Alternatives Selection Report - ODOT · 30/07/2014 · Appendix A – Screening and Evaluation Framework Memorandum Appendix B – Screening Documentation Memorandum . Appendix C

Alternatives Selection Report

July 2014

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... 4

Alternatives Recommendation and Selection Summary ........................................................ 5

Step 1 – Screening .................................................................................................................... 6

Step 2 – Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 7

FRA Concurrence and Selection ............................................................................................... 8

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 10

Project Context ........................................................................................................................ 10

Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 11

Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................. 13

Project Decision-Making .......................................................................................................... 15

Tiered NEPA Process ............................................................................................................. 16

NEPA Scoping ......................................................................................................................... 17

Public Involvement .................................................................................................................. 18

2. Screening and Evaluation Framework ............................................................................. 21

Screening and Evaluation Framework .................................................................................... 21

Step 1 – Screening .................................................................................................................. 21

Step 2 – Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 23

3. Screening Results ............................................................................................................. 26

Corridor Alignment Concepts .................................................................................................. 26

Technology and Mode Concepts ............................................................................................. 33

Communities with Potential Stations ....................................................................................... 33

Public Input on Screening Step ............................................................................................... 40

4. Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 42

Development and Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives ........................................................ 42

Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results ............................................................................ 46

Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement for Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation ................... 56

5. Alternatives Recommended and Selected for Study in the Draft EIS ........................... 61

Project Team Recommendation .............................................................................................. 61

Leadership Council Action ....................................................................................................... 68

Alternatives Recommended for Study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS ................................................. 68

Oregon Passenger Rail Alternatives Selection Report July 2014 Page 1

FRA Concurrence .................................................................................................................... 69

Next Steps ............................................................................................................................... 69

Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 70 Appendix A – Screening and Evaluation Framework Memorandum

Appendix B – Screening Documentation Memorandum

Appendix C – Goals and Objectives

Appendix D – Evaluation Methodology Memoranda

Appendix E – Detailed Definition of Alternatives and Cost Estimate Methodology

Appendix F – Evaluation Results Memoranda

Appendix G – Evaluation Scores and Approach to Station-Related Scores

Appendix H – Summary of Alternatives Evaluation Results Memorandum

Appendix I – Public and Stakeholder Meeting Notes and Summaries

List of Tables Table 1. Key Milestones To Date and Next Steps ........................................................................ 6 Table 2. Screening Questions and Measures ............................................................................. 22 Table 3. Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................... 24 Table 4. Weights of Goals and Objectives used in Evaluation .................................................. 25 Table 5. Descriptions of Corridor Alignment Concepts Suggested During the Scoping Period .. 27 Table 6. Corridor Alignment Concepts – Screening Results ....................................................... 30 Table 7. Technologies and Modes – Screening Results ............................................................. 33 Table 8. Corridor Alignment Concepts Suggested After the Scoping Period .............................. 35 Table 9. Corridor Alignment Concepts Suggested After Scoping – Screening Results .............. 37 Table 10. 2013 Public and Stakeholder Efforts, Screening Results ........................................... 40 Table 11. Corridor Alignment Concepts Developed into Preliminary Alternatives ...................... 44 Table 12. Public and Stakeholder Meetings, Fall 2013 ............................................................... 57 Table 13. Public Open Houses, Fall 2013 .................................................................................. 58 Table 14. Recommendations for Build Alternatives: Section A, Eugene/Springfield

to North of Albany ........................................................................................................... 63 Table 15. Recommendations for Build Alternatives: Section B (1), North of Albany

to South of Keizer ............................................................................................................ 65 Table 16. Recommendations for Build Alternatives: Section B (2), Keizer to North

of Wilsonville ................................................................................................................... 66 Table 17. Recommendations for Build Alternatives: Section C, Portland Metropolitan Area

(Wilsonville to Vancouver, WA.) ...................................................................................... 67


List of Figures Figure 1. Project Process .............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2. Recommended Alternatives for Study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS ........................................ 9 Figure 3. Oregon Passenger Rail Project Study Area ................................................................ 12 Figure 4. Project Decision-Making Process ................................................................................ 16 Figure 5. Corridor Alignment Concepts Identified during Scoping .............................................. 28 Figure 6. Corridor Alignment Concepts - Screening Results ...................................................... 31 Figure 7. Corridor Alignment Concepts - Screening Results, Portland-area Focus .................... 32 Figure 8. Corridor Alignment Concepts Introduced After Scoping .............................................. 36 Figure 9. Corridor Alignment Concepts Introduced After Scoping .............................................. 38 Figure 10. Corridor Alignment Concepts Introduced During and After Scoping –

Screening Results ........................................................................................................... 39 Figure 11. Preliminary Alternatives Evaluated ............................................................................ 45 Figure 12. Section A: Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results ............................................. 46 Figure 13. Section A: Preliminary Alternatives Performance-to-Cost Comparison ..................... 49 Figure 14. Section B: Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results ............................................. 50 Figure 15. Section B: Preliminary Alternatives Performance-to-Cost Comparison ..................... 52 Figure 16. Section C: Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results ............................................. 53 Figure 17. Section C: Preliminary Alternatives Performance-to-Cost Comparison ..................... 55 Figure 18. Recommended Alternatives for Study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS .................................... 62


Acronyms and Abbreviations

CAG Community Advisory Group

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

GIS Geographic Information Systems

I-205 Interstate 205

I-5 Interstate 5

I-84 Interstate 84

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

O&E Oregon Electric

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation

OPR Oregon Passenger Rail

PICP Public Involvement and Communications Plan

PNWR Portland & Western Railroad

PNWRC Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor

ROD Record of Decision

SDP Service Development Plan

UP Union Pacific

WES Westside Express Service


Alternatives Recommendation and Selection Summary

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) are leading the Oregon Passenger Rail (OPR) project team in the study of options for improved intercity passenger rail service along the Oregon segment of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). This project was initiated on August 17, 2012 via publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register. In association with this project, the FRA and ODOT will jointly prepare a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Service Development Plan (SDP).

Figure 1 illustrates the project process.

Figure 1. Project Process


Table 1 lists the key milestones completed to date and next steps.

Table 1. Key Milestones To Date and Next Steps Key Milestones To Date Date Notice of Intent published, beginning of scoping period August 17, 2012

End of scoping period October 31, 2012

ODOT recommended Purpose and Need to FRA January 9, 2013

ODOT submitted Scoping Report to FRA January 30, 2013

Leadership Council endorsed project Goals and Objectives January 31, 2013

ODOT recommended Screening and Evaluation Framework to FRA March 14, 2013

FRA approved Purpose and Need March 26, 2013

ODOT submits this Alternatives Selection Report as a formal recommendation to FRA on the reasonable and feasible alternatives to evaluate in the Tier 1 Draft EIS

July 2014

Next Steps Timeline

Publish Tier 1 Draft EIS Summer 2015

ODOT recommends Preferred Alternative to FRA Spring 2016

FRA selects Preferred Alternative Spring 2016

Publish Service Development Plan Late 2016

Publish Tier 1 Final EIS Early 2017

FRA publishes Record of Decision Mid 2017

Tier 2 environmental reviews (if build alternative is selected) Beyond Mid 2017

In the Fall of 2012, the project team – in conjunction with input from the public, stakeholder groups and the FRA – developed a screening and evaluation framework to help identify a reasonable range of build alternatives to be studied in more detail in a Tier 1 Draft EIS. This framework consists of two steps: Step 1 – Screening, based on elements of the project’s Purpose, which is part of the project’s Purpose and Need statement; and Step 2 – Evaluation, based on the Purpose and Need statement as well as project Goals and Objectives, which are based on the project Purpose and Need. The Screening and Evaluation Framework Memorandum is included as Appendix A.

Step 1 – Screening The project team presented revised Goals and Objectives and the recommendations for the corridor alignment concepts, potential communities within which stations could be located, and various vehicle technologies to move forward into Step 2 at the January 31, 2013 Leadership Council meeting. The Leadership Council endorsed the recommendations with a few minor revisions. The FRA participated in the January 2013 meeting and discussed the screening results with the project team during coordination meetings leading up to and following the January Leadership Council meeting. In March 2013 the project team sent FRA a memorandum documenting the results of the screening process. The Screening Documentation Results Memorandum is included as Appendix B. Oregon Passenger Rail Alternatives Selection Report July 2014 Page 6

Step 2 – Evaluation During the Spring and Summer of 2013, the project team evaluated each of the concepts that passed the screening step against the project Goals and Objectives. Preliminary evaluation results were shared with FRA in July 2013. On October 29, 2013, the Leadership Council met to review the results from the evaluation process, and FRA participated in that meeting. In November and December 2013, the project team engaged stakeholders and the public in order to share the preliminary evaluation findings and seek feedback, through a series of public open houses, a series of Community Advisory Group (CAG) meetings, and two Corridor Forum meetings.

Following stakeholder and public engagement the project team recommended that two build alternatives (corridors) be advanced for evaluation in a Tier 1 Draft EIS:

• Alternative 1 (existing alignment) – The route in this alternative follows the Union Pacific (UP) and BNSF rail corridor with existing Amtrak service. This alignment was referred to as the “Blue” corridor during the screening and evaluation process (see Sections 3 and 4 of this report). Potential communities in which stations could be located for Alternative 1 include: Eugene, Albany, Salem, Woodburn, Oregon City and Portland.

• Alternative 2 (new alignment) – This alternative constitutes a primarily new passenger rail corridor. This alignment is a hybrid of portions of the “Red,” “Purple” and “Blue” corridors assessed during the screening and evaluation process (see Sections 3 and 4 of this report). This mostly new passenger rail corridor would include:

o Interstate 5 (“Red”) corridor from Springfield to Keizer;

o Oregon Electric (“Purple”) rail corridor from Keizer to Wilsonville;

o Interstates 5 and 205 (“Red”) corridor from Wilsonville to Oregon City; and

o The UP and BNSF (“Blue”) rail corridors from Oregon City to Vancouver, WA.

Potential communities in which stations could be located for Alternative 2 include: Springfield, Albany, Salem or Keizer, Woodburn, Wilsonville, and Portland.

Vehicle technology options were also assessed during this screening step. Potential vehicle technologies for both alternatives include locomotive hauled (existing technology) and diesel multiple units.

Following the round of public involvement, the Leadership Council met again on December 17, 2013 to review the project team recommendations. At this second meeting, the Leadership Council endorsed the project team recommendation. This memorandum documents the project team recommendations and the rationale that lead the team to its conclusions.

Figure 2 shows build alternatives recommended for further study in a Draft EIS. The Leadership Council based their recommendation on a number of considerations, including the technical evaluation findings, staff recommendations, FRA guidance, maintenance considerations and feedback from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, interested parties and jurisdictional agencies.


ODOT’s recommendations were reviewed with the FRA in December 2013 leading up to the Leadership Council meeting, and in January 2014 subsequent to the Leadership Council meeting. Preliminary approval from the FRA to proceed with Alternatives 1 and 2 has been received.

FRA Concurrence and Selection By approving this report, the FRA concurs with ODOT’s recommendation above and selects the two build alternatives described above as well as a ”No Action” alternative to be carried forward into a Tier 1 Draft EIS for further study.


Figure 2. Recommended Alternatives for Study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS


1. Introduction

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) are leading the Oregon Passenger Rail (OPR) project team in the study of options for improved intercity passenger rail service along the Oregon segment of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). This project was initiated on August 17, 2012 via publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register. FRA and ODOT will jointly prepare a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Concurrently with the EIS, a Service Development Plan (SDP) will be prepared to address proposed service characteristics for the passenger rail corridor.

The purposes of this Alternatives Selection Report are: (1) to document the development and application of the project’s screening and evaluation framework; and (2) to describe the alternatives recommended by ODOT for the FRA to select for study in more detail in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.

This report is divided into five sections:

• Section 1 – Introduction • Section 2 – Screening and Evaluation Framework • Section 3 – Screening Results • Section 4 – Evaluation • Section 5 – Alternatives Recommended and Selected for Study in the Draft EIS The appendices that follow Section 5 provide supporting documentation. The table of contents at the beginning of the appendices lists the technical analyses that have been completed to date.

This section describes the OPR project context, the project Purpose and Need, and provides an overview of the decision-making structure and process.

Project Context The OPR is part of the larger PNWRC. The federally designated PNWRC has been the subject of high-speed passenger rail planning and implementation strategies for more than 30 years. The 466-mile corridor serves the most densely populated regions of British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon, linking Vancouver, British Columbia; Seattle, Washington; and Portland and Eugene, Oregon, with growing intermediate communities, including the capital cities of Olympia, Washington, and Salem, Oregon. Oregon and Washington have planned, studied and operated a coordinated state-sponsored passenger service on the PNWRC since 1994.

Oregon initiated a daily passenger rail round-trip between Portland and Eugene in 1994. Since that time, Oregon has invested more than $77 million in capital improvements, including railroad infrastructure, stations, and rolling stock. A second state-sponsored daily round-trip was added in 2000, resulting in ridership growth of 155 percent between 2000 and 2011. Current intercity passenger rail service in Oregon includes two Amtrak Cascades train round-trips per day. In Oregon Passenger Rail Alternatives Selection Report July 2014 Page 10

Oregon, the Cascades station stops include Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City and Portland, and the Cascades route continues north to Vancouver, British Columbia. In 2010, ODOT purchased two new trainsets using America Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus funds. The trains are now in service in the Amtrak Cascades corridor.

