Appendices Fall 2013 public open houses and outreach Prepared for Oregon Department of Transportation, Major Projects Branch Salem, Oregon Prepared by JLA Public Involvement December 2013

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Earned Media

Appendix 2 - Community Newspapers, Newsletters and Social Media Outreach

Appendix 3 - Comment Form Participant Information

Appendix 4 - Milwaukie Area Project Briefing Summary

Appendix 5 - Copy of Comment Form

Appendix 6 - Copy of Open House Handouts

Appendix 1 - Earned Media

The following news articles published about the Oregon Passenger Rail project during the Fall 2013 outreach phase.

Letter: Survey on valley passenger rail didn’t ask the right questions

Paul Bright, Corvallis Gazette-Times - November 12, 2013 Advocating for rail through Corvallis

Emma-Kate Schaake, The Daily Barometer - November 11, 2013 Corvallis residents air passenger rail views

Steve Lathrop, Albany Democrat-Herald - November 8, 2013 Oregon Department of Transportation considers constructing a high-speed railway from Eugene to

Portland

Natalie Maier, The Daily Emerald (University of Oregon) - November 7, 2013 As I See It: Corvallis would benefit from passenger rail

Ali Bonakdar, Commentary, Corvallis-Gazette Times - November 5, 2013 Offer your views about passenger rail service from Portland to Eugene

Tracy Loew, The Statesman Journal - November 5, 2013 Researching a route: Rail service improvements are being planned

Diane Dietz, The Register Guard - November 5, 2013 Check out these meetings about Willamette Valley passenger rail service

Statesman Journal - November 5, 2013 Oregon DOT seeks public input on Eugene-Portland passenger-rail study

Progressive Railroading - November 4, 2013 Weigh in on possible passenger rail routes

Tracey Loew, The Statesman Journal - November 4, 2013 Possible high-speed rail routes subject of open house in Oregon City

Rick Bella, The Oregonian - November 1, 2013 Outreach sessions planned for Oregon passenger rail project

James Day, Corvallis Gazette-Times - October 31, 2013 Another step in passenger rail

Hasso Hering, Corvallis Gazette-Times - October 31, 2013 Public invited to share input on Oregon Passenger Rail

Jeff McDonald, Woodburn Independent - October 30, 2013 Think Too Much: Rail line requires collaborative approach

Mike McInally - Albany Democrat-Herald - October 27, 2013 Nyquist: Rail study lacks rural input

Alex Paul, Albany Democrat-Herald - October 24, 2013 Corvallis residents seek passenger rail service

Corvallis Gazette-Times - October 22, 2013 Corvallis wants aboard new passenger rail project

James Day, Corvallis Gazette-Times - October 21, 2013 Oregon's new Amtrak Cascades Talgo 8 passenger trains roll into Portland

Joseph Rose, The Oregonian - October 18, 2013

Passenger Rail through Salem

Helen Caswell, Salem Weekly - October 16, 2013 Oregon DOT to poll public on preliminary alternative routes for intercity passenger rail

Progressive Railroading - October 11, 2013

Appendix 2 - Community Newspapers, Newsletters and Social Media Outreach

Various jurisdictions and organizations helped ODOT spread the word about the public open houses by including meeting information in their newsletters, websites, and social media. This outreach included:

Organization Type of Outreach City of Salem Including meeting information in City “Community Connection”

newsletter and weekly email blast. City of Oregon City Posted meeting information on City website and online

calendar. City of Lake Oswego Included meeting information in LO Down e-newsletter, Hello

LO publication, website calendar, and on website community page.

City of Albany Included meeting information on City website, posted information on the City Facebook page, and sent out information via Twitter.

City of Tualatin Included meeting information on City website, Facebook page, and via Twitter. Also provided meeting information to Tualatin Community Involvement Organizations.

City of Springfield Included meeting information on City website and newsletter. City of Junction City Included meeting information on City website. City of Wilsonville Included meeting information on City website and Boones

Ferry Messenger newsletter. City of Canby Included meeting information on City website, Facebok page,

and e-newsletter. City of Corvallis Posted information on the City’s informational kiosk in front of

City Hall, and forwarded information to access television channel to be included as an announcement.

