HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 - 1887 BART Staff Presentation on BART Alternative
Page 1 of 3
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 3, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
BART Presentation - BART to Livermore Extension Project Alternative
Selection Process
Prepared by: Obaid Khan, Transporation and Operations Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive a presentation from BART staff on the proposed
alternatives for the BART to Livermore Extension Project. BART staff will also discuss
the process of selecting the final alternative by the BART Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive the presentation from BART staff, support the Conventional BART alternative,
and provide feedback.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
On July 31, 2017, BART issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
proposed BART to Livermore Extension Project. The DEIR also evaluates alternatives
to the Conventional BART design and construction. These alternatives include:
Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) or Electric Multiple Unit (EMU)
Express Bus/Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Enhanced Bus
No project
At the October 3, 2017 meeting, the City Council approved staff comments on the DEIR
(Attachment 1). The comments were submitted to BART staff before the October 16,
2017 comment period deadline.
On February 16, 2018, BART issued an Evaluation of Alternatives Report (Attachment
2). BART is now seeking public input to assist the BART Board in their selection of a
preferred extension plan. The BART Board will review and certify the Final EIR and
Page 2 of 3
select a preferred alternative in May, 2018.
The BART Board has until June 30, 2018 to select a preferred alternative. If the Board
is unable to meet this deadline, the newly formed Tri-Valley San Joaquin Regional Rail
Authority will select the preferred alternative.
The Tri-Valley San Joaquin Regional Rail Authority was created on January 1, 2018 by
Assembly Bill 758. This Authority is tasked with planning, developing, and delivering
cost-effective transit connectivity between BART a nd the Altamont Corridor Express
(ACE) commuter rail service.
BART to Livermore Extension Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed project, as stated in the DEIR, are:
Provide a cost-effective intermodal link of the existing BART system to th e inter-
regional rail network and a series of Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
identified by the City of Livermore, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
and the Association of Bay Area Governments. These PDAs include the
Livermore Isabel Avenue BART Station PDA, the Livermore Downtown PDA, and
the Livermore East Side PDA.
Support the regional goals of integrating transit and land use policies to create
opportunities for transit-oriented development in PDAs in the Livermore area.
Provide an effective commute alternative to traffic congestion on I -580.
Improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and other emissions
associated with automobile use.
Comparison of Alternatives
All of the alternatives have more environmental impacts compared to the Conventional
BART alternative. The DMU/EMU comes closest to meeting the BART to Livermore
Extension Project objectives, but the ridership is lower with the DMU/EMU. It also
results in a smaller parking facility constructed at Isabel Station and more vehicles
continuing to drive and park at the Dublin/Pleasanton Stations. This in turn increases
vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.
The Conventional BART alternative is best suited to address growth in traffic congestion
in the Tri-Valley Area and has the greatest environmental benefits as compared to other
alternatives. Below are some of the key findings on a comparison of Alternatives as
presented in the DEIR and the Evaluation of Alternatives Report:
Conventional BART would score higher on most measures under the BART
system expansion policy.
Conventional BART would have the shortest travel time along the I -580 corridor,
resulting in the most new transit riders, and most traffic congestion relief west of
Livermore on I-580.
Conventional BART would increase BART ridership by 11,900 riders per day and
up to 13,400 riders per day with the Livermore Isabel PDA.
Conventional BART would result in over 3.4 times more riders than the Express
Bus/BRT Alternative, resulting in 151,400 f ewer vehicle miles traveled per day
and about 7,400 fewer metric tons of GHG emissions per year.
The DMU/EMU alternative would cost about the same as full BART ($1.6 billion)
Page 3 of 3
but would serve fewer riders.
Conventional BART would have the least impacts to the land uses in Dublin.
Based on the cost per rider estimates, the Express Bus/BRT would be the most
cost-effective alternative, followed by full BART. The ridership projections and
associated benefits described in the Draft EIR are based on travel m odel and
land use assumptions. The model may overestimate Express Bus/BRT ridership
due to land use and operational assumptions.
Schedule
July 31, 2017 Draft EIR Released
Oct. 16, 2017 Comment Period Closed
Feb 16, 2018 Release Evaluation of Alternatives Report
Feb-March 2018 Public Outreach
April 12, 2018 Preliminary BART to Livermore Recommendation to BART Board
May 2018 Release Final EIR
May 24, 2018 BART Board Consider Certifying EIR and Adopting Project
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Comments on BART to Livermore DEIR - City Council Meeting October 3, 2017
2. Evaluation of Alternatives Report - BART to Livermore Extension Project
Page 1 of 6
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 3, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT: BART to Livermore Draft Environmental Impact Report - Staff Comments
Prepared by: Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council will receive Staff comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
DEIR) for the BART to Livermore Extension Project. Staff comments are focused on
DEIR sections for Air Quality, Land-Use, Noise and Transportation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive Staff comments on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
DESCRIPTION:
On July 31, 2017, BART issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
proposed BART to Livermore Extension Project. The comment period for the DEIR will
close on October 16, 2017. The Proposed Project, which is also referred to as the
Conventional BART Project, would extend transit service 5.5 miles east into eastern
Alameda County from the existing Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (Dublin/Pleasanton
Station) within and adjacent to the I-580 right-of-way (ROW), through the cities of Dublin
and Pleasanton, to a proposed new terminus station located at the Isabel Avenue/I-580
interchange in the City of Livermore.
The DEIR evaluates the potential impacts of the Proposed Project and three Build
Alternatives - the Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative (which includes a variant
referred to as the Electrical Multiple Unit [EMU] Option), the Express Bus/Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) Alternative, and the Enhanced Bus Alternative. The three Build
Alternatives and a No Project Alternative (or No Build Alternative) are evaluated at the
same level as the Proposed Project in the DEIR. Below are summary descriptions of the
Proposed Project and the three Build Alternatives.
Page 2 of 6
Conventional BART Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project involves
extending the Daly City-Dublin/Pleasanton Line from its existing terminus at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station approximately 5.5 miles to the east, to a new station located
at the Isabel Avenue/I-580 (State Route 84) interchange in the City of Livermore. The
new alignment and the new Isabel BART Station (Isabel Station) would be constructed
in the I-580 median. New parking facilities, a parking structure and surface lot
containing a total of approximately 3,412 spaces, would be constructed immediately
south of I-580 along East Airway Boulevard. In addition, a new, approximately 68-acre
BART storage and maintenance facility would be constructed north of I -580, beyond the
Isabel Station.
To accommodate the widening of the I -580 median for the new BART alignment and
Isabel Station, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) ROW would be
widened along approximately 5.6 miles. I-580 lanes would be relocated by a total of
approximately 46 feet, from just east of the Hacienda Drive interchange to west of the
Portola Avenue/I-580 overcrossing. At the proposed Isabel Station, I-580 would be
relocated by approximately 67 feet to accommodate the new station within the median.
The relocation of I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and surface
frontage roads.
DMU/EMU Alternatives. The DMU Alternative differs from the Proposed Project in
terms of vehicle technology. DMUs are self-propelled rail cars that use a diesel engine
to generate their own power and run on a standard -gauge rail track, whereas BART
trains use electricity and run on wide-gauge rail track.
The DMU Alternative would have a similar median alignment and station configuration
as the Proposed Project, but would have a longer total length of freeway alignment
changes and includes a new transfer platform at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. A new
parking structure for the Isabel Station, with approximately 2,428 parking spaces, would
be constructed immediately south of I-580 along East Airway Boulevard. In addition, a
new, approximately 32-acre storage and maintenance facility would be constructed
north of I-580, beyond the terminus of the alignment.
To accommodate the median widening, approximately 7.1 miles of I -580 would be
relocated by a total of approximately 46 feet, from west of the Dougherty Road/Hopyard
Road interchange to the Portola Avenue/I -580 overcrossing. Around the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station, the north side of I -580 would be relocated to accommodate
the new DMU transfer platform. At the proposed Isabel Station, I-580 would be
relocated approximately 67 feet to accommodate the station within the median. The
relocation of I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and surface
frontage roads. The DMU Alternative includes the same feeder bus component as the
Proposed Project, including new and modified bus routes connecting the new sta tion to
areas east of the BART system.
A variant of the DMU Alternative-the Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Option is also being
considered. The EMU Option is generally the same as the DMU Alternative, except that
it is electrically powered rather than diesel-powered.
Page 3 of 6
Express Bus/BRT Alternative. The Express Bus/BRT Alternative seeks to achieve the
project goals using bus technology only. This alternative does not include an extension
of BART rail service or development of a new rail station. Under this alternative, new
bus transfer platforms would be constructed at the existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
Buses would enter these bus-only transfer areas via direct bus-only ramps from the I-
580 express lanes, allowing passengers to transfer from bus to BART within the station.
To accommodate the new bus transfer platforms and facilities under this alternative,
approximately 2.2 miles of I-580, from west of the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road
interchange to the Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road interchange, would be relocated by
approximately 88 feet. The relocation of I-580 would require modification of some
interchanges and surface frontage roads.
A new parking lot or garage on the Pleasanton side with approximately 210 parking
spaces would be constructed at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station to replace the 210
parking spaces removed for the relocation of I-580 to accommodate the bus platforms.
In addition, a remote, approximately 230 -space park-and-ride lot would be constructed
at Laughlin Road; regular bus service would be provided during peak hours from the
Laughlin parking lot to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
Enhanced Bus Alternative. Like the Express Bus/BRT Alternative, the Enhanced Bus
Alternative uses bus-related technology only and does not include an extensio n of
BART rail service or the development of a new rail station. Unlike the Express Bus/BRT
Alternative, however, this alternative does not include any major capital improvements
and would not involve the development of bus transfer platforms or direct bus ramps.
Table 1 provides a summary of ROW take for Conventional BART and Build
Alternatives.
Table 1
Page 4 of 6
Staff Comments:
Staff has reviewed the relevant sections of the DEIR and has prepared comments
Attachment 1) for the City Council’s consideration and input. The key issues and
concerns for the City to consider are summarized below.
Land Use and Business Impacts - While the Proposed Project would have some
impacts to the City’s ROW along the north side of the I -580, the two build alternatives
DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT) would cause significant impacts to the businesses
and properties in the City.
Staff has significant concerns about some of the ROW acquisition required for the
DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT Alternatives. Many of Dublin’s key revenue and
employment generators are located along I-580. As such, any potential purchase of
ROW will need to identify the full impacts, including short and long -term viability of
affected businesses and ongoing revenue impacts to both the businesses and to th e
City.
The DEIR identifies the surface frontage roads and structures adjacent to I -580 that
would need to be relocated in order to accommodate the Proposed Project and
Alternatives. The relocation of the frontage roads would result in potentially significant
impacts to some of the existing and key businesses in the City of Dublin.
The DEIR did not provide specific details on each ROW impact. However, BART staff
provided additional details that are shown in attached Figures 1 to 3. Staff’s specific
comments on the land use concerns are detailed in Attachment 1.
Transportation Impacts - The DEIR discloses many Transportation Impacts and
provides mitigations. However, Staff noted several modeling assumption errors and
issues that could result in incorrect answers. Some of the key issues are listed below:
1) An overall problem with the Draft EIR is its failure to adequately analyze the
impacts of the DMU, Express Bus/BRT, and Enhanced Bus alternatives within
the City of Dublin, and particularly near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.
2) The DEIR has assumed that the BART garage expansion at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station would only occur with the Isabel Neighborhood Plan
INP) implementation in Livermore. However, the DEIR did not include the
funding for the garage expansion as part of the BART system. This is not the
correct way to assume improvements while not including the funding for it,
especially when garage construction is the responsibility of BART on its own
property.
3) The DEIR assumed that under the Cumulative scenarios for 2025 and 2040, INP
in Livermore will have additional land -use changes that could not be evaluated
separately from the Dublin/Pleasanton Garage Expansion traffic patterns. This
leads to not knowing the impacts that would be with the INP land-use addition to
the Proposed Project and alternatives in conjunction with or without a
Dublin/Pleasanton Garage Expansion.
Page 5 of 6
4) The DEIR has proposed mitigation at Dublin Blvd and Dougherty Road
intersection due to the Proposed Project and the Alternatives. The proposed
mitigation would add a third southbound left-turn lane and a second westbound
right turn lane, which will require widening of the intersection through property
acquisitions from existing businesses. Widening of the intersection is not
recommended due to a longer crossing distance for pedestrians and property
impacts to existing businesses. As an alternative mitigation, staff suggests that
BART should implement an Adaptive Traffic Signal system along Dougherty
Road to mitigate the significant impacts.
5) The DEIR has several incorrect model assumptions for the City of Dublin’s
roadway infrastructure. The incorrect assumptions would create incorrect model
results for impacts to the City of Dublin roadway infrastructure and intersections,
and any related mitigations need to be redone.
6) Under the DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT Alternatives, DEIR (Chapter 2,
Project Descriptions) did not provide any time loss for transfer of passengers
from one type of vehicle to the Conventional BART at Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
This loss of time is critical in comparing the Conventional BART with other
Alternatives.
Air Quality and Noise Impacts - The DEIR discusses Air Quality and Noise impacts
but did not disclose the impacts associated with the relocation of I-580 that will bring the
freeway closer to the City boundary, thus creating potential significant Air Quality and
Noise impacts. Additional construction related Noise impacts were disclosed by the
DEIR, but it failed to provide alternative approaches and technologies that could fully
address these impacts.
CONCLUSION:
Staff has found significant impacts to the City of Dublin's land -uses due to the BART to
Livermore Extension Project's Build Alternatives (Diesel Multiple Unit/Electric Multiple
Unit [DMU/EMU] and Express Bus/BRT) as compared to the Proposed Project
Conventional BART). These Build Alternatives will significantly alter the City's ROW
along the north side of I-580 freeway causing impacts to the existing businesses and
public facilities. Furthermore, the DEIR failed to provide appropriate mitigation details for
the land-use impacts in the City of Dublin.
Staff has noted several errors in modeling assumptions in Transportation impacts
analysis. These errors may have led to incorrect res ults associated with various traffic
circulation and access impacts for the Proposed Project and Alternatives. Therefore it is
requested that the model assumptions be corrected and disclosed in the Final EIR.
Air Quality and Noise impacts are not properly analyzed especially those that will occur
due to the widening of the I-580. This shift will bring the freeway traffic closer to the City
of Dublin’s land-uses, thus creating significant impacts.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
None.
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Comments on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft Environmental
Impact Report
2. Exhibit A to the Staff Comments on the BART to Livermore Extension Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report
3. Figure 1 - Conventional BART Alternative Impacts
4. Figure 2 - DMU/EMU Alternative Impacts
5. Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRT Alternative Impacts
Attachment 1
Staff Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
BART to Livermore Project
Proposed Project and Alternatives Descriptions
Conventional BART Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project involves extending
the Daly City-Dublin/Pleasanton Line from its existing terminus at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station (Dublin/Pleasanton Station) approximately 5.5 miles to the east, to a new station located
at the Isabel Avenue/I-580 (State Route 84) interchange in the city of Livermore. The new
alignment and the new Isabel BART Station (Isabel Station) would be constructed in the I-580
median. New parking facilities—a parking structure and surface lot containing a total of
approximately 3,412 spaces—would be constructed immediately south of I-580 along East
Airway Boulevard. In addition, a new, approximately 68-acre BART storage and maintenance
facility would be constructed north of I-580, beyond the Isabel Station.
To accommodate the widening of the I-580 median for the new BART alignment and Isabel
Station, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way (ROW) would be
widened along approximately 5.6 miles. I-580 lanes would be relocated by a total of
approximately 46 feet, from just east of the Hacienda Drive interchange to west of the Portola
Avenue/I-580 overcrossing. At the proposed Isabel Station, I-580 would be relocated by
approximately 67 feet to accommodate the new station within the median. The relocation of I-
580 would require modification of some interchanges and surface frontage roads.
Diesel Multiple Unit/Electric Multiple Unit Alternatives. The (DMU) Alternative differs from
the Proposed Project in terms of vehicle technology. DMUs are self -propelled rail cars that use
a diesel engine to generate their own power and run on a standard-gauge rail track, whereas
BART trains use electricity and run on wide-gauge rail track.
The DMU Alternative would have a similar median alignment and station configuration as the
Proposed Project, but would have a longer total length of freeway alignment changes and
includes a new transfer platform at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. A new parking structure for
the Isabel Station, with approximately 2,428 parking spaces, would be constructed immediately
south of I-580 along East Airway Boulevard. In addition, a new, approximately 32-acre storage
and maintenance facility would be constructed north of I-580, beyond the terminus of the
alignment.
To accommodate the median widening, approximately 7.1 miles of I-580 would be relocated by
a total of approximately 46 feet, from west of the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interchange to
the Portola Avenue/I-580 overcrossing. Around the Dublin/Pleasanton Station, the north side of
I-580 would be relocated to accommodate the new DMU transfer platform. At the proposed
Isabel Station, I-580 would be relocated approximately 67 feet to accommodate the station
within the median. The relocation of I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and
surface frontage roads.
The DMU Alternative includes the same feeder bus component as the Proposed Project,
including new and modified bus routes connecting the new station to areas east of the BART
system.
A variant of the DMU Alternative—the Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Option—is also being
considered. The EMU Option is generally the same as the DMU Alternative, except that it is
electrically powered rather than diesel-powered.
Express Bus/BRT Alternative. The Express Bus/BRT Alternative seeks to achieve the project
goals using bus technology only. This alternative does not include an extension of BART rail
service or development of a new rail station. Under this alternative, new bus transfer platforms
would be constructed at the existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station. Buses would enter these bus-
only transfer areas via direct bus-only ramps from the I-580 express lanes, allowing passengers
to transfer from bus to BART within the station.
To accommodate the new bus transfer platforms and facilities under this alternative,
approximately 2.2 miles of I-580, from west of the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interchange
to the Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road interchange, would be relocated by approximately 88
feet. The relocation of I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and surface
frontage roads.
A new parking lot or garage on the Pleasanton side with approximately 210 parking spaces
would be constructed at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station to replace the 210 parking spaces
removed for the relocation of I-580 to accommodate the bus platforms. In addition, a remote,
approximately 230-space park-and-ride lot would be constructed at Laughlin Road; regular bus
service would be provided during peak hours from the Laughlin parking lot to the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
Enhanced Bus Alternative. Like the Express Bus/BRT Alternative, the Enhanced Bus
Alternative uses bus-related technology only and does not include an extension of BART rail
service or the development of a new rail station. Unlike the Express Bus/BRT Alternative,
however, this alternative does not include any major capital improvements and would not
involve the development of bus transfer platforms or direct bus ramps.
DEIR’s Analysis Scenarios
Year 2040
Land use at
Isabel
Land use
elsewhere
DP
garage1
expansion
BART or
Alternative
Future Baseline
PBA)
PBA2 2040 PBA 2040 No No
Future Project PBA 2040 PBA 2040 No Yes
Future Cumulative INP3 2040 PBA 2040 Yes Yes
Year 2025
Land use at
Isabel
Land use
elsewhere
DP garage
expansion
BART or
Alternative
Future Baseline
PBA)
PBA 2025 PBA 2025 No No
Future Project PBA 2025 PBA 2025 No Yes
Future Cumulative INP 2025 PBA 2025 Yes Yes
Year 2013
Land use at
Isabel
Land use
elsewhere
DP garage
expansion
BART or
Alternative
Existing Conditions Existing Existing Existing No
1. DP Garage – Dublin Pleasanton BART Garage expansion
2. PBA – Plan Bay Area/ABAG
3. INP – Isabel Neighborhood Plan
City of Dublin COMMENTS
A. Land Use Impacts
The City of Dublin has significant concerns about some of the right-of-way (ROW) acquisition
required by the Proposed Project, DMU & EMU Alternative and Express Bus Alternative
currently being considered and we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the
DEIR. Many of Dublin’s key revenue and employment generators are located along I-580. As
such, any potential purchase of ROW will need to identify the full impacts including short and
long-term viability of affected businesses and ongoing revenue impact to both the businesses
and to the City.
The DEIR identifies the surface frontage roads and structures adjacent to I-580 that would need
to be relocated outward in order to accommodate the Proposed Project and Alternatives. The
relocation of the frontage roads results in potentially significant impacts to some of the existing
and key businesses in the City of Dublin. The proposed roadway footprints as provided in
Appendix B: Footprint Map Books of the DEIR, provide insufficient information to determine the
severity of the potential impact to each parcel. The DEIR does not provide any dimensions or
details on the necessary roadway and parcel modifications required to relocate the ROW and
how those impacts will be mitigated. For example, under the DMU Alternative, the relocation of
Scarlett Court shows the potential roadway to extend into the Hyundai and Volkswagen
Dealerships parking areas; however, no details are provided as to how much of the existing
parking lots will need to removed, number of parking spaces eliminated, how the removal of the
landscape buffer strip will impact the public safety and aesthetics and how the new roadway
alignment will impact the on-site circulation. No mitigation has been provided to address these
impacts. Auto dealerships are very sensitive about location, visibility of dealership and
automobiles, and inventory storage. The ability to showcase and store vehicles is critical and
these ROW purchases could have significant impacts, not only to the dealership’s revenues, but
potentially the City’s tax base. The table below provides an outline of all potentially significant
ROW impacts to the City of Dublin identified in Appendix B of the DEIR that are not sufficiently
detailed in the analysis.
