Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Geary Bus Rapid Transit Project in San Francisco, CA, 71085-71087 [E8-27868]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 227 / Monday, November 24, 2008 / Notices
agreement in effect before FMCSA will
issue a property broker license.
Cancellation of Prior Filings Form
BMC–35 entitled, Notice of Cancellation
Motor Carrier Insurance Under 49
U.S.C. 13906, Form BMC–36 entitled,
‘‘Notice of Cancellation Motor Carrier
and Brokers Surety Bonds Under 49
U.S.C. § 13906,’’ and Form 85 entitled,
‘‘Property Broker’s Trust Fund
Agreement Under 49 U.S.C. 13906,’’
cancel prior filings.
Endorsement Form BMC 90 entitled,
‘‘Endorsement for Motor Carrier Policies
of Insurance for Automobile Bodily
Injury and Property Damage Liability
Under Section 13906, Title 49 of the
United States Code,’’ and Form BMC–32
entitled, ‘‘Endorsement for Motor
Common Carrier Policies of Insurance
for Cargo Liability Under 49 U.S.C.
§ 13906,’’ are executed by the insurance
company, attached to BI&PD and cargo
insurance policies, respectively, and
forwarded to the motor carrier or freight
forwarder.
Self Insurance motor carriers can also
apply to the FMCSA to self-insure
BI&PD and/or cargo liability in lieu of
filing certificates of insurance with the
FMCSA, as long as the carrier maintains
a satisfactory safety rating. See 49 CFR
387.7(d)(3) and 387.309. The Form
BMC–40 is the application used by
carriers to apply for self-insurance
authority.
Title: Financial Responsibility, Motor
Carriers, Freight Forwarders and
Brokers, formerly titled ‘‘Financial
Responsibility, Trucking and Freight
Forwarding.’’
OMB Control Number: 2126–0017.
Type of Request: Revision of a
currently-approved information
collection.
Respondents: Motor carriers, freight
forwarders and brokers.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
251,415.
Estimated Time per Response: The
estimated average burden per response
for the Form BMC–40 is 40 hours. The
estimated average burden per response
for all of the other remaining insurance
forms (BMC–32, 34, 35, 36, 82, 83, 84,
85, 90, 91, and 91X) is 10 minutes per
form.
Expiration Date: February 28, 2009.
Frequency of Response: Certificates of
insurance, surety bonds, and trust fund
agreements are required when the
transportation entity first registers with
the FMCSA and then when such
coverages are changed or replaced.
Notices of cancellation are required only
when such certificates of insurance,
surety bonds or trust fund agreements
are canceled. The Form BMC–40 is
generally filed only when a carrier seeks
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:32 Nov 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
approval from FMCSA to self-insure its
BI&PD and/or cargo liability.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
66,960 hours [5 BMC–40 filings per year
x 40 hours to complete + 400,560 filings
per year for all of the other forms x 10
minutes/60 minutes to complete =
66,960].
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including: (1)
Whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the agency to perform its
mission; (2) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (3) ways for the
FMCSA to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected
information; and (4) ways that the
burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected
information. The agency will summarize
or include your comments in the request
for OMB’s clearance of this information
collection.
Issued on: November 14, 2008.
Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Research and
Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E8–27867 Filed 11–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report for the Geary Bus Rapid
Transit Project in San Francisco, CA
Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) and the San
Francisco County Transportation
Authority (The Authority) intend to
prepare an EIS on the implementation of
a fixed-guideway transit system in the
Geary Boulevard Corridor located
between the Transbay Terminal on the
east (at First and Mission Streets) and
33rd Avenue on the west. Alternatives
proposed to be considered in the draft
EIS include a combined No Project/
Transportation Systems Management
(TSM) Alternative, a Geary BRT
Alternative and any additional
reasonable alternatives that emerge from
the study process. The EIS will be
prepared to satisfy the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing
regulations. The FTA and The Authority
request public and interagency input on
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71085
the purpose and need to be addressed
by the project, the alternatives to be
considered in the EIS, and the
environmental and community impacts
to be evaluated.
