedule. FRA and IDOT will consider the work conducted to date on the Springfield Corridor Study, which began in January 2010, in the EIS analysis. Items completed to date include: Stakeholder Involvement Plan Purpose and Need Statement Identification and evaluation of alternatives Data collection and impact assessment of alternatives at a Tier 2 level of detail related to: Community characteristics and impacts Historic and archaeological sites Noise and vibration Section 4(f) (park and historic resource) impacts Hazardous waste sites Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 15 Scoping Document

18 Threatened and endangered species Community outreach activities, including: Formation and monthly meetings of a Steering Committee Informational video Website Three study newsletters Traveling informational kiosks Community presentations Two public meetings Multiple meetings with four advisory groups Coordinate with railroads, including individual meetings with railroads and four technical committee meetings Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 16 Scoping Document

19 4.0 Stakeholder Outreach NEPA requires scoping and encourages early and frequent coordination with the public and resource agencies throughout the project development process. Scoping facilitates public and agency participation and provides the opportunity for their input during preparation of the EIS. The scoping process for this project is following the scoping guidelines within the CEQ Regulations, 40 CFR , which provide that there shall be an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action. Formal scoping meetings have been held for this project, as noted in Section 3.0. Scoping comments were received after issuance of the Notice of Intent. The comments received to date include: Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Office of Mines and Minerals the office requested the project avoid known mine areas because of settlement issues Illinois Environmental Protection Agency the agency provided notification that a permit will be required from the Division of Water Pollution Control Natural Resources Conservation Service the agency reviewed the proposed project and has determined that there will be no impacts to prime or important farmlands Illinois Historic Preservation Agency the agency thanked IDOT for invitation to the scoping meeting and looks forward to continued Section 106 consultation State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources the agency thanked IDOT for submitting project information and looks forward to continued Section 106 consultation United States Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the agency provided feedback on threatened and endangered species for Section 7 and the EIS United States Coast Guard the agency reiterated previous comments submitted to IDOT in 2009 and provided general guidance, with a request for more specific project information Federal Aviation Administration the agency has no comment on environmental matters In addition, FRA and IDOT are inviting agencies with jurisdiction by law, special expertise, or potential interest in the project to be cooperating agencies in the EIS. These include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Interior, Illinois Department of Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 17 Scoping Document

20 Agriculture, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Stakeholder involvement for the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS study will be an ongoing process from project initiation through completion. Activities completed to date for the full corridor and the Springfield area are listed in Section 3.0. As the DEIS progresses, the project s Stakeholder Involvement Plan calls for: Small group meetings Updating the project website Additional project newsletters and fact sheets Public meetings and workshops Public Hearings for the Draft EIS Maintaining a project mailing list Response to Public Comments on the Draft EIS 4.1 March Scoping Meetings IDOT and the FRA hosted five Public Open House meetings along the study corridor March 1-9, Along with two Resource Agency and five Local Official meetings, the Public Open House meetings commenced the scoping phase of the environmental study. Held from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in Joliet, Bloomington, Springfield, Carlinville and Alton, the meetings primary objectives were to educate attendees on the EIS process and timeline, while introducing them to the project team and official Illinois High-Speed Rail contacts. Stakeholders were also encouraged to share their thoughts and get answers to high-speed rail related issues and concerns. Two hundred fifty-four participants registered at the meetings. In Springfield, 116 participants registered followed by 48 in Alton, 34 in Joliet, 33 in Bloomington and 23 in Carlinville. Of those attending, 64 percent completed the comment form (Appendix A). Another eight individuals posted comments on the Illinois High-Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis website or mailed them to IDOT and the project team. Meetings were structured in an open house format. Attendees had the opportunity to view display boards at five information stations staffed by IDOT representatives, the Program Management team and project team consultants. The stations were: Project Overview Planning History Study Process Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 18 Scoping Document

