Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

DOT/FRA/RDV-00/02

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-00-04

Maglev Deployment Program

Volume II

April 2001

Office of Railroad Development

Washington, D.C. 20590

Prepared By:

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

U.S.Department 

of Transportation

Federal Railroad

Administration
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, 

Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

April 2001

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

December 1999 – January 2001

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Maglev Deployment Program Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, 

Volume II

6. AUTHOR(S) Paul Bousquet2, Aviva Brecher2, Kim Brian2, Michael Coltman2, Robert Dorer2, 

Julie Ebbighausen2, William Fashouer1, Gregg Fleming2, Jeffrey Gordon2, Glenn Goulet2, 

Arnold Kupferman1, Adrian Hellman2, Jose Mantilla 2, Stephanie Markos2, Ronald Mauri2, 

Chris Roof2, Roger Wayson2, David Valenstein1, Paul Valihura2

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

RR194/R1130

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

US Department of Transportation

Research and Special Programs Administration

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

55 Broadway

Cambridge, MA 02142

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-00-04

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

US Department of Transportation

Office of Railroad Development

Federal Railroad Administration

1120 Vermont Ave. (M/S 20)

Washington, D.C. 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/RDV-00/02

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

1

 Federal Railroad Administration; 2 Volpe Center

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

In order to comply with the TEA -21 legislation, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) conducted a seven-state competition to 

select a project for the purpose of demonstrating the use of Maglev technology as a next generation of high-speed ground 

transportation to the American public. Volume II contains the agency and public comments and FRA's specific responses to those 

comments. 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

370

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Maglev, environment, high-speed ground transportation, alternatives, guideway, mitigation 

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102
FinalProgrammaticEnvironmentalImpactStatement

Maglev Deployment Program

January 2001

Office of Railroad Development

Washington, D.C. 20590

Prepared By:

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

U.S. Department 

of Transportation

Federal Railroad

Administration

Date

For additional information concerning this document contact:

David alentein or Paul Valihura

ice of Raiload D elopment Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

ederal Raiload Adminitrtion Research and Special Programs Administration

1120 mont e.(Mail Stop 20) 55 Broadway, Kendall Square

ashington, .C.20590 Cambridge, MA 02142-1093

el.(202) 493-6383 Tel. (617) 494-2918

This Final Pogramm tic Evionmental Impact St tement (PEIS) has been prepared in two volumes to stisfy the

requirements of the National Evionmental oli y Act (NEA) or the Magl v Depl yment Pogram. The Pogram

encourages the d elopment and con uction of a public transpo tion sytem using magnetic lvitation,

capable of safe speeds in excess of 386 kilometers/hour (240 miles/hour). Magnetic levitation (Maglev) is an

advanced transportation technology in which magnetic forces lift, propel, and guide a vehicle over a specially

designed guideway. Through a nation-wide competition, FRA selected seven states or state designated authorities,

om a pool of el en,to receie grants or pre-con uction planning. Those s en state projects are considered the

Action Alte ties in this PEIS. This document presents the pupose and need, alternatives, a description of the

fected natural and human evionment and an assessment of the consequenceswith potential mitigation for each

of the sub-alte ties as ell as or the No-Action Alte tie.

S. Mark Lindsey

Acting Deputy Adminitrator

Federal Railroad Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

iii

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................1-1

1.1 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD...............................................................1-1

1.1.1 Public Information Meetings..............................................................1-1

1.1.2 Public Hearing....................................................................................1-2

1.2 PUBLIC COMMENTS............................................................................1-3

1.3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS................................................................1-3

CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED

ON DPEIS ON DPEIS..........................................................................................................2-1
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

 iv

 

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 1

1. INTRODUCTION

In July of 2000, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) distributed the Draft

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) for the Maglev Deployment

Program in an effort to encourage public involvement and to address public concern. The

DPEIS was circulated for review and comment to government agencies, local organizations,

and interested private citizens. All comments were compiled in the U.S. Department of

Transportation’s Docket Management System (DMS). The DMS is an electronic, imagebased database used to store information on-line for easy research and retrieval via the

Internet. Public comments were accepted on the DMS from July 21, 2000 to September 19,

2000. During that time, the FRA held seven public information meetings and one public

hearing, to promote public involvement.

The FRA received various comments/concerns through this public involvement. The DPEIS

was refined based on the public comments and is now considered the Final Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The PEIS is comprised of two volumes. Volume I

is the DPEIS as refined by public comments. Volume II contains the public comments and

the specific responses to those comments.

1.1 Public Comment Period

1.1.1 Public Information Meetings

As part of the comment period, Public Information Meetings were held for each of the

Maglev Alternatives. The public was notified about the meetings in various ways (i.e.,

written invitation, newspaper, radio, television announcements, etc.) by each of the Maglev

participants identified in Volume I, Appendix A. The Public Information Meetings were

held as follows:

§ Maryland Alternative: August 1, 2000, 4:30pm-7:45pm, Baltimore, MD.

§ Georgia Alternative: August 8, 2000, 6:30pm-9:15pm, Atlanta, GA.

§ Louisiana Alternative: August 9, 2000, 5:00pm-8:00pm, New Orleans, LA.

§ Florida Alternative: August 10, 2000, 4:30pm-7:00pm, Titusville, FL.

§ Pennsylvania Alternative: August 16, 2000, 6:00pm-9:30pm, Pittsburgh, PA.

§ California Alternative: August 21, 2000, 3:00pm-6:30pm, West Corvina, CA.

§ Nevada Alternative: August 22, 2000, 3:00pm-7:00pm, Las Vegas, NV.

Each of the Public Information Meetings followed a similar format. The meetings began

with an open house, followed by presentations, and concluded with a question and answer

session. Throughout the meetings, the public was informed that the purpose of the meeting

was to informally address concerns. To have a concern addressed formally, the public was

advised to submit a written comment card, communicate orally with the court reporter, or

contact the DMS.

The open house consisted of poster displays with representatives from the FRA and the

Maglev Alternatives available to answer questions. The FRA posters had information on the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 2

overall Maglev Deployment Program, including route maps of the alternatives, proposed

technologies and a summary of the environmental impacts. The participants presented

detailed posters specifically for their alternative.

The open house portion of the meetings was followed by presentations. Similar to the poster

displays, the FRA team presented general information on the overall Maglev Deployment

Program and the Maglev participants presented the details related to their alternative.

Following the presentations, the meetings were opened to a question and answer session.

The question and answer session was an opportunity to address public concerns in an

informal manner. Although the question and answer sessions were considered an informal

response to public concern, the topics of concern were noted and are listed below. Each of

these concerns is addressed in the response to comments section of this document or in

Volume I of the Final PEIS.

§ Program Concerns:

§ Why Maglev in the US?

§ Competition

§ Public/Private partnership

§ Alignments/routes

§ Technology

§ Costs/FundingRidership/Fares

§ Distribution of information to public

§ Project contact information

§

§ Environmental Concerns:

§ Geology

§ Wetlands

§ Wildlife

§ Environmental Justice

§ Socioeconomics

§ Aesthetics

§ Transportation

§ Energy

§ Safety

§ Noise & Vibration

§ EMF

§ Measuring environmental benefits

1.1.2 Public Hearing

On August 24, 2000 the FRA conducted a Public Hearing. The hearing was held from 9:00

am to 11:00 am at the FRA offices located in Washington, DC. During the public hearing,

representatives from the FRA were present to listen to comments from all interested parties.

The hearing transcript and a list of attendees are included in Section 2 of Volume II.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 3

1.2 Public Comments

Many comments were received on the Draft PEIS for the Maglev Deployment Program. The

comments were submitted in various forms, including written on comment cards, oral

statements to court reporters, and electronic submittals via the DMS. The comments received

for the Draft PEIS for the Maglev Deployment Program are included in Section 2 of Volume

II. Within each comment letter, a number was placed in the right hand margin to reference

the appropriate response given in the following section. Additional information was also

provided from the Maglev participants and a Maglev manufacturer. Appropriate information

from these participants was incorporated in the applicable sections of Volume I.

1.3 Response to Comments

The following comments and questions were identified from documents submitted to the

FRA and to the US Department of Transportation DMS during the Maglev DPEIS Public

Comment Period. These documents are included in Section 2 Public Comments Received on

DPEIS. The corresponding responses were developed to answer or provide further

clarification to the comments within the submitted documents. In some instances several of

the documents contained comments that were similar. To avoid duplication these comments

were grouped together, paraphrased into one general comment and a corresponding response

provided. In other instances the comments were either alternative specific or specific in

content. In these instances a specific response was provided. The number of the comment

corresponds to a reference number in the right hand margin of the document where the

comment originated.

1. How will the Maglev vehicles be evacuated in the event of an emergency?

Response:

The extensive use of elevated Guideway makes evacuation procedures a special concern.

The Maglev vehicles design depends on evacuation tubes at each door to provide emergency

egress. In locations where the tubes are not practical (i.e., over water, swamp, steep rugged

terrain) special structures and stairways could be provided leading to safe areas. Onboard

operating personnel would be responsible for assisting elderly or disabled passengers.

Applicable passenger equipment standards require rail systems to complete an emergency

plan and specify number of emergency exits with special lighting and signage. During the

site-specific design stage, local fire fighter and rescue workers could be consulted to prepare

emergency plans.

All Maglev passenger stations and support and maintenance areas will be serviced by State

and local police, and local ambulance, fire, and hospital emergency services. Existing

emergency procedures and routes associated with currently operating transportation, transit,

and commuter facilities (buses, trains, and airplanes) are applicable to support the Maglev

operation. The medical equipment to be carried on the Maglev vehicles will be specified

through the route operator and U.S. regulations. Emergency plans, specialized evacuation
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 4

procedures, and emergency preparedness training would be addressed during final site

design.

2. What are the benefits from Maglev implementation?

Response:

In order to determine the positive impacts that would result from implementation of the

Maglev Deployment Program, it is necessary to identify the transportation need that the

Program is intended to address. It is also important to account for the transportation and other

related benefits associated with the Program that would be precluded if the Program were not

implemented. Continued economic and population (resident and visitor – business and

tourism) growth in major metropolitan areas in the United States will continue to increase the

demand for mobility, and the operational congestion and safety deficiencies of the

transportation system. The ongoing increase in transportation demand would result in

transportation infrastructure and operation expansions, with their associated impacts on the

human and natural environment, including among many others: 1) continued dependence on

fossil fuels for transportation; 2) continued deterioration of air quality and increases in

greenhouse gas emissions associated with automotive travel; and 3) infrastructure

construction impacts on natural ecosystems –wetlands and other sensitive and important

habitats – resulting in habitat destruction and fragmentation and effects on wildlife.

Transportation between cities in the country is essential to the economy and vitality of the

nation. Travel demand is growing and inter-city transportation by air and auto continue to

suffer from congestion and delay. This condition is particularly evident within large

metropolitan areas, surrounding airports, and during weekends, holidays, and bad-weather

periods. The Federal Aviation Administration has stated that high-speed ground

transportation has the potential to relieve the pressure on short haul traffic by diverting air

trips of 800 kilometers (500 miles) or less. Thus, the implementation of the Maglev

Deployment Program is proposed as a transportation solution to address several of the main

problems associated with inter- and intra-regional transportation in the United States. The

Maglev Deployment Program would be the first – nationally and internationally –

commercial operation of super-speed ground transportation. Thus, implementation of the

Program would be the first step towards a new generation of state-of-the-art ground

transportation systems. Because of its high speed, Maglev would offer competitive trip-time

savings to automobile and aviation modes in the 40- to 600-mile travel markets – an ideal

travel option for the 21st century. Maglev would serve as an alternative transportation

system, partially alleviating the congestion in airway and automotive corridors that results

from increasing travel demand. Maglev systems could also extend the usefulness of existing

airport and highway infrastructure. In addition, Maglev technology could improve the

utilization of airports’ potential by providing inter-modal connections between airports and

business districts, thereby supporting airports as centers for inter-modal transfer and travel.

The analysis of the positive impacts of Maglev should compare – on a local, regional, and

national basis – the resulting impacts associated with different transportation alternatives
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 5

used to satisfy the demand for safe and efficient transportation. Benefits associated with

Maglev implementation could include, among others: 1) regional economic development,

partly as a result of joint development at stations and of construction and operation related

jobs; 2) stimulation of the local and regional economy through project investment and

technology transfer; 3) support to comprehensive land use planning based on transit oriented

development to address urban sprawl; 4) increased productivity of business travelers; 5)

improved air quality from emissions reductions; and 6) reduced consumption of nonrenewable resources. Additional benefits would include enhancement of passenger comfort,

as the Maglev trains would provide a smoother ride than that provided by airplanes, with

special benefits to elderly passengers. Also, handicap and elderly egress would be easier than

in airplanes, with special significance for emergency evacuations. The potential positive

impacts from Maglev implementation are addressed by resource and summarized in Table

ES-1 in Volume I, Executive Summary of the Final PEIS.

