SUMMARY AND COMMITMENTS 

S.1 INTRODUCTION 

The potential for high speed rail to address a portion of the transportation needs of the State of

Florida has a long history. The current effort to evaluate high speed rail’s potential was initiated 

following an enactment by Florida’s voters. In November 2000, Florida’s voters adopted an

amendment to the Constitution of the State of Florida that mandated the construction of a high

speed transportation system in the state. The amendment required the use of train technologies 

that operate at speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour (mph) and consist of dedicated rails or

guideways separated from motor vehicle traffic. The system was to link the five largest urban 

areas of Florida and construction was mandated to begin by November 1, 2003, to address a high

speed ground transportation system. 

The purpose of Article 10, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of Florida was, “to reduce

traffic congestion and provide alternatives to the traveling public.” In June 2001, the Florida 

State Legislature, through the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act, created the Florida High

Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA) and charged the organization with the responsibility for 

planning, administering, and implementing a high speed rail system in Florida. The act also

mandated that the initial segment of the system be developed and operated between

St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Orlando areas with future service to the Miami area. 

Following its creation in 2001, the FHSRA proceeded to implement the responsibilities set forth

in the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act. The FHSRA’s proposal included the provision of 

high speed rail passenger service between downtown Tampa and Orlando International Airport. 

This project, while viewed by FHSRA as the first phase of the eventual achievement of the

constitutional goal, has independent utility, in that it serves as an important transportation 

purpose in its own right and its implementation is not dependent upon future actions that may or 

may not be taken to expand high speed rail service beyond this project’s limits. The FHSRA,

with guidance from the federal lead agency, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),

undertook a number of other actions to advance the high speed rail system, which are discussed

in greater detail in Section 2, including preparation and issuance of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) in August 2003 that preceded this Final EIS. 

The FHSRA envisions possible future federal financial support for the project that might be 

provided through the FRA. While FRA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)

have several loan and loan guarantee programs that might be potential sources of future financial

assistance, there are currently no existing grant or federal bond financing programs that would 

support the type of financial involvement envisioned by FHSRA. Several proposals to create 

such programs, however, are currently pending before Congress. The FRA may also have

certain regulatory responsibilities, with respect to the project, which are consistent with its

statutory railroad safety oversight activities. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are cooperating agencies for this document. 

 S-1

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
On November 2, 2004, Florida voters repealed the amendment to the Constitution of the State of

Florida in its entirety resulting in removal of the constitutional mandate for a high speed rail 

system. This action, however, did not affect the legislative mandate for the FHSRA and the

Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act remains in effect pending any action that the Florida 

Legislature may choose to take. The future of the proposed high speed rail system in Florida is

thus uncertain. Notwithstanding this uncertainty, the FHSRA continues to believe that high

speed rail can serve an important transportation purpose. FHSRA has also determined, and the

FRA agrees, that it is in the best interest of the State of Florida to complete and issue this Final

EIS. Considerable resources have been invested in bringing the document to this late stage of

development and completing the environmental impact assessment process through issuance of a 

Final EIS has significant value, even if no further action is taken at this time to advance the

proposed system. 

S.2 PROPOSED ACTION

In developing its program, the FHSRA established, at a minimum, that the Tampa to Orlando

high speed passenger rail system would operate 12 round trips per day, seven days a week, 

between 6 AM and 8 PM and reach a speed of 120 mph. The trains would accommodate up to 

250 passengers with a maximum travel time of 1 hour and 10 minutes between Tampa and

Orlando. 

The 95-mile (mi.) Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) project proposed by the FHSRA would be 

developed on new track, with the great majority of the system located within the existing rightof-way (ROW) of Interstate 4 (I-4), Interstate 75 (I-75), the Florida’s Turnpike Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528), the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) Central 

Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), and the CSX railroad. Figure S-1 presents the project area,

including study Corridors A through E. 

In its 2002 Report to the Florida Legislature, the FHSRA found that a traditional design-bidbuild approach to the legislative mandate would not meet the aggressive November 2003

construction date or the directive to maximize private/public investment in high speed rail. The

FHSRA concluded that the legislative directives could be more reasonably achieved by

incorporating the Design, Build, Operate, Maintain, and Finance (DBOM&F) process. The

FHSRA solicited proposals for a DBOM&F approach to build a high speed ground

transportation system between Tampa and Orlando. The FHSRA found that two proposals were

responsive and were to be evaluated as design/build alternatives. 

S.3 THE PURPOSE AND NEED

 

S-2

The purpose of the proposed project is to enhance intercity passenger mobility between Tampa

and Orlando by expanding passenger transportation capacity and providing an alternative to 

highway and air travel. This mobility is viewed as essential for the sustained economic growth 

of the region, as well as the quality of life of the region’s residents and visitors. Presently,

passenger mobility in the Tampa-Orlando corridor is provided primarily by highway, in 

particular by I-4. Transportation demand and travel growth, as prompted by social demand and

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 

 S-3

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

economic development and compared to existing and future roadway capacity, show a serious 

deficit in available capacity. In addition, increasing population, employment, and tourism rates 

continue to elevate travel demand in the study corridor, as documented by forecasts prepared by 

the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 

The Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) is already operating at or near capacity during an 

extended peak hour period of each day, and although capacity improvements to the interstate 

system along the corridor are either currently underway or planned for the near future, they are 

considered interim, “first phase” improvements. Ultimately, additional capacity improvements 

are needed to accommodate the future travel demand and are not currently programmed. The 

need for these improvements is further accentuated by increasing traffic volumes, congestion, 

and accident rates within the study corridor. 

In 1991, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) established a limit of ten lanes (five 

lanes in either direction) at any location on the FIHS. The three Master Plans governing I-4 

within the project area were all adopted under this policy. Interim construction and ultimate 

ROW acquisitions are to maintain consistency with these Master Plans. The Master Plans also 

identify an envelope in the median for High Occupancy Vehicles or Light Rail Transit. Further, 

the 2002 “Development of the Florida Intrastate Highway System” (FDOT Procedure 525-030-

250-f) and the 2003 “The Florida Intrastate Highway System Program Development Procedure” 

(FDOT Procedure 525-030-255-c) set up specific criteria for widening all roads on the FIHS. 

These procedures were developed based on year 2000 legislation (Section 335.02(3) F.S.), which 

establishes criteria that must be considered when determining the number of lanes on the FIHS. 

The procedure notes: 

Nothing in Section 335.02 (3) F.S. precludes a number of lanes in excess of 

10 lanes. However, before the Department may determine the number of lanes 

should be more than ten, the availability of ROW, and the capacity to 

accommodate other modes of transportation within the existing rights of way 

must be considered. 

This criterion also requires consideration of multi-modal alternatives and the consideration of 

local comprehensive plans and approved metropolitan long range transportation plans (LRTP). 

This requirement addresses the need for alternative transportation choices for those individuals 

who cannot, or choose not, to drive and those travelers looking for alternatives to congested 

highways. 

S.4 BACKGROUND 

High speed rail service, as a transportation option in Florida, specifically in the Tampa to 

Orlando corridor, has been the subject of multiple studies and actions by the Florida State 

Legislature, the state’s executive branch, and the electorate. The Florida State Legislature passed 

its first legislation supporting high speed rail in 1986 with the Florida High Speed Rail 

Transportation Commission Act, which initiated a number of proposals between 1986 and 1991, 

but none were implemented due to lack of public funds. The 1992 New High Speed Rail Act

spawned several additional studies that evaluated the feasibility of a network of high speed rail 
corridors connecting major cities in the state. These studies culminated in the Florida Overland

eXpress (FOX) study in 1996 and began the environmental review for a high speed rail 

connection between the Tampa Bay region, Orlando, and Miami. This EIS benefits from data 

collection and baseline environmental studies undertaken as part of these prior projects. 

While the state terminated the FOX study due to lack of funds, legislative interest in high speed

passenger rail continued. The legislature authorized the Cross-State Rail Feasibility Study in 

2000, which recommended that an initial operating segment between downtown Tampa and

Orlando International Airport should be built, followed by the addition of connections to 

St. Petersburg on the west coast and Port Canaveral on the east coast. The study further

identified the need for alternative financing scenarios to build and operate the system. 

Florida voters approved the Constitutional Amendment on High Speed Rail in the November

2000 election, and in 2001, the Florida State Legislature enacted the Florida High Speed Rail

Authority Act. The Florida State Legislature identified the initial study segments to link the

major urban areas of St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Orlando, and in accordance with the 

Amendment, mandated FHSR construction by November 2003. Although the amendment was 

repealed in November 2004, the legislative mandate gave impetus to move the Tampa-Orlando

study from planning into engineering and construction.

S.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

The alternatives selected for evaluation in this EIS consist of the following: 

• No-Build Alternative, consisting of no FHSR service between Tampa and Orlando. 

• Two technology alternatives reflecting the responsive proposals to the FHSRA DBOM&F

solicitation. 

• Four alignment alternatives per each technology, or a total of eight design/build alternatives. 

S.5.1 No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative assumes that a FHSR system would not be built between Tampa and

Orlando. Passenger service between the two cities would instead consist of various bus

alternatives and automobile use on I-4, I-75, the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528), and the 

Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). The No-Build Alternative assumes that certain planned

and funded highway improvements would be undertaken between Tampa and Orlando. A

summary of these improvements is shown in Table S-1. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

S-4
 S-5

Table S-1 

Roadway Improvements within the Study Area 

Corridor Roadway Limits

Construction 

Status Type

I-275/I-4 CBD Interchange In Progress

Interchange 

Improvements 

I-4 14th Street to 50th Street Pending Additional Lanes 4 

to 8 Hillsborough 

I-4 I-4 50th Street to Polk

County Line In Progress 

Additional Lanes 4 

to 6 and 8 

I-4 Hillsborough County Line to

U.S. 92 Completed Additional Lanes 4 

to 6 Polk

I-4 U.S. 92 to Osceola County

Line In Progress 

Additional Lanes 4 

to 6 

I-4 Polk County Line to U.S. 

192 In Progress Additional Lanes 

Boggy 

Creek Road U.S. 192 to Turnpike Pending Realignment &

Shoulders 

Osceola

Western

Beltway

I-4 South of Disney to S.R.

50 Pending New Construction 

Expressway

I-4 U.S. 441 to Maitland Blvd. Completed Additional Lanes 

I-4 Kirkman Road to Turnpike Completed Additional Lanes 

I-4 S.R. 528 to S.R. 482 Completed Additional Lanes 

I-4 I-4 John Young Parkway In Progress 

Interchange 

Improvements 

I-4 I-4/EW Expressway Pending Interchange 

Improvements 

Orange

U.S. 441-

17/92 

Osceola Parkway to

Taft/Vineland Pending Additional Lanes

Source: FDOT June 2003

The No-Build Alternative does not envision providing an alternative transportation mode

between Tampa and Orlando for daily commuters, visitors, and residents of the area, and existing

modes would have to satisfy all travel demand. The potential of the FHSR project to improve

public transportation and increase the efficient use of the transportation system, both intercity

and locally, would not be realized. Finally, the requirements of the legislative mandate to build a

FHSR system would not be met. 

S.5.2 Technology Alternatives

The FHSRA determined that two proposals were responsive to its solicitation for DBOM&F 

request. These represent different technologies with different track systems, rail locations, and

station sites. Fluor Bombardier proposes a gas turbine-powered locomotive-hauled train

technology, developed by Bombardier and FRA with the trademark name of “Jet Train”. The 

gas turbine train has passenger equipment similar to Amtrak’s Acela Express trains presently

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
operating between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Massachusetts. The Global Rail Consortium

(GRC) proposes using an electric-powered locomotive-hauled train technology, powered from an

overhead catenary system similar to that in use between New Haven, Connecticut and Boston,

Massachusetts and the electric train uses the French designed TGV Atlantique train sets.

Table S-2 summarizes the operating features of the two proposed technologies. 

Table S-2 

Summary of Operations by Technology 

Feature (FHSRA minima) Gas Turbine Train Electric Train 

Speed (120 mph) 125 mph 160 mph 

Round trips per day (12) 14 16 

Shuttle trips between Orlando 

International Airport and Disney

(not required) 

8 17

Trip time (1 hour, 10 minutes) 65–70 minutes 54-55 minutes 

Seating capacity (250) 292 250 

Station locations evaluated in the study included:

• Tampa Central Business District (CBD), south of Interstate 275 (I-275). 

• I-4/Polk Parkway, west entry. 

• I-4/Kathleen Road (S.R. 539) in the City of Lakeland. 

• I-4 near Walt Disney World. 

• I-4 near Orange County Convention Center (OCCC)/Multi-Modal Station. 

• Orlando International Airport. 

An operation and maintenance (O&M) facility is proposed at one of two locations near the

Orlando International Airport. 

S.5.3 Alignment Alternatives 

The alignment alternatives use varying combinations of the I-275 and CSX corridors in

downtown Tampa, the I-4 corridor between Tampa and Orlando, and either the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528) or Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) corridor in Orlando. 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 4 consist of gas turbine technology, while Design/Build

Alternatives 5 through 8 consist of the electric train technology. The eight alternatives use

varying combinations of the same alignment. The alignments associated with each alternative 

are illustrated in Figure S-2 and briefly summarized as follows: 

Tampa area: I-275/I-4 corridor – This is a new, grade-separated alignment that runs south of,

and parallel to I-275 and I-4 to approximately 14th/15th Streets where the alignment crosses into

the I-4 median. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

S-6
Tampa area: CSX “S” line/CSX “A” line/I-75 – This is a new, grade-separated alignment that

leaves the downtown station southeasterly through a commercial area to connect into the former

CSX “S” line. The alignment runs eastward to connect to the existing CSX “A” line, running 

along the north side of the rail line to I-75. At I-75, the alignment runs in the interstate median

northward to connect into the I-4 median. 

Between I-75 to the Osceola/Orange county line: I-4 – This alignment between the Tampa and

Orlando urban areas would use the I-4 median for the entire length. 

Orlando area: Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528)/Taft-Vineland Road – This grade-separated

alignment would leave the I-4 median and follow along the north side of the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528), then along the median of Taft-Vineland Road, crossing new ROW to 

connect into a station at Orlando International Airport. 

Orlando area: S.R. 536/Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) – This grade-separated

alignment leaves the I-4 median to run along the south side of S.R. 536, connecting to either the

north side or the median of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). From the Central Florida

Greeneway (S.R. 417), the alignment would run along the east side of the South Access Road to

a station at Orlando International Airport. 

S.5.4 Summary

The EIS thus evaluates a total of eight design/build alternatives consisting of four different

alignment options with two different technologies, as offered by the two proposers. Figure S-2 

displays the eight design/build alternatives and Table S-3 provides a summary of the 

design/build alternatives by alignment and technology. 

S.6 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED 

The FHSRA considered several routes between Tampa and Orlando. In order to identify

reasonable alternatives that could satisfy the identified project purpose and need, the FHSRA

conducted a study to identify, quantify, and compare various FHSR route locations. The results

of the screening process are documented in the Florida High Speed Rail Screening Report, which

was completed in October 2002. This evaluation was built on the studies undertaken for high

speed rail in the Tampa – Orlando corridor since the mid 1980s and, in particular, the work 

undertaken for the FOX project discussed previously. Forty-seven alignments were reduced to 

20 as a result of this evaluation. Figure S-3 depicts both the eliminated and the retained study

alignments. 

Tampa area: The FHSR study team developed 21 alignments to connect the downtown Tampa 

station eastward to I-75 with alignments in the I-4 and CSX rail corridors. Ten alignments were

eliminated for reasons including engineering constraints, disruption of access to low-income

housing and community facilities, disruption of the Ybor City National Historic Landmark 

District (NHLD), and causing relatively greater environmental impacts than retained alignments. 

 S-7

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table S-3 

Summary of Design/Build Alternatives 

by Alignment and Technology 

Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Technology 

Gas turbine X X X X

Electric train X X X X

Alignment 

I-275/I-4 in 

Tampa

X X X X

CSX Line/I-75 in 

Tampa

X X X X

I-4 between 

Tampa and 

Orlando 

X X X X X X X X

Bee Line

Expressway/TaftVineland Road in 

Orlando 

X X X X

S.R. 536/Central 

Florida 

Greeneway in 

Orlando 

X X X X

Hillsborough County: Two alignments were evaluated in rural Hillsborough County: one

along the I-4 corridor and the other parallel to the CSX rail line. The CSX rail alignment was

eliminated from further consideration due to proximity impacts to a significant number of

community facilities in Plant City along the railroad. 

Polk County: Nine alignments were evaluated in Polk County. The alignments included the I-4 

and CSX rail corridors, as well as connections between the two corridors. The CSX corridor was

eliminated due to proximity impacts to community facilities in Lakeland, Auburndale, Haines 

City, and Davenport. With the elimination of the CSX alignment, connecting alignments to the 

I-4 corridor were no longer viable. 

Orlando area: Fifteen alignments were evaluated in Osceola and Orange counties in the 

Orlando area. Seven alignments were eliminated. Some of the alignments connected to

eliminated alignments in Polk County and would have disrupted existing commercial 

development along the alignment. A new terrain connection between I-4 and the Central Florida 

Greeneway (S.R. 417) had the greatest amount of wetland and wildlife habitat impact and limited 

access to alternative station sites. Other alignments were eliminated due to engineering

constraints. 

 

S-8

The retained alignments from the screening study were combined into the alignments that make

up the eight design/build alternatives described previously. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
S.7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study for this action investigated the eight

design/build alternatives, evaluating not only on the technological differences, but also 

engineering, environmental impacts, costs, and other factors impacting the selection of the

alignment. Development of alignments provided an analysis of socio-economic, natural, and

physical environmental impacts within the proposed corridors. The impacts of the design/build 

alternatives and the No-Build Alternative are identified in Section 4 of this document. The

FHSRA recommended a Preferred Alternative on October 27, 2003. This recommendation was 

subject to two conditions relative to memorandums of agreement (MOA). On November 10, 

2004, the FHSRA determined that the two MOAs could not be reached and revised the prior

recommendation of the Preferred Alternative. 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

The FHSRA considered Tampa and Orlando independently, in the decision to identify a 

Preferred Alternative. All alternative alignments are located along I-4 through Polk and Osceola

counties. However, two separate alignments were considered in Tampa (Hillsborough County),

the CSX and I-4 alignments; and in Orlando (Orange County), the Florida Turnpike’s Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528) and the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) alignments. 

The FHSRA unanimously passed a motion identifying the I-4 alignment in Hillsborough County

as the preferred alignment.

On October 27, 2003, the FHSRA originally identified the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417)

alignment as the preferred alignment in Orange County. The vote was subject to the following

two conditions: 

• Subject to an acceptable agreement between the FHSRA and Walt Disney Company related

to donation of ROW and commitments to support ridership for the project. 

• Subject to an acceptable agreement between the FHSRA and OOCEA related to use of the

Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) ROW.

The FHSRA ranked the Fluor Bombardier Team (gas turbine technology) as the preferred

proposer. The initial Preferred Alterative was Alternative 2, which is the combination of the I-4

alignment in Hillsborough County and the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) alignment in

Orange County utilizing the gas turbine technology. 

On November 10, 2004, the FHSRA revised the recommendation of the Preferred Alternative

because the two MOAs described previously, had not been executed. With this action, the

FHSRA recommended Alternative 1 (gas turbine technology) as the Preferred Alternative, which

is the combination of the I-4 alignment in Hillsborough County and the Bee Line Expressway

(S.R. 528) alignment in Orange County.

 S-9

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Description of Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1, begins at the downtown Tampa station, which is located

between Tampa Street and Marion Street, I-275, and Fortune Street. The FHSR alignment 

follows I-275 along the south and east ROW. The alignment is in the southeast quadrant of the

I-275/I-4 interchange and crosses into the I-4 median in the area of 15th Street. The majority of

the FHSR alignment between the Tampa station and the crossing into the I-4 median is within 

the ultimate ROW identified in the Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) for future interstate

improvements; however, some additional ROW will be required. 

The alignment continues east within the I-4 median through Hillsborough and Polk counties. As

identified by the first preferred proposer, the preferred station to serve the Polk County/City of 

Lakeland area is located in the northwest quadrant of the Polk Parkway/I-4 interchange. The 

proposed station configuration includes a median platform and pedestrian bridge crossing to the

main station on the north side of I-4. The City of Lakeland requested continuous consideration

of a station option at the Kathleen Road site located in the northeast quadrant of that interchange 

with I-4. The City is continuing discussions with the preferred proposer for consideration of this

site. Initial evaluation of the Kathleen site indicates that the I-4 median is not wide enough to 

provide a median platform at this site; therefore, the mainline tracks of the FHSR would leave

the median of I-4 west of the CSX crossing and reenter the median east of the U.S. 98 

interchange at I-4. However, the alignment would remain within the I-4 ROW. The

environmental impacts associated with both of these options are included in the impact analysis. 

Entering Osceola County, the grade-separated alignment remains within the I-4 median. The

proposed Disney Station is located north of U.S. 192. The station platform is located in the

median and station facility is located west of I-4 between U.S. 192 and the Osceola Parkway. 

The alignment continues in the I-4 median until the I-4/Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) 

interchange, where it leaves the I-4 median and runs along the north side of the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528) within existing ROW. The Orange County Multi-modal Center site is

located in the northeast quadrant of the International Drive/ Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528)

interchange. The station and alignment would be located along the north side of the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528) ROW with station platform located within the ROW of the interchange

area. 

The alignment continues on the north side of Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) until east of the 

Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528)/John Young Parkway interchange, where it leaves the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528) and runs on new alignment east to Taft-Vineland Road. The alignment 

continues along Taft-Vineland Road and enters the City of Orlando property near Tradeport 

Drive. It then follows the Orlando Utilities Commission rail line as a new alignment traversing

through the limits of Orlando International Airport from south to north and east of the proposed 

South Terminal. 

 

S-10

The FHSR alignment into the property of Orlando International Airport is located within the

planned rail corridor traversing through the limits of the airport, as identified in the Orlando

International Airport Master Plan. The FHSR O&M facility is located on the southern portion of 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
the Orlando International Airport property east of the South Access Road. The limits of the 

O&M facility have been located to avoid any impacts to the conservation area located south of

the airport. 

The Preferred Alternative, with the location of the proposed stations and the O&M Facility, is 

shown in Figure S-4. The conceptual engineering plans, including the horizontal and vertical

alignments of the Preferred Alternative are attached as Appendix A. 

Preferred Alternative Analysis 

The FHSRA identified additional items for inclusion with the Preferred Alternative at the 

December 17, 2003, board meeting. The additions to the Preferred Alternative as identified by

the Fluor Bombardier Team include the following: 

• Double track configuration for the entire alignment. 

• Provision for future electrification. 

The Fluor Bombardier Team proposal identified a single track between Tampa and the Disney

area and double track from Disney to the Orlando International Airport. All of the design/build 

alternatives have been analyzed through all phases of the FHSR study as a double track 

configuration; therefore, no change to the analysis is required. Providing for future

electrification, the preferred proposer in coordination with the FHSRA has identified features 

that result in no additional environmental consequences than the impacts documented in the

Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative in Section 4. The features for future

electrification include the construction of the base foundations for future installation of catenary

poles and incorporation of conduit for future electrification within the identified ROW of the

Preferred Alternative. 

S.8 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS 

The evaluation matrix in Table S-4 summarizes the quantifiable impacts of the proposed FHSR 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 discussed in Section 4. The matrix provides an

assessment of impacts for each alternative, providing the opportunity to effectively evaluate the 

consequences of each alternative. 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 4 represent the four alignment combinations with the gas

turbine technology. Design/Build Alternatives 5 through 8 represent the four alignment 

combinations with the electric train technology. The impacts for the Preferred Alternative, 

Design/Build Alternative 1, are highlighted in Table S-4. 

Physical impacts, such as wetland, wildlife, and floodplain impacts are technology neutral. The

differences in impacts are due to alignment location, station sites, and O&M facility sites. In

general, there are slightly more natural impacts associated with the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417) alignment due to crossing relatively undisturbed land. Noise, vibration, air quality,

 S-11

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table S-4 

Design/Build Alternatives Evaluation Matrix

(Preferred Alternative Highlighted) 

Alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS (AC.)

Total Wetland Impacts (AC. ) 40 31.3 39.2 30.5 25.6 24.4 30.5 23.6

High Quality Wetlands (AC.) 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2

Protected Species Sites 9 15 10 16 9 15 10 16

FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY (AC.)

Base Floodplain

Encroachment 56.88 54.54 61.04 58.70 56.88 54.54 61.04 58.70

Base Floodway Encroachment 9.45 6.47 9.45 6.47 9.45 6.47 9.45 6.47

CONTAMINATION SITES (RANKED H)

Potential Petroleum Sites 2 0 7 5 2 0 7 5

Potential Hazardous

Materials Sites 5 5 12 12 5 5 12 12

SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS

Recreation Facilities 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Historic/Archaeological Sites 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Schools 8 12 5 9 8 12 5 9

Community Facilities 10 9 6 5 10 9 6 5

Parks & Recreation 5 7 5 6 5 7 5 6

Cemeteries 4 6 6 6 4 6 6 6

Churches 15 16 12 13 15 16 12 13

NOISE IMPACTS (MODERATE & SEVERE)

Category 1 (Buildings and/or

parks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Category 2 (Residences, 

hospitals, and hotels) 15 5 16 6 53 105 38 90

Category 3 (Institutional –

schools, libraries, churches, 

active park)

0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1

VIBRATION IMPACTS 

Category 1 (Buildings and/or

parks) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

Category 2 (Residences, 

hospitals, and hotels) 44 20 40 16 13 5 9 1

Category 3 (Institutional –

schools, libraries, churches, 

active park)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS (Net Change in Tons/Year)

CO -101.7 -64.7 -100.9 -63.8 -152.0 -114.3 -151.8 -114.1

NOX +189.0 +188.2 +191.4 +190.6 +23.3 +24.1 +23.7 +24.5

VOC +8.9 +10.6 +9.2 +10.9 -8.1 -6.1 -8.1 -6.1

ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Change from 2010 No-Build)

Millions BTU 498,855 507,770 505,658 514,574 239,820 243,623 243,314 247,124

SECTION 106 IMPACTS 

Historic Sites 5 5 7 7 5 5 7 7

Archaeological Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RELOCATIONS

Residential 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0

Business 3 8 15 23 3 8 15 23

COST

ROW (Non-public) $118M $149M $150M $181M $101M $128M $134M $161M

Infrastructure $1,900M $2,033M $1,881M $2,015M $2,177M $2,306M $2,154M $2,284M

Mitigation $30M $30M $30M $30M $30M $30M $30M $30M

TOTAL COST $2.048B $2.212B $2.061B $2.226B $2.308B $2.464B $2.318B $2.476B

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

S-12
and energy impacts are more associated with the technology. In some cases though, the 

technology and alignment combinations will have varying effect such as with noise and

vibration. Key impacts are summarized in the following text. 

S.8.1 Wetlands

Maintaining the rail alignment within existing transportation ROW minimizes wetland impact. 

In the entire 95-mi. corridor, wetland impacts range from 23.6 acres (ac.) with Design/Build

Alternative 8, to 40 ac. for Design/Build Alternative 1. The majority of differences between the

alignment alternatives by technology are due to the location of the proposed O&M facility site. 

The Fluor Bombardier (gas turbine technology) proposal identified an alternate O&M facility

site with more wetland impacts, compared to the site proposed by the GRC proposal (electric 

technology). The Fluor Bombardier proposal also identified an additional 30-foot (ft.) width 

requirement for the rail alignment on new ROW, as compared to the GRC proposal. The

majority of the impacts are to disturbed wetlands of poor quality located in the median and

ditches of I-4, I-75, the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), and the Bee Line Expressway

(S.R. 528). Lesser quality wetlands also occur along the CSX tracks. High quality wetlands,

which generally result in greater mitigation requirements, are impacted the greatest in 

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7. These higher quality wetlands primarily occur on 

undeveloped land along I-4 and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528). Impacts associated with 

the gas turbine technology (Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 4) are higher than the electric

train technology (Design/Build Alternatives 5 through 8) due to the reasons previously stated. 

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) would result in 40 ac. of wetland impacts resulting

from the gas turbine train technology, of which 11 are considered high quality wetlands.

Wetland impacts, which would result from the construction of FHSR, are proposed to be

mitigated pursuant to S. 373.4137 F.S. (Senate Bill 1986) to satisfy all mitigation requirements 

of Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 U.S.C.s 1344. 

S.8.2 Wildlife and Habitat

There are 17 federal and/or state protected species that have the potential or are known to occur

within the FHSR study area. Six of those species are reptiles and amphibians, six are birds, three 

are mammals, and the remaining two are plants. The evaluation matrix indicates the number of

sites that might be impacted by the various design/build alternatives. All of the design/build

alternatives have potential sites because of their crossing undeveloped areas near the Green

Swamp along I-4 in Polk County. Design/Build Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8 have the most 

potential species involvement as they also include the additional ROW on the north side of the 

Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). The FRA must make a formal determination of effect for 

federally protected species that may occur in a project area. Because the design/build

alternatives use existing transportation corridors that pass through potential habitat, any of the

alternatives may affect some potential sites, but it is not likely to adversely affect any of the

species. Furthermore, the FDOT has committed to providing wildlife crossings in Polk County

along I-4 during construction of the ultimate interstate improvements. The GRC electric train 

proposal includes wildlife crossings to be consistent with future I-4 reconstruction, while the

 S-13

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Fluor Bombardier gas turbine technology does not. The FHWA and FDOT will require that the 

selected technology include wildlife crossings in its final design. 

The Preferred Alternative would have “no effect” on the American alligator, Florida pine snake,

Florida scrub jay, Florida burrowing owl, Southeastern American kestrel, Florida panther,

manatee, Florida black bear, and protected plant species. The Preferred Alternative “may effect,

but is not likely to adversely effect” the Eastern indigo snake, gopher tortoise, Florida mouse, 

gopher frog, sand skink, Florida sandhill crane, bald eagle, wood stork, state protected wading

bird species, and Sherman’s fox squirrel. Section S.11 of this summary contains a listing of

commitments for those species that the Preferred Alternative “may effect, but is not likely to

adversely effect.” As part of mitigation commitments, FHSRA will continue to coordinate with 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Water Management Districts (WMDs), and Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) to develop design and construction 

methods to avoid and minimize impacts to these species. 

S.8.3 Floodplains and Floodways

Impacts to floodplains were estimated conservatively and vary minimally between design/build 

alternatives. There are no substantial differences between the two technologies. Design/Build

Alternatives 2 and 6 have the lowest impact of 54.5 ac., while Design/Build Alternatives 3 and 7

would impact 61 ac. Floodway impacts are minimal with the lowest impacts for Design/Build

Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8, and only 3 additional ac. for the remaining design/build alternatives.

The majority of the floodway impacts are along I-4 in western Hillsborough County (Pemberton 

Creek), and between the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) and Orlando International 

Airport (Boggy Creek). It should be noted that the FHSRA estimates approximately 16 to

30 mi. of the FHSR alignment would be located on an elevated structure that may further 

minimize floodplain impacts. However, the Fluor Bombardier gas turbine proposal places the

alignment on retained earth fill through the Green Swamp area in east Polk County. The 

proposed wildlife crossings would also be within these limits. The GRC electric train proposal 

maintained an elevated section with bridge structure in the area of the Green Swamp. The final

amount of impacted floodplains and floodways would be determined during final design. 

The Preferred Alternative would impact approximately 56.88 ac. of floodplain and 

approximately 9.45 ac. of floodway. Subsequent to final design, during which impacts would be 

minimized, floodplain and floodway impacts would again be calculated and the amount of 

mitigation would be determined. 

S.8.4 Contamination Sites 

The greatest impacts to hazardous materials sites are associated with the design/build alternatives 

that include the CSX corridor (Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8). Industrial sites are

typically located along rail corridors. Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 have the highest 

impacts at 12 sites. The other design/build alternatives each impact five or fewer sites that are

scattered along the entire FHSR alignments. No properties with petroleum or hazardous 

materials occur at the proposed station or O&M facility sites. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMP

 

S-14

A--ORLANDO
The Preferred Alternative contains five potentially hazardous material contaminated sites and

two potentially petroleum contaminated sites were identified within the alignment. There are no

potentially contaminated sites associated with the preferred station locations and 

maintenance yard. 

The five sites identified will be investigated further prior to any construction. Investigative work

will include visual inspection, monitoring of ongoing cleanups, and possible subsurface 

investigations. At known contamination sites, estimated areas of contamination will be marked

on design drawings. Prior to construction, any necessary cleanup plans will be developed. 

Actual cleanup will take place during construction, if feasible. Special provisions for handling

unexpected contamination discovered during construction will be included in the construction

plans package. 

S.8.5 Section 4 (f) Sites

Public parks and historic resources are located within the project corridor and require special

consideration of impact avoidance under the requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act. Section 4(f) authorizes the United States Secretary of Transportation to

approve a transportation project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, 

recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land 

of an historic site of national, state or local significance, only if there is no prudent and feasible 

alternative to using that land, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to

the protected site. The number of impacted Section 4(f) sites varies by alternative. Design/Build

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 require 0.184 ac. from the Perry Harvey Sr. Park in Tampa where the 

alignment travels southeast and parallel to I-275. The No-Build and Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 

avoid impacts to the park. 

Design/Build Alternative 1, 2, 5, and 6 do not involve any historic properties covered under

Section 4(f). However, Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 impact three historic sites in

Tampa where the alignment passes through a commercial urban area to connect to the CSX rail 

line. The alignment passes through the parking lot of the St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal

(AME) Church and directly impacts the adjacent Parsonage, both of which are eligible for listing

on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The church would not be directly affected; 

however, the taking of land from the parking lot and the taking of the Parsonage could affect its

use. The alignment for Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 passes directly north of the

Tampa Union Station, which is listed on the NRHP, and requires a small amount of ROW from

the historic boundary. The building itself is not affected. The No-Build and Design/Build 

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 avoid impacts to the historic properties. 

Based upon available ROW information, the construction of the Preferred Alternative would

require 0.184 ac. of Perry Harvey Sr. Park. The ROW requirements will be further refined

during design and ROW mapping when detailed information is available. The following numbers

 S-15

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
are clarifications of the amount of land needed for the FHSR and the previously FHWA

approved TIS: 

• Original TIS taking = 0.66 ac. 

• Amount of TIS take needed for FHSR = 0.041 ac.

• Additional Amount needed for FHSR = 0.143 ac.

• Section 4(f) = 0.041 + 0.143 = 0.184 ac. 

The Preferred Alternative impacts the northwest edge of Perry Harvey Sr. Park. The existing

exercise/jogging path located in the northernmost section of the park (north of Estelle Street)

would be terminated approximately 40 feet (ft.) east of its current terminus at Henderson

Avenue. 

As a result of continuing coordination, the FHSRA requested through a letter to the City of

Tampa that they concur in writing with the proposed mitigation that provides for compensation

for the impacts to Perry Harvey Sr. Park, which will be determined during the ROW phase of the

FHSR project. Response from the City of Tampa indicates that compensation for impacts to the

park can be accomplished through the eminent domain process. The FHSR project will comply

with specific commitments and stipulations identified in the existing TIS MOA for the ultimate

ROW improvements that include provisions for multi-modal transportation that apply to this 

project. 

The Preferred Alternative does not involve any historic Section 4(f) properties. Although the

FHSR Preferred Alternative would require the acquisition of two contributing historic structures 

within the Ybor City NHLD, this action would not result in a Section 4(f) involvement for the

FHSR. This conclusion was reached, in consultation with the FRA and the FHWA, due to the 

fact that these two historic structures are located within the TIS Ultimate ROW and have already

been determined to have Section 4(f) involvement with the previously approved TIS project.

The use of these two historic structures has already been evaluated in the TIS Section 4(f)

Evaluation and mitigation measures are included in a MOA. Therefore, the FHSR project will

comply with the requirement of the existing TIS MOA and a new Section 4(f) Evaluation for

common resources was not required. 

The acquisition of the 0.184 ac. of ROW at Perry Harvey Sr. Park is an unavoidable impact of

the project. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the park and the 

proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park resulting from such

use. 

S.8.6 Community Services

There is a range of 34 to 50 different facilities located within a quarter mi. of the FHSR

design/build alternatives. However, with the exception of Perry Harvey Sr. Park (Design/Build

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6) and the St. Paul AME Church (Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and

8), no community services are directly impacted by ROW acquisition or access relocation. The 

majority of facilities within a quarter mi. of the alternatives are churches. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMP

 

S-16

A--ORLANDO
 

 S-17

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

The Preferred Alternative will require acquisition of ROW from Perry Harvey Sr. Park. The 

acquisition, impacts, and mitigation are discussed in detail in Section 5. 

S.8.7 Noise Impacts

Noise impacts are expected with all of the design/build alternatives, but vary depending on 

alignments and technology. Impacts occur primarily in Category 2, residential areas near 

downtown Tampa (Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6); and in Orlando, near the Bee Line 

Expressway (S.R. 528) (Design/Build Alternatives 1, 3, 5, 7), and Central Florida Greeneway 

(S.R. 417) (Design/Build Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8). There are fewer affected residences on 

Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 in Tampa, which primarily pass through industrial areas along the 

CSX rail corridor. 

Noise impacts for all the design/build alternatives are attributed to track proximity and height, as 

well as train speed. However, the design/build alternatives utilizing gas turbine train technology 

(Design/Build Alternatives 1-4) tend to have fewer overall impacts to noise sensitive areas 

compared to the design/build alternatives utilizing the electric train technology (Design/Build 

Alternatives 5-8). For example, a total of 15 residences have moderate and severe noise impacts 

under Design/Build Alternative 1, while Design/Build Alternative 5, along the same general 

alignment, impacts 52 residences and 1 hotel. The difference in noise impact between the two 

technologies can be attributed mostly to the difference in the proposed alignment, the proposed 

track elevation, and the proposed train speed. 

Design/Build Alternatives 2 and 4 impact the fewest residences, primarily because the gas 

turbine trains are located in the median of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), instead of 

the north side of the road, which is closer to residences. The maximum number of impacted 

residences occurs under Design/Build Alternatives 6 and 8 with 105 and 90 sites impacted, 

respectively. Both alternatives are located on the north side of the Central Florida Greeneway 

(S.R. 417), close to the Hunter’s Creek residences. The difference between Design/Build 

Alternatives 6 and 8 is due to fewer noise sensitive sites occurring along the alignment 

connecting to the CSX corridor in Tampa along Design/Build Alternative 8. Design/Build 

Alternatives 5 and 7, also utilizing electric train technology, have 53 and 38 sites impacted, 

respectively, because there are fewer affected noise sensitive sites along the Bee Line 

Expressway (S.R. 528). 

For a direct comparison of the gas turbine technology to the electric train technology, if the gas 

turbine train were to be located on the north side of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), 

the noise impacts would be 84 sites compared to the 90 sites identified for the electric train. 

Conversely, if the electric trains were to be located in the median of the Central Florida 

Greeneway (S.R. 417), 12 sites would be impacted compared to the 5 sites identified for the gas 

turbine technology. 

FRA’s policy identifies potential mitigation for severe impacts, as defined by FRA guidance. 

Sound barrier walls are expected to eliminate severe impacts. The No-Build Alternative and 

Design/Build Alternatives 2 and 4 would not require any barrier walls. Design/Build Alternative 

8 would require the greatest amount of barrier wall with 2,800 linear ft. Of this distance, 
2,600 ft. would be located on one side of the rail alignment along the north side of the Central

Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). Mitigating residual moderate noise impacts would require

additional and/or enhanced noise barriers, and would require the application of building sound

insulation treatments in some locations. 

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) would impact a total of 15 residences, 7 impacts are

projected to be moderate and 8 impacts are projected to be severe. 

Based on the results of the noise assessment, potential mitigation has been evaluated at all 

locations where severe impacts were identified. The proposed mitigation measure is the

construction of sound barrier walls to shield the areas where severe impact is projected. The 

proposed noise barriers are expected to eliminate all of the severe impacts. Eliminating the 

residual moderate noise impacts would require additional and/or enhanced noise barriers, and

would also require the application of building sound insulation treatments in some locations. 

With regard to potential noise impacts at non-residential locations, the feasibility of noise

mitigation would need further evaluation. At Perry Harvey Sr. Park, the projected impact is due 

to the close proximity of the park to the proposed track and ROW. As the design is finalized, 

noise mitigation will be considered in more detail to determine if the benefit is warranted.

S.8.8 Vibration Impacts

Train technology and location influence vibration impacts in the study area. For example,

design/build alternatives utilizing gas turbine technology (Design/Build Alternatives 1-4) tend to

have greater overall significant vibration impacts, compared to alternatives utilizing electric train

technology (Design/Build Alternatives 5-8). The difference in vibration impacts between the

two technologies can be attributed mostly to the proposed alignment, the proposed speed, and the

weight of the train set for each technology. The numbers of affected sites for Design/Build 

Alternatives 1-4 range from 16 to 45, but most impacts occur with Design/Build Alternatives 1 

and 3 along the Bee Line/Taft-Vineland alignment. Notably, many of the same sites along this

alignment are similarly affected by the electric train alternatives (Design/Build Alternatives 5 

and 7), indicating that this area is vibration sensitive regardless of technology. This same 

situation occurs in Tampa where all design/build alternatives using the I-4 alignment 

(Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 7) cause vibration impacts in a residential area near 34th

Street. Other vibration impacts are scattered along I-4 in rural Hillsborough County

(Design/Build Alternatives 1-4); and in the Celebration area in Osceola County (Design/Build 

Alternatives 5-8). These impacts are attributed to the close proximity of the rail alignment to 

sensitive areas. 

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) with the gas turbine train technology would have an

impact at a total of 44 residences (Category 2 receptors) and 1 Category 1 receptor. No impacts 

would occur at Category 3 (institutional) receptors. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMP

 

S-18

Vibration impacts that exceed FRA criteria are considered to be significant and warrant

mitigation, if feasible. There are specific locations (defined as civil stations) on the Preferred

Alternative where mitigation has been recommended to reduce the vibration levels. At a 

A--ORLANDO
minimum, mitigation will require the installation of ballast mats or other features that mitigate

impacts. Because the current analysis indicates that the ballast mats would not eliminate all of

the projected impacts, more extensive mitigation would be considered. 

Vibration mitigation would be addressed in more detail during final design. Further analysis 

would be completed to confirm the validity of the projected impacts in identified affected areas. 

The additional analysis, conducted during final design, will consist of supplemental vibration 

propagation tests at sites concentrated in these areas, including soil-to-building transfer function

measurements. 

S.8.9 Air Quality

All design/build alternatives meet the requirements of air quality regulations promulgated by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, there is variation in the amount of

emissions associated with each alternative. Two emissions sources, trains and motor vehicles,

affect the net change in emissions for each alternative. Comparing train technologies, the

amount of emissions from a gas turbine train is higher than the amount of emissions from an

electric train. This is a result of the relatively strict controls and emission reduction measures

employed by power plants, which would be the source of electricity for the electric train

technology. Comparing the reduction in emissions for motor vehicles, Design/Build Alternatives

1, 3, 5, and 7 are forecasted to provide a greater reduction in motor vehicle miles traveled (vmt)

than Design/Build Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8. 

All design/build alternatives would result in a reduction in carbon monoxide (CO) emissions.

The amount of reduction is primarily caused by the relatively high rate of emissions from motor

vehicles, compared to gas turbine or electric trains. Design/Build Alternatives 5 and 7 (lower

electric train emissions and more reduction in motor vehicle emissions) would produce the

greatest reduction in CO followed by Design/Build Alternatives 1 and 3 (higher gas turbine train 

emissions and more reduction in motor vehicle emissions), Design/Build Alternatives 6 and 8 

(lower electric train emissions and less reduction in motor vehicle emissions) and Design/Build

Alternatives 2 and 4 (higher gas turbine train emissions and less reduction in motor

vehicle emissions). 

All design/build alternatives would result in an increase in oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions. 

This increase is caused by the relatively high emission rate of NOX from gas turbine or electric 

trains compared to motor vehicles. The electric train Design/Build Alternatives 5, 6, 7, and 8 

produce the lowest increase, while the gas turbine train Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

have higher emissions of NOX. The difference between electric and gas turbine train 

alternatives is caused by the lower emission rate for electric trains compared to gas turbine trains. 

All gas turbine train design/build alternatives would result in a slight increase in volatile organic

compounds (VOC). This increase is caused by the slightly higher emission rate for the gas 

turbine train compared to motor vehicles. All electric train design/build alternatives would result 

in a slight decrease in VOC. This decrease is caused by the lower emission rate for the electric

train compared to motor vehicles. 

 S-19

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
EPA has designated Polk, Osceola, and Orange counties as attainment areas; therefore, the 

General Conformity Rule is not applicable to these three counties. EPA has designated

Hillsborough County as a maintenance area for ozone; therefore, the General Conformity Rule is 

applicable to the portion of the FHSR project in Hillsborough County. Predicted increases in

VOC or NOX for the design/build alternatives are less than the de minimis rates (100 ton per 

year rate of increase) documented in the General Conformity Rule; therefore, a conformity

determination is not required for this project. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in a net decrease in regional emissions of CO, a net

increase in emissions of NOX and emissions of VOC would remain fairly constant. The net 

increase in emissions of NOX is a result of the relatively high emission rate of this pollutant

from gas turbine engines. 

S.8.10 Energy Consumption

All of the design/build alternatives result in increased energy consumption compared to the NoBuild alternative. However, energy requirements for fossil fuel consumption for the gas turbine

engines (Design/Build Alternatives 1-4) are substantially higher than the fossil fuel required to

generate electricity for the electric trains (Design/Build Alternatives 5-8). Highway energy

consumption decreases for all alternatives because of diverted automobile ridership. Additional 

energy required for operating and maintaining an additional station at the OCCC (Design/Build 

Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7) is reflected in the analysis of estimated energy consumption. 

The estimated change in net energy consumption in year 2010, including thermal losses for 

electric power generation, ranges between 239,820 and 514,574 million British Thermal Units 

(MBTU) among the design/build alternatives, with the electric train alternatives net consumption

being considerably lower than the gas turbine train alternatives. The total change is a negligible 

fraction (less than 1/20th of one percent) of Florida’s total energy consumption for surface 

transportation (all non-military vehicle operation on highways, railroads, and fixed-guideway

public transportation), which is estimated to reach one quadrillion BTU (i.e., 1,000,000,000

MBTU) by 2010. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in a net increase of energy consumption by 498,855

MBTU, accounting for the propulsion and operation of the FHSR as well as the reduction of 

gasoline consumption by diverting automobile ridership. 

S.8.11 Historic and Archeological Resources

 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMP

S-20

Potential impacts occur to historic structures near the Tampa CBD, where 22 significant 

resources (listed, eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHPs) are located within or

adjacent to the design/build alternatives. Design/build alternatives that use the CSX alignment

(Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8) would have potential impacts to 16 significant historic resources.

These alternatives would have no effect on seven of these resources and may have an effect on

nine of these historic resources. These potential adverse and no adverse effects are primarily due 

to potential visual and noise impacts, but were not evaluated in detail since none of these

alternatives were selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

A--ORLANDO
 

 S-21

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Design/build alternatives running parallel to the I-275/I-4 corridor in Tampa (Alternatives 1, 2, 5, 

and 6), including the Preferred Alternative, would have potential effects to 12 significant historic 

resources. These alternatives would have no effect on seven historic resources and a conditional 

no adverse impact on five historic resources. Property from two contributing historic structures 

within the Ybor City NHLD would be required from these alternatives, however, these properties 

were previously identified for acquisition in the Tampa Interstate Study EIS Record of Decision 1

of the I-275/I-4 reconstruction. 

A Section 106 Consultation Case Report for the Preferred Alternative (described in the report as 

the Proposed Action) was prepared in December 2003 for coordination with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO). A Section 106 consultation meeting was held on 

December 10, 2003 with the SHPO where it was agreed that the FHSR Preferred Alternative 

would have no effect on seven historic resources and a conditional no adverse effect on five 

historic resources. The specific conditions, as identified in Section S.13, are commitments 

agreed to by the FHSRA, FRA, and SHPO that will be incorporated into future DBOM&F 

contracts in a manner binding to the vendor. The final Section 106 Consultation Case Report

was submitted to the SHPO on behalf of FRA on December 24, 2003. A response letter from the 

SHPO, dated January 5, 2004, concurred with the findings of the report (Appendix B) and agreed 

to the stipulated conditions for the “conditional no adverse effect” determination. The Section 

106 Consultation Case Report was then forwarded to the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) and the National Park Service (NPS) Atlanta Regional office on 

February 20, 2004 for their reference and opportunity to comment. No comments have been 

received from the ACHP or the NPS. 

None of the proposed Design/Build Alternatives1 through 8 have any involvement with NHRPlisted, eligible, or potentially eligible archaeological sites. Therefore, the proposed FHSR 

project would have no effect on any significant archaeological resources. 

S.8.12 Relocations

There is no difference in relocation impacts between train technologies. Differences in impacts 

between the design/build alternatives are due to alignment locations. A minimal amount of 

residential relocations would occur to implement the FHSR. Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, 

and 6 require three residential relocations in two structures near I-4 at 12th Avenue in Tampa. 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 do not require any relocation of residential structures. 

The residential relocations associated with Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 contain 

minority low-income households. These three relocations were previously identified for 

relocation under the Tampa Interstate Study EIS Record of Decision. If one of these 

design/build alternatives is selected for implementation, construction of FHSR would likely 

occur prior to acquisition of the two structures for the ultimate I-4 improvements. The structures 

are located at the northern edge of the neighborhood and do not affect the community’s cohesion. 

 

1 Tampa Interstate Study (TIS), Record of Decision, FHWA-FL-EIS-95-03-F, January 31, 1997. 
The alignment combination for Design/Build Alternatives 4 and 8 result in a maximum of

23 business impacts in Tampa and Orlando. The majority of all business impacts occur in two

areas: where the alignment transitions from I-4 toward the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417)

and within the Tampa CBD as it travels towards the CSX tracks. 

Minimal impacts are associated with design/build alternatives that parallel the I-275/I-4 corridor 

in Tampa (three business impacts) and use the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 428) alignment in

Orlando (no impacts). Thus, the least amount of business impacts would occur with 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 and 5, which use these alignments. 

The Preferred Alternative would require three residential relocations located in two structures

near I-4 and 12th Avenue in the Ybor City area, as identified in the ultimate I-4 improvements. It

would also require three business relocations including the City of Tampa Recreation

Department, the former Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office and Jail Complex, and a bail 

bondsman. 

S.8.13 Transportation Impacts

The FHSRA projected 2010 annual ridership ranges from 2.4 to 2.8 million passengers on the

Tampa to Orlando high speed rail alternatives using the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) 

(Design/Build Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7), and 3.8 to 4.1 million on the alternatives using the 

Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) (Design/Build Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8). A significant 

portion of the increase of ridership on the alternatives using the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417) is based on a ridership market that would be available through an agreement with 

Walt Disney World. The FHSR system would divert about 11 percent of persons traveling

between Tampa and Orlando, 9 percent of those traveling between Lakeland and Tampa, and

9 percent of those traveling between Lakeland and Orlando. Impacts to existing travel modes

affect the automobile and bus transit service.

The impact of the No-Build Alternative is probably the most adverse to transportation. The NoBuild Alternative would result in continued congestion on the existing highway network

regardless of programmed improvements for capacity expansion. Furthermore, FDOT’s policy

to limit lane capacity on interstate and state highways would mean that congestion will continue

unabated, resulting in reduced travel times and increased hours of congestion. The design/build

alternatives would create an alternative travel mode to congested highways.

The Preferred Alternative, including station locations and maintenance facilities, would not

impact freight rail operations or disrupt the operation of the roadway systems. However, some 

local roads would have minor impacts. Some impacts would occur for Amtrak and Greyhound 

bus services for those destinations that terminate in Orlando or Tampa. Air travel between

Tampa and Orlando is not considered to be a comparable alternative to either road or rail travel. 

There would be minimal impact on taxi and shuttle services. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMP

 

S-22

A--ORLANDO
S.8.14 Public Safety

Operation of FHSR service would be subject to the FRA’s railroad safety oversight and the 

federal laws and regulations governing the safety of rail operations nationwide. Rail operations

of the FHSR would be separated from any vehicle or pedestrian access throughout the corridor. 

In its 2002 Florida High Speed Rail Authority Report to the Florida State Legislature, the

FHSRA found that when high speed rail crosses motor vehicle traffic, these crossings should be 

vertically separated (grade-separated). The proposed FHSR between Tampa and Orlando 

includes no at-grade crossings. The pedestrian access at stations would be separated from any

track crossings with either elevated tracks with pedestrian access underneath or pedestrian

bridges crossing over the tracks. 

The use and implementation of the gas turbine power car and coach technology has been

demonstrated by high speed service in the Northeast Corridor of the United States. Fluor

Bombardier has indicated that the system is fully compliant with FRA’s Tier II Passenger

Equipment Safety Standards for speeds up to 150 mph. The equipment has also undergone

testing at the USDOT’s Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. The power and passenger car

bodies meet the structural requirements of the FRA and American Association of Railroads 

(AAR) Standards S-034 and S-580. The passenger coach also meets Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA) requirements.

The electric train is proposing to utilize the French TGV Atlantique system that has over twenty

years of successful operation. This system is currently not approved for operation in the United

States. As part of the FOX proposal, the FRA was petitioned to establish safety rules governing

the design and operation of a TGV system between Miami and Tampa via Orlando. On

December 12, 1997, the FRA issued a proposed Rule of Particular Applicability, 49 CFR Part

243, applying specifically to the FOX program. No final rule was ever approved, as the FOX 

program was cancelled and FRA discontinued further action on the rulemaking. With the 

establishment of the new FHSR program, under the auspices of the FHSRA, the electric train 

technology will have to consult with the FRA with respect to any inconsistencies between its 

proposed operations and the FRA’s railroad safety requirements. A series of meetings have

already been held with the FRA to discuss design criteria, safety, and regulatory issues. 

Additional meetings are anticipated as the DBOM&F process moves forward. 

An intrusion detection system with fencing along the train corridor would be provided by the 

electric train proposal. The gas turbine train proposal would not provide an intrusion detection 

system, because FRA safety requirements do not identify the need for such a system when the

maximum operating speed is 125 mph or less. Access detection would be provided only at

access/egress gates in the fencing that would be placed along the entire train corridor. 

As a part of the required System Safety Program Plan, the FHSRA identified installation of TL-5

intrusion barriers between the rail system and the parallel highway in tangent sections and TL-6

intrusion barriers on highway curves and overhead highway structures. The electric train 

proposal includes the barrier requirements identified by the FHSRA. The gas turbine proposal

utilizes FDOT Index 410 barriers at retained earth fill sections and TL-5 barriers at other sections 

 S-23

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
on tangent. No overhead highway structure barriers would be replaced except where overpasses

are reconstructed. Under 49 CFR 213.361, FRA requires preparation of a barrier plan for

systems operating at speeds over 125 mph. The gas turbine train would operate at 125 mph

or less. 

Any and all associated approvals for the barrier, fencing, intrusion detection and any additional 

protective measures that may be required must be coordinated and received from all Federal and 

State agencies having jurisdiction associated with the preferred alignment.

S.8.15 Total Cost for Construction

The total infrastructure costs, including ROW and mitigation costs, vary between $2.048 and

$2.474 billion, with Design/Build Alternative 1 being the lowest and Design/Build Alternative 8 

being the highest. The range between the lowest and highest alternative is $426 million. The

two proposers identify these costs to be funded by the public sector with bond financing. The

availability of federal funding to support these types of improvements is very limited under

existing law consisting principally of loan and loan guarantee programs. However, several bills

presently pending before Congress would create either direct federal grant programs or bondfinancing mechanisms that could be used to develop high speed rail infrastructure. 

The rolling stock costs were identified separately by each proposal. The gas turbine train

proposal identified rolling stock costs of $221 million that would be funded with a $120 million 

Federal Grant with the balance financed with tax-exempt project revenue bonds paid from the

operating revenues. No Federal grant program currently exists that would fund these equipment

costs but, as discussed previously, several bills pending before Congress would create programs

that could provide this form of Federal financial assistance. The electric train proposal identified 

a cost range for rolling stock of $91 million for the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) route

alternatives and $99.1 million for the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) route alternatives. The 

rolling stock would be refurbished rolling stock and would be financed through a 20-year lease

paid for with operating revenues. 

The operations and maintenance costs for a thirty year period, provided by the proposers, range

from $1.618 billion to $1.779 billion for the electric train and $1.208 billion for the gas turbine

train. The gas turbine train proposal identifies guaranteed O&M costs for the first seven years of

operation, which are then subject to renegotiation with the FHSRA. The gas turbine train 

proposal also identifies that the total cost of O&M would be to the private sector on the Central

Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) route alternatives and the public sector would finance 30 percent

of this total on the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) route alternatives. The electric train 

proposal is guaranteed for thirty years and is financed by the private sector.

The Preferred Alternative cost as proposed by the Fluor Bombardier Team utilizing the gas

turbine train technology is $2.048 billion. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMP

 

S-24

A--ORLANDO
S.9 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND COORDINATION

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) prepare LRTPs for major urban regions, including

the Tampa, Lakeland, and Orlando areas. Table S-5 provides the status of the LRTPs and actions

needed for the four counties through which the project alignment travels. All of the plans

include high speed rail as part of their long range transportation management. 

Table S-5 

High Speed Rail Study Area 

Long Range Transportation Plans 

Document LRTP Adoption Date Reference to High 

Speed Rail Actions Needed 

Hillsborough County

Hillsborough County 2025 LRTP Adopted:

November 13, 2001 

Yes – Chapter 4, 

Regional Transportation

Planning; Chapter 6,

Needs Assessment; 

2025 Cost Affordable

Transit Network Map 

None

Polk County

Polk County 2025 LRTP

Adopted:

December 7, 2000 

Amended:

December 2002 

Yes – Policies 5.8 and 

5.9; Map None

Orange and Osceola Counties 

METROPLAN Orlando 2020 

LRTP

Adopted:

December 1995 

Refined: December 

2002 

Yes – Transit and 

Concepts Vision Plan

Written opinion of

consistency between

HSR alignments and 

LRTP has been

requested. 

There are 13 local governments including counties and cities, as well as an improvement district,

within the project area. These local governments maintain comprehensive plans in compliance 

with Florida Statutes, Chapter 163. According to statute, these plans contain multi-modal

transportation elements. These elements must also be consistent with the LRTPs of the MPOs. 

Table S-6 shows the action needed prior to construction for each transportation element within

the FHSR corridors. Local government plans vary in their compliance with their MPO LRTPs. 

The cities of Tampa and Lakeland and their respective county plans (Hillsborough and Polk) are

consistent with their MPO plans. However, there is no documented consistency in Osceola

County with METROPLAN’s long range plan. See Table S-6 for additional information. 

 S-25

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table S-6 

High Speed Rail Study Area 

Transportation Elements

Document Adoption Date Reference to High 

Speed Rail Actions Needed 

Hillsborough County 

Hillsborough County

Transportation Element 

Adopted: 

March 2001 

Yes - Policy 6.1.4, 

Future Transit Corridor

Map 

None 

City of Tampa Transportation 

Element 

Adoption Scheduled: 

April 2004 

Yes - Intermodal

Analysis, 

Policy 4.4.1, Policy

9.1.3, 2025 Highway

Needs Plan 

None 

City of Plant City

Transportation Element 

Adopted: 

May 13, 1999 No None

Polk County 

City of Lakeland 

Transportation Element 

Adopted: 

December 27, 2001 

Refined: 

January 2003 

Yes - Mass Transit 

Section, Rail Section, 

Policy 7D; Map of 

Corridor 

None 

Polk County Transportation 

Element 

Adopted: 

December 19, 2001 

Refined: 

January 2003 

Yes - Policy 3.302-A4, 

Support Data -

Railroad Operations; 

Corridor Map 

None 

Osceola County 

Osceola County

Transportation Element 

Adopted: 

April 22, 1991 No 

Policies included in 

amendment cycle 

(Adoption December 

2003)- Map of 

proposed corridor and

intermodal policy

amendments 

Reedy Creek Improvement 

District January, 1997 No 

Map of proposed 

corridor and intermodal 

policy amendments 

Orange County 

Orange County

Transportation Element 

Adopted: 

December 5, 2000 No 

Map of proposed 

corridor and intermodal 

policy amendments 

City of Orlando

Transportation Element 

Adopted: 

January 26, 1998 

Yes - Objective 1.16,

Policies 1.16.1 to 

1.16.4, Support Data

Reference

Map of proposed 

corridor

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMP

 

S-26

A--ORLANDO
S.10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM

A comprehensive Public Involvement Program was carried out for this study. The program

began early in the study and continued throughout the process. The following summarizes this

program and detailed information is contained within Section 6 of this EIS. 

The Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2002 and an Advance 

Notification package was distributed to federal, state, and local agencies and to appropriate

United States and State senators and representatives on April 3, 2002. Written comments were

received from several of the agencies and have been addressed during the coordination and

development of the EIS (see Appendix B). 

Throughout the project, FHSRA organized meetings to provide interested parties with project 

updates. FHSRA held two agency coordination meetings: April 30, 2002 and July 30, 2003.

FHSRA also held meetings with the local MPO and committees, elected officials, small groups,

and non-governmental organizations. In addition, the FHSRA established a Cultural Resource

Committee (CRC) to assist in the evaluation of significant cultural resources, potential effects, 

and methods for mitigation. 

Two series of Public Information Workshops were held in each of the four counties located

within the proposed FHSR corridors. The first series of public workshops was held in May 2002 

to provide the attendees with an opportunity to review the proposed conceptual corridors,

engineering design concepts, and the proposed high speed rail technologies, and to submit their 

comments. The second series of public meetings was held in January 2003 to provide the

attendees with an opportunity to review the retained alignments, eliminated alignments, proposed

high speed rail technologies, and construction schedules, and to submit their comments. 

A series of Public Hearings was held in October 2003 in three of the four counties at locations 

along the FHSR corridor. The purpose of this series of Public Hearings was to solicit public

comment on the Draft EIS, the proposed FHSR alternatives, the proposed technologies, 

construction schedules, and other issues related to the development of a high speed rail system. 

A newsletter was mailed to all property owners, interested citizens, and local and state officials

that summarized the first series of Public Information Workshops, provided a summary of

project activities, announced the second series of Public Information Workshops, and listed

upcoming events and key project dates. 

A web page was developed to provide updated information on FHSR. The following

information was displayed on-line: Florida High Speed Rail Screening Report, project schedule,

workshop announcements, schedule of elected official and small group meetings, schedule of

MPO and committee meetings, workshop results, and handout materials from the meetings. The 

website also provided a list of frequently asked questions, displayed meeting minutes of all 

public meetings, and offered viewers the opportunity to submit questions and comments to the

project team. 

 S-27

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
S.11 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY 

Public involvement is a key element of the impact analysis for the FHSR study, providing the

study team guidance on the key issues of concern that require particular attention. The public 

involvement process, thus far, has revealed some areas of controversy. The public expressed 

concern regarding the potential FHSR visual and noise impacts to the 36 neighborhoods of the 

Hunter’s Creek Community. Also, residents have voiced their opposition to any alternative that 

includes the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). Many residents, through public workshop

attendance, public hearing attendance, comments, e-mails, phone calls, and correspondence, have

voiced their support for the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alternatives. 

Controversy also exists as to whether and how FHSR should serve the OCCC and the general

alignment between Walt Disney World and the Orlando International Airport. This controversy

is reflected in the provision of the OCCC station site with the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528)

(Design/Build Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7) versus the Walt Disney World station site with the

Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) (Design/Build Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8). Discussions

regarding the proposed station sites and preference of alternatives have occurred throughout the

study, including through public involvement efforts and articles in the media. The Chairman of

the Orange County Board of County Commissioners sent a letter on October 31, 2002, outlining

the reasons FHSR should utilize the OCCC station site (see Appendix B). 

S.12 UNRESOLVED ISSUES WITH OTHER AGENCIES 

S.12.1 I-4 Wildlife Crossing

A commitment by FDOT to provide a future wildlife crossing in Polk County is contained in the 

Design Change Reevaluation of I-4 from Memorial Boulevard in Polk County to the Osceola

County line. Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 do not provide for a future animal crossing

(See Appendix A, Corridor D, Station 3230+00 and 3735+00 in Polk County), but would be

required to do so to maintain consistency with FDOT commitments. 

S.12.2 Coordination with Federal Aviation Administration

In an April 19, 2002, response to the Advance Notification of the FHSR project, the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requested continued coordination during the design of project 

components and location.

S.12.3 Coordination with Walt Disney World Resort

 

S-28

A station is proposed at Walt Disney World Resort, between Osceola Parkway and U.S. 192.

The station facilities, including automobile parking lot, would be located west of I-4, while the

transit platforms would be located in the median of I-4. Pedestrian access to the station would be

constructed over the westbound lanes of I-4 in order to link the platform to the station facilities.

This vacant parcel would then be developed into a transit stop and parking facility in order to

access the FHSR station. The median of I-4 would also be reconstructed. There is no current 

access to the proposed station on the Disney property. A new roadway approximately 1⁄2 mi. in 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
length would need to be constructed to connect the parking area to the existing roadway network. 

Due to the proximity of these improvements to resort, it would be necessary to coordinate with 

representatives from the Walt Disney World Resort. 

S.12.4 Coordination with FRA and FHWA 

A portion of the FHSR alignment is located within the proposed and existing ROW of the

“Ultimate” Tampa Interstate (I-4) in order to avoid impacts to historic resources near the Tampa 

CBD. For that reason, FDOT and FHSRA developed a MOA allowing the FHSR to be located 

in the median of I-4/I-275. The MOA discusses joint-use of the ROW, safety plans, and barrier 

protection measures. The MOA, which is included in Appendix B, was signed by FHSRA and

FDOT. Signatures are pending for FRA and FHWA. 

S.12.5 Coordination with Local Government

FHSRA coordinated with local agencies to ensure consistency of MPO LRTPs and transportation 

elements of the local comprehensive plans with the FHSR project. All of the applicable LRTPs 

include high speed rail as a part of their long range transportation management; however,

FHSRA has not received a written opinion of consistency from METROPLAN (Orlando 2020

LRTP). Additionally, the FHSR project is consistent with the transportation elements of the 

Hillsborough County, City of Tampa, Polk County, and the City of Lakeland local government

comprehensive plans. However, there is no mention of FHSR in the transportation elements of

the Osceola County, Reedy Creek Improvement District, or Orange County comprehensive 

plans. FHSRA has requested that a map of the proposed corridor and intermodal policy

amendments be included in these plans, as well as the City of Orlando Comprehensive Plan.

Additional coordination of these consistency issues will be necessary.

S.13 PERMITS REQUIRED

In order to proceed into the design phase coordination, a number of state and federal agencies

would be required to determine the permit requirements. The USACE, FDEP, Southwest Florida

Water Management District (SWFWMD), South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), 

and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), regulate wetlands within the

project area. USFWS, EPA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and FFWCC review 

and comment on federal and state wetland permit applications. Currently, it is anticipated that

the following permits may be required for this project: 

Permit Issuing Agency

Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) WMD/FDEP 

Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit USACE 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System FDEP 

Permit (NPDES) 

 

 S-29

The complexity of the permitting process depends greatly on the degree of the impact to

jurisdictional wetland areas. The WMDs require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)

when construction of any project results in the creation of a water management system, or impact 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
to “Waters of the State” or isolated wetlands. An Individual Permit (and wetland mitigation)

would be required with mitigation for wetland impacts because impacts would be greater than

one ac. 

For USACE, a 404 Permit would also be required. This permit requires compliance with Section

404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act (CWA). CWA compliance includes verification 

that all impacts have been avoided to the greatest extent possible, that unavoidable impacts have

been minimized to the greatest extent possible, and that unavoidable impacts have been mitigated

in the form of wetlands creation, restoration, preservation, and/or enhancement. 

Any project which results in the clearing of five or more ac. of land would require a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from FDEP, pursuant to 40 C.F.R 

Parts 122 and 124. In conjunction with this permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

(SWPPP) would be required and implemented during the construction of the project by

implementing such measures as Best Management Practices (BMPs). The primary functions of 

the NPDES requirements are to assure that sediment and erosion control during construction of

the project takes place. 

Once the application(s) are submitted, the permitting process period ranges from 30 to 240 days. 

S.14 COMMITMENTS 

The FHSRA is committed to the following measures for the FHSR project from Tampa to

Orlando: 

1. The following commitments were agreed upon by the FHSRA, FRA, and SHPO, as part

of the Section 106 Consultation process. They would also be incorporated into future

DBOM&F contracts in a manner that will be binding to the vendor.

a. Provide the FHSR design plans (for the Tampa CBD and Ybor City areas) to

the SHPO for review and comment at 30 percent, 60 percent, and 90 percent

submittal. 

b. Coordinate the design of the Tampa Station with the SHPO to ensure that

historic integrity is maintained at the nearby North Franklin Street Historic

District and the St. Paul AME Church Parsonage.

c. Implement vibration monitoring during construction adjacent to the Oaklawn 

Cemetery, German American Club and within the Ybor City NHLD to

determine if damage is likely to occur according to damage criteria described 

in FRA's guidance manual, High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment, Chapter 10. If vibration levels approaching the 

damage criteria are found to occur during construction, immediate 

coordination with the SHPO would be conducted to determine the use of less 

destructive methods and/or minimization methods for continuing the 

construction. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

S-30
d. The stipulations of the TIS MOA would be fulfilled for any impacts to 

contributing historic structures within the Ybor City NHLD and the TIS

Ultimate ROW. 

e. Aesthetic treatment for the FHSR would be compatible with the existing 

Urban Design Guidelines set up for the TIS within the Tampa CBD and Ybor 

City areas. At minimum, the color of the concrete should be compatible with 

the TIS concrete color. The SHPO, City of Tampa, and local community

groups, will be included in the development of the FHSR aesthetics. 

2. Since the Proposed Action alignment passes through a portion of the Barrio Latino Local

Historic District, the FHSR project shall be coordinated with the Barrio Latino 

Commission during the design phase, as required by the Tampa Code of Ordinances, 

Chapter 27 Zoning. 

3. Construction of the Preferred Alternative will require 0.184 ac. of Perry Harvey Sr. Park. 

The ROW requirements will be further refined during design and ROW mapping when

detailed information is available. As a result of continuing coordination, the FHSRA 

requested through a letter to the City of Tampa that it concur in writing with the proposed 

mitigation that provides for compensation for the impacts to Perry Harvey Sr. Park, 

which will be determined during the ROW phase of the FHSR project. Response from 

the City of Tampa indicates that compensation for impacts to the park can be

accomplished through the eminent domain process (See City of Tampa Parks Director 

letter dated March 11, 2004, in Appendix B). As stated previously, the TIS Ultimate 

ROW includes provisions for multi-modal transportation that applies to the FHSR

project. The FHSR project will comply with the specific commitments and stipulations

identified in the existing TIS MOA for the Ultimate ROW improvements. 

4. To assure protection of the Eastern indigo snake during construction, FHSRA will 

incorporate the “Construction Precautions for the Eastern Indigo Snake” guidelines into

the final project design and require that the construction contractor abide strictly to the

guidelines throughout construction. The guidelines include the following:

a. FHSRA shall provide Eastern indigo snake educational information, as 

contained in the applicable FDOT Districts One, Five, or Seven approved

educational plans, to construction employees prior to the initiation of any

clearing, construction, or gopher tortoise relocation activities. The applicable

FDOT Districts One, Five, or Seven educational exhibits shall be posted at 

sites immediately accessible to all employees. 

b. All construction activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of any live

Eastern indigo snake found within the project area. Work may resume after 

the snake, or snakes, are allowed to leave the area on its own. 

 S-31

c. Location of live sightings shall be reported to the USFWS Vero Beach field 

office at (561) 562-3909.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
d. If a dead Eastern indigo snake is found on the project site, the snake shall be

frozen as soon as possible and FHSRA shall notify the Vero Beach field office

immediately for further instruction. 

5. The FHSRA will conduct comprehensive surveys for gopher tortoises and their burrows

during the final design phase of the project within the construction limits (including 

roadway footprint, construction staging areas and stormwater management ponds) and

prior to construction. If burrows are identified during these surveys, FHSRA will contact

the FFWCC to coordinate mitigation for any impacts to this species and acquire the 

necessary incidental take or relocation permits. Although the incidental take permit is

issued for the gopher tortoise, the permitting process provides protection for the Florida

mouse and gopher frog.

6. Based on the identification of sand skink habitat within the project area, the FHSRA will 

conduct surveys during the design/build phase and prior to permitting. The surveys will

be conducted, in potentially suitable habitat, between March 1st and May 15th in

accordance with the USFWS’ draft protocol. Further coordination with the USFWS will

take place prior to the initiation of the surveys to coordinate any potential impacts during

the design/build phase of the FHSR project. 

7. Prior to construction, resurveys for sandhill cranes in areas that may support nesting 

habitat will be conducted. If any crane nests are located, FHSRA will contact FFWCC 

immediately. Construction activities in the vicinity of the nest would cease until

appropriate protective measures are determined. 

8. One bald eagle’s nest, PO-50 in Polk County, is located less than 300 ft. from the I-4 

southern ROW limit. Because this nest was active through the 2002/2003 nesting season,

the nest tree is still provided protection by the USFWS. Therefore, the FHSRA will 

contact the USFWS to discuss if the nest site is considered viable. If the nest is viable,

then standard construction precautions will be implemented to assure the nest and any

nesting activity would be protected from construction. Also, prior to construction, the 

Preferred Alternative will be re-evaluated to determine if any new nests have been

established in proximity to the construction corridor. 

 

S-32

9. Based on new USFWS guidelines, impacts to certain wetland systems within an 18.6-mi. 

radius, or the Core Foraging Area (CFA), of a wood stork colony may directly affect 

colony productivity. FHSRA commits to ensuring that there is no net loss of wetlands

within the project area. The replacement of drainage ditches, swales, and retention ponds 

will be at a 1:1 or greater ratio, resulting in no net loss of CFA. Indirect impacts 

(e.g., changes in hydrological regimes) to adjacent wetlands will be minimized by

adherence to wetland permitting requirements of the WMDs and the USACE. FHSRA 

further commits, where reasonable, to ensure that any wood stork habitat alteration is 

mitigated within the foraging range of known habitat rookeries in the project area in 

compliance with the USFWS’ SLOPES requirements. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
10. In an effort to minimize or eliminate any adverse affects to the Sherman’s fox squirrel,

the FHSRA will survey areas supporting suitable habitat outside of existing

transportation ROW for nests just prior to construction in those areas. If an active nest is

located during these surveys, the FHSRA will contact the FFWCC for guidance on

assuring no adverse effect. 

11. A commitment by FDOT to provide a future wildlife crossing during construction of the

ultimate interstate improvements in Polk County is contained in the Design Change

Reevaluation of I-4 from Memorial Boulevard in Polk County to the Osceola County

line. Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 do not provide for a future animal crossing 

(See Appendix A, Corridor D, Station 3230+00 and 3735+00 in Polk County), but will be

required to do so to maintain consistency with FDOT commitments. Since the FHSR is 

considered to be a viable portion of the ultimate I-4 corridor, the successful proposer will 

include wildlife crossings in its final design. 

12. FHSRA, in coordination with the FRA, will comply with all applicable federal noise 

regulations, standards, criteria, and guidelines in the construction phase and in the 

operation of rail service. With regard to potential noise impacts at non-residential

locations, the feasibility of noise mitigation would need further evaluation. At Perry

Harvey Sr. Park, the projected impact is due to the close proximity of the park to the

proposed track and ROW. As the design is finalized, noise mitigation will be considered

in more detail to determine if the benefit is warranted. The FHSRA has committed to

mitigating noise impacts that exceed the FRAs criteria for severe impacts. Mitigation will 

be coordinated with local communities during the final design phases of the project. 

13. Vibration impacts that exceed FRA criteria are considered to be significant and warrant

mitigation, if feasible. Vibration mitigation will be addressed in more detail during final

design. Further analysis will be needed to confirm the validity of the projected 20

residential impacts in the area of 34th Street and Branch Forbes Road in Hillsborough 

County. The additional analysis, conducted during final design, will consist of

supplemental vibration propagation tests at sites concentrated in these areas, including

soil-to building transfer function measurements. 

14. Potential contamination sites identified in this study will be investigated further prior to 

any construction. Investigative work will include visual inspection, monitoring of

ongoing cleanups, and possible subsurface investigations. At known contamination sites, 

estimated areas of contamination will be marked on design drawings. Prior to 

construction, any necessary cleanup plans would be developed. Actual cleanup would 

take place during construction, if feasible. Special provisions for handling unexpected

contamination discovered during construction will be included in the construction plans 

package. 

 S-33

15. The FHSRA is committed to working with its transportation partners (FHWA and FDOT) 

in the development of this project, and will continue to coordinate all aspects of the 

project with these agencies. The design/build consultant must follow FDOT Design and

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Specifications to meet requirements for maintenance of traffic plans during construction

of the FHSR. Coordination with Districts One, Five, and Seven will include any

concurrent construction along the I-4 corridor. The design/build consultant will

coordinate meetings for the development of the maintenance of traffic plans and the

outcome of these meetings will be an acceptable plan to both FDOT and FHWA prior to

approved use of the interstate ROW for the FHSR. 

16. The FHSRA is committed to working with the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority

(GOAA) and the FAA in the development of this project, and will continue to coordinate 

all aspects of the project with these agencies, especially in relation to the design of

project components and stations in the vicinity of the Orlando International Airport. 

17. FRA/FHWA will require the submittal and approval of specific plans addressing

emergency and maintenance access to the guideway, construction access, and 

construction staging. The design/build process will address specific system safety and

security in accord with FRA standards through development of a Safety Plan following 

completion of the environmental process. 

18. Although the Final EIS proposes a fencing solution similar to what was originally

proposed in the RFP, continued coordination with the design/build firm for fencing 

locations, as well as an intrusion detection system, barriers, and other protective

measures, will be required in the design/build phase. 

19. It is anticipated that roadway improvements in the immediate area of any station would 

be required and further coordination will identify specific roadway improvements in the 

design/build phase. Any roadway improvements will be coordinated with local agencies,

including the City of Lakeland and Polk County. Visual impacts of a station will also be 

coordinated with various agencies, including the City of Lakeland and Polk County,

through the design/build phase of the project. 

20. A formal wetland jurisdictional survey will be produced during the permitting effort.

Review and approval of these lines will be conducted by appropriate local, state and

federal agencies. Plans will comply with the any local requirements including the

Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission guidelines. 

21. A continuing process of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation will be performed

during final design and permitting. At this time, wetland impacts, which will result from 

the construction of this project, will be mitigated pursuant to S. 373.4137 F.S. (Senate 

Bill 1986) to satisfy all wetland mitigation requirements of Part IV Chapter 373, F.S. and

33 U.S.C.s. 1344. Under this statute, transportation improvement mitigation can be

achieved through long range planning, rather than a project-by-project basis. The 

mitigation is carried out by either the FDEP or the WMD. Under S. 373.4137 F.S., 

mitigation of FHSR wetland impacts will be implemented through the FDEP. Each

WMD has developed a regional wetland mitigation plan to address the estimated 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

S-34
mitigation needs. This plan is updated on an annual basis and approved by the Florida 

State Legislature. 

22. The FHSRA will comply with all applicable local, state, and federal standards and

regulations regarding building demolitions and renovations, asbestos, and open burning 

requirements, including the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission

guidelines. 

23. The Preferred Alternative would result in potential visual/aesthetic issues within the

Tampa CBD. Where the FHSR leaves the I-4 median within Ybor City, coordination will 

occur with the City of Tampa to ensure design compatibility in height and design with the 

proposed Ybor City Gateway design at I-4 and 21st Street. 

24. The FHSR alignment into the property of Orlando International Airport is located within 

the existing rail corridor traversing through the limits of the airport, as identified in the 

Orlando International Airport Master Plan. The FHSR O&M facility is located east of

the South Access Road and on the southern portion of the Orlando International Airport 

property east of the South Access Road. The limits of the O&M facility have been

located to avoid any impacts the conservation area located south of the airport and will 

require additional coordination with Orlando International Airport and FAA throughout 

the design phase. 

25. Impacts to residents and travelers in the immediate vicinity of the project may result due 

to the construction of the Preferred Alternative; however, they would be of short duration 

in any given location since the construction would proceed in a scheduled sequence. All

construction will be conducted in accordance with the FDOT’s Standard Specifications

for Road and Bridge Construction and Best Management Practices (BMPs). 

26. The Preferred Alternative falls within the jurisdictions of the SWFWMD, the SFWMD,

and the SJRWMD. The water quality criteria associated with each agency would apply

to the portion of the project within the respective district limits. The FDEP would 

administer the project water quality requirements. The FHSR must meet criteria, which 

are located in rules 62-302.500 and 62-302.530 of the F.A.C. 

 S-35

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................S-1 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................i

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................viii 

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................xiii

SUMMARY AND COMMITMENTS .......................................................S-1 

S.1 Introduction.....................................................................................S-1 

S.2 Proposed Action..............................................................................S-2 

S.3 The Purpose and Need ....................................................................S-2 

S.4 Background.....................................................................................S-3 

S.5 Alternatives Considered..................................................................S-4 

S.5.1 No-Build Alternative ..........................................................S-4 

S.5.2 Technology Alternatives.....................................................S-5 

S.5.3 Alignment Alternatives.......................................................S-6 

S.5.4 Summary.............................................................................S-7 

S.6 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed .........................................S-8 

S.7 Preferred Alternative.......................................................................S-8 

S.8 Summary of Impacts......................................................................S-11 

S.8.1 Wetlands ............................................................................S-13 

S.8.2 Wildlife and Habitat...........................................................S-13 

S.8.3 Floodplains and Floodways ...............................................S-14 

S.8.4 Contamination Sites...........................................................S-14 

S.8.5 Section 4 (f) Sites...............................................................S-15 

S.8.6 Community Services..........................................................S-16 

S.8.7 Noise Impacts.....................................................................S-17 

S.8.8 Vibration Impacts...............................................................S-18 

S.8.9 Air Quality .........................................................................S-19 

S.8.10 Energy Consumption .........................................................S-20 

S.8.11 Historic and Archeological Resources...............................S-20 

S.8.12 Relocations.........................................................................S-21 

S.8.13 Transportation Impacts ......................................................S-22 

S.8.14 Public Safety ......................................................................S-23 

S.8.15 Total Cost for Construction ...............................................S-24 

S.9 Comprehensive Planning and Coordination ..................................S-24 

S.10 Public Involvement Program .........................................................S-27 

S.11 Areas of Controversy .....................................................................S-28 

 i

S.12 Unresolved Issues with Other Agencies........................................S-28 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Section Title Page

 

ii

S.12.1 I-4 Wildlife Crossing .........................................................S-28 

S.12.2 Coordination with Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA)........................................................S-28 

S.12.3 Coordination with Walt Disney World Resort...................S-28 

S.12.4 Coordination with FRA and FHWA..................................S-29 

S.12.5 Coordination with Local Government ...............................S-29 

S.13 Permits Required............................................................................S-29 

S.14 Commitments.................................................................................S-30 

1 PURPOSE AND NEED..............................................................................1-1 

1.1 Introduction.....................................................................................1-1 

1.2 Purpose............................................................................................1-2 

1.3 Need ................................................................................................1-3 

1.3.1 Transportation Demand and Travel Growth.......................1-4 

1.3.2 Capacity ..............................................................................1-6 

1.3.3 Safety ..................................................................................1-8 

1.3.4 Social Demands/Economic Development...........................1-9 

1.3.5 Air Quality .........................................................................1-11 

1.3.6 Modal Inter-Relationship...................................................1-12 

1.4 Background of Florida High Speed Rail........................................1-12 

1.5 References/Notes ...........................................................................1-14 

 2 ALTERNATIVES.......................................................................................2-1 

2.1 Historical Overview of High Speed Rail ........................................2-1 

2.2 No-Build Alternative ......................................................................2-2 

2.3 Design/Build Alternative Analysis.................................................2-3 

2.3.1 Preliminary Corridors .........................................................2-4 

2.3.2 Corridors for Further Evaluation .......................................2-16 

2.3.3 Design/Build Alternatives Selection Process.....................2-17 

2.4 Design/Build Alternatives..............................................................2-19 

2.4.1 Design/Build Alignment Variations ..................................2-19 

2.4.2 Operations..........................................................................2-20 

2.4.3 Bridge Structures ...............................................................2-22 

2.4.4 Retaining Walls..................................................................2-23 

2.4.5 Barriers...............................................................................2-24 

2.4.6 Drainage.............................................................................2-25 

2.4.7 Highway Modification.......................................................2-27 

2.4.8 Operational And Maintenance Facility..............................2-28 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Section Title Page

 iii

2.5 Stations...........................................................................................2-29 

2.5.1 Preliminary Station Locations............................................2-30 

2.5.2 Viable Station Locations....................................................2-34 

2.5.3 Design/Build Station Locations.........................................2-35 

2.6 Preferred Alternative......................................................................2-35 

2.7 Environmentally Preferred Alternative..........................................2-38 

2.8 References......................................................................................2-38 

 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT..................................................................3-1 

3.1 Social and Economic Characteristics..............................................3-1 

3.1.1 Population Characteristics ..................................................3-1 

3.1.2 Employment and Economic Characteristics.......................3-3 

3.2. Existing Land Use...........................................................................3-6 

3.2.1 Corridor A: East of the Hillsborough River to U.S. 41 

in Tampa and Corridor B: U.S. 41 to the Bypass Canal 

in Hillsborough County.......................................................3-6 

3.2.2 Corridor B: U.S. 41 in Tampa to East of I-75, 

Hillsborough County and Corridor C: East of I-75, 

Hillsborough County, to West Entry of the Polk 

Parkway, Polk County ........................................................3-6 

3.2.3 Corridor D: West Entry of Polk Parkway, Polk County,

to Celebration Area, Osceola County .................................3-6 

3.2.4 Corridor E: Celebration Area, Osceola County, to

Orlando International Airport, Orange County...................3-7 

3.3 Future Land Use Plans....................................................................3-7 

3.3.1 Corridor A: East of the Hillsborough River to U.S. 41 

in Tampa and Corridor B: U.S. 41 in Tampa to East of 

I-75, Hillsborough County..................................................3-7 

3.3.2 Corridor C: East of I-75, Hillsborough County to the 

West Entry of the Polk Parkway, Polk County...................3-8 

3.3.3 Corridor D: West Entry of Polk Parkway, Polk County

to Celebration Area, Osceola County .................................3-8 

3.3.4 Corridor E: Celebration Area, Osceola County to 

Orlando International Airport, Orange County...................3-9 

3.4 Future Transportation Plans............................................................3-9 

3.4.1 Long Range Transportation Plans.......................................3-9 

3.4.2 Local Government Transportation Planning......................3-10 

3.5 Community Services......................................................................3-12 

3.5.1 Schools...............................................................................3-12 

3.5.2 Community Facilities.........................................................3-13 

3.5.3 Parks and Recreation..........................................................3-14 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Section Title Page

 

iv

3.5.4 Cemeteries..........................................................................3-15 

3.5.5 Churches ............................................................................3-16 

3.6 Archaeological and Historic Resources........................................3-17 

3.6.1 Inventory of Archaeological and Historic Resources........3-18 

3.7 Physical Environment ....................................................................3-28 

3.7.1 Air Quality .........................................................................3-28 

3.7.2 Noise ..................................................................................3-32 

3.7.3 Vibration ............................................................................3-40 

3.7.4 Water Quality.....................................................................3-44 

3.7.5 Floodways and Floodplain.................................................3-44 

3.7.6 Hydrology and Drainage....................................................3-45 

3.7.7 Topography, Soils, and Geology .......................................3-46 

3.7.8 Contamination....................................................................3-51 

3.8 Natural Resources..........................................................................3-52 

3.8.1 Natural Communities.........................................................3-52 

3.8.2 Wetlands ............................................................................3-54 

3.8.3 Wildlife and Habitat...........................................................3-57 

3.8.4 Farmlands...........................................................................3-59 

3.9 Transportation................................................................................3-60 

3.9.1 Existing Railroad Conditions/Operations..........................3-60 

3.9.2 Existing Highway Conditions/Operations .........................3-61 

3.9.3 Existing Modes of Public Transportation ..........................3-63 

3.10 References......................................................................................3-67 

 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................4-1 

4.1 Community Impacts........................................................................4-1 

4.1.1 Community Cohesion .........................................................4-1 

4.1.2 Community and Land Use Impacts.....................................4-4 

4.1.3 Economic Impacts...............................................................4-7 

4.1.4 Safety and Public Health.....................................................4-8 

4.1.5 Relocation and Right of Way Impacts...............................4-13 

4.1.6 Environmental Justice........................................................4-17 

4.1.7 Archaeological and Historic Resources.............................4-19 

4.1.8 Recreational/Parkland........................................................4-33 

4.1.9 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts...................................4-38 

4.2 Natural and Physical Impacts.........................................................4-39 

4.2.1 Visual/Aesthetic.................................................................4-39 

4.2.2 Air Quality .........................................................................4-41 

4.2.3 Noise ..................................................................................4-53 

4.2.4 Vibration ............................................................................4-67 

4.2.5 Wetlands ............................................................................4-78 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Section Title Page

 v

4.2.6 Aquatic Preserves...............................................................4-84 

4.2.7 Water Quality Impact Evaluation ......................................4-84 

4.2.8 Outstanding Florida Waters...............................................4-86 

4.2.9 Contamination....................................................................4-86 

4.2.10 Wild and Scenic Rivers......................................................4-90 

4.2.11 Floodplain and Floodway Impact Evaluation....................4-90 

4.2.12 Coastal Zone Consistency..................................................4-92 

4.2.13 Coastal Barrier Resources..................................................4-92 

4.2.14 Wildlife and Habitat...........................................................4-92 

4.2.15 Farmlands..........................................................................4-107 

4.2.16 Energy...............................................................................4-107 

4.2.17 Utilities..............................................................................4-112 

4.3 Transportation Impacts .................................................................4-115 

4.3.1 Impacts to Freight Rail Operations...................................4-115 

4.3.2 Impacts to Highway Operations........................................4-116 

4.3.3 Ridership and Revenue .....................................................4-119 

4.3.4 Impact to Other Travel Modes..........................................4-123 

4.3.5 Station Access and Traffic Impacts ..................................4-124 

4.4 Construction Impacts....................................................................4-127 

4.4.1 Design/Build Alternatives.................................................4-127 

4.4.2 No-Build Alternative ........................................................4-128 

4.4.3 Preferred Alternative.........................................................4-129 

4.5 The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses and 

Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement 

of Long-Term Productivity...........................................................4-129 

4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources.............4-129 

4.7 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation ............................................4-130 

4.7.1 Evaluation Matrix .............................................................4-130 

4.7.2 Required Permits and Review Agencies...........................4-136 

4.8 References/Notes ..........................................................................4-137 

4.9 References Cited ...........................................................................4-138 

5 SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION..................................................................5-1 

5.1 Section 4(f) Evaluation of Perry Harvey Sr. Park...........................5-1 

5.1.1 Proposed Section 4(f) Action..............................................5-2 

5.1.2 Description of Perry Harvey Sr. Park .................................5-2 

5.1.3 Impacts on Perry Harvey Sr. Park.......................................5-3 

5.1.4 Avoidance Alternatives.......................................................5-3 

5.1.5 Measures to Minimize Harm ..............................................5-6 

5.1.6 Coordination .......................................................................5-6 

5.1.7 Preferred Alternative...........................................................5-7 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Section Title Page

 

vi

5.1.8 Mitigation............................................................................5-7 

5.2 References.......................................................................................5-8 

6 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION.....................................................6-1 

6.1 Coordination with Agencies ...........................................................6-1 

6.1.1 Notice of Intent ...................................................................6-1 

6.1.2 Advance Notification..........................................................6-1 

6.1.3 Agency Coordination Meetings..........................................6-3 

6.2 Community Outreach......................................................................6-7 

6.2.1 Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Committees......6-7 

6.2.2 Elected Officials and Small Group Meetings .....................6-8 

6.3 Public Information Workshops......................................................6-10 

6.3.1 Public Notification.............................................................6-10 

6.3.2 First Series of Public Information Workshops...................6-11 

6.3.3 Second Series of Public Information Workshops..............6-13 

6.3.4 Second Series of Public Information 

Workshops Results.............................................................6-13 

6.3.5 Newsletter And Web Page .................................................6-16 

6.4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement Coordination ...................6-17 

6.4.1 Public Hearings..................................................................6-17 

6.4.2 Agency Comments.............................................................6-21 

6.5 References......................................................................................6-52 

7 LIST OF PREPARERS...............................................................................7-1 

8 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO 

WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT.............................8-1 

8.1 Federal Agencies.............................................................................8-1 

8.2 State Agencies.................................................................................8-2 

8.3 Local Agencies................................................................................8-3 

8.3.1 Regional Planning Councils................................................8-3 

8.3.2 Water Management Districts ..............................................8-3 

8.3.3 Local Planning Agencies ....................................................8-3 

8.3.4 Metropolitan Planning Organizations.................................8-3 

8.4 Other Agencies................................................................................8-3 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Section Title Page

 vii

 APPENDICES 

Appendix A (Under Separate Cover)

 A1: Conceptual Plans 

 A2: Technology Differences 

 A3: Corridor Impact Matrix

 A4: Typical Sections, Stations, and Maintenance 

Appendix B: Agency Coordination 

B-1: SHPO Concurrence Letter-CRAS Methodology (February/

March 2003) 

B-2: SHPO Concurrence Letter-Corridor Study CRAS Findings 

(April 2003) 

B-3: MOA for Use of I-4/I-275 ROW (FDOT/FHWA/FRA/FHSRA) 

B-4: SHPO Concurrence Letter-PD&E CRAS Findings 

(September 2003) 

B-5: SHPO Concurrence Letter-Section 106 Findings (January 2004) 

B-6: City of Tampa-Letter of Park Significance for Perry Harvey Sr. 

Park (March 2003) 

B-7: City of Tampa-Letter of Park Significance for Nuccio Parkway

Linear Park (March 2003) 

B-8: SFWMD-Letter of Significance for Shingle Creek Greenway

(April 2003) 

B-9: WQIE Checklist and Water Quality Criteria

B-10: FDEP (State Clearinghouse) Coastal Zone Consistency Letter

(October 2003) 

B-11: NRCS Concurrence Letter-Farmlands (April 2003) 

B-12: Notice of Intent 

B-13: Advance Notification Package 

B-14: Advance Notification Comments 

B-15: Orange County-Letter of Preference for OCCC Station Site

(October 2002) 

Appendix C (Under Separate Cover)

Preliminary Engineering Plans 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

S-1 Roadway Improvements within the Study Area .........................................S-4 

S-2 Summary of Operations by Technology.....................................................S-6 

S-3 Summary of Design/Build Alternatives by Alignment and Technology...S-7 

S-4 Design/Build Alternatives Evaluation Matrix (Preferred 

Alternative Highlighted)............................................................................S-12 

S-5 High Speed Rail Study Area Long Range Transportation Plans...............S-25 

S-6 High Speed Rail Study Area Transportation Elements..............................S-26 

1-1 Summary of Population Trends in FHSR Tampa-Orlando Corridor..........1-5 

1-2 Summary of Employment Trends in FHSR Tampa-Orlando Corridor .....1-5 

1-3 Hotel Room Growth in FHSR Tampa-Orlando Corridor ..........................1-6 

1-4 Existing and Future Roadway Capacity......................................................1-7 

1-5 Roadway Improvements within the Study Area .........................................1-9 

2-1 Milestones in the Combined EIS/DBOM&F Process.................................2-3 

2-2 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor A Segment 1- 

Hillsborough River to Morgan/Harrison Street ..........................................2-5 

2-3 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor A Segment 2 – 

Morgan/Harrison Streets to Kennedy Boulevard/Lee Roy Selmon 

Crosstown Expressway ...............................................................................2-6 

2-4 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor A Segment 3 – 

Kennedy Boulevard/Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway to 

36th/37th Street.............................................................................................2-7 

2-5 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor A Segment 4 – 

36th/37th Street to U.S. 41/I-4 Interchange ..................................................2-8 

2-6 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor B Segment 1 – 

In I-4 Median U.S. 41/I-4 Interchange to West of Mango 

Road/C.R. 579.............................................................................................2-9 

2-7 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor B Segment 2 – 

CSX A-Line to I-4 ......................................................................................2-9 

2-8 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor C East of I-75 to 

East of Hillsborough/Polk County Line.....................................................2-10 

2-9 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor D Segment 1 – 

Hillsborough/Polk County Line to I-4/Socrum Loop Interchange ...........2-11 

2-10 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor D Segment 2 – 

I-4/Socrum Loop Interchange to West of I-4/C.R. 557 Interchange .........2-12 

2-11 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor D Segment 3 – 

West of I-4/C.R. 557 Interchange to East of I-4/World Drive 

Interchange.................................................................................................2-13 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

viii
LIST OF TABLES (cont.) 

Table Title Page

 ix

2-12 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor E Segment 1 – 

World Drive Interchange to Osceola Parkway ..........................................2-14 

2-13 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor E Segment 2 – 

Osceola Parkway to John Young Parkway ................................................2-15 

2-14 Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor E Segment 4 – 

John Young Parkway to Orlando International Airport.............................2-16 

 2-15 Retained Routes.........................................................................................2-17 

2-16 Viable Corridors.........................................................................................2-17 

 2-17 Design/Build Alternatives..........................................................................2-18 

3-1 Population Statistics by County and in Florida 1980, 1990, 2000, 

2010, and 2020............................................................................................3-1 

3-2 Age Characteristics by County and in Florida Year 2000 ..........................3-2 

3-3 Racial Composition by County and in Florida Years 1980-2000..............3-3 

3-4 Total Households and Persons per Household by County and in 

Florida Years 1990 and 2000.....................................................................3-3 

3-5 Labor Force and Unemployment by County and in Florida Years 1999 

and 2000......................................................................................................3-4 

3-6 Employment by Industry Group by County and in Florida 

Year 2000....................................................................................................3-4 

3-7 Percent Below the Poverty Level and Median Household Income 

and Number of Households ........................................................................3-5 

3-8 High Speed Rail Study Area LRTPs..........................................................3-10 

3-9 High Speed Rail Study Area Transportation Elements..............................3-11 

3-10 Potentially Affected Schools......................................................................3-12 

 3-11 Potentially Affected Community Facilities ...............................................3-14 

 3-12 Potentially Affected Parks .........................................................................3-15 

 3-13 Potentially Affected Cemeteries................................................................3-16 

 3-14 Potentially Affected Churches...................................................................3-16 

3-15 NRHP-Listed and NRHP-Eligible Cultural Resource ...............................3-19 

3-16 National Ambient Air Quality Standards...................................................3-29 

3-17 Monitor Summary Data .............................................................................3-31 

3-18 FRA Noise Impact Criteria ........................................................................3-35 

3-19 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurement Results ....................3-37 

3-20 Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria .................................3-42 

3-21 Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria for Special 

Buildings....................................................................................................3-42 

3-22 Elevation Data............................................................................................3-47 

3-23 Soils Encountered in SPT and Power Auger Borings................................3-50 

3-24 Ranked Potential Contamination Sites By Corridor..................................3-52 

3-25 Existing Natural Communities within the FHSR Study Area ...................3-53 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
LIST OF TABLES (cont.) 

Table Title Page

 

x

 3-26 FLUCCS Categories and Corresponding USFWS Code for Wetlands 

Identified in the FHSR Study Area............................................................3-54 

3-27 Wetland Acreage by FLUCCS Category and Corridor Alignments..........3-57 

3-28 2001 Roadway Network LOS by Corridor................................................3-62 

 4-1 Community Service Evaluation Matrix .....................................................4-6 

 4-2 Summary of Present Value (PV) of Economic Benefits and Costs 

Tampa to Orlando in 2002 $ .......................................................................4-8 

 4-3 Comparison of Relocations........................................................................4-15 

 4-4 ROW Costs Corridors, Stations, and Maintenance Facilities....................4-17 

 4-5 Potential Impacts to Historic Resources along Alternatives 1, 2, 5, 

and 6...........................................................................................................4-22 

 4-6 Potential Impacts to Historic Resources along Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 4-25 

 4-7 Effects Analysis for Historic Resources Associated with the 

FHSR Preferred Alternative.......................................................................4-30 

 4-8 Current Visual/Aesthetic Design Standards...............................................4-40 

 4-9 Annual Person Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).........................................4-41 

 4-10 Vehicle Occupancy Rates..........................................................................4-41 

 4-11 Reduction/Addition of Motor Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).................4-42 

 4-12 Motor Vehicle Emissions...........................................................................4-43 

 4-13 Gas Turbine Train Technology Emission Factors.....................................4-43 

 4-14 Gas Turbine Train Technology Annual Fuel Consumption (2010)...........4-44 

 4-15 Power Usage for the Electric Train............................................................4-44 

 4-16 Emission Factors for Coal-Fired Facility...................................................4-44 

 4-17 Annual Emissions by Train Technology....................................................4-45 

 4-18 Annual Vehicle Miles Associated with O&M Activities ..........................4-45 

 4-19 Motor Vehicle Emission Factors for O&M Activities...............................4-46 

 4-20 Annual Motor Vehicle Emissions from O&M Activities..........................4-46 

 4-21 Annual Electric Power Consumption for O&M Facilities.........................4-47 

 4-22 Annual Emissions from Electric Power Consumption at O&M 

Facilities.....................................................................................................4-47 

 4-23 Total Annual Emissions for O&M Activities and Facilities......................4-48 

 4-24 Gas Turbine Train Technology Net Change in Emissions........................4-48 

 4-25 Electric Train Technology Net Change in Emissions................................4-49 

 4-26 Train Emissions within Hillsborough County ...........................................4-50 

 4-27 Annual Electric Power Consumption for O&M Facilities in 

Hillsborough County..................................................................................4-50 

 4-28 Total Annual Emissions for O&M Activities and Facilities in 

Hillsborough County..................................................................................4-51 

 4-29 Gas Turbine Train Technology Net Change in Emissions within 

Hillsborough County..................................................................................4-51 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
LIST OF TABLES (cont.) 

