maglevcomments

Comments on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS)
for the Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Transportation Technology Deployment Program - Atlanta-Chattanooga

Submitted by
Robert D. Bullard, Ph.D.
Angel O. Torres, M.C.P.
Environmental Justice Resource Center
Clark Atlanta University
223 James P. Brawley Drive Atlanta, GA 30314
Phone: (404) 880-6911 Fax: (404) 880-6909 E-mail: ejrc@cau.edu
Website: www.ejrc.cau.edu

September 5, 2000

My name is Robert D. Bullard and I am the Ware Professor of Sociology and Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University. My name is Angel O. Torres and I am urban planner and a Geographic Information Systems Training Specialist at the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University located in Atlanta, Georgia.

Our comments on the "Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Transportation Technology Deployment Program (Atlanta-Chattanooga)" address NEPA, environmental justice, and Title VI concerns.

Congress in 1969 passed one of the most important pieces of environmental legislation to protect the environment: namely, the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA. This law set policy goals for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environment. NEPA's goal is "to ensure for all Americans a safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing environment." NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on the environmental effects of proposed federal actions that significantly affect the quality of human health.

Four years earlier, Congress passed the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI-- which prohibits discriminatory practices in programs receiving federal funds. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." This Executive Order reinforces NEPA and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Executive Order 12898 calls for improved methodologies for assessing and mitigating impacts, health effect from multiple and cumulative exposure, collection of data on low-income and minority populations who may be disproportionately at risk, and impacts on subsistence fishers and wildlife consumers. It encourages participation of the impacted populations in the various phases of assessment, including scoping, data gathering, alternatives, analysis, mitigation, and monitoring.

The Executive Order and the accompanying Presidential Memorandum call for specific actions to be directed in NEPA-related activities. They include:

Each federal agency must analyze environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects, of federal actions, including effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by NEPA.

Mitigation measures outlined or analyzed in EAs, EISs, or Record of Decisions (RODs), whenever feasible, should address significant and adverse environmental effects or proposed actions on minority communities and low-income communities.

Each federal agency must provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA process, including identifying potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities and improving accessibility to public meetings, official documents, and notices to affected communities.

In reviewing other agencies' proposed actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA must ensure that the agencies have fully analyzed environmental effects on minority communities and low-income communities, including human health, social, and economic effects.

One of the most widely used definitions is one developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Justice. The EPA offered the following definition:

The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the developing, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.

It is important to note that environmental justice issues do not always revolve around the distribution of negative impacts. Transportation projects may include the distribution of benefits, enhancements, and investments.

Executive Order 12898, which references both Title VI and NEPA, prohibits discrimination and underscore protection of health and the environment. Title VI expands the nondiscrimination mandate to federally funded entities and activities. DOT's framework of policies and procedures help meet social, economic and environmental responsibilities while accomplishing the transportation mission. NEPA's objective is the protection and enhancement of the environment and vital, livable communities and neighborhoods.

The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) report, Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, offers some useful terms and definitions.

Minority: Individual(s) who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.

Minority Population: Minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. In identifying minority communities, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a geographically dispersed/transient set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect. The selection of the appropriate unit of analysis may be a governing body's jurisdiction, a neighborhood, census tract, or other similar unit that is to be chosen so as not to artificially dilute or inflate the affected minority population. A minority population also exists if there is more than one minority group present and the minority percentage, as calculated by aggregating all minority persons, meets one of the above-stated thresholds.

Low-income population: Low-income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census' Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. In identifying low-income populations, agencies may consider as a community either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans), where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.

Disproportionate high and adverse human health effects: When determining whether human health effects are disproportionately high and adverse, agencies are to consider the following three factors to the extent practicable:

(a) Whether the health effects which may be measured in risk and rates, are significant (as employed by NEPA), or above generally accepted norms. Adverse health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death; and

(b) Whether the risk or rate of hazards exposure by a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe to an environmental hazard is significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds or is likely to exceed the risk or rate to the general population or other appropriate comparison group; and

(c) Whether health effects occur in a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards.

Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects: When determining whether environmental effects are disproportionately high and adverse, agencies are to consider the following three factors to the extent practicable:

(a) Whether there is or will be an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly (as employed by NEPA) and adversely affects a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe. Such effects may include ecological, cultural human health, economic, or social impacts on minority communities, or Indian tribes when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment; and

(b) Whether environmental effects are significant (as employed by NEPA) and are or may be having an adverse impact on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes that appreciably exceeds those on the general population or other appropriate comparison group.

(c) Whether the environmental effect occur or would occur in a minority population, low-income population, or Indian tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued its Environmental Justice Strategy in response to Executive Order 12898. The DOT Strategy committed the agency to moving agency decision-making closer to communities affected by its decisions. The DOT Strategy has three major elements: (1) Public Outreach on the Implementation of the Environmental Justice Strategy, (2) DOT Order on Environmental Justice, and (3) DOT Training on Environmental Justice. The DOT Strategy embodied many of the missions, goals, and objectives of the Secretary's Strategic Plan:

Improve the environment and public health and safety in transportation of people and goods, and the development and maintenance of transportation systems and services.

Harmonize transportation policies and investments with environmental concerns, reflecting an appropriate consideration of economic and social interests.

Consider the interests, issues, contributions of affected communities, disclose appropriate information, and give communities an opportunity to be involved in decision making.

In April 1997, DOT approved Order 5680.2 establishing policies that promote environmental justice. The DOT Order calls for the agency and each operating Administration to develop specific procedures and incorporate the goals of environmental justice within the programs, policies, and activities, which they administer or implement. Equally important, these and other authorities underscore DOT's commitment to ensure that the public is involved in transportation decision-making and activities. The requires DOT programs to:

Identify and evaluate environmental, public health, and interrelated social and economic effects of DOT programs, policies, and activities; and

Propose measures to avoid, minimize, and /or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse environmental and public health effects and interrelated social and economic effects, and providing offsetting benefits and opportunities to enhance communities, neighborhoods, and individuals affected by DOT programs, policies, and activities, where permitted by law and consistent with EO 12898; and

Consider alternatives to proposed programs, policies, and activities, where such alternatives would result in avoiding and/or minimizing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts, consistent with EO 12898; and

Provide public involvement opportunities and consider the results thereof, including providing meaningful access to public information concerning the human health or environmental impacts and soliciting input from affected minority and low-income populations in considering alternatives during the planning and development of alternatives and decisions.

DOT Order5680.1 and Executive Order 12898 do not create any new judicial remedies and are not intended to create a new set of requirements. These Orders point to the need for integrating environmental justice principles into existing statutory and regulatory requirements in a manner that ensures that the interests of minority and low-income populations are addressed in transportation decision-making.

The DOT Order 5680.1 specifically addresses environmental justice for minorities (defined as Black, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian or Alaskan Native) and low-income populations including whites (median household income below Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines). Pursuant to NEPA, all federally- funded transportation planning and decisions must involve an environmental justice assessment process that explicitly considers adverse effects or the potential of adverse effects on these populations.

Nondiscrimination. The DOT Order reaffirms NEPA, Title VI and DOT's longstanding policy to ensure nondiscrimination in the programs and activities of Federal aid recipients, sub-recipients and contractors. Furthermore, it is DOT's continuing policy to identify and prevent discriminatory effects. FHWA actively administers decision-making activities to ensure that social, economic and environmental impacts are addressed up front from early planning through project implementation.

Public Involvement. Equally important, these and other authorities underscore DOT's commitment to ensure that the public is involved in transportation decision making and activities, provides input, and has access to public information concerning transportation, health and environmental impacts.

Coordination. The DOT Order reinforces the applicability of Title VI and all other federal laws, regulations and other authorities. Together they prohibit discrimination and underscore protection of health and the environment. Title VI expands the nondiscrimination mandate to federally funded entities and activities. They reinforce the NEPA process.

Accordingly, DOT decisions and actions factor in environmental, health, economic, and social impacts. DOT's framework of policies and procedures help meet social, economic and environmental responsibilities while accomplishing the transportation mission.

Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Project

The following comments are directed specifically at the DPEIS for the Maglev Atlanta-Chattanooga Project.

