11/18/2014 (7) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

another major initiative that is likely to have significant impacts along 85 miles of the FECR corridor. Under that project, 25 or more commuter round trips will be added to the very same tracks to be used for the Proposed Project. Those additional trains will serve 25,000 passengers each day, at 20-25 new stations. The DEIS specifically excludes this important project and its overlapping impacts from the environmental analysis, stating that it is in the "preliminary planning stage." DEIS at 5-163. Attempting to justify this characterization, the document goes on to state that the "[t]he Tri -Rail Coastal Link Study is being undertaken by FDOT, and is evaluating the use of the FECR Corridor for the Tri -Rail service, which currently operates on the CSX -controlled railroad right-of-way west of the FECR Corridor." Id. One would gather from these statements that the Tri - Rail project is in the very early stages of planning, and that the information required for a cumulative impacts analysis of such a speculative project is not available. But that characterization is wholly inaccurate. An example of the degree to which the Tri -Rail Coastal Link Project has advanced is the Letter Agreement dated April 25, 2014, between AAF and South Florida Regional Transportation Authority ("SFRTA"), the sponsor of Tri -Rail Coastal Link Project, which provides the details for the shared use of the rail corridor between the two entities for the provision of high speed and commuter rail. See-,vw-,v.ircgov.com/Public_Notices/Rail/Tri-Rail-Non-Compete.pdf. In addition, substantial Federal and State resources have been expended in the planning and environmental review of the Tri -Rail Coastal Link project, and there is no informational impediment to a cumulative environmental review. In particular, many studies have already been completed for the Tri -Rail Coastal Link Project, including a Final Conceptual Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Screening Study running for 387 pages issued in 2009; a 189 page Detailed Environmental Screening Report issued in 2010; and a 168 page Final Alternatives Analysis Deport issued in 2011. Thus, detailed information has been compiled with respect to that project, its alternatives and environmental impacts as a result of years of exacting analysis. Moreover, a final Preliminary Project Development Report for the Tri -Rail Coastal Link was submitted to FRA's sister agency, the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA"), in April 2014. Clearly, a project to which such an intense, federally supported planning effort has been devoted is "reasonably foreseeable" within the meaning of NEPA. In fact, the website for the Tri -Rail Coastal Link project (http://tri- railcoastallink.com/frequendy_asked_questions.html) states that its sponsors have "closely collaborated" with the AAF team, and puts the estimated timeframe for completion of the Tri -Rail Coastal Link project within the same timeframe that would reasonably be expected for the Proposed Project, if it advances. It is also notable that RAF's June 4, 2014 "Preliminary Offering Memorandum" indicates that use of the FECR corridor by Tri -Rail Coastal Link may cause delays to construction of the Proposed Project, and lead to operational and safety risks that require careful study in a cumulative environmental review. It is well settled that when several proposals for related actions that will have cumulative or synergistic environmental impacts upon a region are pending concurrently before an agency, their environmental consequences must be considered together. The Tri -Rail Coastal Link project and the Proposed Project are both pending before USDOT agencies, and the Proposed Project has been specifically identified as being related to the Tri -Rail Coastal Link Project. See Tri -Rail Coastal Link's 30 1 - Pi — Page 7 November 14, 2014 1824679