[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52452-52454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22371]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration


Environmental Impact Statement for the Bi-County Transitway 
Project

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Maryland 
Transit Administration (MTA) intend to prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) in accordance to the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, on the proposed Bi-County Transitway 
Project in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, Maryland, which are 
in the metropolitan area of Washington, DC. The corridor extends 14 
miles from the western branch of the Metrorail Red Line in Bethesda to 
the New Carrollton Metrorail Station. The Bi-County Transitway will 
provide high-capacity transit along the corridor. As a result of rapid 
growth in travel and development, the Bethesda to New Carrollton study 
area is facing numerous transportation challenges. The growing service 
sector job base has increased the vitally important need for efficient 
transit. The transit investment will compliment and support ongoing 
revitalization efforts currently underway in the study area.
    This project includes the alignment previously known as the 
Georgetown Branch Transitway/Trail (Bethesda to Silver Spring). A 
notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the Georgetown Branch Transitway 
and Trail was

[[Page 52453]]

published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1994. Subsequently, 
the Georgetown Branch became known as the ``Western'' segment of the 
Purple Line. The current Bi-County Transitway Project now also includes 
what was known as the Purple Line ``East'', which extended from Silver 
Spring to New Carrollton. The Bi-County Transitway study area is now 
defined as all of the earlier Purple Line project area between Bethesda 
and New Carrollton.
    The EIS will address the need to improve transit access, reduce 
travel times and improve connectivity in response to regional growth, 
traffic congestion, and land use plans for the area. The EIS will 
examine potential impacts and benefits to the social, cultural, 
economic, built and natural environment. The EIS will develop and 
evaluate alternatives that are cost efficient and beneficial. 
Improvements that enhance connections to existing transit systems, 
increase access to transit and to economic development areas, and 
minimize adverse impacts will be identified. The EIS will evaluate the 
No-Build Alternative, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) 
Alternative, Build Alternatives for Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light 
Rail Transit (LRT), and any additional alternatives generated by the 
scoping process. In addition to mode, the Build Alternative will 
consider alignments, grade options, station locations, and facilities 
such as maintenance and storage yard, inspection and Operation Control 
Center (OCC), traction power substations and tiebreaker stations.
    Scoping Meetings: Public scoping for the Bi-County Transitway EIS 
will be held on: September 16 at the Holiday Inn-Silver Spring, 8777 
Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910; September 17 at the 
Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School, 4301 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20615; and September 24 at College Park City Hall, 4500 Knox 
Road, College Park, Maryland 20740. All scoping meetings will be from 4 
p.m. to 8 p.m., and will be carried out in an open house format.
    Details on meetings dates, project updates, times and locations 
will be announced on the project Web site www.Bi-CountyTransitway.com 
and in a project newsletter. Comments and input may be provided at the 
scoping meetings. Information will be available in English and in 
Spanish and will be published in the following newspapers: The 
Washington Post, The Gazette, The Washington City Paper, The Washington 
Hispanic, The Washington Times, The Takoma Voice, and The Washington 
Afro-American Newspaper.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the project scope should be sent by 
October 31, 2003 to Michael D. Madden, Project Manager, Bi-County 
Transitway, Maryland Transit Administration, Office of Planning, 9th 
Floor, 6 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202. For more 
information about this project or special assistance needs for the 
scoping meetings, please contact Michael D. Madden at (410) 767-3694.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail McFadden-Roberts, AICP, Community 
Planner, Federal Transit Administration, Region III, Office of Planning 
and Program Development, 1760 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
19103-4124, (215) 656-7100 (voice).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Scoping

    The FTA and MTA invite all interested individuals and 
organizations, and Federal, State, regional, and local agencies to 
provide comments on the scope of the project. The goals of the Bi-
County Transitway are to: Provide improved suburb to suburb transit 
alternatives and enhanced access to key civic, educational and 
employment activity centers; improve system connectivity and increase 
transit usage by providing an essential link to the Metrorail radial 
lines, as well as to other rail or bus services in Montgomery and 
Prince George's County; optimize public investment by providing, at a 
reasonable cost, efficient, safe, and reliable transit service, while 
minimizing environmental impacts; improve regional mobility by 
increasing the speed, reliability, and access to transit services in 
Montgomery and Prince George's Counties; support economic development 
and revitalization through improved connections to central business 
districts and activity centers; and support regional clean air quality 
goals with a cost effective transit alternative. Comments should focus 
on the alternatives for analysis and environmental issues, rather than 
on a preference for a particular alternative.
    Public meetings and hearings, newsletters, project Web site and 
other outreach methods and forums will be used to inform the public of 
the progress of the project and to solicit input from the community on 
the proposed project as it develops. Outreach activities will include 
meetings with local officials, community leaders, local stakeholders, 
and the general public throughout the area. Public attendance at 
meetings will be sought through mailings, notices, advertisements, 
press releases and other efforts.
    Additional agency coordination will be carried out through the 
Project Team, which will meet throughout the study process to address 
key issues. Members of the Project Team will include representatives of 
Montgomery County, Prince George's County, Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning 
Commission, and the State Highway Administration.