A. Study Committee

The Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Study Committee consisted of representatives from most of the areas involved including Joel Stone (ARC), Jim Croy (GRTA), Arthur Vaughn (GRPA), Hal Wilson (GDOT), David Crockett (The Chattanooga Institute), Tom Dugan (City of Chattanooga), James Layton (Coosa Valley Regional Development Center), Barry Tarter (North Georgia Regional Development Center), and Dan Dobry (Cobb County DOT). There are two main issues that can be associated with this committee:

Issues:

1. Lack of representation of Fulton County and City of Atlanta officials on the Study Committee. All of the alternatives presented (Alternatives A to G) would include large land acquisitions inside of governmental jurisdictions of both governments. Excluding both governments was a gross oversight.

2. Lack of participation of educational institutions directly impacted by the development of the project on the Study Committee. Many of the proposed alternatives will affect and disrupt the day-to-day operations in and around the colleges and universities included in the Atlanta University Center (AUC). The AUC includes Clark Atlanta University, Morehouse College, Spelman College, Morris Brown College, Interdenominational Theological Center, and Morehouse School of Medicine. These institutions house more than 15,000 students and 750 faculty and staff, making it the largest consortium of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the world and one of the largest consortiums of private Colleges and Universities in the Southeast.

B. Section 4(f) Protected Parkland

As part of policies and procedures articulated in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), significant publicly owned public parks, recreational areas, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges that may be affected by the proposed transportation investment must be identified (49 USC §303). Under Section 4(f) of the 1966 DOT Act, any transportation project using federal funding may use these areas only if: (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to such use, and (2) the project includes all possible planning to minimize the environmental impact.

According to the study, "…for many of the facilities listed only a portion of the facility might be classified as Section 4(f) land. This is particularly true for the universities where only a small portion of the complex includes facilities to support recreational activities." It should be noted that the AUC is listed under the National Register of Historic Districts. Special care should be taken when dealing with this geographic area.

C. EMF-Sensitive Sites and Human Health

Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) is a major controversial point of this study. It is stated in the study "Our current knowledge regarding the impact of low frequency EMF on various receptors is limited and evolving. Although power line frequency EMF's have been under study for a significant period of time, the impacts of power line EMF's on human health and the environment is not definitely known." These effects have been well documented in recognized studies such as: " Electrical Wiring Configurations and Childhood Cancer" (N. Wertheimer and E. Leeper, American Journal of Epidemiology, 109, 1979: 273-284); "Leukemia and Residence near Electricity Transmission Equipment: A Case-Control Study" (M.P. Coleman, M.J. Bell, H.L. Taylor, and M.P. Zakelj, British Journal of Cancer, 60, 1989: 793-798). In more recent studies: "The effects of natural and man-made electromagnetic fields on mood and behavior: the role of sleep disturbances." (L. Sher, Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 54 No. 4, 2000: 630-633); "Magnetic fields and mammary cancer in rodents: A critical review and evaluation of published literature." (G.A. Boorman; D.L. McCormick, J.M. Ward, J.K. Haseman, and R.C. Sills, Radiation Research, Vol. 153 No. 5, 2000: 617-626); "Leukemia and lymphoma incidence in rodents exposed to low-frequency magnetic fields" (G.A. Boorman, C.N. Rafferty, J.M. Ward, and R.C. Sills, Radiation Research, Vol. 153 No. 5, 2000: 627-636).

There is a growing consensus that exposure to even low-level electromagnetic fields has been linked to an increased risk of cancer. This year alone countless articles concerning the health outcomes of exposure to low level electromagnetic fields have been published in the top scientific journals. Epidemiological data from around the world supports an association between magnetic field exposure and childhood cancers (such as leukemia) as well as cancer and brain activity in adults. And while direct causality has not been established, continued experimentation is finding troubling results. The National Institute of Environmental Health Science with the Department of Energy has made further study of this association a top priority in the study "Evaluation of in vitro effects of 50 and 60 Hz magnetic fields in regional EMF exposure facilities" (G.A. Boorman, R.D. Owen, W.G. Lotz, M.J. Galvin, Radiation Research, Vol. 153 No. 5, 2000: 648-657).

The study continues by stating that "In addition to health impacts on human beings, EMF's can potentially also affect, via interference, other magnetic sensitive devices and media including health and telecommunications equipment, sensitive medical devices, and even certain types of industrial processes and military research." It should be noted that the colleges and universities in the area maintain and support equipment, which qualify under this description (such as TV and radio transmitters, sensitive medical devices, just to name a few).

