ADDENDUM/ERRATA 

 

to 

Final Program EIR/EIS for the Bay Area to Central Valley Portion of the 

California HST System 

June 2008 

Attached are replacement pages for the Final Program EIR/EIS that revise the discussion of air 

quality and energy benefits associated with the HST alternative as represented in the Final 

Program EIR/EIS. These corrections do not create new or increase anticipated adverse 

environmental impacts of the HST system and are being provided as an Addendum/Errata 

because they are more substantial than simple typographical errors. 

Authority staff review of certain calculations used to estimate reductions in air pollutant 

emissions and energy consumption projected to result with operation of the HST system 

resulted in the discovery of an error in stated air quality and energy benefits and the need for 

the corrections shown on the attached pages (highlighted and underscored). The pages should 

be inserted in the Final Program EIR/EIS to replace previously issued corresponding pages with 

the same numbers. 

Basis for the changes: Automobile vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) that may be affected by 

implementation of the HST system were estimated and the estimate was used to develop 

projected air quality and energy benefits from future HST system operations, as reported in the 

Bay Area to Central Valley Program-level EIR/EIS. The Authority discovered that the total auto 

VMT for trips within the Bay Area was incorrectly reported because one of the trip purposes was 

inadvertently omitted in the auto vehicle assignment step for some scenarios that overstated 

reductions in VMT. This omission occurred outside of the main model forecasting functions. 

This has been corrected, and revised VMT totals have been derived for trips within the Bay Area 

and used to correct the estimated air quality and energy benefits on the attached pages of the 

Final Program EIR/EIS. The correction does not affect HST ridership, revenue forecasts, or the 

trip diversions reported for highway segments, but it would reduce the air quality and energy 

benefit associated with the HST alternative as represented in the Final Program EIR/EIS. 

These minor technical corrections are appropriately addressed in the attached Addendum/Errata 

included as part of the Final Program EIR/EIS. The corrections do not constitute changes in the 

proposed HST system, and therefore do not result in new or increased adverse environmental 

impacts, or any changes to the discussion of environmental impacts from the HST system. 

Additionally, the corrections do not result in any changes in the circumstances under which the 

HST system will be pursued that would require changes in the proposed HST system, and do 

not make feasible any alternatives or mitigation strategies that were considered infeasible. The 

minor technical changes contained in the Addendum/Errata do not meet the criteria for 

preparation of a supplement to or for recirculation of the Final Program EIR/EIS. Finally, the 

changes are equivalent for the representative Network Alternatives and therefore have no 

bearing on the identification or selection of a Preferred Alternative. 
Revisions 

Executive Summary 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-11

Chapter 3 includes in each topic area a discussion of mitigation strategies. In addition, design and 

construction practices have been identified that would be employed as the HST system is developed 

further in the project-level environmental review, final design, and construction stages. Key aspects of 

the design practices include (i.e., are not limited to) the following. 

• Minimize impact footprint and associated direct impacts on farmland, parkland, biological, and water 

resources through maximum use of existing transportation corridors. 

• Minimize impact associated with growth effects through the selection of multi-modal transportation 

hubs for potential HST station locations that would maximize access and connectivity as well as 

provide efficient (transit-oriented) growth centered on these station locations. 

• Minimize impact on farmlands and associated growth through the selection of multi-modal 

transportation hubs for potential HST station locations that would maximize access and connectivity 

as well as provide for efficient (transit-oriented) growth centered on these station locations. 

• Increase safety and circulation and potentially reduce air pollution and noise impacts, through use of 

grade separation at road crossings, of considerable portions of adjacent existing services with 

construction of the planned HST system. 

• Pursue agreements with owners/rail operators to place the HST alignment within existing rail 

rights-of-way, to reduce the need for additional right-of-way and minimize potential impacts on 

agricultural resources and other natural resources. 

• Cooperate with regulatory agencies to develop acceptable specific design and construction standards 

for stream crossings, including (i.e., not limited to) maintaining open surface (bridged versus closed 

culvert) crossings, infrastructure setbacks, erosion control measures, sediment-controlling 

excavation/fill practices, and other best management practices. 

• Fully line tunnels with impermeable material to prevent infiltration of groundwater or surface waters 

to the extent possible based on available geologic information and previous tunneling projects in 

proximity to proposed tunnels. 

• Where there is potential for significant barrier effects that could divide wildlife populations or habitat 

areas or impede wildlife migration corridors, underpasses or overpasses or appropriate passageways 

will be designed during project-level environmental review for implementation at reasonable intervals 

during construction to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts on wildlife movement. 

• The potential impacts associated with construction access roads would be greatly limited, and 

avoided altogether through sensitive areas (as defined at the project level), by using in-line 

construction (i.e., by using the new rail infrastructure as it is built to transport equipment to and from 

the construction site and transporting excavated materials away from the construction area to 

appropriate reuse [e.g., as fill material, aggregate for new concrete] or disposal sites). To avoid 

creating access roads in sensitive areas (as defined at the project level), necessary geologic 

exploration would be conducted using helicopter transport for drilling equipment to minimize surface 

disruption, followed by site restoration on the completion of work. 

In addition, the network alternatives have the potential to reduce overall air pollution, total energy 

consumption, and traffic congestion as compared to the No Project Alternative. Comparing the energy 

required by each mode to carry a passenger 1 mile (1.6 km), an HST needs only about one-third that 

required by an airplane and one-fifth that required by a commuter automobile trip. Comparing the 

pollutant burden generated by each mode to carry a passenger 1 mile (1.6 km), an HST generates 

approximately less than one-tenth of the pollutants (excluding CO2) that would be generated by an 

airplane or by a commuter automobile trip. The representative base HST forecast would result in a 

reduction of 5.8 million barrels of oil and 6.8 billion pounds of CO2 emissions annually by 2030, as 

compared to the No Project Alternative. Diversions from the automobile to HST could lead to a projected 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Summary 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page S-12

2.3% statewide reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the highway system, with VMT reductions of 

between 1.75% and 8.0% in Bay Area and Central Valley counties. 

S.6 HST Station Area Development 

There would be great benefits from enhancing development patterns and increasing development 

densities near proposed HST stations. To further this objective the Authority has outlined the station 

area development objectives described in Chapter 6. These include: 

• The preferred HST station locations would be multi-modal transportation hubs and would typically be 

in traditional city centers to provide maximum opportunity for station area development in 

accordance with the purpose, need, and objectives for the HST system. 

• To be considered for a station, the proposed site must have the potential to promote higher density, 

mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development around the station. 

• As the HST project proceeds to more detailed study, and before a final station location decision is 

made, the responsible local governments(s) are expected to provide (through planning and zoning) 

for transit-oriented development around HST stations. 

• As the project proceeds to more detailed study, local governments are expected to finance (e.g., 

through value-capture or other financing techniques) the public spaces needed to support the 

pedestrian traffic generated by hub stations, as well as identify long-term maintenance of the spaces. 

• Parking for the HST services at HST stations would be provided at market rates, with a strong 

preference that parking be placed in structures. 

• Provide incentives for local governments in which potential HST stations would be located to prepare 

and adopt station area plans, amend city and county general plans, and encourage transit-oriented 

development in the vicinity of HST stations. 

S.7 Public and Agency Involvement 

Public and agency involvement was conducted as part of this program environmental process. 

Involvement was accomplished through a variety of means, including the scoping process, which included 

a series of public and agency scoping meetings, consultation meetings with federal and state resource 

agency staff representatives throughout the environmental process, informational meetings with 

interested groups and agencies, presentations and briefings to a broad spectrum of interest groups, 

information materials (such as a series of fact sheets), the Authority’s web site presenting information 

about the proposed project and study evaluations, noticed public meetings of the Authority’s governing 

board at which key policy issues and decisions were raised and discussed and opportunities for public 

comment were provided, public circulation and posting of the Draft Program EIR/EIS on the Authority’s 

web site, and eight public hearings on the Draft Program EIR/EIS. 

S.7-1 Summary of Comments on the Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

The identification of a preferred HST alignment between the Bay Area and Central Valley is controversial, 

and this Program EIR/EIS process has received a considerable amount of comment from agencies 

(federal, state, regional, and local), organizations, and the general public. There is a wide divergence of 

opinion, with many favoring the Pacheco Pass, many favoring the Altamont Pass, and many favoring a 

combination of both passes (with the Pacheco serving as the north/south HST connection and Altamont 

primarily serving interregional commuter service between Sacramento/northern San Joaquin Valley and 

the Bay Area). 
Section 3.3 Revisions 

Air Quality and Global Climate Change 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-16

uncontrolled engine emissions. Newer regulations, including California’s low fuel standards, which 

will require a 10% reduction of carbon intensity by 2020, and AB1493, which is predicted to result in 

a 27% reduction in grams of CO2 per vehicle mile by 2030, are not yet reflected in the current 

emission burden estimates developed by CARB and are thus not reflected in this analysis. 

According to CARB pollutant burden projections, emissions of PM10 are expected to increase 

statewide for the No Project Alternative compared to existing conditions. The upward trend in PM10 

emissions is primarily the result of increased emissions from areawide sources, including dust from 

increased VMT on unpaved and paved roads. PM10 emissions from stationary sources are also 

expected to increase slightly in the future because of industrial growth. 

CO2 levels for 2005 were projected from data in the December 2006 report Inventory of California 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, by the California Energy Commission. Year 

2005 CO2 emissions were estimated at 1.280 million tons/day. 

The percentage of each pollutant source that may be affected by the HST Alignment Alternatives is 

shown in Figure 3.3-2. Of the four sources of concern (on-road mobile, trains, planes, electric) 

shown in the figure, on-road mobile is the largest single contributor for all the pollutants. For CO, 

on-road mobile sources would contribute 74%; for NOX, on-road mobile sources would contribute 

50%. These percentages are only based on the four sources affected by the project and do not 

reflect total statewide percentages. By detailing the potential overall contribution to statewide 

pollution levels of each of these sources, the relationship between changes in sources and overall 

pollution concentrations becomes clearer. 

The following analysis of the Pacheco and Altamont Alternatives is based on the “low” ridership 

projections found in Chapter 2, Table 2.3-3. As discussed in Chapter 2, only the low ridership 

forecasts are used for air quality analysis for both the Pacheco and Altamont alternatives. 

B. PACHECO ALTERNATIVE 

No Project Base Alternative Compared to Pacheco Alignment Alternative 

The highway component is based on potential daily VMT reductions of 26.682 million miles. The air 

travel component is based on potential reductions of 43,865 daily trips. 

Roadways: The proposed Pacheco Alignment Alternative could potentially result in a daily reduction 

of 26.682 million VMT as compared to the No Project Alternative. Changes in VMT and estimated onroad mobile source emission reductions resulting from the use of the proposed HST have been 

calculated statewide and for each of the air basins (Table 3.3-4). The highest reductions in on-road 

mobile source emissions are predicted for the San Joaquin Air Basin. The Pacheco Alignment 

Alternative is predicted to reduce the 2030 predicted CO mobile source emission budget for San 

Joaquin Air Basin by 11.42 tons per day (10.4 metric tons per day). 

Air Travel: The air-travel component is based on 43,865 daily trips (1 trip = 1 takeoff and 1 landing), 

or 433 flights statewide, being shifted from the airplane component of No Project future conditions to 

the proposed Pacheco Alignment Alternative. The emission burden reductions projected from the 

reduced number of flights, shown in Table 3.3-5, were calculated by determining the number of 

flights that could be accommodated by the proposed HST and multiplying that number by the 

emission estimates of an average flight, as described above in the discussion of methods of 

evaluating impacts. The emission changes by air basin resulting from the reduced number of flights 

range from an estimated 3.4% reduction in PM2.5 in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin to a 0.1% 

reduction in CO in the San Joaquin Air Basin. Statewide emission reductions range from 0.7% for 

PM10 and PM2.5 to 3.4% for NOX. CO2 plane emissions, generated based on BTUs, are predicted to 

decrease by approximately 44% on a statewide level under the Pacheco Alignment Alternative. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-17

Train Travel: Conventional rail service is not predicted to increase under the proposed Pacheco 

Alignment Alternative; therefore, no change in pollutant burdens is predicted as a result of 

conventional train travel. 

Electrical Power: Additional electrical power would be required to operate the HST system. Because 

of the nature of electrical power generation and the use of a grid system to distribute electrical 

power, it is not yet clear which facilities would be supplying power to the HST system. Emission 

changes from power generation can therefore be predicted only on a statewide level for the full HST 

system. As shown in Table 3.3-6, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and TOG burden levels would be predicted 

to increase because of the power requirements of the Pacheco Alignment Alternative. A 1.2% 

increase in CO, PM10, PM2.5, TOG, and NOX is predicted in the electric utilities portion of these CARB 

pollutant emission burden projections. A 1.8% increase in CO2 electrical power emission burden 

projections is predicted due to increased electrical requirements of the project. If it is decided that 

the project would be run on 100% clean, zero-carbon emissions electricity, there would be no 

predicted increase in CO2 levels due to the project’s increased electrical requirements. 

Summary of Pollutants: Table 3.3-7 summarizes the combined source categories for existing 

conditions and the No Project Alternative and the Pacheco Alignment Alternative. Compared to the 

No Project Alternative, the proposed Pacheco Alignment Alternative is projected to result in a 

decrease in the amount of pollutants statewide and in all air basins analyzed. Potential medium rated 

air quality benefits are predicted under this alternative. CO2 levels are also detailed in Table 3.3-7. 

