Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

4. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes the “build” alternatives in terms of physical and operating characteristics and a No-Project (No Build) Alternative. An analysis of impacts associated with each alternative is provided, along with a side-by-side comparison among alternatives, including the proposed project. The analysis of alternatives includes a comparison of transportation performance of each alternative and an assessment of the physical environmental impacts of each issue area analyzed in Chapter 3. In addition to evaluating the project alternatives, this chapter documents the alternatives screened from further analysis in this DEIR. Furthermore this chapter identifies the environmentally superior alternative as required by CEQA.

Per CEQA, a range of alternatives that permits a reasoned choice and could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives “but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” shall be included in the environmental impact report (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) and (f)). That is, the EIR needs to analyze only those alternatives that will help decision makers make reasoned choices. Factors that may be taken into account in determining whether an alternative is feasible include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to an alternative site (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(f)(1)). The alternatives selected for analysis may result in new impacts that do not result from the proposed project. The EIR need not analyze these alternatives at the same level of detail that it analyzes the project itself, but should include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project.

4.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING

4.1.1 Previous Studies

The Highway 101 corridor and the Northwestern Pacific (NWP) railroad right-of-way in Sonoma and Marin counties have been studied in great detail over the past 20 years by elected officials, representatives of agencies responsible for transportation planning in the corridor, and the general public in both counties. These two existing transportation corridors have long been considered the most viable locations for future transportation investments to serve the two counties. Due to the importance of the Highway 101 corridor as the primary north-south travel corridor currently in operation, numerous efforts have been undertaken to help alleviate the growing traffic congestion and travel time delay, including highway widening, interchange improvements and expansion of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes.

In addition to the highway and transit plans, congestion management programs and local general plans, there have also been a number of comprehensive, multi-modal transportation planning efforts conducted jointly by the two counties beginning in 1983. Through the course of these studies, decision-makers in Sonoma and Marin counties have concluded that investments in both highway capacity and rail corridor capacity would be required to serve the future transportation needs of the counties. Focusing future highway and bus investments in the Highway 101 corridor and future rail investments in the NWP rail corridor emerged as the most cost-effective approach for expanding the north-south transportation capacity in the counties. The evolution of the proposed project and alternatives presented in this DEIR can be traced through these comprehensive studies, which are described more fully in Section 2.4.

Table 4.1-1 summarizes the studies that lead up to the development of the current project, the alternatives considered during that process, and the screening processes that were undertaken in each study to eliminate alternatives that did not compare well to other alternatives.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-1 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

TABLE 4.1-1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT Transit Alternatives Study Considered Screening Process Alternatives Screened Out PHASE I – 101 Corridor • Heavy Rail Step 1 • Heavy Rail Study (1983 - 1985) – Alternatives evaluated against 17 Marin County under the • Monorail weighted criteria, including local • Monorail direction of the 101 • Light Rail (LRT) political acceptability; peak • BART extension Corridor Action period travel time reduction; peak Committee • Busways on NWP transit ridership potential; etc. • Conversion of Mixed-Flow lanes to HOV operations • Express Bus Lanes Step 2 Project components assembled • HOV Lanes into three corridor-wide • Diesel Railbus alternatives designed to meet LOS D service objectives for

Hwy 101. PHASE II – 101 Corridor • Low cost transportation Step 1 • Busway on NWP in early Study (1986 - 1989) – improvements Alternatives evaluated against screening Marin County under the capital and operating costs, daily direction of the 101 • New ferry service ridership, transit cost- • Light Rail after 1990 election Corridor Action • HOV lanes effectiveness, and Hwy 101 Committee traffic congestion relief. • Busways on NWP Step 2 • Commuter rail Public opinion surveys conducted in Sonoma and Marin • Light Rail counties indicated strong • Additional mix flow lanes preference for rail over bus on 101 operations in NWP. Step 3 • Transitway on NWP (Phase I Preferred Phase II Preferred Alternatives - Alternative) Rail/Highway and Bus/Highway developed. Step 4 Evaluation of alternatives based on costs, ridership, and

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-2 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Transit Alternatives Study Considered Screening Process Alternatives Screened Out congestion relief to develop sales tax proposal.

Sonoma/Marin Multi- • Scenario A – Minimal rail Step 1 • 1998 sales tax measure Modal Transportation service with existing land Scenarios analyzed for capital based on Preferred and Land Use Study use policies and operating costs, transit Scenario defeated in both (Calthorpe Study) (1995 - ridership, and transit cost- counties 1997) – Sonoma County • Scenario B – Maximum effectiveness. Transportation Authority bus service and HOV Step 2 and Joint Executive lanes with existing land Joint Executive Committee Committee use policies adopted a hybrid multi-modal • Scenario C – Minimal rail Transportation Plan for the 101 service with compact Corridor as the Preferred mixed-use growth Scenario. policies • Scenario D – Maximum rail service with compact mixed-use growth policies SMART Commuter Rail • Commuter Rail – Step 1 • Shorter distance commuter Implementation Plan Healdsburg to Downtown Service options analyzed for rail options (1999 - 2000) – SMART San Rafael (51 miles) capital and operating costs,

Commission • Commuter Rail – revenue generation and fare box Cloverdale to Downtown recovery, San Rafael (68.2 miles) Step 2 • Commuter Rail – In September 2000, SMART Healdsburg to Petaluma Commission adopted Cloverdale (29.5 miles) to San Rafael as the preferred service option. • Commuter Rail – Cloverdale to Petaluma Step 3 (47.4 miles) Options for extension of service to San Quentin were evaluated.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-3 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Transit Alternatives Study Considered Screening Process Alternatives Screened Out • Commuter Rail – Petaluma to San Rafael (20.8 miles) Marin Sonoma Express • Strategy A – Double Step 1 • Expansion of existing Bus Study (2001 – 2002) existing express bus Evaluate strategies based on express bus service – Marin County service to link residential new daily riders, passengers per Congestion Management commute areas to hour, passengers per trip, and • Hwy 101 express bus Agency employment areas fare box recovery. service with connecting shuttles • Strategy B – Double Step 2 existing express bus Implementation of Strategy A as service and add 14 interim strategy and buses implementation of Strategy D when HOV lanes are completed. • Strategy C – Frequent express bus service on Highway 101 with connecting shuttles to employment destinations • Strategy D – Provide direct point-to-point express bus service linking major residential commute areas with major employment areas

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-4 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

4.1.2 SMART Environmental Impact Report Public Scoping

As part of the public scoping process for the environmental analysis of the proposed project, SMART held two series of scoping meetings. Comments during the scoping process raised a number of recommendations regarding alternatives, including suggested evaluation of rail alignment variations, alternative fuel types for rail, and transit-oriented development in conjunction with the passenger rail project. There were also comments in support of non-rail alternatives, such as express bus. Numerous comments called for an equal comparison of ridership and costs for both the bus and rail alternatives.

During the scoping process, several alternatives beyond those ultimately included in the DEIR were proposed for evaluation. These alternatives included paving over the railroad right-of-way and using it for buses; operating a monorail along Highway 101; connecting the rail to the Richmond BART station via the Richmond Bridge; and adding additional lanes to Highway 101. The rationale for not analyzing these and other alternatives considered over the years is discussed below.

4.1.3 Alternatives Screened From Further Analysis

This section summarizes the alternatives that were screened from further analysis in this DEIR. As options were considered for various components of the project, the discussion is grouped to reflect these components.

Rail Service Alternatives (BART extension, monorail, light rail, shorter operating segments, alternative ferry terminal connections)

Numerous alternatives for rail service were explored prior to selecting passenger rail service in the existing NWP corridor as the proposed project. An extension to BART via the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and a monorail system were both rejected from further analysis as they would require the development of extensive new transportation infrastructure and the acquisition of substantial additional right-of-way and would likely result in greater physical impacts on the environment. For these reasons, these alternatives were considered infeasible and not analyzed further in this DEIR.

Light rail transit (LRT) was at one time considered as a viable option to operate within the existing NWP corridor and operational plans for LRT were developed and evaluated during early stages of previous planning efforts, but was ultimately determined to be infeasible due to the high cost of implementation. In addition, as freight service may be reintroduced to the segment of the NWP corridor north of the Ignacio Wye in the future, passenger rail service must be able to operate safely and compatibly with freight service in the corridor. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) prohibits light rail from operating on the same line as freight without substantial time separation. The heavier rail vehicles used in traditional commuter rail operations or heavy diesel multiple units (DMUs) (the rail vehicle for the proposed project) provide a heavier and therefore safer option that would allow shared use of the right- of-way without temporal separation of service.

Various operating segments on the NWP rail corridor were evaluated before the current terminus points of Cloverdale in the north and Larkspur in the south were selected for evaluation in this DEIR. Segments evaluated included Cloverdale to Petaluma; Cloverdale to Downtown San Rafael; Healdsburg to Petaluma; Healdsburg to Downtown San Rafael; Healdsburg to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal; Santa Rosa to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal; Petaluma to San Rafael; and Novato to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. Studies of possible operational plans for these segments indicated that while the shorter segments evaluated would have a lower capital cost, the best operating performance in terms of revenue per train mile, operating cost per train miles, and fare box recovery would occur with the longer segments as they resulted in higher ridership (See Section 2.4). As a result of these findings, the shorter operating segments have been rejected for further evaluation in this DEIR, with one exception: a Minimum Operable Segment Rail Alternative, providing passenger rail service between Windsor and Downtown San Rafael, was developed to meet FTA requirements of a low-cost initial capital investment.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-5 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

An initial analysis was also conducted by the consultant team for this DEIR for three different termini locations for the rail/ferry connection. In addition to Larkspur, Port Sonoma and San Quentin were considered as rail terminus alternatives. While these sites were determined to be technically feasible as rail terminus locations, regional water transit investments in the North Bay continue to be focused on the Larkspur ferry terminal. Detailed studies of Port Sonoma and San Quentin have not been undertaken, and the Water Transit Authority has not yet determined whether these are feasible ferry terminal sites. Accordingly, it was determined to be premature to consider the Port Sonoma or San Quentin termini as alternatives at this time and they were rejected for further analysis in this DEIR.

Bus Service Alternatives (Exclusive busways on Highway 101 and NWP corridors, continuous HOV lanes)

Various alternatives for enhancement of bus service have been considered in the Highway 101 corridor and the NWP rail corridor. Exclusive busways in the Highway 101 and NWP corridors and continuous HOV lanes that could reduce travel times for buses were evaluated. These alternatives assumed the enhancement of bus service by the reorientation of local service, new express bus service, and/or new bus transfer facilities.

The construction of an exclusive busway in the Highway 101 corridor was rejected from further evaluation in the DEIR as it would require major new infrastructure investment and the acquisition of substantial additional right-of-way, which would result in additional physical environmental impacts beyond the Express Bus Alternative analyzed in the DEIR.

A busway in the NWP corridor would conflict with the preservation of the tracks for the operation of freight rail service north of the Ignacio Wye in Novato and would therefore also require substantial additional right-of-way along much of the corridor to construct an independent busway adjacent to the tracks. This widening of the right-of-way would result in additional environmental impacts. Expanding beyond the existing NWP right-of-way would have the greatest impacts where the right-of-way is located in wetland areas or immediately adjacent to existing homes or businesses. Thus, a busway in the NWP corridor was also considered infeasible and eliminated from further evaluation.

New HOV lanes on the Highway 101 corridor are being implemented as independent projects within Sonoma and Marin counties. New express bus service and area-to-area commuter service on the Highway 101 corridor have been carried forward for further evaluation in this DEIR under the Express Bus Alternative.

Station Site Alternatives

An additional station site at Geyserville and station site options in Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Petaluma, Novato, San Rafael, and Larkspur were evaluated during the project development process before the fourteen stations were selected for the proposed project. The Geyserville Station site was eliminated from further analysis when AB 2224 was passed in 2002 prohibiting SMART from locating any passenger rail stations in the unincorporated area of Sonoma County north of Healdsburg. The remaining station site options were eliminated from further consideration in this DEIR as a result of coordination with the local jurisdictions, continued public outreach, and determination that these sites were not the optimum station locations due to access constraints, land use compatibility, or station spacing considerations. The specific reasons why these stations were rejected for further evaluation in the DEIR are summarized below. • Sonoma Airport Station in Sonoma County north of downtown Santa Rosa – After consultation with Sonoma County planning staff, SMART determined that a station at Jennings Avenue better served project needs; • Bellevue Avenue Station, south of downtown Santa Rosa – This station is designated in the Santa Rosa General Plan, but was eliminated from further consideration due to superior accessibility of the Jennings Avenue station site and the existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of the Jennings Avenue site were more compatible for a rail station;

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-6 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

• Rohnert Park Expressway in Rohnert Park – This site was removed from consideration with the concurrence of the Rohnert Park City Council due to restricted access from the Rohnert Park Expressway and size constraints; • Rainier Avenue, north of downtown Petaluma – This station was included in the Petaluma General Plan, but was removed from further consideration due to the lack of access (the connecting roadway included in the General Plan has not been programmed for construction); • Caulfield Lane, south of downtown Petaluma – This site was designated in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan as a future transit center, but was dropped from further consideration due to its proximity to the Downtown Petaluma station and the lack of space to accommodate a park-and-ride facility that would be required for a second Petaluma station; • Olive Avenue, north of downtown Novato – This site was rejected for further consideration due to the lack of access from Highway 101, the distance from major employment uses, redevelopment opportunities as a future housing site, and direction from the Novato City Council; • Highway 37/Rowland Avenue, north of downtown Novato – These station sites were rejected due to the poor accessibility from many parts of the city, issues of site acquisition, lack of access to major employment centers, and direction from the Novato City Council; • Downtown Novato – The downtown Novato Depot station was rejected from further consideration due to the potential impacts of park-and-ride demand on the downtown, constraints on bus access, and direction from the Novato City Council; • Hamilton Air Force Base, south of downtown Novato – The Hamilton Air Force Base was dropped from further consideration due to the poor accessibility to employment centers and from most areas of Novato and direction from the Novato City Council; • Downtown San Rafael between 2nd and 3rd Streets – This site was eliminated from further consideration due to track geometric constraints and potential impact on the operation of the bus transit center; and • Larkspur Landing Shopping Center and Larkspur Ferry Terminal (sited at the terminal, south of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard) – These sites were eliminated from further consideration due to the potential infrastructure costs of crossing Sir Francis Drake Blvd. and concerns expressed by the Larkspur City Council.

