Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet - 07/13/1999
0ri i Cwt OF TIGARD OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 139 1999 COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TELEVISED I:%odrrNWccpkt,.doa 13125 3W Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 539-4171 MD (503) 684-2772 4 4 ,~,T cYj.'^ Y t WE 5 f a . Cr . 4 x'` ` , t CITY OF TIGARD WTI A 4'=~V ~w 4 ~ z e,.t Yae n.Pa+ rym ro 97 ;9 G... ~n,~~f s~'t,J~i?~ ~.:-.x C{~u'L7,'i4 a.~1;~ i ~,.~•.,+r1xi4~;yN^n'' PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak on an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor's Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. Times noted are estimated; it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 p.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside sonvice providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL /AGENDA - JULY 13,1999 - PAGE 1 TIGARD vi T Y COUNCIL MEETING JULY 13, 1999 AGENDA A:30PM STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are ailioviie d iv aft6n%d filly rQs-ion, but -must not dissOose anu infnrmatinn discussed during this session. 7:30 PM BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 2. VISITOR'S AG-=NL,/. ;Two Minutes or Less, Please) 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes of: May 25, 1999 3.2 Receive and File: a. Council Calendar b. Tentative Agenda C. Accept Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1998 3.3 Appoint Library Board Members - Resolution No. 99- SL 3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment #1 to Provide Funding to the Tigard Recreation Association - 2- e7el. 5:L 3.5 Approve Budget Adjustment #2 Increasing Revenues and Appropriations for Award of Park Feasibility Study COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 13,1999 - PAGE 2 3.6 Local Contract Review Board (LCRB): a. Award Contract for 1999-2000 Pavement Major Maintenance Program - Slurry Seal to Asphalt Maintenance Associates, Inc. b. Award Contract for Recreation District Feasibility Study to Cogan, Owens, Cogan 3.7 Approve City Manger Contract 3.8 Authorize City Recorder, Mayor and City Attorney to Sign Cooperative Agreement Between ODOT and City Regarding Improvements of the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street Intersection • Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. 7:45 PM 4. UPDATE OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL STUDY • Community Development Director 8:05 PM 5. PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE TRANSFER - SCHMIDT'S SANITARY SEWER SERVICES, INC a. Public Hearing Opened b. Summation by Administration Staff C. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents) d. Recommendation by Staff e. Council Questions or Comments f. Public Hearing Closed OROTI- ' ~ COCA g. Consideration by Council: Reeektfien• No. 99- r~ 8:20 PM 6. PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICAL) ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-0001 - WALNUT STREET/TIEDEMAN AVENUE AREA ANNEXATION a. Open Public Hearing b. Declarations or Challenges Staff/Applicant Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal by City as applicant) e. Council Questions f. Close Public Hearing g. Staff Recommendation h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99- COUNCIL COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 13,1999 - PAGE 3 8:30 PM 7. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 14 a. Public Hearing Opened b. Summation by City Engineer Staff C. Public Testimony (Proponents, Opponents) d. Recommendation by Staff e. Council Questions or Comments f. Public Hearing Closed g. Consideration by Council: Resolution No. 99- 8:50 PM 8. ADOPTION OF DiREC T OR'S iN T ERP RCTt.Tiv,v DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Discussion C. Council Consideration:, Resolution No. 99 9:00 PM 9. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR PACIFIC RIDGE TO USE CITY' PROPERTY FOR PRIVATE WETLANDS MITIGATION a. Staff Report: Community Development Department b. Council Consideration: Motion to Allow Pacific Ridge and Specht Development Company to Use City Property for Private Wetlands Mitigation 9:95 PM 10. 79 h AVENUE PROJECT STATUS REPORT a. Staff Report: City Engineer 9:45 PM 11. COUNCIL GOAL UPDATE a. Staff Report: Administration Staff 9:50 PM 12. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:55 PM 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 13,1999. PAGE 4 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:00 PM 15. ADJOURNMENT I:\ADMXCATHY\CCA\990713p. DOC COUNCIL AGENDA - JULY 13,1999 - PAGE 5 s Agenda Item No. 3 Meeting of 'glaq1eil TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 1.3, 1999 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Joyce Patton and KPn Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; City Engineer Gus Duenas; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; Associate Planner Duane Roberts; Engineer Greg Berry; Associate Planner Julia Hajduk > AGENDA REVIEW • Councilor Hunt reported that Jim Duggan of the Tualatin Valley Water District stopped by to assure the Council that the District still completely supported the Willamette Rivcr option, despite any rumors to the contrary. • Legislative issues Mayor Nicoli reported that Senator George of Newberg has resurrected the attempt at the Legislature to stop Tigard from going to the Willamette. There was now an amendment to a bill which directed the Department of Agriculture to stop anyone from taking water out of the Willamette River for drinking purposes, if any substance of any kind that was dangerous to anyone was found in the river. He said that the a consultant in Salem told him that the bill would die once it passed out of the Joint Committee because the next group in the process would not accept it for consideration. Mr. Monahan noted that Senator George was also supporting a Senate bill to restrict jurisdictions from reassessing Local Improvement Districts (LIDs) retroactive to 1985; this could affect the Dartmouth LID. He reported that Chuck Corrigan found that David Hunnicutt, the attorney for Oregonians in Action who was representing he Martins, was advocating this bill. Mr. Monahan said that Representative Max Williams would try to find out if the bill went next to the House Rules Committee or to the House Land and Water Committee. Mayor Nicoli suggested contacting members of the House now with regard to SB 1333. • Challenge to the City Mr. Monahan reported that they have received a challenge on the City's information dissemination on water. He said that staff would prepare a response to Mr. Meek. Mayor Nicoli asked for discussion of the response. He recommended telling Mr. Meek that they did not intend to stop putting out information but they would immediately forward Mr. Meek's complaint to the State for investigation. Mr. Monahan said that staff needed further clarification from Mr. Meek about his request for copies of information because his request was very general. He emphasized that the City staff CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 1 did not advocate for any position on the water. • Mr. Monahan asked if anyone was interested in attending the ethics training in Sherwood on July 29. He mentioned the Government Standards & Practices Committee's recent preliminary decision that an employee's use of "Mileage Plus" credits earned while traveling for a government agency was a violation. He noted the recent sanctions against the Sherwood City Council for not explaining why it went into Executive Session and for not allowing the public an opportunity to speak on the criteria for evaluation of the City Manager. He pointed out that his contract was on the Consent Agenda tonight. No Councilors could attend the training. • Mr. Monahan advised the Council that RoxAnn Brown, Washington County Consolidated Communications Agency Director, would update the Council at their August 17 workshop meeting regarding the Agency's activities. He reported that he has attended the meetings where they discussed Phase 2 of their communication network upgrade. He said that he recommended that WCCCA make sure that every jurisdiction knew the history of this effort before the group asked for support of a bond measure. Mr. Monahan reported that at a later meeting (which he did not attend) Washington County said that it did not support going out for a bond measure in November 2000. He mentioned that Ms. Brown and the technical people supported a bond measure but the County thought that people in the western part of the County would not support a bond measure. • Mr. Monahan advised the Council that the Tigard Daze organizers wanted to know if the Council wanted to be in the parade this year. Mayor Nicoli and Councilor Hunt said that they would participate. Councilor Scheckla said that he would check his schedide. Councilor Patton could not attend due to a previous family commitment. • Mr. Monahan advised the Council of a non-agenda item, which was a request to allow Gus Duenas to attend the Institute of Transportation Engineers annual meeting in Las Vegas. He explained that this came to Council for approval because the dollar amount was over $500. Gus Duenas, City Engineer, stated that this meeting had sessions on neighborhood traffic management issues and traffic calming. He pointed out that he could also earn professional development hours (needed to renew his license). • SW 791h avenue Mr. Monahan asked if the Council wanted to allow public testimony during the SW 79"' Avenue agenda item. Mayor Nicoli mentioned his concern that a group organized to oppose the 79`h Avenue improvements might not support a future road bond measure. Councilor Patton reported that a 79"' Avenue representative has attended the last two Task Force meetings. She mentioned their suggested option of looking at SW 74th Avenue as an alternative to SW 79''' Avenue. She stated that the Task Force discussed that option at the last meeting and decided not to go forward with it. In response to a question from Councilor Scheckla, Co=uncilor Patton said that SW 74'h was the closest road for which the 79"' Avenue group could identify that would provide the connectivity between Bonita and Durham. She mentioned their argument that SW 74'h was a flatter road with primarily commercial and industrial development, thus eliminating the residential and topographical issues. Councilor Patton said that the Task Force discussed the problems on SW CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 2 74"' with the railroad tracks and the possible creation of a dangerous intersection because due to the potential problems with signalization. Councilor Hunt noted that SW 741h did not have a signal at either end. Mr. Duenas said that normally the City waited for a development in the area to do the road improvements, as has occurred along SW 74 h. He held that it did not make sense for the City to go in and do improvements for the other areas that have not yet developed. Councilor Patton stated that the Task Force was very sensitive to the issues with respect to the SW 790' Avenue neighbors. She mentioned discussion by the Task Force to include a criterion for neighborhood impact in the overall criteria. She reported that she sensed movement from some Task Force members to pay close attention in general to the neighborhood impact of these projects. She commented that she believed that the SW 79`h Avenue group would become more cohesive over time. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the City would allocate a large sum of money in the bond issue to pay for a large portion of the improvements to the street, thus reducing the amount to be paid directly from the neighborhood residents. He said that he did not want to risk 10 to 15 good projects for a street that he could live with for another five to ten years. Councilor Scheckla concurred. The Council discussed strategic options. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that Mr. Duenas could recommend to the Council to use the money for other projects or the Council could direct Mr. Duenas to pull the project. Councilor Hunt commented that the street did need to be repaved. Mr. Duenas spoke to using a phased-in approach. He said that they use the bond issue to do two lanes, bike lanes and minimal drainage while waiting for developers to finish the rest of the street. Councilor Patton said that she thought that there was potential with the phased-in approach with limited improvements and the cost borne by the City. She commented that the cost irritated a lot of people, as well as the non-remonstrance agreements that many property owners felt the developer had not told them about. Councilor Scheckla questioned favoring this group protesting non-remonstrances over any other group in a similar situation. He supported treating every one equally. Mr. Monah;.n suggested handling SW 79"' Avenue through the bond measure by downscaling the project, not calling in the non-remonstrances, and requiring future developers to do a certain amount. He pointed out that if the bond measure did not pass, then a future Council would deal with the project, possibly finding a different configuration that the neighbors would support. Mayor Nicoli spoke to either making the decision at the City level on when to kill the project or having a couple of Councilors working with the neighbors to negotiate a project that was acceptable to the neighbors, the Task Force, and the City. He reiterated that they needed to make the decision within the next 30 days. Mr. Duenas commented that the City had an obligation to make the road safe for motorists. He spoke to the City doing those improvements while leaving the rest for a future LID. He mentioned that the developers coming in on the northern end would do the necessary improvements at that end of the street. Councilor Scheckla pointed out that the neighbors might decide that partial improvements were good enough for them and never do an LID to complete the improvements. Mr. Monahan CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 3 suggested asking the City Attorney to look into whether or not the City doing improvements nullified the residents' obligations under the non-remonstrance agreements to participate in any future improvement. The Council discussed the Mayor's sugge: ted course of action. They agreed that Councilors Patton and Moore would meet with the neighbors within 30 days and bring back a recommendation to Council. Councilor Hunt asked if Transportation Plan included the road planned from Hall up to Hunziker. He spoke to changing the Comprehensive Plan now in order to obtain the most desirable land for the road route before it developed. Mr. Duenas said that the Hall Boulevard exteasio, was in the plan. He comirnied thai the net result of die Trausporiation Sysiciu Plan update study would be the Council adopting a change in the Plan, including the Hall Boulevard extension. Mr. Monahan summarized Council direction was to allow limited testimony tonight but to request the residents to work through the Task Force. o Washington Square Task Force Update Mr. Monahan reported that staff has received numerous phone calls from people asking about the Washington Square Regional Task Force update scheduled for next week's workshop meeting with the Planning Commission. He asked if the Council wanted to allow public testimony. Mayor Nicoli said that he was concerned that allowing public testimony in front of two governing boards would circumvent the process. He supported allowing no public testimony and only a limited update. The Council discussed whether or not to hear an update. Councilor Scheckla questioned doing so since the Task Force has not yet made any recommendations. Mr. Monahan said that staff wanted to give the Council and Commission an overview instead of the bits and pieces of information they were getting from outside sources. Councilor Patton supported hearing the update and allowing no testimony. Councilor Hunt observed that in the past the City has had to redo a plan after receiving public testimony. He.asked if they would be so far down the road by the time they heard testimony that they would have to redo the plan. Councilor Scheckla reported that the Task Force had only two unresolved issues at this point: Dr. Davis' property and finding two additional parks in the area. He said that if the Task Force could work through those issues, then he thought that it would be a smooth operation. Councilor Patton mentioned her concern that testifying before the Council and Planning Commission might be an attempt to short-circuit the Task Force process. She said that she was hesitant to step in unless the Task Force itself reached an impasse. The Council directed staff to present the update but allow no public testimony. > EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 7:20 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 4 I EM lop oil 10111 > Executive Session adjourned at 7:35 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla were present 1.4 Council Communications Councilor Scheckla announced a Community Block Grant meeting and update on the Rite Center in North Plains this Thursday evening. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan listed the City Engineer's request to attend the ITE Annual meeting as Item 13. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA The Council heard Agenda Item 10, the SW 79`h Avenue project, at this time. Mayor Nicoli announced the Council's decision to have Councilors Patton and Moore, the Council liaisons to the Transportation Bond Task Force, meet with the SW 790h Avenue representatives in the next four weeks to try to reach a consensus that satisfied both the neighbonccod and the City. He stated that the Council would take no more action on this item until after that meeting. Mayor Nicoli said that any one who wished to could still speak under Visitor's Agenda or they could wait until that meeting. ® Robert Preston, SW 79`h Avenue neighbors Mr. Preston applauded the Council's constructive action in trying to find a way to resolve this situation. He commented that he did not think it was appropriate at this time to give public testimony in light of the Council's decision. He said that the appropriate action for the neighborhood was to convene the Executive Committee to discuss their issues. He gave his home and work phone numbers to Councilor Patton. Councilor Patton said that she would contact Mr. Preston and make arrangements for a meeting between herself, Councilor Moore, and Mr. Duenas. Mayor Nicoli stated that any neighbors who did not agree with the neighborhood opposition could contact the Councilors or staff directly. STAFF REPORT Gus Duenas, City Engineer, presented the staff report on the SW 790h Avenue project. He said that staff contracted with Century West to design this project with the intention of constructing it sometime in the next three years. He mentioned the neighborhood meeting held in January CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 5 and the concerns raised at that meeting: the possibility of residents paying some portion of the costs through an LID and the potential traffic problems resulting from the improvements. He said that the consultant did a traffic study. He reported that he also commissioned the consultant to do a study on what kind of traffic they could expect immediately following the street improvements. Mr. Duenas said that the consultant has completed 90% of the design. He stated that he asked the consultants to develop different scenarios for possible LIDS. He mentioned that he had tentatively scheduled the LID report for the August 17 meeting but felt that it might be better to wait until after the meeting between the Councilors and the Executive Committee. He said that staff included this project as a candidate for the Transportation bond. He observed that, in the Transportation bond, staff wanted projects that would benefit both the City and the residents so that the bond would be successful. Mr. Duenas stated that staff intended to hold another neighborhood meeting in September to lay out the design and demonstrate to the residents how the project would affect individual houses. He indicated that they would make decisions on holding the neighborhood meeting and presenting the LID scenarios until after the Councilor/Executive Committee meeting. PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mayor Nicoli read the list of those who signed up, allowing those who still wanted to speak to do so. • Luther Stohs Mr. Stohs thanked the Council for their consideration in meeting with the people. He asked if the City would make the LID scenarios mentioned by Mr. Duenas available before September. Mr. Duenas reviewed the staff process, pointing out that staff wanted to get the Council's direction before presenting scenarios that might not be acceptable to the Council. Mr. Stohs asked if, following the presentation to Council, there would still be opportunity for public input or was it a "done deal" at that point. Mr. Duenas said that there was always opportunity for public comment, as nothing was a "done deal" until the Council said it was. He commented that, depending on what developed from the Councilors/Executive Committee meeting, either the August 17 meeting would be canceled or the Council would discuss its options and give direction to the staff at that meeting. Mr. Stohs asked for an opportunity to understand what would happen before there was less opportunity for public input. Mayor Nicoli commented that the quicker the Councilors/ Executive Committee meeting happened, the more time they would have to set up a second meeting to provide more information. • Betty Gray stated that she had a strong objection to the formation of an LID. • Raymond Doyle Mr. Doyle asked what the cost of an LID would be and how the City would divide it among the people in the area. Mayor Nicoli reviewed the City procedures in the design of and funding options for an LID. He said that a combination of City funding and LID funding was a possibility. He indicated that they did not yet know what the hard dollar amounts would be. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 6 ml~~ INS Mr. Duenas noted that the earliest possible construction date was 2001, although they would know the cost estimate by September 1999. He emphasized that the consultant was in the process of determining the costs and LID boundary now. He mentioned a CIP status update on this project available to anyone. Councilor Patton clarified that Mr. Duenas would attend the Councilors/Executive Committee meeting to answer technical questions. Mr. Preston stated that it was their preference also that Mr. Duenas attend. He thanked the Council again for this oppori;:nity to discuss their concerns. He directed any interested Councilors to their webpage. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Councilor Hunt asked to pull Item 3.5 and 3.6b. Motion by Councilor hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda less Item Nos. 3.5 and 3.6b. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Patton, and ScheckIa voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve Council Minutes of. May 25,1999 3.2 Receive and File: a. Tentative Agenda b. Council Calendar c. Accept Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for Fiscal Year Ended June 30,1995 3.3 Approve Appointments to the Library Board - Resolution No. 99-51 3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment No. 1 to provide funding to the Tigard Recreation Association Resolution No. 99-52 3.5 Approve Budget Adjustment No. 2, increasing revenues and appropriations for award of park feasibility study (Considered separately - see below.) 3.6 Local Contract Review Board a. Award Contract for 1999-2000 Pavement Major Maintenance Program - Slurry Seal b. Award of contract for recreation district study to Cogan, Owens, Cogan (Considered separately - see below.) 3.7 Approval of City Manager's Employment Agreement 3.8 Approve a Cooperative Agreement Between ODOT and City regarding improvements of the hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street Intersection Consent Agenda Items Pulled For Further Discussion: 3.5 Approve Budget Adjustment No. 2, increasing revenues and appropriations for award of park feasibility study. Councilor Hunt discussed his concern that the agenda item described a "bpark feasibility study" when in fact it was a "recreation district feasibility study," as described in the information summary. He reiterated that the Council originally discussed this question as whether or not it wanted to form a recreation district at all. He argued that certain Councilors and staff members have consistently portrayed it as a foregone conclusion that they would have a recreation district and looked at how to do it, rather than whether or not to do it. He said that he would vote against it. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 7 Councilor Patton pointed out that the resolution language conveyed a "park and recreation district feasibility study." Mayor Nicoli agreed that only the staff report used the different wording. Councilor Scheckla asked what happened if the other jurisdictions did not pay their allotted amounts. Mr. Monahan indicated that Tigard, as the banker for the project, has received one check already and needed only to send an invoice to another party to receive payment. He mentioned that Washington County was also sending $25,000 to the program. He said that Atfalati would make up the difference if someone did not pay their portion. Councilor Scheckla noted that the list did not include Washington County. He asked for clanfIcation vii the 'two dollar amounts: $41,500 ails $15,000. Mr. Monahan explained that, because Tigard was acting as the banker, staff needed to increase the budgeted amount of $15,000 to $41,500 to include the money received from the other jurisdictions. The Council agreed to direct staff to clarify the report and itemize each jurisdiction and its contribution. (Considered by the City Council on July 20, 1999.) 3.6 Local Contract Review Board b. Award of contract for recreation district study to Cogan, Owens, Cogan This item was continued to next week, July 20, 1999. 4. UPDATE: WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL STUDY Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, noted that the Cities of Wilsonville, Tualatin, Beaverton, Sherwood, Tigard, Washington County, ODOT, Tri-Met, and Metro (along with funding from the 1997 Oregon legislature initiated a study last year on the feasibility of commuter rail within the Beaverton to Wih;z#nville corridor. He reported that the conclusion of the second study phase was that there were no fatal flaws associated with the proposal. Mr. Hendryx introduced Bob Post with BRW (primary consultants) and Kathy Lehtola of Washington County here to give the Council the update recommended by the Steering Committee overseeing the study. Bob Post, BRW, presented the update using overhead graphics. He explained that `commuter rail' was putting passenger service on existing freight operations, a common practice on the East Coast but only implemented within the last decade on the West Coast. He reviewed the two options for a rail line from Wilsonville to Tualatin to Tigard to Washington Square to Beaverton, ending either at the Beaverton Transit Center (15 miles long) or at the Merlo Light Rail station (18 miles long). He mentioned the objective of connecting to the light rail line. i i Mr. Post confirmed that the first phase study found no legal or technical hurdles that would derail the project. He explained that the ODOT owned the corridor for the southern two-thirds + of the line (from Wilsonville to Washington Square) while Portland Western Railroad owned the tracks. He said that the Union Pacific owned the northem one-third of the line. He noted that Portland Western Railroad was the short line operator for the entire length of the track. Mr. Post reviewed the major conclusions of the study. He commented that this commuter rail operation would be different from most other operations because the line did not go from an outlying area into a central city area. Therefore, it required trains going in both directions both morning and evening, instead of one direction in the morning and the other direction in the evening. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 8 Mr. Post gave a preliminary ridership projection of 2,300 by the year 2015. He indicated that they hoped those numbers would go up once they used the Metro modeling process to make their projections. Ms. Lehtola pointed out that 2,300 riders per day worked out to 575,000 trips a year taken off the roads. Councilor Patton asked if the projects were based on a no cost commuter rail. Mr. Post said that they assumed a fare system similar to Tri-Met's in developing their projections. He mentioned the importance of establishing an integrated fare system with Tri-Met arid Wilsonville in order to allow transfers between the systems. Mr. Post reviewed the specific questions that this study looked at regarding capital ^d bernPfitc improvements and costs, operating plan a~1d cysts, ii;ipac+s ....n,.........._.._. He stated their recommendation for the final question of whether or not to implement a demonstration project was not to implement one. He indicated that they did not think that there was any way to demonstrate the ridership without doing the stations and the track improvements. Mr. Post stated that the anticipated frequency of service was 30 minutes at a maximum speed of 60 mph in most sections. He mentioned that the Steering Committee wanted the freight rail operations left intact because that operation served many large employers in the region. He noted that the average operating speeds of the MAX and Tri-Met bus systems were 22 mph and 14 mph respectively because of their more frequent stops. He pointed out that a 25 minute ride from Wilsonville to Beaverton during peak hours was faster than most car traffic using Hwy 217. Mr. Post mentioned the detailed assessment of the line for what needed to be done in order to bring it up to the higher safety standards required for commuter rail. He noted crossing and track improvements. He commented that the entire corridor was in pretty good shape requiring general track improvements with some specific improvements at various locations. Mr. Post said that the average cost on a per mile basis for this project was $2.8 million per mile. He compared that to the ODOT estimate to add a lane to Hwy 217 at $20 million per mile and the Max light rail system cost of $32 million per mile. He indicated that it cost less because they were upgrading an existing resource and adding vehicles. He pointed out that most of the cost was tied to the vehicles, track upgrades, and addition of siding lines needed to allow vehicles to pass without losing time. He explained that the Beaverton Transit Center option was less expensive ($64 to $71 million) because it required fewer vehicleF than the Merlo option ($68 to $76 million). Mr. Post said that the annual operating cost for the Merlo option was $4.4 million (because of more vehicles and longer hours of operation) while the cost for the Beaverton Transit Center Option was $3.9 million. Councilor Hunt asked if the $4.4 million was the total cost or the net cost after deducting fare revenues. Mr. Post said that it was the total cost. Mr. Post pointed out that this corridor was unique in serving two regional centers (Washington Square and Beaverton) and three town centers (Wilsonville, Tualatin and Tigard) identified in the 2040 plan. He said that they located each commuter rail station fairly close to the central area of each of the centers in order to facilitate opportunities to connect. He mentioned placing the Tigard station directly behind the current bus station. He indicated that they would have to go through a public process to narrow down the potential station sites for other areas, like Washington Square which had five alternatives. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 9 Elm IN IN Mr. Post reiterated that, as a transportation solution, this was a lesser cost option for the region. He noted that existing uses underutilized the railroad tracks which had sufficient capacity for the operation. He mentioned their belief that most of the trips would be new riders (as opposed to bus riders transferring to rail) because there was no parallel transit service to this corridor currently existing. Mr. Post reviewed the impact of the service on auto traffic. He said that, during the peak three and a half hours of morning service, the cycle time for the trains passing through any one of the 16 crossings was between 45 to 55 seconds, similar to light rail. Mr. Post reviewed the next steps. He mentioned identifying funding options, doing an alternatives anaiysis io compare this project against other potential projects in the corridor, further research into costs, operations and impacts, a public process, and design. Councilor Hunt asked about the discussion of management structure. Mr. Post said that they recommended keeping the management structure simple because it was a small operation. He mentioned the options of a new joint powers entity or an existing transportation entity contracting out operation of the service and inainienance. ize said that they found that almost any model of management structure would work but they had been impressed with the lean operation of the Vancouver BC commuter rail operation. Councilor Scheckla asked if the potential prison sites in the Wilsonville area would impact the ridership. Mr. Post reviewed the possible locations of the Wilsonville station in relation to the potential prison sites. Councilor Scheckla noted that 14 people have been killed since MAX went in. He asked what safeguards the commuter rail line would install to minimize the dangers. Mr. Post said that they would take all the reasonable precautions in the design that they could to provide for good sight distance for the train operators. He pointed out that this was predominantly a single track operation and one fatality on the MAX line occurred when the person became confused about the trains operating in both directions. Ms. Lehtola pointed out that these vehicles were diesel, not electric. Councilor Scheckla asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Post said that the operating hours would be 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. He agreed that they would operate during darkness in the winter and fall. Councilor Hunt asked if the line would be constructed so as to allow the possibility of continuing on to Salem. Mr. Post said yes. He mentioned that the vehicles available for commuter rail typically were used lur lodger rubs than this coliidor. lie rioted that OiVT owned the right-of-way all the way down to south of Donald with the tracks going on into Salem. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE TRANSFER - SCHMIDT'S SANITARY SERVICES, INC. a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 10 b. Summation by Administration Staff Loreen Mills, Administrative Risk Analyst, presented the staff report. She said that the City received a letter on June 7, 1999, from Schmidt's Sanitary Service advising the City that they wished to transfer their solid waste franchise to Pride Disposal. She noted that Schmidt's has served the City of Tigard well since the mid-1960s, currently serving approximately 28% of Tigard's solid waste customers. She stated that the staff review found that Pride Disposal met the conditions of the Code to be the new franchise owner. Ms. Mills explained that the Code allowed the Council to attach conditions to any franchise transfer in order to maintain customer service and a clean solid waste collection system. She reviewed the four conditions recommended by staff, including a requirement that Schmidt's file is 1999 annual report by March 2000. She discussed the last condition, recognition of the change ir, location of operation from Schmidt's current location on Ross Street off Hall Blvd to Pride's location in Sherwood. Ms. Mills noted that staff anticipated the franchise fees remaining the same. She commented that staff did not anticipate any change in the level of service because Pride has also been in the solid waste business in the Tigard area for years and knew the rules. She explained that the transfer became effective once both owners filed their acceptance of the conditions of the transfer with the City Recorder but she was not certain when that would be. Councilor Scheckla commented that he saw no reason not to allow the transfer, noting that Schmidt's had run a top notch operation. d. Public Testimony Larry Schmidt, Schmidt's Sanitary Services, stated that 37 years of hauling garbage was long enough and he was ready to retire. Councilor Hunt commented that Pride Disposal would have a challenge to maintain the same level of quality service as Schmidt's provided. Councilor Scheckla asked if Mr. Schmidt hqd any recommendations to improve service. Mr. Schmidt commented that, with the growth in Tigard, they could no longer offer the personalized service they used to, although there were efficiencies in the equipment used today. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Schmidt's employees would continue at Pride. Mr. Schmidt said that Pride would absorb his employees. o Mike Leichner, Pride Disposal Councilor Patton said that, based on previous experience with Pride, she was confident that Pride would offer the same quality service as Schmidt's. y Councilor Scheckla asked if Pride would donate to Tigard programs as it did to Sherwood programs. Mr. Leichner said that they tried to be as active as possible in communities. He described their focus on youth programs, including Special Olympics, high school scholarships, and a program with the Sherwood Chamber of Commerce that he hoped to expand to the Tigard Chamber. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 11 NINE • A gentleman from the audience said that he had wondered why the transfer was occurring. He commented that it was obviously a company sale situation. d. Staff Recommendation Ms. Mills recommended adoption of the ordinance transferring the ownership from Schmidt's to Pride Disposal. Council Questions Councilor Scheckla declared that he was indirectly related to the Schmidts but he would vote on the issue anyway. g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing h. Council Consideration: Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Ordinance No. 99- 18. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-18, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.04, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, OF THE TIGARD MUNICIPAL CODE TO TRANSFER SCHMIDT'S SANITARY SERVICE, INC., FRANCHISE TO PRIDE DISPOSAL COMPANY AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") 6. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-0001 - WALNUT STREET/TIEDEMAN AVENUE AREA ANNEXATION a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges There were no declarations or challenges. All members indicated familiarity with the application. c. Staff Report Julia Hajduk, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She noted that the Council initiated this island annexation in May, directing staff to begin the notification process. She commented that she has not heard any opposition to the annexation. She stated that the proposal was consistent with the Development Code, Comprehensive Plan and Metro standards. She read the additional "whereas" clause that the City Attorney recommended including in the ordinance (stating the annexation's compliance with the applicable review criteria). d. Public Testimony There was no public testimony. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 12 e. Council Questions E Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing g. Staff Recommendation Ms. Hajduk_ recommended adoption of the ordinance with the amended language. h. Council Considerations Ordinance No. 99-19 Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinance No. 99-19 with the additional material. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-19, AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION, ZCA 99-0001, WALNUT/TIEDEMAN ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT. Motion was approved by unanimous roll call vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 14 a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Summation by City Engineering Staff Greg Berry, Engineering Department, presented the staff report. He said that this, the fifth reimbursement district in the City sewer extension program, would provide service to 18 lots. He explained that the 19 lots shown on the map broke down into I I lots annexed under the previous agenda item and 8 lots previously annexed. He reviewed the locations of the two City-, owned lots, one of which had a water quality facility on it, would not need service, and therefore was not included in the district. Mr. Berry said that the purpose of the project was to recover the City's cost of installing the sewers put in at the same time as the intersection realignment project. He mentioned August 1 as the beginning construction date. He said that the sanitary sewer portion of the contract totaled $260,000. He stated that staff distributed the cost based on lot size, due to Vile variety of lot sizes, yielding a cost of 64 cents per square foot. Councilor Hunt asked if any exceeded the $8,000 cap. Mr. Berry said that in the packet staff provided a list of those properties exceeding the $8,000 cap. Councilor Patton asked for clarification on how the $8,000 cap worked. She noted that Mr. Duenas' memo indicated that a property owner was responsible for the first $8,000 and for any amount over the $15,000 cap on the City's contribution. She commented that she had not understood from the discussion that that was how that worked. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 13 Mr. Duenas said that the resolution did include a $15,000 cap on the City's picking up of the cost of installing the sewers. He pointed out that some of the lots in this district were subdividable into as many as three parcels, each of which would have its own service. Councilor Scheckla supported the staff application of the district. He asked if the owners of the future subdivided lots would pay only the $8,000 when they hooked up to the sewer in the future. Mr. Duenas said that the City offered the $8,000 cap only during the first year. After that, the property owners had to pay the full amount in order to hook up. Mayor Nicoli referenced the property purchased by the City that had a house on it. He asked if the project would leave enough land out of the right-of-way to have a buildable lot. Mr. Duenas said that, although there might be sufficient land for a buildable lot, staff did not want a structure at that location because it was a bad traffic location. He mentioned a possibility of a wooded area with water and restrooms in the future but he emphasized that they did not want a full fledged park there either. e. Public Testimony e Irene M. Hall, 10675 SW Fonner Ms. Hall asked for clarification on the City lot that staff told them would not be built on. Mr. Duenas reiterated that staff did not want that lot built on but they were providing service to it just in case they needed water and sewer there in the future. Ms. Hall asked which homes were above the $15,000 cap. Mr. Berry indicated on a map the location of the three private properties over the $15,000 cap. Ms. Hall indicated that she owned one of the large lots. She questioned why they should have to pay more when they had no intention of subdividing their property. She mentioned a proposal given at a previous meeting to base the distribution on the number of properties rather than on the square footage. She argued that the cost should be charged to the people when the property developed, not to the property owner up front. Ms. Hall asked if any one at the City knew about the original grandfather clause. Mr. Berry said that he could discuss that with Ms. Hall. Mr. Duenas mentioned that everyone had to pay the $2,335 connection charge. e Melvin ; unday, 10605 SW F owner i Mr. Sunday asked for clarification on exactly where the City would bring a stub in relation to his property. Mr. Berry explained that the City built the stubs 8 to 10 feet into a property from the main section so that property owners did not have to work in the right-of-way when completing the connection to their houses. Mr. Duenas suggested that Mr. Sunday talk with either himself or Mr. Berry about the exact location for his lateral prior to the City installing it. Mr. Monahan asked for clarification on when property owners could hook on the sewer. Mr. Duenas said that property owners could not connect until the City finished the project which would probably be sometime around September. g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 14 i. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99-53 Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Patton, to adopt Resolution No.99- 53. Ms. Wheatley noted a correction in the fourth "whereas" clause. It should read "annexed by Ordinance 99-19," not by Resolution 99-19. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-53, A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 14. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") 8: ADOPTION OF A DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE Mr. Hendryx explained that, since the Dolan decision, attorneys throughout the country have generally agreed that the requirement of the rough proportionality test extended to all public facilities improvement requirements. He said that, because of the confusion in how to apply the Dolan decision, he and the City Attorney met to discuss Code provisions and the interpretations needed to insure consistency with the Dolan decision. He noted the Planning Director's Interpretations document drafted by the City Attorney and signed by himself. Mr. Hendryx explained that staff wanted the Council to adopt this document because the courts gave deference to a City Council's interpretations. Mr. Coleman commented that this document would provide not only consistency with Dolan but also internal consistency from application to application as staff turned over. He said that the document memorialized what the Code provisions meant from the Council's perspective. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to adopt Resolution No. 99-54. The City Recorder read the number and title of the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-54, A RESOLUTION ADOPTING DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION CONCERNING DEDICATION, PUBLIC FACILITIES, FINAL DECISIONS, NON-CONFORMING SITUATIONS, AND BUILDING LOCATIONS IN THE TIGARD TRIANGLE. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") 9. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR PACIFIC RIDGE TO USE CI'T'Y PROPERTY FOR PRIVATE WETLANDS MITIGATION Mr. Hendryx stated that Pacific Ridge and Specht Company submitted a joint request to use City park land to mitigate for the wetlands impact of the Autumn Crest subdivision in the Triangle. He explained that the applicants proposed to do the mitigation on .74 acres located in the Fanno Creek Park just behind City Hall. He used an aerial photograph to demonstrate the exact location of the mitigation. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 15 Mr. Hendryx mentioned Council's adoption in June 1996 of a formal policy addressing the use of City property for private wetland mitigations. He said that staff evaluated the proposal and found it consistent with the policy (it would improve natural vegetation in the park and it would be consistent with the Master Plan for the area). Mr. Hendryx noted that the City did have authority under the policy to ask for compensation. He recommended imposing a $14,740 compensation charge on the applicant. He explained that this was based on the $20,000 per acre rate recently charged by the Tualatin-Tigard School District for mitigation on their property. He mentioned that the Division of State Lands found it a reasonable amount to charge. Mr. Hendryx mentioned two additional conditions recommended by the City A++- te,'s .^,fflce, should the Council approve the request: an easement agreement with the applicant that indemnified the City, and provision of liability insurance by the applicant. PUBLIC TESTIMONY e Marvin Schott, Schott & Associates, 11977 S Tolliver Road, Molalla Mr. Schott reviewed the history of the Specht and Pacific Ridge projects. He said that both the projects had permits from the Army Corps of Engineers but did not need DSL permits. He explained that the State did not have jurisdiction over the Pacific Ridge 200 foot drainage channel because it was an ephemeral drainage channel. He described the route of the drainage channel as running from the Landmark Ford's water quality detention basin to the apartment complex on SW 70" where it entered a culvert again. He indicated that they had to mitigate for approximately 600 square feet. Mr. Schott said that the Mr. Petrie's development was located in the old Scholls football area. He explained that the original wetlands delineation done four years ago identified a 78,000- square foot wetland. During the first three phases of Mr. Petrie's project, they treated stormwater by sheet flowing it across the pasture which had the unfortunate effect of expanding the wetland to over three acres. He explained that, because the Corps of Engineers did not verify wetland delineations until permit applications and Mr. Petrie did not apply for his permit to fill in 17,000 square feet of wetlands until recently, the Corps found the larger wetland created by sheet flowing the stormwater across the property when it looked at the property. Mr. Schott said that they did get their permit to install a water quality facility to treat the stormwater and the wetland eventually retreated to its original size. However, the Corps still required Mr. Petrie to mitigate for the impacts to the larger wetland. He indicated that that was why they needed to do offsitc :mitigation. Mr. Schott reviewed their plan for enhancing the wetlands by eliminating the reed canary grass and planting trees and shrubs that would eventually dominate the wetlands. He said that Pacific Ridge would coordinate with the contractor and Specht would pay its fair share to Pacific Ridge. He stated that they did have permits from the agencies. He mentioned their intention to use wheelbarrows and handshovels in the work to avoid tearing up existing paths. He noted that the permit required them to monitor the wetlands for five years. Mr. Schott addressed the issue of the City fee. He referenced his letter in the packet. He stated that, based on his experience in wetland work in the Portland Metro area for 12 years, private property mitigation permits cost $10,000 an acre. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 16 o Craig Petrie, Pacific Ridge, 12508 SW Camas, Beaverton Mr. Petrie asked for clarification on Item 2, obtaining a street opening permit issued by the Engineering Department. He asked to add the phrase "if needed." He indicated that they did not know why they would need one. Mr. Hendryx explained that the street opening permits were a method for staff to track their work. He said that the condition requiring a wetland easement agreement was an acceptable substitution for that requirement. Mr. Petrie concurred with Mr. Schott that the fee proposed by the City was not the market rate. He asked the Council to reduce the fee to $10,000 per acre. Mr. Hendryx noted that prorated to $7,370 for their.74 acre. Mr. Schott confirmed to Councilor Scheckla that they were following the Fanno Creek Master Plan to enhance the City park into a better ecological condition while satisfying their mitigation requirements. Councilor Scheckla asked if the City could hold out for someone else to use this land for mitigation at the price recommended by staff. Mr. Hendryx said that he could not say one way or the other. He commented that mitigation areas were becoming more difficult to find. He noted that eventually the market would bear what it would bear, which might be up to $20,000. He emphas,. -°d that it was the Council's decision as to what fee to charge. Councilor Hunt mentioned the mitigation bank at Oaks Bottom. Mr. Schott explained that both the mitigation bank by the Columbia Slough and the one at West Eugene charged $35,000 an acre. He said that the new bank at Oaks Bottom would charge $50,000. He explained that the mitigation bank owners have already paid for the materials and labor and done the mitigation. Companies bought "mitigation credit" against their mitigation requirements (per the three to one mitigation ratio). He pointed out that, with a $10,000 fee to the City, their total cost to mitigate behind City Hall came out to about $50,000 (including the five-year monitoring, planting costs, and maintenance contingency money). Councilor Hunt mentioned his concern that they not set a precedent of lowering the price. He noted the extensive mitigation needed at Cook Park. Mr. Hendryx explained that the mitigation occurring at Cook Park resulted from the development of Cook Park. He indicated that it was not a mitigation bank situation. Councilor Scheckla asked if staff could do research to identify the market rate and return to Council at a later date with that information. Mr. Hendryx indicated that staff could do more research but he thought it unlikely that they would find anything different. He mentioned that the DSL staff person said that he has seen fees up to $50,000. He reiterated that it was a question of what the market would bear. Councilor Scheckla spoke to having the same playing field for everyone, rather than lowering the recommended price and then raising it later. Mr. Hendryx said that Council would be setting a price for today only. He explained that the price set today would influence who came to the City tomorrow. He spoke to staff evaluating each application on a case by case basis because the market would change. Councilor Hunt asked if Mr. Hendryx recommended staying with the $14,000 or did he think a reduction in price was justified. Mr. Hendryx reiterated that it was a Council decision. He commented that the benefit to the City from allowing private mitigation of its CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 17 wetlands has evolved beyond the simple benefit of improving the wetlands. Now they have discovered that the land was valuable and the City benefited additionally by charging a fee. He said that he stood behind the recommended numbers as reasonable but it was a Council decision. Councilor Scheckla asked if having a mitigation site so close to the developers' project locations was a benefit to the developers. Mr. Hendryx commented that the developers did have to stay in the same watershed. Councilor Patton stated that she was not concerned about a precedent because review was necessary on a case-by-case situation. She said that she saw a distinction between a mitigation bank and the City requiring the developer to pay for the labor, plantings and monitoring. She commented that she assumed that the agreement inciuded a mediation U in the event that the monitoring activity disclosed that the wetland enhancement did not perform as intended. She recommended charging a $10,000 fee for the project. Mayor Nicoli commented that, although he understood the economics of land cost, he still looked at this as someone offering to improve the City's property for free. He said that he was struggling with charging them anything. He pointed out that the higher fee the City charged, the longer it would take to attract developers to enhance the numerous wetlands in the City that needed enhancing. He noted that this was the first time that the City has charged a fee. He said that he could see both sides of this issue. Councilor Hunt spoke against giving the land to the developers for free because doing so would turn mitigation property into a political football. Councilor Scheckla supported Councilor Patton's compromise proposal of $10,000. Mayor Nicoli spoke to putting the fees charged into a dedicated fund to purchase wetlands or open space. Mr. Hendryx said that he had assumed that the money would go into the dedicated park fund. Councilor Scheckla asked Mr. Coleman if he saw any problems with this issue. Mr. Coleman said that he has not heard any disagreement on the conditions or additional recommended conditions; the only issue was compensation. Mr. Petrie commented that he did not think that the City should give away the land for free. He said that he hoped for a reasonable number. The Council discussed what a reasonable fee would be. Mayor Nicoli supported Councilor . P atton's suggestion of a $10,000 fee. Councilor Patter clarified that she meant $10,000 for the project, not per acre. She said that she also wanted the money to go into the parks fund. Mr. Hendryx confirmed that they had a parks capital fund. Motion by Councilor Patton, seconded by Councilor Hunt, to approve the staff recommendation to allow Pacific Ridge and Specht Company to use City property for private wetlands mitigation with the following modifications: to include the modification that Community Development Director Jim Hendryx indicated about the Sensitive Lands permit and the easement, and that the applicant pay the City the amount of $10,000 and that those funds be placed into the park fund. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 18 Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") 10. 79TH AVENUE PROJECT STATUS REPORT The Council discussed this item under Agenda Item 2, Visitor's Agenda. 11. COUNCIL. GOAL. UPDATE Mr. Monahan noted the quarterly report to the Council on the status of Council goals. 12. % '`..Ii.:..~Sn REPORTS 13. NON AGENDA ITEMS 13.1 CITE' ENGINEER ATTENDANCE AT INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS ANNUAL MEETING Motion by Mayor P:icoli, seconded by Counci:or Patton, to approve the request for the City Engineer to attend the training for the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of the Council present. (Mayor Nicoli, Councilors Hunt, Patton and Scheckla voted "yes.") 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled 15. ADJOURNMENT: 9:50 p.m. Attest- Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder or, City of Tig d Date: O ~q 14 I:WDMCATHY\CCN\ 90713.DOC si 1 3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JULY 13, 1999 - PAGE 19 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9450 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising *City of Tigard ° E3 Tearsheet Notice , 13125 SW Hall Blvd °Tigard,Oregon 97223 ° ❑ Duplicate Affidavitc M ~ r r.. °Accounts Payable o AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ,o o O r t o,ao STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, ) sL, H ~ 5;, t, Katby Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say, that I am the Advertising i Director, or his principal clerk, of theTiRaril--Tua1a i n Times a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 o m ; p$o'a and 193.020; published at Ti qa rA in the. 1t aforesaid county and state; that the C'i ty Counci l lneyi caw Rnard Meeting a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the`' Z.,, 4 entire issue of said newspaper for_ ONE. successive and Cao consecutive in the following issues: a,•.. zs;. a. r; 6~:s 9 pca~ar . July f3, 1999 "g..o _.d ° a...o VrIA14A LtA L/1- Subscribed and sworn to eforeme thid9 t h d air of ju l y ,19 9 9 /2 j OFFICIAL BEAL ~~~~000 [/h A Adek= t ROBIN A. BURGESS H Nota ublic for Oregon r' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON i COMMISSION NO. 062071 a My Commission Expires: MY NO. EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 AFFIDAVIT COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9 4 4 0 BEAVERTON, OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising •City of Tigard • ❑ Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • ❑ Duplicate Affidavit , OTigard,Oregon 97223 I lAccounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' I, Kai-h3,z snxrAar - being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of th&lgard-Tual ati n T,,mes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Ti qa rt9 in the aforesaid county and state; that the iT f Street../Ti edman annauat i on a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper forTIJO successive and consecutive in the following issues: June 24,July 1,1999 Subscribed and sworn to be a me this l s t day of Ju lv , 19 9 9 OFF A. Nota ub is for Oregon NOTARY PUBLiC-0REGON My Commission Expires: I COMMISSIOEPXIIRE M 16 2001 my rOMMISSION AFFIDAVIT The golloariuB;rov l , c0uesidered by the Tigard City Council on Tues-, F daly,B:.13,.14, aII 9:30 P.M., at the'1'igard Civic Center -Town Hall v Rootn, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223. Both public oral and 3 written testimony is invited: The public hearing on this matter will.be con- duceed in accordance with the ruled of OR5 227.120, Chapter. 15.390 of the Tigard.Municipal Code; and any rules and procedures of the Tigard City Council. Failure to raise an issue to person or by.letter at some point pros to the close of the hearing acoompamed by statementr or evidence sufficient to allow the Hearings Authority and all the parties to respond on .the;request,precludes an appeal,°,and failure to specify the criterion from the Community Development Code or Comprehensive Plan at which a comment is directed precludes alt appeal based on that criterion. Further 1R Yf-VYYYtt1YY_latiVlY LLtly U4-G. . VL._7Uttaat-t-Gada X 1Y L- t--r.tu(S Division ^g Division at 11a.i31als V 215 @1t~1► La tltG r Ttauna Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling 639-4171. PUBLIC REARING ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA)1999.00001 > WALNUT STREETMIEDEMAN AVENUE MR ANNEXATION < The City is considering annexing 11 lots totaling approximately 5.67 acres into the City of Tigard. LOCATION:-Eleven (11)parcels along SW Wal- nut Street and SW Tiedeman Avenue. WCTM 2S103AA, Tax Lots 01002, 01100, 01500, 01600, 01700; 01702, 01800 and 01801; WCTM 2S 102BA, Tax Lots 02005, 02001 and 02006. ZONE: R-4.5; Single- Family Residential (7,500 Square Feet) or (5,000 Square Feet Per Unit). The purpose of the R-4.5 zoning district is to establish standard urban low density residential home sites. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chnniters 18.320 and 18.390; and Com- prehensive Plan Policy 10 (Urbanization). aw AWAA W THE CM """a] ~ 711/17Y UIMa i v~p~Lt art ~ L,r, ~ ~ T I~wttOCATto, I iuMYtwfina . 1 i ,4 { V \ ti -°_A f! RYTIl~ f OIF T,tf Cf1Y !711« i Z20 YM440 - Publish June 24, July 1, 1999. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFEDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) 1 ( \ t^_ 11 OA AA ~~6~ rgt did -sworn, on oath. depose and y: That I posted in the following rill-sic and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) ~ which were adopted at the Council fleeting dated ~J et copy(s) of said ordinance(s) being he to a ched and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ day of , 19 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon Subscribed and sworn.-to before me this tea` day of , 19 AAk U ,14 eW HAYEs Notary Publ c for Oregon WCOMMISSM 32 03 My Commission Expires: v o 3 ~ g$iON IXFIRES MAY 5, 2003 is\adm\jo\affpost.doc CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO.99 1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.04, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, OF THE TIGAIF'D MUNICIPAL CODE TO TRANSFER SCHMIDT'S SANITARY SERVICE, INC. FRANCHISE TO PRIDE DISPOSAL COMPANY AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, on June 7, 1999, the City received notice from Larry Schmidt, President of Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. (franchise Area III) of the pending sale of his business to Pride Disposal Company and requested transfer of his solid waste franchise to that company; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 1999, the Tigard City Council considered the matter of solid waste transfer to Pride Disposal Services under the provisions of Tigard Muncipal Code Section 11.04.080 A; and WHEREAS, on July 13, 1999, the Tigard City Council found that the transferee met all applicable requirements met by the original franchisees and found it in the best interest of the solid waste customers in the solid waste franchise "Area III" to attach conditions appropriate to guarantee maintenance of service and compliance with TMC 11.04. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc.. franchise in Area III is hereby transferred to Pride Disposal Company. This change will be codified in TMC Section 11.04.040, B, 2, and is hereby amended to read as follows (note: language to be deleted is shown as stricken and language to be added is underlined]: "Area III. c •a`' c + I I . 13, eehffi a~v"esiden R3'~C Q ~IT_ D .mss T gaF O 9724 Pride Disposal Comnanv Michael Leichner. President, P. O. Box 820 Sherwood, OR 97140." SECTION 2: To protect the customers in franchise Area III, the Tigard City Council attaches the following conditions to the franchise to guarantee maintenance of service and compliance with TMC 11.04 and administrative rules promulgated under the authority of 11.04.160. a. Customer service - the City of Tigard's Service Standards for solid waste collection will be followed. This includes but is not limited to: ➢ Customer calls received by 1:00 PM must be returned the same day, unless prevented by force of nature; ➢ Customer calls received after 1:00 PM must be returned by noon of the following business day, unless prevented by force of nature; and ➢ Customer complaints shall be responded to promptly. It is recognized that these conditions may be modified should the City's Service Standards be amended. The amendment process is addressed in TMC Section 11.04.160. ORDINANCE No. 99-is Page 1 K' i b. Uniformity of service - level, type and quality of service required by the City will be provided by the franchisee in accordance with the requirements in the Tigard Municipal Code and administrative rules promulgated under authority of TMC Section 11.04.160. c. Responsibility for Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. 1999 financial operations reporting - franchisee will present a 12-month, complete 1999 financial report to the City by March 1". 2000. This will include the period of time that Area III was franchised to Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. d. Location of franchise operations - No solid waste management activities may be conducted by franchisee at 8325 SW Ross Street in the City of Tigard, the site formally used by Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. SECTION 3: The C;;' Co,.z*:c;1 finds that it is :e:,rsG y that tie provisions of this ordinance become effective at the time of sale of Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. to Pride Disposal Company. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist, and this ordinance 'shall take effect immediately upon passage by the City Council, signature by the Mayor and the filing with the City Recorder of a joint acceptance of this transfer of franchise by Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. and Pride Disposal Company. Said joint acceptance form is attached as Exhibit "A" of this ordinance and made a part hereof. PASSED: By UM/PaWZ vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this 13 - day of f&a~ '1999. Catherine Wheatley, City Recor APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day o4~1661hi,, 9 J e ayor Approved as to form: City o ey Date ORDINANCE No. 99- IK Page 2 JOINT ACCEPTANCE OF SOLID WASTE TRANSFER Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. & Pride Disposal Company Pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 99-___, Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. and Pride Disposal Company hereby accept the transfer of the solid waste management franchise subject to the conditions set forth in the ordinance above mentioned. Lary Schmidt, President Mike Leichner, President Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. Pride Disposal Company Date Date Filed with the Tigard City Recorder on the day of 1999. .y OEOORAQNIO I14f01<MAiI'~N SY St EM ~ Vd^uste Fs 13 1Y li Feet gow t ` a City of TiBaTd aiy~ 301 04 -bFt LJ Bann " a.us 1 d e. i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON ORDINANCE NO. 99- 1 L7 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO APPROVE AN ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99- 00001-WALNUTIMDEMAN ANNEXATION AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.750 to annex property not inside the City which is surrounded by the corporate boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, the proposed annexation constitutes a minor boundary change under Boundary Commission Law ORS 199.410 to 199.519; and `".WAS, 4s part of n street improvement project sanitary sewer is being extended along the property frontages and connection to the sewer may be possible; and WHEREAS, the property which currently lies within the boundary of the Washington County Enhanced Sheriffs Patrol District, Washington County Urban Roads Maintenance District, Washington County Street Lighting District #1 and the Washington County Vector Control District would, by operation of ORS 199.510, be automatically and immediately withdrawn from those districts upon completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties from a water district when annexed into the City; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council held a public hearing on May 11, 1999 to initiate annexation proceedings and on July 13, 1999 to consider the annexation of 11 parcels consisting of 5.67 acres and withdrawal of said properties from the Tigard Water District; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to ORS 222.520(2) the City is liable to the Tigard Water District-for certain debt obligations, however, in this instance the District has no debt for the City to assume, therefore, no option regarding the assumption of debt needs to be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.120 and 222.524, notice was given and the City held a public hearing on the issue of the annexation into the City and withdrawal of those annexed properties from the Tigard Water District on July 13, 1999; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of annexed properties from the Tigard Water District by Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning most closely conforming to the County zoning; and WHEREAS, the equivalent zoning district to the Washington County R-5 is City of Tigard R-4.5; and WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09 and the criteria reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Development Code and Comprehensive Plan substantially address the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the Tigard Water District is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the parcels described in Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "II" and withdraws said parcels from the Tigard Water. District. ORDINANCE NO. 99- i:\citywidebrd\Tiedeman zca99-01.ord Pagel of 2 Julia P H 19-June-99 2:00 PM SECTION 2: Upon annexation, the affected properties shall be designated as follows: Current Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Wa. Co. R-5 _Eauivalent City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning City of Tigard R4.5 SECTION 3: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor and posting by the City Recorder. SECTION 4: The City Recorder is hereby directed to file certified copies of the Ordinance with Metro for administrative processing. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.465, the effective date of the withdrawal of these properties from the Tigard Water District shall be July 1, 2000. SECTION 6: In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By ungn ►7?Ot~~ vote of ^!1 Council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of 1999. a ierine Wheatley, City R corder APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this _ day of 1 James Ni ayor Approved to form: City Atto ey Date ORDINANCE NO.99- i:lcitywide\ocd\Tiedeman zca99-0l.ocd Page 2 of 2 Julia P H 19-June-99 2:00 PM A tract of land located in the NE one-quarter of Section 3, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington County, Oregon, which is described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the North right of way of SW Errol Street with the west right of way of SW Fonnor Street being 20 feet north and 20 feet west of the southeast comer of lot 2 Echo Heights as recorded in Book 5 Page 32 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 89°.13' W, along the north right of way of SW Errol Street, a distance of 137.98 feet; thence N 00° 57' E a distance of 202.49 feet; thence S .89° 13' W a distance of 171.25'feet; thence N 000 57' E a distance of 41.87 feet; thence S 89° 13' :x' a distmcc of 165 fXc ; 'Hence S 000 57' W a distance of 84.19 feet; thence S 89° 13' W a distance of 165 feet; thence N 00° 57' E a distance of 12.46 feet; thence S 83° 30' 33" W a distance of 82.85 feet; thence N 00° 57' E a distance of 305.50 feet to the south right of way of SW Walnut Street; thence N 89° 13' E along said right of way, a distance of 552.5 feet; thence S 00° 57' W a distance of 238.25 feet; thence N 890 13' E 31.33 feet; thence N 81 ° 09' E a distance of 140.14 feet to the west right of way of SW Fonnor Street; thence S 00° 57' W, along said right of way, a distance of 269.94 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACT A tract of land located in the NE one-quarter of Section 3, and the NW one-quarter of . section 2, Township 2 South, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, City of Tigard, Washington.County, Oregon, which is described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southerly right of way of SW Walnut street which is S 75° 05' E 155.0 feet and S 140 55' W 20.00 feet from the Northwest comer of Lot 24 North Tigardville Addition as recorded in Book 2 Page 27 of the Washington County Subdivision Records; thence S 75° 05' E, along said right of way, a distance of 335.72 feet to the westerly boundary of Yolo Estates; thence S 45° 25' W, along said westerly line, a distance of 247.21 feet; thence N 75° 05' W a distance of 98.25 feet;. thence N 14° 55" E a distance of 73.00 feet; thence N 75° 05' W a distance of 112.00 feet; thence N 14° 55' E a distance of 140 feet to the point of beginning. %vg333k,snoe0s%n,yyorm"%waku&on.am.dw Oa00a..Y1C ,al0ar•T,O■. aTaTa■ ME4DOW ST VICINLTY SNAP AREA IS INSIDE ZCA 99-0001 (1 1) SUBJECT OF THE CITY LIMITS PARCELS WALNUT ST J INDICATED 1 Q • HASH MARKS TIEDEMAN AVE. MINOR W AREA ANNEXATIONS P Bold Line Indicates DNS Property Within The City Limits of Ti and WAC ~ C N AREA IS Qm.um L ST OF THE CITY LIMITS P N 001> c rrj 0 too 200 300 MO 500 Foot x 1'• 378 NH f~- \ City of Tigard P Inhxmown an ws map is for panant Wuhan a* and ahauW W wtfiad oath the DOVOW rd Sarvkaa 01"M 1125 SWNAWd T04 OR SM3 .TT WgrKiN (503) 639417, ht1pJhNmcLOpod.or.w Plot date: Apr 29,1999; C:VN9ioWAGIC03.APR Community Development Agenda Item: Hearing Date: July 13 1999 7:30 PM sy ! w tt-te.f r> 3^ iN,S`' t ~t v:4 ¢.S"^p zUe~'ay sa r e',,rat {i"'~.-i~ 'ST:J` ~ h s ta~~}I.i, vt r t r~ sc TAFF GEPGRT~1~~ !'NEh ,r' ~ , ° a a ~ `$w l 1 r`n 4 t y T{1; 4d. t t. i i ~I rCI■1Y-C®~MMUy zFJ f: Ft { ,Cdv1OF7IGARD `r hw--{ J3'l sl tr s, a n .~t~-• t Comm~ty~~ - YFGR TECITY:$OFyIGARbQREGON Deve`lopment,kF,ti ` s ~Shap»ig~rBe~er~:-x t ,r, I ♦ p..,,.Cc:tifi k'ti7~"" mit:y • i c, i . a ° ;SCOTIlII3llri1 ..~2i'i`:a;'~ SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY CASE: r=iLE NAME: TIEDEMANIWALNUT AREA ANNEXATION Zone Change Annexation ZCA 1999-00001 PROPOSAL: To annex 11 lots consisting of approximately 5.67 acres of un- incorporated Washington County land into the City of Tigard. CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION: Washington County R-5 Equivalent City ZONING DESIGNATION: R-4.5 LOCATION: The subject parcels are located along SW Walnut and SW Tiedeman; WCTM 2S103AA, tax lots 01002, 01100, 01500, 01600, 01700, 01702, 01800 and 01801 and WCTM 2S102BA tax lots 02005, 02001, and 02006. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2 and 10.1.3; and Tigard Community Development Code Sections 18.320 and 18.390. SECTION II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recomrnerids that the CoundiI find that the;proposed,annexatiQn vrlll r+ot adverse'By rte 'affedt t<he health, afety and welfare °of the7Clty Therefore, staff reeommendAPPR0IJAL:of the`,annexation by adoption of~therattachi6d Ordi anc+e r t .tip kSTAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 1 OF 3 ZCA 99-00001 - WALNUTITIEDEMAN ANNEXATION 7/13199 PUBLIC HEARING SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Site information and proposal description: The properties are currently developed with single family residences. The City currently has a project underway to construct street improvements which includes extending sanitary sewer in SW Walnut street and T'redeman in the area fronting the subject parcels. - Upon annexation, a sewer reimbursement district could be formed and the lots and other lots currently already in the City would be placed in the reimbursement district. A portion of the cost of the public sewer would be assigned to the owner of each lot. The property owners have been informed of the proposed annexation and reimbursement district proposal. The proposal is to annex 11 parcels consisting of approximately 5.67 acres of land. The city has initiated the annexation as permitted by ORS 222.750 because the properties are within an area entirely surrounded by property inside the City limits. Vicinity Information: The area to be annexed is 5.67 acres. The existing city boundary runs along the north of the subject properties. The subject properties'and the properties to the south are within Tigard's Area of Interest but outside of the Tigard city limits. The subject parcels will be zoned City R-4.5 once annexed into the City. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The relevant criteria in this case are Tigard Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2, and 10.1.3; and Tigard Community Development Code Chapters 18.136 and 18.138. Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan based on the following findings: Policy 2.1.1: This Policy requires an ongoing citizen involvement program and is satisfied because the Central CIT and surrounding property owners have been notified of the public hearing and notice of the hearing has been published in a newspaper of general circulation. In addition, staff has contacted the affected property owners by mail to explain the proposal and offered to meet with the property owners to discuss any questions or concerns that the property owners had regarding the annexation. Policy 10.1.1: This Policy requires adequate service capacity delivery to annexed parcels and is satisfied because the City of Tigard Police, Engineering and Water Departments, Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) and Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue (TVF&R) have all reviewed the annexation request and have offered no objections. Policy 10.1.2: This Policy pertains to boundary criteria for annexations and is satisfied. The property is adjacent to property on the north that is inside the Tigard city limits. The affected land is located within the City's Urban Services Area (Area of Interest) and is contiguous to the city boundary. Adequate services will be available to accommodate the properties once the sewer fine is extended as planned by the City of Tigard. STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 2 OF 3 ZCA 99-00001 - WALNUTMEDEMAN ANNEXATION 7/13/99 PUBLIC HEARING Staff has determined that the proposal is consistent with the relevant portions of the Community Development Code based on the following findings: Section 18.320.020: This Section addresses approval standards for annexation proposals and is satisfied because: The applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies and Community Development Code provisions have been reviewed and satisfied as previously indicated in this report. According to the conversion table (18.320.1), the City of Tigard zoning designation of R-4.5 most closely conforms to the County designation of R-5, therefore this zoning will be attached to the subject properties automatically upon annexation. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering, Public Works, Police and Water Departments have all reviewed this proposal and have offered no comments or objections. SECTION VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The Metro Area Boundary Commission, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District, Unified Sewerage Agency, Columbia Cable, Metro Area Communications, TCI, Tualatin Valley Water District, PGE, NW Natural Gas, US West Communications, GTE, and Washington County have had the opportunity to review the proposal and have offered no objections. ~ ir -`~~i4S~p,~®h(THE~if~DI1~Ifa~;S~INDIC~4TxE® '`~O..L=,~~~1NIh`~G r~'F • ~ , w 2MEC©IN~iEND uA~RO~ AL¢OF ZONE A G j~E O a r' 4r(Z~A) 99 0000,1 11lIALI\1lJT/TIEDE6a0 ~u~ lL July 1. 1999 PREPARED Julia Powerff Hajduk DATE Associate Planner July 1. 1999 APPROVED BY: Richard Bewer do DATE Planning Manager i:\curplnlulia\annex\zca99-01.doc STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE 3 OF 3 ZCA 99-00001 - WALNUTMEDEMAN ANNEXATION 7/13/99 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM N0: 2 -VISITOR'S AGENDA DATE : July 13,1999 (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF CONTACTED NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC I / rt1 v6 ?1KO'Iflo ? da rh ~`'d ~10111- ~J 1, ( u~ V1- Vt co ~I w AGENDA ITEM NO. S DATE: July 13, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING - SOLID WASTE TRANSFER - SCHMIDT'S SANITARY SEWER SERVICES, INC TO TESTIFY PLEASE SIGN IN ON THE ATTACHED SHEETS pil 1,111 milli 11 r AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 PLEASE PRINT Pro nent - (S akin In Favor) Opponent - (S akin Against) Neutral Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. NJ'ke Lelc-L' er 96b 3'a-o skeJW604 UrZq~~4d Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Naive, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. ®d: Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. z # A AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 DATE: July 13, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING - (QUASI-JUDICAL) ZONE CHANGE ANNEXATION (ZCA) 99-0001 " WALNUT STIZEET% T t1DEivItAnT AVENUE EN, AnEii ruN?.tEirs i '11014 TO TESTIFY PLEASE SIGN IN ON THE ATTACKED SHEETS AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 PLEASE PRINT Proponent - (S In Favor) Opponent - S A ainst Neutral rName, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. <w AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 DATE: July 13, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 14 TO TESTIFY PLEASE SIGN IN ON THE ATTACHED SLEETS .y ti AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 PLEASE PRINT Pro nent - (S akin In Favor) Opponent - (S akin A ainst) Neutral anie, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. r Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. Name, Address and Phone No. b9tc. C.omrA Pte- AGENDA ITEM ' A DATE : July 13,189° G,Q (Limited to 2 minutes or less, please) Please sign on the appropriate sheet for listed agenda items. The Council wishes to hear from you on other Issues not on the agenda, but asks that you first try to resolve your concerns through staff. Please contact the City Manager prior to the start of the meeting. Thank you. STAFF CONTACTED NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE TOPIC ~aNDY WOOGEY, /5080 5W 79n~e ~9c/~~ ~*l.~5 ~7A~ S~MoN~ 799o o - I ss~ 97z z, . t~e~ SFa4S 7 y Ave- --7 7 111- I DANIEL W. MEEK Attorney & Consultant 10949 S.W 4TH AVENUE RECEIVED C.O.T. PORTLAND, OR 97219 JUL 131999 (503) 293-9021 FAX 293-9099 dan.meek@usa.net July 12, 1999 Bill Monahan City Manager City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 Dear Mr. Monahan: I am writing on behalf of the Citizens for Safe Water (CSW) and chief petitioner for Measure 34-8, Jim Hansen. CSW and Mr. Hansen believe that the City of Tigard is expending substantial sums of money for the preparation, printing, and distributing of literature in violation of ORS 260.432, which provides: 250.432 Solicitation of public employees; activities of public employees during working hours. (1) No person shall attempt to, or actually, coerce, command or require a public employee to influence or give money, service or other thing of value to promote or oppose any political committee or to promote or oppose the nomination or election of a candidate, the gathering of signatures on an initiative, referendum or recall petition, the adoption of a measure or the recall of a public office holder. (2) No public employee shall solicit any money, influence, service or other thing of value or otherwise promote or oppose any political committee or promote or oppose the nomination or election of a candidate, the gathering of signatures on an initiative, referendum or recall petition, the adoption of a measure or the recall of a public office holder while on the job during working hours. however, this section does not restrict the right of a public employee to express personal political views. It appears that the public employees of Tigard are opposing "the adoption of a measure while on the job during working hours" in preparing, printing, and distributing the following documents we have knowledge of: Is's E111- Bill Monahan City Manager July 12, 1999 Page 2 1. "Let's Talk About Why We Chose the Willamette River" (3-color brochure, undated). 2. "Cityscape" newsletter dated April 1999, May 1999, and June 1999, each of which contains several articles promoting use of the Willamette River for drinking water for Tigard. 3. "Tigard Plans Future Water Supplies" at hiip:iiwww.ci.tigard.or.us water quality.htm. While these publications do not explicitly ask citizens to vote no on Tigard Measure 34-8, they nevertheless violate ORS 260.432 by presenting a one-sided view of the issues. A similar situation arose in Burt v. Blumenauer, 65 Or App 399, 672 P2d 51 (1983), affirmed 299 Or 55, 699 P2d 168 (1985). Although project participants were directed by Isman and Lawrence not to advocate or solicit any particular vote on the ballot measure, defendants concede that the project communications "were one-sided and that they were purposely so." They argue that the project was one-sided only because it was the scientifically arrived at medical opinion of Isman and Lawrence that fluoridation has no disadvantages, only advantages. Isman and Lawrence were well aware of the restraints placed on political activity by statute but considered that it was their duty as doctors and public health officials to publicize the benefits of fluoridation. 65 Or App at 404. Here, employees of the City of Tigard may well believe that using the Willamette River for drinking water is the superior alternative. But ORS 260.432 prohibits the use of public money for disseminating this point of view, when there is a ballot measure pending. Once a measure has qualified for placement on a ballot, ORS 260.432 effectively prohibits public employes from promoting or opposing its adoption during working hours. Although officials and employes of the agency might possess valuable expertise and information, when an issue that an agency views as strictly a matter of medical science has become a ballot measure, the agency may not participate in the debate using public time or funds, even if what the agency sees itself as doing is merely providing the public with scientifically verified information or merely continuing an ongoing activity of the agency. 65 Or App at 406. Bill Monahan City Manager July 12, 1999 Page 3 The Oregon Supreme Court in Burt v. Blumenauer 299 Or 55, 699 P2d 168 (1985), concluded that the penalties of ORS 294.100 apply to expenditures that violate ORS 260.432. ORS 294.100 provides: 294.100 Public official expending Money in excess of amount or for different purpose than provided by law unlawful; civil liability. (1) It is unlawful for any public official to expend any money in excess of the amounts, or for any other or different purpose than provided by law. (2) Any public official who expends any public money in excess of the amounts, or for any other or different purpose or purposes than authorized by law, shall be civilly liable for the return of the money by suit of the district attorney of the district where the offense is committed, or at the suit of any taxpayer of such district.... Consequently, CSW and Mr. Hansen request that the City of Tigard cease the preparation, printing, or distribution of documents that advocate use of the Willamette River for drinking water, until the election on Measure 34-8 has taken place. CSW and Mr. Hansen also requests that you provide copies to CSW and Mr. Hansen of all other documents prepared, printed, or distributed by the City of Tigard, or with the use of funding by the City of Tigard or the efforts of employees of the City of Tigard during working hours, which discuss future drinking water supply alternatives and mention the use of the Willamette River for that purpose. They also request an accounting of all City of Tigard funds used to prepare, print, or distribute the 3 publications listed earlier in this letter. Sincerely Pnie. Mee cc: Jim Hansen 11348 S.W. Ironwood Loop Tigard, OR 97223 '4 Tiverd Gaza Parade RECEIVED C.O.T. July 02, 1999 JUL 07 1999 Mayor & City Council City Of Tigard 13125 SW Fall Blvd. Tigardy 0197223 Dear Mayor & City Council, Tigard Recreation Association, a non-profit organization, has volunteered to take on the task of planning the Tigard Daze Parade this year. We are excited about organizing this event this year. We would like to invite you to join us in the festivities. This letter is to invite you to participate in the parade that will be held on August 21, 1999. The parade route has been changed to a better and safer route, which will allow for greater spectator viewing. There will be judging for prizes and awards during the parade. We feel this will be a ' great way for your company or group to support it's community. Enclosed you will find your parade application. Please complete and return no later than July 31, 1999. Please note there is no entry fee for individuals or nonprofit groups, all business' and commercial companies will need to pay a $25.00 entry fee. We look forward to seeing you in the parade! Thank you, n Tigard Recreation Association and our dedicated volunteers. TRA Message Line: 524-8794 or LaJeana Poppert: 620.8833 - i va gaze, parotde_ Tigard Recreation Association P.O. Box 2308M e PAR4DEAPPLICAT1oN SPONSORED BY TIGARD RECREATION ASSOCIATION DA7F Saturday, August 21, 1999 FEES TIME' Check-In 9:OOAM INDIVIDUALS & NON-PROFITS Parade starts at 10:OOAM Rain or Shine!! NO CHARGE PLACE Tigard City Hall on SW Hall Blvd. BUSINESS & COMMERCIAL ROUTE North on Hall, West on Commercial, South on Main Street $25.00 East on Burnham, South on Hall Back to City Hall. Make checks payable to: APPLICATIONDEADLINE JULY31,1999 Tigard Recreation Association LNDEMNITY HOLD HARM [LESS AGREEMENT This indemnity and hold harmless agreement is entered into this day of , 1999 by and between (participant) and the Tigard Recreation Association (TRA). For purposes of this agreement, "IRA" means all officers, directors, agents, volunteers, employees, contractors, insurers and all others who may be claimed to be liable because of their association with TRA; and "participant" includes the participant entity and each individual associated with participant or otherwise involved in the event in connection with participant; "the event" means the Tigard Daze Parade and all activities in preparation for, conclusion of, and departure from the parade. Participant hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the TRA from all claims, actions and liability arising in any way from participant's involvement in the event, including attorney fees. By: Print Name: (Signature) Date: ACTING FOR SELF or AS AGENT FOR: ***NOTE: TIIIS DISCLAEKER MUST BE SIGNED BEFORE APPLICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED*** NAME of ENTRY (Individual, Company, etc.) Check one: Individual Non-Profit Business/ Commercial-Note EEE above Person Responsible: Mi ailing Address: City Zip Daytime Phone: Evening Phone: Entry Type (Circle one) : Float Equestrian/Individual Equestrian/Group Pooper-Scoopers Animal Entries (excluding Equestrian) Band Drill or dance team Youth Organization Auto-antique(pre 1948) Auto Classic(1948-1975) Auto-decorated Auto-Misc. Bicycles i Motorized Vehicles(Farm Equip., Trucks, Vans, Busses) Novelty Kids Open Class Other i i DESCRIPTION OF ENTRY: APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN YOUR ENTRY: APPROXIMATE LENGTH: WIDTH: OF ENTRY TYPE OF VEHICULAR POWER: ENGINE HORSE PEOPLE DIRECT INQUIRES & RETURN APPLICATIONS TO: TIGARD RECREATION ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 230854 Tigard, OR, 97281 **Note: Parade judging will be done along the parade route, and awards will be presented at the end of the parade** a, Ct MEMORANDUM W is /Ci9, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Monahan DATE: July 13,1999 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, July 1999 - September 1999 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. Jul * 20 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.' * 27 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting August * 10 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session -Business Meeting * 17 Tues Council Workshop Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 21 Sat Tigard Recreation Association Parade (10:00 a.m.) * 24 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting. September 6 Monday Labor Day holiday City Offices Closed *14 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting * 21 Tues Council Workshop Meeting (6:30 p.m.) * 28 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting 1 Aad m\cathy\cound1\ccca1.doc Council Tentative Agenda g1101199g 'Business yr Due; 't 129199 0'112'1199 _ ~usiueSStud~sio~: Due; 7115199 oYksh°P cdy►on aaonplan 120199 W Em 1o ee coo ens 11$199 of sr _LindaDavis Discussion TOP ession foI Due acs r1i~0~ ecutive S pro ram date 5 s Stud 1st on A en ew Ado t-A-Stream omh' tm PrO camU p Atfalat►Feasibili N cli -G min. tialRec ~op5eltf A~e1isla. 30 USA_24mm Dave 13icoli - on - 1Zesiden = Act Ptesentati emd S cies w1 P1aMU' once State Endue uace Task p Director Bob ice Washu► tons ctiv, d Met toun ~oveser~ L Nicholson - h lace; what a CQ seO Age° AetPlannm lfrj~ ommission -Why stds pre m p c e u e l x a year P ho~ tanO a acmes with TTr C Ti Tangle Plan ow success stopes. Occ to to Couuc~l for ups 10 nnn. inM~ung `'olunteeTS - Sc Council D , CS s sio acdYOUtn 6115199 etz el Area 1~ Tem OT S~ n Ctdmance - tes gusiu5't~ wall Amex Service " 2a mu public Kea ezket, T~ and B~ fn l.~iet S ouncil Liason ReP°rts c Tentative Aden Coiincr ' 14199 91 e. 912(99 ;y Du 812411999 - business SQ Due 8117,199 811"7199 °r to _ ,a,._ (tome Trainin Due; 815199 f ~.a ra A ends Ci {E►op~oP1~ Brown ]st item on iew -Roxanne m CouMCA Goa] gventPro , Discuss Comint1°i ules{gg0 ends en- Copse3 ell Grouts , Cocil Minutes Tent. A Re on - Lore Calendar Reviev+ CO~-pCominin lin A rove cil & Fite: COQ - A~- - tialRec Clio Receive & ts• Reso]ution Residen antis 'Y Commission A sew Ptannii' - mutes or rlicoli)? Con ocess (May to ComPlaint Pr prdinance Rewri gusinessT~' s~ 9th Avenue f. B>g cable - Loreenf Lix 15 V ision U date on Meeting " subrnitta] of CDBG Pxo' act ass. $eso Ork authonti'n A lications Boy]e Annexati°n Steev-eo Ai'nexanon T r~ -Muslim 00000 ..,c raQ r . AGENDA ITEM # 3. 2 G FOR AGENDA OF 7/13/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Accept Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1998 PREPARED BY: Liz Newton L DEPT HEAD OK k/Pb!V'\ CITY MGR OK 1~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Accept the Government Finance Officers Association's Certificate of Achievement for City of Tigard's Financial Report for the Fiscal Year that ended June 30, 1998. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and file item. A new plaque was received and will be displayed in the Town Hall. INFORMATION SUMMARY See the attached letter from Stephen J. Gauthier and Award of Financial Reporting Achievment presented to Wayne Lowry, Tigard Director of Finance. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES N/A L•WDMCATHY\C0UNCII.1 FOA.DOC 1 ' GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 180 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois 60601 Jun 2, 1999 312/977-9700 - Fax: 312/977-4806 The Honorable James Nicoli Mayor City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223-8199 Dear Mayor Nicoli: We are pleased to notify you that your comprehensive annual finan- cial report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1998 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement- is also presented to the individual designated by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned the certificate. Enclosed is an Award of Financial Reporting Achievement for: Wayne Lowry, Director of Finance. The Certificate of Achievement plaque will be shipped under sepa- rate cover in about eight weeks. We hope that you will arrange for a formal presentation of the Certificate and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement, and that appropriate publicity will be given to this notable achievement. To assist with this, enclosed are a sample news release and the Certificate Program "Results" for reports with fiscal years ended during 1997 representing the most recent statistics available. We hope that your example will encourage other government offi- cials in their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excellence in financial reporting. Sincerely, GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Ste p h n J. Ga i er Director/Technical Services Center SJG/ds WASHINGTON OFFICE 1750 K Street, N.W. Suite 650, Washington, OC 2000EI 202/429-2750 9 Fax: 202/429-2755 The Godernment Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada presents this AWARD OF FINANCIAL REPORTING ACHIEVEMENT to: Wayne Lowry Director of Finance City of Tigard, Oregon The Award of Financial Reporting Achievement is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association to those individuals who have been instrumental in their for Excellence Financi government unit of Achieveme tt is; pre pre Achinteevernentd to those government units whose Reporting. A program standards and represents the rnm n f nandCiato adhere to l reporting. an awed int reports highest award Executive Director Date June 2, 1999 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF July 13,1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Appointments to the Library Board PREPARED BY: Susan Koeppin W/1 DEPT HEAD OK -CITY MGR OK films-~ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Appointments to the Library Board. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution reappointing Larry Beck to the Library Board and appointing Anne Braun and Ken Tolliver to the Library Board. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee interviewed candidates for openings on the Library Board. Attached is a resolution which, if adopted, would approve the appointments recommended by the Mayor's Appointment Advisory Committee. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Delay action on the appointments. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal: City will maximize the effectiveness of the volunteer spirit to accomplish the greatest good for our community. FISCAL NOTES None AGENDA ITEM # 3,4- FOR AGENDA OF July 13, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Budget Adiustment #1 to provide funding to the Tigard Recreation Association. PREPARED BY: C. Tumer C-1 DEPT HEAD OK 6 v CITY MGR OK _ ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the City Council approve a budget adjustment of $1,000 to providc funding to the Tigard Recreation Association for the operation of a parade, formally known as the Tigard Country Daze? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council consider the request for funding. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard Recreation Association (TRA) took over the planning and organizing of the Tigard Country Daze festival. The TRA did not submit a formal funding request as part of the FY99/00 budget planning process. The TRA requested $1,000 funding at the City Council workshop on June 15, 1999 to organize a parade for this annual event. The Policy limit for social agency and arts/events funding for 1999/00 was $108,000. Budget Committee granted a total of $107,960. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Deny the funding request. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES Approval of the funding request would increase appropriations in the arts/events budget unit and decrease contingency in the General Fund. SLO ~ vZ.~-cwt tL~ 71,?ol q l AGENDA ITEM # 3,4T FOR AGENDA OF 7/13/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Budget adjustment #2. increasing, revenues and appropriations for award of park feasibility study. PREPARED BY:--Q, Turner ~uU^tiL DEPT HEAD OK 7G1 t1 c~ CITY MGR OK .,:,SUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall Council adjust the General Fund budget to increase anticipated revenues by $41,500 and increasing appropriations in the Park Division contractual services by $56,500, which includes the City of Tigard contribution of $15,000. The $15,000 was appropriated in FY98/99, but never paid. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the budget adjustment be made. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the .iune 15, 1999 Council study session, Council gave staff direction to act as coordinator for the recreation district feasibility study. Acting as coordinator means collecting fees from all participating agencies, managing the contract and making payments to. the consultant, as requested. The FY99/00 budget did not anticipate the City coordinating this project, and these funds are not currently in the FY99/00 budget. Council approved a budget adjustment of $15,000 in FY98/99 for the City's portion of this project. However, these funds were never paid, and should be re-appropriated in the current year's budget. Making this budget adjustment will allow the City to recognize payments from the other participating agencies, and make appropriate payments to the consultant. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Choose not to participate in the study. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AhLD ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY H i Park & Recreation services FISCAL NOTES General Fund revenues are increased by $41,500, and appropriations in the Park division contractual services are increased by $56,500. Appropriations include $15,000 City of Tigard contribution. Milli CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION TO ADJUST THE FY99/00 BUDGET TO RECOGNIZE FUNDS RECEIVED AND APPROPRIATE THOSE FUNDS FOR A PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT FEASIBILITY STUDY. WHEREAS, City Council directed staff to coordinate the contract for a park & recreation district study, and WHEREAS, the receipt of funds totaling $41,500 from the City of Sherwood, Sherwood School District, Tigard/Tualatin School District, and the City of Durham were not included in the FY99/00 Adopted Budget, and WI-IERRAS, the total contract amount of $56,500 was not included in the Park Division budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1. The FY99/00 Adopted Budget be amended to recognize the receipt of $41,500 from those agencies participating in the feasibility study, and SECTION 2: Appropriate $56,500 in the Park Division contractual expenditures, for the total cost of the feasibility study. The City of Tigard's contribution not to exceed $15,000. PASSED: This day of 1999. Mayor - City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard iAcityMde4esolut.dot RESOLUTION NO. 99%- Page 1 AGENDA ITEM # 3 . Zo a FOR AGENDA Of' July 13. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY _ r Seal ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Award of Contract for 1999-2000 Pavement Major Maintenance Prog mi-Slwv K/ PREPARED BY: Vannie en2v EPT HEAD OK: Gus Duenas CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahan ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Re:'iBoard approve the contract award for the construction of the slung seal portion of the 1999-2000 Pavement Major Maintenance program? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the contract award to Asphalt Maintenance Associates, Inc. in the amount of $57,212.94. INFORMATION SUMMARY The Pavement Overlay Backlog list of the Capital Improvement Program lists all paved streets in the City of Tigard that need corrective and preventative maintenance. There was a backlog of $1,500,000 in FY 1997-98 for corrective overlays, repairs, and slurry seals and last year's program expended $400,000 from the $500,000 PMMP budget. The pavement overlay project and the slung seal project are bid separately to attract Contractors that specialize in the respective types of work. Proposed streets to receive slurry seal this fiscal year were drawn from the Overlay Backlog list and from the pavement management report prepared by a consultant. This year's program includes 19 streets: 70' Ave., 94' Ave., Alderbrook Place, Alderbrook Ct., Lakeside Drive, Summerfield Ct., 106''' Ave, 108` Ave., 108'h Ct., Black Diamond Way, Ponderosa Place, 115` Ave, Karol Ct., Marie Ct., Tigard Drive, Wood Place, Colony Place, Rhus Ct, and 164' Ave. Out of 19 streets to be slurry sealed, 4 streets, Rhus Ct., Colony Place, Wood Place, and 164'h Ave. are located in Washington County. Slurry seal work performed on the County roads will be reimbursed by the County through the IGA for the Urban Ser-lices Area. The bid opening was conducted on June 29, 1999. The bid results are: Asphalt Maintenance Associates, Inc. Eugene, OR $57,212.94 a California Pavement Maintenance Co., Inc. Sacramento, CA $63,098.66 Valley Slurry Seal Co. West Sacramento, CA $107,097.25 Engineer's Estimate $104,500 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None FISCAL NOTES The amount of $233,000 has been allocated from the State Gas tax revenue for the PNEAP and other street improvement projects. This amount is sufficient to award the contract for this year's PN AP - Slurry Seal project. Funding for the County Roads will be provided by the County through reimbursement in accordance with the U ban Services Area IGA. 0angWWpt99pmmpWuny%coundl summary slurry 99.doc I I i I i 3 ti AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUEIAGENDA TITLE Approval of City Manager's Employment Agreement PREPARED BY: William A. Monahan DEPT HEAD OK wm-'CTTY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Council approve a revised Employment Agreement with the City Manager. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council accept the revised Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. INFORMATION SUMMARY Annually, the City Council reviews the performance of the City Manager and makes changes to the Manager's Employment Agreement. The attached Agreement reflects the changes made to the Agreement, following discussion with the City Manager. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\CITYWIDE\SUM\CITYMGREMAGREE.DOC.DOT CONTRACT WILL BE FORWARDED IN JULY 9TH TTT.i"%,,,TC11 Tir'T1±P PAi` V'w T 7(L ,,JL/YJ JL JL LJY \ Y 1 x t/ Y RAJ Y AGENDA ITEM FOR AGENDA OF July 13. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUNIMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Cooperative Agreement Between ODOT and Citx Regarding Improvements of the SW Hall Boulevard/SW Sattler Street Intersection PREPARED BY: Rria i D, Raver DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK J- ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL A cooperative agreement has been prepared by ODOT and has been reviewed by City Staff and the City Attorney. The agreement must now be signed by the Council, City Attorney and City Recorder. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve, by motion, the cooperative agreement and authorize the Mayor, City Attorney and City Recorder to execute the agreement by signing the attached five copies of said agreement. INFORMATION SUMMARY Matrix Development, as a condition of approval for Applewood Park Subdivision, will be constructing intersection and signal improvements at the intersection of SW Hall Boulevard and SW Sattler Street. Since Hall Boulevard is a State facility, ODOT requires that a cooperative agreement be executed. The agreement for this project names ODOT, the City and Matrix Development as parties: Matrix Development is required to pay for all design and construction costs for the improvements and the City will ultimately be responsible for the costs to provide power to the signal. Both Staff and the City Attorney have reviewed the proposed agreement and find that it is satisfactory. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES The cooperative agreement states that the City will buc responsible for 100% of the costs to provide power to the signal once installation is complete and the signal is operational. OcityMdcksur dot 111111E 'NMI ,3.9 ' C~"~~ 1 rta,l a lff,~-e~m~n~5 fec Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 17156 COOPERATIVE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION FINANCE S.W. Hall @ Sattler Street This Agreement is made and entered into by and between The State of Oregon, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "ODOT"; The City of Tigard, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, acting by and through its City Officials, hereinafter referred to as "City"; and Matrix Development Corporation, who is authorized to conduct business in the State of Oregon, hereinafter referred to as "Developer". WITNESSETH RECITALS 1. SW Hall Blvd. is a part of the State Highway No. 141 (Beaverton/Tualatin Hwy.) under the jurisdiction and control of the Oregon Transportation Commission, and SW Sattler Street is a part of the City street system, under the jurisdiction and control of city. 2. By the authority granted in ORS 366.770 and 366.775, ODOT may enter into cooperative agreements with the counties and cities for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. 3. By the authority granted in ORS 810.210, ODOT is authorized to determine the character or type of traffic control devices to be used, and to place or erect them upon State highways at places where ODOT deems necessary for the safe and expeditious control of traffic. No traffic control devices shall be erected, maintained, or operated upon any state highway by any authority other than ODOT, except with its written approval. Traffic signal work on project will conform to the current ODOT standards and specifications. 4. By the authority granted in ORS 366.425, ODOT may accept deposits of money, or an irrevocable letter of credit from any person, County, City, district, firm, or corporation for the performance of work on any public highway within the State of Oregon. When said money or a letter of credit is deposited, ODOT shall proceed with the work it agreed to perform on the project. Money so deposited shall be disbursed for the purpose for which it was deposited. 5. The project, addressed below under Terms of Agreement, is to be constructed by the developer as part of the City's requirements imposed on the Applewood III Housing Development. M. C. & A. No. 17156 THE CITY OF 'fiGARD MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION NOW THEREFORE the premises being in general as stated in the. foregoing RECITALS, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1. For the -pose of providing acceptable traffic circulation patterns on public highways, City plans and proposes to install full vehicle and pedestrian actuated traixic control signals wt the intersection of SW Hall Blvd. and SW Sattler Street, hereinafter referred to as "project". Said project also includes realignment of S.W. Ross Street to meet Hall Blvd. opposite S.W. Sattler; constriction of sidewalks; drainage; striping; and signal interconnect work. The location of the project is approximately as shown on the sketch map attached hereto, marked Exhibit A, and by this reference made a part hereof. • 2. Developer shall pay all project costs for all phases of this project, at no expense to ODOT with the exception of ODOT maintenance and power responsibilities outlined under ODOT OBLIGATIONS, and at no expense to the City with the exception of City maintenance and power responsibility outlined under CITY OBLIGATIONS. 3. This agreement shall become effective on the date all required signatures are obtained and shall remain in effect for the purpose of ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the useful life of the facilities constructed as part of the project. The project shall be completed within 2 calendar years following the date of final execution of this agreement by both parties. ODOT OBLIGATIONS 1. ODOT hereby grants City and Developer the right to enter onto and occupy ODOT right-of-way upon issuance of ODOT required permits, for the performance of necessary construction of the project and installation of the traffic signal equipment. 2. ODOT's District Manager/or designee shall, at project expense, issue the required permits, and review and concur with the project plans and specifications. 3. ODOT's 'T'raffic Engineer/or designee shall, at project expense, review and concur with all traffic signal design plans and specifications provided by the Developer prior to advertisement for construction bids. 4. ODOT's Roadway Engineer/or designee shall, at project expense, review and concur with the project plans w d specification-s. 2 INN NEI M. C. & A. No. 17156 THE CITY OF TIGARD MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 5. ODOT's Region Manager shall, at project expense, assign a Project Manager to review and cor_--ur with the project plans and specifications; and to provide material testing and technical inspection to insure ODOT standards are met, and to monitor the traffic signal and roadway work performed by thc Developer, or its contractors, within the boundaries of the Hall Blvd. roadway right-of-way. ODOT will provide general oversight of the roadwork, but the Developer shall perform all roadwork technical inspections and contractor coordination. ODOT's Region Manager shall also, at project expense, assign a certified Signal Inspector to monitor the traffic signal work. 6. ODOT's Traffic Signal Services Unit shall, at project expense, perform the signal equipment environmental testing, field testing, and turn- on in accordance with the current ODOT procedures. 7. ODOT shall, upon execution of this agreement, forward to the developer a letter of request for an advance deposit in the amount of $12,000 for payment of ODOT's estimated costs described above. Requests for additional deposits shall be accompa...e,d by an itemized statement of expenditures and an estimated cost to complete project services. 8. ODOT shall compile accurate cost accounting records. The developer may request a statement of costs to date at any time by submitting a written request. Upon completion of the project, ODOT shall either send to the developer a bill for the amount which, when added to the developer's advance deposit, will equal 100 percent of the total ODOT costs for project or ODOT will refund to the developer any portion of said developer's advance deposit which is in excess of the total ODOT costs for the project. 9. ODOT shall, upon completion of the project, maintain the pavement surrounding the vehicle detector loops installed on the S.W. Hall Blvd. portion of the project in such a manner as to provide adequate protection for said detector loops, and shall adequately maintain the pavement markings and signing installed on ODOT right-of-way. 10. ODOT shall, upon satisfactory signal turn on, be responsible for all required signal maintenance (including illumination of the signal, if any), develop the initial signal timing and retain complete jurisdiction and control of the timing established for operation of the traffic signals. Maintenance costs of the signal and illumination of the signal shall be 100 percent ODOT's cost responsibility. ODOT shall bill City annually for 100 percent of all power costs associated with the project traffic signal and illumination (if any). 11. ODOT's Project Manager for this project is Sam Hunaidi. 3 M. C. & A. No. 17156 THE CITY OF TIGARD MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CITY OBLIGATIONS 1. Acquisition of all necessary right-of-way and/or easements (both permanent and temporary construction) will be the responsibility of the City or its consultant (developer) in accordance with ODOT Right-of-Way Manual, Chapter 13, Policies 13.120 in particular. City shall be responsible for all costs associated with appraising and acquiring said right-of-way and easements, and should contact Region Right-of- Way Office for right-of-way advice. City and ODOT Region 1 Right-of-way office will jointly certify that all right-of-way was properly acquired prior to award of the construction contract. 2. Any right-of-way obtained by the City or developer within or abutting to ODOT's jurisdiction shall be obtained in the name of ODOT, or in the name of the City, and then conveyed to ODOT upon completion of the project. 3. City is responsible for and insures that all project right-of-way monumentation will be conducted in conformance with ORS 209.150. 4. The City shall monitor the Developer to ensure that the public contracting laws within ORS Chapter 279 are followed. 5. City shall, upon receipt of an annual billing from ODOT, pay ODOT 100 percent of the cost to provide power for the project traffic signal and illumination, if any. 6. City shall be responsible to maintain the pavement surrounding the vehicle detector loops installed in City streets in such a manner as to provide adequate protection for said detector loops, and shall adequately maintain the pavement markings and signing installed in accordance with the plans and specifications. 7. City hereby grants the Developer and ODOT the right to enter into and occupy City street right-of-way for the performance of necessary construction and maintenance of the traffic signal equipment, including vehicle detector loops. 8. City shall, to the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort Claims Act, indemnify, defend, save, and hold harmless the State of Oregon, the Oregon Transportation Commission and its members, Department of Transportation, its officers and employees from any and all claims, suits, and liabilities which may occur in the performance of this project. 9. City shall authorize execution of this agreement during a regularly convened session of its City Council. 4 M. C. & A. No. 17156 THE CITY OF TIGARD MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DEVELOPER OBLIGATIONS 1. The Developer shall, at project expense, conduct the necessary field surveys, environmental studies, traffic investigations;; identify and obtain required permits; arrange for utility relocation or reconstruction, and perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to produce plans, specifications, and cost estimates, except for the work performed by ODOT as outlined under ODOT OBLIGATIONS. 2. The Developer shall, prior to its awed of the contract, provide 4 sets of the project preliminary and final plans and specifications to ODOT's District 2A office for review and concurrence by ODOT's District Office, Region and Salem Traffic Sections, and Salem Roadway section. ODOT's prior written approval is necessary before developer's advertisement for construction bid proposals. 3. The Developer shall, upon ODOT's combined review and concurrence of final plans and at project expense, prepare the contract and bidding documents, advertise for construction bid proposals, award all contracts, pay all contractor costs, furnish all construction engineering, field testing of materials, technical inspection (except as provided for in ODOT OBLIGATIONS) and project manager services for administration of the contract. 4. The Developer shall construct the project in accordance with the requirements of ORS 276.071 including the public contracting laws within ORS Chapter 279. City shall monitor developer to ensure that the public contracting laws are followed. 5. The Developer shall design and construct to ODOT standards and conform to the Oregon Action Plan. 6. The Developer agrees to comply with all provisions of ODOT issued permits and to require its contractors, subcontractors, or consultants performing such work to comply with such provisions. 7. The Developer shall require its contractor to obtain and keep in effect during the term of lie contract, Cc-nprehensive or Commercial General Liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage. This insurance shall include personal injury coverage, contractual liability coverage for the indemnity provided under this agreement and products/completed operations liability. Combined single limit per occurrence shall not be less than $1,000,000 or the equivalent. Each annual aggregate limit shall not be less than $2,000,000, when applicable. The certificate of insurance shall include the State of Oregon, Transportation Commission and its members, the Department of Transportation, officers and employees as additional insured. The Developer shall provide a copy of the certification to ODOT prior to construction of the project. The insurance coverage shall not be amended, altered, modified or 5 M. C. & A. No. 17156 THE CITY OF TIGARD MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION cancelled insofar as the coverage contemplated herein is concerned without at least 30 days prior written notice. 8. The Developer shall, at project expense, lay out and paint the necessary lane lines and erect the required directional and traffic control signing on the project. 9. The Developer acknowledges and agrees that ODOT, the Secretary of State's office of the State of Oregon, the federal government, and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of the Developer which are directly pertinent to the specific agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts for a period of three years after completion of project. Copies of applicable records shall be made available upon request. Payment for costs of copies is reimbursable by ODOT. 10. Upon completion of the project, the developer shall submit two sets of "As Constructed" drawings to ODOT's Region Traffic Section. One set shall be full size mylars. The second set shall be half size (11 "x 17") prints. 11. The developer shall, upon execution of this agreement and receipt of a letter of request, forward to ODOT's District 2A Office an advance deposit in the amount of $12,000. Said amount being equal to the estimated total cost of ODOT provided review of plans and specifications; project monitoring; technical inspection, and signal testing and turn-on for the Project (as further described in ODOT Obligations). In the event ODOT costs exceed the developer's deposit during the course of the project, ODOT may request additional deposits. 12. Upon completion of the project and receipt from ODOT of an itemized statement of the actual total cost of ODOT's services, the developer shall pay any amount which, when added to the developer's advance deposits, will equal 100 percent cf ODOT's actual total costs of services provided for the project. Any portion of the developer's advance deposits which are in excess of the total actual cost of services provided by ODOT will be refunded or released to the developer. 13. This agreement is conditioned upon the developer obtain ding a permit to "Occupy or Perform Operations upon a State Highway". The developer, its contractors, subcontractors, or consultants performing such work shall comply with all provisions of said permit. 14. The Developer, its construction contractor, subcontractor, if any and all employers working under this agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Workers' ® Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires then to provide workers compensation coverage for all their subject workers. 6 M. C. & A. No. 17156 THE CITY OF TIGARD MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 15. The Developer shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulation, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this agreement, including without limitation, the provisions of ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.316, 279.320 and 279.555, which hereby are incorporated by reference. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the parties expressly agree to comply with (I) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Section V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659,425; (iv) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to foregoing laws; and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. 16. The Developer shall indemnify, defend, save, and hold harmless the State of Oregon, the Oregon Transportation Commission and its members, Department of Transportation and City of Tigard, their officers and employees from any and all claims, suits, and liabilities which may occur in the performance of this project. GENERAL, PROVISIONS 1. This agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of all parties. . 2. ODOT may.terminate this agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to City and Developer, or at such later date as may be established by ODOT, under any of the following conditions: a. If City or developer fails to provide services called for by this agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b. If City or developer fails to perform any of the other provisions of this agreement, or so fails to pursue the work* as to endanger performance of this agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from ODOT fails to correct suc,n failures within 10 days or such longer period as ODOT may authorize. C. If the developer fails to provide payment of $12,000.00 upon receipt of a letter of request from ODG'f. d. If federal or state, laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in Fach a way that the work under this agreement is prohibited. Any ten-nui iat@--i)ii of this agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. 7 M. C. & A. No. 17156 THE CITY OF TIGARD MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 3. If City fails to pay 100 percent of the power costs for the traffic signal and illumination, if any, in accordance with the terms of this agreement, ODOT, at its option, may pay the City's portion, seek an injunction to enforce the duties and obligations of the agreement or take any other action allowed by law. 4. This agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations,. oral or written, not specified herein regarding this agreement. tdo waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of ODOT to enforce any provision of this agreement shall not constitute a waiver by ODOT of that or any other provision. 8 M. C. & A. No. 17156 THE CITY OF TIGARD MATRIX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals as of the day and hear hereinafter written. The Oregon Transportation Commission on March 18, 1999, approved Subdelegation Order No. 2, which the Director grants authority to the Exec.Deputy Director/Chief Engineer to approve and execute agreements over $75,000 when the work is related to a project as a line item in the approved biennial budget. APPROVAL RECOMMENDED STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department of Transportation BY Region 1 Manager BY BY Exec. Deputy Director/Chief Eng. State Traffic Engineer DATE BY Dist. 2A Manager APPROVED AS TO THE CI'T'Y OF TIGARD, by d LEGAL SUFFICIENCY through i lected Off Is BY BY Asst. Attorney General ay or DATE BY City Recorder APPROVED AS TO DATE '7h.3h LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY I- C' Attorney MATRIX DEVELOP RP. DATE 07 7 ~l Bye . Title GINff 6m1'1 "G dmELcoz. Date Address: 11130 S.W. Barbur Blvd. Portland, OR 97219 9 X711115" r LL',l=iS31 Ll i Y ' bnl 36 PA cy SW PFAFFLE G ST ~ AIDE+ A A r tut Now& 4 J " 1 a. a•r f tltuo ~G~~ w BAY R ` $1 °z a ~ 3 -3Y 1!1!15 1 .t~ rt~u Q ~ . ]000 s S11 CLI i x ME ST ~ ~ _ 4 1 )000 t S~ r ► pw1 St C - - . KID Sw 'HERMM WY Sk IN ` C T s.a~ Sl! EYELAND ilk 7200 511ty0N71rA !T Q DR N y 1Rf~11. ~/d/ ,,q~ i~'.~~•. .'yV_.... ~ 11' N J, Zl 1 MSC "<i>. Sl -dJide+. S:s;' ~ ' :l yy 6071! C1R y 000 S ~ ~ f € •;y;rse ~ k'%.., F • ~ „ >y.91 Ssi11 ctR . ZIP P E a 'N ' 1 9i 6 Ys?• • ~ MAtXI16'. P~ Ll iv~'^ •i:!~~~~, ~ y v : Sfi ,o.o, )PmER St 'R d 311< YARAS rR( loco t~~ CS CC1 Q Ll 1 T"d d $ . .E 3 ► e. Sw FIR 1 t?~ / • ~'4,'{~~1 ~ ~.s 0400 -,..r~i' ~ t0• ((,~`a', ~ ~ ~ V.. 1 ~ 0, SANDBUX J G f~ nvr i At c aG. d Y t~.: ' . : J t. 91 su CT: S31 S e u ►at r ~Ut~• SNP El>Ci ST "4y L SW cr SLIELcnngg 7 7- DR 3lµ>` $a CT p~ r;'HSIIYaIfly~d~',,•'i;' ; ) CT. I 'tea U) ' og f.WA c E t:• :.y 9) - 'SST::: I iMSE CT Via' ? - ;~,Ati.. p a awn t~ -C t ~'lr rc 40 Ix 4 v. : ; a m Sj " • i' ts~NIQTA T000 6000 INE ~0 .s X91 n~iaoc BIOOO a < JS ,e ~v 3' s AD wmcs ► S11 ► Kg NJD 'a SY < < P~~' r, oct r w SY Sui(ESPfaRf 10 ' . ya 1cu a:.::; W . ^ s~ IKAL • ~ c?=gym taut ~ sT i- t t s+ Dom cf. r; nlxit cs.., sr... ~ ~ t. at.. , , sr 5w-: :s+r -t.• p•,r • ~ER w 8100 n Sk a ` .Std` - R 1R wet tUA t w cr' 12 sit ~r bti`t' t a !!q~ S~it ° ~18. j0'...r:1:''a . ' ~ A~ tit . ~ • R~., Rx ~ . . a ' ST KAEI~!LI E Q. FUIARY a SR1I 1 N r 3S .:•tt~T""~'*'*"q~EQE y8oo 'R,r. `3 U!° w„ u~' ~E 5 Off' sy~ snruc rN``• m p1fls `.:c•~SU 1 i~4 s1 S ON ST t4E, ti, URHAM" RD , ~'a at a $ x~ ~R Y AGENDA ITEM # 4 FOR AGENDA OF July 13, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update on the Washington Com1y Commuter Rail Study PREPARED BY: Jim Hendry DEPT HEAD OK C'I'MGR OK I/1Ad-N ISSUE BEFORE 1HE COUNCIL RecCive all upd"Gtc on tie- Washington_ County Commuter Rail Study. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action is necessary. INFORMATION SUMMARY The cities of Wilsonville, Tualatin, Beaverton, Sherwood, Tigard, Washington County, the Oregon Department of Transportation, Tri-Met, and Metro, with funding from the 1997 Oregon Legislature, initiated a study on whether or not a commuter rail operation in the Wilsonville to Beaverton corridor would offer a transportation solution significant enough to warrant the required capital and operating investments. No fatal flaws were found which would prevent the project from being implemented. This study constitutes phase two of the investigation for the potential of implementing a commuter rail operation in the corridor, utilizing existing railroad rights-of-way. Phase one was completed in May, 1997, and provided a preliminary assessment of the condition of the corridor rail facilities, a preliminary operation plan, estimated ridership levels, and conducted an assessment of institutional and legal issues which could potentially prevent implementation of a commuter rail operation in the corridor. Council received a project update at the conclusion of this earlier study. Elected officials from Beaverton, Tualatin, Wilsonville, Sherwood, Mayor Nicoli, along with representatives from ODOT, Metro, Tri-Met, Portland & Western Railroad, served on a steering committee that provided oversight for both phases of the study. The steering committee recommended that the findings of the study be presented to local jurisdictions and the public in coming months. The purpose of bringing this matter to the City Council is to present the findings of the study. No action is required. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not Applicable VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Transportation and Traffic, goal 2, strategy 3, explore rail commute options. FISCAL NOTES Not applicable. I:\cirywidolsumknmmuterrailsum.doc milli M e WILSONVILLE BEAVERTON COMMUTER RAIL PROJECT COMMUTER RAIL STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS City of Beaverton City of Tigard City or Tualatin City of Wilsonville City of Sherwood Washington County Metro Tri-Met Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) I, k.a Mer1o ` Z17 - . Downtown Beaverton f E 5 Washington j g care ~ Ti asd TualaAn Y Oswego i-20a f t r -S i 1~tt 3 ~a~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study, made possible through funding by the 1997 Oregon Legislature, was initiated to answer the question of whether a commuter rail operation in the Wilsonville to Beaverton,'"}~ corridor offers a transportation solution significant enough to warrant the required capital and operating cost investments. The `r> study was commissioned by jui isdietions Commuter Rail vehicle near Denny Road in Beaverton located in the eastern portion of Washington County interested in exploring all possible Previous study options for addressing the rapidly increasing A previous study titled the Washington traffic congestion on facilities such as I-5 and County Interurban Rail Feasbility Study, Highway 217. The concept being evaluated is Phase 1, was completed in May 1997. The the use of the existing freight rail line, which purpose of the study was to determine if there generally parallels I-5 and Highway 217, for were technical, regulatory or legal issues passenger rail service. which would prevent implementation of a commuter rail operation in the corridor. The Commuter rail a definition following findings were reported: Commuter rail commonly refers to passenger • No design or engineering obstacles exist rail service operated on rail lines which which would prevent a commuter rail currently or in the past have served as heavy operation in the corridor freight railroad lines. Although commuter rail • Improvements would have to be made to operations have existed for decades in some the current rail facilities. Stations, park and metropolitan areas, only recently has it seen a ride lots and a maintenance facility would substantial resurgence as regions heavily have to be built impacted by traffic congestion look for lower • The required capital costs for this corridor cost solutions. Dallas, San Diego, Los were anticipated to be near the lower end of Angeles, Seattle, Sacramento and Vancouver recent experience in implementing similar BC are but a few of the communities where projects commuter rail has recently been initiated or is • Corridor trip characteristics suggest service in the process of being implemented. The should be bi-directional service in most applications focuses on the • Commuter Rail travel time would be peak period commute, although a number of comparable to the average auto travel time mature systems offer service all day. and less than parallel bus service Commuter rail operations usually - nre • Estimated ridership of 1,820 in year 2000 longer trips and have stations sp?• -d at a and 2,290 in year 2015 is within the range greater distance than typical for a tight rail of experience of commuter rail operations system. Commuter rail cost advantages are in North America, although at the lower end the result of use of existing right of way and of the scale freight rail improvements. Vehicles used in • No legal issues that appear insurmountable commuter rail projects vary substantially, were discovered from double decked locomotive pulled units to light weight single diesel units resembling In summary, no fatal flaws which would light rail cars. prevent the project from being implemented E-I were discovered during the study completed Tualatin - serving residential and the in May 1997. The study provided the basis downtown area for a funding request to the Legislature to Tigard - serving the downtown area and undertake the current Phase II study which is the existing transit center to provide a more detailed assessment of the Washington Square - serving employment possible implementation of commuter rail in and the regional shopping center the corridor. *Central Beaverton - serving the downtown area and bus connections Project Description *Merlo Road - serving residential areas and The proposed project would run from connecting to light rail Wilsonville to Beaverton, connecting to the Beaverton Transit Center - serving the Westside light rail at one of two alternative downtown and light rail connection locations; the Beaverton Transit Center or the *only on the Merlo Road alternative Merlo Road Station. The distance is 153 miles to the Beaverton Transit Center and Corridor Condition Assessment 17.8 miles to Merlo Road. The Norther 1/3 A detailed inspection was made of the existing of the corridor is owned by the Union Pacific railroad facilities to determine the condition of Railroad (UPRR), and the Southern 2/3 by the track, crossings, bridges and structures. The the Oregon Department of Transportation. line was determined to be generally in fair to Freight rail service over the entire line is good condition for the current level of service provided by the Portland & Western Railroad. and train speeds. Stations are proposed to be located at: Capital Improvement Plan Wilsonville - serving residential and high employment areas Rail - The report identifies speck improvements required *.o accommodate a 60 mph passenger operation (75 mph South of Tualatin). Selected rail replacement and IUlerio improvements to ties, ballast, crossings and f Vf'li+3 J~7 y ` 00 - - - - - bridges/structures are identified. The plan calls Downtown for double-tracking between Lombard Street and Beaverton the Bonita crossover, and adding sidings at Washington Wilsonville and Merlo Road. Square Signal System - To improve safety and operating efficiencies, a Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) system has been assumed for the entire line. i and ' ' ` Stations - A prototypical station design was Tualatin T11 developed. Included is a 200-foot platform, a Lake sheltered waiting area, benches, information Oswego s w Wilsonville Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail corridor A typical commuter rail station E-2 system and pedestrian/bike facilities. With the would be to pursue refurbished Rail Diesel exception of the Beaverton Transit Center and Cars (RDC) which would represent the least Central Beaverton, all stations have park and cost option, if enough suitable cars can be ride spaces; 752 for the Merlo Road located. An inappropriate option, given alternative and 652 for the Beaverton Transit existing and projected freight rail operations, Center alternative. would be diesel-powered light rail cars. Beaverton Transit Center Alignment - The Beaverton Transit Center alternative Capital Cost Estimates represents a special case because it involves Cost estimates were developed based on construction of a new track alignment of current unit costs for similar construction. approximately 2,OOrJ feet between the Vehicle costs were based on the most recent industry experience. All costs are stated in intersection of the UPRR and Farmington Road and the Beaverton Transit Center. The 1998 dollars. The following tables n,ovi-- alignment would be located i.. the center of a SUMMARY OF COSTS - BEAVERTON TRANSIT CENTER ALTERNATIVE reconstructed Lombard Street and would ITEM COSTS require modification of the signals at Track, Structures, Crossing, Signal Improvements $38,726,760 Statloas, Park and Ride Lots 5,308,240 Beaverton-Hillsdale and Canyon Road and a Dispatch Center and Radio System 1,250,000 new signal at Broadway. Maintenance Facility 2,200,000 Vehicles 17,500,000 - 24,000,000 Maintenance Facility - The recommended Total Cost $64,990,000 - 71,490,000 location for a maintenance/storage facility is (1) 7 or 8 cars at a cost range of $2.5 to 3.0 Million. in Tigard, south of Hall Bivd. near Wall SUMMARY OF COSTS -MERLOSTATION ALTERNATIVE Street. The facility will be designed to ITEM COSTS accommodate inspection, cleaning, storage, Track, Structures, Crossing, Signal Improvements $36,540,000 Stations, Park and Ride Lots 6,019,000 operator report and minor maintenance Dispatch Center and Radio System 1,250,000 functions. Major maintenance functions and Maintenance Facility 2,200,000 repair are recommended to be contracted t0 Vehicles 22,500,000 - 30,000,000 Total Cost $68,509,000 - 76,009,000 outside vendors. (1) 9 or 10 can at a cost range of $2.5 to 3.0 Million. Vehicles estimates for the two alternatives under The report reviews the full range of vehicles consideration; Beaverton Transit Center and potentially available for use including Merlo Road. A range of costs were locomotive-hauled cars and self-propelled developed for the vehicle portion of the costs cars. The features and characteristics of each reflecting the limited North American vehicle type are described and estimated acquisition experience for such vehicles and procurement costs identified. Based on the fluxuation of the number of cars required. capacity requirements, operating flexibility The Beaverton Transit Center option is less and suitability for in-street operation if the expensive due primarily to the reduced length Beaverton Transit Center alternative is which requires fewer cars to operate the same selected, the recommendation is to pursue as service frequency. a first priority new FRA-compliant Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) technology. These Operations Plan vehicles are self-propelled, can ope_ate as Operating plans were developed for both the individual cars or in sets of multiple cars and Beaverton Transit Center and Merlo Road are designed to allow operation on lines with alternatives. For both alternatives, DMU existing freight ore-tion. A second choice technology was used to develop travel time E-3 and schedules. Train frequency was integrate the fare structure with the Tri-Met established at 30 minutes, in both the north system which currently would result in a flat and southbound directions. Planned service fare of $1.10. This approach would simplify hours are from 5:30 to 9:00 am and 3:30 to use of the system and emphasize the 7:00 pm. The maximum operating speed is commuter rail line as an element of an 60 mph north of Tualatin and 75 mph south integrated transportation system. Other of Tualatin. The travel time from Wilsonville potential revenue sources associated with to Merlo Station is 31 minutes with an operation of the service could include average speed of 34 mph. From Wilsonville advertising, sponsorship of vehicles or to Beaverton Transit Center travel time is 25 stations, charter operations and possibly minutes at an average speed of 37 mph. Four charges for parking at park and ride lots. train sets will be required to operate the These latter sources would likely provide a Merlo service, and three for the Beaverton marginal amount of revenue. Other items Transit Center. such as easements, fiber optics, subsurface rights and trackage rights represent potential Annual Operating Costs sources of revenues if the corridor is in public Based on the operating plan which establishes ownership and an agreement exists that such operating hours, service miles and equipment revenues would be dedicated to offsetting requirements, annual operating costs for each operating expenses. alternative were developed. Project Cost Effectiveness The operating costs are based on the current Commuter rail in the Wilsonville to ownership in the corridor. With public Beaverton corridor represents a low capital ownership of the entire corridor some cost option for providing a time-competitive operating expenses such as access fees and travel option which connects a number of the. liability insurance would likely be less than Washington County 2040 Framework Plan indicated in the following table. designated regional and town centers. The cost per route mile is substantially lower than ANNUALOPERATINGCOSTS either expanding adjacent highway facilities COSTS BTC Merlo Train operators $904,000 $1,202,000 COMPARATIVE COST PER RIDER Equipment maintenance 592000 7]7,000 Track maintenance / Access charges $341,000 $378,000 Station maintenance $385,200 $443,200 Insurance $804,000 $804,000 $35 General and administrative $850,000 $850,000 Total $3,876,200 ,394,200 $30 $25 $20 ; Operating Revenues ' The primary source of funds for operating the $1' psi..: ^r>. service other than public or public/private $10 funding sources will be the fare structure $ 5 established for users of the commuter rail $0 service. A broad range of options from no Shore Coaster Trinity Tr1-Ra11 BTC Menlo fares to a premium fare structure were "^e Cost Ealxv~~ option Option explored. The recommended option is to E-4 or building light rail. The cost of increasing successfully move ahead. The work does the system capacity would also be less than indicate that a full environmental assessment other options. Because the ridership levels are will be required. lower, the per passenger operating cost is greater than light rail, but due to the line's Institutional Considerations relatively short length its costs are less than Implementation of a commuter rail operation comparable cormuter rail systems in North will require resolution of the appropriate America. entities to serve in the roles of owner, operator and manager of the system. In many Project Funding cases the roles are split between existing The commuter rail project is potentially jurisdictions, newly formed entities and eligible for funding through numerous contractors. The most common arrangement federal, state and local sources. The study for smaller new operations such as the does not rank the project with respect to other Wilsonville to Beaverton line is to contract regional of local priorities. significant portions or all of the operating and maintenance functions. The report concludes Land Use and'Ikansportation Plans that the complexities of developing the line Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on and implementing service would be Transportation QPACT) has endorsed simplified if the entire line were under public inclusion of the Wilsonville-Beaverton line ownership. into the revised Regional Transportation Plan. The line serves the designated regional Demonstration Project centers of central Beaverton and Washington Development of a full demonstration project Square and town centers at Tigard, Tualatin is not recommended. In order to develop a and Wilsonville. The project is consistent service which reasonably representative of the with both the Portland region and State of travel time, station locations, access and Oregon policies which encourage increasing passenger amenities important to a successful the number of mobility options. A review of operation a substantial capital and operating local transportation and land use plans did not investment would be required. Excursion identify any significant conflicts with the type service such as provided on September proposed project. 