No Project Alternative and Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

61 Pages·2017·4.31 MB·English

Chapter 6
No Project Alternative and
Alternatives Considered and Dismissed
6.1 Introduction
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the
location of the project that could feasibly avoid or lessen any significant environmental impacts
while substantially attaining the project’s basic objectives. An EIR should also evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives. Several alternatives to the ACEforward near- and longer-
term improvements were considered for analysis in this EIR. This chapter described these
considered alternatives, compares the potential environmental impacts of these alternatives with
the potential impacts associated with ACEforward near- and longer-term improvements, and
provides the reasons why these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. As
required by CEQA, this chapter also describes the No Project Alternative and compares its impacts
with those of the ACEforward near- and longer-term improvements.
Key provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines (§ 15126.6) pertaining to the analysis of alternatives to
a project are summarized below.
 The discussion of alternatives will focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are
capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if those
alternatives would impede, to some, degree the attainment of the project objectives or be more
costly.
 The no project alternative will be evaluated along with its impacts. The no project analysis will
discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation was published as well as
what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not
approved based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services.
 The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason;” therefore, the EIR
must evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Alternatives will
be limited to those that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project.
 An EIR need not consider an alternative with effects that cannot be reasonably ascertained,
when implementation is remote and speculative, and if its selection would not achieve the basic
project objectives.
 The range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful
public participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into
account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives, as described in State CEQA Section
15126.6(f)(1), are environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, social and political
acceptability, technological capacity, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency,
regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent could reasonably
acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
ACEforward Draft EIR May 2017
6-1
ICF 00458.15
No Project Alternative and
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

SJRRC considered a wide range of alternatives before selecting the alternatives to be analyzed in this
EIR. SJRRC conducted ongoing meetings with local agencies, communities, stakeholders,
organizations, working groups, and resource agencies (see Chapter 8, Public and Agency
Involvement) to formulate the initial set of alternatives. Alternatives were also identified through
input from the public, agencies, and stakeholders during scoping (in 2013) and supplemental
scoping (in 2016). Appendix A, NOP and Scoping Summary Report, and Appendix B, Supplemental
NOP and Supplemental Scoping Report, contain the scoping reports detailing the scoping process,
including the notification and scoping activities undertaken, as well as written and oral comments
received during the scoping process.
As explained further in Section 6.4, Alternatives Screening Process, alternatives determined not to
meet all or most of ACEforward’s purpose and need, to be infeasible, and/or not to avoid or
substantially reduce one or more significant impacts of ACEforward, were dismissed from further
analysis.
6.2 No Project Alternative
6.2.1 CEQA Requirements
Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the analysis of a No Project Alternative.
The No Project Alternative analysis must discuss the existing conditions as well as what would
reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. Section
15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines states the following.
If the project is…a development project on an identifiable property, the “no project” alternative is the
circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the
environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects
that would occur if the project were approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration
would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this “no
project” consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the “no project” alternative means
“no build,” wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained. However, where failure to
proceed with the project will not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the
analysis should identify the practical result of the project’s non-approval and not create and analyze
a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.
The No Project Alternative is neither required nor expected to meet the project’s purpose and need
or avoid or reduce any of the significant impacts associated with the project.
6.2.2 No Project Alternative Description
Under the No Project Alternative, ACE would continue to operate between San Jose and Stockton
under existing conditions. No new construction activities would occur under this alternative. Unlike
ACEforward, the No Project Alternative would not include a phased improvement plan to increase
frequency, increase service reliability, reduce travel time, enhance passenger facilities along the
existing ACE service corridor from San Jose to Stockton, or extend ACE service to Modesto and
Merced.
ACEforward Draft EIR May 2017
6-2
ICF 00458.15
No Project Alternative and
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

Under the No Project Alternative, no new connections would be made at Niles Junction (or
elsewhere) between the Niles Subdivision and the Oakland Subdivision and, thus, current freight
patterns between Niles Canyon and the Port of Oakland are expected to continue. A comparison of
freight levels along the Oakland Subdivision, the Niles Subdivision, and the Coast Subdivision
between Fremont/Newark to Oakland is presented in Table 2-18 in Chapter 2, Description of Near-
Term Improvements.
