Executive Summary and Full Report: Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement: BART and San Francisco Airport Extension
[Executive Summary] Back ] Next ]

 

Impacts of Project Alternatives

What Significant Adverse Impacts Might Occur for a Particular Alternative?

A summary of the key impacts, or effects, for each alternative is presented in Table S-4. The impacts identified in Table S-4 include operational effects, i.e., those that would occur if the project were constructed and operating.

In addition to operational effects, there are a number of impacts that would occur during the construction period. These impacts are common to all the BART build alternatives, and would affect the project corridor primarily between mid- 1996 and mid- 1998 (see Table S-5).

The DEIR/SDEIS also identifies cumulative impacts. These impacts result from the proposed project in combination with other known and foreseeable projects, such as the San Francisco International Airport Master Plan and the El Camino Corridor redevelopment project. Cumulative impacts with the BART build alternatives are summarized in Table S-6.

The DEIR/SDEIS presents these impacts in Chapter 3 and concentrates on "significant adverse" effects. A comprehensive list of the significant effects is presented in Table S-7 at the end of this Executive Summary. The threshold between a significant and insignificant impact is based on significance criteria that are defined for each environmental issue considered in the DEIR/SDEIS. The criteria are based on state and federal standards and guidelines, professional engineering practices, and professional judgment.

Can the Impacts be Reduced or Eliminated?

For every significant adverse impact identified in the DEIR/SDEIS, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce or eliminate the effects. A summary of these measures is contained in Table S-8 at the end of this Executive Summary. In some instances, the proposed mitigation measure will not reduce the impact to an insignificant level. In these cases, the impact remains significant and is said to be "unavoidable." Unavoidable, significant effects identified in the DEIR/SDEIS are specially noted in Table S-7 by using underlined boldface text, and are summarized in Chapter 4 of the DEIR/SDEIS. Before the project can be adopted, BART and SamTrans will be required to examine each of these unavoidable, significant impacts and determine whether the benefits associated with the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects.

Are There Any Areas of Controversy?

There are a number of controversies that have been raised for each of the project alternatives and are of significant concern to local communities, groups, or organizations. These areas of controversy highlight critical social and economic implications of the proposed extension and are indicated below, by jurisdiction:

Colma

  • Extent and duration of construction activities because of disturbances to local circulation, noise and dust, and pedestrian safety

  • Disruption of cemetery services during construction of any of the BART build alternatives, and during operations under the Base Case Alternative

  • Visual and physical impacts to cemeteries and loss of landscaping with any profile other than subway

South San Francisco

  • Extent and duration of construction activities because of disturbances to local circulation, noise and dust, and pedestrian safety, particularly for school-aged children

  • Retained cut alignment and Chestnut Station location under the Base Case Alternative are inconsistent with city policy and local preferences for a subway system

San Bruno

  • Extent and duration of construction activities because of disturbances to local circulation, noise and dust, and pedestrian safety, particularly for school-aged children

  • Significant socio-economic impacts associated with potential alignment and stations in the downtown area, especially if alignment is in aerial configuration

  • Disruption of the Fifth Addition neighborhood under the proposed project and the I-380 Least-Cost Design Option, the Belle Air residential neighborhood under the Base Case Alternative and Alternatives IV and V, and the Central Business District under Alternatives IV and V as a result of displacement of residences and businesses

  • Loss of municipal property tax revenues associated with displacement
  • Loss of revenues for the San Bruno Park School District due to relocation of students

Millbrae

  • Extent and duration of construction activities because of disturbances to local circulation, noise and dust, and pedestrian safety, particularly for school-aged children

  • Disruption of neighborhoods through displacement of businesses and residences under Alternatives IV, V, and VI and their design options

  • Loss of municipal property tax revenues associated with displacement under Alternatives IV, V, and VI and their design options

  • Loss of revenues for the Millbrae School District due to relocation of students under Alternatives IV, V, and VI and their design options

Burlingame

  • Extent and duration of construction activities because of disturbances to local circulation, noise and dust, and pedestrian safety under Alternative VI

  • Traffic impacts along local streets of BART passengers seeking to access the end-of-the-line station at Millbrae Avenue under Alternative VI

