chicago to joliet high-speed rail (hsr) tier 2 ... · 2014 scoping meetings mid 2014 late 2014...

Thank you for attending tonight’s meetingfor the

Chicago to Joliet High-Speed Rail (HSR) Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

WELCOME!

Chicago to Joliet High-Speed Rail Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement

At tonight’s meeting, which is being held in an open house format, attendees will:

• Learn about the Chicago to Joliet HSR Tier 2 EIS Project• Meet the Study Team• Provide input

Purpose of Tonight’s Meeting

Study Overview 11STATION


A phased environmental review used in the development of complex projects. • Tier 1 EIS addresses broad, corridor-level issues and alternatives• Tier 2 EIS addresses individual component projects of the Selected Alternative from the Tier 1 EIS in more detailThe Chicago to Joliet HSR Tier 2 EIS represents one of the Tier 2 projects that were identified in the Chicago to St. Louis Tier 1 EIS to be studied in greater detail. It will evaluate high-speed rail passenger service along the Metra Rock Island District line.

Tiered EIS Process


EIS Process

Scoping – coordination with agencies and the general public to initiate the environmental review process; present the project purpose and need under consideration; encourage public participation in determining the scope of the environmental review; and to identify the potential range of alternatives.

Record of Decision (ROD) – documents the identification of a Selected Alternative by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) based on its ability to address the project’s purpose and need, impacts, costs, and public and agency comments.

Purpose and Need – identification of existing and future transportation needs and how the project will address these needs (i.e., project purpose).

Preliminary Alternatives Screening – development and screening of a range of preliminary alternatives to be carried forward for more detailed analysis in the Draft EIS.

Alternative Analysis and Environmental Studies – a more detailed evaluation of the preliminary alternatives that were carried forward into the Draft EIS using established evaluation criteria.

Draft EIS – documents the impacts of the project alternatives for public and agency review and comment.

Final EIS – documents the responses to public and agency comments on the Draft EIS and identifies a Preferred Alternative.


Scoping is a part of the EIS process through which a federal agency describes a proposed action and possible alternatives and seeks input from the public and other agencies on potentially affected resources, environmental issues to be considered, and the agency’s planned approach to analysis. The scoping meeting aims to: • Initiate the environmental review process• Present the preliminary project purpose and need• Encourage public participation in determining the scope of the environmental review• Identify the potential range of alternatives

What is Scoping?


The Tier 2 EIS will evaluate impacts for the following:Socioeconomic Resources• Land Use• Population/Employment• Environmental Justice (Low Income and Minority Populations)• Residential and Commercial Displacements• Community Services• FarmlandNatural Resources• Wetlands• Water Quality/Resources• Threatened and Endangered Species• Vegetation and WildlifePublic Parks and Recreation Areas/Section 4(f)FloodplainsSpecial WasteVisual and AestheticsNoise and VibrationTraffic/TransportationAir QualityEnergyCultural Resources/Section 106 and Section 4(f)• Historic Properties• Archaeological Sites

Environmental Impacts


Potential Range of Alternatives

Passenger Round Trips Per Day

Route

Operating Speed

Rail Infrastructure Improvements

Grade Crossing Improvements

Station Upgrades

New HSR Station

Feature No Build Alternative Build Alternative

5 Increases in frequencies will be considered and evaluated.

Use existing route (along Canadian National/Metra Heritage Corridor Route).

Use Metra Rock Island District Route.

Up to 79 mph Up to 110 mph will be considered and evaluated.

None

To be considered and evaluated: additional mainline tracks/sidings, 21st Street Bridge, St. Charles Air Line Connection, 40th Street Connection, CN/EJ&E Railroad Flyover, Joliet Connection.

NoneGrade crossing warning device improvements and new grade separations will be considered and evaluated as part of the Build Alternative.

None. (Joliet Union Station improvements/modifications are planned as part of a separate project.)

Safety improvements to existing Metra Stations will be considered and evaluated to accommodate HSR through traffic.

NoneA new HSR station or improvements to an existing Metra Station to accommodate HSR service will be considered and evaluated.


Project Schedule

* The Public Hearings will be held following the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS and during the 45-day public comment period.

Notice of Intent (NOI)

EnvironmentalStudies and Alternative Analysis

Prepare Draft EIS

Prepare Final EISand ROD

Early2014

ScopingMeetings

Mid2014

Late2014

Early2015

Mid2015

PublicMeetings

PublicHearings*


• 2004 Chicago-St. Louis HSR Project Record of Decision (ROD) Improvements limited to between Dwight and Alton Allows for trains to operate at 110 mph between Dwight and Alton Primarily included HSR upgrades to the existing single mainline track and at-grade crossings with the addition of some mainline tracks and sidings in limited areas This project is funded for construction. Construction began in 2010 and most of the infrastructure improvements have been completed to date

• 2011 Union Pacific Railroad Track Improvements Project from Joliet to Dwight EA Track upgrades (36 miles) to accommodate HSR, including eight miles of additional mainline track and two miles of additional siding Construction of these improvements began in 2012 and is ongoing

• 2012 Chicago to St. Louis HSR Tier 1 ROD Eight HSR round trips Additional mainline track through the entire corridor Identified Tier 2 projects, including the Chicago to Joliet HSR Tier 2 EIS

• 2012 Springfield Rail Improvements Project Tier 2 ROD Relocation of the existing Union Pacific freight and passenger rail corridor to a new location which would include the construction of two new mainline tracks, new grade separations, and the closure of some existing at-grade crossings. This project is currently in the final design phase.

