DOCSLIB.ORG

Oregon Passenger Rail Station Area Assessments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Oregon Passenger Rail Station Area Assessments OREGON PASSENGER RAIL STATION AREA ASSESSMENTS April 2014 This page left intentionally blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CoNTENTS HARRISBURG ......................................................................................................................................37 Summary Assessment ......................................................................................................................37 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1 Operational Feasibility ......................................................................................................................38 Introduction and Project Background ..................................................................................................1 Customer Demand ............................................................................................................................39 Relationship to Other Plans ................................................................................................................................. 2 Site Suitability ...................................................................................................................................40 Document Organization....................................................................................................................................... 3 Interconnectivity ...............................................................................................................................40 CHAPTER 2 | PROCESS, FRAMEWORK & METHODOLOGY .....................................................................5 TANGENT ............................................................................................................................................41 Station Identification and Assessment Process ....................................................................................5 Summary Assessment ......................................................................................................................41 Stations under Consideration ............................................................................................................................. 5 Operational Feasibility ......................................................................................................................42 Station Location Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................................6 Customer Demand ............................................................................................................................43 Evaluation Criteria Background ........................................................................................................................... 6 Site Suitability ...................................................................................................................................44 Station Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 10 Interconnectivity ..............................................................................................................................44 CHAPTER 3 | COMPARISON OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS & KEY FINDINGS ...........................................13 ALBANY ..............................................................................................................................................45 Summary of Assessment Findings .....................................................................................................13 Summary Assessment .......................................................................................................................45 Key Findings .....................................................................................................................................13 Operational Feasibility ......................................................................................................................46 Operational Feasibility and Customer Demand .................................................................................................13 Customer Demand ...........................................................................................................................47 Station Area Suitability and Interconnectivity ..................................................................................................19 Site Suitability ...................................................................................................................................48 Evaluation Criteria Results ................................................................................................................21 Interconnectivity ...............................................................................................................................49 Future Considerations .......................................................................................................................22 CoRVALLIS ..........................................................................................................................................51 Existing Station Assessment .............................................................................................................................. 