• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Altamont corridor rail project preliminary aa executive summary
 

Altamont corridor rail project preliminary aa executive summary

on

  • 1,101 views

Altamont corridor rail project preliminary aa executive summary

Altamont corridor rail project preliminary aa executive summary

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,101
Views on SlideShare
741
Embed Views
360

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

3 Embeds 360

http://www.acerail.com 340
http://acerail.com 19
http://www.slideshare.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Altamont corridor rail project preliminary aa executive summary Altamont corridor rail project preliminary aa executive summary Document Transcript

    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement PRELIMINARY Alternatives Analysis Report Executive Summary February 2011
    •  
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISS.0 SUMMARYThe California High-Speed Rail Authority (the Authority) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)are studying alternative alignments and stations for a regional intercity and commuter passenger railproject between Stockton and San José. This report documents the evaluation of these alternatives andidentifies feasible and practicable alternatives to carry forward for environmental review and evaluation inthe Altamont Corridor Rail Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement(EIR/EIS) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National EnvironmentalProtection Act (NEPA).S.1 ALTAMONT CORRIDOR PROJECT BACKGROUNDThe Altamont Corridor was studied by the Authority and identified as a candidate route to the SanFrancisco Bay Area in the Statewide High Speed Train (HST) System Program EIR/EIS. The Authority andthe FRA further examined the corridor in the 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS andthe 2010 Revised Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS, and selected the Pacheco Pass viaGilroy as the preferred route for the California HST System between the Bay Area and the Central Valleyfor a number of reasons, including the ability to serve San Francisco without requiring a water crossing ofSan Francisco Bay, and providing operational benefits and the lowest travel times between the Bay Areaand southern California. However, the 2008 and 2010 versions of the Bay Area to Central Valley HSTProgram EIR/EIS note that the Pacheco Pass route would not provide faster travel times to the Bay Areafor those Central Valley communities located north of Merced. The Altamont Corridor Rail Project has thepotential to serve the populous in the Interstate 580 (I-580) corridor and reduce traffic along I-580 andInterstate 205 (I-205), which are the Altamont Corridor’s main east-west arteries. Accordingly, theAuthority has identified improving the Altamont Corridor as a complementary regional corridor to theCalifornia HST SystemThe Authority has worked under agreement with a regional partner, the San Joaquin Regional RailCommission (SJRRC), to plan a joint-use rail line through the Altamont Pass that would support newregional intercity and commuter passenger rail services operating in northern California between Stocktonand San José as well as eastern and southern Alameda County. The Authority and the SJRRC areproposing to develop the a new joint-use rail line to improve connectivity and accessibility between thenorthern San Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area. The rail line would be designed and equipped toaccommodate electrified lightweight passenger trains and could be used by HST-compatible equipment.The development of the Altamont Corridor Rail Project as a complement to the California HST System isconsistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, whichidentified the Altamont Corridor as a key future northern California regional rail route and also noted thatdevelopment of this corridor in conjunction with implementation of the California HST System couldprovide greater benefits to the state and region. The Altamont Corridor Rail Project EIR/EIS will buildupon the Bay Area Regional Rail Plan and upon relevant decisions made with the Statewide HST SystemProgram EIR/EIS and the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS.To initiate project planning, the Altamont Corridor Partnership Working Group (the Working Group) wasestablished by the Authority to bring together local partners for the purpose of identifying goals,objectives, and key features of a joint-use regional rail improvement in the Altamont Corridor. Membersinclude the San Joaquin Council of Governments, California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, GreatValley Center, Tri-Valley Policy Advisory Committee, Alameda County Congestion Management Agency,MTC, and Sacramento Area Council of Governments, along with service providers including the AltamontCommuter Express (ACE), San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), San Mateo CountyTransit (SamTrans), Amtrak Capitol Corridor, and Caltrain. The Working Group recognizes the importanceof the Altamont Corridor for regional transportation needs and has reached consensus on the corridorlimits (Stockton to San José); principal features, including key intermodal connections; and project goalsand objectives, which include improving ACE service in the near term and developing capability toaccommodate connections to the California HST System and HST-compatible equipment. The Working Page S-1
