Environmental Impact Statement: DesertXpress High Speed Train Between Victorville, CA and Las Vegas, NV, 40176-40178 [E6-11154]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
40176
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Notices
Administration (RITA), to the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Information
(FMCSA) (69 FR 51009, Aug. 17, 2004).
FMCSA IC: OMB Control No. 2126–
0031.
Form No.: MP–1.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved information
collection.
Respondents: Class I Motor Carriers of
Passengers.
Number of Respondents: 26.
Estimated Time Per Response: 1.5
hours.
Expiration Date: August 31, 2006.
Frequency: Quarterly and Annually.
Total Annual Burden: 195 hours [130
responses x 1.5 hour per response = 195
hours].
Background
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
The Annual and Quarterly Report of
Class I Motor Carriers of Passengers is
a mandated reporting requirement
applicable to certain motor carriers of
passengers. Motor carriers (both
interstate and intrastate) subject to the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations are classified on the basis of
their gross carrier operating revenues.1
Class I passenger motor carriers are
required to file with the Agency motor
carrier quarterly and annual reports
(Form MP–1) providing financial and
operating data (see 49 U.S.C. 14123).
Under the financial and operating
statistics (F&OS) program, FMCSA
collects balance sheet and income
statement data along with information
on tonnage, mileage, employees,
transportation equipment, and related
data. The Agency uses this information
to assess the health of the industry and
identify industry changes that could
affect national transportation policy.
The data also indicate company
financial stability and operational
characteristics. The data and
information collected are made publicly
available and used by FMCSA to
determine a passenger carrier’s
compliance with the F&OS program
1 For purposes of the Financial & Operating
Statistics (F&OS) program, passenger carriers are
classified into the following two groups: (1) Class
I carriers are those having average annual gross
transportation operating revenues (including
interstate and intrastate) of $5 million or more from
passenger motor carrier operations after applying
the revenue deflator formula in the Note of 49 CFR
1420.3; (2) Class II passenger carriers are those
having average annual gross transportation
operating revenues (including interstate and
intrastate) of less than $5 million from passenger
motor carrier operations after applying the revenue
deflator formula as shown in Note A of § 1420.3.
Only Class I carriers of passengers are required to
file Annual and Quarterly Report Form MP–1, but
Class II passenger carriers must notify the Agency
when there is a change in their classification or
their revenues exceed the Class II limit.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:44 Jul 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part
1420.
The F&OS reporting regulations were
formerly administered by the Interstate
Commerce Commission. They were
transferred to the U.S. Department of
Transportation on January 1, 1996, by
Section 103 of the ICC Termination Act
of 1995 (ICCTA) (Pub. L. 104–88, 109
Stat. 803, December 29, 1995), now
codified at 49 U.S.C. 14123. On
September 30, 1998, the Secretary
transferred the authority to administer
the F&OS program to BTS (63 FR
52192). Effective September 29, 2004,
the Secretary transferred this program
responsibility from BTS and redelegated
it to FMCSA (69 FR 51009, Aug. 17,
2004). FMCSA will publish a final rule
that transfers and redesignates the F&OS
program reporting requirements,
currently at 49 CFR 1420, from BTS
(now RITA) to FMCSA.
We particularly request comments on:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for FMCSA to
meet its goal of reducing commercial
motor vehicle crashes, and the
usefulness of the information with
respect to this goal; (2) the accuracy of
the estimated IC burden; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; and (4)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents (including use of
automated collection techniques and
other information technologies) without
reducing the quality of the collected
information. The Agency will
summarize and/or include your
comments in the request for OMB
approval of this IC.
Issued on: July 7, 2006.
David H. Hugel,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–11140 Filed 7–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Environmental Impact Statement:
DesertXpress High Speed Train
Between Victorville, CA and Las
Vegas, NV
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FRA is issuing this notice
to advise the public that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
will be prepared for the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DesertXpress high-speed train project.
The project includes passenger stations,
a maintenance facility, and a new
railroad line along the I–15 corridor
between Victorville, California and Las
Vegas, Nevada. FRA is issuing this
notice to solicit public and agency input
into the development of the scope of the
EIS and to advise the public that
outreach activities conducted by the
FRA will be considered in the
preparation of the EIS. Federal
cooperating agencies for the EIS are the
Surface Transportation Board (STB), the
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). Alternatives to be
evaluated and analyzed in the EIS
include (1) take no action (No-Project or
No-Build); and, (2) construction of a
privately financed steel-wheel-on-steelrail high-speed train, including a
proposed station in Victorville and a
station in Las Vegas, and a maintenance
facility in Victorville. Several
alternative routings would be
considered in the EIS.
