Memorandum

 

Page 1

Evaluation of Cascadia High Speed Rail Concept To: Oregon Passenger Rail Leadership Council From: Oregon Passenger Rail Project Team Date: September 20, 2013 In January 2013, the Leadership Council considered a wide range of corridor concepts and screened these concepts using screening criteria, which were based upon the project’s Purpose and Need statement. If a concept did not meet one or more of the screening criteria, it was eliminated from further consideration.

The project team also screened vehicle technologies using the screening criteria. Electrification was eliminated as a passenger rail propulsion technology for this study because it is not compatible with plans for improving passenger rail service in the remainder of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor through Washington and British Columbia. The Leadership Council recommendations in January provided the basis for which concepts to develop into preliminary alternatives and evaluate in detail. Since January, the project team has been evaluating each of the remaining preliminary alternatives in more detail.

Following the Council’s recommendation in January, the representatives of Cascadia High Speed Rail (CHSR) expressed concern that their specific proposal had not been sufficiently evaluated. As a result, the project team initiated meetings and other communication to understand the CHSR’s specific plan. The plan calls for an alignment that would be separate from existing rail rights of way and would run at much higher speeds that would require electrification.

In addition to multiple telephone conversations with representatives of CHSR, the project team arranged for representatives of Cascadia High Speed Rail to present their proposal to Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) representatives in May, 2013. CHSR representatives provided conceptual alignments and drawings for their proposal. In summary, the group proposed an Interstate 5 (I-5) highway median alignment for rail running from Eugene to an area south of Tualatin. (The exception would be a tunnel through the South Salem Hills.) North of Tualatin the alignment would use a combination of a tunnel and an elevated structure along the Willamette River to the Rose Quarter and then north across the Columbia River on a new bridge.

dmuldoonRectangle

Page 2

Based on this additional information, the project team determined it would be beneficial to evaluate this proposal using the same criteria that were utilized for the original grouping of corridor concepts. While this meant the corridor concept was “out of sequence” with the rest of the concepts, such analysis was considered necessary in order to give the proposal complete consideration.

Using the plans submitted from representatives of the Cascadia High Speed Rail, the project team developed concept designs at the same level of detail as all the other proposed corridor concepts. This analysis was needed in order to assess the basic impacts and benefits of the proposal. The project team then applied all of the screening criteria and concluded that the alignment does not pass the screening criteria. The attached technical memorandum summarizes these findings. A summary of the findings is:

The CHSR proposal would not be compatible with the Washington State portion of the Pacific NW Rail Corridor; and

In the Portland area, it would not be feasible to construct in a manner that could avoid or minimize significant community and environmental impacts.

Note: While the project team has recommended that the specific CHSR concept not move forward with further evaluation, key elements of the CHSR concept have been considered in the Red (I-5) preliminary alternative.

DRAFT Addendum to Purpose and Need Screening Documentation Memorandum Cascadia High Speed Rail Advocates Corridor Concept (I-5 Median) Screening September, 2013

DRAFT Addendum to Purpose and Need Screening Documentation Memorandum Page 1

Introduction & Context

The Oregon Passenger Rail Purpose and Need Screening Documentation Memorandum documented the results of Step 1 (Screening) – the comparison of corridor concepts identified through the scoping period against a set of readily discernible elements of the project’s Purpose, which originate from the project’s Purpose and Need statement.

Most corridor concepts raised during the scoping period took advantage of existing rail or freeway corridors either at-grade or elevated where sufficient right-of-way (ROW) is available for constructing new tracks or sidings. Additionally, a corridor concept was developed by a stakeholder group of private citizens promoting true high-speed rail, known as Cascadia High Speed Rail Advocates, separate from the OPR planning process. The proposed Cascadia corridor is a fully electric high-speed rail corridor from Vancouver, Washington to Eugene, Oregon that would have a maximum design speed of 200 miles per hour. In contrast, the initial concept corridors featured a proposed top speed of 110-125 mph powered by diesel or hybrid locomotives. The route would utilize the Interstate 5 median at-grade where possible from Tualatin to Eugene. North of Tualatin, it would travel along a brand new ROW on a combination of tunnel and elevated track.