3. What is the difference between programmatic and site-specific analysis? How will

site-specific concerns be addressed?

Response:

In general, environmental impact statements (EIS) can be prepared in either a programmatic

or a site-specific fashion. Most programmatic documents identify the general impacts of a

program on a comprehensive list of environmental resources. A site-specific document

identifies the specific impacts of a project on the environmental resources in a particular area.

As a programmatic document, this EIS has analyzed the general impacts of the Maglev

Deployment Program on environmental resources, with respect to eight different alternatives.

Without knowing the exact location of the Maglev system from the preliminary designs, a

wide corridor was established of approximately 100-ft to evaluate potential impacts.

Environmental resources that may be within the 100-ft wide corridor were identified. The

preliminary design precludes identifying which specific environmental resources may be

impacted. Thus, this analysis is very conservative in favor of the environmental resources

and does not specifically consider mitigation, but identifies mitigation options on an overall

basis. Furthermore, identifying the resources as potentially being impacted allows awareness

at the programmatic EIS level and establishes a need for investigation and analysis at the

site-specific level. At the completion of this programmatic document, the FRA will select

one or more of the alternatives as preferred alternatives for further design and analysis. Upon

completion of additional studies, a single project will be selected for implementation. Once a

project is selected, a site-specific environmental impact statement will be prepared as a

continuation of the NEPA process to address specific impacts of the selected alternative.

The site-specific EIS will address the specific environmental impacts with a vigorous

analysis of each resource to identify impacts and plans for mitigation. A comprehensive

analysis will be performed on the environmental resources including, but not limited to the

following:

§ Finalize Maglev alignment.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 6

§ Identify station locations and related parking and traffic issues.

§ Location and number of noise sensitive receptors.

§ Prepare coastal zone consistency determination.

§ Address issues of environmental justice.

§ Identify required environmental permits.

§ Address human factors and ergonomic issues.

§ Identify impacts on flood hazards.

§ Determine EMF sources and exposure levels.

§ Prepare for construction – water supply, utilities, and best management practices.

The most significant difference between the programmatic EIS and the site-specific EIS will

be the location of the alignments and the associated technical system components (train,

guideway, stations, parking lots, substations, etc.). The location of the site-specific

alignments will be well defined. Based on the final designs of the proposed alignments, the

exact location of the Maglev system components will be known. Thus, the analysis of

impacts on the environmental resources could be performed in much more detail than in the

programmatic EIS. The site-specific EIS will take into consideration a corridor of less width,

the elevation of the guideway, mitigation plans, and concerns identified during the PEIS

NEPA process. Therefore, the impacts to environmental resources could potentially be

significantly reduced.

4. Describe how the Maglev will look and feel for non-passengers during operation?

Response:

The look and feel of the Maglev vehicle during operation depends on the speed. At lower

speeds, the look and feel of a Maglev vehicle approaching and passing by can be compared

to traditional trains. At high speeds, the Maglev system and the traditional train are very

different. The differences and similarities between the Maglev and traditional systems

include comparison of noise, vibration, air turbulence, startle affect, and appearance.

The noise generated by a Maglev vehicle depends greatly on its speed. High-speed Maglev

pass-bys are characterized by high noise levels of brief duration. The observer would notice

that the noise level rises fast then falls off more gradually. In comparison to the noise from

traditional trains, Maglev noise is generally quieter at comparable speeds and also has a

uniform tone-thereby avoiding the high, shrill sound and the rolling, rumbling noise of many

conventional steel-wheel trains. Thus, the sound from Maglev may be perceived by many as

being less piercing than noise from conventional rail traffic.

The Maglev system produces perceptible groundborne vibrations even though the vehicle

does not actually touch the guideway. It is estimated that vibrations would not be noticeable,

even at 400 km/h (250 mph), beyond 60 m (200 ft) from the guideway. At 250 km/h (155

mph), this “no-perception” distance drops to 35 m (115 ft). Standing on a station platform

waiting for a stopping Maglev train, the vibrations would feel substantially less intense,

compared to the vibration created by a traditional train.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 7

The Maglev vehicle generates minimal air turbulence as it passes by. There is nothing more

than a slight gust at a distance of 2 m (6.5 ft) when the Maglev passes by at a speed of more

than 380 km/h (235 mph). There is no perceptible air movement under the elevated

guideway and the air movement produced by the vehicle on at-grade guideway at a speed of

330 km/h (205 mph) is comparable to normal local wind conditions. Transrapid states that

small pebbles on the ground directly under the at-grade guideway would not move as the

train goes by. Transrapid also states that there would be minimal shock wave effect of two

Maglev vehicles passing each other in opposing directions, since the vehicle body and

clearance envelopes are designed to minimize any undue pressure rise from passing vehicle.

Similar to roadways/walkways adjacent to airports, the Maglev could be startling visually or

audibly, depending on the location of the observer. Visually, the Maglev vehicle may startle

the distant observer as it passes unexpectedly at a high rate of speed. Up close, the observer

could be startled by the sound of the Maglev vehicle if the observer was not expecting it. As

time goes by, the novelty of observing the Maglev vehicle will pass and the event should no

longer be as startling. At low speeds, the Maglev would not be as startling.

The look of the Maglev vehicle is similar in size to traditional commuter passenger trains.

The front of the lead vehicle is slightly pointed to reduce air drag, as is the end of the last

vehicle. The guideway is usually elevated on a bridge like structure, but can also be at-grade.

The Maglev stations will be similar to traditional train or bus terminals. See Volume I,

Section 2.3 of the Final PEIS for a figure showing how a Maglev system could look in

various visual environments.

5. Are there other technologies that could be used in place of the proposed Maglev

2000 and Transrapid International technologies?

Response:

As authorized by Congress in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21)

(Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 216), the Maglev Deployment Program encourages the

development and construction of an operating transportation system employing magnetic

levitation, capable of safe use by the public at a speed in excess of 386 kilometers/hour

(km/h) (240 miles/hour (mph)). TEA 21 added a new section 322 to title 23 of the United

States Code. Section 322 provides a total of $55 million in contract authority from the

Highway Trust fund for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001 for pre-construction planning of

transportation systems employing Maglev. Section 322 authorizes but does not appropriate

additional federal funds of $950 million for final design and construction of the most

promising project. As directed by the enabling legislation, the Secretary of Transportation is

required to select a project for the purpose of demonstrating the use of Maglev technology to

the American public, according to the selection criteria specified in the legislation. The final

rule for the Maglev Deployment Program published on January 14, 2000 (65 FR 2342),

requires the down selection of one or more projects to the selection of a single project.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 8

Although there could be viable alternatives (system improvements, highway, air, and other

high-speed rail) to Maglev technology for addressing the transportation needs of the country,

Congress – through approval of TEA 21 – has established that implementation of an

operating – and revenue producing – Maglev system in the United States is critical in

addressing those needs. Thus, the Maglev Deployment Program is limited to the analysis and

implementation of such a system. There are numerous Maglev research and development

efforts conducted by several countries, with Germany and Japan having the most

demonstrated experience. Many Maglev vehicles are currently in design, including the

German (TR07 and TR08) and Japanese Maglev test vehicles (ML100, ML-500, MLU001,

MLU002, MLU002N, and MLX01). In 1999 the MLX01, arranged in a five-car manned

train set, attained a speed of 552 km/h (343 mph). After carefully evaluating the current

available technologies and the requirements of the specific alternatives, the States have

selected the German Transrapid International (TR08) and Maglev 2000 (M2000) Maglev

technologies. As directed by Congress, FRA – in its decision-making process – is obligated

to consider each of the alternatives in the context of the legislation prescribed under TEA 21.

6. Is the Maglev Deployment Program an initial phase of a larger project that would

include longer segments than the ones presented in the Final PEIS?

Response:

The FRA does not plan to expand the proposed Maglev Deployment Program beyond the

alternatives identified in the Final PEIS. Furthermore, the FRA is directed by Congress to

only consider those alternatives that satisfy the parameters identified in the Congressional

authorization relating to the Maglev Deployment Program.

As directed by the enabling legislation, FRA is required to select a project for the purpose of

demonstrating the use of Maglev technology to the American public, according to the

selection criteria established by the FRA in the final rule for the Maglev Deployment

Program published on January 14, 2000 (65 FR 2342). FRA has initiated a competition to

select a project, and after receiving and evaluating eleven initial applications, the Secretary of

Transportation on May 24, 1999 announced financial assistance grants to seven states and

authorities (California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, and Pennsylvania)

for pre-construction planning for Maglev high-speed ground transportation (HSGT). The

projects under consideration are those selected by the Secretary and presented in Volume I,

Section 2.4 of the Final PEIS. Several of the State program participants describe their

alternatives as the initial phases of larger projects. However, FRA has been directed and

authorized by Congress to consider only the specific projects presented to the Secretary for

selection and outlined in the Final PEIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 9

7. What will be the impacts of extreme weather events – heat waves, snowstorms,

hurricanes, tropical storms, and tornadoes – on Maglev system?

Response:

Similar to other forms of transportation, the Maglev system could experience impacts from

extreme weather events. Depending on the climate, extreme weather events such as heat

waves, snowstorms, hurricanes, tropical storms, and tornadoes could potentially affect the

operational integrity, service schedule, and maintenance requirements of a Maglev system. In

some cases, the Maglev system could be more resistant to extreme weather than other forms

of transportation such as airlines, highways, and traditional railways.

Extended periods of excessive temperatures and dramatic temperature changes could

potentially cause the steel that comprises the Maglev guideway to expand and contract,

similar to a traditional railway. A heat wave could potentially overburden electric utility

companies that, in turn, could result in “brown out” conditions. Electric power under these

conditions may not be adequate to efficiently run a Maglev system. However, discussions

with utility companies indicate that the energy capacity is sufficient and this is an unlikely

event. Extremely high winds associated with hurricanes and tropical storms could potentially

damage the Maglev system, similar to the damage sustained by other modes of

transportation. Since most of the Maglev guideway could be elevated, torrential rains and

associated flooding could potentially cause erosion around support structures. However,

similar to bridge support structures, it is unlikely the Maglev support structures could be

totally washed out. Another weather event of concern is lightening strikes, which could

potentially destroy equipment and interrupt service from the loss of power or

communications, but would cause no harm to the passengers.

The weather concerns differ for each Maglev alternative depending on the climatic region.

The specific weather concerns for each alternative are detailed further in Volume I, Section

4.2. As discussed in Response 3, specific concerns related to the impacts of extreme weather

on the Maglev system could be addressed in a site-specific EIS.

8. Implementation of the Maglev Deployment Program could result in adverse

impacts to wetland resources and other habitats – including essential fish habitat,

sensitive and rare habitats – and could also produce habitat fragmentation. What

mitigation options could be utilized to minimize impacts to these resources?

Response:

Implementation of the Maglev Deployment Program will result in some impacts to natural

ecosystems, including wetland and other important habitats. The level and significance of

impacts from the program will be determined both by the alternative selected for

implementation and the mitigation measures used during planning, construction and

operation. The seven proposed alternatives are representative of diverse climatic regions or

biomes, including desert, grassland, scrub forest, and temperate deciduous forest. Each of

these climatic regions is composed of different habitats – including wetlands – and plant and
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 10

animal species (see Volume I, Section 3.3 of the Final PEIS). Thus, the specific impacts of

the Maglev Deployment Program on wetland resources and other habitats will be determined

to a great extent by the environmental characteristics of the area encompassed by the chosen

alternative.

Analyses of the potential impacts for each of the alternatives were based on preliminary

studies developed by the proponents of the alternatives (see Volume I, Section 4.3 of the

Final PEIS). Based on these studies, program impacts range from insignificant to significant

depending on the resources affected by the different alternatives. Site-specific impacts will

be addressed in a site-specific EIS to be developed for the alternative selected for

construction (see response to Comment 3 above for an explanation of the site-specific

analysis). For example, concerns over effects on essential fish habitat and sensitive and rare

habitats, and issues related to habitat fragmentation will be addressed in the site-specific EIS

where appropriate (depending on selection).