DATES: Three scoping meetings will be
held during July of 2006. Scoping
meetings will be advertised locally and
are scheduled for the following cities on
the dates indicated below:
• July 25, 2006, Las Vegas Nevada at
The White House, 3260 Joe Brown Drive
time 5–8 pm.
• July 26, 2006, Barstow, California at
the Ramada Inn, 1571 E. Main Street,
time 12—2 pm, and
• July 26, 2006, Victorville, California
at the San Bernardino County
Fairgrounds Building 3, time 5–8 pm.
Persons interested in providing
comments on the scope of the EIS
should do so by August 15, 2006.
Comments can be sent to Mr. David
Valenstein at the FRA address identified
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
David Valenstein, Environmental
Program Manager, Office of Railroad
Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue,
(Mail Stop 20), Washington, DC 20590,
(telephone 202/ 493–6368). Information
and documents regarding the
environmental review process will be
made available through the FRA’s Web
site: https://www.fra.dot.gov at Passenger
Rail, Environment, Current Reviews,
DesertXpress.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FRA
will prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the proposed
DesertXpress high-speed train project.
The FRA is an operating administration
of the U.S. Department of
Transportation and is primarily
responsible for railroad safety
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Notices
regulation. Federal cooperating agencies
for the EIS are the Surface
Transportation Board (STB), the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The BLM has approval authority over
the use of public lands under their
control. The FHWA has jurisdiction
over the use and/or modification of land
within the I–15 right of way. The STB
has exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 10501(b), over the
construction, acquisition, operation and
abandonment of rail lines, railroad rates
and services and rail carrier
consolidations and mergers. The
construction and operation of the
proposed DesertXpress high-speed train
project is subject to STB’s approval
authority under 49 U.S.C. 10901. To the
extent appropriate, the EIS will address
environmental concerns raised by
federal, state and local agencies during
the EIS process.
Project Description: DesertXpress
Enterprises, LLC (the project Applicant)
proposes to construct and operate a
privately financed interstate high-speed
passenger train, with a proposed station
in Victorville, California and a station in
Las Vegas, Nevada, along a 200-mile
corridor, within or adjacent to the I–15
freeway for about 170 miles and
adjacent to existing railroad lines for
about 30 miles.
The need for the project is directly
related to the rapid increase in travel
demand between Southern California
and Las Vegas, coupled with the growth
in population in the areas surrounding
Victorville, Barstow, Primm and Las
Vegas, which has resulted in substantial
congestion along the I–15 freeway
between Victorville and Las Vegas.
Ridership is estimated to be 4.1 million
round trips in the first full year of
service. To accommodate this level of
ridership, trains would operate from 6
a.m. to 10 p.m., daily, 365 days a year
at 20 to 30 minute intervals during peak
periods.
The project would involve
construction of a fully grade-separated,
dedicated double track passenger-only
railroad along an approximately 200mile corridor, from Victorville
California to Las Vegas, Nevada. Where
the railroad alignment would be within
the I–15 freeway corridor, continuous
concrete truck barriers, as well as
American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance of Way Association crash
barriers at all supporting columns of
bridges at freeway interchanges and
overpasses would be provided. The
project would include the construction
of a passenger station, as well as
maintenance, storage and operations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:44 Jul 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
facility in Victorville and one passenger
station in Las Vegas.
The proposed Victorville Station
would be located along the west side of
I–15 between the two existing Stoddard
Wells interchanges. The facilities
directly associated with the Victorville
station would occupy about 60 acres of
land, and would have a parking capacity
for up to 10,000 automobiles. Access to
the Victorville station would be via the
two existing Stoddard Wells Road
Interchanges.
The Maintenance, Storage and
Operations facility is proposed to be
located in the City of Victorville on a
site that lies within the Victorville
Valley Economic Development Area.
The facility would require
approximately 50 acres and would
include a fueling station, train washing
facility, repair shop, parts storage, and
operations center. It is estimated that
approximately 400 employees would be
based at this facility.
The Las Vegas passenger station
would be located at one of three
possible locations: (1) Near the south
end of the Las Vegas Strip; (2) in the
center section of the Strip; or (3) in
downtown Las Vegas. A light
maintenance, cleaning, and inspection
facility would also be built near the Las
Vegas station.