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISGroup participated actively during the alternatives analysis evaluation providing feedback from theirspecific areas of expertise and authority. The Working Group will continue to support the project as itmoves forward in the planning and implementation process.S.2 RESULTS FROM THE PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISThis alternatives analysis report (AA Report) incorporates conceptual engineering information andidentifies feasible and practicable alternatives to carry forward for environmental review and evaluation inthe Altamont Corridor Rail Project EIR/EIS.To facilitate the analysis of potential alignment alternatives and station location and design options acrossthe more than 85-mile-long Altamont Corridor, the overall alignment was divided into eight geographicalareas: San José to Fremont (Area 1.1). Fremont to I-680/State Route (SR) 84 (Area 1.2). Union City to I-680/SR 84 (Area 1.3). Tri-Valley (Area 2). Altamont Pass (Area 3). Tracy (Area 4.1). San Joaquin River to Stockton (Area 4.2). San Joaquin River to Ripon/Escalon Vicinity (Area 4.3).The Authority and the FRA, in addition to performing engineering and environmental analysis, haveengaged the agencies, public, and communities throughout the Altamont Corridor under many forumsthat include: meetings, field inspections, project team input and review, qualitative and engineeringassessment of issues, and use of geographic information systems (GIS); they continue to incorporatetheir input. Identification of alternatives and their evaluation in this report has benefitted from thecontributions of all of these parties. The observations below outline some of the key highlights from thework and input received to date: This document recommends not carrying forward any alignments through the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. An alignment through the refuge would incur substantial environmental impacts to a number of threatened and endangered species and could create obstacles to future restoration of the former salt ponds to tidal marsh and open water habitats. It would be highly difficult to reach approval for design and permitting of such an alignment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other state and federal resource agencies. Connections to Oakland, Oakland International Airport, and San Francisco can be made through connections to BART in Livermore and/or Fremont. Although some parties have urged an alignment through the Tri-Valley area along I-580 and I-680 as a means to minimize noise and visual environmental quality impacts and natural resource impacts, this evaluation found such a freeway alternative to be impracticable as a result of substantial constructability issues and risk due to extensive construction in and around the freeways and due to the need to accommodate a future planned BART extension. There are notable tradeoffs in the Tri-Valley area among downtown alignments, and south-of- Pleasanton/Livermore alignments in terms of travel time, ridership/revenue potential, noise and visual environmental quality impacts, and natural resource impacts. City of Pleasanton representatives have expressed their opposition to an alignment through downtown Pleasanton, whether at-grade, aerial, or tunnel, and City of Livermore representatives expressed concern about an aerial alignment through downtown Livermore. For the south-of-Livermore alignment (which bypasses downtown Pleasanton and Livermore), representatives of the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD) and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) urged the avoidance of Sycamore Grove Park and Arroyo Del Valle Page S-2
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Regional Park. The alignment recommended to be carried forward crosses Sycamore Grove Park in tunnel to avoid disruption to the park itself. There are tradeoffs in Tracy between a downtown alignment and station with greater noise and visual environmental quality impact but greater transit-oriented development (TOD) potential, and a southern alignment with less noise and visual environmental quality impact and less TOD potential. It is recommended that both alternatives be carried forward for further analysis. There are a number of phasing options to implement the project in discrete phases. There are also options, should funding ultimately be a limiting factor, to improve regional and intercity service by building one or more of the phases without necessarily completing the entire project from Stockton to San José. Preliminarily identified phasing options include improvements from Stockton to Livermore, from Livermore to Fremont, and from Livermore to Union City as well as incremental improvements to the ACE service.Figure S-1 shows the alignment alternatives recommended to be carried forward for evaluation in theAltamont Corridor Rail Project EIR/EIS. Figures S-2a through S-2c show both the alignment alternativesrecommended to be carried forward and those recommended to be withdrawn from further analysis.Table S-1 at the end of this section summarizes by alignment alternative within each area the proposeddecisions and rationale regarding the withdrawal or carrying forward of the alignment into the AltamontCorridor Rail Project EIR/EIS.Alignment and station alternatives recommended for continued study are listed below: San José to Fremont:  Alignments: Adjacent to the UP Coast Subdivision, SR 237, and I-880 (Alternative EB-4); adjacent to the UP Coast Subdivision, on Trimble Road, and I-880 (Alternative EB-5); adjacent to the UP Coast Subdivision, on Trimble Road, and adjacent to the UP Warm Springs Subdivision (Alternative EB-6).  