Mitigation plans could be implemented as a strategy for avoiding and/or minimizing the

potential impact of the deployment of the Maglev system on natural ecosystems. Avoidance

of adverse impacts through program selection and design is the preferred method to protect

ecological resources. Where impacts cannot be avoided, minimization strategies should be

developed and implemented to protect the function and health of ecological systems. Some of

the mitigation strategies that could be used include: 1) utilization of existing transportation

corridors to minimize new and cumulative effects; 2) adjustment of guideways to follow

outer edges of habitats; 3) coordination with ongoing restoration projects; 4) utilization of

elevated guideway to minimize Maglev footprint; 5) use of Best Management Practices

during construction, including the selection of construction periods and times that minimize

interference with wildlife breeding (i.e., nests) and movement and migration paths. The use

of mitigation strategies could result in significant reduction of impacts to natural ecosystems

in the alternatives. As an example, Louisiana participants are working to refine their

alignment and through the use of mitigation measures expects to significantly minimize

impacts to wetland resources in the alternative. By doing so, they could calculate their

impacts to wetlands based on a 35 ft wide corridor instead of the 100-ft-wide corridor used

for all alternatives in the Final PEIS.

9. Will the Maglev system adversely impact threatened and endangered species and

their habitat?

Response:

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 declares the intention of Congress to protect all

federally listed threatened and endangered species, both flora and fauna, and designated

critical habitat of such species in the United States and abroad. Section 7 of ESA requires

that federal agencies ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency

is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or

result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The U.S. Fish and
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 11

Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the primary regulatory agency responsible for compliance of

ESA.

The possibility of threatened and endangered species existing within the seven alternatives

has been identified and as such the potential of a significant adverse impact (See Volume I,

Section 4.4 of the Final PEIS). The method used to identify impacts to threatened and

endangered species existing within the seven alternatives was based on preliminary designs

and no mitigation measures. Without knowing the exact location of the Maglev system from

the preliminary designs, a wide corridor was established of approximately 100 ft. Threatened

and endangered species that may be in the 100-ft-wide corridor were identified. The

preliminary design precludes identifying which specific threatened and endangered species

may be impacted. Thus, this analysis is very conservative in favor of threatened and

endangered species. Furthermore, listing the species as potentially being impacted allows

awareness at the programmatic EIS level and establishes a need for continued investigation

and analysis at the site-specific EIS.

As the Maglev Deployment Program progresses, the selected alignments will become better

defined and the impacts to threatened and endangered species could be reduced. For

example, the Louisiana participants are working to refine their specific alignment. By doing

so, they could estimate their impacts on threatened and endangered species based on a 35-ft

wide corridor instead of the 100-ft wide corridor used for all alternatives in the Final PEIS.

Therefore, the Louisiana participants expect to significantly reduce impacts to threatened and

endangered species within the alternative.

10. Will the Maglev system increase flooding?

Response:

Flooding occurs when a body of water overflows into the floodplains. The floodplains

moderate the flood flow, contribute to human safety and act as areas for ground water

recharge. Any structure that is built in the floodplain will displace water during a flood and

result in elevated floodwaters. Impacts from a Maglev system are from the construction of

structures within the floodplain.

The Maglev system impact to flood hazard was analyzed for each alternative (See Volume I,

Section 4.6 of the Final PEIS). The flood hazard analysis was based upon preliminary design

locations of the Maglev guideway crossing the floodplains. The analysis assumed that the

guideway would be built at-grade and no mitigation measures were considered. This

assumption represents a worst-case scenario, in that the at-grade guideway would fill in the

flood storage space of the floodplain, resulting in elevated floodwater. It is expected,

however, that final Maglev system designs could incorporate elevated guideways and

mitigation plans. The elevated guideway would impact floodplains only at the location of the

support columns. This could substantially reduce the amount of floodwater that would be

displaced by the Maglev system guideway, as compared to the worst-case scenario analysis.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 12

One way of mitigating the Maglev system impacts on the floodplains is to construct

additional flood storage. Additional flood storage is constructed by excavating within the

floodplain area, a volume equal to the displaced flood storage. The mitigation plans could

include constructing additional flood storage, as directed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

As the designs progress and further detailed analysis is performed, it is expected that the

potential of the impacts could be greatly reduced with mitigation. Therefore, construction of

the Maglev system should not cause a significant adverse impact to flooding.

11. Is the Maglev program consistent with coastal zone management plans?

Response:

Each alternative was reviewed to determine if they were within the jurisdiction of a

designated coastal zone management (CZM) district. Upon review of the individual

alternatives, it was found that Florida, Louisiana and Maryland lie within a coastal zone

district (see Volume I, Section 3.7 of the Final PEIS). Each of these alternatives were

carefully considered to determine if Maglev would be consistent with their corresponding

CZM policy and plans. At this stage of the Maglev Deployment Program, design has not

been finalized for any of the alternatives. However, the concept of providing this alternate

form of transportation was found to be consistent with each CZM district policy and plans. If

any of these alternatives are selected to prepare a site-specific environmental impact

statement, CZM consistency will be evaluated with detailed site-specific information.

12. Will the Maglev Program disproportionately affect low income and minority

populations by displacing homes and businesses?

Response:

Construction and operation of a Maglev system in any of the seven alternatives could result

in potential significant adverse impacts on communities. As with any major transportation

project, it is likely that there will be some situations were it will not be possible to avoid

displacing existing residents or businesses. The adverse impacts include the displacement of

people and businesses as a consequence of property acquisitions for the various components

of the Maglev system. Based on the current level of planning information, the proposed

Maglev alternatives were studied in relation to Executive Order 12898, Environmental

Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. At this stage of the planning process, no

decision has been made on actual alignments. However, as part of Executive Order 12898 it

is appropriate at this planning stage to identify the potential impact to low income and

minority communities.

Public involvement is considered critical to the success of the Maglev Deployment Program

and the foundation of the program is its emphasis on including all impacted communities in

the planning process. The Maglev Deployment Program cooperative agreements between

FRA and the seven participants require that each alternative develop and implement a
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 13

comprehensive public involvement program during the planning and design stages. For each

of the alternatives, input has been sought from an extensive base of private citizens,

community, and regional organizations. This input resulted in the identification of

environmental justice concerns. The PEIS considers these concerns and identifies them for

further consideration as part of a site specific EIS. Actual property acquisitions associated

with each Maglev alternative will be determined during the site specific EIS process once the

level of planning and design has advanced and final alignments determined. The alternatives

will continue to address these concerns during a site specific EIS with input from the

potentially impacted communities.

During the final design process, efforts will continue to avoid existing residences and

businesses including those owned or occupied by minority and low-income by utilizing

existing transportation corridors and employing other mitigation techniques. As a mitigation

effort, alternative corridors could be located within or immediately adjacent to existing

transportation corridors, minimizing property acquisition and displacement impacts to these

populations. Additional input from the local communities will continue to be gathered

during the site-specific EIS process to ensure that proposed mitigation is developed with

these communities in mind.

13. Have minority labor and worker unions been involved in the construction

planning and operation of the Maglev program?

Response:

The Maglev Deployment Program requirements include involving materials at least 70

percent of which are manufactured in the United States and construction according to the

Davis-Bacon Act. The implementation of a Maglev system would create job opportunities

for U.S. workers in a wide range of industries related to planning, design, construction,

operation, and maintenance. Thousands of direct person-years of effort would be required in

addition to the labor required to produce the materials and parts. After the system is

operational, employees would be required to operate and maintain the system as well as to

provide services to the passengers. Minority labor and worker unions could have direct and

indirect employment opportunities in the Maglev Deployment Program.

Public involvement is considered critical to the success of the Maglev Deployment Program

and the foundation of the program is its emphasis on inclusion of all interested parties. The

Maglev Deployment Program cooperative agreements between FRA and the seven selected

state participants require each state to develop and implement a comprehensive public

involvement program during the planning and design stages. The participants have sought

input from an extensive and comprehensive base of private citizens, community, and regional

organizations including minority labor and worker union. As the program moves towards the

site-specific EIS stage, participation of labor representatives in the final design, engineering,

and construction activities will evolve. The public involvement mechanism which will

continue into the site-specific EIS stage, allows minority labor and worker unions to

participate fully in the Maglev system development. Additional information on the public
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 14

involvement programs or job opportunities is available from the contact people identified in

the Final DPEIS (see Volume I, Appendix A).

14. Will the Maglev system contribute to unplanned growth in rural and low

population areas, promoting rather than alleviating urban sprawl?

Response:

The deployment of an operating transportation system employing magnetic levitation would

demonstrate that Maglev technology could play a role in helping to address several of the

main problems already existing and increasing in urban and suburban areas of the United

States. Continued population and economic growth in major metropolitan areas around the

country will result in increased demand for mobility, greater operational congestion, and

increased safety deficiencies of transportation systems. The development of Maglev would

provide an alternative transportation option to federal, state, and local transportation

decision-makers that are seeking to alleviate already existing and increasing congestion in

airway and automotive corridors that result from increasing travel demand. Associated

benefits would include increased productivity of business travelers, regional economic

development, support to comprehensive land use planning, reduced emissions resulting in

enhanced air quality, and reduced consumption of non-renewable resources.

Metropolitan areas are experiencing congestion in airway and automotive corridors. This

congestion illustrates the demand for additional mobility. The demand could be met in

various ways including highway/airport expansion, new highway/airport construction, and

other rail technology implementation. With faster speeds, a Maglev system could

comprehensively address the congestion in both the airway and automotive corridors. The

Maglev system would be implemented in coordination with existing land use planning

already underway to address these existing and increasing trends. Land use plans address the

control of urban sprawl. Furthermore, Maglev stations are planned to be widely spaced

serving predominantly existing urban centers or clusters. Therefore, it is expected that the

potential for the Maglev system to impact urban sprawl is minimal. A site-specific EIS will

address the coordination with local land use plans and the minimization of local urban

sprawl.

In some instances passenger stations could be located in undeveloped or rural areas (an

example of this would be the Louisiana Alternative). This could lead to a redirecting of

development. Whether or not this development could be considered “urban sprawl” would

need to be determined in a regional context. Development in each of the Alternatives has

lead to congestion and a need for an enhanced transportation system. Growth will continue

in each of the alternatives with or without Maglev. However, Maglev offers the ability to

help plan growth. In each of the alternatives the regional and state planning offices and

public have been consulted to develop a suitable conceptual alignment based on many

parameters. Growth and the potential for “urban sprawl” are some of these considerations.

Although in the PEIS the specific location of passenger stations, guideway, and other system

components are not established their impact to growth was considered at a conceptual level.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 15

If the Maglev Deployment Program proceeds, growth issues and the ability of Maglev to help

shape growth will be considered in greater detail during the site-specific EIS process.

15. Does the Maglev program impact prime and unique farmlands? Specifically,

does the Pennsylvania Alternative have an impact to this resource?

Response:

Implementation of the Maglev Deployment Program will involve the development of a major

transportation system, resulting in a number of affects on land use, including farmland.

Farmland is protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) of 1984. The

purpose of FFPA is to minimize the extent to which federal programs convert farmland to

non-agricultural uses. Soils classified by the United States Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as prime or unique are collectively protected

by FFPA. In addition to this federal regulation, several states have enacted their own

regulations to aid in the protection of farmland resources. The FFPA requires a farmland

impact evaluation be performed for applicable federally funded projects. The Maglev

Deployment Program must adhere to this requirement.

As stated in Volume I, Section 4.11.7, the Pennsylvania Alternative could potentially result

in impacts to both prime farmland soils and designated Agricultural Security Areas.

Secondary impacts on farmland from induced development also are possible from this

program, particularly in the vicinity of proposed passenger stations. Further consultation

with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, indicated that there could be Preserved

Farmland located within in the Pennsylvania Alternative. Preserved Farmland is the most

highly protected farmland in Pennsylvania.

A wide project corridor width was selected to represent the planning stage of the Maglev

Deployment Program. As a result, the approach for the PEIS is conservative in favor of the

resource. Furthermore, at the programmatic level of analysis, specific mitigation was not

included that could minimize or elevate potential impact (i.e., moving the guideway away

from the resource, elevating the guideway so that only columns every 100 feet would impact

farmlands, etc.). None the less, at this stage of the Maglev Deployment Program, the

Pennsylvania Alternative could potentially cause significant adverse impact to farmland

resources. If the Pennsylvania Alternative is selected a more refined assessment of farmland

impacts will be part of a site-specific EIS. The site-specific assessment of farmland impacts

will include a farmland impact evaluation as required by FFPA, and additional consultations

with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to determine if productive farmland could

be avoided.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 16

16. Will visual and aesthetic impacts from program implementation be significant?

Response:

The introduction of an elevated Maglev system in the urban or rural landscape will change

the visual characteristics of the surrounding environment. The Maglev system will be a

highly visible element that will have a visual impact on any environment in which it is built

and operated. The main components of the Maglev system that could potentially impact

visual resources include: guideway structures, stations, parking facilities, maintenance

facilities, power substations, and other ancillary facilities. Based on preliminary planning

information from the seven alternatives, it has been identified that the proposed Maglev

alternatives traverse a wide variety of local visual settings, including: residential, commercial

and industrial areas; areas that adjoin major thoroughfares and freeways and along railroad

corridors; and central business districts.