CO2 project impacts were estimated based on energy projections developed for each alignment 

alternative. CO2 calculations for the alignment alternatives reflect only emissions from electrical 

power stations, planes, and on-road VMT. More detailed tables illustrating the analysis of the 

pollutant burdens predicted, can be found in the appendix to this report. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-4 

On-Road Mobile Source Regional Emissions Analysis—No Project Alternative and Pacheco Alignment Alte

Air 

Basin 

2030 No 

Project 

VMT 

2030 

Pacheco 

Base VMT 

2030 No Project Emission Burden 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Pacheco Base Emission Burden 

(Tons/Day) Increm

 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO PM

Miles and Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 110,319,202 259.8 11.6 7.5 51.0 36.0 NA 255.2 11.4 7.3 50.1 35.3 NA -4.54 -0.2 San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 116,352,966 142.8 7.1 4.2 33.8 19.3 NA 131.4 6.5 3.9 31.1 17.8 NA -11.4 -0.6 State Total 1,141,592,762 1,114,910,694 1,310.5 56.9 35.1 263.5 186.2 486,613 1,279.8 55.6 32.5 257.3 181.9 475,240 -30.63 -1.3

Kilometers and Metric Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 180,697,680 177,541,546 235.7 10.5 6.8 46.2 32.6 NA 231.6 10.3 6.7 45.4 32.1 NA -4.1 -0.2 San Joaquin Valley 203,522,979 187,251,948 129.6 6.4 3.8 30.6 17.5 NA 119.2 5.9 3.5 28.2 16.1 NA -10.4 -0.5 State Total 1,837,215,462 1,794,274,836 1,188.8 51.6 31.8 239.0 168.9 441,457 1,161.1 504.4 29.5 233.4 165.0 431,139 -27.8 -1.2 * Area emission increments are based on area specific emission factors derived from area specific VMT and emission burdens. Statewide emission increments are based on statewide averagemissions, thus the statewide totals do not represent a simple sum of all air basins but rather an average of emission increments statewide. CO2 emissions are only calculated on a statewid

Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 -1.7 NA San Joaquin Valley -8.0 -8.0 -8.0 -8.0 -8.0 NA State Total -2.3 -2.3 -7.3 -2.3 -2.3 -2.3
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-5 

Airplane Emission Burdens—No Project Alternative and Pacheco Alignment Alternative 

Air Basin 

2030 Projected No Project Airplane Emission 

Inventory (Tons/Day) 

Flights 

removed 

due to 

project 

2030 Emission Reductions due to Flights 

removed under Build Alternative (Tons/Day) 

2030 To

CO PM10

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO PM10

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

Tons per Day*

San Francisco Bay 74.75 0.67 0.64 41.45 12.72 NA 167 -1.74 -0.02 -0.02 -1.20 -0.41 NA 73.00 San Joaquin Valley 81.50 0.46 0.45 4.75 10.03 NA 10 -0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.02 NA 81.40 State Total 346.74 7.76 7.67 92.44 51.05 11,528 433 -4.53 -0.06 -0.06 -3.13 -1.08 -5,108.32 342.21 

Metric Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 67.81 0.61 0.58 37.60 11.54 NA 167 -1.58 -0.02 -0.02 -1.09 -0.38 NA 66.23 San Joaquin Valley 73.93 0.42 0.41 4.31 9.10 NA 10 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.06 -0.02 NA 73.84 State Total 314.56 7.04 6.96 83.87 46.31 10,458.63 433 -4.11 -0.05 -0.05 -2.84 -0.98 -4,634.29 310.45 *CO2 emissions are only calculated on a statewide level.

 Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -2.3 -3.2 -3.4 -2.9 -3.3 NA San Joaquin Valley -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 -1.4 -0.2 NA State Total -1.3 -0.7 -0.7 -3.4 -2.1 -44.3 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-7 

Potential Impacts on Air Quality Statewide—Existing, No Project, and Pacheco Alignment Alternati

Air Basin 

2005 Existing Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, 

On-Road Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all sources) 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Projected No Project Emission Inventory 

(Planes, Trains, On-Road Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all 

sources) (Tons/Day) 

2030 Projected 

Trains, On-R

s

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO PM10 

Tons per Day 

San Francisco Bay 1536 10 7 318 174 NA 398 22 17 144 94 NA 393 22 San Joaquin Valley 948 7 6 224 102 NA 231 8 5 58 31 NA 220 7 State Total 7,979 69 52 1759 932 1,280,217 1,715 69 47 478 253 1,763,118 1,680 67 

Metric Tons per Day 

San Francisco Bay 1,393 9 7 288 157 NA 361 20 16 131 86 NA 356 20 San Joaquin Valley 860 7 5 203 93 NA 210 7 5 53 28 NA 199 7 State Total 7,239 63 48 1,596 846 1,161,416 1,556 62 42 433 229 1,599,505 1,524 61 

Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -1.4 -0.5 -0.3 -1.1 -0.6 NA San Joaquin Valley -5.0 -7.0 -6.6 -4.8 -5.0 NA State Total -2.0 -2.0 -5.6 -1.9 -2.2 -0.5

Air Basin 

Benefit Rating 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium NA San Joaquin Valley Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium NA State Total Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium NA 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-22

Local Impacts: A total of 18 intercity freeway segments were analyzed. The general trend in 

screenline data shows that the LOS on these freeway segments would largely remain the same under 

the Pacheco Alignment Alternative compared to the No Project Alternative. Most of the freeway 

segments would experience less than a 5% change in V/C ratio and no change in LOS. This is with 

the exception of I-5 (between I-580 and SR 140), which would experience a better level of service 

under the Pacheco Alignment Alternative, with an approximately 20% reduction in V/C ratio. V/C 

ratio is the comparison of the roadway volume to roadway capacity, and a reduction in the V/C ratio 

signifies a better level of service and, therefore, less congestion and lower potential for air quality 

impacts. 

As the alignment alternatives are refined, segments where V/C ratios increase (degrade) should be 

screened to determine whether more detailed local analyses need to be conducted. Roadways and 

intersections around proposed station location options should also be screened and undergo detailed 

modeling if necessary to ensure that the project would not cause or exacerbate a violation of 

applicable air quality standards. 

GHGs: The air quality analysis identified a reduction of about 0.5% of CO2 emissions statewide 

attributed to the Pacheco Alignment Alternative. This would be a beneficial impact due to the 

reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled (mobile sources) and reduction in the number of 

airplane trips. 

C. ALTAMONT ALTERNATIVE 

No Project Base Alternative Compared to Altamont Alignment Alternative 

The highway component is based on potential daily VMT reductions of 24.163 million miles. The air 

travel component is based on potential reductions of 41,573 daily trips. 

Roadways: The proposed Altamont Alignment Alternative could potentially result in a daily reduction 

of 24.163 million VMT as compared to the No Project Alternative. Changes in VMT and estimated onroad mobile source emission reductions resulting from the use of the proposed HST have been 

calculated statewide and for each of the air basins (Table 3.3-8). The highest reductions in on-road 

mobile source emissions are predicted for the San Joaquin Air Basin. The Altamont Alignment 

Alternative is predicted to reduce the 2030 predicted CO mobile source emission budget for San 

Joaquin Air Basin by 11.16 tons per day (10.12 metric tons per day). 

Air Travel: The air-travel component is based on 41,573 daily trips (1 trip = 1 takeoff and 1 landing), 

or 411 flights statewide, being shifted from the airplane component of No Project future conditions to 

the proposed Altamont Alignment Alternative. The emission burden reductions projected from the 

reduced number of flights, shown in Table 3.3-9, were calculated by determining the number of 

flights that could be accommodated by the proposed HST and multiplying that number by the 

emission estimates of an average flight, as described above in the discussion of methods of 

evaluating impacts. The emission changes by air basin resulting from the reduced number of flights 

range from an estimated 3.2% reduction in PM2.5 in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin to a 0.1% 

reduction in CO in the San Joaquin Air Basin. Statewide emission reductions range from 0.7% for 

PM10 and PM2.5 to 3.2% for NOX. CO2 plane emissions, generated based on BTUs, are predicted to 

decrease by approximately 42% on a statewide level under the Altamont Alignment Alternative. 

Train Travel: Conventional rail service is not predicted to increase under the proposed Pacheco 

Alignment Alternative; therefore, no change in pollutant burdens is predicted as a result of 

conventional train travel. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-8 

On-Road Mobile Source Regional Emissions Analysis—No Project Alternative and Altamont Alignment Alt

Air 

Basin 

2030 No 

Project 

VMT 

2030 

Altamont 

Base VMT 

2030 No Project Emission Burden 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Altamont Base Emission Burden 

(Tons/Day) I

CO 

PM 

10 

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM

10 

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

Miles and Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 110,469,583 259.8 11.6 7.5 51.0 36.0 NA 255.6 11.4 7.4 50.2 35.4 NA -4.19 San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 116,584,184 142.8 7.1 4.2 33.8 19.3 NA 131.7 6.5 3.9 31.1 17.8 NA -11.2 State Total 1,141,592,762 1,117,429,041 1,310.5 56.9 35.1 263.5 186.2 486,613 1,282.7 55.7 34.3 257.9 182.3 476.313 -27.74 

Kilometers and Metric Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 180,697,681 177,783,560 235.7 10.5 6.8 46.2 32.6 NA 231.9 10.4 6.7 45.5 32.1 NA -3.80 San Joaquin Valley 203,522,980 187,624,056 129.6 6.4 3.8 30.6 17.5 NA 119.5 5.9 3.5 28.2 16.2 NA -10.12 State Total 1,837,215,462 1,798,327,722 1,188.8 51.6 31.8 239.0 168.9 441,457 1,163.7 50.5 31.2 234.0 165.4 432,133 -25.16 * Area emission increments are based on area specific emission factors derived from area specific VMT and emission burdens. Statewide emission increments are bathan area specific emissions, thus the statewide totals do not represent a simple sum of all air basins but rather an average of emission increments statewide. CO2 em

level. 

Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 -1.6 NA San Joaquin Valley -7.8 -7.8 -7.8 -7.8 -7.8 NA State Total -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-9 

Airplane Emission Burdens—No Project Alternative and Altamont Alignment Alternative 

Air Basin 

2030 Projected No Project Airplane Emission 

Inventory (Tons/Day) Flights removed 

due to 

project 

2030 Emission Reductions due to Flights 

removed under Build Alternative (Tons/Day) 

2030 Total P

A

CO 

PM 

10 

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM 

10 

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM

10 

Tons per Day*

San Francisco Bay 74.75 0.67 0.64 41.45 12.72 NA -158 -1.65 -0.02 -0.02 -1.14 -0.39 NA 73.10 0.65 San Joaquin Valley 81.50 0.46 0.45 4.75 10.03 NA -9 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.02 NA 81.40 0.46 State Total 346.74 7.76 7.67 92.44 51.05 11,528 -411 -4.29 -0.05 -0.05 -2.96 -1.02 -4,848.6 342.44 7.70 

Metric Tons per Day* 

San Francisco Bay 67.81 0.61 0.58 37.60 11.54 NA -158 -1.50 -0.02 -0.02 -1.03 -0.36 NA 66.31 0.59 San Joaquin Valley 73.93 0.42 0.41 4.31 9.10 NA -9 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.06 -0.02 NA 73.85 0.42 State Total 314.56 7.04 6.96 83.87 46.31 10,458.6 -411 -3.90 -0.05 -0.05 -2.69 -0.93 -4,393.3 310.67 6.99 *CO2 emissions are only calculated on a statewide level.

 Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -2.2 -3.1 -3.2 -2.8 -3.1 NA San Joaquin Valley -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 -1.4 -0.2 NA State Total -1.2 -0.7 -0.7 -3.2 -2.0 -42.0 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 3.3-11 

Potential Impacts on Air Quality Statewide—Existing, No Project, and Altamont Alignment Alternat

Air Basin 

2005 Existing Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, 

On-Road Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all sources) 

(Tons/Day) 

2030 Projected No Project Emission Inventory 

(Planes, Trains, On-Road Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all 

sources) (Tons/Day) 

2030 Projected 

Trains, On-R

s

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM 

10 

PM 

2.5 NOX TOG CO2 CO 

PM 

10 

Tons per Day 

San Francisco Bay 1,536 10 7 318 174 NA 398 22 17 144 94 NA 393 22 San Joaquin Valley 948 7 6 224 102 NA 231 8 5 58 31 NA 220 8 State Total 7,979 69 52 1,759 932 1,280,217 1,715 69 47 478 253 1,763,118 1,683 68 

Metric Tons per Day 

San Francisco Bay 1,393 9 7 288 157 NA 361 20 16 131 86 NA 357 20 San Joaquin Valley 860 7 5 203 93 NA 210 7 5 53 28 NA 200 7 State Total 7,239 63 48 1,596 846 1,161,416 1,556 62 42 433 229 1,599,505 1,527 61 

Air Basin 

% Change from No Project 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -1.3 -0.4 -0.2 -1.0 -0.5 NA San Joaquin Valley -4.9 -6.9 -6.4 -4.7 -4.9 NA State Total -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.8 -2.0 -0.4

Air Basin 

Benefit Rating 

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOX TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium NA San Joaquin Valley Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium NA State Total Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium NA 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.03 Air Quality 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.3-27

Electrical Power: Additional electrical power would be required to operate the HST system. Because 

of the nature of electrical power generation and the use of a grid system to distribute electrical 

power, it is not yet clear which facilities would be supplying power to the HST system. Emission 

changes from power generation can therefore be predicted only on a statewide level for the full HST 

system. As shown in Table 3.3-10, CO, PM10, PM2.5, NOX, and TOG burden levels would be 

predicted to increase because of the power requirements of the Altamont Alignment Alternative. A 

1.2% increase in CO, PM10, PM2.5, TOG, and NOX is predicted in the electric utilities portion of these 

CARB pollutant emission burden projections. A 1.8% increase in CO2 electrical power emission 

burden projections is predicted due to increased electrical requirements of the project. If it is 

decided that the project would be run on 100% clean, zero-carbon emissions electricity, there would 

be no predicted increase in CO2 levels due to the project’s increased electrical requirements. 

Summary of Pollutants: Table 3.3-11 summarizes the combined source categories for existing 

conditions and the No Project Alternative and the Altamont Alignment Alternative. Compared to the 

No Project Alternative, the proposed Altamont Alignment Alternative is projected to result in a 

decrease in the amount of pollutants statewide and in all air basins analyzed. Potential medium rated 

air quality benefits are predicted under this alternative. CO2 levels are also detailed in Table 3.3-11. 

CO2 project impacts were estimated based on energy projections developed for each alignment 

alternative. CO2 calculations for the alignment alternatives reflect only emissions from electrical 

power stations, planes, and on-road VMT. More detailed tables illustrating the analysis of the 

pollutant burdens predicted can be found in the appendix to this section. 

Local Impacts: A total of 18 intercity freeway segments were analyzed. The general trend in 

screenline data shows that the LOS on these freeway segments would largely remain the same under 

the Altamont Alignment Alternative compared to the No Project Alternative. Most of the freeway 

segments would experience less than a 5% change in V/C ratio and no change in LOS. This is with 

the exception of I-5 (between I-580 and SR 140), which would experience a better level of service 

under the Altamont Alignment Alternative, with an approximately 20% reduction in V/C ratio. V/C 

ratio is the comparison of the roadway volume to roadway capacity, and a reduction in the V/C ratio 

signifies a better level of service and, therefore, less congestion and lower potential for air quality 

impacts. 

As the alignment alternatives are refined, segments where V/C ratios increase (degrade) should be 

screened to determine whether more detailed local analyses need to be conducted. Roadways and 

intersections around proposed station location options should also be screened and undergo detailed 

modeling if necessary to ensure that the project would not cause or exacerbate a violation of 

applicable air quality standards. 

GHGs: The air quality analysis identified a reduction of about 0.4% of CO2 emissions statewide 

attributed to the Altamont Alignment Alternative. This would be a beneficial impact due to the 

reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled (mobile sources) and reduction in the number of 

airplane trips. 

