Intercity Passenger Rail Project

Orlando to Miami, Florida

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

Proponent: All Aboard Florida

ALL ABOARD FLORIDA
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Welcome to the Public Information 

Meeting on the FRA’s Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the 

All Aboard Florida Orlando-Miami 

Passenger Rail Project

Tonight’s meeting is for you to get an 

overview of the DEIS, and to ask the FRA 

and the technical experts who helped 

to prepare the DEIS questions about the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Process and the DEIS

WELCOME!
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

AAF has applied for $1.6 billion in federal funds through the Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program, which is 

a loan and loan guarantee program administered by FRA.

Because AAF has applied for a loan under FRA’s RRIF program, 

FRA is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

to conduct an analysis of the potential environmental impacts 

resulting from the Project. NEPA compliance is a prerequisite for 

approval of a RRIF loan, but does not guarantee approval. A RRIF 

loan, if approved, would be part of an overall capital structure put in 

place by AAF to finance the infrastructure improvements.

FRA is the lead federal agency responsible for conducting the 

NEPA environmental review process for the Project. FRA manages 

financial assistance programs for rail capital investments and has 

certain safety oversight responsibilities with respect to railroad 

operations.

In addition to FRA’s NEPA review, approvals by several additional 

federal agencies would be necessary to implement the Project:

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

The USACE, USCG and FAA are Cooperating Agencies, meaning that 

they participated in developing the DEIS and will use the document 

to fulfill their own NEPA responsibilities.

FRA’s Role
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

NEPA is a federal environmental law that facilitates public 

disclosures and establishes policies for federal agencies 

to study a reasonable range of alternatives and assess 

environmental impacts of projects. 

An EIS is a document required by NEPA that describes the 

environmental effects of a project to inform decision-makers 

and the public. 

An EIS must be prepared by a federal agency for any major 

federal action significantly affecting or with the potential 

to affect the quality of the natural and built environment. 

Environmental effects can be both positive (beneficial) or 

negative (adverse).

About the DEIS

What’s in the DEIS?

 Information on the purpose of and need for the project; 

 The reasonable alternatives considered; 

 A description of the alternatives evaluated in detail in the 

DEIS: 

• the No-Action Alternative

• 3 alignment alternatives for the proposed rail corridor. 

A preferred alternative has not been identified at this time.

 An evaluation of the environmental consequences of the 

proposed project:

• Transportation

• Navigation

• Air Quality 

• Noise and Vibration

• Natural Resources

• Cultural Resources

• Social and Economic 

Environment

• Cumulative Impacts 

 Measures required to mitigate for environmental impacts
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

FRA consults with the public and 

agencies to identify issues to be 

evaluated in the Draft EIS

Completed in May 2013

FRA evaluates the environmental 

consequences of the proposed project

FRA issues a Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for public review 

and comment

FRA evaluates public and agency 

comments, identifies additional 

studies or information needed to 

evaluate the project, and prepares 

responses to comments

FRA issues a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision

The NEPA Environmental Impact Statement Process

SCOPING DRAFT EIS FINAL EIS AND ROD
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

As identified by AAF, the purpose of the Project is to provide 

reliable and convenient intercity passenger rail transportation 

between Orlando and Miami, Florida, by extending (Phase II) 

the previously reviewed Phase I AAF passenger rail service 

between West Palm Beach and Miami and by maximizing the 

use of existing transportation corridors.

AAF’s two primary goals are to: 

 Provide a reliable and convenient intercity rail service 

between Orlando and Miami with an approximate 

3-hour trip time between the terminal stations; and

 Provide an intercity rail service that is sustainable as 

a private commercial enterprise. Sustainable means 

that the rail service can attract sufficient riders to meet 

revenue projections and operate at an acceptable 

profit level.