SFIA Property west of Highway 101

  • Loss of wetlands and habitat for the San Francisco Garter Snake
 

Table S-4 Summary Comparison of Key Impacts

Issue

Proposed Project
Locally Preferred Alternative

I-380 Least -Cost
Design Option

Alternative I
No Build

Alternative II
TSM

Alternative III
Base Case

Alternative IV
Airport Aerial East of Highway 101

Alternative V
Minimum Length Subway to Millbrae

Design Option V-A
Minimum Length Subway to Airport GTC

Design Option V-B Minimum Length Subway to San Bruno

Alternative VI
Millbrae Ave. via Airport International Terminal

  

Traffic

  
  • Deterioration to or Exacerbation of Unacceptable LOS at Local Intersections (Compared to 1993 conditions)

  • Significant deterioration in LOS at Hickey extension/ station exit in Pm,El Camino Real/ Sneath in Pm, and Chestnut/Grand in PM.

  • Same as proposed project.

  • Significant deterioration in LOS at Chestnut/Grand, El Camino Real/Westborough El Camino Real/Sneath,and California/Broadway.

  • Exacerbates already unacceptable LOS at Junipero Serra/Westborough, El Camino ReaUNoor, and 2nd/San Bruno.

  • Generally same or improved LOS at local intersections

  • Significant deterioration in LOS at El Camino Real/Sneath.

  • Exacerbates already unacceptable levels of service at Junipero Serra /Westborough.

  • Significant deterioration in LOS at the Hickey extension/station exit in PM, Chestnut/ Grand in PM and San Mateo/Huntington and San Anselmo/Center in Pm.

  • If Tanforan Station option were selected, reduced LOS at El Camino Real/ Sneath.

  • Same as Alternative IV plus

  • For the Downtown San Bruno Station option, impacts would be the same as those identified for the I-380/San Bruno Station except that San Mateo/Angus would also be significantly affected.

  • Significant deterioration in LOS at San Mateo/ Huntington in Pm, San Mateo/Lumber Yard Kiss-and-Ride exit in Pm, the Hickey extension/station exit and Chestnut/Grand, in Pm.

  • Same as Design Option V-A

  • Significant deterioration in LOS at Hickey extension/station exit and Chestnut/Grand in Pm; El Camino Real/Sneath, Huntington/Tanforan Driveway North in Pm, and El Camino Real/Millbrae in AM

  

Land Use

  
  • Displacement

  • 120 residents; up to 130 employees.

  • Same as proposed project.
  • No displacement
  • No or little displacement.
  • No residential displacement; up to 40 employees.
  • Up to 560 residents; up to 490 employees
  • Up to 600 residents;  up to 605 employees.
  • Up to 650 residents; up to 565 employees
  • Same as Design Option V-A.
  • Up to 525 residents; up to 60 employees.
  
  • Community Cohesion/Local Economic Activity in Station Vicinity
  • Minimally affects real estate or economic development except

  • At Hickey where it supports local development objectives.

  • Displacement at Hickey Station disrupts local social patterns of shopping, circulation, and neighborhood activities.

  • Displacement of Tanforan Shopping Center overflow parking for Tanforan Station may affect economic development.

