PRELIMINARY
Alternatives Analysis Report
Merced to Fresno Section High- Speed Train Project EIR/ EIS
April 2010
San Diego
University City
Escondido
Murrieta
Riverside
Industry
Ontario Airport
Palmdale
Anaheim
Norwalk
Los Angeles
Burbank
Sylmar
Bakersfield
Visalia/ Tulare/ Hanford
( Potential Station)
Fresno
Downtown Merced
Downtown Modesto
Stockton
Sacramento
San Jose
Redwood City Diridon
or Palo Alto
San Francisco
Transbay Terminal
Millbrae- SFO
Project Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement
Gilroy
Prepared by:
Checked by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Released by:
Revision Date
3/ 20/ 10
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSI
Steven Wolf, Environmental Program Mgr
Tony Daniels, Program Director
Carrie L. Bowen, Regional Director, CAHSRA
Description
Change from Dan to Carrie B.
California High- Speed Train Project
Merced to Fresno Section
PRELIMIINARY
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
ANALYSIS REPORT
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT
Merced to Fresno Section
Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report
April 7, 2010
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ES- 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1 California HST Project Background ....................................................................... 1
1.2 Merced to Fresno Section EIR/ EIS Background ................................................... 1
1.3 Study Area ................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................... 3
2.0 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS --------------------------------------------------------- 3
2.1 HST Project Purpose ............................................................................................... 3
2.2 Process to Identify Alternatives to be Carried Forward for EIR/ EIS Analysis .... 3
2.3 HST Design Objectives ............................................................................................ 4
2.4 Comparison of Project Alternatives ....................................................................... 4
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
3.1 No Project Alternative ............................................................................................. 6
3.1.1 Highway Element ............................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Aviation Element ............................................................................................... 7
3.1.3 Conventional Passenger Rail Element ............................................................. 7
3.2 Program Alternatives............................................................................................... 9
3.2.1 2005 Statewide Program EIR/ EIS ...................................................................... 9
3.2.2 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS ........................................ 10
3.2.3 Program Alternative and Station Locations................................................... 10
3.3 Initial Development of Project Alternatives ......................................................... 11
3.3.1 Initial Review of Alternatives .......................................................................... 15
3.3.2 Agency Coordination and Public Outreach ................................................... 19
3.3.3 Conclusions of Initial Review of Alternatives: Alternatives Carried Forward
and Not Carried Forward into Detailed Evaluation ..................................................... 21
4.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES --------------------------------------------------------------------- 34
4.1 Evaluation of Station Locations ........................................................................... 35
4.2 Evaluation of Design Options ............................................................................... 36
Alternative A1 – BNSF Design Options ....................................................................... 36
Alternative A3 – Western Madera Design Options ..................................................... 38
4.3 Evaluation of Refined Merced to Fresno North- South Alignments ................... 39
4.3.1 Alternative A1 – BNSF ..................................................................................... 41
4.3.2 Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 .......................................................................... 41
4.3.3 Alternative A3 – Western Madera ................................................................... 41
4.3.4 Alternative A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid .............................................................. 41
4.4 Evaluation of North- South Alignments and Wye Connections .......................... 41
4.4.1 Alternative A1 – BNSF with South SR152 Wye .............................................. 43
4.4.2 Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 with South SR152 Wye ................................... 43
4.4.3 Alternative A3 – Western Madera with South SR152 Wye ............................ 43
4.4.4 Alternative A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid with Ave 24 Wye ................................. 43
4.5 Detailed Alternatives Evaluation Meetings .......................................................... 44
5.0 DRAFT ANALYSIS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS --------------------------------------------- 46
6.0 REFERENCES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 48
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Meeting Minutes
Appendix B: Engineering Drawings
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page iv
Figures
Figure ES- 1: Merced to Fresno Section Alternatives Recommended to be Carried Forward
Figure 1: Initial Study Corridors
Figure 2: Project Study Area and Program EIR/ EIS Preferred Alternatives
Figure 3: No Project Alternative Planned Improvements in Merced, Madera, and Fresno Urban Areas
Figure 4: Program EIR/ EIS Preferred Alternatives
Figure 5: Merced to Fresno Section EIR/ EIS Initial Range of Alternatives
Figure 6: Castle Commerce Center Station
Figure 7: Merced Intermodal Transit Center
Figure 8: Merced Amtrak Depot Station
Figure 9: Merced Municipal Airport Station
Figure 10: Chowchilla Station
Figure 11: Madera Station
Figure 12: Range of Wye Connections Between San Jose to Merced and Merced to Fresno Sections
Figure 13: Castle Commerce Center HMF
Figure 14: Mission Avenue HMF
Figure 15: Harris- DeJager HMF
Figure 16: Kojima Development HMF
Figure 17: Gordon Shaw HMF
Figure 18: New Alternative Proposed by City of Chowchilla and Merced County
Figure 19: Alternatives and Station Locations Carried Forward to Detailed Alternatives Evaluation
Figure 20: Castle Commerce Center Station Location
Figure 21: Downtown Merced Intermodal Transit Center
Figure 22: Merced Amtrak Depot Station Location
Figure 23a: Alternative A1 – BNSF, Merced and Chowchilla Vicinities
Figure 23b: Alternative A1 – BNSF, Madera and Fresno Vicinities
Figure 24a: Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99, Merced and Chowchilla Vicinities
Figure 24b: Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99, Madera and Fresno Vicinities
Figure 25a: Alternative A3 – Western Madera, Merced and Chowchilla Vicinities
Figure 25b: Alternative A3 – Western Madera, Madera and Fresno Vicinities
Figure 26a: Alternative A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid, Merced and Chowchilla Vicinities
Figure 26b: Alternative A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid, Madera and Fresno Vicinities
Figure 27: Alternative A1 – BNSF, Design Options 1, 2, and 3
Figure 28: Alternative A3 – Western Madera, Design Options 4 and 5
Figure 29: Adjacency to Existing Transportation Corridors: Alternatives A1 – BNSF, A2 – UPRR/ SR 99, A3 – Western
Madera, and A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid North- South Alignments
Figure 30: Merced to Fresno Section Alternatives Recommended to be Carried Forward
Tables
Table 1: Alignment and Station Performance Objectives and Measures
Table 2: Land Use Evaluation Measures
Table 3: Constructability Evaluation Measures
Table 4: Community Evaluation Measures
Table 5: Environmental Resources Evaluation Measures
Table 6: Natural Environment Evaluation Measures
Table 7: Existing California Intercity Highway System within Study Area
Table 8: Programmed Improvements in 2008 California State Rail Plan
Table 9: 2005 Statewide Program EIR/ EIS Merced to Fresno Section Alternatives Considered
Table 10: 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS Merced to Fresno Section Alternatives Considered
Table 11: Initial Range of Merced to Fresno Section Alternatives and Associated Design Elements
Table 12: Summary of Initial Review of Alternatives
Table 13: Summary of Initial Review of Station Locations
Table 14: Summary of Initial Review of Wye Connections to San Jose to Merced Section Alternatives
Table 15: Summary of Initial Review of North- South Alignment Alternatives
Table 16: Summary of Initial Review of Alternative A1 – BNSF Design Options
Table 17: Summary of Initial Review of Alternative A3 – Western Madera Design Options
Table 18: Summary of Initial Review of Station Locations
Table 19: Summary of Initial Review of Wye Connections to Alternative A1 – BNSF
Table 20: Alternatives Carried Forward to Detailed Alternatives Evaluation
Table 21: Summary Comparison of Station Locations
Table 22: Comparison of Design Options for Alternative A1 – BNSF
Table 23: Comparison of Design Options for Alternative A3 – Western Madera
Table 24: Comparison of Merced to Fresno North- South Alignments with the Best- Performing Design Options
Table 25: Comparison of North- South Alternatives with Best- Performing Design Options and Wye Connections
Table 26: Adjacency to Existing Transportation Corridors: North- South Alignment Alternatives
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFB Air Force Base
Authority California High- Speed Rail Authority
Bay Area to Central Valley
Program EIR/ EIS
2008 Bay Area to Central Valley High- Speed Train Final Program Environmental Impact
Report/ Environmental Impact Statement
BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CWA Clean Water Act
DO Design Option
DOC Department of Conservation
EIR/ EIS Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Report
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
GEA Grasslands Ecological Area
GIS Geographic Information System
HMF heavy maintenance facility
HST high- speed train
M- F Merced to Fresno
mph miles per hour
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOI/ NOP Notice of Intent/ Notice of Preparation
Pacheco Pass San Jose to Merced Section
ROD Record of Decision
RTPs regional transportation plans
SGEA South Grasslands Ecological Area
Statewide Program EIR/ EIS 2005 Final Program Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed California High- Speed Train System
SR State Route
STIP State Transportation Implementation Program
T& E threatened and endangered
Tier 1 program- level
TOD transit- oriented development
UC University of California
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USACE U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page ES- 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The preliminary Alternatives Analysis and its associated engineering and environmental analysis reconfirms that the
alternatives that closely follow existing rail corridors, the Union Pacific Railroad UPRR and the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railroad BNSF best serve the Project Purpose and Need while best meeting the California High Speed Rail
Authority’s ( Authority’s) project objectives.
Consistent with the Authority’s project objective to maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and rights- of-way,
to the extent feasible, the alternatives considered and recommended in the Authority’s 2005 Statewide Final
Program Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement EIR/ EIS for the Proposed California High-
Speed Train System ( HST) and 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/ EIS for the “ Central Valley
Alignment” followed the two existing freight corridors of the UPRR and the BNSF. Much like this Preliminary
Alternatives Analysis Report, these program environmental documents also considered alignment alternatives that
deviate from the existing transportation corridors, notably the Western Alternative, which resembles the current
Alternative A3 – Western Madera. And like the two prior Final EIR/ EIS documents, the alternatives that do not closely
follow existing transportation corridors ( A3 and A4) are not being recommended to be carried forward into the Project
Level EIR/ EIS.
The reason for screening out alignment alternatives that do not closely follow existing transportation corridors is that
they generally result in greater direct and indirect environmental impacts and have greater growth potential than
alignment alternatives that closely follow existing transportation corridors. This is the case in the Merced to Fresno
Section of the HST project, where Alternatives A3 – Western Madera and A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid, which depart from
existing transportation corridors.
In the Merced to Fresno Section, departing from existing transportation corridors not only directly impacts highly
productive farmlands but also has the potential to reduce the viability of surrounding farmlands, giving way to other
uses, such as other infrastructures such as transportation and utility systems, that may result in unwanted and
unplanned growth patterns. This is particularly alarming to the counties of Merced and Madera, which rely heavily on
their unique, rich soil resources for their primary industry. California’s rich agricultural is slowly being diminished on
the edges of urban communities. The FRA and the Authority established key project objectives to avoid and minimize
the effects of the HST System on growth patterns by establishing the goal to maximize the use of existing
transportation corridors to the extent possible.
The analysis demonstrated that Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 meets this objective while optimizing travel time and
minimizing environmental impacts, at the cost of more elevated profile and potentially more commercial property
impacts than other alternatives. However, UPRR has expressed reluctance to collaborate with HST alternatives that
either infringe on its right- of- way or on its access to current and future freight customers along its right- of- way
throughout the Central Valley.
The only other alternative in the Merced to Fresno Section that meets the HST objective of maximizing the use of the
existing transportation corridors is Alternative A1 – BNSF with the South SR152 Wye connection. This alternative,
which was selected as preferred by the Authority and the FRA in the 2005 Final Statewide Program EIR/ EIS, does not
perform as well as Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 in terms of travel time performance and impacts on the natural and
residential environment. However, it does provide an alternative to the A2 – UPRR/ SR99 that meets the basic project
objectives.
Therefore, in order of priority, the Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report recommends the following:
• Carry forward Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99. Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 optimizes travel time and
minimizes environmental impacts at the cost of more elevated profile and potentially more community impacts
than other alternatives. The cities of Chowchilla and Madera expressed concerns about the impacts of the project
through their central business districts, but others, such as the City and County of Merced, City of Atwater,
transportation agencies, water districts, and the farming communities in both counties, have expressed support
for this route compared to the BNSF and other alternatives that do not use existing transportation corridors.
However, UPRR has expressed reluctance to collaborate with HST alternatives that infringe either on its right- of-way
or on its access to current and future freight customers along its right- of- way throughout the Central Valley.