Alternatives: A No-Build alternative
will be studied as the baseline for
comparison with the proposed project.
The No-Build Alternative represents the
highway (I–15) and airport (McCarran)
system physical characteristics and
capacity as they exist at the time of the
EIS (2006) with planned and funded
improvements that will be in place at
the time the project becomes
operational. The project build
alternatives have the same stations and
maintenance facility. The railroad
alignment between Victorville and Las
Vegas can be divided into 6 distinct
segments. Within the segments, several
build alternatives are being considered
as discussed below.
Segment 1: Victorville to Lenwood
(south of Barstow, California):
Alternative A would depart the
Victorville Station in a south-westerly
direction before turning north and
generally following the existing BNSF
Railway Company (BNSF) railroad
corridor and Route 66 to a point just
south of Barstow. Alternative B would
depart the Victorville Station and head
north generally following the west side
of the I–15 corridor. The alignment
would diverge from the I–15 corridor
near Hodge Road and head northerly to
a point just south of Barstow near the
exiting BNSF railroad corridor.
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40177
Alternative B would be approximately
6.8 miles shorter than Alternative A.
Segment 2: Lenwood (South of
Barstow) to Yermo, California: From a
point south of Barstow, the build
alternative alignment would head north
for about five miles, cross the Mojave
River and turn east through the City of
Barstow. Through Barstow the
alignment would utilize an existing, but
abandoned, former Atchison Topeka &
Santa Fe railroad corridor along the
north side of the Mojave River, for
approximately three miles before
reaching the vicinity of the I–15 / Old
Highway 58 interchange on the eastside
of Barstow. From this point the
alignment would head east along the
north side of I–15 corridor through the
town of Yermo to a point just east of the
agricultural inspection station on the I–
15 Freeway.
Segment 3: Yermo to Mountain Pass:
There are two alignment alternatives in
this segment: Alternative A entirely
within the median of the I–15 freeway;
and Alternative B along the north side
of the I–15 corridor.
Segment 4: Mountain Pass to Primm,
Nevada: Alternative A would leave the
I–15 freeway corridor and head south
for approximately four miles before
returning to the I–15 freeway corridor
south of Primm. A portion of this
alignment may encroach on the Mojave
Desert Preserve, about one half mile
south of the I–15 freeway. Alternative B
would leave the I–15 freeway corridor
and head north before returning to the
I–15 freeway corridor south of Primm. A
4,000-foot long tunnel would be
necessary for Alternative B.
Segment 5: Primm to Jean, Nevada:
Alternative A would be entirely within
the median of the I–15 freeway.
Alternative B would continue along the
east side of the I–15 freeway corridor
between Primm and Jean.
Segment 6: Jean to Las Vegas, Nevada:
There are three alternative alignments in
this segment. Alternative A would
continue in the median of the I–15
freeway into the Las Vegas passenger
station. Alternative B would cross the I–
15 freeway corridor from the east side
to the west side and continue along the
west side of the I–15 freeway corridor
into the Las Vegas passenger station.
Alternative C would diverge to the east
and generally follow the existing Union
Pacific railroad corridor into the Las
Vegas passenger station. To reach the
downtown Las Vegas passenger station
Alternative A would leave the median
of the I–15 freeway corridor near Oakey
Boulevard and diverge to the east to
follow the Union Pacific railroad
corridor to Bonneville Street.
Alternatives B and C would follow the
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
40178
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 135 / Friday, July 14, 2006 / Notices
west side of the I–15 freeway corridor
and cross at Oakey Boulevard to the east
to join the Union Pacific railroad
corridor to Bonneville Street.
Scoping and Comments: FRA
encourages broad participation in the
EIS process during scoping and review
of the resulting environmental
documents. Comments and suggestions
are invited from all interested agencies
and the public at large to insure the full
range of issues related to the proposed
action and all reasonable alternatives
are addressed and all significant issues
are identified. In particular, FRA is
interested in determining whether there
are areas of environmental concern
where there might be the potential for
identifiable significant impacts. FRA
invites and welcomes public agencies,
communities and members of the public
to advise the FRA of their
environmental concerns, and to
comment on the scope and content of
the environmental information
regarding the proposed project. Persons
interested in providing comments on
the scope of the EIS should send them
to Mr. David Valenstein at the FRA
address identified above by August 15,
2006.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 11,
2006.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad
Development.