12 and 13, 1998 in conjunction with the Westside Light Rail opening has helped to Envircnmental Review develop public awareness and demonstrated a The study was to determine if any "fatal public interest in such service. flaws" from an environmental standpoint exist which would suggest the project should not proceed or would require substantial expense to mitigate. ODOT and consultant team members conducted an analysis of cultural/historic resources, wetlands/water resources, threatened and endangered species, hazardous materials and 4(f) properties. None of these areas exhibited impacts which would suggest the project could not E-5 1 fr. I86th' Marto 17 Downtown Beaverton Washington ~,•r Square and ; Tua18hT LWko Oswego 1 k B R°.' 7 tt~+r A DAMES ~ MOORE GROUP ~.pNpANf / t 1 r Washington County Commuter Rail Stud - Phase II 1 May 1999 Prepared by: BRW, Inc. HDR Engineering LTK Engineering Ser<jices R. L. Banks & Associates Pittman & Haines W&H Pacific Washington County Ccmmuter Rail Study Table of Contents Executive Summary E-1 1.0 Project Background 1-1 2.0 Capital Improvement Plan and Cost Estimate 2.1 Introduction ?-1 2.2 Corridor Assessment 2-1 2.2.1 Track and Bridge Review 2-1 2.2.2 Condition Assessment 2-3 2.3 Capital Improvement Plan 2-7 2.3.1 Rehabilitation Recommendation 2-7 2.3.2 Second Main Track and Sidings 2-8 2.3.3 Train Control and Signal System 2-9 2.3.4 Stations and Park & Ride 2-14 2.3.5 Maintenance Facility 2-23 2.3.6 Beaverton Transit Center Alignment 2-25 2.4 Traffic Operations ..............................................................................................2-26 2.5 Capital Cost Estimates 2-29 3.0 Vehicle Options 3.1 Introduction and Summary 3-1 3.2 Locomotive-Hauled Push-Pull Trains 3-2 3.2.1 Cars, Single-Level and Bi-Level 3-2 3.2.2 Locomotives, New and Rebuilt 3-4 3.3 Self-Propelled Cars 3-4 3.3.1 Rehabilitated Rail Diesel Cars 3-5 3.3.2 New Diesel Vehicles Designed for North America 3-5 3.3.3 New Diesel Vehicles Based on Off Shore Designs 3-6 3.3.4 Diesel-Powered Light Rail Vehicles 3-7 3.4 Estimated Capital Costs for Rolling Stock 3-7 3.5 Recommendations .......................................................3-8 4.0 Operations Plan and Operating Costs 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Methodology 4-1 4.3 Running Time/Speed 4-3 4.4 Schedule ...............................................................................................................4-6 4.5 Siding Requirements 4-12 4.6 North Terminal 4-12 4.7 Equipment Requirements 4-13 i 4.8 Maintenance/Layover Facility and Deadheading 4-13 4.9 Operating Cost Estimates 4-13 4.9.1 Cost Components 4-15 4.10 Bus Coordination Plan .......................................................................................4-17 4.11 Bus Service Cost Estimation 4-24 5.0 Revenue 5.1 Fare System and Fare Collection 5-1 5. 1.1 Fare Structure 5-1 5.1.2 Fare Collection 5-3 5.1.3 Fare Policy and Collection Summary 5-4 5.1.4 Fare Recovery Ratio 5-4 5.2 Revenue from Non-Passenger Sources 5-5 5.2.1 Trackage Rights Compensation 5-7 5.2.2 Non-Passenger Revenue Summary 5-7 6.0 Project Cost Effectiveness 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 Project Cost Effectiveness 6-1 6.2.1 Capital Cost Comparison 6-1 6.2.2 Other Issues 6-4 6.2.3 Comparison to Other Commuter Rail Operations 6-6 6.2.4 TIP Process 6-8 6.2.5 Summary 6-9 7.0 Land Use and Transportation Plans 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Compatibility with State Transportation Plans, Policy and Programs 7-1 7.3 Compatibility with Regional Land Use and Transportation Policy and Plans 7-1 7.4 Compatibility with Regional Transit Service Plans and Programs 7-2 7.5 Compatibility of Commuter Rail with Local Comprehensive Plans 7-3 7.6 Compatibility of Commuter Rail with Local Transportation Plans 7-3 7.7 Station Area Considerations 7-4 7.8 Locations of New Track Alignment 7-5 7.9 Impact of Commuter Rail on Freight Rail Operations 7-5 8.0 Environmental Review 8.1 Introduction 8-1 8.2 Potential Impact Areas 8-1 8.3 Environmental Issues ...........................................................................................8-1 8.4 Methodology/Data Sources 8-2 8.4.1 Findings 8-2 8.5 Next Steps 8-4 ii 9.0 Institutional Considerations 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Organizational Arrangements ..............................................................................9-1 10.0 Demonstration Project 10-1 Tables go 2-1 FRA Track Class Standards 2-2 2-2 Existing T rack Classifications of Proposed Alignment 2-3 2-3 Park and Ride Lots 2-22 2-4 Summary of Costs - Merlo Station Alternative 2-30 2-5 Summary of Costs - Beaverton Transit Center Alternative 2-30 3-1 Principal Characteristics of Single-Level Cars for Commuter Services 3-3 3-2 Principal Characteristics of Bi-Level Cars for Commuter Services 3-3 3-3 Principal Characteristics of Rail Diesel Cars 3-5 3-4 Principal Characteristics of Proposed North American DMUs 3-6 ® 3-5 Principal Characteristics of Off-Shore DMU for Commuter Services 3-6 3-6 Principal Characteristics of Light Diesel Multiple Units 3-7 3-7 Summary of Commuter Rolling Stock Types and Costs 3-8 4-1 Phase I Report Operations Scenario 4-1 4-2 Operating Scenario Options 4-2 4-3 Options Characteristics 4-2 4-4 Commuter Rail Running Time Analysis - Beaverton Transit Center to Wilsonville...... 4-4 4-5 Commuter Rail Running Time Analysis - Merlo Road to Wilsonville 4-5 4-6 Cycle Time Analysis 4-6 4-7 Beaverton Transit Center Schedule 4-8 4-8 Merlo Road Schedule . . 4-9 4-9 Annual Operating Costs 4-14 4-10 Summary of Feeder Bus Operating Costs 4-24 4-11 Feeder Bus Capital Costs ...............................................................................................4-24 5-1 Faze Collection at Comparable Commuter Rail Services 5-1 6-1 Capital Costs Comparison 6-2 6-2 Cost Per Route Mile. . 6-2 6-3 Future Improvement Costs 6-3 6-4 Relationship of Stations to Regional and Town Centers 6-6 8-1 Preliminary Environmental Analysis 8-3 8-2 Permits/Clearances ...........................................................................................................8-3 9-1 Op?ortunities and Responsibilities of Service Sponsor, Manager, Operator and Owner 9-3 9-2 Sponsoi•/Manager/Operator/Owner Institutional Arrangements - Generic Variations 9-7 9-3 Sponsor/Manager/Operator/Owner Institutional Arrangements - Partnership Variations9-8 iii Fi res 1-1 Proposed Commuter Rail Corridor 1-3 2-1 Washington Square to Merlo 2-10 1 2-2 Tualatin to Washington Square 2-11 2-3 Wilsonville to Tualatin 2-12 2-4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Potential Baseline Station Locations 2-18 2-5 Typical Platform Layout 2-21 2-6 Maintenance Facility Vicinity Map 2-24 2-7 Maintenance/Storage Facility 2-25 2-8 Beaverton Transit Center Alignment 2-27 3-.' Cab-Equipped Coach 3-2 3-2 Bi-Level Car 3-2 3-3 Comtemporary Diesel Locomotive 3-4 3-4 Flexliner Diesel Trainset 3-4 3-5 Rail Diesel Car 3-5 3-6 DMU 3-5 3-7 European Diesel Cars 3-6 3-8 Specialized Articulated Car 3-7 4-la Commuter Rail Schedule Chart - Beaverton TC to Wilsonville 4-10 4-lb Commuter Rail Schedule Chart - Merlo Road to Wilsonville 4-11 4-2 Operating Cost Components - BTC 4-16 4-3 Operating Cost Components - Merlo Road 4-16 5-1 Right of Way Components and Prospective Owners 5-6 6-1 Trainset Productivity 6-6 6-2 Comparative Cost Per Rider 6-7 6-3 Comparative Cost Per Train Mile 6-8 9-1 Opportunities and Responsibilities of the Manager 9-4 9-2 Opportunities and Responsibilities of the Operator 9-5 9-3 Opportunities and Responsibilities of the Owner 9-6 Appendices A Rail Consist & Recommendations B Crossing Surface Replacements C Crossing Protection Improvements D Bridge Repair/Replacement Costs E Beburg to Greton 2"a Main Track F Tonquin Siding * Wilsonville Siding H Line Segment Estimates I Rail Station Identification Notes J Workshop No. 1 Notes K Workshop No. 2 Notes L Brochure Provided to the Public at the September 12 and 13 Westside Light Rail Opening and Historic Coach Rides from Beaverton to Wilsonville iv r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study, made possible through funding by r the 1997 Oregon Legislature, was initiated to answer the question of whether a commuter - - ' rail operation in the `Arilsonville to Beaverton corridor offers a transportation solution significant enough to warrant the required ^3- capital and operating cost investments. The r study was commissioned by jurisdictions Commuter Rail vehicle near Denny Road in Beaverton located in the eastern portion of Washington County interested in exploring all possible Previous study options for addressing the rapidly increasing A prsvious study titled the Washington traffic congestion on facilities such as I-5 and County Interurban Rail Feasbility Study, Highway 217. The concept being evaluated is Phase 1, was completed in May 1997. The the use of the existing freight rail line, which purpose of the study was to determine if there generally parallels 1-5 and Highway 217, for were technical, regulatory or legal issues passenger rail service. which would prevent implementation of a commuter rail operation in the corridor. The Commuter rail a definition following findings were reported: Commuter rail commonly refers to passenger • No design or engineering obstacles exist rail service operated on rail lines which which would prevent a commuter rail currently or in the past have served as heavy operation in the corridor freight railroad lines. Although commuter rail • Improvements would have to be made to operations have existed for decades in some the current rail facilities. Stations, park and metropolitan areas, only recently has it seen a ride lots and a maintenance facility would substantial resurgence as regions heavily have to be built impacted by traffic congestion look for lower • The required capital costs for this corridor cost solutions. Dallas, San Diego, Los were anticipated to be near the lower end of Angeles, Seattle, Sacramento and Vancouver recent experience in implementing similar BC are but a few of the communities where projects commuter rail has recently been initiated or is • Corridor trip characteristics suggest service in the process of being implemented. The should be bi-directional service in most applications focuses on the • Commuter Rail travel time would be peak period commute, although a number of comparable to the average auto travel time mature systems offer service all day. and less than parallel bus service Commuter rail operations usually serve • Estimated ridership of 1,820 in year 2000 longer trips and have stations spaced at a and 2,290 in year 2015 is within the range greater distance than typical for a light rail of experience of commuter rail operations system. Commuter rail cost advantages are in North America, although at the lower end the result of use of existing right of way and of the scale a freight rail improvements. Vehicles used in • No legal issues that appear insurmountable commuter rail projects vary substantially, were discovered from double decked locomotive pulled units to light weight single diesel units resembling In summary, no fatal flaws which would light rail cars. prevent the project from being implemented E-1 r were discovered during the study completed Tualatin - serving residential and the - in May 1997. The study provided the basis downtown area for a funding request to the Legislature to Tigard - serving the downtown area and undertake the current Phase H study which is the existing transit center to provide a more detailed assessment of the Washington Square - serving employment possible implementation of commuter rail in and the regional shopping center the corridor. *Central Beaverton - serving the downtown area and bus connections Project Description *Merlo Road - serving residential areas and The proposed project would run from connecting to light rail Wilsonville to Beaverton, connecting to the Beaverton Transit Center - searing the Westside light rail at one of two alternative downtown and light rail connection locations; the Beaverton Transit Center or the *only on the Medo Road alternative Merlo,Road Station. The distance is 153 uiilca to the Dcaveitoil 1iausit Veutei and Comer Condition Assesmnent 17.8 miles to Merlo Road. The Northern 1/3 A detailed inspection was made of the existing r of the corridor is owned by the Union Pacific railroad facilities to determine the condition of Railroad (UPRR), and the Southern 2/3 by the track, crossings, bridges and structures. The the Oregon Department of Transportation. line was determined to be generally in fair to ]Freight rail service over the entire line is good condition for the current level of service 14 provided by the Portland & Western Railroad. and train speeds. Stations are proposed to be located at: Capital Improvement Plan Wilsonville - serving residential and high employment areas Rail - The report identifies specific improvements required to accommodate a 60 I-i SSt' mph passenger operation (75 mph South of iR9®rio Tualatin). Selected rail replacement and ~y H 'e improvements to ties, ballast, crossings and 9htivay - 17 bridges/structures are identified. The plan calls Beaverton for double-tracking between Lombard Street and M1h the Bonita crossover, and adding sidings at Washington Wilsonville and Menlo Road. scluare Signal System - To improve safety and operating efficiencies, a Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) system has been assumed for the entire line. ~9 Stations - A prototypical station design was Tua developed. Included is a 200-foot platform, a ~ln To sheltered waiting area, benches, information Os„, ego t~ 205 l . i ~sj J ~-S ~N•sr riville r Wilsonviile to Beaverton commuter rail corridor A typical commuter rail station E-2 system and pedestrianibike facilities. With the would be to pursue refurbished Rail Diesel exception of the Beaverton Transit Center and Cars (RDC) which would represent the least Central Beaverton, all stations have park and cost option, if enough suitable cars can be ride spaces; 752 for the Merlo Road located. An inappropriate option, given alternative and 652 for the Beaverton Transit existing and projected freight rail operations, Center alternative. would be diesel-powered light rail cars. Beaverton Transit Center Alignment - The Capital Cost Estimates Beaverton Transit Center alternative represents a special case because it involves Cost estimates were developed based on construction of a new track alignment of current unit costs for similar construction. approximately 2,000 feet between the Vehicle costs were based on the most recent intersection of the UPRR and Farmington industry experience. All costs are stated in Road and the Beaverton Transit Center. The 1998 dollars. The following tables provide alignment would be located in the center of a suMMARY OF COSTS - BEAVERTON TRANSIT CENTER ALTERNATIVE reconstructed Lombard Street and would ITEM COSTS require modification of the signals at Track, Structures, Crossing. S4al Improvements $38,726,760 Stations, Park and Ride Lots 5,30b.2W Beaverton-Hillsdale and Canyon Road and a Dispatch Center and Radio System 1,250,000 new signal at Broadway. Maintenance F ' 2,200,000 Vehieks 17,500,000 -14,000,000 Maintenance Facility - The recommended Total cow $64,990,000 - 71,490,000 location for a maintenancelstorage facility is (1) 7 or 8 can at a east range of$2.5 to 10 MMIm in Tigard, south of Hall Blvd. near Wall SUMMARY OF COSTS - MERLO STATION ALTERNATIVE Street. The facility will be designed to ITEM COSTS accommodate inspection, cleaning, storage, Track, Stractnre4 Crossing. S4pal Improvements $34540,000 operator report and minor maintenance Stations, Park and Ride Lots 6,019,000 Dhpateh Center and Radler System 1,2K090 functions. Major maintenance functions and Maintenance Facnity 2,2(10, 00 repair are recommended to be contracted to vehieks 22,500,000 - 30,000,000 outside vendors. TOW Cost $68,509,000 - 76,009,000 . (1) 9 or 10 ears at a coat range of $2S to 3.0 M=m Vehicles estimates for the two alternatives under The report reviews the full range of vehicles consideration; Beaverton Transit Center and potentially available for use including Merlo Road. A range of costs were locomotive-hauled cars and self-propelled developed for the vehicle portion of the costs cars. The features and characteristics of each reflecting the limited North American vehicle type are described and estimated acquisition experience for such vehicles and procurement costs identified. Based on the fluxuation of the number of cars required. capacity requirements, operating flexibility The Beaverton Transit Center option is less and suitability for in-street operation if the expensive due primarily to the reduced length Beaverton Transit Center alternative is which requires fewer cars to operate the same selected, the recommendation is to pursue as service frequency. a first priority new FRA-compliant Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) technology. These Operations Plan vehicles are self-propelled, can operate as Operating plans were developed for both the individual cars or in sets of multiple cars and Beaverton Transit Center and Merlo Road are designed to allow operation on lines with alternatives. For both alternatives, DMU existing freight operation. A second choice technology was used to develop travel time E-3 and schedules. Train frequency was integrate the fare structure with the Tri-Met established at 30 minutes, in both the north system which currently would result in a flat and southbound directions. Planned service fare of $1.10. This approach would simplify hours are from 5:30 to 9:00 am and 3:30 to use of the system and emphasize the 7:00 pm. The maximum operating speed is commuter rail line as an element of an 60 mph north of Tualatin and 75 mph south integrated transportation system. Other of Tualatin. The travel time from Wilsonville potential revenue sources associated with to Merlo Station is 31 minutes with an operation of the service could include average speed of 34 mph. From Wilsonville advertising, sponsorship of vehicles or to Beaverton Transit Center travel time is 25 stations, charter operations and possibly minutes at an average speed of 37 mph. Four charges for parking at park and ride lots. train sets will be required to operate the These latter sources would likely provide a Merlo service, and three for the Beaverton marginal amount of revenue. Other items Transit Center. such as easements, fiber optics, subsurface rights and trackage rights represent potential Annual Operating Costs sources of revenues if the corridor is in public Based on the operating plan which establishes ownership and an agreement exists that such operating hours, service miles and equipment revenues would be dedicated to offsetting requirements, annual operating costs for each operating expenses. alternative were developed. Project Cost Effectiveness The operating costs are based on the current Commuter rail in the Wilsonville to ownership in the corridor. With public Beaverton corridor represents a low capital ownership of the entire corridor some cost option for providing a time-competitive operating expenses such as access fees and travel option which connects a number of the liability insurance would likely be less than Washington County 2040 Framework Plan indicated in the following table. designated regional and town centers. The cost per route mile is substantially lower than ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS either expanding adjacent highway facilities COSTS BTC Merio Train operators $904,000 $1,202,000 COMPARATIVE COST PER RIDER Equipment maintenance 000 717,000 Track maintenance /Access charges $341,000 $378,000 station maintenance $385,200 $443,200 Insurance $804,000 $804,000 $35 General and admbdstradve 5850,000 5850,000 i Total 53,876,200 394,200 $30 $25 i $20 Operating Revenues $15 The primary source of funds for operating the service other than public or public/private $10 funding sources will be the fare structure $5 established for users of the commuter rail $0 service. A broad range of options from no Sh COWOW T&AY Tea,,, ~ fares to a premium fare structure were Ev- explored. The recommended option is to E-4 or building light rail. The cost of increasing successfully move ahead. The work does the system capacity would also be less than indicate that a full environmental assessment other options. Because the ridership levels are will be required. lower, the per passenger operating cost is greater than light rail, but due to the line's Institutional Considerations relatively short length its costs are less than Implementation of a commuter rail operation comparable commuter rail systems in North will require resolution of the appropriate America. entities to serve in the roles of owner: operator and manager of the system. In many Project Funding cases the roles are split between existing The commuter rail project is potentially jurisdictions, newly formed entities and eligible for funding through numerous contractors. The most common arrangement federal, state and local sources. The study for smaller new operations such as the does not rank the project with respect to other Wilsonville to Beaverton line is to contract regional or local priorities. significant portions or all of the operating and maintenance functions. The report concludes Land Use and Transportation Plans that the complexities of developing the line Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on and implementing service would he Transportation (JPACT) has endorsed simplified if the entire line were under public inclusion of the Wilsonville-Beaverton line ownership. into the revised Regional Transportation Plan. The line serves the designated regional Demonstration Project centers of central Beaverton and Washington Development of a full demonstration project Square and town centers at Tigard, Tualatin is not recommended. In order to develop a and Wilsonville. The project is consistent service which reasonably representative of the with both the Portland region and State of travel time, station locations, access and Oregon policies which encourage increasing passenger amenities important to a successful the number of mobility options. A review of operation a substantial capital and operating local transportation and land use plans did not investment would be required. Excursion identify any significant conflicts with the type service such as provided on September proposed project. 12 and 13, 1995 in conjunction with the Westside Light Rail opening has helped to Environmental Review develop public awareness and demonstrated a The study was to determine if any "fatal public interest in such service. flaws" from an environmental standpoint exist which would suggest the project should not proceed or would require substantial expense to mitigate. ODOT and consultant team members conducted an analysis of cultural/historic resources, wetlands/water rosources, threatened and endangered species, hazardous materials and 4(f) properties. None of these areas exhibited impacts which would suggest the project could not E-S i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ Chapter 1.0 1 ~ Project Background 1 1 e t NONE i 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND This study was commissioned to provide the basis for answering the question of whether or not a commuter rail operation in the Wilsonville to Beaverton corridor c yrs a transportation solution significant enough to warrant the required capital and operating investments. The study is sponsored by the cities of Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, Wilsonville and Sherwood, Washington County, Tri-Met, Metro and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Washington County and the Oregon Department of Transportation have served as project managers. Funding for the study was made available by the 1997 Oregon Legislature, with the funding administered through the Oregon Department of Transportation. This study constitutes Phase Two of the investigation of the potential of implementing a commuter rail operation in the corridor utilizing existing railroad rights of way. The Phase One study was completed in May 1997, providing a preliminary assessment of the condition of the corridor rail facilities, a preliminary operating plan, estimated ridership levels, and an assessment of institutional and legal issues which could potentially prevent implementation of a commuter rail operation in the corridor. The following findiiAgs were reported in the study report: • No design or engineering obstacles exist which would either prevent or require extraordinary capital expenditures to place into operation a commuter rail line in the corridor. • Implementation of a commuter rail operation would require improvements to the existing trackwork, signals, switches, crossings, and crossing warning devices, as well as the construction of stations, park and ride lots, a maintenance facility and passenger amenities. • The capital costs to implement a commuter rail operation in the corridor were anticipated to be toward the lower range of recent experience in implementing similar projects. • The trip characteristics of the corridor suggest that service be designed as a bi- directional operation, with some service provided beyond the normal peak periods. • The projected travel time from Wilsonville to Beaverton is comparable to the average auto travel time and substantially less than existing parallel bus service. In addressing the issues of ridership and the possible impediments that might be encountered from a legal perspective, the following conclusions were drawn from the study: • Projected daily ridership levels of 1,820 in year 2000, and 2,290 in year 2015, are within the range of experience of other commuter rail operations which have been initiated in North America in recent years, although at the lower end of the scale. • No legal issues that appear insurmountable were discovered. There will be issues to overcome in securing operating rights from the railroads, addressing 1-1 liability issues, developing an administrative organization and securing funding. These are all issues that have been successfully addressed in other rail start-up projects. In sum, no fatal flaws were uncovered which would suggest implementation of a commuter rail line in the Wilsonville to Beaverton corridor is not possible. The current study is to define project costs, benefits, impacts and the requirements for successful implementation. The study provides the basis for comparing the required investments for the commuter rail with other proposed transportation investments within the region. The study specifically addresses the following areas: • Identification of all capital improvements and equipment requirements to operate the defined service and an estimate of the capital costs. • Preparation of a refined operating plan and development of an operating cost estimate. • An identification of operating revenues and potential sources of funding for both the operating and capital requirements of the project. • An assessment of those environmental elements considered critical in the implementation of the project. • An identification of the benefits and impacts of a commuter rail operation in the Wilsonville to Beaverton corridor. • An identification of the consistencies and inconsistencies with local- transportation and land use plans and required permitting requirements. • An outline of the institutional and implementation issues associated with introduction of a commuter rail operation. • Recommendations regarding the potential for a demonstration project. The current study reflects a desire on the part of the sponsoring agencies to explore a range of possible transportation solutions to the rapidly increasing traffic congestion being experienced in the eastern portion of Washington County. The worsening situation is in part due to the increasing population and employment levels in tb~ area, the lack of expanded highway facilities, and the lack of effective mass transit service in the corridor. Within the corridor, I-5 and Highway 217 now operate at or above optimum capacity much of the day and neither can be expanded to increase capacity without considerable expense. With projections of worsening congestion in eastern Washington County and the recognition that no single mode can be expected to adequately address the pending demand, the jurisdictions sponsoring the study have committed to explore creative transportation solutions within the corridor. In particular, interest is focused on maximizing the use of existing transportation facilities such as the existing highway facilities and, in the case of commuter rail, the utilization of existing freight rail facilities. The commuter rail operation under consideration would make use of existing rail facilities between Wilsonville and Beaverton, a distance of approximately 18 miles. The rail lines run generally parallel to Highway 217 and I-5 and currently handle the freight operations provided by the Portland & Western Railroad (P&W). The corridor's underlying ownership is held by 1-2 IMMI the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in the northern portion of the corridor and the Oregon Department of Transportation (right of way) and P&W (track) in the southern portion of the line. Figure 1-1 illustrates the proposed commuter rail corridor under consideration, as well as the general station locations. Stations are currently planned at Wilsonville, Tualatin, Tigard and Washington Square. Two alternatives exist for the northern terminus of the Project, both of which provide a direct connection to the Westside light rail. The Merlo Road alternative terminates at the Merlo Road Light Rail Station and includes a station in downtown Beaverton. The second alternative terminates the line at the existing Beaverton Transit Center. Figure 1-1 185th 26 Merlo Src i-Jeghwray 217 Downtown DownWm ~rrerton Washington l-5 S mare rd 99} Tula n To Lam 99'0000ee":~ ozWIW 1-205 i-5 B9sonvelfe 1-3 a ~ Chapter 2.0 1 ~ Capital ~ Improvement Plan ~ and ~ Cost- Estimate i 1 1 B 1 2.0 CAPITAL IlVIPRO'VEVIENT PLAN AND COST ESTIMATE 2.1 EVTRODUMONI This chapter identifies the capital costs of implementing commuter rail service between Wilsonville and the Beaverton Transit Center or alternately the Merlo light rail station. The first section assesses the condition of the track and bridges along the line. The second section identifies improvements required to operate commuter rail service in the corridor. The third section discusses traffic considerations. The fourth section provides estimates for the capital costs of implementing a commuter rail option in the corridor. 2.2 CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT 2.2.1 Track and Bridge Review This section reviews the condition of the track and infrastructure along the railroad line from Wilsonville near the 5th Street crossing to both the Beaverton Transit Center and the Merlo Road alternatives for a northern terminus. The purpose of the review was to establish the improvements required to provide safe and efficient commuter rail operations. Currently, the route is used exclusively for freight operations at relatively low train frequencies. Train speeds on the former Oregon Electric Railroad (OE) track segments are 30 MPH for freight. Freight train speeds on the former Southern Pacific Railroad (now Union Pacific) between Greton and Beaverton are the same. The line is generally in fair to good condition for the level of service provided and the current train speeds. In the modeling for the study, it was identified that the maximum operating speed would be 75 mph south of Tualatin and 60 mph north of Tualatin. Frequent passenger trains traveling at speeds up to 75 mph require track ane structures built and maintained to higher standards in order to assure safe and efficient operations ar_d to reduce maintenance costs and train delay due to maintenance activities. Track maintenance standards in the railroad industry are maintained and enforced by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). These standards regulate the speed at which freight and passenger trains can operate based upon the condition of the track. Table 2-1 shows the classifications and allowable speeds. The current track classifications on the subject line segments are shown in Table 2-2. The classification system is generally regarded as the maximum speed allowable based on measurable track parameters. If there are other conditions that mandate a lower speed such as a restrictive curve, then the lower speed will dictate; however, the track will continue to be maintained at the FRA class of track specified. 2-1 Table 2-1' FRA Track Class Standards Maximum Speed Maximum Speed Class of Track Passenger (mph) Freight (mph) Excepted Not Allowed 10 1 15 10 2 30 25 3 60 40 4 80 60 5 90 so 6 110 - 7 125 - 8 160 - 9 200 - Table 2-2 Existing Track Classifications of Proposed Alignment Class Of Track Segment Track Wilsonville to Greton (former OE) 3 Bonita Road to Greton (UP) 3 Greton to St. Mary's Junction (UP) 3 St Mary's Junction to Merlo Station (former OE) 3 This study assumes that all track and bridges would be upgraded to Class 4 standards to provide for smooth, efficient and safe operation. The condition of the line and the proposed improvements are spelled out in detail in the following section and appendices. 2-2 2.2.2 Condition Assessment It should be noted that this assessment uses standard engineering terms for bridge and track conditions, running from "very poor" to "very good". These levels are relative and are meant to indicate the type and use a railroad facility can be put to. "Poor" conditions are safe for everyday use, but at a lower speed. Merlo Station to St. Mary's This track segment is 1.41 miles long and extends from near Tri=Met's Merlo Station (current end of track is equal to Oregon Electric (OE) milepost 2530) to St. Mary's Junction at OE milepost 26.71, where it ties into the Union Pacific Railroad's (UP) Tillamook Branch, operated by Portland & Western Railroad (P&W). All but the end of the track near Merlo Station was constructed in 1984 as a connection to track that became isolated when the former OE track between Greton and Cedar Hills Boulevard in Beaverton was abandoned. The right-of-way on this portion of the segment is owned by the State of Oregon, the track structure is owned by P&W, and the line is operated by P&W. This track segment is classified as FRA Class 3 track. In general the condition of this track segment is "very good" with the exception of a few hundred feet near Merlo Station. The rail consists primarily of 115-pound jointed rail with some 112 and 136-pound rail (see Appendix A for a listing of rail weights).. This rail is in "good" to "very good" condition. Tie conditio.~.-, in this track segment are also "good", with only 1001o of the ties being defective ca incapz bte of withstanding the forces associated with mechanized surfacing and lining operations. Ballast conditions are also "good". Ballast consists of crushed quarry stone (basalt) that appears to meet AREA specifications for main line ballast. There is only one at-grade road crossing on this track segment, which is located at Millikan Way (see Appendix B for a listing of road crossings and crossing surfaces). The Millikan Way crossing surface is rubber. It is in a deteriorating condition and the surface should be replaced before commencing commuter operations. The crossing is protected by cantilever flashing light signals and gates. Crossing circuitry should be modified to accommodate higher train speeds as indicated by the proposed commuter rail operation. There are three bridges in this segment. Two of the bridges are relatively new concrete ballast deck bridges and are in "good" condition. The 56-foot long timber pile trestle spanning Cedar Mill Creek near Merlo Station is in "poor" condition and will require replacement prior to commencement of commuter operations. This segment would not require upgrading should the Beaverton Transit Center become the northern terminus of the proposed commuter service. 2-3 St. Mary's to Lombard Street i This track segment runs from St. Mary's Junction UP milepost 756.94 to UP milepost 75539 just south of Lombard Street in Beaverton. It is a portion of UP's Tillamook Branch line now mow' operated by P&Wi7 This track is also classified as FRA Class 3 track. In general, the condition of this track segment is "fair" to "good". The rail consists entirely of 132-pound continuous welded rail (CWR) in "fair" to "good" condition except through some of the road crossings where there is 113-pound rail, No rail replacement is rPrn1ired at this time., however, wherever cross ng surfaces are replaced the rail should be upgraded to 132-pound rail. Tie conditions are "fair" to "good" with approximately 30% of the ties either defective or incapable of withstanding mechanized surface and lining operations. Ballast conditions are "fair". Some ballast near crossings in Beaverton has been fouled from the pumping of fine grade soils up through the ballast. There are seven ma or at-grade public crossings and one private at-grade crossing. Two asphalt crossings and one rubber crossing need replacement. In addition, two of the crossings need their rubber surfaces extended to include sidewalks (see Appendix B for details). Most of the crossings in Beaverton need signal circuitry improvements (see Appendix C) to allow higher speed operation and to effectively interconnect them. The cantilever flashing light signals and gates at Murray Boulevard require replacement to bring them up to current standards. There are no bridges in this track segment. The roadbed could benefit from some drainage improvements between the crossings in Beaverton. This segment would not require upgrading should Beaverton Transit renter become the northern terminus of the proposed commuter service. Lombard St. to Greton This track segment runs from Lombard Street UP milepost 75539 to UP milepost 751.39 at Greton (near Tiedeman Road), where the former OE Railroad that once ran from Eugene to Portland (now operated by the P&W to a location just north of Salem) connects to the UP. This track is also classed as FRA Class 3 track. In general, track conditions in this section are "good". The rail consists of 132-pound CWR with a small amount of 115 and 136-pound rail, most of it in "good" condition. Tie conditions are "fair" to "good" with less than 25% of the ties defective or incapable of withstanding the forces associated with mechanized surface and lining operations. Ballast consists of crushed quarry stone (basalt) that appears to meet AREA specifications for main line ballast and is relatively clean. Track sixfacing ranges from only "fair' to "very good„ 2-4 There are four at-grade crossings in this segment. The rubber crossing surface at Hall - Boulevard is bebrnning to deteriorate and should be replaced. Dakota Street is an asphalt crossing and should be ungraded prior to commencement of commuter operations. Signal circuitry on 5th Street, Hall Boulevard, and Scholls Ferry Road will require upgrading to safely allow higher train speeds. There are three bridges in this track segment. The bridge over Fanno Creek and the pedestrian underpass OE milepost 752.10 are timber pile trestles in "fair" condition. The bridge over Ash Creek is a steel pile trestle. Both timber bridges require replacement with double-track bridges as part of the capacity improvement program associated with the implementation of the proposed commuter rail service. It may be difficult to add a second bridge adjacent to the existing one at Ash Creek and, therefore, replacement with ? double track bridge is included in Luc cost estimates. Near the intersection of Lombard Street and Farmington Road, a new track would depart from the northern end of this segment (at or near the north end of Beberg Siding), and extend approximately 0.4 miles through the center of Lombard Street, terminating at a platform on the edge of the Beaverton Transit Center. The description for this alternative track extension has been included in Section 23.6. Greton to Tualatin This segment consists of portions of two branch lines. One is a continuation of the UP's Tillamook branch from UP milepost 751.39 to UP milepost 749.95, where there is a crossover to the OE. The other is a portion of the OE that extends from Greton OE milepost 31.28 to Tualatin-Sherwood Road in Tualatin at OE milepost 36.05. The right-of-way on this portion of the segment is owned by the State of Oregon, the track structure is owned by the P&W Railroad, and the line is operated by the P&W Railroad. The UP section of the track is in "fair" to "good" condition. It consists almost exclusively of 132-pound CWR and jointed rail in "good" condition. Tie conditions are "fair" to "good". Approximately 25% of the ties will need replacement during surfacing and lining operations. The ballast consists of crushed quarry stone (basalt) that appears to meet AREA specifications for main line ballast, and is relatively clean. Track surfacing ranges from "fair" to "good". The OE section of the track is in "fair" condition except for the Tigard Siding, which is in "poor" condition. The rail consists almost exclusively of 112-pound jointed rail. Much of this rail is older than 1960, and some of it is in only "fair" to "poor" condition. Tie conditions are also "fair", with approximately 400!0 of the ties requiring replacement during surfacing and lining operations. Ballast consists of crushed rock ballast in "fair" condition. 2-5 EMMA There are three public at-grade road crossings on the UP section of track, and six public and - four private crossings on the OE section. Two of the private crossings will be retired due to a shifting of mainline track that is part of the station construction at Tualatin. All but one of the remaining crossings are asphalt or plank and they should be replaced. Five crossings require replacement of automatic crossing protection (see Appendix C for details). There are no bridges on the UP section of track. The OE section of tracks includes bridges over Fanno Creek and the Tualatin River. The bridge over Fanno Creek is a timber pile trestle. The approach spans to the Tualatin River Bridge are also timber pile trestles. The Tualatin River Bridge is a steel through-truss and, while it appears to be in "good" condition, should be scheduled for painting. The existing timber trend are in "fair" concditictin and regular inspection and maintenance could extend their life. However, due to the difficulty of bridge replacement under commuter rail traffic conditions, it is recommended that they be repl- aced with concrete trestles. This will promote efficient and uninterrupted operations. Tualadu to Wilsonville This track segment runs from Tualatin-Sherwood Road in Tualatin at OE milepost 36.05 to 5th Street (1/3 mile south of Wilsonville Road) in Wilsonville at OE milepost 42.99. This track is also owned and operated by P&W; the right of way is owned by the State of Oregon. Track conditions are generally "fair". The rail is primarily 112 pound, with 115-pound turnouts. Tie conditions are only "fair"; approximately 50% of the ties are defective or incapable of withstanding the forces associated with raising, surfacing and lining the track. Ballast consists mostly of crushed quarry stone (basalt) that appears to meet AREA specifications for main line ballast and is relatively clean. However, some of the ballast was crushed from rounded river rock, and this rounded rock is inferior ballast. We recommend that this ballast be left in the track, but that care should be taken during surfacing and lining operations to mix it with sufficient "good" crushed ballast, Track surfacing ranges from only "fair" to "good2% This segment contains ten public and seven private at-grade crossings. Most of them are asphalt or plank, and are in "poor" to "fair" condition. Twelve crossing surfaceswill need replacement (see Appendix B for detail). Four of the private crossings, as well as the crossing at 5th Street in Wilsonville, will require installation of flashing light signals and gates. Fight of the crossings will require signal circuitry improvements (see Appendix C for detail). There are six bridges in the track section, four of which are timber pile trestles that should be replaced. 2-6 7 2.3 CAPITAL IMTROVRNIENT PLAN 2.3.1 Rehabilitation Recommendation Bail The rehabilitation cost estimates include replacement of. 1) all rail under 112-pounds 2) all 112mound rail over 40 years old 3) some rail through at-grade road crossings The cost estimates also include welding of all jointed rail. The actual segments of rail to be replaced should be based on a thorough evaluation of rail laying records and rail flaw detection. Therefore, it is recommended that rail flaw detection records and tests be used to establish the most cost effective use of rail relay dollars. Welding of jointed rail will substantially decrease maintenance and improve ride quality. In addition, it is recommended that all rail remaining after relays be surface-ground or profiled. This will increase rail life, decrease maintenance costs, and improve ride quality. We recommend replacement of all defective ties and all ties not capable of withstanding the forces associated with surfacing and lining operations. The track will require surfacing as described in the following section. Ties with insufficient spike holding capacity will stay down during mechanized surfacing operations and require hand labor to bring them to track grade. Such ties increase the cost of surfacing operations and negatively impact the track profile and cross level characteristics. Therefore, cost estimates for replacement of all ties that are defective or incapable of withstanding the forces of surfacing and lining have been included in the cost estimates. These ties should be replaced prior to the initiation of the surface and lining program. BRUast The entire length of track will require surfacing and lining to meet the surface smoothness requirements of the FRA, and to provide a comfortable ride. In general, ballast conditions are "fair" to "good"; therefore, a track surface and lining operation incorporating a four-inch raise should be sufficient to provide the desired track characteristics. In some locations, especially between Lombard Street and Greton, a two-inch raise may suffie . Care should be taken to maintain the minimum acceptable vertical and horizontal clearances during the four-inch lift associated with the surfacing program. 2-7 Crossinga All asphalt crossing surfaces will require replacement to accommodate surfacing and !fining operations; therefore, their replacement has been included 'in the cost estimates. Concrete crossings provide the most cost 4_ y effective and maintenance free surface. Cost estimates have been prepared assuming concrete L surfaces will be used. Where replacement of _1 IMMM~EWMAM ruDDer or plank crossings is ruquired, concre'to crossings have also been estimated. ODOT Rail Division staff have provided crossing protection improvement recommendations and the cost estimates incorporate those recommendations. $T~dges Most of the timber trestles on this line are more than 40 years old. In most cases the piling has not been replaced. Consequently, many of the pilings contain some interior rot at or above the ground line. Inspection of timber pile near the surface but below the ground line is difficult, but frequently this is the most critical zone for timber rot. In addition, visual inspection reveals that many of the secondary members of these trestles contain significant surface rot. Experience has shown that tim'oer bracing is frequently rotted in and around bolt holes. It is our opinion that the additional lateral forces associated with higher speeds could cause undesirably large lateral deflections that could lead to accelerated deterioration of the trestles. These lateral deflections and the consequent additional stress placed on the piling are also a safety concern. Also, maintenance and replacement of timber bridges would be difficult to perform after commuter rail traffic is instituted. Therefore, replacement of all timber trestles has been included in the cost estimates (see Appendix D). The truss span over the Tualatin River exhibits substantial rust and is in need of repainting to arrest section loss of the members. Painting and minor repairs to this span have been included in the cost estimates. 23.2 Second Alain hack and Sidings 1zoub&-Trackin9 Between Lombard Street to Bonita Crossover Operational flexibility and schedule reliability will be achieved through construction of strategic sections of double main line and sidings. Extending the Beburg Siding south approximately 13,700 feet and connecting it at Greton will create a segment of double-track over five miles in length. A new Beburg siding will be constructed to replace car storage lost when the existing siding is converted to a second main line. A new double-track bridge will be constructed over Fanno Creek, and a second track added to the bridge over Ash Creek. Universal crossovers will be constructed south of the Denney Road overcrossing and at Greton. 2-8 i Also at Greton, the double-tracking project will tie into the existing OE and UP mainlines, - extending the useable portion of double track to the crossover at Bonita. See Appendix E for a detailed breakdown of costs. Tonquin Siding An intermediate siding is recommended in the vicinity of Tonquin. The most likely location for it is south of Tonquin Road, opposite the Morse Brothers asphalt plant. This location will require some property acquisition. This is perhaps the only location in this section of the corridor where wetland impacts can be avoided. See Appendix F for a detailed breakdown of costs fur this addidonal siaiug. Wilsonville Siaing Approximately one mile of second main track is recommended from the Wilsonville Station north to Boeckman Road. This second main line will extend across Wilsonville Road and Barber Street. Some right-of-way acquisition and utility relocations will be required to allow track construction. See Appendix G for a detailed breakdown of costs for this siding. Figures 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 illustrate the commuter rail corridor and the location of double tracking and sidings required for the commuter rail operation. 23.3 Train Control and Signal System General Rail operations would be under the direction of the dispatcher at the host railroad's central control facility. Dispatchers direct train operations in accordance with established operating rules, procedures and time tables, and initiate corrective action when necessary to maintain the - service schedule and minimize adverse impacts of equipment failures or emergency situations. They also control the general oversight and management of train operations, especially at junctions, passing sidings, terminals and turnbacks, and govern train movements between yard and main line. The signal system communicates information on train control from the dispatcher to the operators, assuring proper train separation, regulating train speed, and allowing efficient operation at junctions and sidings. Such systems are developed to fail-safe principles based on vital signal circuit design and components. Two types of signaling systems were reviewed for this project. 2-9 I" J .WEfS - Ii+'. A'y• ~ rt Q C .+,~F' 1Y v , V,iil z s ~'rF, A~ r ,ri~.; r /X~; Yr a ✓ s r✓'r, ~ ~ V F , R" aj kn.. 1 ~ r ?r r ' 4 .4, ti r ~ C~hI 1 t1 h/ ~ k r r tY. t N 1 rl Y! f 1 tl y y . /t„' ?r 4,1-"tk~ +~e ~ lY,'~~~ .''Yfu ?L S°3' ~1t e+ s y~• v ~ WASHINGTON SQUARE STATION 'tr r'','`"r aka r d 1`~ L4tl A/' ti n~ y'sY`a2 t T A^u r v f / ' 'tr~F grF: Jr, > « f^tioi .a, a \ r / r ryy ~ +c'•<, ^~>ti"x . v ~kFh' ayd ty P T; ,k 1, ' i ` '4/,~ s . ia,~ s t~•"-~, , x •t. r c M i T¢ e r d^y •s « x; W S~^ r. w •Gt C `rW 1Y0. k3ry r r'r ; n'r b r'^, , r DOWNTOWN BEAVERTON STATION t 1z I n. a a ti, sa c ri fa a m?^ 1. it ',t6r t t e. lr• fs r, gu 2 r 'N'. /1 1 I~, N xt h t rr: n, r tr r, 7w\ f 6 n',~ an ti ° ~ :,•rv-0 su'' st ,'r' +,4 ~ 0.r ra. ~ ~d ~ y ~ w 5 i r ~ j ' ~R y: ~ G> x3" w ~iqy„ ' r , ? j,~c P4 NI OJ' h ~ I~.•~~•~ , ':.~~i Sr,lla.~ ~~ar~`~~C yyti i• r', r`~a•Aa r. ~ f7" ~ 7~ :Jf ~ Ql(/O a.~ anM*~ ~r ~t ~r A "J'• t 1 '1J M, ,;Yr ~ ~ a,K y~~r ''!Y I ,F w ~,s, r ~'r h.•F fi. :a $n c r rs 'i. ',y n r ` ~F• •Q.P ^+S .,h r ':','r "G r \ b "r f . d, tit4 ! , v.: ,CS1• L~' c e ro t' y~ ERLO ROAD STATION pK + {t r v r r,.\ y, 4 tt:.r $k.. I v 'z~ '7':. fi ,~;d• °,q is rr y. 'd, rd ~u ✓1, i;wr C.. 3n f !"Ytb., y }"J ri R t of^d~" ? r7 $ IAY 4y f vT,!/,r , -,a y, ,•a /J i6 0,! r rw r\~ a?, t 'Ss.t J~v 'a t• :i 'r.C .~'~`i r :r V~rm1`~,! a✓o " ',,yo o d,r ' ' C$ t ai,~ `f -:'y ' ce,~0.~'~ $`,;,<.,,i, °.,r,.. 'N,•vM1 •F \ 4 . ~ F% s~ g ~ M \ ~ .u• ~r7 9r y a r 't, ~ h,~, ' +rk , 5 o~' s .r t t x t A\ r' r F ' rr, w 'k : - a ♦ "v. ? ~ ~ F'T q : t.~; i ~ 1 nr Y d . > Y °13e 24,: r s a ' w.., ,Mt 51 r 01 .1 'jd,' n r ~pM1 ! r (I, uY ri "'4' y?,,`+@ r . p, > y j 1 1 4 R ~ 4 k' r ed .r'$" o a ay t,•.+J(?a,J,. Q .~q/', rz WESTSIDE LRT ALIGNMENT w r ' - ~§r,e•A r "r se F ~'vr :..y, n' yllas 0 is ,I t . l r \v yF, 't~ 171JIL ! a k ^ r. Ay't a r xr~ $'7h, r t S,y 1~ ~8d r r yr, *q a '1 M1 1~ Lip'. LEGEND r r1 ° ; 1 a y 11 " y BEAVERTON TRANSIT CENTER STATION ° - - ° PROPOSED TPACKAGE a 5y0 'k ¢F' lT POTENTIAL SITE OF STATION POTENTIAL SITE OF MAINTENANCE FACILITY '4 r r, s , .k,~4'' /k C1 tt1 BASEMAP BY DELORME ' No. 6ote By Chk. Redalons Deelgned BY' 5wle; Sheel Na: Rev, 10300 SW coo ROAD I"°200° WASH I NGTON COUNTY 3 Ora" By. S= !OD - Rename: H"R P0RAANO,OR27223 Ilxnc COMMUTER RAIL LWEST 0~ - - Checked By. HDR Engineering, Inc. Contract No: - Drawing No: - Approved By. Buomlltatl: Approved: - Date; Date: WASHINGTON SQUARE TO MERLO FIGURE 2-1 ZZ= 9-I&-g8 Da , Z PARK dG RIDE RELOCATED TRACK w x w t" YREfS ~ 1 -Z4 MAP2 ( I~'$~'i 't 11 t' x rL9G1. Mc I ~ 99 IM 1 } Iltr '1 ~F t~ g ALBERTSON TIGARD TRANSIT CENTER tttcr < 37d:'. 0 STATION SITE TIGARD STATION a maro t POTENTIAL h OG j)A r r tV ~f a N F t o A d y a ~ f n f `\ti N r y I: F r e d b r f ~ k 1, rn..T e i le aP Not, kip,313''r ; . r;rpt m~ pp Y (-TUAIATIN STATION o n "s > y 3\` ~a ll'C f l TI x 91 TLTBtF. AY' dSt~ a TIGARD °rr 'r .r! r k' r6lgr,, i'- t 1 4 / ` 'Gr; •i_', 7 7 tKS AV ,r,r + s':. ~ Ntst r r ~A•GA ry r~, ` "rte ~ 1 k's~ t;fEr'E-'.UW A r .:.I' ttA a K;•fia 1 Dt ~1'' d s tom' 4~.r d~r+t'{' . x I c + We 'f t,,,• ~T tia ~ i"! kG I•u: }u,•,,'', .f w i ; l p'.A ` S. 3 t,. Y >4 SN:. Ilt,~v, t TWUTIN:j, t i X11, A •kW t,i:~ ,rya r: r a 61P :18.i'. .t 'r + U rf it. re "v _ r FN tD•,r ~v: '~r~ ;h Ir,, . I~ f t q ~g~„ y :i•1 . ~ 6 t : . ,e: 4:7 t r :i 1 ' " oX: 'G L ~ ^'4 I!t .~s ~ s tc'-, I` k' ~ ~ O aa3,; ..,',.i ut..~,,, ~ t' ~J i~ ,•.t;' ,~,zr' .'2t' t sGCq Y c, ` ` k , r ~S d s 1 4 d 8 q fd h a tir. Y J r`i'' F O' NJ~ y S.. /y G) s+~V S ~l 1 ta, ?ir r i; NP ¢ a b,,: ;p^,t ',~i to '1 ,ir, ft "'•y c{+ t N i-:: 9 r': r !,a" 4< rey SS-711: it:. 9 W r•~, V:.;:.1 n (rn WAt d- d : z a! n >r ~ 'il ~ ~ ~ v v ~ r~ a 7~.~ a~ Q a ~n~ ,:.F.: ) ~,:SN pry y.:yrtt v-.~: ~ G ,',F n :.~9 '~,£7q.' 'Al~,~"~ ~ rl~•'; 1 ~ 'i w wn. • 9.,~ °M ~ :::i rvl4 ~ ~ ~~:R y F: ~ ~ ~ > a , ~ rt Y. ~ ~ a ~ .v ~ :r, YJL'1 4 ~U ~ i... N. r a / . I:;.l h^ r J Y+ C .i n -r i :,x y,,:t` y L r Nw 31 P e r v.31 , 'FY, en':f r rf 5.. be M~. . .:`p' { . .l,l.: d I n, F < a'tr', y0. •1: . ;L,.Y v ` id CL,o-: aV. ,G G"4N 4: N TIC `l rs' v s v 1 pI`a{ T: w F ko t~x`Id'a BI dQr r x `~NLVP ~i, b, = 0 r ykU 6 e y !r~' .•IIIWt { t : `may' v r b d^ :h .G t ( y t D'ir,Y- - ~`I ~rI'~ ) Bsl A r'. r rh,~ , NI~:•. 1, r f e r ~ , y, f rf! Zh rJ,' S1' 1 ~;Z•., r yi~Nr { i t 'S_' : ¢ 1P~' k 1 Iz { ya a d~ y c,1; bTr'~ N3 G',SIIII~ iN1Tl1w~Z1+I '+P to t •n 'ar Y' r n ,a N> x oaf `'`f,`""D n71 t >,.i r 3 :S t •PY„:d n ~ _ V;Y+ '~q~ Jer " t L fS.~~ ~ .u' ~ ~ ~~67i 1 ry r ~tt k RN F k y r a: gV}D'• I t 1 d 4:' J s sia 6 .R r~ ^I} t ` 9 'q o1SI Ar. 3; r f % 77 •I y ` ' ' , . wrtl? f - 4,. k ie. { v t . a ,'i 4? ql 9n : J>1y ,y; ~f SIk i"lN P9 ° y 1 . ~ A' - ~ s ' ~ e' rh A '.,,tl Iol 1 3 . ; 1~~ ~ re , ~ IA• : , v 'C, s vl c x ~ A ~ s SdOwE FE j, Si _ sp p, `~~n'ytN^1 ^{30}/`1. Pr r~':'~ .ka; ar Syr F P~y A~ ~ ae ~ d ~ r r/ f I~'t: zn aV-, A t r 771 r:ti° ' 1 n~µ~$a, a'~`~\ soa+oo k su 1Tl1C LEGEND 77-77. 7- is r 7.77 G 1 b1 7 05'" l1NC ° A4 ka rv - - - - PROPOSED TRACKAGE Al (YA It\l Al! yr r'~ ' POTENTIAL SITE OF STATION bK•th r x 1 F A r.~ POTENTIAL SITE OF MAINTENANCE FACILITY 41 ;C t51i' u91 : }Y dpi e' ' .M. 1v I' BASEMAP BY DELORME 77-Date BY Chk. R"sions Designed By. - Scale: Shoot No: Re, Q - 10300 SW GRMNMG ROAD I "m2ooo' WASHINGTON COUNTY 2 R Drown By. SUTE GGD Flename: L WEST PORTLAND, OR9M3 IIX17B COMMUTER RAIL Checked By. (SO3) TBB-370G 9300 HDR Engineering, Inc. Contract No: Drawing No TUALATIN TO WASHINGTON SQUARE FIGURE 2-2 Apprawd By. Submitted: ale. Approved: 10 to; Date; g-is-ge 1 I . I STORNEST TONOUIN SUNG I 'W's ~y l? W:4 c g~2F j ; . gp V y 9 WILSONVIl1E STATION j 1 ".@ I IL ~g" S \v r m e ys" 1,4~~ . " 1 4' k.. x ,'9 r r -i ERTSBN Tb. x rir r 4 tt' S y r q fl, ti r ~~r'i AacW ^.~1 r'~ ' Jti ! Ce' 1 NY r,o yr fg r.. C3g ...r..~ 'q ~e: 1 5 9M:y . tX t,7Rt'I' ~:r^Y . r''Cb M~,y. R ]tOfN. . I': '3..- '9 't' sN n k' S L " I .1 !Q-1 I ` 5. ~;,a > "r Vii, _ L 13~";v rj r~i ' . : ~ : , ~ : ~ . . . . I . ~ . . , ~ d ~t ruyi r A i xVfIL3d}0'16.r "'a 4 sP- ~R, !l rh: ,r r r? 'ia ':I ® ~i. I 5 NP. l , n y(y ° yam, 4M4 1 t, S j „ , "f~1 ~,'f i ~U' 2 - Af K~v:.~ .v m rye,,. G+7, Aft _ >M ~DV,t,P y5.I ~1vy . ..P, , I R . 1A A,r :f 4 r 0, ' n s I .',r ,.fi, Lad 1~S,H' ' V„, t.: 1 B I $ e N ..,Rid j 'j~+l,f a+ MP.42.: r t '~,la "'.r '+1 11rw: +d;; '.t,1r 't kr A V kr :e - ~•.I y~..~ 1:~'. r i , , ,,n I I ':f~,as. a ` a JfsD a : ,4th ~,y : AY-. ✓rlr~ 'k n NtitrlHC f -I r ^I•L' I s , / ` ^r a, '•r; !I }had • P `y I ~r:!~:': JI r46(; t., ,rn..'" r s. t~,~ars"L ai y t - i~ t" 'rwY,: •mk : .yq .D yIS "b t \ . , a e r v WAY , '1 ! Co 'MJ ,r 130+06:1 sy I ti ' . aY ¢s 't,Lll < .1 r Rtlt >P :Z',e .4,.'~;n .p , ~v I :.t' r n'"i@ 9n. z K _ -r 4G4r': 4 w , J`{ I ft ./Q•,. a. t~~15 ~t~ I: S t; t1, r r":~ ~g 7,, I I'm 'I t v,"r1 ,•S 5 .,SyN fl .y~':•.~ 'V"' - .i,.;l } j :.;....~c~ ~ . a f - yF 4 ,ubt Y , "C VT q o: zK. d7L7~ S~b j Ire 1r vr" ra, 4,. 5Y9~' 4. Ny'tt.,,r E? j., Tr' x h ~ ' 1 ,1\~~,;a N I'y.~R'vl y3~. y rf•: n.1 l { .`.d :i 'sic. ~~M117.f ..v Wl_n~ is {i TO:. r w, ~N A9l,M C i h 'ram 1a1f'Cui . 111111. 1, s e• t ti A4 . A.4 DMvIr .,V1F.6t1 ' .b4 .w :,I v f a e y 1 v:, ^rot'0 ~R-r ,y.., k 'b fib„ 4 h t ; ~`y fit, IV . ^;.W r~ _Z".. - i 4,Y,' 'w' ,1,, r r. , ) #g ,J a ~x r ; a h ..L, b R v l 7whs . 3 fs5 w. r x>nrrr I -1. c ~ % Y: y t e Y;. t dE' 'S w F r9 I At . }•.t r ;j ':W! x ~ 'I rTwV. r +7' 4,. « w f .JF .v 5 ' wre, ..,1, n' 'J.:~h', ✓ s , . .6 ~a• / ;tGI A. ,fin n+ fin, . t. a rrt r'' +.1 A' i.G"r, ,`ss - 11 < n . ...9..', b_ h n 'A'': eN i :g- f :ik h A5: - a'a'• „y * , kl(((. i @ AYw ,,C y, 7 , r i.' ;ter y; ti.. 4y~ C, f fi r a F r r . V f t y i^ f R3 C. y u yr4 rg, p JfN !e I~ x :t " ' ' j..:,14~'- ' : , , , " 1.0 . breT' u z ,a A - cwr~ uN fu .p a 4 ry :y , C r i aAY'4 fh.a1 Z _ X 1 1 Y r Ir! 1 m' !P. :r` ~ « f., A ~L 5el BDTH~U; t ; e _ ` . v I t it _ t ?y1N 1 Jz. A~. . 1. ; I ~ 0 : . : ` I ' ?x ;3j E - 'F4 I •$v Y 1XI . LEGEND A IE - tit? fir f . : . -17 ar: PROPOSED TRACKAGE . :k ,s ~y"t i POTENTIAL SITE OF STATION hnJ POTENTIAL SITE OF MAINTENANCE FACILITY W a" Ih py t BASEMAP 8Y DELORME , r - No. Data By Chk. Te slans - Designed By. Scale: ~ Sheet No: Rev. I I h'V]R IOM SW OBE4~R6 ROM ' `e2000' WASH 1 NGTON COUNTY - I - Drawn BY L (VEST PORTLAND. OR 87213 me wn: IIX17A COMMUTER RAIL R Caeaoed By. NOR Engineering, Inc. (M) 780-3= Contract No: Dro.ing NO: - - - - - WILSONVILLE TO TUALATIN OR - Approved By. SOmilled: Ir. Approves Dote: Datc - . - F! GURE 2-3 ab _ 9-16-98 wlm0mmww!~'_ 01111112 11. Conventional Railroad Signaling The most common signaling method for rail operations is the Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) system, which consists of an Automatic Block Signal (ABS) system along the wayside and a Central Control office. At interlockings, such as junctions, passing sidings or other track configurations that may create conflicts, routes are set remotely by the dispatcher from the CTC control board at the dispatching center. The CTC board controls switch point movements through power-operated machines. The latter are not necessarily needed where switches are less frequently used, such as at industrial spurs. Simple hand-throw switches with switch circuit controllers, to indicate that the switch is no longer lined for the main line, can be used depending on the operating speed in the zone in question. Communications Rased Train Control (CBTC) More recently, some off'-shore railways have begun to use CBTC, an emerging technology utilizing moving blocks, which support close headways. In essence, moving block philosophy allows a lead train and a following train to define their own block. The length of this block is based on the safe braking distance between the following train and the lead train. With a moving block system, speed defines headway: the higher the speed, the greater the headway, the lower the speed the closer the headway. Minimum headway is defined by the safe braking distance between the following and the lead train. Moving block technology has been used by a number of transit properties, the most notable of which is the SaTRAC system on Skytrain in Vancouver, B.C., Canada. On this system, the communications medium is a wire loop installed between the running rails, transmitting data on track conditions in advance of the train, speed information and any temporary speed restrictions in place. In some CBTC installations, a'form of fixed block system is provided as back-up in case of failure in the moving block system. The BART in San Francisco, NYCTA (Canarsie Line) in New York City, and SEPTNs downtown Philadelphia light rail line are exploring the use of moving block systems, replacing the function of the wire loop with digital radio technology to transmit vital data to trains. Although CBTC appears to have a role in the future of train control, the next five years will be critical to determining and proving the level of implementation that will take place. " Radio Communications Two-way radio systems form the basis of railway communications. Each railroad provides its own separate channels, which are typically provided for use by main line and yard crews. Commuter rail operating cabs must be equipped with radios capable of transmitting and receiving on all applicable channels used by the railroads over which they intend to operate.. Operating cabs in revenue rolling stock and maintenance and supervisory vehicles are equipped 2-13 with transceivers. Control consoles are located in the control centers of each host railroad. Additional fixed transceivers are provided in key transportation and maintenance staff offices. Train crews, transportation road supervisors, maintenance crew supervisors, and other field staff carry portable transceivers. Recommendation The proposed commuter rail alignment includes a substantial number of road crossings, most of which are equipped with Automatic Highway Crossing Warning (AHCW) systems. These AHCW systems are activated by track circuits, which could be used to- establish a signal system of proven technology. For the anticipated frequency of train traffic, a conventional signal system (CTC) will suffice for the following reasons: • Makes use of the equipment already on site • Thoroughly proven technology • Equipment available from many suppliers • Better fit for small project with modest budget • Not subject to growing pains common to new technology CBTC is not recommended as a train control technology because it is not as yet demonstrated in revenue service. If the commuter rail option proceeds, the status of the CBTC technology should again be reviewed. A Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) system is included in the cost estimates for the entire length of track. Included in this cost is a remotely located dispatching control center. The cost for the CTC system is broken down into a per mile cost and included in the appropriate line segments. Also included is a base cost for the dispatch center and radio system. 