DOCSLIB.ORG

2020 Oregon State Rail Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2020 Oregon State Rail Plan OREGON STATE RAIL PLAN An Element of the Oregon Transportation Plan Adopted September 18, 2014 Revised August 13, 2020 THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Plan development was supported by five Technical Memorandums that served as background for the document. A copy of the 2020 Oregon State Rail Plan and the Technical Memorandums, which reflect the latest information at the time of their development, can also be accessed at ODOT’s Statewide Policy Plans website and include: • Freight and Passenger System Inventory • Needs Assessment: Oregon’s Economy • Needs Assessment: Passenger Rail • Needs Assessment: Freight Rail • Investment Program Technical Report Oregon Statewide Policy Plans: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Pages/Plans.aspx#OSRP. To obtain additional copies of this document contact: Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Transportation Development Division, Planning Section 555 13th Street NE, Suite 2 Salem, OR 97301-4178 (503) 986-4121 Copyright 2020 by the Oregon Department of Transportation Permission is given to quote and reproduce parts of this document if credit is given to the source. A copy of the draft as the Oregon Transportation Commission adopted is on file at the Oregon Department of Transportation. Limited editorial changes for consistency and formatting have been made in this document. Oregon Transportation Commission Catherine Mater, Chair Tammy Baney David Lohman Susan Morgan Alando Simpson* *Current OTC Members: Bob Van Brocklin, Chair, Julie Brown, Martin Callery, Sharon Smith, Alando Simpson Other Elements of the State Transportation Plan • Aviation System Plan • Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan • Freight Plan • Highway Plan • Public Transportation Plan • Oregon Statewide Transportation Strategy • Transportation Options Plan • Transportation Safety Action Plan OREGON STATE RAIL PLAN Development of the Oregon State Rail Plan was a joint effort between Oregon Department of Transportation Rail and Public Transit Division and the Transportation Development Division.* Produced by: RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSIT DIVISION H.A. (Hal) Gard, Former Division Administrator Karyn Criswell, Division Administrator TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Jerri Bohard, Division Administrator Rail Section Stacy Snider, Former Rail Operations Manager Jennifer Sellers, Rail Operations Manager Bob Melbo, State Rail Planner Planning Section Erik Havig, Planning Section Manager Amanda Pietz, Former Transportation Planning Unit Manager Michael Rock, Transportation Planning Unit Manager Roseann O’Laughlin, Oregon State Rail Plan Manager Cole Grisham, Senior Transportation Planner Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Mike Fischer, Project Manager With JLA and Associates and HDR Engineering Photos provided by the Oregon Department of Transportation, David Astle and the Port of Coos Bay. This project was funded in part by the Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. D.O.T. * The Oregon Transportation Commission revised the Oregon State Rail Plan in 2020 to incorporate updated technical and program information. OREGON STATE RAIL PLAN AN ELEMENT OF THE OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLAN Adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission September 18, 2014 Amended August 13, 2020 2020 Amendment Prepared by the ODOT Transportation Planning Unit Oregon Department of Transportation FINAL This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................1 1 The Role of Rail in Statewide Transportation ........................................................................19 Oregon’s Multimodal Transportation Goals ......................................................................19 The Role of Rail in Oregon’s Multimodal Transportation System .......................................................................................................22 Institutional Structure of Rail Programs in Oregon ...........................................................22 Oregon’s Funding and Financing Authority ......................................................................26 2 The Existing Rail System in Oregon .......................................................................................31 Description and Inventory ..................................................................................................31 Passenger Rail Service Objectives and Evaluation ............................................................54 Current Rail Funding .........................................................................................................62 3 Rail System Issues and Opportunities.....................................................................................67 Trends and Forecasts ..........................................................................................................67 Rail Service Needs and Opportunities ...............................................................................84 4 The State’s Rail Service and Investment Program ..............................................................109 