22 Summary Assessment .......................................................................................................................51 Station Area Planning ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Operational Feasibility ......................................................................................................................52 CHAPTER 4 | STATION AREA ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................23 Customer Demand ...........................................................................................................................53 SPRINGFIELD ......................................................................................................................................25 Site Suitability ..................................................................................................................................54 Summary Assessment ......................................................................................................................25 Interconnectivity ...............................................................................................................................55 Operational Feasibility ......................................................................................................................26 SALEM ................................................................................................................................................57 Customer Demand ............................................................................................................................27 Summary Assessment .......................................................................................................................57 Site Suitability ..................................................................................................................................28 Operational Feasibility .....................................................................................................................58 Interconnectivity ..............................................................................................................................29 Customer Demand ...........................................................................................................................59 EUGENE ..............................................................................................................................................31 Site Suitability ...................................................................................................................................60 Summary Assessment ......................................................................................................................31 Interconnectivity ...............................................................................................................................61 Operational Feasibility ......................................................................................................................32 Customer Demand ............................................................................................................................33 Site Suitability ...................................................................................................................................34 Interconnectivity ..............................................................................................................................35 Oregon Passenger Rail Station Area Assessments Table of Contents | i TABLE OF CONTENTS KEIZER ................................................................................................................................................63 OREGON CITY .....................................................................................................................................95 Summary Assessment .......................................................................................................................63
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study
    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Passenger Rail Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact
    Appendix C Public and Agency Comments and Responses April 2021 Contents Section Page Introduction ...................................................................................................................................C-1 Attachments Attachment C1 Comment and Response Matrix Attachment C2 Comments Received During Public Comment Period Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement C-i APRIL 2021 APPENDIX C C-ii Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement APRIL 2021 APPENDIX C – INTRODUCTION Introduction The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) released the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Oregon Passenger Rail Project (Project) in October 2018. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (FR) on October 19, 2018 (83 FR 53053). Stakeholders were encouraged to provide comments on the Tier 1 DEIS through various opportunities from October 18 through December 19, 2018. During the public comment period, ODOT and FRA received a total of 212 comments from members of the public and agency/organization representatives at five (5) public events, through the Project website, and by email and letter. This appendix includes two attachments: • Attachment 1: A matrix containing agency and public comments with responses from ODOT. The comments are organized in groups: agency, organization, and individual comments. • Attachment 2: The original comment submittals. Each comment has an index number which is reflected in the comment matrix and marked on the original comments. Tables C-1, C-2 and C-3 list the commenters along with the index number to find the comments with responses and the original format comments and in attachments 1 and 2, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland City Council Agenda
