[Federal Register: September 3, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 52452-52454]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03se03-92]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Environmental Impact Statement for the Bi-County Transitway
Project
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Maryland
Transit Administration (MTA) intend to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) in accordance to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, on the proposed Bi-County Transitway
Project in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland, which are
in the metropolitan area of Washington, DC. The corridor extends 14
miles from the western branch of the Metrorail Red Line in Bethesda to
the New Carrollton Metrorail Station. The Bi-County Transitway will
provide high-capacity transit along the corridor. As a result of rapid
growth in travel and development, the Bethesda to New Carrollton study
area is facing numerous transportation challenges. The growing service
sector job base has increased the vitally important need for efficient
transit. The transit investment will compliment and support ongoing
revitalization efforts currently underway in the study area.
This project includes the alignment previously known as the
Georgetown Branch Transitway/Trail (Bethesda to Silver Spring). A
notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the Georgetown Branch Transitway
and Trail was
[[Page 52453]]
published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1994. Subsequently,
the Georgetown Branch became known as the ``Western'' segment of the
Purple Line. The current Bi-County Transitway Project now also includes
what was known as the Purple Line ``East'', which extended from Silver
Spring to New Carrollton. The Bi-County Transitway study area is now
defined as all of the earlier Purple Line project area between Bethesda
and New Carrollton.
The EIS will address the need to improve transit access, reduce
travel times and improve connectivity in response to regional growth,
traffic congestion, and land use plans for the area. The EIS will
examine potential impacts and benefits to the social, cultural,
economic, built and natural environment. The EIS will develop and
evaluate alternatives that are cost efficient and beneficial.
Improvements that enhance connections to existing transit systems,
increase access to transit and to economic development areas, and
minimize adverse impacts will be identified. The EIS will evaluate the
No-Build Alternative, Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
Alternative, Build Alternatives for Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light
Rail Transit (LRT), and any additional alternatives generated by the
scoping process. In addition to mode, the Build Alternative will
consider alignments, grade options, station locations, and facilities
such as maintenance and storage yard, inspection and Operation Control
Center (OCC), traction power substations and tiebreaker stations.
Scoping Meetings: Public scoping for the Bi-County Transitway EIS
will be held on: September 16 at the Holiday Inn-Silver Spring, 8777
Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; September 17 at the
Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School, 4301 East West Highway, Bethesda,
Maryland 20615; and September 24 at College Park City Hall, 4500 Knox
Road, College Park, Maryland 20740. All scoping meetings will be from 4
p.m. to 8 p.m., and will be carried out in an open house format.
Details on meetings dates, project updates, times and locations
will be announced on the project Web site www.Bi-CountyTransitway.com
and in a project newsletter. Comments and input may be provided at the
scoping meetings. Information will be available in English and in
Spanish and will be published in the following newspapers: The
Washington Post, The Gazette, The Washington City Paper, The Washington
Hispanic, The Washington Times, The Takoma Voice, and The Washington
Afro-American Newspaper.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the project scope should be sent by
October 31, 2003 to Michael D. Madden, Project Manager, Bi-County
Transitway, Maryland Transit Administration, Office of Planning, 9th
Floor, 6 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. For more
information about this project or special assistance needs for the
scoping meetings, please contact Michael D. Madden at (410) 767-3694.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail McFadden-Roberts, AICP, Community
Planner, Federal Transit Administration, Region III, Office of Planning
and Program Development, 1760 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103-4124, (215) 656-7100 (voice).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Scoping
The FTA and MTA invite all interested individuals and
organizations, and Federal, State, regional, and local agencies to
provide comments on the scope of the project. The goals of the Bi-
County Transitway are to: Provide improved suburb to suburb transit
alternatives and enhanced access to key civic, educational and
employment activity centers; improve system connectivity and increase
transit usage by providing an essential link to the Metrorail radial
lines, as well as to other rail or bus services in Montgomery and
Prince George's County; optimize public investment by providing, at a
reasonable cost, efficient, safe, and reliable transit service, while
minimizing environmental impacts; improve regional mobility by
increasing the speed, reliability, and access to transit services in
Montgomery and Prince George's Counties; support economic development
and revitalization through improved connections to central business
districts and activity centers; and support regional clean air quality
goals with a cost effective transit alternative. Comments should focus
on the alternatives for analysis and environmental issues, rather than
on a preference for a particular alternative.
Public meetings and hearings, newsletters, project Web site and
other outreach methods and forums will be used to inform the public of
the progress of the project and to solicit input from the community on
the proposed project as it develops. Outreach activities will include
meetings with local officials, community leaders, local stakeholders,
and the general public throughout the area. Public attendance at
meetings will be sought through mailings, notices, advertisements,
press releases and other efforts.
Additional agency coordination will be carried out through the
Project Team, which will meet throughout the study process to address
key issues. Members of the Project Team will include representatives of
Montgomery County, Prince George's County, Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning
Commission, and the State Highway Administration.