State Rail Plan Vision Statement and Goals ....................................................................109 Benefits of Rail Project Types ..........................................................................................120 Rail Policies and Strategies ..............................................................................................123 Passenger and Freight Rail Investment ............................................................................133 5 Coordination, Review and Next Steps ...................................................................................141 Project Public Involvement Plan ......................................................................................141 Public Agency Coordination ............................................................................................143 Rail Plan Steering Committee ..........................................................................................144 Public Review and Comments .........................................................................................145 Steps Following Plan Adoption .......................................................................................145 Appendix A — Passenger Rail Definitions ...............................................................................149 Appendix B — Oregon State Rail Plan Steering Committee Members ...............................151 Appendix C — Rail Needs List, Part 1 and 2 ..........................................................................153 Appendix D — Findings of Compliance with Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals ............165 List of Tables and Figures Tables Table 1: Rail Investment Decision-Making Framework .........................................................13 Table 2: Snapshot of Oregon’s Multimodal Transportation System .......................................22 Table 3: Connect Oregon Rail Funding History .....................................................................27 Table 4: Freight Railroads Serving Oregon ............................................................................33 Table 5: Class I Railroad Operating Characteristics in Oregon .............................................37 Table 6: Non-Class I Railroads in Oregon, Ranked by Revenue, 2017 ..................................39 Table 7: Major Rail Yards and Terminals in Oregon .............................................................42 Table 8: Oregon Amtrak Stations and Services ......................................................................53 Table 9: WES Ridership, System Characteristics and Performance FY 2009-2018 ...............54 Table 10: Amtrak Cascades On-Time Performance by Quarter (October 2016-September 2018) ..............................................................................57 Table 11: Recent Oregon Rail Program Funding, 2019-2021.................................................63 Table 12: Statewide Commodity Flows by Mode ...................................................................77 Table 13: Summary of Non-Class I Railroad Conditions .......................................................88 Table 14: Rail Lines at Risk for Abandonment 2019-2025 ....................................................93 Table 15: Rail Investment Decision-Making Framework .....................................................114 Table 16: Quantitative Evaluation Factors ............................................................................115 Figures Figure 1: Rail System in Oregon ..............................................................................................4 Figure 2: Intercity Rail Service in Oregon ................................................................................7 Figure 3: Oregon’s Integrated Transportation Planning Process ............................................20 Figure 4: Rail System in Oregon ............................................................................................36 Figure 5: Freight Railroad Vertical Clearance Restrictions ....................................................46 Figure 6: Intercity Rail Service in Oregon ..............................................................................50 Figure 7: Amtrak Cascades Ridership, 1994-2017 .................................................................56 Figure 8: Amtrak Cascades On-Time Performance in the Eugene-Portland Corridor (January 2011-December 2017) ...............................................................................58
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 216 Part 218—Railroad Operating Practices