Additionally, Amtrak sponsors one daily round-trip of the Coast Starlight between Los Angeles and Seattle and one daily round-trip of the Empire Builder between Portland and Chicago. In Oregon, the Coast Starlight stops in Klamath Falls, Chemult, Eugene, Albany, Salem and Portland. Portland is the only stop for the Empire Builder in Oregon. ODOT also operates eight dedicated Amtrak “Thruway” bus service routes in Oregon to supplement passenger rail service.

Between 2010 and 2035, the population of the Willamette Valley is projected to grow by approximately 35 percent and is anticipated to reach 3.6 million residents. During the same period, freight volume in the state is expected to grow by approximately 60 percent. A comprehensive study is warranted to identify the appropriate rail infrastructure needed to provide additional passenger and freight rail capacity, and to attain the principal service objectives of more reliable passenger rail service with greater frequency and shortened travel times between Portland and Eugene (a distance of approximately 125 miles).

Study Area The OPR study area as identified during the Fall 2012 public scoping period is generally bounded by the Washington State border to the north (Columbia River), the Eugene-Springfield area to the south, Oregon Highway 99W to the west, and the Cascade foothills to the east (see Figure 3). These study area limits were primarily established by topographical constraints (the Coast Range and the Cascade Range foothills). The study area used was broad enough to encompass a variety of corridor alignments and potential station locations that could arise during the EIS scoping period. As concepts were developed and refined, the study area boundaries were narrowed to assess the range of specific impacts associated with each of the corridor alternatives. ODOT and FRA anticipate that the study area boundaries will continue to be adjusted as needed for the EIS (i.e., customized environmental resource study areas will be developed for each environmental impact analysis topic based on the two build alternatives being advanced for study in the EIS).


Figure 3. Oregon Passenger Rail Project Study Area


Purpose and Need Stakeholder, interested party and jurisdictional agency comments received during the scoping period (August 17 to October 31, 2012) helped shape the following Purpose and Need statement. The project’s Leadership Council endorsed the Purpose and Need statement at its December 11, 2012 meeting, and the FRA approved it on March 26, 2013.

Purpose The purpose of the Oregon Passenger Rail Project is to improve the frequency, convenience, speed and reliability of passenger rail service along the Oregon segment of the federally-designated PNWRC in a manner that will:

• Provide riders with an efficient, safe, equitable and affordable alternative to highway, bus, and air travel;

• Be a cost-effective investment;

• Protect freight-rail carrying capability1;

• Support the ongoing implementation of regional high speed inter-city passenger rail in the PNWRC between the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area and Vancouver, British Columbia;

• Be compatible with the Washington State portion of the PNWRC;

• Promote economic development;

• Avoid or minimize community and environmental impacts; and

• Integrate with existing and planned multi-modal transportation networks.

Need Multiple transportation, land use, socio-economic and environmental considerations drive the need for this project, including:

• Increasing Intercity and Regional Travel Demands

Eight of the ten largest cities in Oregon are along the corridor, including the state’s three largest metropolitan areas of Portland, Salem-Keizer and Eugene-Springfield. Willamette Valley population growth has increased intercity and regional travel demands, resulting in decreased highway mobility and increased demand for alternative travel modes including rail for business, personal, and tourist travel. Passenger rail ridership on the existing state-sponsored Cascade service between Portland and Eugene (that also serves stations in Oregon City, Salem and Albany) has increased 22 percent since 2009 and by 238 percent since 1995, and is forecast to continue to increase with Willamette Valley population growth. Over the next 25 years, the population of the Willamette Valley is forecasted to grow by approximately 35 percent, with an overall population reaching approximately 3.6 million by the year 2035. During this same period,

1 Cargo load that can be transported by freight rail.


freight volume (carried by both trains and trucks) in Oregon is expected to grow by approximately 60 percent. The increase in both freight and passenger rail demand create a need for rail infrastructure investment.

• Limited Rail System Capacity and Competing Service Needs

Freight and passenger rail between Eugene and Portland have competing service needs in a corridor with limited rail system capacity. Forecasted growth places an added burden on the existing rail network to move both people and freight. Currently, passenger trains between Union Station in Portland and Eugene have operating rights on Union Pacific Railroad owned tracks. BNSF Railway owns the railroad tracks in the congested corridor between Union Station in Portland and Washington State.

Scheduled end-to-end passenger rail travel time between the Eugene Depot and Portland’s Union Station averaged 2 hours and 40 minutes (not including delays) in 2012, approximately 40 minutes longer than the time it takes to travel the same distance in a passenger vehicle. From 2006 through 2011, passenger trains in the corridor were on time an average of approximately 65 percent of the time due to competing service needs between freight and passenger rail, and limited rail system capacity. Current train delay ratios in this corridor are similar to the conditions for much larger and denser rail systems. Existing freight rail capacity must be preserved or enhanced to be consistent with statewide and regional freight goals and forecasts. New capital investments will help alleviate existing capacity issues and create opportunities for improved freight and passenger rail operations.

• Declining State and Local Roadway Funding

Declining state and local roadway funding will limit the ability to fund roadway capacity projects to improve mobility. Oregon’s funding outlook for financing roadway improvements is severely constrained due to lower gas tax revenue (primarily from the trend of more fuel efficient vehicles and lower vehicles miles traveled), and Oregon’s repayment of bonds from recent critical transportation infrastructure improvements which reduces the funding available for future projects. Communities within the state are looking beyond roadway projects towards other types of transportation projects to leverage available funding sources for non-roadway projects to improve mobility and to provide an interconnected multimodal system that serves both regional and local networks.

• Increase Economic Vitality of the Corridor

Increasingly congested highways and rail corridors have negative effects on the economy of communities in the Willamette Valley. Transportation investments are needed to reduce travel delay and improve economic market access and competitiveness. With declining state and local roadway funding, rail infrastructure investments can reduce congestion’s effect on the economic vitality of the corridor. Rail infrastructure investments with improved passenger rail operations and improved infrastructure for freight operations will improve market access within the corridor for individuals and goods, and will improve the economic competitiveness of the communities within the Willamette Valley and Oregon as a whole.


• Promoting Transportation System Safety and Security

Stability and security of both rail passengers and the surface transportation system within the corridor can be bolstered by providing viable alternatives to highway travel. Per passenger mile traveled, rail has historically had lower fatality rates than highway travel. If there is a major accident or prolonged disruption to travel on Interstate 5, travelers will need options to move through the project corridor. Improved passenger rail service would increase the resiliency of the transportation system in the corridor. Finally, there is a need to address the long-term rail safety for freight and passenger rail on existing shared railroad right-of-way.

• Changing Transportation Demand resulting from Demographic Changes

Transportation demand within the State of Oregon has been changing over the past decade, consistent with a national trend toward reduced driving within and between urban areas. Between 2000 and 2010, Oregon’s population became older with fewer households having access to an automobile. In urbanized areas, a growing number of people of legal driving age are also choosing a car-free lifestyle. These changing demographic trends contribute to an increasing demand for non-automobile intercity travel options including passenger rail.

Project Decision-Making Stakeholder outreach and input are key components of the OPR project. The project includes an extensive public involvement component to ensure that project decisions are informed by the needs and concerns of interested parties and stakeholders. For more information on the public involvement program, see the Oregon Passenger Rail Project Public Involvement and Communication Plan.2

The decision-making structure for the OPR project is the result of substantial stakeholder outreach and was developed to support establishment of broad-based consensus on the project. Figure 4 illustrates how decisions have been and will be made throughout the process that will conclude with a Record of Decision (ROD) and a Final SDP.

2 Oregon Passenger Rail Project Public Involvement and Communication Plan, JLA Public Involvement and ODOT, November 2012.


Figure 4. Project Decision-Making Process

FRA is the project’s final decision-maker. ODOT will make recommendations to FRA based on technical analysis and stakeholder input. The decision-making structure includes several committees that play an important part in recommending decisions, including:

• Leadership Council – A core advisory group composed primarily of elected officials from the Willamette Valley. The Leadership Council was established by Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber to guide the OPR study and develop consensus-based recommendations to ODOT. ODOT will submit final recommendations to FRA for their approval.

• Corridor Forum – A group composed of elected representatives from cities and counties, agency managers, and other key stakeholders within the study area including freight rail, business interests and environmental advocacy groups. The Corridor Forum focuses on broad-level issues, and its input is provided to the Leadership Council.

• Community Advisory Groups – Groups established along the corridor to consider local issues and provide input to the Leadership Council. The purpose of these geographically based groups is to provide local stakeholders with an opportunity to identify and address issues that help shape alignment options in their area of the project.

Tiered NEPA Process FRA and ODOT are using a tiered NEPA process that follows Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545; May 26, 1999). ‘‘Tiering’’ is a staged environmental review process applied to complex projects. The current study is the first of two environmental review tiers.


A Tier 1 EIS and Service Development Plan will address broad, corridor-level improvements to passenger rail service, including:

• Rail routes (alignments) – The studies will evaluate reasonable and feasible passenger rail corridor alternatives from Eugene/Springfield, OR to Vancouver, WA.

• Service characteristics – The studies will address passenger rail operational elements, train speeds, travel time, train frequency/schedules and train technology.

• Communities with potential stations – The general location (i.e., at the “community” level) of passenger rail stations will be identified.

The project team will complete a corridor-level Tier 1 Draft EIS at a sufficient level of engineering and environmental detail to identify a preferred alternative. Alternatives addressed in the Tier 1 Draft EIS will include taking no action (No-Build Alternative), improvements to the existing passenger rail corridor (Alternative 1), and a primarily new passenger rail corridor (Alternative 2).

Following public review of the Draft EIS, the project team will coordinate with FRA to identify a preferred alternative which will be vetted through the Leadership Council, Oregon Transportation Commission and Governor. The preferred alternative will be identified in the Final EIS. ODOT and FRA will jointly prepare a Tier 1 Final EIS to identify the preferred alternative and address its potential operations, impacts and mitigation measures. FRA will then select a preferred alternative in a Record of Decision (ROD). If the FRA selects a build alternative as the preferred alternative, then a more detailed, project-level Tier 2 environmental reviews will be conducted before proposed improvements are advanced to final design and constructed.

Upon FRA approval of the Tier 1 ROD and Final SDP, the project could advance to Tier 2. The Tier 2 NEPA process would address site-specific alignment alternatives, project impacts, costs and mitigation measures. In addition, individual properties that may be affected would be identified. The second tier generally involves the preparation of several separate NEPA documents reflecting the range of anticipated impacts along the corridor. These documents could include EISs, Environmental Assessments (EAs) or Categorical Exclusions (CEs) for specific standalone projects within the overall corridor that have independent utility.

NEPA Scoping FRA published a NOI in the Federal Register on August 17, 2012 for the OPR project, formally initiating the OPR NEPA process and the agency and public scoping period. The NEPA scoping process is required by the CEQ Regulations, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1501.7, which provides that “there shall be an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action.” The OPR NEPA scoping process was designed to solicit early and frequent coordination with interested parties, stakeholders, government agencies and Tribes in order to facilitate their input on project purpose and scope, key issues and concerns, and criteria for the decision-making process. Scoping provided participants the opportunity to review preliminary project information,


to offer comments concerning the scope of the project, and to provide input on key issues, concerns and criteria for decision-making related to the proposed action. Input received during scoping helped to shape the development of the project’s Purpose and Need, Goals and Objectives, and Screening and Evaluation Framework. (See Section 2 of this report for the Goals and Objectives and the Screening and Evaluation framework.)

The scoping period ended on October 31, 2013. The Oregon Passenger Rail Scoping Report (January 2013) documents the scoping process. The report includes: (1) the public, agency, and Tribal scoping processes and activities performed to inform the scope of the project; (2) a summary of comments received during the scoping period; and (3) input received during the scoping period that will inform future project steps. FRA reviewed a draft of the Scoping Report in December 2012 and provided comments to the project team. ODOT made revisions in response to those comments and delivered the final report to FRA on January 30, 2013.

Public Involvement Public involvement for the OPR project is guided primarily by the public involvement program outlined in the Public Involvement and Communications Plan (PICP). The PICP details the approach ODOT and FRA will follow to coordinate and implement outreach activities designed to ensure that interested parties have an opportunity to provide input on the project. The purpose and goals of the public involvement program and key strategies used to communicate with the public are outlined below. FRA reviewed a draft PICP in July 2012 and the Final PICP was provided to FRA on November 15, 2012.

Public Involvement, Outreach and Coordination Purpose and Goals The purpose of the public involvement, outreach and coordination component of the decision process is to share information and gather input on the needs and issues of the communities and stakeholders in the corridor. The project’s public involvement goals are to:

• Communicate complete, accurate, understandable and timely information to the public throughout the project.

• Actively seek public input throughout the project.

• Provide meaningful public involvement opportunities and demonstrate how input has influenced the process.