Because areas in Merced, Madera, and Fresno are constrained portions in this corridor, UPRR’s resistance may
delay property access and hinder timely design solutions that would enable the HST project to meet its design
objectives. The Authority Executive Staff continues to meet with UPRR on a regular basis in an effort to resolve
concerns, and the project team is working to design around this limitation, which will require cooperation from
UPRR. Lack of cooperation from UPRR could result in delay and make this alternative more expensive to
construct.
• Carry forward the Alternative A1 – BNSF. Alternative A1 – BNSF provides a viable alternative to Alternative
A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 that meets the project purpose and need while also adhering to all the project objectives. It
was selected as the Preferred Alternative over the UPRR Route in the 2005 Statewide Program EIR/ EIS primarily
because “ the BNSF alignment avoids most of the urban areas between Modesto and Fresno and would have
substantially less constructability issues, would have fewer potential noise, cultural, property, and community
impacts, and is estimated to cost about $ 400 million less than the UPRR alignment” ( California High- Speed Rail
Authority 2005). Alternative A1 – BNSF is the longest route by 10 miles and still involves crossings of SR 99 and
UPRR that are similar to Alternative A2 – UPRR, but it maintains the legislatively mandated travel time of 2 hours
and 40 minutes between San Francisco and Los Angeles and provides a viable alternative to the UPRR corridor
while remaining adjacent to existing corridors.
The benefit of Alternative A1 – BNSF over Alternative A2, is that it may be able to take advantage of the BNSF
right- of- way to avoid some residential, critical habitat and farmland impacts. Remaining adjacent to the BNSF,
even if not within the BNSF right- of- way, would also minimize the amount of severance on agricultural fields. The
alignment’s greater distance from several community centers may allow the alternative to remain at- grade for
most of its distance and have a lower level of impacts on commercial centers, compared to Alternative A2 –
UPRR/ SR 99. The Cities of Chowchilla and Madera, continue to echo the sentiments that the BNSF route may
result in fewer community impacts compared to Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99. The project team is reviewing
avoidance options for the community of Le Grand and Planada.
• Carry forward the Downtown Merced Intermodal Transit Center Station. This station best satisfies
purpose and need, has the best access to the regional highway and public transit system, and has fewer
residential impacts. It would be located adjacent to the UPRR right- of- way in Downtown Merced and would be
served by either Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 or Alternative A1 – BNSF.
Additionally, the following demonstrates why alternative alignments and station should not be carried
forward into the Merced to Fresno Project EIR/ EIS:
• Do not carry forward Alternative A3 – Western Madera. While Alternative A3 – Western Madera provides
the fastest travel time between San Francisco and Los Angeles by 30 seconds, it presents considerable
controversy because it is a Greenfield alternative and does not meet the Authority’s key project objective to
maximize the use of existing transportation corridors. Alternative A3’ s deviation from existing transportation
corridors in Madera County would result in the high impacts on private properties, agricultural properties, and
important farmlands. The high level of impacts is a result of the orientation of the HST and UPRR/ SR 99
alignment in relation to the surrounding transportation network. Alternative A3 parallels the diagonal direction of
the UPRR/ SR 99 corridor in order to provide a more direct route between the Merced and Fresno station.
Alternative A3 affects the most acres of prime, unique, and important farmlands which are oriented in the north-south
alignment ( 555 acres), and would bifurcate farmlands, and it would potentially lead to unwanted
development patterns that may erode the economic viability of these agricultural lands in Madera County. While
the Authority is committed to minimizing and mitigating impacts, the bifurcation of small 40- acre farms may
reduce the viability of the remnant pieces, resulting in larger impacts on the farming community and the
possibility of the conversion of farmland to other uses. This impact on Madera may have a more dramatic effect
than elsewhere in the state since, according to the 2008 Madera County Agricultural Crop Report, gross
production value of Madera County agricultural production was $ 1.3 billion in 2008. The latest California
Economic Development Department Labor Market information shows Madera with 42,300 total employees and
9,000 agricultural sector employees for 21.2 percent. Additionally, this alternative has received strong opposition
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page ES- 2
from the City and County of Merced and the County of Madera, and it has received strong resistance from
members of the agriculture community.
• Do not carry forward Alternative A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid. Alternative A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid would not
outperform the other alternatives in any criteria measure. It is the slowest alternative in the critical travel time
between San Francisco and Los Angeles, taking more than a minute longer than the next slowest alternative. It
would potentially result in the highest level of impacts on wetlands, and it would involve most and longest water
crossings. Alternative A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid was suggested as a route to modify Alternative A1 – BNSF to avoid
Le Grand by traveling a greater distance along the Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 alignment, then shifting
eastward to avoid Chowchilla and Madera. However, like Alternative A3 – Western Madera, this alignment results
in similar conflict with the Authority’s key project objective to use existing transportation corridors and results in a
high level of impacts on agricultural lands ( 436 acres for the north- south alignment) even while trying to remain
adjacent to existing transportation corridors. In order to avoid Chowchilla, the alignment requires a large
northward curve from Avenue 24 around Chowchilla to link up to the BNSF in a southbound direction. This is not
efficient HST design and is not suited to follow existing transportation corridors through prime, unique, and
important farmlands. It would result in a series of awkward parcels, reducing economic viability and possibly
leading to undesirable development patterns
• Do not carry forward the Castle Commerce Center Station. This station is more limited in its ability to
serve as a multimodal center. The Castle Commerce Center Station offers limited residential density opportunities,
which would also limit the potential for the HST station as a multimodal center, and its access may be constrained
due to limited arterial roadways available to the site.
• Do not carry forward the Merced BNSF/ Amtrak Station. While this station does off a seamless connectivity
with other transit services, it is located within a low- density, well- established residential community. Arterial
access from SR 99 would involve travelling through the City of Merced, which would degrade the roadway
system. There is no support from Merced for this station, and it would conflict with the local plans for this area.
Figure ES- 1 shows the alternatives recommended to be carried to forward.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page ES- 3
Figure ES- 1. Merced to Fresno Section Alternatives Recommended to be Carried Forward
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The California High- Speed Rail Authority ( the Authority) is studying alternative alignments for a high- speed train
( HST) section between Merced and Fresno. This report documents the evaluation of these alternative alignments and
identifies feasible and practicable alternatives to carry forward for environmental review and evaluation in the
Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement ( EIR/ EIS) under the California Environmental Quality
Act ( CEQA) and the National Environmental Protection Act ( NEPA) for the Merced to Fresno Section of the California
HST Project.
Additionally, the Authority and the Federal Railroad Administration ( FRA) have entered into a memorandum of
understanding ( MOU) with the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
( USACE) to integrate the NEPA process with the Clean Water Act ( CWA) Section 404 process. The Section 404 ( b)( 1)
process includes an alternatives analysis and therefore. The objective is for the EPA and the USACE to reach
concurrence with the Authority and the FRA on the alternatives to be carried forward into the EIR/ EIS.
1.1 California HST Project Background
The California HST is planned to provide intercity, high- speed service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout
California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley,
Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego ( Figure 1). The HST system is envisioned as a state-of-
the- art, electrically powered, high- speed, steel- wheel- on- steel- rail technology, which will include contemporary
safety, signaling, and automated train- control systems. The trains will be capable of operating at speeds of up to
220 miles per hour ( mph) over a fully grade- separated, dedicated track alignment, with an expected express trip time
between Los Angeles and San Francisco of approximately 2 hours and 40 minutes.
The California HST project will be planned, designed, constructed, and operated under the direction of the Authority,
a state governing board formed in 1996. The Authority’s statutory mandate is to develop a high- speed rail system
that is coordinated with the state’s existing transportation network, which includes intercity rail and bus lines, regional
commuter rail lines, urban rail and bus transit lines, highways, and airports.
1.2 Merced to Fresno Section EIR/ EIS Background
The Merced to Fresno HST Section is a critical link connecting the Bay Area HST sections to the Fresno to Bakersfield,
Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The route development for the Merced to Fresno
Section is built on the set of HST network alternatives and HST alignment alternatives that were analyzed in the 2005
Final Program EIR/ EIS for the Proposed California HST System ( referred to hereafter as the Statewide Program
EIR/ EIS) and the 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/ EIS ( referred to hereafter as the Bay Area
to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS). Consistent with the Authority’s project objective to maximize the use of existing
transportation corridors and rights- of- way, to the extent feasible, the alternatives considered for the Central Valley
alignment followed the two existing freight corridors of the UPRR and the BNSF. By sharing the existing freight
railroad right- of- way in these corridors, where possible, HST impacts throughout the Central Valley could be further
avoided and minimized.
The program Statewide and Bay Area to Central Valley documents resulted in selection of two different preferred
alternatives for the Merced to Fresno Section. In response to the 2005 Statewide Program EIR/ EIS, the Authority and
the FRA selected the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe ( BNSF) rail route as the preferred alternative for the
Central Valley HST between Merced and Fresno. However, in the subsequent 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley
Program EIR/ EIS, the Authority selected the Union Pacific Railroad ( UPRR) route as the preferred alternative for the
Merced to Fresno Section but also mentioned that the BNSF would continue to be carried forward for further study. 1
1 Based on the court ruling in Town of Atherton v. California High Speed Rail Authority, the Authority board rescinded its certification of the Final
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR in December 2009 and its selection of preferred alignments and station locations for further study at
the project level. The Board's action included rescinding the alignment selection for the Central Valley portion of the study area. The Authority is
Figure 1: Initial Study Corridors
currently circulating revised Draft Program EIR Material and the comment period closes on April 26. The Board is expected to consider the Revised
Draft Program EIR Material and a Revised Final Program EIR Material, along with the 2008 Final Bay Area to Central Valley HST Program EIR in the
coming months and make a new decision on alignments to study at the project level.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 2
Under the UPRR preferred alternative, the Bay Area to Central Valley Section would travel from the Bay Area over
Pacheco Pass via Henry Miller Road, connecting to the Central Valley along the UPRR in the vicinity of Chowchilla.
Figure 2 shows the routes of the BNSF and UPRR alternatives.
In the 2005 Statewide Program EIR/ EIS, the primary reason for selecting the BNSF over the UPRR route was that the
BNSF route avoided impacts associated with construction and operation in urban areas. These impacts include
constructability issues, noise and impacts on culturally sensitive properties, and disturbances on the community at
large. The Statewide Program EIR/ EIS did acknowledge higher biological and water- related impacts, but the
differences were not substantial over the entire Central Valley study area, which at the time extended from Fresno to
Sacramento. In the 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS, the study area from the Bay Area overlapped
the previous Central Valley study area in Merced and Modesto. The findings showed that the UPRR route was the
preferred alternative because it could better serve the downtown station destinations, which would encourage transit-oriented
development ( TOD) and associated infill densification rather than causing growth in undesirable locations. It
was noted that at the project- level, the Authority would continue to evaluate the BNSF Alternative because of the
uncertainty of negotiating with UPRR for use of some of its right- of- way and would continue investigation of
alignments/ linkages to a potential maintenance facility at Castle Air Force Base ( California High- Speed Rail Authority
2008).
Initially, the Merced to Fresno and Fresno to Bakersfield sections were combined into a single project section known
as the Merced to Bakersfield Section. The Notice of Intent / Notice of Preparation ( NOI/ NOP) for the combined
Merced to Bakersfield Section EIR/ EIS was published in the Federal Register in March 2009. Early outreach activities
occurred throughout the Central Valley during autumn 2008 and winter 2009. Scoping activities were conducted
between February 24 and April 10, 2009, with scoping meetings held in Merced, Madera, Visalia, Fresno, and
Bakersfield. Both the general public and agencies attended these meetings. The meetings provided information about
the history of the HST project to date, the two program EIR/ EIS preferred alternatives, and the upcoming steps in the
environmental process, including alternatives development and analysis. The meetings are summarized in the Merced
to Bakersfield Section Scoping Report ( June 2009).
After the scoping period ended, the initial range of alternatives for the Merced to Fresno and Fresno to Bakersfield
subsections was developed. The initial review of alternatives defined the range of alternatives that would be carried
forward into the alternatives analysis process. The Merced to Bakersfield Section was subsequently divided into two
separate project sections: the Merced to Fresno Section and the Fresno to Bakersfield Section. The Authority, in
conjunction with the FRA, determined that the environmental effects of the HST System from Merced to Bakersfield
would be more appropriately assessed in two separate documents: one for Merced to Fresno and another for Fresno
to Bakersfield. The project sections are of sufficient length, with logical termini allowing for an analysis of
environmental matters on a broad scope, to ensure that the projects will function properly without requiring
additional improvements elsewhere and without restricting consideration of alternatives for other transportation
improvements.
