1.1 Overview. 1.2 Project History. Chapter 1 Introduction

Transcription

1 Chapter Overview The an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (JRRC) is the designated owner, operator, and policymaking body for the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) service which presently focuses on connecting northern an Joaquin County, the Tri-Valley and ilicon Valley by providing daily train service from tockton to an Jose. JRRC proposes to implement ACEforward, a phased improvement plan, to increase frequency, increase service reliability, and enhance passenger facilities along the existing ACE service corridor from an Jose to tockton and to extend ACE service to Modesto and Merced. This improvement plan would provide the foundation for JRRC s long-term vision of intercity/commuter passenger rail services. JRRC proposes to expand service and connections to better serve the existing travel markets along its existing corridor between tockton and an Jose and to expand service to additional cities in an Joaquin, tanislaus, and Merced Counties As part of the ACEforward plan, JRRC proposes to increase ACE service between the an Joaquin Valley and an Jose to 6 daily roundtrips in the near term and up to 10 daily roundtrips in the longer term. To support additional ACE train service, improvements such as adding new main or siding tracks, modifying existing tracks to replace tight curves, or constructing new track alignments would be required to expand capacity at rail choke points and relieve congestion in the rail network in addition to new stations and station facilities to service increased demands. These capacity expansion improvements, and JRRC s long-term vision to enhance intercity and commuter rail service by establishing a train-to-train connection between ACE and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), potentially rerouting ACE service through downtown Tracy for greater transit connectivity, potential new or relocated stations west of Tracy and in Tracy and Lathrop, and extending ACE service to Modesto and Merced, are the basis for the improvements in the ACEforward plan. pecific improvements in the ACEforward plan are described in detail in Chapter 2, Description of Near-Term Improvements, and Chapter 3, Description of Longer-Term Improvements. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 show the locations of near-term and longer-term improvements, respectively. 1.2 Project History Between 2009 and 2012, JRRC and the California High-peed Rail Authority (CHRA) conducted planning for the Altamont Corridor Rail Project (ACRP) to develop a new regional rail line from tockton and Modesto to an Jose through the Altamont Pass. This project would have provided both intercity and commuter electrified passenger rail service. The ACRP would have serviced regional transportation needs and provide an opportunity to link to the planned California High- peed Rail (HR) ystem. The ultimate build concept for the ACRP included a fully grade-separated, independently-owned right-of-way (ROW) for electrified service from tockton to an Jose. While the ultimate build concept of the ACRP remains a long-term potential, JRRC has identified shorter-term goals to 1-1

2 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission modernize the existing ACE service that would result in faster intercity and commuter train service and could establish a connection between tockton, Modesto, Ceres, Turlock, Merced, and an Jose within the next 10 years. A new suite of improvements, known as the ACEforward plan, has been identified and developed to accomplish these goals for existing ACE service. ince June 2013, JRRC has been advancing the ACEforward plan. ACEforward is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 2007 an Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan, which identified the Altamont Corridor as a key future northern California regional rail route (Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2007). Furthermore, ACEforward builds upon the Bay Area Regional Rail Plan and the prior planning conducted for the ACRP. ACEforward is also consistent with the CHRA 2016 Business Plan in relation to providing an opportunity to connect existing intercity and commuter rail services to future HR service (California High-peed Rail Authority 2016). 1.3 Need for ACEforward ince its inception, ACE remains a weekday commuter rail service between tockton and an Jose. ACE service began in October 1998 with two westbound morning trains from tockton to an Jose and two eastbound afternoon trains from an Jose to tockton on weekdays. In November 2009, a third roundtrip for ACE passengers was added, providing a third westbound morning train and a third eastbound afternoon train on weekdays. A fourth weekday roundtrip train, providing an additional westbound morning train and eastbound afternoon train, was added in eptember ACE currently does not operate on the weekend, but does provide extra service for special events such as an Francisco 49er football games. ACE trains presently consist of one diesel locomotive and five to seven bi-level passenger coaches and operate at a top speed of 79 miles per hour (mph). The need for ACEforward is driven by the following considerations. Existing train service nearing maximum capacity. Transportation demand in the ACE service area, driven by the economic relationships between an Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) and Central Valley counties. Roadway congestion in the ACE corridor and limited roadway expansion options. Air quality in the ACE corridor and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction imperative. Existing constraints on the infrastructure on which ACE operates (ACE does not own the track it runs on; improvements are necessary to get permission from Union Pacific Railroad [UPRR] to increase service). Each factor contributing to the need for ACEforward is discussed in detail in the following sections. 1-2

3 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Transportation Demand in the Altamont Corridor Express ervice Area Existing Altamont Corridor Express ervice Area Between 1990 and 2013, the number of people commuting from the northern an Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area more than doubled, growing from 32,000 to nearly 6,000 commuters (Bay Area Council Economic Institute 2016). Approximately 4 percent of existing ACE riders travel between tockton/tracy and an Jose, 30 percent travel between the Tri-Valley 1 and an Jose, 16 percent travel between tockton/tracy and the Tri-Valley, and internal trips within the outh Bay and Tri- Valley consisted of 6 and 3 percent, respectively. Within the last years, ACE ridership has roughly doubled. In 201, approximately 1.33 million annual riders traveled on ACE. The existing need for ACE passenger rail intercity and commuter service stems from the social and economic ties that bind together the an Joaquin Valley, the Tri-Valley, and the outh Bay. The most characteristic ACE trips are journeys to and from employment areas during peak commute times, from riders places of residence in the an Joaquin Valley or the Tri-Valley to riders places of work in the Tri-Valley or the outh Bay. Modelling of unconstrained 2 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 1.2 million riders in This trend is projected to continue, and by 202, the unconstrained ridership demand without service extensions or service time improvements for ACE is projected to increase to 1.6 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. The increasing demand for ACE service correlates with the anticipated future population and employment growth in the three counties (anta Clara, Alameda, and an Joaquin Counties) along the existing ACE corridor. Table 1-1 summarizes the anticipated increases in population and employment growth in the counties within the existing ACE corridor. As shown, population growth in anta Clara, Alameda, and an Joaquin Counties is anticipated to grow at a generally steady rate from 201 to 202, with an Joaquin County experiencing the greatest population growth among the three counties. Employment growth within the three counties is anticipated to be the highest from 201 to 2020, with anta Clara and Alameda Counties experiencing more employment growth than an Joaquin County during this time. These population and employment projections support the general characteristics of current ACE trips and contribute to the need for future increased ACE service in the existing ACE service area. 1 The Tri-Valley is located in eastern an Francisco Bay Area and includes Pleasanton, Livermore, Dublin, an Ramon, and Danville as well as the unincorporated Alameda County communities near these cities. 2 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. 1-3

