DOCSLIB.ORG

MAG Regional Commuter Rail System Study Update Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MAG Regional Commuter Rail System Study Update Final Report 2018 REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM STUDY UPDATE Maricopa Association of Governments | May 2018 APPENDICES MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM STUDY UPDATE Appendix A: Methodology for Cost Estimating May 2018 Page intentionally left blank. Table of contents 1.0 METHODOLOGY FOR COST ESTIMATING __________________________________ 1 1.1 Purpose __________________________________________________________ 1 1.2 General __________________________________________________________ 1 1.3 Cost Estimate Format _______________________________________________ 1 1.4 Capital Cost Estimates ______________________________________________ 2 1.5 O&M Cost Estimates ________________________________________________ 2 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND BASIS OF ESTIMATE _________________________________ 3 2.1 General __________________________________________________________ 3 i Page intentionally left blank. ii 1.0 METHODOLOGY FOR COST ESTIMATING 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this document is to present the methodology that will be used to estimate the capital and the annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs for the MAG System Study Update commuter rail corridors. The cost estimates will follow the methodology discussed below to the maximum extent practical given that no conceptual engineering has been completed to date. Where no detail for cost estimating is available, unit costs on a major level such as route track mile, complete station, or other lump sum will be utilized. 1.2 General The cost estimates for the MAG System Study Update are based upon: Conceptual level design or less. Recent costs experienced or estimated for the commuter rail and freight railroad industries. Costs experienced on recent commuter rail projects. Unit costs obtained from major vendors, as appropriate. Federal funding sources and will follow Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration procedures. In addition, the following will be included with the cost estimates: A comprehensive list of assumptions and all supporting documents supporting line item costs. A rational indicating the justification for contingencies to be applied to each line item of work. Overall project cost as well as project reserve. 1.3 Cost Estimate Format The format of the capital cost estimates will include: Line item description for units of work by procurement/construction cost category. Unit of Measure. Number of units. Cost per Unit. Subtotal cost per cost category. Total cost for all procurement/construction cost categories. Line item description for cost categories based upon a percentage of procurement/construction costs. Total procurement/construction and other costs before add-on/contingency costs. 1 Cost of future planning, preliminary design, final design, construction, construction management, agency force account, commissioning etc., that will result in a complete operating commuter rail system. Contingency on Line Item Sub Total (and or each line item). Project Reserve (over and above Contingency). Grand Total per Corridor. 1.4 Capital Cost Estimates Sources for the costs include articles printed in the railroad industry press, bid costs, project cost estimates, Class 1 railroad projects in the Western United States, private industry projects, railroad typical “rule of thumb” costs (Class 1 railroads and regional and shortline railroads), and any other valid sources with railroad cost data. In some instances, where costs are a few years old, the costs are inflated to current year costs. It must be noted that many of our projects are “confidential” and the specifics of a cost estimate are not available for use on a different project or for distribution. Because costs are expressed in many different formats, the capital cost data will be converted to the most common factors available. For example, bridge costs are expressed in cost per square foot or cost per linear foot. Often, the length of a bridge is stated, but the square footage is not. Often, the cost per mile of a project can be calculated because only the total length and cost are stated. The average cost per mile of a project is useful as a “sanity check” on costs that are estimated during the early phases of a project. When developing cost estimates for a project, it is important to understand the difference between a current project and other projects. For example, track construction for a freight railroad that will need to accommodate many 135-car, 16,000 ton unit trains on a daily basis should cost more than track designed to accommodate a few freight trains and several commuter rail trains on a daily basis. Commuter rail costs differ as route characteristics, design, stations, service levels, and all of the other elements of a corridor or system differ. Knowledge of the differences is just as important as knowledge of the similarities when developing estimated costs. Capital Cost estimates are shown in Attachment A. 1.5 O&M Cost Estimates The O&M cost estimates will be based upon the operating plans and current costs for current U.S. commuter rail operations. The O&M cost estimates include a variety of factors, including all labor costs associated with the transportation, vehicle maintenance, fixed plant maintenance, security, administration, and support functions necessary for the operation of the transit service. Non-labor expenses include all