Table Title Page

 xi

 4-30 Electric Train Technology Net Change in Emissions within 

Hillsborough County..................................................................................4-52 

 4-31 Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 1..............................................4-54 

 4-32 Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 2..............................................4-55 

 4-33 Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 3..............................................4-56 

 4-34 Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 4..............................................4-56 

 4-35 Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 5..............................................4-57 

 4-36 Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 6..............................................4-59 

 4-37 Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 7..............................................4-60 

 4-38 Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 8..............................................4-61 

 4-39 Residential Noise Impact Summary...........................................................4-62 

 4-40 Comparison of SEL Noise Level with Technology and Train Consist .....4-63 

 4-41 Evaluation Matrix Noise Impacts (Moderate & Severe) ...........................4-63 

 4-42 Comparison of Technology Noise Impact on Alignment E2.....................4-64 

4-43 Noise Impacts for Institutional Land Use ..................................................4-64 

 4-44 Potential Noise Barrier Mitigation Treatments..........................................4-66 

 4-45 Residential Noise Impacts for Preferred Alternative .................................4-67 

 4-46 Vibration Impacts for Alternative 1...........................................................4-69 

 4-47 Vibration Impacts for Alternative 2...........................................................4-70 

 4-48 Vibration Impacts for Alternative 3...........................................................4-71 

 4-49 Vibration Impacts for Alternative 4...........................................................4-71 

 4-50 Vibration Impacts for Alternative 5...........................................................4-72 

 4-51 Vibration Impacts for Alternative 6...........................................................4-73 

 4-52 Vibration Impacts for Alternative 7...........................................................4-74 

 4-53 Vibration Impacts for Alternative 8...........................................................4-74 

 4-54 Vibration Impact Summary........................................................................4-75 

 4-55 Evaluation Matrix Vibration Impacts ........................................................4-75 

 4-56 Residential Vibration Impacts for Preferred Alternative ...........................4-76 

 4-57 Recommended Locations for Vibration Mitigation...................................4-77 

 4-58 Proposed Wetland Impacts for the FHSR Alignments/Alternatives.........4-80 

 4-59 Wetland Impact Analysis Matrix...............................................................4-82

 4-60 Evaluation Matrix Natural Environment Impacts (Acres).........................4-83 

 4-61 Potential Hazardous Material Sites for Alternatives 1 and 5.....................4-87 

 4-62 Potential Hazardous Material Sites for Alternatives 2 and 6.....................4-88 

 4-63 Potential Hazardous Material Sites Alternatives 3 and 7...........................4-88 

 4-64 Potential Hazardous Material Sites Alternatives 4 and 8...........................4-89 

 4-65 Impact Evaluation Matrix Potential Contamination Sites ........................4-90 

 4-66 Potentially Impacted Floodplains and Floodways.....................................4-91 

 4-67 Summary of Potentially Impacted Floodplains and Floodways................4-92 

 4-68 Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species ..........................................4-94 

 4-69 Protected Species Evaluation Summary ....................................................4-98 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
LIST OF TABLES (cont.) 

Table Title Page

 

xii

 4-70 Wood Stork Colonies within 18.6 Miles (Core Foraging Area) of 

the Proposed Corridors .............................................................................4-104 

 4-71 Summary of Estimated Train Propulsion Energy Consumption for 

the Year 2010............................................................................................4-109 

 4-72 Summary of Estimated Highway Energy Consumption Change for 

the Year 2010............................................................................................4-109 

 4-73 Summary of Estimated O&M Energy Consumption (MBTU per year)...4-111 

 4-74 Summary of Estimated Net Energy Consumption (Change from 2010 

No-Build in MBTU), Including Thermal Losses for Electric 

Power Generation......................................................................................4-111 

 4-75 Utilities within Alternatives 1 through 8 ..................................................4-112 

 4-76 2010 Tampa-Orlando Ridership and Revenue Estimates.........................4-121 

 4-77 Design/Build Alternatives Impact Evaluation Matrix 

(Preferred Alternative Highlighted)..........................................................4-132 

6-1 Metropolitan Planning Organization Meetings...........................................6-7 

6-2 Local Briefings............................................................................................6-9 

6-3 High Speed Rail Public Information Workshops.......................................6-11 

6-4 High Speed Rail Public Information Workshops.......................................6-13 

6-5 High Speed Rail Public Hearings ..............................................................6-17 

6-6 Comment Tabulation .................................................................................6-18 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
LIST OF FIGURES 

 On or 

 Follows 

Figure Title Page

 S-1 Project Location Map .................................................................................S-2 

 S-2 Design Build Alternatives...........................................................................S-6 

S-3 Corridors/Stations for Further Evaluation .................................................S-8 

 S-4 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................S-12 

1-1 Existing and Future Level of Service .........................................................1-6 

 2-1 Study Corridors ..........................................................................................2-2 

2-2 Study Corridors – Corridor A ....................................................................2-5 

2-3 Study Corridors – Corridor B ....................................................................2-8 

2-4 Study Corridors – Corridor C ...................................................................2-10 

2-5 Study Corridors – Corridor D ...................................................................2-10 

2-6 Study Corridors – Corridor E ....................................................................2-13 

2-7 Corridors/Stations for Further Evaluation ................................................2-16 

2-8 Design Build Alternatives. ........................................................................2-18 

2-9 Operation and Maintenance Facilities .......................................................2-28 

 2-10 Viable Station Locations ...........................................................................2-30 

 2-11 Preferred Alternative .................................................................................2-37 

3-1 Existing Land Use, City of Tampa – Corridors A and B........................... 3-6 

3-2 Existing Land Use, Hillsborough County – Corridors B and C ................3-6 

3-3 Existing Land Use, Plant City – Corridor C ..............................................3-6 

3-4 Existing Land Use, Polk County and City of Lakeland – Corridor D .......3-6 

3-5 Existing Land Use, Osceola County – Corridors D and E .........................3-7 

3-6 Existing Land Use, Orange County – Corridor E ......................................3-7 

3-7 Future Land Use, City of Tampa – Corridors A and B ..............................3-7 

3-8 Future Land Use, Hillsborough County – Corridors B and C ................... 3-8 

3-9 Future Land Use, Plant City – Corridor C .................................................3-8 

3-10 Future Land Use, Polk County and City of Lakeland – Corridor D ..........3-8 

3-11 Future Land Use, Osceola County – Corridors D and E ............................3-9 

3-12 Future Land Use, Orange County – Corridor E .........................................3-9 

3-13 Community Services, Corridor A .............................................................3-12 

3-14 Community Services, Corridor B ..............................................................3-12 

3-15 Community Services, Corridor C ..............................................................3-12 

3-16 Community Services, Corridor D ..............................................................3-12 

3-17 Community Service, Corridor E ...............................................................3-12 

3-18 Location of NHRP-Listed, Eligible, and Potentially Eligible 

Historic Resources.....................................................................................3-18 

 xiii

3-19 Examples of Typical Outdoor Noise Exposure ........................................3-32 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.) 

 On or 

 Follows 

Section Title Page

 

xiv

3-20 Noise Monitoring Sites .............................................................................3-36 

3-21 Typical Ground-Borne Vibration Levels and Criteria ..............................3-40 

3-22 Ground-Borne Vibration Measurement Locations ...................................3-43 

3-23 Transfer Mobility at 100 Feet ...................................................................3-43 

3-24 Locally Preferred Alternative ...................................................................3-64 

3-25 Station Area Planning Districts/Downtown ..............................................3-64 

4-1 Number of Permanent Jobs Created for Floridians by Development 

of the FHSR System....................................................................................4-7 

4-2 Net Present Value of High Speed Rail Benefits per Corridor Mile ...........4-7 

4-3 Net Present Value of High Speed Rail Benefits ........................................4-7 

4-4 Potential Contamination Sites ...................................................................4-87 

5-1 Perry Harvey Park Section 4(f) Resource ..................................................5-2 

5-2 Perry Harvey Sr. Park Avoidance Alignments ..........................................5-4 

5-3 Section 4(f) Historic Properties Avoidance Alignments ............................5-7 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
SECTION 1 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The potential for high speed rail to address a portion of the transportation needs of the State of

Florida has a long history. The current effort to evaluate high speed rail’s potential was initiated 

following an enactment by Florida’s voters. In November 2000, Florida’s voters adopted an

amendment to the Constitution of the State of Florida that mandated the construction of a high

speed transportation system in the state. The amendment required the use of train technologies 

that operate at speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour and consist of dedicated rails or guideways 

separated from motor vehicle traffic. The system was to link the five largest urban areas of

Florida and construction was mandated to begin by November 1, 2003, to address a high speed

ground transportation system. 

The purpose of Article 10, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of Florida was, “to reduce

traffic congestion and provide alternatives to the traveling public.” In June 2001, the Florida 

State Legislature, through the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act, created the Florida High

Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA) and charged the organization with the responsibility for 

planning, administering, and implementing a high speed rail system in Florida. The act also

mandated that the initial segment of the system be developed and operated between

St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Orlando areas with future service to the Miami area. 

Following its creation in 2001, the FHSRA proceeded to implement the responsibilities set forth

in the Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act. The FHSRA’s proposal included the provision of

high speed rail passenger service between downtown Tampa and Orlando International Airport. 

This project, while viewed by FHSRA as the first phase of the eventual achievement of the

constitutional goal, has independent utility, in that it serves as an important transportation 

purpose in its own right and its implementation is not dependent upon future actions that may or 

may not be taken to expand high speed rail service beyond this project’s limits. The FHSRA,

with guidance from the federal lead agency, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA),

undertook a number of other actions to advance the high speed rail system, which are discussed

in greater detail in Section 2, including preparation and issuance of the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) in August 2003 that preceded this Final EIS. 

 1-1

The FHSRA envisions possible future federal financial support for the project that might be 

provided through the FRA. While FRA and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)

have several loan and loan guarantee programs that might be potential sources of future financial

assistance, there are currently no existing grant or federal bond financing programs that would 

support the type of financial involvement envisioned by FHSRA. Several proposals to create 

such programs, however, are currently pending before Congress. The FRA may also have

certain regulatory responsibilities, with respect to the project, which are consistent with its

statutory railroad safety oversight activities. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are cooperating agencies for this document. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
On November 2, 2004, Florida voters repealed the amendment to the Constitution of the State of

Florida in its entirety resulting in removal of the constitutional mandate for a high speed rail 

system. This action, however, did not affect the legislative mandate for the FHSRA and the

Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act remains in effect pending any action that the Florida

Legislature may choose to take. The future of the proposed high speed rail system in Florida is

thus uncertain. Notwithstanding this uncertainty, the FHSRA continues to believe that high

speed rail can serve an important transportation purpose. FHSRA has also determined, and the

FRA agrees, that it is in the best interest of the State of Florida to complete and issue this Final

EIS. Considerable resources have been invested in bringing the document to this late stage of

development and completing the environmental impact assessment process through issuance of a 

Final EIS has significant value, even if no further action is taken at this time to advance the

proposed system. 

The Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) system proposed by the FHSRA to be located between

downtown Tampa and Orlando International Airport would be developed on new track, with the 

great majority of the system located within existing right-of-way (ROW) of Interstate 4 (I-4),

Interstate 75 (I-75), the Florida’s Turnpike Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528), the Orlando-Orange

County Expressway Authority’s (OOCEA) Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), or the CSX 

railroad. Figure S-1 presents the study area. This Final EIS establishes the specific location and

major design concepts of the proposed FHSR system from Tampa to Orlando in Florida, a

distance of approximately 95 miles (mi). 

The FHSRA has prepared this Final EIS with the FRA as the federal lead agency. The FRA is an

operating administration within the USDOT and has oversight responsibility for the safety of

railroad operations nationwide. Cooperating federal agencies include: FHWA and USACE. 

The FHSRA and the FRA have determined that an EIS is appropriate in order to satisfy the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)1

. 

Preparation of this EIS, together with its circulation and review and comment, is designed to

ensure that all viable alternatives for the project are evaluated, including a No-Build Alternative;

that all substantial transportation, social, economic, and environmental impacts are assessed; and 

that public involvement and comments are solicited to assist the decision-making process. The

evaluation of alternatives helps to ensure that the environmental impacts, benefits, costs, and

trade-offs among alternatives are in compliance with federal and state requirements and 

addressed according to FRA procedures and Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations. 

1.2 PURPOSE 

 

1-2

The purpose of FHSR is to enhance intercity passenger mobility in Florida by expanding 

passenger transportation capacity and providing an alternative to highway and air travel. The

FHSR Tampa-Orlando phase addresses concerns of increasing vehicular congestion on the I-4

corridor. Currently, few convenient alternatives exist that could reduce commuter, business,

freight, and tourist highway traffic. In 1991, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 

established a limit of ten lanes (five lanes in either direction) at any location on the Florida

Intrastate Highway System (FIHS). The three Master Plans governing I-4 within the project area

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
were all adopted under this regulation2

. Interim construction and ultimate ROW acquisitions are

consistent with these Master Plans. The Master Plans also identify an envelope for High

Occupancy Vehicles or Light Rail Transit. 

In 2002 and 2003, FDOT Procedures 525-030-250-f 3

 and 525-030-255-c4 set up specific criteria 

for widening all roads on the FIHS. These procedures were developed based on year 2000

legislation (Section 335.02(3) F.S.), which establishes criteria that must be considered when 

determining the number of lanes on the FIHS. The criteria include consideration of multi-modal

alternatives and the consideration of local comprehensive plans and approved metropolitan long

range transportation plans (LRTPs). The procedure notes: 

Nothing in Section 335.02 (3) F.S. precludes a number of lanes in excess of 10 

lanes. However, before the Department may determine the number of lanes

should be more than ten, the availability of ROW, and the capacity to

accommodate other modes of transportation within the existing ROW must be 

considered. 

The Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) within the study area support the 

establishment of the FHSR system within their jurisdictions as part of a balanced, multi-modal

transportation system. They have worked closely with representatives of the FHSRA in the 

development of this EIS. 

Federal and congressional transportation initiatives, most notably the Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century and its predecessor the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, 

encourage public transportation investment that increases national productivity and domestic and 

international competition while improving safety, social, and environmental conditions. These 

policies encourage investments that: 

• Link all major forms of transportation. 

• Improve public transportation systems and services. 

• Enhance efficient operation of transportation facilities and services. 

Together, these statements of policy support the purpose of this proposed FHSR project. 

1.3 NEED

 1-3

Transportation demand and travel growth, as prompted by social demand and economic

development, is outpacing existing and future roadway capacity. Increasing population,

employment, and tourism rates continue to elevate travel demand in the study corridor as

documented by forecasts prepared by the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and

Business Research (BEBR). Currently, the FIHS is operating at or near capacity. Although

capacity improvements to the interstate system along the corridor are either currently underway

or planned for the near future, they are considered interim, “first phase” improvements. 

Although not funded or programmed, ultimate capacity improvements are needed to 

accommodate future travel demand. This need is further emphasized by increased traffic

volumes, congestion, and accident rates in the study corridor. Social and economic demands will 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
continue to call for provision of alternative transportation choices for those individuals who

cannot or choose not to drive, as well as those travelers looking for alternatives to congested

highways. 

1.3.1 Transportation Demand and Travel Growth

Florida’s growing economy is expected to attract projected population and fuel tourism growth. 

The increase in the number of automobiles will far out-strip the state’s ability to provide enough

safe, efficient, and environmentally acceptable solutions with existing highway and airport 

infrastructure. 

Florida is the fourth most populous state in the U.S. with a current population of 16 million, and

a projected population of 24 million by 2030, according to the Florida Statistical Abstract 20015

. 

The ratio of licensed drivers per residence is the third highest in the nation, indicating the 

demand for, and high reliance on, automobile travel for mobility and access in the state. Travel

demand in the corridor between Tampa and Orlando was estimated in the Investment Grade 

Ridership Study, Summary Report6 prepared by the FHSRA in November 2002. As part of this

study, information regarding forecasts of population, employment, and hotel room availability

was obtained from the three MPOs within the corridor - Tampa Bay, Polk County, and Orlando.

These MPO forecasts were compared on a county level to forecasts prepared by the BEBR to

confirm that the MPO data was consistent with the official state data (the BEBR estimates). 

Total corridor population is forecast to increase 33 percent from 2002 to 2025 as shown in

Table 1-1. The population of the Orlando region (Orange, Seminole, and Osceola counties) was 

expected to increase by 46 percent over this same period. The Tampa Bay region (Hillsborough,

Pasco, and Pinellas counties) is forecast to increase by 23 percent and Polk County by

38 percent. Additionally, employment in the corridor was expected to increase 47 percent by

year 2025 as shown in Table 1-2. The Orlando and Lakeland regions were estimated to increase

by approximately 57 percent and the Tampa Bay region by approximately 37 percent. 

An increase in the number of hotel rooms is one measure used to estimate growth in visitor travel

within the corridor. Overall, the number of hotel rooms was estimated to increase approximately

83 percent between 2002 and 2025 as shown in Table 1-3. The highest rate of increase was 

expected in the Orlando region (approximately 100 percent). In the Tampa Bay region, the

number of hotel rooms was expected to increase approximately 47 percent, and in Polk County

by approximately 22 percent. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

1-4
Table 1-1 

Summary of Population Trends in

FHSR Tampa-Orlando Corridor 

Region

Existing 2002 

Population 

Projected 2025 

Population Percent Change 

Orlando

 Orange County

 Seminole County

 Osceola County

 Sub-Total 

938,367 

380,425 

183,637 

1,502,429

1,411,809

475,498 

314,054 

2,201,361

50 

25 

71 

46 

Lakeland 

 Polk County 451,515 625,725 38 

Tampa Bay 

 Hillsborough County

 Pinellas County

 Pasco County

 Sub-Total 

981,712 

904,827 

341,337 

2,227,876

1,321,758

963,138 

460,669 

2,745,565

35 

6 

35 

23 

Overall Study Corridor 4,181,820 5,572,651 33 

Source: Investment Grade Ridership Study, Summary Report

Table 1-2 

Summary of Employment Trends in 

FHSR Tampa-Orlando Corridor 

Region

Existing 2002 

Employment

Projected 2025 

Employment Percent Change 

Orlando

 Orange County

 Seminole County

 Osceola County

 Sub-Total

742,901 

196,323 

66,296 

1,005,520

1,150,908

321,105 

110,810 

1,582,823

55 

64 

67 

57 

Lakeland 

 Polk County 181,722 286,344 58 

Tampa Bay 

 Hillsborough County

 Pinellas County

 Pasco County

 Sub-Total 

698,108 

511,037 

99,972 

1,309,117

1,055,801

584,881 

151,353 

1,792,035

51 

14 

51 

37 

Overall Study Corridor 2,496,359 3,661,202 47 

 1-5

Source: Investment Grade Ridership Study, Summary Report

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 1-3 

Hotel Room Growth in 

FHSR Tampa-Orlando Corridor 

Region

Existing 2002 Hotel

Rooms 

Projected 2025 Hotel

Rooms Percent Change 

Orlando

 Orange County

 Seminole County

 Osceola County

 Sub-Total 

79,388 

4,055 

27,367 

110,810 

169,298 

8,998 

44,598 

222,894 

113 

121 

63 

101 

Lakeland 

 Polk County 5,841 7,127 22 

Tampa Bay 

 Hillsborough County

 Pinellas County

 Pasco County

 Sub-Total 

19,832 

24,038 

3,214 

47,084 

33,484 

30,869 

5,042 

69,395 

69 

28 

57 

47 

Overall Study Corridor 163,736 299,416 83

Source: Investment Grade Ridership Study, Summary Report

Tables 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 indicate the significant increases in population, employment, and

tourism within the counties containing the FHSR corridors. The predicted population growth 

documented in the tables would require future services, including multiple modes of 

transportation, to insure socio-economic growth and economic sustainability.

1.3.2 Capacity

The growing population and tourism rates in Florida place severe demands on an already

congested transportation system. The counties, which contain the FHSR study area, also contain 

approximately 30 percent of the state’s population and over 50 percent of the state’s tourism

revenue. Thus, transportation congestion would be more acute in these areas than elsewhere in

the state. This is one of the reasons that FHSRA targeted the Tampa to Orlando area for the

FHSR system. 

 

1-6

In order to evaluate I-4 capacity, FHSR analyzed three time frames (2001, 2008, and 2025),

which are presented in Table 1-4 and Figure 1-1. The Tampa-Orlando corridor is served by

highways that currently operate at or near capacity, and will continue to do so after interim 

expansions are completed. Table 1-4, Existing and Future Roadway Capacity, illustrates

capacity (number of lanes), traffic volumes, and level of service (LOS) for existing conditions, in

both 2008 (estimated opening year for rail service) and 2025 design years. LOS is used as an 

indicator of a roadway’s congestion level. Six different levels (A through F) are used to describe

the level of congestion operating on a road. LOS A exists when a road has free flow or

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
unrestricted conditions, while LOS F describes a roadway with extreme congestion including

long queues. Table 1-5 shows I-4 improvements recently completed, currently under

construction, or planned for construction in the near future. Even with these improvements, I-4,

in the vicinity of the Tampa and Orlando metropolitan areas, would operate at LOS F by the year

20087

. Many of the arterial routes providing access to I-4 are functionally obsolete and 

inadequate to accommodate current traffic, much less anticipated growth in travel demand. In

2008, half of the roadway network along the proposed FHSR corridor will operate at LOS F.

While FHSR will not eliminate congestion, it offers an alternative transportation option, and can

relieve some of the traffic problems. 

Based on the November 2002 Investment Grade Ridership Study, Summary Report, a total of

4,253,000 automobile trips within the project area would be replaced by trips on the FHSR 

system by 2010. This represents a reduction of 4.3 percent of total trips that would otherwise 

travel on the congested highway network between Tampa and Orlando in 2010. In terms of

overall traffic between the cities, 11 percent of the 4.5 million annual travelers are forecasted to

utilize the FHSR between Tampa and Orlando, as noted in the Investment Grade Ridership

Study, Summary Report. 

Table 1-4 and Figure 1-1 present the existing and future congestion levels for I-4, the Central

Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528). Even with the

completion of the I-4 projects that are funded with pending construction, and the considerable

planned I-4 improvements in the future, capacity problems on I-4 would continue through 2025.

The need for a substantial widening of the Florida Turnpike and the Bee Line Expressway

(S.R. 528) by 2008 is also shown. Only limited portions of the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417) would have excess capacity by 2025. 

Table 1-4 

Existing and Future Roadway Capacity

 1-7

2001 2008 2025 Segment

Lanes AADT1 LOS2 Lanes3 AADT3 LOS2 Lanes3 AADT3 LOS2

I-4 from Downtown

Tampa to Tampa City

Limits (50th Street)

4 132,000 F 6* 140,000 F 6* 164,000 F

I-4 from Tampa City

Limits (50th Street) to 

I-75 

6 91,000 D 6 114,000 E 6 117,000 E

I-4 from I-75 to Plant

City (S.R. 39) 6 93,000 D 6 130,000 F 6 145,000 F

I-4 from Plant City

(S.R. 39) to Polk

Parkway

6 87,000 D 6 110,000 E 6 137,000 F

I-4 from Polk Parkway

to U.S. 98 4 69,000 E 6 86,000 D 6 115,000 E

I-4 from U.S. 98 to

U.S. 27 4 62,000 D 6 62,000 C 6 88,000 D

I-4 from U.S. 27 to

Osceola County Line 4 82,000 F 6 90,000 D 6 116,000 E

I-4 from Osceola

County Line to Central

Florida Greeneway

4 63,000 E 6 72,0001 C 8** 151,000 E

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 1-4 (cont.) 

Existing and Future Roadway Capacity

 

1-8

2001 2008 2025 Segment

Lanes AADT1 LOS2 Lanes3 AADT3 LOS2 Lanes3 AADT3 LOS2

(S.R. 417)

I-4 from Central

Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417) to Epcot 

Center Drive (S.R. 536) 

6 117,000 E 6 137,0001 F 8** 175,000 F

I-4 from Epcot Center

Drive (S.R. 536) To

Bee Line Expressway

(S.R. 528)

6 143,000 F 6 175,0001 F 8** 220,0004 F 

Central Florida

Greeneway (S.R. 417)

from I-4 to Epcot

Center Drive (S.R. 536) 

4 16,100 A 4 24,0001 B 4 28,0004 B 

Central Florida

Greeneway (S.R. 536)

to John Young Parkway

4 26,000 B 4 39,0001 C 4 76,0004 E 

Central Florida

Greeneway (S.R. 417)

from John Young 

Parkway to Boggy 

Creek Drive 

4 25,000 B 4 37,0001 C 4 45,0004 C 

Bee Line Expressway

(S.R. 528) from I-4 to

John Young Parkway

4 63,000 D 4 74,0001 F 10*** 121,0005 C 

Sources:

1 Florida Traffic Count Information, FDOT, 2001 * 6-lane divided freeway plus interchange with the Crosstown Connector

2 Quality/Level of Service Handbook, FDOT, 2002 ** 6-lane divided freeway plus 2 HOV lanes.

3 Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model; Polk TPO Model *** 8-lane divided expressway plus 2 HOV lanes.

4 MetroPlan Orlando 2020 LRTP

5 Bee Line Expressway (S.R.528) PD&E Study, Florida’s Turnpike, 2003s 

While the FHSR system cannot meet all of the future capacity needs of I-4 within the study area,

the high speed rail traffic diversion may delay the need for future improvements to I-4 and the 

Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528), freeing funds for other network capacity improvements. 

1.3.3 Safety

Safety is a paramount consideration in providing transportation. A key rail safety consideration

focuses on reducing or eliminating conflicts between people, automobiles, trucks, and trains. 

These conflicts occur most frequently at grade crossings and where pedestrians and automobiles 

cross rail lines. In the interest of minimizing the possibility of train-vehicular or pedestrian

collisions and maximizing safety, this project incorporates grade-separated crossings for all 

streets and highways. Barrier intrusion systems would also be incorporated into the design/build 

alternatives. 

Projected growth in the mobility of people and goods by truck, rail, auto, transit, and air over the

next two decades underscores the need for improved safety. Florida’s overall highway facility

and injury rate exceeds national averages, ranking third in fatality rate and tenth in crashes

involving injuries8

. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 

 1-9

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Table 1-5 

Roadway Improvements within the Study Area 

Corridor Roadway Limits Construction Status Type 

I-275/I-4 Central Business District (CBD) 

Interchange In Progress Interchange 

Improvements 

I-4 14th Street to 50th Hillsborough Street Pending Additional Lanes 4 to 8 

I-4 I-4 50th Street to Polk County Line In Progress Additional Lanes 4 to 8 

and 6 

I-4 Hillsborough County Line to U.S. 92 Completed Additional Lanes 4 to 6 Polk I-4 U.S. 92 to Osceola County Line In Progress Additional Lanes 4 to 6 

I-4 Polk County Line to U.S. 192 In Progress Additional Lanes 

Boggy Creek 

Road U.S. 192 to Turnpike Pending Realignment & Shoulders Osceola 

Western 

Beltway I-4 South of Disney to S.R. 50 Pending New Construction 

Expressway 

I-4 U.S. 441 to Maitland Blvd. In Progress Additional Lanes 

I-4 Kirkman Road to Turnpike In Progress Additional Lanes 

I-4 S.R. 528 to S.R. 482 In Progress Additional Lanes 

I-4 I-4 John Young Parkway In Progress Interchange 

Improvements 

I-4 I-4/EW Expressway Pending Interchange 

Improvements 

Orange 

U.S. 441-17/92 Osceola Parkway to Taft/Vineland Pending Additional Lanes 

Source: FDOT June 2003 

The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles publishes an annual summary 

entitled, “Florida Traffic Crash Facts.” The summary reported for the years 2000 and 2001 that 

there were a total of 2,999 and 3,013 fatalities, respectively. The summary also reported 231,588 

and 234,600 non-fatal injuries in 2000 and 2001, respectively, an increase of 3,012. The number 

of crashes also increased approximately 9,628 with 246,541 and 256,169 crashes, in 2000 and 

2001, respectively. These increases correspond to an estimated fatality rate of 2.0 per 

100 million vehicle miles of travel (VMT), compared to a national average of 1.5 per 100 million 

VMT, demonstrating that Florida is approximately 33 percent higher than the national average9. 

The FHSR would be required to determine protective measures necessary to prevent intrusions 

of vehicular traffic, unauthorized persons, large animals, and objects into the rail alignment from 

the surrounding highway system and overpasses. FHSRA is further required to obtain any and 

all associated approvals for the barrier, fencing, and intrusion detection systems, in addition to 

any protective measures that would be required from all federal and state agencies having 

jurisdiction within the corridors proposed for use by the FHSR. 

Passengers must have confidence that the proposed rail service is not only reliable and fast, but is 

as safe as or safer than other modes. Recent statistics indicate that passenger rail travel is one of 

the safest modes of transportation in terms of total accidents and fatalities. 

1.3.4 Social Demands/Economic Development

More than 17 percent of Florida’s citizens are age 65 years or older, compared to the national 

average of 12 percent. In addition, there are an estimated two million citizens in Florida with 

disabilities, who depend on access to user-friendly transportation facilities and services for 
mobility between major urban centers and visitor attractions. The population living in the

corridor between Tampa and Orlando represents approximately 30 percent of the total 

Florida population. 

For minimal charge, bus service in each county is available to residents and visitors. These

buses provide service to all areas of the county including neighborhoods, attractions, and CBDs.

As a percentage of all trips taken, the approximate percentage of transit users within Orange

County is 4 percent; Hillsborough County is 3 percent; Polk County is 2 percent; and Osceola

County is 2 percent. 

Traveling between counties in the region, however, one must rely on other transportation 

choices. The primary mode of choice is the automobile, but private bus services are also

available. Amtrak travel is provided from the northeast U.S., south to Miami via Orlando, and 

then on to Florida’s east coast. There is no passenger rail travel available between Tampa and

Orlando. Amtrak, through the Martz Tampa Bay bus lines, offers a continuation of service from

Orlando to Tampa. The bus service, via Martz Tampa Bay bus lines, runs twice daily and makes 

one stop in Lakeland. The trip takes approximately 2 hours and 50 minutes, costing $54.00 for 

one adult passenger’s round trip ticket. Greyhound buses run several times daily, between 

Orlando and Tampa, make stops in several cities en route, and offer flexible departure times

from early morning to late in the evening. Travel time depends on the number of stops and can 

range from 1 hour and 40 minutes to 3 hours and 45 minutes. The cost of one adult passenger

round trip ticket is $32.25. 

Travel time is an important factor when traveling on business or for pleasure. With the

71 million people visiting Florida for business and recreation each year, automobile and air

travel are equally popular modes of transportation. However, because of the high popularity,

automobile and air travel are also quickly emerging as the most congested modes of 

transportation. The result is that business travelers lose productive working hours and tourists 

lose valuable recreation time because of delays on congested roadways and in congested airports. 

The FHSRA Investment Grade Ridership Study, Summary Report assessed traffic along the

FHSR corridor to categorize and quantify corridor ridership, analyze drive times, and determine

travel characteristics between Tampa and Orlando. According to the report, estimated driving 

time between downtown Tampa and Orlando International Airport can take up to 91 minutes

utilizing I-4 and other congested roadways. Conversely, travel time at posted speeds between 

these two destinations is estimated to be a 82-minute trip. Further, travel times vary by bus, from 

1 hour and 40 minutes to 3 hours and 45 minutes, not including parking, boarding/deboarding, or

travel to and from origin/destination. By comparison, an estimated rail trip on FHSR between 

downtown Tampa and Orlando International Airport will take approximately 64 minutes, not 

including parking, boarding/deboarding, or travel to and from origin/destination. 

Total travel time by air, from origin to destination, includes road delays, ticketing access, 

terminal navigation, transfer time, and enplane/deplane time. Also, travel time by air has 

increased recently as airports have become more cautious about security. Air travel between

Tampa and Orlando is currently provided by one round trip flight per day serving primarily

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

1-10
connecting travelers. The estimated flight time is approximately 45 minutes, but this does not

include time required for parking, security checks, enplaning/deplaning, or travel to and from the 

origin/destination. Altogether, air travelers between Tampa and Orlando can expect a travel time

of approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes. 

Persons traveling by automobile pay approximately $0.36 per mi. for business travel and about 

$0.12 per mi. for non-business travel. For air travel, ticket costs range from $1.55 to $2.90 per 

mi. For bus service, costs can vary from $0.34 to $0.57 per mi. These travel costs can be

compared to rail rates that are estimated at expected ticket price of approximately $0.31 per mi. 

from Tampa to Orlando. 

In order to ensure efficient and cost effective travel for business and tourist travelers, more than

one mode of transportation is desirable. The Florida State Comprehensive Plan10, which was 

enacted by the Florida Legislature, calls for a high speed rail system linking Florida’s major

urban centers. This plan also provides long-range policy guidance for the orderly social,

economic, and physical growth of the state. 

1.3.5 Air Quality

Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, three Florida airsheds, encompassing six urbanized 

counties, were designated as ozone non-attainment areas. One of those airsheds, Tampa Bay

(Hillsborough and Pinellas counties) is within the FHSR study corridor and was designated as a

“marginal” ozone non-attainment area. On February 5, 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) redesignated the airshed as “attainment” for the 1-hour ozone National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

The redesignation also provided EPA approval of “maintenance plans.” Maintaining air quality

standards is part of the FDOT Strategic Plan for 1998-200611. The challenge in the Tampa Bay

area will be to continue to reduce vehicle emissions to acceptable levels and then maintain air 

quality standards by encouraging more efficient use of land resources, improving mobility, and

providing alternative transportation facilities and services. These, and other approaches aimed at

reducing the demand for trips in single occupancy vehicles, must be an integral part of all 

transportation plans and programs to ensure that these areas conform to federal air quality

standards. Multi-purpose transportation corridors, such as high speed rail lines in medians and 

designated lanes for high occupancy vehicles and local travel, are transportation strategies that

can achieve a reduction in pollution levels. 

The ability to meet federal air quality standards over the next 20 years will also require a number 

of parallel actions, including reductions in the number of VMT; improved land-use planning and

development; transportation demand management strategies; operational improvements and use

of new technologies; more people per vehicle; and travel alternatives to the single occupancy

vehicle. The FHSR is expected to reduce total VMT between Tampa and Orlando. 

 1-11

The Clean Air Act makes transportation conformity the affirmative responsibility of the USDOT, 

the State of Florida, and the MPO. In addition, transportation conformity with the ozone 

attainment and maintenance strategies contained in the Florida State Implementation Plan for the

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Tampa Bay area is an important criterion for evaluating project alternatives, including the NoBuild Alternative. The FHSRA has coordinated with regional MPOs on how this project is, or

will be, reflected in each of the metropolitan LRTPs, regardless of the NAAQS designation.

1.3.6 Modal Inter-Relationship

Intermodal connections with major airports and existing and planned local and regional transit 

systems are required in Florida’s 2020 Transportation Plan. Within this plan, it is indicated that 

the FHSR should connect with airports at Miami, Orlando, and Ft. Lauderdale. A high speed rail 

connection is proposed for the Orlando International Airport. Another connection would serve

the Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) multi-modal station. In addition to the FHSR, it

is anticipated the OCCC multi-modal station would handle automobile parking and buses in the

immediate future, and light rail and the I-Drive Circulator system in the future. The circulator 

system is currently under study to determine technology requirements needed to provide a transit

system for the I-Drive economic area. The Tampa Station, located in the downtown business 

district, would serve the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HARTline), the Tampa

Electric Company (TECO) Line Streetcar System, and future light rail. HARTline has 

constructed an area transit center, with service to all busses in the system, across from the

proposed FHSR station. The streetcar system currently serves downtown Tampa, Ybor City, and 

Channelside with future connection with the proposed Tampa light rail system. The light rail 

system is planned to connect downtown Tampa to Tampa International Airport, the University of

South Florida (USF), West Shore business district, south Tampa, and area hospitals. 

1.4 BACKGROUND OF FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL 

Starting as early as the 1960s, the feasibility of high speed rail has been studied in Florida. In

1976, the Florida Legislature mandated the first study, the Florida Transit Corridor Study

12. The

study resulted in the FDOT’s identification and acceptance of limited access highway medians as 

a potential location for high speed rail. The study proposed the use of existing rail corridors as

well, both on and parallel to the existing facilities. The study also established the size of the rail 

envelope within medians of limited access roadways at 44 feet (ft.) for a dual track. 

In 1982, Florida Governor Bob Graham authorized the creation of the Florida High Speed Rail

Committee. The Committee, in 1984, issued the Florida Future Advanced Transportation 

Report13. The report recommended using public/private partnerships to proceed with the

implementation of a high speed rail system. The report also recommended using existing

publicly-owned ROW for the system. As a result, the Florida Legislature passed the Florida

High Speed Rail Transportation Commission Act (the Act) to, “encourage and enhance the 

establishment of a high speed rail transportation system connecting the major urban areas of the

state.” The act defined a high speed rail transportation system as, “any high speed, fixed 

guideway transportation system for transporting people or goods . . . capable of operating at

speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour (mph).” 

 

1-12

Between 1986 and 1991, a number of proposals and attempts were made to implement high

speed rail with a variety of combinations of private and public funds and taxing proposals.

However, none of these attempts resulted in the implementation of high speed rail. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
In 1992, the Florida Legislature enacted the New High Speed Rail Act, transferring the 

responsibility from the Commission to the FDOT. Key studies conducted by FDOT after the

1992 revision of the New High Speed Rail Act are discussed below. The FDOT conducted these 

studies to assess market factors that would be critical in the implementation of high speed rail. 

In 1993, FDOT completed its study, High Speed/Intercity Rail Passenger System Planning

Assessment of Routes and Alignments14. It was a statewide examination of possible routes for 

high speed rail. FDOT conducted a second study, Florida High Speed and Intercity Rail Market

and Ridership Study

15

, which was an examination of the characteristics of the intercity rail 

market and ridership characteristics between Tampa, Orlando, and Miami. This study concluded 

that recreational travel and business travel were the two predominant trip purposes for high speed

rail travel. 

Also in 1993, FDOT completed a third study, the High Speed Rail Transportation Study –

Tampa Bay to Orlando Corridor16. The study further investigated whether the Orlando-Tampa 

Bay corridor was suitable for high speed rail. Because of intensive development and the 

existence of major wetlands within the Orlando-Tampa Bay corridor, the study focused on

existing corridors connecting Pinellas County to Orlando, mainly the I-4/I-275 and CSX rail

corridors. At the conclusion of the study, FDOT determined that the I-4/I-275 corridor was the

preferred alternative for high speed rail implementation between Orlando and the Tampa Bay

area. For this reason, FDOT, in conjunction with the reconstruction of I-4/I-275, proposed to

preserve an envelope within the median of the reconstructed interstate corridor between Orlando 

and Pinellas County for a high speed rail transportation system. 

In 1995, FDOT produced Florida Intercity Rail Passenger Service, Options for the 21st Century,

a Component of the Florida Transportation Plan17. It included a discussion of various corridors 

between Orlando and Tampa. These include the I-4 median, the CSX railroad tracks, and a new

alignment. The document recommended the establishment of a public/private franchise to

ensure a cost effective and marketable intercity high speed rail network. 

In 1995, the Florida Overland eXpress (FOX), a limited partnership composed of affiliates of

four global companies, was awarded the franchise to form a public/private partnership with the

FDOT for the purpose of creating a high speed rail system in Florida. FOX studied an initial

route, which linked Miami to the Orlando International Airport with the anticipation of 

expansion of the route to Tampa. The Florida Overland eXpress (FOX) Study

18 was initiated by

FDOT in 1996. The Notice of Intent for the environmental process was issued in the Federal 

Register on April 27, 1998, describing the alternatives under consideration. The scoping process 

for the EIS included eight public workshops in communities along the study corridors, as well as 

review workshops with federal, state, and local agencies during May and June 1998. 

As a result of the input from the scoping process and the agency screening process, FDOT, in

cooperation with FHWA and FRA, identified alternative corridors to be evaluated in the FOX 

EIS including the alignments paralleling I-4. The I-4 corridor from Orange County to the Tampa

Bay area had six options, three in the Orlando metropolitan area, and three between Lakeland

and the Tampa metropolitan area. Stations were planned for Orlando area attractions, Lakeland,

 1-13

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
and Tampa. Due to the termination of state funding for the study in early 2000, no further work

was undertaken on the EIS. 

In 2000, the Florida Legislature authorized the Coast to Coast Rail Feasibility Study19. It was

later renamed the Cross-State Rail Feasibility Study. The study was not an environmental or

preliminary engineering study, but instead focused on the physical and financial feasibility of the 

I-4 corridor between Orlando and the Tampa Bay area for high speed rail. The study team

recommended the following “Next Steps”: 

• Conduct no additional planning studies. 

• Initiate preliminary engineering and work activities. 

• Conduct an Investment Grade Ridership Study.

• Build the initial operating segment between Union Station in Tampa and the Orlando

International Airport, with eventual development of a total system between St. Petersburg

and Port Canaveral. 

• Develop a highly creative financial analysis in order to maximize the potential for all

possible revenue sources.

• Use of freight revenues could help reduce operating shortfalls. 

• Acknowledge that the State of Florida will have to contribute a significant share of costs. 

In November 2000, Florida voters adopted the amendment to the Constitution noted earlier, 

which mandated that high speed rail be implemented with construction to begin by

November 1, 2003 leading to the creation of the FHSRA and the extensive planning efforts and

environmental assessment activities described in other section of this Final EIS. On November 

2, 2004, Florida voters repealed the Constitutional amendment as discussed in Section 1.1 and 

the future of the high speed rail project remains with the Florida Legislature and Governor. The 

FHSRA continues to believe, based upon the various studies and analyses, that the proposed high

speed rail project could serve an important transportation need in the Tampa-Orlando corridor. 

1.5 REFERENCES/NOTES

1. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. (Pub. L. 91-190,

42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, 

July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258; September 13, 

1982). 

2. Tampa Interstate Study, Greiner, Inc., Tampa, Florida (1992-1996); Interstate 4

Multi-Modal Master Plan (1997); Interstate 4 Multimodal Interstate Master Plan

(1989-Revised 1989); Polk County Interstate 4 Master Plan (1994). 

3. Development of the Florida Intrastate Highway System, Florida Department of

Transportation Procedure, Topic No. 525-030-250-f; Systems Planning Office;

Tallahassee, Florida; Effective Date: May 16, 2002. 

4.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

1-14
Development of the Florida Intrastate Highway System, Florida Department of

Transportation Procedure, Topic No. 525-030-255-c; Systems Planning Office; 

Tallahassee, Florida, Effective Date: May 21, 2003. 

5. Florida Statistical Abstract; University of Florida: Bureau of Economic and 

Business Research, Warrington College of Business Administration; Gainesville, 

Florida; 2001. 

6. Investment Grade Ridership Study, Summary Report; prepared for the Florida

High Speed Rail Authority; prepared by AECOM Consulting, Wilbur Smith

Associates; November 20, 2002. 

7. Level of Service is a qualitative assessment of a roadway’s operating condition or

level of congestion. Stratified into six letter grades A through F, LOS A is a freeflow operation with vehicles almost completely unrestricted in their ability to 

maneuver within the traffic stream, LOS F indicates that the capacity of the

freeway has been exceeded resulting in long queues and extremely high levels of

congestion. 

8. Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2000. 

9. Ibid. 

10. Florida State Comprehensive Plan; The Florida Legislature; Tallahassee, Florida. 

11. Strategic Plan for 1998-2006; Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee,

Florida. 

12. Florida Transit Corridor Study; Alan Voorhees and Associates; March 1976. 

13. Florida Future Advanced Transportation Report; Florida High Speed Rail 

Committee; April 1984. 

14. High Speed/Intercity Rail Passenger System Planning Assessment of Routes and

Alignments (and Appendices); Wilbur Smith Associates; 1993. 

15. Florida High Speed and Intercity Rail Market and Ridership Study (and Technical 

Appendices); KPMG Peat Marwick; July 1993. 

16. High Speed Rail Transportation Study – Tampa Bay to Orlando Corridor; ICF 

Kaiser Engineers; September 1993. 

 1-15

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
17. Florida Intercity Rail Passenger Service, Options for the 21st Century, A 

Component of the Florida Transportation Plan; January 1995. 

18. Florida Overland eXpress Study; Florida Overland eXpress; 1999. 

19. Coast to Coast Rail Feasibility Study / Cross-State Rail Feasibility Study; STV

Incorporated; June 2001. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

1-16
 SECTION 2

ALTERNATIVES 

This section of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) discusses the various 

Design/Build Alternatives, as well as the No-Build Alternative. It summarizes information from

the previous studies that examined the feasibility of high speed rail in Florida. It then moves to

the current Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) Study and examines the study corridors that are

initially identified, evaluated, and documented within the study area. Then, the corridors/station 

locations retained for further analysis are presented. The last Design/Build Alternatives

discussion combines corridors/station locations retained for further analysis with the viable

design/build technology proposals. 

2.1 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF HIGH SPEED RAIL 

Over the last 20 years, there has been increasing growth in population and significant change in

land use from rural to urban along the Interstate 4 (I-4) corridor. In recognition of these changes

and the need to increase the overall transportation capacity, the Florida Legislature began

addressing high speed rail options in the 1970s. Section 1, Purpose and Need, provides a

detailed description of the history of high speed rail studies in Florida. The following paragraphs 

summarize the early studies’ significant conclusions which provide the foundation for this 

current high speed rail study.

In 1976, the Florida Transit Corridor Study

1

 proposed use of: 

• Limited access highway medians as a potential location for high speed rail. 

• Existing rail corridors, both on and parallel to the existing roadway facilities. 

• A rail envelope within medians of limited access roadways set at 44 feet (ft.) for a

dual track. 

In 1984, the Florida Future Advanced Transportation Report2

 recommended using: 

• Public/private partnerships to proceed with the implementation of a FHSR system. 

• Existing publicly-owned right-of-way (ROW) for the system. 

In 1993, The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) completed three studies. The first,

High Speed/Intercity Rail Passenger System Planning and Assessment of Routes and

Alignments3, was an examination of possible routes. The second, Florida High Speed and

Intercity Rail Market and Ridership Study

4

, concluded that: 

• Recreational travel and business travel were the predominant trip purposes for high

speed travel. 

• The location of the alignment and the locations of stations were more significant to the 

success of FHSR than factors such as cost or type of rail. 

 2-1 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
The third, High Speed Rail Transportation Study - Tampa Bay to Orlando Corridor5

, concluded 

that the I-4/Interstate 275 (I-275) corridor was the Preferred Alternative for high speed rail

implementation between the Tampa Bay and Orlando areas. 

In 1995, FDOT produced Florida Intercity Rail Passenger Service, Options for the 21st Century,

A Component of the Florida Transportation Plan6. It recommended that a public/private

franchise be established for a cost effective and marketable intercity rail network. 

In 1996, The Florida Overland eXpress Study

7

 (FOX) provided an opportunity for Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and FDOT to

provide information about the proposed FHSR system and corridor/station alternatives to the 

general public. This study was terminated before completion in 1998. 

In 2000, the Florida Legislature authorized the Cross-State Rail Feasibility Study

8

 which focused 

on the physical and financial feasibility of the I-4 corridor between the Tampa Bay and Orlando

areas. This study concurred with previous studies’ findings that suggested the interstate median

as the preferred alignment location. 

Concurrently with the Cross-State Rail Feasibility Study, Florida voters approved the 

Constitutional Amendment on High Speed Rail, and in 2001, the Florida Legislature enacted the 

Florida High Speed Rail Authority Act. The Florida Legislature identified the initial study

segments to link the major urban areas of St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Orlando, and required

FHSR construction by November 2003. 

In 2001, the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA) initiated a Project Development and

Environment (PD&E) study to support the preparation of this Final EIS, with logical termini 

defined as the Tampa Central Business District (CBD) on the west, and the Orlando International 

Airport on the east. The study area is shown in Figure 2-1. The No-Build and design/build

alternatives considered in this Final EIS and studied during the PD&E study are discussed in the 

following subsections. Although Florida voters repealed the Constitutional Amendment on High

Speed Rail in November 2004, the requirements set forth in the Florida High Speed Rail

Authority Act still remain valid. 

2.2 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No-Build Alternative assumes that a FHSR system would not be built between Tampa and

Orlando. The requirements of the legislative mandate for the FHSRA to build a high speed

ground transportation system would not be met. An additional mode of travel for daily

commuters, visitors, and residents of the area would not be available, and existing modes would 

have to satisfy all travel demand. 

 

2-2

The No-Build Alternative includes planned and programmed transportation projects within the

study area that are on the financially constrained “needs” plan. Those projects are summarized in

Section 1, Purpose and Need. Although roadway demand continues to grow, the No-Build

Alternative would not offer diversion from the roadway to FHSR. As a result, capacity and level 

of service (LOS) would decrease sooner than if FHSR was built. The resulting anticipated need

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
to improve capacity and the LOS of the Tampa to Orlando transportation corridor will likely

result in the use of the alignment identified for the FHSR for additional travel lanes. This will 

result in similar environmental consequences identified with the proposed project. 

2.3 DESIGN/BUILD ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

In its 2002 Report to the Florida Legislature

9

, the FHSRA found that a traditional design-bidbuild approach to the legislative mandate would not meet the aggressive November 2003

construction date or the directive to maximize private/public investment in high speed rail. The

FHSRA concluded that the legislative directives could be more reasonably achieved by

incorporating the Design, Build, Operate, Maintain, and Finance (DBOM&F) procurement

process into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This allowed the proposers 

to identify technology-specific impacts which would be evaluated during the PD&E Study. The 

process also identifies operational characteristics and financing options to assist the FHSRA in 

selecting a design/build firm. 

In order to narrow the focus of the evaluation process, the PD&E Study started with an initial 

screening of corridors and station sites to eliminate non-viable alternatives from further 

consideration. The Florida High Speed Rail Screening Report10, completed in October 2002, 

documents the initial evaluation process in detail and Section 2.3.1 summarizes the 

report’s findings. 

After the non-viable alternatives were screened from further evaluation, the FHSRA solicited

proposals to DBOM&F a high speed ground transportation system between Tampa and Orlando. 

The DBOM&F proposal responses are the basis for the alternatives considered in this Final EIS. 

Section 2.3.3 provides additional information on the selection of the DBOM&F proposals that

are further evaluated in the Final EIS. Section 4 of the Final EIS describes the potential impacts 

of the alternatives. 

Table 2-1 

Milestones in the Combined EIS/DBOM&F Process 

 2-3 

Milestone Date

Florida High Speed Rail Act establishes project limits for the first phase of the

FHSR, which includes the corridor between Tampa and Orlando. 

2001 

PD&E Study identifies initial Preliminary Study Corridors Evaluation for the

Tampa-Orlando HSR corridor.

January 2002 

Preliminary Study Corridors Evaluation screens viable corridors. October 2002

The FHSRA issues request for DBOM&F proposals. The request for proposals

(RFP) identifies parameters for proposal, including alignments, design criteria,

and operations. 

October 2002

DBOM&F proposals submitted and evaluated for responsiveness to FHSRA’s 

RFP. Design/Build alternatives identified for evaluation in EIS. 

February-April 2003 

The FHSRA and FRA approve DEIS for public review. August 2003 

The FHSRA identified Design/Build Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alignment. 

Preparation of the FEIS was initiated. 

October 27, 2003 

Florida voters rescinded FHSR Amendment. November 2, 2004

The FHSRA revised Preferred Alignment to Design/Build Alternative 1 and 

directed completion of the FEIS and Record of Decision.

November 10, 2004 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
2.3.1 Preliminary Corridors 

The FHSR PD&E Study initially identified six potential FHSR routes: 

• Within the median of I-4

• Parallel to the existing CSX Rail Line (A-Line)

• Within the abandoned CSX “S” Rail Line (S-Line) 

• Parallel to the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) 

• Parallel to the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) 

• Connections through undeveloped land in Hillsborough and Osceola counties 

The study area was divided from west to east into six corridors, A through E. The corridors are 

also shown on Figure 2-1. 

The study's corridor evaluation process began by breaking each corridor into smaller 

geographical segments and labeling them as Segments 1, 2, and so forth. The route location, or

alignment, was then given an alphabetical label, such as Alignments a, b, c, and so forth. The 

division and alphabetical labeling was necessary in order to track and compare quantified 

impacts in geographic areas. The entire process of identifying, quantifying, and comparing 

various FHSR route locations within each segment was documented in the Florida High Speed

Rail Screening Report. 

The evaluation process reduced the number and location of the alignments within each corridor.

A matrix summary of the potential environmental impacts identified in the evaluation process is 

contained in the Screening Report. Of the 44 original segments, many did not meet the purpose

and need of the project; therefore, the number of segments was reduced to 19 as a result of this

evaluation. The matrix provides specific information as to why an alignment was eliminated or

retained. The criteria used to eliminate infeasible alignments are:

• Structure and Embankment Quantity

• Wetlands Acreage by Quality

• Floodplains and Floodway Acreage 

• Protected Species Habitat Acreage 

• Historic Sites 

• Contamination Sites 

• Churches and Schools 

• Cemeteries

• Public Recreation sites 

• Public Services

• ROW 

 

2-4

The eliminated and retained alignments are described in the following paragraphs. Figures 2-2 

through 2-6 display the eliminated and retained alignments in Corridors A through E. Each

figure shows the retained alignments in yellow and the eliminated alignment in a black-dashed 

line. Section 2.5 discusses station sites evaluated, eliminated, and retained for further evaluation. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
Corridor A 

Alignments within Corridor A, Segments 1 through 4, are identified in Figure 2-2. 

Segment 1 extends from the eastern edge of the Hillsborough River, as the western boundary, to 

the intersection of Morgan Street and Harrison Street, as the eastern boundary. Four alignments 

were evaluated for Segment 1 and two were retained. Alignments a and b were eliminated and 

alignments c and d retained. Table 2-2 summarizes the alignment descriptions and the reasons

for eliminating or retaining alignments. 

Table 2-2 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor A

Segment 1-Hillsborough River to Morgan/Harrison Street 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Alignments

a New alignment, grade-separated south 

and parallel to I-275. No

• Inadequate horizontal clearance 

between the proposed station and the

alignment. 

• Impacts the greatest number of

significant historic structures (5).

• Impacts the greatest amount of wetlands

(1.8 ac.). 

• Does not allow for a future extension of

HSR service west of the Hillsborough 

River, without constructing a longer and 

more costly structure across the river.

b New alignment, grade-separated north

and parallel to I-275. No

• A new structure is required to cross over

I-275/I-4 interchange, adding substantial 

project costs.

• Relocation impacts to elderly and lowincome residences west of Hillsborough

River precluding a future FHSR

connection to the west. 

• Access impacts and potential reconstruction in the low- income, historic

district Tampa Heights and the new

Stetson University Campus. 

c 

New alignment, grade-separated;

crosses existing commercial area of

small businesses and surface 

parking lots. 

Yes • Minimizes environmental impacts.

• Facilitates a FHSR connection to

the west. 

d New alignment, grade-separated. Yes • Minimizes environmental impacts.

Segment 2 extends from the western boundary of the Morgan Street and Harrison Street 

intersection to the intersection of Kennedy Boulevard and the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown 

Expressway, as the eastern boundary. Four alignments were evaluated for Segment 2, and two

were retained. For Segment 2, alignments b and d are retained and alignments a and c were 

eliminated. Table 2-3 summarizes the alignment descriptions and the reasons for eliminating or 

retaining alignments. 

 2-5 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 2-3 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor A

Segment 2 – Morgan/Harrison Streets to Kennedy Boulevard/Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown 

Expressway 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Alignments

a 

Grade-separated, new alignment

between Morgan Street and Nebraska 

Avenue. 

No

• Requires the greatest amount of

ROW.

• Creates the greatest number of

potential commercial relocations.

b 

Grade-separated, new alignment

between Morgan Street and Nebraska 

Avenue. It crosses an existing 

commercial area of primarily small 

businesses and surface parking lots. It

is near the entry to Perry Harvey Sr. 

Park and the historic Union Station. 

Yes 

• Reduces the amount of ROW

required. 

• Minimizes the number of potential

commercial relocations. 

• Avoids impacts to Perry Harvey Sr. 

Park and does not impact Nick 

Nuccio Parkway.

• Connects with Alignment c in 

Segment 1. 

c 

Grade-separated, new alignment that

crosses the entry to Nick Nuccio

Parkway, a gateway into historic Ybor 

City and primary access to the Central 

Park Village public housing

development. The Parkway as a City

of Tampa linear park. 

No

• Requires complete reconstruction

of the Nick Nuccio Parkway,

adding to overall project costs.

• Disrupts traffic access to Ybor City

and the Central Park Village. 

• Impacts the linear park within the

Parkway.

d Grade-separated, new alignment

parallel and east of I-275. Yes 

• Minimizes impacts to Perry Harvey

Sr. Park. 

• No direct impacts to historic

structures.

Segment 3 extends from the intersection of Kennedy Boulevard and the Lee Roy Selmon

Crosstown Expressway, as the western boundary, to the mid-block of 36th and 37th Streets, as the 

eastern boundary. Three alignments were evaluated for Segment 3 and two were retained.

Alignments c and d are retained, and alignment b is eliminated in Segment 3. Table 2-4 

summarizes the alignment descriptions and the reasons for eliminating or retaining alignments. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

2-6
Table 2-4 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor A

Segment 3 – Kennedy Boulevard/Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway to

36th/37th Street 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Eliminated Alignment

b Grade-separated, new alignment,

parallel to the CSX C-Line. No

• The alignment bisects the Ybor 

City National Historic Landmark

District and impacts the greatest

number of historic structures. 

• The elevated structure would create

unacceptable visual impacts to

historic resources and redeveloped 

areas in Ybor City.

• The alignment conflicts with the

Hartline transit system’s planned 

light rail system in same corridor.

c 

Grade-separated, new alignment from

Kennedy Boulevard to the former

CSX S-Line, north of Adamo Drive; 

The former CSX S-Line is a mixture 

of CSX and other public/private

owners. 

Yes 

• No impacts to the Ybor City

National Historic Landmark

District.

d 

Grade-separated, new alignment

crosses into the I-4 median above the 

proposed entry/exit to Ybor City at

14th/15th Streets.

Yes 

• Avoids direct impacts to the newly

developed Ybor City area.

• Contained within the I-4 median. 

• Minimal impacts to Perry Harvey

Sr. Park. 

Segment 4 extends from the mid-block of 36th and 37th Streets, as the western boundary, to the

interchange of U.S. 41 and I-4, as the eastern boundary. Four alignments were evaluated for

Segment 4, and two were retained. Segment 4, alignment d is retained in the I-4 median and

alignment c from the mid-block of 36th and 37th Streets to east of 39th Street is retained.

Alignments a, b, and the portion of c from east of 39th Street were eliminated from further

evaluation. Table 2-5 summarizes the alignment descriptions and the reasons for eliminating or 

retaining alignments. 

 2-7 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 2-5 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor A

Segment 4 – 36th/37th Street to U.S. 41/I-4 Interchange 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Eliminated Alignment

a/b

Grade-separated, new alignment,

connecting between CSX A-Line and 

I-4. 

No

• Connects only to previously

eliminated alignments in Segment

3. 

c 

Grade-separated, new alignment from

the former CSX S-Line, north of

Adamo Drive to east of 39th Street; 

The former CSX S-Line is a mixture 

of CSX and other public/private

owners. 

Yes 

• The eliminated portion from 39th

Street east to the U.S.41/I-4

interchange impacts industrial 

properties and requires crossing the

CSX A-Line. 

d Grade-separated, new alignment

within the I-4 median. Yes • Contained within the existing ROW

of the I-4 median. 

Corridor B 

Corridor B, including segments 1 and 2 are identified in Figure 2-3. 

Segment 1, along the I-4 alignment, extends from the interchange of U.S. 41 and I-4, as the

western boundary, to just west of the Mango Road exit at C.R. 579, as the eastern boundary.

Segment 1, along the CSX Line extends from the intersection of 39th Street, as the western 

boundary, to just east of I-75, as the eastern boundary. Segment 1 alignments pass the Seminole

Indian Reservation and the Florida State Fairgrounds that are located to the south of I-4. Three

alignments were evaluated for Segment 1 and two were retained. Alignments c and d, which 

cross the Tampa Bypass Canal, were retained and alignment b was eliminated. Table 2-6 

summarizes the alignment descriptions and the reasons for eliminating or retaining alignments. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

2-8
Table 2-6 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor B 

Segment 1 – In I-4 Median

U.S. 41/I-4 Interchange to West of Mango Road/C.R. 579 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Alignments

b 

Grade-separated, new alignment,

parallel to the CSX A-Line in Ybor 

City. 

No

• Connects only to previously

eliminated alignments in Corridor

A.

• Requires the greatest amount of

new ROW.

c 

Grade-separated, new alignment

extends from the former CSX S-Line

through the Uceta Yards to the 

existing CSX A-Line ROW until the

I-75 median. 

Yes • Minimizes the amount of new

ROW required. 

d Grade-separated, new alignment

within the I-4 median. Yes • Minimizes the amount of new

ROW required. 

Segment 2 provides a connector located within the I-75 ROW. It connects from the CSX 

A-Line, as the southern boundary, to I-4, as the northern boundary. The area contains industrial 

and agricultural land uses interspersed with commercial and office complexes, such as the Sabal

Office Park. Three alignments were evaluated for Segment 2 and one was retained. Alignment b

is retained and alignments a and c were eliminated. Table 2-7 summarizes the alignment

descriptions and the reasons for eliminating or retaining alignments. 

Table 2-7 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor B 

Segment 2 – CSX A-Line to I-4 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Eliminated Alignment

a Grade-separated, new alignment

parallel to U.S. 301. No

• Relocates four commercial

properties. 

• Disrupts access and acquires 

parking from the Florida State 

Fairgrounds. 

• Requires a new crossing of the

Bypass Canal. 

b Grade-separated, new alignment,

within the I-75 median. Yes • Has the least amount of overall 

impacts.

c 

Grade-separated, new alignment

parallel and east of I-75, within

existing interstate ROW.

No

• Impacts the greatest amount of

wetlands and floodplains. 

• Requires the greatest amount of

ROW.

 2-9 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Corridor C 

Preliminary alignments for Corridor C are displayed in Figure 2-4. 

Corridor C extends from just east of I-75, as the western boundary, to just east of the 

Hillsborough and Polk County lines, as the eastern boundary. Land uses along the I-4 alignment 

include pasturelands and commercial uses, such as Cracker Barrel, Lazy Days Campground, and

Rooms To Go. Two alignments were evaluated for Segment 1 and one was retained.

Alignment d, located within the I-4 median, is retained. Alignment a was eliminated because of

numerous community impacts in Plant City. Table 2-8 summarizes the alignment descriptions 

and the reasons for eliminating or retaining alignments. 

Table 2-8 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor C

East of I-75 to East of Hillsborough/Polk County Line 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Alignments

a Grade-separated, new alignment

parallel to CSX tracks. No

• The elevated guideway would

create a disruptive visual impact in

Plant City’s established 

neighborhoods and downtown. 

• The alignment bisects and creates 

adverse impacts to the Plant City

Historic District.

• The alignment would create 

proximity impacts to numerous

churches, schools, parks and 

community facilities. 

d Grade-separated, new alignment,

within the I-4 median. Yes 

• Significantly fewer impacts to 

downtown Plant City and NRHPlisted Plant City Historic District.

Corridor D 

Preliminary alignments for Corridor D, Segments 1 through 3, are identified in Figure 2-5. 

Segment 1 extends from just east of the Hillsborough/Polk County line, as the western boundary,

to the interchange of Socrum Loop Road, as the eastern boundary. Land uses along the I-4

include industrial and commercial uses, such as a horse trailer sales lot, Tree Sweet citrus

facility, Lakeland Interstate Park, and an abandoned Owens-Corning factory. Interspersed

among these uses are large open pasturelands. Three alignments were evaluated for Segment 1 

and one was retained. Alignment d, located within the I-4 median, is retained. Alignments a and

c were eliminated. Table 2-9 summarizes the alignment descriptions and the reasons for 

eliminating or retaining alignments. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

2-10
Table 2-9 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor D

Segment 1 – Hillsborough/Polk County Line to I-4/Socrum Loop Interchange 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Alignments

a Grade-separated, new alignment

parallel to CSX tracks. No

• The alignment bisects and creates 

adverse impacts to the Lakeland

Historic District.

• There are significant ROW and

business relocation impacts within 

downtown Lakeland. 

• The alignment would create 

proximity impacts to numerous

community resources including

churches, parks, schools and public

facilities. 

c Grade-separated, new alignment

connecting alignments a and d. No

• The alignment connects only to 

eliminated alignments in Corridor

C 

• The alignment creates significant

wetland impacts (152 acres) within 

its 3.4-mile length. 

d Grade-separated, new alignment,

within the I-4 median. Yes 

• Avoids impacts to downtown 

Lakeland and the Lakeland Historic

District.

• Overall least amount of impacts.

Segment 2 extends from the Socrum Loop Road interchange, as the western boundary, to just 

west of the C.R. 557 interchange, as the eastern boundary. Commercial uses are clustered near 

the interchanges. Other land uses vary from residential to pastureland, pine groves, and orange

groves. A portion of the area west of I-4 contains the Green Swamp, which is an Area of Critical

State Concern. Two alignments were evaluated for Segment 2 and one was retained.

Alignment d, located in the I-4 median, is retained. Alignment a was eliminated due to

numerous community impacts in Auburndale. Table 2-10 summarizes the alignment descriptions

and the reasons for eliminating or retaining alignments. 

 2-11 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 2-10 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor D

Segment 2 – I-4/Socrum Loop Interchange to West of I-4/C.R. 557 Interchange 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Alignments

a 

Grade-separated, new alignment

parallel to CSX tracks through Polk

County and the City of Auburndale. 

No

• The alignment bisects and disrupts

the established development in 

Auburndale. 

• The alignment creates proximity

effects to numerous churches, 

schools, parks and community

facilities. 

• The alignment only connects to the 

eliminated alignment in Corridor C. 

d Grade-separated, new alignment,

within the I-4 median. Yes • Overall least amount of social

impacts.

Segment 3 extends from just west of the C.R. 557 interchange, as the western boundary, to just

east of the World Drive interchange in the Celebration area, as the eastern boundary. The land

use pattern along I-4 is predominately passive agriculture with some residential developments. 

The southern portion of the project area contains three small cities: Lake Alfred, Haines City,

and Davenport. Four alignments were evaluated for Segment 3 and one was retained.

Alignments a, b, and c were eliminated. These alignments would be on new alignment and

grade-separated through much of the developed city properties in this segment. Alignment d,

within the I-4 median, is retained. Table 2-11 summarizes the alignment descriptions and the

reasons for eliminating or retaining alignments. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

2-12
Table 2-11 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor D

Segment 3 – West of I-4/C.R. 557 Interchange to East of I-4/World Drive Interchange 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Eliminated Alignment

a 

Grade-separated, new alignment from

Davenport through undeveloped land 

to north of I-4. 

No

• The alignment impacts nearly

2.195 acres of high quality

wetlands. 

• The alignment requires the greatest 

amount of ROW compared to all 

other alignments. 

• The alignment connects only

eliminated alignments in Corridor

B, C, and D to I-4 alignments. 

b Grade-separated, new alignment

between Lake Alfred and Haines City. No

• The alignment connects only to an

eliminated alignment in Corridors 

B, C, and D. 

c 

Grade-separated, new alignment

parallel to the CSX rail tracks through 

Haines City. 

No

• The alignment bisects established 

neighborhood and commercial

development in Auburndale and 

Lake Alfred.

• The alignment creates proximity

impacts to a greater number of (17)

churches and (five) public

recreation sites.

• The alignment connects only to 

previously eliminated alignments in 

Corridors B, C, and D. 

d Grade-separated, new alignment,

within the I-4 median. Yes 

• Overall least amount of impacts.

• Avoids impacts to the cities of

Auburndale and Lake Alfred. 

Corridor E 

Alignments within Corridor E, Segments 1 through 4, are identified in Figure 2-6. 

Segment 1 extends from just east of the World Drive interchange in the Celebration area, as the

western boundary, to just west of the Osceola Parkway, as the eastern boundary. Disney’s Wide

World of Sports complex is located on the west side of I-4 and the Celebration community is to 

the east. Three alignments were evaluated for Segment 1 and one was retained. Alignment d, 

within the I-4 median, is retained. Alignments a and c were eliminated. Table 2-12 summarizes 

the alignment descriptions and the reasons for eliminating or retaining alignments. 

 2-13 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 2-12 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor E

Segment 1 – World Drive Interchange to Osceola Parkway 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Alignments

a Grade-separated new alignment north 

of and parallel to I-4. No

• The alignment impacts the greatest 

amount of wetlands (321 ac.).

• New commercial development has 

occurred in the alignment.

• The alignment only connects to a 

previously eliminated alignment in 

Corridor D. 

c Grade-separated new alignment that

connects alignment a and d. No

• New commercial development has 

occurred in the alignment.

• The alignment only connects to

eliminated alignment a.

d Grade-separated alignment in the I-4 

median. Yes • Overall least amount of impacts.

Segment 2 extends from just west of the Osceola Parkway, the western boundary, onto the Bee

Line Expressway (S.R. 528), and extends until just west of the John Young Parkway, the eastern 

boundary. Land uses along I-4 to the east and west are predominantly tourist-oriented

developments. At the I-4/Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) interchange, Sea World dominates

the southeast corner, while the Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) dominates the

northeast corner. Beyond the OCCC, rural/agricultural lands owned by Universal Studios border 

the north side of the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528). Five alignments were evaluated for 

Segment 2 and three were retained. Alignments a, c, and d are retained. Alignments b and e

were eliminated. Table 2-13 summarizes the alignment descriptions and the reasons for 

eliminating or retaining alignments. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

2-14
Table 2-13 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor E

Segment 2 – Osceola Parkway to John Young Parkway 

Alignment Description 

Retained for 

Further 

Evaluation

Comments on Alignments

a/c 

Grade-separated new alignment

parallel and south of S.R. 536,

connecting into the Central Florida

Greeneway.

Yes 

• Provides connection to the Central 

Florida Greeneway.

b 

Grade-separated new alignment

connecting I-4 and the Central Florida

Greeneway.

No

• Impacts the greatest amount of

wetlands acres. 

• Impacts the greatest amount of

protected species habitat.

• New structure over I-4/S.R. 536 

adds substantial project costs.

• Only allows access to Disney

property, with no option for access 

to a proposed nearby station within 

the I-4 median.

d 

Grade-separated within the I-4 median

and along the north side of the Bee

Line Expressway ROW; Provides

connection to the proposed Orange

County multi-modal center at

International Drive and OCCC. 

Yes 

• Overall least amount of impacts.

• Overall least cost.

e 

Grade-separated new alignment along

U.S. 192, between I-4 and the Central

Florida Greeneway.

No

• Disrupts access to two large 

commercial land uses and 

Celebration community, creating 

longer and more expensive spans of

FHSR guideway. 

• The alignment requires a high rise 

structure over a ramp of the 

I-4/U.S. 192 interchange that add 

substantial project costs. 

Segment 3, along the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528), extends from just west of the John

Young Parkway, as the western boundary, to just east of the Boggy Creek Road/Tradeport Drive

intersection, as the eastern boundary. As the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) intersects John 

Young Parkway, the segment continues east along Taft-Vineland Road. The land use in this area 

is predominantly light industrial. Three alignments were evaluated for Segment 3. Two

alignments were originally retained; however, later analysis determined engineering constraints

prevented their construction. No alignments were retained for further study.

Segment 4 extends along the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528), which is the northern boundary,

from just west of the John Young Parkway intersection east along Taft-Vineland Road to

Orlando International Airport on South Access Road. The southern boundary of Segment 4

extends along the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), and then turns northward and enters 

Orlando International Airport from the south along South Access Road. The west end of the 

Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) is predominantly low-density residential developments, 

 2-15 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
such as Hunters Creek Community. Two combined alignments, e/g and f/h, were evaluated and 

retained for Segment 4. Table 2-14 summarizes the alignment descriptions. 

Table 2-14 

Summary of Alignments Evaluated in Corridor E

Segment 4 – John Young Parkway to Orlando International Airport

Alignment Description Retained for Further 

Evaluation

e/g 

Grade-separated new alignment within the Bee Line and TaftVineland ROW. Yes 

f/h

Grade-separated new alignment within Central Florida Greeneway

ROW; and along the South Access Road ROW into the proposed 

Orlando International Airport South Terminal. 

Yes 

Figure 2-7, Corridor/Stations for Further Evaluation, displays all of the eliminated and retained

alignments by corridor. 

2.3.2 Corridors for Further Evaluation

The evaluation process described in the previous section, and presented in greater detail in the 

Florida High Speed Rail Screening Report, compared alignments within each geographic 

corridor segments and eliminated those with significant social, natural, or physical

environmental impacts and that failed to meet purpose and need. The retained and eliminated

alignments within the corridor segments were presented to the public in January 2003 for review

and comment. See Section 6 of this report for additional information regarding the public 

information process. Station sites retained for further study are discussed in Section 2.5 and

shown on Figure 2-7. 

In order to compare impacts along the entire trip from terminus to terminus, the retained

alignments within each segment are aggregated within each corridor to form eight different

routes (A1, B1, C1, etc.), as shown in Table 2-15, and then the various routes are linked together

to form four viable corridors (A, B, C, etc.), as shown in Table 2-16. Although all data is 

organized by segment so that impacts can be easily tracked, all future discussions will focus on 

retained routes within each viable corridor. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

2-16
Table 2-15 

Retained Routes

Segments Route

Corridor A

A1c + A2d + A3d + A4d = A1

A1d + A2b + A3c + A4c = A2

Corridor B 

B1d = B1

B1c + B2b = B2

Corridor C 

C1d = C1

Corridor D 

D1d + D2d + D3d = D1

Corridor E 

E1d + E2d + E4egh = E1

E1d + E2ac + E4fh = E2

The Viable Corridors are shown on Figure 2-7, Corridors/Stations for Further Evaluation. 

Table 2-16 

Viable Corridors 

Routes Corridor 

A1 + B1 + C1 + D1 + E1 Corridor 1

A1 + B1 + C1 + D1 + E2 Corridor 2

A2 + B2 + C1 + D1 + E1 Corridor 3

A2 + B2+ C1 + D1 + E2 Corridor 4

Corridors 1 through 4 comprise the Viable Corridor. 

2.3.3 Design/Build Alternatives Selection Process

As previously discussed, the FHSRA selected and incorporated a DBOM&F process into the EIS

analyses process. The second stage of the DBOM&F was initiated on October 7, 2002, when the 

FHSRA solicited proposals to construct a high speed ground transportation system, from Tampa 

to Orlando. The RFP consisted of a variety of data collected by the FHSRA to date. The RFP 

data included: 

• Florida High Speed Rail Corridor Screening Report, October, 2002 

• Florida High Speed Rail Preliminary Engineering Plans 

• PD&E Study Preliminary Engineering Calculations and Tables

• Florida High Speed Rail Design Criteria

• Preliminary Engineering Geotechnical Data 

• FDOT I-4 Design Plans (1 CD) 

• Preliminary Conceptual Drainage Report 

• Station Alignment and Concept Plans 

 2-17 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
• Digital Terrain Model and Surveyor’s Report 

• Utility Data Plans 

• FHSRA Ridership Study

In order to reduce costs for the respondents, the RFP required only Viable Corridors 1 and 2 for

the design/build evaluation. However, all four Viable Corridors are evaluated in this Final EIS,

and any one of them could be selected and negotiated with the respondents. 

Five proposals from four different companies were received on February 10, 2003. The

proposers were: 

• Et3.com Inc. 

• Fluor Bombardier 

• Georgia Monorail Consortium (Proposal 1 and Proposal 2) 

• Global Rail Consortium 

On April 17, 2003, two of the respondents were determined by the FHSRA to be non-responsive 

and are not included within this document. They are Et3.com Inc. and Georgia Monorail 

Consortium. A letter dated April 17, 2003, from the FHSRA explains the reasons for the

determination of non-responsiveness. 

The FHSRA preliminarily found that two proposals were responsive and were to be evaluated as 

Design/Build Alternatives in the Final EIS. The two teams and their technologies are: Fluor

Bombardier, which proposed the use of a gas turbine train technology, and the Global Rail 

Consortium, which proposed the use of an electric train technology. The two proposals contain 

different technologies, track systems, rail locations, and station sites. 

The four Viable Corridors shown in Table 2-16 result in eight Alternatives, with four alternatives

for each technology. The Fluor Bombardier group proposal is represented as the gas turbine

train and the Global Rail Consortium proposal as the electric train. The alternative combinations 

of location and technology are identified in Table 2-17. 

Table 2-17 

Design/Build Alternatives

Viable

Corridors Technology Alternatives

Corridor 1 Gas Turbine Train Alternative 1

Corridor 2 Gas Turbine Train Alternative 2

Corridor 3 Gas Turbine Train Alternative 3

Corridor 4 Gas Turbine Train Alternative 4

Corridor 1 Electric Train Alternative 5

Corridor 2 Electric Train Alternative 6

Corridor 3 Electric Train Alternative 7

Corridor 4 Electric Train Alternative 8

 

2-18

The Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8, are shown on Figure 2-8. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
2.4 DESIGN/BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

Within the RFP documents for DBOM&F, FHSRA identified engineering and operational 

characteristics that firms responding to the RFP were to meet. The design criteria was intended 

to provide a starting point from which various proposed technologies would be refined. Two 

technologies have been identified for continued analysis. The Flour-Bombardier proposal 

utilizes the gas turbine (gas turbine train) technology and the Global Rail Consortium proposal

utilizes an electrified, modified, electric train technology. The following section identifies key

elements of the RFP responses. 

2.4.1 Design/Build Alignment Variations

Although the RFP required one corridor for the FHSR from downtown Tampa to the Disney area

in Osceola County, the RFP required two alternative corridors from the Disney area to the

Orlando International Airport. The first corridor is within the north side ROW of the Central 

Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) to Boggy Creek Road and into the proposed south terminal at

Orlando International Airport. The second corridor is within the north side ROW of the Bee

Line Expressway (S.R. 528) from I-4 to John Young Parkway continuing east in the median of

Taft-Vineland Street, as coordinated with Orange County. This corridor then follows the 

Orlando Utilities Commission rail line into the south of Orlando International Airport. 

The typical sections, plan sheets, vertical profiles, and station concepts are included in

Appendix A-1, Sheets 1 through 204. The plan sheets identify horizontal alignments that are

within the existing 44 ft. median envelope of the interstate/freeway alignments. The plan sheets 

also identify horizontal alignments that require new ROW with a 60 ft. envelope. The vertical

clearance identified in the plan sheets provides a minimum of 19 ft. clearance between top of rail

and bottom of structure utilizing an electrified train system. The following text describes the 

variations of the horizontal and vertical alignment geometry proposed by the Fluor Bombardier

Gas Turbine Train and the Global Rail Consortium Electric Train. Appendix A-2 includes the

plan sheets identifying variations to the alignment as proposed by the gas turbine train and

electric train proposals. 

Gas Turbine Train 

In specific areas, the Fluor-Bombardier Gas Turbine Train proposal varies from track location 

alignments, vertical alignments, and ROW defined by the FHSRA in the RFP: 

• Alignment shifts to the north and west of I-4 at a maximum distance of 550 ft. to enter

the Disney Station (see Appendix A-2, Sheets 119A through 124A, 155A, and 156A). 

• Alignment transitions from I-4 and shifts south to the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417) median instead of the north side of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417).

The alignment also transitions from the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) median to 

Orlando International Airport at a maximum of 325 ft. to the north and west of the FHSR

alignment (see Appendix A-2, Sheets 159A through 181A). 

 2-19 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
• The gas turbine train proposal varies from the vertical profile provided by the FHSRA at

some locations with a vertical profile that is generally set a few ft. higher. These 

variances would result in the replacement of the following overpass road bridges: 

− C.R. 559 Polk County

− S.R. 557 Polk County

− C.R. 545 Polk County

− I-75 Ramps (3) Hillsborough County

• The gas turbine train proposal revises the vertical alignment at two locations identified 

for wildlife crossings. The RFP identified emergency crossovers between the east and

west traffic lanes due to the separation between interchanges. These crossovers were

located in conjunction with wildlife crossings that FDOT has planned as a part of future

I-4 improvements. The gas turbine train proposal identifies a vertical alignment 

following the interstate vertical alignment, not allowing for these crossings. However, an

elevated roadway crossing over the rail alignment is proposed for emergency vehicles at 

a single location with no provision for wildlife crossings. 

• The typical sections for the gas turbine train technology are shown in various scenarios in

Appendix A-4. Where new ROW is required, the gas turbine train proposal identifies the

need to increase the 60 ft. wide envelope to 75 ft., with an additional 20 ft. of temporary

construction easement. 

• The gas turbine train proposes to use the median of the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417); therefore, additional ROW identified to the north side of this transportation

corridor would not be required within this proposal. 

Electric Train 

The Global Rail Consortium Electric Train technology would be constructed within the 

FHSRA’s defined ROW and vertical alignments. Typical sections for the technology are shown

in Appendix A-4. However, the proposal contains the following track location variances from

the alignment defined by the FHSRA: 

• Alignment shifts to the east 28 ft. as it leaves I-4 and continues on to the Tampa CBD

station site (see Appendix A-2 Sheet 2A). 

• Alignment shifts to the north, a maximum of 1,565 ft. as it leaves the Boggy Creek Road

and travels north to Orlando International Airport (see Appendix A-2, Sheets 152A

through 154A and 183A).

The proposers’ variances and other differences are incorporated into the definition of the

design/build alternatives and are considered in this Final EIS. 

2.4.2 Operations

 

2-20

The FHSRA, as part of the DBOM&F RFP, requested that performance standards and LOS be 

established that would optimize ridership and revenues. These standards, as a minimum, would 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
identify trip times between termini and stations, frequency of service, and adequate capacity

for passengers. 

The DBOM&F documents identified the following minimum performance standards: 

• Operating Speed 

The proposed technology must meet the requirements of the legislative mandate and be

capable of operating on an unconstrained alignment at speeds in excess of 120 miles per

hour (mph). 

• Trip Times

The proposed technology and operating plan must provide a 1 hour, 10 minute maximum

travel time between Tampa and Orlando International Airport including stops for

passenger boarding/de-boarding at all intermediate stations. 

• Passenger Capacity

The proposed technology, train configuration (consist), and operating plan should be

capable of providing a minimum passenger capacity of 250-seated passengers per consist. 

In the event that the proposed technology uses a train configuration that does not provide 

this minimum capacity, then the proposer may provide additional service frequency to

achieve equivalent passenger capacity. 

• Intercity Service

The proposed intercity service would include a minimum of 12 round trips per day

between Tampa and Orlando International Airport. The operator may propose an 

operating plan without stops at intermediate stations; however, operators would propose a 

plan that optimizes the overall system ridership. 

• Hours of Operation

Minimum service hours would be from 6:00 AM until 8:00 PM. 

• Service Ramp-up

The operator may propose to phase-in new service over the first two operating years of

the project, if opening service of the project is not less than 8 intercity round trips

per day.

• Service Expansion

The operator may propose increased service above minimum levels in order to optimize

ridership and revenue. 

The gas turbine train and the electric train systems have the following operational characteristics:

Gas Turbine Train 

The gas turbine train proposal indicates that a maximum speed of 125 mph would be obtained, 

meeting the minimum speed requirements. This results in travel times between 65 minutes for 

the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) alignment and one hour, 10 minutes for the Bee Line 

Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment, which is at or near the maximum trip time identified by the 

FHSRA. Non-stop travel times are noted to be 58 and 63 minutes. The difference is the longer

Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment compared to the Central Florida Greeneway

 2-21 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
(S.R. 417) alignment in Orange County. No trip times were provided for the shuttle trips

between Orlando International Airport and the Disney area. 

The gas turbine train proposal identifies that the ridership information prepared for and provided

by the FHSRA was utilized in the development of the operations plan. This ridership 

information includes the Tampa-Orlando Investment Grade Ridership Study, Operations Plan, 

November 14, 2002 and the Investment Grade Ridership Study, Summary Report, November 20,

2002. 

A fleet of six trains is proposed to provide intercity and shuttle service in the Disney area. The 

shuttle service would be provided between Orlando International Airport and Walt Disney World 

and would operate on the same mainline tracks as the intercity service. No non-stop service was

identified in the proposed operational plan. The operating hours are identified between 6:00 AM

and 11:00 PM. The gas turbine train proposal meets the FHSRA criteria related to capacity, trip 

times, operating speeds, and hours of operation. 

Electric Train 

The electric train proposal indicates that a maximum speed of 160 mph would be obtained 

resulting in trip times of 55 minutes with stops and 44 minutes non-stop between Tampa and 

Orlando International Airport. The shorter Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) alignment 

reduces the stated trip times by one minute. The travel times for the shuttle service are 

14 minutes for the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) alignment and 15 minutes for the Bee 

Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment. 

The electric train proposal references the Investment Grade Ridership Study, Summary Report, 

November 20, 2002, for the development of their operations plan. This report was prepared by

two independent consultants for the FHSRA and documented the results of each of these

analyses. The operations plan for the electric train proposal is based on the average of the

two analyses. 

A fleet of five trains is proposed with four trains providing intercity and shuttle service and one

train identified as a spare. Five passenger cars and two power cars, one on each end of the 

consist, provide a total of 250 seats. Four direct trips are proposed between Tampa and Orlando

with 12 trips providing intercity service. An additional 17 shuttle trips are proposed between

Orlando International Airport and the Disney area. The operating hours are identified between

5:50 AM and 11:15 PM. The electric train proposal meets the FHSRA criteria related to 

capacity, trip times, operating speeds, and hours of operation. 

2.4.3 Bridge Structures

The bridge structures for the FHSR project would be designed to specifications identified in the

FDOT Structures Design Guidelines

11, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications12, and 

AREMA 2002 Manual for Railway Engineering13. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

2-22
The FHSRA has required that the rail alignment be grade–separated, which results in the use of

significant bridge structures through the corridor. The FHSR provided vertical profiles that

cumulatively represent a total bridge structure length ranging from 16.5 miles (mi.) to 30.1 mi.

for the alternative alignments in the study area. The total length of the alignments, as provided 

by the FHSRA, ranges from 83.8 mi. to 85.7 mi. 

Gas Turbine Train 

The gas turbine train proposal identified bridge structures of either concrete, or a combination of 

concrete and steel elements. Conventional construction methods would be employed to

construct the bridge structures. Appendix A-4, Figures 2-21 through 2-27 illustrate the proposed 

gas turbine train typical sections for bridges. 

Electric Train 

The electric train proposal identified the use of concrete box girders for all spans. 

Appendix A-4, Figures 2-28 through 2-31 include typical bridge sections with various types of 

column support. 

2.4.4 Retaining Walls

Retained earth walls would be utilized in areas that require fill, where ROW is not adequate to

allow for a typical slope embankment. This occurrence is typical throughout the proposed

alignments located within an interstate or freeway median. FHSRA requires a minimum of 10 ft.

from centerline of track to near face of the wall. 

Gas Turbine Train 

The gas turbine train proposal substituted retained earth fills for elevated bridges, where feasible,

as an optimization/enhancement, thereby reducing bridge structures by approximately 35 to

42 percent between Tampa and Orlando. A standard barrier and chain link fence would extend 

above the wall. 

Electric Train 

The electric train proposal maintains required vertical clearance by depressing the alignment in 

locations to pass underneath overhead structures. Where the width of the I-4 median does not 

permit the appropriate grading of new ditches, retaining walls would be used. Where this occurs,

the design would incorporate a conventionally reinforced bottom slab and a pumping system to

remove storm drainage, thereby ensuring that the rail corridor maintains positive drainage away

from the ballast. The bottom slab would be designed to resist hydrostatic uplift from 

groundwater and would support retaining walls on either side of the track section. A standard

barrier and chain link fence would extend above the wall. 

 2-23 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
2.4.5 Barriers

The FHSRA identified the following guidelines for utilizing barriers to protect the rail alignment 

and objects within the rail corridor: 

• Permanent highway barriers would be installed between the rail line and immediately

adjacent parallel roadways, in accordance with FRA regulations. 

• Where the rail line is on pier-supported structures within 100 ft. of the highway, barriers 

would be required to protect piers and the occupants of highway vehicles. 

• Overhead highway bridge pier structures within the rail corridor would be protected using 

crash barriers. 

• FHSR systems would have protection against guideway and ROW entry by unauthorized 

persons, large animals, and objects. A 6-ft. chain link fence would be installed within the 

guideway between the barrier structure and the track. Fencing would not be required

where the barrier or retaining wall height exceeds the height of the fence. Overhead

highway bridge structures would include chain link fencing across the width of the 

guideway, plus 20 ft. on each side to aid in the prevention of vandalism.

• FHSR systems would include an intrusion detection system, capable of detecting large

objects that strike or rupture the chain link fence. Where fencing is not required (at high

retaining walls or barriers), the intrusion detection system would be furnished using 

electromechanical or other appropriate means of detection. The intrusion detection

system would be tied into the train control system to allow either warning or train stop, as

determined by the system safety study performed during the design and construction

phase. 

• Should a system that provides train-operating speeds in excess of 125 mph be proposed,

the additional FRA operating requirements of 49CFR 213.361 would be met during the 

design and construction phase. These requirements include the preparation and approval,

through the FRA, of a “Right-of-way Plan” from the owner of a class 8 and 9 track that is

required for trains operating at speeds over 125 mph. This plan would contain provisions 

in areas of demonstrated need for the prevention of: vandalism, launching of objects

from overhead bridges or structures into the path of the trains, and intrusion of vehicles 

from adjacent ROW. 

Gas Turbine Train 

The gas turbine train proposal states the median barriers would typically support a chain link

fence to prevent unauthorized access. Placing a 6-ft. chain link fence 30 inches (in.) inside the 

barrier (as proposed by the FHSRA) provides an area for rubbish to collect between the fence

and the barrier. Mounting the fence on top of the barriers optimizes the design by increasing the 

clearance between the train and adjacent structures, eliminating rubbish accumulation, and

reducing potential maintenance costs. 

An intrusion detection system, as identified by the FHSRA, has not been provided as part of the

gas turbine train proposal because FRA does not require an intrusion detection system when the

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

2-24
maximum operating speed is 125 mph or less. Access detection would be provided at

access/egress gates in the fencing.

Electric Train 

The electric train proposal states that, because the proposed FHSR system is located within the

I-4 corridor with its centerline within 100 ft. of a highway travel lane, a continuous concrete

barrier wall would be placed along both edges of the I-4 paved, inside shoulder. These barriers 

would protect against intrusion by unguided automotive vehicles including motorcycles,

automobiles, light trucks, and over the road trucks. The electric train typical section places 6-ft.

chain link fence along both sides of the corridor, whether at-grade or on structure. The electric 

train design would meet or exceed the minimum level of protection, including intrusion detection

system and barriers between roadways as described in the RFP. 

2.4.6 Drainage

The process for drainage design approvals would be coordinated with the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Water Management Districts (WMD) in the four

county areas. 

The criteria and regulations of the agency responsible for the water body ultimately receiving the

discharge would be used. Where two or more agencies control a portion of the FHSR corridor, 

more stringent criteria must be met. Portions of the I-4 corridor in Hillsborough County that 

have been re-constructed already account for potential stormwater generated by FHSR and little 

modification to existing stormwater management systems is expected. 

For the remaining portions of the FHSR, there are some options to be considered for pollution 

abatement volume treatment, attenuation, and flood compensation associated with the

permitting process. 

• Utilizing an existing FDOT surface water management system within the ROW, as is,

can be the most economical option. 

• Modifying the outfall of an existing FDOT surface water management system with the

ROW. 

• Constructing a new surface water management system within the FDOT ROW or

adjacent land owned by the State. 

• Adding an ex-filtration trench system may be considered as a surface water management 

system alternative.

• Adding stormwater management systems under elevated structures is also an option. 

• The purchase of adjacent land to be used as a surface water management system is an

option. 

Construction of the FHSR would create impacts to existing drainage systems. It is the

responsibility of the DBOM&F firm to remedy any impacts in accordance with FDOT, FDEP, 

WMDs, and applicable local authority criteria. 

 2-25 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Gas Turbine Train 

The gas turbine train proposal includes drainage design and quantities based on information

provided by the FHSRA, with minor adjustments to reflect optimizations to the design. 

The retaining wall sections would have drainage solutions including: 

• Barrier wall inlets on both sides 

• Barrier wall inlets on one side

• Ditch conveyance 

• Trunkline inside the wall

It is also assumed that existing drainage structures and piping are adequate to carry the load

imposed by the rail alignment. Existing box culverts would be removed and replaced in the rail 

corridor within the road median only. The box culverts located under the roadway corridor 

would not be replaced. 

Floodplain compensation for potential floodplain impacts has not been determined in the gas 

turbine train proposal. Also, no provision has been made for a weather station or flood 

detection equipment. 

While the FHSRA noted that I-4 in Hillsborough County can accommodate drainage from the

FHSR, the gas turbine train proposal’s preliminary review of aerials and plans indicate that 

ponds are not sufficiently spaced to warrant this assumption. If existing stormwater ponds and 

structures cannot be modified for additional volumes, then the gas turbine train proposal states 

additional ROW would be required for a stormwater management system. 

Electric Train 

The electric train proposal states that drainage would be designed within the criteria identified by

the FHSRA. 

The electric train proposal would collect storm water on the track area in perforated drain tiles 

after percolating through the ballast(s). The drain lines, extending longitudinally along the

outside of the tracks with outlets, as needed, to empty into the existing drains or into the new

trunk lines, would run parallel to the shoulder of the driving lanes on I-4. Where the median

width permits, the design would forgo the subsurface trunk lines and utilize ditches between the

roadway shoulder and the barrier wall, or track section to collect and transfer storm drainage. 

Storm water would be conveyed in ditches or trunk lines to the existing transverse drainage 

system, which currently transports water under and to the outside of I-4. The proposed

longitudinal system reduces the number of transverse drainage pipes beneath the track structure. 

This longitudinal design was chosen to keep the conveyance system as high as possible. It also

eliminates higher strength concrete pipes necessary to support trainloads and eliminates any

future maintenance concerns with pipe beneath the train and track envelope. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

2-26
Should existing cross drain culvert capacity be exceeded, the electric train proposal includes

resizing these pipes or installing new cross drains at appropriate locations. Additionally, the 

proposal would address the requirements for erosion and sediment control and provide plans for 

stormwater pollution prevention. 

Construction of the FHSR would create impacts to existing drainage systems. The electric train 

proposal identifies the responsibility as theirs to remedy any impacts in accordance with FDOT,

FDEP, and WMD requirements and applicable local authority criteria. 

2.4.7 Highway Modification

Any highway modifications must meet FDOT roadway standards and/or local agency roadway

standards. The FHSRA has provided an alignment within transportation corridors that

minimizes impacts to the existing roadways. Within the median of the interstates, geometry of 

rail alignments has been provided that requires design variations from the FDOT and FHWA

standards. These design variations include reduced shoulder widths to accommodate the

geometry of the rail alignment. However, the reduced shoulder widths still meet minimum 

shoulder width requirements of the state and federal agencies. 

Construction of the FHSR would require coordination with roadway agencies for concurrence to

the maintenance of traffic plans. The proposers would have to obtain concurrence from these 

agencies for construction within existing transportation corridors and to show that impacts to 

existing traffic would be minimized. The construction of the FHSR would require

approval/authorization from FHWA, FDOT, and the Orlando-Orange County Expressway

Authority (OOCEA) to be within the ROW of the transportation corridors within the respective

agency’s jurisdiction. The FHSRA would require a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with 

OOCEA for use of the Central Florida Greeneway (SR 417) ROW.

Gas Turbine Train 

The gas turbine train proposal states that no highway modifications result from their proposal;

however, as discussed in Section 2.3.7, the gas turbine train proposal identified three crossroad

overpasses and three ramp structures that would need to be replaced with the proposed gas

turbine train vertical alignment. The proposed gas turbine train alignment also proposes to be

within the median of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), however, no approval from the 

OOCEA has been provided for use of the Greeneway median. 

Electric Train 

The electric train proposal also states that no highway improvements are proposed except near

stations and at maintenance facilities. The electric train proposal identifies a Disney area station 

alternative in the median of I-4. This would require approximately one mi. of the westbound 

I-4 lanes to be reconstructed. The electric train proposal utilizes the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417) alignment along the north side of the ROW as identified by the FHSRA. 

 2-27 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
2.4.8 Operational and Maintenance Facility

The FHSRA identified two potential sites per technology for an Operational and Maintenance

(O&M) facility. Both sites are located in the vicinity of Orlando International Airport. The

available sites at Orlando International Airport would provide sufficient size, compatible land

use, and minimal environmental impacts at the project’s eastern terminus. One site would serve

only the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment, whereas the second site could serve either

the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) or the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) alignment.

Figure 2-9 shows the locations of the O&M Facilities as proposed by the FHSRA. 

The O&M facility would allow the following main functions: 

• Rolling stock maintenance

• Workshops and storage for fixed (infrastructure) assets 

• Accommodation of maintenance staff 

• Track access to the alignment for maintenance personnel 

The rolling stock maintenance would employ a technology-specific vehicle maintenance shop 

that would incorporate facilities including: 

• Train washing

• Multiple service and inspections tracks 

• Dedicated preventative maintenance track 

• Dedicated heavy maintenance track 

• Dedicated axle storage track 

• Dedicated wheel truing track 

• Drop table 

• Electrical and mechanical

• Supervisors and support offices 

Major specialist equipment required to maintain the rolling stock would include: 

• Wheel diagnostic machine 

• Train washer

• Fueling system

• Wheel truing machine 

• Drop table 

• Gantry crane 

• Fuel storage 

• Sand and delivery system

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

2-28
• Sewage treatment 

• Bridge/monorail cranes 

An external, expandable, vehicle storage area would support the vehicle maintenance shop. The 

fixed (infrastructure) assets would have dedicated facilities, including a maintenance storage

track, secure storage areas, and a specialist workshop. 

Major special equipment required to maintain the fixed assets would include: 

• High-rail utilities 

• Track geometry vehicle 

• Rail grinder

• Production tamper 

• Ballast regulator

The maintenance facility would also accommodate FHSR staff in a dedicated administration

building that would also contain the Operations Control Center. 

Gas Turbine Train 

The gas turbine train proposal utilizes the proposed site directly south from Orlando International 

Airport (Site 3 on Figure 2-9). The gas turbine train proposal identifies an alternative site for the

facility that would serve only the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alternative (Site 2 on

Figure 2-9). This site is located east of the site identified by the FHSRA. The gas turbine train

proposal also identifies that a larger area is required for the O&M facility including additional

ROW for track spurs at the approaches to the O&M facility. An additional 5 ac. are identified in

the gas turbine train proposal. The O&M facility layouts for the proposed gas turbine train sites

are shown in Appendix A-4, Figures 2-42 through 2-45. 

Electric Train 

The electric train proposal states that the sites as identified by the FHSRA, location and size, are 

adequate for their technology requirements (Sites 1 and 3 on Figure 2-9). A single plan for both 

proposed sites of the electric train O&M facility is shown in Appendix A-4, Figures 2-46 and 

2-47. 

2.5 STATIONS 

The development of the potential station locations for the FHSR was based on identifying

locations that minimized environmental impacts and that could be accessed from the mainline

tracks with reasonable alignment geometry and cost. The following sections identify the process

and factors that led to the proposed station locations, and the selection of the two remaining 

viable station proposals. 

 2-29 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
2.5.1 Preliminary Station Locations

The FHSRA identified potential station sites for each of the proposed station locations: Tampa,

Lakeland, Disney area, OCCC, and Orlando International Airport. The sites were identified in

discussions with local governmental agencies to ensure conformity with local plans, future 

growth plans, and intermodal connectivity. The following text discusses station(s) by location, 

proposed sites, and any evaluation or coordination with local governments identifying analytical

reasons for eliminating or retaining a proposed station site. Station sites eliminated were either

infeasible or failed to meet the purpose and need of FHSR. A site map of the viable station 

locations is presented in Figure 2-10. 

Tampa 

In coordination with local officials and agencies, FHSRA identified two sites for a station in the

downtown area of Tampa and these are presented in Figure 2-2. 

• Site A is located between Tampa Street and Marion Street, I-275, and Fortune Street. 

This is the proposed area for the Tampa Intermodal Site that would provide connections 

to an extension of the existing Ybor City Trolley, future light rail, bus, and a pedestrian

corridor connected to the CBD via Franklin Street. 

• Site B would be located in or adjacent to Union Station on Nick Nuccio Parkway and

Nebraska Avenue. Union Station is an historic site and currently serves as the Amtrak

passenger terminal for Tampa.

Coordination with the local governmental agencies identified Site A as the preferred location due

to the long range capabilities of this site to accommodate intermodal connections, and current

plans for redevelopment in this area. 

The FHSRA eliminated Site B from further consideration due to the historic site designation and 

the modifications that would be required to accommodate high speed rail. Insufficient

developable land for a new high speed rail station adjacent to Union Station was another factor.

Within the immediate limits of Union Station are the existing Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown 

Expressway with future improvements, the beginning of Nick Nuccio Parkway (entranceway

into Ybor City), and the Central Park Village, a low-income housing complex owned by the 

Tampa Housing Authority.

Lakeland 

In coordination with the City of Lakeland, City of Plant City, and Polk County, eight potential 

stations were identified for the proposed Lakeland station and are presented in Figure 2-5. The

following discussion identifies each station and the reasons for not including the site for 

continued evaluation, as determined at this stage of the project. 

 

2-30

• Site A is located in the northwest quadrant of the Kathleen Road/I-4 interchange. This 

site is privately owned and currently undeveloped, but would require development and

approval for the infrastructure required for the station. The property owner has expressed 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
interest in working with the FHSRA for this potential site. The City of Lakeland

acknowledges the benefits of a station at the Kathleen Road interchange to establish 

connectivity to the local bus system and accommodate proposed growth in this area of

the city. 

This site has been eliminated from consideration due to the limited width of the property.

The station platform would run the width of the property resulting in additional impacts 

to surrounding properties. This proposed site is located near a ridgeline that would

require long lengths of additional structure and very high embankment to maintain

acceptable vertical alignment approaches into and out of the station to the west. The

CSX rail line borders the western edge of this property and would also influence the 

vertical alignment.

• Site B is located in the northeast quadrant of the Kathleen Road/I-4 interchange. This site 

is privately owned with development occurring in the vicinity. Infrastructure is in place 

that could be utilized by a potential station at this site. The existing ground is higher than

the interstate; therefore, the elevated tracks over I-4 would rise to meet the existing

ground. The horizontal alignment of I-4 from the eastern approaches provide for the

track alignment to leave the median and minimize ROW impacts to properties along the 

northern interstate ROW. The City of Lakeland acknowledges the benefits of a station at

the Kathleen Road interchange to establish connectivity to the local bus system and 

accommodate proposed growth in this area of the city. This site was retained for further 

evaluation in the Final EIS. 

• Site C is in the southwest quadrant of the Kathleen Road/I-4 interchange on the 

abandoned site of the Owens/Illinois facility. This site presents some alignment

challenges, both vertically and horizontally, for access to the site to and from the I-4

corridor. The City of Lakeland acknowledges the benefits of a station at the Kathleen

Road interchange to establish connectivity to the local bus system and accommodate 

proposed growth in this area of the city. 

