Cascadia HSR report

CASCADIA HIGH SPEED RAIL: TERRAINS AND TYPOLOGIES

University of Oregon, Fall 2010, Arch 507 Graduate School of Architecture, Portland

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following people have been indispensable to the completion of this book. We especially thank our guests and presenters who helped expand our discussion and dialog. Thank you.

Course Instructors: Lloyd Lindley, FASLA, Adjunct Professor James Pettinari, University of Oregon Professor Brad Perkins, Cascadia HSR Advocate

Guest Participants: Karen Mains Rudy Niederer, Cascadia HSR Advocate

Students: Aaron Frease Ashley Koger Brett Santhuff Eric Albright Nicole Holt Jim Lutzke Sara Ruzomberka Seth Dunn

Guest Presenters: Betsy Imholt, ODOT Rail Operations Manager Brock A. Nelson, Union Pacific Railroad, Director of Public Affairs

Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland

TABLE OF CONTENTSReport Outline:

Introduction

Eco Region

High Speed Rail Criteria

Alignments

Station Locations

Summary & Suggested Next Steps

Appendix

Typologies

Case Studies

Resources

Contacts

Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland

INTRODUCTIONCourse Preface:

During the late 1980’s and through the 1990’s High Speed Rail (HSR) in Oregon flourished with planning, funding and implementation of station and track improvements. In the mid 1990’s the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in cooperation with AMTRAK and the Washington Department of Transportation began operation of the Mount Rainier Extension between Eugene, Portland and Seattle as a first step toward providing enhanced higher speed rail service between Eugene and Vancouver, British Columbia. Initial ridership exceeded expectations equaling 126 percent of projections. 1

While service improved comfort and access, and ridership increased, little progress to addressing the key issues of reliability and on time service resulted. Planning shifted to emphasize freight efficiencies and unscramble the traffic jamb consequences of the Union Pacific (UP) and Southern Pacific merger. Rail freight is the highest bulk shipping mode in the US with ocean borne shipping second at $375 billion on 467 million tons while rail freight tops out at $436 billion on1.8 billion tons. 2 As long as rail freight demand leads the nation in materials and product distribution, passenger rail will suffer poor reliability and an inability to expand service.

As citizens and agencies in the Oregon segment of the Cascadia High Speed Rail Mega-Region, and in particular the greater Willamette Valley from Vancouver, Washington to Eugene/Springfield, begin discussing HSR, the University of Oregon Graduate School of Architecture seminar on HSR began framing questions based on observations and case studies. Visiting speakers from ODOT, HSR advocates and Union Pacific, combined with the HSR Atlas from a summer seminar, and planning and historic background helped the seminar identify alignments and station areas, evaluation criteria, opportunities, constraints and issues for future consideration in ODOT’s forthcoming Alternatives Analysis.

Foot notes

1. Salem Passenger Rail Station Study, Final Report, Salem/Keizer Area Transportation Study, Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments2. SOURCES: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, based on

data from Transport Topics Online, available at ttnews.com/tt100 as of Sept. 25, 2009. Association of American Railroads, available at www.aar.org as of Sept. 25, 2009.

3. HSR Atlas, Summer 2010 HSR Seminar, University of Oregon Graduate School of Architecture.


Cascadia Corridor

The Cascadia Corridor is home to over 8 million people. Population growth causes stress on physical, educational, social and cultural infrastructure. The “new regionalism,” conscious of a certain quality of life and growing within a restricted geography, will require a commitment to create stronger ties throughout the Northwest. A new series of “highways” is needed to efficiently connect the region’s government, businesses and people. One of those “highways” will be high-speed rail trains traveling over 110 miles/hr and connecting all cities between Vancouver, BC and Eugene, Oregon. Nothing could do more to make the movement of goods and people easier while at the same time preserving our livability by reducing congestion and air pollution.

The Cascadia Corridor from Eugene to Vancouver, BC has been designated as one of several potential high-speed rail passenger corridors in the country. Ideally, the system would be fully electrified on new double tracks mostly on a separate corridor as an alternative to the current AMTRAK system that operates on private freight train corridors. Such a system could effectively offer an energy saving alternative to both automobile and airplane travel for the given distances between Eugene, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, BC. The system would become an economic development corridor that would link new business opportunities and other alternative modes of transportation in the region. However, there are challenges to meet in this and all alternatives.


Greater Willamette Valley

Participants questioned cultural and historic context, high speed rail station area development patterns compared to other transit oriented developments, and the supporting architecture and form based principles of building in a new way for the Willamette Valley region. Station areas in the Willamette Valley segment of the Cascadia High Speed Rail Corridor are as diverse as they are contextually complex. Exploration of Willamette Valley scale regional centers challenged students to investigate impacts on small, medium, and large communities and neighborhoods through architectural typologies, mixed use development, civic uses, transit, transportation, sustainability and livability. The seminar expanded upon the Willamette Valley High Speed Rail Atlas, developed by students during the 2010 summer term that identifies the mission, goals and technical background in preparation for this fall seminar.

The Cascadia Mega-Region is divided into three segments:

• VancouverB.C.toSeattle,Washington• Seattle,WashingtontoPortland,Oregon• Portland,OregontoEugene/Springfield,Oregon

Focusing on the greater Willamette Valley between Vancouver, Washington and Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, a conceptual review of alignments within the valley terrain and city context, population, transportation and land use identified general differences between alignments and station locations within urban areas. The goal was to define Cascadia Mega-regional Centers especially in the context of the diverse range of City sizes, supportive land use and transportation systems. The range of urban form and context included the 1.3 million population metropolitan area of Portland/Vancouver, medium sized cities including the State Capital – Salem (300,000 population) and the Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan area (275,000 population) and the smaller agrarian cities of Albany/Corvallis, Tualatin, Woodburn and Oregon City (all approximately 50,000 population). HSR would provide service in the Greater Willamette Valley to a total population of approximately 2.5 million people or 90 percent of the State’s population within the highest economic producing region of the state.


The University of Oregon, Graduate School of Architecture, Cascadia High Speed Rail Seminar engaged in discussions and sketch evaluations of the three primary HSR alignments and two hybrid alternatives. Mapping, conceptual design criteria and statistical inventories from The High Speed Rail Atlas developed during summer term provided background and base information. Guest speakers from ODOT, Union Pacific and HSR advocates presented alignment and station location options. A tour of the Union Pacific and Interstate-5 alignments between North Portland and Salem enabled participants to view “on the ground” alignment and station opportunities and constraints. Case studies of HSR Lines outside of the U.S. contributed to the critical process of comparing lines and station areas. The Case Studies provided background research as a basis for comparing Cascadia HSR proposals with other working systems around the world.

Developing an illustrative terrain model enabled the seminar to visualize the alignments within their individual geographic context while mapping and considering infrastructure and supportive land use and transportation policies and infrastructure. Resultant sketch alternatives evaluation criteria enabled the seminar to frame fundamental questions for further consideration during the ODOT Alternatives Analysis process. This report provides an objective look at the opportunities, constraints and issues associated with investing significant public and private funds into Oregon’s initial venture into HSR.

Based on sketch evaluation criteria for alignments and station areas, and alternative analysis the objective of the seminar was to identify significant questions to be answered during the Alternatives Analysis process that will be conducted by the Oregon Department of Transportation Rail Division over the 2011/2012 biennium. The concluding recommendation of this report is to challenge stakeholders to weigh the long term benefits of each alternative based on economic return on investment through jobs and new development, service reliability, speed and convenience.


ECOREGIONSTATISTICS FOR THE CASCADIA MEGAREGION:

Population 2000 (U.S. Portion): 7,400,532Percent of U.S. Population: 3%Population 2025: 10,209,826Projected Growth: 38%2005 GDP: $337,405,000,000Percent U.S. GDP: 3%

images from www.america2050.org

THE CASCADIA MEGAREGION‘America 2050’ identifies the Cascadia Megaregion as the link between the major cities of Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver, BC. Cascadia is better defined by a dramatic landscape, mild climate, and a thriving biological diversity. In an ongoing study by Portland State University, Cascadia is appropriately referred to as an ‘Ecolopolis’ instead of a ‘megalopolis’ because its character is so deeply rooted in the ecology: the mountains, trees, and water that define Cascadia. The Cascadian Agenda, as seen by ‘America 2050,’ is defined by a vision to protect the area’s unique and pristine environment, as well as a commitment to environmental sustainability.