II. Description of Corridor and Transportation Needs
The project is located in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties,
north of Washington, DC. The project area includes established
communities characterized by medium-density residential uses, with
pockets of high-density development (Bethesda, Silver Spring, Langley
Park/Takoma Park, College Park, and New Carrollton), and the University
of Maryland. The earliest development in the area corresponded with the
construction of electric railways that radiated from the District of
Columbia and facilitated movement into outlying areas. The primary
roadways centered on downtown Washington, DC, and mainly traversed the
corridor north to south. These arterials include Wisconsin Avenue (MD
355), Connecticut Avenue (MD 185), Georgia Avenue (MD 97), New
Hampshire Avenue (MD 650), and Baltimore Avenue (US 1). The area has
limited infrastructure for east-west travel, with two primary routes
consisting of East-West Highway (MD 410) and University Boulevard (MD
193).
This portion of the Metropolitan Washington Region experienced
rapid suburban development following World War II, and now contains
mature neighborhoods accompanied by the development of supportive
commercial activity centers along the primary roadways with the
majority of housing stock constructed prior to 1960. Many of the
commercial activity centers have access, parking, and pedestrian
circulation deficiencies. The service employment sector is very strong
throughout the corridor. In addition, professional and office
employment are located in clusters near Metro stations in Bethesda,
Silver Spring and, to a lesser extent, College Park and New Carrollton.
Numerous communities along the corridor contain populations that
rely on transit to reach employment and activity centers. New transit
services in the corridor have been limited to bus service, which is
subject to roadway
[[Page 52454]]
congestion. To date, there has been no investment in fixed guideway
systems or in new highways to facilitate commuting and links between
the development centers along radial transportation routes that cross
the corridor. The current east-west connections include bus transit and
to a lesser degree, roadways. Commuters must use a north and south
means to travel east-west. The area has limited infrastructure for
east-west travel, with two primary routes consisting of East-West
Highway (MD 410) and University Boulevard (MD 193), neither of which
provides a direct connection between Silver Spring and New Carrollton.
These routes are heavily congested during peak periods and increasingly
unable to accommodate the traffic demands. The focus of the EIS will be
to identify a preferred transit alternative that will reduce travel
time, provide an alternative to traveling on congested roadways, and
improve transit access to central business districts within the area
while examining the socioeconomic, cultural and natural environmental
considerations on a local and regional basis.
III. Alternatives
The alternatives proposed for evaluation include:
[sbull] A no-build alternative, which includes the current network
plus all ongoing, programmed, and committed projects listed in the
latest Transportation Improvement Program;
[sbull] A TSM alternative, which would include improving existing
transit services such as additional bus service and routes, and which
also serves as a baseline for evaluation against which all other
alternatives may be compared for federal funding purposes (referred to
as the FTA Future Baseline);
[sbull] Bus Rapid Transit alternatives; and
[sbull] Light rail alternatives.
Each build alternative will explore the construction of new
transportation infrastructure, such as tracks, stations, and
maintenance yards. Underground, surface and/or aerial design options
may be developed for each of the build alternative alignments. Multi-
modal alternatives will also be explored.
IV. Probable Effects
The FTA and MTA will evaluate all potential changes to the social,
cultural, economic, built and natural environment, including land
acquisition and displacements; land use, zoning, economic development;
parklands; community disruption; aesthetics; historical and
archaeological resources; traffic and parking; air quality; noise and
vibration; water quality; wetlands; environmentally sensitive areas;
endangered species; energy requirements and potential for conservation;
hazardous waste; environmental justice; safety and security; and
secondary and cumulative impacts. Key areas of environmental concern
include areas of potential new construction (e.g., structures, new
transit stations, new track, etc.). Impacts will be evaluated for both
the short-term construction period and for the long-term period of
operation associated with each alternative. Measures to avoid, minimize
and mitigate any significant adverse impacts will be identified.
V. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Procedures
Previously, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal
Register on September 21, 1994, which announced the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Georgetown Branch Transitway/
Trail in Montgomery County, Maryland. The subsequent Draft Environment
Impact Statement (DEIS) was completed in May 1996, and evaluated
transportation improvements between the central business districts
(CBDs) in Bethesda and Silver Spring, Maryland. The DEIS evaluated both
a busway and light rail transit alternative in conjunction with a
parallel hiker/biker trail. A Final Environmental Impact Statement was
never produced for this study.
This NOI for the Bi-County Transitway Project extends the previous
projects limits beyond Silver Spring to New Carrollton. An EIS will be
prepared in accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended), as implemented by
the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR parts
1500-1508), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations (23 CFR
part 771), and the FTA Statewide Planning/Metropolitan Planning
regulations (23 CFR part 450). These studies will comply with the
requirements of the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, section 4(f) of the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation
Act, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Executive Order 12898 on
Environmental Justice, and other applicable rules, regulations, and
guidance documents.
In addition, MTA intends to seek Section 5309 New Starts funding
for the project. As provided in the FTA New Starts regulation (49 CFR
part 611), New Starts funding requires the submission of certain
specific information to FTA to support a request to initiate
preliminary engineering, which is normally done in conjunction with the
NEPA process.
Upon completion, the Draft EIS will be available for public and
agency review and comment. Public hearings will be held. Based on the
findings of the Draft EIS and the public and agency comments received,
a preferred alternative will be selected that will be further detailed
in the Final EIS.
Issued on: August 27, 2003.
Herman C. Shipman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III, Federal Transit
Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-22371 Filed 9-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P