Project Purpose
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

!(

!(

!(

!(

Orlando

Cocoa

Melbourne

Fort Pierce

Stuart

West Palm Beach

Fort Lauderdale

Miami

(/1

(/1

o

MCO

§ ̈¦4

§ ̈¦75

§ ̈¦95

UV528 UV520

UV417

UV520

POLK

COLLIER

LEE

PALM BEACH

OSCEOLA

HENDRY

GLADES

BROWARD

ORANGE

HIGHLANDS

LAKE

MARTIN

BREVARD

MIAMI-DADE

HARDEE

DESOTO

ST LUCIE OKEECHOBEE

CHARLOTTE

INDIAN RIVER

MONROE

SEMINOLE VOLUSIA

Explanation of Features

Phase I

WPB-M Corridor

Phase II

MCO Segment

E-W Corridor

N-S Corridor

!( Proposed Stations - WPB-M Corridor

!( Proposed Station (By Others)

Interstate Highways

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 2013

0 10 20 Miles

 ̄

Phase I and Phase II Project Location
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

FRA finding: 

Phase I has independent utility (that is, it could be advanced and 

serve a transportation need even if Phase II were not constructed). 

FRA has made no decision under the Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing (RRIF) program as to whether a loan would 

be provided for Phase I. 

Since the EA:

 Fort Lauderdale Station relocated – FRA conducted 

re-evaluation

 Vehicle Maintenance Facility relocated from Fort Lauderdale 

to West Palm Beach – Supplemental EA currently available 

for public review and comment (www.fra.dot.gov)

About Phase I

Phase I includes:

 Rail service between West Palm Beach and Miami

 Three new stations (West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale 

and Miami)

 Purchasing five train sets

 Adding a second track along most of the 66.5-mile corridor

 16 new round-trip intercity passenger train trips 

(32 one-way trips)

 AAF has obtained private financing and is proceeding to 

implement Phase I

The environmental review was completed in 2012/2013

 Environmental Assessment (EA) and Section 4(f) Evaluation 

for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm 

Beach to Miami, Florida)

 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) issued
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 New vehicle maintenance facility 

south of the Orlando International 

Airport

 New station at the Airport’s South 

Terminal Intermodal Facility 

(constructed by the Airport Authority 

and previously reviewed by FAA 

under NEPA)

What Phase II Includes

 New railroad corridor south of SR 528 

from the Airport to Cocoa 

35 miles

125 mph operations

0 new grade crossings

5 new bridges over waterways

 Upgrade track and railroad 

infrastructure from Cocoa to 

West Palm Beach Station

128.5 miles

110 mph (max) operations

159 existing grade crossings

18 replaced bridges over waterways

 Replace 7 bridges over waterways 

between West Palm Beach and Miami

 32 trains per day (16 round trips)

 3.5 million riders per year (2019)

1.5 million between Orlando 

and SE Florida

2 million between West Palm 

Beach and Miami

 9,500 riders per day
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

![![

![

![

![

![

![

![![![![

![

![

![

![

![

![

![

![![

![

![

![ ![ ![![

BOYTON BEACH CANAL

UNNAMED CREEK

MOORE'S CREEK

SOUTH CANAL

NORTH CANAL

GOAT CREEK

HORSE CREEK

EAU GALLIE RIVER CRANE CREEK

TURKEY CREEK

SEBASTIAN RIVER

ST. LUCIE RIVER

LOXAHATCHEE RIVER

OLETA RIVER

S. FORK OF

MIDDLE RIVER

N. FORK OF

MIDDLE RIVER

HILLSBORO

CANAL

ARCH CREEK

BOGGY

CREEK

ECONLOCKHATCHEE

RIVER ST. JOHNS

RIVER

TAYLOR

CREEK

SECOND

CREEK

CANAL C 51

EARMAN

RIVER

MAIN CANAL

HIGHLANDS

LAKE

LEE

BREVARD

BROWARD

CHARLOTTE GLADES

HARDEE

HENDRY

MARION

INDIAN

RIVER

MARTIN

MIAMI-DADE

MONROE

COLLIER

DESOTO

VOLUSIA

OKEECHOBEE

ORANGE

POLK

OSCEOLA

PALM

BEACH

SEMINOLE

ST LUCIE

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,

swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Bridge Project Areas

![

![

![

![

UNNAMED

TRIBUTARY 2

UNNAMED

TRIBUTARY 1

TRIBUTARY

TO MANATEE

CREEK 2

TRIBUTARY

TO MANATEE

CREEK 1

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,

i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,

CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,

AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,

IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User

Community

Þ See Inset

Explanation of Features

![ Existing Bridges

![ Proposed Bridges

MCO Segment

E-W Corridor Extension

N-S Corridor Extension

 ̄ Data Sources: ESRI Bing Maps 2012 Imagery, FRA 2012, AMEC 2013

0 10 20 Miles

WBP-M Corridor

Existing and Proposed Bridges over Waterways
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