D. Public and Potential Partners

According to the study "one of the basic tenets of public involvement is to proactively reach out to "the public". Therefore, it is necessary to determine who the appropriate "publics" are. In the case of the Atlanta - Chattanooga Maglev Transportation Technology Deployment Program, the breadth of these publics is extensive, reflecting both the length and diversity of the corridor". Based on the list provided, the inclusion of groups such as the Sierra Club, the Atlanta Campaign Civil War Interests, The Chattanooga Institute, and Georgians for Transportation Alternatives does not account for the true diversity in the corridor. There is no minority or community based organization included in the list of known publics and potential partners. This raises the issue of lack of inclusion from the communities directly affected by the project.

E. Steering Committee

A Steering Committee has been formed to guide project activities. The first meeting was convened on September 1, 1999 to discuss the project activities and schedule. Steering Committee members represent key transportation planning agencies throughout the corridor. It is anticipated that the Steering Committee will meet monthly throughout the project timeline.

The Steering Committee includes representatives from:

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA)

Georgia Rail Passenger Authority

Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT)

The Chattanooga Institute

Chattanooga Area Regional Transportation Authority (CARTA)

Coosa Valley Regional Development Center (RDC)

North Georgia RDC

Cobb County Department of Transportation (Cobb DOT)

The inclusion of only "key transportation planning agencies throughout the corridor" had an exclusionary effect. It left out the participation of key groups and agencies that later will have to react to the decisions made by such group and that should participate in the planning process such as the City of Atlanta, Atlanta University Center, City of Atlanta Board of Education, Concern Black Clergy, the Christian Council of Metropolitan Atlanta, Fulton County Government, etc…

F. Public Meetings

There are several issues related to the public meetings. One of the issues is the location chosen for the meetings (Atlanta airport area, Marietta area, and Chattanooga). The vast majority of the relocation associated with the project will take place in the AUC and Vine City areas (within the city of Atlanta). There were no meetings scheduled for this area. The meetings were conducted in areas that will greatly benefit from the development without having to deal with the burdens, therefore only receiving positive comments.

Another concern is the lack of community participation. With only a total of 59 people participating in all of the meetings, this endeavor fell well short of a success. According to the record only 7 people commented on the project. At least one of those meetings should have solicited minority participation since over half of the population affected on the project is African-American.

Finally, one of the purposes of the public meetings was to identify "partnership potential for Maglev deployment in the Atlanta - Chattanooga corridor." It is our assessment that for "partnering" to be effective, individuals and groups should have been identified and targeted in advanced. If the individuals and groups were not properly informed of the meetings, then "partnering" is not feasible and at best ineffective.

G. August 8, 2000 Hearing

On Tuesday, August 8, 2000, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) held a public hearing at its downtown Atlanta headquarters to receive public comments on the Maglev DPEIS. All of the meetings presenters were white, while the meeting audience was overwhelmingly African-American community residents, concerned citizens, and elected officials. With the exception of public comments and concerns about the $1.92 billion cost, benefits, justification, and need for such a Maglev train, the public comments centered around the environmental, health, socioeconomic, and environmental justice impacts the proposed Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Program would have on the African-American community. African-American community residents and African-American elected officials alike voiced their strong concern about the lack of information, outreach, and involvement in a Maglev (especially the southern leg of the project) transportation project that would have disproportionate and adverse impacts on their mostly African-American constituents.

Several Atlanta city council members expressed concern about the potential harm the proposed Maglev deployment could exact on their mostly African-American constituents. For example, Michael Bond, an Atlanta City Councilman, articulated the impact of the Maglev on the Vine City Area. He questioned why engineering decisions were made on routing the Maglev above ground and below ground in some areas, especially the Vine City community. The Vine City MARTA station is located in the heart of this predominately African-American neighborhood. He pointed out the potential impact of the Maglev on the historical and cultural aspects of the Vine City neighborhood. Councilman Bond emphasized that the local elected officials and community leaders were not at the table during the planning process of the Maglev Deployment Program.