• Seek participation of all potentially affected and/or interested individuals, communities and organizations.

• Comply with Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VI requirements.

• Ensure that the public involvement process is consistent with applicable state and federal laws and requirements, and is sensitive to local policies, goals and objectives.


Public Involvement Strategies In addition to the stakeholder committees, the following engagement and informational tools and activities are used throughout the project to engage and inform a broader public audience:

• Stakeholder database: This database of potentially impacted parties, interested parties and past meeting attendees is regularly updated and serves as the main contact list for all mailings and outreach material.

• Comment collection and analysis and responses: The public involvement team logs and analyzes all public comments and coordinates responses to comments using a comment collection database.

• Social media: The existing ODOT Facebook page and Twitter feed are used for the project. In addition, the project team encourages jurisdictions and community organizations in the project area to post information about the project on their own social media pages at key outreach points.

• Online comment form: The project website contains an online comment form where the public can share thoughts and ideas at any time.

• Open houses and online open houses: To date, three rounds of open houses have been conducted to share information with the general public in the corridor, and to gather feedback and opinions. Materials and displays are posted on the project website. During each round of open houses, an online open house is also conducted to engage individuals who may not attend traditional open houses. The online open houses include project information and videos, and provide the same opportunities for comment as the traditional open houses.

• Community and jurisdictional briefings: The project team meets with local jurisdictions and community groups to discuss the project and collect input. These briefings provide an opportunity to meet with stakeholders and discuss issues specific to a region or community.

• Individual communications: The project team holds briefings with stakeholders and officials upon request to share information, collect input and build consensus. Examples of this include attending neighborhood organization or City Council meetings.

• Spanish translation and outreach: The public involvement team coordinates Spanish interpretive services at public meetings and translation of key materials, as needed.

• Community events: The public involvement team hosts information booths at community events such as farmers’ markets, athletic events and seasonal festivals to provide one-on-one opportunities to talk about the project and get feedback from the general public.

• Website: The project website, www.OregonPassengerRail.org, is the primary portal for public information. The site includes a project description, copies of project materials and contact information for project staff. Upcoming meetings are announced on the site, and materials are posted here in advance of each meeting.


http://www.oregonpassengerrail.org/

• Fact sheets: Topic-specific fact sheets are prepared to support open houses, committee meetings and community briefings, and can be attached to news releases.

• Newsletters: A newsletter is produced and distributed before each round of open houses to share information and invite participation. To date, three newsletters have been developed and distributed.

• Video: A project overview video was produced early on in the project to raise awareness of the project to a large geographic area and engage diverse stakeholders. It was featured on the project website and has been integrated into online open houses. Additional shorter videos are created to support the online open houses. In addition, some key stakeholder committee meetings have been video-recorded.

• News releases: The public involvement team sends out news releases before open houses and committee meetings and at other key milestones.

• Media: Print and radio notices are used to promote open houses and are distributed to English and Spanish-language media outlets.

• Email broadcasts: Email broadcasts are sent to the electronic mailing list. These announce the project open houses and committee meetings, and provide other key information and updates.


2. Screening and Evaluation Framework

This section describes the screening and evaluation framework. It is divided into three subsections: (1) Screening and Evaluation Framework; (2) Step 1 – Screening; and (3) Step 2 – Evaluation. See Appendix A for more information on the framework. Sections 3 and 4 of this report describe the project team’s application of both steps of this framework.

Screening and Evaluation Framework The two steps of the screening and evaluation framework are described in more detail below:

• Step 1: Screening – A range of corridor concepts were suggested during the scoping period. Corridor concepts included corridor alignment concepts, potential communities where stations could be located, vehicle technologies, and other travel modes (see Section 3). The first step of the framework screened the corridor concepts against readily discernible elements of the project’s Purpose, which is part of the project’s Purpose and Need statement. Concepts that passed these screening criteria were developed into a discrete list of preliminary alternatives and carried forward to the next step, Evaluation.

• Step 2: Evaluation – In the second step of the framework, the preliminary alternatives were evaluated on how effectively they “measure” against the project evaluation criteria, which are aligned with the project’s Goals and Objectives. The outcome from the evaluation process is the identification of a reasonable and feasible range of alternatives to carry forward and evaluate in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.

Step 1 – Screening Table 2 lists nine screening questions and corresponding measures, each aligned with a piece of the project’s Purpose and Need statement. The project team developed this set of screening questions and measures in fall 2012.

Drafts of the Screening and Evaluation Framework Memorandum were provided by ODOT to FRA in November 2012 and January 2013. A final document was submitted to FRA on March 14, 2013. The proposed approach to screening and evaluation was endorsed by the Leadership Council at the December 11, 2012 Leadership Council meeting.


Table 2. Screening Questions and Measures Screening Question Screening Measure Purpose: Improve the frequency, convenience, speed and reliability of passenger rail service to provide riders with an efficient, safe, equitable and affordable alternative to highway, bus and air travel. 1. Would the concept improve travel time for rail

passengers between Eugene-Springfield and Vancouver, WA?

• Trip length (out-of-direction travel)

2. Would the concept serve communities with the highest populations within or near the corridor?

• High population communities served

Purpose: Be a cost-effective investment. 3. Could the concept provide cost-effective

intercity passenger rail? • This information not initially available for Step 1

(Screening). Information will be used to screen corridor concepts as it becomes available.

Purpose: Protect freight-rail carrying capability. 4. Could the concept preserve or expand

existing freight-rail carrying capability? • Ability to preserve or expand existing freight-rail

carrying capability Purpose: Support the implementation of regional high speed rail in the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor between the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area and Vancouver, British Columbia. 5. Would the concept support service consistent

with the FRA regional high speed rail designation for the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor?

• Consistency with the FRA regional high speed rail designation

Purpose: Be compatible with the Washington State portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor. 6. Would the concept be compatible with the

Washington State portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor?

• Compatibility with Washington State’s passenger rail service development plan and status of current planning efforts

Purpose: Promote economic development. 7. Could the concept enhance the potential for

increased economic development? • This information not initially available for Step 1

(Screening). Information will be used to screen corridor concepts as it becomes available.

Purpose: Avoid or minimize community and environmental impacts. 8. Could the concept be constructed in a

manner that would avoid substantial regulatory hurdles and/or avoid or minimize substantial impacts to:

a. Existing and/or planned features of the community?

b. Existing and/or planned features of the natural environment?

• Communities where alignment travels through but does not stop

• Miles of track adjacent to residential-zoned land, areas with new track that would cause displacements, and potential for disproportionately high and adverse impact on environmental justice populations

• Track through parks and recreation areas, refuges or sensitive natural features

Purpose: Integrate with existing and planned multimodal transportation networks. 9. Would the concept support multimodal

connections (such as commuter rail, other rail transit and bus, bicycle and pedestrian services)?

• Conflicts with other high capacity transit service • Communities with stops (both existing and

potential future) that have existing transit service


Corridor concepts included the broad range of ideas suggested during the scoping period, as well as specific route alignments, communities with potential stations, train technology, and other travel modes (such as commuter rail and bus). See Section 3 of this report for a description of corridor alignment concepts and communities with stations suggested during the scoping period. The project team screened each of the route alignments, passenger train propulsion technology and other travel modes against the screening questions and measures in Table 2.

The screening questions were not used to screen potential station locations. Communities with potential stations were considered in the context of the corridor alignment concepts. Communities with potential stations were only removed if the corridor alignment concept through the potential community where a station could be located was dropped from further consideration. Communities where potential stations could be located were considered in Step 2 (Evaluation).

To move forward into Step 2 (Evaluation), a corridor concept could not fail any of the screening questions. Corridor concepts that did not pass one or more of the screening questions were considered infeasible and/or unresponsive to the project Purpose and dropped from further consideration. If a concept did not clearly fail a screening question, it was forwarded into Evaluation.

Outcomes of the screening process are summarized in Section 3 and further documented in Appendix B.

Step 2 – Evaluation The evaluation process assessed how well the preliminary alternatives met evaluation criteria derived from the project’s Goals and Objectives. The Goals and Objectives are derived from the Purpose and Need statement, but go into additional detail in areas important to the project and its stakeholders. The intended outcome of the evaluation process was to identify the most viable alternative or alternatives to carry forward and study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.

Goals and Objectives The project team developed draft Goals and Objectives based on the Purpose and Need statement; stakeholder, public, agency and Tribal comments received during the scoping period; and input from Leadership Council meetings in March, June and October 2012. These Goals and Objectives were shared with the project’s Leadership Council, with the public at a series of public open houses, and with the Corridor Forum in January 2013. The draft Goals and Objectives were shared with the FRA prior to the public meetings held in January 2013. The final Goals and Objectives are contained in the Screening and Evaluation Framework Memorandum provided to FRA as a final deliverable in March 2013.

Table 3 shows the Goals and Objectives for the OPR project. The Leadership Council endorsed the project’s Goals and Objectives at its January 31, 2013 meeting (see Appendix C).


Table 3. Goals and Objectives Goal 1: Improve passenger rail mobility and accessibility to communities in the Willamette Valley. 1A Provide a viable alternative to auto, air and bus travel for communities between Eugene and

Vancouver, WA.

1B Provide reliable and frequent passenger rail service.

1C Support multimodal integration at each potential passenger rail station.

1D Allow for future passenger rail improvements, including higher speeds.

Goal 2: Protect freight-rail capacity and investments in the corridor, and maintain safety. 2A Does not increase conflicts between passenger rail or freight rail and vehicles.

2B Protect freight-rail carrying capability.

Goal 3: Plan, design, implement, maintain and operate a cost-effective project. 3A Develop a strategy that can be reasonably funded and leveraged with a range of investment tools

for construction and operation.

3B Serve the maximum number of people with every dollar invested.

Goal 4: Provide an affordable and equitable travel alternative. 4A Provide a viable and affordable alternative for travelers.

4B Provide equitable investments and service, with consideration to race/ethnicity and income.

Goal 5: Be compatible with passenger rail investments planned in Washington State. 5A Provide passenger rail service to meet the existing and future passenger rail demand for an

interconnected system in the Pacific Northwest High Speed Rail corridor.

Goal 6: Promote community health and quality of life for communities along the corridor. 6A Benefit the communities within the corridor.

6B Minimize negative impacts to communities along the corridor.

Goal 7: Protect and preserve the natural and built environment. 7A Support Oregon’s commitment to the preservation of resource lands and local land use and

transportation planning.

7B Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of national and state policies to slow climate change.

7C Avoid and minimize impacts to the natural environment and cultural resources.

Weighting Goals and Objectives Consistent with discussions with the Leadership Council and FRA, the project team used a process of weighting Goals and Objectives to express the relative value that the evaluation places on each Goal in relation to the others. Once weighting was conducted at a goal level, a relative value was also placed on each Objective within a given Goal.

Weighting recommendations were made by the Corridor Forum with input from stakeholders, interested parties, and the Leadership Council. Public input on weighting was solicited at a series of open houses in January 2013. Final weighting of the Goals and Objectives occurred at a Corridor Forum meeting on April 16, 2013. Table 4 shows the weighting allocations.


Table 4. Weights of Goals and Objectives used in Evaluation1 Goal 1: Improve passenger rail mobility and accessibility to communities in the Willamette Valley.

20%

1A Provide a viable alternative to auto, air and bus travel for communities between Eugene and Vancouver, WA.

5%

1B Provide reliable and frequent passenger rail service. 6%

1C Support multimodal integration at each potential passenger rail station. 4%

1D Allow for future passenger rail improvements, including higher speeds. 5%

Goal 2: Protect freight-rail capacity and investments in the corridor, and maintain safety. 16% 2A Does not increase conflicts between passenger rail or freight rail and vehicles. 8%

2B Protect freight-rail carrying capability. 8%

Goal 3: Plan, design, implement, maintain and operate a cost-effective project. 18% 3A Develop a strategy that can be reasonably funded and leveraged with a range of

investment tools for construction and operation. 9%

3B Serve the maximum number of people with every dollar invested. 9%

Goal 4: Provide an affordable and equitable travel alternative. 15% 4A Provide a viable and affordable alternative for travelers. 9%

4B Provide equitable investments and service, with consideration to race/ethnicity and income.

6%

Goal 5: Be compatible with passenger rail investments planned in Washington State. N/A2 5A Provide passenger rail service to meet the existing and future passenger rail demand for

an interconnected system in the Pacific Northwest High Speed Rail corridor. N/A2

Goal 6: Promote community health and quality of life for communities along the corridor. 16% 6A Benefit the communities within the corridor. 8%

6B Minimize negative impacts to communities along the corridor. 8%

Goal 7: Protect and preserve the natural and built environment. 15% 7A Support Oregon’s commitment to the preservation of resource lands and local land use

and transportation planning. 5%

7B Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of national and state policies to slow climate change.

5%

7C Avoid and minimize impacts to the natural environment and cultural resources. 5% 1 Some of the objectives were measured using more than one criterion; in those cases, the weighting of the objective was divided evenly among criteria. See Appendix D for the methods established for the evaluation.

2 Goal 5 was a screening question (see Section 3). Any concepts that were not compatible with Washington State were removed from further consideration. All alternatives carried into the evaluation phase are compatible and therefore Goal 5 was not weighted.


