Intent To Prepare a Revised Environmental Impact Statement for the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project in Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara, CA, 54099-54101 [07-4666]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 183 / Friday, September 21, 2007 / Notices
381.315(a)). The Agency must provide
the public an opportunity to inspect the
information relevant to the application,
including the conducting of any safety
analyses. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on
the request.
The Agency reviews the safety
analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the
exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than,
the level that would be achieved by the
current regulation (49 CFR 381.305).
The decision of the Agency must be
published in the Federal Register (49
CFR 381.315(b)) with the reason for
denying or, in the alternative, the
specific person or class of persons
receiving the exemption, and the
regulatory provision or provisions from
which exemption is granted. The notice
must also specify the effective period of
the exemption (up to 2 years), and
explain the terms and conditions of the
exemption. The exemption may be
renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Application for Exemption
Jcrane is a crane rental service located
in southwest Ohio. It currently has nine
full-time employees with commercial
driver’s licenses (CDLs), and operates
three tractor-trailers and five mobile
cranes. The tractor-trailers are support
vehicles for the cranes and are driven by
apprentices or individuals who are in
the process of learning to operate
cranes. These apprentice drivers are
normally in the 18–23 year age range.
According to Jcrane, this is the ideal age
range to begin operator training. As a
crane-support truck driver, these
individuals haul counterbalance
weights for the crane on a flatbed trailer.
The drivers will follow a crane from the
home base to a different jobsite every
day, set the crane up, wait for the crane
to make the lift, tear the crane down,
and follow it back to the shop. These
drivers never travel alone, are home
every night, and do not haul goods
owned by other people. Jcrane’s
operating area is generally within a 200mile radius of their home base in
Covington, Ohio. Due to their location,
they never service the northeast corner
of Ohio, but do a lot of work in eastern
Indiana. Under Ohio law, their 18–20
year old apprentices may legally drive a
truck from Covington, Ohio to
Cleveland, Ohio—which is 5 hours
northeast of their home terminal;
however, they may not drive to
Richmond, Indiana, which is
approximately 1-hour west, due to
FMCSA’s prohibition against drivers
under the age of 21 operating in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:17 Sep 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
interstate commerce in 49 CFR
391.11(b)(1).
Jcrane requests an exemption for their
employees under the age of 21 to be able
to legally operate their equipment and
tractor-trailers across state borders,
however not outside of a 200-mile
radius from their home terminal in
Covington, Ohio. Jcrane states that,
because they are located more than 200
miles from the eastern Ohio border, this
exemption would not change the
maximum distance that these drivers
can travel and therefore would have no
effect on safety. This exemption would,
however, according to Jcrane, allow it to
better train crane operators and
therefore increase overall safety.
Jcrane requests that the exemption
from § 391.11(b)(1) be in effect for a
period of two years from the date of
issue. A copy of Jcrane Inc.’s exemption
application is in the docket identified
for this notice.
Request for Comments
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA
requests public comment on Jcrane
Inc.’s application an exemption from 49
CFR 391.11(b)(1). The Agency will
consider all comments received by close
of business on October 22, 2007.
Comments will be available for
examination in the docket at the
location listed under the ADDRESSES
section of this notice. The Agency will
file comments received after the
comment closing date in the public
docket, and will consider them to the
extent practicable.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and
Program Development.
[FR Doc. E7–18628 Filed 9–20–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Intent To Prepare a Revised
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project
in Milpitas, San Jose, and Santa Clara,
CA
Federal Transit Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) and the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) will prepare a Revised
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for the proposed Silicon Valley Rapid
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54099
Transit Project (SVRT Project), a 16.1mile extension of the San Francisco Bay
Area Rapid Transit District (BART)
system from the planned BART Warm
Springs Station in Fremont through
Milpitas and San Jose to Santa Clara,
California. The Revised EIS will be
prepared in accordance with regulations
implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as
well as the provisions of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users. The purpose of this Notice of
Intent (NOI) is to inform interested
parties of the plan to prepare a Revised
EIS, to invite agency and public
participation in the EIS process, and to
announce public scoping meetings.
