|
| |
STUDY PROCESS
 SFECC MULTI-STEPPED ANALYSIS
The SFECCTA was begun as a Tiered Environmental Impact Statement National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) agreed that the process followed for Tier 1 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (FPEIS) was consistent with the NEPA early scoping process, and is particularly useful in situations like this in a broad corridor where locally-preferred alternatives have not been identified and multiple transportation alternatives are under consideration. It was also agreed that this process would be continued through Phase 2 of the study. As a result, the Tier I FPEIS is considered an interim report and has been renamed the Conceptual Alternative Analysis/Environmental Screening Report (AA/ESR).
Phase 1: Phase 1 of the study conducted a preliminary environmental screening of approximately 36 conceptual transit alternatives on a regional level consisting of combinations of service segment, alignment and modal technology. These alternatives were evaluated for their ability to meet the project's purpose and need using as criteria effectiveness, environmental impacts, cost effectiveness and equity. Phase 1 concluded with a recommendation to move forward into Phase 2 with 13 build alternatives.
Phase 2: Phase 2 of the SFECCTA followed a multi-step screening process to define, analyze, narrow and refine the range of viable alternatives in services, modal technologies and detailed alignments. Site-specific issues such as transit stations and operations and maintenance facility have been identified and evaluated, as well as recommendations for highway and waterway crossings by the transit service. During Phase 2, a Detailed AA/ESR has been prepared to document the alternatives analysis and environmental screening process. Phase 2 has concluded with the selection of a corridor-length Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
Phase 3: During Phase 2, a locally preferred rail alternative was chosen. Phase 3 will further refine this alternative through additional analyses. This alternative will be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for federal assistance in the form of New Starts funding as described in the public transportation statute: the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). In addition, this alternative will be adopted into local Long Range Transportation Plans. |
|
|
SFECC PHASE 1 DECISIONS
Alignments: During Phase 1 of the SFECCTA, viable options/alternatives were identified for further analysis in Phase 2. The general alignment options moving forward are primarily along the FEC Railway, with a portion in the I-95 corridor in northern Palm Beach County . Four modal technologies, Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail Transit, Regional Rail Transit and Rapid Rail Transit will be evaluated along the FEC railway alignment. One modal technology, Regional Bus, will be evaluated for the I-95 alignment.
Locations of stations and operations & maintenance facilities: Also recommended for further study in Phase 2 are approximately 97 proposed transit station locations and the identification of operations & maintenance facility locations.
Sections: Based on the analysis of forecasted travel patterns, six service segments were consolidated into three corridor sections, South, Middle and North. Along with one corridor-length section, They will be further considered and refined in Phase 2.
Options Eliminated: Corridor options or alternatives that proved to be nonviable and will not be considered in Phase 2 include the US 1 and I-95 alignments, except for the segment of I-95 in northern Palm Beach County that will be analyzed for regional bus. Generally, these alternatives were extremely expensive, did not support the needed ridership to gain funding and generated significant environmental impacts. Also eliminated were stand-alone technologies such as High Speed Ferries, Electric Bus/Streetcar (including Trolley Bus or Trackless Trolley), Intercity Motor Coach, Automated Guideway Transit or Peoplemover, Monorail, Rubber-tired Rapid Transit, or High Speed Rail. |
|
|
SFECC PHASE 2 DECISIONS
a. Alternatives: Phase 2 defined and analyzed four alternatives which were presented to the public, local governments, and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's). This refined list included two rail alternatives, and two bus alternatives. More information regarding each alternative can be found in the Phase 2 Project Materials page.
b. Locations of stations and operations & maintenance facilities: Through a process of analysis and public input, Phase 2 narrowed down the stations list for a total of 52 proposed stations. That list can be found in the Phase 2 Project Materials page.
c. Options eliminated: In fall 2010, the boards of the Broward and Palm Beach MPOs endorsed regional rail as the Locally Preferred Alternative. The Southeast Florida Transportation Council and South Florida Regional Transportation Authority boards endorsed regional rail and the continued study of heavy rail (Metrorail) between Government Center in downtown Miami and Aventura in Miami-Dade County..
|
|
 |