An amended NOI/ NOP was published in the Federal Register in October 2009 documenting this change. The
remainder of the EIR/ EIS process for the Merced to Fresno Section, including the alternatives analysis documented in
this report, is therefore being conducted as a study separate from the Fresno to Bakersfield Section. The Merced to
Fresno Section alternatives were evaluated to determine which would be carried forward for more detailed evaluation.
The results of the preliminary evaluation were presented in July 2009 to the Technical Working Groups in Fresno,
Merced, and Madera, consisting of senior staff from city and county public works, planning departments,
redevelopment agencies, and economic development departments, and later the water and irrigation district
managers and agricultural commissioners were included. These groups provided input on the alternatives and
information about city and county land use and planning, as well as providing updates to their boards or
commissions.
Figure 2: Project Study Area and Program EIR/ EIS Preferred Alternatives
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 3
1.3 Study Area
The Merced to Fresno Section study area starts north of the Castle Commerce Center in Atwater ( north of the city of
Merced) and ends in Downtown Fresno ( see Figure 2). The Merced to Fresno Section crosses the southeastern part of
Merced County, Madera County, and parts of Fresno County. The Merced to Fresno Section connects to the Merced to
Sacramento Section to the north, to the San Jose to Merced Section ( via Pacheco Pass) to the west, and to the
Fresno to Bakersfield Section to the south. While the HST sections north and south would connect with a continuous
high- speed rail line, the connection to the San Jose to Merced Section ( via Pacheco Pass) to the west would require a
railroad wye, which is a large divergence of two rail tracks curving northbound and two rail tracks curving
southbound. The location of this wye may influence the selection of the route traveling north- south between Merced
and Fresno, and therefore the analysis of this wye is included in the alternatives analysis for the Merced to Fresno
HST Project EIR/ EIS.
1.4 Purpose of Study
This Alternatives Analysis Report uses preliminary planning, environmental, and engineering information to identify
feasible and practicable alternatives to carry forward for environmental review and preliminary engineering design in
the Merced to Fresno HST Project EIR/ EIS. This report is intended to identify the range of potentially feasible
alternatives to analyze in the Project Draft EIR/ EIS. It documents the preliminary evaluation of alternatives, indicating
how each of the alternatives meets the purpose for the HST project, how evaluation criteria were applied and used to
determine which alternatives to carry forward for detailed environmental analysis, and which alternatives should not
be carried forward for further analysis.
The analysis begins with the corridors selected at the conclusion of the 2005 Statewide Program EIR/ EIS process and
2008 Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS. Public and agency comments received during the Merced to Fresno
Project EIR/ EIS scoping period and during ongoing interagency coordination meetings, were used to identify the
initial alternatives to carry forward for detailed evaluation. After initial project alternatives were identified, alignment
plans, preliminary profile concepts, and cross- sections were developed and used for this detailed evaluation of the
alternatives.
Section 2.0 describes the evaluation measures used for the alternatives analysis process. Each of the project
alternatives is described in detail in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 evaluates the alternatives, and Section 5.0 summarizes
the results of the alternatives analysis.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
The process for this study involves the creation and refinement of alternatives, through a series of processes that are
intended to compare alternatives. This study follows a defined alternative analysis process as described in the
Technical Memo Alternatives Analysis Methods for Project EIR/ EIS, Version 2 ( October 2009), and uses both
qualitative and quantitative measures that reflect a mixture of applicable policy and technical considerations.
The techniques that are used to gather information and to develop and compare alternatives are described below.
Field Inspections of Corridors: Planners, engineers, and analysts with experience in railroad operations conducted
field inspections of the potential alignment, right- of- way, and station locations to identify conditions and factors that
may not be visible in aerial photos or on maps. Over the course of the study, field inspections became progressively
more detailed as the alternatives were refined during the planning and engineering work.
Project Team Input and Review: The project team conducted team meetings to discuss alternatives and local issues
that potentially affect alignments.
Qualitative Assessment: A number of the qualitative measures used to describe the alternative alignments were
developed by project team members with experience in construction and operation of high- speed rail and other
transportation systems. These measures included constructability, accessibility, operations, maintenance, right- of-way,
public infrastructure impacts, railway infrastructure impacts, and environmental impacts.
Engineering Assessment: Engineering assessments were provided for a number of measures that could be readily
quantified at this stage of project development. The engineering assessments provided information on project length,
travel time, and configuration of key features of the alignment such as the presence of existing infrastructure.
Geographic Information System ( GIS) Analysis: The bulk of the assessment was performed using GIS data, which
enabled depictions of the project’s interactions with a variety of measurable geographic features, both natural and
built. GIS data was used to assess impacts on farmland, water resources, wetlands, threatened and endangered
species, cultural resources, current urban development, and infrastructure.
2.1 HST Project Purpose
The purpose of California HST Project is to implement the statewide HST System in sections along the corridors
selected in program- level ( Tier 1) decisions that will ( 1) link Southern California cities, the Central Valley, Sacramento,
and Bay Area; ( 2) provide a new transportation option that increases mobility throughout California; ( 3) provide
reliable HST service that delivers predictable and consistent travel times using electric- powered steel- wheel trains;
and ( 4) provide a transportation system that is commercially viable.
The Authority’s objectives and policies for the proposed HST system are as follows:
• Provide intercity travel capacity to supplement critically overused interstate highways and commercial airports.
• Meet future intercity travel demand that will be unmet by present transportation systems, and increase capacity
for intercity mobility.
• Maximize intermodal transportation opportunities by locating stations to connect with local transit, airports, and
highways.
• Improve the intercity travel experience for Californians by providing comfortable, safe, frequent, and reliable
high- speed travel.
• Provide a sustainable reduction in travel time between major urban centers.
• Increase the efficiency of the intercity transportation system.
• Maximize the use of existing transportation corridors and rights- of- way, to the extent feasible.
• Develop a practical and economically viable transportation system that can be implemented in phases by 2020
and generate revenues in excess of operation and maintenance costs.
2.2 Process to Identify Alternatives to be Carried Forward for EIR/ EIS Analysis
The aim of this report is to document the evaluation process and to identify alternatives that should be carried
forward through the environmental process and engineering design. Significant issues that would qualify an
alternative to be carried forward for further consideration include the following:
• Alternative meets the purpose and need and the project objectives in providing a sustainable reduction in travel
time between major urban centers.
• Alternative has no environmental or engineering issues that would make approvals infeasible.
• Alternative is feasible and practical to construct.
• Alternative reduces or avoids adverse environmental impacts.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 4
2.3 HST Design Objectives
To determine each alternative’s ability to meet the HST project purpose and need, the alternatives were evaluated
using HST system performance criteria that address design differences and qualities in the alignment and station
locations. These objectives and measures are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Alignment and Station Performance Objectives and Measures
Objective Measure
Maximize ridership / revenue potential
Travel Time a
Route Length
Maximize connectivity and accessibility Intermodal connections
Minimize operating and capital costs
Operating and maintenance costs
Capital cost
a The critical travel time within the Merced to Fresno Section is the travel time between the San Jose to Merced ( Pacheco Pass)
alternatives and the south Merced to Fresno Section project limit. This travel time criterion is tied to the Proposition 1A
requirement that HST travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles in 2 hours 40 minutes.
2.4 Comparison of Project Alternatives
In addition to the HST project objectives and evaluation measures presented in Section 2.3, there are additional
measures used to evaluate and compare the project alternatives: land use, constructability, community impacts,
natural resources, and environmental quality. Each of these five additional measures is discussed below.
Land Use
Alternatives and station locations were evaluated to determine whether surrounding land use supports transit use;
whether the alternatives and station locations are consistent with existing adopted local, regional, and state plans;
and whether they are supported by existing or future growth areas ( Table 2).
Table 2: Land Use Evaluation Measures
Land Use
Measurement Method Source
Development potential for TOD
within walking distance of station
Identify existing and proposed land uses within
1/ 2- mile of station locations; identify if there
are TOD districts, TOD overlay zones, mixed
use designations, or if local jurisdictions have
identified station areas for redevelopment or
economic development
Regional and local planning
documents, land use analysis,
and input from local planning
agencies
Consistency with other planning
efforts and adopted plans
Qualitative - general analysis of applicable
planning and policy documents a
Land use analysis and input
from planning agencies b
a Alternatives were compared to local general plans, adopted future land use plan maps, and policies of local jurisdictions for
consistency.
b Additional sources were general plans, comprehensive plans, and future land use maps.
Constructability
Alternatives were evaluated to determine whether construction of the alternative is feasible in terms of complexity of
construction and right- of- way constraints ( Table 3).
Table 3: Constructability Evaluation Measures
Constructability and Right of Way
Measurement Method Source
Constructability, access for
construction, within existing
transportation right- of- way
Extent of feasible access to alignment for
construction
Conceptual design plans and maps
Disruption to existing railroads Right- of- way constraints and impacts on
existing railroads a
Conceptual design plans and maps
Disruption to and relocation of
utilities
Number of utilities crossed b Conceptual design plans and maps c
a Alternatives were assessed for number of crossings of railroad right- of- way.
b Number of miles of alternatives located in urbanized areas were calculated.
c An additional source was GIS land use data.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 5
Community Impacts
Alternatives and station locations were evaluated for their ability to minimize disruption to neighborhoods and
communities. They are measured by the extent to which they minimize right- of- way acquisitions, minimize division of
established communities, and minimize conflicts with community resources ( Table 4).
Table 4: Community Evaluation Measures
Minimized Disruption to Neighborhoods and Communities
Measurement Method Source
Displacements If possible, identify number of properties by land use
type that would be displaced, or acres of land within
the right- of- way/ station footprint, by type of land use:
single family, multifamily, retail/ commercial, industrial,
etc. a
Identified comparing the alignment
conceptual design drawings with
aerial photographs, zoning maps,
and General Plan maps b
Properties with access
affected
Identify potential locations along the alignments or at
station locations where access would be affected
Estimated off conceptual design
plans and aerial photographs
Local traffic effects
around stations
Identify potential locations where increases in traffic
congestion or decreases in levels of service are
expected to occur
Existing traffic levels of service
from local jurisdictions c
Local traffic effects at
grade separations
Identify potential locations at grade- separations where
increases in traffic congestion or decreases in levels of
service are expected to occur d
Existing traffic levels of service
from local jurisdictions e
a Acres of land impacted, by land use type ( residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial) were determined.
b Conceptual design drawings were compared with GIS land use data.
c An additional source was future station parking demand.
d Number of road closures were identified.
e Additional sources were conceptual design plans and maps.
Natural Resources
Alternatives were evaluated for their ability to minimize impacts on natural environmental resources ( Table 5).
Table 5: Environmental Resources Evaluation Measures
Minimized Impact on Environmental Resources
Measurement Method Source
Waterways and wetlands
and natural preserves or
biologically sensitive habitat
areas affected
Identify new bridge crossings required; rough estimate
of acres of wetlands; linear feet of crossings of
waterways; acres and species of potential threatened
and endangered habitat affected; acres of natural
areas/ critical habitat affected
Measured off conceptual
design plans and GIS layers
Cultural resources Identify locations of National Register of Historic Places-or
California Historical Resources Information System-listed
properties; a for archaeological resources, identify
areas of high or moderate sensitivity based on previous
studies conducted in the study area
Based on conceptual design
plans and GIS layers;,
Section 4( f) studies and
cultural resource records
search and surveys b
Parklands Number and acres of parks that could be directly and
indirectly affected; this would also include major trails
that would be crossed
Based on conceptual design
plans and GIS layers;
Section 4( f) studies
Agricultural lands Acres of prime farmland, farmland of statewide
importance, unique farmland, and farmland of local
importance within preliminary limits of disturbance
Based on conceptual design
plans and GIS layers
a Historic parcels were also identified through field reconnaissance.
b An additional source of information was field reconnaissance.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 6
Environmental Quality
Alternatives were evaluated for their ability to enhance environmental quality. They were measured by the extent to
which they minimize impacts on the natural environment ( Table 6).