Maintenance Facility Site Alternatives

Four sites were originally analyzed for the maintenance facility: • Cloverdale North – Preston Road/Old Redwood Highway north of downtown Cloverdale at the end of rail line; • Cloverdale Northeast – All-Coast Forest Products site located south of downtown Cloverdale; • Cloverdale Station Right-of-Way; and • Windsor at Shiloh Park.

The Cloverdale Northeast site was eliminated due to environmental constraints associated with the land use controls, access constraints, and a portion of the parcel being located in the Russian River floodplain. The Cloverdale Station Right-of-Way site was rejected due to the small size of the site, circulation constraints, and a portion of the parcel being located in the Russian River floodplain. The remaining two alternative sites are evaluated in this DEIR throughout Chapter 3.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway Alternatives

The establishment of a bicycle/pedestrian pathway along the NWP corridor is a component of the proposed project. Alternative alignments have been evaluated to determine how best to provide this

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-7 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

bicycle/pedestrian pathway. As originally conceived, the bicycle/pedestrian pathway would have been a continuous Class I pathway located adjacent to the railroad tracks in the NWP right-of-way. To avoid impacts on wetlands and biological resources, to minimize additional land acquisition where the NWP right-of-way was too narrow to accommodate both the rail and the bicycle/pedestrian pathway, and to take advantage of existing or planned bicycle facilities near the NWP corridor, an alternative was developed that locates 17 miles of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway outside of the NWP right-of-way. The alternative for a bicycle/pedestrian pathway wholly within the rail right-of-way was dropped from further evaluation in this DEIR for the reasons noted above.

Excluding the bicycle/pedestrian pathway from the proposed project was considered due to the cost of implementing this component of the project. The decision was made to include this component because it would provide a continuous bicycle/pedestrian pathway connecting rail stations and would implement the existing county plans, which call for such a facility in the NWP right-of-way. In addition, the bicycle/pedestrian pathway would serve as a maintenance access route for the track.

Land Use Alternative – Transit-Oriented Development

The Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund (TRANSDEF) requested SMART analyze an additional "sub alternative" that included a smart growth element that focused on transit oriented development around rail stations. This alternative was not carried forward for EIR analysis because it was determined by staff and approved by the Board, that SMART's project objective was transportation improvements, not land use improvements. Although the SMART Board of Directors subsequently approved Transit-Oriented Development Policies for properties owned by SMART along the NWP corridor, the final determination was that only transportation alternatives should be carried forward into the environmental analysis for the proposed rail project. The TRANSDEF proposal would involve comprehensive land use planning and would require an extensive implementation effort by local jurisdictions throughout the project corridor. Therefore, this alternative is outside the scope of reasonable project alternatives. It should be noted that this alternative can be pursued independently of the proposed project, and SMART is pursuing transit-oriented development at selected stations. Should agencies decide to implement transit-oriented development as called for in this alternative, the proposed project would not preclude such development and would in fact support it.

4.2 ALTERNATIVES RETAINED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS IN THE DEIR

Three alternatives have been retained for further analysis in the DEIR as a result of the project development and screening process and the public scoping process. These alternatives include the No- Project Alternative, Express Bus Alternative, and Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) Rail Alternative. These alternatives were selected to provide decision-makers with a reasonable range of choices and comparative analysis. These alternatives are also intended to reflect distinct differences with respect to mobility in the corridor and types of environmental effects.

The following discussion examines these three alternatives and summarizes the potential environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of each alternative. The impacts of these alternatives are provided as a comparison to the proposed project, allowing the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative to be weighed and analyzed relative to the proposed project.

4.2.1 Roadway Network Assumptions for Alternatives

The base highway network assumed for the analysis of all alternatives (including the proposed project) is the network that would be in place by 2025. This “future baseline” is described in detail in Section 3.6, Transportation. This would consist of the current highway network, including recently constructed improvements such as HOV lanes on Highway 101 from Wilfred Avenue to Highway 12, and additional

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-8 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

projects identified in the 2001 RTP for the San Francisco Bay Area as adopted by the MTC in November 2002.1 The year 2025 is the planning horizon for the 2001 RTP.

4.2.2 Transportation Modeling Results

Transportation modeling results for all alternatives are presented in the following tables and are referenced in the relevant impact comparisons in Sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5. Table 4.2-1 summarizes peak hour estimated VMT and VHT in Sonoma and Marin counties under existing conditions (Year 2000) and 2025 No-Project, proposed project, and project alternatives conditions. Tables 4.2-2 and 4.2-3 show Highway 101 operations results in terms of volumes, volume to capacity ratios and level of service, for existing conditions and all alternatives.

TABLE 4.2-1 ESTIMATED VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) & VEHICLE HOURS TRAVELED (VHT) FOR SONOMA AND MARIN COUNTIES

AM Peak Hour AM Peak AM Peak Scenario Year Hour VMT Hour VHT

Existing Conditions 2000 1,197,500 42,800 Future Baseline (No-Project) 2025 1,607,500 80,000

Proposed Passenger Rail Project: Cloverdale 2025 1,599,800 78,200 to Larkspur

Passenger Rail Minimum Operable Segment 2025 1,593,300 77,900 (MOS) Alternative: Windsor to San Rafael Rail Express Bus 2025 1,605,400 79,600

PM Peak Hour PM Peak PM Peak Scenario Year Hour VMT Hour VHT

Existing Conditions 2000 1,202,500 42,000 Future Baseline (No-Project) 2025 1,554,800 65,900 Proposed Passenger Rail Project: Cloverdale 2025 1,547,500 64,600 to Larkspur

Passenger Rail Minimum Operable Segment 2025 1,551,500 65,100 (MOS) Alternative: Windsor to San Rafael Rail

Express Bus 2025 1,563,800 66,900 Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, MTC travel demand forecasting model, August 2005

1 When the Notice of Preparation for this DEIR was published in November 2002, the 2001 RTP was the approved regional transportation plan for the Bay Area and accordingly served as the basis for project analysis. Specifically, the travel demand model used in the analysis of the proposed project and the alternatives includes programmed changes in the transportation network, transit systems, land use, employment intensities, and background growth documented in the 2001 RTP.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-9 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

TABLE 4.2-2A YEAR 2025 HIGHWAY 101 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY A.M. PEAK HOUR MIXED FLOW LANES 2000 A.M. Peak Hour 2025 A.M. Peak Hour # Segment Direction Number of Existing Number of No-Project Rail Project MOS Express Bus Capacity Capacity lanes Volume V/C LOS lanes Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Windsor River 1 NB 2 4,000 1,700 0.43 A 2 4,000 1,900 0.48 A 1,900 0.48 A 1,900 0.48 A 1,900 0.48 A Road (Windsor) Windsor River Road (Windsor) to Third Street 2 NB 2 4,000 3,300 0.83 D 3 5,200 4,000 0.77 C 4,000 0.77 C 4,000 0.77 C 4,100 0.79 C (Downtown Santa Rosa) * Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) to Rohnert 3 NB 2 4,000 4,200 1.05 F 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3,500 0.88 D 3,600 0.90 D 3,500 0.88 D Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 NB 2 4,000 3,800 0.95 E 3 5,200 4,600 0.88 D 4,700 0.90 D 4,600 0.88 D 4,700 0.90 D Corona Road (Petaluma) * Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 NB 2 4,000 3,400 0.85 D 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3,600 0.90 D 3,600 0.90 D 3,900 0.98 E (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Atherton 6 NB 2 4,000 3,500 0.88 D 3 6,000 3,400 0.57 A 3,500 0.58 A 3,500 0.58 A 3,400 0.57 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 NB 3 6,000 4,300 0.72 C 3 6,000 5,200 0.87 D 5,100 0.85 D 5,200 0.87 D 5,200 0.87 D Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 NB 4 8,000 6,100 0.76 C 5 10,000 6,500 0.65 B 6,400 0.64 B 6,500 0.65 B 6,500 0.65 B San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 NB 4 8,000 6,100 0.76 C 4 8,000 4,400 0.55 A 4,600 0.58 A 4,600 0.58 A 4,400 0.55 A Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur)

Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Windsor River 1 SB 2 4,000 4,100 1.03 F 2 4,000 3,800 0.95 E 3,800 0.95 E 3,700 0.93 E 3,800 0.95 E Road (Windsor) Windsor River Road (Windsor) to Third Street 2 SB 2 4,000 3,500 0.88 D 3 5,200 3,900 0.75 C 3,900 0.75 C 3,800 0.73 C 3,800 0.73 C (Downtown Santa Rosa) Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) to Rohnert 3 SB 2 4,000 3,900 0.98 E 2 4,000 2,900 0.73 C 2,900 0.73 C 2,900 0.73 C 2,900 0.73 C Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 SB 2 4,000 3,900 0.98 E 3 5,200 3,800 0.73 C 3,800 0.73 C 3,800 0.73 C 3,800 0.73 C Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 SB 2 4,000 3,900 0.98 E 2 4,000 2,800 0.70 B 2,800 0.70 B 2,700 0.68 B 2,800 0.70 B (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Atherton 6 SB 2 4,000 4,400 1.10 F 3 6,000 3,200 0.53 A 3,300 0.55 A 3,200 0.53 A 3,200 0.53 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 SB 3 6,000 5,500 0.92 E 3 6,000 4,300 0.72 C 4,400 0.73 C 4,200 0.70 B 4,300 0.72 C Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 SB 4 8,000 7,400 0.93 E 5 10,000 7,500 0.75 C 7,400 0.74 C 7,300 0.73 C 7,400 0.74 C San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 SB 4 8,000 7,900 0.99 E 4 8,000 5,600 0.70 B 5,600 0.70 B 5,600 0.70 B 5,600 0.70 B Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) * Third lane is an auxiliary lane between ramps; capacity adjusted to include auxiliary lane facilty Bold indicates unacceptable level of service based on county and/or city/town LOS guidelines Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, MTC 2001 RTP, based on forecasted horizon year 2025 (August 2005).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-10 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

TABLE 4.2-2B YEAR 2025 HIGHWAY 101 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY A.M. PEAK HOUR HOV LANES 2000 A.M. Peak Hour 2025 A.M. Peak Hour # Segment Direction Number of Existing Number of No-Project Rail Project MOS Express Bus Capacity Capacity lanes Volume V/C LOS lanes Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Shiloh Road 1 NB0 - - - - 1 1,7503000.17A 3000.17A 3000.17A 3000.17A (Windsor) Shiloh Road (Windsor) to State Route 12 (Santa 2 NB0 - - - - 1 1,7505000.29A 5000.29A 5000.29A 5000.29A Rosa) State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park 3 NB1 1,7506000.34A 1 1,7509000.51A 9000.51A 9000.51A 9000.51A Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,000 0.57 A 1,000 0.57 A 900 0.51 A 1,000 0.57 A Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 NB0 - - - - 1 1,7509000.51A 9000.51A 8000.46A 9000.51A (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Altherton 6 NB0 - - - - 1 1,7507000.40A 7000.40A 7000.40A 7000.40A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,100 0.63 B 1,100 0.63 B 1,000 0.57 A 1,100 0.63 B Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 NB 1 1,750 500 0.29 A 1 1,750 1,200 0.69 B 1,100 0.63 B 1,100 0.63 B 1,200 0.69 B San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 NB0 - - - - 1 1,7506000.34A 5000.29A 5000.29A 6000.34A Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur)

Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Shiloh Road 1 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1100 0.63 B 1100 0.63 B 1100 0.63 B 1100 0.63 B (Windsor) Shiloh Road (Windsor) to State Route 12 (Santa 2 SB0 - - - - 1 1,7509000.51A 9000.51A 8000.46A 9000.51A Rosa) State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park 3 SB 1 1,750 1,500 0.86 D 1 1,750 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 SB0 - - - - 1 1,7509000.51A 9000.51A 9000.51A 9000.51A Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 SB0 - - - - 1 1,7508000.46A 8000.46A 8000.46A 8000.46A (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Altherton 6 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,000 0.57 A 1,000 0.57 A 1,000 0.57 A 1,000 0.57 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,400 0.80 C 1,300 0.74 C 1,300 0.74 C 1,300 0.74 C Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 SB 1 1,750 1,500 0.86 D 1 1,750 1,800 1.03 F 1,800 1.03 F 1,800 1.03 F 1,800 1.03 F San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,600 0.91 E 1,600 0.91 E 1,700 0.97 E 1,700 0.97 E Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) Bold indicates unacceptable level of service based on county and/or city/town LOS guidelines Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, MTC 2001 RTP, based on forecasted horizon year 2025 (August 2005).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-11 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

