Appendix C 

Public and Agency 

Comments and Responses

April 2021 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement C - i

APRIL 2021 

Contents

Section Page

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... C-1

Attachments

Attachment C1 Comment and Response Matrix

Attachment C2 Comments Received During Public Comment Period
APPENDIX C

C-ii O r e g o n P a s s enger Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C – INTRODUCTION

C - 1

Introduction

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

released the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Oregon Passenger Rail Project 

(Project) in October 2018. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of 

Availability in the Federal Register (FR) on October 19, 2018 (83 FR 53053). Stakeholders were 

encouraged to provide comments on the Tier 1 DEIS through various opportunities from October 18 

through December 19, 2018.

During the public comment period, ODOT and FRA received a total of 212 comments from members of 

the public and agency/organization representatives at five (5) public events, through the Project 

website, and by email and letter. 

This appendix includes two attachments: 

• Attachment 1: A matrix containing agency and public comments with responses from ODOT. The

comments are organized in groups: agency, organization, and individual comments.

• Attachment 2: The original comment submittals. Each comment has an index number which is

reflected in the comment matrix and marked on the original comments.

Tables C-1, C-2 and C-3 list the commenters along with the index number to find the comments with 

responses and the original format comments and in attachments 1 and 2, respectively. Table C-1 lists 

comments received from agencies, Table C-2 lists comments received from organizations, and Table C-3 

lists comments received from individuals (or anonymously). 

Table C-1: Commenter Index: Agencies 

Comment Number Name 

A-1 Jill A. Nogi 

Manager, Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

A-2 Allison O'Brien 

Regional Environmental Officer 

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI)

A-3 Jeremy Borrego, AICP

Transportation Program Specialist

Federal Transit Administration 

Region 10 - Seattle, WA

A-4 Russ Klassen

Aquatic Resource Coordinator, Department of State Lands

A-5 Sara Morrissey, Travel Oregon 

A-6 Kirk Fredrickson, Passenger Rail Services Manager, WSDOT

A-7 Paul E. Thompson 

Program Manager, LCOG/Central Lane MPO 

Lane Council of Governments 

A-8 Joe Recker

Environmental Permits Coordinator

TriMet Project Development and Permitting

O r e g o n P a s s enger Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C- 2

Comment Number Name 

A-9 Rob Inerfeld, AICP

Transportation Planning Manager

City of Eugene – Public Works Engineering

A-10 Georgia Edwards

City Manager, City of Tangent

A-11 Alex Polikoff

Director, Corvallis Rural Fire Protection District

Table C-2: Commenter Index: Organizations 

Comment Number Name 

O-1 Jon Nuxoll, AORTA

O-2 Donald Leap, AORTA

O-3 J. Michael Morrison, Board of Directors, AORTA

O-4 Chris Hagerbaumer, Deputy Director

Oregon Environmental Council

O-5 Betsy Boyd, Associate VP, Federal Affairs

University of Oregon

O-6 Michael H. Schill

University of Oregon

President and Professor of Law

O-7 David Aschenbrenner

Chair, Hector Campbell Neighborhood Assn. Milwaukie OR

O-8 Garlynn Woodsong

Land Use Chair, Concordia Neighborhood Association

Table C-3: Commenter Index: Individuals and Anonymous Comments 

Comment Number Name 

I-1 Jim Adams

I-2 Douglas Allen

I-125 Dr. Patrick Ardron-Hudson

I-3 Justus Armstrong

I-4 Bob Bailey

I-5 Holly Balcom

I-6 David Ballard

I-7 Chase Ballew

I-8 Reddit user: u/Reggie_Barclay

I-9 Larry Bardell

I-10 Beverly Barr

O r e g o n P a s s enger Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C - 3

Comment Number Name 

I-11 Bonny Barr

I-12 Chris Bates

I-13 William Becherer

I-14 Chris Bell

I-15 Megan Berry

I-16 Aaron Blanton

I-17 Timothy Blood

I-18a Nathan Bofto

I-18b Nathan Bofto

I-19 Heather Bogaro

I-20 Debra Borton

I-21 Tab Boschetti

I-22 Dana Botkin

I-23 Christy Brekken

I-24 Frannie Brindle

I-25a Debra Brush

I-25b Debra Brush

I-26 Ray Bryan

I-27 Ted Buehler

I-28 Janet Calvert

I-29 Jeramy Card

I-30 Les Castle

I-31 Julie Chapman

I-32 Richard E Chizinski

I-33 Nick Christensen

I-34 Bill Clingman

I-35 Eliot Cole

I-36 Heidi Coleman, RN, Legacy Health

I-37 Matthew Conner

I-196 Philip Constant

I-38 Isaiah Cornutt

I-39 David Crout

I-40 Peter Dane

O r e g o n P a s s enger Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C- 4

Comment Number Name 

I-41 Jerod Davidson

I-42 Ron Davis

I-43 Steve Dickey

I-44 Victor Dodier

I-45 Sarah Douglas

I-46 Joseph Edge

I-47 Georgia Edwards

I-48 Lou Favreau

I-49 James Feldmann 

I-50 Gary Ferrington

I-51 Brynn FitzClemen

I-52 Glenda Fleming

I-53 Reddit user: u/Flyer770 

I-54 Gerald Fox

I-55 Brian Fuller

I-56 Li Fuxin, Assistant Professor, Oregon State University

I-57 Greg Gardner

I-58 Steven Gibson

I-59 William Gifford

I-60 Al Good, Consultant at Oregon Fire Equip Dist.

I-61 Marci Gordon

I-62 Elizabeth Graser Lindsey

I-63 Reddit user: u/GraytoGreen

I-64 Ron Green

I-65 Bob Greenwade

I-66 Dean Hale

I-67 Brian Hall

I-68 Joshua Kane Halsted

I-69 Jonathan Harnish, Harnish Properties

I-70 Michael Hashizume

I-71 Tim Hayden

I-72 Douglas Hayner

I-73 Norbert Heins

O r e g o n P a s s enger Rai l Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C - 5

Comment Number Name 

I-74 Kelly Hoell

I-75 Dan Hoffman

I-76 Darcey Howard, Dir. Marketing, Coconut Bliss

I-77 Nick Howland

I-78 Kent Hutchens

I-79 Ed Immel

I-80 Vicki Jean, Train Mechanic, Hitachi

I-81 Kay B. Johnson, Norman Patrick Johnson

I-82 Noel Johnson

I-83 David Jorling

I-84 Harvey Kahler 

I-85 Kristen Kalbrener MS. MA. CMM, Program Manager, Global Education Oregon

I-86 Tracy Kane

I-87 Megan Kemple

I-88 Wonkak Kim

I-89 Michael Koivula

I-90 Michael Koivula

I-91 Bob Krebs, Retired ODOT Passenger Rail Coordinator

I-92 Russ Lathrop

I-93 Matt Laubach

I-94 Zachary Lauritzen

I-95 Blaine Lee

I-96 Dr. Burton Levenson

I-97 Art Lewellan, Rail system designer, The LOTi project

I-98 Walt Lierman, PhD, OHA, Health Analytics

I-99 Kathy Lincoln

I-100 Joan Lloyd 

I-101 Mike James Long

I-102 Moises Lucero

I-103 Matt Lutter

I-104 Mary-Kate Mackey

I-105a Karl MacNair

I-105b Karl MacNair

O r e g o n P a s s enger Rai l Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C- 6

Comment Number Name 

I-106 Josh Mars

I-107 Cindy Massaro

I-108 Geoffrey McCarth

I-109 Ben McCune

I-110 Kay McEwen

I-111 Don McFarling

I-112 Chris McLaughlin

I-113 Seaton McLennan, Former Mayor of Tangent

I-114 Vicky Mello

I-115 JR Merrick

I-116 Cecilia Mihaylo

I-117 Mary Sharon Moore

I-118 Mike Morrison

I-119 Deborah Neel

I-120 Cynthia Noblitt, business owner/operator, Deep Woods Distillery

I-121 Jennene Norblad, Umpqua Bank

I-122 Phillip Norman, Owner, Attic Access

I-123 Sigh O'Nara

I-124 Pat [no last name provided]

I-125 Dr. Patrick Ardron-Hudson

I-126 Kenneth Peters

I-127 Madeline Phillips

I-128 Leslie Polson

I-129 Julia Pommert

I-130 Sharon Posner

I-131 Robert Poulsen

I-132 Douglas Quirke

I-133 Carleen Reily

I-134 Marilyn Ripley

I-135 Mark Robinowitz

I-136 Robert Rose

I-137 Mark Ross

I-138 Rob Roy

O r e g o n P a s s enger Rai l Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C - 7

Comment Number Name 

I-139 Robert Roy

I-140 Rob Roy

I-141 Paul Sachet

I-142 Eric Sandoval

I-143 Meredith Schreiber

I-144 Richard Scott

I-145 Brenda Scotton

I-146 Elaine Sedlack

I-147 Roberta Sesso

I-148a Elise Shearer

I-148b Elise Shearer

I-149 Mark Siddall

I-150 Mark Siddall

I-151 Robert Siegwarth

I-152 Lin Sime

I-153 Ellen Singer

I-154 James Smith

I-155 Randall Smith

I-156 Kayla Smith

I-157 David Sonnichsen

I-158 Pamela Spettel

I-159 Jessie Spillers

I-160 Tina Springer

I-161 Adam Stallsworth, District Operations Coordinator

I-162 Andrew Stephenson

I-163 Ted Stonecliffe

I-164 Shawna Stovall

I-165 David Strubhar

I-166 Brenda StVincent

I-167a Reddit user: u/suffusion

I-167b Reddit user: u/Suffusion

I-168 Reddit user: u/swarmingblackcats

I-169 Emily Taussig

O r e g o n P a s s enger Rai l Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C- 8

Comment Number Name 

I-170 Blake Thompson

I-171 Tom [no last name provided]

I-172 Greg Tompkins

I-173 Randal Toth

I-174 Matthew Trecha

I-175 William Van Vliet

I-176 Karrie Walters

I-177 Sharon Way

I-178 Mark Weinrott

I-179 Darise Weller

I-180 Jeff Wells

I-181 Gabriel Wihtol

I-182 Telly Wirth, owner/operator, Wirth Farms

I-183 Peggy Woolsey

I-184 David Wortman

I-185 [No Name Provided]

I-186 [No Name Provided]

I-187 [No Name Provided]

I-188 [No Name Provided]

I-189 [No Name Provided]

I-190 [No Name Provided]

I-191 [No Name Provided]

I-192 [No Name Provided]

I-193 [No Name Provided]

I-194 [No Name Provided]

I-195 [No Name Provided]

O r e g o n P a s s enger Rai l Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
Attachment C1 

Comment and Response Matrix
APPENDIX C

O r e g o n P a s s enger Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 1

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

A-1 Jill A. Nogi, Manager, 

Environmental Review 

and Sediment 

Management Unit, U.S. 

Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA)

Dear Ms. Kachadoorian and Ms. Sellers, 

The US Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Tier 1 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Oregon Passenger Rail - 

Eugene to Portland Project (CEQ Number 20180245; Region 10 EPA 

project number 12-0043-FRA) pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air 

act and the National Environmental Policy Act. 

The Federal Railroad Administration and Oregon Department of 

Transportation propose to improve Amtrak Cascades intercity 

passenger rail service for the 125-mile segment of the federallydesignated Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor from Eugene-Springfield to 

Portland, Oregon. In addition to a No Action Alternative, three action 

options (two alternatives) are proposed. The alternatives include 

infrastructure improvements to existing rail corridors as well as 

building new sections, to meet future demand, improve facilities, 

reduce journey times and improve connections with regional public 

transit services. Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative, would be 

constructed within and parallel to the existing Union Pacific Railroad 

alignment and would continue use of existing stations. Alternative 2 

would parallel I-5 and I-205, requiring new track along the full 

alignment and four new stations. Alternative 2 with Central Albany 

Option would use the existing Albany station.

We have the following comments for your consideration in preparing 

the Final Tier 1 EIS:

Preferred alternative

We support the selection of Alternative 1 as the Preferred Alternative 

because it would maximize the use of existing infrastructure and 

stations, as well as avoid "greenfield" development that would result 

from constructing a new rail corridor with four new stations. While the 

scale of analysis for the Tier 1 EIS does not provide an exact 

assessment of resource impacts, it does indicate that fewer direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts within the defined 

study areas would be expected with Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would 

Thank you for your comments and support for 

the Preferred Alternative. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 2

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

have fewer potential impacts to wetlands, waterways, floodplains, and 

biological resources. 

A-1 Jill A. Nogi, Manager, 

Environmental Review 

and Sediment 

Management Unit, USEPA

Water quality

We appreciate that the DEIS lists all Clean Water Act section 303 (d) 

impaired waterbodies that would be affected by the project. We 

recommend that all potential impacts to waterbodies within the 

project areas be identified and analyzed in the EIS, including those 

waterbodies that are not currently water quality impaired. This will 

help with analyzing potential mitigation measures. We note that the 

antidegradation provisions of the Clean Water Act apply to 

waterbodies within the project area that meet water quality 

standards. 

ODOT and FRA have added the total number of 

stream crossings for the Build Alternatives 

(Table 3-2 in the FEIS/ROD). 

A-1 Jill A. Nogi, Manager, 

Environmental Review 

and Sediment 

Management Unit, USEPA

Wetlands

The DEIS estimated that, based on the Oregon Department of State 

Lands typical compensatory mitigation ratios ranging from 1:1 for 

restoration to 3:1 for enhancement, the impacted wetland acres 

requiring mitigation could span from 16 (Alternative 1) to 618 acres 

(Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option). 

We note that the state is currently finalizing a new approach to 

compensatory mitigation, call the Aquatic Resources Mitigation 

Framework. This new approach will revise mitigation standards in 

Oregon to move from acreage to function-based mitigation, through 

the replacement of lost wetland and stream functions and values. 

Function-based wetland mitigation has been shown to create more 

successful and sustainable results. The new approach supports 

implementation of, and aim to align with, the federal rule (2008 

Mitigation Rule) on compensatory mitigation and provide sustainable 

environmental benefits. The new approach to compensating for 

wetland and stream losses will be collaboratively implemented by the 

ODSL, US Army Corps of Engineers-Portland District and the EPA, 

possibly as early as February 2019. Future projects requiring permits 

from the ODSL or the Corps will be expected to conform to the state's 

new mitigation standards. 

ODOT and FRA updated Section 4.15.6 of the 

FEIS to reflect the Aquatic Resources Mitigation 

Framework, specifically referring to the new 

approach to determining mitigation 

requirements. The revised text is highlighted in 

Appendix A and noted in the errata sheet 

(Table 3-2 in the FEIS/ROD). 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 3

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

A-1 Jill A. Nogi, Manager, 

Environmental Review 

and Sediment 

Management Unit, USEPA

Wildlife linkages

We agree, as stated on page 4-125, that a helpful strategy to avoid 

direct impacts to biological resources would be to build stream 

crossings as full-span bridges. We recommend that this strategy be 

considered and applied within wildlife linkage areas and other 

locations where sensitive aquatic or terrestrial resources are crossed. 

We also recommend consideration of existing rail corridor 

infrastructure that could be retrofitted to provide hydrological and 

ecological connectivity, i.e., using oversized bottomless culverts, 

underpasses, overpasses, or specific smaller structures allowing for 

connectivity and species passage. 

ODOT and FRA updated Section 4.12.6 of the 

DEIS to reflect the suggestion to retrofit existing 

rail infrastructure where feasible. The revised 

text is highlighted in Appendix A and noted in 

the errata sheet (Table 3-2 in the FEIS/ROD). 

A-1 Jill A. Nogi, Manager, 

Environmental Review 

and Sediment 

Management Unit, USEPA

Climate Adaptation

The EPA recommends that the Final EIS include a discussion of 

reasonably foreseeable effects that changes in the climate may have 

on the proposed project and the project area, including its long-term 

infrastructure. This could help inform the development of measures to 

improve the resilience of the proposed project. If projects changes 

could notably exacerbate the environmental impacts of the project, 

the EPA recommends these impacts also be considered as part of the 

NEPA analysis. 

ODOT and FRA updated the Energy/Climate 

Change discussion in the cumulative effects 

analysis (Section 4.18.5) of the DEIS to include a 

discussion of this topic. The text used was 

initially presented in Section 4.17 of the DEIS, as 

follows, and was added to Section 4.18.5 in the 

amended DEIS (see Appendix A): 

The OPR Project could be vulnerable to future 

effects related to climate change based on 

projections of increased storm intensity and 

duration, increased flood risks, and increased 

risk of landslides. FRA and ODOT acknowledge 

that the future climate change effects could alter 

the function, sizing, and operations of proposed 

OPR Project infrastructure. For the proposed 

facilities to function as intended for their 

planned lifespans, ODOT would design the 

proposed facilities to perform under the variable 

conditions expected as a result of climate 

change. For example, drainage culverts might 

need to be sized larger than warranted by 

existing conditions to accommodate more 

intense rainfall events and increased seasonal 

flows of surface water. Subsequent Tier 2 

environmental studies would consider and 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 4

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

implement climate change adaptation 

strategies, as appropriate.

The revised text is highlighted in Appendix A and 

noted in the errata sheet (Table 3-2 in the 

FEIS/ROD). 

A-1 Jill A. Nogi, Manager, 

Environmental Review 

and Sediment 

Management Unit, USEPA

Tier 2 NEPA process

Because any build alternative would likely be implemented 

incrementally (p. 4-144), we request that the FRA and ODOT send the 

subsequent Tier 2 NEPA analyses to the EPA Region 10 Office to 

ensure opportunity for review and comment. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review the Draft EIS for the Oregon 

Passenger Rail Project. Please note that, effective October 22, 2018, 

the EPA no longer includes rating in our comment letters. Information 

about this change and the EPA's continued roles and responsibilities in 

the review of federal actions can be found on our website at: 

https://www.epa.gov/nepa/epa-review-process-under-section-309-

clean-air-act. 

If you have questions regarding our comments, please contact Elaine 

Somers of my staff at 206-553-2966 or at somers.elaine@epa.gov, or 

you may contact me at 206-553-1841 or at nogi.jill@epa.gov

Thank you for your continued interest and 

engagement with this Project. Where 

appropriate, ODOT and FRA will continue to 

engage the USEPA and other Federal and state 

agencies in the Project. 

A-2 Allison O'Brien

Regional Environmental 

Officer 

U.S. Department of the 

Interior (USDOI)

Office phone: (503) 326-

2489

Subject: Tier 1 Draft EIS for Oregon Passenger Rail, Eugene to Portland, 

Oregon

Dear Ms. Sellers,

The U.S. Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the 

subject draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Department 

Thank you for your comment. ODOT and FRA 

will consult with the Service, as required by the 

ESA, as Project development and permitting 

proceed. ODOT and FRA will consider if the 

Project requires consultation based on survey 

conducted by professional biologists. If 

mitigation is required, FRA (or appropriate lead 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 5

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Mobile phone: (503) 720-

1212 

provides the following comments for use in the development of the 

final EIS for this project. These comments are preliminary and can be 

more closely focused and expanded upon once a final route is selected 

for analysis.

Threatened and Endangered Species

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Oregon Department of 

Transportation have proposed a 125-mile segment of a high speed rail 

route between Eugene/Springfield, Oregon, and Portland, Oregon. The 

two proposed routes have the potential to affect several species of 

plants, invertebrates, fish and birds listed as threatened or 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). These species include the bull trout 

(Salvelinus confluentus), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), 

streaked-horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata), Taylor's 

checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha taylori), Fender's blue 

butterfly (lcaricia icarioides fender), Willamette daisy (Erigeron 

decumbens var. decumbens), Kincaid's lupine (Lupinus sulphureus ssp. 

Kincaidii), Bradshaw's desert parsley (Lomatium bradshawii), Nelson's 

checker-mallow (Sidalcea nelsoniana), Golden paintbrush (Castilleja 

levisecta), Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) and their designated 

critical habitat. Both proposed routes and their construction may also 

affect migratory bird habitat and require the filling of wetland 

habitats.