Stations: San José Diridon, Santa Clara, Great America, First Street/Trimble, Tasman/I-880, Fremont Centerville ACE, Tasman/Great Mall, Warm Springs BART. Fremont to I-680/SR 84:  Alignments: Parallel to I-680 from Warm Springs BART to near I-680/SR 84 (Alternative EBWS- 1); adjacent to UP Warm Springs Subdivision, and tunnel south of Niles Canyon (Alternative EBWS-2).  Stations: Warm Springs BART, I-680/SR 84. Union City to I-680/SR 84:  Alignments: In UP Oakland Subdivision, Niles Junction, and Niles Tunnel (Alternative EBUC-1).  Stations: Union City BART, I-680/SR 84. Tri-Valley:  Alignments: Along I-680, in former Southern Pacific Railroad (SP) in downtown Pleasanton on aerial, adjacent to UP on aerial in downtown Livermore, and adjacent to UP at grade east of downtown Livermore (Alternative TV-2a); along I-680, in former SP in downtown Pleasanton in tunnel, Railroad Avenue in downtown Livermore in tunnel, and former SP east of downtown Livermore (Alternative TV-2b); along SR 84, south of Livermore, east of Vasco Road, and adjacent to UP east of Vasco Road (Alternative TV-4).  Stations: Downtown Pleasanton (SP), Downtown Pleasanton (UP), Downtown Livermore, Vasco Road (UP), Vasco Road (SP). Altamont Pass:  Alignments: Northern alignment near I-580 (Alternative ALT-1); southern alignment through Patterson Pass (Alternative ALT-2).  Stations: none Page S-3
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Tracy:  Alignments: Downtown Tracy (Alternative T-1); south of Tracy (Alternative T-2).  Stations: Downtown Tracy, South Tracy. San Joaquin River to Stockton:  Alignments: Former SP, I-5, former SP, UP through rail yards and in downtown Stockton (Alternative TS-1); adjacent to and east of UP, adjacent to UP, UP in downtown Stockton (Alternative TS-3); adjacent to and east of UP, along Airport Way, UP in downtown Stockton (Alternative TS-4).  Stations: Lathrop/I-5, Lathrop/Manteca ACE (West Yosemite Avenue), Downtown Stockton (Cabral). San Joaquin River to Ripon/Escalon Vicinity:  Alignments: Adjacent to UP, turn back, adjacent to UP through Manteca, adjacent to UP south to Modesto (Alternative TM-1b); adjacent to UP, SR 120 and SR 120 plan line, adjacent to BNSF to Modesto (Alternative TM-2a); SR 120, adjacent to UP south to Modesto (Alternative TM-2b).  Stations: Lathrop/Manteca ACE (West Yosemite Avenue), Manteca/SR 120.S.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS EVALUATION MEASURESThe alignment alternatives and station location and design options carried forward for detailed evaluationin this AA Report were assessed for each of the project goals and objectives and evaluation measures.This information was then used to determine which alternatives are feasible and practicable and shouldbe carried forward into preliminary engineering design and environmental review as part of the AltamontCorridor Rail Project EIR/EIS. The primary evaluation measures are listed below: Design objectives (including travel time, length, intermodal connections and cost). Land use (including consistency with land use and general plans, need for temporary construction easements, and state highway encroachment). Constructability (including potential rail conflicts, utilities, residential and business displacement, and business access impacts). Community impacts (including residential access, traffic congestion around stations, and traffic effects at at-grade crossings). Natural resources (including impacts on wetlands/streams, natural areas, designated critical habitat and threatened and endangered species habitat, parklands and important farmlands). Environmental quality (including noise/vibration impacts, scenic roadways and vistas, geologic and soils constraints, and hazardous materials).S.4 PUBLIC AND AGENCY OUTREACH EFFORTSIn October and November 2009, formal scoping was conducted in accordance with NEPA and CEQA. Fourscoping meetings (in Stockton, Livermore, Fremont, and San José) were held. Scoping comments werereceived verbally in person, in writing, and via email. In addition to the formal scoping meetings,numerous other meetings and presentations were conducted with stakeholders, agencies, and communityorganizations. A scoping report was prepared that presented all input provided by local, state, and federalagencies; stakeholders; and members of the general public.A project website (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/lib_Altamont_Corridor.aspx) was created andincludes a project overview; timeline; library of important documents; and opportunities to submitfeedback, join the mailing list, or ask questions about the project.With input from the scoping process, preliminary alignment alternatives and station locations wereidentified and presented at the Authority’s board meeting on May 6, 2010. Presentations were also made Page S-4