TABLE 4.2-3A YEAR 2025 HIGHWAY 101 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY P.M. PEAK HOUR MIXED FLOW LANES 2000 P.M. Peak Hour 2025 P.M. Peak Hour #SegmentDirectionNumber of Existing Number of No Project Rail Project MOS Express Bus Capacity Capacity lanes Volume V/C LOSlanes Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Windsor River 1 NB 2 4,000 4,200 1.05 F 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3,600 0.90 D 3,600 0.90 D 3,600 0.90 D Road (Windsor) Windsor River Road (Windsor) to Third Street 2 NB 2 4,000 4,500 1.13 F 3 5,200 3,500 0.67 B 3,400 0.65 B 3,400 0.65 B 3,500 0.67 B (Downtown Santa Rosa) * Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) to Rohnert 3 NB 2 4,000 3,900 0.98 E 2 4,000 3,200 0.80 C 3,100 0.78 C 3,100 0.78 C 3,200 0.80 C Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 NB 2 4,000 3,700 0.93 E 3 5,200 3,900 0.75 C 3,900 0.75 C 4,000 0.77 C 3,900 0.75 C Corona Road (Petaluma) * Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 NB 2 4,000 3,800 0.95 E 2 4,000 2,900 0.73 C 2,900 0.73 C 2,900 0.73 C 2,900 0.73 C (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Atherton 6 NB 2 4,000 4,400 1.10 F 3 6,000 3,300 0.55 A 3300 0.55 A 3300 0.55 A 3300 0.55 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 NB 3 6,000 5,400 0.90 D 3 6,000 5,000 0.83 D 5,000 0.83 D 5,000 0.83 D 5,000 0.83 D Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 NB 4 8,000 7,500 0.94 E 5 10,000 7,500 0.75 C 7,300 0.73 C 7,300 0.73 C 7,500 0.75 C San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 NB 4 8,000 7,900 0.99 E 4 8,000 4,900 0.61 B 4,900 0.61 B 5,100 0.64 B 5,000 0.63 B Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur)

Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Windsor River 1 SB 2 4,000 2,000 0.50 A 2 4,000 2,200 0.55 A 2,200 0.55 A 2,200 0.55 A 2,200 0.55 A Road (Windsor) Windsor River Road (Windsor) to Third Street 2 SB 2 4,000 2,800 0.70 B 3 5,200 3,600 0.69 B 3,800 0.73 C 3,800 0.73 C 3,700 0.71 C (Downtown Santa Rosa) Third Street (Downtown Santa Rosa) to Rohnert 3 SB 2 4,000 3,900 0.98 E 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3,500 0.88 D 3,500 0.88 D 3,500 0.88 D Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 SB 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3 5,200 4,400 0.85 D 4,300 0.83 D 4,300 0.83 D 4,300 0.83 D Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 SB 2 4,000 3,500 0.88 D 2 4,000 3,600 0.90 D 3,600 0.90 D 3,600 0.90 D 3,500 0.88 D (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Atherton 6 SB 2 4,000 3,500 0.88 D 3 6,000 3,600 0.60 A 3,600 0.60 A 3,600 0.60 A 3,600 0.60 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Atherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 SB 3 6,000 4,600 0.77 C 3 6,000 5,100 0.85 D 5,000 0.83 D 5,000 0.83 D 5,000 0.83 D Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to 8 SB 4 8,000 5,300 0.66 B 5 10,000 6,600 0.66 B 6,700 0.67 B 6,600 0.66 B 6,700 0.67 B North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 SB 4 8,000 4,100 0.51 A 4 8,000 5,600 0.70 B 5,700 0.71 C 5,600 0.70 B 5,600 0.70 B Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) * Third lane is an auxiliary lane between ramps; capacity adjusted to include auxiliary lane facilty Bold indicates unacceptable level of service based on county and/or city/town LOS guidelines Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, MTC 2001 RTP, based on forecasted horizon year 2025 (August 2005).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-12 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

TABLE 4.2-3B YEAR 2025 HIGHWAY 101 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY P.M. PEAK HOUR HOV LANES 2000 P.M. Peak Hour 2025 P.M. Peak Hour #SegmentDirectionNumber of Existing Number of No Project Rail Project MOS Express Bus Capacity Capacity lanes Volume V/C LOSlanes Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Volume V/C LOS Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Shiloh Road 1 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 800 0.46 A 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A (Windsor) Shiloh Road (Windsor) to State Route 12 (Santa 2 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 500 0.29 A 500 0.29 A 500 0.29 A 500 0.29 A Rosa) State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park 3 NB 1 1,750 1,200 0.69 B 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Altherton 6 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 NB 1 1,750 1,000 0.57 A 1 1,750 1,300 0.74 C 1,200 0.69 B 1,200 0.69 B 1,200 0.69 B San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 NB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 800 0.46 A 700 0.40 A 800 0.46 A 800 0.46 A Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur)

Citrus Fair Drive (Cloverdale) to Shiloh Road 1 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 400 0.23 A 400 0.23 A 400 0.23 A 400 0.23 A (Windsor) Shiloh Road (Windsor) to State Route 12 (Santa 2 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A Rosa) State Route 12 (Santa Rosa) to Rohnert Park 3 SB 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A Expressway (Rohnert Park) Rohnert Park Expressway (Rohnert Park) to 4 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 800 0.46 A 800 0.46 A 800 0.46 A 800 0.46 A Corona Road (Petaluma) Corona Road (Petaluma) to State Route 116 5 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A (South Petaluma) State Route 116 (South Petaluma) to Altherton 6 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 700 0.40 A 700 0.40 A 600 0.34 A 600 0.34 A Avenue (Novato Narrows) Altherton Avenue (Novato Narrows) to State 7 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A 900 0.51 A Route 37 Interchange (Novato) State Route 37 Interchange (Novato) to North 8 SB 1 1,750 700 0.40 A 1 1,750 1,200 0.69 B 1,100 0.63 B 1,100 0.63 B 1,100 0.63 B San Pedro Road (San Rafael) North San Pedro Road (San Rafael) to Sir 9 SB 0 - - - - 1 1,750 1,000 0.57 A 1,000 0.57 A 1,000 0.57 A 1,000 0.57 A Francis Drake Boulevard (Larkspur) Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, MTC 2001 RTP, based on forecasted horizon year 2025 (August 2005).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-13 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

4.3 NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), evaluation of the “no-project” alternative is required. The No-Project Alternative addresses the effects of not implementing the proposed passenger rail project. The No-Project analysis must discuss the existing conditions as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2). For this analysis, the No-Project Alternative is not equivalent to existing conditions, as it must account for growth and development that is foreseeable within the next 20 years. The No-Project scenario represents future conditions without the proposed project. In order to assess this future conditions scenario, certain assumptions must be made. These assumptions are described in detail in Section 3.6, Transportation.

4.3.1 Project Description

The No-Project Alternative consists of the existing transportation system in place in 2001, as well as all transportation projects that are planned for implementation by the year 2025 in the region, as defined in the 2001 MTC RTP (Committed or Track 1 projects). The No-Project Alternative also includes regional growth and development, according to ABAG projections.

Highway and Roadway Improvements

Transportation improvements assumed for the No-Project Alternative are described in the transportation section (see Section 3.6.4, Future Baseline (No-Project) Transportation Conditions & Assumptions, and Figure 3.6-2). Of particular importance is the assumption that planned HOV lanes would be constructed on Highway 101, as listed in Section 3.6.4.

Bus Service

Assumptions concerning bus service in the No-Project Alternative are based on the 2001 RTP just as they are with highway projects. Seventy-seven (77) percent of the expenditures planned in the 2001 RTP focus on transit. Within Marin and Sonoma counties, transit expenditures account for about 65 percent of the total investment. Most of these expenditures are for operating and rehabilitating the transit systems already in place; only about a quarter of the transit expenditures relate to system expansion. Of the proposed expenditures for bus service expansion in the 2001 RTP, capital purchases are limited to local Marin bus service enhancements and additional park-and-ride lots. Therefore, the RTP assumed that regional bus service in Sonoma and Marin counties would remain much as it was at the time of the RTP development in 2001.

Since the adoption of the 2001 RTP, bus service has actually declined due to declining economic activity and ridership. For the purposes of this DEIR, the No-Project Alternative assumes that bus services would be restored to their 2001 levels by 2025, for consistency with the RTP. Intracounty and intercounty services that utilize Highway 101 would have the benefit of continuous HOV lanes between Windsor and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Bus transit centers that have been or are being developed through independent projects by local jurisdictions would be located at the following station sites: Healdsburg, Windsor, Cotati, Downtown Petaluma, Downtown San Rafael, and Larkspur. New shuttle service, as described for the proposed project, would not be implemented.

Rail Service

Under the No-Project Alternative, the existing NWP corridor would remain, but there would be no passenger rail service and no track or corridor upgrades would be put in place as planned in the proposed project. Some track upgrade projects north of Novato would be independently implemented for

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-14 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

freight purposes. The Highway 101 Gap Closure project in Marin County would relocate approximately 0.7 miles of track in San Rafael, moving it to the west to provide room for the widening of Highway 101. Rehabilitation of the Cal Park Tunnel would be completed as part of a Marin County project. Historic rail stations that have been rehabilitated through independent projects or new stations that have recently been constructed for transit use would also continue to exist along the NWP corridor at Cloverdale, Windsor, Santa Rosa Railroad Square, and Petaluma, but would not be used for rail services.

Freight rail service could be re-introduced on the NWP corridor north of the Ignacio Wye by the North Coast Railroad Authority (NCRA). Preliminary operations planning calls for four northbound and four southbound trains per day running five to six days a week.

Ferry Service

The No-Project Alternative assumes that ferry transit services would remain at current levels, as no ferry expansion was proposed in the North Bay as part of the 2001 RTP. The Larkspur Ferry Terminal would continue to serve as the main ferry terminal for the North Bay.

Bicycle and Pedestrian

The No-Project Alternative assumes some progress by local jurisdictions toward implementation of the Marin County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, as described in Moving Forward: A 25-Year Transportation Vision for Marin County (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, 2003) and of the Sonoma County Bicycle Plan, as described in 2001 Countywide Transportation Plan for Sonoma County (Sonoma County Transportation Authority, 2001). However, a continuous north-south pathway along the Highway 101 corridor from Sonoma through Marin would not be in place, as there is inadequate funding available for this comprehensive project. Projects would be implemented based on prioritization of bicycle and pedestrian projects within each county. Additional funding beyond that assumed in the 2001 RTP would be needed for these plans to be fully implemented, so completion of the entire program is assumed to occur beyond the 2025 horizon year used in this DEIR. Section 3.6, Transportation includes a list of existing and planned bicycle projects in Sonoma and Marin counties.

Some bicycle/pedestrian improvements that would connect with the bicycle/pedestrian pathway planned for the NWP corridor as part of the proposed project either currently exist or are proposed for implementation as part of independent projects by others; these segments would be in place under the No-Project Alternative. They include the following: • The City of Healdsburg will be implementing a 3.6-mile bicycle/pedestrian pathway (MP 71.3 to 67.7) on and off the NWP right-of-way near the historic station site. • The Town of Windsor will be implementing a 1.1-mile bicycle/pedestrian pathway (MP 62.8 to 61.7) off the NWP right-of-way. • The segment of the existing Prince Memorial Greenway path off the NWP right-of-way, that is proposed to serve as a 0.2-mile segment of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway near the Santa Rosa Railroad Square station (MP 53.8 to 53.6), would be in place. • The Caltrans Narrows Project in Novato would construct 8.3 miles of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway (MP 36.8 to 28.5) off the NWP right-of-way. • Existing pathways off the NWP right-of-way in Novato, 0.6 miles (MP 27.3 to 27.0 and MP 25.8 to 25.5), and at the Marin Civic Center, 0.8 miles (MP20.4 to 19.6) would be in place. • The Caltrans Gap Closure project in San Rafael would construct 1.0 miles of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway as part of the highway-widening project (MP 18.2 to 17.2). The pathway would be on and off the NWP right-of-way. • Marin County will be implementing 1.2 miles of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway on the NWP right-of- way through the Cal Park tunnel (MP 16.0 to 14.8).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-15 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Population and Employment Growth

The No-Project Alternative, like the proposed project, assumes population and employment growth in the two-county area consistent with regional projections. ABAG Projections 2000 provided the basis for the transportation modeling for the future No-Project scenario.

4.3.2 Impacts

The environmental impacts associated with the No-Project Alternative are summarized below. The No- Project Alternative includes reasonably foreseeable population and employment growth, regional development, and transportation improvements over the next 20 years. Therefore, even without the proposed project, some physical impacts would occur as a result of the No-Project Alternative. Specific construction impacts associated with the proposed passenger rail project would not occur, but physical impacts associated with the above-listed transportation improvements, new housing and commercial development would take place. Quantified data is not available for these construction impacts, as many of the projects have not undergone site-specific environmental review.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity

Compared to existing conditions, geologic, soils, and seismic impacts related to the No-Project Alternative would occur, as a result of construction to implement future roadway improvements, residential and commercial development, and other infrastructure. This alternative would avoid the geological, soils, and seismic impacts that would be associated with the station construction, bridge and other structure rehabilitation or replacement, and maintenance facility construction for the proposed project. Under the No-Project Alternative, no new transportation modes would be subject to seismic hazards, but travelers on Highway 101 would continue to be exposed to the risk of severe groundshaking, fault rupture and land liquefaction.

Water Resources

Projected development under the No-Project Alternative would result in some additional construction and land disturbance and associated potential erosion and sedimentation, water quality, stormwater management, and runoff impacts on wetlands, creeks and rivers. However, bridge reconstruction and potential impacts on water bodies along the railway right-of-way would be avoided, resulting in fewer impacts.

Hazardous Materials

Similar to the proposed project, there would be the potential to encounter hazardous materials during construction of highway improvements and other development.

Air Quality

Similar to the proposed project, construction activities associated with new development would generate temporary emissions from diesel-fueled construction equipment, dust generated by mechanical disturbance, and wind blown dust from exposed soil. The air pollutant generated in the largest quantity is particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5). It is a component of both construction dust and equipment exhaust, and is the primary air pollutant of concern during construction. In addition, ozone precursors (NOx and ROG) are air pollutants of concern because a portion of the project is within the Bay Area Air Basin, which has difficulty maintaining ozone standards.