The selected alternative could also pass through open natural areas and near parks and

historic properties. In these kinds of locations, Maglev facilities would be markedly different

than their surroundings and may have a significant adverse impact to the aesthetic

environment. On the other hand, in those locations where the Maglev guideway would be

located along highly developed transportation corridors, the Maglev infrastructure could

merge with the existing visual environment. In those instances where Maglev may have an

adverse impact, and when impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation strategies and techniques

could be used to minimize visual and aesthetic impacts of the project. See Volume I, Section

2.3 of the Final PEIS for a figure showing what a Maglev system could look like in various

visual environments.

The potential visual and aesthetic impacts of Maglev implementation are subject to personal

preferences and tastes. The futuristic image of the Maglev trains and guideway may be

appealing and pleasing to some while others might consider it an intrusion. Thus, the visual

and aesthetic impacts should be considered with reference to the context and existing visual

environment of the site where the system would be operated. Some of the considerations to

be taken into account might include, for example, neighborhood characteristics, historical

and cultural values, people’s perceptions and attitudes, and the presence of important vistas

and scenic views as well as important natural and historical resources.

The large distances traversed by the Maglev alternatives result in the presence of multiple

view sheds and individual views where the introduction of Maglev facilities could have a

significant impact, since there are multiple variations in the composition and characteristics

of the visual and aesthetic environment potentially affected. Thus, at the present stage of

preliminary design, specific potential visual impacts have not yet been defined. Design issues

related to Maglev guideways, stations, and related facilities will be specifically addressed in

the site-specific EIS stage when development will advance to a degree to allow complete

evaluation of impacts (see Response 3). At that point, public comments would be solicited

that would enable the identification of the significance of the potential visual and aesthetic

impacts.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 17

17. Is the Maglev Deployment Program an inappropriate use of high-speed rail

technology?

Response:

Determination of the appropriateness of the implementation of the Maglev Deployment

Program as a practical and beneficial transportation application of high-speed rail technology

is beyond the scope and requirements of the Final PEIS. As authorized by Congress in the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) (Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat.

107, 216), the Maglev Deployment Program encourages the development and construction of

an operating transportation system employing magnetic levitation, capable of safe use by the

public at a speed in excess of 386 kilometers/hour (km/h) (240 miles/hour (mph)). On

January 14, 2000, FRA published in the Federal Register a final rule for the Maglev

Deployment Program (65 FR 2342). The final rule establishes the regulations governing

financial assistance under the program; and includes a description and schedule for the

various phases of the program, requirements for the federal and state funding shares,

identification of eligible participants, and identification of the project selection criteria.

As directed by the enabling legislation, FRA is required to select a project for the purpose of

demonstrating the use of Maglev technology to the American public, according to the

eligibility standards and selection criteria established in the final rule. The eligibility

standards determine the standards to be met by projects to be considered for financial

assistance, and the selection criteria govern FRA’s selection of projects to receive funding

under the Maglev Deployment Program. The eligibility standards state that the projects shall:

1) involve a segment or segments of a high-speed or low-speed ground transportation

corridor that exhibit partnership potential; 2) require an amount of Federal funds for project

financing that will not exceed the sums authorized; 3) result in an operating transportation

facility that provides a revenue producing service; 4) be undertaken through a public and

private partnership, with at least a third of full project costs paid using non-Federal funds; 5)

satisfy applicable statewide and metropolitan planning requirements; 6) be approved by the

Secretary based on an application submitted to the Secretary by a State or authority

designated by one or more States; 7) to the extent that non-United States Maglev technology

is used within the United States, be carried out as a technology transfer project; and 8) be

carried out using materials at least 70 percent of which are manufactured in the United States.

As part of the competition process to select a project, FRA received eleven initial

applications from participants with programs that met the eligibility standards outlined

above.

The selection criteria established in the final rule for the Maglev Deployment Program is

composed of five main components: (1) Purpose and significance of the project – the degree

to which the project description demonstrates attractiveness to travelers; the extent to which

project implementation will reduce congestion, emissions and/or energy consumption; the

rate of growth in needs for additional highway or airport construction; the degree to which

the project will demonstrate the variety of operating conditions which are expected in the

United States; and the degree to which the project will augment a Maglev alternative or

network that has been identified as having Partnership Potential. (2) Timely implementation
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 18

– the speed with which the project can realistically be brought into full revenue service. (3)

Benefits for the American economy – the extent to which the project is expected to create

new jobs in traditional and emerging industries in the United States. (4) Partnership Potential.

(5) Funding limits and source – the extent and proportion to which States, regions, and

localities commit to financially contributing to the project, and the extent and proportion to

which the private sector contributes financially to the project.

After receiving and evaluating eleven applications, the Secretary of Transportation on May

24, 1999 announced financial assistance grants to seven participants (California, Florida,

Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, and Pennsylvania) for pre-construction planning for

Maglev high-speed ground transportation (HSGT). The alternatives selected meet all project

eligibility standards and were selected based on the selection criteria established in the final

rule. The projects under consideration – selected by the Secretary – are presented in Volume

I, Section 2.4 of the Final PEIS (see Response 6). FRA has been directed and authorized by

Congress to evaluate only the specific projects presented to the Secretary for selection and

outlined in the Final PEIS. Thus, determination of the appropriateness of the alternatives

under consideration as practical applications of high-speed rail technology is beyond the

scope and requirements of this analysis.

18. How was Maglev ridership calculated? Was it overestimated? Who will ride

Maglev?

Response:

Ridership is defined as the number of people that use a specific transportation system.

Investment grade ridership forecasts for the Maglev Deployment Program reflect the

attractiveness of Maglev to travelers and aid in assessing project benefits and costs – thus

project viability. On July 27, 1999, FRA conducted a workshop titled Maglev Deployment

Program, Travel Demand and Revenue Forecasting, Workshop II, which established general

procedures for the forecasting approach to be used by the alternatives in the analysis of

Maglev ridership. FRA has established the opening year and the year 2020 as the forecast

years to be used by the alternatives in developing their estimates of Maglev ridership and

revenue projections. FRA guidelines establish that the forecasting approach use an existing

urban model as the basis for producing ridership forecasts. The forecasting methodology

recommended by FRA also includes the following elements/features: 1) stated-preference

surveys and analysis; 2) calculation of induced demand; 3) origin/destination surveys; 4)

independent review of land use forecasts and methodology; and 5) a realistic Maglev

operations plan.

Based on the requirement of the Maglev Deployment Program to select a revenue-producing

Maglev project, FRA directed the participants – selected by the Secretary of Transportation

to receive financial assistance grants for pre-construction planning – to develop investment

grade ridership forecasts. Thus, Maglev ridership analyses were developed independently for

each of the seven Maglev Alternatives under consideration (California, Florida, Georgia,

Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, and Pennsylvania), and were based on the procedures and
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 19

guidelines established by FRA and on current state-of-the-art practices in travel demand

forecasting and modeling, market research analysis, and model estimation. Ridership and

revenue estimates were generated utilizing a demand-forecasting model, and analyzing

current and projected socioeconomic and travel growth, behavior and patterns data. The

analyses involved thorough investigations, research, and state-of-the-art modeling, and were

performed by highly qualified and nationally recognized organizations. Specific information

on the particular methodologies and assumptions used by each of the participants in their

analysis, and on the target consumers – riders – is available from the contact people

identified in the Final PEIS (see Volume I, Appendix A).

19. How was the energy analysis performed?

Response:

As specified in the Federal Railroad Administration’s “Guidance and Criteria for

Completing Environmental Assessment of the Maglev Deployment Program Project” which

was provided to all participants, the main objective of the energy analysis performed as part

of the PEIS is twofold: 1) estimate the potential change in regional energy consumption in

the forecast year (2020), by comparing the Maglev Alternative and No-Action Alternative for

each of the seven alternatives; and 2) determine the impact to the electric power supply and

distribution systems within the alternatives, identifying electric utility capacity issues

relevant for the support of Maglev operations. The potential change in regional energy

consumption is the difference between the energy consumption for Maglev operation and the

energy savings resulting from automobile and commercial travel reduction in the region –

from Maglev riders who would no longer drive automobiles or ride buses. The analysis

considers energy consumption for transportation operations only, and does not consider

energy consumed for construction, equipment manufacturing, and heavy maintenance

activities.

The energy requirements for Maglev operations were estimated for each of the seven

alternatives based on the technical characteristics of the Maglev system, the configuration of

the proposed alignments, operational profiles, and the system’s projected utilization to meet

passenger demand. Ridership forecasts were then used to estimate diverted motor vehicle

travel, based on assumptions related to the travel modes that Maglev passengers would use if

the program were not implemented. The diverted motor vehicle travel was quantified in

terms of reduced vehicular distance traveled as a result of Maglev implementation. Fuel

efficiency and energy content assumptions were then used to calculate the energy

consumption reduction associated with decreased fuel consumption resulting from diverted

motor vehicle travel. The resulting estimates – Maglev energy consumption and energy

reduction from reduced vehicular fuel consumption – were used to calculate the projected net

changes in regional energy consumption for each of the seven alternatives. Determination of

the potential impact of the estimated changes was based on the contribution of the change to

the overall – forecasted – transportation energy consumption for the different alternatives.

See Volume I, Sections 3.15 and 4.15 of the Final PEIS for specific information on the

energy analysis performed for each of the alternatives.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 20

20. Can the existing power supply satisfy the Maglev power demand?

Response:

Maglev trains are electromagnetically levitated and propelled along a guideway. The

magnetic forces used to levitate and propel the Maglev train are produced from electric

current supplied from local power lines. Electricity is also used for auxiliary services such as

communication and safety devices, and station lights. The energy supply for Maglev

technology is normally drawn from the three-phase, public power grid. Based on current

technical and ridership information, it has been determined that the Maglev system will be a

large energy consumer, and as such will significantly increase electrical energy demand in

the region where the selected alternative is implemented. Thus, identification of feasible

energy providers will be critical to guarantee adequate supply for Maglev operation and the

other commercial and residential users in the area. In addition, it is also important to ensure

that power lines are available to supply electricity to the Maglev system. The determination

of the impact to the electric power supply and distribution systems within the alternatives

was based on information provided by the participants; for several of the alternatives, their

conclusions are based on ongoing work with the power generation and distribution

companies in their respective regions. This preliminary information is intended to provide

general guidelines to determine the feasibility of supplying energy for Maglev operations

(see Volume I, Sections 3.15 and 4.15 of the Final PEIS). Based on this preliminary design

information, FRA concluded that there would be adequate energy supply and distribution

systems to power Maglev and that the potential adverse impact of Maglev on them would not

be significant.

Once an alternative is chosen for project implementation, further analysis of specific energy

requirements will be carried out to determine the source(s) of supply (e.g., existing or new

power plants, self-generated, purchased) and the costs associated with the acquisition of the

electricity required to operate Maglev. Specific energy requirements of Maglev will be

determined by the technical characteristics of the Maglev system, the configuration of the

proposed alignments and operational profiles, and the system’s projected utilization to meet

Maglev demand – as calculated from ridership forecasts (see Response 19). Issues of special

concern that must be addressed in the site-specific analysis include the sources of supply, the

effects of Maglev energy consumption on electricity supply to other users, distribution

capability, and the potential effect of Maglev energy consumption on increased frequency of

power outages. These and other site-specific impacts will be addressed in a site-specific EIS

to be developed for the alternative selected for construction (see Response 3).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 21

21. Can the Maglev system be used in Louisiana as an evacuation alternative in the

event of a hurricane?

Response:

The National Weather Service has named the New Orleans Metropolitan Area as the number

one area in the nation at risk for catastrophic loss of life due to a direct hit from a hurricane.

The Emergency Preparedness Directors and public officials estimate that the number of

individuals in the New Orleans Metropolitan Area without access to private vehicles to be

over 250,000. In the case of a severe hurricane and forced evacuation, officials will be faced

with the task of transporting these individuals in school buses and other public vehicles on a

transportation system that will already be filled to capacity with another 650,000 individuals

with access to private vehicles. The existing transportation system is primarily three main

roads: the Causeway across Lake Pontchartrain, Interstate 10 to the east and Interstate 10 to

the west. The Causeway and parts of I-10 are closed when wind speeds reach 72 km/h (45

mph). With tidal surges estimated to be 20 feet above mean sea level with the worst case

Category 4 or 5 hurricanes, evacuation is planned to start 72 hours in advance of a hurricanes

landfall. This evacuation should realistically begin 48 to 30 hours in advance of 72 km/h (45

mph) gale force winds.