City of Woodburn Published information local newspaper and in City newsletters, and emailed downtown organizations. The City of Woodburn also helped coordinate Spanish PSAs for area Spanish-language radio stations.

Springfield Chamber of Commerce

Posted information on Chamber’s website, included information in the Bottom Line newsletter and sent out in weekly email updates.

Tri-County Chamber of Commerce

Included meeting information on website.

Benton County Included meeting information on website, Facebook page, Twitter, and sent email to list serve.

Clackamas County Posted information on the County’s transportation web pages and calendar, and forwarded to transportation advisory committees, Citizen Planning Organizations, Hamlets and Villages.

Multnomah County Included meeting information on social media pages. Linn County Sent meeting information to all department heads and elected

officials of Linn County. Marion County Included information on Planning Division website and

forwarded to transportation planning staff. TriMet Provided outreach support. Salem Keizer Transit Posted information on social media and online outlets. Oregon Travel Experience Posted information on social media pages. Travel Oregon Provided outreach support. Milwaukie Rules Posted information on website. National Railway Historic Society Portland Chapter

Included the project fall newsletter as an insert in its newsletter, and included open house dates in calendar.

Appendix 3 - Comment Form Participant Information and Feedback

The open house comment form and online open house asked participants information about how they use the study area corridor, where they live, and other demographic information. This appendix includes a summary of these responses from the 340 comment forms collected at the open houses and online.

1) Outreach for public meeting

Participants specified how they found out about the public open house or online open house. People most commonly received information by project email, by reading a newspaper article or advertisement, or through a friend or family member.

44 participants said they found out about the meetings through some other source, and specified:

On train CAG Member (2) AORTA UO Student Organization NRHS and ORHF Industry Advocacy PSU Class Chamber of Commerce (2) Corvallis Chamber City Council

Green Party email City of Woodburn Jeremy Ferguson "Corvallis Advocate" newspaper article Council Meeting Historic Woodburn Neighborhood

Association Local Corvallis interest group email Mail from ODOT and AORTA Newsletter posted at school

31

104

29

6 1

44 48

10 16

37 24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Oregon Watchdog 6) Demographic Information

Demographic information was gathered at the public open houses. In total, approximately 161 people provided their demographic information.

Race/Ethnicity Participants described their race/ethnicity as follows:

Race/Ethnicity Open Houses White 95%

Hispanic/Latino 2%

Black or African American 1%

Asian 1%

Native American 0%

Native Hawaiian 0%

Other 1%

“Other” ethnicities included German.

Language Spoken Participants indicated whether any languages besides English are spoken in their homes:

Language Spoken Open Houses English only 88%

Spanish 5%

Russian 0%

Cambodian 0%

Vietnamese 0%

Other 7%

“Other” languages spoken included: French, Portuguese, Hungarian, German, Italian, Japanese, Turkish, Korean, Arabic, and Latvian.

Age Range

Participants indicated their age range:

Age Range Open Houses 18 or under 0%

19 to 35 15%

36 to 55 27%

56 to 75 50%

Over 75 13%

Milwaukie Briefing – Summary Page 1

Appendix 4: Milwaukie Area Project Briefing

October 30, 2013 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. Milwaukie Center 5440 S.E. Kellogg Creek Dr Milwaukie, OR 97222 Participants Present Karen Mayhew Mary Billy Diane Besser Bonnie Scott Pepe Anderson Elaine Powers Matt Baccitich Jo Hamilton Sharon Messerebruch Dave Hefe

Ervie Platt, NC Cafe Mark Gamba Andrew Nordby Chris Ortolano Ginny Van Loo, North Clackamas Chamber of Commerce Donald Leap, AORTA Jim Howell, AORTA Mike Morrison, AORTA Dan McFarling, AORTA

Additional Attendees Mayor Jeremy Ferguson, City of Milwaukie Jason Rice, City of Milwaukie