3.3.4 Design Practices 

The HST system would use electrical propulsion to serve the forecast ridership, which is primarily diverted 

from highway or air travel. The HST Alignment Alternatives are estimated to have a beneficial effect on 

the emissions levels throughout the air basins involved. In addition, the Authority will pursue the 

identification and utilization of energy produced from clean/efficient sources to the extent possible, as per 

the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was enacted in SB 1078, ch. 516, Statutes 

of 2002, which added California Public Utility codes sections 387, 399.11 et seq., and 399.25. 
Section 3.5 Revisions 

Energy 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-11

Transportation Energy Consumption

Transportation accounts for a large portion of the California energy budget, with approximately 46% 

of the state’s energy consumption resulting from the transport of goods and people. The population 

in California is projected to increase 28% by the year 2030. That growth equates to almost 10 

million people (Cambridge Systematics 2007). Because of trends in travel demand, congestion, and 

other adverse travel conditions, the market for intercity travel in California that the proposed HST 

system could serve is projected to grow by up to 46% over the next 30 years. 

Although travelers in, or who are visiting or leaving, the study area have several options for intercity 

travel—automobiles on interstate and state highways, commercial airlines, conventional passenger 

trains (Amtrak) on freight and/or commuter rail tracks, and long-distance commercial bus transit—the 

automobile is the predominant mode for intercity trips. 

Transportation Energy Outlook 

The recent fuel price increases have generated renewed interest in more fuel-efficient cars and in 

living closer to the workplace. Although it is a slow process to transform an automobile fleet, drivers 

are increasingly making automobile purchasing decisions based on fuel consumption concerns. 

Automobiles powered by diesel engines and engines that are hybrids composed of both electrical and 

gasoline components offer substantial fuel-efficiency upgrades over traditional gasoline engines. 

Automobiles are most efficient when operating at steady speeds of 35–45 mph (56–72 kph) with no 

stops (U.S. Department of Energy 2006). Fuel consumption increases by about 30% when average 

speeds drop from 30 to 20 mph (48 to 32 kph), while a drop from 30 to 10 mph (48 to 16 kph) 

results in a 100% increase in fuel use with conventional automobile engines. Studies estimate that 

approximately 10% of all on-road fuel consumed is a result of congestion (California Energy 

Commission 1990). 

As of 2005, 26 million automobiles were registered to drivers in California, which equated to the state 

being the second largest consumer of petroleum fuel in the world; only the United States consumes 

more. Because of this dependence on petroleum fuels, world geopolitical events can immediately 

and adversely affect the price and adequacy of California’s fuel supply (California Energy Commission 

2006e). 

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 

In 2000, passenger trips taken in California resulted in 273.2 billion automobile VMT (442.9 billion 

automobile VKT) and 75.8 million airplane VMT (122.8 million airplane VKT). By 2030, under the No 

Project Alternative, the total number of passenger trips estimated to be taken in California would 

result in about 416.7 billion automobile VMT (670.6 billion automobile VKT) and 131.9 million airplane 

VMT (213.9 million airplane VKT). The increase in passenger trips is reflective of population growth 

expected over the same period. 

Operational (Direct) Energy

As indicated in Table 3.5-3, the existing (Year 2000) energy used to power intrastate transportation 

was 1,547,264,050 million Btus (MMBtus), or 267 million barrels of oil. The 3.49 billion passenger 

trips estimated under the No Project Alternative would consume the equivalent of about 408 million 

barrels of oil. This is an increase of 141 million barrels of oil over existing conditions. On the one 

hand, this is a conservative estimate because, as noted in Section 3.5.3, automobile fuel efficiency 

decreases considerably as travel speed decreases below 30 mph (48 kph) and stop-and-go traffic 

increases. Because congestion levels under the No Project Alternative would likely be higher than 

they are under existing conditions, the increase in direct energy used in 2030 would have congestion-
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-12

related cause to be higher than the estimated 408 million barrels. To illustrate this point, if the direct 

energy consumption factor for automobiles under a more congested No Project condition increased 

by 5%, from 5,572 Btus/VMT to 5,851 Btus/VMT, and all other factors remained the same, the total 

direct energy consumption under the No Project Alternative would increase by 20 million barrels of oil 

to 428 million barrels of oil. 

Key Findings 

The No Project Alternative conditions would potentially place additional demand on statewide energy 

supplies compared to existing conditions as a result of increased passenger trips, higher levels of 

congestion, and slower speeds on intercity highways. There is some level of uncertainty because it is 

not clear how the energy intensity of the state’s automobile fleet would change in the next 20 years.

Table 3.5-3 

Annual Intercity Operational Energy Consumption in the Study Area

 2000 

Existingf 

2030 No Project 

Alternativef 

Annual VMT (VKT) (millions) 

Autob 273,241 (442,924) 416,681 (670,585) 

Airplanec 76 (123) 132 (214) 

HSTd 0 0 

Annual Energy Consumption (MMBtus) 

Auto 1,522,500,948 2,321,748,527 

Airplane 24,763,102 43,128,553 

HST 0 0 

Total Energy Consumption (MMBtusa) 1,547,264,050 2,364,877,081 

Change in Total Energy from 

Existing (MMBtusa

) 

— 362,736,373 

Total Energy Consumption (Barrels of 

Oile

) (millions) 

267 408 

Change in Total Energy from 

Existing (Barrels of Oile

) (millions) 

— 141

Notes: 

a One Btu is the quantity of energy necessary to raise 1 pound of water 1° F. b Based on 6/18/08 VMT data (Cambridge Systematics 2008). c

 Based on airplane passengers flights (Cambridge Systematics 2007). Airplane VMT based on average number of 

passengers per flight: 101.25 (using 70% load factor per Business Plan). d

 No HST is included in the existing conditions (2000) or No Project Alternative. e One barrel of crude oil is equal to 5.8 MMBtus. 

f Rounded. 

 

Peak-Period Electricity Demand

The No Project Alternative electricity consumption would increase slightly over existing conditions 

resulting from programmed and funded projects and growth anticipated under the No Project 

Alternative. The possible future electrification of Caltrain, commuter rail systems, and/or Amtrak 

would also increase electricity use. While these projects would be regionally significant, they are 

small in scale compared to overall electricity usage and would be captured by routine electricity 

consumption forecasts by CEC, allowing electricity generation and transmission planning to account 

for and accommodate their additions. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-13

Key Findings 

CEC electricity supply capacity and demand projections account for the projected routine expansion 

increases of in the state’s electricity requirements. Potential electricity demand under the No Project 

Alternative would be satisfied by expected expansion in generating capacity. No significant potential 

impacts on electricity generating capacity have been identified. (Less than significant.)

B. HIGH-SPEED TRAIN ALTERNATIVE 

The HST Alternative would increase the transportation energy use in California with respect to 

existing conditions. However, compared to the No Project Alternative the HST Alternative would use 

less energy. As indicated in Table 3.5-4, energy use would decline by the equivalent of about 5.8

million barrels of oil when compared to the No Project Alternative. Additional energy savings over 

the No Project Alternative would be realized with implementation of the HST system because it would 

also ease congestion. The magnitude of the expected annual operational energy savings resulting 

from the HST system could also be lower than shown in Table 3.5-4 given the possibility of 

automobile fuel efficiency improvements. 

Table 3.5-4 

Annual Operational Energy Consumption in Study Area

 2000 2030 Alternatives

Existing No Project 

Alternativee

HST 

Alternative 

Annual VMTb, c, g (VKT) (millions) 

Autof 273,241 (442,924) 416,681 (675,440) 406,942 (659,654)

Airplanec 76 (123) 132 (214) 73 (119) 

HST 0 0 43 (70) 

Annual Energy Consumption (MMBtusa) 

Auto 1,522,500,948 2,321,748,527 2,267,483,071

Airplane 24,763,102 43,128,553 24,008,005 

HST 0 0 39,707,950 

Total Energy Consumption 

(MMBtus) 

1,547,264,050 2,364,877,081 2,331,209,026

Change in Total Energy 

from Existing (MMBtus) 

 362,736,373 24,763,102

Change in Total Energy 

from No Project 

(MMBtus) 

— — -33,668,055

Total Energy Consumption 

(Barrels of Oild

) (millions) 

267 408 402

Change in Total Energy 

from Existing (Barrels of 

Oild) (millions) 

— 141 135

Change in Total Energy 

from No Project (Barrels 

of Oild

) (millions) 

— — -5.8
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-14

 2000 2030 Alternatives

Existing No Project 

Alternativee

HST 

Alternative 

Notes: 

a One Btu is the quantity of energy necessary to raise 1 pound of water 1°F. b

 Based on airplane passengers flights (Cambridge Systematics 2007). Airplane VMT based on average number of passengers 

per flight: 101.25 (using 70% load factor per business plan HST VMT (California High-Speed Rail Authority 2000) c Does not include airplane VMT resulting from passengers making connections to other flights to continue or complete their 

journey because these are a minor portion of the HST-served market. d One barrel of crude oil is equal to 5.8 MMBtus. e

 Fuel consumption for No Project would increase beyond the figures presented here as speeds drop below 30 mph on 

congested highways. f

 Based on 6/18/08 VMT data (Cambridge Systematics 2008).

Energy intensities were calculated using passenger miles traveled (PMT)/passenger kilometers 

traveled (PKT) for each of the modes. Table 3.5-5 lists the energy intensity consumption factors of 

each of the modes. HST service would offer a sharp reduction in energy consumption per passenger 

mile (kilometer), compared to other modes, if actual ridership were to fall within the range of current 

projections and the planned operating plan were implemented. Specifically, whereas intercity trips 

taken in automobiles would average about 2,320 Btus/PMT (1,438 Btus/PKT) and those trips taken in 

airplanes would require 3,230 Btus/PMT (2,003 Btus/PKT), the HST system would require 975 

Btus/PMT (605 Btus/PKT). 

Table 3.5-5 

Energy Consumption per Passenger Mile Traveled by Mode (PMT) 

Mode Energy Consumptiond 

Intercity Passenger Vehicles (auto, van, light truck) a 2,320 Btus/PMT (1,438 Btus/PKT) 

Airplanesb 3,230 Btus/PMT (2,003 Btus/PKT) 

High-Speed Trainc 975 Btus/PMT (605 Btus/PKT) 

Notes: 

a Based on 2.4 passengers per vehicle. 

b Based on 101.25 passengers per vehicle (70% load factor). 

c Based on 994 passengers per 16-car trainset. 

d Rounded. 

Regional 

In addition to the statewide direct automobile VMT savings that would result from travelers choosing 

HST travel, the proposed HST system would potentially provide additional regional VMT reductions, 

compared to the No Project Alternative conditions. Proposed HST station location options would be 

more numerous than airports, which would result in a lessening of the average distance required for 

passengers to travel from their points of origin to the mode transfer point (and vice versa) because of 

the likelihood that one or more of the stations would be closer to their point of origin than would 

their respective regional airport. 

Key Findings 

The comparison of the HST Alternative to the No Project Alternative shows that the proposed project 

would decrease energy use statewide by 5.8 million barrels of oil per year. (Beneficial impact.) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.5 Energy 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.5-16

operations would make the load additions less abrupt than would be the case if the start of the full 

planned operations were to occur simultaneously. 

C. HST CONSTRUCTION (INDIRECT) ENERGY 

Construction of the programmed and funded transportation improvements under the No Project 

Alternative would require less energy than construction of the HST system. 

Project Construction

The HST system construction-related energy consumption would result in a one-time, nonrecoverable energy cost, which would occur during construction of on-the-ground, underground, and 

aerial facilities such as trackwork, guideways, structures, maintenance yards, stations, and support 

facilities. Details regarding energy conservation practices have not been specified for the HST 

system, which has not been designed in detail, nor have construction methods and staging been 

planned at this time. Given the scope and scale of the improvements proposed as part of the HST 

system, however, it is anticipated that the construction-related energy requirement would be 

substantial. Table 3.5-6 shows estimates of potential construction-related indirect energy 

consumption for the statewide HST system. 

Table 3.5-6 

Non-Recoverable Construction-Related Energy Consumption 

Structure 

Rural vs. 

Urbana Facility Quantityb

Energy Consumptionc

(MMBtus) 

HST guideway (at grade) Rural 2,074 guideway mi (3,361 km) 25,485,000 

 Urban 619 (1,003 km) 11,829,000 

HST guideway (elevated) Rural 271 guideway mi (439 km) 15,026,000 

 Urban 153 (249 km) 8,529,000 

HST guideway (below grade, cut) Rural 30 guideway mi (497 km) 3,557,000 

 Urban 70 (114 km) 11,469,000 

HST guideway (below grade, tunnel) Rural 128 guideway mi (208 km) 15,034,000 

 Urban 110 (178 km) 35,966,000 

HST station N/A 23 stations 1,794,000 

HST Total 128,688,000 

a

 Assumes the HST would be constructed in rural and urban areas at the following proportions: 

 - Bay Area to Central Valley: Rural (40%), Urban (60%) 

 - Sacramento to Bakersfield: Rural (95%), Urban (5%) 

 - Bakersfield to Los Angeles: Rural (70%), Urban (30%) 

 - LOSSAN: Rural (30%), Urban (70%) 

 - Los Angeles to San Diego via Inland Empire: Rural (60%), Urban (40%) b

 Measured in guideway miles for non-discrete structures (e.g., highways and HST guideways), and in structure quantities for 

discrete structures (e.g., HST stations). c

 Rounded. 

As shown in the table, the construction of the proposed HST Alternative (statewide) would 

consume 128,688,000 Btus, or about 22 million barrels of oil. Energy savings resulting from 

operation of the HST Alternative would repay the construction energy consumption in about 

3.8 years. 
Section 3.17 Revisions 

Cumulative Analysis 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-13

HST Network Alternatives

Compared to the No Project Alternative in 2030, the proposed statewide HST system would result in 

a reduction of automobile travel from 12 to 23 billion miles (19 to 37 billion km) annually, depending 

on network alternative as discussed in Section 3.2, “Travel Conditions.” This outcome would benefit 

intercity highways within the study region and reduce travel delays on the affected highways and on 

surface streets leading to and from intercity highways. Therefore, implementation of the HST 

Network Alternatives would not lead to a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact related 

to highway and airport use but could be a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact related 

to surface streets leading to and from proposed stations. 

Program mitigation strategies, as discussed in Section 3.1, could be developed in consultation with 

state, federal, regional, and local governments and affected transit agencies to improve the flow of 

intercity travel on the primary routes and access to the proposed stations. Regional strategies would 

include coordination with regional transportation planning and intelligent transportation system 

strategies. Local improvements could employ TSM/signal optimization; local spot widening of curves; 

and major intersection improvements. 

B. AIR QUALITY 

As stated in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” pollution sources in the two air basins directly affected by the 

proposed project account for about 30% of the total statewide criteria pollutant emissions. Overall, 

emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and San Joaquin Valley Air Basin have been 

declining for the past 20 years despite population growth and increases in vehicular travel. This 

decline is a result of new controls, rules, and more stringent emissions standards. The one exception 

to improvement has been PM10. PM10 emissions are predicted to increase through 2010 as a result 

of growth in emissions from areawide sources, primarily fugitive dust sources. An additional growing 

environmental concern is global climate change, and the transportation sector is responsible for 

about 40% of California's greenhouse gas emissions, and up to 50% in the Bay Area. 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of air quality was identified to be the San Francisco Bay 

Area Air Basin and San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, as well as the state as a whole. CO2 emissions are 

only calculated on a statewide level. 

