Streetcar Report Final CP Front

Jasmine BlockStreetcar Realignment

Civil Engineering Senior Capstone 2010, Group 1, Project Manager: Tom GaynePrimary Client Contact: Portland Department of Transportation

COLLABORATING TEAM:

CORY CLAUSENASHAN FERNANDOTOM GAYNETYLER HAGELCARLO LOZANOKOUROS MONSEFDANIEL NGUYENLEUMIS RICHARDSONALI ZAHER

Submitted June 4 2010

FINAL REPORT ON PROPOSED STREETCAR ALIGNMENTS

Jasmine Block Streetcar Alignment

1 PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY | JASMINE BLOCK STREETCAR ALIGNMENT

FINAL REPORT ON PROPOSED STREETCAR ALIGNMENTS

Special thanks to:The success of the Portland State University Urban Plaza as a vibrant

community space has been under study by Portland Development Commis-

sion (PDC). The PDC has decided to re-align the Portland streetcar running

between SW Montgomery and Harrison streets crossing perpendicularly 4th

and 5th AVE, also-known-as the Jasmine Block.

This report documents the steps taken to date and the anticipated

further action needed to establish the most cost effi cient method for build-

ing the Portland Street Car around or through the Jasmine Block. In the fi nal

report the four different options considered will include a breakdown of the

cost / benefi t analysis along with discussion about the diffi culty in quantifying

the benefi ts associated with the Portland Streetcar system and the particulars

of its alignment. The designs presented will look into detailed traffi c analysis,

delay times with lost/gained revenue, parking availability, construction cost

with impacts along with a subjective assessment of other benefi ts and goals

of interest both to the development partners for the OSC and the greater

Portland metro population. These parameter will be documented in the fi nal

report which will help city planners, project engineers and local policy-mak-

ers to decide what the most desirable alignment might be for the Portland

Streetcar through the Jasmine Block.


Background of site

The proposed site for the Oregon Sustainability Center is between SW

Montgomery and Harrison streets between 4th and 5th Ave. Known as the

Jasmine Block, the site is owned by the City of Portland. The OSC will be

funded partially by future tenants along with city and state funding. The

budget for the Streetcar re-con� guration is to be incorporated into the overall

OSC project budget. The current Streetcar con� guration through this corridor

was implemented as a temporary design to allow time for the OSC developers

to put forth general plans for the site and to acquire the necessary funding to

break ground. The current Streetcar alignment around the OSC as a solution

is undesirable by all parties involved.

There are several issues with the current Streetcar layout which need

to be addressed. The current alignment involves a single track around the

existing block that is utilized by two way streetcar traf� c. As such there are

occasional delays as one car waits for a period of time while the car in the

other direction clears the right of way. This is complicated by the southbound

station platform being located on 5th Ave, adjacent to a Light-Rail stop. With

two lanes on 5th already designated as bus-only lanes the streetcar platform

utilizes the only general purpose traf� c lane. When the streetcar is at this

station waiting for right of way to clear the sole general traf� c lane on 5th is

blocked for a signi� cant period of time. While scheduling optimization has

helped minimise necessary wait times for both streetcar operations and gen-

eral traf� c � ow, the current alignment is unsatisfactory.


Safety Issues

Part of the purpose of the realignment is to address some perceived safety

concerns about the sites current alignment. The key factors that should be

considered in assessing safety are vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.

Operation records of the Portland Streetcar shows no fatal accidents

involving the streetcar. Since 2001 there have been only 12 accidents (4

major) with no serious injuries. While this record is partly due to restrictive

operational procedures for the Streetcar, such as limited top speeds, PDoT has

expressed safety concerns with the current alignment notwithstanding the

lack of data demonstrating a hazard.

One of the concerns expressed by PDoT is that the south bound train

operates counter-� ow to the one way traf� c on SW 4th Ave for one block.

That is a perceived safety issue for the cars traveling northbound on 4th with

a southbound train present.

The positioning of the southbound streetcar platform on 5th also causes

complications with the bike lanes on 5th avenue. Currently the lane passes

behind the platform on the sidewalk area. Riders have the choice of either

riding on the sidewalk or entering the bus lanes while negotiating several

in-road rail lines. These safety concerns are primary factors in the new design

selection criteria, along with a general desire by the OSC development coali-

tion to incorporate the Portland Streetcar line(s) and platform into the actual

building site.


Scope

To conduct a cost/ benefi t analysis of running the street car line or lines through center of the Jasmine Block as compared with current alignment.

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN COST/ BENEFIT ANALYSIS

1. PRIMARY COSTS / BENEFITS

Operating costs of streetcar, light rail and buses

Capital costs of constructing lines and station, including the likely increased structural cost of the building

Cost of removal of existing platform and track

Parking revenue from on street parking

2. SECONDARY COSTS / BENEFITS

Delay reduction for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles

Car travel costs from delay time

Cost of protecting / modifying utilities on site

IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTES TO CONSIDER MANIPULATING

Alignment of tracks and location of platforms

Methods and speci� cs of signalization

Lane usage on 4th and 5th avenues

FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN ESTIMATION

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


Required clearances between building and high voltage streetcar cables

Streetcar and car traf� c needs from south waterfront district are expected to expand considerably over time

There is a foreseeable increase in frequency of light rail and a re-rout-ing of bus traf� c due to the creation of the Portland - Milwaukee light rail line

5th and Montgomery will be studying a “green street” application. Consider competing interests and co-ordination of efforts

•

•

•

•


Proposed alignments

Due to the con� ned geometry of the site relative to the streetcar a limited

number of design alternatives were apparent. See Appendix A for illustrations

of design alternatives.

0: NO BUILD

Keep the existing alignment and build the OSC around it. (Presented as a

baseline comparison only.)

1: DUAL TRACKS

Run both NB and SB tracks diagonally through the center of the block,

removing the current perimeter track.

2: SINGLE CENTER TRACK

Run the SB track through the center of the Jasmine Block and keep the

existing perimeter track for NB use only.

3: HARRISON ST.

Keep the existing perimeter track as is and build a SB track down Har-

rison St.

SHAPING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

THE STREETCAR PROGRAM HAS BEEN VISIONED, DE-SIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED WITH THE EXPLICIT GOAL OF FACILITATING THE DEVELOP-MENT OF INCREASED URBAN DENSITY WHILE SIMULTANE-OUSLY HAVING A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE LIVABILITY OF THE INNER CITY.

INTRINSIC TO THE GOALS OF THE SYSTEM IF BALANCING THE NEEDS OF VARIOUS US-ERS OF THE URBAN TRANS-PORTATION NETWORK AS A WHOLE. ONE OF THE TENETS OF THE STREETCAR DESIGN IS TO ENABLE AND ENCOUR-AGE THE MULTI-USE OF ANY RIGHT OF WAY THAT THE STREETCAR MAKES USE OF.


Construction Costs

Details of the cost estimation are provided in Appendix D indicating

major items associated with the project. Values of line Items are provided

by the City of Portland and GBD. According to Portland Streetcar, Inc. the

estimated cost for the streetcar re-route through the Jasmine Block (double

or single track) will be around $3,000,000-4,000,000. Detailed needs and

costs were calculated with the assistance of GBD.

Key features taken into consideration include construction time, street-

car and street closure and special design considerations associated with the

streetcar and Oregon Sustainability Center. 14 days of closure of the street-

car are expected during the construction process. This closure is expected

to create operational problems such as movement of passengers from one

side of the work site to the other. Coordination with Trimet to develop

alternative modes of temporary transportation for the people who would be

impacted by the streetcar closure is needed.