Long-term impacts on air quality under the No-Project Alternative are quantified in Section 3.5 (see Tables 3.5-5, 3.5-6, 3.5-9 and 3.5-10). The general growth in regional travel demand by 2025 would result in increased traffic (VMT) on highways, highway ramps, local roads and intersections when compared to the existing conditions. As shown in Table 3.5-5, criteria pollutants CO, ROG, and NOx emissions would decrease in the next 20 years under the No-Project Alternative because older motor

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-16 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

vehicles will be replaced with cleaner vehicles and approved emission reduction programs will be implemented. However, additional traffic would lead to increases of particulate matter and greenhouse gases. While motor vehicles are expected to be less polluting in the future, this improvement is not enough to offset the projected increase in VMT, compared to existing conditions.

Compared to the proposed project, the No-Project Alternative would result in greater emissions overall. As seen in Tables 3.5-7 and 3.5-8, emissions from motor vehicle traffic under the No-Project Alternative would represent an increase of about 0.8 percent compared to the 2025 proposed project condition. Emissions of CO2 would also be greater than the proposed project. Typically diesel-fueled engines emit less greenhouse gases than gasoline-fueled engines. This, in addition to a reduction in the amount of motor vehicle use in the study area, results in the proposed project reducing CO2 emissions compared to the 2025 No-Project condition by about 0.8 percent. Compared to the proposed project, the No-Project Alternative would generate an additional 79,000 pounds per day of CO2 in the Bay Area Air Basin and 26,000 pounds per day in the North Coast Air Basin.

Transportation

Details on forecasted travel demand conditions and associated impacts on transportation for the No- Project Alternative are presented in Section 3.6, Transportation. In summary, the general growth in travel demand by 2025 would result in increased VMT on highways, highway ramps, local roads and intersections when compared to the existing conditions. The No-Project’s total VMT and VHT in Sonoma and Marin counties are anticipated to be higher than the proposed project, indicating overall reductions in automobile travel and congestion in both counties if the proposed project is implemented. The additional traffic associated with the No-Project Alternative may lead to localized increases in traffic congestion. However, in most places, level of service conditions would improve relative to existing conditions, as roadway improvements are implemented during the next 20 years. In several areas, level of service would decline due to growth and associated travel demand.

The No-Project Alternative would avoid any potential impacts associated with delays caused by the proposed project’s at-grade crossings.

Noise and Vibration

Short-term construction noise would occur as a result of implementing transportation improvements over the next 20 years. The general growth in regional travel demand by 2025 would result in increased traffic on highways, highway ramps, local roads and intersections when compared to the existing conditions. This additional traffic would lead to localized increases in traffic congestion, which could result in localized increases in the ambient noise levels when compared to the existing conditions. The average increase in noise levels would be less than 3 dBA Leq(h) or Ldn. The No-Project Alternative would not introduce passenger rail service along the NWP corridor as in the proposed project and therefore would not result in noise impacts associated with train pass-bys, station operations, train horns, and maintenance facility operations.

Energy

Energy consumption assessment is based on VMT generated in the transportation modeling analysis. Comprehensive comparisons of energy consumption for all alternatives are in Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2. Energy consumption for the No-Project Alternative is also quantified and discussed in Section 3.8 (see Tables 3.8-4 and 3.8-5). Both indirect energy consumption for construction and maintenance and direct energy consumption for long-term operations (vehicle travel) would increase under the No-Project Alternative compared to existing conditions due to the increase in VMT. Construction-related energy consumption associated with the No-Project Alternative includes transportation improvements and manufacturing and maintenance of passenger vehicles and buses. The No-Project Alternative would necessitate more indirect energy consumption than the proposed project due to the manufacture and maintenance of more passenger vehicles.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-17 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

For operations, the No-Project Alternative would result in slightly higher VMT when compared to the proposed project and thereby result in greater direct energy consumption. Annual passenger vehicle (automobiles, vans, and light trucks) VMT for the No-Project Alternative would be approximately 5.64 billion compared to approximately 5.61 billion annual VMT for the proposed project. Under the No- Project Alternative, all vehicles operating within the project corridor are expected to consume approximately 11,000 barrels more on an annual basis than if the project were implemented.

Table 4.3-1 ESTIMATES OF INDIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN YEAR 2025 MOS Express (Windsor to Proposed No-Project Bus San Rafael) Project CONSTRUCTION (in billion BTUs) Passenger Vehicle Manufacturing 7,947 7,993 7,930 7,910 Transit Bus Manufacturing 43 52 49 49 Passenger Rail Manufacturing - - 0.530 0.849 Rail Guideway - - 3.1 4.91 Total Construction 7,990 8,046 7,982 7,964 Total Construction in Barrels of Oil (in 1,378 1,387 1,376 1,373 thousands) Change in Barrels of Oil from 4,447 14,006 3,088 n/a Proposed Project MAINTENANCE (in billion BTUs) Passenger Vehicle 7,891 7,937 7,874 7,854 Transit Bus 164 198 185 185 Passenger Rail 0 0 1.77 3 Total Maintenance 8,055 8,135 8,061 8,042 Total Maintenance in Barrels of Oil (in 1,389 1,403 1,390 1,387 thousands) Change in Barrels of Oil from 2,237 16,075 3, 253 n/a Proposed Project SUMMARY Total Indirect Energy Consumption (in 16,045 16,181 16,043 16,006 billions of BTUs) Total Indirect Energy Consumption (in 2,766 2,790 2,766 2,760 thousands of Barrels Of Oil)

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-18 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

TABLE 4.3-2 ESTIMATES OF DIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION, 2000 AND 2025 No- MOS Proposed Existing Project Express (Windsor to Project 2000 2025 Bus 2025 San Rafael) 2025 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (in millions) Daily Passenger Vehicle 15.03 19.43 19.55 19.39 19.34 Annual Passenger Vehicle 4,359 5,636 5,669 5,624 5,610 Daily Transit Bus 0.0430 0.0431 0.0519 0.0487 0.0487 Annual Transit Bus 12.5 12.5 15.1 14.1 14.1 Daily Passenger Rail 0 0 0 0.0009 0.0014 Annual Passenger Rail 0 0 0 0.2513 0.4028 ESTIMATED BTUs (in

billions) Passenger Vehicle 27,170 35,130 35,335 35,054 34,966 Transit Bus 519.3 520.5 629 587 588.7 Commuter Rail 0 0 0 18.85 30.21 SUMMARY Total BTUs (in billions) 27,689 35,650 35,964 35,642 35,585 Total Barrels of Oil (in 4,774 6,146 6,200 6,145 6,135 thousands) Change in Barrels of Oil n/a 11,000 65,378 9,837 n/a from Proposed Project

Biological Resources

The No-Project Alternative would potentially impact biological resources as a result of new construction and land disturbance associated with transportation improvements, although most of these improvements will occur in previously disturbed areas. The No-Project Alternative would not have any impact on biological or ecological resources associated with the construction of the proposed project along the railway corridor.

Parks and Recreation

The No-Project Alternative would not result in any impacts on parks or recreation facilities as a result of construction of planned transportation improvements, but growth anticipated to occur under the No- Project Alternative could result in the need for new or expanded parks and recreational facilities, the construction of which could have adverse environmental impacts. The bicycle/pedestrian pathway improvements along the NWP corridor identified as part of the proposed project would not be implemented under the No-Project Alternative and increased opportunities for recreational activities associated with the proposed project would not be available to residents of and visitors to Sonoma and Marin counties. Therefore, the No-Project Alternative would not provide the recreational benefits of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway.

Land Use and Planning

Under the No-Project Alternative, land use and development would continue according to the general plans of the local jurisdictions, but without implementation of passenger rail service or the bicycle/pedestrian pathway along the NWP proposed as part of the project. This alternative would not require the relocation of the single residence and business called for under the proposed project.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-19 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

However, the No-Project Alternative would not be fully consistent with the transportation element of regional and local plans in Sonoma and Marin counties, primarily due to the failure of this alternative to provide passenger rail service, which is called for in these plans. Also, since this alternative would not support opportunities for transit-oriented land use development around transit stops, it would be inconsistent with the general plans. An indirect effect of the No-Project Alternative may be continued regional sprawl as there would be a lack of transportation infrastructure and incentive to develop urban- oriented infill growth and densification.

Public Services and Safety

The No-Project Alternative would not generate additional demand for public facilities other than that required to serve regional growth. In comparison to the proposed project, the need for additional specific emergency response services would not exist with the No-Project Alternative.

Visual Quality

The No-Project Alternative would involve construction of roadway improvements as well as development to serve regional growth that could have some potential impacts on the landscape. It would avoid the impact of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian safety structure, which is the primary source of adverse visual effects associated with the proposed project.

Historic Resources

The transportation improvements that would be built under the No-Project Alternative would result in no new construction or land disturbance adjacent to historic resources. The No-Project Alternative may result in impacts to historic resources as a result of development to accommodate regional growth, but would not have the potential to impact historic resources associated with the construction of the proposed rail stations (Healdsburg, Petaluma and San Rafael), bridge replacements, and the bicycle/pedestrian pathway for the proposed project.

Archaeological Resources

The No-Project Alternative would not likely result in impacts on archaeological resources as a result of transportation improvements. The No-Project Alternative may result in impacts to archaeological resources as a result of development to accommodate regional growth, but would not have the potential to impact archaeological resources associated with the construction of the stations, track upgrades, bridge reconstruction, construction of the maintenance facility, and the bicycle/pedestrian pathway.

4.4 EXPRESS BUS ALTERNATIVE

Due to public comments received during the scoping process, an alternative was developed in which increased bus service would be implemented, instead of the proposed rail project. It should be noted that SMART, which was created by statute as a rail transit district, would not have the authority to implement the Express Bus Alternative. The implementation of this alternative would be up to others, such as the counties, cities and towns, or transit agencies in the region, if this alternative were to be selected.

4.4.1 Project Description

The Express Bus Alternative focuses on expanded bus service in the two county study area to facilitate regional growth and accommodate increased traffic demand along the Highway 101 corridor.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-20 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Highway and Roadway Improvements

The Express Bus Alternative assumes the same future baseline (Year 2025) highway and roadway improvements as those outlined in Section 3.6, Transportation. These transportation improvements are consistent with the No-Project Alternative and the proposed project and are based on the 2001 RTP committed or Track 1 projects.

Bus Service

The Express Bus Alternative would include the same 15% increase (over 2001 levels) in intracounty bus service in Sonoma and Marin counties, as described for the proposed project assumptions in Section 3.6.3. However, this alternative is different from the proposed project in that it would include increased frequency (above 2001 levels) of buses for the commuter service to San Francisco and the East Bay and route changes for the intercounty bus service.

Like the No-Project alternative and proposed project, bus transit centers that have been or are being developed through independent projects would be located at the following station sites: Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Windsor, Cotati, Downtown Petaluma, Downtown San Rafael, and Larkspur. No new shuttle services would be implemented to serve the rail stations, as no passenger rail service would exist under this alternative.

Bus Service to San Francisco and East Bay The Express Bus Alternative assumes the service pattern of Golden Gate Transit service from Sonoma and Marin Counties to San Francisco and the East Bay will generally remain consistent with that which was in place in 2001; however service levels will be adjusted to meet demand.

Intracounty Bus Services in Sonoma and Marin Counties The Express Bus Alternative assumes the service pattern of transit services within Sonoma and Marin counties will generally remain consistent with that which was in place in 2001. Like the proposed project assumption, the amount of service provided will reflect approximately a 15 percent increase as compared to 2001 levels. The increase in service will include frequency improvements and route changes to provide peak period service to employment concentration and activity centers along the Highway 101 corridor such as:

• Sonoma County Administrative Center • Vintage Oaks Shopping Center • Santa Rosa Junior College • Bel Marin Keys Industrial Park • Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital • Hamilton Industrial Park • Downtown Santa Rosa • Marin County Civic Center • Downtown Rohnert Park • Northgate Shopping Center • Sonoma State University • Northgate Industrial Park • Downtown Petaluma • Marin General Hospital • Telecom Valley Employment Centers • College of Marin • Fireman’s Fund and Buck Center • Downtown San Rafael • Downtown Novato • South San Rafael Employment Centers • Novato Community Hospital • East San Rafael Employment Centers • Rowland Plaza • San Quentin Prison

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-21 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Projects outlined in the RTP include new bus capital purchases and expansion of park-and-ride lots as part of the increase in bus transit service.