21 Alternatives Your Involvement/Next Steps For those unable to attend the open house, the display boards were made available on the Illinois High-Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis Corridor website. Stakeholders needed to submit comments by March 19, 2011 for inclusion in the public record for the Tier 1 scoping process, but could always comment online. After visiting each station, attendees were encouraged to complete a comment form. One hundred sixty-three comment forms were completed for a response rate of 64 percent. Additionally, six comments were submitted via mail and electronic mail. To capture public input, respondents were asked to select their areas of concern regarding high-speed rail. With over 754 responses to this question, approximately one out of every four respondents selected travel time, traffic/transportation, socio-economic resources and grade separation. The team will use this input to develop evaluation factors used in the alternative selection process. Several respondents selected other and noted specific concerns in the City of Springfield and the impact on smaller communities. Some mentioned mining impacts, property de-valuation and economic development concerns. Other meeting attendees were concerned about safety, cost/funding, transit-oriented development, job creation, minority participation, passenger service levels, service demand/use/need and handicap accessibility. A full open house summary report was prepared that includes additional information beyond what is summarized here, including verbatim comments submitted. 4.2 Fall Alternative Screening Meetings In late October and early November 2011, five public meetings were held to present the preliminary alternatives for each section of the corridor and the criteria that will be used to evaluate them. Attendees were asked to review the information and submit their comments. These meetings were held in the cities of Joliet; Bloomington; Springfield; Carlinville; and Alton from 4:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m. A total of 368 people signed in at the meetings with the most, 251, attending the Springfield meeting followed by 41 in Alton, 37 in Bloomington, 30 in Joliet and 9 in Carlinville. An open house format was used for all five public meetings. This allowed attendees to view the boards at their leisure and to talk one-on-one with IDOT and FRA officials, along with their consultants. There were four stations: 1. Purpose and Need 2. Alternatives 3. Alternatives Screening Criteria Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 19 Scoping Document

22 4. Public Involvement and Next Steps Before leaving, attendees were asked to complete a comment form. Of those attending, 260 (71 percent) filled out a form. The most comment forms were received at the Springfield meeting (179), followed by Alton (27), Joliet (25), Bloomington (21), and Carlinville (8). A copy of the comment form can be found in Appendix A. For attendees who wanted more time to complete their comment form and for people who could not attend a meeting, all of the display boards were made available on the Illinois High-Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis Tier 1 EIS website. There were several alternatives presented at the meetings. They were divided into three corridors: Chicago to Joliet, which has 16 alternatives; the Springfield area, which has 11 alternatives; and Alton to St. Louis, which has five alternatives. Chicago to Joliet Alternatives The following alternatives for this segment of the high-speed rail corridor were presented to the public for comment: Three alternatives utilize existing track and arrive at Chicago Union Station. Five alternatives focus on the Metra Rock Island commuter line, with one utilizing existing track and arriving at LaSalle Street Station. The other four would utilize existing track and arrive at Chicago Union Station. Four alternatives involve the Metra Rock Island commuter line with the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railroad Company (EJ&E) connection utilizing existing track and arriving at Chicago Union Station. It was noted that the Canadian National Railroad (CNRR) and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) have not agreed to allow passenger service on these alternatives. Four alternatives involve a new alignment connector to EJ&E/CNRR utilizing existing track and arriving at Chicago Union Station. Again it was noted that CNRR and UPRR have not agreed to allow passenger service on these alternatives. Out of the 25 comment forms from this meeting, there were four comments about the alternatives. Two encouraged the study team to consider more options that would increase passenger service reliability. One recommended keeping the Joliet-Chicago corridor on the existing Canadian National right-of-way because this would allow the potential development of a multi-modal link at Midway Field. The fourth said the Burlington-Northern Santa Fe line would be better than the Canadian National line. Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 20 Scoping Document