All Abd FlidItitPRil Pjt

Screening Alternatives

Level 1

Route

Alternatives

CSX Route

Level 2

Connection

Alternatives

Level 3

E-W Corridor

Alignment

Alternative

DEIS

Alternatives

Level 2A

Route 407

Alternative

Level 3A

Alignment

Option

Alternative A

FECR Route

Level 2B

Cocoa Curve

Alternative

Level 3C

Alignment

Option

Alternative C

Florida Turnpike 

Route

Level 2B

GOAA South Loop

Alternative

Level 3D

Alignment

Option

I-95 Route

Level 2C

Melbourne

Alternative

Level 3E

Alignment

Option

Alternative E

PROCESS ALTERNATIVES

FRA Evaluated:

 4 North-South Corridor route alternatives

• FECR Railway Corridor selected

 4 Connection Alternatives to connect 

the north-south corridor with the 

Orlando Airport

• East-West Corridor – Cocoa Curve 

Alternative selected

 5 East-West Corridor Alignment 

Alternatives

• Alignment Alternatives A, C, E 

carried forward

Alternatives Screening Process

Alternatives Evaluated but Dismissed
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Orlando

Cocoa

Melbourne

1

417

520

95

1

95

Explanation of Features

E-W and N-S Corridor Connection Alternatives

!(

!(

!(

Orlando !( Cocoa

Melbourne

Fort Pierce

Stuart

West Palm Beach

Fort Lauderdale

Miami

(/1

(/1

o

MCO

§ ̈¦4

UV528 UV520

UV417

UV520

POLK

COLLIER

LEE

PALM BEACH

OSCEOLA

HENDRY

GLADES

BROWARD

ORANGE

HIGHLANDS

LAKE

MARTIN

BREVARD

MIAMI-DADE

HARDEE

DESOTO

ST LUCIE OKEECHOBEE

CHARLOTTE

INDIAN RIVER

MONROE

SEMINOLE VOLUSIA

N-S Corridor Alternatives

 ̄ 0 5 10 Miles

Explanation of Features

FEC Corridor

CSX Corridor

Florida's Turnpike Corridor

I-95 Corridor

!( Proposed Station (By Others)

!( Proposed Stations - AAF South Projec

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 20

o

Cocoa

Melbourne

1

520

95

1

95

E-W and N-S Corridor Connection Alternatives

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\EIS\E-W and N-S Corridor Connection Alternatives.mxd Project # 6063-12-0212

0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

3.2-4

Orlando

Cocoa

Melbourne

1

417

520

95

1

95

Data Sources: 2012 ESRI, AAF 2012, AMEC 2012

Explanation of Features

N-S Corridor

Alternative 1A

Alternative 1B

E-W Corridor

GOAA South Loop

Melbourne South Loop

MCO Corridor

E-W and N-S Corridor Connection Alternatives

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\EIS\E-W and N-S Corridor Connection Alternatives.mxd Project # 6063-12-0212

0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

3.2-4

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 2013

Orlando

Cocoa

Melbourne

Fort Pierce

Stuart

West Palm Beach

Fort Lauderdale

Miami

1

1

LAKE

CITRUS

SEMINOLE

SUMTER

HERNANDO

HIGHLANDS

HILLSBOROUGH

LAKE

LEE

MANATEE

BREVARD

BROWARD

CHARLOTTE

GLADES

HARDEE

HENDRY

INDIANRIVER

MARTIN

MIAMI-DADE

MONROE

COLLIER

DESOTO

OKEECHOBEE

ORANGE

POLK

OSCEOLA

PALMBEACH

PASCO

STLUCIE

SUMTER

0 5 10

Miles

Explanation of Features

FEC Corridor

Tri-Rail

CSX Corridor

Turnpike Corridor

I-95 Corridor

All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project

N-S Corridor Alternatives

Path: F:\FECI\FECI_GDB\MXD\EIS\N-S Corridor Alternatives.mxd

0 10 20 Miles

3.2-5

Orlando !( Cocoa

Melbourne

(/1

o

MCO

§ ̈¦4

UV528 UV520

UV417

UV520

POLK

OSCEOLA

ORANGE

LAKE

BREVARD

SEMINOLE VOLUSIA

Explanation of Features

FEC Corridor

CSX Corridor

Florida's Turnpike Corridor

I-95 Corridor

!( Proposed Station (By Others)

!( Proposed Stations - AAF South Project

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 2013

E-W and N-S Corridor Connection Alternatives N-S Corridor Alternatives
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative C

 Same as Alternative A except: new track parallel to SR 528 

between SR 417 and SR 520 would be along the edge of the 

right-of-way

Alternative E

 Same as Alternative A except: new track parallel to SR 528 

between SR 417 and SR 520 would be outside of the current 

right-of-way. OOCEA would purchase additional 

right-of-way to accommodate future highway improvements 

and the railroad.