4 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Table 1-1. Projected Population and Employment Growth in the Existing ACE ervice Areas Counties Population % Change % Change anta Clara County 1,896,000 1,981,000 2,0,000 4.% 3.7% Alameda County 1,604,000 1,689,000 1,79,000.3% 4.1% an Joaquin County 721,000 78, ,000.1% 4.4% Employment anta Clara County 1,036,000 1,127,000 1,173, % 4.1% Alameda County 737, , , % 4.7% an Joaquin County 231, ,000 28, % 4.0% ource: California Department of Transportation Extended Altamont Corridor Express ervice Area As part of ACEforward, JRRC proposes to extend ACE service from Manteca to Modesto, Ceres, Turlock and Merced, from an Joaquin to tanislaus and Merced Counties. As described in the 2013 an Joaquin Council of Governments Interregional Multi-Modal Commute Trip Planning tudy, a large number of employed residents of an Joaquin, tanislaus, and Merced Counties work outside the region or in a county other than their county of residence (an Joaquin Council of Governments 2013). Because the three-county region has fewer jobs than workers, this imbalance leads to significant proportions of the workforce commuting out of the three-county region for work. Residents of the three-county region who work outside the county in which they reside travel mostly to the Bay Area (approximately 14 percent of all employed residents in the region) or commute within the three-county region but to a different county from their county of residence (approximately 9 percent of all employed residents in the region). Given these travel characteristics, there is an existing and growing demand for transit services between the Bay Area and the an Joaquin Valley within the extended ACE corridor. Table 1-2 summarizes the anticipated increases in population and employment in the counties within the extended ACE corridor. As shown, the anticipated populations in an Joaquin, tanislaus, and Merced Counties are significantly greater than the number of jobs offered in the respective counties for 201, 2020, and 202. This population and employment growth pattern is likely to increase the existing trend for commutes from the three-county region to the Bay Area and commutes within the three-county region. 1-4

5 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Table 1-2. Projected Population and Employment Growth in the Extended ACE ervice Areas Counties Population % Change % Change an Joaquin County 721,000 78, ,000.1% 4.3% tanislaus County 3,000 9,000 86,000 4.% 4.8% Merced County 268, , , % 6.7% Employment an Joaquin County 231, ,000 28, % 4.0% tanislaus County 181, , , % 4.1% Merced County 78,000 82,000 84,000.1% 2.4% ources: California Department of Transportation Roadway Congestion in the Corridor The predominant mode of personal travel where the existing and extended ACE corridors are located is the automobile. In addition, many of the roadway corridors are influenced by truck traffic between the Central Valley and the Port of Oakland, particularly Interstate (I-) 80. Economic growth and the corresponding demand for transportation services in anta Clara, Alameda, an Joaquin, tanislaus, and Merced Counties have exceeded the region s ability to provide the needed roadway capacity. The existing and extended ACE corridor provides transportation services in the vicinity of the following freeway segments. I-880 from an Jose to Fremont I-680 from an Jose to Pleasanton tate Route (R) 84 from Fremont to Pleasanton I-80 from Pleasanton to the an Joaquin County line I-20 from the an Joaquin County line to Lathrop R 120 from I- to R 99 I- from Lathrop to tockton R 99 from tockton to Merced The rapid increase in travel demand between the an Joaquin Valley, the Tri-Valley, and the outh Bay, coupled with the growth in population in the surrounding areas, has placed increasing pressures on the highways serving the region. Alameda and anta Clara are the first and second most congested counties within the nine-county Bay Area (California Department of Transportation 2016). In the Bay Area, three freeway segments near the existing ACE corridor are identified as the second, sixth, and eighth locations with the most delay during the commute hour in the Bay Area (Metropolitan Transportation Commission 201). outhbound (B) I-880 from an Leandro to Milpitas during the morning period is the second most congested freeway segment in the Bay Area with 7,300 daily (weekday) vehicle hours of delay. 1-