No Project Alternative

The program-level impact analysis of air quality described in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” focused on the 

potential statewide, regional, and localized impacts related to pollutant burdens occurring from 

highway vehicle miles traveled, number of plane operations, number of train movements, and power 

requirements. The analysis of air quality considers emissions of projected regional growth by the 

CARB for eight criteria pollutants (CO, SOx, HC, NOx, O3, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb) in the two air basins 

potentially affected, and therefore includes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

projects/actions and population growth as part of the No Project Alternative. CO2, the primary 

greenhouse gas, is projected to increase 38% statewide from existing conditions. As noted above, 

the analysis is structured to estimate the potential impacts on air quality on the local and regional 

levels in two air basins directly affected by the project alternatives as well as statewide. Under the No 

Project Alternative, the cumulative impact related to air quality would be significant when considering 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area (See Section 3.3). 

HST Network Alternatives

It is estimated that the proposed HST Network Alternatives would be able to accommodate between 

88 and 117 million people annually for intercity trips, as discussed in Section 3.2, “Travel Conditions.” 

Intercity passengers using the HST system otherwise would use the roadways and airports, and the 

result is a potential reduction of automobile travel from 8.82 to 9.74 billion miles (14.3 to 15.8 billion km) 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-14

annually, and a reduction in emissions because of the reduced number of flights (19.3 to 20.1 million 

air trips would shift to HST annually, as discussed in Section 3.3). Overall, pollutants would decrease 

statewide compared to the No Project Alternative: CO 1.9% to 2.0%, PM10 1.8% to 2.0%, PM2.5

1.7% to 5.6%, NOX 1.8% to 1.9%, and total organic gases 2.0% to 2.2%. Therefore, the HST 

Network Alternatives would result in an air quality benefit. The benefit could increase if the HST 

ridership increased beyond the levels assumed in this document. However, as described in Section 

3.3, there may be localized air quality impacts from the HST Network Alternatives. 

The HST Network Alternatives would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions (CO2) statewide by 

0.5%. The proposed HST system would result in beneficial impacts related to greenhouse gases and 

global climate change. Any additional carbon entering the atmosphere, whether by emissions from 

the project itself or removal of carbon sequestering plants (included agricultural crops), would be 

more than offset by the beneficial reduction of carbon resulting from the project due to a reduction in 

automobile vehicle miles traveled (mobile sources) and reduction in the number of airplane trips. 

The potential local air quality impacts of the HST Network Alternatives, in combination with the air 

quality impacts of other projects identified for this cumulative impact analysis (Appendix 3.17-A) and 

those projects considered in the state implementation plan for air quality, could contribute 

considerably to cumulative air quality impacts in the two air basins in the study area. Local adverse 

air quality impacts related to traffic could occur near HST stations. Program-level analysis reviews the 

potential statewide air quality impacts that would support determination of conformity, as discussed 

in Section 3.3. At the project level, mitigation strategies to address localized impacts could consider 

increasing emission controls from power plants supplying power for the HST Network Alternatives; 

designing the system to use energy efficient, state-of-the-art equipment; promoting increased use of 

public transit, alternative fueled vehicles, and parking for carpools, bicycles, and other alternative 

transportation methods; alleviating traffic congestion around passenger station areas; and minimizing 

construction air emissions. 

C. NOISE AND VIBRATION 

As noted in Section 3.4, “Noise and Vibration,” the noise environment in the study area along the 

proposed HST alignments and stations generally is dominated by transportation-related sources. The 

ambient noise in the northern portion of the Bay Area to Central Valley region is dominated by motor 

vehicle traffic in densely populated areas and along freeways. Other major contributors include 

Caltrain, Amtrak, and freight rail as well as international airports at San Francisco, Oakland, and San 

Jose. In the more rural areas of the region, the ambient noise is lower because it is more removed 

from transportation noise sources. 

The study area for the cumulative analysis of noise and vibration was identified to be within 1,000 ft 

(305 m) of the HST Network Alternatives. 

No Project Alternative

Noise and vibration impacts, particularly in growing urban areas and along highway corridors, will 

continue to increase as population grows and use of highways and airports increases. Therefore, 

under the No Project Alternative the cumulative impact related to noise and vibration would be 

significant when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study 

area (See Section 3.4). 

HST Network Alternatives

Implementation of the proposed HST Network Alternatives potentially could result in high noise 

impacts for up to approximately 20 mi (32.4 km) of alignment, depending on network alternative. 

These potential impacts, when combined with the potential noise impacts of other highway, roadway, 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-15

and transit expansion projects in the Bay Area to Central Valley region, could locally contribute 

potential cumulative noise impacts during construction and operation. The same is true for vibration 

impacts where the network alternatives would potentially result in high vibration impacts for up to 

approximately 52 mi (84.3 km) of alignment. 

The potential impacts of the HST Network Alternatives could be a considerable contribution to 

cumulative noise and vibration impacts. Program-level mitigation of noise and vibration impacts, as 

discussed in Section 3.4, “Noise and Vibration,” relates to design practices emphasizing the use of 

tunnels or trenches; use of electric-powered trains, higher quality track interface, and smaller lighter 

and more aerodynamic trainsets; and grade separations from roadways. At the project level, 

mitigation strategies to address localized noise and vibration impacts should include treatments for 

insulation of buildings affected by noise and vibration; sound barrier walls within the right-of-way; 

track treatments to minimize train vibrations; and construction mitigation (See Section 3.4). 

D. ENERGY 

As noted in Section 3.5, “Energy,” California is the tenth-largest worldwide energy consumer and is 

ranked second in consumption in the United States, behind Texas. The study area for the cumulative 

analysis of energy was identified to be the state of California. Of the overall energy consumed in the 

state, the transportation sector represents the largest portion at 46%. Between 2005 and 2030, the 

statewide vehicle miles of travel on all roadways are projected to increase by more than 68%, with 

fuel consumption increasing by more than 61% (California Department of Transportation 2006). 

According to the CEC, total statewide electricity consumption grew from 228,038 GWh in 1990 to 

272,000 GWh in 2005, approximately 19%. The upward electricity consumption trend throughout the 

state is anticipated to continue because of growth (California Energy Commission 2006a). 

No Project Alternative

As discussed in Section 3.5, the No Project Alternative assumes continued dependence on 

automobiles and air travel for intercity trips in the state. Compared to 2000, this increase in travel 

would result in an increase in annual energy consumption by an estimated 141 million barrels of oil 

per year. Therefore, under the No Project Alternative, the cumulative impact related to energy 

consumption would be significant when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

projects in the study area (See Section 3.5). 

HST Network Alternatives

The statewide HST system would reduce energy consumption in 2030 by an estimated 5.8 million 

barrels of oil annually, depending on HST Network Alterative (a 1.5% savings compared to the 

No Project Alternative). This conservative estimate is based on use of average size trains that could 

be expanded to carry more passengers; the potential energy benefits could be substantially higher if 

train capacity and ridership were increased. The proposed statewide HST system, regardless of 

network alternative, would have a beneficial effect on energy consumption in the state and, 

therefore, would not contribute to cumulative energy impacts. 

The statewide HST system would represent a small percentage of generating and transmission 

capacity required to satisfy projected overall demand in 2030. The electricity requirement of the HST 

system would be about 794 MW, depending on overall ridership, during peak electricity demand 

periods in 2030. This represents approximately 0.96% of the projected statewide electricity demand 

in 2030. The proposed HST system is anticipated to reduce energy consumption overall. Any localized 

electricity impacts would be avoided through proper planning and design of power distribution 

systems and their relationship with the overall power grid. Therefore, the statewide HST system’s 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 3.17 Cumulative Impacts 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 3.17-16

contribution to cumulative electricity demand would be less than significant when considering past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Construction-related energy consumption of the statewide HST system would result in a one-time, 

nonrecoverable energy cost of 22 million barrels of oil spaced over a number of years. Because of the 

more energy-efficient mode of travel provided by the HST, the energy consumed for construction 

would be recovered by the energy savings within about 3.8 years as noted in Section 3.5, “Energy.” 

Construction of the HST system potentially would represent a significant use of nonrenewable 

resources. Mitigation strategies to address construction energy use include implementation of a 

construction energy conservation plan. Therefore, the statewide HST system would result in a 

considerable contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact when considering past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area (See Section 3.5). 

E. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE 

As described in Section 3.6, EMFs exist in the environment both naturally and as a result of human 

activities. The study area for the cumulative analysis of EMF and EMI was identified to be within 

1,000 ft (305 m) of the right-of-way of the HST Network Alternatives. 

No Project Alternative

By Year 2030, EMFs along existing roadways and railroad rights-of-way probably would be affected 

by technological developments and by increases in total energy consumption. For example, general 

EMF levels along highways may be cumulatively increased by advanced automotive technologies such 

as collision avoidance systems and automatic vehicle guidance systems, if such technologies are 

implemented by 2030, and increased reliance on electrically powered automobiles. Improvements to 

airports may also increase environmental EMFs because of increased use of radar, radio 

communications, and instrument landing systems. Based on available information, these changes are 

not likely to cause significant changes in EMF levels, increased human exposures to EMFs, or EMI in 

the environment. Therefore, under the No Project Alternative there would be no cumulative impact 

related to EMFs or EMIs when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

in the study area. 

HST Network Alternatives

The HST Network Alternatives would traverse a range of geographic and land use typologies and 

could result in potential EMF exposure in urban, suburban, rural, agricultural, and industrial areas. 

The various components of the HST infrastructure and the trains themselves would be sources of 

EMFs at both ELF and RF. It is likely that some additional potential for human exposure to EMFs and 

EMI would occur with the HST Network Alternatives in combination with other proposed projects 

(potential activities include transmission lines and other electric rail systems); however, although the 

HST Network Alternatives could cause direct and indirect EMF and EMI impacts, there would not be a 

considerable contribution to EMF and EMI levels because mitigation included in project-level analysis 

would include design choices (tunnel, elevated track, physical barriers between track and receptor, or 

facility site selection) and through shielding to avoid or minimize potential EMF and EMI impacts.

F. LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS, PROPERTY, AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Even though the population in the San Joaquin Valley grew from 200,000 to 3 million in the 20th 

century, it underwent much less of a transformation than did the Bay Area. Population growth in the 

northern San Joaquin Valley was 63% between 1980 and 2000. In this same period the urban to 

rural share went from 78% urban and 22% rural to 89% urban and 11% rural (Teitz et al. 2005). 

Since 1990 the rate of land conversion has increased by 21% in the northern San Joaquin Valley 

(Great Valley Center 2006). 
Chapter 5 Revisions 

Economic Growth and Related Impacts 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 5 Economic Growth and Related Impacts

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 5-19

As an overall conclusion, the potential transportation impacts of induced growth under the HST Network 

Alternatives are likely to concentrate around proposed HST station sites. Because the Altamont network 

alternative is projected to experience higher population and employment growth than the Pacheco 

network alternative for nearly all counties north of Fresno County, the secondary transportation impacts 

could be expected to be proportionately larger for the Altamont network alternative. Project-level 

environmental studies would be expected to provide the appropriate opportunity to investigate more 

localized impacts. 

5.4.2 Air Quality 

Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” describes the potential impact of induced growth on air pollution. Under highend assumptions, the HST Network Alternatives annually would accommodate an estimated 95 million 

travelers that would otherwise use the roadways and airports. This diversion to HST could lead to a 

projected 2.3% statewide VMT reduction on the highway system, with VMT reductions of between 1.75% 

and 8.0% in Bay Area and Central Valley Counties. Thus, the HST Network Alternatives are projected to 

decrease the amount of mobile-source air quality pollutants in the study area and the state as compared 

to the No Project Alternative. The additional increase in population and employment in each county from 

induced growth generally would be expected to increase traffic and mobile-source air pollutants by an 

amount proportional to that growth. Even with induced growth, mobile-source air emissions under all 

HST Network Alternatives would be lower than No Project emissions in all counties because the projected 

VMT reduction is larger than the projected population and employment growth. 

At the local level, the HST Network Alternatives have somewhat more potential to affect air quality 

because of expected increases in local traffic near HST station locations. It is expected that the induced 

growth could concentrate near HST stations, and thus the direct and indirect air quality effects could be 

larger around the station areas. The severity of these local impacts, however, cannot be reliably 

quantified without local and detailed traffic modeling and impact analysis, which is outside the scope of 

analysis for this Program EIR/EIS. Project-level environmental studies would be expected to provide the 

appropriate opportunity to investigate more localized impacts. 

5.4.3 Noise and Vibration 

Increased population and employment related to induced growth would not increase the likelihood or 

levels of potential noise and vibration impacts. Therefore, no indirect impacts from induced growth are 

expected in the areas of noise and vibration. 

5.4.4 Energy 

There would not be any significant differences in potential energy use among the alignment alternatives 

resulting from general population and employment growth projections because the magnitude of the 

incremental statewide population and employment growth is expected to be similar, regardless of which 

alternative is chosen. However, the expected propensity of the proposed HST Network Alternatives to 

concentrate employment and population near HST stations, and the resulting incremental development 

density benefit, would tend to reduce the number and length of vehicle trips for work, leisure, and 

commerce compared to the No Project Alternative. Such an effect would decrease the amount of energy 

directly used for transportation. The potential increased density in the vicinity of proposed HST station 

sites also would limit the amount of energy required for construction of and access to future 

infrastructure projects by reducing the distance between structures and reducing the number of 

structures that would be required to serve new population and employment growth. In addition, higher 

density would reduce demand for the large-volume transportation-related infrastructure projects required 

for a highly automobile-oriented transportation network. Finally, if growth around HST stations occurs at 

higher densities than would occur with more dispersed growth under the No Project Alternative, savings 

in building-related energy use also could be realized because multi-unit and multi-story structures tend to 

require less energy per square foot for heating and cooling needs. 
Chapter 7 Revisions 

High-Speed Train Network and Alignment 

Alternatives Comparisons 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 7 Network Alternatives 

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Page 7-2

− Human environment (land use and community impacts, farmlands and agriculture, aesthetics and 

visual resources, and socioeconomics). 

− Cultural resources (archaeological resources, historical properties) and paleontological resources. 

− Natural environment (geology and seismic hazards, hydrology and water resources, and 

biological resources and wetlands). 

− Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources (certain types of publicly owned parklands, recreation areas, 

wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historical sites). 

The environmental topics for traffic, energy and air quality are not included in this chapter. The network 

alternatives have the potential to reduce overall air pollution, total energy consumption, and traffic 

congestion as compared to the No Project Alternative. The representative base HST forecast would result 

in a reduction of 5.8 million barrels of oil and 6.8 billion pounds of CO2 emissions annually by 2030, as 

compared to the No Project Alternative. Diversions from the automobile to HST could lead to a projected 

2.3% statewide reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the highway system, with VMT reductions of 

between 1.75% and 8.0% in Bay Area and Central Valley counties. 