The overall goal for the construction phase of the street car project will

be to install the rail and have the streetcar running within a suitable time-

frame (i.e. within 2 weeks). According to Kay Dannan of Portland Streetcar,

the construction for the two center track alignment and the single center

track alignment would both be accomplished in 2-3 months. If the twin

track alignment is implemented the current rail along Montgomery Street

will be removed. This nececcitates additional traf� c re-routing or street

closure.

A major goal for the streetcar re-route is to keep construction time,

traf� c detours and streetcar closures to a minimum. For either the double

track or single track plans similar closures are necessary. The spreadsheet

cost estimate provides items that would be associated with the construc-

GETTING OFF THE GRID

THERE ARE PROVISIONS FOR THE DETENTION OF STORMWATER ON SITE PLANNED. RUNOFF FROM THE STREETCAR TRACKS IS PROPOSED TO BE RE-TAINED BY BIO-SWALES AMONG THE TRACKS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BLOCK FOR SUBSEQUENT DISCHARGE TO THE ON SITE TREATMENT FACILITY.


tion phase of the streetcar re-route project. The items associated with the

streetcar and traf� c closures vary from temporary signage and fencing to

temporary walkways installed for pedestrians to move through the area if

necessary. A general budget is included for “Mobilization” which includes

hired personal for controlling traf� c, installing signs/temporary barricades

or fencing, and mobilization rails and concrete.

There are special design considerations for the streetcar running under

the Oregon Sustainability Center. As the streetcar will travel directly under

the cantilevered portion of the Oregon Sustainability Center, power line

placement issues arise such as whether or not the lines should be attached

to the building or if poles should be installed near the tracks to support

the lines. Another consideration is the type of barricade (if any) that will

separate pedestrians from the streetcar tracks in the Oregon Sustainability

Center. Although the streetcar will be traveling at a marginal speed, the

area may have a high volume of people. Installing fencing or re� ective

posts may be designs to consider that will affect the overall costs of the

streetcar re-reroute project.


If the twin central track design were implemented, the Montgomery

Street rails would be removed. If the single track design were to be used,

the Montgomery Street line will remain intact and continue to be used for

the eastbound street car. These assumptions were used to establish a dif-

ferential cost between the two alignments of interest. The table below indi-

cates the summed costs of the two alignments. The speci� cs of furnishing

and installation of items and cost of removal of the existing facilities along

Montgomery Street are provided in the cost estimate in the Appendix D.

Streetcar Alignment Cost ComparisionDouble Track Single Track

Hard Construction Cost $2,426,924.40 $2,049,009.40Estimating / Inflation contingency 10% $242,692.44 $204,900.94

Subtotal $2,669,616.84 $2,253,910.34

Construction Contingency 20% $533,923.37 $450,782.07Subtotal $3,203,540.21 $2,704,692.41

Engineering / Management 20% $640,708.04 $540,938.48

TOTAL $3,844,248.25 $3,245,630.89

Difference in alignment costs $598,617.36 less expendsive for single track layout.


Impact on Streetcar Operational Costs

If two tracks are run diagonally through the Jasmine Block there will be

a long-term monetary savings due to the decrease in time required to run

the streetcar around the block. Currently the streetcar runs on an 84-minute

round-trip schedule, which will be reduced to 81 minutes after the reorienta-

tion of the tracks. The longer round-trip travel time is due to the limitations

of the streetcars cornering ability. For both passenger comfort and safety, the

vehicle speed must be greatly reduced while navigating the sharp right and

left turns that currently exist. After the proposed track changes the streetcar

will be able to travel at optimum speed.

The operating cost of the Portland Streetcar is $145.00 per hour. This cost

will be used to calculate the annual savings of a two-track alignment through

the block. There are currently 72 trips per day, saving 3 minutes for each

round-trip or 216 minutes per day. This 3 hour and 36 minute daily savings

in operations would result in 6.7 times the savings per week (fewer Sunday

runs). The result is 1254 hours per year saved or $181,864 in annual operat-

ing savings.

[Data is a result of a conversation between the PSU Streetcar Re-routing

Team (that would be us) and Rick Gustafson]

Livable spaces

Track realignment through the Jasmine Block is necessary to the success

of the planned development and will result in bene� ts that will not immedi-

ately appear on a balance sheet. The revised track alignment will create an

urban plaza that brings people together in a common space, fostering com-

munity and economic development. The Oregon Sustainability Center (OSC)

is to be one of the most sustainable buildings in Oregon. Part of the design

LIVABLE SPACES

THE STREETCAR’S PRESENCE IN THE CURRENT URBAN CEN-TER IS A WELCOME, IF NOT KEY COMPONENT OF WHAT HAS RAPIDLY BECOME A POP-ULAR PUBLIC SPACE IN THE PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS.

THE CROSS-BLOCK ALIGNMENT OF THE TRACKS AND PLACE-MENT OF A PLATFORM FACIL-ITY IN THE SPACE WITHOUT SO MUCH AS A SINGLE INJURY ACCIDENT IN THE STREETCARS HISTORY OF OPERATION HAS SHOWN THAT STREETCARS CAN INTERACT COMFORTABLY WITH NON MOTORIZED USERS OF DOWNTOWN OPEN PUBLIC SPACES.


is to deliberately have no accommodation for parking. Public transportation

through an urban square is key to the squares success as it allows access to

the space without creating or interfering with traf� c and is accessible to a

broad cross-section of the community.

The creation of an urban square on the Jasmine Block by the streetcar

and the Oregon Sustainability Center will draw economic development to the

area. According to a 2008 report prepared by the Portland Department of

Transportation and Portland Streetcar Inc., over $3.5 billion dollars has been

invested within two blocks of the streetcar alignment since 2001.1 Business

are more likely to invest near � xed public transportation options such as

streetcars because of the permanence of the streetcar infrastructure and the

certainty that comes with it. When the streetcar track was routed through

the adjacent block that is currently occupied by the Portland State University

Urban Building a plaza, which has become a frequent gathering place for

people, was created. This plaza has drawn businesses such as Pizzicato and

Seattle’s Best Coffee bringing revenue for the city, which over time will offset

the initial construction costs of the streetcar. 1

The Oregon Sustainability Center will have very limited parking surround-

ing the building and is designed without a designated use parking facility. As

the building will bene� t from easy access to sustainable transportation such

as provided by the streetcar, locating the southbound station in the center of

the block will enhance the OSC’s image as a role-model in the promotion of

alternative transportation methods. The streetcar being integral to the build-

ing is in line with the concept of the Oregon Sustainability Center and the

concept for the future that it demonstrates.

1. Portland Streetcar Development Oriented Transit; Portland Department of Transportation and Portland Streetcar

Inc.; April 2008; Web Accessed May 10, 2010; http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/development_200804_report.pdf

THE “LIVING BUILDING”

THE OSC WILL BE BUILT UN-DER THE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE. THE LBC IS THE MOST ADVANCED MEASURE OF SUSTAINABILITY IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT TODAY.

THIS PROGRAM ENTAILS THE MOST INNOVATIVE METH-ODS AND MANDATES OF GREEN BUILDING AVAIL-ABLE, INCLUDING DEEM-ING THAT 100 PERCENT OF ENERGY REQUIREMENTS BE PRODUCED ON SITE.


Traffi c Modeling and Analysis

To determine delay times for traf� c a micro-simulation was conducted

of the blocks immediately surrounding the OSC. VISSIM was used to model

the network. Models were created to determine the impact on traf� c for

each of three con� gurations: No build, two diagonally through center and a

single track through center with the northbound streetcar utilizing the exist-

ing tracks. The traf� c parameter analyzed in the models was delay time. The

network model was provided by Kittleson and Associates, and was used to

determine traf� c delay through all corridors adjacent to the OSC site. The de-

lay was determined by de� ning travel time corridors within the network, the

simulation was ran using AM peak hour volumes, also provided by Kittleson

and Associates. The AM peak hour was determined to be the most critical

time for this particular network.