Section 7 of the ESA requires that all Federal agencies consult with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to ensure that the actions 

authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies do not jeopardize 

the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or 

adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat of such species. 

To determine the need for future consultation and, if necessary, to 

conduct the consultation, the Department recommends that:

1) the final route for the Project be surveyed by qualified biologists for

listed species and TRS to determine occupancy of habitats being

affected by construction and future maintenance of the infrastructure;

and

federal agency) will, in cooperation with the 

Service, develop measures to avoid, minimize 

and, as appropriate, mitigate unavoidable 

effects to listed/TRS species and their habitats.

Or e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 6

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

2) measures to avoid, minimize and, as appropriate, mitigate

unavoidable effects to listed/TRS species and their habitats be

developed by FRA in cooperation with the Service.

A-2 Allison O'Brien, Regional 

Environmental Officer, 

USDOI 

Land and Water Conservation Fund

This project has the potential to impact parks that have been funded 

with the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) state and local 

assistance program, Public Law 88-578; currently codified at 54 U.S.C. 

§2003 et seq. These parks cannot be converted to other than public

outdoor recreation use unless approved by the Secretary of the

Interior, delegated to the National Park Service (NPS) as further

explained in 36 C.F.R. 59. The Department notes that table 4.6-1

contains incorrect information on which parks have/have not received

LWCF funding. For example, Armitage Park has received four LWCF

grants, but it is listed as having received zero. Washington/Jefferson

Park, Fish Eddy Landing (aka Willamette Wayside Natural Area), and

Eastmoreland Golf Course, were also funded with LWCF. The

Department recommends that ODOT consult with the Oregon

Department of Parks and Recreation, who administers the LWCF

program in Oregon. Further, the Department recommends that ODOT

consult with NPS until an alternative has been selected and it can be

determined conclusively by NPS whether or not there will be impacts

to parks that fall within NPS regulatory jurisdiction. At that point, NPS

may request to serve as a cooperating agency in an attempt to avoid

duplicative processes in complying with the National Environmental

Policy Act.

Any questions regarding ESA listed species may be directed to Mr. 

Kevin Maurice at (503) 231-6974 or kevin_maurice@fws.gov. Please 

contact Ms. Heather Ramsay at (206) 220-4123 or 

Heather.Ramsay@nps.gov with questions related to LWCF issues. If 

you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 

(503) 326-2489.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment.

Thank you for these comments and corrections. 

ODOT and FRA updated Table 4-6.1 in the DEIS 

(see Appendix A) and listed the changes in the 

errata table in the FEIS/ROD. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 7

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

A-3 Jeremy Borrego, AICP

Transportation Program 

Specialist

Federal Transit 

Administration 

Region 10 - Seattle, WA

Phone: 206.220.7956

Jennifer,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Oregon Passenger 

Rail DEIS.

Our office has worked with ODOT to determine that FTA has 

investments along the Cascade Passenger Rail Corridor. Generally 

speaking, FTA funding was used by ODOT to purchase Cascade 

Corridor train cars and to improve the Salem Depot station. As this 

project develops, please keep FTA apprised of potential impacts to 

these and other FTA-funded improvements. 

If you would like to discuss the project with FTA in the future, please 

contact me directly.

Thank you,

Thank you for your comment. ODOT will 

coordinate with FTA regarding future projects on 

the Cascades route in Oregon. The selection of 

Alternative 1 will result in continued use of the 

Salem Station, and will not preclude use of the 

existing fleet of Talgo 8 trainsets in operation on 

the corridor. Since the publication of the DEIS, 

ODOT and WSDOT are in discussion regarding 

the retirement of the Talgo 6 trains currently 

part of the vehicle fleet.

A-4 Russ Klassen

Aquatic Resource 

Coordinator, Department 

of State Lands

Department of State Lands comments: During project planning and 

development and prior to the beginning of construction wetlands and 

waterways should be delineated and evaluated. Impacts to waters of 

the state should be avoided and minimized as much as possible, 

especially any rare resources or resources with high functions and 

values. Mitigation should occur where impacts cannot be avoided. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

Thank you for your comment. Any physical 

improvements made to support future Project

development will fully comply with applicable 

environmental review requirements, including 

the avoidance and minimization of resources to 

the extent practical. 

A-5 Sara Morrissey, Travel 

Oregon 

Comments from Travel Oregon:

1. Visitors expect reliable train service. We urge ODOT/Amtrak to

invest in improvements that improve reliable and on-time service.

2. We defer to ODOT and the local communities regarding the

preferred alternative.

3. We support all car-free travel alternatives for residents and

travelers. We encourage continued investment in these transportation

projects!

Thank you for your comment. Improved 

reliability was identified as a goal of the Project. 

Alternative 1 has been selected as the Preferred 

Alternative. Chapter 6 of the DEIS describes next 

steps for the State in supporting and expanding 

passenger rail service between Eugene and 

Portland.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 8

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

A-6 Kirk Fredrickson, 

Passenger Rail Services 

Manager, WSDOT

Comment from the Washington State Department of Transportation 

Rail, Freight, and Ports Division:

WSDOT recommends that the DEIS include discussion of a potential 

passenger rail equipment maintenance facility in Eugene, Oregon. This 

facility could serve as a location where many of the various equipment

maintenance activities that occur in Seattle could also be performed, 

providing more equipment maintenance options that are currently 

unavailable on the Amtrak Cascades route. 

This potential maintenance facility could also give the state of Oregon 

more flexibility developing train schedules between Portland and 

Eugene, support better on-time performance in Oregon, create more 

equipment maintenance jobs in Oregon, and give decision-makers 

more flexibility selecting types of passenger rail equipment that best 

meet the needs of the state. 

Kirk Fredrickson

Passenger Rail Services Manager

WSDOT Rail, Freight and Ports Division

310 Maple Park Ave SE, Box 47407

Olympia, WA 98504-7407

W: 360.705.7939

C: 360.890.9210

Thank you for your comment. ODOT is working 

with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Amtrak 

on the construction of stub tracks or track 

configuration at the Eugene Station which would 

facilitate overnight storage, fueling, and light 

maintenance of the trains during layover time. 

While not incorporated into the Tier 1 DEIS 

Preferred Alternative, ODOT may further explore 

potential benefits and costs of an additional 

maintenance facility in the future. 

A-7 Paul E. Thompson 

Program Manager, 

LCOG/Central Lane MPO 

Lane Council of 

Governments 

859 Willamette, Suite 500 

Eugene, OR 97401-2910 

pthompson@lcog.org 

541.682.4405

Hello - 

I am reaching out on behalf of the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning 

Organization (MPO) Policy Board. The MPO Board is very interested in 

the Passenger Rail DEIS, having kept up to date on the process 

throughout its entirety, especially since a former member of the Board 

was Mayor Piercy, and the MPO area serves as the southern terminus. 

We have noted that there will be an Open House and Public Hearing 

on the DEIS on December 6th in Eugene. That very day also happens to 

be the regular monthly meeting date of the MPO Policy Board, 

gathering elected and appointed leaders, staff, interested parties, and 

Thank you for your comment. As a result, ODOT 

coordinated directly with you and the 

LCOG/Central Lane Council of Governments 

regarding presentations to your group. While 

the meeting on December 6, 2018 was canceled, 

ODOT expressed willingness to present to the 

MPO Board at a future meeting.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 9

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

others, from the cities of Eugene, Springfield, and Coburg, Lane 

County, Lane Transit District, and ODOT.

The MPO Policy Board is wondering if it would be possible to schedule 

a presentation and discussion on the DEIS at the MPO meeting. The 

meeting is scheduled for 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM on December 6th in the 

Springfield Justice Center. The elected and appointed officials on the 

MPO Policy Board would very much appreciate the opportunity to 

engage with the DEIS staff in-depth at this meeting. It presents an 

excellent opportunity to engage, and the meeting is also broadcast live 

on public access TV and the internet (and available for replay), 

furthering the reach that this opportunity presents.

Please let me know if this is possible, and, if so, how I can assist with 

any questions or arrangements.

Paul

A-8 Joe Recker

Environmental Permits 

Coordinator

TriMet Project 

Development and 

Permitting

p: 503.962.2893

f: 503.962.2281

Hi, 

On behalf of TriMet I have a couple initial questions about the OPR 

project DEIS that I’m hoping you can clarify. 

1. Appendix B, Section 3.2.2 ROW Assumptions per Alignment – a 30’

wide acquisition is assumed along the existing UPRR mainline, except

central eastside where a 1⁄2 block is assumed. Do these assumptions

require modifications to both an existing and proposed overcrossing at

both SE Lafayette St and SE 14th to Gideon, respectively? Or is there

enough room in the existing RR ROW to accommodate the additional

passenger rail track? This is important because the second of those

two bridges is currently being designed and intended for construction

later this year. Are there anticipated ROW acquisition maps available?

2. I didn’t see any mention of the Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project

which would extend from downtown Portland to Bridgeport Village in

Tualatin, roughly in the I-5 corridor. The project has been adopted into

the fiscally constrained RTP as of last month. Is that because it’s not

anticipated to impact inter-city travel along either alternative route in

1a. [Do these assumptions require modifications 

to both an existing and proposed overcrossing at 

both SE Lafayette St and SE 14th to Gideon, 

respectively?] For this Tier 1 EIS, the Project

impacts were not focused on individual buildings 

and structures. General ROW cost estimates 

were applied for urban and rural land 

acquisitions. For the portion of the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Alternative 1 

alignment at the SE Lafayette St. and SE 14th to 

Gideon bridge locations, the additional 30’ of 

ROW would overlap with bridges and many 

other structures adjacent to the existing UPRR 

ROW. 

1b. [...is there enough room in the existing RR 

ROW to accommodate the additional passenger 

rail track?] Additional design would be needed 

beyond the Tier 1 level to make this 

determination, and any improvements would 

need to be developed in coordination with UPRR 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 1 0

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

the Portland Metro area? 

I look forward to hearing back. Please feel free to give me a call to 

discuss further.

Kind Regards,

Joe Recker

and other affected parties. 

1c. [Are there anticipated ROW acquisition maps 

available?] The purpose of this Tier 1 EIS is to 

determine a recommended route, service, and 

general station locations; thus, no specific ROW 

acquisition maps were developed for the Tier 1 

EIS. More detailed ROW impacts would be 

determined at later stages of project 

development. 

2. On p. 4-161 under the Cumulative Impacts

Section 4.18.4, the DEIS identifies the SW

Corridor LRT Project as a “reasonably

foreseeable action.” The FEIS will further clarify

that this project has been adopted in the fiscally

constrained RTP (Section 4.18.4 has been

updated).

A-9 Rob Inerfeld, AICP

Transportation Planning 

Manager

City of Eugene – Public 

Works Engineering

99 E. Broadway, Suite 400

desk: (541) 682-5343

cell: (541) 556-6124

Dear Jennifer,

As you are aware, the City of Eugene has been actively engaged in the 

Oregon Passenger Rail Study since its inception. Providing frequent, 

more reliable and higher speed passenger rail in the Willamette Valley 

is an important tool in reducing the amount of intercity driving in our 

region. There are numerous City of Eugene polices that support better 

passenger rail along the Cascades corridor including Rail Policy #4 from 

the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan: “Support higher-speed 

and higher frequency passenger rail service and use of the historic 

Eugene Depot in downtown Eugene as a passenger rail station.”

I am writing to express the City of Eugene’s strong support for 

Alternative 1 in the DEIS. Oregon has historically not invested large 

amounts of funding in passenger rail capital projects. We support 

Alternative 1 because it has the potential to be constructed 

incrementally over time, because it is more affordable to our state, 

has a more realistic chance of being implemented and promises to 

deliver real benefits to rail passengers. 

Thank you for your comment and thank you for 

your support of the Eugene Stub Tracks project. 

Alternative 1 has been selected as the Preferred 

Alternative. Chapter 6 of the DEIS describes next 

steps for the State in supporting and expanding 

passenger rail service between Eugene and 

Portland.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 1 1

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

The City of Eugene of Eugene stands ready to help implement 

Alternative 1. We have worked with ODOT Rail and Amtrak to develop 

plans, environmental documentation and construction documents for 

the Eugene Depot, the southern terminus of the existing Cascades 

service and the proposed southern end of Alternative 1. This project is 

listed as #MM-23 in our TSP: “Improve passenger platform and 

construct new rail sidings to enhance passenger rail service and 

separate passenger rail from freight rail at the Eugene Depot.”

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the City of 

Eugene’s position on this important project.

Rob

A-10 Georgia Edwards

City Manager, City of 

Tangent

These remarks are from the City Council. They do not feel high speed 

train will solve the issue of congestion on I-5. They feel money would 

be better spent on adding a lane on I-5. They are concerned that 

technology is changing so fast that this idea doesn't keep up with the 

new technology. If high speed train is to go forward, they feel the I-5, 

or alternative 2 makes more sense. They question how this will be 

paid for? How are they going to attract people to the train, as unless it 

is convenient people will not use it. They question how people are 

going to get to the train and then what do they do once they reach 

their designation, how will they get around? How will this be self 

sustaining? Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. 

Thank you for your comments. Regarding 

congestion on I-5, the Project would provide an 

enhanced intercity passenger rail option to 

driving on I-5 for many people to travel between 

Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City, and 

Portland, but ODOT and FRA acknowledge that it 

would not measurably reduce congestion on I-5. 

Adding a lane on I-5 would not support the 

agreed upon Project Purpose and Need. While 

technology is changing, the Project would 

support operation of proven intercity passenger 

rail technology that FRA and ODOT anticipate 

will be available for use over the next 20 years 

and will be compatible with the technology used 

in other states. Alternative 1 was selected as the 

Preferred Alternative because of its ability, 

compared to Alternative 2, to meet performance 

attributes outlined in the goals and objectives

and corresponding evaluation measures. While 

Alternative 2 has a faster travel time over the 

route, the other performance attributes favor 

Alternative 1. In particular, environmental 

impact, ridership, and capital costs were key 

discriminating factors. While no funding to 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 1 2

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

implement the Project has been secured, the 

Preferred Alternative could be implemented 

incrementally over time. Compared to 

Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative has 

stations located in the central core areas of 

Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City, and 

Portland that are conveniently located to attract 

more people to use the service. The Preferred 

Alternative is compatible with regional and local 

transportation systems and plans for enhancing 

access and connections to the stations for 

people who walk, bicycle, use transit, and drive. 

A-11 Alex Polikoff

Director, Corvallis Rural 

Fire Protection District

I support Alternative 2 with the Albany Option. This plan is the most 

forward thinking in providing efficient rail service to the Willamette 

Valley and takes into account the population centers of Corvallis and 

Albany while minimizing disruption to existing services.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's performance 

attributes outlined in the goals and objectives. 

Alternative 1, like Alternative 2 with the Albany 

Option, would use the existing Albany Station. 

While Alternative 2 (including with the Albany 

Option) has a faster travel time over the route, 

the other performance attributes favor 

Alternative 1. In particular, environmental 

impact, ridership, and capital costs were key 

discriminating factors. 

O-1 Jon Nuxoll, AORTA I very much endorse Alternative 1, as does AORTA - higher speed rail 

in much more feasible and realistic before we go for high speed rail, if 

ever. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

O-2 Donald Leap, AORTA Verbal testimony:

My name is Donald Leap, L-E-A-P. I'm the Government Affairs Director 

for the Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates. I've been 

obliquely involved and interested in this project for a long time. And 

I'm pleased to have this moment to make a couple of remarks. The 

preferred alternative continuing on the existing route of the Cascade 

service, owned by the Union Pacific Railroad is, I think, of particular 

importance, and we need to proceed on this as quickly, and 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

Chapter 6 of the DEIS describes next steps for 

the State in supporting and expanding passenger 

rail service between Eugene and Portland.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 1 3

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

continuingly as quickly as possible. This route is well established. It 

services station stops that are known to the public. It is understood 

and it serves a wide portion of the Willamette Valley.

There are other parts of the western Willamette Valley that may be 

perhaps better accessible through other means, and I think that we 

need to be just considering expanding our service at some point, and 

not trying to choose one or the other. The population growth and 

congestion on primarily I-5, but also 99E and 99W, has reached the 

point where we have to be providing alternative means, plural, of 

north/south transportation through the valley. And the ultimate 

development of the existing rail service that we have now, plus other 

service possibilities in the future, I think will begin to make this 

possible.

The Governor has issued a budget which includes maintaining the 

service that we have now. This came out yesterday, I believe. And I 

think that it is fine, but we need to consider that there needs to be 

money in there for growth and expansion, and ways to be exploring 

expansion, not only to the south but also to the east. But for the time 

being, I know that this meeting here is to pick and support the choice 

of the line that runs essentially on the Union Pacific. And as a result, I 

wanted to, through my voice personally, and also it is the opinion of 

the board of directors and the membership of the Association of 

Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates, AORTA, to maintain this service 

where it is now.

Thank you very much. Brevity is the soul of wit.

O-3 J. Michael Morrison,

Board of Directors,

AORTA

Alternative 1 offers a reasonable and attainable path toward improved 

passenger rail transportation in the Willamette Valley. The ability to 

use existing center-city stations along with the economic development 

possibilities which these stations represent are among the most 

compelling features of Alternative 1. The Union Pacific right of way is 

mostly wide enough to permit adding a second track without 

extensive land acquisition costs. Longer term, if a dedicated highspeed corridor is someday achieved, the Union Pacific line will still be 

necessary to serve smaller, more closely spaced stations. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative which 

is an important step toward building ridership as 

the population increases and can serve as the 

backbone of a potentially enhanced future rail 

network.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 1 4

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

O-4 Chris Hagerbaumer, 

Deputy Director

Oregon Environmental 

Council

222 NW Davis Street, 

Suite 309 | Portland, OR 

97209-3900

503.222.1963 x102

December 16, 2018

Comments submitted by the Oregon Environmental Council regarding 

Oregon Passenger Rail DRAFT Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement

Friends,

Oregon Environmental Council (OEC) agrees with the conclusions of 

the Draft EIS. We support Alternative 1 as the preferred alternative for 

advancing Oregon’s passenger rail initiative.

OEC has followed ODOT’s passenger rail program for many years and 

believes that robust passenger rail is an essential part of Oregon’s 

intercity transportation system. The preferred alternative appears to 

best address the need to improve train service in a reasonable, 

realistic and achievable manner. 

Climate change is no longer a theory: the ramifications are happening 

before our eyes. Transportation is a key contributor of greenhouse gas 

emissions, so it is imperative that Oregon put serious effort in 

providing viable alternatives to highway driving. Passenger rail in the 

Willamette Valley must be a part of that effort. 

We know from surveys, as well as actual ridership, that rail passengers 

want convenient and frequent trains, reliable service, and a travel 

time competitive with highway travel. Alternative 1 meets these 

criteria. 

OEC supports the preferred Alternative 1 for the following reasons:

1. By maintaining the current alignment on the UPRR and BNSF

railroads, the improvements and additional trains will have little

environmental impact. This is a rail corridor that has existed for 100

years with few current environmental consequences. We know that if

passenger trains were to operate on a new alignment, the current

alignment would still continue to exist as a corridor for freight rail.

2. Alternative 1 preserves existing stations in Eugene, Albany, Salem,

Oregon City and Portland. One of the advantages of passenger rail in

Oregon is that stations are within city centers. Moving stations to 1-5

locations could exacerbate already challenging traffic problems. In the

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

Chapter 6 of the DEIS describes next steps for 

the State in supporting and expanding passenger 

rail service between Eugene and Portland.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 1 5

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

future, it is important for local transit systems to better incorporate 

the train stations into their schedules.

3. The current alignment allows ODOT to add trains incrementally. It

is obvious that the current schedule of trains, excluding buses, is

hurting ridership. At least one round trip should be added as soon as

feasible.

In conclusion, OEC supports the conclusions of the DEIS and 

encourages ODOT to be more assertive in developing Oregon’s 

passenger rail system

O-5 Betsy Boyd, Associate VP, 

Federal Affairs

University of Oregon

Greetings – 

I am writing on behalf of University of Oregon President Michael H. 