2.3.4 Stations and Park & Ride Stations To be able to estimate capital and operating costs accurately for a commuter rail project such as the Washington County Line, the number and location of stations must be identified. However, station location analysis requires a public process that was premature for this level of planning study. To overcome this dilemma, the study has used the concept of "baseline station locations". These locations are the result of consultation with stakeholders and are technically plausible, but may not be the final sites of the stations along the line. A final site selection would involve a locally defined public process. In identifying baseline locations, members of the consulting team first set up a series of s meetings with planning and engineering staff at the various jurisdictions that the commuter line a will run through. These meetings were used to identify potential station sites and to discuss various issues related to each. Pedestrian access, traffic impacts, parking availability, convenience of transit connections and proximity to residential and commercial development 2-14 were identified. Feld reconnaissance was also undertaken to gain an understanding of each potential site. A workshop was held on August 28, 1998 to review the various options identified by the initial work. The options for each potential site were discussed and baseline options selected for all except Washington Square. At this location it was decided that before a final decision could be made, additional alternatives should be identified which provide better auto and transit access. Additional sites were identified for the Washington Square area and were presented to the Technical Advisor committee on September 26, 1998. Baseline Station Locations B As a result of the workshop and the technical advisory committee meeting on Washington Square, the consulting team was directed to utilize the following baseline station locations. Merlo (Merlo Road northern terminal alternative only) The Merlo Road commuter rail station is located directly adjacent to the light rail station allowing easy and quick connections to MAX. This location is adjacent to the Tri-Met Merlo Road bus garage. Much of the area around the station is wetland, the Tualatin Hills Nature Park, or other constrained lands. The light rail station currently has no parking. -To accommodate the commuter rail service, Tri-Met could move their employee parking to the west side of their property to allow a portion of that space to be used for commuter rail parking. The Merlo Station is served by two bus lines, the 50S to Cornell Oaks and the 67 to PCC Rock Creek. Downtown Beaverton (Merlo Road northern terminal alternative only) The location for the Downtown Beaverton Station is between Hall Boulevard and Watson Avenue parallel to Farmington Road. This station is required in the Merlo Road alternative only. There is potential for urban design improvements around this station to create a focus for pedestrian activity in the historic center of Beaverton. This station would serve local residents and employees and would not include a park-and-ride. This station would be served by Tri-Met lines 52 to 185th Avenue, 76 to Tualatin via Hall, and 78 to bake Oswego via. PCC Sylvania. i Beaverton D-ansit Center (Beaverton Transit Center alternative only) In the Beaverton Transit Center northern terminal alternative a short spur would be built from the existing trackage near the intersection of Farmington Road and Lombard Avenue and running down the center of Lombard to the transit center. This option would provide direct connections to light rail and a large number of bus lines providing service to Portland, Hillsboro 2- 15 Washington County. Travel time for many trips would be shorter than the Merlo Road option. While a specific location for the platforms was not decided, there are several suitable locations near the transit center that would provide easy and quick connections to buses and light rail 1 trains. Passengers would also have short walks to most locations in downtown Beaverton. Bus connections available at the Beaverton Transit Center include routes 20, 52, 535, 54, 57, 58,61X, 67, 76, 78, and 88 to many locations in Washington County. Washington Square The baseiiuz location of the Washington Square station is just north of Scholls Ferry Road on the east side of the tracks. The site currently includes an older commercial building and a large parking lot. The primary employment areas served are the Nimbus business area, Washington Square and the business area south of Scholls Ferry. Access via auto, transit, and walking is good although new pedestrian crossings to the Nimbus area and possibly to the mall would be required if this location is moved to implementation. Bus connections would be available to lines 45 to Tigard and Garden Home, 62 to Murray Boulevard, and 92X to South Beaverton and Portland. In addition, a shuttle service is proposed to better link the Washington Square Mall and Nimbus Parkway with the station. Tigard The site selected is directly adjacent to the Tri-Met Transit Center. The Transit Center is about 10 feet above tracks, requiring special attention to ADA issues during the design phase. The Phase I study did not include parking at the Tigard Station. Further analysis shows that realignment of both tracks to the east side of the right-of-way between Main Street and Hall Blvd. could allow the property to be used for a double row of parking. As a station incorporated into a historic downtown, there may be opportunities for improvement to the surrounding urban design. Excellent bus connections are provided at the transit center to lines 12 to Sherwood and Barbur, 45 to Washington Square, 64X to Marquam Hill, 76 to Hall Boulevard, and 78 to Lake Oswego. Tualatin The baseline location of the Tualatin Station was assumed to be just north of the intersection of Boones Ferry Road and Tualatin-Sherwood Road on property owned by ODOT. The location is near a significant amount of new higher density development and employment. There may be some concerns on the part of adjacent properties regarding parking spillover. Specific measures to control inappropriate parking can be developed in conjunction with adjacent property owners. The area occupied by the former siding could be reused as a park- and-ride lot. 2- 16 While no bus routes pass the station site today, the implementation of a commuter rail service could warrant the construction of a Tualatin transit center adjacent to the station. This center could accommodate Tri-Met lines 37, 38, 76, 96, and the Tualatin TMA Shuttle. Wilsonville The Wilsonville baseline location is assumed to be at the former Wilsonville Primary School site just south of Wilsonville Road. The station would include a park-and-ride lot and be designed to accommodate transfers to SMART transit. SIVIAK1 bus services serving the station would also serve employment centers and residentiai areas, and connections to Salem, Oregon City, and Barbur transit center. The list of station options and issues discussed at the August workshop and subsequent technical advisory committee meeting are included in Figure 2-4. Station Desigp Commuter rail station design would be similar to light rail station design in general layout, but using simpler and more robust materials. The objective of the design is to assure durability and ease of maintenance while providing a pleasant and convenient facility for passengers. Stations will accommodate passengers arriving via a number of modes including light rail, bus, park-and-ride, walking and biking. Each station will have a unique design which suits its site but will use a standard layout for the platforms to reduce cost and speed construction. A diagram of a conceptual station platform is shown in Figure 2-5. Each station would include the following features: • A 200-foot platform. Paving will be of asphalt with timber or concrete curbs. Yellow tactile strips along the track side will help assure safety. • A shelter or canopy to protect waiting passengers from the elements. The assumed shelter was based on those used at the MAX 7th Avenue light rail station but without a glass roof. Metal will 've substituted to provide more durability. Since commuter rail stations will be located in more open, suburban locations, more wind protection will also be required. Benches • Bike racks or lockers • An information pylo^ showing schedules, maps and other information for passengers • Fencing to prevent people from crossing the tracks where it may be dangerous • Bus stops or layover bays, if necessary • Pedestrian connections to nearby streets and development • Landscaping 2- 17 low .5..~ u y1J~J 1 Figure 2-`t aseline station Locations nd disadvantages of Potenti~t ~ gA5EL1NE (Sheet 1 of 3) ASS13MpT14N AND AdVantageSa TAGES COMMENTS DISADV AN eav Transit Berton ADVANTAGES C11vironme11ta( isstCe11ters (tv center lcrlo Road also * TION major activity This option 1,~OCA . ,distance retained. erlo STATION . potential terminal stab T latforins Nwo ithin'valkinl, wuld inchide boll' M oad site . Com nute► fail a" adRcent R o oad station and Aerlo R would be directly 1 arson station) .ecton ark-and-ride Operationaldifficult'es liallfw Bea Joint use T Platforms No park-and-ride Cornn'nter rail and L act U ~ . Least direct connection would be directly adJ to jobs ht rail ~ h ousing, Beaver Creek site Close to P&w office Pratior6 blished park and ride . Existing railroad oP Esta housing clear jobs, ark►ng St. MarY's site ' otential . Automobile congestion . p for addition p available Bus connection wntown 110 parking Directly adjacent to do arson site Beaverton potential 1ia11tW eaverton) . Redevelopment ackmg (Downtown B obile con~e5tiou Some existing ection putom Good bus cO11T1 otential Redevel°pment p Some, existing parking impacts on Canyon ton a site ® $om ection , Traffic farming Bus corm Read and rnbard Potential ection to light parrningtor' Transit Center intersection Most direct corm LR,r platforms Beaverton Cornmuter rail art ad scent No park-and-ride directly J would be ection to many • Wests de routes IRIMM Figure 2-4 nta es and Disadvantages of Potential Baseline Station Locations Adva g (Sheet 2 of 3) . Conflict with existing use Scholls Ferry North power substation site • Future pedestrian connection . No bus connections Washington PGfi across Hwy 217 to 111ashtngton Not close to jobs or housing Square is possible Square s Land for arkin is available • Site already occupied by • joint use parking arrangement operating business Levitz Furniture site possible . Parking under joint use • Near jobs would be limited • Pedestrian access to Nimbus . Good bus cottnectton • Small site with limited • Near jobs parking potential Cascade piano site • Pedestrian access to Nimbus • Good bus connections Site already occupied but F North" site just . Near jobs act to Nimbus underutilized erry . pedestrian north of Cascade Pi a Ample- pwkmg available • G ~ ~ti Scholls pedestrian Connection to incuded • Site already occupied by joint use parking arrangement operating business Linen and Things site possible parking under joint use . Near jobs would be limited Pedestrian access to Nimbus • Acquisition cost "k'-.ly very hi h o Auto access problerns • Available land for park-and-ride No housing nearby fiat Boulevard site • Bus connection Near 'obs >tpa wpm i~ .A • n Locations Figure es of Yotential'~aseUne Statto and Transfer Center es and Dtsadvantag(Sheet 3 of 3) atform Tig Advanta$ and rail pl , Bus loop ould be on different levels nsfer point w k-and-ride requir or ing consu elevator vctiotl of Tualatin Si priulti-modal trater"p0d lable for par ramp Tigard Transit center and avai close to jobs and housutg lty Road East C Tualagn- Tigard ° auto access Toccess era fro m as ark and-ride ° Available land for p ° Sherwood road on rade West Near jobs nificant r g Shewood Road sig Tualatin- No bus connection Tualatin site ° No land for park and-ride (wetland constcaintsj Near housing a Not in an 'Road site Near jobs Wilsonvillet6eaVe~On study Southwest Berm ° corridor onnection No bus c Flood plainlfiooding ° No bus connection Near housing arking site ° Land available for p ill line F&W~p crossin g ection to future yamh ° C0~ , Operational difficulties wouldbe ossible d ° At-grade crossing a locate Road ° Centrally. Tualatin-Sherv+ r site operty Sherwood Road Bast a close to job' residential area , Adjacent historic p Tualatin- Close to dense School arking Land access site ° available for p created OS impact L onnectio0 couldbe ° Intersection ° Sus c ° Good bus Co actions rot site ° Easy auto access arkin ° Not e q neac housing for Wilsonville R°ad and available costs 1lsonv111 arkin ° Close to jobs ° Acquisition W NIART Land available for ° Not °n existing industrial area site Multi-modal potential ° Mixed-use building route ® arkin , Not near housing ection School site e land for conn ad needed „ possibl e Vatting No bus ° Land availabl for New access ro , Close to jobs of cit Boeckman Dad E site B uidistant to both ends - mnm+ v o 0 4 CHAIN LINK FENCE STEEL AND GLASS SHELTER ALSO INCLUDE: vl MODELED ON LRT 7TH AVE. - METAL ROOF 3 BENCHES 25' - 40' 2 TRASH CONTAINERS cc i LOCATION COULD VARY DEPENDING ON PATHS, RETAINING WALLS, a m DOOR LOCATIONS ❑F THE VEHICLES CHOSEN RAMPS, ETC. AS REQUIRED 89- N BENCH e TRASH CONTAINER - e o n s PEDESTRIAN PATH TO INFORMATION PYLON GUARDRAIL OR BOLLARDS STREET SIMILAR TO LRT IF ADJACENT TO PARKING 0 BIKE LOCKER OR RACK LIGHTING ALONG BACK (ANY SUITABLE LOCATION) EDGE OF PLATFORM 200' (WITH ROOM TO EXPAND TO 400') n a r a m MAINTAIN STANDARD CLEARANCES N TIMBER ❑R CONCRETE CURB TRACK SIDE UI N > ENCH ASPHALT PAVING C 7 GRANITE OR MASONRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a CURB PARKING SIDE 3 , m o w t z LEANING RAIL LEANING RAIL o , 0 BOLLARDS OR GUARDRAIL -Mir 1 Platforms will be located so that they can be extended to 400 feet if future ridership warrants the operation of longer trains. No ticket vending machines were assumed but could be added in the future (see Chapter 5). A.ccessibilia Initial assumptions are that accessibility will be provided by lifts on board the rail vehicles. Structures and furniture on the platform will be placed in such a way as to avoid interfering with the operation of the lift. PRrk-and_yid- aci_litios Park and ride lots will be provided at every station where it is practical. Most commuter rail services, due to the low-density nature of the areas they serve, rely heavily on park and ride for access at the residential end of the trip. While the Washington County line is different, having more opportunities for walking and transit access, it was determined that park and ride access will still be required. Each station site was reviewed for nearby available land to provide commuter parking. Once a suitable parcel was identified, a parking lot was laid out to determine the number of spaces that could be accommodated. The demand for spaces was estimated using the projected boarding riders at each station and the nature of their trip, whether starting from home or- work. Table 2- 3 shows the number of parking spaces assumed at each station. Table 2-3 Park-and-hide Lots Station Spaces Wilsonville (School Site) 1$0 Tualatin 122 Tigard 150 Washington Square (BTC) 200 Washington Square (Merlo) 150 Downtown Beaverton 0 Merlo (Tri-Met lot) 150 Total BTC Northern Terminal Option 652 Total Merlo Northern Terminal Option 752 2-22 2.3.3 Maintenance FacRity The operation of the commuter rail facility will require the development of a facility to store and maintain the vehicle flee. Based on the relatively small fleet of vehicles, it is recommended that all major vehicle maintenance including diesel engine repair, major component repair and any required car body repair be contracted to a qualified vendor. The cost of such contracting is reflected in the operating costs of the project. The maintenance facility on the Wilsonville to Beaverton line will be sized to accommodate the current operation and allow for future expansion of the fleet. The functions to be provided at the facility will be the secured storage of the fleet, vehicle cleaning, vehicle inspection, light maintenance, operator report and administration. Improvements to a site will include the provision of perimeter fencing, storage track laid out to allow movement of the fleet within the yard for maintenance activities, cinpioycc q, g, and' a .:+a- +...°ne, straMire_. The structure will provide a weather-protected inspection and minor maintenance area with an inspection pit. The maintenance structure would also house parts and cleaning equipment, a small office area for the operator report function and administrative space. The yard would also provide for outdoor storage of materials required for operation of the commuter rail line. The facility will require access to water, electricity and power and should be located on or adjacent the rail corridor to avoid added operating costs. The corridor was reviewed for potential maintenance facility locations with the-first priority being sites directly adjacent the line with an existing siding. The site must be relatively flat and in a configuration and size that would accommodate the maximum initial fleet of 10 vehicles and allow for some future expansion. After an initial review of potential locations, two areas were reviewed in additional detail. One site is located at the St. Mary's Junction adjacent the current site used by the P&W for layover and storage of locomotives. The site has excellent access and is in a configuration that would be favorable to the development of a maintenance facility and yard. The second area is located south of Hall Blvd. in Tigard. This area offers a number of potential sites including two located along Wall Street, one west of the line and south of the current Leidlaw bus maintenance facility, and the possible option of utilizing the current combined rights of way of the UPRR and the former BNSF by reconfiguring the current tracks in the area south of Hall Blvd. The Tigard locations offer the advantage of being near the middle of the proposed commuter rail corridor which would better facilitate response to emergencies and possible accidents. The location would also better serve future potential expansions of the commuter rail operation to the South (Salem), or a line serving Yamhill County to Portland. For purposes of this study a site in the vicinity of Mall Blvd. in South Tigard was identified as the preferred location. Figure 2-6 is a vicinity map of the area with potential sites identified. 2-23 Y1 c•{t~ i; .4...~(}t 1~fj i"~ Yt(A1~ t.: ~J 1 •~5~ 142 t>„•t;, ..4'y;s} ••rt;.}a;~,~/:{.e:Cj(` ~}ly}° ~ rt~ att. 1 ~3~ `4 '1 i~~~ N 1{ :tti; lk " 1St •s 1 ..t 1~ i • ~ }1 i t , ~„'a' f is • ~ ~+4.t . y C~„ , ! t. I x -7o aA?~ '"r~ njt'• ' f+?' ~y ' it lliYk rt t • _ ~ r IA 4S1P M j~r~? a ~j,• L.~~ v. , *kf :'rf r ar 1.. N g~ t v j. . ix f •,tr ~ i '~~it ~ti+t,~~~ ! F ' ~ ~t~iN •t ~ t, f~t 7 F . a 6t1 f lt> ~3t... ,yw' C c~ T' t i >r: x {y S 4? IF AIA ►L~`)S r ~r~k67 7 i a t t 13 NMI`t~ t ~ hp a ¢ t; R ! 111 ; .p kit%'.~~t ~ ~ r ' asgy AI ! 10 y. Wks so 100 Figure 2-7 provides a typical layout for a maintenance/storage facility which would accommodate the requirements of the Wilsonville-Beaverton line. The layout would be modified based on the configuration of the selected site. Figvro 2-7 MAINTENANCE/STORAGE FACILITY storage yard mainbnance / admin. bidg. I equipnsetG I employee I maintenance parking I - - storage T,---j I 2.3.6 Beaverton transit Center Alignment The option of providing a station at the northern terminus of the corridor adjacent to the existing Beaverton Transit Center is unique to the development of a commuter rail operation in that it requires the creation of a new alignment. The Beaverton Transit Center is located approximately 2,000 feet north of the existing UPRR alignment. The advantages of locating the northern terminus at the Beaverton Transit Center include: • A more direct connection to the light rail system • A reduction of the total corridor travel time ® Access to the substantial number of local bus lines that feed into the transit center Disadvantages include: • The inability to provide park and ride spaces at the commuter rail station • The necessity to build a portion of the line within street ROW as opposed to remaining within an existing freight right of way • Added traffic impacts on the Lombard/Farmington interchange and Canyon Road Figure 2-8 illustrates the alignment of the Beaverton Transit Center alternative. The track 2-25 would diverge from the existing UPRR line just east of Lombard Street, crossing the Lombard and Farmington Road intersection into the center of a realigned Lombard Street. The realignment of this section of Lombard is a planned City of Beaverton project. The signal bridge at the Lombard and Farmington Road intersection will have to be replaced and a revised crossing protection system put in place. North of Broadway the tracks will be placed in the median of a rebuilt Lombard, with the intersections at both Broadway and Canyon Road controlled by a traffic signal system modified to accommodate a phase for the commuter rail trains. Three commuter rail station options exist in the vicinity of the Beaverton Transit Center. Figure 2-8 illustrates the three options, each of which provides good access to both the bus and light rail stations. 2.4 J AFrr nP,R A T1() :Tu The interaction of the Wilsonville to Beaverton line with road traffic at grade crossings is an area that must be addressed to assure smooth operation of the service. The design will have to consider maximizing crossing safety and minimizing traffic delay, while implementing the project's goal of providing a fast and convenient service that will attract riders from their single occupancy autos. Safety will be maintained by using the appropriate equipment at each grade crossing to warn motorists and pedestrians, and to prevent them from entering the right-of-way to minimize their exposure to risk. Reducing time delay for motorists at grade crossings will be an important element of a successful project implementation. T he addition of 32 new passenger trains a day on the railroad line will increase the amount of time that motorists spend waiting for trains to pass. While this figure represents a significant increase in the number of trains operated, they are short commuter trains moving at a consistent speed and will take approximately 50 seconds to pass, about the same amount of time it takes a light rail train to clear an intersection. In the morning 3-1/2 hour operating period (5:30-9:00 am), 16 trains will pass through each intersection (8 northbound and 8 southbound), with either 5 or 6 during any one-hour period. Track circuits will be upgraded to constant time track circuits that adjust the time the gates are down depending on the speed of the train. These systems also allow the gates to raise while a train is stopped at a station within the track circuit. Once the train begins moving again the crossing protection is reactivated. Several locations in particular will require specific attention: Beaverton Transit Center Branch Crossings Farmington Road Canyon Road Broadway 2-26 I 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 _1 11 . I I 1\ \ 11 1 I ► z 1\ 1 1 / I I ~ 1 11 \ \ I ► v \ \ 1 1 ell 20 c') z ;U I I \ 1 d£ 1~ 1 d \ I ,v Js- -~1 \ \ r R~ _ _ _ ~l \ 1 \ LEGEND S" r PROPOSED ROAD / \ -UP.RR/MAX eol RD AVE, o \ ' ®MBA PROPOSED PLATFOW \ PROPOSED CURB if / \ \ 1/%~ PROPOSED ROAD WIDENING / I ► ,1 1 EXISTING ROAD / I \ \ \ - - - PREMED TRACKWAY / I 1 \ \ - - EXISTING CLRB Sca4; )mKing no P.e. No. Date BY Cnz, Pavticns Designed By. Figure 2-6 DrowBy. JIBRW BEAVERTON TRANSIT CENTER ALIGNMENT. A DMESAMOORE WASHBA.E GROPCCAWAIy, Contr°t No: Sheet Nd: CtecNed'Bg. Del Sutmitted: Approved: Dele:. e: ^PPmvM BY. 1r Merlo Road Option Downtown Beaverton Crossings Farmington Road Watson Avenue Hall Boulevard Cedar Hills Boulevard Hocken Avenue Murray Boulevard Washington Square Crossings 14=1.1 Rouleva-d Scholls Ferry Road Tigard Crossings Main Street Hall Boulevard Bonita Road Durham Road Downtown Tualatin Crossings Tualatin Road Tualatin-Sherwood Road Wilsonville Crossings Boeckman Road Wilsonville Road The following section provides a sketch level analysis of the traffic impacts at three substantial grade crossings located along the corridor. Lombard Street and Canyon Road (BTC Alternative) The commuter rail tracks will be located in the center of a reconstructed Lombard Street in a single track configuration. Canyon Road will remain in its current configuration of two lanes in the east and west directions and a left turn refuge at Lombard. Lombard contains one through lane in the northbound direction with a left turn lane at Canyon Road. Southbound, Lombard at Canyon has a left turn lane, a through lane and a right turn lane with a single lane south of Canyon Road. The proposal is to use standard traffic control signals integrated with the train control system in this intersection. The operation would be similar to that currently in use at intersections in the Hillsboro, Holladay Street and Burnside sections of the light rail project. The signal operation when a rail vehicle is proceeding through the intersection would allow parallel north and south Lombard traffic and right turns from Lombard to Canyon Road All other movements would have a red phase. The southbound trains departing out of the BTC Station would be coordinated with the signal cycle to avoid added disruption to Canyon Road traffic. 2-28 Lombard Street and Farmington Road (BTC Alternative) The current Lombard and Farmington Road intersection is a complex traffic operation impacted by the OF Tillamook Branch running diagonally through it. Besides standard traffic signals auto movements are also controlled by railroad gates which stop all traffic when trains are present with the exception of free-flow right turn lanes from Farmington to Lombard both north and southbound and southbound Lombard left turns onto Farmington. Farmington Road contains two through lanes both east and westbound and a signalized left turn refuge at Lombard in addition to the right turn lanes. Lombard has a single lane both north and southbound with a signalized left turn lane in the southbound direction at Farmington Road. ThP r-^r e- CWAAL" :t L A 4 A Eck; to the Be s:re3*.^^ '1';~, ^sir t`Pnr~r would be in the center of a realigned section of Lombard between Farmington and Broadway and would introduce a second diagonal set of tracks through the intersection of Lombard and Farmington. Although the configuration of the intersection will change, the traffic control will function the same as it does currently. The railroad gates controlling Lombard southbound traffic and Farmington westbound traffic will be relocated but will function in the same fashion as they do currently. S .W. Lower Bo-ones Ferry Road and Tualatin-Sherwood Hwy After introduction of commuter rail operations this intersection would operate in the same manner as it does today. The physical layout of the intersection and track would remain the same with the rail signal system upgraded to'not activate the gates while a train is at the station. The only difference in operation would be the added frequency of the gates being activated, up to 32 over the 7 hours of daily operation, no more than six in any one hour. The gate would be activated for less than a minute for each train crossing. 2.5 CAEITAL COST ESTIMATES Cost estimate summaries for the Merlo Road Station and Beaverton Transit Center alternatives are shown in the figures below. A breakdown of the line segment cost estimates is included in Appendix H. The cost for a CTC system is broken down into a per mile cost and included in the appropriate line segments, and a base cost applied for the dispatch center and radio system. Capital cost estimates for vehicles, stations, and maintenance facilities are also summarized. Costs are based, as noted, on recent experience of other commuter rail projects. A summary of the capital costs estimated for the two alternative alignments, Merlo Station and Beaverton Transit Center, are shown in Tables 2-4 and 2-5. All costs are stated in 1998 dollars. 2-29 Table 2-4 Sumnsary of Costs - Merlo Station Alternative Items Cost Track, Structures, Crossing, Signal Improvements $ 36,540,000 Stations, Park and Ride Lots 6,019,000 Dispatch Center and Radio System 1,250,000 Maintenance Facility 2,200,000 Vehicles' 22,500,000 - 30,000,000 Total Cost $68,509,000 - 76,009,000 (1) 9 or 10 ,za,a at a c= :_*.p . of 11F2.5 to 3.0 nzillion. Fable 2-5 Summary of Costs - Beaverton Transit Center Alternative Item Cost Track, Structures, Crossing, Signal Improvements $ 38,725,760 Stations, Park and Ride Lots 5,308,240 Dispatch Center and Radio System 1,250,000 Maintenance Facility 2,200,000 Vehicles' 17,500,000 - 24,000,000 Total Cost $64 990 000 - 71 490 000 (1) 7 or 8 cars at a cost range of $2.5 to 3.0 million. These figures represent the capital costs required to implement the service based on the assumptions for station sites, operating plan, and equipment type determined during the planning process. Some reduction in up-front capital cost may be possible by reducing the initial scope of certain elements during implementation or by leasing or contracting out for certain capital items such as rolling stock. While the cost estimates are complete, two items in particular would benefit from more detailed assessment than could be completed within the scope of this project: stations and diesel multiple unit (DMU) equipment. Station and park-and-ride lots will require a public involvement process to + finalize the site selection, which could result in costs which vary from the baseline site used for i costing purposes. DMUs have not been designed and produced for the North American market in + two decades. The lack of recent procurement experience results in uncertainties in acquiring this typ a of vehicle. Of the two alternatives, the Beaverton Transit Center (BTC) tennbvl is less expensive than Merlo Road on a capital cost basis. While the cost of track rehabilitation and construction is less for the Merlo Road terminal, this is more than made up for by the cost of the additional train set required for this alternative. Since the BTC alternative is also less expensive to operate, it has a clear cost advantage. 2-30 i 1 Chapter 3A 1 ~ p tions 1 ~ielticle p 1 t s e 3.0 VEHICLE OPTIONS 3.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY When people think of a commuter train, they usually envision a locomotive hauling a string of several passenger coaches. Operating in the largest metropolitan areas with up to 10 cars, such trains can accommodate as many as 1,500 riders--all comfortably seated. But the range of commuter rail possibilities also includes shorter trains tailored to smaller passenger loadings, such as forecasted for the Wilsonville-Beaverton line. Many such services throughout the world are provided by so-called Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs), self-propelled diesel cars, operating either singly or coupled together as "multiple units" to form short trains. On this continent, 'h. ..n.~Anrc..n A1..nLn -1 0.-4- L...aat_ n_ L1V1lJJ Clle UJGU or, iiatwaer-vi•J CC;-AA- au a X-- iaaa.a vaaaauuu, iau w JJ JQ-ALr,Vr SLLLLLde 111 J~a1 use, New York, and for a new commuter rail service in Dallas, Texas. Several equipment options may be considered for the proposed line. On commuter rail services in metropolitan areas elsewhere in the U.S. and the world, seating often is less spacious and amenities are less elaborate than on inter-city rail services, but more comfortable than is found on the typical transit bus. In addition to working with MAX trains and buses as part of Portland's regional transit system, the new commuter operation in Washington County will have to compete with private automobiles for riders. Therefore, a relatively high standard of comfort should be offered. This also would enhance the ability to exchange cars between the commuter line and inter-city routes (e.g., on weekends) to improve overall fleet utilization. In this report use of the term "train" or "trainset" refers to the scheduled movement of a rail vehicle or vehicles, normally as two vehicles coupled together. Use of the term "vehicle" or "car" refers to a single commuter rail unit. This report is divided into several sections that introduce and evaluate the two basic rolling stock classes that might be appropriate for Washington County rail service. • Locomotive-Hauled Push-Pull Trains Single-Level and Bi-Level Cars New and Rebuilt Locomotives • Self-Propelled Cars - Rehabilitated Rail Diesel Cars (RDCs) - New Diesel Vehicles Designed for North America - New Diesel Vehicles Based on Off-Shore Designs - Diesel-Powered Light Rail Vehicles • Estimated Capital Costs for Lolling Stock • Recommendations 3-1 The report concludes that: Rolling stock of modest capacity most likely will suffice for commuter train service in Washington County, but that... Commuter trains must be capable of operating intermixed with freight trains that may continue to run during the same hours and over the same lines. On that basis, the most likely candidates for Wilsonville-Beaverton rail service are: ♦ New DMUs built to mainline railroad standards, appropriate for the service, offer suitable levels of passenger attractiveness and operational reliability, and capable of operating with freight trains in a shared-track environment. Lack of recent North American orders for new DMUs is a significant concern. ♦ Refurbished RDCs are probably the least-cost choice to provide the modest capacity needed, with cars that are compatible for operation in general railroad traffic. However, the pool of such cars likely to be available is small; and renovation probably will amount to complete re- manufacturing of all components except the basic stainless steel car shell. 3.2 LOCOMOTIVE-HAULED PUSH-PULL TRAINS New commuter train systems in Toronto, Miami, Virginia, Southern California and Vancouver (Canada) all use trains of. non-powered cars drawn by locomotives. Following a practice ` pioneered on the long-established commuter lines in Chicago, _ these systems place cab-equipped coaches (Figure 3-1) at the opposite ends of their trains from the locomotives to enable "push-pull" operation. This saves operating costs by avoiding the Figure 3 - 1 process and time consumed to turn the train or r, a the engine around the cars at each terminal. Push-pull operation is crucial for efficiency, because both one- way runs and terminal turnbacks will be shorter. 3.2.1 Cars, Single-Level and Bi-Level It is convenient to examine passenger cars in two basic categories, single-level (Figure 3-1) and bi-level, recognizing that there are numerous variations within each group. Considering commuter service in Washington County, the focus is on coach-type cars. Unless restricted clearances prevent their use, the larger carrying capacity of bi- level cars (Figure 3-2) is preferred for commuter services where moderate-to-heavy passenger demand is anticipated, and/or where short station platforms limit train lengths. 3-2 09 Table 3-1 Principal Characteristics of Single-Level Cars for Commuter Services Bombardier Comet Car as Exam le Configuration Single car (variable train length, 2-10 cars) Capacity (2+2 seating) 85-to-100 seats Floor Height Above Rail 51 inches ADA Compliance Portable bridgeplates; station platform ramps Restroom(s) Yes Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning Yes Structure Meets FRA/AAR guidelines I, LL Availability Currently in production Table 3-2 Principal Characteristics of Br-Level Cars for Commuter Services ombardier GO Transit/Metrolink Cars as Example) Configuration Single car (variable train length, 2-10 cars) Capacity (2+2 seating) 140-to-150 seats Floor Height Above Rail 25 inches (lower level), 51 inches (mid-level), 110 inches (upper leverl) ADA Compliance Portable bridgeplates; station platform ramps Restroom(s) Yes Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning Yes Structure Meets FRA/AAR guidelines Availability Currently in production 3-3 Jill .3-2.2 Locomotives, New and Rebuilt Contemporary diesel locomotives for passenger service (Figure 3-3 are typically in the range of 2,500-4,200 horsepower, capable of 80-100 mph running. They include equipment to provide 480-volt AC head end power (EP) to operate car auxiliaries such as lights, passenger comfort systems (heating, ventilating, air conditioning - HVAC) etc. Even though commuter trains may be short, locomotives must have sufficient power to accelerate as rapidly as possible from station stops, which usually are closer together (1-to-5 miles anart) than is the case for intercity nom - services. Figure 3 - 3 New diesel passenger locomotives are offered by General Motors' Electro-Motive Division and by General Electric, while remanufaactured units may be procured from any of several firms in the locomotive re-building business. In exchange for their higher initial costs, new locomotives offer longer service lives, better fuel economy, reduced exhaust emissions, greater operating reliability, and reduced maintenance requirements. 3.3 SELF-PROPELLED CARS Lighter-density commuter services such as the proposed line in Washington County may achieve cost economies by using self-propelled cars instead of locomotive-hauled trains. Whether made up of individual cars or articulated units, a common practice overseas is to operate commuter services with trainsets of permanently or semi- permanently mated cars. The three-car articulated Flexliner diesel trainset (Figure 3-4) is a good example of such rolling stock. One or two units " would make a 3- or 6-car train offering about 150 or 300 seats. Such cars, if modified to meet FRA/AAR structural guidelines, might be appropriate for commuter services for which light-to-moderate ridership is forecast. Figure 3 - 4 3-4 3.3.1 Rehabilitated Rail Diesel Cars The rail diesel car (RDC), introduced by The Budd Company ram" about 1950, combined a standard stainless steel passenger car - i with bus-type diesel mechanical propulsion gear. Several i4-s, A: V M ,1, : Cc e hundred cars were produced; and some remained in service until recently. The Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) recently acquired 13 of these cars from VIA Rail Canada, and refurbished them for commuter service (Figure 3-5). Substantial re-decorating of relatively spartan RDC interiors would be needed tre 3 - 5 to achieve a level of amenity approaching most of the other equipment options ® evaluated herein. However, rebuilt RDCs offer a lower-cost option for lighter- density, entry-level services like the Trinity Rail system recently opened in Dallas, and the proposed route in Washington County. Table 3-3 Principal Characteristics of Rail Diesel Cars Configuration Single, self-propelled car (up to 6 per train) Intercity Capacity (2+2 seating) 80-90 seats Floor Height Above Rail 51 inches ADA Compliance Lifts or ramps on station platforms Restroom(s) Yes Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning Yes, but replace old systems with modern equipment to ensure adequacy, reliability Structure Meets FRA/AAR guidelines Availability Last built in 1963 Alternatively, might fit lifts on cars. 3.3.2 New Diesel Vehicles Designed for North America During the past few years, three manufacturers - F OF, dtranz, Bombardier and Nippon Sharyo -have A We- announced self-propelled diesel multiple units` (DMUs) based on other types of cars already produced for the North American market. A rendering of Bombardier's offering, based on electric commuter cars built for Montreal, is shown in Figure 3-6. Each design is, in effect, an updated RDC; and as such, each potentially Figure 3 - 6 offers the same flexibility of a self-propelled car, but with the enhanced levels of reliability and maintainability that can be achieved using state-of-the-art components and sub-systems. 3-5 Table 3-4 Principal Characteristics of Proposed North American DMUs (Proposed Bombardier Vehicle as Example) Configuration Single, self-propelled car (up to 3 per train) Intercity Capacity (2+2 seating) 80 seats Floor Height Above Rail 51 inches ADA Compliance Lifts or ramps on station platforms Restroom(s) Yes Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning Yes e«.., , P.IWLs r~_AJAAR guidelines u u u~. tui Design concept, not yet built Availability Alternatively, can fit lifts on cars. 3.3.3 New Diesel Vehicles Based on Off-Shore Designs European diesel cars (Figure 3-7) are unlikely to be _ acceptable for U.S. service unless an FRA waiver can be obtained or the designs are strengthened to meet North American structural standards. These standards are ' considerably more stringent than European standards ' because North American railroads operate freight locomotives that are heavier and built more robustly than European railroads. North American railroads also have Figure 3 - 7 more grade crossings than is common in Europe. These two issues make it necessary that, should a collision occur, the passenger vehicle can withstand the force and protect the passengers inside. Table 3-5 provides the principal characteristics of a representative European DMU for commuter-type passenger services. Table 3-5 Principal Characteristics of Off Shore DMU for Commuter Services (Siemens Type 628.41728.4 as Example) Configuration Self-propelled cars, typically singles or pairs Capacity (2+2 seating) 146 seats Floor Height Above Rail 48 inches i ADA Compliance Lifts or ramps on station platforms Restroom(s) Yes Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning Heating and forced-air ventilation only; air 3 conditioning must be added Structure Does not meet FRA/AAR guidelines Availability Various models currently in production Alternatively, might fit lifts on cars. 3-6 i 3.3.4 Diesel-Powered Light Rail Vehicles To avoid the higher operating crew costs of conventional l trains and, simultaneously, the initial costs of 3 ; electrification (which cannot be justified for lines f ; carrying light passenger loads), some European operatorg are purchasing lightweight diesel-powered xrr vehicles. Among these vehicles are the specialized articulated cars (Figure 3-8) operated on local railways in Germany and Austria. The cars are wider than electric light rail vehicles (1-,RVs), and _re_n»ire laraaar- Figure 3 - 8 radius curves. In other respects, they offer most of the flexibility of a conventional electric LRV, but are incompatible with U.S. railway design standards. Lightweight DMUs are not likely to be acceptable for use on lines where commuter rail and freight train operations cannot be time separated. Table 3-6 Principal Characteristics of Light Diesel Multiple Units (Siemens Re ioS rinter as Example) Configuration Self-propelled cars, typically singles or pairs Capacity (2+3 seating) 100 seats Floor Height Above Rail 21 inches at low level entries ADA Compliance Movable bridgeplate on car Restroom(s) No Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning Heating and forced-air ventilation only; air conditioning must be added Structure Does not meet FRA/AAR guidelines Availability Currently in production 3.4 ESTINIATED CAPITAL COSTS FOR ROLLING STOCK Rolling stock capacities and unit costs are summarized in Table 3-7 for trains of equivalent size using the several varieties of commuter equipment evaluated in this section. Total train length is set at two cars, regardless of vehicle type, with total costs per train estimated between $4.5 million for two rebuilt RDCs, to $6.3 million for two bi-level coaches and a locomotive. Because the latter train consist would offer more seats, estimated costs per seat range from $22,500 for a locomotive-hauled train with two bi-level coaches to $30,000 for new diesel LRVs. However, considering the project's anticipated 30-minute service intervals (headways), it must be determined whether forecast demand would be high enough to require the peak hour, peak direction capacity supplied by the larger bi-level cars, namely: Single-level coaches, RDCs, compliant D?AUs ...................2 trains x 180 seats = 360/hour 3-7 Table 3-7 Summary of Commuter Rolling Stock Types and Costs Car Type Cars/Train Seats/Train Cost, Cars Cost, Loco Total Cost Cost/Seat Single Level Coach 2 180 $2.8 ml. $2.5 ml (u $5.3 ml. $29,500 Bi-Level Coach 2 280 $3.8 ml. $2.5 ml a~ $6.3 ml. $22,500 Rebuilt RDC 2 180 $4.5 ml. (b) $4.5 ml. $25,000 New FRA-Compliant DMU 2 180 $5.0-6.0 ml. (b) $5.0-$6.0 ml. $28,000- $35,000 Non-Compliant Diesel LRV 2 150 $4.5 ml. (b) $4.5 ml. 530,000 Notes: a - Costs shown are for new diesel locomotives; a used/rebuilt unit would cost about $1.5 mil. b - Self-propelled cars; propulsion gear included in cost of cars. 3.5 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing paragraphs and the results emerging from other tasks, it appears that rolling stock of modest capacity will suffice for commuter train service in Washington County. The selected vehicles must be capable of operating intermixed with freight trains that may continue to run during the same hours and over the same lines. On that basis, the most likely candidates are: • New FRA-compliant DNIUs, though somewhat more costly, would be suitable for the service, and would offer virtually the same capacity and operating characteristics as RDCs. Higher levels of passenger attractiveness and reliability may be expected from new equipment. Lack of recent availability of new DMUs is a significant concern. • Refurbished RDCs probably offer the least-cost choice to provide the modest capacity needed, with cars that are compatible for operation in general railroad traffic. However, the pool of such cars likely to be available is small; and renovation probably will amount to complete re-manufacturing of all components except the basic stainless steel car shell. A less likely alternative for Washington County would be: • Push-pull trains of conventional single- or bi-level cars propelled by diesel locomotives, which are more appropriate for lines where moderate-to-heavy demand is forecast. For Washington County, such equipment should be considered only as a fallback in the event that suitable self-propelled cars prove to be unavailable. Should this occur, or should the project's capital budget be unable to support the cost of new equipment, consideration could be given to acquiring and refurbishing used coaches and diesel locomotives. Such engines have been purchased for several new-start commuter rail lines, and ex-Toronto bi-level cars currently are being modernized for use between Fort Worth and Dallas. 3-8 MEN oil Finally, an inappropriate rolling stock option would be: • Diesel-powered light rail cars, which could be considered if freight train operations on the Beaverton-Wilsonville line were limited to the hours when passenger trains are not running. Given the freight railroad's existing and forecast traffic volumes and operating plans, it appears that simultaneous operation of freight and passenger trains must be accommodated; so light non-compliant DNIUs probably will not be feasible. e 3-9 e e i e i ~ chapter 4.0 1 ~ Operations Plan and ~ Operating Costs i a t r 4.0 OPERATIONS FLAN AND OPERATING COSTS 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the process and findings of the operations plan for the Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail line. Attracting passengers is the fundamental goal of any public transportation service and it is the operations plan that takes the basic technical characteristics of a particular mode of public transit and translates them into a specific service that will serve the needs of potential users. The operations plan presented here is based on commuter rail practice around North America but also incorporates lessons learned from focus groups, workshops, and technical analysis of iiie Travel paticrns of commuters in Washingion County anu whai it would take to convince them to use commuter rail. The operations plan includes running time calculations, vehicle, crew, and train scheduling, siding location analysis, connecting service planning and vehicle requirements. This study is not intended to establish a definitive operating plan for the service when implemented but rather a plausible plan which yields accurate operating and capital cost estimates. 4.2 METHODOLOGY This operating plan was established using an iterative process. The initial analysis was based on the previous study of rail service in this corridor, the Washington County Interurban Rail Final Report (Phase 1). This earlier study used information gathered in employer focus groups and other forums to create an operating philosophy that responds to the bi-directional nature of commuter travel in the corridor and the relatively dispersed origins and destinations along the line. Table 4-1 summarizes the Phase I operating plan. After review of the Phase I report, several additional operating scenarios were studied to help refine the initial operating philosophy. This resulted in the identification of a number of additional refinement options. The different options are shown in Table 4-2. It was decided that rather than attempt to cost all possible options, only one, or at most two, baseline alternatives would be fully costed. To arrive at the baseline alternative, a workshop was held including approximately 30 elected officials, staff and others from Washington County, ODOT, Metro, Tri-Met, other local jurisdictions, railroads, potential operators, and citizen groups. The workshop was held on August 28, 1998 at the Tualatin Water District offices (see Appendix J). Table 4-1 Phase I Report Operations Scenario Ridcrship per Train Terminals Day Frequency Running Time Train Sets Maximum Equipment St. Mary's Year 2000 (minutes) /Sidings Speed Type Station Merlo Road, 1,820 30 29 3/2 59 Push-Pull No Beaverton to Wilsonville Locomotive Road, and Coaches Wilsonville 4-1 Table 4.2 Operating Scenario Options Transit Train Sets/ Capital Running Operating Option Ridership Connectivity Traffic Sidings Cost Time Cost Move North Terminal to + - -1/-1 • -5 + Beaverton Transit Center - Add 1'60" Station • + e • - +2 (St. Mary's) Use DMU Equipment + • + • • - 1 • Increase Tualatin to + • • • 2 Wilsonville Speed to -2 75 mph • - - Run Trains Every 20 + +2/•+-2 +3 - Minutes Symbols refer to the effect the option would have on each item: + = positive, • = neutral, - = negative Recommendations were made for all items except for the northern terminal location, which could not be decided without additional analysis. This resu'.ted in two options being carried forward for additional analysis, a Beaverton Transit Center terminus and a Merlo Road terminus. Other characteristics of the two operations plan options were as follows: Table 4-3 Options Characteristics Beaverton Transit Center Merlo Road Length. 15.35 miles 17.80 miles Maximum speed 75 mph 75 mph Equipment type DMU DMU Train frequency Every 30 minutes Every 30 minutes North terminal location Beaverton Transit Center Merlo LRT Station Stations 5 6 Trains required' 3 4 Passing sidings required 2 3 1. Not including spares Station location assumptions were also covered at the workshop with the following locations identified as the baseline options: 1. Wilsonville Elementary School 2. Tualatin adjacent Boones Ferry Road near Tualatin-Sherwood Road 3. Tigard at the existing Tri-Met Transit Center 4-2 11,1111 loll E011 4. Washington Square just north of Scholls Ferry Road (this location was not finalized at the workshop but rather during later meetings) 5. Downtown Beaverton at Hall Boulevard (Merlo Road northeni terminal option only), or at the Beaverton Transit Center (BTC northern terminal option only) 6. Merlo Road Westside Light Rail Station (Merlo Road northern terminal only) With these assumptions established, a final operating plan was completed and used as a base for the capital cost estimate and the operating cost estimate. The following sections describe the technical aspects of the operations planning process and its results in greater detail. 4.3 RUNNING TIME/SPEED See Tables 4-4 and 4-5 for the tables used to calculate ruining time. These tables are based on the acceleration and deceleration rates of representative DMU equipment matched to the maximum allowed speeds on different segments of the line. Approximately 10 percent (2 minutes to BTC and 3 minutes to Merlo) was added to the running times shown in these figures to account for the everyday practicalities of running a public transportation service such as slow boarding during a particular stop, differing engineer operating styles and weather. Based on the running times, cycle times for each option were created by adding time for layovers ® at both ends of each run and for meeting opposing trains at sidings. The cycle times indicated ® the number of train sets and passing sidings required for each option. Preliminary figures were presented at the workshop. A number of modifications were later made based on new information concerning track running speeds and equipment perfonnance. Tables 4-4 and 4-5 are the final calculations on which equipment needs and schedule assumptions were made. Table 4-6 provides an analysis of the total cycle time for the commuter trains based on a scheduled 30-minute frequ°ncy. The cycle time provides the basis for determining the number of train sets, which is 4 for the Merlo alternative and 3 for the Beaverton Transit Center alternative. The average speed is also calculated, 34 mph for Merlo and 37 mph for the Beaverton Transit Center alternative. 4-3 Table 4-4 Commuter Rail Running Time Analysis - Beaverton Transit Center to Wilsonville Location Schedule Beginning Change in Final Accel. Elapsed Accum Elapsed Accum. Secticn Stations in Bold Arrival Mile Point Speed Speed Rate Time Time Dist. Distance Activity m h sec ft Beaverton TC 2.45 2.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Station Sto 0 2.45 20 20 0.93 22 22 315 315 Accel. 1 2.51 0 20 0 50 72 1467 1782 Coast Farmington Road 2.79 2 2.79 40 60 0.93 43 115 2523 4305 Accel. 2 3.27 0 60 0 125 240 11000 15305 Coast 4 5.35 -60 0 -2 30 270 1320 16625 Decel. Washington 5.6 5 5.60 0 0 0 60 330 0 16625 Station Square Stop 6 5.60 60 60 0.93 65 394 2839 19464 Accel. 7 6.14 0 60 0 5 399 440 19904 Coast 7 6.22 -10 50 -2 5 404 403 20307 Decel. Greton 6.3 7 6.30 0 50 0 45 449 3300 23607 Coast 8 6.92 -50 0 -2 25 474 917 24524 Decel. 'Tigard 7.1 8 7.09 0 0 0 60 534 0 24524 Station Stop 9 7.09 60 60 0.93 65 599 2839 27363 Accel. 10 7.63 0 60 0 35 634 3080 30443 Coast 11 8.22 -10 50 -2 5 639 403 30846 Decel. Bonita Road 8.3 11 8.29 0 50 0 137 776 10047 40893 Coast Tualatin River 10.2 13 10.19 10 60 0.93 11 786 867 41760 Accel. Bridge 14 10.36 0 60 0 29 815 2552 44312 Coast 14 10.84 -60 0 -2 30 845 1320 45632 Decel. Tualatin 11.1 15 11.09 0 0 0 60 905 0 45632 Station Sto 16 11.09 45 45 0.93 48 954 1597 47229 Accel. 16 11.39 0 45 0 49 1003 3234 50463 Coast 17 12.01 0 45 -2 0 1003 0 50463 Decel. Teton 12 17 12.01 0 45 0 0 1003 0 50463 Unused 17 12.01 15 60 0.93 16 1019 1242 51705 Accel. 17 12.24 0 60 0 155 1174 13640 65345 Coast 20 14.83 -10 50 -2 5 1179 403 65748 Decel. Ton uin 14.9 20 14.90 0 50 0 21 1200 1540 67288 Coast 15.2 20 15.19 25 75 0.78 32 1232 2938 70226 Accel. 21 15.75 0 75 0 79 1311 8690 78916 Coast 22 17.40 -75 0 -2 38 1348 2063 80979 Decel. Wilsonville 17.8 23 17.79 0 0 0 0 1348 0 80979 Station Stop Minutes 22.47 Miles 15.34 This running time analysis does not include time spend waiting for meets at sidings. Acceleration and deceleration rates provided by Adtranz for PennDOT DMU. 4-4 Table 4-5 Commuter Rail Running Time Analysis - Merlo Road to Wilsonville Location Schedule Beginning Change in Final Accel Elapsed Accum Elapsed Accum Section Stations in Bold Arriv?1 Mile Point Speed Speed Rate Time Time Dist. Distance Activity (Mph) sec ft Merlo Road 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Station Stop 0 0.00 35 35 0.93 38 38 966 966 Accel. _ 1 0.18 0 35 0 240 278 12320 13286 Coast 5 2.52 -35 0 -2 18 295 449 13735 Decel. Beaverton 2.6 5 2.60 0 0 0 60 355 0 13735 Station Stop 6 2.60 60 60 0.93 65 420 2839 16574 Acccl. 7 3.14 0 60 0 132 552 11616 28190 Coast 10 5.34 -60 0 -2 30 582 1320 29510 Decel. Washington 5.6 10 5.59 0 0 0 60 642 0 29510 Station Square Stop 11 5.59 60 60 0.93 65 706 2839 32349 Accel. 12 6.13 0 60 0 6 712 528 32877 Coast 12 6.23 -10 50 -2 5 717 403 33280 Decel. Greton 6.3 12 6.30 0 50 0 45 762 3300 36580 Coast 13 6.93 -50 0 -2 25 787 917 37497 Decel. Tigard 7.1 14 7.10 0 0 0 60 847 0 37497 Station _ Stop 15 7.10 60 60 0.93 65 912 2839 40335 Accel. 16 7.64 0 60 0 35 947 3080 43415 Coast 16 8.22 -10 50 -2 5 952 403 43819 Decel. Bonita Road 8.3 16 8.30 0 50 0 137 1089 10047 53865 Coast Tualatin River 10.2 19 10.20 10 60 0.93 11 1099 867 54733 Accel. Bridge 19 10.37 0 60 0 29 1128 2552 57285 Coast 19 10.85 -60 0 -2 30 1158 1320 58605 Decel. Tualatin 11.1 20 11.10 0 0 0 60 1218 0 58605 Station Stop 21 11.10 45 45 0.93 48 1267 1597 60201 Accel. 22 11.40 0 45 0 48 1315 3168 63369 Coast 22 12.00 0 45 -2 0 1315 0 63369 Decel. Teton 12 22 12.00 0 45 0 0 1315 0 63369 Unused 22 12.00 15 60, 0.93 16 1331 1242 64611 Accel. 23 12.24 0 60 0 155 1486 13640 78251 Coast 25 14.82 -10 50 -2 5 1491 403 78655 Decel. Ton uin 14.9 25 14.90 0 50 0 21 1512 1540 80195 Coast 15.2 26 15.19 25 75 0.78 32 1544 2938 83133 Accel. 26 15.74 0 75 0 80 1624 8800 91933 Coast 28 17.41 -75 0 -2 38 1662 2063 93995 Decel. Wilsonville 17.8 28 17.80 0 0 0 0 1662 0 93995 Station stop Minutes 27.69 Miles 17.80 This running time analysis does not include time mend waiting for meets at sidings. Acceleration and deceleration rates provided by Adtranz for PennDOT DMU. 4-5 r r Table 4-b Cycle Time Analysis 30 Minute Frequency Scenario Merlo BTC r Minutes Minutes Running Time 31 25 Meeting at Sidings 0 0 Total Travel Time 31 25 Minimum Layover 16.2 15 Minimum Total Cycle Time 94.4 00 Train Sets Required 4 3 Sidings Required 3 2 Distance 17.8 15.3 Average Speed 34 37 4.4 SCHEDULE Market research in Phase I of the study indicated that the ridership on the Washington County line, being a suburb to suburb connector, will be more directionally balanced than on a typical commuter rail system. This situation implies the need for roughly equivalent service levels in both directions. Station access will be more critical than in a CBD-oriented service where most riders walk to their workplaces from their destination station. Close coordination with local transit services is therefore a pnority. In order to facilitate this coordination, regular, frequent, clock-face headways that easily mesh with connecting bus and light rail routes were adopted. Short trains running on more frequent headways will also allow for better coordination with light rail at the northern terminal station. The more typical commuter rail arrangement of long, high- capacity trains running on less frequent schedules would create an inconvenient situation for passengers transferring to light rail. The available capacity of the first light rail train leaving the terminal would likely be exceeded. by the number of commuter rail passengers alighting, forcing some to wait for a later train to continue their journeys. By mining short trains at a higher frequency, passengers arriving on commuter rail will be distributed more evenly through the peak hours, and will be able to board the next light rail train to continue to their final destination without delay. An advantage of the Beaverton Transit Center northern terminal is that the third "pocket" track located there could be used to store an extra light rail train which could depart for downtown Portland just after a commuter train arrives from Wilsonville. 4-6 1011111 Based on the cycle time analysis, several schedule options were created using different assumptions for top speed, equipment type, train frequency, and terminal locations. The number of train sets and passing sidings required were estimated for each option. The workshop group selected the 30 minute frequency option for developing operations cost estimates. The 20 minute service, although desirable from a passenger perspective, was considered impractical to operate on a single track railroad. The 20 minute service would require frequent meets with trains traveling in opposite directions (trains passing in opposite directions are referred to as a "meet" in the railroad lexicon). Each meet would represent a three to five minute delay. The resulting longer travel times and potential for reliability problems could possibly drive away more riders than would be attracted by the more frequent service. If the entire route were double-tracked, 20 minute service could be considered, but at a substantial capiia.l cost. Schedules were laid out for the 30 minute service to allow the locations of passing sidings to be determined and a full schedule completed. The final schedule to Beaverton Transit Center is shown in Table 4-7 and the schedule to Merlo Road Station in Table 4-8. These schedules were created using the running and cycle time analysis and the assumptions of the August 28 workshop. As the schedules were being refined, a number of new scenarios were tested to try to reduce the waiting time required at passing sidings and, therefore, reduce the total running time. A scenario that moves all train meets to station locations was selected as having the most benefits. This operating pattern made it possible to reduce the time allowed for meeting at sidings, and add it to layover time in the cycle time analysis (Table 4-6). Althoiigh this does not result in operating cost savings, it has the benefits of reducing trip time for passengers and producing a more reliable and consistent operation. Other schedule possibilities, such as midday, evening, or weekend service, could be considered as long as the headway between trains is one-half hour or more. Running more frequent service would require additional trains and sidings. The regular, even headway schedule pattern for this line makes crew scheduling a relatively simple task. Four, two-person crews are assumed for the Merlo alternative, and three crews for the Beaverton Transit Center alternative. All operating employees would be full-time. Each crew would report to the maintenance facility one-half hour before their first morning departure, operate their required trips, and return to the maintenance facility. Crews would be released between the morning and afternoon peaks. The afternoon peak would operate in the same way. 4-7 Table 47 Beaverton Transit Center Schedule Southbound Train Set C A B C A B C A A B C A B C A B AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM Beaverton TC Dp 5.30 6.00 6.30 7.00 7.30 8.00 8.30 9.00 3.00 3.30 4.00 4.30 5.00 5.30 6.00 6.30 Washington Sq. Arr 5.35 6.05 6.35 7.05 7.35 8.05 8.35 9.05 3.05 3.35 4.05 4.35 5.05 5.35 6.05 6.35 Greton Arr 5.38 6.08 6.38 7.08 7.38 8.08 8.38 9.08 3.08 3.38 4.08 4.38 5.08 5.38 6.08 6.38 Tigard Arr 5.39 6.09 6.39 7.09 7.39 8.09 8.39 9.09 3.09 3.39 4.09 4.39 5.09 5.39 6.09 6.39 Boiiiia Ruad Dp 5.41 6.11 6.41 7.11 7.41 8.11 8.41 9.11 3.11 3.41 4.11 4.41 5.11 5.41 6.11 6.41 Tualatin Arr 5.46 6.16 6.46 7.16 7.46 8.16 8.46 9.16 3.16 3.46 4.16 4.46 5.16 5.46 6.16 6.46 Boeckman Road Dp 5.53 6.23 6.53 7.23 7.53 8.23 8.53 9.23 3.23 3.53 4.23 4.53 5.23 5.53 6.23 6.53 Wilsonville Arr 5.55 6.25 6.55 7.25 7.55 8.25 8.55 9.25 3.25 3.55 4.25 4.55 5.25 5.55 6.25 6.55 Northbound Train Set A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM Wilsonville Dp 5.25 5.55 6.25 6.55 7.25 7.55 8.25 8.55 3.25 3.55 4.25 4.55 5.25 5.55 6.25 6.55 Boeckman Road Arr 5.27 5.57 6.27 6.57 7.27 7.57 8.27 8.57 3.27 3.57 4.27 4.57 5.27 5.57 6.27 6.57 Tualatin Arr 5.33 6.03 6.33 7.03 7.33 8.03 8.33 9.03 3.33 4.03 4.33 5.03 5.33 6.03 6.33 7.03 Bonita Road Arr 5.38 6.08 6.38 7.08 7.38 8.08 8.38 9.08 3.38 4.08 4.38 5.08 5.38 6.08 6.38 7.08 Tigard Arr 5.40 6.10 6.40 7.10 7.40 8.10 8.40 9.10 3.40 4.10 4.40 5.10 5-.40 6.10 6.40 7.10 Greton Dp 5.42 6.12 6.42 7.12 7.42 8.12 8.42 9.12 3.42 4.12 4.42 5.12 5.42 6.12 6.42 7.12 Washington Sq. Arr 5.44 6.14 6.44 7.14 7.44 8.14 8.44 9.14 3.44 4.14 4.44 5.14 5.44 6.14 6.44 7.14 Beaverton TC Arr 5.50 6.20 6.50 7.20 7.50 8.20 8.50 9.20 3.50 4.20 4.50 5.20 5.50 6.20 6.50 7.20 Passenger stations are shown in bold. Sidings are located between Greton and Bonita Road, and Boecl man Road and Wilsonville. 4-8 Table 4-8 1Merlo Road Schedule Southbound Train Set D A B C D A B C A B C D A B C D AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM Merlo Road Dp 5.25 5.55 6.25 6.55 7.25 7.55 8.25 8.55 3.25 3.55 4.25 4.55 5.25 5.55 6.25 6.55 Merlo Siding South Dp 5.27 5.57 6.27 6.57 7.27 7.57 8.27 8.57 3.27 3.57 4.27 4.57 5.27 5.57 6.27 6.57 Beaverton Arr 5.31 6.01 6.31 7.01 7.31 8.01 8.31 9.01 3.31 4.01 4.31 5.01 5.31 6.01 6.31 7.01 Washington Sq. Arr 5.36 6.06 6.36 7.06 7.36 8.06 8.36 9.06 3.36 4.06 4.36 5.06 5.36 6.06 6.36 7.06 Greton Arr 5.39 6.09 6.39 7.09 7.39 8.09 8.39 9.09 3.39 4.09 4.39 5.09 5.39 6.09 6.39 7.09 Tigard Arr 5.40 6.10 6.40 7.10 7.40 8.10 8.40 9.10 3.40 4.10 4.40 5.10 5,40 6.10 6.40 7.10 Bonita Dp 5.42 6.12 6.42 7.12 7.42 8.12 8.42 9.12 3.42 4.12 4.42 5.12 5.42 6.12 6.42 7.12 Tualatin Arr 5.47 6.17 6.47 7.17 7.47 8.17 8.47 9.17 3.47 4.17 4.47 5.17 5.47 6.17 6.47 7.17 Boeclanan Road Arr 5.54 6.24 6.54 7.24 7.54 8.24 8.54 9.24 3.54 4.24 4.54 5.24 5.54 6.24 6.54 7.24 Wilsonville Arr 5.56 6.26 6.56 7.26 7.56 8.26 8.56 9.26 3.56 4.26 4.56 5.26 5.56 6.26 6.56 7.26 Northbound Train Set B C D A B C D A C D A B C D A B AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM Wilsonville Dp 5.25 5.55 6.25 6.55 7.25 7.55 8.25 8.55 3.25 3.55 4.25 4.55 5.25 5.55 6.25 6.55 Boeckman Road Arr 5.27 5.57 6.27 6.57 7.27 7.57 8.27 8.57 3.27 3.57 4.27 4.57 5.27 5.57 6.27 6.57 Tualatin Arr 5.33 6.03 6.33 7.03 7.33 8.03 8.33 9.03 3.33 4.03 4.33 5.03 5.33 6.03 6.33 7.03 Bonita Arr 5.38 6.08 6.38 7.08 7.38 8.08 8.38 9.08 3.38 4.08 4.38 5.08 5.38 6.08 6.38 7.08 Tigard Arr 5.40 6.10 6.40 7.10 7.40 8.10 8.40 9.10 3.40 4.10 4.40 5.10 5.40 6.10 6.40 7.10 Greton Dp 5.43 6.13 6.43 7.13 7.43 8.13 8.43 9.13 3.43 4.13 4.43 5.13 5.43 6.13 6.43 7.13 Washington Sq. Anr 5.44 6.14 6.44 7.14 7.44 8.14 8.44 9.14 3.44 4.14 4.44 5.14 5.44 6.14 6.44 7.14 Beaverton Arr 5.49 6.19 6.49 7.19 7.49 8.19 8.49 9.19 3.49 4.19 4.49 5.19 5.49 6.19 6.49 7.19 Merlo Siding South Arr 5.54 6.24 6.54 7.24 7.54 8.24 8.54 9.24 3.54 4.24 4.54 5.24 5.54 6.24 6.54 7.24 Merlo Road Arr 5.56 6.26 6.56 7.26 7.56 8.26 8.56 9.26 3.56 4.26 4.56 5.26 5.56 6.26 6.56 7.26 Passenger stations are shown in bold. Sidings are located between Greton and Bonita Road, Boeckman Road and Wilsonville, from Merlo Road to approximately 2000 feet south of Merlo Road. i i i 4-S s s ~ s i~u 1 ys,s C1~ ART S~~E~~LE ~ 1 LLE AA BUT ER RAIL 7:so~ GQ1v► E~T QtA G ORN NG PEAK HOURS BE Rv M SAMPLE SCHEpUEE _ FRE UEN~Y g; 300m M 1 NUTS 8: 300m 9: p0om p.o M 30 g: ppam 7; 30am 6: 30om 7: ppom - g:00am 5.30om 5.0 M BEAVERTON TC _ M 2.115 l p1GTON W ASN - 10.0 M SQUARE M 7.10 - 15.0 jUALAT 1 M, 11.10 9 .1300 8.3 B:OOom W 1LSONV ItLE ; 300m 7 7: OOam M• 17.80 _ _ g.30om g; 00am 5: 30am Figure 4- l a { . USE CH A... QM~~ ER R Q ESQ s C ER~~ ~Q AQ RN I NG PEAK HOUR gt - MG 9-. 300M SAMPLE SGoUM NUTS FRE UENCY g; 00am 30am 0.0 M g; ooam 300m - 6: ooam 6-.300M ooam 30am - 5.0 M 0.0 ROAD - - - BEAVERTON M 2.60 TON - - WASNING - ~ - - 100 M SQUARE TIGARD y- - M V ILIE w 1y SON -7-.300M M, 17.80 00am 6; 30om 6: ooam 5: 300m 4_ 1b 'wasil Bill F;gure 4.5 SIDING REQUIREMENTS Siding locations were the last phase of the operation plan completed. The siding locations were determined as part of an iterative process with the schedule creation process. Three main scenarios and a number of variations were analyzed for each northern terminal option. The final plan varied considerably from the initial proposal to allow for a faster and more reliable operation. Using string line diagrams (Figures 4-la and 4-lb), a graphical representation of a train schedule, the running times and conceptual schedules were laid out in detail to allow the locations of passing sidings and a final schedule to be completed. In addition to assuring the operational utility of the siding locations, care was taken to avoid locations where sensitive eYiviroru`ilelltai conditions exist or where construction cost would be unusually high. This analysis determined that the optimum locations for passing sidings are as follows: 0 The Beaverton Transit Center alternative would require two new sidings. A long siding would be created between Bonita Road in Tigard and Farmington Road in Beaverton by connecting the former SP and BN lines with a new crossover at the south end, and extending double track between the Greton and Beburg siding on the north end. Another siding would be built from the Wilsonville Station to approximately Boeckman Road, about one mile north. A third siding south of Tonquin Road is also recommended to assist in retaining schedule reliability. • The Merlo Road alternative would require an additional siding at the Merlo Road Station in the platform area. The long Bonita to Farmington siding allows for considerable flexibility in meeting and passing both passenger and freight trains. The efficient movement of freight trains was a priority of the siding location analysis. 4.6 NORTH TERMINAL Capital and operating cost estimates were completed for two route alternatives for the northern end of the line, one to the Merlo Road Station and the other to the Beaverton Transit Center. The Washington County Interurban Rail Study assumed that the northern terminal for the rail line would be either at Merlo Road LRT station or Beaverton Creek LRT station due to their close proximity to existing freight trackage. Analysis completed early in Phase II indicated considerable benefits to establishing the northern terminal at Beaverton Transit Center if technical and capital cost issues could be resolved. This alternative would require the construction of a new 2000 foot track extension within the right of way of Lombard Street in Downtown Beaverton. The benefits include: • A shorter and therefore less expensive to operate route • The need for one fewer equipment set with the attendant savings in capital and operating costs • Fewer grade crossings and therefore safety concerns 4-12 i A more direct route to a light rail connection o Service to a major Westside bus transfer center Preliminary analysis indicated that this alternative is technically feasible and the Beaverton Transit Center (BTC) option was added at the August workshop. The workshop attendees recognizes she benefits of the BTC alternative but due to its complexity, traffic impacts, and resultant;, ;rement for a full public involvement process, a final decision could not be made within the time frame of this study. 4.7 EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS D 'IGSGI lilUlll~J1G 'iplc unit IT.%NFJ', equi me t e h--- been acsu-med as the vehicle technology. Other types a \L ~ .aq~aaYvu.. of equipment were reviewed, but DMUs were found to be best suited to the Beaverton to Wilsonville service because they accelerate and decelerate faster, are considered more compatible with street operations, and are less expensive to operate at the peak load volumes expected on the line. Rapid braking and good visibility will be especially critical if the Beaverton Transit Center alternative with its light rail-style operation on Lombard Street is selected as the preferred northern terminal. DMU performance capabilities were incorporated into the cycle time and schedule analysis. The Beaverton Transit Center alternative would require three two-car DMU sets in regular service plus an extra two-car set held in reserve for maintenance and to cover breakdowns for a total of eight DMU cars in the fleet. The Merlo Road alternative would require four two-car DMU sets in regular service plus an extra two-car set held in reserve for maintenance and to cover breakdowns for a total of 10 DMU cars in the fleet. 4.8 MAINTENANCE!LAYOVER FACILITY AND DEADHEADING A final determination of the location and nature of the maintenance facility for service has not been made. For costing purposes, a facility capable of storing and conducting minor maintenance on a maximum fleet of 10 DMUs is currently being assumed. Equipment will be stored overnight and in the afternoon between peaks at the facility. A likely location for the facility is between the Tigard Station and Bonita Road. A site at this location would be accessible to any potential service along the McMinnville to Milwaukie line and to the Cascadia Corridor should ODOT decide to maintain inter-city trains at this location. All crews and trains would begin and end each service period at the facility, and trains would be stored there during the midday. It is likely that trains would go into ser-ine at the next passenger station from the facility and go out of service at the closest station to the facility to allow the set to begin serving passengers immediately. 