The travel time corridors de� ned were from 4th and Hall to Harrison

Street two blocks either east or west, of 4th, 4th and Hall to 4th and Mill, and

Harrison and 1st to 5th and Hall, Harrison and 6th, and 4th and Mill. Travel

time corridors were also de� ned for the streetcar. The corridors de� ned were

from the northbound Harrison platform the platform in the Urban Plaza, and

from 5th and Mill to the southbound Harrison platform. These corridors were

chosen to account for every possible travel route affected by the streetcar

recon� guration. The delay is calculated by the ideal travel time, or the travel

time with no stops, minus the actual travel time for each corridor, and for

each vehicle. The delay outputs obtained were the average delay through the

previously de� ned routes per vehicle including streetcar. Each simulation was

for one hour and three simulations were done for each con� guration using

the same traf� c volumes. Montgomery street was used only for streetcar in

the models to account for the upcoming green street project, which would

potentially eliminate automobile traf� c on the street.

A QUESTION OF IMPACT

THE OSC IS DESIGNED TO BE A DEMONSTRATION OF HOW CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES CAN AFFECT THE IMPACT THAT THE URBAN LIFESTYLE HAS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AS TRANSPORTATION IS ONE OF THE SINGLE LARG-EST DISCRETE SOURCES OF GHG EMISSIONS, THE EF-FECT THAT SITE DESIGN OF THE OSC HAS ON TRANS-PORTATION MODE CHOICE AND EFFICIENCY PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN SUS-TAINABILITY OF THE DEVEL-OPMENT OVERALL


No signal times were changed in any of these models. Inductor loops

were added to the intersections at 5th and Montgomery for the northbound

track running diagonal through the Jasmine block, and to the intersection at

4th and Harrison for the southbound track running diagonal. These inductor

loops were implemented into the existing signal con� gurations, so the street-

car green-times remained the same for all three models.

The simulation results concluded only a small change in traf� c delay

under both new design con� gurations. Under the two-track design, the aver-

age delay increased 3.5 percent per vehicle. For the single-track design, the

delay increased six percent per vehicle. Simulation results have been tabulated

in the table below. Streetcar delay alone was not considered to be signi� cant

in the design selection criteria, so was included with automobile traf� c for

the purpose of this model.Raw VISSIM settings and outputs are included in

Appendix E.

Reduced Data from VISSIMDelay times, Seconds

Test # No Build Single Track Double Track Modified Double Track

1 36.1 37.9 40.9 40.32 29.8 34.9 31.1 34.43 32.1 31.2 29.5 36.3

Avg 32.67 34.67 33.83 37.00


The Portland streetcar is a public transportation facility that serves the

downtown metro region. The City of Portland has allocated the majority

of the funds it collects from metered parking to fund streetcar operations.

The addition of the new Max lines to the Bus Mall on Fifth and Sixth Av-

enues has resulted in a loss of available parking. These parking intrusions

directly affect local business as well as impact the streetcar operation bud-

get. The alignment running both streetcar tracks through the center of the

Jasmine block allows for metered parking to be added to 4th Avenue. The

addition of this parking would generate revenue for the streetcar system

relative to using the existing 4th avenue and Montgomery tracks for the

northbound train.

The proposed construction of the Oregon Sustainability Center on

the Jasmine block will not offer on-site parking. Generating business and

of� ce space in an urban environment without offering adequate parking

generally is a violation of zoning code for the City of Portland. The City

hopes the Sustainability Center occupants and users will choose alternate

modes of transportation, reducing demand for parking facilities. PDC’s

hope is that this type of building philosophy will encourage more ef� cient

and sustainable forms of transportation. Routing the Streetcar through the

Jasmine Block and having a station on-site serves this purpose.

Nonetheless, though many commuters will opt to use the public tran-

sit system or biking there will be users that choose to drive. During peak

Eff ects on Parking

Revenue for one metered parking spot for the City of Portland.

Parking rate $1.60/hour

Parking Rate Hours 8am to 7pm Monday - Friday11pm to 7pm Sunday

Total hours of metered parking for a week 72 hours

Weekly Parking Revenue $1.60/hr * 72 hr/wk = $115.20/wk

Annual Parking Revenue $115.20/wk * 52 wk/yr = $5990.4/yr

Assume 80% Occupancy $5990.4/yr * (0.8) = $4792.32/yr

Each parking spot added on

the site is expected to generate

$4800 revenue annually.


business hours these commuters have few options nearby for parking.

Driving through the area looking for parking creates additional emis-

sions and downtime for the commuters. Driving around city blocks

negotiating a parking location could be daunting with high pedestrian,

bike, vehicle, bus, light rail and streetcar volumes.

Having fewer short term parking locations also impacts local busi-

nesses. Small businesses such as coffee shops, restaurants and bou-

tiques see loss in revenue due to the lack of availability in parking.

Short term parking is also a necessity for all buildings in order to have

mail operations and delivery services. Most buildings also require a

loading dock to load and unload goods that will need to serve the oc-

cupants in the building.


OPTION 1: REROUTING ONE – TRACK THROUGH THE JASMINE BLOCK

This alignment reroutes the southbound track through the Jasmine block

while maintaining the existing northbound track. This proposal will not have

any parking gain due to the existing track on SW 4th Ave and SW Montgom-

ery St. The main advantage of routing the southbound track through the

Jasmine Block eliminates the streetcar from traveling in the opposite direc-

tion of traf� c on Fourth Avenue while reducing costs from placing two tracks

rather than one.

Based off of an original image by Tim Martin of

Separated Alignment does not permit anymore parking than is currently present

SINGLE TRACK OPTION


OPTION 2: REROUTING BOTH TRACKS THROUGH THE JASMINE BLOCK.

This option considers routing both north and south bound street car tracks

through the Jasmine block freeing up space on both Montgomery and 4th

Avenue for metered parking. While helping local businesses in this area the avail-

ability of short term parking also is a substantial revenue source. Removal of the

existing track enables parking to be provided on both sides of the road. (Cur-

rently the east side of fourth has no parking available to give extra clearance for

general purpose lanes and the streetcar.) Total addition of metered parking by

considering Option 2 is 23 parking spots, based on examination of photographs

of the site, measurements of available GIS maps and existing parking arrange-

ments on other blocks of 4th Avenue.

PARKING CAPACITY

ASSUMING $4800 OF PARK-ING REVENUE PER SPACE:

# OF SPACES: 23

REVENUE PER EA. $4800.00

TOTAL REVENUE: $110,000.00$110,000.00


Of four initial proposals only two were examined at length. The fourth

alignment, routing a line down Harrison was discarded by the clients (all par-

ties stating emphatically that costs were prohibitive). The single track align-

ment with the 4th Avenue track being shifted into the general purpose lanes

was not pursued in depth as the impact on traf� c is likely similar to the basic

single track alignment while the costs fall somewhere in between the single

track and double track estimates.

Thus the two alignments examined are the basic single track and the

double track alignments.

SINGLE TRACK ALIGNMENT

Basic attributes of this alignment are as follows:

Estimated construction cost of $3,245,630.89

Does not provide parking revenue.

Does not reduce Streetcar operating costs.

Encumbers future potential Montgomery Green Street plans.

6% increase in vehicle wait time predicted.

DOUBLE TRACK ALIGNMENT

Basic attributes of this alignment are as follows:

Estimated construction cost of $3,844,248.25

Parking revenue of $110,000 annually (or more dependant on rates)

Reduces Streetcar operating costs by $180,000 annually.