The network alternatives with the highest ridership levels show the greatest reductions in VMT on the 

roadways in the region. The reduction in VMTs results in a corresponding reduction in vehicular 

emissions, energy consumption, and traffic. Therefore, in this chapter ridership is a proxy for traffic, 

energy and air quality benefits since the network alternatives with the highest ridership would have the 

greatest traffic, energy and air quality benefits. 
Chapter 9 Revisions 

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Page 9-1

9 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

This chapter of the Program EIR/EIS describes any potentially significant adverse environmental effects, 

identifiable at the program level of environmental review, that cannot be avoided should the proposed 

HST system or a network alternative be implemented and any unavoidable adverse impacts of the 

alternatives, as required by CEQA and NEPA, respectively. This chapter also describes any significant 

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources or foreclosures of future options, identifiable at the 

program level of environmental review, that would be involved in the proposed HST system or network 

alternatives should one be implemented. 

This Program EIR/EIS represents the second part of the first conceptual planning stage of a tiered 

environmental evaluation that analyzes a broad range of HST Alignment Alternatives and a number of 

Network Alternatives. Most potentially significant impacts that have been described in previous chapters 

of this document can be avoided or minimized by selecting an alignment alternative that avoids or 

minimizes impacts on environmental resources through refinement to the design or specific location of 

the alignment or station, or through incorporation of mitigation measures. For example, some potentially 

significant impacts on sensitive habitat or wetlands would occur in areas where alignment alternatives are 

available that would avoid or minimize the impact, such as tunneling or designing the alignment to avoid 

the sensitive area. In addition, potential noise impacts would occur in residential areas along the 

alignment alternatives where significant noise levels could be reduced to less than significant with 

implementation of mitigation measures such as noise walls between the train track or highway and the 

residential receptors. However, there are some unavoidable potentially significant impacts that could 

occur as a result of implementation of the HST Network Alternatives under consideration. Those impacts 

are discussed below. 

9.1 Potentially Adverse Unavoidable Significant Impacts 

9.1.1 Fuel Consumption and Energy Use 

Potentially significant impacts of the No Project Alternative that cannot be mitigated or reduced to less 

than significant include consumption of an estimated 408 million barrels of oil per year under the No 

Project Alternative in 2030, over 141 million barrels of oil per year more than existing conditions.1 The 

No Project Alternative would continue California’s dependency on automobiles and airplanes for intercity 

travel. The statewide HST system would annually consume approximately 402 million barrels of oil. The 

proposed HST system would result in a savings of about 5.8 million barrels of oil (a 1.5% difference) over 

the 2030 No Project Alternative. 

Operation of the proposed HST system would potentially increase the load on the statewide electric 

power system by an estimated 794 MW during the peak period in 2030. Overall, the HST electricity 

demand would represent about a 0.96% increase in 2030. During construction, energy consumption for 

the HST system is estimated to be approximately 128 MMBTUs, or 22 million barrels of oil. 

9.1.2 Biological Resources and Wetlands, Agricultural Land, Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Resources, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, and Visual Resources 

The HST Network Alternatives would each commit the use of land and natural resources to a 

transportation right-of-way, even though much of the system would be constructed along existing 

transportation facilities. Some potentially significant unavoidable impacts on biological resources 

(wetlands and habitat for threatened and endangered species) might occur where the land required for 

 

1 Energy consumption based on June 11, 2007 and June 18, 2008, forecasts provided by Cambridge Systematics. 

See Chapter 2, “Alternatives.” 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Un

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Table 9.3-1 

Summary of Key Environmental Impact/Benefits of Alternatives 

Key Environmental 

Issues 

Alternative 

Mitigation Strategy 

for HST 

Potentia

No Project HST Network Alternatives 

Befor

Mitigat

Traffic and Circulation Capacity is insufficient to 

accommodate projected growth. 13 of the 18 intercity highway segments considered would operate at unacceptable levels of service with increased congestion, travel delays, and accidents compared to existing conditions. Congestion would increase. 

Congestion reduction on intercity highways compared to the No Project Alternative. 15 of the 18 intercity highway segments would experience diversion of trips from vehicles to the HST system yielding improved V/C ratios. Reduce automobile travel in the state 9.7billion miles annually. Localized traffic conditions around some stations would be adversely affected. 

Encourage use of transit to stations. Work with transit providers to improve station connections. 

Potentially significant 

Travel Conditions (travel time, reliability, safety, connectivity, sustainable capacity, passenger cost) 

Longer travel times, more delay. Lower reliability due to dependence on the automobile. Increase in injuries and fatalities due to increase in highway travel. No net improvement to connectivity options. No significant increase in capacity for highway or air infrastructure, and significant worsening of congestion due to increased demand. 

Travel time reduction compared to the No Project Alternative. Greatest improvement in reliability due to high reliability of HST mode; significant levels of diversion to HST from auto and air result in reduced congestion; and additional modal option improves reliability for overall transportation system. Decrease in injuries and fatalities due to diversion of trips from highways. Highest level of connectivity. New mode would add a variety of connections to existing modes, additional frequencies, and greater flexibility. HST system would provide sufficient capacity to meet representative demand and would provide substantial additional capacity with minimal additional infrastructure. 

N/A Beneficial 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS 9 Un

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

Key Environmental 

Issues 

Alternative 

Mitigation Strategy 

for HST 

Potentia

No Project HST Network Alternatives 

Befor

Mitigat

HST system would provide a release valve for the existing intercity modes. Overall savings in passenger costs of 22% to 87% on the HST compared to No Project, depending on city pair. HST passenger costs are competitive with the automobile travel and less expensive than air travel. 

Air Quality (Conformity Rule; Statewide tons of pollutants/year) 

Statewide emissions predicted to decrease in 2030 due to low emission vehicles; CO2 to 

increase statewide. Estimated CO 625,975 tons/year (79% decrease); PM10 25,185 tons/year (same as existing); PM2.5 17,155 tons/year (10% decrease); NOx 174,470 tons/year (73% 

decrease); TOG 92,345 tons/year (73% decrease); CO2 644 million tons/year 

(38% increase). 

Air quality benefit. Pacheco Alternative - Annual decrease in pollutants compared to 

No Project: CO 12,775 tons/year; PM10 730 tons/year, PM2.5 1,095tons/year, NOx 3,650 tons/year; TOG 2,190 tons/year; CO2 3.4million tons/year (0.5% less than 

No Project). Altamont Alternative - Annual decrease in pollutants compared to 

No Project: CO 11,680 tons/year; PM10 365 tons/year, PM2.5 365tons/year, NOx 3,285 tons/year; TOG 1,825 tons/year; CO2 2.8million tons/year (0.4% less than 

No Project). Overall reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions compared to No Project. 

Control of constructionrelated emissions. Beneficial 

Energy Use (Statewide) 

Energy consumption of 408 million barrels of oil annually in California in 2030; 141million over existing conditions. 

Energy benefit. Lower statewide energy consumption compared to No Project. Operation of the statewide HST system would result in a savings of 5.8 million barrels (1.5%) 

Develop and implement energy conservation plan for construction. 

Beneficial 
Chapter 23 Revisions 

Organization Comments 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Response to Comm

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

with the other environmental methodologies in the EIR/EIS, which were developed with input from the appropriate regulatory agencies. The potential effects are compared between the existing conditions and the no-build alternative, and then the no-build alternative is compared to the HST alternatives. O007-87 Executive Order S-3-05, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 1, 2005, calls for a reduction in GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (equivalent to a 25% reduction) and for an 80% reduction in GHG emissions to below 1990 levels by 2050. Assembly Bill 32, enacted in 2006, calls for the California Air Resources Board to adopt regulations to help achieve these emission-reduction goals. See discussion of GHG issues in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of this Final Program EIR/EIS. The effect of the HST system on emissions of CO2 was calculated 

and presented in the Draft Program EIR/EIS. 2005 statewide CO2

levels have been quantified and were estimated at 1.280 million tons per day (California Energy Commission). The air quality analysis 

identified a reduction of about 6.8 billion pounds of CO2 emissions 

annually by 2030 attributed to the proposed HST project. The proposed HST project is shown to have net beneficial impacts related to climate change. Any additional carbon entering the atmosphere, whether by emissions from the project itself or removal of carbon sequestering plants (including agricultural crops), would be more than offset by the beneficial reduction of carbon resulting from the project due to a reduction in automobile VMT (mobile sources) and 

reduction in the number of airplane trips. O007-88 Please see Standard Response 5 and mitigation strategies listed in Chapter 3.3 of the Final EIR/EIS. CEQA requires that feasible mitigation be identified where significant adverse impacts have been identified. Mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant (CEQA §15126.4 [a]). As noted previously, the proposed HST project is shown to have net beneficial 

impacts related to climate change. Where bebeen identified, mitigation measures are not the proposed HST system would include redureduced VMT and multi-modal HST stations. efficiency for HST facilities, increased recyclinbuilding technology are all measures that can considered in the future during project-level ewhen more detailed system design and locatiavailable. O007-89 As noted in Response to Comments O007-87 proposed HST project is shown to have net bto climate change. Where beneficial impacts mitigation measures are not required. O007-90 Please see Response to Comments O007-87 EIR/EIS includes an expanded discussion of gincluding a revised setting discussion, and emthe 2005 existing condition, the 2030 No Projproposed HST project alternative. In addition

investigating the feasibility of having the HST energy sources with zero emissions, but this mitigation measure. O007-91 The Authority agrees that, while not required

neutral HST system is an appropriate goal foAuthority will examine its feasibility at the proAlso see Response to Comment O007-90. O007-92 See Standard Response 5. 
Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS Response to Comm

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration

although there was more decrease from the Pacheco Pass alternative. O015-7 Table 3.3-7 highlights the air quality benefits of the project. Using the benefit rating system established for the project, the Build Alternative is predicted to have medium benefits on regional air quality levels. This table has been expanded to include both base 

alternatives (Pacheco Base, and, Altamont Base). O015-8 Considering that California condors can range up to 150 miles in a day, it is possible that one of the 16 condors currently at Pinnacles National Monument (as of Dec. 2007) (source: http://www.nps.gov/pinn/naturescience/upload/Condor_StatusDec07.pdf), it is possible that a condor may occasionally fly over Pacheco Pass, similar to the way that condors from the Mt. Pinos area may occasionally fly over cities like Ventura and Bakersfield. However, because no part of the alignment is located within the critical habitat for the species, impacts on this species would be minimal to none. O015-9 The Authority and FRA respectfully disagree with the assertion that the Program EIR/EIS gives inadequate attention to “land use sprawl and attendant traffic congestion.” Chapter 5, and the accompanying technical report, Economic Growth Effects Analysis of the Bay Area to Central Valley Program-Level EIR and Tier 1 EIS, provide a detailed analysis of potential economic growth and related impacts (including traffic congestion). Please refer to Standard Response 4 and Chapter 6 (Station Area Development). 

O015-10 Consistent with NEPA and CEQA, the Preferreidentified in this Final Program EIR/EIS, follow

the Draft Program EIR/EIS. O015-11 The specific mitigation measures as suggesteconsidered in Tier 2 project-level environmen
Appendix 3-3A Revisions 

2030 No Build Scenario VMT and VHT 

 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

PACHECO SCENARIO VMT AND VHT

VMT - daily VHT - daily VkT - daily

SF Air Basin 110,319,202 1,680,135 177,541,545.88

SJ Air Basin 116,352,966 1,649,721 187,251,947.97Statewide 1,114,910,694 28,315,177 1,794,274,836.07

MILES

This data revised on 6/19/08 to reflect CS revisions to VMT. 

6/24/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

ALTAMONT SCENARIO VMT AND VHT

VMT - daily VHT - daily VkT - daily

SF Air Basin 110,469,582 1,603,257 177,783,559.74

SJ Air Basin 116,584,184 1,653,235 187,624,056.42

Statewide 1,117,429,041 28,238,654 1,798,327,722.33

This data revised on 6/19/08 to reflect CS revisions to VMT. 

6/24/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUMMARY

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM 

2005 Stationary 389.97 91.35 54.02 128.06 20.41 33.84 

 

2005 Area 993.45 190.09 826.93 23.97 4.33 571.51 

 

2005 Mobile On Road 91.79 83.93 874.42 195.68 1.74 6.29 

 

2005 Aircraft 9.09 8.10 68.76 3.72 0.37 0.44 

 

2005 Train 1.97 1.54 4.50 23.64 0.71 0.66 

 

2005 Mobile Off Road 42.38 38.10 275.85 105.68 0.87 7.89 

 

2005 Total 1,528.65 413.11 2,104.48 480.75 28.43 620.63 

 

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM 

2010 Stationary 416.71 94.53 54.95 123.74 21.51 34.70 

 

2010 Area 1,061.84 195.55 824.51 23.49 4.31 539.40 

 

2010 Mobile On Road 64.98 59.01 606.00 145.31 0.59 6.35 

 

2010 Aircraft 9.30 8.29 71.52 3.94 0.40 0.45 

 

2010 Train 1.85 1.54 4.87 20.04 0.07 0.59 

 

2010 Mobile Off Road 34.12 30.85 255.17 84.64 0.62 6.81 

 

2010 Total 1,588.80 389.77 1,817.02 401.16 27.50 588.30 

 

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM 

2015 Stationary 441.81 97.25 55.78 126.42 23.01 36.23 

 

2015 Area 1,120.21 174.02 822.04 23.21 4.31 551.29 

 

2015 Mobile On Road 47.13 42.54 415.80 97.52 0.70 6.49 

 

2015 Aircraft 9.48 8.45 74.00 4.14 0.43 0.45 

 

2015 Train 1.87 1.56 5.30 20.78 0.02 0.58 

 

2015 Mobile Off Road 29.15 26.54 246.99 64.73 0.78 5.77 

 

2015 Total 1,649.65 350.36 1,619.91 336.80 29.25 600.81 

 

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM 

2020 Stationary 467.51 100.24 57.93 127.31 24.09 38.18 

 

2020 Area 1,212.65 181.18 818.99 23.06 4.31 568.11 

 

2020 Mobile On Road 36.67 32.91 297.28 68.28 0.77 6.88 

 

2020 Aircraft 9.63 8.58 75.98 4.29 0.44 0.46 

 

2020 Train 1.90 1.58 5.83 21.46 0.02 0.59 

 

2020 Mobile Off Road 26.46 24.21 249.43 52.82 0.98 4.95 

 

2020 Total 1,754.82 348.70 1,505.44 297.22 30.61 619.17 

 

6/24/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY SUMMARY

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 

2005 Stationary 512.40 78.42 52.72 55.23 44.00 22.10 16.60 

2005 Area 180.47 92.48 177.69 19.53 0.64 328.23 175.27 

2005 Mobile On Road 165.88 151.73 1,495.79 285.82 2.33 9.68 9.57 

2005 Aircraft 7.14 6.36 37.86 20.71 0.63 0.53 0.51 

2005 Train 1.13 0.91 2.33 13.03 0.23 0.33 0.31 

2005 Mobile Off Road 63.83 56.96 446.47 154.33 5.25 11.52 11.23 2005 Total 930.85 386.86 2,212.86 548.65 53.08 372.39 213.49 