The proposed Maglev system will be able to evacuate 3700 people per hour and can operate

at full speed in winds of 100 km/h (62 mph), providing full service beyond the limits of the

surface transportation system. The south shore stations could be used as passenger collection

points with the North Shore station serving initially as a passenger transportation hub and

ultimately as a refuge. Working with the local Parish, State and Federal Emergency

Preparedness Directors, the five story-parking garage could be designed to accommodate

approximately 40,000 people as an emergency shelter with temporary kitchens, medical

assistance and bathroom facilities. In addition, if the Louisiana Alternative is selected to

continue in the Maglev Deployment Program, further refinement of these plans could expand

evacuation beyond the North Shore Station by bus or other means. The Greater New Orleans

Expressway Commission and representatives from local Parishes have expressed their

support and highlighted the potential for Maglev as an evacuation alternative in the event of a

hurricane in the New Orleans metropolitan area.

22. “Will operating the Maglev system cause adverse noise impacts?”

Response:

Six of the seven alternatives propose to use the Transrapid technology. The Florida

Alternative has proposed to use the Maglev 2000 technology. Potential programmatic

environmental noise impacts of these technologies have been analyzed and outlined in the

Final PEIS. These analyses have been undertaken utilizing acoustic data for the Transrapid

technology. The Maglev 2000 technology does not have actual noise data, but have

indicated1 noise emissions should be similar to the Transrapid technology. Noise standards

 

1

Florida Maglev 2000 Project Environmental Assessment.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 22

exist that reduce the potential impact from transportation projects similar to Maglev. As

outlined in Section 4.17, Volume I of the Final PEIS, FRA is required to be in compliance

with these noise standards regardless of which Maglev technology or train is selected for

deployment.

Potential noise impacts are likely to occur in residential areas, as well as churches, schools

and industrial areas. There could also be an indirect short-term impact from people who are

distracted by this new transportation technology. Although they would be made aware of

Maglev passing from the sound it makes, the reaction would be more from curiosity than the

sound produced. However, this inherent distraction should decrease over time as the novelty

of viewing Maglev declines. While candidate alternatives have identified several means for

mitigation of potential impacts, including primarily slowing the vehicle and the construction

of noise barriers, the effect of mitigating factors has typically not been fully quantified at this

stage of the EIS. It is anticipated that more detailed analyses will be investigated during the

site-specific EIS phase.

It is important to note that the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) criteria for potential

Maglev noise impacts, as detailed in “High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and

Vibration Impact Assessment” (FRA, 1998), have been applied during the PEIS process. It

is expected that all analyses undertaken in this process using the TR07 data will be

conservative from a potential noise impact perspective. That is, since all analyses to-date

have been performed utilizing the TR07 data, and if the TR08 is quieter, anticipated noise

impacts with the TR08 will be less than those calculated for the TR07. It should also be noted

that in comparison to the noise from conventional trains, Maglev noise in addition to being

less, also has a uniform nature-thereby avoiding the high, shrill sound and the rolling,

rumbling noise of many conventional steel-wheel trains. Thus, the noise (tone) from Maglev

may be perceived by many as being less annoying than noise of the same intensity from

conventional rail traffic. Further, given that the noise signatures of the TR08 are estimated to

be less than those associated with typical steel-rail trains2 (unlike traditional trains, there is

no physical contact between the vehicle and guideway for Maglev), and the speed to achieve

maximum sound levels will be only maintained for short periods (see Response 31),

significant adverse noise impacts are not anticipated.

23. Are there short- and /or long- term effects associated with exposure to

electromagnetic field and electromagnetic radiation (EMF/EMR) from Maglev

operations?

Response:

The construction and operation of a Maglev system may affect the environment within the

alternatives by incrementally raising present levels of extremely low frequency

electromagnetic fields (ELF/EMF) from existing electric power generation, transmission and

distribution along the right-of-way corridor. Similarly, Maglev sources of electromagnetic

 

2

 Stockton, Kilpatrick, LLP, “The Impacts of the TransRapid Magnetic Levitation Train on Human Health and

the Environment,” May 2000.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 23

radiation (EMR) will add incrementally to the current broadband radiation background from

operating broadcast, communication, navigation and emergency location utilities.

The EMF and EMR levels from Maglev operation, however, are not expected to differ

substantially from those of existing electrically powered transportation systems, which have

been safely and efficiently operated for many years worldwide. Nevertheless, vigilance is

needed to ensure both the comparability in EMF/EMR emissions and of public and workers’

exposures, and the compliance with the best available human EMF/EMR human exposure

safety standards. Since the standards referenced in Section 3.16.2, Volume I of the PEIS

focus on short-term safety with a substantial margin of safety, it is clear that there will be no

short-term adverse effects, but it is still unknown at this time if there are potential long-term

health issues. As discussed in Section 3.16.2, Volume I of the PEIS and references (NIEHS

1998, 1999 posted at http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid), a dedicated 5 years-long research

effort into the potential for long-term adverse health effects of EMF environmental exposures

found little evidence of increased risk, with remaining uncertainties still under active

research.

The “NIEHS Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and

Magnetic Fields” (NIEHS, 1999) concluded that: ”The scientific evidence suggesting that

ELF-EMF exposures pose any health risk is weak,” but noted that: “The NIEHS concludes

that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized at this time as entirely safe because of weak

scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard.”

This is not an issue specific to Maglev systems, but is common to all modern electrically

powered devices in the home, office, and other work environments, as well as all

transportation and communication utilities. Because of this lingering scientific uncertainty

and public concern concerning potential long-term effects of EMF/EMR, the FRA continues

its proactive and prudent research program of measuring EMF in advanced rail and Maglev

systems and comparing their EMF characteristics with existing electric rail and transit

systems that have long operated without any noticeable adverse long-term effects.

FRA’s preferred approach is to recommend adoption of the most protective exposure safety

standards for both workers and the public. In the interim, the FRA endorses a “prudent

avoidance” policy regarding EMF, as advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO,

2000). FRA recommends voluntary industry and Maglev developer/operator compliance with

existing international and national EMF exposure safety standards and guidelines. In

addition, in order to address public concern with EMF/EMR, safety, health and

environmental impacts, FRA could measure current exposure levels within the alternatives,

for comparison with post-implementation monitoring surveys (short- and long-term), to

ensure compliance with the most protective applicable safety standards.

At the programmatic level, the information available from the TR07 has been used as the

baseline data for the analysis presented in the Final PEIS. Analysis by FRA/Volpe Center of

the EMF characteristics for the Transrapid Maglev TR07 in 1992 showed that it was and is in

full compliance with both U.S. and international applicable human and environmental

exposure standards. Since TR08 represents the latest evolution of the Transrapid System, it
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 24

is assumed for the Final PEIS that TR08 has very similar EMF characteristics. Similarly, it

was assumed that EMF and EMR exposures from the conceptual M2000 will not differ

substantially from the Japanese Yamanashi superconducting Maglev (MLX and MLU),

whose environmental performance has been documented and does not exceed human

exposure safety standards.

However, the lack of available direct measurements of EMF, static magnetic fields, and EMR

information for the proposed Maglev technologies (TRI and M2000) allows only for relative

and approximate EMF comparability assessments. Recognizing the potential for differences

in the EMF characteristics between the Maglev TR07 and the TR08 and M2000 systems,

FRA plans to work with the participants to identify EMF and EMR during the site-specific

process. Further analysis will then be carried out for the specific operating environment to

verify compliance with U.S. and international human exposure safety standards and

guidelines for static field, EMF, and EMR, as listed in Section 3.16, Volume I of the Final

PEIS.

24. What will be the effects on soil, habitat, and utilities during construction of the

Maglev system?

Response:

The construction stage of the Maglev Deployment Program – independent of the alternative

selected – will result in localized short-term impacts on soil, habitat and services provided by

local utilities. The level and significance of impacts will be determined both by the

alternative selected for implementation and the construction techniques and mitigation

measures used during construction. Surface and subsurface disturbances will result from the

construction activities – excavation and earth moving – to be carried out for the construction

of the Maglev facilities and their infrastructure. These disturbances could result in the

destruction of wildlife habitat, with the potential to directly or indirectly displace resident

wildlife species within or near the project area. In addition, construction activities could

result in exposed soils, with the potential to increase site erosion, sedimentation impacts to

nearby water resources, fugitive dust – from surface and subsurface activities, and

introduction of invasive weeds. Increased erosion and sedimentation during construction

could adversely affect surface water quality, affecting the habitat for aquatic wildlife and

plants. Furthermore, fugitive dust could affect residences and businesses along the corridors.

Finally, construction activities may impact the services provided by local utilities, with the

potential to affect the economic vitality of the areas affected. Utilities – including gas,

electric, telephone, water, and sewage – may have to be temporarily or permanently relocated

during construction. The effects on local communities will be heavily dependent on the

density of population of the areas affected. The extent of habitat destruction and loss – and

the impacted species, and the effects on soil and utilities would be further evaluated as part of

the site-specific EIS developed for the selected alternative (see response to Comment 3 above

for an explanation of the site-specific analysis).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 25

Mitigation plans could be implemented as a strategy for avoiding and minimizing the

potential construction impacts of the project. Avoidance of adverse impacts through project

selection, planning and design, and selection of construction techniques and practices is the

preferred method. Where impacts cannot be avoided, minimization strategies should be

developed and implemented, to protect important soil and habitat characteristics and the

service provided by utilities. Impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized should be

addressed through restoration and compensation strategies that could help in the

reestablishment of the soil, habitat and utility services characteristics lost or altered from the

imposed disturbance. Specific areas that could be addressed through construction mitigation

plans – documenting mitigation goals, objectives, and performance measures – could

include: soil erosion and sedimentation; introduction of invasive weeds and other species;

dust; loss of habitat; and utility services disruption.

Some of the mitigation techniques may include: public involvement – including resource

agencies – to develop priorities related to mitigation planning; watershed and habitat

monitoring activities to minimize the loss of native wildlife species, with particular emphasis

on endangered species and previously undisturbed habitats; site-specific biological surveys

and ecological reviews to identify biological impacts and ensure compliance with existing

laws and regulations; vegetation protection plans; revegetation with native species to restore

ecological functions and minimize erosion and aesthetic impacts; protection of exposed soils

and stabilization of disturbed sites; application of water to loose soil on roadways, excavation

areas, and stockpiles to minimize fugitive dust; temporary rerouting, permanent

reconstruction, or alternate switching of utility services prior to commencement of

construction activities. The extent of disturbances will be greatly influenced by final design.

For example, in some instances elevating the guideway by spacing support columns 100 feet

or more apart could minimize the impacts. No significant adverse impacts from project

construction are expected with the use of appropriate construction mitigation plans. The

ultimate success of the mitigation actions requires active monitoring and management.

25. Can the Maglev system be operated in an economically feasible way?

Response:

As authorized by Congress in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21)

(Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 216), the Maglev Deployment Program encourages the

development and construction of an operating – and revenue producing – transportation

system employing magnetic levitation, capable of safe use by the public at a speed in excess

of 386 kilometers/hour (km/h) (240 miles/hour (mph)). TEA 21 added a new section 322 to

title 23 of the United States Code. Section 322 provides a total of $55 million in contract

authority from the Highway Trust fund for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001 for preconstruction planning of transportation systems employing Maglev. Section 322 requires

FRA to establish program selection criteria, to solicit applications for funding, to select one

or more programs to receive financial assistance for pre-construction planning activities, and

after completion of such activities, to select one of the projects to receive financial assistance

for final design, engineering, and construction activities. Section 322 authorizes but does not
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 26

appropriate additional federal funds of $950 million for final design and construction of the

most promising program. Section 322 also provides that the portion of the project not

covered by funds provided under Section 322 may be covered by any non-federal funding

sources, including private debt and/or equity, state, local, regional, and other public or private

entities, as well as by federally provided Surface Transportation Program (STP), and

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds, and from

other forms of financial assistance under TEA 21, such as loans and loan guarantees.

As directed by the enabling legislation, FRA is required to select an alternative for the

purpose of demonstrating the use of Maglev technology to the American public, according to

the eligibility standards and selection criteria established in the Maglev Deployment

Program’s final rule. The eligibility standards determine the criteria to be met by projects to

be considered for financial assistance, and the selection criteria govern FRA’s selection of

projects to receive funding under the Maglev Deployment Program. The eligibility standards

state that the projects shall, among other things: 1) involve a segment or segments of a highspeed or low-speed ground transportation corridor that exhibit partnership potential; 2)

require an amount of Federal funds for project financing that will not exceed the sums

authorized; 3) result in an operating transportation facility that provides a revenue producing

service; and 4) be undertaken through a public and private partnership, with at least a third of

full project costs paid using non-Federal funds. The selection criterion has five main

components: 1) purpose and significance of the project; 2) timely implementation; 3) benefits

for the American economy; 4) partnership potential; and 5) funding limits and source – the

extent and proportion to which States, regions, and localities commit to financially

contributing to the project, and the extent and proportion to which the private sector

contributes financially to the program.