4.9 OPERATING COST ESTIMATES Annual operating costs were estimated based on the final operations plans for the Beaverton Transit Center and Merlo Road terminal options. These estimates are shown in Table 4-9. 4-13 Table 4-9 Annual Operating Costs Cost Element BTC Merlo Train operations $904,000 $1,202,000 Equipment maintenance $592,0001 $717,000 Track maintenance/ Access charges $341,000 $378,000 Station maintenance $385,200 $443,200 [Insurance $804,000 $804,000 General and administrative $850,000 $850,000 I W aa1 .pJ,V r u,LW V l .~F,J`94,2VU Notes: Two person crews Standard union wage rates No leased equipment MOW, track access and/or operator profit subject to negotiation Operating cost estimates were developed as follows: Train operations costs consist of crew wages and benefits (using United Transportation Union wage rates), transportation supervision (one position) and fuel. Crew wages were calculated by determining the number of crew persons required to operate the trains in service as well as the number of hours they would work, including both straight time and overtime. All calculations are based on the actual schedule prepared for the study. To calculate fuel usage, DMUs were assumed and recent diesel fuel prices for the Portland region were utilized. Transportation costs are primarily variabie and will change as trains are added or removed from the schedule. Equipment maintenance costs were based on a per-mile DMU maintenance estimate from recent industry information applied to projected unit-miles, plus an allowance for interior and exterior train cleaning. Elements include labor, parts, supplies, and utilities for servicing, inspections, preventive maintenance, and repair. Equipment maintenance has both fixed and variable elements. The FRA requires regular inspections of railroad equipment at fixed intervals. Most servicing, cleaning, and repair is related to how much the equipment is used and will vary as service is added or removed. Track maintenance and access charges consist of a projected $15,000 per mile maintenance allowance (net of any freiehi ccntribution) and a dispatching fee based upon other operations' experience adjusted to reflect the smaller size of the project start-up service in Washington County. Track charges will vary according to the length of line in commuter service and the number of trains that are operated over it. Station maintenance is assumed to be $30,000 annually per station. Station maintenance cost is estimated on a per station basis for platform and shelter related items, and on a per space basis for parking lots. These costs cover cleaning, maintenance, snow removal, and security activities 4-14 that are essential to running commuter rail services. These cost figures are based on both the costs borne by "Tri-Met for its park-and-ride facilities and on experience at other commuter rail operations. Costs vary as more stations and parking spaces are added'to the system. Insurance was based upon the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) risk management expense, allocated on a train-mile basis and applied to the projected train-miles of the two alternatives. The two projections were averaged, and the figure was applied to both alternatives because it was deemed unlikely that the modest difference in train-miles would actually result in different insurance costs. Liability insurance is difficult to estimate, since it is based on a variety of elements, most of which will be the subject of negotiations with the sponsoring agency, the railroad(s), and the insurance companies. Factors considered are: • Nature of the organization operating the service • Passenger volume • Number of stations served • Number of trains operated Density of freight and other passenger traffic on the line o Level of insurance required by the host railroad • Level of retention by the operator • Overall national risk management environment when the negotiations are taking place These and other objective and subjective factors were used to arrive at an annual premium. General and administration costs are calculated based on the number of positions estimated to be needed, and include typical salaries, supplies, rent, and professional services. Grant administration, finance, planning, marketing, public relations, contract administration., legal services, and operations and maintenance supervision, are also included in this category. The estimate was checked against the standard general and administration cost rates found at other commuter rail operations, which range between 22% and 27% of total expenditures. This figure represents the costs associated with an independent, stand-alone commuter rail agency. If the commuter rail service were to be operated by an existing agency, economies of scale could reduce these costs by as much as 10% to 30%. Since most of these activities would be required simply to allow the organization to exist, it is considered a fixed expense and does not vary between the alternatives. 4.9.1 Cost Components Figures 4-2 and 4-3 graphically show the breakdown of total costs between the two alignment alternatives. The relationship between fixed costs such as insurance and G & A, and variable costs such as operations and equipment maintenance, are illustrated. Fixed costs make up a slightly lower share of the total operating costs in the Merlo Road option because this option requires more train miles to serve and therefore incurs higher variable operating costs. This is shown in the train operations category, which increases from 23% of total operating costs in the Beaverton Transit Center option to 28% in the Merlo Road option. 4-15 Figure 42: Operating Cost Components - BTC i OTrain operations (23%) i 22% 23% ® Equipment maintenance (15%) i ' ❑Track maintenance/ j Access charges (90%) i E3 Station maintenance- 21 % 15% (10%) ® Insurance (21 10% 9% p General and -administrative (22%) Figure 4-3: Operating Cost Components - Merlo Road STrain operations (280/6) 190/° ® Equipment maintenance ' 28% (16%) OTrack maintenance/ Access charges (9%) t8% OStation maintenance (10%) 16% ® Insurance (18'/°) 1 M/0 9°k ®General and administrative (19%). 4-16 4.10 BUS COORDINATION ]PLAN Efficient inter-modal connections are important to the success of any rail transit project. When service is provided to adjacent areas, the number of trips which could practically be made using the new service increases dramatically by expanding the market for its services. The Wilsonville to Beaverton line has an opportunity to exploit these connections at all the identified station sites. This section identifies existing bus services in the corridor, how the service could be used to work with commuter rail, and new services that would establish links that do not exist today. The station locations identified in the baseline commuter rail option have been assumed in this assessment. There are three ways to provide connecting bus service to a new rail line: 1) Utilize the existing bus route network. 2) Modify existing bus routes or schedules to more closely correspond with rail station locations and schedules. 3) Create new shuttle routes specifically for the rail service. All methods can provide successful connections, but costs increase as the level of change increases. For this reason, the first objective of this task is to maximize the interconnections between existing bus services and the commuter rail service. This will use existing services more intensively, increasing the productivity of the entire transit network. In general, the Tri-Met and SMART route structures mesh well with the proposed service. Many existing routes nm directly to proposed stations, all of which have some service within walking distance. A number of improvements are possible, however, as follows: • Existing services - The Beaverton Transit Center (in the BTC northern terminal alternative) and Tigard Transit Center stations are existing transit centers where commuter rail riders could take advantage of extensive light rail and bus services without any modification. Merlo Road/158`h and Downtown Beaverton (both in the Merlo Road option only) provide connections to Westside LRT and several local bus routes. Except for minor changes to coordinate schedules, no changes are suggested at these locations. • Modifications to existing service - The Tualatin and Wilsonville stations could become bus service hubs through modifications to nearby bus services. At all stations, buses that run in the neighborhood of every 30 minutes could be adjusted to match commuter rail arrivals and departures to provide timed connections. Frequent services, which operate every 15 minutes or less, would not need to be modified. • New services - The Washington Square station is served along Scholls Ferry Road by three bus lines that travel toward the west, southwest and to Washington Square Transit Center; however, none of the three provides convenient connections to nearby employment areas. The station is within walking distance of retail and an employment center to the west of Hwy. 217, but is not within walking distance of the Transit Center adjacent to the mall. Two shuttle routes are proposed to link the station with nearby employment areas. 4-17 --memawo Mdmwi~ we so 10 GIs In own an an to LRT Station (Marto Road Option only) Light Rail and five bus Merlo Road/SW 158 ' terminal alternative make direct connecOUld be tma~~ to sbette tgoordinate services. The two stations along the Ivlerlo Road northern although some shifts to schedules c Approx. Annual changes to routings would be necessary, Notes(Modifications marginal routes. No Proposed Existing Peak O eratin Cost Service to: Peak geadwa $0 Vine Name Bea I None Li Schedule could be coordinated $0 9 Portland 30 30 imize transfer boro 9 sts-de LRT Hills , Gresham, Central to min oortime.dinated LRT We Cornell Oaks 30 Schedule could b-, c $0 SOS Cornell Oaks 30 to minimize transfer time. Jenkins-158'h Bethany, FCC Rock Creek, 67 Beaverton TC Approx. Annual NRer1o Road Optton Only) NoteslModitications marginal Deaverton ( proposed Downtown Existing Peak opera in Cost Service to: Peak $eadwa $0 Line Name $eadwa None runs 15 1' Tanasboume, PCC Rock Creek p 30 toocommuter rail on localllel $ SZ Farmington- 3 t85`h Wash. Sq., Tigard, Tualatin, Meridian streets. $0 .i6 Beaverton- park Hospital None, this route ions parallel Tualatin 30 30 to commuter rail on local Wash. Sq., Tigard, PCC Sylvania, streets. 79 Beaverton- Lake Oswego Lake Oswego 4-19 with ales only) ~'onnections could be Made lion ertain sched transit Center F pout the W estside to coordinate c verton ice tlgougbe requixed other erton Transit Center (Bea would Cellent local sere would ld offer el Annual Bear es to bus service Approx. ter station No chang Marginal Transit Cen Cal bus routes. NotesMAodiGcattons eratin Cost 'The Beaverton ail and 1l 1a proposed 01 conneCttons- Rxisttng $0 W estside Ltgh convenient Peak $0 to allow ,Ole Peak gead'i None $0 Service to: geadwa 9 None Line flame ortland 9 15 None $0 Gresham, Central P 15 15 be coordinated T l;illsboro, d Gateway tG 15 Schedule could , Creek 30 mi ansfer time. $0 LRT W ests.e LR Central Portlan GG Rock to nim>ze tr Burnside fanasbounie,P 30 None $0 52 Farington- Area 20130 Beaverton Indus. 20130 clone 195th 53S Arctic-A11en Hillsdale, 15 $4 Hall, $0 Beaverton City 15 None g H Hwy' Central Forest Portland H Sq ills 15 None $4 1rlillsboro> 15 30 be,;oordi TV nated HWY 30 Schedule could $0 5`l Forest Hills Sylvan, Central ital Portland s 34 to minimize transfer ti ,Tallel 58 Canyon R Hill- Marquam Will Hose 34 None, rail this route rues Marquam PCC Rock Creek, 30 to commuter or,local $0 611L Beaverton to Bethany, 30 ns arallel streets. jenkins_159 'Be-avert on TC ,-Tualatin, None, this route ru Pcal on 6'1 Wash. Sq•$T I andital 30 uter rail l parkHosp to comet $0 Beaverton Meridian 30 streets. 76 Tualatin Wash. Sq., pCC Sylvania, 30 Tigard, None Beaverton-Lake Lake Oswego 30 78 Oswego Willow Creek ,h South Seaven0n' 88 Hare 198 4-19 'RID I Washington Square Three bus lines serve Scholis Ferry Road adjacent to the proposed site of the Washington Square station, offering good connections to the South Beaverton area to the West. Access to the Mall itself and the employment centers in the area is problematic because of the complicated street layout and the barrier presented by Highway 217. To overcome these problems, this analysis proposes two new shuttle routes: one to serve the Nimbus Avenue area and another to serve Washington Square and Lincoln Center areas. Existing Proposed Notes/Modifeations Approx. Annual Line Name Service to: Peak Peak Marginal Headway Headway Operating Cost 45 Garden Home 121", Walnut St., Tigard, Garden 15/30 15/30 Schedule could be coordinated $0 Home, Multnomah Vil., Hillsdale, to minimize transfer time. Central Portland None $0 62 Murray Blvd. South Beaverton, Tech Campus, 15 15 Cedar Mill $0 - Some cost 92X South Beaverton South Beaverton, Central Portland 101I5 10115 ttride commuter rail toY elect savings possible Ex. Beaverton and connect with light rail to access destinations near downtown Portland. Ridership should be monitored to determine the need to reduce service. 15 New route coordinated with $235,872 WS Wash. Sq. Washington Square Mall, Lincoln 0 commuter rail schedule to Shuttle Center Office Park serve the Washington Square area. 15 New route coordinated with $235,872 NS Nimbus Shuttle Nimbus Avenue Office Park 0 commuter rail schedule to serve the Nimbus Avenue area. Note: Tri-Met is considering extending peak hour trips of existing bus line 43 from Washington. Square Transit Center to Nimbus Avenue in September of 1999. If this improvement is made, the 43 line will connect commuter rail to Nimbus Avenue and Washington Square, reducing the need for the new shuttle services. 4-20 O 1 ~J.F l~11~LU11 I Durham areas Tualatin certain p0a , and to cp°Tatnate er than Zi~ard,W uld ice to the cellent~ equired °th local seVes bus $eTVice would offer exo cbang Cent be t .T'gard er station routes. to Approx. Annual five local bus Margual .Transit with l bIIS s Notes[modtfrcations to eratin Cost 'The Tigard Could be made o..~ Serve Station ore convenient coon proposed eflovIs es to allow m $o Courve Existing peak Sherwood could h Jul peak gead%v Schedule to service reduce to' 1leadVV g be coordinated to so Nave 9 transfer time. so Line Bucliugan1e' None ood, Barber TC, 15130 Schedule could be Sherv'' inim1ze Blvd. Centralpo~iand 15130 30 coordinated to m g0 atbut 30 transfer time could be 12 B alnu t Schedule nimize w e 4uam K 1 HOSprtals 30 coordinated to mrr at oute tuns den gom e, this 45 at n m Kill- Mat 30 transfer tim utet rail on Immull TigardTC . SA•, $eaverto to ualatin, local parallel to streets. comrn $0 64R wash packNospi ulecouldbe Beaverton- Sche ll inim1Ze Meridian 30 16 Tualatin cootdinai. ed to tail on 30 transfer e this route erns parallel to corntuuter wash. $eaved°n, -?cc Sylvania, SA local streets. $eaverton-take Lake Oswego is Oswego c sip 4-2,1 age ~4 -.mom Vp Tualatin In Tualatin all Tri-Met buses operate along Martinazzi Avenue to the East of the baseline station site. To provide convenient connections to commuter rail, buses that currently travel through the central area on Martinazzi could tie rerouted to Boones Ferry to pass the station. Buses arriving from the North on Boones Ferry could be routed to stay on Boones Fetry to the station and then via Tualatin-Sherwood Road and back to Martinazzi to their regular routes. Buses from the South would operate in the opposite direction via Nyborg Road to Boones Ferry. The frequency of buses would remain the same. With improvements on Boones Ferry Road to serve bus passengers, such as high quality shelters, improved crosswalks, and other street furniture, the commuter rail station would serve as a downtown transit center for Tualatin. Additional operating costs associated with the longer running time via the station are included for the affected routes. Line Name Service to: Existing Proposed Notes/Modifications to Serve Station Approx. Annual Peak Peak Marginal Headway Headway Operating Cost 37 Tualatin Lake Oswego, South 30/40 30 Modify schedule to coordinate with commuter $23,587 McAdam District rail. Route change to serve station. 38 Tualatin Lake Oswego 30 30 Route change to serve station. $17,472 76 Beaverton- Durham, Wash. Sq., 30 30 Route change to serve station, this route runs $ 116,189- Tualatin Beaverton Transit Ctr. parallel to commuter rail on local streets, Including Sat. & Sun. 96 Tualatin I-5 'Central Portland 5110 5110 Route change to serve station. Some riders $73,164 - Could may elect to ride commuter rail to Beaverton be reduced if and connect with light rail to access overall service destinations near downtown Portland. level is reduced Ridership should be monitored to determine the need to reduce service. TS TMA Shuttle Tualatin Indus. Area Schedule could be coordinated to minimize $0 transfer time. 4-22 . 0000 erated, radiating User five routes areowest to hthe COMM erator. Currently Veral blocks eadways. this center s'Vera erase at 40 minute ville transit to relocate ently Op viUeMART, Wilson Would be to ville, cuxr ~i►son edby )P6011 of Wilson . An the City Annual would be se,, . Hall in ville city vice ApprOx' ville station at Wilson local serwith commuter ra il. marginal O eratin Cost The Wilson and204+ which provide Serve Station nter located minutes to coordinate cost transit ce from a itications to $0 _ some Utes 203 o§ed NotestM°d ° e 30 m prop Possible rail station. R odified to ev r`I Existing this route savings p could be m Peak a station. Mier This peak geadwa change to sere os khmm Service to: geadwa Route of the prop ossible Name 30160 duplicates poSome seduction in pea Line 60 ice. and garbur could be P al to Tualatin could so service garbur Tc~ it implementation. to m schedule Yers east of 1-5 after commuter garbur Emp~ srye statio ttansfer time. $117936 201 Route change intmize 60190 Serve station. Inc-teaser peer rail be coordinatee to m Employers 90 Route Chang with Comm $111,936 Oregon City, 30 frequency to coordinate . Increase Circle, schedule serve station. user rail 202 Q1eg°n Crty east of 1-5 qp COnunerce Route change t ordinate with comm 95~'- Employers nest of 1-5 30 frequency to CO schedule could be SO 203 Commerce d west 40 schedule. a station. City gall, East an ville Route change to serve transfer time n' ville ofwilson Limited 204 Wilson Sections Limited coordinated to Road Salem 1X Salem Express 4-2~ 1 =9:1;000 go I'M.= 4.11 BUS SERVICE COST ESTIMATION The operating costs of the identified service changes were estimated using current Tri-Met cost statistics: $52 per vehicle hour. Operating costs for SMART or for shuttle services contracted to a private operator would likely differ somewhat. The operating costs of new services were estimated by creating a summary schedule for each service which included running time, number of trips, and number of buses required. From these figures the total number of daily vehicle hours could be calculated. Operating costs are summarized in the following table: A able 44 'V Summary of Feeder Bus Operating Costs Operator Annual Cost Tri-Met $215,779 SMART $235,872 New Shuttles $471,744 Marginal costs for modified services were established by estimating the increase in running time for the change for each trip and then multiplying by the number of daily trips to arrive at the daily vehicle hours. In the case of line 76, weekend hours are also included since the new route is proposed to be in service at all times, even when commuter rail does not operate. Since a new transit center is created in downtown Tualatin, which has benefits of its own, it could be argued that not all of the operating costs included here should be considered as part of the commuter rail project. There may be some savings in overall bus service costs since passengers along some lines will likely switch to rail, reducing the demand for bus service. This will most likely be true for express lines that operate to downtown Portland, such as the 92X, 95X and 96. To minimize disruption to existing riders, any modifications should be made based on actual changes in ridership after the commuter rail service is implemented. Quantifying these savings accurately would require a detailed ridership forecast process, which is outside the scope of this project. In addition to operating cost, the new shuttles and schedule improvements at SMART would require new vehicles. A total of six, twenty passenger mini-buses have been assumed. The total cost is as follows: Table 4-11 Feeder Bus Capital Costs Vehicles Cost per Route Required Vehicle Cost Nimbus Shuttle 2 $60,000 $120,000 Wash. Square Shuttle 2 $60,000 $120,000 SMART 203 1 $60,000 $60,000 SMART 204 1 $60,000 $60,000 Total 6 $360,000 4-24 i ~ ter 5A e Chap ~ evenue ~ R t i t 1i Masao t 5.0 REVENUE 5.1 FARE SYSTEM AND FARE COLLECTION 5.1.1 Fare Structure The fare structure of a commuter rail service is the system by which fares for any particular trip between any two points are calculated. Elements include the base fare itself, the zone system to vary fares by distance, discounts for various groups, time-of-day discounts, and coordination with other transit service providers. Fare structures for commuter rail operations tend. to differ from other transit system fare structures in several ways. The most significant is that fares for trips on commuter rail are generally higher than for similar trips on transit due to the higher quality and per-passenger cost of the commuter rail service. Multi-zoned fare structures based on distance traveled are common due to the long length of many commuter rail lines. Transfer privileges between commuter rail and transit are usually more restrictive than between transit modes, and sometimes do not exist at all. A number of combinations of fare policy and collection methods are possible. Table 5-1 provides key features from comparable commuter rail lines. Table 5-1 Fare Collection at Comparable Commuter Rail Services Fare Structure Fare Collection Service Fare Common structure Fare Ticket On- Transit fare integration structure type with transit service? collection machines? board method sales? West Coast 4 Zones No - premium fares POP (1) Yes No Yes - passes ar,i' -m.nsfers to bus Express only, some schedule coordinated bus service Coaster 4 Zones No - premium fares POP (1) Yes No Yes - tickets and passes allow free transfer, some schedule coordinated bus service Shoreline East 7 Zones No - premium fares On-board No Yes Yes - Passes only allow transfer. some schedule coordinated bus service Note (1): POP refers to Proof-Of-Payment fare collection, sometimes called the honor system, basically the same as used on MAX. The line under consideration in the Washington County Commuter Rail-Study is unique. To a greater extent than any other example that could be found, the Wilsonville to Beaverton line will be integrated into the regional mass transit system. Most other commuter rail services are stand- alone operations that either evolved from private railroad services with no organizational connection to city transit operations, or were planned as park-and-ride oriented services to a large downtown area where most jobs are within walking distance of the terminal. In neither case is integration with mass transit critical to the success of the commuter rail service. On the f Wilsonville to Beaverton line, trips will be made in both directions to work places spread along the length of the line, many beyond easy walking distance. Origins will be similarly dispersed. This pattern leads to a greater need for a coordinated connecting transit network. 5-1 The typical commuter rail service in the United States, especially new services, has tended to travel for long distances, some more than 50 miles, traveling through multiple jurisdictions frequently well past the geographic boundaries of the regional transit agency. This has led most commuter rail operations to be managed by separate organizations from the bus, light rail or subway transit agency. In contrast, the Wilsonville to Beaverton line will be between 15 and 18 miles long, about the same length as Westside Light Rail, and will run mostly within Tri-Met's district. Average trip length is expected to be short as passengers use the service for trips from a variety of origins to a variety of destinations, and many will require the use of light rail or buses to complete. Although the line will use diesel powered trains on an existing freight line, and is categorized as commuter rail, the service is expected to be used more like a light rail line. A variety of fare structures was examined to make a preliminary determination as to which would be most appropriate for the Wilsonville to Beaverton service. • No Fares - In this option riding the commuter rail service would be free to the public. No fare collection equipment would be necessary and the costs associated with ticket sales, collection, and accounting would be eliminated. Ridership would likely be higher than if fares were charged. Fare integration with connecting services would be technically simple, although having to pay for a connecting Tri-Met bus or light rail trip but not the commuter rail service might be confusing to the public. • Tri-Met Base, Full Integration - In this option the commuter rail service would charge the same fares and use the same fare media (tickets, passes, discounts) as the Tri-Met system. Since the line runs only in zone three, this would result in a flat fare of $1.10 (current one- zone fare). Passengers traveling through to zone one on Tri-Met light rail or buses would be charged $1.40 (current all-zone fare), and would be issued a transfer good on light rail or buses. This system would be easy for passengers to understand, underscore the comprehensive nature of the regional transit network, and be reasonably easy to implement. • Tri-Met Base, No Integration - This option assumes that a separate transportation agency would operate the commuter rail service. Some operating and administrative costs could be saved if this agency did not allow for any integration of fares. From the broader policy perspective of promoting the use of alternative transportation modes in the region, there are few benefits. Ridership would likely be lower than with other options since a large portion of the riders are expected to transfer from or to other modes as part of their trips. • Premium Fare, Integration - This option would be siZailar to the Tri-Met Base, Full Integration option except that passengers riding commuter rail would pay an additional amount above the Tri-Met base fare. This could be a bit confusing for passengers, especially those transferring from a Tri-Met bus or light rail train. These persons would have to pay an additional amount to ride commuter rail. Most commuter rail systems do charge a premium fare, which seems to be acceptable to riders. The extra revenue generated would reduce subsidy levels, but ridership would likely be lower than was estimated using the Tri-Met fare. 5-2 • Revenue Target - In this option a premium fare is pegged to a certain level of revenue rather than to other policy factors such as ridership maximization or integration with other modes of public transit. Care would need to be taken to set a reasonable, achievable revenue target if revenue maximization is a major goal of the service. If it is set too high, fares may be unacceptable to the public and loss of ridership would result in lower overall revenue. The larger goal of increasing usage on the line would also suffer. Based on the unique features of the line under study, it is recommended that the commuter rail service use the Tri-Met Base, Full Integration structure rather than a separate commuter rail premium structure. This is the assumption that was used to estimate ridership in the Washington County Interurban Rail Final Report (see Appendix M). ® An issue iiiat would have to be resolved before actual scrvice implementation would be the fares to charge for passengers traveling to and from Wilsonville, since SMART policy currently is not to charge a fare for its bus services. This includes SMART services that travel outside the district to connect with Tri-Met and Cherriots (Salem) buses. Passengers making connections to other operators pay the standard fare for that system. Two likely methods of resolving this issue are: 1) SMART could decide to make an exception for commuter rail, and the equivalent Tri- Met fare could be charged, or 2) SMART could decide not to charge for local trips between Wilsonville and Tualatin, malting the policy essentially similar to today's arrangement for bus services. The capital and operating costs of collecting fares would not vary between the two SMART options. 5.1.2 Pare Collection After the fare structure is set, a method of collecting the fares must be established. Fare collection equipment can be quite expensive and fare collection procedures can be labor- intensive. Designing a system with the proper balance for a specific operation is important to control costs and maximize revenue. Assuming a fare structure compatible with Tri-Met's standard structure reduces costs by using the same fare collection equipment, paper stock, and sales network. At Beaverton Transit Center or Merlo Road stations, the existing light rail ticket machines could be used with minor modifications to signage. If the service is not sponsored by Tri-Met, a method of dividing revenue between the agencies would have to be arrived at. Two primary options are in regular use in North American commuter rail operations. 1) Proof-of-Payment Method (POP) - Most new commuter rail services, such as Coaster, West Coast Express, Metrolink, Tri-Rail and VRE, use this fare collection method. In this model, ticket vending machines would be placed at every station and the proof-of-payment system S-3 would be employed, identical to the way it is used on MAX. Passengers would be expected to buy and validate tickets before boarding. If they do not, they are subject to fines. Most systems that use the POP fare collection method use the train conductor to make regular ticket inspections to provide a deterrent to fare evasion, eliminating the need for separate fare inspectors. Disadvantages of the POP system are the high cost of ticket vending machines, up to $60,000 each, and the requirement for regular servicing to remove money and perform maintenance. The higher fixed costs of POP make it ideal for systems where large numbers of people are boarding each train at each station. 2) On-Board Method - Most established commuter rail operations, such as the MBTA, Metro- North Railroad, Long Island Railroad, and CalTrain, use this method. The primary difference is that all tickets, transfers and passes are inspected on board by the conductor, who also sells tickets to passengers as required. Except for Beaverton Transit Center or Merlo Road, where MAX ticket vending machines could be used, all cash fares would be collected by the train conductor between station stops. Hand-held electronic ticket issuing machines would be used to issue transfers and assist with record keeping. This system is inexpensive to implement and utilizes the conductor's time between stations more fully, leading to greater productivity. Disadvantages include the need for employees to handle money directly and the need to add more conductors to collect fares if ridership grows beyond what one person can handle between stations. Experience shows that one conductor can comfortably handle two coaches in local service during the peak hours. If ridership grows over time, and heavy passenger loads make it impractical for the conductor to inspect and sell tickets to all passengers, the service could be converted to the POP method. This transition would be relatively easy to make since the on-board method requires only a small investment in equipment that would become obsolete. 5.1.3 Fare Policy and Collection Summary It is recommended that an on-board fare collection method be adopted for capital and operating cost estimation purposes. This option is the least expensive to implement, requires little additional cost, has the capacity to handle expected ridership levels, and can be upgraded incrementally should demand warrant. 5.1.4 Fare Recovery Ratio The recommended fare policy is biased toward building ridership and promoting overall transit system ridership rather than on maximizing revenue from the commuter line alone. The resulting estimated fare recovery ratio is low, between 9% and I I % depending on the option considered. This represents a conservative figure and actual experience will likely be higher for several reasons: 1) The estimate is based on the average Tri-Met fare per originating ride, including all pass and ticket types, including student and honored citizen's fares. Since the commuter rail service will be a peak hour, work trip-oriented system, it will likely be used more heavily by 5-4 passengers paying the full pass and ticket rates and not the more heavily discounted youth and honored citizen fares. 2) Ridership estimates are also conservative. The BTC option, especially because it provides a faster trip and connects with bus service to more locations, will likely attract more riders than the current estimate suggests resulting in more revenue. 3) As ridership grows, additional cars can be added to each train without a corresponding increase in operating costs. Only equipment maintenance and fuel costs, which make up slightly more than 15% of all operating costs, would increase'at a rate equal to the increase in capacity. This would result in an increase in the fare recovery ratio. If the entire rail corridor were to come under public ownership, some elements of the operating costs such as the amount of liability insurance and track access fees would be reduced or eliminated, resulting in an increased fare recovery ratio. It is reasonable to assume some of the above factors will occur, resulting in an eventual recovery ratio in the 15-20 percent range. When compared with other commuter rail agencies around North America, the fare recovery ratio is similar to other low-density services such as the Shore Line East in Connecticut, which has a 10.7 fare recovery ratio. Agencies that carry higher volumes of riders per train, charge premium fares, or both, typically have fare recovery ratios in the 40% to 60% range. The Tri- Met system average is in the range of 24%. 5.2 REVENUE FROM NON-PASSENGER SOURCES The ability to realize revenues from non-passenger sources is related to the structure of ownership of the right of way (ROW). There are numerous ROW components that can be, and indeed were, separated in the transactions between BNSF and P&W and between BNSF and the State. BNSF sold the track structure and operating rights to P&W. In <:uother transaction, BNSF donated the ROW and bridges, embankments and supporting track structure to the State, retaining a pipeline and fiber optic easement. UP iikewise might choose to retain some interests were the public to acquire its portion of the proposed route. Important components, and the entity likely to control them should the public acquire the entire track structure and ROW, are shown in Figure 5-1. 5-5 1 Figure 5-1 Right of Way Components and Prospective Owners Public Public Tracks 1 (Rail Land Pc' UP perhaps Assets) Public Freight Air Rights Rights . Passenger Utility & Rights Crossing Easement Rights Public Subsurface Pipeline and Public Rights Fiber Optic Rights UP perhaps BNSF. UP perhaps In order for the public to acquire the entire track structure and ROW, at least two transactions would be required: (1) Acquisition from UP of the portions of the route currently accessed via trackage rights. (2) Acquisition of track.structure and freight and passenger rights from P&W for its portion of the route. (It is assumed that freight rights would be retained by, or conveyed to, P&W in the course of that acquisition.) UP may choose to retain some rights such as fiber optic, as did BNSF. Hence the use of the word "perhaps" in the above graphic. Non-passenger revenues associated with ownership cannot be estimated absent investigation into the occupation of latitudinal and longitudinal easements over the subject rights-of-way. 5-6 However, two observations are in order. First, the State, as owner of the land underlying the former BN trackage, already should be enjoying what income can be generated from the majority of the right-of-way. Second, such income is unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to the costs of operating a passenger service over the line. The potential contribution of such non- passenger revenues is further limited by the fact that the State may not wish to attribute to the project the non-passenger revenue it would be entitled to. Although a very small amount of money, exclusive vehicle advertising and charter revenues ® could generate some revenue. Given the location of the line, its visibility and density, these funds are estimated at between $25,000-75,000 per year (based on the operating experiences of other districts). 5.2.1 Trackage Rights Compensation There are a myriad of compensation arrangements which govern the use of tracks owned by public entities by private freight railroads. Compensation paid by the freight railroads may be based upon: • carloads • car miles • train miles • number of trains • percent of revenue • in-kind services, such as the freight railroad performing maintenance on public sector-owned tracks • none of the above including no cash compensation whatsoever, The level of payment varies as much as the basis. Most public-owned track was at some time purchased from freight-oriented private railroads, and compensation for subsequent use of those tracks by the former owner generally was established as part of the Purchase and Sale transaction. Original line owners often have been successful in obtaining low Riture trackage rights fees as a condition of the line sale. The short line operator's general support of the project and interest in operating the service could complicate, if not thwart, competitive procurement of the passenger operating function. This could limit the ability of the project to realize a significant revenue stream from the installation of trackage rights charges at high rates of compensation. i 5.2.2 Non-Passenger Revenue Summary In brief, there is no norm or standard for the means or level of establishing trackage rights compensation for the use of public-owned track. Slightly more may be learned by looking at compensation terms in agreements among freight railroads. They also vary, but it is safe to say that car miles are a common basis of compensation. Charges resulting from arms-length negotiations in the range of $0.40 to $0.60 per car mile are representative but may not be attainable given the circumstances unique to this project. 5-7 i ~ CUalpter 6.0 ~ Project Cost,. ffet 1 1 I~ e 6.0 PROJECT COST EFFECTIVENESS 6.1 INTRODUCTION An important test for any new transportation project is the effectiveness of the investment in achieving transportation objectives in comparison with other existing or potential transportation improvements. In the Portland region, as required in all metropolitan regions of the U.S., candidate improvement projects competing for federal transportation funds are evaluated and ranked in order of priority through the development of a Transportation Improvement Plan, or TIP. These assessments are generally based on each project's benefits and costs, as well as assessments of their oomnatibility with regional transportation and land use policies. Short-term transportation efficiency is looked at along with the project's broader cost effectiveness at meeting regional land use, transportation, and quality of life goals. The project rankings also consider approaches to and mechanisms for financing these projects. More flexibility exists for locally funded projects, although they must still meet local and state planning objectives. This chapter will look at several measures of effectiveness and how the Washington County project performs with respect to each of them. Comparisons will be made to road projects, other commuter rail services in North America, and other possible transit options in Portland 6.2 PROJECT COST EFFECTIVENESS 6.2.1 Capital Cost Comparison One of the more important regional benefits that could be derived from a commuter rail operation in this corridor is the improvement in overall system reliability that could be achieved. Unlike Highway 217, which operates near capacity during much of the day and can become quite congested, commuter rail would provide a consistent and fast option. In addition, it would act as an extension of light rail by providing new options not only l,-'-veen Wilsonville and Beaverton, but throughout the Western portion of the region. These changes have the potential for delaying or defraying the building of additional highway capacity on parallel facilities. The following analysis compares commuter rail to highway expansion and light rail construction on a capital cost basis. It is limited to transportation capital costs and travel capacity benefits and does not take into consideration external benefits that commuter rail may or may not have over other modes. It should be noted that, although the funding for the project has been discussed for some time, there are currently no plans to add general purpose lane capacity to Highway 217 or I-5. Any new capacity would likely be in the form of tolled or HOV lanes. A full corridor alternatives analysis would be required to compare complete transportation strategies and arrive at a comprehensive evaluation of the ramifications of each. Without such a study, we are to some extent comparing apples and oranges, given the very different ways highways, light rail systems and commuter rail lines are built and operated. However, this exercise does begin to indicate how commuter rail can be used to serve a portion of the region's needs in a cost- effective manner. 6 -1 i Per Mile Costs A basic comparison of capital costs can be made by comparing the per mile construction cost of highway expansion, Westside Light Rail (Hillsboro Extension) and the proposed commuter rail operation described in this report. Table 6-1 shows this comparison. Table 6-1 Mode Average Cost per Facility Route Mile Urban Highway (1) $20,149,000 Lilt; ht Raij (2) $31,667,000 Beaverton-Wilsonville Commuter Rail (3) $2,844,000 Notes and Assumptions: (1) Based on estimates for widening Highway 217 between Highway 26 and 72nd Avenue included in the July 1995 Interim Federal Regional Transportation Plan produced by Metro. Figure includes inflation from 1995 to 1999 at 3% per year. (2) Hillsboro Extension light rail cost from the Tri-Met Westside-Hillsboro Light Rail Project Cost Report, January 1997 (vehicles not included). (3) This figure is the average per mile cost of the two alternatives (BTC - $3,103,529 and Merlo - $2,584,775) not including vehicles. From this comparison we can see that commuter rail is less expensive per mile to construct than either highway lanes or light rail. This is primarily due to the use of existing freight rights-of- way and infrastructure for commuter rail service. This comparison, however, does not provide a complete picture of the efficiency of each mode because it does not account for the difference in carrying, capacities of each mode. Capital Cost per Peak Hour Capacity Provided - Base Project To get an idea of how much it costs to add capacity for the different modes, the overall per mile cost figure is divided by the number of trips that each can accommodate. Table 6-2 shows the cost per route mile adjusted for the peak hourly carrying capacity of each. Table 6-2 Hourly Passenger Cost per Mode Cost per Facility Capacity (Roth Passenger Route Mile Directions) Capacity Highway (1) $20,149,000 3,960 $5,088 LRT (2) $31,667,000 4,500 $7,037 Commuter Rail (3) $2,844,000 680 $4,183 Notes and Assumptions: (1) Capacity calculated by taking the lane capacity at 55 mph of 1,800 cars per hour (Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1995, Table 3-1) and mulitplying by 1. 1, Metro's vehicle occupancy estimate for home-based work trips in peak periods. (2) Capacity based on existing current peak period schedules (both directions included) multiplied by 320 passengers per train. (3) See Chapter 2 for cost estimates, capacity is calculated based on proposed baseline operation (2 trains per hour x 190 seated passengers per train x 2 directions) 6-2 When adjusted for capacity, the Washington County commuter rail project, while still performing well, does not have as clear a short-term economic efficiencyr_dvantage. This is due partially to the conservative nature of the start-up service, which seeks to limit total project capital cost, not maximize capital efficiency. Capital Cost per Peak Hour Capacity Provided - Marginal Capacity Improvements To better compare the economic efficiency potential of service in the longer term, a comparison was made of the capital cost to add capacity. The following table shows that this efficiency can still he canttired by careful expansion and that commuter rail can serve as an investment for the future. Table 6-3 Capacity of Cost per Cost per Route Expansion (Both Passenger Mode Mile to Expand Directions Capacity Add Highway Lane Capacity (1) $20,076,000 3,960 $5,088 Reduce Light Rail Headways to 3 $10,889,000 6,400 $1,701 Min. (2) Reduce Commuter Rail $2,148,000 1,360 $1,579 Headways to 20 Min. and Lengthen Trains (3) Notes and Assumptions (1) Assumes that an additional lane can be added for the same cost as the first lane expansion. Given the limited width of the right-of-way and density of adjacent development, the marginal cost of expansion is likely to be higher than the first lane and may be impossible. (2) Equipment needed to provide maximum headways on Hillsboro Extension light rail, or every 3 minutes. (3) Equipment and facilities required to provide maximum headways on single track line, or every 20 minutes. Further expansion would be possible by adding a second track from Bonita to Wilsonville. This figure shows that the Washington County Commuter Rail operation would have a distinct future benefit of being able to add new peak capacity at a low marginal capital cost. Highway peak capacity expansion can be expected to have a marginal cost that increases with time. Midday service could be also be added with little additional capital investment, although operating cost would increase. The same trains, sidings and stations would simply be utilized for a longer period each day, improving the productivity of these investments. Therefore, while highway capacity, once it has fully utilized available right of way, can only be expanded further at great cost and possibly not at all, there is still considerable capacity that could be developed from the Beaverton to Wilsonville line through reasonable capital investments. 6-3 1111111 INN Usage and Capacity Initial usage of the line has been estimated at approximately 500 riders in the peak hour. While less than the 680 rider initial capacity of the line, this number can be expected to grow as job and residential growth continues in Washington County. Also, this figure was calculated based on a Merlo Road terminal. Analysis indicates that a Beaverton Transit Center terminal, because it improves travel times toward Downtown Portland while maintaining travel time toward Hillsboro would probably attract higher ridership. The recent opening of the Westside light rail line, which is carrying about 20% more riders than expected shows that, even in lower density suburban areas, many people are ready to commute using a high-quality transit service. The peak hour ridership on commuter rail is critical to achieving benefits for the entire corridor because of the way highway congestion affects travel speed and capacity. As a roadway nears its theoretical capacity, speed drops sharply as more cars are added. These last few cars add a significant proportion of the congestion. Conversely, by taking just a few vehicles off the road, commuter rail can have a substantial impact on reducing the level of congestion on parallel roads such as Highway 217 and I-5. The line can be looked at as providing a "safety valve" for congestion in the corridor. Even if commuters choose not to give up their automobiles in the near term, they will have an attractive alternative if they decide to in the fixture. This can be viewed as reducing the long term risk for employers in the corridor by improving overall mobility. 6.2.2 Other Issues Of course, there are many factors other than economic efficiency to take into consideration when selecting transportation system improvements. A number of other issues are important to understanding the information presented in this analysis. Transit Options Light rail, while efficient at moving large numbers of people and effective at shaping land use, requires a substantial up-front capital investment. While it is likely that the Wilsonville to Beaverton corridor will eventually warrant serious consideration of light rail, the land use intensity, trip patterns and regional transportation funding availability indicate that a lower initial cost service is a better option at this time. Like light rail, commuter rail, especially in the hybrid, more frequent-service form suggested here, offers the opportunity to serve regional land use goals far more effectively than freeway expansion. Similarly, while bus transit will continue to play an important role in the corridor by providing local and connecting transportation, the layout of major roads such as Hall Boulevard, Greenburg Road, Hwy. 217 and I-5, and the level of traffic congestion on'them, indicates that longer distance express transit service simply could not be effectively provided by buses without considerable investment in new bus or HOV lane infrastructure. Supporting regional land use goals would also be difficult without this investment in new lanes. 6-4 w loll 1 Commuter rail services have been effective at attracting people from single occupancy - automobile use by providing a level of comfort, speed, and service that is superior even to their personal vehicles. For instance, Vancouver, British Columbia's West Coast Express commuter rail service has attracted nearly 70% of its riders from their cars, not from other transit services. Access and Egress When comparing capital costs of transportation modes, it should be noted that expanding freeway capacity in the Hwy. 217 corridor will also require upgrading and capacity improvements to adjacent arterial roads to allow them to carry the traffic to and from the freeway. These improvements will add substantially to the cost of improving highway transportation to handle the projected demand in the corridor. Commuter rail, while making use of park-and-ride access that will require some minor traffic management improvements in the immediate vicinity, will rely heavily on other modes for access to and especially egress from the trains. It will take advantage of available capacity in the existing Tri-Met and SMART systems and on walking as access and egress modes. Only a small amount of new service would be required in the form of shuttles in the Washington Square area. Regional Land Use Goals Unlike conventional commuter rail, which can encourage low density residential development far from employment centers, the Washington County line could facilitate the development of mixed use nodes along its length. For this reason it is a transportation investment which is compatible with the region's growth strategies. Implementation of the line would allow the evolution of the regional high capacity rail transit system to proceed more quickly than by waiting for funding to come available for additional light rail lines in Washington County. This would in turn allow greater progress to be made on establishing the Regional and Town Centers proposed in the Region 2040 Growth Management Strategy. Rapidly growing employment centers such as Wilsonville and Tigard would be served by high capacity transit early in their evolution, allowing transit to capture market share as they grow, rather than after they have matured as auto-oriented centers. Only the Merlo Road station does not serve an important center in the 2040 Regional Growth Strategy. Table 6-4 shows the relationship between stations along the commuter rail line and regional and town centers in the 2040 Growth Strategy. 6-5 Table 6-4 Relationship of Stations to Regional and Town Centers Station Center Served Beaverton Downtown or Transit Center Beaverton Regional Center Washington Square Washington Square Regional Center Tigard Tigard Town Center Tualatin Tualatin Town Center Wilsonville Wilsonville Town Center 6.2.3 Comparison to Other Commuter Rail Operations Given the benefits of commuter rail, how does the Wilsonville to Beaverton project stack up on a cost effectiveness basis against other commuter rail projects in North America? Several indicators of operations performance were calculated to determine the relative efficiency of the proposed service. Productivity per Trainset Figure 6-1 shows the average productivity per set of equipment on various commuter rail services including both Washington County alternatives. Both alternatives perform within normal operating parameters for the other systems reviewed. This is notable since the other systems reviewed in general feature longer runs that do not involve as much time lost in turning the train at terminals. The operating plan for the Washington County Commuter Rail line was designed to minimize turnaround time as much as possible and keep the equipment moving (and therefore serving riders). The Beaverton Transit Center alternative performs better because its shorter running time requires one less trainset to provide the equivalent service. Figure 6-1 Trainset Productivity 200 1so 160 a 140 t 120 ? 100 80- 60 - 40 20 :R:f2 447, N*• BTC - Mcdo - West Coast Coaster Shore Line Wilsomille Wilsornille Express East L- 6-6 Cost per Boarding Ride The cost per boarding ride is estimated to be $8.00 for the Beaverton Transit Center alternative and $9.07 for the Merlo alternative. Figure 6-2 shows the operating cost per boarding ride of the two alternatives compared with other operations. Cost per boarding ride for the service is relatively low, although this would be expected since the length of the average trip on the Wilsonville to Beaverton line is short compared to other operations. Other factors include a low operating cost per train mile, discussed below. Because of the greater productivity of the Beaverton Transit Center terminal, it is the more efficient option from an operating cost per boarding ride perspective. Figure 6-2 Comparative Cost Per bider $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Y Shore Coaster Trinity Td-Rail BTC Meiio Line East Railway Option Option Express Cost per Train Mile The cost per train mile is estimated to be $29.67 for the Beaverton Transit Center alternative and $29.01 for the Merlo alternative. The cost per train mile refers to the average operating cost of running one trainset for one mile. Figure 6-3 shows a comparison of the proposed Washington County service with several other operations. 6-7 i Figure 6-3 Comparative Cost Per Train-Mile $50 it $40 a >rrFy - ~r.:r •~v Dp,G.,,..,..,=s~ ~I h •I ZY ~ L~N ~ I $30 ~,s r nt"~Y $20 t { E $10 i 1 p'Z SrY y G t $0.,x YY, marYr r' s.' Shore Line Coaster Trinity Tri-Rail BTC Merlo East Railway Option Option Express The estimated operating cost per train mile for the two Washington County Commuter Rail alternatives is lower than industry averages. This is due to the expected lower operating and maintenance costs for short DMU trains compared with longer locomotive-hauled trains. Track maintenance and access fees are also expected to be below industry averages due to the light- density shortline environment that the service will operate in. Public ownership of a portion of the alignment's assets also contributes to lower operating costs. On a per train-mile basis, the Merlo Road alternative is slightly more efficient than the Beaverton Transit Center alternative because it is longer and therefore requires the operation of more train miles while providing the same number of train trips. So even though it is more efficient on a per train mile basis, it requires more total train-miles to operate, canceling the benefits of this slight efficiency advantage. This measure is somewhat deceiving because the absolute cost of operating the Merlo alternative is higher and ridership is expected to be the same or likely lower. As mentioned above, this results in the Beaverton Transit Center alternative being more efficient on a per-boarding ride basis. 6.2.4 TIP Process As described in the Regional Transportation Plan, the process of ranking and selecting projects involves a number of steps, summarized below: 1. Nominations by local jurisdictions and Metro of projects to be included in the regional TIP 2. Evaluation of impacts and costs of candidate TIP Projects 3. Public comment process for TIP projects 4. Preliminary ranking of candidate TIP projects 5. Identification of available funding for TIP 6. Recommendation by Metro staff and advisory committees of projects to be funded 7. Public hearings 8. Metro Council approval of TIP 6-8 The technical analysis that guides the Metro process is focused on the candidate project's consistency with the Region 2040 Growth Strategy, its benefit in terms of air quality, transportation safety, reduction of vehicle miles of travel, and consistency with local land use and transportation plans. With respect to the commuter rail project, the focus of an analysis is expected to be on: a) 1`I»mber of person trips served by commuter rail b) Ability to serve the relevant land use elements of the 2040 Growth Strategy c) The projects support of other transportation investments d) Comparison of the cost of commuter rail versus investments in other modes within the corridor 6.2.5 Sums-nary Even though ridership is lower and line length is shorter than typical commuter rail operations around North America, by adjusting the operating approach and the equipment type to more closely match these characteristics, the Wilsonville to Beaverton service can be delivered in a cost effective and efficient manner. The result is an operation which favorably compares in the standard measures of financial efficiency with commuter operations in other parts of North America. The Washington County commuter rail service also compares well to other transportation options in the corridor, especially when issues such as land use coordination and future capacity expansion are taken into consideration. The line has the potential to form a key link in the region's public transit system and provide an attractive alternative to the automobile in providing service to the regional and town centers. 6-9 z Nil s v e a Aft ~ Chapter 7.0 1 e Land Use and ~ TransFortation Plans e a A 1 7.0 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANS 7.1 INTRODUCTION An essential element of the project development process for this commuter rail service is to examine how complementary the project is with the existing plans, programs, policies, and upcoming projects of the jurisdictions where the commuter rail service would operate. Conversely, this research needs to also identify any potential conflicts the commuter rail service would have with the plans of these jurisdictions. In order to understand the impact of a commuter rail operation on the jurisdictions where commuter rail would operate, a review was completed of the comprehensive land use acid transportation system plans that govern those jurisdictions. These jurisdictions are: ➢ Washington County City of Beaverton ➢ City of Tigard ➢ City of Tualatin ➢ City of Wilsonville Metro Oregon Department of Transportation ➢ Tri-Met 7.2 COMPATIBILITY WITH STATE TRANSPORTATION PLANS, POLICY AND PROGRAMS The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) addressed the proposed commuter rail service in the Oregon Rail Passenger Policy and Plan (adopted by the Oregon Transportation Commission in 1992). In that Plan, the alignment was characterized then as a "possible future extension" of one of two interurban service routes between Portland and McMinnville via Tualatin. The proposed service also conforms with the goals of the Oregon Transportation Plan, which seeks to provide a greater number of mobility options to help reduce the number of single- occupant motorists that use state highways, and to reduce the overall vehicle miles of travel in the metropolitan areas of the state. 7.3 COMPATIBILITY WITH REGIONAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND PLANS Recently, Metro's Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) endorsed including the Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail service into the revised Regional Transportation Plan due to be adopted in the Fall of 1999. The commuter rail service would support many of the region's goals, including, 1) increasing the number of available modal options in urban areas, 2) providing an interconnected passenger system, and 3) assisting in 7-1 promoting public transportation usage in Station Communities, Town Centers, Main Streets, - Corridors, and other envisioned communities. The alignment serves the 2040 Framework Plan designated regional centers of Central Beaverton and Washington Square, as well as the town centers of Tigard, Tualatin, and Wilsonville. Moreover, the improvements that would be made to the freight rail alignment with the commuter rail operation actively support the region's industrial areas and facilities. 7.4 COMPATIBILITY WITH REGIONAL TRANSIT SERVICE PLANS AND PROGRAMS With the exception of service to and from Wilsonville, which is outside the Tri-Met district and °nd boundary, L[1G l.V '7V would be n'~nsist-C,"4 wi q.. T-_il l - 1v1 7~.l Ga J is « l1 c u/ J av t0 n v r ua:u 1i1111Li1G1 hill~JGi4aa1Vt► vrvuau be VVilJlJaai A-1 I- connect transit services throughout the region. Service plans in development for this corridor have considered commuter rail as an option worthy of further analysis. In fact, commuter rail could replace and/or reinforce Tri-Met proposals for Bus Rapid Transit and shuttle services in the corridor. As plans for station sites, park-and-ride strategies, and transfers to and from bus and LRT services progress, Tri-Met will want to play a role to ensure the successful integration of Tri-Met services and commuter rail services. Some initial ideas, issues and challenges for integration of commuter rail into the regional transit system are described below: Uproming Tri Met Projects. Tri-Met is further developing plans for implementing a Bus Rapid Transit network. Two corridors are currently proposed for a demonstration project: Barbur Blvd and McLoughlin Blvd corridors. Commuter rail could interconnect well with a bus rapid transit corridor on Barbur Blvd. Tri-Met has also considered a bus rapid transit route for the Hwy. 217 corridor plan, which might not be necessary with a commuter rail operation in a large portion of the corridor. Tri-Met also has plans to implement a peak period "Nimbus Shuttle" between Washington Square and the Nimbus Business Center in the fall of 1999; which could complement the siting of a commuter rail station in this area. Park-and-Ride Strategies. In the corridor, Tri-Met operates park-and-ride lots in Tualatin at Martinazzi Road and at the Progress lot off Scholls Ferry Road on the east side of Hwy. 217 near Washington Square. At the Tualatin site, Tri-Met has considered moving the lot to an even more central city location, and the proposed commuter rail station site meets that criteria. Tri-Met would want to work to develop a joint commuter rail, bus transit center, park-and-ride development at a common location, either at the Tualatin-Sherwood Hwy. site or at another site one block north on Boones Ferry Road at Seneca Street. At the Progress lot, Tri-Met has underway a $500,000 program to upgrade the park-and-ride lot to more permanent standards with respect to access, security and landscaping. Building a commuter rail station on the west side of Hwy. 217 in such close proximity to the Progress lot 7-2 would run counter to providing an integrated transit service in the area, and would conflict with the objectives of this Tri-Met improvement project. Interface with Bus Services. The commuter rail operation would connect directly with bus and LRT services at the Beaverton Transit Center and the Tigard Transit Center, which again is highly supportive of Tri-Met policy. Development of the station areas for commuter rail at the Beaverton Transit Center would need to carefully consider how all of the services would functionally interact. For example, care would be necessary to ensure that the commuter rail alignment would not conflict or interfere with current transit services. Moreover, pedestrian . safety and guidance between commuter rail and existing services would need to be ensured. The siting of a commuter rail station adjacent to the Tigard Transit C shier lJ cl: arly consistent with providing an integrated, well-connected transit system. Finally, commuter rail would not duplicate any existing services, and existing bus routes (lines 92X, 78 and 76) would likely provide a good feeder service to and from commuter rail stations. Tri-Met has plans for extending service on the express line 92X along Scholls Ferry Road further west, which would provide a logical feeder connection to commuter rail. 7.5 COMPATIBILITY OF COMMUTER RAIL WITH LOCt-A.L COMPREHENSIVE PLANS A review of the Comprehensive Plans and Development Codes for Washington County and each of the five cities was completed to generally evaluate whether commuter rail would conflict with local plans and programs, and what local requirements would be enforced by zoning regulations. None of these plans and regulations discuss a commuter rail operation on the alignment, except in the context of a potential future transit operation'. Each document does describe the objectives for providing increased and improved transit services in appropriate locations (e.g., downtown). Where transit is considered, these plans and codes are explicit about the types of design standards that would be required for parking and access to transit stops and stations. 7.6 COMPATIBILITY OF COMMUTER RAIL WITH LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS Beaverton. The draft of the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) acknowledges this examination of commuter rail. The draft TSP states that commuter rail has the potential to link high employment centers throughout Beaverton and the region. In addition, the TSP acknowledges and expresses support for the value the freight line provides to shippers and other businesses in Beaverton. ' Each of the documents refers to a future LRT route. In the Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin and Washington County documents, a LRT route was considered within `existing railroad alignment right-of-way.' The City of Wilsonville Development Code mentions that the State has "indicated that the median strip of the I-5 freeway may be adequate to support light rail."(page 27) 7-3 Tigard. The City of Tigard's TSP is also in progress and the latest draft does discuss an LRT corridor station area that follows a portion of the alignment. From the point of view of the City staff, commuter rail could be considered in the same vein as LRT in the sense that this corridor could provide transit linkages and transit alternatives for the City. Moreover, the draft TSP does not prohibit or discourage any concepts for using the freight line for passenger rail transit. Finally, the TSP acknowledges the value the freight line serves for existing and future businesses in Tigard. Tualatin. The City's Comprehensive Plan also discusses a potential LRT route, that if advanced ought to consider using the railroad alignment, and should consider station stops at Nyberg RoadBoones Ferry Road and Seneca StreetlBoones Ferry Road. The Plan also discusses cxparlsloriof 1aiis-it sel V1liGL11aL wcjuI use h UC1w- ULLOW11 area as a reglori 1' dl 11Vd~+ Mill se! vfcc radiating from this center. The Tualatin Parking District will be building a 44-space parking lot at Seneca Street and Boones Ferry Road this year. If parking spaces were required for commuter rail, these spaces would need to be provided in a second or third level since there is no additional area available at this site to expand the parking facility. The City also owns a site at Seneca Street and 84`h Avenue that would be suitable for parking. Wilsonville. Support for commuter rail was adopted by the City Council two to three years ago, and the Council continues to ask staff for progress reports. Moreover, a local planning process for the commuter rail study identified much positive support from the general public as well. Both the current draft TSP and draft Transit Master Plan, which will be incorporated into the TSP, acknowledge this commuter rail study, and provide much detail about the characteristics of the proposed service. 7.7 STATION AREA CONSIDERATIONS Each of the jurisdictions met with the study team to discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of each proposed station site. Notes of these meetings are provided in Appendix I, and a summary of those notes is presented below. Beaverton. City staff are very concerned about the effect on traffic operations of extending the alignment north to the Beaverton Transit Center at grade across Canyon and Farmington Roads. However, they also acknowledge that any of the other potential sites would not provide an adequate connection between the Beaverton Transit Center and commuter rail. Parking would not be permitted at the commuter rail station, and the alignment would be permitted under the existing station area zoning regulations. i Washington Square. This area is in the middle of the Nimbus Business Center, a primary employment attraction. There are a limited number of adequate development sites, and most of the parcels are fully developed; however, there may be opportunity to develop a station on the property just south of the Malibu Grand Prix site. The site has a large parking area which may j allow for a joint use parking arrangement, and the site provides direct access to Cascade Parkway, rather than Scholls Ferry Road (Cascade Parkway is the preferred access to the site). A route for pedestrian crossings to and from commuter rail, Cascade Plaza and Nimbus Avenue businesses would need to be identified. 