This site was eliminated from further consideration due to the topographic features at the

area. The station site is at the lower elevations of a ridge that would require long lengths 

of additional structure and very high embankment for the tracks to merge into and 

diverge out of the median of I-4 to access the station. In order to maintain acceptable

vertical alignment approaches into and out of the station, it would require that the station 

platforms be elevated at significant height from the existing ground. 

• Site D is located at the S.R. 33/Socrum Road and I-4 interchange. The site surrounds an

abandoned rest area adjacent to I-4 and is in an area of heavy congestion. The inability to

access the station from the existing transportation network is a primary concern identified 

by the City of Lakeland and Polk County. 

 2-31 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
This site has been eliminated from further consideration based on the coordination with 

local governmental, which revealed concerns about the additional congestion in this area

of Lakeland and the future planning by these agencies for a station on the west side 

of Lakeland. 

• Site E is located in the northwest quadrant of the Polk Parkway (west access)/ 

I-4 interchange. This site was identified through coordination with the City of Plant City

and supported by the ridership study. The proposed station could be located in the

median with crossover access to and from the station site north of the interstate. Access

would be provided from Clark Road and infrastructure improvements would be required. 

The site was retained for further evaluation in the Final EIS. 

• Site F is located in the southwest quadrant of the S.R. 33/I-4 interchange, approximately

4 mi. east of the Socrum Road interchange. This site is undeveloped and would require 

the extension of all infrastructure services from the City. 

This site has been eliminated from further consideration based on concerns of the City of 

Lakeland that the site was not compatible with future land use plans. 

• Site G is located in the southeast quadrant of the Kathleen Road/I-4 interchange in the 

Lakeland Interstate Business Park. Basic infrastructure for the station exists at this

proposed site. 

This site has been eliminated from further consideration based on the horizontal

approaches into and out of the I-4 median. A series of horizontal curves directly east of

the proposed site would require an additional bridge structure to access the station site

and minimize ROW impacts and relocations to commercial properties along the southern

ROW line of the interstate. The topography, with I-4 being at a higher elevation than the

proposed site, would require the station platform to be located approximately 30 ft. over 

the existing ground. 

• Site H is located at the downtown Lakeland Amtrak station. Expansion of the existing

station is limited with impacts to the existing CSX rail line and to Lake Mirror. The Lake

Mirror Promenade is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

This site has been eliminated from further consideration since the alignment segment that

would serve this location (Alignment a in Corridor D) was eliminated from further 

consideration during the corridor screening evaluation of the project, as identified in

Section 2.3.1. 

Disney Area

In coordination with Walt Disney World, three potential station sites were identified on Disney

property with a fourth site identified in the I-4 median that could potentially provide a station on

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

2-32
non-Disney property. These sites are presented in Figure 2-6. The following discussion 

identifies the proposed station sites. 

• Site A is located west of I-4 and north of U.S. 192. Disney’s World of Sports is located 

west of this proposed site and the station’s roadway access ties into the existing roadway

system.

• Site B is located west of I-4 between U.S. 192 and the Osceola Parkway. Infrastructure

does not exist at this proposed site. 

• Site C is located west of I-4 and south of Osceola Parkway. Infrastructure does not exist

at this proposed site. 

• Site D is located in the median of I-4 between U.S. 192 and the Osceola Parkway. The 

platforms would be located in the median with station facilities located to the east or west 

of I-4. 

Due to the close proximity of these four sites to each other, Sites A and C have been eliminated

from further consideration. Elimination is based on the close proximity of the station sites to

major crossroads, U.S. 192, and Osceola Parkway. Close coordination has been maintained with

Walt Disney Company; and if the proposed station site is on Disney property, it would be located

to minimize impacts to future Disney plans and maximize the benefits to FHSR. Sites B and D 

are contained within the same boundary limits and are combined as Site B/D for further analysis. 

Orange County Multi-modal Center 

The Orange County Multi-modal Center site is located in the northeast quadrant of the

International Drive/ Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) interchange. Orange County has acquired

land and is planning a transportation hub serving the OCCC and the International Drive Activity

Center. The station site is presented in Figure 2-6.

Several FHSR alignments serving this site were examined during the preliminary screening of

alternatives. The station and alignment would be located along the north side of the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528) ROW with station platforms located within the ROW of the interchange

area. The platform and station facilities would be connected to the parkway and the proposed

multi-modal center by a pedestrian bridge. 

Orlando International Airport 

The station at Orlando International Airport would be located on the eastern side of the future

south terminal expansion. The Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) Airport Master

Plan identifies the western site of the south terminal to be constructed first. The FHSR station, if 

constructed, would be located in an area of future terminal expansion. The design of this station

would be closely coordinated with GOAA. The site is presented in Figure 2-6. 

 2-33 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
In order for the station to be connected to the main GOAA terminal facilities, the airport internal

transportation system would need to be extended to the FHSR system and other infrastructure

improvements consistent with GOAA’s plan would have to be accelerated. The implementation

and funding of airport infrastructure would also need to be closely coordinated with GOAA. 

2.5.2 Viable Station Locations

The preliminary station location evaluations identified for continued evaluation are shown in

Figure 2-10. 

From the preliminary information gathered, the FHSRA developed a draft program identifying

minimum station requirements as follows: 

• Bus and drop-off facilities 95,000 square ft. (SF)

• Pedestrian Plaza 5,000 SF

• Station Concourse and Waiting 27,500 SF

• Ticketing 1,800 SF

• Public Restrooms 2,000 SF

• Vending/concessions 8,000 SF

• Equipment/Mechanical Space 1,000 SF

• Platforms (2 per station) 800 linear ft. (LF) each 

• Vertical Circulation 5,000 SF

• Parking 500 Spaces 

The ancillary uses and additional issues associated with the Disney area and Orlando 

International Airport stations have been identified through continued coordination with the

respective parties. The following discussion identifies the additional points of coordination for

these two proposed stations. 

Disney Area Station 

In coordination with the Walt Disney Company, one potential site (Site B/D) was identified for 

further evaluation on Disney property west of I-4 between the U.S. 192 and Osceola Parkway

interchanges. To access Site B, the FHSR alignment would leave the I-4 median west of the

U.S. 192 interchange and east of the Osceola Parkway interchange. Site D is proposed with a

station platform located in the median and the station facility located west of I-4. The Walt

Disney Company has indicated support of a FHSR station with ancillary uses within the station 

limited to: 

• Food and non-alcoholic beverage machines 

• ATM machine(s)

• Public telephones 

• Internet or rail informational kiosks 

• Public restroom facilities 

 

2-34

• Ticketing facilities 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
Orlando International Airport Station 

The operator of FHSR would manage and operate waiting and ticketing areas associated with the 

station. Other ancillary uses, such as concessions and food services, would be operated by

GOAA or vendors selected by GOAA. 

2.5.3 Design/Build Station Locations

The stations included in the gas turbine train and electric train proposals are identified in

Appendix A-4. 

The stations identified by the gas turbine train and electric train proposals that would be analyzed

through the environmental analysis process and documentation are as follows:

Tampa Station: Site A 

Lakeland Station: Site E (Site B is also evaluated in the EIS, as requested by the City

of Lakeland) 

Disney Area Station: Site B/D 

Orange County Multi-Modal Center 

Orlando International Airport 

The City of Lakeland requested direct coordination with the proposers to pursue additional 

dialogue on the proposed Lakeland station. Site B is preferred by the City of Lakeland and the

environmental assessments at this site would be included in the environmental documentation. 

2.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study investigated four alternative 

alignments that were analyzed on the potential impacts of two separate technologies. This 

resulted in a total of eight alternative alignments with Alternatives 1 through 4 analyzed based on

the gas turbine technology and Alternatives 5 through 8 analyzed based on the electrified 

technology. The eight alternative alignments were evaluated based on the technological 

differences, engineering and environmental impacts, costs, and other factors impacting the

selection of the alignment. Development of alignments provided an analysis of socio-economic,

natural, and physical environmental impacts within the proposed corridors. The impacts of the

design/build alternatives and the No-Build Alternative are identified in Section 4 of this 

document. 

The Draft EIS was issued August 21, 2003 and three Public Hearings were held in early October

2003 at locations along the FHSR corridor. The PD&E study, the Draft EIS and comments on 

the Draft EIS were given consideration by the FHSRA prior to the October 27, 2003 FHSRA

Board meeting where a recommendation of the Preferred Alternative was initially identified with

two MOAs as caveats. At the November 10, 2004 FHSRA Board meeting, the FHSRA revised 

 2-35 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
their initial recommendation of the Preferred Alternative because the two MOAs had not been

executed. 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

The FHSRA considered the two separate areas, Tampa and Orlando, in the decision process to

identify a Preferred Alternative. All alternative alignments are on I-4 through Polk and Osceola 

counties. Two separate alignments were considered in Tampa (Hillsborough County), the CSX 

and I-4 alignments; and in Orlando (Orange County), Florida Turnpike’s BeeLine Expressway

(S.R. 528) and the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). 

On October 27, 2003, the FHSRA unanimously passed a motion identifying the I-4 alignment in 

Hillsborough County as the preferred alignment. The FHSRA also initially identified the Central 

Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) alignment as the preferred alignment in Orange County subject to

the execution of two MOAs. The two MOAs required the following: 

• An acceptable agreement between the FHSRA and Walt Disney Company related to

donation of ROW and commitments to support ridership for the project 

• An acceptable agreement between the FHSRA and the OOCEA related to use of the

Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) ROW.

The FHSRA ranked the Fluor Bombardier Team (gas turbine technology) as the preferred

proposer. The initial Preferred Alterative was Alternative 2, which is the combination of the I-4

alignment in Hillsborough County and the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) alignment in

Orange County utilizing the gas turbine technology. On November 10, 2004, the FHSRA

revised the recommendation of the Preferred Alternative because the two MOAs described 

previously, had not been executed. With this action, the FHSRA recommended Alternative 1

(gas turbine technology) as the Preferred Alternative, which is the combination of the I-4 

alignment in Hillsborough County and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment in Orange

County. 

Description of Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative, Alternative 1, begins at the Downtown Tampa Station located 

between Tampa Street and Marion Street, I-275, and Fortune Street. The FHSR alignment 

follows I-275 along the south and east ROW of this transportation corridor. The alignment is in

the southeast quadrant of the I-275/I-4 interchange with the rail alignment crossing into the I-4 

median in the area of 15th Street. The majority of the FHSR alignment between the Tampa 

station and the crossing into the I-4 median is within the Ultimate ROW identified in the Tampa

Interstate Study (TIS) for future interstate improvements, however, some additional ROW will

be required. 

 

2-36

The alignment continues east within the I-4 median through Hillsborough and Polk Counties. 

The preferred station, as identified by the first preferred proposer, serving the Polk County/City

of Lakeland area is located in the northwest quadrant of the Polk Parkway/I-4 interchange. The

station is proposed with a median platform with a pedestrian bridge crossing to the main station 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
on the north side of I-4. The City of Lakeland requested continued consideration of a station 

option at the Kathleen Road site located in the northeast quadrant of that interchange with I-4. 

The city is continuing discussions with the preferred proposer for consideration of this site. The

I-4 median is not wide enough to provide a median platform at this site; therefore, the mainline 

tracks of the FHSR would leave the median of I-4 west of the CSX crossing of I-4 and reenter 

the median east of the U.S. 98 interchange at I-4. The alignment will remain within the I-4

ROW. The environmental impacts associated with this option are included in the impact 

analysis. 

Entering Osceola County, the alignment remains within the I-4 median. The proposed Disney

Station is located north of U.S. 192. The station platform is located in the median and station

facility is located west of I-4 between U.S. 192 and the Osceola Parkway. 

The alignment continues in the I-4 median until the I-4/Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) 

interchange, where it leaves the I-4 median and runs along the north side of the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528) within the existing ROW. 

The Orange County Multi-modal Center site is located in the northeast quadrant of the

International Drive/ Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) interchange. The station and alignment

would be located along the north side of the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) ROW with station

platforms located within the ROW of the interchange area. 

The alignment continues on the north side of Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) until east of the 

Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528)/John Young Parkway interchange, where it leaves the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528) and runs on new alignment east to Taft-Vineland Road. The alignment 

continues along Taft-Vineland Road and enters the City of Orlando property near Tradeport 

Drive. It then follows the Orlando Utilities Commission rail line as a new alignment traversing

from south to north through the limits of Orlando International Airport, east of the proposed 

South Terminal. 

The rail alignment into the property of Orlando International Airport has been coordinated to be

within the rail corridor traversing through the limits of the airport, as identified in the Orlando

International Airport Master Plan. The FHSR O&M facility is located on the southern portion of 

the Orlando International Airport property east of the South Access Road. The limits of the 

O&M facility have been located to avoid any impacts the conservation area located south of the

airport. 

The Preferred Alternative with the location of the proposed stations and the O&M Facility is 

shown in Figure 2-11. The conceptual engineering plans, including the horizontal and vertical

alignments, of the Preferred Alternative are attached as Appendix C.

Preferred Alternative Analysis 

 2-37 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMP

The FHSRA identified further options for inclusion with the Preferred Alternative at the 

December 17, 2003, board meeting. The options to the Preferred Alternative as identified by the

preferred proposer include the following: 

A--ORLANDO 
• Double track configuration for the entire alignment. 

• Provision for future electrification. 

The proposed alignments have been analyzed through all phases of the FHSR study as a double 

track configuration; therefore, no changes to the analysis are required. Providing for future

electrification, the preferred proposer in coordination with the FHSRA, has identified features

that result in no additional environmental consequences than the impacts documented in the

Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative. The features for future electrification 

include construction of the base foundations for future installation of catenary poles and

incorporation of conduit for future electrification within the identified ROW of the Preferred 

Alternative.

2.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The Environmentally preferred alternative is the No Build Alternative, which although failing to

meet the project purpose and need, would result in less direct and indirect impact to the

environment. 

2.8 REFERENCES

1. Florida Transit Corridor Study; Alan Vorhees and Associates; March 1976.

2. Florida Future Advanced Transportation Report; Florida High Speed Rail 

Committee; April 1984. 

3. High Speed/Intercity Rail Passenger System Planning Assessment of Routes and

Alignments (and Appendices); Wilbur Smith Associates; 1993. 

4. Florida High Speed and Intercity Rail Market and Ridership Study (and Technical 

Appendices); KPMG Peat Marwick: July 1993. 

5. High Speed Rail Transportation Study – Tampa Bay to Orlando Corridor; ICF 

Kaiser Engineers; September 1993. 

6. Florida Intercity Rail Passenger Service, Options for the 21st Century, A 

Component of the Florida Transportation Plan; January 1995. 

7. Florida Overland eXpress Study; Florida Overland eXpress; 1999. 

8. Coast to Coast Rail Feasibility Study / Cross-State Rail Feasibility Study; STV 

Incorporated; June 2001. 

9. 2002 Report to the Legislature; Florida High Speed Rail Authority; Tallahassee,

Florida; January 2002. 

 

2-38

10.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
Florida High Speed Rail Screening Report; Parsons Transportation, PBS&J;

Tampa, Florida; October 2002. 

11. Structures Design Guidelines; Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee,

Florida; 2001. 

12. Load Resistance Factor Design Bridge Design Specifications; American

Association of State Highway Transportation Officials; Washington, D.C. 

13. Manual for Railway Engineering; American Railway Engineering and

Maintenance of Way Association; Landover, Maryland; 2002. 

 2-39 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
SECTION 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

This section details socio-economic conditions including population, housing, employment, and

income characteristics. 

3.1.1 Population Characteristics

The study area for the Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) project extends from downtown Tampa 

in Hillsborough County (Corridor A), through Polk and Osceola counties, and terminates in the

city of Orlando in Orange County (Corridor E) (Section 2, Figure 2-1). The counties in this 

central Florida region are experiencing tremendous growth and are projected to continue this

growth pattern in the short-term and long-term future. In each county, a majority of the 

population resides in unincorporated regions and this trend is projected to continue into the shortterm and long-term future. 

Table 3-1 illustrates county population growth that occurred between the years 1980, 1990, and

2000; population projections for the years 2010 and 2020; and the population percentage change

by county and state between the years 1980-1990, 1990-2000, and 2000-2020. 

Table 3-1 

Population Statistics by County and in Florida 

1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 

1980 1990 

Percent

1980-

1990 

2000 

Percent

Change

1990-

2000 

2010 2020 

Percent 

Change

2000-2020 

Florida 9,746,961 12,938,071 32.7 15,982,378 23.5 18,776,000 21,683,300 35.7

Hillsborough 646,939 834,054 28.9 998,948 19.8 1,153,100 1,314,100 31.5

Polk 321,652 405,382 26.0 483,924 19.4 554,900 628,200 29.8

Osceola 49,287 107,728 118.6 172,493 60.1 231,500 294,300 70.6

Orange 470,865 677,491 43.9 896,344 32.3 1,112,200 1,338,300 49.3

Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 2001

Note: Projections are medium projections and rounded to (1,000's).

Population characteristics of the study area are described by corridor in the following paragraphs

(see Section 2 for corridor definition). 

 3-1

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Corridors A through C 

Hillsborough County is located along Tampa Bay on the west coast of Florida, adjacent to the 

Gulf of Mexico. The county ranks fourth in population in the state of Florida and is made up of

three municipalities. Tampa, the county seat, is the largest municipality in Hillsborough County

with a year 2000 population of 303,447. Hillsborough County is anticipated to grow

approximately 32 percent by 2020. 

Corridor D 

The population patterns of Polk County, which ranks eighth in the state for population, differ

significantly from Hillsborough County. Polk County is composed of 17 different

municipalities. Lakeland is the most populated municipality in the county, with a population of

78,452 in 2000. Polk County population is expected to increase by approximately 30 percent

by 2020. 

Osceola County, which contains both Corridors D and E, is the least populated county included

in the study area, ranking twenty-third in the state, but is rapidly increasing in number of

residents. While the county is primarily rural, the population is projected to increase more than

70 percent by 2020. 

Corridor E 

Orange County ranks sixth in population in the state. The population of Orange County is 

disbursed into 13 incorporated municipalities, the largest of which is Orlando. Year 2020 

projected growth is expected to increase approximately 50 percent.

Age and Racial Composition 

Age data is presented in Table 3-2. The data indicates that three of the four counties have a 

much younger median age than the state as a whole. Only Polk County has a median age 

comparable to Florida as a whole. 

Table 3-2 

Age Characteristics by County and in Florida 

Year 2000 

 Total 0-14 15-24 25-44 45-64 65 and Over Median

Age 

Florida 15,982,378 3,034,565 1,942,377 4,569,347 3,628,492 2,807,597 38.7

Hillsborough 998,948 212,554 133,655 316,603 216,463 119,673 35.1

Polk 483,924 98,223 59,912 127,929 109,122 88,738 38.6

Osceola 172,493 38,375 23,806 53,403 37,200 19,709 34.6

Orange 896,344 190,288 134,105 302,676 179,316 89,959 33.3

Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 2001

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

3-2
As Table 3-3 indicates the state of Florida has increased in non-white population approximately

5 percent between 1990 and 2000. All four counties have also experienced increases in nonwhite population, with Osceola and Orange counties increasing more than 10 percent from 1990 

to 2000. 

Table 3-3 

Racial Composition by County and in Florida 

Years 1980-2000 

1990 2000 

Total 

Population

White 

(%)

Non-White 

(%) Total Population White (%)

Non-White 

(%)

Florida 12,938,071 83.1 16.9 15,982,378 78.0 22.0

Hillsborough 834,054 82.9 17.1 998,948 75.2 24.8

Polk 405,382 84.4 15.6 483,924 79.6 20.4

Osceola 107,728 89.3 10.7 172,493 77.2 22.8

Orange 677,491 79.5 20.5 896,344 68.6 31.4

Sources: Florida Statistical Abstract, 2001; Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, Socioeconomic Data 

Report, August 2001.

Table 3-4 illustrates the total households and persons per household for 1990 and 2000. Persons

per household figures in every county were higher than the state average in 1990 and 2000. Both 

Orange and Osceola counties show significant differences between 1990 and 2000 with an 

increase of 81,109 households in Orange County and increase of 18,666 in Osceola. 

Table 3-4 

Total Households and Persons per Household by County and in Florida 

Years 1990 and 2000 

1990 2000 

Total 

Population

Number of 

Households

Persons per 

Household 

Total 

Population

Number of 

Households

Persons per 

Household 

Florida 12,938,071 5,138,360 2.50 15,982,378 6,337,929 2.46

Hillsborough 834,054 325,238 2.51 998,948 391,357 2.51

Polk 321,652 155,870 2.53 483,924 187,233 2.52

Osceola 49,287 39,228 2.69 172,493 60,977 2.79

Orange 470,865 255,177 2.57 896,344 336,286 2.61

Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 2001. 

3.1.2 Employment and Economic Characteristics 

Distinct economic forces drive the economic growth of each county. Table 3-5 contains a

comparison of the labor force, total of unemployed persons, and percent unemployment for each

county and Florida for the years 1999 and 2000. From 1999 to 2000, each county experienced

an increase in the number of workers contributing to the labor force. This growth ranged from 

an increase of 1,707 in Osceola County to an increase of 15,767 in the labor force in

 3-3

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Hillsborough County. The percent of unemployed persons in each county remained within two 

tenths of a percentage point of their corresponding 1999 figures. 

Table 3-5 

Labor Force and Unemployment by County and in Florida 

Years 1999 and 2000 

1999 2000 

Labor 

Force 

1999 

Unemployed

Persons 

Percent

Unemployment

1999 

Labor 

Force 

2000 

Unemployed

Persons 

Percent

Unemployment

2000 

Florida 7,361,000 284,000 3.9 7,490,000 269,000 3.6

Hillsborough 549,091 14,302 2.6 564,858 14,626 2.6

Polk 200,224 9,695 4.8 204,355 9,660 4.7

Osceola 84,514 2,267 2.7 86,221 2,375 2.8

Orange 488,182 13,367 2.7 496,692 12,644 2.5

Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 2001. 

Table 3-6 contains information on employment by industry group and county compared to

Florida in 2000. The services industry contains the majority of employment in each county, as 

well as Florida.

Table 3-6 

Employment by Industry Group by County and in Florida 

Year 2000 

Category

Hillsborough

County

Polk

County

Osceola 

County

Orange

County Florida 

Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing 12,035 8,302 827 9,085 155,187

Mining 25 2,324 (N/A) 40 6,214

Construction 27,425 10,043 2,740 28,550 366,724

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 46,870 8,676 2,758 33,123 439,249 

Services 222,854 46,233 15,572 271,916 2,330,537

Manufacturing 37,429 19,672 1,710 37,111 487,962

Transportation/Communication Public 

Utilities 31,760 9,111 708 33,980 340,643

Wholesale/Retail Trade 34,701 9,285 2,019 32,938 364,669 

Sources: Florida Statistical Abstract, 2001; Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, 

Socioeconomic Data Report, August 2001

As Table 3-7 illustrates, every county and the state of Florida had more than 20 percent of the

population living below the poverty level in 1997. Three of the four counties had median 

household incomes similar to the state. Only Orange County was significantly higher with a

median of $36,979. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

3-4
Table 3-7 

Percent Below the Poverty Level and Median Household Income 

and Number of Households 

Median Household Income

2000 (In Dollars)

Percent Below the 

Poverty Level -- 1997 

Florida 32,877 21.8

Hillsborough 35,994 22.0

Polk 31,030 25.4

Osceola 32,552 21.8

Orange 36,979 20.2

Sources: Florida Statistical Abstract, 1998 & 2001. 

Corridors A through C 

Hillsborough County

In recent years, Hillsborough County has evolved from an economy supported primarily through

agriculture, construction, and retirement into an economy increasingly supported by

retail/wholesale services, light manufacturing, major wholesale distribution, and corporate

offices. The service sector represents the highest concentration of employment in Hillsborough 

County, as it does in the state, generating nearly 40 percent of the employment in the county.

Educational institutions provide a significant portion of the employment base. The School

District of Hillsborough County and the University of South Florida (USF) provide nearly

30,000 jobs combined. Other important employers include federal, state, and local government 

entities, such as Hillsborough County Government, the City of Tampa, MacDill Air Force Base, 

and Tampa International Airport. Tampa International Airport directly or indirectly provides 

approximately 18,000 jobs. 

Corridor D 

Polk County

Polk County’s largest employers in 2000 included the Polk County School Board (9,500

employees) and Publix Supermarkets (7,500 employees). Other top county employers are local,

federal, and state government, medical services, insurance companies, and IMC-Agrico. The

largest employment category is the services category with 46,233 employees. 

Osceola County

Osceola County, in which contains both Corridors D and E, also has a large percentage of

employees working in the services category with 15,572 people in 2000. Walt Disney World

Resort and Sea World theme parks are located just outside of Kissimmee-St. Cloud and are 

major economic contributors to the economy of the county through the tourism industry. 

 3-5

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Corridor E 

Orange County

In Orange County, the service industry represents the highest portion of the economy. In

addition, approximately 42.2 percent of the employed population works in the Orlando 

metropolitan area. Service industry employment can be attributed to the concentration of theme 

parks and resorts located within close proximity to Orange and Osceola counties. The economy

of Orange County is fueled heavily by the tourism industry. The top private employer in the

Orlando metropolitan area is Walt Disney World, with 55,900 employees in 2000, approximately

37,100 more employees than Adventist Health System, the private company ranking second on

the list. 

3.2. EXISTING LAND USE 

3.2.1 CORRIDOR A: East of the Hillsborough River to U.S. 41 in Tampa and 

Corridor B: U.S. 41 to the Bypass Canal in Hillsborough County

Figure 3-1 shows the Existing Land Use for Corridors A and B within the City of Tampa. The

existing land use map is generalized; however, three categories predominate: Single Family

Residential, Industrial, and Public. The residential areas are primarily located north and west of

Interstate 275 (I-275) and Interstate 4 (I-4). The industrial uses occur around the Port of Tampa,

along U.S. 41 and the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway. Public land is located primarily in Ybor

City, the Port of Tampa, and along the Hillsborough River. 

3.2.2 CORRIDOR B U.S. 41 in Tampa to East of I-75, Hillsborough County and 

CORRIDOR C: East of I-75, Hillsborough County, to West Entry of the Polk

Parkway, Polk County

Figure 3-2 shows the Existing Land Use for Hillsborough County. The generalized existing land

use for the corridor indicates Industrial and Public Land uses predominate west of Interstate 75 

(I-75). East of I-75 and within Corridor C, Single Family Residential and Agricultural land uses

predominate. The map also indicates that Single Family Residential is expanding into the rural

areas on the north and east portion of Hillsborough County. 

Figure 3-3 shows the Existing Land Use for Plant City. The land use map displays a typical

pattern of land use for a small city with Single Family being the primary land use and a mixture

of Commercial and Industrial uses along the major roadways, I-4, and U.S. 92. 

3.2.3 CORRIDOR D: West Entry of Polk Parkway, Polk County, to Celebration 

Area, Osceola County

Figure 3-4 shows the Existing Land Use for Polk County and the City of Lakeland. The northern

portion of the corridor contains predominantly Rural and Low-Density Residential uses adjacent 

to Passive Agricultural uses. Active Agricultural uses are dispersed throughout the corridor. 

There are large amounts of existing Vacant Land and Water Bodies. From west to east, the

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

3-6
corridor contains primarily residential uses within the following urban areas: cities of Lakeland,

Auburndale, Winter Haven, Haines City, and Davenport. 

Figure 3-5 shows the Existing Land Use for Corridor D within Osceola County. The current 

land use is a combination of Residential, Vacant Land, Agriculture, and Recreation and Open

Space uses. Commercial land use within this corridor occurs north of I-4 on U.S. 192. 

3.2.4 CORRIDOR E: Celebration Area, Osceola County, to Orlando International 

Airport, Orange County

Figure 3-5 also shows the Existing Land Use for Osceola County within Corridor E. Within

Osceola County north of U.S. 17, existing land uses are Agricultural and Recreation and Open

Space. North and south of I-4 are Commercial uses and the new town community of

Celebration. 

Figure 3-6 shows the Exiting Land Use of Orange County. Commercial and Conservation land 

use exists west of I-4 in the vicinity of Disney World. This area also contains a number of Water

Bodies. Both north and south of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), Conservation, 

Rural/Agriculture, and Low Density Residential uses exist. The residential area east and west of

the Florida Turnpike contains the Hunter’s Creek neighborhood. At the intersection of I-4 and 

the Bee Line Expressway are Institutional and Commercial uses including the Orange County

Convention Center (OCCC) and International Drive. Clusters of Industrial uses occur near the 

intersection of the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) and the Florida Turnpike. To the east of this

area is the Orlando International Airport. 

3.3 FUTURE LAND USE PLANS

Local government comprehensive plans are developed to provide guidance for new development,

as well as redevelopment of land uses in the future. In Florida, all comprehensive plans also 

contain transportation plans or elements. Comprehensive plans generally specify future land 

uses based on an aggregation of existing uses in the developed areas, and desirable future land 

uses in vacant and agricultural areas. A discussion of future land uses is presented for 

each corridor. 

3.3.1 Corridor A: East of the Hillsborough River to U.S. 41 in Tampa and Corridor 

B: U.S. 41 in Tampa to East of I-75, Hillsborough County

Figure 3-7 shows the Future Land Use Categories for the City of Tampa, which differ from

existing land use patterns. The plans: 

• Increase residential density along I-4. 

• Promote redevelopment in Tampa Heights and Ybor City through use of Community and

Regional Mixed Use categories. 

• Develop the Central Business District (CBD) with Mixed and High Density Residential uses. 

 3-7

• Change designation of the area east of Ybor City (including the Port of Tampa) between the 

Lee Roy Selmon Expressway and the CSX tracks to Heavy Industrial use. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
• Encourage redevelopment in Ybor City and Channelside through the Regional Mixed use 

designation. 

Figure 3-8 shows the Future Land Use Categories for Hillsborough County for Corridor B,

which differ from existing land use patterns. Changes include:

• Establish an Urban Mixed use area along I-75. 

• Continue the existing mixture of uses north and south of I-4 by utilizing the Community

Mixed Use designation. 

The Mixed Use designations allow for existing single family densities and service commercial

uses to coexist with higher residential densities and office uses which encourage redevelopment. 

3.3.2 CORRIDOR C: East of I-75, Hillsborough County to the West Entry of the 

Polk Parkway, Polk County 

Figure 3-8 shows the Future Land Use for Hillsborough County for Corridor C, which differs 

from existing land use patterns. The plans: 

• Encourage rural residential use north of I-4 and west of Brandon by utilizing Residential-1,

Residential Planned-1, and Agricultural Estate designations. 

• Continue single family and low density multi-family residential development in the Brandon 

area by utilizing Residential-4 and Residential-6 categories. 

Figure 3-9 shows the Future Land Use for Plant City, which differs from existing land use 

patterns. The changes include: 

• Increase residential densities to Residential-6, Residential-9, and Residential-20 designation. 

• Change the Mining designation east of Plant City to Heavy Industrial and the mixture of uses

east of Plant City along U.S. 92 to Heavy Industrial. 

• Provide for Office/Commercial uses around the CBD and along major roadways. 

3.3.3 CORRIDOR D: West Entry of Polk Parkway, Polk County to Celebration

Area, Osceola County

Figure 3-10 shows the Future Land Use for Polk County, the City of Lakeland, and other cities, 

which differs from existing land use patterns. These plans: 

• Change designations northwest of I-4 from Passive Agriculture to Residential Suburban. 

• Change from Vacant and Passive Agriculture northeast of I-4. 

• Maintain the small city character in Lakeland, Auburndale, Winter Haven, Haines City, and 

Davenport through Residential Density Low designation. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

3-8
Figure 3-11 shows the Future Land Use for Osceola County within Corridor D. The future

development plans for Osceola County differ from existing land use patterns. The changes

include: 

• Expand the Destination New Town designation from the Recreation and Open Space

designation in and around the Celebration area. 

• Increase commercial areas significantly on both sides of I-4 and north up to

U.S. 192. 

3.3.4 CORRIDOR E: Celebration Area, Osceola County to Orlando International

Airport, Orange County

Figure 3-11 shows the Future Land Use for Osceola County with Corridor E. The future

development plans for Osceola County intensifies existing land use patterns. This includes: 

• Expand the Destination New Town designation from the Recreation and Open Space

designation in and around the Celebration area. 

• Increase commercial areas significantly on I-4, U.S. 192, and Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417). 

Figure 3-12 shows the Future Land Use for Orange County, which differs from existing land use

patterns. The plans: 

• Change designations from Rural/Agriculture to Low Density, Low-Median Density, and

Medium Density Residential along both sides of the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417). 

• Add Industrial land use designation to the intersection of the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417), S.R. 527, and the Florida Turnpike. 

• Increase development along I-4 through the Activity Center Mixed Use category. 

3.4 FUTURE TRANSPORTATION PLANS

3.4.1 Long Range Transportation Plans

Three agencies are responsible for long-range transportation planning within the FHSR study

corridors. They are: the Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the 

Polk County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO), and METROPLAN Orlando. These 

agencies are authorized under federal and state statutes for multi-jurisdictional and multi-modal

transportation planning. 

 3-9

Table 3-8 provides the status of the long-range transportation plans and actions needed by the

four counties within Corridors A through E in reference to FHSR. The Hillsborough County

MPO adopted its 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan1

 (LRTP), with the appropriate FHSR

references, in November 2001. The TPO for Polk County adopted its 2025 Long Range

Transportation Plan2 in December 2000. The Polk County LRTP was amended in December 

2002 to include two policies addressing FHSR and adding Corridor D to a LRTP map. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
The METROPLAN Orlando guides multi-modal transportation planning in Orange, Seminole, 

and Osceola counties, including sixteen municipalities. METROPLAN adopted its 2020 Long

Range Transportation Plan3 in December 1995. METROPLAN Orlando is presently preparing a 

2025 LRTP. High speed rail policies and a map showing both retained alignments (Alignments

E1 and E2) in Orange County have been included in METROPLAN’s Transit and Visions 

Concept Plan. 

3.4.2 Local Government Transportation Planning

There are 13 local governments including counties and cities, as well as an improvement district

within Corridors A through E. These local governments maintain comprehensive plans in 

compliance with Florida Statutes, Chapter 163. By rule, these plans contain multi-modal

transportation elements. These elements must be consistent with the LRTPs of the MPO. 

Table 3-9 shows the actions needed prior to construction for each transportation element within

the FHSR corridors. Not all communities have incorporated the FHSR into their comprehensive

plans, most notably Orange County and Osceola County.

Table 3-8 

High Speed Rail Study Area 

LRTPs

Document Applicable

Corridors LRTP Adoption Date Reference to HighSpeed Rail Actions Needed

Hillsborough County 

Hillsborough County 2025 

LRTP

A, B, C Adopted: 

November 13, 2001 

Yes – Chapter 4, 

Regional 

Transportation

Planning; Chapter 6,

Needs Assessment; 

2025 Cost Affordable

Transit Network Map 

None

Polk County 

Polk County 2025 LRTP D Adopted: 

December 7, 2000 

Amended: 

December 2002 

Yes – Policies 5.8 and

5.9; Map 

None

Orange and Osceola Counties

METROPLAN Orlando 2020

LRTP

D, E Adopted: 

December 1995 

Refined: December 

2002 

Yes – Transit and 

Concepts Vision Plan

Written opinion of

consistency between 

FHSR alignments and 

LRTP has been

requested

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

3-10
Table 3-9 

High Speed Rail Study Area 

Transportation Elements

Document Applicable 

Corridors Adoption Date Reference to HighSpeed Rail Actions Needed

Hillsborough County 

Hillsborough County

Transportation Element 

A, B, C Adopted: 

March 2001 

Yes - Policy 6.1.4,

Future Transit 

Corridor Map

None 

City of Tampa

Transportation Element 

A, B Adopted: 

April 2004 

Yes - Intermodal 

Analysis,

Policy 4.4.1, Policy

9.1.3, 2025 Highway

Needs Plan

None

City of Plant City

Transportation Element 

C Adopted: 

May 13, 1999 

No None

Polk County 

City of Lakeland 

Transportation Element 

D Adopted: 

December 27, 2001

Refined: 

January 2003 

Yes - Mass Transit 

Section, Rail Section, 

Policy 7D; Map of

Corridor 

None

Polk County Transportation

Element

D Adopted: 

December 19, 2001

Refined: 

January 2003 

Yes - Policy 3.302-A4, 

Support Data -

Railroad Operations; 

Corridor Map

None

Osceola County

Osceola County

Transportation Element 

D Adopted: 

April 22, 1991 

No Policies included in

amendment cycle 

(Adoption 

Summer/Fall 2004)- 

Map of proposed

corridor and 

intermodal policy

amendments

Reedy Creek Improvement

District 

D, E January, 1997 No Map of proposed

corridor and 

intermodal policy

amendments

Orange County 

Orange County

Transportation Element 

E Adopted: 

December 5, 2000 

No Map of proposed

corridor and 

intermodal policy

amendments

City of Orlando 

Transportation Element 

E Adopted: 

January 26, 1998 

Yes - Objective 1.16,

Policies 1.16.1 to 

1.16.4, Support Data

Reference 

Map of proposed

corridor 

 3-11

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
3.5 COMMUNITY SERVICES 

Community service facilities provide a focal point for adjacent neighborhoods and communities,

as well as serve the needs of the surrounding areas. For the purpose of this study, community

service facilities are separated into five categories: schools, community facilities, parks and

recreation facilities, cemeteries, and churches. The community facilities category includes

libraries, police and fire stations, hospitals, water and wastewater plants, and other public

services facilities. 

The community service facilities within the study corridor are shown in Figure 3-13 through 

Figure 3-17 and span from Corridor A in Hillsborough County through Corridor E in Orange 

County. The facilities include those located within a 1/4 mile (mi.) (1,320 ft.) of each side of the

right-of-way (ROW) centerline of the studied alignments. Community service facilities are 

listed by corridor from west to east and north to south and are numerically referenced on Figures

3-13 through 3-17. Names of the community service facilities provided in the tables of this 

section are numbered to coincide with the numerical references. 

3.5.1 Schools

The schools within the 1⁄4-mi. wide study area include public and private education facilities 

ranging from early childhood educational centers to colleges and universities. The 28 schools

are listed in Table 3-10 by map identification number, name, and corridor designation. Eleven 

schools are located in Corridor A. The Stetson Law School Complex is located just north of

I-275 in downtown Tampa. Hillsborough Community College has a campus located in Ybor

City, south of I-4. One school is located in Corridor B, two in Corridor C, three in Corridor D,

and eleven in Corridor E.

Table 3-10 

Potentially Affected Schools 

 

3-12

Map Identification

Number School Name Corridor

1 Just Elementary School A

2 Stewart Middle School (Magnet) A

3 Blake High School (Magnet) A

4 Stetson Law School Complex (Proposed) A

5 Lee Elementary School (Magnet) A

6 B.T. Washington Middle School (Magnet) A

7 HCC (Ybor Campus) A

8 Shore Elementary School (Magnet) A

9 Gary Adult Center A

10 Franklin Middle School A

11 Oak Park Elementary School A

13 Armwood High School C

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
Table 3-10 (cont.) 

Potentially Affected Schools 

 3-13

Map Identification

Number School Name Corridor

14 Gordon Burnett Middle School C

19 Winston Elementary School D

25 Watson Elementary School D

33 Celebration School D

34 New Vistas Elementary School (Proposed) E 

35 Primrose K-6 Private School E 

36 Hunters Creek Middle School E 

37 Hunters Creek Elementary School E

38 Endeavor Elementary School E 

39 Southwood Elementary School E 

40 Cypress Creek High School (Magnet) E 

41 Meadow Woods Elementary School E 

42 Meadow Woods Middle School E 

43 Durrance Elementary School E 

44 Florida Southern College (Orlando/Ocala Program) E 

45 Mary Help of Christians School for Boys B

3.5.2 Community Facilities

For the purpose of this study, community facilities are classified as libraries, police and fire

stations, hospitals, water and wastewater plants, and other public services facilities. Nineteen

community facilities were identified within the study area and are listed by map identification

number, name, and corridor designation in Table 3-11. Corridors A through E and are also

shown on Figures 3-13 through 3-17. Corridor A contains five community facilities, three in

Corridor B, five in Corridor C, two in Corridor D, and four in Corridor E. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-14

Table 3-11 

Potentially Affected Community Facilities 

Map Identification

Number Community Facility Name Corridor 

1 John F. German Library A 

2 Hillsborough County Jail A 

3 Ybor Branch Library A 

4 Post Office, Tampa A 

5 Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Operations Center A 

6 Seminole Indian Reservation B 

7 Florida State Fairgrounds B 

8 Mango Civic Center B 

9 Hillsborough County Fire Station C 

11 Hillsborough County Sanitary Landfill C 

17 Lake Thonotosassa Conservation Area C 

18 Wastewater Treatment Plant C 

24 Hillsborough County Fire Station C 

28 Lakeland Municipal Water Plant D 

43 Polk County Wastewater Treatment Plant D 

46 Orange County Convention Center E 

47 Orange County Fire Station Number 53 E 

48 Orange County Fire Station Number 73 E 

49 Water Treatment Plant E 

3.5.3 Parks and Recreation

There are 25 park and recreation facilities in the study area. Of these 25 facilities, 19 are located 

in Hillsborough County, 2 in Polk County, and 4 in Orange County. The parks are identified in 

Table 3-12 by map identification number, park name, and corridor designation. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-15

Table 3-12 

Potentially Affected Parks 

Map

Identification

Number

Park Name Corridor 

1 Riverfront Park, Tampa A 

2 Phil Bouraquarez Park, Tampa A 

3 Curtis Hixon Park, Tampa A 

4 Morgan Street Park, Tampa A 

5 Robles Park Playground, Tampa A 

6 Perry Harvey Sr. Park, Tampa A 

7 Tampa Park Plaza, Tampa A 

8 Nuccio Parkway Linear Park, Tampa A 

9 Marti Park, Tampa A 

10 Cuscaden Park, Tampa A 

11 Ybor Centennial Park, Tampa A 

13 Highland Pines Playground, Tampa A 

14 Grant Park, Tampa B 

15 Kings Forest Park, Hillsborough County B 

16 Oak Park, Tampa B 

17 Williams/Tanner Road Park, Hillsborough County B 

18 Evans Neighborhood Park, Hillsborough County C 

27 Sansone Community Park, Plant City C 

28 Otis M. Andrews Sports Complex, Plant City C 

32 Lake Gibson Park, Lakeland D 

39 Van Fleet Trail Extension (Proposed), Polk County D 

51 Shingle Creek Greenway, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) E 

52 Shingle Creek Greenway, SFWMD E 

53 Bear Creek Recreation Complex, Orange County E 

54 South Orange Sports Complex, Orange County E 

3.5.4 Cemeteries

There are seven cemeteries within the study area. There are five cemeteries in Hillsborough

County, one in Polk County, and one in Osceola County. The cemeteries are listed by map

identification, name, and corridor designation in Table 3-13. Oaklawn Cemetery is located in

downtown Tampa along I-275. There are no cemeteries within Corridors B or E. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 3-13 

Potentially Affected Cemeteries 

Map Identification

Number Cemetary Name Corridor 

1 Fortune Street Cemetery A

4 Memorial Park Cemetery C 

5 Garden of Peace Cemetery C 

6 Oak Lawn Cemetery C

7 Unnamed Cemetery C

8 New Home Cemetery D 

15 Oak Hill Cemetery D 

3.5.5 Churches

There are 37 churches within the study area. There are 30 churches in Hillsborough County, 2 in 

Polk County, one in Osceola County, and four in Orange County. The churches are listed in 

Table 3-14 by map identification number, name, and corridor designation. 

 

3-16

Table 3-14 

Potentially Affected Churchs 

Map Identification

Number Church Name Corridor 

1 Bethel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church A

2 Miami Latin Church of God A

3 Palm Avenue Baptist Church A

4 Grace Evangelical Church A

5 Greater Bethel Baptist Church A

6 Followers of Jesus Christ A

7 Good News Baptist Church A

8 Pentecostal Church of God A

9 St. James House of Prayer A

10 Faith Temple Baptist Church A

11 Friendly Missionary Baptist Church A

12 Paradise Missionary Baptist Church A

13 Ebenezer Baptist Church A

14 Mt. Sinai AME Church A

15 Faith Tabernacle of Tampa A

16 New Salem Primitive Baptist Church A

17 New Life Holiness Church B

18 Trinity Chapel B

19 New Mt. Silla Missionary Baptist Church B 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-17

Table 3-14 

Potentially Affected Churchs 

Map Identification

Number Church Name Corridor 

20 Living Water Church B

21 Christian Fellowship B

22 First Apostolic Church B

23 Mt. Calvary Baptist Church B 

26 Apostles Foundation Church C

40 Nazarene Christian Church C 

42 Mt. Zion Assembly of God C

43 Mt. Zion Assembly of God C

48 Jehovah’s Witnesses Assembly Hall C 

49 Faith Temple Assembly of God C

54 Victory Assembly of God D

57 Lake Gibson Church of God D

105 Oak Hill Baptist Church D

106 Fountain of Living Water Church E 

107 Peace United Methodist Church E

108 Taft Missionary Baptist Church E 

109 Iglesia De Dios Pentecostal Church E 

110 St. Paul AME Church A

¶ 

3.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 

This section describes the archaeological and historic resources that have been listed on or

determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places

4

 (NRHP) and are located in the 

vicinity of the proposed FHSR alignments evaluated in the Final EIS. 

A desktop literature search of known NRHP-listed and -eligible cultural resources was conducted 

early in the Project Development and Environment Study to assist with the screening of 

preliminary alignments. A project cultural resource assessment survey (CRAS) methodology

and Area of Potential Effect (APE) were prepared in order to comply with the requirements of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, as implemented in 36 CFR 800.4 (Identification of 

Historic Properties). A letter of concurrence, outlining the methodology and APE, was signed by

FHSRA, cooperating federal agencies, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in 

February and March 2003 (see Appendix B). 

The APE for the FHSR project was determined by evaluating the improvements under

consideration and the possible effects improvements could have on cultural resources, such as 

visual, noise, access, use, and vibration. The APE for the archaeological survey is designated as 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-18

the ROW for each of the proposed alternatives and the footprint of each proposed station and 

maintenance facility. The APE for the historical survey is designated as 500 ft. (or two blocks) to

either side of the centerline of the alternatives west of I-75. Areas of the APE that are obscured

from the FHSR by both lanes of I-4 and/or a noise wall were not surveyed unless the FHSR is 

elevated above I-4. East of I-75, the APE includes the areas within the ROW and immediately

adjacent. The APE for station and maintenance facility locations includes the proposed site, as

well as properties immediately adjacent. 

A Cultural Resource Assessment Corridor Level Analysis Report

5

 (February 2003, revised

March 2003) was prepared first to provide preliminary cultural resource information to assist in

the avoidance of resources listed in, determined eligible for listing in, or potentially eligible for

listing in the NRHP, as well as National Historic Landmark (NHL) properties. The Cultural

Resource Assessment Corridor Level Analysis Report was submitted to the SHPO, Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Advisory

Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP). A concurrence letter dated April 15, 2003, was

received from the SHPO (see Appendix B). 

In the meantime, a comprehensive CRAS Report was prepared for the alternatives being 

evaluated in the EIS. The purpose of the CRAS was to locate, identify, and bind any cultural 

resources within the project’s APE, and to assess their significance in terms of eligibility for

listing in the NRHP. The CRAS Report (July 2003) was submitted to the SHPO, FHWA, and 

USACOE on July 28, 2003. The results are described in the following section. 

3.6.1 Inventory of Archaeological and Historic Resources 

Background research included a search of the Florida Master Site File6

 (FMSF) and NRHP 

listings to determine previously recorded historic structures and archaeological sites within and

adjacent to the project corridor. Background research conducted as part of the previously

prepared Cultural Resources Technical Study, Florida High Speed Rail, Internal Working Draft

7

(February 26, 1999) was also utilized as part of this project. 

The CRAS fieldwork was conducted in February and March 2003. As a result, all known NRHPlisted or NRHP-eligible, plus all potentially eligible cultural resources were identified and are 

listed in Table 3-15. The historic district boundaries and individual resources are shown on

Figure 3-18. A brief description of these resources follows the table. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-19

Table 3-15 

NRHP-Listed and NRHP-Eligible Cultural Resource

Corridor Figure ID 

No. FMSF No. Site Name Address City/ 

Community

NRHP or NHL 

Status

A 1 8HI8536

North Franklin 

Street Historic

District 

North Franklin Street,

between E. Harrison 

and E. Fortune Streets

Tampa NRHP-Listed

A 13 8HI741 Floridian Hotel 905 N. Florida

Avenue Tampa

NRHP-Listed,

City of Tampa

Landmark

A 14 8HI753 J.J. Newberry

Building

815-819 N. Franklin

Street Tampa NRHP-Eligible

A 15 8HI752 Kress Building 811 N. Franklin 

Street Tampa NRHP-Listed

A 16 8HI751 Woolworth 

Building 

801 N. Franklin 

Street Tampa NRHP-Eligible

A 12 8HI8744

First United 

Methodist Church’s 

Thomas Henderson 

Memorial Chapel

1001 N. Florida

Avenue Tampa Potentially

NRHP-Eligible

A 2 8HI155 St. Paul AME 

Church

506 E. Harrison 

Street Tampa

NRHP-Eligible, 

City of Tampa

Landmark

A 3 8HI5595 Oaklawn Cemetery

606 E. Harrison 

Street Tampa NRHP-Eligible

A 4 8HI3282 Greater Bethel

Baptist Church 

1206 N. Jefferson 

Street Tampa NRHP-Eligible

A 17 8HI124

Fire Station No. 1/

Tampa Firefighters 

Museum

720 E. Zack Street Tampa 

NRHP-Eligible, 

City of Tampa

Landmark

A 5 8HI8574 St. James Episcopal 

Church

1001 India

Street/1202 N.

Governor Street 

Tampa Potentially

NRHP-Eligible 

A 6 8HI3688,

8HI8575 

Allen Temple AME 

Church and 

Parsonage 

1112-1116 E. Scott 

Street (Located

within Central Park

Village

Tampa Potentially

NRHP-Eligible 

A 7 8HI3659 St. Peter Claver 

Catholic School 

1401 N. Governor

Street Tampa Potentially

NRHP-Eligible 

A 18 8HI906 Jackson Hotel 851 E. Zack Street Tampa NRHP-Eligible

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-20

Table 3-15 

NRHP-Listed and NRHP-Eligible Cultural Resource

Corridor Figure ID 

No. FMSF No. Site Name Address City/ 

Community

NRHP or NHL 

Status

A 19 8HI6939 Union Depot Hotel 858-864 E. Zack

Street Tampa

NRHP-Listed,

City of Tampa

Landmark

A 20 8HI298 Tampa Union 

Station 

601 N. Nebraska

Avenue Tampa

NRHP-Listed,

City of Tampa

Landmark

A 8 8HI313

Ybor City National 

Historic Landmark

District (NHLD) 

Varies Tampa 

NHLD, Locally

Listed Historic 

District (different

boundaries)

A 10 8HI142 German American

Club 

2105 N. Nebraska

Avenue Tampa

NRHP-Eligible, 

Contributing

Resource within 

the Ybor City

NHLD 

A 9 8HI835 Centro Asturiano 1913 N. Nebraska

Avenue Tampa

NRHP-Listed,

Contributing

Resource within 

the Ybor City

NHLD 

A 11 8HI4415 I-Type House 2210 N. 31st Street Tampa NRHP-Eligible 

North Franklin Street Historic District 

Listed in the NRHP in 2002, the North Franklin Street Historic District (8HI8536) includes nine 

buildings along Franklin Street, between E. Harrison and E. Fortune Streets in downtown 

Tampa. The commercial buildings that comprise the small historic district are significant due to 

their association with the historical and commercial development of the northern part of

downtown Tampa. This portion of the downtown district was historically home to more modest 

commercial businesses, such as automobile dealerships, small restaurants, and family-owned

businesses. Additionally, this historic district maintains architectural significance based on the

concentration of Masonry Vernacular buildings located within its boundaries. The Masonry

Vernacular buildings in the district range from early-twentieth century brick edifices exhibiting

arched windows and brick detailing to mid-twentieth century buildings with plain stucco-covered 

exterior walls and fixed glass storefront windows. 

Floridan Hotel/905 N. Florida Avenue 

The Floridan Hotel (8HI741) was listed in the NRHP in 1996 for its architectural and 

commercial importance. It is also listed as a City of Tampa Landmark. Completed in 1926, the 

Floridan Hotel was designed by the firm Francis J. Kennard and Son, and constructed by

G. A. Miller. The 18-story building features a prominent four-story base, which supports the

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-21

14 brick-faced upper stories. Fenestration consisting of wood frame, double-hung sash windows 

is a characteristic feature. The building is architecturally significant for its Renaissance Revival

elements and form based on traditional early skyscraper design. When the Floridan Hotel was

constructed, it was the tallest structure in Tampa. It is the only historic skyscraper remaining in 

the city. Its commercial significance is based on its association with the real estate development

in Tampa at the close of the Florida Land Boom era. The Floridan Hotel was constructed through

local enterprise and effort in direct response to the need for a hotel. 

J. J. Newberry Building/815–819 N. Franklin Street 

The J. J. Newberry Building (8HI753) is the finest early example of the sleek lines of the 

International style in downtown Tampa. It was built in 1940 on the site of the former five-story

Central Office Building. The two-story retail building epitomizes the sleek International mode 

with its absence of applied decoration, smooth brick walls, ribbon windows, and rounded 

corners. Elongated vertical windows glazed with glass block are set over the entrances and 

provide some verticality to the overall horizontal composition. This building features a structural 

system consisting of steel trusses supported by steel columns, with the entire second floor

suspended from the exposed truss system above. This leaves the entire first floor clear of

columns. This was an innovative approach that allowed for flexibility in retail display. During

the CRAS of the Tampa Rail Project in 2002, this building was determined individually eligible

for listing in the NRHP as part of the proposed Historic Resources of Downtown Tampa

Multiple Property Submission (MPS). 

Kress Building/811 N. Franklin Street 

The S. H. Kress & Co. Building (8HI752) was listed in the NRHP in 1983 for its architectural

and commercial significance. The Kress chain was noted throughout the country for its

architecturally distinguished buildings, and the downtown Tampa building is no exception. The 

Renaissance Revival building, located in the heart of downtown Tampa’s historic retail district, 

is the most architecturally illustrious commercial structure in the CBD dating from the years

following the Florida Land Boom. The structure was designed by G. E. Mackay, a New York

City architect, in 1929 and built the same year for S. H. Kress & Company. The four-story,

block-deep commercial building is executed in polychromatic terra cotta set against soft beige 

and pink ashlar walls. The Kress store was one of the most popular and long-lived retail 

establishments in downtown Tampa, and it flourished throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and early

1950s, and eventually closed in 1980. 

Woolworth Building/801 N. Franklin Street 

Constructed in 1916 and remodeled in the 1940s, the Woolworth Building (8HI751) is a fine 

example of the Art Deco style. The façade is treated with colorful glazed tan and bronze blocks

with contrasting blue glazed geometric trim. The storefront windows are set over black marble

spandrels. The original suspended awning has been removed. In the 1910s, Woolworth expanded 

into the adjacent two-story commercial building to the east. In the 1960s, Woolworth was the site 

of Civil Rights-era lunch counter sit-ins by the National Association for the Advancement of 

Colored People’s (NAACP) Youth Council. This historic resource remains in good condition. 

During the CRAS of the Tampa Rail Project, prepared in 2002, this building was determined

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-22

individually eligible for listing in the NRHP as part of the proposed Historic Resources of 

Downtown Tampa MPS. Its significance is in the areas of commerce and AfricanAmerican history.

First United Methodist Church’s Thomas Henderson Memorial Chapel/1001 N. Florida Avenue 

The congregation of First United Methodist Church constructed the Tom Henderson Memorial

Chapel (8HI8744) at 1001 N. Florida Avenue, situated in the center of the 1000 block of

N. Florida Avenue, in 1948. This small building serves as a wedding and funeral chapel for the

First United Methodist Church in downtown Tampa and is considered potentially eligible for 

listing in the NRHP. The First United Methodist Church’s circa-1968 main building is located

immediately south of the chapel at 410 E. Tyler Street, while the circa-1958 Branscomb Hall is

situated on the same block north of the chapel. Designed by Leslie Iredell, the chapel is a wellpreserved example of the Late Gothic Revival style found in the downtown area of Tampa. The

masonry building is one-and-one-half stories and is one bay wide by four bays long. Decorative

elements include buttresses, quoining, Gothic arches, a simplified cross, and two oculus openings

which feature stained glass rose windows. The Thomas Henderson Memorial Chapel is a symbol

of the growth and development of the First United Methodist Church, the oldest religious

organization in Tampa. The building is an excellent example of the Late Gothic Revival style.

Although typical of 1940s-era construction with the use of modest materials and minimal details,

it is significant that the design retained the details and decorative elements that make this 

structure a fine example of the style. 

St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church/506 E. Harrison Street

The St. Paul AME Church (8HI155) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in 1999,

and is listed as a City of Tampa Landmark. From 1906 to 1917, the congregation of St. Paul 

AME Church constructed the building located at 506 E. Harrison Street, on the northeast corner

of Harrison and Marion Streets. It is a two-and-one-half-story masonry building with Late Gothic 

Revival detailing. The main façade fronts Harrison Street, and the main entrance is accessed 

through an arcaded porch. This arcaded porch is located between corner towers. Other notable

Late Gothic Revival details include the brick exterior, stone buttresses, brick corbelling, and

cornice with dentils. It is architecturally important, as it is an excellent example of the Late

Gothic Revival style found within the city of Tampa. St. Paul AME Church is considered to be

exceptionally significant at a local level based on its associations with the historical development

of the African-American community in Tampa. This is one of the oldest churches and is the 

largest African-American-owned building in the city. 

Oaklawn Cemetery/606 E. Harrison Street 

Oaklawn Cemetery (8HI5595) was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in 1999. This

cemetery is bounded by Harrison Street on the south, Jefferson Street on the east, Laurel Street

on the north, and Morgan Street on the west. Although technically two separate cemeteries,

Oaklawn Cemetery and St. Louis Cemetery, the two now appear as one cemetery with a common 

entrance and one boundary wall that encloses both cemeteries. It is approximately 3 acres (ac.)

and contains an estimated 1,080 graves. The majority of the gravestones date to between 1850 

and 1930. Two historic buildings are also located in the cemetery. This cemetery reflects both

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-23

the city’s early settlement pattern and its effort to plan for growth. Oaklawn Cemetery displays

the area’s social history and developmental patterns through the variety of ethnic backgrounds it 

represents. It is also notable for its mortuary art forms and architecture, which exhibit the

sensibilities of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The cemetery is important for

understanding the living conditions and burial practices of various ethnic groups, including

Tampa’s African-American, Hispanic, and Italian communities. 

Greater Bethel Baptist Church/1206 N. Jefferson Street 

This church building was documented in 1990 as part of the Tampa Interstate Study,

8

 and was 

determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. The Greater Bethel Baptist Church (8HI3282) was

built around 1940. The Reverend Jacob Wesley Rhodes constructed the present building, which

replaced an earlier wood frame church on the site. This church, which fronts west onto Jefferson

Street, has a rectangular basilica-type plan. The church is constructed of brick and has a

continuous masonry foundation. Pointed arch windows with contrasting limestone keystones and 

sills are located in each bay. The building has a steeply gabled roof covered with composition

shingles. The front (west) façade features two towers at either end. The Greater Bethel Baptist 

Church is significant as an exemplary example of the Late Gothic Revival style. It exhibits many

characteristics of the style including pointed arch windows, buttresses, towers, and brick exterior

walls. The church is also important to Tampa’s African-American heritage, as it served as a 

notable social institution within the community. 

Fire Station No. 1 or the Tampa Firefighters Museum/720 Zack Street 

Built in 1911, Fire Station No. 1 (8HI124) served as Tampa’s Fire Department Headquarters

from 1911 until 1978. The citizens of Tampa organized one of Florida’s first volunteer fire 

departments in 1860. The red brick building is simply ornamented with a cornice of buff-colored

corbelled brick, topped by a red brick parapet, which steps up at the primary corner facing Zack

and Jefferson Streets. The interior of the first floor retains its original appearance. This building

is considered to be significant due to its associations with social history, community planning 

and development, and government, and the basic integrity of the original architecture. During the 

CRAS of the Tampa Rail Project prepared in 2002, the building was determined individually

eligible for listing in the NRHP as part of the proposed Historic Resources of Downtown Tampa

MPS. This building is also a City of Tampa Landmark. 

St. James Episcopal Church/1001 India Street/1202 N. Governor Street 

St. James Episcopal Church (8HI8574), constructed around 1921 at 1001 India Street/1202 N.

Governor Street, on the northeast corner of India Street (historically Lamar Avenue) and Nelson 

Court within the Central Park Village public housing project, is considered potentially eligible

for listing in the NRHP. The congregation occupied the building until 1985. Subsequently, the 

church served as offices for the Head Start Program and as a clinic, but is presently vacant. The

church is an excellent example of the Romanesque Revival style, unique to this area of Tampa.

The masonry building is constructed of masonry framing and surfaced with red brick and a 

reddish mortar to match. The three-story belfry tower further distinguishes the main entrance to 

the building. Constructed in the African-American area historically known as “The Scrub,” this 

church is culturally important as a symbol of the strength, unity, and growth of the AfricanFLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-24

American community in Tampa. This building is completely surrounded by the Central Park 

Village public housing complex, constructed in 1955, and is one of very few remaining historic 

structures in this area. The building is an excellent example of the Romanesque Revival style

expressed in the red brick and mortar, paired arch windows, and decorative arch features

throughout the building.

Allen Temple AME Church and Parsonage/1112–1116 E. Scott Street 

The Allen Temple AME Church (8HI3688), now the Paradise Missionary Baptist Church, was

constructed between 1910 and 1914 at 1116 E. Scott Street on the northwest corner of

E. Scott Street and N. Governor Street. The International-style Allen Temple AME Parsonage

(8HI8575) was built ca. 1953 and is situated immediately west of the church at 1112 E. Scott

Street. These buildings are considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP. The Allen

Temple AME Church occupied the property until 1990, when the congregation relocated to its 

new facility on Palm Avenue. The Paradise Missionary Baptist Church has inhabited the church

building since 2000. The church is an excellent example of the Late Gothic Revival style found

in Tampa. The church is culturally important as a symbol of the strength, unity, and growth of 

the African-American community in Tampa. As the original home to one of the oldest AfricanAmerican congregations in Tampa, the church building represents the strong Christian beliefs of

the community and the importance of the people’s faith. The Parsonage represents a history of

growth, as it replaced an earlier parsonage that was located on the same site. 

St. Peter Claver Catholic School/1401 N. Governor Street 

The parish of St. Peter Claver Catholic School (8HI3659), along with Father Tyrrell, pastor of

St. Louis’ Catholic Church, constructed the building at 1401 N. Governor Street on the northeast 

corner of E. Scott Street and N. Governor Street in 1929, which is considered eligible for listing 

in the NRHP. The annex to the east was constructed when the school expanded in 1952. The 

Masonry Vernacular school building is two stories and one bay wide by three bays long. The 

walls are constructed of wood and masonry framing with a masonry band course dividing the

first and second floor. The annex is composed of masonry framing, surfaced in matching brick

with a decorative pierced brick pattern on the south elevation. The school is culturally important

as a symbol of strength, unity, and growth of the African-American community in Tampa. As the 

oldest African-American school still in operation in Hillsborough County, the building represents 

the strong beliefs of the parish and community and the importance of education. Although the 

building does not display the use of the more expensive materials due to financial constraints, it 

is significant in depicting the growth and development of the school and as an example of

twentieth century educational buildings. 

Jackson Hotel/851 Zack Street 

As part of the CRAS of the Tampa Rail Project prepared in 2002, the Jackson Hotel (8HI906)

was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP for its significance in the areas of ethnic 

heritage, architecture, and social history. Built around 1905, the Jackson Hotel is a two-story

Frame Vernacular building, which also exhibits Colonial Revival and Bahamian influences. This 

house is one of the last remaining examples of domestic dwellings in the area once called “The

Scrub.” This building has a mostly rectangular plan and features a wood frame structural system

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-25

that rests on a brick pier foundation. The large Frame Vernacular house is six bays deep by three 

bays wide, and is currently being utilized as apartments. It is an important building that

historically typified the African-American community in the early part of the twentieth century.

Architecturally, this vernacular building reflects influences of the area’s residents and trends of 

the period. 

Union Depot Hotel/856–860 Zack Street 

The Union Depot Hotel (8HI6939) was listed in the NRHP in the year 2000 and also is

considered a City of Tampa Landmark. The Masonry Vernacular style commercial building was 

constructed in 1912. The vacant two-story former hotel is six-sided and constructed of red brick. 

Notable features include arched windows, the use of red brick with blond brick details, and cast 

iron framed storefronts. A sign that reads “JJ Stevens-1912” is located on the parapet. Most of 

the windows found throughout the building have been covered with boards. The Union Depot

Hotel maintains significance as a turn-of-the-century commercial building with Italianate

features and for its historical associations with the nearby Tampa Union Station. It was 

constructed to serve as satellite lodging and a commercial venue for the nearby Tampa Union

Station. 

Tampa Union Station /601 Nebraska Avenue 

The Tampa Union Station (8HI298) passenger building was designed by J. F. Leitner, a 

prominent local architect, and built ca. 1912 in the Italian Renaissance Revival style. Located in 

the predominantly industrial area between downtown Tampa and the port activities in the Ybor

Channel area, the building was ideally situated to serve both the needs of freight and passenger 

service. A two-story brick passenger station and adjoining one-story brick freight depot,

connected by a metal shed canopy, along with the original open gabled passenger canopies, form

the historic complex. Because of its significance in the areas of community planning and 

development, transportation, and architecture, it was listed in the NRHP in 1973. It is also a City

of Tampa Landmark. Although this building was not mentioned in the 1973 report, the Tampa 

Union Station Baggage Building is potentially eligible for listing in the Tampa Union Station 

NRHP designation. 

Ybor City National Historic Landmark District 

The Ybor City NHLD (8HI313) is located within or adjacent to several alternative segments in

the city of Tampa, Hillsborough County. Designated by the National Park Service on December

14, 1990, the Ybor City NHLD constitutes one of the most outstanding collections of resources 

associated with late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century Cuban and Spanish settlement in the 

United States. With strong Cuban, Italian, and other ethnic associations, the district contains

buildings that illustrate the key aspects of the experiences of those immigrant groups. The NHLD

includes an impressive array of cigar factories, the largest such collection in the United States,

and related industrial structures; a major collection of commercial and commercial-residential

structures; a group of ethnic clubhouses; and historic worker housing. 

Ybor City was established in October 1885 as a planned “company” town. Vicente Martinez 

Ybor served as president of the Ybor City Land & Development Company, which offered land,

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-26

buildings, and other incentives to entice cigar makers from Key West, Florida and Havana, Cuba

to relocate to this new city. Cigar factories were generally built first with worker’s houses built

around them. New blocks or sections were added as new factories were built. The original 

settlement centered on 7th Avenue, which became the main commercial street. A large fire

devastated much of Ybor City in March 1908. 

The Ybor City National Register District was initially listed in the NRHP in 1974 and focused 

along 7th Avenue between 13th Street and 22nd Street. In some areas, the district extended as far 

north as Palm Avenue and as far south as 5th Avenue. In 1975, a local historic district with large 

rectangular-shaped boundaries, the Barrio Latino District, was established. The Barrio Latino

District boundaries were recently expanded to the east and south in December 2002 to include a 

larger area. The current boundaries are primarily Nebraska Avenue on the west, Columbus 

Drive and I-4 on the north, 26th and 28th Streets on the east, and 4th Avenue and Adamo Drive on 

the south. In December 1990, Ybor City was designated as a NHLD with larger boundaries than 

the NRHP District. The approximate boundaries are Nebraska Avenue on the west, 21st Street on

the north, 26th Street on the east, and 1st Avenue on the south. In 1991, a total of 948 historic 

structures were considered contributing to the Ybor City NHLD. 

German American Club/2105 N. Nebraska Avenue

The German American Club (8HI142), also known as Los Caballeros de la Luz, is a contributing 

resource within the Ybor City NHLD and is considered to be individually eligible for listing in 

the NRHP. Built in 1909 and remodeled several times, this three-story building occupies the 

northeast corner of Nebraska Avenue and 11th Street. Faced with concrete block covered with 

applied stucco and molded to form the appearance of tooled stone masonry, the building exhibits

Classical details and proportions. Originally, the building housed a club for Ybor City’s German 

residents, until it was sold in 1919 during a period of anti-German sentiment following World 

War I. The Young Men’s Hebrew Association occupied it from 1925 until 1944. Los Caballeros

de la Luz, a Hispanic group, acquired it in 1962. The City of Tampa currently owns the building 

and several city agencies occupy it at this time. 

Centro Asturiano/1913 N. Nebraska Avenue

Centro Asturiano (8HI835) is both individually listed in the NRHP and is a contributing resource 

within the Ybor City NHLD. The prominent architectural firm of Bonfoey and Elliot designed

the building, and construction was completed between 1913 and 1914. Located on the southeast

corner of Palm Street and Nebraska Avenue, this three-story yellow brick and stone building 

features an elaborate front façade with Beaux Arts characteristics. Centro Asturiano maintains 

architectural and historical significance. Architecturally, it is an excellent example of Beaux Arts

Classicism, while exhibiting influences from a number of other architectural styles. The 

building’s historical importance is based on its associations with the Spanish immigrants who 

established homes in the Tampa/Ybor City area starting in the late 1880s. 

I-Type House/2210 N. 31st Street 

The I-Type House (8HI4415) was documented in 1990 as part of the Tampa Interstate Study, and

was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. It is located on the southwest corner of N. 31st

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-27

Street and E. 12th Avenue in a residential neighborhood on the eastern edge of Ybor City. The

two-story house is a wood frame structure clad in drop siding set on a concrete pier foundation.

The front (east) façade has a two-story wooden porch of three bays that extends across almost the 

entire length of the façade. The I-Type House is significant to the architectural history of Tampa 

as a rare surviving example of a Frame Vernacular “I-Type” single-family house. Although the

house dates from the turn of the twentieth century, it represents the survival of an eighteenth 

century, mid-Atlantic coastal housing type which, during the nineteenth century, became popular

throughout the southeast. 

Corridor A 

Archaeological Resources

There are no NRHP-listed archaeological resources within Corridor A. One NRHP-eligible 

archaeological resource was previously recorded along alignments within Corridor A. Based on 

field reconnaissance, the Columbus Drive Site (8HI83) appears to have been destroyed by urban

development and is no longer NRHP-eligible. 

Historic Resources 

Twenty significant historic resources identified within Corridor A, including three historic

districts, are located in the city of Tampa, Hillsborough County (See Table 3-15). These 

resources were primarily constructed during the first half of the twentieth century, and they

exhibit the patterns and physical characteristics of the city’s built environment during these

years. They also represent the commerce, planning and development, ethnic history, and social 

history of Tampa. The NRHP-listed and locally landmarked Tampa Heights Historic District is

located north and west of I-275. It is situated outside of the FHSR project APE, however, since 

all of the alignments being evaluated are located south of I-275 and therefore would not cause 

any direct (actual land acquisition) or secondary (visual, noise, use, etc.) impacts to the Tampa

Heights Historic District. For this reason, the Tampa Heights Historic District is not included in 

the CRAS or in Table 3-15. 

Corridor B 

Archaeological Resources 

There are no NRHP-listed archaeological resources within Corridor B. One NRHP-eligible

archaeological resource was previously recorded along alignments being evaluated within

Corridor B. The Diamond Dairy Site (8HI476), originally recorded within the proposed ROW of

I-75, was previously subjected to Phase III mitigative excavation, and subsequently destroyed by

construction of the interstate highway. 

Historic Resources

No NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic resources are recorded along alignments within 

Corridor B.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-28

Corridor C 

Archaeological Resources 

No NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible archaeological resources are recorded along alignments

within Corridor C. 

Historic Resources

No NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic resources are recorded along alignments being

evaluated within Corridor C. 

Corridor D 

Archaeological Resources 

No NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible archaeological resources are recorded along alignments

within Corridor D. 

Historic Resources 

No NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic resources are recorded along alignments within 

Corridor D. 

Corridor E 

Archaeological Resources 

No NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible archaeological resources are recorded along alignments

within Corridor E. 

Historic Resources

No NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible historic resources are recorded along alignments within 

Corridor E. 

3.7 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

3.7.1 Air Quality

Transportation sources that utilize fossil fuels for power produce pollutants. The primary mode

of transportation within the FHSR project area is the motor vehicle. A project that affects the 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by motor vehicle will also affect fuel use and the amount of

pollutants emitted. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The NAAQS are

summarized in Table 3-16. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, and secondary

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-29

standards set limits to protect public welfare. The State of Florida has adopted NAAQS [Florida

Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Rule 62, Chapter 62-204 Air Pollution 

Control-General Provisions]. With the exception of SO2, which has a stricter state standard, the

standards are the same as the NAAQS. 

Table 3-16 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Value 1 Standard Type

8-Hour 9 ppm

(10 mg/m3

) Primary

Carbon Monoxide

1-Hour 35 ppm

(40 mg/m3

) Primary

Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.053 ppm

(100 ug/m3

) Primary & Secondary

1-Hour 0.12 ppm

(235 ug/m3

) Primary & Secondary

Ozone

8-Hour 0.08 ppm

(157 ug/m3

) Primary & Secondary

Lead Quarterly Average 1.5 ug/m3 Primary & Secondary

Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 ug/m3 Primary & Secondary Particulate (PM 10) 2

24-Hour 150 ug/m3 Primary & Secondary

Annual Arithmetic Mean 15 ug/m3 Primary & Secondary Particulate (PM 2.5) 3

24-Hour 65 ug/m3 Primary & Secondary

Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm

(80 ug/m3

) Primary

24-Hour 0.14 ppm

(365 ug/m3

) Sulfur Dioxide Primary

3-Hour 0.50 ppm

(1300 ug/m3

) Secondary

1

 ppm = parts per million, mg = milligrams, ug = micrograms, m3 = cubic meters 2

 PM 10 standard is for particles with diameters of 10 micrometers or less 3

 PM 2.5 standard is for particles with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or less

Source: EPA, 1990

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-30

Transportation sources, particularly motor vehicles, are the primary source of CO, oxides of

nitrogen (NOx), and hydrocarbons (also referred to as volatile organic compounds or VOC). In

the presence of heat and sunlight, NOx and VOC chemically react to form O3. Particulate matter 

and SO2 are primarily emitted from stationary sources that burn fossil fuels (e.g., power plants, 

industrial processes). Historically, motor vehicles were the major source of lead. However, the

phase-out of leaded gasoline has virtually eliminated motor vehicles as a source of 

lead emissions. 

Attainment Status 

All areas of the United States have been assigned a designation to comply with the NAAQS. 

Based on air quality monitoring data, an area that has not shown a violation of the NAAQS is

designated as “in attainment.” An area that has shown a violation of the NAAQS may be

designated as “non-attainment.” Areas that were designated non-attainment subsequent to the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), but have since been re-designated as in attainment

by EPA, are referred to as “maintenance areas.” 

All four counties within Corridors A through E are currently designated as in attainment of the

NAAQS for all pollutants. However, Hillsborough County, within Corridor A, was designated

as in attainment of the NAAQS for O3 subsequent to the CAAA, and, therefore, is classified as a

maintenance area. As required by the maintenance area designation, an air quality maintenance 

plan was developed for the Tampa Bay area, which includes Hillsborough County. The most 

current version of the plan, Air Quality Maintenance Plan (2005-2015) Hillsborough and Pinellas

Counties9 (FDEP 2002), was developed as an element of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

As documented in the maintenance plan for Hillsborough County, the area has continued to 

comply with the NAAQS for O3. Trends from O3 monitoring show continued progress in 

lowering the maximum one-hour O3 levels. Based on projections for future years, emissions of 

VOC and NOx are expected to remain below attainment year levels throughout the 10-year

maintenance plan period. The most recent update to the maintenance plan did not require any

substantial change in commitments from the previous plan. 

Conformity Determination 

After passage of the 1990 CAAA, regulations were established requiring that federal actions 

conform to any SIP. Two conformity regulations were developed: 

• 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 93 Subpart A (commonly referred to as the 

Transportation Conformity Rule) requires a conformity determination for federal actions 

related to transportation plans, programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or

approved by the U.S. Department of Transportation and by MPOs or other recipients of funds 

under Title 23, United States Code (USC) or the Federal Transit Laws (49 USC Chapter 53). 

• 40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B (commonly referred to as the General Conformity Rule) applies to

federal actions not covered by the Transportation Conformity Rule. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-31

The conformity regulations are applicable to the portion of the FHSR project traversing

Hillsborough County, within Corridors A, B, and C, because the county area is classified as a

maintenance area for O3. Polk, Osceola, and Orange counties, where Corridors C through E are

located, are all designated as in attainment of all the NAAQS prior to the 1990 CAAA.

Therefore, the conformity regulations are not applicable to these three counties. 

Monitoring Data 

Air quality monitors are maintained throughout the project area. The Monitor Summary Report 

prepared by EPA was reviewed for the year 2002 and is summarized in Table 3-17 for the four

counties within Corridors A through E. There were no reported violations of the NAAQS for

any of the pollutants monitored. 

The Pollutant Standard Index (PSI) is an approximate indicator of overall air quality within a 

county. As indicated in Table 3-17, some counties have monitor stations for some, but not all, of

the pollutants. PSI values consider all of the available measurements in each county.

The Monitor PSI Report maintained by EPA was reviewed for 2001, the most recent year

available. For Hillsborough County, within Corridors A, B, and C, air quality was rated good for

62 percent, moderate for 37 percent, and unhealthy for 1 percent of the 274 days that a PSI was

developed. For Polk County, within Corridors C and D, air quality was rated good for 74 percent 

and moderate for 26 percent of the 273 days that a PSI was developed. For Osceola County,

within Corridors D and E, air quality was rated good for 82 percent and moderate for 18 percent

of the 273 days that a PSI was developed. For Orange County, Corridor E, air quality was rated 

good for 76 percent and moderate for 24 percent of the 274 days that a PSI was developed. 

Table 3-17 

Monitor Summary Data 

Carbon

Monoxide

 (ppm)

 1

Nitrogen

Dioxide 

(ppm)

 1

Sulfur Dioxide

(ppm)

 1

Ozone 

(ppm)

 1 Pm 10 (Ug/M3

) 2 Lead

(Ug/M3)

 2

County 2nd

Max 

1-Hour

2nd

Max 

8-Hour

Annual 

Mean

2nd

Max 

24-

Hour 

Annual 

Mean

2nd Max 

1-Hour

2nd

Max 

24-

Hour 

Annual 

Mean

Quarterly 

Mean

Hillsborough 5.3 3.8 0.011 0.047 0.007 0.094 56 27.0 1.27

Polk NA3 NA3 NA3 0.010 0.004 0.092 78 21.0 NA3

Osceola NA3 NA3 NA3 NA3 NA3 0.094 NA3 NA3 NA3

Orange 4.4 2.5 0.011 0.005 0.001 0.102 38 23.0 NA3

1

 ppm = parts per million 2

 ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter 3

 Pollutant not monitored in the county

 Source: EPA, 2002. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-32

3.7.2 Noise

Noise is typically defined as unwanted or undesirable sound, where sound is characterized by

small air pressure fluctuations above and below the atmospheric pressure. The basic parameters 

of environmental noise that affect human subjective response are: (1) intensity or level; 

(2) frequency content; and (3) variation with time. The first parameter is determined by how 

greatly the sound pressure fluctuates above and below the atmospheric pressure, and is expressed

on a compressed scale in units of decibels. By using this scale, the range of normally

encountered sound can be expressed by values between 0 and 120 decibels. On a relative basis, 

a 3-decibel change in sound level generally represents a barely-noticeable change outside the

laboratory, whereas a 10-decibel change in sound level would typically be perceived as a

doubling (or halving) in the loudness of a sound. 

The frequency content of noise is related to the tone or pitch of the sound, and is expressed based

on the rate of the air pressure fluctuation in terms of cycles per second (called Hertz and 

abbreviated as Hz). The human ear can detect a wide range of frequencies from about 20 Hz to

17,000 Hz. However, because the sensitivity of human hearing varies with frequency, the 

A-weighting system is commonly used when measuring environmental noise to provide a single

number descriptor that correlates with human subjective response. Sound levels measured using

this weighting system are called “A-weighted” sound levels, and are expressed in decibel

notation as “dBA.” The A-weighted sound level is widely accepted by acousticians as a proper

unit for describing environmental noise. 

Because environmental noise fluctuates from moment to moment, it is common practice to

condense all of this information into a single number, called the “equivalent” sound level (Leq).

Leq can be thought of as the steady sound level that represents the same sound energy as the 

varying sound levels over a specified time period (typically 1 hour or 24 hours). Often the Leq

values over a 24-hour period are used to calculate cumulative noise exposure in terms of the

Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). Ldn is the A-weighed Leq for a 24-hour period with an added

10-decibel penalty imposed on noise that occurs during the nighttime hours (between 10 PM and 

7 AM). Many surveys have shown that Ldn is well correlated with human annoyance, and,

therefore, this descriptor is widely used for environmental noise impact assessment. Figure

3-19 provides examples of typical noise environments and criteria in terms of Ldn. While the

extremes of Ldn are shown to range from 35 dBA in a wilderness environment to 85 dBA in 

noisy urban environments, Ldn is generally found to range between 55 dBA and 75 dBA in most

communities. As shown in Figure 3-19, this spans the range between an “ideal” residential 

environment and the threshold for an unacceptable residential environment according to federal

agency criteria. 

High Speed Rail Noise Criteria

Noise impact for this project is based on the criteria defined in the FRA guidance manual, HighSpeed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment10 (Final Draft, December 

1998). The FRA noise impact criteria are founded on well-documented research on community

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-33

reaction to noise and are based on change in noise exposure using a sliding scale. Although

higher levels of train noise are allowed in neighborhoods with high levels of existing noise,

smaller increases in total noise exposure are allowed with increasing levels of existing noise. 

The FRA Noise Impact Criteria group noise sensitive land uses into the following three

categories:

Category 1: Buildings or parks where quiet is an essential element of their purpose. 

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes 

residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to

be of utmost importance.

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This 

category includes schools, libraries, churches and active parks. 

Figure 3-19 

Examples of Typical Outdoor Noise Exposure 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-34

Ldn is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2). For other noise

sensitive land uses, such as outdoor amphitheaters and school buildings (Categories 1 and 3), the 

maximum 1-hour Leq during the facility’s operating period is used. 

There are two levels of impact included in the FRA criteria. The interpretation of these two 

levels of impact is summarized below: 

Severe: Severe noise impacts are considered "significant" as this term is used in the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and implementing regulations. Noise mitigation

will normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there is no practical method of

mitigating the noise. 

Impact: In this range of noise impact, sometimes referred to as moderate impact, other

project-specific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the 

need for mitigation. These other factors can include the predicted increase over existing

noise levels, the types and number of noise-sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoorindoor sound insulation, and the cost effectiveness of mitigating noise to more acceptable

levels. 

The noise impact criteria are summarized in Table 3-18. The first column shows the existing

noise exposure and the remaining columns show the project noise exposure thresholds that

would cause either moderate or severe impact. The future noise exposure would be the

combination of the existing noise exposure and the additional noise exposure caused by the

project. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-35

Table 3-18 

FRA Noise Impact Criteria 

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, December 1998

Existing Noise Conditions 

Noise-sensitive land uses along the project corridor were first identified based on drawings

within Corridors A through E, aerial photographs, visual surveys, and land use information.

Based on this review, summary descriptions of noise-sensitive land uses and existing noise

sources along the FHSR corridor alignments defined in Section 2, from west to east, are as 

follows: 

• Alignment A1 (Corridor A). Noise-sensitive land uses along this alignment include singlefamily residences, apartment complexes, and hotels. In addition, there are areas of

commercial use, as well as churches and schools, on both sides of the alignment. Existing

noise is dominated by traffic on I-275, I-4, and local roadways. 

• Alignment A2 (Corridor A). Noise-sensitive land uses along this alignment include singlefamily residences, apartment complexes, and hotels. In addition, there are areas of

commercial use, as well as churches and schools, on both sides of the alignment. Existing

noise is dominated by traffic on I-275 and local vehicular traffic. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-36

• Alignment B1 (Corridor B). Single and multi-family residences, mobile homes, churches,

and schools are the noise-sensitive land uses along this alignment. Commercial buildings are

interspersed throughout this area on both sides of the alignment. Existing noise sources 

along this alignment include traffic on local roads, as well as traffic on I-4 and I-75. 

• Alignment B2 (Corridor B). Along this alignment, the noise-sensitive land uses consist of

single-family residences, mobile homes, schools, and churches. Commercial buildings are 

also interspersed throughout the alignment. The dominant noise sources in this area are local

vehicular traffic, in addition to traffic on I-75 and I-4. 

• Alignment C1 (Corridor C). The noise-sensitive land uses along this alignment consist of 

single-family residences, mobile homes, hotels, apartments, schools, and churches. A few

commercial building are interspersed throughout the alignment. The dominant noise source

is the traffic along I-4. 

• Alignment D1 (Corridor D). Along the eastern section of this alignment, noise-sensitive land

uses consist of single-family homes, mobile homes, hotels, churches, and schools. Along the

western section of this alignment, noise-sensitive land uses include hotels and apartments. In

between the eastern and western sections is mostly vacant land. Churches and schools, as

well as commercial buildings, are interspersed along the eastern section. The dominant noise

source throughout this alignment is traffic on I-4. 

• Alignment E1 (Corridor E). The noise-sensitive land uses in this area consist of hotels 

(concentrated in the eastern section of this alignment), single-family residences, churches,

and mobile homes. Commercial buildings are interspersed on both sides of the alignment. 

The dominant noise sources along this alignment are the local traffic and the traffic on I-4

and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528). 

• Alignment E2 (Corridor E). The noise-sensitive land uses along this alignment include

apartments, single and multi-family residences, schools, churches, and hotels. A few 

commercial buildings are interspersed throughout the area. The dominant noise sources

along this alignment are the traffic from I-4 and from the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417). 

Existing ambient noise levels in the previously listed areas were characterized through direct

measurements at selected sites along the corridors during the period from January 20 through

January 29, 2003. Estimating existing noise exposure is an important step in the noise impact

assessment since, as indicated previously in this report, the thresholds for noise impact are based

on the existing levels of noise exposure. The measurements included both long-term (typically

24-hour) and short-term (30 to 60 minute) monitoring of the A-weighted sound level at

representative noise-sensitive locations. 

All of the measurement sites were located in noise-sensitive areas, and were selected to represent

a range of existing noise conditions along the corridors. Figure 3-20 shows the general location

of the 18 long-term monitoring sites (LT-1 through LT-18) and 25 short-term monitoring sites 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-37

(ST-1 through ST-25). At each site, the measurement microphone was positioned to characterize

the exposure of the site to the dominant noise sources in the area. For example, microphones

were located at the approximate setback lines of the receptors from adjacent roads or rail lines,

and were positioned to avoid acoustic shielding by landscaping, fences or other obstructions. 

The results of the existing ambient noise measurements, summarized in Table 3-19, were used as 

a basis for determining the existing noise conditions at all noise-sensitive receptors along the 

FHSR corridor. Because the existing ambient noise is dominated by highway traffic in most

locations along the project corridor, the measured Ldn values were typically normalized to a 

distance of 100 ft. from the highway to characterize the existing noise for each area. In some

areas, the Ldn was estimated from short-term Leq data using the method recommended by the 

FRA. More commonly, the short-term Leq data were used to characterize the existing noise

levels at specific institutional receptors. The resulting characterization of existing ambient noise

conditions is summarized in the following section. 

Table 3-19 

Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurement Results 

Start of

Measurement

Noise 

Exposure 

(dBA) 

Alignment 

No.

Site

No. Measurement Location Description

Date Time

Meas.

Time

(Hrs) 

Ldn Leq

 A1 LT-1 S.F. Res. @ 1706 12th Avenue 1-20-03 12:00 24 69 -- 

B1 LT-2 S.F. Res @ 2360 12th Avenue 1-20-03 13:00 24 69 -- 

B1 LT-3 S.F. Res. @ 3411 N. 56th Street 1-20-03 15:00 24 76 -- 

B1 LT-4 S.F. Res. @ 7214 Kingsbury Circle 1-21-03 16:00 24 66 -- 

B2 LT-5 Mobile Home Park off of Falkenburg Rd 1-21-03 16:00 24 77 -- 

C1 LT-6 S.F. Res. @ 13120 Gore Rd 1-21-03 16:00 24 68 -- 

C1 LT-7 S.F. Res. @ 5650 Harvey Tew Road 1-21-03 16:00 24 64 -- 

C1 LT-8 S.F. Res. @ 910 King Street 1-22-03 10:00 24 72 -- 

C1 LT-9 S.F. Res. @ 2502 Northside Frontage Road 1-22-03 17:00 24 72 -- 

D1 LT-10 Cambridge Cove Apartments 1-23-03 10:00 24 64 -- 

D1 LT-11 S.F. Res. @ 1703 Canary Circle 1-23-03 14:00 24 74 -- 

D1 LT-12 S.F. Res. @ 5563 Citrus Hill Drive 1-23-03 17:00 24 62 -- 

D1, E1 LT-13 Parkway Apartments - Bldg. 3028 1-27-03 10:00 24 67 -- 

E1 LT-14 S.F. Res. @ End of 3rd Avenue 1-27-03 11:00 24 68 -- 

E2 LT-15 S.F. Res. @ 13476 Texas Woods Circle 1-27-03 12:00 24 61 -- 

E2 LT-16 S.F. Res. @ 1234 Epson Oaks Way 1-28-03 9:00 24 63 -- 

E2 LT-17 S.F. Res. @ 13172 Heather Moss Drive 1-28-03 13:00 24 67 -- 

E2 LT-18 S.F. Res. @ 14444 Estrella 1-28-03 17:00 24 62 -- 

A1 ST-1 S.F. Res. @ East 7th Avenue 1-20-03 11:47 1 -- 69

* ST-2 S.F. Res. @ 15th Avenue and 20th Street 1-20-03 15:06 1 -- 63

C1 ST-3 Landmark Baptist Church 1-20-03 15:05 1 -- 64 

C1 ST-4 Armwood High School 1-21-03 9:13 1 -- 69 

C1 ST-5 Assembly Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses 1-21-03 9:14 1 -- 62 

C1 ST-6 Evans Park 1-21-03 10:35 1 -- 66

C1 ST-7 Cedars of Lebanon Missionary Baptist Church 1-21-03 10:37 1 -- 64 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 3-19 (cont.) 

Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Measurement Results 

 

3-38

Start of

Measurement

Noise 

Exposure 

(dBA) 

Alignment 

No.

Site

No. Measurement Location Description

Date Time

Meas.

Time

(Hrs) 

Ldn Leq

C1 ST-8 Townsgate Apartments, #1210 1-21-03 12:08 1 -- 63

A2 ST-9 Corner of East 2nd Avenue and North 23rd Street 1-22-03 9:02 1 -- 64 

B2 ST-10 World Revival Church 1-22-03 11:10 1 -- 66 

D1 ST-11 S.F. Res. @ West 10th Street, #2 1-22-03 11:30 1 -- 67 

B2 ST-12 Tanner Road Park 1-22-03 13:28 1 -- 70

D1 ST-13 Victory Church 1-23-03 9:38 3⁄4 -- 59

C1 ST-14 Faith Temple Assembly of God 1-24-03 9:39 1 -- 64 

D1 ST-15 1123 Walt Williams Road, near homes 143/144 1-24-03 10:00 1 -- 63 

D1 ST-16 S.F. Res. @ 513 Union Drive 1-24-03 11:48 1 -- 67 

D1 ST-17 Wendell Watson Elementary School 1-24-03 12:45 1 -- 60 

D1 ST-18 Hampton Inn – Celebration, FL 1-27-03 9:09 1 -- 69 

* ST-19 Apartments at 10555 Willow Drive – Orlando, FL 1-27-03 11:00 1 -- 69 

* ST-20 Hotels North of Interstate-4 – Orlando, FL 1-27-03 11:14 1 -- 70 

E2 ST-21 Meadowwood Elementary School 1-27-03 14:07 1 -- 55 

E2 ST-22 Hunters Creek Middle School 1-27-03 14:46 1⁄2 -- 53 

* ST-23 Spring Hill Suites – Buena Vista, FL 1-28-03 14:38 1⁄2 -- 68 

E2 ST-24 Holiday Inn – Orlando, FL 1-28-03 15:44 1⁄2 -- 65 

E1 ST-25 S.F. Res. @ end of Marco Polo Drive 3-27-03 9:00 1 -- 63 

Source: Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., 2003 

* Extra measurement

Due to the large area that some corridors encompass, ranges of noise levels were used to describe

the ambient noise levels, rather than a single noise level. The range of noise levels was taken 

from multiple measurement locations within a single alignment. 

• Alignment A1 (Corridor A). The Ldn in this area is estimated to range between 77 dBA and

79 dBA at 100 ft. from I-275/I-4, based on 1-hour and 24-hour measurements (ST-1 and LT1). The existing daytime Leq for the parks, churches, and schools in this area is taken to be

69 dBA, based on the actual measurement at site ST-1, which best represents the churches

and schools. 

• Alignment A2 (Corridor A). The existing Ldn for this area is estimated to be 72 dBA at 100

ft. from Adamo Drive based on the 1-hour measurement at site ST-9. The parks, churches,

and schools in this area have an estimated daytime Leq of 64 dBA based on the measurement 

at site ST-9. 

•

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-39

Alignment B1 (Corridor B). The Ldn for this area is estimated to range between 74 and 78

dBA at 100 ft. from I-4 based on 24-hour measurements (LT-3 and LT-4). The western most 

area of this alignment has an estimated Ldn of 81 dBA at 100 ft. from I-4 based on the 

measurements at site LT-5. The higher Ldn for this area is due to the intersection of I-75 and

I-4. The daytime Leq within this area is estimated to be 69 dBA based on a 24-hour 

measurement (LT-4). 

• Alignment B2 (Corridor B). The existing Ldn along this alignment is estimated to range 

between 76 and 77 dBA at 100 ft. from I-75 based on 1-hour measurements (ST-10 and ST12). The northern area of this alignment (the same as the eastern area of Alignment B1) has

an estimated Ldn of 81 dBA at 100 ft. from I-75 based on the 24-hour measurement LT-5. As 

previously discussed, this higher level is due to the intersection of I-4 and I-75. The daytime

Leq in Alignment B2 is estimated to range from 66 dBA to

70 dBA based on measurements at ST-10 and ST-12. 

• Alignment C1 (Corridor C). The Ldn in this area is estimated to be between 76 and

77 dBA at 100 ft. from I-4 based on 24-hour measurements (LT-6, LT-7, LT-8, and LT-9).

The existing daytime Leq for the schools, parks, and churches within this alignment is

estimated to range between 62 and 69 dBA based on the 1-hour measurements at ST-3, ST-4, 

ST-5, ST-6, ST-7, ST-8, and ST-14. 

• Alignment D1 (Corridor D). The Ldn in the Lakeland area of this alignment is estimated to 

be in the range of 75 dBA to 79 dBA at 100 ft. from I-4 based on 24-hour measurements

(LT-10 and LT-11). The majority of this alignment is estimated to be

68 dBA at 100 ft. from I-4 based on the long term measurement site LT-12. Near the

Celebration area, the Ldn is estimated to be 80 dBA at 100 ft. from I-4 based on 24-hour

measurement at site LT-13. 

• Alignment E1 (Corridor E). The existing Ldn in the I-4 area is estimated to be 80 dBA at

100 ft. from I-4 based on a 24-hour measurement at site LT-13. Along the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528), the Ldn is estimated to be 68 dBA at 100 ft. from the centerline

based on a 1-hour measurement (ST-25). The existing Ldn in the eastern section of this

alignment is estimated to be 59 dBA based on a 24-hour measurement at site LT-14. The 

existing daytime Leq is estimated to be 68 dBA based on the 1-hour measurement at site ST23. 

• Alignment E2 (Corridor E). The existing Ldn for the majority of this area is estimated to be

in the range of 70 dBA to 74 dBA at 100 ft. from the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417) based on 24-hour measurements (LT-16, LT-17, and LT-18). In the eastern most 

section of this alignment (East of Landstar Boulevard), the Ldn is estimated to be

65 dBA at 100 ft. from the centerline based on the measurement at site LT-15. The daytime

Leq for parks, schools, or churches in this alignment is estimated to be between 53 and 64

dBA based on 1-hour measurements at sites ST-21, ST-22, and ST-24. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-40

3.7.3 Vibration

Ground-borne vibration is the oscillatory motion of the ground about some equilibrium position

that can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Because sensitivity to

vibration typically corresponds to the amplitude of vibration velocity within the low-frequency

range of most concern for environmental vibration (roughly 5-100 Hz), velocity is the preferred

measure for evaluating ground-borne vibration from rail projects. 

The most common measure used to quantify vibration amplitude is the peak particle velocity

(PPV), defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibratory motion. PPV is typically

used in monitoring blasting and other types of construction-generated vibration, since it is related 

to the stresses experienced by building components. Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating 

building damage, it is less suitable for evaluating human response, which is better related to the

average vibration amplitude. Thus, ground-borne vibration from passenger rail systems is

usually characterized in terms of the “smoothed” root mean square (rms) vibration velocity level, 

in decibels (VdB), with a reference quantity of one micro-inch per second. VdB is used in place 

of dB to avoid confusing vibration decibels with sound decibels. 

Figure 3-21 illustrates typical ground-borne vibration levels for common sources, as well as

criteria for human and structural response to ground-borne vibration. As shown, the range of

interest is from approximately 50 to 100 VdB, from imperceptible background vibration to the 

threshold of damage. Although the approximate threshold of human perception to vibration is 

65 VdB, annoyance is usually not significant unless the vibration exceeds 70 VdB. 

Ground-Borne Vibration Criteria 

The FRA ground-borne vibration impact criteria are based on land use and train frequency, as

shown in Table 3-20. There are some buildings, such as concert halls, recording studios, and

theaters, which can be very sensitive to vibration, but do not fit into any of the three categories 

listed in Table 3-21. Due to the sensitivity of these buildings, they usually warrant special

attention during the environmental assessment of a rail project. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-41

Figure 3-21 

Typical Ground-Borne Vibration Levels and Criteria 

Human/Structural Response Typical Sources

(50 ft from source)

Threshold, minor cosmetic damage

fragile buildings

Difficulty with tasks such as

reading a VDT screen

Residential annoyance, frequent

events (e.g., rapid transit)

Limit for vibration sensitive

equipment. Approx. threshold for

human perception of vibration

Blasting from construction projects

Bulldozers and other heavy tracked

construction equipment

High speed rail, upper range

Rapid transit, upper range

High speed rail, typical

Bus or truck over bump

Bus or truck, typical

Typical background vibration

VELOCITY

LEVEL*

Residential annoyance, infrequent

events (e.g., commuter rail)

* RMS Vibration Velocity Level in VdB relative to 10-6 inches/second

100

90

70

60

80

50

It should also be noted that Tables 3-20 and 3-21 include separate FRA criteria for ground-borne

noise, the “rumble” that can be radiated from the motion of room surfaces in buildings due to 

ground-borne vibration. Although expressed in dBA, which emphasizes the more audible middle

and high frequencies, the criteria are set significantly lower than for airborne noise to account for

the annoying low-frequency character of ground-borne noise. Because airborne noise often

masks ground-borne noise for above ground (i.e. at-grade or elevated) rail systems, ground-borne

noise criteria are primarily applied to subway operations where airborne noise is not a factor.

For the above-grade rail system planned along the FHSR alternatives, ground-borne noise

criteria are not considered to be applicable to any adjacent receptors. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-42

Table 3-20 

Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria 

Ground-Borne Vibration 

Impact Levels

(VdB re 1 micro inch/sec) 

Ground-Borne Noise 

Impact Levels

Land Use Category (dB re 20 micro Pascals)

Frequent Events

1 Infrequent

Events2 Frequent Events

1 Infrequent Events2

Category 1: Buildings where low

ambient vibration is essential for 

interior operations. 

65 VdB3 65 VdB3 -4 -4

Category 2: Residences and buildings

where people normally sleep. 72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA

Category 3: Institutional land uses

with primarily daytime use. 75 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 48 dBA

Notes: 

1. “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category.

2. “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. This category includes most commuter rail systems. 

3. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration

sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration 

levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors.

4. Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise.

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, December 1998. 

Table 3-21 

Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria for Special Buildings 

Type of Building or Room Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels

(Vdb Re 1 Micro-Inch/Sec)

Ground-Borne Noise 

Impact Levels

(Db Re 20 Micro Pascals) 

Frequent Events

1 Infrequent Events2 Frequent Events1 Infrequent Events2

Concert Halls 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

TV Studios 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

Recording Studios 65 VdB 65 VdB 25 dBA 25 dBA

Auditoriums 72 VdB 80 VdB 30 dBA 38 dBA

Theaters 72 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 43 dBA

Notes: 

1. “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. Most transit projects fall into this category.

2. “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. This category includes most commuter rail systems. 

3. If the building will rarely be occupied when the trains are operating, there is no need to consider impact. As an example consider locating a 

commuter rail line next to a concert hall. If no commuter trains will operate after 7 pm, it should be rare that the trains interfere with the use 

of the hall.

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, December 1998.