  • Same as proposed project
  • No effect.
  • Minimally affects real estate at the CalTrain/Airport Light Rail Station.
  • Conflicts with residential development objectives in South San Francisco.
  • Displacement of Tanforan Shopping Center overflow parking for Tanforan Station may affect economic development.
  • Chestnut Station displaces 18-stall golf driving range and bar/cafe.
  • Displaces businesses around Chestnut Station.
  • Displacement at Hickey Station disrupts local social patterns of shopping, circulation, and neighborhood activities.
  • Displacement of Tanforan Shopping Center over-flow parking for Tanforan Station may affect economic development.
  • Loss of municipal and school tax revenues in San Bruno with I-380 Station option.
  • Economic /isolation impacts in Millbrae.
  • Loss of the Millbrae Nursery School and Marino Vista Park.
  • Displacement at Hickey Station disrupts local social patterns of shopping, circulation, and neighborhood activities.
  • Displacement of Tanforan Shopping Center overflow parking for Tanforan Station may affect economic development.
  • Loss of municipal and school tax revenues in San Bruno, with either I-380 or Downtown San Bruno Station.
  • Disrupts the San Bruno Central Business District, I-380/ San Bruno Station affects Belle Air and San Bruno Park neighborhoods.
  • Loss of Posy Park with Downtown San Bruno Station.
  • Economic / isolation effects in Millbrae.
  • Loss of the Millbrae Nursery School and Marino Vista Park.
  • Same as Alternative V except
  • Impact in San Bruno would be greater due to larger station; ALRS would further fragment Belle Air neighborhood plus
  • There would be no impacts at the Tanforan or Millbrae Intermodal Stations.
  • Same as Design Option V-A
  • Displacement at Hickey Station disrupts local social patterns of shopping, circulation, and neighborhood activities.
  • Loss of municipal and school tax revenues in San Bruno and Millbrae;
  • Requires relocation of Millbrae Gardens.
  • Community Cohesion/Social Considerations (Not in Station Vicinity but along Alignment)
  • Fragments Fifth Addition
  • Impacts Belle Air neighborhood.
  • Reduces supply of low-cost housing in San Bruno and San Mateo County.
  • Fragments Fifth Addition more than proposed project because of aerial configuration.
  • Impacts Belle Air Elementary School and 7th and Walnut Park.
  • No neighborhood impacts.
  • No BART-related neighborhood impacts.
  • Increased activity along CalTrain right-of-way would impact South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae, and along the Hickey Boulevard extension in South San Francisco.
  • Introduces land use incompatibility with cemeteries in Colma.
  • Introduces physical barrier in South San Francisco and San Bruno.
  • Displaces approximately 400 spaces of municipal, private, and CalTrain parking.
  • Introduces physical barrier in Belle Air neighborhood.
  • Impacts Belle Air neighborhood in San Bruno and Marino Vista and North Millbrae neighborhoods in Millbrae.
  • Reduces supply of low-cost housing in San Bruno and San Mateo County
  • Impacts Belle Air neighborhood in San Bruno and Marino Vista and North Millbrae neighborhoods in Millbrae.
  • Reduces supply of low-cost housing in San Bruno and San Mateo County.
  • Same as Alternative V.
  • Same as Alternative V.
  • Same as Alternative V.
Biological Resources
  • Total Wetland Loss (approximate acreage of wetlands and creek channels)
  • 2.42
  • 2.62
  • No effect.
  • 1.09
  • 1.82
  • 1.80
  • 1.26
  • 1.27 to 1.28
  • 1.12
  • 0.87
  
  • Loss of Wetland Habitats inhabited by the San Francisco Garter Snake, California Red -legged frog, and the San Francisco Forktail Damselfly.
  • 1.52 acres of wetland habitats and obstruction of movement corridors within sensitive wildlife species habitat.
  • 1.54 acres of wetland habitats.
  • Results in continued decline of San Francisco Garter Snake and Red-legged frog habitat.
  • 0.93 acres of wetland habitats.
  • 1.16 acres of wetland habitat.
  • 0.91 acres of wetland habitat.
  • 0.37 acres of wetland habitat.
  • 0.40 to 0.41 acres of wetland habitat.
  • 0.25 acres of wetland habitat.
  • No displacement of wetlands habitats, resulting in the least impact of all alternatives.
   Noise
  • Groundbome Noise
  • 121
  • 77
  • No effect.
  • Not Applicable
  • Not Applicable.
  • 77
  • 77
  • 103
  • 99
  • 113
  
  • Airborne Noise
  • 119
  • 216
  • No effect.
  • 118
  • 312
  • 255
  • 228
  • 124
  • 101
  • 84
  
  • Vibration
  • 162
  • 156
  • No effect.
  • Not Applicable
  • 136
  • 205
  • 180
  • 195
  • 196
  • 199
  
  • Site-specific Unavoidable Impacts
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • Seven to eight homes in Millbrae would experience groundborne noise, and 11 to 12 homes in Millbrae would experience groundborne vibration levels in excess of appropriate criteria.
  