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 

2010 Stationary 530.62 78.62 54.41 56.74 46.91 23.29 17.59 

2010 Area 187.59 94.92 181.81 20.27 0.64 350.37 186.70 

2010 Mobile On Road 124.43 112.54 1,105.26 217.12 1.07 10.50 10.34 

2010 Aircraft 8.01 7.14 45.65 25.85 0.68 0.55 0.54 

2010 Train 1.07 0.87 2.51 10.68 0.03 0.30 0.28 

2010 Mobile Off Road 48.67 43.68 402.30 135.07 6.71 10.72 10.41 2010 Total 900.39 337.77 1,791.94 465.73 56.04 395.73 225.86 

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 

2015 Stationary 550.14 81.83 56.86 58.85 50.03 24.36 18.38 

2015 Area 195.90 98.07 188.15 20.84 0.64 373.04 198.61 

2015 Mobile On Road 88.76 79.83 751.99 146.00 1.13 10.62 10.45 

2015 Aircraft 9.09 8.10 50.82 28.36 0.72 0.58 0.57 

2015 Train 1.09 0.88 2.78 12.35 0.01 0.30 0.28 

2015 Mobile Off Road 43.24 38.97 405.46 125.45 8.61 10.47 10.13 2015 Total 888.22 307.68 1,456.06 391.85 61.14 419.37 238.42 

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM PM10 

2020 Stationary 566.39 84.91 59.47 61.20 53.36 25.30 19.13 

2020 Area 204.01 101.05 194.10 21.38 0.64 395.34 210.29 

2020 Mobile On Road 66.81 59.92 522.14 101.30 1.20 10.91 10.72 

2020 Aircraft 10.05 8.96 56.58 31.07 0.79 0.62 0.60 

2020 Train 1.11 0.90 3.10 13.01 0.01 0.30 0.29 

2020 Mobile Off Road 41.03 36.92 421.87 127.95 11.01 10.55 10.15 2020 Total 889.40 292.66 1,257.26 355.91 67.01 443.02 251.18 

6/24/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

STATE SUMMARY

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM 

2005 Stationary 2,193.92 472.88 372.32 420.31 112.28 234.25 

2005 Area 2,334.58 750.47 2,719.14 111.66 11.05 3,506.72 

2005 Mobile On Road 838.90 770.01 7,629.14 1,518.31 12.38 50.65 

2005 Aircraft 41.92 37.44 267.06 54.63 2.87 7.74 

2005 Train 14.61 12.15 33.05 157.56 7.53 4.76 

2005 Mobile Off Road 432.43 390.42 2,744.89 952.81 146.31 78.32 

2005 Total 5,856.36 2,433.37 13,765.60 3,215.28 292.42 3,882.44 

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM 

2010 Stationary 2,329.75 499.44 389.72 426.67 118.93 249.01 

2010 Area 2,370.79 749.13 2,759.08 107.55 10.95 3,566.53 

2010 Mobile On Road 607.65 554.02 5,397.14 1,126.69 5.23 51.73 

2010 Aircraft 43.10 38.49 283.93 63.21 3.08 7.67 

2010 Train 14.10 11.73 36.97 116.36 0.85 4.30 

2010 Mobile Off Road 350.34 317.76 2,542.02 886.77 179.42 78.43 

2010 Total 5,715.73 2,170.57 11,408.86 2,727.25 318.46 3,957.67 

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM 

2015 Stationary 2,472.09 530.03 402.36 437.19 125.74 265.72 

2015 Area 2,490.80 776.70 2,772.80 106.52 10.90 3,682.12 

2015 Mobile On Road 445.36 403.70 3,743.82 757.44 5.69 53.13 

2015 Aircraft 45.25 40.40 298.07 68.88 3.28 7.78 

2015 Train 14.54 12.10 41.29 128.32 0.12 4.35 

2015 Mobile Off Road 315.05 286.72 2,526.21 855.93 224.12 80.97 

2015 Total 5,783.09 2,049.65 9,784.55 2,354.28 369.85 4,094.07 

Year Category TOG ROG CO NOX SOX PM 

2020 Stationary 2,609.63 561.48 416.64 447.46 132.22 282.50 

2020 Area 2,614.86 806.70 2,791.36 107.92 10.89 3,809.14 

2020 Mobile On Road 344.36 310.63 2,661.34 531.74 6.08 55.07 

2020 Aircraft 47.19 42.14 311.79 74.40 3.49 7.88 

2020 Train 15.09 12.56 46.53 138.64 0.13 4.48 

2020 Mobile Off Road 302.12 274.80 2,603.62 904.83 288.70 87.07 

2020 Total 5,933.25 2,008.31 8,831.28 2,204.99 441.51 4,246.14 

6/24/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

TOG EMISSION BURDEN 2030

On-Road 

TOG 

Increment

Plane TOG 

Increment

Train - TOG 

Increment

Electric - 

TOG 

Increment

No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No B

San Francisco Bay 35.97 35.34 (0.63) 12.72 12.31 (0.41) 12.85 12.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 

San Joaquin Valley 19.32 17.78 (1.54) 10.03 10.00 (0.02) 19.62 19.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 

State Total 186.21 181.86 (4.35) 51.05 49.97 (1.08) 121.58 121.58 0.00 44.48 45.01 0.52 4

 

On-Road 

TOG 

Increment

Plane TOG 

Increment

Train - TOG Increment

Electric - 

TOG 

Increment

No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamon t HSR Altamont No B

San Francisco Bay 35.97 35.39 (0.58) 12.72 12.33 (0.39) 12.85 12.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 

San Joaquin Valley 19.32 17.81 (1.51) 10.03 10.00 (0.02) 19.62 19.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 

State Total 186.21 182.27 (3.94) 51.05 50.03 (1.02) 121.58 121.58 0.00 44.48 45.01 0.52 4

 

TOG - Planes 

(tons/day)

Air Basin

TOG - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

TOG - Planes 

(tons/day)

TOG - Trains 

(tons/day)

TOG - Electric 

(tons/day)

TOT

Plan

Air Basin

TOT

Plan

TOG - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

TOG - Trains 

(tons/day)

TOG - Electric 

(tons/day)

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

TOG ON-ROAD MOBILE CALCULATIONS

TOG Increment 

VMT VHT VMT VHT % of NB VMT No Build Build Pacheco % 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 2,967,721 110,319,202 1,680,135 98.3% 35.97 35.34 (0.63) -1.75% 

San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 1,836,428 116,352,966 1,649,721 92.0% 19.32 17.78 (1.54) -7.99% 

State Total 1,141,592,762 30,536,249 1,114,910,694 28,315,177 97.7% 186.21 181.86 (4.35) -2.34% 

TOG Increment 

VMT VHT VMT VHT % of NB VMT No Build Build Altamonte 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 2,967,721 110,469,582 1,603,257 98.4% 35.97 35.39 (0.58) -1.61% 

San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 1,836,428 116,584,184 1,653,235 92.2% 19.32 17.81 (1.51) -7.81% 

State Total 1,141,592,762 30,536,249 1,117,429,041 28,238,654 97.9% 186.21 182.27 (3.94) -2.12% 

Air Basin No Build Altamonte TOG (tons/day)

No Build Pacheco

Air Basin

TOG (tons/day) 

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

PM10 EMISSION BURDEN 2030

On-Road 

PM10 

Increment

Plane 

PM10 

Increment

Train - PM10 

Increment

Electric - 

PM10 

Increment

Total - 

PM10 

Increment

Total % 

Change 

from No 

Build

No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco 

San Francisco Bay 11.60 11.40 (0.20) 0.67 0.65 (0.02) 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.54 12.31 (0.22)

-1.79%

San Joaquin Valley 7.07 6.50 (0.57) 0.46 0.46 (0.00) 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.06 7.50 (0.57) -7.02% 

State Total 56.88 55.55 (1.33) 7.76 7.70 (0.06) 4.15 4.15 0.00 9.34 9.45 0.11 78.13 76.85 (1.28) -1.63% 

Altamont Low

On-Road 

PM10 

Increment

Plane 

PM10 

Increment

Train - PM10 

Increment

Electric - 

PM10 

Increment

Total - 

PM10 

Increment

Total % 

Change 

from No 

Build

No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont HSR Altamont 

San Francisco Bay 11.60 11.42 (0.19) 0.67 0.65 (0.02) 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.54 12.33 (0.21) -1.66% 

San Joaquin Valley 7.07 6.52 (0.55) 0.46 0.46 (0.00) 0.53 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.06 7.51 (0.55) -6.86% 

State Total 56.88 55.68 (1.20) 7.76 7.70 (0.05) 4.15 4.15 0.00 9.34 9.45 0.11 78.13 76.98 (1.15) -1.47% 

TOTAL PM10 (On-Road, 

Planes, Trains, Electric) 

(Tons/day)

PM10 - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

PM10 - Trains 

(tons/day)

PM10 - Electric 

(tons/day)

PM10 - Planes 

(tons/day)

Air Basin

PM10 - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

PM10 - Planes 

(tons/day)

PM10 - Trains 

(tons/day)

PM10 - Electric 

(tons/day)

TOTAL PM10 (On-Road, 

Planes, Trains, Electric) 

(Tons/day)

Air Basin

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

PM10 ON-ROAD MOBILE CALCULATIONS

PM10 Increment 

VMT VHT VMT VHT % of NB VMT No Build Build Pacheco % 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 2,967,721 110,319,202 1,680,135 98.3% 11.60 11.40 (0.20) -1.75% 

San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 1,836,428 116,352,966 1,649,721 92.0% 7.07 6.50 (0.57) -7.99% 

State Total 1,141,592,762 30,536,249 1,114,910,694 28,315,177 97.7% 56.88 55.55 (1.33) -2.34% 

PM10 Increment 

VMT VHT VMT VHT % of NB VMT No Build Build Altamont 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 2,967,721 110,469,582 1,603,257 98.4% 11.60 11.42 (0.19) -1.61% 

San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 1,836,428 116,584,184 1,653,235 92.2% 7.07 6.52 (0.55) -7.81% 

State Total 1,141,592,762 30,536,249 1,117,429,041 28,238,654 97.9% 56.88 55.68 (1.20) -2.12% 

Air Basin No Build Altamont PM10 (tons/day)

No Build Pacheco

Air Basin

PM10 (tons/day) 

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

PM2.5 EMISSION BURDEN 2030

On-Road 

PM2.5 

Increment

Plane 

PM2.5 

Increment

Train - PM2.5 

Increment

Electric - 

PM2.5 

Increment

Total - 

PM2.5 

Increment

Total % 

Change 

from No 

Build

No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco 

San Francisco Bay 7.48 7.35 (0.13) 0.64 0.62 (0.02) 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.35 8.20 (0.15)

-1.82%

San Joaquin Valley 4.21 3.88 (0.34) 0.45 0.45 (0.00) 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.16 4.82 (0.34) -6.56% 

State Total 35.09 34.27 (0.82) 7.67 7.62 (0.06) 3.79 3.79 0.00 9.00 9.11 0.11 55.56 54.79 (0.77) -1.39% 

On-Road 

PM2.5 

Increment

Plane 

PM2.5 

Increment

Train - PM2.5 

Increment

Electric - 

PM2.5 

Increment

Total - 

PM2.5 

Increment

Total % 

Change 

from No 

Build

No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont HSR Altamont 

San Francisco Bay 7.48 7.36 (0.12) 0.64 0.62 (0.02) 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.35 8.21 (0.14) -1.69% 

San Joaquin Valley 4.21 3.89 (0.33) 0.45 0.45 (0.00) 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.16 4.83 (0.33) -6.41% 

State Total 35.09 34.35 (0.74) 7.67 7.62 (0.05) 3.79 3.79 0.00 9.00 9.11 0.11 55.56 54.87 (0.69) -1.24% 

PM2.5 - Planes 

(tons/day)

Air Basin

PM2.5 - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

PM2.5 - Planes 

(tons/day)

PM2.5 - Trains 

(tons/day)

PM2.5 - Electric 

(tons/day)

TOTAL PM2.5 (On-Road, 

Planes, Trains, Electric) 

(Tons/day)

Air Basin

TOTAL PM2.5 (On-Road, 

Planes, Trains, Electric) 

(Tons/day)

PM2.5 - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

PM2.5 - Trains 

(tons/day)

PM2.5 - Electric 

(tons/day)

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

PM2.5 EMISSION BURDEN 2030

On-Road 

PM2.5 

Increment

Plane 

PM2.5 

Increment

Train - PM2.5 

Increment

Electric - 

PM2.5 

Increment

Total - 

PM2.5 

Increment

Total % 

Change 

from No 

Build

No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco 

San Francisco Bay 7.48 7.35 (0.13) 0.64 0.62 (0.02) 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.35 8.20 (0.15)

-1.82%

San Joaquin Valley 4.21 3.88 (0.34) 0.45 0.45 (0.00) 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.16 4.82 (0.34) -6.56% 

State Total 35.09 34.27 (0.82) 7.67 7.62 (0.06) 3.79 3.79 0.00 9.00 9.11 0.11 55.56 54.79 (0.77) -1.39% 

On-Road 

PM2.5 

Increment

Plane 

PM2.5 

Increment

Train - PM2.5 

Increment

Electric - 

PM2.5 

Increment

Total - 

PM2.5 

Increment

Total % 

Change 

from No 

Build

No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont HSR Altamont 

San Francisco Bay 7.48 7.36 (0.12) 0.64 0.62 (0.02) 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.35 8.21 (0.14) -1.69% 

San Joaquin Valley 4.21 3.89 (0.33) 0.45 0.45 (0.00) 0.49 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.16 4.83 (0.33) -6.41% 

State Total 35.09 34.35 (0.74) 7.67 7.62 (0.05) 3.79 3.79 0.00 9.00 9.11 0.11 55.56 54.87 (0.69) -1.24% 

PM2.5 - Planes 

(tons/day)

Air Basin

PM2.5 - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

PM2.5 - Planes 

(tons/day)

PM2.5 - Trains 

(tons/day)

PM2.5 - Electric 

(tons/day)

TOTAL PM2.5 (On-Road, 

Planes, Trains, Electric) 

(Tons/day)

Air Basin

TOTAL PM2.5 (On-Road, 

Planes, Trains, Electric) 

(Tons/day)

PM2.5 - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

PM2.5 - Trains 

(tons/day)

PM2.5 - Electric 

(tons/day)

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

NOX EMISSION BURDEN 2030

On-Road 

NOx 

Increment

Plane NOx 

Increment

Train - NOx 

Increment

Electric - 

NOx 

Increment

Total - NOx 

Increment

Total % 

Change 

from No 

Build

No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco 

San Francisco Bay 50.98 50.08 (0.89) 41.45 40.24 (1.20) 12.85 12.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 105.27 103.17 (2.09)

