EPA Employees’ Union Joins Calls for Transparency Over Amtrak’s Planned Bridgeport Maintenance Facility (Chicago, IL) — The union representing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency employees in Illinois is joining a growing chorus of residents and public officials calling for greater transparency surrounding Amtrak’s planned relocation of its Midwest maintenance operations to Chicago’s Bridgeport area.
American Federation of Government Employees Local 704, which represents EPA workers in Illinois, said Monday that Amtrak and federal officials should publicly address environmental and public health questions surrounding the proposed Midwest Maintenance Facility before construction moves forward.
At the center of the dispute is Amtrak’s plan to shift maintenance and inspection operations from its existing 14th Street Coach Yard to the Canal Street Yard, a roughly two-mile rail corridor running through and alongside several South Side communities. The proposed facility would be located at 436 W. 25th Place and include indoor maintenance and inspection tracks, train servicing and storage areas, a car wash, wheel-truing operations and other support facilities.
The Federal Railroad Administration awarded Amtrak up to $572 million in August for the new maintenance facility and another $87 million for bridge and viaduct improvements in the area. Amtrak says private financing will supplement the federal funding and places the total project at approximately $900 million. More than $125 million is expected to come from private capital provided by Canal Edge controlling shareholder Justin Ishbia.
AFGE Local 704 President Nicole Cantello said the scale of the project and its proximity to residential neighborhoods warrant additional public scrutiny.
“We stand with the Chicagoans who have voiced widespread opposition to this relocation of Amtrak’s Midwest Maintenance Facility,” Cantello said.
The union is calling for a pause while environmental information is released and residents are given another opportunity to question project officials.
Cantello said community members deserve access to the studies used to evaluate potential environmental consequences before construction begins.
The controversy centers in large part on the federal environmental review process.
According to the project’s own timeline, the Federal Railroad Administration issued a National Environmental Policy Act categorical exclusion for the maintenance modernization project on May 12. A categorical exclusion allows certain projects that federal officials determine do not have significant environmental effects to proceed without requiring the more extensive Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement normally associated with projects that could have substantial environmental consequences.
AFGE Local 704 said an environmental study referenced by project officials has not been made sufficiently available to the public. As of late September, the official project website listed its “NEPA Approval & Environmental Studies” section as “Coming,” while providing an environmental review summary and other project materials.
“Short-circuiting public health questions is wrong,” Cantello said. “Plans to build vast new facilities in highly-populated areas should undergo stringent examination for potential harms.”
The union said it is particularly concerned about what the project could mean for residents during both construction and long-term operation.
The issue has expanded well beyond neighborhood opposition. U.S. Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin wrote to Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration in August seeking additional information about the relocation after hearing concerns from Bridgeport residents and local officials. While the senators noted their support for efforts to improve Amtrak reliability and passenger safety, they called for greater transparency and communication surrounding the Canal Street proposal.
Opposition has also surfaced at the city and county levels. A Chicago City Council resolution introduced in September called for hearings examining the site-selection process, alternatives considered, environmental review and potential community impacts. According to a public document repository maintained by project opponents, 35 alderpeople were listed as sponsors of the resolution.
A separate Cook County Board resolution introduced this month opposes the project as currently proposed and calls for a more comprehensive environmental review and additional community engagement. The county resolution specifically raises concerns about potential effects on Bridgeport, Chinatown, Pilsen, Armour Square and Bronzeville.
Amtrak and its development partner, however, have defended the project and say the Canal Street Yard has been used for railroad purposes for more than a century.
Project officials say Amtrak identified the need for a replacement maintenance facility before Canal Edge became involved and selected the Canal Street Yard because of its rail connectivity, available space and access to Chicago Union Station. Amtrak says the new facility would improve working conditions by moving maintenance activities indoors, increase equipment reliability and reduce delays across its Midwest network.
Amtrak has also said the project will not expand the existing rail yard’s footprint and emphasizes that the property is already used for railroad operations.
The railroad says 16 Amtrak routes depend on Chicago-based maintenance capacity and that its current facilities were designed for an earlier generation of rail equipment. The new facility is expected to support approximately 3,000 construction jobs during an estimated 18-month development period.
The dispute now appears to be less about whether Chicago needs modernized rail infrastructure and more about where that infrastructure should be located, what effects it could have on nearby communities and how much environmental analysis should be made public before hundreds of millions of dollars are spent.
For AFGE Local 704, those questions should be answered before construction advances.
“Railroad projects, like all major construction, should be halted until we know the surrounding community will be kept safe during construction and operation,” Cantello said.
With federal funding already awarded, construction anticipated to begin this fall and pressure mounting from residents, environmental workers and elected officials, the controversy surrounding the Canal Street Yard is unlikely to disappear soon.
What began as a major passenger-rail infrastructure project is increasingly becoming a broader debate over environmental review, community involvement and how federal agencies balance infrastructure needs against the concerns of residents who will live beside the projects they approve.
EPA Employees’ Union Joins Calls for Transparency Over Amtrak’s Planned Bridgeport Maintenance Facility