‘there’s a sense that people come here (Cascadia) and they want to start something new. The future is a very important part of the culture: what we are going to create that has never been seen before.’ -Douglas Todd, Vancouver Sun


THE WILLAMETTE VALLEYThis study more closely focuses on the Willamette Valley EcoRegion, which is defined as the southern portion of the Cascadia Megaregion and connects Eugene/Springfield up through Portland and to Vancouver, Washington. This land is defined by a fertile agricultural valley that is bordered by the Cascade Mountain Range to the East and the Oregon Coastal Range to the West. The Willamette River flows northward from Eugene, along the valley floor until it meets the Columbia River in Portland. The Willamette Valley contains the majority of Oregon’s population, industry, agriculture, and commerce. It is also the major north-south connection through the state.

The EPA defines Ecoregion 3 as the Willamette Valley.

DEFINING MEGAREGIONAL CENTERS

When looking closely at transportation corridors and working to understand the future growth patterns within the Willamette Valley, the study of MegaRegional Centers and their relevance at the Willamette Valley scale became a key issue. We looked toward High Speed Rail in Europe and development patterns in order to better understand these growth trends. We also studied architecture typologies both at home in the Willamette Valley and in other megaregions in order to better understand how this growth might take shape. These case studies can be found in the appendix of this document.


HIGH SPEED RAIL CRITERIATechnology, Principles and Guidelines

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) tries to address prevention, mitigation, emergency management, and system safety integration. The FRA is in the process of structuring a new, tiered approach to passenger operations, taking into account maximum operating speeds as well as right-of-way characteristics, safety technology, planning requirements, and the presence or absence of less compatible rail traffic (i.e., passenger equipment built to different standards or freight operations).

The state of California is in the process of developing its high speed rail network called HST Fly California. HST Fly California provides a valuable example to the criteria and principles necessary in evaluating the alignment and station locations in the Willamette Valley and Cascadia High Speed Rail corridor.

FRA GUIDELINES ON SAFETY AND GRADE CROSSINGS

FRA regulations provide minimum criteria for grade crossings on high-speed lines, including a prohibition of any at-grade crossings at speeds above 125 mph. The bullet points below describe additional steps that should be taken to reduce risk and enhance the quality of HSR service.

1. Consolidation and Grade Separation

• Support efforts to close crossings and limit the creation of new highway-rail crossings except where the public interest clearly provides justification.

• Where there are more than three tracks, or where frequent low-speed movements are expected, strong consideration should be given to closure or grade separation.

2. Safety Improvements at Private Crossings

• Because of the prevalence of heavy trucks and agricultural equipment, closing private crossings should be an integral part of the crossing safety strategy for any HSR corridor.

a - Public Access Crossings• Should be treated in the same manner as public grade crossing, and

should be included in crossing consolidation programs.

b - Industrial Crossings• Each of these crossings should be evaluated individually to ensure

proper signage, adequate active warning, suitability of roadway approaches (including elimination of “hump” crossings capable of hanging up low-profile vehicles), adequate storage distance for longer combination vehicles between tracks and nearby traffic intersections, presence of traffic- calming devices approaching the crossing that are compatible with the road traffic, and effective barrier systems where required.

• Ongoing training and awareness efforts for drivers regularly using the crossing is also important to ensure familiarity with the crossing safety system.

c - Residential Crossings• Rule of thumb - 5 or more residences constitutes public access for a

single crossing location.• If train speeds exceed 90 mph at the location, flashing lights and

gates should be provided in each case.

d - Agricultural Crossings• Systems that provide active warning, controlled opening of the

crossing, and provide feedback when it is secured are very desirable. This is particularly true when sight distances are limited.


• For many locations, an electronic lock with a timed release controlled through the signal or train control system may be more cost-effective

• and appropriate than a traditional arrangement with flashing lights and gates.

3. Sealed Corridors

Definition of a sealed corridor:An extended rail corridor or segment thereof on which all public at-grade crossings are evaluated through an engineering diagnostic process to determine the appropriate level of safety improvement needed to decrease or eliminate violations. Safety improvements include closure/consolidation, enhanced warning devices, medians, and grade separation. The end result is that redundant and/or unsafe crossings are consolidated through closure and/or grade separation and all remaining public crossings are equipped as appropriate with four quadrant gates, median separators, and longer gate arms. Private crossings are also evaluated for closure, signal treatment and/or special signage.• Sealed corridor treatments will be expected for all highway-rail

grade crossings at locations where train speeds exceed 79 mph.• Sealed corridor treatments are also appropriate at crossings with

more than two tracks, regardless of speed, and particularly near passenger stations.

4. Warning Systems and Other Highway Traffic Control Devices

a - Interconnection and Supplementary Traffic Control• Special attention should be given to the interconnection of grade

crossing warning systems with other traffic control systems to avoid “storage” of vehicles on the crossing (i.e., vehicles that are stopped on the crossing due to traffic that is queued because of the highway traffic signal).

b - Presence Detection• For crossings where storage is a known possibility, and in the case of

crossings on segments with train speeds above 100 mph, regardless of a prior history of storage, presence detection should be provided in connection with operation of the train control system.

5. Train Control Integration

• Train control systems provide information concerning route conditions ahead. FRA has in place existing train control requirements for operations above 79 mph. On July 21, 2009, FRA published a proposed rule on Implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) systems. PTC will be required by law on all intercity and commuter passenger lines by December 31, 2015.

• FRA will insist on integration of train control technology if any crossings are retained at speeds exceeding 110 mph.

6. Barrier Systems

• At speeds exceeding 110 mph, the railroad shall submit a complete description of the proposed barrier/warning system.

• Barrier systems, where required, need to meet the following tests to be effective:

- Must operate in concert with the crossing warning system, and the combined system must provide critical information concerning system health and status in real time.- Must be capable of stopping short of the crossing the heaviest motor vehicle operated on that roadway, taking into consideration the posted speed limit.- Must include the capability to detect any object of significant obstruction (car, truck) that remains on the crossing after the barriers go into place.


- Must communicate to approaching high-speed trains the presence of any significant obstruction in time for the train to reduce speed or stop before reaching the crossing.

7. Pedestrian and Trespass Considerations

• Active warning directed at pedestrians should be provided, and warning system timing and the nature of the warning given should take into consideration special needs road users (e.g., the visually impaired or motorized wheelchair users).

• Channelization of pedestrian traffic is recommended to ensure that warning is effectively delivered and pedestrian behaviors are adequately cabined.

Right -of- Way Safety

Track Safety Standards require that, for Class 8 and 9 track (speeds exceeding 125 mph), the track owner must submit for approval a “right-of-way plan” for the prevention of:• Vandalism • Launching of objects from overhead bridges or structures into the

path of trains • Intrusion of vehicles from adjacent rights-of-way

The High Speed Rail Strategic Plan divides potential operations into four categories or generic descriptions (see Appendix for the FRA’s Potential Tier Structure for Passenger Systems)

• HSR – Express. Frequent express service between major population centers 200-600 miles apart, with few intermediate stops. Top speeds of at least 150 mph on completely grade-separated, dedicated rights-of-way. Intended to relieve air and highway capacity constraints.

• HSR – Regional. Relatively frequent service between major and moderate population centers 100-500 miles apart, with some intermediate stops. Top speeds of 110-150 mph, grade-separated, with some dedicated and some shared track. Intended to relieve highway and, to some extent, air capacity constraints.

• Emerging HSR. Developing corridors of 100-500 miles, with strong potential for future HSR Regional and/or Express service. Top speeds of up to 80-110 mph on primarily shared track, with advanced grade crossing protection or separation. Intended to develop the passenger rail market and provide some relief to other modes.

• Conventional Rail. Traditional intercity passenger rail services of more than 100 miles with as little as 1 to as many as 7-12 daily frequencies; may or may not have strong potential for future high speed rail service. Top speeds of up to 79 mph generally on shared track. Intended to provide travel options and to develop the passenger rail market for further development in the future.


HST FLY CALIFORNIA

General Principles of HST Station Area Development

The following are criteria chosen by HST Fly California to evaluate station locations for their high speed rail alignments. The goal of these principles is to maximize the development opportunities created by high speed rail alignments and to encourage increased density developments.

• Higher density development in relation to the existing pattern of development in the surrounding area, along with minimum requirements for density.Bullet

• A mix of land uses (e.g., retail, office, hotels, entertainment, residential) and a mix of housing types to meet the needs of the local community.

• A grid street pattern and compact pedestrian-oriented design that promotes walking, bicycle, and transit access with streetscapes that include landscaping, small parks, pedestrian spaces, bike lanes, and bike racks.