Schill to submit the university’s comments about the DEIS on 

passenger rail service in Oregon. The comments are also being sent by 

regular mail.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. –Betsy

Comments were received and are included 

below. 

O-6 Michael H. Schill

University of Oregon

President and Professor 

of Law

Dear Ms. Sellers, 

On behalf of the University of Oregon, I am writing to express the 

university's strong support for improved passenger rail service along 

the Cascadia corridor, especially between the Portland metropolitan 

area and the Eugene Springfield area. We applaud the planning now 

underway and support the track, signal, and communication 

improvements in Alternative 1. 

Passenger rail service through this corridor helps to connect the 

state's research universities in the southern Willamette Valley with 

our economic and population hubs in Portland-Vancouver, WA. Better 

passenger rail service will also support the success of the new Knight 

Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact and the scientific 

innovations that will occur there. The UO's growing partnership with 

Oregon Health and Science University requires faster and more 

reliable access between Eugene and Portland for both researchers and 

Thank you for your comment. Improved 

reliability was identified as a goal of the Project. 

Alternative 1 has been selected as the Preferred 

Alternative. Chapter 6 of the DEIS describes next 

steps for the State in supporting and expanding 

passenger rail service between Eugene and 

Portland.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 1 6

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

students. Passenger rail provides a vital mode of transportation to the 

UOs more than 30,000 students, faculty, and staff as well as many 

visitors. 

Passenger rail service has been important to the UO since our 

founding, but the designation of the Cascadia corridor in 1992 for 

high-speed rail and improved passenger rail service is an opportunity 

that must be realized. With more than 5,000 UO students from the 

Portland area and numerous graduate program offering at UO 

Portland, students, faculty, and visitors frequently travel to and from 

the Portland region to do business on campus or with UO affiliated 

companies and research institutions including OHSU and the new 

Knight Campus as well as the Oregon State University and Portland 

State University. The popularity of Amtrak service with the UO 

community is illustrated by the frequently used Amtrak bus service 

that originates on the UO campus as well as the ridership on the 

Cascades. 

The University of Oregon supports efforts to ensure reliable and 

frequent service along the designated high-speed rail corridor, even if 

the approach is incremental, with an ultimate goal of achieving highspeed service. The continued sharing of rail lines by freight and 

passenger rail leads to unpredictable delays that prove costly to riders 

and discourage passenger rail use. The preferred alternative will result 

in faster times, the construction of sidings, and plans to ease freight 

and passenger rail line competition. The improved passenger rail will 

provide an efficient, safe, equitable, and affordable travel alternative 

for UO affiliates and the greater Oregon community. It will support the 

efforts of research universities throughout the corridor to spur

economic activity through our innovation and outreach efforts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important 

development. Please let me know if I can provide any additional 

information that will be of help. We look forward to working with you 

as ODOT's passenger rail project moves forward. 

O-7 David Aschenbrenner

Chair

Will there be a sound or retaining wall along the stretch of Railroad 

Ave in Milwaukie?

Site-specific Project mitigation improvements 

(e.g., sound walls) were not identified in this 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 1 7

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Hector Campbell 

Neighborhood Assn. 

Milwaukie OR

How much present north side right of way is needed and will it affect 

the present Railroad Ave. street layout?

What will be the affect on the current Quiet Zone in Milwaukie?

What are the impacts to the rail crossing at 37th Ave. in Milwaukie?

Thank You 

David

DEIS; any future investments with federal 

funding would be developed and supported by 

additional NEPA review and in compliance with 

environmental permitting. The design criteria 

determined for the Project specified an average 

of 30 feet of ROW adjacent to the route. Effects 

on Railroad Avenue and the crossing at 37th

Avenue would be determined through more 

detailed engineering and noise and vibration 

analysis. All passenger trains would adhere to 

established Quiet Zones. 

O-8 Garlynn Woodsong

Land Use Chair

Concordia Neighborhood 

Association

These two alignments represent a huge missed opportunity. Oregon 

should be seeking to connect Portland to Salem, Corvallis, Eugene and 

the Rogue Valley via dedicated HSR tracks. The old Oregon Electric 

alignment represents one way to do so, but new alignments could also 

be created using condemnation. It would be a huge mistake to 

attempt to battle UP for control of their tracks, or to seek to place the 

alignment along the freeway. HSR should be seen as an economic 

development tool, and a way to help battle climate change by 

providing a realistic alternative to driving for as many trips as possible 

in this corridor. The current two alternatives will not maximize either 

opportunity, and represent a short-sighted attempt at compromise 

that will not meet our common goals for this corridor.

Further, it’s alarming that this process has taken so long to produce so 

little.

ODOT developed a high-speed rail concept 

vision as part of the OPR EIS process, which 

examined true high-speed rail for the Eugene-toPortland segment of the Pacific Northwest Rail 

Corridor (PNWRC). The Rogue Valley is not 

within the PNWRC and outside the Project study 

area. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress, 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 can serve as an

important step toward building ridership as the 

population increases and can serve as the 

backbone of a rail network. ODOT and FRA 

eliminated the preliminary alternative that 

would directly serve Corvallis from further 

consideration, because it increased travel time 

between Eugene and Portland and reduced 

ridership as a result of the increased travel time. 

However, this decision does not preclude 

potential future enhanced connections to 

Corvallis.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 1 8

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Future stations would be considered in 

accordance with the ODOT and WSDOT Station 

Stop Policy. The Station Stop Policy for Amtrak 

Cascades Service, jointly issued by ODOT and 

WSDOT on June 1, 2016, gives the PNWRC 

administrators the responsibility for evaluating 

proposals to add, remove, or skip station stops 

for the Amtrak Cascades service. The companion 

Station Stop Policy Guidance Document that 

ODOT and WSDOT completed in 2016 describes 

the process for evaluating proposed station 

changes. Proposals to add stations beyond the 

five proposed under the Preferred Alternative 

would need to be considered through future 

Tier 2 studies with adherence to the Station Stop 

Policy.

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20

Document%20Library/HB2918-LegislativeReport-2017.pdf and 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm

I-1 Jim Adams Alternative 1 sounds best Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-2 Douglas Allen Alternative 1 is the obvious choice due to cost-effectiveness, ability to 

scale and implement incrementally, and it doesn't leave a standard 

asset if we eventually build a true high speed rail in the Willamette 

Valley. 

Please add the following to the FEIS: What are costs and what is 

possible once we reach the 6+1 level? (In terms of even greater 

service)

The EIS presents costs for the Preferred 

Alternative full buildout to "6+1" round trip 

passenger rail service, from capital costs (Table 

3-11) and Operation and Maintenance costs.

I-125 Dr. Patrick ArdronHudsonI am writing to support the fastest option for rail transport between 

Portland and Eugene. Having lived in both places, fast rail is essential 

for our region’s future. Having traveled more throughout the US and 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 was 

selected as the Preferred Alternative because it 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 1 9

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Europe, efficient rail is needed to secure a future that is economical 

rich and ecological sound. 

best balances the Project need and the 

environmental and social constraints. 

I-3 Justus Armstrong One of the stated goals of the passenger rail project is to implement a 

cost- effective project, but so far Amtrak has been less than cost 

effective. In fact, in a 2017 legislative report on passenger rail and 

performance, ODOT reported that "The gap between revenue and 

cost continues to increase. It is likely the cost to operate the service 

will increase in the coming years."

So based on ODOT's own testimony, it appears that Amtrak is 

becoming less cost effective, not more cost effective. Oregon has 

already been subsidizing each one-way Amtrak ride to the tune of 

about $118. And the proposed passenger rail plan is likely to only raise 

these costs. Currently, ODOT pays Amtrak about $17.75 million 

annually to support the existing service. In comparison, the EIS 

estimates that the recommended preferred alternative, Alternative 1, 

would cost around $48 million in operations and maintenance costs. 

The EIS also admits that this is a conservative estimation based on the 

assumption that Amtrak payments will triple as the number of roundtrips triples.

The next stage for the EIS for this project should include more 

thorough data on actual cost effectivity, and specifically lay out how 

much Oregon taxpayers would be expected to provide per passenger 

rail rider under this plan. The ridership projections seem to be based 

on the hope that the population increase in the Willamette Valley will 

allow for a tripling of Amtrak ridership. But unless fare recovery is also 

significantly improved, ODOT may have to foot an even greater 

percentage of the annual bill for rail passengers.

What Oregonians need more than costly rail projects are solutions to 

highway congestion. However, the EIS for the passenger rail project 

admits that neither build alternative would alleviate this problem. And 

that the potential reduction in the number of vehicles on I-5 between 

Eugene and Portland would not be significant enough to affect or 

improve congestion on I-5. In fact, the EIS states that the project may 

actually exacerbate congestion by increasing vehicle activity on 

Intercity passenger rail is a fundamental 

component of Oregon’s and the Pacific 

Northwest region’s transportation 

infrastructure, is a component of state plans, 

and is compatible with state, regional, and local 

plans and policies. As with highways, rail 

requires public expenditures and subsidies to 

construct, operate, and maintain. In addition to 

providing a safe, reliable, and affordable 

intercity travel option for many people, 

including those without access to a personal 

vehicle, passenger rail provides direct and 

indirect benefits to the built and natural 

environment. While Amtrak Cascades intercity 

passenger rail ridership has fluctuated in recent 

years, Amtrak forecasts a substantial increase in 

future ridership that correlates with more 

frequent and reliable train service. Future work 

on Project development beyond the Tier 1 EIS 

will use the most relevant and current data 

available, including applicable costs and 

potential funding sources.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 2 0

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

surface streets near Amtrak stations. Spending this much money on a 

project that will not improve congestion is not what Oregon needs.

Investing taxpayer resources in a project that would cost around a 

billion dollars to build and upwards of $48 million dollars to operate 

and maintain, ODOT could plan on gradually increasing the frequency 

of thruway bus service over the next 20 years. The no-action 

alternative already includes plans to increase bus service between 

Eugene and Portland to seven round trips per day. So why not focus 

on further increasing bus service frequency rather than investing in 

what amounts to an exorbitantly priced mode shift. That way 

transportation service can be more flexibly adjusted to the actual 

demand of the Willamette Valley as the population increases without 

demanding the same level of capital investment and heavy subsidies 

that expanding passenger rail would require.

I-4 Bob Bailey Build for the future! Don't try to squeeze more rail traffic onto the 

freight system. Unplug passenger rail from the constraints of freight 

traffic which will only increase. Oregon will double population in 30 

years, which means more freight traffic as well as more demand for 

passenger rail to move between cities in the corridor. Engineer the 

system, including connecting transit to get people to stations on I-5. 

So I am sure I will not live to see this built, but my kids and grand kids 

will. 

Not sure I agree with assumptions about ridership and service to 

central cities vs. new stations on I-5. People still have to drive or bus to 

the station. 

FRA and ODOT concurred with using 2035 which 

is consistent with land use and transportation 

plans of the urban regions and smaller 

communities within the Project study area. 

These community plans support intercity 

passenger rail stations in the urban core areas 

that have relatively high concentrations of 

population, employment, and other services and 

attractions, plus existing and planned 

multimodal transportation networks and transit 

services connecting to the stations. The 

combination of these attributes in the urban 

cores contributes to higher forecast ridership for 

the Preferred Alternative compared to 

Alternative 2. 

I-5 Holly Balcom I like Alternative 2! I'd like further information on reliability as the 

current situation where freight takes priority makes it hard to plan on 

your train being on time.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 2 1

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

Reliability is expected to increase with the 

improvements in infrastructure planned under 

Alternative 1.

While freight rail service and operations have 

variable effects upon passenger rail reliability as 

measured by on-time performance, the host 

railroad for the existing route, Union Pacific 

Railroad (UPRR), is obligated under federal law 

to accommodate and minimize disruption to 

Amtrak's scheduled service. That is, priority 

dispatching of Amtrak trains operating on 

shared tracks remains established federal law.

I-6 David Ballard For the projected increase in ridership going forward, Alternative 2 

disrupts too much infrastructure including farmland, and costs too 

much to implement. 

Under the existing rail system, the cost of transporting a family of 

three by Amtrak is prohibitive even compared to driving the family 

vehicle getting 15mpg. 

The cost is too great!

Intercity passenger rail is a fundamental 

component of Oregon’s and the Pacific 

Northwest region’s transportation 

infrastructure, and is compatible with state, 

regional and local plans and policies. As with 

highways, rail requires public expenditures and 

subsidies to construct, operate, and maintain. In 

addition to providing a safe, reliable, and 

affordable intercity travel option for many 

people, including those without access to a 

personal vehicle, passenger rail provides direct 

and indirect benefits to the built and natural 

environment.

I-7 Chase Ballew Regarding the Oregon Passenger Rail DEIS, I'm somewhat 

disappointed not to see any obvious mention of joint operations with 

intercity and commuter rail as a strategic path forward. This was done 

quite successfully with the Point Defiance bypass, with commuter rail 

services implementing in phases that at full build-out also facilitate 

intercity rail. Given the congestion issues plaguing the Portland 

metropolitan area, and given the numerous rail-side towns along the 

valley, a joint phased approach would have seemed quite logical and 

cost-effective; installing additional tracks in Woodburn and Canby, for 

This FRA and ODOT-led Tier 1 EIS focused on 

intercity passenger rail service with 

consideration of its contribution to the broader 

multimodal transportation system, but did not 

incorporate joint operations with other rail 

transit systems which would have required a 

formal agreement with the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), and would not have 

changed the FRA and ODOT recommendation 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 2 2

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

example, would be easy to justify if simultaneously installing 

commuter rail stations, and could open additional funding 

opportunities (e.g. FTA new starts). Similarly, I was disappointed not to 

see any real analysis of 'express' and 'local' services.

Also, now that Washington is again studying HSR from Seattle to 

Portland, should HSR be added back into the Oregon study? The 

reason Oregon eliminated it from consideration was because it didn't 

match what Washington was planning, but if that's no longer a 

relevant concern, should that decision be revisited? Could Alternative 

2 be designed to support HSR speeds and be easily upgraded?

Further, I'm concerned that most of the improvements with 

Alternative 1 seem focused on train frequency, not speed, as the endto-end travel time doesn't appear to change much. That's going to 

make it difficult to gather support for investment in the corridor. 

Finally, the lack of a Downtown Salem station on Alternative 2 is a 

serious flaw that should be revisited, as this significantly impacts 

ridership. Much like the Central Albany option, there needs to be an 

option for Alternative 2 to divert from I-5 into downtown Salem.

for intercity passenger rail service. Beyond this 

Tier 1 phase, ODOT will likely consider more 

formal integration of intercity passenger rail 

with other public transit systems in the State's 

future planning and Project development for 

enhanced intercity passenger rail service. 

Additional analysis of service variations, 

including consideration of express service with 

fewer stations served, could be explored in 

future planning and Project development. 

However, with a relatively short end-to-end 

route and six daily round-trips, efficiencies in 

service and cost from reducing the number of 

stops could be insignificant. 

Work beyond Tier 1 will also continue to 

integrate with Washington-supported service 

north of Portland, including any new service 

plans that Washington decision makers formally 

adopt.

FRA and ODOT considered many variables and 

tradeoffs in reaching their decision on the 

Preferred Alternative, and the most reasonable 

alternative that would increase speed 

(Alternative 2) would result in more 

environmental impacts and substantially higher 

cost with lower ridership than the Preferred 

Alternative.

Early in the planning process, FRA and ODOT 

explored a higher speed alignment with a 

connection to the downtown Salem station, but 

this concept was eliminated from further 

consideration due to impacts that were not 

acceptable to the Salem community, including 

impacts that would have disproportionately 

affected Environmental Justice populations.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 2 3

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I-8 Reddit user: 

u/Reggie_Barclay

From r/Eugene

Trains on Pacific Coast are a joke. Ever try to book a train to 

Sacramento? 13 hours! 7 hours in a car. And it only leaves at 5pm, so 

you're in for an overnighter and need to find someone to pick you up 

at the crack of dawn the next day.

2.5 hours to Portland is a bit more reasonable until a freight train 

makes you sit on the tracks for an hour while it passes...

The scope of the OPR Project was limited to the 

Oregon portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail 

Corridor (PNWRC), including the Amtrak 

Cascades service that operates between Eugene, 

Oregon, and Vancouver, BC. Oregon continues 

to monitor and work with the host freight 

railroad, Union Pacific, to minimize schedule 

disruption to Cascades trains from freight train 

operations.

I-9 Larry Bardell I'm glad this finally being explored. There has long been a need for 

reducing traffic and improving safety on the congested I-5 corridor 

between Portland and Eugene. Additional rail service could help a 

great deal. How will it be determined if the cost/benefit ratio is 

sufficient to move forward?

With the selection of Alternative 1 as the 

Preferred Alternative, ODOT and FRA have the 

ability to create a phased program for the 

Project. As funds become available, ODOT will 

work with Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) to 

increase service on the existing route. 

ODOT and FRA have prepared a Service 

Development Plan concurrently with the FEIS.

The Service Development Plan addresses the 

question of phasing and the cost/benefit of the 

project. 

I-10 Beverly Barr I support Alternative 1 because I think it can be built sooner rather 

than later. I'm excited that passenger rail service can be improved in 

increments during the process - every bit keeps. I hope that the 

building process will result in improved relationships between 

passenger and freight service. We must be good friends!

Oregon supports sustained growth and success 

of both passenger and freight rail and continues 

to work with freight and passenger rail providers 

on mutually beneficial solutions.

I-11 Bonny Barr I like the lower cost alternative, even though it would be nice to have 

a wider choice of stations/cities. As a Cascades rider, any and all 

improvements to efficiency and service are supported

The Preferred Alternative would use the five 

existing stations served by the current Amtrak 

Cascades passenger rail service in Oregon, which 

are located in or near Central Business Districts. 

Alternative 2 would also use five stations and 

proposes multiple new station locations that 

would be located near I-5 and generally away 

from downtown city cores. In the Tier 1 EIS, 

potential new station locations are identified in 

general terms only to allow analysis of potential 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 2 4

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

impacts. Final decisions on any new stations and 

specific locations would be made in association 

with future Tier 2 studies. The Station Stop 

Policy for Amtrak Cascades Service, jointly issued 

by ODOT and WSDOT on June 1, 2016, gives the 

PNWRC administrators the responsibility for 

evaluating proposals to add, remove, or skip 

station stops for the Amtrak Cascades service. 

The companion Station Stop Policy Guidance 

Document that ODOT and WSDOT completed in 

2016 describes the process for evaluating 

proposed station changes. Proposals to add 

stations beyond the five proposed under the 

Preferred Alternative would need to be 

considered through future Tier 2 studies with 

adherence to the Station Stop Policy.

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20

Document%20Library/HB2918-LegislativeReport-2017.pdf and 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm

I-12 Chris Bates The OPR DEIS supports that Alternative 1 is the preferred social, 

environmental, and economical option.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-13 William Becherer Good morning, 

I work in Eugene and I'm able to witness the outbound train and 

inbound train. The trains are virtually empty. To spend one Billion 

dollars on a system that is not working is pouring taxpayers money 

down the drain. 

I've done some research on the budgets of local mass transit and 

Amtrak as well. As tax payers, we aren't impressed as how our money 

is being spent. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

William 

While Amtrak Cascades intercity passenger rail 

ridership has fluctuated in recent years, Amtrak 

forecasts a substantial increase in future 

ridership that correlates with more frequent and 

reliable train service. Intercity passenger rail is a 

fundamental component of Oregon’s and the 

Pacific Northwest region’s transportation 

infrastructure, and is compatible with state, 

regional, and local plans and policies. As with 

highways, rail requires public expenditures and 

subsidies to construct, operate and maintain. In 

addition to providing a safe, reliable, and 

affordable intercity travel option for many 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 2 5

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

people, including those without access to a 

personal vehicle, passenger rail provides direct 

and indirect benefits to the built and natural 

environment.

I-14 Chris Bell Lots of great study and evaluation to date.

I ride and really love the train, as a commuter.

However, I posit a few ideas for consideration.