DATES: Written comments on the scope
of the NEPA review, including the
project’s purpose and need, the
alternatives to be considered, and the
related impacts to be assessed, should
be sent to The Authority by December
24, 2008. See ADDRESSES below.
Scoping Meetings: Meetings to accept
comments on the scope of the EIS will
be held on December 4 and December 6,
2008 at the locations given below. On
December 4, 2008, the public scoping
meeting will begin at 6 p.m. and
continue until 8 p.m. or until all who
wish to provide oral comments have
been given the opportunity. The
meeting on December 6, 2008 will begin
at 10 a.m. and continue until 12 p.m. or
until all who wish to provide oral
comments have been given the
opportunity.
The locations are accessible to people
with disabilities. A court reporter will
record oral comments. Forms will be
provided on which to submit written
comments. Project staff will be available
at the meeting to informally discuss the
EIS scope and the proposed project.
Governmental agencies will be invited
to a separate scoping meeting to be held
on December 3, 2008 at the San
Francisco County Transportation
Authority between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the
scope of the EIS, including the project’s
purpose and need, the alternatives to be
considered, and the related impacts to
be assessed, should be sent to Zabe
Bent, Principal Transportation Planner;
San Francisco County Transportation
Authority; 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26th
Floor; San Francisco, CA 94102. Phone:
(415) 522–4819. Fax: (415) 522–4829. Email: Elizabeth.Bent@sfcta.org. Please
include the name of an appropriate
contact person in your agency for
continued EIS coordination. Further
project information will be available at
the scoping meetings and may also be
obtained by calling (415) 522–4800, by
downloading materials from https://
www.GearyBRT.org or by e-mailing
gearybrt@sfcta.org.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background/Project Description
The proposed project would be
located in the Geary Boulevard Corridor,
a key east-west transportation corridor
in the heart of the City and County of
San Francisco. Geary Boulevard is an
important roadway and transit route
serving high-density commercial and
E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM
24NON1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
71086
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 227 / Monday, November 24, 2008 / Notices
residential areas along its length from
Market Street on the east to Pacific
Ocean on the west. The project aims to
improve travel times and reliability in
the portion of the transit corridor
located between the Transbay Terminal
on the east (at First and Mission Streets)
and 33rd Avenue on the west; special
focus will be on the segment located
west of Van Ness Avenue which is the
most congested portion of the corridor.
The roadway serves as a major
thoroughfare for local traffic as well as
through traffic, carrying over 50,000
transit trips per day, between 30,000
and 65,000 auto trips daily depending
on the location on the corridor, and
thousands of pedestrian and bicycle
trips. Transit service is provided by
Muni route 38–Geary (including 38L,
38AX, and 38BX), and by Golden Gate
Transit (based in Marin County), which
operates commute service and limited
all-day service into San Francisco on
Geary Boulevard. Unlike many transit
routes that primarily serve commuters,
transit ridership on Geary Boulevard is
consistently high throughout the day, on
both weekdays and weekends, and in
both the eastbound and westbound
directions. A number of major northsouth transit routes cross Geary
Boulevard and generate major bus-tobus transfers with Geary Boulevard
services, including Muni lines 22–
Fillmore, 49–Van Ness, 30–Stockton,
and 14–Mission (including 14L and
14X), and the Muni Metro T-Line
(formerly 15–Third). In addition to the
routes on and perpendicular to Geary
Boulevard, routes that operate within a
few blocks of Geary Boulevard are
considered part of the broader Geary
corridor, including 1–California
(including 1AX and 1BX), 2–Clement,
3–Jackson, 4–Sutter, and 31–Balboa.
Traffic congestion in mixed-flow
traffic lanes and transit overcrowding
result in poor transit service reliability
and low average bus speeds, currently
just 8 to 10 miles per hour for Muni
Route 38–Geary. Bus reliability is poor,
with high variation in headways and
bunching. Buses serve as much as 25%
of the trips made in the Geary Boulevard
corridor in the PM peak hour, with the
highest passenger loads between
Fillmore Street and Van Ness Avenue.