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISto a variety of business and community groups, and telephone conversations were held with individualsincluding neighbors in one portion of Livermore.The preliminary alternatives were developed with input and guidance from numerous city and countygovernment agencies and transportation agencies in 2010, including: Altamont Corridor Partnership Working Group (monthly meetings throughout 2010). Technical Working Group meetings (in March and August 2010) with staff-level participants from cities, counties, and transit/transportation agencies in the four-county study area. Meetings with the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District, City of Santa Clara Transportation Department, and Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty.Meetings were also held with environmental resource agencies on August 19, 2010 in Stockton and onAugust 20, 2010 in Fremont. In attendance were the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.The next major phase of outreach and public meetings will occur in March 2011 to provide opportunitiesfor the public to review the information in this AA Report and offer feedback and suggestions. Publicinput is encouraged now, at this critical stage in the planning process, so that it may be included in thesupplemental AA Report and considered during preparation of the Altamont Corridor Rail Project EIR/EIS,which will be prepared in 2011–2013.S.5 NEXT STEPSThis AA Report informs the project description for the Altamont Corridor Rail Project EIR/EIS. It also setsparameters for the next level of design and environmental analysis. This ongoing work will provide theAuthority, the FRA, and the communities in the Altamont Corridor more details and a fuller picture of thedesign options in each area and a comprehensive vision of the entire corridor.As the engineering and environmental work continues, the Authority and SJRCC will continue to meet andengage the Working Group, local cities, counties, and resources agencies in the corridor in a discussionabout the various alternatives. If deemed necessary by the lead agencies, a supplemental AA Report willconsider feedback received on this preliminary AA Report and will discuss how the AA will inform thedetailed engineering, environmental, and outreach activities on the Altamont Corridor. At the conclusionof this process, the alternatives that are determined feasible will be evaluated in the Altamont CorridorRail Project EIR/EIS, which is currently scheduled for public comment in 2013. Page S-5
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Figure S-1 Alignment and Station Alternatives Carried Forward for Evaluation in the EIR/EIS 80 5 Stockton TS-1 TS-3 Downtown Stockton (ACE Cabral) S TS-4 680 4 4 TS-4 24 TS-3 99 TS-1 80 CO N TR A CO S TA CO Lathrop/I-5 S . Rd Lathrop Manteca co Escalon s Lathrop/ Manteca ACE (West Yosemite Avenue) S TM-1b Va By 120 ro S TM-2a n 580 680 Rd Manteca/ TM-2b . 205 TS-3 SR 120 TS-3 Tracy T-1 TS-4 TS-4 TM-1b TM-1b ALT-1 Downtown Tracy S TM-2a Ripon Dublin Vasco Road (SPRR) T-2 TM-2b S 580 Downtown Livermore S ALT-2 S 5 TV-2a S Vasco Road (UPRR) South Tracy TV-2b 99 Downtown Pleasanton (SPRR) S Livermore Modesto TV-2a Pleasanton 580 S TA NIS L AUS CO TV-2b TV-4 33 Sa 880 oa nJ qu in Riv Union City er 92 84 Union City Intermodal S SS I-680/SR 84 LEGEND 82 101 EBUC-2 5 EBWS-2 A L AMEDA CO S A N JOAQUIN CO Alternative Carried Forward (solid line) EBWS-1 Alignment Shared by 3 or More Alternatives Fremont (see labels to identify alternatives) S Warm Springs BART XX-X Alternative Label County Boundaries Urban Areas Water Bodies, Rivers, EB-6 Streams, and Channels 101 EB-5 Milpitas 280 EB-4 S S Interstate Highways and 0 5 10 237 Tasman/Great Mall Great America S Tasman/ I-880 State Routes Scale 1 : 370,000 S First Street/Trimble SAN MAT EO CO Santa EB-4 680 Note: Figure S-2a, S-2b, and S-2c as presented in this section show 82 S A NTA C L A R A CO 85 Clara EB-5 greater detail for the general East Bay, Tri-Valley, and San Joaquin Santa Clara S EB-6 Valley areas of the project route. Section 3 of this report contains 17 S San Jose Diridon detailed maps that illustrate each of the alignment alternatives San Jose 101 within their respective study areas. Tasman/ Great Mall Page S-6
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Figure S-2a Alignment and Station Alternatives Withdrawn or Carried Forward for Further Evaluation in the EIR/EIS vd San Francisco Bay Bl 85 h A L AMEDA CO Union City sio n ug S A NTA C L A R A CO is Guadalupe Slo M S Union City ek M ow r 84 Cre y Slo u g h Intermodal 101 da gh me Fremont Ala lou Don Edwards oS Lawrence Expy San Francisco Bay Alvis National Wildlife Refuge 237 EBF-1 EBUC-2 y xp ar at EB-1 S al E 82 EBUC-1 og aC Santa EB-2 EB-1 Centr re e k Clara EB-3 EB-1 EB-2 EB-3 880 San Tomas EB-4 EB-2 Mud Expy EB-1 S EB-3 Slo EB-2 Great h ug Nil EB-3 k es 280 America ee Blv d Cr EB-4 San Jose Mo ote EB-5 Coy nta e 17 alup EB-6 S lvd g Santa Clara ad S ue Gu River nB EB-4 Exp io Warm Springs EBWS-2 iss 880 EBWS-1 y EB-7 M S Los First Street/Trimble EB-5 M BART 237 iss a Blv ion G EB-4 EB-6 EB-8 ed ato pe EB-5 d am lu Tasman/ sC ee k Al da EB-6 r e a Th Gu wy I-880 S Pk Creek 680 84 ote Coy 680 S EB-7 S Milpitas E Cala San Jose Diridon EB-8 Tasman/ e St yett Lafa Blvd Great Mall veras Mon y EB-1 101 EB-5 ve EB-2 de la Cruz Blvd Exp tagu co mA EB-6 Bas S al EB-3 Re Santa Clara e LEGEND ino EB-4 am EB-5 el C Alternative Carried Forward (solid line) 680 I-680/SR 84 EB-6 S r a Creek ive 880 San Jose med Withdrawn Alternative (broken line) S eR e Ala l up Av International na I-680/SR 84 da Airport a Ne Alignment Shared by 3 or More Alternatives Da Gu wh ve TV-1 kA all (see labels to identify alternatives) r ve Pa 101 St TV-2a nA W He ma TV-2b XX-X Alternative Label st S t dd 82 le N1 ing Co 87 TV-2c da St County Boundaries am e Blv d Al ort W p Ta e Air EB Urban Areas Th ylo Continued on rok rS Figure S-2b aw t t San Fernando St Water Bodies, Rivers, Race St gS St y Rd e rin ent Park Ave Hw EB-7 San Antonio n Av Sp Reg Streams, and Channels y kto Reservoir hore ve EG Exp c wy EB-8 sA ol Sto Colema ve k ish r eP ge Bays Interstate Highways apit nA and up St Ro Rd C al st uad N1 Old 0 1.0 2.0 TV-3 State Routes S G 880 San Jose 0 0.5 1.0 TV-4 Don Edwards National 84 E Ta Bas Scale 1 : 100,000 Diridon t t ylo th S th S set Wildlife Refuge Scale 1 : 50,000 N 7 r St N1 0 t St Page S-7 84