• Context-sensitive building design that considers the continuity of the building sizes and that coordinates the street-level and upper-level architectural detailing, roof forms, and the rhythm of windows and doors should be provided. New buildings should be designed to complement and mutually support public spaces, such as streets, plazas, other open space areas, and public parking structures.

• Limits on the amount of parking for new development and a preference that parking be placed in structures. TOD areas typically have reduced parking requirements for retail, office, and residential uses due to their transit access and walkability. Sufficient train passenger parking would be essential to system viability, but this should, as appropriate, be offered at market rates (not free) to encourage the use of access by transit and other modes. Shared parking would be planned when the mix of uses would support it.

Implementation of HST Station Area Development Guidelines

There will be more than 20 station locations in California’s high speed rail network. The following criteria explain the ways in which the Authority can help ensure that the HST system becomes an instrument for encouraging maximizing implementation of station area development principles.

• Select station locations that are multi-modal transportation hubs with a preference for traditional city centers

• Adopt HST station area development policies and principles that require TOD, and promote value-capture at and around station areas as a condition for selecting a HST station site.

• Provide incentives for local governments where potential HST stations may be located to prepare and adopt Station Area Plans and to amend City and County General Plans that incorporate station area development principles in the vicinity of HST stations.

CASCADIA HIGH SPEED RAIL ALIGNMENT CRITERIA

The following definitions explain the criteria used to rate the four alignments being considered for the Cascadia High Speed Rail corridor in the Willamette Valley. These criteria were developed to assess the potential for each alignment to successfully operate as a true high-speed rail corridor. The rating system for each criteria was based on a scale of 1-5 points; 1 being the least favorable and 5 being the most favorable. Each potential alignment has been graded to help facilitate discussion of the potential benefits and challenges of each alignment choice.


ALIGNMENT CRITERIA - DEFINITIONSDISTANCE

Efficiency - The efficiency of an alignment relates to the distance between stops as the crow flies and the actual travel distance of track between each stop. This accounts for alignments that contain more curves and a less direct path of travel.

FREIGHT & TRANSIT

Conflict with Freight Systems – Measured as a percentage of the track that is on or adjacent to existing freight systems. 1=High Conflict 5 = Minimal Conflict

Connection to Modal Interchange – Based on a 60-mile radius of service by express bus and light rail. Gives value to how well an alignment connects to existing transportation options.

SUSTAINABILITY

Amount of Excavated Land (Carbon Footprint) – Accounts for the impact of adding parallel tracks, fly-overs, & grade crossing. This assumes that grade crossings are not mitigated because the UP & OE are not sealed, high speed corridors.

OPERATIONAL

Speed – Evaluated by the potential to achieve speeds greater than 110 mph

Reliability – Reliability is based on what entity has primary control over the line and the existing freight operations on that line.

Frequency – Frequency is based on the existing freight operations on the line and the priority of freight travel over passenger travel.

Capacity – Capacity is based on the current trips per day made by existing freight and the control over the right of way.

IDENTITY

Visibility – Visibility considers the alignment’s proximity to existing modes of transit and development.

DEVELOPMENT

Land Availability – Availability of land is a function of whether or not the alignment operates on public, private, or a combination of right of way. 1=Private 3=Combination 5=Public

Grade Crossings – Considers the number of existing or proposed grade crossings.

PORTLAND

VANCOUVER

OREGON CITY/ TUALATIN

SALEM

ALBANY

EUGENE/ SPRINGFIELD


ALIGNMENT ASSESSMENTSOpportunities and Constraints of Alignments

UNION PACIFIC ALIGNMENT

Land use:• RelativelyundevelopednearOregonCity(canbeopportunityor

constraint)• Existing right of way limitation? (constraint)• Possible scheduling issues with freight system (constraint)Transportation:• Albanystopwellconnectedtocurrenttransportation

(opportunity)• Allstationsarenearexistingstopsneardowntowns

(opportunity)

OREGON ELECTRIC ALIGNMENT

Land use:• Doesn’tgothroughOregonCity,Tualatinwouldbealternative

station(constraintoropportunity)• Shouldhaveenoughcapacitybecauseoflessfreight

(opportunity)Transportation:• Albanystopwellconnectedtocurrenttransportation

(opportunity)• Allstationsarenearexistingstopsneardowntowns

(opportunity)

I-5 ALIGNMENT

Land use:• Stopalonghighwaymightmovedevelopmentawayfromcity

centerinAlbanyandothers(constraintoropportunity)• Stopsnearcommuterdestinationslikelargebusinesses,

airports,etc.(opportunity)


• Dedicatedcorridorallowsforefficiency/capacity(opportunity)Transportation• InPortland,wellconnectedtoothertransportation

(opportunity)• Eugenestopnearcampus,couldbenearsometransit

(opportunity)• InAlbanyandEugene,stopsarenearUPalignment

(opportunity)• Albany only has one bus stop near station (constraint)

HYBRID ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT

(Starts in Portland on UP alignment/1-5 alignment, follows 1-5 alignment towards Tualatin, meets up with OE alignment until Salem, and then follows 1-5 alignment all the way to Eugene)

Land use:• Doesn’tgothroughOregonCity,Tualatinwouldbealternative

station(constraintoropportunity)• Mostlydedicatedcorridorallowsforefficiency/capacity

(opportunity)• Will have some existing freight on OE alignment to schedule around

(constraint)Transportation:• InPortland,wellconnectedtoothertransportation

(opportunity)• Eugenestopnearcampus,couldbenearsometransit

(opportunity)• InAlbanyandEugene,stopsarenearUPalignment

(opportunity)• Albany only has one bus stop near station (constraint)

UNION PACIFIC ALIGNMENT

EFFICIENCY BETWEEN STOPS• Track long enough for most

efficient speed

FREIGHT & TRANSPORTATION• Conflict with freight systems• Modal interchange (60+

miles)

SUSTAINABILITY• Amount of excavated land

(impact of parallel tracks)

OPERATIONAL• Speed/travel time (potential

for going 110 mph)• Reliability• Frequency (potential)• Capacity

IDENTITY• Visibility

DEVELOPMENT• Public vs. private• Grade crossings

ALIGNMENT CRITERIA UNION PACIFIC+1 TRACK

1.5

32.5

2.5

.5

.5

.5

.5

2

11

15.5

Criteria scored from 1-5. 1 = least desirable, 5 = most desirable

PORTLAND

OREGON CITY

TUALATIN

SALEM

ALBANY

EUGENE


OREGON ELECTRIC ALIGNMENT


efficient speed


miles)







ALIGNMENT CRITERIA OREGON ELECTRIC+1 TRACK

1.5

23

2.5

1.5

1.51.51.5

1.5

11

18.5


PORTLAND

OREGON CITY

TUALATIN

SALEM

ALBANY

EUGENE


I-5 ALIGNMENT


efficient speed


miles)







ALIGNMENT CRITERIA 1-5 EXCLUSIVECORRIDOR

3

13

1

3

333

3

33

29


PORTLAND

OREGON CITY

TUALATIN

SALEM

ALBANY

EUGENE


HYBRID ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT


efficient speed


miles)







ALIGNMENT CRITERIA HYBRID ALTERNATIVE

3

1.53

1.5

2.5

333

2.5

22.5

27.5


PORTLAND

OREGON CITY

TUALATIN

SALEM

ALBANY

EUGENE


STATION ASSESSMENT

PORTLAND AREARose QuarterUnion StationTualatinOregon City

SALEMDowntownI-5

ALBANYDowntownI-5

EUGENE/SPRINGFIELDI-5U of O Campus


STATION ASSESSMENT - PORTLAND AREA

PORTLAND AREARose QuarterUnion StationTualatinOregon City

Rose Quarter Station Location Zoning-Central Commercial-Central Multi-Dwelling Residential

Union Station Station Location Zoning-Central Commercial-Central Employment

Oregon City Station Location Zoning-Mixed Use Downtown

Tualatin Station Location Zoning-Central Commercial-Office Commercial


STATION ASSESSMENT - SALEM

SALEMDowntownI-5

Downtown Station Location Zoning-Central Commercial-Office Commercial

I-5 Station Location Zoning-Retail Commercial-Residential/Agriculture


STATION ASSESSMENT - ALBANY

ALBANYDowntownI-5

Downtown Station Location Zoning-Central Commercial-Historic Downtown

I-5 Station Location Zoning-Residential-Regional Commercial


STATION ASSESSMENT - EUGENE / SPRINGFIELD

EUGENE/SPRINGFIELDI-5U of O Campus

U of O Campus Station Location Zoning-Major Commercial-Community Commerical-Public Land