    CITY OF OFFICIAL PORTLAND, OREGON MINUTES A REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON WAS HELD THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2008 AT 9:30 A.M. THOSE PRESENT WERE: Mayor Potter, Presiding; Commissioners Adams, Fish, Leonard and Saltzman, 5. Commissioner Adams and Leonard arrived at 9:38 a.m. OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE: Karla Moore-Love, Clerk of the Council; Ben Walters, Senior Deputy City Attorney; and Ron Willis, Sergeant at Arms. On a Y-5 roll call, the Consent Agenda was adopted. Disposition: COMMUNICATIONS 957 Request of Lee Pate to address Council regarding the sit/lie camping law (Communication) PLACED ON FILE 958 Request of Lee Iacuzzi to address Council regarding gender discrimination (Communication) PLACED ON FILE 959 Request of Douglas Peterson to address Council regarding Petersons lease at 10th and Yamhill Garage (Communication) PLACED ON FILE 960 Request of David G. Gwyther to address Council regarding Petersons Store (Communication) PLACED ON FILE TIME CERTAINS 961 TIME CERTAIN: 9:30 AM – Willamette River Combined Sewer Overflow program update (Presentation introduced by Commissioner Adams) PLACED ON FILE 1 of 107 July 9, 2008 962 TIME CERTAIN: 10:00 AM – Adopt the Sgt. Jerome Sears United States Army Reserve Center Reuse Master Plan and recommend redevelopment of the site for a mixed-income, rental and ownership housing development that includes permanent supportive housing for homeless single adults and homeless families with special needs and designate Community Partners for Affordable Housing as the preferred developer of the Sears site (Previous Agenda 877; Resolution introduced by Mayor 36617 Potter and Commissioner Fish) AS AMENDED Motion to amend the resolution to correct data on homelessness and low- income housing: Moved by Commissioner Adams and seconded by Commissioner Saltzman.
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail Needs Assessment
    Oregon State Rail Plan Passenger Rail Needs Assessment draft report prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. March 31, 2014 www.camsys.com draft Oregon State Rail Plan Passenger Rail Needs Assessment prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 date March 31, 2014 Oregon State Rail Plan DRAFT Passenger Rail Needs Assessment Table of Contents 4.0 Passenger Rail Needs Assessment ................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Existing Intercity Passenger Rail Service................................................. 4-1 4.2 Existing Passenger Rail System Performance ....................................... 4-10 4.3 Cascades Corridor Physical and Operational Needs .......................... 4-18 4.4 Other Potential Corridors ........................................................................ 4-22 4.5 Summary .................................................................................................... 4-29 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 8053-084 Oregon State Rail Plan DRAFT Passenger Rail Needs Assessment List of Tables Table 4.1 Oregon Intercity Passenger Rail Stations .............................................. 4-2 Table 4.2 Intercity Passenger Rail Ridership to and from Oregon Stations as a Percent of Total Ridership, FY 2012 ............................................... 4-6 Table 4.3 Destinations of Amtrak Trips Originating at Oregon Stations as a Percent of
    [Show full text]
  • TPG Index Volumes 1-35 1986-2020
    Public Garden Index – Volumes 1-35 (1986 – 2020) #Giving Tuesday. HOW DOES YOUR GARDEN About This Issue (continued) GROW ? Swift 31 (3): 25 Dobbs, Madeline (continued) #givingTuesday fundraising 31 (3): 25 Public garden management: Read all #landscapechat about it! 26 (W): 5–6 Corona Tools 27 (W): 8 Rocket science leadership. Interview green industry 27 (W): 8 with Elachi 23 (1): 24–26 social media 27 (W): 8 Unmask your garden heroes: Taking a ValleyCrest Landscape Companies 27 (W): 8 closer look at earned revenue. #landscapechat: Fostering green industry 25 (2): 5–6 communication, one tweet at a time. Donnelly, Gerard T. Trees: Backbone of Kaufman 27 (W): 8 the garden 6 (1): 6 Dosmann, Michael S. Sustaining plant collections: Are we? 23 (3/4): 7–9 AABGA (American Association of Downie, Alex. Information management Botanical Gardens and Arboreta) See 8 (4): 6 American Public Gardens Association Eberbach, Catherine. Educators without AABGA: The first fifty years. Interview by borders 22 (1): 5–6 Sullivan. Ching, Creech, Lighty, Mathias, Eirhart, Linda. Plant collections in historic McClintock, Mulligan, Oppe, Taylor, landscapes 28 (4): 4–5 Voight, Widmoyer, and Wyman 5 (4): 8–12 Elias, Thomas S. Botany and botanical AABGA annual conference in Essential gardens 6 (3): 6 resources for garden directors. Olin Folsom, James P. Communication 19 (1): 7 17 (1): 12 Rediscovering the Ranch 23 (2): 7–9 AAM See American Association of Museums Water management 5 (3): 6 AAM accreditation is for gardens! SPECIAL Galbraith, David A. Another look at REPORT. Taylor, Hart, Williams, and Lowe invasives 17 (4): 7 15 (3): 3–11 Greenstein, Susan T.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon Rail Needs List for March
    Oregon State Rail Plan Update 2019 Updated Needs List by Project Type DRAFT for Discussion Purposes Only Line Segment Start End Miles Operator Owner Description of Need / Freight Mobility Issue with the Facility Category Secondary Category Comment Oregon Trunk Subdivision Moody Gateway 89 BNSF BNSF Vertical clearance in 5 tunnels between the Columbia River and Madras preclude Capacity Would need to be in conjunction with passage of double‐stack containers. However, improving these tunnels should be done California concurrently with improving vertical clearances in tunnels on the Gateway Subdivision between Keddie, Calif., and Klamath Falls to achieve uniform capacity enhancements. Oregon Trunk Subdivision MP 13.4Z Chemult 54.4 BNSF BNSF Between Bend and MP 13.4Z south of Lava, trains are authorized by Centralized Traffic Capacity south of Control (CTC)) but from MP 13.4Z to Chemult, 54.4 miles is "dark territory" with trains Lava authorized by track warrants. Extending CTC through this section will significantly increase the capacity of this line. Logically, installation of CTC here should be accompanied by installation of CTC on approximately 90 miles of BNSF's Gateway Sub between Klamath Falls and Bieber, Calif. CTC has been installed from Bieber to Keddie on the Gateway Subdivision. Union Pacific (Kenton line) MP 0.32 MP 1.0 0.68 UP UP When long freight trains are navigating two 6 mph curves just north of the Steel Bridge, Capacity Safety and Efficiency Portland Triangle‐Big $ will need a lot of other trains, including passenger trains, can be delayed. Straightening track and easing partnership curvature would permit more optimum speeds.