    Pt. 217, App. A 49 CFR Ch. II (10–1–12 Edition) APPENDIX A TO PART 217—SCHEDULE OF CIVIL PENALTIES 1 Willful viola- Section Violation tion 217.7 Operating rules: (a) ............................................................................................................................................ $2,500 $5,000 (b) ............................................................................................................................................ $2,000 $5,000 (c) ............................................................................................................................................ $2,500 $5,000 217.9 Operational tests and inspections: (a) Failure to implement a program ........................................................................................ $9,500– $13,000– 12,500 16,000 (b) Railroad and railroad testing officer responsibilities:. (1) Failure to provide instruction, examination, or field training, or failure to con- duct tests in accordance with program ................................................................. 9,500 13,000 (2) Records ............................................................................................................... 7,500 11,000 (c) Record of program; program incomplete .......................................................................... 7,500– 11,000– 12,500 16,000 (d) Records of individual tests and inspections ...................................................................... 7,500 (e) Failure to retain copy of or conduct:. (1)(i) Quarterly
    [Show full text]
  • Route Maps & Schedules
    Route Maps & Schedules oregon-point.com/route-landing/ Cascades (Portland-Eugene) The Cascades Route provides daily bus service between Downtown Portland and the University of Oregon in Eugene, serving 5 cities and making a total of 6 stops. Click address for map 5541 5501 5503 5545 5517 5547 5507 Schedule Notes Mon-Fri Sat, Sun, Only Holiday Portland 6:00 am 11:10 12:25 1:30 pm 3:15 pm 7:00 pm 10:00 pm Union Station am pm 800 NW Sixth Ave. Portland, OR 97209 Woodburn 12:05 1:25 pm 2:25 pm 4:10 pm 8:10 pm Memorial Transit pm Facility 2895 Newberg Hwy. Woodburn, OR 97071 Salem 7:15 am 12:30 1:55 pm 2:55 pm 4:35 pm 8:35 pm 11:25 pm Amtrak Station pm 500 13th St. SE Salem, OR 97301 Albany 7:50 am 1:10 pm 2:30 pm 3:25 pm 5:30 pm 9:15 pm 12:05 pm Amtrak Station 110 10th Ave. SW Albany, OR 97321 Eugene 8:40 2:00 3:20 4:05 6:20 10:05 12:40 Amtrak Station am* pm* pm* pm* pm* pm* am* 433 Willamette St. Eugene, OR 97401 1/3 Click address for map 5541 5501 5503 5545 5517 5547 5507 University of Oregon 8:50 am 2:15 pm 3:35 pm 4:20 pm 6:35 pm 10:20 pm 12:50 am Hayward Field 1515 Agate St. Eugene, OR 97403 * = No boardings at this stop. Bus will only stop to drop off passengers and may leave before the time shown.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Records Relating to Railroads in the Cartographic Section of the National Archives
    REFERENCE INFORMATION PAPER 116 Records Relating to Railroads in the Cartographic Section of the national archives 1 Records Relating to Railroads in the Cartographic Section of the National Archives REFERENCE INFORMATION PAPER 116 National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC Compiled by Peter F. Brauer 2010 United States. National Archives and Records Administration. Records relating to railroads in the cartographic section of the National Archives / compiled by Peter F. Brauer.— Washington, DC : National Archives and Records Administration, 2010. p. ; cm.— (Reference information paper ; no 116) includes index. 1. United States. National Archives and Records Administration. Cartographic and Architectural Branch — Catalogs. 2. Railroads — United States — Armed Forces — History —Sources. 3. United States — Maps — Bibliography — Catalogs. I. Brauer, Peter F. II. Title. Cover: A section of a topographic quadrangle map produced by the U.S. Geological Survey showing the Union Pacific Railroad’s Bailey Yard in North Platte, Nebraska, 1983. The Bailey Yard is the largest railroad classification yard in the world. Maps like this one are useful in identifying the locations and names of railroads throughout the United States from the late 19th into the 21st century. (Topographic Quadrangle Maps—1:24,000, NE-North Platte West, 1983, Record Group 57) table of contents Preface vii PART I INTRODUCTION ix Origins of Railroad Records ix Selection Criteria xii Using This Guide xiii Researching the Records xiii Guides to Records xiv Related
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Service Design Guidelines
    Transit Service Design Guidelines Department of Rail and Public Transportation November 2008 Transit Service Design Guidelines Why were these guidelines for new transit service developed? In FY2008 alone, six communities in Virginia contacted the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation about starting new transit service in their community. They and many other communities throughout Virginia are interested in learning how new transit services can enhance travel choices and mobility and help to achieve other goals, such as quality of life, economic opportunity, and environmental quality. They have heard about or seen successful transit systems in other parts of the state, the nation, or the world, and wonder how similar systems might serve their communities. They need objective and understandable information about transit and whether it might be appropriate for them. These guidelines will help local governments, transit providers and citizens better understand the types of transit systems and services that are available to meet community and regional transportation needs. The guidelines also help the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) in making recommendations to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for transit investments, by 1) providing information on the types of systems or services that are best matched to community needs and local land use decisions, and 2) ensuring that resources are used effectively to achieve local, regional, and Commonwealth goals. Who were these guidelines developed for? These guidelines are intended for three different audiences: local governments, transit providers and citizens. Therefore, some will choose to read the entire document while others may only be interested in certain sections.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Depot Tower Interlocking Plant