I-5 Station Location Zoning-High Density Residential-Low Density Residential-Special Land


STATION ASSESSMENTCriteria DefinitionsIntegration Location of station to existing amenities eg. housing, jobs, transit, tourism opportunities

City Growth Potential for development within city limits or along transit corridors

Development Opportunities and difficulties for development within city limits or along tranist corridorsSheet1

Page 1

STATIONS Rose Union Oregon Salem Salem Albany Albany Eugene Eugene

STATION CRITERIA Quarter Station City Downtown I-5 Downtown I-5 Campus Springfield

INTEGRATION

● Current proximity to other 5 5 1 3 5 3 3 2 3 2

modes of transport

● Potential for future connections 5 4 3 3 3 1 2 3 5 3

to transportation systems

● Proximity to existing job markets 4 3 1 5 5 5 5 1 3 1

● Proximity to major events areas 5 3 1 1 4 3 2 2 4 2

CITY GROWTH

● Opportunity for progressive 5 3 2 3 2 5 5 5 1 3

development

● Population to support 5 5 1 3 4 3 3 1 4 3

infrastructure

● 5 3 3 5 2 5 1 5 3 5

DEVELOPMENT

● Land Availability 3 1 5 5 1 3 1 5 1 3

● Compatible land use/zoning 3 5 5 5 3 5 1 5 3 2

● Affordability 2 1 5 3 2 1 3 5 2 4

TOTALS 42 33 27 36 31 34 26 34 29 28

Tualatin

Interruption of historic context

Station Scoring


ISSUES OF AN OREGON ELECTRIC ALIGNMENTThe following questions frame issues, opportunities and constraints that influence the selection of a High Speed Rail (HSR) alignment between Vancouver, Washington and Eugene/Springfield, Oregon.

1. The Oregon Electric line may have additional capacity with flexibility to increase priority passenger service for dedicated HSR. However, mixed traffic causes delays and reduces reliability. Consistent delays and undependable passenger service because of freight significantly impacts business and commuter ridership. How will adding additional HSR passenger service improve reliability?

2. HSR is classified by trains that operate at speeds above 110 miles per hour. In today’s freight line environment where travel speeds are restricted to between 90 and 100 miles per hour is it prudent to make significant expenditures to accommodate passenger service that is not HSR? If so should Oregon abandon planning and development of HSR. If HSR is abandon for the foreseeable future, how can improving freight safety and reliability increase passenger service and ridership, and to what extent?

3. How would using OE capacity to develop and expand HSR service preclude future freight service in the Willamette Valley region?

4. How does utilizing the existing Oregon Electric alignment and mixing passenger and freight service contribute to Oregon’s 2050 carbon reduction goals?

5. Other than ride quality, what are the benefits to HSR by improving track maintenance?

6. Station locations are within generally highly constrained areas that are either highly developed (Portland’s Union Station), industrial (Albany and Oregon City stations) or in transitional mixed institutional, commercial and industrial lands (Salem and Eugene stations). In all cases, heavy infrastructure (bridges, highways, rail yards) constrain access and development opportunities. Given that studies have shown that HSR stations require 2,000 to 3,000 parking spaces, where and how can parking of this magnitude find accommodation within the existing AMTRAK station areas? Does the existing transportation system in each station area have the capacity to accommodate regional traffic access to HSR service? Is there significant development potential in existing AMTRAK station areas to encourage adjacent new employment, housing and commercial uses to support HSR?


The following questions frame issues, opportunities and constraints that influence the selection of a High Speed Rail (HSR) alignment between Vancouver, Washington and Eugene/Springfield, Oregon.

1. Union Pacific representatives have stated that no additional capacity or priority will be dedicated to HSR. Consistent delays and undependable service because of freight priority significantly impacts business and commuter ridership. How will adding additional trains to the Cascades and AMTRAK service improve reliability?

2. Union Pacific indicated that freight traffic is nearing capacity and that in some cases freight trains are operating at higher speeds to gain small capacity increases. As the economy recovers and freight traffic increases how can HSR increase travel market share and overall general ridership without significantly improving reliability especially where reliability is influenced by capacity constraints?

3. HSR is classified by trains that operate at speeds above 110 miles per hour. In today’s freight line environment where travel speeds are restricted to between 90 and 100 miles per hour is it prudent to make significant expenditures to accommodate passenger service that is not HSR? If so should Oregon abandon planning and development of HSR. If HSR is abandon for the foreseeable future, how can improving freight safety and reliability increase passenger service and ridership, and to what extent?

4. How does utilizing the existing Union Pacific alignment and mixing passenger and freight service contribute to Oregon’s 2050 carbon reduction goals?

5. Other than ride quality, what are the benefits to HSR by improving track maintenance?

6. Station locations are within generally highly constrained areas that are either highly developed (Portland’s Union Station), industrial (Albany and Oregon City stations) or in transitional mixed institutional, commercial and industrial lands (Salem and Eugene stations). In all cases, heavy infrastructure (bridges, highways, rail yards) constrain access and development opportunities. Given that studies have shown that HSR stations require 2,000 to 3,000 parking spaces, where and how can parking of this magnitude find accommodation within the existing AMTRAK station areas? Does the existing transportation system in each station area have the capacity to accommodate regional traffic access to HSR service? Is there significant development potential in existing AMTRAK station areas to encourage adjacent new employment, housing and commercial uses to support HSR?


ISSUES OF AN UNION PACIFIC ALIGNMENT

The following questions frame issues, opportunities and constraints that influence the selection of a High Speed Rail (HSR) alignment between Vancouver, Washington and Eugene/Springfield, Oregon.

1. In Florida, Washington DC, Portland, Oregon and other cities, passenger rail (heavy commuter rail and light rail transit) are located within or along side interstate highway rights-of-way. How can FHWA and FTA collaborate to enable a freeway/HSR facility between Vancouver, Washington and Eugene/Springfield, Oregon utilizing the I-5 corridor? What are the legislative steps and cost necessary to gain shared usage?

2. What is the cost and benefit of making a greater investment in exclusive HSR guideway compared to investments in a shared facility (freight and passenger rail on the UP or OE).

3. What are the consequences of using I-5 right-of-way for HSR on the interstate highway system including commuter, interstate travel and motor freight service?

4. How does utilizing the I-5 alignment with all electric technology contribute to Oregon’s 2050 carbon reduction goals?

5 What are the transportation, land use and development opportunities and constraints of locating HSR stations in the I-5 corridor?


ISSUES OF AN EXCLUSSIVE / I-5 ALIGNMENT

Actions and Policy:Following this analysis of the Cascadia Eco Region and its effects on rail alignments, station locations, and criteria development, there are several next steps needed to further develop the High Speed Rail selection process:

1. A environmental impact study of each rail alignment and possible station location and its effects on animal migration, erosion, pollution, etc.

2. A cost/benefit analysis of the proper distance between stations to maximize speed and efficiency.3. A study of economic models to best fund the development of High Speed Rail.4. A study of specific major construction projects needed for each alignment to facilitate High Speed Rail including fly overs,

cut and covers, tunnels, etc.5. A development of several station design concepts that offer a vision for the future of High Speed Rail.6. A study to determine the best way to phase a hybrid alignment.7. A study of the economic benefits for communities adjacent to a High Speed Rail Line.8. An individual study of each community to determine the best location for a High Speed Rail station.

In addition to these next steps, there are several questions that should be answered before any next decisions can be made:

1. Can an I-5 alignment be secured with the Federal Highway Administration (FTA)?2. Can a rail alignment be secured, grade separated and guaranteed either through contracts with UP, OE, or a public owned

line?3. Can a commuter High Speed Rail Line successfully coexist with freight on a mixed corridor policy?4. Are there any new hybrid alignments/ station locations worth consideration?5. Which are the communities most inclined and what incentives are needed to facilitate High Speed Rail?6. What are the benefits for UP, OE for allowing High Speed Rail on their property?7. What added amenities are needed to facilitate the new developments and activity brought by High Speed Rail?8. What are the right of way widths and owner requirements of a UP, OE, I5 or hybrid line?9. What is the best path for connecting a Oregon High Speed Rail line to the one already in development in Washington?10. What political steps are needed to develop friends and advocates for a high speed rail line in Oregon?