After receiving and evaluating eleven applications, the Secretary of Transportation on May

24, 1999 announced financial assistance grants to seven participants (California, Florida,

Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, and Pennsylvania) for pre-construction planning for

Maglev high-speed ground transportation (HSGT). The alternatives selected meet all project

eligibility standards and were selected based on the selection criteria established in the final

rule. The alternative projects under consideration are presented in Volume I, Section 2.4 of

the Final PEIS. FRA will select one of the projects to receive financial assistance for final

design, engineering, and construction activities, based on the same selection criteria. The

revenue potential – economic feasibility, funding mechanisms, and partnering potential of the

project will be considered in the selection process. Thus, the analysis will include

consideration of capital and operating costs of the program, as well as the cost to consumers

to ride Maglev. Furthermore, Congress has authorized additional funding beyond the $950

million. Thus, the selected Maglev project will be responsible for its own operation,

independent of additional Federal funds. Additional information on these issues as they relate

to the specific alternatives under consideration can be obtained by contacting the people

listed in Volume I, Appendix A of the Final PEIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 27

26. Can Maglev reach cruising speeds of up to 482 km/h (300 mph) in a practical

manner?

Response:

The Transrapid Maglev System has been demonstrated and tested at the Transrapid Test

Facility in Emsland, Germany (TVE) for more than 15 years. A total distance of

approximately 700,000 km (435,000 mi) has been traveled. Transrapid vehicles spend about

20 seconds at high speed during a typical 40-km (25-mi) ride at the test facility (one

complete cycle). Given that the system has accumulated approximately 700,000 km (435,000

mi) of travel since 1984, there have been roughly 17,500 40-km (25 mi) trips taken. At 20

seconds per trip, it is estimated that approximately 350,000 seconds – or 97.2 hours – have

been traveled at high speed. At 386 km/h (240 mph) traveling speed, Transrapid vehicles

have traveled 37,545 km (23,333 mi). The maximum-recorded speed for the system is 450

km/h (279.6 mph), recorded in 1993 for the TR07 full-scale, two-section vehicle at the TVE

site in Lathen, Germany. With the introduction of the TR08 revenue prototype in August

1999, the top running speeds are between 385 and 403 km/h (between 239 and 250 mph) in

daily operations. These speeds have been demonstrated in four-a-day rides conducted five

days a week since June 2000 in support of the Hanover World Expo 2000. During this

period, more than 70,000 visitors have ridden the Transrapid Maglev. The Transrapid TR08

system is currently designed to sustain top speeds of 550 km/h (342 mph) and maximum

operating speeds of 500 km/h (311 mph) in revenue service. Based on design and test data,

Transrapid International engineers have concluded that the distances and time traveled at

high speed demonstrate the practicality of high-speed travel using Maglev.

As authorized by Congress in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21)

(Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 216), the Maglev Deployment Program encourages the

development and construction of an operating transportation system employing magnetic

levitation, capable of safe use by the public at a speed in excess of 386 kilometers/hour

(km/h) (240 miles/hour (mph)). Thus, the alternatives are required to meet the high-speed

criteria established by the Congressional mandate. The list below presents the distances

traveled at speeds over 386 km/h (240 mph), and the average speeds for each of the

alternatives:

§ California: The Maglev train would travel at an overall average speed of 145 km/h

(90 mph), and at speeds over 386 km/h (240 mph) for approximately 1.9 km (1.2 mi)

of the proposed 133 km (83 mi) to 148 (92 mi) alignment – corresponding to

approximately 1.4 percent of the length of the alternative.

§ Florida: The Maglev train would travel at an overall average speed of 204 km/h (127

mph), and at speeds over 386 km/h (240 mph) for approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) of the

proposed 29 km (18 mi) alignment – corresponding to approximately 12.5 percent of

the length of the alternative.

§ Georgia: The Maglev train would travel at an overall average speed of 136 km/h

(84.5 mph), and at speeds over 386 km/h (240 mph) for approximately 2.9 km (1.8
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 28

mi) of the proposed 50 km (31 mi) alignment – corresponding to approximately 6

percent of the length of the alternative.

§ Louisiana: The Maglev train would travel at an overall average speed of 156 km/h

(96.9 mph), and at speeds over 386 km/h (240 mph) for approximately 37 km (23 mi)

of the proposed 78 km (48 mi) alignment – corresponding to approximately 48

percent of the length of the alternative.

§ Maryland: The Maglev train would travel at an overall average speed of 196 km/h

(122 mph), and at speeds over 386 km/h (240 mph) for approximately 14.5 to 20.4

km (9 to 12.7 mi) of the proposed 64 km (40 mi) alignment – corresponding to

approximately 23 to 32 percent of the length of the alternative.

§ Nevada: The Maglev train would travel at an overall average speed of 280 km/h (174

mph), and at speeds over 386 km/h (240 mph) for approximately 31 km (19.3 mi) of

the proposed 56 km (35 mi) alignment – corresponding to approximately 55 percent

of the length of the alternative.

§ Pennsylvania: The Maglev train would travel at an overall average speed of 156

km/h (97 mph), and at speeds over 386 km/h (240 mph) for approximately 9.7 km (6

mi) of the proposed 76 km (47 mi) alignment – corresponding to approximately 13.5

percent of the length of the alternative.

27. Inaccuracies in Section 3.14.5 regarding MTA and WMATA operations in the 

Maryland Alternative were identified.

Response:

The inaccuracies have been noted and incorporated into Section 3.14.5 of Volume I.

28. Is Maglev technology safe?

Response:

The Maglev system – with the wrap-around style of the vehicle and guideway – has been

tested for more than 15 years with a total distance traveled of approximately 700,000 km

(435,000 mi), corresponding to 17,500 40-km (25-mi) trips. The system has been proven to

be safe and its safety features (safe hovering, safe evacuation, safe speed control, collision

avoidance, near impossibility of “derailment,” emergency braking, and fire safety) make it an

extremely safe means of high-speed travel, especially when compared to aircraft,

automobiles, and conventional rail. However, since the mission of the FRA clearly states its

commitment to safety as a topmost priority for the promotion of successful transportation,

FRA will take any necessary steps to ensure the safe operation of Maglev. As stated in

Volume I, Section 4.16 of the Final PEIS, FRA will analyze – at the time of final design – the
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 29

safety and health aspects of the proposed action before commercialization. Site-specific

issues related to safety concerns will be addressed in a site-specific EIS to be developed for

the alternative selected for construction (see Response 3).

29. Is Maglev technology ready for commercial operation?

Response:

The Transrapid Maglev System has been demonstrated and tested at the Transrapid Test

Facility in Emsland, Germany (TVE) for more than 15 years. A total distance of

approximately 700,000 km (435,000 mi) has been traveled, corresponding to 17,500 40-km

(25-mi) trips. Based on engineering and testing data, Transrapid International has concluded

that the Maglev system is ready for commercial operation. However, as is the case for any

rail system, once deployed the Maglev technology will be fully tested prior to any

commercial use. This testing process will permit adaptations and technology updates before

commercial use is initiated. Site-specific issues related to specific engineering details of the

Maglev technology to be implemented will be addressed in a site-specific EIS to be

developed for the alternative selected for construction (see Response 3 above).

30. Can underground alignments – tunnels – be used as a mitigation option to

alleviate project impacts?

Response:

During the planning process participants considered all feasible alternative alignments both

above and below ground. The underground placement of guided ground transportation

facilities in urban and other areas can be used as a mitigation option for noise and vibration

impacts, visual impacts, and effects on historic, archaeological, and cultural resources. It

could also be used as a design and technology solution to the geographical constraints

imposed by mountains and river crossings, in replace of longer tracks and bridges. The

feasibility of this mitigation strategy was analyzed by the seven participants but for financial

reasons was only found useful for the Georgia Alternative. Underground mitigation is listed

in the mitigation list presented in Volume I, Section 4.10 of the Final PEIS.

31. What will it be like to ride on Maglev?

Response:

Magnetic levitation (Maglev) uses magnetic forces to lift, propel, and guide the train over a

special guideway. Maglev does not require wheels or other mechanical parts at higher speeds

for support or propulsion. Without wheels or other components to cause resistance, cruising

speeds up to 483 km/h (300 mph) are practical. The hovering operation of Maglev trains

results in no contact with the guideway – and hence little vibration, providing for an
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 30

extremely smooth ride that makes it more comfortable than modern buses and other highspeed – “steel wheel-on-steel rail” – systems. The high speeds achieved by Maglev trains are

reached at a casual and comfortable acceleration rate. Similarly, stopping is achieved at a

comfortable deceleration rate. The maximum linear acceleration and deceleration for Maglev

operation will meet safety and comfort standards. The extreme comfort of Maglev trains is

portrayed by the fact that even though the trains achieve very high speeds, passengers are not

required to be seated during operation, and it is completely safe and comfortable to be

standing while the train is in motion, and during initial acceleration and stopping. This

provides for a drastic difference with airplanes where passengers are not only required to be

seated during take-off and landing but also need to use safety belts for their protection.

Additional comfort and convenience related benefits from Maglev technology over other

transportation systems – airplanes and buses – are derived from the use of platforms at

passenger stations. Some of these benefits include the convenience and ease of boarding and

exit, especially valuable for elderly and disabled passengers since there will be no stairs to

climb and wheelchair users will be able to simply roll in and out of the train. Further analysis

of human factors and ergonomics related to Maglev operation will be addressed in a sitespecific EIS to be developed for the alternative selected for construction (see Response 3).

32. What will be the cost to ride Maglev?

Response:

The Maglev Congressional mandate establishes that the selected Maglev Alternative – for

construction and operation – shall be a revenue producing transportation system. The cost to

ride Maglev will be determined by each of the participants and will be dependent on

investment and ridership information. Each alternative will select the Maglev riding fares

that provide the most attractive transportation alternative to users and allow them to meet the

revenue-producing rules established in the enabling legislation. Based on preliminary

planning information the cost of Maglev riding fares for each of the alternative is:

§ California: Between $13 and $14 for a one-way trip from endpoint to endpoint of the

proposed 133 km (83 mi) to 148 (92 mi) alignment.

§ Florida: Approximately $8 for a one-way trip from endpoint to endpoint of the

proposed 29 km (18 mi) alignment.

§ Georgia: Approximately $11 for a one-way trip from endpoint to endpoint of the

proposed 50 km (31 mi) alignment.

§ Louisiana: Between $8 and $10 for a one-way trip from endponint to endpoint of the

proposed 78 km (48 mi) alignment.

§ Maryland: Approximately $26 for a one-way trip from endpoint to endpoint of the

proposed 64 km (40 mi) alignment.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 31

§ Nevada: Approximately $6 for a one-way trip from endpoint to endpoint of the

proposed 56 km (35 mi) alignment

§ Pennsylvania: Approximately $6 for a one-way trip on one of the segments of the

proposed 76 km (47 mi) alignment.

33. An Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) was identified within the Louisiana Alternative

by the NMFS.

Response:

The information was incorporated in Section 3.3 and 4.3, Volume I of the Final PEIS.

34. The United States Department of Transportation – Federal Railroad

Administration is responsible for EFH consultation with the NMFS if the

Louisiana Alternative moves forward.

Response:

The consultation responsibilities were incorporated in Section 3.3 and 4.3, Volume I of the

Final PEIS.

35 Revise the fauna list contained in Appendix H, Volume I of the Final PEIS for the

Louisiana Alternative to include the estuarine and marine species known to utilize

Lake Pontchartrain.

Response:

The fauna list in Appendix H, Volume I of the Final PEIS was revised.

36 The Maryland Department of Natural Resources indicated that two species

(Bachman’s sparrow and Great blue heron) were omitted from the threatened and

endangered species list for the Maryland Alternative.

Response:

The list in Section 3.4 of Volume I of the Final PEIS was revised.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 32

37. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture requested a change to the text in

Section 3.3.7 to more accurately reflect the diversity of the wildlife species and

habitat present in the agricultural areas of Pennsylvania.

Response:

The text in Section 3.3.7, Volume I of the Final PEIS was revised.

38. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture indicated that the deposition of

storm water onto agricultural fields is unacceptable.

Response:

The information was incorporated into Section 4.1.3, Volume I of the Final PEIS.

39. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture commented that it is premature to

state “There are no impacts to unique or locally important farmland soils.”