The current ACE train service is assumed to continue unchanged between 2020 and 2040 under the
No Project Alternative. The service would continue to consist of four roundtrip trains during the
morning and afternoon each weekday, as well as extra services for special events such as San
Francisco 49er football games. ACE trains would continue to consist of one diesel locomotive and
five to seven bi-level passenger coaches.
While the No Project Alternative would not increase train service, ridership is expected to increase
as it has in recent years. Table 6-1 shows the estimated ACE passenger volumes with and without
near-term improvements under existing conditions, 2020, and 2040. Table 6-2 shows the estimated
ACE passenger volumes with and without longer-term improvements under existing conditions,
2025, and 2040.
Modelling of unconstrained1 annual ridership for the existing ACE corridor without any service
expansion or service time improvements indicates that it will increase by more than 14 percent to
approximately 1.52 million riders in 2020. This trend is projected to continue, and by 2025, the
unconstrained ridership demand without service extensions or service time improvements for ACE
is projected to increase to 1.65 million annual riders. The unconstrained ridership will not be
achieved in reality, however, without additional parking facilities at origin stations. Furthermore,
without expansion of service, the increased ridership over time will result in crowded and unsafe
conditions onboard and at station platforms.
As shown, ACE ridership is expected to increase with or without the near- or longer-term
improvements but would increase by substantially greater amounts with the near-term
improvements than without.
Table 6-1. Years 2020 and 2040 Daily Ridership With and Without Near-Term Improvements
Annual Riders
Ridership Scenarios 2015/2016 2020 % Increase 2040 % Increase
No Project Alternative 1,285,200 1,511,700 18% 2,186,800 70%
Scenarios without service extension to Modesto
Base Ridership without Extension -- 1,952,500 52% 2,882,900 124%
Maximum Ridership without Extension -- 2,183,900 70% 3,147,600 145%
Scenarios with service extension to Modesto
Base Ridership with Extension -- 2,242,800 75% 3,256,100 139%
Maximum Ridership with Extension -- 2,310,500 80% 3,147,600 147%
Source: Appendix E, ACEforward Revised Ridership, Revenue, and Benefits Report.

1 This modelling does not take into account access constraints to ACE service due to a lack of parking. In actuality,
such ridership increases cannot be realized without increased parking at origin stations.
ACEforward Draft EIR May 2017
6-3
ICF 00458.15
No Project Alternative and
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Alternatives Considered and Dismissed
Table 6-2. Years 2025 and 2040 Daily Ridership With and Without Longer-Term Improvements
Annual Riders
Ridership Scenarios 2015/2016 2025 % Increase 2040 % Increase
Scenarios without service extension to Merced
No Project Alternative 1,285,200 1,664,200 28% 2,186,800 70%
Base Ridership without BART
Connection -- 3,308,700 157% 4,406,100 243%
Maximum Ridership with BART
Scenarios with service extension to Merced
Connection -- 3,848,000 199% 5,118,800 298%
Base Ridership without BART
Connection -- 4,558,400 255% 6,065,900 372%
Maximum Ridership with BART
ACE Revised Ridership, Revenue, and Benefits Report
Connection -- 5,165,900 302% 6,871,600 435%
Source: Appendix E, forward .
6.2.3 Environmental Impacts
Aesthetics
Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no permanent change to the visual character,
views, nighttime lighting, and daytime glare. This alternative would not involve the construction of
near-term or longer-term improvements such as the construction of stations, vegetation removal,
tree trimming, landform changes in hilly areas, intersection and driveway modifications, new or
modified culverts, and new or modified bridge structures. Current maintenance trimming of
vegetation would continue as at present. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no new
impacts on aesthetics, and its impacts would be less than the impacts of the near- and longer-term
improvements.
The difference between the No Project Alternative and the near- and longer-term improvements is
significant because the improvements would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on visual
aesth etics, depenAdginrgic ounl twuhriachl aRlteesrnoautirvcee esle ments are selected.
Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no temporary use of Important Farmland or direct
conversion of Important Farmland to nonagricultural use. Therefore, this alternative would have no
impact on agricultural resources, and its impacts would be less than the impacts of the near-and
longe r-term impAroivr eQmuenatlsi.t y
Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no construction emissions, no increase in ACE
service between Stockton and San Jose, no ACE extension to Modesto and Merced, no new ACE-Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART) connection, and no change in freight rail routing between Niles Junction
and Oakland. As noted above, ACE ridership would continue to grow over time, but at much lower
levels than with the near- and longer-term improvements.