1. We should really consider whether or not this Alt 1 will really make

the dent it supposedly will. With a shared freight line, it is hard to

imagine it could really ever get much better.

2. As such, if we are going to invest heavily, we should really be

pushing for something that could make a difference, much like the

Interstate, in transportation. When we evaluated the Interstate in the

1950s, we considered/tried to think about improving/changing

Highway 99. The ideas were the same. Keep transportation in the

communities and not pull them away. However, as we know, it would

unlikely have done much for traffic, and the change as we see is

amazing.

3. If we are open to really high-speeds, and changing the patterns in a

sense like the Interstate in people's living and commuting, we need to

consider Alt 2. If we allow ourselves to be mired in the same route --

we won't really garner the ridership or speeds that would flip the

script, as they say, on transportation choices.

In sum, I really REALLY suggest we revisit our choice of the least 

change/low cost route. I recognize it is notable cheaper -- but if the 

outcome is relatively similar, than we have wasted a lot of money on 

something that hasn't done much to shift the paradigm. I recognize 

the more expensive route may not have the initial numbers to 

seemingly justify the expense. They talk about how the Interstate was 

a ghost town for many, many years after construction. But I don't 

think anyone would argue that is hasn't fulfilled its utility over time, 

1. While more detailed engineering work is

needed and will be conducted in future Project

development, FRA and ODOT developed the

Preferred Alternative to operate with more

frequency, higher speed, and greater reliability

than the existing Cascades service, and it will

attract more riders as described in the DEIS. The

operational analysis for the Preferred

Alternative resulted in additional track

infrastructure and technology enhancements to

increase passenger rail reliability measured as

on-time performance.

2. While the level of investment and associated

effect upon the transportation system as a

whole is very modest compared to the Interstate

highway system, the Preferred Alternative

would attract substantially more riders and

result in other social and economic benefits to

the communities when compared to the No

Action Alternative. The investment for

Alternative 2 would be multiple times that

needed for Alternative 1 and is forecast to

attract fewer riders.

3. FRA and ODOT carefully considered many

factors and tradeoffs between the alternatives,

and the Preferred Alternative would best meet

the Project purpose and need, as well as goals

and objectives.

Advancing the Preferred Alternative would not 

preclude investment in a higher speed ground 

transportation service in the future. One benefit 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 2 6

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

and that is my feeling, as an historian, of a new route that allows for 

the current and future speeds that would make this form of 

transportation widely appealing. Such is my heartfelt appeal.

of the Preferred Alternative is that it would help 

foster a stronger market through a higher 

frequency and more reliable intercity passenger 

service. A high-speed rail concept vision was 

developed, as part of the OPR EIS process, which 

examined true high-speed rail for the Eugene-toPortland segment. Based on Leadership Council 

and stakeholder desire to consider “true” highspeed rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 

mph on an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the 

study outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). 

I-15 Megan Berry I think we should definitely improve this railway! I am glad these 

options are being considered. I prefer Alternative 2 because it will 

result in faster service but I think both options are better than what 

we have now.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's performance 

attributes outlined in the goals and objectives. 

While Alternative 2 has a faster travel time over 

the route, the other performance attributes 

favor Alternative 1. In particular, environmental 

impact, ridership, and capital costs were key 

discriminating factors. 

I-16 Aaron Blanton My name is Aaron Blanton, I'm 27 and a business owner. I support 

option 2– building a dedicated Amtrak track. Having spent many of the 

past 5 years in the Northeast Corridor, I have to say that convenient 

rail travel is one of the only things the Northeast does substantially 

better than the Northwest, and I believe it has a significant positive 

impact not only on environmental friendliness, but also on business. I 

can say that whether Oregon dramatically improves its rail system will 

be a large factor on whether I ultimately bring my company back to 

the Pacific Northwest.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's performance 

attributes outlined in the goals and objectives. 

While Alternative 2 has a faster travel time over 

the route, the other performance attributes 

favor Alternative 1. In particular, environmental 

impact, ridership, and capital costs were key 

discriminating factors. 

I-17 Timothy Blood We need more frequent passenger train service between Eugene and 

Portland. The 9am weekday train Eugene to Portland was a good 

alternative to driving.

The Preferred Alternative would increase 

intercity passenger rail trips between Eugene 

and Portland. While a specific schedule would be 

developed in subsequent planning and Project

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 2 7

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

development, it is likely that one of the six daily 

Cascades trips would depart Eugene at a 

morning time that would provide access to a 

relatively large number of passengers.

I-18a Nathan Bofto I’m so glad and relieved to see this finally out and moving. Oregon 

desperately needs some tangible, concrete plans now in order to 

secure federal funds and to keep Cascades service in Oregon moving. I 

haven’t seen every page yet, but skipped ahead to what the actual 

plans are, and I’m wondering if some questions can be answered here:

1. What speed increases will we see? I know 79mph is the max Union

Pacific will allow in this area, but there are only stretches between

Eugene and Albany where this takes place. Are there any other speed

increases along the route?

2. How much track will be added, and for what purpose? I’ve seen

maps where track would be added, but is there a more detailed

breakdown somewhere? I know more sidings, but roughly how long?

Is there any double main sections of track?

3. If funds can be secured and approved, when realistically would we

see the project begin and how long would the duration be?

4. How and when would additional equipment purchases be made?

And from whom? Would more talgo sets be made? Or would ODOT

look for another manufacturer like Siemens?

5. Are there any talks or plans about ODOT or Amtrak adding any

stations? For instance, a platform in Junction City and Canby would be

great additions to get more ridership along the route without much

investment in staffing or infrastructure.

Thank you for your time. I will be looking forward to the Eugene open 

house coming up!

Nathan Bofto

1. Operational analysis of the Preferred

Alternative assumed a maximum speed of

79 mph, but proposed rail infrastructure

upgrades incorporated into the Project would

allow trains to travel faster than they currently

travel throughout more of the route. The

improvements would result in travel time

reduction of 10 minutes or more between

Eugene and Portland.

2. DEIS Section 3.2.1, Rail Route Improvements,

describes sections where new track would be

added or where siding track would be upgraded

to mainline track on the Union Pacific Railroad

(UPRR) alignment. This would facilitate four

more passenger rail round-trips per day while

maintaining freight rail carrying capability

between Eugene and Portland. Alternative 1, the

Preferred Alternative, would include

approximately 395,200 feet (74.8 miles) of new

or upgraded track. More than 372,500 feet of

this total length would be mainline track.

3. ODOT and FRA do not have an anticipated

schedule to initiate construction, but the Project

is planned to be implemented within the next

15–20 years.

4. Additional train equipment purchases would

be dependent on available funding likely

through State and Federal sources. ODOT and

FRA have not determined what train equipment

manufacturer would provide additional

equipment.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 2 8

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

5. The Preferred Alternative would use the five

existing stations served by the current Amtrak

Cascades passenger rail service in Oregon, which

are located in or near Central Business Districts.

Final decisions on any new stations and specific

locations would be made in association with

future Tier 2 studies. The Station Stop Policy for

Amtrak Cascades Service, jointly issued by ODOT

and WSDOT on June 1, 2016, gives the PNWRC

administrators the responsibility for evaluating

proposals to add, remove, or skip station stops

for the Amtrak Cascades service. The companion

Station Stop Policy Guidance Document that

ODOT and WSDOT completed in 2016 describes

the process for evaluating proposed station

changes. Proposals to add stations beyond the

five proposed under the Preferred Alternative

would need to be considered through future

Tier 2 studies with adherence to the Station Stop

Policy.

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20

Document%20Library/HB2918-LegislativeReport-2017.pdf and 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm

I-18b Nathan Bofto Alternative 1 is the most tangible solution. Speed and reliability both 

have to be improved in order for ridership to truly grow. Too often 

there are 30-45 mph speed limits in towns like Jefferson, Woodburn, 

etc. that need to be improved. I would like to see bottlenecks south of 

Portland to Oregon City to be improved as well. We need more trains 

and higher speeds now. Thank you for all your work and I look forward 

to the future!

DEIS Section 3.2.1 Rail Route Improvements 

describes sections where new track would be 

added or where siding track would be upgraded 

to mainline track on the Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR) alignment. This would facilitate four 

more passenger rail round trips per day while 

maintaining freight rail carrying capability 

between Eugene and Portland. The Preferred 

Alternative would include approximately 75 

miles of new or upgraded track. Two miles north 

of the Oregon City Station, Alternative 1 would 

add a new mainline track west of the existing 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 2 9

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

UPRR mainline. This new mainline track would 

shift over to the east of the UPRR mainline near 

Milwaukie and run north to the Steel Bridge in 

Portland, adding almost 12.5 miles of new 

mainline track in this area. Just east of where 

the UPRR mainline goes under SE 82nd Avenue 

as it leaves Clackamas, Alternative 1 would add a 

new crossover to facilitate access to the 

industries south of I-205. A connection to local 

industries south of Milwaukie would be 

connected to the new mainline. In Milwaukie, 

the new mainline track that started north of the 

Oregon City Station would turn north, 

continuing to parallel the existing mainline track, 

and travel under several existing bridges—the 

Springwater Trail, SE Tacoma Street, and Bybee 

Boulevard. The new mainline track would cross 

over Johnson Creek. Several new crossovers 

would be added in this area to facilitate 

movement in and out of existing industries and 

the UPRR Brooklyn Yard. The new mainline track 

would run along the east side of the UPRR 

Brooklyn Yard, crossing under Holgate 

Boulevard, and at the same time reconnecting to 

the existing industry tracks on the east. A new 

pair of crossovers would facilitate yard access 

and train positioning. The new main track would 

continue north toward central Portland, running 

on the east side of the existing UPRR mainline 

and ending just south of the Steel Bridge that 

crosses the Willamette River.

In addition, ODOT through its State Rail Planning 

efforts, has worked with the railroads to identify 

areas for targeted investments to alleviate 

existing bottlenecks as funding becomes 

available. For state transportation plans, see 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 3 0

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Pages

/Plans.aspx. 

I-19 Heather Bogaro I support expansion of Amtrak service between Eugene and Portland. 

Increased commuter rail options make our area more attractive for 

economic growth. Mass transit is imperative in the battle against 

climate change. We are already behind the curve--lets do it!

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-20 Debra Borton Please put a stop in at Oakridge. Many bicyclists travel here from 

Portland. Many locals need an avenue to ride to and from Oakridge 

and the valley

Thank you for your comment. Oakridge is 

beyond the Amtrak Cascades corridor and study 

area that is the focus of the Oregon Passenger 

Rail Project, but this comment has been shared 

with the Passenger Rail Program Manager and 

Amtrak. 

I-21 Tab Boschetti Stations closer to town centers (where it's more possible to walk 

places from the station) are far more practical and attractive than farflung stations where you need a car, and then you might as well drive 

the long trip.

The Preferred Alternative would use the five 

existing stations served by the current Amtrak 

Cascades passenger rail service in Oregon, which 

are located in or near Central Business Districts. 

I-22 Dana Botkin Good morning.

I was excited at the beginning of your project that I would be able to 

ride up to Portland or down to Eugene by rail, until I learned you were 

just going to go from Eugene to Portland with no stops in between, 

with maybe a stop at Albany.

To us who live in small communities along that corridor, is this is 

unacceptable. Why not introduce an interurban service that existed 

before the tracks were ripped up and the freeway built? If you had a 

stop in Halsey, even a whistle stop with rolling stock similar to the old 

galloping goose trains, more people would get out of their cars and 

use the train to go shopping or commute to work.

I am a senior citizen in my late 70s and I no longer own a car. I have to 

walk or ride a bicycle wherever I go. Longer distances I have to hitch a 

ride with friends. I can't afford Uber nor do I want to use that service. 

But the train! Ahh, that would be nice but not if the nearest station 

will be in Eugene-Springfield!

The Preferred Alternative includes stations in 

the central core areas of Eugene, Albany, Salem, 

Oregon City, and Portland. Final decisions on any 

new stations and specific locations would be 

made in association with future Tier 2 studies. 

The Station Stop Policy for Amtrak Cascades 

Service, jointly issued by ODOT and WSDOT on 

June 1, 2016, gives the PNWRC administrators 

the responsibility for evaluating proposals to 

add, remove, or skip station stops for the 

Amtrak Cascades service. The companion Station 

Stop Policy Guidance Document that ODOT and 

WSDOT completed in 2016 describes the 

process for evaluating proposed station changes. 

Proposals to add stations beyond the five 

proposed under the Preferred Alternative would 

need to be considered through future Tier 2 

studies with adherence to the Station Stop 

Policy.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 3 1

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I cannot see why my idea is unfeasible. If we had left the 

infrastructure alone in the first place back in the 50s, we would be 

miles ahead today.

Thank you for hearing me out.

Sincerely,

Dana R. Botkin

Brownsville, Oregon

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20

Document%20Library/HB2918-LegislativeReport-2017.pdf and 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm

I-23 Christy Brekken Alternative 1 seems to be the most sensible plan, carrying more riders, 

having a lower impact in environmental footprint and dollars. I did not 

see a timeline for each alternative, but I suspect that Alternative 1 will 

be done sooner. With the short timeline to mitigate GHG emissions 

and get more cars off the road, sooner is better than later.

However, if Alternative 2 is a stronger long-term investment 

considering opportunities to expand the network and if population 

density can be increased along the corridor, then it is a viable 

alternative also.

No Action is not a viable alternative. Oregon needs this route.

The timeline for implementing the Preferred 

Alternative is contingent upon the commitment 

of sufficient funding to advance the Project 

beyond the Federal approval of the Tier 1 EIS. 

No additional funding to further develop the 

Project is currently available, but completion of 

this EIS is the first needed step toward 

positioning the Project for future funding.

I-24 Frannie Brindle

ODOT Area Manager

ODOT

The passenger train should include compartments for bicycles to be 

stored so that passengers can roll on and roll their bicycles off of the 

train to use to ride to their destination from their departure city.

The existing Amtrak Cascades intercity 

passenger rail service accommodates bicycles, 

and ODOT plans to continue this service.

I-25a Debra Brush What about connectivity? - To neighboring cities (from Albany, and to 

adequate parking (Albany)

What about crossings in the small towns between Albany and Eugene? 

- Tangent Dr and 99 E, Tangent is a main connector between Lebanon

and Corvallis and is also an important farm equipment road to serve

farms on east and west sides of 99E.

- More importantly - fire department is on east side of the railroad/99

E and must have ingress/egress at all crossings in Tangent!

ODOT is committed to working with 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), 

cities, and local transit providers in the Project 

area to support enhanced transit connections to 

intercity passenger rail. 

ODOT made several assumptions about road 

crossings in areas where track improvements 

would be made: 1) No new at-grade road 

crossings or grade separation of existing 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 3 2

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

at-grade road crossings would be constructed; 2) 

If an existing crossing has lights and gates, it 

would be upgraded to include lights and gates to 

accommodate the additional track; 3) If an 

existing crossing does not have lights and gates, 

the recommendation to upgrade, close, or retain 

the crossing was primarily based on the roadway 

type and use; and 4) In locations with an existing 

grade separation (the road goes over or under 

the railroad), the grade separation would be 

retained and modified as needed. 

ODOT and the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) are not proposing to close any crossings 

under this Tier 1 NEPA process but could decide 

to close some crossings during future Tier 2 

Federal environmental review processes. ORS 

824.206 - Alteration or Closure of Existing Grade 

Crossing, provides ODOT the authority to close 

crossings as needed for public safety, necessity, 

convenience and general welfare. 

ODOT is preparing a Service Development Plan 

that will be completed concurrently with the 

FEIS. The SDP will provide more information 

about station access and parking needs to be 

addressed in Tier 2 Project development work.

I-25b Debra Brush

Tangent, OR

Dear Ms. Pearson,

I understand that the window is closed for public comment on the 

DEIS. Nevertheless, I will offer my comment for ODOT's consideration. 

Who knows, perhaps another window for public comment may open!

Since this entire project is tantamount to shooting for the sky, I 

propose ODOT SERIOUSLY consider the practicality and needfulness of 

including a pedestrian/bicycle pathway along the entire line from 

Eugene/Springfield to Portland with exits at every currently existing 

crossing.

Thank you for your comment. This Tier 1 Project, 

including the Project Purpose stated on p. 1-9 of 

the DEIS (see Appendix A), is focused on 

Intercity Passenger Rail and determining the 

optimal route location, service type and 

frequency, and general station areas. Oregon 

has a statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, 

including an Advisory Committee, 

https://www.oregon.gov/odot/programs/pages/

bikeped.aspx, and it may be beneficial to offer 

your suggestion through this group.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 3 3

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I can see how the pathway could open doors for increased commerce 

and connectivity of the small communities along the entire line, which 

would be served well by such a pathway, not to mention the potential 

of attracting tourists. What an epic ride: by rail, bicycle, on foot.

Respectfully submitted,

Debra Brush

I-26 Ray Bryan Comment routed from commenter to City of Milwaukie staff and 

forwarded to ODOT: 

From: Ray Bryan <ray1bryan2@gmail.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 9:31 PM

To: Ann Ober <OberA@milwaukieoregon.gov> 

Cc: Lisa Batey <lisabatey@msn.com> 

Subject: Two Tracks 

Hi Ann,

Thank you for coming to the NDA leadership meeting tonight. As Lisa 

mentioned this issue has been quiet for a few

years but it is still moving forward. I have attached a flyer from our 

November 2018 meeting. I reached out to Russ Stoll

who briefed us on higher speed rail several months ago. He is the one 

who informed me that double tracks through

Milwaukie were included in the preferred alternative.

I spent some time tonight rummaging through the DEIS, which is very 

detailed. I am very sure that alternative 1 is the

preferred alternative. I copied the words below from the DEIS. This 

really all the time I have tonight. I you need any

further information please let me know.

I would like to know if you can confirm that 2 tracks through 

Milwaukie is included in the preferred alternative. It seems

The original response to comment provided via 

email in February 2019, is refined as below: 

Thank you for your comment. The DEIS 

evaluates a range of improvements that would 

support additional passenger traffic. 

Alternative 1 includes two main tracks through 

Milwaukie, all the way to the present south end 

of Clackamas siding. This improvement has been 

identified for the past 15 years as one of the 

desired Portland Triangle bottleneck solutions. 

Several of the desired projects identified in the 

capacity study have been brought to fruition but 

not this one. The second main track could be 

built south from Willsburg Jct. to Clackamas, and 

that will make just over 11 miles of two main 

tracks from East Portland southward. From the 

description below it sounds like someone was 

contemplating a third main track in the vicinity 

of Brooklyn yard, as the narrative describes 

adding a new main track east of the yard. There 

already are two main tracks between East 

Portland and Willsburg Jct.

For decades there was a second track in 

Milwaukie, a siding 5,473 feet long on the north 

side of the main track that began just northwest 

of Oak Street and extended southeasterly along 

Railroad Avenue, ending before reaching the 

Harmony Road crossing. That portion of the 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 3 4

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

very relevant considering the current single track's proximity to our 

public safety building and at least two opportunity

sites identified in the moving forward process.

Thank you,

Ray

ROW that used to be occupied by the siding 

could host the second main track when built.

Note that this is a Tier 1 DEIS, and Tier 2 

environmental reviews would evaluate more 

detailed, site-specific proposals implementing 

the Preferred Alternative selected in the Tier 1 

EIS. Coordination with the host railroad will be 

required. 

I-27 Ted Buehler I support alternative 1. 

Please prioritize the addition of new train equipment and basic track 

improvements to bring us up to three round trips per day and to allow 

for enough trains for a Eugene to Vancouver BC through train. 

Please add additional bicycle storage on new train equipment. 

Thanks for advancing passenger rail in Oregon. I prefer riding the train 

over driving, but often it doesn't work with my schedule. So run more 

trains!

ODOT supports and encourages bicycling and 

will continue to accommodate bicycles on 

Cascades trains while also exploring ways to 

increase convenience and access for bicyclists to 

use intercity passenger rail.