Existing Vibration Conditions 

Because there are no significant sources of existing ground-borne vibration along the FHSR 

Corridors A through E, other than occasional truck traffic, the vibration measurements for this

project focused on characterizing the vibration propagation characteristics of the soil at

representative locations. Eleven vibration testing sites were selected to represent a range of soil 

conditions in areas along the retained alignments within the corridors that include vibrationFLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-43

sensitive receptors. Figure 3-22 shows the general receptor locations and site descriptions are as

follows: 

• Site V-1: Alignment A1 (Corridor A) - Corner of Laniar and Estelle - Tampa, FL 

• Site V-2: Alignment B1 (Corridor B) - Corner of 54th Street and 26th Avenue - Tampa, FL 

• Site V-3: Alignment C1 (Corridor C) - Armwood High School - Tampa, FL 

• Site V-4: Alignment C1 (Corridor C) - Townsgate Apartments - Plant City, FL 

• Site V-5: Alignment D1 (Corridor D)- Glenwood Park - Gibsonia, FL 

• Site V-6: Alignment E1 (Corridor E) - Marriott Village - Lake Buena Vista, FL 

• SiteV-7: Alignment E1 (Corridor E) - Excel Tech - Orlando, FL 

• Site V-8: Alignment E1 (Corridor E) - Corner of 3rd Avenue and 11th Street - Orlando, FL 

• Site V-9: Alignment E2 (Corridor E) - Corner of International Drive and World Center Drive -

Orlando, FL 

• Site V-10: Alignment E2 (Corridor E) - Corner of Tacon Drive and Verano Drive - Orlando, FL 

• Site V-11: Alignment E2 (Corridor E) - Pinnacle Cove Apartments - Orlando, FL

At each of the vibration sites, ground-borne vibration propagation tests were conducted 

according to the “Detailed Vibration Assessment” procedures described in the FRA guidance 

manual High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Final

Draft, December 1998). The tests were performed by impacting the ground at discrete points 

along a line, while measuring the input force and corresponding ground vibration response at 

various distances. The resulting force-response transfer functions were used to calculate the

“line source transfer mobility”, which describes vibration transmission characteristics of the soil 

as a function of both frequency and distance from the source. The transfer mobility can be

combined with the input force characteristics of a high speed rail vehicle to predict future

vibration levels at locations along the project corridor 

To provide a representative summary of the ground-borne vibration characteristics of the soil 

along the project corridors, Figure 3-23 shows the results for the line source transfer mobilities 

measured at the 100 ft. position at each of the 11 vibration measurement sites. Except for those

areas represented by sites 3, 4, and 6, results indicate that the ground vibration response to a 

given input force is greatest in the 25 Hz to 63 Hz frequency range. Vibrations in this frequency

range can cause perceptible vibrations, but can mitigated using conventional track vibration 

isolation techniques (e.g. ballast mats). In the areas represented by sites 3 and 4, the maximum

vibration response was measured to extend to higher frequencies (up to 250 Hz for site 3 and up

to 80 Hz for site 4). Vibrations at these higher frequencies pose a greater risk of ground-borne

noise impact, but can also be treated quite effectively by using conventional track vibration

isolation methods. However, in the area represented by site 6, the ground vibration response was

measured to be greatest in the 20 Hz to 125 Hz range. If the input force of a high speed rail

vehicle is concentrated in this frequency range and causes vibration impact, mitigation may

require more extensive and costly track vibration isolation treatments (e.g. floating slabs). 

More details on the propagation test and analysis procedures are given in the FRA guidance

manual, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Final

Draft, December, 1998). Additional technical information, including all of the measurement data

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-44

from each of the eleven sites, can be found in the supporting technical report Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment for the Florida High Speed Rail Project. 

3.7.4 Water Quality

Corridors A through E include seven major watersheds: Tampa Bay, the Hillsborough River, the 

Palm River, the Alafia River, the Peace River, the Withlacoochee River, and the Kissimmee

River. The Hillsborough and the Palm Rivers drain into Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay is tidally

influenced and is connected to the Gulf of Mexico. The Withlacoochee, the Alafia, and Peace

Rivers drain to the Gulf of Mexico. The Kissimmee River flows to Lake Okeechobee. The area

within Corridors A and B drain into the Palm and Hillsborough Rivers. The majority of the land 

within Corridor C drains into the Hillsborough River, with a portion flowing to the Alafia River.

Corridor D drains to the Peace and the Withlacoochee Rivers. Corridor E drains into the

Kissimmee River. Watershed data was collected for use in the Water Quality Impact Evaluation

(WQIE), which is further described in Section 4 of this report. 

3.7.5 Floodways and Floodplain

Floodplain information for Corridors A through E was obtained from Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Studies.

According to the FIRMs, the corridors traverse flood zones A, B, C, and E and portions of the

FHSR project are located within the 100-year floodplain. Zone A denotes areas of the 100-year 

floodplain in which the base flood elevations and flood hazard factors have not been determined.

Zone B denotes areas between the 100-year and 500-year floods, areas subject to 100-year 

flooding with average depths less than 1 ft; areas where the contributing drainage area is less 

than one square mile (sq. mi.); or areas protected by levees from the base flood. Zones C and E 

are areas of undetermined base flood elevation and/or areas subject to flooding by a frequency

event exceeding 100 years. 

Corridors A, B, C, and D pass through 32 areas designated as either Zone A or Zone B. Within

the Green Swamp area of Polk and Osceola counties, the floodplain meanders, crossing I-4 at 

virtually every cross drain. Encroachment into the Green Swamp was counted as a single 

encroachment (i.e., there are 31 areas outside of the Green Swamp that are encroached by the 

corridors). 

Floodplain encroachment in Florida is governed by FEMA and regulated by the Water

Management Districts (WMD): Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD),

SFWMD, and St. Johns River Water Management District (SJWMD) through the Environmental

Resource Permit (ERP) process. 

The base floodplain near the Hillsborough River in Hillsborough County (Corridor A) results 

from tidal storm surge, with the base floodplain elevation at approximately elevation 10.0 

National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929. Any encroachment into a tidal storm surge 

floodplain does not have to be compensated. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-45

All other floodplain encroachments within the study area are from fresh water rainfall events and

would have to be compensated for on a “cup for cup” basis. This basis means that for every cup

of fill-material placed in the floodplain below the 100-year floodplain elevation, one cup must be

excavated at the same elevation in an area that is hydraulically connected to the floodplain. 

3.7.6 Hydrology and Drainage

In order to assess the hydrologic needs for the FHSR system, an inventory of existing stormwater

management systems was conducted. The evaluation determined that with the exception of 

recent reconstruction and widening of I-4, the areas containing the project alternatives do not

have storm water permits or any surface water management systems currently in place. The

following discussion identifies those areas on I-4 which were recently reconstructed and notes if

drainage provisions for FHSR are included. 

In Hillsborough County (Corridors A, B, and C), the reconstruction of I-4 extends from 21st

Street on the west and ends at County Line Road to the east. The permits of these segments 

assumed the median of I-4 to be impervious. It is assumed that no additional drainage facilities

for the water quality treatment and attenuation requirements would be necessary for FHSR

construction; however, the conveyance system within the existing median may require

modification. 

Corridor D consists of four sections of I-4 in Polk County. Only Section One, from the 

Polk/Hillsborough County line to Memorial Boulevard, has been widened. Permit No. 

4311896.09 has been issued and construction has been completed. This permit expired on 

May 13, 2003. The permit of this segment assumed the median of I-4 to be impervious. The

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has recently let each of the remaining three

sections as design/build contracts. Additional coordination would need to occur between the 

FHSRA and the I-4 drainage designers within Polk County, FDOT – District One, and the

WMDs. 

Section Two (within Corridor D,), from Memorial Boulevard to U.S. 98, Permit No. 

43011896.019, ERP was issued on September 28, 2000, and expires on January 30, 2006.

Construction is underway. The design for the 6-lane widening did not take the FHSR project

into consideration. However, the constructed ponds may be expanded to include FHSR. The

permitting is in process for Section Three, from U.S. 98 to C.R. 557, and Section Four, C.R. 557 

to the Polk/Osceola County line. Again, the design for the 6-lane widening did not take FHSR 

into consideration. The constructed ponds may be expanded or enlarged to include the FHSR 

project. The widening of Sections Two through Four is to the outside of the existing 4-lane 

highway and assumed the I-4 median to be grass. In some areas within these sections, the

median has been utilized for storm water treatment and flood compensation; the 44-ft. minimum

median clearance required for FHSR has not been provided. 

For the remainder of Corridors D and E within Osceola and Orange counties, no previously

issued permits have taken FHSR into consideration for storm water treatment and attenuation. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-46

Within Corridor E, the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) has a surface water management 

system constructed; but, again, FHSR was not included in the design. 

3.7.7 Topography, Soils, and Geology

This section presents a summary of the existing subsurface soil conditions located in the vicinity

of the proposed FHSR Corridors A through E. Included are discussions of the regional geology,

topography, and problem soils identified in each corridor. More detailed information is

contained in the two Contamination Screening Evaluation Reports (CSERs) prepared as part of 

this study, the Contamination Screening Evaluation Report11 (December 2002, and the Florida

High Speed Rail Draft Contamination Screening & Evaluation Report12 (January 2003). The 

limits of the CSERs are from downtown Tampa to Lakeland (U.S. 98) and from Lakeland 

(U.S. 98) to Orlando International Airport. 

Regional Geology 

Throughout central Florida, water is one of the most important natural resources. It can be

classified into two systems: the groundwater system and the surface water system. In the

groundwater system, there are two water-bearing zones of interest: the confined and the 

unconfined aquifers. The confined aquifer, called the Floridan aquifer, extends under much of

Florida. The Green Swamp region in the northeastern portion of Polk County is believed to be a

recharge area for part of the Floridan aquifer that underlies most of west central Florida. Except 

for this recharge area, most of the Floridan aquifer is under a confining layer of clay or other 

impermeable material. This confining (cap) layer is responsible for the artesian water pressure

within the Floridan aquifer. 

The Hawthorn formation is the confining layer in Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, and Orange

counties. The Hawthorn formation is the cap layer between the deep Floridan aquifer and the 

shallow surficial and intermediate aquifers. The surficial aquifer is found throughout most of

Polk County.

Due to its prevalent geology, central Florida is prone to the formation of sinkholes, or large, 

circular depressions created by local subsidence of the ground surface. In areas where the

Hawthorn formation is absent, water table groundwater (and associated sands) can flow

downward to cavities within the limestone aquifer recharging the Floridan aquifer, causing the

formation of surface sinkholes. Thus, in central Florida, areas of effective groundwater recharge 

to the Floridan aquifer have a higher potential for the formation of surface sinkholes. Based on

the review of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) map entitled “Recharge and Discharge Areas 

of the Floridan Aquifer in the SJWMD and Vicinity, Florida,” (1984), the proposed FHSR 

project traverses regions that vary from a classification of “no recharge” to “high recharge” for

Corridors A thru E. Generally, the FHSR corridor in Hillsborough and Polk counties (Corridors 

A through D) is in a “high recharge” area. Osceola and Orange counties (Corridors D and E) are 

in a “low recharge” area.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-47

The groundwater table was measured where apparent. The depths to the groundwater table, 

when encountered, ranged from about 3 ft. to greater than 15 ft. below the existing ground

surface in Hillsborough and Polk counties. The groundwater table is typically within 10 ft. of the 

ground surface for Osceola and Orange counties and fluctuates within 3 to 6 ft., with the highest

level occurring near the end of September (seasonal high) and the lowest level occurring near the 

end of May (seasonal low). 

Groundwater conditions vary with environmental variations and seasonal conditions, such as the

frequency and magnitude of rainfall patterns, as well as man-made influences, such as existing

swales, drainage ponds, and underdrains. 

Topography 

Topographical quadrangle maps published by the USGS were reviewed for general elevation

data along the proposed FHSR alignments. The results are summarized in Table 3-22. 

Table 3-22 

Elevation Data 

USGS Map Title Corridor 

Approximate Range of Elevations Along

Proposed Corridors 

(Feet, NationalGeodeticVertical Datum)

Tampa, Florida A, B 0 to 55 

Brandon, Florida B 15 to 80

Thonotasassa, Florida B, C 10 to 105

Plant City West, Florida C 50 to 135

Plant City East, Florida C 90 to 170

Lakeland, Florida D 135 to 240

Providence D 135 to 140

Lake Jessamine E 80 to 135

Pine Castle E 75 to 95

The elevations for Corridors A and B range from 0 to 105 ft. above NGVD. The elevations for 

Corridor C range from 10 to 170 ft. above NGVD. The elevations for Corridor D range from 

135 to 240 ft. above NGVD. The elevations for Corridor E range from 75 to 135 ft. above 

NGVD. USGS maps from Providence to Lake Jessamine were not available for review. 

Soil Survey Data

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Maps were obtained for Hillsborough, Polk,

Osceola, and Orange counties. Each map was reviewed for general near-surface soil information 

within Corridors A through E. More detailed information regarding soils is contained in the 

CSERs. 

Based on the review of the Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, and Orange County Soil Conservation

Service maps, several map soil units along the proposed corridors have been identified as

“problem soils.” For purposes of this study, problem soils have been defined as organic soils and 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-48

mined land suspected of having the potential for settlement or stability concerns. Additional

information regarding muck probe locations from Lakeland (U.S. 98) to Orlando International 

Airport is described in the CSER. The map soil units identified as problem soils are described by

corridor alignments as follows:

Alignments A1 and A2 (Corridor A) 

Alignments A1 and A2 do not contain any map soil units that have been identified as problem

soils. 

Alignments B1 and B2 (Corridor B) 

Alignment B1 contains three map soils units that have been identified as problem soils. They are 

described as follows: 

• Basinger, Holopaw, and Samsula soils, depressional are identified in the “Hillsborough

County, Florida Soil Survey” as map unit (5). These soils are found in swamps and in

depressions on the flatwoods. Undrained areas where these soils are found are frequently

ponded for long periods. Based on the survey, the organic soils can be encountered as deep 

as 34 inches (in.) below existing grades. 

• Chobee muck, depressional is identified in the “Hillsborough County, Florida Soil Survey”

as map unit (11). These soils are found in broad depressions on Harney flats. Undrained

areas can be ponded for very long periods. This soil consists of approximately 4 in. of muck.

Underlying the muck are silty sands transitioning to sandy clays to depths of at least 80 in. 

• Eaton mucky sand, depressional is identified in the “Hillsborough County, Florida Soil

Survey” as map unit (14). Based on the survey, this soil is found in depressions on the 

flatwoods and consists of a top layer of approximately 8 in. of mucky sand. Underlying the

layer of mucky sand is silty sand to sandy clay of at least 80 in. This soil experiences 

ponding for one to four months during most years. 

Alignment B2 contains two map soil units that have been identified as problem soils. These map 

soil units are identified in the “Hillsborough County, Florida Soil Survey” as map units (5) and 

(14) and were described previously. 

Alignment C1 (Corridor C) 

Alignment C1 contains one map soils unit that has been identified as a problem soil. This map 

soil unit is identified in the “Hillsborough County, Florida Soil Survey” as map unit (5) and was

previously described under Alignment B.

Alignment D1 (Corridor D) 

Alignment D1 contains five map soil units that have been identified as problem soils. They are

described as follows: 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-49

• Eaton mucky fine sand, depressional is identified in the “Polk County, Florida Soil Survey”

as map unit (6). This soil is very poorly drained and is found in wet depressions on the

flatwoods. This soil consists of a top layer of muck, approximately 6 in. thick, underlain by

soils transitioning from slightly silty sands to sandy clays. Areas consisting of this soil may

experience ponding for six months or more during most years. 

• Samsula muck is identified in the “Polk County, Florida Soil Survey” and the “Osceola

County, Florida Soil Survey” as map units (13) and (40), respectively. This soil is very

poorly drained and is encountered in swamps and marshes. This soil consists of muck to

about 31 in. underlain by strata of silty sands and sands. Development within this map unit is 

limited, according to the Soil Survey, due to excessive ponding and organics. 

• Kaliga muck is identified by the “Polk County, Florida Soil Survey” as map unit (32). This

soil is very poorly drained and is encountered in swamps and marshes. This soil consists of a

top layer, approximately 30 in. thick, of muck. Underlying the muck are silty sands, sandy

silts, and clayey sands. During most years, these soils experience ponding for very long

periods. 

• Hontoon muck is identified by the “Polk County, Florida Soil Survey” and the “Osceola

County, Florida Soil Survey” as map units (35) and (15), respectively. This soil is poorly

drained and is encountered in swamps and marshes. This soil consists of muck to 75 in.

below grade. The underlying soils beneath this top layer of muck are identified as variable. 

The soil survey states development within this map unit is limited due to ponding and low 

soil strength. 

• Udorthents, excavated is identified by the “Polk County, Florida Soil Survey” as map unit 

(58). This map unit consists of excavated areas, locally called “Borrow Pits.” The excavated 

soil and geologic material have been removed for use as fill or as base for roads. Included in 

mapping are areas of spoil around the edge of the pits. The spoil is mostly sand or clay. 

Alignments E1 and E2 (Corridor E) 

Alignment E1 contains four map soil units that have been identified as problem soils. They are

described as follows: 

• Basinger fine sand, depressional is identified in the “Orange County, Florida Soil Survey” as 

map unit (3). This soil is very poorly drained and is found in shallow depressions and 

sloughs and along the edges of freshwater marshes and swamps. This soil consists of a

surface layer of black fine sand about 7 in. thick, underlain by soils transitioning from gray

fine sand to pale brown fine sand. Areas consisting of this soil may experience ponding for 

six months or more during most years. 

• Samsula muck is identified in the “Orange County, Florida Soil Survey” as map unit (40).

This soil is very poorly drained and is found in freshwater marshes and swamps. This soil

consists of a surface layer of black muck about 8 in. thick, underlain by soils transitioning 

from brown muck to gray fine sand. Areas consisting of this soil may experience ponding

for six months or more during most years. 

• Samsula, Hontoon, Basinger association, depressional is identified in the “Orange County,

Florida Soil Survey” as map unit (41). This soil is very poorly drained and is found in

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-50

shallow depressions and sloughs and along the exterior and interior areas of freshwater

marshes and swamps. Undrained areas where these soils are found are frequently ponded for 

long periods. The organic soils can be encountered as deep as 80 in. below existing grades. 

• Sanibel muck is identified in the “Orange County, Florida Soil Survey” as map unit (42). 

This soil is very poorly drained and is found in depressions, freshwater marshes and swamps, 

and poorly defined drainageways. This soil consists of a surface layer of black muck about

11 in. thick, underlain by soils transitioning from black fine sand to gray fine sand. Areas 

consisting of this soil may experience ponding for six months or more during most years. 

Alignment E2 contains three map soil units that have been identified as problem soils. These 

map soil units are identified in the “Orange County, Florida Soil Survey” as map units (3), (41),

and (42) and were described previously. 

Subsurface Exploration 

Subsurface exploration was performed to obtain preliminary subsurface data in areas without 

sufficient current geotechnical information. The exploration was done to identify areas of

potential problems for further site specific testing during the final design phase. Borings,

samples, and tests have been completed in accordance with the FDOT Soils and Foundation 

Handbook (2000). 

Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings, power auger borings, and manual muck probes were

performed along Corridors A through E, in areas where the proposed FHSR is anticipated to be

constructed either on embankments or upon structures above existing grades. The test areas 

generally consist of many potential successive street and/or rail crossings, and the SPT borings

were performed at locations without sufficient existing geotechnical data. Two borings were

drilled from a barge in the Six Mile Creek By-Pass Canal within Alignment B2. In general, the 

soil borings performed along the retained alignments encountered various soil types. The 

description of the soil types and their corresponding classification are summarized in Table 3-23. 

The approximate boring locations are shown in the Report of Geotechnical Data Collection13 and 

the Preliminary Geotechnical Report

14 that were prepared as part of this Study. 

Table 3-23 

Soils Encountered in SPT and Power Auger Borings 

Soil Description Unified Soil Classification

Clean to Slightly Silty Fine Sand SP/SP-SM 

Slightly Clayey to Clayey Sand SP-SC/SC 

Organic Sand to Organic Silt, Clay PT

Sandy Clay to Clay and Calcareous Sandy Muck Clay to Clay CL/CH 

Weathered Limestone with Calcareous Clay WL

Slightly Silty to Silty Sand SP-SM/SM 

Chert --- 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-51

3.7.8 Contamination

A Contamination Screening Evaluation was completed for each corridor to help identify any

known or potential, hazardous material or petroleum contamination sites. Contaminated sites

present potential production delays, as well as cost for required remedial actions when

contamination is discovered. If the discovery is made early enough, there may be the possibility

of avoiding the problem entirely. If avoidance is not possible, early discovery would allow 

proper handling in a logical, timely manner. For the purpose of this study, potential 

contamination sites are separated into two categories: hazardous materials sites and petroleum

sites. Table 3-24 lists the number, ranking, and type of sites by corridor. 

All sites were evaluated to determine risk potential. Risk ratings were assigned to each site 

based upon field reviews, land use, historical tenancy evaluations, and regulatory agency

research. Risk ratings range from No to High risk and are described as follows: 

• No – After a review of all available information, there is nothing to indicate

contamination would be a problem. 

• Low – The former or current operation has a hazardous waste generator identification

number, or deals with hazardous materials; however, based on all available information, 

there is no reason to believe there would be any involvement with contamination. 

• Medium – After a review of all available information, indications are found that identify

known soil and/or water contamination and that the problem does not need remediation, 

is being remediated, or that continued monitoring is required. 

• High – After a review of all available information, contamination is documented, and 

would require remediation to avoid impacts to the corridor. 

Two separate CSERs were prepared for this study. The first addresses the area from downtown

Tampa to Lakeland, while the second evaluates the area from Lakeland to Orlando International

Airport. The potentially contaminated sites were identified based on regulatory records review,

literature review, aerial photography review, and project reconnaissance within 300 ft. of the

proposed ROW. The potentially contaminated facilities within the study corridor are discussed in 

detail and figures depicting the location of the facilities and tables providing the names and other

relative information regarding these facilities are also contained in the CSERs. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-52

Table 3-24 

Ranked Potential Contamination Sites By Corridor

Corridor Total 

Sites

Ranked

High

Ranked

Medium

Ranked

Low

Ranked

No.

Hazardous

Materials Petroleum Both

A 148 94 20 32 2 39 71 38

B 52 24 5 18 5 17 22 13

C 20 5 3 10 2 4 14 2

D 36 6 3 27 0 8 11 17

E 51 10 0 41 0 8 17 26

3.8 NATURAL RESOURCES

3.8.1 Natural Communities

Existing upland and wetland vegetative communities within Corridors A through E were

identified through literature reviews, existing maps, and photo-interpretations. Each community

was classified using the FDOT Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System15

(FLUCCS). Wetlands communities and their classifications are discussed in Section 3.8.2, this 

section will focus on the upland communities identified. 

The following published information was also collected and analyzed for uplands:

• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS, Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, and Orange 

County Soil Surveys 

• USGS, Topographic Quadrangle maps, 7.5-minute series 

• Aerial Photographs of the Project Area 

• WMD Land Use Mapping

Twenty-three upland communities, primarily natural, are located within the project study area.

Many upland community types, especially those minimally altered by land use changes or 

natural fire suppression, support protected wildlife and plant species. Table 3-25 presents the list

of upland communities recorded within the FHSR corridors. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-53

Table 3-25 

Existing Natural Communities within the FHSR Study

Area 

FLUCCS Code Description 

200 

210 

212 

214 

220 

221 

240 

260 

Agriculture 

Cropland and Pasture

Unimproved Pasture

Row Crops

Tree Crops

Citrus Groves

Nurseries and Vineyards

Other Open Rural Lands

300 

310 

320 

321 

329 

Rangeland 

Herbaceous

Shrub And Brush 

Palmetto Prairie

Other Shrubs And Brush 

400 

410 

411 

413 

414 

419 

420 

421 

430 

434 

436 

440 

441 

Upland Forests 

Upland Coniferous Forests

Pine Flatwoods

Sand Pine

Pine And Mesic Oak

Other Pines

Upland Hardwood Forests

Xeric Oak

Other Upland Hardwood Forests 

Hardwood – Coniferous Mixed 

Upland Scrub, Pine And Hardwoods

Tree Plantations

Coniferous Plant 

Agriculture 

Although altered by human activity, some agricultural lands (FLUCCS 200) provide suitable 

habitat for many protected wildlife species, but few protected plant species. In particular,

pasturelands offer the most valuable habitat of all the agricultural lands. This land use/habitat 

type is located in Corridors A through E, especially concentrated in Alignments C1 and D1. 

Rangelands 

Rangelands (300) are native habitats that lack tree cover. These habitats can either support a 

groundcover mostly of grasses and forbs or saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) and shrubs may

dominate. Some protected wildlife species (e.g., sandhill cranes and burrowing owls) depend on

the native habitats in rangeland. Rangeland habitats are located exclusively in Alignments D1, 

E1, and E2. 

Forested Uplands 

 

Forested uplands (400) are represented by twelve distinct FLUCCS codes in the study area. 

However, the majority of upland forest types within the study area are Pine Flatwoods (411) and

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-54

Hardwood – Coniferous Mixed (434). One small, forested upland area occurs in Corridor A,

where land use is mostly urbanized. In Corridors B through E, where land use is predominantly

rural, forested uplands are located throughout. 

3.8.2 Wetlands 

In order to determine the approximate locations and boundaries of existing wetland communities

within the FHSR project study area, available site-specific data was collected and reviewed. The 

following information was collected and analyzed:

• USDA, NRCS, Hillsborough County Soil Survey 1990 

• USDA, NRCS, Polk County Soil Survey 1990 

• USDA, NRCS, Osceola County Soil Survey 1990

• USDA, NRCS, Orange County Soil Survey 1990 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Maps 

• USGS, Topographic Quadrangle maps, 7.5 minute series 

• WMD Land Use Mapping 

• USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, 1979 

• FLUCCS 

• Aerial Photographs of the project area at 1”= 400’ scale 

A total of 1,760 surface water and wetland systems have been identified within the study area or 

adjacent to the existing ROW and represent 34 individual FLUCCS categories falling within ten

broad community types and total approximately 2,401 ac. (Table 3-26). These systems include 

emergent, scrub shrub, forested, and open water habitats that have become fragmented and

encroached upon by urban, agricultural, and transportation-related activities. These systems

include mainly riverine, palustrine, and some lacustrine systems. The project corridor crosses

the Hillsborough River in Tampa and the Green Swamp, which is located primarily in Polk

County. The composition of broad community types within the FHSR corridor are described in

the table.

Table 3-26

FLUCCS Categories and Corresponding USFWS Code for Wetlands Identified in the FHSR Study 

Area 

FLUCFCS1 Description USFWS Code2 Description 

500 Water (used for stormwater ponds) L1OW Lacustrine, Limnetic, Open Water

510 Streams and Waterways R2OWHx Riverine, Lower Perennial, Open Water, 

Permanently Flooded 

520 Lakes L1OWH Lacustrine, Limnetic, Open Water, Permanent

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
Table 3-26 (cont.)

FLUCCS Categories and Corresponding USFWS Code for Wetlands Identified in the FHSR Study 

Area 

 

 3-55

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

FLUCFCS1 Description USFWS Code2 Description 

523 Lakes larger than 10 ac. 

530 Reservoirs 

Lacustrine, Limnetic, Open Water, 

Permanently Flooded 

540 Bays and Estuaries M2US Marine, Intertidal, Unconsolidated Shore 

600 Wetlands 

610 Wetland Hardwood Forests 

611 Bay Swamps 

615 Streams and Lake Swamps 

617 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 

618 Willow and Elderberry 

619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 

PFO1C Palustrine, Forested, Broad-Leaved 

Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded 

620 Wetland Coniferous Forests 

621 Cypress 

622 Pond Pine 

627 Slash Pine Swamp Forest 

630 Wetland Forested Mixed 

631 Wetland Shrub 

PFOxx Palustrine, Forested (needle-leaved, broad 

leaved), (seasonally, temporarily flooded) 

640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands 

641 Freshwater marsh 

643 Wet Prairie 

PEMxx Palustrine, Emergent 

644 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation L1AB Lacustrine, Limnetic, Aquatic Bed 

653 Intermittent Pond L1OWJ Lacustrine, Limnetic, Open Water, 

Intermittently Flooded 

621/640 Cypress/ Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands PFOxx; PEMxx Palustrine, Forested (needle-leaved, broad 

leaved), Palustrine, Emergent 

621/641 Cypress/Freshwater Marsh PFOxx/ 

PEMxx 

Palustrine, Forested (needle-leaved, broad 

leaved), (seasonally, temporarily flooded); 

Palustrine, Emergent 

510/630 Stream & Waterway/Wetland Forested Mixed R2OWHx/ 

PFOxx 

Riverine, Open Water, Permanently Flooded;

Palustrine, Forested (needle-leaved, broad 

leaved), (seasonally, temporarily flooded) 

510/631 Stream & Waterway/Wetland Shrub R2OWHx/ 

PFOxx 

Riverine, Open Water, Permanently Flooded;

Palustrine, Forested (needle-leaved, broad 

leaved), (seasonally, temporarily flooded) 

641/643 Freshwater Marsh/Wet Prairies PEMxx Palustrine, Emergent 

510/641 Streams & Waterways/Freshwater Marsh R2OWHx/ 

PEMxx 

Riverine, Open Water, Permanently Flooded;

Palustrine, Emergent 
Table 3-26 (cont.)

FLUCCS Categories and Corresponding USFWS Code for Wetlands Identified in the FHSR Study 

Area 

 

3-56

FLUCFCS1 Description USFWS Code2 Description 

510/621 Streams & Waterways /Cypress R2OWHx/ 

PFOxx;

Riverine, Open Water, Permanently Flooded,

Palustrine, Forested (needle-leaved, broad

leaved) 

610/510 Wetland Hardwood Forests/Streams &

Waterways

PFOxx/

R2OWHx 

Palustrine, Forested (needle-leaved, broad

leaved), (seasonally, temporarily flooded); 

Riverine, Open Water, Permanently Flooded 

640/510 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands/Streams &

Waterways

PEMxx/

R2OWHx 

Palustrine, Emergent; 

Riverine, Open Water, Permanently Flooded 

Notes: 

1. FLUCCS =Based on Florida Land Use Cover Forms Classification System, third ed. 1999.

2. USFWS = Based on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, 1979. 

The 500 series represents approximately 28.7 percent, or 695.59 ac., of the wetland systems 

within the project corridor. This category also includes stormwater management facilities

(retention/detention ponds), which account for 636 ac. of the total 1,760 ac. of wetlands

(36.0 percent of total). 

The 610 series represents approximately 11.0 percent or 264.60 ac. within the project corridor. 

Of the 1,760 wetlands identified in the study area, 136 are freshwater wetland hardwood forests. 

Within the 620 series, a total of 236 coniferous forested wetlands were identified totaling

approximately 715.09 ac. in coverage. Coniferous forested wetland communities represent

29.7 percent of the total wetlands. Cypress (621) comprises 26.0 percent of that total. 

The 630 series comprises a total of 259 separate mixed forested wetlands, totaling approximately

367.83 ac. in coverage. This category represents 15.3 percent of the total wetlands. 

The 640 series has a total of 492 non-forested freshwater wetlands in the project corridor totaling

approximately 339.49 ac. The area comprised by these non-forested wetland communities

within the project corridor is approximately 14.7 percent. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-57

Series 650, specifically 653, has a total acreage of 4.55. The intermittent pond is located in

Alignment C1. 

Table 3-27 provides the wetland acreages per FLUCCS code and corridor.

3.8.3 Wildlife and Habitat

A determination of all potential protected species occurring within the study area was 

accomplished by evaluating the most recent data available from the Florida Natural Areas 

Inventory and databases provided by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

(FFWCC). Those databases identify known occurrences of protected and rare species by county.

These data were evaluated in conjunction with considerations for the FHSR Corridors

A through E physical location and the habitat requirements of protected species within each

county. Preliminary field reviews were conducted in February and March 2003 to identify those 

species occurring or potentially occurring within Corridors A through E. 

During the field evaluations, a total of five state protected (only) and one federally protected

wildlife species were observed. These include the American alligator, gopher tortoise, Florida

pine snake, Southeastern American kestrel, Florida sandhill crane, and the Florida mouse. One

federally protected plant species was observed, Lewton’s milkwort. 

In addition to those species observed during the field evaluations, there is a potential for four

state protected (only) and five federally protected species to be present within the project study

area (all corridors). These include the Eastern indigo snake, gopher frog, Florida panther,

Sherman’s fox squirrel, Florida manatee, Florida black bear, Florida burrowing owl, bald eagle, 

and wood stork. 

Table 3-27 

Wetland Acreage by FLUCCS Category and Corridor Alignments

FLUCCS Code Acreage by Corridor Alignments

Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D Corridor E 

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 D1 E1 E2

500 17.06 0.53 31.72 70.22 208.59 132.69

510 0.08 11.0 11.07 3.03 1.99 36.07 23.72

510-621 24.25

510-641 2.14 0.24

510-630 3.99

510-631 1.03

520 2.19 38.76 10.96

523 17.12

530 0.31 9.99 1.69 16.73 2.19 15.05

540 1.19

600 102.23 3.25

610 0.55 4.08 24.4 25.24 22.37

611 3.59

615 4.99 2.92 6.4 21.02

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 3-27 (cont.) 

Wetland Acreage by FLUCCS Category and Corridor Alignments

 

3-58

FLUCCS Code Acreage by Corridor Alignments

Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D Corridor E 

A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 D1 E1 E2

617 9.83 3.46 17.29 2.10

618 2.86 0.91 0.01 6.59

619 0.51

620 4.55 0.28 3.4 62.31

621 4.44 0.65 356.32 137.01 103.81

621/510 26.20

621/640 4.53 2.38

621-641 5.30

622 3.63

627 0.29

630 1.88 11.38 10.25 13.29 195.17 46.67 35.32

631 1.36 45.62 0.91

640 2.43 1.12 0.39 8.49 0.96

640/510 0.46

641 0.08 0.22 17.39 96.97 161.12 2.71 2.39

641(osw) 0.10 1.52

643 1.4 1.31

641/643 0.01

643 1.13 16.97

644 1.72 0.11

653 4.55

TOTAL ACREAGE 4.78 3.60 144.28 52.47 226.65 983.82 640.71 344.70

During other studies conducted for the FDOT, the federally protected sand skink and Florida 

scrub jay were found to be located within the FHSR study area. In addition, one federally

protected plant species was documented, the scrub plum. 

Protected Species Within Project Corridors 

Corridor A -- Within Corridor A, the most urbanized of all the project’s corridors, no protected

species or suitable habitat occurs. 

Corridor B -- This corridor transitions from the highly urban areas in the Tampa vicinity, to less 

urban areas of central Hillsborough County. Here, wildlife habitat is extremely limited, but 

some areas provide habitat for protected species. Gopher tortoise habitat occurs in one area

along Alignment B2, while Florida sandhill crane habitat occurs along Alignment B1. However,

no direct evidence or observations of either species were recorded. Also, a Florida panther was

killed on I-4 in Alignment B1 on March 10, 2003, in a highly developed area that does not

provide suitable habitat. Neither the USFWS nor FFWCC identifies Hillsborough County as 

providing suitable habitat for the panther. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-59

 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Corridor C -- Corridor C traverses eastern Hillsborough County, where the land use is much 

more rural than Corridors A and B. Both suitable habitat areas and observations of occurrence 

were recorded for the gopher tortoise, Southeastern American kestrel, and Florida sandhill crane. 

In addition, suitable habitat was located for the Sherman’s fox squirrel. 

Corridor D -- This corridor traverses most of the alignment through Polk County and a portion of 

the alignment through Osceola County. Much of this corridor, with the exception of the 

Lakeland area, is agricultural with many undeveloped natural communities, including the 

southern edge of the Green Swamp and Florida’s Central Ridge System. 

Both suitable habitat areas and observations of occurrence were documented for the gopher 

tortoise, sand skink, Florida pine snake, and Florida sandhill crane within this corridor. Under a 

separate study, the Florida scrub jay was documented, but no other suitable habitat area was 

located. Also under the study, the sand skink was observed (Polk County) and a suitable habitat 

area was located during the FHSR evaluations in Osceola County. Suitable habitat areas were 

also located for the following species: the Florida burrowing owl, Southeastern American kestrel, 

bald eagle, Florida mouse, and Sherman’s fox squirrel. A radio-collared Florida panther was 

tracked by the FFWCC, and in the spring of 2000, it crossed I-4 at least twice. Protected plant 

species observed from this corridor include the scrub plum and Lewton’s milkwort. 

Corridor E -- Although some natural communities still persist in this corridor, much of this 

corridor (both Alignments E1 and E2) has been developed, especially in the vicinity of the 

Orlando International Airport. Both suitable habitat areas and observations were documented for 

the American alligator, gopher tortoise, Florida sandhill crane, and Florida mouse 

(Alignment E1). Also, other suitable habitat areas were located in Alignment E2 for the Florida 

mouse. 

All Corridors -- Some protected wildlife species are noted for their ability to utilize altered 

habitats and/or a great diversity of natural habitats. Those species are typically transient in 

nature and, therefore, may occur along any corridor of this study. For this project, such species 

include the state and federally protected wood stork and Eastern indigo snake, and the state 

protected wading birds: snowy egret, tricolored heron, little blue heron, and white ibis. 

3.8.4 Farmlands 

Future adopted land use plans for the study area indicate that planned uses along Corridors A 

through E range from mixed use, commercial, industrial, and all densities of residential uses to 

rural/agricultural land uses. There are scattered areas of existing farmland throughout the 

project. Corridor A does not have any existing farmlands. Corridors B, C, and D have the 

majority of existing farmlands throughout the study area. Within Corridors B and C, in the 

Hillsborough County area, farmlands extend from east of 50th Street to just west of County Line 

Road and from north of I-4 to south of the CSX corridor. They are concentrated in an area just 

west of Kingsway Road eastward to just west of Thonotosassa Road. These farmlands consist of 

mostly citrus groves with limited farmlands of small crops. Within Corridor D, farmlands are 

located east of the Polk County line to east of the Osceola County line and from north of I-4 to 
 

3-60

the CSX corridor, just east of the Haines City area. They are concentrated in the area from east

of Mount Olive Road to west of Greenpond Road both north and south of I-4. The farmlands in 

this area consist of mostly citrus groves with limited farmlands of small crops. Corridor E has

very limited existing farmlands that are located north of I-4 in the vicinity of Sand Lake Road

and are small crops. 

Based on the 2000 edition of the Florida Statistical Abstract16, citrus acreage by county is as

follows: 

• Hillsborough County – 27,328 ac. 

• Polk County – 101,482 ac. 

• Osceola County – 15,480 ac. 

• Orange County – 9,155 ac. 

3.9 TRANSPORTATION 

3.9.1 Existing Railroad Conditions/Operations

Existing Passenger Train/Bus Service 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) does not provide passenger rail service 

between Tampa and Orlando, but it does provide bus service between the two cities. Bus

transportation is available via Martz Tampa Bay bus lines. This route runs twice daily from 

Tampa (Corridor A) with one stop in the City of Lakeland (Corridor D) before reaching Orlando

(Corridor E). It takes about 2 hours and 50 minutes one-way and the round trip fare for one adult 

passenger is $54.00. Amtrak, by way of Martz Tampa Bay, offers bus service from Lakeland to 

Orlando that runs daily and the round trip cost is $36.00 for one adult passenger. 

Within the Orlando area (Corridor E), there are two passenger train services available, Sunset 

Limited and Silver Service/Palmetto. Sunset Limited provides passenger train service to a

number of destinations, including Winter Park, Sanford, DeLand, Palatka, Jacksonville, Lake

City, Madison, Tallahassee, Chipley, and Pensacola. Fares vary from $9.50 to $76.00,

depending on the destination. From Pensacola, the Sunset Limited provides passenger service to

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. All destinations

are served three times a week. Silver Service/Palmetto provides service to Miami with possible

stops along the way in Kissimmee, Winter Haven, Sebring, Okeechobee, West Palm Beach, 

Delray Beach, Deerfield Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, and Hollywood. At its destination in Miami,

Amtrak, by way of Martz Tampa Bay, offers extended service via bus to the Miami International 

Airport. This trip takes approximately 5 hours and 35 minutes, runs daily, and the one-way cost

for one adult passenger to the Miami station is $53.00. 

There is no direct service from Tampa to Miami. The traveler must first take Martz Tampa Bay

bus service to Orlando and then take the Silver Service/Palmetto train to Miami. The trip takes 

9 hours and 15 minutes, and the cost is $71.00. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-61

Existing Freight Rail Service 

CSX provides freight rail services over the largest rail network in the eastern United States and

provides rail transportation to over 23,000 route miles in 23 states. In Florida, CSX owns 1,619 

route miles and owns 56 percent of the state’s railway system. The main CSX freight line in 

central Florida begins in the Uceta Yard in Tampa (Corridor A), continues east through Plant 

City (Corridor C), Lakeland (Corridor D), Auburndale (Corridor D), and Orlando (Corridor E), 

and then runs north to Sanford, and finally to Jacksonville. The primary freight is food, lumber, 

wood, chemicals, and minerals. Nighttime operations in the Uceta Yards (Corridor A) involve 

trains carrying phosphates. From the Uceta Yard, trains can go east through Brandon paralleling 

S.R. 60. In Brandon, the line forks and the main line continues on to Plant City, while the other

line travels southeast into Polk County. Another mainline, out of the Uceta Yard, travels past the 

Amtrak passenger station in downtown Tampa and heads in the eastern direction along S.R. 574

and S.R. 600 into Polk County. The line out of the Uceta Yard that travels through downtown

Tampa in the middle of Polk Street travels through the CBD six times a day.

3.9.2 Existing Highway Conditions/Operations

The existing highway conditions evaluated include roadway characteristics and operations

primarily for the interstate system. Existing conditions were obtained from the FDOT, the

Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority, the Orlando-Orange County Expressway

Authority, and other local agencies. The traffic count data available was for the year 2001 and

was used for existing conditions. The level of service (LOS) was determined from the FDOT 

Generalized Tables. Table 3-28 provides a summary of existing roadway characteristics by

corridor. 

Overall Operations 

Throughout the project area, I-4 is generally operating at a deficient LOS. The deficiency results 

from the increase in vehicle traffic associated with land development, population growth,

tourism, and the lack of funds for corresponding roadway expansion. Generally, the local

roadway system and toll roads have been expanded to meet the traffic demand. Specific

conditions for each corridor are summarized in the following paragraphs. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-62

Table 3-28 

2001 Roadway Network LOS by Corridor

Corridor Road Name Number of Lanes Road Type AADT LOS

A I-275 6 Interstate 161,000 F

I-4 4 Interstate 132,000 F

Nuccio Pkwy 2 Collector 4,000 A

Adamo Drive 4 Arterial 27,000 B

Lee Roy Selmon 4 Expressway 51,000 C

B I-4 (East of I-75) 6 Interstate 95,000 D

I-4 (West of I-75) 6 Interstate 109,000 E

I-75 6 Interstate 86,000 D

Broadway Avenue 2 Collector 9,000 C

C I-4 (West of Plant City) 6 Interstate 93,000 D

I-4 (East of Plant City) 6 Interstate 87,000 D

D I-4 (West of Lakeland) 6 Interstate 69,000 E

I-4 (East of Lakeland) 4 Interstate 62,000 D

I-4 (East of U.S. 27) 4 Interstate 82,000 F

I-4 (Osceola County) 4 Interstate 63,000 E

E I-4 (NE of U.S. 192) 6 Interstate 117,000 E

I-4 (SW of Bee Line 6 Interstate 143,000 F

S.R. 536 6 Arterial 26,000 B

S.R. 417 4 Expressway 25,000 B

Bee Line Expressway 4 Expressway 63,000 D

Taft/Vineland Road 2 Collector 24,000 F

Boggy Creek Road 2 Collector 9,700 D

Corridor A 

Beginning east of Hillsborough River in downtown Tampa and moving eastward to U.S. 41, 

Corridor A has several major roadways. These include I-275, I-4, and the roadway network

within the Tampa CBD. I-275 is a 6-lane urban interstate in the vicinity of the FHSR corridor. I275 provides mobility to the various business districts in Hillsborough County and adjacent

Pinellas County. It is a major east-west interstate, linking Tampa International Airport and the 

Tampa CBD. It also extends north from the CBD to northern Hillsborough County, a rapidly

developing area. I-4 is a major east-west interstate linking the CBD with I-75 in eastern 

Hillsborough County. The roadway network in the CBD consists of 3-lane and 4-lane, one-way

minor arterials and collectors. The AADT is low and the LOS is acceptable. Nuccio Parkway

connects the CBD with Ybor City, one of Tampa’s historical districts. Adamo Drive is an eastwest arterial that runs from downtown Tampa through eastern Hillsborough County. The Lee

Roy Selmon Expressway provides a connection between the CBD and unincorporated east 

Tampa. The segments of I-275 and I-4 in Tampa are deficient, as the existing traffic has 

exceeded the capacity of these facilities. The operation of Nuccio Parkway, Adamo Drive, and 

the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway is acceptable. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-63

Corridor B 

Continuing eastward from U.S. 41 to east of I-75, the existing roadway network in Corridor B

includes I-4, I-75, and Broadway Avenue. The segment of I-4 within Corridor B is a 6-lane

urban interstate. In Corridor B, the LOS of I-4 east of I-75 is marginally deficient. 

Corridor C 

Continuing eastward from east of I-75 to the western connection of the Polk Parkway, Corridor 

C follows the I-4 corridor. It serves eastern Hillsborough County, a rural agricultural area. I-4 is 

a 6-lane rural interstate, except through Plant City where it is an urban interstate. There were no 

existing deficiencies in Corridor C due to the recent 6-lane widening of I-4 in eastern

Hillsborough County. The LOS should substantially improve subsequent to the construction. 

Corridor D 

Continuing from the western connection of the Polk Parkway east to Celebration, Corridor D

follows the I-4 corridor. It serves Polk and Osceola counties and its various communities

(i.e., Lakeland, Polk City, Auburndale, and Kissimmee). In Corridor D, I-4 is marginally

deficient in the Lakeland urban area and deficient east of U.S. 27 in eastern Polk County. I-4 is 

programmed for 6-laning throughout Corridor D, prior to the opening year 2008 for the FHSR

system.

Corridor E 

Continuing eastward from Celebration to the Orlando International Airport, the existing roadway

network within Corridor E includes I-4, State Road 536 (S.R. 536), Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417), Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528), Taft/Vineland Road, and Boggy Creek Road. In

Corridor E, I-4 is marginally deficient in Osceola County and Orange County north of U.S. 192 

and deficient southwest of the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528). Taft/Vineland Road is also 

deficient. The operation of S.R. 536, the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528), and Boggy Creek Road is acceptable. 

3.9.3 Existing Modes of Public Transportation

This section provides information on other modes of public transportation that will continue to

serve the community needs throughout the study corridors. The primary mode of public 

transportation is bus transit service. The bus routes described in this section are those near the

proposed FHSR station locations in Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, and Orange counties. 

Corridor A (From East of the Hillsborough River, City of Tampa to U.S. 41, 

Hillsborough County) 

Within Corridor A, the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HARTline) is the primary

mass transit provider of public transportation service and is available throughout Hillsborough

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
3-64

County. HARTline also offers two other types of public transportation, the Tampa Electric

Company’s (TECO) Line Streetcar and the proposed Tampa Light Rail, in which travel is 

centered on the main business routes within the City of Tampa. These three modes of travel are 

interconnected and can easily work with the schedule of FHSR and the proposed station location 

for downtown Tampa. These modes can provide easy and convenient extended services to

downtown Tampa and other points of interest.

HARTline operates 143 peak period buses serving 37 local routes and 12 express routes. Of 

these 49 bus routes, 31 operate near the proposed FHSR station in downtown Tampa. The buses

run seven days a week, starting as early as 4:30 AM and continuing as late as 10:30 PM,

depending on the route being serviced. 

Corridor A has one proposed FHSR station located south of I-275, just east of the Hillsborough

River. The Marion Transit Center (MTC) is the closest bus terminal near the proposed station 

and is an avenue for “buses only.” Soon both MTC terminals will be a stop for all buses in the

HARTline system. This “buses only” avenue runs south of I-275 through downtown Tampa

along Marion Street and ends at Whiting Street. MTC has two terminals: the Northern Terminal,

located at 1211 North Marion Street, and the Commuter Center, with listings of bus routes, 

showers, lockers, customer service, and ticket sales, located further south. Because MTC is

across the street from the proposed FHSR station, it would allow passengers to use HARTline’s

public transit service throughout the county. 

The TECO Line streetcar is operated and maintained by HARTline and is currently running in its 

first phase of development. The 2.3-mi. section connecting downtown Tampa, Ybor City, and

Channelside currently provides ten station stops with service every 15 – 20 minutes. Planned

phases of construction will soon extend services north on Franklin Street to Whiting Street and 

the Fort Brooke garage. The streetcar, which runs seven days a week with extended hours on the 

weekend, is projected to connect more than 35,000 people to the downtown area. HARTline has

committed to locating a northern expansion route to abut the FHSR station. 

The proposed Tampa Light Rail system is scheduled to begin operation in approximately five

years and will connect downtown Tampa to major parts of the city including the USF, area

hospitals, South Tampa, the West Shore business district, and later to Tampa International 

Airport. The light rail system will have a total of 26 stations throughout the city, with three in

close proximity to the MTC and the proposed FHSR station in downtown Tampa. The Tampa

Light R ail route and stations along with the TECO Streetcar route are shown together in Figure

3-24 and Figure 3-25. 

Corridor B (U.S. 41 in Tampa to East of I-75, Hillsborough County) 

 

Within Corridor B, HARTline is the primary mass transit provider of public transportation 

service. In Corridor B, the transfer center for buses in the HARTline system is located in

Netpark on the corner of Hillsborough Avenue and 56th Street. There are six bus routes: 15, 32,

34, 37, 39, and 41 that utilize this transfer center, with each serving different areas of

Hillsborough County. Serviceable areas are as far north as Busch Boulevard, south to Brandon, 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-65

west to Town N’ Country, and one route stopping at HCC, Tampa Campus. Local route number

32 provides limited service to the area east of Hillsborough Avenue and west of I-75. 

Corridor C (East of I-75, Hillsborough County to the West Entry of Polk Parkway,

Polk County) 

Within Corridor C, the HARTline is the primary mass transit provider of public transportation 

service with one express route, 28X, the Plant City/Seffner/Dover Express, and four local routes.

Going eastbound, the route starts at the MTC center in downtown Tampa and travels on I-4,

exiting south at County Road 579. This route utilizes the major roads of Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Boulevard, Branch Forbes Road, and Highway 92 until reaching Plant City. The four local 

routes, 70, 71, 72, and 73 known collectively as the Strawberry Connection, provide bus services 

to areas of downtown Plant City. 

Corridor D (West Entry of Polk Parkway, Polk County to Celebration Area, 

Osceola County) 

In Corridor D, in Polk County, transit services include the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District

(LAMTD), which operates the Citrus Connection, Handy Bus, Van Pool, and the Citrus Trolley

to serve the business district. LAMTD provides service to 15 routes and operates 31 buses,

13 mini-buses, and seven vans. Also, in Polk County there is the Winter Haven Area Transit 

(WHAT) and the Intercity Bus Service. The WHAT serves residents of Winter Haven and

operates three buses on four routes. The Intercity Bus Service provides connections to LAMTD

and WHAT for residents of small urban areas. LAMTD and WHAT center their services in the

areas of Lakeland and Winter Haven, with extended service to Bartow and Auburndale. 

Polk County has two proposed FHSR station locations, one at Kathleen Road and the other at 

Polk Parkway, both north of I-4. Although there is no bus service to the Polk Parkway site, there

is one bus terminal, through the LAMTD with the Citrus Connection that is near the proposed 

FHSR Kathleen Road station site. This bus terminal is at Kathleen Road and 10th Street, just

south of I-4. It is also an Amtrak Train Terminal and a Greyhound bus terminal. Amtrak, by

way of Martz Tampa Bay, continues its bus service onward to Orlando and to Tampa. LAMTD 

route number 50 makes a stop at the terminal and also serves the Coleman Busch Building,

Lakeland Square Mall, and Market Square Shopping Center. 

Corridor E (Celebration Area, Osceola County to Orlando International Airport, 

Orange County) 

Within Osceola County, the proposed FHSR station location, known as the Walt Disney World 

site, would either be located in the median or the north side of I-4, between Osceola Parkway and

U.S. 192. The Lynx bus system provides public transportation to this area of Osceola County.

Lynx is the bus system serving the tri-county area of Orange, Seminole, and Osceola counties. 

The Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority runs Lynx, and they operate 231 buses 

around 61 routes. Currently, there are seven Lynx bus routes that serve Osceola County. These

routes: 50, 56, 300, 301, 302, 303, and 304 travel on I-4 to the westside transfer center in

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-66

downtown Disney. The bus routes make stops to a number of Walt Disney theme parks and also

provide service to areas in other parts of Orange and Osceola counties including Celebration, 

downtown Orlando, International Drive, and Sea World. 

Along with the 61 routes that the Lynx bus system services in Orange County, there is a

circulator specifically for the downtown area, Lymmo, which is free of charge and runs

approximately every five minutes during office hours. There is a van pool service for

commuters; A+ Link, which offers door-to-door service for people who are medically or

physically qualified; and community shuttles. 

Orange County has two proposed FHSR station locations: OCCC and the Orlando International 

Airport. Since Lynx has many transit services in place serving different parts of the more than

2,100 sq. mi. in the tri-county area of Osceola, Orange, and Seminole counties, a FHSR station at 

any of the proposed locations would allow easy transfer between the high speed rail and the local

transit service.

For the proposed station location at the OCCC, Lynx Routes 8, 38, and 42 are in the vicinity of

this high speed rail station. Route 8 starts its service at the downtown bus station near Church

Street. It continues southwest and makes various stops along the way at Orange Blossom Trail, 

Beltz Factory Outlet Mall, Wet N’ Wild, OCCC, and ultimately, International Drive. Route 38 

starts its bus schedule at the downtown bus station, and runs south on I-4 with stops also at the

OCCC and Wet N’ Wild. Route 42 begins its service at the Orlando Premium Outlets and 

continues north to the Osceola Parkway bus stop. It has nine stops along the way, some of which

are the OCCC, Wet N’ Wild, Beltz Factory Outlet Mall, and the last stop at the Orlando

International Airport. 

Along with Route 42, Routes 11, 41, and 51 also serve the Orlando International Airport. Route 

11 begins in downtown Orlando at the bus station and runs south on Orange Avenue with a total

of five stops, including Orlando Regional Lucerne and two hospitals. Route 41 runs along 

S.R. 436 with 11 stops serving Apopka, West Town Center, Altamonte Mall, Florida Hospital, 

Casselberry, and Florida Southern College. Route 51 consists of six stops along Conway Road. 

It begins in downtown Orlando and serves Reeves Terrace, Lake Como, Dover Shores, Lee Vista 

Center, and the Orlando International Airport. 

Modes of Private Travel 

In addition to the public transportation listed above, there are other modes of private travel such

as cruise lines, private bus service, and shuttle services that operate in Hillsborough, Polk, 

Osceola, and Orange counties. 

The Port of Tampa, which serves Corridor A within the Channelside District in downtown

Tampa, is home to a number of cruise lines. These include Carnival, Celebrity, Holland 

America, and Royal Caribbean cruise lines, which offer cruises to the Caribbean and Latin

America. There is also the Yucatan Express, which is a cruise ferry to Mexico where one can

board a car on the trip. Channelside offers a parking garage for those who drive to the port and 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 3-67

for those who fly into Tampa International Airport. There are numerous shuttles and taxis that

can transport travelers to their destination. 

Greyhound bus line, which serves Corridors A through E, offers service between Tampa and 

Orlando and visits numerous cities within Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, and Orange counties. 

They have a variety of schedules throughout the day, and trips occur on a daily basis. Bus stops 

include the cities of Plant City, Lakeland, Winter Haven, Lake Alfred, Haines City, Davenport,

Kissimmee, and finally Orlando. The cost of a one-way ticket is $17.25, and a round trip fare is

$32.25 for one adult passenger on all schedules. 

Air travel serves the areas within Corridors A through E (Tampa to Orlando) and currently

provides one round trip per day between Tampa and Orlando, departing Tampa in mid-morning

and returning in the early evening. Scheduled flight time between the two cities is about

45 minutes with additional time necessary for check-in and travel to and from the airport and the 

ultimate destination, making entire trip approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes. Round trip fares

range from $145 to $270. 

Walt Disney World provides shuttle service in Corridors D and E (Osceola and Orange counties)

for customers who fly into the Orlando International Airport. 

3.10 REFERENCES

1. 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan; Hillsborough County Metropolitan 

Planning Organization; Tampa, Florida; November 13, 2001. 

2. 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan; Polk County Transportation Planning 

Organization; Adopted December 7, 2000, Amended December 2002. 

3. 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan; METROPLAN Orlando; Orlando, Florida; 

Adopted December 1995, Refined December 2002. 

4. National Register of Historic Places; National Park Service; Washington, D.C.; 

2001. 

5. Cultural Resource Assessment Corridor Level Analysis Report; PBS&J; Tampa,

Florida; February 2003, Revised March 2003. 

6. Florida Master Site File; http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/msf/; Department of state, 

Division of Historic Resources; Tallahassee, Florida. 

7. Cultural Resources Technical Study, Florida High Speed Rail, Internal Working 

Draft; 

8.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

3-68

Air Quality Maintenance Plan (2005-2015) Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties; 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection; 2002. 

9. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 

Final Draft; Federal Railroad Administration; December 1998. 

10. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the Florida High Speed Rail Project; 

Harris, Miller, Miller and Hansen; Boston, Massachusetts; May 2003. 

11. Contamination Screening Evaluation Report, Florida High Speed Rail (U.S. 98) to 

Orlando International Airport; Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc.;

December 2002. 

12. Florida High Speed Rail Draft Contamination Screening & Evaluation Report, 

Downtown Tampa to Lakeland (U.S. Highway 98); Florida High Speed Rail

Authority; January 2003.

13. Report of Geotechnical Data Collection; Geotechnical and Environmental

Counsultants, Inc./Professional Service Industries, Inc.; Orlando/Tampa. 

14. Preliminary Geotechnical Report; Geotechnical and Environmental Counsultants, 

Inc./Professional Service Industries, Inc.; Orlando/Tampa. 

15. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System; Florida Department of 

Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida; 1999. 

16. Florida Statistical Abstract; University of Florida: Bureau of Economic and

Business Research, Warrington College of Business Administration; Gainesville, 

Florida; 2001. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
SECTION 4 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 COMMUNITY IMPACTS

4.1.1 Community Cohesion

In February 1994, the President of the United States issued Executive Order 12898

(Environmental Justice) requiring federal agencies to analyze and address, as appropriate,

disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of federal actions on 

ethnic and cultural minority populations and low-income populations. All proposed projects 

should include measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse

impacts and provide offsetting benefits and opportunities to enhance communities, 

neighborhoods, and individuals affected by these activities. 

Avoidance of impacts to low-income and minority populations was one of the initial study goals 

as the Florida High Speed Rail Authority (FHSRA) identified alternate alignments. The primary

focus was to locate alignments near or within previously disturbed areas, such as the

right-of-way (ROW) of limited access roadways and within existing railroad corridors, in order

to minimize impacts to all neighborhoods. In most areas, the land uses abutting the roadways are

commercial or rural non-residential uses. As detailed in Section 6, community outreach included 

two series of workshops and a series of public hearings to provide information and opportunity

for input from the communities. 

The following section addresses land use and population impacts for the No-Build Alternative

and the Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8. Figure 2-7 displays retained corridors and

alignments. The various combinations of alignments (routes) within the corridors results in the

eight alternatives displayed in Figure 2-8. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 contain Alignment A1. Alignment A1 abuts Interstate 275 (I-275) 

from its western terminus until it turns east at the I-275/Interstate 4 (I-4) interchange. It then 

runs just south of I-4 until it enters the I-4 median near 18th Street. Alignment A1 is located

within the proposed and existing ROW of the “Ultimate” Tampa Interstate (I-4). By locating 

Alignment A1 within the Tampa Interstate Study Record of Decision1

 ROW, it runs along I-4

and avoids impacts to historic Tampa Heights’ residences, the Central Park Village public 

housing, and the Ybor City Historic Landmark District. The Florida Department of

Transportation (FDOT) and the FHSRA have developed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

(Appendix B) allowing the Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) to be in this location until the I-4/I275 interchange is reconstructed. Alignment A1 would require the relocation of three residences 

located in two structures that directly abut I-4 in a low-income, minority neighborhood. Three 

businesses near I-275 would also require relocation. These three residences, as well as others 

nearby, were previously identified under the Tampa Interstate Study Environmental Impact

Statement2 as needing relocation for the Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) “Ultimate Design.” The 

 

4-1

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
FHSR project travels through Census tracts 51.01 and 38 (year 2000 census), which have a

median income as $12,772, and $11,217, respectively, and predominantly minority residents. 

Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 contain Alignment A2. Alignment A2 heads south and east from the 

terminus to the former CSX railroad line. The alignment bisects an area of vacant land, parking

lots, and small businesses. It requires the relocation of 15 businesses prior to reaching the former

CSX tracks. These businesses are west and south of the Central Park Village public housing.

The alignment was developed to avoid relocation of residences within the public housing

complex or direct impacts to Union Station. These impacts occur in a low-income, minority

area. Year 2000 census tract data indicates the median income ranging from $12,772 to $23,889,

respectively. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 contain Alignment B1. Alignment B1 is located within the median of

I-4. Land uses along I-4 are a mixture of commercial, industrial, and minimal residential. There

are no relocations in Alignment B1. 

Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 contain Alignment B2. Alignment B2 travels along the former CSX 

Line until it reaches the active CSX tracks and the Uceta Yards. It follows the active CSX Line

until near Interstate 75 (I-75), where it is located in the median of I-75. South of the I-75/I-4

interchanges, it turns east and merges into the I-4 median. Land uses along the former and

existing CSX tracks are primarily industrial with a scattering of residential uses. Land uses 

along I-75 are a mixture of vacant, commercial, and residential uses. There are no

concentrations of low-income or minority residents. No relocations are required within

Alignment B2. 

All alternatives contain Alignment C1. Alignment C1 is located in the median of I-4 as it travels 

through Plant City and eastern Hillsborough County. The land uses are agriculture and

commercial. There are no concentrations of low-income or minority residents. There are no 

relocations in Alignment C1. 

All alternatives contain Alignment D1. Alignment D1 is located in the median of I-4 as it travels

through Lakeland and Polk County. The land uses are agriculture and commercial. There are no 

concentrations of low-income or minority residents. There are no relocations in Alignment D1. 

 

4-2

Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7 contain Alignment E1. Alignment E1 is located in the median of I-4 

as it travels north. Land uses adjacent to the roadway are primarily commercial tourist services

and developments of middle- and high-income residential uses. As Alignment E1 turns east, it is

within the ROW of the Florida Turnpike’s Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528). Land uses are

primarily tourist commercial and retail. As Alignment E1 leaves the Bee Line Expressway

(S.R. 528) and joins the Taft/Vineland Road ROW, it is located south of the Taft neighborhood. 

The Design/Build Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7 separate the neighborhood from existing and future

industrial uses located within the Tradeport Industrial Park. Alignment E1 is located

approximately 60 feet (ft.) from the southern edge of the neighborhood. The Taft neighborhood 

is located in census tracts 168.03 and 168.04. Both tracts are primarily non-minority with

median incomes of $57,460 and $33,922, respectively. No relocations or other impacts result

from Alignment E1. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8 contain Alignment E2. Alignment E2 turns west from I-4 and

connects to the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). Design/Build Alternatives 2 and 4 are 

located within the median of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). Design/Build 

Alternatives 6 and 8 are located on the north side of the existing road within the ROW. There

are eight business relocations, all located in a strip commercial center. There are nine

neighborhoods that are a part of the Hunter’s Creek Community Association, which includes 

new, middle, and high-income residential subdivisions both north and south of the Central

Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). There are no residential relocations that result from Alignment 

E2. 

The FHSRA has developed this project in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and in accordance with Executive Order 12898. The

proposed project would not result in any disproportionate adverse impacts to any distinct 

minority, ethnic, elderly, or handicapped groups and/or low-income households. Alignment A1

is the only alignment that would result in the relocation of any (3) minority/low-income 

households; however, these were previously scheduled for relocation under the TIS

Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (FHWA-FL-EIS-95-03-F;

January 31, 1997). If a decision is made to proceed with the construction of FHSR, the

construction would likely occur prior to the acquisition of these units for the I-4 improvements. 

Based upon the fact that these relocations have been previously identified and coordinated and 

that there is suitable housing available for relocation within the neighborhood, the impacts 

resulting from the relocations to minority and low-income households are considered minimal. 

Both non-drivers and transit-dependent individuals would benefit from the project and its

increase of accessibility to current and future public transportation. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not bisect an area of the Tampa Central Business District

(CBD), nor require 15 business relocations, as would Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative (Design/Build Alternative 1) will result in the relocation of the three 

minority households; however, these were previously scheduled for relocation under the

TIS Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (FHWA-FL-EIS-95-03-F; 

January 31, 1997). If a decision is made to proceed with the construction of FHSR, the

construction would likely occur prior to the acquisition of these units for the I-4 improvements. 

Based upon the fact that these relocations have been previously identified and coordinated and 

that there is suitable housing available for relocation within the neighborhood, the impacts 

resulting from the relocations to minority and low-income households are considered minimal. 

Both non-drivers and transit-dependent individuals would benefit from the project and its

increase of accessibility to current and future public transportation. 

 

4-3

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
4.1.2 Community and Land Use Impacts

Land Use 

Existing and future land uses, along with adopted land use plans are presented in detail in

Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of this report. Section 3.4 indicates where updates are under way and where 

they are needed for the transportation elements of the adopted comprehensive plans. Most of the

proposed station locations are in areas already identified for special developments; therefore,

changes to future land uses would be minor and would be accomplished for all stations through 

minor zoning amendments or site plan approvals. Impacts to existing land uses for all the sites 

would range from none to minimal. Listed below are current zoning categories: 

• The Tampa CBD station site is zoned CBD-1. It likely allows all of the required station 

uses and contains design standards to create a visual appeal for new structures. No

zoning changes are anticipated. The land in the Tampa CBD, where the proposed FHSR 

station would be located, contains paved parking lots, the former Hillsborough County

Jail, and vacant land at this time; therefore, minimal land use impacts are anticipated.

Hillsborough County Jail has no equipment in the building and is looking for

redevelopment opportunities. There is an abundance of paved parking lots within the 

area and the CBD. Commercial redevelopment would likely occur as a result of the new

station in order to be consistent with local redevelopment goals. 

• The Polk Parkway station site is zoned Business Park Center-2. This zoning is for Light 

Manufacturing and Distribution, which limits commercial use and has suburban

intensities; therefore, a change in zoning may be required for this site. The site would be

located on and surrounded by vacant land. However, the site is located at the interchange

of two major roadways and commercial development is expected to occur. The station 

may accelerate growth in the area. 

• The proposed Kathleen Road station site is zoned as Planned Unit Development (PUD).

The PUD is a multi-use approval for multi-family, commercial, light industrial, and

office park uses. The site is vacant land and a station at the location would further

development and redevelopment goals for the area. 

• The proposed station site for the Disney station would fall within the Reedy Creek

Improvement District. The site is designated as Mixed Use. This designation likely

allows all the uses necessary for the station site. No zoning changes are anticipated. The 

proposed FHSR Disney station site is vacant at this time and meet the Improvement

District’s goals for future growth in the area. 

• The Orange County Convention Center (OCCC) station site is zoned as Planned 

Development. It has a Mixed Use designation, as it contains design criteria. No zoning

changes are anticipated. The site contains a paved parking lot and a building, both owned 

by Orange County. The site is identified by Orange County as the preferred inter-modal

station site. Current county uses would be moved to other facilities. 

 

4-4

• The Orlando International Airport station site is identified within the Airport Master Plan. 

No zoning changes are anticipated. This proposed station site and maintenance facilities 

sites would be located on vacant land. The Airport has identified the site as compatible

with existing plans and desirable in conjunction with a new terminal. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
No-Build Alternative 

There would be no transportation-related redevelopment within the Tampa CBD or land

development of the identified station sites under the No-Build Alternative.

Preferred Alternative 

The preferred station locations throughout the project corridor will not require zoning changes.

Minimal land use impacts are anticipated as a result of the Tampa CBD site and commercial

redevelopment would likely occur as a result of the new station in order to be consistent with

local redevelopment goals. 

Community Services

Several community service facilities are located within approximately a 1⁄4 mile (mi.) of either

side of the FHSR Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8. However, with the exception of Perry

Harvey Sr. Park (Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6), none of these facilities are directly

impacted by ROW acquisition or access relocation. Of the retained alignments, Alignment A1 

(Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6) with 14 facilities and Alignment C1 (all design/build

alternatives) with 15 facilities have the greatest number of community service facilities within a

1⁄4 of a mi. of the proposed ROW. The following text provides a discussion of the community

service facilities within a 1⁄4 mi. of the retained alignments for the design/build alternatives. 

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 

Along Alignment A1, the following 14 community services facilities lie adjacent to I-4: three

schools, including Hillsborough Community College in historic Ybor City and Stetson Law 

School complex; two community facilities, including a post office and the former Hillsborough

County Jail; three park and recreation areas, including Perry Harvey Sr. Park; one cemetery; and 

five churches. 

Near Alignment B1, there are four community service facilities: the Florida State Fairgrounds; 

the Seminole Indian Reservation; and two churches, New Mt. Silla Missionary Baptist Church

and Living Water Church. 

There are 15 community service facilities near Alignment C1: two schools, Armwood High

School and Gordon Burnett Middle School; three community facilities, including the

Hillsborough County Landfill, a wastewater treatment plant, and a Hillsborough County Fire 

Station; two parks and recreation facilities, Evan Neighborhood Park and Sansone Community

Park; three cemeteries; and five churches. 

Adjacent to Alignment D1, there are nine community service facilities: two schools, Winston

Elementary and Watson Elementary Schools; one community facility, Lakeland Municipal

Water Plant; one park and recreation area, the proposed Van Fleet Trail Extension; two

cemeteries, the New Home Cemetery and Oak Hill Cemetery; and three churches, Victory

Assembly of God, Oak Hill Baptist Church, and Lake Gibson Church of God. 

 

4-5

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
There are three community service facilities near Alignment E1: OCCC; a water treatment plant; 

and one park and recreation area, the Shingle Creek Greenway. 

There are eight community service facilities adjacent to Alignment E2; four schools, Hunters 

Creek Middle School, Meadow Woods Elementary School, Meadow Woods Middle School, and 

New Vistas Elementary School; one community facility, a water treatment plant; two park and 

recreation areas, the Shingle Creek Greenway and Bear Creek Recreation Complex; and one

church, Peace United Methodist Church. 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 

The following five community service facilities are located adjacent to Alignment A2: one 

school, Shore Elementary; two cemeteries, Fortune Street Cemetery and Oaklawn Cemetery; and

two churches, Greater Bethel Baptist Church and St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal 

(AME) Church. 

There are three community service facilities adjacent to Alignment B2: one park and recreation 

area, Williams Road Park; and two churches, Christian Fellowship Church and First Apostolic 

Church. 

Alignments C1, D1, E1, and E2 are discussed in the previous text. 

A summary of the alignments’ proximity to community services are aggregated into each of the 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 and summarized in Table 4-1. 

Table 4-1 

Community Service 

Evaluation Matrix

Alternative 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Community Services 

Schools 8 12 5 9 8 12 5 9

Community Facilities 10 9 6 5 10 9 6 5

Parks & Recreation 5 7 5 6 5 7 5 6

Cemeteries 4 6 6 6 4 6 6 6

Churches 15 16 12 13 15 16 12 13

 

In conclusion, Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 require acquisition of ROW from one

community facility, Perry Harvey Sr. Park. Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 would

require acquisition of ROW from the St. Paul AME Church. The acquisition and impacts to 

Perry Harvey Sr. Park are discussed in detail in Section 5 of this report. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-6
No-Build Alternative 

All the community facilities identified in Table 4-1 would remain their current distance from

transportation facilities under the No-Build Alternative. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative will require acquisition of ROW from Perry Harvey Sr. Park. The

acquisition, impacts, and mitigation are discussed in detail in Section 5 of this report. 

4.1.3 Economic Impacts

Both direct and indirect beneficial impacts to economic resources would result from the

construction of the FHSR system. Direct impacts would include the addition of actual jobs 

associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the FHSR infrastructure.

Indirect impacts would include the additional jobs that result from the production of the materials 

used during construction of the FHSR system. Indirect impacts also include the additional wages 

earned and recycled into the economy by the suppliers of materials during construction and when

FHSR is in operation. 

In addition to construction, permanent economic benefits would accrue from the materials

needed for the high speed rail trains’ operation and maintenance, and, as a result, permanent jobs 

would be created for individuals to perform those operations. 

Many high speed rail studies have been completed in Florida over the last 30 years. In general,

these studies have concluded that high speed rail systems would, over time, have benefits that are 

greater than the costs of these systems. The Florida High Speed Rail Economic Impact Analysis

3

was presented to the FHSRA on August 15, 2002. This study analyzed and compared the

anticipated costs and benefits of two previous high speed rail studies and the FHSRA report to

the Florida State Legislature. The FHSRA report is entitled Florida High Speed Rail Authority,

2002 Report to the Legislature4. The two previous high speed rail studies are: Cross-State 

Feasibility Final Report

5

 and Travel Time, Safety, Energy and Air Quality Impacts of High

Speed Rail

6

. The studies concluded: 

That over the past five years, three comprehensive Florida studies of high speed 

rail have been completed and each study documented the findings that the amount

of benefits flowing from the development of a high speed rail project in the

evaluated corridor areas generates considerable amounts of benefits well in excess

of project costs. 

The comparison of high speed transportation systems cost impacts and economic benefits also

stated: “In each case, operational revenues exceeded operational costs and deferred a varying 

percentage of capital costs.” Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3 display the benefits each study has 

predicted resulting from a high speed rail system.

 

4-7

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 4-2 illustrates the economic benefits and costs from the Florida High Speed Rail Economic 

Impact Analysis that was presented to the Florida State Legislature. 

Table 4-2 

Summary of Present Value (PV) of Economic Benefits and Costs

Tampa to Orlando in 2002 $ 

Total PV of Benefits $2,401 

Total PV of Costs $2,085 

Ratio of Benefits to Costs 1.15

Mid Point Jobs Created-Tampa to Orlando 6,500 

PV of FHSR Benefits Created per Corridor Mile (Millions 2002 $) $28,243,272 

Number of Jobs Created per Corridor Mile (Millions 2002 $) 76.5 

Source: 2002 Report to the Legislature, Florida High Speed Rail Authority. HNTB Corporation, with Transportation Economics and Management Systems. Public Financial

Management, and Booz-Allen and Hamilton, January 2002.

4.1.4 Safety and Public Health

Safety

The FHSR would require a System Safety Program Plan that would also incorporate a system

security plan. A system safety program would ensure the security and safety of the passengers,

staff, and public for the duration of the development, construction, and operation of the FHSR 

project. This program would be prepared in conjunction with the selected technology; would be

based on Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and FDOT design, construction, and safety

requirements; and would be submitted to FRA for comment and concurrence. At a minimum, 

the System Safety Program Plan would: 

• Establish the safety program and management system for the whole system and would 

cover all the phases of the development, construction, commissioning, and operation of 

the FHSR project. 

• Provide the framework and system architecture for the implementation of safety policy

and the achievement of FHSR safety-related goals and objectives. 

• Ensure that FHSR commitment to safety is documented, communicated, and made visible 

to all. 

• Standardize and synchronize all the various elements of the system safety regime

throughout the organization. 

• Serve as the foundation by which FHSR would plan, manage, and control system safety

activities and provide the framework for FHSR to monitor its effectiveness, exercise 

leadership, and establish control over these activities. 

• Provide the methodology and planning process to ensure that all applicable federal and 

state requirements and best industry standards would be met and establish a system safety

organization that: 

− Provides clear lines of communication.

 

4-8

− Identifies and controls interface between system safety and other functional 

disciplines. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
− Allocates clearly the safety responsibilities and accountabilities within FHSR and to 

all subcontractors. 

− Provides and establishes the structure and framework of authority for safety decisionmaking and for the resolution of identified hazards. 

− Identifies and records the system safety milestones and their relationship to the major

program milestones and project phases. 

− Establishes an incident and accident investigation and reporting process. 

− Provides the process for the identification of safety hazards and the assessment of 

safety risks, including a risk matrix containing probability and severity thresholds. 

− Contains the process for recording all identified safety hazards and their associate risk 

so that they can be communicated and allocated to the hazard owner(s). 

The FHSR project would be subject to the FRA comprehensive railroad safety regulations,

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 207-244 and any waivers or modifications for this

project. 

Vehicle 

The gas turbine train power car design and coaches have been used for high speed service in the 

northeast corridor of the United States. The technology is compliant with FRA’s Tier II 

Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for speeds up to 150 miles per hour (mph) and has 

undergone testing at the United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Technology

Center in Pueblo, Colorado. The power and passenger car bodies meet the structural

requirements of the FRA and Association of American Railroads Standards S-034 and S-580. 

The passenger coach also meets Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requirements. 

The electric train technology is the French TGV system that has over twenty years of successful

operation. This system is not currently approved for operation in the United States. As part of

the request for proposals (RFP) process, the electric train proposer requested clarification on the 

operational status of the technology. The following text is an excerpt from the FHSRA response: 

The TGV technology does not comply with all FRA safety standards as defined in 

the USC Title 49. Under the Florida Overland eXpress (FOX) high speed rail

program in Florida, the FOX team petitioned FRA to establish safety rules 

governing the design and operation of a TGV system between Miami and Tampa 

via Orlando. On December 12, 1997, the FRA issued a proposed Rule of Particular

Applicability, 49 CFR Part 243, applying specifically to the FOX program. This

rule was never formally approved, as the FOX program was cancelled. 

With the establishment of the new FHSR program, under the auspices of the 

FHSRA, a series of meetings was held with the FRA to discuss design criteria,

safety, and regulatory issues. The FRA indicated that they would be able to 

expedite the approval of the electric train proposal based on the work performed on

the previous proposed rule making. 

 

4-9

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Pedestrian Access

Rail operations of the FHSR would be separated from any vehicle or pedestrian access

throughout the corridor. In the 2002 Florida High Speed Rail Authority Report to the Florida

State Legislature, the FHSRA found that if high speed rail crosses motor vehicle traffic,

crossings should be vertically separated (grade-separated). FHSRA issued the following policy

that must be met by the project: 

The Authority reviewed the issue of grade separated from automobile and 

pedestrian traffic in order to provide reliable and efficient service. However, 

there may be instances where at-grade crossing may be considered due to factors 

such as physical constraints, cost, and community impacts. In exceptional cases,

the Authority agreed that at-grade crossings could be considered on a case-bycase basis. 

The proposed FHSR between Tampa and Orlando includes no at-grade crossings. The

pedestrian access at stations would be separated from any track crossings by either elevated

tracks with pedestrian access underneath or by pedestrian bridges crossing over the tracks. 

System Safety and Security

The criteria to ensure safety and security for the passengers, employees, and the general public,

as well as measures for the protection of the FHSR system, would be in accordance with Title 49

Chapter II - FRA, USDOT, Part 200 to 268. 

Chapter 7 of National Fire Protection Association’s 130 Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit

and Passenger Rail Systems (NFPA 130) would apply to emergency procedures for passenger

rail systems and would serve as guidance for the development of fire/life safety procedures for 

the FHSR. 

The FHSR system design would ensure a high level of security for patrons and operating

personnel. Facility design and operating procedures would promote a sense of well being for 

patrons and personnel, by discouraging acts of crime, violence, and abuse. Security provisions

would also discourage acts of vandalism, theft, and fraud. 

Project facilities would include features that enhance patron and personnel security. These

would include maximum visibility from surrounding areas, with no hidden corners or alcoves;

locks on the doors to any rooms; and landscaping and lighting levels that support the intended

means of surveillance. In addition, any surfaces or equipment accessible to the public, such as 

fare vending machines, station floors, and walls, would be of rugged, vandal-resistant design. 

As a minimum, the following security criteria would apply:

• Prevention: Project features to deter breaches of security 

− Barriers to unauthorized intrusions to non-public areas of the project 

 

4-10

− Protective covers to prevent damage or loss 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
− Vandal-resistant materials 

− Hazardous materials handling and storage 

− Coordinated lock access and system 

• Detection: Project features to permit timely detection of criminal acts 

− Intrusion Detection 

− Fire Alarm

− Closed Circuit Television 

• Restoration: Project features to enable rapid responses to security problems and 

restoration of normal service 

− Ease of access for non-project emergency personnel and vehicles 

− Emergency procedures training programs 

− Maintenance procedures which minimize repair-in-place time

− Security training programs 

The gas turbine train technology addresses the requirements identified in the FHSR proposal 

documents, except in the following issues. An intrusion detection system would not be provided,

since FRA safety requirements do not identify the need for such a system when the maximum 

operating speed is 125 mph or less. Access detection would be provided only at access/egress

gates in the fencing. The FHSRA identified installation of Test Level (TL)-5 intrusion barriers

between the rail system and the parallel highway in tangent sections, and TL-6 intrusion barriers

on highway curves and overhead highway structures. The gas turbine train proposal utilizes

FDOT Index 410 barriers at retained earth fill sections and TL-5 barriers at other sections on 

tangent. No overhead highway structure barriers would be replaced except where overpasses are

reconstructed. Under 49 CFR 213.361, FRA requires preparation of a barrier plan for systems 

operating at speeds over 125 mph. The gas turbine train is proposed to operate at 125 mph or

less. 

The electric train meets the design criteria established by the FHSRA. 

Public Health

The health and safety of exposures to extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic

fields (EMF) commonly associated with all electric power transmission and distribution lines, 

with existing electric transportation systems and facilities, as well as with homes, industrial and

office buildings, schools, and urbanized outdoors is an issue subject to research and continued

debate. The construction and operation of the FHSR systems may affect the environment along 

the proposed design/build alternatives by incrementally raising current levels of EMF from 

existing electric power transmission and distribution along the ROW, or from operating transit, 

airport, port, etc., facilities. 

The proposed gas turbine train technology (Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 4) is nonelectrified, and therefore is unlikely to generate EMFs of concern. The stations and maintenance 

facilities would be provided power through standard electrical systems. 

 

4-11

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
The electric train technology (Design/Build Alternatives 5 through 8) would generate some

EMFs. The low frequency EMF associated with the electric train technology, proposed for

operation in the FHSR corridors, is documented in the Safety of High Speed Guided Ground 

Transportation Systems Final Report (USDOT/FRA/ORD-93/03.1) Executive Summary. 

The EMF measurements were made using the MultiWaveTM System instrumentation package 

originally developed under sponsorship of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). This

system quantified both the spatial and temporal characteristics of the magnetic field. By

recording the actual waveform of the magnetic field with sensors having frequency responses

from 0 to 3 kilohertz (kHz), the MultiWaveTM system (waveform capture system) makes it

possible to examine the temporal characteristic throughout the ELF band. The waveform capture

system recorded the electric field at head height and was complemented by recording data on a 

TEAC Model RD 130 T digital audio tape to capture transient events and with two personal

dosimeters to record the root mean square (rms) of the magnetic field. These personal exposure

recorders were EMDEX-II’s. 

The magnetic field and electric field measurements associated with the electric train technology

were grouped into four areas: onboard the trains; in the passenger stations; along the track 

ROW; and near the substations, which supply power to rail system. 

Onboard, the train measurements were taken in the passenger coaches and in the engineer’s cab.

At the stations, EMF measurements were taken at both ends of the platforms at points nearest the 

track where a person could reasonably stand. Wayside measurements were taken to quantify the

field environment in areas open to the general public. Wayside refers to the public accesses

along the system of the track ROW. Field measurements were taken with no trains on the track 

and during times of passing trains. Power substation measurements were taken near the

substation fences and under the connected transmission lines. 

The EMF effects on the physical environment are predominately from electric current in the

catenary, feeder circuit, and track. EMF field levels for the electric train technology are within

the ranges of other common environmental EMF sources, but have specific frequency signatures.

Findings from the Safety of High Speed Guided Ground Transportation Systems Final Report

suggest that EMF effects were found to be comparable to those produced by common home,

work, and power lines. Thus, the EMF field levels associated with Design/Build Alternatives 5 

through 8 are not expected to have a significant impact on human health. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would result in increased roadway use and congestion, thereby

reducing the safety of existing roadways. 

Preferred Alternative

 

4-12

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) will have a System Safety Program Plan developed

based upon FRA and FDOT design, construction, and safety requirements and will be submitted 

to FRA for comment and concurrence. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
The gas turbine train power car body design and the same coaches have been used for high speed 

service in the northeast corridor of the United States. The technology is compliant with FRA’s

Tier II Passenger Equipment Safety Standards for speeds up to 150 mph and has undergone

testing at the USDOT Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. The power and passenger car

bodies meet the structural requirements of the FRA and Association of American Railroads 

Standards S-034 and S-580. The passenger coach also meets Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990 (ADA) requirements. 

The Preferred Alternative does not include at-grade crossings. The pedestrian access at stations 

would be separated from any track crossings by either elevated tracks with pedestrian access

underneath or by pedestrian bridges crossing over the tracks. 

The gas turbine train technology proposed by the Fluor Bombardier Team addresses the design

criteria requirements with the exception of the following: no provision of intrusion detection 

system, only provision for access detection at access/egress gates, and utilization of FDOT Index

410 barriers at retained earth fill sections and TL-5 barriers at other sections on tangent. 

The FHSRA will require the Fluor Bombardier Team to meet the design criteria requirements as

identified in the RFP process, specifically the intrusion detection system and the barrier system. 

Any changes and/or revisions to these design criteria requirements will be coordinated and

approved through the appropriate agencies including, but not limited to, the FRA, FHWA, FDOT 

and FHSRA. The barrier requirements for the FHSR, as identified in the RFP, are as follows: 

• Meeting requirements of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

Report 350 TL-5 guidelines shall be installed between the high speed ground

transportation system guideway and the parallel roadway. Such barriers shall be installed 

where the highway is on a tangent.

• Where the highway is on curve and within 100 ft. of a highway curve, reinforced

concrete barriers meeting the requirements of NCHRP Report 350 TL-6 guidelines shall 

be installed between the high speed ground transportation system guideway and the 

parallel roadway.

• Where the guideway is on earthen fill structure with vertical walls exceeding 4 ft. in 

height above the roadway shoulder, barrier wall shall be required. 

• Where the guideway is on pier supported structures within 100 ft. of the highway,

NCHRP Report 350 TL-5 barriers shall be required to protect guideway piers and

occupants of highway vehicles. 

The gas turbine train technology is not electrified and is not likely to generate EMFs of concern.

The stations and maintenance facilities would be provided power through standard electrical

systems. 

4.1.5 Relocation and Right of Way Impacts

The FHSR project could involve residential and business relocations as a result of ROW

acquisitions required for proposed design/build alternatives, stations, and maintenance facilities. 

 

4-13

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
All of the design/build proposals assume use of existing ponds or medians for drainage.

Relocations due to unforeseen pond location or expansion cannot be determined until an

agreement is reached with FDOT regarding proposed roadway improvements. Despite the 

project length of approximately 95 mi., there are minimal relocations and reduced ROW costs as

I-4 is proposed for use for a significant portion of the distance. 

Relocations 

In order to minimize the unavoidable effects of ROW acquisition and displacement of people,

the FHSRA would carry out a ROW and relocation program in accordance with

the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970 (Public 

Law 91-646 as amended by Public Law 100-17). The FHSRA would provide advance

notification of impending ROW acquisition. Before acquiring ROW, FHSRA would appraise all

properties on the basis of comparable sales and property values in the area. Owners of property

to be acquired would be offered and paid fair market value for their property rights. No person 

lawfully occupying real property would be required to move without at least 90 days written

notice of the intended vacation date, and no occupant of a residential property would be required

to move until decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing is made available. Relocation 

services and payments are provided without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national

origin. 

Financial assistance is available to the eligible relocatee to: 

• Reimburse the relocatee for the actual reasonable costs of moving from homes, 

businesses, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. 

• Make up the difference, if any, between the amounts paid for the acquired dwelling and

the cost of a comparable decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling available on the private 

market. 

• Provide reimbursement of expenses, incidental to the purchase of a replacement dwelling. 

• Make payment for eligible increased interest cost resulting from having to get another

mortgage at a higher interest rate. A combined total estimate for replacement housing

payments, increased interest payments, and closing costs is approximately $22,500. 

A preliminary evaluation matrix has been developed in order to compare the potential impacts of

each alternative being considered. Table 4-3 shows a comparison of relocation impacts for 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-14
Table 4-3 

Comparison of Relocations 

Residential Relocations Business Relocations

Alt. 1 Alt. 5 Alt. 1 Alt. 5

3 3 3 3

Alt. 2 Alt. 6 Alt. 2 Alt. 6

3 3 8 8

Alt. 3 Alt. 7 Alt. 3 Alt. 7

0 0 15 15

Alt. 4 Alt. 8 Alt. 4 Alt. 8

0 0 23 23

The three residential relocations within Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 are located in

two structures near I-4 and 12th Avenue in the Ybor City area. The residences are located in a

low-income minority area. 

The three business relocations within Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 include the City of 

Tampa Recreation Department and the former Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office and Jail

Complex. The other relocatee is a bail bondsman. The jail has been decommissioned and the 

Sheriff’s office and prisoners moved. Design/Build Alternatives 2 and 6 contain eight business 

relocations, three were previously noted in the Tampa CBD, and five more are located in a small

strip mall near the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) as it transitions from I-4. These

include a restaurant, car repair, and other services. Design/Build Alternatives 3 and 7 have 15

business relocations. Nine of the relocations are within the Tampa CBD and all are State of 

Florida departments located in the Florida State Office Building. Five of the relocations include 

the parking lot of the St. Paul AME Church, a vacant building, a hair salon, a bindery, and an

auto detailing shop. There is one relocation along the CSX rail line on Adamo Drive, an auto 

sales company.

Design/Build Alternatives 4 and 8 contain 23 business relocations including the 15 relocations in

or near the Tampa CBD for Design/Build Alternatives 3 and 7, as well as the eight relocations 

contained in Design/Build Alternatives 2 and 6. 

No-Build Alternative 

No acquisitions would be required under the No-Build Alternative. The two residential

structures (containing three households) identified for acquisition for FHSR Design/Build

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 are also identified to be acquired in the future for improvements to I-4 

under the TIS. If the construction of FHSR occurs, then acquisition of the structures would

likely occur sooner, but would also be acquired if the No-Build Alternative is selected and future 

plans for I-4 proceed as planned. 

 

4-15

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would require three residential relocations located in two structures

near I-4 and 12th Avenue in the Ybor City area. It would also require three business relocations 

including the City of Tampa Recreation Department, the former Hillsborough County Sheriff’s 

Office and Jail Complex, and a bail bondsman. 

Right of Way Cost 

Acquisition impacts relative to ROW requirements and the corresponding acquisition costs were

estimated for each alternative. Although each proposal adhered generally to the same

alignments, the gas turbine train technology (Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 4) resulted in 

some slight centerline modifications with additional lands in the Disney area, and therefore

resulted in differences in total ROW cost. Also, Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 4 proposed 

the location of the Bee Line Maintenance Facility on Orlando International Airport property,

which resulted in a reduction in cost. 

The cost estimate is based on aerial maps with an overlay of the proposed FHSR Design/Build 

alternatives. Construction plans were not available. For this reason, the fee acquisitions have 

been considered as 100 percent fee take at grade level. In this worst-case scenario, many of the

properties could retain some measure of utility at grade level given certain assumptions that were

made for the cost estimates and the railway’s elevated design. Exceptions to this assumption

were made for various parcels where access, utilities, and drainage would be otherwise severed.

These parcels were estimated with consideration of the proposed elevated superstructure. The

real estate and business damages considered the most realistic acquisition scenario of air rights

(for railway decking) and fee rights (for column footers) to provide continued ingress/egress.

This scenario allows for the continuance of the business without a total buy-out (of real estate

and business). 

The acquisition areas and property impacts were estimated by overlaying the scale drawing onto

raster/aerial images and Property Appraiser tax parcel ownership lines utilizing Geographical

Information Systems (GIS). For this reason, the acquisition areas, parcel count, and estimated

costs are all considered preliminary and are subject to change as more accurate design, survey,

and title information becomes available.

A preliminary evaluation matrix has been developed in order to compare the potential ROW cost

impacts of each alternative being considered. Table 4-4 shows the comparative cost impacts for 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 thru 8. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-16
Table 4-4 

ROW Costs

Corridors, Stations, and Maintenance Facilities 

Alt. 1 Alt. 5

$117,871,000 $101,170,300

Alt. 2 Alt. 6

$148,956,200 $128,087,700

Alt. 3 Alt. 7

$150,384,700 $133,684,000

Alt. 4 Alt. 8

$181,469,900 $160,601,400

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not require the expenditure of funds for ROW identified above. 

However, it is anticipated that transportation funding for roadway capacity improvements would 

be required earlier and in greater amounts. 

Preferred Alternative

The ROW cost associated with the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) with the gas turbine train

is $117,871,000. 

4.1.6 Environmental Justice

Potential disproportionate impacts to low-income and minority populations were evaluated in 

accordance with Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” In response to this Executive Order, the 

project design/build alternatives were evaluated to identify the presence of low-income and 

minority residents and potential impacts to them. 

An adverse effect on minority and/or low-income populations occurs when: 1) the adverse effect 

occurs primarily to a minority and/or low-income population; or 2) the adverse effect suffered by

the minority and/or low-income population is more severe or greater in magnitude than the

adverse effect suffered by the non-minority and/or non-low-income populations. 

Census tracts along the project corridor were mapped and evaluated to determine if there was a 

disproportionate affect on minority or low-income populations. High concentrations of

minorities were identified as tracts in which minorities comprise 50 percent or greater of the

population. Low-income tracts were identified as those with 25 percent or greater of the 

 4-17

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
population living below the poverty level. There is a total population of approximately 285,000 

people located in census tracts running along the FHSR Design/Build Alternatives. The 

population in these tracts is primarily non-minority and not below the poverty level with 

minorities comprising approximately 26 percent of the population and approximately 5 percent 

of the population living below the poverty level. However, there are three concentrations of

minority and/or low-income residents located in three different counties (Orange, Polk, and

Hillsborough). 

Orange County tract 170.01 contains a population of 2,367 with minority populations comprising

approximately 95 percent and residents living below the poverty level comprising approximately

14 percent. This tract contains the Taft-Vineland neighborhood. FHSR Alignment E1

(Design/Build Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7) would run south of this neighborhood within an

industrial area. The number of residential noise impacts is expected to range between 15 and 37 

sites. Relocation and vibration impacts are not expected to affect this tract. 

Polk County tracts 111 and 112.01 have a combined population of 8,218 people with minority

populations comprising approximately 78 percent of the population and residents living below 

the poverty level comprising approximately 33 percent of the population. All eight of the FHSR 

Design/Build Alternatives would be located in the median of I-4 in rural Polk County; therefore,

no identified noise impacts to the area are expected. In addition, no relocation and vibration

impacts are expected to affect these tracts. 

The largest concentration of minority and low-income residents occurs within the Tampa CBD in

tracts 32, 33, 35, 36, and 38 through 41. The tracts contain a combined population of 16,337

people with a minority population of approximately 66 percent. Approximately 35 percent of the

population is below the poverty level. Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 would have three residential 

relocations within this area. Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 would have 15 business relocations. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 would have 16 noise impacts and Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 would 

have one noise impact within this area. Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 would have four vibration 

impacts. 

In conclusion, the largest potential for environmental impacts to minority or low-income

residents within the FHSR project area occurs in the Tampa CBD. However a comparison of the

population and income characteristics of all census tracts, as well as total noise, vibration, and 

relocation impacts along the design/build alternatives clearly demonstrates there is no adverse

effect on minority and/or low-income populations as no effect occurs primarily to a minority

and/or low-income population, No effect suffered by the minority and/or low-income population 

is more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect suffered by the non-minority

and/or non-low-income populations. 

This project is being developed in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by

the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and in accordance with Executive Order 12898. The proposed

project would not result in any disproportionate adverse impacts to any distinct minority, ethnic,

elderly or handicapped groups and/or low-income households. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-18
No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not result in impacts to any concentrations of minority or

low-income residents. 

Preferred Alternative

The largest potential for environmental impacts to minority or low-income residents within the

FHSR project area occurs in the Tampa CBD. The Preferred Alternative would result in three

residential relocations in this area. It would result in no noise impacts, but would have vibration 

impacts to four residential sites within this area. However, when these impacts were compared

to the overall impacts resulting from the Preferred Alternative to non-minority and minority

populations, the Preferred Alternative would not result in any disproportionate adverse impacts

to any distinct minority, ethnic, elderly or handicapped groups, or low income households. 

4.1.7 Archaeological and Historic Resources 

The cultural resource assessment survey for the FHSR study was undertaken to assist in 

complying with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190);

Section 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (Public Law 89-

665, as amended), as implemented by Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800

(Protection of Historic Properties, revised January 2001); and Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-670, as amended). This study was also conducted in

accordance with Chapters 253, 267, and 872 of the Florida Statutes. A Cultural Resource

Assessment Survey Report7 (CRAS) (July 2003), is published separately. As part of the CRAS

several viable alternatives were surveyed. Seven properties currently listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP); nine properties previously determined NRHP-eligible; and 

five properties newly determined NRHP-eligible were identified as part of the CRAS. Data

gathered from the CRAS report is included in Section 3.6.1 of this EIS. The CRAS Report was 

submitted by the FHSRA and FRA to the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for 

review. In a letter dated September 15, 2003, the SHPO concurred with the findings of the

CRAS Report and identified two additional historic resources to be potentially eligible for listing

in the NRHP (Appendix B). These additional properties are the St. Paul AME Church Parsonage

(8HI6757) and the CSX Railroad Depot (8HI8739). They are described briefly below. 

St. Paul AME Church Parsonage (8HI6757)/1103 N. Marion Street 

The St. Paul AME Church Parsonage (8HI6757), currently located immediately north of the 

St. Paul AME Church, was constructed around 1925 in the Masonry Vernacular style. The 

building was moved in 1995 from its original site directly west of the church building, on

Harrison Street. This red brick building is two stories in height and has a rectangular exterior

plan. The hipped roof is covered with composition shingles and all window openings are

covered with plywood. Additionally, the porch supports are currently wood posts. The St. Paul

AME Church Parsonage was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in September of 2003 

 4-19

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
under NRHP Criteria A in the area of Ethnic History. The building is considered to be

significant at a local level based on its associations with the historical development of the 

African-American community in Tampa. This building is included with the St. Paul AME 

Church as a City of Tampa Landmark. 

CSX Railroad Depot (8HI8739)/5300 Uceta Road

The CSX Railroad Depot (8HI8739) is located in the Uceta Railroad Yard. It was constructed 

circa 1950 in the International Style. This two-story masonry building has a flat roof, stucco

finish and brick windowsills. Cantilevered ledges define the second floor and roof levels. A

large brick chimney is located on the west side. The CSX Railroad Depot was determined

eligible for listing in the NRHP in September of 2003 under NRHP Criteria A in the areas of

Transportation and Commerce. 

This section evaluates potential impacts that the proposed FHSR project may have on the NRHPlisted and eligible historic resources located within the FHSR Alternatives Area of Potential 

Effect (APE). There are no NRHP-listed or eligible archaeological sites associated with the

FHSR Alternatives. 

FHSRA established a Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) to assist in the evaluation of 

significant resources, potential effects, and methods for mitigation. The CRC consists of

representatives from federal, state, and local agencies and citizen groups. These include FRA, 

FHWA, SHPO, USACE, City of Tampa, and other local interested parties. Three meetings were

held in Tampa on December 6, 2002, February 14, 2003, and December 12, 2003. At the

December 2002 meeting, the members were provided background information on the FHSR

project and the Section 106 process. Preliminary alignments, as well as those carried forward for 

further study, were presented. Other topics included the proposed CRAS methodology and the

APE. The February 2003 meeting included the Corridor Level Analysis Report results and a bus

tour of the NRHP-listed and eligible resources located in downtown Tampa and Ybor City. The

committee concurred with the information presented during these two meetings. In September 

2003, the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) was mailed to all of the members of the 

CRC. At the third and last meeting, in December 2003, the results of the Section 106

consultation were presented and comments were requested. The CRC made the following formal

statement at the meeting: “The CRC commended the study team and the FHSRA on designing a 

project and technology that results in no adverse impacts to historic resources.” 

The Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) were sent letters in January 2003 inviting 

them to join the CRC and/or submit comments on the project. They were also included in the

mailing list for review of the DEIS. No comments have been received from any of the THPOs. 

Archeological Resources 

 

4-20

Two archaeological sites are recorded as NRHP-eligible within the alignments in Corridors A and

B. The first, the Columbus Drive Site (8HI83), was recorded as per “general vicinity.” Thus, the

exact site location is unknown. As plotted in the Florida Master Site File8

, the site is proximate to

I-4 within a severely altered and developed area of Tampa. Based on field reconnaissance, this site

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
appears to have been destroyed by urban development. Similarly, the Diamond Dairy Site

(8HI476), originally recorded within the proposed ROW of I-75, was previously subjected to

Phase III mitigative excavation, and subsequently destroyed by construction of the interstate. Thus,

neither 8HI83 nor 8HI476 are still extant within the FHSR project APE. 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 Through 8 

None of the proposed Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 have any involvement with NRHPlisted, eligible, or potentially eligible archaeological sites. Therefore, the proposed FHSR project 

would have no effect on any significant archaeological resources. 

Historic Resources 

Twenty-two NRHP-listed, eligible, or potentially eligible historic resources were identified along

Alignments A1 and A2, located in downtown Tampa and Ybor City. These historic resources

are described in further detail in Section 3.6.1 and earlier in this section. As mentioned in 

Section 3.6.1, the previously recorded Tampa Heights Historic District was found to be outside 

of the FHSR project APE and is not discussed in this section. 

There are no NRHP-listed, eligible, or potentially eligible historic resources within Alignments

B1, B2, C1, D1, E1, or E2. 

Potential impacts to the historic resources for each alternative are described as follows. Site and 

map sheet numbers, identified in the tables, correspond to the FHSR concept plans included in

Appendix A. These concept plans show the proximity of each significant historic resource to the

proposed FHSR Design/Build alternatives. 

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 use Alignment A1; therefore, the impacts to historic

resources would be the same for each of these alternatives. Potential effects for each of the 12 

significant historic resources associated with these alternatives are shown in Table 4-5 and

discussed in the following paragraphs. In summary, based on the project information available,

these alternatives would have no effect on seven historic resources and a conditional no adverse

effect on five historic resources. These impacts were evaluated as part of the Section 106

process. There is a direct taking of two contributing historic resources within the Ybor City

National Historic Landmark District (NHLD), which would result in an adverse effect; however,

these buildings have already been included in a MOA for the TIS project, as described in further

detail in the following paragraphs, therefore resulting in a conditional no adverse effect. The 

other impacts are primarily visual and possible vibration occurring during construction. 

There would be no effect to seven NRHP-listed or eligible historic resources within these

alternatives, as noted in Table 4-5. This preliminary evaluation of effects is primarily based on

the proximity of the significant resources to the proposed alternatives. These resources would

 4-21

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-22

Table 4-5 

Potential Impacts to Historic Resources along Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 

Alignment 

Site No./ 

Map

Sheet No. 