The Cascadia Region has been targeted as an important location for the development of High Speed Rail by the Department of Transportation. Its development is an important catalyst to drive higher density, mixed-use growth, spur business and technological expertise, and address environmental concerns. It is our hope that this study has offered a clear guide for the process needed to bring Oregon’s High Speed Rail into development. Together we can create a 21st century infrastructure and long-term vision worthy of this great state.


SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS

APPENDIX

Typologies

Shows architectural typologies that are supportive of High Speed Rail. These include employment, residential, mixed use and commercial.

Case Studies

Case Studies of High Speed Rail lines outside the U.S. contribute to the critical process of comparing lines and station areas. The Case Studies provide background research as a basis for cpmparing Cascadia HSR proposal with other working systems around the world.

Resources

Useful information about organizations relevant to High Speed Rail.

Contacts

People important to the future discussion of High Speed Rail


ARCHITECTURAL TYPOLOGY LOCATIONS


ARCHITECTURAL TYPOLOGIESMEGA-REGIONAL CENTERS

Transbay Transit Center & Tower - Pelli Clarke Pelli: San Francisco, CAThe proposed high speed rail station is truly a multi-modal transit hub that provides access to 10 of the area transit options. The adjacent commercial high-rise is an example of commercial architecture associated with high speed rail.

8 House - BIG : Copenhagen, DenmarkThis mixed-use housing project in the Orestad area of Copenhagen is 10 story development located near the local train station. The project combines 476 residential units and 100,000 sf of commercial and retail space. Copenhagen and Portland are similar in population and metro area.

Project Green - Mithun: Austin, TXProject green is a transit oriented development planned for the riverfront of Austin that includes 2.5 million square feet of office, hotel, residential, and retail space. The project intends to be both water and carbon neutral.

Mosler Lofts - Mithun: Seattle, WAThe Mosler Lofts in Seattle are a 12-story residential tower with 6,000 sf of retail space and promotes a 24/7 live/work community. High speed rail could support development of this density and scale for urban stop locations.

High Speed Rail offers opportunities for new architectural typologies and development. These projects represent examples of mixed-use, residential, workplace, and commercial typologies.

Aaron Frease Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland

ARCHITECTURE TYPOLOGIES

Metro Center at Owings Mills, outside of Baltimore, MD. 47.5 acre mixed use build-out. Currently under construction. Includes office, residential, retail, restaurants, a public library, a community college, hotel, and over 11,000 parking spaces.

Ashley B. Koger Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland

MIX

ED U

SEEM

PLO

YMEN

T

COM

MER

CIA

L

The Commons, Portland, OR. A low income senior housing development located nearby to existing transit.

RESI

DEN

TIA

l

The Laura Street Transfer Station , an office and retail TOD in Downtown Jacksonville, Florida. The project will have an 11,000 sq. ft class “A” office building and 2,500 sq. ft retail building.

Transit-oriented shopping near the Subway Station in Lausanne , Switzerland.

EMPLOYMENTSTATION OFFICE TOWERS

Projects:

Transbay Terminal - San Francisco, CAVienna Bahnhof City - AustriaLinz Hauptbahnhof - Austria

..

RESIDENTIAL / HOTELCONVERTED GRAIN SILOS

SUBJECT TITLE

Projects: Gruenerloekka, Oslo - NorwaySilo Point, Baltimore, MD - USASalamanca Place, Hobart - TAS

Sturdy industrial buildings may offer opportunites for adaptive reuse such as these silos converted to housing and hotels

silolodging Quaker Square Inn Akron OH

RESIDENTIAL / HOTEL

(REPLACE W/ IMAGES)

SUBJECT TITLEBody of Text

Projects: Silo Point, Baltimore, MD - USAQuaker Square Inn, Akron, OH

HOUSINGTHORNTON CREEK, SEATTLE - HABITAT RESTORATION

Project: Thornton Creek, Seattle, WA - USA

Redevelopment of an under utilized surface parking lot adjacent to a regional mall, an exisiting bus transit station and near a future light rail stop. This project included day-lighting a long hidden creek.

Project included townhouses, apartments atop retial and a cineplex on the corner adjacent to the mall.

HOUSINGTHORNTON CREEK, SEATTLE - HABITAT RESTORATION

ARCHITECTURAL TYPOLOGIES

East Rutherford, NJThis “transit village” has retained its character but is within walking distance of a transit stop.

Jim Lutzke Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland

UN Plaza, San Francisco, CABusiness Structures have public space adjacent to or in between.

ARCHITECTURAL TYPOLOGIESBallston Metro stop, Arlington, VA

Sixteenth Street Mall, Denver, CO

Dense urban area with diversity of building functions and users

Attractive shopping area tha tis busy all day and night has transit at its core.

Pedestrian Mall- Utrecht, Netherlands

Nicole Holt Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland

http://www.pedbikeimages.org/pubdetail.cfm?picid=67

MIXED-USE Pedestrian mall that combines both commercial and residential uses.

Buildings can be designed to incorporate bus stops or other transit amenities into the facade of the building itself to enhance connections to transit.http://www.planning.dc.gov/planning/frames.asp?doc=/planning/LIB/planning/documents/pdf/Trans-Principle1.pdf

Redmond Commercial Center - Redmond, Washington


h t t p : / / w w w. p e d b i k e i m a g e s . o r g /pubdetail.cfm?picid=551

COMMERCIALOn-street parking and pedestrian bridge allow for a walkable area around commercial centers.

Songdo International Business District, Kohn Pedersen Fox - South Korea


RESIDENTIAL Mass transit lines move easily through the layout of parks and buildings, while high density residential areas are balanced with open spaces. In addition to creating a lush environment, the large green spaces help control storm water retention and reduce the urban heat island effect.

http://www.archdai ly.com/34289/songdo-ibd-kohn-pedersen-fox/

Schematic Circle Center, Kevin Barbee - Indianapolis, IN


EMPLOYMENT Circle Center is a multi-block urban redevelopment of downtown Indianapolis. The three million square foot mixed-use project consists of a new retail center, office towers, hotels, and entertainment zone. Circle Center is a necklace of interior spaces, linked by the datum of a curved wall, in the format of existing blocks, respecting existing facades, height lines, and historical context.

http://www.kevinbarbee.com/exp_jerde.htm

Architectural Typologies

Seth Dunn Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland

Commercial: Tama Plaza Station by LaguradaLow Architects incorporates retail and shopping above a train terminal. It is located in Tama, Japan.

building in Portland, OR. It is designed by Mithun Architects.

Mixed Use: Howard Station by GTM Architects is a mixed use development located in Baltimore, MD. It attempts to preserve the historic nature of the city.

Employment: Pushing Slab is an o�ce building designed by MVRDV. Proposed for Paris, France, it would be one of the most energy e�cient o�ce buildings in the city. Construction is expected to start in 2011.

HSR ARCHITECTURAL TYPOLOGIES

MIXED USE - Gresham, OR This mixed space off ers shops, services, amenities, jobs and homes located at the Gresham Station Crossing.

COMMERCIAL - Gare MontParnasse, Paris FranceThis commercial space off ers a hotel as well as commercial shopping underground and above.

HSR ARCHITECTURAL TYPOLOGIES

RESIDENTIAL - Rio Vista West, San Diego, CA This residential area was the fi rst transit oriented development in San Diego. In Rio Vista West the homes are closer together, streets are narrower, stores are closer, and everything is centered around a village square; with a park, a trolley stop and a bus station.

EMPLOYMENT - Palatine, ILThis employment zone was created after the metra line was put in. It is in walking dis-tance and easily accessible from the metra.

HIGH SPEED RAIL CASE STUDY LOCATIONS


Salerno

ROME to NAPLES-ITALYFAST FACTS

ROME TO NAPLES HIGH SPEED RAIL LINE

Corridor 1: Trans-European High Speed Rail Network

DistanceMax SpeedAverage SpeedTimeTrips/DayTrack TypeMin. Curve RadiusElectrificationRail Company

218 km (135 miles)300 km/h (186 mph)186 km/h (115 mph)1 Hr 10 Minutes40 Connections DailyDedicated High Speed Line5,500 m (18,000 ft)25 kV AC ElectrificationTrenitalia

The Rome to Naples Line is one link in the numerous lines that makes up Corridor 1 of the European Union’s “Trans-European High Speed Rail Network”. Corridor 1 connects Berlin, Germany to Palermo, Italy. Construction of this line finished in December 2009. The line utilizes 25 kV AC electrification; allowing the ETR-500 trains to operate at speeds of 300 km/h (186 mph). Trains reached a maximum speed of 347 km/h (215 mph) during testing of the track prior to opening the lines.