    [Show full text]
  • DENVER UNION STATION Master Plan September 2004
    DENVER UNION STATION Master Plan September 2004 PART I Introduction 2 Introduction Dear Fellow Citizens and Interested Readers: Denver Union Station’s unique assets make it an ideal The Master Plan is one of several major initiatives location for this new type of multimodal transportation needed to advance the redevelopment. The Denver We proudly present the Denver Union Station facility. Denver Union Station will create an exciting Planning Board has reviewed the Master Plan as the fi rst Master Plan. This document was developed through transportation crossroads, improving connections step toward City Council adoption as a supplement to an unprecedented collaboration among four public among all transportation modes, respecting the character the City and County of Denver’s Comprehensive Plan. agencies – the City and County of Denver, the and historical signifi cance of this handsome station and Concurrent with the adoption of the Master Plan, City Colorado Department of Transportation, the Denver its adjacent neighborhoods, and providing a stimulating Council will be asked to rezone the 19.5-acre Denver Regional Council of Governments, and the Regional environment for public activity and economic vitality. Union Station site as a new Transit Mixed-Use (T-MU- Transportation District – along with many organizations 30) District and designate the building and a portion of and individuals in the community and the region. Their Focusing on transportation and connectivity, the Master the site as a historic landmark in the City and County of participation, strong support, and donation of countless Plan identifi es and evaluates potential transportation, Denver. hours of their time were essential to this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Adop Ted Text
    Active Transportation Elements Active transportation refers to human-powered travel, including walking and bicycling. Public transit is also a component of active transportation because accessing transit stops usually involves walking or bicycling. Wide- spread use of the term began as transportation policy placed increased emphasis on non-automobile modes and as the links between human health and transportation planning became more evident. Active transportation modes are essential components of the overall transportation system, meeting a variety of societal, environmental, and economic goals. These include: • Environmental stewardship and energy sustainability: Replacing gasoline-powered automobile trips with active trips reduces the emission of greenhouse gases, air toxins and particulates, helping to maintain air quality and address energy sustainability. • Congestion alleviation: People who walk, bike and use transit reduce the number of motor vehicles vying for space on roadways and in parking lots. The active mode share for commuting from Wash- ington County is currently estimated to be about 11% for work-related trips.6 Reduced congestion improves air quality, livability and economic vitality. • Health: “Obesity is one of the biggest public health challenges the country has ever faced.7” The con- ditions in which we live explain in part why some Americans are healthier than others and why Ameri- cans are generally not as healthy as they could be. The social determinants of health include five key areas: Economic Stability, Education, Social and Community Context, Health Care, and the Neighbor- TEXT ADOPTED hood and Built Environment. The TSP sets the framework for future decisions about the Neighborhood and Built Environment component. Due to the connection to public health and healthy outcomes, it is necessary that public health and active lifestyles are considered as we make these choices.
    [Show full text]
  • MCEM-1950-06.Pdf
    (1) (At bottom of page) At Portland Terminal Wharf One, left to right, D. P. Felt, assistant gen• BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD eral freight agent, B&M; Everett M. Thompson, HISTORICAL SOCIETY general perishable agent, Traffic Men Meet Boston; Gilbert W. Mil• ARCHIVES ler, general freight agent, Portland; Raymond M. Young, B&M division freight agent, Troy N. Y.; and H. M. MacAnanny, traffic representative, Pittsburgh, Pa. (2) Visit• Better Sales Job Needed ing the Maine State Pier our off-line agents from the farthest points pose for a picture. Left to right, Frank A. Murphy, (More Pictures on Pages 12-13) assistant to vice presi• dent — traffic; G. E. The Maine Central Railroad's sales• with successful development of the Gustafson, western traffic men throughout the Nation—off-line port and offered the Port Authority's manager, Chicago, III.; Tracy Cummings, general and on-line traffic representatives— cooperation and information sources west coast agent, San came home to Portland last month to for export-import business. Francisco, Cal.; Nelle M. view our facilities and inspect the The group also visited Portland Orr, commercial agent, Memphis, Tenn.; James Port of Portland served by the Port• Terminal Wharf Three where As• B. Sweeney, managing di• land Terminal Company. sistant to Vice President — Traffic, rector, Port of Portland; Their visit was the wind-up of an Frank A. Murphy described the site P. J. Mullaney, general traffic manager, Boston; important three-day conference, May of a new china clay storage shed the G. C. Aldrich, general 2, 3 and 4 at Boston, devoted to an Terminal Company will erect.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Daily Press: October 14, 1895