[FR Doc. E6–11154 Filed 7–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
[Docket Number: FTA–2005–23227]
Notice of Proposed Title VI Circular
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed revisions
and request for comment.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) is revising and
updating its Circular 4702.1, ‘‘Title VI
Program Guidelines for Urban Mass
Transit Administration Recipients.’’
FTA is issuing a proposed Title VI
Circular and seeks input from interested
parties on this document. After
consideration of the comments, FTA
will issue a second Federal Register
notice responding to comments received
and noting any changes made to the
Circular as a result of comments
received. The proposed Circular is
available in Docket Number: 23227 at
https://dms.dot.gov.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:44 Jul 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Comments must be received by
August 14, 2006. Late filed comments
will be considered to the extent
practicable.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
FTA–05–23227 by any of the following
methods: Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site; Fax: 202–493–2251; Mail: Docket
Management Facility; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Nassif Building, PL–401,
Washington, DC 20590–0001; Hand
Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza
level of the Nassif Building, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You must include the
agency name (Federal Transit
Administration) and the docket number
(FTA–05–23227). You should submit
two copies of your comments if you
submit them by mail. If you wish to
receive confirmation that FTA received
your comments, you must include a
self-addressed, stamped postcard. Note
that all comments received will be
posted without change to the
Department’s Docket Management
System (DMS) website located at
https://dms.dot.gov. This means that if
your comment includes any personal
identifying information, such
information will be made available to
users of DMS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Schneider, Office of Civil Rights,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, 20590, (202) 366–4018 or at
David.Schneider@fta.dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Background
The authority for FTA’s Title VI
Circular derives from Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
2000d, et seq, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race,
color, or national origin in programs and
activities receiving Federal financial
assistance. Specifically, Section 601 of
this Title provides that ‘‘no person in
the United States shall, on the ground
of race, color, or national origin, be
excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial
assistance,’’ (42 U.S.C 2000d). Section
602 authorizes Federal agencies ‘‘to
effectuate the provisions of [Section
601] * * * by issuing rules, regulations
or orders of general applicability,’’ (42
U.S.C. 2000d-1). The U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), in an exercise of
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
this authority, promulgated regulations,
contained in 49 CFR Part 21 that
effectuate the provisions of Section 601
and Title VI in general.
FTA Circular 4702.1, titled ‘‘Title VI
Program Guidelines for Urban Mass
Transit Administration Recipients,’’
provides information on how FTA will
enforce the Department of
Transportation’s Title VI regulations at
49 CFR Part 21. The Circular includes
information, guidance, and instructions
on the objectives of Title VI, information
on specific grant programs covered by
Title VI, a description of FTA data
collection and reporting requirements, a
summary of FTA Title VI compliance
review procedures, a description of FTA
process for implementing remedial and
enforcement actions, information on
how FTA will respond to Title VI
complaints, and public information
requirements. Circular 4702.1 was last
updated on May 26, 1988.
The proposed circular would make
reference to and in some instances
would summarize the text of other FTA
guidance, regulations, and other
documents. Many of the documents
referred to will undergo revision during
the life of the proposed circular. In all
cases, the most current guidance
document, regulation, etc will
supercede any preceding information
provided. FTA reserves the right to
make page changes to proposed and
final circulars regarding updates to
other provisions, without subjecting the
entire circular to public comment.
Comments Related to Reporting
Requirements: In addition to general
comments concerning the draft Title VI
Circular, FTA is seeking comments from
its recipients and subrecipients
concerning the costs and benefits
associated with meeting the proposed
Circular’s guidance. Recipients and
subrecipients are encouraged to
comment on the number of hours and/
or financial cost associated with
implementing the Circular’s guidance as
well as the extent to which following
the guidance will assist the recipient
and subrecipient in achieving its
organizational objectives.
I. Why is FTA revising its Title VI
Circular?
The DOT Title VI regulations and
FTA Circular 4702.1 attempt to
transform the broad antidiscrimination
ideals set forth in Section 601 of Title
VI into reality. In the 18 years since FTA
last revised its Title VI Circular, much
of FTA’s guidance has become outdated.