DATES: Written comments on the scope
of the Revised EIS, including the
Project’s purpose and need statement,
Project alternatives, environmental and
community impacts to be evaluated, and
evaluation methodologies should be
sent to Tom Fitzwater, Environmental
Resources Planning Manager, by
October 29, 2007. Public scoping
meetings will be held on October 9, 11,
and 18, 2007 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
at the locations indicated under
ADDRESSES below.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted by postal mail, e-mail, or fax,
to: Tom Fitzwater, Environmental
Resources Planning Manager, Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority,
Environmental Programs and Resources
Management, 3331 North First Street,
Building B–2, San Jose, CA 95134–1927.
E-mail:
SVRT.NEPA.EIS.Comments@vta.org.
Fax: (408) 321–5787. Project Web site:
https://www.vtabart-vta.org.
Comments may also be submitted at
the public scoping meetings. The dates
and locations of the public scoping
meetings are:
October 9, 2007, Milpitas City Hall,
Committee Meeting Room, 455 East
Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, CA
95035.
October 11, 2007, San Jose City Hall,
Wing 118–120, 200 East Santa Clara
Street, San Jose, CA 95113.
October 18, 2007, City of Santa Clara,
Santa Clara Senior Center, 1303
Fremont Street, Room 232, Santa
Clara, CA 95050.
The scoping meeting facilities will be
accessible to persons with disabilities. If
special translation or signing services or
other special accommodations are
needed, please contact VTA Customer
Service five days prior to the meeting at
(408) 321–2300, or e-mail
community.outreach@vta.org. To be
placed on the Project mailing list,
E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM
21SEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
54100
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 183 / Friday, September 21, 2007 / Notices
contact Tom Fitzwater, VTA
Environmental Planning Resources
Manager, as indicated above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerome Wiggins, Transportation Program
Specialist, Federal Transit
Administration, San Francisco Regional
Office, 201 Mission Street, Room 2210,
San Francisco, CA 94105–1926, (415)
744–3115.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of
the Revised EIS. The original Notice of
Intent (NOI) to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project
was issued on February 6, 2002. The
original Draft EIS/EIR was released to
the public on March 16, 2004. However,
no action was taken to finalize the
original Draft EIS. Due to the passage of
time, changes in the Project and
environmental setting, availability of
new information, and funding
considerations, a Revised EIS will be
prepared. The Revised EIS will explore
the environmental and community
impacts of the Project and Project
alternatives and will discuss actions to
reduce or eliminate such impacts.
Environmental issues to be examined
include: Changes to the physical
environment (air quality and global
warming, biological resources, noise
and vibration, water quality,
floodplains, geology and seismicity,
visual and aesthetics, hazardous
materials, energy, utilities, and
electromagnetic fields); changes to the
social environment (land use, business
displacements, community facilities,
and neighborhood disruptions); changes
to traffic and pedestrian circulation;
changes to transit service and patronage;
associated changes to traffic congestion;
and changes to parklands and cultural
resources. Impacts will be identified for
both the construction phase and the
long-term operation of the Project or
Project alternatives.
Proposed Project Description: The
SVRT Project Alternative would begin at
the planned BART Warm Springs
Station (to be implemented by 2013) in
Fremont and proceed on the former
Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way
through Milpitas to south of Mabury
Road in San Jose. The alignment would
then descend into a subway tunnel,
continue through downtown San Jose,
and terminate at grade in Santa Clara
near the Caltrain Station. The total
length of the alignment would be 16.1
miles. Six stations are proposed with an
additional future station in Milpitas.
Passenger service would start in 2016,
assuming funding is available. A
Berryessa Extension Project (BEP)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:17 Sep 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
Alternative will also be included in the
EIS to address the New Starts Candidate
Project for federal funding purposes.
The BEP Alternative would begin at the
planned BART Warm Springs Station in
Fremont and proceed on the former
Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way
through Milpitas to south of Mabury
Road in San Jose. The total length of the
alignment would be 9.3 miles. One
station is proposed in Milpitas and one
in San Jose. Passenger service for the BE
Project would start in 2016, assuming
funding is available.