Alternative A

 Vehicle Maintenance Facility at the Orlando Airport

 New track through the airport

 New station at the Orlando Airport Intermodal Facility

 New track parallel to SR 528 to Cocoa (within SR 528 rightof-way, leased from Orlando-Orange County Expressway 

Authority [OOCEA] and Florida DOT) – no new at-grade 

roadway crossings

 Upgrade existing FECR freight rail infrastructure from Cocoa 

to West Palm Beach

• Second Track

• Upgrade signals and crossing equipment

• Replace or reconstruct bridges to accommodate 2nd track

Alternatives Evaluated in the DEIS
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

!(

!(

!(

!(

Y

Y

Y

Orlando

Cocoa

Melbourne

Fort Pierce

Stuart

West Palm Beach

Fort Lauderdale

Miami

(/1

(/1

Y

MCO

UV528 UV520

UV417

UV520

POLK

COLLIER

LEE

PALM BEACH

OSCEOLA

HENDRY

GLADES

BROWARD

ORANGE

HIGHLANDS

LAKE

MARTIN

BREVARD

MIAMI-DADE

HARDEE

DESOTO

ST LUCIE OKEECHOBEE

CHARLOTTE

INDIAN RIVER

MONROE

SEMINOLE VOLUSIA

PBI

FLL

MIA

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, FRA 2012, FGDL 2012, AMEC 2013

0 10 20 Miles

 ̄

Explanation of Features

N-S Segment

SR 528 Corridor

WPB_M Corridor

MCO Segment

Y Major Airports

!( Proposed Stations - WPB-M Corridor

!( Proposed Station (By Others)

Alternative A
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

E-W Corridor Alignment Alternatives A, C, and E MATCHLINE

622

0

648

5

OOCEA Section of the E-W Corridor,

Explanation of Features

M

AT

C

H

L

NI E

538

5

5385

ECONLOCKHATCHEE RIVER

HAYES ST

MATCHLINE

MATCHLINE 6220

5805

Second Creek

Jim

Creek

OOCEA Section

OOCEA Section

OOCEA Section FDOT Section

Narcoossee Rd

Central Florida Grnwy

S Goldenrod Rd

Aerospace Pkwy

Monument Pkwy

Dallas Blvd

Bancroft Blvd

Edgerton

Ave

Semoran Blvd

Long Bluff Rd

Narcoossee Rd

Central Florida Grnwy

S Goldenrod Rd

Aerospace Pkwy

Monument Pkwy

Dallas Blvd

Bancroft Blvd

Edgerton

Ave

Semoran Blvd

Long Bluff Rd

MATCHLINE

622

0

Data Sources: ESRI 2012, NWI 2012, AMEC 2013

Explanation of Features

5385

HAYES ST

MATCHLINE

5805

E-W Corridor - Alternative A

E-W Corridor - Alternative C

E-W Corridor - Alternative E

MCO Segment

OOCEA Secti

S Goldenrod Rd

Aerospace Pkwy

Monument Pkwy

Semoran Blvd

S Goldenrod Rd

Aerospace Pkwy

Monument Pkwy

Semoran Blvd
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

$

Impacts to Navigation 

Noise and Vibration

Rare Species

Traffic and Safety (Grade Crossings)

Wetlands

Air Quality

Cultural Resources

Economic Impacts

Impacts to Environmental 

The DEIS includes evaluation of 22 environmental categories.

The major environmental topics are:

Justice Populations
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Air Quality

The analysis evaluated emission of pollutants from trains vs. reductions in pollution accomplished by 

removing cars from the highways.