3. Screening Results

This section provides a summary of the results of the screening process. The section is divided into three subsections: (1) Corridor Alignment Concepts; (2) Technology and Mode Concepts; and (3) Communities with Potential Stations. See Appendix B of this report for more information on the screening results. The following corridor concepts were suggested during the scoping period:

• Corridor Alignment Concepts: Four main concepts (Blue, Red, Purple and Yellow) andthree partial concepts (Pink, Tan and Brown) (see Table 5).

• Technologies and Mode Concepts: Five technologies (locomotive hauled, diesel multipleunits, dual mode/power, electric, and magnetic levitation) and four mode concepts(passenger rail, commuter rail, enhanced bus service, and highway capacityimprovements) (see Table 7).

• Communities with Potential Stations: Twenty stations (six between Eugene-Springfield and south of Albany, eight between south of Albany and Woodburn, and six between Woodburn and Vancouver, Washington) (see the “Communities with Potential Stations” subsection).

Corridor Alignment Concepts Table 5 provides descriptions of the corridor alignment concepts suggested during the scoping period. Figure 5 shows these corridor alignment concepts.


Table 5. Descriptions of Corridor Alignment Concepts Suggested During the Scoping Period Corridor Description (from south to north) Main Corridor Concepts Blue The Blue corridor generally follows the existing Amtrak Cascades route, potentially within or

near the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way between Eugene-Springfield, Junction City, Albany, Salem, Keizer, Woodburn, Oregon City, Milwaukie and Portland. The corridor crosses the Willamette River in Portland near Union Station before continuing northward either on or near the existing BNSF Railway right-of-way to Vancouver, WA. Passenger rail shares a corridor with freight rail through much of this concept.

Red The Red corridor follows along Interstate 5 (I-5), either within or near the current highway right-of-way. The corridor follows I-5 through Eugene-Springfield, Albany, Salem, Keizer, Wilsonville, to a tunnel to serve Union Station. The Red corridor is all new track devoted to intercity passenger rail service. • One option between Eugene and Harrisburg uses an abandoned railroad alignment and

then connects with the Red corridor or Blue corridor south of Halsey. • The Red corridor assumes a tunnel through the hills south of Salem. • Near Interstate 205 (I-205), the Red corridor concept separates from I-5 and continues

north through a long tunnel on the west side of the Willamette River. • North of Union Station, the Red corridor could continue on its own corridor, or connect

with the Blue corridor. Purple The Purple corridor generally follows the existing freight rail line that is historically known as

the “Oregon Electric” line (currently operated by Portland and Western Railroad [PNWR]). The corridor travels westward through Eugene before turning north near the Eugene airport, and then travels through Junction City and Harrisburg before connecting with the Blue corridor in Albany. North of Albany, the Purple corridor returns to the Oregon Electric alignment and continues through a waterfowl refuge. South of Salem, the corridor follows the existing Oregon Electric tracks or a new connection via a tunnel. North of Woodburn, the Purple corridor could: (1) travel east near Donald to connect to the Blue corridor west of Canby; (2) continue on the Oregon Electric line to Tualatin, where it would transition to the Tillamook Branch line through Lake Oswego and connect to the Blue corridor in Milwaukie; (3) travels to Tualatin and then into a tunnel to surface in Milwaukie before connecting to the Blue corridor; or (4) connect to the Red corridor north of Wilsonville.

Yellow The Yellow corridor concept starts in the Eugene-Springfield area, follows the Purple corridor to Junction City and continues west of Junction City on new alignment where the corridor connects with an abandoned rail grade near Monroe and follows that line north to Corvallis. From Corvallis it either travels east to connect with the Purple or Blue corridor in Albany, or continues northward through Independence, McMinnville and Newberg, to connect to the Purple corridor at Tualatin. The Yellow corridor includes an option to connect to the Purple corridor east of Independence.

Partial Corridor Concepts

Pink The Pink corridor travels west from Eugene to Veneta on the Coos Bay Branch line, and then north on a new alignment to connect to the Yellow corridor southwest of Junction City.

Tan The Tan corridor is a short connection between the Purple and Red corridors north of Millersburg.

Brown The Brown corridor connects to the Red or Purple corridor near Wilsonville and travels along the I-205 corridor, traveling inside or adjacent to the highway right-of-way before turning west on the UP Kenton line (near Portland International Airport) to tie into the Blue corridor in north Portland.


Figure 5. Corridor Alignment Concepts Identified during Scoping


Screening Results for the Corridor Alignment Concepts The project team compared all corridor alignment concepts against the screening questions (see Table 2) using readily available environmental resource and land use data incorporated into Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layers provided by cities and counties, engineering inventory information provided by state and local jurisdictions, and data available via the Internet (such as U.S. Census data). Preliminary analysis only was performed for the screening. For the quantitative measures in Table 2, measures were established to help determine whether the concept passed or did not clearly fail against the screening question. If a concept did not clearly fail a screening question, it was forwarded into the evaluation. For more information, see Appendix B.

In January 2013, during the initial screening process of corridor alignment concepts, it was observed that not enough information was available to screen concepts against two of the screening questions in Table 2: #3 (cost-effectiveness) and #7 (economic development). Therefore, neither question was used for screening.

To simplify the screening process, the Eugene to Portland study area corridor was divided into three sections:

• Section A – Eugene-Springfield to south of Albany • Section B – South of Albany to Woodburn • Section C – Woodburn to Vancouver, WA.

Table 6 documents the screening results for the corridor alignment concepts introduced during scoping according to these sections.


Table 6. Corridor Alignment Concepts – Screening Results Concept Passed All Screening Questions? Section A – Eugene-Springfield to South of Albany Blue Yes – Advanced to Step 2 (Evaluation) Pink No – Did not pass screening question #1 (travel time)1 Purple Yes – Advanced to Step 2 (Evaluation) Red Yes – Advanced to Step 2 (Evaluation) Yellow Yes – Advanced to Step 2 (Evaluation) Section B – South of Albany to Woodburn Blue Yes – Advanced to Step 2 (Evaluation) Purple North of Keizer: Yes – Advanced to Step 2 (Evaluation)

South of Keizer: No • North of Calapooia River into Central Albany: Did not pass screening question #8

(community and environmental impacts) and screening question #9 (multimodal connections)1

• Sections between Albany and Salem: Did not pass screening question # 8 (community and environmental impacts)1

Red Yes – Advanced to Step 2 (Evaluation) Tan No – Because the Purple corridor did not pass, the Tan corridor alignment was screened out

(the Tan connection between the Purple and Red corridors was not needed). Yellow North of Corvallis via Adair Village and Amity: No – Did not pass screening question #1 (travel

time) and screening question #2 (population)1 North of Corvallis via east of Independence to Purple Corridor: No – Because the Purple corridor did not pass in this area, the option to connect the Yellow corridor to the Purple corridor was screened out. Corvallis to Albany via existing rail corridor: Yes – Advanced to Step 2 (Evaluation)

Section C – Woodburn to Vancouver, WA. Blue Yes – Advanced to Step 2 (Evaluation) Brown No – Did not pass screening question #1 (travel time), screening question #8 (community and

environmental impacts), and screening question #9 (multimodal connections)1 Purple South of confluence with Red in Wilsonville area: Yes – Advanced to Step 2 (Evaluation)

North of confluence with Red in Wilsonville area: No • Wilsonville to Milwaukie via Tualatin and Lake Oswego: Did not pass screening

question #1 (travel time), screening question #8 (community and environmental impacts), and screening question #9 (multimodal connections)1

• Wilsonville to Milwaukie via a Tunnel: Did not pass screening question #8 (community and environmental impacts)1

Red No – Did not pass screening question #8 (community and environmental impacts) for the approximately 10-mile long tunnel between the south Portland metro area and downtown Portland.1, 2

Yellow No – Did not pass in Section B, and therefore did not pass in Section C 1 See Appendix B for additional information. 2 The Red corridor in Section C was subsequently redefined as the I-205 and I-84 to central Portland concept (see Table 8 for description).


Figure 6 illustrates the screening results for the corridor alignment concepts introduced during scoping. Figure 7 shows the same for the Portland area. Appendix B contains more detail on the screening results.

Figure 6. Corridor Alignment Concepts - Screening Results


Figure 7. Corridor Alignment Concepts - Screening Results, Portland-area Focus


Technology and Mode Concepts The following passenger rail propulsion technology and transportation mode concepts were suggested during the scoping period (see Table 7).

Table 7. Technologies and Modes – Screening Results Concept Passed All Screening Questions?

Technologies Locomotive hauled (existing technology)

Yes

Diesel multiple units Yes

Dual mode/power Yes – This technology would not travel at higher speeds than the existing technology (locomotive) but would require electrification of the line and would therefore cost more with no additional benefit 1

Electric No – Did not pass screening question #6 (compatibility with Washington State)1

Magnetic levitation (Maglev) No – Did not pass screening question #6 (compatibility with Washington State)1

Modes

Passenger rail Yes

Commuter rail No – Did not pass screening question #1 (travel time) and screening question #5 (FRA designation)1

Enhanced bus service No – Did not pass screening question #5 (FRA designation) and screening question # 6 (compatibility with Washington State)1

Highway capacity improvements No – Did not pass screening question #5 (FRA designation) and screening question # 6 (compatibility with Washington State)1

1 See Appendix B for additional information. Communities with Potential Stations The following list of suggested communities for passenger rail stations reflects input received during the scoping period:

Section A: Eugene to South of Albany

Section B: South of Albany to Woodburn

Section C: Woodburn to Vancouver, WA.

• Eugene • Albany • Canby • Springfield • Monmouth • Wilsonville • Veneta • Salem • Oregon City • Harrisburg • Keizer • Lake Oswego • Corvallis • Brooks • Tualatin • Tangent • McMinnville • Portland

• Newberg • Woodburn


The screening questions in Table 2 (Section 2) were used to screen corridor alignment concepts, vehicle technologies, and travel modes. The screening questions were not used to screen the communities with potential stations suggested during scoping. The only potential stations removed at this stage were those that would not be served (because the corridor alignment concept was removed). This dismissal from consideration applied to Veneta (because the Pink corridor alignment concept was screened out), to Monmouth, McMinnville and Newberg (because the Yellow corridor alignment concept was screened out north of Corvallis), and to Lake Oswego (because the Purple line was screened out). All other communities with stations that were suggested during the scoping period advanced to Step 2 of the evaluation framework (see Section 4 of this report for results of the evaluation process). Section 4 also describes the approach to evaluating potential station communities.

Corridor Alignment Concepts Suggested After the Scoping Period Six additional corridor alignment concepts were suggested to the project team in 2013 after the scoping period and after the project team applied the screening framework described in the previous subsection (see Table 8). One of the six alignment concepts was corridor-wide and the other five were partial corridor concepts. These six alignment concepts are illustrated in Figure 8. Although these ideas were suggested after the project’s scoping period, the ideas constituted new corridor concepts that were not previously considered. Therefore, the project team added them to the potential corridor concepts and entered them into the screening and evaluation process.


Table 8. Corridor Alignment Concepts Suggested After the Scoping Period Corridor Description (from south to north) Main Corridor Concepts

Cascadia High Speed Rail

Fully electric high-speed rail corridor from Eugene to Vancouver, WA, that would have a maximum design speed of 200 miles per hour on Class 9 standard tracks. The concept would utilize the I-5 median at-grade where possible from Eugene to Tualatin. North of Tualatin, it would travel along a brand new right-of-way on a combination of tunnel and elevated track.


Yellow Option – Corvallis to Albany

New rail corridor from Corvallis to west of Tangent adjacent to Highway 34 to the existing passenger rail corridor in south Albany and connecting to the existing passenger rail corridor.

Red Option – Central Albany

Connect the red alignment to the existing Albany station by improving an existing rail corridor from south Albany into central Albany, where it would tie into the existing passenger rail line before reconnecting to the red alignment north of Albany.

Purple Option – Wilsonville to Central Portland

Follow the existing PNWR corridor (also used by TriMet’s Westside Express Service [WES] commuter rail) from Wilsonville to Beaverton, then turn west through the West Hills into downtown Portland via a new tunnel and rail alignment.

Brown Option – I-5/I-205 to Central Portland

Follow I-205 from I-5 in the southwest metropolitan Portland area, past West Linn and Oregon City through southeast Portland to I-84 at the Gateway area, and then follow the existing UP tracks adjacent to I-84 in northeast Portland to the Rose Quarter area in central Portland.

Red Option – 7.5-mile Tunnels (two options considered) Tigard to Portland Union Station

4.7-mile at-grade section along the west side for I-5 from the I-5/I-205 interchange area to the tunnel portal in southwest Portland. Rolling terrain and the presence of several major interchanges requires most of this “at-grade” section to be elevated. Two options for approximately 7.5-mile-long tunnels that would extend from Tigard past downtown Portland. A new underground station would be located at Union Station.