Draft Project Purpose and Need: The
purpose of the Project is to improve
transit services and increase intermodal
connectivity among transit routes and
stations serving origins and destinations
in Alameda County, Contra Costa
County, Santa Clara County, and
portions of the Central Valley. Meeting
this overall Project purpose would
address a variety of related needs in the
SVRTC, including the following goals:
• Improve public transit service in
this severely congested corridor by
providing increased transit capacity and
faster, convenient access throughout the
San Francisco Bay Area Region,
including southern Alameda County,
central Contra Costa County, Tri-Valley,
San Joaquin Valley, and Silicon Valley;
• Enhance regional connectivity
through expanded, interconnected rapid
transit services between BART in
Alameda County and light rail and
commuter rail in Silicon Valley;
• Accommodate future travel demand
in the corridor by expanding modal
options;
• Alleviate severe and increasing
traffic congestion on the I–880 and I–
680 freeways between Alameda County
and Silicon Valley;
• Improve regional air quality by
reducing auto emissions;
• Improve mobility options to
employment, education, medical, retail,
and entertainment centers for corridor
residents, (in particular, low income,
youth, elderly, disabled, and ethnic
minority populations);
• Maximize transit usage and
ridership; and
• Support local economic and land
use plans and goals.
The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit
Corridor (study area) is one of the most
congested corridors in Northern
California. Over the past several years,
it has experienced very high and
increasing levels of traffic congestion
due to the growth of jobs throughout the
Silicon Valley area, including
downtown San Jose, and the cities of
Fremont, Milpitas, and Santa Clara.
Congestion is also spreading from the
peak hours to off peak hours. Population
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and employment growth within the
entire study area from 2000 to 2030, as
forecast by the Association of Bay Area
Governments, is expected to increase
dramatically. Current levels of service
(LOS) on highways in the corridor, I–
680 and I–880, are ‘‘F’’ in the peak hour,
with future level of service anticipated
to continue to be LOS F. LOS F
describes failure conditions with
unacceptable delays to most vehicles,
long queues, and stop-and-go flow.
Planned improvements to highway and
transit service in the study area are not
expected to keep up with the demand
for quality transit, given the increased
highway congestion expected.
Proposed Project Alternatives: The
2004 Draft EIS evaluated three
alternatives: the Future No-Build, a
Transportation Systems Management
alternative with enhanced bus service,
and the proposed BART extension. On
the basis of the Draft EIS, FTA and VTA
have decided that the TSM alternative is
not a reasonable alternative because it
does not meet the Project’s purpose and
need. The buses, which operate on
highways, are subject to the same
congestion as automobiles. Therefore,
the Revised EIS will evaluate the
following alternatives, plus any
additional alternatives that emerge from
the scooping process.
• Future No-Build Alternative. This
alternative consists of the existing
transit and roadway networks and
planned and programmed
improvements in the Silicon Valley
Rapid Transit Corridor that are
identified in the Bay Area’s Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP), Mobility for
the Next Generation—Transportation
2030 Plan for the San Francisco Bay
Area (Transportation 2030 Plan),
adopted by MTC in February 2005, and
the Valley Transportation Plan 2030
(VTP 2030), adopted by VTA in
February 2005.
• SVRT Project Alternative—BART
Extension to Milpitas, San Jose, and
Santa Clara. This alternative consists of
a 16.1-mile extension of the BART
system. The Project would begin at the
planned BART Warm Springs Station in
Fremont (to be implemented by 2013)
and proceed on the former Union
Pacific Railroad right-of-way through
the City of Milpitas to south of Mabury
Road in the City of San Jose. The
extension would then descend into a
subway tunnel, continue through
downtown San Jose, and terminate at
grade in the City of Santa Clara near the
Caltrain Station. Six stations are
proposed: Milpitas, Berryessa, Alum
Rock, Downtown San Jose, Diridon/
Arena, and Santa Clara. An additional
E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM
21SEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 183 / Friday, September 21, 2007 / Notices
future station in Milpitas is also
proposed.
• Berryessa Extension Project
Alternative. This alternative would
begin at the planned BART Warm
Springs Station in Fremont and proceed
on the former Union Pacific Railroad
right-of-way through Milpitas to south
of Mabury Road in San Jose. The total
length of the alignment would be 9.3
miles. Two stations are proposed:
Milpitas and Berryessa.
Analytical Methodologies: FTA and
VTA will collaborate with agencies and
the public, as appropriate, on the
methodologies to be used and the level
of detail required in the analysis of
proposed alternatives. Information on
the methodologies for analysis will be
sent to the appropriate agencies directly.
Information will also be presented at the
scoping meetings for public
distribution. Both agencies and the
public may comment, as described
under DATES above.