    Union Depot Tower Union Depot Tower (U.D. Tower) was completed in 1914 as part of a municipal project to improve rail transportation through Joliet, which included track elevation of all four railroad lines that went through downtown Joliet and the construction of a new passenger station to consolidate the four existing passenger stations into one. A result of this overall project was the above-grade intersection of 4 north-south lines with 4 east-west lines. The crossing of these rail lines required sixteen track diamonds. A diamond is a fixed intersection between two tracks. The purpose of UD Tower was to ensure and coordinate the safe and timely movement of trains through this critical intersection of east-west and north-south rail travel. UD Tower housed the mechanisms for controlling the various rail switches at the intersection, also known as an interlocking plant. Interlocking Plant Interlocking plants consisted of the signaling appliances and tracks at the intersections of major rail lines that required a method of control to prevent collisions and provide for the efficient movement of trains. Most interlocking plants had elevated structures that housed mechanisms for controlling the various rail switches at the intersection. Union Depot Tower is such an elevated structure. Source: Museum of the American Railroad Frisco Texas CSX Train 1513 moves east through the interlocking. July 25, 1997. Photo courtesy of Tim Frey Ownership of Union Depot Tower Upon the completion of Union Depot Tower in 1914, U.D. Tower was owned and operated by the four rail companies with lines that came through downtown Joliet.
    [Show full text]
  • Intercity Bus Program Section 5311 (F) Presented By: FTA Region 4 Staff Lorna Wilson, HQ Juan Morrison, HQ
    Federal Transit Administration Intercity Bus Program Section 5311 (f) Presented by: FTA Region 4 Staff Lorna Wilson, HQ Juan Morrison, HQ Federal Transit Administration OBJECTIVE Support the connection between nonurbanized areas and the larger regional or national system of intercity bus service. Support services to meet the intercity travel needs of residents in nonurbanized areas. Support the infrastructure of the intercity bus network through planning and marketing assistance and capital investment in facilities. FTA encourages States to use the funding under 49 U.S.C. 5311(f) to support these national objectives, as well as priorities determined by the State. FTA TPM ver3.1 2 GOVERNOR’S CERTIFICATION A State is required to expend at least 15 percent of its apportionment for an intercity bus program, unless “the chief executive officer of the State certifies to the Secretary of Transportation, after consultation with affected intercity bus service providers, that the intercity bus service needs of the State are being met adequately.” FTA TPM ver3.1 3 INTERCITY BUS The legislative history indicates that the assessment of intercity bus needs be made “relative to other rural needs in the State.” A State certifying that its needs are adequately met must demonstrate that it has assessed statewide intercity mobility needs no more than four years before the date of the certification The State must document in the State Management Plan (SMP) its consultation process and any process that it develops for periodically assessing statewide
    [Show full text]
  • Amberglen Community Plan
    Create a vibrant regional activity center enlivened with high-quality pedestrian and environmental amenities, taking advantage of the region’s light rail system. AmberGlen Community Plan CITY OF HILLSBORO, OREGON Adopted by Ordinance No. 5933, January 19, 2010 AmberGlen Community Plan Adopted by Ordinance No. 5933, January 19, 2010 Prepared by the City of Hillsboro with Cardno WRG David Evans and Associates, Inc. Johnson Reid Land Use Economics 2007 OHSU/AmberGlen Concept Plan Prepared for the City of Hillsboro by PB PlaceMaking Leland Consulting Group Kittelson & Associates, Inc. SWCA Environmental Consultants Cover Illustration Credit: Sabrina Henkhaus, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2 Purpose..........................................................................................................................2 Plan Organization .........................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 4 Context...........................................................................................................................4 Planning Process ..........................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • STAFF REPORT To: Daniel L. Dias, Economic and Community Development Director From: Gregg Snyder, Transportation Planning Superv
