Environment

One of the greatest concerns that has been brought up with almost every case study presented about the wisconsin corridor HSR is how would it impact the environment. The proposed route would be going through several counties and many different landscapes/land uses. Other concerns that have been brought up with implementing a HSR system is would it minimize fossil fuel use in other means of transportation. Having this HSR between Madison and Milwaukee, with intermediate stops, would provide an alternative to personal vehicles, intercity buses, and short flights; all of which would have a higher environmental footprint to the HSR.

A 2001 Environmental Assessment was presented to the WisDOT by the Federal Railroad Administration on the proposed Madison to Milwaukee HSR impacts and effects. In this they reviewed alternatives to building completely new rails in the proposed corridor, alternative project corridors, and probable impacts that would come from the entire project. The first topic that was discussed in the paper was alternatives to constructing a completely new line, these included two different plans, the No-Build plan and the Build plan. The first plan, the No-Build plan, “ includes maintaining the existing rail corridor for continued freight service. would not provide an alternative mode of passenger transportation between Milwaukee and Madison, and would not meet the transportation planning goals as set forth by the State of Wisconsin and by the Midwest states involved in developing the MWRRS.” (FRA, 3).

Wisconsin Water Basins - 2001 Environmental Assessment

This plan would be the complete opposite of what is desired, though it would have the least environmental impact from construction. It is safe to say that this would not be considered for the proposed project due to the lack of new transportation. The build plan would use the existing rail corridor to provide an alternative to building a completely new track for passenger rail lines. This is closer to the full plan that was in the 2009 proposal, using a combination of upgrading existing rail lines and constructing new track where need be. This would bring about more environmental impacts that would need to be considered. This environmental assessment then goes onto discuss the probable impacts from a HSR. The impacts that are covered are environmental justice, air quality, noise and vibration, quiet zones, streams, floodplains, wildlife, threatened/endangered species, resources and hazardous materials, energy, and construction impacts.

The largest concerns that are brought up in this and many other studies are making sure air quality is reduced. The thought behind this would be“emissions along the I-94 corridor, between Milwaukee and Madison, would decrease for HC, CO, and NOx, as a result of reduced auto travel associated with the proposed project.” (FRA, 170).

It is inferred that most of the traffic going between MAdison and Milwaukee is commuter traffic, and that this would be reduced when the passenger HSR would allow them to commute between cities faster and overall cheaper. Gas reliant engines produce all of the pollutants mentioned above in various degrees, there are many factors that determine how much pollutants a car emits: age of the car, driving habits, ambient temperature, time since last tune up or oil change, etc. Average rates for the diesel locomotives that the project expected to use were calculated and then compared to current air quality standards and current emission standards for the I-94 corridor. What the paper found was as follows, “the total pollutant burden analysis indicate that emissions along the I-94 corridor would decrease for HC, CO and NOx with a 3 pound per day (1 kilogram) increase in particulate emissions.” (FRA, 171).

Particulate emissions are defined as mineral matter from engine wear and exhaust emissions (FRA, 171). Other studies have been done to assess whether or not implementing the passenger HSR would be environmentally beneficial in regards to air quality control and emissions. A study done by Chen et al. looked into the impacts of expanding both freight and passenger HSR lines in China. This study found that increasing the rail lines also increased the demand of use, but despite the increased demand, “the study shows that the substitution effect of rail contributes to 35.52 thousand tons of CO2 reduction” (Chen et al. 2016). This includes both the freight and the passenger rails.

Westin et al. present the case study looking to see whether or not constructing and maintaining HSR would offset all of the emissions produced, particularly carbon dioxide emissions. The case study looked into European Union train and air quality standards to determine the feasibility of one mode of transportation over another. The study looked at the change that would have come from one million 500 km one-way trips diverted from aviation and automobile traffic. What was found is that in this situation the HSR would be beneficial when it diverted passengers from aviation, but that was not as beneficial when it diverted road traffic. The overall result from Westin et al. was that if the overall diverted traffic was large and primarily from aviation, implementing the HSR for the study would have been beneficial for this case. Taking this case into consideration for Wisconsin and the proposed HSR, the parameters somewhat different; the distance that the train would have to travel would be only around 80 miles (128km), the amount of traffic between each city is different for both road travel and aviation.