The EIS Process and the Role of
Agencies and the Public: The purpose of
the EIS process is to explore in a public
setting, potentially significant effects of
implementing the proposed Project and
Project alternatives on the physical,
human, and natural environment. The
major areas of investigation include, but
are not limited to, the effect on historic
resources in downtown San Jose, the
noise impacts of the BART trains
outside of the planned tunnel, and the
vibration impacts of the BART trains
both inside and outside of tunnel.
Regulations implementing NEPA, as
well as provisions of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA–LU), call for agency
and public involvement in the EIS
process. Section 6002 of SAFETEA–LU
requires that FTA and VTA extend an
invitation to other Federal and nonFederal agencies and Indian tribes that
may have an interest in the proposed
Project to become a participating
agency, and establish a plan for
coordinating public and agency
participation in and comment on the
environmental review. A cooperating
agency is defined as ‘‘any Federal
agency which has jurisdiction by law or
special expertise with respect to any
environmental impact involved in a
proposal. Accordingly, an invitation to
become a cooperating or participating
agency, as appropriate, will be extended
to agencies and Indian tribes known to
have an interest in the proposed Project.
It is possible that we may not be able to
identify all Federal and non-Federal
agencies and Indian tribes that may
have such an interest. Any Federal or
non-Federal agency or Indian tribe
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:17 Sep 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
interested in the proposed Project that
does not receive an invitation to become
a participating agency should notify, at
the earliest opportunity, the
Environmental Planning Resource
Manager identified above under
ADDRESSES above.
Agency and Public Involvement: A
comprehensive agency and public
involvement program has been
developed. The Policy Advisory Board
consisting of county, city, BART, and
VTA officials; City Partnership Teams
consisting of VTA and city staff
representatives; and the External
Technical Advisory Committee
consisting of staff representatives from
state, regional, county, city, and transit
agencies; were established in 2002 and
continue to meet regularly to provide
guidance, discuss the proposed Project,
and for coordination and technical
input. Community Working Groups
consisting of the leaders of
neighborhood and business
associations, community organizations,
advocacy groups, major property
owners, and planning commissioners
were also established in 2002 for cities
and specific geographical areas to
communicate Project information to key
members of the community and
facilitate community input and
participation. These mechanisms will be
developed into a formal coordination
plan that covers both agency and public
involvement. The coordination plan
will be posted on the Project Web site
at https://www.vtabart-vta.org.
FTA Procedures: In accordance with
23 CFR 771.105(a) and 771.133, FTA
will comply with all Federal
environmental laws, regulations, and
executive orders applicable to the
proposed Project during the
environmental review process to the
maximum extent practical. These
requirements include, but are not
limited to, the regulations of the Council
on Environmental Quality
implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts
1500–1508 and 23 CFR part 771), the
project-level air quality conformity
regulation of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR part
93), section 404(b)(1) guidelines of EPA
(40 CFR part 230), Executive Orders
11988, 11990, and 12898 regarding
floodplains, wetlands, and
environmental justice, respectively,
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (36 CFR part 800),
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(50 CFR part 402), and Section 4(f) of
the Department of Transportation Act
(23 CFR 771.135).
Related Documents: The Silicon
Valley Rapid Transit Corridor, Major
Investment Study Final Report
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54101
(November 2001), the 2004 Draft EIS,
the Final Environmental Impact Report
(November 2004), and the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (June 2007) are available for
public review at the following public
libraries:
• Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Main
Library, 150 East San Fernando Street,
San Jose, CA 95112.
• Fremont Main Library, 2400
Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont, CA
94538.
• Milpitas Library, 40 N. Milpitas
Boulevard, Milpitas, CA 95035.
• Central Park Library, 2635
Homestead Road, Santa Clara, CA
95051.
The reports are also available by
contacting Tom Fitzwater at the address
and phone number given above.
Issued on: September 14, 2007.
Leslie Rogers,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07–4666 Filed 9–20–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
Voluntary Intermodal Sealift
Agreement (VISA)/Joint Planning
Advisory Group (JPAG)
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Synopsis of August 21–24, 2007
Meeting with VISA Participants
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The VISA program requires that a
notice of the time, place, and nature of
each JPAG meeting be published in the
Federal Register. The full text of the
VISA program, including these
requirements, is published in 70 FR
55947–55955, dated September 23,
2005.