I-28 Janet Calvert Train is the preferred mode of transportation as my husband and I visit 

our Seattle sons and Portland son. If the train ran more frequently, we 

would increase our ridership. Although I would favor building a 

separate line for passenger trains, the cost at this time is prohibitive. 

Improving and existing line AND adding more departure and return 

trips would be a great leap forward. IS there a way to reduce the 

number of times the passenger train must pull over to accommodate 

freight? Is there a way to finance a new route along I5 without taking 

it to the legislature? That should be the goal., 

Because passenger and freight trains operate on 

the same track owned by Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR, the host railroad) passenger rail's ontime performance depends on how UPRR 

handles dispatching passenger trains. Priority 

dispatching of Amtrak trains operating on 

shared tracks remains established Federal law. 

The incremental improvements planned to 

increase the roundtrips would help reduce the 

freight train interference. A new route along I-5 

would need to be planned and developed as 

part of a separate future project and would 

require State government approval that includes 

support from the Legislature.

I-29 Jeramy Card Full Disclosure – I’m a transit planner with LTD in Eugene. My feeling is 

that Alternative 2 is a far better option than the “preferred” 

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 3 5

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

alternative for a variety of reasons. Primarily, the idea of induced 

demand and exclusivity. In the same way that we “improve” highways 

by adding lanes, you simply make a busy highway even busier by 

inviting more users to utilize it. The same would happen with freight. If 

you make improvements to the existing line, via speed, crossing, etc., 

freight will opt to increase its own traffic and passenger rail is back to 

sharing an even busier line with more traffic. A new line, exclusive to 

“passenger only” rail, is far preferred over mixed use or shared rail. 

Here in Eugene, our BRT ridership continues to grow – not because it’s 

prettier – but because we have exclusivity in our BRT lanes, even with 

our BAT lanes. These exclusive lanes, with farther stop spacing, out of 

mixed traffic, allow high frequency as needed for demand. This same 

exclusivity allows us to add more frequency at the same speed. It 

seems to me that it would be the same with rail. You’re only as fast as 

the slowest freight line in a mixed use situation. I’ve watched many an 

Amtrak leave Eugene, only to stop 1⁄2 mile down the track to wait for a 

freight line SLOWLY move through town. Having an exclusive and 

faster passenger only line would allow for more frequency and faster 

service in the future. I also have some doubts regarding your minimal 

18 minutes of travel saving between the two options for the above 

reasons. I don’t use rail now because the schedule is inconvenient and 

it is painfully slow and expensive. People will pay a premium for faster 

service – I know I would. Yes, it’s expensive – but a worthy investment.

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. The 

proposed rail infrastructure improvements 

incorporated into the Preferred Alternative are 

needed to accommodate the proposed 

increased number of intercity passenger trains, 

and the operational analysis that informed the 

Project also factored an increased number of 

freight trains based on regional economic and 

commodity flow forecasts.

I-30 Les Castle Not having to share with freight traffic. 

A fast track. 

Someday a super fast train (preferably up the middle of I-5 at 200mph 

so all the cars can see). 

If Alternative 1, make sure we have priority over freight. 

Because passenger and freight trains operate on 

the same track owned by Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR, the host railroad) passenger rail's ontime performance depends on how UPRR 

handles dispatching passenger trains. Priority 

dispatching of Amtrak trains operating on 

shared tracks remains established federal law.

I-31 Julie Chapman It would be great to have half-hourly trains traveling north and south, 

allowing for more flexible transportation/commuting up and down the 

I-5 corridor.

With the publication of this FEIS and FRA's 

pending Record of Decision, ODOT will be able 

to move forward with implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative, which will include with 

further study, incremental improvements of 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 3 6

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

service on the existing route and the ability to 

add frequency. 

I-32 Richard E Chizinski I regularly ride Amtrak between Eugene and points north. Two-four 

roundtrips per year. 

I support Alternative 1. Track capacity improvements would improve 

reliability of both passenger and freight trains. 

My preference is for addition of another round trip, perhaps 

additional trips as ridership grows. 

Reduced travel time would be a plus, but current travel time is 

acceptable to me. 

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with incremental implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative, which will consist of 

improvements on the existing route to 

adequately support increased intercity 

passenger rail service. 

I-33 Nick Christensen If HSR doesn't provide access to downtown Salem, don't even bother. 

We need to address congestion on the Boone Bridge and that won't 

happen by building a HSR station in East Salem (Alt 2).

The Portland Eastside tunnel is not ambitious enough. Given all of the 

congestion because of the rail lines at SE 12th and Division, grade 

separation there should also be a priority.

I think this proposal is not ambitious enough. Oregon should be 

aspiring for 90-minute one-way trips from Portland to Eugene.

The Preferred Alternative does not include grade 

separation of the frequently congested 

SE Division/SE 12th Avenue intersection because 

the purpose and scope of that action would be 

primarily oriented to travel on the surface 

streets with secondary benefit to intercity 

passenger rail which (along with freight rail and 

light rail) has priority for movement through that 

intersection. 

I-34 Bill Clingman I favor Alternative 1, but with two additional features:

1. extend the route to Springfield, while still including Eugene Station

2. facilitate an arrangement between TriMet, LTD, and other transit

districts to honor each other's bus passes on days when the bus rider

has taken the train, or is between train trips taken within the same

week, and has Amtrak ticket receipts to prove it.

1. The Station Stop Policy for Amtrak Cascades

Service, jointly issued by ODOT and WSDOT on

June 1, 2016, gives the PNWRC administrators

the responsibility for evaluating proposals to

add, remove or skip station stops for the Amtrak

Cascades service. The companion Station Stop

Policy Guidance Document that ODOT and

WSDOT completed in 2016 describes the

process for evaluating proposed station changes.

Proposals to add stations beyond the five

proposed under the Preferred Alternative would

need to be considered through future Tier 2

studies with adherence to the Station Stop

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 3 7

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Policy.

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20

Document%20Library/HB2918-LegislativeReport-2017.pdf and 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm

2. Your suggestion on fare-sharing has been

provided to ODOT Rail Division. ODOT can

explore this concept with local transit districts.

I-35 Eliot Cole As someone who often travels between Portland and Eugene and who 

does not own a car, I cannot stress enough how much a new rail line is 

needed between the closely connected communities. I generally take 

the bus between the two cities because my experience with the train 

in the past has been that it is incredibly slow, over-priced, unreliable 

and does not run often enough. Building a new, modern, affordable 

rail link would be a life line for people throughout the Willamette 

Valley and provide a viable faster and cleaner alternative to car/bus 

travel on the congested I-5 corridor. An electric high-speed rail line 

that wouldn't have to compete with freight traffic could even provide 

a convenient and less polluting alternative to air travel when extended 

along the entire route to Vancouver, BC. I fully support the Cascadia 

HSR corridor concept because it would greatly improve mobility, 

making the trip faster, greener and more pleasant while bringing the

entire region even closer together.

The Preferred Alternative is an important step 

toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a rail 

network. A high-speed rail concept vision was 

developed, as part of the OPR EIS process, which 

examined true high-speed rail for the Eugene-toPortland segment. Based on Leadership Council 

and stakeholder desire to consider “true” highspeed rail—generally meaning speeds of 

125 mph on an exclusive rail (new) alignment, 

the study outlined the necessary steps to 

progress including ridership and population 

demands (High Speed Rail Concept Vision 

Report, ODOT, September 2014). 

Early in the OPR Project, the screening process, 

conducted in winter 2012 through spring 2013, 

assessed a range of corridor concepts identified 

during the scoping period against elements of 

the OPR Project’s Purpose and Need statement. 

Corridor concepts were assessed using nine 

screening criteria and best available data. 

Concepts were eliminated if they did not pass 

screening using one or more of these criteria. 

Corridor concepts, including alignments and 

potential station locations, that passed the 

screening were subsequently developed into 

preliminary alternatives; corridor concepts that 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 3 8

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

failed the screening process were eliminated 

from further consideration. Based on this 

screening process, all of the partial corridor 

concepts and the Cascadia HSR corridor concept 

were eliminated from further study as part of 

the Tier 1 EIS process. 

I-36 Heidi Coleman, RN, 

Legacy Health

I lived in Salem and commuted to NW Portland for one year using 

Amtrak. I appreciated the comfortable seating, free wi-fi, kind staff 

and reduction of environmental impact. However, I had to stop using 

Amtrak as the delays became increasingly worse. When commuting 

home, it could take anywhere from 1 to 2 additional hours due to 

stops and slow downs in response to passing freight trains. Also, I was 

unable to attend morning meetings at work as the train arrived at 

0800 in Portland leaving me with a 20 to 30 minute walk to my office. 

The commute times were not accommodating for my work schedule 

and forced me to move closer to Portland. I am now commuting in one 

of the busiest areas of I-5. If I had better commuting options I would 

move back to Salem and take advantage of rail services. Please 

improve rail services through alternative 1 so that people can reduce 

environmental impacts, improve community health and increase 

economic growth through reduced car commuting. Thank you for your 

consideration, Heidi Coleman, RN

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with implementation of the Preferred 

Alternative, which will include incremental 

improvements of service on the existing route. 

I-37 Matthew Conner

113 Southwind Cir.

St. Augustine, FL 32080 

Dear Matthew Garrett,

You should announce to have the new high-speed Amtrak Siemens jetpowered single level passenger

trains coming and in out of Eugene station because the future is 

coming. Siemens jet-powered single

level passenger trainsets would be the only technology to be used. The 

only train would be the Pacific

Northwest Express. This state-of-the-art high-speed rail network 

would link Vancouver. The Pacific

Northwest Corridor or the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC) is 

one of eleven federally designated

high-speed rail corridors in the United States. The 466-mile (750) km 

corridor extends from Eugene,

Thank you for your comment. As additional 

trainsets are required, ODOT will consider 

different types and makers of equipment. 

Section 3.2.5 of the EIS discusses the potential 

types of passenger train technology considered 

for the Oregon service as part of this analysis. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 3 9

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Oregon to Vancouver, British Columbia via Portland, Oregon and 

Seattle, Washington. It was designated

a high-speed rail on October 20, 1992, as the fifth of five corridors 

called for in the lntermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The corridor is owned by 

BNSF Railway in Washington and

British Columbia, and by Union Pacific Railroad (UP) in Oregon, and is 

used by a mix of freight and

passenger trains operated by BNSF, UP, and Amtrak. If improvements 

to the corridor are completed as

proposed in Washington State's long-range plan, passenger trains 

operating at a maximum speed of 110

miles per hour (180 km/h) would travel between Portland and Seattle, 

in 2 hours and 30 minutes, and

between Seattle and Vancouver in 2 hours and 37 minutes by 2023. 

The Pacific Northwest Corridor is a

proposed railway that would run from Eugene, Oregon to Vancouver, 

British Columbia and connect

those cities along with Salem/Portland, Vancouver 

WA/Olympia/Tacoma/Seattle/Everett, and

Bellingham, Washington. But I will mail this to you and let me know 

about it.

Sincerely,

Matthew Conner

[Note: Comment included map and image of Siemens train. These 

pages are included in the record of original comments.]

I-196 Philip Constant If ridership projections hold a replacement station in Salem would be 

necessary; the 12th street station could not handle the increase in 

vehicle traffic. I like the added stations in both alternatives and could 

support either A1 or A2 going forward.

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with implementation of the Preferred 

Alternative, which will include incremental 

improvements of service on the existing route. 

With the forecast increase in ridership and 

associated increase in passenger boardings and 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 4 0

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

demand for access to the station in Salem and 

other cities along the propose route, additional 

planning in coordination with the City of Salem 

(and other cities with stations) will be needed as 

part of the Project planning and development 

beyond the current Tier 1 EIS stage. 

I-38 Isaiah Cornutt I believe that rail is a very good investment for our area. I've lived in 

Germany and see the difference is their rail travel and ours is 

astounding. The Willamette Valley is supposed to grow a lot within the 

coming decades and more people will travel between cities. Improving 

the rail network will make people more likely to take that option 

instead of driving themselves.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-39 David Crout I prefer Alternative 1. A service planning and market analysis should 

be undertaken to determine optimum frequency and span that can 

improve ridership in the corridor. Additional stations may help as 

well.

The Tier 1 EIS is being completed as the major 

component of the FRA and ODOT-led Oregon 

Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan. A 

Service Development Plan will also be 

completed to determine the incremental 

implementation of the Preferred Alternative 

including scheduling additional intercity 

passenger rail trains to support optimal 

ridership. ODOT and WSDOT published a station 

stop policy that addresses the process for adding 

stops on existing routes. 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20

Document%20Library/HB2918-LegislativeReport-2017.pdf and 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm

I-40 Peter Dane Verbal testimony:

Looking at the maps and reading the official commentary, Alternative 

1 seems more practical for the next few years. But as population and 

infrastructure increases, Alternative 2 might be more practical in the 

future. Also there was talk about a freight junction at Brooks, and that 

would help facilitate the shipping of agriculture products to Seattle, 

because Portland harbor and rail lines are too congested. So they 

Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative, is 

recommended to be implemented for service 

over the next 15-20years. The Preferred 

Alternative would not preclude future planning 

and development of high-speed rail. As travel 

demand warrants, potential funding could be 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 4 1

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

might consider Brooks as an alternative rail/shipping location. And as 

for Alternative 1 going through Salem, there's a safety factor. And 

those are my comments.

secured for a new dedicated alignment that 

could support high-speed rail. 

The Tier 1 EIS considered projects, including 

freight rail infrastructure investments, that have 

funding committed to implement. These 

projects were listed in ODOT’s 2015-2018 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 

(STIP; ODOT, 2017). A freight junction at Brooks 

may be planned, but does not have funding 

committed to implement it. 

The Preferred Alternative will include safety 

enhancements in Salem and throughout the 

Project alignment. Safety enhancements include 

upgrading crossings where people who walk, 

bicycle, drive, or use transit must cross the rail 

line.

I-41 Jerod Davidson Alternative 2 looks like the easiest and best way to increase ridership. 

The money will to be invested in this and in widening I-5 to 

accommodate more and more people. This will also be perfect if 

Portland truly does get a MLB team, look at what happened with 

Caltrain in San Francisco after the Giants setup their stadium.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-42 Ron Davis I support this. I cannot fly and driving is tough. Rail is the right option 

for me and I would be thrilled with additional Eugene Portland service. 

I'm Moving to Eugene within 6 months. THANKS!!!

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-43 Steve Dickey Although Alternative 2 is intriguing, based on the ridership to cost 

ratio and only gaining 18 minutes, Alternative 1 seems to be the better 

choice. It also has the advantage of being phased, which potentially 

could start bringing benefit sooner. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-44 Victor Dodier The preferred alternative selected by ODOT and FRA is a sound basis 

for improvements going forward. It is feasible and cost effective. 

Alternative 2, while providing a newly publicly owned alignment, is 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 4 2

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

simply too expensive. 

Let's move forward with Alternative 1 to improve passenger rail 

service. 

I-45 Sarah Douglas I am supporting Alternative 1 because of overall lower cost and 

maintenance of existing stations. I am very sorry that this alternative 

will NOT provide higher speed train service. I simply do not 

understand why the Willamette Valley could not develop a high speed 

"bullet" train such as are available in Japan and Europe. Why all the 

investment in driver-less cars when we should be developing mass 

transit? I-5 is going to be totally jammed in just a few years!

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a rail 

network. 

I-46 Joseph Edge 1. Corvallis should be included on the final alternative. Corvallis is too

important to bypass.

2. To the degree it may be significant in the final EIS, the I-205

alignment should contemplate a multimodal transportation corridor

that includes intercity passenger rail, space for double track light rail, a

bicycle/pedestrian path, and not more than six general purpose motor

vehicle highway lanes (three in each direction) between Oregon City

and Wilsonville/Tualatin, consistent with regional plans.

3. Serving central cities is important and valuable, but seeding the

infrastructure needed for eventual high speed rail operations is

critically important with the coming migrations likely to occur as a

result of climate change related impacts in other regions. Alternative 2

should be selected as the preferred alternative.

4. Station areas outside central cities should be planned and zoned to

facilitate development of pedestrian oriented neighborhoods that can

benefit from serving rail passengers who will be arriving without their

own private motor vehicles.

1. ODOT and FRA eliminated the preliminary

alternative that would directly serve Corvallis

from further consideration, because it increased

travel time between Eugene and Portland and

reduced ridership as result of the increased

travel time. However, the OPR decision does not

preclude potential future enhanced connections

to Corvallis.

2. Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred

Alternative, and unlike Alternative 2, the

Preferred Alternative alignment does not follow

I-205.

3. While Alternative 2 has a faster travel time

over the route and could support future

high-speed rail, the other performance

attributes favor Alternative 1. In particular,

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 4 3

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

5. Stations should be well connected to cities' public transit and active

transportation networks.

environmental impact, ridership, and capital 

costs were key discriminating factors. 

4 and 5. The Preferred Alternative would use the 

five existing stations served by the current 

Amtrak Cascades passenger rail service in 

Oregon; they are located in or near Central 

Business Districts and are well connected to 

cities' public transit and active transportation 

networks.

I-47 Georgia Edwards The I-5 alternative seems to solve the most issues, though it is more 

expensive. It would have been nice to have a question and answer 

period during the presentation. Questions I have include, how do you 

get the ridership numbers? How do you attract people to ride the 

rails? How do you plan to do the spots where buildings are close to 

the tracks? How will you get more trains on the same tracks, or will 

you build more? If you build more, what will you do with at grade 

crossings? Will you close any crossings. How do you get accurate cost 

estimates if you haven’t evaluated how much impact going on the 

same route will have on cities and towns in the area? In our city we 

have three main crossings. Two of which have the fire department on 

one side of the highway,; so it is important to be able to keep these 

area's open for fire and life safety. How will people get from the train 

to their final designation?

Amtrak forecasted ridership for the project. In 

their forecast, Amtrak used the service 

characteristics (e.g., number of trains per day, 

stations served) outlined in Chapter 3 of the EIS 

(see Sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.4, and additional 

narrative in Section 4.2.5.1). 

Ridership is expected to increase as more service 

(trips) is added, the reliability increases, and the 

travel time is shortened. 

The design of the improvements is preliminary

and conceptual at this stage. Throughout the 

corridor, new tracks and associated track 

infrastructure will be required; Alternative 1 

would include strategic improvements in areas 

with bottlenecks or known deficiencies. In areas 

where buildings are close to the existing tracks, 

ODOT will consider if rail related improvements 

in those locations are needed, and if there are 

no avoidance options, then the buildings would 

be acquired as per the Uniform Act. 

Any future design and Project development 

would require better definition and additional 

analysis of Project impacts and the development 

of specific mitigation measures. The analyses 

would consider avoidance and minimization of 

impacts on sensitive environmental resources, 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 4 4

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

the built environment, and factors including 

provision of emergency services. 

I-48 Lou Favreau Note: Comment form was blank; Mr. Favreau reported that he heard 

about the open house and public hearing from a friend. 

Thank you for participating in the public hearing 

for the Project. 

I-49 James Feldmann Table ES-1, Goal 1: Include comparison of on-time performance. Alt 1 

& 2 have a shorter trip time, but the equally, if not more important, 

measure is the presumed improvement for on-time 

performance/reliability. The $1B-5B cost should reflect the significant 

improvements to reliability, which is key to improving passenger rail 

mobility, especially when considering that the alternative (driving) has 

increasingly variable travel times (low on-time 

performance/reliability). Driving from Portland-Eugene may have a 

shorter trip time now, but reliability continues to decline--something 

that Alt 1 & 2 avoids. 

Table ES-1, Goal 1: Include trips per day--another important 

consideration for improved passenger rail mobility/accessibility. Page 

3-1 indicates Alt 1 & 2 both have 6+1 trips/day.

Table ES-1, Goal 3: Include net cost/benefits, not just capital cost

(positives, not just negatives). For example, the action alternatives

include running fewer buses, which lowers expenses. Traffic

congestion also has a cost. Include the savings of shorter trip times

and arriving sooner under each action alternative.