Table 6: Natural Environment Evaluation Measures
Minimized Impact on Natural Environment
Measurement Method Source
Noise and vibration effects
on sensitive receivers
Identify types of land use activities that would be
affected by HST pass- by noise and ground vibration a
Results of FRA screening
level assessment; inventory
of potential receivers from
site survey and aerial maps b
Change in visual/ scenic
resources
Identify number of local and scenic corridors crossed
and scenic/ visual resources that would be affected by
HST elevated structures in scenic areas and shadows on
sensitive resources ( parks); identify locations where
residential development is in close proximity to elevated
HST structures c
Result of general
assessment; survey of
alignment corridors and
planning documents d
Maximize avoidance of
areas with geological and
soils constraints
Identify number of crossings of known seismic faults,
acres of encroachment into areas with highly erodible
soils, acres of encroachment into areas with high
landslide susceptibility
U. S. Geological Survey
maps and available GIS
data
Maximize avoidance of
areas with potential
hazardous materials
Hazardous materials/ waste constraints e Data from previous records
search conducted for other
projects within study area
a Number of residential parcels that would be affected were identified.
b Additional sources were conceptual design plans and GIS right- of- way and land use data.
c Alternatives were assessed for number of linear miles in urban areas versus rural areas.
d Additional sources were conceptual design plans and GIS land use data.
e Number of hazardous waste sites adjacent to alternatives were identified.
3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The evaluation of alternatives is based on the key differentiators between alternatives. This section describes the No
Project Alternative, the initial range of alternatives considered, and the alternatives carried forward for detailed
evaluation in the Alternatives Analysis.
3.1 No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative is the basis for comparison of the HST build alternatives. It satisfies the statutory
requirements under CEQA and NEPA for an alternative that does not include any new action or project beyond what is
already committed. The No Project Alternative represents the state’s transportation system ( highway, air, and
conventional rail) as it is currently and as it would be after implementation of programs or projects that are currently
projected in regional transportation plans ( RTPs), that have identified funds for implementation, and that are
expected to be in place by 2035; as well as any major planned land use changes. Annual population growth is
expected to be evenly dispersed within the project area with a growth rate of approximately 3%. No major land use
changes have been proposed since the University of California ( UC) Merced campus was developed in Merced. The
No Project Alternative addresses the geographic area that serves the major destination markets for intercity travel
and that would be served by the proposed Merced to Fresno Section alternatives. This area extends generally from
Merced through the Central Valley to Fresno. Figure 2 illustrates the existing intercity transportation infrastructure
that currently serves these major travel markets.
The No Project Alternative includes programs and projects identified from the following sources:
• State Transportation Implementation Program ( STIP)
• RTPs from Merced and Madera counties, financially constrained projects for all modes of travel
• Airport plans
• Intercity passenger rail plans
3.1.1 Highway Element
The highway system that currently serves the intercity travel market in the area that would be served by the Merced
to Fresno Section includes the existing highway routes identified in Table 7.
Table 7: Existing California Intercity Highway
System within Study Area
Interstate Highways State Routes
Interstate 5 SR 41
SR 59
SR 99
SR 140
SR 145
SR 152
SR 180
SR 233
The No Project Alternative includes the existing highway system identified in Table 7, as well as funded and
programmed improvements on the intercity highway network based on financially constrained RTPs developed by
regional transportation planning agencies. The improvements consist primarily of individual interchange
improvements and roadway- widening projects on segments of the highway network, as enumerated below. These
improvements in the urban areas of Merced, Madera, and Fresno are illustrated in Figure 3. These improvements do
not cumulatively add much capacity to the existing highway system.
1. SR 99 – Convert to six- lane freeway between a point north of Atwater and Arena Way; remove at- grade road
crossings; construct new interchange at Westside Boulevard.
2. SR 99 – Widen freeway to six lanes from Atwater through Downtown Merced; upgrade interchanges in downtown
area.
3. Interchange SR 99 at SR 140 – Interchange improvements.
4. Interchange SR 99 at Mission Avenue – Construct new interchange.
5. SR 99 – Convert to six- lane freeway between McHenry Road and Buchanan Hollow Road; eliminate at- grade road
crossings; construct new interchange at Arboleda Road ( rural project, not illustrated in Figure 3).
6. SR 99 – Convert to six- lane freeway between Buchanan Hollow Road and Merced/ Madera County line; eliminate
at- grade road crossings; construct new interchange at Plainsburg Road ( rural project, not illustrated in Figure 3).
7. Atwater- Merced Expressway – Construct new four- lane expressway between SR 140 and SR 59; realign SR 59;
remove at- grade road crossings; construct new interchange at SR 99 and Santa Fe Avenue.
8. SR 140 – Upgrade arterial from Parsons Avenue to Tower Road.
9. Campus Parkway – Construct Campus Parkway between SR 99 and Yosemite Avenue in Madera County.
10. Interchange SR 99 at SR 233 – Reconstruct interchange ( not illustrated in Figure 3).
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 7
11. SR 99 – Convert to six- lane freeway between Merced/ Madera County line and SR 152; reconstruct interchange at
Avenue 24.
12. Interchange SR 99 at SR 152 – Construct new interchange and rail crossing.
13. SR 99 – Widen freeway between SR 152 and south of Avenue 21.5; interchange at Avenue 22.
14. SR 99 – Convert to six- lane freeway between Avenue 17 and Ellis Street; reconstruct interchange at Avenue 17.
15. SR 99 – Convert to six- lane freeway between Ellis Street and Avenue 12; reconstruct interchange at Ellis Street.
16. Interchange SR 99 at 4th Street – Reconstruct interchange.
17. Interchange SR 99 at SR 145 – Interchange improvements.
18. Interchange SR 99 at Avenue 12 – Reconstruct interchange.
19. SR 99 – Convert to six- lane freeway between Avenue 12 and Avenue 7.
20. SR 99 – Convert to six- lane freeway between Avenue 7 and Ashlan Avenue in Fresno County.
21. SR 145 – Widen to four lanes between SR 99 and Yosemite Avenue.
22. Interchange SR 99 at proposed Veterans Boulevard – construct new interchange and rail crossings.
23. Interchange SR 99 at Grantland Avenue – interchange improvements.
24. SR 99 – Widen to 10- lane freeway ( 2 phases) between Clinton Avenue and Ashlan Avenue.
25. SR 41 – Southbound auxiliary lane between El Paso Avenue and Friant Road.
26. SR 41 – Northbound auxiliary lane between Bullard Avenue and Herndon Avenue.
27. Interchange SR 99 at Shaw Avenue – Interchange improvements .
28. SR 41 – Northbound auxiliary lane between Ashlan Avenue and Shaw Avenue.
29. SR 41 – Auxiliary lanes between O Street and Shaw Avenue.
30. SR 41 – Widen interchange ramps between McKinley Avenue and Shields Avenue.
31. SR 180 – Braided ramp construction between SR 41 and SR 168.
32. SR 99 – Update closed bridge structure.
3.1.2 Aviation Element
Two commercial airports serve the Merced to Fresno Section: Fresno Yosemite International Airport and Merced
Municipal/ Macready Field. There are also several general aviation airports in the Merced to Fresno Corridor, including
two ( i. e., Chowchilla Municipal and Madera Municipal) located near the proposed alternatives. Following is a summary
description of these airports:
• Fresno Yosemite International Airport ( FAT): The municipally owned airport is located northeast of the City of
Fresno, east of SR 41. It is the major air carrier airport in the Central San Joaquin Valley. Eight certified carriers
provide domestic flights to most major airports in the west and direct international flights to Guadalajara, Mexico.
The airport terminal includes a recently remodeled lobby and a two- story concourse with six gates. The facility
has two runways: a primary, 9,227- foot commercial runway, and a second, shorter runway for smaller aircraft.
The facility provides 2,259 surface parking spaces. Parking rates are $ 8 long term and $ 12 short term. The
airport also has a consolidated rental car facility ( City of Fresno 2008).
• Merced Municipal/ Macready Field ( MCE): The Merced Municipal Airport is located southwest of Downtown
Merced, south of SR 140. The 450- acre facility is owned and operated by the City of Merced. Commercial service
at MCE currently includes three daily and two weekend round trips from Merced to Ontario Airport, where
connections can be made to other destinations ( City of Merced 2007).
• Chowchilla Municipal Airport: This general aviation facility is situated on approximately 32 acres on the southeast
edge of the City of Chowchilla, just west of SR 99. The airport is owned and operated by the city. The facility is
an uncontrolled airport with no onsite supervisor or tower. The airport has a 3,250- foot lighted runway ( City of
Chowchilla 2009).
• Madera Municipal Airport ( MAE): This airport is situated 3 miles northwest of the City of Madera, west of SR 99. It
is owned and operated by the city. There is a 5,544- foot, lighted primary runway ( suitable for business jet
service) and a secondary, 3,900- foot runway. Other facilities include an administration building, various hangers,
and tie- downs and a fueling facility ( City of Madera 2009).
3.1.3 Conventional Passenger Rail Element
Existing intercity passenger rail service in California is provided by Amtrak on four principal corridors covering more
than 1,300 linear miles and spanning almost the entire state. The existing passenger rail network in the Merced to
Fresno Section study area includes one of these corridors, the San Joaquin Route, which follows the BNSF corridor
through the study area.
Amtrak’s San Joaquin Route includes four trips daily in each direction from Oakland to Bakersfield and two trips daily
in each direction from Sacramento to Bakersfield, for a total of six daily roundtrips serving Merced, Madera, and
Fresno. The intercity route carried over 819,000 riders in 2007 with an on- time performance of 67.9%. Scheduled
running time between Bakersfield and Oakland averages 6 hours 9 minutes, at an average speed of 51.3 mph. The
maximum speed on the route is 79 mph ( California Department of Transportation 2008).
The California State Rail Plan 2007/ 8 – 2017/ 18 ( California Department of Transportation 2008) envisions an increase
in service to eight daily roundtrips by 2018, carrying 1,430,000 annual riders, with 90% on- time performance and
seeks to reduce the travel time from Bakersfield to Oakland to less than 6 hours.
The San Joaquin Route shares track with the BNSF freight line in the Merced to Fresno Section study area. There are
existing Amtrak stations in Merced and Madera. This corridor serves a portion of the same intercity markets as the
proposed Merced to Fresno Section alternatives.
Intercity passenger rail system improvements identified in the STIP and the Caltrans California State Rail Plan for
implementation before 2020 are included in the No Project Alternative and identified in Table 8. To increase levels of
passenger service, the improvements consist of additional track capacity, new rolling stock, grade- crossing
improvements, track and signal improvements, and expanded or upgraded passenger stations.
Table 8: Programmed Improvements in 2008 California State Rail Plan
Project Title Route
Lead
Agency
Project Description
Madera Station San Joaquin Caltrans Construct new station
Merced Crossover San Joaquin Caltrans Construct crossover – to increase efficiency
Merced to Le Grand San Joaquin Caltrans Improvements to increase on- time performance and efficiency
Equipment San Joaquin Caltrans Purchase 2 train sets ( 6 cars – 1 locomotive)
Source: California Department of Transportation ( 2008).
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 8
Figure 3: No Project Alternative Planned Improvements in Merced, Madera, and Fresno Urban Areas
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 9
3.2 Program Alternatives
3.2.1 2005 Statewide Program EIR/ EIS
Statewide Program Alternatives
The Statewide Program EIR/ EIS for the California HST was completed in November 2005. The Authority
and FRA selected the electric steel- wheel- on- steel- rail technology for the HST vehicles and identified
potential route and station location options through the program environmental analysis. For a more
detailed examination of these issues, refer to the Final Program EIR/ EIS for the Proposed California High-
Speed Train System.
The Statewide Program EIR/ EIS examined three major alternatives for the statewide transportation
network:
• No Project Alternative: The state’s transportation network as it is today, along with funded
projects included in regional transportation plans.
• Modal Alternative: Enhancements to the state’s transportation network using existing modes and
technologies ( mainly expanded airports and highways).
• HST Alternative: A new HST system to connect California’s major urban centers.
The HST Alternative was the selected system alternative in the Statewide Program EIR/ EIS. The No
Project Alternative was not able to provide the needed level of intercity mobility in the future, while the
Modal Alternative provided reduced mobility compared to the HST Alternative. In addition, the Modal
Alternative would have a higher cost and more substantial environmental impacts than the HST
Alternative.
