ALL ABOARD FLORIDA EIS DRAFT FALLS WOEFULLY SHORT Maybe the - TopicsExpress

ALL ABOARD FLORIDA EIS DRAFT FALLS WOEFULLY SHORT Maybe the effort put into the draft environmental impact statement for the All Aboard Florida high-speed passenger rail project along the state’s east coast was simply sloppy. Maybe it was lazy. After all, its authors were creating just a “draft.” No way it could have been deliberately inadequate and misleading, right? Whatever the reason, the report prepared for the project has been justifiably met by citizens and governmental bodies along the Treasure Coast with emotions ranging from bewilderment to anger. The report, required by the Federal Railroad Administration in connection with a loan application for the project made by All Aboard Florida, was expected to spell out how the 32-train-a-day rail service would benefit and/or be a detriment along its Miami-Orlando route. While the 522-page report is filled with information, it falls woefully short of fully addressing the potential negative impacts the train service might have on the Treasure Coast, through which trains would pass without any proposed station stops. Because of that failure, governments representing the counties of Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin have raised objections to the draft report and urged that a second environmental impact statement be prepared to address impacts not included in the initial report. It’s a reasonable request. In fact, the counties’ commissions are so concerned they plan to take the rare step of meeting together to discuss the project. Citizens and local governments had 75 days to submit concerns related to the report before the deadline to do so Wednesday. Based on what we’ve seen, they responded to the FRA in considerable numbers. However, it’s awfully difficult to comment on whether proposed mitigation projects associated with the All Aboard Florida passenger service are adequate when the potential negative impacts are either ignored or misrepresented. Those impacts need to be included in the report and mitigation proposals outlined for additional public comments before any final actions might be taken by the Federal Railroad Administration. Describing St. Lucie County, for example, as “low density residential and undeveloped lands” when the train would pass through the heart of historic downtown Fort Pierce and failing to cite negative impacts anticipated in the downtowns of Vero Beach and Stuart are perplexing at best. Not all the blame can fall on the project consultants hired by All Aboard Florida — much of the report “preparers” from the Massachusetts-based civil engineering firm of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. The consultants apparently relied heavily on data submitted by All Aboard Florida. If any effort was made to contact and receive input from local government elected officials and transportation and engineering departments, it’s not evident considering how much information readily available from those sources is omitted from the environmental impact statement. In general, the All Aboard Florida-financed report praises the potential benefits of the high-speed train and glosses over or ignores many negative impacts. If mitigation projects are not included in the final report, there may be no requirement for All Aboard Florida to do that work, leaving the negative impacts for local governments to deal with. That should not be allowed to happen by the Federal Railroad Administration or any other body with any oversight of the proje