Project History


St. Louis

Chicago

Pontiac

Dwight

Bloomington-NormalLincoln

Carlinville

Alton

Springfield

Summit

Joliet

New StationPlanned

New StationPlanned

New StationPlanned

Higher speed service began in this segment on November 22, 2012

Pedestrian crossing and second platform planned

StationRehabilitation

Planned

StationRehabilitation

Planned

New StationPlanned

Tier 2 EIS In Progress

Tier 2 EIS In Progress

Tier 2 EA In Progress

Springfield Flyover

Infra

stru

ctur

e in

pla

ce to

sup

port

spee

ds u

p to

110

mph

2012

- 20

15

2017

Chicago to St. LouisHSR Corridor Status

Purposeand Need 22

STATION


Chicago to St. Louis Tier 1Purpose and Need

Purpose of the proposed Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Program:

Enhance the passenger transportation network in the Chicago-St. Louis corridor

Improve high speed passenger rail service

Spur new private investment and tourism in station communities

Needs of the proposed Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Program:

Inadequate capacity - single track restricts existing and projected passenger train traffic

Infrequent rail service - single track limits frequency of service

Travel times too long

Poor rail reliability - on-time performance for passenger service between Chicago and St. Louis has ranged from 38% (2007) to 75% (2010)

Aging infrastructure - poor condition of rail infrastructure limits speeds and travel times

Safety


Chicago to Joliet Tier 2Preliminary Purpose and Need

Preliminary purpose of the proposed Chicago to Joliet High-Speed Rail Project:

Same purpose as for the overall Chicago to St. Louis corridor

Enhance the passenger transportation network in the corridor

Improve high speed passenger rail service

Preliminary needs of the proposed Chicago to Joliet High-Speed Rail Project:

Poor passenger rail reliability (i.e., on-time performance)

Infrequent rail service

Travel times too long

Inadequate capacity for expanded service

Alternative modes subject to unreliability due to congestion, weather, crashes, and construction

Safety

Vital link to the overall Midwest Regional Rail System

* The Purpose and Need is subject to change based on agency and public comment and as the project progresses.


Chicago to Joliet HSR Tier 2Preliminary Purpose and Need

Measures of EffectivenessThe following measures of effectiveness (i.e., project goals) will be used to determine whether proposed project alternatives meet the project’s purpose and need.

Reduced travel times

Improved service reliability/on-time performance

Increased frequency of trips

Increased capacity

Increased percentage of travelers using passenger rail versus other modes of transportation

* The Purpose and Need is subject to change based on agency and public comment and as the project progresses.

Public Involvement and Next Steps 33

STATION


Review Public and Agency Scoping Comments (Mid 2014)

Next Steps

Complete Environmental Surveys (Mid 2014)

Complete Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation (Mid 2014)

Hold Second Round of Public Meetings (Mid 2014)

Draft EIS / Public Hearings(Late 2014)

Final EIS / ROD(Mid 2015)


Your Input Is Needed!

Here’s how you can be involved: Attend the public meetings and hearings and submit commentsVisit the project website and submit commentsSign up to receive project newslettersInvite IDOT to meet with your community

Contact Us: Website: www.idothsr.orgFacebook: www.facebook.com/IllinoisHighSpeedRailPhone: 1-855-IDOT-HSR (436-8477)Mailing Address: Illinois Department of Transportation Attention: John Oimoen, Deputy Director, DPIT James R. Thompson Center 100 West Randolph Street, Suite 6-600 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3229


Section 106

Because the proposed Chicago to Joliet High-Speed Rail Project represents a

federal action/undertaking that could potentially impact historic properties, it

must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of

1966 (NHPA). The NHPA created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(ACHP) that developed regulations to implement Section 106, which are set

forth in 36 CFR Part 800.

Applies to Historic Properties

Listed on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)Eligible for NRHP or waiting to be evaluated

CriteriaHistory: property associated with significant history People: property associated with significant person in history Architecture: property representative of a type, period or method of construction Archaeology: property likely to yield important information in pre-history or history

ProcessIdentify and coordinate with Consulting Parties such as the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Native American tribes, and any individuals or organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking.Identify historic properties within the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) that are listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.Determine whether the project will have an adverse effect on historic properties.Develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that identifies measures to mitigate/minimize any adverse effects.

chicago to joliet high-speed rail (hsr) tier 2 ... · 2014 scoping meetings mid 2014 late 2014...

Documents