Bored tunnels are recommended where topographic conditions do not allow for at-grade or structure alignments, and/or when right-of-way is constrained. In Section B, the alignment is routed underground to traverse the South Salem Hills along a section of I-5 that has no median and several geometric design elements (horizontal and vertical curves) that would reduce speed. Within Section C, several tunnels are proposed due to considerable topographical and ROW constraints in the Portland area. One tunnel would traverse Tryon Creek State Park in Lake Oswego and Southwest Portland, while another tunnel would be constructed parallel to the existing Peninsula Rail Tunnel owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in North Portland.

In January 2013, the project team compared all corridor alignment concepts suggested during the scoping period against the Purpose and Need screening questions using readily-available data. Since that time, the universe of concepts has expanded to include the Cascadia corridor. This addendum to the Purpose and Need Screening Documentation Memorandum will evaluate the Cascadia corridor using the identical screening framework. Specifically, it discusses the findings from the conceptual alignment design work based on project files provided by Cascadia High Speed Rail Advocates, and the resulting project team’s recommendation to screen out the entire Cascadia corridor from further consideration.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r R a i l : D r a f t F i n a l P u r p o s e a n d N e e d S t a t e m e n t

DRAFT Addendum to Purpose and Need Screening Documentation Memorandum Page 2

The decision to screen the Cascadia concept is primarily based on the compatibility with Washington State’s portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNRC) from Eugene to Vancouver, BC and community impact elements (Section C only) of the project’s Purpose and Need statement, described on the following pages and in the attached screening matrix (see Attachment 1). A corridor map of the Cascadia alignment is provided in Attachment 2. In addition, a supplement to this memo documents potential design and operations impacts from running a rail line down the median of I-5, as identified by ODOT engineers (see Attachment 3).

Assumptions

As shown in Attachment 2, the Cascadia corridor concept would travel between Eugene and Vancouver, WA on a new fully electric and grade-separated rail corridor. The route is purpose-built for high-speed passenger rail designed up to 200 mph maximum speeds on Class 9 standard tracks. Because it would be an all-electric system, the Cascadia concept would require acquisition of new rolling stock.

The concept maintains a 25’ vertical clearance where possible, with a minimum of 23’ - 6” where necessary.  It would be located in the I-5 median where it is available between Tualatin and Eugene, except in Wilsonville, where it crosses the Willamette River on a structure just west of the freeway. The general assumptions that define this concept are provided by section below. This concept was screened against the project’s Purpose and Need statement with the understanding that if it passed this first screen the corridor would then be brought into the evaluation step where it would be compared against the performance of other corridor alternatives given the project’s Goals and Objectives.

Please note that the three sections described below align with the three sections used in the project screening process for earlier corridor concepts: Section A – Eugene/Springfield to south of Albany; Section B – south of Albany to south of Woodburn; and Section C – south of Woodburn to Vancouver, WA. All station locations described below denote new stations; it is not assumed that existing Amtrak stations would be utilized under this corridor concept.

SectionA–EugenetoSouthofAlbany The concept operates in the median between the northbound and southbound lanes of I-5

under ODOT ownership with the exception of the southernmost segment (in Eugene). In Eugene, the concept deviates west along an elevated alignment just north of the

Willamette River. The guideway would parallel the UPRR tracks for roughly one half-mile before terminating at the Eugene station.

The concept is assumed to be entirely double-tracked in this section. River crossings are located at the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers in Eugene. Station locations are assumed to be in Eugene at the University of Oregon campus (Franklin

Blvd and Agate Street).  

SectionB–SouthofAlbanytoWoodburn The concept operates in the median between the northbound and southbound lanes of I-5

under ODOT ownership where grades allow and a median exists. A tunnel would be constructed to navigate the hills of South Salem where the I-5 median

disappears. The concept is assumed to be entirely double tracked in this section, except for where single

track is required due to constrained ROW in Salem (approximately 3.5 miles).

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r R a i l : D r a f t F i n a l P u r p o s e a n d N e e d S t a t e m e n t

DRAFT Addendum to Purpose and Need Screening Documentation Memorandum Page 3

Station locations are assumed to be in Albany (in the vicinity of Knox Butte Road/OR 99E) and Salem (in the vicinity of State Street).  