On August 21–24, 2007, the Maritime
Administration and the U.S.
Transportation Command co-hosted a
JPAG meeting at the U.S. Transportation
Command, Scott Air Force Base,
Illinois. Meeting attendance was by
invitation only, due to the nature of the
information discussed and the need for
a government-issued security clearance.
Of the 52 U.S.-flag carrier corporate
participants enrolled in the VISA
program, 18 companies and one
representative from maritime labor
participated in the JPAG meeting. In
addition, representatives from the
Maritime Administration and the
Department of Defense (DOD) attended
the meeting.
Margaret Leclaire, Deputy Director
Strategy, Plans, Policy & Programs, U.S.
Transportation Command, and James
E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM
21SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 183 (Friday, September 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54099-54101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4666]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Intent To Prepare a Revised Environmental Impact Statement for
the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Project in Milpitas, San Jose, and
Santa Clara, CA
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) will prepare a Revised
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Silicon Valley
Rapid Transit Project (SVRT Project), a 16.1-mile extension of the San
Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) system from the
planned BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont through Milpitas and San
Jose to Santa Clara, California. The Revised EIS will be prepared in
accordance with regulations implementing the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), as well as the provisions of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. The
purpose of this Notice of Intent (NOI) is to inform interested parties
of the plan to prepare a Revised EIS, to invite agency and public
participation in the EIS process, and to announce public scoping
meetings.
DATES: Written comments on the scope of the Revised EIS, including the
Project's purpose and need statement, Project alternatives,
environmental and community impacts to be evaluated, and evaluation
methodologies should be sent to Tom Fitzwater, Environmental Resources
Planning Manager, by October 29, 2007. Public scoping meetings will be
held on October 9, 11, and 18, 2007 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the
locations indicated under ADDRESSES below.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted by postal mail, e-mail, or
fax, to: Tom Fitzwater, Environmental Resources Planning Manager, Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Environmental Programs and
Resources Management, 3331 North First Street, Building B-2, San Jose,
CA 95134-1927. E-mail: SVRT.NEPA.EIS.Comments@vta.org. Fax: (408) 321-
5787. Project Web site: https://www.vtabart-vta.org.
Comments may also be submitted at the public scoping meetings. The
dates and locations of the public scoping meetings are:
October 9, 2007, Milpitas City Hall, Committee Meeting Room, 455 East
Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, CA 95035.
October 11, 2007, San Jose City Hall, Wing 118-120, 200 East Santa
Clara Street, San Jose, CA 95113.
October 18, 2007, City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Senior Center, 1303
Fremont Street, Room 232, Santa Clara, CA 95050.
The scoping meeting facilities will be accessible to persons with
disabilities. If special translation or signing services or other
special accommodations are needed, please contact VTA Customer Service
five days prior to the meeting at (408) 321-2300, or e-mail
community.outreach@vta.org. To be placed on the Project mailing list,
[[Page 54100]]
contact Tom Fitzwater, VTA Environmental Planning Resources Manager, as
indicated above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerome Wiggins, Transportation Program
Specialist, Federal Transit Administration, San Francisco Regional
Office, 201 Mission Street, Room 2210, San Francisco, CA 94105-1926,
(415) 744-3115.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Revised EIS. The original
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Silicon Valley Rapid
Transit Project was issued on February 6, 2002. The original Draft EIS/
EIR was released to the public on March 16, 2004. However, no action
was taken to finalize the original Draft EIS. Due to the passage of
time, changes in the Project and environmental setting, availability of
new information, and funding considerations, a Revised EIS will be
prepared. The Revised EIS will explore the environmental and community
impacts of the Project and Project alternatives and will discuss
actions to reduce or eliminate such impacts. Environmental issues to be
examined include: Changes to the physical environment (air quality and
global warming, biological resources, noise and vibration, water
quality, floodplains, geology and seismicity, visual and aesthetics,
hazardous materials, energy, utilities, and electromagnetic fields);
changes to the social environment (land use, business displacements,
community facilities, and neighborhood disruptions); changes to traffic
and pedestrian circulation; changes to transit service and patronage;
associated changes to traffic congestion; and changes to parklands and
cultural resources. Impacts will be identified for both the
construction phase and the long-term operation of the Project or
Project alternatives.