6 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Northbound (NB) I-680 from southern Fremont over the unol Grade to R 84 during the afternoon period is the sixth most congested freeway segment in the Bay Area with 3,940 daily (weekday) vehicle hours of delay. Westbound (WB) I-80 from the an Joaquin County line over the Altamont Pass to Dublin and Pleasanton during the morning period is the eighth most congested commute with 3,800 daily (weekday) vehicle hours of delay. The congestion experienced on the freeway segments in the Bay Area carry over onto freeway segments in the an Joaquin Valley. As it connects with I-80 near the Alameda an Joaquin County line, I-20 serves as a major interregional connector for moving people between the northern an Joaquin Valley and the Bay Area. The commute pattern on I-20 is unidirectional, with an Joaquin Valley residents commuting to jobs in the Bay Area during the morning period and returning in the afternoon period. Congestion on I-20 correlates with this travel pattern, which stems from the growing jobs and housing imbalance within the an Joaquin Valley. I-20 experiences congestion in the morning peak hours with 192 daily (weekday) vehicle hours of delay and heavy return traffic in the afternoon peak hours with 902 daily (weekday) vehicle hours of delay (California Department of Transportation and an Joaquin Council of Governments 2010). In the future, this out-commute pattern from the an Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area is expected to continue and become even more pronounced. With this pattern, congestion and bottlenecking on I-20 is anticipated to worsen. In the northern an Joaquin Valley, congestion locations occur most frequently in urban areas where the annual average daily traffic tends to be higher, exit and entry ramps or interchanges are more frequent, and the risk of crashes is more prominent. Congestion on R 99 primarily occurs near urban centers, such as tockton, Modesto, and Merced (Fresno Council of Governments 2016). Without future roadway improvements, congestion on freeway corridors in the vicinity of ACE are anticipated to increase to the point at which travel peak periods would spread into midday and to later in the evening. Bottlenecks would continue to constrain movement through the corridor. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projections indicate that job growth in the Bay Area is expected to increase approximately 11 percent between 201 and 202, with population in the Bay Area increasing approximately 9 percent in the same timeframe. In addition, population in an Joaquin, tanislaus, and Merced Counties are expected to increase 17 percent between 201 and 202, with job growth in these counties increasing approximately 14 percent in the same timeframe. The resultant new transportation demand will lead to high levels of congestion that will take a toll on economic development by constraining goods and people movement. As one example, between 2013 and 2040, peak hour traffic is expected to increase as follows on routes of regional significance in the Tri-Valley and adjacent areas (DK Associates 201). I-680 outh of R-84 (unol Grade) 2 percent increase in peak hour traffic I-80 East of Tassajara Road 3 percent I-80 East of Vasco Road 9 percent I-680 overall in Tri-Valley 2013 a.m. peak average speeds of 6 mph (NB) to 7 mph (B) and p.m. peak average speeds of 4 mph (NB) to 8 mph (B) 2040 a.m. peak average speeds of 46 mph (NB) to 2 mph (B) and p.m. peak average speeds of 40 mph (B) to 46 mph (NB) 1-6

7 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission I-80 overall in Tri-Valley 2013 a.m. peak average speeds of 3 mph (WB) to 62 mph (EB) and p.m. peak average speeds of 49 mph (EB) to 9 mph (WB) 2040 a.m. peak average speeds of 26 mph (WB) to 1 mph (EB) and p.m. peak average speeds of 3 mph (EB) to 48 mph (WB) imilar increases in congestion are expected for I-880, R 84, I-20, and R 99. Opportunities to improve highway capacity are constrained by a number of factors, including funding availability, the need for extensive and costly ROW acquisitions, and potential environmental impacts, such as displacement of residences and businesses, and impacts on natural resources and redesign of local roadways beyond the interchanges. For these reasons, substantial capacity improvements to I-880, I-680, R 84, I-80, I-20, R 120, I-, and R 99 cannot be relied upon to fully address long-term travel demands in the corridor. In this environment, ACE provides an essential and viable transportation alternative to costly highway capacity expansion. By reducing trip times and increasing transit ridership, ACEforward would help to ease congestion on the Bay Area and an Joaquin Valley freeways Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions High rates of automobile ownership and increasing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) have contributed to air quality problems throughout California. Pollutants of concern include nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases which are precursors of ozone (also referred to as smog); sulfur dioxides; carbon monoxide; and particulate matter. GHGs (including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane and other gases) are now a focus of environmental planning in California because of their role in global climate change. Motor vehicles are substantial contributors to the production of all of these pollutants. The ACEforward existing and extended corridor includes portions of two air basins: the an Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (FBAAB), for which air quality conditions are regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the an Joaquin Valley Air Basin (JVAB), for which air quality conditions are regulated by the an Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (JVAPCD). While the air quality has improved in recent years, largely in response to technological improvements in motor vehicles and fuels, both air basins face substantial challenges to meet air quality standards. The FBAAB is designated a marginal nonattainment area for the 8-hour federal standard for ozone, a nonattainment area for the federal PM2. (particulate matter smaller than 2. microns in diameter) standard, and a maintenance area for the federal carbon monoxide standard. With respect to the California standards, the FBAAB is currently a serious nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard and a nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone, PM2., and PM10 (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter) standards. The an Joaquin Valley has more challenging air quality issues than the FBAAB. The JVAB is designated an extreme nonattainment area for the 8-hour federal standard for ozone and a nonattainment area for the federal PM2. standard. With respect to California standards, the JVAB is currently a severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard and a nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone, PM2., and PM10 standards. 1-7