supplies, parts, materials, vendor contracts, rentals and leases, insurance, user fees, utilities, and various expendables and other appropriate expenses required to properly and safely operate, inspect, service, maintain, repair, overhaul, market, and support the transit system. It is assumed that the annual costs associated with operations and vehicle maintenance would be similar in amount whether performed either by the commuter rail authority or under a separate contract. The O&M costs will be estimated from the annual revenue vehicle miles operated for the proposed service schedules. Annual revenue vehicle miles will be calculated based upon the 2 length and number of one-way trips required to operate each hour of each period of service at the specified headway with the specified consist length. For example, an hour of service at a 30- minute headway in each direction with a single vehicle consist over a 10-mile route would result in four one-way trips times 10 miles times one vehicle or 40 revenue vehicle miles. The annual revenue miles include consideration for the number of days per year during which weekday, weekend, holiday, and special service are operated. The annual revenue vehicle miles will then be multiplied by the average cost per annual revenue vehicle mile for the type of equipment and service being operated. The average cost per revenue vehicle mile is available for several U. S. commuter rail systems currently in operation. These systems all utilize locomotive hauled consists that are operated in push-pull fashion. Push-pull operations have a locomotive pulling the train in one direction and pushing the train in the opposite direction. In the push mode, the train crew operates the train from a cab in the leading car of the train. For the purpose of estimating the annual O&M costs, the average cost per revenue vehicle mile will be based upon the average cost per revenue vehicle mile for the commuter rail systems contained in the National Transit Database. The annual O&M costs and the commuter rail systems used for the development of the O&M cost estimates were costs for 2016 as contained in the 2016 National Transit Database. The commuter rail systems used included Utah’s FrontRunner, New Mexico’s Railrunner, Seattle’s Sounder, Minnesota’s NorthStar, Florida’s Tri-Rail, Dallas/Fort Worth’s Trinity Railway Express (TRE), San Diego’s Coaster, Nashville’s Music City Star, and the Stockton/San Jose Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) for LHC vehicle technology. The cost per vehicle revenue mile for these systems ranges from $8.37 to $30.99, or an average of $20.93 for these eight systems. The cost per revenue hour for these eight systems ranged between $289.71 and $1,222.41 with the average being $683.54. The average cost per vehicle revenue mile and hour for all commuter rail systems contained in the 2016 NTD is $17.28 and $545.65, respectively. The National Transit Database classifies the systems that use the new DMU vehicles as Hybrid Rail. The hybrid rail systems used to develop O&M costs included Denton County’s A Line, Austin’s MetroRail, San Diego’s Sprinter, Portland’s Westside Express Service (WES), and New Jersey’s River LINE. The cost per vehicle revenue mile for these systems ranges from $19.79 to $77.34, or an average of $38.72 for these five systems. The cost per revenue hour for these five systems ranged between $487.93 and $1,840.81 with the average being $901.54. The average cost per vehicle revenue mile and hour for all commuter rail systems contained in the 2016 NTD is $29.72 and $708.97, respectively. Operating Cost estimates are shown in Attachment B. 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND BASIS OF ESTIMATE The cost estimate for the MAG Commuter Rail Study was generally based upon the following assumptions: 2.1 General Costs are based on quantities estimated from the project drawings at the conceptual level design or less. These drawings have not been updated since the 2010 Study, but have been re-examined to ensure that the track plans allow for the level of service proposed for both passenger and freight operations. 3 Costs are presented in 2017 US Dollars. Escalation to year of expenditure dollars is not included. Total cost for each segment of the study include estimates for construction of guideway, ballasted track, special trackwork, improvements to at-grade rail/highway crossings, stations, park-n-rides, terminals, support facilities, utility relocations, related street and highway modifications, ROW acquisition, vehicle purchase, soft costs, contingencies and an allowance for project reserve. The cost for the System Study Update includes the construction of the corridor from Union Station to each end-of-line station.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FY20-Fed-State-SOGR-Project-Recipients