Table A. Potentially Significant ROW Impacts
PROPOSED PROJECT – Conventional BART
ROW Parcel Impact Potential Impacts
Northside Drive Lowe’s
985-0061-007-00/-015-
00)
The relocation of Northside Drive shows the
potential roadway and ROW need impacting the
Lowe’s parking lot. Any reduction in parking level
may impact future ability to construct new stores
or replace existing tenants in the future.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE – DMU & EMU Alternatives AND Express Bus Alternatives
ROW Parcel (APN) Potential Impacts
Scarlett Court Hyundai Dealership
941-0550-025-02)
Volkswagen Dealership
941-0550-032-02/-03)
The relocation of Scarlett Court shows the
potential roadway to extend into the Hyundai and
Volkswagen Dealerships parking areas, thus
removing the landscape buffer, parking area and
impacting on-site circulation. This parking impact
is a significant impact to access and circulation,
and no mitigation has been provided to address
this impact.
Scarlett Court El Monte RV Rentals
941-0550-016-04)
U-Haul Truck Rental
941-0550-037-05)
The relocation of Scarlett Court creates potential
access issues for the business west of Scarlett
Drive. This road serves the recreational vehicle
operator, U-Haul Truck Rental and El Monte RV
Rentals as well as automotive delivery trucks to
the Dublin Mazda Dealership. City staff feels that
any narrowing would cause significant impacts to
the adjacent uses.
Scarlett Court Alameda County Fire
Department and Dublin
City Maintenance
Building
941-0550-077-01)
The relocation of Scarlett Court has significant
impacts for the City and Alameda County’s
operations. In 2014, the Alameda County facility
was remodeled and the City Corporation Yard
was constructed. Both of these facilities provide
maintenance support to local and regional
government agencies and will be challenging to
relocate, if necessary. The relocation will impact
the parking and frontage improvements at a
minimum. The loss of the City’s maintenance
facility will be costly to replicate.
I-580 Frontage Hacienda Crossings
986-0008-001-00)
Hacienda Crossings is a very popular regional
shopping and entertainment destination with tight
parking during the weekend.
Express Bus Alternative:
ROW expansion identifies removal of the
landscape buffer along I-580 which serves both
an aesthetic and public safety function between
the parking lot and the freeway. This impact
could be a significant impact; however, no site
level details are provided so that the impacts can
be identified and no mitigation has been provided
to address this potential impact.
DMU/EMU Alternative:
The ROW expansion includes those impacts
identified above for the Express Bus Alternative
and further removal of a large portion of the
parking area near the Hacienda Drive off-ramp.
This ROW expansion will have a significant
impact to parking and on-site circulation in this
area of the shopping center and no mitigation
has been provided to address this impact. Any
proposed ROW adjustment will need to be
carefully crafted with the property owner to
ensure full replacement of the displaced parking,
as well as thoughtful construction placement to
ensure no loss of visibility of existing businesses.
I-580 Frontage Toyota Dealership
986-0016-023-00/024-
00)
ROW expansion identifies removal of the
landscape buffer along I-580 which serves both
an aesthetic and safety function between the
parking lot and the freeway.
I-580 Frontage Chevrolet/Cadillac
Dealership
ROW expansion identifies removal of the
landscape buffer along I-580 which serves both
986-0016-004-01) an aesthetic and safety function between the
parking lot and the freeway.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE – DMU & EMU Alternatives ONLY
ROW Parcel Impact Potential Impacts
Northside Drive Lowe’s
985-0061-007-00/-015-
00)
The relocation of Northside Drive shows the
potential roadway and ROW need impacting the
Lowe’s parking lot. Any reduction in parking level
may impact future ability to construct new stores
or replace existing tenants in the future.
I-580 Frontage IKEA Retail Center
Project
986-0033-005-02/-006-
00)
The impact to the future development of this
parcel is significant. The current property owner
is exploring development scenarios for this site
and we believe the impacts would be
unacceptable as they would significantly impact
the ability to develop the site.
Dublin/Pleasant
BART Station
Access Road
Dublin/Pleasanton
BART Station (986-
0034-019-00)
This alternative relocates the ROW into the
surface parking area of the future garage
expansion at the Dublin Pleasanton BART. This
alternative will move Altamirano Road into the
surface lot for Dublin/Pleasanton BART station
on the Dublin side next to the existing BART
garage removing available parking. This parking
impact is a significant impact to access and
circulation, and no mitigation has been provided
to address this impact. Our review indicates that
a similar parking impact on the south side of I-
580 in Pleasanton under the Express Bus/BRT
alternative was mitigated by either providing new
surface lot parking or by building a garage (see
Chapter 2, Page 151). So it is not clear why
BART has not addressed a similar significant
impact on the north side of I-580 in Dublin under
a different alternative. Additionally, the
Cumulative analyses for the Project and all
alternatives have assumed a future BART
garage expansion at the Dublin Pleasanton
BART station. By having the space for the future
BART garage expansion impacted without
mitigation, cumulative analysis results for the
Express Bus/BRT alternative are not valid and
need to be redone.
As stated in the DEIR, “Acquisition of privately owned land—including businesses, farm
operations, and/or parking”—is considered a significant impact. Therefore, the Proposed Project
DMU/EMU Alternative and Express Bus Alternative] would result in a potentially significant
impact related to displacement of businesses. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure PH-2, which would require BART to
implement an acquisition and relocation program. (p. 543)
Mitigation Measure PH-2: Acquisition of Property and Relocation
Assistance. (Conventional BART Project and DMU Alternative/EMU
Option)
BART’s Real Estate Department will implement an acquisition and relocation
program that meets the requirements of applicable State acquisition and
relocation law. Acquisition will involve compensation at fair market value for
properties, and relocation assistance would include, but is not limited to, down
payments or rental supplements, moving costs, business reestablishment
reimbursement, and goodwill offers as appropriate. All benefits will be provided
in accordance with the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Guidelines.
While the acquisition and relocation program may meet the applicable State acquisition
and relocation law, the issue lies in the DEIR not disclosing the actual physical impacts
to each property. The level of detail provided in the DEIR does not provide sufficient
information to determine what acquisition would be required and how that acquisition
would impact each parcel. As previously stated, the properties along I-580 are home to
some of the community’s key businesses and impacts to public safety, aesthetics and
functionality of the property that remove parking, modify circulation patterns, limit
visibility from I-580 are considered to be significant impacts and no mitigation has been
provided to address these impacts.
Requested Change:
Provide detailed ROW acquisition needs by each parcel and provide
description on how each acquisition would impact the property. Include
proposed mitigation to address public safety, aesthetics and functionality
of the property with removed parking, changed circulation patterns, and
visibility from I-580.
B. Transportation Impacts
An overall problem with the Draft EIR is its failure to adequately analyze the impacts of the
DMU, Express Bus/BRT, and Enhanced Bus alternatives within the City of Dublin, and
particularly near the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. Both the DMU and Express Bus/BRT
alternatives contemplate significant infrastructure improvements at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART
Station, including new platforms and track extensions. And the Enhanced Bus Alternative
contemplates operational changes at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, particularly a
significant increase in bus traffic on existing streets. And yet, portions of the EIR expressly
exclude analysis of impacts in and around this station. For example, page 252 states that "The
bicycle study areas include all bicycle facilities within a 15-minute bike ride of the proposed
Isabel Station" and page 256 similarly states that "The study area for pedestrians comprises all
pedestrian facilities . . . within a 15-minute walk from the proposed Isabel Station." These
statements suggest that the Draft EIR did not study bicycle and pedestrian impacts resulting
from project changes to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, notwithstanding the fact that
these alternatives contemplate significant infrastructure and/or operational changes at that
location. This is a problem with the Draft EIR's analysis of those three Build alternatives but not
of the Conventional BART Project alternative, since that alternative does not contemplate
significant infrastructure or operational changes at the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station.
Traffic Model Assumptions
1. The Draft EIR (DEIR) has assumed that the BART garage expansion at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station would occur with the Project in Cumulative conditions, but did
not include the funding for the garage expansion. This is not the correct way to assume
Project Cumulative conditions while not including the funding for it, especially when
constructing a garage is the responsibility of BART on its own land. This needs to be
corrected in the model to reflect the proper No-Project conditions that would also change
the traffic patterns under the “With” and “Without” Project scenarios. Garage Expansion
at the Dublin Pleasanton Station should either be part of the future baseline (background
development) without Project or be kept as currently it is in the DEIR but with funding
provided for the garage construction as part of the Project. Furthermore, as per the
Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, Page 226, DEIR assumed that under the Cumulative
scenarios for 2025 and 2040, Isabel Neighborhood Plan (INP) in Livermore will have
additional land use changes that could not be evaluated separately from the Garage
Expansion traffic patterns, which in turn impacts the With Project analysis results. For
example, it is not clear what impacts would be with the INP land use addition in
conjunction with the Project and the Alternative alone would have on the system.
Requested Change:
Move the BART Garage expansion at Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station to
the future 2025 and 2040 baseline Without Project Conditions, similar to
many other local and regional projects in this corridor.
2. The DEIR’s Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, Table 3.B-18, Page 281, provides 2025
and 2040 roadway improvements assumptions used in traffic models. There are several
incorrect assumptions in this table for the City of Dublin’s roadway infrastructure. The
incorrect assumptions would create incorrect model results for impacts to the City of
Dublin roadway infrastructure and intersections, and any related mitigations need to be
redone.
Requested Change:
Use the attached (Exhibit A) corrections to Table 3.B-18 and update the
traffic models network.
Other Transportation Related Technical Issues
1. Under the DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT Alternatives, DEIR (Chapter 2, Project
Descriptions) did not assume any time loss for transfer of passengers from one type of
vehicle to the Conventional BART at Dublin/Pleasanton Station. This loss of time is
critical in comparing the Conventional BART with other Alternatives. Additionally, there
was no mention of travel time for buses under the Express Bus/BRT Alternative. This will
be an important factor to know and compare as part of the information disclosure about
project alternatives.
Requested Changes:
i. Provide the transfer time loss for DMU/EMU and Express Bus/BRT
Alternatives.
ii. Provide travel time of Express Bus/BRT from Park and Ride facilities
connecting the Express Bus/BRT to conventional BART at Dublin
Pleasanton BART station.
2. DEIR failed to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian related impacts outside the INP. The
bicycle and pedestrian impact evaluation was considered for access within 15 minute
ride or walk from the future Isabel Station.
Requested Change:
Identify and evaluate the bicycle and pedestrian impacts at
Dublin/Pleasanton Station and surrounding streets that will be impacted by
the Project and Alternatives.
3. Chapter 3 of the DEIR on Page 226 provides the Cumulative Projections for population,
employment, and housing. It states that “For the quantitative sections, the cumulative No
Project Conditions for 2025 and 2040 are based on the traffic volumes forecast for those
years determined by the Travel Demand Model. The Travel Demand Model is a
computer model used to forecast travel volumes by different travel modes (BART, bus,
automobile, etc.) across a transportation network based on projected land uses.”
However in Appendix E, the DEIR states, “the proposed Dublin/Pleasanton Station
Parking Expansion and the City of Livermore’s INP are two specific probable future
projects/plans that are the focus of the projects/plans considered in the cumulative
analysis. In addition, a list of other approved or reasonably foreseeable projects in the
BART project corridor was developed.” Then in Chapter 3, Page 226, DEIR states, “This
EIR uses a combination of the two approaches for the analysis of cumulative impacts;
that is, the projections-based approach is used, but is augmented where appropriate
with the list-based approach of past, present, and probable future projects in the project
area.” It is not clear if list projects were coded into the model by replacing the assumed
land use in the Alameda CTC’s regional model’s TAZs with the projects in the list.
Requested Change:
Provide a clarification on how the list projects were used in the travel
demand model forecasts for Cumulative conditions in 2025 and 2040. Was
the model land use modified or not? Or something else?
4. Table 3.B-23 of the DEIR shows the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station boardings. Then
on the next page third paragraph, it states “Under 2040 Cumulative Conditions, which
includes a net expansion of the Dublin/Pleasanton Station parking by 540 spaces, that
station attracts a large number of additional park -and-ride BART patrons—a higher
number than the increase in supply, as some spaces are used more than once during
the day or serve multiple patrons who are carpooling together.” However, a similar
change or relative change did not occur between the No Project and With Project
conditions for Park and Ride mode when there will significantly be more BART service to
the Isabel Station. So why no change? Additionally, a recent BART Board action has
modified the garage construction with hybrid parking supply plan. The supply of hybrid
parking will not be concentrated at the planned garage site. How this Board action would
impact the assumed circulation under the cumulative scenarios for Project and other
build alternatives.
Requested Changes:
i. Provide the reasoning behind no change in Park and Ride mode share
between the No Project and Project Conditions in Table 3.B-23.
ii. Provide an analysis on traffic circulation changes due to a decision by the
BART Board on supplying planned 540 parking spaces through a hybrid
parking supply scheme instead of a parking garage on Dublin Side of
the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Also to note that the hybrid
parking supply will have different traffic circulation and operations due to
the distributed location of parking as compared to a garage. Due to
these changes many of the current traffic analysis outcomes may no
longer be valid.
5. Table 3.B-30 provides VMT Reduction summary for the Project and Alternatives for
various future year scenarios. The results indicate an increase in VMT when there is
additional parking spaces are provided at the Isabel Station and at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The explanation on the next page states; “The cumulative
analysis for 2025 results in smaller VMT reductions for the Proposed Project and DMU
Alternative than the VMT reductions for the Proposed Project and DMU Alternative in the
2025 project analysis. This is due to the level of parking supply assumed for the
Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative under the cumulative analysis in comparison
to the project analysis. The Proposed Project and DMU Alternative provide enough
parking supply at the Isabel Station to meet the parking demand projected for the
station, as well as to absorb a substantial portion of the latent parking demand
originating from areas relatively close to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The presence of
new parking at the Dublin/Pleasanton Station under the cumulative analysis—in addition
to the significant proposed supply of parking at the Isabel Station—in total offers enough
parking to attract park-and-ride trips to the station from greater distances, ultimately
resulting in an increase in auto VMT under the cumulative analysis relative to the project
analysis.”
This conclusion is confusing. Given the fact that if one passenger goes to BART Station
due to the availability of additional parking supply, then there should be a reduction in
the length of the trip when compared to the same passenger driving to the final
destination, like San Francisco. So it is critical to check the difference or the delta of trip
length to BART and to that of driving all the way to the final destination. Also it is not
clear what share of riders came from San Joaquin County due to the expanded BART
service. This would provide some idea on trip lengths that were attracted to BART with
and without expanded parking.
Requested Changes:
i. Provide a comparison of trips diverted from the roadway network
including I-580 under various scenarios for 2025 and 2040 due to the
availability of expanded BART service and additional parking at
Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station and Isabel Station.
ii. Provide an explanation on how the Passenger VMT was calculated as
indicated in Table 3.B-30.
iii. Provide the actual number of riders that came from San Joaquin
County to take BART under the Project and Alternatives to properly
disclose the impacts.
iv. Provide a table that shows delta of trips that were attracted to BART
parking expansion VS those that had to drive after not finding parking.
6. Tables 3.B-32 to 3.B-35 have several discrepancies in V/C for freeway lanes when
compared to earlier tables 3.B-14 and 3.B-15. For example, V/C for freeway segment
between Vasco Road and Greenville Road is shown as LOS D in Table 3.B-14 with
delay of 0.87. But in Table 3.B-32 it is shown as LOS E with a delay of 0.977. Similar
issues were noted in Tables 3.B-36 to 3.B-39.
Requested Change:
Review and reconcile different numbers in tables for Freeway segments.
7. Table 3.B-40 indicates a significant impact at Segment 7 (Livermore Ave to Springtown
Blvd/First Street). But the text on Page 337 (page after Table 3.B-43) indicates a wrong
segment for mitigation under the DMU Alternative.
Requested change:
Correct text accordingly.
8. Mitigation Measures TRAN-7a, TRAN-7b, TRAN-19b, TRAN-19c, TRAN-20a, TRAN-
20b, TRAN-20c, and TRAN-20d recommend adding a third southbound left-turn lane
and a second westbound right turn lane at the intersection of Dublin Blvd and Dougherty
Road. This mitigation is suggested to address the peak hour significant impacts to this
intersection in 2025, and 2040 under with project/alternatives and Cumulative Scenarios.
The proposed mitigation is not compatible with the existing land use at this intersection.
It also would impact the pedestrian access by increasing the crossing distance for
pedestrians on two approaches. Therefore this mitigation is not supported by the City of
Dublin. In order to improve operations at this intersection, the City recommends that
BART contributes towards implementing an Adaptive Traffic Signal system along
Dougherty Road. Enhanced signal operations under the Adaptive Traffic Signal system
would minimize the significant impacts.
Requested Change:
Modify TRAN-7a, TRAN-7b, TRAN-19b, TRAN-19c, TRAN-20a, TRAN-
20b, TRAN-20c, and TRAN-20d by providing Adaptive Traffic Signal
system along Dougherty Road in the City of Dublin to minimize the
significant impacts at the intersection of Dublin Blvd and Dougherty Road.
C. Air Quality Impacts
1. The Draft EIR Does Not Adequately Address Toxic Air Contaminants and Health
Risks. The methodology and impact analysis (Draft EIR pages 1,120 – 1,125 and pages
1,160 – 1,165, respectively) indicate that the risk/TAC analysis focused on passenger
vehicles, DMU vehicles, maintenance trucks, buses, shuttle vans, and emergency
generators. However, there is no mention of an analysis associated with widening of the
I-580 freeway right-of-way (ROW ). I-580 currently has 219,000 daily vehicles, including
14,828 daily trucks traveling through Dublin.[1] Freeway ROW widening would move
truck traffic (and associated diesel particulate matter [DPM] emissions) closer to
receptors along the freeway. It should be noted that the VMT reductions associated with
implementation of the Build Alternatives would affect passenger vehicles and would not
reduce heavy duty truck traffic. As such, the Draft EIR does not demonstrate that it has
adequately analyzed operational TAC/risk impacts.
Requested Change:
The Draft EIR must be revised to clearly identify impacts
associated with moving heavy duty diesel vehicles (due to ROW
widening) closer to receptors located along the freeway.
D. Noise and Vibration Impacts
1. The Draft EIR Should Identify Additional Options to Mitigation Pile Driving Noise.
When technically feasible, silent press-in piling (such as the Giken Silent Piler) should be
the preferred method rather than drilling to reduce noise and vibration impacts. This
option should be included in Mitigation Measure NOI-1.
2. The Draft EIR Does Not Include All Feasible Options to Mitigate Construction
Noise. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 should include noise monitoring during construction to
ensure the 90 dBA Leq limit is not exceeded. If it is exceeded, construction activities
should halt until a remedy is implemented to reduce the noise levels below the 90 dBA
Leq limit.
Requested Change:
The noise monitoring should be incorporated into the following section of
Mitigation Measure NOI-1:
To reduce potential daytime construction noise impacts to
residential uses immediately south of the realignment of the
eastern extent of East Airway Boulevard (Proposed Project and
DMU Alternative), BART contractors shall employ moveable noise
curtains or barriers along the southern side of East Airway
Boulevard to shield daytime construction noise impacts to
residential uses to the south. These temporary noise barriers shall
be employed for construction along East Airway Boulevard, east
of Sutter Street. Implementation of this measure will ensure that
1] California Department of Transportation, Traffic Data Branch, Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on
the California State Highway System, 2015.
daytime construction activities do not exceed FTA noise criteria for
daytime construction at residential uses (90 dBA Leq).
Additionally, noise monitoring shall be conducted during
construction to ensure this limit is note exceeded. If it is
exceeded, construction activities should halt until a remedy is
implemented to reduce the noise levels below the 90 dBA Leq
limit.
3. The Draft EIR Does Not Include All Feasible Options to Mitigate Construction
Vibration Impacts. Vibration monitoring should be conducted while these construction
activities are taking place to ensure the vibration limit (0.2 PPV in/sec and 72 VdB) is not
exceeded. If it is exceeded, construction activities should halt until a remedy is
implemented to reduce the vibration levels below the limit.
Requested Change:
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 should be revised as follows:
To reduce potential vibration impacts to residential uses
immediately south of the realignment of the eastern extent of East
Airway Boulevard (Proposed Project and DMU Alternative), BART
contractors shall use non-vibratory excavator-mounted
compaction wheels and small smooth drum rollers for final
compaction of asphalt base and asphalt concrete. If needed to
meet compaction requirements, smaller vibratory rollers will be
used to minimize vibration levels during repaving activities where
needed to meet vibration standards. These methods shall be
employed for construction along East Airway Boulevard, east of
Sutter Street. Vibration monitoring shall be conducted while these
construction activities are taking place to ensure the vibration limit
0.2 PPV in/sec and 72 VdB) is not exceeded. If it is exceeded,
construction activities shall halt until a remedy is implemented to
reduce the vibration levels below the limit.