-1.99%

San Joaquin Valley 33.77 31.07 (2.70) 4.75 4.68 (0.07) 19.62 19.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.14 55.37 (2.77) -4.76% 

State Total 263.48 257.32 (6.16) 92.44 89.32 (3.13) 121.58 121.58 0.00 39.16 39.62 0.46 516.67 507.84 (8.83) -1.71% 

On-Road 

NOx 

Increment

Plane NOx 

Increment

Train - NOx Increment

Electric - 

NOx 

Increment

Total - NOx 

Increment

Total % 

Change 

from No 

Build

No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont HSR Altamont 

San Francisco Bay 50.98 50.15 (0.82) 41.45 40.31 (1.14) 12.85 12.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 105.27 103.30 (1.96) -1.86% 

San Joaquin Valley 33.77 31.13 (2.64) 4.75 4.68 (0.07) 19.62 19.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58.14 55.43 (2.70) -4.65% 

State Total 263.48 257.90 (5.58) 92.44 89.32 (3.13) 121.58 121.58 0.00 39.16 39.62 0.46 516.67 508.43 (8.24) -1.60% 

TOTAL NOx (On-Road, 

Planes, Trains, Electric) 

(Tons/day)

NOx - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

NOx - Trains 

(tons/day)

NOx - Electric 

(tons/day)

NOx - Planes 

(tons/day)

Air Basin

NOx - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

NOx - Planes 

(tons/day)

NOx - Trains 

(tons/day)

NOx - Electric 

(tons/day)

TOTAL NOx (On-Road, 

Planes, Trains, Electric) 

(Tons/day)

Air Basin

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

NOX ON-ROAD MOBILE CALCULATIONS

NOx Increment 

VMT VHT VMT VHT % of NB VMT No Build Build Pacheco % 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 2,967,721 110,319,202 1,680,135 98.3% 50.98 50.08 (0.89) -1.75% 

San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 1,836,428 116,352,966 1,649,721 92.0% 33.77 31.07 (2.70) -7.99% 

State Total 1,141,592,762 30,536,249 1,114,910,694 28,315,177 97.7% 263.48 257.32 (6.16) -2.34% 

NOx Increment 

VMT VHT VMT VHT % of NB VMT No Build Build Altamont 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 2,967,721 110,469,582 1,603,257 98.4% 50.98 50.15 (0.82) -1.61% 

San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 1,836,428 116,584,184 1,653,235 92.2% 33.77 31.13 (2.64) -7.81% 

State Total 1,141,592,762 30,536,249 1,117,429,041 28,238,654 97.9% 263.48 257.90 (5.58) -2.12% 

Air Basin No Build Altamont NOx (tons/day)

No Build Pacheco

Air Basin

NOx (tons/day) 

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

CO EMISSION BURDEN 2030

Pacheco 

On-Road CO 

Increment

Plane CO 

Increment

Train - CO 

Increment

Electric - 

CO 

Increment

No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No Build HSR Pacheco HSR Pacheco No 

San Francisco Bay 259.78 255.24 (4.54) 74.75 73.00 (1.74) 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 

San Joaquin Valley 142.83 131.41 (11.42) 81.50 81.40 (0.10) 6.90 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 

State Total 1,310.46 1,279.83 (30.63) 346.74 342.21 (4.53) 58.28 58.28 0.00 60.08 60.78 0.71 1,

 

Altamont

On-Road CO 

Increment

Plane CO 

Increment

Train - CO 

Increment

Electric - 

CO 

Increment

No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No Build HSR Altamont HSR Altamont No 

San Francisco Bay 259.78 255.59 (4.19) 74.75 73.10 (1.65) 3.73 3.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 

San Joaquin Valley 142.83 131.67 (11.16) 81.50 81.40 (0.09) 6.90 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 

State Total 1,310.46 1,282.72 (27.74) 346.74 342.44 (4.29) 58.28 58.28 0.00 60.08 60.78 0.71 1,

 

CO - Planes 

(tons/day)

Air Basin

CO - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

CO - Planes 

(tons/day)

CO - Trains 

(tons/day)

CO - Electric 

(tons/day)

TO

Plan

Air Basin

TO

Plan

CO - On-Road Mobile 

(tons/day)

CO - Trains 

(tons/day)

CO - Electric 

(tons/day)

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

CO ON-ROAD MOBILE CALCULATIONS

CO Increment 

VMT VHT VMT VHT % of NB VMT No Build Build Pacheco % 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 2,967,721 110,319,202 1,680,135 98.3% 259.78 255.24 (4.54) -1.75% 

San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 1,836,428 116,352,966 1,649,721 92.0% 142.83 131.41 (11.42) -7.99% 

State Total 1,141,592,762 30,536,249 1,114,910,694 28,315,177 97.7% 1,310.46 1,279.83 (30.63) -2.34% 

26,682,068 0.00000115

CO Increment 

VMT VHT VMT VHT % of NB VMT No Build Build Altamont 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333 2,967,721 110,469,582 1,603,257 98.4% 259.78 255.59 (4.19) -1.61% 

San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316 1,836,428 116,584,184 1,653,235 92.2% 142.83 131.67 (11.16) -7.81% 

State Total 1,141,592,762 30,536,249 1,117,429,041 28,238,654 97.9% 1,310.46 1,282.72 (27.74) -2.12% 

24,163,721

No Build Pacheco 

Air Basin

CO (tons/day)

Air Basin No Build Altamont CO (tons/day)

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

CO2 EMISSION BURDEN

CO2 - 

Trains 

(tons/day)

No Build Pacheco Altamont Pacheco Altamont No Build Pacheco Altamont Pacheco Altamont No Build No Build Pacheco Altamont Pacheco Altamont No Build Pacheco 

State 

Total 486,613.05 475,239.60 476,313.07 11,373.44 -10,299.98 113.86 63.41 66.03 -50.45 -47.83 uk 0.00 7,234.46 7,234.46 7,234.46 7,234.46 486,726.91 482,537.47 

CO2 - Electric 

(tons/day) 

Electric - CO2 Increment CO2 - Planes (tons/day) Plane - CO2 Increment TOTAL CO2 (On-Road, 

Trains, Electric) (Ton

On-Road - CO2 Increment

Air Basin

CO2 - On-Road Mobile (tons/day)

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

ELECTRIC ANALYSIS

Air Basin

CO PM10 pm2.5 NOx TOG CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO 

Statewide 60.08 9.34 9.00 39.16 44.48 0.706 0.110 0.106 0.460 0.523 60.8 9.4 9.1 39.6 45.0 1.18% 

Air Basin

CO PM10 pm2.5 NOx TOG CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO 

Statewide 60.08 9.34 9.00 39.16 44.48 0.706 0.110 0.106 0.460 0.523 60.8 9.4 9.1 39.6 45.0 1.2% 

2030 electric - No build (tons/day) 

2030 additional burden - 

Pacheco Base

Total

2030 electric - No build (tons/day)

2030 additional burden - 

Altamont Base Total

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

ANNUAL DIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION

High Speed Train (San Francisco to Central Valley Analysis)

2000 2030 CS VMT DATA 6/18/08 (w

ALTERNATIVE Existing (absolute) No-Build (absolute, 5% elevated auto consumption No-Build (Base) Pacheco Bas

 Annual Auto VMT 273,241,376,219 437,515,426,040 416,681,358,134 406,942,403,342  Annual Airline VMT 75,752,623 131,934,237 131,934,237 73,473,300 

 Annual HST VMT 0 0 0 42,956,120 

AUTOS 

Annual Auto BTU 1,522,500,948,294,220 2,437,835,953,896,730 2,321,748,527,520,700 2,267,483,07

Airline

Annual Airline BTU 24,763,102,458,624 43,128,553,470,392 43,128,553,470,392 24,018,00

High Speed Train

Annual High Speed Train BTU 0 0 0 39,707,95

SUMMARY

Annual Autos BTU 1,522,500,948,294,220 2,437,835,953,896,730 2,321,748,527,520,700 2,267,483,07

Annual Airline BTU 24,763,102,458,624 43,128,553,470,392 43,128,553,470,392 24,018,00

Annual High Speed BTU 0 0 0 39,707,95TOTAL DIRECT ENERGY (BTUs) 1,547,264,050,752,840 2,480,964,507,367,120 2,364,877,080,991,090 2,331,209,02

 Change from Existing direct energy (BTU) 933,700,456,614,282 817,613,030,238,247 783,944,97

 % Change in Existing direct energy (BTU) 0.60 0.53  Change from No-Build direct energy (BTU) -33,668,05 % Change in No-Build direct energy (BTU)  Change from No-Build direct energy 5 % inc. (BTU) -149,755,48 % Change in No-Build direct energy 5 % inc. (BTU) TOTAL DIRECT ENERGY (BARRELS OF OIL) 266,769,664 427,752,501 407,737,428 40 Change from Existing direct energy (Barrels of Oil) 160,982,837 140,967,764 13 % Change in existing direct energy (Barrels of Oil)) 0.60 0.53 

 Change from No-Build direct energy (Barrels of Oil)  % Change in No-Build direct energy (Barrels of Oil)  Change from No-Build direct energy 5 % inc. (BTU) -2 % Change in No-Build direct energy 5 % inc. (BTU) 

ANNUAL DIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION 

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

CO2 ENERGY ANALYSIS

HSR CO2 Only

Annual BTUs 

(from energy report) Million BTUs

CO2

(Tons CO2/Million 

Btu)*

CO2 Burden 

(tons/year)

CO2 Burden 

(Tons/day) Difference from NB % Dif. From NB

No Build 0 0 0.0665 0 0.00 - -Pacheco 39,707,950,030,080 39707950.03 0.0665 2,640,578.68 7,234.46 7,234.46 Year MMT Metric tons/day Tons/DayAltamont Base 39,707,950,030,080 39707950.03 0.0665 2,640,578.68 7,234.46 7,234.46 2010 467.80 1,281,643.84 1,412,742.33

2001 429.6 1,176,986.30 1,297,379.452002 422.6 1,157,808.22 1,276,239.65

AUTOS 2005 423.92 1,161,416.37 1,280,216.88

Annual BTUs 

(from energy report) Million BTUs

CO2

(Tons CO2/Million 

Btu)*

CO2 Burden 

(tons/year)

CO2 Burden 

(Tons/day) Difference from NB % Dif. From NB

No Build 2,321,748,527,520,700 2,321,748,527.52 0.0765 177,613,762.36 486,613.05 - -Pacheco 2,267,483,071,421,260 2,267,483,071.42 0.0765 173,462,454.96 475,239.60 -11,373.44 -2% Altamont Base 2,272,604,834,715,150 2,272,604,834.72 0.0765 173,854,269.86 476,313.07 -10,299.98 -2%

PLANES

Annual Airline BTUs 

(from energy report)

Annual Airline VMT 

(from energy report) CO2 (Tons/Mile)**

CO2 Burden 

(tons/year)

CO2 Burden 

(Tons/day) Difference from NB % Dif. From NB

No Build - Planes 43,128,553,470,392 131,934,237 0.03189375 4,207,877.59 11,528.43 - - 320,547.95 people a day

Pachecc - Planes 24,018,004,652,952 73,473,300 0.03189375 2,343,339.05 6,420.11 -5,108.32 -44%Altamont - Planes 25,011,941,731,450 76,513,845 0.03189375 2,440,313.45 6,685.79 -4,842.64 -42%

HSR

Annual BTUs (from 

energy report)

Conversion Factor KW

to BTU (from Energy 

data source edition 22, 

table B.3) Kwhr CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG 

No Build - HSR 0 11765 0 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 - - - - - 

 

Pachecc - HSR 39,707,950,030,080 11765 3,375,091,375.27 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 640,800.00 99,621.44 96,049.02 417,699.82 474,483.98 

 

Altamont - HSR 39,707,950,030,080 11765 3,375,091,375.27 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 640,800.00 99,621.44 96,049.02 417,699.82 474,483.98 

 

lbs/mile 

Note - for electric burden calculations, only the HSR contributes. There is no no build because HSR does not exist in No Build

grams/kilowatt-hours Burden (grams/day) 

CO2 state wide burden

6/26/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

TRAINS

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG

San Francisco 3.73 0.27 0.23 12.85 1.09San Joaquin 6.90 0.53 0.49 19.62 1.83Statewide 58.28 4.15 3.79 121.58 15.25

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG

San Francisco 2.33 0.31 0.27 13.03 1.13San Joaquin 4.50 0.66 0.60 23.64 1.97Statewide 33.05 4.74 4.33 157.56 14.61

2030 trains - No build & build (tons/day)

2005 trains - Existing (tons/day)

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

PLANES

Pacheco

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx 

San Francisco 74.75 0.67 0.64 41.45 12.72 0.010 0.0001 0.0001 0.007 0.002 -167 -1.743 -0.022 -0.022 -1.203 -0.415 73.004 0.648 0.617 40.242 1

San Joaquin 81.50 0.46 0.45 4.75 10.03 0.010 0.0001 0.0001 0.007 0.002 -10 -0.100 -0.001 -0.001 -0.069 -0.024 81.396 0.460 0.450 4.678 1

Statewide 346.74 7.76 7.67 92.44 51.05 0.010 0.0001 0.0001 0.007 0.002 -433 -4.532 -0.056 -0.056 -3.128 -1.079 342.208 7.700 7.618 89.316 4

* Flight emission information is for default 737 and associated ground supportAltamont

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx 

San Francisco 74.75 0.67 0.64 41.45 12.72 0.010 0.0001 0.0001 0.007 0.002 -158 -1.652 -0.021 -0.021 -1.140 -0.393 73.095 0.649 0.618 40.305 1

San Joaquin 81.50 0.46 0.45 4.75 10.03 0.010 0.0001 0.0001 0.007 0.002 -9 -0.094 -0.001 -0.001 -0.065 -0.022 81.402 0.460 0.450 4.682 1

Statewide 346.74 7.76 7.67 92.44 51.05 0.010 0.0001 0.0001 0.007 0.002 -411 -4.295 -0.053 -0.053 -2.965 -1.022 342.445 7.703 7.621 89.479 5

* Flight emission information is for default 737 and associated ground support

# of flights not 

needed due to 

HSR (from 

Table 2.3-4 & 

3.3-3)

2030 removed plane burden - 

HSR Alternative (tons/day) 2030 - plane burden HSR Alternative (tons

# of flights not 

needed due to 

HSR (from 

Table 2.3-4 & 

3.3-3)

2030 planes - No build (tons/day) 2030 burden per flight (tons/day) - as per EDMS Model*

2030 - plane burden HSR Alternative (tons

2030 removed plane burden - 

2030 planes - No build (tons/day) 2030 burden per flight (tons/day) - as per EDMS Model* HSR Alternative (tons/day)