For all neighborhoods in the corridor,
walking also accounts for a large
percentage of trips. The non-auto mode
share in the neighborhoods located in
the heart of the city is as follows: The
Tenderloin is over 50% bike, walk and
transit; in the Western Addition/
Japantown, it is 40%; and in the
Richmond it is just over 30%. In spite
of high transit ridership and high
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:32 Nov 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
pedestrian use, much of the current
roadway layout and traffic signal
infrastructure on Geary primarily
benefits motorists more than it benefits
transit riders and pedestrians. A major
project purpose is, therefore, to improve
its walkability and livability.
Geary Boulevard has been identified
as a high priority transit improvement
corridor in a number of planning studies
and funding actions by the City and
County of San Francisco. The
Authority’s Four Corridors Plan (1995)
and Muni’s Vision for Rapid Transit
(2000) and Transit Effectiveness Project
(2008) identify Geary Boulevard as a
priority corridor for rapid transit
improvements. Along with two other
key transit corridors, Geary Boulevard
was designated for BRT improvements
in the New Expenditure Plan for San
Francisco, approved in November 2004
by voters as Proposition K, the
reauthorization of the City’s half-cent
transportation sales tax measure. The
Expenditure Plan is the investment
component of the 2004 San Francisco
Countywide Transportation Plan, which
sets forth the city’s ‘‘blueprint to guide
the development of transportation
funding priorities and policy’’ with a
key objective being the promotion and
implementation of San Francisco’s
Transit First policy through the
development of a network of fast,
reliable transit including bus rapid
transit. The Geary Corridor BRT Study
(the Feasibility Study) was initiated in
2004, completed in 2007, and evaluated
the feasibility of four alternative BRT
configurations on Geary Boulevard. A
Transportation Systems Management
(TSM) and three full-featured BRT
alternatives were developed and
compared with a No Project scenario, in
conjunction with a comprehensive
public and agency participation
program. The Feasibility Study found
that all the BRT configurations studied
would be feasible on Geary and
recommended an environmental
analysis and further technical design
work to identify a preferred alternative.
The alternatives—and others identified
through the scoping process—will be
addressed in the proposed project EIS.
As discussed above, previous studies
and documents relevant to this action
include the recently completed Geary
Boulevard BRT Feasibility Study (June
2007); 2005 Prop K Strategic Plan
(March 2005); 2004 San Francisco
Countywide Transportation Plan
(adopted July 20, 2004), and the New
Transportation Expenditure Plan for San
Francisco (Proposition K, approved
November 4, 2003). These documents
describe the planning and funding for
transportation improvements in San
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Francisco, including BRT in major bus
corridors.
II. Scoping
The FTA and The Authority invite all
interested individuals, organizations,
and Federal, State, and local
governmental agencies to comment on
the project’s purpose and need, the
alternatives to be considered in the EIS
and the impacts to be evaluated. During
the scoping process, comments on the
proposed statement of purpose and need
should address its completeness and
adequacy. Comments on the alternatives
should propose alternatives that would
satisfy the purpose and need at less cost
or with greater effectiveness or less
environmental or community impact
and were not previously studied and
eliminated for good cause. At this time,
comments should focus on the scope of
the NEPA review and should not state
a preference for a particular alternative.
The best opportunity for that type of
input will be after the release of the
draft EIS.
Following the scoping process, public
outreach activities with interested
parties or groups will continue
throughout the duration of work on the
EIS. The project Web site, https://
www.GearyBRT.org, will be updated
periodically to reflect the status of the
project. Additional opportunities for
public participation will be announced
through mailings, notices,
advertisements, and press releases.
Those wishing to be placed on the
project mailing list may do so by
registering on the Web site at https://
www.GearyBRT.org, or by calling (415)
522–4819.
Public and agency scoping meetings
to be held on:
Thursday, December 4, 2008, Self
Help for the Elderly, Jackie Chan
Activity Center, 408—22nd Avenue (at
Geary), 6–8 p.m.