ACEforward Draft EIR May 2017
6-4
ICF 00458.15
No Project Alternative and
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

The No Project Alternative would avoid all construction emissions. As described in Section 4.3, Air
Quality, the construction emissions of the near- and longer-term improvements would be mitigated
to a less-than-significant level by the identified mitigation.
As described in Section 4.3, the No Project Alternative would result in greater daily emissions of
reactive organic gases, carbon monoxide, particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 micrometers in size
than the near- and longer-term improvements. Under the No Project Alternative, lower train
ridership means lesser diesel locomotive operations and, therefore, more emissions would be
vehicle-related. These vehicle-related emissions would far outweigh the lesser diesel locomotive
operations. In comparison, with the near- and longer-term improvements, the greater ridership
(and thus lower vehicle-related emissions) far outweigh the greater diesel locomotive emissions
that would result from the improvements.
The No Project Alternative would also result in greater daily emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
in the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Under certain scenarios, the No
Project Alternative would result in slightly less daily emissions of NOx in the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), but the near- and longer-term improvements would not result in a
significant increase in NOx emissions, so this difference is less than significant. Overall, the No
Project Alternative would result in worse regional and local air quality in the BAAQMD and the
SJVAPCD.
As discussed in Section 4.3, increased operations in the near term would increase localized diesel
particulate matter (DPM) emissions along the ACE corridor and at existing and new ACE transit
stations and maintenance facilities. However, the near-term improvements would result in a less-
than-significant incremental cancer risk compared to the No Project Alternative.
The near-term improvements would result in higher DPM freight emissions along the Niles Canyon
Railway (NCRY) with Alternatives CNS-2a and CNS-2b and lower DPM freight emissions along the
Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) compared to the No Project Alternative. There are more residents
immediately adjacent to the UPRR between Niles Junction and Pleasanton (mostly in the areas
immediately east of Mission Boulevard than there are immediately adjacent to the NCRY between
Niles Junction and Pleasanton. The incremental increase in DPM emissions with the project along
the NCRY would be less than significant. With implementation of Alternative CNS-2a or CNS-2b, the
amount of residential exposure overall would be expected to decrease.
The near-term improvements would result in higher DPM freight emissions along the Niles
Subdivision between Niles Junction and Elmhurst with Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b and
along the Oakland Subdivision between Niles Junction and Industrial Parkway (and the Niles
Subdivision between Industrial Parkway and Elmhurst) with Alternative CNS-1c compared to the No
Project Alternative, but the incremental cancer risk increase would be less than significant. The No
Project Alternative would result in higher freight DPM emissions along the Niles Subdivision
between Niles Junction and Newark and along the Coast Subdivision between Newark and Elmhurst,
but the differences are also expected to be less than significant. There are approximately 11.2 miles
of residential areas directly adjacent to the Niles Subdivision between Niles Junction and Elmhurst
(Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b) and 9.1 miles of residential areas adjacent to the Oakland
Subdivision and Niles Subdivision between Niles Junction and Elmhurst with Alternative CNS-1c.
This is compared to approximately 13.6 miles of residential areas directly adjacent to the Niles
Subdivision from Niles Junction to Newark Junction and the Coast Subdivision from Newark Junction
to Elmhurst. Thus, there are more residential areas that would be exposed to freight locomotive
ACEforward Draft EIR May 2017
6-5
ICF 00458.15
No Project Alternative and
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Alternatives Considered and Dismissed
DPM emissions with the No Project Alternative compared to the near-term improvements with
implementation of Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1c, CNS-2a, or CNS-2b.
Overall, the No Project Alternative is considered to have higher impacts on air quality than the
project overall due to the generally lower criteria pollutant emissions with the near- and longer-
term improvements and due to the lower overall level of residential exposure to freight DPM with
the im provemenBtsi ocolomgpiacraedl Rtoe wsoithuoructe tsh em (for the relevant alternatives noted above).
The No Project Alternative would avoid new construction or operational impacts on biological
resources including in areas of greatest biological sensitivity, such as the Alviso Baylands, Niles
Canyon, Altamont Hills, West Tracy west of I-580, and at certain river crossings, such as over the
Stanislaus River and AlamedBai oClroegeicka. l Resources forward
Air Quality,
As discussed in Section 4.4, , increased train traffic under ACE would
occur within the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP). As discussed in Section 4.3, the
increased NOx emissions of the near- and longer-term improvements would be more than offset by
the decreased NOx emissions associated with reduced vehicular traffic, and the improvements
would have less nitrogen emissions overall than the No Project Alternative. Thus, the No Project
Alternative would contribute greater to nitrogen deposition in sensitive plant and butterfly habitat
in portions of the SCVHP area.