8 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission ection 4.3, Air Quality, provides a summary of data collected at the air quality monitoring stations nearest to the ACE corridor and a discussion of the total number of days that state and federal ambient air quality standards were exceeded. Because transportation is the major contributor to ozone precursors, increasing auto travel threatens the area s improvement in air quality. Growing congestion will add to the potential problems because of increased emissions of vehicles operating in stop-and-go traffic. hifting commuters and other travelers to higher occupancy modes is highly desirable as a means to partially offset the effects on air quality produced by the growth in auto travel. Increased and expanded ACE service offers the greatest potential for increased high-occupancy travel from the an Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area including in areas with the most severe air quality problems in the corridor. Compared to existing conditions, by 2040 near-term improvements could result in reduction in emissions of up to 29 to 39 tons per year of ozone precursors and 49 to 6 tons per year of PM10 in the BAAQMD and up to 27 to 28 tons per year of ozone precursors and 12 to 30 tons per year of PM10 in the JVAPCD as a result of increased and extended ACE service (see ection 4.3). Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in California and in most communities along the ACE corridor. Most of the communities in the ACE corridor have adopted climate action plans to lower their community contributions of GHG emissions, with all seeking to lower transportation emissions. California has ambitious goals to reduce GHG emissions throughout the state. By reducing vehicle travel on regional roadways, ACEforward would also help communities along the ACE corridor and California as a whole to meet their goals for GHG reductions. Compared to 2020 No Project conditions, the near-term improvements would result in a reduction of up to 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of GHG emissions (see ection 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions) Existing Infrastructure Constraints in the Corridor The majority of track (approximately 82 miles of the total 86-mile corridor) ACE trains travel on is owned and operated by UPRR. JRRC has entered into trackage rights agreements with UPRR to operate on portions of their tracks. Where ACE operates on UPRR tracks, ACE shares the tracks with freight trains dispatched by UPRR. The existing infrastructure ACE operates on experiences significant operating limitations, including limited capacity because much of the corridor is comprised of a single main track and tight curves along the alignment and the corridor also includes steep grades over the Altamont Pass. Because ACE shares track with freight dispatched by UPRR and the majority of the corridor consists of a single main track, ACE can only pass freight trains in designated areas where siding tracks 3 exist. ince UPRR controls the tracks on which ACE runs, UPRR requires an increase in capacity along the route before ACE will receive permission to run additional passenger service so additional passenger service does not inhibit UPRR s freight operations. Thus, JRRC is unable to expand and modernize ACE service without constructing physical improvements to the existing infrastructure to expand the overall rail network capacity. 3 A siding is a section of track alongside the main track where a train can temporarily pull off the main track for maintenance, coupling up cars or locomotives, or to let other trains pass along the main track. 1-8

9 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission 1.4 Purpose of ACEforward JRRC proposes to expand service and connections to better serve the existing travel markets along its existing corridor between tockton and an Jose and to expand service to additional cities in an Joaquin, tanislaus, and Merced Counties. ACEforward is composed of incremental improvements to expand rail capacity, upgrade passenger facilities, establish a train-to-train ACE/BART connection, potentially reroute ACE service through downtown Tracy, potentially add or replace station locations and extend ACE service to Modesto, Ceres, Turlock and Merced. 4 The primary purposes of ACEforward is to increase frequency, improve service reliability, reduce travel time, and improve passenger facilities; enhance intercity transit connectivity and maximize connections with other transit services; reduce traffic congestion, improve regional air quality, and reduce GHG emissions; and to promote local and regional land use and transportation sustainability goals. Each of these objectives is discussed in detail below. Increase frequency of service, improve service reliability, reduce travel time, and improve passenger facilities. Improvements under ACEforward would increase rail capacity at pinch points along the corridor through the addition of new main tracks, sidings, and possibly a tunnel in the Altamont Hills. ervice times in the corridor would be improved through a combination of superelevation in the near term, separate actions by ACE and Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA), increased reliability in the near term and longer term due to the rail capacity sidings and double-tracking, and possibly with a tunnel in the Altamont Hills in the longer term. These improvements would result in several benefits including improved service reliability, reduced travel time, and would also allow for additional ACE service. Because these improvements address the operational limitations of the corridor, there would be fewer incidents of bottlenecks and delay, which would improve ACE service reliability and on-time performance. These improvements would allow ACE to obtain extra train slots 6 from UPRR to operate two additional daily trains in the near term and up to six additional daily trains in the longer term. Parking would be expanded at existing stations to accommodate additional ACE service in the near term and the longer term. The added frequency of ACE trains, along with travel time savings, improved service reliability, and upgraded passenger facilities, are expected to stimulate additional ACE ridership. Enhance intercity service and maximize connections with other transit services. Improvements under ACEforward would support enhanced intercity transit connectivity, provide additional surface passenger transportation capacity, and maximize connections with other transit services within the Bay Area and an Joaquin Valley. In the longer term, ACEforward would expand service to include weekends and holidays. ACE is evaluating the potential establishment of a train-to-train ACE/BART connection in the Tri-Valley and/or Union City to promote intercity transit connectivity between the an Joaquin Valley and portions of the Bay Area ACE does not currently reach such as an Francisco, the an Francisco Peninsula, and 4 ervice could also possibly be extended to Livingston or Atwater, depending on the alternative selected for implementation. ACE will be extending certain platforms through use of Cap & Trade funding separately which helps with quicker loading and unloading. CCJPA is presently planning to super elevate portions of the ACE route. 6 Train slots are defined as the number of trains an operator is allowed to dispatch. Currently, UPRR allows ACE eight weekday train slots to operate four westbound trains from tockton to an Jose in the morning and four eastbound trains from an Jose to tockton in the afternoon. 1-9