Steve Butler, City of Milwaukie

Project Team Jim Cox, ODOT Dave Simmons, CH2M Hill

Stacy Thomas, JLA Public Involvement Jessica Pickul, JLA Public Involvement

Welcome

Mayor Jeremy Ferguson welcomed participants to the Oregon Passenger Rail briefing on October 30, 2013. In 2011, the Governor appointed representatives to the Leadership Council, a group that is meant to deliberate and make recommendations throughout the project. Mayor Ferguson represents the Clackamas County and south Portland metro area and is an active member on the project Corridor Forum. He stressed that it is important that he carry forward the opinions of citizens back to the Leadership Council and encouraged attendees to discuss the project with him directly or provide feedback on project comment cards.

Milwaukie Area Project Briefing Summary – October 2013 2

The purpose of the briefing was to provide participants with an update on where the Oregon Passenger Rail project is today, to review the preliminary alternatives evaluation results, and to walk though the project next steps.

Project Overview

Jim Cox reviewed the purpose of the study which is to improve passenger rail service on the Oregon segment of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor between the Eugene-Springfield area and Vancouver, Wash. Cox explained that this project seeks to make passenger rail competitive with driving. In addition to higher speeds, this also means providing additional train service and improving on-time performance.

Cox provided context for how the preliminary alternatives were developed. ODOT collected hundreds of comments in the fall of 2012. These comments were used to create a set of corridor concepts, which represented ideas for potential rail route alignments. These concepts were screened against the project Purpose and Need, and as a result, some concepts were eliminated. Since January, the project team has assessed preliminary route alternatives that passed project screening. Assessment of these alternatives included modeling and feedback from many discussions with stakeholder groups throughout the corridor. The project team met with twenty-four jurisdictions and held six community advisory group meetings.

The project team also met with operators of various railroads to better understand how their systems work. These conversations were important because the team is assessing how to add more passenger rail service without negatively impacting freight service. Cox reminded attendees that freight is a really important economic provider to the state of Oregon and this project seeks to support the vitality of Oregon’s freight rail.

Preliminary Alternatives Evaluation Results

Dave Simmons, CH2M Hill project engineer, walked participants through each of the preliminary alternatives.

Simmons reinforced that the team developed preliminary alternatives which have been evaluated using criteria based on the project goals and objectives. The alternatives were assessed in three different sections.

Section A (Eugene-Springfield to North of Albany)

This section has four main preliminary alternatives. First, the red alternative corresponds to the Interstate 5 alignment and would include brand new tracks in the median or to the east or west of I-5. Average maximum speeds would be 110 mph. The red alternative would include a new station the Albany area off of I-5; an option is to diverge from I-5 to serve the existing Albany station. Second, the blue alternative would follow the Union Pacific alignment and would include double tracking in congested areas (building brand new adjacent tracks). Third, the purple alternative generally follows the Oregon Electric alignment, which has low freight traffic (a couple of freight trains per day). Fourth, the yellow alternative would serve Corvallis and then

Milwaukie Area Project Briefing Summary – October 2013 3

link to one of the other alternatives in the Albany area. A yellow option would head south from OR-34 from Corvallis to enter Albany.

The evaluation process gave a weighed score of 0 to 100 to each preliminary alternative. This score shows how well the alternative does overall in meeting the goals and objectives. No alternative received a perfect score.

The top scoring alternative in Section A is the red alternative, followed by the blue and then purple alternatives. The red alternative performs well because it provides reduced travel time due to higher speeds, and because of reduced freight conflicts. The purple alternative allows for somewhat faster speeds than the blue alternative; the purple alternative can reach speeds of 90-110 mph in some areas, whereas blue can only travel 79 mph. 110 mph is the threshold for grade separation; so the blue and purple alternatives do not require grade separation. The red alternative assumes grade separation at all of its intersections.

The blue alternative performs the best for cost effectiveness (Goal 3). Cost effectiveness includes cost of construction, ability to phase improvements over time, as well as serving established travel markets.

In terms of the performance/cost comparison, the blue alternative is the least expensive. The red alternative is 70% more expensive than the blue alternative, but still provides significant value for the cost.