3.2.3 (page 3-23): Document doesn't clearly explain why Alternative 2

is limited to 6+1 trips/day. Given the amount of new track without

freight conflicts, it would appear that the max trips/day would be

higher for Alternative 2.

Reliability is discussed in Section 4.2.5.1 of the 

DEIS; reliability would be expected to improve 

under either Build Alternative, and would 

reasonably be expected to be better on 

Alternative 2 between Springfield and Oregon 

City (north of Oregon City, Alternative 2 would 

follow the same alignment as Alternative 2). 

The scoping process assumed that each corridor 

concept would operate six daily passenger rail 

round trips between Eugene/Springfield and 

Portland, Oregon, which would make the 

Oregon service consistent with Washington’s 

current service between Portland and Seattle. 

The commenter is correct, it is possible that 

additional trips on the planned Alternative 2 

infrastructure could be accommodated. These 

would require additional equipment 

investments (more trains) and an increased 

investment in operations and maintenance. 

A full cost-benefit analysis was not developed 

for this Tier 1 EIS. ODOT and FRA have prepared

a Service Development Plan concurrently with 

the FEIS. The Service Development Plan 

addresses the cost/benefit of the project.

I-50 Gary Ferrington I prefer alternative 1 that keeps stations central to the cities served. 

Saving a few minutes with alternative 2 is not cost effective and I 

believe fewer people would use it.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-51 Brynn FitzClemen With either train service improvement, I would like to see access to 

Corvallis. I am currently a commuting student from Eugene and will 

likely continue to do so for the next 5-6 years. Train service would 

ODOT and FRA eliminated the preliminary 

alternative that would directly serve Corvallis 

from further consideration, because it increased 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 4 5

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

allow students from other areas to access Oregon State University and 

reduce parking and traffic issues.

travel time between Eugene and Portland and 

reduced ridership as result of the increased 

travel time. However, the Tier 1decision does 

not preclude potential future enhanced 

connections to Corvallis. 

I-52 Glenda Fleming I appreciate the effort ODOT has put into this project, and for making 

the draft EIS, alternatives, maps, and comparison charts available 

online. The information was clear and easily understandable.

1. Please continue to include the Albany station in the plan.

2. I agree that Alternative 1 would provide the most impact for the

least cost and environmental damage.

3. My concern is that continuing to share the rails with freight will

continue to cause trains to run late, discouraging riders. Has ODOT

considered ways to mitigate this problem? (Even if not, I still support

Alternative 1 because it seems more likely to be implemented and

would impact the environment less severely.)

Thank you again,

Glenda

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been identified as the Preferred Alternative and 

includes plans to service the five stations 

currently on the Amtrak Cascades route 

(Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City and 

Portland). One of the objectives of this Project is 

to improve reliability of the passenger service. 

Reliability will be improved when rail 

infrastructure is added to the system, removing 

bottlenecks, conflicts with freight rail traffic and 

reducing the potential for delay. While more 

detailed engineering work is needed and will be 

conducted in future project development, FRA 

and ODOT developed the Preferred Alternative 

to operate with more frequency, higher speed, 

and greater reliability than the existing Cascades 

service; these improvements will attract more 

riders as described in the DEIS. The Preferred 

Alternative would share track with freight trains, 

and the operational analysis resulted in 

additional track and technology enhancements 

to increase passenger rail reliability measured as 

on-time performance.

I-53 Reddit user: u/Flyer770 From r/Eugene

The Alternate Two route is the old Oregon Electric, now operated by 

the Portland and Western. They don't have nearly the traffic levels 

that the Union Pacific has and would appreciate the upgrades to their 

line. They also have an agreement with Trimet to allow commute rail 

service into Portland, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for them. The 

UP would also like to get Amtrak off their lines as well.

Only a portion of the Alternative 2 alignment—

between Keizer and Wilsonville—would use the 

former Oregon Electric line. The agreement 

between PNWR and TriMet covers the portion 

of PNWR that TriMet's Westside Express Service 

(WES) commuter rail service operates upon—

between Wilsonville and Tigard (WES trains 

begin and end their runs at the Beaverton 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 4 6

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Transit Center). Alternative 2 would require a 

new operating agreement with associated 

financial commitments between ODOT and 

PNWR.

I-54 Gerald Fox Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 

important study. 

Firstly I have been very disappointed in how long (10 years?) this issue 

has been studied, and such cost (10 million?). Washington State was 

able to do their studies in a couple years, and are now well along with 

implementing it. A lot of the time and budget was spent studying 

impractical options that suggests very poor scoping at the start of your 

work. 

Fortunately the DEIS recommends the only practical solution for 

upgrading passenger service by working with Union Pacific to 

incrementally upgrade their railroad to increase capacity and provide 

paths for more passenger trains. 

This is the only way to "grow the business" which is the only way to 

reach a point where further improvements in passenger rail will ever 

become feasible. 

The north end of Alternative 2 is really weird. It makes no sense to 

build a new passenger rail line where curvature restricts speed to 

about 80 mph, and is out of direction to boot. Fortunately you are 

recommending against this foolish concept. 

There are some important ideas which have far reaching 

consequences:

1. Work with UP to upgrade their line incrementally as funds become

available, to increase capacity and speed for passenger and freight.

This is already in process in Washington State. A long term prospect is

that a new high speed rail line may be built that will remove many

passenger trains from UP, leaving UP with an upgraded line, to their

great benefit.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

Alternative 1 is an important step toward 

building ridership as the population increases 

and can serve as the backbone of a passenger 

rail network.

The EIS process was developed to take a wide, 

careful look at options, from scoping to 

alternatives development, to the identification 

of the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS. ODOT 

and FRA have worked diligently to develop a 

path forward that will allow the state to make 

phased investments in passenger rail, subject to 

funding availability. 

Chapter 6 of the DEIS describes next steps for 

the State in supporting and expanding passenger 

rail service between Eugene and Portland.

Regarding the three numbered points: 

1. ODOT, through its State Rail Planning efforts,

has worked with the railroads to identify areas

for targeted investments to alleviate existing

bottlenecks as funding becomes available. For

state transportation plans, see

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Pages

/Plans.aspx

2. Prosper Portland, in partnership with ODOT, is

proposing to modernize Portland’s Union Station

to meet current code standards, as well as to

meet future (year 2035) passenger rail demand

based on the Washington State Department of

Transportation’s (WSDOT) Long Range Plan for

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 4 7

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

2. The DEIS recommends Union Station continues as Portland's main

rail station. There have been suggestions to move this station function

to their Airport, or the Rose Quarter, which in my opinion are seriously

flawed. Why build a rail line that could get to Seattle in 1.5 hours, and

impose a transfer and a half hour ride to downtown. Not to mention

the cost and impracticality of phasing this into the existing operation.

Union Station is in exactly the right place, and serious planning is

needed to make sure that by the time it needs to expand, not all the

space is consumed by high rises. Regrettably the DEIS does not look at

future Union Station needs. For instance, there probably needs to be a

large passenger concourse above the tracks, with elevators and

escalators to each platform. There probably needs to be an alternative

access to the station from Naito Blvd, for auto and taxi access.

Connection in the concourse. Etc. This is what we ought to have got

out of this study!

3. There needs to be a long range plan for the upgrading the tracks

along the east side of the river. As train traffic grows, and the area

develops, friction will increase. It appears feasible to put the tracks

below grade, as was done in Reno, but the geometry is tight, and new

development is fast closing in on this option. But this is also the kind of

issue this study should eb addressing. What a disappointment.

All in all, the conclusions are fine, but the cost and delays reaching 

them is scandalous. 

Let’s hope the next stage goes faster, before climate change 

overwhelms all of us. 

Amtrak Cascades and the Amtrak ridership 

forecasting developed for the Oregon Corridor 

Investment Plan. Preliminary design work for the 

proposed station project is receiving federal 

grant funds from the FRA for NEPA analysis and 

preliminary engineering; construction of the 

proposed improvements is currently unfunded. 

Prosper Portland and ODOT are preparing an 

evaluation of the proposed changes to the 

building and tracks to assess the potential 

impacts of the proposed project to the human 

and natural environment.

3. Alternative 2 considered a tunnel on the

central eastside of Portland. The tunnel was

conceptualized to be used exclusively for

passenger rail, due to the grades necessary to

cross the river and reach Union Station. The

grades to tunnel through east Portland and

come to grade to cross the Willamette River and

meet Union Station are too steep for freight rail.

I-55 Brian Fuller Hello,

I support the preferred alternative or alternative 1. Using the existing 

right of way would lessen potential environmental impacts. With 

congestion on I-5 increasing daily the need for a rail alternative is 

becoming paramount. Expanding rail service from Eugene to Portland 

will lessen highway traffic and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 4 8

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Thanks

I-56 Li Fuxin

Assistant Professor

Oregon State University

Dear ODOT,

I appreciate the prudence and thoroughness in the draft EIS for the 

corridor. It is true that the ridership potentials won't support highspeed rail, and hence usually maintaining the sharing of the right-ofway with freight line is usually a prudent approach. However, the 

problem of the preferred Alternative 1 is that it is a bit too slow: 2:20 

is not faster at all than BoltBus, and significantly slower than driving. 

This would likely not gain the amount of ridership as predicted in the 

draft EIS. I would like to inquire about 2 options that involve minimal 

additional cost and may be potentially significantly beneficial in 

reducing the time to traverse this corridor to 1:55, which is what I 

believe a more competitive speed. 

1) What are the chances to negotiate, and chime in some funds with

UP to upgrade the existing tracks to class 5/class 6? Upgrading existing

tracks to class 5 (90 mph) would likely shave about 15 minutes of trip

time which would make alternative 1 perform closer to alternative 2.

Now I know that there is research that doing so alone as a freight

railroad company is not cost effective in general, but what if ODOT can

chime in half of the funding for this upgrade? How much would it

cost? Can we make this a goal?

2) Although in general I agree improving the current alignment will be

cheaper than alternative 2, I was wondering whether we can just take

alternative 2 in the small segment between south Salem (where the 2

alignments start to differ) and Millersburg (where the 2 alignments

meet again). Building the roughly 13-14 miles of track at this area

according to alignment 2 at a maximal 110mph speed can shave 4-5

minutes on the trip time, and it's the part of alignment 2 that I find the

most cost effective (no new stations, minimal new crossings). What

would the price tag for just building this 13-14 miles of track according

to Alignment 2 instead of making those track improvements in

Alignment 1?

The ridership forecasts for the Preferred 

Alternative account for BoltBus and other 

intercity travel services and modes. 

In response to the commenter's numbered 

comments:

1. The Preferred Alternative incorporates track

upgrades that would accommodate intercity

passenger trains traveling 90 mph or higher. The

maximum 79 mph operating speed is required

by the host freight railroad, Union Pacific

Railroad (UPRR). While the proposed Project

would result in rail infrastructure improvements

that would support and benefit freight railroad

operations and service, the current Project

sponsors are federal and state agencies (Federal

Railroad Administration [FRA] and Oregon

Department of Transportation [ODOT]), and

funding for Project implementation would come

from public funding sources.

2. The suggested alignment would parallel

present-day I-5 from south of the Salem airport

to where I-5 and the UPRR intersect north of

Millersburg. This concept was assessed during

alternatives development. Grades would be a

significant challenge as I-5 is approximately

5 percent on the southern side of the Salem

Hills. To maintain a reasonable grade, tunneling

would be needed in this section, and would

bring significant cost to the project compared to

an above-grade route.

Regarding the track to bypass Junction City; that 

concept could be carried forward as ODOT 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 4 9

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

My point is, although in general we should focus on the cost effective 

approach of Alignment 1, we probably could also achieve the 

performance of alignment 2 with a relatively small increase of cost. I 

believe the aforementioned changes would be the most cost effective 

way to achieve the 2-hour trip time and I wonder what ODOT thinks 

about it.

On a similar note, I would also like to suggest a roughly 4 miles of track 

that would bypass Junction City (a straight route that starts from the 

Willamette river (after Harrisburg bridge) to Alpine Lumber Yard , 

which could be the similar kind of small improvement that has major 

benefits (such as eliminating 7-8 at-grade crossings). I think with these 

improvements on Alignment 1 Oregon can have passenger rail 

competitive with driving without paying the price tag of Alignment 2.

Love to see what you think about it. Thanks.

considers phased investments in the passenger 

rail system. 

I-57 Greg Gardner I support the Oregon Passenger Rail project and would prefer to see 

option 2 utilized to free up freight rail lines and to help create a new 

path for modern transportation. I would also support an all electric rail 

system with solar installations along the entire route. 

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-58 Steven Gibson I love the idea that we are trying to take cars off of I-5 and put people 

on trains. Imagine a UofO special for game days. I don't know that we 

need to spend what it takes to get a high speed rail up and going, but 

having priority over freight would be a good start if the existing rails 

can be used. 

ODOT and Amtrak have explored promoting the 

Amtrak Cascades for travel to and from 

University of Oregon home games. The 

challenge faced is that the kick-off time is not 

announced in time sufficient to make 

adjustments to the schedule.

Because passenger and freight trains operate on 

the same track owned by Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR, the host railroad) passenger rail's ontime performance often depends on how UPRR 

handles dispatching passenger trains. Priority 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 5 0

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

dispatching of Amtrak trains operating on 

shared tracks remains established federal law.

I-59 William Gifford Verbal testimony:

I live in Oregon City. I'm deeply involved in the community, 

Government Economic Affairs Committee for the Chamber of 

Commerce. I'm a founding director for the Oregon City Business 

Alliance, and very concerned about the economic conditions of our 

community.

I know that our train station is under- utilized. I attended a meeting 

last summer and I think there were some representatives from ODOT 

there, and I was pretty distressed that the direction that they had 

been given by the legislature, apparently, was that more priority 

should be given to tourism travel, to the detriment of commuter 

travel. That doesn't sit well with me because people need to be able to 

get to their jobs. Employers need their employees to be able to move 

around easily.

The other important part of commuter traffic is that it's a steady 

stream. If people are using rail service to commute, it's likely that 

they'll be doing it every day, every workday. Whereas, to put the 

emphasis on tourism travel, that's occasional traffic. You don't go from 

Portland to Salem every day as a tourist. But if you were living in 

Salem working in Portland, you could very well be taking the train 

every day. And that's to me just a skewed priority that so much focus 

should be given -- and I contend that a lot of what's being needed to 

improve rail service could be accomplished by better scheduling, by 

more frequent trains. Not necessarily faster trains, just have 

something reliable and frequent. Even more important than fast.

Of course, people don't want to waste their time, but frankly, time 

spent on the train, you can be doing a lot of other things that you can't 

do in your car or other means of transportation.

So I would encourage two things. One is refocus on commuter traffic 

In addition to providing a viable intercity travel 

choice for visitors to Oregon and the Pacific 

Northwest, the OPR Project Purpose and Need 

Statement also addresses travel for local and 

regional residents, including people who could 

use intercity passenger rail for business travel. 

Increasing the frequency will help people travel 

to and from work.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 5 1

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

with an emphasis on reliability and frequency. What's the other thing? 

I think that's about it. Was that clear?

I-60 Al Good

Consultant at Oregon Fire 

Equip Dist.

Amtrak Cascades. With the upcoming move of Greyhound from 

Eugene to the LTD Park & Ride in Springfield I suggest a study of using 

that area as the terminus of the south end of the Cascades Route. 

There is a wye right in that area to allow turnarounds and sidings for 

overnight trains.

The Project considered a rail terminus in 

Springfield as part of Alternative 2, but the 

Eugene station is currently located in a 

downtown core that is more convenient and 

accessible to more people and would attract 

more passengers. Currently, local transit services 

provide connections between the Eugene train 

station and destinations in Eugene and 

Springfield. 

I-61 Marci Gordon I have long advocated for an alternative like the Alternative #2 which 

would have a dedicated passenger rail line between Eugene and 

Portland. I understand the greater environmental impact and hugely 

greater cost of a "new" build. For future generations this seems like a 

good investment, though finding the funds in our current political 

climate might be difficult. I don't believe that the new stations would 

be a disservice to the "central" cities. In the cities listed, we are small 

geographically and the distances to a new station would be only a few 

miles. Of course, it helps to have good public transit connections to 

the Amtrak stations wherever they are located. 

I would support Alternative 1 as a "better than nothing" choice. I very 

much miss the extra Cascades trains that used to run between Eugene 

and Portland and made day trips feasible. I'm glad the Amtrak buses 

exist and give greater flexibility, but it would be great to someday

have a fast train between Oregon's two main cities (and Salem).

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-62 Elizabeth Graser Lindsey I am concerned that the lack of full double railing will restrict 

Alternative 1 from having full desired amounts of Amtrak/passenger 

rail in terms of frequency (so it is not restricted by freight). Many more 

trips are needed to assist commutes and travel which is often time 

sensitive for arrival and departures. I am supportive of Alternative 1 

otherwise. 

The OPR Project considered a preliminary 

alternative that would have double-tracked the 

existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and 

Amtrak alignment (added an additional mainline 

track for the entire route). Operational analysis 

showed that double-tracking would not be 

necessary to maintain performance levels. Thus, 

ODOT refined this preliminary alternative into 

Alternative 1, adding track in select areas to 

accommodate four additional intercity 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 5 2

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

passenger train round trips. This refinement 

resulted in substantially less impacts to the built 

and natural environment and at a much lower 

cost. Because passenger and freight trains 

operate on the same track owned by UPRR (the 

host railroad) passenger rail's on-time 

performance often depends on how UPRR 

handles dispatching passenger trains. Priority 

dispatching of Amtrak trains operating on 

shared tracks remains established federal law.

I-63 Reddit user: 

u/GraytoGreen

From r/SALEM

This would be a fantastic investment in the valley infrastructure and 

city.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-64 Ron Green Alternative 1 is the obvious choice because of the phase-ability and 

affordability. However, getting Union Pacific to cooperate on dispatch 

would require acquisition of the infrastructure, which would itself 

require a large public relations campaign. 

Because passenger and freight trains operate on 

the same track owned by Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR, the host railroad) passenger rail's ontime performance often depends on how UPRR 

handles dispatching passenger trains. Priority 

dispatching of Amtrak trains operating on 

shared tracks remains established federal law. 

I-65 Bob Greenwade Of these possibilities, I agree fully with the recommendation to use

Alternative 1. It's the ideal service plan all around.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-66 Dean Hale Alternative 2 is clearly preferred. We need to improve rail 

infrastructure locally and nationally. I-5 is getting clogged as is metro 

Eugene. Travel times between Eugene and Portland by vehicle are 

climbing and often unreliable. This is a golden opportunity for 

improvement.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project' goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-67 Brian Hall What I see lacking in the current plan is decreasing the current trip 

time. I was a frequent user of the service until the morning departure 

south time change made commuting to work not viable. While I 

While more detailed engineering work is needed

and will be conducted in future Project

development, FRA and ODOT developed the 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 5 3

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

recognize that there is not enough money available to upgrade the 

entire line to 110 mph standards with the current budget. However it 

is enough to double track it along the entirety of the route. The 

current line could then be upgraded on shorter segments Canby to 

Woodburn, Woodburn to Keizer to 110 mph standards because there 

are fewer road crossings. This could also be done in comparable areas 

between Salem and Eugene. The bottom line is even with the 

worsening traffic on interstate 5 people won’t ride the train because it 

doesn’t run frequently enough and is usually faster to drive. 

Decreasing the trip time and increasing the trip frequency is the only 

way to get cars off the road.

Preferred Alternative to operate with more 

frequency, higher speed, and greater reliability 

than the existing Cascades service; therefore, 

the Preferred Alternative will attract more riders 

as described in the DEIS. The Preferred 

Alternative would continue share track with 

freight trains, and the operational analysis 

resulted in additional track, track infrastructure

and technology enhancements to increase 

passenger rail reliability measured as on-time 

performance.

As noted in the EIS, passenger train speeds over 

the route between Portland and Eugene 

currently only average 42 mph. However, recent 

improvements have increased the miles of track 

where passenger trains can operate at speeds of 

up to 79 mph from 7 miles to almost 34 miles 

between Eugene and Albany, which may result 

in an increase in average speeds. Alternative 1 

would make further improvements to increase 

allowed speeds. Reasons for the current slow 

average speed include, but are not limited to, 

track condition and geometry, speed restrictions 

through heavily populated areas, the type of 

grade crossing protection, the amount of singletrack segments and accommodation for freight 

traffic.