7-4 Tigard. City staff consider the track area below the Tigard Transit Center to be an ideal location for a commuter rail station because of its direct connection to this transit terminal. A means of providing pedestrian linkage between the transit center and the commuter rail station (either stairs, escalators, elevators) that meets ADA requirements would be necessary. Moreover, a safe and effective way to allow pedestrians to cross from the west side of the tracks to the east side and the transit center will need to be developed. While parking has not been planned for the Tigard station, there would be an opportunity to provide two rows of parking stalls west of the west side track as the station is currently conceived. Tualatin. The site at Tualatin-Sherwood Highway is ideally situated between the Tualatin CO^1in:-01"Is and commercial establishments. This property is owned by ODOT. A cause for 7 .-a ,.,...1be concern is that the demand for parking may exceed the num1ber ofrspaces Lulaa could constructed at this site, and parking for the commercial establishments might be utilized by commuter rail passengers. Wilsonville. The school site has several advantages, including the fact that there is enough land area to develop the site into a multi-modal transit center with park-and-ride, and the existing building could be adapted for mixed uses. The major drawback is that the site is not situated along an existing S.M.A.R.T route (approximately 300 feet south of an existing route). 7.8 LOCATIONS OF NEW TRACK ALIGNMENT As presently planned, the commuter rail system would require the construction of new track for sidings, double-track sections adjacent to existing track, and for the extension to the north terminus at the Beaverton Transit Center. These new track segments are discussed in Chapter 2, Capital Improvement Plan. 7.9 IMPACT OF COMMUTER RAIL ON FREIGHT RAIL OPERATIONS The additional train demand that would be generated is not anticipated to affect freight train operations now nor in the 20-year horizon. That is, the alignment is anticipated to remain a shortline operation without an increase in train operations significant enough to absorb the track capacity that would be needed by a commuter rail operation. The operator and the operation of the freight rail could, however, change at any time, and thus track demands would need to be carefully evaluated against the commuter rail service. According to the operator of the freight service, the majority of freight traffic occurs during off- peak periods, and additional shifts outside these peak periods could be made. In addition, the commuter rail service would create new track capacity in the form of a consistent double-track mainline, whereas now much of the alignment is a single-track line. Several rail sidings would be built to allow trains to meet and pass one another. These new track sections would be available to freight and passenger trains. Based on the projected commuter rail demands in the system, and the additional capacity to be constructed, commuter rail is not 7-5 anticipated to affect the shipping patterns and practices of existing and future businesses that would use the railroad. 7-6 1 1 1 1 1 1 Y ~ Chapter 8.0 1 ~ Environmental ~ Review 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 8.1 INTRODUCTION ODOT and the consultant team conducted a preliminary environmental analysis of the proposed Washington County Commuter Rail Study corridor. Using data from existing sources, this analysis provided an initial assessment of environmental resources within the area potentially affected by of the proposed project. The purpose of the analysis was to: (1) Determine if there are any environmental "fatal flaws" associated with the proposed commuter rail corridor, station locations, or system improvements (such as siding extensions or upgrades to stream crossings) that would preclude further consideration of the commuter rail program. (2) Provide information on the location of sensitive environmental resources to engineers and planners for consideration in planning station locations and system upgrades. This effort was the first stage in what is envisioned as a two-stage environmental review for this project. The second stage will require more detailed environmental analysis, including field verification of resources and potential impacts, preparation of appropriate environmental documentation, detailed consultation with resource agencies and the public, and application for required permits and clearances. 8.2 POTENTIAL IMPACT AREAS Most of the proposed commuter rail operations would occur over existing rail systems and would require new construction at several sites for stations, park and ride lots and new or upgraded track or structures. Therefore, the environmental analysis focuses on the following sites where construction would occur: a Proposed station sites at Wilsonville, Tualatin, Tigard, Washington Square, and Beaverton • Proposed double-tracking at several locations (including replacement of crossings over Fanno Creek and Ash Creek) m A new track alignment required for a potential station at Beaverton Transit Center • Site of the maintenance facility 8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The environmental analysis focuses on the following areas that were seen as indicators of potentially significant environmental concerns: e Cultural/historic resources ® Wetlands and water resources e Threatened and endangered species 8-1 • Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes sites • 4(f) Properties* In addition, required environmental permits and clearances were identified by ODOT and the consultant team. 8.4 METHODOLOGY/DATA SOURCES ODOT and the consultant team utilized existing sources of data to identify environmental resources (e.g., wetlands; historic resources) and/or constraints (e.g., floodplains, hazardous waste sites) within or proximal to the project area. Potential affects of the proposed commuter rail program, if any, were then identified. Existing sources of data used included: State Historic Preservation Office historic property and archaeological records, local wetland inventories, Natural Resources Conservation Service soil surveys, National Marine Fisheries Service and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife data bases, Natural Heritage Program data base, Unified Sewerage Agency data files, county flood plain maps, METRO water resources data files, CERCLIS and other Environmental Protection Agency and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality data bases on hazardous materials and waste sites, and local fire department emergency spill response data files. Concurrently, ODOT prepared a "Part 3 Project Environmental Classification" and a Federal Transit Administration "Documented Categorical Exclusion Worksheet" to document the preliminary environmental analysis. 8.4.1 Findings The results of the preliminary environmental analysis are summarized in Table 8-1. From Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1996; broadly defined, 4(f) properties include publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. 8-2 Table 8-1 Preliminary Environmental Analysis Resource Area Resources Present/ Potential Effects Cultural/Historic Resources o Potential adverse impact to character and/or integrity of certified historic structure and archaeological sites in vicini of proposed station site in Tualatin. Wetlands/Water Resources w Potential degradation of Fanno Creek where line crosses Fanno Creek; upgraded crossing proposed. O Potential degradation of wetlands in vicinity of the. proposed station sites in Beaverton. A Potential encroachment of 100 year flood plain where the prY^ x-- . oposed Tigard Transit Ccntcr staiion is located within 100 year flood lain. Threatened and Endangered O Potential negative effects on habitat; Tualatin River has a Species run of Winter Steelhead (proposed "threatened" status). Hazardous Materials a Potential groundwater contamination in the area of Beaverton Transit Center; may be of concern if project involves utilities relocation. 4(f) Properties • Potential encroachment and/or degradation of the quality of open spaces and recreational spaces encompassed by Tualatin Park, Fanno Creek Greenway, and the Willamette Greenwa . MOT and the consultant team identified the following environmental permits and clearances that may be required: Table 8-2 Permits/Clearances Permit/Clearance Regulatory/review agencies Wetlands (Clean Water Act Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Division of 404) State Lands, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality DSL Removal and Fill Oregon Division of State Lands Rail Crossings Oregon Department of Transportation National Pollutant Discharge Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, local Elimination System (NPDES) permit governments Endangered Species Act (clearance) National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife National Historic Preservation Act Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, Advisory Section 106 consultation clearance Council on Historic Preservation ODOT Erosion Control Plan Oregon Department of Transportation Land Use/Zoning Variances Local Jurisdictions 8-3 This preliminary analysis revealed no environmental "fatal flaws" in the project (as it is currently conceived) that should prohibit the project from advancing. This effort provided valuable input to the planning process by identifying resources early in the planning process and allowing consideration of avoidance or minimization of potential impacts. While sensitive resources and constraints that may potentially be affected by the project were identified, it appears that most effects can be either avoided or mitigated. Further planning and environmental analysis will more conclusively determine the presence of and possible impact to environmental resources. 8.5 NEXT STEPS Based on the preliminary environmental analysis, preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) will be required. MOT will consult with the Federal Tra-isit Administration to determine further analysis and documentation requirements. As project planning progresses, MOT will consult with resource agencies and obtain required permits and clearances. 8-4 e s t e i ~ Chapter 9.0. 1 ~ Institutional ~ Considerations i 1 1 1 1 1 9.0 INSTITUTIONAL, CONSIDERATIONS 9.1 INTRODUCTION Organizational arrangements for the ownership, management and operation of commuter rail services vary substantially. The approach adopted by the numerous new operations in North America is reflective of local conditions, resulting in as many institutional approaches as there are projects. For example, in a number of cities currently operating commuter rail systems the established transit agency manages the commuter rail operation as a division or department of its overall organization (SEPTA in Philadelphia, MBTA in Boston). In some areas commuter rail operating agencies are semi-autonomous, in some cases receiving financial assistance or policy guidance from other agencies (Metra, MTA - Long Island Railroad, MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad). In some instances states or provinces manage commuter rail operations (MARC, Connecticut DOT, Go-Transit in Toronto). Joint Powers Boards or Authorities are also a form of management (CalTrain and SCRRA in California). In Northern Virginia, VRE operates as an unincorporated joint project between two different regional transportation commissions. 9.2 ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS In considering potential organizational arrangements, it will become critically important that the following decisions be made: (1) Who will own and maintain the project facilities and equipment (2) Who will manage the service (3) Who will operate the service (4) How decisions will be made on service levels and fares (5) Who collects revenues (6) Who absorbs the risk exposure from operation of a rail passenger service Separate from the issue of who owns the right of way and track infrastructure are the questions of ownership of the rolling stock, stations and parking lots, maintenance facilities and equipment and any fare equipment. Should policy direction be provided by the same agency as the agency providing the operating personnel? As mentioned above, the approaches to addressing the questions of who does what vary significantly. The use of existing transit organizations is often quicker and simpler than starting from scratch with a new organization. However, there are situations which might present compelling reasons why a new authority should be created or why the responsibilities should be split among several existing organizations. Liability concerns are an important consideration, and in some cases have been a substantial consideration in the rationale for creation of a new and separate organization with "firewalls" between itself and other units of government. A new organization may also be better positioned to define new jobs and negotiate more efficient work rules with labor. To further aid in the understanding of the roles which are involved in the overall management of a commuter rail operation, the consultant team under the lead of Charlie Banks of R.L. Banks & 9-1 Associates provided a presentation and discussion at Workshop #2 on December 2, 1998 (see Appendix K). The following is a summary of the presentation material which focused on providing a definition of four roles that have traditionally been utilized in providing commuter rail services. The four roles are identified as: Sponsor Manager Operator Owner Table 9-1 provides a list of 36 characteristics and requirements of commuter rail operations. For each of the characteristics the table identifies which of the above roles is involved with addressing/implementing actions and whether or not the influence is primary or seconda--y. As an example, the entity with Manager responsibility would normally have primary responsibility for assuming financial risks and capital improvement funding. Likewise, the Operator would have the primary responsibility for operational safety and passenger security and the Owner would have the primary responsibility for environmental risks and maintenance of the track, structures, signals and communications systems. Each of the roles also are presented with opportunities as a result of their involvement in a commuter rail project. In the case of the Manager an example would be conducting project marketing, setting fares and the ability to select and/or change operators. The Operator has the opportunity to realize a profit if a contractor and also is the primary factor in influencing the quality of service. The Owner has the opportunity to realize long term goals, to make desired capital improvements and to add and/or modify service. Figure 9-1 provides an illustration of the Manager functions opportunities and range of responsibilities. For each of the identified opportunities and responsibilities the figure identifies whether it is an area of primary or secondary influence. Figure 9-2 addresses the Operator function and Figure 9-3 the Owner function. In considering the organizational structure options available for operation of a commuter rail line, it is helpful to understand the history and evolution of institutional arrangements used in North America. Table 9-2 provides an illustration of the historical changes in the roles of Sponsor, Manager, Operator and Owner. The very early commuter rail operations were a totally private railroad function with private railroads serving as Owner, Operator and Manager. The next era involved arrangements in which a public entity purchased services as a mechanism to influence either the amount, quality or characteristics of the service being provided. This limited role of only funneling public funds was short-lived and referred to as Sponsor. The Sponsor role in reality merged with the Manger role as agencies that provided funds desired to exhibit more control over the services provided. Over time the direct role of the railroads as either Manager or Operator of commuter rail operations has decreased and in many cases ownership of the rail corridors'themselves has moved to the public arena. A number of the most recent commuter rail operations implemented have followed a model which is identified as "New Age" in Table 9-2. Under this arrangement, a public agency serves the role of Manager and contracts for an Operator of the service with either a private contractor such as Herzog, or with Amtrak, or in some cases with a railroad. The Owner role is mixed, with either the railroads or a public agency being the two most common entities serving this role. Table 9-3 provides specific examples of the different arrangements experienced in the United States. 9-2 Table 9-1 Opportunities and Responsibilities of Service Sponsor, Manager, Operator and Owner ® Influence: Primary/ Ch ra ri i R Qpp2qynt, R n i 'li n r Administrator of public funds S onsor x X Primary Marketing and fare policies Mana er X Primary Ability to specify or change operators Manager X Primary Ability to achieve long term goals (intermodality, Manager X Secondary connectivity, etc.) - Ability to add and modify service (consistent and goodwill) Manager X Secondary Ability to influence service quality, set standards, monitor, Manager x Secondary etc. Financial risks Manager X Primary Capital improvement funding Manager X Primary Equipment supply and maintenance Manager X Primary Liabilit Andemnification/insurance limits Manager X Primary Public policy ramifications Yana er X Primary Environmental risks Manager X Secondary Labor/workforce arrangements Mana er x Secondary Passenger security Mana er x Secondary Profit potential (if contractor) Operator x Primary Ability to influence service quality, set standards, monitor, Operator X Primary etc. ' Train operations Operator X Primary Labor/workforce arran ements Operator X Primary Liability/indemnification/insurance limits Operator X Primary Operational safer Operator X Primary -Passenger security Operator X Primary Environmental responsibility Operator X Secondary Ability to achieve long term goals (intermodality, Owner X Primary i connectivity, etc.) Ability to add and modify service (consistent and goodwill) Owner X Primary Ability to implement new technology, services and processes Owner X Primary Ability to make desired physical improvements Owner X Primary Assurance of acceptable access Owner X Primary Operational control: dispatching, scheduling, other users Owner X Primary + Opportunity to realize other revenues from concessions, Owner X Primary I leases, etc. i { Environmental risks Owner X Primary Liability/indemnification/insurance limits Owner X Primary Maintenance of way, structures, signals and communications Owner X Primary Property taxes Owner X Primary a Public policy ramifications Owner X Primar Real estate mana ement Owner X Primary Labor/workforce arrangements Owner X Secondary 1 Figure 9-1 ~ ' to o ® o• i r Opportunities: Responsibilities: Set marketing and fare policies Financial risks Specify or change operators Capital improvement funding Achieve long term goals Equipment supply and maintenance Add and modify service Liabilityhndemnification/insurance limits Influence service quay Public policy ramifications Environmental risks Labor/workforce arrangements Passenger security Key: Primary Influence = Bold text Secondary In,fluerace. = Italics &L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. g 0 Figure 9-2 ® 0 1 ° ° 0 1 0 ® ® 0 Opportunities: Responsibilities: Earn a profit (if contractor) Labor/workforce arrangements Influence service quality Liability/indemnificationlinsurance limits r Operational safety Passenger security Train operations Environmental risks Key: Primary Influence = Bold teat Secondary Influence = Italics ILL, BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Figure 9-3 = ` s 0i i ® 0 d~eecl' P Opportunities: R.,sponsibilities. Achieve long term goals Environmental risks Add and modify service Liability/indemnificationrinsurance limits Assure acceptable access Maintenance of way, structures, etc. Control operations Property taxes Implement new technology Public policy ramifications Make physical improvements Real estate management Realize other revenues Labor/workforce arrangements Key: Primary Influence = Bold text Secondary Influence = Italics R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. so too so as on goo Table 9-2 caner Institutional Arrangements S onsotiManagerlGperatorlG p Generic variations public New Non- Public A e public Trifecta public Owner 0 erator purchase Mana er Non- Historical Of Services Agency Agency Agency Agency Sponsor NIA Agency Agency Railroad Railroad Manager Agency Contractor Agency Railroad railroad Railroad Railroad Agency variable operator Agency Railroad Railroad Railroad owner Railroad Table g-3 anaements Arr.~ h tional ner insti to ~anagerloperatorf©w variations Sp°ns°rf ~artnersh►p New Public aublic p, e N^n- Trifecta public ~;ator Non-own public er er Purchase Mana Set vices Tri-Bait o{ Historical I~IICTD Pen, JPB NIA PennDOT Metro METRA North sponsor Private Herzog Amtrak ty1CYD Railroad Amtrak Manager osT BNSF Florida Private Amtrak NIGTD Railroad Pen. JPR Operator Conrail gNSF Private Amtrak Railroad NICTD Tri-Rail owner pen. JPg south h piavA )San Shore) Keystone NJT Francisco) METRA Jervis) lphil: Chicago) )port Example Harrisburg) l so Sim For the Washington County Commuter Rail project each of the three primary roles of Owner, Operator and Manager have a range of options which can be considered in coming to a final recommendation of the appropriate entity or entities to serve the function. Owner. The current ownership pattern in the corridor from Wilsonville to Beaverton is different on the portion north of Greton (near Washington Square) than the portion south of Greton. North of Greton the underlying ownership of the right of way, track, structures and related improvements is with the UPRR. Through a lease agreement the Portland & Western Railroad (P&W) is entitled to full and exclusive use of the facilities for purposes of providing common carrier freight service only. South of Greton the underlying ownership of the right of way (land), structures, embankments and supporting track structure is with the State of Oregon through the Oregon Department of Transportation. Ownership of the tracks and other rail assets ® is ,vith ulc P&`rJ and ownershlp of pipeline and fiber optic rights is with the BNSF. Operation of a commuter rail service in the corridor under the current ownership pattern would require that agreements be developed with each of the parties with an ownership interest. If the public were to acquire the entire right of way and track structure, at least two transactions would be required: 1. Acquisition from the UPRR of the section north of Greton 2. Acquisition from the P&W of the track structure and freight and passenger rights for the portion of the corridor South of Greton Public ownership of the corridor right of way and freight and passenger rights would offer the following advantages with respect to development of a commuter rail operation: ® The public would be able to give operating preference to the passenger rail function. • The public would be able to avoid the uncertainties of having to rely on negotiating access to the corridor and use of facilities. i The public would avoid the added ongoing operating costs associated with gaining access to the corridor. 0 The public may be able to realize some potential revenues which would otherwise not be available. Potential disadvantages of public ownership include: The public would assume the added liabilities and risks of ownership. 0 The public would potentially assume the underlying risks of an environmental incident in the corridor. e The public would assume the responsibility for maintenance of way, trackage and structures unless it were to pass these on or share them with the freight operator in the corridor. If a decision is made to pursue initiation of commuter rail service in the corridor, and if the opportunity to secure public ownership of the entire alignment presents itself, it is the 1 recommended approach. 9-9 If the commuter rail project were to move towards implementation under the current ownership pattern, it is clear that agreements would be required at a minimum with the P&W and the UPRR. In particular, the UPRR would need to expressly grant authority for the construction of the improvements required to operate commuter rail service over its portion of the corridor. This would include the construction of station platforms necessary for the passenger service. The UPRR must also expressly grant authority to introduce commuter rail service over the line. The latter action will likely require additional financial consideration to the UPRR, the amount to be determined through negotiation. Appendix K provides a summary of a review of the Railroad agreements relevant to the potential operation of commuter rail services in the corridor north of Greton. s Operator. Previous sections have outlined *4 v raige ofoytions That are experienced in other commuter rail systems for the Operator function. In the case of the Washington County Commuter Rail service the likely options for assuming the Operator role are: Current Transit Operating Agency - Within the corridor two transit operators currently provide services. Tri-Met has the most extensive system and its service area covers the majority of the commuter rail corridor under consideration. Tri-Met also has experience in operating rail service, although operation of light rail on its own dedicated right of way differs substantially from commuter rail which utilizes a shared track arrangement with a freight operator. Also providing service in the south end of the corridor is SMART, the transit operator for the City of Wilsonville. An issue to be explored in more detail is the labor implications of an existing transit operator taking on operation of a commuter rail operation. o Contract Operator - The system Manager may choose to contract the operation of the commuter rail system to either a single operator or multiple parties. The Operator could be a private firm that specializes in providing such services, Amtrak, which has also contracted to operate commuter rail services, or an operating railroad. In the case of the Wilsonville to Beaverton corridor a special consideration is the P&W Railroad which appears to currently have passenger rights on the southern portion of right of way and dispatching responsibilities (freight) for the entire corridor. These factors, under the current ownership pattern in the corridor, would suggest the P&W as a potential Operator if the P&W desires to be in the business of operating passenger services. 9-10 Manager. The Manager role in the case of the Washington County Project would be either an existing or newly created public entity. The basis for this determination is that the capital and operating funds for the project will be predominately public funds requiring that a public entity provide the required oversight of the use of the public funding. Existing public agencies that would be candidates to serve the Manager function for this project are: - ODOT Washington County - Tri-Met SMART - Metro An alternative to an existing agency is the creation of a new entity either through specific legislative action or through a joint powers agreement or similar mechanism. 9-11 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 ~ Chapter 10.0 1 ~ Demonstration o Project 1 1 1 1 0 1 i 10.0 DEMONSTRATION PROJECT An element of the current study scope was the development of a recommendation regarding the implementation of a full demonstration of commuter rail operations within the corridor. As the project has moved through the various stages of definition, it has become apparent that the costs and feasibility of providing a realistic demonstration of commuter rail operations within the corridor is not realistic if the intent is to replicate: 9 Travel times which could be anticipated under full operations • A reasonable schedule Statioii loua6uns and park and ride access to the system O Passenger amenities O Ridership levels If, on the other hand, the intent of a demonstration is to illustrate that the line exists as a potential passenger transportation corridor and to generate public interest regarding the potential of a commuter rail operation in the corridor, it can be argued that such a demonstration has already taken place. In this case, the operation of an excursion train during the weekend of September 12 and 13, 1998 corresponding with the opening of the Westside Light Rail Project. The September 12 and 13 operation duplicated the majority of the alignment from Wilsonville to Beaverton (Beaverton Creek Station), with intermediate stops at Tualatin and Tigard. The service was run on two-hour headways from each terminal point, with a running- time of approximately 45 minutes. The equipment used was donated historic rail passenger cars, which were pulled by a diesel locomotive operated by the P&W Railroad. On Saturday, five northbound and five southbound trips were made. On Sunday, six trips were made in each direction. The interest level in the excursion service was high, with a two-day ridership of 5,996. The service was advertised in a number of local mediums including regular public mailing pieces put out by the local jurisdictions. Although the service was well received, the most frequent comment regarded the length of time for the trip from end to end. The travel time was a function of a combination of factors that limited the maximum speed to approximately 40 mph. Included as Appendix L to this report is a copy of the information brochure handed out to individuals who boarded the excursion services on September 12 and 13. Providing a demonstration which illustrates the full operating characteristics and ridership potential of the corridor would require a substantial capital investment. Operating speeds cannot be accomplished without upgrades of the track and some structures, changes to the signal system and to the crossing protection. System access would require the develr pment of temporary station platforms and park and ride capacity at or near the planned station locations. Possibly the most significant obstacle to developing a meaningful demonstration is the identification of available equipment which would duplicate the intended operating characteristics and passenger amenities. Most existing operations fully utilize their available equipment and are reluctant to make t available for short-term use on other systems. A review of potentially available equipment during the last year indicated a cost in the range of $75,000 to over $100,000 per week for a single unit with a minimum of 4 units required to make a full demonstration of service from the Merlo Station to Wilsonville. The net result of the above identified 10-1 improvements required to provide a meaningful demonstration of the commuter rail operation would necessitate making a substantial portion of the permanent capital improvements required to implement the service on a permanent basis. Based on the above assessment, it is recommended that a full demonstration program not be pursued. This recommendation is based on the findings that providing the level of investments required to replicate the service to a level so that potential users and policy makers/stakeholders can observe the full operation and benefits of a commuter rail operation would be cost prohibitive. i i 10-2 ~ p~t'PENDICES 1 0 1 1 1 1 e APPENDIX A - FI k,dL ai 1 A XXJL1 ilvil R a - i1 COST ESTIMATES A - Rail Consist & Recommendations B - Crossing Surface Replacements C - Crossing Protection Improvements D - Bridge Repair/Replacement Costs E - Beburg to Greton 2nd Main 'T'rack F - Tonqu.in Siding G - Wilsonville Siding FI - Line Segment Estimates jjjjj~~ all Appendix A Rail Consist and Recommendations Weloht ..Rail Rail' No Rail From To of Rail Year,. -.CW.R R®lay(T-F) WbIding (TF) Work (TF) Merlo Station (BN MP 25.30) 25.3 25.44 136 ! C 0.00 0 ; 739.2 25.44 25.55 112 580.80 0 0 25.55 26.64 115 0.00 5755.2 0 26.64 26.71 136 0.00 369.6 0 St. Mary's (BN MP 26.71=SP MP 756.94) Totals Merlo Station to St. Mary's' 581 6,125. 0 756.94 755.74 132 ; C 0.00 0 -6357.12 755.74 755.70 90 -211.20 0 0 755.70 755.39 132 C 0.00 0 -1636.8 VVIIIUCII-- ARM Y SL %or 1 Ir 755.39) Totals St. Mary's to Lombard St 211.20 0:00 7993.92 755.39 754.90 132 ; C 0.00 0 2587.2 754.90 754.34 136 C 0.00 0 2956.8 754.34 754.10 132 i C 0.00 0 1267.2 754.10 754.08 115 0.00 105.6: 0 754.08 753.61 132 C 0.00 0. 2481.6 753.61 753.59 136 0.00 105.6 0 753.59 753.21 132 C 0.00 0 206.4 753.21 752.65 132 C 0.00 0 2956.8 752.65 752.61 132 0.00 211.2 0 752.61 752.11 132 C 0.00 0 2640 752.11 752.00 132 ; C 0.00 0 580.8 752.00 751.89 136 i C 0.00 0 580.8 Greton (SP MP 751.89 = BN MP 31.28) Totals St. Lombard St. to Greton. . 0, 422 -18,058 SP Main Line 751.89 751.79 132 1C 0.00 0 528 751.79 751.48 132 0.00 1636.8 0 751.48 750.94 136 !C 0.00 0 2851.2 750.94 750.84 132 I C 0.00 01 528 750.84 750.80 113 211.20 0' 0 750.80 749.95 132 1C 0.00 0 4488 BN Main Line 31.28 32.52 112 76 0.00 6547.2 0 32.52 33.32 112 58 4224.00 0 0 33.32 33.65 112 55 1742.40 0 0 33.65 34.20 112 59 2904.00 0 0 34.20 34.52 112 54 1689.60 0 0 34.52 34.88 112 59 1900.80 0 0 34.88 35.20 112 0 1689.60 0 0 35.20 35.43 112 57 1214.40 0 0 35.43 36.05 112 62 0.00 3273.6. 0 Totals Greton to Tualatin :5,576 1-1,458%., 8,395 36.05 36.10 112 62 0.00 264 0 36.10 36.15 115 61 0.00 264 0 36.15 36.49 112 0 1795.20 0 0 36.49 37.03 112 55 2851.20 0 0 37.03 37.67 112 57 3379.20 0 0 37.67 38.72 112 60 0.00 5544 0 TF = track-feet Page A - 1 Appendix A Rail Consist and Recommendations WelOtA Fal( Rail No. Rail I From To of Rail' `Ybar GVYR 4t4lay.TFj VVeldliig (TF) .:Work (TF) 38.72 38.95 100 53 1214.40 - 0 0 38.95 40.43 112 60 0.00 7814.4 0 40.43 42.99 112 76 C 0.00 0 13516.8 Totals Tualatin to Wilsonville ?9;ii[O' _13.'686 13.517 TF = track-feet Page A - 2 Appendix B Crossing Surface Replacement Requirements Crossing Replacement Number Crossing Name Location Angle Tracks Surface Lanes (track-feet) Comments Merlo to St. Mary's 3E-025.90-.Millikan Way Beuvedon 80 ~2 :RUBBER 4, 84-REPLACE SURFACE Total Merlo to St. Mary's 84 St. Mary's to Lombard St. FD-756.60 Murray Blvd. Beaverton 80 1 RUBBER 5 90 REPLACE SURFACE FD-756.50 142nd Ave. Beaverton 80 1 AC 2 40 REPLACE SURFACE Private Crossing Beaverton 90 1 AC 1 24 REPLACE SURFACE FD-756.10 Hocken St. Beaverton 80 1 RUBBER 3 0 FD-755.90 Cedar Hills Blvd. Beaverton 80 1 RUBBER 4 0 FD-755.71 !Watson Avenue ;Beaverton 65 1 RUBBER 2 24 REPLACE S/W FD-755.60:Hall Blvd. .Beaverton 90 1 :RUBBER 2 12 EXTEND S/W FD-755.41 Lombard-Farmington Road : Beaverton 40 :1 'RUBBER ! 5 0 Tot-.-.j St: Mary's to Lombard St. 190 Lombard St. to Groton Fn-755.10 5th Street Beaverton i50 3 RUBBER 2 0 FD-753.30 Hall Blvd. Progress 180 1 RUBBER 5 881 FD-752.61 Scholls Ferry Road Beaverton 60 1 CONC 5 0 FD-751.90 Dakota Street Tigard 70 1 AC 2 561 T~4at'to~iit3id St: ~eaiorf 1 Groton to Tualatin SP Track FD-751.80 Tiedeman Ave. Tigard 45 1 AC 2 40 FD-751.10 Main Street Tigard 65 2 'AC 2 64! FD-750.70 Hall Blvd. Tigard 90 2 ;AC 2 96 BN Track + 50 1 AC 2 56; 3E-031.40;TiedemanAve. Tigard •75 !1 ;GONG 3 0+ 3E-032.20 Main Street Tigard 65 1 JAC 2; 32; 3E-032.47 Hall Blvd. Tigard 90 1 PLANK I 2; 36 3E-033.50 Bonita Road Tigard 90 1 PLANK 2 361 34.27 Private Crossing 16 1 ,PLANK 1 16; 3E-034.40 Durham Road Durham 34.97 Private Crossing Tryon Cr. WWTP 16 ;1 PLANK 1 16. 3E-035.80'Tualatin Road Tualatin :90 11 ;PLANK W 35.96 Private Crossing Historic House 16 1 PLANK 1 REMOVE 35.98 Private Crossing Historic House 16 1 PLANK 1 REMOVE Page B - 1 Appendix B Crossing Surface Replacement Requirements Crossing Replacement Number Crossing Name Location Angle Tracks Surface Lanes (track-feet) Comments Total Groton to Tualatin 428 Tualatin to Wilsonville 3E-036.10 Nyberg Road Tualatin 1 CONC 3 0 NEW SURFACE 3E-036.15 Tualatin - Sherwood Road _ Tualatin 100 _ 1 AC _ 5 100 REPLACE SURFACE 3E-036.80 95th Court Tualatin 1 CONC 2 0 SURFACE GOOD 3E-037.20 Teton Avenue Tualatin 54 1 AC 2 54 REPLACE SURFACE 3E-037.50 Avery Avenue 'Tualatin 0 1 RUBBER 0 0 OMNI -REPLACE? 37.72 Private Crossing Pac Supply AC REPLACE SURFACE 38.95 Private Crossing Browns-McCaman 16 WOOD 1 16 REPLACE SURFACE 3E-039.20 -Tonquin Road 'Washington Co. 42 11 CONC 2; O'SURFACE GOOD 39.85 Private Crossing ,16 ;1 MOOD 1 ! 16: REPLACE SURFACE 40.82 Private Crossing 16 j 'WOOD 1- 16 REPLACE SURFACE 3E-041.60 !Boeckman Road Wilsonville 42 1 ;WOOD 2; 42' REPLACE SURFACE 41.96 ;Private Crossing 26 j1 AC 2! _ 27 REPLACE SURFAC 42.06 i Private Crossing j16 1 WOOD 1 16 REPLACE SURFAC 3E-042.10 Barber St. Wilsonville 40 ;1 AC 2 40 REPLACE SURFACE 3E-042.60 Wilsonville Road Wilsonville 0 1 AC 2 0 NEW 1999 42.87 Private Crossing 16 3 WOOD 1 16 REPLACE SURFACE 3E-043.00 5th Street Wilsonville 16 1 WOOD 1, 24 REPLACE SURFACE X67 . _ Total t alaRln;Bo Vl[tlsmrwill.~ • . Page B - 2 Appendix C Proposed Crossing Protection Improvements Improve 12 Inch Cantilevers Pod No Crossing . Circuitry Lights Gates:. , & Gates Lights TAAWD Close TSIC Change Number Road Name Unit Costs $80,000 $2,000 $160,000 $250,000 $80,000 $20,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Totals Merlo to St. Mary's 3E-025.90-A Millikan Way 1 Total Merlo to St. Mary's 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cost Merlo to St. Mary's $80,000 $0 $0 $0 I'M $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 St. Mary's to Lombard St. FD-756.60 Murray Blvd. 1 FD-756.50 :142nd Ave. Private Crossing 1, 1 FD-756.10 Hocken St. 1 1 FD-755.90 'Cedar Hills Blvd. ? ! FD-755.71 Watson Avenue 1 j FD-755.60 Halt Blvd. 1 I t FD-755.41 Lombard-Farmington Road i I i TotalrSt< ~a to Losr±pard 3; t# '3.. 0 1 q , 0 0 0 0. host St,' R, dNaiy'k ilrordtfard 3t, $400~Q6 _ 5;000 . ° $0 _ $250;000 9~b Sao f0. 0.. 66t Lombard St to Groton I I FD-755.10 5th Street I 1 FD-753.30 Hall Blvd. 1 ! FD-752.61 Scholls Ferry Road 1 FD-751.90 Dakota Street i 1 I ~fol >is9 fit` t,,Areton r a 3 0 t1 1 0 0 0 p p avdt~tI1'$w t0~'(1`6t~ld 3'74b~QQ4` . $0 : $0 550;000 30 $if $0 $04943iQ Groton to Tualatin SP Track i FD-751.80 Tledeman Ave. ! 1 FD-751.10 plain Street FD-750.70 Hall Blvd. 1 ! i BN Track 3E-031.40 Tledeman Ave. 3E-032.20 Plain Street 3E-032.47 Hall Blvd. 3E-033.50 Bonita Road 34.27 Private Crossing 3E-034.40 Durham Road 1 ! '34.97 Private Crossing 3E-035.80 iTualatin Road 1 35.96 'Private Crossing 1 Page C - 1 Appendix C Proposed Crossing Protection Improvements 35.98 Private Crossing Total Graton to Tualatin 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Cost Qreton to Tualatin $160,000 $0 $360,000 $7500000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $"1,2700000 Tualatin to Wilsonville 3E-036.10 Nyberg Road 1' 3E-036.15 Tualatin - Sherwood Road 1 3E-036.80 95th Court ? 3E-037.20 Teton Avenue ? 3E-037.50 Ave Avenue ? 37.72 Private Crossing ? 38.95 Private Crossing ? 3t-039.20 Tonquin Road 1 ' 39.85 Private Crossing ? 40.82 Private Crossing i ' 3E-041.60 Boeckman Road 1 i 41.96 Private Crossing I i 42.06 ?Private Crossing 3E-042.10 i Barber St. 3E-042.60 Wilsonville Road 42.87 (Private Crossing 3E-043.00 5th Street 1 0 I 8 0 5;_ 0 0 0 0 0 tot~il ttiiiitirt o iMll>;~ngill~_ cosh,?us!h td v+iiisosvllo, $sa~,ooo $ooo,ooo $o so to so $1, 4 . d 'f6 tsrarsd:To$eI sf.,Grosstib t Itft;l,trh rovers n Page C - 2 ~ I ivxwmmm~ t an so an go an Appendix D Bridge Repair/Replacement Casts RepairlReplace chit comments Length $120,000 Bridge TYPO $10,000 Medo to St. Mary's Re lace -.2th Concrete Ballast Deck Trestle Merlo station BN MP 25.30 56! Cedar Mill Creek Minor Repairs $10,000 25.41 '.TPTBD 140 Beaverton Creek 26.21 CBG $140,000 Minor Repairs Beaverton BN MP 26.4 84 Johnson Creek 26.55 CBG Total Bridge Casts Merlo to St. Mary's St. Mary's to Lombard St. $0 St. Mary's 5P MP 756.3 Beaverton SP MP 755• Segment No Bridges on this ~s to bombard St, $495,000 Total Bridge Costs St. Mary , Lombard St. to Groton , Replace with Concrete Ballast Deck Trestle i Beburg SP MP 755.0 $225,000 75418 TpTOD 1051Fanno Creek $495,030 1 Replace Witt' Concrete Ballast Deck Trestle Fanno Sp MP 753.4 45 Trail Replace with Concrete Ballast Deck Trestle 52 '10 TPTBDq;25;000 631 Ash Creek , 751.97 ,TpTOD SPMP 751.9 = BNMP 31.28 Groton Gi'ttti . 1 $829,500 @ GoSt$:: 1 ~tgl'Bridg. $1,515,000 Groton to Tualatin Replace with Concrete Ba 5a1, t Deck Trestle $32,500 Tigard BN MP 32.1 374 Fanno Creek Replace approaches with Concrete Ballast Dec,( Trestle I $188'750 34.70 TPTBD 675 Tualatin Rives airs 35.30 TPTOD paint and minor Rep with Concrete 8altast Deck'frestte ; TTOD 125 Replace 85 $2x575,760 ITPTOD Tualatin MP 36.1 Tmalaridge Costs G;teto i.tb'Tiialatiti Tualatin to V,Illsonvitle + $596,250 z7.4 $0 Albertson MP Replace with Concrete Ballast Deck Trestle $867,500 Triroun Industrial MP 37.7 263 Hedges Creek No Repairs Needed $0 37.80 TPTOD 382 Hedges Creek •CBG 4 Hedges Cr Replace with Concrete Ballast Deck rest le 163eek 38.60 Widen opening??? $60,000 38,70 TPTOD g4lGrahams Ferry Road Culvert 40.3;BBD $90,000 Storwest MP 40.4 Replace With Concrete Box 40.T TPTBD 29 Unnamed Drainage Replace with Concrete Ballast Deck Trestle $1,1132750 41.2 TPTBD 42 Cattle Pass Wilsonville MP 42.8 -1 to Wilsonville I+ Total Brld a Costs Tualatin Page D ®wnnndox r ~~~aew E Construct 2nd Main Track Beburg to Greton New Track Costs 2nd Mainline Track - Beburg to Greton Ytem;Desc ii tion tit`y:; ITn~f Unit Pince Total Grading - On site emb. 5000+ C.Y $6.00 $30,000 Grading - Import emb. 45000: C.Y $14.00 $630,000 Utility Relocations 1 L.S. $200,000.00 $200,000 Wetland Mitigation Acre $75,000.00. $75,000 Construct Track 13700; T.F. $102.00 $1,397,400 Construct No. 20 X-over 6. Ea. $250,000• $1,500,000 Construct No. 12 TO 2; Ea. $65,000. $130,000 Shift/Relocate Track 1000; T.F. $40: $40,000 Relocate No. 12 TO 2 Ea. $25,000 $50,000 Concrete Crossings 416. T.F. $450 $187,200 Relocate Crossing Gate 3 Ea. $15,000 $45,000 Relocate Cant. Signal 2 Ea. $20,000 $40,000 Wayside Signals 3.5 Mi. $150,000 $525,000 Construct Br. (Add 2nd Track) 1 L.S. $1,093,500' $1,093,500 Drainage Improvements 1 L.S. $100,000 $100,000 Contingencies - 10% $604,310 Total $6,647,410 Page E -1 1 Appendix F Construct Siding ei i oriquilr. .New Track Costs Tonquin Siding Item Description ma th :BJ i<1iWPrice Total Grading 5000 C.Y. 15 $75,000 Right-of-way 1 Acre 150000 $150,000 Reconstruct Track 2260; T.F. $102.00. $230,520 Construct No. 15 POTO 2 Ea. $150,000 a3 V^ 0,0u0 Siding Signals 6: Ea. $75,000 $450,000 Contingencies -25% $301,380 Total _;.r_. $i,506y90© i is i 7 i Page F -1 Appendix G Construct Siding at Wilsonville New Track Costs Wilsonville Siding Item .Description ,Qtd ity.' Jjw Ujaif.??rice. Total Grading 6000 C.Y. $15.00 $90,000 Right-of-way 2 Acre $200,000 $400,000 Utility Relocation 1 L.S. $300,000 $300,000 Construct Track 5000: T.F. $102.00 $510,000 Construct No. 15 POTO 2: Ea. $90,000 $180,000 Siding Signals 6': Ea. $75,000 $450,000 Total -,$1;930 Page G -1 17 Appendix H Line Segment Cost Estimates Merlo Station (BN MP 25.30) to St. Mary's Jct. (BN MP 26.71) 1.41 Miles Item Desetiption 1J ty _.Ilm~t : • ; ; ` :rnit Pric. Total i Construct Track 712. T.F.' $102.00 $72,624 Relay Rail 0': T.F. $50.00 $0 Weld Rail 6,125 TX $11.00 $67,373 11V 1\VilV VV 380' Ea. $67.50 $25,630 Surfacing and Lining 6,733: T.F.: $6.50 $43,763 Crossing Surface Replacement 84~ T.R. $400.00 $33,600 Crossing Signal Improvements 1 L.S.; $80,000 $80,000 Bridge Repair and Replacement 1' L.S. $140,000 $140,000 Upgrade/Repaii No. 11 T.O.'s 7. Ea. $10,000 $70,000 Upgrade/Repair No. 16 T.O. 1: Ea. $20,000 $20,000 Wayside Signals 1.41 Miles $150,000 $211,500 Drainage Improvements 1.41. Miles $25,000 $35,250 Engineering & Contract Admin. 15% $119,961 Contingency 10% $91,970 Total Merlo Station to St. Mary's.Jct. $1;011,671 Page H -1 Appendix H Line Segment Cost Estimates Track, Structure and Signal Costs St. Mary's (SP MP 756.94) to Lombard St (SP MP 755.39) 1.55 Miles Item description : Qiuanta . , $3Bit .Idt P111, . Total Reconstruct Track 0. T.F $102.00 $0 Relay Rail 211: T.F. $50.00 $10,560 Weld Rail 0 TY $11.00 $0 ~ Tie Renewal 1,385: Ea. $67.50 $93,486 Surfacing and Lining 8,184, T.F. $6.50 $53,196 Crossing Surface Replacement 190 T.F.; $400.00 $76,000 Crossing Signal Improvements 1 L.S.: $736,000 $736,000 Bridge Repair and Replacement 1 L.S.. $0 $0 Access Control 1, L.S. $150,000 $150,000 Wayside Signals 1.55: Miles. $150,000 $232,500 Drainage Improvements 1.55' Miles $25,000 $38,750 Engineering & Contract Admin. 15% $208,574 Contingency 10% $159,907 Total St. Mary's to Lombard Sf., $1,758,973 Page H - 2 Appendix H Line Segment Cost Estimates Track, Structure and Signal Costs Lombard St (SP MP 755.39) to Greton (SP MP 751.139 = = 3.50 Miles Item Description °:uanity Ulixt Ubat Price Total Reconstruct Track 0: T.F. $102.00 $0 Relay Rail 0 T.F. $50.00 $0 Weld Rail 422;; T.F ' $ i LOG x4,646 Tie Renewal 2,606, Ea. $67.50 $175,905 Surfacing and Lining 18,480 T.F. $6.50 $120,120 Crossing Surface Replacement 144: T.F. $400.00 $57,600 Crossing Signal Improvements 1; L.S.. $490,000 $490,000 Bridge Repair and Replacement 1 L.S. $1,215,000 $1,215,000 Wayside Signals 3.5' Miles- $150,000 $525,000 Drainage Improvements 3.501 Miles $25,000 $87,500 Construct 2nd ML MP754.3 to Nip 751.89 1; L.S. $6,647,410 $6,647,410 Construct New Beburg Siding 1; L.S. $599,000 $599,000 Engineering & Contract Admin. 15% $1,488,327 Contingency 10% $1,141,051 Total Lombard to Gretoa $I 51,559 i Page H - 3 Appendix H Line Segment Coast Estimates Track, Structure and Signal Costs Greton (MP 31.28) to Tualatin (MP 36.05) = 4.77 Miles Item (Description Q ia#tity - Unit Unit Price Total Construct Track 17,076; T.F. $102.00 $1,741,752 Relay Rail 01 T.F:: $50.00 $0 Weld Rail 11,458; T.F $11.00- $126,034 Tie Renewal 9,799' Ea. $67.50 $661,399 Surfacing and Lining 19,853: T.F. $6.50 x129,042 Crossing Surface Replacement 428 T.F. $400.00 $171,200 Crossing Signal Improvements 1; L.S. $1,270,000 $1,270,000 Bridge Repair and Replacement 1 L.S., $2,575,750- $2,575,750 Construct No. 20 X-over at SP MP 749.95 1 Ea $250,000- $250,000 Construct No. 11 T.O. I , Ea. $112,000 $112,000 Grading for Track Relocation 1500: T.F. $50 $75,000 Remove Track 3000 T.F. $10 $30,000 Wayside Signals 4.77 Miles $150,000 $715,500 Drainage Improvements 4.77! Miles: $25,000 $119,250 Engineering & Contract Admin. 15% $1,196,539 Contingency 10% $917,347 Total Greton to Tualatin $10,090,812 Page H - 4 Appendix H Line Segment Cost Estimates Track, Structure and Signal Costs Tualatin (MP 36.05) to Wilsonville (MP 42.99) = 6.94 Miles Item Description - uan.titli lUi1i1: UnitT ice Total Reconstruct Track 0 T.F. $102.00 $0 Relay Rail 9,240 T.F. $50.00 $462,000 Weld Rail 13,886: T.F $11.00 $152,750 ® Tie Renewal 10,335; Ea.. $_67.50 $697,613 Surfacing'and Lining 36,643! T.F. - $6.50 $238,181 Crossing Surface Replacement 26T T.F. $400.00 $106,800 Crossing Signal Improvements 1' L.S. $1,540,000 $1,540,000 Bridge Repair and Replacement 1 L.S.- $1,113,750 $1,113,750 Wayside Signals 6.94; Miles. $150,000 $1,041,000 Drainage Improvements 6.94: Miles $25,000 $173,500 Construct Siding at Tonquin 1.00; L.S.. $1,506,900 $1,506,900 Construct Siding at Wilsonville 1.00 L.S. $1,930,000 $1,930,000 Engineering & Contract Admin. 15% $1,344,374 Contingency 10% $1,030,687 Total Tualatin to Wilsonville $11,337,555 Page H - 5 Ann°ndiv 6.1 .rr......,.... . Line Segment Cost Estimates Lombard to Beaverton Transit Center Item Description Quantity` :.Unit ' 'Unit l?rice Total Paved Trackway 2,100: T.F. $1,200.00 $2,520,000 Road Widening 6,300: S.Y. $22.00 $138,600 Curbing/Gutter 830 L.F.. $10.00 $8,300 Concrete Sidewalk 5,500. S.F. $3.00 $16,500 Turnout and Skewed Crossing 1 L.S. $120,000.00 $120,000 Traffic Signal - Lombard and Broadway 1 L.S. $125,000.00 $125,000 Traffic Signal Mod - Canyon Road 1 L.S.. $50,000 $50,000 Traffic Signal Mod - Farmington 1 L.S. $50,000 $50,000 Crossing Signal Mod 1; L.S.. $200,000' $200,000 Sign Bridge Replacement 1' L.S.: $140,000; $140,000 Bridge Modification 1 L.S. $200,000• $200,000 Subtotal 1 L.S. $886,235 $3,568,400 Engineering & Contract Admin. 15% $535,260 Contingency 25% $892,100.00 Total Lombard to Beaverton Transit:'Center $4,995,760 Page H - 6 APPENDIX I Rail Station Identification Notes e MMM" Commuter Rail Station Identification Notes BEAVERTON Meeting: July 23, 1998; Sorin Garber, Bob Yakas, Laura Jackson, James Gregory; Irish Bunnell, Randy Wooley, Joe Grillo Merlo City of Beaverton; City Comp Plan and Zoning; Station Area Zoning ® .OitatiUR will 1]avc 1)aiiciilg; Ridership Est. 470/590 Possibly in County; Washington Co. Comp Plan and Zoning; Station Area Zoning Tri-Met has a bus base there, and a small strip of land which they are considering doing some mixed use development on. Much of the area around the station is wetland, THPRD Nature Park, or other constrained lands. The light rail station has no parking, and parking for the terminal commuter rail station was seen as important. Maybe some sort of structured parking could be worked out with Reser's, but that is probably the only possible space. Tri-Met could move their employee parking to the west side of their property to allow that space to be used for commuter rail parking. It is viewed as very importatnt to have a connection between the commuter rail and light rail lines. There may be some space if the commuter rail line could be extended to Elmonica (170'). There is a large park and ride there, along with other Tri-Met facilities for a multi-modal transit station. There would be some rail construction needed and some more at-grade crossings of major streets. Beaverton Creek Station City of Beaverton; City Comp Plan and Zoning; Station Area Zoning Station will have parking; Ridership Est. = 470/590 Possibly in County; Washington Co. Comp Plan and Zoning; Station Area Zoning The City's land use goals for this area are still short about 190 housing units. There is some debate as to which of three key property owners will end up with a requirement to build the housing. The need to construct a new segment of rail to eliminate backing into the station would likely bisect a property and leave a marginally usable remainder. These are valuable commercial i properties for which permits for commercial/industrial structures have recently been granted. It is likely that the radius needed to make this connection would have significant property impacts. i There is not a lot of likely space to facilitate commuter rail access and a parking area at this location. One possibility would be to provide the terminal parking at a St. Mary's station and have the Beaverton Creek (or Merlo) be a non-parking station with connections to light rail. Commuter Rail Station Meeting Notes DRAFT 04/23/99 W&H Pacific 1 There is some space available (Tek Triangle) near Murray and Millikan which could be accessed by the eastern rail spur (the one that runs to GM). If there were a way to connect to this spur, maybe the Triangle parcel could be used; however, there is some likelihood that this spur will be removed and a new connection to GM made farther to the south. St. Mary's area has a soon to be decommissioned park-and-ride, along with a large amount of City owned land that could be used for a station. Access to this area is pretty good, and there is precedent on the transportation system for commuter/pulse use. There is not a lot of high density employment or residential use nearby. This station could serve as the last park-and-ride station, with the terminal station being the direct link to light rail. Beaverton Transit Center or Hall/Watson = City of Beaverton; City Comp Plan and Zoning; Station Area Zoning Station will not have parking; Ridership Est. = 160/210 There was not a lot of discussion of Hall-Watson site (parallel to Farmington). The City seemed interested in trying either to terminate the line south of Farmington or have the central Beaverton station south of Farmington Rd. The City still owns the old rail right of way that follows along Lombard Street. Maybe new rail could be installed to bring the commuter line nearer the BTC. Randy had a lot of concerns about additional at-grade crossings. The existing downtown crossing already creates a major traffic bottleneck. There is some available space in the feed store/Koji's that could be leased or redeveloped as a parking area. The connection to the BTC is about 1000 feet, which would have to be made enticing (covered, moving sidewalk, other) to get people to walk that distance. People generally would not walk this distance to make routine train connections. This would nut meet the goal of having a commuter rail-light rail link station. There may be space behind City Hall to develop a station, but parking would be limited. As the downtown Beaverton station is a non-parking station, this may not be a problem. The site would be close to City Hall/Griffith employment center. Washington Square North of Scholls Ferry - City of Beaverton; City Comp Plan and Zoning; Station Area Zoning Station will have parking; Ridership Est. = 260/320 Within Beaverton, options between Scholls Ferry and the northern limit of the Progress/Highway 217 interchange are limited. The ODOT stockpile space north of Hall may provide enough space, but access is poor and would probably need require the use of the north leg of Nimbus and a private street through the industrial park. The Nimbus/Hall intersection is already congested. Commuter Rail Station Meeting Notes DRAFT 04/23/99 W&N Pacific 2 The area behind Tyco/Cascade Plaza has wetland concerns and poor access. The property south of Malibu GP has some potential, with a large parking area, access onto Cascade Parkway, and not directly onto Scholls. There may be a possibility of leasing some of theif parking. Need to identify where pedestrian crossings could connect Cascade Plaza area with Nimbus Avenue businesses. Primary employment attraction is likely the Nimbus business area, rather than the Mall or area south of Scholls Ferry. TIGARD Washington Square South of Scholls Ferry - City of Tigard; City Comp Plan and Zoning; Station will have parking; Ridership Est. = 260/320 Meeting: July 23, 1998; Jim Hendryx, Sorin Garber, Bob Yakas, Laura Jackson Minimal discussion of this site. Discussion focused on access to Washington Square. Access from this site (via shuttle) would be a series of right turns. Access from a site north of Scholls Ferry would be more complex, but could better serve the Nimbus business area. There may be wetland and topography issues with a station located in the southwest quadrant as described in the Final Report. Tigard Main Street City of Tigard; City Comp Plan and Zoning; Station Area Zoning Station will not have parking; Ridership Est. = 340/430 Two sites were discussed, one adjacent to the existing Tigard Transit Center, the other north of Main Street, under the 99W viaduct. The Viaduct site is limited by the upcoming construction of a Chamber of commerce building. Area is isolated from downtown and there are perceptions of security problems Tigard Transit Center is about 10 feet above tracks. There was some confusion over which of the three tracks would be used. Conversation with Ed Immel confirmed that the desire is to use the tracks nearest the transit center, although those are not currently controlled by W-P. The two tracks to the west could work, however Ed stated that in order to meet federal rail safety regulations and avoid having to direct people from the transit center out to Main Street and back, there would need to be an elevated pedestrian crossing to deal with the grade change between the Transit Center and ADA issues. There may be other ways to design a crossing that meets sight distance and ADA requirements without a structure. Use of the eastern set of tracks could allow the western pair of tracks to be abandoned, with the property used for a single or possible double row of parking. While this station is not designated as a parking station, Jim suggested that some parking might be needed to gain support from the community. Jim Hendryx mentioned that there was talk of abandoning the rail line from somewhere in Tualatin up into Tigard, such that the river crossing through Cook Park/USA could become a Commuter Rail Station Meeting Notes DRAFT 04/23/99 W&H Pacific 3 pedestrian/bike path. It appears &l tt this could only happen if the McMinnville/Milwaukie line were connected to the Salem-Beaverton line somewhere in the Tualatin area. It appears this would add oult-of-direction travel and running time to the --ommuter line, by running it out by I-5 and the Boones Ferry interchange. There was no discussion of the likelihood of this happening. Commuter Rail Station Meeting Notes DRAFT 04/23/99 W&H Pacific 4 TUALATIN Meeting July 22: Sorin Garber, Bob Yakas, Laura Jackson, James Gregory, Jim Jacks, Mike McKillip, (City Manager) City of Tualatin Combined Plan and Code; Station will have parking; Ridership Est. = 370/470 Several candidate sites: west site along Tualatin-Sherwood Rd, northwest site along Newberg tracks, North site near ;.there tracks cross, Nyberg/Boones Ferry site. - West site is in a depression that may be a low-value wetland. It is not identified in the City's Goal 5 resources list. Large vacant site with moderate nearby employment and access to jobs and housing. Probable high cost to engineer and fill site. Location outside of downtown is a concern to city. Access management on T-S Rd. would require access to align with existing street and require signalization (allowing a left turn) into the site. Site is large enough that it could be used for some development. Interest has been expressed by tire and gasoline retailers to develop on the site. There is no attractant to be there other than the train. Northwest site is off of the proposed tracks, unless a connection is made. No real purpose to locate here unless the Newberg line also has commuter rail potential. No major discussion of this site. North-South commuter rail project has a responsibility to examine potential locations for a connection between the two lines, but due to development and constrained land in the area, the cost of such a connection is likely to be high. This site will not be pursued at this time. Track Crossing site is in a developed area, including some historic properties. There is moderate access to residences but not employment. Minimal redevelopment potential. There are potential conflicts with City Park. The area also has flood problems and lower tracks are underwater part of the year. The concept for this station is to serve as a bi-level station to connect the two commuter rail lines. Nyberg Rd site- In downtown area and urban "renewal area. It could be eligible for some economic development funding. There may be some concerns on the part of adjacent properties (e.g. Haggen's) especially regarding parking spillover. Concern on part of City that it may preclude a grade separation of Tualatin-Sherwood Rd and the tracks. Private street crossings at north end present a concern to platform and train length. Previous rail siding presents a concern regarding hazmat issues. City Code regarding public transportation and light rail references a station in the vicinity of Seneca and Boones Ferry, which is in the vicinity. There is some question whether the crossing signals can be made to differentiate between passenger and freight trains, allowing streets to remain open if commuter train is stopped in station. It is believed that such signals exist and are in use elsewhere. Commuter Rail Station Meeting Notes DRAFT 04/23/99 W&H Pacific 5 Wilsonville City of Wilsonville; City Comp Plan and Zoning; Station will have parking; Ridership Est. = 220/270 2 sites- Commuter Rail Station Meeting Notes DRAFT 04/23/99 W&H Pacific 6 0 e 0 0 APPENDIXJ 1 Workshop No. 1 Notes 1 1 oil Washington County Commuter Rail Workshop #1 Page 1 Memorandum: Washington County Commuter Rail !Workshop #1 Summary and Conclusions As a result of decisions made in this workshop, the consulting team is directed to pursue the following station options: O Wilsonville: the School site O Beaverton: the Beaverton Transit Center or Merlo LRT Station o Tigard: the Tigard Transit Center ® Tualatin: the Boones Ferry Rd/Nyberg Street site • Washington Square: choose a site closer to•Scholl's Ferry Road Based on the discussions about the terminus alternatives, the consulting team is directed to continue to refine and investigate the Merlo and Beaverton Transit Center sites and to drop from further consideration the Beaverton Creek site. The consulting team is also directed to assume the use of diesel multiple unit (DMU) cars, but continue to develop cost estimates for both DMUs and conventional push-pull vehicles. The team will assume the 30-minute trip frequency but keep the 20-minute frequency alternative active for now. The maximum speed assumption will be 79 mph. As a Phase H option, the consultant team was directed to study a second Wilsonville station at North Wilsonville. Introduction The purpose of the workshop (which occurred on August 28, 1997) was to guide the consulting team ;n establishing a baseline operating plan, station sites, vehicles, and the project's north terminus to advance the technical study effort. Bob Post, Project Manager for the consulting team, opened the meeting by asking participants to introduce themselves, and provided a general description of the purpose of the study. A list of attendees is attached. "Portland & Wesiern 101" Bill Burgel led this discussion of the Portland and Western Railroad (P&W) alignment, the freight traffic operations on the line, and the customers who use it. With Beaverton on the north end, and Wilsonville 18 miles to the south, this is basically a single-track railroad. It was formerly Burlington Northern (BN) on the south end, then combined BN and Southern Pacific (SP) sections in the middle (St. Mary's Junction), and BN on the north. The SP line from Newberg crosses at a grade separation in downtown Tualatin, and continues into Lake Oswego. This route joins the alignment at Bonita Road. M Ina Washington County Commuter Rail Workshop 01 Page 2 Understandings and Relationships Between the Railroads The headquarters offices for both the BN and SP railroads were once located in the St. Mary's schoolyard. The crack on these railroads is now owned and operated by P&W, which is headquartered in Albany. P&W is owned by the Genesse and Wyoming holding company, with headquarters in Connecticut. UP still owns the railroad right-of-way between Tigard (Greton) to St. Mary's Junction. P&W still receives cars from the UP; and handles cars to and from Brooklyn Yard, interchanging with UP. The Biv uo longer has any ownership interest in the alignment. The portion of the railroad that is south of Greton (toward Wilsonville) and the St. iviary's to Merio portion is now owned by the Oregon DOT and-operated by P&W. Freight rail traffic operations will have to be coordinated with the commuter rail operations. In some cases, freight traffic may be able to shift some trips to night periods. This will need to be coordinated with rail shippers as well as the interfacing railroads (UP in Brooklyn Yard and BN in United Junction). Some shipper schedules, however, may not have the option of being able to shift out of daytime operations. Some operational issues that need to be considered include: • A review of the railroads' operations indicates that one train from McMinnville and two trains from St Mary's Junction could affect the commuter rail service. Train length varies from 2 to 70 cars. • P & W believes it will be necessary to operate during daylight hours. • P&W is using the former BN main line (at Tigard) to store cars. If the commuter rail operation needs those sidings to meet and pass trains, then P&W will have to relocate their storage operation. • Switching is occurring at Farmington Road in downtown Beaverton. The siding is in Beberg. P&W switches and stages cars at this location for local industries. • It appears that P&W has unrestricted rights to operate passenger equipment (from a trackage rights agreement with SP that dates back to 1941). A property appraisal was performed several years ago; purchasing the section may be an option. Q: Have any community concerns been raised about any auto traffic delays at railroad crossings during peak commuting periods? A: We try to place stations so that trains don't interfere with the heaviest traffic. Road crossings are only generally affected for about 45 to 50 seconds. Q. Whistles are blown at each public crossing (it is a court-appointed obligation). There have been some complaints, especially when operations are shifted to evening hours. Is noise a concern in an urban setting? A: This must be a consideration. FRA has not come to an agreement about the train whistles. Recently, Florida gave individual communities the right to enact a ban on train whistles, Washington County Commuter Rail Workshop #1 Page 3 ` and the result was that accident rates sharply increased. Consequently,_FRA re-instituted the whistles. There may be options in the future for reducing whistle blowing. Elements of a Successful Operation Bob Post led this discussion outlining the factors critical to a successful operation. They are: • Ridership. How many people actually use the service will be the primary test of the success of the project. • Travel time. How competitive can commuter rail be with auto and bus travel time. • Schedule, that is, hours/frequency of service. Reliable, dependable. f ;n ;,en e7nt an~PC~ to thi- rnl ep"Ame hu nthi-r • 'Relationship between land owners, railroad owners, and operating railroads. • Public information and marketing • Fare structure • Vehicles, and the quality of the ride • Station amenities (information, protection from rain, security) • Adjacent development . Q: Will bicycles be accommodated? A: Yes, but it's not a simple task. The accommodations also will need to meet ADA requirements. Q: What are the most important factors to operators? A: Accommodating all trains with the right set of facilities to provide flexibility. Ridership Projections Factors Affecting Ridership Estimates Bob Post explained the methodology used to generate ridership estimates during the Phase I study (May 1997). The process was based on Metro's transportation model. Daily patronage estimates for Year 2000 and Year 2015 were presented (see tables 1 and 2, below). Table 1. Year 2000 and 2015 Patronage Estimates (avg. weekday) Operating Service Service Times Estimated Daily Patronage Peak (30 min) 6 am to 9 am Year 2000 Year 2015 3:30 pm to 6:30 pm Mid-day (60 min) 9 am to 10 am 1,820 2290 2:30 pm to 3:30 pm Evening (60 min) 6:30 pm to 7,30 pm Source: BRW Inc, March 1997 Washington County Commuter Rail Workshop #1 1111110 Page 4 Table 2. Year 2000 and 2015 Boardings by Station (avg. weekday) Station Estimated Boardings Year2000 Year 2015 f,Aerlo 470 590 Beavertor. Center 160 210 Washington Square 260 320 Tigard 340 430 Tualatin 370 470 Wilsonville 220 270 Totals 1,820 2,290 Source: BRW Inc, March 1997 Commuter Rail Vehicles John Schumann led this discussion of the types of commuter rail vehicles that would be appropriate for this service. The advantage of commuter rail is that it makes use of existing rail infrastructure, including tracks, signals, sidings, etc. John reviewed double-deck cars; new systems (such as Bombardier bi-level, which can hold 1,500 people in 10 cars); the MetroLink (or push-pull train, which provide flexibility); and Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs), which are self-propelled cars. Some benefits/constraints of the DMUs are: 0 Handle low to medium passenger loads o For one or two car trains, DMUs are likely to be the less expensive choice ® Reliable • The possibility of low-floor design • Compatible with FRA requirements O None have been built yet for the U.S. market The demand on the route is anticipated to be about 2000 passengers/day in both directions. The selected rail vehicle must meet FRA requirements. Q: Can DMUs meet passenger demands? A: Should meet projections. Washington County Commuter Rail Workshop #1 Page 5 Cost Comparison o Push-pull trainsets costs approximately $8million each; DMU's, (not known for sure) costs approximately $6million/trainset. 