SectionC–WoodburntoVancouver,WA The concept operates in the median between the northbound and southbound lanes of I-5

between Keizer and Tualatin, except where it crosses the Willamette River in Wilsonville. The concept diverges from the I-5 median north of I-205 in Tualatin and travels east along PNWR right of way on structure towards Lake Oswego.

North of Tualatin, the concept constructs a tunnel under Tryon Creek State Park, with a northern portal at the west bank of the Willamette River approximately one-half mile south of the Sellwood Bridge.

The concept would construct a new crossing of the Willamette River in the vicinity of SE Ochoco Street and would run east on elevated structure along the northern edge of Waverly Country Club and the Oregon Pacific Railroad ROW to SE 19th Avenue, before curving north towards SE Tacoma Street.

The concept travels above the OR 99E/SE Tacoma Street interchange, then runs along the east side of OR 99E (but west of the UPRR and MAX tracks) on elevated structure north to SE Insley Street, where it crosses over OR 99E to the west side of the roadway.

The elevated structure continues along the west side of OR 99E, running generally to the east of the parallel Oregon Pacific RR/Springwater Corridor ROW above the Ross Island Sand and Gravel Facility Just south of SE Ivon Street, the tracks cross over the Springwater Corridor, traveling northwest towards the east bank of the Willamette River at SE Caruthers Street. Between this point and the Rose Quarter, the line runs generally along the east bank of the Willamette River, either just east or west of the Eastbank Esplanade.

North of the Rose Quarter, the concept passes the UPRR Albina Yard at-grade and on structure parallel to UPRR tracks, then tunnels under North Portland just east of the parallel Peninsula Railroad Tunnel.

The concept crosses the Columbia Slough on structure and then crosses North Portland Harbor, Hayden Island, and the Columbia River on a new multimodal (roadway, HSR, freight rail) structure west of the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail bridge. The multimodal facility continues north to Fourth Plain Blvd in Vancouver.

The concept is assumed to be entirely double-tracked in this section. River crossings are located at the Willamette River in Wilsonville and Portland, and the

Columbia River at the Washington-Oregon state line. Station locations are assumed to be in Tualatin (in the vicinity of Nyberg Street), Portland (in

the vicinity of the Rose Quarter), and Vancouver, WA (in the vicinity of Fourth Plain Blvd).

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r R a i l : D r a f t F i n a l P u r p o s e a n d N e e d S t a t e m e n t

DRAFT Addendum to Purpose and Need Screening Documentation Memorandum Page 4

Purpose and Need Screening Questions

The Cascadia concept failed at least one of the nine screening questions along the entire corridor, while one section failed two screening questions. The following two questions were used to screen the Cascadia corridor concept:

Purpose Screening Question

Be compatible with the Washington State Portion of the Pacific NW Rail Corridor.

Would the concept be compatible with the Washington State portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor?

Avoid or minimize community and environmental impacts.

Section C only Could the concept be constructed in a manner that would avoid substantial regulatory hurdles and/or avoid or minimize substantial impacts to:

a. Existing and/or planned features of the community?

b. Existing and/or planned features of the natural environment?

The project team acknowledges that a median-running alignment could cause potential issues that may adversely affect ODOT maintenance and operations along I-5. This includes loss of median area for strategic purposes (including construction staging, incident response and recovery, and work zone traffic management), impacts to stormwater drainage in the median that will require mitigation and the need to raise or replace overpasses to accommodate the rail line. In addition, a rail line in the median will also obstruct emergency services access and will cause temporary impacts to travelers due to bridge reconstruction. access and will cause temporary impacts to travelers due to bridge reconstruction. More information about these impacts can be found in Attachment 3. It is important to note that the aforementioned median impacts do not constitute a “fatal flaw” in the context of this screening. Although the Cascadia concept will be screened from further consideration, it is chiefly due to the incompatibility of electric-powered trains in the PNRC and the large community impacts in Section C. The Red corridor concept (Interstate 5) would construct a new rail line dedicated to passenger trains within the I-5 ROW, either in the median or along the side of the freeway. The Red concept was previously screened against the Purpose and Need and was advanced to the Alternatives Evaluation phase. The following sections describe in detail how the tunnel concept would not meet these two screening questions. Compatibility with Washington State’s Section of Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNRC) The Oregon Passenger Rail project will select a preferred alignment for improved passenger rail service between the Columbia River in the Portland metro area and the Eugene-Springfield metro area, as part of the federally –designated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNRC) intended for future high-speed rail service. Therefore, the preferred corridor selected through the Oregon Passenger Rail planning process must be seamlessly integrated with the Washington State section to allow through-running trains between Eugene, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, BC.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r R a i l : D r a f t F i n a l P u r p o s e a n d N e e d S t a t e m e n t