Saturday, December 6, 2008,
Tenderloin Community School, 627
Turk Street (at Polk), 10 a.m.–12 p.m.
An agency scoping meeting will be
held on:
Wednesday, December 3, 2008, San
Francisco County Transportation
Authority, 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26th
Floor (at Fell), 1–3 p.m.
Comments on issues and impacts to
be considered in preparation of the EIS
will be recorded.
III. Purpose and Need
The Authority adopted as part of the
2004 Countywide Transportation Plan
and its investment component, the New
Expenditure Plan for San Francisco, a
BRT strategy for expanding rapid transit
service in San Francisco. The BRT
E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM
24NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 227 / Monday, November 24, 2008 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
network is intended to address the
following purpose:
1. Support the city’s growth and
development needs;
2. Better serve existing transit riders
and stem and reverse the trend toward
transit mode share loss; and
3. Improve the operational efficiency
and cost effectiveness of the
transportation system.
A BRT network can meet those goals
by:
• Improving transit levels of service
cost effectively;
• Strengthening rapid transit services;
• Raising the cost effectiveness of
Muni service and operational efficiency
of transit preferential streets; and
• Contributing to the livability of BRT
corridors.
IV. Alternatives
Alternatives to be reviewed in the EIS
include a (1) combined No-Project/
Transportation Systems Management
(TSM) Alternative, which would
include low-cost improvements to
corridor bus services, such as bus stop
amenities and limited transit signal
priority; (2) a Geary BRT Alternative,
which will include design options for
the configuration of the BRT transitway
and stations; and (3) any additional
reasonable alternatives that emerge from
the study process.
The No-Project/TSM Alternative
assumes a 2015 condition of land use
and transit capital and service
improvements that are programmed or
planned to be implemented by the San
Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency (SFMTA) (which includes the
San Francisco Municipal Railway and
the Department of Parking and Traffic),
and other transit providers in the study
area (e.g., Golden Gate Transit and the
Bay Area Rapid Transit District, or
BART, a regional rail service provider).
For transit, these include upgraded bus
stops and passenger information/
communication systems. Other transit
improvements could include advanced
traffic signal priority systems on Muni
vehicles, rationalizing the allocation of
limited vs. local Muni service in the
corridor, expanding Muni service hours
to 7 p.m. on weekdays, and enhanced
Muni transit shelters and signage.
The Geary BRT Alternative would
include, among other features:
• Dedicated transit lanes within the
existing Geary Boulevard right-of-way;
• Sheltered, low-platform passenger
stations with real-time bus arrival
passenger information signs, lighting,
and fare ticketing machines;
• Off-vehicle self-service fare vending
and on-board proof-of-payment
verification; and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:32 Nov 21, 2008
Jkt 217001
• Advanced transit traffic signal
priority and traffic management systems
to reduce bus delays at signalized
intersections yet maintain acceptable
traffic flow.
Preferred spacing for passenger
stations would be an average of one-half
mile between stops, with local bus
stations located every 800 to 1000 feet.
BRT transitway and station
improvements would be made entirely
within existing public rights-of-way;
improvements outside of existing
public-rights of way are not anticipated
with the possible exception of required
improvements to existing Muni bus
storage and maintenance facilities and
to off-alignment intersections for
mitigation of project impacts. Variations
in the cross-section for the BRT
transitway and the locations of stations
are anticipated and would comprise
design options for the basic BRT
alignment. A two-way transitway either
in the median of Geary Boulevard or
along the outside curbs (one eastbound
BRT lane along the south curb/parking
lane; one westbound BRT lane along the
north curb/parking lane) and,
correspondingly, stations in the median
or as extensions of the sidewalk were
considered in the Geary BRT feasibility
study and warrant further evaluation as
part of the EIS and alternatives analysis.
All BRT alternatives considered would
be designed to be ‘‘rail-ready’’ in terms
of vertical and horizontal clearances and
operational requirements.