It would be interesting to see how applying this same model analysis to Wisconsin with the different parameters would change the results of the study. Would the traffic diversion be enough here to offset the emissions? According to the FRA it would be enough. This is also a question that has been asked in the Environmental Assessment of Air and High-Speed Rail Corridors ACRP Synthesis written by Chester and Smirti Ryerson. They found that there is no set definite timeline where the ridership change will affect the environmental payback. This study also agreed with the statement that trading air travel with HSR travel had a reduction in air pollutants, through research and working with previous studies (Chester et al, 30). The production of steel and concrete that goes into the construction of new rails and all of the other components create a lot of excess CO 2. Concrete goes through a chemical change in production and some of the products created are both heat and carbon dioxide. Steel requires an abundant amount of energy to melt and then shape the steel.

Noise Pollution was another major cause for concern with the introduction of the wisconsin corridor HSR. Trains are loud in nature due to engine performance, vibrations coming from the friction of the wheels, and most noticeably the train horn. Ambient city noise is around 50 decibels, trains can cause an increase in 20 decibels alone, adding in the use of the train horn can increase the decibel level to almost 100dB. 100 decibels is akin to a rock concert or a loud construction site. The upper limit of the human auditory system is around 140 dB, it is there that “140 decibels produces a sensation more akin to pain than sound.” (FRA, 179).

It is no question that having a train going by in the middle of the night and generating enough noise comparable to a jackhammer would be an environmental issue. According to the FRA, “Noise mitigation generally involves the treatment of three fundamental components: the source; the propagation path; and the receiver.” (FRA, 179). The first step that is taken is reducing speed during the night near residential areas. True as it may be, limiting the speed of a HSR system is counter intuitive and might mitigate the serviceability of the HSR.

Along the rails of reducing noise pollution by reducing speed, the residence area may also restrict air horn use. This is already implemented in some areas around Madison with the freight trains that pass through daily. This might be seen as a danger to those who might be unaware of the train’s presence; there are other means of alerting one to a train’s presence with flashing lights, bells, and gates. These features are not always used together and not every crossing might have the same system. The other way that noise from trains has been reduced is by creating a barrier between the train and the area affected by the noise. Most of the time these are walls that are built near the tracks to block the noise from propagating outwards.

Another cause for concern from this sort of project is the alteration of land. Along the corridor proposed for the HSR there are many natural wildlife areas and abundant natural resources including wetlands. Wetlands are large causes for concern since they provide many benefits such as water filtration, water collection and retention, which is good for preventing flooding. Constructing railways require quite a bit of land, especially if two tracks are built alongside each other and stations are built. Rails could also have an impact by bringing in more people and causing further modifications to the landscape to make the land suitable for homes, businesses and/or industries.

Wisconsin Land Cover

It is a common practice for businesses to try and be close to transportation and areas where large groups of people will be moving through, having a train platform will be doing just that. If the no-build scenario was to be implemented, there still would be additional construction that would need to be done. Many of the existing tracks would need fixing and upgrades to be functional for both freight use and passenger HSR. Bridges would also be areas that need to be updated to make sure they are up to code; it takes a lot of resources and space to work on bridges. This would also increase the risks of water contamination from leaching of toxic working materials into the body of water the bridge would be spanning. The tracks would need to also have room to let service vehicles have access to do conduct maintenance or other work necessary.

Construction around the sites also has the ability to cause long term problems to the land, a lot of materials that are used could leech into the soil and be toxic to the surrounding area. The proposed corridor is also home to many farms. According to the 2001 project plans, 26 farms would experience potential problems with the upgrade of tracks in the corridor. The areas being looked into would not impact existing fields, but the areas in between fields. This would still impact farmers because the tracks would limit their ability to access adjacent fields, it is desired from the FRA and those involved with the project that farmers close their private rail crossings and use ones provided. This would not directly impact the field work and the agriculture (FRA, 2001).