10 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission the East Bay. In Tracy, ACE is evaluating rerouting ACE service through downtown Tracy to service the existing Tracy Transit Center, which has transit connection with local and regional bus services, including TRACER, an Joaquin Regional Transit District, and Greyhound buses. ACE is also evaluating potential new stations at locations of approved and potential new development west of Tracy, in River Islands and in Lathrop/Manteca, which could increase transit use in these areas. The ACE extension to downtown Modesto and Merced would service the existing intercity and commuter transportation needs of the Central Valley, and would support transit-oriented development in the downtown parts of cities with potential or proposed service. Modesto Max (City of Modesto bus transit) currently run buses to meet each ACE train at the existing Lathrop/Manteca tation. The extension to Merced would also provide a future opportunity to connect with the California HR ystem which would integrate ACE into a unified northern California rail system. These intercity transit connections are expected to stimulate additional ACE ridership. Reduce traffic congestion, improve regional air quality, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. An expanded and improved ACE would provide a transportation alternative to automobile use, which would alleviate traffic congestion on corridor highway segments (along I- 880, I-680, I-80, I-20, and R 99), and result in air quality benefits and a reduction in GHG emissions. In addition, by maximizing connections with other transit services within the Bay Area and Central Valley, ACEforward could contribute to indirect benefits related to alleviating congestion and improving regional air quality. Reductions in air pollutant emissions represent long-term health benefits for ACE riders, and for residents and employees along the ACE corridor. In addition, reduction of GHG emissions would help California to meet its goals under Assembly Bill 32, the 2006 Global Warming olutions Act, as well as post-2020 state GHG emission reduction goals. Promote local and regional land use and transportation sustainability goals. Metropolitan areas are implementing strategies to encourage more efficient use of land resources, improve mobility, and provide alternative transportation facilities and services as a means to lower GHG emissions and to maintain air quality standards. One statewide strategy adopted in the California tate Implementation Plan is the development of multi-use transportation corridors, including the addition of more transit and the expansion of rail modal options. ACEforward would further improve regional air quality and reduce GHG emissions, beyond reducing VMT from automobiles, by supporting regional land use and transportation planning goals under the ustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (also known as enate Bill [B] 37) and other local, regional, and state sustainability initiatives. ACE is evaluating potential new ACE stations in downtown Tracy, in areas of proposed or potential future planned development west of Tracy, in River Islands, in Lathrop/Manteca, and in downtown areas between Manteca and Merced. The new transit stations could act as a catalyst for smart growth in communities by revitalizing city core areas and addressing traffic congestion issues in the cities of the northern Central Valley. 1-10

11 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission 1. Existing and Projected Ridership with ACEforward JRRC is proposing to implement improvements as part of ACEforward to expand rail capacity and service, upgrade passenger facilities, establish a train-to-train ACE/BART connection, and extend ACE service to Modesto and Merced. This will increase ACE ridership to meet ACEforward s purpose and need. Tables 1-3 and 1-4 summarizes existing and anticipated ridership with and without ACEforward. Table 1-3. ACE ystem Ridership with Near-Term Improvements Ridership cenarios Annual Riders 201/ % Increase 2040 % Increase No Project a 1,28,200 1,11,700 18% 2,186,800 70% cenarios without service extension to Modesto Base Ridership without Extension b -- 1,92,00 2% 2,882, % Maximum Ridership without Extension c cenarios with service extension to Modesto -- 2,183,900 70% 3,147,600 14% Base Ridership with Extension d -- 2,242,800 7% 3,26,100 13% Maximum Ridership with Extension e -- 2,310,00 80% 3,3, % ource: Appendix E, ACEforward Revised Ridership, Revenue, and Benefits Report. Notes: a No Project Alternative consists of four roundtrip trains per weekday between tockton and an Jose. b Base ridership without extension consists of six trains per weekday between tockton and an Jose. c Maximum ridership without extension consists of six trains per weekday between tockton and an Jose, with new alignment (Alternative TL-2b) and stations at West Tracy tation A-1, Downtown Tracy, and River Islands in the Tracy to Lathrop segment. d Base ridership with extension consists of four trains per weekday between tockton and an Jose, and two trains per weekday between Modesto and an Jose. e Maximum ridership with extension consists of four trains per weekday between tockton and an Jose, and two trains per weekday between Modesto and an Jose, with an additional new station at West Tracy tation A-1 in the Tracy to Lathrop segment. 1-11

12 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Table 1-4. ACE ystem Ridership with Longer-Term Improvements Ridership cenarios Annual Riders 201/ % Increase 2040 % Increase No Project a 1,28,200 1,664,200 28% 2,186,800 70% cenarios without service extension to Merced Base Ridership without BART Connection b Maximum Ridership with BART Connection c cenarios with service extension to Merced Base Ridership without BART Connection d Maximum Ridership with BART Connection e -- 3,308,700 17% 4,406, % -- 4,241, %,637,00 339% -- 4,8,400 2% 6,06, % --,80,00 334% 7,37,00 474% Notes: Project ridership estimates exclude the effect of potential Altamont Hill tunnel alternatives. Longest tunnel alternative could add up to 4% in ridership. a Four roundtrip trains per weekday between tockton and an Jose. b Ten trains per weekday between tockton and an Jose using the existing alignment (Alternative TL-1) and existing stations in Tracy to Lathrop segment. c Ten trains per weekday between tockton and an Jose with BART Connection at Greenville, using existing alignment (Alternative TL-1), existing Tracy tation and Lathrop/Manteca station with additional West Tracy tation A-1. d Four trains per weekday between tockton and an Jose, and six trains per weekday between Merced and an Jose using existing alignment (Alternative TL-1) and existing stations in Tracy to Lathrop segment. e Four trains per weekday between tockton and an Jose, and six trains per weekday between Merced and an Jose with BART connection at Greenville, with existing alignment and existing stations in Tracy to Lathrop segment plus an additional West Tracy tation A Environmental Review Process California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to all discretionary activities proposed to be implemented by California public agencies, including state, regional, county, and local agencies (California Public Resources Code [Public Res.Code] et seq.). CEQA requires agencies to estimate and evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions, avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts when feasible, and consider the environmental implications of their actions prior to making a decision. CEQA also requires agencies to inform the public and other relevant agencies and consider their comments in the evaluation and decision-making process. The tate CEQA Guidelines are the primary source of rules and interpretations of CEQA (Public Res. Code et seq.; 14 California Code of Regulations [Cal. Code Regs.] 100 et seq.). 1-12

