Leadership Council Meeting

Linn County Fair & Expo Center October 30, 2012

Meeting Agenda

• Briefing: Project Status/Schedule Update

• Presentations: Aorta and Cascadia High Speed

Rail

• Briefing: Preliminary Scoping Summary

• LC Direction: Revised Draft Purpose and Need

• Briefing: Programmed Passenger Rail Projects

• Next Steps

• Public Comment

Project Status and Schedule Update

Accomplishments To Date

• Established base mapping and initial affected

environment data

• Held 6 public open houses, 3 agency

meetings, multiple agency briefings, and first

Corridor Forum (September 2012)

• Revised Draft Purpose and Need Statement

• Initiated Screening and Evaluation Approach

• Initiated Corridor Concepts Definitions

Project Schedule (10-30-12)

Stakeholder Presentations: AORTA and Cascadia High Speed Rail

Scoping Process Summary: Open Houses and Corridor Forum

Scoping Overview • Six public open houses + online open house

– Locations:

• Portland

• Oregon City

• Lake Oswego/Tualatin

– 390 participants at meetings and online

• Three agency (federal, state, local) scoping meetings: Springfield, Portland and Salem

• Corridor Forum – Salem

– 40 participants

• Over 700 comments collected so far during Scoping phase

• Salem

• Albany

• Eugene/Springfield

We asked for

• Comments on Draft Purpose & Need

• Values and Interests dot exercise

– Presented list of issues and asked

participants to rank importance

• Comments on alignment alternatives and

stations

What we heard: General Comments

• Connectivity with local transit systems and local destinations is important

• Convenience, reliability and frequency are important

• Passenger rail service should be competitive with automobile in terms of travel time

• Schedule should allow for one-day trips going north and south

• Make improvements soon

What we heard: Purpose & Need

• Project should expand study area and

consider rail up to Vancouver, B.C.

• Expand project scope to consider bus as an

alternative (few comments)

• A large number of comments were received

in the Clackamas County meetings regarding

cost effectiveness of the project

What we heard: Values & Interests • Integrate with local transit, bicycle, and pedestrian

transportation system

• Provide transportation choices, including more efficient rail service

• Speed of travel * (Lake Oswego, Portland, Eugene)

• Sensitivity to community impacts

• Protect freight-rail

• Cost effectiveness

• Reduce GHG emissions and dependence on fossil fuels

• Sensitivity to environmental impacts

• Improve safety

• Promote planned economic development

What we heard: Values & Interests

4

8

2

9

25

21

8

15

6

18

9

4

7

37

38

32

10

11

21

35

51

55

22

77

75

78

46

69

72

59

160

154

82

90

63

67

105

78

62

43

0 50 100 150 200 250

Integration with local transit system

Transportation choices, more efficient rail service

Speed of travel * (Lake Oswego, Portland, Eugene)

Community impacts

Protect freight-rail

Cost effectiveness

Reduce GHGs and foreign fuel dependence

Environmental impacts

Improve safety

Promote planned economic development

Not Important Less Important Neutral Important Very Important

What we heard: Alignment Options

• Improve existing line (UP)

• Passenger rail should have its own tracks

• OE line: concern about impacts in many

communities

• I-5 alignment: mixed support

• Interest in providing commuter rail

• Interest in serving Corvallis and Woodburn

Corridor Forum

• Two workshops

1. Interests and Values

2. Alignments and Issues (brainstorm)

Corridor Forum: Interests & Values

• Consistent with public input on the need

for convenience, reliability and frequency

• Connectivity to local transit systems and

destinations is key

• Passenger rail should serve city centers

while minimizing community impacts

Corridor Forum: Interests & Values

Corridor Forum: Alignments & Issues

• Concern with double-tracking (land use)

• Concern with at-grade crossings in

neighborhoods and city centers

• Concern about putting line through built up

areas

• Many comments on location-specific

impacts

Key themes to incorporate into Goals & Objectives

• Passenger rail schedule should allow for

round-trip in one day going north and

south

• Frequency is key

• Promote livable communities

Revised Purpose and Need Statement: Recommendations to FRA

Why is Purpose and Need Important ?

• The P&N statement describes why we are doing the project (its purpose) and the deficiencies that the alternatives must address to be successful (its need)

• P&N statements are required under the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulation (section 1502.13)

• P&N statement is the basis for screening and evaluating alternatives

Programmed Passenger Rail Projects

Hal Gard – ODOT Rail Division

• Define Screening Criteria, Develop

Evaluation Framework, and Broad Range of

Corridor Concepts to Screen (November

2012)

• Screen Corridor Concepts and Share Results

(December 2012-January 2013)

What’s Next?

Screening and Evaluation Development of Framework

Leadership Council Meetings and Public Involvement

Item Timeline

Leadership Council Meeting - define the corridor

concepts, screening and evaluation criteria and

prepare to make recommendations

December

2012

Public Open Houses and Corridor Forum – corridor

concepts and screening and evaluation criteria

January

2013

Leadership Council Meeting – Determine the

preliminary alternatives to move forward from

screening

January 31,

2013

Evaluate preliminary alternatives to move forward

for more detailed study and selection

February –

March 2013