I-68 Joshua Kane Halsted Yet, no plan to connect Corvallis. AGAIN. Thank you for your comment. During the initial 

scoping, screening, and evaluation of the 

concepts and alternatives, routes that included 

rail line to Corvallis were eliminated from 

further consideration as part of the OPR Project, 

because they reduced ridership as result of the 

increased travel time, along with impact on cost. 

However, future connections to Corvallis are not 

precluded. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 5 4

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I-69 Jonathan Harnish, 

Harnish Properties

Please don’t waste public funds (taxpayer money) on a project which 

would not find its way into the top 100 of priorities for the State of 

Oregon or anyone one of its struggling communities. A state which 

cannot pay its debt, fund its public employee pensions, house its 

homeless, feed the hungry or adequately educate its children should 

not spend a single cent on studying or implementing this wasteful and 

dreadfully wrong use of public funds.

With the publication of this FEIS and FRA's 

pending Record of Decision, ODOT will be able 

to move forward with implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative, which will include 

incremental improvements of service on the 

existing route. Funding for the improvements 

will need to compete with other projects for 

priority. 

I-70 Michael Hashizume Alternative 2 looks much more preferable to me. We need to invest in 

passenger rail in this state to keep up with other west coast states and 

as a weapon to fight against climate change.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-71 Tim Hayden I believe that option #1 is the most cost effective way to increase 

ridership on the segment between Eugene and Portland.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-72 Douglas Hayner My approach from mere overview of this project. My bias toward 

common sense, considering mainly cost and efficiency. Alternative 1 

appears to be a more practical choice since its cost is 1/4th that of 

Alternative 2. The slightly faster trip time of Alternative 2 Portland to 

Eugene of 18 minutes seems trivial to the substantial deficiency in 

cost. Also, the lower cost of Alternative 1 would therefore very likely 

include a lower passenger fare compared to Alternative 2, thereby 

encouraging more ridership. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-73 Norbert Heins what about using the Oregon electric line The Oregon Electric Line was considered during 

the screening and evaluation phase of the 

Project. It was part of the “Purple” corridor 

concept described in Section 2.2.1 of the EIS. 

The Purple concept would generally consist of 

new mainline track parallel to the existing 

freight rail line historically known as the Oregon 

Electric Railway (OER), which is currently 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 5 5

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

operated by Portland and Western Railroad 

(PNWR). 

The northern portion of the OER from Salem to 

Wilsonville was incorporated into Alternative 2. 

The Eugene-Salem segment of the OER was 

screened out based on the route and condition 

of the track and because the OER line would 

have required bypassing existing stations in 

Salem and Albany. Significant improvements 

would have been necessary to upgrade track 

and signals to attain operating speeds and 

capacities already in place on the Preferred 

Alternative. 

I-74 Kelly Hoell As shown on the previous page, I support Alternative 1. With higher 

ridership expected and significantly lower cost it seems to make more 

sense. I ride the train and I support passenger rail travel and would 

love to see a high-speed train but the 15 min or so of travel time 

savings associated with Alternative 2 doesn't seem to justify the 3 fold 

increase in cost. As someone concerned about climate change, I think 

we need to increase ridership, and reliability. I'm concerned about the 

amount of new construction in Alternative 2 and the loss of Eugene 

Station.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-75 Dan Hoffman I was interested in this project until I saw how long it was taking. It is 

really disappointing how long it took for this Draft EIS to be prepared. I 

understand there is bureaucracy with the FRA, but due to the delay, 

the Draft EIS is riddled with outdated data that makes the comparison 

of alternatives rather useless. For example, the Purpose and Need 

uses data from 2011 and 2012! Why was this not updated? ODOT 

could easily access this information, including its own ridership data.

I would also like to note that the official name is BNSF Railway, it is 

NOT Burlington Northern Santa Fe. It is officially BNSF Railway. The 

fact that ODOT Rail Division does not know this is disturbing.

Thank you for the comment. The underlying 

data and trends identified in the DEIS are still 

valid and thus retained in the FEIS. With the 

identification of the Preferred Alternative and 

the completion of the Record of Decision, ODOT 

will be able to pursue improvements on the 

existing alignment to support new service. 

ODOT was aware of the name change but made 

an error in the document. The DEIS has been 

corrected on pages ES-1 and 1-1 to reflect the 

current name of the BNSF Railway. This error has 

been recorded in the FEIS/ROD in Table 2-2. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 5 6

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I-76 Darcey Howard

Dir. Marketing

Coconut Bliss

Having moved back here from the East coast where train service to 

other cities, states, etc. is the norm for commuting and travel it calls to 

question; "just how environmentally aware are we here in Oregon?"

The reduction overall to roads, congestion, financial feasibility on 

families to not own a car, and environmental impacts make having 

access to increased schedules and routes a significant benefit. Option 

2 would be my preference but any increase in frequency from 

Eugene/Springfield to Portland would be ideal. At this point it's either 

5:30 am or 2:30 pm if I'm not mistaken. 

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with implementation of the Preferred 

Alternative, which will include incremental 

improvements of service on the existing route. 

I-77 Nick Howland I agree with the choice of Alternative 1. 

I will be looking for information on economic development near 

stations (as we hear in discussion of major transit projects). 

Also interested in the impact of aging population on traffic. 

Thank you for your comment. Economic 

development near stations is addressed in the 

DEIS in Section 4.5.5. Regarding research of the 

aging population on traffic, that topic is outside 

of the scope of the EIS. Research on aging and 

transportation is supported by ODOT; for 

example, see work completed by the Institute on 

Aging and the Center for Transportation Studies 

at Portland State University. 

https://www.pdx.edu/ioa/home

I-78 Kent Hutchens I attended last nights' DEIS meeting in Eugene and I fully agree with 

the Alternative 1 proposal. Spending more than 4 billion to construct a 

new line and save only a few minutes' travel time makes no sense to 

me. If existing track is improved, more sidings constructed, and 

possibly some existing sidings connected, passenger/freight 

interference could be greatly lessened. All stations along the existing 

route have been upgraded/refurbished in the last few years and 

abandoning them to build others on a new line is wasteful. I think 

getting Union Pacific to agree will be very difficult, as well as finding 

funding for the project. This, however, should be pursued as traffic on 

I-5 is worsening exponentially and will continue to do so. Another

issue that will need to be addressed is how to convince residents of

Central and Eastern Oregon that this is necessary, despite them not

having close access to the corridor; plus those over here who don't

believe in the Amtrak subsidy. Please press on and continue your

efforts!

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been identified as the Preferred Alternative. 

Among its other advantages, the Preferred 

Alternative will benefit from previous 

investments in the existing stations and station 

areas.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 5 7

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I-79 Ed Immel I'm Bob's predecessor. I'm a state rail planner. So I've been through 

three passenger rail plans, six freight rail plans, three commuter rails 

plans.

Some of these things -- there were some studies that were not -- I 

didn't see in the CD. But some of these other studies that we did, we 

eliminated the Oregon Electric Alignment which took probably took 10 

years to do that. We had done it in 1994 already. The double track 

inside -- the incremental one, we came up with 1.3 billion. The other 

thing is the capacity analysis in the Portland area as part of the 

Columbia River crossing, we did rail from Eugene to Tacoma and from 

Portland to Pasco, plus the commuter rail study.

Now, what's going to happen is everybody that was involved in the 

commuter rail study, there's only three of us that still survive. And so 

somebody is going to come in and we will do another commuter rail 

study. They explained to us kind of why there's lower ridership. Also 

there's nothing in here about impacts of positive train control, PTC, 

which is just being implemented, can have some major impacts on 

how we operate trains, spacing trains, equipment that's available.

Also we're looking at nitrogen fuel cell powered trains, cutting edge 

technology whose only by-product is water. So there's no fumes. They 

just installed one in regular service in Germany. So it's coming. This 

takes a while. The other technology is batteries. Siemens Company is 

the nitrogen Bombardier with the battery.

We also did an alignment study, like up here, was done by the 

Australians. I never saw any mention of that. It's a little bit different 

but it -- it was technology at that time that was not available, probably 

20 years ago. Washington has studied -- a high-speed rail study is 

leading to another one. The difference being at least the original one, 

Portland airport is the terminus, not Union station. Because Union --

PDX has got parking, rental cars, public transit. I don't know where it's 

going to go, the Washington one. So this is critical that we don't end 

up going to Portland and Washington goes to the airport.

This other one -- the improvements negotiating with Union Pacific, we 

Thank you for your comments and valuable 

context from earlier state rail planning efforts. 

The Project team worked to evaluate previous 

options and concepts, with special focus on that 

effort during Project scoping. 

The PNWRC has been the subject of intercity 

passenger rail planning, development, and 

operation for more than 30 years. The PNWRC is 

one of 11 Federally designated high-speed rail 

corridors in the United States. FRA designated 

this passenger rail corridor on October 20, 1992, 

as one of five original corridors called for in the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

of 1991.

ODOT applied for funding for rail planning 

through the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

Program, which the USDOT selected to receive 

funding through a cooperative agreement to 

develop a Passenger Rail Corridor Investment 

Plan (CIP) for the Oregon segment of the 

PNWRC. Together, the Tier 1 EIS and SDP 

complete the CIP. This CIP is the foundation for 

future Project development, including 

engineering design, project-level environmental 

reviews, environmental permitting, and 

construction. The intent of the OPR CIP is to 

provide sufficient information to support future 

FRA, State of Oregon, local government, and 

private sector decisions to fund investments in 

the Oregon segment of the PNWRC. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 5 8

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

did that with Pacific, that's how we got the trains we have now. They 

need to start now. Time is contentious. The other one is the positive 

train control that we need to follow that. As an example, Trimet 

Portland, the commuter rail project, already has the PTC. It's one of 

the few that's been improved, and because of that, we can probably 

use noncompliant vehicles. Right now they're massive. They're huge. 

The new ones -- they've tacked on an order for stude (ph) cars.

They're diesel multiple unit, DMU. And also -- there's also -- any state 

laws prohibit ODOT from getting federal, state, and local funds. Some 

of the Connect Oregon money was not applicable to ODOT. And for 

the rail freight studies that they did, they actually had to go to 

legislature and change the law. So this is one of those things, is there 

something hiding out there that they're going to say, oh, we can't --

we can't do this. It's an Oregon state law.

The other one is there any mode of power that might be more 

appropriate for Oregon. We have looked at this with DMUs, diesel 

multiple units. And the nice thing about that we can come out of 

Portland with three cars, get to Albany and have the last car go to 

Corvallis, which the rest of the train goes to Eugene. In fact, we had a 

Danish train here which is exactly -- it's exactly what we did was drop 

the car at Albany and went over -- this isn't just -- we really did it and 

people really rode on it. So you can have this outline.

I-80 Vicki Jean, Train 

Mechanic, Hitachi

I am currently working as a mechanic in production of the Honolulu 

Mass Transit trains in San Francisco Bay area site. I will be relocating to 

the Salem Oregon area and would like to know of any available jobs in 

your Rail project. Resume upon request. Thank you ,Vicki

This comment is beyond the scope of the DEIS. 

Please see the state's job listing page 

https://www.oregon.gov/jobs/Pages/index.aspx 

for employment opportunities. 

I-81 Kay B. Johnson

Norman Patrick Johnson

The purpose of this e-mail is to comment on the Oregon Passenger 

Rail proposals for DEIS Alternatives. 

We respectfully recommend that the Commission follow Alternative 

One (1) in order to fully utilize and improve the existing Amtrak 

Cascades rail system. It is the more efficient of the two systems 

proposed. Improving this existing system will capitalize on the 

considerable investments already made by both private enterprise and 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 5 9

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

the federal government and will, as a result, save valuable Oregon 

resources and improve transportation for everyone in the West and 

Northwest, not only passengers, but also freight clients. 

As ordinary taxpayers and citizens, we appreciate your efforts to 

improve the quality of life for Oregonians, and especially for rail clients

and customers, and we thank you very much for your attention to this 

letter.

I-82 Noel Johnson Please aim higher! It is tough to get the public excited about (let alone 

interested in funding) a system that will continue to take 2 hours to 

get to Eugene. Please just copy the many cities and nations who show 

us that if you build high-speed systems that are way faster than caralternatives, you can induce demand and realize lower carbon, more 

vibrant cities and towns via smart-growth land use and development 

practices. This project is the backbone to such a future vision, but it 

needs to be truly fast!

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a rail 

network. 

I-83 David Jorling I am a high speed rail advocate, but have long realized that Americans 

"don't get it" when it comes to high speed rail, and probably never 

will. Alternatives 1 and 2 are not High Speed Rail. Nor are they even 

"Higher Speed Rail" in any meaningful sense. In 1950, Southern 

Pacific's Shasta Daylight too 2 hours and 25 minutes to go between 

Portland and Eugene. In Alternative 1, which I understand to be the 

preferred alternative, will only beat that time by 5 minutes at a cost 

of anywhere from 870 million to over 1 billion. This is a colossal waste 

of money. If this money "needs to be spent" it would be better to use 

it to build an exclusive high speed rail line between Portland and 

Vancouver as part of a true high speed rail line between Portland and 

Seattle. Mark me down as advocating for the no-build alternative.

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail —generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a 

passenger rail network. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 6 0

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I-84 Harvey Kahler An 18-unit Talgo 8 train would have 438 seats (396c/42b) in a 

"Cascade" configuration for through service to Seattle or Vancouver 

and still be capable of 110 mph speeds with a single Siemes Charger 

locomotive based on estimates of weights. A commuter configuration 

for Portland is possible with 546 seats without business class, food 

service, or baggage. 

Half-hour rush-hour frequencies would represent a half-lane of 

capacity on I-5; and more frequent service would divert more demand, 

improve safety and air quality, and provide more affordable 

commuting. AAA estimated the average cost of commuting by auto to 

be $0.608 a mile in 2013. Rail fares are much lower than that; and 

public support avoids the cost of adding often disruptive highway 

capacity in urban and environmentally sensitive areas.

I am a retired transportation planner with a career in Illinois and 

Indiana and interested in rail passenger services but with no affiliation 

with Talgo. Talgos are suitable for Cascade service; and it makes some 

sense to me that compatible equipment would be acquired for 

expanded fast, if not high-speed, service in Oregon. Should 

Washington build a dedicated high-speed line, Talgos would offer 

interoperability for extended service through Oregon. More Talgos 

would be "off-the-shelf" and not require a waiver under revised 

regulations. Choosing the current Amtrak route seems to be the more 

pragmatic alternative since there seems to be no practical solution to 

rejoin the tracks at Oregon City from I-5. Little improvement in 

alignment for higher-speed service would be gained; but this may be 

offset by public crossing improvement costs that were substantial for 

the Chicago-Saint Louis corridor. The current alignment curvature is 

mitigated by Talgo passive tilt-suspension trains.

Thank you for your comments. 

Regarding train technology, ODOT will consider 

different types and makers of equipment as the 

need for new and replacement equipment 

occurs. Section 3.2.5 of the DEIS discusses the 

potential types of passenger train technology for 

the Oregon service analyzed in the Tier 1 EIS. 

Alternative 1 has been selected as the Preferred 

Alternative. The OPR Project Tier 1 EIS is the first 

of two potential environmental review tiers. If a 

Build Alternative is selected in the Tier 1 Record 

of Decision (ROD), subsequent Tier 2 

environmental reviews would evaluate more 

detailed, site-specific proposals implementing 

the alternative selected in the Tier 1 ROD. 

Chapter 6 of the FEIS describes next steps for 

the State in supporting and expanding passenger 

rail service between Eugene and Portland. 

I-85 Kristen Kalbrener MS. 

MA. CMM

Program Manager, Global 

Education Oregon

Academy Coach, NAFSA 

Region I

Thank you for requesting comments!

Your materials are very nicely assembled and organized in a way that 

makes it really feasible for those of us in the public to review, 

comprehend and comment. Kudos for that!

I am a regular Amtrak user between Eugene and Tacoma – at least 

Thank you for your comments. ODOT and 

Amtrak continuously strive for providing 

intercity passenger rail service that meets 

customer needs and expectations, and value 

your comments on problems you have 

experienced. Alternative 1 has been selected as 

the Preferred Alternative. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 6 1

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

several times per year. I have an interest in the infrastructure as well 

as in the quality of service. 

First on service because I think that is especially critical to maintaining 

a positive image and public support for maintaining/upgrading rail 

service in the US. Your people are friendly and personable, both in the 

stations and on the trains. Maintenance is sorely lacking – often I find 

on the trains non-working restrooms, unclean restrooms etc. The 

website and interface with frequent traveler site are antiquated and 

often frustrating in trying to use. (I recently tried to change a one-way 

to a roundtrip and it would neither give me the opportunity to change, 

add-to or even easily start an additional reservation because of having 

one in the system already. Great waste of time and goodwill of the 

passenger.) Delayed trains/cancellations are handled poorly in terms 

of facilitating backup plans via bus etc. Last time it happened to me, 

one portion was supposedly no backup plan ----- just not acceptable.

Back to track planning:

I vote for Alternative One. I like the emphasis on track and safety 

upgrades. Going through central cities to facilitate higher ridership 

(remember to provide easy linkage to city buses in each!) Using 

existing stations not only saves money but rejuvenates what in many 

cases are historic building with great character. The environmental 

impact is minimized and I like that there are no right-of-way issues 

with alternative one. (How unfortunate when upgrades require 

moving people off their land/out of their homes!)

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

(from Peter DeFazio’s district 4 in Oregon)

I-86 Tracy Kane Yes, I do.

When Oregon looks to the future, we need to have MUCH better 

services to greater outreach of cities. Presently, we have no service to 

coastal areas or central and Eastern Oregon.

Keeping the original hubs are great, but allowing easy access to rail 

service, faster trains in areas that connect and creating true people 

movers. The Eastern corridor of the United States is a good example.

The Oregon Passenger Rail Project is focused on 

the Oregon portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail 

Corridor (PNWRC), which extends between 

Eugene and Portland and does not include areas 

and communities on the coast or in central or 

eastern Oregon that are situated outside of the 

Willamette Valley.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 6 2

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I-87 Megan Kemple I'm satisfied with the recommended Alternative 1 which follows the 

existing Amtrak Cascades passenger rail route with improvements in 

track, signals and communications. I'm a regular Amtrak rider 

between Portland and Eugene. It is very common that my trains are 

late because of conflicts with freight trains. 

Benefits of Alternative 1: 

I'll be happy to have these improvements and hopefully have them 

sooner than with Alternative 2. I'm happy to have stations based in 

cities. It is important to me at conflicts with freight trains are 

minimized. I hope these improvements can be a priority. 

Concerns about Alternative 2: 

I believe the environmental impacts associated with Alternative 2 

would be significant. I am especially concerned about agricultural 

lands that would impacted, and the environmental impact of raw 

materials needed for new stations and other infrastructure in 

Alternative 2. 

In Summary, I agree with the recommendation to go with Alternative 

1, but hope that conflicts with freight can be adequately addressed 

with this priority.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. The 

Preferred Alternative was developed to include 

rail infrastructure enhancements that would 

reduce delay associated with competing demand 

between freight and passenger trains, and that 

would improve reliability.

I-88 Wonkak Kim It would be great it we could utilize the existing truck and route, 

improve the system, and increase the number of train and running 

frequency.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1, 

which would use the existing Cascades 

alignment, has been selected as the Preferred 

Alternative. 

I-89 Michael Koivula

Springfield, OR

To project managers:

I am more in support of alternative 2 for the future of passenger rail in 

Oregon. The alternative 1 concept keeps the conflicting uses of freight 

and passenger that we are currently dealing with. As we are expecting 

increases in both freight and passenger traffic, the conflicting 

situations, though mitigated somewhat, would be expected to return 

in the future. Dedicated passenger rail is the only way to alleviate 

these conflicts.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 6 3

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

This being said, I am not in favor of the Albany side trip being added. It 

would cause time delay and increase car/ ped/etc conflicts and 

danger. Albany has great access to the I-5 corridor as is. 