The Authority, in association with
SFMTA, will evaluate the procurement
of modern low-floor high-capacity
vehicles that would be assigned to the
BRT service and have added features,
such as two-sided, multi-door access,
passenger station docking assist, and
other amenities. Streetscape
improvements, such as enhanced
landscaping and pedestrian access along
Geary Boulevard, are also included in
the proposed BRT project.
V. Probable Effects
The EIS will evaluate and fully
disclose the environmental
consequences of the construction and
operation of a fixed guideway transit
system in the Geary Transit Corridor.
The EIS will evaluate the impacts of all
reasonable alternatives on land use,
zoning, residential and business
displacements, parklands, economic
development, community disruptions,
environmental justice, aesthetics, noise,
vegetation, water quality, wetlands,
waterways, floodplains, hazardous
waste materials, and cultural, historic,
and archaeological resources. To ensure
that all significant issues related to this
proposed action are identified and
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
71087
addressed, scoping comments and
suggestions on more specific issues of
environmental or community impact are
invited from all interested parties.
Comments and questions should be
directed to The Authority as noted in
the ADDRESSES section above.
VI. FTA Procedures
The EIS will be prepared in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), as amended, and its
implementing regulations by the
Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) (40 CFR parts 1500–1508) and by
the FTA and Federal Highway
Administration (‘‘Environmental Impact
and Related Procedures’’ at 23 CFR part
771). In accordance with FTA regulation
and policy, the NEPA process will also
address the requirements of other
applicable environmental laws,
regulations, and executive orders,
including, but not limited to: Federal
transit laws [49 U.S.C. 5301(e), 5323(b),
and 5324(b)], Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act,
Section 4(f) (‘‘Protection of Public
Lands’’) of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 303),
Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, and the Executive Orders on
Environmental Justice, Floodplain
Management, and Protection of
Wetlands.
Issued on November 19, 2008.
Leslie T. Rogers,
Regional Administrator, Region IX, Federal
Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. E8–27868 Filed 11–21–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–57–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket No. MARAD 2008 0106]
Requested Administrative Waiver of
the Coastwise Trade Laws
Maritime Administration,
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Invitation for public comments
on a requested administrative waiver of
the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel
BIKINI KIM.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: As authorized by 46 U.S.C.
12121, the Secretary of Transportation,
as represented by the Maritime
Administration (MARAD), is authorized
to grant waivers of the U.S.-build
requirement of the coastwise laws under
certain circumstances. A request for
such a waiver has been received by
MARAD. The vessel, and a brief
E:\FR\FM\24NON1.SGM
24NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 227 (Monday, November 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71085-71087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-27868]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental
Impact Report for the Geary Bus Rapid Transit Project in San Francisco,
CA
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the San Francisco
County Transportation Authority (The Authority) intend to prepare an
EIS on the implementation of a fixed-guideway transit system in the
Geary Boulevard Corridor located between the Transbay Terminal on the
east (at First and Mission Streets) and 33rd Avenue on the west.
Alternatives proposed to be considered in the draft EIS include a
combined No Project/Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
Alternative, a Geary BRT Alternative and any additional reasonable
alternatives that emerge from the study process. The EIS will be
prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. The FTA and
The Authority request public and interagency input on the purpose and
need to be addressed by the project, the alternatives to be considered
in the EIS, and the environmental and community impacts to be
evaluated.
DATES: Written comments on the scope of the NEPA review, including the
project's purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered, and the
related impacts to be assessed, should be sent to The Authority by
December 24, 2008. See ADDRESSES below.
Scoping Meetings: Meetings to accept comments on the scope of the
EIS will be held on December 4 and December 6, 2008 at the locations
given below. On December 4, 2008, the public scoping meeting will begin
at 6 p.m. and continue until 8 p.m. or until all who wish to provide
oral comments have been given the opportunity. The meeting on December
6, 2008 will begin at 10 a.m. and continue until 12 p.m. or until all
who wish to provide oral comments have been given the opportunity.
The locations are accessible to people with disabilities. A court
reporter will record oral comments. Forms will be provided on which to
submit written comments. Project staff will be available at the meeting
to informally discuss the EIS scope and the proposed project.