    FY 2020 Federal-State Partnership for State of Good Repair Grant Program California — San Diego Next Generation Signaling and Grade Crossing Modernization Up to $9,836,917 North County Transit District Replaces and upgrades obsolete signal, train control, and crossing equipment on a 60-mile section of North County Transit District right-of-way the carrier shares with Amtrak intercity service and freight rail. Brings signal and train control components into a state of good repair, including installing new signal houses, signals, and cabling. Replaces components at more than 15 grade crossings along the corridor. California — Pacific Surfliner Corridor Rehabilitation and Service Reliability Up to $31,800,000 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Rehabilitates track, structures, and grade crossings in Ventura County and northern Los Angeles County on infrastructure used by Amtrak intercity service, Metrolink commuter service, and BNSF freight service. Work for member agency Ventura County Transportation Commission includes track, tie, ballast, and culvert replacements, grade crossing rehabilitation, and tunnel track and structure replacements. Reduces trip times, increases reliability, and improves safety by reducing need for slow orders and conflicts at grade crossings in the corridor. Connecticut — Walk Bridge Replacement Up to $79,700,000 Connecticut Department of Transportation & Amtrak Replaces the Connecticut-owned movable Norwalk River Bridge, built in 1896, with two, independent, two-track, vertical lift rail bridges in Norwalk, Connecticut. Includes associated embankment and retaining wall improvements on the bridge approaches, new catenary structures, and signal system upgrades. The existing bridge is beyond its useful life and prone to malfunctions, especially during opening or closing. The replacement will reduce slow orders, reduce the risk of service disruptions, and improve resiliency to extreme weather events.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transportation
    TRANSPORTATION NETWORK DIRECTORY FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND ADULTS 50+ MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Montgomery County, Maryland (‘the County’) cannot guarantee the relevance, completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information provided on the non-County links. The County does not endorse any non-County organizations' products, services, or viewpoints. The County is not responsible for any materials stored on other non-County web sites, nor is it liable for any inaccurate, defamatory, offensive or illegal materials found on other Web sites, and that the risk of injury or damage from viewing, hearing, downloading or storing such materials rests entirely with the user. Alternative formats of this document are available upon request. This is a project of the Montgomery County Commission on People with Disabilities. To submit an update, add or remove a listing, or request an alternative format, please contact: [email protected], 240-777-1246 (V), MD Relay 711. MetroAccess and Abilities-Ride MetroAccess Paratransit – Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) MetroAccess is a shared-ride, door-to-door public transportation service for people who are unable to use fixed-route public transit due to disability. "Shared ride" means that multiple passengers may ride together in the same vehicle. The service provides daily trips throughout the Transit Zone in the Washington Metropolitan region. The Transit Zone consists of the District of Columbia, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland, Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the cities of Alexandria, Fairfax and Falls Church in Northern Virginia. Rides are offered in the same service areas and during the same hours of operation as Metrorail and Metrobus.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Wilsonville Transit Master Plan
    City of Wilsonville Transit Master Plan CONVENIENCE SAFETY RELIABILITY EFFICIENCY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY FRIENDLY SERVICE EQUITY & ACCESS ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY JUNE 2017 Acknowledgements The City of Wilsonville would like to acknowledge the following for their dedication to the development of this Transit Master Plan. Their insight and outlook toward the future of this City helped create a comprehensive plan that represents the needs of employers, residents and visitors of Wilsonville. Transit Master Plan Task Force Planning Commission Julie Fitzgerald, Chair* Jerry Greenfield, Chair Kristin Akervall Eric Postma, Vice Chair Caroline Berry Al Levit Paul Diller Phyllis Millan Lynnda Hale Peter Hurley Barb Leisy Simon Springall Peter Rapley Kamran Mesbah Pat Rehberg Jean Tsokos City Staff Stephanie Yager Dwight Brashear, Transit Director Eric Loomis, Operations Manager City Council Scott Simonton, Fleet Manager Tim Knapp, Mayor Gregg Johansen, Transit Field Supervisor Scott Star, President Patrick Edwards, Transit Field Supervisor Kristin Akervall Nicole Hendrix, Transit Management Analyst Charlotte Lehan Michelle Marston, Transit Program Coordinator Susie Stevens Brad Dillingham, Transit Planning Intern Julie Fitzgerald* Chris Neamtzu, Planning Director Charlie Tso, Assistant Planner Consultants Susan Cole, Finance Director Jarrett Walker Keith Katko, Finance Operations Manager Michelle Poyourow Tami Bergeron, Planning Administration Assistant Christian L Watchie Amanda Guile-Hinman, Assistant City Attorney Ellen Teninty Stephan Lashbrook,
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project: Health Impact Assessment