The No Project Alternative would result in greater automobile travel and the associated potential for
contaminant (i.e., oil, grease) spills related to automobile operations and maintenance but would
result in less potential for contaminant spills associated with increased passenger train operations.
The No Project Alternative would also result in a slightly higher potential for contaminant spills
associated with freight rail operations as it would result in continued use of the existing freight
routing via the Coast Subdivision (approximately 22 miles) compared to the freight routing with
Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1c, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b (approximately 16 to 17 miles). Overall, given the
2
reduction in fuel used, the No Project Alternative is expected to result in a greater potential for
spills and/or runoff than the near- and longer-term improvements, and thus greater potential
overa ll to result Cinu sletcuornadla rRye esffoeuctrsc teo sb iological resources in relation to spills and runoff.
The No Project Alternative would not have construction- or operation-related effects on cultural
resources. Construction of the near- and longer-term improvements, in comparison, would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts on certain historic resources, depending on which alternative
elements are selected.
Energy Resources forward

2
Based on the analysis in Section 4.6, , ACE would result in up to 223,000 gallons of diesel
more and at least 702,000 gallons of gasoline less than the No Project Alternative, a net reduction in use of 479,000
gallons of diesel and gasoline combined.
ACEforward Draft EIR May 2017
6-6
ICF 00458.15
No Project Alternative and
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Alternatives Considered and Dismissed
Energy
forward
Under the No Project AlternEatnievreg, ye nReersgoyu rccoenssumption would be higher than with ACE .
forward
As discussed in Section 4.6, , the increased service and accessibility to transit
services with the ACE would encourage the diversion of travelers and commuters from
automobiles to passenger rail. The reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the
related decrease in automobile fuel consumption would offset the operational energy demands
(diesel fuel for locomotives and electricity for station lighting) of the near- and longer-term
improvements.
The No Project Alternative would reduce VMT substantially less than the near- and longer-term
improvements, which would not be offset by the lesser locomotive fuel and electricity consumption
and, thus, energy consumption would be greater than with the improvements. These differences
reflect the net efficiency of the ACE commuter rail service compared to that of individual
autom obiles. Geology and Soils
The No Project Alternative would not result in any new exposure of structures and people to
forward
adverse geology, soil, and seismic conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with adverse geology,
Geology, and Soils
soil, and seismic conditions would be less than with ACE . However, as described in Section
4.7, , the near- and longer-term improvements would not result in significant
forward
impacts related to geology, soils, or seismicity, and the differences between the No Project
Alter native and AGCrEeenhou asree nGoat ssu Ebmstainstsiiaol. ns
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
forward.
As described in Section 4.8, , the No Project Alternative would result in
higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than ACE Under the No Project Alternative, lower
train ridership means lesser diesel locomotive operations and, therefore, more emissions would be
vehicle-related. These vehicle-related emissions would far outweigh the lesser diesel locomotive
operations. In comparison, with the near- and longer-term improvements, the greater ridership
(and thus lower vehicle-related emissions) far outweigh the greater diesel locomotive emissions
that w ould resulHt farozmar tdhse iamnpdro Hveamzeanrtds.o us Materials
forward forward
As noted previously, the No Project Alternative would result in higher overall diesel and gasoline use
Safety and Security
compared to ACE because it will require greater handling of fuel compared to ACE .