Figure 8. Corridor Alignment Concepts Introduced After Scoping


Table 9 documents the screening results for the corridor alignment concepts suggested after the scoping period and Figure 8 shows those concepts. Appendix B contains more detail on the screening results. ODOT shared the screening results of the yellow, red, purple and brown concepts with the FRA in March 2013, and the results of the Cascadia High Speed Rail and 10-mile tunnel concepts in October 2013. Screening results were discussed with the FRA before they were forwarded to the Leadership Council and stakeholder groups. The 7.5-mile tunnel concept and the 10-mile tunnel concept were discussed with the FRA in December 2013 and January 2014. Although the 7.5-mile tunnel concept was raised late in the evaluation process, the FRA requested that its screening results be incorporated into the Alternatives Selection Report (below, and in Appendix B).

Table 9. Corridor Alignment Concepts Suggested After Scoping – Screening Results Concept Passed All Screening Questions? Main Corridor Concepts

Cascadia High Speed Rail No – Did not pass screening question #6 (compatibility with Washington State) in all sections (A, B and C) and screening question #8 (community and environmental impacts) in Section C.1


Yellow Option – Corvallis to Albany

Yes – Advanced to Step 2 (Evaluation)

Red Option – Central Albany


Purple Variation – Wilsonville to Central Portland

No – Did not pass screening question #4 (freight impacts), screening question #8 (community and environmental impacts), and screening question #9 (multimodal connections)1

Brown Variation – I-5/I-205 to Central Portland


Red Variation – 7.5-mile Tunnel Options

No – Did not pass screening question #8 (community and environmental impacts)

1 See Appendix B for additional information.


Figure 9. Corridor Alignment Concepts Introduced After Scoping

The combined results of the screening process are summarized in Figure 9 and Figure 10. Figure 9 illustrates the corridor alignment concepts that advanced through screening to Step 2 (Evaluation). Figure 10 shows the same results within the Portland area. Please note that Figure 9 and Figure 10 provide an overview of all the corridor concepts that went through Step 1 Oregon Passenger Rail Alternatives Selection Report July 2014 Page 38

of the screening and evaluation framework, and not just those that arose after the scoping process.

Figure 10. Corridor Alignment Concepts Introduced During and After Scoping – Screening Results


Public Input on Screening Step Input was sought from stakeholders and the general public on the corridor concepts throughout 2013. This came in the form of open houses, an online open house and community advisory group meetings. Table 10 summarizes public and stakeholder efforts in 2013 related to the screening results.

Table 10. 2013 Public and Stakeholder Efforts, Screening Results Group Date Purpose Public Open Houses

On-line open house and six public open houses held between January 8 and 17 in the following locations: Eugene/Springfield, January 8 Portland, January 9 Tualatin, January 10 Oregon City, January 15 Albany/Corvallis, January 16 Salem, January 17 Project briefing, Milwaukie, January 23

Present preliminary screening results.

Corridor Forum

January 24 Present preliminary screening results; form Community Advisory Groups.

Leadership Council

January 31 Endorsement of screening results from concepts introduced during scoping.

Leadership Council

March (email communication) Screening results of yellow, red, purple and brown concepts raised following the public scoping process were distributed to the Leadership Council in March 2013 with an offer to discuss results with individual Leadership Council members if desired. Several follow-up phone calls were made to discuss screening results with Leadership Council members.

Corridor Forum1

October 8 (Webinar) Present the screening results of two additional corridor alignment concepts (red corridor concept – southwest Portland tunnel and Cascadia High Speed Rail).

Community Advisory Groups1

Six meetings held between October 14 and 29 in the following locations: Portland, October 14 Albany/Corvallis, October 15 Salem/Keizer, October 16 Eugene/Springfield, October 23 South Portland Metro, October 24 Jefferson (rural interests), October 29

Present and solicit input on the screening of two corridor concepts (Cascadia High Speed Rail and a 10-mile long tunnel concept in the Portland area).

Leadership Council1

October 29 Review the screening results of two additional corridor alignment concepts (red corridor concept – southwest Portland tunnel and Cascadia High Speed Rail).


Table 10. 2013 Public and Stakeholder Efforts, Screening Results Group Date Purpose Public Briefing and Open Houses1

One public briefing in Milwaukie on October 30. On-line open house and five public open houses held between November 5 and 14 in the following locations: Salem/Keizer, November 5 Eugene/Springfield, November 6 Albany/Corvallis, November 7 Oregon City, November 12 Portland, November 14

Present and solicit input on the screening of two corridor concepts (Cascadia High Speed Rail and a 10-mile long tunnel concept in the Portland area).

Leadership Council1

December 17 Provide recommendations on the screening of two corridor concepts (Cascadia High Speed Rail and a 10-mile long tunnel concept in the Portland area).

1 These meetings also included presentation and discussion of evaluation results.


4. Evaluation

This section summarizes the results of the screening and evaluation framework’s Step 2: Evaluation. All concepts that passed Step 1 were carried forward into Step 2. This section is divided into two subsections: (1) Development and Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives; and (2) Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results.

Development and Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives This section describes the preliminary alternatives that were evaluated in Step 2 of the screening and evaluation framework and presents the methods used to evaluate the preliminary alternatives.

Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Methods The project team developed evaluation criteria and measures of effectiveness to evaluate preliminary alternatives in spring 2013. The evaluation criteria and measures of effectiveness were organized to comport with the project’s Goals and Objectives, adopted in January 2013. Between February and April 2013, before evaluating the preliminary alternatives, project team technical staff worked with ODOT technical experts to develop evaluation methods. The project team developed memoranda to document approaches for evaluating preliminary alternatives, including identifying data sources, methods, and an evaluation scale to score alternatives. ODOT provided FRA the methods for evaluation on April 15, 2013 and discussed criteria and measures during regular coordination calls in April and May 2013. The Goals and Objectives are included in Appendix C, and the evaluation methods memoranda are included in Appendix D.

Preliminary Alternatives Development and Evaluation In February 2013, the project team refined the conceptual designs and assumptions for the corridor concepts that had advanced from Step 1 (Screening) of the screening and evaluation framework. Between March and May 2013, the project team met with stakeholders at meetings of Community Advisory Groups and at jurisdictional meetings to discuss potential engineering and environmental issues and constraints for those concepts entering the evaluation, in order to inform the development of preliminary alternatives. In addition to the corridor concepts that passed through the screening, the project team considered a limited set of potentially feasible alignment options for some of the preliminary alternatives that could: (1) optimize cost or operations, or (2) minimize environmental impacts. These design options were:

• Section B, Blue Alternative, Parish Gap Option – developed by the project team to avoid several low-speed curves and to reduce potential adverse impacts to the Jefferson and Marion communities.

• Section B, Purple Alternative, Wilsonville Option –provides the option for the purple corridor to serve a potential station in Wilsonville which would connect to TriMet’s WES commuter rail line and serve the SW Portland metropolitan area

• Section B, Purple Alternative, Aurora Option – bypasses downtown Aurora, minimizing adverse impacts within the city.


• Portland area alternatives, Eastside Option 2 – developed to minimize tunnel costs and adverse impacts through north Portland, joining the BNSF corridor north of Swan Island.

Because of the large size of the overall corridor and the various alignment and hybridization options throughout the corridor, the project team again divided the corridor into three sections for the alternatives evaluation process:

• Section A – Eugene-Springfield to north of Albany

• Section B – North of Albany to north of Wilsonville

• Section C – North of Wilsonville to Vancouver, WA.

These sections were modified slightly from the geographic sections used during the initial screening step. Section boundaries were determined by the start and end points of the corridor concepts and were designed to meet the following objectives: to include cities in one section (rather than to split between sections), to more easily perform the evaluation (to select boundaries outside of city limits), and to allow the potential to combine elements to develop hybrid alternatives.

At this stage in the process the team transitioned its terminology from “corridor concepts” which were developed at a very high level to enter Step 1: Screening, to “preliminary alternatives” which were developed to a greater level of detail to enter Step 2: Evaluation. Table 11 aligns corridor concepts with preliminary alternatives. Figure 11 shows the preliminary alternative alignments considered in the evaluation. Detailed descriptions of the preliminary alternatives can be found in Appendix E.

Between May and July of 2013, the project team evaluated the preliminary alternatives shown in Table 11 and Figure 11. Preliminary evaluation results were discussed with FRA during a workshop in Oregon July 16-18, 2013. In August and September 2013, the project team compiled these preliminary evaluation results, weighted them against the project’s Goals and Objectives (which are attached in Appendix C), and further reviewed the results with FRA.


Table 11. Corridor Alignment Concepts Developed into Preliminary Alternatives

Section Corridor Concepts1 (Step 1 of the Framework)

Preliminary Alternatives2 (Step 2 of the Framework)

A

Blue (existing Amtrak/Union Pacific Railroad corridor)

A-1

Red (I-5 corridor) A-2 (via I-5 only) A-2 Central Albany

Purple (Oregon Electric corridor) A-3

Yellow (corridor via Corvallis) A-4 (via central Corvallis) A-4 Highway 34 (via south Corvallis and Highway 34)

B

Blue (existing corridor) B-1 B-1 Parish Gap

Red (I-5 corridor) B-2

Purple (Oregon Electric corridor) B-3 B-3 Wilsonville B-3 Aurora

C

Blue (existing corridor)

C-1 C-1 East Side Option 1 (via Rose Quarter and north/northeast Portland) C-1 East Side Option 2 (via Rose Quarter and north/northeast Portland)

Red (I-205 and I-84 corridor)

C-2 (existing corridor north of Rose Quarter and Union Station) C-2 East Side Option 1 (via Rose Quarter and north/northeast Portland) C-2 East Side Option 2 (via Rose Quarter and north/northeast Portland)

1 See Appendix E for descriptions and maps of these corridor concepts. 2 See Appendix E for descriptions and maps of these preliminary alternatives.


Figure 11. Preliminary Alternatives Evaluated


Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results This section provides a high-level summary of how the preliminary alternatives performed in each of the three analysis sections (Sections A, B and C) against the Goals and Objectives, and how the preliminary alternatives performed when applying sensitivities to test the evaluations and scoring. Please note that Goal 5 (compatibility with passenger rail investments planned in Washington State) is not included in the evaluation results. This is because Goal 5 language is consistent with one of the screening questions used in Step 1: Screening. Therefore all of the concepts that passed Step 1 were shown to have met this goal and no additional evaluation of it was required.

Appendix F contains a compilation of memoranda with evaluation results for each objective; Appendix G contains the raw and weighted scores that supported the findings; and Appendix H contains a memorandum summarizing the results of the evaluation, including maps and more detailed descriptions of the preliminary alternatives.

Appendix G also contains the findings of three sensitivity tests that were requested at the April 16, 2013 Corridor Forum workshop to gauge the effects of the weighting applied to the evaluation scores (see Table 4 in Section 2 for the weights used in the evaluation).

• Non-monetary and phasing: Remove Goal 3 from the weighting.

• High environmental emphasis: Double the weighting of Goal 7.

• Mobility and cost emphasis: Double the weighting of Goals 1 and 3.

Section A Evaluation Results – Eugene-Springfield to North of Albany Figure 12 shows how the six preliminary alternatives in Section A performed against the project Goals.

Figure 12. Section A: Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results Oregon Passenger Rail Alternatives Selection Report July 2014 Page 46

In general, all preliminary alternatives in Section A performed similarly for Goals 4 and 6. Differences are more apparent for Goals 1, 2, 3 and 7.

Alternative A-1 (Blue), which uses the existing passenger rail corridor, performed well. As shown in Figure 12, this is because of its performance with respect to Goal 3:

• Construction cost: Alternative A-1 is the lowest-cost preliminary alternative in Section A (Alternative B-3, the second lowest cost alternative in Section A, is approximately 40 percent more expensive than Alternative A-1).

• Phasing of improvements: Alternative A-1 could be phased over time, because it uses the existing passenger rail corridor, and therefore would be the most flexible for construction because of the extent of the existing functional rail infrastructure.

Alternative A-1 did not perform as well Alternative A-2 for Goals 1 and 2, because it would use an existing freight railroad corridor for the entire section, resulting in more freight train and mobility impacts (Alternative A-2 would not use an existing freight corridor).

Alternative A-2 (Red), which uses the I-5 corridor, performed the best overall of the Section A preliminary alternatives. As shown in Figure 12, this was primarily because of its performance with respect to Goals 1 and 2, including the following criteria:

• Travel time: Alternative A-2 would have the shortest travel time (36 minutes compared to 49 minutes for Alternative A-1, 41 minutes for Alternative A-2: Central Albany, 44 minutes for Alternative A-3, and 54 minutes for the A-4 alternatives).

• Reliability and frequency: Alternative A-2 would have no freight congestion impacts because it would be on a new passenger rail alignment (all other alternatives would use at least a portion of an existing freight corridor and would have freight congestion). There would be only one shift in ownership at the southern terminus of the alternative.

• At-grade crossings: Alternative A-2 would have the fewest at-grade crossings (1 crossing compared to 55 for Alternative A-1, 12 for Alternative A-2: Central Albany, 79 for Alternative A-3, 95 for Alternative A-4, and 83 for Alternative A-4: Highway 34).