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Figure S-2b 680 Alignment and Station Alternatives Withdrawn or Carried Forward for Further Evaluation in the EIR/EIS 205 ALT-1 N Livermore Ave 580 Laughli Vasco Rd 580 Continued on n Rd Figure S-2c TV-3 Dublin S A N JOAQ U IN CO TV-2a TV-3 A L AMEDA CO 680 TV-2b TV-2b Dublin/Pleasanton Vasco Road ALT-1 TV-2c TV-2c d BART (SPRR) lin Blv Isabel/I-580 ALT-2 Dub S S 580 S TV-1 ALT-1 Downtown TV-2a S ALT-2 Patt Vasco Road Hopyard Rd ers ALT-2 Livermore on Kitty Hawk Rd TV-4 och o TV-2a (UPRR) Pa s Santa yo M s Rd Arro TV-2b TV-2a S LEGEND Rita R TV-2c TV-2c East Ave Alternative Carried Forward (solid line) Vasco Rd Greenville Rd Valley Ave TV-2b TV-3 SL d ive Withdrawn Alternative (broken line) Foot rm ore Livermore y Alignment Shared by 3 or More Alternatives TV-1 h Downtown Av wa ill Rd N Livermore Ave e Pleasanton TV-2c Ar Tesla Rd Airway Blvd Air lvd (see labels to identify alternatives) E B N Mines roy Arroyo Mocho Rd (UPRR) S S Downtown od el V XX-X Alternative Label Po rto tS t Isabel Ave all la A Downtown e 1s Bernal/I-680 S Pleasanton ve Holmes St County Boundaries Livermore Portola Ave. TV-2b (SPRR) Vin ine St Jun ctio Murietta Blvd. e Tesla R E Jack London Blvd P NLS TV-2a yar d d Urban Areas 0 nA 1.0v 2.0 Pleasanton Rincon Ave Kitty Hawk Rd. Ave e NPS ut St t 84 Water Bodies, Rivers, Waln St ra Wa y Hillcrest Ave Madie Arr t ut Streams, and Channels Ches S tnScale 1:100,000 oyo e Olivina Ave d Av Ma ilroa M Interstate Highways and State Routes ple Cra Ra och St t St ne o dg Local Roads 1s East Ave. Ri SKS eR DOWNTOWN PLEASANTON INSET AREA d SQS lvd E Stanley B t St Va 6th Liv ay t Arroyo de N Livermore Ave ll TV-1 ey irw TV-3 TV-2b TV-2c College Ave erm Av E A Blvd Isabel Ave. TV-4 e Airway Blvd N Mines ore TV-2a TV-3 Arroyo Mocho Rd Stanley Blvd TV-2a Av ita St Po e. TV-2b rto St R d la La la Downtown 1s t ass Arr Santa R Holmes St. Av nP Arroyo Rd. TV-2c A r ro e oyo del yo del gun Vall e Vall Livermore Portola Ave. te rso M och Pat e TV-2a o Pkw e St Jun a Pin ctio Murietta Blvd. y E Jack London Blvd NLS TV-2b Vineyard Ave nA ve Rincon Ave Kitty Hawk Rd. Mai Ave e ve dA Av Downtown NPS reek Vineyard Ave ut St TV-3 t aC EBUC-1 TV-2c ton lroa y 84 Waln St ra Wa Hillcrest Ave ed Pleasanton S Madie DOWNTOWN LIVERMORE INSET AREA san TV-2a TV-2a e R ai Niles Blv t EBUC-2 Kot tnut al Av S m (UPRR) n St ers d a Ches ting Ala Ple Bernal/ er D TV-2b e TV-2b Pet EBF-1 S S Crellin Rd Olivina Ave d Av Ma t Bern dS r TV-2a ilroa SS I-680 Bernal Ave TV-2c Ra ple TV-2c 2n I-680/SR 84 TV-2c St I-680/SR 84 Va lley Be rD r Downtown 1st St East Ave. TV-2c Pleasanton SKS Av rna TV-3 ado e TV-1 Av e lA Buena Vista Ave DOWNTOWN PLEASANTON INSET AREA SQS ve (SPRR) lvd TV-2b Mir se E Stanley B t St Ca 6th Ck L a un Va A r ro Liv t n 680 ll Junipe yo del Va Lag ey ro St CollegellAve e erm Av TV-2b Isabel Ave. San Antonio ore Calave Arr EBWS-2 e 84 TV-2a Stanley Blvd In Av oyo Reservoir ita St de EBWS-1 e. Sunol Blvd pe Ala de l nd ras Rd ek Arr Santa R Holmes St. me Arroyo Rd. A r ro oyo e a La nc yo del Fo del 0 0.5 1.0 M 0 0.5 1.0 da eD Vall Valle och o Continued on gu 680 thi e o r Cre Pkw Syca na ll R Figure S-2a y m Vineyard Ave ore Rd Scale 1 : 50,000 Scale 1 : 50,000 d ve Mai rs Ave e dA Av Downtown Vineyard Ave ton d Dr lroa Pleasanton S woo DOWNTOWN LIVERMORE INSET AREA san e le Rai Kot Cast al Av (UPRR) n St a ting Ple e Bernal/ er D Pet Crellin Rd S S t Bern dS r Page S-8 I-680 Bernal Ave 2n Va Downtown r ll rD ey Be Av rna Pleasanton ado e Avemont e lA ve (SPRR) Mir se Ca Ck L a un A r ro n Junipe yo del Lag ro St Valle Arr In oy d
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Figure S-2c Stockton Alignment and Station Alternatives Withdrawn or Carried Forward for Further Evaluation in the EIR/EIS TS-3 LEGEND in Rive r Lathrop/I-5 S TS-2 Lathrop Rd TS-4 5 TS-1 TS-2 Downtown Alternative Carried Forward (solid line) qu San Jo a Lathrop TM-1a Manteca TS-3 S Stockton (ACE Cabral) TS-1 TS-4 Withdrawn Alternative (broken line) 5 4 Alignment Shared by 3 or More Alternatives TM-1b (see labels to identify alternatives) Lathrop/Manteca kwy (Louise Ave.) S Louise Ave 4 XX-X Alternative Label Old ds P iv e lan r Is R r TS-1 County Boundaries R ive McKinley Ave TS-2 Airport Way TS-3 Urban Areas 0 2.0 4.0 San Joaq Alameda St DArcy Water Bodies, Rivers, uin Pkwy River TS-4 Streams, and Channels Scale 1:160,000 4 Nestle Way Vierra Rd S Yosemite Ave 99 Interstate Highways and State Routes San J o a q u i n R e TS-2 Lathrop/Manteca ACE TS-3 e Av (West Yosemite Ave.) Yosemit Stewart TS-3 ive R d r TS-4 TS-1 120 TM-1b TM-2a TS-2 TM-1a TM-2b TS-1 T-1 Lathrop/I-5 TS-2 TM-1b Woodward Ave CON TR A CO S TA CO 5 TS-3 TM-2a 0 0.5 1.0 S T-2 TS-4 TM-2b Scale 1 : 60,000 Lathrop Manteca Lathrop/Manteca S Lathrop/ Manteca ACE . Rd Escalon (Louise Avenue) TM-1a (West Yosemite Avenue) co S sVa TM-1b 120 By S A N J OAQ U I N CO S TM-2b TM-2a ro Manteca/ n Rd TS-3 . SR 120 TM-1a TS-4 ALAM EDA CO TS-2 TM-1b TM-1b TS-3 TM-2b Tracy laus River TS-4 nis 205 T-1 ta TM-1b S ALT-1 TM-2ae S TM-2b Ripon Downtown Tracy Sa Continued on T-2 Jo n Figure S-2b a qu in Rive 5 S r ALT-2 South S TA NIS L AUS CO 99 Modesto 580 Tracy 33 Page S-9