Montgomery Green Street becomes unencumbered.

3.5% increase in vehicle wait time predicted.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

FINDING THE RIGHT METRIC

A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE GENERAL UNCERTAINTY IN URBAN TRANSPORTATION DESIGN IS THE DETERMINA-TION OF WHAT TO MEASURE AND THE RELATIVE VALUES AND DESIRABILITY OF THESE MEASUREMENTS.

WHILE THE PORTLAND BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION SPECIFI-CALLY CONSIDERS VEHICLE WAIT TIMES TO BE A COST TO BE MINIMIZED, THE PORTLAND STREETCAR COMMISSION AS-SERTS THAT WELL DESIGNED AND BALANCED CONGES-TION IS NOT ONLY MANAGE-ABLE BUT NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE FOR PROPERTY VALUES, SUSTAINABILITY GOALS AND LIVABILITY IN THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT

Conclusion

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY | JASMINE BLOCK STREETCAR ALIGNMENT 19

From this examination the two track alignment through the center of the block is clearly the preferred option.

The only drawback to the twin alignment identi� ed by the project team is the increased cost of construction. This

cost is estimated to be approximately $600,000 greater than the single track alignment. Conversely the twin track

alignment has many attractions both tangible and intangible. Of primary interest to this investigation is the function

of the OSP property, the Montgomery Green Street and the overall monetary costs to the City of Portland. The twin

track alignment provides a much more comfortable and pedestrian friendly environment on the site. Pedestrians are

not squeezed between the OSP and the Streetcar when walking on the sidewalk or while using the proposed Mont-

gomery Green Street. The Streetcar is able to move faster through the area with wider turns providing a more com-

fortable ride for the passengers. Potentially the twin alignment has a net positive revenue impact of nearly

$300,000 per year. Neglecting the time-value of money over a two or three year interval, the amortization period

of the higher cost of construction is on the order of two to three years. While no clear life span was indicated for

the facility an assumption is made that the Streetcar will be in operation on the site for more than 3 years.

We, the authors of this report conclude the following:

Having a relatively minor added cost and a substantial tangible and intangible benefi t over the single track alignment, running both the northbound and southbound Streetcar tracks from the south-east to north-west corner of the Jasmine block is the strong recommendation of this report.


APPENDIX ALocal Site Conditions

Site Context

MontgomeryGreen Street

Park Blocks

Oregon SustainabilityCenter

Image credit: GBD Architects


APPENDIX BIllustrations of proposed alignments.

Proposal IIDouble tracks through center of block



APPENDIX B (cont)

Proposal IIISingle track through center of block, existing track left in place and dedicated to northbound use



APPENDIX B (cont)

Proposal IIIbSingle track through center of block, existing track shifted into general traffi c lane and dedicated to north-bound use. Th is enables the addition of curb side parking for the block.



APPENDIX B (cont)

Proposal IISingle track through center of block, existing track left in place and dedicated to northbound use

SW MONTGOMERY



APPENDIX CProject Schedule Chart

2010February March April May JuneJanuary

Duration W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W5

3 wForm Team Contract 2 wContact Client 2 wCreate Scope 3 w

6 wObserve Streetcar for applicable data 2 wTalk with Others Involved for Data 6 w

2 w

8 wPerform Cost-Bene�t Analysis. 3 w

1 w4 w

3 w

Streetcar Project ScheduleDeliverables

Team Phase

Data Collection Phase

Finals week 1 wSpring Break 1 w

Time Off

with.VISSIM.Design Intersection/Streetcar stop 4 wCheck in with client 2 w

Prepare report 2 wPrepare Presentation 2 wPresent 1

Analysis

Closure phase


APPENDIX DCosts for single and double alignments.

Cost

Est

imat

ion

for S

ingl

e Tr

ack

Alig

nmen

tIT

EMS

OF

WO

RK

AN

D M

ATE

RIA

LS Q

UA

NTI

TYQ

UA

NTI

TYU

NIT

UN

IT P

RIC

ETO

TAL

PRIC

EPr

icin

g S

ou

rce

Rem

arks

Mob

iliza

tion

1LS

$213

,685

.40

$213

,685

.40

10%

of

othe

r Ite

ms

Left

as

a fix

ed c

ost

Fiel

d En

gine

erin

g1

LS$2

0,00

0.00

$20,

000.

00O

rder

of

Mag

natu

deQ

ualit

y C

ontr

ol1

LS$3

0,00

0.00

$30,

000.

00O

rder

of

Mag

natu

deW

ork

Zone

Tra

ffic

Con

trol

1LS

$50,

000.

00$5

0,00

0.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Eros

ion

Con

trol

1LS

$5,0

00.0

0$5

,000

.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Salv

age

25m

tur

nout

0EA

$25,

000.

00$0

.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Left

in p

lace

Rem

ove

exis

ting

Stre

etca

r Tr

ack

Slab

0TF

$150

.00

$0.0

0Si

mila

r to

RP

Exte

ndLe

ft in

pla

ceC

lear

ing

and

Gru

bbin

g1

LS$5

,000

.00

$5,0

00.0

0O

rder

of

Mag

natu

deRo

adw

ay E

xcav

atio

n (r

econ

stru

ctio

n)75

CY

$77.

00$5

,775

.00

SCL

Muc

h le

ss r

oadw

ay d

istu

rbed

Trac

k Sl

ab E

xcav

atio

n30

CY

(F)

$69.

00$2

,070

.00

Low

ell

90%

Lef

t in

pla

ceTr

ack

Agg

rega

te B

ase

Exca

vatio

n13

0C

Y$6

8.40

$8,8

92.0

0G

ibbs

+ 2

0%8"

SD

R 35

PV

C T

rack

Dra

in L

eads

20LF

$192

.00

$3,8

40.0

0Lo

wel

l10

" to

12"

HD

PE In

let

Lead

s20

LF$1

62.0

0$3

,240

.00

Low

ell

Con

cret

e In

lets

, Typ

e G

-22

EA$1

,650

.00

$3,3

00.0

0Lo

wel

lIn

stal

l Wat

er Q

ualit

y Tr

eatm

ent

Faci

lity

0LS

$28,

500.

00$0

.00

Low

ell

Min

or A

djus

tmen

t of

Man

hole

s1

EA$4

80.0

0$4

80.0

0Lo

wel

lC

old

Plan

e Pa

vem

ent

Rem

oval

220

SY$1

7.00

$3,7

40.0

0Lo

wel

lTr

ackw

ay A

ggre

gate

Bas

e13

0C

Y$6

0.00

$7,8

00.0

0SC

LA

ggre

gate

Bas

e fo

r Ro

adw

ay C

onst

ruct

ion

250

CY

$67.

00$1

6,75

0.00

Low

ell

8" d

epth

Asp

halt

Con

cret

e Pa

vem

ent

220

TON

$100

.00

$22,

000.

00SC

LIn

clud

es p

avin

g at

5th

Ave

sto

p (6

" de

pth)

OC

S Po

le F

ound

atio

ns F

1/FF

13

EA$3

,500

.00

$10,

500.

00Lo

wel

l + R

esto

ratio

nO

CS

Pole

Fou

ndat

ions

F2/

FF2

3EA

$4,5

00.0

0$1

3,50

0.00

Low

ell +

Res

tora

tion

Spre

ad F

ootin

g2

EA$5

,500

.00

$11,

000.

00Lo

wel

l + R

esto

ratio

nC

oncr

ete

Cur

bs (o

utsi

de o

f st

ops)

60LF

$38.

