Jump to main content.

Environmental Impact Statement: Peninsula Commute Service San Francisco Downtown Extension (PCS-DTX) Project in the San Francisco Bay Area, California

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 

Environmental Impact Statement: Peninsula Commute Service Sa



[Federal Register: May 17, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 95)]
[Notices]               

[Page 26473-26474]

>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]







DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Transit Administration

 


Environmental Impact Statement: Peninsula Commute Service San 
Francisco Downtown Extension (PCS-DTX) Project in the San Francisco Bay 
Area, California



AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.



ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS).






SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with 
the Penninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB), is resuming 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the PCS-DTX in 
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The PCJPB 
will ensure that the EIS also satisfies the requirements of the 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The NEPA Lead Agency will 
be FTA. The CEQA Lead Agency will be the PCJPB.



    The Peninsula Commute Service, commonly referred to as CalTrain, is 
the commuter rail system that serves the San Francisco Peninsula 
between Gilroy and the existing terminal station in San Francisco 
located at Fourth and Townsend Streets. The present location of the 
terminal is not considered desirable from a transportation, land use, 
or public policy perspective. The prosposed project would extend 
CalTrain to a new station closer to downtown San Francisco.
    The project was determined by the Bay Area Partnership, a body of 
transportation officials representing different modes, regulatory 
agencies and federal agencies, to belong in the category of projects 
``requiring a Major Investment Study (MIS) but may be satisfied by 
prior studies''. The consultation group convened to discuss MIS 
requirements for this project agreed that past corridor studies such as 
PENTAP, SCR 74, BART/SFO AA/DEIS, and the MTC/JPBCalTrain Downtown 
Extension/System Upgrades Study satisfy MIS requirements and that the 
project could advance into preliminary engineering and environmental 
documentation.



DATES: Written comments on the alternatives and impacts to be 
considered must be postmarked no later than June 15, 1995, and send to 
PCJPB at the address below. Two public informational meetings will be 
held June 21, 1995 at 10 AM-noon and 5:30 PM-7:30 PM in Auditorium B, 
Golden Gate University, 536 Mission Street, San Francisco 94105. These 
meetings will mark the resumption of environmental studies and 
preparation of the EIS/EIR (see Supplementary Information below).



ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Ms. Marie Pang, 
Environmental Manager, PCS-DTX Project, Peninsula Corridor JPB, P.O. 
Box 3006, San Carlos, CA 94070-1306. Phone: (415) 508-6338.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Robert Hom, Director, Program Development, FTA Region IX, 201 
Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone: (415) 744-
3116. [[Page 26474]] 



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 



I. Scoping



    A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was previously published in 
the Federal Register on January 18, 1989. The Scoping Process began 
with two public scoping meetings on February 15, 1989. An 
Administrative Draft EIS was prepared in 1991 but was not circulated 
due to lack of local funding commitments for the project.
    The project was held in abeyance until March, 1993, when the PCJPB 
conducted four public meetings to solicit public input on key project 
issues, including which alternatives deserved further consideration. As 
a result, the PCJPB, jointly with the Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission (MTC), conducted a study to develop fundable extension 
alternatives and system upgrades that could be recommended by the PCJPB 
for inclusion in the MTC's financially constrained Regional 
Transportation Plan (RTP). The study evaluated nine alternatives and 
the results were reviewed in public meetings. In March, 1994, the PCJPB 
designated Alternative 8B (extension of CalTrain to an underground 
terminal at Beale and Market Streets) of that study as the Locally 
Preferred Alternative (LPA) for inclusion in the RTP. This alternative 
was subsequently included in the 1994 RTP adopted by MTC after 
extensive public review. The PCJPB is now resuming environmental 
studies for the preparation of a Draft EIS/EIR for public review and 
comment.

    The public informational meetings will announce resumption of 
environmental studies. The environmental process will be outlined, and 
the public will be invited to become involved in this process through 
the Public Participation/Consensus Building Program that will be 
implemented for this project. The public will be invited to comment on 
all aspects of the project, including alignments, station design, and 
the environmental, social and economic impacts to be analyzed. The 
public will also be notified of future informational meetings and 
workshops as the studies progress.



 II. Description of Study Area



    The Peninsula Commute Service traverses three counties (San 
Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara) from San Francisco to Gilroy for 
a distance of approximately 77 miles. However, most of the proposed 
project is located in the City of San Francisco, in an area generally 
bounded by Market Street, the Embarcadero, China Basin Channel, 
Sixteenth Street, Seventh Street, Bryant Street and Second Street. The 
primary east-west corridors are along Brannan, Townsend and King 
Streets; primary north-south corridors are along Beale Street and Colin 
P. Kelly/Essex Streets (to the Transbay Terminal). The proposed station 
location is at Beale and Market Streets; however, the existing Transbay 
Transit Terminal location will also be evaluated in the envent the LPA 
location proves infeasible.



III. Alternatives



    Three alternatives with sub-options emerged from the evaluation and 
public involvement processes conducted previously. These alternatives 
will be evaluated in the DEIS/DEIR as follows:
    <bullet> Alternative 1--No Build. The San Francisco station would 
remain at 4th and Townsend.

    <bullet> Alternative 2 (The Proposed Project [LPA])--CalTrain would 
be extended to a station at Beale and Market Streets with the following 
routing and fuel options:

    Option A--CalTrain would be routed on the surface along Townsend 
Street to 4th Street, underground via cut and cover under public 
streets from 4th Street to Market and Beale Streets. King and Brannan 
Streets, would be considered should Townsend Street prove infeasible. 
Full system electrification is included in this option.
    Option B--Same as Option A, except existing locomotives with diesel 
power would be used or would be converted to liquified natural gas.
    Option C--Same as Option A, except that a direct mined or bored 
tunnel alignment would be used from approximately 3rd Street to 
approximately Harrison and Beale Streets under private properties in 
the South Beach Area.

    <bullet> Alternative 3--CalTrain would be extended to a station at 
the existing Transbay Transit Terminal location. The PCS would be 
routed on the surface along Townsend Street, underground via cut and 
cover and/or mined tunnel to Folsom/Essex Streets and from there to a 
new or rehabilitated Transbay Transit Terminal. King or Brannan Streets 
would be considered should Townsend prove infeasible. Full system 
electrification is included in this alternative.



IV. Probable Effects



    Impacts proposed for analysis include changes in the physical 
environment (air quality, noise, water quality, geology, visual); 
changes in the social environment (land use, business disruptions, and 
neighborhoods); changes in traffic and pedestrian circulation; impacts 
on parklands and historic sites; changes in transit service and 
partonage; associated changes in highway congestion; capital, operating 
and maintenance costs; and financial implications. Impacts will be 
identified both for the construction period and for the long term 
operation of the alternatives. The proposed evaluation criteria include 
transportation, environmental, social, economic and financial measures 
as required by current Federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) environmental 
laws and current Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and FTA 
guidelines. Mitigating measures will be explored for adverse impacts 
that are identified.



    Issued on: May 12, 1995.

Stewart F. Taylor,

Region IX Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-12165 Filed 5-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-57-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.