DRAFT Addendum to Purpose and Need Screening Documentation Memorandum Page 5

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has received $800 million in federal stimulus funds in recent years to improve their section of the PNRC. Improvements include building additional rail line capacity, upgrading system components (tracks, utilities, signals, passenger stations and advanced warning systems), and purchasing new locomotive and train equipment. The biggest enhancement is the Point Defiance Bypass, which will improve an existing 18- mile lightly used freight corridor owned by Sound Transit. The new route is expected to open for service in 2017, which will improve travel times between Seattle and Portland by 10 minutes, improve on-time performance by 30 percent and allow two additional round trips between the two cities. However, the Washington State system will be powered by diesel engines and will only operate up to maximum speeds of 110 mph by 2023, according to WSDOT’s 2006 long-range rail plan. This is due to continued shared operation with freight trains on BNSF-owned railroad ROW, except for the small bypass section to open in 2017. The project team investigated whether hybrid locomotives could achieve the maximum speeds proposed for the Cascadia concept, where trains could run on electric power in Oregon and transition to diesel power in Washington after crossing the Columbia River. However, diesel-electric hybrid trains currently have a top speed of 125 mph, well below Cascadia’s proposed 200 mph maximum speed. Because the Cascadia concept would require electric trains to reach top speed and the Washington state rail network would use diesel-powered locomotives for the foreseeable future, and also because through-running trains between Portland and Seattle are an essential component of the PNRC, the project team recommends that the Cascadia corridor concept does not meet the Washington state compatibility element of the project Purpose. Community and Environmental Impacts The Cascadia corridor concept was assessed in relation to community and environmental impacts, looking closest at the section in the densely developed Portland metro area (Section C). Most of the concept in Section C deviates from I-5 due to the lack of median north of Tualatin, in addition to challenging topography near the Tualatin Mountains in Southwest Portland. In this section, the alignment would include two tunnel sections and three new river crossings. The proposed tunnels are located underneath Tryon Creek State Park in Lake Oswego/SW Portland and under North Portland adjacent to the existing Peninsula Rail Tunnel. The concept crosses major rivers three times in this section: the Willamette River (twice, in Wilsonville and Portland), and the Columbia River in Portland/Vancouver, WA. The majority of the alignment in this section travels along new ROW along elevated or underground guideways through populated areas of Portland. The project team estimates that the concept as proposed would cause an unprecedented and unacceptable level of impact to local communities, recreational resources and viewsheds. The most acute impacts of the alignment would be sustained in the southeast Portland neighborhood of Sellwood, where the alignment would travel in the Oregon Pacific RR ROW between SE 13th and 19th Avenues in a densely populated single-family residential neighborhood. There would also be noteworthy impacts to industrial properties in Sellwood, Westmoreland and the Central Eastside Industrial District. In addition, over 8 miles of the Cascadia concept in Section C is adjacent to parks, as defined in the screening matrix (Attachment 1). Three miles of track would be either adjacent to or directly above the Eastbank Esplanade and Springwater Corridor, which are regionally-significant recreation and transportation facilities. Other significant recreational impact areas include the

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r R a i l : D r a f t F i n a l P u r p o s e a n d N e e d S t a t e m e n t