• Future rail improvements: Alternative A-2 would be least susceptible to delays from freight trains, have the fewest at-grade crossings, and would have the greatest potential to upgrade to higher speeds because it is a dedicated passenger rail corridor.

Although Alternative A-2 performed well for Goals 1 and 2, it did not perform well for Goal 3, because it would have a higher cost than Alternative A-1 (approximately 70 percent more than Alternative A-1), which uses the existing corridor, and it would have no opportunity to phase construction (all other preliminary alternatives would have an opportunity to phase because at least a portion of the corridor would be located on an existing railroad corridor).

Alternative A-2: Central Albany (Red) did not perform as well as Alternative A-2 for Goals 1 and 2, because it would use existing railroad corridors through Albany, resulting in slower travel times and more at-grade crossings. In addition, there would be three shifts in ownership. The total number of at-grade crossings (12) is higher than Alternative A-1 but lower than the other preliminary alternatives in the section. Travel time (41 minutes) is shorter than all other alternatives except Alternative A-2.


Alternative A-3 (Purple) did not perform as well as Alternative A-2 primarily because it had lower scores for Goals 1 and 2 because it would use existing freight rail corridors, resulting in longer travel times and more at-grade crossings. This preliminary alternative would have the highest number of rail infrastructure ownership and infrastructure changes and a lower ability to phase improvements over time than Alternative A-1 because long segments would need to be constructed to provide a serviceable link. Alternative A-3 would also cost approximately 40 percent more than Alternative A-1.

Alternative A-4 (Yellow) and Alternative A-4: Highway 34 (Yellow) would have higher travel times compared to all other preliminary alternatives (54 minutes for both alternatives) and did not perform well overall primarily because of the following criteria under Goals 2 and 3:

• Conflicts: These preliminary alternatives have the most at-grade rail crossings (95 for Alternative A-4 and 83 for Alternative A-4: Highway 34, compared to 1 crossing for Alternative A-2, 55 for Alternative A-1, 12 for Alternative A-2: Central Albany, and 79 for Alternative A-3).

• Construction cost: These preliminary alternatives have higher cost estimates than Alternative A-1 and Alternative A-3 (approximately 60 percent more than Alternative A-1 and 20 percent more than Alternative A-3).

• Phasing of improvements: These preliminary alternatives have limited ability to phase construction due to the long segments that would need to be constructed to provide a serviceable link.

For Goal 6, the Yellow preliminary alternatives did not perform as well as other alternatives because they would have higher adverse community impacts from traveling through Corvallis and Albany (highest number of community resources and commercial and residential parcels within 100 feet). The A-4 preliminary alternatives also did not perform as well as the others in meeting Goal 7 because of: the higher natural environment and built environment impacts that would be associated with their slightly longer corridors compared to other alternatives; because both go through Corvallis and Albany while the other alternatives only go through Albany; because these alternatives include a new rail connection between Junction City and Monroe; and because Alternative A-4: Highway 34 includes a new corridor between Corvallis and Albany.

Figure 13, the performance-to-cost comparison of the Section A preliminary alternatives, illustrates the construction cost (in dollars) of all Section A preliminary alternatives compared to the lowest-cost alternative in Section A (Alternative A-1). In summary:

• While Alternative A-2 performed the best against the Goals and Objectives, the cost of Alternative A-2 is about 70 percent more than the cost of Alternative A-1.

• Alternative A-3 performed similarly to Alternative A-1 against the Goals and Objectives but has a cost approximately 40 percent more than that of Alternative A-1.

• The A-4 preliminary alternatives cost more than Alternatives A-1 and A-3 and did not perform as well as the other four Section A alternatives against the Goals and Objectives.


Figure 13. Section A: Preliminary Alternatives Performance-to-Cost Comparison

Section A Evaluation Conclusions • Alternative A-2 (Red) had the shortest travel time, fewest freight conflicts, fewest at-

grade crossings, highest construction cost and lowest ability to phase.

• Alternative A-1 (Blue) could be phased over time and had the lowest cost.

• Alternative A-3 (Purple) did not perform as well for phasing and cost compared to Alternative A-1 (Blue) and had a longer travel time and more freight conflicts than Alternative A-2 (Red).

• The A-4 alternatives did not perform as well as the other preliminary alternatives because of the longest travel times, higher construction cost, highest number of at-grade crossings, and limited ability to phase construction.

Sensitivity Testing Findings The Corridor Forum at its April 2013 workshop requested three sensitivity tests on the evaluation results – one removing cost and phasing from the evaluation, one providing greater emphasis on environmental impacts, and a third doubling the emphasis on mobility and cost. The project team found that the sensitivity test results did not change the overall performance of the alternatives in relation to one another – the alternatives that perform well continue to perform well. Rather, the changes from the sensitivity test provided a slight difference in the total points for each alternative. The bullets below provide more detail.

Non-monetary and Phasing (Remove Goal 3 from the Weighting):

• Because Alternative A-2 scored the best overall but costs the most and could not be phased, removing Goal 3 (Plan, design, implement, maintain and operate a cost-effective project) makes Alternative A-2 perform even better. By removing Goal 3, Alternative A-1 does not perform as well, because it scored the best of all alternatives under Goal 3 for lowest cost and best for phasing. Alternative A-3 scores better than the


A-4 alternatives but not as well as the A-1 alternatives. The A-4 preliminary alternatives continue to perform poorly.

High Environmental Emphasis (Double the Weighting of Goal 7):

• There would be no substantial changes, except the A-4 alternatives would perform worse, because these alternatives did not score as well as the other preliminary alternatives for Goal 7 (Protect and preserve the natural and built environment). Alternative A-4 was already the worst performing alternative in Section A.

Mobility and Cost Emphasis (Double the Weighting of Goals 1 and 3):

• Alternative A-1 performs similar to Alternative A-2 by giving more weight to Goal 3, because Alternative A-1 performed the best for Goal 3. By doubling the weighting of Goal 1 (Improve passenger rail mobility and accessibility to communities in the Willamette Valley) and Goal 3, Alternative A-3 performs in the middle and the A-4 preliminary alternatives perform poorly.

Section B Evaluation Results – North of Albany to North of Wilsonville Figure 14 shows how the six preliminary alternatives in Section B performed against the project Goals.

Figure 14. Section B: Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results

Differences between preliminary alternatives in Section B are more apparent for Goals 1, 2 and 3 than they were in Section A.

Alternative B-1 (Blue), which uses the existing passenger rail corridor, performed the best for Goal 3. This preliminary alternative has the lowest cost for Section B (the B-3 alternatives would be approximately 10 to 15 percent more expensive than B-1, and B-2 would be over 50 percent


more expensive than B-1), and its improvements could be phased due to the extent of existing, functional rail infrastructure.

Alternative B-1 did not perform as well as Alternative B-2 for Goals 1 and 2 with respect to mobility and freight impacts as it had lower maximum speeds (79mph as opposed to 125mph) than B-2 and more at-grade crossings.

Alternative B-1: Parish Gap (Blue) did not perform as well as Alternative B-1 primarily because of its performance with respect to Goal 3. The new Parish Gap alignment would have a higher cost than Alternative B-1 (by approximately 15 percent). This option would also not improve overall travel time compared to Alternative B-1 (same travel time as Alternative B-1).

This preliminary alternative also did not perform as well as Alternative B-1 under Goal 7, because of the new alignment through Parish Gap (higher natural environment impacts).

Alternative B-2 (Red), which uses the I-5 corridor, performed the best overall of the Section B preliminary alternatives. As shown in Figure 14, this was primarily because of its performance with respect to Goals 1 and 2, including the following criteria:

• Travel time: Alternative B-2 would have the shortest travel time (37 minutes compared to 59 minutes for the B-1 alternatives and 52 to 58 minutes for the B-3 alternatives).

• Reliability and frequency: Alternative B-2 would have no freight train congestion impacts (no ownership shifts), because it would be on a new, dedicated passenger alignment (all other alternatives would use at least a portion of an existing freight corridor and would have freight congestion).

• At-grade crossings: Alternative B-2 would have the fewest at-grade crossings (no crossings compared to 63 and 64 for the B-1 alternatives and 70 to 78 for the B-3 alternatives).

• Future rail improvements: Alternative B-2 is least susceptible to delays from freight trains, and has the greatest potential to eliminate at-grade crossings and to upgrade to higher speeds, because it is on a dedicated passenger rail alignment.

However, Alternative B-2 did not perform well for Goal 3, because it has the highest cost of all the preliminary alternatives in Section B (approximately 50 percent more than Alternative B-1 and 40 percent more than the B-3 alternatives) and would have no opportunity to phase construction (all other alternatives would have an opportunity to phase because at least a portion of the corridor would be located on an existing railroad corridor).

The B-3 alternatives, Alternative B-3 (Purple), Alternative B-3: Wilsonville (Purple) and Alternative B-3: Aurora (Purple), generally performed similarly to Alternative B-1 (Blue). The B-3 alternatives would cost approximately 15 percent more than Alternative B-1.

Alternative B-3: Wilsonville performed the best of the B-3 alternatives, because it scored slightly better for Goals 1 and 2 due to its shorter travel time (52 minutes compared to 58 minutes for Alternative B-3 and 56 minutes for Alternative B-3: Aurora) and fewer freight train conflicts (one fewer ownership shift than the other two B-3 alternatives). The Wilsonville option would provide the opportunity to connect to WES commuter service in Wilsonville and provide the opportunity Oregon Passenger Rail Alternatives Selection Report July 2014 Page 51

for a station in the southwest Portland metropolitan area. The Wilsonville option would also have fewer track miles through unstable slopes (<0.1 mile compared to 1.6 miles for the other two B-3 alternatives), would cost slightly less than the other two B-3 alternatives, and is the second lowest cost in Section B.

Figure 15, the performance-to-cost comparison of the Section B alternatives, illustrates the construction cost (in dollars) of all Section B alternatives compared to the lowest-cost preliminary alternative in Section B (Alternative B-1). While Alternative A-2 (I-5 alignment) performed the best in Section B, it costs about 50 percent more than Alternative B-1.

Figure 15. Section B: Preliminary Alternatives Performance-to-Cost Comparison

Section B Evaluation Conclusions

• Alternative B-1 (Blue) had the lowest cost and is easiest to phase for construction.

• Alternative B-1: Parish Gap (Blue Option) performs similar to Alternative B-1 but costs 15 percent more.

• Alternative B-2 (Red) performs well in mobility and ability to accommodate freight, but poorly under Goal 3 for its high construction cost and no ability to phase improvements over time.

• The Wilsonville option performed the best of the B-3 alternatives because it performed better under Goals 1 and 2.

Sensitivity Testing Findings Non-monetary and Phasing (Remove Goal 3 from the Weighting):

• Similar to Section A, because Alternative B-2 performed the best overall but costs the most and could not be phased, removing Goal 3 makes Alternative B-2 score even better. By removing Goal 3, Alternative B-1 does not perform as well, because it scored


the best under Goal 3 for lowest cost and best for phasing. Alternative B-3: Wilsonville continues to perform the best of the B-3 alternatives.


• There would be no substantial changes, because all of the preliminary alternatives performed about the same for Goal 7.


• Alternative B-2 continues to perform the best and Alternative B-1 performs better because of the increased weight on Goal 3. The B-3 alternatives do not perform as well because of the emphasis on the increased weights of Goals 1 and 3.

Section C Evaluation Results – North of Wilsonville to Vancouver, WA Figure 16 shows how the six preliminary alternatives in Section C performed against the project Goals.

Figure 16. Section C: Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results

Alternative C-1, which uses the existing Amtrak passenger rail corridor, performed the best of the Section C alternative because of its score for Goal 3:

• Construction cost: Alternative C-1 has the lowest cost of all alternatives. C-1’s east side options would cost more than the baseline alternative which serves the existing Union Station. The east side options cost approximately 80 percent more than Alternative C-1. All of the Alternative C-2 would cost more than three times than Alternative C-1).

• Phasing of improvements: Alternative C-1 could be phased over time, because it uses the existing passenger rail corridor. The eastside options have less opportunity for phasing, and Alternative C-2 has a poor ability to phase improvements in over time.


Alternative C-1 and its eastside options would generally have lower potential community cohesion impacts (fewer noise receptors than the C-2 alternatives and performed better in Goal 6). This is largely because it is in an existing rail corridor and land uses have grown up around it. Alternative C-1 East Side Option 1 and Alternative C-1 East Side Option 2 received lower scores for Goal 3 than Alternative C-1 because of their higher cost (approximately 80 percent more than Alternative C-1) and because, unlike Alternative C-1, they would have no opportunity to phase improvements at the north end.

Alternatives C-2, C-2 East Side Option 1 and C-2 East Side Option 2 performed better than the C-1 alternatives for Goal 2, because they would have fewer at-grade crossings (7 crossings for both of the Alternative C-2 east side option alternatives and 7 crossings for Alternative C-2, compared to 27 for Alternative C-1 and 21 for both of the Alternative C-1 east side option alternatives).