13 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report The purpose of this environmental impact report (EIR) is to provide the information necessary for the JRRC to make an informed decision about the near-term and longer-term improvements under ACEforward, and to supply the information necessary to support related permit applications and review processes. This draft EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA to achieve the following goals. Identify potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the near-term and longer-term improvements Describe feasible mitigation measures intended to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level Disclose the environmental analyses, including potential impacts and mitigation measures, for public and agency review and comment Discuss potential alternatives to near-term and longer-term improvements that meet the purpose and need, are feasible, and would avoid or reduce identified significant impacts One of the purposes of CEQA is to provide an opportunity for the public and relevant agencies to review and comment on projects that might affect the environment. coping activities are discussed below. The JRRC will provide a public review period for this draft EIR of 4 days from its release for comment. JRRC will also conduct public meetings to receive comments during the comment period. Once the public review period is complete, the JRRC will prepare a final EIR that includes all the comments received on the draft EIR, responses to all comments, and any necessary revisions to the draft EIR. CEQA requires the JRRC decision-making body, the JRRC Board (Board), to review and consider the information in the EIR before making a decision on ACEforward Project-Level versus Program-Level Evaluation This EIR serves as both a project EIR and a program EIR. Chapter 2 describes the near-term improvements evaluated at a project level of detail, and Chapter 3 describes the longer-term improvements evaluated at a program level of detail. The differences between the level of analysis for a project EIR and program EIR are described below. The advantage of this approach is to allow for earlier and more comprehensive evaluation of all near-term and longer-term improvements of ACEforward, even though implementation of the longer-term elements may depend upon a number of factors that cannot be assessed with certainty at this time. By including the longer-term elements along with the near-term elements of ACEforward in this EIR, JRRC is providing the public and the Board with an opportunity to review and consider the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of ACEforward as a whole, prior to Board decisions on any portion of the program. In doing so, JRRC is fulfilling two important goals of the CEQA process. Providing for environmental review and longer-range planning disclosure at the earliest feasible time. Avoiding piecemeal review that could underestimate the environmental impacts of a project as large and complex as ACEforward. 1-13

14 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission JRRC is also identifying issues of concern to agencies and other interested persons early in the review process to help scope subsequent environmental documentation on longer-term elements. This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines ection 1168, which allows for a lead agency to prepare a program EIR on a series or group of actions that are carried out in this manner. JRRC s intent is to present to the public, as early in the planning process as possible, a comprehensive understanding of how individual improvements fit into JRRC s overall vision and long-term plans for ACE. This is consistent with both the spirit and letter of CEQA, which calls for EIRs to be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to consider the whole of the action, and to provide a good faith effort at full disclosure (CEQA Guidelines 1004[b] and 1003[h] through [i]) Project Environmental Impact Report A project EIR is the most common type of EIR and applies to projects that have been sufficiently developed to a level of certainty that is ready for detailed environmental impacts analysis. Under CEQA, a project EIR is prepared for a construction-ready project, and should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from development of the project. A project-level analysis examines the impacts associated with all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. The specific sites, implementation (including construction activities), and operational details for ACEforward s near-term improvements have been defined and, thus, a project-level analysis for these improvements environmental impacts is appropriate. This EIR evaluates at a greater level of detail (compared to longer-term improvements) the environmental impacts of the near-term improvements for which implementation is presently being considered and for which JRRC anticipates that no further environmental document will be required under CEQA. Following certification of this EIR by the Board and necessary regulatory approvals, the nearterm improvements would be ready for implementation Program Environmental Impact Report A program EIR is prepared for projects that are larger in scale, will be developed over a longer period of time, or include multiple components. ACEforward s longer-term improvements are potential future actions that may or may not be necessary depending on future circumstances. These improvements are not expected to be completed until at least 2023 and have not yet been developed enough to permit a comprehensive detailed evaluation. Consequently, the longer-term elements are more conceptual and evaluated in a more general manner. Until it is known whether or how JRRC would proceed with these elements, project-level review is inappropriate and would be speculative. JRRC will undertake further environmental review pursuant to CEQA as the need arises to design and implement these longer-term elements and as further details about the specific location and construction characteristics of those improvements are known. When JRRC undertakes subsequent environmental review for these improvements to be evaluated at a project level of detail, the information contained in this EIR will be revisited to determine the accuracy and adequacy of these evaluations. The programmatic analysis of the longer-term improvements in this EIR will allow subsequent project-level clearance of individual longer-term improvements. This will allow prioritization and phasing of longer-term improvements. For example, given the recent approval of funding from enate Bill 1 (2017), the extension of service to Ceres could be cleared through a focused projectlevel environmental document following certification of this EIR. 1-14