Air Quality
  • Reductions in emissions from 1993 No Build by 1998 (000 tons/yr):
    Carbon Monoxide
    Nitrogen Oxides
    Reactive Organic Gases
    PM
         10
  • 318.9
  • 13.8
  • 20.6
  • 1.5
  • Similar to proposed project.
  • Worsens regional air quality compared to all BART build alternatives.
  • Similar to proposed project.
  • Similar to proposed project.
  • Similar to proposed project.
  • Similar to proposed project.
  • Similar to proposed project.
  • Similar to proposed project.
  • Similar to proposed project.
  
  • Highest Modeled 8 Hr. CO Concentration in 1998
  • 7.0
  • 7.0
  • 7.5
  • 8.4
  • 6.3
  • 7.3
  • 7.3
  • Similar to Alternative V
  • 7.1
  • 6.5
 

Table S-5
Generalized Construction Impacts of the BART Build Alternatives

Transportation

  • Traffic detours and congestion resulting from street closures and lane restrictions and from construction-related truck trips.
  • Reduction in access between the Fifth Addition neighborhood and the shopping centers on the west side of the SPTCo/CalTrain mainline.
  • Delays to CalTrain service.
  • Neighborhood disruption and diminished access to local businesses.
  • Safety hazards for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Visual Quality

  • Disruption of cemetery services.
  • Loss of mature trees.
  • Placement of construction activities close to residents, thereby creating a sense of encroachment and adversely altering the visual setting.
  • Visual alteration of the open space area between Highway 101 and the SPTCo/CalTrain mainline, opposite the SFIA, terminals.

Cultural Resources

  • Possible disturbance to an archaeological resource known to have existed along Colma Creek.
  • Indirect effects such as noise and visual alteration to the immediate vicinity around potentially historic properties.

Community Services

  • Delays in emergency services response because of street closures and lane restrictions.
  • Utility relocation and possible, temporary interruption of service. Geology
  • Slope instability and settlement during excavation.

Biological Resources

  • Disturbance to surface and shallow subsurface biotic resources including wetlands.
  • Increased erosion and sedimentation with possible adverse effects on water quality and aquatic habitats.

Hydrology

  • Increased erosion and sedimentation.
  • Interference with drainage patterns.

Noise

  • Increased localized noise and vibration.

Air Quality

  • Increased localized air emissions, including dust.

Public Health

  • Discovery of hazardous materials that could present health and safety concerns for construction workers.

Energy

  • Substantial energy requirements to construct the facilities.

Source: BART; Ogden.

 

Table S-6
Generalized Cumulative Effects of the BART Build Alternative

Transportation

  • Significant traffic increases during peak A.M. and P.M. hours on freeway segments between Millbrae and Third Avenues.

  • Significant traffic increases during peak A.M. and/or P.M. hours on the freeway segment between SFIA and Millbrae under all build alternatives except Alternative VI.
  • Significant increases in congestion at the following intersections: Chestnut and Grand Avenues (under Alternative V), Junipero Serra and Westborough Boulevards (under the Base Case), and El Camino Real and Sneath Lane (under the Base Case and Alternative VI).

  • Beneficial effect of a reduction in parking demand at Daly City and Colma BART stations under all build alternatives.

Land Use

  • Increased activity levels in South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae neighborhoods creating traffic, noise, and safety concerns.
  • Displacement effects leading to disruption of local social patterns (i.e., shopping, circulation, and neighborhood activities) in the project corridor.
  • Beneficial effect of long-term job creation by local transit agencies, the SFIA, and local businesses.

Visual Quality

  • Significant alteration of scenic views in South San Francisco, most notably those of San Bruno Mountain.

Cultural Resources

  • Disturbance to or loss of significant cultural resources in San Mateo County.

Community Services

  • Potential increase in demand for community services in local jurisdictions in the project study area.

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

  • Increase in the population exposed to seismic hazards due to development at the SFIA and in the study area.

Biological Resources

  • Wetland habitat loss throughout the Bay Area due to development.

Hydrology and Water Quality

  • Potential increase in nonpoint source pollution and flooding along Colma Creek in South San Francisco under all BART build alternatives.

Noise and Vibration

  • Increase in ambient noise levels under all build alternatives as a result of increased transit service and background traffic.

Air Quality

  • Beneficial effect of reduction in regional emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, reactive organic gases, and particulate matter under all build alternatives due to less vehicle miles traveled.

Public Health and Safety

  • Risk of minimal public exposure to BART-related hazardous materials and EMF.