00$2

,280

.00

SCL

Con

cret

e W

alks

(out

side

of

stop

s)70

SY$7

0.00

$4,9

00.0

0Lo

wel

lTr

unca

ted

Dom

e D

etec

tabl

e W

arni

ng16

SF$5

0.00

$800

.00

SCL

Regr

ade

Bric

k In

ters

ectio

n32

0SY

$200

.00

$64,

000.

00Ph

ase

1 +

25%

Stop

Pla

tfor

m (J

asm

ine

Bloc

k)1

LS$6

2,50

0.00

$62,

500.

00PS

U +

25%

assu

mes

tac

tile

and

bric

k pa

ving

Relo

cate

5th

Ave

She

lter,

Ben

ch, R

ecep

tacl

e an

d N

extb

us1

LS$1

0,00

0.00

$10,

000.

00O

rder

of

Mag

natu

dean

d re

mov

e ex

istin

g st

opPe

rman

ent

Pave

men

t M

arki

ng &

Str

ipin

g1

LS$5

,000

.00

$5,0

00.0

0O

rder

of

Mag

natu

deSi

gnag

e1

LS$5

,000

.00

$5,0

00.0

0O

rder

of

Mag

natu

deRe

inst

alla

tion

of E

xist

ing

Twin

Orn

amen

tal L

ight

s on

4th

Ave

nue

2EA

$5,0

00.0

0$1

0,00

0.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Ass

umes

2 li

ghts

mov

eTr

affic

Sig

nals

, Com

plet

e (5

th &

Mon

tgom

ery)

1LS

$82,

771.

00$8

2,77

1.00

SCL

(10t

h/Lo

vejo

y)(1

0th/

Love

joy)

Traf

fic S

igna

ls, C

ompl

ete

(4th

& H

arris

on))

1LS

$82,

771.

00$8

2,77

1.00

SCL

(10t

h/Lo

vejo

y)(1

0th/

Love

joy)

Impa

cts

to 6

" w

ater

line

on 5

th1

LS$0

.00

$0.0

0In

LRT

Pro

ject

LRT

Proj

ect

Repl

acem

ent

by L

RT M

all P

roje

ct

Inst

all R

i59

Pave

d Tr

ack

- Ta

ngen

t33

0TF

(F)

$320

.00

$105

,600

.00

Low

ell

Hal

f of

dou

ble

trac

kway

ass

umed

Pre-

Bend

Tan

gent

Gird

er R

ail

1LS

$24,

000.

00$2

4,00

0.00

Low

ell/G

ibbs

Inst

all R

i59

Pave

d Tr

ack

- C

urve

d11

0TF

(F)

$425

.00

$46,

750.

00Lo

wel

lH

alf

of d

oubl

e tr

ackw

ay a

ssum

edFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Tra

ck D

rain

- R

i59

2EA

$2,0

65.0

0$4

,130

.00

SCL

Furn

ish

and

Inst

all P

ower

ed S

witc

h at

25m

Tur

nout

(inc

l. el

ectr

ical

)0

EA$5

0,00

0.00

$0.0

0M

FEIn

stal

l Har

rison

Cro

ssov

er0

EA$3

40,0

00.0

0$0

.00

SCL

Trac

k &

Civ

il O

nly

Inst

all 5

0m T

urno

ut (1

:6 F

rog)

0EA

$106

,700

.00

$0.0

0M

FE +

10%

Inst

all R

i59

Trac

k C

ross

ing

1EA

$75,

000.

00$7

5,00

0.00

Mal

lM

AX

Tra

ck C

ross

ing

at 5

th/M

ontg

omer

y1

LS$1

50,0

00.0

0$1

50,0

00.0

0Ph

ase

1 +

30%

Insu

late

d Ra

il Jo

ints

4EA

$1,8

00.0

0$7

,200

.00

Gib

bs +

20%

Furn

ish

Har

rison

Cro

ssov

er0

EA$1

55,0

00.0

0$0

.00

SCL

Furn

ish

50m

RH

Tur

nout

with

0.0

4583

3333

3333

333

Frog

0EA

$80,

300.

00$0

.00

MFE

+ 1

0%



Cost

Est

imat

ion

for S

ingl

e Tr

ack

Alig

nmen

tIT

EMS

OF

WO

RK

AN

D M

ATE

RIA

LS Q

UA

NTI

TYQ

UA

NTI

TYU

NIT

UN

IT P

RIC

ETO

TAL

PRIC

EPr

icin

g S

ou

rce

Rem

arks

Furn

ish

Ri59

Tra

ck C

ross

ing

(5th

/Mon

tgom

ery)

2EA

$50,

000.

00$1

00,0

00.0

0M

all

Fu

rnis

h Ri

59/R

i52

Tran

sitio

n Ra

ils

2

PAIR

$6,6

00.0

0$1

3,20

0.00

Gib

bs +

20%

Fu

rnis

h Ri

59 H

ead

Har

dene

d (H

SHM

) Gird

er R

ail

16

Mg

$2,1

00.0

0$3

3,60

0.00

SCL

Hal

f of

dou

ble

trac

kway

ass

umed

Hau

l and

Unl

oad

Rail

Mat

eria

ls

1

LS$5

,000

.00

$5,0

00.0

025

% o

f Lo

wel

l

Switc

h/Ra

il Bo

ndin

g

1LS

$12,

760.

00$1

2,76

0.00

MFE

X 2

ea +

10%

Exte

nd D

uctb

ank

to n

ew f

eede

r po

le lo

catio

n

0LS

$50,

000.

00$0

.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Mod

ify S

tree

tcar

Sig

nal S

yste

m

0.

4LS

$75,

000.

00$3

0,00

0.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Mod

ify T

riMet

OC

S

1

LS$1

00,0

00.0

0$1

00,0

00.0

0O

rder

of

Mag

natu

deTr

ack

Elec

tric

al T

estin

g

1

LS$5

,500

.00

$5,5

00.0

0M

FE +

10%

Prov

isio

n an

d In

stal

latio

n of

Con

tact

Wire

Cro

ssin

g

2EA

$54,

500.

00$1

09,0

00.0

0SC

LM

ontg

omer

y Su

bsta

tion

Mis

c. E

lect

rical

Wor

k

1

LS$1

0,00

0.00

$10,

000.

00O

rder

of

Mag

natu

deFu

rnis

h Ta

per

Tubu

lar

Pole

PS3

, PH

3, P

F3

8EA

$3,2

70.0

0$2

6,16

0.00

Gib

bs +

50%

Furn

ish

Tape

r Tu

bula

r Po

le P

S11,

PH

11, P

F11

3

EA$6

,225

.00

$18,

675.

00G

ibbs

+ 5

0%In

stal

latio

n an

d G

roun

ding

of

Tape

r Tu

bula

r Po

les

11

EA$1

,425

.00

$15,

675.

00SC

LFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Can

tilev

er A

ssem

bly

5EA

$5,5

00.0

0$2

7,50

0.00

Low

ell

Furn

ish

and

Inst

all S

ingl

e Tr

ack

Cro

ss S

pan

Ass

embl

y C

S1, C

S1A

5EA

$5,9

50.0

0$2

9,75

0.00

Low

ell

Dou

ble

trac

k cr

oss

span

ass

embl

ies

Furn

ish

and

Inst

all D

oubl

e Tr

ack

Cro

ss S

pan

Ass

embl

y C

S2, C

S2A

1EA

$7,0

50.0

0$7

,050

.00

SCL

+ 2

0%be

com

e si

ngle

tra

ck a

ssem

blie

s.Fu

rnis

h an

d in

stal

l Sin

gle

Trac

k Pu

ll O

ff A

ssem

bly

P01

5EA

$7,9

25.0

0$3

9,62

5.00

Low

ell

Furn

ish

and

inst

all D

oubl

e Tr

ack

Pull

Off

Ass

embl

y P0

2 1

EA$6

,270

.00

$6,2

70.0

0SC

L +

20%

Furn

ish

and

inst

all S

ingl

e Tr

ack

Back

bone

Ass

embl

y BB

1

3EA

$9,0

00.0

0$2

7,00

0.00

Low

ell

Furn

ish

and

inst

all D

oubl

e Tr

ack

Back

bone

Ass

embl

y BB

2

1EA

$8,3

40.0

0$8

,340

.00

SCL

+ 2

0%Fu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Fix

ed T

erm

inat

ion

Ass

embl

y FT

2

EA$4

,805

.00

$9,6

10.0

0Lo

wel

lFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Sin

gle

Dis

conn

ect

Switc

h A

ssem

bly

DS1

1

EA$1

4,10

0.00

$14,

100.