The distance from center line to center line of the tracks is 5m (16 ft) and the line is designed so that trains traveling in either direction can use the tracks to maintain optimum efficiency on the line. A European Train Control System keeps the line operating safely and efficiently. The Rome to Naples line is a passenger only line and does not have grade crossings. The longest tunnel on the route goes through the Alban Hills and is 6,725 m (4 miles) long.

Aaron Frease Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland

ROME to NAPLES-ITALYROMA TERMINI

NAPOLI CENTRALE

SALERNO, ITALY

Roma Termini is the main train station in the heart Rome and one of the largest train stations in Europe. The terminal has 29 platforms, and serves 480,000 people per day for an annual rate of more than 150 million people a year. Roma Termini is an important transportation hub for Rome because it is the location of stops for both Metro lines A & B, and there is a bus station at the adjacent Piazza dei Cinquecento

Napoli Centrale is the main railway in Naples, and the 6th largest in Italy in terms of passenger flow. This terminal serves 137,000 people per day for an annual rate of 50 million people per year. Its 26 tracks serve about 390 trains daily, and it is also a subway stop for Naples Metro. The terminal is currently under construction for renovation to Pier Luigi Nervi’s original design, and it is located in Piazza Giuseppe Garibaldi.`

The Naples-Salerno High Speed Rail line continues the high speed line of Corridor 1 and frees up the local Naples-Salerno coast line. This new dedidcated passenger line frees up some of the congestion on the coast line due to freight and passenger rail service. The current rail station accomodates high speed rail and conventional rail lines. Salerno, Italy is similar in population to Eugene, Oregon and has about half the land area.

Sources:- Ferrovie Dello Stato. Gruppo Ferrovie. http://www.ferroviedellostato.it/homepage.html (accessed October 4, 2010).- Wikipedia contributors, “High-speed rail in Italy,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-speed_rail_in_Italy&oldid=392953509 (accessed October 4, 2010).- Wikipedia contributors, “Rome–Naples high-speed railway,” “Salerno, Italy,” “Eugene, Oregon,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org (accessed October 4, 2010).

EUGENE, OR SALERNO, ITALYPopulationLand Area

154,620 People40.54 Square Miles

146,045 People22.4 Square Miles

SALERNO RAIL STATION

LYON TO AVIGNON, FRANCEFAST FACTS

TGV: THE FRENCH HIGH SPEED NETWORK

DistanceMaximum SpeedAverage SpeedTravel TimeTrips/DayTrack Type Rail CompanyElectrification

276 km (127 miles)279 km/h (173.5 mph)199 km/h (124 mph)1:0127 Weekdays, 18 Weekends LGV TGV25 kV 50 Hz AC

TGV runs most of its trains throughout France. TGV began in the 1970’s, and was the 4th commercial high speed train service and the 3rd standard gauge high speed train service. The network now extends throughout France and into Belgium and Switzerland, serving 40,000 passengers daily.

Avignon TGV 89,769Valence TGV 63,864Lyon Part Dieu 472,317

image from www.eurail.com

The full TGV rail network extends into Belgium and Switzerland.

WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF TGV TRAINS?TGV trains are able to travel on both LGV tracks and conventional tracks, at the maximum safe speeds on those tracks. This gives the TGV system advantages over other systems, as the TGV trains can tie in to existing infrastructure and serve city-center stations.

TRAIN ROUTE: CITY POPULATION:


LYON TO AVIGNON, FRANCE

TGV Train

THE TGV STATION IN VALENCE, FRANCEThe Valence TGV station is a bi-level station with six total tracks. It serves as a cross-roads for the TGV network and the commuter train line. The two tracks on the upper level serve TER trains, France’s national commuter train line. The 4 tracks on the lower level are reserved for TGV service. The outer two tracks are for trains stopping in Valence, and align with the platforms. The inner two tracks allow trains that are not stopping in Valence to pass through the station at full speed.The main station area is buried under grade to allow the TER trains to pass above. The orientation of the station allows for expansive views of the Vercors Mountains.

The opening of the Valence TGV station has re-routed traffic from Valence’s main train station and greatly decreased travel times for TGV Mediterranean services passing through Valence.

FAST FACTS: VALENCE TGV STATIONOpening Date:Distance from Central Valence:

TracksTGV StopsParkingAmenities

2001

10 km (6.2 miles)20 minutes by shuttle6 (4 TGV, 2 commuter)30 stops per day812 spacesRental Car ServiceShuttle to Central Valence

Sources:

Maillard, Mechel. “Three New French TGV sta-tions,” www.jrtr.net/jrtr28/pdf/f26_mai.pdf

RailEurope.comwww.bonjourlafrance.com


The station plan to the left illustrates the close connection the Valence Station has to the freeway. The station is 6 miles from central Valence. Much area is dedicated to parking, providing 812 spaces and allowing commuters to drive to the station and leave their car while traveling. The diagram also shows how the commuter train tracks and TGV tracks intersect at the station.

Railjet: Munich - Salzburg - Vienna - Budapest

( REPLACE W/ IMAGES / MAP OF LINE)

FAST FACTS

Flying on Austria’s new Railjet

DistanceSpeedTimeTrips/Day

Track Type Rail Company

564 km (351 mi)200-230 km/h (125-143 mph)6 h 45 min5 | Vienna - Munich (4 h 15 min)7 | Vienna - Budapest (2 h 30 min)Dedicated /CombinationAustrian Federal Railways (ÖBB)

The Railjet is the new high speed train of the Austrian Federal Railways (ÖBB), which was introduced with a timetable change in 2008-2009 and operates at speeds of up to 200 km/h (124 mph), with a planned increase to 230 km/h (143 mph) by 2013.

ÖBB has opted for locomotive-hauled push-pull high-speed trains, rather than Electrical Multiple Unit (EMU) such as the ICE3 or Shink-ansen designs. A Railjet train set consists of seven individual coaches that are permanently coupled with airtight between-coach intercon-nections but with normal screw couplings on the outer ends of the set of 7 coaches. This design allows them to be hauled by existing conventional locomotives, and for this role the ÖBB chose locomo-tives from their large fleet of Taurus locomotives (a varient of which, the ÖBB Class 1216 or Taurus 3, holds the current world speed record for an electric locomotive at 357 km/h (222 mph)). The coach furthest from the locomotive acts as the control car.

Of the 408 seats in each formation, 16 are in Premium class, 76 in Business class and 316 in Economy. Electronic passenger information displays feature throughout the train, and each set has 80 screens to inform passengers about the next station stop and available connec-tions using real-time data transmitted to the train by GPRS. Between stations the screens display the train’s speed and its location on a map. Provision is being made for a media server to be installed, allowing a digital video service of short films or tourist information to be offered in the future.

Railjet has taken over most of the long-distance services from Vienna to Salzburg. This railway is the central component of ÖBB’s plans for high speed operation, and already more than 100 km is cleared for trains to run at 200 km/h. Currently intensive work is being made to permit maximum speed over most of the line by 2012. this will reduce travel times from Vienna to Salzburg from 2 h 40 min at the moment to approximately 2 h 15 min. Ultimately, ÖBB will have around 250 km of route where railjets will be able to operate at high speed. Most track in Austria, including this route, is state owned allowing the government to manage and opptimize passanger and rail traffic.

www.bahnindustrie.net

Brett Santhuff Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland

Railjet: Munich - Salzburg - Vienna - Budapest

(REPLACE W/ IMAGES)

ROUTES

www.seat61.com wikimedia comons

www.hauptbahnhof-wien.at | area of new development and Vienna’s new train station

macht schnell | macht Spaß Vienna - Linz

The first route Munich - Vienna - Budapest started operating in Decem-ber, 2008, with the second route Vienna - Salzburg - Bregenz/Zurich following in December, 2009.

LONG-TERM PLANS

2010-12 Vienna - Graz - Maribor - Ljubljana ( + Zagreb)2010-12 Vienna - Villach - Vience / Lienz2013 Improved frequency for Vienna - Innsbruck - Bregenz/Zurich2010-15 New Vienna Hauptbahnhof (Central Station) and assocaited transit oriented development. This improvement will allow trains to continue through on travel in the city - further improving rail effeciency and travel times.

The rail segment from Vienna to the Linz follows the lengh of the Danube River valley, an area of vineyards and orchards, villages and forested hillsides.