23 There were also three comments regarding the proposed side track for the City of Braidwood. All want the study team to consider alternate locations, such as moving it out of city limits and further south of Highway 113. Springfield Area Alternatives Below are the alternatives that were presented for the Springfield area: Three alternatives focus on grade separations either at Jefferson Street and 3 rd Street only, additional ones on 3 rd Street, or additional ones on 3 rd, 10 th and 19 th Streets. Two alternatives involve shifting 3 rd Street rail traffic to 10 th Street Two alternatives involve shifting both 3 rd and 19 th Street rail traffic to 10 th Street Four alternatives involve keeping passenger rail traffic on 3 rd Street. Two of them would shift 3 rd Street freight rail traffic to 10 th Street. The other two would shift 3 rd and 19 th Street freight rail traffic to 10 th Street. Of the 179 comments received at this meeting, 95 percent support consolidating all rail traffic onto 10 th Street. Most respondents wrote that this consolidation would be the most beneficial to the City of Springfield and the least disruptive to existing neighborhoods and businesses. Alton to St. Louis Alternatives For this section of the corridor, there were five alternatives were presented: Two alternatives involve using either the Merchants Bridge north of Venice or the MacArthur Bridge in East St. Louis to cross the Mississippi River into St. Louis. Two alternatives involve using northbound passenger trains on the tracks west of the river and southbound passenger trains on the tracks east of the river. Freight trains would either continue to use their current bridges or use the MacArthur Bridge for westbound travel and the Merchants Bridge for eastbound travel. One alternative leaves the decision to direct passenger trains across either bridge to the dispatcher s discretion. Freight trains would continue to use their current bridges. There were 27 comment forms received at the Alton meeting. Of these, one was about the alternatives. This respondent said that the routing that makes most sense is to send northbound out through Laclede s Landing and southbound through the east side. Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 21 Scoping Document

24 The study team presented seven evaluation criteria. These criteria will be used to screen the alternatives and to narrow them down to a group of preferred alternatives. Minimize Impacts to Social and Economic Resources Respondents were most concerned about the alternatives impact on social and economic resources. Eighty-six percent of the people who commented about this particular criterion attended the Springfield meeting. They expressed concern about increasing freight and passenger traffic on the 3 rd Street corridor alternative saying that it would negatively impact downtown Springfield businesses and residential neighborhoods. In other cities, such as Carlinville where four percent of the comments referred to social and economic resources, respondents wanted to make sure there was enough clearance at crossings for farm machinery. Minimize Impacts to Existing and Planned Development Minimizing impacts to existing and planned development received the second largest number of comments. Once again, the majority of respondents (94 percent) were from the Springfield meeting. Most of their comments referred to the medical district s expansion plans and how rail traffic must avoid destroying this district. Respondents said that the district provides jobs and generates tax revenue. Minimize Operating and Capital Costs The most comments on minimizing operating and capital costs (35 percent) cited the State of Illinois financial status as well as the U.S. government. As one respondent said, we should get our financial house in order first before planning for this project. Others expressed concern about wanting to make sure that the project is necessary and cost-effective. They want to see more information, such as projected ridership numbers, before providing further comment. Maximize Ridership/Revenue Potential Out of the 31 comments about maximizing ridership/revenue potential, 48 percent of respondents cited their support for high-speed rail. They said that high-speed rail is needed to compete with other super powers around the world. Others felt that highspeed rail would be an asset to communities and would fill a vital need in Illinois transportation system. Minimize Impacts to Cultural Resources Of the 26 comments received about minimizing impacts to cultural resources, 81 percent came from the Springfield public meeting. Respondents want to make sure that the city s historic Lincoln sites as well as its historic downtown are preserved. The second round of public meetings for the Tier 1 EIS provided an opportunity for attendees to review the preliminary alternatives and the criteria that will be used to Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 22 Scoping Document

25 evaluate them. The overwhelming majority of comments about the alternatives came from Springfield residents, who also made up 69 percent of respondents. They wrote that all rail traffic should be consolidated to 10 th Street. As for the evaluation criteria, 31 percent of respondents feel minimizing the social and economic impacts is the most important criterion to consider when analyzing the alternatives. The study team will take into consideration all the information gathered from the public meetings as it screens the alternatives over the next several months. The goal is to narrow the list of alternatives to a preferred alternative for each segment of the corridor. The results of this alternatives analysis will be presented to the public next spring in the form of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement or DEIS. The third round of meetings will be public hearings. The Federal Railroad Administration, in coordination with the Illinois Department of Transportation, will make the final decision on the preferred alternative for the EIS. A full open house summary report was prepared that includes additional information beyond what is summarized here, including verbatim comments submitted. Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 23 Scoping Document

26 5.0 Further Information For further information on the Chicago to St Louis project and the EIS, please visit the IDOT HSR website at: You may also contact IDOT at IDOT HSR ( ) or: Miriam Gutierrez Rail Program Planning Section Chief Illinois Department of Transportation Division of Public & Intermodal Transportation James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph Street, Suite Chicago, Illinois Phone: Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 EIS 24 Scoping Document