Attachments:
Exhibit A
EXN /B /T_ q
JULY 2017 BARTTo LIVERMoRE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. TRANSPORTATION
TABLE 3.8 -18 LOCAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, 2025 AND 2040 NO PROJECT CONDITIONS
Relevant Relevant
Analysis Study
Street Limits Improvement Year Intersection #
Livermore
Isabel Avenue 1 -580 EB Ramps Widen overpass 2040 30
Isabel Avenue 1 -580 WB Ramps Widen overpass 2025 and 28 and #29
Dublin Dougherty Road to North Extension
2040
Isabel Avenue Stanley Boulevard to Ruby Widen to four lanes 2040 33
Fallon Road
HIII Drive
Extension N/A
Isabel Avenue Isabel and Jack London Intersection 2025 and 36
Gleason Drive
Boulevard improvements 2040
Csv PLiEta
Vasco Road Northfront Road to Las Widen to eight 2040 43 and #44
Fallon Road
Positas Road lanes
2040 ' #20
Greenville Road Interchange improvements Widen underpass 2025 and 48
Dublin To Schaefer Ranch Road
to six lanes 2040
Greenville Road Las Positas Road to Widen to four lanes 2025 and 48
Paterson Pass Road 2040
Greenville Road Westbound ramp Signalize 2025 and 46
intersection and 2040
add westbound
left -turn pocket
and eastbound
right -turn pocket
Greenville Road Greenville Road and Signalize 2025 and 48
Altamont Pass Road intersection 2040
Greenville Road Greenville Road and Signalize 2025 and 50
Patterson Pass Road intersection 2040
Pleasanton
El Charro Road Stonerldge Drive to Jack Extension 2040 #23
London Boulevard
El Charro Road Jack London to Stanley Extension After N/A
Boulevard 2040
Dublin
Dublin Brannigan Street to Fallon Widen toj{ -- 2025 and #19
Boulevard Road lanes six 2040
Dublin Dougherty Road to North Extension 2040 N/A
Boulevard Canyons Parkway
Fallon Road Connect to Tassajara Road Extension N/A
291 2025/2 o jv
Gleason Drive To Fallon Road Extension N/A Csv PLiEta
20 S -2o &
dREyDf
Fallon Road N/A Upgrade 2040 ' #20
Interchange
Dublin To Schaefer Ranch Road Extension 010 N/A
Boulevard CoA%e/2
281
BART To LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYsis
B. TRANsPORTAT1oN
JULY 2017
TABLE 3.6 -18 LOCAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, 2025 AND 2040 No PROJECT CONDITIONS
Relevant Relevant
Analysis Study
Street Limits Improvement Year Intersection #
Tassajara Road Dublin Boulevard to 1 -580 Widen to eight 2025 and #14
lanes 2040
Tassajara Road Fallon to Dublin Widen to six lanes 2040 #14
Hacienda Road Dublin Boulevard to Central Widen to six lanes 2040 #9
Dougherty Sierra Court [ ity Limits Widen to 2025 and #1
Road lanes .SiX 2040
Notes: EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; N/A = no applicable.
Local roadway improvement assumptions were mad ith input from the Cities of Livermore, and
Pleasanton. I/ to 7—,9 .7- Sb —0 6'-* G T Li 11T
Sources:
49 % E l O91r# - City of Livermore, 2009; City of Pleasanton, 2009; City of Dublin, 2013. A D 7
The Pleasanton General Plan has identified major roadway improvements. Table 3.13-18
summarizes the intersection and roadway lane improvements near the study area.
Completion of the Stoneridge Drive extension, Busch Road, and El Charro Road are
significant and necessary parts of Pleasanton's local circulation system. The extension of
Nevada Street has the potential to provide some traffic relief to the Stanley
Boulevard/Valley Avenue /Bernal Avenue intersection.
In addition to these improvements, the Triangle Study" identified projects required for a
strategic approach to relieving traffic congestion in the Tri- Valley Area. The Tri - Valley
Triangle Study Final Plan Recommendations were approved in February 2011. This
included an agreement on the sequencing of projects, specifically that the Stoneridge
Drive extension be completed before construction can begin on State Route 84 as a
four -lane facility between west of Ruby Hill Drive and 1 -680.
Table 3.6 -19 presents the No Project Conditions in 2025 and 2040.
n Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC), 2007. Tri - Valley Triangle
Study.
282
Figure 1 - Conventional BART Alternative
Lowes: 30
parking spaces
lost
N
Figure 1 - Conventional BART Alternative
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
Dublin
Volkswagen:
25 parking
spaces lost
Dublin
Hyundai: 45
parking
spaces lost
Scarlett Court
moved 35 ft North.
Turn around at E end of
Scarlett court is moved
35 ft. north and 100 ft.
west
Parking along the
southern edge of the
Corp yard would be
removed
I-580 road widening begins .2 miles West of
Dougherty/Hopyard overcrossing and reaches maximum at .2
miles West of Iron Horse Trail. Widening continues on Dublin
side until Livermore border.
N
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
Dublin Toyota Scion: 40
parking spaces lost
Hacienda Shopping center: 75
parking spaces lost
I-580 road widening begins 0.2 mile West of Dougherty/Hopyard
overcrossing and continues to Livermore
N
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
Lowes: 30
parking spaces
lost
N
Figure 2 - DMU/EMU ALTERNATIVE
N
Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRT Alternative
Dublin
Volkswagen: 25
parking spaces
lost
Dublin
Hyundai:
45 parking
spaces lost
Turn around at east end of
Scarlett court is moved 35 ft.
north and 100 ft. west
Parking along the
southern edge of the Corp
ward would be removed
Scarlett Court
moved 35 ft. north.
Widening of I-580 begins 0.2 miles West of Dougherty/Hopyard overcrossing. Widening
gradually starts and reaches maximum at 0.2 miles West of Iron Horse Trail. The maximum
widening occurs from there to about .2 miles East of Iron Horse Trail. From there, widening
tapers down and ends on Dublin side at Tassajara/Santa Rita overcrossing.
Max widening of 88 ft.
from about 0.2 miles
west of Iron Horse Trail
to about 0.2 M east of
Iron Horse Trail. More
widening on
Pleasanton side then
on Dublin
N
Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRT Alternative
N
Figure 3 - Express Bus/BRT Alternative
Widening ends on Dublin
side.
N
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives
Evaluation Report
February 2018
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Credits
BART
Andrew Tang
Don Dean
Rachel Russell
Ellen Smith
Val Menotti
Arup
Chester Fung
Chris Hrones
Nancy Mathison
Jasmine Stitt
Allison Dawson
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Contents
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 6
1.1 Background and Project History 6
1.1.1 BART to Livermore Program EIR 6
1.1.2 BART to Livermore Project Draft EIR 6
1.1.3 Proposed Project and Alternatives 7
1.2 Report Purpose 15
1.3 Report Organization 15
1.4 Abbreviations 16
2 Approach and Methodology 17
2.1 Evaluation Frameworks 17
2.1.1 Consistency with Project Goals 17
2.1.2 BART System Expansion Policy 17
2.1.3 Other Considerations 18
2.2 Evaluation Methodology 19
3 Project Goals Evaluation Framework 20
3.1 Overall Performance 21
3.2 Goal 1A: Provide a Cost-Effective Link 22
3.3 Goal 1B: Provide an Intermodal Link Between BART, Inter-Regional Rail and PDAs
24
3.4 Goal 2: Support integrating transit and land use policies to create transit-
oriented development opportunities 26
3.5 Goal 3: Provide Alternative to I-580 Congestion 29
3.6 Goal 4: Improve Air Quality, Reduce Greenhouse Gases 31
4 BART System Expansion Policy Evaluation Framework 33
4.1 Approach 34
4.2 Overall Results 34
4.3 Transit Supportive Land Use and Access 36
4.4 Ridership Development Plan 38
4.5 Cost Effectiveness 40
4.6 Regional Network Connectivity 41
4.7 System and Financial Capacity 41
4.8 Partnerships 43
5 Additional Evaluations 44
5.1 Significant Environmental Impacts 44
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
5.2 Equity Assessment 45
5.2.1 Impacts 46
5.3 MTC Performance Assessment 50
5.4 MTC Resolution 3434 TOD Policy 51
Appendix A – Project and Cumulative Results for the Proposed Project and Build Alternatives
Appendix B – Summary of Significant Impacts – BART to Livermore Extension Draft Project EIR
Appendix C – Air Quality Emissions
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Table of Figures
Figures
Figure 1 – Proposed Project (Conventional BART) Overview 9
Figure 2 – DMU Alternative / EMU Option Overview 11
Figure 3 – Express Bus / BRT Alternative Overview 12
Figure 4 – Enhanced Bus Alternative Overview 14
Figure 5 – Low-Income Population within ½ Mile Buffer of Proposed Project 47
Figure 6 – Minority Population within ½ Mile Buffer of Proposed Project 48
Figure 7 – Limited English Proficiency Population Within ½ Mile Buffer 49
Tables
Table 1 – Project Goals and Key Metrics 20
Table 2 – Consistency with Project Goal Comparison: Overall 21
Table 3 – Consistency with Project Goal 1A Comparison: Provide a Cost-Effective Link 23
Table 4 – Consistency with Project Goal 1B Comparison: Provide an intermodal link between
BART, inter-regional rail and PDAs 25
Table 5 – Consistency with Project Goal 2 Comparison: Support Integrating Transit and Land
Use Policies to Create Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunities 28
Table 6 – Consistency with Project Goal 3 Comparison: Provide Alternative to I-580 Congestion 30
Table 7 – Consistency with Project Goal 4 Comparison: Improve Air Quality, Reduce
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) 32
Table 8 – BART System Expansion Policy 35
Table 9 – Cost Effectiveness 40
Table 10 – Environmental Justice Populations 45
Table 11 – Resolution 3434 TOD Policy Housing Thresholds 51
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
1
Executive Summary
This Evaluation Report supplements the information provided in the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
to Livermore Extension Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR). While the purpose of the EIR is to
disclose the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project and alternatives and propose mitigation
measures to avoid or reduce adverse environmental impacts, the Evaluation Report provides a
comparison of the benefits and costs of the Proposed Project and build alternatives.
This report is intended to provide an evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives,
primarily using two major evaluation frameworks: consistency with established project goals, and
the BART System Expansion Policy (BSEP). Additional evaluations considered significant
environmental impacts, an equity assessment, and application of the MTC’s Resolution 3434
Transit-Oriented Development Policy.
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives
The Proposed Project and three build alternatives are as follows:
• Proposed Project – The Proposed Project is an extension of the BART system using
conventional BART technology from the existing system terminus at the Dublin/Pleasanton
Station to a new station located near the Isabel Avenue (State Route 84) / I-580 interchange in
the city of Livermore.
• DMU Alternative / EMU Option – The Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative uses a similar
alignment as the Proposed Project but differs in vehicle technology. DMUs are self-propelled rail
cars that use a diesel engine to generate power and run on a standard-gauge rail track. The
Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Option is generally the same as the DMU Alternative, except that it
is electric-powered rather than diesel-powered.
• Express Bus / Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative – Under this alternative, new bus ramps
from the I-580 express lanes to new bus transfer platforms would be constructed at the existing
Dublin/Pleasanton Station to facilitate direct connections between BART and connecting buses.
No rail extension would be included.
• Enhanced Bus Alternative – This alternative provides modest, lower-cost bus enhancements
on local streets to improve access to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station, but no new bus transfer
platforms or other infrastructure in the median of I-580.
Project Goals
The BART to Livermore Extension Project goals are as follows:
• Provide a cost-effective intermodal link of the existing BART system to the inter-regional rail
network and to a series of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by the City of
Livermore, the MTC, and the Association of Bay Area Governments. These PDAs include the
Livermore Isabel Avenue BART Station PDA, the Livermore Downtown PDA and the Livermore
East Side PDA.
• Support the regional goals of integrating transit and land use policies to create opportunities for
transit-oriented development (TOD) in the Livermore-area PDAs.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
2
• Provide an effective alternative to traffic congestion on I-580.
• Improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) and other emissions associated with
automobile use.
Project Goals Evaluation
The BART to Livermore Extension Program EIR, adopted in 2010, established the project’s goals for
improving transit mobility, increasing BART ridership and supporting TOD. These goals were further
developed in the Notice of Preparation for the Project EIR (2012) and refined in the BART to
Livermore Extension Project Draft EIR (DEIR). This Evaluation Report analyzes the extent to which the
Proposed Project and build alternatives meet these goals.
Table ES-1 provides an overview of the performance of the Proposed Project and build alternatives
in light of each of the project goals. The Proposed Project has medium or medium-high ratings for
all five goals. The DMU Alternative and EMU Option rate medium or low-medium on all goals. The
Express Bus / BRT Alternative rates medium-high under the first goal, to “provide a cost-effective
link.” However, the Express Bus / BRT Alternative rates as medium or low-medium for all other
goals. The Enhanced Bus Alternative rates as medium for one goal, low-medium for one goal, and
low for three of the goals.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
3
Table ES-1 – Proposed Project and Alternatives Compared to Project Goals
Project Goals and
Objectives
Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative
EMU Option Express
Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced
Bus
Alternative
Provide a cost-effective
intermodal link
Link existing BART, inter-
regional rail, Priority
Development Areas (Isabel,
downtown, East Side)
Create transit-oriented
development (TOD)
opportunities
Provide alternative to I-580
congestion
Improve air quality, reduce
greenhouse gases (GHG)
High Medium-high Medium Medium-low Low
The BART System Expansion Policy (BSEP) is a BART Board-adopted policy for considering system
expansions. This policy includes several criteria that must be considered: the potential for
generating new ridership, cost effectiveness, surrounding land uses, accessibility, connectivity with
other transit systems, effects on the existing BART system, and the degree of inter-agency
partnering and community support. These criteria constitute the second framework used for
evaluating the Proposed Project and build alternatives.
As shown in Table ES-2, neither the Proposed Project nor any of the build alternatives rate high
across a majority of evaluation criteria. The Proposed Project rates high for only one criterion — the
Operating Finance Plan. It rates medium or medium-high for most other criteria but rates low in the
areas of Existing Land Use, Existing Intermodal Connections, Station Context, and Regional
Transportation Gap Closure. The DMU Alternative / EMU Option rates high for Operating Finance
Plan as well, and low under the same criteria as the Proposed Project, and rates medium or low-
medium in other categories. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative rates high for two criteria, Capital
Finance Plan and Operating Finance Plan, and medium-high for one criterion, Cost per New Rider:
Base Case. It rates low or low-medium for all other criteria. The Enhanced Bus Alternative rates high
for Capital Finance Plan, low for Existing Land Use and Regional Transportation Gap Closure, and
medium or low-medium for all other categories.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
4
Table ES-2 – Proposed Project and Alternatives Compared to BART System Expansion Policy Criteria
Proposed
Project
DMU
Alternative /
EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Transit-Supportive Land Use and Access
Existing Land Use: Residential and/or
Employment
Existing Intermodal Connections
Land Use Plans and Policies
Ridership Development Plan
Ridership Threshold
N/A N/A
Station Context
N/A N/A
Cost-Effectiveness 1
Cost per New Rider: Base Case
Cost per New Rider: with Transit-
Oriented Development N/A N/A
Regional Network Connectivity
Regional Transportation Gap
Closure
System and Financial Capacity
Core System Improvements
Capital Finance Plan
Operating Finance Plan
Partnerships
Community and Stakeholder
Support
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
1 Cost/Transportation System User Benefit, a suggested BSEP metric, was not utilized as it is no longer employed by the Federal Transit Administration and
was never phased into the BSEP by BART.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
5
Overall Results
The evaluation results of the Proposed Project and build alternatives are as follows:
• The Proposed Project (conventional BART) and the Express Bus / BRT Alternative perform better
than the other alternatives. The Proposed Project, which has the highest ridership projections,
would result in the greatest number of benefits, such as reductions in regional vehicle miles
traveled and GHG emissions.
• The DMU Alternative / EMU Option has higher benefits, such as improved transit travel time,
increased transit ridership, and reduced regional vehicle miles traveled, than the two bus
alternatives, but less than the Proposed Project. Its costs are comparable to the Proposed Project.
• The Express Bus / BRT Alternative performs better than the Proposed Project for the cost-
effectiveness and financial capacity measures, but generally worse for the other measures.
• The Enhanced Bus Alternative performs equal to or worse than the Express Bus / BRT Alternative
under all frameworks.
Neither the Proposed Project nor any of the alternatives achieves a high rating for any of the goals.
The BSEP ratings, meant to guide decisions about expansions, are highly variable for the Proposed
Project and all the build alternatives.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
6
1 Introduction
This report evaluates the proposed Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to Livermore Extension Project
(Proposed Project) and three build alternatives to the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project, also
referred to as the Conventional BART Project, was developed in partnership with the City of Livermore
and consists of a proposed 5.5-mile BART extension along I-580 to a new station near the Isabel
Avenue/I-580 interchange.
The purpose of this evaluation is to compare the Proposed Project and build alternatives and provide
information to policymakers, stakeholders, and the general public.
1.1 Background and Project History
1.1.1 BART to Livermore Program EIR
In November 2009, BART released the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the BART
to Livermore Extension Program. The Draft PEIR considered nine alignment alternatives for extending
the existing BART service eastward from the Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station (Dublin/Pleasanton
Station) to Livermore. The PEIR assumed use of conventional BART technology; its analysis focused on
alignment alternatives and was not intended to evaluate alternative technologies. The evaluation of
alternative technologies was deferred to a project-level EIR.
On July 1, 2010, the BART Board of Directors certified the Final PEIR and selected Alternative 2B
(Portola-Vasco) as the preferred alternative. This alternative would originate at the existing
Dublin/Pleasanton Station in the median of I-580, diverge from the I-580 corridor (just west of the
existing Portola interchange), transition to a subway under Portola and Junction Avenues to an
underground station adjacent to the existing Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) station in downtown
Livermore, and extend at-grade parallel to the existing Union Pacific Railroad tracks to a terminus
station and maintenance yard at Vasco Road.
Initially, the City of Livermore recommended the Alternative 2B (Portola-Vasco) alignment; however,
following further public discussion, the City determined that it preferred an alignment along I-580
from Dublin/Pleasanton Station to Greenville Road, with stations at Isabel Avenue and Greenville Road.
This alignment was then incorporated into the City of Livermore’s General Plan.
As part of the continuing BART to Livermore planning process, BART released a project-level Draft EIR
(DEIR) in July 2017 for a BART extension to a new station at Isabel Avenue. The Proposed Project in the
project-level DEIR corresponds to the alignment of Alternative 4 (Isabel Avenue/I-580 interchange) in
the PEIR. In addition, both the City’s preferred I-580 alignment and BART’s adopted Portola-Vasco
alignment share the 5.5-mile segment from Dublin/Pleasanton Station to Isabel Avenue in the I-580
median.
1.1.2 BART to Livermore Project Draft EIR
The project-level DEIR evaluates a Proposed Project and three build alternatives. The Proposed Project
would extend the existing BART system in the I-580 median to a proposed station east of the Isabel
Avenue/I-580 interchange, together with tail track, a storage and maintenance facility, and other
facilities such as wayside facilities and station parking.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
7
The Proposed Project does not preclude extending transit service farther east in an alignment within or
extending out of the I-580 median. From Isabel Avenue, a future expansion farther east beyond Isabel
using conventional BART or another technology could extend to either Downtown Livermore or along
I-580 to Greenville Road. Such an extension, as contemplated in the PEIR, would be the subject of a
separate project-level evaluation in a future environmental document.
BART released the project-level DEIR for public review in July 2017. The DEIR informs public agency
decision-makers and the public of the significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project and
its alternatives, and includes mitigation measures for significant impacts where feasible. Following a
77-day public review and comment period, BART is preparing the Final EIR (FEIR). The FEIR will contain
all the comments received on the DEIR and a written response to each substantive comment. The FEIR
is scheduled to be completed by late spring 2018.
1.1.3 Proposed Project and Alternatives
The Proposed Project and three build alternatives, as well as the No Project Alternative (or No Build
Alternative), are evaluated in the DEIR in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The three build alternatives were identified in initial screening as alternatives with the
potential to meet most of the project goals and be completed within a reasonable timeframe;
therefore, they merited full evaluation in the DEIR.
The three build alternatives (shown with Proposed Project in the figures on the following pages) are as
follows:
• Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Alternative, which includes a variant referred to as the Electrical
Multiple Unit (EMU) Option;
• Express Bus / Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative; and
• Enhanced Bus Alternative.
Proposed Project
The Proposed Project, shown in Figure 1, involves extending the BART system using conventional
BART technology, from the existing terminus of the Dublin/Pleasanton–Daly City Line at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station to a new station located at the Isabel Avenue (State Route 84) / I-580
interchange in the city of Livermore. The new alignment and the new Isabel BART Station (Isabel
Station) would be constructed in the I-580 median. New parking facilities — consisting of a parking
structure and a surface lot containing approximately 3,412 spaces — would be constructed
immediately south of I-580 along East Airway Boulevard. In addition, a new, approximately 68-acre
BART storage and maintenance facility would be constructed north of I-580, beyond the Isabel Station
near Hartman Road.