Remove Vehicle Trips, Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled

2016 2019 2030

Daily Vehicle Trips Removed 344 1,214 1,453

Annual Vehicle Trips Removed 125,560 443,110 530,345

Annual VMT Reductions 42,313,720 149,328,070 178,726,265

Reduce Annual Emissions

POLLUTANT EMISSION REDUCTION 

(TONS/YEAR)

Carbon Monoxide 1,653.8

Nitrogen Oxides 192.4

Volatile Organic Compounds 58.9

Particulate Matter 6.9

FINDING: The Project will improve regional air quality.
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

There are many cultural resources along the project corridor, 

including the Florida East Coast Railroad itself. The project will have 

unavoidable adverse effects to 2 historic resources:

 Demolish and replace the St. Sebastian River bridge with a 

new 2-track structure

 Demolish and replace the Eau Gallie River bridge with a new 

2-track structure

These two structures cannot be rehabilitated to support 2 tracks 

and trains operating at the proposed speeds. Before demolition, AAF 

will survey and photograph the bridges to permanently record their 

structure.

Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources include historic properties, historic districts, and 

archaeological resources.

Cultural Resources are regulated under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. As required by Section 106, FRA has 

identified all cultural resources potentially affected by the project, 

determined if there are any adverse effects, and taken measures 

to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for such effects. FRA consulted with 

the State Historic Preservation Officer, who concurred with FRA’s 

findings.
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Economic Impacts

Summary of Economic Benefits of AAF Construction and Operations

CONSTRUCTION

OPERATIONS

AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTAL (2016-2021)

Jobs Over 10,000 1,603 1,603

Labor Income $1.2 Billion $75 Million $442 Million

Gross Domestic Product $1.7 Billion $105 Million $619 Million

Total Economic Value $3.4 Billion $150 Million $887 Million

Federal State and Local Taxes $291 Million $21 Million $126 Million

FINDING: The Project will provide economic benefits.
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Adding passenger trains would not result in adverse noise 

impacts. Potential impacts resulting from changes to noise in 

environmental justice communities would not be appreciably 

more severe or greater in magnitude than the impacts 

experienced by non-environmental justice communities.

Although the Project would result in vibration impacts 

within environmental justice communities, there would 

be no disproportionate adverse impacts from vibration in 

environmental justice communities with the implementation of 

required mitigation measures.

Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Population and Low-Income Populations requires 

that federal agencies consider whether a Project would have a 

disproportionately high adverse impact on minority or low-income 

populations. 

The Project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts to minority or low-income populations. There would be no 

adverse impacts to environmental justice communities resulting from:

 residential displacement

 job loss

 neighborhood fragmentation 

Environmental Justice Populations

FINDING: The Project will not result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority FINDING: or low-income populations.
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

“

”

The DEIS evaluates the effects of the project on navigation in 

waterways subject to the Coast Guard’s jurisdiction. These include 

the effects of new fixed bridges, replacing fixed bridges and the 

effects of increased train traffic across the three moveable bridges: 

 St. Lucie River (Martin County)

 Loxahatchee (Jupiter Inlet) River (Palm Beach County)

 New River (Broward County)

The Coast Guard issues permits for new or replacement bridges, 

and governs the operations of moveable bridges through 

regulations specific to each bridge. The US Coast Guard has 

informed FRA that: 

the Coast Guard, in making a permit decision, must preserve the 

public right of navigation while maintaining a reasonable balance 

between competing land and waterborne transportation needs. 

We do so by taking a balanced approach to total transportation 

systems, both land and water modes, in all bridge actions. While 

information on the impacts on navigation received from the 

Navigation

applicant will be analyzed, the Coast Guard will make the ultimate 

determination as to whether or not the impacts on navigation are 

unreasonable.

Additional study will be needed to determine the reasonable 

needs of navigation on these three waterways in the vicinity of the 

drawbridges...The Coast Guard still must make a determination 

as to the prospective impacts on navigation in the vicinity of the 

three drawbridges ...and the DEIS will be used to inform that Coast 

Guard determination.

If the Coast Guard determines that the proposed AAF operating 

schedule unreasonably impacts navigation on the New River, 

Loxahatchee River, and St. Lucie Rivers, it may be necessary for 

the Coast Guard to amend existing bridge regulations and require 

modifications to those bridge operations so that navigation is not 

unreasonably burdened.
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The navigation analysis compared the number 

and duration of bridge closures for the future 

No-Action condition (20 freight trains per day, 

traveling at an average speed of 23-33 mph) to 

the future Project condition:

 20 freights a day traveling at an 

average speed of 36-39 mph due to the 

improved track infrastructure

 32 passenger trains per day traveling at 

61-77 mph across each bridge

 The operating schedules for freight and 

passenger trains have been developed 

to minimize the number of bridge 

closures.