DRAFT Addendum to Purpose and Need Screening Documentation Memorandum Page 6

Heron Lakes Golf Course in North Portland, while potential impacts to Westmoreland City Park and Eastmoreland Golf Course are buffered by SE McLoughlin Blvd and the UPRR, respectively. Any construction located in public parks would impact resources identified under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 that regulates the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public or private historic sites. The use of such land for transportation uses is allowed only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to using the property or if the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use. There would also be large-scale impacts near downtown Portland, where the concept would run elevated along the east bank of the Willamette River requiring construction of numerous piers over water and weaving under or over several crosstown bridges. This includes retrofitting the Burnside Bridge structure to allow the rail line to cross underneath the bridge deck and potentially filling the area where the corridor crosses under the Morrison Bridge to allow enough clearance for the rail line. The rail line would potentially block views of Downtown Portland from the Eastbank Esplanade and also produce comprehensive noise and vibration impacts to Esplanade users. The sections in bored tunnel would require at least two tunnel shafts located at the north and south ends of each tunnel, and along the route (every ½ mile if no pilot shaft is bored, upon change in soil conditions if a pilot shaft is bored). Portals and access shafts associated with tunneling require large areas (between 2 and 4 acres) on the surface for launching and retrieving TBMs, construction staging, and removing spoils. Interim tunnel shafts would also require staging areas and permanent impacts and could be as frequent as every ½ mile. There may be additional permanent shafts needed to provide ventilation during operation which generate air quality and noise concerns for surrounding properties. The shafts would also require construction of access roads if none exist presently. Any tunnel-related construction located in Tryon Creek, Iron Mountain, Springbrook or Columbia Parks would impact resources identified under Section 4(f). During construction, a significant amount of spoils will need to be excavated from multiple sites and disposed. While some spoils could be removed from the site by rail, most will likely be removed by trucks. The substantial truck traffic could potentially cause additional congestion, air quality, noise, and vibration impacts along freight routes and neighborhood streets. In addition, one or several offsite locations would need to be identified to deposit the spoils material. As shown in the screening documentation memorandum, other options exist within Section C to provide passenger rail service between Portland and the south Metro area. These include the Blue corridor (UPRR option) and the Brown corridor (I-205 option). Both of these concepts would be located at-grade or elevated along existing freeway or rail corridors, and therefore could improve passenger rail service compared to existing conditions at a fraction of the cost or potential impacts of the Cascadia concept. This remains the case even when comparing each concept’s generated ROW impacts. Table 1 lists generalized land and improvement value unit costs based on land use type, and do not factor in cost of property acquisition or relocation. ROW costs could be even more substantial for an at-grade or elevated alignment in heavily built-up areas, where land zoned for commercial use could cost almost four times per square foot compared to the average cost along the entire alignment. However, ROW costs exist with a tunnel as well, and are a factor of tunnel depth, zoning and development conditions, and soil type.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r R a i l : D r a f t F i n a l P u r p o s e a n d N e e d S t a t e m e n t

DRAFT Addendum to Purpose and Need Screening Documentation Memorandum Page 7

Table 1. Estimated Land and Improvement Value Unit Costs By Land Use Category Note: All Costs Generalized Along Entire Oregon Passenger Rail Project Except Where Noted

Property Type Land and Improvement Value1 Per Unit

Agricultural (Greater than 20 acres) $6,000 Acre Rural Residential (Fewer than 20 acres)2 $4 Square Foot Residential $35 Square Foot Commercial $35 Square Foot Commercial (Portland Metro Only) $130 Square Foot Industrial $133 Square Foot 1 Estimates do not include property acquisition and relocation costs 2 Size includes residential and hobby farm acreage, if applicable. 3 Estimated cost in Portland Metro is $21/SF; Eugene $6/SF. As a result, the project team recommends that the tunnel corridor concept does not meet the community and environmental impact element of the project Purpose in Section C.  

Cascadia High Speed Rail ScreeningCascadia (South) Cascadia (Central) Cascadia (North)

The Cascadia Alignment is a proposed new, fully grade‐separated, electrified High Speed Rail corridor between Vancouver, WA and Eugene built along the Interstate 5 median where it is available. New stations would be constructed in Eugene, Albany, Salem, Tualatin, Portland, and Vancouver. The corridor would be designed for maximum speed of 200 miles per hour, with a 25' vertical clearance where possible (23' 6" minimum). The majority of Sections A and B would be constructed within ODOT Right‐of‐Way, with the exception of the southernmost segment in Eugene. A tunnel would be constructed in Section B to navigate the South Salem Hills. Section C would include two new tunnels in the Portland metro area, as well as new Willamette and Columbia River bridge crossings.