Marin/Sonoma Intercounty Bus Service In addition to bus service described above, the Express Bus Alternative would include several additional key improvements to Sonoma/Marin intercounty bus service that are not included in the other alternatives. Intercounty bus service would include three types of bus routes: • Express Bus Route - An Express Bus Route service (a modification of the existing GGT Route 80) would stop at some or all of the freeway bus pads and off-freeway transit centers along Highway 101 between Cloverdale and the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. This service would provide a single seat ride (a trip that does not require a transfer) from Cloverdale and other population centers to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal. To accommodate stops at all the freeway bus pads on Highway 101, the express bus service would travel primarily in mixed-flow lanes rather than in the HOV lanes. • Super Express Bus Route - A Super Express Bus Route service, between Cloverdale and the Larkspur Ferry Terminal, would stop at four bus pads and four off-freeway transit centers that are an average of seven miles apart (ranging from three miles to 10 miles apart), thus more effectively utilizing the Highway 101 HOV lanes and reducing travel times. The bus pads would be located at Santa Rosa, Cotati, Novato, and San Rafael. The off-freeway transit centers would be located at Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Windsor, and Larkspur. • Area-to-Area Commuter Service - Area-to-Area Commuter Service lines (developed in and referred to as Point-to-Point services in the Marin/Sonoma Express Bus Study [Wilbur Smith Associates, 2002]) would provide additional peak period/peak direction service with direct connections between residential areas and employment centers in Sonoma and Marin counties. These long distance lines would utilize the Highway 101 HOV lanes and supplement the San Francisco-oriented GGT buses. The 12 commuter routes would have two trips per peak period in the peak direction (southbound in the morning and northbound in the afternoon), for a total of 24 round trips per weekday. These routes would include: 1. North Santa Rosa (Piner Transit Center) along Mendocino to Novato (Fireman’s Fund and Bel Marin Keys) 2. East Santa Rosa (Montecito) along Highway 12 to Novato (Fireman's Fund and Bel Marin Keys) 3. North Santa Rosa to Terra Linda 4. East Santa Rosa to Terra Linda 5. North Santa Rosa to Central San Rafael 6. East Santa Rosa to Central San Rafael 7. Rohnert Park/Cotati/Petaluma (via Highway 101) to Novato 8. Rohnert Park/Cotati/Petaluma (via Sonoma Mountain Parkway) to Novato 9. Rohnert Park/Cotati/Petaluma (via Highway 101) to Terra Linda 10. Rohnert Park/Cotati/Petaluma (via Sonoma Mountain Parkway) to Terra Linda 11. Rohnert Park/Cotati/Petaluma (via Highway 101) to Central San Rafael 12. Rohnert Park/Cotati/Petaluma (via Sonoma Mountain Parkway) to Central San Rafael

Physical Improvements

The Express Bus Alternative would include physical and service improvements. The Express Bus Routes and the Super Express Bus Routes would stop at the bus pads, bus pullouts with passenger waiting areas, and transit centers along Highway 101 (see Figure 4.4-1). Two new freeway bus pads (see Figure 4.4-2) would be located at:

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-22 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

• Highway 101/Steele Lane interchange in Santa Rosa, to provide a connection to Santa Rosa City Bus Route 14 and Sonoma County Transit Routes 20, 30, 44, 48, and 60; and • Highway 101/State Route 116 (Gravenstein Highway) interchange in Cotati, to provide a connection to Golden Gate Transit Routes 72, 74 and 75, and Sonoma County Transit Routes 10, 11 and 26.

In addition to the new bus pads associated park-and-ride lots and pedestrian access ways would be provided. Also, existing bus pads along Highway 101 would be improved to modern standards. Most of the bus pads do not have the recommended elements of a modernized bus pad, which include protected waiting areas with benches, trash receptacles, telephones, effective lighting, bus system maps, and schedules. Additional enhancements could include real-time information kiosks, drinking fountains, newspaper racks, and advance ticket and/or pass machines (Marin County Congestion Management Agency, 2001). However, the costs associated with these enhancements may preclude such improvements.

Rail Service

The existing NWP corridor would remain, but there would be no passenger rail service and the track and corridor upgrades planned as part of the proposed project would not be implemented. Freight rail service could be re-introduced on the NWP corridor north of the Ignacio Wye by the NCRA. Levels of freight service would be the same as the No-Project and proposed project (see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3).

Water Transit Service

The Express Bus Alternative assumes that ferry services would remain at current levels as no ferry expansion was proposed in the North Bay as part of the 2001 RTP. The Larkspur Ferry Terminal would continue to serve as the main ferry terminal for the North Bay.

Bicycle and Pedestrian

The Express Bus Alternative assumes the same improvements in the bicycle and pedestrian system as assumed for the No-Project Alternative (see Section 4.3.1).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-23 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

FIGURE 4.4-1 EXPRESS BUS ALTERNATIVE: EXPRESS BUS STOPS

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-24 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

FIGURE 4.4-2 EXPRESS BUS ALTERNATIVE: SUPER EXPRESS BUS STOPS

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-25 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

4.4.2 Impacts

Implementation of the Express Bus Alternative would result in both construction and long-term impacts. In addition to construction impacts that would occur as a result of transportation improvements identified for the No-Project Alternative (identified above), minor construction impacts, likely lasting less than one year, would be associated with the construction of two new freeway bus pads, pedestrian access ways and associated parking areas. Long-term impacts would be associated with the operation of the expanded bus service. The environmental impacts associated with the Express Bus Alternative are summarized below.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity

The limited construction involved in the Express Bus Alternative would result in minimal excavation and soils disturbance; therefore the geologic, soils, and seismic impacts would be less than significant. There is the potential for minor erosion and runoff impacts during construction and bus facilities would be subject to groundshaking and fault rupture. Although less than significant, these geologic, soils, and seismic impacts would be slightly greater than those related to the No-Project Alternative, due to the additional construction of bus pads and park-and-ride facilities. Impacts under this alternative would be less than those associated with the proposed project as the construction associated with the Express Bus Alternative would be minimal compared to the construction required to implement the proposed project.

Water Resources

The Express Bus Alternative would include the construction of bus pads and some expansion of park- and-ride lots. This construction would occur in developed areas that are served by transit or along the freeway corridor, resulting in minor amounts of additional runoff. In addition, the implementation of standard best management practices (BMP) for construction would further ensure that impacts from sediment runoff from the sites would be less than significant. This alternative would avoid the impacts on the 100-year floodplain of the proposed project. As there would be some additional construction associated with the Express Bus Alternative, the impacts on water resources would be greater than under the No-Project Alternative, but would be less than under the proposed project, as the amount of construction required for implementation of the Express Bus Alternative is substantially less.

Hazardous Materials

The construction of new bus pads and the expansion of park-and-ride lots could result in construction in areas contaminated by hazardous or toxic materials and therefore have a potential impact. Prior to any construction on the Express Bus Alternative, a thorough environmental site assessment would be conducted, identifying any contamination. Any contaminated sites used for an expanded park-and-ride facility would be remediated prior to construction. Adherence to these standards would result in a less than significant hazardous materials impact for the Express Bus Alternative. The potential hazardous materials impacts associated with construction under the Express Bus Alternative would not occur under the No-Project Alternative. The amount of construction under the proposed project would be substantially greater than that required under the Express Bus Alternative and therefore the potential for exposure to hazardous materials would be greater.

Air Quality

The Express Bus Alternative adds additional buses to the freeway system compared to the 2025 No- Project Alternative. It also includes additional bus service relative to the proposed project. The results of the air quality analysis are shown in Tables 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 for the two air basins. As shown in the tables, the Express Bus alternative would result in slightly higher emissions compared to the proposed project. However, none of these increases exceed any BAAQMD or NSCAPCD significance threshold. These increases are about 0.8 percent higher than for the proposed project for all greenhouse gases and

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-26 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

criteria pollutants, except NOx. The Express Bus Alternative would have NOx emissions that are 1.9 percent lower than the proposed project if the proposed project did not include any emission controls. However, SMART proposes to implement advanced emission control technology such as NOx adsorbers on the DMUs, which would substantially reduce the amount of NOx. As a result, the Express Bus Alternative would have NOx emissions that are slightly higher than the proposed project by approximately 0.6 percent. Cancer risk from diesel PM associated with the Express Bus Alternative is expected to be low and not significant due to new diesel emission standards for buses and because there would be a limited number of buses idling at each bus stop during the day.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-27 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

TABLE 4.4-1 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM STUDY AREA MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC WITHIN THE BAY AREA AIR BASIN (in pounds/day) 2000 (Existing Conditions) Proposed Project 2025 with Express Bus Alternative

Activity CO CO2 ROG NOx PM10 CO CO2 ROG NOx PM10 CO CO2 ROG NOx PM10

Motor Vehicle 171,081 7,870,981 9,754 27,686 6,166 27,238 9,324,150 1,365 3,918 7,332 27,485 9,408,583 1,378 3,954 7,399 Traffic

DMUs 0 0 0 0 0 19 68 3 110/11* 2 0 0 0 0 0

Total 171,081 7,870,981 9,754 27,686 6,166 27,257 9,324,218 1,368 4,028/3,929* 7,334 27,485 9,408,583 1,378 3,954 7,399

Net Difference -143,596 1,537,602 -8,376 -23,732 1,233 Between the Alternative and Existing

Net Difference 228 84,365 10 -74/25* 65 between the Alternative and Proposed Project

* The first number indicates the amount of NOx emissions that would be generated by the proposed project if no efforts were taken to control emissions. The second number indicates the amount of NOx emissions if control technologies such as NOx adsorbers are used on the DMUs.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-28 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

TABLE 4.4-2 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM STUDY AREA MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC WITHIN THE NORTH COAST AIR BASIN (in pounds/day) 2000 (Existing Conditions) Proposed Project 2025 with Express Bus Alternative

Activity CO CO2 ROG NOx PM10 CO CO2 ROG NOx PM10 CO CO2 ROG NOx PM10

Motor Vehicle 57,027 2,623,660 3,251 9,229 2,055 9,080 3,108,050 455 1,306 2,444 9,162 3,136,194 459 1,318 2,466 Traffic

DMUs 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 1 20/2* 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 57,027 2,623,660 3,251 9,229 2,055 9,083 3,108,062 456 1,326/1,308* 2,444 9,162 3,136,194 459 1,318 2,466

Net Difference -47,865 512,534 -2,792 -7,911 411 Between the Alternative and Existing

Net Difference 79 28,132 3 -8/10* 22 between the Alternative and Proposed Project

* The first number indicates the amount of NOx emissions that would be generated by the proposed project if no efforts were taken to control emissions. The second number indicates the amount of NOx emissions if control technologies such as NOx adsorbers are used on the DMUs.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-29 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Transportation

The transportation analysis in Appendix I provides details on the Express Bus Alternative. There are several transportation factors to compare. Comparative VMT, traffic volumes, and LOS are in Tables 4.2-1, 4.2-2 and 4.2-3. The analysis reflects potential impacts in Year 2025. However, this alternative, like the proposed project, could be implemented sooner. In the event that it is implemented in advance of completion of HOV lanes, this alternative would not perform as well as it would in Year 2025. Compared to the proposed project in year 2010, it would not provide the same transportation benefits as the proposed project.

VMT and VHT As shown in Table 4.2-1, VMT would be higher for the Express Bus Alternative than the proposed project. VMT and VHT would increase from existing conditions to 2025 conditions during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours due to projected growth and increased number of vehicles on the highway. Based on model results, the total daily vehicle trips in the study area would be slightly lower under the Express Bus Alternative compared to the No-Project conditions; and total daily transit trips would be higher under the Express Bus Alternative compared to No-Project conditions. During both a.m. and p.m. peak hours, Express Bus Alternative total VMT and VHT would be higher than the proposed project VMT and VHT.

Level of Service – A.M. Peak The a.m. peak hour service levels on Highway 101 for the Year 2025 are summarized in Tables 4.2-2A and 4.2-2B. Under the Express Bus Alternative, all mixed-flow lanes on the highway segments would operate at acceptable service levels during the a.m. peak hour; however, one northbound segment (Corona Road to State Route 116) would deteriorate from LOS D, under existing conditions and future No-Project conditions, to LOS E. In comparison, this northbound mixed flow segment would remain at LOS D under the proposed project. HOV facilities with the proposed project or Express Bus Alternative would operate at similar levels during the a.m. peak hour in 2025 as under the 2025 No-Project conditions. The Express Bus Alternative would result in a deterioration in V/C ratios in the southbound HOV segment from North San Pedro Road to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, whereas the V/C ratio on this segment would remain the same under the proposed project.

Level of Service – P.M. Peak The p.m. peak hour service levels for the Year 2025 are summarized in Tables 4.2-3A and 4.2-3B. Compared to existing conditions, both the proposed project and future baseline (No-Project) conditions would improve for the mixed flow lanes such that all segments would operate at acceptable service levels. The levels of service on all segments of Highway 101 mixed flow lanes under the Express Bus Alternative would also be acceptable, similar to 2025 No-Project conditions. The only change in level of service that would occur under the Express Bus Alternative would be on the southbound mixed flow segment from Windsor River Road to Third Street; however the resulting level of service would still be acceptable, although the V/C ratio would be slightly worse than the proposed project. Unlike the Express Bus Alternative, the proposed project would also result in a change in level of service on the southbound mixed flow segment from North San Pedro Road to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard, but the change in V/C ratio would be slight and the resulting level of service would still be acceptable.

All HOV lanes along Highway 101 under the Express Bus Alternative are also expected to operate at similar acceptable levels of service as the No-Project and proposed project conditions during the p.m. peak hour.

Other Transportation Performance Factors Improvements on Highway 101 LOS are limited due to projected regional growth. Other transportation performance factors that were evaluated include the following comparisons to the proposed project.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-30 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

• Total daily ridership is higher for the proposed project compared to the Express Bus alternative; approximately 4,800 daily riders versus 2,400 daily riders for the Express Bus alternative (Travel Demand Forecasting Report, 2005). • Home based work trips for the proposed project compared to the Express Bus alternative were also higher; approximately 3,900 daily home based work trips versus 1,350 for the Express Bus alternative (Travel Demand Forecasting Report, 2005). • Average roadway speeds along Highway 101 are lower for the Express Bus Alternative compared to the proposed project. For the a.m. peak, roadway speeds for the proposed project are 20.5 mph as opposed to 20.2 mph for the Express Bus alternative. In the p.m. peak, roadway speeds for the proposed project are 24.0 mph versus 23.4 mph for the Express Bus (Travel Demand Forecasting Report, 2005). • Even with the full HOV lanes, assumed in the 2025 forecast year, the Express Bus Alternative would result in slower travel times than the proposed project. The relative travel times of the Express Bus compared to the proposed project are shown below, considering the in-vehicle travel time component only. The times shown are via the best (fastest) available transit routing. In general, the proposed project would save anywhere from five to 20 minutes (or more) of in-vehicle travel time compared to the Express Bus Alternative.