Section B (North of Albany to North of Wilsonville)

Section B includes three main preliminary alternatives. First, the blue alternative follows the UP alignment. There is also a blue Parrish Gap option which would build a short segment of new track north of Albany to avoid congestion and reduce curves. Second, the red alternative follows I-5. Third, the purple alternative generally follows the OE corridor, although it follows the blue alternative from Albany to south of Keizer. There are two options for the purple alternative; one serves Wilsonville and connects with the red I-5 alternative, and the other connects with the blue alternative north of Aurora.

The top scoring alternative in Section B is the red alternative, again due to increased speeds, fewer freight conflicts, and fewer at-grade crossings. The purple Wilsonville option performs second best, also because of increased mobility. The blue alternative performs best for Goal 3 (cost effectiveness), although the blue Parrish Gap option does not provide much travel time savings in comparison with the high cost of building new tracks. The blue Parrish Gap option only provides five minutes of travel time savings, while the red alternative provides roughly twenty minutes of travel time savings.

In terms of the performance/cost comparison, the blue alternative is the least expensive. The red alternative would be 50% more expensive than the blue alternative, but still provides a good cost to value radio.

Milwaukie Area Project Briefing Summary – October 2013 4

Section C (North of Wilsonville to Vancouver, Wash.)

Section C includes two main preliminary alternatives, each with several options. First, the red alternative follows I-5, and then follows Interstate 205 and Interstate 84 before traveling into downtown Portland. Second, the blue alternative follows the UP line, which runs through Oregon City and near Milwaukie, and ultimately serves Union Station. Both the blue and red alternatives have an option to provide a new station in the Rose Quarter area.

The top scoring alternative in Section C is the blue alternative. The red alternative does not perform well due to difficulties constructing in the I-205 and I-84 footprints. The red alternative does not have mobility benefits as it does in Sections A and B. The blue alternative scores well for Goal 3 (cost effectiveness). Goal 6 (community and environmental impacts) is a differentiator in Section C. Since the UP line already goes through industrial areas, there are fewer community impacts; whereas residences along I-205 would be impacted by the red alternative.

In terms of the performance/cost comparison, the blue alternative is the least expensive. The red alternative is 300-400% more expensive than the blue alternative. The red alternative does not provide much increased value for the cost. The blue alternative’s eastside options are more expensive than the main blue alternative, but do provide descent value for the cost.

The project team is now assessing which alternatives should be studied further. At the start of the year, the team will analyze a narrowed list of options that will undergo additional engineering work.

Question & Answer Session

Jim Cox opened up the briefing for participant questions about the project. The following is a summary of the question and answer session.

Is freight going to be running on these lines? Yes, on all of the alignments but the red alignment. The red alignment would be a new track and would only run passenger rail.

Presuming that we will have high speed rail some day from San Diego, California

to Vancouver, B.C., why are we looking at routes that will never allow for true high speed rail? One thing we have to consider is the modest population in the state of Oregon. In California, high speed is possible because they have higher ridership markets in certain sections. California is looking to serve sixteen million riders with high speed rail, yet ridership in the Willamette Valley is around two hundred thousand riders. This has been reviewed with the Federal Rail Administration and they require a train to leave at least once an hour in order to build a new dedicated high speed alignment. In Oregon there isn’t ridership to support that level of frequency.

Milwaukie Area Project Briefing Summary – October 2013 5

How many stations are there today? Today, there are five stations: Portland, Oregon City, Salem, Albany and Eugene. There has been interest by a variety of communities to build a new station, which we are considering. We are starting to study these options further. The team is looking at station locations that are about 30 minutes or less from population centers. Additionally, this project will not likely add many more stations because it focuses on improving intercity passenger rail, not commuter rail which tends to serve more cities.

A meeting participant commented that the red alternative sounds like it will cost a lot of

money but there is more to consider than just cost. There is no room for additional track in this area for the blue alternative. Staff should also consider that students have to walk in the road in some areas by the railroad because there is no room for sidewalks. Homeowners don’t want the railroad to be closer to their house because it is loud. There are other things to consider with rail including: freight is important, maintenance can be disruptive to the residences that are along the railroad, and there are some homeless people that live by the railroad (by Albertsons). People drive really fast near the tracks, so it can be dangerous because people can get stuck on the track.