Energy

  • Beneficial effect of net decrease in regional energy requirements due to increased public transit ridership.

Construction

  • Traffic delays on Highway 101, local traffic congestion, and roadway closures during construction.
  • Construction-related increase in noise, dust, construction traffic, movement of construction equipment, and visual disruption in South San Francisco and at the SFIA.
  • Potentially significant increase in demand for local police and fire services in South San Francisco during construction periods.
  • Potentially significant increase in demand for SFIA police and fire services during construction periods.
  • Potential construction-related settlement and erosion impacts in South San Francisco and/or on the SFIA property east of Highway 101.
  • Loss of wetlands and sensitive species habitats o.i and adjacent to the SFIA property west of Highway 101 as a result of construction impacts.
  • Potential construction-related noise and vibration effects for residents in South San Francisco.
  • Construction would lead to increase in airborne particulate matter levels in South San Francisco and at the SFIA.
  • Potential exposure of the public and/or construction workers to hazardous materials at the SFIA during construction periods.
  • Beneficial effect of expanded regional spending during construction periods.
  • Increased construction-related energy demands under all build alternatives.

Source: BART; Ogden.

 

Are There Unresolved Issues?

The following decisions must be made prior to the implementation of the BART-San Francisco Airport Extension:

  • Selection of a Project Alignment. The BART and SamTrans Boards of Directors will either reaffirm the Locally Preferred Alternative (i.e., the proposed project) or they could select one of the other routes evaluated in the DEIRISDEIS. In addition, there are several vertical alignment options that consider subway, retained cut, at-grade, and aerial configurations for selected portions of the route. With the appropriate findings and procedures, the BART and SamTrans Board may select a preferred alternative that combines various options.

  • Determination of Station Locations. In South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae, there are optional station locations. In the City of South San Francisco, the choice between the Hickey or the Chestnut Station is linked with the selection of either a subway (as proposed by all BART build alternatives, except the Base Case) or a retained cut (as proposed under the Base Case) configuration. In San Bruno, the choice of station locations depends on the route selected and on localized environmental impacts, and includes sites at Tanforan, I-380/San Bruno Avenue, and Downtown San Bruno (specific location options by alternative are identified in Table S-3 and Figure S-2). Similarly, in Millbrae, the choice of stations depends on the route selected and includes sites at Center Street (as proposed under Alternatives IV and V) and Millbrae Avenue (as proposed under Alternative VI).

    At the SFIA, three different station locations have been examined: the long-term parking area, the proposed Ground Transportation Center, and the proposed International Terminal. The choice of station depends on the alternative selected.

  • Funding Contributions. When the Locally Preferred Alternative was selected in June 1992, certain segments of the alignment were suggested by the affected communities for subway construction, as opposed to retained cut, at-grade or aerial configuration. These additional subway segments are to be paid for through local financial contributions, and the funds were to be secured within 12 months of the adoption of the resolution identifying the Locally Preferred Alternative. Although this date has passed, local jurisdictions are still exploring options for raising their required financial contributions.

    The issue of available federal funds must be resolved, as well as the overall BART/SarnTrans proposed financing plan. The BART-San Francisco Airport Extension is authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (ISTEA) to share $568.5 million in new rail projects with the BART Colma Extension and a light rail project in Santa Clara County. Of this amount, $301 million is allocated for the BART-San Francisco Airport Extension through fiscal year 1997. An additional $289.7 million is needed to bring the total funding level for the project to $590.7 million, or 75 percent of the least-cost alternative (Base Case Alternative), as estimated in the AA/DEIS/DEIR; this is the funding level that has been authorized, but the monies have not been committed. The cost estimates have been refined upwards since the AA/DEIS/DEIR and are presented in Table S-3. Assuming commitment of the additional $289.7 million, a capital cost shortfall would still exist. Additional federal and local contributions would need to be secured to construct the proposed extension.

  • Selection and Adoption of Appropriate Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures have been developed to reduce and/or eliminate significant impacts identified in the DEIR/SDEIS. The BART and SamTrans Boards must adopt measures to be incorporated into the alternative selected for implementation, in order to eliminate or reduce impacts.

 

[Executive Summary] Back ] Next ]