Proposed Project Description: The SVRT Project Alternative would
begin at the planned BART Warm Springs Station (to be implemented by
2013) in Fremont and proceed on the former Union Pacific Railroad
right-of-way through Milpitas to south of Mabury Road in San Jose. The
alignment would then descend into a subway tunnel, continue through
downtown San Jose, and terminate at grade in Santa Clara near the
Caltrain Station. The total length of the alignment would be 16.1
miles. Six stations are proposed with an additional future station in
Milpitas. Passenger service would start in 2016, assuming funding is
available. A Berryessa Extension Project (BEP) Alternative will also be
included in the EIS to address the New Starts Candidate Project for
federal funding purposes. The BEP Alternative would begin at the
planned BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and proceed on the former
Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through Milpitas to south of Mabury
Road in San Jose. The total length of the alignment would be 9.3 miles.
One station is proposed in Milpitas and one in San Jose. Passenger
service for the BE Project would start in 2016, assuming funding is
available.
Draft Project Purpose and Need: The purpose of the Project is to
improve transit services and increase intermodal connectivity among
transit routes and stations serving origins and destinations in Alameda
County, Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County, and portions of the
Central Valley. Meeting this overall Project purpose would address a
variety of related needs in the SVRTC, including the following goals:
Improve public transit service in this severely congested
corridor by providing increased transit capacity and faster, convenient
access throughout the San Francisco Bay Area Region, including southern
Alameda County, central Contra Costa County, Tri-Valley, San Joaquin
Valley, and Silicon Valley;
Enhance regional connectivity through expanded,
interconnected rapid transit services between BART in Alameda County
and light rail and commuter rail in Silicon Valley;
Accommodate future travel demand in the corridor by
expanding modal options;
Alleviate severe and increasing traffic congestion on the
I-880 and I-680 freeways between Alameda County and Silicon Valley;
Improve regional air quality by reducing auto emissions;
Improve mobility options to employment, education,
medical, retail, and entertainment centers for corridor residents, (in
particular, low income, youth, elderly, disabled, and ethnic minority
populations);
Maximize transit usage and ridership; and
Support local economic and land use plans and goals.
The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor (study area) is one of
the most congested corridors in Northern California. Over the past
several years, it has experienced very high and increasing levels of
traffic congestion due to the growth of jobs throughout the Silicon
Valley area, including downtown San Jose, and the cities of Fremont,
Milpitas, and Santa Clara. Congestion is also spreading from the peak
hours to off peak hours. Population and employment growth within the
entire study area from 2000 to 2030, as forecast by the Association of
Bay Area Governments, is expected to increase dramatically. Current
levels of service (LOS) on highways in the corridor, I-680 and I-880,
are ``F'' in the peak hour, with future level of service anticipated to
continue to be LOS F. LOS F describes failure conditions with
unacceptable delays to most vehicles, long queues, and stop-and-go
flow. Planned improvements to highway and transit service in the study
area are not expected to keep up with the demand for quality transit,
given the increased highway congestion expected.
Proposed Project Alternatives: The 2004 Draft EIS evaluated three
alternatives: the Future No-Build, a Transportation Systems Management
alternative with enhanced bus service, and the proposed BART extension.
On the basis of the Draft EIS, FTA and VTA have decided that the TSM
alternative is not a reasonable alternative because it does not meet
the Project's purpose and need. The buses, which operate on highways,
are subject to the same congestion as automobiles. Therefore, the
Revised EIS will evaluate the following alternatives, plus any
additional alternatives that emerge from the scooping process.
Future No-Build Alternative. This alternative consists of
the existing transit and roadway networks and planned and programmed
improvements in the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor that are
identified in the Bay Area's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP),
Mobility for the Next Generation--Transportation 2030 Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Area (Transportation 2030 Plan), adopted by MTC in
February 2005, and the Valley Transportation Plan 2030 (VTP 2030),
adopted by VTA in February 2005.
SVRT Project Alternative--BART Extension to Milpitas, San
Jose, and Santa Clara. This alternative consists of a 16.1-mile
extension of the BART system. The Project would begin at the planned
BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont (to be implemented by 2013) and
proceed on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through the
City of Milpitas to south of Mabury Road in the City of San Jose. The
extension would then descend into a subway tunnel, continue through
downtown San Jose, and terminate at grade in the City of Santa Clara
near the Caltrain Station. Six stations are proposed: Milpitas,
Berryessa, Alum Rock, Downtown San Jose, Diridon/Arena, and Santa
Clara. An additional
[[Page 54101]]
future station in Milpitas is also proposed.