Linz, with a population of 190,000, is Austria’s third-largest city and in size is equivelant to Eugene, Oregon. Linz experiences a rail ridership of 30,000 per day. In 2004 the city began modernizing and rebuilidng its 1950s train station to create both a revitalized transportiaon hub and an economic center for the city. Railjet makes one stop between Vienna and Linz at about the halfway point in the city of St. Pölten, population 51,000.

The Trip of 184 km (114 mi) takes 1 hr 30 min total time, representing average speeds of 123 km/h (76 mph). Cost is for an Economy Ticket is 31.20 Euro. Linz’s new revitalized

Hauptbahnhof. Above projects underway in Vienna.

SOURCES: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railjet; www.seat61.com/railjet.htm www.hauptbahnhof-wien.at; www.railwaygazette.com www.eurail.com/eurail-high-speed-railjet

KOLN (COLONGE), DE - FRANKFURT, DE

MAP OF LINE

FAST FACTS

OVERVIEW

DistanceSpeedTimeTrips/DayTrack Type Rail Company

177 km, 110 miles166 km/h, 103mph - fastest avg.1:04 with 1 stop4 trips with varing stopsrated 300km/h, 186 mphDeutsche Bahn AG

Deutsche Bahn has been providing high speed rail through its Intercity-Express (ICE) since 1991. ICE cov-ers all of Germany and has connections into five of Germany’s neighbors. In 1999 ICE introduced tilting technology to its system. This technology works by tilting the cars as the train moves along curved track. By allowing an upto 8 degree inward angle the the ICE trains can travel 30% faster around curves with no af-fect to the passengers. Tilting technology can accoma-date maximum speeds at 143mph 230km/h on shared tracks. The downside is that the ICE isn’t the fasest train in Europe. Much of the ICEs routes are shared tracks and much of Germany’s rails have scattered tunnels which limit speed. Tunnels help to eliminate grade crossings through existing urban areas but because of the high pressurization differential between the tunnel air and the train windows can be blown out if the trains don’t reduce speed in tunnels.

Jim Lutzke Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland

KOLN (COLONGE), DE - FRANKFURT, DE

tear from collision with garbage truck

SAFETY

LIMBURG AN DER LAHN, DE

Since its introduction to Europe, high speed rail had a near perfect record [no deaths and few derailment accidents] until June 3rd 1998. The train, running on a conventional track at about 125mph 200kmh, is be-lieved to have impacted a fallen car and crashed into a bridge near Eschede killing 102 people and injuring hundreds. Interestingly high speed had nothing to do with the crash (the train was on a conventional track). High speed rail is actually tha safest mode of transport, with 102 deaths in Germany in almost 20 years (5 a year) is well below the fatality rate of any other form of transportation.

Limburg an der Lahn has about 18,000 people, over 36,000 including its outliying area. The population and the river that flows through the town are very similar to features of Albany, OR (40,000 people). Both towns have an expressway, where the Limburg line runs, close to town. Limburg is now connected with 2 major urban centers a short trip away. Albany and extending to Cor-valis would benifit simialrly. Residents would be able to travel up to Portland and back, even work a regular 9-5 and be back in time for dinner.

sources:http://www.bahn.comhttp://www.wikipedia.orghttp://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2010/08/17/train-crash-horror-in-germany/ice-slashed-open-by-garbage-truck-15-injured.html Albany, OR

Limburg an Der Lahn, DE

Rhine-Rhone High Speed Line: Eastern Branch - Dijon to Mulhouse, FranceFAST FACTSRail Company TypeDistance Speed Construction

GaugeMax. TolerancesVoltageOpening DateCost

Réseau Ferré de France (RFF)TGV 190km total (118 miles) 320km/h (200mph) Continuous welded rails (CWR) on reinforced concrete sleepers 1,435 mm5mm25kV AC (50 Hz) 2011 (planning since 1992)2,312 billion euros

LOCATIONWhile the Rhine-Rhone Line is designed to reach 200mph, which is faster than Oregon’s target speed for high speed rail, it does share similarities for target track length and size of cities with sub-stations.

The Rhine-Rhone Line will be the first province-to-province High Speed Line project in France. The route followed will bring France closer to major economic and population centres in the Rhine basin and Benelux countries, and will give these regions easier access to economic and urban centres in the Mediterranean, Italy and Spain.The line will also help to secure France’s position in the centre of a Europe progressively expanding to the East.12 of the 21 mainland French regions will benefit from the project. At European level, the plans will in particular affect Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain, Belgium and the Mediterranean.More than 1.1 million passengers per new station are expected to use the line each year.

•

•

•

•


JOURNEY TIMES (IN HOURS)

Dijon>> 2005 2012 Mulhouse 2h 40 1h 05 Strasbourg 3h 50 1h 35 Zurich 4h 30 2h 25

Mulhouse>> 2005 2012 Marseille 5h 40 4h 40 Paris 3h 10 2h 40 Lyon 3h 45 2h 25

Rhine-Rhone High Speed Line: Eastern Branch - Dijon to Mulhouse, France

BESANCON, FRANCECity Area 47 sq mi (122 km2) (1999) - Population 134,376 (1999)Metro area 638 sq mi (1,652 km2) (1999) - Population 222,381 (1999)Density 4,590 /sq mi (1,774 /km2)

Since the 1990s, the town has developed a reputation as one of France’s leading centres of technology in all fields, including telecommunications and biotechnology.

BELFORT, FRANCECity Area 6.60 sq mi (17.10 km2)Population 52,342 (2006)Density 7,930 /sq mi (3,061 /km2)

Belfort is a trading centre for wine and grain and its industries include chemicals, engineering, plastics and textiles. Belfort is also the hometown of Alstom where the first TGVs (Trains Grande Vitesse) were produced. As well as of the GE Energy European headquarter and centre of excellence for the manufacturing of gas turbines.

SALEM, OREGONCity Area 46.4 sq mi (120.1 km2)-Population 154,510 (2008)Land Area 44.8 sq mi (118.4 km2)-Metro Population 383,100Density 2,994.0/sq mi (1,156.1/km2)

OREGON CITY, OREGONCity Area 8.1 sq mi (21.1 km2)-Population 31,826 (2009)Land Area 8.4 sq mi (21.6 km2)Density 3,163.9/sq mi (1,221.6/km2)

COMPARISONSDevecey Line Connection

Perrigny Line Connection

Two sub-stations are planned to feed the 140 km of the Rhine-Rhone East Branch:- The first is located along the line Devecey, on the town of Besancon. It will be connected to the station RTE Palente and feed the 2 / 3 west of the line by walking on railway property.- The second, located on the town of Hericourt in the area of Belfort-Montbéliard, will supply a third of the railway to the east

To preserve the time savings of a new line, the fluidity of the connection must be ensured. The connection Perrigny facilitate direct routing of trains on the TGV to the south and simplify the circulation of the North-South route.


Section A Section B Section C

st nd nd

N

toSt

rasb

ourg

to Bâ

le

The route followed by the Eastern Branchof the Rhine-Rhône high-speed line

New stationsHigh-speed line layout - 1st trancheHigh-speed line layout - 2nd trancheConnection to the existing networkExisting networkCivil engineering structures TunnelMunicipalities crossedMaintenance depotWorks depotWater coursesMotorway

Legends

Rhine-Rhone High Speed Line: Eastern Branch - Dijon to Mulhouse, FranceCONSULTATIONFrom the start of the project RFF involved local elected representatives, residents and agricultural organizations in all stages of the process. This approach made it possible to choose a route which limited the impact on farming activities and on the natural and built environment.

PRESERVING THE ENVIRONMENTThe environmental challenges were taken into account since the project started. The decision to avoid housing as much as possible made it easier to integrate the line in terms of noise and environmental impact. The project avoids sensitive natural habitats and protects animal species in the areas affected by preserving their migration routes by means of suitable constructions. Water resources have been respected in accordance with the applicable laws as well as efforts to re-create and develop 125 hectares of wetland.A carbon inventory was conducted at the start of the project. The findings showed that the Rhine-Rhone high-speed line project will be ‘carbon positive’ after 12 years of operation.

