Reemsnyder Responds to FRA Proposal to Route Train Through Old Lyme, Says It Will Not Happen

Old Lyme First Selectwoman Bonnie Reemsnyder has issued the following statement in response to today’s announcement by the Federal Rail Authority (FRA) that the FRA intends to pursue the Old Saybrook to Kenyon, R.I., option as their preferred route for the new high speed rail track between Boston and New York City with a tunnel taking the train under the Connecticut River and emerging to the east somewhere in Old Lyme:

“After months of waiting, petitioning the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on behalf of Old Lyme, and working with our Congressional representatives, local legislators and state leaders, the FRA has finally released its Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)–months later than promised and only one month before a new administration is sworn in.

We have made strenuous efforts to convince the FRA that selecting Alternative 1 in the draft Environmental Impact Statement, which incorporates a “bypass” from Old Saybrook, Connecticut to Kenyon, Rhode Island, would be a colossal mistake.  Not only is there substantial thinking that this southern route would not best serve the economic interests of our nation, state and the Northeast Corridor, there is enormous doubt that this bypass can be constructed in a cost-effective manner that avoids catastrophic damage to our environment and cultural heritage.

In summary, the current proposal is deficient in several ways vis-a-vis the environment

• The report fails to demonstrate that the environmental impact of the preferred alternative is sound when compared to other possible alternatives.
  
• The FRA failed to examine the possibility of creating new alternatives based on the concerns  for the environment as raised in comments on its Tier 1 alternatives.
  
• The FRA proposal fails to persuade that the benefits of the route in question are economically practical and that the future cost of construction of this alternative outweigh the environmental risks, especially in light of the fact that its chief client, AMTRAK, prefers another route.
  
• The proposal fails to address the effect on the circulation flow and sediment transport vital to the health of the Connecticut River estuary.
  
• The proposal fails to identify the impact of such a massive infrastructure project  (both during the construction phase and upon completion) on the biodiversity of the estuary and its wetlands and the species that breed, spawn, fledge, inhabit and migrate to these wetlands.
  
• The proposal fails to identify the impact this project will have on the estuary and its wetlands as climate continues to warm and tides rise and whether the construction of such a tunnel or aerial bridge will hasten the adverse effects of carbon emissions, tidal and temperature increases.
  
• The report is silent on how the FRA proposes to acquire the property necessary for this expansion and the effect on the farmlands, fields, forests, open spaces and private property involved as well as whether this project will contribute to the existing problems of habitat loss and forest fragmentation.
  
• The report is silent on how the construction phase of this proposed project will impact other transportation in the affected communities, particularly, traffic on Interstate 95  and CT Rte.9, as well as local roads.
  

In addition, while  these comments primarily address the effects on the Connecticut River Estuary, there are a number of other environmental issues and questions that remained unanswered including:

• The effects of this project on air quality and water resources (including tributaries  in the watershed);
  
• The effect on ground water resources and water quality, especially since the historic village of Old Lyme relies on wells;
  
• There is little analysis of noise;
  
• The  visual effect of a tunnel/bridge forever changing the landscape of the area and adversely affecting its economy which is reliant on tourism; and
  
• The effect of a tunnel/bridge on the area’s geology and areas of archeological significance.
  

Although we acknowledge that this route may never be implemented, the uncertainty that attaches to this recommendation has caused, and will continue to cause, substantial economic and social distress along its route.  In the absence of solid scientific evidence that such a route is even feasible, it is unconscionable and purposeless to impose this harm on our state.  We therefore have exhorted the FRA to leave the determination of the new alignments unspecified in the EIS, pending future review by all interested parties.  Despite all our efforts, including a recent letter to the FRA Administrator, Sarah Feinberg, pointing out the economic damage that has already been felt in our community, the costly bypass from Old Saybrook to Kenyon is included in the recommendation.

It is deeply disturbing that the FRA appears to have completely disregarded the harm this plan is causing, and rejected the viable suggestion to leave all “lines on the map” blank, allowing the State of Connecticut and local leaders to determine how new alignments should be mapped through our state. Hundreds of individuals, experts, and stakeholders have tried to communicate their concerns with this bypass, but they apparently fell on deaf ears, as did the unwavering efforts of Congressman Courtney, Senator Blumenthal, and other state and local leaders.

But let me be clear – this new route will NOT go through Old Lyme. I am pleased to have the support of Governor Malloy, Commissioner Redeker, and others in saying that the STATE OF CONNECTICUT and local governments, not the FRA or the Federal Government, will ultimately determine the route high speed rail takes through Connecticut. We will stand united against this proposal and be prepared to fight the Goliath.”