Over those years, legislation, Executive
Orders, and court cases have
transformed transportation policy and
affected Title VI rights and
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 135 (Friday, July 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40176-40178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-11154]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Environmental Impact Statement: DesertXpress High Speed Train
Between Victorville, CA and Las Vegas, NV
AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the proposed
DesertXpress high-speed train project. The project includes passenger
stations, a maintenance facility, and a new railroad line along the I-
15 corridor between Victorville, California and Las Vegas, Nevada. FRA
is issuing this notice to solicit public and agency input into the
development of the scope of the EIS and to advise the public that
outreach activities conducted by the FRA will be considered in the
preparation of the EIS. Federal cooperating agencies for the EIS are
the Surface Transportation Board (STB), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Alternatives to be evaluated and analyzed in the EIS include (1) take
no action (No-Project or No-Build); and, (2) construction of a
privately financed steel-wheel-on-steel-rail high-speed train,
including a proposed station in Victorville and a station in Las Vegas,
and a maintenance facility in Victorville. Several alternative routings
would be considered in the EIS.
DATES: Three scoping meetings will be held during July of 2006. Scoping
meetings will be advertised locally and are scheduled for the following
cities on the dates indicated below:
July 25, 2006, Las Vegas Nevada at The White House, 3260
Joe Brown Drive time 5-8 pm.
July 26, 2006, Barstow, California at the Ramada Inn, 1571
E. Main Street, time 12--2 pm, and
July 26, 2006, Victorville, California at the San
Bernardino County Fairgrounds Building 3, time 5-8 pm.
Persons interested in providing comments on the scope of the EIS
should do so by August 15, 2006. Comments can be sent to Mr. David
Valenstein at the FRA address identified below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Environmental
Program Manager, Office of Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1120 Vermont Avenue, (Mail Stop 20), Washington, DC
20590, (telephone 202/ 493-6368). Information and documents regarding
the environmental review process will be made available through the
FRA's Web site: https://www.fra.dot.gov at Passenger Rail, Environment,
Current Reviews, DesertXpress.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FRA will prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the proposed DesertXpress high-speed train project.
The FRA is an operating administration of the U.S. Department of
Transportation and is primarily responsible for railroad safety
[[Page 40177]]
regulation. Federal cooperating agencies for the EIS are the Surface
Transportation Board (STB), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM has approval authority
over the use of public lands under their control. The FHWA has
jurisdiction over the use and/or modification of land within the I-15
right of way. The STB has exclusive jurisdiction, pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
10501(b), over the construction, acquisition, operation and abandonment
of rail lines, railroad rates and services and rail carrier
consolidations and mergers. The construction and operation of the
proposed DesertXpress high-speed train project is subject to STB's
approval authority under 49 U.S.C. 10901. To the extent appropriate,
the EIS will address environmental concerns raised by federal, state
and local agencies during the EIS process.
Project Description: DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC (the project
Applicant) proposes to construct and operate a privately financed
interstate high-speed passenger train, with a proposed station in
Victorville, California and a station in Las Vegas, Nevada, along a
200-mile corridor, within or adjacent to the I-15 freeway for about 170
miles and adjacent to existing railroad lines for about 30 miles.
The need for the project is directly related to the rapid increase
in travel demand between Southern California and Las Vegas, coupled
with the growth in population in the areas surrounding Victorville,
Barstow, Primm and Las Vegas, which has resulted in substantial
congestion along the I-15 freeway between Victorville and Las Vegas.
Ridership is estimated to be 4.1 million round trips in the first full
year of service. To accommodate this level of ridership, trains would
operate from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., daily, 365 days a year at 20 to 30
minute intervals during peak periods.
The project would involve construction of a fully grade-separated,
dedicated double track passenger-only railroad along an approximately
200-mile corridor, from Victorville California to Las Vegas, Nevada.
Where the railroad alignment would be within the I-15 freeway corridor,
continuous concrete truck barriers, as well as American Railway
Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association crash barriers at all
supporting columns of bridges at freeway interchanges and overpasses
would be provided. The project would include the construction of a
passenger station, as well as maintenance, storage and operations
facility in Victorville and one passenger station in Las Vegas.
The proposed Victorville Station would be located along the west
side of I-15 between the two existing Stoddard Wells interchanges. The
facilities directly associated with the Victorville station would
occupy about 60 acres of land, and would have a parking capacity for up
to 10,000 automobiles. Access to the Victorville station would be via
the two existing Stoddard Wells Road Interchanges.
The Maintenance, Storage and Operations facility is proposed to be
located in the City of Victorville on a site that lies within the
Victorville Valley Economic Development Area. The facility would
require approximately 50 acres and would include a fueling station,
train washing facility, repair shop, parts storage, and operations
center. It is estimated that approximately 400 employees would be based
at this facility.
