No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative would have resulted in not building SR-11, the CVEF, or the XXX. Instead, a future phase of the SR-905 project would proceed as approved per the SR-905 EIR/EIS. The No Build alternative was not identified as preferred due to the lack of conformance to the project need and purpose of reducing border crossing wait time and decreasing congestion.
No Build Alternative. The No-Build alternative would maintain the facility in its current condition. No improvements would be implemented; therefore, no capital cost is associated with this alternative. This alternative would not satisfy the purpose and need.
No Build Alternative. This No-Build alternative is the baseline alternative to compare the future conditions of the highway facility in the absence of any project (also known as do nothing or free fall scenario). In the absence of any project, the condition of the existing pavement will continue to deteriorate. Based on the Pavement Condition Summary Report (PaveM) data, see Attachment I, the predicted condition of pavement for the RTL year 2024 shows 29% Rehabilitation Effectiveness which is above the 20% minimum threshold for Rehabilitation Effectiveness established by Headquarters Pavement Office. A summary of the predicted current year (2020) and future values of the pavement distresses for the RTL year of 2024, is included in the PaveM data (Attachment I). The average pavement condition distresses predicted for year 2024 are 22% Type B Alligator Cracking,
No Build Alternative. The No-build alternative would maintain the existing facility in its present deteriorated condition. The no-build alternative does nothing to address the scour criticality, superstructure and substructure deficiencies of the bridge. The bridge would continue to deteriorate and require an increased maintenance effort to maintain the structure and keep it functionally operational. The no-build alternative would not involve any construction activity. The Design Standard Decision Document was not required for this project since all proposed design features will be made standard within the project limits.
No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative would not construct HOV/express lanes in each direction of I-680 or increase the capacity of I-680 within the project limits. I-680 would continue to have three general purpose lanes in each direction, except north of Dublin Boulevard, which has four general purpose lanes in the northbound direction. Existing or in-construction HOV/express lanes would border the project area to the north and south, as described in Section 3.1. This alternative assumes maintenance of the existing facility and the construction of other planned and programmed projects on I-680 within the project limits through the year 2045, including the following: • I-680 Sunol Express Lanes Project – Northbound (EA 4G050), which is constructing an HOV/express lane on northbound I-680 from SR 262 (Mission Boulevard) to north of the SR 84 interchange. • I-680 Pavement Rehabilitation Project between Xxxxxxx Road and Alcosta Boulevard (EA 04- 0J620), which would resurface and restore the I-680 roadway and ramps and improve drainage facilities, guardrails, concrete barriers, and other roadway features. • SR 84 Expressway Widening and SR 84/I-680 Interchange Improvements Project (EA 297631), which would widen and conform SR 84 to expressway standards between south of Xxxx Xxxx Drive and I-680, improve SR 84/I-680 interchange ramps, and extend the existing southbound I-680 HOV/express lane northward by approximately 2 miles, to approximately 0.8 mile north of Xxxxxxx Road. The No Build Alternative represents the baseline condition against which the Build Alternative will be compared.
No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative has not changed since the Draft EIS. For a description of the No Build Alternative and its impacts, please refer to Section 5.1 in the 2004 Draft EIS Appendix I, Social Resources Technical Memorandum.
No Build Alternative. Upon identification of the Build (Preferred) Alternative as the PA, no further analysis was carried out for the No Build Alternative; and therefore, the No Build Alternative description provided below has not changed from the Draft Project Report (DPR). Under the No-Build Alternative, no reconstruction or improvements would be made to the existing SR-91 freeway mainline and various interchanges, ramps, intersections, other than routine roadway maintenance and proposed improvements currently programmed or under development. This alternative does not improve capacity, reduce congestion, or reduce weaving and merging between successive ramps at several interchanges. As a result, the No Build Alternative is not consistent with the need and purpose of this project. This alternative, however, does not preclude the construction of future improvements.
No Build Alternative. This alternative does not address the purpose and need of the project.