Several other Atlanta elected officials, including Councilman Derrick Boazman, Councilwoman Cleta Winslow, and State Senator Vincent Fort, all expressed concern about their lack of information, poor public involvement, and negative impact on the African-American community, historically black colleges and universities (i.e., the Atlanta University Center), and African-American churches in their district. These elected officials indicated, "The AU Center is 'sacred' ground." There was also concern about the cumulative impact of displacement of residents, many of who had already been impacted by the construction of I-20 and MARTA rail lines.

Overall, the community concerns expressed at the ARC public hearing on the Maglev deployment were consistent with the environmental justice conclusions of the DPEIS: namely, African-Americans would be disproportionately impacted by the proposed Maglev deployment.

H. Role of Colleges and Universities

According to the study "Academic institutions can have an important role to play in the partnering process. Many colleges and universities have close ties with important business interests. Also, the future of such institutions is unquestionably tied to the economic health of the community that they serve". For these statements to be true, the AUC should have been included. Out of the Colleges and Universities in the area, the AUC stands to lose the most. It will become very difficult to convincingly explain to the parents of prospective students that Electromagnetic Fields and the Maglev train will not have a negative impact on their kids education and health. After all, these institutions are all private, depending heavily on their attractiveness and immediate environment to enroll new students. Also, the choice of Dr. Cox (out of UT-Chattanooga) to deal with his "counterparts at Georgia Tech" is disturbing. The impacts of the project on Georgia Tech will be nothing but beneficial. Georgia Tech and Dr. Cox clearly lack the credentials and reputation to deal with the disproportionate and adversely impacted populations in the project area, the mostly African-American and low income community within the City of Atlanta.

I. Socioeconomic

The proposed Maglev project has serious social equity implications. The socioeconomic analysis reveals that African-Americans and other ethnic minorities comprise over half (54.49 percent) of the 64,696 population in the Maglev project study corridor (see Table 5.16-1). This compares with 31 percent African-American and other minorities in the Atlanta metropolitan region. African-Americans comprise 94.68 percent of the southern portion of the project study corridor. On the other hand, whites made up 85.37 percent of the northern portion of the project corridor.

Atlanta's minority residences and minority businesses would also be disproportionately and adversely affected by the project. Again, minorities (54.49%) of the 34 businesses and 942 workers and 86 residences and 739 tenants taken (see Table 5.16-2). The majority of residences and businesses taken are located in the southern portion of the project study corridor. The southern corridor and the surrounding census tracts are heavily African-American.

Because of the proposed Maglev alignment in the southern corridor, African-American residences and businesses are disproportionately taken, when compared to the alignment that utilizes the existing I-75 corridor and existing railroad in the predominately white northern portion of the project study area.

The mitigation and avoidance measures outlined in the DPEIS are woefully inadequate. The construction, displacement impacts, and disruption impacts of the Maglev project would devastate an already economically fragile minority community. The Vine City neighborhood and nearby businesses, residents, and institutions, i.e., churches and the AU Center, would experience irreparable harm caused the proposed Maglev project.

J. Environmental Justice

A large segment of the proposed Maglev project is definitely in an environmental justice community, i.e., based on income and minority population concentration. Fulton County is by far the primary environmental justice area of concern. This point is borne out by the DPEIS that states: "The minority population within the study in Fulton County makes area up 62 percent of the total population in the study area, compared to a minority population of 53 percent for the entire county. Low-income persons comprise 27 percent of the total population, compared to a low-income population of 18 percent in the entire county. Most of the minority and low-income populations in the study area are concentrated in the central and southern portions of the city of Atlanta."

In addition, "In areas where the alignment exceeds the mandatory 9-meter (30-foot) clearance between the tops of the residence and business structures and the bottom of the Maglev guideway, residences will not be displaced. These residents and businesses who remain under the guideway will face other impacts related to living directly below the Maglev alignment and support structure, including visual and EMF. They may face a loss of community cohesion if the alignment requires the removal of large numbers of businesses and residences in close proximity to those that remain. The majority of structures directly affected by the Maglev facility are located along the southern portion of the Project alignment, which coincides with the majority of the block groups that meet the EJ threshold for analysis." In areas were elevation is the only solution, studies should be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of a higher than mandated height for the guideway (more than 9-meter), with the inclusion of the directly affected community. A higher than mandated guideway can mitigate the potential for impacts on community adhesion and adverse health impacts associated with proximity to EMF's sources. Finally, an extensive educational campaign around the long-term effects of EMF's exposure on health should be undertaken. This effort could facilitate agreements between the project staff and the communities adversely impacted by the project.