II. Description of Corridor and Transportation Needs

    The project is located in Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, 
north of Washington, DC. The project area includes established 
communities characterized by medium-density residential uses, with 
pockets of high-density development (Bethesda, Silver Spring, Langley 
Park/Takoma Park, College Park, and New Carrollton), and the University 
of Maryland. The earliest development in the area corresponded with the 
construction of electric railways that radiated from the District of 
Columbia and facilitated movement into outlying areas. The primary 
roadways centered on downtown Washington, DC, and mainly traversed the 
corridor north to south. These arterials include Wisconsin Avenue (MD 
355), Connecticut Avenue (MD 185), Georgia Avenue (MD 97), New 
Hampshire Avenue (MD 650), and Baltimore Avenue (US 1). The area has 
limited infrastructure for east-west travel, with two primary routes 
consisting of East-West Highway (MD 410) and University Boulevard (MD 
193).
    This portion of the Metropolitan Washington Region experienced 
rapid suburban development following World War II, and now contains 
mature neighborhoods accompanied by the development of supportive 
commercial activity centers along the primary roadways with the 
majority of housing stock constructed prior to 1960. Many of the 
commercial activity centers have access, parking, and pedestrian 
circulation deficiencies. The service employment sector is very strong 
throughout the corridor. In addition, professional and office 
employment are located in clusters near Metro stations in Bethesda, 
Silver Spring and, to a lesser extent, College Park and New Carrollton.
    Numerous communities along the corridor contain populations that 
rely on transit to reach employment and activity centers. New transit 
services in the corridor have been limited to bus service, which is 
subject to roadway

[[Page 52454]]

congestion. To date, there has been no investment in fixed guideway 
systems or in new highways to facilitate commuting and links between 
the development centers along radial transportation routes that cross 
the corridor. The current east-west connections include bus transit and 
to a lesser degree, roadways. Commuters must use a north and south 
means to travel east-west. The area has limited infrastructure for 
east-west travel, with two primary routes consisting of East-West 
Highway (MD 410) and University Boulevard (MD 193), neither of which 
provides a direct connection between Silver Spring and New Carrollton. 
These routes are heavily congested during peak periods and increasingly 
unable to accommodate the traffic demands. The focus of the EIS will be 
to identify a preferred transit alternative that will reduce travel 
time, provide an alternative to traveling on congested roadways, and 
improve transit access to central business districts within the area 
while examining the socioeconomic, cultural and natural environmental 
considerations on a local and regional basis.

III. Alternatives

    The alternatives proposed for evaluation include:
    [sbull] A no-build alternative, which includes the current network 
plus all ongoing, programmed, and committed projects listed in the 
latest Transportation Improvement Program;
    [sbull] A TSM alternative, which would include improving existing 
transit services such as additional bus service and routes, and which 
also serves as a baseline for evaluation against which all other 
alternatives may be compared for federal funding purposes (referred to 
as the FTA Future Baseline);
    [sbull] Bus Rapid Transit alternatives; and
    [sbull] Light rail alternatives.
    Each build alternative will explore the construction of new 
transportation infrastructure, such as tracks, stations, and 
maintenance yards. Underground, surface and/or aerial design options 
may be developed for each of the build alternative alignments. Multi-
modal alternatives will also be explored.

IV. Probable Effects

    The FTA and MTA will evaluate all potential changes to the social, 
cultural, economic, built and natural environment, including land 
acquisition and displacements; land use, zoning, economic development; 
parklands; community disruption; aesthetics; historical and 
archaeological resources; traffic and parking; air quality; noise and 
vibration; water quality; wetlands; environmentally sensitive areas; 
endangered species; energy requirements and potential for conservation; 
hazardous waste; environmental justice; safety and security; and 
secondary and cumulative impacts. Key areas of environmental concern 
include areas of potential new construction (e.g., structures, new 
transit stations, new track, etc.). Impacts will be evaluated for both 
the short-term construction period and for the long-term period of 
operation associated with each alternative. Measures to avoid, minimize 
and mitigate any significant adverse impacts will be identified.

V. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Procedures

    Previously, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal 
Register on September 21, 1994, which announced the preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement for the Georgetown Branch Transitway/
Trail in Montgomery County, Maryland. The subsequent Draft Environment 
Impact Statement (DEIS) was completed in May 1996, and evaluated 
transportation improvements between the central business districts 
(CBDs) in Bethesda and Silver Spring, Maryland. The DEIS evaluated both 
a busway and light rail transit alternative in conjunction with a 
parallel hiker/biker trail. A Final Environmental Impact Statement was 
never produced for this study.
    This NOI for the Bi-County Transitway Project extends the previous 
projects limits beyond Silver Spring to New Carrollton. An EIS will be 
prepared in accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended), as implemented by 
the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR parts 
1500-1508), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations (23 CFR 
part 771), and the FTA Statewide Planning/Metropolitan Planning 
regulations (23 CFR part 450). These studies will comply with the 
requirements of the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966, as 
amended, section 4(f) of the 1966 U.S. Department of Transportation 
Act, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Executive Order 12898 on 
Environmental Justice, and other applicable rules, regulations, and 
guidance documents.
    In addition, MTA intends to seek Section 5309 New Starts funding 
for the project. As provided in the FTA New Starts regulation (49 CFR 
part 611), New Starts funding requires the submission of certain 
specific information to FTA to support a request to initiate 
preliminary engineering, which is normally done in conjunction with the 
NEPA process.
    Upon completion, the Draft EIS will be available for public and 
agency review and comment. Public hearings will be held. Based on the 
findings of the Draft EIS and the public and agency comments received, 
a preferred alternative will be selected that will be further detailed 
in the Final EIS.

    Issued on: August 27, 2003.
Herman C. Shipman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III, Federal Transit 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-22371 Filed 9-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-P