Response:

This sentence was deleted from Section 4.11.7, Volume I of the Final PEIS.

40. If the land that is to be utilized for the construction of the Maglev system in

Pennsylvania was originally used for the production of agricultural commodities,

then, in the event that the Maglev system is no longer needed, that land will revert

to agricultural status.

Response:

The requirement was incorporated into Section 4.20, Volume I of the Final PEIS.

41. The vertical clearance requirements for Astrotech Space Operations, Inc was

noted as a serious consideration for a site-specific EIS for the Florida Alternative.

Response:

The comment was incorporated into Section 2.4.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 33

42. To help provide the reader with a better understanding of the purpose and need

for a Maglev system as envisioned by Congress, it was recommended that TEA-21,

Title 23, Chapter 3, Section 322 be included as an Appendix.

Response:

Title 23, Chapter 3, Section 322 was incorporated as Appendix B in Volume I of the Final

PEIS.

43. To provide the reader with more useful information, the EPA recommended

including graphics of a Maglev vehicle and support structure in operation in

various settings.

Response:

These graphics were incorporated into Section 2.3, Volume I of the Final PEIS.

44. The EPA submitted comments and editorial corrections to the EMF sections of the

DPEIS.

Response:

These comments have been incorporated into sections 3.16 and 4.16, Volume I of the Final

PEIS.

45. The Fish and Wildlife Service of Pennsylvania stated that one species (Indiana

bat) was omitted from the threatened and endangered species list for the

Pennsylvania Alternative.

Response:

The species was added to the list in Section 3.4, Volume I of the Final PEIS.

46. The concern of spreading noxious and other invasive weed species was raised by

the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

Response:

The concern was addressed by creating a “Vegetation” subsection in Section 4.19, Volume I

of the Final PEIS. The concerns will be further addressed in the construction plans of a sitespecific EIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 34

47. The Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association noted that the Las Vegas

metropolitan area is very close to being categorized as non-attainment for ozone.

Response:

This information was incorporated into Section 3.8.6, Volume I of the Final PEIS.

48. The Fish and Wildlife Service of California stated that five species (San

Bernardino kangaroo rat, Delhi sands flower-loving fly, least Bell’s vireo,

Southwestern willow fly-catcher, El Segundo blue butterfly) were omitted from

the threatened and endangered species list for the California Alternative.

Response:

The list in Section 3.4, Volume I of the Final PEIS was revised.

49. C. Salvary identified potential environmental justice issues related to the Georgia

Alternative.

Response:

The concern has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS

for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

50. J. Mundy identified potential environmental justice issues related to the Georgia

Alternative.

Response:

The concern has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS

for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

51. J. Mundy identified potential impacts to three African American churches within

the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The concern has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS

for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 35

52. J. Mundy requests consideration of tunneling under an African American

community to eliminate visual impacts of Maglev system within the Georgia

Alternative.

Response:

The request to consider tunneling has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2,

Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

53. J. Mundy identified a property potentially on the National Register within the

Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The potential of this property to be on the National Register has been noted and incorporated

into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific

EIS.

54. J. Mundy identified potential environmental justice issues related to the Northside

Drive portion of the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The concern has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS

for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

55. J. Mundy identified potential environmental justice issues related to the Georgia

Alternative.

Response:

The concern has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS

for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

56. J. Mundy identified potential environmental justice issues related to the Atlanta

University Center located within the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The concern has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS

for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 36

57. J. Mundy identified the potential destruction of an African American community

within the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The destruction of this community has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2 of

Volume I for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

58. J. Mundy expressed concern of the potential affects on two African American

churches within the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The concern of impacts to the African American churches has been noted and incorporated

into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific

EIS.

59. J. Mundy expressed concern of the potential affects on the Antioch Church within

the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The concern of impacts to the Antioch Church has been noted and incorporated into Section

4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

60. J. Mundy expressed potential concern over the lack of including four African

American churches in public involvement related to the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The concern of lack of including four potentially impacted African American churches has

been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further

consideration in a site-specific EIS.

61. J. Mundy expressed potential concern with public involvement efforts when

planning the public information meeting related to the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The concern with public involvement efforts has been noted and incorporated into Section

4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 37

62. J. Mundy stated that the Georgia Alternative would not be supported if tunneling

was not planned as mitigation to destruction of community.

Response:

The consideration of tunneling has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume

I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

63. Councilman Bond stated that the Georgia Alternative would not be supported if

tunneling was not planned as mitigation to destruction of the Vine City

community.

Response:

The consideration of tunneling has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume

I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

64. Senator Fort stated that the potential impact of the Georgia Alternative would be

too intense on the churches. Consider moving alignment to the east to avoid

impacts to churches.

Response:

The consideration of moving the Georgia alternative has been noted and incorporated into

Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

65. Senator Fort requested specifics on how many people may be displaced by the

Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The request for specifics on how many people may be moved has been noted and

incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a

site-specific EIS.

66. B. Amos identified potential serious problems with the level of community public

input allowed by the Georgia Alternative participants.

Response:

The problem with community public input has been noted and incorporated into Section

4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 38

67. B. Amos requested that the communities being impacted be included in the

planning of the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The request for additional community involvement has been noted and incorporated into

Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

68. Bullard/Torres expressed concern over the lack of representation of Fulton

County and the City of Atlanta officials on the Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Study

Committee.

Response:

The concern over lack of representation of public officials on the study committee has been

noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further

consideration in a site-specific EIS.

69. Bullard/Torres expressed concern over the lack of participation of educational

institutions directly impacted by the development of the Georgia Alternative on

the Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Study Committee.

Response:

The concern over lack of representation of educational institutions on the study committee

has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further

consideration in a site-specific EIS.

70. Bullard/Torres are concerned with the potential impacts to the area surrounding

the Atlanta University Center (AUC) regarding the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The concern of impacts to the areas surrounding the AUC has been noted and incorporated

into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific

EIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 39

71. Bullard/Torres are concerned with the lack of inclusion of the communities

affected by the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The concern of the lack of inclusion of the communities affected by the Georgia Alternative

has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further

consideration in a site-specific EIS.

72. Bullard/Torres stated that no public information meetings were held in the areas

potential impacted by the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The concern with the location of the public information meetings has been noted and

incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a

site-specific EIS.

73. Bullard/Torres identified environmental justice issues with the potential impacts

on the Vine City area within the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The environmental justice issues with the impacts on the Vine City area have been noted and

incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a

site-specific EIS.

74. Bullard/Torres state that the AUC should have been included in the planning of

the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The concern of the lack of inclusion of the AUC in the planning of the Georgia Alternative

has been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further

consideration in a site-specific EIS.

75. Bullard/Torres identified potential environmental justice issues within the Georgia

Alternative.

Response:

The environmental justice issues have been noted and incorporated into Section 4.10.2,

Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 40

76. Bullard/Torres requested that elevating the guideway be investigated to mitigate

potential impacts to communities within the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The request to elevate the guideway as mitigation has been noted and incorporated into

Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

77. The Housing Authority of Atlanta identified potential detrimental impact to mixed

income communities – Village at Castleberry Hill and Herndon Homes – within

the Georgia Alternative.

Response:

The impacts to the mixed income communities have been noted and incorporated into

Section 4.10.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS for further consideration in a site-specific EIS.

78. The Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club identified several issues in the description

of the habitat within the Nevada Alternative

Response:

The habitat description has been revised in the Nevada sections of Volume I.

79. The Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club requested reconsideration of the stated

level of potential impact to air quality for the Nevada Alternative.

Response:

The Nevada information was refined in the air quality sections of Volume I of the Final

PEIS.

80. The Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club requested reconsideration of the units

in the energy information of the Nevada Alternative.

Response:

The energy units were revised in Volume I of the Final PEIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 41

81. J. Guignard made editorial comments.

Response:

The editorial comments were reviewed and incorporated into Volume I of the Final PEIS

where appropriate.

82. How will flocking bird strikes affect the Maglev system?

Response:

The potential for collisions between flocking species of birds and Maglev trains exists for the

Maglev alternatives. Impacts to bird populations will be local and regional in nature and will

be determined not only by species occurrence, population abundance, and nesting, feeding

and landing sites of birds in the proposed alternatives, but also by the speed of Maglev in

those areas where the identified species would be present. No scientific studies have been

carried out by the Maglev participants to determine the potential effects to bird species from

impacts with Maglev. However, some discussions have been held to initiate consideration of

potential impacts to birds and mitigation measures in the planning process (refer to Volume I,

Section 4.3 of the Final PEIS). Specific impacts to colonial nesting or flocking shore birds,

wading birds, and waterfowl, as well as mitigation methodologies, would be further

evaluated in the site-specific EIS to be developed for the alternative selected for

implementation (please see response to Comment 3 above for an explanation of the sitespecific analysis).

The potential for collisions between birds and the Maglev vehicles motivated Transrapid to

investigate their effect on the safety of Maglev operations and the immediate environment 3.

Transrapid found that bird strikes are not uncommon at their test track in Germany,

especially after a period of reduced operations, during which the local birds can get

accustomed to perching on the guideway sections. Transrapid has taken obstacle collisions

into account in the safety studies performed for the implementation of their technology in the

U.S. market. Experiments have been conducted and numerical simulation calculations have

been done to determine the effects of a collision between the Maglev vehicle and an external

object. In the course of the qualification of the front cabin, it has been proved in tests that a

rock weighing 1 kg (2.2 pounds) hitting the vehicle at a speed of 600 km/h (373 miles per

hour) does not penetrate into the interior of the vehicle, even if it hits the front glazing or the

plastic construction of the front end. Additionally, tests and simulations for collisions of

representative obstacles have been performed (e.g., a stone of 50 kg (110 pounds), and a tree

trunk or branch of diameter 20 cm (7.9 inches) and length 18 m (60 feet) lying on the

guideway). Evaluation criteria for crashworthiness have been determined and include: injury

or death of any people in the front-end section (passenger compartment and entrance area) by

deformation due to collision; rapid deceleration of the car body that could result in injury to

crew or passengers; and retention of vehicle stability and tracking. All criteria have been met

in the experiments performed, assuring the crashworthiness of the TR08 at the levels if

 

3

 Larry Blow. US Projects Manager, Transrapid International USA. October, 2000.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 42

impact studied. Although the Maglev 2000 system is in the planning stage, their vehicle

would undergo similar analysis and thus it is expected that it would have similar safety

characteristics to those of the Transrapid TR08 related to collisions with external objects.

At the preliminary planning stage, these experiments and simulations have been used by the

six alternatives proposing the use of the Transrapid technology in their analyses of the safety

characteristics of TR08. Further analysis of the specific safety effects and potential

mitigation strategies to protect bird populations could be developed by the selected

alternative as part of the site-specific EIS stage. Similarly, further analyses to determine the

crashworthiness of the M2000 vehicles could be developed as part of the site-specific EIS

stage if the Florida alternative were selected for further development (please see response to

Comment 3 above for an explanation of the site-specific analysis).

83. Does the PEIS provide current information about the scientific and medical

literature upon which EMF standards and guidelines are based?

Response:

Section 3.16.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS briefly summarizes and refers to the recent

conclusions of major expert reviews of the extensive published literature on potentially

adverse and beneficial EMF health effects (including those by the National Institute of

Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS, 1995, 1998 and 19990 and to the World Health

Organization (WHO) 1993-2000 assessments, upon which the international referenced

standards (ICNIRP 1994, 1998) are based. In addition, this section was refined to include the

key findings of the 1999 NIEHS report to Congress (see response to comment #85).

84. What are the limitations of existing guidelines with regard to the degree of EMF

protection?

Response:

The FRA is committed to safety. Regulations and recognized guidelines governing safety are

implemented at all levels of FRA operations. The FRA is committed to assure the Maglev

Deployment Program will operate within all recognized EMF safety guidelines. In Section

3.16, Volume I of the Final PEIS, Public Health and Safety, 3.16.2 Electromagnetic Fields

(EMF) and Radiation (EMR) Impacts, the subsection entitled Knowledge of Health Effects

discusses the limitations of our knowledge, and therefore of existing referenced guidelines

with regard to the degree of EMF protection to public and occupational safety and health.

The remaining scientific uncertainties and the lack of consensus on public health impacts of

low-level chronic exposures to EMF are due in part to the complexity and ubiquity of EMF

exposures in our society, and in part to the low level of public health risk as concluded by the

National Academy of Science (NAS, 1996), National Cancer Institute (NCI, 1998) and by the

NIEHS (1998 and 1999). However, these standards focus on short-term safety effects, rather

than on the public health impacts from long-term exposures to environmental low level fields
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 43

and radiation, which are still uncertain. Therefore, there are no science based national

EMF/EMR safety guidelines at present that address such chronic exposures to environmental

levels. Until such time that comprehensive regulations are promulgated on EMF/EMR, the

FRA will subscribe to recognized and peer established safety guidelines. The Maglev

Deployment Program will operate within all recognized guidelines to assure adequate safety

is maintained for passengers, workers and the general public.