K. Likely Environmental Consequences

The likely negative consequences of the proposed Maglev project on the minority and low-income population are numerous. Some of these negative impacts can be assessed using DOT's Community Impact Assessment (CIA).

We concur with the findings reported in the DPIES that the brunt of the negative impacts fall (i.e., relocation, public health and safety, noise and vibration, traffic and transportation, air quality, land use, socioeconomic, visual) fall heaviest on the central and southern portion of the Maglev alignment-a corridor heavily populated primarily by minority and low-income Fulton County residents.

The majority of structures directly affected by the Maglev facility are located along the southern portion of the project alignment, which coincides with the concentration of low-income and minority residents.

The majority of businesses that would be displaced include industrial parks, warehouses, auto repair shops and garages, bakeries, and restaurants. In addition to loss of businesses and employment, the Maglev facility would displace a type of business (i.e., bakeries and restaurants) that are currently in short supply in the African-American community.

The DPEIS reports on some of the adverse impacts in the minority community: It states, "In some cases, the guideway will pass over residential units and neighborhoods, creating an adverse visual impact." For example, the following minority communities are adversely impacted by the Maglev facility:

H.J Russell Public Housing (Station 14+700), The elevated guideway here cuts over and across the center of the housing community, creating an adverse visual impact from the elevated guideway and support piers.

Castleberry Hill Historic District (Station 15+300), - The guideway follow the northern edge of this area, creating an adverse visual impact from elevated guideway and support piers.

Herndon Homes Public Housing - (Station 17+000) - The guideway here cuts over and across the center of the housing community, creating an adverse visual impact from the elevated guideway and the support piers.

The DPEIS also states that the "primary area of concern for environmental justice issues occurs between Station 14+500, just north of the West Expressway (Route 20), and Station 18+500), where the Maglev guideway goes into a tunnel. Along this portion of the alignment, the guideway diverts from the rail line and crosses low-income and minority communities, meeting Northside Drive at Station 15+000 and following Northside Drive to the proposed Downtown Vine City Station (Station 16+000). From there, the guideway continues to follow Northside Drive, until at approximately Station 16+800, where the guideway again crosses low-income and minority communities before it enters a tunnel at Station 18+500."

Because of the proposed alignment of the Maglev facility, the DPEIS reports the following: "people who live in areas through which the Maglev traverses will risk exposure to electromagnetic fields. While the skin shields the body from electronic fields, the body is not shielded from the effects of magnetic fields. Based epidemiological studies and other studies, magnetic fields are considered human carcinogens. In addition, there are a large number of hazardous waste sites located in this area that may be encountered during construction."

Traffic impacts could also be associated with the development of the Downtown Vine City Station, including bus loading areas, drop-off areas, and parking facilities.

In addition, noise impact would be felt by the community residents. For example, Mt. Vernon Church and the Friendship Baptist Church are adjacent to the proposed station location. Noise impacts from the passenger station would likely be experienced at the two churches.

Conclusion

We concur with the conclusions of the DPEIS Environmental Justice Analysis. The report states:

"The large number and combination of impacts described above is unlikely to exist in any other area in the concentration that they do in the environmental justice primary area of concern. Because of the population in this area is likely to already be experiencing the effects of multiple urban infrastructure and industrial Projects and the associated social and environmental degradation, the impacts described above would not be absorbed as well as might in other areas. Because of this, impacts that occur in these areas are likely to be more severe than the same impacts that would occur in areas not already subject to these conditions.

Given the conditions described above and the multiple impacts of construction and operation of the Maglev elevated guideway and the Downtown Vine City Station, the minority and low-income population in the primary area of concern would experience disproportionately high and adverse impacts from the proposed Maglev Project."

Because of the inadequate justification of need and cost, questionable regional transportation mobility and air quality benefits, potential environmental, public health, and socioeconomic impacts, and disproportionate and adverse impact on Fulton County's minority and low-income population, we strongly recommend that the Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Project not be built.