To accommodate the widening of the I-580 median for the new BART alignment and Isabel Station,
the California Department of Transportation right-of-way would be widened along approximately 5.6
miles. The I-580 lanes would be relocated by a total of approximately 46 feet, from just east of the
Hacienda Drive interchange to west of the Portola Avenue/I-580 overcrossing. At the proposed Isabel
Station, I-580 would be relocated by approximately 67 feet to accommodate the new station within
the median. The relocation of I-580 would require the modification of some interchanges and surface
frontage roads.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
8
The Proposed Project includes new and modified feeder bus routes that would connect the new Isabel
Station to the Livermore Downtown Priority Development Area (PDA), the Livermore East Side PDA
(which includes the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), and other areas east of the BART
system, as well as to the ACE Stations in downtown Livermore and Vasco Road. The overall
performance of these bus routes would be improved via the implementation of transit priority
infrastructure enhancements, such as signal timing priority, bus shelters and bus bulbs.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
9
Figure 1 – Proposed Project (Conventional BART) Overview
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
10
DMU Alternative / EMU Option
The DMU Alternative, shown in Figure 2, differs from the Proposed Project in terms of vehicle
technology. DMUs are self-propelled rail cars that use a diesel engine to generate their own power
and run on a standard-gauge rail track, whereas BART trains use electricity and run on wide-gauge
rail track.
The DMU Alternative would have a similar median alignment and station configuration as the
Proposed Project, but would have a longer alignment and include a new transfer platform at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station. A passenger wishing to travel further on the BART system would need to
transfer from DMU to BART at Dublin / Pleasanton Station. A BART-to-DMU or BART-to-EMU
platform would provide a direct transfer across a platform. This transfer facility would require
widening of the BART right-of-way at the existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station with corresponding
relocation of I-580 and reconfiguration of adjacent roadways beyond that required for the
Proposed Project. A new parking structure for the Isabel Station, with approximately 2,428 parking
spaces, would be constructed immediately south of I-580 along East Airway Boulevard. In addition,
a new, approximately 32-acre storage and maintenance facility would be constructed north of I-
580, between the terminus of the alignment and Hartman Road.
To accommodate the median widening, approximately 7.1 miles of I-580 would be relocated by a
total of approximately 46 feet, from west of Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interchange to the
Portola Avenue / I-580 overcrossing. Around the Dublin/Pleasanton Station, the north side of I-580
would be relocated to accommodate the new DMU transfer platform. At the proposed Isabel
Station, I-580 would be relocated by a total of approximately 67 feet to accommodate the station
in the median. The relocation of I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and
surface frontage roads.
The DMU Alternative includes the same bus components as the Proposed Project, including new
and modified feeder bus routes connecting the new station to areas east of the BART system.
A variant of the DMU Alternative — the EMU Option — is also being considered. The EMU Option
is generally the same as the DMU Alternative, except that it uses electrical-powered vehicles rather
than diesel-powered vehicles.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative
The Express Bus / BRT Alternative, shown in Figure 3, seeks to achieve the project goals using bus
technology only. Under this alternative, new bus transfer platforms would be constructed at the
existing Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The bus platforms would be located to the outside of the
existing BART station platforms. New bus ramps from the I-580 express lanes would be constructed
for buses to enter and connect directly to the bus transfer platforms, allowing passengers to
transfer from bus to BART without leaving the station.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
11
Figure 2 – DMU Alternative / EMU Option Overview
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
12
Figure 3 – Express Bus / BRT Alternative Overview
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
13
To accommodate the new bus transfer platforms and facilities under this alternative, approximately
2.2 miles of I-580, from west of the Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road interchange to the Tassajara
Road/Santa Rita Road interchange, would be relocated by approximately 88 feet. The relocation of
I-580 would require modification of some interchanges and surface frontage roads.
A new parking lot (or garage) with 210 parking spaces would be constructed at the
Dublin/Pleasanton Station to replace the existing parking lost due to the I-580 relocation. In
addition, a remote, approximately 230-space park-and-ride lot would be constructed at Laughlin
Road, with regular bus service during peak hours from the lot to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
This alternative includes a feeder bus operation like that of the Proposed Project and DMU
Alternative. It would be designed to enhance direct connections between the Dublin/Pleasanton
Station, downtown Livermore, both the downtown Livermore and Vasco Road ACE stations, and
Livermore-area PDAs, as well as to maximize use of the I-580 high-occupancy vehicle/high-
occupancy toll lanes. Bus service improvements include, but are not limited to, two new
express/rapid bus routes.
Enhanced Bus Alternative
Like the Express Bus / BRT Alternative, the Enhanced Bus Alternative, shown in Figure 4, uses bus-
related technology only and does not include an extension of BART rail service or the development
of a new rail station. Unlike the Express Bus / BRT Alternative, this alternative does not include any
major capital improvements and would not include the development of bus transfer platforms or
direct bus ramps. This alternative provides lower-cost bus service improvements to enhance access
to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station.
The Enhanced Bus Alternative includes bus operation like those for the Proposed Project and other
build alternatives, designed to enhance direct connections to the Dublin/Pleasanton Station from
Las Positas College, downtown Livermore, and both the downtown Livermore and Vasco Road ACE
stations, as well as to serve existing and future Livermore PDAs.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
14
Figure 4 – Enhanced Bus Alternative Overview
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
15
1.2 Report Purpose
This report is intended to provide an evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives,
primarily using two major evaluation frameworks — consistency with established project goals and
the BART System Expansion Policy (BSEP). The report will be used in association with a public
outreach process in early 2018 to inform stakeholders about the merits and demerits of the
Proposed Project and build alternatives and to receive stakeholder input.
This report supplements the information provided in the EIR prepared for the BART Livermore
Extension Project. While the purpose of the EIR is to disclose the environmental impacts of the
Proposed Project and alternatives and to propose mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse
environmental impacts, the Evaluation Report provides a comparison of the benefits and costs of
the Proposed Project and build alternatives.
This report is included in the administrative record for the FEIR. However, this report is not a part of
the EIR itself — the public comment period for the EIR has ended, and any stakeholder input
received by BART in response to this report will not be considered as comments on the EIR.
The BART Board of Directors must certify that it has reviewed and considered the information in the
FEIR and that the FEIR has been completed in conformity with CEQA requirements before any
decision can be made regarding the project. The Board will also consider this Evaluation Report in
weighing the potential project impacts against the benefits and any other economic, legal, social,
technological and other considerations, and the feasibility of alternatives, to determine whether the
Proposed Project or an alternative should be approved as proposed, approved with modifications,
or not approved.
1.3 Report Organization
Section 2 provides an overview of the approach and methodology employed in this report,
including a description of the two major evaluation frameworks.
Section 3 presents an evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives based on the
consistency with the established project goals evaluation framework.
Section 4 presents an evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives based on the
consistency with the BSEP evaluation framework.
Section 5 discusses other evaluation considerations.
Appendix A presents evaluation data assembled or generated for this report in a comprehensive
form.
Appendix B provides a summary of significant impacts from the BART to Livermore Project EIR.
Appendix C provides details on the impact of the Proposed Alternatives and the build alternatives
on air quality emissions.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
16
1.4 Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used throughout this report.
ACE Altamont Corridor Express
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BRT bus rapid transit
BSEP BART System Expansion Policy
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DMU Diesel Multiple Unit
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMU Electric Multiple Unit
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
GHG greenhouse gas
INP Isabel Neighborhood Plan
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
PDA Priority Development Area
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
TOD transit-oriented development
VMT vehicle miles traveled
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
17
2 Approach and Methodology
2.1 Evaluation Frameworks
In this report, the Proposed Project and build alternatives are evaluated based on a set of categories
and metrics that provide a rational and comprehensive basis for comparison. The categories and
metrics for this evaluation primarily come from two sources: 1) the stated goals for the project and
2) the adopted BART System Expansion Policy. Other considerations are also discussed below.
2.1.1 Consistency with Project Goals
The project goals to improve transit mobility, increase BART ridership, and support transit-oriented
development (TOD) were expressed in the adopted 2010 BART to Livermore Extension PEIR. These
goals were further developed in the Notice of Preparation for the Project EIR (2012) and refined in
the BART to Livermore Extension Project DEIR. This report analyzes the extent to which the
Proposed Project and build alternatives meet these goals.
The BART to Livermore Extension Project goals, as listed in the DEIR, are as follows:
• Provide a cost-effective intermodal link of the existing BART system to the inter-regional
rail network and a series of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by the City of
Livermore, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of
Bay Area Governments. These PDAs include the Livermore Isabel Avenue BART Station
PDA, the Livermore Downtown PDA and the Livermore East Side PDA.
• Support the regional goals of integrating transit and land use policies to create
opportunities for TOD in the Livermore area PDAs.
• Provide an effective alternative to traffic congestion on I-580.
• Improve air quality and reduce GHG and other emissions associated with automobile use.
Specific metrics were selected for evaluating the Proposed Project and build alternatives under each
of these goals. The metrics used for the analysis are detailed in Section 3.
2.1.2 BART System Expansion Policy
The BSEP is a BART Board-adopted policy for considering system expansions. This policy includes
several criteria that must be considered. These criteria include the potential for generating new
ridership, cost effectiveness, surrounding land uses, accessibility, connectivity with other transit
systems, effects on the existing BART system, and the degree of inter-agency partnering and
community support. These criteria constitute the second framework used for evaluating the
Proposed Project and build alternatives. The metrics used for analyzing each of these criteria are
specified in Section 4.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
18
2.1.3 Other Considerations
The report also includes several other factors that are useful for comparing the Proposed Project
and build alternatives, but which are not explicitly covered by the two evaluation frameworks
discussed above.
Environmental impacts, disclosed in the EIR for this project, are relevant not only to meeting CEQA
requirements, but also in alternatives evaluation. Section 5 provides an overview of impacts and
mitigation measures associated with the Proposed Project and build alternatives.
Equity is a category not explicitly addressed in the project BSEP or the project goals. Equity is
nonetheless an important consideration and BART has a written environmental justice policy that
outlines its commitment “to taking reasonable steps in order to ensure equitable public
transportation service.” Accordingly, a separate assessment of equity is included in Section 5.
Section 5 also includes a discussion of the MTC’s process for assessing projects competing for
discretionary regional funding, and a performance assessment of the Proposed Project and build
alternatives under MTC’s Resolution 3434 TOD policy.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
19
2.2 Evaluation Methodology
For each goal/criterion of the two evaluation frameworks, one or more specific performance metrics
were developed to assess how well the Proposed Project and build alternatives perform in
comparison with each other. For the project goal framework, the evaluation identified performance
metrics for each project goal, as detailed in Section 3. For the BSEP framework, quantitative and
qualitative BSEP metrics for each criterion were used to assign a low to high evaluation rating, as
detailed in Section 4.
Performance of the Proposed Project and build alternatives by evaluation categories are presented
and allow for some overall conclusions about the merits and demerits of the Proposed Project and
build alternatives. No weights were assigned to individual categories, nor was there an effort to
total or average the category ratings to create a total or average score.
The DEIR has two different future analysis years — 2025 and 2040. This Evaluation Report uses
2040 as the evaluation year, as it represents a timeframe when the full impacts and benefits of the
Proposed Project and the build alternatives will be realized.
The DEIR also has two different scenarios for future years — project scenarios and cumulative
scenarios. The project scenarios include the Proposed Project or alternative, and assume only
population and employment growth and transportation network improvements consistent with
regional projections. The cumulative scenarios include, in addition to the growth and improvements
assumed in the project scenario, (1) the build-out of the Isabel Neighborhood Plan (INP), which
proposes a mixed-use TOD near the proposed Isabel station, and (2) the construction of additional
parking at the Dublin/Pleasanton station. 2 Unless otherwise noted, the evaluations in this report
utilize data from the project scenario. Appendix A provides more detail on the evaluation metrics
using the project scenario and the cumulative scenario.
2 BART has expanded its consideration to include a variety of parking strategies to increase parking near the Dublin/Pleasanton and West
Dublin/Pleasanton station. The results in this report are not substantially affected by the use of alternative parking strategies.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
20
3 Project Goals Evaluation Framework
An important consideration in comparing the Proposed Project and build alternatives is determining
how well they meet the project goals established in the DEIR. For purposes of evaluation, these
goals as worded in the DEIR and shown in 2.1.1 are abbreviated in Table 1 below. In addition, the
first DEIR goal is expressed in two parts to differentiate between cost effectiveness and intermodal
connectivity. Metrics were selected to represent the project goals, as shown in Table 1. Some of
these metrics were previously employed in the DEIR. In these cases, the results from the DEIR
analyses were used here. A full set of analysis results is presented in Appendix A.
Table 1 – Project Goals and Key Metrics
Project Goals Key Metrics
Provide a cost-effective link New Net BART Systemwide Boardings
Total Capital Cost
Annual Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Cost
Farebox Recovery Ratio 3
Lifecycle Cost 4 per New BART Boarding
Provide an intermodal link between BART, inter-
regional rail and PDAs
Accessibility: Isabel Station to Downtown San Francisco
travel time (measures link to Isabel PDA)
Accessibility: Downtown Livermore to downtown San
Francisco travel time (measures link to downtown Livermore
PDA)
Regional Transportation Gap Closure (measures link to
regional rail)
Support integrating transit and land use policies to
create transit-oriented development (TOD)
opportunities
Land Use Plans and Policies
Provide alternative to I-580 congestion Travel Time (downtown Livermore to downtown San
Francisco)
Reduction in Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) GHG Emission Reduction
Reduction in Regional VMT
EIR Emissions Thresholds
A performance matrix comparing the Proposed Project and build alternatives was developed for
each project goal, using the selected metrics to provide a rating for each goal. The following
section provides a summary of the overall performance assessment. Subsequent sections provide
results for each individual goal.
3 Farebox recovery ratio is the percentage of operating and maintenance costs covered by fares. Both bus and rail costs and revenues were considered
in this analysis.
4 Lifecycle costs add annualized rehabilitation and replacement costs over the course of the expected lifetime of a project to capital expenses and
annual operating expenses.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
21
3.1 Overall Performance
Table 2 provides an overview of the performance of the Proposed Project and build alternatives in
light of each of the project goals. The Proposed Project has medium or medium-high ratings for all
five goals. The DMU Alternative and EMU Option rate medium or low-medium on all goals. The
Express Bus/ BRT Alternative rates medium-high under the first goal, to “provide a cost-effective
link.” However, the Express Bus / BRT Alternative rates as medium or low-medium for all other
goals. The Enhanced Bus Alternative rates medium for one goal, low-medium for one goal, and low
for three of the goals.
Table 2 – Consistency with Project Goal Comparison: Overall
Project Goals Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced
Bus
Alternative
Goal 1A: Provide a cost-
effective link
Goal 1B: Provide an
intermodal link between
BART, inter-regional rail and
PDAs
Goal 2: Support integrating
transit and land use policies to
create transit-oriented
development (TOD)
opportunities
Goal 3: Provide alternative to
I-580 congestion
Goal 4: Improve air quality,
reduce greenhouse gases
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
22
3.2 Goal 1A: Provide a Cost-Effective Link
Table 3 summarizes the evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives for the goal of
providing a cost-effective link. This goal is focused on the affordability and effectiveness for BART
to provide new service. Systemwide boardings represent ridership, an important component of
cost-effective service. To evaluate affordability, the total capital cost, operations and maintenance
costs, farebox recovery, and lifecycle costs for the Proposed Project and build alternatives were
analyzed and rated.
Capital costs are provided primarily in year of expenditure dollars (YOE$); that is, inflating current
costs to the estimated midpoint of construction of each build alternative. Values in 2016 dollars are
provided in parenthesis. Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are provided in 2016 dollars.
Conventional BART Project: Medium. The Proposed Project would have an estimated
capital cost of YOE $1.635 billion (2016 $1.329 billion), annual O&M costs of $22.8 million,
and would generate 11,900 net new BART boardings in 2040. The Proposed Project would
thus be the most expensive option but also the one that attracts the greatest number of
users. It would have a farebox recovery rate of 88% and a total cost per boarding of $20.56.
The Proposed Project rates medium because its higher ridership is offset by high costs,
making it less cost effective than the Express Bus/BRT Alternative.
DMU Alternative / EMU Option: Low-Medium. The DMU Alternative would have an
estimated capital cost of YOE $1.599 billion (2016 $1.353 billion) and would generate 7,000
net new weekday BART boardings in 2040. Its yearly O&M cost would be $16.8 million,
74% of the Proposed Project’s O&M cost. The DMU Alternative would have a farebox
recovery rate of 72% and a total cost per boarding of $30.60. The EMU Option for this
alternative would have a slightly higher capital cost of YOE $1.665 billion (2016 $1.353
billion) due to the additional electrical infrastructure (catenary system and wayside facilities),
but a slightly lower annual O&M cost of $16.6 million. It would have a farebox recovery rate
of 73% and a total cost per boarding of $31.33. The DMU Alternative/EMU Option rates
low-medium because it has similar costs as the Proposed Project, but would attract fewer
users.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative: Medium-High. The Express Bus/BRT Alternative would
have 3,500 net new BART boardings in 2040, which is only 29% of the Proposed Project’s
net new boardings. However, it would also have a lower capital cost of YOE $367 million
(2016 $305 million), which is 23% of the Proposed Project’s capital cost, and a yearly O&M
cost of $3 million or 13% of the Proposed Project’s O&M cost. It would have an excellent
farebox recovery of 196% and a total cost per boarding of $14.11. The Express Bus/BRT
Alternative rates medium-high because it is the most affordable and effective option that
would attract any significant number of passengers.
Enhanced Bus Alternative: Medium. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would have 400 net
new BART boardings in 2040, which is only 3% of the Proposed Project’s boardings. The
Enhanced Bus Alternative would have a low capital cost of YOE $25 million (2016 $21
million), which is 1.6% of the Proposed Project’s capital cost, and a low yearly O&M cost of
$1.7 million or 7% of the Proposed Project’s O&M cost. It would have a comparatively low
farebox recovery of 42% and a total cost per boarding of $21.24. The Enhanced Bus
Alternative rates medium under this goal because it is the most affordable option, but would
attract a low number of additional users to BART.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
23
Table 3 – Consistency with Project Goal 1A Comparison: Provide a Cost-Effective Link
Project Goal Provide a cost-effective link
Metrics Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Net New BART
Systemwide Boardings in
2040
11,900 7,000 7,000 3,500 400
Total Capital Cost (Millions
of YOE$) $1,635 $1,599 $1,665 $376 $25
Total O&M Cost in 2040
(2016$) $22,800,000 $16,800,000 $16,600,000 $3,000,000 $1,700,000
Farebox Recovery Ratio 88% 72% 73% 196% 42%
Lifecycle Costs per New
BART Boarding $20.56 $30.60 $31.33 $14.11 $21.24
Overall Performance
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
Notes: YOE$: Year of expenditure
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
24
3.3 Goal 1B: Provide an Intermodal Link Between BART, Inter-Regional
Rail and PDAs
Table 4 summarizes the evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives for this goal. To
evaluate this goal, transit travel times 5 from key origins and destinations under the Proposed Project
and build alternatives were calculated, and the regional gap closure was evaluated qualitatively.
The Proposed Project and all build alternatives make transit travel time improvements to PDAs in
Livermore, but none provide a rail connection to ACE and therefore do not close this regional
transportation gap. Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) express, Rapid and local
routes currently connect ACE stations to the Dublin/Pleasanton and West Dublin/Pleasanton BART
stations. The Proposed Project and all build alternatives improve marginally on these connections
with more frequent express bus service. Only the Proposed Project was rated as medium for
providing the best transit connections in terms of travel time to Livermore destinations.
Conventional BART Project: Medium. The Proposed Project would link the existing BART
system to the Livermore Isabel Avenue/BART Station PDA and improve travel times to this
PDA and the downtown Livermore PDA more than any of the build alternatives. However, it
does not provide a rail connection to ACE and therefore does not close this regional
transportation gap. For this reason, the Proposed Project rates medium under this goal.
DMU Alternative / EMU Option: Low-Medium. The DMU Alternative//EMU Option
would link the existing BART system to the Livermore Isabel Avenue/BART Station PDA (with
a transfer required) and improve travel times to this PDA and the downtown Livermore PDA,
though travel times savings would be less than the Proposed Project. Like the Proposed
Project, it does not provide a rail connection to ACE and therefore does not close this
regional transportation gap. The DMU Alternative//EMU Option is rated low-medium under
this goal.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative: Low-Medium. It is unlikely that the Livermore Isabel
Avenue/BART Station PDA would be implemented under the Express Bus / BRT alternative.
However, this alternative would have improved travel times to this PDA as well as to the
downtown Livermore PDA, but not as much as either the Proposed Project or the DMU
Alternative//EMU Option. Like the Proposed Project and all the build alternatives, it does not
provide a rail connection to ACE and therefore does not close this regional transportation
gap. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative is rated low-medium under this goal.
Enhanced Bus Alternative: Low. It is unlikely that the Livermore Isabel Avenue/BART
Station PDA would be implemented under the Enhanced Bus Alternative. However, this
alternative would have improved travel times to this PDA as well as to the downtown
Livermore PDA, but not as much as either the Proposed Project or other build alternatives.
Like the Proposed Project and all the build alternatives, it does not provide a rail connection
to ACE and therefore does not close this regional transportation gap. The Express Bus / BRT
Alternative is rated low under this goal.