TABLE 4.4-3 COMPARISON OF EXPRESS BUS IN-VEHICLE TRAVEL TIME WITH PROPOSED PROJECT City Pair Zone Pair Proposed Project Express Bus Proposed Project Time Savings San Rafael- 1077-1025 50 73 23 Santa Rosa San Rafael- 1077-997 30 35 5 Petaluma downtown San Rafael- 1077-1052 18 36 18 Novato North San Rafael- 1077-1041 61 66 5 Windsor Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 2005.

Local Roadways The additional bus service in combination with the new bus pads and expanded park-and-ride lots at transit centers could result in increased traffic on highway ramps, local roads and intersections that access the park-and-ride lots. The additional traffic in these areas may lead to some localized traffic impacts.

The Express Bus Alternative would add additional traffic demands to the Downtown San Rafael Transit Center, but is not expected to substantially impact Year 2025 traffic operations or service levels. Unlike the proposed project, the express bus alternative would not introduce at-grade crossings from Mission Avenue to Second Street and basically maintain the transportation network in the City of San Rafael’s General Plan for 2020. Although a traffic signal coordination system will be introduced to minimize impacts with the proposed project, the express bus alternative would have less traffic impacts when compared to the proposed project. The additional traffic demands associated with the Express Bus Alternative are not anticipated to worsen the traffic operations below acceptable levels as documented in the City of San Rafael General Plan.

The Express Bus Alternative would not impact the other downtown areas analyzed for the proposed project such as Petaluma and Santa Rosa. The express bus transfer areas would consist of bus pads located on or just off of Highway 101 and various transit centers located in close proximity of Highway 101. The only downtown area that would be directly served by the Express Bus Alternative would be the Downtown San Rafael Transit Center. The other cities such as Petaluma and Santa Rosa would be

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-31 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

served by passenger transfer facilities located in areas where park and ride facilities are available and generally away from the downtown areas. Therefore, downtown area impacts would be less with the Express Bus Alternative than the proposed project.

Noise and Vibration

The operation of bus pads, park-and-ride lots, and transit centers could result in noise impacts to adjacent residences or other sensitive receptors. The Express Bus Alternative would increase bus service on the Highway 101 and increase total traffic on the freeway in the loudest hour by less than five percent. The traffic increases would result in less than a 1 dBA Leq(h) along the highway when compared to the No-Project Alternative. The increase in noise levels would be considered less than significant.

The noise impacts from park-and-ride lots are generally considered to extend to a 300-foot radius from the lots (FTA, 1995). Since most of the park-and-ride lots and the transit centers would be located within or immediately adjacent to the Highway 101 corridor, the additional noise and vibration at these sites would not be substantial within the context of ambient noise levels.

There would be fewer noise impacts under the Express Bus Alternative than under the proposed project because the Express Bus Alternative would not include the sounding of train horns at grade crossings, which would be the primary cause of noise impacts under the proposed project.

Energy

The Express Bus Alternative includes expanded express bus service between Sonoma and Marin c counties in addition to increased bus frequencies. Annual passenger vehicle VMT for the Express Bus Alternative would be approximately 5.67 billion compared to approximately 5.61 billion annual VMT for the proposed project. As shown in Table 4.3-1, annual bus transit VMT increases from 14.1 million miles under the proposed project to 15.1 million miles under the Express Bus Alternative. The increase in transit bus miles for the Express Bus Alternative would result in a 1.1 percent increase in total BTUs compared to the proposed project, or an additional 65,000 barrels of oil in direct energy consumption. The total indirect energy consumption of the Express Bus Alternative would be 30,000 additional barrels of oil over the proposed project (see Table 4.3-2). Overall, the Express Bus Alternative would consume more energy than the proposed project.

Biological Resources

The Express Bus Alternative would require limited construction of bus pads and park-and-ride facilities resulting in potential impacts that would be minor. In general, the limited construction associated with the Express Bus Alternative would be along established transportation corridors and in developed areas that support mostly ruderal and landscape vegetation and provide relatively low habitat value for wildlife. Therefore the biological resource impacts would be less than those associated with the proposed project.

The bus pad site at Steele Lane in Santa Rosa is in a developed urban area with a small amount of landscaping vegetation. Construction of the bus pad and associated commuter park-and-ride lot at this site would not result in any substantial long-term impacts on biological resources. The Gravenstein Highway bus pad site in Cotati is also in a predominantly developed urban area, but contains small patches of annual grassland and wetland habitats. Depending on the location of the site improvements, additional surveys may need to be performed prior to construction at this site to determine if any sensitive habitats or special-status species could occur there and potentially be affected. Through implementation of required measures to minimize biological resource impacts, potential impacts on biological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level for the Express Bus Alternative.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-32 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Parks and Recreation

Implementation of the Express Bus Alternative, which consists of limited construction for bus pads and park-and-ride facilities and an increase in bus service, would not be expected to impact established parks or recreation areas.

The bicycle/pedestrian pathway improvements along the NWP corridor in the proposed project would not be implemented; therefore the increased opportunities for recreational activities associated with the proposed project would not be available to residents of and visitors to Sonoma and Marin counties. The Express Bus Alternative would not implement the policies of the general plans of the counties and the local jurisdictions that call for the creation of a bicycle/pedestrian pathway along the NWP.

Land Use and Planning

The Express Bus Alternative would potentially require partial or full property acquisitions for the expansion or creation of bus pads and park-and-ride lots. Information on specific acquisitions is not available, but no substantive displacement of homes or business is expected. Existing bus transit centers would have to be expanded to accommodate the Express Buses, or new transit centers found. Both the downtown San Rafael and Santa Rosa transit centers are currently near or at capacity in terms of the number of buses that can be accommodated during peak hours. Both are also relatively constrained in terms of the surrounding land uses and structures, making expansion at these sites difficult. Commuter traffic using the park-and-ride facilities could impact adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial developments, but impacts are not anticipated to be significant.

The existing development pattern in Sonoma and Marin counties would likely continue into the future with the Express Bus Alternative. Like the No-Project Alternative, the Express Bus Alternative would not be fully consistent with the transportation element of regional and local plans in Sonoma and Marin counties because it would not implement passenger rail service as called for in those plans. Although several plans call for the expansion of bus service, as proposed under the Express Bus Alternative, the alternative would not provide the same potential to support transit-oriented development around rail stations as the proposed project. However, land use plans could provide for transit-oriented development around bus transit centers.

Public Facilities and Safety

The increase in bus service frequency and the addition of new routes would require an increase in vehicle fleets for the various transit operators serving the study area. Slightly increased police surveillance may be required at the transit centers and park-and-ride lots; however, this alternative would not be expected to have further impact on public facilities. The minor increase in demand on community services (e.g. emergency response) would be less than that associated with the implementation of the proposed project due to the smaller scale of the service requirements. This alternative would not require preparation of a comprehensive Emergency Response Plan, as required for the proposed project. This alternative would avoid the delays to emergency response vehicles at at-grade crossings caused by the proposed project.

Visual Quality

The introduction of new bus pads and park-and-ride facilities for the Express Bus Alternative would require minor changes to the physical environment that would not likely result in any substantial adverse visual effects. It would avoid potential adverse impacts of the proposed project, which are associated primarily with the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway safety structure and the introduction of new sources of night-time lighting.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-33 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Historic Resources

No historic resources have been identified in the vicinity of the proposed bus pads or park-and-ride facilities; therefore, the Express Bus Alternative would not be expected to have a significant impact on historic resources. The Express Bus Alternative would not have the potential impact on historic resources associated with the construction of platforms and facilities in the vicinity of the stations (Healdsburg, Petaluma, and San Rafael), bridge replacements, and the bicycle/pedestrian pathway for the proposed project.

Archaeological Resources

No known archaeological sites have been identified within the vicinity of the park and ride lots or areas where bus pads would be constructed. Although new construction would take place on areas that have been previously disturbed, there is the potential for sub-surface resources to be discovered during construction. Standard practices for identifying and preserving resources that are discovered would reduce any impact to less than significant. The Express Bus Alternative would not have the impact on archaeological resources associated with the construction of the stations, track upgrades, bridge reconstruction, construction of the maintenance facility, and the bicycle/pedestrian pathway construction associated with the proposed project.

4.5 MINIMUM OPERABLE SEGMENT (MOS) RAIL ALTERNATIVE

4.5.1 Project Description

The MOS Rail Alternative would provide passenger rail service and a bicycle/pedestrian pathway along approximately 46 miles of the SMART corridor from Windsor in Sonoma County to San Rafael in Marin County. This alternative is essentially the same as the proposed project except it is a shorter segment of the proposed route, from Windsor to San Rafael rather than from Cloverdale to Larkspur.

Transportation Assumptions

The highway and roadway improvements would be the same as those identified the proposed project, No Project and Express Bus Alternatives. Assumptions regarding bus service under the MOS Rail Alternative are the same as under the proposed project within the Windsor-San Rafael segment. See Section 3.6 for further details on future transportation network assumptions.

Rail Service

The MOS Rail Alternative would provide commuter rail service in the SMART corridor from the Windsor Station to the San Rafael Downtown Station, with an operating plan within this segment that would be the same as that described for the proposed project. However, the alignment would be approximately 46 miles rather than 70 miles. Passenger rail service would serve 11 of the 14 stations of the proposed project: Windsor, Santa Rosa-Jennings Avenue, Santa Rosa Railroad Square, Rohnert Park, Cotati, Petaluma-Corona Road, Downtown Petaluma, Novato North, Novato South, Marin Civic Center, and Downtown San Rafael. The stations would be the same as described in the proposed project; see Chapter 2, Project Description. Stations and portions of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway outside the Windsor - San Rafael segment would not be built.

The required rail facility improvements would be the same as those proposed for the project within the Windsor-San Rafael segment. Improvements outside this segment, such as track installation in the Cal Park Tunnel or upgrades to the Russian River Bridge, would not be required. Under the MOS Rail Alternative, the maintenance facility would be constructed at the proposed Windsor site, which would be the northern-most terminus of the segment.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-34 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

4.5.2 Impacts

Physical impacts associated with the MOS Rail Alternative would be the same as those for the proposed project within the limits of the MOS segment. Thus, the identified impacts of the proposed project occurring between Windsor and San Rafael would also occur for the MOS Rail Alternative.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity

The impacts and mitigation for this alternative are the same as for the proposed project within the Windsor-San Rafael segment. Implementation of BMPs and other mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would reduce these potential impacts to less than significant.

Water Resources

Impacts related to the MOS Rail Alternative would be similar to those described for the proposed project, but would be limited to the Windsor-San Rafael segment. Like the proposed project, the MOS Rail Alternative would not impact ground water supplies, or groundwater recharge or production rates of wells in the vicinity. Project construction activities could result in increased erosion and sedimentation. However, implementation of BMPs would minimize impacts and keep them below the threshold for significance. Potential impacts on water resources at stream and river crossings between Cloverdale and Windsor would be avoided.

There also would be the potential for increased runoff due to the increase in impervious surfaces associated with new parking areas, structures, and the bicycle/pedestrian pathway, but the amount would be less than the proposed project.

Hazardous Materials

The potential for encountering contaminated soils or materials is similar to the proposed project, except that the smaller area of construction would create a lower risk of impact. Any contaminated sites would be remediated prior to construction, resulting in a less than significant hazardous materials impact for the MOS Rail Alternative.

Air Quality

Like the proposed project, the MOS Rail Alternative would decrease emissions compared to the 2025 No-Project condition for all criteria pollutants except NOx. This alternative would not reduce motor vehicle VMT and emissions as much as the proposed project. CO, ROG, PM10, and CO2 emissions would be reduced in the Bay Area Air Basin by about 0.7 percent (slightly less than the proposed project’s reduction of 0.8 percent). (Because the MOS Rail Alternative would operate entirely in the Bay Area Basin, no air quality impacts would be expected to occur in the North Coast Basin.) The MOS Rail Alternative also has more limited train service than the proposed project, which results in less train emissions. If emission controls were not incorporated into the proposed project or the MOS Rail Alternative, the MOS Rail Alternative would result in approximately 0.5 percent less NOx emissions than the proposed project due to the fact that it would have less train emissions (see Figure 4.5-1). However with the use of NOx adsorbers in both alternatives, the NOx emissions from trains would be comparable (11 pounds for the proposed project versus 8 pounds for the MOS Rail Alternative). Because the MOS Rail Alternative does not reduce VMT as effectively as the proposed project, it would overall result in a small increase in NOx emissions (two pounds per day) over the proposed project when emission controls on the DMUs are considered.

Like the proposed project, the DMUs are proposed to have catalytic diesel particulate filters, which would substantially reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions and therefore significantly reduce the associated cancer risk near proposed rail stations and residences near the rail tracks. In addition, the MOS Rail Alternative would have lower DPM emissions as there would be fewer trains per day than with the proposed project.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-35 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

TABLE 4.5-1 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM STUDY AREA MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND DMUS WITHIN THE BAY AREA AIR BASIN (in pounds/day) 2025 Proposed Project 2025 MOS Rail Alternative

Activity CO CO2 ROG NOx PM10 CO CO2 ROG NOx PM10

Motor Vehicle 27,238 9,324,150 1,365 3,918 7,332 27,272 9,335,396 1,367 3,923 7,341 Traffic

DMUs 19 68 3 110/11* 2 14 50 2 81/8* 1

Total 27,257 9,324,218 1,368 4,028/3,929* 7,334 27,286 9,335,446 1,369 4,004/3,931* 7,342

Net Difference 29 11,228 1 -24/2 8

* The first number indicates the amount of NOx emissions that would be generated by the proposed project if no efforts were taken to control emissions. The second number indicates the amount of NOx emissions if control technologies such as NOx adsorbers are used on the DMUs.