15 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission This EIR serves as the first-tier environmental analysis of the longer-term improvements and subsequent environmental analysis can be tiered 7 from this EIR. Tiering allows the environmental analysis for projects to be conducted closer in time to the actual construction phase, or as funds for construction become available. In accordance with criteria set forth in CEQA, this EIR can provide the following support. Provide the basis in an initial study for determining whether a specific longer-term improvement may have significant impacts. Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, alternatives, and other factors that apply to ACEforward as a whole. Focus subsequent environmental review to permit discussion solely of new effects or more adverse effects than those considered in this EIR. upport selection of a preferred corridor, alignments, or station locations for advancement into subsequent project-level analysis of longer-term improvements. 1.7 cope and Content of this Environmental Impact Report coping refers to the process used to assist the lead agency in determining the focus and content of an EIR. coping solicits input on the potential topics to be addressed in the EIR, the range of alternatives, and possible mitigation measures. coping is also helpful in establishing methods of assessment and in selecting the environmental effects to be considered in detail. A description of the formal scoping activities undertaken for ACEforward are described in the following subsections Notice of Preparation and coping Meetings The scoping process for this EIR was formally initiated on June 24, 2013, when the JRRC submitted a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the California tate Clearinghouse; federal, regional, and local elected officials; and federal, state, and local agencies, including the planning and community development directors in anta Clara, Alameda, an Joaquin, tanislaus, and Merced Counties; and the interested public. 8 The purpose of the NOP is to solicit participation from relevant agencies and from the public in determining the scope of an EIR. The scoping period ended August 16, everal public meetings were held in July 2013 to provide the public with an opportunity to be informed about the alternatives under consideration and to comment on environmental issues of concern. Public scoping meetings were held on July 22, 2013, in anta Clara; July 23, 2013, in Fremont; July 24, 2013, in Modesto; July 29, 2013, in Livermore; and July 30, 2013, in Tracy. 7 A program EIR provides the framework for tiering, which allows for the streamlining of future environmental analyses; more specific analysis of individual projects would be tiered off the more general analysis in the program EIR. 8 The June 2013 NOP indicated that a joint EIR/environmental impact statement (EI), satisfying the requirements of both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), would be prepared for ACEforward. Originally, JRRC and the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) were preparing a combined EIR/EI with the FRA acting as the federal lead agency. At this time, since no federal funds have been identified to fund the project, JRRC and FRA have decided that the appropriate NEPA document will be a Program EI which is to be released following completion of the CEQA process. 1-1

16 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Appendix A, NOP and coping ummary Report, contains the scoping report detailing the 2013 scoping process, including the notification and scoping activities undertaken. Written and oral comments received during the 2013 scoping process are also included in Appendix A upplemental Notice of Preparation and coping Meetings The supplemental scoping process for ACEforward was formally initiated on May 9, 2016, when JRRC submitted a supplemental NOP to the California tate Clearinghouse. A supplemental scoping process was initiated due to the addition of a near-term element for ACEforward establishing a new rail connection at Niles Junction that would allow freight to better utilize the Niles subdivision as a direct connection to the Port of Oakland. This additional project element was not disclosed as part of the 2013 scoping process, necessitating a supplemental scoping period. The purpose of the supplemental NOP is to solicit participation from relevant agencies and from the public in determining the scope of the EIR with regard to this additional element. The scoping period ended June 9, upplemental scoping meetings were held on May 24, 2016, in an Leandro and on May 26, 2016, in Fremont to provide an opportunity for the public to be informed about the additional project element and to comment on environmental issues of concern. Appendix B, upplemental NOP and upplemental coping ummary Report, contains the supplemental scoping report detailing the 2016 supplemental scoping process, including the notification and scoping activities. Written and informal oral comments received during the 2016 supplemental scoping process are also included in Appendix B Resource Topics Consistent with Appendix G and Appendix F of the tate CEQA Guidelines, this draft EIR evaluates the potential impacts of the near-term and longer-term improvements for the following resource areas. Aesthetics Agricultural resources Air quality Biological resources Cultural resources Energy Geology and soils Greenhouse gas emissions Hazards and hazardous materials Hydrology and water quality Land use and planning Noise and vibration 1-16

17 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission Population and housing Public services Recreation afety and security Transportation and traffic Utilities and service systems The following topics are also analyzed in this draft EIR. Cumulative impacts ignificant and unavoidable impacts ignificant irreversible changes in the environment Growth inducement Alternatives to near-term and longer-term improvements 1.8 Environmental Impact Report Organization This draft EIR is organized into the following chapters and appendices. Executive ummary provides a summary of the key information and conclusions in the EIR Chapter 1,, provides a brief overview of the ACEforward near-term and longer-term improvements; the purpose and need of the near-term and longer-term improvements; an overview of the environmental review process; and the scope, content, and organization of the draft EIR. Chapter 2, Description of Near-Term Improvements, provides a comprehensive description of the near-term improvements for ACEforward. Chapter 3, Description of Longer-Term Improvements, provides a comprehensive description of the longer-term improvements for ACEforward. Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, provides an evaluation of impacts of the near-term and longer-term improvements on the environmental resource topics outlined above. Each resource-specific section discusses the environmental setting, regulatory setting, and any impacts and mitigation measures. Chapter, Other CEQA-Required Analysis, provides a discussion of cumulative impacts, significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, significant irreversible changes in the environment, and growth-inducing impacts. Chapter 6, No Project Alternative and Alternatives Considered and Dismissed, provides a description of the No Project Alternative, an explanation of the development of the near-term and longer-term alternatives, and an evaluation of the alternatives considered but dismissed from further consideration. Chapter 7, Alternatives Comparison, provides a comparison of the transportation performance and environmental impacts of different alternatives based on the analysis in Chapter 4, 1-17

18 an Joaquin Regional Rail Commission identifies the environmentally superior alternative; and describes the process by which the JRRC will identify the preferred alternative between the release of the draft EIR and the certification of the final EIR. Chapter 8, Public and Agency Involvement, provides a description of the outreach by JRRC to the public, stakeholders, and agencies over the course of project definition, alternatives development, and environmental review. Chapter 9, List of Preparers, provides a list of firms and staff who contributed to the preparation of this draft EIR. Chapter 10, References, provides a list of the printed references and personal communication cited in this draft EIR. Appendices Appendix A: NOP and coping ummary Report Appendix B: upplemental NOP and upplemental coping ummary Report Appendix C: ACEforward Environmental Footprint Appendix D: ACEforward 1% Preliminary Engineering Plans Appendix E: ACEforward Revised Ridership, Revenue, and Benefits Report Appendix F: ACEforward Opinion of Probable Cost Report Appendix G: Operating and Maintenance Cost for ACEforward Technical Memorandum Appendix H: Regional Plans and Local General Plans Appendix I: upporting Aesthetics Information Appendix J: upporting Agricultural Resources Information Appendix K: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment upporting Documentation Appendix L: upporting Biological Resources Information Appendix M: upporting Cultural Resources Technical Reports Appendix N: upporting Geology, oils, eismicity, and Paleontological Information Appendix O: upporting Hydrology and Water Quality Information Appendix P: upporting Transportation and Traffic Information Appendix Q: Public and Agency Coordination 1-18