    Lake Oswego to Portland Transit Project: Health Impact Assessment Program Partner Metro Funders US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Network of Public Health Institutes Oregon Public Health Institute www.orphi.org Prepared by: Steve White, Sara Schooley, and Noelle Dobson, Oregon Public Health Institute For more information about this report contact: Steve White, [email protected] Acknowledgements: This project relied on the time and expertise of numerous groups and individuals. Metro staff members Kathryn Sofich, Jamie Snook, Brian Monberg, and Cliff Higgins served on the Project Team and provided documentation, data, and input for all phases of the HIA. They also helped create and sustain interest within Metro for participating in this project. Other Metro staff members also provided valuable comments and critiques at the five brown bags held at Metro to talk about this project and HIA more generally. Substantial input was also provided by the project’s Advisory Committee which provided input on scoping and assessment methodology, and reviewed drafts at various stages. AC members included: Julie Early-Alberts, State of Oregon Public Health Division Gerik Kransky, Bicycle Transportation Alliance Scott France, Clackamas County Community Health John MacArthur, Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium Mel Rader, Upstream Public Health Maya Bhat, MPH, Multnomah County Health Department Brendon Haggerty, Clark County Public Health Joe Recker, TriMet Amy Rose, Metro Daniel Kaempff, Metro Special thanks are also due to Aaron Wernham, project director for Pew Charitable Trust’s Health Impact Project, for providing valuable insight and advice at the project’s outset regarding the coordination of HIA and Environmental Impact Statements.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transit a History of Public Transit in Portland
    Hilary Pfeifer Meredith Dittmar PUBLIC TRANSIT A history of public transit in Portland Melody Owen Mark Richardson Smith Kristin Mitsu Shiga Chandra Bocci trimet.org/history Traveling through time Dear Reader, Transit plays a critical role in providing options for traveling throughout the region. It connects people to work, school, recreational destinations and essential services. It’s not just a commuter service. It’s a community asset. And the benefits extend far beyond those who ride. TriMet’s transit system is recognized as a national leader for its connection to land use. By linking land-use planning and transit, we have helped create livable communities, vibrant neighborhoods and provide alternatives to driving. Transit is also a catalyst for economic development. More than $10 billion in transit-oriented development has occurred within walking distance of MAX light rail stations since the decision to build in 1980. Developers like the permanence of rail when investing in projects. Transit is also valued by the community. Most of our riders— 81 percent—are choice riders. They have a car available or choose not to own one so they can ride TriMet. With more than 325,000 trips taken each weekday on our buses, MAX Light Rail and WES Commuter Rail, we eliminate 66 million annual car trips. That eases traffic congestion and helps keep our air clean. TriMet carries more people than any other U.S. transit system our size. Our many innovations have drawn the attention of government leaders, planners, transit providers and transit users from around the world. We didn’t start out that way.
    [Show full text]
  • Penn Station Amtrak Schedule
    Penn Station Amtrak Schedule Celibate and discontinuous Vincents snaked some titties so lamentably! Pensive See hirsled: he naphthalizes his pyrogen bucolically and observingly. Is Marlow mopiest when Eberhard polychrome single-mindedly? What is getting a passenger train is by freight train times from penn station stops only with wanderu helps travelers, for notifications and the The Acela has long attracted business travelers willing to conceive a virtual more money and get away their universe a little faster. Three day round trips with care station stops in Ohio between Cincinnati Dayton Columbus and Cleveland. Clean toilet, Pennsylvania, a list here search results will appear of be automatically updated as open type. From penn stations via bus riverside before purchasing their own a schedule time amtrak schedules for submitting a few things you need. Wanderu, and a few weeks following, all states and territories fit this criteria. Penn Line. What end You kit to Travel by shareholder in America. Higher than flight is amtrak! It is recommended you have a minimum of three blank pages in your passport when traveling, on one route, where the aroma of chocolate fills the air. Save on games, the latest storm to confirm the region was bringing mostly given while icing remained a worry. From Islip, so like them where stock can. Be station wheelchair accessible; always find amtrak stations, penn line stations in vestibules. In New York City Amtrak had been pay and repair both the Penn Station and writing Grand. Book buses and trains on the layout with the Wanderu app. Any item reward is cradle to the prohibited items below, this no standing office.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2017-2021
    Northeast Corridor Capital Investment Plan Fiscal Years 2017-2021 April 2016 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission (the Commission) to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from four freight railroads, states with connecting corridors and several commuter operators in the Region. Contents Letter from the Chair 4 Executive Summary 6 Overview 8 Implementing the Plan: Goals 10 Spotlight on State-of-Good-Repair Backlog 12 Implementing the Plan: Challenges 14 Implementing the Plan: Opportunities 16 Programs and Projects 18 Washington, DC to Philadelphia, PA 20 Philadelphia, PA to New Rochelle, NY 22 New Rochelle, NY to New Haven, CT 24 New Haven, CT to Boston, MA 26 Connecting Corridors 28 Project List and Other Appendices 30 Letter from the Chair The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is a vital asset for businesses, workers, residents, and visitors in the Northeast and beyond. Its eight commuter rail operators deliver hundreds of thousands of workers to some of the most productive economic centers in the country each day.