85. Ensure the accurate portrayal of the conclusions of key cited recent reports to

reflect the conclusion that “there is a weak scientific link between ELF-EMF and

possible health effects from ELF-EMF exposures.”

Response:

Section 3.16.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS was refined to discuss the key finding of the 1999

NIEHS report to the Congress that indicates “ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as

entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard.”

86. What are the uncertainties associated with the EMF guidelines?

Response:

See response to Comment #84.

87. Are the FCC guidelines that specify radio-frequency radiation (RFR or EMR)

exposure limits mandatory or voluntary?

Response:

The FCC 1996 environmental exposure limits on RF radiation exposure safety (see Table

3.16.4 in Volume I of the Final PEIS) are mandatory only for those radio wave sources

regulated by the FCC. This includes emitters licensed by the FCC (e.g. radio and TV

broadcast stations, cell phone base stations), or commercial communication devices whose

spectrum is regulated by the FCC (e.g., cell phones). The FCC approves the radiocommunication spectrum bands utilized by railroads. Furthermore, the FRA is the primary

regulatory agency responsible for EMF and EMR related safety and environmental assurance

issues for both rail and Maglev under the Rail Safety Act. Thus, there exists a double check

on the Maglev use of radio communications with the FCC and FRA providing oversight.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 44

88. Revise the information in Table 3.16-4.

Response:

Table 3.16-4 in Volume I of the Final PEIS was revised as suggested.

89. Clarify that AC and DC field exposures do not produce the same (health and 

safety) effects.

Response:

Clarification between the AC and DC field exposure health and safety effects are identified

in Section 3.16.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS since there are different human exposure safety

standards tabulated for static (or direct current, DC) fields in Table 3.16.1 and for alternating

current or AC (ELF-EMF) fields in Tables 3.16.2 through 3.16.4. The different magnetic

fields characteristics of Maglev alternatives associated with respective technologies are

discussed in Section 2.3, 2, Volume I while their impacts are differentiated in Section 3.16.2

in the subsection on Knowledge of Alternative Maglev EMF/EMR Characteristics.

90. Reference the NIEHS Report on Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line 

Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields.

Response:

This reference was incorporated both in the list of references and Section 3.16.2, Volume I of

the Final PEIS was refined to quote the key finding from the NIEHS report (see response to

comment #85).

91. Consider revising the referenced tables and the effects of high intensity RF 

exposures.

Response:

The complete reference to tabulated human exposure safety standards limiting both field

strengths and the power density of electromagnetic radiation was incorporated. This

information supplements information provided on tissue heating direct and indirect effect of

RF exposures over the entire range of frequencies in Section 3.16.2, Volume I of the Final

PEIS under Knowledge of Health Effects.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 45

92. Consider revising the guidelines referenced to include the most recent 

International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 

standards, and note that the IEEE standards referenced are not the most recent, 

nor the most protective standards available (namely the FCC’s 1996 limits, 

which are based on the NCRP guidelines).

Response:

The ICNIRP 1998 international broad- spectrum human EMF and EMR exposure safety

voluntary standards, endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO), were cited and

discussed in Section 3.16.2, , Volume I of the Final PEIS as were the 1994 ICNIRP limits on

static magnetic fields. However, the FCC 1998 standards, while most protective, are based on

the now outdated 1986 National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) guidance, and in

part on the IEEE C95.1 1992 voluntary standards for EMR exposure safety. In contrast, the

IEEE/ANSI C95.1 consensus human safety standards referenced were updated in 1999 and

are the most recent available and applicable to Maglev exposures to passengers, public and

workers.

93. Clarify that the exposure limits used by some states to determine the width of the

right-of-way under electric transmission lines are not based on health effect, but

are the limits for the electric field at the edge of the right-of-way which are

intended to prevent electrical shock and burn from contact with electrical

conductors.

Response:

The text discussion in Section 3.16.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS on State-imposed limits on

EMF was now augmented as suggested to further clarify their ad-hoc nature.

94. Consider identifying previous Maglev reports containing effects information as

well as the reports that contain exposure information.

Response:

The FRA completed several reports, in cooperation with the John A. Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center, focusing on measurements, comparisons, standards and

potential health effects of EMF associated with existing and advanced rail and transit systems

and technologies. Several of these very technical reports were on the potential bioeffects of

Maglev-specific fields on animals and have not been scientifically replicated. Without going

through this standard peer review process, the reports will remain open to general criticism

on their validity. Although several of these reports were referenced (DOT, 1990 through

1995), it would be inappropriate to reference the reports that are in the review process.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 46

95. Consider changing the narrative to indicate there is weak scientific evidence for

possible health effects from ELF-EMF exposure.

Response:

Comment incorporated in the text of Section 3.16.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS.

96. Why are the EMF and EMR levels of the TR08 similar to those of the TR07?

Response:

The TR07’s components, subsystems and EMF characteristics were extensively tested and

certified at Emsland, Germany. The TR07 design was refined into the TR08 based on the

experience gained at the Emsland Maglev test track. The TR08 represents an evolutionary

improvement of the same family of electromagnetic attractive propulsion and levitation

technologies and systems. Therefore, its components, subsystems and –by inference- EMF

characteristics are very likely to be closely similar to the TR07 that preceded it. While the

exact EMF and EMR levels in public and worker areas may differ for TR08 compared to the

TR07, it is appropriate at this programmatic level of the NEPA process to use the available

information on the TR07. However, for the site specific EIS the exact EMF and EMR

characteristics must be known. Understanding this need, the FRA intends to measure the

EMF and EMR characteristics of the latest Transrapid Maglev System, TR08, at the Emsland

Maglev test track.

97. Revise the frequency ranges in Table 3.18-1 in Volume I of the Final PEIS.

Response:

Table 3.18-1 was revised accordingly.

98. Correct the microTesla units conversion.

Response:

The conversion was incorporated in Section 3.16.2, Volume I of the Final PEIS.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 47

99. If the detailed information (in original reports referred to) is important, then

that information should be provided in this document.

Response:

The detailed information on relative EMF average levels for a variety of rail and transit

vehicles, reported in the referenced reports, was summarized in Tables 4.16-1 and -2 and

graphically displayed in Figures 4.16.1, -2 and-3 in Volume I of the Final PEIS.

100. Replace NOIH with NIOSH.

Response:

The replacement was made in Section 4.16-3, Volume I of the Final PEIS.

101. Can highways I-75 and I-85 be considered as the alignment for the AtlantaChattanooga Line?

Response:

The concern was incorporated into Volume I, Section 4.10.2 of the Final PEIS for further

consideration in a site specific EIS.

102. Will funds be available to residents, businesses, churches, schools and

institutions of higher education if they are relocated as a result of Maglev?

Response:

All possibilities will be considered to prevent disruptions to residents, businesses, churches,

schools, and institutions of higher education. The process for identifying which of the seven

alternatives will be selected for further design is underway. Once an alternative is selected

for further design, the next phase of the NEPA process will begin. As part of the next phase

of the NEPA process, the final alignment will be discussed with the public. If, as a last

resort, relocation of a resident business, church or institution of higher education is

necessary, funds will be available from the state participant as defined in the pertinent

legislation.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 48

103. What is considered the “impact area” and what does it mean socially,

economically and environmentally to the surrounding neighborhoods, schools,

churches and higher learning institutions?

Response:

By statute the PEIS is required to identify the environment of the area to be affected by the

alternatives under consideration and the potential impacts to the natural and human

environments in these areas. Chapter 3 of Volume I of the Final PEIS succinctly describes

the environment of the area to be affected or created by the alternatives under consideration

(40 CFR §1502.15). Chapter 4 of Volume I of the Final PEIS describes the effects of the

alternatives on the environment and their significance. Effects include ecological, aesthetic,

historic, cultural, economic, social or health (40 CFR §1508.0).

104. Consider financial contributions from Cobb County.

Response:

The concern was incorporated into Volume I, Section 4.10.2 of the Final PEIS for further

consideration in a site specific EIS.

105. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) opposes the

deployment of the Maglev Florida Alternative due to the associated potential

extensive environmental impacts.

Response:

The concern and opinion of the FWC was incorporated into Volume I, Section 4.3.3 of the

Final PEIS for further consideration in a site specific EIS if the Florida Alternative is selected

for further analysis. Please refer to the answers to questions 8, 9, and 16 for further

explanation of the evaluation of impacts to ecological resources, wetlands, threatened and

endangered species and their habitat, and visual impacts.

106. How energy efficient is the Transrapid Maglev technology when compared to

other high-speed ground transportation systems?

Response:

The low energy consumption of the Transrapid system results from its lack of friction (noncontact technology), the high efficiency of its synchronous longstator motor, and the

economical vehicle data such as low weight and low aerodynamic resistance (no pantograph,

smooth exterior and underbody). For these reasons, when traveling at the same speed, the

Transrapid consumes approximately 30 percent less energy than a modern high-speed train.

Or formulated another way, for the same energy input, the Transrapid Maglev train produces
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 49

approximately one third more output or performance. When compared with road and air

travel, Transrapid is even more energy efficient. For equal distances, the specific energy

consumption of automobile travel is three times higher and for air travel, five times higher

than the Transrapid system. Further, a comparison briefing has been made to compare

Transrapid Maglev energy performance with those of the InterCity Express (ICE) high-speed

trains in service in Germany. The briefing has been endorsed by Deutsche Bahn and

substantiates the energy differences between the two technologies. The accompanying figure

illustrates a comparison between the primary energy consumption of Transrapid Maglev

technology and that of some selected common modes of travel.

Source: Transportation International

107. Will turnouts be used for Maglev implementation and would be their potential

visual impact?

Response:

It is anticipated that high- and low-speed turnouts, or switches, will be used in for Maglev

operation. The two switches used at the Transrapid test facility in Germany are two-position

switches. Several of the alternatives have proposed the use of three-way turnouts. The

potential visual and aesthetic impact of the turnouts will be determined as part of the sitespecific environmental impact statement to be developed for the selected alternative(s) (see

response to Comment 3 above for an explanation of the site-specific analysis).
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 50

108. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection highlighted the importance

of the Indian River Lagoon System and the water quality of the Banana River.

Response:

Section 3.3.2 in Volume I of the PEIS was revised to include Florida Department of

Environmental Protection information.

109. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission stated that the Florida

alternative would cross and potentially impact the Enchanted Forest Conservation

and Recreational Lands (CARL) Project, the Scrub Jay Refuge CARL Project,

and the Banana River Aquatic Preserve.

Response:

Section 4.3.3 in Volume I of the PEIS was revised to include the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission information.

110. The DPEIS started the discussion of potential issues, but how many detailed

issues are left unanswered or quantified? Detailed EIS’s should be completed on

all seven properties before a decision is made to proceed with the final selection

process.

Response:

The decision to proceed with the U.S. Maglev Development Program and which alternative

or alternatives will be considered for further analysis will not be made solely on the PEIS.

Each applicant was required to submit to the FRA detailed project descriptions that included

comprehensive information on finance, management, construction scheduling, refinement to

the environmental concerns, and other considerations. Furthermore, each applicant was

invited to participate in an information exchange with FRA to consider additional

information in that each applicant developed after submitting the project descriptions. The

final decision in the selection process will include at a minimum all other information. Thus,

developing site specific EIS’s for each participant is not necessarily needed to make an

informed final decision.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 51

111. The Pennsylvania Alternative could have passenger terminals located in

agricultural areas. If this occurs, a concerted and genuine effort to coordinate a

comprehensive Land Use plan with train stops must be undertaken with county

officials.

Response:

Protection of agricultural area is an important consideration for the construction of the

Maglev system. If the Maglev Deployment Program does proceed past the PEIS stage, all

concerns relating to agricultural areas will be addressed at the appropriate site specific level

of analysis.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

1 - 52

This page intentionally left blank
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 1

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DPEIS.

The following public comments were received during the Maglev DPEIS Public Comment 

Period. The majority of the comments were sent to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 

DMS. However, comments were included that were sent directly to the FRA. The public 

hearing transcript and public meeting minutes, when supplied by the state participants, were 

also included. As a reminder, the large number in the right hand margin references the 

response provided in Section 1.3 Response to Comments.

Link to General Comments

Link to California Comments

Link to Florida Comments

Link to Georgia Comments

Link to Louisiana Comments

Link to Maryland Comments

Link to Nevada Comments

Link to Pennsylvania Comments
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Vol. II Maglev Deployment Program

2 - 2

This page intentionally left blank