19 LEGEND 99 County Boundaries Antioch Concord Urban Areas 26 Water tockton TOCKTON TATION Major Roads Railroads L Walnut Creek Existing ACE Route 4 Longer-Term Improvements 99 CO NTR A CO TA CO A N JOAQ UIN CO Danville 80 Lathrop DOWNTOWN TRACY TATION TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-4a TL-4b 680 A-1 Union City JF-2 TRACY TATION CN-2a CN-1a A L AM E DA CO WET TRACY TATION OPTION Proposed tation Potential tation Modesto MODETO TATION Ceres Keys CN-1b FREMONT TATION Fremont Existing tation Existing tation with tations Oakdale Near-Term Improvements 99 CN-1a, CN-1b, CN-2b, CN-1c CN-2b 120 alida Figure E- TV-1 CN-1a, CN-1b, CN-1c CN-1c r 880 Livermore Escalon Note: Improvements are shown in various colors to distinguish their specific beginning and end points. ome improvements are combined to form alternatives within geographic segments. This color scheme is independent from that used in other report figures. i ve PLEAANTON TATION TL-2a, TL-4a Tracy in R Hayward TV-2 Manteca DOWNTOWN RIVER ILAND TL-2a, TL-2b, MANTECA TATION TATION TL TL-2a, TL-2b, TL-3, TL-4a, TL-4b LATHROP/MANTECA TATION TL-2a, TL-2b TL-4a, TL-4a, TL-4b 20 MMO-1a, MMO-1b TL-4b RELOCATED RIPON TATION LATHROP/MANTECA TL-1 TL-3 Ripon TATION aqu Pleasanton 80 MMO-1b an Jo VACO ROAD TATION LIVERMORE TATION 80 2 Tracks Figure E-2 33 TA NI L AU CO Turlock Patterson Milpitas 680 anta Clara ANTA CLARA TATION ICF Graphics ( ) 280 ME R CE D CO Delhi GREAT AMERICA TATION 8 JF-1 17 AN JOE DIRIDON TATION an Jose Newman Livingston A N TA C L A R A CO Atwater Merced 99 Figure 1-1 Locations of Near-Term Improvements ACEforward Inch = 6.31 Miles cale 1:400,000 20

20 LEGEND 99 County Boundaries Antioch Concord tockton Urban Areas 26 Water Major Roads Railroads P-L-1 TOCKTON TATION 4 24 Walnut Creek Existing ACE Route 4 A N JOAQ UIN CO Danville 80 RIVER ILAND TATION 680 IABEL AVENUE TATION P-TV P-TV-4 Figure E-3 Tracy P-A-1 P-A-3 GREENVILLE ROAD TRACY TATION TATION P-TL-A1 P-TV- P-TL-ET P-TL-A2 P-TL-A3 P-TL-A4 P-TL-A VACO ROAD WET TRACY TATION OPTION TATION LIVERMORE TATION UNION CITY TATION alida ICF Graphics ( ) Existing tation Proposed tation Potential tation Modesto MODETO TATION 132 P-MMO-MOD CERE TATION TA NI L AU CO Keys tation with Longer-Term Improvements Turlock TURLOK TATION Patterson P-MME-1a, P-MME-1b Milpitas 680 ANTA CLARA TATION AN JOE DIRIDON TATION an Jose 8 P-JF-1 17 ME R CE D CO Delhi GREAT AMERICA TATION anta Clara 280 tations A L AM E DA CO P-JF-2a P-JF-2b P-JF-2c P-JF-2d Fremont 101 Oakdale Ceres P-UC-1a, P-UC-1b P-UC-2a, P-UC-2b FREMONT TATION Note: Improvements are shown in various colors to distinguish their specific beginning and end points. The improvements were combined or chained to form the proposed Alternative Alignments. This color scheme is independent from that used in other report figures Escalon RELOCATED LATHROP/MANTECA RIPON TATION TATION Ripon P-MMO-RIP Union City P-JF-3 Improvements Proposed by Other Agencies Bus Route r Livermore 20 i ve PLEAANTON TATION P-TV-1d P-TL-B1 P-TL-A3 P-TL-DT in R Pleasanton 80 P-TL-RI P-TL-ELM DOWNTOWN Manteca MANTECA TATION 120 P-MMO-MAN EXITING LATHROP/MANTECA TATION Longer-Term Improvements aqu P-BART-2&3 P-TV-2d P-A-2 P-TV-2a, P-TV-1a, P-TV-2b, P-TV-1b, P-BART-1 P-TV-2c P-TV-1c DOWNTOWN TRACY TATION Lathrop an Jo DUBLIN/PLEAANTON TATION Hayward Potential ACE Route with Near-Term Improvements 99 CO NTR A CO TA CO 2 Tracks 101 LIVINGTON TATION 9 Livingston A N TA C L A R A CO Newman 16 Atwater ATWATER TATION 140 Merced MERCED TATION 99 Figure 1-2 Locations of Longer-Term Improvements ACEforward Inch = 6.31 Miles cale 1:400,000 20