FMSF No. Site Name Address City NRHP Or 

NHL Status 

Potential 

Impacts

A1 1/1 8HI8536

North Franklin

Street Historic 

District 

North Franklin Street, 

between E. Harrison 

and E. Fortune Streets

Tampa NRHP-Listed Visual (Tampa

Station)

A1 7a/1 8HI155 St. Paul AME 

Church 506 E. Harrison Street Tampa

NRHPEligible, City

of Tampa 

Landmark

None

A1 7b/1 8HI6757 St. Paul AME 

Church Parsonage

1103 N. Marion Street Tampa

NRHPEligible, City

of Tampa 

Landmark

 Visual (Tampa

Station)

A1 8/1 8HI5595 Oaklawn

Cemetery

606 E. Harrison Street Tampa

NRHPEligible 

Visual; 

Construction 

Vibration

A1 9/1 8HI3282 Greater Bethel 

Baptist Church

1206 N. Jefferson

Street Tampa

NRHPEligible None

A1 11/2 

& 186 8HI8574 St. James 

Episcopal Church

1001 India Street/1202 

N. Governor Street Tampa

Potentially

NRHPEligible 

None

A1 12/2 8HI3688, 

8HI8575 

Allen Temple 

AME Church and

Parsonage 

1112-1116 E. Scott

Street (Located within

Central Park Village

Tampa

Potentially

NRHPEligible None

A1 13/2 8HI3659 St. Peter Claver 

Catholic School

1401 N. Governor 

Street Tampa

Potentially

NRHPEligible None

A1 17/3 8HI313 Ybor City NHLD

Approximate NHLD

Boundaries: 21st Ave., 

25th and 26th St., 

Adamo Dr. and 2nd

Ave., Nebraska Ave. 

Tampa

NHL, 

Locally

Listed

Historic 

District 

(different 

boundaries)

Direct taking of

two

contributing 

buildings: 

8HI4174/916 

E. 12th

Avenue, and

the rear 

building at 

8HI4178/1006 

E. 12th Avenue; 

Visual; 

Construction 

Vibration

A1 18/3 8HI142 German

American Club

2105 N. Nebraska

Avenue

Tampa

NRHPEligible, 

Contributing

Resource 

within the

Ybor City

NHLD 

Visual; 

Construction 

Vibration

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-23

Table 4-5 

Potential Impacts to Historic Resources along Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 

Alignment 

Site No./ 

Map

Sheet No. 

FMSF No. Site Name Address City NRHP Or 

NHL Status 

Potential 

Impacts

A1 19/3 8HI835 Centro Asturiano

1913 N. Nebraska

Avenue

Tampa

NRHPListed,

Contributing

Resource 

within the

Ybor City

NHLD 

None

A1 20/6 8HI4415 I-Type House 2210 N. 31st Street Tampa

NRHPEligible None

not be directly impacted by ROW acquisitions associated with Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5,

and 6. There would be no secondary impacts, such as visual, noise, access, or use impacts to 

these resources due to their distance from the proposed design/build alternatives. Additionally,

in most cases, these historic resources face away from the alternatives, further minimizing the

likelihood of visual impacts. The proposed FHSR improvements would be constructed directly

adjacent to the present I-4 facility and therefore would be consistent with the existing

environment. 

There may be potential secondary impacts (noise and visual) to the German American Club, 

which were evaluated due to the close proximity of this resource to the proposed improvements. 

This building is currently located directly adjacent to the I-4/I-275 Interchange and its setting has

already been compromised; therefore, it was determined that the noise levels and visual impacts

would not change significantly due to the construction of the FHSR improvements. The

improvements would not require any ROW acquisition from the historic resource. Any potential 

damaging vibrations that could occur during construction activities would be evaluated and 

minimized at this location in order to avoid impacts to the historic building. 

There may also be potential secondary noise impacts to the Greater Bethel Baptist Church, the

St. Paul AME Church, and the St. Paul AME Church Parsonage. It was determined that the

noise levels would not increase at these three resources with either the electric or gas turbine 

engines; therefore, there would be no noise impacts to these resources. The Oaklawn Cemetery

is located immediately south of the alignment for Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6, and

about one block east of the proposed Tampa Station location. At this location, the alignment 

would be north of Laurel Street and elevated on piers and mechanically stabilized earth (MSE)

walls approximately 38 to 40 ft. above grade. The FHSR’s speed would be greatly reduced. The

proposed FHSR improvements would not require any ROW acquisition from the historic

cemetery but they would introduce new visual elements within close proximity to the cemetery.

Consequently, it appears there may be potential visual impacts to the Oaklawn Cemetery. Any

changes in noise would not affect the use of the cemetery, so it does not appear that there would

be noise impacts at this location. Any potential damaging vibrations that could occur during 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
construction activities would be minimized at this location in order to avoid impacts to the 

historic cemetery wall and markers. 

Potential visual impacts to the North Franklin Street Historic District and the St. Paul AME

Church Parsonage, resulting from the construction of the proposed Tampa Station, will be

minimized or avoided by coordinating with the SHPO during the design phase. 

The Ybor City NHLD is located north and south of I-4, between Nebraska Avenue and

26th Street. Improvements related to Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5 and 6 would require the 

direct use of only two contributing resources located within the Ybor City NHLD:

916 E. 12th Avenue and the rear dwelling unit at 1006 E. 12th Avenue (the main house will

remain in place). Because the two contributing properties would be impacted by ROW

acquisitions, the Ybor City NHLD would be adversely affected by FHSR improvements 

proposed for Alternative 1, 2, 5, and 6. However, these two resources were previously identified 

as being acquired by the TIS project since they are located within the TIS Ultimate ROW. A

MOA was prepared at that time to mitigate adverse effects to the Ybor City NHLD and fulfill the

Section 4(f) requirements. If a decision is made to proceed with construction of the FHSR, it

would likely occur prior to acquisition of these two resources for the I-4 improvements. The

MOA is included as an appendix to the Tampa Interstate Study Final Environmental Impact

Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation9 (1996) and consists of specific commitments and 

stipulations, including the documentation, relocation, and rehabilitation of historic structures,

plus architectural/historical salvage for structures not relocated and rehabilitated. Therefore, the 

FHSR project will comply with the requirements of the existing TIS MOA. In addition, due to 

the proximity of contributing resources within the Ybor City NHLD boundaries located on the 

south side of I-4 to the proposed FHSR improvements, potential secondary visual and noise 

impacts were evaluated. Measured ambient (existing) noise level for the first row of houses in

this area was 69 decibels (dBA). The predicted noise level for these same houses was also 

69 dBA for both electric and gas turbine engines; therefore, there would be no noise impact. For 

potential visual impacts, it is important to note that their current settings have already been

substantially compromised by the presence of the I-4 facility. Consequently, the addition of the 

FHSR improvements would not qualitatively change their present settings or views to and from 

the buildings. The character and appearance of E. 12th Avenue’s streetscape will remain much

the same following the construction of the FHSR improvements. Contributing resources to the

Ybor City NHLD north of I-4 would not be affected by the FHSR project because Design/Build

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 are located either within the I-4 median or south of I-4 within the Ybor

City NHLD. In addition, noise walls are being constructed along the north side of I-4 as part of

the TIS project, which will also serve to avoid potential impacts of the FHSR to the portion of 

the Ybor City NHLD located north of I-4. 

 

4-24

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 are located along the south side of I-4 directly adjacent 

to the north (side) elevation of the contributing Gonzalez, Fisher and Company Cigar Factory

(U-Haul Building) at 2311 N. 18th Street. Due to the close proximity of the FHSR improvements

at this location, visual and noise impacts were evaluated, but Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5,

and 6 are not expected to cause visual and noise impacts to this contributing resource, since it is

used for storage and all of its windows have been enclosed with brick. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 use Alignment A2; therefore, the impacts to historic

resources would be the same for each of these alternatives. Potential effects for each of the 16 

significant historic resources associated with these alternatives are shown in Table 4-6 and

discussed in the following paragraphs. In summary, based on the project information available,

it appears that these alternatives would have no effect on seven historic resources, but may have

an effect on nine other historic resources, including the Ybor City NHLD. These potential

adverse and no adverse effects are primarily due to potential visual and noise impacts but were

not evaluated in detail since none of these alternatives was selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

Table 4-6 

Potential Impacts to Historic Resources along Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 

Alignment 

Site No./ 

Map

Sheet No. 

FMSF No. Site Name Address City NRHP Or 

NHL Status 

Potential Impacts 

A2 1/1 8HI8536

North Franklin

Street Historic 

District 

North

Franklin

Street, 

between E. 

Harrison and 

E. Fortune

Streets

Tampa

NRHPListedVisual 

(Tampa Station)

A2 2/186 8HI8744

First United

Methodist

Church’s

Thomas

Henderson 

Memorial 

Chapel 

1001 N.

Florida 

Avenue

Tampa

Potentially

NRHPEligible 

None

A2 3/186 8HI741 Floridian Hotel

905 N.

Florida 

Avenue

Tampa

NRHPListed, City

of Tampa 

Landmark

Visual

A2 4/ 8HI753 J.J. Newberry

Building 

815-819 N.

Franklin

Street 

Tampa

NRHPEligible None

A2 5/ 8HI752 Kress Building 

811 N.

Franklin

Street 

Tampa

NRHPListed None

A2 6/ 8HI751 Woolworth

Building 

801 N.

Franklin

Street 

Tampa

NRHPEligible None

A2 7a/1

& 186 8HI155 St. Paul AME 

Church

506 E.

Harrison

Street Tampa

NRHPEligible, 

City of

Tampa

Landmark

Visual; Noise; 

Use of Parking;

 Construction 

Vibration

 4-25

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-26

Table 4-6 

Potential Impacts to Historic Resources along Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 

Alignment 

Site No./ 

Map

Sheet No. 

FMSF No. Site Name Address City NRHP Or 

NHL Status 

Potential Impacts 

A2 7b/1 

& 186 8HI6757 

St. Paul AME 

Church

Parsonage 

1103 N.

Marion

Street Tampa

NRHPEligible, 

City of

Tampa

Landmark

Direct Taking 

A2 8/1 

& 186 8HI5595 Oaklawn

Cemetery

606 E.

Harrison

Street 

Tampa

NRHPEligible Visual; 

Construction Vibration

A2 9/1 

& 186 8HI3282 Greater Bethel 

Baptist Church

1206 N.

Jefferson

Street 

Tampa

NRHPEligible None

A2 10/186 8HI124

Fire Station No. 

1/ Tampa 

Firefighters

Museum

720 E. Zack

Street 

Tampa

NRHPEligible, 

City of

Tampa

Landmark

None

A2 14/186 8HI906 Jackson Hotel 851 E. Zack

Street Tampa

NRHPEligible Visual; Noise; 

Construction Vibration

A2 15/186 8HI6939 Union Depot

Hotel 

858-864 E.

Zack Street Tampa

NRHPListed, City

of Tampa 

Landmark

Visual; Noise; 

Construction Vibration

A2 16/186 8HI298 Tampa Union

Station

601 N.

Nebraska

Avenue

Tampa

NRHPListed, City

of Tampa 

Landmark

Visual; Noise; 

Construction Vibration

A2 17/188 8HI313 Ybor City

NHLD 

Approximate 

NHLD 

Boundaries:

21st Ave., 

25th and 26th

St., Adamo 

Dr. and 2nd

Ave., 

Nebraska

Ave. 

Tampa

NHL, 

Locally

Listed

Historic 

District 

(different 

boundaries)

Visual; Noise 

B2 21/? 8HI8739 CSX Railroad

Depot

5300 Uceta 

Road Tampa

NRHPeligible Visual; Noise; 

Construction Vibration

As noted in Table 4-6, there would be no effect to seven NRHP-listed or eligible historic

resources within these alternatives. This preliminary evaluation of effects is based primarily on 

the proximity of the significant resources to the proposed alternatives. These resources would

not be directly impacted by ROW acquisitions associated with Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7,

and 8. It also appears there would be no secondary impacts, such as visual, noise, access, or use 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
impacts, to these resources. As previously noted, these resources are some distance from the 

proposed alternatives, which reduces the probability of secondary impacts. In addition, in most 

cases, these historic resources face away from the alternatives, thereby further minimizing the

likelihood of visual impacts. 

Due to the 18-story height of the Floridan Hotel, there may be potential secondary visual impacts

to this resource, as construction of the FHSR improvements would introduce new visual

elements within its sightline. The improvements would not require any ROW acquisition from

the historic resource, and they would be located several blocks from the building. 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 would be located directly adjacent to the north and east 

sides of the St. Paul AME Church and would require a direct taking of the St. Paul AME Church 

Parsonage. The proposed FHSR improvements would require ROW acquisition from the church 

property, including the relocated Parsonage building and the church parking lot, but not the 

historic church building. The taking of land from the parking lot could affect the property’s use.

These alternatives would also introduce new visual elements within close proximity to the 

church; therefore, it appears there could be potential visual, noise, and use impacts to the St. Paul 

AME Church and direct impacts to the Parsonage, which will be evaluated further if any of these

alternatives are selected. Any potential damaging vibrations that could occur during construction 

activities would be minimized at this location in order to avoid impacts to the historic church

building. Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 would be located west of Morgan Street, 

southwest of the southwest corner of the Oaklawn Cemetery. The proposed FHSR 

improvements would not require any ROW acquisition from the historic cemetery, but would 

introduce new visual elements within close proximity to the cemetery. Consequently, it appears

there may be potential visual impacts to the Oaklawn Cemetery. Any changes in noise would 

not affect the use of the cemetery, so it does not appear that there would be noise impacts at this

location. Any potential damaging vibrations that could occur during construction activities

would be minimized at this location, in order to avoid impacts to the historic cemetery wall and

markers. 

The Jackson Hotel and Union Depot Hotel are situated within close proximity to Design/Build 

Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8, which pass directly north of these buildings. The proposed FHSR 

improvements would not require any ROW acquisition from the two historic properties. In

addition, existing CSX railroad tracks are located in the same area as the proposed FHSR tracks.

The addition of elevated FHSR tracks, however, would introduce new visual elements to the

buildings’ immediate surroundings. Therefore, it appears there may be potential visual impacts

to the Jackson Hotel and Union Depot Hotel, as well as potential noise impacts. Any potential

damaging vibrations that could occur during construction activities would be minimized at these

locations, in order to avoid impacts to the historic buildings. 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7 and 8 would also pass directly north of the Tampa Union

Station. The proposed FHSR improvements would require a small amount of ROW from the 

NRHP-listed boundaries and not from the historic structure itself. The proposed FHSR tracks

would be located between the existing CSX railroad tracks and the historic Tampa Union 

Station. The addition of elevated FHSR tracks would also introduce new visual elements to the

 4-27

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
building’s immediate surroundings. Therefore, it appears there may be potential visual impacts

to the Tampa Union Station, as well as potential noise impacts. Any potential damaging

vibrations that could occur during construction activities would be minimized at these locations

in order to avoid impacts to the historic building. 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 would be located immediately south of the southernmost

boundary of the Ybor City NHLD near Adamo Drive. The portion of the NHLD that is closest 

to these alternatives is primarily industrial in character with some residential use between 

22nd and 24th Streets. This may result in potential secondary visual and noise impacts, primarily

for the residences. The impacts, however, should be minimal to the industrial buildings due to

their use. 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 would be located within the existing railroad corridor,

which passes northeast of the CSX Railroad Depot in the Uceta Railroad Yard, but does not

require any ROW from the building’s NRHP-eligible boundaries. Therefore, it appears there

may be potential visual impacts to the depot, as well as potential noise impacts. Any potential

damaging vibrations that could occur during construction activities would be minimized at this

location in order to avoid impacts to the historic building. 

No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, roadway congestion would increase and resulting roadway

improvements would likely impact cultural resources. The two contributing historic structures

within the Ybor City NHLD, identified for acquisition within the FHSR Design/Build 

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6, are also identified to be acquired for future improvements to I-4 under

the TIS. If construction of FHSR occurs, acquisition of these two structures would likely occur

sooner, but would also be acquired by FDOT under the FHSR No-Build Alternative, if FDOT’s 

improvements to I-4 proceed as planned. 

Preferred Alternative

A Section 106 Consultation Case Report10 for the Preferred Alternative (described in the report

as the Proposed Action) was prepared in December 2003 for coordination with the SHPO. A 

Section 106 consultation meeting was held on December 10, 2003, with representatives from 

PBS&J, Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Janus Research, and the SHPO. Based on the project

information available and consultation with the SHPO, it was agreed at that meeting that the

FHSR Preferred Alternative would have no effect on seven historic resources and a conditional

no adverse effect on five historic resources. The specific conditions are commitments agreed to

by the FHSRA, FRA, and SHPO and will be incorporated into future design, build, operate,

maintain and finance contracts in a manner that will be binding to the vendor. The final Section 

106 Consultation Case Report was submitted to the SHPO on behalf of FRA on

December 24, 2003. A response letter from the SHPO, dated January 5, 2004, concurred with 

the findings of the report (Appendix B) and agreed to the stipulated conditions for the

“conditional no adverse effect” determination. The Section 106 Consultation Case Report was

then forwarded to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the National Park 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-28
Service (NPS) Atlanta Regional office on February 20, 2004, for their reference and opportunity

to comment. No comments have been received from the ACHP or the NPS. 

The commitments agreed upon by the FHSRA, FRA, and SHPO are as follows: 

1. Provide the FHSR design plans (for the Tampa CBD and Ybor City areas) to the

SHPO for review and comment at 30 percent, 60 percent, and 90 percent

submittal. 

2. Coordinate the design of the Tampa Station with the SHPO to ensure that historic

integrity is maintained at the nearby North Franklin Street Historic District and

the St. Paul AME Church Parsonage. 

3. Implement vibration monitoring during construction adjacent to the Oaklawn

Cemetery, German American Club, and within the Ybor City NHLD to determine 

if damage is likely to occur according to damage criteria described in FRA's 

guidance manual, High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact

Assessment, Chapter 10. If vibration levels approaching the damage criteria are 

found to occur during construction, immediate coordination with the SHPO will

be conducted to determine the use of less destructive methods and/or 

minimization methods for continuing the construction. 

4. The stipulations of the TIS MOA will be fulfilled for any impacts to contributing

historic structures within the Ybor City NHLD and the TIS Ultimate ROW. 

5. Aesthetic treatment for the FHSR will be compatible with the existing Urban 

Design Guidelines set up for the TIS within the Tampa CBD and Ybor City areas.

At minimum, the color of the concrete should be compatible with the TIS

concrete color. The SHPO, City of Tampa, and local community groups, will be

included in the development of the FHSR aesthetics. 

Based on the Section 106 Consultation Case Report, there will be no effect to seven NRHP-listed 

or NRHP-eligible historic resources due to the Preferred Alternative, as noted in Table 4-7.

These resources include the St. Paul AME Church, Greater Bethel Baptist Church, St. James

Episcopal Church, Allen Temple AME Church and Parsonage, St. Peter Claver Catholic School, 

Centro Asturiano, and I-Type House. This effects analysis is primarily based on the proximity of

the significant resources to the Preferred Alternative. These resources would not be directly

impacted by ROW acquisitions associated with the Preferred Alternative. There would be no

secondary effects, such as visual, noise, access, or use impacts to these resources due to their 

distance from the Preferred Alternative. 

 4-29

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 4-7 

Effects Analysis for Historic Resources Associated with the FHSR Preferred Alternative

FMSF No. Site No. / 

Map Sheet No. Site Name/Address NRHP Status Effects Analysis

8HI8536 1/1

North Franklin Street 

Historic District/ North

Franklin Street, between E. 

Harrison and E. Fortune

Streets NRHP-Listed

Conditional 

No Adverse Effect 

8HI155 7A/1

St. Paul AME Church/506 

E. Harrison Street 

NRHP-Eligible, 

City of Tampa

Landmark No Effect 

8HI6757 7B/1

St. Paul AME Church

Parsonage /1103 N. Marion 

Street 

NRHP-Eligible, 

City of Tampa

Landmark

Conditional 

No Adverse Effect 

8HI5595 8/1

Oaklawn Cemetery/606 E. 

Harrison Street NRHP-Eligible 

Conditional 

No Adverse Effect 

8HI3282 9/1

Greater Bethel Baptist 

Church/1206 N. Jefferson

Street NRHP-Eligible No Effect 

8HI8574 11/2

St. James Episcopal 

Church/1001 India 

Street/1202 N. Governor 

Street NRHP-Eligible No Effect 

8HI3688, 

8HI8575 12/2

Allen Temple AME Church

and Parsonage/1112-1116 E.

Scott Street NRHP-Eligible No Effect 

8HI3659 13/2

St. Peter Claver Catholic 

School/1401 N. Governor 

Street NRHP-Eligible No Effect 

8HI835 19/3

Centro Asturiano/1913 N.

Nebraska Avenue

NRHP-Listed,

Contributing

Resource within

the Ybor City

NHLD No Effect 

8HI142 18/3

German American

Club/2105 N. Nebraska

Avenue

NRHP-Eligible, 

Contributing

Resource within

the Ybor City

NHLD 

Conditional 

No Adverse Effect 

8HI313 17/3

Ybor City

NHLD/Approximate NHLD

Boundaries: 21st Avenue, 

25th and 26th Street, Adamo 

Drive and 2nd Avenue,

Nebraska Avenue

NHL, Locally

Listed Historic

District (different

boundaries)

Conditional 

No Adverse Effect 

8HI4415 20/6

I-Type House/2210 N. 31st

Street NRHP-Eligible No Effect 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-30
 4-31

Additionally, in most cases, these historic resources face away from the alignment, further

minimizing the likelihood of visual or aesthetic effects. Therefore, the FHSR Preferred 

Alternative would not alter the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in 

or eligibility for the NRHP. 

As part of the evaluation of effects, further noise analysis for secondary noise effects was 

conducted for three resources, St. Paul AME Church, St. Paul AME Church Parsonage, and

Greater Bethel Baptist Church, because potential secondary noise effects were noted during the 

preliminary effects evaluation phase in the DEIS. The existing noise conditions for the above

mentioned historic resources are the equivalent of 68 dBA, 66 dBA, and 66 dBA respectively per

hourly Leq. The hourly Leq is the noise level for a specific one-hour period. It can be

considered as the average sound level in dBAs that occurs in a specific hourly period. The future

noise conditions for both the gas turbine train technology and electric train technology will not

increase at the three historic resources. The three historic resources are too far away from the 

Preferred Alternative to generate a notable change in noise levels; therefore, there will be no 

secondary noise effects to these resources. As mentioned previously, there will not be any other

primary or secondary effects to these three resources due to their proximity to the Preferred 

Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative will have no adverse effect, contingent upon certain conditions, on five

historic resources. Three of these, the Oaklawn Cemetery, German American Club, and Ybor

City NHLD, will have no adverse effect based on the condition that any potential damaging 

vibrations that could occur during construction activities will be minimized, as described in the 

conditions listed earlier in this section. For these three resources, vibration monitoring will be

implemented during construction to insure that no damage is caused to the historic resources. A

more detailed discussion of effects for each of these three properties is provided below. Two 

other historic resources, the North Franklin Street Historic District and the St. Paul AME Church 

Parsonage are located near the proposed Tampa Station location, which was included in the

FHSR APE. The actual size and configuration of the station is not known at this time. The

proposed station, however, will have no adverse effect of these historic properties based on

continued coordination with the SHPO during design of the proposed Tampa Station to ensure 

that historic integrity in maintained, as described in the conditions listed earlier in this section. 

The Criteria of Effect has been applied to the Oaklawn Cemetery, the German American Club, 

and the Ybor City NHLD, as described in further detail in the following paragraphs. 

The Oaklawn Cemetery is located immediately south of the FHSR Preferred Alternative and

about one block east of the proposed Tampa Station location. At this location, the alignment 

would be north of Laurel Street and elevated on piers and MSE walls approximately 38 to 40 ft. 

above grade. The FHSR’s speed would be greatly reduced. The proposed FHSR improvements

would not require any ROW acquisition from the historic cemetery nor will it affect access to the 

property. Although the proposed FHSR improvements would introduce new visual elements 

within close proximity to the cemetery, it would not be significantly impacted. The FHSR

Preferred Alternative is located immediately adjacent to the existing I-275 facilities at this

location, which already has altered the properties’ historic setting. In addition, the cemetery’s

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
4-32

current setting is urban and the surrounding environment includes parking lots and modern

buildings such as the former Hillsborough County Jail and the Marion Transit Center. The

cemetery also contains numerous mature trees, particularly oak trees, which obscure most views 

of the FHSR structure from within the cemetery boundaries. The modern Morgan Street Jail will

be demolished to make way for the proposed FHSR facility. Any change in noise will not affect

the use of the cemetery, so there will not be noise impacts at this location. The potential

vibration impacts that could occur during construction activities will be minimized based on the

conditions described earlier. In summary, the construction of the FHSR improvements will not 

alter the use, visual and aesthetic qualities, and other characteristics that qualify the cemetery for 

inclusion in the NRHP, based on the condition to monitor vibration during construction. 

The German American Club is currently located about one-half block south of the I-4/I-275

Interchange on the east side of Nebraska Avenue. The FHSR Preferred Alternative would be

constructed contiguous to the I-4/I-275 structure, which is currently being improved and

expanded. The FHSR Preferred Alternative, located immediately north of 12th Avenue, would

be supported on piers at Nebraska Avenue and on MSE retaining walls east and west of 

Nebraska Avenue. It would be 32 ft. in height, which is actually lower than the I-4 ramp 

currently being constructed. The Preferred Alternative would not require any ROW acquisition 

from the German American Club nor will it affect access to this property which is currently

accessed from the south and west sides. The building’s setting has already been substantially

compromised by the presence of the I-4/I-275 structure. The construction of the lower FHSR 

facility immediately next to the existing structure would not further compromise the quality of

the German American Club’s setting or the views to and from the building. The existing noise

condition for the historic resource is the equivalent of 74 dBA per hourly Leq. The future noise

condition will not increase with the gas turbine train technology and will increase by just 1 dBA 

with the electric train technology. In comparison to the existing noise conditions, both proposed 

train technologies will not create a noticeable noise increase. Any changes in noise will not 

affect the use of the building, so there will not be noise impacts at this location. The potential

vibration impacts that could occur during construction activities will be minimized based on the

conditions described earlier. In summary, the construction of the FHSR Preferred Alternative 

will not alter the use, visual and aesthetic qualities, and other characteristics that qualify the 

German American Club for inclusion in the NRHP, based on the condition to monitor vibration

during construction. 

 

The Ybor City NHLD is located north and south of I-4, between Nebraska Avenue and 26th

Street. The Preferred Alternative would require the direct use of only two contributing resources

located within the Ybor City NHLD: 916 E. 12th Avenue and the rear dwelling unit at 1006 E.

12th Avenue (the main house will remain in place). These two resources were previously

identified as being acquired by the TIS project since they are located within the TIS Ultimate

ROW. A MOA was prepared at that time to mitigate adverse effects to the Ybor City NHLD and

fulfill the Section 4(f) requirements. If a decision is made to proceed with construction of the 

FHSR, it would likely occur prior to acquisition of these two resources for the I-4 improvements. 

The MOA is included as an appendix to the Tampa Interstate Study Final Environmental Impact

Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation (1996) and consists of specific commitments and 

stipulations, including the documentation, relocation, and rehabilitation of historic structures,

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-33

plus architectural/historical salvage for structures not relocated and rehabilitated. The two 

properties, 916 E. 12th Avenue and the rear dwelling unit at 1006 E. 12th Avenue, are subject to 

the mitigation agreed upon as part of the TIS MOA, and the mitigation will be executed prior to 

any construction. Therefore, the FHSR Preferred Alternative will comply with the requirements 

of the existing TIS MOA. Some ROW will be required from the rear of three other contributing

resources as part of the improvements, but the historic houses fronting the street should remain in

place. These resources include 920 and 921 E. 12th Avenue, which are located on one parcel, 

and 1004 E. 12th Avenue on another parcel. Due to the minor amount of land needed for the 

FHSR ROW, this will not prevent the houses from continuing to be used as residences. They

will also remain as contributing historic resources in the Ybor City NHLD and the local

streetscape. In addition, due to the proximity of contributing resources within the Ybor City

NHLD boundaries located on the south side of I-4 to the FHSR Preferred Alternative, potential

secondary visual and noise impacts were evaluated. Measured ambient (existing) noise level for 

the first row of houses in this area was 69 dBA. The predicted noise level for these same houses

was also 69 dBA for both electric and gas turbine engines; therefore, there would be no noise 

impact. For potential visual impacts, it is important to note that their current settings have 

already been substantially compromised by the presence of the I-4 facility. Consequently, the

addition of the FHSR would not qualitatively change their present settings or views to and from

the buildings. The character and appearance of E. 12th Avenue’s streetscape will remain much

the same following the construction of the Preferred Alternative. Potential vibration impacts that

could occur during construction activities will be minimized based on the conditions 

described earlier. 

Contributing resources to the Ybor City NHLD north of I-4 would not be affected by the 

Preferred Alternative because it is located either within the I-4 median or south of I-4 within the

Ybor City NHLD. In addition, noise walls are being constructed along the north side of I-4 as 

part of the TIS project, which will also serve to avoid potential impacts of the FHSR to the

portion of the Ybor City NHLD located north of I-4. 

The FHSR Preferred Alternative is located along the south side of I-4 directly adjacent to the

north (side) elevation of the contributing Gonzalez, Fisher and Company Cigar Factory (U-Haul

Building) at 2311 N. 18th Street. Due to the close proximity of the Preferred Alternative at this 

location, visual and noise impacts were evaluated but would not affect this contributing resource,

since it is used for storage and all of its windows have been enclosed with brick. 

In summary, the construction of the FHSR Preferred Alternative will not alter the use, visual and

aesthetic qualities, and other characteristics that qualify the Ybor City NHLD for inclusion in the 

NRHP, based on the condition to monitor vibration during construction. 

4.1.8 Recreational/Parkland

A Proximity Effects Analysis was conducted for the five parks and recreational facilities (Perry

Harvey Sr. Park, Nuccio Parkway Linear Park, Williams/Tanner Road Park, Evans Park, and 

Shingle Creek Greenway) located adjacent to or in the vicinity of the FHSR Design/Build 

Alternatives 1 through 8 (Figure 2-8). The analysis addressed projected noise-level increases,

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-34

impairment of aesthetic features or attributes, restriction on access to the facilities, vibration 

impacts, and ecological intrusion at each park based on field observations and analysis using the 

preliminary design plans. Only one park, Perry Harvey Sr. Park, would be directly affected by

project ROW acquisition associated with Alignment A1, Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 

6. A Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Perry Harvey Sr. Park is found in Section 5 of this report. 

None of the alternatives would require ROW acquisition from the other four parks. 

Each of these parks is discussed in detail in the following paragraphs. 

Perry Harvey Sr. Park

Perry Harvey Sr. Park, approximately 9.2 acres (ac.) in size, is located at 1201 N. Orange Street 

in the vicinity of Alignments A1 and A2, Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8. The park is

officially designated as a neighborhood park in the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan. The

park contains a variety of active recreational facilities. These include a covered picnic area, 

tennis courts, basketball courts, playground equipment/sand lot, exercise/jogging path, and a 

unique “skatebowl” area. There are also restrooms and a wooden deck. Primary access and

parking (50 spaces) for Perry Harvey Sr. Park are located at Cass Street and Central Avenue, 

which would be maintained. Additional access with limited parking is available at Kay Street

near the tennis courts (Appendix A, Sheets 2 and 186). 

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 would require the acquisition of 0.184 ac. of Perry

Harvey Sr. Park; however, the acquisition would not affect park facilities. The Section 4(F)

Evaluation of Perry Harvey Sr. Park is included in Section 5 with the park boundaries and

proposed acquisition illustrated in Figure 5-1. Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 avoid

direct impact to Perry Harvey Sr. Park (Section 5.1, Figure 5-3). 

Ambient noise monitoring was performed on January 20, 2003. Because the park is located

between the I-275 and the CSX corridor, ambient readings were taken at two locations (the

northern portion of park nearest to the interstate and the southern portion of the park closest to 

the CSX corridor). For the area nearest I-275, ambient noise levels were determined to be 

77 dBA (decibels [A-weighting]). For the build scenario, Alignment A1 (Design/Build 

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6) is predicted to have a 77 dBA noise level for Design/Build

Alternatives 1 and 2 (gas turbine train) and a 78 dBA noise level for Design/Build Alternatives 5

and 6 (electric train). The high existing ambient noise level in this area, compared to the

proposed project noise level, suggests a minimal noise impact to the park. Further discussion of 

this topic is included in Section 4.2.3 and Section 5.1 of this report. For the area nearest the CSX

corridor, ambient noise levels were determined to be 53 dBA. For the build scenario, Alignment

A2 (Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8) is predicted to have a 54 dBA noise level for 

Design/Build Alternatives 3 and 4 (gas turbine train) and a 55 dBA noise level for Design/Build

Alternatives 7 and 8 (electric train), which would result in a 1 and 2 dBA increase, respectively,

for the area. Decibel increases below 3 dBA are not perceptible to the average human ear. 

The City of Tampa has indicated that park usage ranges from 100 to 150 persons per day. The 

proposed project would not cause an aesthetic problem for the park users because an existing

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-35

transportation corridor is already in place. There are no vibration-sensitive structures associated 

with the park and no natural connections to any wildlife habitats or wildlife or waterfowl refuges. 

In a letter dated March 27, 2003 (see Appendix B), the City of Tampa stated the Perry Harvey

Sr. Park is considered a significant park. See Figure 3-13 for the location of this park. 

Nuccio Parkway Linear Park

Measuring 9.1 ac., Nuccio Parkway Linear Park is officially designated as a neighborhood park 

in the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan. The park is located in Tampa on Nuccio Parkway

between Nebraska and Palm Avenues. The park is approximately 0.71 mi. in length and lies

within the vicinity of Alignment A2, Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8. From the 

information gathered to date, the park consists of the green space within the median and either 

side of Nuccio Parkway between Nebraska and Palm Avenues. The northwest shoulder is a 

pedestrian walkway with a sidewalk and a landscaped utility strip from Nebraska Avenue to

East 7th Street, approximately 0.58 mi. long. There are plans to use the southeast shoulder for an 

off-road greenway between Nuccio Parkway and the railroad tracks from Nebraska Avenue to

the Ybor City Turnaround, which is approximately 0.43 mi. long. Currently, the park is used as

a visual parkway as you can travel Nuccio Parkway from downtown Tampa to the Ybor City

entertainment district (Appendix A, Sheet 187). 

Ambient noise monitoring was performed on January 22, 2003. For this area, ambient noise 

levels were determined to be 65 dBA. For the build scenario, the area is predicted to have a 

66 dBA noise level for Alignment A2, Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8, which results in 

a 1 dBA increase for the area. Again, decibel increases below 3 dBA are not perceptible to the

average human ear. Predicted noise levels were not considered for Alignment A1, Design/Build 

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 due to the long distance between the northern portion of the park and

the interstate (approximately 1000 ft.). There are no anticipated noise increases from 

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 in this area. Usage figures are not available. The 

proposed project would not cause an aesthetic impact for the park users because an existing

transportation corridor is already in place. There are no vibration-sensitive structures associated 

with the park and there are no natural connections to any wildlife habitats or wildlife or

waterfowl refuges. In summary, the proposed project would not substantially impair or diminish 

the park’s activities, features, or attributes. In a letter dated March 27, 2003 (see Appendix B), 

the City of Tampa stated it is not considered a significant park. 

Williams/Tanner Road Park 

Williams/Tanner Road Park, approximately 32.7 ac. in size, is located at 10611 Tanner Road in 

the vicinity of Alignment B2, Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 and is owned and operated

by Hillsborough County. The park is bordered by Tanner Road to the north; vacant lands and 

Williams Road to the east, vacant lands to the south, and I-75 to the west. The park is classified

as a local park and is currently undeveloped. There is a lake on the property which was a former

borrow pit. Parking facilities are not provided (Appendix A, Sheet 203). 

I-75 is approximately 270 ft. from the nearest boundary of the park. Ambient noise monitoring

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-36

was performed on January 22, 2003. For this area, ambient noise levels were determined to be 

70 dBA. For the build scenario, the area is predicted to have a 70 dBA noise level (for 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8) resulting in neither an increase nor decrease for the

area. Usage figures are not available for this park. However, because it is undeveloped, it can be 

assumed usage is very limited. The proposed project would not cause an aesthetic impact for the

park users because an existing transportation corridor is already in place and the park use was not

established for aesthetic viewing. The proposed improvements would not change access to the

park. There are no vibration-sensitive structures associated with the park and no natural

connections to any wildlife habitats or wildlife or waterfowl refuges. In summary, the proposed

project would not substantially impair or diminish the park’s activities, features, or attributes. A 

letter requesting significance was sent on March 17, 2003, to Hillsborough County. To date, the 

County has not responded and, therefore, the park is assumed to be significant. 

Evans Park

Evans Park, approximately 17.70 ac. in size, is located at 1004 Kingsway Road in the vicinity of 

Alignment C1, Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 and is owned and operated by

Hillsborough County. The park is bordered by I-4 to the north, Kingsway Road to the east,

Gordon Burnett Middle School to the south, and Brinwood Drive to the west. The park is

classified as a local park and contains a variety of active recreational facilities. These include a 

picnic area, softball field, basketball courts, soccer field, football field, hockey court, playground

equipment, and a community center. In addition, there are shaded rest areas with benches. A

parking lot is also provided with access from Kingsway Road (Appendix A, Sheet 24). 

Alignment C1 (Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8) is within the median of I-4, with I-4 being

directly adjacent to the park property. Ambient noise monitoring was performed on 

January 21, 2003. For this area, ambient noise levels were determined to be 66 dBA. For the

build scenario, the area is predicted to have a 66 dBA noise level for Design/Build Alternatives 1 

through 8, resulting in neither an increase or decrease for the area. Park use varies per month; 

however, it averages approximately 3,692 persons per month. The soccer/football field, which is 

the closest recreational facility to the interstate, is approximately 150 ft. from I-4. The proposed 

project would not cause an aesthetic impact for the park users because an existing transportation

corridor is already in place and the park use was not established for aesthetic viewing. The

proposed improvements would not change access to the park. There are no vibration-sensitive 

structures associated with the park and there are no natural connections to any wildlife habitats

or wildlife or waterfowl refuges. In summary, the proposed project (Design/Build Alternatives 1

through 8) would not substantially impair or diminish the park’s activities, features, or attributes.

A letter requesting significance was sent on March 17, 2003, to Hillsborough County. To date, 

the County has not responded and, therefore, the park is assumed to 

be significant. 

Shingle Creek Greenway 

The Shingle Creek Greenway is a portion of the Shingle Creek Swamp that covers more than

7,000 ac. in southern Orange and northern Osceola counties. It is located in the vicinity of

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-37

Alignments E1 and E2, Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8. The swamp is a major receiving 

body for stormwater runoff from areas south and southwest of Orlando. It is largely isolated, 

except for its connection to Shingle Creek, which flows along the eastern border of the swamp. 

The University of Florida, College of Landscape Architecture is working with the South Florida 

Water Management District (SFWMD) to develop a plan that would address public use for the

project as a whole. Orange and Osceola counties, the City of Kissimmee, and the SFWMD are 

also working cooperatively to establish a ‘greenbelt’ along Shingle Creek that will link common

areas. The plans would create a natural corridor along the Shingle Creek from its origin near

Highway 50 in Orange County, extending to Lake Tohopekaliga in Osceola County (Appendix

A, Sheets 139 and 163 through 165). 

The portion of the property adjacent to the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) and the Bee

Line Expressway (S.R. 528) is owned by SFWMD. Currently, there is limited public access to 

the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). A small portion of a trail along the east side of

Shingle Creek and a connection to Hoagland Boulevard in Osceola County was completed in 

1999 by private developers. The trail, which allows for bicycling, skating, and walking, is 10-ft.

wide and extends approximately 2/3 of a mi. with plans for further extension. Public access in 

Orange County is primarily through the Marriott Hotel, located approximately 5 mi. north of the

Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) and 4 mi. south of the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528),

allowing for access to the interior of the swamp. Currently, there is no public access to the

greenway in the area adjacent to the proposed project and estimated usage figures are not

available. This portion of the greenway is mainly undeveloped and there are no existing

facilities; therefore, usage is anticipated to be low. Various agencies are cooperating to acquire

the land and develop the trail network and boardwalk. 

The Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) (Alignments

E1 and E2, Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8) are adjacent to the Shingle Creek property.

Ambient noise monitoring was performed January 27, 2003, on the Shingle Creek property

adjacent to the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) (Alignment E2, Design/Build Alternatives 

2, 4, 6, and 8). Ambient noise levels were determined to be 59 dBA. For the build scenario, the

area is predicted to have a 60 dBA noise level for the gas turbine train (Design/Build

Alternatives 2 and 4) resulting in a 1 dBA increase for this area. Also, noise levels ranging from

72 dBA for the portion of the property that lies approximately 25 ft. from the Central Florida

Greeneway (S.R. 417) ROW to 61 dBA for the portion of the property that lies approximately

250 ft. from the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) ROW (Design/Build Alternatives 6 and 8)

are expected. 

As stated in the previous paragraph, the Shingle Creek property adjacent to Alignment E2 

(Central Florida Greeneway [S.R. 417]) is currently undeveloped and there is no access. There

are no official site plans yet; however, the vision of the SFWMD is to use the property for 

passive recreation. There has been discussion concerning connection of the Hunters Creek

Middle School, which lays to the east of the Shingle Creek property, to The Vistas, a new 

residential development to the west of the Shingle Creek property. This potential future trail

may be used to travel to and from these two areas. The SFWMD is working with the Orange 

County School Board to develop a cooperative agreement that would give area students 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-38

opportunities for special programming within the Shingle Creek property. Due to the itinerant

nature of this trail/greenway system, users will not be on the trail for long enough periods of time

to have their use of the greenway’s activities, features, or attributes substantially impaired or 

diminished by the noise level increase. 

Ambient noise monitoring was performed March 27, 2003, on the Shingle Creek property

adjacent to the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) (Alignment E1, Design/Build Alternatives 1, 3,

5, and 7). Ambient noise levels were determined to be 63 dBA. For the build scenario, the area

is predicted to have a 64 dBA noise level (for both the electric and the gas turbine trains, 

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7) resulting in a 1 dBA increase for the area. As 

mentioned, decibel increases below 3 dBA are not perceptible to the average human ear. 

The proposed project would not cause an aesthetic impact for the greenway users because an 

existing transportation corridor is already in place, and the greenway use was not established for

aesthetic viewing. There are no vibration-sensitive structures associated with the Shingle Creek

property and there are no natural connections to any wildlife habitats or wildlife or waterfowl 

refuges. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause a noise level increase that would

substantially impair or diminish the greenway’s activities, features, or attributes. Therefore, the

proposed project would not substantially impair or diminish the Shingle Creek property’s

activities, features, or attributes. In a letter dated April 14, 2003 (see Appendix B), the SFWMD 

stated the Shingle Creek project will continue to play a vital role in the District’s mission of

water resource protection and developing appropriate public use of its lands. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not require the acquisition of land from the Perry Harvey Sr.

Park. The increase in congestion on I-4 and the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) under the 

No-Build would also increase future noise levels in the Perry Harvey Sr. Park and the Shingle

Creek Park. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would result in the acquisition of 0.184 ac. from Perry Harvey Sr.

Park. The acquisition, impacts and mitigation are discussed in detail in Section 5. 

4.1.9 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are responsible for developing the Long Range 

Transportation Plan (LRTP) within an urban area. The primary purpose of the LRTP is to guide

the development of transportation systems to serve the travel demands of existing and projected

future growth. One of the guiding principles in developing the LRTP is the Future Land Use

Plan. This plan identifies the development potential of an area and is also used to identify the 

transportation facilities and improvements needed to support future growth and development in 

a region. The Future Land Use Plan indicates the kind and intensity of activity approved for the

various land uses. Transportation improvement needs are identified in response to the 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-39

development allowed in the Local Government Comprehensive Plans, of which the LRTP and 

Future Land Use Plan are elements. 

Given the projected future growth and land use designations, the implementation of the FHSR 

project is not expected to substantially alter development patterns along any of the design/build 

alternatives. The alternatives all occur within or next to existing roadway ROW with only small 

areas of exception. Undeveloped land near some of the station locations may result in

development at a slightly faster rate than without FHSR; however, not building FHSR is unlikely

to defer development of the vacant land along I-4 between Orlando and Tampa. All of the other

routes of the various alternatives are already developed or are planned to be developed. 

The greatest potential for development, economic activity, and job creation is near proposed 

station sites that are now undeveloped. Those proposed locations are: 

• I-4/Polk Parkway, west entry

• I-4/Kathleen Road (S.R. 539) in the City of Lakeland 

• I-4 near Walt Disney World

These sites are all in highly developed areas, and growth is anticipated in the near future, 

according to local future land use plans. 

The Tampa CBD station site location has been previously identified as the site of a multi-modal

center and is expected to support redevelopment opportunities in the area. The Orlando

International Airport station is included in the approved Airport Master Plan. The OCCC station

site includes plans for a multi-modal center.

4.2 NATURAL AND PHYSICAL IMPACTS

4.2.1 Visual/Aesthetic

All of the Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 are elevated above ground level on structures or

on a retaining wall; therefore, all alternatives are visible to surrounding land uses when outside 

of existing roadway medians. There are no known visual or aesthetic impacts; however, there

are design guidelines which may be applicable to station sites, operation and maintenance 

facilities, piers, or retaining walls. Table 4-8 presents regulations that govern each specific 

geographical area. All contain some reference to aesthetics. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-40

Table 4-8 

Current Visual/Aesthetic Design Standards 

Station Site/Alignment Location Standards 

City of Tampa Station City of Tampa

City of Tampa Development Regulations

11: 

-Development District North (CBD) 

Urban Design Guidelines

12

I-4 Alternatives 1, 2, 5, 6 

(Alignment A1) City of Tampa

City of Tampa Development Regulations: 

-Development District North (CBD) 

- Urban Design Guidelines

CSX Alternatives 1, 3, 5, 7 

(Alignment A2) City of Tampa

City of Tampa Development Regulations: 

-Development District North (CBD) 

-East Office District (CBD) 

Urban Design Guidelines

Walt Disney World Station 

Reedy Creek Jurisdiction

(Osceola County) 

Reedy Creek Improvement District 

Guidelines13

Orange County Multi-modal

Center Station

Orange County

Orange County Development Code14: 

-Ordinance No. 2001-14, Sections 

2-9 

The Commercial Design Standards 

Guidebook15

Maintenance Facility City of Orlando: (Orlando 

International Airport) 

Code of the City of Orlando16: 

-Ordinance of May 5, 2003, Document

#030505704, (Supp. 

No. 13), Chapter 16. 

It is anticipated that the greatest sensitivity to aesthetics of the FHSR would occur when the 

FHSR is not located within an existing roadway or when specific official design standards are

mandated. Sensitive areas along the proposed FHSR alternatives include the Tampa CBD (all 

alternatives) and OCCC and Taft/Vineland neighborhood (along Alignment E1, Design/Build

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6). The only specific known visual/aesthetic issues occur within the

Tampa CBD. For Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 (Alignment A1) where the FHSR 

leaves the I-4 median within the Ybor City area, the City of Tampa has requested future 

coordination with the FHSRA to ensure the design of FHSR in this location is compatible in

height and design with the proposed Ybor City Gateway design at I-4 and 21st Street. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not change the visual character of the project corridor.

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would result in potential visual/aesthetic issues within the Tampa CBD

and Taft/Vineland neighborhood. Where the FHSR leaves the I-4 median within Ybor City, 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-41

coordination will need to occur with the City of Tampa to ensure design compatibility in height 

and design with the proposed Ybor City Gateway design at I-4 and 21st Street. 

4.2.2 Air Quality

Emissions from the trains, operational/maintenance (O&M) facilities supporting the trains and 

O&M activities would be a new source that would contribute to the regional pollutant load. 

Conversely, there would be a reduction in emissions from motor vehicles as travelers use the

train as an alternate mode of transportation. Within a region, motor vehicles are typically the 

single largest source of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds. 

These are also the three primary pollutants associated with train operations. An emissions

inventory was developed for these three pollutants to determine the net change that would result

from the proposed FHSR Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8. 

Motor Vehicle Emissions 

The two parameters required to quantify emissions from motor vehicles are vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) and emission factors. Based on the 2002 Ridership Study, use of the FHSR 

would result in an annual reduction of 4,253,000 motor vehicle trips. Regional transportation 

modeling data was used to convert the vehicle trips to person VMT shown in Table 4-9. Vehicle

occupancy rates by trip type shown in Table 4-10 were obtained from highway survey data and 

were then used to convert the person VMT to motor VMT shown in Table 4-11. 

Table 4-9 

Annual Person Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Person Vehicle Miles to Access Train Station 

Alternative Rail Rider Person 

Vehicle Miles Car Access Shuttle Access Taxi Access

1, 3, 5, and 71 59,227,809 8,232,366 3,497,600 635,800

2, 4, 6, and 82 37,212,248 7,711,022 3,311,162 565,361

Notes: 1 Alternatives using the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528). 2 Alternatives using the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417).

Table 4-10 

Vehicle Occupancy Rates

Trip Type Vehicle Occupancy 

Residential Commuter 1.16

Residential Business 1.25

Residential Other 2.26

Non-Residential Business 1.12

Non-Residential Other 3.52

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-42

Table 4-11 

Reduction/Addition of Motor Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Alternative Reduced Rail Rider VMT Additional Train Station 

Access VMT Net Reduction in VMT 

1, 3, 5 and 71 25,751,221 4,670,258 21,080,963

2, 4, 6 and 82 20,673,471 4,352,302 16,321,169

Notes: 1 Alternatives using the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528). 2 Alternatives using the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). 

The motor vehicle emission factors used in preparing the most current maintenance plan for the 

Hillsborough County ozone maintenance area were developed using the MOBILE6 model. This 

is the most current emission factor model available from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). Therefore, MOBILE6 (version 6.2) was used to develop emission factors for this

analysis. Input parameters for MOBILE6 were adjusted for site and project specific conditions 

as follows: 

• Emissions factors were developed for year 2010 to coincide with the planning year for 

the regional transportation model. 

• Consistent with the General Conformity Rule, motor vehicle emissions are calculated on

an annual basis; therefore, average daily minimum and maximum temperatures of 64°

and 82° (Fahrenheit) were used. 

• One measure of fuel volatility is the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). The RVP of fuel that

can be sold within an area depends on the designated attainment status. All four counties 

within the project limits are designated as attainment areas, although Hillsborough

County is a maintenance area for ozone. Consistent with these designations and 40 CFR 

Part 80, an RVP of 9.0 was used. 

• The reduction in VMT only applies to passenger type vehicles; therefore, the composite 

emission factor developed by MOBILE6 only considers the four passenger type vehicles 

designated within the model at the following percentages: light duty gas vehicles (50.42

percent), light duty gas trucks 1 and 2 (48.80 percent), light duty diesel vehicles (0.05 

percent), and motorcycles (0.73 percent). 

• Composite emission factors from MOBILE6 include emissions from two main 

categories: 1) exhaust emissions applicable to carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and

volatile organic compounds and 2) evaporative emissions applicable only to volatile

organic compounds. These two main categories are further divided into several

subcategories. Only those emission subcategories applicable to a trip type that would be

eliminated by use of the FHSR system were included in the composite emission factor. 

The subcategories included are: running exhaust emissions, running loss emissions, 

crankcase loss emissions, and refueling loss emissions (fuel displacement and spillage).

Other evaporative loss emissions that would not be included are diurnal loss emissions

(evaporative emissions caused by daily temperature fluctuations) and resting loss 

emissions (leaks and seepage) since these emissions would occur even with the

elimination of a trip. Additionally, exhaust start emissions (excess emission before

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-43

emission control systems are heated and fully functional) and hot soak loss emissions 

(evaporative emissions after trip end but while engine is still hot) were not included 

because a rider would still have to drive to and from the train station to access the train. 

The emission factors developed through MOBILE6 and the reduction in carbon monoxide,

oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds attributable to the decreased motor VMT are 

provided in Table 4-12. 

Table 4-12 

Motor Vehicle Emissions

Reduction in Annual Motor VMT Total Reduction in Emissions 

Pollutant (tons per year) Emission Factor 

(grams/mile) Alt. 1, 3, 5, 71 Alt. 2, 4, 6, 82 Alt. 1, 3, 5, 71 Alt. 2, 4, 6, 82

Carbon Monoxide 7.291 21,080,963 16,321,169 169.1 130.9 

Oxides of Nitrogen 0.499 21,080,963 16,321,169 11.6 9.0 

Volatile Organic

Compounds 0.411 21,080,963 16,321,169 9.5 7.4

Notes: 1 Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7 using the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) route. 2 Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8 using the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) route.

Train Emissions 

Parameters required to quantify emissions from the FHSR system depend upon the train 

technology. Emissions were estimated for two different technologies, the gas turbine train and

the electric train. Emission factors vary by train technology. The combustion of fuel in the gas 

turbine train would produce emissions directly. In contrast, the electric train would produce 

emissions indirectly (i.e., at the power plant providing electricity). 

Gas turbine train emission factors and estimated fuel consumption information provided by the

proposer are summarized in Tables 4-13 and 4-14. The annual fuel consumption is based on the 

proposer’s estimate of 4,062,000 gallons for 969,360 annual train-miles. This annual fuel

consumption was then adjusted to account for differences in annual train-miles traveled under

each alternative. 

Table 4-13 

Gas Turbine Train Technology Emission Factors 

Pollutant Emission Factor 

(grams emitted per gallon of fuel burned) 

Carbon Monoxide 12.5 

Oxides of Nitrogen 43.3 

Volatile Organic Compounds 3.9 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-44

Table 4-14 

Gas Turbine Train Technology Annual Fuel Consumption (2010) 

Alternative Fuel Consumption1 

1 4,094,000 gallons

2 4,029,000 gallons

3 4,146,000 gallons

4 4,080,000 gallons

Notes: 1 Proposer’s estimate of 4,062,000 gallons for 969,360 annual train-miles adjusted by 2.68 gallons per mile for Tampa-Orlando 

trains, and 3.42 gallons per mile for Disney shuttles. Fuel consumption at idle assumed to be 100 gallons per hour.

Emissions from the electric train would depend upon power consumption by the train and

emission rates for the power plant providing electricity. Estimated annual power consumption 

by trip type is provided in Table 4-15. As a worst-case, emission factors for a coal-fired power

plant were used to calculate annual emissions. Emissions factors provided by the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for a coal-fired facility are summarized in

Table 4-16. 

Table 4-15 

Power Usage for the Electric Train 

Annual Gigawatt Hours1

Trip Type Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8

Direct Tampa to Orlando International 

Airport 6.006 5.677 6.236 5.908

Tampa to Orlando International 

Airport with stops

18.682 18.343 18.845 18.506

Shuttles between Disney and Orlando

International Airport 5.940 5.645 5.994 5.699

Notes: 1 Consumed at the generating station, including transmission and distribution losses.

Table 4-16 

Emission Factors for Coal-Fired Facility 

Pollutants Emission Factor 

(pounds per megawatt hour) 

Carbon Monoxide 0.195 

Oxides of Nitrogen 1.6 

Volatile Organic Compounds 0.016 

Train emissions by technology and design/build alternative are provided in Table 4-17. For a

particular train technology, the amount of emissions is nearly identical for all of the alternatives.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-45

The minor differences are a result of variations in the train trip length for the alternatives. The 

results also demonstrate that the electric train technology would produce considerably less

emissions of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and volatile organic compounds compared to 

the gas turbine train technology. This is a result of the relatively strict controls and emission 

reduction measures that are employed by power plants, which would be the source of electricity

for the electric train technology. 

Table 4-17 

Annual Emissions by Train Technology 

Amount of Pollutant (tons per year)

Carbon Monoxide Oxides of Nitrogen Volatile Organic Compounds Alternative Gas Turbine 

Train Electric Train Gas Turbine Train

Electric 

Train

Gas Turbine 

Train Electric Train

1 56.4 N/A 195.4 N/A 17.5 N/A

2 55.5 N/A 192.3 N/A 17.3 N/A

3 57.1 N/A 197.8 N/A 17.8 N/A

4 56.2 N/A 194.7 N/A 17.5 N/A

5 N/A 2.99 N/A 24.50 N/A 0.25

6 N/A 2.89 N/A 23.73 N/A 0.24

7 N/A 3.03 N/A 24.86 N/A 0.25

8 N/A 2.94 N/A 24.09 N/A 0.24

Operational/ Maintenance Activities and Facilities Emissions 

Emissions associated with O&M facilities were divided into two categories 1) exhaust emissions 

associated with vehicles used by security patrols and maintenance crews, and 2) emissions 

associated with electric power production to service train stations and maintenance facilities. 

The two parameters used to quantify exhaust emissions from vehicles used by security patrols

and maintenance crews are VMT and emission factors. Estimated VMT by alternative are

provided in Table 4-18. 

Table 4-18 

Annual Vehicle Miles Associated with O&M Activities 

Alternative Security (miles/year) Maintenance (miles/year) 

1 744,783 181,153

2 734,765 178,720

3 755,592 183,923

4 745,574 181,350

5 744,783 376,078

6 734,765 371,019

7 755,592 381,536

8 745,574 376,478

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-46

The model (MOBILE6 version 6.2) and assumptions previously used to develop emission factors 

for motor vehicles were also used to develop emission factors for security and maintenance 

vehicles with the following exceptions: 

• All security vehicles were assumed to be passenger vehicles traveling on roadways

categorized as arterial/collectors at an average speed of 45 mph. 

• All maintenance vehicles were assumed to be trucks spread evenly amongst the four light 

duty truck designations available in MOBILE6. The maintenance vehicles were assumed

to travel on roadways categorized as arterial/collectors at an average speed of 35 mph. 

• The composite emission factors included all exhaust and evaporative emissions. 

The emission factors developed through MOBILE6 are provided in Table 4-19 and the annual

amount of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds associated with 

O&M activities are provided in Table 4-20. 

Table 4-19 

Motor Vehicle Emission Factors for O&M Activities

Pollutant Emission Factor for Security 

Vehicles (grams/mile) 

Emission Factor for Maintenance 

Vehicles (grams/mile) 

Carbon Monoxide 9.840 11.574 

Oxides of Nitrogen 0.549 0.872 

Volatile Organic Compounds 0.667 1.060 

Table 4-20 

Annual Motor Vehicle Emissions from O&M Activities 

Pollutant

Alternative Carbon Monoxide

(tons/year) 

Oxides of Nitrogen 

(tons/year) 

Volatile Organic

Compounds (tons/year) 

1 10.4 0.6 0.8

2 10.2 0.6 0.7

3 10.5 0.6 0.8

4 10.4 0.6 0.8

5 12.9 0.8 1.0

6 12.7 0.8 1.0

7 13.1 0.8 1.0

8 12.9 0.8 1.0

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-47

Emissions associated with electric power production to service train stations and maintenance

facilities would depend upon the amount of power consumed and emission rates for the power

plant. As with the electric power consumption associated with the train, emission factors for a

coal-fired power plant (see Table 4-15) were used as a worst-case. Estimated electric power 

consumption for the proposed stations and maintenance facilities are provided in Table 4-21. 

Table 4-21 

Annual Electric Power Consumption for O&M Facilities 

Alternative Annual Gigawatt Hours 

1 5.779 

2 5.311 

3 5.779 

4 5.311 

5 12.043 

6 10.717 

7 12.043 

8 10.717 

Annual emissions associated with electric power production to service train stations and

maintenance facilities are provided in Table 4-22 and total emissions for O&M activities and

facilities are provided in Table 4-23. Compared to the gas turbine train alternatives, emissions

for O&M activities and facilities are higher for the electric train alternatives. This is a result of

the larger stations associated with the electric train alternatives, the fully doubled tracked

corridor associated with the electric train which increases maintenance and the electric traction

power supply system which also requires additional field maintenance. 

Table 4-22 

Annual Emissions from Electric Power Consumption at O&M Facilities 

Pollutant

Alternative Carbon Monoxide (tons per

year)

Oxides of Nitrogen (tons

per year)

Volatile Organic

Compounds

(tons per year) 

1 0.56 4.62 0.05

2 0.52 4.25 0.04

3 0.56 4.62 0.05

4 0.52 4.25 0.04

5 1.17 9.63 0.10

6 1.04 8.57 0.09

7 1.17 9.63 0.10

8 1.04 8.57 0.09

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-48

Table 4-23 

Total Annual Emissions for O&M Activities and Facilities

Pollutant

Alternative Carbon Monoxide (tons per

year)

Oxides of Nitrogen (tons

per year)

Volatile Organic

Compounds

(tons per year) 

1 11.0 5.2 0.9

2 10.7 4.9 0.7

3 11.1 5.2 0.9

4 10.9 4.9 0.8

5 14.1 10.4 1.1

6 13.7 9.4 1.1

7 14.3 10.4 1.1

8 13.9 9.4 1.1

Change in Regional Emissions 

The increase in regional emissions resulting from the operation of the FHSR would be offset by

the decrease in emissions resulting from a reduction in miles traveled by motor vehicles.

Table 4-24 summarizes the change in emissions using the gas turbine train as the selected

technology. Based on the anticipated train ridership, regional emissions of carbon monoxide 

would be substantially reduced; regional emissions of volatile organic compounds would remain

fairly constant; and regional emissions of oxides of nitrogen would show an increase. The 

increase in oxides of nitrogen is a result of the relatively high emission rate of this pollutant from

gas turbine engines. 

Table 4-24 

 Gas Turbine Train Technology Net Change in Emissions 

Train and O&M Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Reduction in Motor Vehicle 

Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Net Change in Regional

Emissions 

(tons per year) Alternative 

CO1 NOX2 VOC3 CO1 NOX2 VOC3 CO1 NOX2 VOC3

1 67.4 200.6 18.4 169.1 11.6 9.5 -101.7 +189.0 +8.9

2 66.2 197.2 18.0 130.9 9.0 7.4 -64.7 +188.2 +10.6

3 68.2 203.0 18.7 169.1 11.6 9.5 -100.9 +191.4 +9.2

4 67.1 199.6 18.3 130.9 9.0 7.4 -63.8 +190.6 +10.9

Notes: 1 CO is carbon monoxide. 2 NOX is oxides of nitrogen. 3 VOC is volatile organic compounds.

Table 4-25 summarizes emissions using the electric train as the selected technology. Based on 

the anticipated train ridership, regional emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic

compounds would be reduced. As with the gas turbine train technology, regional emissions of 

oxides of nitrogen would increase. The increase in oxides of nitrogen is a result of the relatively

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-49

high emission rate of this pollutant from power plants that produce electricity through the

combustion of fossil fuels. The relatively high emission rate for oxides of nitrogen is 

demonstrated through comparison of emission factors provided by FDEP and previously

documented in Table 4-15. 

Table 4-25 

Electric Train Technology Net Change in Emissions 

Train and O&M Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Reduction in Motor Vehicle 

Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Net Change in Regional

Emissions 

(tons per year) Alternative 

CO1 NOX2 VOC3 CO1 NOX2 VOC3 CO1 NOX2 VOC3

5 17.1 34.9 1.4 169.1 11.6 9.5 -152.0 +23.3 -8.1

6 16.6 33.1 1.3 130.9 9.0 7.4 -114.3 +24.1 -6.1

7 17.3 35.3 1.4 169.1 11.6 9.5 -151.8 +23.7 -8.1

8 16.8 33.5 1.3 130.9 9.0 7.4 -114.1 +24.5 -6.1

Notes: 1 CO is carbon monoxide. 2 NOX is oxides of nitrogen. 3 VOC is volatile organic compounds.

General Conformity 

The General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B) is applicable to areas that have been 

designated as non-attainment or maintenance with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS). The EPA has designated Polk, Osceola, and Orange counties as attainment 

for all the NAAQS; therefore, the General Conformity Rule is not applicable to these three

counties. Hillsborough County is designated as a maintenance area for ozone; therefore, the

General Conformity Rule is applicable to the portion of the FHSR project that traverses this 

county.

The General Conformity Rule contains rates, which if exceeded, require a conformity

determination. The rates vary depending on the pollutant and designation of the area. As an 

ozone maintenance area, the rates applicable to Hillsborough County are 100 tons per year of

either volatile organic compounds or oxides of nitrogen. The net change for these two 

pollutants in Hillsborough County was determined by segregating the train emissions, O&M

emissions and reduction in VMT occurring in Hillsborough County from the total train 

emissions, total O&M emissions and total reduction in VMT attributable to the FHSR. 

Emissions within Hillsborough County were based on the percentage of total annual train miles 

traveled that would occur within the county. The annual train emissions within Hillsborough

County are provided by alternative in Table 4-26. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-50

Table 4-26 

Train Emissions within Hillsborough County 

Train Emissions 

(tons per year) Alternative 

Carbon Monoxide Oxides of Nitrogen Volatile Organic

Compounds

1 16.0 55.3 5.0

2 16.0 55.5 5.0

3 16.7 57.8 5.2

4 16.7 58.0 5.2

5 0.8 6.1 0.1

6 0.8 6.2 0.1

7 0.8 6.6 0.1

8 0.8 6.5 0.1

For Alternatives 1 through 4, it was determined that 37 percent of the gasoline consumed for 

O&M activities would occur in Hillsborough County. For Alternatives 5 through 8, 32 percent 

of the gasoline consumed for O&M activities would occur in Hillsborough County. These

percentages were applied to the total annual motor vehicle emissions from O&M Activities

(previously provided in Table 4-19). Estimated electric power consumption for the proposed 

stations and maintenance facilities in Hillsborough County are provided in Table 4-27. Based

on the gasoline and electric power consumption within Hillsborough, the total annual emissions

for O&M activities and facilities within Hillsborough County were determined and are

summarized in Table 4-28. 

Table 4-27 

Annual Electric Power Consumption for O&M Facilities in Hillsborough County 

Alternative Annual Gigawatt Hours 

1 0.974

2 0.974

3 0.974

4 0.974

5 1.495

6 1.495

7 1.495

8 1.495

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-51

Table 4-28 

Total Annual Emissions for O&M Activities and Facilities in Hillsborough County 

Pollutant

Alternative Carbon Monoxide

(tons/year) 

Oxides of Nitrogen 

(tons/year) 

Volatile Organic

Compounds (tons/year) 

1 3.9 1.0 0.3

2 3.9 1.0 0.3

3 4.0 1.0 0.3

4 3.9 1.0 0.3

5 4.3 1.5 0.3

6 4.2 1.5 0.3

7 4.3 1.5 0.3

8 4.3 1.5 0.3

The net change in emissions occurring within Hillsborough County for the gas turbine train

technology and electric train technology are provided in Tables 4-29 and 4-30, respectively.

Regardless of the train technology, the net change in emissions for oxides of nitrogen or volatile

organic compounds is below the 100 ton per year rate of increase stipulated in the General

Conformity Rule. Therefore, a conformity determination pursuant to the General Conformity

Rule is not required for the FHSR project. 

Table 4-29 

 Gas Turbine Train Technology 

Net Change in Emissions within Hillsborough County 

Train and O&M Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Reduction in Motor Vehicle 

Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Net Change in Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Alternative 

CO1 NOX2 VOC3 CO1 NOX2 VOC3 CO1 NOX2 VOC3

1 19.9 56.3 5.2 50.4 3.5 2.8 -30.5 +52.8 +2.4

2 19.9 56.5 5.3 56.1 3.9 3.2 -36.2 +52.6 +2.1

3 20.7 58.1 5.5 50.4 3.5 2.8 -29.7 +54.6 +2.7

4 20.6 58.0 5.5 56.1 3.9 3.2 -35.5 +54.1 +2.3

Notes: 1 CO is carbon monoxide. 2 NOX is oxides of nitrogen. 3 VOC is volatile organic compounds.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-52

Table 4-30 

Electric Train Technology 

Net Change in Emissions within Hillsborough County 

Train and O&M Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Reduction in Motor Vehicle 

Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Net Change in Emissions 

(tons per year) 

Alternative 

CO1 NOX2 VOC3 CO1 NOX2 VOC3 CO1 NOX2 VOC3

5 4.8 7.6 0.4 50.4 3.5 2.8 -45.6 +4.1 -2.4

6 5.0 7.7 0.4 56.1 3.9 3.2 -51.1 +3.8 -2.8

7 5.1 8.1 0.4 50.4 3.5 2.8 -45.3 +4.6 -2.4

8 5.1 8.0 0.4 56.1 3.9 3.2 -51.0 +4.1 -2.8

Notes: 1 CO is carbon monoxide. 2 NOX is oxides of nitrogen. 3 VOC is volatile organic compounds.

Summary 

The following summarizes the results of the air quality evaluation: 

• Alternatives associated with the gas turbine train technology (Design/Build Alternatives 

1, 2, 3, and 4) would result in a net decrease in regional emissions of carbon monoxide

and a net increase in regional emissions of oxides of nitrogen compared to the No-Build 

Alternative. The net increase in regional emissions of oxides of nitrogen is a result of the 

relatively high emission rate of this pollutant from gas turbine engines. A very small 

increase in regional emissions of volatile organic compounds is also predicted compared

to the No-Build Alternative.

• Alternatives associated with the electric train technology (Design/Build Alternatives 5, 6,

7, and 8) would result in a net decrease in regional emissions of carbon monoxide and

volatile organic compounds compared to the No-Build Alternative. A net increase in 

regional emissions of oxides of nitrogen is predicted. The increase in oxides of nitrogen

is a result of the relatively high emission rate of this pollutant from power plants that

produce electricity through the combustion of fossil fuels. This emissions analysis is

based on use of coal as the source for power generation resulting in a worst case scenario. 

• The net change in emissions for a particular train technology is similar for all alternatives 

utilizing that same technology. 

• Although alternatives associated with the electric train technology consider more train

trips, emissions from the electric train technology would be less than emissions from the 

gas turbine train technology. This is a result of the relatively strict controls and emission

reduction measures that are employed by power plants, which would be the source of 

electricity for the electric train technology. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-53

• EPA has designated Polk, Osceola, and Orange Counties as attainment areas; therefore,

the General Conformity Rule is not applicable to these three counties. 

• EPA has designated Hillsborough County as a maintenance area for ozone; therefore, the

General Conformity Rule is applicable to Hillsborough County. Predicted increases in 

volatile organic compounds or oxides of nitrogen for the Design/Build Alternatives are

less than the de minimis rates documented in the General Conformity Rule; therefore, a

conformity determination is not required for this project.

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would result in the net amount and proportion of regional emissions 

dependent on current modes of transportation. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would result in a net decrease in regional emissions of carbon 

monoxide, a net increase in emissions of oxides of nitrogen, and emissions of volatile organic

compounds would remain fairly constant. The net increase in emissions of oxides of nitrogen is

a result of the relatively high emission rate of this pollutant from gas turbine engines. 

The General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B) is applicable to areas that have been 

designated as non-attainment or maintenance with respect to the NAAQS. The EPA has 

designated Polk, Osceola, and Orange counties as attainment for all the NAAQS; therefore, the 

General Conformity Rule is not applicable to these three counties. Hillsborough County is

designated as a maintenance area for ozone; therefore, the General Conformity Rule is applicable

to the portion of the FHSR project that traverses this county. The net change in emissions for

oxides of nitrogen or volatile organic compounds is below the 100 ton per year rate of increase

stipulated in the General Conformity Rule. Therefore, a conformity determination pursuant to

the General Conformity Rule is not required for the FHSR project. 

4.2.3 Noise

Noise Impact Assessment for Residential Land Use 

A noise impact assessment was conducted to quantify the extent of expected impacts and identify

feasible mitigation options where warranted. The analysis was conducted in accordance with the

procedures contained in the FRA publication, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and

Vibration Impact Assessment17 (Final Draft, December 1998). 

Noise Impact Assessment Methodology 

Noise levels for the FHSR Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 were projected based on the

proposed gas turbine train technologies (Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 4) and electric train 

technologies (Design/Build Alternatives 5 through 8), in addition to the prediction model 

specified in the FRA guidance manual. Important factors analyzed include:

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-54

• Based on the gas turbine train technologies, the predictions assume one power car and

four passenger cars with a total length of 420 ft. for the entire gas turbine train. Based on 

electric train technologies, the predictions assume two power cars and five passenger cars 

with a total length of 466 ft. for the entire electric train. 

• The operating period for both the gas turbine train and electric train vehicles is expected

to be between 6:00 AM and 11:00 PM. It is anticipated that the FHSR would operate

with headway of approximately 1 hour throughout corridors A, B, C, and D. Along 

Corridor E, the headway is expected to be approximately 1⁄2 hour. 

• The vehicle operating speeds are based on the velocity profiles that were provided in the

proposals, with maximum operating speeds of 125 mph for the gas turbine train and 

162 mph for the electric-powered train. 

The following noise impacts are expected for each of the alternatives. Figures 2-7 and 2-8 

display the alternatives and their corresponding alignments. 

Alternative 1 

For Alternative 1, detailed comparisons of the existing and future noise levels are presented in

Table 4-31. This table includes results for the Category 2 receptors along all of the alignments

with daytime and nighttime sensitivity to noise (e.g. residences, hotels, and hospitals). In

addition to the distance to the near track and proposed train speed, the table includes the existing

noise level, the projected noise level from the high speed rail, and the impact criteria for each

receptor or receptor group. The table compares predicted project noise level with impact criteria. 

The resulting impact category is shown, along with the predicted total noise level and projected

noise increase. Table 4-31 also lists the number of moderate impacts and severe impacts at each

sensitive receptor location. 

Table 4-31 

Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 1 

Project Noise Level

1 # of Res. Impacts

Impact 

Loca Criteria tion

FHSR

Survey

Station 

Dist to

Near

Track

(ft.) 

Speed

(mph) 

Exist.

Noise

Level

1 Predicted2

Imp Sev 

Impact 

Category

Total Noise 

Level

1, 2

Noise Level 

Increase1, 2 Mod Sev 

Alignment E1 7672 68 110 59 58 57 63 Impact 62 2.4 1 0

Alignment E1 7673 43 110 59 61 57 63 Impact 63 3.7 6 0

Alignment E1 7683 93 112 59 65 57 63 Severe 66 6.8 0 8

Notes: 

1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except for the increase in noise 

level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing noise impact. 

2. The reported noise levels represent the highest noise levels for each location.

Table 4-31 shows noise impacts for a total of 15 residences for Alternative 1, eight with severe

impact and seven with moderate impact. All project impacts are located at single-family

residential sites along Alignment E1. All of the impacted residences are located in the Taft area

near Orlando, Florida. The close proximity (100 ft. or less), the train speed (125 mph), and the 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-55

track height (over 20 ft.) all contribute to the potential noise impact at the 15 residences along 

Alignment E1. No impacts are projected at any Category 3 (institutional) receptors. 

Alternative 2 

The results of the noise analysis for Alternative 2 are presented in Table 4-32, which contains the

same categories of information as the table presented for Alternative 1. 

Table 4-32 

Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 2 

Project Noise Level

1 # of Res.

Impacts

Impact

Criteria Location

FHSR 

Survey

Station

Dist 

to

Near 

Track

(ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Exist. 

Noise 

Level

1 Predicted2

Imp Sev

Impact

Category

Total 

Noise 

Level

1, 2

Noise Level 

Increase

1, 2

Mod Sev

Alignment E2 4694 93 76 66 62 61 67 Impact 68 1.6 1 hotel 0

Alignment E2 5196 193 119 61 61 58 64 Impact 64 2.9 4 0 

Notes: 

1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except for the increase in noise 

level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing noise impact. 

2. The reported noise levels represent the highest noise levels for each location.

Table 4-32 shows noise impacts for a total of four residences and one hotel for Alternative 2; all 

with moderate impact and located along Alignment E2, which follows the Central Florida

Greeneway (S.R. 417). The impacted single-family residences are located south of the Central 

Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) and east of Landstar Boulevard. The impacted hotel is near the 

intersection of Kissimmee Vineland Road and World Center Drive. The close proximity (200 ft. 

or less) and the train speed (76-119 mph) contribute to the potential noise impact at all of the

impacted buildings along Alignment E2. No impacts are projected at any Category 3

(institutional) receptors. 

Alternative 3 

The results of the noise analysis for Alternative 3 are presented in Table 4-33, which contains the

same categories of information as the tables for Alternatives 1 and 2. Due to the fact that

Alternatives 1 and 3 share some alignments, some of the impacted residences are the same. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

4-56

Table 4-33 

Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 3 

Project Noise Level

1 # of Res.

Impacts

Impact

Criteria Location

FHSR 

Survey

Station

Dist 

to

Near 

Track

(ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Exist. 

Noise 

Level

1 Predicted2

Imp Sev

Impact

Category

Total 

Noise 

Level

1, 2

Noise Level 

Increase

1, 2

Mod Sev

Alignment A2 1016 43 22 62 60 59 65 Impact 64 2.2 1 0 

Alignment E1 7672 68 110 59 58 57 63 Impact 62 2.4 1 0 

Alignment E1 7673 43 110 59 61 57 63 Impact 63 3.7 6 0 

Alignment E1 7683 93 112 59 65 57 63 Severe 66 6.8 0 8 

Notes: 

1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except for the increase in noise 

level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing noise impact. 

2. The reported noise levels represent the highest noise levels for each location.

Table 4-33 shows noise impacts for a total of 16 residences for Alternative 3, eight with severe

impact and eight with moderate impact. No impacts are projected at any Category 3 

(institutional) receptors. One multi-family residence near the west end of the corridor, to the 

south of I-275, is the only building impacted in Alignment A2, located near the Tampa CBD.

The close proximity to the track (less than 50 ft.) and the train speed (22 mph) are the main

contributors to the potential noise impact along Alignment A2. Noise impacts are expected to

affect eight residences with severe impacts and seven with moderate impacts along 

Alignment E1. All of the impacted residences are located in the Taft area near Orlando, Florida. 

The close proximity (100 ft. or less), the train speed (110-112 mph), and the track height (over

20 ft.) all contribute to the potential noise impact at the 15 residences along Alignment E1. 

Alternative 4 

The results of the noise analysis for Alternative 4 are presented in Table 4-34, which contains the

same categories of information as the tables for the previously discussed alternatives. Due to the

fact that Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 share some alignments, some of the impacted residences are 

the same. 

Table 4-34 

Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 4 

Project Noise Level

1 # of Res.

Impacts

Impact

Criteria 

Location

FHSR 

Survey

Station

Dist 

to

Near 

Track

(ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Exist. 

Noise 

Level

1 Predicted2

Imp Sev

Impact

Category

Total 

Noise 

Level

1, 2

Noise Level 

Increase

1, 2

Mod Sev

Alignment A2 1016 43 22 62 60 59 65 Impact 64 2.2 1 0 

Alignment E2 4694 93 76 66 62 61 67 Impact 68 1.6 1 hotel 0

Alignment E2 5196 193 119 61 61 58 64 Impact 64 2.9 4 0 

Notes:

1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except for the increase in noise level, which is given to

the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing noise impact. 

2. The reported noise levels represent the highest noise levels for each location.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-57

Table 4-34 shows noise impacts for a total of five residences and one hotel for Alternative 4, all 

of them with moderate impact. No impacts are projected at any Category 3 (institutional)

receptors. One multi-family residence near the west end of the corridor, to the south of I-275 in

Tampa, is the only building impacted in Alignment A2. The close proximity to the track (less 

than 50 ft.) and the train speed (22 mph) are the main contributors to the potentially moderate 

noise impact along Alignment A2. Moderate noise impacts would be expected at a total of four

residences and one hotel along Alignment E2 in Orlando. The impacted single-family residences

are located south of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) and east of Landstar Boulevard.

The impacted hotel is near the intersection of Kissimmee Vineland Road and World Center

Drive. The close proximity (200 ft. or less) and the train speed (76-119 mph) contribute to the

potential noise impact at all of the impacted buildings along Alignment E2. 

Alternative 5 

The results of the noise analysis for Alternative 5 are presented in Table 4-35, which contains the

same categories of information as the tables for previously discussed alternatives. Due to the

fact that Alternatives 5, 6, 7, and 8 use a different technology than Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, the 

residences that are impacted would be different, even though the alignments may be the same. 

Table 4-35 

Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 5

Project Noise Level

1 # of Res.

Impacts

Impact

Criteria 

Location

FHSR 

Survey

Station

Dist to 

Near 

Track

(ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Exist. 

Noise 

Level

1 Predicted2

Imp Sev

Impact

Category

Total 

Noise 

Level

1, 2

Noise Level 

Increase

1, 2

Mod Sev

Alignment A1 6003 43 21 68 65 63 68 Impact 70 2.0 1 hotel 0

Alignment A1 6007 43 22 77 65 65 75 Impact 78 0.3 1 0 

Alignment A1 6007 43 22 68 65 63 68 Impact 70 1.9 1 0 

Alignment A1 6010 43 24 68 65 63 68 Impact 70 2.0 3 0 

Alignment A1 6016 43 27 69 65 64 69 Impact 70 1.6 1 0 

Alignment A1 6042 43 42 74 66 65 72 Impact 74 0.7 4 0 

Alignment A1 6051 43 45 79 66 65 75 Impact 79 0.2 3 0 

Alignment A1 6071 43 57 77 66 65 75 Impact 77 0.4 2 0 

Alignment E1 7672 68 137 59 68 57 63 Severe 69 9.3 0 1 

Alignment E1 7673 43 137 59 71 57 63 Severe 71 11.8 0 6

Alignment E1 7673 209 137 59 58 57 63 Impact 62 2.5 7 0 

Alignment E1 7679 93 132 59 66 57 63 Severe 67 7.4 0 9 

Alignment E1 7683 93 130 59 66 57 63 Severe 67 7.4 0 8 

Alignment E1 7687 143 126 59 63 57 63 Impact 64 5.2 6 0 

Notes: 

1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except for the increase in noise 

level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing noise impact. 

2. The reported noise levels represent the highest noise levels for each location.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 4-35 shows noise impacts for a total of 52 residences for Alternative 5, 24 with severe 

impact and 28 with moderate impact. Moderate impact is also projected at one hotel. Impacts

that are projected at Category 3 (institutional) receptors are displayed later on Table 4-33 of this

report. Moderate noise impacts are expected at 15 residences and one hotel along Alignment A1 

in Tampa. All of the impacted buildings are south of I-275, but none are further than the

I-4/I-275 interchange. The close proximity to the track (within 50 ft.), the track height

(over 30 ft.), and the train speed (21-57 mph) all contribute to the potential noise impact along

Alignment A1. Along Alignment E1, severe noise impacts are expected at 24 residences and 

moderate noise impacts are expected at 13 residences. All of the impacted residences are located

in the Taft area near Orlando. The close proximity (250 ft. or less), the train speed (126-137 

mph), and the track height (over 25 ft.) all contribute to the potential noise impact at the 37 

residences along Alignment E1. 

Alternative 6 

The results of the noise analysis for Alternative 6 are presented in Table 4-36, which contains the

same categories of information as the tables for previously discussed alternatives. Due to the

fact that Alternatives 5 and 6 share some alignments, some of the impacted residences are the

same. 

Table 4-36 shows noise impacts for a total of 102 residences for Alternative 6, 80 with moderate

impact and 22 with severe impact. Moderate impact is also projected at three hotels. Impacts

that are projected at Category 3 (institutional) receptors are discussed in the Noise Impact

Assessment for Institutional Land Use section. The following text provides a brief discussion of

the impacted Category 2 land use areas. Moderate noise impacts are expected at 15 residences

and one hotel along Alignment A1 in Tampa. All of the impacted buildings are south of I-275, 

but none are further than the I-4/I-275 interchange. The close proximity to the track (within 

50 ft.), the track height (over 30 ft.), and the train speed (21-45 mph) all contribute to the

potential noise impacts along Alignment A1. The impacted sites along Alignment E2 are mostly

single-family residences and apartments on the north side of the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417). The locations of impacted sites extend from two hotels that have a moderate impact

(near the intersection of Kissimmee Vineland Road and World Center Drive) east to

Meadowwoods subdivision. The close proximity (400 ft. or less), the train speed (88-149 mph), 

and the track height (over 25 ft.) contribute to the potential noise impact at the 187 residences 

along Alignment E2. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-58
Table 4-36 

Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 6 

Project Noise Level

1 # of Res.

Impacts

Impact

Criteria 

Location

FHSR 

Survey

Station

Dist to 

Near 

Track

(ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Exist. 

Noise 

Level

1 Predicted2

Imp Sev

Impact

Category

Total 

Noise 

Level

1,2

Noise Level 

Increase

1, 2

Mod Sev

Alignment A1 6003 43 21 68 65 63 68 Impact 70 2.0 1 hotel 0

Alignment A1 6007 43 22 77 65 65 75 Impact 78 0.3 1 0 

Alignment A1 6007 43 22 68 65 63 68 Impact 70 1.9 1 0 

Alignment A1 6010 43 22 68 65 63 68 Impact 70 2.0 3 0 

Alignment A1 6016 43 27 69 65 64 69 Impact 70 1.6 1 0

Alignment A1 6042 43 42 74 66 65 72 Impact 74 0.7 4 0

Alignment A1 6051 43 45 79 66 65 75 Impact 79 0.2 3 0

Alignment A1 6071 43 57 77 66 65 75 Impact 77 0.4 2 0

Alignment E2 4642 143 149 63 64 60 65 Impact 67 3.4 1 hotel 0

Alignment E2 4694 93 149 66 67 61 67 Impact 69 3.4 1 hotel 0

Alignment E2 4827 118 88 61 61 58 64 Impact 64 3.1 6 0 

Alignment E2 4827 143 88 64 60 60 65 Impact 65 1.6 6 0 

Alignment E2 4838 106 90 65 62 61 66 Impact 67 1.7 3 0 

Alignment E2 5118 118 130 67 64 62 67 Impact 69 1.9 10 0 

Alignment E2 5153 181 137 58 62 57 63 Impact 63 5.2 4 0 

Alignment E2 5153 268 137 53 56 54 60 Impact 58 5.0 4 0 

Alignment E2 5158 143 138 59 63 57 63 Severe 65 5.6 0 4 

Alignment E2 5158 268 138 54 56 55 61 Impact 58 4.5 4 0 

Alignment E2 5159 143 138 60 63 58 63 Severe 65 5.4 0 2 

Alignment E2 5159 318 138 54 55 55 61 Impact 58 3.9 4 0 

Alignment E2 5162 306 139 53 56 55 61 Impact 58 4.3 3 0 

Alignment E2 5163 131 139 60 64 58 64 Severe 66 5.3 0 6 

Alignment E2 5165 268 139 54 57 55 61 Impact 59 4.3 4 0 

Alignment E2 5167 93 139 62 66 59 64 Severe 67 5.9 0 6 

Alignment E2 5168 268 140 55 57 55 61 Impact 59 4.1 4 0 

Alignment E2 5171 93 140 61 66 58 64 Severe 67 6.3 0 4 

Alignment E2 5172 318 140 53 56 54 60 Impact 57 4.4 3 0 

Alignment E2 5184 306 143 56 59 56 62 Impact 61 4.4 10 0 

Notes: 

1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except for the increase in noise 

level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing noise impact. 

2. The reported noise levels represent the highest noise levels for each location.

Alternative 7 

The results of the noise analysis for Alternative 7 are presented in Table 4-37, which contains the

same categories of information as the tables for previously discussed alternatives. Due to the

fact that Alternatives 5 and 7 share some alignments, some of the impacted residences are 

the same. 

 4-59

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 4-37 

Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 7 

Project Noise Level

1 # of Res.

Impacts

Impact

Criteria Location

FHSR 

Survey

Station

Dist to 

Near 

Track

(ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Exist. 

Noise 

Level

1 Predicted2

Imp Sev

Impact

Category

Total 

Noise 

Level

1, 2

Noise Level 

Increase

1, 2

Mod Sev

Alignment A2 1016 43 22 62 65 59 65 Severe 67 4.8 0 1 

Alignment E1 7672 68 137 59 68 57 63 Severe 69 9.3 0 1 

Alignment E1 7673 43 137 59 71 57 63 Severe 71 11.8 0 6 

Alignment E1 7673 209 137 59 58 57 63 Impact 62 2.5 7 0 

Alignment E1 7679 93 132 59 66 57 63 Severe 67 7.4 0 9 

Alignment E1 7683 93 130 59 66 57 63 Severe 67 7.4 0 8 

Alignment E1 7687 143 126 59 63 57 63 Impact 64 5.2 6 0 

Notes: 

1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except for the increase in noise 

level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing noise impact. 

2. The reported noise levels represent the highest noise levels for each location.

Table 4-37 shows noise impacts for a total of 38 residences for Alternative 7, 25 with severe 

impact and 13 with moderate impact; no impacts are projected at any Category 3 (institutional)

receptors. One multi-family residence near the beginning of the corridor, to the south of I-275 in 

Tampa, is the only building impacted in Alignment A2. The close proximity to the track (less 

than 50 ft.) and the train speed (22 mph) are the main contributors to the potentially severe noise 

impact along Alignment A2. Along Alignment E1, severe noise impacts are expected to affect

24 residences and moderate noise impacts are expected to affect 13 residences. All of the 

impacted residences are located in the Taft area near Orlando. The close proximity to the track 

(250 ft. or less), the train speed (126-137 mph), and the track height (over 25 ft.) all contribute to 

the potential noise impact at the 37 residences along Alignment E1. 

Alternative 8 

The results of the noise analysis for Alternative 8 are presented in Table 4-38, which contains the

same categories of information as the tables for previously discussed alternatives. Due to the

fact that Alternatives 6 and 8 share some alignments, some of the impacted residences are the

same. 

Table 4-38 shows noise impacts for a total of 88 residences for Alternative 8, 65 with moderate

impact and 23 with severe impact; moderate impacts are also projected at 2 hotels. Impacts that

are projected at Category 3 (institutional) receptors will be discussed in the Noise Impact

Assessment for Institutional Land Use section. One multi-family residence near the beginning of

the corridor, to the south of I-275, is the only building impacted in Alignment A2. The close 

proximity to the track (less than 50 ft.) and the train speed (22 mph) are the main contributors to 

the potentially severe noise impact along Alignment A2. The impacted sites along Alignment E2

are mostly single-family residences and apartments on the north side of the Central Florida

Greeneway (S.R. 417). The locations of impacted sites extend from two hotels that have a

moderate impact (near the intersection of Kissimmee Vineland Road and World Center Drive)

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-60
east to Meadowwoods subdivision. The close proximity (400 ft. or less), the train speed 

(88-149 mph), and the track height (over 25 ft.) contribute to the potential noise impact at the 

187 residences along Alignment E2. 

Table 4-38 

Residential Noise Impacts for Alternative 8 

Project Noise Level

1 # of Res.

Impacts

Impact

Criteria Location

FHSR 

Survey

Station

Dist to 

Near 

Track

(ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Exist. 

Noise 

Level

1 Predicted2

Imp Sev

Impact

Category

Total 

Noise 

Level

1, 2

Noise Level 

Increase

1, 2

Mod Sev

Alignment A2 1016 43 22 62 65 59 65 Severe 67 4.8 0 1 

Alignment E2 4642 143 149 63 64 60 65 Impact 67 3.4 1 hotel 0

Alignment E2 4694 93 149 66 67 61 67 Impact 69 3.4 1 hotel 0

Alignment E2 4827 118 88 61 61 58 64 Impact 64 3.1 6 0 

Alignment E2 4827 143 88 64 60 60 65 Impact 65 1.6 6 0 

Alignment E2 4838 106 90 65 62 61 66 Impact 67 1.7 3 0 

Alignment E2 5118 118 130 67 64 62 67 Impact 69 1.9 10 0 

Alignment E2 5153 181 137 58 62 57 63 Impact 63 5.2 4 0 

Alignment E2 5153 268 137 53 56 54 60 Impact 58 5.0 4 0 

Alignment E2 5158 143 138 59 63 57 63 Severe 65 5.6 0 4 

Alignment E2 5158 268 138 54 56 55 61 Impact 58 4.5 4 0 

Alignment E2 5159 143 138 60 63 58 63 Severe 65 5.4 0 2 

Alignment E2 5159 318 138 54 55 55 61 Impact 58 3.9 4 0 

Alignment E2 5162 306 139 53 56 55 61 Impact 58 4.3 3 0 

Alignment E2 5163 131 139 60 64 58 64 Severe 66 5.3 0 6 

Alignment E2 5165 268 139 54 57 55 61 Impact 59 4.3 4 0 

Alignment E2 5167 93 139 62 66 59 64 Severe 67 5.9 0 6 

Alignment E2 5168 268 140 55 57 55 61 Impact 59 4.1 4 0 

Alignment E2 5171 93 140 61 66 58 64 Severe 67 6.3 0 4 

Alignment E2 5172 318 140 53 56 54 60 Impact 57 4.4 3 0 

Alignment E2 5184 306 143 56 59 56 62 Impact 61 4.4 10 0 

Notes: 

1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except for the increase in noise 

level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing noise impact. 

2. The reported noise levels represent the highest noise levels for each location.

Summary of Noise Impacts 

Table 4-39 provides a summary of the total number of residences and hotels where noise impact 

is projected for each design/build alternative. Table 4-39 shows that out of the four alternatives 

using the gas turbine train technology, Alternative 3 will have the greatest number of residences

and hotels impacted. Eight residences are projected to have moderate impact and eight

residences are projected to have severe impact. Table 4-39 also shows that out of the four

alternatives using the electric train technology, Alternative 6 will have the greatest number of

sites impacted. Eighty residences and three hotels are projected to have moderate impact and

twenty-two residences are projected to have severe impact with Alternative 6. 

 4-61

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 4-39 

Residential Noise Impact Summary 

Number of Residences Impacted Proposal Alternatives Moderate Severe Total 

1 7 8 15

2 4 + 1 hotel 0 4 + 1 hotel 

3 8 8 16 Gas Turbine Train 

4 5 + 1 hotel 0 5 + 1 hotel 

5 28 + 1 hotel 24 52 + 1 hotel 

6 80 + 3 hotels 22 102 + 3 hotels

7 13 25 38 Electric Train

8 65 + 2 hotels 23 88 + 2 hotels

Due to differences in schedules, vertical profiles, distances from tracks, speeds of trains, 

numbers of power cars, lengths of trains, and numbers of passenger cars, a direct comparison 

cannot be made between the two technologies as proposed. In order to get a direct comparison,

all variables must be made equal except for the technology itself. Moreover, there are two ways

to compare the technologies: consider the train consists as proposed, even if they have different

numbers of power cars and coaches; and consider the same number of power cars and coaches.

Comparison is made possible using the methodology of the FRA Guidance Manual to make the 

necessary adjustments in the variables. Table 4-40 shows the noise level of each technology

expressed in terms of Sound Exposure Level (SEL) with the same train schedule, reference

distance, and reference height. Variations in the train length and train consist are made equal in

one case, whereas the original proposed train consists are retained in the other. The speed of the

train can make a difference, so Table 4-40 also shows the different speed regimes with the 

respective SEL’s. The following train consist assumptions were made in calculating the SEL:

• The proposed electric train consist was two power cars, each 70 ft. in length, with an

overall train length of 466 ft. 

• The proposed gas turbine train consist was one power car, 70 ft. in length, with an overall

train length of 420 ft. 

• Comparing only the technologies, and everything else being equal, the train consist was

assumed to be one power car, 70 ft. in length, with an overall train length of 440 ft. 

In Table 4-40 it can be seen that all things being equal, the electric train technology has a higher

SEL when speeds are below 60 mph. However, when speeds are above 60 mph, the gas turbine

technology has a slightly higher SEL. When the proposed consists are compared, the electric 

train technology has a higher SEL when speeds are below 60 mph. However, when speeds are

above 60 mph the two technologies have an SEL of 92 dBA. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-62
Table 4-40 

Comparison of SEL Noise Level with Technology and Train Consist 

Differences Technology Speed Regime I

(0-60 mph)

Speed Regime II 

(60-170mph)

Gas Turbine Train 87 dBA 92 dBA Difference in Technology

only Electric Train 89 dBA 91 dBA

Difference in Train Consist Gas Turbine Train 87 dBA 92 dBA

and Technology (trains as

proposed) Electric Train 92 dBA 92 dBA

Table 4-41 provides a summary of the total number of projected impacts in each category for 

each alternative. Alternative 3 has 16 Category 2 receptors with projected impact, which is the 

most for any alternative using the gas turbine train technology. There will be no impact for any

Category 1 or Category 3 receptors at Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4. Table 4-41 also 

shows that Alternative 6 will have 105 Category 2 receptors and 2 parks (Category 3 receptors)

with projected impact, which is the most for any alternative using the electric train technology.

There will be no impact for any Category 1 receptors at Design/Build Alternatives 5, 6, 7, or 8. 

Table 4-41 

Evaluation Matrix

Noise Impacts (Moderate & Severe) 

ALTERNATIVES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Gas Turbine Train Technology Electric Train Technology

Category 1 (Buildings

and/or parks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Category 2 

(Residences, hospitals,

and hotels) 

15 5 16 6 53 105 38 90

Category 3 

(Institutional -schools, 

libraries, churches,

active park)

0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1

Noise Comparison of Technologies on Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) 

In order to compare the gas turbine train and the electric train technologies, the alignment must

be considered. Alignment E2, which follows the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), is the 

only location where the proposals for the two technologies differed in alignment. The Fluor

Bombardier Team (gas turbine train) proposed an alignment in the median of the Greeneway and

the Global Rail Consortium (electric train) proposed an alignment along the northern right of

 4-63

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
way limits of the Greeneway. Table 4-42 shows a comparison of the impacts of both 

technologies on each of the proposed alignments along the Greeneway. 

Table 4-42 

Comparison of Technology Noise Impact on Alignment E2 

Gree Number of Residences Impacted neway

Alignments Proposed

by 

Technology 

Moderate Severe Total 

Gas Turbine Train 4 + 1 hotel 0 4 + 1 hotel Fluor Bombardier Team Electric Train 73 + 1 hotel 10 83 + 1 hotel 

Gas Turbine Train 10 + 2 hotels 0 10 + 2 hotels Global Rail Consortium

Electric Train 65 + 2 hotels 22 87 + 2 hotels

Noise Impacts for Institutional Land Use 

Institutional land use near the corridors includes parks, schools, churches, and libraries.

Table 4-43 summarizes the noise impact projections at these locations, based on the planned

FHSR operations and the distance to the proposed track. The distances in the table refer to either 

the location of the closest building, or to the closest point of activity for sites with outdoor land

use. For parks where use of the land near the tracks is not well defined, the distance to the ROW 

line (assumed to be 25 ft.) was used to obtain a conservative estimate of noise impact. 

Table 4-43 

Noise Impacts for Institutional Land Use 

Project Noise 

Level

1

# of

Impacts

Impact

Criteria

Alternative Location Receptor

Location

FHSR 

Survey

Station

Dist 

to

Near 

Track

(ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Exist. 

Noise 

Level

1

Predicted2

Imp Sev

Impact

Category

Total 

Noise 

Level

1, 2

Noise Level 

Increase

1, 2

Mod Sev

5 Alignment 

A1 

Perry

Harvey Sr. 

Park

6029 25 35 77 69 65 75 Impact 78 0.6 1 Park 0

6 Alignment 

A1 

Perry

Harvey Sr. 

Park

6029 25 35 77 69 65 75 Impact 78 0.6 1 Park 0

6 Alignment 

E2 

Shingle

Creek 

Greenway

4881 25 97 59 71 57 63 Severe 72 12.4 0 1 

Park

8 Alignment

E2 

Shingle 

Creek

Greenway

4881 25 97 59 71 57 63 Severe 72 12.4 0 1 

Park

Notes: 

1. Noise levels are based on Leq for the daytime peak train service hour and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest 

decibel except for the increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing

noise impact. 

2. The reported noise levels represent the highest noise levels for each location.

As Table 4-43 presents, Alternatives 5, 6, and 8 are the only alternatives with projected impact

on institutional land uses. These alternatives consist of the electric train technology with 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-64
projected impacts on institutional land uses at two parks. The impact is due to the close 

proximity of the proposed track with the distance being at the closest point of activity for Perry

Harvey Sr. Park. Because the Shingle Creek Greenway is undeveloped adjacent to the Central

Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), a conservative distance was used. Currently there is no public

access to the Shingle Creek Greenway in the area adjacent to the proposed project. This portion 

is mainly undeveloped and there are no existing facilities; therefore, usage is anticipated to be

low. The proposed project is not anticipated to cause a noise level increase that would 

substantially impair or diminish the greenway’s activities, features, or attributes. 

Noise Impact Mitigation 

Some potential mitigation measures for reducing noise impacts from the FHSR operations are 

described below: 

• Noise Barriers - This is a common approach to reducing noise impacts from surface

transportation sources. The primary requirements for an effective noise barrier are: (1) 

the barrier must be high enough and long enough to break the line-of-sight between the

sound source and the receiver; (2) the barrier must be of an impervious material with a 

minimum surface density of 4 lb./sq. ft.; and (3) the barrier must not have any gaps or 

holes between the panels or at the bottom. Because numerous materials meet these

requirements, the selection of materials for noise barriers is usually dictated by aesthetics,

durability, cost, and maintenance considerations. Depending on the proximity of the 

barrier to the tracks and on the track elevation, rail noise barriers typically range in height 

from 4 to 10 ft., providing noise reductions of 5 to 10 dBA.

• Building Sound Insulation – Sound insulation of residences and institutional buildings

to improve the outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction has been widely applied around 

airports, but has seen limited application for rail projects. Although this approach has no 

effect on noise in exterior areas, it may be the best choice for sites where noise barriers

are not feasible or desirable, and for buildings where indoor sensitivity is of most 

concern. Substantial improvements in building sound insulation (on the order of 5 to 

10 dBA) can often be achieved by adding an extra layer of glazing to windows, by

sealing any holes in exterior surfaces that act as sound leaks, and by providing forced

ventilation and air conditioning so that windows do not need to be opened.

As discussed in Section 3.7.2, FRA requires that severe impacts be mitigated unless there are no 

practical means to do so. While mitigation is encouraged at the moderate impact level, the

implementation of such mitigation would depend on other project-specific factors. These other 

factors can include the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of 

noise-sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor-to-indoor sound insulation, and the costeffectiveness of mitigating noise to more acceptable levels. 

 4-65

Based on the results of the noise assessment, potential mitigation has been evaluated at all 

locations where severe impacts were identified. The proposed mitigation measure is the

construction of sound barrier walls to shield the areas where severe impact is projected. 

Table 4-44 indicates the approximate noise barrier locations, lengths, and side of track, as well as

the number of moderate and severe impacts both with and without the noise barrier for all of the

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
alternatives. As shown in the table, the proposed noise barriers are expected to eliminate all of

the severe impacts. Eliminating the residual moderate noise impacts would require additional 

and/or enhanced noise barriers, and would also require the application of building sound

insulation treatments in some locations. 

Table 4-44 

Potential Noise Barrier Mitigation Treatments 

# of Residences

Impacts (w/o N.B.) 