5For travel time estimations, it was assumed that travelers used the fastest transit option (bus or train) for all legs of their total trip.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
25
Table 4 – Consistency with Project Goal 1B Comparison: Provide an intermodal link between BART,
inter-regional rail and PDAs
Project Goal Provide an intermodal link between BART, inter-regional rail and PDAs
Metrics Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Transit travel time Isabel to
downtown San Francisco
(minutes/minutes less than
no project )*
57/23 60/20 60/20 66/14 71/9
Transit travel time
downtown Livermore to
downtown San Francisco
(minutes/minutes less than
no project )**
71/19 74/16 74/16 74/16 90/0
Regional Transportation
Gap Closure*** Low Low Low Low Low
Overall Performance
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
*Connection to Isabel PDA; **Connection to downtown Livermore PDA, ***Connection to inter-regional rail
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
26
3.4 Goal 2: Support integrating transit and land use policies to create
transit-oriented development opportunities
Table 5 summarizes the evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives against this goal.
To measure how well each contributes to TOD opportunities, the single metric of land use policy
and plans was employed. Plans that were reviewed included the following:
• Isabel Neighborhood Plan (draft);
• Livermore General Plan;
• Livermore Downtown Specific Plan; and
• Plan Bay Area.
There are three PDAs in Livermore: Isabel Avenue/BART Station Planning Area, Downtown and East
Side (east of Vasco Road). PDAs are transit-accessible areas designated by municipalities for growth,
and are used by the regional Plan Bay Area to allocate planned future growth. The first two are
addressed in the proposed INP and Downtown Specific Plan, while there is no Specific Plan
underway for the redevelopment of the East Side.
Land use plans and policies in the area were reviewed and rated for transit supporting land use and
access. For the Proposed Project, land use plans and policies provide a medium-high level of transit
supportive land use and access. The City of Livermore is in the process of creating the INP which, if
implemented, would increase development density around the transit station. The City of Livermore
expects to consider adopting the INP before the BART Board is expected to consider adopting the
BART to Livermore Extension Project; however, the INP is being developed only for the Proposed
Project. Should BART wish to adopt the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, the City of Livermore
would need to reassess the INP and potentially undergo a new planning process. The INP does not
apply to the Express Bus / BRT Alternative because it does not include a new Isabel station, nor for
the Enhanced Bus Alternative, which consists of minor bus infrastructure improvements.
The INP proposes increasing development density around the station, encouraging mixed-use
development and enhancing the transit-oriented character of the area. However, even with these
plans implemented, the development will not result in the level of densities observable at many
other BART stations (e.g., downtown Oakland and downtown Berkeley). A medium-high rating is
given to the Proposed Project, recognizing that the INP is proposed specifically for a conventional
BART extension. A medium rating is given to the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, with the
understanding that a new INP process would be required to develop a transit oriented development
plan for this alternative.
For the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative, land use plans provide a
low-medium level of transit supportive land use and access. The bus alternatives’ bus stops are
located throughout the City of Livermore. Some locations have land use plans and policies in place
to support transit use, such as the Downtown Livermore PDA, while others do not. Downtown
Livermore is zoned to concentrate development around existing ACE rail stations and established
communities. A Downtown Livermore Plan encourages medium density housing and mixed-use
development. Other bus stop locations have low opportunities that would likely not support TOD
with zoning and parking requirements that do not encourage transit usage. Many bus stops are in
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
27
built-out neighborhoods with limited transit-oriented in-fill development potential, especially given
that much of Livermore’s existing neighborhoods are predominantly low density.
• Proposed Project: Medium-High. The plan that would most significantly create TOD
opportunities in association with the Proposed Project is the INP. This plan, which is currently
in draft form and has not yet been approved, proposes zoning the station area to increase
development density, encourage mixed-use development and enhance the transit-oriented
character of the area. However, even with these plans implemented, the development will
not result in the level of densities observable at many other BART stations (e.g., downtown
Oakland and downtown Berkeley). The Downtown Specific Plan encourages strengthening
Livermore’s Downtown through redevelopment as a mix of uses including housing.
However, it is not particularly relevant to the Proposed Project, given that rail will not be
extended to Downtown Livermore. A medium-high rating is given to the Proposed Project
for land use plans and policies.
DMU Alternative / EMU Option: Medium. It is likely but not certain that the INP would
also be implemented in association with the DMU Alternative / EMU Option. The City of
Livermore would need to reassess and potentially conduct a new planning process. For this
reason, a medium rating is given to the DMU Alternative / EMU Option for the land use
plans and policies.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative: Low-Medium. It is not expected that the INP would be
implemented in association with the Express Bus / BRT Alternative, as the INP builds around
a future rail station. Therefore, the most relevant plan is the Downtown Specific Plan. The
Downtown Specific Plan encourages strengthening Livermore’s Downtown through
redevelopment as a mix of uses including housing. It is debatable whether this alternative’s
improvements to bus routes accessing the Livermore Transit Center and ACE station will
create TOD opportunities. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative is rated low-medium for this
reason.
Enhanced Bus Alternative: Low-Medium. It is not expected that the INP would be
implemented in association with the Enhanced Bus Alternative, as the INP builds around a
future rail station. Same as Express Bus / BRT Alternative.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
28
Table 5 – Consistency with Project Goal 2 Comparison: Support Integrating Transit and Land
Use Policies to Create Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Opportunities
Project Goal Support integrating transit and land use policies to create TOD opportunities
Metrics Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Land Use Plans and
Policies Medium-High Medium Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium
Overall Performance
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
29
3.5 Goal 3: Provide Alternative to I-580 Congestion
Table 6 summarizes the evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives against this goal.
Metrics were chosen that represent the potential for each to provide a viable alternative to
congestion. The metric “Transit Travel Time 6 - downtown Livermore to downtown San Francisco” is
an important indication of how competitive the Proposed Project and build alternatives are, and the
metric “Reduction in Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)” directly indicates vehicles being taken
off the road. This goal does not directly address the impact of the Proposed Project and build
alternatives on I-580 congestion, but rather the degree to which they provide an alternative to that
congestion. The EIR did evaluate level of service (LOS)7 and volume-to-capacity (V/C)8 ratios for
freeway segments. This is presented in detail in the Transportation Chapter of the EIR.
Conventional BART Project: Medium-High. The Proposed Project would offer the fastest
transit travel times between downtown Livermore and downtown San Francisco (71
minutes), and reduce regional VMTs by 244,000 per weekday in 2040.
DMU Alternative / EMU Option: Medium. The DMU Alternative / EMU Option would
provide a transit travel time of 74 minutes between and Downtown Livermore and
Downtown San Francisco. It would reduce regional VMTs by 140,600 per day in 2040. For
all three metrics, the DMU Alternative / EMU Option performs worse than the Proposed
Project but better than any other build alternative. For this reason, it rates as medium.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative: Low-Medium. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative would
provide a transit travel time of 74 minutes between and downtown Livermore and
downtown San Francisco (identical to the DMU Alternative / EMU Option). It would reduce
regional VMTs by 92,600 per day in 2040. It generally performs worse than the DMU
Alternative / EMU Option and thus rates as low-medium.
Enhanced Bus Alternative: Low. The Enhanced Bus Alternative performs significantly
worse than the Proposed Project and other build alternatives with a travel time of 90
minutes between and downtown Livermore and downtown San Francisco, and a regional
weekday VMT reduction of 6,500 per day in 2040. It rates as low.
6For travel time estimations, it was assumed that travelers used the fastest transit option (bus or train) for all legs of their total trip
7 Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of operating conditions within a traffic stream, and their perception by motorists/passengers. A LOS
definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, comfort and convenience, and
safety.
8 Volume to capacity (V/C) is a ratio of vehicle volume to roadway capacity, with numbers greater than 1.0 indicating the roadway capacity is
exceeded.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
30
Table 6 – Consistency with Project Goal 3 Comparison: Provide Alternative to I-580 Congestion
Project Goal Provide alternative to I-580 congestion
Metrics Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Transit travel time
downtown Livermore to
downtown San Francisco
(minutes/minutes less than
no project)
71/19 74/16 74/16 74/16 90/0
Reduction in Regional
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) in 2040
244,000 140,600 140,600 92,600 6,500
Overall Performance
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
31
3.6 Goal 4: Improve Air Quality, Reduce Greenhouse Gases
Table 7 summarizes the evaluation of the Proposed Project and build alternatives against this goal.
As there is a strong correlation between VMT reduction and air quality, VMT reductions are used to
measure this goal along with relevant emissions and GHG reductions.
Conventional BART Project: Medium-High. In 2040, the Proposed Project would reduce
GHG emissions by 11,200 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year, and
reduce regional VMT by 244,000 per day. The Proposed Project will also have net reduction
in emissions for PM2.5 and PM10. ROG and NOx emissions would increase but not exceed the
threshold of significance. For these reasons, the Proposed Project is rated medium-high
under this goal.
DMU Alternative: Medium. In 2040, the DMU Alternative would reduce GHG emissions
by 3,500 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year, and reduce regional VMT
by 140,600 per day. The EMU Option would remove an additional 2,500 metric tons of
CO2e per year because of cleaner vehicle technology. The DMU/EMU Alternative would also
have reductions in PM2.5 and PM10 compared to the No Project Alternative. ROG and NOx
emissions would increase but not exceed the threshold of significance. For these reasons,
the DMU Alternative and EMU Option are rated medium.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative: Medium. In 2040, the Express Bus / BRT Alternative would
reduce GHG emissions by 3,700 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year,
and reduce regional VMT by 92,600 per day. This reduction is significantly less than those of
the Proposed Project. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative would have lower ROG emissions
compared to the Proposed Project, but higher NOx, PM2.5 and PM10. For these reasons, the
Express Bus / BRT Alternative is rated medium.
Enhanced Bus Alternative: Low. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would not reduce GHG
emissions. VMT reduction is also very low compared with the Proposed Project and the other
build alternatives. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would have lower ROG emissions compared
to the Proposed Project, but higher NOx, PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. For these reasons, the
Enhanced Bus Alternative rates low.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
32
Table 7 – Consistency with Project Goal 4 Comparison: Improve Air Quality, Reduce
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Notes: Emissions types include ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM25 = fine particulate matter
More detail on the impact of the Proposed Project and the build alternatives on air quality emissions
is provided in Appendix C.
Project Goal Improve air quality, reduce GHGs
Metrics Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Annual GHG Emission
Reduction in 2040 (Metric
Tons CO2e)
11,200 3,500 6,000 3,700 No Benefit
Reduction in Weekday
Regional Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) in 2040
244,000 140,600 140,600 92,600 6,500
EIR Emissions Thresholds Does not
exceed
thresholds
Does not
exceed
thresholds
Does not
exceed
thresholds
Does not
exceed
thresholds
Does not
exceed
thresholds
Overall Performance
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
33
4 BART System Expansion Policy Evaluation Framework
To guide BART in the extension and expansion of its system, its Board of Directors adopted a Policy
Framework for System Expansion in 1999 and a System Expansion Project Advancement Criteria
and Process in 2002 (together known as the BSEP).
The BSEP identifies criteria for project advancement to be applied when determining whether a
new BART expansion project should be recommended for advancement. These criteria include:
• Transit Supportive Land Uses and Access – How well do existing residential and/or
employment land uses, intermodal connections, and local land use plans and policies
support transit use?
• Ridership Development Plan (RDP) – How well does the project support BART ridership goals,
and have the local jurisdictions prepared plans to promote transit supportive land uses and
improve access to proposed stations?
• Cost-Effectiveness – How much does it cost to increase ridership?
• Regional Network Connectivity – How well does the project close gaps in the regional
transportation network?
• System and Financial Capacity – How does the project affect BART’s existing system, and is
there a viable capital financing plan and operating financing plan?
• Partnerships – How much community and stakeholder support exists for the project?
Among the chief elements of the BSEP is the requirement that one or more RDPs be undertaken for
proposed expansion projects of the existing BART system. The RDP(s) seek to increase ridership to
support the proposed BART extension and to support development of that ridership through local
measures such as transit-supportive land uses and investment in access programs and projects.
As a steward of public funding for transportation investments, BART employs this policy to:
• Ensure cost-effective transportation investment decisions;
• Protect the taxpayers’ investment in the District’s physical infrastructure;
• Ensure the financial health and sustainability of the District; and
• Enhance the Bay Area’s environment and quality of life.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
34
4.1 Approach
The BSEP evaluation categories and the metrics used in each category are shown in Table 8. The
rating scale for each criterion is from low to high.
For some metrics, the BSEP provides guidelines on how to conduct quantitative assessments, along
with thresholds that correspond to the low to high rating scale. In certain cases, the provided
guidelines are more applicable to a rail extension rather than a bus extension, particularly for the
station-related evaluations. In those cases where the methodology for evaluating the bus
alternatives was not clear, approaches that are rational and consistent with the perceived intentions
of the BSEP were developed and employed.
4.2 Overall Results
Neither the Proposed Project nor any of the build alternatives rate high across a majority of
evaluation criteria. The Proposed Project rates high for only one criterion — the Operating Finance
Plan. It rates medium or medium-high for most other criteria but rates low in the areas of Existing
Land Use, Existing Intermodal Connections, Station Context, and Regional Transportation Gap
Closure. The DMU Alternative / EMU Option rates high for Operating Finance Plan as well, and low
under the same criteria as the Proposed Project, and rates medium or low-medium in other
categories. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative rates high for two criteria – Capital Finance Plan and
Operating Finance Plan – and medium-high for one criterion – Cost per New Rider: Base Case. It
rates low or low-medium for all other criteria. The Enhanced Bus Alternative rates high for Capital
Finance Plan, low for Existing Land Use and Regional Transportation Gap Closure, and medium or
low-medium for all other categories.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
35
Table 8 – BART System Expansion Policy
9 Cost/Transportation System User Benefit, a suggested BSEP metric, was not utilized as it is no longer employed by the Federal Transit Administration
and was never phased in to the BSEP by BART.
Notes: N/A: Not applicable
Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative /
EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
Existing Land Use: Residential
and/or Employment
Existing Intermodal Connections
Land Use Plans and Policies
Ridership Development Plan
Ridership Threshold
N/A N/A
Station Context
N/A N/A
Cost-Effectiveness 9
Cost per New Rider: Base Case
Cost per New Rider: with TOD
N/A N/A
Regional Network Connectivity
Regional Transportation Gap
Closure
System and Financial Capacity
Core System Improvements
Capital Finance Plan
Operating Finance Plan
Partnerships
Community and Stakeholder
Support
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
Not assessed at
this time.
High Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
36
4.3 Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
The metrics used for evaluating transit supportive land use and access around the proposed new
Isabel Station include the existing residential and employment densities, existing intermodal
connections, and land use plans and policies. For the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the
Enhanced Bus Alternative, the quality of land use and access around areas served by bus routes was
evaluated, as these alternatives do not include a major station.
Existing Land Use: Residential and/or Employment Densities
The staff-recommended BSEP metrics include density thresholds for this category. For the Proposed
Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, existing residential and employment densities
within a ½ mile radius of the proposed Isabel Station were calculated using census data. Residential
density is 0.85 households per acre, and employment density is 6.11 employees per acre. This
results in a low Existing Land Use rating for the Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU
Option.
For the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative, no major stations are
planned at Isabel or elsewhere. Thus, the existing residential and employment densities were
measured within a ¼ mile buffer of major bus routes serving Dublin/Pleasanton Station. The result
was a density of 1.99 households per acre, and 4.52 employees per acre, translating into a low
Existing Land Use rating for the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative.
Existing Intermodal Connections
Existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections to the Proposed Project and build alternatives
are evaluated qualitatively. Overall, a low rating is assigned to the Proposed Project / DMU
Alternative / EMU Option and a low-medium rating is assigned to the Express Bus / BRT Alternative
and the Enhanced Bus Alternative.
Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU Option. Existing pedestrian conditions in
the future Isabel station area provide low connectivity. The ½ mile area surrounding the station has
sidewalks, but it lacks consistency and continuity. The roadways that surround the station area,
including Isabel Avenue and Airway Boulevard, are wide, multi-lane arterials, and adjacent
development is sporadic, with stretches of undeveloped land in between developed parcels.
Crosswalks exist at most of the surrounding intersections, but on many major arterials, pedestrian
crossings are only in place along one approach in the north-south or east-west directions, with long
crossing distances that expose pedestrians to vehicle traffic and long signal cycles that cause
pedestrian delay.
Existing bicycle conditions for the Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU Option provide
similarly poor connectivity. While some roadways have bicycle lanes, these facilities are
uncomfortable for bicyclists of all ages and ability and do not provide key connections. The bicycle
lanes along Isabel Avenue are particularly stressful, requiring cyclists to ride adjacent to high-speed
traffic that is merging on and off the I-580 freeway. There is one bike path within a ½ mile radius
of the rail station along Stealth Street, but this path dead-ends at a four-lane arterial, providing no
connection across for cyclists traveling south.
Existing transit connections for the Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU Option also
provide low connectivity. The area around the potential Isabel Station currently has very limited
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
37
transit connections. The closest bus stop served by Wheels route 30R is at Las Positas College,
which is about ¾ mile away.
Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative. Existing pedestrian conditions
were rated low-medium. Areas in a quarter-mile buffer around proposed bus routes generally have
completed sidewalks. Pedestrian facilities around downtown Livermore are well connected with high
intersection density, pedestrian-oriented land uses and many pedestrian amenities such as benches,
trees, blub outs and pedestrian-scale lighting. Other areas around bus stops have land uses that are
not oriented towards pedestrians. These places appear uninviting towards pedestrians and are closed
off from the activity of the street. Many streets are wide, high-speed arterial roadways that act as a
barrier to pedestrians, such as Vasco Road, East Avenue, Portola Avenue, West Jack London Boulevard
and North Canyon Parkway. These roadways have been built particularly wide to accommodate peak
traffic levels, with large crossing distances and high vehicle speeds that are problematic for
pedestrians by making them vulnerable to more severe collisions.
Existing bicycle connections for the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative
were also rated low-medium. Bicycle facilities exist, but many are adjacent to high volume streets,
making them uncomfortable for most cyclists. There are some bike paths adjacent to bus routes,
but these do not provide access to the majority of Livermore. The lack of high-quality and
connected facilities is reflected in the existing bicycle usage for Livermore, which is 0.7% according
to the US Census Journey-to-Work data, lower than the California average of 1.1%.
For the bus alternatives, existing transit connections are of low-medium quality. The areas within a
¼ mile buffer of proposed bus routes have multiple bus routes, including Wheels routes 11, 14, 15,
20X, 580X, 10R and 30R, and a rail station in downtown Livermore and Vasco road, served by ACE.
While the bus alternatives are connected to many existing transit routes, only the 10R and the 15R
have peak minute headways of 15 minutes.
Land Use Plans and Policies
Land use plans and policies in the area were reviewed and rated for transit supporting land use and
access. For the Proposed Project, land use plans and policies provide a medium-high level of transit
supportive land use and access. The City of Livermore is in the process of creating the INP which, if
implemented, would increase development density around the transit station. The City of Livermore
expects to consider adopting the INP before the BART Board is expected to consider adopting the
BART to Livermore Extension Project; however, the INP is being developed only for the Proposed
Project. Should BART wish to adopt the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, the City of Livermore
would need to reassess the INP and potentially undergo a new planning process. The INP does not
apply to the Express Bus / BRT Alternative because it does not include a new Isabel station, nor for
the Enhanced Bus Alternative, which consists of minor bus infrastructure improvements.
The INP proposes increasing development density around the station, encouraging mixed-use
development and enhancing the transit-oriented character of the area. However, even with these
plans implemented, the development will not result in the level of densities observable at many
other BART stations (e.g., downtown Oakland and downtown Berkeley). A medium-high rating is
given to the Proposed Project, recognizing that the INP is proposed specifically for a conventional
BART extension. A medium rating is given to the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, with the
understanding that a new INP process would be required to develop a transit oriented development
plan for this alternative.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
38
For the Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative, land use plans provide a
low-medium level of transit supportive land use and access. The bus alternatives’ bus stops are
located throughout the City of Livermore. Some locations have land use plans and policies in place
to support transit use, such as the Downtown Livermore PDA, while others do not. Downtown
Livermore is zoned to concentrate development around existing ACE rail stations and established
communities. A Downtown Livermore Plan encourages medium density housing and mixed-use
development. Other bus stop locations have low opportunities that would likely not support TOD
with zoning and parking requirements that do not encourage transit usage. Many bus stops are in
built-out neighborhoods with limited transit-oriented in-fill development potential, especially given
that much of Livermore’s existing neighborhoods are predominantly low density.
4.4 Ridership Development Plan
BART’s BSEP requires a Ridership Development Plan (RDP) be developed for each proposed new
station to support increased ridership along with meeting the goals of the BSEP. Strategies for
boosting ridership include planning and implementation of transit supportive land uses,
improvements in local transportation programs and infrastructure, improvements to multi modal
access including pedestrian and bicycle access, increases in transit feeder services, and development
of additional automobile serving parking facilities (including parking in the station area).
To meet the requirement for a RDP, the City of Livermore is preparing the INP to guide future
development around a potential Isabel Station. The draft plan consists of a mixed-use development
with over 4,000 residential units, 1.6 million square feet of office space, and other commercial
uses. The City of Livermore expects to consider adopting the INP before the BART Board is expected
to consider adopting the BART to Livermore Extension Project; however, the INP is being developed
only for the Proposed Project.
Should BART wish to adopt the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, the City of Livermore would need
to reassess the INP. For the purposes of evaluation only, BART is assuming the INP would apply to
the DMU Alternative / EMU Option. The City of Livermore has indicated this would reasonably
characterize the maximum amount of development around the Isabel station under this alternative.