    .. PORTLAND _ _____ 1895. PRICE THREE ESTABLISHED JUNE 23, 1862—VOL. 33. PORTLAND, MAINE, MONDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 14, CENTS.— moiisnca, uiiroo mou wcid uij«itur-u mometer, 63.0; maximum velocity of valuer! at $100,000 should have no trick horse Mazeppa, MAY BETRAY DURRANT. organizations ■ 25 total of the wind, N; preoipitation, 1.10. Z SMASHED TO SPLINTERS. killed. Tlie horse is said to bo insured THE COUNCIL. upon the public questions WIND AND RAIN, Weather no Observations. lor That young people have T°°““ritih^r is $100,000._ Be Well! '1 The Agricultural Weathor A Youug Woman Reporter Said to Have ______ Department HIGH HAKDED. Buroau for yesterday, Ootober 13, Obtained His Secrets. (1UUIUUC U1 VJliri&llJUJU iuuuv^'- une taken at 8 p. meridian the Be free from vast of a better citizenship, m., time, pain! question taiso Breaks on a of the advance steps that we may Was in Jew observations for each station being given A Break Rod Pittsburg The Mormon Church Attempts te of moie the England Continuance Congregationalism’s tho^oultivation of a largor and Program in this order: direction of Cease to know sickness! ox Temperature, Miss Cunningham Visited Durrant in Jail telligent of and gJ Car. Dictate in Politics, spirit patriotism in tnat the wind, state of the woather: Street Almost Every Night—Did He Take Her Convention. citizenship. You have promised Yesterday. You can do “to do whatever He would like Boston, 58 degrees, NW, rain; New this, Into His Confidence? Will She Tell. like to then vote as He would York, 50 degrees, And Gentiles and 5 Mormon* you do”; ox NW, rain; Philadelphia, rrogressiv have you vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland Daily Press: September 22, 1898
    PRICE THREE CENTS. convene in Denver next week for the from their hard campaign, and their line green, 80 men, E. E. Buzzell, oaptaln. trial of Chaplain on the charge “110 AS PLEASE was not always correct, they had all the CLUE FROM Canton 34, Halifax, 18 George E. IS McIntyre FELLOWS” A SASFOKD. men, AS» HALVE PROUD. of having criticised the action POLICE ARE COSFIDEAT. time the lion’s share of the crowd’s ad' Doiloff, captain. Canton 42 unfairly 9, Augusta, of Admiral and Evans miration. men, L, M. Poor, oaptain. Sampson Captain in the naval will be Captain MoCalla was given a place oi The line was viewed officially at five Santiago battle, honor at the ceremonies and was reoeived different points along the route. At the obliged to postpone proceedings for with a warm weloome by Admiral Sir Out oorner of Massachusetts and Huntington To several weeks on account of the chap- John Eisher and all the Canadian Ma’i Called To Raise Fallci avenues, were the members of the Gen. Greeley’s High Complement lain’s illness. Cle). Breeke iridge Wants to Kii w NoPoibt But Mbrdsr Has officials. The Marblehead will remain Sovereign Grand lodge and their ladies Mystery here for to the several days. Hirse. number of 3500. Mayor Quincy, Siinal EVACUATION OF CUBA. Who Controls accompanied by City Messenger Leary Co.pi. Surgeons. Been Solved. and members of both branohes of the city THE GOLD MEN WON- Colonial Cabinet Which government appeared at the entranoe of Considers'Matters the City hall, while at the State house, It Thinks It Has to Do With.
    [Show full text]
  • Multimodal Connectivity Analysis and Candidate Improvements
    WASHINGTON STATE RAIL PLAN 2019- 2040 | APPENDIX C APPENDIX C: PASSENGER RAIL MULTIMODAL CONNECTIVITY ANALYSIS AND CANDIDATE IMPROVEMENTS Overview This memorandum presents a multimodal connectivity analysis, identification of gaps in the multimodal network, and candidate access improvements for the fourteen passenger rail stations that are served by Amtrak Cascades in Portland, Oregon; Washington; and Vancouver, British Columbia Canada. Additionally, system-wide candidate improvements are identified that are applicable to other Amtrak rail stations in Washington. Multimodal connectivity to these rail stations can enhance the passenger experience, may attract additional riders to intercity passenger rail, and increases the capacity for access to the stations without the need to increase the parking supply. This analysis focuses on alternatives to single-occupant vehicle (SOV) access and does not evaluate opportunities to increase the parking supply, manage parking demand, or make improvements to the roadway network for SOV access to intercity passenger rail. An analysis of existing conditions at these stations (summarized in the memorandum, 7.1.b Amtrak Cascades Rail Stations Existing Conditions Memo), served as the foundation for the connectivity analysis. Additionally, the results of an on-board survey of the travel behavior of Amtrak Cascades passengers provided insights to inform both the connectivity analysis and the candidate access improvements (summarized in the memorandum, 2.3.5 Final Amtrak Cascades Onboard OD Survey Memorandum). As used in this memorandum, “connectivity” refers to the collective influence of land use and transportation factors on the options for passengers to access or leave the rail stations. The connectivity analysis evaluates station area land use context, availability of transportation services, and station area transportation infrastructure to identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing station access.
    [Show full text]