Governmental agencies will be invited to a separate scoping meeting to
be held on December 3, 2008 at the San Francisco County Transportation
Authority between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS, including the
project's purpose and need, the alternatives to be considered, and the
related impacts to be assessed, should be sent to Zabe Bent, Principal
Transportation Planner; San Francisco County Transportation Authority;
100 Van Ness Avenue, 26th Floor; San Francisco, CA 94102. Phone: (415)
522-4819. Fax: (415) 522-4829. E-mail: Elizabeth.Bent@sfcta.org. Please
include the name of an appropriate contact person in your agency for
continued EIS coordination. Further project information will be
available at the scoping meetings and may also be obtained by calling
(415) 522-4800, by downloading materials from https://www.GearyBRT.org
or by e-mailing gearybrt@sfcta.org.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background/Project Description
The proposed project would be located in the Geary Boulevard
Corridor, a key east-west transportation corridor in the heart of the
City and County of San Francisco. Geary Boulevard is an important
roadway and transit route serving high-density commercial and
[[Page 71086]]
residential areas along its length from Market Street on the east to
Pacific Ocean on the west. The project aims to improve travel times and
reliability in the portion of the transit corridor located between the
Transbay Terminal on the east (at First and Mission Streets) and 33rd
Avenue on the west; special focus will be on the segment located west
of Van Ness Avenue which is the most congested portion of the corridor.
The roadway serves as a major thoroughfare for local traffic as well as
through traffic, carrying over 50,000 transit trips per day, between
30,000 and 65,000 auto trips daily depending on the location on the
corridor, and thousands of pedestrian and bicycle trips. Transit
service is provided by Muni route 38-Geary (including 38L, 38AX, and
38BX), and by Golden Gate Transit (based in Marin County), which
operates commute service and limited all-day service into San Francisco
on Geary Boulevard. Unlike many transit routes that primarily serve
commuters, transit ridership on Geary Boulevard is consistently high
throughout the day, on both weekdays and weekends, and in both the
eastbound and westbound directions. A number of major north-south
transit routes cross Geary Boulevard and generate major bus-to-bus
transfers with Geary Boulevard services, including Muni lines 22-
Fillmore, 49-Van Ness, 30-Stockton, and 14-Mission (including 14L and
14X), and the Muni Metro T-Line (formerly 15-Third). In addition to the
routes on and perpendicular to Geary Boulevard, routes that operate
within a few blocks of Geary Boulevard are considered part of the
broader Geary corridor, including 1-California (including 1AX and 1BX),
2-Clement, 3-Jackson, 4-Sutter, and 31-Balboa.
Traffic congestion in mixed-flow traffic lanes and transit
overcrowding result in poor transit service reliability and low average
bus speeds, currently just 8 to 10 miles per hour for Muni Route 38-
Geary. Bus reliability is poor, with high variation in headways and
bunching. Buses serve as much as 25% of the trips made in the Geary
Boulevard corridor in the PM peak hour, with the highest passenger
loads between Fillmore Street and Van Ness Avenue. For all
neighborhoods in the corridor, walking also accounts for a large
percentage of trips. The non-auto mode share in the neighborhoods
located in the heart of the city is as follows: The Tenderloin is over
50% bike, walk and transit; in the Western Addition/Japantown, it is
40%; and in the Richmond it is just over 30%. In spite of high transit
ridership and high pedestrian use, much of the current roadway layout
and traffic signal infrastructure on Geary primarily benefits motorists
more than it benefits transit riders and pedestrians. A major project
purpose is, therefore, to improve its walkability and livability.