A RDP is not required for the Express Bus / BRT Alternative because it does not include a new
station, nor for the Enhanced Bus Alternative, which consists of minor bus infrastructure
improvements.
The effectiveness of the RDP is measured by assessing ridership thresholds and station context
evaluation.
Ridership Threshold
The ridership assessment compares the ridership forecasted for proposed extensions with ridership
thresholds. This assessment evaluates the effectiveness of extension projects in achieving adequate
ridership.
The staff-recommended BSEP metric, projected average daily trips for an extension (daily entries
and exits associated with new stations), is categorized into five grades from low to high:
• Low: less than 5,000 average daily trips
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
39
• Low-Medium: 5,000 to 9,999 average daily trips
• Medium: 10,000 to 13,999 average daily trips
• Medium-High: 14,000 to 20,000 average daily trips
• High: above 20,000 average daily trips
Based on year 2040 BART ridership projections, the Proposed Project would have an average of
15,800 daily boardings and alightings at Isabel Station, attaining a medium-high rating. The DMU
Alternative / EMU Option would have an average of 9,400 daily boardings and alightings at Isabel
Station, attaining a low-medium rating.10 The BSEP ridership criterion is not used for the Express Bus
/ BRT Alternative because it does not include a new station, nor for the Enhanced Bus Alternative,
which consists of minor bus infrastructure improvements.
The ridership projections cited above are from the cumulative scenario which include the INP. The
analysis was also performed using the project scenario ridership projections and yielded the same
ratings.11
Station Context
This is a qualitative assessment of how well a station location would support TOD and the station
experience for patrons. The proposed Isabel station site has space to provide a mixed-use
neighborhood with both employment and residential centers with high densities of uses for the Tri-
Valley area. However, the station location in the median of I-580 will negatively affect patron
experience. The freeway acts as a barrier between land uses to the south and the north of the
station, and provides a poor environment for walking and biking. The BSEP guidelines indicate that
a medium rating is only achieved with an acceptable station experience for patrons; thus, a low
rating was selected for the Proposed Project and DMU Alternative / EMU Option.
Station context is not applicable to the bus alternatives since no new stations are provided as part
of those alternatives.
10 The number of projected entries at Isabel Station was doubled to determine the BART ridership numbers (entries and exists) consistent with the
BSEP.
11Cumulative scenario projections for Isabel Station boardings and alightings are slightly lower than project scenario projections. This is because the
additional parking capacity included at Dublin/Pleasanton attracts passengers from Isabel Station, despite the overall ridership increases generated by
INP development.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
40
4.5 Cost Effectiveness
This category evaluates cost effectiveness through a cost per rider measure with and without the
inclusion of future TOD.
The annualized lifecycle costs per net new annual BART boarding for 2040 in 2016 dollars were
calculated. To develop BESP ratings, the costs were adjusted to 2002 dollars based on historic
inflation rates. The BESP cost per rider scale ranges from low (more than $40 per rider in 2002
dollars) to high (less than $10 per rider in 2002 dollars).
Table 9 shows the results of these calculations and the BSEP cost effectiveness ratings for the
Proposed Project and the build alternatives.
Table 9 – Cost Effectiveness
Proposed
Project -
Conventional
BART
DMU
Alternative EMU Option
Express Bus /
BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Lifecycle Cost per BART Boarding – Base Case
2016 Dollars $20.56 $30.60 $31.33 $14.11 $21.24
2002 Dollars $15.40 $22.94 $23.50 $10.60 $16.09
Cost per Rider - Base Case
rating
Medium Medium Medium Medium-High Medium
Lifecycle Cost per BART Boarding – With TOD
2016 Dollars $18.26 $25.81 $26.43 N/A N/A
2002 Dollars $13.68 $19.34 $19.82 N/A N/A
Cost per Rider - with TOD Medium-High Medium Medium N/A N/A
Notes: N/A: Not applicable
Cost per New Rider: Base Case
The cost per new rider is first evaluated for the Proposed Project and build alternatives under base
case land use assumptions that do not include future TOD. The base case corresponds to the EIR
project scenario. As shown in Table 9 the Proposed Project earns a medium rating. The DMU
Alternative and EMU Option both also receive a medium rating. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative
receives a medium-high rating. The Enhanced Bus Alternative, result is a medium rating.
Cost per New Rider: with TOD
The cost per new rider is also evaluated for the Proposed Project and DMU Alternative / EMU
Option under future TOD conditions (see Table 9). The future TOD conditions correspond with the
EIR cumulative scenario, which includes the INP. The Express Bus / BRT and Enhanced Bus
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
41
alternatives were not evaluated with TOD because development of the INP is not assumed to occur
under these alternatives.
The Proposed Project receives a medium-high rating. The DMU Alternative and the EMU Option
both earn a medium rating.
4.6 Regional Network Connectivity
Regional Transportation Gap Closure
The regional transportation gap closure measure is the only metric used to evaluate regional
network connectivity. The evaluation of this metric qualitatively “assess[es] the interconnected
relationship of the transit expansion project and the existing transportation network, identifying
opportunities for major gap closures.”
The Proposed Project and the DMU Alternative / EMU Option perform low in terms of regional
transit gap closure since they do not establish any new rail connections. Most notably, no new
ACE/BART rail connections are made with this project, though the project does not preclude a rail
connection in the future. While no new rail connections are made, rail-bus connections to ACE,
Amtrak, LAVTA and San Joaquin Regional Transit District (SJTRD) are made more convenient than
current, with decreased travel times, and more frequent service.
The Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative also rate low in terms of
regional transit gap closure since neither establishes any new rail connections, though they improve
rail-bus connections with ACE, Amtrak, LAVTA and SJRTD with decreased travel times and more
frequent service.
4.7 System and Financial Capacity
The system and financial capacity category is evaluated through a qualitative evaluation of the core
system improvements, capital finance plan and operating finance plan.
Core System Improvements
The core system improvements evaluation is a qualitative assessment of how well the expansion
project “enhances (at best) or minimizes demands on core system yard/support facilities,
redundancy/recovery capabilities and station and line haul capacity.”
Overall, the Proposed Project is rated as medium-high for core system improvements. The Proposed
Project is rated high for yard and support facilities because it includes a new BART yard and shop
facility at the start/end of line able to support the entire Blue Line. Its redundancy and recovery
capabilities are medium, as the new yard and shop facility may provide some greater ability to
respond to incidents on the Blue Line. The impact on station and line haul capacity is rated
medium, since the impact on any individual station or car crowding is minimized by providing
additional Blue Line peak period BART service included as part of the Proposed Project.
Overall, the DMU Alternative / EMU Option is rated as low-medium for core system improvements.
The DMU Alternative / EMU Option is rated medium for yard and support facilities because it
provides additional BART tail track capacity to support the increased load on the BART system
generated by the DMU Alternative / EMU Option, but not additional BART yard or shop capacity to
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
42
support the entire Blue Line.12 Its redundancy and recovery capabilities are rated low, as no new
facilities that benefit the system as whole are constructed. The impact on station and line haul
capacity is rated medium, since the impact on any individual station or car crowding would be
minimal due to the new capacity proposed as part of the DMU Alternative / EMU Option and due
to the increased headways assumed in 2040.
Overall, the Express Bus / BRT Alternative is rated as low-medium for core system improvements.
The Express Bus / BRT Alternative is rated medium for yard and support because it provides
additional BART tail track capacity to support the increased load on the BART system generated by
the Express Bus / BRT Alternative, but not additional BART yard or shop capacity to support the
entire Blue Line. Its redundancy and recovery capabilities are low, as no new facilities that benefit
the system as whole are constructed. The impact on station and line haul capacity is rated as
medium, since the impact on any individual station or car crowding is minimized by providing
additional Blue Line peak period BART service included as part of the Express Bus / BRT Alternative.
Overall, the Enhanced Bus Alternative is rated as low-medium for core system improvements. The
Enhanced Bus Alternative is rated medium for yard and support facilities because it generates
minimal added load on the BART system and thus minimal added demand on support facilities. Its
redundancy and recovery capabilities are rated low, as no new facilities that benefit the system as
whole are constructed. The impact on station and line haul capacity is rated as medium, since it
generates minimal added load on the BART system.
Capital Finance Plan
The capital finance plan assessment evaluates whether the system expansion is fully funded and
considers the stability, reliability and availability of the proposed funding sources, and whether
those sources are competing with renovation and core system capacity needs.
The Proposed Project is not fully funded; however, a significant amount, approximately $533
million in funding, has been committed to design and construction. The funding comes from
Alameda County’s sales tax funds (Measure BB), Livermore development impact fees and regional
bridge tolls. This funding is dedicated, secure, and is not easily transferable to other BART projects.
It also has the potential to be matched by state or federal sources. The Proposed Project is rated
medium for Capital Finance Plan for these reasons.
The DMU Alternative / EMU Option has the same funding identified as the Proposed Project. The
available funds do not fully cover the costs, but they are a dedicated and stable source of funding
that could be used as a local match. This Alternative is rated medium.
The Express Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative are fully funded with available
funding sources, and these sources are dedicated and stable. Thus, these build alternatives are
rated high for Capital Finance Plan.
12 The DMU Alternative and EMU Option do include a yard and shop.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
43
Operating Finance Plan
The operating finance plan evaluation is an assessment of the estimated farebox recovery ratios and
the stability, reliability and availability of the operating subsidy. The staff recommended BSEP metric
includes ratings for farebox recovery with a high rating for over 50% farebox recovery, medium for
30-50%, and low for <30%. For the Proposed Project, the DMU Alternative/EMU Option, and the
BRT/Express Bus Alternative, farebox recovery ratios are all higher than 50%. Therefore, they all
receive a rating of high for this assessment. The Enhanced Bus Alternative has a farebox recovery
ratio of 40%, and thus receives a medium rating.
4.8 Partnerships
The partnership assessment is based on community support and stakeholder support. These will be
assessed after BART has conducted its planned BART to Livermore outreach program in the first half
of 2018.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
44
5 Additional Evaluations
In addition to the primary two frameworks described above for evaluating the Proposed Project and
build alternatives, other assessments are also useful for evaluation. This section includes a reference
to environmental impacts declared in the DEIR, an equity assessment, the MTC project performance
assessment process and MTC Resolution 3434 TOD Policy.
5.1 Significant Environmental Impacts
This section, referencing the DEIR, was included in recognition that environmental impacts not only
need to be disclosed and mitigated per CEQA, but also may play a role in evaluating the Proposed
Project and build alternatives.
The Proposed Project and build alternatives would result in several potentially significant impacts.
Most of the impacts identified would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. However, either project or cumulative
impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the following areas:
• Transportation (permanent impacts for the Proposed Project, DMU Alternative / EMU
Option, Express Bus / BRT Alternative, and Enhanced Bus Alternative);
• Land Use and Agricultural Resources (permanent impacts for the Proposed Project and DMU
Alternative / EMU Option);
• Visual Quality (permanent impacts for the Proposed Project, DMU Alternative / EMU Option,
and Express Bus / BRT Alternative);
• Cultural Resources (permanent impact for the Proposed Project, DMU Alternative / EMU
Option, Express Bus / BRT Alternative, and Enhanced Bus Alternative);
• Biological Resources (permanent impact for the Proposed Project and DMU Alternative /
EMU Option);
• Air Quality (temporary construction and permanent impacts for the Proposed Project, DMU
Alternative / EMU Option, and Express Bus / BRT Alternative); and
• Energy (permanent impact for the Enhanced Bus Alternative only).
Appendix B provides details on individual impacts and mitigation measures. The BART to
Livermore Project Extension EIR may also be consulted for further details on environmental impacts.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
45
5.2 Equity Assessment
Although not an evaluation category in the BSEP nor mentioned in the BART to Livermore project
goals, equity is nonetheless an important consideration, and BART has a written environmental
justice policy that outlines its commitment “to taking reasonable steps in order to ensure equitable
public transportation service.” Accordingly, an assessment focused on equity was undertaken.
Equity is measured by impacts on environmental justice populations (minority, low-income, and
limited English proficiency households). Table 10 provides definitions of these populations.
Table 10 – Environmental Justice Populations
Environmental Justice Population Description
Low-income households Households with an income of less than $40,000 per year according to the
2015 Census, American Community Survey.
Minority population Minority population, or a person who is black, Hispanic or Latino, Asian
American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian and other
Pacific Islander according to the 2015 Census, American Community Survey.
Limited English proficiency
households
Households with limited English proficiency according to the 2015 Census,
American Community Survey.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
46
5.2.1 Impacts
An evaluation of the impacts of the Proposed Project and build alternatives on environmental
justice populations is presented below. It uses a geographic information systems (GIS) platform to
analyze project area populations within a ½-mile on either side of the Proposed Project and build
alternatives, with the exception of the Enhanced Bus Alternative, which does not include major
infrastructure that would substantially change the existing condition of the surrounding
environment.
Figure 5 identifies Census block groups with a large low-income percentage and Figure 6
identifies Census block groups with a large minority percentage. Six of 17 block groups within the
½-mile buffer have minority populations greater than the BART service area average. No block
groups have low-income populations greater than the BART service area average. In addition, this
analysis identifies Census tracts 13 in the study area with percentages of people with limited English
proficiency greater than the BART Service Area average. As shown in Figure 7, one Census tract
exceeded the BART service area average and one nearly equals but is slightly lower than the
average.
The following impact categories were investigated, using the DEIR as the source:
• Transportation;
• Community;
• Visual and Aesthetic;
• Noise and Vibration;
• Relocations;
• Air Quality; and
• Construction Effects.
The Proposed Project and build alternatives, with the exception of the Enhanced Bus Alternative 14,
are each expected to have some community, noise, visual, relocation, and air quality impacts on
affected populations, which include minority and low-income individuals. Many of these are
addressed through mitigations included in the DEIR. Importantly, it was found that with mitigations
included, neither the Proposed Project nor the build alternatives would have environmental impacts
with a high or disproportionate 15 effect on environmental justice populations.
Based on these conclusions, there is no practical difference between the Proposed Project and build
alternatives in terms of impacts to environmental justice population
13 Unlike for racial/ethnic and household economic data, the data concerning languages is not available at the block group level.
14 The Enhanced Bus Alternative would implement only modest changes to existing conditions in the study area, such as bus bulbs and bus stop
shelters, but would not involve construction of any major transit infrastructure. For these reasons, it would not have high or disproportionate impacts
to environmental justice populations.
15 A disproportionate effect would impact environmental justice groups more than other populations.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
47
Figure 5 – Low-Income Population within ½ Mile Buffer of Proposed Project
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
48
Figure 6 – Minority Population within ½ Mile Buffer of Proposed Project
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
49
Figure 7 – Limited English Proficiency Population Within ½ Mile Buffer
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
50
5.3 MTC Performance Assessment
A full assessment per MTC’s Plan Bay Area project performance assessment process was not
conducted as part of this Evaluation Report. However, as it is a required step for accessing
discretionary regional funding, possible outcomes in this process for the Proposed Project or build
alternatives are discussed below.
Transportation projects in MTC’s Plan Bay Area 2040 with total project costs greater than $100
million and desiring discretionary regional funding were subject to MTC’s project performance
assessment process. The BART to Livermore Extension Project is included in Plan Bay Area 2040.
However, because BART has not yet adopted the Proposed Project or one of the alternatives, the
Livermore Extension Project was not included in the Plan Bay Area 2040 project performance
assessment. Should BART adopt the Proposed Project or the DMU Alternative / EMU Option and
desire discretionary regional funding to design and construct it, the adopted project would be
subject to MTC’s project performance assessment project (assuming MTC continues to use this
process to prioritize discretionary regional funding in future updates to Plan Bay Area). The Express
Bus / BRT Alternative and the Enhanced Bus Alternative are fully funded and would not be subject
to this project performance assessment, which is required only for projects seeking discretionary
regional funding.
The Plan Bay Area 2040 project performance assessment was conducted using qualitative and
quantitative metrics. The targets assessment (qualitative) evaluated the extent to which a project
supports the region’s ability to meet the targets in Plan Bay Area 2040. The benefit-cost assessment
(quantitative) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of each project. Benefits included travel time, travel
time reliability, travel cost, air pollution, collisions, noise and health. Relative to other projects
seeking regional discretionary funding, high-performing projects would have both a high targets
score and a high benefit-cost ratio. In addition, MTC used a qualitative approach to identify the
project’s level of support for communities of concern and confirmed that the process provides
access to residents of the affected community. Some low-performing projects were included in Plan
Bay Area 2040 under the compelling case process, which required project sponsors to document
that either: 1) the travel model used to quantify benefits did not adequately capture project
benefits; 2) the project was a cost-effective means of reducing CO2, PM, ozone precursor emission;
or 3) the project improved transportation mobility/reduces air toxics and PM emissions in
communities of concern.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
51
5.4 MTC Resolution 3434 TOD Policy
Although this policy does not apply to the BART to Livermore Extension project, it is an established
regional method of assessing whether transit investments are occurring in corridors with existing
and planned TOD. Therefore, it is instructive to assess how it would theoretically apply to a BART to
Livermore extension.
Resolution 3434, adopted in 2001, set forth MTC’s regional transit expansion program of projects.
The resolution was amended in 2005 to condition these transit expansion projects on supportive
land use policies and further amended in 2007 to reflect changes in the TOD policy.
This TOD policy includes three elements:
1. Corridor-level development thresholds around transit stations;
2. Local station area plans; and
3. Corridor working groups.
Corridor development thresholds are focused on existing and planned housing and shown in Table
11. The total number of existing and planned housing units within ½ mile of new stations and the
existing end station must meet the appropriate threshold multiplied by the number of stations. As
an example, the BART to Livermore Proposed Project would require 7,700 units, or the BART
housing threshold multiplied by two stations (Dublin/Pleasanton and Isabel). New below-market
housing counts as 1.5 units for this calculation. As indicated in Table 11, the Proposed Project and
DMU Alternative / EMU Option would meet the housing target.
Table 11 – Resolution 3434 TOD Policy Housing Thresholds
Dublin/Pleasanton Station Isabel Station Average
for both
Stations
(2040)
MTC
Target
Target
Satisfied Existing
(2015)
Future
(2040)
Existing
(2015)
Future
(2040)
Conventional
BART Project
(BART)
924 5,003 565 4,831 4,917 3,850 Yes
DMU
Alternative
(Commuter
Rail)
924 5,003 565 4,831 4,917 2,200 Yes
EMU Option
(Light Rail)
924 5,003 565 4,831 4,917 3,300 Yes
Note: MTC = Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The Express Bus/BRT Alternative and Enhanced Bus Alternative are not shown because neither
of those alternatives physically extends the transit system.
The DMU Alternative is classified as a Commuter Rail project type based on MTC’s classification of the East Contra Costa County BART extension as
Commuter Rail. The DMU Alternative is similar to the East Contra Costa County BART extension, as both entail the operation of DMU vehicles in the
median of a freeway.
Sources:
Housing units within ½ mile of the Dublin/Pleasanton Station (Existing and planned): CD+A, 2015.
Housing units within ½ mile of the proposed Isabel Station (Existing): CD+A, 2015.
Housing units within ½ mile of the proposed Isabel Station (Proposed): Szydlik, 2017.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
52
Under Resolution 3434, station area plans must be initiated by the local jurisdiction according to
guidelines established in MTC’s Station Area Planning Manual. The INP is the station area plan that
is associated with the Proposed Project; however, as stated earlier, compliance of the INP with
Resolution 3434 TOD policy or MTC guidelines is not required because BART to Livermore is not a
designated Resolution 3434 transit extension.
Similarly, a Resolution 3434 corridor working group is not required for the BART to Livermore
project, but the City of Livermore and BART have been coordinating their respective transit
expansion and TOD planning efforts.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Appendix A – Project and Cumulative Results for the Proposed
Project and Build Alternatives
This appendix provides the results for a comprehensive set of metrics that were assessed under the
project and cumulative scenarios for the Proposed Project and build alternatives.
The project scenario assumes only background growth consistent with regional growth
projections.16 The cumulative scenario also considers effects of probable future projects. Most
significant of these are the Dublin/Pleasanton Station Parking Expansion, and the Isabel
Neighborhood Plan (INP).
The Dublin/Pleasanton Station Parking Expansion would increase the total available parking spaces
at that station from 2,890 to 3,430.17
The City of Livermore is preparing the INP to guide future development around a potential Isabel
Station. The draft plan consists of a mixed-use development with over 4,000 residential units, 1.6
million square feet of office space, and other commercial uses. The INP is being developed by the
City of Livermore only for the Proposed Project. For the purposes of evaluation only, BART is
assuming the INP would apply to the DMU Alternative / EMU Option. The City of Livermore has
indicated this would reasonably characterize the maximum amount of development around the
Isabel station under this alternative. The INP does not apply to the Express Bus / BRT Alternative
because it does not include a new station, nor for the Enhanced Bus Alternative, which consists of
minor bus infrastructure improvements.
16 From Plan Bay Area and SJCOG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
17 BART has expanded its consideration to include a variety of parking strategies to increase parking near the Dublin/Pleasanton and West
Dublin/Pleasanton station. The results in this report are not substantially affected by the use of alternative parking strategies.