How wide is the Union Pacific right-of-way through Milwaukie? Simmons

responded that he wasn’t sure about those details, but that it varies along the corridor. Follow up question: What is the delta in cost between 6 and 16 trips a day on the same line? There will need to be 16 trips in order to meet ridership demand. It isn’t the population that determines demand – frequency is also a factor. Studies show that if you add more trains, ridership increases. Cox responded that the project team would have to run new models to get the numbers for 16 trips, which will not be done before the alternatives are narrowed. He added that he is not sure that 16 trains will ever run per day as Federal Railroad Administration is questioning 6 trips per day.

A participant commented that any high speed rail services around the world were

developed in conjunction with freight service. It is important to note that south of Eugene there is only a single track freight line and Eugene is not likely to generate additional freight demand. Therefore, if you double or triple track in some places, you would have far more capacity for passenger service with increased capacity for freight service as well. Simmons added that the blue alternative does consider double tracking in some areas.

Why are there options being considered that bypass Union Station in Portland?

Cox one of the biggest bottlenecks is from to Portland to Vancouver, Wash., so those options were meant to move around a congested area.

If there is a need to double-track on the blue alternative through Milwaukie, is

there enough room? We haven’t conducted that level of study in the area yet and would need the right-of-way information to be able to respond.

Milwaukie Area Project Briefing Summary – October 2013 6

Both the red and blue alternatives have a choke point at the Steel Bridge, crossing

the Willamette. Additionally, the red alternative would run into issues where it runs along I-84 due to highway right-of-way - it would be hard to cross of the freeway or rail line. The team is looking at running along one side of the highway, next to the right-of-way. Also, the team is looking at running the red alternative up and over, with a swing out to cross roads at the surface level, reducing the need for a large overpass. Cox acknowledged that the Steel Bridge is a choke point, but the project does not plan to replace it.

There was a question in the community about a change at the intersection of the

SE Railroad Ave. and Linwood Ave. How would this plan affect that change? Mayor Ferguson responded that the City is coordinating with ODOT and Clackamas County on this. There are no plans set for what to do with that intersection but we will continue to consider it further.

If Union Pacific wanted to add a new track on their right-of-way, could they do

that? Are there any restrictions? Simmons replied that if it is on UP’s property, they have the right to add track. Mayor Ferguson added that UP’s right-of-way is about 100 feet and their track is dead center so if they wanted to double track, they would have to move the existing track over.

Stacy Thomas thanked everyone for attending the event and for their thoughtful questions. She encouraged participants to attend the upcoming open house in Oregon City on November 12. The meeting was adjourned.

Appendix 5 - Copy of Comment Form

Appendix 6 - Copy of Open House Handouts

Preliminary alternatives

99W

Portland

Vancouver, Wash.

Oregon City

Milwaukie

Salem

Woodburn

Keizer

Brooks

Wilsonville

Donald Aurora

Albany

Eugene

Harrisburg

Corvallis Tangent

Millersburg

Halsey

Junction City

Monroe

Springfield5

26

205

26

20

5

84

99W

99W

99E

99E

22

5

Will

amet

te River

The following preliminary alternatives and options were evaluated this summer using the project goals and objectives.

Blue - The blue alternative generally follows the existing Amtrak Cascades route. The blue alternative could use existing stations. One option would include adding new track south of Salem to shorten the route. A second option would provide a new station near Portland’s Rose Quarter, and then continue on new track east of through northeast and north Portland to Vancouver, Wash.

Red - The red alternative runs along Interstate 5, either just inside of or near the current highway right of way. South of Portland, it follows Interstate 205 north and Interstate 84 west into central Portland. The alignment along I-5 and I-205 would be on all new track dedicated to intercity passenger rail service. It would use existing rail lines west of the I-205/I-84 interchange to Vancouver, Wash. The red alternative could use Portland’s Union Station but would bypass existing stations in Eugene, Albany and Salem. It could include new stations in Springfield, Albany, Salem/Keizer and the southern Portland metro area.