As discussed in Section 4.16, , compared to air and rail modes of transportation,
highway travel is the most used and dangerous mode of transportation. It is not expected that the
near- and longer-term improvements would substantially increase hazards to workers, passengers,
or adjacent human and environmental receptors along rail routes due to design features because rail
systems must comply with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and California Public Utilities
Commission requirements for tracks, equipment, railroad operating rules, and practices. Because
the No Project Alternative would result in greater potential for highway accidents than the near- and
longer-term improvements and greater fuel handling and use overall, the No Project Alternative is
ACEforward Draft EIR May 2017
6-7
ICF 00458.15
No Project Alternative and
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Alternatives Considered and Dismissed
forward
considered to have a greater impact associated with the release and exposure of hazardous
materi als than AHCEydrolog. y and Water Quality
With the No Project Alternative, the impervious surface area in the near- and longer-term
improvement areasand drainage would remain the same as at present. Operation of the No Project
forward
Alternative would not increase stormwater runoff that could degrade water quality. As noted
previously, the ACE is considered overall to have less potential for spills and runoff in
relation to fuel handling and use because it would result in less handling of transportation fuel
overall (with the reduction in automobile travel and automobile fuel consumption). Because the
potential operational impact of the near- and longer-term improvements on water quality can be
addressed through applying existing regulations, the No Project Alternative is considered to have a
higher risk of spills and water quality effects.
forward
Operation of this alternative would not expose people or structures or property to significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving flooding. ACE would include improvements within drainage
courses or flood zones that could potentially impede or redirect flood flows during operation,
however, with mitigation impacts are expected to be less than significant. In some locations
associated with Alternatives CNS-2a and CNS-2b, bridge replacements would have smaller
footprints in waterways than the bridges they are replacing and thus lower flood potential.
However, overall the near- and longer-term improvements result in a greater amount of structures
forward
in floodplains and, thus, the No Project Alternative is considered to have less potential impact
related to floodinLga nthdan U wsoeu ladn AdC EPlannin. g
forward
With the No Project Alternative, the operation and construction impacts of ACE on land use
and planning would not take place as it would not include near-term improvements inside or
outside the existing railroad ROW; it would also not physically divide an existing community and
would create no new conflicts with land use policies or plans (or tree ordinances).
The No Project Alternative would not increase connectivity and transportation options and would
not support the ability of cities to pursue transit-oriented development where stations exist or are
proposed in existing infill areas (i.e., San Jose Diridon, Fremont, Pleasanton, Livermore, Tracy,
Manteca, and Modesto). As a result, the No Project Alternative would neither complement nor help
fulfill local plans concerning land use patterns and intensities throughout the ACE corridor. The No
Project Alternative would not afford improved mobility and an alternative to automobile travel,
which would not be beneficial for regional planning agencies in meeting their responsibilities under
Senate Bill 375 tNo poriosme oaten adn dV iimbrpaletmioennt sustainable community strategies.
forward
Compared to ACE , the No Project Alternative would result in less noise from passenger rail
operations along the existing rail corridors and proposed extended corridors but would result in
greaftoerrw haigrdhway traffic noise.
ACE would result in higher freight rail noise along NCRY with Alternatives CNS-2a and CNS-
2b and lower freight rail noise along the UPRR compared to the No Project Alternative. There are
more residents immediately adjacent to the UPRR between Niles Junction and Pleasanton (mostly in
ACEforward Draft EIR May 2017
6-8
ICF 00458.15
No Project Alternative and
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Alternatives Considered and Dismissed
the areas immediately east of Mission Boulevard) than there are immediately adjacent to NCRY
between Niles Junction and Pleasanton. With implementation of Alternative CNS-2a or CNS-2b, the
amount of residential exposure overall to freight rail noise would be expected to decrease compared
to thfeo rNwoa Prdroject Alternative.
ACE would result in higher freight rail noise levels along the Niles Subdivision between Niles
Junction and Elmhurst with Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b and along the Oakland and
Niles Subdivisions between Niles Junction and Elmhurst with Alternative CNS-1c compared to the
No Project Alternative. There are approximately 11.2 miles of residential areas directly adjacent to
the Niles Subdivision between Niles Junction and Elmhurst (Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-2a, and CNS-
2b) and 9.1 miles of residential areas adjacent to the Oakland Subdivision and Niles Subdivision
between Niles Junction and Elmhurst with Alternative CNS-1c compared to approximately 13.6
miles of residential areas directly adjacent to the Niles Subdivision from Niles Junction to Newark
Junction and the Coast Subdivision from Newark Junction to Elmhurst. Thus, there are more
forward
residential areas that would be exposed to freight locomotive noise with the No Project Alternative
compa red to ACEPopulatwioitnh iamnpdle mHeonutastiinong of Alternatives CNS-1a, CNS-1c, CNS-2a, or CNS-2b.