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Ridership Development Plan/Market Demand
Net New BART Systemwide Boardings
BART Average
Weekday Increase
N/A 11,900 7,000 3,500 400
Source: EIR, Project Merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Net New Transit Trips (BART and all other transit)
Transit Average
Weekday Increase
N/A 10,100 6,200 3,400 600
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 43, Table 18
Change in Systemwide Transit Boardings (other transit)
Systemwide Average
Weekday Boardings
for ACE
N/A (1,400) (900) (400) (100)
Systemwide Average
Weekday Boardings
for LAVTA
N/A (400) 200 2,200 500
Systemwide Average
Weekday Boardings
for SJRTD
N/A (290) (290) (260) -
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 43, Table 18
Ridership Threshold
Number Calculated
Using Isabel Station
Boardings and
Alightings, ranking
based on BART SE
Policy
N/A Medium-High Low-Medium N/A N/A
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 41, Figure 30, BART System Expansion Policy, page 18
Station Context (qualitative assessment)
Transit-Orientated
Development
Potential and Patron
Station Experience
N/A Low Low N/A N/A
Source: BART System Expansion Policy, page 19
Tri-Valley BART Station Daily Boarding
West Dublin
Pleasanton Station
Daily Boarding
3,400 3,600 3,500 3,400 3,500
Dublin Pleasanton
Station Daily
Boarding
10,800 9,000 9,800 12,700 10,900
Isabel Station Daily
Boarding
N/A 8,100 4,800 N/A N/A
All Stations Daily
Boarding
14,200 20,700 18,100 16,100 14,400
Source: EIR, transportation page 293, Figure 3.B-22
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Regional Network Connectivity
Regional transportation gap closure (qualitative assessment)
Alternative closes a
major regional
transportation gap
N/A Low Low Low Low
Note: Metric from BART System Expansion Policy, page 22
Cost
Total capital
Total capital (2016
dollars)
N/A $1,329,000,000 $1,300,000,000 /
$1,353,000,000
$305,000,000 $21,000,000
Source: EIR, executive summary page 16, Table S-2
Total capital (YOE
dollars)
N/A $1,635,000,000 $1,599,000,000/
$1,665,000,000
$376,000,000 $25,000,000
Source: EIR, executive summary page 16, Table S-2
Annual O&M
2016 dollars N/A $22,800,000 $16,800,000/
$16,600,000
$3,000,000 $1,700,000
Source: EIR, executive summary page 17, Table S-3
Annual O&M Net of Fares
Annual Rail O&M
Net of Rail Fares
Cost 2016$
N/A $410,000 $2,708,000 /
$2,534,000
-$4,034,000 -$474,000
Annual Rail+Bus
O&M Net of Rail +
Bus Fares 2016$
N/A $2,643,000 $4,716,000 /
$4,542,000
-$2,822,000 $1,039,000
Note: Annualization factor for revenue to daily X 290 days
Annualized Replace and Rehab Cost
2016 dollars N/A $21,062,000 $18,817,000 /
$19,395,000
$5,091,000 $330,000
Source: Arup, Cost Team
Note: This cost does not include capital cost
Annualized Lifecycle Costs
2016 dollars N/A $70,963,000 $62,117,000 /
$63,607,000
$14,318,000 $2,464,000
Source: Arup, Cost Team
Note: Lifecycle costs include capital cost + replace and rehab cost + operation and maintenance cost
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Cost-Effectiveness
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Farebox Recovery
Rail 2040 (2016
dollars)
N/A 98% 82% / 83% 379% 1857%
Farebox Recovery
Rail+Bus 2040 (2016
dollars)
N/A 88% 72% / 73% 193% 40%
Source: Arup, based on revenue and O&M costs
Lifecycle Costs per New BART Boarding in 2040
Lifecycle Cost per net
new Annual BART
Boardings 2016 $
N/A $20.56 $30.60 / $31.33 $14.11 $21.24
Note: Lifecycle cost +Replacement Cost + O&M Cost/ Annual BART Boardings
Costs Net of Fares per New BART Boarding in 2040
Cost Net of Fares per
net new Annual
BART Boardings
2016 $
N/A $14.56 $24.60 / $25.33 $8.11 $15.24
Cost per Rider: Base Case
N/A Medium Medium /
Medium
Medium High Medium
Note: Metric from BART System Expansion Policy, page 20. Number adjusted from 2002 dollars to 2016 dollars
Annual O&M cost per Net New BART Boarding in 2040
N/A $6.61 $8.28 / $8.18 $2.96 $14.66
System and Financial Capacity
Enhances or minimizes demand on core system - Qualitative assessment:
Yard/Support
Facilities
N/A High Medium Medium Medium
Redundancy/Recover
y Capabilities
N/A Medium Low Low Low
Station and Line
Haul Capacity
N/A Medium Medium Medium Medium
Combined Summary
Rating:
N/A Medium High Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Capital finance plan (qualitative)
Fully Funded Project N/A Not Fully Funded Not Fully
Funded
Fully Funded Fully Funded
Stability, Reliability
and Availability of
proposed Funding
Sources
N/A High High High High
Sources not
competing for BART
System renovation
and Core System
Capacity needs
N/A High High High High
Combined Summary
Rating:
N/A Medium Medium High High
Operating finance plan (qualitative) Special fleet/maintenance requirements
N/A High High High Medium
Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
Existing Densities
Residential N/A Low Low Low Low
Employment N/A Low Low Low Low
Source: BLVX Model, Cambridge Systematics
Existing Intermodal Connections
Pedestrian N/A Low Low Low-Medium Low-Medium
Bicycle N/A Low Low Low-Medium Low-Medium
Transit N/A Low Low Medium Medium
Land Use Plans and Policies
Low
Medium
Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium
Note: Metric from BART System Expansion Policy, page 26
Parking Supply
Net New Parking
Spaces
N/A 3,412 2,428 230 0
Source: EIR, project description page 80, Table 2-1
Tri- Valley BART Station Average Access Mode Share
Drive and Park 43% 50% 46% 38% 42%
Other 57% 50% 54% 62% 58%
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Traveller Experience
In Vehicle Crowding
Red line: 106 (116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113
(112)
Blue line: 112 (115)
Orange line: 88 (96)
Tube: 108 (108)
Red line: 106 (116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113 (112)
Blue line: 105 (109)
Orange line: 90 (98)
Tube: 107 (107)
Red line: 106
(116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113
(112)
Blue line: 101
(104)
Orange line: 89
(97)
Tube: 106 (106)
Red line: 106 (116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113
(112)
Blue line: 98 (100)
Orange line: 88 (96)
Tube: 106 (106)
Red line: 106
(116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113
(112)
Blue line: 113
(115)
Orange line: 88
(96)
Tube: 108 (108)
Source: Appendix B BART BLVX Operstat - 2040 spreadsheet
Service Reliability
N/A High High Medium Low
Environmental
GHG Emission Reduction
reduction in metric
tons of CO2
equivalents/year
No Impact 11,200 3,500/ 6,000 3,700 No Benefit
Source: EIR, project merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Air Quality
Construction Impacts No No No No No
Operational Impacts Yes No No No No
Source: EIR, air quality, page 1128, Table 3.K-7 and Table 3.K-8
Energy Usage Reduction
Regional Energy
Consumption (million
British Thermal
Units/ year)
No Impact 130,800 35,000/ 66,500 56,800 No Benefit
Source: EIR, project merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Permanent Impact to Sensitive Habitat
acres No Impact approx. 400 acres
mitigation required.
approx. 250
acres mitigation
required.
Approx. 7 acres
mitigation required.
No Impact
Source: EIR, Biological resources page 881, Table 3.I-8
Permanent Impact to Waters/Wetlands
acres No Impact 0.7 acres mitigation
required
0.7 acres
mitigation
required
0.5 acres mitigation
required
No Impact
Source: EIR, Biological resources page 881, Table 3.I-8
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Construction Noise
Exceeds one or more
noise threshold
during construction
(after mitigation)
No Impact No No No No
Source: EIR, Noise and Vibrations page 987, Table J-11
Operations Noise
Exceeds one or more
noise threshold
during operations
(after mitigation)
No Impact No No No No
Source: EIR, Noise and Vibrations page 985, Table J-11
Impact to Viewsheds
No Impact Significant and
Unavoidable, Highest
Impact Among
Alternatives
Significant and
Unavoidable,
Highest Impact
Among
Alternatives
Significant and
Unavoidable, Less
of an Impact
compared to BART
and DMU
Alternative
No Impact
Source: EIR, Visual Quality page 582, Table 3.E-1
Community Impacts
ROW impacts
Acres (not including
BART property)
No Impact 147 102 10 No Impact
Source: EIR, executive summary page 7, Table S-1
Equity
Number of Low Income Households within Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Minority Population within Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Number of Limited English Proficiency Households within Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Impacts on Protected Populations
Potentially High and
Disproportionate
Impacts
None None None None None
Source: Environmental Justice Technical Report BART to Livermore Extension Project, Parsons, 2017
Roadway
Reduction in Regional Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
Average Weekday
VMT Reduction
N/A 244,000 140,600 92,600 6,500
Source: EIR, executive summary page 20, Table S-4
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Congestion (Change in AM peak Hour Delay in Seconds)
Traffic Delay at
Isabel Ave & Airway
Blvd (no mitigation
proposed)
N/A 24 11 0 0
Traffic Delay at
Dublin Blvd &
Tassajara Dr (no
mitigation proposed)
N/A -10 -3 0 0
Traffic Delay at
Dougherty Rd &
Amador Valley Rd
(Incl. mitigation)
N/A See Note See Note See Note See Note
Traffic Delay at
Hopyard Rd &
Owens Rd (no AM
mitigation proposed)
N/A 3 1 0 0
Source: EIR, Transportation page 433, table 3.B-69, Arup Synchro Results Master Spreadsheet
Note: Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road Delay not calculated with mitigation, Mitigation = EBR overlap phase in AM; mitigated calculated
for worst case only (Conventional BART alternative, cumulative scenario). Other alternatives will have no significant impact after mitigation.
Traffic Volume (Change in AM peak Hour Volume)
Dublin Blvd east of
Fallon Rd
N/A EB: - 10
WB: - 460
EB: - 10
WB: - 150
EB: - 10
WB: 50
EB: 0
WB: -20
Airway Blvd west of
Isabel Ave
N/A EB: 300
WB: 10
EB: 160
WB: 30
EB: 20
WB: 0
EB: -20
WB: 10
Airway Blvd east of
Isabel Ave
N/A EB: 980
WB: 140
EB: 760
WB: 140
EB: 0
WB: 0
EB: 0
WB: 0
Dougherty north of
Dublin Blvd
N/A NB: 70
SB: 280
NB: 40
SB: 200
NB: 10
SB: 20
NB: 0
SB: 10
Source: EIR Synchro Model
Highway Volume (Change in AM Westbound peak hour volumes)
I-580 East of
Greenville Road at
Livermore Border
N/A 173 122 36 32
I-580 at the Dublin-
Livermore Border
(between Fallon and
Airway)
N/A -254 -196 1 19
Source: EIR, Appendix F2 pages 1890 - 1905
Project Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Screenline Volumes
Screenline 1
(Livermore West
Boarder)
N/A -1017 -529 -47 -12
Screenline 2
(Livermore East
Border)
N/A 311 234 -11 -5
Note: Screenline 1: Change in peak hour WB volumes at Livermore West Border (I-580, Dublin Blvd, Stanley, Jack London, Vineyard Ave, Route
84); Screenline 2: Change in peak hour WB volumes on Livermore East Border (I-580, Altamont Pass, Patterson Pass Rd, Tesla Rd) Source: BLVX
Model, Cambridge Systematics
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Ridership Development Plan/ Market Demand
Net New BART Systemwide Boardings
BART Average
Weekday Increase
N/A 13,400 8,300 4,800 1,800
Source: EIR, Project Merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Net New Transit Trips
Transit Average
Weekday Increase
N/A 12,400 8,100 4,500 1,500
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 43, Table 18
Change in Systemwide Transit Boardings – other transit
Systemwide
Average Weekday
Systemwide
Boardings for
ACE
N/A (1,400) (1,000) (500) (200)
Systemwide
Average Weekday
Systemwide
Boardings for
LAVTA
N/A 700 1,000 2,000 (100)
Systemwide
Average Weekday
Systemwide
Boardings for
SJRTD
N/A (290) (290) (270) -
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 43, Table 18
Ridership threshold
Isabel Station
Boardings and
Alightings
Threshold
N/A Medium-High Low-Medium N/A N/A
Note: Ranking based on BART SE Policy
Source: BART to Livermore Ridership Projection, Cambridge Systematics, page 41, Figure 30, BART System Expansion Policy, page 18
Station Context (qualitative assessment)
Transit-
Orientated
Development
Potential and
Patron Station
Experience
N/A Low Low N/A N/A
Source: BART System Expansion Policy, page 19
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Tri-Valley BART Station Daily Boarding:
West Dublin
Pleasanton
Station Daily
Boarding
3,400 3,600 3,500 3,500 3,500
Dublin
Pleasanton
Station Daily
Boarding
10,800 10,000 10,500 13,300 11,600
Isabel Station
Daily Boarding
N/A 7,900 4,700 N/A N/A
All Stations Daily
Boarding
14,200 21,500 18,700 16,800 15,100
Source: EIR, transportation page 293, Figure 3.B-22
Regional Network Connectivity
Regional transportation gap closure (qualitative assessment)
Alternative closes
a major regional
transportation
gap
N/A Low Low Low Low
Source: BART System Expansion Policy, page 22
Cost
Total capital
Total capital
(2016 dollars)
N/A $1,329,000,000 $1,300,000,000 /
$1,353,000,000
$305,000,000 $21,000,000
Total capital
(YOE dollars)
N/A $1,635,000,000 $1,599,000,000 /
$1,665,000,000
$376,000,000 $25,000,000
Source: EIR, executive summary page 16, Table S-2
Annual O&M
2016 dollars N/A $22,800,000 $16,800,000 /
$16,600,000
$3,000,000 $1,700,000
Source: EIR, executive summary page 17, Table S-3
Annual O&M Net of Fares
Annual Rail O&M
Net of Rail Fares
Cost
N/A -$2,151,000 $650,000 /
$476,000
-$6,183,000 -$2,689,000
Annual Rail+Bus
O&M Net of Rail
+ Bus Fares
N/A -$329,000 $2,360,000 /
$2,186,000
-$4,880,000 -$952,000
Note: Annualization factor for revenue to daily X 290 days
Annualized Replacement and Rehabilitation Cost
2016 dollars N/A $21,062,000 $18,817,000 /
$19,395,000
$5,091,000 $330,000
Note: cost does not include capital cost
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Annualized Lifecycle Costs
2016 dollars N/A $70,963,000 $62,117,000 /
$63,607,000
$14,318,000 $2,464,000
Note: Lifecycle costs include capital cost + replace and rehab cost + operation and maintenance cost
Cost-Effectiveness
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Farebox Recovery
Rail 2040 (2016
dollars)
N/A 110% 96% / 97% 528% 10060%
Farebox Recovery
Rail+Bus 2040
(2016 dollars)
N/A 101% 86% / 87% 260% 155%
Source: Arup calculation based on revenue and O&M costs
Lifecycle Costs per New BART Boarding in 2040
Lifecycle Cost per
net new Annual
BART Boardings
2016 $
N/A $18.26 $25.81 / $26.43 $10.29 $4.72
Note: Lifecycle cost +Replacement Cost + O&M Cost/ Annual BART Boardings
Costs Net of Fares per New BART Boarding in 2040
Cost Net of Fares
per net new
Annual BART
Boardings 2016 $
N/A $12.26 $19.81 / $20.43 $4.29 -$1.28
Cost per Rider: with TOD
N/A Medium-High Medium/
Medium
N/A N/A
Note: BART System Expansion Policy, page 20. Number adjusted from 2002 dollars to 2016 dollars
Annual O&M cost per Net New BART Boarding in 2040
N/A $5.87 $6.98 / $6.90 $2.16 $3.26
System and Financial Capacity
Enhances or minimizes demand on core system - Qualitative assessment:
Yard/Support
Facilities
N/A High Medium Medium Medium
Redundancy/Reco
very Capabilities
N/A Medium Low Low Low
Station and Line
Haul Capacity
N/A Medium Medium Medium Medium
Combined
Summary Rating:
N/A Medium High Low Medium Low Medium Low Medium
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Capital finance plan (qualitative)
Fully Funded
Project
N/A Not Fully Funded Not Fully
Funded
Fully Funded Fully Funded
Stability,
Reliability and
Availability of
proposed Funding
Sources
N/A High High High High
Sources not
competing for
BART System
renovation and
Core System
Capacity needs
N/A High High High High
Combined
Summary Rating:
N/A Medium Medium High High
Operating finance plan (qualitative) Special fleet/maintenance requirements
N/A High High High Medium
Transit Supportive Land Use and Access
Existing Densities
Residential N/A Low Low Low Low
Employment N/A Low Low Low Low
Source: BLVX Model, Cambridge Systematics
Existing Intermodal Connections
Pedestrian N/A Low Low Low-Medium Low-Medium
Bicycle N/A Low Low Low-Medium Low-Medium
Transit N/A Low Low Medium Medium
Land Use Plans and Policies
Low Medium Medium-High Medium Low-Medium Low-Medium
Note: Metric from BART System Expansion Policy, page 26
Parking Supply
Net New Parking
Spaces
N/A 3,952 2,968 770 540
Source: EIR, project Description page 80, Table 2-1
Tri- Valley BART Station Average Access Mode Share
Drive and Park 43% 49% 46% 41% 46%
Other 57% 51% 54% 59% 54%
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Traveller Experience
In Vehicle Crowding
Peak Hour
Load/car at max
load point AM
(PM)
Red line: 106
(116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113
(112)
Blue line: 112
(115)
Orange line: 88
(96)
Tube: 108 (108)
Red line: 106 (116)
Yellow line: 109
(103)
Green line: 113 (112)
Blue line: 108 (112)
Orange line: 90 (98)
Tube: 108 (108)
NA NA NA
Source: "Appendix B BART BLVX Operstat - 2040" spreadsheet
Service Reliability
N/A High High Medium Low
Environmental
GHG Emission Reduction
reduction in
metric tons of
CO2
equivalents/year
No Impact 11,200 3,500/ 6,000 3,700 No Benefit
Source: EIR, project merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Air Quality
Construction
Impacts
No Yes Yes No No
Operational
Impacts
Yes Yes Yes No No
Source: EIR, air quality, page 1128, Table 3.K-7 and 3.K-8
Energy Usage Reduction
Regional Energy
Consumption
(million British
Thermal Units/
year)
No Impact 155,900 55,900 / 87,500 74,600 9,600
Source: EIR, project merits page 1495, Table 5-1
Permanent Impact to Sensitive Habitat
acres No Impact approx. 400 acres
mitigation required.
approx. 250
acres mitigation
required.
Approx. 7 acres
mitigation
required.
No Impact
Source: EIR, Biological resources page 881, Table 3.1-8
Permanent Impact to Waters/Wetlands
acres No Impact 0.7 acres mitigation
required
0.7 acres
mitigation
required
0.5 acres mitigation
required
No Impact
Source: EIR, Biological resources page 881, Table 3.I-8
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Construction Noise
Exceeds one or
more noise
threshold during
construction
(after mitigation)
No Impact No No No No
Source: EIR, Noise and Vibrations page 987, Table J-11
Operations Noise
Exceeds one or
more noise
threshold during
operations (after
mitigation)
No Impact No No No No
Source: EIR, Noise and Vibrations page 985, Table J-11
Impact to Viewsheds
No Impact Significant and
Unavoidable, Highest
Impact Among
Alternatives
Significant and
Unavoidable,
Highest Impact
Among
Alternatives
Significant and
Unavoidable, Less
of an Impact
compared to BART
and DMU
Alternative
No Impact
Source: EIR, Visual Quality page 582, Table 3.E-1
Community Impacts
ROW Impacts
acres (not
including BART
property)
No Impact 147 102 10 No Impact
Source: EIR, executive summary page 7, Table S-1
Equity
Number of Low Income Households within Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Minority Population with Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Number of Limited English Proficiency Households within Transit Catchment
See Map See Map See Map See Map See Map
Impacts on Protected Populations
Potentially High
and
Disproportionate
Impacts
None None None None None
Source: Source: Environmental Justice Technical Report BART to Livermore Extension Project, Parsons, 2017
Roadway
Reduction in Regional Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
Average Weekday
VMT Reduction
N/A 272,700 164,500 112,900 26,800
Source: EIR, executive summary page 20, Table S-4
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Congestion (Change in AM peak Hour Delay in Seconds)
Traffic Delay at
Isabel Ave &
Airway Blvd (no
mitigation
proposed)
N/A 43 29 0 0
Traffic Delay at
Dublin Blvd &
Tassajara Dr (no
mitigation
proposed)
N/A -5 -4 0 0
Traffic Delay at
Dougherty Rd &
Amador Valley Rd
(Incl. mitigation)
N/A -7 see note see note see note
Traffic Delay at
Hopyard Rd &
Owens Rd (no
AM mitigation
proposed)
N/A -4 -4 -6 -7
Source: EIR, Transportation page 433, table 3.B-69, Arup Synchro Results Master Spreadsheet
Note: Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Road Delay not calculated with mitigation, Mitigation = EBR overlap phase in AM; mitigated
calculated for worst case only (Conventional BART alternative, cumulative scenario). Other alternatives will have no significant impact after
mitigation.