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Table S-1 Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Options Carried Forward to EIR/EIS and those Withdrawn Altamont Corridor Rail Project Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Screening Results 1 P0F Description Decision Rationale to Carry Forward or Withdraw Alternative (P = Primary reason for withdrawal; S = Secondary reason for withdrawal) Construction Difficulty/Right- Ridership/Revenue Potential Operating and Capital Cost Connectivity/Accessibility Natural Resources and/or Meets Purpose and Need? of-Way Acquisition Risk Land Use Compatibility Environmental Quality Design Objectives— Design Objective— Design Objective—Alternative Constructability— Alignment Stations Carried Forward Withdrawn Land Use— San Jose to FremontEB-1 In Caltrain right-of-way, adjacent to San José Diridon X Yes S S S P Greater natural resource impacts due to crossing of Don Edwards San Francisco Bay UP Coast Subdivision, Adjacent to UP Santa Clara National Wildlife Refuge. Impracticable due to constructability risks resulting from Centreville Line Great America extensive property acquisition requirements particularly in the Fremont Centerville Fremont Centerville and due to the slowest service time of alternatives in area. Greater residential displacement and noise and visual environmental quality impact in the Fremont Centerville Area (in combination with Alternative EBF-1) than other alternatives.EB-2 In Caltrain right-of-way, adjacent to San José Diridon X Yes S P Greater natural resource impacts due to crossing of Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National UP Coast Subdivision, south of Santa Clara Wildlife Refuge and the Pacific Commons vernal pool mitigation complex. Grimmer Great America Warm Springs BARTEB-3 In Caltrain right-of-way, adjacent to San José Diridon X Yes S P Greater natural resource impacts due to crossing of Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National UP Coast Subdivision, south of Santa Clara Wildlife Refuge and the Pacific Commons vernal pool mitigation complex. Cushing, Adjacent to UP Warm Great America Springs Subdivision Warm Springs BARTEB-4 In Caltrain right-of-way, adjacent to San José Diridon X Yes Opportunities for multiple stations and connections to other transit services, access to the UP Coast Subdivision, SR 237, I-880 Santa Clara Great America station (with favorable ridership/revenue potential), avoidance of natural Great America resource impacts due to elimination of refuge crossing and lowest costs of the alternatives Warm Springs BART that do not cross the refuge.EB-5 In Caltrain right-of-way, adjacent to San José Diridon X Yes Provides service to a different commercial area (First Street/Trimble Road) than Alternative UP Coast Subdivision, Trimble, I-880 Santa Clara EB-4, has lower noise and visual environmental quality impacts than other alternatives while First Street/Trimble avoiding the natural resource impacts associated with refuge crossing. Tasman/I-880 Warm Springs BARTEB-6 In Caltrain right-of-way, adjacent to San José Diridon X Yes Multiple opportunities for connectivity and service in high employment centers and regional UP Coast Subdivision, Trimble, Santa Clara destinations. Moderate costs among all area alternatives. Adjacent to UP Warm Springs First Street/Trimble Subdivision Tasman/Great Mall Warm Springs BART1 As described in Chapter 2, all evaluation criteria were evaluated for each alternative. This table only mentions those that ultimately proved to be a rationale to carry an alternative forward or withdraw an alternative. For example, all alternatives were evaluation for community impacts (in terms of property access disruption and traffic effects, but there were no alternatives that were recommended for withdrawal due to these evaluation criteria. Page S-10
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Altamont Corridor Rail Project Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Screening Results 1 P0F Description Decision Rationale to Carry Forward or Withdraw Alternative (P = Primary reason for withdrawal; S = Secondary reason for withdrawal) Construction Difficulty/Right- Ridership/Revenue Potential Operating and Capital Cost Connectivity/Accessibility Natural Resources and/or Meets Purpose and Need? of-Way Acquisition Risk Land Use Compatibility Environmental Quality Design Objectives— Design Objective— Design Objective—Alternative Constructability— Alignment Stations Carried Forward Withdrawn Land Use—EB-7 I-880 (south of airport), I-880 San José Diridon X No S P P S Does not meet project purpose and need as it has only limited service to centers of Tasman/I-880 employment with only one station between Fremont and San Jose. Impracticable due to Warm Springs BART highest relative cost among all area alternatives.EB-8 I-880 (south of