Merced to Fresno Section Routing and Station Alternatives
The following alignment and station options were evaluated for the Merced to Fresno Section in the
Statewide Program EIS/ EIR:
• Alignment Alternatives
o BNSF Route
o UPRR Route
o Western Alternative ( West of SR 99)
o Eastern Bypass ( East of SR 99)
• Station Locations
o Merced – Castle Commerce Center
o Merced – Downtown
o Merced – Municipal Airport
o Merced – UC Merced
o Fresno – Downtown
o Plainsburg
Table 9 lists each of the alternatives and station locations considered in the Statewide Program EIR/ EIS
and whether they were carried forward for further study or not carried forward. The BNSF Route and the
Downtown Fresno Station were identified as the preferred alternative and station location.
Table 9: 2005 Statewide Program EIR/ EIS Merced to Fresno Section Alternatives Considered
Alternatives
/ Stations
Program EIR/ EIS Decision Reasons for Elimination
Notes
Carried Forward
Not Carried
Forward
Construction
Incompatibility
Right- of- Way
Connectivity
Revenue
Severe Environ-mental
Impacts
BNSF Route
Preferred in 2005
FEIS/ EIR
UPRR Route
FEIS/ EIR: carry
forward to next phase
of study
Western
Alternative
( West of SR 99)
Eliminated
during the
evaluation of
alternatives
process
X X X
Eastern Bypass
( East of SR 99)
Eliminated in
ROD
X X X
Station
Location: Castle
Commerce
Center
FEIS/ EIR: carry
forward to next phase
of study
One station only, either at Castle AFB or Downtown
Merced. Castle AFB is about 7 miles northwest of
Merced but provides best access to developing UC
Merced campus. Would require an additional two-track
alignment loop to be constructed to serve
Castle AFB, but would have fewer construction
impacts.
Station
Location:
Downtown
Merced
FEIS/ EIR: carry
forward to next phase
of study
One station only, either at Castle AFB or Downtown
Merced. Downtown location would be located in the
transit hub at existing Amtrak Station or 16th Street
transit center and would provide good access to
SR 99. There would be more construction impacts
associated with this station location.
Station
Location:
Merced
Municipal
Airport
FEIS/ EIR: carry
forward to next phase
of study
Located on the ground of the existing Merced
Municipal Airport complex southwest of SR 99.
Would require a divergence from the BNSF to
connect to UPRR. Would be located at a considerable
distance from UC Merced but would be adjacent to
Downtown Merced. Compatible with existing and
planned development.
Station
Location:
Downtown
Fresno
Preferred in 2005
EIS/ EIR
Station
Location:
UC Merced
Eliminated
during the
evaluation of
alternatives
process
X
Eliminated due to impacts on farmlands, wetlands,
floodplains.
Station
Location:
Plainsburg
Eliminated
during the
evaluation of
alternatives
process
X X
Eliminated due to impacts on farmlands.
Source: California High- Speed Rail Authority ( 2005).
Notes: AFB = Air Force Base; ROD = Record of Decision; FEIS/ EIR = Final EIS/ EIR
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 10
3.2.2 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS
The subsequent Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS for the California HST was completed in July 2008. The
Authority and FRA identified potential route and station location options connecting the Bay Area to the Central Valley
through this subsequent program environmental analysis. For a more detailed examination of these issues, refer to
the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/ EIS.
The following alignment, station, and maintenance facility options were evaluated for the Merced to Fresno Section in
the Bay Area Program EIR/ EIS:
• Alignment Alternatives
o UPRR Route
o BNSF Route
o West of SR 99 Alignment
o East of SR 99 Alignment
• Station Locations
o Merced – Downtown
o Merced – Castle Commerce Center
• Maintenance Facility Locations
o Castle Commerce Center
Table 10 lists each of the alternatives, station locations, and maintenance facility locations considered and whether
they were carried forward for further study or not carried forward. The UPRR Route and the Downtown Fresno station
were identified as the preferred alternative and station location.
3.2.3 Program Alternative and Station Locations
Two different preferred alternatives were selected in the 2005 and 2008 Program EIR/ EIS documents. In response to
the 2005 Statewide Program EIR/ EIS, the Authority and the FRA selected the BNSF Route as the preferred alternative
between Merced and Fresno. In the 2005 Statewide Program EIR/ EIS, the primary reason for selecting the BNSF over
UPRR Route was that the BNSF Route avoided impacts associated with construction and operation in urban areas.
These impacts include constructability issues, noise and impacts on culturally sensitive properties, and disturbances
on the community at large. The Statewide Program EIR/ EIS did acknowledge higher biological and water- related
impacts, but the differences were not substantial over the entire Central Valley study area, which at the time
extended from Fresno to Sacramento. In the 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS, the Authority and FRA
selected the UPRR Route as the preferred alternative between Merced and Fresno. Under the Bay Area to Central
Valley preferred alternative, the HST would travel from the Bay Area over Pacheco Pass via Henry Miller Road,
connecting to the Central Valley along the UPRR in the vicinity of Chowchilla. The study area from the Bay Area
overlapped the previous Central Valley study area in Merced and Modesto. The findings showed that the UPRR route
was the preferred alternative because it could better serve the downtown station destinations, which would
encourage TOD and associated infill densification rather than causing growth in undesirable locations. It was noted
that at the project level, the Authority would continue to evaluate the BNSF Alternative because of the uncertainty of
negotiating with UPRR for use of some of its right- of- way and would continue investigation of alignments/ linkages to
a potential maintenance facility at Castle Air Force Base ( California High- Speed Rail Authority 2008).
Figure 4 shows the alignments and station locations for both of the preferred alternatives carried forward from the
two program EIR/ EIS documents, and the Pacheco Pass connection to both of the preferred alternatives, as identified
in the Bay Area Program EIR/ EIS.
Table 10: 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS Merced to Fresno Section Alternatives
Considered
Alternatives /
Stations
Program EIR/ EIS Decision Reasons for Elimination
Carried Notes
Forward
Not Carried
Forward
Construction
Incompatibility
Right- of- Way
Connectivity
Revenue
Severe Environ-mental
Impacts
UPRR Route
Preferred in
2008 FEIS/ EIR
Connects with either the
Altamont Pass or Pacheco Pass
alignment alternatives.
BNSF Route
FEIS/ EIR:
carry forward
to next phase
of study
Connects with either the
Altamont Pass or Pacheco Pass
alignment alternatives. Although
the UPRR is the preferred
alternative, BNSF will continue to
be studied due to uncertainty of
negotiations with UPRR.
West of SR 99
Alignment
Eliminated in
ROD
X X
East of SR 99
Alignment
Eliminated in
ROD
X X
Station Location:
Downtown Merced
Preferred in
2008 FEIS/ EIR
Would serve all Altamont Pass
and Pacheco Pass alternatives.
Station Location:
Castle Commerce
Center
FEIS/ EIR:
carry forward
to next phase
of study
Would serve all Altamont Pass
and Pacheco Pass alternatives.
Maintenance
Facility: Castle
Commerce Center
Preferred in
2008 FEIS/ EIR
Designated as “ Fleet Storage /
Service and Inspection / Light
Maintenance.”
Source: California High- Speed Rail Authority ( 2008).
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 11
Figure 4: Program EIR/ EIS Preferred Alternatives
3.3 Initial Development of Project Alternatives
The initial range of project alternatives began with those carried forward by the Statewide Program EIR/ EIS and the
Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS. Because the Merced to Fresno Section serves as a connection point for
three other sections, the alternatives are influenced by input from adjoining section studies. Both the UPRR and the
BNSF corridors were displayed during the project scoping process for the Merced to Fresno and the Fresno to
Bakersfield sections. The initial range of alternatives for the San Jose to Merced Section carried forward the alignment
on Henry Miller Road/ Avenue 24, which resulted in a railroad Wye junction, with the north leg joining the Merced to
Fresno Section north of Chowchilla and the south leg joining south of Chowchilla. Included as part of those
alternatives were four stations: Castle Commerce Center, Downtown Merced ( either on the UPRR or the BNSF/ Amtrak
station), Merced Airport, and the Downtown Fresno stations. Input on the stations, heavy maintenance facilities, and
the Pacheco Pass Wye connects follow. A heavy maintenance facility was considered at the Castle Commerce Center.
Input on the initial development of project alternatives was collected during the public scoping periods for the Merced
to Fresno Section and the San Jose to Merced Section. The initial north- south alignments expanded from two to four,
and then later a fifth alternative was suggested after the scoping period ended. These five initial alternatives are
summarized below.
BNSF – Adjacent to BNSF Route ( Alternative A1 – BNSF)
The BNSF Alternative is consistent with the Statewide Program Preferred Alternative. This alternative generally
remains west of the BNSF from Castle Commerce Center through Merced and Madera, then joins to the east side of
the UPRR near the San Joaquin River. Several design options were suggested: three design options on the north end
and three on the south end. On the north end, the City of Merced preferred the station to be located downtown near
the UPRR and asked that the BNSF Alternative link to the UPRR corridor for the station before reconnecting to the
BNSF. Therefore, the baseline Design Option 1 remains adjacent to the BNSF, and two other design options link to
the station in Downtown Merced. Design Option 2 follows Mission Avenue from the UPRR to the BNSF. Due to
residential impacts and constraints at the SR99/ Mission Avenue interchange related to Design Option 2, Design
Option 3 is located farther south to follow Mariposa Avenue to the BNSF. At the south end of the BNSF Alternative,
some design options were suggested by City of Madera to remain on the BNSF as long as possible before
reconnecting to the UPRR. All six design options are displayed in Figure 5.
Sierra Foothills Alternative
This option, suggested by the public during scoping, is located approximately 10 miles east of the SR 99 corridor. This
is the same as the alternative studied in the Statewide Program EIR/ EIS. It was not carried forward in the 2005
Statewide Program EIR/ EIS because it did not meet the purpose of the project. Since there is nothing new about this
suggestion, this alternative was not carried forward in this study.
UPRR/ SR 99 – Adjacent to UPRR and SR 99 Route ( Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99)
The UPRR/ SR 99 Alternative is consistent with the Bay Area Program Preferred Alternative. This alternative generally
remains parallel to but outside of the UPRR right- of- way, opposite SR 99, between Castle Commerce Center and the
Downtown Fresno Station. There are no design options considered on this route.
Western Madera Alternative ( Alternative A3 – Western Madera)
This alternative follows the UPRR/ SR 99 route from Castle Commerce Center southward but deviates to the west
before reaching Chowchilla. It moves west to a location approximately 3.75 miles west of and parallel to the UPRR,
then returns to be adjacent to SR 99 and UPRR south of Madera. This alternative has two design options south of
Madera.
UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid ( Alternative A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid)
After the scoping period, the City of Chowchilla suggested an alternative that also follows the UPRR/ SR 99 route and,
like the Western Madera Alternative, deviates from the UPRR before Chowchilla, but which moves east to connect
with the BNSF route. The alternative follows the BNSF and then connects back to the UPRR south of Madera. There
are no design options suggested on this route.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 12
Figure 5: Merced to Fresno Section EIR/ EIS Initial Range of Alternatives
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 13
Range of Station Locations Considered in
Initial Alternatives Review
Figure 6: Castle Commerce Center Station
Figure 7: Merced Intermodal Transit Center
Figure 8: Merced Amtrak Depot Station
Castle Commerce Center Station
Castle Commerce Center occupies a large portion of
land along the northeast side of Santa Fe Drive and
the UPRR corridor in Atwater, north of Merced. A
station located here would likely be in the vicinity of or
on the grounds of the Castle Airport. The station
would be compatible with all alternatives.
Merced Intermodal Transit Center
This station would be located at the existing Merced
Intermodal Transit Center, which is currently bounded
on the north and south by West 16th Street and West
15th Street and to the east and west by M Street and
O Street. The future station would occupy a much
larger area, possibly extending to SR 59 to the west
and Canal Street to the east. The station would be
compatible with all alternatives.
Merced Amtrak Depot Station
This station would be located at the existing Amtrak
Depot in Merced, which is currently bounded on the
north and south by West 24th Street and West 25th
Street and to the east and west by K Street and
G Street. The future HST station would occupy a much
larger area, possibly extending to M Street to the west
and 5th Avenue to the east. The station would only be
compatible with Alternative A1 – BNSF.