Berryessa Extension Project Alternative. This alternative
would begin at the planned BART Warm Springs Station in Fremont and
proceed on the former Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way through
Milpitas to south of Mabury Road in San Jose. The total length of the
alignment would be 9.3 miles. Two stations are proposed: Milpitas and
Berryessa.
Analytical Methodologies: FTA and VTA will collaborate with
agencies and the public, as appropriate, on the methodologies to be
used and the level of detail required in the analysis of proposed
alternatives. Information on the methodologies for analysis will be
sent to the appropriate agencies directly. Information will also be
presented at the scoping meetings for public distribution. Both
agencies and the public may comment, as described under DATES above.
The EIS Process and the Role of Agencies and the Public: The
purpose of the EIS process is to explore in a public setting,
potentially significant effects of implementing the proposed Project
and Project alternatives on the physical, human, and natural
environment. The major areas of investigation include, but are not
limited to, the effect on historic resources in downtown San Jose, the
noise impacts of the BART trains outside of the planned tunnel, and the
vibration impacts of the BART trains both inside and outside of tunnel.
Regulations implementing NEPA, as well as provisions of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU), call for agency and public involvement in the
EIS process. Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU requires that FTA and VTA
extend an invitation to other Federal and non-Federal agencies and
Indian tribes that may have an interest in the proposed Project to
become a participating agency, and establish a plan for coordinating
public and agency participation in and comment on the environmental
review. A cooperating agency is defined as ``any Federal agency which
has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any
environmental impact involved in a proposal. Accordingly, an invitation
to become a cooperating or participating agency, as appropriate, will
be extended to agencies and Indian tribes known to have an interest in
the proposed Project. It is possible that we may not be able to
identify all Federal and non-Federal agencies and Indian tribes that
may have such an interest. Any Federal or non-Federal agency or Indian
tribe interested in the proposed Project that does not receive an
invitation to become a participating agency should notify, at the
earliest opportunity, the Environmental Planning Resource Manager
identified above under ADDRESSES above.
Agency and Public Involvement: A comprehensive agency and public
involvement program has been developed. The Policy Advisory Board
consisting of county, city, BART, and VTA officials; City Partnership
Teams consisting of VTA and city staff representatives; and the
External Technical Advisory Committee consisting of staff
representatives from state, regional, county, city, and transit
agencies; were established in 2002 and continue to meet regularly to
provide guidance, discuss the proposed Project, and for coordination
and technical input. Community Working Groups consisting of the leaders
of neighborhood and business associations, community organizations,
advocacy groups, major property owners, and planning commissioners were
also established in 2002 for cities and specific geographical areas to
communicate Project information to key members of the community and
facilitate community input and participation. These mechanisms will be
developed into a formal coordination plan that covers both agency and
public involvement. The coordination plan will be posted on the Project
Web site at https://www.vtabart-vta.org.
FTA Procedures: In accordance with 23 CFR 771.105(a) and 771.133,
FTA will comply with all Federal environmental laws, regulations, and
executive orders applicable to the proposed Project during the
environmental review process to the maximum extent practical. These
requirements include, but are not limited to, the regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-
1508 and 23 CFR part 771), the project-level air quality conformity
regulation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR
part 93), section 404(b)(1) guidelines of EPA (40 CFR part 230),
Executive Orders 11988, 11990, and 12898 regarding floodplains,
wetlands, and environmental justice, respectively, Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR part 800), Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (50 CFR part 402), and Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act (23 CFR 771.135).
Related Documents: The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor, Major
Investment Study Final Report (November 2001), the 2004 Draft EIS, the
Final Environmental Impact Report (November 2004), and the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (June 2007) are available for
public review at the following public libraries:
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Main Library, 150 East San
Fernando Street, San Jose, CA 95112.
Fremont Main Library, 2400 Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont,
CA 94538.
Milpitas Library, 40 N. Milpitas Boulevard, Milpitas, CA
95035.
Central Park Library, 2635 Homestead Road, Santa Clara, CA
95051.
The reports are also available by contacting Tom Fitzwater at the
address and phone number given above.
Issued on: September 14, 2007.
Leslie Rogers,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 07-4666 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-M