Transportation The traffic modeling results for this alternative are shown in Tables 4.2-1 through 4.2-3. The MOS Alternative would result in lower VMT and VHT than both the 2025 No-Project and the proposed project conditions during the a.m. peak hour; however, during the p.m. peak hour, VMT and VHT would not be lower than under proposed project conditions. The MOS Alternative would result in some areas of increased traffic on Highway 101 while other areas remain at similar congestion levels. Traffic may increase on segments beyond the limits of the rail corridor, as longer vehicle trips may be required to access the stations.

Level of Service – A.M. Peak Overall, the proposed project conditions would result in service levels that are the same as under No- Project conditions, with variations in vehicle demand along some segments of Highway 101. This is also true for the MOS Alternative. The MOS Alternative would result in a deterioration in V/C ratios in the southbound HOV segment from North San Pedro Road to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.

Level of Service – P.M. Peak The levels of service on all segments of Highway 101 mixed flow lanes under the MOS Alternative would be acceptable, similar to 2025 No-Project and proposed project conditions. The only change in level of service that would occur under the MOS Alternative would be on the Downtown Santa Rosa segment; however the resulting level of service would still be acceptable. Similar to the proposed project and other alternatives, all HOV lanes along Highway 101 under the MOS Alternative are also expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during the p.m. peak hour.

Noise and Vibration

Construction noise would occur similar to the proposed project, except noise disturbances would be confined to the segment between Windsor and San Rafael. Long-term operational noise impacts would be similar to the proposed project, except that effects from train horn noise near some noise sensitive uses would be avoided. Table 3.7-5 shows residential areas that may be impacted by train horn noise from the proposed project at grade crossings. Residential areas north of Windsor and south of San Rafael would not be affected by the MOS Alternative.

Approximately 15 residences located within 30 feet of the rail line, in the vicinity of Pacheco Street north of the Downtown San Rafael Station, would experience pass-by noise impacts under the FTA transit

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-36 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

noise impact criteria, but no residences would experience severe noise impacts. This would be the same impact as under the proposed project and would be less than significant.

Other potential noise impacts would be associated with stations, the maintenance facility, and park-and- ride lots. Noise impacts from these types of facilities are limited to within 200 feet of stations, 2,000 feet of maintenance facilities, and 300 feet of park-and-ride lots, although the actual distances at which impacts are experienced is often much less than these limits. As with the proposed project, there would be residences experiencing less-than-significant noise impacts at the Windsor Station.

Energy

Energy consumption for this alternative is shown in Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2. The MOS Rail Alternative includes fewer commuter rail miles and results in additional passenger vehicle miles compared to the Proposed Project. Vehicle operation under this alternative is expected to consume 6.15 million barrels of oil, almost 10,000 barrels more than the proposed project. Measured in total BTUs, the MOS Rail Alternative would result in a 0.16 percent increase in direct energy consumption compared to the proposed project. The manufacturing of vehicles associated with this alternative would consume approximately 1.4 million barrels of oil (7,982 billion BTUs), and maintenance would require approximately 1.39 million barrels of oil (8,061 billion BTUs). This represents a 0.23 percent increase in indirect energy consumption compared to the proposed project.

Biological Resources

Construction and long-term impacts will be similar to the proposed project, but restricted to the segment between Windsor and San Rafael. In general, construction and operations would occur mostly within the existing, already disturbed right-of-way and the station and maintenance facility sites. Permanent loss or alteration of sensitive plant communities and wildlife habitats would be limited to the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway side of the right-of-way, new siding track areas, and areas of stream banks and channels that would be modified with new crossing structures.

In general, the MOS Rail Alternative would not have as great an impact on biological resources as the proposed project. Implementation of the MOS Rail Alternative would potentially impact about 23.3 acres of wetlands and 2.0 acres of waters compared to 28.8 acres of wetlands and 2.9 acres of waters that would be affected by the proposed project. Both the MOS Rail Alternative and the proposed project would result in the loss of 0.4 acres of vernal pools. About 1.5 acres of riparian woodland/scrub and 5.9 acres of oak woodland would be affected by the MOS Rail Alternative versus about 5.3 acres of riparian woodland/scrub and 15.0 acres of oak woodland by the proposed project. Generally the potential impact on sensitive species and habitat would be less under the MOS Alternative, as the reduced project length would result in fewer disturbances.

Parks and Recreation

Construction and operation of the MOS Rail Alternative would not impact park or recreational resources. The bicycle/pedestrian pathway improvements along the NWP corridor would be implemented, but on a shorter segment than would be implemented under the proposed project. As a result, there would be increased opportunities for recreational activities in Sonoma and Marin counties relative to existing conditions, but not as extensive as opportunities provided by the longer pathway associated with the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning

The MOS Rail Alternative would have the same impacts as the proposed project, but limited to the Windsor-San Rafael segment. Although passenger rail service on the tracks has been dormant for many years, the reintroduction of rail service would not physically divide the communities, since they were originally established around the railroad. Sonoma and Marin counties’ general plans and all of the general plans for cities and towns along the project corridor call for the use of the existing railroad for

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-37 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

transit purposes; therefore implementation of passenger rail service along the railroad would be consistent with that element of each plan.

Implementation of passenger rail and associated facilities, including stations, maintenance facility and bicycle/pedestrian pathway, would not present a conflict with existing land uses found in the project area. Construction of the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway adjacent to the railroad would require acquisition of about 9.3 acres of land and 7.0 acres of public easements for the MOS Rail Alternative compared to 9.8 acres of acquisition and 7.0 acres of easements for the proposed project. This minimal amount of land that would be required would not conflict with existing land uses along the proposed project corridor. As described for the proposed project, the areas where additional right-of-way would be needed to accommodate the bicycle/pedestrian pathway would not lose their functional value by the acquisition of small portions of their total area adjacent to the railroad right-of-way.

Acquisition of several parcels would be required for stations at Santa Rosa-Jennings Avenue, Petaluma- Corona Road, Novato South, and Downtown San Rafael for either the MOS Rail Alternative or the proposed project. The maintenance facility site option in Windsor would require acquisition of 31 acres. The site is currently used for industrial purposes and conversion to a rail maintenance facility would not conflict with the existing land uses near the site. No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be converted to other uses by this alternative.

Public Facilities and Safety

Like the proposed project, during the construction period there is the potential for minimal delays in emergency response times for fire and police due to construction induced traffic congestion or road closure. Emergency vehicles may need to alter their routes in order to avoid those areas where construction is occurring along the rail corridor.

The operational impacts of the MOS Rail Alternative would be similar to the proposed project; however potential impacts on emergency response times at at-grade crossings would not occur for the portion of the line between San Rafael and Larkspur and between Cloverdale and Windsor. A comprehensive Emergency Response Plan would still be required for this alternative, as identified for the proposed project.

Visual Quality

Construction and long-term impacts will be similar to the proposed project, but restricted to the segment between Windsor and San Rafael. A majority of the construction activities would be in the existing rail corridor right-of-way except some stations and the maintenance facility, which would be constructed on parcels outside the railroad right-of-way. Construction would be generally short in duration with the greatest construction visibility in station and maintenance facility areas and bridge rehabilitation areas.

New stations, park-and-ride lots and the maintenance facility would incorporate lighting into their design for visibility, safety and security. Residences surrounding the parking area at Windsor Station, and residences east of Windsor Station across Roblar Drive would see the additional lighting; however, all lighting will be directed in a manner to reduce light spillage off-site.

The greatest change in the corridor would be in the portions of the corridor which have a bicycle/pedestrian safety structure between the rail and the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway and also have the fewest number of other visually dominant elements such as trees, sound walls or buildings. The MOS alternative would result in fewer adverse visual effects than the proposed project associated with the safety structure. Impacts identified for the proposed project in Visual Analysis Areas 1 through 5 and 20 would be avoided; however, impacts in these areas would not be significant under the proposed project.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-38 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Historic Resources

Potential impacts to historic resources under the MOS Rail Alternative would be the same as under the proposed project within the Windsor-San Rafael segment. Because of the reduced length of the corridor, impacts to the Sonoma County viticulture cultural landscape at the Nervo, Simi, and Asti wineries and at the Railroad Avenue historic district in Geyserville associated with the proposed project would not occur under the MOS Rail Alternative. In addition, under the MOS Rail Alternative there would be no impact to the historic Russian River Railroad Bridge or to the Healdsburg Station. There would still be potentially significant, but mitigable impacts on resources in the Santa Rosa and Petaluma historic districts, and on the Petaluma River Haystack Landing Bridge with the MOS Rail Alternative.

Archaeological Resources

Impacts associated with the MOS Rail Alternative would be the same as for the proposed project within that segment. Any potential impacts associated with the portions of the railway outside of the Windsor to San Rafael segment would be avoided.

4.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

The Environmentally Superior Alternative is the alternative that would result in the least adverse environmental impacts. If the No-Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) (2)). Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is to assist decision makers in considering project approval; however, CEQA does not require an agency to select the environmentally superior alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15043).

There are tradeoffs in impacts associated with the various alternatives and some issue areas bear more importance than others in the decision making process (e.g., short-term effects versus long-term conditions). Table 4.6-1 summarizes the impacts associated with each alternative in a comparative format. The alternatives also would result in varying degrees of achieving the proposed project objectives. Since the primary objective of the proposed project is to provide an alternative mode of transportation on an existing rail corridor along Highway 101 with the intent to improve transportation conditions, the issue area of transportation is one of the key considerations in determining the environmentally superior alternative.

Based on the comparison of all issue areas and balancing of short- and long-term environmental factors, the proposed project would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives in comparison to the proposed project are summarized below.

Both the No-Project and Express Bus Alternatives would avoid the construction impacts associated with implementing the proposed project, particularly effects on sensitive biological resources. Although both of these alternatives would require some new construction, the proposed project involves substantially more construction and potential disturbance to environmental resources. It should be noted that most of the construction is along an established rail right-of-way and the majority of construction impacts are related to installing the proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway, rather than the rail facility itself. Also, these construction impacts are either short-term effects that are not significant or can be mitigated to levels that are not significant through construction practices and protective measures.

With regard to long-term effects, the No-Project and Express Bus Alternatives would have fewer adverse impacts in the issue areas of noise and visual resources, relative to the proposed project. Train pass-by and train horn noise would be avoided and visual effects of the bicycle/pedestrian pathway safety structure would be avoided. Visual effects of the proposed project would not be significant, but train horn noise may be significant if Quiet Zones are not established. While safety considerations are important and there is a potential for accidents to occur as a result of the proposed rail facility, the risk is very low and is not greater than accident risks associated with other vehicle travel.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-39 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Both the No-Project and Express Bus Alternative would result in greater long-term impacts on transportation, air quality, energy use and land use relative to the proposed project. Furthermore, these two alternatives would not provide regional recreational benefits nor achieve the objective of providing an alternative to use of Highway 101. The combination of these following long-term environmental factors substantiates the finding that the proposed project is environmentally superior. • The proposed project is environmentally preferred in the transportation impact area because it would result in overall lower VMT and VHT, higher ridership, more home based work trips, better v/c ratios, and faster travel times relative to the other alternatives. Localized congestion related to station access areas and at-grade crossings, while adverse and potentially significant in one location, would be offset to some extent by the regional transportation operational improvements. • Long-term air emissions and energy consumption associated with the proposed project would be the lowest of all alternatives considered. • The proposed project provides benefits in land use and recreation. The project supports local general plans’ policy direction to develop transit-oriented land uses and provides a regional recreational facility. The proposed bicycle/pedestrian pathway would provide benefits for commuters and recreational users alike. • The proposed project would benefit water resources through the re-construction of old clogged drainage facilities along the right-of-way, to improve hydrologic and water quality conditions and reduce the risk of flooding. • The No-Project and Express Bus Alternatives would be inconsistent with the transportation elements of regional and local plans analyzed as part of this study because they would not provide passenger rail service as called for in the plans. • The No-Project Alternative would not enhance transit opportunities in the SMART or Highway 101 corridors and would continue dependence on the private automobile, which would further contribute to adverse effects on the transportation network.

The MOS Rail Alternative would not be environmentally preferred because it would result in many of the same construction impacts associated with the proposed project, but would not provide a commensurate amount of beneficial effects with regard to transportation, air quality, energy, recreation and land use. Specifically, this alternative would not provide a link to water transit service, as it does not extend to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal, the key link in Marin County to the Bay Area ferry system. The MOS Rail Alternative would require an inefficient transfer of modes for passengers using the ferry system.

Other considerations for decision makers are the ability of the alternatives to achieve the proposed project’s objectives, as stated in Section 2.1 of this DEIR. The proposed project has two stated transportation objectives: 1) to provide cost-effective rail service that links to bus and ferry services, and to key employment and multi-modal centers along the corridor; and 2) to provide a continuous bicycle/pedestrian pathway generally within the SMART and NWP rights-of-way from Cloverdale to Larkspur. The No-Project Alternative fails to meet these major objectives. The No-Project Alternative would not provide any multi-modal options beyond those identified in the RTP. Since the No-Project Alternative would not offer major new transit services, it would not be expected to increase transit ridership in the corridor. The No-Project Alternative would not provide new links to bus or water transit services, key employment centers, or the transportation infrastructure needed to facilitate transit-oriented development in the cities along the project corridor.

The Express Bus Alternative would partially meet the project’s purpose and need. Although the Express bus service would not provide a new mode of transportation for commuters, it would provide expanded bus service levels within Sonoma and Marin counties. The enhanced bus service would encourage transit as an alternative to automobile travel in the Highway 101 corridor. The express bus service, however, would not provide a dedicated transit corridor like the rail alternative and would not reduce the reliance on the automobile to the extent that the proposed project would. Like the No-Project Alternative, the Express Bus Alternative would not provide a bicycle/pedestrian pathway along the SMART and NWP rights-of-way from Cloverdale to Larkspur and would not provide bicycle access to key employment and

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-40 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

multi-modal centers along the corridor. It should also be noted that the Express Bus alternative and the proposed project are not mutually exclusive. Development of the proposed rail project would not preclude implementation of the Express Bus Alternative in the future.

