For Immediate Release (26-11)
November 13, 2026
Contact: Joe Aiello (jaiello@narprail.org)
Rail Passengers Calls for Full Environmental Review of Chicago Yard Proposal
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Rail Passengers Association today filed formal comments with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) recommending that the agency prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Amtrak’s proposed Midwest Maintenance Facility at Chicago’s Canal Street Yard, rather than issue a Finding of No Significant Impact based on the Environmental Assessment (EA) currently under review.
The Association believes that, based on the documentation made publicly available by FRA, there is not enough information to assess whether the alternatives analysis was adequate.
“We believe an EIS is the best available vehicle for surfacing all of the appropriate alternatives in a public and transparent way,” said Jim Mathews, President and CEO of the Rail Passengers Association. “We’re asking FRA to exercise the discretion it enjoys under the law to help the public truly assess what’s happening. Even if FRA ultimately determines that a full EIS is not warranted, we believe a broader and deeper Environmental Assessment, with another opportunity for public comment, would benefit the community, Amtrak, and the taxpaying public.”
The Association’s comments follow a close examination of the EA and its supporting technical documents. While strongly supporting the need to modernize Amtrak’s aging Chicago maintenance infrastructure, RPA concluded that the current analysis does not adequately establish why relocating maintenance operations from the existing 14th Street Yard to Canal Street represents the best and most preferable long-term solution for passengers, railroad operations, and the surrounding community.
“Speed and haste are not synonyms,” Mathews continued. “We support speed when feasible, and scrutiny where necessary. We’ve spent years advocating for faster approvals and more efficient delivery of passenger-rail projects, and we continue to support the use of those tools when it’s appropriate. But when we’re making decisions about brand-new infrastructure in a brand-new operating environment which will shape railroad operations for generations, getting the answer right is at least as important as getting it quickly.”
The Association’s principal concerns center on the EA’s relatively limited examination of modernizing the existing 14th Street Yard, including whether nearby railroad properties controlled by BNSF and Metra might offer opportunities for expansion or alternative configurations. Documentation filed with the EA asserts that the 14th Street property is too small and that construction around an active rail yard would be complicated. But Rail Passengers believes these constraints warrant a closer examination of potential alternatives, including whether adjoining or nearby railroad properties could support a phased or hybrid modernization strategy.
As for the complexity of building in an active rail yard, Amtrak is already undertaking major maintenance-facility construction and modernization within active railroad yards at Sunnyside in New York, Southampton Street in Boston, and Penn Coach Yard in Philadelphia. RPA argues that FRA has not adequately explained why comparable phased-construction approaches were dismissed in Chicago.
The Association also questioned the proposed facility’s long-term operational consequences. Relocating maintenance activities would require additional movements of empty trains and locomotives over shared railroad infrastructure, potentially introducing new scheduling conflicts and delays. Although the EA concludes that the proposed configuration would preserve on-time performance, that conclusion relies on a railroad traffic simulation whose underlying technical analysis was not included in the publicly available materials reviewed by RPA. The Association is asking FRA to disclose that analysis and examine whether reasonably foreseeable operating conditions could produce additional environmental impacts.
“Operational feasibility of Canal Street, standing alone, is not proof of its relative operational superiority,” Mathews said. “Showing that trains can get in and out of a new yard isn’t the same as demonstrating that the proposed location will serve passengers better than the alternatives. That’s the comparison we need to see.”
RPA’s comments also identify unresolved questions surrounding the rehabilitation of 17 aging railroad viaducts associated with the project. Supporting transportation studies anticipate lengthy street closures at individual crossings, with potentially significant consequences for local traffic, pedestrians, emergency access, and neighborhood businesses. The Association argues that construction scheduling, mitigation measures, and long-term infrastructure costs warrant more thorough evaluation.
RPA has consistently supported streamlined environmental reviews, including categorical exclusions for appropriate railroad improvements. Nevertheless, it believes the scope of this particular relocation and its unresolved consequences warrant more comprehensive scrutiny.
“We want Amtrak to have a modern, efficient maintenance facility in Chicago, and we want it delivered as quickly as reasonably possible,” Mathews said. “But this is a decision about how our national passenger-rail network will function for decades. It deserves a rigorous comparison of the alternatives, transparent operational analysis, and a genuine opportunity for affected communities to inform the process.”
RPA’s formal comments ask FRA to conduct a more comprehensive alternatives analysis, publicly disclose the railroad operations modeling supporting its conclusions, evaluate the full consequences of the proposed viaduct rehabilitation program, and develop enforceable measures to address construction and neighborhood impacts.
While recognizing FRA's discretion to determine the appropriate scope of environmental review, the Association believes an EIS represents the prudent course for a project of this character and consequence. If FRA determines an EIS is unnecessary, RPA urges the agency to substantially revise the EA and allow additional public comment before making its final determination.
The Association’s filing is available in the federal public docket under FRA-2026-2938.
###
About Rail Passengers Association: With 127,000 members, donors, and supporters, the non-profit Rail Passengers Association is the oldest and largest national organization serving as a voice for the more than 40 million rail passengers in the U.S. Our mission is to improve and expand conventional intercity and regional passenger train services, support high-speed rail initiatives, increase connectivity among all forms of transportation, and ensure safety for our country’s trains and passengers. All of this makes communities safer, more accessible, and more productive, improving the lives of everyone who lives, works, and plays in towns all across America.
Is there a link to an update on this plan? The plan I was aware of was to give up 14th St maintenance facility for a new White Sox ballpark with Amtrak moving maintenance to 35th St. That seemed to be creating resistance from the locals in Bridgeport/Wentworth. Did that plan go away?