Figure 9: Merced Municipal Airport Station
Figure 10: Chowchilla Station
Figure 11: Madera Station
Merced Municipal Airport Station
The Merced Municipal Airport is located to the
southwest of central Merced and approximately 1.5 to
2 miles southwest of Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR99. A
station here would be in the general vicinity of the
airport, bounded by Thornton Road running north-south
and West Dickenson Perry Road running east-west.
This station location would not be adjacent to
any of the proposed alternatives.
Chowchilla Station
This station would be located on the UPRR between
Downtown Chowchilla and the Chowchilla Municipal
Airport. The station would be compatible only with
Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99.
Madera Station
This station would be located on the BNSF rail line
immediately west of the City of Madera. The location
would be within a rural residential area outside of the
Madera city limits. The station would be compatible
only with Alternative A1 – BNSF.
Station Locations Considered in Initial Alternatives Review
The initial station locations were defined by the Program EIR/ EIS documents and Proposition 1A. Additional station suggestions from the scoping process were also evaluated. In order for the HST to reach its destinations in a timely manner that
maintains high ridership expectation, the train must limit the number of stops and attract riders from a broad area. During the Program EIS/ EIR, the Authority conducted several ridership studies and determined the number of station locations
that would be needed in order to reach this balance of speed and ridership. The EIR/ EIS noted that a station would be possible in Fresno from the Bay Area going south, and that from Fresno or the Bay Area going north, a station in Merced would
be appropriate. Many cities would like a station, but this would compromise the performance and purpose of the HST system. Station locations considered included the following stations, displayed in the context of the alternative alignments
shown in Figure 5 and individual images shown in Figures 6 through 11. The dashed circle indicates a quarter- mile walking distance, which is the ideal walking distance between destinations, and the solid circle indicates a half- mile walking
distance.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 14
Pacheco Connection and Wye Connections Considered
The initial ranges of alternatives for the Merced to Fresno and San Jose to
Merced HST sections were concurrently developed and reviewed. After
completing the initial reviews, the two project teams studied additional
connections between the ranges of alternatives. The wye connections
discussed below were developed in response to the range of alternatives
studied for the San Jose to Merced Section, shown in Figure 12. Figure 12
demonstrates that all wyes connect to a common point at the San Luis
Reservoir. Travel time was measured from the San Luis Reservoir to each
of the eastern end points in the study area: Fresno and Merced. Figure 12
also illustrates how alternative connections were designed to minimize
impacts on the Grasslands Ecological Area ( GEA) by selecting northern or
southern routes, or traveling along existing transportation corridors, such
as Henry Miller Road and SR 152.
SR 140/ NGEA Wye Connection
This wye would connect to the San Jose to Merced SR 140 Alternative
located north of the GEA Nature Refuge, which lies west of the Merced to
Fresno Section study area. The alignment would approach the Merced to
Fresno Section following SR 140 from the west, and would align with the
Merced to Fresno Section alternatives near the City of Atwater.
Henry Miller/ Ave 24 Wye Connection
The wye would connect to the San Jose to Merced Henry Miller- Avenue
24 Alternative, which is the closest to the Preferred Alternative from the
2008 Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS. The alignment would
follow Avenue 24, north of SR 152, and would align with the Merced to
Fresno Section alternatives near Chowchilla.
SR152 Wye Connection
This wye would connect to the San Jose to Merced Henry Miller- SR 152
Alternative, located in the median of SR 152, and would align with the
Merced to Fresno Section alternatives near Chowchilla.
South SR152 Wye Connection
This wye is the equivalent of the San Jose to Merced Henry Miller- S152
wye connection initially studied. The wye would connect to the South
SR 152 Alternative, which approximately follows Avenue 22 or Avenue 21
south of SR 152. Both the north and south wye legs would converge with
the Merced to Fresno Section alternatives south of Chowchilla.
SGEA Wye Connection
This wye would connect to the San Jose to Merced SGEA Alternative,
which nearly avoids the GEA Nature Refuge by traveling farther south
than the other San Jose to Merced Section alternatives. The east- west
approach to the Merced to Fresno Section is Avenue 10, which is between
Madera and Fresno and generally north of and parallel to the Madera/ Fresno county line and the San Joaquin River. Both legs of the wye would converge with the
Merced to Fresno Section alternatives south of Madera and north of the Madera/ Fresno county line.
Figure 12: Range of Wye Connections Between San Jose to Merced and Merced to Fresno Sections
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 15
Maintenance Facility Locations Considered
While maintenance centers will be required throughout the state, a heavy maintenance facility is expected to be
situated in the Central Valley because of its central location at the heart of the system. Eight maintenance facility
locations were initially identified in the Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS and during the scoping period for
the Merced to Fresno Section. These preliminary sites included Castle Commerce Center, North of SR 152, East of
Fairmead, South of Fairmead, Rural Madera County near Berenda Slough, Rural Madera County near Dry Creek,
Eastern Madera, and Southern Madera. These site suggestions were made prior to the establishment of HST
requirements for heavy maintenance facility site selection. Therefore, these sites were rejected and in winter 2009,
the California High- Speed Rail Authority Board issued a Request for Expressions of Interest ( RFEI) with additional
information about site requirements. The RFEI requested that proposers identify potential locations for heavy
maintenance facilities ( HMFs) along the planned HST route between Merced and Bakersfield.
The Authority sought proposals from local governments, public transportation agencies, private companies, and
others for both heavy and other maintenance facilities that could meet the Authority’s requirements, minimize
environmental impacts, and offer the financial incentives and other economic benefits to the state and local
communities. The entities that made these suggestions during the scoping process refined their locations and
provided information on the sites through their applications. The RFEI attracted some private proposals as well.
Within the Merced to Fresno Section of the HST System, the applications resulted in five potential sites, as illustrated
and described in Figures 13 through 17. These potential HMF sites are located along the Merced to Fresno Section
alternatives as shown in Figure 5.
3.3.1 Initial Review of Alternatives
The north- south Merced to Fresno alternatives, and their associated design options, stations, and wye connections to
the San Jose to Merced Section were subjected to an initial review to determine if they met the project purpose and
need, resulted in impacts on community resources, conflicted with approved future development in the study area, or
deviated from desired design performance criteria as defined in the Alternatives Analysis Methods for Project EIR/ EIS
Technical Memorandum Version 2 ( October 2009). These alternatives were then evaluated for their ability to
maximize design standards, minimize disruption to neighborhoods and communities, and minimize impacts on
environmental resources. This initial review found that, among the north- south alternatives, only the Sierra Foothills
Alternative did not meet the HST purpose and need, because it would not provide connectivity to the Merced and
Fresno urban centers and would result in high environmental impacts.
Initial Review of Station Locations
Among the six station locations initially reviewed, the Castle Commerce Center site, Merced Amtrak Depot site, and
Merced Intermodal Transit Center site fulfilled the most station location criteria and were carried forward for further
consideration.
• The Castle Commerce Center site would minimize neighborhood and natural resource impacts and is supported
by local plans and policies, but it is not currently an intercity destination.
• The Merced Amtrak Depot site is located in a predominantly residential community and would negatively affect
the surrounding neighborhoods. Access would require traveling through neighborhoods. This station would
provide connectivity with Amtrak passenger service.
• The Downtown Merced Intermodal Transit Center site would fulfill all of the criteria, because it is centrally located
near intercity destinations, has high potential for multimodal connectivity and transit- oriented
development/ redevelopment, would minimize neighborhood and natural resource impacts, and is supported by
local plans and policies.
The Merced Airport Station, Chowchilla Station, and Madera Station sites were removed from consideration because
they fulfill few of the station location criteria.
• The Merced Airport station site is not adjacent to any of the proposed alternatives; development potential is
limited by airport contours; and the station location is not supported by planning efforts in Merced.
• Land uses surrounding the Chowchilla station site do not support transit; redevelopment sites are limited and
development potential is further limited by airport contours. Chowchilla is not a regional urban destination. Access
would be available via SR 99.
• Land uses surrounding the Madera station site also do not support transit; the site is 2 miles from Downtown
Madera. It would offer connectivity with Amtrak passenger service.
Initial Review of Design Options
Alternative A1 – BNSF, Design Options 1, 2, and 3
• Design Option 1 – Alignments follows the BNSF corridor through Merced, affecting a cohesive residential area. It
would also create the most road closures. Carrying this design option forward would depend on whether the
BNSF- Amtrak station is carried forward for further evaluation.
• Design Option 2 – Mission Avenue may affect a residential community northeast of the Mission Avenue
interchange and require modifications to the Mission Avenue interchange. To minimize these impacts, the design
speed may have to be lowered.
• Design Option 3 – Mariposa Avenue would have the most linear miles of elevated track and curves, the most
linear miles of deviation from existing corridors, and the most impacts on private property, wetlands, and known
cultural sites. However, the differences between Design Options 2 and 3 may be reduced as design develops
further.
Alternative A1 – BNSF, Design Options 4, 5, and 6
The Madera/ Fresno vicinity design options have similar operations but different levels of impacts.
• Design Option 5 would have operations similar to Design Option 4 and Design Option 6; however, Design Option
5 would create much less community disruption because it would avoid the developed residential areas north of
Fresno. Fresno communicated its lack of support of Design Options 4 and 6.
Alternative A3 – Western Madera, Design Options 7 and 8
The initial review of the two Alternative A3 – Western Madera design options did not reveal a clear advantage for
either option.
• Design Option 7 would have almost 1.5 more linear miles of elevated track than Design Option 8.
• Design Option 8 would have more acres of wetlands impacts, more acres of impacts on important farmlands, and
more road closures.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 16
Figure 13: Castle Commerce Center HMF
Location / Description Property Characteristics Proposer
• 164 acres
• 6 miles northwest of Merced, at the former Castle Air Force
Base in northern unincorporated Merced County. Adjacent
to and on the east side of the BNSF mainline, 1.75 miles
south of the UPRR mainline, off of Santa Fe Drive and
Shuttle Road, 2.75 miles from existing SR 99 interchange.
• Adjacent to all alternatives under consideration: A1- BNSF
A2- UPRR, as well as A3 - Western Madera and A4 -
UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid.
• Economic incentives: long- term lease for $ 1/ year, low- cost
power, Enterprise Zone, Redevelopment Project Area.
Recovery Zone financing potentially available. Foreign
Trade Zone, Defense Base Realignment and Closure
( BRAC) funding opportunities.
• Mostly consistent with General Plan and zoning:
Commercial, Industrial, Agriculture.
• Outside of floodplain
• Direct highway access
• Utilities readily available
• Hazardous materials cleanup underway
• 1 business, 1 agriculture use displaced
• Intermittent stream on site
• Cultural resource on site
Greater Merced
High- Speed Rail
Committee, Inc.
Figure 14: Mission Avenue HMF
Location / Description Property Characteristics Proposer
• 222 acres
• Southeast Merced, adjacent to and west of the UPRR A2
alignment, 3 miles southeast of proposed Merced station,
2.75 miles from SR 99 interchange along E Mission Avenue.
• Adjacent to all alternatives under consideration: A1- BNSF
A2- UPRR, as well as A3 - Western Madera and A4 -
UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid.
• Economic incentives: low- cost power, Enterprise Zone,
Redevelopment Project Area, Gateway Redevelopment plan
incentives, expedited entitlement processing.
• Mostly consistent with General Plan and zoning:
Public/ General Use; Commercial, Manufacturing/ Industrial;
Low Density Residential.
• Entirely within 100- year floodplain
• Special flood hazard area ( AO)
• 5 potential hazardous materials sites
• 1 agriculture, church, 1 multi- family, 7 single family, and 9
business displacements
• Perennial stream and canal on site
Greater Merced
High- Speed Rail
Committee, Inc.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 17
Figure 15: Harris- DeJager HMF
Location / Description Property Characteristics Proposer
• 155 acres
• North of Chowchilla adjacent to and on west side of the UPRR
corridor, along S Vista Road, near SR 99 interchange under
construction.
• Adjacent to Alternatives A2, UPRR, as well as A3 - Western
Madera and A4 - UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid.
• Conditionally offered at no cost to the Authority
• Joint Powers Authority would provide financing for
site and off- site improvements.