As noted in the transportation comparison, the proposed project would play a modest role in helping reduce the growing travel demands along Highway 101. The forecasted regional growth is such that there are very few feasible measures available to affect Highway 101 operations in terms of improving LOS conditions. The main benefit of the project is that the reintroduction of passenger rail service would provide an alternate mode of transportation for commuters along the Highway 101 corridor. Use of the dedicated rail right-of-way would result in an independent system that is not reliant on the operations of Highway 101 and would therefore be more reliable and efficient. The proposed project would provide a link to bus and water transit service and to key employment centers along the corridor. In addition, the implementation of rail stations would provide an opportunity for the creation of transit-oriented development and more compact growth patterns in the areas around the stations.

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-41 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

TABLE 4.6-1 ALTERNATIVES IMPACT COMPARISON Proposed Project No-Project Alternative Express Bus Alternative MOS Rail Alternative Geology, Soils and Seismicity Erosion Potential construction Erosion impacts related to Bus pads and park-and-ride Less than proposed impact from dewatering of highway improvements and facilities less susceptible to project2 excavations; portions of rail future regional growth less erosion from surface runoff alignment susceptible to than proposed project than proposed project erosion from surface runoff Groundshaking Rail alignment and Exposure of existing Bus pads and park-and-ride Same as proposed project proposed structures transportation network and facilities susceptible to susceptible to significant planned improvements to groundshaking from groundshaking from severe groundshaking – lower earthquakes – lower earthquakes potential for damage than potential for damage than proposed project due to proposed project due to fewer facilities subject to fewer facilities subject to risk risk Fault Rupture Fault rupture can cause Similar to the proposed Similar to the proposed Less than proposed damage to structures project but fewer structures project but fewer structures project subject to risk subject to risk Liquefaction Portions of proposed project Similar to the proposed Similar to the proposed Similar to the proposed corridor subject to project but fewer structures project but fewer structures project but fewer liquefaction during strong subject to risk subject to risk structures subject to risk groundshaking events Landslides and slope Portions of proposed project Fewer improvements No impacts associated with Less than proposed movement subject to landslides and susceptible to landslide and landslides and slope project slope movement slope movement movement as bus pads and park-and-ride facilities would not be located near slopes Expansive soils Proposed new stations Some portions of existing Bus pads and park-and-ride Less than proposed south of Windsor and north transportation network and facilities between Windsor project

2 Unless otherwise noted, impacts of the MOS Rail Alternative are less than those of the proposed project in all impact areas, due to the shorter segment (Windsor to San Rafael instead of Cloverdale to Larkspur).

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-42 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Proposed Project No-Project Alternative Express Bus Alternative MOS Rail Alternative of the Petaluma River planned improvements and Petaluma River susceptible to expansive susceptible to expansive susceptible to expansive soils and some new soils soils and some new structures subject to structures subject to corrosion corrosion; less than proposed project Water Resources Construction Short-term effects in areas Some short-term Minimal impacts related to Less than proposed disturbances to water near water bodies and at construction impacts construction of new bus project quality from erosion bridges and trestles and associated with planned pads and park-and-ride and sedimentation from release of highway improvements and facilities hydrocarbons and other regional growth pollutants Water quality Potential to improve water Project benefits not Project benefits not Less benefit than quality and stormwater achieved achieved proposed project management and re- establish hydrologic zones along project right-of-way through cross-culvert resizing, reconstruction, or clearing of obstructions, and through bridge replacement Runoff Potential minor increase in Some potential increase in Minor impacts from runoff Less than proposed runoff of pollutants from runoff from planned highway from bus pads and some project parking lots and rail improvements and other park-and-ride lots; less than maintenance facility development; less than proposed project proposed project Floodplain Placement of new structures Some potential for No flooding impacts as bus Less than proposed or fill material within a placement of new structures pads and park-and-ride project designated 100-year or fill in 100-year floodplain facilities would not be floodplain could increase to cause increased flooding located in 100-year flooding upstream of the floodplain structures Hazardous Materials Exposure of hazardous Potential to encounter Some potential to encounter Potential to encounter ADL Less than proposed materials phenol and creosol ADL in underlying soils in underlying soil during project

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-43 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Proposed Project No-Project Alternative Express Bus Alternative MOS Rail Alternative compounds or ADL in during construction construction of bus pads underlying soil during and park-and-ride facilities construction; potential to encounter LBP and/or asbestos in bridges along corridor Contaminated soil and Low to moderate potential to Similar to proposed project, Minimal potential to Less than proposed groundwater encounter contaminated soil but fewer construction areas encounter contaminated soil project and groundwater during and groundwater construction Use of hazardous Construction and operation Similar to proposed project, Minimal use of hazardous Less than proposed materials would involve limited use of but limited to areas of new materials project hazardous materials construction Air Quality Construction emissions Temporary increase in Similar to proposed project Temporary construction Less than proposed pollutant emissions from from construction of planned emissions – less than project dust and construction highway improvements and proposed project equipment other development

Regional air quality Decrease in CO, ROG, PM, Greater emissions overall Greater emissions overall Greater emissions overall and CO2 emissions and compared to proposed compared to proposed compared to proposed increase in NOx emissions. project project project Local CO impacts No significant impacts No significant impacts Slightly greater than Less than proposed proposed project project Exposure of sensitive Minimal exposure of Minimal exposure of Minimal exposure of Less than proposed receptors to additional sensitive receptors to sensitive receptors to sensitive receptors to project pollutant concentrations additional pollutant additional pollutant additional pollutant concentrations concentrations concentrations Transportation Highway 101 traffic For year 2025 conditions, VMT and VHT are higher VMT and VHT are greater In the a.m. peak, the VMT operations (VMT and total VMT and VHT in than proposed project than the proposed project and VHT are less than the VHT) Sonoma and Marin counties proposed project. In the anticipated to be lower than p.m. peak, the VMT and under 2025 No Project VHT are greater than the conditions proposed project

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-44 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Proposed Project No-Project Alternative Express Bus Alternative MOS Rail Alternative Highway 101 travel In 2025, some improvement Less improved V/C ratios Less improved V/C ratios Less improved V/C ratios demand in travel demand relative to than proposed project than proposed project than proposed project No Project conditions, increase in travel demand near rail stations Local roadway LOS, In 2025, local roadway LOS Similar to proposed project Less impacts than proposed Similar to proposed V/C ratio conditions in the a.m. peak project project would be similar to the No Project except 3 segments would improve while 3 segments would decline. The p.m. peak would have 5 segments with improved conditions Bicycle/pedestrian Proposed bicycle/pedestrian Some expansion of Same as No Project Less benefit than circulation pathway adjacent to rail bicycle/pedestrian facilities Alternative proposed project would enhance and improve outlined in the transportation bicycle and pedestrian plans for Sonoma and Marin mobility counties; less benefit than proposed project Traffic operations and Increased traffic and decline Less localized traffic Less localized traffic Similar to proposed LOS near Downtown in LOS at 3 intersections in impacts near stations than impacts near stations than project San Rafael Station a.m. peak hour and at 4 proposed project proposed project intersections in p.m. peak hour near station At-grade crossings Increase in vehicle travel Some increase in vehicle Same as No Project Less than proposed time and queues at at-grade travel time and queues at Alternative project crossings when train is at-grade crossings from present freight service; less than proposed project Noise and Vibration Construction noise Temporary increase in noise Project impacts avoided; Less than proposed project Less than proposed levels during construction some temporary project construction noise from planned highway improvements and

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-45 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Proposed Project No-Project Alternative Express Bus Alternative MOS Rail Alternative development; less than proposed project Increase in ambient Increase in ambient noise Project impacts avoided; Project impacts avoided: Less than proposed noise levels (train levels along corridor, at minor increase in ambient minor increase in ambient project operations) Windsor Station parking noise levels from planned noise levels; less than facility, and at maintenance highway improvements and proposed project facility development Increase in ambient Residences would No impact No impact Less than proposed noise levels (train experience noise impacts project horns) from train horns near crossings Energy Indirect energy Energy consumption Higher consumption than Higher consumption than Higher consumption than consumption required for manufacture of proposed project – more proposed project – more proposed project - 2,766 vehicles – 2,760 thousand vehicles manufactured – vehicles manufactured – thousand barrels barrels of oil 2,766 thousand barrels 2,790 thousand barrels Direct energy Energy consumption Higher consumption than Higher consumption than Higher consumption than consumption required for operations – 6, proposed project - 6,147 proposed project – 6,200 proposed project – 6,145 135 thousand barrels of oil thousand barrels of oil thousand barrels of oil thousand barrels of oil

Biological Resources Construction-related Construction-related Some construction impacts Minimal impacts on Less than proposed impacts impacts on sensitive upland associated with planned biological resources from project vegetation and wildlife highway improvements and construction of bus pads habitat, wetlands and other other development and park-and-ride lots waters, and nesting birds Noxious weeds Introduction or spread of Some potential to introduce Less than proposed project Less than proposed noxious weeds in project or spread noxious weeds project corridor through planned highway improvements and other development Wetlands Approximately 29 acres of Some impacts on wetlands Minimal impacts on Less than proposed wetlands, 3 acres of and other waters and vernal wetlands from construction project jurisdictional waters and 0.4 pool habitat associated with of bus pads and park-and- acre vernal pool would be planned highway ride lots

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-46 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Proposed Project No-Project Alternative Express Bus Alternative MOS Rail Alternative affected improvements and other development Vegetation 5 acres of riparian woodland Some potential impacts on Minimal impacts on Less than proposed and riparian scrub, and 15 sensitive plant communities sensitive natural project acres of oak woodland; associated with planned communities from potential loss of individuals highway improvements and construction of bus pads or habitat of special-status other development and park-and-ride lots plant species Wildlife Potential to affect various Some potential effects Minimal impacts on wildlife Less than proposed special-status wildlife associated with planned from construction of bus project species; potential for safety highway improvements and pads and park-and-ride lots structure to interfere with other development – less wildlife movement corridors; than proposed project potential train collisions with wildlife Parks and Recreation Bicycle/pedestrian Recreational benefits from Some expansion of Same as No-Project Less benefit than pathway new bicycle/pedestrian bicycle/pedestrian facilities Alternative proposed project pathway along corridor outlined in the transportation plans for Sonoma and Marin counties; less benefit than proposed project Land Use Conversion of Approximately 2 acres of Some conversion of No conversion of Less than proposed agricultural land agricultural land required for agricultural land would agricultural land project bicycle/pedestrian pathway occur with planned highway improvements and other development Support of existing land Rail stations would support Project benefit not achieved; Less benefit than proposed Less benefit than uses existing commercial uses other supportive land uses project proposed project and provide opportunity for may be implemented mixed use development Zoning compatibility Zoning designations at six No impact Compatible with local Same as proposed of the proposed station sites zoning project, except -- Healdsburg, Santa Rosa - Healdsburg Station not Jennings Avenue, Corona included

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-47 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Proposed Project No-Project Alternative Express Bus Alternative MOS Rail Alternative Road, Novato North, Novato South, and Downtown San Rafael -- do not specifically permit transportation facilities Residential property An option for the Corona Some acquisition of No identified impacts on Same as proposed project impacts Road station would require residential properties may residential properties the acquisition of a portion be required for planned of one residential property highway improvements and other public projects General plan The proposed project would The No Project Alternative The Express Bus Same as proposed project compatibility generally be consistent with would not be fully consistent Alternative, would not be identified plans with the transportation fully consistent with elements of regional and transportation elements of local plans in Sonoma and regional and local plans Marin counties, because it because it would not would not implement implement passenger rail passenger rail service as service as called for in those called for in those plans plans Public Facilities and Safety Emergency response Emergency response delays No impact No impact Less than proposed delays at at-grade resulting from trains at at- project crossings grade crossings Emergency services Rail service may result in Existing demand for Minimal increase in demand Less than proposed demand increased demand for emergency services for emergency services project emergency services from expected to increase with local providers general increase in population Safety Potential for rail-related Continued potential for Continued potential for Similar to proposed accidents vehicle accidents – similar vehicle accidents – similar project rate of accidents to rate of accidents to proposed project proposed project Visual Quality Light and glare Introduction of new sources Some new sources of night- Minimal light and glare Less than proposed of night-time lighting from time lighting associated with impacts from bus pads and project

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-48 DEIR November 2005 Chapter 4: Project Alternatives

Proposed Project No-Project Alternative Express Bus Alternative MOS Rail Alternative stations, park-and-ride lots, planned highway park-and-ride facilities – and maintenance facility improvements and other less than proposed project development – less than proposed project Scenic views Potential disruption of views No obstructions to visual No impact on scenic views, Less than proposed to several scenic resources resources, but no new views but no new views provided project due to safety structure; provided provision of views to rail passengers and pathway users Soundwall Potential relocation of Less than proposed project Less than proposed project– Less than proposed existing soundwall structure – soundwall would be not be soundwall would be not be project would potentially affect as close to residential area as close to residential area residential views Historic Resources Impacts on historic Potential impacts on historic Some potential impacts No historic resources Less than proposed resources resources including the associated with planned identified in the vicinity of project Healdsburg Station highway improvements and the proposed bus pads or turntable, historic stations, other development park-and-ride facilities historic features associated with portions of trackwork, Russian River Railroad Bridge and Haystack Landing Bridge Archaeological Resources Impacts on Potential for construction Some potential for impacts Low potential for Less than proposed archaeological disturbance of from planned highway archaeological sites within project resources archaeological resources improvements and other vicinity of bus pads and along project corridor development park-and-ride lots

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit 4-49 DEIR November 2005