# of Residences

Alternative Alignment Impacts (w/ N.B.) Side of

Track

Survey

Station

Length

(ft.) Moderate Severe Moderate Severe 

No- Build No mitigation required 

1 Alignment E1 North 7679-7686 700 7 8 7 0

2 No mitigation required 

3 Alignment E1 North 7679-7686 700 7 8 7 0

4 No mitigation Required 

5 Alignment E1 North 7669-7686 1700 13 24 13 0

6 Alignment E2 North 5148-5174 2600 65 22 20 0

Alignment A2 North 1014-1016 200 0 1 0 0 7 Alignment E1 North 7669-7686 1700 13 24 13 0

Alignment A2 North 1014-1016 200 0 1 0 0 8 Alignment E2 North 5148-5174 2600 65 22 35 0

The results in Table 4-44 indicate that the largest amount of mitigation to eliminate all of the

severe impacts would occur within Alternative 8, where 2,800 ft. of sound barrier wall would be

required to eliminate all severe noise impacts. The least amount of mitigation would occur 

within Alternative 2 or 4, where there are no severe impacts and therefore no mitigation is

required. 

With regard to potential noise impacts at non-residential locations, the feasibility of noise

mitigation would need further evaluation. At Perry Harvey Sr. Park, the projected impact is due

to the close proximity of the park to the proposed track and ROW. As the design is finalized, 

noise mitigation would have to be considered in more detail to determine if the benefit is 

warranted. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative is not expected to result in any noise impacts from rail; however,

increases in congestion and from resulting roadway expansion would increase traffic noise levels

through out the project area. 

The Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) will moderately impact a total of 7 residences and

severely impact 8 residences, as shown in Table 4-45. The proposed mitigation measure is the 

construction of sound barrier walls to shield the areas where severe impact is projected. With

700 ft. of sound barrier at the appropriate location, all severe noise impacts will be eliminated. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-66
Table 4-45 

Residential Noise Impacts for Preferred Alternative

Number of Residences Impacted

Technology Alignment 

Moderate Severe Total 

Gas Turbine Train Preferred Alternative 7 8 15 

4.2.4 Vibration

Vibration Impact Assessment

Vibration Impact Assessment Methodology 

The potential vibration impacts from the proposed FHSR Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 

were assessed on an absolute basis using the FRA criteria based on the proposed gas turbine train

technologies (Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 4) and the proposed electric train technologies 

(Design/Build Alternatives 5 through 8). The following factors were used in determining

potential vibration impacts along the FHSR corridor: 

• Vibration source levels were based on FRA-sponsored measurements previously

conducted on high speed trains similar to those proposed. Measurements of Amtrak

Acela operations on the northeast corridor of the United States were used to obtain the

source vibration levels for the gas turbine train. Measurements of TGV operations on the

TGV Nord Line in France were used to obtain source vibration levels for the electric

train. 

• Vibration propagation tests were conducted at 11 sites along the proposed corridors near

sensitive receptors. These tests measured the response of the ground to an input force.

The results of these tests were combined with the vibration source level measurements to

provide projections of vibration levels from vehicles operating on the FHSR alignments. 

• The vehicle operating speeds are based on the velocity profiles that were provided by the

proposals submitted, with maximum operating speeds of 125 mph for the gas turbine

train and 162 mph for the electric train. 

For all of the design/build alternatives, the estimated RMS velocity levels (VdB re 1 microin./sec.) for sensitive receptors at representative distances are provided in Table 4-38 through

Table 4-45. These tables summarize the results of the analysis in terms of anticipated

exceedances of the FRA criteria for “infrequent events” (defined as less than 70 events per day). 

The tables list the locations, the civil station, the distance to the near track, and the projected

train speed at each location. In addition, the predicted project vibration level and the impact

criterion level are indicated, along with the number of impacts projected for each receptor or

receptor group. The criteria are discussed in more detail in Section 3.7.3. 

 4-67

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Direct Comparison of Gas Turbine Train and Electric Train Vibration 

With regard to ground-borne vibration from train operations, the major contributing factors are

the primary suspension, wheel condition, speed, and the weight of the vehicle. The major 

difference between the vibration characteristics of the electric and the gas turbine train is that the

gas turbine train has a higher vibration level at lower frequencies than the electric train. This is 

most likely due to the difference in weight between the two vehicles; the gas turbine train’s

consist weighs almost twice as much as the electric train’s consist. In addition, when the ground

exhibits more efficient vibration propagation characteristics at low frequencies, there is a greater

difference in vibration impact between the two technologies. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative is not expected to result in any ground-borne vibration impacts. 

Alternative 1 

Table 4-46 indicates that there are 33 residences, 11 hotels, and 1 commercial building

(considered because it has vibration sensitive equipment) with potential vibration impact under 

Alternative 1. There are no impacts projected at any Category 3 (institutional) receptors. A 

discussion of each impacted receptor group follows. 

A group of four single-family residences is located within 100 ft. of the alignment as the tracks 

run along I-4 through Alignment A1. These residences, located south of the proposed alignment

and just west of 34th Street, would experience vibration impacts. 

Two groups of single-family residences located on the north side of I-4 and west of North

Bethlehem Road are located within 200 ft. of the proposed Alignment C1. In addition, a group

of single-family residences, located east of Branch Forbes Road and south of I-4, is within 

200 ft. of the proposed alignment. These 16 residences would experience vibration impacts. 

A group of hotels, multi-family residences, and apartments located in the Lake Buena Vista area

of Alignment E1 is within 400 ft. of the proposed tracks. The impacted buildings are on both

sides of the alignment. In the eastern section of Alignment E1, a group of single-family

residences in the Taft area of Orlando is located within 125 ft. of the proposed alignment and 

these homes are projected to be impacted as well. In addition, a commercial building located just

west of Orange Blossom Drive is projected to be impacted based on the use of vibration sensitive 

equipment there. In total, Alignment E1 potentially impacts 13 residences, 11 hotels, and 1

commercial building.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-68
Table 4-46 

Vibration Impacts for Alternative 1 

Location Survey

Station

Dist to Near 

Track (ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Project 

Vibration 

Level

1,2

Vibration 

Impact

Criterion1

# of Res.

Impacts

Alignment A1 6140 93 68 81 80 4 

Alignment C1 1980 143 122 81 80 6 

Alignment C1 1986 193 122 80 80 5 

Alignment C1 2058 193 123 80 80 5 

Alignment E1 7124 218 93 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7131 168 94 83 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7134 218 94 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7137 343 94 80 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7109 243 92 82 80 2 

Alignment E1 7104 193 91 84 80 1 

Alignment E1 7117 293 92 81 80 4 

Alignment E1 7147 293 95 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7152 318 96 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7170 218 98 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7183 243 99 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7194 218 100 82 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7203 193 101 85 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7274 343 107 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7530 145 92 66 65 13

Alignment E1 7673 110 93 82 80 6 

Notes: 

1. Vibration levels are measured in VdB referenced to 1 μin/sec.

2. The reported vibration level represents the maximum vibration level for each location.

3. Commercial building that uses lasers which can be sensitive to vibration 

Alternative 2 

Table 4-47 indicates that there are 20 residences with potential vibration impact under

Alternative 2. There are no impacts projected at any Category 3 (institutional) receptors. A 

discussion of each impacted receptor group follows. 

A group of four single-family residences is located within 100 ft. of the alignment as the tracks 

run along I-4 through Alignment A1. These residences, located south of the proposed alignment

and just west of 34th Street, would experience vibration impacts. 

Two groups of single-family residences located on the north side of I-4 and west of North

Bethlehem Road are located within 200 ft. of the proposed Alignment C1. In addition, a group

of single-family residences, located east of Branch Forbes Road and south of I-4, is within 

200 ft. of the proposed alignment. These 16 residences would experience vibration impacts. 

 4-69

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Table 4-47 

Vibration Impacts for Alternative 2 

Location Survey

Station

Dist to Near 

Track (ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Project 

Vibration 

Level

1,2

Vibration 

Impact

Criterion1

# of Res.

Impacts

Alignment A1 6140 93 68 81 80 4 

Alignment C1 1980 143 122 81 80 6 

Alignment C1 1986 193 122 80 80 5 

Alignment C1 2058 193 123 80 80 5 

Notes: 

1. Vibration levels are measured in VdB referenced to 1 μin/sec.

2. The reported vibration level represents the maximum vibration level for each location.

Alternative 3 

Table 4-48 indicates that there are 29 residences, 11 hotels, and 1 commercial building

(considered because it has vibration sensitive equipment) with potential vibration impact under 

Alternative 3. There are no impacts projected at any Category 3 (institutional) receptors.

A discussion of each impacted receptor group follows. 

Two groups of single-family residences located on the north side of I-4 and west of North

Bethlehem Road are located within 200 ft. of the proposed Alignment C1. In addition, a group

of single-family residences, located east of Branch Forbes Road and south of I-4, is within 

200 ft. of the proposed alignment. These 16 residences would experience vibration impacts. 

A group of hotels, multi-family residences, and apartments located in the Lake Buena Vista area

of Alignment E1 is within 400 ft. of the proposed tracks. The impacted buildings are on both

sides of the alignment. In the eastern section of Alignment E1, a group of single-family

residences in the Taft area of Orlando, Florida, is located within 125 ft. of the proposed

alignment and these homes are projected to be impacted as well. In addition, a commercial

building located just west of Orange Blossom Drive is projected to be impacted based on the use 

of vibration sensitive equipment there. In total, Alignment E1 potentially impacts 13 residences,

11 hotels, and 1 commercial building.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-70
Table 4-48 

Vibration Impacts for Alternative 3 

Location Survey

Station

Dist to Near 

Track (ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Project 

Vibration 

Level

1,2

Vibration 

Impact

Criterion1

# of Res.

Impacts

Alignment C1 1980 143 122 81 80 6 

Alignment C1 1986 193 122 80 80 5 

Alignment C1 2058 193 123 80 80 5 

Alignment E1 7124 218 93 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7131 168 94 83 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7134 218 94 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7137 343 94 80 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7109 243 92 82 80 2 

Alignment E1 7104 193 91 84 80 1 

Alignment E1 7117 293 92 81 80 4 

Alignment E1 7147 293 95 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7152 318 96 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7170 218 98 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7183 243 99 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7194 218 100 82 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7203 193 101 85 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7274 343 107 81 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7530 145 92 66 65 13

Alignment E1 7673 110 93 82 80 6 

Notes: 

1. Vibration levels are measured in VdB referenced to 1 μin/sec.

2. The reported vibration level represents the maximum vibration level for each location.

3. Commercial building that uses lasers which can be sensitive to vibration 

Alternative 4 

Table 4-49 indicates that there are 16 residences with potential vibration impact under

Alternative 4. There are no impacts projected at any Category 3 (institutional) receptors. A 

discussion of each impacted receptor group follows. 

Two groups of single-family residences located on the north side of I-4 and west of North

Bethlehem Road are located within 200 ft. of the proposed Alignment C1. In addition, a group

of single-family residences, located east of Branch Forbes Road and south of I-4, is within 

200 ft. of the proposed alignment. These 16 residences would experience vibration impacts. 

Table 4-49 

Vibration Impacts for Alternative 4 

Location Survey

Station

Dist to Near 

Track (ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Project 

Vibration 

Level

1,2

Vibration 

Impact

Criterion1

# of Res.

Impacts

Alignment C1 1980 143 122 81 80 6 

Alignment C1 1986 193 122 80 80 5 

Alignment C1 2058 193 123 80 80 5 

Notes: 

1. Vibration levels are measured in VdB referenced to 1 μin/sec.

2. The reported vibration level represents the maximum vibration level for each location.

 4-71

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Alternative 5 

Table 4-50 indicates that there are 7 residences, 6 hotels, and 1 commercial building (considered

because it has vibration sensitive equipment) with potential vibration impact under Alternative 5.

There are no impacts projected at any Category 3 (institutional) receptors. A discussion of each

impacted receptor group follows. 

A group of four single-family residences is located within 100 ft. of Alignment A1 as the tracks

run along I-4. These residences, located south of the proposed alignment and just west of 

34th Street, would experience vibration impacts. 

A group of four hotels near the Celebration area on the south side of I-4, is located within 300 ft.

of the proposed Alignment D1. All of these hotels would experience vibration impacts. 

A group of hotels, multi-family residences, and apartments located in the Lake Buena Vista area

of Alignment E1 is within 325 ft. of the proposed tracks. The impacted buildings are located on 

both sides of the alignment. In addition, a commercial building, located just west of Orange

Blossom Drive, is projected to be impacted due to the use of vibration sensitive equipment onsite. In total, 3 residences, 2 hotels, and 1 commercial building would likely experience

vibration impacts. 

Table 4-50 

Vibration Impacts for Alternative 5 

Location Survey

Station

Dist to Near 

Track (ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Project 

Vibration 

Level

1,2

Vibration 

Impact

Criterion1

# of Res.

Impacts

Alignment A1 6140 93 91 80 80 4 

Alignment D1 4470 243 162 83 80 1 hotel 

Alignment D1 4534 143 162 85 80 1 hotel 

Alignment D1 4536 218 162 82 80 1 hotel 

Alignment D1 4540 218 162 82 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7131 168 162 82 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7109 243 162 81 80 2 

Alignment E1 7104 193 162 83 80 1 

Alignment E1 7203 193 162 83 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7530 143 120 67 65 13

Notes: 

1. Vibration levels are measured in VdB referenced to 1 μin/sec. 

2. The reported vibration level represents the maximum vibration level for each location.

3. Commercial building that uses lasers which can be sensitive to vibration 

Alternative 6 

Table 4-51 indicates that there are 4 residences and 1 hotel with potential vibration impact under

Alternative 6. There are no impacts projected at any Category 3 (institutional) receptors. A 

discussion of each impacted receptor group follows. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-72
 4-73

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

A group of four single-family residences is located within 100 ft. of Alignment A1 as the tracks

run along I-4. These residences, located south of the proposed alignment and just west of 

34th Street, would experience vibration impacts. 

One hotel near the Celebration area on the south side of I-4, is located within 300 ft. of the 

proposed Alignment D1. This hotel would experience vibration impacts. 

Table 4-51 

Vibration Impacts for Alternative 6 

Location Survey

Station

Dist to Near 

Track (ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Project 

Vibration 

Level

1,2

Vibration 

Impact

Criterion1

# of Res.

Impacts

Alignment A1 6140 93 91 80 80 4 

Alignment D1 4470 243 162 83 80 1 hotel 

Notes: 

1. Vibration levels are measured in VdB referenced to 1 μin/sec. 

2. The reported vibration level represents the maximum vibration level for each location. 

Alternative 7 

Table 4-52 indicates that there are 3 residences, 6 hotels, and 1 commercial building (considered

because it has vibration sensitive equipment) with potential vibration impact under Alternative 7.

There are no impacts projected at any Category 3 (institutional) receptors. A discussion of each

impacted receptor group follows. 

A group of four hotels near the Celebration area on the south side of I-4, is located within 300 ft.

of the proposed Alignment D1. All of these hotels would experience vibration impacts. 

A group of hotels, multi-family residences, and apartments located in the Lake Buena Vista area

of Alignment E1 is within 325 ft. of the proposed tracks. The impacted buildings are located on 

both sides of the alignment. In addition, a commercial building, located just west of Orange

Blossom Drive, is projected to be impacted due to the use of vibration sensitive equipment onsite. In total, 3 residences, 2 hotels, and 1 commercial building would likely experience

vibration impacts. 
 

4-74

Table 4-52 

Vibration Impacts for Alternative 7 

Location Survey

Station

Dist to Near 

Track (ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Project 

Vibration 

Level

1,2

Vibration 

Impact

Criterion1

# of Res.

Impacts

Alignment D1 4470 243 162 83 80 1 hotel 

Alignment D1 4534 143 162 85 80 1 hotel 

Alignment D1 4536 218 162 82 80 1 hotel 

Alignment D1 4540 218 162 82 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7131 168 162 82 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7109 243 162 81 80 2 

Alignment E1 7104 193 162 83 80 1 

Alignment E1 7203 193 162 83 80 1 hotel 

Alignment E1 7530 143 120 67 65 13

Notes: 

1. Vibration levels are measured in VdB referenced to 1 μin/sec.

2. The reported vibration level represents the maximum vibration level for each location.

3. Commercial building that uses lasers which can be sensitive to vibration 

Alternative 8 

Table 4-53 indicates that there is 1 hotel with potential vibration impact under Alternative 8. 

There are no impacts projected at any Category 3 (institutional) receptors. A discussion of the 

impacted receptor group follows. 

One hotel near the Celebration area on the south side of I-4, is located within 300 ft. of the 

proposed Alignment D1. This hotel would experience vibration impacts. 

Table 4-53 

Vibration Impacts for Alternative 8 

Location Survey

Station

Dist to Near 

Track (ft.) 

Speed

(mph)

Project 

Vibration 

Level

1,2

Vibration 

Impact

Criterion1

# of Res.

Impacts

Alignment D1 4470 243 162 83 80 1 hotel 

Notes: 

1. Vibration levels are measured in VdB referenced to 1 μin/sec. 

2. The reported vibration level represents the maximum vibration level for each location. 

Summary of Ground-Borne Vibration Impacts 

Table 4-54 provides a summary of the total number of residences, hotels, and commercial 

buildings where ground-borne vibration impact is projected for each design/build alternative. 

Table 4-54 shows that out of the four alternatives using the gas turbine train technology, 

Alternative 1 will have the greatest number of residences and hotels impacted by ground-borne 

vibration. Thirty-three residences, eleven hotels, and one commercial building are projected to

have impact with Alternative 1. Table 4-54 also shows that out of the four alternatives using the 

electric train technology, Alternative 5 will have the greatest number of sites impacted. Seven 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 4-75

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

residences, six hotels, and one commercial building are projected to have impact with 

Alternative 5. 

Table 4-54 

Vibration Impact Summary 

Proposal Alternative Number of Residences Impacted 

1 33 + 11 hotels + 1 commercial

building

2 20 

3 29 + 11 hotels + 1 commercial

building

Gas Turbine Train 

4 16 

5 7 + 6 hotels + 1 commercial building

6 4 + 1 hotel 

7 3 + 6 hotels + 1 commercial building Electric Train

8 1 hotel 

Table 4-55 provides additional detail concerning the categories of impact within each alternative.

Alternative 1 has 44 Category, 2 vibration impacts, and one Category 1 vibration impact, which

is the most for any alternative using the gas turbine train technology. There will be no impact for

any Category 3 receptors at Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4. Table 4-56 also shows that

Alternative 5 will have 13 Category, 2 vibration impacts, and one Category 1 vibration impact, 

which is the most for any alternative using the electric train technology. There will be no impact 

for any Category 3 receptors at Design/Build Alternatives 5, 6, 7, or 8. 

Table 4-55 

Evaluation Matrix

Vibration Impacts 

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Gas Turbine Train Technology Electric Train Technology

Category 1 (Buildings

and/or parks) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 

Category 2 

(Residences, hospitals,

and hotels) 

44 20 40 16 13 5 9 1 

Category 3 

(Institutional -schools, 

libraries, churches,

active park)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Vibration Comparison of Technologies on the Greeneway

In order to compare the gas turbine train and the electric train technologies, the alignment must

be considered. Alignment E2, which follows the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), is the 

only location where the proposals for the two technologies differed in alignment. However,
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-76

regardless of the technology or the alignment used, no vibration impacts are projected to occur in 

this area. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) with the gas turbine train technology will have impact 

at a total of 33 residences, 11 hotels, and 1 commercial (impacts to 45 structures), as shown on

Table 4-56. Forty-four of these impacts will occur at Category 2 receptors and 1 impact will 

occur at a Category 1 receptor, but no impacts will occur at Category 3 (institutional) receptors. 

Table 4-56 

Residential Vibration Impacts for Preferred Alternative 

Technology Alignment Number of Residences Impacted

Gas Turbine Train Preferred Alignment 33 + 11 hotels + 1 commercial building

Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Mitigation

The assessment assumes that the high speed rail vehicle wheels and track are maintained in good

condition with regular wheel truing and rail grinding. Beyond this, there are several approaches

to reduce ground-borne vibration from FHSR operation, as described in the following text. 

• Ballast Mats - A ballast mat consists of a pad made of rubber or rubber-like material

placed on an asphalt or concrete base with the normal ballast, ties, and rail on top. The

reduction in ground-borne vibration provided by a ballast mat is strongly dependent on

the frequency content of the vibration, design, and support of the mat. 

• Floating Slabs - Floating slabs consist of thick concrete slabs supported by resilient pads 

on a concrete foundation; the tracks are mounted on top of the floating slab. Most

successful floating slab installations are in subways, and their use for at-grade track is 

less common. Although floating slabs are designed to provide vibration reduction at

lower frequencies than ballast mats, they are extremely expensive.

• Property Acquisitions or Easements - Additional options for avoiding vibration 

impacts (and noise impacts) are to purchase residences likely to be impacted by train 

operations or to acquire easements for such residences by paying the homeowners to

accept the future train vibration conditions. These approaches are usually taken only in

isolated cases where other mitigation options are infeasible, impractical, or too costly. 

Vibration impacts that exceed FRA criteria are considered to be significant and warrant

mitigation, if feasible. Table 4-57 indicates specific stations (defined as civil stations) along the

alignments within the alternatives where mitigation has been recommended to reduce the

vibration levels. The locations of the civil stations are noted along the centerline of the FHSR

alignments in Appendices A-1 and A-2. At a minimum, mitigation would require the installation 

of ballast mats; therefore, the effects of ballast mats are presented in the table. Because the

current analysis indicates that the ballast mats would not eliminate all of the projected impacts,

more extensive mitigation may be considered. Vibration mitigation would be addressed in more
 4-77

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

detail during final design. In particular, due to the unusually high ground vibration response 

measured in the 12.5 Hertz (Hz) to 20 Hz low-frequency range for the eastern portion of 

Alignment D1 and the western portion of Alignment E1, further analysis will be needed to

confirm the validity of the projected impacts in that area. The additional analysis, conducted

during final design, will consist of supplemental vibration propagation tests at sites concentrated

in that area, including soil-to building transfer function measurements. 

Table 4-57 

Recommended Locations for Vibration Mitigation 

Alternative Alignment Survey

Station

Length

(ft.) 

Total 

Number of 

Impacts

1

Total Number of 

Impacts

1 after 

Ballast Mats 

Installed

No-Build No mitigation is required

A1 6135 - 6142 700 4 0 

C1 1978 - 1982 400 6 0 

C1 1986 - 1990 400 5 0 

C1 2054 - 2062 800 5 0 

E1 7102 - 7119 1700 7 7 

E1 7121 - 7126 500 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7128 - 7139 1100 3 hotels 3 hotels

E1 7144 - 7154 1000 2 hotels 2 hotels

E1 7167 - 7172 500 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7180 - 7186 600 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7191 - 7198 700 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7200 - 7205 500 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7272 - 7276 400 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7525 - 7535 1000 1 0 

1 

E1 7671 - 7676 500 6 0 

A1 6135 - 6142 700 4 0 

C1 1978 - 1982 400 6 0 

C1 1986 - 1990 400 5 0 2 

C1 2054 - 2062 800 5 0 

C1 1978 - 1982 400 6 0 

C1 1986 - 1990 400 5 0 

1 2054 - 2062 800 5 0 

E1 7102 - 7119 1700 7 7 

E1 7121 - 7126 500 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7128 - 7139 1100 3 hotels 3 hotels

E1 7144 - 7154 1000 2 hotels 2 hotels

E1 7167 - 7172 500 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7180 - 7186 600 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7191 - 7198 700 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7200 - 7205 500 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7272 - 7276 400 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7525 - 7535 1000 1 0 

3 

E1 7671 - 7676 500 6 0 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-78

Table 4-57 

Recommended Locations for Vibration Mitigation 

Alternative Alignment Survey

Station

Length

(ft.) 

Total 

Number of 

Impacts

1

Total Number of 

Impacts

1 after 

Ballast Mats 

Installed

C1 1978 - 1982 400 6 0 

4 C1 1986 - 1990 400 5 0 

C1 2054 - 2062 800 5 0 

A1 6135 - 6142 700 4 0 

D1 4469 - 4472 300 1 hotel 1 hotel 

1 4532 - 4542 1000 3 hotels 3 hotels

E1 7102 - 7112 1000 3 3 

E1 7128 - 7133 500 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7200 - 7206 600 1 hotel 1 hotel 

5 

E1 7525 - 7535 1000 1 0 

A1 6135 - 6142 700 4 0 6 D1 4469 - 4472 300 1 hotel 1 hotel 

D1 4469 - 4472 300 1 hotel 1 hotel 

D1 4532 - 4542 1000 3 hotels 3 hotels

E1 7102 - 7112 1000 3 3 

E1 7128 - 7133 500 1 hotel 1 hotel 

E1 7200 - 7206 600 1 hotel 1 hotel 

7 

E1 7525 - 7535 1000 1 0 

8 D1 4469 - 4472 300 1 hotel 1 hotel 

Note: 

1. Residences, hotels, and commercial buildings are all considered in the total

4.2.5 Wetlands

In compliance with Presidential Executive Order 11990 entitled “Protection of Wetlands” and

using assessment methodology, evaluation procedures, and document preparation guidance

found in the following: USDOT policy (USDOT Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nations

Wetlands), dated August 24, 1978 and Title 23, CFR, Part 777, consideration was given to

protect wetland resources. In accordance with this policy, FRA and the FHSRA evaluated the 

potential wetland impacts of the No-Build Alternative and the proposed FHSR Design/Build 

Alternatives 1 through 8. 

The FHSR study team assessed the potential wetland impacts by identifying jurisdictional 

wetlands, identifying impacts, and developing measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate

potential impacts to the greatest extent practicable. The effort included literature and field 

reviews, mapping, assessment of functional values of all existing wetland habitats within the

study area, and coordination with the appropriate jurisdictional agencies. An extensive

assessment of wetland and environmental resources for the No-Build Alternative and 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 is discussed within this section. 

Using the resources cited in Section 3.8.2, an inventory of wetland communities and their

approximate boundaries were mapped on aerial photography. Because mapping for the 

Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and National Wetland Inventory
 4-79

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

(NWI) is conducted at a relatively coarse level of spatial accuracy (1:24,000 scale), accuracy

was increased on the wetland maps by field ground verification and aerial photo-interpretation

using the 1:400 scale photography. Each wetland community was then labeled using the Florida

Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System18 (FLUCFCS) and NWI classification

systems. Field verification of wetland boundaries was accomplished by implementing the State 

of Florida wetland delineation methodology (F.A.C. 62-340) and the USACE methodology

(Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual).

Field teams of environmental scientists familiar with Florida wetland communities reviewed

wetland communities between September 2002 and March 2003. The teams found a wide range

of wetland systems within the FHSR corridor and identified plant species composition for each

wetland and adjacent upland habitats. 

Based on photo-interpreted aerials and field reviews, the field team identified 1,760 wetland 

areas represented by 34 individual FLUCFCS categories in the study area. This represents a total

of 2,401 ac. of wetland coverage. The FLUCFCS codes present within the 1,000-ft. corridor are 

shown in Section 3, Tables 3-26. These 34 categories fell under 10 broad wetland community

types including water (FLUCFCS 500), streams and waterways (FLUCFCS 510), lakes 

(FLUCFCS 520), reservoirs (FLUCFCS 530), bays and estuaries (FLUCFCS 540), wetland

hardwood forests (FLUCFCS 610), wetland coniferous forests (FLUCFCS 620), wetland

forested mixed (FLUCFCS 630), vegetated non-forested wetlands (FLUCFCS 640), and nonvegetated wetlands (FLUCFCS 650). 

A Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) analysis was performed for 60 of the 69

wetlands impacted by Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8. (Nine of the wetlands are not 

accessible). The WRAP analysis is used to assist in the regulatory evaluation of wetland areas.

To perform the WRAP analysis, each wetland area is evaluated based upon the following

criteria: wildlife utilization, wetland overstory/shrub canopy, wetland vegetative ground cover,

adjacent upland support buffer field indicators of wetland hydrology, and water quality input and

treatment systems. A value is determined for the existing condition and produces a final score 

between 0 (low quality) and 1 (high quality). 

A summary of the WRAP scores for impacted wetlands by FLUCFCS category and total acreage

of impact for each alignment/alternative is presented in Table 4-58. This table includes sheet 

numbers and alignment information for identification of wetland locations. The sheet number

references are found in Appendix A. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-80

Table 4-58 

Proposed Wetland Impacts for the 

FHSR Alignments/Alternatives

Sheet # FLUCFCS Alignment Wetland Number Acres WRAP Score 

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 

16 510 B1 2759705_8221027 0.49 0.38

19 630 B1 2800123_8219466 0.23 0.23

19 630 B1 2800241_8232198 0.79 0.41

Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 

196 510 B2 2799508_8235102 0.71 0.38

Alternatives 1 through 8

85 630 D1 2809487_8147442 1.42 0.17

85 630 D1 2809457_8147677 2.09 0.28

94 621 D1 2811595_8142956 2.09 0.28

96 641 D1 2811805_8142472 0.71 0.17

100 621 D1 2812882_8140419 0.10 0.11

106 631 D1 2814900_8137717 0.09 0.27

106 641 D1 2814981_8137606 0.33 0.28

110 630 D1 2816144_8136144 0.07 0.35

112 510 D1 2816537_8135373 0.15 0.55

115 510 D1 2817544_8134404 0.24 0.50

115 641 D1 2818031_8134317 1.28 0.17

110 510 D1 2816144_8136144 0.09 0.35

110 510 D1 2816272_8136023 0.14 0.55

95 621 D1 2811712_81142663 1.89 0.28

101 621 D1 8139874_2813269 0.16 0.36

106 641 D1 2814685_8137999 0.25 0.20

Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7 

118 510/621 E1 282515_812546 1.35 0.90

118 630 E1 281912_8133378 0.10 0.43

118 630 E1 2818551_8133429 0.52 0.49

119 510-630 E1 2819129_8133279 0.07 0.60

119 631 E1 2819255_8133145 0.26 0.18

119 640/510 E1 2819285_8133118 0.23 0.32

123 510 E1 2820467_81320 0.13 0.79

135 622 E1 2825154_8128128 0.29 0.25

137 621 E1 282516_812706 0.01 0.75

139 621 E1 282516_812556 0.41 0.75

140 510 E1 282503_812521 0.08 0.63
 4-81

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Table 4-58 

Proposed Wetland Impacts for the 

FHSR Alignments/Alternatives

Sheet # FLUCFCS Alignment Wetland Number Acres WRAP Score 

141 621 E1 2825166_8124480 0.48 0.53

144 510 E1 282516_812310 0.01 0.20

149 621 E1 2824237_8121049 0.89 0.61

152 640 E1 282338_811920 0.57 0.81

153 510 E1 2823442_8119105 0.10 0.63

153 600 E1 282339_811921 0.69 no WRAP/inaccessible 

153 621 E1 2823384_8119205 0.01 no WRAP/inaccessible 

184 600 E1 2823443_8119106 1.15 no WRAP/inaccessible 

185 600 E1 282431_811821 0.62 no WRAP/inaccessible 

139 510 E1 282518_812537 0.01 0.24

146 510 E1 2825193_8121595 0.50 0.18

146 510 E1 2825166_8122226 0.03 0.57

144 510 E1 282517_812303 0.05 0.61

119 510/630 E1 2819171_8133233 0.59 0.49

144 617 E1 282516_812303 0.07 0.89

145 617 E1 2825179_8122556 0.08 0.86

136 621 E1 282518_812721 0.14 0.47

151 621 E1 282428_812003 0.54 0.86

187 621 E1 282333_811837 1.17 0.79

183 621 E1 2823382_8119203 4.96 0.76

152 630 E1 282355_811959 0.84 0.94

Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8 

155 618 E2 2821296_8130335 0.23 0.31

156 630 E2 2821295_8130334 2.19 0.58

157 630 E2 2821179_813055 1.62 0.56

157 640 E2 2821191_813092 0.09 0.55

158 510 E2 2821164_8129398 0.11 0.30

158 621 E2 2821269_8129264 0.29 0.78

160 621 E2 282114_812826 0.33 0.65

164 621/510 E2 2821322_8126374 0.23 0.74

169 621 E2 282219_812402 1.54 0.64

171 621/641 E2 282206_813207 0.76 no WRAP/inaccessible 

173 510 E2 282242_812265 0.69 0.30

173 600 E2 282244-812266 0.01 no WRAP

176 621 E2 282205_812024 0.44 no WRAP/inaccessible 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-82

Table 4-58 

Proposed Wetland Impacts for the 

FHSR Alignments/Alternatives

Sheet # FLUCFCS Alignment Wetland Number Acres WRAP Score 

178 621 E2 282201_811022 0.70 no WRAP/inaccessible 

179 621 E2 282207_811850 0.00 0.44

181 510 E2 282247_811828 0.00 0.10

183 621 E2 282262_811836 0.00 no WRAP/inaccessible 

180 617 E2 282245_811836 0.14 no WRAP/inaccessible 

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 have 45 wetlands within their alignments. Design/Build

Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 have 39 wetlands within their alignments. For the 60 wetland areas 

evaluated, the WRAP scores ranged from 0.10 to 0.90. The average WRAP score for all 

FLUCFCS categories (of impacted wetlands) is 0.48. The low WRAP scores indicate that most 

of the wetlands within the alignments have either been previously impacted or are of very poor 

quality. The only concentrations of high scores are found in Alignment E2 (Design/Build 

Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8) reflecting the high quality wetlands along the Central Florida 

Greeneway (S.R. 417). Most of the wetlands within the alignments are located within the 

median of the existing roadways or are adjacent to major transportation corridors. 

While Table 4-59 focused on WRAP score (quality of the wetlands impacted), Table 4-60

summarizes the quantity of impacts by each design/build alternative. The summary Table 4-61 

indicates both quantity and quality of impacts. 

Table 4-59 

Wetland Impact Analysis Matrix

Alternative 1 Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8

FLUCFCS Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

510 3.37 2.34 3.59 2.56 2.1 1.91 2.32 2.13

600 4.8 2.48 4.8 2.48 0.91 2.48 0.91 2.48

617 2.5 0.14 2.5 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14

618 0 0.23 0 0.23 0 0.23 0 0.23

621 12.82 9.52 12.82 9.52 15.58 7.49 15.58 7.49

622 0.29 0 0.29 0 0.29 0 0.29 0 

630 6.07 7.23 5.05 6.21 0.607 5.07 5.05 4.05

631 0.26 0 0.26 0 0.26 0 0.26 0 

640 0.64 4.09 0.64 4.09 1.12 3.44 1.12 3.44

641 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.36 2.56 2.56 2.56

510/621 1.35 0.21 1.35 0.21 1.35 0.21 1.35 0.21

510/630 1.55 0 1.55 0 0.66 0 0.66 0 

621/641 0 0.76 0 0.76 0 0.76 0 0.76

640/510 0.23 0 0.23 0 0.23 0 0.23 0 
 4-83

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Table 4-59 

Wetland Impact Analysis Matrix

Alternative 1 Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative 7 Alternative 8

FLUCFCS Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

Wetland 

Area 

Impacted

(ac) 

500 0.19 1.33 0.19 1.33 0 0.12 0 0.12

530 0.42 0 0.42 0 0 0 0 0 

610 2.69 0 2.69 0 0 0 0 0 

621/640 0.29 0.44 0.29 0.44 0 0 0 0 

Total 40.03 31.33 39.23 30.53 25.62 24.41 30.48 23.61 

Table 4-60 

Evaluation Matrix

Natural Environment Impacts (Acres) 

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Total Wetland

Impacts 40 31.3 39.2 30.5 25.6 24.4 30.5 23.6 

High Quality 

Wetlands 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 

As Table 4-60 shows, the overall low number of wetland impacts in a project of approximately

93 mi. reflects the conceptual design goal of minimizing wetland impacts. The majority of

wetlands are located in the alignment near Orlando at the I-4/Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) 

Interchange and the Orlando International Airport. 

Alternative 1 (gas turbine train) has the most cumulative impacts and Alternative 3 (gas turbine

train) has second greatest amount of impacts. These impacts reflect two factors: the large

amount of wetlands within Alignment E1 (along I-4 and the I-4/Bee Line Expressway [S.R. 528] 

Interchange), as well as the impacts of the proposed gas turbine train alternatives operating

within the ROW along the north side of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). 

Alternative 5, 6, and 8 have the least amount of impacts. This is a result of fewer impacts of the

electric train to the wetlands required for the maintenance facilities near the Orlando

International Airport. 

FRA and FHSRA are considering a full range of mitigation options in the development of this 

project to avoid long-term and short-term adverse impacts to wetland resources and to avoid new

construction in wetlands, wherever there is a practicable alternative. Options for mitigating the

loss of wetlands would include mitigation banking, upland and/or wetland preservation, and 

wetland restoration, enhancement, and creation. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-84

Wetland impacts, which would result from the construction of FHSR, are proposed to be

mitigated pursuant to S. 373.4137 F.S. (Senate Bill 1986) to satisfy all mitigation requirements 

of Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 U.S.C.s 1344. Under this statute, transportation 

improvement mitigation can be achieved through regional long range planning, rather than a 

project-by-project basis. The mitigation is carried out by either the FDEP or the Water 

Management Districts (WMD). Under S. 373.4137 F.S., mitigation of FHSR wetland impacts 

will be implemented through the FDEP. Each WMD has developed a regional wetland 

mitigation plan to address the estimated mitigation needs on an annual basis to be approved by

the Florida State Legislature. The WMD will then provide wetland mitigation for specific 

project impacts through a corresponding mitigation project within the overall approved regional

mitigation plan. The FHSRA will provide funding to the WMD for implementation of such

mitigation projects. An emphasis will be placed on attempting to provide in-kind mitigation in

the same local basin and in accordance with the appropriate mitigation ratios. 

Under Florida Statute 373.4138, which specifically addresses FHSR, any mitigation

requirements and associated costs shall be determined by negotiation between the FDEP and the

FDOT, but if agreement on mitigation cost cannot be reached, the project may proceed at the

rates determined according to guidance established in the statute. 

No-Build Alternative 

A No-Build Alternative would result in no wetland impacts. However as congestion increases

and roadway improvements are required, there would be wetland impacts from roadway

reconstruction. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) will result in 40.03 ac. of wetland impacts resulting 

from the gas turbine train technology, of which, 11 ac. are considered high quality wetlands. 

Wetland impacts, which would result from the construction of FHSR, are proposed to be

mitigated pursuant to S. 373.4137 F.S. (Senate Bill 1986) to satisfy all mitigation requirements 

of Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 U.S.C.s 1344. 

4.2.6 Aquatic Preserves

Aquatic Preserves are identified and boundaries are mapped in Part 2, Chapter 19 of the FDOT

Project Development & Environment Manual19. A review of the FHSR study area indicates 

there are no aquatic preserves within the FHSR project limits, as defined in the manual. 

4.2.7 Water Quality Impact Evaluation

The FHSR study team completed a Water Quality Impact Evaluation (WQIE) for this project. 

The WQIE determines the surface water and ground water impacts from the proposed FHSR. 
 4-85

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Design/Build Alternatives 

The FHSR Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 would be located primarily within the I-4

median and/or CSX Railroad ROW. Approximately 46 mi. of the railway would be elevated; the 

remaining portion would be grade-separated via retaining walls or other measures. The existing 

I-4 median and CSX Railroad ROW proposed for the railway consist mainly of grassed median, 

drainage systems, and wetlands. 

Where the alignment is elevated, runoff from the deck would need to be collected via scuppers or

a drainage collection system and discharged to the existing median or an existing stormwater 

system. The total runoff would not be affected if existing drainage patterns are maintained;

however, it is likely that rainfall, currently infiltrating into a specific median area in the existing

condition, may drain to a different location in the proposed condition. In such a case, the

increased runoff would need to be accounted for in stormwater management facilities or other 

means. Runoff from the deck would require treatment, as the train is a potential source of

pollutant loading.

Where the rail alignment is grade-separated, the railway would be atop open gravel, and

additional impervious areas would result from the support poles and outside barrier walls; 

however, the fill associated with the railway would impact existing drainage patterns. Runoff

from interstate lanes that drain to the median in the existing condition would need to be collected

by barrier wall inlets or other means in the proposed condition. The railway itself would need to

be drained with an underdrain system or other means. Both the barrier wall inlets and underdrain

systems would tie into existing systems, and increased discharge at these locations would need to 

be accounted for. As in the elevated case, runoff from the tracks would require treatment, as the 

train is a potential source of pollution. 

The project lies within the jurisdictions of the SWFWMD, the SFWMD, and the St. John’s River

Water Management District (SJRWMD). The water quality criteria associated with each agency

would apply to the portion of the project within the respective district limits. The FDEP would 

administer the project water quality requirements. 

This project is also located within the boundaries of the Floridan Aquifer and Biscayne Aquifer 

recharge and streamflow zones. Aquifer recharge impacts associated with this project would be

minimal to none. Much of Florida, including central Florida and the FHSR corridors, is 

underlain by limestone that is susceptible to dissolution (karst) processes. In some areas, karst

processes can dissolve sufficient portions of limestone to cause sinkholes and other surface 

depressions. In addition, the more porous limestone can create direct pathways for surface 

contaminants to enter the aquifer. Because there are few reported or observed sinkholes or other

features indicative of a karst environment in the vicinity of the proposed railway corridor, karst

conditions are unlikely to be an issue. 

The FHSR Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 include seven major watersheds: Tampa Bay,

Hillsborough River, Palm River, Alafia River, Peace River, Withlacoochee River, and 

Kissimmee River. Within these watersheds, the alternatives cross several riverine systems, 

including Baker Creek, Pemberton Creek, Itchepackesassa Creek, Davenport Creek, Reedy
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-86

Creek, and Bonnet Creek. All of these are FDEP Class III waters. None of these, or other

project surface water receptors, are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), Wild and

Scenic Rivers, Aquatic Preserves, or Coastal Barrier Resources. To protect present and future

most beneficial uses of the waters, water quality criteria have been established for each

classification. The FHSR must meet criteria, which are located in rules 62-302.500 and 62-

302.530 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). A completed WQIE checklist and specific 

WMD water quality criteria are attached (Appendix B). Please refer to the checklist for 

additional information. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build alternative does not require any changes to the existing and proposed roadway

drainage systems. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative falls within the jurisdictions of the SWFWMD, the SFWMD, and the

SJRWMD. The water quality criteria associated with each agency would apply to the portion of 

the project within the respective district limits. The FDEP would administer the project water

quality requirements. The FHSR must meet criteria, which are located in rules 62-302.500 and 

62-302.530 of the F.A.C.

4.2.8 Outstanding Florida Waters

Based on a review of the F.A.C., Chapter 17-302.700, Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), the 

Econlockhatchee River System and Tributaries are listed as OFW. The Econlockhatchee River

System and Tributaries are located in the northeast Orlando area, approximately 9 mi. from

Orlando. The OFW designation requires a higher emphasis of minimizing direct wetland

impacts and higher water quality treatment standards than would be required for other wetland 

systems. This OFW designation also provides special protection for the water body due to its

ecological and recreational significance. The proposed project does not impact the

Econlockhatchee River System or its Tributaries; therefore, there are no OFW impacts. 

4.2.9 Contamination

No-Build Alternative 

No hazardous materials or petroleum sites would be impacted or cleanup required if the FHSR is 

not constructed. 

Design/Build Alternatives 

The FRA and FHSRA prepared two separate Contamination Screening Evaluation Reports 

(CSERs) in order to determine which sites pose a potential negative environmental consequence 

based on contamination associated with the proposed construction of the FHSR. The reports are

summarized here and references are provided at the end of this section for more detailed review.
 4-87

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Risk rankings were assigned after reviewing data obtained from on-site reviews of the parcels,

historical land use, hazardous materials, petroleum regulatory site lists, and other pertinent

information. The preliminary assessment of impacts was developed following evaluation of the

current project design and the availability of information regarding ROW needs. 

Based upon the findings of the survey to date, 19 sites have been identified for potential

contamination within the vicinity of Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8. The sites, located

along these alternatives, have the potential to involve petroleum contamination or hazardous 

materials as defined by FDEP. All sites were evaluated to determine risk potential and risk

ratings were assigned to each site based upon field reviews, land use, historical tenancy

evaluations, and regulatory agency research. The potential contamination sites within 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 are shown on the Concept Plans in Appendix A and

Figure 4-4, and span from Hillsborough County through Orange County. Potential 

contamination sites are listed by alternative from west to east and north to south. The risk rating

for each of the sites is also indicated as defined in Section 3.7.8. 

Alternatives 1 and 5 

Seven potentially contaminated sites are located within Design/Build Alternatives 1 and 5 and

shown on Figure 4-4. The alignment in which they are located is also indicated on Table 4-61.

Two sites are potential petroleum contamination sites; five sites are potential hazardous material

sites and are listed in Table 4-61. 

Table 4-61 

Potential Hazardous Material Sites for Alternatives 1 and 5 

Site Number Alignment 

Potential 

Contamination

Facility 

Type of Potential

Contamination Risk Rating

1 A1 Clorox Hazardous materials High

2 B1 Florida Chemical Hazardous materials High

3 C1 Taylor Road Landfill Hazardous materials High

4 C1 Carpenter Company Hazardous materials High

5 D1 Furman Landfill Hazardous materials High

6 E1 Speedway Petroleum High

7 E1 Central Florida

Pipeline Petroleum High

Alternatives 2 and 6 

Five potentially hazardous material contaminated sites (noted in Table 4-62) are located within 

Design/Build Alternatives 2 and 6 and shown on Figure 4-4. The alignment in which they are 

located is also indicated on the table. No potentially petroleum contaminated sites were

identified within these alternatives. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-88

Table 4-62 

Potential Hazardous Material Sites for Alternatives 2 and 6 

Site Number Alignment 

Potential 

Contamination 

Facility

Type of Potential 

Contamination 

Risk Rating

1 A1 Clorox Hazardous materials High

2 B1 Florida Chemical Hazardous materials High

3 C1 Taylor Road Landfill Hazardous materials High

4 C1 Carpenter Company Hazardous materials High

5 D1 Furman Landfill Hazardous materials High

Alternatives 3 and 7 

Seventeen potentially contaminated sites are located within Design/Build Alternatives 3 and 7

and shown on Figure 4-4. The alignment in which they are located is also indicated in

Table 4-63. Four sites are potential petroleum contamination sites, 10 sites are potential 

hazardous material sites, and three sites are a combination of both hazardous materials and 

petroleum contamination issues. 

Table 4-63 

Potential Hazardous Material Sites Alternatives 3 and 7 

Site Number Alignment 

Potential 

Contamination

Facility 

Type of Potential

Contamination Risk Rating

3 C1 Taylor Road Landfill Hazardous materials High

4 C1 Carpenter Company Hazardous materials High

5 D1 Furman Landfill Hazardous materials High

6 E1 Speedway Petroleum High

7 E1 Central Florida

Pipeline Petroleum High

8 A2 Peoples Gas Systems Hazardous materials High

9 A2 Adamo Drive Petroleum/ Hazardous High

10 A2 Central Florida

Pipeline Petroleum High

11 A2 Radiant Food Store Petroleum High

12 A2 Brenntag Mid South Petroleum/ Hazardous Medium

13 B2 CSX Transportation – 

Uceta Yard Petroleum/ Hazardous High

14 B2 Florida Steel Hazardous materials High

15 B2 Alaric Area 

Groundwater Plume Hazardous materials High

16 B2 Helena Chemical Hazardous materials High

17 B2 Stauffer Chemical Hazardous materials High

18 B2 Reeves Southeast

Galvanizing Hazardous materials High

19 B2 Peak Oil/Bay Drum Hazardous materials High
 4-89

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Alternatives 4 and 8 

Fifteen potentially contaminated sites are located within Design/Build Alternatives 4 and 8 and 

shown on Table 4-64 and Figure 4-4. The alignment in which they are located is also indicated in 

the table. Two sites are potential petroleum contamination sites, 10 sites are potential hazardous

material sites, and three sites are a combination of both hazardous materials and petroleum

contamination issues. 

Table 4-64 

Potential Hazardous Material Sites Alternatives 4 and 8

Site Number Alignment Potential 

Contamination Facility

Type of Potential

Contamination Risk Rating

3 C1 Taylor Road Landfill Hazardous materials High 

4 C1 Carpenter Company Hazardous materials High 

5 D1 Furman Landfill Hazardous materials High 

8 A2 Peoples Gas Systems Hazardous materials High 

9 A2 Adamo Drive Petroleum/ Hazardous High 

10 A2 Central Florida Pipeline Petroleum High

11 A2 Radiant Food Store Petroleum High 

12 A2 Brenntag Mid South Petroleum/ Hazardous Medium

13 

B2 CSX Transportation – 

Uceta Yard Petroleum/ Hazardous High 

14 B2 Florida Steel Hazardous materials High 

15 B2 Alaric Area

Groundwater Plume Hazardous materials High 

16 B2 Helena Chemical Hazardous materials High 

17 B2 Stauffer Chemical Hazardous materials High 

18 B2 Reeves Southeast

Galvanizing

Hazardous materials High 

19 B2 Peak Oil/Bay Drum Hazardous materials High 

Stations/Maintenance Facilities 

No potentially contaminated sites are associated with the proposed Tampa station, Lakeland 

stations, Disney station, OCCC station, or the Orlando International Airport station locations. 

In addition, no potentially contaminated sites are associated with either of the two proposed

maintenance yard locations. 

Table 4-65 summarizes potential high ranked hazardous materials and petroleum impacts for

each Design/Build Alternative 1 through 8. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-90

Table 4-65 

Impact Evaluation Matrix 

Potential Contamination Sites 

Alternatives 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Potential Petroleum

Sites 2 0 7 5 2 0 7 5 

Potential Hazardous

Materials Sites 5 5 12 12 5 5 12 12 

The number of high and medium ranking sites varies by alternative from a total of five sites

(Alternatives 2 and 6) to 19 sites (Alternatives 3 and 7). Most of these sites occur near or along

the former and existing CSX tracks. Generally the greater the number of high or median risk 

sites, the greater the final cleanup costs. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative contains five potentially hazardous material contaminated sites and

two potentially petroleum contaminated sites. There are no potentially contaminated sites

associated with the preferred station locations and maintenance yard. 

The sites identified will be investigated further prior to any construction. Investigative work will

include visual inspection, monitoring of ongoing cleanups, and possible subsurface

investigations. At known contamination sites, estimated areas of contamination will be marked

on design drawings. Prior to construction, any necessary cleanup plans will be developed. 

Actual cleanup will take place during construction, if feasible. Special provisions for handling

unexpected contamination discovered during construction will be included in the construction

plans package. 

4.2.10 Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Loxahatchee, Myakka, and Wekiva are the only Wild and Scenic Rivers listed in Florida 

under F.A.C. Chapter 62-302.700 (9)(j). None of the three rivers are in or near the project limits. 

A review of the Southeastern Rivers Inventory was also conducted. There are no rivers listed on 

the Southeastern Rivers Inventory within or near the project limits. The Hillsborough River,

Tampa Bypass Canal, Reedy Creek, Shingle Creek, Boggy Creek, and Bonnet Creek are not

listed in the National Park Service Southeastern Rivers Inventory; therefore, the coordination 

requirement for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not apply to this project. 

4.2.11 Floodplain and Floodway Impact Evaluation

In accordance with Executive Order 11988 “Floodplain Management”, USDOT Order 5650.2 

and Chapter 23, CFR 650A, the FHSR Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 were evaluated for 
 4-91

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

possible impacts to floodplains and floodways. Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) Flood Insurance Maps (FIRM) were used to estimate floodplain impacts. FEMA 

FIRMs and FEMA Flood Insurance Studies (FIS) were used to estimate floodway impacts.

Floodplain and floodway impacts were determined by assuming a railway corridor 44 to 60 ft.

wide and multiplying this width by the FEMA FIRM Zone A and B areas crossed by the FHSR

alignments within the alternatives. 

The floodplain and floodway impacts estimated are conservative as much of I-4 and the 

associated median is likely above the 100-year floodplain shown on FEMA FIRM maps. In

addition, areas of the railway that are elevated would be out of the FEMA designated floodplains 

and floodways and impacts would be substantially less than estimated. Subsequent to final

design, during which impacts would be minimized, floodplain and floodway impacts would

again be determined. 

Table 4-66 summarizes the location of floodplain and floodway impacts by alignment and the

alternatives that contain those alignments. More significant floodplain and floodway impacts 

occur in Alignments D1, E1, and E2. In Alignment D1, floodplain impacts are primarily

associated with the FHSR crossing over Itchepackesassa and Davenport Creeks. Table 4-67

provides an overview of the anticipated impacts to floodplains and floodways for each of the 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8. The impacts range from 54.5 ac. to a high of 61 ac. 

Table 4-66 

Potentially Impacted Floodplains and Floodways 

Alignment Floodplain impacted (ac.) Floodway Impacted (ac.) Alternative 

A1 0.32 0 1, 2, 5, and 6 

A2 2.85 0 3, 4, 7, and 8 

B1 0.9 0 1, 2, 5, and 6 

B2 2.53 0 3, 4, 7, and 8 

C1 6.94 0.34 All 

D1 28.96 2.68 All 

E1 19.76 6.43 1,3, 5, and 7 

E2 17.42 3.45 2, 4, 6, and 8 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-92

Table 4-67 

Summary of Potentially Impacted Floodplains and Floodways 

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Base Floodplain 

Encroachment (ac.) 56.88 54.54 61.04 58.70 56.88 54.54 61.04 58.70 

Base Floodway

Encroachment (ac.) 9.45 6.47 9.45 6.47 9.45 6.47 9.45 6.47

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact any floodways or floodplains; however, future

construction of planned transportation improvements in this corridor would require floodplain 

mitigation within the alignment identified for the FHSR. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would impact approximately 56.88 ac. of floodplain and 

approximately 9.45 ac. of floodway. Subsequent to final design, during which impacts would be 

minimized, floodplain and floodway impacts would again be calculated and the amount of 

mitigation would be determined. Coordination with the WMDs will identify areas appropriate

for mitigation of the volumetric impacts of the preferred alignment that will not increase or

significantly change the flood elevations and/or limits. 

4.2.12 Coastal Zone Consistency

The FHSR Design/Build Alternatives are not located near or on barrier islands or coastal areas.

Based on information contained in the DEIS and comments provided by the reviewing agencies,

the Florida State Clearinghouse, through the FDEP, has determined that the project is consistent

with the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) in a letter dated 

June 3, 2002 (Appendix B). The Florida State Clearinghouse, through FDEP, was provided the 

opportunity to review project documentation to verify consistency with the FCMP throughout the

PD&E Study.

4.2.13 Coastal Barrier Resources

A review of the Coastal Barrier Resource Maps described in Part 2, Chapter 26 of the FDOT 

Project Development and Environment Manual indicates there are no coastal barrier resource

units within the FHSR project limits. 

4.2.14 Wildlife and Habitat

In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended), the project

study area and its alternative alignments have been evaluated for the potential presence of
 4-93

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

federally protected plant and animal species. The study also evaluated the occurrence of plant

and animal species protected under the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act 

(Ch. 372.072 F.S.). A literature search and field evaluations were conducted, and coordination

and consultation has been initiated with all regulatory and governing agencies, including U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

(FFWCC), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Several data sources were

reviewed to determine occurrence and potential occurrence of state and federally protected plant

and animal species within the study area. Information sources and databases utilized for this

study include the following: 

• Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) county occurrences database

• Previous PD&E Studies of the I-4 Corridor (1994 and 2002) 

• State Managed Databases: 

− WMD Land Use Mapping (GIS) 

− Eagle Nest Locations 

− Breeding Atlas of Herons and Their Allies (GIS)

− Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Hillsborough, Polk,

Osceola, and Orange counties 

The study limits are defined as 500 ft. from the centerline of the proposed FHSR design/build 

alternatives. Because of the project length, vehicular evaluations were conducted whenever 

possible, particularly within existing ROWs. Pedestrian evaluations were conducted in areas

non-accessible to vehicles. The length of the corridor made it essential to utilize existing

databases, knowledge of habitat types, and biologists familiar with the project area to focus the 

field evaluations in areas most likely to support protected species. 

Two teams of biologists performed field evaluations of the project corridors during the months of

February and March 2003. Species-specific surveys were not conducted during this study

because no areas were identified that would require detailed surveys for determining the 

occurrence of species, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker or Florida scrub jay. Moreover,

species-specific surveys were conducted recently on previous studies (I-4 PD&E Studies) and

additional detailed surveys within the same areas would be redundant. Field evaluations 

produced direct observations of two federally listed plant species, and four state-protected and 

one federally-protected wildlife species. Table 4-68 presents the potentially occurring protected

species for this project along with their status designations. Several species observed during 

field evaluations include the American alligator, gopher tortoise, Florida pine snake,

Southeastern American kestrel, and the Florida sandhill crane. Two federally-protected plant

species were observed: scrub plum and Lewton’s milkwort. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-94

Table 4-68 

Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status

State

Status

Hillsborough 

Polk 

Osceola 

Orange

AMPHIBIANS 

Rana capito Gopher frog SSC X X X X 

REPTILES 

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A) SSC X X X X 

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake T T X X X X 

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise SSC X X X X 

Neoseps reynoldsi Sand skink T T X X X 

Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Florida pine snake SSC X X X X 

BIRDS 

Ajaia ajaja roseate spoonbill SSC X X X 

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay T T X X X X 

Athene cunicularia floridana Florida burrowing owl SSC X X X X 

Egretta caerulea little blue heron SSC X X X X 

Egretta thula Snowy egret SSC X X X X 

Egretta tricolor tricolored heron SSC X X X X 

Eudocimus albus white ibis SSC X X X X 

Falco sparverius paulus Southeastern American kestrel T X X X X 

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane T X X X X 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T T X X X X 

Mycteria americana wood stork E E X X X X 

MAMMALS

Felis concolor coryi Florida panther E E X X 

Ursus americanus floridanus Florida black bear T X X X 

Podomys floridanus Florida mouse SSC X X X X 

Trichechus manatus Florida manatee E E 

Sciurus niger shermani Sherman's fox squirrel SSC X X X X 

PLANTS

Adiantum tenerum Brittle maidenhair fern E X

Asclepias curtissii Curtiss' milkweed E X X X X 

Asplenium auritum auricled spleenwort E X
 4-95

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Table 4-68 

Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status

State

Status

Hillsborough 

Polk 

Osceola 

Orange

Bonamia grandiflora Florida bonamia T E X X X X 

Calamintha ashei Ashe's savory T X X 

Cheiroglossa palmata hand fern E X X X 

Chionanthus pygmaeus Pygmy fringe tree E E X X X 

Chrysopsis floridana Florida golden aster E E X

Cladonia perforata perforate reindeer lichen E E X

Clitoria fragrans Pigeon-wing T E X X 

Conradina brevifolia short-leaved rosemary E E X X 

Conradina grandiflora large-flowered rosemary E X X 

Crotalaria avonensis Avon Park rabbit-bells E E X

Deeringothamnus pulchellus beautiful pawpaw E E X

Dicerandra frutescens Scrub mint E E X

Drosera intermedia Spoon-leaved sundew T X

Eriogonum longifolium var gnaphalifolium Scrub buckwheat T E X X 

Eryngium cuneifolium Wedge-leaved button-snakeroot E E X

Glandularia tampensis Tampa vervain E X

Hartwrightia floridana Hartwrightia T X

Hypericum cumulicola Highlands scrub hypericum E E X

Hypericum edisonianum Edison's ascyrum E X

Illicium parviflorum star anise E X X 

Lechea cernua nodding pinweed T X X X X 

Lechea divaricata pine pinweed E X X 

Liatris ohlingerae Florida blazing star E E X

Lindera subcoriacea bog spicebush E X

Lupinus westianus var aridorum Scrub lupine E E X X X 

Matelea floridana Florida spiny-pod E X X 

Monotropa hypopithys Pinesap E X

Nemastylis floridana fall-flowering ixia E X X X 

Nolina atopocarpa Florida beargrass T X X 

Nolina brittoniana Britton's beargrass E E X X X 

Panicum abscissum cutthroat grass E X X 

Paronychia chartacea ssp chartacea Paper-like nailwort T E X X X 

Peperomia humilis terrestrial peperomia E X

Platanthera integra Yellow fringeless orchid E X X X 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-96

Table 4-68 

Potentially Occurring Listed Wildlife Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Federal 

Status

State

Status

Hillsborough 

Polk 

Osceola 

Orange

Polygala lewtonii Lewton's polygala E E X X X 

Polygonella basiramia hairy jointweed E E X

Polygonella myriophylla Small's jointweed E E X X X 

Prunus geniculata Scrub plum E E X X X X 

Pteroglossaspis ecristata wild coco T X X X 

Salix floridana Florida willow E X X 

Schwalbea americana Chaffseed E E X

Stylisma abdita Scrub stylisma E X X 

Triphora latifolia Broad-leaved nodding-caps E X

Warea amplexifolia clasping warea E E X X X 

Warea carteri Carter's warea E E X

Zephyranthes simpsonii rain lily T X X X X 

Ziziphus celata Scrub ziziphus E E X

X Species known to occur in county

FEDERAL STATUS

E Endangered: species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

T Threatened: species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

E(S/A) Endangered due to similarity of appearance to a species which is federally listed such that enforcement personnel have difficulty in attempting to 

differentiate between the listed and unlisted species. 

T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance (see above). 

STATE STATUS

E Endangered: species, subspecies, or isolated population so few or depleted in number or so restricted in range that it is in imminent danger of extinction.

T Threatened: species, subspecies, or isolated population facing a very high risk of extinction in the future.

SSC Species of Special Concern is a species, subspecies, or isolated population that is facing a moderate risk of extinction in the future

In addition to the species observed, there is a potential for the eastern indigo snake, sand skink,

gopher frog, Florida panther, Florida mouse, Sherman’s fox squirrel, manatee, Florida black

bear, Florida scrub jay, Florida burrowing owl, bald eagle, and wood stork to occur within the

project limits. 

Table 4-69 summarizes the results of these evaluations, as well as evaluations performed during

other studies. This table identifies species observations and potential species habitat by county,

FHSR alignment, and design/build alternative. Detailed location information is provided 

through cross-referencing the Concept Plan sheet numbers given in this table to the plans located

in Appendix A, which identify potential occurrence (based on species habitat requirements) and

actual observation areas by species. 
 4-97

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

In general, the vast majority of species observed or potentially occurring were recorded outside 

the main area of impact. Where the FHSR is located within existing roadway medians, impacts

to natural communities and protected species is almost negligible. Maintenance and station

facilities have been proposed for areas outside of any roadway median; therefore, at these

locations, some natural communities supporting protected species may be affected. 

Protected species involvement is addressed by FHSR alignments and alternatives in the

following sections. Table 4-69 presents a summary of the protected species evaluation. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

A total of six species of protected reptiles and amphibians may occur, or have suitable habitat, 

within the FHSR study area. These include the American alligator, Eastern indigo snake, gopher

tortoise, sand skink, Florida pine snake, and gopher frog. 

American Alligator

An alligator was observed only once in Alignment E1, Design/Build Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7 in

Orange County. This species can occur in any wetland system, including ditches, throughout the

study area. Although some wetland systems may be affected by the proposed project, required

compensation for wetland impacts would offset any effects to alligator habitat. Therefore, the 

FHSR project would have “no effect” on the American alligator. 

Eastern Indigo Snake

The Eastern indigo snake may occur in almost any habitat at any time, and therefore may be

affected by the FHSR construction in all of the alignments within Design/Build Alternatives 1

through 8. Special construction precautions would be implemented to minimize harm to this

species. During final design and permitting, further coordination with the USFWS would occur 

to determine if a federal Incidental Take Permit (ITP) would be needed. This process was

discussed with Mr. Jeff Weller, during the September 5, 2002, meeting with the USFWS, as a 

potential alternative to protect the indigo snake. Considering these efforts, the proposed FHSR 

project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Eastern indigo snake. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-98

Table 4-69 

Protected Species Evaluation Summary 

Scientific

Na

me

Co

m

mon

Na

me

Observed

Other 

Evidence 

Suitable

Habitat 

Co

u

nty

Alignme

nts 

Alternatives 

Plan Sheet Comments 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Alligator 

missipiensis American alligator Y N Y Orange E1 1, 3, 5, 7 164 

Drymarchon corias

couperi

Eastern indigo

snake N N Y All All 

alternatives 

Assume presence in

any natural systems 

of the study area.

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise Y Y Y Hillsborough C1 All 

alternatives 26-27 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise Y N Y Hillsborough C1 All 

alternatives 45 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise N Y Y Hillsborough C1 All 

alternatives 35-36 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise N N Y Hillsborough B2 2, 4, 6, 8 199 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise N N Y Hillsborough C1 All 

alternatives 35 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise Y N Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives

79, 105, 

106, 87 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise Y Y Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives 107 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise N N Y Polk All 

alternatives

57, 58, 69-

71, 74-77, 

79-86, 97-

100, 102,

103, 106,

107 

 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise N Y Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives

65, 84, 85, 

93, 102, 

104, 105 

 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise Y N Y Osceola D1,E1 All 

alternatives 108-115 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise N N Y Osceola D1,

E1 

All 

alternatives 108-122 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise Y N Y Orange E1, 

E2 

All 

alternatives

130, 131,

177-180 

Gopherus

polyphemus gopher tortoise N N Y Orange E1, 

E2 

All 

alternatives

124-142,

152-154 

Neoseps reynoldsi sand skink Y Y Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives 105 

Skinks located

during surveys for I4 expansion (pond 

site) in spring 2000

Neoseps reynoldsi sand skink N N Y Osceola E1,E2 All 

alternatives 113-114 Potential habitat 

identified 
 4-99

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Table 4-69 

Protected Species Evaluation Summary 

Scientific

Na

me

Co

m

mon

Na

me

Observed

Other 

Evidence 

Suitable

Habitat 

Co

u

nty

Alignme

nts 

Alternatives 

Plan Sheet Comments 

Pituophis

melanleucus 

mugitus 

Florida pine snake Y N Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives 105, 106 

Pituophis

melanleucus 

mugitus 

Florida pine snake N N Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives 95, 106, 107 

Rana capita gopher frog N N Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives

74-77, 86, 

87, 97-99, 

106-108 

 

Birds 

Aphelecoma

courelescens Florida scrub jay Y Y Y Polk D1 All alternatives 107, 108 

Birds documented

previously (I-4

expansion studies in

1994 and 2000). 

Jays cross I-4. 

Athene cunicularia Florida burrowing

owl N N Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives

57, 58, 69-

71, 74-77, 

79-87, 95, 

97-99, 102-

107 

 

Falco sparverius

paulus

Southeastern

American kestrel Y N Y Hillsboroug

h C1 All 

alternatives 35, 36 

Falco sparverius

paulus

Southeastern

American kestrel N N Y Hillsboroug

h C1 All 

alternatives

32, 43-45, 

49 

Falco sparverius

paulus

Southeastern

American kestrel N Y Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives 87 

Falco sparverius

paulus

Southeastern

American kestrel N N Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives

73-77, 79, 

80, 86, 89, 

91, 92, 95, 

97-101, 

106, 107 

 

Falco sparverius

paulus

Southeastern

American kestrel N N Y Osceola D1 All alternatives 110-111 

Grus canadensis 

pratensis 

Florida sandhill 

crane Y Y Y Hillsborough C1 All alternatives 49 

Grus canadensis 

pratensis 

Florida sandhill 

crane Y N Y Hillsborough C1 All alternatives 46 

Grus canadensis 

pratensis 

Florida sandhill 

crane N N Y Hillsborough 

B1, 

C1

All 

alternatives

14, 15, 25-

27, 53 

Grus canadensis 

pratensis 

Florida sandhill 

crane Y N Y Polk D1 All alternatives

74-76, 79, 

80, 100 

Grus canadensis 

pratensis 

Florida sandhill 

crane N N Y Polk D1 All alternatives

57, 58, 69-

71, 73-78, 

81-84, 87-

89, 95-99, 

106, 107 

 

Grus canadensis Florida sandhill Y Y Y Orange E1 1, 3, 5, 7 130-132, 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-100

Table 4-69 

Protected Species Evaluation Summary 

Scientific

Na

me

Co

m

mon

Na

me

Observed

Other 

Evidence 

Suitable

Habitat 

Co

u

nty

Alignme

nts 

Alternatives 

Plan Sheet Comments 

pratensis crane 137, 141,

143, 146-

148, 151 

Haliaeetus

leucocephalus bald eagle N Y Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives 68 

Eagles abandoned

nest because the tree 

is dead; osprey

observed in tree, not 

nest. 

Mycteria americana wood stork N N Y All All 

alternatives 

Species may forage

in any wetland 

system, including

ditches, throughout 

the study area

Mammals

Felis concolor

coryi Florida panther N Hillsborough B1 20 

Roadkilled cat 

(UCFP51) was

recorded on I-4

March 10, 2003 by

the FFWCC. 

Felis concolor

coryi Florida panther N/A Y N Osceola/ 

Orange 

D1 All 

alternatives Not known 

Podomys floridana Florida mouse N Y Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives

86, 87, 106-

108 

Podomys floridana Florida mouse N N Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives 107 

Podomys floridana Florida mouse Y N Y Orange E1 1, 3, 5, 7 130, 131 

Podomys floridana Florida mouse N N Y Orange E2 All 

alternatives

123-138,

152-154 

Sciurus niger 

shermani

Sherman's fox

squirrel N N Y Hillsborough C1 All 

alternatives

43, 44, 46, 

49, 53 

Sciurus niger 

shermani

Sherman's fox

squirrel N N Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives

74-77, 95, 

97, 101, 

102, 106,

107, 108 

 

Sciurus niger 

shermani

Sherman's fox

squirrel N N Y Osceola E1, 

E2 

All 

alternatives 110, 111 

Plants

Polygala lewtonii Lewton's milkwort Y N Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives 105, 106 

Prunus geniculata Scrub plum Y N Y Polk D1 All 

alternatives 105 

Scrub plum located 

during surveys for I4 expansion (pond 

site) in spring 2000
 4-101

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Gopher Tortoise, Florida Mouse, and Gopher Frog

Aside from creating a shelter for its own protection, the gopher tortoise burrow provides shelter 

for the protected Florida mouse and gopher frog, as well. Evidence of gopher tortoise

occurrence, direct observations, or suitable habitat was identified within Alignments B2, C1, D1,

E1, and E2. Because of this, all proposed design/build alternatives have the potential to affect 

these three species. To avoid adverse affects to the gopher tortoise, an ITP would be acquired

from the FFWCC prior to any construction activity in areas were tortoises are known to occur.

Although the permit is issued for the gopher tortoise, the permitting process provides protection

for the Florida mouse and gopher frog. Through this effort, the proposed project “may affect,

but is not likely to adversely affect” the gopher tortoise, Florida mouse, and gopher frog.

Sand Skink

This lizard occurs exclusively along Florida’s Central Ridge System in xeric scrub habitat, or 

areas that were historically scrub, but converted to other uses such as pasture. During field

evaluations, sand skink habitat was identified in Alignment E1 and E2 within Osceola County

only. Under a previous study (spring 2000) that evaluated proposed stormwater management

sites for the I-4 expansion in Polk County, sand skinks were observed in Alignment D1 (Polk 

County) at the southeastern quadrant of the U.S. 27 interchange. Based upon the identification

of sand skink habitat within Alignments D1, E1 and E2, surveys will be conducted during the 

design/build phase and prior to permitting. The surveys will be conducted, in potentially suitable

habitat, between March 1st and May 15th in accordance with the USFWS’ draft protocol. Further

coordination with the USFWS will take place prior to the initiation of the surveys and to

coordinate any potential impacts during the design/build phase of the FHSR project. The

proposed project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the sand skink. 

Florida Pine Snake

During field evaluations, one pine snake was observed and other suitable habitat was identified 

within Alignment D1 along I-4 in Polk County. None of the proposed design/build alternatives

would impact these areas; therefore, the proposed project would have “no effect” on the Florida

pine snake. 

Birds

A total of six species of birds have been identified to occur, or have suitable habitat within the

FHSR study area. These include the Florida scrub jay, Florida burrowing owl, Southeastern

American kestrel, Florida sandhill crane, bald eagle, and wood stork. 

Florida Scrub Jay

Recent PD&E studies of the I-4 corridor in Polk County within Alignment D1 recorded scrub 

jays that utilize habitat areas on either side of the interstate at the crossing of C.R. 54. The

FDOT has committed to providing mitigation for potential impacts to the scrub jay associated

with the proposed expansion of I-4. The FDOT Highlands County mitigation bank would be
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-102

used to accomplish this mitigation. Because the FDOT would provide mitigation for impacts to 

scrub jay habitat and no additional habitat occurs along any of the proposed design/build

alternatives, the FHSR project would have “no effect” on the Florida scrub jay.

Florida Burrowing Owl

Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been identified in Polk County, outside of the I-4 ROW, but

no owl or evidence of occurrence was located along Alignment D1 within any of the proposed

design/build alternatives. Because the FHSR project is planned to be within the I-4 median in

Polk County, the project would have “no effect” on the Florida burrowing owl. 

Southeastern American Kestrel

Kestrels are a small species of falcon that occur throughout much of North America. Suitable 

habitat for the kestrel was reported within Hillsborough, Polk, and Osceola counties (Alignments 

C1 and D1) along the I-4 ROW. Some of these areas also supported potential nest sites (cavity

tree), although no birds were recorded nesting. A kestrel was observed in Hillsborough County

within Alignment C1, but it could not be confirmed if this bird was the protected Southeastern

American subspecies or the more northern, non-protected migratory American kestrel, which 

occurs in Florida during this period (February and March). 

Impacts to kestrel habitat would only occur through the removal of an active nest site. It is not 

anticipated that suitable kestrel habitat or potential nest sites would be impacted by any of the

proposed FHSR Design/Build alternatives. Therefore, the FHSR project would have “no effect” 

on the Southeastern American kestrel. 

Florida Sandhill Crane

Florida sandhill crane habitat is abundant along all of the proposed alignments for the FHSR

Design/Build alternatives, especially in Hillsborough and Polk County, with some suitable

habitat areas in Orange County. Cranes were also observed in all three counties, with active 

nesting recorded from within the study area in Hillsborough County. Disruption of an active nest 

is illegal; therefore, nest sites are protected from construction activities. To eliminate any

adverse affect to suitable nesting habitat proximal to any proposed construction, those areas

would be surveyed during the breeding season (January – June) to determine nesting activity. If

nesting is observed, the FFWCC would be contacted for further instruction on how to proceed

with construction. By following this procedure, the proposed project “may affect, but is not

likely to adversely affect” the Florida sandhill crane.

Bald Eagle

Protecting eagles from construction projects requires that certain activities be restricted within 

the Secondary and Primary Protection Zones (SPZ and PPZ, respectively) of the nest tree. The

PPZ limit is set at a distance 750 ft. out from the nest tree, while the SPZ limit is set at a distance

of 1,500 ft. Allowable activities in the PPZ are more restrictive than activities allowed within the 

SPZ. Both zones limit constructions activities. 
 4-103

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

The FFWCC manages a database of known eagle nest locations for the entire state. A review of

this data identified several nests within 1 mi. of the FHSR study area. Nearly all of these nests 

are greater than 1,500 ft. from any of the proposed alignments for FHSR design/build

alternatives, except for nest PO-50 in Alignment D1, Polk County, which is less than 300 ft.

from the I-4 southern ROW limit. Several field reviews of this nest tree determined that it is 

inactive because the tree has died. No eagles were observed in the nest vicinity during several 

site visits. According to federal eagle protection guidelines, a nest tree is still provided protection 

up to five years after the last use by eagles. Because this nest was active last nesting season 

(2002/2003), the nest tree is still provided protection by the USFWS, but its current condition

indicates that it is not a viable site. The USFWS would be contacted during the remainder of this

study to discuss the viability of this nest site. If the nest site is considered viable, then standard

construction precautions would be implemented to assure the nest and any nesting activity would 

be protected from construction. Also, prior to construction, the selected FHSR alternative would 

be re-evaluated to determine if any new nests have been established in proximity to the 

construction corridor. Considering these efforts, the proposed project “may affect, but is not

likely to adversely affect” the bald eagle. 

Wood Stork

The wood stork nests in colonies, typically in swamps that are proximal to seasonally isolated

wetlands. These colony sites may also be used for roosting during the non-nesting season,

resulting in year-round use by the wood stork. The USFWS has recently implemented changes 

to its wood stork colony protection guidelines. These new guidelines state that impacts to

appropriate wetland systems within an 18.6-mi. radius of a colony may directly affect colony

productivity. The radius area, known as the Core Foraging Area (CFA), is defined as the 

distance storks may fly from the colony to capture prey for their young. According to the new

guidelines, appropriate wetlands that are impacted within the CFA must be mitigated within that

same CFA. 

No colonies or wood stork roosts were identified within the study area during surveys. However,

the FFWCC maintains a colony location database, which reports seven active wood stork 

colonies within 18.6 mi. of the project corridor in Hillsborough (three), Polk (three) and Orange 

(one) counties. These colony locations would affect all of the proposed FHSR Design/Build 

Alternatives. Table 4-70 presents colony location data in relation to the FHSR project 

study area. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-104

Table 4-70 

Wood Stork Colonies within 18.6 Miles 

(Core Foraging Area) of the Proposed Corridors 

County Colony

 Number Township Range QuarterSection Number Of Individuals Distance To Closest Alignment(Miles)

Hillsborough 611310 27S 19E SW03 33 11.79 

Hillsborough 615105 30S 22E NE16 60 10.76 

Hillsborough 615333 Key Key Key 30 7.44 

Polk 612316 28S 24E SE32 90 5.66 

Polk 616114 30S 23E SW01 90 10.29 

Polk 616117 29S 25E SE09 20 12.17 

Orange 612320 22S 31E NE20 40 11.31 

During the permitting phase of final design, a more comprehensive determination of wetland 

involvement would be developed. During this time, impacts to CFA wetlands would be

quantified. Coordination with the USFWS would continue to assure that appropriate mitigation 

would be provided for impacts to these CFAs. With these efforts, the proposed project “may

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the wood stork. 

Protected Wading Birds 

The snowy egret, little blue heron, tricolored heron, white ibis, and roseate spoonbill are

protected as State Species of Concern (SSC). During the breeding season, these birds also nest

in aggregations known as colonies. The state provides specific protection to wading bird

colonies in order to prevent disturbances in nesting productivity. These species also rely

primarily on wetland systems, including ditches, as foraging habitat. 

The FFWCC maintains a database of wading bird colony locations. This data was evaluated to 

determine potential involvement with the project. No wading bird colonies were located in the

project vicinity during the field evaluations, nor were any identified in the project vicinity when

the database was reviewed. Moreover, no protected wading birds were observed during the field

evaluations. 

Because no colonies occur proximal to any of the FHSR alignments within the proposed

design/build alternatives, none would be disrupted by the construction and operation of the

FHSR. Additionally, although wetlands would be impacted by construction, required wetland

mitigation would compensate for impacts to foraging habitat. Therefore, the FHSR project “may

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” state protected wading bird species. 
 4-105

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Mammals 

Five species of protected mammals have been identified to occur, or have suitable habitat within 

the FHSR study area. These include the Florida panther, Florida mouse, Sherman’s fox squirrel, 

manatee, and the Florida black bear. 

Florida Panther

The USFWS recognizes viable habitat for this species as occurring only in extreme southwest

Florida; however, some panthers have been dispersing northward recently. A radio-collared

panther (cat 62) crossed I-4 near the Osceola/Orange County line (Alignments E1 and E2) in

March 2000, which is an area shared by all the proposed design/build alternatives. On

March 10, 2003, while attempting to cross I-4 in Hillsborough County, a male panther was killed

by a vehicle 0.25 mi. east of the I-75 interchange (Alignment C1). Although both crossings of I4 raise concerns about the possibility of panthers attempting to cross this roadway in the future, 

the FHSR project should not inhibit any possible future crossings of I-4 or any other roadway

associated with this project because the railway would be elevated. Moreover, the wildlife

agencies do not consider any part of the proposed FHSR alignments as panther habitat. In fact, 

the March 2003 crossing occurred in a highly developed part of Hillsborough County with little 

natural area or prey availability. 

Although vehicle-caused mortality may raise concerns for panthers crossing I-4 in the future, the

proposed FHSR design would not increase this concern because it would be elevated. Moreover, 

the USFWS does not consider any areas along the proposed FHSR Design/Build alternatives as

important to the future existence of the panther. Therefore, the proposed project would have “no

effect” on the Florida panther. 

Sherman’s Fox Squirrel

No Sherman’s fox squirrels were observed during the field evaluations, but suitable habitat is

located within Alignments C1, D1, E1, and E2 of the proposed FHSR Design/Build Alternatives 

1 through 8 (Hillsborough, Polk and Osceola counties). The FFWCC prohibits the removal of

active fox squirrel nests. No suitable fox squirrel nesting habitat occurs within any roadway

median or ROW, or railroad ROW; therefore, surveys for nest sites would occur only at impact 

areas outside of any existing transportation ROW. In an effort to minimize or eliminate any

adverse affects to the fox squirrel, areas supporting suitable habitat outside of existing

transportation ROWs would be surveyed for nests just prior to construction in those areas. If an

active nest is located during these surveys, the FFWCC would be contacted for guidance on

assuring no adverse effect. Therefore, the proposed FHSR project “may affect, but is not likely

to adversely affect” the Sherman’s fox squirrel.

Manatee

Impacts to the manatee could occur through the construction of bridges over waterways utilized

by the manatee. The only waterway within the study area that is known to support the manatee

is the Tampa Bypass Canal located in Alignments B1 and B2 in Hillsborough County. Water
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-106

control structures, however, are located downstream of the proposed crossing for the alignments,

preventing manatees from reaching the project study area. Therefore, the proposed project

would have “no effect” on the manatee. 

Florida Black Bear

In the Green Swamp, a large wetland ecosystem with a southern boundary adjacent to I-4 in

eastern Hillsborough and Polk counties (Alignments C1 and D1), a small black bear population

occurs. The FFWCC does not recognize this population as viable due to its size. The FFWCC

focuses bear management strategies on eight other, more substantial populations, which occur

throughout Florida. Furthermore, the FFWCC recognizes several bear Strategic Habitat 

Conservation Areas (SHCA) throughout the state and has prioritized land acquisition to secure 

these areas for bear conservation. No black bear SHCA are identified in the vicinity of any of

the proposed FHSR Design/Build alternatives. Additionally, no black bears, or evidence of their

occurrence, were observed during field evaluations. Therefore, the proposed project would have

“no effect” on the Florida black bear. 

Protected Plants

The FNAI database identified 50 plant species that may occur in all four counties of this study.

State and federal law protects 24 of these plants, while the remaining 26 are protected by state 

law only. Results of the current field evaluation and those conducted for the FDOT I-4 PD&E

Study (pond site study) located two federally endangered plant species. In the same area that 

supports the only known sand skink population of this study, scrub plum was documented. Also 

in Polk County (Alignment D1), Lewton’s milkwort was observed. These two areas, however,

would not be impacted by any of the proposed FHSR Design/Build Alternatives. Therefore, the

proposed project would have “no effect” on protected plant species. 

Design/Build Alternatives 

As discussed in the previous subsections, the proposed FHSR design/build alternatives potential

impact to protected animals, plants or their habitat are identified. 

No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, protected species would not be impacted, and no plant or animal

habitat would be removed by construction of the FHSR. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative will have “no effect” on the following species: American alligator, 

Florida pine snake, Florida scrub jay, Florida burrowing owl, Southeastern American kestrel,

Florida panther, manatee, Florida black bear, and protected plant species. The Preferred 

Alternative “may effect, but is not likely to adversely effect” the following species: Eastern 

indigo snake, gopher tortoise, Florida mouse, gopher frog, sand skink, Florida sandhill crane,

bald eagle, wood stork, state protected wading bird species, and Sherman’s fox squirrel. As part 
 4-107

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

of mitigation commitments, FHSRA will continue to coordinate with USFWS, the WMDs, and

FFWCC to develop design and construction methods to avoid and minimize impacts to these 

species. 

4.2.15 Farmlands

In accordance with 7 CFR Part 658, the Comprehensive Plans and Future Land Use Maps for 

Hillsborough, Polk, Osceola, and Orange counties; the cities of Tampa, Plant City, Lakeland, and

Orlando; and the Reedy Creek Improvement District were reviewed as part of the farmlands

assessment process. Land uses in the vicinity of the proposed FHSR Design/Build Alternatives 1

through 8, station locations, and maintenance facilities include mixed use, commercial, 

industrial, all densities of residential, and rural/agricultural. Coordination with the NRCS was

initiated in April 2003. The NRCS requested a letter be submitted, along with the farmlands

conversion form, in order for the NRCS to give concurrence that no farmlands (including prime 

or unique) as defined by 7 CFR Part 658 are located in the project vicinity. The letter and the

farmlands conversion form were mailed to the NRCS on April 17, 2003. In a letter dated April

25, 2003, the NRCS concurred that, “. . . there is no prime or unique farmland which would

impact this proposed project.” A copy of the letter is included in Appendix B.

There are no farmlands, as defined by 7 CFR Part 658, located in the project vicinity. Therefore,

the provisions of the Farmland Protection Act of 1984 do not apply to this project. 

4.2.16 Energy

This section describes the net energy resource consumption estimated for the analysis year 2010

for each of the proposed design/build alternatives. The net energy consumption represents the 

total estimated direct annual energy consumption of each alternative for train propulsion, station 

operation, and system maintenance, less the reduction in motor fuel consumption from the

estimated reduction in VMT on Florida’s highways. Indirect energy (e.g., energy expended by

the initial construction activities or the energy content of the vehicles or infrastructure) is not

included in these estimates. Fuel consumption rates were not adjusted for localized changes in 

congestion, so it is possible that some relatively small additional fuels savings might occur. The

majority of the travelers diverted to the FHSR are longer-distance travelers from automobiles;

therefore, savings from overall highway VMT reduction should represent most of the fuel

savings. 

The estimates are discussed in separate subsections for train propulsion, highway travel,

and O&M. 

Energy Methodology

For the gas turbine train, Alternatives 1 through 4, the propulsion energy (gallons of diesel fuel)

was based on information provided in the proposal, as discussed in the Vehicle Emissions

subsection, with minor adjustments for alignment length. For the electric train, Alternatives 5 

through 8, the electric energy required for train propulsion was estimated by simulating train 

operation for Alternative 6, with mileage-based adjustments for the other alternatives. To derive 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-108

energy requirements at the generating station, a power factor of 0.91 was assumed, as well as

transmission and distribution losses of 8 percent. The estimates of the effective heat equivalent

of the power electric power required assumed a thermal efficiency of 45 percent at the generating 

station. Power requirements for mileage adjustments were made on the basis of per-mile energy

consumption for 100-mph operation on tangent track. Overall allowances of 17.8 percent and

10.5 percent, in addition to the energy requirements for revenue train service, were made for

non-revenue train movement and train idle hours for the gas turbine and electric trains, 

respectively. 

Highway energy savings were limited to automobile passenger travel and, therefore, are

expressed in gallons of gasoline. Energy requirements were estimated based on 25 VMT per

gallon for the trips being diverted to FHSR, and at 20 VMT per gallon for the auto access portion

of trips using FHSR. 

Energy requirements for O&M were made from unit consumption rates of electricity for station 

operation and system maintenance for Alternatives 2 (gas turbine train) and 6 (electric train), and

making mileage- and station-related adjustments for the other alternatives. Quantities (station

and platform areas, route-miles, and track-miles) for the year 2010 were derived from

information submitted by the proposers. 

Energy estimates are expressed in millions of British Thermal Units (MBTUs) per year. One 

MBTU is the energy equivalent of 1.05506 x 109

 joules (SI) or 25,200 grams of oil equivalent 

(often used by European energy agencies). 

Train Propulsion Energy 

The energy estimates for train propulsion in Table 4-71 include all energy necessary to propel 

the trains and operate on-board amenities and equipment (i.e., ”hotel power”), both for revenue

service and for all other train operation, including standing in the terminals between scheduled

trips, yard moves, and equipment moves. 

Direct propulsion energy requirements for the fossil-fueled gas turbine train are estimated to be 

considerably greater than for the electric train alternatives. When thermal losses for power

generation are included, this difference is less pronounced, but still substantial. It should be 

borne in mind that the electric train alternatives provide about 25 percent more service (in terms

of train-miles) than the gas turbine alternatives. On a train-mile basis, the total heat energy

required per train-mile for the gas turbine is estimated to be about three times that for the 

electric train. 
 4-109

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Table 4-71 

Summary of Estimated Train Propulsion Energy Consumption for the Year 2010 

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Electricity

(GWH)

 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30.628 29.665 31.076 30.114 

Diesel Fuel

(thousands of

gallons)

4,094 4,029 4,146 4,080 0 0 0 0 

MBTU2 

excluding

thermal losses 

from

generation 

540,540 531,828 547,272 538,560 104,507 101,221 106,035 102,753 

MBTU

including 

thermal losses 

from

generation3

540,540 531,828 547,272 538,560 232,237 224,935 235,634 228,340 

Notes: 

1 Gigawatt hours (millions of KWH) at the generating station 

2 Diesel fuel converted at 132,000 British Thermal Units (BTU) per gallon; electricity at 3412 BTU per kilowatt hour (KWH).

3 Thermal efficiency of 45 percent assumed for electric power generation

Highway Energy Consumption 

The diversion of highway travelers to FHSR is estimated to cause a net decrease in gasoline 

consumption on Florida’s highways, as indicated in Table 4-72. Decreases are indicated in

parentheses. The estimated gasoline savings for the “Bee Line” Alternatives (1, 3, 5, and 7) are

higher than for the “Greeneway” Alternatives (2, 4, 6, and 8). 

Table 4-72 

Summary of Estimated Highway Energy Consumption Change for the Year 2010 

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

‘Rider’ VMT at 

25 mpg

(millions) 

(25.751) (20.673) (25.751) (20.673) (25.751) (20.673) (25.751) (20.673)

‘Access’ VMT

at 20 mpg

(millions) 

4.670 4.352 4.670 4.352 4.670 4.352 4.670 4.352 

Gasoline

(thousands of

gallons)

(796.5) (609.3) (796.5) (609.3) (796.5) (609.3) (796.5) (609.3) 

MBTU1 (90,403) (69,156) (90,403) (69,156) (90,403) (69,156) (90,403) (69,156)

Notes: 1 Gasoline converted at 113,500 BTU per gallon. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-110

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Energy Consumption 

The O&M estimates include all direct project requirements, other than train propulsion energy, 

which is described in the subsection Train Propulsion Energy. These estimates (including

thermal losses for electric power generation) are shown in Table 4-73 for the following general

categories:

• Station operations, including: station Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)

(electric) and lighting and parking lot illumination. The difference in energy

consumption from station operations is due entirely to differences in the proposed

stations proposed by the gas turbine and electric train alternatives. The stations proposed 

for the gas turbine alternatives are relatively small; platforms are relatively narrow and

only a modest amount of station parking is provided. The stations proposed for the 

electric train alternatives provide 1.5-2 times as much space per passenger in the stations,

almost three times as much on platforms, and about 2.5 times as much parking capacity. 

• Maintenance of equipment (MOE), including operation of the central maintenance

facility and train washing operations. The difference between the gas turbine and

electric train alternatives here is due to the significantly larger maintenance facility

proposed by the electric train alternatives (170,000 vs. 115,000 sq. ft.). 

• Maintenance of way (MOW), consisting chiefly of fuels for ROW security patrols and

transport of crews, material, and equipment to wayside sites. The requirement for the 

electric train alternatives is higher because of the need to maintain the overhead traction 

power supply system, and because of the higher-capacity full double-track configuration 

of the electric train alternatives. 

Overall, energy requirements for O&M are to be about twice as high for the electric alternatives

as for the gas turbine alternatives. This is primarily a result of higher capacity ‘built in’ to the

electric train alternatives, in the form of larger stations and maintenance facilities. 
 4-111

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Table 4-73 

Summary of Estimated O&M Energy Consumption (MBTU per year)

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Electricity

(GWH) excluding 

thermal losses 

5.779 5.311 5.779 5.311 12.043 10.717 12.043 10.717 

Gasoline

(thousands of

gallons)

43.1 42.6 43.8 43.2 58.7 57.9 59.6 58.8 

Station Operation 

MBTU (including

thermal losses) 

20,946 17,391 20,946 17,391 57,563 47,510 57,563 47,510 

MOE MBTU

(including

thermal losses) 

22,876 22,876 22,876 22,876 33,757 33,757 33,757 33,757 

MOW MBTU

(including

thermal losses) 

4,896 4,830 4,967 4,901 6,666 6,576 6,763 6,673 

Total MBTU

(including

thermal losses) 

48,718 45,098 48,789 45,169 97,986 87,844 98,082 87,940 

Total Energy Consumption 

Table 4-74 presents the energy subtotals from the preceding subsections and combines them into

a project net total for each of the design/build alternatives. The estimated change in net energy

consumption for 2010, including thermal losses for electric power generation, ranges between

239,820 and 514,574 MBTUs, with the electric train alternatives’ net consumption being

considerably lower than the gas turbine train alternatives’. The total change is a very small 

fraction (less than 1/20th of one percent) of Florida’s total energy consumption for surface 

transportation (all non-military vehicle operation on highways, railroads, and fixed-guideway

public transportation), which is estimated to reach one quadrillion BTUs (i.e., 1,000,000,000 

MBTU) by 2010. 

Table 4-74 

Summary of Estimated Net Energy Consumption (Change from 2010 No-Build in MBTU), 

including thermal losses for electric power generation 

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Propulsion 540,540 531,828 547,272 538,560 232,237 224,935 235,634 228,340 

Highway (90,403) (69,156) (90,403) (69,156) (90,403) (69,156) (90,403) (69,156)

Operations 48,718 45,098 48,789 45,169 97,986 87,844 98,082 87,949 

TOTAL 498,855 507,770 505,658 514,574 239,820 243,623 243,314 247,124 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-112

No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, no additional energy needs would be required for the propulsion

or operations of the train due to the construction of the FHSR. The net decrease in gasoline

consumption on Florida’s highways of 90,403 MBTU would also not occur with the No-Build 

Alternative.

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would result in a net increase of energy consumption by 498,855

MBTU, accounting for the propulsion and operation of the FHSR as well as the reduction of 

gasoline consumption by diverting automobile ridership. 

4.2.17 Utilities 

The locations of major utilities within the FHSR study area were assessed by contacting all of the 

utility companies with existing facilities in the study area. To determine what facilities exist 

within the project limits, all utilities were provided with sets of aerial maps of the study area for 

identifying the location of existing and planned facilities. All information received from the 

various utility companies is located in the project file. Major utilities were determined to be

those utilities that could influence the location and design of the FHSR project. The utility

companies and the types of utilities located within proposed Design/Build Alternatives 1 through

8, station locations, and maintenance facilities are identified in Table 4-75.

The proposed FHSR design/build alternatives may require the relocation of some of the existing

utilities. The majority of the existing utilities cross the FHSR alignments and would require

provision of adequate depth beneath the tracks or vertical clearance over the tracks to

accommodate for appropriate utility lines and equipment. Coordination with all affected utilities 

would be completed during final design. 

Table 4-75 

Utilities within Alternatives 1 through 8 

Utility Address City State Zip Type

ACSI Network

Technology

4181 E. Lake Meadow Lane

P.O. Box 307 Hernando FL 34442 Telecommunications

Adelphia 1202 Tech Blvd. 

 Suite 205 Tampa FL 33619 Television 

Adelphia Business

Solutions 

Two Harbour Place 

302 Knights Run Ave.

Suite 1025 

Tampa FL 33602 Telecommunications

Adelphia Cable 

Communications of

Orlando 

4305 Vineland Road

Suite G-2 Orlando FL 32811 Television 

AT&T, C/O PEA 5422 Carrier Dr., 

Suite 203 Orlando FL 32819 Telecommunications

BellSouth of Orlando 5100 Steyr St. Orlando FL 32819-

9522 Telecommunications
 4-113

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Table 4-75 

Utilities within Alternatives 1 through 8 

Utility Address City State Zip Type

Broadwing

Communications

1122 Capitol of Texas Highway

South Austin TX 78746 Telecommunications

Broadwing

Communications

5915 S. Rio Grande Ave.

Suite 200 Orlando FL 32809 Telecommunications

Business Telecom 4300 Six Forks Road Raleigh NC 37609 Telecommunications

Central Florida Gas 1705 7th Street S.W. Winter Haven FL 33880 Gas

Central Florida Pipeline 2101 Gaty Dr. Tampa FL 33605 Gas

City Of Auburndale P.O. Box 186 Auburndale FL 33823 Municipality

City of Davenport P.O. Box 125 Davenport FL 33836 Municipality

City of Haines City P.O. Box 1507 Haines City FL 33845 Municipality

City of Kissimmee

Dept. of Water

Resources

101 North Church St. Kissimmee FL 34741-

5054 Water

City of Lake Alfred 155 East Pomelo St. Lake Alfred FL 33850 Municipality

City of Lakeland 

Electric & Fiber 501 E. Lemon St. Lakeland FL 33801 Power

City of Lakeland - 

Water Department

501 E. Lemon Street 

MC-A33 Lakeland FL 33801 Water

City of Lakeland Gas 501 E. Lemon St. Lakeland FL 33801 Gas

City of Orlando Bureau

of Wastewater 5100 L.B. McLeod Rd. Orlando FL 32811 Sewer

City of Plant City

Engineering Division 302 W. Reynolds St. Plant City FL 33566 Municipality

City of Tampa

Dept. of Sanitary

Sewers

306 E. Jackson St. 6N Tampa FL 33602 Sewer

City of Tampa Water 

Department 306 E. Jackson St., 5E Tampa FL 33602 Water

Colorado Boxed Beef

Company

P.O. Box 899 Winter Haven FL 33882 Rail 

Cutrale Citrus Juices 

USA, Inc. 602 Mckean St. Auburndale FL 33821 Rail 

E.Spire

Communications

400 N. Tampa St. 

Suite 900 Tampa FL 33602 Telecommunications

Epik Communications 3501 Quadrangle Blvd Orlando FL 32817 Telecommunications

FL Governmental

Utilities Authority 614 N. Wymore Rd. Winter Park FL 32789 Water

Florida Gas

Transmission Lakeland 1544 N. Combee Rd. Lakeland FL 33801 Gas

Florida Gas

Transmission Lines

Orlando 

7990 Steer Lake Rd. Orlando FL 32835 Gas

Florida Gas Trasmission 601 South Lake Destiny Dr., 

Suite 450 Maitland FL 32751 Gas 

Florida Power Corp. 3250 Bonnet Creek Rd. 

P.O. Box 10000 Lake Buena Vista FL 32830 Power 

Florida Water Services 

Intercession City P.O. Box 609520 Orlando FL 32860 Water

Florida Water Services 

Windsong Water

FPL FiberNet FN-GO

9250 W. Flagler St. Miami FL 33174 Telecommunications
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-114

Table 4-75 

Utilities within Alternatives 1 through 8 

Utility Address City State Zip Type

Frontier

Communications

International 

435 W. Commercial St. E. Rochester NY 14445 Telecommunications

Hillsborough County

Water

601 E. Kennedy Blvd.

19th Floor Tampa FL 33602 Water

Intermedia 

Communications of FL, 

Inc. 

4200 W. Cypress

Suite 680 Tampa FL 33609 Telecommunications

Kissimmee Utility

Authority 1701 West Carroll St. Kissimmee FL 34741 Municipality

Level 3

Communications

1025 El Dorado Ave 13C04 Broomfield CO 80021 Telecommunications

MCI Worldcom 69 W. Concord St. Orlando FL 32801 Telecommunications

Orange County Utilities

Engineering 

109 E. Church St. 

Suite 300 Orlando FL 32817 Municipality

Orlando Orange County

Expressway Authority

Fiber 

525 S. Magnolia Ave. Orlando FL 32801 Telecommunications

Orlando Utilities

Commission 500 South Orange Ave. Orlando FL 32802 Municipality

Polk County Utilities 305 N. Jackson Ave.

P.O. Box 2019 Bartow FL 33831 Municipality

Progress Telecom 362 13th Ave. South St. Petersburg FL 33701 Telecommunications

Sprint Florida 33 N. Main St. Winter Garden FL 34787 Telecommunications

Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Dr

Suite 211 Clearwater FL 33761 Water

Tampa Electric 

Company

P.O. Box 111 Tampa FL 33601 Power

TECO / People Gas 1400 Channelside Drive Tampa FL 33605 Gas

Teleport 

Communications Group/ 

ATT Local Services 

6015 Benjamin Road

Suite 306 Tampa FL 33634 Telecommunications

Time Warner

Communications 525 Grand Regency Blvd. Brandon FL 33510-3933 Television 

Time Warner

Communications 844 Maguire Road Ocoee FL 34761 Television 

Verizon Florida, Inc. 10402 N. 56th St. Temple Terrace FL 33617 Telecommunications

Vista United Telephone

Company 751 Back Stage Lane Lake Buena Vista FL 32830-

1000 Telecommunications

Walt Disney Dig 

Permitting Telecommunications

Williams

Communications, LLC

One Technology Center. 

Mail Drop TC-11A Tulsa OK 74121-

2064 Telecommunications

No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, no utilities would be disrupted or relocated.
 4-115

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would require the relocation of some of the existing utilities. The

majority of the existing utilities cross the Preferred Alternative and would require provision of

adequate depth beneath the tracks or vertical clearance over the tracks to accommodate for 

appropriate utility lines and equipment. Coordination with all affected utilities would be

completed during final design. 

4.3 TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS

4.3.1 Impacts to Freight Rail Operations

This section discusses the potential impacts to freight rail operations by the proposed FHSR 

stations and O&M facilities in Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8. 

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 begin in downtown Tampa and follow I-275 until

reaching the I-4 interchange. From there, Design/Build Alternatives 1 and 5 follow I-4 into

Orange County traveling along the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) and Design/Build 

Alternatives 2 and 6 follow I-4 into Orange County traveling along the Central Florida

Greeneway (S.R. 417) with the terminus at the Orlando International Airport. Because the

alternatives follow I-4, the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528), and the Central Florida Greeneway

(S.R. 417), there are no impacts to freight rail operations from the proposed rail lines, station 

locations, or maintenance facilities. 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 begin in the Tampa CBD and are parallel to the former

CSX A-line until near the Uceta Yard where they run parallel to existing CSX freight lines until 

west of I-75. From I-75, the alternatives are located in the I-75 median until they reach I-4

where they run into the I-4 median. The alternatives are elevated above the existing CSX rail

lines and are not expected to impact the CSX Uceta Yard or its operation or freight service. 

Coordination with CSX Railroad Company, the freight operator within the FHSR corridors,

identified the following issues: 

• FHSR should be constructed on separate dedicated track with no interference with freight 

operations. 

• The dedicated FHSR track should be grade-separated at high speeds with at-grade crossings

permitted at lower speeds. 