• Travels east from UO area• Crosses Willamette River on structure• Follows I‐5 median alignment through Linn County

• Follows I‐5 median alignment through Albany• Tunnels under South Salem Hills• Resumes I‐5 median alignment through Salem‐Keizer and northern Marion County

• Follows I‐5 median alignment north of I‐205 to Lake Oswego• Tunnels under Tryon Creek State Park to Sellwood Bridge• Crosses Willamette River just north of Waverly Country Club travelling east• Curves north, following OR 99E to OMSI• Runs along east bank of Willamette River to UP Albina Yard• Tunnels under North Portland and crosses North Portland Harbor and Columbia River over new multmodal bridge to Vancouver

Station Communities (Proposed new stations ) Eugene AlbanySalemTualatin

Portland EastsideVancouver

Provide riders an efficient, safe equitable and affordable alternative to highway, bus, and air travel

1. Would the concept improve travel time for rail passengers between Eugene‐Springfield and Vancouver, WA?Yes Yes Yes

2. Would the concept serve the cities with the highest populations within or near the corridor?Yes Yes Yes

Number of high‐population cities served (>=100,000 2010 pop) 1 1 1

Be a cost effective investment

3. Would the concept provide cost effective intercity passenger rail service?

Protect freight‐rail carrying capability4. Could the concept preserve or expand existing freight capacity? Yes Yes Yes

Qualitative assessment of the  ability to preserve or expand existing freight capacity No substantial constraints No substantial constraints No substantial constraints

Support the implementation of regional high speed rail in the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor between the Eugene‐Springfield metropolitan area and Vancouver, British Columbia5.  Would the concept support service consistent with the FRA regional high speed rail designation for the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor?

Yes Yes Yes

Qualitative assessment of the consistency with the FRA regional high speed rail designation.  Yes ‐Exceeds requirements

Yes ‐Exceeds requirements

Yes ‐Exceeds requirements

Be compatible with the Washington State Portion of the Pacific NW Rail Corridor6. Would the concept be compatible with the Washington State portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor?

No No No

Qualitative assessment of compatibility with Washington State’s passenger rail service development plan. No No No

Promote planned economic development7. Could the concept enhance  the potential for increased economic development?

Avoid or mitigate community and environmental impacts8.  Could the  concept be constructed in a manner that would avoid substantial regulatory hurdles and/or avoid or mitigate substantial impacts to:a. Existing and/or planned features of the communityb. Existing and/or planned features of the natural environment 

Yes* Yes* No

Number of communities where alignment travels through but does not stop2

1(Coburg)

1(Keizer)

3(Lake OswegoWilsonvilleWoodburn)

Miles of track adjacent to residential‐zoned land 2.00 7.80 8.40Miles of track through parks (track does not go through FWS Approved refuges; note:  park boundaries buffered by 100'; includes private, city, county, state, and ODOT/BLM ROW)

0.73 1.17 8.16

 Integrate with existing and planned multimodal transportation networks9. Would the concept support multimodal connections (such as commuter rail, other rail transit, bus, bicycle, and pedestrian services)?

Yes Yes Yes

Qualitative assessment of potential conflicts with other high capacity transit service None None NoneQualitative assessment of the communities with stops that have existing transit service3

Eugene 4Salem 3Albany 4

Vancouver 3Portland 5Tualatin 3

Does the corridor alignment concept pass the screening questions? Does Not Pass Does Not Pass Does Not Pass1 GIS data2 Incorporated cities without proposed stops3 Qualitative scale (1 = No transit service and 5 = Excellent coverage and frequency of transit service)* ODOT has identified significant logistical and engineering challenges with reconstructing overpasses as part of an I‐5 median alignment.

Purpose an

d Need Screen

ing Que

stions and

 Measures

Cost‐effectiveness not measured, consistent with other concept corridors in Step 1 (Screening).

Monmouth

Vancouver

Portland

Oregon City

¥§5

¥§5

Albany

Eugene

Salem

^

^

^

^

^

^

Cascadia High Speed Rail Advocates (I-5 Median) Corridor Concept

EnlargedArea

O R E G O N

[0 10Miles

September 2013

OPR_Cascadia_Cover_MemoOPR_CascadiaScreeningMemo_ToLC_oldOPR_CascadiaScreeningMemo_091913OPR_Attachment1_CascadiaScreeningOPR_Attachment2_CascadiaScreeningOPR_CascadiaScreeningMemo_Attachment3_09192013