0 Push-pull is quieter and more comfortable ® 2-car DMU meets projections for this application • Push-pull needs at least 2 cars for braking Conclusion: Assume DMUs, and complete cost estimates for both. Lightweight DMUs should not be considered. Operations Plan Martin Hull led this discussion. Many elements of the railroad affect the commuter rail operating plan, including equipment (performance criteria), running time, station locations, sidings locations, etc. These choices affect the operating and capital cost for the project. Another issue that could affect the operations plan is the fact that this service is operated over a single-track line. This makes reliability an essential factor since any delay of one train will cascade throughout the schedule. The first task is developing a running time from one terminal to the next. This information was prepared in a previous BRW study (March 1997), and is presented in an attached table ("Commuter Rail Running Time Analysis"). This analysis offered several options, which were presented for the workshop participant's consideration. Two primary issues that affect the operations plan are: • 20-minute or 30-minute frequency. Note that the 20-minute frequency increases the amount of equipment needed. An increase in frequency means longer ride times and more train sets, more train meets. • 59 mph or 79 mph running speeds between Tualatin and Wilsonville. r Table 4. Cycle Time Analysis W-minute 'frequency) Scenario Baseline Merlo Fast BTC Slow BTC Fast Run Time 29 26 24 21 Meets 3 3 3 0 Total Travel Time 32 29 27 21 Layover 11 11 10 9 Total Cycle Time 86 80 74 60 Treft[tS9 uil:eC~*'-'•'_~ '3` fig, Wash.,n.g" an. Cvuay C0..AUtor Roll Workshop #1 Page 6 • _ ZG Table 5. Cycle Time !Analysis (30-minute frequency) Scenario Baseline Merlo Fast BTC Slow BTC Fast Run Time 29 26 24 21 Meets 6 6 3 3 Total Travel Time 35 32 27 24 Layover 12 11 10 10 Total Cycle Time 94 86 74 68 -MMISM M" owl One participant noted that the Merlo terminus doubles the number of meets required (as opposed to the Beaverton Transit Center). Knowing the number of trains and sidings, running times, and other equipment and performance characteristics, allows for the development of graphical representations of the route (see tables 4 and 5). These initial assumptions were based on minimizing capital costs for the single-track alternative and for sidings at existing track locations. Q: Will a market analysis be done under this study? A: After the initial planning is completed, such a study would be appropriate. Q: Have peak ridership issues been addressed? A: Yes, ridership assumptions accounted for peaking. The conclusions of this discussion are to assume the 30-minute frequency but keep the 20- minute frequency alternative active for now; and to assume a 79 mph maximum speed. Station Locations The following table presents the advantages and disadvantages the consulting team investigated about each of the alternative station locations. ,U3U,TTY STRW mom go _ 40M an ion County commuter Rail washlisa Workshop #g Pace 7 Recommendation Table t3. Disadvantages 3rto- ansit center. es and Disadvantages to Station Locations Advantag Environmental Issuespark & Rido Merio will be retained as Plan Location available land Terminus station No ° Merio Road Site Vehicle storage Cross plaitorm transter with Beaverton LRT & Ride Joint use Park ° Operational difficulties Cross-plattorm connection No park & Ride Beaver Creek Station with LRT ° Close to housing, lobs P&W headquarters; existing ° railroad operations ° Established Park & Ride St. tJlarvs Site , Near jobs, housing for additional ° potential i parking Far trom LRT ° Automobile congestion ton Road Site ° central city locatioon nt p Farming Redevelopme enttat ° Some existing parking highway Traflic impacts to T No parking opportunities Cross platform to LAS Neither location. Beaverton Transit ° Connections to bus service ° poor visibility Move station cioser to Schoti's Ferry Center Near Lobs No automobile access from Road Schoit's Ferry Site pedestrian access to Nimbus 1Nashington Nimbus square possible joint use parising Access roblems (Hall Blvd) ° p nearby ° Available land for Park & ° No housing Hall Boulevard Ride (ODOT) 511" ° Good bus connection Ytgard Transit Center Near jobs ° Not a viable site Multi-modal transter point [igard Transit Center Land available for Park & Tigard Ride ° Close to jobs and housing Easy to access s Washing,on County Commuter Rail Workshop N1 Page 8 Table 6. Advantages and Disadvantages to Station Locations Location Advantages Disadvantages Recommendation Tualatin Tualatin-Sherwood . Available land for Park & • Topography Nyberg; site Road Site Ride • Access from Tualatin-Sherwood Near jobs Road • On significant grade .i Southwest Herman . Near housing • No land for Park & Ride (wetland Road Site a Near jobs constraints) Not in Wilsonville/Beaverton study corridor Burlington- • Near residential • Flood plainlflooding Northern/Southern . Available land for parking . Poor bus connection Pacific Site . Dual-level platform Nyberg Site . Centrally located . Operational difficulties . Close to dense residential . At-grade crossing at Tualatin- area Sherwood Road Land available for park & Ride Wilsonville Wilsonville Road Site . Transit/automobile access • Intersection LOS impact Use School site. . Available lane' for Park & Ride On S.M.A.R.T. route Industrial Area Site . Close to jobs • No residential Land available for Park & Ride School Site Multi-modal potential Acquisition costs • Mixed-use building • Not on S.M.A.R.T. route • Possible land for Park & Ride imp r as so y y i v y y~ commuter Pall n county W ashlny Workshop kt endatlon Pa e 9 ltecomrn Disadvantages Locations es to station ?ante 6• es and Disadvantag Advantages zJo residential S.M A,R t Advanta9 L ocati on NO direct link to ite Staff alt enable for Park & 14 access road needed goeckman goad S band av We e close to jobs equidistant to both ends of . city t go's Washington County Commuter Rail Workshop #1 Page 10 - north Terminus Operations Three options for terminating the commuter rail line in the Beaverton area were presented: the Merlo, Beaverton Creek, and Beaverton Transit Center alternatives. The attached matrix (Table 3) was presented. Based on the discussions about the alternatives, the consulting team is directed to continue to refine and investigate the Merlo and Beaverton Transit Center terminal locations, And to drop from further consideration the Beaverton Creek site. Table 3. North Terminus Options - Merio Beaverton Beaverton v CGi~ T larisat Canief Terminal-to-Terminal Travel 26 - 29 26 - 29 21 - 24 Time Park and Ride Access e cost 3.8 m 6.0 m 4.8 m Traffic impacts O O e MAX connection 0 Local Bus Access Adjacent Land Use 0 + fi Train sets: 30 mina 3 3 2 Train sets: 20 mans 5 5 4 Noise e o O Key. 0 =favorable m = neutral 0 . negative Fir 0 i i ~ arrerroixx e Workshop No. l Notes e e i i WASHINGTON COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL STUDY Workshop #2 December 2, 1998 The second of two planned workshops for the Washington County Ccnunuter Rail Study was held on December 2, 1998 at the Tigard Water District Auditorium. Attached is a list of those individuals in attendance. The agenda for the meeting included presentations and discussions of the following topics: • Review of the project to date • Revenue and fare structures • Funding options • Institutional / organization considerations • Railroad access Bob Post opened the meeting with a review of the history of the project. The results of the Phase I study conducted in 1997 were reviewed as background to the current feasibility study. The attendees were reminded that the key finding of the earlier study was that nothing existed from a legal, regulatory, technical and ridership basis that would suggest the project is fatally flawed. Bob also reviewed the work to date on the current study, including the topics addressed and decisions made at the Workshop #1 held on August 28. The earlier workshop included a review of the condition of the corridor, a review of potential station locations including the selection of `baseline' sites to be used as the basis for cost estimating and operating plans, the review of potential North Terminus options, and a review of the initial operating plan proposal. Bob also reviewed work completed since the first workshop which has focused on the development of a final operating plan, operating cost estimates and capital cost estimates. Bob reviewed the format of the meeting and encouraged all attendees to fully participate in the discussions. Those in attendance were cautioned that some of the material to be presented was preliminary and sensitive. The following sections provide a review of the material presented and major points of discussion: Revenues / Fare Structure Bob Post provided a presentation regarding potential fare structures and fare revenues. The following three graphics titled "Fare Structure" were used as a basis for the presentation. Bob first reviewed the general fare system practices in place for similar commuter rail operations. Almost all of the current systems use some form of distance based zones for establishing fare payment. The systems also generally have in place higher or premium fares which in part reflect the longer distances covered by such operations. Also a consideration in setting commuter rail fares is the high quality of the service in terms of ride quality and the practice of providing a seat for everyone. In most cases commuter rail systems do not make use of common fare structures 2 with local transit operators, partially a reflection of the fact the lines are usually long and traverse through the service area of multiple local transit operators. Although practices vary widely, most commuter rail operations do allow transfers to local transit systems in some fashion. In considering an appropriate fare structure to be utilized it is appropriate to review the features of the proposed Washington County Commuter Rail Project which might influence the nature of the fare structure. Of particular significance is the fact the line does not serve a single dominant u a°^t- tion such as a major downtown area. Instead the line serves multiple destinations and has ~.o I•as a bi-direct. anal nature to its trip patterns. In terms of the function served it is a cross-town line which intersects a large number of existing transit lines including the Westside Light Rail which provide service oriented towards the Central Business District of Portland. The need to provide good connections and easy transfer to the existing transit services suggest the importance of integrating the fare system of the commuter rail operation with the local transit providers (Tri- Met and SMART). Bob reviewed a range of fare options which might be considered for the commuter rail operation. The options range from charging no fare to charging a premium fare set to accomplish a specific fare recovery target. A key consideration under any fare structure is whether or not the fare system is designed to be integrated into the systems used by the existing transit operators and most importantly Tri-Met (all except one station is located within the Tri-Met district). Upon presentation of the range of considerations regarding potential fare structures, the following questions were posed to those in attendance: 1. Are there additional fare options which should be considered? 2. Of the options identified, should any be eliminated at this time from further consideration? A lengthy discussion followed regarding the merits of different potential fare structures. Areas of concern included impacts on ridership levels, the ability to provide simplicity for users of the system, and the impacts of substantial transfers to both Tri-Met and Wilsonville service. Although the most prominent concern is that fares not be set in a manner that discourages ridership levels, it was also assumed that a sense of equity would not allow the system to operate without users contributing a "reasonable" amount to the overall operation of the system. Support existed for both keeping as well as dropping the "no fare" option. On the positive side for keeping the no fare option was the thought that ridership was the primary objective and a no fare system would encourage ridership. Also mentioned was the complication of charging a fare on a system which was partially within Wilsonville which does not charge for use of its system. Those that were concerned with retention of the option expressed the need for the system to be at least partially self-sustaining. The only option included in the listing of potential fare options that all in attendance agreed should be dropped from further consideration was the option titled Tri-Met Base - No 3 Integration. The consensus was that it would not make sense for the system to mimic the Tri- Met fare structure yet require payment of duplicative fares when boarding Tri-Met and visa- versa. Finance Options Lillian Hames of Pittman and Hames presented a discussion of the range of options typically available to fund projects such as the Washington County Commuter Rail Project. The attached matrix provides a summary of the funding sources described by Lillian. For each potential funding source a description of the nature of the funding was provided, eligibility criteria identified and available funding levels discussed. Funding sources were identified as either Federal, State or regional/local. The Federal funds were further broken down into highway flexible funds, transit funding and railroad funds. Lillian provided a discussion of experiences of other projects in pursuing private participation in elements of either the operating or capital funding requirements of projects. The following were points of discussion offered by attendees: • Is there any way that Tri-Met could play a role in funding the operating costs of the project. Suggested rationale being that the commuter rail operation would serve an element of the overall system needs that can not be met efficiently by the current Tri-Met operation. • It was pointed out that the VRE (Virginia) Com.-nuter Rail operation was partially funded (capital funding) from highway funds as a mitigation measure. • A discussion, was held which indicated an interest in tying the project to potential solutions in the 217 corridor. Would the project be a potential candidate for use of tolling revenues in the corridor. As a down side, it was mentioned that it can be expected that the congestion pricing process will require some time to implement. • A number of persons in attendance observed that we should expect that the operations cost portion of the funding will be the more difficult funding task. • Jim Howell mentioned as potential sources fees for parking. One thought would be a county-wide parking lot impact fee dedicated to transit. A discussion followed of the current development impact fee based on trip generation. It was reported that 10 percent of this fee is available for transit improvements. A suggestion was made that the potential of transportation fee imposed by each jurisdiction served by the commuter rail line be added as a potential funding source. It was also suggested the notion of a parking fee also be added to the range of potential funding sources. • An LID on a corridor basis was viewed as being a very difficult solution to implement. • It was suggested that we should take off the matrix list the FTA Modernization Funds (fixed guide way). It is clear the project would not qualify under the current definition of eligible projects for inclusion under this program. • It was also suggested that the portion of the project in the Wilsonville area could be paid for in part by an increase in the payroll tax in that jurisdiction. 4 Institutional/Organization Arrangements Attached are the series of illustrations used by Charlie Banks of R.L. Banks and Associates as the basis of a discussion of the institutional and organization arrangements which might be considered in developing an approach for ongoing management of a commuter rail operation. The basis of the presentation was the definitions and characteristics of the various roles which are typically found in the development and operation of commuter rail systems. Four roles were identified as: Sponsor Manager Operator Owner Table 1 provides a matrix identifying 36 characteristics of commuter rail operations and which of the roles have primary or secondary influence over each of the characteristics. Charlie used Table 2 to describe the evolution of institutional arrangements in the provision of commuter passenger services in the United States. Charlie pointed out that early operations were totally a private railroad function with the railroads serving as owner, operator and manager. The next stage of evolution involved situations in which a public entity purchased services as a mechanism to influence either the amount or characteristics of service. Over time the direct role of the railroads as either manager or operator of commuter operations has decreased and in many cases ownership of the rail corridors has also moved to the public arena. A number of the most recently implemented operations have followed a model which is identified as "New Age" in Table 2. Under this arrangement a public agency serves the role of manager and contracts for operation of the service with either a private contractor such as Herzog, or with Amtrak, or in some cases with a railroad. Table 3 provides a series of actual operating examples of the institutional arrangements outlined in Table 2. Figures 1, 2, and 3 were presented to further illustrate the roles of the manager, operator and owner. For each of the functions the concurrent opportunities and responsibilities were described in terms of whether the manager, operator and owner exhibited primary or secondary influence over the function. As an example, the manager function has key responsibilities in identifying funding and setting public policy direction for the operation. The operator would have responsibility for workforce arrangements, liability issues and train operations. For the operator operational safety is of paramount importance. The owner responsibilities include environmental risks, liability issues, maintenance of way and real estate management. Railroad Access Charlie Banks also discussed the various components of rail right of way ownership and rights. Figure 4 provides an illustration of the components which comprise the total set of the rights/ownership components which need to be addressed when cor_sidering gaining access to a rail corridor 5 for purposes of operating a commuter rail passenger service. The Wilsonville to Beaverton proposed service is a case in point where the various ownership components are held by multiple parties including ODOT, the P&W, BNSF and UPRR. In proceeding towards development of an operating agreement for commuter rail operations in the corridor it is important to have a clear understanding of the nature and extent of each of the parties interests in the corridor. In approaching this issue Charlie suggested that there are three questions regarding access that need to be addressed: What do you want? (For the public it is usually the ability to initiate and operate a service for reasonable capital and operating costs) What do you have? (What rights/ownership, if any, does the public currently have in the corridor) How do you get what you need to operate the service? Charlie provided a review of the various agreements which are in affect in the corridor and potentially impact either the ability or the conditions under which a commuter operation could be implemented. A discussion was conducted on the various potential strategies for securing the ability to make improvements in the corridor and to operate a commuter rail service. F "M Washington County Commuter Rail Study Workshop #2 Name O aniaation And Back Washin on County Chris Deffebach Metro Transportation Dept. John Boroski Tri-Met Charlie Banks R.L. Banks & Associates Jim Hendry. City of Ti and John Schumann LTK Engineering Services Tom Furmaniak LTK Engineering Services Rand Woole City _ of Beaverton Bill Atherton Lake Oswego City Council, Metro Counselor Elect Jim Howell AORTA -Ralph Drewfs ODOT Mike McKilli City of Tualatin Bob Melbo Portland & Western RR Dan Kaem ff Tualatin TMA Judy Edwards Westside Transportation Alliance Nic Herri es Nimbus Business Commuters Cynthia Thompson City of Wilsonville/SMART Bob Krebs ODOT - Rail Division Kathy Lehtola Washington Caunt. Bob Post BRW I:Afk,~.SwrRUCTURE .:mac-. fi.•ir!-•:ti y:.t _ ^ ..5: ..:•1.."•ti'r':`•°•• COMMUTER WASHINGTOt4 COUNTY No Multiple Destinations Bi-Directill0nal Short L.en~th - Two Transit Operators with Existing; Transit ® Need to Inte Mo ur %W AN m Ra jfdy No rs on qty fo RIM "Emma so Soso so 00 S I r,,!^t 6 "rte!. . f,.Tj S F RANGE OF ® No Fares ' bpase Fui Q11 l '"tea r~t' IntegrateQn - NO ~ .Tr J_ et Base t~Q~ Fare - l0te raPrey ?*.evenue T aret, f -are prevWlum p ppMES & MOORS GROUP COM Study Room Raiff murfimpow- Washington County Commuter -Nam 10 v u~ A'amr, in woe, P*U 717 TR?'~Ti rr w,fi .F Aft"r mail •n~~:~1406 rice or►es I [)Istance Based Z fares premium Structurz Not common ® ,ransit ath 1.0cal -T -Transit cae rs to "Transie • to woo r un om • gt W on annual muter Rao ores IlR Ptolected counts' Fundinl; W ~~h►L~ ~®ppmrt~ai lyiatrix 'Fun 9 , E19giGiiity $~9.g million pescciption elig+ble 2 million Transit capital pro}ects are $l0. rovements include transit imp tee capital potential Source a list Funding for transit c P on- Eligible activities l ong- i le funding can be used erat:~on L f lexib air pollution inn uideway °P VVDV-0 flexible funds) ram tSTP} estion and ears of fixed g 5fP itighvaY t frog used to rcduce cong At least 7 y +ncluded in fransportation ding miles $l 0 million t' Surface flexible fu urban areas uideWay revenue funds} ement & Air Quality bet of fixed g land,;caping, snag attainment on num s e~ike access, estion M allocated based ibility include. P ovation facilities Conf CNiAQ) rands orthonment rlig transp wogtan1 as a percent of annual app nation of historic lion Preset illionz Guideway Modernization ation oS transports tative $20•$ m fixed funds for JOWS and the eavironmeni . and preven Ten percent of ST acts on co;mm~nities transit cap ects include to GAr Activities Eligible Pros no operating assistance illionz (included Cnhancetpent infrastructure imp cncies $0 2 m 'Transportation to reg+onal ag maintenance, granis} distributed historic pre5ervation n~ ital projects, includes s iandseap ell ibility ilding Used for transit cap Transit g historic transitbu rojects operation of Trar:sit a f onnula Grants Area Grants for P si nage $120 million } tied to +mPrOYe transit access, g 1}tbanized Are aside from Urbanized desig ccts eligible for nsit pr0)W dens pilot ptogrant One Percent set to transit facility, iial ira rela~cd and cap $enator y to t Activities functionally atronage planning rant v!a crease P mntu ncenen service and in acts, tionary g ers Transit Enha ental irnp discre ate $G4 rnillion ` lien e c env. nn' obs, Services, cornet roveef{teiency,feduCe ccessto! adding reverse nnly} ensure eff►cient a rd17ing costs for ptograiu to hnp clam costs, development subs d reduce infrasim stage Private of urban centers to Includes ( ommunity an d enco it service 3 g billions anon and enters, an trans t least $ Ttansp0~ Pilot Program trade c residents Most include a resetvat10n cam is to transport ice. Syste+n P assenger sere ~TCSP) One goal of the pCOg May include u licant. very suburban amployinentcenters. Re a Coinmute, Me railroad one railroad pP Jobs and uatantees for chi of intesm0dat or tail Access to loan g program rovcment of rehabilitation provide direct loans and rovement projects, such as snip Railroad and 1mP facilities Ra. toad Rehabilitation ec uipment or racing lRR1f} tea. tins i+~+tess odlerwise +ndica X998 2003)TLA 21 saOroriTatian, November 1998 car t fates. Ore0uu under the six•Y area. flames Assoc veg. W A uha+rized Source: 7donau ~ amruat avcra>;c {ondinb for uaucou i tndicatcs4t0j~t~ orttand.OR' ram t F federal afport+omnetrt {or P authorization {or PrO6 Y9~ at six Yr"r tundin6 „_x.~usnatiou ~JLL 1 woo titer ~a'~ Annual CODU►u ected Oregon ugton county a froy rounding tlr'1X Funding 'f4R Description ps dcf+ned by lcg~slation X10 million annually for Funding Source Ding funding for f nding g7-99) c and toron-g transp°'~atio n tre the creation of a new allocate specifi b legislation Le C g'►slature d; would re4ti As defined Y if so approve wired for Si ATE Projects, on re New legislati4 tivc action. General Fund source. via legisla T4R Funds allocated venue com►nuter rail allocatlon• d ency agreement would allocate fare Fun . ith districts. T4R Lottery Inter ag to transit allocated by the legislature Tri. et. ed w toy s are T4D cture is assum cr Fund o ections. AL pn integrated fate stru aid by emP roe P Capital projects suppo~cd by g g~G10NALdLOC of 1 percent of wages p exceed 6110ths $21►nillion f ax not to Ian. Transit Fares designated in the countywide p oll Tax dell rminations. Employee payr urisdiction Local j Projects T ment based on fees from new develop 4R e It Financing corridor capacity Tax lnerem cWre collects orting Unlform rate stru impacts. Capital projects supp transportation system Fee for the tligh~vaY 217 enhancements. Traffic Impact ender consideration Hot lanes currently Corridor. ConSe5tior, Pricing Ass~iua, No'+M'~ 197b SOOiK. pigma" & ►ia+++h Alm so M1 Table 1 Opportunities and Responsibilities of Service Sponsor, Manager, Operator and Owner Influence: Primary/ R i ili gracte[islig L-2211-. Q2129UNnity Administrator of public funds Sponsor x X Prima Marketing and fare policies Manager X Prima Ability to specify or charge operators Mana er X Prima Ability to achieve long term goals (intermodality, Manager X I Secondary connectivity, etc.) Ability to add and modify service (consistency and goodwill) Mana er X Seconda Ability to influence service quality, set standards, monitor, Manager x Secondary etc. Financial risks Manager X Prima Capital improvement funding Manager X Prima Equipment supply and maintenance Mana er X Primary Liability/indemnification/insurance limits Manager X Prima Public policy ramifications Manager X Prima Environmental risks Manager X Seconda Labor/workforce arrangements Manager X Secondary Passenger security -manager x Seconda Profit potential (if contractor) Operator X Prima Ability to influence service quality, set standards, monitor, Operator X Primary etc. Train operations Operator X Prima _ X Primary I Labor/workforce arrangements Operator -Liability/indemnification/insurance limits Operator X Prima Operational safer O erator x Prima -Passenger security Operator X Prima Environmental responsibility Operator X Seconda Ability to achieve long term goals (intermodality, Owner X Primary connectivity, etc.) -Ability to add and modify service (consistency and goodwill) Owner X Prima Ability to implement new technology, services and processes Owner X Prima -Ability to make desired physical improvements Owner X Prima Assurance of acceptable access Owner x Prima go I Operational control: dispatching, scheduling, other users Owner X Prima Opportunity to realize other revenues from concessions, Owner X Primary leases, etc. Environmental risks Owner x Prima -Liability/indemnification/insurance limits Owner X Prima Maintenance of way, structures, signals and communications Owner X Prima Property taxes Owner X Prima Public alit ramifications Owner X Prima Real estate management Owner X Prima Labor/workforce arrangements Owner x Secondarv~ R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES. INC. 1 Y a 1 iti~ ~;1Sc11'~ -fable 2 al prran9e~'ents Goner InStitut~©n ana9eriaPetatorl variations SponaorlM Generic dew public public p, e Non- Trilecta public o erator public Non-owner purchase Mara er cal of Services A9encY Mistor► Ae,encY A9encY encY A9 A9encY sponsor NIA Agency t~aCto~ Agency con Railroad ~tailroad Railroad Agency Manager ariable Railroad pt~,encY Railroad Agency Railroad Railroad operator Radroa Railroad Railroad owner ctAT~s. wc. a ~ r,, a ANKS & Also ti! logo- e~-- vo slow Oom- mm 0000000 so 00 T abie 3 e~nents ner institutional prran9 ~anagerl4PeratorlQw variations sponsor 1 partneCsWIP New public public A e Non- -Trifecta public o eratar public Nan-D\Nner Purcha$e IVlana er of Sefvices Tri-Flail Historical NIGTD NIA pennpoT Metro pen. JPB Sponsor M~TaA North Southern Amtrak NIGTD Herao9 pacific p,mtrak manager NJT Southern gNSf Florida Amtrak NIGTD J pacifiic pen. JPB operator Gonrad Southern BNSF Amtrak pacific - NIGTD ovNner pen. JPB South Tri-Rail ( 1~,1►amr1 NJT San Sr,ore) Keystone Francisco) M~TFtA peninsula (port Jervis) Chicago) (San , Service Francisco) Harrisburg) BOO ~,sSOcIA . g L. & a e ~ s Opportunities: Responsibilities: Set marketing and fare policies Financial risks Specify or change operators Capital improvement funding Achieve long term goals Equipment supply and maintenance Add and modify service Liabilityrndemnification/insurance limits .Influence service quay Public policy ramifications F.nvironmental risks Labor/workforce arrangements Passenger security Key: Primary Influence = Bold text Secondary Influence = Italics R.L. BANKS do ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ Opportunities: Responsibilities: Earn a profit (if contractor) Labor/workforce arrangements Influence service quality Liability/indemnification/insurance limits Operational safety Passenger security 'T'rain operations Environmental risks Key: Primary Influence = 1161d text Secondary Influence = Italics R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ weed - Opportunities: Responsibilities: Achieve long term goals Environmental risks Add and modify service Liabilityrndemnificationrinsurance limits Assure acceptable access Maintenance of way, structures, etc. Control operations Property taxes Implement new technology Public policy ramifications Make physical improvements heal estate management Realize other revenues 'Labor/workforce arrangements Key: Primary Influence = Bold teat Secondary Influence = Italiev R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. mom top= mn we so Figure 4 Right of Way Components y racks L~ (Rali ASS ) Alt Frdght R i PASS utility Rig asemmt Tine slot Rig VdVS Subsa Ft' optic Rig Rigtft K.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. a 101 mwaRwdmmx~ Review and Summary of Railroad Agreements Relevant to the Prospective Operation of Commuter Rail Services Between Tigard and Beaverton, Oregon Agreement Name Date Parties Key Words and Interpretation Untitled October, 1, Southern Pacific and Key Words - "Oregon Electric proposes to 1941 Oregon Electric Railway discontinue operations " between "Tigard Company and Beaverton,....to connect its remaining lines to the track of Southern Company and (b) to use the Southern Company between said points of connection." (Page 1) After December 31, 1966, agreement is cancelable "not less than two (2) years subsequent to the date in which notice shall be given." (Pages 22 and 23). Interpretation - Oregon and Electric and its successors including the Portland & Western (P& W) save money by operating over parallel lines of Southern Pacific but must abide by all agreement terms since the owner of the track segment (now Union Pacific) can cancel all rights given two years' notice. Untitled January 27, Southern Pacific Key Words - Supplement to October, 1941 1983 Transportation Company agreement extends joint use approximately and Burlington Northern 1.91 miles from Mile Post 755.09 to Mile (successor by merger to Post 757.00 in Beaverton and Southern Oregon Electric Railway Pacific grants Burlington Northern Company) " the right to operate trains, locomotives, motor cars and cars of every class and kind over said additional track (Page 1) Illilli Em on will 80 an so 2 loan and Bnterpretatron Key Words entitled to d Premises parties KeY words - Lessee (P&11V1 LCaTj''Je - ht exclusive use of the rnmon drin trans pate ern Pacific full and of ,7,o A reenient Name August 18, Sauth 10ornpany erasion andlor ed by ,the Lessor ortation for the nl and e as xcurs per Transp western service 0- ermitt Lease Agreement 1995 and Portland at - mute or Inc. (p&Wl on such sc during hedules Newberg, Se Railroad, times that com provided („Eg`® westside- ghers, and not passenger service is p not use the Le an ased d Tillamook Lessee may a of passenger ar Branches Service "1• rovide ,any W Servicel, Premises to p other. than E&D er of ommuter service t subsequent own c SPTCO premises any its prior unless has provided i 1 (Section 3.0 the Leased ,Future ant t0 the Lessee. written cons _Met e 41 [emphasis adde event that Tri at pag in the Leases passenger Service ` caner of the or any subsequent provide passenger Premises undertakes toPremises, either . operations on the Leased nation of a or through the desig such service shall directly o Perator, with the terms of passenger service a ed in accord be permitt ance agree'n1ent described the the shared use as maybe entered into . - 71 interpretation - that Letter of intent, 3,109 at page unicates (Section Union pacific Comm over the Lessor, now t any commuter fall se`rvn 1 cintroduced onsiid'eration ,lion. line w uire addifio h negotla ill require u h ting amount to be determined thfo CTS\WCOCIAGREESUM•D0002102l99 12.25 PM \1FS1\WORK\PROJE 3 Key-Words and interpretation parties It , . .1111 mprovements presently fate Key Words - . A regiment Name existing on or hereafter constructedo on the of Leased Premises 5'`©~ S at page 2~1 Lessor. (Section subject passenger Interpretation - Sponsor of service must negotiate with Up ow edfic re any improvements i7wde o property will be in Me accrants and conveys Key Words - 8NSF „ all o Seller's rights, _..all tnitatla►~s November 250 The Burlington Northern to Buyer (P&W) . • to , , Will of Sale And Santa Fe Railway interest and title . subject to all li 1997 Company (BNSF) and on Seller's rights, interest and title • • • in Portland & Western six rail branch lines corridors (sie in oteg Railroad, inc. (P&W) which Seller has an clwnerp'l 24, 1998 (Exhibit A at page 1 .to April tion - ether than the transaction) interpreta on in the property rights donated to Oregon in is subject corridor, all ownership assets laying on the (especialiy including ' erty of the P&W donated land) are the ~ Prop is p&W " a - Vey Wards - BNSF 9 he Burlington North • easemen ern permanent and exclusive riilservic in which t Rill Service November 25, TAnd Santa Fe Railway over six rail corridors in ~ interest." 1997 Company (BNSF) and BNsF has an ownership Easement • 11 interpretation - MIN Portland & Western (Exhibit Bat page operate railroad Railroad, Inc. (P&W) acquires exclusive right t to op other lines . freight services on th4- subject and \\FS1\WORK\PROJECTS\WCOC\AGREESUM.D0002102199 12'25 MA go so an so "I IF IMMM t--- 3 interpretation Key lords i~nd ate and con4wi „BNSF :shall sooWnership parties Key Words all It E~~SF which on to ODOT • •t he Rail corridors Date Oregon t e all bridges of , interests shall includtrack structures State ent t~lame ri12 1998 and'ihe Burlingto~a fe interested orting shall A teem Ap 4, San convey and supp Real tjolthetn and ents ficallytl or e Rail COrrid company embankm ed interest sped s ikes, ponation Railway . which cony a and all rail. ties, p Estate . • and road Contract between no t include any Haling. traclk Oregon fates, rail anchors, sc1 ment, ballast State of p e u1P . Sand other and The Burlington crossing Protection bu►ldirg whether and Supplies, %otthern and Way materials eee'sd for rail erand ap Rail improvements n " and annyon vyheels, Santa Fe or uninsta`I,ed, a uip°rent Company installed maintenance uter vehicles, radi'~s or comp retation ent, d31 lnterp the rail equ1pm , (pages 2 an all assets other than eauiPment. title to State acquires steel railroad asset:;. COC\AGREES\1M•DOC02102199 12'25 PM \\F51 \W ORK\PRO JECS S\W Imp' a APPENDIX L Brochure Provided to the Public at the September 12 and 13 Westside Light Rail Opening and I-fistoric Coach Rides from Beaverton to Wilsonville 1 • z 'it•i. .,t .rrt'^.. ..I,t .'r1`•'''•^7TS'.'r'T''.'r';rS'1..~......-,..•.•...•. i... , t.-.: .4MT WILSONY-1-LLE-To BI ft®. T ® © I ~9 g~. c t , /AV P:-^rr .....n-"•.~.•:-^...,^..r..-rr•....,•:.. . R - 1_5 w The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) PASSENGER RAIL COORIDORS Wilsonville to Beaverton corridor in identifies investment priorities for the ® AMTRAKTOSEATTLE Washington County, Lake Oswego to motor vehicle, transit, pedestrian, and Portland corridor and Clark County to bicycle network in the Portland Metro area N Portland corridor for commuter rail con- over the next 20 years. Metro is responsible I N ~VANCOUVER•PORTLANDLINE sideration. The plan also proposes further VANCOUVER v for developing the RTP and is currently in LIGHT RAIL LINE t~cDu,Hln;, investment in the Portland to Eugene the process of preparing a plan update. The ,0 CAMAS corridor for intercity passenger service. In public is reviewing the priority investment HILLSBORO®j addition, the plan calls for developing a choices for the transportation plan. t GRESHAM om.. long term strategy for potential use of LAKE ® DEAVERTON GSWEGOLINE other freight railroads for passenger use The role of commuter rail in the regional VALSOxYRLE LIRE 7 TIGARD WE EGO and for working with jurisdictions outside transportation system is one of the choices TUALATIN of the Metro area to explore commuter rail YAMHLLlCOUNTY LINE that the public has in developing the Re- sNERWOOD opportunities. Tonal Transportation Plan. The RTP identi- g 3 OREGON CITY NEWBERG fees potential locations for consideration of DUNDEE Metro will offer opportunities for public commuter rail. Based on a combination of CANBY comment on these and other transportation travel speeds, convenience and railroad TO McMINNYILLE 4 ~-AMTRAK TO EUGENE options in the Regional Transportation availability, the plan identifies the ISIS Plan this fall. WHAT AS METRO? Metro, the regional Government that serves 1.3 million people who live in Clackamas, 'P LlA Multnomah and Washington counties and a ask;"' - the 24 cities in the Portland metropalitan ..L area, provides regional services that guide growth and help ensure that liveable com- munities are created in the future. Regio Sprinter Demonstration train along HWY 217 Ym --k VI y.:.i"1.'.p a m{4: r; ~.,..w%'•..» _ 4r tA4vS1l1'l:~'~t ~ a (~i.%.t;y'~~f•~•i?~r~.''•i;!4::~°}f .i',`•''<~ .y n:.ii'%-- ,+►~v' 'lid M ~ tr. I . , r t Ni 1r tfU a CA ~•~~~cTt"'."'.. ~a \ 2(i 1j{aStstd~u~~;_r~ JifL~,"~:..>.•.°:' Y..~,,.~.-,.ma"""r n ivalent _rn:..sa- gY.'L,~,.rA••• A,.. .w,Jr<'•,h• Qn the equ 7ptallsbN• ~a., MatloBaavar►o ,w opelated regional rvice e creek ,o er rail Se tracks to sere tore ~~`Q Boare~anTtanaitCenter passeng lit railroad t1-'e opera T1fhIGiiWAY - ours of heavy fret?, ending oil Y ealc SG~IP~1oN: needs.I3ep durinbp rated Beavarlao pE miles commuting be all day or only integ ~~Od~GT 1$ m stems are a service m y it : Tnl►ter rail sy roviders to perm 1'ength 3a m►n Generally, cof . al transit p olitan region. stations: ,Kith other Teg hour the metrop Estimated travel time: 60 mph transfers thr°ug MaXim;rm spe 1 , area►r ZataknQsvaBa ~OrZ EaOtN loyment ~ ~ ► , jualatit+ s MA e p ' Wilsonv►lle h m - H gown Area Dowrtt i t•~s Tualatin Downtown Area and - E►nploy►nent and se'l'f t# 'fig care ' Center Washington Sq shopping shn~a°a Dow►.to to Regional ~,t• Yttt. BeaVe►Aon - Connection Center Beaverton Creek - Light Rail ~ ,arcl Transit train at TVA S Den►onstotA~T CtT 1ES NNI ► A'fE' NS. tY„sopvitle Rosd 1o wmsanvtue' e oERr~NIP 'E,ST Mel d~Y NI~gT C COMMV~ER R• All. OPE~AI Rt passenger p ,too-2300 ~1~....'~ . a Nnefluver PV~adEC*T ~~-,'~ATUS SanpTancisco it' 4g98) e Ludy an D1e90 11 lphase DeCember eles "TO qo he co Pleted by Los Ang peeroN San lose Capital costs Costs G SOON 'TO' ° pperating tans ~ mm~ . ceptual p ' G eco►n►nendati°n Everett on mm~~- "WA Con O~N11N Taco►na- Organizational ~ Da!! cial plan seattle- Jose . Fiaaa stockton-san us Texas . Study conducted bw. Trartsptr•tttiort so 00 nevttr•tnu 'd ie MENU AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 07/01/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Solid Waste Franchise Transfer - Schmidt's Sanft!ja Services Inc. PREPARED BY: Loreen Mills ne DEPT HEAD OK tVPV~-- CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Hold public hearing then determine appropriate conditions to attach to the franchise iranSiCr icquG.71, 11 SL RL11GU, to guarantee maintenance of service and compliance with the TMC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt ordinance, attached, to transfer franchise and attach conditions addressing issues discovered during reference check process and public hearing. INFORMATION SUMMARY On June 7, 1999, the City received notice from Mr. Larry Schmidt, President of Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc., of the pending sale of his business to Pride Disposal Company. Attached is a map of franchised areas in Tigard. Currently, Schmidt's serves the following customer base in Tigard: Residential 2950 Multi-family 16 Commercial 140 TRANSFER AUTHORITY: The City's code provides for the transfer of franchises in TMC Chapter 11.04.080. The code states: franchise holder (Schmidt's) may transfer his franchise with 60 days prior written notice of intent and the written approval of City Council; ➢ Council cannot unreasonably withhold consent; ➢ Council will approve the transfer if the transferee (Pride Disposal Company) meets all applicable requirements met by the original franchise holders; and ➢ Council may attach whatever conditions it deems appropriate to guarantee maintenance of service and compliance with the City's code. TRANSFEREE CONDITIONS: Pride Disposal Company meets code requirements for a solid waste franchise holder and has been a franchise holder in the City of Tigard since 1986. Staff's first three recommended conditions for franchise transfer are the same as used in February when the Miller's/USA Waste franchise transfer was approved. The fourth recommended condition has been added because Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. has its operations in the City of Tigard. With the transfer of the franchise it is important to have the operation transferred to a site that is currently zoned for the operation. Pride's operations are located in Sherwood and are zoned to allow solid waste management activities. a. Customer service - the City of Tigard's Service Standards for solid waste collection will be followed. This includes but is not limited to: Customer calls received by 1:00 PM must be returned the same day, unless prevented by force of nature; Customer calls received after 1:00 PM must be returned by noon of the following business day, unless prevented by force of nature; and 9 Customer complaints shall be responded to promptly. It is recognized that these conditions may be modified should the City's Service Standards be amended. The amendment process is addressed in TMC Section 11.04.160. b. viola"urmity of service - level, type and quality of service required by the City will be provided by the franchisee in accordance with the requirements in the Tigard Municipal Code and administrative rules promulgated under authority of TMC Section 11.04.160. c. Responsibility for Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. 1999 financial operations reporting - franchisee will present a 12-month, complete 1999 financial report to the City by March 1st, 2000. This will include the period of time that Area III was franchised to Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. d. Location of franchise operations - No solid waste management activities may be conducted by franchisee at 8325 SW Ross Street in the City of Tigard, the site formally used by Schmidt's Sanitary Service, Inc. TIMING OF COUNCIL Acnom Council mast take action on this transfer request no later than August 6, 1999 to be in compliance with TMC requirements. This date is 60 days after receipt of Schmidt's request. In compliance with TMC Section 11.04.080C, the franchise transfer will be effective once the franchisees sign an acceptance of the ordinance. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Approve transfer but attach no conditions. Approve transfer and modify recommended conditions. Don't approve transfer based on public hearing comments. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Solid waste collection is not addressed in the City's Vision. FISCAL NOTES Franchise fee of 3% of gross cash receipts will continue to be paid by the new franchise holder. No change in revenue is anticipated due to the transfer. Im/hAocs/solid waste/cc schmidts sum.doc AGENDA ITEM _ FOR AGENDA OF: Tuly 13, 1999 - 7:30 pM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) 99-0001 - Walnut Street/I'iedeman Avenue Area Annexation. PREPARED BY: Julia Powell Haiduk Ti DEPT BEAD OK toy MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the Tigard City Council annex 11 parcels of land within the Walnut Island area? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached 101rdirance ?nn"ing the properties. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City has the authority under ORS 222.750 to annex property that is within area completely surrounded by property within the City limits. The Engineering Department, as part of the Walnut/Tiedeman realignment, will be extending public sanitary sewer down SW Walnut Street. Because of this sewer extension, it will be possible for properties with frontage on SW Walnut Street to connect to City sewer. The City Engineering Department recommended that Council consider annexing the properties fronting SW Walnut Street, so that a reimbursement district could be formed and the properties benefiting could share in the cost of the sewer accessibility. The City Council initiated the process at a public hearing on May 11, 1999. Staff has notified affected agencies of the proposed annexation and did not receive any comments in opposition to the proposal. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compliance with Comprehensive Plan policies and the development code and, as indicated in the attached staff report, found the proposed annexation meets the applicable standards. Staffsent notification to the owners of the property being annexed to inform them of the process and proposal, to provide an opportunity for staff to answer any questions and to inform them of their opportunity to provide comment at the public hearing on this matter. Staff has not, at this time, heard any negative comments from the property owners. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Take no action at this time. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY This request is consistent with Growth & Management "Goal 2." FISCAL NOTES As with any annexation under the current "no Boundary Commission" process, the City is responsible for paying the administration costs for Metro to make map changes, etc. The fee in this case will be approximately $150. COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY is\citywide\sum\Tiedeman ais2.sum Page 1 of 1 Julia P H 25-MayA9 4:05 PM - - eeoesuew ureerenee.ot~t,p =LL viat ®ser see rbt d~ ~ AREA IS INS= ICA 99.0001 . (16) SUBJECT e. ~ arcs OF THE (CITY LIMI"tS 1e = = ® = e~~ PARCELS ~ WALNUT STJ INDICATEE1•I d TIEDEMAN AVE. HASH MAFKs ~ s AREA ANNEXATIONS ~L P Bold Line Indicates Property Within The Ci Limits of Ti and a y AREA IS• ~ OF THE CY LIMITS 1 a 50 Feet • re ova aef i city of Tlew r,ta,naaen a u+u me1 ti ar a~~ rwwn.M? u+i W ~ rmew~. e~:w Plot date; t . @I i, . mun B~/r~prttont - ~IZS ~S,I`IIffIrJ'3'I ' ~ Kill AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF July 13. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement District No. 14. PREPARED BY: G. Berr 100 DEPT HEAD OK aP 0'-' CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCFIL ativn of u nn.on« L... ~a a_ a t O ♦ 4 -a r~L LL -L 1 vrM uv..vl -cililMarscincA L disLLIct w consiI a sanitary sewer project as pC-I of sue Neiguvulilvvu Sewer Extension Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached resolution forming the reimbursement district. INFORMATION SUMMARY The purpose of the reimbursement district is to recover the cost of installing sewers that are part of a street improvement project at the intersection of SW Walnut Street and Tiedeman Avenue approved by the Local Contract Review Board June 8, 1999. Through the City's Neighborhood Sewer Extension Program, the City would install public sewers to each lot along the street project and the owners would reimburse the City for a fair share of the cost of the public sewer at the time of connection to the sewer. The project would provide sewer service to eighteen residential lots plus one City-owned lot. Each owner has been notified of the hearing by mail. The notice and mailing list are attached to the City Engineer's Report The Engineer's Report attached to the proposed resolution provides additional details. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Direct that the resolution be revised. 2. Reject the reimbursement district. FISCAL NOTES Funding is by unrestricted sanitary sewer funds. I:%dty%idelsumV e1m14-s.doc AGENDA ITEM # S FOR AGENDA OF `I ~ (3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Adoption of Director's Interpretation of Provisions of the Development Code PREPARED BY: Dick B DEPT HEAD OK lZMA~a1al- e-yGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council adopt the attached inte~p,rctatior. of the Community Development Director? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the attached resolution and interpretation. INFORMATION SUMMARY The US Supreme Court decision, Dolan versus the City of Tigard, established a requirement that dedications be "roughly proportional" to the impact of the development. Attorneys throughout the country have generally agreed that the requirement generally extends to all public facility improvement requirements. Over the last couple of years, staff and the City Attorney's office have attempted to apply the results of the decision to development projects. Applications of the tenets of that decision have been an evolving process. Differing applications and circumstances create continuous challenges relating to the implementation and interpretation of the Development Code. Staff, along with the City Attorney's office, updated the City Council about the evolution of issues relating to development requirements and Dolan on March 2, 1999. Staff asked the City Attorney to prepare a more definitive interpretation of the varying provisions of the code relating to Dolan. The Council acknowledged that we should proceed with the drafting of the necessary interpretation. It should be noted that a rewrite to incorporate all issues would be very extensive. Even then, the language would be subject to interpretation and the continuos evolution of new circumstances. Staff and the City Attorney's office will be coming back with. code amendments to clarify some a ,;ily correctable issues related to final decisions, effective dates, standard i applicability, improvements, sidewalks and dedication. i a The attached interpretation was prepared as a Director's Interpretation which has been signed by Jim Hendryx. It will be utilized by staff in the application of the Development Code on issues relating to dedications and 3 public facilities. The interpretation also address other areas needing better definition including when decisions are final, alteration of non-conforming situations and building location requirements in the Tigard Triangle. Court decisions have given deference to interpretation of development code provisions made by the City Council. To provide added authority to the interpretation, the City Council is being asked to adopt the attached resolution adopting the interpretation as that of the City Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Leave as a Director's Interpretation VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY NA FISCAL NOTES NA is curplnklick\dirint.sum 6/15/99 5:14 PM RAMIS RECEIVED C.O.T. CREW JUN 91999 CORRIGAN & BACHRACH, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1727 N.W. Hoyt Street MEMORANDUM Portland, Oregon 97209 (503) 222-4402 Fax: (503) 243-2944 TO: Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director FROM: Timothy V. Ramis, James M. Coleman & Gary Firestone, City Attorney's Office DATE: June 8, 1999 RE: Tigard Community Development Code Revisions Attached are drag revisions to the Community Development Code, as we have discussed, in both plain text and redlinelstrikeout versions. In addition to changes to provisions relating to public improvements, we are including some changes relating to procedure, including clarification of effective dates. As to the Type II procedure, these revisions make it clear that the final local appeal is to the Hearings Officer. We have reviewed the Code and conclude that, despite some ambiguity, the Type II procedure as written, concludes with the Hearings Officer decision. The amendments are intended to clarify existing provisions and to make minor amendments to provide greater assurance of compliance with Dolan. Because those changes delete absolute requirements to dedicate and improve streets, we have added a provision that defines "streets" as "public streets" for most purposes of Chapter 18.810. Please call with any question or comments you may have. Enclosures cc: William A. Monahan, City Manager gffla=\90024\codeamend.me 1 TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROPOSED A°vIENDMENTS SECTION 1: Subsection 18.340.020.G. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: G. Final decision/effective date. The decision of the City Council on an appeal of a Director Interpretation shall be final and effective when notice of the decision is mailed to the applicant, prove however, that if the applicant is the Director o ncH, the decision is final and effective when made. SECTION 2: Subsection 18.390.040.F. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: F. Final decision and effective date. A Type II Administrative Decision is final for purposes of appeal when notice of the decision is mailed. A Type II Administrative Decision becomes effective on the day after the appeal period expires, unless an appeal is filed. If an appeal is filed and dismissed after the appeal period has expired, the Type II Administrative Decision becomes effective on dismissal of the appeal. SECTION 3: Subsection 18.390.040.G.2.c. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: C. Appeal procedures. Type III notice and hearing procedures shall be used for all Type II Administrative Appeals, as provided in Sections 18.390.050 C - F. SECTION 4: Subsection 18.390.040.H. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: H. Final decision and effective date. The decision of the Hearings Officer on appeal of a Type II decision is the final decision of the City and is final and effective on the day notice of the decision is mailed. SECTION 5: Subsection 18.390.050.G. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: G. Final decision 1. Final decision a ewye date and appeal. The decision of the Planning Commission or Hearings Officer in a Type III action is Page 1 final for purposes of appeal on the date notice of the decision is mailed. Any party with standing may appeal a Type III decision to the City Council by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Director within 10 business days of the date notice of the decision is mailed. The Notice of Appeal shall be in the form specified in Section 18.390.040G.2(a)(2). The procedures of Sections 18.390.050 C-F shall be followed in the appeal. 2. Final Decision on Appeal. The decision of the City Council on any Type III appeal is the final decision of the City and is final and cti-o . V V~r vthe dare. notice of the decision is mailed. u~v . SECTION 6: Subsection 18.390.080.A.1.d. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: d. "Effective date" means the date on which a particular action or decision may be undertaken or otherwise implemented. For decisions which are subject to review or appeal by any city council, board, or officer, the effective date will normally be the day after the appeal period expires. If an appeal is dismissed after the appeal period has expired, the decision that was the subject of the appeal becomes effective at the moment of dismissal. Final decisions of the City (those that are not subject to any further appeal or review within the City) are normally effective when they become final. SECTION 7: Subsection 18.620.010.B. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: B. Development conformance. All new development, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting in uses other than single family residential use, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described in this chapter and other development standards required by the Community Development and Building Codes, such developments will be required to: 1. Dedicate and improve public streets, to the extent that such dedication and improvement is directly related and roughly i proportional to an impact of the development; t i 2. Connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage; Page 2 3. Participate in funding future transportation and other public improvement projects in the Tigard Triangle, provided that the requirement to participate is directly related and roughly proportional to an impact of the development. SECTION 8: Subsection 18.810.020.A. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: A. When standards anoly. Unless otherwise provided, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs, and other public improvements shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. No development may occur and no land use application may be approved unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section and adequate public facilities are available. Applicants may be required to dedicate land and build required public improvements only when the required exaction is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. SECTION 9: Subsection 18.810.030.A. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: A. Improvements. 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or approved access to a public street. 2. No development shall occur unless streets within the development meet the standards of this chapter. 3. No development shall occur unless the streets adjacent to the development meet the standards of this chapter, provided, however, that a development may be approved if the adjacent street does not meet the standard but half-street improvements meeting the standards of this title are constructed adjacent to the development. 4. Any new street or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall meet the standards of this chapter. 5. If the City could and would otherwise require the applicant to provide street improvements, the City Engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist: Page 3 a. A partial improvement is no" feasible due to the inability to achieve property design standards; b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; C. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improvement plan; e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the application is for a project which would contribute only a minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. 6. The standards of this chapter include the standard specifications adopted by the City Engineer pursuant to Section 18.810.020.B. 7. The approval authority may approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would result in an adverse impact on natural features such as wetlands, steep slopes, or existing mature trees. The approval authority may also approve adjustments to the standards of this chapter if compliance with the standards would have an substantial adverse impact on existing development or would preclude development on the property where the development is proposed. In approving an adjustment to the standards, the approval authority shall balance the benefit of the adjustment with the impact on the public interest represented by the standards. In evaluating the impact on the public interest, the approval authority shall consider the criteria listed in Section 18.810.030.E.1 An adjustment to the standards may not be granted if the adjustment would risk public safety. Page 4 SECTION 10: Subsection 18.810.070.A of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: A. Sidewalks. All industrial streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along one side of the street. All other streets shall have sidewalks meeting City standards along both sides of the street. A development may be approved if an adjoining street has sidewalks on the side adjoining the development, even if no sidewalk exists on the other side of the street. nr~llnnT X , , , o, t.._...:.._ a o 10.0o0. A of the Tigard P_nmmsnily 1)PVP1onmPnt Cncie 1S J~1.11V1'1 1 1. o1luaGa.uvaa Lou V a s amended to read as follows: A. Dedication Requirements. 1. Where a proposed park, playground or other public use shown in a development plan adopted by the City is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. 2. Where considered desirable by the Commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive plan policies, and where a development plan of the City does not indicate proposed public use areas, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of parks or other public use, provided that the reservation or dedication is roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the park system. SECTION 12: Subsections 18.810.110.A. and B. of the Tigard Community Development Code are amended to read as follows: A. Bikeway extension. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through dedication of easements or rights-of-way, provided such f dedication is directly related to and roughly proportional to the impact of the development. Page 5 B. Cost of construction. Development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway improvement in an amount roughly proportional to the impact of the development. SECTION 13: The Tigard Community Development Code is amended by adding a new section 18.810.020.E. to read as follows: E. Except as provided in Section 13.810.030.5, as used in this chapter, the term "streets" shall mean "public streets" unless an adjustment under Section 18.810.020.1) is allowed. SftNacm\90024\codeamend.or1(6/4/99) Page 6 TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE PROPOSED REVISIONS REDLINE/STRIKEOUT VERSION SECTION 1: Subsection 18.340.020.6. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: G. Final decisionhffective date. The decision of the City Council on an appeal of a Director Interpretation shall be final NNW" when noEr.~i pftbe dec~.siatt rt-is mailed to the applicant, pve Ixawever, that 1ftlieapplzctsrlftetxetlrc~i»`I«t?1 jurisdiction.. SECTION 2: Subsection 18.390.040.F. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: F. Final decision and effective date. A Type II Administrative Decision is final for purposes of appeal when c`?tp s mailed. A Type II Administrative Decision itxitrs ineffective on the day after the appeal period expires, tales<atap If an appeal is filed the decision is effective Mien the appeal 73-MVfVe&tft appeat period hay exired E1x Typecustattysleoiso lp ei'ecttve s~ dismissal oi'tEeppeat SECTION 3: Subsection 18.390.040.G.2.c. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: C. Appeal procedures. Type III notice and hearing procedures shall be used for all Type II Administrative Appeals, as provided in Sections 18.390.050 C - GF. SECTION 4: Subsection 18.390.040.H. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: H. Final decision and effective date. The decision of the Hearings Officer with regarcl-to-all- appeal 'a Type II MmAnistrative-decision is the final decision of the i atd~finalantl>eI~'ir~a~~l~ic~~'"t~~ aectsiat'a11 A-50 E)ffieez is fin putposes of app' nn the day the decision is niniled. Tim decision is Page 1 RIMM 1111 M 1111111111111 e&e,tive an the day afte. the etlipeal period expires, urdess an app filed. if W! BF: Pe8l iS filed, tile deCi.i= is effective on "Y- aLLM HIC apP~x~-irnsalved- SECTION 5: Subsection 18.390.050.G. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: G. Final decision 1~ Final decision- effective date and appeal. The decision of the j` `i:p[#tltplt7Y`NY Review JWJ T a III ~Vp 7 is final for purposes of appeal on the date y~io c Ci'€ ;:::;l:yy:u.:;:F'::;;:;:y':: :.••rf y}i:;C;::v *i < : t~:~:~ +.!:g.;};•}}:.,.;.•r.??.ii;.v.::::;'.;~t:Yi d ...s . ..l..it;.?i:.s m..:?.;a•y:i?.l•e.,;d?.?. :,.aS}:.;...y. "`L,::.^:.:;!K•:?•^, e~leat 8E'14'y ~ dedsto~n t~ ttt~ ~t~ ~ ,•:.rr. ~tae~ a~Appeat ~e~ Z~re~a~ wYthx~x ~ bctsr~ness t~~~ i~~~..; daxe tt+aiice c«f ~~he declsl~r~ ~a~e~ ~l'~e a~~~ s,l, st tie fgr.~pec,m ~eetiah~ 1<~.~9~ t~G'~~~~.:;J;a ......?}:;}i:~{:i:^'J,.j;:y nv:?.}v;:: rn:: i9~ •~::.i v.;::: ::v;.?.:.}...{r:};:::i::: 4i¢}}}//.:i: ':%;NUiJ'?;r¢ ce~uzes~it`'~eetttiti~ 39Q G F shy bt+ fi~Itcs~v~d ~ I Me p>.. the appeal pe. iod expire.,. if an appeat is filed, the de~isiost becomes eflectiYe on the day afte. the appeal isteso Fina11,on on ne, 'he deesrcrrt zzthe l ~ni :x w :k<z . SECTION 6: Subsection 18.390.080.A. I.d. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: d. "Effective date" means the date on which a particular action or decision may be undertaken or otherwise implemented. MM x. ..:.w i! ~~ard v~:`c~r~>~et~ve ~a~#e wail. nty~trt~ 6e ►e thy::?::;.:;'::<::<-:?~.' eai:~`•'~ti<a:~?::<°ea1=~>dtsrtse~:e~;~=~ ''`ihc~d:hii~~::.:.:::~:..:::• die~~e~ran;t~halr!st~~sui~ert~I~t>.r..;":::: -WilliZ M* ec i~ s<i~ clixe ...ie rx ~ ' : ~nthitt the my ara armatW a ~t.en ttxey Imo a~ Typicafly, an action m decision will became efffictive --sathe day appeal period hns zurt v., if there is air appeal, an the-day aftet the appeal is resolved. Page 2 SECTION 7: Subsection 18.620.010.B. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: B. Development gonformance. All new developments, including remodeling and renovation projects resulting ~~`rnmr in S~: "r` '`"`t,~„.i~?Y"""`'` -single family residential use, are expected to contribute to the character and quality of the area. In addition to meeting the design standards described c aptar bekrw-and other development standards required by the ttutjiU tit t Development and Building Codes,' developments will be required to: ` icate and improve public streets, lc >2l `tit #i 1 d±d~cstao .amereize> eYad`Fiug ...Y i}:. 01"" Connect to public facilities such as sanitary sewer, water and storm drainage; and 3. Participate in funding future transportation and c~Ci?tar publi c improvement projects urk withirt he Tigard Tri angle pr tv3 d.t e tgusremnt to pancate is req F anr} gy oovro SECTION 8: Subsection 18.810.020.A. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: A. When standards apply. Unless otherwise provided, the -standard specificatio.isforconstruction, reconstruction or repair of streets, sidewalks, curbs, and other public improvements vvithin the City-shall occur in accordance with the standards of this title. No development may occur .tact}use's . `first unless the public facilities related to development comply with the public facility requirements established in this section U 'i:'.; 1:::: :y;: ;•:.i': ! .:I': v'1.;;}•J ' i.:: v; v' {{^i:\ is :;!:$"+}".j%;:J.}{::. r;.y~!4 ..Grp ~~~txcants may:~er~uur~ ur:_c~c~ate ~ac~~<bi~dd fed ~~c IM p<:G:.:•:<::.;>::...::..::~n Y svherc ~e ~equ~red ~~r ts. cbr~r.> SECTION 9: Subsection 18.810.030.A. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: A. Improvements, 1. No development shall occur unless the development has frontage or Page 3 M1 INN NEI approved access to a public street. y,!:,sss,,r..,y•. ~rrr .,.rr r r,+!;{!i~%;.'„r/~'.,%'rf: uy~•rriiiY:,r~Y.!yurr:.~r?r; ,yii+•.s,sa~<,cfss+.~s{{+• rr:++rrrc. L Si IEE'Stcr1Fl~#~itt~fYftYNi / r r/r r..l:i~3:•f./{r,:~ ~ r r it 3. ri: •;i~nrrrr r,}; sacrru•~r+,?rfrrrf rr!mr..~r, m rrm.>iir:r:r:,~•r%r• •~~••».fy~::~si s~ ••iy:Hl!.}r{ .'<!:y,?ry}},1•/.:r..::i:.:~!iii.%%}~%::.f•i i:'r.% i;y{iy! u:y 5: Vii: ^ ..r.}!':::.....1.i......... ~yy~•~~t~G is rp,;, ro::{.:, y {:6 •''r:•;}; •%'::z:.'•:.:5:~;yxio`.,.}>•+i;'.;::::::,:r p; ir!..:+:?+; ,..:.Y.,.;;•r,::+.::•?!.4...,!!.!:;(}}rr...!..•.'.+.~}}..'i.;y:'`,x ~'~...u...!<:.it•!•::..!:ar...:!•F .i ::4r?r.:•}:+: .'•2:!!y.. fi2ai•?.!;~::<!x:4:::y}+.+.{y f;:};;<,:::.:;%..:?:i{ , rxr..~rr!}:,.,!; rrf. ;:•r..: •r...»..?.}:;;r::{.r tlx~t ~.~e~rop~riel#:~,~?e„a~p1~~~~►e~>i~ a~t~j'~#:~t#.c,~ ~c~x ii:N!!N:?%' %:!•i:•%J.!riSF:i%?ii'41f.!!': {'!+i: j{ ;ff i' ::•ii'f,.•;ii:4'F. i:•;:!: ii i:!4i:•i: i'l!!/!f Jihi:!Ff.;:i!? i";ii}~•/'f,.:l+Li%, X.. :i :.'l..i:N,i •:i::.??ri %/x..~..};1:i',N.: ~Yi}':r,.:;ii[: f,4,}'J..i~!'frv'.:r,.}}ri•:p'f..~i'f,.~!:gi;:•i::'r'.y: <if ...p'l.Ff % }iil:-0}'fj}'f.+.%.:•1,.;%'%i}:i:'F,.r,.• iY/}i% i% :1..}}'1.,:: Any ,iew sireei or additional street width planned as a portion of an existing street shall be dedicated mid intinaved hi accodwi-e with thiscode O:!?!.%}i:!::n~.!,!';,F,.y.N..i:.!.%ri}Y::.vr:?!~!i'J:n:!.~!.Y.!!!r fpi'f,F.lf.%.I/r'•i:r }ll.:.•!.f F%:!!F..;:...!: Fr ;::!!rn.:. 5.he':ty ea au~cp, atlis rspp, to 3rtnc<St rigytiixthe City Engineer may accept a future improvements guarantee in lieu of street improvements if one or more of the following conditions exist: a. A partial improvement is not feasible due to the inability to achieve property design standards; b. A partial improvement may create a potential safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians; C. Due to the nature of existing development on adjacent properties it is unlikely that street improvements would be extended in the foreseeable future and. the improvement associated with the project under review does not, by itself, provide a significant improvement to street safety or capacity; d. The improvement would be in conflict with an adopted capital improv:ment plan; e. The improvement is associated with an approved land partition on property zoned residential and the proposed land partition does not create any new streets; or f. Additional planning work is required to define the appropriate design standards for the street and the ` application is for a project which would contribute only a Page 4 minor portion of the anticipated future traffic on the street. ?„?!:::;?:.;;J:v%fJ,.%/.•::.:~.w%,: ; fr:~~:/,.. ;.,,::!~y,:, f rJ:.: ~ it r~ j!`::,,;,:~ t:w?ri:~ ,y Y!„y ~ ~iV;?~ 6. JJ '~i~;:~~~rr~~f ~tbas• ~h~}atear t~a~tt~de ~ ~c us~a~ %i:!i:iF ~fiii{;ii f f J j. f J f / f fJ/ f J fJ 7. stwidwds will tesult in art tinacceptable adverse impact an existing development ot on the proposed development V, on natur-n! featut es stich as wed- - -1 UJL _~Aja Al! trees. F..... / 4YJ FF ....(~.n.Y'f,.,Yi:!fi?:f,.•:j'fl:i"tll:fi'. :Y•lG/;f!iiiF.%~<f71i:ii:l:;:f: :E;lI.;LS~:%::Y:::.::i? F f..... nO :.»:.'r:???.: J::'•!:!:ii.?.::,.in:?:r:.:i:.;•::i:.r?;::::;::?y,.::::::,...;i:.:.:>:::•.:.> •i:;. :};::?::!::•;•.::<::4:.::??:ri:?s: ~?Y+)s>:~•.... ~r sttr,~ tiaattite tx~~. ~e apprta. a~~ m~i~~altlsx ?v.>:x;'J~ i:•i: p:?:::~J~l ~ il!::!:l?:iii:"vii. c~~I4pn~~fi<pr W4u~+~ prec~ud~ dey~l~pmeri~ bn pto~y :l:;;m~iuyi y .•.!i~?:s.;:.;!!n ~x,{?.'1..'H.N.q::1.ni:!x::l::Fi.:•iii: y,:J,.???. ,l;i !?y.:.: ~ l!???:!;:i..i:Yi<y .ere t ct,~r~sl~p~~ agpr~pas~d.. In approving an ;~~,~m excepticnrto the standards, the approval authority shall deternrine ::.::i :>.viii,::;:;:«:.i::::<:::>.«::;;;?:,; standards-lame the bit otfie ad}ustxnent nth #e p'p€ i:i :^::.~i• ::.v;i:::<;}:;:}!:'4F?: •:L'J.•;!i: :.:i: t~ xge ~fl t#t sta►daz d In evaluating the public nef the approval authority shall consider the criteria listed in Section 18.810.030.E.1 j .f11L SECTION 10: Subsection 18.810.070.A. of the Tigard Community Development Code is amended to read as follows: A 'csaetshail!ae<sr?Iata ...i::v,v •:9:•i}Y :::.,v,{r.:.;n:i:}}v..i:.:JVi:v: s:{!i:::i:nil,ii}n:;:rx!iW.i:ji ~.}::i::i;in`!}}:Ci$iiif :L'v.:i!:.•.::6i;..:::~..... •?.::b?Y:'r"•::???N??::i}i::•iiiii:!.'::.:::?•ti??:??biii i:•:?.i: ii: :^ii.:iiiii:v: •:Y ••.:?ii::!•:•: ~:::{KF:[CVQ::^::2::v>:::i}i:i~... ~s:Q~vp...::<:~>:~n:r~:s~c~>~a .v: tr located as fbilowse 17.- Onboth sides of arterial mid eoHectoz street.- LU UZ-IUUUL at Ulm ne rr \)11t+11t n both ides fait-other mid in -GLL 9GJllldll-'l G ----4J4l~ Page 5 zights-of-war, except-as prV--V`1UdeWdT'U-"--'HV.1 in flu's section, to and -3. EM one side ofarry industzinHueet to be constracted at the tinte a SECTION 11: Subsection 18.810.080.A. of the Tigard Community Development Code is aii~PMdeu tv riau wi fcllv A. Dedication Requirements. 1. Where a proposed park, playground or other public use shown in a development plan adopted by the City is located in whole or in part in a subdivision, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of such area within the subdivision; rtrtr a~. • • :v..::::.::•: ;•.:.:.::...r:,. • • •:+.•:,•.r;;.:.y: r:: n•.;:: • • v::.::: •rr:..:..n...::: :v..:.,Y.n;:::..;.i.•.::•r:':': 2. Where considered desirable by the Commission in accordance with adopted comprehensive plan policies, and where a development plan of the City does not indicate proposed public use areas, the Commission may require the dedication or reservation of areas within the subdivision or sites of a character, extent and location suitable for the development of parks i xr -other public use, pra~det~~x the ~res~tto~ u~ c~dt~a'tzss~ is xau~.Ypz'~rp :r SECTION 12: Subsections 18.810.1 10.A. and B. of the Tigard Community Development Code are amended to read as follows: A. Bikeway extension. Developments adjoining proposed bikeways identified on the City's adopted pedestrian/bikeway plan shall include provisions for the future extension of such bikeways through dedication of easements or :}%}}}'0};}:r,::.}:::.:: :L'{;n^':•}}::...:Y k.:}::.};:<•. b':,:C{1:11n;:A;:i~rj.^;.':Si}.v::i':{:;j~::,.x: rights-of--.way, pravsde~iri'cl~ dedtcat~4~ is ~i~rec~~€.xes~ t~ d ~~.?q ~ 15fC4pc'►r~ior~al.t~,#ti~ mtp, r~`~„t~Ya~l?iYteai 1 B. Cost of construction. Development permits issued for planned unit developments, conditional use permits, subdivisions and other developments which will principally benefit from such bikeways shall be conditioned to include the cost or construction of bikeway :improvement ?!1 :.