• CSX would sell ROW unnecessary for a two-track freight system and would not be adverse 

to realignment of their freight tracks to provide clearance for two FHSR tracks. The cost

for track realignment would be borne by the FHSRA. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-116

• Adequate separation between freight and passenger services would be required, plus the 

consideration of potential barrier system between the two operations. 

This coordination resulted in the identification of the existing CSX ROW for operation of the 

FHSR. Any proposed FHSR alignment would require the purchase of additional ROW. The

realignment of freight tracks, in order to utilize more of the existing CSX ROW, was determined

to be financially unfeasible due to maintaining a two-track freight system and the minimal ROW 

that would become available by this potential realignment. 

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would have no effect on freight rail operations. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative is Design/Build Alternative 1, which begins in downtown Tampa and 

follow I-275 until reaching the I-4 interchange. From there, it follows I-4 into Orange County

traveling along the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) with the terminus at the Orlando 

International Airport. Because the alternative follows I-4 and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 

528), there are no impacts on freight rail operations. 

4.3.2 Impacts to Highway Operations 

The highway traffic demand within the proposed design/build alternatives in Tampa and Orlando

is forecasted to increase in the opening year 2008. This increase in traffic would be associated

with population growth, tourism, and land use development, and not with an increase in traffic

due to FHSR. The FHSR line would be elevated over the roadway network in a major portion of 

the alternatives. Therefore, FHSR would not disrupt the operation of the roadway systems in 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 4 or Design/Build Alternatives 5 through 8, as discussed in 

the following paragraphs. 

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 

These design/build alternatives traverse from downtown Tampa, then northeast along I-4 to

Orlando. Alternatives 1 and 5 follow the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) east to Taft/Vineland

Road, then to Boggy Creek Road and the Orlando International Airport. 

The traffic demand forecasted through the Tampa CBD exceeds an Annual Average Daily

Traffic (AADT) of 170,000 vehicles per day (vpd) for I-275 and an AADT of 140,000 vpd for

I-4. Although I-4 will be 6-laned through the Tampa CBD, it will remain deficient with LOS F.

Vehicle trips using the interstate system to access the station in downtown Tampa would add to 

this deficiency. 

With Alternatives 1 and 2, Laurel Street, located at the Tampa multi-modal station, would be 

closed between Florida Avenue and Marion Street to accommodate the rail tracks. The closing 
 4-117

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

of Laurel Street would not significantly impact traffic circulation. There is a network of

collector streets and arterials surrounding the station to provide adequate circulation and access.

Traffic on the surrounding local roadway network would increase, however, as a result of the

vehicle trips attracted by the station. With Alternatives 5 and 6, Laurel Street would remain 

open. 

I-4, through eastern Hillsborough County, will also be deficient as the AADT ranges from 

110,000 vpd to 140,000 vpd. The interstate is forecasted to operate within acceptable conditions

throughout Polk County, from Lakeland to south of Celebration. The traffic demand forecasts on

I-4 in this area ranges between an AADT of 60,000 vpd to 100,000 vpd. 

A station is proposed in Lakeland, with two possible sites being considered. One site is proposed

north of I-4, near the Polk County Parkway. Swindell Road and Alderman Road would serve the 

station. These roadways and intersections would be impacted by vehicle trips attracted by the

station. The other station in Lakeland is proposed northwest of I-4 and bordered by Kathleen 

Road (S.R. 539) and Griffin Road. These facilities are 4-lane collectors, which provide much

needed travel routes between the urbanized area and suburban Lakeland. These facilities cross 

I-4 and would remain operational. These roadways and intersections would be impacted by

vehicle trips attracted by this proposed station. 

The LOS on I-4 is forecasted to be deficient through Osceola and south Orange County. The

traffic demand forecasts range in AADT from 140,000 vpd to 180,000 vpd. Vehicle trips using 

the interstate and expressway systems to access the surrounding stations would add to 

this deficiency. 

A station is proposed at Walt Disney World, west of I-4 between Osceola Parkway and U.S. 192. 

A platform would be located in the median of I-4 and a pedestrian flyover to the station would be

constructed northwest over the westbound lanes of I-4 in order to link the station to a vacant

parcel within Walt Disney World. This vacant parcel would then be developed into a transit stop 

and parking facility in order to access the FHSR station. The median of I-4 would also be

reconstructed. There is no current access to the proposed station site. A new roadway

approximately 1⁄2 mi. in length would need to be constructed to connect the parking area to the

existing roadway network. 

Along the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528), the traffic forecasts range from an AADT of 

62,000 vpd to 64,000 vpd. This facility has reserve capacity and is expected to operate at an

acceptable condition with the vehicle trips accessing the OCCC station. 

The Canadian Court Intermodal Center (CCIC), proposed in the northeast corner of International

Drive and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528), would serve as a coordination and transfer center

for multiple modes of transportation. A FHSR station is proposed at this facility. The station 

location, referred to as the OCCC station, would have direct access to International Drive.

Extensive planning and committed roadway improvements for the CCIC project would add new

roadway connections, improve operation to the area, and provide an integrated roadway network. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-118

A maintenance facility is proposed off Boggy Creek Road between Tradeport Drive and

Wetherbee Road or off of Airport Boulevard (South Access Road) near Wetherbee Road. The 

facility employees would generate some additional traffic; however, this would only be a minor 

impact to the local roadways because there is excess capacity on local roads. 

Airport Boulevard is the primary artery to the multi-modal station located at the Orlando 

International Airport. The station would be integrated within the airport expansion to serve its

multi-modal demand. A roadway system would be constructed at the airport, serving the station, 

as well as the airport terminal. The roadway system would stem from Airport Boulevard. 

Alternatives 2 and 6 are similar to Alternatives 1 and 5 with the exception of utilization of the

Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) corridor, instead of the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) 

corridor. Furthermore, the OCCC station at International Drive is not proposed with this

alternative.

The travel demand forecasts for the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) range from an AADT

of 34,000 vpd to 39,000 vpd. This facility has reserve capacity and is not impacted by FHSR

vehicle trips traveling to the airport station. 

The maintenance facility for Alternatives 2 and 6 is proposed near Airport Boulevard (South

Access Road) and Wetherbee Road. The facility employees would generate few vehicle trips, 

resulting in only minor impact to the roadways. 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 

These alternatives are similar to Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 except in Tampa, where 

the corridor crosses through northern downtown to Adamo Drive and runs parallel to the Lee

Roy Selmon Expressway. The alternatives continue eastward crossing to Broadway Avenue and 

continuing northeast to I-75. The alternatives continue north along I-75, then east along I-4 to 

Lakeland and Orlando. The alternatives would be elevated and would not interrupt roadway

traffic. The station locations and maintenance facilities are the same as the previously

described alternatives. 

The travel demand forecasted for Adamo Drive ranges from an AADT of 27,000 vpd to

32,000 vpd with LOS C. The travel demand forecasted for the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway

ranges from an AADT of 54,000 vpd to 59,000 vpd with LOS B/C. On Broadway Avenue, the

AADT ranges from 5,000 vpd to 14,000 vpd with LOS B/C. The AADT on I-75 is forecasted at 

103,000 vpd with LOS D. These facilities have reserve capacity and are expected to operate at 

acceptable conditions. 

Although these alternatives avoid the I-275 and I-4 interchange, vehicle trips would utilize these

facilities to access the downtown Tampa station. Impacts to the surrounding roadway network in

Tampa would remain the same as discussed in Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6. As with 

Alternatives 5 and 6, Laurel Street would remain open for Alternatives 7 and 8. 
 4-119

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Diversion 

The FHSR system would divert vehicle traffic from the interstate system, primarily from the I-4

corridor. Annual ridership for the FHSR was forecasted for 2010 within the study corridor. It is 

projected that 11 percent of the 4.5 million people that annually travel between Tampa and 

Orlando would be diverted to FHSR. In addition, 9 percent of the 3.4 million people that

annually travel between Tampa and Lakeland, as well as 9 percent of the 3 million people that 

annually travel between Lakeland and Orlando, would also be diverted to FHSR. 

The ridership forecasts show a reduction in the number of vehicles annually traveling on

I-4 by over 750,000, based on an average of 1.4 persons per vehicle. However, this reduction 

would not be sufficient to significantly improve the LOS on I-4, as many segments of the 

roadway would still be over capacity. Further details on the diversion and candidate passengers

can be found in the ridership study. 

No-Build Alternative 

Under the No-Build Alternative, no diversion to FHSR would occur. The absence of the

diversion, which would occur under the design/build alternatives primarily on I-4 means

congestion on I-4 would occur sooner. As a result, LOS would decrease sooner and the

“Ultimate improvements” to I-4 would be needed earlier. The need for more immediate

improvements would also occur on the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) and the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528). 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative is Alternative 1. Impacts to existing highway operations would be the 

closure of Laurel Street at the multi-modal station in downtown Tampa. A new roadway

approximately 1⁄2 mi. in length would need to be constructed to connect the Walt Disney World 

station to the existing roadway network. 

4.3.3 Ridership and Revenue

In July 2002, the FHSRA initiated investment grade ridership studies for the first phase of the 

FHSR project, from St. Petersburg to Orlando. The ridership study consists of four separate 

reports and various addenda that were issued by the FHSRA. These are:

• Summary Report (Tampa - Orlando) November 20, 2002 

• Supplemental Materials November 22, 2002 

• Operating Plan November 22, 2002 

• Summary Report (St. Petersburg - Tampa) December 16, 2002 

All four reports are included as Appendix W to the FHSRA’s RFP to design, build, operate, and

maintain Part 1 of the first phase of the project (i.e., Tampa to Orlando). This section 

summarizes the key assumptions and findings from the ridership reports. The proposals

submitted for Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 4 (gas turbine train) and 5 through 8 (electric
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-120

train) both stated their ridership estimates were more conservative than those used in the FHSRA

reports. Ridership revenues, not passenger estimates, are included in the two proposals. The 

proposals contained different operational plans as discussed in Section 2 of this FEIS. 

Forecasting Process

The ridership forecasts are characterized by the FHSR as investment grade with respect to

accuracy, reliability, and credibility. To meet the criteria of an investment grade, the scope of

work was developed in consultation with a steering committee specifically formed to review this 

work and based on criteria established by the High Speed Ground Transportation Association. 

The criteria used to prepare these estimates include: 

• Two independent opinions of ridership and revenue prepared by experienced, unbiased

demand forecasting consultants. 

• A peer review process using independent experts to review forecasting assumptions and 

procedures. 

• Current surveys designed to measure characteristics of existing demand in the corridor 

and trip maker’s attitudes and perceptions of the proposed new travel mode.

• A critical assessment of economic growth projections that are used to estimate the overall 

increase in travel demand. 

• Adoption of conservative assumptions regarding factors affecting FHSR usage. 

• Alternative model estimates (sensitivity testing) intended to quantify the impacts of 

different assumptions of key forecasting inputs on forecast results. 

• Anticipation of “ramp-up” effects (gradual behavior change) in response to the

availability of a new travel mode. 

• Emphasis on near term forecasts. 

Ridership Revenue Estimates 

The intercity travel market between Tampa and Orlando is estimated to be 50 million trips per

year. Of this total market, the candidate market (travelers in the corridor who would consider

FHSR as an alternative) was estimated by the two consultants to range from 15.6 to 16.2 million

trips per year in 2010. FHSR system ridership estimates for the Tampa to Orlando corridor, for

intercity travel and airport access travel, are summarized in Table 4-76. This table includes

ridership and revenue for both choice and captive markets in the FHSR corridor. 

Design/Build Alternatives 

Neither technology included ridership estimates in their proposals. Both technologies did 

provide revenue estimates and stated their assumptions regarding the FHSRA ridership 

estimates, as shown in Table 4-76. 

The ridership revenues used in the gas turbine train proposal (Design/Build Alternatives 1

through 4) were adjusted based on the sensitivity analyses furnished in the FHSRA’s ridership 

study. These adjustments were made to account for longer travel times, increased train
 4-121

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

frequency and operating hours, higher fares, and fare increases keeping pace with inflation 

(2.7 percent per year). 

The electric train proposal (Design/Build Alternatives 5 through 8) used conservative fare box

revenues that were developed by the team based on the FHSRA’s forecasts. For each of the 

market segments (i.e., choice and captive) and origins, a series of discount factors were

developed and applied. Depending on route and market segment, these discount factors ranged 

from 68 to 80 percent of the FHSRA’s choice and captive ridership. 

Table 4-76 

2010 Tampa-Orlando Ridership and Revenue Estimates 

Route/Market Annual Ridership Annual Revenue3 Operating Cost 

The Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) 

Choice

1 Market 1.9 to 2.3 million $32.9 to $35.4 million 

Captive2 Market 0.5 million $6.3 million 

Total 2.4 to 2.8 million $39.3 to $41.8 million 

The Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417)

Choice Market 1.7 to 1.9 million $27.9 to $29.9 million 

Captive Market 2.1 million $26.3 million 

Total 3.8 to 4.1 million $54.2 t $56.0 million 

$26.2 - $36.8 million4

1. The choice market is that segment of the market using the corridor and diverting to FHSR based upon an independent decision of price and

time competitiveness among the available modes of transportation.

2. Captive markets from the International Drive and Disney areas are estimated based on survey data. The actual value of these markets is

dependent on negotiations with entities and providers currently serving these markets. The estimates of captive markets in this table assume

Disney will agree to offer this ridership to the FHSR operator only if the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) alignment is selected.

3. Annual revenues are 2002 $’s.

4. Operating costs are from the FSHRA 2002 Report to the Legislature. 

Key Inputs and Assumptions 

Key inputs and assumptions were used in the ridership and revenue forecasts to describe the 

existing transportation system, socio-economic growth, station access, and rail service

characteristics. Characteristics of the existing transportation system were expanded into the

travel surveys and to describe competitive modes. These include: 

• Highway traffic and class counts conducted continuously during the highway intercept 

study.

• Historic and seasonal traffic counts from FDOT data. 

• Existing and future highway travel times based on FDOT urban area models with

adjustments based on travel times studies conducted as part of the ridership study.

• Existing air travel in the corridor based on Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

records. 

• Highway travel costs (excluding value of time) include the actual tolls paid and $0.36 per 

mi. for business travelers or $0.12 for non-business travelers. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-122

Socio-Economic Growth Factors 

Socio-economic growth factors were used for expanding the existing market to estimate the

future travel market size in 2010 and 2025. These forecasts were taken from MPO forecasts,

which were compared and found to be consistent with the forecasts prepared by the University of

Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). 

• Population in the corridor is expected to increase 33 percent between 2002 and 2025, or

1.4 percent per year. 

• Employment in the corridor is expected to increase 46 percent from 2002 to 2025, or an

average of 2 percent per year. 

• Hotel room growth in the corridor is expected to increase 83 percent from 2002 to 2025,

or an average of 3.6 percent per year. 

• Orlando International Airport passenger traffic is expected to increase from 27.1 million

in 2002 to 34.8 million in 2010. These estimates of airport traffic are taken from the most

recent forecasts prepared by the airport for bond financing purposes. 

Station Access 

Two alternative alignments were evaluated in the Orlando area studies. One of these alternatives

uses the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) route from I-4 to the Orlando International

Airport. The second uses the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) route. 

Stations along the Tampa to Orlando segment of the project were evaluated at downtown Tampa, 

Lakeland, Disney, the proposed Orange County Multi-modal Center, and at the Orlando 

International Airport. Station access characteristics were developed for each of these stations 

that describe access time and cost assumptions. 

• Daily parking costs range from $2 to $6 per day depending on location. 

• Public transportation was assumed to be free of charge to/from the OCCC / International

Drive area and to/from Walt Disney World resorts and hotels. The public transportation

cost for all other station locations ranged from $1.00 to $1.25 per trip. 

• Station service areas were generally defined as a 5-mi. radius around each station. 

• Walk times, while in the station (i.e., from curb to platform), were 10 minutes entering

the station and 5 minutes exiting the station. At the Orlando International Airport, 

additional time was added to represent travel on the people mover and randomly arriving 

passenger traffic. 

Rail Service Characteristics 

The rails service inputs and assumptions describe key aspects of a base case operating plan that

was used in the preparation of the ridership estimates. These characteristics include speed,

frequency (the number of trains), and fares. 
 4-123

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

• Average speed used in the base case analysis is 113 mph based upon 150 mph 

technology.

• Intercity rail frequency is 14 round trip trains over a 16-hour operating day (i.e., 6 AM to 

10 PM). 

• Orlando area shuttle service provides 8 additional round trips per day.

• Full fares for intercity travel range from $10 (Orlando International Airport to the OCCC) 

to $32 (Orlando International Airport to St. Petersburg). 

• Discount fares for commuters (requiring advance purchase) range from $3.25 to $11.25 

per trip. 

• Average travel time from Orlando to Tampa (non-stop) is 45 minutes in the base case

(150 mph technology) based on an average running speed of 113 mph. Higher and lower

travel times were examined as part of sensitivity analyses. 

• Taxi fares ranged from $3.00 to $3.25 for the first mi. of travel and $1.75 per mi.

thereafter. 

4.3.4 Impact to Other Travel Modes

The impacts of the FHSR proposed Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 to other travel modes 

are determined by factors such as route, destination, cost, time, and convenience. Other modes

of travel include Amtrak service, Greyhound bus, airline service, and taxi and shuttle services to

and from attractions within the area of the No-Build and proposed FHSR Design/Build

Alternatives 1 through 8. All travel modes are consistent throughout Design/Build Alternatives 

1 through 8 and a description of the travel modes are provided below. 

Amtrak 

For Amtrak service, the overall operation of its passenger rail services would be affected only for

the destinations that terminate in Orlando or Tampa. This would primarily affect Amtrak’s bus

service provided to patrons traveling between Tampa, Lakeland, and Orlando. The primary

reason this route would be affected is due to the savings in cost and time that FHSR service 

would provide over that of Amtrak. 

In Orlando, the impact could be lessened due to a door-to-door service offered by Amtrak. For 

those travelers ending their stop at the Orlando terminal, Amtrak offers a van service to area 

attractions and hotels. There is a one-way fee determined by the drop-off or pick-up location. 

Travelers going beyond the Orlando or Tampa stop would presumably remain with the bus

service provided by Amtrak to avoid unnecessary connections needed to transfer from a train or

bus terminal. For Amtrak routes served outside the proposed FHSR Design/Build alternatives, no 

impacts are anticipated. 

Greyhound Bus 

Greyhound bus services are likely to experience similar impacts as Amtrak. Because Greyhound

has a similar route and destination stops as those offered by Amtrak between Tampa and
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-124

Orlando, Greyhound bus would likely be impacted for the same reasons, savings of time

and cost. 

Air Travel 

Air travel between Tampa and Orlando is currently served by one round trip per day departing 

Tampa in mid-morning and returning in the early evening. The scheduled flight between the two 

cities is approximately 45 minutes. However, additional time for check-in and travel to the 

Orlando destination from the airport, make the total trip approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes. 

With round trip fares ranging from $145 to $270 and lengthy estimated travel time, air travel

between Tampa and Orlando is not considered to be a comparable alternative to either road or 

rail travel.

Taxi and Shuttle Service

The cruise industry in the Port of Tampa is growing and it provides shuttle service to and from

the Tampa International Airport. Because there is no FHSR station location proposed at Tampa 

International Airport, little impact would be seen in the taxi and shuttle service between the

airport and the cruise ships located at the Port of Tampa. 

Taxi service is not likely to be competition for FHSR as the user of taxi services generally has a 

specific destination in mind. Shuttle services maybe impacted if FHSR destinations are the same

as shuttle destinations. Shuttle services with “captive” riders or those provided transportation as

part of their travel package would only be impacted if the vendor chooses to use FHSR. 

No-Build Alternative 

If the FHSR is not built, air service and Amtrak would continue to function at current levels,

however increased congestion would likely require more travel time for bus, taxi and

shuttle services. 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would affect the Amtrak and Greyhound bus services between Tampa 

and Orlando due to a potential savings in cost and travel time resulting in diversion of passengers

to FHSR. No impacts to other travel modes are anticipated with the Preferred Alternative.

Additional local bus, taxi and/or shuttle service will likely be required at proposed stations. 

4.3.5 Station Access and Traffic Impacts

The proposed stations associated with the Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8 in Tampa, 

Lakeland, and Orlando would attract vehicle trips on the surrounding roadway network.

Passengers would arrive at or depart from the stations by automobile and utilize the stations’

parking or rental car return facilities. Other passengers would be dropped off or picked up in 
 4-125

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

automobiles, taxicabs, charter buses, or by local transit services. These impacts result from 

residents and tourists traveling on the FHSR system. 

Tampa Station 

At the station proposed as part of Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 (gas turbine train), 

automobile access to the curbside location by private vehicles and taxicabs is proposed on Scott

Street between Tampa Street and Florida Avenue. Bus and streetcar access is proposed into the

center of the multi-modal station on Franklin Street, located between Tampa Street and Florida 

Avenue. Parking is proposed on site north of Fortune Street between Florida Avenue and 

Marion Street. 

At the station proposed as part of Design/Build Alternatives 5, 6, 7, and 8 (electric train) access 

to the station is from Laurel Street between Tampa Street and Morgan Street. Parking is

proposed on-site south of Scott Street between Tampa Street and Morgan Street. 

For all design/build alternatives, a number of roadways and intersections in the Tampa CBD 

would experience an increase in vehicle trips as a result of the Tampa station. Specifically, the 

roadways are Tampa Street, Florida Avenue, Marion Street, Morgan Street, Fortune Street, and

Scott Street. The expressways that would experience an increase in vehicle trips are I-275, I-4,

and the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway, along with their associated downtown interchanges. The 

percent increase in traffic on the expressways would be minor compared with the percent

increase associated with population growth and tourism. 

Lakeland Station 

Two possible sites are being considered for the station in Lakeland. All of the Design/Build 

Alternatives 1 through 8 proposed a station located at the Polk County Parkway. This site has

access from Swindell Road and Alderman Road. The access is proposed for all modes of vehicle

travel. On-site parking is also proposed. Roadway and intersection impacts are anticipated

primarily on Swindell Road and Alderman Road. I-4 and the Polk County Parkway would 

experience some increase in vehicle trips, along with the I-4 interchanges with County Line

Road and the Polk County Parkway.

None of the design/build alternatives propose the use of the alternate site proposed as a viable

site by FHSR at Kathleen Road and I-4 in Lakeland. At this site, access would occur from 

Kathleen Road and Griffin Road. Roadway and intersection impacts are anticipated primarily on 

Kathleen Road and Griffin Road. I-4 and the Polk County Parkway would also experience some

increase in vehicle trips, along with the I-4 interchanges with Kathleen Road and the Polk 

County Parkway. The percent increase in traffic on the expressways in Lakeland would be 

minor compared with the percent increase associated with population growth and tourism. 

Disney Station 

A station is proposed at Disney on I-4, between Osceola Parkway and U.S. 192. There is no

current access to the proposed station. A new roadway would be constructed to connect the site
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-126

to the existing roadway network. The expressways and associated interchanges that would

experience a traffic increase are I-4, U.S. 192, and the Osceola Parkway. The station site

proposed in the Disney World area for Design/Build Alternatives 1-8, is located in the median of 

I-4 with parking located on the north side of I-4. 

Convention Center Station 

The OCCC station is proposed in the northeast corner of International Drive and the Bee Line

Expressway (S.R. 528). The station would coordinate and transfer passengers with the Canadian

Court Intermodal Center, which connects to International Drive by way of Canadian Court. 

These two roadways would be impacted by the station traffic. Orange County has planned and

committed extensive roadway improvements for the CCIC project that would add new roadway

connections and improve operation to the area. The expressways and associated interchanges 

that would experience an increase in traffic are the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) and I-4. 

Orlando International Airport Station 

For all design/build alternatives, automobile access to the Orlando International Airport station is

proposed from Airport Boulevard, by way of Boggy Creek Road and the Central Florida 

Greeneway (S.R. 417). This access is proposed for all modes of vehicle travel with parking 

proposed on site. Access to the station is shared with access to the expanded airport terminal.

The roadways and intersections impacted by the station are Airport Boulevard and Boggy Creek

Road. The Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) would experience an increase in vehicle trips,

along with the interchange with Boggy Creek Road. 

Maintenance Facility

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7 include proposed maintenance sites off of Airport 

Boulevard (South Access Road) and Wetherbee Road or a proposed site off of Boggy Creek

Road. Access to the facility is proposed from Wetherbee Road. Design/Build Alternatives 2, 4,

6, and 8 include a proposed site at Airport Boulevard (South Access Road) and Wetherbee Road 

only. Traffic impacts to the surrounding roadways would be minor based on the projected low

number of employees at the maintenance facility.

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative would result in no need for new train stations, avoiding any additional 

traffic accessing the stations from local highway networks, additional bus, taxi and/or shuttle

service or local permits and/or approvals for station construction. 
 4-127

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would locate stations and facilities with local traffic impacts per the 

following description: 

• Tampa Station – located between Tampa Street and Morgan Street from west to east and 

between Fortune Street and Scott Street from south to north. Access for the station would 

require the closing of Laurel Street between Florida Avenue and Marion Street to

accommodate the rail tracks. The closing of Laurel Street would not significantly impact

traffic circulation. There is a network of collector streets and arterials surrounding the

station to provide adequate circulation and access. 

• Lakeland Station – northwest quadrant of the Polk Parkway and I-4 interchange. The

station would have access from Swindell Road and Alderman Road. The access is

proposed for all modes of vehicle travel with on-site parking. Roadway and intersection 

impacts are anticipated primarily on Swindell Road and Alderman Road. 

• OCCC Station – northeast corner of International Drive and the Bee Line Expressway

(S.R. 528). The station would coordinate and transfer passengers with the Canadian

Court Intermodal Center, which connects to International Drive by way of Canadian

Court. 

• Disney Station – located either in the median or north of I-4 between U.S. 192 and the 

Osceola Parkway. A new roadway would be constructed to connect the site to the 

existing roadway network. 

• Orlando International Airport – located at the future South Terminal expansion with 

access integrated with airport transportation operations from Airport Boulevard via

Boggy Creek Road and the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). 

• Maintenance Facility – located near Boggy Creek Road and Wetherbee Road, south of 

the airport. Traffic impacts to the surrounding roads would be minor. 

4.4 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

4.4.1 Design/Build Alternatives

Construction activities for the FHSR build alternatives may have short-term air quality, noise,

vibration, water quality, traffic flow, and visual effects for those residents and travelers within 

the immediate vicinity of the project. All of the construction impacts would be of short duration 

in any given location because the construction would proceed in a scheduled sequence along the

chosen alternative. 

The air quality impact would be temporary and primarily in the form of emissions from dieselpowered construction equipment and dust from embankment and haul road areas. Air pollution 

associated with the creation of airborne particles would be effectively controlled through the use 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-128

of watering or the application of other controlled materials in accordance with the FDOT’s 

Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction20. 

Noise and vibration effects would be from the heavy equipment movement and construction

activities, such as pile-driving and vibratory compaction of embankments. Noise control

measures would include those contained in FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge

Construction. Specific noise level problems that may arise during construction of the project 

would be addressed by the FHSRA’s Construction Engineer. 

Water quality effects resulting from erosion and sedimentation would be controlled in

accordance with FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and through 

the use of Best Management Practices. 

The amount of mitigation required for floodway and floodplain impacts will not be determined

until later in the EIS process when MOAs are developed with the FDOT and the OOCEA 

regarding existing and future compensation and treatment locations. 

Maintenance of traffic along the abutting and intersecting roadways and the sequence of

construction would be planned and scheduled to minimize traffic delays throughout the project. 

Signs would be used as appropriate to provide notice of road closures and other pertinent 

information to the traveling public. The local news media would be notified in advance of road 

closings and other construction-related activities in order to provide information to motorists and

residents to minimize inconvenience to the community. All provisions of the FDOT’s Standard

Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction would be followed. 

Construction of the railroad track and associated structures requires excavation of unsuitable

material (muck), placement of embankments, and use of materials, such as limerock and

concrete. Demucking is anticipated at most of the wetland sites and would be controlled by

Section 120 of the FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Disposal 

of unsuitable materials would be on-site in detention areas or off-site. The removal of debris 

would be in accordance with local and state regulatory agencies permitting this operation. The

contractor is responsible for his or her methods of controlling pollution on haul roads, in borrow 

pits, in other material pits, and in areas used for disposal of waste materials from the project. 

Temporary erosion control features, as specified in the FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road

and Bridge Construction, Section 104, would consist of temporary grassing, sodding, mulching,

sandbagging, slope drains, sediment basins, sediment checks, artificial coverings, and berms. 

4.4.2 No-Build Alternative

The No-build Alternative would not result in any of the short term construction activities

described above. Roadway congestion would require roadway improvements in a shorter

timeframe resulting in similar impacts to FHSR. 
 4-129

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

4.4.3 Preferred Alternative

Impacts may result to residents and travelers in the immediate vicinity of the project due to the 

construction of the Preferred Alternative; however, they would be of short duration in any given

location since the construction would proceed in a scheduled sequence. All construction will be

conducted in accordance with the FDOT’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge

Construction as described in Section 4.4.1. 

4.5 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES AND MAN’S 

ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY

Environmental impacts associated with the FHSR Design/Build Alternatives would result in 

short- and long-term impacts, some positive and some negative, but all similar in kind and

magnitude. All significant short- and long-term environmental impacts identified during the

development of all of the FHSR Design/Build alternatives are quantified in light of: 

(1) avoidance, (2) minimization, and (3) compensation for unavoidable negative impacts on

resources. Impacts to wetlands, wildlife, air quality, noise, water quality, farmland, historic land 

use, archaeological land use, and societal resources were quantified. These analyses included an 

evaluation of secondary and cumulative impacts. 

The development of each design/build alternative is based on planning that considers

transportation needs within the context of present and future land use. The evaluation of the 

short-term impacts of all alternatives and the use of resources, coupled with environmentally

sound design and construction best management practices (cited elsewhere is this document), 

result in the enhancement of the long-term productivity of the FHSR corridor, as well as 

the region. 

In summary, the long-term enhancement that is the result of FHSR would occur at the expense of 

short-term construction impacts on nearby residents and businesses. These short-term effects

would include localized noise, air pollution, and water pollution, in addition to roadway traffic

delays. Based on the commitments to be made during this EIS process and specifications 

included in construction contracts, any long-term impacts would be mitigated. 

Short-term employment gains during construction, as well as long-term employment 

opportunities as described in Section 4.1.3 of this report, would result from a FHSR system. The

FHSR is consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity at the local, 

regional, state, and national level. 

4.6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

Irretrievable resources that would be committed to this project include the land needed to

construct FHSR. However, most of this land within Alignments A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, and E2 is

located within the ROW of existing roadways. Within Alignments A1, B1, C1, and D1, the land 

is located within the median of I-4. Within Alignment E1, most of the FHSR ROW needed is

located on the north side of the Florida Turnpike and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) and 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-130

within the existing Taft/Vineland ROW. Within Alignment E2, most of the ROW is located on 

the north side of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) ROW or on Orlando International

Airport vacant land. 

All of the land within existing roadway ROW has been disturbed in the construction of that

facility. The existing natural systems are not of high quality within the medians and on the 

shoulders of the roads where much of FHSR would be located. The ROW to be used by FHSR 

within each facility is generally earmarked for future roadway expansion. Construction of FHSR 

is not an irretrievable commitment because that land could be converted into another use in the 

future, if necessary. At present, however, there is no reason to believe such a conversion would

ever be necessary or desirable. 

Fossil fuels, labor, and highway construction materials such as steel, cement, aggregate, and

bituminous material would also be expended. In addition, large amounts of labor and natural 

resources are used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials that are not

retrievable. These resources are not in short supply, and their use would not have an adverse 

effect upon continued availability of these resources. 

The residents and travelers in the area would benefit from the commitment of these resources by

the improved quality and capacity of the transportation system. The improved transportation

system would improve accessibility, safety, and air quality to offset the commitment 

of resources. 

4.7 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

4.7.1 Evaluation Matrix

The evaluation matrix summarizes the quantifiable impacts of the proposed FHSR Design/Build 

Alternatives 1 through 8 discussed in Section 4. The matrix provides an assessment of impacts 

for each alternative, providing the opportunity to effectively evaluate the consequences of each 

alternative. See Table 4-77 for the matrix. The No-Build Alternative would not affect the 

resources listed in Table 4-77. The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) is highlighted in Table

4-77. 

Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 4 represent the four alignment combinations with the gas

turbine train technology. Design/Build Alternatives 5 through 8 represent the four alignment

combinations with the electric train technology. Figure 2-8 in Section 2 displays the alternatives 

and Figure 2-11 in Section 2 displays the Preferred Alternative. 

Wetlands 

Total wetland impacts vary from 40 ac. in Alternative 1 to 23.6 ac. in Alternative 8. The majority

of the impacts are disturbed wetlands of poor quality located in the median and ditches within the

ROW of I-4, I-75, the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417), and the Bee Line Expressway

(S.R. 528). Lesser quality wetlands also occur along the CSX tracks. High quality wetlands, 

which generally result in greater mitigation requirements, are impacted the greatest in 
 4-131

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7. These wetlands primarily occur on undeveloped land along I-4 and

the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528). 

The Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1) will result in 40.03 ac. of wetland impacts, of which

11 areas are considered high quality wetlands. Wetland impacts, which would result from the 

construction of FHSR, are proposed to be mitigated pursuant to S. 373.4137 F.S. (Senate Bill

1986) to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 U.S.C.s 1344. 

Wildlife and Habitat

There are 17 federal and state protected species that have the potential or are known to occur

within the FHSR study area. Six of those species are reptiles and amphibians, six are birds, three 

are mammals, and the remaining two are plants. The evaluation matrix indicates which

design/build alternatives have the greatest number of potential sites. All of the design/build

alternatives have potential sites because of their crossing the undeveloped areas near the Green 

Swamp in Alignments C1 and D1. Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8 have the most potential sites as

they also include the additional ROW on the north side of the Central Florida

Greeneway (S.R. 417). 

The Preferred Alternative will have “no effect” on the following species: American alligator, 

Florida pine snake, Florida scrub jay, Florida burrowing owl, Southeastern American kestrel,

Florida panther, manatee, Florida black bear, and protected plant species. The Preferred 

Alternative “may effect, but is not likely to adversely effect” the following species: Eastern 

indigo snake, gopher tortoise, Florida mouse, gopher frog, sand skink, Florida sandhill crane,

bald eagle, wood stork, state protected wading bird species, and Sherman’s fox squirrel. As part

of mitigation commitments, FHSRA will continue to coordinate with USFWS, the WMDs, and

FFWCC to develop design and construction methods to avoid and minimize impacts to these 

species. 

Floodplains and Floodways 

Impacts to floodplains vary minimally from the lowest impact of 54.5 ac. for Alternatives 2 and

6 to 61 ac. for Alternatives 3 and 7. Floodway impacts are minimal with the lowest impacts for 

Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 8, and only 3 additional ac. for the rest of the alternatives. The majority

of the floodway impacts are along I-4 in western Hillsborough County (Pemberton Creek), and

between the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) and Orlando International Airport 

(Boggy Creek). 

The Preferred Alternative would impact approximately 56.88 ac. of floodplain and 

approximately 9.45 ac. of floodway. Subsequent to final design, during which impacts would be 

minimized, floodplain and floodway impacts would again be calculated and the amount and type

of mitigation would be determined. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMP

 

4-132

Table 4-77 

Design/Build Alternatives 

Impact Evaluation Matrix

(Preferred Alternative Highlighted) 

Alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS (AC.)

Total Wetland Impacts (AC. ) 40 31.3 39.2 30.5 25.6 24.4 30.5 23.6 

High Quality Wetlands (AC.) 11 2 11 2 11 2 11 2 

Protected Species Sites 9 15 10 16 9 15 10 16 

FLOODPLAIN AND FLOODWAY (AC.)

Base Floodplain

Encroachment 56.88 54.54 61.04 58.70 56.88 54.54 61.04 58.70 

Base Floodway Encroachment 9.45 6.47 9.45 6.47 9.45 6.47 9.45 6.47 

CONTAMINATION SITES (RANKED H)

Potential Petroleum Sites 2 0 7 5 2 0 7 5 

Potential Hazardous

Materials Sites 5 5 12 12 5 5 12 12 

SECTION 4(f) IMPACTS

Recreation Facilities 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Historic/Archaeological Sites 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Schools 8 12 5 9 8 12 5 9 

Community Facilities 10 9 6 5 10 9 6 5 

Parks & Recreation 5 7 5 6 5 7 5 6 

Cemeteries 4 6 6 6 4 6 6 6 

Churches 15 16 12 13 15 16 12 13 

NOISE IMPACTS (MODERATE & SEVERE)

Category 1 (Buildings and/or

parks) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Category 2 (Residences, 

hospitals, and hotels) 15 5 16 6 53 105 38 90 

Category 3 (Institutional –

schools, libraries, churches, 

active park)

0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 

VIBRATION IMPACTS 

Category 1 (Buildings and/or

parks) 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 

Category 2 (Residences, 

hospitals, and hotels) 44 20 40 16 13 5 9 1 

Category 3 (Institutional –

schools, libraries, churches, 

active park)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS (Net Change in Tons/Year)

CO -101.7 -64.7 -100.9 -63.8 -152.0 -114.3 -151.8 -114.1 

NOX +189.0 +188.2 +191.4 +190.6 +23.3 +24.1 +23.7 +24.5 

VOC +8.9 +10.6 +9.2 +10.9 -8.1 -6.1 -8.1 -6.1

ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Change from 2010 No-Build)

Millions BTU 498,855 507,770 505,658 514,574 239,820 243,623 243,314 247,124 

SECTION 106 IMPACTS 

Historic Sites 5 5 7 7 5 5 7 7 

Archaeological Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

RELOCATIONS

Residential 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 

Business 3 8 15 23 3 8 15 23 

COST

ROW (Non-public) $118M $149M $150M $181M $101M $128M $134M $161M

Infrastructure $1,900M $2,033M $1,881M $2,015M $2,177M $2,306M $2,154M $2,284M

Mitigation $30M $30M $30M $30M $30M $30M $30M $30M

TOTAL COST $2.048B $2.212B $2.061B $2.226B $2.308B $2.464B $2.318B $2.476B

A--ORLANDO
 4-133

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Contamination Sites 

Impacts to hazardous materials sites are minimal within the alternatives, which include the CSX 

tracks (Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8). Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 have the highest 

impact at 12 sites. The other alternatives each impact five or fewer sites. 

The Preferred Alternative contains five potentially hazardous material contaminated sites and

two potentially petroleum contaminated sites. There are no potentially contaminated sites 

associated with the preferred station locations and maintenance yard. The sites will be 

investigated further prior to any construction. Prior to construction, any necessary cleanup plans

will be developed. Actual cleanup will take place during construction, if feasible. 

Section 4 (f) Sites

The number of Section 4(f) sites impacted varies by alternative. Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 

5, and 6 have one potential Section 4 (f) site, as they require 0.184 ac. from the Perry Harvey Sr.

Park. Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 impact two historic sites; the St. Paul AME 

Church, which is NRHP-eligible, and Union Station, which is NRHP-listed. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in the acquisition of 0.184 ac. from Perry Harvey Sr.

Park. The Section 4(f) process is documented in Section 5 of this report. 

Community Services

All of the design/build alternatives have a range of 34 to 50 different facilities within a quarter

mi. of the FHSR alternative alignments; however, with the exception of acquisition of ROW

from Perry Harvey Sr. Park for Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6, no community services

are acquired as the result of construction of any of Design/Build Alternatives 1 through 8. The

majority of facilities within a quarter mile of the alternatives are churches. 

The Preferred Alternative would require acquisition of ROW from Perry Harvey Sr. Park as

previously discussed. No other community services would be acquired. 

Noise Impacts 

Noise impacts occur primarily in Category 2, residential areas, particularly with the electric train 

in Alternatives 6 and 8 with 105 and 90 sites impacted, respectively. Alternatives 6 and 8 are 

located on the north side of the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) closer to the Hunter’s 

Creek residences. Alternatives 5 and 7, also with the electric train, have 53 and 38 sites

impacted, respectively. These impacts to residences occur along the Bee Line Expressway

(S.R. 528). 

The Preferred Alternative would have 15 Category 2 noise impacts. The proposed mitigation

measure is the construction of sound barrier walls to shield the areas where severe impact is 

projected. With 700 ft. of sound barrier, all severe noise impacts will be eliminated. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-134

Vibration Impacts 

The most significant vibration impacts are for Alternatives 1 through 4; the highest impacts are

the result of the technology (gas turbine) within the Tampa CBD. The number of sites impacted

in Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 were as follows: 44, 20, 40, and 16, respectively.

The Preferred Alternative would have vibration impacts at a total of 44 residences (Category 2 

receptors) and 1 Category 1 receptor. The Preferred Alternative would have no impacts at 

Category 3 (institutional) receptors. At a minimum, mitigation will require the installation of

ballast mats near the impact sites; however, because the current analysis indicates that the ballast

mats would not eliminate all of the projected impacts, more extensive mitigation will be

considered. Vibration mitigation would be addressed in more detail during final design. 

Air Quality 

There will be no overall negative impact to regional air quality with any of the design/build 

alternatives, as regulated under the EPA’s rules for clean air standards. However, there are

differences in air emissions between the alternatives due to train technology. There is very little 

difference in emissions between alternatives with the same technology. 

All alternatives result in CO emissions reductions because auto travel is diverted to trains. CO 

emissions reductions are slightly lower with the gas turbine trains, which also emit CO. VOCs

also increase slightly with gas turbine trains. NOX also increase with this technology because

gas turbine engines have a relatively high rate of NOX emissions. Thus, Design/Build

Alternatives 1 through 4 (gas turbine train) show a substantial decrease in CO emissions, a slight

increase in VOCs, and a substantial increase in NOX emissions. 

The electric train technology (Design/Build Alternatives 5 through 8) results in a net decrease in

CO and VOC emissions. NOX emissions increase because of the relative high emission rate of 

this pollutant from power plants that produce electricity from fossil fuel combustion. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in a net decrease in regional emissions of CO and a net

increase in emissions of NOX. Regional emissions of VOCs would increase with the gas turbine

engines. 

Energy 

All of the design/build alternatives result in increased energy consumption compared to the

No-Build Alternative. However, energy requirements for fossil fuel consumption for the gas 

turbine engines (Alternatives 1 through 4) are substantially higher than the fossil fuel required to 

generate electricity for the electric trains (Alternatives 5 through 8). Highway energy

consumption decreases for all alternatives because of diverted automobile ridership. Additional 

energy required for operating and maintaining an additional station at the OCCC (Design/Build 

Alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 7) is reflected in the analysis of estimated energy consumption. 
 4-135

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

The estimated change in net energy consumption for 2010, including thermal losses for electric 

power generation, ranges between 239,820 and 514,574 MBTU, with the electric train

alternatives net consumption being considerably lower than the gas turbine train alternatives.

The total change is a negligible fraction of Florida’s total energy consumption for surface

(all non-military vehicle operation on highways, railroads, and fixed-guideway public

transportation) transportation, which is estimated to reach one quadrillion BTUs (i.e.,

1,000,000,000 MBTU) by 2010. 

The Preferred Alternative, compared to the No-Build Alternative, would result in an increased

energy consumption estimated at 498,855 MBTU. 

Section 106 Impacts 

All of the potential Section 106 impacts occur to historic structures near the Tampa CBD. 

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 each impact five historic resources, one of which is the Ybor City

NHLD, where there is a direct taking of two contributing historic structures. The other four

historic resources only have proximity impacts. Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 each impact nine 

structures, one is a direct taking and eight are proximity impacts. 

The Preferred Alternative would have impacts to five historic resources; however, through 

Section 106 coordination with the SHPO, conditions have been established so these impacts will

result in no adverse effect. The Preferred Alternative would require property from two 

contributing historic structures within the Ybor City NHLD, which have already been included in 

a MOA for the TIS project. Therefore, no additional impacts to the NHLD will result from the 

Preferred Alternative. Proximity impacts could occur at four other sites but would be minimized 

or avoided based on conditions developed during the Section 106 coordination. No

archeological resources would be affected. 

Relocations 

The greatest number of residential relocations required is 3, which are associated with

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6. The three structures are near I-4 at 12th Avenue in Tampa.

Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 do not require any relocation of residential structures. 

The greatest number of business relocations, 23, occurs with Design/Build Alternatives 4 and 8. 

The majority of all business relocations occur in two areas: where the alignment transitions from

I-4 toward the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) and within the Tampa CBD as it travels

towards the CSX tracks. Alternatives 3 and 7 have 15 business relocations, while Alternatives 2 

and 6 have 8. 

The Preferred Alternative would require three residential relocations located in two structures

near I-4 and 12th Avenue in the Ybor City area. It would also require three business relocations 

including the City of Tampa Recreation Department, the former Hillsborough County Sheriff’s 

Office and Jail Complex, and a bail bondsman. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-136

Total Cost for Construction 

Total costs vary between $2.048 and $2.476 billion, with Alternative 1 having the lowest cost 

and Alternative 8 having the highest cost. The difference between the two alternatives is

$4.26 million. 

The Preferred Alternative gas turbine train technology cost is $2.048 billion. 

4.7.2 Required Permits and Review Agencies 

In order to proceed into the design phase, the FHSRA would determine the permit requirements

in consultation with relevant state and federal agencies. The USACE, FDEP, SWFWMD, 

SFWMD, and SJRWMD regulate wetlands within the project area. Pursuant to the Operating

Agreement between the FDEP and the WMDs, the FDEP will be conducting the review of the

Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application for this project. The USFWS, EPA, NMFS,

and the FFWCC review and comment on federal and state wetland permit applications. It is

currently anticipated that the following permits would be required for this project: 

Permit Issuing Agency

Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) WMD/FDEP 

Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit USACE 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System FDEP 

Permit (NPDES)

The complexity of the permitting process depends greatly on the degree of the impact to

jurisdictional wetland areas. The WMDs require an ERP when construction of any project results 

in the creation of a water management system or in impacts to “Waters of the State” or isolated

wetlands. An Individual Permit (and wetland mitigation) would be required with mitigation for

wetland impacts because impacts would be greater than 1 ac. 

For the USACE, an Individual Permit would also be required. An Individual Permit requires 

compliance with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act, including verification that

all impacts have first been avoided to the greatest extent possible, that unavoidable impacts have 

been minimized to the greatest extent possible, and that unavoidable impacts have been mitigated

in the form of wetlands creation, restoration, preservation, and/or enhancement. 

Any project which results in the clearing of 5 or more ac. of land would require a NPDES permit 

from the FDEP, pursuant to 40 CFR Parts 122, 124. In association with this permit, a Storm

Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required and implemented during the

construction of the project by implementing such measures as Best Management Practices

(BMPs). The primary function of the NPDES requirements is to assure that sediment and

erosion control during construction of the project takes place. 
 4-137

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

All stations and maintenance operation sites would require building permits from the governing 

jurisdictions. Once the application(s) are submitted, the permitting process period may range

from 30 to 240 days. 

4.8 REFERENCES/NOTES

1. Tampa Interstate Study Record of Decision; FHWA-FL-EIS-95-03-F,

January 31, 1997. 

2. Tampa Interstate Study Environmental Impact Statement; Greiner, Inc.; Tampa,

Florida; 1997. 

3. The Florida High Speed Rail Economic Impact Analysis; Tim Lynch, PhD, 

Florida State University; Tallahassee, Florida; August 15, 2002. 

4. Florida High Speed Rail Authority, 2002 Report to the Legislature; HNTB

Corporation, with Transportation Economic and Management Systems, Public 

Financial Management, and Booz-Allen and Hamilton; January 2002. 

5. Cross-State Feasibility Final Report; Florida Department of Transportation;

Tallahassee, Florida; June 2001; Economic Benefits of High Speed Rail on the I-4 

Corridor, AECOM Consulting Transportation Group March 15, 2001. 

6. Travel Time, Safety, Energy and Air Quality Impacts of High Speed Rail, T.

Lynch, N. Sipe, S. Polzin and Zuechao Chu, for Florida Department of 

Transportation and Florida Overland Express; June 1997. 

7. Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Report; Archeological Consultants, Inc.,

Sarasota, Florida; Janus Research, St. Petersburg, Florida; July 2003. 

8. Florida Master Site File; http://dhr.dos.state.fl.us/msf/; Department of state, 

Division of Historic Resources; Tallahassee, Florida. 

9. Tampa Interstate Study Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f)

Evaluation; Greiner, Inc.; Tampa, Florida; 1996. 

10. Section 106 Consultation Case Report; Archeological Consultants, Inc., Sarasota,

Florida; Janus Research, St. Petersburg, Florida; December 22, 2003. 

11. Development Regulations – Central Business District and Channel District; City

of Tampa; Tampa, Florida; May 1999. 

12. Urban Design Guidelines; City of Tampa; Tampa Urban Design Section;

Tampa, Florida.

13. Reedy Creek Improvement District Guidelines; 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

4-138

14. Orange County Development Code; Sections 2-9; Orange County, Florida;

June 2001. 

15. Commercial Design Standards Guidebook; Orange County, Florida; 

October 2001. 

16. Code of the City of Orlando; City of Orlando, Florida; Document #030505704 

(Supp. No. 13), Chapter 16. 

17. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment; 

Federal Railroad Administration; December 1998.

18. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System; Florida Department of 

Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida; 1999. 

19. Project Development and Environment Manual; Part 2, Chapter 19; Chapter 26; 

Florida Department of Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida; October 1991. 

20. Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction; Florida Department of 

Transportation; Tallahassee, Florida; 2002. 

4.9 REFERENCES CITED

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. Technical Publication FWS/OBS-79/31.

131 pp 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army

Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report Y-87-1. 169 

pp. 

Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification

System. Third Edition. 91 pp. 

Miller, Jr., R.E. and B.E. Gunsalus. 1997. Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure. South Florida

Water Management District. Technical Publication REG-001. 57 pp. 

Nelson, Gil. 1994. The Trees of Florida. Pineapple Press, Inc. Sarasota, Florida. 338 pp. 

Tobe, J.D., et al. 1998. Florida Wetland Plants: An Identification Manual. Florida Department of

Environmental Protection. 598 pp. 
SECTION 5 

 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 

Section 5 of this report presents a Section 4(f) Evaluation with respect to the possible use of 

Perry Harvey Sr. Park in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 (Title 49, USC, Section 1653 (f), amended and recodified in Title 49, 

USC, Section 303, in 1983). Section 4(f) requires that, “special effort be made to preserve the

natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl 

refuges, and historic sites.” Based on available right-of-way (ROW) information, the Preferred

Alternative (Design/Build Alternative 1) would require acquisition of property from the Perry

Harvey Sr. Park. Section 5.1 presents the impacts to the Perry Harvey Sr. Park. 

Although the Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) proposed action would require the acquisition of

two contributing historic structures within the Ybor City National Historic Landmark District 

(NHLD), this action would not result in a Section 4(f) involvement for the FHSR. This

conclusion was reached, in consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), due to the fact that these two historic structures are

located within the Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) Ultimate ROW and have already been

determined to have Section 4(f) involvement with the previously approved TIS project. The use 

of these two historic structures has already been evaluated in the TIS Section 4(f) Evaluation and

mitigation measures are included in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA is 

included as an appendix to the Tampa Interstate Study Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and Section 4(f) Evaluation1

 and consists of specific commitments and stipulations, including the

documentation, relocation, and rehabilitation of historic structures, plus architectural/historical 

salvage for structures not relocated and rehabilitated. Because the TIS Interim Alternative is 

currently being constructed, rather than the Ultimate approved alternative, the MOA has not been

completely fulfilled. However, mitigation for the structures located in the TIS Ultimate ROW 

will remain in the MOA until that portion is constructed. Because the TIS Ultimate approved

alternative included provisions for multi-modal transportation, the existing MOA would apply to

the FHSR project. Therefore, the FHSR project will comply with the requirement of the existing

TIS MOA and a new Section 4(f) Evaluation for common resources will not be required. These

historic resources will not be discussed further in this section. 

5.1 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION OF PERRY HARVEY SR. PARK 

 5-1 5-1

The acquisition of property from Perry Harvey Sr. Park is also required under the TIS Project;

therefore, a Section 4(f) Evaluation was previously prepared by the Florida Department of

Transportation (FDOT) and the FHWA for the park as part of the Tampa Interstate Study

Environmental Impact Statement2

. Impacts to the park, resulting from the proposed interstate 

improvements, are listed in a report entitled, Tampa Interstate Study Section 4(f) Parks and 

Recreational Analysis3, dated April 1994. The Interim Improvements for the TIS project, which 

do not affect the park, are currently under construction. The Ultimate improvements for the TIS

project, which would affect the park, are not scheduled in the foreseeable future. Since the 

FHSR would likely precede the Ultimate TIS improvements if a decision is made to proceed

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
with one of the build alternatives for FHSR, the FHSR would impact the park first. Thus, a

Section 4(f) Evaluation for Perry Harvey Sr. Park is prepared under this Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS). 

5.1.1 Proposed Section 4(f) Action 

The proposed action, to construct and operate high speed passenger rail between Tampa and

Orlando, is described in Section 2 of this EIS. The affected Section 4(f) resource is located in

Corridor A, which begins at the western terminus of the project area and travels east and north

along Interstate 275 (I-275). Proposed Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 (see Figure 2-8),

en route from the Tampa station location, travel northeasterly along I-275 connecting to the

Interstate 4 (I-4) median. Proposed Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 (see Figure 2-8)

travel southeasterly from the Tampa station and connect to the CSX rail ROW. 

5.1.2 Description of Perry Harvey Sr. Park

Owned by the City of Tampa, Perry Harvey Sr. Park is managed by the City of Tampa Parks 

Department. The park is officially designated as a neighborhood park in the City of Tampa

Comprehensive Plan. It is bordered to the north and northwest by I-275, to the east and south by

a public housing complex (Central Park Village), and to the west by Orange Street/Avenue, 

Perry Harvey Sr. Park is located within downtown, directly west of the Ybor City NHLD, a

highly urbanized area of Tampa. See the Perry Harvey Sr. Park aerial location map in Figure 5-1. 

The Perry Harvey Sr. Park site is composed of four distinct parcels, totaling 9.2 acres (ac.). Perry

Harvey Sr. Park is an accumulation of several properties deeded to the City of Tampa by

individual property owners, as well as a small number of deeds that were never located. Of the

available deeds, none contained clauses that would require the property to revert to the prior

owners upon any land use change. 

Though an exercise/jogging path wraps around the entire park site (all four parcels), the majority

of recreational attractions are located in the two southernmost park parcels. With the Central

Park Village housing complex positioned directly adjacent and central to the recreational

facilities, the park usage ranges from approximately 100 to150 persons per day. In addition to

meeting the recreational needs of the housing complex community, Perry Harvey Sr. Park

provides recreational opportunities for 75 to 100 additional people per week from the City of

Tampa’s intramural recreational leagues. The Perry Harvey Sr. Park facilities include: a

restroom, basketball courts, covered pavilions, a “skatebowl,” playground, sand lot, and asphalt 

tennis courts. The City of Tampa has plans to demolish a restroom facility located on the parcel

nearest the interstate, and re-roof the existing restroom located adjacent to the park office

(see Figure 5-1). 

 

5-2

Perry Harvey Sr. Park is divided into four distinct parcels due to a pre-existing roadway pattern. 

With a retaining wall (I-275) and dead-end roads (Estelle Street and Kay Street) creating 

divisions, the parcels to the north are fairly remote with no recreational facilities. Access into the

park is available through Scott Street, which bisects the park property while providing entry into

the Central Park Village housing complex. Primary access and parking (50 spaces) for Perry

Harvey Sr. Park are located at Cass Street and Central Avenue. These will be maintained.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
Additional access with limited parking is available at Kay Street near the tennis courts. 

However, the only designated parking spaces are those, located at Cass Street and Central

Avenue, within the southernmost parcel. 

Due to its proximity to the Central Park Village housing complex, Perry Harvey Sr. Park is easily

accessible for young park attendees. The park also attracts skateboarding enthusiasts from

throughout the city and Hillsborough County due to its unique paved skateboarding bowl,

located within the southernmost parcel. Of the 155 parks within the City of Tampa limits,

Riverfront Park, located 1.1 miles (mi.) southwest, offers similar recreational facilities, as well as 

the only other skateboarding facility within the City of Tampa.

5.1.3 Impacts on Perry Harvey Sr. Park

The construction of Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 would require the acquisition of 0.184 ac. of Perry

Harvey Sr. Park. The alternatives impact the northwest edge of Perry Harvey Sr. Park as shown

in Figure 5-1. The existing exercise/jogging path located in the northernmost section of the park

(north of Estelle Street) would be terminated approximately 40 feet (ft.) east of its current

terminus at Henderson Avenue. 

During the evaluation of retained alignments, Perry Harvey Sr. Park was also reviewed for 

constructive use impacts, referred to as proximity effects, resulting from the design/build 

alternatives. It was determined that there would be a potential for moderate noise level increases

(proximity effects), as discussed in Section 4.2.3. An evaluation of vibration, access, aesthetics,

and ecological encroachment indicates that the project will not substantially impair or diminish 

the use of the park and a determination was made that there will be no constructive use. 

5.1.4 Avoidance Alternatives

No-Build Alternative 

The No-Build Alternative assumes that a FHSR system would not be built between Tampa and

Orlando. The requirements of the legislative mandate for the Florida High Speed Rail Authority

(FHSRA) to build a high speed ground transportation system would not be met. The No-Build 

Alternative, which leaves all existing infrastructure as is, with no introduction of high speed

passenger rail service, avoids Section 4(f) impacts and would not require the use of Perry Harvey

Sr. Park. The No-Build Alternative, however, would not meet the project purpose and would not 

achieve the benefits of addressing vehicular congestion on I-4 or provide convenient 

transportation alternatives for commuter, business, and tourist traffic. With the No-Build 

Alternative, existing modes would have to satisfy all travel demand. 

 5-3 5-3

The No-Build Alternative includes planned and programmed transportation projects within the

study area that are on the financially constrained “needs” plan. Those projects are summarized in

Section 1, Purpose and Need. Although roadway demand continues to grow, the No-Build

Alternative would not offer diversion from the roadway to FHSR. As a result, capacity and level 

of service (LOS) would decrease sooner than if FHSR was built. The resulting need to improve 

capacity and the LOS of the Tampa to Orlando transportation corridor will likely result in the 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
alignment identified for the FHSR being utilized for additional travel lanes. This will result in

similar environmental consequences identified with the proposed project. 

Design/Build Alternatives 

The potential FHSR routes were previously compared and documented in the Florida High

Speed Rail Corridor Screening Report (October 2002)4. For the Tampa area, these routes were

the I-4 median and the CSX A- and S-Rail Lines. In order to effectively examine all alternatives

to reach the I-4 median or the CSX A- and S-Lines from the western terminus (Central Business

District [CBD] station site), the FHSRA developed and evaluated seven alignments. Of the initial

study alignments, five avoid Perry Harvey Sr. Park. These alignments, A, B, C, D, and E, are 

summarized in the following paragraphs (See Figure 5-2). 

Alignment A (Dark Green)

Alignment A, located on the north side of I-4, was developed early in the FHSR study in 

September 2002. Numerous social impacts eliminated this fatally flawed alignment prior to a 

detailed evaluation. Specifically, this proposed northern alignment would have traveled through

the Ybor City NHLD, Tampa Heights Historic District, Mobley Park Apartments, a newly

constructed Section 8 (partial) housing project, and changed the access into the recently

constructed Stetson Law School complex (imminent construction date). It also would have

required a fourth or fifth level to cross the I-275/I-4 interchange. Given its substantial Section

4(f) uses and the significant impacts, Alignment A was determined as not a feasible or a prudent

alternative.

Alignment B (Blue)

Alignment B was found to be fatally flawed and eliminated during the initial study. Alignment

B was to be located within the “Ultimate” reconstructed median through the I-275/I-4

interchange between the CBD and 18th Street. There is currently no envelope or space for FHSR

within the median from North Boulevard (west of the Hillsborough River) east through the

I-275/I-4 interchange to 18th Street and I-4. Interim improvements have just been initiated for 

the I-275/I-4 interchange area. An envelope will be available within the “Ultimate” 

reconstruction of I-275. Proposed Alignment B was eliminated because the FHSR would be

implemented prior to the “Ultimate” reconstruction and is not accommodated in the near term

(Interim) interstate improvements. No schedule has been set or funds identified for the very

costly “Ultimate” reconstruction. Alignment B was determined as not a feasible or a prudent 

alternative.

Alignment C (Red)

 

5-4

Alignment C was found to be fatally flawed and eliminated early in the study (during the

Screening Process, October 2002) due to impacts to the community of Ybor City. Proposed

Alignment C begins at the Hillsborough River and crosses over I-275 moving in a southeasterly

direction until reaching Morgan Street and Cass Street. The alignment follows Cass Street in an

easterly route until reaching Union Station. At Union Station, Alignment C moves adjacent to the 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 5-5 5-5

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

CSX A-Line along 8th Avenue curving in a northeasterly angle along the CSX ROW, reaching 

the median at U.S. 41. 

Ybor City contains an overlap of historic district boundaries, including National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) listed, NHLD, and local designated district (Barrio Latino). Traveling 

adjacent to Union Station, Alignment C could possibly affect the continued or future use of the 

NRHP-listed station, and would take the parking lot of the historic St. Paul African Methodist 

Episcopal (AME) Church. Passing just south of Central Park Village, Alignment C would also 

change the access to this public housing community. Given the significant impacts to the 

community of Ybor City, the Central Park Village, and two historic structures, Alignment C was 

determined as not a feasible or a prudent alternative. 

Alignment D (Purple)

Alignment D is considered viable for further evaluation. Proposed Alignment D would leave the 

CBD station moving eastward along Fortune Street curving southeasterly at Marion Street. The 

alignment then curves eastward onto Cass Street and continues due east until reaching Union 

Station. This alignment passes just south of the Central Park Village housing complex. At Union 

Station, Alignment D moves adjacent to the CSX S-Line along Adamo Drive, until reaching 

Interstate 75 (I-75). Alignment D stretches northward within the median of I-75 until reaching 

the I-4 median. Located adjacent to Union Station, Alignment D could possibly affect the 

continued or future use of the NRHP-listed station, and would demolish the parking lot of the 

historic St. Paul AME Church. Passing just south of Central Park Village, Alignment D would 

also change the access to this public housing community. In comparison to Alignments A, B, C, 

and E, Alignment D has the least impacts, avoids the NHLD, was considered a viable avoidance 

alternative, and received further evaluation during this Project Development & Environment 

Study. Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 (Alignment A2) fall within the area of 

Alignment D in the vicinity of Perry Harvey Sr. Park as described in the Florida High Speed Rail 

Corridor Screening Report (October 2002). 

Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 (Alignment A2) avoid impacts to Perry Harvey Sr. Park. 

However, these alternatives impact three historic sites in Tampa where the alignment passes 

through a commercial urban area to connect to the CSX rail line. The alignment passes through 

the parking lot of the St. Paul AME Church and directly impacts the adjacent parsonage, both of 

which are eligible for listing on the NRHP. The church would not be directly affected. 

However, the taking of land from the parking lot and the taking of the Parsonage could affect its 

use. The alignment for Design/Build Alternatives 3, 4, 7, and 8 also passes directly north of the 

Tampa Union Station, which is listed on the NRHP, and requires a small amount of ROW from 

the historic boundary. Given the impacts to the three historic sites, these alternatives were 

determined as not a feasible or a prudent alternative to the use of 0.184 ac. of the Perry Harvey 

Sr. Park in the Preferred Alternative. 

Alignment E (Yellow)

Alignment E was found to be fatally flawed and was eliminated early in the initial study process 

(see the Florida High Speed Rail Corridor Screening Report, October 2002). Proposed 
Alignment E leaves the CBD station area moving eastward along Fortune Street and curves

southeasterly at Marion Street. Shifting to an eastward movement at Morgan Street and Cass 

Street, Alignment E continues southeasterly until reaching the CSX ROW at Jefferson Street.

The alignment continues along the CSX ROW until reaching Union Station. At Union Station,

Alignment E moves adjacent to the CSX A-Line along 8th Avenue, curving in a northeasterly

angle along the CSX ROW, reaching the median at U.S. 41. 

Due to impacts to the northern edge of the newly designated Franklin Street Historic District;

potential ROW acquisitions, noise, and visual impacts to Ybor City; the taking of the parking lot 

of the historic St. Paul AME Church; and potential impacts to the NRHP-listed Union Station,

Alignment E was determined as not a feasible or a prudent alternative. 

5.1.5 Measures to Minimize Harm

Design/Build Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 6 originally required acquisition of 1.071 ac. of the Perry

Harvey Sr. Park. In order to minimize impacts caused by the alignment, a refinement to the

conceptual design was developed. Certain design speed refinements reduce the impacts to the

park and, as a result, only 0.184 ac. of the park would be impacted. 

5.1.6 Coordination

City of Tampa Parks Department 

Early efforts to coordinate with property owners and interested parties included collecting parcel

deeds, verifying parcel ownership, documenting existing park facilities, verifying proposed park

improvements, and researching park demographics. 

Meetings were held with the City of Tampa, Perry Harvey Sr. Park administrators, and other

interested parties early in the project to present the FHSR project and to obtain comments and

suggestions. As a result, a letter from the City of Tampa Parks Director suggests that although

there are improvements planned for the Perry Harvey Sr. Park, they do not consist of any new

structural improvements, or any improvements to the area where acquisition is necessary. The

City Parks Director further states “this is a significant park for the citizens of the downtown

Tampa area” (See City of Tampa Parks Director letter in Appendix B). 

Final Agency Coordination Meeting 

Coordination meetings were held with the FDOT, FRA, and the FHWA to discuss measures to 

minimize harm to Perry Harvey Sr. Park. The Design/Build Alternatives were reviewed

and discussed resulting in minimization of impacts to the park as identified in Section 5.1.5. The 

impact minimization efforts have been coordinated with the City of Tampa. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

5-6
Department of Interior

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was provided to the Department of Interior in

August 2003 for their review and comment. No comments have been received to date. The

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be provided for their review and comment. 

5.1.7 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative (Design/Build Alternative 1) is described in Section 2.6. Within the 

vicinity of the Perry Harvey Sr. Park, the Preferred Alternative begins in Tampa at the proposed

Tampa Downtown Station (south of I-275/I-4 Interchange) and runs south of, and parallel to,

I-275 and I-4 to approximately 14th/15th Streets where the alignment crosses into the I-4 median, 

as shown in Figure 5-3. For the most part, Alignment F falls within the FHWA approved TIS

ROW, however, a minor amount of additional land will be required from the northwest edge of

the Perry Harvey Sr. Park for the FHSR. Based upon available ROW information, the 

construction of the Preferred Alternative will require 0.184 ac. of Perry Harvey Sr. Park. The 

ROW requirements will be further refined during design and ROW mapping when detailed

information is available. The following numbers are clarifications of the amount of land needed

for the FHSR and the previously FHWA approved TIS: 

• Original TIS taking = 0.66 ac. 

• Amount of TIS take needed for FHSR = 0.041 ac.

• Additional amount needed for FHSR = 0.143 ac. 

• Total Section 4(f) impact = 0.041 + 0.143 = 0.184 ac. 

The Preferred Alternative impacts the northwest edge of Perry Harvey Sr. Park as shown in

Figure 5-1. The existing exercise/jogging path located in the northernmost section of the park

(north of Estelle Street) would be terminated approximately 40 ft. east of its current terminus at

Henderson Avenue. 

5.1.8 Mitigation

As a result of continuing coordination, the FHSRA requested through a letter to the City of

Tampa that it concur in writing with the proposed mitigation that provides for compensation for

the impacts to Perry Harvey Sr. Park, which will be determined during the ROW phase of the 

FHSR project. Response from the City of Tampa indicates that compensation for impacts to the

park can be accomplished through the eminent domain process (See City of Tampa Parks 

Director letter dated March 11, 2004, in Appendix B). 

As stated previously, the TIS Ultimate ROW includes provisions for multi-modal transportation

that applies to the FHSR project. The FHSR project will comply with the specific commitments

and stipulations identified in the existing TIS MOA for the Ultimate ROW requirements. 

 5-7 5-7

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Conclusion

The acquisition of 0.184 ac. of ROW at Perry Harvey Sr. Park is an unavoidable impact of the

project, since a prudent and feasible alternative does not exist. Measures to minimize harm were

evaluated and implemented to the greatest extent possible. 

It was determined that there would be a potential for moderate noise level increases (proximity

effects), as discussed in Section 4.2.3. An evaluation of vibration, access, aesthetics, and

ecological encroachment indicates that the project will not substantially impair or diminish the

use of the park and a determination was made that there will be no constructive use.

Based on the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land 

from the Perry Harvey Sr. Park and the proposed action includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm to the park resulting from such use. 

5.2 REFERENCES

1. Tampa Interstate Study Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f)

Evaluation; Greiner, Inc.; Tampa, Florida; November 1996. 

2. Tampa Interstate Study Environmental Impact Statement; Greiner, Inc.; Tampa,

Florida; 1993. 

3. Tampa Interstate Study Section 4(f) Parks and Recreational Analysis; Greiner,

Inc.; Tampa, Florida; April 1994. 

4. Florida High Speed Rail Corridor Screening Report; PBS&J; Tampa, Florida;

October 2002. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

5-8
 

 6-1

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

SECTION 6 

COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 

This section documents the Public Involvement Program, including the techniques and 

methodologies used during the Florida High Speed Rail (FHSR) project, and summarizes 

comments received regarding the project. 

6.1 COORDINATION WITH AGENCIES 

6.1.1 Notice of Intent

The Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2002. (See Notice of 

Intent in Appendix B.) 

6.1.2 Advance Notification

An Advance Notification (AN) package was distributed to federal, state, and local agencies on 

April 3, 2002. These agencies were identified as having permitting, environmental, or other 

interests in the FHSR project. Additionally, the AN package was provided to the appropriate 

United States and Florida State senators and representatives. The AN package included a fact 

sheet that defined the need for and description of the project, a summary of existing 

environmental information, a listing of potentially occurring species, and a mailing list 

(Appendix B). A summary of the written comments that were received from the agencies are 

listed below and included in Appendix B. 

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Review the reporting requirements contained in 

the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, as to 

whether a FAA Form 7460-1 may need to be submitted depending on the proximity of 

the project relative to any public use airports. The FAA would primarily be concerned 

with structure elevations and associated high-mast lighting in the vicinity of an airport. 

• Department of Environmental Protection (DEP): The FHSR project should avoid direct 

impacts where possible and minimize impacts to: the Green Swamp Megasite, the Lake 

Wales Ridge Ecosystem, and any of the natural resource conservation lands owned by 

Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). 

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP): Regarding construction 

staging areas, stormwater treatment areas, depot stations, parking lots, and commercial 

centers, the FHSR project team should contact the districts’ offices and the Water 

Management Districts (WMD), early in the project regarding conservation lands, site 

plan design, stormwater treatment, and permitting requirements. 

• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC): The Preferred 

Alternative should avoid or minimize impacts to the Green Swamp, Reedy Creek, and the 

Hillsborough River. A Mitigation Plan will need to be prepared for unavoidable impacts. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-2

• Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT): The FDOT notes several areas of 

concern: (1) the Interstate 4 (I-4) reconstruction in Polk County; (2) a multi-modal 

envelope with the I-4 median; and (3) safety issues relating to the Gulfstream natural gas 

pipeline. The FHSR project should coordinate closely with the FDOT, District One, 

regarding state highway system impacts and permitting requirements. 

• Department of State, Division of Historical Resources: Supply survey results with 

significant archaeological and historic sites for review and to consult on avoidance and 

mitigation efforts. 

• Florida Division of Forestry (DOF): Sections of the CSX rail lines located within Polk 

County are vulnerable to wildfires. The DOF will need access to cross tracks to fight 

fires. The DOF also recommends the implementation of track maintenance standards to 

minimize fire risks. 

• U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: No 

comment at this time. 

• Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control: No specific 

comment at this time. However, Mitigation Plans should address the following topics 

wherever warranted: Air Quality, Water Quality/Quantity, Wetlands and Flood Plains, 

Hazardous Materials/Wastes, Non-Hazardous Solid Waste/Other Materials, Noise, 

Occupational Health and Safety, Land Use and Housing, and Environmental Justice. 

• City of Orlando: The City of Orlando suggested the following steps to be more 

consistent with the Florida Transportation Plan, the Amtrak Network Growth Strategy, 

and the Florida Intercity Passenger Rail Service Vision Plan: 

− Re-evaluate the recommended study strategies with increased sensitivity to existing 

land use and development intensities. 

− Evaluate a direct connection to the downtown Orlando Amtrak Station via CSX. 

− Address Amtrak’s Network Growth Strategy for Florida and the goals of the Florida 

Transportation Plan. 

− Include as a study element the impact on vehicle miles of travel (VMT), since the 

selection of a corridor away from the highest density population and employment 

centers of Central Florida may result in increased vehicle miles of travel for 

automobile or bus access to proposed rail terminals. 

− Hold public meetings in the urban core of the city, as well as the southwestern 

locations where meetings in May 2002 were conducted. 

− Provide Cultural Resources Assessment Summary for the City of Orlando to review. 

− Contact the City of Orlando Transportation Planning Bureau staff prior to 

neighborhood contacts so that we may be informed and involved in the 

communication of any environmental impacts, including noise. 
 

 6-3

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

6.1.3 Agency Coordination Meetings

First Agency Scoping Meeting 

Thirty-two agency representatives attended an agency scoping meeting held April 30, 2002, in 

Orlando, Florida. This meeting was the first in a series of agency coordination meetings. The 

scoping meeting provided a setting for the agencies to identify potential issues and concerns 

early in the study process. The FHSR project folder, provided with the letter of invitation, 

included an Executive Summary, Study Area Location Map, Florida High Speed Rail Authority 

(FHSRA) Members List, Technology Overview, Meeting Schedule, and the proposed FHSR 

project schedule. Representatives from the following agencies were present at this meeting: 

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

• FDEP 

• SWFWMD 

• FDOT 

• U.S. Coast Guard 

• St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) 

• FFWCC 

• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

• Environmental Protection Commission 

• Universal Studios 

• Walt Disney World 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

• Department of State – Division of Historical Resources 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

After a brief overview of the FHSR project, team members reviewed the inclusion of the Request 

for Proposal (RFP) process within the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) development phase 

and also reviewed the opportunities for agency coordination within the FHSR schedule. Project 

team members then presented the project’s history. 

A 30-minute break for review of corridor aerial maps provided attendees with an opportunity for 

one-on-one questions and comments with project team members. Two series of aerial corridor 

alternatives maps at a scale of 1:600’ were on display. The first map series displayed potential 

social and physical impacts, while the second map series displayed potential natural impacts 

located within 1⁄4 miles (mi.) of the centerline of each alternative. Social and physical impacts 

included community facilities, churches, schools, cemeteries, contamination sites, parks, and 

historic sites and districts. Natural impacts included wetlands, floodways, wildlife crossings, and 

threatened and endangered species habitat areas. Aerials exhibiting alternatives and engineering 

features were displayed at 1:1,000’ supported by technology and typical section boards. 

After review of the maps, the project team discussed the following high speed rail issues: 

current corridor analysis, technologies, engineering alignments, costs, environmental analysis, 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-4

permitting issues, the Investment Grade Ridership Study1, scheduled public involvement 

meetings, and the schedule of upcoming agency coordination meetings. The meeting was then 

opened for questions and answers. 

The agency scoping meeting provided the forum to establish a problem-solving and efficient 

project development process for the FHSR project. Attendees had an opportunity to speak with 

FHWA, FRA, and FDOT officials and project team members about their corridor concerns and 

their preferred analytical methods for issue evaluation. 

Second Agency Coordination Meeting 

Twenty-one agency representatives attended an agency coordination meeting held July 30, 2003, 

in Orlando, Florida. The meeting provided a FHSR project update on the Florida High Speed 

Rail Corridor Screening Report2 to all interested agencies. Each agency representative received 

the following: PowerPoint presentation copy, Alternative Corridors Map, Implementation 

Schedule, and a Corridor Impact Evaluation Matrix. Representatives from the following 

agencies were present at this meeting: 

• FHWA 

• FDEP 

• SWFWMP 

• FDOT 

• SJRWMD 

• FRA 

• USACE 

• Department of State – Division of Historical Resources 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• FFWCC 

After introductions and a project overview, the project team provided a PowerPoint presentation 

to summarize findings to date of the study, followed by an overview of the engineering analysis 

and an update on the RFP effort. 

Attendee issues were primarily focused on the potential environmental impacts caused by the 

differing proposed technologies. Project team members noted that any additional areas required 

outside of the existing right-of-way (ROW), such as for station locations or stormwater pond 

areas, would be cleared environmentally. 

Non-Governmental Organizations 

Seven non-governmental organization representatives attended the coordination meeting held 

December 12, 2002, in Orlando, Florida. The meeting provided a FHSR project update to all 

interested organizations. Each attendee received the following: PowerPoint presentation copy, 

Public Information Workshop Schedule, Rail Technology Overview, Executive Summary of 

FHSR, Alignments for Further Study with Potential Station Locations Map, Implementation 
 

 6-5

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Schedule, and a Corridor Impact Evaluation Matrix. Representatives from the following 

agencies were present at this meeting: 

• Florida Trail Association 

• The Nature Conservancy 

• Sierra Club 

• Audubon of Florida 

The project team opened the meeting with an introduction of team members and provided a brief 

project history and status. The project team then discussed the EIS process, FRA and FHWA 

involvement, the streamlined process to meet the mandated November 2003 date, and the 

significance of Design, Build, Operate, Maintain, and Finance (DBOM&F) proposals within the 

constrained schedule. 

The project team provided a summary of the previous studies as background for the current study 

corridor alignments. A PowerPoint presentation provided attendees with an overall project 

update, a listing of dates and locations for the upcoming Public Workshops, and key project 

future dates, including the DBOM&F proposals in February, critical Legislative action in March, 

a Public Hearing in August, and the vendor selection in November. The meeting was then 

opened for comments. Each organization representative was given an opportunity to identify 

potential issues and concerns. Attendee issues included the following: 

• The amount and type of potential environmental impacts 

• Requested that the project use a federal Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure 

(WRAP) 

• Requested that the project use a consolidated mitigation process 

• Requested that the project reestablish the wildlife corridors along I-4. 

• Project team members heard from attendees that they expect the EIS to analyze 

emission rates and heat impacts on the environment. 

• Concern was expressed regarding species within proximity of the rail. 

Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) 

A Cultural Resource Committee (CRC) was established early in the project to assist in the 

evaluation of significant resources, potential effects, and methods for mitigation. The CRC 

consists of representatives from federal, state, and local agencies and citizen groups. These 

include FRA, FHWA, State Historic Preservation Officer, USACE, City of Tampa, and other 

local interest parties. Three meetings were held in Tampa on December 6, 2002; February 14, 

2003; and December 12, 2003. At the December 2002 meeting, the members were provided 

background information on the FHSR project and the Section 106 process. Preliminary 

alignments, as well as those carried forward for further study, were presented. Other topics 

include the proposed Cultural Resource Assessment Survey (CRAS) methodology and the Area 

of Potential Effect (APE). The February 2003 meeting included the Corridor Level Analysis 

Report results and a bus tour of the NRHP-listed and NRHP-eligible resources, located in 

downtown Tampa and Ybor City. The committee concurred with the information presented 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-6

during these two meetings. In September 2003, the Draft EIS was mailed to all of the members 

of the CRC. At the third and last meeting, in December 2003, the results of the Section 106 

consultation were presented and comments were requested. The CRC made the following formal 

statement at the meeting: “The CRC commended the study team and the FHSRA on designing a 

project and technology that results in no adverse impacts to historic resources.” 

The Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) were sent letters in January 2003 inviting 

them to join the CRC and/or submit comments on the project. They were also included in the 

mailing list for review of the Draft EIS. No comments have been received from any of the 

THPOs. 

A Section 106 consultation meeting was held on December 10, 2003, with the SHPO. Based on 

the project information available and consultation with the SHPO, it was agreed at that meeting 

that the FHSR Proposed Action would have no effect on seven historic resources and a 

conditional no adverse effect on five historic resources. The specific conditions agreed to by the 

FHSRA, FRA, and the SHPO are listed below and are included as commitments in the Final EIS. 

These commitments will also be incorporated into future DBOM&F contracts in a manner that 

will be binding to the vendor. 

1. Provide the HSR design plans (for the Tampa CBD and Ybor City areas)to the 

SHPO for review and comment at 30%, 60% and 90% submittal. 

2. Coordinate the design of the Tampa Station with the SHPO to ensure that historic 

integrity is maintained at the nearby North Franklin Street Historic District and 

the St. Paul AME Church Parsonage. 

3. Implement vibration monitoring during construction adjacent to the Oaklawn 

Cemetery, German American Club and within the Ybor City National Historic 

Landmark District to determine if damage is likely to occur according to damage 

criteria described in FRA's guidance manual, High Speed Ground Transportation 

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Chapter 10. If vibration levels 

approaching the damage criteria are found to occur during construction, 

immediate coordination with the SHPO will be conducted to determine the use of 

less destructive methods and/or minimization methods for continuing the 

construction. 

4. The stipulations of the Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) will be fulfilled for any impacts to contributing historic structures within 

the Ybor City National Historic Landmark District and the TIS Ultimate right-ofway. 

5. Aesthetic treatment for the HSR will be compatible with the existing Urban 

Design Guidelines set up for the TIS within the Tampa CBD and Ybor City areas. 

At minimum, the color of the concrete should be compatible with the TIS 
 

 6-7

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

concrete color. The SHPO, City of Tampa, and local community groups, will be 

included in the development of the HSR aesthetics. 

6.2 COMMUNITY OUTREACH 

6.2.1 Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Committees

Throughout the project study, key project team members met with transportation and planning 

officials within the four counties along the FHSR corridors. The first series of presentations to 

the Tampa-Hillsborough Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Polk County

Transportation Planning Organization (TPO), and the METROPLAN Orlando Board and their 

respective technical and citizen advisory committees occurred during the corridor evaluation 

stage of the project from November 2001 through May 2002. The purpose of the meetings was 

to provide information regarding the FHSR project and to explain the study process and 

schedule. The FHSR project folder distributed at the meeting included an Executive Summary, 

Location Map, FHSRA Member List, Technology Overview, and the Project Schedule. 

The second series of presentations to these same agencies and their respective technical and 

citizens advisory committees began in May 2002 and continued through November 2003. The 

purpose of this series of meetings is to provide project updates including FHSR corridor analysis 

results, alternative analysis, proposal information, upcoming activities, and gather comments. A 

list of meetings that have been held is provided in Table 6-1. There were no significant issues 

raised by the MPO boards and their committees. The following provides a summary of the most 

recent meeting discussion: 

• Hillsborough County: Issues ranged from station location decisions to questions 

about events in Tallahassee regarding funding and the legislature. 

• Polk County: Issues ranged from locating a station at U.S. 27 and I-4 to 

discussion about whether the legislature would kill high speed rail or send it back 

to the voters. 

• Osceola/Orange County: A key concern was who would make the vendor 

recommendation and when will the vendor be selected. The project team 

explained the decision process and schedule. 

Table 6-1 

Metropolitan Planning Organization Meetings

Date Organization 

February 25, 2002 Hillsborough County–Technical Advisory Committee 

March 5, 2002 Hillsborough County–MPO 

April 10, 2002 Hillsborough County–Citizens Advisory Committee 

May 28, 2002 Hillsborough & Pinellas County–Citizens Advisory Committee 

July 15, 2002 Hillsborough County–Technical Advisory Committee 

August 6, 2002 Hillsborough County–MPO 

August 14, 2002 Hillsborough County–Citizens Advisory Committee 

March 19, 2003 Hillsborough County–Citizens Advisory Committee 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

Table 6-1 (cont.) 

Metropolitan Planning Organization Meetings 

 

6-8

Date Organization 

March 24, 2003 Hillsborough County–Technical Advisory Committee 

April 15, 2003 Hillsborough County–MPO 

February 28, 2002 Polk County–Technical Advisory Committee 

April 11, 2002 Polk County–Transportation Planning Organization 

April 23, 2002 Polk County–Citizens Advisory Committee 

July 23, 2002 Polk County–Citizens Advisory Committee 

July 25, 2002 Polk County–Technical Advisory Committee 

August 8, 2002 Polk County–Transportation Planning Organization 

March 25, 2003 Polk County–Citizens Advisory Committee 

March 27, 2003 Polk County–Technical Advisory Committee 

May 8, 2003 Polk County–Transportation Planning Organization 

March 7, 2002 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Municipal Advisory 

Committee 

March 22, 2002 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Transportation Technical 

Committee 

March 27, 2002 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Citizens Advisory 

Committee 

March 27, 2002 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Bicycle & Pedestrian 

Advisory Committee 

April 10, 2002 METROPLAN Orlando Board Meeting 

April 24, 2002 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Citizens Advisory 

Committee 

July 24, 2002 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Citizens Advisory 

Committee 

July 24, 2002 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Bicycle & Pedestrian 

Advisory Committee 

July 26, 2002 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Transportation Technical 

Committee 

August 1, 2002 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Municipal Advisory 

Committee 

August 14, 2002 METROPLAN Orlando Board Meeting 

March 26, 2003 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Citizens Advisory 

Committee 

March 26, 2003 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Bicycle & Pedestrian 

Advisory Committee 

March 28, 2003 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Transportation Technical 

Committee 

April 3, 2003 Orange, Osceola & Seminole Counties–Municipal Advisory 

Committee 

April 9, 2003 METROPLAN Orlando Board Meeting 

September 6, 2002 Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee 

6.2.2 Elected Officials and Small Group Meetings

Project team members received numerous requests to present to key organizations and 

committees throughout the FHSR project study area. These meetings were considered an 

important part of the public awareness program. The goal of the first series of local briefings, 
 

 6-9

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

from November 2001 through May 2002, was to provide information regarding the FHSR 

project, including the study process and schedule. Special meetings were held with city and 

county staff located adjacent to the proposed corridors. The purpose of these meetings was to 

discuss potential station locations and to coordinate with local transit plans. 

The second series of local presentations began in May 2002 and continued through 

November 2003. The purpose of this series of meetings is to provide project updates including 

public comments to date, corridor analysis results, alternatives analysis, proposal information, 

upcoming activities, and gather additional input. A list of meetings that have been held or are 

planned is provided in Table 6-2. The general nature of comments by county were: 

Hillsborough County: The major question asked by the Board of County 

Commissioners was why Tampa International Airport wasn’t a station location? 

Tampa International Airport is outside the project area. 

Polk County: Concern was expressed about locating a station at the west entry to the 

Polk Parkway for the following reasons: not centrally located, not tied into the 

transit or local circulation patterns, and located outside of the urban service area. 

The station is retained in the EIS evaluation because both proposers selected that 

specific station location. 

• Osceola/Orange County: No key concerns were raised in meetings. 

Table 6-2 

Local Briefings 

Date Organization 

March 11, 2002 City of Tampa & Hillsborough County Staff 

March 21, 2002 City of Lakeland Staff 

March 21, 2002 FDOT-District 1 

March 28, 2002 FDOT-District 7 

April 16, 2002 Orange County Coordination Meeting 

April 18, 2002 Expressway Authority Meeting – Staff 

April 18, 2002 Hartline Meeting – Staff 

April 24, 2002 City of Tampa Parks Department Staff 

April 26, 2002 Tampa Rail Community Resource Committee 

April 29, 2002 City of Orlando Staff 

May 2, 2002 City of Tampa & Hillsborough County Staff 

May 28, 2002 Plant City–Historic Resources Board 

May 28, 2002 Plant City–City Commission 

July 30, 2002 FDOT-District 5 

September 16, 2002 FDOT-District 7 

September 25, 2002 Tampa Downtown Partnership 

October 17, 2002 Regional Air Quality Committee 

October 29, 2002 Pinellas County Staff 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

Table 6-2 (cont.) 

Local Briefings 

 

6-10

Date Organization 

November 5, 2002 Barrio Latino Commission 

December 4, 2002 Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners 

January 8, 2003 Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners 

February 20, 2003 City of Tampa City Council 

February 20, 2003 International Electrical and Electronic Engineers – Suncoast Section 

February 25, 2003 Plant City Lion’s Club 

March 5, 2003 Hillsborough County–MPO/ Planning Commission Staff 

March 5, 2003 Suncoast Chapter, National Railway Historical Society 

March 10, 2003 Hillsborough County Planning Commission 

March 19, 2003 Central Florida Development Commission 

March 21, 2003 Tampa Chamber/Downtown Partnership 

March 31, 2003 Tampa Electric Engineering Staff 

April 16, 2003 Leadership Brandon 2003 

May 12, 2003 Plant City Commission 

The Barrio Latino Historic District is a local district, encompassing most of Ybor City, which 

was established by the City of Tampa. As created by Article VIII (Ybor City Historic District) 

of the City of Tampa Zoning Code, the Barrio Latino Commission (BLC) has the responsibility 

of preserving the historic fabric of the District and maintaining its architectural integrity. To 

uphold this responsibility, projects within the Barrio Latino Local Historic District are required 

to be reviewed by the BLC for a Certificate of Appropriateness. As a courtesy, the FHSR project 

was presented to the BLC in its early conceptual stages at a meeting on November 5, 2002. The 

members of the BLC were also invited to participate on the CRC and received mailings about the 

CRC meetings, meeting minutes, and handouts. The FHSRA made a commitment to continue 

coordination with the BLC during the design phase. 

6.3 PUBLIC INFORMATION WORKSHOPS 

Two series of Public Information Workshops were held in each of the four counties located 

within the proposed FHSR corridors. 

6.3.1 Public Notification

A letter of invitation to attend any of the scheduled Public Information Workshops was mailed to 

agencies, state and local officials, and property owners adjacent to the corridor. This notification 

process was used for the May 2002 and January 2003 series of Public Information Workshops. 

Additional concerned individuals or groups identified during the study were added to the mailing 

list database throughout the course of the study. 
 

 6-11

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

To ensure notification to all of the interested public, a 1⁄4-page legal newspaper advertisement 

was placed in the Tampa Tribune, Lakeland Ledger, the Orlando Sentinel – Orange and 

Seminole Editions, and Orlando Sentinel - Osceola Edition. Each advertisement ran 

approximately one week in advance of its respective May 2002 and January 2003 Public 

Information Workshop, announcing the specific public meeting date, location, and time. The 

announcement also provided a brief FHSR project explanation. News releases were distributed 

to the print media one week in advance of public meetings. 

6.3.2 First Series of Public Information Workshops

The first series of Public Information Workshops were held in May 2002 in each of the four 

counties located within the FHSR corridors. A list of meetings is provided in Table 6-3. The 

purpose of this first series of public meetings was to provide the attendees with an opportunity to 

review the proposed conceptual corridors, engineering design concepts, and high speed rail 

technologies that were being considered. The meetings also provided an opportunity to obtain 

comments on these conceptual corridors and technology alternatives early in the study process. 

Table 6-3 

High Speed Rail 

Public Information Workshops 

County Date Location Attendees 

Hillsborough May 2, 2002 Blake High School 

Tampa, Florida 100 

Polk May 6, 2002 The Lakeland Center 

Lakeland, Florida 86 

Osceola May 7, 2002 Celebration School 

Celebration, Florida 19 

Orange May 9, 2002 Sheraton World Resort Center 

Orlando, Florida 46 

Each Public Information Workshop, held from 5:00 PM – 8:00 PM, was organized in an 

informational open-house format. Attendees had an opportunity for one-on-one questions and 

comments with the multi-disciplinary project team. Two series of aerial corridor alignment maps 

at a scale of 1:600’ were displayed to assist the public in understanding the characteristics and 

impacts of the proposed FHSR project. The first map series displayed potential social and 

physical impacts located within 1⁄4 mi. of the centerline of each alignment. The second map 

series displayed potential natural impacts located within 1⁄4 mi. of the centerline of each 

alignment. Social and physical impacts included community facilities, churches, schools, 

cemeteries, contamination sites, public recreation facilities, and historic sites and districts. 

Natural impacts included wetlands, floodways, wildlife crossings, and threatened and 

endangered species habitat areas. Aerials with the engineering alternatives were displayed at 

1:1,000’ scale supported by technology and typical section boards. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-12

FHSR project materials available at the sign-in desk included: Executive Summary, FHSRA 

Member List, Technology Overview, Project Schedule, and Segment Impact Evaluation Matrix. 

Following the Public Information Workshop, the project team recorded and classified all 

comments received at the workshop. The majority of comments received at the workshops 

focused on corridor preference and the desirability of high speed rail service. Most comments 

expressed a preference for high speed rail service and constructing it in the I-4 corridor. A 

summary of the additional comments is as follows. 

• Hillsborough County Public Workshop: The public expressed concerns 

regarding noise, providing connecting transit systems, impacts to the 

environment, and ticket costs. 

• Polk County Public Workshop: The public expressed concerns regarding 

station locations, ridership study validity, impacts to the small towns along CSX, 

and providing wildlife crossings on I-4 and at Reedy Creek 

• Osceola County Public Workshop: The public expressed concern regarding 

provision of connecting transit systems to increase usage and public acceptance of 

FHSR. 

• Orange County Public Workshop: The public expressed concerns regarding 

providing a commuter rail, limiting stops, using the route with the highest 

sustained speed, and going directly to the Orange County Convention Center 

(OCCC). 

After each workshop, the public had ten days to respond with comments. By 

May 20, 2002, 882 total comments were received. Of these, 882 total additional comments, 838 

were generated by the Hunter’s Creek homeowner association located in Orange County. These 

comments uniformly expressed a preference for the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) rather than 

the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) route to the Orlando International Airport. This 

preference is due to the fact that Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) is a perimeter of Hunter’s 

Creek. 

Many of the remaining 44 comments included several preferences. Of the six that specifically 

stated a route preference, two preferred I-4, one preferred CSX, three preferred the Bee Line 

Expressway (S.R. 528), and none preferred the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). Of the 

comments expressing station location preference, 17 preferred the OCCC, 19 preferred the 

Intermodal Center, and 4 preferred International Drive. Of these station location preferences, ten 

were expressed by International Drive area businesses. 

Comments received from the workshops were documented through a Public Involvement 

Comments Summary prepared under separate cover. Written responses were prepared for 48 

public requests for more information. 
 

 6-13

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

6.3.3 Second Series of Public Information Workshops

The second series of Public Information Workshops were held in January 2003 in each of the 

four counties located along the I-4 and CSX rail line corridors. A list of meetings is provided in 

Table 6-4. The purpose of this second series of public meetings was to provide the attendees 

with an opportunity to review the corridors with the retained alignments, the alignments that had 

been eliminated, the high speed rail technologies being considered, the construction schedules, 

and to gather public comments. 

Table 6-4 

High Speed Rail 

Public Information Workshops 

County Date Location Attendees 

Hillsborough January 7, 2003 Armwood High School 

Seffner, Florida 116 

Polk January 9, 2003 The Lakeland Center 

Lakeland, Florida 106 

Orange January 14, 2003 Sheraton World Resort Center 

Orlando, Florida 71 

Osceola January 16, 2003 Celebration School 

Celebration, Florida 45 

Each Public Information Workshop, held from 5:00 PM - 8:00 PM, was organized in an 

informational open-house format. Attendees had an opportunity for one-on-one questions and 

comments with the multi-disciplinary project team. A single aerial corridor alignment map at a 

scale of 1:600’ was displayed to assist the public in understanding the characteristics and impacts 

of the proposed FHSR project. The aerial map displayed the potential social, physical, and 

natural environmental impacts located within 1⁄4 mi. of the centerline of each retained alignment. 

Aerials with the engineering alternatives for the retained alignments were displayed at 1:1,000’ 

scale supported by technology and typical section boards. 

FHSR materials available at the sign-in desk included: Executive Summary, FHSRA Member 

List, Technology Overview, Project Schedule, Alignments for Further Study with Potential 

Stations Map, Project Schedule, and Rolling Update I Newsletter. 

6.3.4 Second Series of Public Information Workshops Results

Following each Public Information Workshop, the project team recorded and classified all 

comments that were received. The four workshops attracted 338 attendees, and generated a total 

of 87 written comments. Verbal comments and questions typically focused on alignment and 

station locations, as well as technology explanations. Written comments were focused in the 

following key categories: 

• FHSR Desirability 

• Station Location 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-14

• Technology 

• Corridor/Alignment Preference 

Of the 59 that addressed the desirability of high speed rail, 51 were in favor and eight were 

against. A summary of each of the workshops and the comments received follows. 

Hillsborough County Public Workshop 

Nineteen total comments were received. Many attendees supported the FHSR, with two 

preferring I-4 and four preferring a corridor somewhere other than I-4, preferably the CSX 

alignment. Written comments addressed the following key issues: 

• FHSR Desirability Comments that included: noise level concerns and 

recommending more meetings to educate the public and excite interest. 

• Station Location Comments that included: locating a station at U.S. 27 and I-4; 

planning for a Westshore station; utilizing Union Station as a station; locating 

stations at Tampa International Airport, Port of Tampa, and Orlando International 

Airport for tourism purposes; and providing every city with a stop.

• Technology Comments that included: trains should operate at least 200 miles 

per hour (mph) and using French trains is a catastrophic blunder. 

• Corridor Preference Comments that included: locating the project corridor 

further south in the rural, cow pasture areas; keeping the existing land open in I-4 

for expansion; upgrading the existing CSX tracks for FHSR; and staying in I-4 as 

it will not destroy any more land or trees. 

Polk County Public Workshop 

Twenty-five comments were received that evening. Written comments addressed the following 

key issues: 

• FHSR Desirability Comments that included: there is not enough diversity or 

concentration of passengers to feed the train, and there is not enough distance 

between Tampa and Orlando to divert travelers from cars.

• Station Location Comments that included: providing a Lakeland station for 

access to Tampa International Airport or Orlando International Airport; allow 

communities to select stations based on viable alternatives; Kathleen Road to U.S. 

98 is a good area for a station; the west end of the Polk County Parkway is a more 

convenient location; station locations can impact communities; and locating 

stations away from existing communities. 

• Technology Comments that included: recommend Maglev, a preference for 

hydrogen-powered electricity, and consider fuel-cells for local stations and rental 

cars. 

• Safety Comments that included: a cement barrier a must; the impact on highway 

congestion will be of utmost concern; where is vehicular refuge if interstate 

median is occupied by rail; what is the effect on road maintenance; the FHSRA 

has responsibility to NOT increase traffic hazards; FHSR will cause noise and 
 

 6-15

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

visual distractions for motorists; and the I-4 median through Lakeland is not wide 

enough to accommodate FHSR.

• Connecting Transit Systems Comments that included: provide supportive 

means of transportation to and from the stations; concerned with how to get to the 

stations; hoping for light rail connections at stations; and will the FHSR offer a 

train-car or auto-train option? 

Orange County Public Workshop 

Twenty-six total comments were received that evening. Eight total corridor/alignment 

preference comments were received: six favored the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment, 

while two favored the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417). Many attendees supported the 

FHSR, providing written comments that addressed the following key issues: 

• FHSR Desirability Comments that included: hurry up and build it; provide 

more communication with taxpayers and voters; build light rail first, supplement 

later with FHSR; the citizens of Central Florida not adequately informed to vote; 

assure ridership; create a multi-use track and run light-rail on the FHSR track to 

gain route flexibility and increased capitalization; and consider the emergency 

evacuation benefit of FHSR. 

• Station Location Comments that included: the official position of the 

International Drive Resort Area Chamber of Commerce is that there must be a 

high speed rail station at the Orange County Intermodal Station; one station is 

cheaper than two – locate station midway between International Drive and Disney 

and interface this stop with light rail; station location should distribute 

users/tourists to all three theme parks; an International Drive/Convention Center 

station is an innovative use of land; and plan for two Orlando International 

Airport stations, one each at the north and south terminals. 

• Technology Comments that included: diesel locomotive technology is too dirty; 

vote for Maglev; and if a Disney-compatible train is adopted for the Orange 

County light rail system, part of the infrastructure already exists. 

• Corridor Preference Comments: A large number of comments were received 

opposing the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) due to perceived impacts on 

property values and the quality of life in adjacent subdivisions. A detailed 

summary of the public information meetings is available in the project files. The 

following is a sampling of these comments received at the public workshop: 

support for a Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) route with a stop at Disney; 

against Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) alignment – it would pass within 

200 yards of homes; the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) alignment is a 

detriment to Hunter’s Creek resulting in decreased property values, intrusion on a 

safe, quiet community, loss of large trees along roadway; opposed to the Central 

Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) - go to convention center which benefits the City of 

Orlando; stop at Convention Center with light rail system to Orlando; use the Bee 

Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment, not the Central Florida Greeneway 

(S.R. 417). 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-16

Osceola County Public Workshop 

Seventeen total comments were received that evening. Many attendees supported the FHSR, 

providing written comments that addressed the following key issues: 

• FHSR Desirability Comments that included: I would pay higher taxes for this 

service; FHSR will increase tourism and trade immensely; FHSR is a great step in 

bringing Florida’s transportation system to a level for future needs; FHSR is vital 

to our future - support its continued development; and use landscaping and 

berming to hide fences and retention ponds. 

• Station Location Comments that included: prefer a Disney station in I-4 median 

that allows other entities opportunities for advertising and sales; prefer a station at 

I-4 and U.S. 27; FHSR brings a boost to Polk County economy with resulting 

business growth; and plan for growth in the Four Corners area.

• Technology Comments that included: central power and electrical drive trains 

are a must; and Maglev is the fastest technology.

• Corridor Preference Comments that included: a resolution of the Kissimmee 

City Commission urging the FHSRA to adopt the Central Florida Greeneway 

(S.R. 417) route for FHSR; a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of 

Osceola County urging the FHSRA to adopt the Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 

417) route for FHSR; the Board of Directors of the Kissimmee/Osceola County 

Chamber of Commerce resolves that the FHSRA adopt the Central Florida 

Greeneway (S.R. 417) route for FHSR in Central Florida. We support a Light 

Rail Transit Connection linking Orlando International Airport, the OCCC and 

Walt Disney World; general recommendation for the Central Florida Greeneway 

(S.R. 417); preference for either of the northern routes on the Bee Line 

Expressway (S.R. 528); and agree with most economically effective route if it, in 

fact, also provides for greatest participation by Disney. 

Comments received from the Public Information Workshops were documented through a Public 

Involvement Comments Summary prepared under separate cover. Written responses were 

prepared for 16 public requests for more information. 

6.3.5 Newsletter and Web Page

In December 2002, a newsletter was mailed to all property owners, interested citizens, and local 

and state officials. The newsletter summarized the first series of Public Information Workshops, 

provided a summary of project activities, announced the second series of upcoming January 2003 

Public Information Workshops, and listed upcoming events and key project dates. 