A simulation analysis was conducted to 

model the effects of bridge closures on vessel 

passage, wait times, and queues. 

Navigation

Moveable Bridge Closures

YEAR AVERAGE NUMBER OF 

DAILY CLOSURES

AVERAGE SINGLE 

WEEKLY CLOSURE 

TIME (MINUTES)

AVERAGE OF TOTAL 

WEEKDAY CLOSURE 

TIME (MINUTES)

AVERAGE OF TOTAL 

WEEKDAY CLOSURE 

TIME (HOURS)

AVERAGE OF TOTAL 

WEEKEND CLOSURE 

TIME (MINUTES)

AVERAGE OF TOTAL 

WEEKEND CLOSURE 

TIME (HOURS)

St Lucie River Bridge

2016 No-Action 18 20 397 6.6 213 3.6

2016 Project 42 15 588 9.8 458 7.6

Loxahatchee River Bridge (Jupiter Inlet)

2016 No-Action 16 20 351 5.8 216 3.6

2016 Project 42 12 515 8.6 434 7.2

New River Bridge

2016 No-Action 16 19 360 6.0 197 3.3

2016 Project 30 13 414 6.9 314 5.2

Average Wait Times

BRIDGE COMMERCIAL VESSELS RECREATIONAL VESSELS

Total Number 

of Vessels No-Action With Project Total Numberof Vessels No-Action With Project

St Lucie River 9 1.8 min 3.7 min 148 1.4 min 3.4 min

Loxahatchee River 4 1.2 min 2.4 min 116 1.2 min 2.2 min

New River 49 2.1 min 2.6 min 165 1.7 min 2.1 min
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The analysis concluded that there would be no significant effect on mariner’s use of the St Lucie, Loxahatchee or New Rivers as a result of increased 

bridge closures. The primary economic effects are increased costs of fuel as a result of increased wait times. 

Economic Effects on the Marine Industry

Average Costs of Delay

BRIDGE

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE WITH PROJECT

COST PER DAY CHANGE AVERAGE NUMBER OF 

VESSELS THAT WAIT COST PER DAY AVERAGE NUMBER OF VESSELS THAT WAIT COST PER DAY

St Lucie River

Commercial 2 $26 4 $56 $30

Recreational 21 $341 165 $832 $491

Loxahatchee River

Commercial 1 $9 2 $18 $9

Recreational 15 $241 45 $440 $199

New River

Commercial 14 $196 20 $239 $43

Recreational 35 $493 56 $611 $118

FINDING: The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the marine industry.
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

 Develop coordination plans between AAF and local 

authorities during peak vessel travel times on holidays and 

major public events. 

 Develop a coordination plan between AAF and the USCG to 

communicate bridge operating schedules to the commercial 

and recreational boating communities through the USCG, 

local marinas, and on the official scheduling website.

 Install a bridge tender at the New River Bridge.

 Develop a set schedule for the down times of each bridge for 

passenger rail service. 

 Provide public access to the bridge closure schedules in an 

internet accessible format updated daily with anticipated 

crossing times for each bridge. 

 Implement a notification sign/signal/horn at each bridge 

location with countdowns to indicate the times at which the 

bridge will begin to close and open. 

 Develop formal contact with first responders and 

emergency personnel to ensure that emergency personnel 

can coordinate with the dispatch center when access is 

necessary to respond to waterway emergencies.

Improvements at moveable bridges will help mariners plan 

their trips and avoid delays
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

stationary wayside horns at grade crossings, replacing 

locomotive-mounted horns, to minimize noise impacts. 

AAF is also supporting the efforts of local communities 

that would like to create quiet zones as an alternate 

noise abatement measure to wayside horns in 

accordance with FRA’s Train Horn Rule.

Many residents along the corridor will experience 

temporary construction noise impacts. AAF has 

committed to mitigate the adverse impacts of 

construction noise by a range of measures including 

time of construction, modifications to construction 

equipment, and selection of construction routes.