Geary Boulevard has been identified as a high priority transit
improvement corridor in a number of planning studies and funding
actions by the City and County of San Francisco. The Authority's Four
Corridors Plan (1995) and Muni's Vision for Rapid Transit (2000) and
Transit Effectiveness Project (2008) identify Geary Boulevard as a
priority corridor for rapid transit improvements. Along with two other
key transit corridors, Geary Boulevard was designated for BRT
improvements in the New Expenditure Plan for San Francisco, approved in
November 2004 by voters as Proposition K, the reauthorization of the
City's half-cent transportation sales tax measure. The Expenditure Plan
is the investment component of the 2004 San Francisco Countywide
Transportation Plan, which sets forth the city's ``blueprint to guide
the development of transportation funding priorities and policy'' with
a key objective being the promotion and implementation of San
Francisco's Transit First policy through the development of a network
of fast, reliable transit including bus rapid transit. The Geary
Corridor BRT Study (the Feasibility Study) was initiated in 2004,
completed in 2007, and evaluated the feasibility of four alternative
BRT configurations on Geary Boulevard. A Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) and three full-featured BRT alternatives were
developed and compared with a No Project scenario, in conjunction with
a comprehensive public and agency participation program. The
Feasibility Study found that all the BRT configurations studied would
be feasible on Geary and recommended an environmental analysis and
further technical design work to identify a preferred alternative. The
alternatives--and others identified through the scoping process--will
be addressed in the proposed project EIS.
As discussed above, previous studies and documents relevant to this
action include the recently completed Geary Boulevard BRT Feasibility
Study (June 2007); 2005 Prop K Strategic Plan (March 2005); 2004 San
Francisco Countywide Transportation Plan (adopted July 20, 2004), and
the New Transportation Expenditure Plan for San Francisco (Proposition
K, approved November 4, 2003). These documents describe the planning
and funding for transportation improvements in San Francisco, including
BRT in major bus corridors.
II. Scoping
The FTA and The Authority invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and Federal, State, and local governmental agencies to
comment on the project's purpose and need, the alternatives to be
considered in the EIS and the impacts to be evaluated. During the
scoping process, comments on the proposed statement of purpose and need
should address its completeness and adequacy. Comments on the
alternatives should propose alternatives that would satisfy the purpose
and need at less cost or with greater effectiveness or less
environmental or community impact and were not previously studied and
eliminated for good cause. At this time, comments should focus on the
scope of the NEPA review and should not state a preference for a
particular alternative. The best opportunity for that type of input
will be after the release of the draft EIS.
Following the scoping process, public outreach activities with
interested parties or groups will continue throughout the duration of
work on the EIS. The project Web site, https://www.GearyBRT.org, will be
updated periodically to reflect the status of the project. Additional
opportunities for public participation will be announced through
mailings, notices, advertisements, and press releases. Those wishing to
be placed on the project mailing list may do so by registering on the
Web site at https://www.GearyBRT.org, or by calling (415) 522-4819.
Public and agency scoping meetings to be held on:
Thursday, December 4, 2008, Self Help for the Elderly, Jackie Chan
Activity Center, 408--22nd Avenue (at Geary), 6-8 p.m.
Saturday, December 6, 2008, Tenderloin Community School, 627 Turk
Street (at Polk), 10 a.m.-12 p.m.
An agency scoping meeting will be held on:
Wednesday, December 3, 2008, San Francisco County Transportation
Authority, 100 Van Ness Avenue, 26th Floor (at Fell), 1-3 p.m.
Comments on issues and impacts to be considered in preparation of
the EIS will be recorded.
III. Purpose and Need
The Authority adopted as part of the 2004 Countywide Transportation
Plan and its investment component, the New Expenditure Plan for San
Francisco, a BRT strategy for expanding rapid transit service in San
Francisco. The BRT
[[Page 71087]]
network is intended to address the following purpose:
1. Support the city's growth and development needs;
2. Better serve existing transit riders and stem and reverse the
trend toward transit mode share loss; and
3. Improve the operational efficiency and cost effectiveness of the
transportation system.
A BRT network can meet those goals by:
Improving transit levels of service cost effectively;
Strengthening rapid transit services;
Raising the cost effectiveness of Muni service and
operational efficiency of transit preferential streets; and
Contributing to the livability of BRT corridors.
IV. Alternatives
Alternatives to be reviewed in the EIS include a (1) combined No-
Project/Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, which
would include low-cost improvements to corridor bus services, such as
bus stop amenities and limited transit signal priority; (2) a Geary BRT
Alternative, which will include design options for the configuration of
the BRT transitway and stations; and (3) any additional reasonable
alternatives that emerge from the study process.