• No floodplain
• Agricultural zoning, agricultural use displacement
• Williamson Act land
• Wildlife corridor at northern boundary
City of Chowchilla,
and property
owners ( Harris,
DeJager)
Exhibit 16: Kojima Development HMF
Location / Description Property Characteristics Proposer
• 400 acres
• On BNSF route alignment east of Chowchilla, along Santa Fe
Drive and Robertson Boulevard ( Avenue 26).
• Adjacent to Alternatives A1– BNSF and A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid.
• Conditionally offered at no cost to the Authority
• Plan to create a self- contained community allowing
for a work/ live environment.
• Developer will offer financial incentives such as
favorable financing ( 0% down) for HMF employees.
• All dam failure inundation area
• Agriculture zoning, agriculture use displacement
• Williamson Act land
Madera County,
City of Chowchilla,
and property
owner ( Kojima
Development)
Exhibit 17: Gordon- Shaw HMF
Location / Description Property Characteristics Proposer
• 451 acres
• Adjacent to and on east side of the UPRR corridor from north of
Berenda Boulevard to Avenue 19.
• Adjacent to Alternative A2 - UPRR.
• Joint Powers Authority to assist in property
acquisition and financing for infrastructure
improvements.
• California Annual Grassland, stream channel with
mixed riparian forest
• Agriculture zoning, agriculture use displacement
• Partially in 100- year floodplain
Madera County
Resource
Management
Agency
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 18
Initial Review of Pacheco Pass Wye Connections
Both the Merced to Fresno and the San Jose to Merced sections evaluations included the east- west Pacheco Wye
connections. Both evaluations resulted in similar recommendations to carry forward only the Henry Miller/ Avenue 24
Wye and the South SR152 Wyes for all alternatives in the Merced to Fresno Section. A summary of the findings
follows:
• The NGEA/ SR 140 wye connection would be the least effective alternative at meeting the purpose and need of
the project due to its comparatively poor travel time. It would be nearly 7 minutes slower than the best-performing
wye connections in the route between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Also, the SR 140 Wye
connection would have the greatest potential impact on wetlands. The connection would result in high community
impacts in Atwater and high impact on habitat lands that support threatened and endangered species.
• The SGEA alignment and wye connection would provide the best travel time between San Francisco and Los
Angeles, and few disruptions to neighborhoods and communities. However, this alternative would likely result in
higher overall project costs due to the need to construct approximately 22 miles of additional track to the
immediate west of the study area. The additional length of track would cross habitat lands that are known to
support threatened and endangered species.
• The Ave 24 Wye connection would provide efficient travel time and comparative cost depending on the north-south
alignment it connects with because some alternatives may require more or less elevated structure, which
would reduce road closures. This alternative does have fewer impacts on farmlands, but otherwise it is
comparable with South SR152 wye and SR152 wye connections.
• The SR152 Wye would have the second- highest cost, estimated to be twice as expensive as the SR 140, South
SR 152, and SGEA wyes. The high cost is due to the need to reconstruct portions of SR 99 and crossings over
SR 99 and the UPRR rail line. However, this connection would have fewer impacts and lower cost if combined
with Alternative A3 – Western Madera.
• The South SR152 Wye connection is a similar concept to the Ave 24 Wye connection, running parallel to SR 152,
but with fewer environmental impacts, more farmland impacts, lower cost, and comparable travel time to the
Ave 24 Wye.
Initial Review of North- South Alignment Alternatives
The Sierra Foothills Alternative was not carried forward for further analysis because it did not meet the purpose and
need to provide high- speed intercity connectivity. The results of the initial review of the remaining north- south
alignment alternatives are as follows:
• Alternative A1 – BNSF: The BNSF alternative will meet the 2 hour and 40 minute travel time between San
Francisco and Los Angeles. However, because the train needs to travel farther east before turning south travel is
less efficient than other alternatives. This alternative consistently met the project purpose and need and the
criteria of maximizing the use of existing transportation corridors; therefore, this alternative was carried into the
alternatives analysis process. Design Options 4 and 6 in conjunction with Alternative A1 – BNSF should be
removed from further consideration because of the potential for high impacts on new residential developments in
the Herndon area and a crossing over the environmentally sensitive areas of the San Joaquin River, including
Camp Pashayan.
• Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99: There were no changes resulting from discussions on Alternative A2 –
UPRR/ SR 99. This alternative remains adjacent to the existing corridors, but as identified during the Bay Area to
Central Valley Program EIR/ EIS, remaining adjacent to the UPRR may result in delays.
• Alternative A3 – Western Madera: This alternative offers some travel time savings when considering the San
Francisco to Los Angeles travel path. While Alternative A3 – Western Madera deviates from existing transportation
corridor, and therefore does not follow the Authority’s objective to maximize use of existing transportation
corridors, it also would avoid impacts on downtown communities of Chowchilla and Madera. This alternative is a
“ Greenfield” alternative, meaning that it does not follow existing transportation corridors for much of the
alignment and therefore represents a new transportation corridor across areas otherwise reserved for agricultural
uses. This alternative would result in more acres of impacts on prime, unique, and important farmland than the
other alternatives. Perhaps more importantly, it would result in bisecting some farmland properties. The
preliminary design of Design Option 8 would result in higher wetland impacts than Design Option 7. However,
both design options were carried forward into the next phase of analysis, and Design Option 8 underwent design
refinement to avoid wetland impacts where possible.
• Alternative A4 – BNSF/ UPRR Hybrid: This alternative was suggested when the initial analysis was being
conducted. It minimizes impacts that Alternative A1 – BNSF would have on Le Grand and that the UPRR
Alternative would have on Chowchilla and Madera. However, the hybrid alternative would also have impacts from
both the BNSF and UPRR alternatives because it uses portions of both corridors.
Heavy Maintenance Facilities
The initial review of the five maintenance facility locations found that each site would be accessible by one or more of
the alternatives under consideration and also found no critical issues that would impede the sites from further
consideration. As the alternatives develop further, some of the proposed sites may prove to be more practical than
other sites.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 19
3.3.2 Agency Coordination and Public Outreach
Coordination with agencies and the public is a key component of the alternatives development and evaluation
process. Early outreach and scoping activities and a series of Technical Working Group meetings informed the
development of the initial range of alternatives. Public and agency input on issues to be studied, city and county land
use and planning information, and input on the range of alternatives provided valuable information to assist in
evaluating the alternatives. After the initial review of these alternatives, a series of Technical Working Group meetings
led to the identification of alternatives to carry forward for detailed evaluation. Another element of the outreach has
been to provide updates and presentations to clubs, organizations, farm bureaus, and business owners, as well as the
City and County of Merced and Madera, to facilitate an inclusive and transparent process. Additional coordination with
the San Jose to Merced HST Section led to a review of additional wye connections to that section’s alternatives. Each
of these agency coordination and public outreach activities is described below.
Early Outreach and Scoping
Early outreach activities occurred throughout the study area during autumn 2008 and winter 2009/ 2010. Scoping
activities were conducted between February 24 and April 10, 2009, with scoping meetings held in Merced and
Madera. Both the general public and agencies attended these meetings. The meetings provided information about the
history of the HST project to date, the two Program EIR/ EIS preferred alternatives, and the upcoming steps in the
environmental process, including alternatives development and analysis.
The cities of Chowchilla and Madera voiced concern over Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 because of potential impacts
to their communities. Their issues included how the Pacheco Pass wye may connect to Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99
and place Chowchilla in a triangle of HST track. The north leg of the wye connection would travel north of Chowchilla,
the south leg would travel south of Chowchilla, and the Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 north- south alignment would
travel east of Chowchilla. In response to these concerns, Chowchilla representatives suggested a new wye connection
farther south, called the South SR152 Wye, which would connect both wye legs south of the city. Because Alternative
A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 would parallel the UPRR through Madera, the city of Madera felt that the alternative would divide
the community and cause substantial impacts on commercial and residential areas surrounding the proposed
alignment. The scoping meetings also led to the suggestion of Alternative A3 – Western Madera and the Sierra
Foothills Alternative, and the design options associated with Alternative A1 – BNSF and A3 – Western Madera. The
meetings are summarized in the Merced to Fresno Section Scoping Report ( January 2010).
Technical Working Groups – First Series
After the scoping period ended, the initial range of alternatives was developed. In June 2009, the Merced to Fresno
Section alternatives were presented to the Technical Working Groups in Fresno, Merced, and Madera. These groups
consist of senior staff from county and city public works and planning departments, redevelopment agencies, and the
economic development commission. The purpose of the groups is to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas
during the course of the study. The Technical Working Groups provided input on the alternatives and information
about city and county land use and planning, as well as providing updates to their boards or councils. These meetings
are summarized in meeting minutes found in Appendix A.
Review of Initial Alternatives
The Sierra Foothills Alternative was not carried forward for further analysis because it did not meet the purpose and
need to provide high- speed intercity connectivity. Two Alternative A1 – BNSF design options ( Design Option 4 and
Design Option 6) that affected the northern Fresno community of Herndon were also removed from further
consideration based on input from the City of Fresno. Three station locations— the Merced Airport Station, Chowchilla
Station, and Madera Station— were not carried forward because they do not adequately fulfill the station location
criteria. The remaining alternatives were carried forward into detailed alternatives analysis. Fresno completed a Rail
Consolidation Study that reviewed moving UPRR and possibly BNSF west of Fresno. The result of the study was
inconclusive and the Fresno Technical Working Group and the Authority agreed to work with existing conditions and
remain adjacent to the UPRR without encroaching on UPRR’s right- of- way. The focus after the initial alternatives
analysis was to look more closely at the profile of the alternative to minimize costs and avoid Roeding Park, located
north of Downtown Fresno along Golden State Boulevard.
Technical Working Groups – Second Series
Following the initial review of alternatives, the project team met with the Technical Working Groups in Merced and
Madera to review the initial range of alternatives and receive more detailed information about transportation and land
use development patterns that could be affected by the alternatives. The meeting included additional representatives
from the Madera Irrigation District and Chowchilla Water District. These meetings are summarized in meeting minutes
found in Appendix A. The Merced group did not support the Merced Amtrak Station site because it is not compatible
with existing surrounding residential land uses; they preferred the Downtown Transit Center site over the others. At
the Madera Technical Working Group meeting, representatives from Chowchilla continued to voice objections to
Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 with the Ave 24 Wye, because it would place Chowchilla in a triangle of HST track;
however, they were less concerned about the Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 alignment with the South SR152 Wye. They
were concerned about noise impacts in the city resulting from Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99, and they were concerned
about the amount of agricultural land disturbed by the Alternative A3 – Western Madera alignment.
Technical Working Group members also offered insights about important community features, proposed and future
infrastructure plans, and existing utilities. This resulted in adjustments in the position of the alignments and profile of
the alternatives to avoid and minimize impacts on community resources. This increased the length of elevated profile
for the Ave 24 Wye connection in the area west and north of Chowchilla. Another wye centered on SR 152, discussed
below, was also refined to increase the length of elevated profile in this area. The input also resulted in repositioning
Alternative A3 – Western Madera slightly farther west.
As a result of these meetings, the City of Chowchilla requested that another alternative be considered, shown in
Figure 18. This alternative would travel south along the Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 alignment from the City of
Merced and would leave the Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 alignment heading east north of the City of Chowchilla.
This new alternative would join the BNSF alignment south of Le Grand and continue along Alternative A1 – BNSF to
the Fresno Station. This new alternative would be similar to Alternative A3 – Western Madera in that it would travel
along UPRR and SR 99 and then diverge to avoid Chowchilla and central Madera. In reviewing this alternative, the
project team modified the connections to the San Jose to Merced Section alternatives that center around SR 152 to
curve north to minimize the impacts on Chowchilla. This alternative is referred to as the UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid
Alternative ( A4).
In Fresno, the Technical Working Group discussion centered on the placement of the Downtown Fresno Station. The
City of Fresno would prefer the station to be located east of UPRR and near Fresno and Tulare streets, close by the
Chukchansi Park Stadium. Due to all the infrastructure constraints and presence of the Historic Southern Pacific
Station, the station would be more easily placed on the western side of the UPRR. The analysis resulted in three
design options between the Fresno UPRR freight yard and the Fresno Station: an eastern, a western, and a hybrid
design option. The hybrid option avoids Roeding Park and the Southern Pacific Station by crossing over UPRR twice,
whereas the others only avoid one or the other resource. Other discussions continued regarding the alignments south
of town and outside the study area of the Merced to Fresno Section.