The No Project Alternative would not have the potential to attract new growth or accelerate
population growth or displace existing businesses or housing units. The No Project Alternative
would not attract urban development in the vicinity of the potential Greenville Road Station that
would be incompatible with the existing policies governing land use and growth in unincorporated
eastern Alameda County. Thus, this alternative would avoid the pressures to develop land in the
forward
area surrounding the potential Greenville Road Station that would be a result of implementing
ACE (if an alternative involving an ACE or BART Station is selected). Therefore, the No
Project Alternative would result in less of an impact on population and housing than the near- and
longer -term impProuvbemlice nStes.r vices
Safety and Security
As discussed in Section 4.16, , compared to air and rail modes of transportation,
highway travel is the most used and dangerous mode of transportation. Thus, this alternative could
forward
result in a greater demand for fire and emergency services. Therefore, this alternative would result
in a gre ater impaRcet ocnre pautbiloicn s ervices than would ACE .
The No Project Alternative would result in greater highway traffic noise and less train noise. Thus,
forward
the noise levels experienced by users of nearby recreational resources would be similar under this
alternative and ACE . In addition, the No Project Alternative would not require the
permanent acquisition of recreational resources but the build alternatives do not have substantial
forward
recreational resource impacts. Overall, the impacts on recreation would be similar under the No
Project Alternative and ACE . The No Project Alternative would not provide foradditional
opportunities for bicyclists to use ACE because it would not increase service frequency or extend
service to Modesto and Merced.
ACEforward Draft EIR May 2017
6-9
ICF 00458.15
No Project Alternative and
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Alternatives Considered and Dismissed
Safety and Security
Safety and Security
As discussed in Section 4.16, , compared to air and rail modes of transportation,
highway travel is the most used and dangerous mode of transportation. Thus, traveling by train is
forward
safer than by highway and transporting freight is safer by rail than by highway. Thus, the No Project
Alterna tive wouTldr raensuslpt oinr at agrteioatner a imndpa Tctroanf fsiacf ety and security than ACE .
Traffic and Roadway System
With the No Project Alternative, there would be greater impacts on regional traffic and the regional
roadway system but lesser localized impacts on traffic around ACE stations, at BART stations where
connections are made, and near at-grade rail crossings with increased passenger or freight rail
traffic. Transportation and Traffic forward
As stated in Section 4.17, , ACE would shift travel demand from
forward
driving trips to ACE transit trips and reduce regional vehicle traffic and VMT on major highways and
arterials in the study area. ACE overall would substantially reduce overall VMT in the ACE
corridor by approximately 140,000 miles/day and 550, 000 miles/day in 2020 and 2040
respfeocrtwivaerldy (compared with the No Project Alternative), which would generally reduce congestion.
ACE would lead to additional gate-down time at grade crossing, which could result in
additional local intersection delay and signal preemption events as well as increased traffic around
ACE and potentially BART stations.
Relative to traffic impacts from freight rail operations, the No Project Alternative would continue the
forward
pattern of routing freight along the Niles Subdivision from Niles Junction to Newark and the Coast
Subdivision from Newark to Elmhurst and this route has 28 at-grade crossings. ACE would
route freight from Niles Junction to Elmhurst along the Niles Subdivision or a combination of the
forward
Oakland Subdivision and Niles Subdivision, which in either case would have freight crossing 19 at-
grade crossings. Both routes include congested areas, but ACE would cross fewer at-grade
crossings. Thus, traffic impacts due to freight routing are considered similar between the No Project
Alternative and near-term improvements that would result in freight rerouting (Alternatives CNS-
1a, CNS-1c, CNS-2a, and CNS-2b).
forward
Therefore, the No Project Alternative would increase regional traffic while avoiding local traffic near
existing and proposed stations and at the at-grade crossings relative to ACE but would
Tcornatninsuite Stoy satffeemct existing at-grade crossings.
Under the No Project Alternative, corridor population and employment growth accompanied by
changes to other transit connections and increases in highway congestion would contribute to the
Transportation and Traffic forward
increases in ACE ridership, compared with existing conditions. As stated in Section 4.17,
, ACE would further increase ridership because it would (a)
increase train frequencies and consequently improve service levels, and (b) extend service to
Modesto, consequently expanding the service area. The No Project Alternative would result in less of
forward
an impact on transit system capacity but would also not result in the beneficial impacts of
ACE related to increased transit ridership. In addition, ACE is a beneficial component of
ACEforward Draft EIR May 2017
6-10
ICF 00458.15