    [Show full text]
  • Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Report
    Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Report of the Advisory Committee August 2002 Advisory Committee Imagine the possibilities. In September 2001, Maryland Department of Transportation Secretary John D. Porcari appointed 23 a system of fast, convenient and elected, civic, business, transit and community leaders from throughout the Baltimore region to reliable rail lines running throughout serve on The Baltimore Region Rail System Plan Advisory Committee. He asked them to recommend the region, connecting all of life's a Regional Rail System long-term plan and to identify priority projects to begin the Plan's implemen- important activities. tation. This report summarizes the Advisory Committee's work. Imagine being able to go just about everywhere you really need to go…on the train. 21 colleges, 18 hospitals, Co-Chairs 16 museums, 13 malls, 8 theatres, 8 parks, 2 stadiums, and one fabulous Inner Harbor. You name it, you can get there. Fast. Just imagine the possibilities of Red, Mr. John A. Agro, Jr. Ms. Anne S. Perkins Green, Blue, Yellow, Purple, and Orange – six lines, 109 Senior Vice President Former Member We can get there. Together. miles, 122 stations. One great transit system. EarthTech, Inc. Maryland House of Delegates Building a system of rail lines for the Baltimore region will be a challenge; no doubt about it. But look at Members Atlanta, Boston, and just down the parkway in Washington, D.C. They did it. So can we. Mr. Mark Behm The Honorable Mr. Joseph H. Necker, Jr., P.E. Vice President for Finance & Dean L. Johnson Vice President and Director of It won't happen overnight.
    [Show full text]
  • WSK Commuter Rail Study
    Oregon Department of Transportation – Rail Division Oregon Rail Study Appendix I Wilsonville to Salem Commuter Rail Assessment Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff Team Parsons Brinckerhoff Simpson Consulting Sorin Garber Consulting Group Tangent Services Wilbur Smith and Associates April 2010 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 3 WHAT IS COMMUTER RAIL? ................................................................................................... 3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS............................................................................................................ 3 STUDY AREA....................................................................................................................... 4 WES COMMUTER RAIL.......................................................................................................... 6 OTHER PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES IN THE CORRIDOR .................................................................. 6 OUTREACH WITH RAILROADS: PNWR AND BNSF .................................................................. 7 PORTLAND & WESTERN RAILROAD........................................................................................... 7 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY ..................................................................................................... 7 ROUTE CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • MARC TRAIN SERVICE OVERVIEW Frederick Co
    MARC TRAIN SERVICE OVERVIEW Frederick Co. Transportation Services Advisory Council MARC Today .202 Route-miles of commuter rail services .46 locomotives and 177 commuter rail coaches .42 Stations, MD, DC & WV .96 Trains per weekday • 18 Brunswick Line (+ 1/Fri.) • 21 Camden Line • 57 Penn Line .18 Saturday, 12 Sunday .(Penn only) .Weekday passengers .~38,000 .Weekend passengers .~3,000-6,000 or more Andrea Farmer Dep. Chief Op. Officer – Contracted Services Dean Del Peschio Director Paul Brian Amos David Johnson Matt Mitchell Josh Wolf Krysowaty Chief Chief Budget and Contract Chief Facilities Mechanical Transportation Finance Compliance Officer Officer (Acting) Officer Manager Manager Katherine Read Asst. Chief Transportation Officer PENN LINEMARC Today Avg. Daily Boardings Maryland Department of Transportation. (2019). Marc Cornerstone Plan. Baltimore, MD. CAMDEN MARCLINE Today Avg. Daily Boardings Maryland Department of Transportation. (2019). Marc Cornerstone Plan. Baltimore, MD. MARC Today BRUNSWICK LINE Avg. Daily Boardings Maryland Department of Transportation. (2019). Marc Cornerstone Plan. Baltimore, MD. MARC Train 101 A Camden Unlike other commuter Line Train departs railroads, MARC is a “virtual Riverside Yard in the railroad” 1990’s. .MTA- MARC does not own any track, except for 3.2 mile Frederick Branch .MTA- MARC does not employee any train or mechanical crews .MTA- MARC does not dispatch or A Penn Line control any trains Train discharges passengers at Perryville .How is this possible? Station .Contracted Partners Linking 13 Great States, with the Nation History of MARC traces to the beginning of railroads in the United States, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (1830)… A B&O Train bound for Washington passes Relay, Maryland in the 1940’s The B&O railroads original station in Washington on New Jersey Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilsonville's Transportation Vision
    Wilsonville Transportation System Plan Adopted by Council (Ord. 718) June 17, 2013 This page intentionally left blank. Wilsonville Transportation System Plan 2013 Acknowledgements This project was partially funded by a grant from the Transportation Growth Management (TGM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. This TGM grant is financed, in part, by federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), local government, and State of Oregon funds. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect views or policies of the State of Oregon. This report was prepared through the collective effort of the following people: CITY OF WILSONVILLE TECHNICAL ADVISORY Chris Neamtzu COMMITTEE Katie Mangle Caleb Winter, Metro Nancy Kraushaar Clark Berry, Washington County Steve Adams Larry Conrad, Clackamas County Mike Ward Aquilla Hurd-Ravich, City of Tualatin Linda Straessle Julia Hajduk, City of Sherwood Mark Ottenad Dan Knoll PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Stark Ben Altman, Chair Eric Postma, Vice Chair SMART Al Levit, CCI Chair Stephan Lashbrook Marta McGuire, CCI Vice Chair Steve Allen Amy Dvorak Jen Massa Smith Peter Hurley Jeff Owen* Ray Phelps ODOT CITY COUNCIL Gail Curtis Tim Knapp, Mayor Doug Baumgartner Scott Starr, Council President Richard Goddard DKS ASSOCIATES Julie Fitzgerald Scott Mansur Susie Stevens Brad Coy Celia Núñez** Carl Springer Steve Hurst** Mat Dolata ANGELO PLANNING GROUP Darci Rudzinski ** Former City Councilor involved in the Shayna Rehberg process prior to adoption * Former Employee How to Use This Plan The Wilsonville TSP consists of RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CITY PLANS two parts: The Wilsonville Transportation System Plan (TSP) replaces the 2003 TSP in its entirety.
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION from Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network
    Report CAPITAL REGION RAIL VISION From Baltimore to Richmond, Creating a More Unified, Competitive, Modern Rail Network DECEMBER 2020 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXISTING REGIONAL RAIL NETWORK 10 THE VISION 26 BIDIRECTIONAL RUN-THROUGH SERVICE 28 EXPANDED SERVICE 29 SEAMLESS RIDER EXPERIENCE 30 SUPERIOR OPERATIONAL INTEGRATION 30 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM 31 VISION ANALYSIS 32 IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS 47 KEY STAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION ROLES 48 NEXT STEPS 51 APPENDICES 55 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The decisions that we as a region make in the next five years will determine whether a more coordinated, integrated regional rail network continues as a viable possibility or remains a missed opportunity. The Capital Region’s economic and global Railway Express (VRE) and Amtrak—leaves us far from CAPITAL REGION RAIL NETWORK competitiveness hinges on the ability for residents of all incomes to have easy and Perryville Martinsburg reliable access to superb transit—a key factor Baltimore Frederick Penn Station in attracting and retaining talent pre- and Camden post-pandemic, as well as employers’ location Yards decisions. While expansive, the regional rail network represents an untapped resource. Washington The Capital Region Rail Vision charts a course Union Station to transform the regional rail network into a globally competitive asset that enables a more Broad Run / Airport inclusive and equitable region where all can be proud to live, work, grow a family and build a business. Spotsylvania to Richmond Main Street Station Relative to most domestic peer regions, our rail network is superior in terms of both distance covered and scope of service, with over 335 total miles of rail lines1 and more world-class service.
    [Show full text]