The No-Project/TSM Alternative assumes a 2015 condition of land use
and transit capital and service improvements that are programmed or
planned to be implemented by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency (SFMTA) (which includes the San Francisco Municipal Railway and
the Department of Parking and Traffic), and other transit providers in
the study area (e.g., Golden Gate Transit and the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District, or BART, a regional rail service provider). For
transit, these include upgraded bus stops and passenger information/
communication systems. Other transit improvements could include
advanced traffic signal priority systems on Muni vehicles,
rationalizing the allocation of limited vs. local Muni service in the
corridor, expanding Muni service hours to 7 p.m. on weekdays, and
enhanced Muni transit shelters and signage.
The Geary BRT Alternative would include, among other features:
Dedicated transit lanes within the existing Geary
Boulevard right-of-way;
Sheltered, low-platform passenger stations with real-time
bus arrival passenger information signs, lighting, and fare ticketing
machines;
Off-vehicle self-service fare vending and on-board proof-
of-payment verification; and
Advanced transit traffic signal priority and traffic
management systems to reduce bus delays at signalized intersections yet
maintain acceptable traffic flow.
Preferred spacing for passenger stations would be an average of
one-half mile between stops, with local bus stations located every 800
to 1000 feet. BRT transitway and station improvements would be made
entirely within existing public rights-of-way; improvements outside of
existing public-rights of way are not anticipated with the possible
exception of required improvements to existing Muni bus storage and
maintenance facilities and to off-alignment intersections for
mitigation of project impacts. Variations in the cross-section for the
BRT transitway and the locations of stations are anticipated and would
comprise design options for the basic BRT alignment. A two-way
transitway either in the median of Geary Boulevard or along the outside
curbs (one eastbound BRT lane along the south curb/parking lane; one
westbound BRT lane along the north curb/parking lane) and,
correspondingly, stations in the median or as extensions of the
sidewalk were considered in the Geary BRT feasibility study and warrant
further evaluation as part of the EIS and alternatives analysis. All
BRT alternatives considered would be designed to be ``rail-ready'' in
terms of vertical and horizontal clearances and operational
requirements.
The Authority, in association with SFMTA, will evaluate the
procurement of modern low-floor high-capacity vehicles that would be
assigned to the BRT service and have added features, such as two-sided,
multi-door access, passenger station docking assist, and other
amenities. Streetscape improvements, such as enhanced landscaping and
pedestrian access along Geary Boulevard, are also included in the
proposed BRT project.
V. Probable Effects
The EIS will evaluate and fully disclose the environmental
consequences of the construction and operation of a fixed guideway
transit system in the Geary Transit Corridor. The EIS will evaluate the
impacts of all reasonable alternatives on land use, zoning, residential
and business displacements, parklands, economic development, community
disruptions, environmental justice, aesthetics, noise, vegetation,
water quality, wetlands, waterways, floodplains, hazardous waste
materials, and cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. To
ensure that all significant issues related to this proposed action are
identified and addressed, scoping comments and suggestions on more
specific issues of environmental or community impact are invited from
all interested parties. Comments and questions should be directed to
The Authority as noted in the ADDRESSES section above.
VI. FTA Procedures
The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and its
implementing regulations by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
(40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and by the FTA and Federal Highway
Administration (``Environmental Impact and Related Procedures'' at 23
CFR part 771). In accordance with FTA regulation and policy, the NEPA
process will also address the requirements of other applicable
environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders, including, but
not limited to: Federal transit laws [49 U.S.C. 5301(e), 5323(b), and
5324(b)], Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
Section 4(f) (``Protection of Public Lands'') of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 303), Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, and the Executive Orders on Environmental Justice, Floodplain
Management, and Protection of Wetlands.
Issued on November 19, 2008.
Leslie T. Rogers,
Regional Administrator, Region IX, Federal Transit Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-27868 Filed 11-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