airport), Adjacent to San José Diridon X No P S P S Does not meet project purpose and need as it has only limited service to centers of UP Warm Springs Subdivision Tasman/Great Mall employment with only one station between Fremont and San Jose. Impracticable due to high Warm Springs BART constructability/right-of-way risk as a result of need for extensive residential/commercial property acquisition adjacent to UP Warm Springs Subdivision. Greatest noise and visual environmental quality impacts in residential areas adjacent to the UP Warm Springs Subdivision among alternatives that do not cross the refuge. Fremont to I-680/SR 84EBWS-1 I-680 to near I-680/SR 84 Warm Springs BART X Yes Least cost and most direct and fastest route among the area alternatives. I-680/SR 84EBWS-2 Adjacent to UP Warm Springs Warm Springs BART X Yes Alternative to an I-680 route. Subdivision, tunnel south of Niles I-680/SR 84 CanyonEBF-1 Adjacent to UP Centerville line, Niles Fremont Centerville X Yes S P S P In combination with Alternative EB-1, would have greater impacts to the natural environment Junction, Niles Tunnel I-680/SR 84 (due to impact on Don Edwards San Francisco bay National Wildlife Refuge) and greater noise and visual environmental quality impacts (in Fremont Centerville area). Impracticable as would be slowest of all alternatives to reach San Jose and would require substantial property acquisition, particularly in Fremont Centerville area (in combination with EB-1). Union City to I-680/SR 84EBUC-1 Adjacent to UP Niles Subdivision, Union City X Part S S P S Impracticable due to constructability/right-of-way risk because of need for extensive Niles Tunnel I-680/SR 84 ial residential property acquisition adjacent to UP Niles Subdivision. Only partially meets purpose and need due to lack of direct connection at Union City Intermodal Station. Would result in greater level of noise and visual environmental quality impacts and land use incompatibility due to location in residential areasEBUC-2 In UP Oakland Subdivision, Niles Union City X Yes Provides direct connection to Union City Intermodal Station. Relatively lower constructability Junction, Niles Tunnel I-680/SR 84 risk than Alternative EBUC-1 as it would be located in a lesser-used UP right-of-way that is proposed for acquisition for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor Project and is a priority for Capitol Corridor and the City of Union City. Tri-ValleyTV-1 I-680, I-580 I-680/SR 84 X Yes P Impracticable due to high constructability risk due to extensive construction in and around the Bernal/I-680 freeways and due to the need to accommodate a future BART extension. Constructability and Dublin/Pleasanton BART right of way risks high along I-580 where parallel to proposed BART extension to Livermore Isabel/I-580 due to limited median and/or need to route outside freeway right of way in commercial or residential areas. Page S-11
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Altamont Corridor Rail Project Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Screening Results 1 P0F Description Decision Rationale to Carry Forward or Withdraw Alternative (P = Primary reason for withdrawal; S = Secondary reason for withdrawal) Construction Difficulty/Right- Ridership/Revenue Potential Operating and Capital Cost Connectivity/Accessibility Natural Resources and/or Meets Purpose and Need? of-Way Acquisition Risk Land Use Compatibility Environmental Quality Design Objectives— Design Objective— Design Objective—Alternative Constructability— Alignment Stations Carried Forward Withdrawn Land Use—TV-2a I-680, in former SP right-of-way in I-680/SR 84 X Yes Lowest cost of all alternatives in this area with highest favorable connectivity/accessibility Pleasanton (aerial), along Railroad Downtown Pleasanton (SP) (with connections to two existing ACE stations and two future BART transit connections) and Avenue in downtown Livermore Downtown Livermore favorable revenue/ridership potential. Pleasanton opposes downtown Pleasanton alignment. (aerial), adjacent to UP east of Vasco Road (UP) Livermore concerned about aerial alignment through downtown Livermore. downtown LivermoreTV-2b I-680, in former SP right-of-way in I-680/SR 84 X Yes Provides a downtown alternative to tV-2a that would ameliorate some of the noise and visual Pleasanton (tunnel), Railroad Ave Downtown Pleasanton (SP) environmental quality impacts of Alternative TV-2a through use of tunnels in downtown areas. (tunnel), in former SP right-of-way Vasco Road (SP) Pleasanton opposes downtown Pleasanton alignment. east of downtown LivermoreTV-2c I-680, in UP right-of-way in I-680/SR 84 X No S P Does not meet purpose and need of providing for an independent right of way. Impracticable Pleasanton (tunnel), adjacent to UP Downtown Pleasanton (UP) because this is highest cost of all alternatives in this area. Impracticable due to high right-of-way in Livermore (tunnel), in Vasco Road (SP) construction/right-of-way risks associated with need for cooperative agreement with UP or former SP right-of-way east of acquisition of right-of-way from UP for active freight line through Pleasanton. Pleasanton downtown Livermore opposes downtown Pleasanton alignment.TV-3 SR 84, Isabel Ave, Railroad Ave, in I-680/SR 84 X Yes P S Impracticable due to high constructability/right-of-way risk because of the need for acquisition former SP right-of-way east of Vasco Road (SP) of extensive