00Lo

wel

lFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Fix

ed T

ensi

on S

ingl

e C

onta

ct S

yste

m

1560

TF(F

)$7

2.50

$113

,100

.00

Low

ell +

25%

Furn

ish

and

Inst

all S

ectio

n In

sula

tor

Ass

embl

y SI

1

EA$1

0,37

5.00

$10,

375.

00Lo

wel

lFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Dow

n or

Hea

d G

uy A

ssem

bly

1

EA$3

,060

.00

$3,0

60.0

0Lo

wel

lFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Dou

ble

Trac

k H

ead

Span

Ass

embl

y H

B2, H

B2A

2EA

$9,0

00.0

0$1

8,00

0.00

Mal

l HS

X 1

.5Re

mov

al o

f Ex

istin

g O

CS

and

Cut

over

1LS

$49,

000.

00$4

9,00

0.00

Low

ell X

2O

CS

Fiel

d A

ccep

tanc

e Te

stin

g

1

LS$7

,400

.00

$7,4

00.0

0M

FE X

2In

tegr

ated

Sys

tem

Tes

ting

1LS

$14,

760.

00$1

4,76

0.00

Gib

bs +

20%

Doc

umen

tatio

n D

raw

ings

and

Man

uals

1LS

$5,2

25.0

0$5

,225

.00

Low

ell X

50%

Tota

l Co

st$2

,049

,009

.40



Cost

Est

imat

ion

for D

oubl

e Tr

ack

Alig

nmen

tIT

EMS

OF

WO

RK

AN

D M

ATE

RIA

LS Q

UA

NTI

TYQ

UA

NTI

TYU

NIT

UN

IT P

RIC

ETO

TAL

PRIC

EPr

icin

g S

ou

rce

Rem

arks

Mob

iliza

tion

1LS

$213

,685

.40

$213

,685

.40

10%

of

othe

r Ite

ms

Fiel

d En

gine

erin

g1

LS$2

0,00

0.00

$20,

000.

00O

rder

of

Mag

natu

deQ

ualit

y C

ontr

ol1

LS$3

0,00

0.00

$30,

000.

00O

rder

of

Mag

natu

deW

ork

Zone

Tra

ffic

Con

trol

1LS

$50,

000.

00$5

0,00

0.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Eros

ion

Con

trol

1LS

$5,0

00.0

0$5

,000

.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Salv

age

25m

tur

nout

2EA

$25,

000.

00$5

0,00

0.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Rem

ove

exis

ting

Stre

etca

r Tr

ack

Slab

650

TF$1

50.0

0$9

7,50

0.00

Sim

ilar

to R

P Ex

tend

Cle

arin

g an

d G

rubb

ing

1LS

$5,0

00.0

0$5

,000

.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Road

way

Exc

avat

ion

(rec

onst

ruct

ion)

435

CY

$77.

00$3

3,49

5.00

SCL

Trac

k Sl

ab E

xcav

atio

n30

0C

Y(F

)$6

9.00

$20,

700.

00Lo

wel

lTr

ack

Agg

rega

te B

ase

Exca

vatio

n13

0C

Y$6

8.40

$8,8

92.0

0G

ibbs

+ 2

0%8"

SD

R 35

PV

C T

rack

Dra

in L

eads

20LF

$192

.00

$3,8

40.0

0Lo

wel

l10

" to

12"

HD

PE In

let

Lead

s20

LF$1

62.0

0$3

,240

.00

Low

ell

Con

cret

e In

lets

, Typ

e G

-22

EA$1

,650

.00

$3,3

00.0

0Lo

wel

lIn

stal

l Wat

er Q

ualit

y Tr

eatm

ent

Faci

lity

0LS

$28,

500.

00$0

.00

Low

ell

Min

or A

djus

tmen

t of

Man

hole

s1

EA$4

80.0

0$4

80.0

0Lo

wel

lC

old

Plan

e Pa

vem

ent

Rem

oval

220

SY$1

7.00

$3,7

40.0

0Lo

wel

lTr

ackw

ay A

ggre

gate

Bas

e13

0C

Y$6

0.00

$7,8

00.0

0SC

LA

ggre

gate

Bas

e fo

r Ro

adw

ay C

onst

ruct

ion

250

CY

$67.

00$1

6,75

0.00

Low

ell

8" d

epth

Asp

halt

Con

cret

e Pa

vem

ent

220

TON

$100

.00

$22,

000.

00SC

LIn

clud

es p

avin

g at

5th

Ave

sto

p (6

" de

pth)

OC

S Po

le F

ound

atio

ns F

1/FF

13

EA$3

,500

.00

$10,

500.

00Lo

wel

l + R

esto

ratio

nO

CS

Pole

Fou

ndat

ions

F2/

FF2

3EA

$4,5

00.0

0$1

3,50

0.00

Low

ell +

Res

tora

tion

Spre

ad F

ootin

g2

EA$5

,500

.00

$11,

000.

00Lo

wel

l + R

esto

ratio

nC

oncr

ete

Cur

bs (o

utsi

de o

f st

ops)

60LF

$38.

00$2

,280

.00

SCL

Con

cret

e W

alks

(out

side

of

stop

s)70

SY$7

0.00

$4,9

00.0

0Lo

wel

lTr

unca

ted

Dom

e D

etec

tabl

e W

arni

ng16

SF$5

0.00

$800

.00

SCL

Regr

ade

Bric

k In

ters

ectio

n32

0SY

$200

.00

$64,

000.

00Ph

ase

1 +

25%

Stop

Pla

tfor

m (J

asm

ine

Bloc

k)1

LS$6

2,50

0.00

$62,

500.

00PS

U +

25%

assu

mes

tac

tile

and

bric

k pa

ving

Relo

cate

5th

Ave

She

lter,

Ben

ch, R

ecep

tacl

e an

d N

extb

us

1LS

$10,

000.

00$1

0,00

0.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

and

rem

ove

exis

ting

stop

Perm

anen

t Pa

vem

ent

Mar

king

& S

trip

ing

1LS

$5,0

00.0

0$5

,000

.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Sign

age

1LS

$5,0

00.0

0$5

,000

.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Rein

stal

latio

n of

Exi

stin

g Tw

in O

rnam

enta

l Lig

hts

on 4

th A

venu

e2

EA$5

,000

.00

$10,

000.

00O

rder

of

Mag

natu

de A

ssum

es 2

ligh

ts m

ove

Traf

fic S

igna

ls, C

ompl

ete

(5th

& M

ontg

omer

y)1

LS$8

2,77

1.00

$82,

771.

00SC

L (1

0th/

Love

joy)

(10t

h/Lo

vejo

y)Tr

affic

Sig

nals

, Com

plet

e (4

th &

Har

rison

))1

LS$8

2,77

1.00

$82,

771.