The Las Vegas passenger station would be located at one of three
possible locations: (1) Near the south end of the Las Vegas Strip; (2)
in the center section of the Strip; or (3) in downtown Las Vegas. A
light maintenance, cleaning, and inspection facility would also be
built near the Las Vegas station.
Alternatives: A No-Build alternative will be studied as the
baseline for comparison with the proposed project. The No-Build
Alternative represents the highway (I-15) and airport (McCarran) system
physical characteristics and capacity as they exist at the time of the
EIS (2006) with planned and funded improvements that will be in place
at the time the project becomes operational. The project build
alternatives have the same stations and maintenance facility. The
railroad alignment between Victorville and Las Vegas can be divided
into 6 distinct segments. Within the segments, several build
alternatives are being considered as discussed below.
Segment 1: Victorville to Lenwood (south of Barstow, California):
Alternative A would depart the Victorville Station in a south-westerly
direction before turning north and generally following the existing
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) railroad corridor and Route 66 to a point
just south of Barstow. Alternative B would depart the Victorville
Station and head north generally following the west side of the I-15
corridor. The alignment would diverge from the I-15 corridor near Hodge
Road and head northerly to a point just south of Barstow near the
exiting BNSF railroad corridor. Alternative B would be approximately
6.8 miles shorter than Alternative A.
Segment 2: Lenwood (South of Barstow) to Yermo, California: From a
point south of Barstow, the build alternative alignment would head
north for about five miles, cross the Mojave River and turn east
through the City of Barstow. Through Barstow the alignment would
utilize an existing, but abandoned, former Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe
railroad corridor along the north side of the Mojave River, for
approximately three miles before reaching the vicinity of the I-15 /
Old Highway 58 interchange on the eastside of Barstow. From this point
the alignment would head east along the north side of I-15 corridor
through the town of Yermo to a point just east of the agricultural
inspection station on the I-15 Freeway.
Segment 3: Yermo to Mountain Pass: There are two alignment
alternatives in this segment: Alternative A entirely within the median
of the I-15 freeway; and Alternative B along the north side of the I-15
corridor.
Segment 4: Mountain Pass to Primm, Nevada: Alternative A would
leave the I-15 freeway corridor and head south for approximately four
miles before returning to the I-15 freeway corridor south of Primm. A
portion of this alignment may encroach on the Mojave Desert Preserve,
about one half mile south of the I-15 freeway. Alternative B would
leave the I-15 freeway corridor and head north before returning to the
I-15 freeway corridor south of Primm. A 4,000-foot long tunnel would be
necessary for Alternative B.
Segment 5: Primm to Jean, Nevada: Alternative A would be entirely
within the median of the I-15 freeway. Alternative B would continue
along the east side of the I-15 freeway corridor between Primm and
Jean.
Segment 6: Jean to Las Vegas, Nevada: There are three alternative
alignments in this segment. Alternative A would continue in the median
of the I-15 freeway into the Las Vegas passenger station. Alternative B
would cross the I-15 freeway corridor from the east side to the west
side and continue along the west side of the I-15 freeway corridor into
the Las Vegas passenger station. Alternative C would diverge to the
east and generally follow the existing Union Pacific railroad corridor
into the Las Vegas passenger station. To reach the downtown Las Vegas
passenger station Alternative A would leave the median of the I-15
freeway corridor near Oakey Boulevard and diverge to the east to follow
the Union Pacific railroad corridor to Bonneville Street. Alternatives
B and C would follow the
[[Page 40178]]
west side of the I-15 freeway corridor and cross at Oakey Boulevard to
the east to join the Union Pacific railroad corridor to Bonneville
Street.
Scoping and Comments: FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS
process during scoping and review of the resulting environmental
documents. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested
agencies and the public at large to insure the full range of issues
related to the proposed action and all reasonable alternatives are
addressed and all significant issues are identified. In particular, FRA
is interested in determining whether there are areas of environmental
concern where there might be the potential for identifiable significant
impacts. FRA invites and welcomes public agencies, communities and
members of the public to advise the FRA of their environmental
concerns, and to comment on the scope and content of the environmental
information regarding the proposed project. Persons interested in
providing comments on the scope of the EIS should send them to Mr.
David Valenstein at the FRA address identified above by August 15,
2006.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 11, 2006.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Development.
[FR Doc. E6-11154 Filed 7-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