Traffic Volume (Change in AM peak Hour Volume)
Dublin Blvd east
of Fallon Rd
N/A EB: 10
WB: -300
EB: 10
WB: -240
EB: 0
WB: -10
EB: 10
WB: -10
Airway Blvd west
of Isabel Ave
N/A EB: 380
WB: 70
EB: 280
WB: 70
EB: -10
WB: 10
EB: -20
WB: 10
Airway Blvd east
of Isabel Ave
N/A EB: 670
WB: 250
EB: 670
WB: 180
EB: 0
WB: 0
EB: 0
WB: 20
Dougherty north
of Dublin Blvd
N/A NB: 60
SB: 310
NB: 40
SB: 250
NB: 10
SB: 30
NB: 10
SB: 40
Source: EIR Synchro Model, Arup
Highway Volume (Change in AM Westbound peak hour volumes)
I-580 East of
Greenville Road
at Livermore
Border
N/A 264 172 35 32
I-580 at the
Dublin-Livermore
Border (between
Fallon and
Airway)
N/A -253 -139 24 19
Source: EIR, Appendix F2 pages 1890 - 1905
Cumulative Scenario Results 2040
Metric No Project Proposed Project -
Conventional BART
DMU/EMU
Alternative
Express Bus/BRT
Alternative
Enhanced Bus
Alternative
Screenline Volumes
Screenline 1
(Livermore West
Boarder)
N/A -556 -505 26 30
Screenline 2
(Livermore East
Border)
N/A 474 405 19 16
Note: Screenline 1: Change in peak hour WB volumes at Livermore West Border (I-580, Dublin Blvd, Stanley, Jack London, Vineyard Ave,
Route 84); Screenline 2: Change in peak hour WB volumes on Livermore East Border (I-580, Altamont Pass, Patterson Pass Rd, Tesla Rd)
Source: BLVX Model, Cambridge Systematics
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Appendix B – Summary of Significant Impacts – BART to Livermore
Extension Draft Project EIR
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
27
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
3.B TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRAN-1: Result in a
significant delay, safety hazard,
or diminished access during
construction
Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: Develop and
Implement a Construction Phasing and
Traffic Management Plan
LSM
Impact TRAN-3: General-purpose
lane freeway segments operating
at unacceptable LOS, under 2025
Project Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
Impact TRAN-4: General-purpose
lane freeway segments operating
at unacceptable LOS, under 2040
Project Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
Impact TRAN-5: HOV/express
lane freeway segments operating
at unacceptable LOS, under 2025
Project Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
28
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact TRAN-7: Intersections
operating at unacceptable LOS,
under 2025 Project Conditions
Mitigation Measure TRAN-7a:
Improvements for Intersections #2, #5, #39,
and #48 under 2025 Project Conditions
(Conventional BART Project )
Mitigation Measure TRAN-7b:
Improvements for Intersections #2, #5, and
#48 under 2025 Project Conditions
(DMU Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-7c:
Improvements for Intersection #48 under
2025 Project Conditions
(Express Bus/BRT Alternative)
LSM
(Express Bus/BRT
Alternative)
SU
(Conventional BART
and DMU
Alternative/EMU
Option)
Impact TRAN-8: Intersections
operating at unacceptable LOS,
under 2040 Project Conditions
Mitigation Measure TRAN-8a:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #5,
#35, #39, #45, #48, and #50 under 2040
Project Conditions
(Conventional BART Project)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-8b:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #5,
and #48 under 2040 Project Conditions
(DMU Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-8c:
Improvements for Intersection #5 under
2040 Project Conditions
(Express Bus/BRT Alternative)
SU
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
29
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact TRAN-16(CU): General-
purpose lane freeway segments
operating at unacceptable LOS,
under 2040 Cumulative
Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
Impact TRAN-19(CU):
Intersections operating at
unacceptable LOS, under 2025
Cumulative Conditions
Mitigation Measure TRAN-19a:
Improvements for Intersections #5, #38,
#39, and #48 under 2025 Cumulative
Conditions
(Conventional BART Project)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-19b:
Improvements for Intersections #2, #5, #48,
and #50 under 2025 Cumulative Conditions
(DMU Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-19c:
Improvements for Intersection #2 under
2025 Cumulative Conditions
(Express Bus/BRT Alternative)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-19d:
Improvements for Intersection #48 and #50
under 2025 Cumulative Conditions
(Enhanced Bus Alternative)
LSM
(Express Bus/BRT
Alternative and
Enhanced Bus
Alternative)
SU
(Conventional BART
and DMU
Alternative/EMU
Option)
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
30
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact TRAN-20(CU):
Intersections operating at
unacceptable LOS, under 2040
Cumulative Conditions
Mitigation Measure TRAN-20a:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #17,
#35, #38, #39, #45, #48, and #50 under
2040 Cumulative Conditions
(Conventional BART Project)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-20b:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #5,
#17, #35, #39, #48, and #50 under 2040
Cumulative Conditions
(DMU Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-20c:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #5,
and #50 under 2040 Cumulative Conditions
(Express Bus/BRT Alternative)
Mitigation Measure TRAN-20d:
Improvements for Intersections #1, #2, #5,
#17, and #50 under 2040 Cumulative
Conditions
(Enhanced Bus Alternative)
SU
3.C LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact AG-1: Directly convert
Farmland Mitigation Measure AG-1: Provide
Compensatory Farmland under Permanent
Protection
SU
Impact AG-3: Conflict with
zoning for agricultural use See Mitigation Measure AG-1 (above) SU
Impact AG-5(CU): Convert or
result in conversion of Farmland No feasible mitigation measures SU
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
31
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
3.D POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact PH-2: Displace
substantial numbers of existing
housing or people necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere
Mitigation Measure PH-2: Acquisition of
Property and Relocation Assistance
LSM
Impact PH-3: Displace
substantial numbers of existing
businesses
See Mitigation Measure PH-2 (above) LSM
3.E VISUAL QUALITY
Impact VQ-1: Substantially
degrade the existing visual
quality or create a new source of
substantial light or glare during
construction
Mitigation Measure VQ-1.A: Visually Screen
Staging Areas
Mitigation Measure VQ-1.B: Minimize Light
Spillover During Construction
LSM
Impact VQ-3: Substantially
degrade the existing visual
quality
Mitigation Measure VQ-3.A: Design Sound
Wall with Architectural Treatments
Mitigation Measure VQ-3.B: Design Parking
Garage with Architectural Treatments
Mitigation Measure VQ-3.C: Screen Storage
and Maintenance Facility
SU
Impact VQ-4: Have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista No feasible mitigation measures SU
Impact VQ-5: Substantially
damage scenic resources within
State scenic highway
Mitigation Measure VQ-5: Revegetate Areas
of Removed Landscaping
SU
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
32
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact VQ-6: Create a new
source of substantial light or
glare
Mitigation Measure VQ-6: Design and
Install Lighting Fixtures to Reduce Spillover
LSM
(Express Bus/BRT
Alternative)
SU
(Conventional BART
and DMU
Alternative/EMU
Option)
Impact VQ-7(CU): Have a
substantial visual impact under
Cumulative Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
3.F CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-2: Cause a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of an
archaeological resource
Mitigation Measure CUL-2.A: Archaeological
Resources Investigation for the Cayetano
Creek Area
(Conventional BART Project and DMU
Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure CUL-2.B: Discovery of
Previously Unknown Archaeological
Resources
(Conventional BART Project, DMU
Alternative/EMU Option, Express Bus/BRT
Alternative, and Enhanced Bus Alternative)
LSM
Impact CUL-3: Disturb any
human remains Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Discovery of
Previously Unknown Human Remains
LSM
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
33
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact CUL-4(CU): Cause a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical
resource, archaeological
resources, or disturb human
remains under Cumulative
Conditions
See Mitigation Measure CUL-2.A, CUL-2.B ,
and CUL-3 (above)
SU
3.G GEOLOGY, SOILS, SEISMICITY, MINERAL, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact PALEO-1: Loss of
paleontological resources Mitigation Measure PALEO-1A: Surface
Paleontological Survey of the Cayetano Creek
Area
(Conventional BART Project and DMU
Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure PALEO-1B:
Paleontological Monitoring
(Conventional BART Project, DMU
Alternative/EMU Option, and Express
Bus/BRT Alternative)
Mitigation Measure PALEO-1C: Discovery of
Previously Unknown Paleontological
Resources
(Conventional BART Project, DMU
Alternative/EMU Option, and Express
Bus/BRT Alternative)
LSM
Impact GEO-5: Fault rupture Mitigation Measure GEO-5: Geotechnical
Investigation of the Cayetano Creek Area
and Development of Project Design Features
LSM
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
34
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
3.H HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HYD-5: Substantially alter
drainage patterns – erosion,
sedimentation, flooding
Mitigation Measure HYD-5: Hydraulic
Capacity for Non-Flood Hazard Area
Crossings
LSM
Impact HYD-9: Impede or
redirect flood flows within a
100-year flood hazard area
Mitigation Measure HYD-9: Floodway
Hydraulic Analysis
LSM
3.I BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Adversely affect
special-status plants, either
directly or through habitat
modifications
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.A: Botanical
Surveys for Areas Not Previously Surveyed
and Refinement of Project Design
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.B: Salvage and
Relocation of Rare Plants that Cannot be
Avoided
LSM
Impact BIO-2: Adversely affect
vernal pool fairy shrimp and
longhorn fairy shrimp
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Consult with
USFWS and Reduce Impacts on Vernal Pool
Invertebrates and Their Habitat in the I-580
Corridor Area (north of Croak Road) and
Cayetano Creek Area
LSM
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
35
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact BIO-3: Adversely affect
California tiger salamander and
California red-legged frog
Mitigation Measure BIO-3.A: Consult with
USFWS, Survey Potential Habitat, and Reduce
Impacts on Special-status Amphibians during
Construction
Mitigation Measure BIO-3.B: Provide
Compensatory Habitat to Mitigate for the
Loss and Disturbance of CTS and CRLF
Habitat
Mitigation Measure BIO-3.C: General
Measures for Biological Resources Protection
during Construction
LSM
Impact BIO-4: Adversely affect
western spadefoot
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Preconstruction
Survey and Avoidance Measures for the
Western Spadefoot
LSM
Impact BIO-5: Adversely affect
western pond turtle Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Preconstruction
Surveys and Relocation of Western Pond
Turtle
LSM
Impact BIO-6: Adversely affect
western burrowing owl Mitigation Measure BIO-6.A:
Preconstruction Surveys for Burrowing Owl
(Conventional BART Project, DMU
Alternative/EMU Option, and Express
Bus/BRT Alternative)
Mitigation Measure BIO-6.B: Off-site
Compensatory Habitat for Burrowing Owl
(Conventional BART Project and DMU
Alternative/EMU Option)
LSM
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
36
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact BIO-7: Adversely affect
nesting raptors and other
nesting birds
Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Identify and
Avoid Active Nesting Birds during Nesting
Season
LSM
Impact BIO-8: Adversely affect
special-status bats Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Preconstruction
Surveys and Avoidance Measures for Pallid
Bat
LSM
Impact BIO-9: Adversely affect
American badger Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Preconstruction
Surveys and Avoidance Measures for
American Badger
LSM
Impact BIO-10: Adversely affect
San Joaquin kit fox Mitigation Measure BIO-10.A:
Preconstruction Surveys and Avoidance
Measures for the San Joaquin Kit Fox
(Conventional BART Project and DMU
Alternative/EMU Option)
Mitigation Measure BIO-10.B: Provide
Compensatory Habitat to Mitigate for the
Loss and Disturbance of San Joaquin Kit Fox
Habitat
(Conventional BART Project and DMU
Alternative/EMU Option)
See Mitigation Measure BIO-3.C above
(Express Bus/BRT Alternative)
LSM
Impact BIO-11: Have a
substantial adverse effect on
State or federally protected
wetlands or waters
Mitigation Measure BIO-11.A: Avoid and
Minimize Impacts to Wetlands, Waters of the
U.S. and/or Waters of the State
Mitigation Measure BIO-11.B:
Compensatory Mitigation for Wetlands,
Waters of the U.S. and/or Waters of the State
LSM
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
37
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact BIO-12: Have a
substantial adverse effect on
riparian habitat or sensitive
natural communities
Mitigation Measure BIO-12.A: Identify and
Avoid Sensitive Natural Communities
Mitigation Measure BIO-12.B: Compensate
for Impacts to CDFW-regulated Sensitive
Upland Plant Communities
LSM
Impact BIO-15: Result in loss of
protected tees identified in local
policies or ordinances
Mitigation Measure BIO-15: Conduct an
Inventory of Protected Trees, Protect Trees
that Remain, and Plant Replacement Trees
LSM
Impact BIO-16(CU): Adversely
affect species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status under Cumulative
Conditions
No additional mitigation measures beyond
those identified for project impacts
SU
3.J NOISE AND VIBRATION
Impact NOI-1: Expose persons to
or generate noise or vibration
levels in excess of standards
during construction
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Limit
Construction Hours and Methods for Pile
Driving and Other Construction Activities
LSM
Impact NOI-5: Result in a
substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels from
roadway realignment and traffic
distribution in the project
vicinity under 2025 Project
Conditions
Mitigation Measure NOI-5: Construct Noise
Barrier along Airway Boulevard
LSM
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
38
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact NOI-6: Result in a
substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels from
roadway realignment and traffic
distribution in the project
vicinity under 2040 Project
Conditions
See Mitigation Measure NOI-5 (above) LSM
Impact NOI-7: Expose persons to
or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels under
2025 and 2040 Project
Conditions
Mitigation Measure NOI-7:
Vibration-Reducing Design Elements
LSM
3.K AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1: Result in
potentially significant, localized
dust-related air quality impacts
during construction
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: BAAQMD
Construction Best Management Practices
LSM
Impact AQ-2: Generate emissions
of NOx, PM, and ROGs exceeding
BAAQMD significance thresholds
during construction
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Construction
Emissions Reduction Plan – for Mitigating
Mass Emissions for NOx
LSM
Impact AQ-3: Generate TAC and
PM 2.5 emissions that result in
health risks above the BAAQMD
significance thresholds during
construction
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Construction
Emissions Reduction Plan – for Mitigating
Cancer Risk
LSM
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
39
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact AQ-7(CU): Generate TAC
and PM 2.5 emissions that result in
health risks above the BAAQMD
significance thresholds during
construction under Cumulative
Conditions
See Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (above) SU
Impact AQ-12: Result in
increased emissions of TACs and
PM 2.5 , resulting in increased
health risk above BAAQMD
significance thresholds under
2040 Project Conditions
Not applicable S
Impact AQ-18(CU): Result in
increased emissions of TACs and
PM 2.5 , resulting in increased
health risk above BAAQMD
significance thresholds under
2025 Cumulative Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures SU
Impact AQ-19(CU): Result in
increased emissions of TACs and
PM 2.5 , resulting in increased
health risk above BAAQMD
significance thresholds under
2040 Cumulative Conditions
No feasible mitigation measures S (No Project
Alternative)
SU (Conventional
BART and DMU
Alternative /EMU
Option)
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
40
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
3.L GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-3: Generate GHG
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, above BAAQMD
significance thresholds, or
conflict with plans, policies, or
regulations that reduce GHG
emissions, under 2025 Project
Conditions
Mitigation Measure GHG-3: Obtain Carbon
Offsets For Bus Emissions
LSM
Impact GHG-4: Generate GHG
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, above BAAQMD
significance thresholds, or
conflict with plans, policies, or
regulations that reduce GHG
emissions, under 2040 Project
Conditions
Not applicable S
Impact GHG-6(CU): Generate
GHG emissions, either directly or
indirectly, above BAAQMD
significance thresholds, or
conflict with plans, policies, or
regulations that reduce GHG
emissions under 2040
Cumulative Conditions
Not applicable S
JULY 2017 BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR
SUMMARY
41
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
3.M ENERGY
Impact EN-3: Result in wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy, under
2025 Project Conditions
Mitigation Measure EN-3: Incorporate
Renewable Energy Features
SU
Impact EN-4: Result in wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy, under
2040 Project Conditions
See Mitigation Measure EN-3 (above) S (No Project
Alternative)
SU (Enhanced Bus
Alternative)
Impact EN-6(CU): Result in
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy, under 2040 Cumulative
Conditions
Not applicable S
3.N PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Impact PHS-1: Create a potential
public or environmental health
hazard; undue potential risk for
health -related accidents; or
result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in
the project area during
construction
Mitigation Measure PHS-1.A: Prepare
Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA, as Necessary
Mitigation Measure PHS-1.B: Soil
Management Plan
Mitigation Measure PHS-1.C: Hazardous
Materials and Hazardous Waste Management
Plan
Mitigation Measure PHS-1.D: Fueling
Procedures during Construction
Mitigation Measure PHS-1.E: Emergency
Response Plan during Construction
LSM
BART TO LIVERMORE EXTENSION PROJECT EIR JULY 2017
SUMMARY
42
TABLE S-5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Impact Summary No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
BA
R
T
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
DM
U
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
EM
U
O
p
t
i
o
n
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
B
u
s
/
B
R
T
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
En
h
a
n
c
e
d
B
u
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Mitigation Measure Title
Impact Significance
after Mitigation
Impact PHS-2: Physically interfere
with an adopted emergency
response or evacuation plan
during construction
See Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 (above) LSM
3.O COMMUNITY SERVICES
Impact CS-1: Need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for
police, fire, and emergency
response during construction
See Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 (above) LSM
3.P UTILITIES
Impact UTIL-1: Substantially
disrupt utility services, including
power, natural gas,
communications, drinking water
supplies, wastewater transport,
or stormwater transport, during
construction activities
UTIL-1.A: Restrict Service Interruptions to
Off-Peak Periods
UTIL-1.B: Arrange Temporary Backup Service
UTIL-1.C: Notify Customers of Service
Interruptions
LSM
Notes: LSM=Less-than-Significant impact with mitigation; S=Significant impact of No Project Alternative (mitigation is inapplicable); SU=Significant and unavoidable, even with
mitigation or no feasible mitigation available.
DMU = diesel multiple unit; EMU = electrical multiple unit; BRT = bus rapid transit; LOS = level of service; USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service; CTS = California tiger
salamander; CRLF = California red-legged frog; BUOW = burrowing owl; SJKF = San Joaquin kit fox; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM = particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gas;
BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; TAC = toxic air contaminant; PM 25 = fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter; GHG = greenhouse gas.
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Appendix C – Air Quality Emissions
The operational emissions for the Proposed Project and build alternatives are shown in Table C-1
(average net daily emissions) and Table C-2 (net annual emissions). The Proposed Project and
alternatives would not result in significant impacts related to emissions of Reactive Organic Gases
(ROGs), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Particulate Matter (PM) in 2040, and no mitigation measures are
required.
In 2040, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in VMT for passenger vehicles
compared to the 2040 No Project Conditions. The passenger vehicles would also have fewer
emissions due to the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB’s) requirements for cleaner vehicles in
2040. Thus, there would be a net reduction in emissions for PM10 and PM2.5 for passenger vehicles.
Buses also would have lower emissions in 2040, consistent with regulatory requirements.
The DMU Alternative would also have reductions in PM10 and PM2.5 compared to the No Project
Alternative, but these reductions would not be as great as the Proposed Project. The emissions for
the EMU Option would be slightly lower than the DMU Alternative, as EMU vehicles have no direct
emissions. The Express Bus / BRT Alternative would have lower ROG emissions compared to the
Proposed Project, but higher NOx and PM2.5 emissions. Similarly, the Enhanced Bus Alternative
would have lower ROG emissions compared to the Proposed Project, but higher NOx and PM2.5
emissions.
Table C-1 – Average Net New Daily Operational Emissions in 2040*
Notes: lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM25 = fine particulate
matter
*Compared with 2040 No Project Conditions
Average Net New Daily Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Conventional BART Project
Total Emissions
Above Threshold?
0.37
No
11
No
-20
No
-7.9
No
DMU Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? 6.5
No
25
No
-11
No
-3.9
No
EMU Option
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? 1.8
No
15
No
-11
No
-4.4
No
Express Bus/BRT Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? -0.68
No
18
No
-7.7
No
-3.0
No
Enhanced Bus Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? -3.0
No
19
No
-0.59
No
-0.15
No
BART to Livermore Extension
Proposed Project and Build Alternatives Evaluation Report
Table C-2– Net New Annual Operational Emissions in 2040*
Notes: tons/yr = tons per year; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; PM25 = fine particulate matter
A short ton is a unit of weight that is equivalent to 2,000 pounds. While typically referred to simply as a ton, it is distinguished here to clarify that it is
not a metric ton, which is equivalent to 1,000 kilograms.
*Compared with 2040 No Project Conditions
Maximum Net New Annual Operational Emissions (short tons/yr)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10
Conventional BART Project
Total Emissions
Above Threshold?
0.068
No
2.0
No
-3.6
No
-1.4
No
DMU Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? 1.2
No
4.5
No
-2.0
No
-0.72
No
EMU Option
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? 0.32
No
2.8
No
-2.1
No
-0.81
No
Express Bus/BRT Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? -0.12
No
3.3
No
-1.4
No
-0.55
No
Enhanced Bus Alternative
Total Emissions
Above Threshold? -0.54
No
3.5
No
-0.11
No
-0.027
No