•

•

OTHER INFO40% of rail line through forests37 underpasses for animals, artificial lakes, etc.85 municipalities concerned6,000 new jobs created160 bridges > 13 viaducts > 1 tunnel > 400 km of fencing

•••••

Sources:http://www.rff.fr/en/railway-network/projects/new-railways-lines-2916/ rhin-rhone-high-speed-linehttp://est.lgvrhinrhone.com/english.phphttp://est.lgvrhinrhone.com/medias/pdf/medias79.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belforthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besançon

•

••••

Eurostar (LGV Nord and High Speed 1)- London to Paris

London to Paris

FAST FACTS

Overview

Distance

SpeedAverage SpeedTimeTrips/DayTrack Type Rail Company

LGV Nord: 108 km (67 miles)Channel Tunnel: 50 km (31 miles)High Speed 1: 108 km (67 miles)300 km/hr (186 miles/hr)118 km/hr (73 miles/hr)2:1519Dedicated except for ChannelEurostar

Eurostar is a high speed rail line servicing the Channel Tunnel connection between London and Paris. The line consists of three mainline routes: The High Speed 1, the Channel Tunnel, and the LGV Nord. High Speed 1 runs 67 miles and connects London to the be-ginning of the Channel Tunnel.1 LGV Nord also runs 67 miles and connects the Paris end of the Channel Tunnel with a stop in Lille.2 Like the proposed Cascadia Line, Eurostar stops at many cities such as Kent and Calais. The Channel Tunnel is a 31 mile line which con-nects Britain and France. It utilizes two rail lines with a servicing tunnel between the two. The Channel Tun-nel is owned by a separate company Eurotunnel which

for its use.3 Eurotunnel was able to pay for the opera-tion through investment by stockholders as well as a £8 billion debt. This negated the need for government investment.4 This may be a valuable option due to a lack of political force behind the cascadia line. Eurostar began its service to Paris in 1994 how-ever High Speed 1 was not completed until 2003.1 The Eurostar line now serves 9 million people per year.5

Seth Dunn Cascadia High Speed Rail with Lloyd Lindley, Brad Perkins, & Jim Pettinari Fall 2010 University of Oregon, Portland

Eurostar (LGV Nord and High Speed 1)- London to Paris

Britain Rail Class 373

Two trains at St Pancras Station, London

Britain Rail Class 373

St Pancras Station, London

The Britain Rail Class 373 is the fastest train in the United Kingdom’s High Speed Rail line. Started in 1993, it can operate at 300 km/hr on high speed rail lines however it is limited to 160 km/hr in the Chan-nel Tunnel due to restraints such as air resistance and scheduling with other trains in the tunnel.6 The train is powered by two power cars each utilizing third rail pickup shoes or overhead power. In the case of the Eurostar route, overhead power is used. Along with the two power cars, each train consists of 18 couches and is able to carry 750 people. These can either be Standard

7 In its 17 years in existence, there has been only one accident. While the train derailed, it stayed upright and no one was killed.8

St Pancras Station in London was built for Mid-land Railway in 1868. It Victorian style makes it a beau-tiful piece work of architecture. Unfortunately by the 1960s, Plans were underway to tear it down. Due to strong opposition, this never happened. With the help of a £800 million renovation in 2007, the international expansion was created.9 This was in part to Eurostar’s newly created High Speed 1 line. The roof, pictured opposite was constructed using the beams from the original train shed. The Station is centrally located in London and within walking distance of a variety of amenities. Across the street from the station is the Brit-ish Library. Also located nearby is Kings Cross Central

TGV Thalys-Brussels to Amsterdam (via Rotterdam)

TGV in Brussels

FAST FACTS

TGV and Rotterdam

DistanceSpeedTimeTrips/DayTrack Type

Rail Company

226 km (140mi)220 km/h (136mph)1:5311 Dedicated

SNCF (Societe Nationale des Chemins de fer Francais)

The TGV is one of the fastest commercially operating conventional trains in the world. Under test conditions, the TGV has reached speeds of 515.3 km/h (320.2 mph), and setting a world record in 1990. The TGV network in Belgium is seen as an integral part of the future Euro-pean High Speed railway network, which is designed to provide a total of some 29000 kilometers of through routes suitable for operation at 250 km/h or more be-tween major cities by 2010.

Rotterdam is one of four stops on the route to Amster-dam, and shares several similarities with Portland. The population of the city is roughly 600,000 and it is lo-cated geographically on a large river, the Nieuwe Maas which divides the city into a north and a south. Rotter-dam is well connected within the Dutch rail system, but Thalys is the only high speed train that runs through it. Like most European cities, the inner city public tran-sit utilizes a metro system as well as busses and water taxis.

StopsBrusselsAnversRotterdam

Den HaagSchipholAmsterdam

City Population1,800,0001,190,769603,425

458,818NA Airport2,158,372

TGV Thalys-Brussels to Amsterdam (via Rotterdam)

Rotterdam Central Station and Thalys Line

Proposed Portland Station at Rose Quarter

TGV Tracks and Stations

TGV Thalys

The TGV runs on dedicated tracks known as LGV (ligne à grande vitesse, or “high-speed line”), allowing speeds of up to 320 km/h (200 mph) in normal operation on the newest lines. TGV trains can also run on conven-tional tracks, only at slower speeds. A strong point of the TGV in comparison to magnetic levitation trains is that older tracks may be used without special improve-ments. This is especially important when serving rail-way stations inside city centers.

Rotterdam’s high speed station is located in the center of the city which subsequently connects to the rest of the town. The train crosses over the waterway, turns to stop in the Central Station then continues north to-wards Amsterdam.

Thalys operates services via Brussels between Paris and Amsterdam or Cologne. So far, these reach their top speed of 300 km/h (186 mph) only on the run between Brussels and Paris Nord, which is scheduled to take 1h20m up to 26 times daily in each direction. There are also daily Thalys services between Paris and the main cities of Flanders and Wallonia, and four daily between Brussels and Marne-la-Vallée-Chessy for Disneyland Paris via Paris CDG airport, one of which continues through to Geneva, and the corresponding return workings.

APPENDIX

FRA - POTENTIAL TIER STRUCTURE FOR PASSENGER SYSTEMS

Appendix B: Potential Tier Structure for Passenger Systems (Note: Common corridor issues handled within ROW Safety Plan review)

Tier 0 IA IB IC II III IV V

Description Regional rail Conventional Emerging HSR HSR Regional HSR Mixed Operations

HSR Mixed Passenger

HSR Dedicated HSR Express

Speed Range mph

0-65 0-79 0- 80/110 0- 111/125 0-126/150 0-150 0-150 0-200/220

Other traffic on same track

None (or temporally separated)

Mixedpassenger and freight

Mixed passenger and freight



Conventionalpassenger only

None None

Track class - Class 4 - Class 4 - Class 5/6 - Class 7 - Class 8 - Class 8 - Class 8 - Class 9

Signals, train control

Traffic control PTC PTC; vital and perimeterprotection above 90

PTC; vital and perimeterprotectionabove 90

Per IC and ROW safety strategy integrated

Public highway-rail grade crossings

Automatedwarning; supplementary measures where warranted

Automatedwarning; supplementary measureswhere warranted

Sealed corridor; evaluate need for presencedetection and PTC feedback

Barriers above 110, see §213.247;Presencedetection tied to PTC above 110

See IC

None above 125

See IC

None above 125

None at any speed

None at any speed

Privatehighway-rail grade crossings

Automated warning or manually locked gate preferred;cross-buck and stop or yield sign where conditions permit

Automatedwarning or locked gate with signal interlock

None or as above

None above 125 None above 125 None at any speed

None at any speed

ROW safety plan

System Safety Program / Collision Hazard Analysis SSP/CHA and specific approval process for new service similar to 236.361

MOW safety managementplan

Address within SSP framework; no separate approval required Separate plan approval; integrate with SSP/CHA

Equipment CEM – end frame strength dynamic test

Present Tier I plus Cab End Frame Strength, or equivalent safety (including option for alternative to buff strength)

Present Tier II (including option for alternative to buff strength)

See Tier IA-C Define Define

Occupied car forward

OK OK Prohibited Up to 125 mph only

OK Prohibited

On-boardemergency systems

Per Parts 238 and 239 (including glazing, emergency egress and rescue access, lighting, signage, etc.)

System Safety Programs

Required; Review is for completeness; Audits for follow through Integrate Subpart G, Part 238

Required; FRA reviews management decisions and may disapprove

25


SOURCESFRA

High Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategyhttp://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/HSRSafetyStrategy110609.pdf

Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Railh t t p : / / w w w . f r a . d o t . g o v / d o w n l o a d s / s a f e t y /HwyRailXingGuidelinesreprint110609.pdf

HST Fly California

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/


Documents

Cascadia HSR report