00SC

L (1

0th/

Love

joy)

(10t

h/Lo

vejo

y)Im

pact

s to

6"

wat

erlin

e on

5th

1LS

$0.0

0$0

.00

In L

RT P

roje

ctLR

T Pr

ojec

t Re

plac

emen

t by

LRT

Mal

l Pro

ject

In

stal

l Ri5

9 Pa

ved

Trac

k -

Tang

ent

660

TF(F

)$3

20.0

0$2

11,2

00.0

0Lo

wel

lPr

e-Be

nd T

ange

nt G

irder

Rai

l1

LS$2

4,00

0.00

$24,

000.

00Lo

wel

l/Gib

bsIn

stal

l Ri5

9 Pa

ved

Trac

k -

Cur

ved

220

TF(F

)$4

25.0

0$9

3,50

0.00

Low

ell

Furn

ish

and

Inst

all T

rack

Dra

in -

Ri5

92

EA$2

,065

.00

$4,1

30.0

0SC

LFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Pow

ered

Sw

itch

at 2

5m T

urno

ut (i

ncl.

elec

tric

al)

0EA

$50,

000.

00$0

.00

MFE

Inst

all H

arris

on C

ross

over

0EA

$340

,000

.00

$0.0

0SC

LTr

ack

& C

ivil

Onl

yIn

stal

l 50m

Tur

nout

(1:6

Fro

g)0

EA$1

06,7

00.0

0$0

.00

MFE

+ 1

0%In

stal

l Ri5

9 Tr

ack

Cro

ssin

g1

EA$7

5,00

0.00

$75,

000.

00M

all

MA

X T

rack

Cro

ssin

g at

5th

/Mon

tgom

ery

1LS

$150

,000

.00

$150

,000

.00

Phas

e 1

+ 3

0%



Cost

Est

imat

ion

for D

oubl

e Tr

ack

Alig

nmen

tIT

EMS

OF

WO

RK

AN

D M

ATE

RIA

LS Q

UA

NTI

TYQ

UA

NTI

TYU

NIT

UN

IT P

RIC

ETO

TAL

PRIC

EPr

icin

g S

ou

rce

Rem

arks

Insu

late

d Ra

il Jo

ints

4

EA$1

,800

.00

$7,2

00.0

0G

ibbs

+ 2

0%

Furn

ish

Har

rison

Cro

ssov

er

0EA

$155

,000

.00

$0.0

0SC

L

Furn

ish

50m

RH

Tur

nout

with

0.0

4583

3333

3333

333

Frog

0

EA$8

0,30

0.00

$0.0

0M

FE +

10%

Fu

rnis

h Ri

59 T

rack

Cro

ssin

g (5

th/M

ontg

omer

y)

2

EA$5

0,00

0.00

$100

,000

.00

Mal

l

Furn

ish

Ri59

/Ri5

2 Tr

ansi

tion

Rails

2PA

IR$6

,600

.00

$13,

200.

00G

ibbs

+ 2

0%

Furn

ish

Ri59

Hea

d H

arde

ned

(HSH

M) G

irder

Rai

l

32M

g$2

,100

.00

$67,

200.

00SC

L

Hau

l and

Unl

oad

Rail

Mat

eria

ls

1

LS$5

,000

.00

$5,0

00.0

025

% o

f Lo

wel

l

Switc

h/Ra

il Bo

ndin

g

1LS

$12,

760.

00$1

2,76

0.00

MFE

X 2

ea +

10%

Exte

nd D

uctb

ank

to n

ew f

eede

r po

le lo

catio

n

0LS

$50,

000.

00$0

.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Mod

ify S

tree

tcar

Sig

nal S

yste

m

0.

4LS

$75,

000.

00$3

0,00

0.00

Ord

er o

f M

agna

tude

Mod

ify T

riMet

OC

S

1

LS$1

00,0

00.0

0$1

00,0

00.0

0O

rder

of

Mag

natu

deTr

ack

Elec

tric

al T

estin

g

1

LS$5

,500

.00

$5,5

00.0

0M

FE +

10%

Prov

isio

n an

d In

stal

latio

n of

Con

tact

Wire

Cro

ssin

g

2EA

$54,

500.

00$1

09,0

00.0

0SC

LM

ontg

omer

y Su

bsta

tion

Mis

c. E

lect

rical

Wor

k

1

LS$1

0,00

0.00

$10,

000.

00O

rder

of

Mag

natu

deFu

rnis

h Ta

per

Tubu

lar

Pole

PS3

, PH

3, P

F3

8EA

$3,2

70.0

0$2

6,16

0.00

Gib

bs +

50%

Furn

ish

Tape

r Tu

bula

r Po

le P

S11,

PH

11, P

F11

3

EA$6

,225

.00

$18,

675.

00G

ibbs

+ 5

0%In

stal

latio

n an

d G

roun

ding

of

Tape

r Tu

bula

r Po

les

11

EA$1

,425

.00

$15,

675.

00SC

LFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Can

tilev

er A

ssem

bly

5EA

$5,5

00.0

0$2

7,50

0.00

Low

ell

Furn

ish

and

Inst

all S

ingl

e Tr

ack

Cro

ss S

pan

Ass

embl

y C

S1, C

S1A

1EA

$5,9

50.0

0$5

,950

.00

Low

ell

Furn

ish

and

Inst

all D

oubl

e Tr

ack

Cro

ss S

pan

Ass

embl

y C

S2, C

S2A

5EA

$7,0

50.0

0$3

5,25

0.00

SCL

+ 2

0%Fu

rnis

h an

d in

stal

l Sin

gle

Trac

k Pu

ll O

ff A

ssem

bly

P01

2EA

$7,9

25.0

0$1

5,85

0.00

Low

ell

Furn

ish

and

inst

all D

oubl

e Tr

ack

Pull

Off

Ass

embl

y P0

2 4

EA$6

,270

.00

$25,

080.

00SC

L +

20%

Furn

ish

and

inst

all S

ingl

e Tr

ack

Back

bone

Ass

embl

y BB

1

1EA

$9,0

00.0

0$9

,000

.00

Low

ell

Furn

ish

and

inst

all D

oubl

e Tr

ack

Back

bone

Ass

embl

y BB

2

3EA

$8,3

40.0

0$2

5,02

0.00

SCL

+ 2

0%Fu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Fix

ed T

erm

inat

ion

Ass

embl

y FT

2

EA$4

,805

.00

$9,6

10.0

0Lo

wel

lFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Sin

gle

Dis

conn

ect

Switc

h A

ssem

bly

DS1

1

EA$1

4,10

0.00

$14,

100.

00Lo

wel

lFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Fix

ed T

ensi

on S

ingl

e C

onta

ct S

yste

m

1560

TF(F

)$7

2.50

$113

,100

.00

Low

ell +

25%

Furn

ish

and

Inst

all S

ectio

n In

sula

tor

Ass

embl

y SI

1

EA$1

0,37

5.00

$10,

375.

00Lo

wel

lFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Dow

n or

Hea

d G

uy A

ssem

bly

1

EA$3

,060

.00

$3,0

60.0

0Lo

wel

lFu

rnis

h an

d In

stal

l Dou

ble

Trac

k H

ead

Span

Ass

embl

y H

B2, H

B2A

2EA

$9,0

00.0

0$1

8,00

0.00

Mal

l HS

X 1

.5Re

mov

al o

f Ex

istin

g O

CS

and

Cut

over

1LS

$49,

000.

00$4

9,00

0.00

Low

ell X

2O

CS

Fiel

d A

ccep

tanc

e Te

stin

g

1

LS$7

,400

.00

$7,4

00.0

0M

FE X

2In

tegr

ated

Sys

tem

Tes

ting

1LS

$14,

760.