One option would leave the I-5 corridor south of Albany and use existing track to the existing Albany station and then return to I-5. Another option would provide a new station in Portland’s Rose Quarter and bypass Portland’s Union Station.

Purple - The purple alternative uses portions of the existing Oregon Electric line. It also includes portions of the blue alignment from the Eugene station to the Eugene rail yard; from south of Albany to Keizer; and from Aurora to Vancouver, Wash. Two new connections to the blue alternative would be built: one connection south of Albany and one connection from just south of Donald to south of Aurora. This alternative could use existing stations.

One option is to go to Wilsonville and then connect to the red alternative. A second option would bypass Aurora before connecting to the blue alternative south of Canby.

Yellow - The yellow alternative would use the purple alternative from Eugene station to Junction City. New track would be built from Junction City to Monroe, and then would connect to the existing rail line through Corvallis to Albany, where it would join the blue alternative. This alternative would bypass the Albany station and include a new station in Corvallis.

An option is to leave the existing rail line in south Corvallis and build new track along Highway 34 that would connect to the blue alternative south of Albany. This option could use the existing Albany station.

Page 1

Evaluation Results The following charts provide a high-level summary of how the preliminary alternatives performed against the project’s goals and objectives in each of the three analysis sections. The bar graphs show overall performance by section against the project goals. The other charts compare performance against cost; the larger circles in the scatter plots indicate a better score to cost ratio. Goals and objectives are listed on page 4.

Section A – Eugene-Springfield to North of Albany

(Higher score mean that the alternative performs better in meeting the goals and objective.)

NOTE: Goal 5 was not considered in the alternatives evaluations because all alternatives met Goal 5.

Performance/Cost Comparison (Larger circles indicate a better score to cost ratio.)

Page 2

Section B – North of Albany to North of Wilsonville

(Higher score mean that the alternative performs better in meeting the goals and objective.)

Performance/Cost Comparison (Larger circles indicate a better score to cost ratio.)

Page 3

Section C – North of Wilsonville to Vancouver, WA

(Higher score mean that the alternative performs better in meeting the goals and objective.)

Performance/Cost Comparison (Larger circles indicate a better score to cost ratio.)

Page 4

Goals and Objectives

Goal 1: Improve passenger rail mobility and accessibility to communities in the Willamette Valley. Objectives:

1A – Provide a viable alternative to auto, air, and bus travel between Eugene and Vancouver, WA. 1B – Provide reliable and frequent passenger rail service. 1C – Support multimodal integration at each passenger rail station. 1D – Allow for future passenger rail improvements, including higher speeds.

Goal 2: Protect freight-rail capacity and investments in the corridor, and maintain safety. Objectives:

2A – Does not increase conflicts between passenger rail or freight rail and vehicles. 2B – Protect freight-rail carrying capability.

Goal 3: Plan, design, implement, maintain, and operate a cost-effective project. Objectives:

3A – Develop a strategy that can be reasonably funded and leveraged with range of investment tools for construction and operation. 3B – Serve the maximum number of people with every dollar invested.

Goal 4: Provide an affordable and equitable travel alternative. Objectives:

4A – Provide a viable and affordable alternative for travelers. 4B – Provide equitable investments and service, with consideration to race/ethnicity and income.

Goal 5: Be compatible with passenger rail investments planned in Washington State. Objective:

5A – Provide passenger rail service to meet the existing and future passenger rail demand for an interconnected system in the Pacific Northwest High Speed Rail corridor.

Goal 6: Promote community health and quality of life for communities along the corridor. Objectives:

6A – Benefit communities within the corridor. 6B – Minimize negative impacts to communities along the corridor.

Goal 7: Protect and preserve the natural and built environment. Objectives:

7A – Support Oregon’s commitment to the preservation of resource lands and local land use and transportation planning. 7B – Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of national and state policies to slow climate change. 7C – Avoid and minimize impacts to the natural environment and cultural resources.