Noise is caused by:

• train pass-by 

• horns/whistles sounded by trains 

as they approach grade crossings 

Noise levels vary with the distance to the track or 

grade crossing, and with train speeds. Noise levels are 

calculated to average noise over time (the number of 

trains), with factors that give more weight to 

night-time noise. 

The Project is anticipated to result in 4 severe and 

105 moderate noise impacts to residential and 

institutional receptors. The Project includes the use of 

Noise
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

barriers, and/or alternative safety measures like programmed 

enforcement, engineering improvements and public education. 

Advance warning signs advising drivers that trains do not sound 

their horns at the upcoming crossing must be installed.

According to Federal Statute Title 49, Part 222.37 and 222.39, the 

applicant (public agency) seeking to establish the quiet zone is 

responsible for the cost of installation, maintenance and upkeep for 

the extra safety devices. A railroad cannot apply because it does not 

have authority over the roadway. Thus, the railroad does not bear 

the cost to improve the crossing. A railroad does not require a quiet 

zone to operate safely.

AAF is committed to working with all local governments as they 

proceed through the official FRA quiet zone process.

Stakeholders in the communities along the N-S Corridor are 

considering the institution of quiet zones (which prohibit horns 

to be sounded in specified areas) at certain at-grade crossings. 

This involves instituting alternate safety measures such as fourquadrant gates and non-mountable median dividers. In addition, 

supplementary safety measures must be installed and a risk 

analysis must be prepared to demonstrate that safety would not be 

compromised by eliminating train horns in the area receiving “quiet 

zone” designation. 

Under the federal rule, only the entity with jurisdiction over the road 

(public agency) that crosses the track can apply for a quiet zone. 

This includes all municipalities, counties and special districts. Each 

crossing has different characteristics (e.g. vehicular and pedestrian 

traffic) so the safety measures required vary. These measures can 

include physical barriers, like four-quadrant gates and/or median 

A Note on Quiet Zones
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Vibration is caused by train pass-by, 

and varies with the distance to the 

track and with train speeds. 

Vibration

The Project would also result in vibration impacts to 

3,978 receptors, but at levels that would not result in 

structural damage. 

Vibration impacts (including those within environmental 

justice communities) would be minimized by stringent 

wheel and rail maintenance measures, and would 

be mitigated using ballast mats beneath rail lines, 

and “frogs” at selected switch locations with nearby 

sensitive receptors. Special pile-driving methods 

at selected locations near sensitive receptors will 

minimize vibration impacts during construction.
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

US Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration-National Marine Fisheries 

Service have found that the project would 

have no adverse effect on federally-listed 

species. Additional field surveys within 

the construction footprint of the selected 

alternative will be done to confirm that 

no listed species are present. AAF will 

implement specific construction mitigation 

protocols to protect listed species.

The project is within or near habitat for 

sensitive species, including animals and 

plants that are protected under either 

federal or state laws, including: 

American alligator

Audubon’s crested caracara

Bald eagle

Eastern indigo snake

Florida scrub-jay

Gopher tortoise

Red-cockaded woodpecker

West Indian manatee

Wood stork

Rare Species
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

For freight trains (average length 8,150 feet and average speed 

approximately 51 mph), a single train crossing results in an average 

crossing closure of 155 seconds (ranging from 147 to 170 seconds) 

or 2.6 minutes. 

For passenger trains (average length 725 to 900 feet and average 

speed 93 mph), a single train crossing results in an average 

crossing closure of 51 seconds.

The Project will increase the number of times that each at-grade 

crossing is closed to traffic, but closures from passenger trains 

would be much shorter than closures from existing freight traffic. 

On average, an at-grade crossing requires 30 secondsto 

activate and close the gates, and 15 seconds to bring the gate 

back up. 