00$1

4,76

0.00

Gib

bs +

20%

Doc

umen

tatio

n D

raw

ings

and

Man

uals

1LS

$5,2

25.0

0$5

,225

.00

Low

ell X

50%

Tota

l Co

st$2

,426

,924

.40


APPENDIX ERaw VISSIM Data File ExamplesNO BUILD, 1ST RUN

Table of Delay

File: \\khensu\home04\clausenc\desktop\2030 am model\2030 am model\test.inpComment: Date: Sunday, May 09, 2010 12:14:59 PMVISSIM: 5.10-05 [17268]

No. 1: Travel time section(s) 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

Time; Delay; Stopd; Stops; #Veh; Pers.; #Pers; VehC; All;;;;;; No.:; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 100; 220; 16.3; 10.5; 0.75; 52; 16.3; 52; 340; 19.9; 12.8; 0.70; 76; 17.6; 72; 460; 17.9; 9.7; 0.57; 75; 16.1; 72; 580; 29.1; 20.7; 1.08; 65; 27.8; 64; 700; 30.0; 20.6; 1.09; 98; 30.0; 98; 820; 19.3; 11.5; 0.73; 81; 18.6; 79; 940; 38.9; 24.4; 1.58; 71; 38.3; 70; 1060; 43.1; 27.5; 1.55; 107; 42.1; 102; 1180; 33.6; 22.1; 1.15; 72; 33.6; 72; 1300; 26.7; 16.6; 0.80; 105; 25.1; 104; 1420; 44.8; 30.7; 1.48; 85; 45.3; 84; 1540; 36.6; 22.4; 1.36; 83; 36.4; 82; 1660; 44.4; 26.1; 1.57; 95; 43.2; 90; 1780; 48.1; 29.5; 1.84; 80; 48.0; 79; 1900; 40.4; 23.4; 1.36; 89; 40.4; 87; 2020; 25.8; 16.3; 0.85; 99; 24.1; 98; 2140; 43.1; 31.0; 1.24; 82; 42.8; 81; 2260; 32.5; 20.3; 1.13; 78; 32.0; 76; 2380; 39.6; 25.8; 1.47; 87; 39.6; 87; 2500; 58.2; 38.1; 2.00; 90; 58.0; 89; 2620; 35.8; 22.0; 1.33; 85; 34.4; 82; 2740; 36.4; 23.3; 1.33; 106; 36.4; 106; 2860; 58.2; 38.9; 1.74; 81; 55.1; 76; 2980; 42.9; 27.5; 1.58; 78; 40.3; 77; 3100; 49.0; 32.2; 1.69; 93; 46.6; 91; 3220; 19.4; 12.6; 0.77; 77; 19.0; 75; 3340; 22.8; 14.2; 0.91; 75; 22.2; 73; 3460; 35.1; 23.7; 1.27; 66; 33.4; 65; 3580; 44.3; 29.8; 1.60; 78; 41.1; 76; Total; 36.1; 23.2; 1.27; 2409; 35.1; 2359;


APPENDIX ERaw VISSIM Data File ExamplesDOUBLE TRACK, 3RD RUN

Table of Delay

File: \\khensu\Home04\clausenc\Desktop\2030 AM Model\2030 AM Model\Double Track.inpComment: Date: Sunday, May 09, 2010 3:35:53 PMVISSIM: 5.10-05 [17268]

No. 1: Travel time section(s) 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

Time; Delay; Stopd; Stops; #Veh; Pers.; #Pers; VehC; All;;;;;; No.:; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 1; 100; 220; 17.4; 11.3; 0.70; 44; 17.4; 44; 340; 23.8; 14.4; 1.00; 76; 22.3; 73; 460; 27.9; 16.9; 1.23; 77; 23.9; 73; 580; 28.4; 18.2; 0.97; 75; 26.6; 74; 700; 40.9; 28.2; 1.36; 94; 40.9; 94; 820; 37.9; 22.4; 1.41; 92; 37.5; 90; 940; 28.1; 16.2; 1.32; 85; 27.2; 82; 1060; 33.8; 21.9; 1.35; 83; 33.3; 80; 1180; 37.9; 22.9; 1.38; 63; 37.9; 63; 1300; 25.6; 15.2; 0.76; 102; 23.9; 101; 1420; 42.8; 29.3; 1.37; 79; 43.2; 78; 1540; 32.0; 20.3; 1.13; 89; 31.6; 88; 1660; 28.8; 17.4; 1.09; 98; 26.9; 94; 1780; 26.7; 15.9; 1.00; 77; 25.1; 74; 1900; 23.8; 12.7; 0.86; 81; 23.7; 79; 2020; 25.7; 15.8; 0.99; 100; 25.6; 99; 2140; 24.2; 15.7; 0.99; 92; 23.7; 91; 2260; 18.6; 11.3; 0.70; 84; 17.9; 82; 2380; 17.7; 10.5; 0.68; 77; 17.7; 77; 2500; 35.3; 22.0; 1.37; 67; 34.6; 66; 2620; 32.4; 19.1; 1.21; 96; 30.7; 93; 2740; 35.0; 22.0; 1.22; 104; 33.8; 103; 2860; 36.1; 22.5; 1.39; 80; 32.2; 74; 2980; 40.0; 26.2; 1.49; 96; 40.0; 96; 3100; 27.9; 17.3; 1.26; 82; 27.9; 82; 3220; 23.1; 15.4; 0.87; 61; 22.2; 60; 3340; 17.3; 9.9; 0.60; 58; 16.1; 57; 3460; 21.2; 15.4; 0.73; 52; 21.2; 52; 3580; 9.6; 6.7; 0.67; 3; 9.6; 3; Total; 29.5; 18.4; 1.11; 2267; 28.6; 2222;


APPENDIX FMeeting Minutes

Week 1 (January 13th-16h)

The project team was assembled, and a scope of the project and a team contract were created.

The project team also got divided into two subgroups.

Week 2 (January 17th-23rd)

First contact with the clients was made as well as a meeting date.

Week 3 (January 24th-30th)

The meeting with the clients led the group to a better de� nition of the project.

The two sub groups merge into one group again.

The team � nalized the project scope as well as team contract.

A meeting with Dr. Fish is done, that allowed him to see the progress of the group.

Week 4 (January 31st-February 6th)

A draft timeline for the scope of work to be performed is created.

A meeting with Dr. Fish is done that allowed him to go over the timeline.

Week 5 (February 7th-13th)

Group members create different design possibilities.

Week 6 (February 14th-20th)

Meeting with Rick Gustafson, streetcar designer, to get background information of the streetcar.


APPENDIX FMeeting MinutesWeek 7 (February 21st-27th)

Meeting with Kyle Anderson, architect, to learn more about the OSC.

Week 8 (February 28th-March 6th)

The group split up the parts needed for the end of the term presentation and paper.

Week 9 (March 7th-13th)

The group compiled all the material into one paper, and gave the end of the term presentation.

Week 10-11 (March 14th-27th)

The group took time off

Week 12 (March 28th-April 3rd)

The group meets up and began to decide what is needed to be done this term.

Week 13 (April 4th-10th)

Group split up tasks and decided to only meet once a week on Fridays unless addition meetings were needed.

Week 14-18 (April 11th-May 15th)

Meeting go successful once a week to go over progress of each individual.

Week 19-20 (May 16th- 29th)

The group members begin to write their sections of the report.

The � nal presentation is looked at, discussed, and what each person will present is � gured out.

Week 21 (May 30th – June 5th)

The group members � nalize the report and practice for the presentation.

Documents

Streetcar Report Final CP Front