Technical Working Groups – Third Series
Once the preliminary alternatives analysis findings were available, but before publication of the report, the results and
findings were communicated to the Technical Working Groups, the public, and the California High- Speed Rail
Authority Board members, in December 2009. This discussion and summary appears in Section 4.6, Detailed
Alternatives Evaluation Meetings, to help summarize the results of the analysis and the input that required additional
evaluation.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 20
Figure 18: New Alternative Proposed by City of Chowchilla and Merced County
Regulatory Agency Meeting
The project team met with regulatory agencies on September 23, 2009, and presented the range of alternatives
undergoing evaluation and potential resource impacts. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS), California
Department of Fish and Game ( CDFG), National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS), EPA, and local water boards
attended the meeting. The agencies provided input on the alternatives development and evaluation process as it
relates to natural resource impacts. Several agency representatives voiced strong support of Alternative A2 –
UPRR/ SR 99 because it follows an existing developed urban transportation corridor and would result in fewer impacts
to natural resources.
Department of Conservation
The state of California has protected agricultural resources by enacting the Williamson Act, which requires that
notification be offered when an alternative affects lands that are protected by the Act. The Authority met with the
Department of Conservation ( DOC) to review the alternatives in the Central Valley and to gain understanding of when
property notification procedures would be required. The DOC staff mentioned that the process was complex and that
they may be able to help guide appropriate agricultural mitigation. The DOC cautioned about underestimating the
importance of preserving prime, unique, and farms of local and statewide importance. Also, the DOC mentioned that
farmlands of statewide importance are considered equal to the federal designation of prime farmlands.
EPA and USACE Coordination
FRA has entered into an MOU with the EPA and USACE to merge NEPA and the Clean Water Act ( CWA) Section 404
processes. As part of that MOU, the project teams have agreed to implement the Program EIR/ EIS decisions of the
Authority and FRA. The team has consulted with EPA and USACE regarding CWA to support the 404( b)( 1)
Alternatives Analysis decision- making process as part of the USACE permit applications.
The NEPA/ 404 MOU includes three checkpoints that require concurrence from signatories of the MOU. These
checkpoints include the following:
1. Purpose and need
2. Identification of the range of alternatives to be studied in the Draft EIS
3. The preliminary least environmentally damaging practicable alternative ( LEDPA) determination and conceptual
mitigation plan.
Preliminary assessments were shared with the EPA on March 11, 2010, and the USACE on March 17, 2010.
Representatives of EPA generally supported the full range of alternatives presented. EPA was interested in the
reasons behind the new alternatives that were not originally in the Statewide or Bay Area to Central Valley Program
EIR/ EIS documents. The project team provided an overview of the alternatives. All the alternatives are consistent
with the project purpose, and they are feasible and constructible and thus practicable. However, with regard to
Alternatives A3 – Western Madera and A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid, the development of a new transportation corridor in
prime, unique, and important farmlands is inconsistent with local plans and thus may fail the land use compatibility
criteria.
Caltrans
The following Caltrans coordination meetings were held with Merced to Fresno Section project team:
• October 14, 2009 – Caltrans District 10 office/ Stockton ( led by Grace Magsayo)
• October 23, 2009 – Caltrans District 6 office/ Fresno ( led by Garth Fernandez)
• December 8, 2009 – Caltrans District 6 office/ Fresno ( led by Garth Fernandez)
Caltrans reviewed the alternative alignments in regard to how they might impact state routes and facilities. Potential
impacts were referenced by state highway postmile to identify locations of state highway facilities relative to the
proposed HST alignment alternatives. The postmile listings identify where the HST project would affect an existing
highway structure undercrossings and overcrossings on the state highway system.
Caltrans provided additional information from the SR 99 Business Plan for District 6 and the SR 99 Corridor System
Management Plan for the San Joaquin area ( District 10), as well as regarding future plans for improvements to the
state highway system in the HST project vicinity. As a result of this coordination effort and exchange of data, both
Caltrans and the HST project team improved their understanding of existing and upcoming projects and of their
potential impacts.
Potential impact of some of the HST alignments on several state highway crossings and interchanges in Madera and
Fresno counties have been identified and reported to Caltrans. An overall Project Initiation Document discussing the
list of identified impacts associated with the Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR 99 alignment ( directly adjacent to SR 99) has
been developed to be presented to Caltrans ( March 30, 2010). HST alignments face difficult constraints south of the
San Joaquin River and adjacent to the Fresno UPRR rail yard and SR 99 in the northern region of the City of Fresno.
Collaborative engineering efforts have focused on identifying design solutions, including a potential option to realign
SR 99 to make room for the HST in a congested region adjacent to the UPRR rail yard.
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 21
3.3.3 Conclusions of Initial Review of Alternatives: Alternatives Carried Forward and Not
Carried Forward into Detailed Evaluation
Based on the initial review of alternatives and subsequent input from the Technical Working Groups, the project team
proceeded with the analysis of alternatives and options as follows.
Alternatives and Design Elements That Were Not Carried Forward
Alignment Alternatives and Design Options not carried forward:
• Sierra Foothills Alternative – Sierra Foothills
• Design Option 4 ( Alternative A1 – BNSF)
• Design Option 6 ( Alternative A1 – BNSF)
Stations not carried forward:
• Merced Airport Station
• Chowchilla Station
• Madera Station
Pacheco Pass wye connections not carried forward:
• NGEA/ SR 140 Wye Connection
• SR152 Wye Connection
• SGEA Wye Connection
Alternatives and Design Elements That Were Carried Forward
• Alternatives:
o A1 – BNSF
 Design Option 1
 Design Option 2
 Design Option 3
o A2 – UPRR/ SR99
o A3 – Western Madera
 Design Option 7
 Design Option 8
o UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid
• Station locations:
o Castle Commerce Center
o Merced Amtrak Depot
o Downtown Merced Intermodal Transit Center
• Pacheco Pass wye connections:
o Ave 24 Wye connection
o SR152 Wye connection
o South SR152 Wye connection
o SGEA Wye connection
• All proposed heavy maintenance facility sites:
o Castle Commerce Center
o Mission Avenue
o Harris- DeJager
o Gordon- Shaw
o Kojima Development
Tables 15 through 19 list the reasons alternatives and their associated design elements were carried forward or not
carried forward for detailed evaluation.
Table 15: Summary of Initial Review of North- South Alignment Alternatives
Alternative Carry Forward? Reason
A1 – BNSF Yes
 Meets project purpose and need
 Follows existing transportation corridors
 Longest alternative and travel time, but needs further evaluation
Sierra Foothills No
 Provides no connectivity to urban centers
 Does not meet project purpose and need
 Does not fulfill criteria for paralleling existing transportation corridors
A2 – UPRR/ SR99 Yes
 Meets project purpose and need
 Shortest route from Merced to Fresno
 Closely follows transportation corridors
 Fewest farmland impacts
A3 – Western
Madera
Yes
 Meets project purpose and need, although it does not follow the Authority’s objective
to maximize use of existing transportation corridors when traveling west of
Chowchilla and Madera
 Best travel time from Pacheco Pass to Fresno
 Avoids most community impacts, but impacts more farmlands than other alternatives
A4 – UPRR/ BNSF
Hybrid
Yes
 Meets project purpose and need, but deviates from existing transportation corridors
to travel back and forth between UPRR and BNSF
 Second longest alternative and travel time, but needs further evaluation
Table 16: Summary of Initial Review of Alternative A1 – BNSF Design Options
Design Option Carry Forward? Reason
DO1 Yes  Retained until the Merced station location is determined
DO2 Yes  Retained until the Merced station location is determined
DO3 Yes  Retained until the Merced station location is determined
DO4 No
 Undesirable community impacts north of Fresno with no other operational
advantages
DO5 Yes  Fewer community impacts north of Fresno with comparable operations
DO6 No
 Undesirable community impacts north of Fresno with no other operational
advantages
Table 17: Summary of Initial Review of Alternative A3 – Western Madera Design Options
Design Option Carry Forward? Reason
DO7 Yes, becomes DO4  Operations and impacts comparable to DO8; retained for further evaluation
DO8 Yes, becomes DO5  Operations and impacts comparable to DO7; retained for further evaluation
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 22
Table 18: Summary of Initial Review of Station Locations
Station Carry Forward? Reason
Castle Commerce
Center
Yes
 Generally fulfills station location criteria and is supported by local plans and
policies
Merced Amtrak
Depot
Yes  Does not fulfill all station location criteria, but retained for further evaluation
Downtown Merced
Intermodal Transit
Center
Yes
 Fulfills all location criteria and is supported by local plans and policies
Merced Airport No  Does not fulfill station location criteria for TOD and land use considerations
Chowchilla Station No  Does not fulfill station location criteria for TOD and land use considerations
Madera Station No  Does not fulfill station location criteria for TOD and land use considerations
Table 19: Summary of Initial Review of Wye Connections to Alternative A1 – BNSF
Wye Connection Carry Forward? Reason
NGEA/ SR 140 No
 Does not meet project purpose and need criterion for travel speed
 High community impacts in Atwater
 Results in high environmental impacts on habitat that supports threatened
and endangered species
Ave 24 Yes
 High community impacts on Chowchilla with Alternative A1 – BNSF and A2 –
UPRR/ SR99; some constructability challenges
 Lower cost, fewer community impacts and constructability challenges when
combined with Alternative A3 – Western Madera because it would avoid
Chowchilla boundaries
SR152 No
 Second- highest cost; community impacts on Chowchilla
Highest constructability and infrastructure impacts
Lower cost, fewer community impacts and constructability challenges when
combined with Alternative A3 – Western Madera because it would avoid
Chowchilla
South SR152 Yes  Competitive travel time and low capital cost
SGEA No
 Competitive travel time between San Francisco and Los Angeles
 Results in statewide construction of additional 22 miles of track associated
with SGEA Alternative resulting in high impacts on habitat that supports
threatened and endangered species
Alternatives Carried into Detailed Alternatives Evaluation
Table 20 presents the north- south alignment alternatives and their associated design options, station locations, and
wye connections that were carried forward for detailed alternatives evaluation, which is described in Section 4.0. The
alternatives are illustrated in Figure 19. In order to simplify the naming conventions, Alternatives A1 – BNSF, A2 –
UPRR/ SR 99, A3 – Western Madera, and A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid were added as shown in Table 20. Because some of
the design options were not carried forward, Design Option 7 and Design Option 8 of Alternative A3 – Western
Madera were renamed Design Option 4 and Design Option 5, respectively.
Engineering plan sheets for each alternative are located in Appendix B.
Table 20: Alternatives Carried Forward to Detailed Alternatives Evaluation
North- South Alternatives
Wye Connection
Alternatives
Name Alignment Design Options Station Locations
A1 BNSF DOs 1, 2, and 3 Castle Commerce Center, Merced Amtrak Depot, Downtown
Merced Intermodal Transit Center
Ave 24, and South
SR152
A2 UPRR/ SR 99 No DO Castle Commerce Center, Downtown Merced Intermodal
Transit Center
Ave 24, and South
SR152
A3 Western
Madera
DOs 4 and 5 Castle Commerce Center, Downtown Merced Intermodal
Transit Center
Ave 24, and South
SR152
A4 UPRR/ BNSF
Hybrid
No DO Castle Commerce Center, Downtown Merced Intermodal
Transit Center
Modified Ave 24, and
South SR152
Map Illustrations of Alternatives
Figures 20 through 26 on the following pages illustrate each of the station locations and alignment alternatives
carried into detailed evaluation, along with the design options and wye connections that work with each alternative.
Castle Commerce Center Station map: Figure 20, page 24
Downtown Merced Intermodal Transit Center Station map: Figure 21, page 25
Merced Amtrak Depot Station map: Figure 22, page 25
Alternative A1 – BNSF map: Figure 23, pages 26 and 27
Alternative A2 – UPRR/ SR99 map: Figure 24, pages 28 and 29
Alternative A3 – Western Madera map: Figure 25, pages 30 and 31
Alternative A4 – UPRR/ BNSF Hybrid map: Figure 26, pages 32 and 33
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 23
Figure 19: Alternatives and Station Locations Carried Forward to Detailed Alternatives Evaluation
CALIFORNIA HIGH- SPEED TRAIN PROJECT EIR/ EIS PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS REPORT
MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION
Page 24
Station Locations
Initial evaluation of station locations ( Section 3.3.1) resulted in three station locations carried forward for detailed
eval