However, the C-2 alternatives performed worse than the C-1 alternatives for Goal 3 because of higher cost (approximately 250 percent more than Alternative C-1) and less opportunity to phase construction. The C-2 alternatives would have a longer travel time (35 minutes) than the C-1 alternatives (23 minutes) because unlike in Sections A and B it would be unable to achieve speeds higher than 79mph and in several sections speeds are lower than 50mph. Additionally there are more sensitive noise receptors along Alternative C-2 and its eastside options, and it therefore performed poorly compared to Alternative C-1 in relation to Goal 6.

Figure 17, the performance-to-cost comparison of the Section C alternatives, illustrates the construction cost (in dollars) of all Section C alternatives compared to the lowest-cost preliminary alternative in Section C (Alternative C-1).

• Alternative C-1 performed the best and also has the lowest cost of all the Section C alternatives.

• The two Alternative C-1 east side options also performed well, but they cost more than Alternative C-1.

• The C-2 alternatives cost about three times as much as the C-1 alternatives and did not perform as well against the Goals and Objectives.


Figure 17. Section C: Preliminary Alternatives Performance-to-Cost Comparison

Section C Evaluation Conclusions • The C-1 alternatives (Blue) perform better than the C-2 alternatives (Red) alternatives

primarily due to cost and ability to phase improvements.

• Alternative C-1 East Side Option 1 and Option 2 did not perform as well as Alternative C-1 primarily due to Goal 3 (cost and ability to phase improvements).

Sensitivity Testing Findings Non-monetary and Phasing (Remove Goal 3 from the Weighting):

• Section C: The C-1 east side alternatives score the best overall. However, because Goal 3 was the key differentiator in the full weighting between the C-1 alternatives and the C-2 alternatives, removing Goal 3 from the weighting makes all of the preliminary alternatives perform relatively the same in Section C.


• Section C: There would be no substantial changes to the results, because all of the preliminary alternatives performed about the same for Goal 7.


• Section C: Because the C-1 alternatives performed better than the C-2 alternatives for Goal 3 and similarly for Goal 1, giving more weight to Goals 1 and 3 makes the C-1 alternatives perform even better than the C-2 alternatives overall.

Overall Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Findings • Goals 1, 2 and 3 were most important in differentiating between the preliminary

alternatives. The preliminary alternatives that use existing UP and BNSF rail corridor have a lower construction cost and ability to phase construction, but would share a corridor with freight trains, negatively impacting overall travel times when compared to


alternatives that do not share corridor space with freight. Further, alternatives along existing freight corridors have more at-grade crossings. Preliminary alternatives that would be primarily on new rail lines for passenger rail service only would cost more and have limited ability to phase construction, but would have limited conflicts with freight trains and fewer at-grade crossings.

• Alternatives A-2 and B-2 in the I-5 corridor performed the best in Sections A and B because of their performance with respect to Goals 1 and 2, including the shortest travel time and no freight conflicts. However, these preliminary alternatives would cost about one-third more than the other alternatives in Sections A and B.

• The existing passenger rail alignment alternatives (Alternatives A-1, B-1 and C-1) performed consistently high in all three sections, including the highest in Section C, primarily because of their cost and ability to phase improvements. The existing passenger rail alignment alternatives were the lowest-cost preliminary alternatives in all three sections.

• The A-4 alternatives that go through Corvallis and the C-2 alternatives on I-205 and I-84 did not perform well compared to others primarily because of their higher cost and greater travel times, and their limited ability to phase improvements.

Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement for Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation The public involvement team conducted an intensive round of public outreach in the fall of 2013 to collect input on the preliminary alternatives evaluation results. The outreach included a series of public open houses, stakeholder group meetings (including the Corridor Forum and Community Advisory Groups), and Leadership Council meetings. Table 12 presents the types, number and locations of public and stakeholder meetings held during fall 2013.

The remainder of this section covers the key themes heard during public and stakeholder outreach. Appendix I contains meeting notes and summaries from the public and stakeholder meetings.

Public Briefing and Open Houses The City of Milwaukie hosted a project briefing on October 30, 2013. The project team presented project information, including the evaluation of the preliminary alternatives, and answered questions in an open house format. Approximately 20 people attended the briefing.

The project team held five open houses in November 2013, as well as an online open house that ran from November 5 to November 18, 2013. In total, 394 people attended the open houses and 802 people visited the online open houses. Table 13 shows the dates and locations of the open houses and the approximate number of attendees at each of them.


Table 12. Public and Stakeholder Meetings, Fall 2013

Group Date Purpose Corridor Forum

October 8 (Webinar) Present the preliminary alternatives evaluation results and screening results of two additional corridor alignment concepts (red corridor concept – southwest Portland tunnel and Cascadia High Speed Rail)

Community Advisory Groups

Six meetings held between October 14 and 29 in the following locations: Portland, October 14 Albany/Corvallis, October 15 Salem/Keizer, October 16 Eugene/Springfield, October 23 South Portland Metro, October 24 Jefferson (rural interests), October 29

Present and solicit input on the screening of two corridor concepts (Cascadia High Speed Rail and a 10-mile long tunnel concept in the Portland area) and the preliminary alternatives evaluation results

Leadership Council

October 29 Review the preliminary alternatives evaluation results and screening results of two additional corridor alignment concepts (red corridor concept – southwest Portland tunnel and Cascadia High Speed Rail); identify issues of concern

Public Briefing and Open Houses

One public briefing in Milwaukie on October 30. Five open houses held between November 5 and 14 in the following locations: Salem/Keizer, November 5 Eugene/Springfield, November 6 Albany/Corvallis, November 7 Oregon City, November 12 Portland, November 14

Present and solicit input on the screening of two corridor concepts (Cascadia High Speed Rail and a 10-mile long tunnel concept in the Portland area) and the preliminary alternatives evaluation results

Corridor Forum

December 3 Discuss and provide input on the preliminary alternatives evaluation results, including a discussion of which alternatives should move forward into the Draft EIS

Leadership Council

December 17 Provide recommendations on the screening of two corridor concepts (Cascadia High Speed Rail and a 10-mile long tunnel concept in the Portland area),deliberate on the preliminary alternatives evaluation results and make a recommendation on which alternatives to forward for study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS


Table 13. Public Open Houses, Fall 2013

City Date Location

Approximate Number of Attendees

Salem - Keizer November 5 Chemeketa Center for Business and Industry 85

Eugene - Springfield November 6 Eugene Main Public Library 80

Albany - Corvallis November 7 Linn-Benton Community College 90

Oregon City November 12 Pioneer Community Center 70

Portland November 14 PCC Climb Center 50

In total, 335 comment forms were submitted (132 at the public open houses and 203 through the online open house). Additionally, more than 100 comments were submitted via the comment form on the project website, by email, by letters, and by phone.

Many of the comments received were detailed and specific to the various preliminary alternatives and to the communities in the project corridor. However, the public comments did reveal some overall themes with respect to the preliminary alternatives and passenger rail in Oregon. Most people expressed general support for improved passenger rail in Oregon, regardless of which alternative is selected. Many people suggested mixing and matching preliminary alternatives within the geographic sections. People indicated divided support for higher speeds versus serving more communities, although generally, frequency and reliability appeared to be more important to people than high speeds. Many commenters stated that more frequent service will be key to increasing the demand for ridership. Some would like to see a vision for true high speed rail, while others felt Oregon does not have the ridership or population to support such a substantial public expenditure. A number of people were concerned about freight and passenger rail conflicts along the corridor and would like to see more double-tracking or dedicated passenger rail tracks. Several people also commented on the need to serve existing stations to reduce costs, and stated that passenger rail must connect well to local transit in order to improve service and increase ridership. Finally, many participants in the Albany-Corvallis area open house expressed a desire for a station in Corvallis, while acknowledging that the technical evaluation did not support such a recommendation.

A more detailed summary of the open houses is attached in Appendix I.

Community Advisory Group Meetings A round of six Community Advisory Group meetings was held in October 2013 to review and receive input on the:

• Screening of two corridor concepts (Cascadia High Speed Rail and a 10-mile long tunnel concept in the Portland area)

• Preliminary alternatives evaluation results


Please note that all documentation related to concept screening is included in Section 3. These meetings were held in key urban areas along the project corridor, as well as a meeting of corridor-wide rural and agricultural interests.

Corridor Forum Meetings The project team held two meetings with the Corridor Forum during the outreach period: an online Corridor Forum webinar on October 8, 2013, and an in-person meeting on December 3, 2013.

The goal of the October 8 webinar was to present the preliminary alternatives’ evaluation results as well as the screening results for two additional corridor alignment concepts (the Red corridor concept – southwest Portland tunnel and Cascadia High Speed Rail concept, documented in Section 3). Participants were encouraged to provide written questions throughout the meeting via online chat. Questions were asked about the ability to mix and match alternatives, the cost of station locations, how mobility was scored, whether the analysis includes the ability to phase construction, and the assumptions related to double-tracking for the Blue alternative. The webinar prepared the Corridor Forum members to discuss and provide input on the evaluation results at their in-person December 3, 2013 meeting and to discuss potential impacts and benefits of the preliminary alternatives with their agencies and local citizenry.

During the December 3, 2013 meeting, Corridor Forum members were broken out into small, geographically-based discussion groups in order to generate dialogue and input on locally important issues and concerns. Corridor Forum members also participated in an electronic polling exercise to rate each preliminary alternative and alternative option on a sliding scale on whether or not it should be carried forward into the Draft EIS. The following outlines the results by section:

• For Section A, members showed strong support for carrying the Red and Blue alternatives forward into the Draft EIS, and supported eliminating the Yellow and Purple alternatives from further consideration.

• For Section B, members showed strong support for carrying the Red and Blue alternatives forward into the Draft EIS. Members showed little support for carrying forward the Blue Parrish Gap option and the Purple alternatives. Members also discussed the ability to mix and match preliminary alternatives in Section B.

• For Section C, members showed the strongest support for carrying forward the Blue alternative and also showed some support for the Red alternative. Discussion among the group revealed that support for carrying Red forward despite its poor performance was due to a desire to retain some choice in build alternatives within Section C. The east side options received less support; but again, members preferred that they be carried forward rather than eliminated from consideration.

A summary of the December 3, 2013 Corridor Forum meeting is attached in Appendix I.

Leadership Council Meetings The Leadership Council met twice during the outreach period, on October 29 and December 17, 2013. Summaries of those meetings follow.


October 29, 2013 Meeting The Leadership Council met on October 29, 2013, to review the preliminary alternatives evaluation results and the screening results of two additional corridor alignment concepts (documented in Section 3). The meeting also provided an opportunity for Leadership Council members to identify issues of concern that needed to be resolved and to request any additional information they needed to help them make a December recommendation to ODOT on which alternatives to carry forward into the Draft EIS.

December 17, 2013 Meeting The Leadership Council met on December 17, 2013, to further deliberate on the preliminary alternatives and to:

• Consider the project team’s recommendation on the screening of two corridor alignment concepts (Cascadia High Speed Rail and a 10-mile long tunnel concept in the Portland area, documented in Section 3)

• Consider the project team’s recommendation on which alternatives to forward for study in the Draft EIS.

• Comment on the scope and process for a separate high speed rail long-term vision white paper

The Leadership Council agreed with the project team’s recommendations on the screening of the two corridor alignment concepts and alternatives to forward to study in the Draft EIS. There was also discussion among the Leadership Council about a new concept brought forward to study a 7.5-mile tunnel in Section C. Following the Leadership Council meeting the project team discussed this concept with the FRA and developed it to the extent needed to enter Step 1: Screening. Section 3 of this report documents the results of that screening. See Section 5 of this report for a summary of the ODOT’s recommendation. A summary of the December 17, 2013 Leadership Council meeting is attached in Appendix I.


5. Alternatives Recommended and Selected for Study in the Draft EIS

This section presents ODOT’s recommendation for reasonable and feasible build alternatives to study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. This section is divided into the following subsections: (1) Project Team Recommendation; (2) Leadership Council Action; (3) Alternatives Recommended for Study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS; (4) FRA Concurrence; and (5) Next Steps.

Project Team Recommendation The project team’s recommendation for the build alternatives to study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS is based on a number of considerations, including the technical evaluation findings summarized in Section 4, FRA guidance, maintenance considerations, and feedback received from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, interested parties and jurisdictional agencies, as summarized in Section 4. FRA has preliminarily agreed with and approved the recommendation to study these two build alternatives in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.

In summary, the project team recommended to the Leadership Council that the following two build alternatives be evaluated in the Tier 1 Draft EIS for improved passenger rail service on the Oregon segment of the PNWRC. Please note that the alternative names have been refined to reflect how the team will organize its analysis in the Draft EIS. See below.

• Alternative 1 (existing alignment) – The route for this alternative follows the Union Pacific and BNSF Railway rail corridor roughly parallel to where the existing Amtrak Cascades service currently operates. This alignment was referred to as the “Blue” corridor during the screening and evaluation process (see Sections 3 and 4 of this report).

• Alternative 2 (new alignment) – The route for this alternative constitutes a primarily new passenger rail corridor. This alignment is a hybrid of portions of the “Red,” “Purple” and “Blue” corridors that were assessed during the screening and evaluation process (see Sections 3 and 4 of this report). This mostly new passenger rail corridor would include:




o UP and BNSF (“Blue”) rail corridor from Oregon City to Vancouver, WA.