The FHSRA developed a web page (www.floridahighspeedrail.org) to provide updated 

information on the FHSR. The following FHSR study information was supplied for on-line 

display: The Florida High Speed Rail Corridor Screening Report, Project Schedule, Public 

Workshop Announcements, Schedule of Elected Officials and Small Group Meetings, Schedule 

of MPOs and Committee Meetings, Public Information Workshops Results, and a Series of 
 

 6-17

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Handout Materials including an Executive Summary, Technology Overview, and Segment 

Impact Evaluation Matrix. 

The website also provides a list of frequently asked questions, meeting minutes of all public 

meetings, and offers viewers the opportunity to submit questions and comments to the project 

team. 

6.4 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COORDINATION 

6.4.1 Public Hearings 

A series of Public Hearings were held in October 2003 in three of the four counties at locations 

along the FHSR corridor. A list of meetings is provided in Table 6-5. The purpose of this series 

of public hearings was to solicit public comment on the Draft EIS, the proposed FHSR 

alternatives under consideration, the technologies being considered, construction schedules, and 

other issues related to the development of a high speed rail system. 

Table 6-5 

High Speed Rail 

Public Hearings 

County Dates Location Attendees 

Hillsborough October 7, 2003 Armwood High School 

Seffner, Florida 75 

Polk October 8, 2003 The Lakeland Center 

Lakeland, Florida 112 

Orange/Osceola October 9, 2003 Hyatt Orlando International 

Airport Orlando, Florida 260 

Each Public Hearing provided an informational open-house format from 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM, 

followed by a formal hearing from 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM. During the informal portion of the 

meeting, attendees had an opportunity for one-on-one questions and comments with the multidisciplinary project team. A single aerial corridor alignment map at a scale of 1:600’ was 

displayed to assist the public in understanding the characteristics, impacts, and proposed 

alignments of the proposed FHSR project. The aerial map displayed the potential social, 

physical, and natural environmental impacts located within 1⁄4 mi. of the centerline of each 

proposed alignment. Aerials with the engineering alternatives for the proposed alignments were 

displayed at 1:1,000’ scale supported by technology and typical section boards. 

FHSR materials available at the sign-in desk included a Welcome Letter from Chairman 

Frederick Dudley, an Impact Matrix, and Design/Build Alternatives Maps. A newsletter 

provided an Executive Summary, Library Locations for Viewing the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (Draft EIS), Technology Alternatives, FHSRA Member List, Public Hearings Meeting 

Agenda, FHSR Web Site Address, What’s Next After the Public Hearings, and 

Contact Information. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-18

Public Hearings Results 

Following each Public Hearing, the project team recorded and classified all comments that were 

received. The three workshops attracted 447 attendees, and generated a total of 88 written, and 

36 verbal comments. Comments were focused in the following key categories: 

• Desirability of a Rail System 

• Alternative/Route Preference 

• Station Location 

• Cost 

• Technology 

• Environmental Impacts 

• Maintenance Facility Location 

Specific preferences for alternatives were evaluated through the written and verbal comments 

received during the three public hearings. The No-Build Alternative comments stated either an 

agreement for or against the FHSR project without alignment or station specifics, as shown in 

Table 6-6. The Build Alternative comments, also recorded in the table, specifically indicated 

either a preference for an alignment or against an alignment. 

Table 6-6 

Comment Tabulation 

Specific Local 

Preferences Location Alignments/Stations For Against Total 

No-Build 

Alternatives 10 18 28 

Build Alternatives 

Alignments Orlando Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) 

(Alternatives 1,3,5,7) 32 32 

 Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) 

(Alternatives 2,4,6,8) 3 26 29 

 

 Tampa I-4 (Alternatives 1,2,5,6) 2 2 

 CSX (Alternatives 3,4,7,8) 3 3 

Stations Orlando Disney 4 4 

 Orange County Convention Center 15 15 

 Downtown Orlando 1 1 

 Lakeland Kathleen Road 1 1 

 West Polk Parkway and I-4 

 East Polk Parkway and N.E. I-4 5 5 

 Clark Road 1 1 

 

 Tampa Downtown 

 Pinellas County 1 1 

 Tampa International Airport 2 2 
 

 6-19

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Hillsborough County Public Hearing 

Ten total comments were received that evening. More than one written/verbal comment was 

received from attendees. Comments addressed the following key issues: 

• FHSR Desirability Comments that included: recommending that decision 

makers should go to Europe and see how high speed rail works; reworking 

existing CSX tracks and stations for FHSR; opposed to FHSR, prefer a light rail 

system located on existing CSX tracks; if you give them the train, they will use it; 

high speed rail can better our lives...less cars, less accidents, and less pollution; 

and FHSR will prove itself essential to Florida’s future. 

• Alternatives/Routes Comments that included: system should go to Pinellas 

County; and prefer Alternative 4 or 8.

• Costs Comments that included: nice if the average person can afford it; and if 

the government subsidized the railroad instead of building more tire tracks, it 

would be a good deed for the citizens of Florida.

• Technology Comments that included: prefer Global Rail Consortium: faster, 

more trains, longer hours; and environmental habitats will not be affected as 

much. 

• Environmental Impacts Comments that included: Florida cannot afford to pave 

over our green space; and the Interstate can accept the loud noise level. 

Polk County Public Hearing 

Twenty total comments were received that evening. More than one written/verbal comment was 

received from attendees. Comments addressed the following key issues: 

• FHSR Desirability Comments that included: opposed to FHSR, prefer a light rail 

system; happy to see it completed; no advantages over rental cars; I-4 cannot possibly 

keep up with the growing demands; in favor of FHSR, preferring Alternative 5; and it’s a 

great idea.

• Alternatives/Routes Comments that included: prefer Alternative 8; and 

connecting Orlando International Airport to the OCCC to Disney is important for 

economic growth.

• Costs Comments that included: it must be cheaper to use than to drive a car; 

great idea...more jobs, more money, economy expands; need 

incentives/assistance on Federal/National level; and private money only.

• Technology Comments that included: prefer electric; what plans will be in place 

in case of grid failure?; and recommend electric because of lower emissions and 

least amount of environmental impacts. 

• Station Location Comments that included: do not build at Kathleen Road, it is 

already congested; locate a station at Tampa International Airport; and locate at 

northeast “terminus” of Polk Parkway; and Clark Road is the best location. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-20

Orange/Osceola County Public Hearing 

Fifty-nine total comments were received that evening. More than one written/verbal comment 

was received from attendees. Comments addressed the following key issues: 

• FHSR Desirability Comments that included: mass transportation saves time and 

money; and we need it...from downtown Orlando to downtown Tampa.

• Alternatives/Routes Comments that included: the Bee Line route will impact 

fewer schools, split fewer neighborhoods, and support more businesses; as a 

Hunter’s Creek resident, I am strongly opposed to the Greeneway route; Bee Line 

makes sense because it is more commercial, and less residential; the Bee Line 

route is a win-win; and FHSRA is legally precluded from putting a railroad along 

the Greeneway.

• Costs Comments that included: used taxpayer dollars to build OCCC, and now 

the FHSR will bypass and use taxpayer dollars to build connection to Disney?; 

where will money come from?; and taxpayers who support the train vote for the 

Bee Line.

• Technology Comments that included: prefer electric as gas is more polluting, 

less efficient, and slower. 

• Station Location Comments that included: must stop at the OCCC; stopping at 

OCCC, Disney, and Lakeland defeats the purpose of the system; stop at OCCC to 

serve our entire community and the public at large; and it’s counter productive to 

align along a route that bypasses the OCCC transportation hub. 

Additional Comments 

Thirty-five total comments were received through mail or e-mail by October 24, 2003. 

Comments addressed the following key issues: 

• FHSR Desirability Comments that included: FHSR technology is our next new 

frontier; vast improvement over I-4; please stop the FHSR; as Hunter’s Creek 

resident, not against FHSR, only the Greeneway route; and support FHSR with 

wildlife crossings along I-4.

• Alternatives/Routes Comments that included: please consider the Bee Line 

route; constructing FHSR in the I-4 median is an accident waiting to happen; and 

emphatically opposed to the Greeneway.

• Costs Comments that included: jet train may be cheaper to start, but will cost 

more in the long run; and why should taxpayer’s pay for a Disney train?

• Technology Comments that included: electric would serve our state the best; and 

for national security reasons...electric trains are the trains of choice. 

• Station Location Comments that included: I-4 and east entrance to the Polk 

Parkway. 

Comments received from the Public Hearings were documented through a Public Hearing 

Comments Summary prepared under separate cover. Written responses were prepared for four 

public requests for more information.
 

 6-21

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

6.4.2 Agency Comments

Federal Agency Comments 

Environmental Protection Agency

Alternatives - The electric train technology has not been approved for use in the United States, 

even though it has been used in Europe for the last twenty years. Consequently, the Final EIS 

should clearly state whether the electric train alternatives are viable at this time. 

Response: The FRA has stated that final approval of the electric train technology 

(specifically TGV) can be expedited if this technology is selected. A draft Rule Of Applicability 

had been prepared by the FRA staff associated with a previous project that proposed to use TGV 

technology 

in Florida. 

Alternatives - In addition, the Draft EIS does not include an environmentally Preferred 

Alternative. All of the alternatives result in varying degrees of potential noise, vibration, 

wetland, floodplain, and hazardous waste impacts. Given the number of alternatives examined in 

the Draft EIS, the Final EIS should include an environmentally Preferred Alternative. 

Response: The analysis of impacts documented in the Draft EIS indicated that all the build 

alternatives demonstrated environmental impacts of similar magnitude. The environmental 

impacts documented in the Draft EIS were considered by the FHSRA to assist them in identifying 

a Preferred Alternative. The Final EIS includes a discussion of the social, natural, and physical 

environmental impacts along with engineering and operations considerations that were analyzed 

to determine the Preferred Alternative. In addition, each of the subsections in Section 4, 

Environmental Consequences, is summarized to identify the specific impacts of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Aquatic Resources - It is unclear how [many] linear feet of stream impacts are expected since the 

stream impacts are included in the total wetland impacts and quantified in acres (ac.). The Final 

EIS should quantify stream impacts and quantify in linear feet. 

Response: Typically, all wetland impacts are quantified in ac. for the permit agencies and 

mitigation ratios are negotiated in ac. Based upon further clarification with EPA (conference 

call of January 7, 2004), the quantification of stream impacts in linear feet is not required. 

Aquatic Resources - Given the nature and the scope of the proposed project, the impacts appear 

to be within acceptable limits. However there is insufficient analysis in the Draft EIS of 

potential mitigation strategies for addressing aquatic resource impacts. The Final EIS should 

address sequence: avoidance, minimization, and then suitable mitigation. It should include a 

well-developed compensatory mitigation plan for the project impacts. Mitigation should be inkind, and within the same hydrologic corridor as the impacts to the extent practicable. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-22

Response: The process of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation is further addressed in the 

Final EIS, Sections 4.2.5 and 4.2.11. This will also continue to be a significant consideration 

during the permitting phase of this project. This process was critical for the justification of the 

chosen Preferred Alternative. The alignments discussed in the Final EIS have been revised 

several times in an effort to avoid various environmental concerns (historical, wetlands, 

contamination etc.). 

Avoidance was not a significant issue for the portions of the alignments located in the median 

area of I-4 due to limited areas containing wetlands. However, the western and eastern termini 

of the alignments (especially those outside of existing roadway medians) were evaluated to 

minimize wetland impacts. The Florida High Speed Rail Screening Report, Parsons/PBSJ, 

September 2002, specifically considered avoidance and minimization in eliminating a number of 

build alternative segments with unacceptable levels of environmental impact. The western end of 

the project (including any of the alternatives) is located in a very urban area, with little to no 

wetlands within the proposed alignments. The eastern end of the proposed alignment (along I-4 

and Bee Line Expressway [S.R.528]) contains significantly more wetlands than the western end. 

The process of avoidance will be evaluated further for alignment modification during final 

design. This is documented in Section 4.2.5 of the Final EIS. During the permitting and final 

design phase of the project, the Preferred Alternative may be further refined to reduce and/or 

avoid impacts. 

At this time, proposed wetland mitigation will be pursuant to S. 373.4137 F.S. (Senate Bill 1986) 

to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 U.S.C.s 1344. Under 

S. 373.4137 F.S., mitigation of FHSR wetland impacts will be implemented by the appropriate 

WMD where the impacts occur. Each WMD develops a regional wetland mitigation plan on an 

annual basis to be approved by the Florida State Legislature that addresses the estimated 

mitigation needs. The WMD will then provide wetland mitigation for specific project impacts 

through a corresponding mitigation project within the overall approved regional mitigation 

plan. FHSRA will provide funding to the WMD for implementation of such mitigation projects. 

An emphasis will placed on attempting to provide in-kind mitigation in the same local basin and 

in accordance with the appropriate mitigation ratios. Section 4.2.5 Wetlands, of the Final EIS 

includes this discussion. 

Noise and Vibration - Table 4-23 presents the existing noise level for Alignment E1 of 

Alternative 1 (59 dBA Ldn) versus the predicted noise level (58 dBA). The metric used for the 

predicted value is unclear (Ldn or Leq?). The two values should be the same for comparison and 

calculation of cumulative (total) noise (project plus ambient). We also note that ambient 

measurements were made in Ldn and/or Leq (Table 3-19). While Ldn is more representative 

over 24 hours, a 1 hr Leq (Leq(1)) would be better suited for project sites located near existing 

highways, with ambient measurements taken during rush hour for worst-case levels. 

Response: Table 4-31 is updated in the Final EIS to clarify which metric is being used in the 

projections. In addition, the Draft EIS stated in the Noise Criteria section which metric is used 

for specific cases. As stated, the Ldn is used for residences (Category 2) and the Leq is used for 

other noise sensitive land uses (Category 1 and Category 2). 
 

 6-23

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Impact Levels (pg. 3-34) – We note that noise levels defined as “impact” and severe” vary based 

on the ambient noise levels (pg. 3-34). EPA does not agree with such a sliding scale as depicted 

on Table 3-18; instead, we believe that a discrete noise level for a moderate and for severe 

impacts should be selected regardless of the ambient level. 

Response: As stated in the Draft EIS, the noise criteria are “based on the criteria defined in the 

FRA guidance manual High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment (Final Draft, December 1998)”. This guidance manual states that ambient based 

impact criteria are established and used for all transit project assessments. 

Train Technologies - It is unclear why implementation of the project with electric trains would 

be noisier than with gas turbine trains (Table 4-31). This seems counterintuitive. The Final EIS 

should verify this and provide reasons (e.g., wheel, engine, and conveyance noise). In general, 

EPA would prefer electric trains to reduce air emissions (especially in a maintenance area), but 

would also want to minimize noise (especially where considered severe). 

Response: As mentioned in the descriptions of each alternative in the Noise section of the Draft 

EIS, noise levels are affected by the proximity of the receiver to the track, the train speed at the 

specific receiver, and the track height at the specific receiver. The combinations of these factors, 

the two power sources for operation, and consideration of the additional trips proposed in the 

operations plan cause the Electric Train to have more overall noise impacts than the GasTurbine Train. Additional discussion identifying the various factors that influenced the findings 

of the noise analysis and the influence of these factors on the specific technology are included in 

Section 4.2.3 of the Final EIS (see Table 4-40). 

Noise Mitigation - The Final EIS should discuss what authority FRA and the FHSRA have 

regarding the funding and implementation of noise mitigation. 

Response: During further development of the project, the FHSRA, in consultation with FRA and 

applicable Code Federal Regulations, will be developing a number of policies and additions to 

Florida Administrative Code (FAC) that will address this issue and other similar issues. The 

FHSRA, in coordination with the FRA and any other applicable agencies, will identify all 

Federal and FAC requirements, including any updates, that address noise impacts to be 

mitigated in the design and construction phase(s) of the Florida High Speed Rail project. FRA’s 

authority regarding the funding and implementation of noise mitigation will depend on the 

nature and scope of the program from which funding for the overall project is derived. There 

presently is no Federal program that authorizes FRA to fund a high speed rail project. 

Noise Mitigation - With regard to noise barriers, we note that barriers are predicted to be capable 

of attenuating all predicted severe impacts (Table 4-35). It is unclear, however, what 

alternatives, project sections, or residences would indeed be mitigated for noise. The Final EIS 

should provide such information. 

Response: Feasible noise mitigation measures, including noise barriers with sound absorbing 

surfaces, and locations are discussed in the Final EIS. The discussion for the Preferred 

Alternative in Section 4.2.3 of the Final EIS include the residences that meet or exceed 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-24

abatement consideration criteria and this information has been clarified for each of the 

alternatives in this section as well. As mentioned in the Draft EIS: 

"...potential mitigation measures for reducing noise impacts from the FHSR operations are 

described below:

Noise Barriers - This is a common approach to reducing noise impacts from surface 

transportation sources. The primary requirements for an effective noise barrier are: (1) the 

barrier must be high enough and long enough to break the line-of-sight between the sound 

source and the receiver; (2) the barrier must be of an impervious material with a minimum 

surface density of 4 lb/sq. ft.; and (3) the barrier must not have any gaps or holes between the 

panels or at the bottom. Because numerous materials meet these requirements, the selection of 

materials for noise barriers is usually dictated by aesthetics, durability, cost, and maintenance 

considerations. Depending on the proximity of the barrier to the tracks and on the track 

elevation, rail noise barriers typically range in height from 4 to 10 ft., providing noise reductions 

of 5 to 10 dBA.

Building Sound Insulation - Sound insulation of residences and institutional buildings to 

improve the outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction has been widely applied around airports, but has 

seen limited application for rail projects. Although this approach has no effect on noise in 

exterior areas, it may be the best choice for sites where noise barriers are not feasible or 

desirable, and for buildings where indoor sensitivity is of most concern. Substantial 

improvements in building sound insulation (on the order of 5 to 10 dBA) can often be achieved 

by adding an extra layer of glazing to windows, by sealing any holes in exterior surfaces that act 

as sound leaks, and by providing forced ventilation and air conditioning so that windows do not 

need to be opened."

The FHSRA has committed (see Section S.13 Commitments) to comply with all applicable State 

and Federal noise standards, criteria, and guidelines in the construction phase and in the 

operations of rail service. The reasonableness and feasibility of noise mitigation measures will 

be reevaluated during the design phase consistent with FDOT policy and as coordinated 

with FRA. 

Vibration Mitigation – Three potential treatments to compensate for vibration are provided. 

Potential mitigation sites are also provided (Table 4-46). However, no commitments are made. 

Response: The Final EIS, in Section 4.2.4, presents the mitigation commitments as part of the 

Preferred Alternative discussion. 

Vibration Mitigation - The Final EIS should provide commitments to compensate for noise and 

vibration impacts, including the methods to be used and the mitigation sites. If any residences 

are not scheduled for mitigation but are predicted to be severely impacted for noise, the Final 

EIS should discuss why these sites would not be mitigated. Similar discussion for vibration 

impacts should also be provided. 
 

 6-25

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Response: Sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, and S.13 of the Final EIS include a commitment for reasonable 

and feasible noise and vibration mitigation considerations during design. 

Air Quality - In addition, the air impacts analysis relates the electric locomotion alternative to 

increases in coal-fired generation emissions. However, much of Florida’s electric generation is 

nuclear and combustion turbine fired by natural gas. Consequently, the Final EIS should explain 

the validity of considering just coal-fired emissions in the air quality analysis. 

Response: The primary objective of the air quality evaluation was to demonstrate that the FHSR 

project would not require a conformity determination in accordance with the General 

Conformity Rule (40CFR Part 93 Subpart B). For the purpose of demonstrating that a 

conformity determination would not be required, a worst-case approach was used in the air 

quality evaluation. Hillsborough County, which is currently designated as an ozone 

maintenance area, has experienced improved air quality in recent years. Conversion of a TECO 

(i.e., public utility in Hillsborough County) power plant from coal to natural gas has been 

identified as major contributor to the reduction because of decreased emissions. Since the 

specific source of power for the electric train technology cannot be identified at this time, the 

worst-case approach used emissions factors (provided by FDEP) for a coal-fired power plant. 

The premise of the approach is that if a conformity determination is not required under worstcase conditions, then electricity provided from an electric power source with lower emissions 

would also not require a conformity determination. This approach did not affect a secondary 

objective of the air quality evaluation, which was comparison of the two train technologies. 

Even when using worst-case for increased regional emissions associated with electric power 

production, the emissions associated with the electric train technology are substantially less than 

the emissions associated with the gas turbine train technology. 

Contamination - The Draft EIS does not state under which statutes that potential contaminated 

sites are regulated. The Final EIS should include this information. In addition, what database 

does this information come from? This should also be included in the Final EIS. The Final EIS 

should include more detailed information regarding how FRA will comply with existing State 

and Federal regulations if the proposed property is acquired. 

Response: The FDEP statutes which regulate potential contamination are found primarily in 

62-770, 62-771, 62-773, and 62-701 F.S. The EPA statute which covers RCRA and CERCLA is 

42 USC, Sections 6901 and 9601. 

There are numerous databases on the city, county, state, and federal levels used to track 

contamination issues. The databases used in preparation of the Contamination Screening 

Evaluation Report were the National Priority List, Comprehensive Environmental Response 

Compensation and Liability Information System, Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Information System, Emergency Response Notification System, Facility Index System, Toxic 

Release Inventory System, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, Superfund 

Hazardous Waste Sites, State Funded Action Sites, Solid Waste Facilities, Leaking Underground 

Storage Tanks, Stationary Tank Inventory System List, and Cattle Dipping Vats. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-26

At this phase of the project, it is too early to tell what FRA involvement would be with each 

potentially contaminated property, and to what extent the project would have an effect on site 

conditions or which regulations would be involved. In subsequent design phases, a Level II 

screening will be performed that will indicate which regulations will be used and the best course 

of action for the FHSRA. 

Noise Barrier Construction - The Draft EIS suggests that the attenuation capability for materials 

used for noise barrier construction do not differ greatly. One exception might be the use of 

rubberized barrier walls that tend to absorb noise rather than reflect it. The Final EIS should 

discuss the feasibility of such noise barriers. 

Response: Feasible noise mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4.2.3 of the Final EIS, 

including noise barriers with sound absorbing surfaces. The reasonableness and feasibility of 

noise mitigation measures will be reevaluated during the design phase consistent with FDOT 

policy and as coordinated with FRA. 

Editorial - Page 4-51 refers to “...Alternative 2 and 3, where there are no severe impacts and 

therefore no mitigation is required.” Based on Table 4-35, this should presumably read 

“...Alternative 2 and 4, where there are no severe impacts and therefore no mitigation is 

required.” 

Response: The Final EIS text is revised. 

Other- A big ancillary impact not addressed is the need for fill material for new RR bed. Some 

estimate of fill material should have been given for each major alternative and where such 

quantities could (not necessarily would) be obtained. 

Response: The FHSRA has not identified a source of borrow although did identify the necessary 

quantity and availability of fill for embankments. The selected proposer will be responsible for 

acquiring the necessary amount of fill material and any approvals necessary for the use of this 

fill material (i.e. permits). The Commitments and Recommendations section (Section S.13 of the 

Final EIS) identifies that any borrow areas identified by the Design/Build Contractor will 

require the necessary permits. 

Overall, EPA rates this Draft EIS as a EC-1; that is, the document has identified potential 

environmental impacts to noise, vibration, hazardous waste sites, air quality, wetlands, 

floodplains and other aquatic resources that need to be addressed more completely in the Final 

EIS. Since many of the impacts have already been avoided and minimized with the proposed 

project, mitigation of the project’s impacts becomes a very important issue. Therefore, all 

mitigation measures and commitments to the extent feasible should be disclosed in the Final EIS. 

Where needed, provisions for monitoring of mitigation actions should also be included. 

Response: As indicated in the responses above, further discussion of mitigation measures and 

commitments are provided in applicable subsections of Section 4 in the Final EIS, to the extent 

feasible. Final wetland mitigation will be determined during the permitting process. At this 

time, proposed wetland mitigation will be S. 373.4137 F.S. and monitoring will therefore be the 
 

 6-27

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

responsibility of the WMDs. A Commitments Section (S.13) has been added to the Executive 

Summary outlining the measures that FHSRA has committed to for project implementation. 

Federal Highway Administration

General There will be a continued need to coordinate with the FHWA and FDOT for 

safety, traffic operations, and funding issues for construction, operations and maintenance 

activities when there is proposed use of Interstate ROW. 

Response: The FHSRA is committed to working with its transportation partners (FHWA and 

FDOT) in the development of this project, and will continue to coordinate all aspects of the 

project with these agencies. As you are aware, the design/build consultant must follow FDOT 

Design and Specifications to meet requirements for maintenance of traffic plans during 

construction of the High Speed Rail. Coordination with Districts I, V, and VII will include any 

concurrent construction along the I-4 corridor. The design/build consultant will coordinate 

meetings for the development of the maintenance of traffic plans and the outcome of these 

meetings will be an acceptable plan to both FDOT and FHWA prior to approved use of the 

interstate ROW for the High Speed Rail. 

1. FHWA must take a federal action to approve the use of the I-4 median for high speed rail 

before the FHSRA can construct any rail system within the Interstate ROW. The FDOT must 

make an application to the FHWA for such use, FHWA will act on such a petition after the 

FRA issues a record of decision, as that document will serve as our environmental evaluation 

for the decision to approve the use the median. Major issues such as barrier 

configuration/fencing and shoulder encroachment design exceptions must be resolved before 

FHWA can approve the use of the interstate ROW. We stress the importance of resolving 

some of the design issues such as the barrier type chosen by the selected proposer, but we 

recognize that some of these issues may be addressed and resolved after completion of 

the ROD. 

Response: The FHSRA would be required to determine protective measures necessary to 

prevent intrusions of vehicular traffic, unauthorized persons, large animals, and objects into the 

rail alignment from the surrounding highway system and overpasses. FHSRA is further required 

to obtain any and all associated approvals for the barrier, fencing, and intrusion detection 

systems, in addition to any protective measures that would be required from all Federal and 

State agencies having jurisdiction within the corridors proposed for use by the FHSR. 

Coordination is on-going and will continue through the design/build phase with the FluorBombardier Team in developing an acceptable barrier plan including any fencing and 

minimizing any shoulder encroachments.

2. The approval for the use of the median is addressed in 23 CFR 710.405 Interstate Air Rights 

and 23 CFR 810.200 making Highway ROW Available for mass Transit project. The steps 

are as follows: 1) The FHSRA submits a request for the proposed use of ROW to FDOT, 2) 

If acceptable, FDOT submits request for FHWA approval to make ROW available to FHSRA 

for the proposed mass transit project. The request is to include evidence (e.g., maps, plans, 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-28

proposed use and occupancy agreement) that the proposed facility will not impair future 

highway improvements or the safety of highway users, 3) FHWA approval (a Federal 

action) can be given after the environmental process is completed (in this case, a ROD has 

been issued by FRA), 4) After FHWA approval, FDOT enters into written use and 

occupancy agreement (including the conditions set forth in 23 CFR 810.210 (a) (1-3)) with 

the FHSRA and provides a copy to FHWA. 

Response: This process will be followed through the design/build phase in coordination with 

FHWA/FDOT. 

3. FHWA will require that the FHSRA and FDOT-District 7 complete a memorandum of 

agreement on the I-4/Interstate 275 (I-275) interchange in Tampa where the rail line is 

proposed to be placed in the future ultimate Interstate ROW, prior to FHWA agreement on 

the Final EIS. 

Response: The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with FDOT and the FHSRA has been 

completed and is included in Appendix B. The MOA has not been signed by FHWA or FRA. 

4. The FHWA agrees with and supports the barrier requirements as defined in the RFP Design 

Criteria. Not only does the taller barrier configuration provide additional crashworthiness, 

but it will provide glare protection/reduce the startle factor for the train. We note that the 

GRC team had agreed to provide barriers as defined in the RFP Design Criteria, generally 

TL-5 barriers on a tangent and TL-6 barriers on curves, but the FB team offered a mix of 

FDOT index 410 barriers and TL-5 barriers. The FHWA believes that the function of the 

barriers is to keep motor vehicles outs of the fixed guideway, not to keep trains constrained 

to the guideway. FHWA will evaluate the barrier concept of the selected proposer, but what 

is proposed by the FB team may not be acceptable. The barrier strategy must be acceptable 

to FHWA. The barrier strategy must be acceptable to FHWA in order for FHWA to approve 

the use of the I-4 median. 

Response: The FHSRA has identified the barrier requirements for the FHSR, as identified in the 

RFP documents, and as stated in the Final EIS. The barrier requirements are as follows: 

• Meeting requirements of NCHRP Report 350 Test Level (TL) 5 guidelines shall be 

installed between the high speed ground transportation system guideway and the parallel 

roadway. Such barrier shall be installed where the highway is on tangent. 

• Where the highway is on curve and within 100 feet (ft.) of a highway curve, reinforced 

concrete barriers meeting the requirements of NCHRP Report 350 TL 6 guidelines shall 

be installed between the high speed ground transportation system guideway and the 

parallel roadway. 
 

 6-29

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

• Where the guideway is on earthen fill structure with vertical walls exceeding 4 ft. in 

height above the roadway shoulder, barrier wall shall not be required. 

• Where the guideway is on pier supported structures within 100 ft. of the highway, 

NCHRP Report 350 TL 5 barriers shall be required to protect guideway piers and 

occupants of highway vehicles.

Coordination is on-going and will continue through the design/build phase with the FlourBombardier Team in developing an acceptable barrier plan including any fencing and 

minimizing any shoulder encroachments. 

The FHSRA would be required to determine protective measures necessary to prevent intrusions 

of vehicular traffic, unauthorized persons, large animals, and objects into the rail alignment 

from the surrounding highway system and overpasses. FHSRA is further required to obtain any 

and all associated approvals for the barrier, fencing, and intrusion detection systems, in addition 

to any protective measures that would be required from all Federal and State agencies having 

jurisdiction within the corridors proposed for use by the FHSR. 

5. FHWA remains concerned with any proposal to mount chain link or other types of fencing 

on the top of barrier walls and strongly prefers that the fence be mounted between the track 

and the barrier. FHWA does not believe that barriers with an attached fence will pass the 

NCHRP 350 test requirements and will require that if fencing is placed on top of the barrier it 

will have to be shown to pass NCHRP 350 test criteria to be acceptable. Before FHWA will 

approve the use of the I-4 median, the barrier and fencing strategy must be acceptable to 

FHWA. Both the GRC and FB proposals depict the fence mounted on top of the barrier. 

Response: Although the Preferred Alternative identifies a fencing solution similar to what was 

originally proposed in the RFP, continued analysis and coordination of fencing locations will be 

undertaken. The FHSRA recognizes FHWA’s jurisdiction in this issue. 

6. The median railroad alignment encroaches on roadway shoulders in curves due to the use of 

spirals on the railroad alignment. FHWA has requested that the data be provided in detailed 

plan views, depicting the location and extent of the shoulder encroachment for FHWA 

review. It is understood that the encroachments may not occur until the inside HOV lanes 

are constructed. FHWA considers any reduction in the 10 ft inside shoulder to be a design 

exception, rather than a variance, as the AASHTO guidelines require 10 ft inside shoulders 

on multilane highways, and must be approved prior to approval for use of the median. 

Response: At the preliminary engineering effort, conservative design criteria were used when 

preparing the alignment included in the RFP documents. It is anticipated that the design/build 

team will minimize shoulder encroachment through the design phase. This will be coordinated 

with FHWA/FDOT prior to seeking FHWA approval for use of the median. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-30

7. FHWA has concerns about emergency and maintenance access to the guideway, construction 

access and construction staging. FHWA has stated that normally it would wish to see specific 

plans addressing these issues prior to approving the FDOT application for rail use of the 

median. We understand that under this DBOM procurement process, the proposers were 

advised that coordination with FDOT and standard FDOT maintenance of traffic procedures 

are required. Similarly, the proposers must address system safety and security in accord with 

joint FTA and APTA standards. However, the details will not be available until later in the 

design process, well after issuance of the ROD. 

Response: FRA will require the submittal and approval of specific plans addressing emergency 

and maintenance access to the guideway, construction access, and construction staging. The 

design/build process will address specific system safety and security in accord with FRA 

regulations through development of a Safety Plan during final design and these plans will be 

provided to FHWA. 

General The Pre-draft EIS contains information pointing out that one of the two 

responsive design/build proposals would not provide for a commitment to provide future animal 

crossings in Polk County. The information is first presented in the summary on page S-11 where 

it is stated “Furthermore, the FDOT is committed to providing wildlife crossings along I-4 

during construction of the ultimate interstate improvements. The GRC electric train proposal 

includes wildlife crossings to be consistent with future I-4 reconstruction, while Fluor 

Bombardier gas turbine technology does not.” Information is also included on page 2-20 

pointing out that the gas turbine train proposal identifies a vertical alignment following the 

interstate vertical alignment, not allowing for these (wildlife) crossings. The FHWA will not 

accept foreclosure of the wildlife crossings without justification and coordination without 

resource agencies that is documented and acceptable. 

Response: FHSRA commits to providing wildlife crossings in accordance with FDOT 

commitments to provide wildlife crossings along I-4 during construction of the ultimate 

interstate improvements. 

General The Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation contains information that is not clear about 

whether the additional ROW needed from Perry Harvey Park will be sufficient for both the High 

Speed Rail and the TIS Ultimate ROW. It appears that the additional acreage from Perry Harvey 

Park includes only what is needed for the high Speed Rail, and does not incorporate combined 

ROW needs for both the TIS Ultimate ROW. This may also be the situation adjacent to Ybor 

City. The Final EIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation should provide clear information about interim 

and ultimate ROW, impacts and mitigation, including which parties are responsible. 

Response: Information regarding the ROW requirements for both the TIS Ultimate 

improvements and High Speed Rail project are further clarified in the Final EIS and Section 4(f) 

evaluation. This has also been updated with mitigation requirements and the responsible 

parties. 
 

 6-31

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1. Based on the submitted information, there appear to be alternatives that have less overall 

wetland impact acreage and less ‘high quality’ wetland impact acreage. Our regulations 

require that a project avoid and minimize impacts to the greatest extent practicable. If a 

route/technology alternative with higher impacts is chosen, the applicant would have to 

document why this was the most practicable alternative. This explanation should include an 

in-depth discussion of the impacts associated with construction of support facilities for the 

project, including the Operational and Maintenance Facility, stations, and stormwater 

facilities, and how those impacts were avoided and minimized. 

Response: The process of avoidance, minimization and mitigation has been discussed in the 

Draft EIS and has been further addressed in Section 4.2.5 of the Final EIS. This will also 

continue to be a significant consideration during the permitting phase of this project. This 

process was critical for the justification of the chosen Preferred Alternative. The alignments 

discussed in the EIS have been revised several times in an effort to avoid various environmental 

concerns (historical, wetlands, contamination, etc.).

2. The Draft EIS describes using the mitigation program set up in Section 373.4137 of the 

Florida Statutes for this project. In order to better document how a project’s mitigation 

offsets the wetland impacts associated with that project, the Corps typically requests that an 

applicant perform a functional analysis of both the wetland impacts and the mitigation. As 

this is often not part of mitigation proposed under Section 373.4137, F.S., the Corps will 

request that you perform a functional analysis when we review the project. 

Response: A WRAP analysis was conducted for each wetland within the study area for the Draft 

EIS. However, it should be noted that the new State Unified Mitigation Assessment Method 

became effective February 2004.

3. Please note that a crossing of the Tampa Bypass Canal, a federal project, will require review 

by other Jacksonville District elements. The Regulatory Division would coordinate this 

activity with those other elements as part of the permit application review process. 

Response: The Tampa Bypass Canal crossing will be upstream from a flood control weir, within 

the non-navigable portion of the Tampa Bypass Canal. The FHSR alignment will be between the 

existing bridge structures over Tampa Bypass Canal, within the median of I-4. As the FHSR 

project moves into the design/build phase, coordination for required permits will be conducted 

with applicable agencies.

Federal Aviation Administration

1. The FAA understands that a rail corridor and station would be located at the Orlando 

International Airport. The project sponsor will need to coordinate with the Orlando 

International Airport during the design of project components and location of the corridor 

station in order to minimize any impacts to existing and future airport development. All 

development on the airport is subject to the review and approval of the FAA. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-32

Response: The FHSRA is committed to working with the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority 

(GOAA) and the FAA in the development of this project, and will continue to coordinate all 

aspects of the project with these agencies, especially in relation to the design of project 

components and stations in the vicinity of the Orlando International Airport. 

The proposed FHSR alignment has been coordinated with the GOAA staff for consistency on the 

location of the rail alignment as identified in the Orlando International Airport Master Plan. 

The proposed FHSR station, at the future South Terminal, is located on the rail alignment and 

issues have been identified relating to the phased construction of this terminal. 

2. In accordance with the airport’s owner Federal Aviation Grant Assurances, any use of the 

airport lands would have to be through a lease agreement with the airport subject to FAA 

approval. 

Response: The FHSRA understands that under the provisions of the FAA Advisory Circular 

150/5100-16A Airport Improvement Program Grant Assurances Number One-General Federal 

Requirements and the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 USC 2201, et seq.), the 

airport owner (Greater Orlando Aviation Authority) is not authorized to sell, lease, encumber, or 

otherwise transfer or dispose of any part of its title or other interests in properties, if portions of 

the property were acquired utilizing Federal funds, for the duration of the terms, conditions, and 

assurances in the grant agreement without the approval by the FAA and the Secretary of the 

Department of Transportation. The FHSRA will coordinate with the Greater Orlando Airport 

Authority and the FAA throughout the duration of the project’s design phase and identification 

of proposed use of land in the vicinity of the Orlando International Airport. 

State Agency Comments 

Florida Department of Transportation, District Five

1. The FDOT is currently approving the 100 percent design plans for the reconstruction of the I4/US 192 Interchange in Osceola County (FM#242531-1-52-01). Reconstruction of the I-4 

mainline will be included as a part of this project. Once reconstruction occurs, the median of 

I-4 will be as shown in the attached typical sections. Please note that there are sections of the 

median that will be 40’ wide from face of guardrail to face of guardrail (see typical section 

#1, #2, #5). There are other sections of the median that will be reduced to 28’ (see typical 

section #3, #4). The minimum median width required by the proposers for high speed rail 

appears to be 44’. 

Response: The proposed high speed rail typical section identifies a 44-ft. envelope through 

the median of I-4 from face to face of a concrete barrier. It is anticipated that in some areas a 

10-ft. paved inside shoulder would be approved with construction of the high speed rail project. 

This 44-ft. horizontal envelope is consistent with FDOT policy guidance identifying rail envelope 

clearances for I-4 from the Howard Frankland Bridge in Hillsborough County to Michigan 

Street in Orange County and from Par Avenue in Orange County to I-95 in Volusia County. As 

provided in the referenced policy guideline, “exemptions from this policy must provide for the 

ultimate restoration of the envelope or provide engineering studies demonstrating the adequacy 
 

 6-33

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

of an alternative envelope suitable for the rail line.” As discussed with District 5, the current I-4 

improvements stated above are an interim improvement. When the high speed rail project enters 

the construction phase, the 44-ft. rail envelope will incorporate I-4 roadway improvements that 

have been agreed upon by FDOT. Continuing coordination will be required as the high speed 

rail project receives funding and moves into the design/build phase. 

2. The FDOT has let project 242523-1-52-01 that will 6-lane I-4 from the Polk County line up 

to US 192. Typical section #2 shows a 64’ median with 24’ consumed by inside shoulders 

leaving a 40’ median. 

Response: See response to Comment 1. 

3. As noted in the Draft EIS, there are existing bridges that do not provide vertical clearance for 

the train and will need to be reconstructed. Please identify those in the report. 

Response: Within District 5, CR 545 is identified as not having adequate vertical clearance; 

17.5 ft. was identified in the previously referenced FDOT policy guideline. The preliminary 

engineering conducted for the RFP identified a vertical profile that was depressed from the 

existing ground to provide the target 17.5-ft. vertical clearance. The proposer ranked number 1 

by the FHSRA (Flour-Bombardier) identified replacement of the structure at this crossing, 

including a cost allowance, as part of their proposal. 

4. Construction of this rail facility will greatly impact I-4 users. An approach to the actual 

construction on I-4 would need to be discussed in great detail as it is not in the Draft EIS. 

Response: The design/build consultant will be required by FHSRA to use FDOT Design and 

Specifications to meet requirements for maintenance of traffic plans during construction of high 

speed rail. Coordination with District 5 will include any concurrent construction along the I-4 

corridor. The design/build consultant will coordinate meetings for the development of the 

maintenance of traffic plans and the outcome of these meetings will be an acceptable plan to 

both FDOT and FHWA prior to approved use of the interstate ROW for high speed rail. 

5. District V is concerned about how incidents will be managed on I-4 and the appropriate 

response routes for emergency vehicles accessing the incident. In addition, what is the 

impact to the interstate when an incident occurs on the high speed rail? How are incidents 

responded to and what will be the impact on the interstate? 

Response: FRA will require the submittal and approval of specific plans addressing emergency 

and maintenance access to the guideway, construction access, and construction staging. The 

design/build process will address specific system safety and security in accordance with FRA 

regulations through development of a Safety Plan during final design. 

6. Barrier separation from the high speed rail and the interstate is a concern for this District. 

We have not seen adequate documentation on the type of barrier proposed or if it is 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-34

acceptable for this type of separation. We would like to see detailed documentation on this 

barrier and examples of its use. 

Response: The FHSRA has identified the barrier requirements for the FHSR, as identified in the 

RFP documents, and as stated in the Final EIS. The barrier requirements are as follows: 

• Meeting requirements of NCHRP Report 350 Test Level (TL) 5 guidelines shall be 

installed between the high speed ground transportation system guideway and the parallel 

roadway. Such barriers shall be installed where the highway is on tangent 

• Where the highway is on curve and within 100 ft. of a highway curve, reinforced concrete 

barriers, meeting the requirements of NCHRP Report 350 TL 6 guidelines, shall be 

installed between the high speed ground transportation system guideway and the parallel 

roadway. 

• Where the guideway is on earthen fill structure with vertical walls exceeding 4 ft. in 

height above the roadway shoulder, barrier walls shall not be required. 

• Where the guideway is on pier supported structures within 100 ft. of the highway, 

NCHRP Report 350 TL 5 barriers shall be required to protect guideway piers and 

occupants of highway vehicles. 

FHWA has stated that the function of the barriers is to keep motor vehicles out of the fixed 

guideway, not to keep trains constrained to the guideway. FHWA, in coordination with FDOT, 

will evaluate the barrier concept that must be accepted in order for FHWA to approve the use of 

the I-4 median. Coordination with the Fluor-Bombardier team is on-going and will continue 

throughout the design/build phase to develop an acceptable barrier plan. 

The FHSR would be required to determine protective measures necessary to prevent intrusions 

of vehicular traffic, unauthorized persons, large animals and objects into the rail alignment from 

the surrounding highway system and overpasses. FHSRA is further required to obtain any and 

all associated approvals for the barrier, fencing, and intrusion detection systems, in addition to 

any protective measures that would be required from all Federal and State agencies having 

jurisdiction within the corridors proposed for use by the FHSR. 

Florida Department of Transportation, District Seven

1. Section S.9.1, page S-22: This section, in addition to the MOA itself, will need to be 

revised/updated based on the recent meeting held with the FHSRA consultants 

(HNTB/Parsons) on October 8, 2003. During the meeting, we discussed the preliminary 

engineering analysis our District requested that was required to properly address the potential 

impacts of the FHSR alignment alternative in the vicinity of the Tampa Interstate Study (TIS) 

I-4/I-275 interchange (ultimate ROW footprint). Their proposal is to construct the rail line 

structure spanning over the I-4/I-275 interchange (and all of it’s ramps), aligned within the 
 

 6-35

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

median, which would avoid impacts/revisions to our TIS/EIS interchange concept. We 

agreed that this proposal was acceptable.

We also agreed that an optional alignment located south of the interchange could potentially 

work, but it would require additional in-depth engineering analysis to assure the proposed 

structures would avoid additional R/W acquisition from the Ybor City Historic Landmark 

District. This analysis could be pursued as part of a future re-evaluation of the FHSR EIS. 

Given their proposal to span the interchange and avoid any adverse effects to the TIS/EIS I4/I-275 ultimate interchange concept, we would recommend that Secretary Abreu sign the 

MOA once this proposal is documented within the MOA and the FHSR Draft EIS. Also, the 

third sentence of this paragraph, the FHSRA should be added since they are a signatory on 

the MOA along with FDOT, FHWA, and FRA. 

Response: This FEIS includes the revised Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) reflecting the 

interchange engineering analyses, see Appendix B. Analysis presented to FDOT District 7 staff 

identified the coordination issues involving an alignment within the ultimate interchange for the 

I-275/I-4 corridor. Based on this additional coordination, the FEIS, with a MOA, has been 

prepared with the understanding that the FHSR alignment within the ultimate ROW footprint 

will not adversely affect current construction operations and improvements, and continued 

coordination will occur to minimize slight revisions to the design concepts for the ultimate 

improvements that may occur. The MOA includes a commitment to avoid impacts or additional 

ROW to the Ybor Historic District during final design. The FHSRA and FDOT have signed the 

MOA, and it is included in Appendix B of this FEIS.

2. Section S.2, S.6.11, S.9.1, 1.2, 4.1.7 (p 4-20), 5.2: Within these sections it is stated that the I4 Master Plan and the TIS set aside R/W to accommodate high speed rail. This is not true. 

The I-4 Master Plan and TIS set aside an envelope within the median for lightrail transit or 

HOV lanes, and it was always the intent that when these modes of transportation were 

developed further that another environmental document would be necessary to document the 

environmental impacts of that proposed facility. Again, the TIS MOA did not anticipate the 

impacts (e.g. noise, vibration, etc.) of a high speed rail facility. The FHSR EIS will need to 

document these impacts. This language throughout the document must be changed/reworded 

because it is inaccurate and misleading. 

Response: Sections S.2, S.9.1 and 1.2 have been modified to reflect that the median is for 

light rail transit or HOV lanes. Section S.6.11 and 4.1.7 (pages 4-20) were not changed. Impacts 

documented in the Draft EIS, due to the FHSR, were evaluated independently from the previous 

TIS project. The agreements and documentation contained within both the Draft and Final EIS 

address impacts to historic structures based upon the high speed rail analysis of proposed 

alternatives. 

All editorial comments have been noted and the Final EIS has been revised to reflect these 

comments. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-36

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

[FDEP] staff advises the applicant to provide additional information on potential impacts to 

public conservation lands adjacent to the proposed project corridor. Coordination with FDEP 

Central and Southwest Regulatory District staff regarding waste disposal, potential groundwater 

impacts, air quality attainment status, and Environmental Resource Permitting issues is also 

highly recommended. 

Response: Comment noted. Additional information on potential impacts to public conservation 

lands are provided in Sections 4.2.5 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). 

FHSRA will coordinate as needed with the FDEP Central and Southwest Regulatory District 

regarding the issues outlined above. 

Based on the information contained in the Draft EIS and comments provided by the reviewing 

agencies, the state has determined that, at this stage, the subject project is consistent with the 

Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP). The applicant must, however, address the 

concerns identified by FDEP, FDOT, DOS, SWFWMD, and SFWMD staff as described in the 

enclosed comments. All subsequent environmental documents prepared for this project must be 

reviewed to determine the project’s continued consistency with the FCMP. The state’s continued 

concurrence with the project will be based, in part, on the adequate resolution of any issues 

identified during this and subsequent reviews. 

Response: Comment noted. Currently, the FHSRA is addressing the concerns identified by the 

agencies referenced and is responding to each of them individually. FHSRA will provide FDEP 

with a copy of the individual agency letters. The FHSRA is committed to resolving any issues 

identified in the review of the Draft EIS. Resolution of such issues are reflected in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). 

Representative Andy Gardiner, Florida State House of Representatives, District 40

As the State Representative for District 40, I represent a large portion of Orange County through 

which the high speed train would travel. Therefore, I have responsibility to once again state my 

position in support of the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) route and against the Greeneway 

(S.R. 417). 

This constitutional mandate should serve the best interests of the taxpayers that voted for it. As a 

publicly funded project, it should serve the entire community and not just one private entity. The 

Orange County Board of Commissioners has stated the high speed rail project should serve the 

convention center and I agree. Therefore, the Bee Line Expressway is the only reasonable option 

as it connects the Orlando International Airport to the OCCC. 

Response: The FHSRA revised the Preferred Alternative to a combination of the I-4 alignment 

in Hillsborough and Polk counties and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment in Orange 

County (gas turbine technology) on November 10, 2004. 
 

 6-37

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

The Greeneway route presents safety and logistical issues that must not be ignored during the 

route decision process. Several schools directly abut the 417 ROW, including Meadow Woods 

Middle School, Hunter’s Creek Middle School, Primrose School, Endeavor Elementary School, 

Meadow Woods Elementary School and the new Vistas Elementary School. Putting a major rail 

system in the backyards of our schools near the Greeneway could potentially lead to hazardous 

conditions for our school children. This is not an acceptable risk. 

Moreover, there are unanswered questions about the High Speed Rail Authority’s use of the 

Greeneway. Have the true costs of using the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority’s 

corridor been analyzed? What will be the long term cost of using the Expressway’s ROW? 

Which organization will be responsible for design features (i.e. sound walls, retained earth walls, 

etc.) that may have to be added to compensate for changes in the environment as a result of the 

project’s implementation? Who will be responsible for liability issues if a train accident occurs 

on the corridor? What will be the cost of compensation to the Expressway for lost revenues 

caused by the placement of the train on the corridor? There are many issues that have not been 

addressed concerning the usage of the Greeneway. 

Response: The FHSRA revised the Preferred Alternative to a combination of the I-4 alignment 

in Hillsborough and Polk counties and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment in Orange 

County (gas turbine technology). The Preferred Alternative does not use the Greeneway. 

South Florida Water Management District

1. Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) Corridor – The SFWMD has fee title to the wetlands 

adjacent to and west of Shingle Creek, south of the existing S.R. 528 ROW. The wetland 

system is part of the SFWMD’s Save Our Rivers Shingle Creek Project. To date, the 

SFWMD has acquired approximately 1700 ac. within the 7600 ac. project. These lands are 

managed by the SFWMD’s Land Stewardship Department. SFWMD ownership within the 

Shingle Creek Project extends from S.R. 528 to the Orange/Osceola County line. If this 

corridor is selected as the final route, the proposed rail project should be constructed within 

the existing ROW. Any proposed impacts to the wetlands associated with Shingle Creek 

should be avoided. Despite increased development in the vicinity of the creek, the creek 

corridor is still used by many wildlife species. On any given day, deer, otter, raccoon, and 

other tracks are visible in the mud beneath the S.R. 528 bridge. The wetlands along Shingle 

Creek at S.R. 528 extend approximately 3 mi. to the north and nearly 12 mi. to the south, all 

the way to Lake Tohopekaliga. 

Response: The FHSRA’s Preferred Alternative is a combination of the I-4 alignment in 

Hillsborough and Polk counties and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment in Orange 

County (gas turbine technology). 

The process of avoidance will be evaluated further for alignment modification during final 

design. This is documented in Section 4.2.5 of the Final EIS. In addition, a continuing process 

of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation will be a significant effort performed during the 

permitting phase of this project. This process will be critical for the justification of the chosen 

alignment. Avoidance and minimization was, however, addressed during the development of 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-38

alternatives and Draft EIS process. The alignments have been revised several times in an effort 

to avoid various environmental concerns (historical, wetlands, contamination etc.). 

At this time, proposed wetland mitigation will be pursuant to S. 373.4137 F.S. (Senate Bill 1986) 

to satisfy all mitigation requirements of Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 U.S.C.s 1344. Under 

S. 373.4137 F.S., mitigation of FHSR wetland impacts will be implemented by the appropriate 

WMD where the impacts occur. Each WMD develops a regional wetland mitigation plan on an 

annual basis to be approved by the Florida State Legislature that addresses the estimated 

mitigation needs. The WMD will then provide wetland mitigation for specific project impacts 

through a corresponding mitigation project within the overall approved regional mitigation 

plan. FHSRA will provide funding to the WMD for implementation of such mitigation projects. 

An emphasis will placed on attempting to provide in-kind mitigation in the same local basin and 

in accordance with the appropriate mitigation ratios. Section 4.2.5 Wetlands, of the Final EIS 

includes this discussion. 

2. Central Florida Greenway (S.R. 417) Corridor - The SFWMD has fee title to the wetlands 

adjacent to Shingle Creek (east and west sides) both north and south of the existing S.R. 417 

ROW. The SFWMD’s property ownership extends north of S.R. 417 along Shingle Creek to 

about 4.5 mi. south of S.R. 528. Any proposed acquisition and additional ROW for the 

proposed rail project would fragment the wetlands along the creek and jeopardize the wildlife 

species using the creek corridor. 

Response: The FHSRA’s Preferred Alternative is a combination of the I-4 alignment in 

Hillsborough and Polk counties and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment in Orange 

County (gas turbine technology). Thus, no wetlands will be affected in the Greenway Corridor. 

3. In previous correspondence on this project, the applicant was advised that, pursuant to the 

Operating Agreement between the FDEP and the SFWMD, the FDEP will be conducting the 

review of the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application for this project. However, 

there are various references in the Draft EIS to both agencies being involved in the ERP 

review process. 

Response: Comment noted. The Final EIS is amended to reflect this comment. 

4. Section 4.7.2 of the Draft EIS (page 4-114) should indicate that a Water Use Permit may be 

required from the SFWMD for certain construction dewatering activities. 

Response: Comment noted. That change is reflected in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (Final EIS). 

Southwest Florida Water Management District

1. Pursuant to Chapter 62-113, F.A.C. and the Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation 

Under Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. Between SWFWMD and Department of Environmental 

Protection, Section II.A.1.(q) and (r), the FDEP has regulatory authority over wetland 

resources and surface water management for the FHSR project. Therefore, the DEP will be 
 

 6-39

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

the agency responsible for the issuance of any required Environmental Resource Permits in 

the project study area occurring within the District. 

Response: Comment noted. Section S.12 of the Final EIS provides a summary of the agencies 

who will be overseeing the permitting process.

2. A “Works of the District” permit may be required to cross the Tampa By-Pass Canal. This 

will depend on where the crossing would occur and whether any impacts would occur outside 

of the Department of Transportation Right of Way. This crossing will also require 

coordination with the District’s Land Resources and Operations Departments and the 

USACE, which must approve any projects involving the Tampa By-Pass Canal. 

Response: The Tampa Bypass Canal crossing will be upstream from a flood control weir, within 

non-navigable Tampa Bypass Canal. The FHSR alignment will be between the existing bridge 

structures over Tampa Bypass Canal, within the median of I-4. As the FHSR project moves into 

the design/build phase, coordination for required permits will be conducted with applicable 

agencies. 

3. Any wells requiring abandonment due to construction in the railway corridor, within the 

District, will require abandonment by a Florida certified well driller and a permit from the 

District. Also, water supply wells, or other potable sources, associated with stations located 

within the District may require a Water Use Permit as well. 

Response: Comment noted. The need for either permit will be identified during the Design and 

Permitting phases of the FHSR project. 

Local Agency Comments 

City of Auburndale and Town of Polk City

The City of Auburndale and the Town of Polk City strongly suggest that the Polk County 

terminal be located in East Lakeland at the I-4/Polk Parkway East interchange. The two local 

governments cite various reasons why a terminal at this location should be considered including: 

proximity to the newly selected site for the University of South Florida; a majority of the County 

population resides on the east side of the Polk Parkway; more central location that provides 

easier access to residents on both sides of the County via the Polk Parkway thereby increasing 

travel on the Polk Parkway; and there is large amount of land available for a rail terminal at this 

location. 

Response: The ridership analysis included detailed origin-destination questionnaires 

throughout the corridor. The proposed station locations identified in the Draft EIS included 

both the Kathleen Road interchange and the West Polk Parkway interchange as potential sites 

for the Polk County station. The Kathleen Road interchange area will require that the mainline 

of the high speed rail alignment leave the median of I-4 unless the interstate is reconstructed to 

allow additional median width. Under either scenario this is additional cost versus locating the 

station in the median as the area at the West Polk Parkway site would allow. The West Polk 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-40

Parkway site provides a strong indication of attracting riders from the Lakeland/Polk County 

area currently utilizing Polk Parkway into Tampa/Hillsborough County. The West Polk 

Parkway station utilizes this ridership attraction as a park and ride facility. The Kathleen Road 

interchange area provides an existing population center and proximity to local transit that will 

provide a ridership base for a potential station. With consideration of these factors, the Final 

EIS documents the environmental impacts of both sites as a potential station. This will allow for 

additional coordination by the City of Auburndale and Polk County with the Design, Build, 

Operate, Maintain and Finance (DBOM&F) Team and the FHSRA for concurrence on a final 

station site.

City of Lakeland, Community Development Department

The City of Lakeland Community Development Department made the following comments to be 

included in the record for the FHSR public hearing. 

Comment A Of the final two vendors for the high speed rail system, one proposed a system 

driven by what appears to be similar to jet engines. While each system is sure to have various 

advantages and disadvantages, we are quite concerned about the noise impacts from a system 

that would utilize jet-engine type power. Even without a station near residential uses, to have 

such a train traverse residential areas along the corridor could be disruptive to residents and 

potentially have an adverse effect upon the value of impacted properties. 

Response: Based on the comparative noise analysis of the gas turbine system and the electrified 

system, the noise impacts of the gas turbine train are similar if not less than the electric train. 

This analysis results from the consideration of a number of variables that are specific to each 

proposed system including: proximity of the receiver to the track, the train speed at the specific 

receiver, and the track height at the specific receiver. The combinations of these factors, the two 

power sources for operation, and the consideration of additional trips proposed in the 

operations plan of the electric train cause the electric train to have more overall noise impacts 

than the gas turbine train. The FHSRA has committed to mitigating noise impacts that exceed 

the FRA’s criteria for severe impacts. Mitigation will be coordinated with local communities 

during the final design phases of the project. 

On the other hand, it would seem crucial that any electric-driven system have substantial back-up 

systems for reliability during the frequent storm events that Central Florida experiences that 

include high frequency lightning events to potential hurricane-force events. Given that residents 

and businesses frequently experience electricity outages during storm events, electric-based 

systems may be perceived to be vulnerable to these same events. The reliability of the train is 

important for daily users of the train as well as those who might use the train during an 

emergency and/or coastal evacuations situation. 
 

 6-41

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Response: Power would be supplied from three substations along the route from Tampa to 

Orlando so that even if one of the substations is unable to supply power, the others will take 

over. 

Comment B We understand that the high speed rail system route will be within the I-4 

corridor, not CSX rail, in the Lakeland area. We also understand from both vendors that an issue 

of the I-4 corridor as regards any station location is the width of the median, i.e. width of land 

available upon which to build the Lakeland area station site. We would appreciate confirmation 

of the interchange locations at which an adequate median width exists for a high speed rail 

station within the vicinity of the City of Lakeland. The vendors contend it only exists at the I4/West Polk Parkway interchange (excepting perhaps US 98 interchange since it is being built to 

the 10 lane master plan design for I-4.) Also, it is not clear if it might be economically feasible 

to design the proposed interchange on I-4 for the Williams DRI property and possible USF 

campus to accommodate a station in the median at that location. 

Response: The I-4 median does not provide adequate width for a station within the vicinity of 

the City of Lakeland unless the I-4 mainline is redesigned. The preliminary engineering phase of 

the FHSR project accounts for the approved future buildout of I-4 to the proposed ultimate 

improvements. The I-4 interim phase currently under construction is based on this ultimate plan 

with respect to drainage and ROW requirements. Any revisions to the current ultimate plans and 

the interim improvements, including accommodation of a median station within the proposed 

interchange associated with the Williams DRI/USF Campus, will result in additional 

reconstruction of the I-4 mainline and the acquisition of additional ROW. 

We remain concerned that both vendors seem decided about this Western Polk Parkway station 

location even though it is fairly removed from much of the City and County’s residential 

populations and is not located where future densities are likely or suitable. After all, station 

location proximate to a population/ridership base would seem to correlate strongly to ridership 

numbers and financial feasibility of the system. 

Response: The ridership analysis included detailed origin-destination questionnaires 

throughout the corridor. The proposed station locations identified in the Draft EIS included 

both the Kathleen Road interchange and the West Polk Parkway interchange as potential sites 

for the Polk County station. The Kathleen Road interchange area will require that the mainline 

of the high speed rail alignment leave the median of I-4 unless the interstate is reconstructed to 

allow additional median width. Under either scenario this is additional cost versus locating the 

station in the median as the area at the West Polk Parkway side would allow. The West Polk 

Parkway site provides a strong indication of attracting riders from the Lakeland/Polk County 

area currently utilizing Polk Parkway into Tampa/Hillsborough County. The West Polk Parkway 

station utilizes this ridership attraction as a park and ride facility. The Kathleen Road 

interchange area provides an existing population center and proximity to local transit that will 

provide a ridership base for a potential station. With consideration of these factors, the Final 

EIS documents the environmental impacts of both sites as a potential station. This will allow for 

additional coordination by the City of Lakeland and Polk County with the Design, Build, 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-42

Operate, Maintain and Finance (DBOM&F) Team and the FHSRA for concurrence on a final 

station site. 

In addition, we have the following concerns about any station location: 

• Proximity to existing fixed route transit and costs to extend transit facilities to 

the station; 

Response: Issues of extending modal connectivity to the proposed station site include extension 

of route service (i.e. bus service). The cost associated with extending local bus service to the 

station, for example, and the benefits to the service provider will require further coordination 

with the FHSRA and the operator of the High Speed Rail as design of station and specific 

operational plan and requirements are identified. This coordination will include the DBOM&F 

Team (Fluor-Bombardier) in the design/build phase. 

• Cost to the City (or County) to make any roadway improvements necessary for 

station accessibility. 

Response: Station locations were identified that anticipated minimal local roadway 

improvements. As stated in the RFP documents, proposers were required to consider design 

modifications and costs for improvements to local roads for the Kathleen Road interchange and 

the West Polk Parkway station sites. It is anticipated that roadway improvements in the 

immediate area of any station will be required as part of the FHSR and further coordination will 

identify specific roadway improvements in the design/build phase. Any roadway improvements 

will be coordinated with local agencies, including the City of Lakeland. 

• Visual impact of a high speed rail station if located vertically at a high point within the I4 median; and any operational impact of the station on the interchange itself. 

Response: Visual impacts of a station will be coordinated with various agencies, including the 

City of Lakeland, through the design/build phase of the project. Based on ridership estimates, 

the station locations will have minimal impact on interchange operations. 

Pinellas County MPO

We believe the initial phase from Pinellas County to Orlando should be reviewed at one time in 

this environmental impact evaluation. The decisions contained in the document as to the 

placement of stations could be affected by the additional information of the corridor west of 

downtown Tampa and across Tampa Bay to Pinellas County. The study had to presume a station 

in the vicinity of the downtown Tampa area and there was not an option to evaluate how that 

location might be affected with a broader perspective. Also, this broader perspective would also 

affect the selection of technology with respect to which company is selected. It is not 

documented as to which technology is better suited to proceed west through Tampa and across 

Tampa Bay to Pinellas County. 
 

 6-43

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Response: The FHSRA, in consultation with the FRA, determined the Tampa to Orlando 

segment represented logical termini for the first phase. In 2002, the FHSRA indicated the phase 

of the system to be built (Phase 1, Part 1) would be from Tampa to Orlando with an extension to 

St. Petersburg. The FHSRA completed the Draft EIS as part of the PD&E process for the Phase 

1, Part 1 project from Tampa to Orlando. The corridor west of downtown Tampa and across 

Tampa Bay extending to St. Petersburg would be included in Phase 1, Part 2 of the project 

implementation. The proposed station location in Tampa does allow flexibility to potentially 

extend the tracks to the west. As of this date, Phase 1, Part 2 has been the subject of a 

preliminary planning level study, which was presented in the FHSRA’s 2002 Report to the 

Legislature. According to the FHSRA 2004 Report to the Governor and Legislature, Phase 1, 

Part 2 from Tampa to St. Petersburg will be evaluated in more detail by the FHSRA subject to 

funding in fiscal year 2004-05. The selection of appropriate technology for the corridor from 

Tampa across Tampa Bay to Pinellas County was not within the scope of the preliminary 

planning level study; however, it should be addressed as part of Phase I, Part 2. 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

The Planning Council’s finding states the Draft EIS is consistent with the Strategic Regional 

Policy Plan (SRPP); but also notes the referenced project does not extend into Pinellas County. 

Response: In 2002, the Authority indicated the first phase of the system to be built (Phase 1, 

Part 1) would be from Tampa to Orlando with an extension to St. Petersburg. The extension to 

St. Petersburg is Phase 1, Part 2 of the project implementation. As of this date, Phase 1, Part 2 

has been the subject of a preliminary planning level study, which was presented in the 

Authority’s 2002 Report to the Legislature. 

Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County

1. Wetlands appear to exist within the portion of the project within Hillsborough County and 

have not been delineated by the staff of the EPC. A formal determination of the wetland 

boundary is necessary to determine the avoidance of wetland impacts during 

site development. 

Response: A formal wetland jurisdictional survey will be produced during the permitting 

effort. Review and approval of these lines will be conducted by appropriate local, state and 

federal agencies. 

2. Once the EPC Wetland Line is established, it must be surveyed by a surveyor registered in 

the State of Florida. The surveyed wetland line must be approved by the EPC staff and 

incorporated into the site plan for the project. Prior to a recommendation of construction 

plan approval from this agency, the wetland delineation for this property must be completed 

through the submittal of Specific Purpose Wetland Delineation Surveys to this agency for 

review and approval. The approved wetland lines must be shown on all future plan 

submittals. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-44

Response: Comment noted. The FHSRA will comply with the procedure as outlined above. 

3. Wetland lines, wetland areas and wetland setback lines must be labeled “EPC Wetland Line”, 

“Wetland Conservation Area” or “Wetland Preservation Area”, and “30-ft. Wetland 

Conservation Area Setback Line” or 50-ft. Wetland Preservation Area Setback Line” 

respectively. Failure to properly label these features on future plans may result in a 

recommendation of denial from this agency. 

Response: Comment noted. All future plans will be labeled as outlined above. 

4. A 30-ft. setback must be maintained around Wetland Conservation Areas and a 50-ft. setback 

must be maintained around Wetland Preservation Areas, with no land alteration therein. 

Land alterations within this setback are restricted, as per the Hillsborough County Land 

Development Code. Exceptions are allowed only with specific recommendation of the EPC 

and with approval of Hillsborough County’s Natural Resources Review Team of the 

Planning and Growth Management Department, and/or the Land Use Hearing Officer. The 

setback line must also be shown on all future plan submittals. 

Response: Comment noted. Setbacks from wetland boundaries will need to be coordinated 

during the permitting phase. Setback lines will be shown on all future plan submittals. 

5. Chapter 1-11.01, The EPC Wetland Rule, states that development requiring mitigation be an 

avenue of last resort when reasonable use of the property is otherwise unavailable. The 

applicant shall seek to first avoid all impacts to wetlands. If avoidance is impossible, then 

minimization of the impact to the least amount of encroachment necessary will be 

considered. A wetland impact justification and mitigation proposal must be submitted to the 

EPC along with the appropriate review fee. The encroachment/mitigation plan should be for 

the project in its entirety. In addition, Chapter 1-11.08, Wetlands, Rules of the EPC requires 

at a minimum “acre for acre replacement of the same or better type of wetland.” 

Response: A formal wetland jurisdictional survey will be produced during the permitting 

effort. Review and approval of these lines will be conducted by appropriate local, state and 

federal agencies. At this time, wetland impacts, which will result from the construction of this 

project, will be mitigated pursuant to S. 373.4137 F.S. (Senate Bill 1986) to satisfy all wetland 

mitigation requirements of Part IV Chapter 373, F.S. and 33 U.S.C.s. 1344. Under this statute, 

transportation improvement mitigation can be achieved through long range planning, rather 

than a project-by-project basis. The mitigation is carried out by either the FDEP or the WMD. 

Under S. 373.4137 F.S., mitigation of FHSR wetland impacts will be implemented through the 

FDEP. Each WMD has developed a regional wetland mitigation plan to address the estimated 

mitigation needs. This plan is updated on an annual basis and approved by the Florida State 

Legislature. 

Informational Comments: The Hillsborough EPC also submitted comments regarding impact 

justification and mitigation, construction plans and other comments of a general nature. 
 

 6-45

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Response: Comments have been noted. 

Air Division Comments:

Dust – FHSRA is responsible for minimizing the generation of dust and effectively addressing 

all nuisance complaints that may arise during both the construction and operational phases of the 

project. 

Response: Comment noted. 

Noise – Several of the proposed corridor alignments pass through noise sensitive areas of 

Hillsborough County. During the rail construction phase, FHSRA must adhere to the noise 

standards set forth in Chapter 1-10, Rules of the EPC. We also request the opportunity to review 

and comment on any studies/reports detailing the project noise impacts to surrounding areas. 

FHSRA is additionally required to comply with the noise criteria and guidelines set forth by the 

Federal Transit Administration during the operation of rail service. 

Response: Comment noted. FHSRA, in coordination with the FRA (as the lead federal 

agency) and EPA, will comply with all applicable Federal noise standards, criteria and 

guidelines in the construction phase and in the operation of rail service. 

Building demolition/ renovation – FHSRA must comply with State regulations set forth in 

F.A.C. 62-204 and the Federal NESHAP standards, as adopted by EPC, regarding building 

demolitions and renovations. 

Response: Comment noted. FHSRA will comply with all applicable State and Federal 

standards and regulations. 

Asbestos – FHSRA must timely submit to EPC all required asbestos notifications, inspection 

reports and applicable fees. 

Response: Comment noted. FHSRA will comply with all applicable asbestos requirements. 

Open Burning – FHSRA must obtain authorization to conduct any open burning as it relates to 

land clearing activities. FHSRA should be made aware that open burning for purposes other than 

land clearing is not permitted in Hillsborough County. FHSRA is also responsible for all 

applicable inspection fees. 

Response: Comment noted. FHSRA will comply with all applicable requirements regarding 

open burning. 

Additional Comments

Several designated site are expected to be severely impacted with noise by rail operations. A 

map of noise contours detailing the noise levels and the extent to which they are expected to 

emanate from the rail line would be a beneficial visual in understanding the noise impact. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-46

Response: Comment noted. 

It should be noted that Hillsborough County is moderately attaining the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards. Nationally, oxides of nitrogen (NOX) is the predominate ozone precursor, 

and it has proven to be the most difficult to control. Based on the Draft EIS methodology used to 

calculate net emissions of high speed rail implementation, Hillsborough County should expect a 

net increase in NOX emissions using either the gas turbine or electric technology as a 

power source. 

Response: The primary objective of the air quality evaluation was to demonstrate that the 

FHSR project would not require a conformity determination in accordance with the General 

Conformity Rule (40CFR Part 93 Subpart B). For the purpose of demonstrating that a 

conformity determination would not be required, a worst-case approach was used in the air 

quality evaluation for both the gas turbine and electric technologies. The FHSRA has 

recommended the Fluor-Bombardier Team as the First Preferred Proposer utilizing the gas 

turbine technology. Based on the worst case approach, the NOX emissions net increase for the 

Preferred Alternative is 52.6 tons per year. EPA has designated Hillsborough County as a 

maintenance area for ozone; therefore, the General Conformity Rule is applicable to the portion 

of the FHSR project in Hillsborough County. Predicted increases in VOC or NOX for the 

design/build alternatives are less than the de minimis rates (100 ton per year rate of increase) 

documented in the General Conformity Rule; therefore, a conformity determination is not 

required for this project. 

School Board of Orange County

The School Board of Orange County submitted comments expressing strong opposition to the 

proposed Greeneway route and cited a number of reasons including: the route goes through 

residential neighborhoods and is adjacent to several Orange County public schools; the noise and 

vibrations of any technology being considered is likely to have a negative impact on the 

residential communities and schools and therefore on the quality of life of residents and quality 

of the learning environment for students; and unforeseen safety issues. Further, the School 

Board expressed concerns regarding route service to the OCCC and Disney World, considering 

the significant investments made by local taxpayers. The School Board also noted that a stop at 

both OCCC and Disney World would provide an opportunity for increased ridership and 

revenues because Disney and the International Drive businesses could market visitor packages 

that include rail transportation as an amenity. The School Board urged the High Speed Rail 

Authority to consider the Bee Line Expressway route as a viable option. The School Board 

stated the Bee Line Expressway route would be the most economically feasible and least 

intrusive route if Disney fully participates. 

Response: The FHSRA’s Preferred Alternative is a combination of the I-4 alignment in 

Hillsborough and Polk counties and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment in Orange 

County (gas turbine technology). 
 

 6-47

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Regarding noise and vibrations, the noise impacts of the gas turbine train, based on the 

comparative noise analysis of the gas turbine system and the electrified system, are similar if not 

less than the electric train. Noise impacts for all of the design/build alternatives that were 

considered are attributed to track proximity and height, as well as train speed. The noise and 

vibration analysis completed as part of the environmental documentation for FHSR included 

schools. The FHSRA has committed to mitigating noise impacts that exceed the FRA’s criteria 

for severe impacts. Mitigation will be coordinated with local communities during the final design 

phases of the project. 

The FHSRA shares the concern regarding public safety and considers this the highest priority as 

we proceed with this project. The design/build process will address specific system safety and 

security in accordance with FRA standards through development of a safety plan following 

approval of the environmental process. 

Polk Group of Sierra Club, Florida Chapter

The Polk Group of Sierra Club, Florida Chapter submitted written comments to be included in 

the record for FHSR project public hearing. 

The Polk Group of Sierra Club, Florida Chapter would like indicate to the FHSRA its preference 

for the Global Rail Consortium Electric (GRC) Train System alternative. 

Response: Comment noted and has been made known to the FHSRA. FHSRA has selected the 

technology based on project costs, systems operation, and environmental considerations; 

however, the selected design/build firm has been directed to identify costs for a potential future 

transition to electric technology. 

The Polk Group of Sierra Club, Florida Chapter strongly supports both rail alternatives including 

the wildlife corridors in their part of the I-4 alignment. 

Response: The FDOT has committed to providing wildlife crossings along I-4 during 

construction of the ultimate interstate improvements. Since the High Speed Rail is considered to 

be a viable portion of the ultimate I-4 corridor, the selected proposer will include wildlife 

crossings in its final design.

The Polk Group of Sierra Club, Florida Chapter also supports the preferred route alternative 

through the I-4 corridor as proposed. 

Response: Comment noted. 

It should also be noted that the Draft EIS didn’t appear to clearly describe the impact avoidance 

and cost differential by the trip rate reductions to the Interstate system against the cost and 

impacts providing for these trip rates through interstate expansion. 

Response: The ridership forecasts, completed for year 2010, indicated a reduction of over 

750,000 vehicles annually traveling on I-4. This reduction is not sufficient to significantly 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-48

improve the level of service on I-4 with many segments of the roadway remaining at over 

capacity. The ultimate I-4 improvements envisioned, with the addition of an alternative mode of 

transportation within the interstate corridor, will still be required for acceptable levels of service 

for interstate operations. Additional information on the ridership analysis is found 

in the Investment Grade Ridership Study.

League of Environmental Organizations 

The League of Environmental Organizations (LEO) submitted written comments to be included 

in the record for the FHSR project public hearing. 

1. The LEO supports the statements made on behalf of the Sierra Club, Polk Group. 

Response: Comment noted.

2. It should be noted that the design criteria for the wildlife corridors are water-centered. While 

the primary function of these corridors is the safe movement of wildlife through the Interstate 

system that has been cut off since its construction, the secondary function is to make an effort 

to provide a more effective reconnection of the surface hydrology through these corridors. 

The environmental advantages are the reintroduction of water to the Peace River System east 

of S.R. 33 and I-4. The SWFWMD is proposing a recovery plan for the Peace River system 

and the reconnection of historic flows through the wildlife corridor will have a significant 

effect on its recovery. 

While there are environmental advantages to the reconnection of surface hydrology through 

eastern Green Swamp wildlife corridors, one of the principal advantages to the Green Swamp 

water centered wildlife corridors is flood hazard mitigation. Currently there are flood impact

stemming from the Lake Lowery area of Polk County and through the southern portions, and 

to a lesser degree, the median of, I-4. This area demonstrates a mixed basin surface 

hydrology and the flows will benefit the Withlacoochee River System as well as the 

Palatlakaha/Ocklawaha River system. 

Response: Comment noted.

3. The LEO study was the basis of a (MOA) between the SWFWMD, the FDEP, and the 

Florida DOT. This provided a consolidated mitigation area for all I-4 ROW including the 

acquisition required for the “ultimate expansion.” Nothing limits the FHSR system from 

participating in any additional mitigation required for the High Speed Rail Project. We 

recommend that the High Speed Rail Authority participate, as much as feasible, with the 

consolidated mitigation project. 

Response: It is the intent of the FHSR to provide wetland mitigation through Senate Bill 

1986 (F.S. Chapter 373.4137 Mitigation Requirements) and provide funding to the SWFWMD 

for the construction of new wetlands of equal or better function and value. 
 

 6-49

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

4. The LEO provided Florida DOT design criteria when constructing the wildlife corridors for 

the I-4 expansion. The LEO strongly recommends following these recommendation during 

its portion of construction in the I-4 ROW. A copy of these recommendations can be made 

available to the FHSRA by contacting John Ryan at the address or phone number listed 

above. 

Response: The FDOT has committed to providing wildlife crossings along I-4 during 

construction of the ultimate interstate improvements. Since the High Speed Rail is considered to 

be a viable portion of the Ultimate I-4 corridor, the successful proposer will include wildlife 

crossings in its final design.

Sierra Club, Florida Chapter

The Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club urges the commission to choose the electric technology of 

the Global Rail consortium over the diesel technology of Bombardier. This technology would be 

faster, less polluting, more energy efficient, and quieter. The electric train would be faster than 

diesel (150 mph versus 125 mph) between Orlando and Tampa. Although the time variation 

between the two modes is slight, speed difference will be more pronounced as this system is 

expanded to cities such as Miami where electric trains could travel there in one hour in fifteen 

minutes versus two hours and a half by diesel. An Electric Train would provide a real speed 

incentive for people to take mass transit instead of their SUV’s and automobiles. 

Response: Comment noted. The Sierra Club’s preference for the electric technology was 

made aware to the FHSRA. FHSRA has selected the technology based on project costs, systems 

operation, and environmental considerations; however, the selected design/build firm has been 

directed to identify costs for a potential future transition to electric technology.

Travel by high speed rail pollutes less than air or automobile transportation. When comparing 

the electric vs. diesel locomotion, electric emits fewer greenhouse gasses: Electric emits 30 

percent of Nitrous oxides vs. diesel engine. Carbon Monoxide gasses are reduced by 20 percent 

by using electric. Finally, Volatile Organic Compounds are reduced by 9.1 tons per year by 

electric locomotive use. 

Response: Comparing train technologies, the amount of emissions from a gas turbine train is 

higher than the amount of emissions from an electric train. This is a result of the relatively strict 

controls and emission reduction measures employed by power plants, which would be the source 

of electricity for the electric train technology. Overall, the FHSRA identified the gas turbine 

proposal as the Preferred Alternative with consideration of the environmental impacts, project 

costs, ridership, input received at the public hearing, and potential revenue. 

Electric-Powered trains will reduce foreign oil dependency because electric is twice as efficient 

as diesel. The comparison of electric vs. diesel consumption in BTU’s is 195,864 million BTU 

(electric) versus 373,029 million BTU (diesel) from Orlando to Tampa. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-50

Response: Energy requirements for fossil fuel consumption for the gas turbine engines are 

substantially higher than the fossil fuel required togenerate electricity for the electric trains. 

Highway energy consumption decreases for all alternatives due to diverted automobile ridership. 

The total change, however, is a negligible fraction of Florida’s total energy consumption for 

surface transportation (which includes all non-military vehicle operation on highways, 

railroads, and fixed-guideway public transportation). 

Electric technology integrates better in a community than diesel technology as it has thirty (30) 

percent less vibration impacts as diesel. Utilizing electric eliminates intrusive, overbearing mass 

transit systems. Businesses, residents, and mass transit will be come holistically integrated 

through 21st century community planning. 

Response: Comment noted.

The Global Rail bid has more carrying capacity than the Bombardier bid. This is reflected 

within the artificially low Bombardier price. They have a lower price for their transit system 

because they use only a single track from Tampa to Disney compared to a dual track for the 

Global Rail bid. This makes the Global route safer and easier to increase head ways as demand 

increases. 

Response: As stated previously, the FHSRA identified the gas turbine technology as the 

Preferred Alternative. At the subsequent December 2003 FHSRA Board meeting, the Authority 

directed the preferred proposer to include further options to the Preferred Alternative. These 

options include: 

• Double track for the entire alignment

• Provisions for future electrification.

The FHSRA considered the ridership and revenue projections of each proposal in identifying the 

preferred proposer. 

While the Sierra Club is concerned about the technology chosen for the above reasons, we are 

also concerned that the route serves the maximum number of people. The people of Florida 

passed the High Speed Rail Constitutional Amendments for the purpose connecting the major 

urban centers in the state with each other. The alignments going along the Bee Line Expressway 

to the OCCC would serve the citizens of Tampa and Orlando very well. However, the Greenway 

alignments straight to Disney effectively bypasses most of the people living in central and west 

Orange counties and major tourist destinations such as Sea World, Universal Studios and the 

OCCC. The Bee Line Expressway route would easily serve Disney and Osceola County as well 

as Sea World, Universal Studios and the OCCC. The Sierra Club questions why the citizens of 

Florida should fund or pay for a system that serves one customer? 
 

 6-51

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

Response: The FHSRA’s Preferred Alternative is a combination of the I-4 alignment in 

Hillsborough and Polk counties and the Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) alignment in Orange 

County (gas turbine technology). 

The Sierra Club supports the building of a high speed rail system in Florida. However, if the 

public is expected to support the building of this system, it is critical that it be built in a manner 

that best serves the residents of Florida. This can only be done by selecting the Global Rail 

Consortium bid. 

Response: Comment noted. FHSRA took into consideration environmental impacts, 

financial aspects of the proposal, strength of the Design/Build team and the proposed 

design/build costs. The FHSRA has recommended the Fluor-Bombardier Team as the First 

Preferred Proposer utilizing the gas turbine technology. 

 

East Polk Committee of 100

The East Polk Committee of 100 submitted written comments regarding the FHSR project. 

I attended the High Speed Rail Meeting on October 8, 2003 in Lakeland, Florida and in my 

remarks stated that it was unreasonable for the High Speed Rail Authority to throw out the 

possibility of a stop at the Polk Parkway and NE I-4 interchange. Our organization has gone on 

record in the past in this regard and want to again support a stop at the Polk Parkway and 

Northeast I-4 interchange. We strongly feel that this stop would benefit the entire county for the 

following reasons: 

• Better than 53 percent of the entire population of Polk County lives on the east side of the 

parkway. 

• The Polk Parkway provides easy access to both businesses and residents of both sides of 

the county. The other proposed locations would limit access from the entire eastern and 

southern sides of the county. The further removed from the Polk Parkway and East I-4 

interchange, the less the High Speed Rail will be used. 

• Increased travel on the Polk Parkway would significantly increase tolls helping to fund 

the expansion to full four-lanes on the NE leg. 

• This proposed stop would still be considered a Lakeland address due to recent 

annexation. 

• There is a great deal of open land in this area, which would provide well for parking lots, 

retail space, restaurants and car rental facilities. 

• It just makes sense that a revolutionary High Speed Rail System would be connected to a 

High Speed Roadway such as the Polk Parkway rather than obscure two-lane roads. 

• The University of South Florida has now picked the Northeast area of the parkway for 

their new campus. 

• The Williams’ Companies are in the process of getting ready to apply for an interchange, 

which would put a second interchange at the station. 
FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

6-52

We urge you to consider the stop, which ultimately would be the best thing for all of Polk 

County and the High Speed Rail system. 

Response: The ridership analysis included detailed origin-destination questionnaires 

throughout the corridor. The proposed station locations identified in the Draft EIS included 

both the Kathleen Road interchange and the West Polk Parkway interchange as potential sites 

for the Polk County station. The Kathleen Road interchange area will require that the mainline 

of the High Speed Rail alignment leave the median of I-4 unless the interstate is reconstructed to 

allow additional median width. Under either scenario this is additional cost versus locating the 

station in the median, as the area at the West Polk Parkway site would allow. The West Polk 

Parkway site provides a strong indication of attracting riders from the Lakeland/Polk County 

area currently utilizing Polk Parkway into Tampa/Hillsborough County. The West Polk 

Parkway station utilizes this ridership attraction as a park and ride facility. The Kathleen Road 

interchange area provides an existing population center and proximity to local transit that will 

provide a ridership base for a potential station. With consideration of these factors, the Final 

EIS includes the environmental impacts of both sites as a potential station, allowing for more 

than one site results in additional coordination by the cities of Lakeland, Auburndale, Polk City 

and Polk County with the Design, Build, Operate, Maintain and Finance (DBOM&F) Team for 

concurrence on a final station site during the design phase. 

6.5 REFERENCES 

1. Investment Grade Ridership Study; AECOM and Wilbur Smith Associates; 

November 20, 2002. 

2. Florida High Speed Rail Corridor Screening Report, PBS&J; October 2002. 
SECTION 7 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Education and Experience

William Fashouer, J.D. 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Juris Doctor 

David Valenstein 

Environmental Program Manager 

M.P.A. in Public Administration, B.F.A. and

B.A.R. in Architecture 

Mark Yachmetz 

Associate Administrator for Railroad 

Development 

B.S. in Civil Engineering 

Florida Department of Transportation

(FDOT)

Nazid Haddad, P.E. 

Manager of Passenger Rail Development 

Staff Director of Florida High Speed Rail

Authority

M.B.A. in Finance; B.S. in Civil Engineering;

and 12 years of experience in transportation 

planning, project development and 

environment, and program management. 

PBS&J

Document Preparers 

Sharon Phillips, AICP 

Florida Planning and Project Development 

Division Manager 

M.A. in Urban and Regional Planning, B.A. in 

Urban Geography and 27 years of experience

in transportation and land use planning

specifically in project management for federal

environmental assessment studies, 

transportation feasibility studies, and public 

involvement programs. 

Kim Warren 

Senior Transportation Planner 

B.S. in Biology and 13 years of transportation

experience including project management for

federal environmental assessment studies, 

highway planning and design, project

management and public involvement and 

quality assurance and quality control. 

 7-1

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Howard Newman, P.E. 

Project Manager 

B.S. in Civil Engineering with 18 years

experience in highway/rail engineering and 

environmental studies. 

Lee Strickland, P.E. 

Project Engineer 

B.S. in Civil Engineering with 15 years

experience in highway/rail engineering and 

environmental studies. 

Bryan Williams 

Senior Transportation Planner

41 years of experience in highway planning and 

design, project management, public

involvement and quality assurance and quality

control. 

Laurie Potier-Brown, RLA, AICP 

Senior Transportation Planner 

M.L.A. in Landscape Architecture, B.A. in 

Psychology and 13 years of experience in 

planning and project development,

transportation planning, and landscape 

architecture projects. 

Jennifer Codo-Salisbury

Senior Transportation Planner 

M.P.A. in Public Administration, B.A. in

Political Science and 5 years of experience in 

urban and transportation planning. 

Jason Kunkle, P.E. 

Senior Engineer 

B.S. in Civil Engineering and 6 years of

experience in civil engineering.

Data Collection and Analysis 

Chris Duncan 

Project Development Program Manager

B.A. in Biology and 31 years of experience in 

the public and private sectors including

preparation of environmental documents in 

response to provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. 

Gary Kleker, P.E. 

Transportation Planning Program Manager 

B.S. in Civil Engineering and 18 years of

experience in transportation engineering.

Mitchell Hammer

Project Manager 

B.S. in Finance/Real Estate and 16 years of real

estate experience with an emphasis on eminent 

domain appraisals and acquisition appraisal 

reviews. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

7-2
 7-3

Katherine Anamisis 

Transportation Planner 

M.A. in Urban and Regional Planning, B.S. in 

Environmental Science and Policy and 6 years

of experience in environmental planning and

geographical information systems (GIS). 

Wiatt Bowers, AICP 

Senior Transportation Planner 

M.S. in Urban and Regional Planning, B.A. in

Broadcast Journalism and 9 years of experience 

in travel demand modeling and land use and

transportation planning. 

Tiffany Crosby

Environmental Scientist 

B.S. in Biological Sciences and 5 years of

experience in environmental assessment. 

Tom Davidowicz

Senior Scientist 

B.S. in Biology and 11 years of experience in 

ecosystem management techniques, wetland 

delineation and mitigation site monitoring, and 

plant species identification. 

Daniel Doebler 

Senior Planner 

B.S. in Marine Biology and 20 years of 

transportation planning. 

Amy Krebs 

Environmental Scientist 

B.S. in Biology and 3 years of environmental 

experience. 

Raymond Kurz, Ph.D. 

Senior Environmental Scientist/ 

Project Manager 

Ph.D. in Philosophy, Public Health, M.S. in

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, B.S. in 

Zoology and 13 years of project management 

experience. 

Julie Ann Morris 

Senior Environmental Scientist 

M.S. in Biology, B.S. in Zoology and 8 years of

experience in environmental, wetland, and

aquatic science. 

Shayne Paynter, P.E. 

Senior Engineer 

M.E. in Water Resources Engineering, B.S. in 

Civil Engineering and 6 years of experience in

roadway and drainage engineering.

Andrew Tristan Perry

Environmental Scientist 

B.S. in Marine Science and 3 years of

environmental experience. 

Alice J. Price 

Transportation Planner

M.S. in Aviation Administration, B.S. in

Aerospace Administration, and 5 years of

experience in master planning and environmental

planning. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
 

7-4

Melisa Reiter

Senior Scientist 

B.S. in Marine Biology and 14 years of 

experience in marine permitting, and terrestrial, 

vegetative, and aquatic ecology. 

Allison Robinson 

Transportation Planner 

B.S. in Geography and 2 years of experience in

transportation planning. 

Oliver Rodrigues, P.E. 

Senior Engineer 

B.S. in Civil Engineering and 11 years of

experience in traffic operations, travel

characteristic studies and planning and

development studies. 

Julia Rowell, AICP 

Senior Planner 

B.A. in Business Administration and 13 years

of experience in transportation and land use 

planning and environmental studies. 

Mark Sawyer, M.A.I.

Senior Right-of-Way Agent 

B.S.B.A. in Real Estate and 30 years of real

estate appraisal experience specializing in

eminent domain assignments. 

Susan Shaw

Environmental Scientist 

B.S. in Limnology and 9 years of experience in

environmental science. 

Rebecca Spain Schwarz, AIA 

Manager of Special Projects 

Cultural Resource Coordinator 

M.A. in Architecture/Historic Preservation, 

B.S. in Design and Architecture and 21 years of

experience as an architectural and historic

preservation consultant. 

Patricia Steed

Senior Transportation Planner 

B.A. in Urban Planning and 25 years of

experience in transportation project 

management. 

Alison Stettner, AICP 

Senior Transportation Planner 

M.U.R.P. in Urban Planning, B.S. in

Environmental Science and 6 years of 

experience in urban and transportation 

planning. 

Craig Stout 

Environmental Scientist 

B.S. in Biological Sciences and 5 years of

experience in environmental science. 

Christopher Wilson, P.G.

Senior Transportation Planner 

B.S. in Geology and 14 years of experience in 

environmental issues.

James Wilt, Jr., P.E. 

Senior Permits Engineer

33 years of experience in the permitting of 

transportation projects. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
 7-5

Terrance Zable 

Senior Scientist 

M.P.A. in Public Administration, B.S. in Soil

Science and Land Use Planning and 16 years of

experience in natural resource analysis and 

environmental permitting. 

Technical Support

Scott Blaisel, E.I.

Engineering Technician 

B.S. in Civil Engineering and 3 years 

experience in CADD and engineering.

Ronnie Cooper 

Environmental Technician

Working toward a B.S. in Environmental

Engineering at the University of Central Florida 

and 1 year experience in wetland monitoring, 

GPS, and vegetation surveying.

Deborah German 

Senior Secretary

8 years of administrative and managerial

experience.

Brad Isler 

Engineering Technician 

Working toward B.S. in Civil Engineering at

the University of South Florida and 2 years of 

experience in civil engineering.

Kelly Jordan 

Graphic Designer 

B.A. in Management and 9 months of graphic 

design experience. 

Luz Melendez 

Senior Secretary

16 years of administrative, managerial and

database administration experience. 

Scott Shaw

Graphic Designer 

10 years of experience in graphic design. 

Karol Sihite, C.P.S. 

Senior Planning Technician 

Certified Professional Secretary (C.P.S) and 14

years of administrative experience. 

Dana Tirrell 

Administrative Assistant 

M.S. in Child Psychology, B.A. in Psychology

and 7 years of administrative experience.

Parsons Transportation Group

Data Collection and Analysis 

Duncan Allen 

Senior Technical Consultant 

M.S.E. in Civil Engineering with 29 years of

experience in rail/transit engineering.

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Robert De Santo 

Principal Technical Consultant 

Ph.D. in Environmental Studies with 35 years 

of environmental stewardship. 

William Neville 

Vice President

M.S.E. in Civil Engineering with 29 years of

experience in rail/transit engineering

PSI

Data Collection and Analysis 

Larry Moore, P.E. 

Vice President

B.S. in Civil Engineering with 16 years of 

experience in geotechnical studies. 

Don Polanis 

Vice President

B.S. in Civil Engineering with 14 years of 

experience in geotechnical studies. 

GEC

Data Collection and Analysis 

Gary Kuhns, P.E. 

Senior Geotechnical Engineer 

M.S.E. in Civil Engineering with 20 years 

experience in geotechnical studies. 

Mark Canty, P.E. 

Senior Project Manager 

B.S. in Civil Engineering with 18 years

experience in geotechnical and contamination 

studies. 

HNTB 

Document Preparers 

Caron Kloser 

Senior Planner 

NEPA Support 

M.S. in Horticulture, B.S. in Agronomy with 18 

years experience in environmental document 

preparation. 

Data Collection and Analysis 

Thomas R. Biggs, Jr., P.E. 

General Consultant Deputy Program Director, 

Transportation Planning

Florida Professional Engineer with over 25 

years experience in the area of transportation 

planning. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

7-6
 7-7

Kate Brady, E.I.

Staff Engineer 

Transportation Planning

B.S. in Civil Engineering with 3 years of

experience in transportation engineering.

Charles H. Quandel, P.E. 

Vice President – Rail

Rail Engineering

M.S. and B.S. in Civil Engineering with over 32 

years experience in rail and transportation 

projects. 

Adrian B. Share, P.E. 

Senior Vice President

General Consultant Program Director 

B.S. in Civil Engineering with 19 years of 

experience in major transportation projects. 

Kevin J. Thibault, P.E. 

Vice President – Orlando Office 

PD&E Project Manager

B.S. in Civil Engineering with 18 years of 

experience in major transportation projects. 

Archeological Consultants Inc (ACI)

Data Collection and Anaylsis 

Marion Almy

President

M.A. in Anthropology and 28 years of

experience in cultural resource management. 

Joan Deming

Vice President 

M.A. in Anthropology and 28 years of

experience in cultural resource management. 

Kimberly Hinder

Architectural Historian 

M.H.P. in Historic Preservation and 11 years of

experience in cultural resource management. 

Carrie Scupholm 

Architectural Historian

M.A. in Historic Preservation Planning and 15 

years of experience in cultural resource

management. 

Elizabeth Horvath 

Senior Project Archaeologist 

M.A. in Anthropology and 17 years of

experience in cultural resource management.

Lee Hutchinson 

Senior Staff Archaeologist

M.A. in Anthropology and 12 years of

experience in cultural resource management.

Janus Research

Data Collection and Analysis 

Ken Hardin 

President and CEO 

M.A. in Anthropology and 26 years of

experience in cultural resource management. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
Amy Streelman 

Preservation Planner 

Senior Architectural Historian 

M.H.P. in Historic Preservation and 8 years of 

experience in cultural resource management. 

John Whitaker, 

Project Archeologist

M.A. in Anthropology and 6 years of

experience in cultural resource management. 

Harris, Miller, Miller, & Hanson 

Data Collection and Analysis 

Gregory M. Barr 

Consultant 

B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and 3 years 

experience in acoustics and engineering.

Carl E. Hanson, Ph.D., P.E. 

Senior Vice President

Supervisory Consultant 

Ph.D. in Acoustics, M.S. in Mechanical

Engineering, B.S. in Aeronautical Engineering 

and 35 years experience in acoustics. 

David A. Towers, P.E. 

Principal Engineer 

M.S. and B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and

30 years experience in acoustics. 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO

 

7-8
 8-1 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY 

TAMPA--ORLANDO 

SECTION 8 

LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, 

AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE 

STATEMENT ARE SENT 

8.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 

United States Representatives 

United States Senators 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation – Office of Cultural Resources Preservation 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – National Center for Environmental Health 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – Office of Management Analysis and Systems 

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Southern Region, Regional Forester 

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service, State Conservationist 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Regional Environmental Officer 

Federal Aviation Administration – Airports District Office 

Federal Aviation Administration – Regional Director 

Federal Emergency Management Agency – Mitigation Division, Chief 

Federal Emergency Management Agency – Region IV Office, Regional Director 

Federal Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Division Administrator 

Federal Transit Administration – Region IV – United States Department of Transportation, 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Regulatory Branch, District Engineer 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Regulatory Division, Chief 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – North Permits Branch, Chief 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – South Permits Branch, Chief 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – West Permits Section, Branch Chief 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Merritt Island Regulatory Office 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Tampa Regulatory Office 

U.S. Department of Interior – Bureau of Land Management - Eastern States Office, Director 

U.S. Department of Interior – Bureau of Land Management - Jackson Field Office, Field 

Manager 

U.S. Department of Interior – Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Director 

U.S. Department of Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - South Florida Field Office, Field 

Supervisor 

U.S. Department of Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Jacksonville Field Office, Field 

Supervisor 

U.S. Department of Interior – National Park Service – Southeast Regional Office 

U.S. Department of Interior – U.S. Geological Survey - Review Unit, Chief 

U.S. Department of Interior – Bureau of Indian Affairs – Office of Trust Responsibilities 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region IV, Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region IV, Deputy Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region IV, Water Management Division, Director 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Region IV, Wetlands Section, Chief 

U.S. Department of State – Office of Environment - Health and Natural Resources 

U.S. Department of Commerce – National Marine Fisheries Service – Habitat Conservation 

Division 

U.S. Department of Commerce - National Marine Fisheries Service – Southeast Regional Office 

U.S. Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Ecology

and Conservation Office, Director 

U.S. Coast Guard – Commander (obr) – Eighth District 

U.S. Coast Guard – Commander (oan) – Seventh District 

Colorado State University – The Libraries, Documents Librarian 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida 

Muscogee (Creek) Nation 

Poarch Band of Creek Indians 

Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma 

8.2 STATE AGENCIES 

Florida State Representatives 

Florida State Senators 

Office of the Governor - Florida State Clearinghouse - Department of Community Affairs, 

Coordinator 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection - Central District Office, Director 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection - Southeast District Office, Director

Florida Department of Environmental Protection - Southwest District Office, Director 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection - Land and Recreation Department, Deputy

Secretary

Florida Department of Community Affairs 

Florida Department of Commerce 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - Northeast Region 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - North Central Region

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - Office of Environmental Services 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - South Region 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission - Southwest Region 

Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

Florida Department of State - Division of Historical Resources - Tallahassee

Florida Department of State - Division of Historical Resources - West Central Regional Office 

Florida Department of Transportation, Secretary of Transportation 

Florida Department of Transportation - Districts 1, 5, and 7, District Secretary

Florida Department of Transportation - Environmental Management Office, Manager 

Florida Department of Transportation, Federal Aid Program Coordinator 

Florida Department of Transportation - Planning Division 

 

8-2

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
8.3 LOCAL AGENCIES

8.3.1 Regional Planning Councils

Central Florida Regional Planning Council 

East Central Florida Regional Planning Council 

South Florida Regional Planning Council 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 

8.3.2 Water Management Districts

St. Johns River Water Management District, Executive Director 

South Florida Water Management District, Executive Director 

Southwest Florida Water Management District, Executive Director 

8.3.3 Local Planning Agencies

Hillsborough County/City –County Planning Commission 

Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission 

8.3.4 Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization 

METROPLAN Orlando 

Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Polk Transportation Planning Organization 

8.4 OTHER AGENCIES

1000 Friends of Florida 

Agency on Bay Management 

Amtrak

Audubon Society Clearwater Chapter 

Citrus Connection 

City of Auburndale, Mayor 

City of Bartow, Mayor 

City of Clearwater, Mayor

City of Davenport, Mayor 

City of Haines City, Mayor 

City of Kissimmee, Mayor 

City of Lake Alfred, Mayor 

City of Lakeland, Mayor

City of Orlando, Mayor 

City of Plant City, Mayor

City of St. Petersburg, Mayor 

 8-3 

City of Tampa, Mayor 

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO 
City of Temple Terrace, Mayor 

City of Winter Haven, Mayor 

CSX Transportation 

Defenders of Wildlife - Orlando 

Defenders of Wildlife, Transportation and Wildlife Ecology Coordinator 

Florida Audubon Society - Florida State Office

Florida Central Railroad 

Florida Native Plant Society - Pinellas Chapter 

Florida Public Interest Research Group 

Florida Trail Association - Central Florida Chapter

Florida’s Turnpike 

Greater Orlando Aviation Authority

Great Horizon Land Trust 

Green Swamp/Big Cypress Field Office

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority

Hillsborough County Aviation Authority

Hillsborough County, County Administrator 

Lakeland Linder Regional Airport 

Lake Region Audubon Society

LYNX 

National Audubon Society - Main Office

Orange Audubon Society

Orange County, County Administrator 

Osceola County, Acting County Manager 

Osceola County Parkway, Project Manager 

Pinellas County, County Administrator 

Polk County, County Manager 

Polk County Natural Resources Division - Environmental Lands Program 

Polk County Transit Services Division 

Polk Parkway Turnpike District 

Reedy Creek Improvement District

Ridge Audubon Society

Sierra Club – Central Florida Group 

Sierra Club – Polk County Group 

Sierra Club – Suncoast Group 

Sierra Club – Tampa Bay Group 

Sierra Club of Florida - Regional Field Office 

St. Petersburg Audubon Society 

Tampa Audubon Society

Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority

The Nature Conservancy, Altamonte Springs 

The Nature Conservancy, Tallahassee 

UCF, UACTA 

Wilderness Trekkers 

 

8-4

FLORIDA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY

TAMPA--ORLANDO
Appendix A 

(Under Separate Cover) 

 A1: Conceptual Plans 

 A2: Technology Differences 

 A3: Corridor Impact Matrix 

 A4: Typical Sections, Stations, and Maintenance