area of private quarry land containing state-designated significant (MRZ-2) downtown Livermore mineral resource. Highest level of impact to wetlands and farmlands of alternatives in the area.TV-4 SR 84, south of Livermore, Vasco, I-680/SR 84 X Yes Shortest and fastest route. Avoids community disruption in downtown areas. adjacent to UP right-of-way east of Vasco Road (UP) downtown Livermore AltamontA-1 Northern Alignment near I-580 X Yes Along an existing transportation corridor (I-580), and less impact on natural resources compared to Alternative A-2.A-2 Southern Alignment through X Yes Lower costs and shorter, faster route compared to Alternative A-1. Patterson Pass TracyT-1 Downtown Tracy Downtown Tracy X Yes Favorable connectivity/accessibility, revenue/ridership potential, and TOD potential because of the downtown station.T-2 South of Tracy South Tracy X Yes Opportunities for reduced residential impacts, lower cost, and shorter service times compared to Alternative T-1, although with a tradeoff of potentially fewer TOD opportunities, potentially higher commercial property acquisition, and lower ridership/revenue potential. San Joaquin River to StocktonTS-1 Adjacent to former SP right-of-way Lathrop/I-5 X Yes Direct route from Tracy to Stockton with the fastest service time, viable freeway intercept west of San Joaquin River, I-5, in Downtown Stockton (Cabral) station in Lathrop, opportunity for shared alignment with HST. former SP right-of-waynear French Camp, in UP right-of-way(w/ 2 rail yards) near downtown Stockton Page S-12
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Altamont Corridor Rail Project Alignment Alternatives and Station Location Screening Results 1 P0F Description Decision Rationale to Carry Forward or Withdraw Alternative (P = Primary reason for withdrawal; S = Secondary reason for withdrawal) Construction Difficulty/Right- Ridership/Revenue Potential Operating and Capital Cost Connectivity/Accessibility Natural Resources and/or Meets Purpose and Need? of-Way Acquisition Risk Land Use Compatibility Environmental Quality Design Objectives— Design Objective— Design Objective—Alternative Constructability— Alignment Stations Carried Forward Withdrawn Land Use—TS-2 Adjacent to UP right-of-way west of Lathrop/Manteca (Louise Avenue) X Yes S P Would require approximately 7-mile redundant HST alignment with associated environmental San Joaquin River, in former SP Downtown Stockton (Cabral) impacts. Secondarily, capital and operational costs due to redundant that would make this right-of-way in Lathrop, in UP right- alternative substantially more expensive than any other alignment in this area and thus of-way (w/ 2 rail yards) near impracticable. downtown StocktonTS-3 Adjacent to UP right-of-way, East of Lathrop/Manteca (West Yosemite Avenue) X Yes Provides combined Lathrop/Manteca station for both Altamont Corridor Rail Project services UP right-of-way in Lathrop/Manteca Downtown Stockton (Cabral) (San José to Stockton and San José to Modesto), avoids need for redundant HST and Altamont area, in UP right-of-way(w/ 2 rail Corridor Rail Project lines in the Lathrop/Manteca area, and has potentially lower noise and yards) near downtown Stockton visual environmental quality impacts than other alternatives in the area.TS-4 Adjacent to UP right-of-way west of Lathrop/Manteca (West Yosemite Avenue) X Yes Provides combined Lathrop/Manteca station for both Altamont Corridor Rail Project services San Joaquin River, East of UP right- Downtown Stockton (Cabral) (San José to Stockton and San José to Modesto), avoids need for redundant HST and Altamont of-way in Lathrop/Manteca area, Corridor Rail Project lines in the Lathrop/Manteca area, and avoids constructability risks along Airport Ave., in UP right-of- associated with the two rail yards near downtown Stockton by routing along Airport Way. way near Stockton Cabral station San Joaquin River to Ripon/EscalonTM-1a In former SP right-of-way in Lathrop Lathrop/Manteca (Louise Avenue) X Yes S P Would require approximately 7-mile redundant HST alignment with associated environmental area, turn back, Adjacent to UP impacts. Secondarily, capital and operational costs due to redundant that would make this Fresno Subdivision to Modesto alternative substantially more expensive than any other alignment in this area and thus impracticable.TM-1b Adjacent to UP right-of-way in Lathrop/Manteca (West Yosemite Avenue) X Yes Provides combined station for both Altamont Corridor Rail Project services (San José to Lathrop area, turn back, adjacent to Stockton and San José to Modesto) and avoids redundant project and HST alignments. UP Fresno Subdivision to ModestoTM-2a UP, SR 120, BNSF to E of SR 99 or Manteca/SR 120 X Yes Only alternative that would connect to the north-south Sacramento to Merced HST Section BNSF to Modesto BNSF alignment (if selected). If the BNSF alignment is not carried forward in the HST evaluation process, then this alternative would be dismissed from further consideration.TM-2b SR 120, UP to Modesto Manteca/SR 120 X Yes Most direct route to Modesto of all area alternatives with associated shorter service times, and would minimize property acquisition by being located within SR 120 right-of-way in the Manteca area. Page S-13
    • ALTAMONT CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT EIR/EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSISThis page intentionally left blank. Page S-14