    STAFF REPORT To: Daniel L. Dias, Economic and Community Development Director From: Gregg Snyder, Transportation Planning Supervisor Don Odermott, Transportation Planning Engineer Date: April 16, 2019 Subject: Letters of Support and Required Mitigation for TriMet’s Red Line Extension and Operational Improvements Project Requested City Council Action: Consider Transportation Committee’s recommendation to City Council to authorize the Mayor to execute two letters to TriMet regarding the Red Line Extension and Operational Improvements Project; one which confers full support of the project and one which requires mitigation of the Red Line Project’s significant impact to multi-modal mobility and safety at the 185th Avenue at-grade crossing. Background/Project Overview: TriMet is currently planning to extend the MAX Red Line from its current terminus at the Beaverton Transit Center out to the Fairplex Station in Hillsboro. According to the analysis completed to date, staff have concerns that the at-grade railroad crossing at 185th Avenue will be significantly affected by the increase in light rail train frequencies. Current traffic analysis is showing an unmitigated double digit increase in vehicle, bus and pedestrian delays and queues in the corridor. At the February 2019 Transportation Committee meeting staff presented the findings of the traffic analysis and discussed next steps which included sending two letters to TriMet. The first letter would confer full support of the project and the second would require mitigation of the Red Line’s significant impact to multi-modal mobility at the grade crossing. Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 are the proposed letters that the Transportation Committee is recommending be executed by the Mayor and delivered to TriMet.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Choices 3
    Transportation Choices 3 MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE | MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT AND GOODS Introduction Facilities Snapshot This chapter organizes the transportation system into two categories: movement of people, and movement of freight and goods. Movement of people encompasses active transportation, transit, rail, air, and automobiles. Movement of freight and goods encompasses rail, marine cargo, air, vehicles, and pipelines. 3 Three Airports: one commercial, two Community Consistent with federal legislation (23 CFR 450.306) and Washington State Legislation (RCW 47.80.030), the regional transportation system includes: 23 Twenty-three Fixed Transit Routes ▶All state-owned transportation facilities and services (highways, park-and-ride lots, etc); 54 Fifty-Four Miles of Multi-Use Trails ▶All local principal arterials and selected minor arterials the RTPO considers necessary to the plan; 2.1 Multi- ▶Any other transportation facilities and services, existing and Two Vehicles per Household* proposed, including airports, transit facilities and services, roadways, Modal rail facilities, marine transportation facilities, pedestrian/bicycle Transport facilities, etc., that the RTPO considers necessary to complete the 5 regional plan; and Five Rail Lines System ▶Any transportation facility or service that fulfills a regional need or impacts places in the plan, as determined by the RTPO. 4 Four Ports *Source: US Census Bureau, 2014 ACS 5-year estimates. Chapter 3 | Transportation Choices 39 Figure 3-1: JourneyMode to ChoiceWork -ModeJourney Choice to Work in the RTPO, 2014 Movement of People Walk/ Bike, Public Transit, 2.2% Other, 4.3% People commute for a variety of reasons, and likewise, a variety of 1.2% ways. This section includes active transportation, transit, passenger Carpooled, 12.6% rail, passenger air, and passenger vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Nurail Project ID: Nurail2012-UTK-R04 Macro Scale
    NURail project ID: NURail2012-UTK-R04 Macro Scale Models for Freight Railroad Terminals By Mingzhou Jin Professor Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering University of Tennessee at Knoxville E-mail: [email protected] David B. Clarke Director of the Center for Transportation Research University of Tennessee at Knoxville E-mail: [email protected] Grant Number: DTRT12-G-UTC18 March 2, 2016 Page 1 of 6 DISCLAIMER Funding for this research was provided by the NURail Center, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign under Grant No. DTRT12-G-UTC18 of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research & Technology (OST-R), University Transportation Centers Program. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. March 2, 2016 Page 2 of 6 TECHNICAL SUMMARY Title Macro Scale Models for Freight Railroad Terminals Introduction This project has developed a yard capacity model for macro-level analysis. The study considers the detailed sequence and scheduling in classification yards and their impacts on yard capacities simulate typical freight railroad terminals, and statistically analyses of the historical and simulated data regarding dwell-time and traffic flows. Approach and Methodology The team developed optimization models to investigate three sequencing decisions are at the areas inspection, hump, and assembly.
    [Show full text]