6/25/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

PACHECO SUMMARY

ON ROAD MOBILE

2030 2030

Air Basin No Project Pacheco 

VMT VMT CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx 

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333.2 110,319,202 259.8 11.6 7.5 51.0 36.0 NA 255.2 11.4 7.3 50.1 35.3 NA -4.54 -0.20 -0.13 -0.89 San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316.4 116,352,966 142.8 7.1 4.2 33.8 19.3 NA 131.4 6.5 3.9 31.1 17.8 NA -11.42 -0.57 -0.34 -2.70 State Total 1,141,592,762.0 1,114,910,694 1,310.5 56.9 35.1 263.5 186.2 486,613 1,279.8 55.6 32.5 257.3 181.9 475,240 -30.63 -1.33 -2.57 -6.16 

0.003244803 0.002296 1E-04 6E-05 0.000461602 0.0003262 0.852516

2030 2030

Air Basin No Project Pacheco

VKT VKT CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx 

San Francisco Bay #NAME? #NAME? 235.7 10.5 6.8 46.2 32.6 NA 231.6 10.3 6.7 45.4 32.1 NA -4.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.8 San Joaquin Valley #NAME? #NAME? 129.6 6.4 3.8 30.6 17.5 NA 119.2 5.9 3.5 28.2 16.1 NA -10.4 -0.5 -0.3 -2.4 State Total #NAME? #NAME? 1,188.8 51.6 31.8 239.0 168.9 441,457 1,161.1 50.4 29.5 233.4 165.0 431,139 -27.8 -1.2 -2.3 -5.6 

26,682,067.9

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -1.7% -1.7% -1.7% -1.7% -1.7% NASan Joaquin Valley -8.0% -8.0% -8.0% -8.0% -8.0% NAState Total -2.3% -2.3% -7.3% -2.3% -2.3% -2.3%

PLANES

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG 

San Francisco Bay 74.75 0.67 0.64 41.45 12.72 NA -167 -1.74 -0.02 -0.02 -1.20 -0.41 NA 73.00 0.65 0.62 40.24 12.31 San Joaquin Valley 81.50 0.46 0.45 4.75 10.03 NA -10 -0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.02 NA 81.40 0.46 0.45 4.68 10.00 State Total 346.74 7.76 7.67 92.44 51.05 11528 -433 -4.53 -0.06 -0.06 -3.13 -1.08 -5108.32 342.21 7.70 7.62 89.32 49.97 

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG 

San Francisco Bay 67.81 0.61 0.58 37.60 11.54 NA -167 -1.58 -0.02 -0.02 -1.09 -0.38 NA 66.23 0.59 0.56 36.51 11.17 San Joaquin Valley 73.93 0.42 0.41 4.31 9.10 NA -10 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.06 -0.02 NA 73.84 0.42 0.41 4.24 9.07 State Total 314.56 7.04 6.96 83.87 46.31 10458.63 -433 -4.11 -0.05 -0.05 -2.84 -0.98 -4634.29 310.45 6.99 6.91 81.03 45.33 

-1691515

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -2.3% -3.2% -3.4% -2.9% -3.3% NASan Joaquin Valley -0.1% -0.3% -0.3% -1.4% -0.2% NAState Total -1.3% -0.7% -0.7% -3.4% -2.1% -44.3%

METRIC TONS per DAY

% Change from No Project

2030 Projected No Project Airplane Emission Inventory (Metric 

Tons/Day)

Flights 

removed 

due to 

project

2030 Emission Reductions due to Flights removed under Build 

Alternative (Metric Tons/Day) 2030 Total Plane Emission Burden under Build Alternative (Ton

Incremental Change fr

TONS per DAY

KILOMETERS and METRIC TONS per DAY

% Change from No Project

2030 Projected No Project Airplane Emission Inventory (Tons/Day)

Flights 

removed 

due to 

project

2030 Pacheco Low Emission Burden

Metric Tons/Day 

2030 Total Plane Emission Burden under Build Alternative (Ton

MILES and TONS per DAY

2030 Pacheco Low Emission Burden

Tons/Day Incremental Change fr

2030 Emission Reductions due to Flights removed under Build 

Alternative (Tons/Day)

2030 No Project Emission Burden

Tons/Day 

2030 No Project Emission Burden

Metric Tons/Day 

6/27/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

PACHECO SUMMARY

ENERGY

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2* CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

Statewide 60.08 9.34 9.00 39.16 44.48 391,412 0.71 0.11 0.11 0.46 0.52 7,234 60.78 9.45 9.11 39.62 45.01 398,647

117688 0.0120006 0.0018657 0.001799 0.007822 0.00889 122.943072

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

Statewide 54.50 8.47 8.17 35.53 40.36 355,090 0.64 0.10 0.10 0.42 0.47 6,563 55.14 8.57 8.27 35.94 40.83 361,653* Assumes 22.2% of CO2 inventory is a result of electical production, as per Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004,

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

Statewide 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.8%

SUMMARY

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay 1536 10 7 318 174 NA 398 22 17 144 94 NA 393 22 17 143 94 NASan Joaquin Valley 948 7 6 224 102 NA 231 8 5 58 31 NA 220 7 5 55 30 NAState Total 7979 69 52 1759 932 1,280,217 1715 69 47 478 253 1,763,118 1680 67 44 468 247 1753871 

0.73 1.01 -0.52%

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay 1,393 9 7 288 157 NA 361 20 16 131 86 NA 356 20 16 130 85 NA

San Joaquin Valley 860 7 5 203 93 NA 210 7 5 53 28 NA 199 7 4 50 27 NA

State Total 7,239 63 48 1,596 846 1,161,416 1,556 62 42 433 229 1,599,505 1,524 61 40 425 224 1,591,116

Air Basin Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -1.4% -0.5% -0.3% -1.1% -0.6% NA San Franci -5.57 -0.11 -0.05 -1.63 -0.52 na

San Joaquin Valley -5.0% -7.0% -6.6% -4.8% -5.0% NA San Joaqu -11.52 -0.57 -0.34 -2.77 -1.57 naState Total -2.0% -2.0% -5.6% -1.9% -2.2% -0.5% State Total -35.16 -1.39 -2.62 -9.29 -5.43 -9247.31 -18494615.08 (6,750,534,504)

Air Basin Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay medium medium medium medium medium NA San Franci -2035 -42 -17 -596 -190 NA

San Joaquin Valley medium medium medium medium medium NA San Joaqu -4204 -207 -123 -1011 -573 NAState Total medium medium medium medium medium NA State Total -12834 -506 -957 -3389 -1982 -3375267 (6,750,534,504)

% Change from No Project

Impact Rating

Change from No Project (tons/day)

Change from No Project (tons/year)

METRIC TONS per DAY

2005 Existing Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, On-Road Mobile, and Energy, 

CO2 all sources) (Metric Tons/Day)

2030 Projected No Project Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, OnRoad Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all sources) (Metric Tons/Day) 2030 Projected Build Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, On-Road Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all sources) (Metric Tons/Day)

2005 Existing Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, On-Road Mobile, and Energy, 

CO2 all sources) (Tons/Day)

2030 Projected No Project Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, OnRoad Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all sources) (Tons/Day) 2030 Projected Build Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, On-Road Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all sources) (Tons/Day)

TONS per DAYTONS per DAY

2030 Projected No Project Energy Emission Inventory (Tons/Day)

2030 Emission changes due to HSR power demands under the Build 

Alternative (Tons/Day) 2030 Total Energy Emission Burden under Build Alternative (Tons/Day)

METRIC TONS per DAY

% Change from No Project

2030 Projected No Project Energy Emission Inventory (Metric Tons/Day)

2030 Emission changes due to HSR power demands under the Build 

Alternative (Metric Tons/Day) 2030 Total Energy Emission Burden under Build Alternative (Metric Tons/Day)

6/27/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

ALTAMONT 

SUMMARY

ON ROAD MOBILE

2030 2030

Air Basin No Project Altamont 

VMT VMT CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2

San Francisco Bay 112,280,333.2 110,469,582.5 259.8 11.6 7.5 51.0 36.0 NA 255.6 11.4 7.4 50.2 35.4 NA -4.19 -0.19 -0.

San Joaquin Valley 126,463,316.4 116,584,183.6 142.8 7.1 4.2 33.8 19.3 NA 131.7 6.5 3.9 31.1 17.8 NA -11.16 -0.55 -0.3

State Total 1,141,592,762.0 1,117,429,040.9 1,310.5 56.9 35.1 263.5 186.2 486,613 1,282.7 55.7 34.3 257.9 182.3 476,313 -27.74 -1.20 -0.7

2030 2030

Air Basin No Project Altamont

VKT VKT CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2

San Francisco Bay #NAME? #NAME? 235.7 10.5 6.8 46.2 32.6 NA 231.9 10.4 6.7 45.5 32.1 NA -3.80 -0.17 -0.

San Joaquin Valley #NAME? #NAME? 129.6 6.4 3.8 30.6 17.5 NA 119.5 5.9 3.5 28.2 16.2 NA -10.12 -0.50 -0.3

State Total #NAME? #NAME? 1,188.8 51.6 31.8 239.0 168.9 441,457 1,163.7 50.5 31.2 234.0 165.4 432,113 -25.16 -1.09 -0.6

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -1.6% -1.6% -1.6% -1.6% -1.6% NASan Joaquin Valley -7.8% -7.8% -7.8% -7.8% -7.8% NAState Total -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -2.1% -2.1%

PLANES

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NO

San Francisco Bay 74.75 0.67 0.64 41.45 12.72 NA -158 -1.65 -0.02 -0.02 -1.14 -0.39 NA 73.10 0.65 0.62 40.San Joaquin Valley 81.50 0.46 0.45 4.75 10.03 NA -9 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.02 NA 81.40 0.46 0.45 4.6State Total 346.74 7.76 7.67 92.44 51.05 11528 -411 -4.29 -0.05 -0.05 -2.96 -1.02 -4842.64 342.44 7.70 7.62 89.

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NO

San Francisco Bay 67.81 0.61 0.58 37.60 11.54 NA -158 -1.50 -0.02 -0.02 -1.03 -0.36 NA 66.31 0.59 0.56 36.San Joaquin Valley 73.93 0.42 0.41 4.31 9.10 NA -9 -0.09 0.00 0.00 -0.06 -0.02 NA 73.85 0.42 0.41 4.2State Total 314.56 7.04 6.96 83.87 46.31 10458.63 -411 -3.90 -0.05 -0.05 -2.69 -0.93 -4393.26 310.67 6.99 6.91 81.

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -2.2% -3.1% -3.2% -2.8% -3.1% NASan Joaquin Valley -0.1% -0.3% -0.3% -1.4% -0.2% NAState Total -1.2% -0.7% -0.7% -3.2% -2.0% -42.0%

MILES and TONS per DAY

2030 Altamont Low Emission Burden

Tons/Day Incremental Ch

2030 No Project Emission Burden

Tons/Day 

2030 Projected No Project Airplane Emission Inventory (Tons/Day)

Flights 

removed 

due to 

project

2030 Altamont Low Emission Burden

Metric Tons/Day 

2030 Total Plane Emission Burden under B

2030 Emission Reductions due to Flights removed under Build 

Alternative (Tons/Day)

2030 No Project Emission Burden

Metric Tons/Day Incremental Ch

TONS per DAY

KILOMETERS and METRIC TONS per DAY

% Change from No Project

METRIC TONS per DAY

% Change from No Project

2030 Projected No Project Airplane Emission Inventory (Metric 

Tons/Day)

Flights 

removed 

due to 

project

2030 Emission Reductions due to Flights removed under Build 

Alternative (Metric Tons/Day) 2030 Total Plane Emission Burden under B

6/27/2008 
CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL

ALTAMONT 

SUMMARY

ENERGY

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TO

Statewide 60.08 9.34 9.00 39.16 44.48 391,412 0.71 0.11 0.11 0.46 0.52 7,234 60.78 9.45 9.11 39.62 45.* Assumes 22.2% of CO2 inventory is a result of electical production, as per Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004,

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TO

Statewide 54.50 8.47 8.17 35.53 40.36 355,090 0.64 0.10 0.10 0.42 0.47 6,563 55.14 8.57 8.27 35.94 40.

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

Statewide 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.8%

SUMMARY

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TO

San Francisco Bay 1536 10 7 318 174 NA 398 22 17 144 94 NA 393 22 17 143 94 San Joaquin Valley 948 7 6 224 102 NA 231 8 5 58 31 NA 220 8 5 55 30 State Total 7979 69 52 1759 932 1,280,217 1715 69 47 478 253 1,763,118 1683 68 46 469 24

Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TO

San Francisco Bay 1393 9 7 288 157 NA 361 20 16 131 86 NA 357 20 16 130 85 San Joaquin Valley 860 7 5 203 93 NA 210 7 5 53 28 NA 200 7 4 50 27 State Total 7239 63 48 1596 846 1161416 1556 62 42 433 229 1,599,505 1527 61 42 425 22

Air Basin Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay -1.3% -0.4% -0.2% -1.0% -0.5% NA San Francis -5.14 -0.10 -0.04 -1.50 -0.45 na

San Joaquin Valley -4.9% -6.9% -6.4% -4.7% -4.9% NA San Joaquin -11.25 -0.55 -0.33 -2.70 -1.53 na

State Total -1.9% -1.8% -1.7% -1.8% -2.0% -0.4% State Total -32.03 -1.26 -0.80 -8.54 -4.96 -7908.16

Air Basin Air Basin

CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2 CO PM10 PM2.5 NOx TOG CO2

San Francisco Bay medium medium medium medium medium NA San Francis -1874 -36 -13 -548 -164 NA

San Joaquin Valley medium medium medium medium medium NA San Joaquin -4107 -202 -121 -987 -559 NAState Total medium medium medium medium medium NA State Total -11692 -459 -291 -3118 -1812 (2,886,478) (5,77

2030 Total Energy Emission Burden under Build Alter

METRIC TONS per DAY

2030 Projected No Project Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, OnRoad Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all sources) (Tons/Day) 2030 Projected Build Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, On-

CO2 all sources) (Tons/Day)

TONS per DAYTONS per DAY

% Change from No Project% Change from No Project

2005 Existing Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, On-Road Mobile, and Energy, 

CO2 all sources) (Tons/Day)

2030 Projected No Project Energy Emission Inventory (Metric Tons/Day)

2030 Emission changes due to HSR power demands under the 

Build Alternative (Metric Tons/Day) 2030 Total Energy Emission Burden under Build Alternat

2030 Projected No Project Energy Emission Inventory (Tons/Day)

2030 Emission changes due to HSR power demands under the 

Build Alternative (Tons/Day)

Impact Rating

Change from No Project (tons/day)

Change from No Project (tons/year)

METRIC TONS per DAY

2005 Existing Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, On-Road Mobile, and Energy, 

CO2 all sources) (Metric Tons/Day)

2030 Projected No Project Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, OnRoad Mobile, and Energy, CO2 all sources) (Metric Tons/Day) 2030 Projected Build Emission Inventory (Planes, Trains, On-

CO2 all sources) (Metric Tons/Day

6/27/2008