}NSlriiiti:t~:%:Y''}i~;ryi$."•ijn'Stirv~i/.iii:r}xpti. rn~:, ::n•.::::r.::x:;.vr:::nw;.:xxn.:x{!:•};; G:!;}:i}SS::::!::iSii: ~:'1; .r:••rc: n;.}.u:!:w M alyf~3llYat'.iti .:>:.~<'1'.~,..~C}..~.:n,}::~':n.:r.•r.::.:::r~•:rr:r:: n::::.}:•:.:::::}..:n:..::...:. Page 6 SECTION 13: The Tigard Community Development Code is amended by adding a new subsection 18.810.020.E. to read as follows: :..:5i:%n:{.M,.i'!•:,,v„/p+l.•Yi,/1.:iY.,f„I.ii!r :%ii: •%v/~ • •'i.~lll^•L'i~.Y,f.{e yr::Y.m•~::.:: v,; y{::.;r::i ~{iv{ ~.Nri.ri:>i'i~ ~ i~ ~•,:i~i~•i'};'iiiil•%F'l~yf ~~~~+~Hf„F.••.ri, l',•'i> i :bi:. ! f fld,/! / / .•v!„j f+3 / f ff W / !M / f:f I f is ~~stre~`'` ~ ~ streCts''` mess ate ~d,~stmen~ gfflncm\90024\wdeamand. rd 1(6/4199) Page 7 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 7/13/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Pacific Ridge Ins Request to Use City Property for Private Wetlands Mitigation PREPARED BY: Duane Roberts DEPT HEAD OK CIT MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should Council allow Pacific Ridge and the Specht Company to use city property for private wetlands mitigation? STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Council approve the request subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a city sensitive lands permit and all other necessary permits and approvals required for the work. The required joint state/federal wetlands application shall explicitly state that the city is not a party to the permit and enforcement of the permit will be the directed solely against the developer. 2. The applicant shall obtain a street-opening permit issued by the city Engineering Department. 3. The applicant pay to the city the amount of $14,740. INFORMATION SUMMARY Pacific Ridge and the Specht Company have submitted a. joint request to use city parkland to mitigate for the wetland impacts of the Autumn Crest and Tigard Triangle projects. The proposed mitigation sites are five small areas, covering approximately 0.74 acre, located within Fanno Creek Park just behind City Hall (see map attached). In June 1996, Council adopted a formal policy addressing the use of city property for private wetlands mitigation. The attached submittal prepared by the applicant's wetland consultant addresses these criteria. The proposed mitigation plan is consistent with the Fanno Creek Master Plan, which calls for the majority of the park area to be a nature preserve. According to the plan, the natural vegetation and habitat areas are to remain undisturbed or altered to improve their natural character and ability to support the area's wildlife inhabitants. If properly implemented, the proposed planting plan will improve the park's natural character. The applicant's final mitigation plan has been reviewed and approved by the Operations and Engineering Departments. I As compensation for the use of city-owned property, staff recommends the city impose a charge of $14,740. This amount is based on the $20,000 per acre rate recently charged by the Tigard-Tualatin School District for the use of school property for private wetlands mitigation. The rationale for charging Pacific-Ridge and the Specht Company a fee for a project that will provide a positive benefit, is that there is a relatively high demand for, and a relatively limited supply of, suitable mitigation sites within the Urban Growth Area. The applicant's consultant has submitted a letter suggesting a lesser charge of $7,370 for the use of the city land (attached). A staff report, which includes a discussion of the compensation issue, accompanies this agenda summary. The applicant, Craig Petrie of Pacific Ridge Development, and the applicant's wetland consultant, Martin L'IlU!!, Will bC PIC3Ci1 l at u'-dG ~,vi'u`i~ii .~.-.g S - CO •I ~~a..~-, to l.•• to v.... - •••,o. Y,iew the mitiga--t i r on p -1 an and respond to any questions may have. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not allow the applicants to mitigate on city property and, instead, preserve the sites for future city mitigation use as needed. Charge the applicants at a lower or higher rate than the proposed $20,000 per acre for the use of city property. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The proposal addresses Growth and Growth Management Goal #1, which calls for protecting natural resources, and Urban and Public Services Goal #2, which calls for citizen education aimed at wetland protection. FISCAL NOTES Staff proposes the city charge the applicant $14,740 for the use of city property. Bci"ide%s=n )aciSctidge.sum I I, Civic Center ~ Proposed f~itig on Sit III III 11 KIM CITY OF TIGARD Community Development ShapingA Better Community MEMORANDUM ire i e OF T!GARD TO: City Council FROM: Jim Hendryx DATE: 7/13/99 SUBJECT: Pacific Ridge and Specht Development Request to Use City Property for Private Wetland Mitigation Pacific Ridge, Inc. and the Specht Development have submitted a request to use creekside land within Fanno Creek Park for the off-site mitigation of the wetland impacts of two Tigard-area development projects. The proposed enhancement project covers approximately 0.74 acre and includes the removal of existing areas of Reed Canarygrass and its replacement with native riparian and wetland species. Long Range Planning, Engineering, and Operations have reviewed the plans for the project and recommend Council approval of the project as designed and revised. In June, 1996, Council adopted a formal policy addressing the use of city property for private wetlands mitigation. The policy stated as follows. It is the policy of the City of Tigard that city owned property may be used for private wetlands mitigation. The City of Tigard will consider proposals for such mitigation on a case by case basis subject to the following: 1. It can be demonstrated that there is benefit to the city and the general public. 2. The mitigation must provide a documented physical enhancement of existing wetlands. 3. The city should be compensated for the use of the area either through rent, lump sum payment, benefit to the city, or as agreed to by the City Council. M~ MMM.-Ma" 11111 maim 111EM Elm 11 MEMO 4. The wetland mitigation should demonstrate no additional cost to the city for maintenance or other factors unless acceptable to the City Council. The present proposal addresses the first two criteria in the following ways. The proposal calls for the removal of noxious vegetation within five small areas of Fanno Creek Park, all located behind City Hall, and its replacement by native species. This work carries out the recommendations included in the Fanno Creek Master Plan. The mitigation under discussion is a physical enhancement of the existing wetland. Replacement of the monotypic area of Reed Canarygrass by diverse native species will improve the water quality and wildlife habitat value of the wetland and riparian area. Policy 3 states that "the city should be compensated for the use of the area either through rent, lump sum payment, benefit to the city, or as agreed to by the City Council". In the case of the project under discussion, staff recommends the city impose a charge of $14,740 for the use of the 0.74 acre of city parkland included in the proposed enhancement. This figure is based on the $20,000 per acre amount the local school district charged Eagle Hardware last year for the use of 2.7 acres of Fowler School property for wetlands mitigation. According to a wetlands consultant with direct experience in obtaining off-site mitigation rights, the proposed $20,000 per acre rate for the use of city property is reasonable and is within current estimates of the fair market value of mitigation sites. The consultant commented that within the metropolitan area, the present market for mitigation sites is tight and, consequently, prices have been on the upswing. On the other hand, a real estate broker used by another wetlands consulting firm to obtain land for wetlands mitigation, has commented to staff that there is no set rate for mitigation rights. This person indicated that each transaction is unique and is subject to individual negotiation. As for city government precedents, the last time Council considered a request of this type was a year ago when Council decided to not charge Gramor Oregon for the use of approximately one acre of city greenway for private wetlands mitigation. The rationale for not charging in this case was that the cost of the proposed mitigation ($90,000) was roughly double the typical per acre cost for wetland enhancements. The Gramor proposal called for the removal of noxious vegetation located upstream of the city's proposed 121St pond enhancement. This removal would have reduced the chances of noxious vegetation infecting the native wetland meadows proposed for city construction at 121s. The proposed removal and replacement of the top two feet of soil within the mitigation area accounted for the higher than normal project cost. The present proposal differs from the Gramor project by using grubbing, rather than the more expensive soil replacement, to remove exotic species. Had Gramor proposed the use of conventional mitigation techniques at conventional per unit costs, the imposition of a fee for the right to mitigate on city property would have been in order in this case as well. The applicant was asked to provide written comments on staff's recommendation to impose a fee at the proposed level. A letter from the applicant's consultant is attached. In the letter the consultant proposes a market-based fee of $7,370 based on a $10,000 per acre rate for mitigation rights. Significantly, the consultant letter cites THPRD as an example of local governmental organization that does not charge for the use of publicly-owned land for private wetlands mitigation. When contacted by staff, THPRD staff indicated that this statement was true as of a year ago. THPRDs current policy is to charge fair market value for the use of district-owned property for off-site mitigation. The agency has not established a baseline per acre rate as yet. They instead have negotiated compensation deals with developers on an ad hoc basis. The compensation has included cash along with in-kind contributions, such as trail construction and landscaping improvements to district-owned properties. As for the fourth and last criteria, "no additional cost to the city", the project will not obligate the city in any way. The initial project and any additional work and maintenance, including plant replacement ordered by the Corps of Engineers or the Division of State Lands, will be provided by the applicants. Staff finds that the wetland enhancement proposal satisfies the criteria relating to the use of city- owned property for private wetlands mitigation and recommends Council approval of the applicant's request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shaii oi tail i~ a ci y sensitive lands permit and all other necessary permits and approvals required for the work. The required joint state/federal wetlands applicafon shall explicitly state that the city is not a party to the permit and enforcement of the permit will be the directed solely against the developer. 2. The applicant shall obtain a street-opening permit issued by the city Engineering Department. 3. The applicant pay to the city the amount of $14,740. The proposed approval conditions will protect the city's interest by providing for city oversight and inspection and for the bonding of the excavation poition of the work and by capturing the market value of the land for private wetlands mitigation. i Z i i i 7 06/30/1999 10:24 5038293874 SCHOTT AND ASSOC PAGE 01 RECEIVED -milk JUN 3 01999 SCHOTT & AS5QCIA17ES Ecologists & Wetlands SpWiafiStS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11977 S. ToUvet Rd. o Nlolslla, OR 97038 (503) 829.4318 a FAX: (503) 529-3874 June 30, 1999 Duane Roberts City of Tigard 13125 SM. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Pacific Ridge & Spect Mitigation Costs Dear Duane: During the three years I have had to obtain off-site mitigation for approximately 10 projects. The cost for obtaining permission to mitigate on private land has varied. A couple of land owners did not require any payment for allowing mitigation on their property, but most have. During the past year the three off-site mitigation areas that required a payment, cost my clients 510,000/acre. One project $ am currently worldng on in Hillsboro my client is helping obtain a permit for the land owner in exchange for permission for using their l ftd for mitigadon. My ollems have not been required to pay any governments for using public lands. T1IPRD and others have viewed it as an opportunity to improve their lands without impacting their budget. Pacific Ridge and Spect combined need 0.737 acres to satisfy their mitigation requirements. If the 510,000/aces figure is used to calculate a payment to Tigard they would pay a. total of $7,370. 1 do not now what the cost per acre was paid to the school district, but I would riot be Burp i if it was 510,000. Sincerely, Martin R. Schott, Ph.D. i 3 SCHOTT & ASSOCIATES Ecologists & Wetlands Specialists 11977 S. ToRver Rd. s Walla, OR 97038 • (503) 829-6318 . FAX: (503) 829-3874 AUTUMN CREST & TIGARD TRIANGLE WETLAND MITIGATION SUPPORT DOCUMENT IN'T'RODUC'T'ION The proposed mitigation is for two different projects and developers. Pacific Ridge existing permit requires off-site mitigation for a water quality facility, which was built on property it is developing off Scholls Ferry Road. Spect Development, Inc. needs off-site mitigation for its Tigard Triangle Office Complex. The Spect development proposes to culvert approximately 230 linear feet of an ephemeral drainage and a 35 square foot emergent wetland associated with the drainage. The mitigation will be implemented as one mitigation project. Pacific Ridge will be responsible for implementation of the mitigation area, and its monitoring. Spect Development will pay Pacific Ridge its proportion of the mitigation costs. The mitigation area is located on City of Tigard Property, which is located behind City Hall. The mitigation area is on Phano Creek, west of SW Hall Blvd. The city property was examined for potential mitigation areas, and approximately 10 different areas were identified as potential enhancement areas. The areas identified are existing low quality wetlands. All of the areas are dominated by reed canary grass, and are adjacent to either Phano Creek, or a body of water associated with;'.-. MITIGATION Five different areas along Phano Creek and its flood plain area proposed for wetland enhancement. All of the areas consist of low quality emergent wetlands. The mitigation areas are designed to convert the emergent wetland into more diverse scrub-shrub/forested wetlands. The reed canary grass will be treated with an EPA approved herbicide for use in and around water (Rodeo) prior to planting. The intent of the herbicide application is to knock back the grass until the trees and shrubs have had a chance to establish. After the grass had been browned the trees and shrubs will be planted. A 30" diameter circle will be scalped around each planting location. A three inch thick layer of bark mulch will be spread around each planted tree and shrub. This will further help control the reed canary grass. Five different areas will be enhanced within the same general vicinity. Areas A., C and D (0.604 Acres) will be used for Pacific Ridge mitigation. Areas B and E (0.133 acre) will be used for the Tigard Triangle mitigation. The amount of mitigation for Pacific Ridge meets the amount of mitigation original proposed by Pacific. Ridge on the Summer Creek mitigation project being developed by the City of Tigard. The amount of mitigation proposed for the Tigard Triangle project is nearly at an eight to one ratio. MONITORING A five year monitoring period is required for the wetland mitigation and buffer areas by the Oregon Division of State Lands and the Army Corps of Engineers. The monitoring will insure successful development of the wetland and associated buffer. If problems with the mitigation area develop contingency measures will be developed to correct the problems. There are numerous factors which could impact the development of the mitigation area, these include but are not limited to; establishment of unwanted plant species, incorrect hydrology, predation on the planted plants, disease, etc. The monitoring will attempt to identify any problems and their causes, and make recommendations on corrective measures. The corrective measure will be implemented by the landscape contractor. A monitoring report will be prepared after the*growing season. The report will document the establishment of planted shrub and tree species, The hydrological conditions of the wetland mitigation area, the ground cover in the wetlands, identify any observed problems, and suggest corrective measures. The report will be sent to the Oregon Division of State Lands, the Army Corps of Engineers. After each'site visit the landscape contractor will be contacted, and given instructions on what measures need to be implemented. If necessary, a site visit with the landscape contractor will be arranged to show him the problems and go over corrective measures. An eighty percent survivorship for each woody species planted is the goal by the third year of monitoring. This will be determined by counting the established trees and shrubs by species and then dividing by the total number planted. This fraction is then multiplied by 100 to obtain the percentage. Canopy coverage of herbaceous vegetation will be estimated by using 10 one square yard microplots. Area a will have four microp!ots randomly located, Area B will have one, as will areas D and E, Area C will have two microplots. By the end of the third growing season an eighty percent ground coverage is anticipated. Finally, fixed photopoints will be established, and photographs taken each monitoring year. Locations of the photopoints will be determined in the field, and then marked on a map. The location will depend on visibility of the mitigation areas. CONTINGENCY MEASURES As stated above, it is impossible to predict what may go wrong with a mitigation project, but there are some general areas which can be addressed. Specific contingency measures will be developed, if needed, during the five year monitoring effort. Possible problems are identified k< below. Invasion by exotic species Selective grubbing or herbicide treatment Survivorship of planted species Area too wetland for planted specie Replant with a more wet tolerant specie Area too dry for planted species Replant with a species which grows in drier conditions Insect damage Determine type of insect and use systemic or biological control M A F(V'M.NA NF During the period of the required monitoring the maintenance of the mitigation area will be maintained by the landscape contractor who had the contract to plant the mitigation area . They will be instructed on what needs to be done within the natural area by the biologist who has the monitoring contract (Schott & Associates). A follow up inspection visit will occur by the biologist to insure the corrective measures have been implemented. The landscape contractor will be'required to inspect the mitigation area for unwanted plant species, and control them. The following is a list of species that the contractor will be required to control or remove; Canadian thistle English Ivy, Evergreen blackberry Himalayan blackberry, holly, Scots Broom, teasle It is anticipated that after the first three years of monitoring that control of these species will prove to be a relatively simple matter. Control measure may include, but are not limited to grubbing, cutting and selective herbicide treatments. Blackberries may be controlled with an appropriate herbicide. Reed canary grass should be controlled by application of Rodeo, an EPA approved herbicide for use in and around water. Control of Scots bloom, English ivy and holly may be most effective accomplished by grubbing and cutting. If the landscape contractor has had prior success, or has knowledge of herbicides which are effective on these species, he may use them. Herbicides should be used selectively, and only applied by a licensed applicator. They should be applied only to individual plants, in order that other species are not harmed. Herbicide application shall be by manual "spot spraying", wicking, or backpack methods as per manufacturer's specifications. Herbicide use in waterway areas shall be subject to approval and be strictly applied by manufacturer's specifications. Selective hand removal by non-herbicide methods shall be utilized if herbicide application threatens native plantings. All native plantings indicating damage by herbicide application shail be replaced immediately at no additional cost. I SCHOT'T & ASSOCIATES. Ecologists & Wetlands Specialists 11977 S. TbHi er Rd. o Mold'sa, Olt 97038 • • (503) F^9-6318 • FAX: (503) 829-3874 April 28; 1.999 Duane Roberts Planning •Dept. City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Pacific Ridge Wetland Mitigation Proposal for Fanno Creek Park at City:Hall. Dear Mr. Roberts: In a letter you Addressed to Craig Petrie, dated 11/21/98, you requested additional information for a proposed wetland mitigation plan he submitted for Fanno Creek Park last November. Below is additional information required by city staff in order to evaluate and present•the. proposal to City Council for formal action. Also enclosed is a revised mitigation plan. The base map used for this revised plan is the Kurahashi & Assoc. map which you referred to in your. letter to Craig Petrie. I -have also included a copy of a 1997 aerial photograph of the project area. The approximate location of the mitigation areas are identified on this photo. Below, 'I have listed and responded to the pertinent policy,'code, planning, and :management ' issues that related to the wetland mitigation project in Fanno Creek Park at City Hall. City Council's 1996 Policy - Use of city property for wetland mitigation. • (Exibit "A") Approval criteria. 1. It can be demonstrated that there is a benefit to the City of Tigard and the general public. Response: This project is consistent with.the master plans that have been adopted by 'The City for Fanno Creek Watershed and Fanno Creek Park. 2. The mitigation must provide a documented physical enhancement of existing wetland. Response: The enclosed aerial photograph identifies the approximate location of the proposed mitigation wetlands at Fanno Creek Park. As seen on this photo, the mitigation areas are located in unforested areas. Existing vegetation consists of reed canary grass and Himalayan blackberry. These undesirable, invasive species will be replaced by native wetland species. The existing low-quality wetland communities will.be replaced by shrub-scrub and forested wetland plant communities. U r, e us' o u e arr: '-.-.r _ou rent; lump sum 3. The City should be compensated for 'h a- payment, benefit to the city, or as agreed to by the City council. Response: All expenses for the enhancement project will be covered by Pacific Ridge, Inc. Expenses for the project include clearing of undesirable vegetation, planting, irrigation, monitoring, maintenance, and weed control. The standard estimated cost for mitigation wetlands is $35,000/acre. 4. The wetland mitigation should demonstrate no additional costs to the City for maintenance or other factors unless acceptable to the City Council. Response: As stated above, Pacific Ridge will assume the entire cost of the project. The enhancement area will be monitored and maintained by Pacific Ridge for five years, after which time it is presumed that the plantings will be well established. • Community development code - Standards and Specifications for Riparian Area Management. (Appendix "M") This code includes provisions for wetland enhancement programs, non-native vegetation removal, and planting of native plant species, activities of which are included in this proposed project. Provisions A-F: A. All necessary and applicable permits required to perform the activities shall be obtained from other agencies including the Oregon Division of State Lands and Us Army Corps of Engineers. Response: Permits have been granted for this project by Oregon Division of State Lands and the US Army Corps of Engineers. B. All proposed activities shall comply with the regulations for wetlands and streams adopted by the Unified Sewerage Agency (USA). Response: This mitigation project does not allow material, construction debris, runoff, etc;. to enter the creek, and therefore is not regulated by USA. The project is consistent with USA's enhancement goals for the Fanno Creek Watershed. C. The proposed activities shall be consistent with detailed management actions contained in the Fanno Creek Watershed Plan. Response: The proposed activities are consistent with the proposed riparian enhancement projects outlined in the Fanno Creek Watershed Management Plan. The watershed plan summarizes the condition of the reach in the area of City Hall as follows (Table 12): bank/bed erosion - moderate percent native blants - 25 percent shade - 0-50 amount of woody debris - low habitat value - low overall condition - poor-fair. To improve the water quality, flood management, channel stability, and habitat, the plan specifically recommends planting native vegetation in the riparian corridor of this reach (Table 17B). By creating shrub/scrub wetlands and riparian woodlands through the planting of native shrub and tress species, this project will help meet the goals of the Watershed Plan. • Consistency with design recommendations included in the " Fanno Creek Park Master Plan". Included in the objectives of the Master Plan is ".preservation of the natural habitat corridor". The Pacific Ridge project will not only preserve, but also enhance the natural habitat corridor. The Park Plan shows wooded areas within and near the boundaries of the enhancement project areas. The design of the enhancement areas include plantings of shrub-scrub and tree species. • Address any work expected on the city's part. Pacific Ridge will monitor and maintain the mitigation areas for 5 years after: planting. Maintenance will include irrigation when needed, removal of weeds, and . replacement of damaged and dead plantings. • Will proposed project adversely affect the trees located along the creek? The proposed mitigation areas are outside the areas where trees were recently planted. The mitigation areas are located where there are currently no trees growing. See enclosed aerial photograph. loll; • Response to park maintenance supervisor's comments. We agree with the supervisor's blackberry control methods. Pacific Ridge will be responsible for grubbing blackberries from the enhancement areas for a period of five years. Herbicides will not be used for controlling the blackberries. Please let me no if there is any further information the City Council may require for formal action on this proposal. I can be reached at 293-6150. Sincerely, atricia U er FIGURE 2 Plant3ncg. Plan Detail Key Scientific Name Common Name Specifications Quantity ® Amelanchier alnifolia Service Berry 24" 82 njl-IN Comus Sericea Red Osier 24" 604 Rosa nutkana Nootka Rose 36" 286 Spiraea douglasii Douglas Spiraea 24" 612 Symphoricarpos alba Snovvberry 24" 277 Crataegus Douglasii Black Hawthorn 36" 4 O Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash 36" 2 Prunus virginia Choke Cherry 36" 1 Salix lasiandra Pacific Willow Cuttings 6 . 111101111111 • I~ + .m. Ii, ii 1 j :t ? Y I' I' d ITY NA1 L i i ~ i i ~ i 3 1997 Metro aerial photograph showing approximate locations of proposed mitigation wetlands at Fanno Creek Park, Tigard, Oregon. Proposed mitigation wetlands to compensate for wetland impacts at Autumn Crest and Tigard Triangle development projects. x C.B. 1 , X 149.5 i g. ,a L BR. 1r ie IN. ` IN SR. /40 \ BR. ,QOs `v ® ...~.atlfF 136.4 X X 139.6 J BR. J OR. 0.00 42.3 137.2 ~J 9r .06q BRUSH w x 141.9 x I39. f 142.6 x BR r4-s~ s - - _ R. - Q - 140 - C7 150 % x I x X e x Io ~ . i - ~ x FIGURE 1 Mitigation Enhancement Design - t3 _ ..scuF Iaaoo 1"= inu. ►00 so 0 100 200 300 ~IUU 50011!! 1 ® f2 50 40 30 - 20 10 0 50 100 150 METER _X Cf - La~ log I C9 ~C9 G~ _x x 17U- 80 . / •145. S.P. .150 AGENDA ITEM # / O _ FOR AGENDA OF July 13. 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE 79th Avenue Project Status Report PREPARED BY: A. P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL informational briefing on the status of the 79th Avenue Reconstruction and Widening Project, and on the tentative schedule of events leading to construction of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No Council action required. Staff recommends that the status report be made available to residents that may have an interest in the project. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached is a memorandum briefly explaining the status of the 79th Avenue Reconstruction and Widening Project and transmitting a detailed status report on the project. As a minor collector, 79th Avenue is important for access to the adjacent neighborhoods and as a connector street between a minor arterial (Durham Road) and a major collector (Bonita Road). The report provides background information on the project, describes what has happened to date, and sets forth a tentative schedule for possible construction of the project by the year 2001. Century West Engineering Corporation has been selected by the City to complete the project design and have the project packaged for construction by the end of calendar year 1999. There are no funds currently available for construction of the project. Most of the previous developers did not construct the public improvements on 79th Avenue at the time of development, but opted to execute non-remonstrance agreements instead. The construction of this project could be funded through a combination of funding sources consisting of an LID and a Road Bond issue. Century West is developing several scenarios for formation of an LID to pay for part of the project costs. This work will be ongoing over the next two to three months. The scenarios developed will be presented to City Council for discussion and input after completion. The project has been included in the list of potential Road Bond projects for a road bond issue in the year 2000 election ballot. A Transportation Bond Task Force has been formed to select projects and recommend a final list to Planning Commission and City Council. The approved list would be included in the bond issue that would go before the voters in the November 2000 election. A neighborhood meeting was conducted on January 20, 1999 to discuss the preliminary design of the project. As a result of the meeting, several changes were made to the typical minor collector design. The proposed street width was narrowed to 34 feet, six feet less than the standard 40-foot wide minor collector standard. No parking will be allowed along the street, and bikepaths are proposed for both sides of the streets. A second neighborhood meeting is proposed for September 1999 to present the pre-final design and to conduct preliminary LID discussions on scenarios developed by the consultant. A detailed cost estimate for this project is not yet available. After the pre-final design is completed, a detailed cost estimate, including necessary land acquisition and other costs, would be prepared. We are hopeful that the detailed cost estimate and LID scenarios would be ready for Council discussion and input during the workshop session in August. If not, the Council discussion would be scheduled for the workshop session in September 1999. The neighborhood meeting would be scheduled after that Council presentation. The actual LID formation and funding through the Road Bond issue is not expected until after the election in November 2000. If the project is selected for inclusion in the final list, and if the Road Bond issue is successful, the project construction could begin May 2001 at the earliest. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION CQNDMITTEE STRATEGY The 79th Avenue Reconstruction and Widening Project supports the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Transportation and Traffic goals of Improve Traffic Safety and Improve Traffic Flow. FISCAL NOTES The design project is authorized and funded through the FY 1998-1999 and FY 1999-2000 CIP Budgets. Construction funds for the project could come from a combination of LID and Road Bond funding. I:\Citywide\Swn\79'°' Avenue Project Status Report F CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-624-0752 TO: City Council Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Gus Duenas f~ City Engineer DATE: June 28, 1999 SUBJECT: 79th Avenue Reconstruction and Widening Attached is a status report on the 79th Avenue project. The report provides background information on the project, describes what has happened to date, and sets forth a tentative schedule for possible construction of the project by the year 2001. Century West Engineering Corporation has been selected by the City to complete the project design and have the project packaged for construction by the end of calendar year 1999. There are no funds currently available for construction of the project. Most of the previous developers did not construct the public improvements on 79th Avenue at the time of development, but opted to execute non- remonstrance agreements instead. These non-remonstrance agreements stipulate that the owners in the subdivisions would not remonstrate against formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct those improvements on 79th Avenue. The construction of this project could be funded through a combination of funding sources consisting of an LID and a Road Bond issue. Century West is developing several scenarios for formation of an LID to pay for part of the project costs. This work will be ongoing over the next two to three months. The scenarios developed will be presented to City Council for discussion and input. Any decisions on formation of an LID, and on what portion an LID should pay for, would be decided by City Council after the scenarios are developed and discussed with the Councilors. The formation of an LID is an established process, which must be conducted in accordance with Chapter 13 of the Tigard Municipal Code. There will be ample opportunity for public input during this process. The project has been included in the list of potential Road Bond projects for a road bond issue in the year 2000 election ballot. A Transportation Bond Task Force has been formed to narrow down the extensive list and recommend a final list of projects to Planning Commission and City Council. The approved list would be included in the bond issue that would go before the voters in the November 2000 election. A neighborhood meeting was conducted on January 20, 1999 to discuss the preliminary design of the project. As a result of the meeting, several changes were made to t`ie typical minor collector design. The proposed street width was narrowed to 34 feet, six feet less than the standard 40-foot wide minor collector standard. No parking will be allowed along the street, and bikepaths are pronoced fn- r boil, sides of the st ee.S. A second neighborhood meeting is proposed for September 1999 to present the pre-final design and to conduct preliminary LID discussions on scenarios developed by the consultant. A detailed cost estimate for this project is not yet available. After the pre-final design is completed, a detailed cost estimate, including necessary land acquisition and other costs, would be prepared. We are hopeful that the detailed cost estimate and LID scenarios would be ready for Council discussion and input during the workshop session in August. If not, the Council discussion would be scheduled for the workshop session in September 1999. The neighborhood meeting would be scheduled after that Council presentation. The actual LID formation and funding through the Road Bond issue is not expected until after the election in November 2000. If the project is selected for inclusion in the final list, and if the Road Bond issue is successful, the project construction could begin May 2001 at the earliest. Attachment c: Vannie T. Nguyen, Engineering Manager Ron C. Weigel, Century West Project Manager Greg Berry, Utility Engineer Michael Mills, Senior Engineering Technician I:\Eng\Gus\Word Documents\79'h Avenue Summary Memorandum Transmitting 79 Avenue Project Status Report Page 2 of 2 79th Avenue Reconstruction and Widening Status Report June 30, 1999 Background 79th Avenue, between Bonita Road and Durham Road, is a minor collector street with substandard pavement widths and a rolling vertical profile that requires vertical alignment to meet current geometric standards. Because of the rolling vertical profile, it has been difficult for developments with limited frontage on 79th Avenue to construct improvements to the street without major realignments at great expense. As a result, some of the subdivisions that were constructed in the past did not construct the required improvements, but executed non-remonstrance agreements against the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve 79th Avenue. Most of these agreements have been executed for the subdivisions in the southern half of the street near Durham Road. Because of its status as a minor collector connecting a minor arterial (Durham Road) with a major collector (Bonita Road), the design of this project has been in the City of Tigard's Capital Improvement Program for the past several years. Street Conditions The road structural section is severely deteriorated and is in urgent need of reconstruction. In addition, the street lacks pedestrian walkways, and the shoulders are likewise severely deteriorated. Although there are some half-street improvements on this street, for the most part, the street is in serious need of reconstruction, vertical realignment, and widening. Project Status The current City standards for minor collectors require a 60-foot right-of-way with a 40- foot paved area curb to curb. Expansion of this street to its ultimate width includes the installation of underground storm drainage, undergrounding of utilities, bikepaths, sidewalks on both sides, and installation of streetlights. The finished street profile would include cuts and fills along the street to improve sight distance and enhance safety. The fully improved street would have a posted limit of 25 MPH, and would significantly improve safety for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles thoughout the area. i Century West Engineering Corporation was selected in November 1998 to perform the design of the project. After several meetings with City staff, the schematic design for the project was completed in sufficient detail to present at a Public Meeting on January 20, 1999. The meeting was attended by over 75 people who had the opportunity to comment on the proposed alignment, street width, and on the project in general. Some residents indicated concern with the width of the street, while others were concerned about the possibility having to pay for the street through formation of a local improvement district. The consensus of the attendees at the meeting was that parking is not needed on this 79`h Avenue Project Status Report Page 1 of 4 street. Some of the questions involved what traffic volume increase could reasonably be expected soon after the improvements are constructed. The following actions have been taken in response to the comments received at the meeting: • A typical minor collector requires a three-lane cross-section based on the City of Tigard standards. However, the traffic study initiated by the consultant indicates that two travel lanes would be sufficient for the future traffic projected for that street. 111V p4 VV4 JUVHt VY lutli v✓iw ACU"vVd f.'v:n 40 feet to ?a f--t. A '~d-fnnt section would allow for bike lanes on both sides plus the two travel lanes. In addition, this reduction in overall paved width would improve access to the street from existing driveways. • A study was initiated to not only determine the long-term traffic forecast for this street, but to analyze the traffic volumes that could be expected soon after the improvements are constructed. • A study to explore the formation of a local improvement district is now being initiated. This study would determine the number of lots that would be involved, and develop several scenarios for review and discussion. This study would be ongoing over the next few months. The project as proposed would consist of the following: Parameter Proposed • Street Width 34 feet • Right-of-Way 60 feet where it exists, 50 feet elsewhere • Parking None • Bicycle Lanes Both sides • Sidewalks Both sides • Storm Drainage Underground Storm Drainage - Outfall on north side would be to Fanno Creek. • Sanitary Sewer Sanitary Sewer along north side to connect to existing line at Fanno Creek. Reimbursement District would be formed to recoup costs of sewer installation. • Water Lines New water lines funded by the Water Fund. • Streetlights New streetlights throughout entire length • Utilities Would be placed underground There are no funds currently available for construction of the project. The construction of this project could be funded through a combination of funding sources consisting of a Road Bond issue and formation of an LID. This project has been included in the list of Potential Road Bond Projects. A Transportation Bond Task Force has been formed to 73`x' Avenue Project Status Report Page 2 of 4 M7 select a list of projects that could be recommended to City Council for inclusion on the year 2000 election ballot. Construction on this project is not anticipated to begin any earlier than calendar year 2001. Century West is developing several scenarios for formation of an LID to pay for part of the project costs. It would be premature at this time to speculate on just how much the LID should pay for on this project. It is reasonable to expect that the LID would pay for a portion of the total project costs. What that percentage is would not be determined until after the analysis is completed and City Council has had the opportunity to discuss the scvllaxlos a lu recelYe public input. 1,11.1e expect that a decision nould be made after the scenarios are developed, the potential LID boundary is established, and the entire issue is presented to City Council for review and discussion. We anticipate that the scenarios could be developed and discussed with City Council prior to the next neighborhood meeting tentatively set for sometime in September 1999. The formation of an LID is an established process, which must be conducted in accordance with Chapter 13 of the Tigard Municipal Code. There will be ample opportunity for public input during this process. The Transportation System Update Plan Study is currently being developed and is expected to be completed by the year 2000. A new category is being proposed called a neighborhood route, which is something less than a minor collector, but is more than a local street. 79th Avenue could possibly be recommended for downgrading to a neighborhood route, if that category is approved. Because 79`h Avenue connects a minor arterial (Durham Road) with a major collector (Bonita Road), a change in status is unlikely. However, if it does get downgraded to a neighborhood route, the priority for City funding could also lessen because of the change in status. Project Cost The construction cost for this project is expected to be in the range of $1.6 to $2.3 million. The detailed cost estimate for the project is not yet available. The engineering consultant is now working on finalizing the design so that the land acquisition requirements can be determined and a cost estimate can be prepared. The rolling nature of the street, and the cuts and fills (primarily at the northern half of the project), require retaining walls at the areas of substantial cut and fill. The acquisition of rights-of-way will add to the project cost. The pre-final design (95% design) should be completed in the next two months. After the pre-final design is completed, a detailed cost estimate would be prepared to determine construction and other costs, including acquisition of necessary rights-of-way. This information should be available at the September neighborhood meeting, together with some possible scenarios for an LID formation. The final design would be completed after consideration of comments received during the meeting. 79`" Avenue Project Status Report Page 3 of 4 =Mien In Schedule of Events The projected schedule for implementation of this project is as follows: • Completion of scenarios for development of an LID August 1999 • Discussion with City Council in a workshop session August or September 1999 • Next neighborhood meeting (95% design and preliminary September 1999 LID discussions involving scenarios developed) • Final Design November 1999 • Selection of LID scenario for implementation February 2000 • Neighborhood meeting - final design presentation and April 2000 proposed LID details • Road Bond issue (if selected in final list of projects) November 2000 • Initiation and formation of LID November 2000-March 2001 • Bid Advertisement March 2001 • Construction Implementation May 2001 • Project Completion November 2001 I:\Eng\Gus\Project Reports\79'h Avenue Reconstruction and Widening Status Report 7J a~ 79`h Avenue Project Status Report Page 4 of 4 Is SM mill AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 7/13/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Council Goal Update PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUJ ,TC.T , Discussion of the progress on the Councils goals. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Review and discuss the attached summary report. INFORMATION SUMMARY Attached are brief summaries of the efforts to date on the stated Council goals for this year. Also attached are the tasks identified during the last Council goal-setting session with regard to specific activities considered to be partof departmental responsibilities and individual work programs. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Visioning goals are identified throughout the goals and tasks developed by the City Council. FISCAL NOTES N/A is\adm\cathy\council\goalsum.doc GOAL A specific new direction Council wants to take or a specific chance in past direction, or a specific position the City wants to advocate. Eb Gus Complete the City's transportation improvement program development. Update: March 1999 The Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update Study is nearing completion. During the 'Council meeting on February 9, 1999, DKS, Inc. presented the transportation system alternatives required to meet the traffic demands for the next 15-20 years. During that meeting, DKS proposed to include the other elements necessary to complete the TSP and devised a citizen involvement process to take it towards completion and adoption. At the March 16, 1999 workshop meeting, potential road bond projects will be presented to City Council for discussion and input. The projects that are finally selected will be part of a Road Bond issue to be placed on the ballot for November 2000. There are currently two task forces being formed. One task force would deal with the TSP completion and adoption. The proposed TSP Public Involvement Process was presented to City Council for discussion and approved during the March 9, 1999 Council meeting. The plan is to complete the process and have the TSP adopted within about a year after initiation of the process. The second task force wi11 focus on determination of the size of bond issue, selection of the final Road Bond projects, then on the citizen process to help sell the projects and the bond issue for the November ballot in the year 2000. Update: Goals & Tasks - Page 1 Update: June 1999 The Task Force for the TSP completion and adoption was formed and conducted its first meeting on May 17, 1999. The Task force consists of the Planning Commission members as the review group together with three additional citizens who represent business, bicycle and transit interests. The group will meet monthly over the next few months. The intent is to complete the public involvement process and have the TSP Update completed by the end of the calendar year. The actual adoption of the TSP is anticipated in early 2000. The "motor vehicle" portion of the TSP is basically completed, but the final project listing and report will be prupareu after the other portions and the public involvement process are completed. This particular segment of the Council goal is approximately 50% completed. The Transportation Bond Task Force was likewise formed and conducted its first meeting on April 26, 1999. The Task Force is composed of two City Councilors, two Planning Commission members, and eight Tigard citizens representing a cross-section of the community. This Task Force has already met four times and will continue to meet over the next six months with the intention of completing its work and presenting the proposed Transportation Bond projects to City Council in November 1999. The Bond projects approved by City Council would be entered into the year 2000 election ballot for consideration by the voters. The Task Force elected Steve Clark as Chairperson and Mark Padgett as Vice-Chairperson. This segment of the Council goal is approximately 10% completed with the bulk of the work remaining over the summer and fall months. ►b Ed • Participate in a study of a recreation district, and, upon completion of the study, determine the City's level of support. Update: March 1999 A Task Force has been formed. The Task Force's first meeting was February 24, 1999. The Task Force will meet on the fourth Wednesday of each month at TTSD Administration Offices at 7:00 p.m. 1 A Request for Proposal (RFP) is being advertised to select a consultant to assist the Task Force. Payment for this expenditure is from the $15,000 allocation approved by City Council. 7 Update: Goals & Tasks - Page 2 Update: June 1999 Cogan Owen Cogan has been hired as the consultant to assist the Task Force. The consultant will be holding group interviews in July and August. The City Council and selected staff will be invited to participate. The City of Tualatin has opted not to participate in the Task Force. The Cities of Sherwood, Durham and Tigard; the School Districts for Sherwood and Tigard-Tualatin; and Washington County are contributing financially. Mayor Nicoli and Public Works Director Ed Wegner are on the Steering Committee. Target date for completion of this project: November 2001 Election. ts~ - Eb Jim • Assist the Tigard Central Business District Association to develop a plan for the downtown. Update: March 1999 The Association presented their Downtown Action Plan to Council in February. They are proceeding with a preliminary funding request for assistance from the City to complete initial work on long-term funding for the Association. Furthermore, they are evaluating how to proceed with long-range planning for the future of the area. The Association will report to Council in coming months. It is anticipated that the Association will be formally filing with the State of Oregon within the next 30 days. The Board formally adopted the following mission statement for the Association: The Mission of the Tigard Central Business District Association is to set the course for the future of the central downtown area that will promote the health and viability of the community and businesses while preserving the unique qualities of downtown Tigard and providing a safe environment for families and individuals to work, live and gather. Update: June 1999 No action since the last update. Tigard Central Business District Association (TCBDA) awaiting filing with the IRS. This project goal is approximately 20% completed. Public outreach would occur in subsequent phases of this project. Community Development Administration has budgeted $50,000 in the 1999/2000 budget to be utilized should the TCBDA develop a request and plan that are approved by Council. Update: Goals & Tasks - Page 3 ammmy~ --M 11-10 M11 ill" [b Jim 0 Complete the City master plan for arks. Update: March 1999 City Council approved the Master Plan for Parks on March 9, 1999. Staff will initiate work on the Capital Improvements Plan for Parks in the coming months. This will include asking the CIT's for input. The ten-year implementation or "Capital Improvement Plan" contained in the master plan will be considered for adoption after the county acts on the City's request to be granted the authority to extend the City System Development Charge to new development inside the Urban Services Area. The timeline for county consideration on the City's request is unknown at this time. Next month, a list of projects proposed for fiscal year 1999/2000 will be forwarded to Council as part of the annual budget process, which included extensive, citywide public involvement. Update: June 1999 - This goal is semi-complete. Now specific plans are needed for some parks. A proposal for development of a plan for Summerlake Park is now being considered by staff. If initiated, the plan should be developed and presented to Colxncil within six months. {b Ed Determine the City's long-term water supply. Update: March 1999 Since December 1998, City Council, staff, an Advisory Task Force, and citizens have been reviewing, studying and discussing the two scenarios. The Council will hear public comment on March 23 and the Task Force recommendation on April 13. On April 27, the Council is scheduled to vote on a direction for securing a long-term water source. A citizen group is gathering signatures for a Ballot Measure requiring a vote before going to the Willamette River as a source for drinking water. Task Force meeting dates and key meeting topics are listed below: 1. February 18 - Introductory Meeting 2. February 25 - Willamette River Proposal 3. March 4 - Portland Proposal, Comparative Questions 4. March 11 - Citizens for Safe Water Presentation 5. March 18 - Cost Analyzed Options, Further Discussion of Raw Water Monitoring Citizen participation was encouraged through events such as the two water forums. Trips to the Hillsboro and Corvallis plants were conducted. Update: Goals & Tasks - Page 4 Y Update: June 1999 On April 27, 1999, the City Council voted unanimously to go to the Willamette River as our primary long-term drinking water source. The citizen group, Citizens for Safe Water, gathered enough signatures for an initiative for the September 21, 1999, ballot. The ballot title caption reads as follows: "Voter approval requirement for Willamette River as drinking water source." Whether or not this goal can be considered completed depends on the outcome of the September 21, 1999, election and post-election activities. Fb Jim • Establish an annexation policy for the City. Update: March 1999 An update was given to Council on February 16, 1999, on the new annexation procedure. A progress report was given on the annexation work program. Community Development is evaluating resources needed to complete Council's goal of establishing an annexation policy for Tigard. Staff is also evaluating the cost of hiring a consultant to complete portions of this work. Council will be updated in April. Update: 'June 1999 Council directed staff to expedite the analysis of feasibility of annexing the Walnut Island. Staff is preparing a "critical path" schedule for any potential annexations involving the Walnut Island. Council discussed the annexation of the Walnut Island on April 27, 1999. Council direction was for staff to develop a public relations program with assistance from with cooperation with Washington County. Sewer service to this area will need to be reviewed along with needs in areas already within the City boundaries. The Council asked staff to develop a sewer plan for Council's review. The target date for annexation of this area was set for March 31, 2000. 1[ Discussions will be held with Washington County on their role in this process. Council will hear a presentation in the fall from Community Development staff that explains the schedule and process for reviewing the Walnut Island annexation. Update: Goals & Tasks - Page S ~P. ib Bill Encourage and support private sector programs to rehabilitate housing which will be offered for rent at affordable rents, resulting in a safer environment for the tenants (public safety, fire, life, sanitary). Update: March 1999 Property Maintenance Code (Housing Code) was adopted and becomes effective 5/3/99. This is one component of this goal. Staff will now seek Council direction on the tasks necessary to complete this' goal. To date, no progress has been made on this goal. An outline of objectives and activities to achieve the goal will be developed. Staff from Administration, Police and Community Development will brainstorm ideas for encouraging providers of affordable housing to consider Tigard for programs such as 1) acquiring and connecting existing housing into affordable housing units operated by nonprofits, 2) upgrading existing units to be offered at affordable rents while remaining in the ownership of private sector owners, 3) programs to be offered to private and/or nonprofit housing operators which will enhance public safety within the units, or 4) preventing deterioration of existing housing stock. Update: June 1999 The Property Maintenance Code went into effect on May 3, 1999. The program is staffed and operating. Update: Goals & Tasks - Page 6 ib Bill/Cathy • Determine the level of City support for a program of community events. Update: March 1999 This item is scheduled for Council discussion at the March 16,, 1999 workshop session. Staff provided information to Council of its 1997 discussion as well as the recommendations of the Community Character and Quality of Life Visioning Action Planning Committee.. Ctaff re-In tPrl that C'rnnril r~icritcc this CP rlgtnrmine the parameters of the goal and then direct staff to do the work necessary toward implementing the goal. Update: June 1999 A subcommittee of the Budget Committee met. Through the normal budget process, the level of support for community events for 1999-2000 was established. The level of support to recognize the Festival of Balloons and the 4th of July celebration was increased and annual commitments were discussed. In July, the City Council will be asked to establish threshold-funding levels for these two events. -No application was submitted for the Country Daze; therefore, the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 budget recommended by the Budget Committee does not allocate any funding for this event. At the `Eleventh Hour' some citizens stepped forward to at least hold a parade in August to replace Country Daze and a funding request may be submitted late. This goal is about 50% complete. I Update: Goals & Tasks - Page 7 Kb Jim • Promote intra-City Tri Met bus routes. Update: March 1999 Staff attended a community workshop sponsored by Tri-Met on February 24, 1999, and commented on the City's desire for better service. Additionally, a meeting with Tri-Met and City staff was held on March 9, 1999. Staff will prepare a written response to follow up on the results of the meeting for Council's direction. This information will also be uiscussed at the March 23, 1999 Council Study Session. Community Development and Administrative staff have met with representatives of Tri- Met to discuss Tri-Met's three-year service proposal for 1999-2001. At this time, the three-year service proposal is in draft form. Representatives of Tri-Met presented the plan that is focused on short-term gains by enhancing existing service. As a result, the focus is not on additional new routes such as those proposed by Tigard. An exception to this is a tentative proposal to make a new connection between Pacific Highway, using Durham Road, connecting to Upper Boones Ferry Road and on to Tualatin. City staff expressed concern that this three-year proposal did not address Tigard's needs. We asked if alternative programs may be available for Tigard to pursue that could add service connecting the residents of multi-family housing on Bonita Road and Durham Road to job opportunities, shopping, medical needs, and schools. We asked that intra- city bus routes be developed to serve this unmet need. The Tri-Met staff is interested in working with us to explore innovative ways to partner to provide service along the lines that we have discussed. They have encouraged us to prepare and submit a proposal to the new Tri-Met Director. Tri-Met staff followed up from the meeting by contacting us and suggesting that the Tri-Met van pool program could possibly be modified to serve some of the residential areas of Tigard. The details of such a program will be discussed between Tri-Met 'staff and Tigard staff during the week of March 15. Once City staff receives more complete information regarding the potential use of the van pool program or other programs to suit our needs, staff will make a presentation to Council and seek direction. Update: Goals & Tasks - Page 8 Q. Update: June 1999 Tri-Met will extend Line 43 to serve the Nimbus Business Park area; this bus service should help Tigard commuters who work in this area. Previously this line bypassed this area on Scholls Ferry Road. Tri-Met Planning Director Bob Stacey is scheduled to attend the July 27, 1999, City Council meeting at Council's request that a Tri-Met representative attend a Council I meeting. Staff requested that Mr. Stacey come prepared with suggestions as to how the t City and Tri-Met can partner with them to get results. At a meeting with Tri-Met staff, Tigard staff provided specific examples of how bus service in Tigard can be improved. One suggestion was for bus service on Bonita. Another idea was for Tri-Met to provide a bus for the City to operate. This goal is 20% complete; completion dependent upon Tri-Met. Update: Goals & Tasks - Page 9 TASK (update - June 1999) A specify activity that is part of a department's assigned responsibilities; part of a department or individual's work program. TO BE COMPLETED THIS YEAR I~b Jim • Support development of the Washington Square Regional Center Plan. Update: March 1999 Staff continues to work with the Washington Square Task Force. An update will be presented at the March 23, 1999 Council Study Session. Two open houses were held since the study was initiated. The most recent occurred on March 8, 1999, with approximately 80 people attending. The purpose of this open house was to update the public on the progress to date and get input on general land use and transportation issues. Update: June 1999 Staff continues to work with the Washington Square Task Force and are finalizing proposed land use, transportation and design standards. This task is 70% completed. Public outreach will occur throughout the project. Council has been given regular updates of Task Force activities in the weekly newsletter. Upcoming events are as follows: July 7 and 28: Task Force Meetings (2-5 p.m., Metzger Park) July 20: Joint Planning Commission/City Council Meeting (Update on Washington Square) September 15 Open House (6:30 p.m., Tigard Water Building) Update: Goals & Tasks -Page 10 mm7i Fb Bill Continue to improve communication withiia the Council Update: March 1999 During the Council goal setting in December, 1998, Council suggested holding a review of groundrules after Councilor Patton has had an opportunity to participate in several Council meetings. As of the end of March, approximately ten Council meetings will have been held in 1999. A memo has been prepared to Council suggesting that a review of groundrules be held by Council in either April or May. A topic at the groundrule discussion should be h~~~~.,.,. ~.a„ Whether th-e rrrnrrnrlnl~ac facilitate optimum communication within b the Council or should the groundrules be modified in an effort to improve communication. If Council wishes, a facilitator could be brought in for the discussion of groundrules so that issued raised by the Council may be facilitated by an outside participant. I will be asking Council to choose a time and date for the groundrule discussion and whether or not a facilitator should be used In addition, it would helpful if Council members raised individual concerns in advance of the meeting so that staff and, if necessary, a facilitator can prepare for the meeting. Update: June 1999 Council groundrules were distributed to the Council and some minor changes were adopted. A more in-depth review will be scheduled for the August 17, 1999, workshop meeting. Update: Goals & Tasks Page 11 ib Cathy Y Expand the use of the City's web page. Update: March 1999 The Web Committee (Nancy Lof of Office Services, Diana Lauterbach of the Library, and Cathy Wheatley of Administration) meets once a month to discuss Web improvements or any problems that have come up. Nancy has begun preparing monthly reports to track Web usage and to highlight new additions. The Library's Web page offers information for Library programs as well as links for reference purposes. Recent additions to the Tigard Website include: *The new Community Development code *A photograph on the Police page of "Tigard's Most Wanted" *Recaps of Council action starting in March 1999 *A link to Kids & Company where residents can register for classes "online" *A page on Y2K which will be updated with information so residents are aware of what the City is doing to become "Y2K ready" *On-line maps In the coming months, we'll look at placing the rest of the TMC on our site, and continue to seek ways for more interactivity. Nancy will attend a class for web design. Update: June 1999 Information Processing Technician (Office Services) Nancy Lof manages the Web Page for City Hall and meets with the Web Committee each month to discuss Web Page content. Nancy's monthly report tracks key information about the Web Page. In addition, Technical Services Specialist (Library) Diana Lauterbach, keeps the Library Page up to date. The Library Page is well worth checking out for information on programs and activities. This page is also a valuable resource for links to other very good, informative sites. Nancy has begun attending classes on Web design and recently completed the beginning class. The intermediate and advanced classes were requested in next year's budget and Nancy plans to attend both of these this next fiscal year. Diana was the "pioneer" with regard to getting the City online with the initial posting of the Library's website, which served as the prototype as we established the City's Web Page. Diana has been very busy with the new computer system WILInet; however, she plans to review the Library's website in the coming months for some maor updates to the front page and to the teen section. An "Intranet" page for employees has been established. Phone lists, City forms, meeting announcements, and computer tips are a few of the features of this site. Cont. on next page... Update: Goals & Tasks - Page 12 The plan is to keep building on the site. We are looking at more interactivity, but also want to avoid growing too fast (beyond our capabilities for responsiveness and to keep information up to date). It is now possible to make reservations for meeting rooms and to file a Traffic Complaint Forms by using our website. I:\AD M\CATHY\COUN C I L\GOALS99. D OC Update: Goals & Tasks - Page 13 AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF July 13, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITF _ City Engineer Attendance at Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting _ PREPARED BY: A.P. Duenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK T941 _TF, RFFORR THE COU NCM Shall City Council approve attendance by the City Engineer at the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Annual Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the attendance by the City Engineer at the ITE 1999 Annual Meeting and the funding to allow for attendance at this meeting. INFORMATION SUMMARY The ITE 1999 Annual Meeting will be conducted in Las Vegas during the period July 31 through August 4, 1999. The ITE meeting focuses on technical issues involving transportation issues, transportation safety, planning and engineering. This year's program includes an 8-hour seminar on traffic calming and a tour of facilities designed to accommodate bicycle travel among others. The short technical sessions include such topics as neighborhood traffic management, various aspects of traffic calming, roadway design standards, new safety initiatives, pedestrian-friendly street designs, and multitude of other topics pertaining to the transportation field. Unfortunately, this program was received in June, well after the budgetary process had been completed. Although membership in the ITE was budgeted, attendance at this annual meeting was not a specifically budgeted item in the Engineering Department's budget. The City Engineer is in the process of developing a Comprehensive Public Facilities Plan for streets, sidewalks, sewer and strwetlights. The development of a Comprehensive Traffic Calming Plan for Tigard is a key component of this plan. Traffic calming and pedestrian-friendly design are hot issues in Tigard and nationwide. The development of a Traffic Calming Plan is the first step in the development of a more comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan. In addition, projects for the proposed transportation bond issue in the year 2000 include pedestrian walkways, bikepaths, and safety-related improvements. Attendance by the City Engineer at this Annual Meeting would benefit the City by allowing him to interact with other transportation professionals, and to learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions nationwide. The topics offered at the meeting would enhance his ability to select the techniques that would be most appropriate for application in the City. In addition, his attendance at the seminars, tours and technical sessions would allow him to earn Professional Development Hours (PDH's), which are required for renewal of the Oregon Professional Engineer's License. The cost for attendance at this meeting is expected to be approximately $1,500.00, including airfare, registration, food, lodging, and other miscellaneous costs. I =i OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Do not approve the attendance at the ITE Annual Meeting. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The development of the Traffic Calming Plan and various projects in the yearly CIP and the proposed bond issue support the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow Traffic and Transportation goals of Improve Traffic Safety and Improve Traffic Flow. FISCAL NOTES Costs are expected to be approximately $1,500.00. Sufficient funding is available in the travel, lodging and food and training and education categories in the Engineering Department's budget for FY 1999-2000. IAcitywide\SumWgenda Item for ITE A= W Meeting I