Figure 18 shows the project team’s recommendation, and the remainder of this section presents the rationale used for the recommendation.


Figure 18. Recommended Alternatives for Study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS


The project team’s recommendation is based on the analysis summarized in the tables that follow, which list the recommended action and rationale for each preliminary alternative, by corridor section.

Section A: Eugene/Springfield to North of Albany Table 14 summarizes the rationale for advancing or not advancing preliminary alternatives for study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.

Table 14. Recommendations for Build Alternatives: Section A, Eugene/Springfield to North of Albany

Alternative Recommended

Action Rationale

Blue Advance • Goal 3: Most flexible construction phasing because of the extent ofexisting, functional rail infrastructure. Lowest construction costcompared to the other alternatives in this section.

• Goal 6: Lower impacts to residential and community resources.• Goal 7: Fewer impacts to farmland, wetlands and miles of track

through known unstable slopes.

Red Advance • Goal 1: Shortest travel time (36 minutes) of all alternatives in thissection, compared to 49 minutes for Blue and 54 minutes forYellow. No congestion due to freight interface and only one shift inownership at the southern terminus of the alternative. Greatestpotential to allow for future passenger rail improvements, includingincreased frequencies and higher speeds over time.

• Goal 2: Fewest number of at-grade crossings (1 total, compared to55 for Blue and 95 for Yellow). Removes passenger rail fromexisting freight rail line.

Red Central Albany Option

Advance • Goal 1: Shorter travel time (41 minutes) of all alternatives in thissection apart from main Red alternative. Limited congestion due tolow freight interface. Three shifts in ownership (two in Albanyvicinity to serve the central Albany station). High potential to allowfor future passenger rail improvements including higher speedsover time.

• Goal 2: Although at-grade crossings are higher than the main Redalternative (12 total, compared to 1 for the main Red alternative),they are lower than the other alternatives in this section. Removespassenger rail from freight rail for most of this section.

• Goal 7: Serves the historic Albany train station.


Table 14. Recommendations for Build Alternatives: Section A, Eugene/Springfield to North of Albany


Action Rationale

Purple Do not advance • Goal 1: Highest number of rail infrastructure ownership and operations switches – from Union Pacific Railroad (UP) to Oregon Electric (O&E) line back to UP, back to O&E, and finally back to UP in Albany. This causes a concern about reliability.

• Goal 3: Much lower ability to phase improvements over time thanBlue alternative. The Purple alternative also assumes completelyrebuilding the railway bed of the portions using the O&E line whichcontributes to an approximately 40% higher construction coststhan lowest-cost alternative.

• Goal 7: Higher impacts to farmland and wetlands than Bluealternative.

• NOTE: The Purple alternative does not perform poorly per se.Staff recommends eliminating it from further evaluation because itreplicates the Blue alignment to a large extent in terms of service,yet requires the level of construction associated with the Redalternative (reconstruction of rail bed), does not perform as well aseither the Red or Blue alternatives, and would have substantiallyhigher construction costs than the Blue alternative.

Yellow Do not advance • Goal 1: Highest travel time in Section A (54 minutes, same as the Yellow Highway 34 option).

• Goal 2: Highest number of at-grade crossings (95) of all otheralternatives in Section A.

• Goal 3: Low opportunity to phase improvements over time due torelatively long segments that would need to be constructed toprovide a serviceable link. Construction cost is more than 60%higher than the Blue alternative.

• Goal 6: Main Yellow alternative impacts substantially moreresidential parcels than the other alternatives.

Yellow Highway 34 Option

Do not advance • Goal 1: Highest travel in Section A (54 minutes, same as Yellow). • Goal 2: Highest number of at-grade crossings (83) of all

alternatives in Section A except for the Yellow main alternative.• Goal 3: Low opportunity to phase improvements over time due to

relatively long segments that would need to be constructed toprovide a serviceable link. Construction cost is more than 60%higher than Blue alternative.

• Goal 7: Greater potential to impact listed, proposed and non-listedfish and wildlife species than other alternatives due to newalignment required through natural area between Corvallis andAlbany.


Section B: North of Albany to North of Wilsonville Table 15 and Table 16 summarize the rationale for advancing or not advancing preliminary alternatives for study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. Please note: to allow for the potential to mix and match preliminary alternatives in this section, the recommendations for Section B were split into two parts—one south of Keizer, and one north of Keizer.

Table 15. Recommendations for Build Alternatives: Section B (1), North of Albany to South of Keizer


Action Rationale

Blue Advance • Goal 3: Blue alternative has the greatest ability to phase improvements over time due to the use of existing, functioning rail infrastructure and has the lowest construction cost in Section B.

• Goal 7: Blue alternative has the lowest impact to farmland.

Blue Parish Gap Option

Do not advance • Goal 1: Parish Gap option does not improve overall travel time or otherwise improve reliability compared to Blue alternative or other alternatives.

• Goal 3: Parish Gap option costs approximately 20% more than Blue alternative, and construction of the Parish Gap option could not be phased over time.

• Goal 7: Parish Gap option would impact more high-value farmland than Blue.

Red Advance • Goal 1: Substantially lower travel time in this section than that of all other alternatives due to speed benefits from new infrastructure south of Salem. No freight congestion or ownership shifts. Highest ability to allow for future passenger rail improvements including increased frequency and higher speed.

• Goal 2: No at-grade crossings in this section, and no conflicts with freight rail.

• Goal 6: Fewer noise impacts to residential and commercial parcels than any other alternative.

• Goal 7: Fewer miles of track through unstable slopes than any other alternative.


Table 16. Recommendations for Build Alternatives: Section B (2), Keizer to North of Wilsonville


Action Rationale Blue Advance • Goal 3: Blue alternative has the greatest ability to phase

improvements over time due to the use of existing, functioning rail infrastructure. Blue alternative has the lowest construction cost overall in Section B.

Red Do not advance • Goal 1: Travel time savings and improved mobility were seen primarily south of Keizer. Travel time savings were minor north of Keizer compared to Purple alternative.

• Goal 3: Costs approximately 50% more than Blue alternative and limited ability to phase.

• Goal 7: Greater farmland impacts than other alternatives in Section B.

Purple Wilsonville Option

Advance • Goal 1: Shorter travel time than the other Purple options (savings of approximately 6 minutes in all of Section B; savings of 7 minutes compared to the Blue alternative in all of Section B) and opportunity to connect to WES Commuter Rail in Wilsonville.

• Goal 3: Costs approximately 40% less than the Red alternative in all of Section B. North of Keizer, ODOT owns the right-of-way in the Purple corridor. A station in the vicinity of Wilsonville could serve the populous southwest Portland metropolitan region.

Purple and Purple Aurora Option

Do not advance • Goal 1: Travel times higher than Wilsonville option and same as Blue alternative

• Goal 3: Costs are moderately higher than the Blue alternative and Purple Wilsonville option.

• Goal 6: Higher number of sensitive noise locations (residential and commercial parcels specifically) that could be impacted by noise than the Purple Wilsonville option.

• Goal 7: Higher track mileage through unstable slope location than Purple Wilsonville option (1.6 miles vs. 0.04 miles, respectively).


Section C: North of Wilsonville to Vancouver, WA. Table 17 summarizes the rationale for advancing or not advancing preliminary alternatives for study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.

Table 17. Recommendations for Build Alternatives: Section C, Portland Metropolitan Area (Wilsonville to Vancouver, WA.)


Action Rationale Blue Advance • Goal 3: Blue alternative has the lowest construction cost overall

in Section C. Provides more opportunity to phase improvements over time.

• Goal 6: Lower potential community cohesion impacts and potential impacts to sensitive noise receptors than the Red alternatives.

• Goal 7: Blue alternative would serve the historic Union Station, Portland’s designated passenger rail transportation hub. Lower anticipated impacts to proposed and listed bird, plant and invertebrate species.

Blue East Side Options

Do not advance • Goal 3: East Side options do not have ability to phase, and construction costs are estimated at between 80% and 90% higher than main Blue alternative.

• Goal 7: East Side options would not provide service to the historic Union Station, Portland’s designated passenger rail transportation hub.

Red between Wilsonville and Oregon City

Advance • NOTE: This portion of the Red alternative is advanced as a way to connect the Purple Wilsonville option in Section B to the Blue alternative in Section C.

Red between Oregon City and Vancouver, WA

Do not advance • Goal 1: Travel time is substantially higher than the Blue alternative in Section C due to slow speeds along Graham Line.

• Goal 3: Costs are approximately 240% higher than the Blue alternative, with less opportunity to phase improvements over time.

• Goal 6: Substantially higher numbers of residential and commercial parcels potentially impacted by noise. Higher numbers of community resources and residential and commercial parcels that could be displaced.

Red East Side Options between Oregon City and Vancouver, WA.

Do not advance • Goal 1: Travel time is substantially higher than the Blue alternative in Section C due to slow speeds along Graham Line.

• Goal 3: Costs are between 260% and 270% higher than the Blue alternative, with less opportunity to phase improvements over time.

• Goal 6: Substantially higher numbers of residential and commercial parcels potentially impacted by noise. Higher numbers of community resources and residential and commercial parcels that could be displaced.


Leadership Council Action The Leadership Council met on December 17, 2013, to review and discuss the project team’s recommendation of the build alternatives to study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. The Leadership Council endorsed the project team’s recommendation and expressed a desire to:

• Improve multimodal transit connectivity between Corvallis, Albany and Eugene outside of the OPR process

• Keep the option of a tunnel through southwest Portland to serve Union Station if the existing passenger rail alignment between Oregon City and Union Station in Portland (owned by UP) becomes too expensive or impacts are too severe, as identified through the additional analysis of this corridor to prepare the Tier 1 Draft EIS.3

The Leadership Council also discussed and requested that ODOT develop a conceptual long-term vision for passenger rail in Oregon. A summary of the meeting is provided in Appendix I.

Alternatives Recommended for Study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS Based on the Leadership Council’s December 17, 2013 endorsement of the project team recommendations, ODOT recommends to FRA that the build alternatives previously described in the “Project Team Recommendation” section be evaluated, along with the No-Build Alternative, in the Tier 1 Draft EIS. These build alternatives include:

• Alternative 1 (existing alignment) – This alternative follows the UP and BNSF rail corridor where the Amtrak Cascades service currently operates. This alignment was referred to as the “Blue” corridor during the screening and evaluation process (see Sections 3 and 4 of this report). Communities with potential stations for Alternative 1 include: Eugene, Albany, Salem or Keizer, Woodburn, Oregon City and Portland.

• Alternative 2 (new alignment) – This alternative constitutes a mostly new passenger rail corridor. This alignment is a hybrid of portions of the “Red,” “Purple” and “Blue” corridors that were assessed during the screening and evaluation process (see Sections 3 and 4 of this report). This mostly new passenger rail corridor would include:




o UP and BNSF (“Blue”) rail corridor from Oregon City to Vancouver, WA.

3 Subsequent discussions with FRA after the Leadership Council meeting resulted in the decision to develop a shorter (7.5 mile) tunnel concept as a corridor concept, and apply the project’s Screening and Evaluation Framework. The results of the screening process concluded that this corridor concept did not pass all screening questions and did not advance to Step 2 (Evaluation). For more information, see Table 9 in Section 3 of this report.


Communities with potential stations for Alternative 2 include: Springfield; Albany; Salem or Keizer; Woodburn; Wilsonville, Tualatin or Oregon City; and Portland.

Potential vehicle technology for both alternatives include locomotive hauled (existing technology) and diesel multiple units.

FRA Concurrence By approving this report, FRA concurs with ODOT’s recommendations above and selects the two build alternatives 1 and 2 for study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS.

Next Steps The next steps are:

1. The project team will begin more detailed study of a No-Action alternative and the build alternatives approved by FRA. When completed, the Tier 1 Draft EIS will be published for agency and public review and comment.

2. After considering agency and public comments, ODOT will recommend a Preferred Alternative that will be presented to the Leadership Council, Oregon Transportation Commission and the Governor’s office for concurrence. Following concurrence, ODOT will forward the recommendation to FRA who will identify the Preferred Alternative.

3. FRA and ODOT will publish a Tier 1 Final EIS and Final SDP to address the Preferred Alternative.

4. FRA will publish a Tier 1 Record of Decision to reflect the selection of the Preferred Alternative. If a build alternative is selected, more detailed Tier 2 environmental reviews will be conducted before improvements are constructed.


Appendices

Appendix A – Screening and Evaluation Framework Memorandum

Appendix B –Screening Documentation Memoranda

Appendix C – Goals and Objectives

Appendix D – Evaluation Methodology Memoranda

Appendix E – Detailed Definition of Alternatives and Cost Estimate Methodology

Appendix F – Evaluation Results Memoranda

Appendix G – Evaluation Scores and Approach to Station-Related Scores

Appendix H – Summary of Alternatives Evaluation Results Memorandum

Appendix I – Public and Stakeholder Meeting Notes and Summaries


Documents

Alternatives Selection Report - ODOT · 30/07/2014 · Appendix A – Screening and Evaluation Framework Memorandum Appendix B – Screening Documentation Memorandum . Appendix C