Traffic and Grade Crossings

At-grade Crossing Closures (2019)

COUNTY NUMBER OF AT-GRADE 

CROSSINGS

FREIGHT PASSENGER FREIGHT + PASSENGER

NUMBER OF 

TRAINS/DAY TRAIN SPEED (MPH) MAXIMUM CLOSURE (MIN/HR)

NUMBER OF 

TRAINS/DAY TRAIN SPEED (MPH) MINIMUM CLOSURE (MIN/HR)

MAXIMUM CLOSURE 

(MIN/HR)

Brevard 55 22 53.8 2.5 32 98.1 1.7 4.2

Indian River 30 22 54.2 2.5 32 106.6 1.7 4.2

St Lucie 20 22 47.8 2.7 32 92.6 1.7 4.2

Martin 25 22 44.4 2.8 32 79.5 1.7 4.2

Palm Beach 26 22 54.3 2.5 32 89.2 1.7 4.2
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 CFR 320-

332) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material 

into waters of the United States, including jurisdictional 

wetlands. CWA compliance requires a sequential 

evaluation process which includes verification that all 

jurisdictional wetland impacts have been avoided to 

the greatest extent practicable, unavoidable impacts 

have been minimized to the greatest extent practicable, 

and unavoidable impacts have been mitigated in the 

form of wetlands creation, restoration, enhancement or 

preservation. 

AAF has submitted its application for Section 404 

authorization to USACE. USACE will complete its Section 

404(b)(1) Guidelines analysis and public interest review in 

its record of decision following publication of the Final EIS.

Wetlands and Aquatic Resources

Total Direct Aquatic Resources Effects Resulting from Each Alternative (acres)

DESCRIPTION A B C

Streams and Waterways 7.5 3.6 3.6

Marshy Lake 0.5 0.5 0.5

Reservoirs 8.7 2.4 1.7

Wetland Hardwood Forest 0.4 0.4 0.4

Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 34.1 39.1 37.4

Willow and Elderberry 1.2 1.8 1.5

Cypress 10.8 27.2 24.9

Hydric Pine Flatwoods 2.4 2.8 6.7

Wetland Forested Mixed 24.3 26.9 28.2

Vegetated Non-Forested Wetland <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Freshwater Marsh 12.5 16.1 13.9

Wet Prairie 4.8 11.0 7.7

Treeless Hydric Savannah 23.5 33.1 30.9

Total Direct Effects 130.7 164.9 157.5
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Mitigation Measures

Project Mitigation Measures for Unavoidable Impacts – Operational Period

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE MITIGATION MEASURE

Traffic and Grade Crossings

• Work with State and local traffic officials to adjust traffic signal timing as needed in Project Area.

• Implement or fund grade crossing safety enhancements identified in the Diagnostic Team Report.

Noise and Vibration

• Install noise barriers along the E-W Corridor where effective in reducing noise impacts near elevated structures.

• Maintain train wheels and rails to minimize vibration.

• Install pole-mounted horns at grade crossings.

Water

• Implement stormwater treatment BMPs (surface infiltration through swales, ditches, and over-land flow; installation of underground French 

drain systems; deep injection wells to drain water via gravity or pumping; and/or wet detention and retention ponds).

Navigation

• Manage train schedules to minimize bridge closures.

• Provide marine industry with bridge closure schedules to facilitate planning by boaters.

• Develop a set schedule for the down times of each bridge location. This schedule will include both freight and passenger rail service. 

• Provide that schedule of bridge closures in an internet-accessible format to offer the public with access to that information, including the 

boating community and marinas. This will be posted on the AAF website and/or the US Coast Guard website. 

• Implement a notification sign/signal at each bridge location with warning count downs to indicate the times at which the bridge will begin 

to close and open and how long before a train will arrive. 

• Develop formal contact with first responders and emergency personnel.

• Develop coordination plans between AAF and local authorities during peak vessel travel times on holidays and major public events.

• Install a bridge tender at the New River Bridge.

Wetlands • Purchase in-kind credits from state and federally-approved mitigation banks.

Biological Resources and Natural Ecological 

Systems

• Develop designs to provide wildlife passage under bridges and through culverts in critical areas.

• Install wildlife crossing within the Tosohatchee Wildlife Management Area. 

• Revegetate cleared areas when required by standard BMPs and applicable laws.

Essential Fish Habitat • May include purchase of federally-approved mitigation bank credits.
All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The DEIS is available at area libraries and on the FRA’s website (www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0672). 

Comments on the DEIS must be submitted to the FRA by December 3, 2014. 

There are 4 ways that you can comment:

 Written comments may be submitted tonight, in the boxes provided

 Comments may be made orally at this meeting (to the court recorder)

 Written comments may be mailed to:

Mr. John Winkle

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Room W38-311

Washington, DC 20590

 Written comments may be emailed to: AAF_comments@vhb.com

We appreciate your comments!

HOW TO COMMENT