Comment EI-20771
Received or sent (printed as 12/17/2014)
Mr. Navecky, My name is Thomas Fair and I'm a resident of the Savannahs at Sykes Creek community on Merritt Island. My wife and I moved here a little over 3 years ago to escape noise and commercialism. I am concerned not only with the train noise and vibration but also with the noise that loading and unloading the train cars will produce. Although the distance between us and the port encompasses some land, it is mostly water. Water does not absorb noise. Even though we have lived here for 3 plus years the boom boom boom of the drums coming from the port when bands are preforming continues to be annoying. I anticipate that loading and unloading train cars will only increase the noise polution. I grew up 1 1/2 blocks from a railroad and inspite of the port's claims to the contrary, railroads are noisy and homes reflect the vibration. The claim that there will only be 4 trains in each direction per week is poppycock. Please review the port officials plans for future growth and it will become apparent that the train traffic will have to increase exponentially. This alone, not to mention the construction of the rail bed will have an ever increasing adverse effect on the wildlife in the Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge, some of which are on the threatened and endangered lists. I fish a lot in the Banana river and am very concerned that the proposed causeway will further degrade the fishery by causing the demise of the grasses needed to sustain the aquatic life. If it is decided to approve the killing of the Banana River estuary anyway, I would propose that the causway and bridge go from the Port to above Kars Park and remain close to the river. Although it will be more expensive, it will most likely have a lesser adverse effect on the property values of the communities which border or are in close proximity to the proposed rail line. I am told that one of the KSC projects was a research study for making a turning basin south of the VAB. The study is titled Feasibility Study, KSC Rail/Turn Basin Connection, PCN: 98965". My attempt to download and read it was blocked. I am led to believe the engineering summary stated that the KSC railroads were designed for "plant" use, NOT an intermodal railroad system and that the KSC railroads will have to comply with the Federal Railroad Administration and the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Right-of-Way Association requirements, to include safety upgrades including road crossings. There were three options with a range of $23M to $26M. Is it possible that NASA and the Port are being mum about that until all of the approvals are done! Please include this study to help you in your decision to deny approval of the Port Canaveral rail extension. An individual in our community, Dale Corey, did an extensive report upon which I cannot improve so, I'm passing this on to you as an attachment. You will probably receive this report from other individuals as well. Thank you, Tom Fair"
Submitted by: Thomas Fair · Merritt Island, FL
The Board publishes this comment in its environmental-comment table for this proceeding. It is quoted here as printed; nothing is inferred from it, and it states the commenter's own position in their own words, not this record's.
The text Comments for Environment Impact Statement Port Canaveral Rail Extension Dale Corey.pdf ↓
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/FD-35852/comment/EI-20771
File docketyard.org/document/90a9a64f892b6d72720e49a42a14d0746eb18c670f4073aead90a65e84562915.pdf · back to the docket sheet