The beginning of the route in Springfield is not a good concept, either. 

The addition of the 2 bridges (Main St/South A St south of Island Park 

and a new bridge crossing the Willamette at I-5 and subsequent 

passage through the Eastgate Woodlands) could both easily be 

avoided by locating the origin of the route in North Springfield in the 

new Urban Growth Boundary addition east of I-5 north of the current 

development area used for the Royal Caribbean call center. This area 

is well served by mass transit with the bus rapid transit line, so 

location in downtown Springfield is not needed and cost savings of 

deleting 2 bridges would be significant. 

I also prefer the route getting to Portland area by following 205. 

Avoiding the west hills of Portland is another significant cost savings.

Although the EIS clearly shows more impacts for route 2, I believe that 

mitigation and

environmental improvements and cleanup to habitat could be part of 

route 2 such as to make the long term route 2 project much lesser in 

impact and an actual environmental gain.

Dedicated rail alongside I-5 to me is the way to go. Please do not go 

with the “band aid” approach that is route 2, it is sure to run into the 

same problems that impede this transportation mode today. Let’s let 

freight have its right of way to itself. 

We really need this project. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

I-90 Michael Koivula

Springfield, OR

Again, thanks for the opportunity to comment on passenger rail 

options. 

Again, I support option 2, the I-5 route. 

I forgot to include one additional recommendation that I believe 

would cost significantly less, make the route safer and improve speed. 

Thank you for your comment. Tunnels were 

considered during the scoping and screening 

process. Tunnels were considered where grades 

did not accommodate rail (e.g., through the 

south Salem hills and in the Portland area). The 

screening of the Portland options is described in 

the EIS in Chapter 2. As you noted, trains passing 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 6 4

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

That would be to try as much as possible to tunnel rather than span as 

many of the roadway crossings along I-5. If these crossings are either 

bored or cut and filled to accommodate the rail lines it would 

eliminate the need for multiple bridges and vertical curves in the 

profile of the rail line.

Elimination of the bridges will bring a huge decrease in cost, would 

reduce the distance that sound would travel from the rail lines, 

perhaps allowing for noise elimination barriers to reduce noise from 

both I-5 and the rail lines.

Elimination of the bridges will also bring greater safety to all users of 

the I-5 corridor.

through tunnels would create less noise than 

trains passing over bridges and could have safety 

benefits. The cost of tunnels, however, is 

substantially more than the cost of bridges. For 

example, the unit costs used for this Project

indicated that per mile, the cost of tunnels is 

$120 to 425 million per route mile compared to 

$3 to 8 million per route mile for bridges. 

I-91 Bob Krebs

Retired ODOT Passenger 

Rail Coordinator

3435 Bluff Avenue SE

Salem Or 97302

503-375-2821

Alternative 1 is the best choice for the rail corridor. It provides for 

incremental improvements to existing infrastructure, does not require 

purchasing new right of way and allows for gradual service 

improvements. Alternative 1 provides the best return for the tax 

dollars invested in the corridor.

The problem with the current track alignment between EUG and PDX 

is lack of capacity to handle more freight and passenger trains. This 

should be addressed by adding more PTC protected double track. The 

rural sections of the line would be fairly inexpensive to add track and 

eliminate some road crossing hazards. Alternative 1 addresses this 

need.

To implement the plan a designated state funding source must be 

identified to pay for the infrastructure improvements. ODOT keeps 

waiting for the “fairy godmother” to bless the line with federal 

funding. This hasn’t happened in this century and there has been no 

serious investment in the corridor since before 2005. The restricted 

capacity has prevented any passenger service improvements since 

2000.

State investment in the passenger rail corridor could have several 

benefits.

1.Provide a match for Federal dollars if they become available.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. The 

Preferred Alternative was developed to include 

rail infrastructure enhancements such as

additional track and PTC that would reduce 

delay associated with competing demand 

between freight and passenger trains, and 

improve reliability.

A Federal Record of Decision on the Project will 

allow the State of Oregon to apply for additional 

funding to advance the Project through more 

detailed engineering and construction in 

incremental phases.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 6 5

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

2.Negotiate with the Union Pacific Railroad to apply some or all of the

infrastructure investment to lower costs for passenger trains using the

track.

3.Rail improvements provide frequencies to supplement capacity

restrictions on the I-5 Freeway at a lower cost.

The Oregon Passenger Rail Service has been dormant for almost two 

decades with no additional train frequencies. Alternative 1. if funded, 

would provide the capacity to add more needed service, for both 

freight and passenger.

Alternative 2 is a very costly alignment to raise train speeds. A new 

railroad would have to be built for 12 to 16 trains a day. Not cost 

effective.

Ultra High Speed Trains is not what will attract patrons. They want:

1.Reasonable competitive run times between stations. Not high speed.

2.Reliable on-time performance

3.An attractive fare structure.

4.Clean, modern, comfortable trains with service amenities like food

and drinks.

About 68% of all corridor trips travel through Portland and are more 

than 100 miles in length. To maximize ridership all trains should go 

beyond Portland or have a tight connection for a continuing journey.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EIS which hopefully 

will end Oregon’s Passenger Rail doldrums.

I-92 Russ Lathrop Alternative 2 looks to be a great option. It makes sense to have rail 

stops in cities that have population density. This is needed to keep up 

with population growth and to keep our roads from bring overused.

The Preferred Alternative is recommended 

because of its ability, in comparison to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project’s goals and 

objectives. In particular, trip time, ridership and 

capital costs were the discriminating factors. 

Alternative 1 would serve the central cities while 

Alternative 2 would not. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 6 6

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I-93 Matt Laubach I'm very happy to hear that you are increasing Amtrak service from 

Portland to Eugene. I enjoy riding to Portland on the train. It's not very 

scenic however because it goes into the industrial areas of towns used 

by freight trains. There are many delays waiting for other trains to use 

the tracks. 

My first choice would be building tracks to support high speed rail. 

Second choice would be to build along I5. Third choice would be to 

improve existing tracks shared by freight trains.

Thanks for listening

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a 

passenger rail network. 

I-94 Zachary Lauritzen Thank you for this important work. I utilize the train whenever 

possible, however, my biggest hang-up is when I have a deadline to 

make (airplane to catch, meeting to attend, etc.) and when I take the 

train, I always run the risk of a major delay. My understanding is that is 

because the passenger train always gives right of way to the freight 

service. Is this the case? If so, until that is addressed, it will be next to 

impossible for people like me who want to take the train for all trips 

from Eugene to the north (Salem, Portland, Seattle) but cannot risk 

multi-hour delays. 

Thank you for the work on this important effort!

Because passenger and freight trains operate on 

the same track owned by Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR, the host railroad) passenger rail's ontime performance often depends on how UPRR 

handles dispatching passenger trains. Priority 

dispatching of Amtrak trains operating on 

shared tracks remains established federal law.

I-95 Blaine Lee For $800-$1B this investment Alternative 1 seems to be a waste of 

money for 15 min decrease in route time and additional capacity. I’d 

expect a massive decrease in trip time for that level of investment. 

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 6 7

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Alternative 2 didn’t show any estimates on route time. This appears to 

be the more efficient route potentially capturing the largest ridership. 

I’m rather disappointed the leaders of the committee didn’t 

recommend that one without explaining a reason why or why not. This 

might be the worst DEIS I’ve seen without much explanation. It 

appears that the committee’s decision has already been made.

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. 

Travel time was one of the factors considered 

when identifying a Preferred Alternative. While 

Alternative 2 has a faster travel time over the 

route, the other performance attributes favor 

Alternative 1. For example, because 

Alternative 1 serves central cities with 

supportive population, employment, and 

existing transportation networks, it was 

projected to capture higher ridership than 

Alternative 2. In particular, environmental 

impact, ridership, and capital costs were key 

discriminating factors. 

Additionally, Alternative 1 could be more easily 

phased than Alternative 2, lending itself to more 

feasible incremental investments. 

I-96 Dr. Burton Levenson It would be worth your energy if you go more progressive and just 

make the investment. This is a lot of money for not a lot of 

improvement.

Invest in Surf Air- airline might be faster and a wiser investment. It's 

faster and convenient. Allows smaller airports and PDX stops. 

Higher speed rail would make more sense.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's Purpose and 

Need and goals and objectives. While 

Alternative 2 has a faster travel time over the 

route, the other performance attributes favor 

Alternative 1. In particular, environmental 

impact, ridership, and capital costs were key 

discriminating factors. 

Investment in air travel would not address the 

Project’s Purpose and Need. 

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 6 8

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a rail 

network.

I-97 Art Lewellan

Rail system designer

The LOTi project

I support the Amtrak Cascades Line. It's diesel/electric locomotive is 

suitable for many Amtrak corridors, for instance, PDX to SLC to 

Denver, and, LA-LV-SLC. Higher speeds such as the Acela are simply 

too expensive to build nor necessary on many rail routes. TALGO 

manufactures a fine matching diesel/electric locomotive, the XXI, 

which can raise a pantograph and run all electric where feasible. 

Since planning started, I've supported directly serving Corvallis, which 

would attract more patrons than the route through Tangent, Halsey 

and Harrisburg combined, especially between Corvallis and Eugene. 

Reducing trip time between Albany and Eugene along I-5 is likewise 

unnecessary and unproductive. 

The other stretch of track I'm concerned about is Keiser to Wilsonville 

to Oregon City, which I prefer. However, Salem should have a station, 

and please consider the following: 

Portland is planning a MAX line to Tualatin. Oregon's main rail 

advocacy group AORTA does not support the Barbur Blvd route. I 

agree with them on that and on their proposal to convert the WES 

corridor to an extension of the MAX Red Line from Beaverton. WES 

trains would be decommissioned, but could run from Wilsonville to 

Salem on some complementary schedule. 

This combination of MAX Red Line at 15min service between 

Wilsonville and Beaverton should be considered: It affects ODOT plans 

for widening Hwy 217 and increases rail access for Washington 

County. Widening 217 may be necessary, but routing the MAX Red 

Line along the corridor provides motorists and Amtrak Cascades 

passengers with an ideal transit alternative sure to increase ridership 

on both rail systems. This MAX extension can have its planned stop at 

Bridgeport Village as long as from there, the line can further extend to 

Thank you for your comments. As part of this 

study, ODOT conducted extensive screening and 

evaluation of concepts you have proposed, with 

the exception of MAX light rail and the Columbia 

River Crossing (CRC), which are outside the 

scope of this study. The alternative that would 

serve Corvallis was eliminated from further 

consideration, as part of the OPR Project, 

because it reduced ridership as a result of the 

increased travel time, along with impact on cost. 

The route to serve Wilsonville is part of 

Alternative 2, but is not the Preferred 

Alternative. However, future connections to 

Corvallis or between Keizer and Wilsonville are 

not precluded from separate study efforts. The 

proposed and planned TriMet actions involving 

the MAX light rail transit and WES commuter rail 

systems are beyond the scope of the OPR 

Project that focuses on intercity passenger rail 

under oversight of the Federal Railroad 

Administration. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 6 9

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Tualatin 'proper' and ultimately to Wilsonville. 

I'm sure you are aware of these possible alternative routes. You may 

not know that the impacts MAX would impose on Barbur Blvd are 

absolutely deplorable, nor that the development potential along 

Barbur is exaggerated; Barbur Blvd will remain a 35-45mph highway 

which does not bode well for a walkable neighborhood and wider 

crosswalks. Metro and Portland City Hall are not informing the public 

about the terrible impacts nor dubious development potential. A Bus 

Rapid Transit (BRT) line on Barbur Blvd is more suitable as well as 

impose less impact and cost. A BRT line may also generate more 

ridership than MAX on Barbur Blvd. 

At this point, I figure you're now thinking "We're only planning 2 

possible routes with no variations." If so, I'm disappointed and must 

recommend you tabulate the increased ridership possible with the 

variation of routes proposed in this commentary. 

PS: I am also proposing a CRC I-5 Bridge replacement design that 

salvages most of the commission's work. And, I'm finishing a bridge 

design for replacing the Marquam Bridge. I'm certain the Marquam 

will not be replaced with any tunnel nonsense. Both these bridge 

designs are 'single-deck' instead of 'double-deck'. I have drafted a new 

and much safer design for Hayden Island Access which I call "LowLevel" and, a design for realigning I-5 on the eastbank of the 

Willamette between Burnside and the Morrison/Belmont viaduct 

which is also rebuilt. These designs have all been submitted to Metro 

in a 14-page 'pamphlet'. Finally, I support the Rose Quarter I-5 

Rebuild. I do not believe it will worsen air pollution in the corridor as it 

should reduce the terribly stupid bottleneck between traffic exiting 

and entering I-5 South. Thanks ODOT for the fine work I've noted 

through the years.

I-98 Walt Lierman, PhD, OHA, 

Health Analytics

I currently am a monthly rider on Cascades 511/508. I have been riding 

for almost 4 years. I leave from the Oregon City station and travel to 

Salem returning in the evening.

If I understood the material, I would opt for Alternative 1. I am biased 

in a sense because I want service to Oregon City maintained. When 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been identified as the Preferred Alternative and 

includes service to Oregon City. Regarding 

transit service to Wilsonville, the route of 

Alternative 1 would not provide that service, 

and riders wanting to reach Wilsonville will have 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 7 0

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

the early morning Cascades schedule (~ 6:20 a.m. in OC) was dropped 

starting in 2017(? I believe) Oregon City was precluded from 

consideration of the bus from Union Station in the morning – because 

Portland passengers would be “put out” by stopping at OC before 

going to Salem and points beyond. Now the only morning rail service 

SB is the 10:10 a.m. – not really a working commuter’s schedule. (I 

know that the C word – commuter – is frowned upon. But that’s what I 

use it for!)

So please treat OC as a full-fledged partner in any alternative that is 

ultimately decided upon.

In summary, I would support Alternative 1 as it stands. The only 

change I would suggest is to somehow include Wilsonville in 

Alternative 1. It is increasingly becoming more used by DHS/OHA for 

meetings and conferences. But it is very inconvenient to get to. The 

Tri-Met WES is okay, but you have to go to Beaverton TC or some 

other intermediate point and once you are in Tualatin – why not drive 

the remaining couple miles? IMHO, Wilsonville is a perfect example of 

a poorly planned suburban area (I guess it is a suburb?? Or just a place 

with a bunch of people living in it, jacked up pickups speeding - 

perhaps the drivers think they are in eastern Oregon – Baker City 

maybe, and overall congestion) that was made expressly for cars. The 

cars are driven fast, pedestrians and bicyclists are put at risk. So 

maybe an Amtrak through there could begin to address some of the 

congestion and over-abundance of cars?

VOTE: Alt 1 

to use complementary transit services, as you've 

identified, for access. As ridership on the 

passenger rail system builds, supportive transit 

services will be more likely to gain interest and 

investment. 

I-99 Kathy Lincoln I definitely think Alternative 1 is the right choice. The cost is not so 

much that we won't be able to come up with it in a reasonable time. 

Station locations are set and can be integrated with other modes of 

travel. 

Good job and hope to see this come to fruition in the near future. 

Please keep in mind integrating train travel with all other modes, 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been identified as the Preferred Alternative. One 

purpose of the Project is to “integrate with 

existing and planned transportation networks" 

which would include safe and convenient 

connections to active transportation. ODOT and 

Amtrak determine fares, and endeavor to price 

tickets that are affordable in comparison to 

intercity travel by other modes.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 7 1

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

including bicycles, and try to keep cost of use (train tickets) as 

reasonable as possible. Thank you!

I-100 Joan Lloyd I agree that Alternative 1 is the most cost effective but if there is a 

possibility of having high speed trains someday on that same line, I do 

not want that alternative. We fairly recently got a quiet zone in Salem 

and if there are high speed trains the horns would have to be 

reinstated.

Thank you for your comment. A future 

high-speed rail line would, in all likelihood, need 

to be constructed on a separate alignment from 

the Preferred Alternative route.

I-101 Mike James Long Alternative 1 is undoubtedly the most cost-effective. I wonder if the 

Hoover Dam was cost effective?

I would really like to see high speed rail from Canada to Mexico, but it 

doesn't look like the government has the money and the states do not. 

Perhaps we should focus on a monorail option within growing 

metropolitan areas to lessen our carbon footprint or suffer the 

consequences. 

Thank you for your comment. A future 

high-speed rail line or monorail would, in all 

likelihood, need to be constructed on a separate 

alignment from the Preferred Alternative route.

I-102 Moises Lucero I definitely like the idea of the "Cascadia high speed rail" that would 

follow the I-5 corridor. Would it be possible to consider the same 

system through the yellow area, Corvallis, McMinnville Newberg etc.

Would frequency and departure times be affected by certain alternate 

routes?

ODOT and FRA eliminated the preliminary 

alternative that would directly serve Corvallis 

from further consideration, because it increased 

travel time between Eugene and Portland and 

reduced ridership as result of the increased 

travel time. However, the OPR decision does not 

preclude potential future enhanced connections 

to Corvallis. 

I-103 Matt Lutter Either Alt #1 or Alt #2 seem to be better than no action. But it is not 

clear if either Alternatives would eliminate the frequent conflict 

between passenger and freight trains. Would passenger trains need to 

wait until freight trains pass, or would there be additional tracks to 

resolve that conflict?

I like the faster travel times that Alt #2 provides, but I need to know 

more about the environmental impacts and how the higher cost will 

be paid (with higher taxes, or ticket fares?).

Because passenger and freight trains operate on 

the same track owned by Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR, the host railroad) passenger rail's ontime performance often depends on how UPRR 

handles dispatching passenger trains. Priority 

dispatching of Amtrak trains operating on 

shared tracks remains established federal law. 

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 7 2

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-104 Mary-Kate Mackey Why not get a real dedicated rail? I have ridden this corridor for 26 

years. I have ridden Amtrak all across the country. I have also ridden 

on trains all over Europe. The experience in the EU was much superior 

to here. Ridership will build when the trains are easy to catch 

(convenient times) and on time. 

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a

passenger rail network. 

I-105a Karl MacNair The DEIS Alternative 2 states that a 120 mph max speed was studied. 

The Shinkansen, which has been operating since the 1960's operates 

between 150 and 200 mph top speed. Based on this alone, I would 

argue that the analysis of Alt 2 is flawed and that the study had a bias 

toward Alt 1 from the start and begs the question, why isn't ODOT 

taking a serious look at true high speed rail (HSR)? 

The Transportation Planning Rule's purpose is to reduce VMT 

statewide. I believe the best way to do that is to provide attractive 

alternatives to driving. I don't believe shaving 15 minutes off current 

travel times is going to get anyone to leave their car at home in favor 

of the train. In order to get a mode shift, we need to make train travel 

faster and more reliable than a car. True HSR has a chance of doing 

that, but at this point we still don't have the data to tell us what it 

could do because the DEIS didn't study anything over 120mph. I realize 

that a ton of work went into this DEIS, which is why I'm so 

disappointed that it seems to have ignored the call for a true HSR 

study. I really think ODOT needs to take another look at it with a true 

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a 

passenger rail network. The study can be found 

on the Project website: 

http://www.oregonpassengerrail.org/files/meeti

ngs/leadership_council/12-15-14/hsr-conceptvision-report_121914-final_spreads.pdf. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 7 3

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

HSR system modeled after the HSR systems in other countries.

Aside from that, I applaud the work of staff to identify potential 

improvements that can be made incrementally on the existing line. 

This is a good first step toward an eventual HSR line; it is not HSR. 

As for next steps, I'd like to see ODOT establish a funding plan for the 

incremental improvements AND start a new study that figures out 

how to build a true HSR system. Look at California's plan. It hasn't 

been smooth, but they are doing it.

The only thing I'd like a response on is why was 120mph picked as the 

top speed when other countries and states are able to get 200mph? 

Thank you,

Karl MacNair

I-105b Karl MacNair The state of Oregon needs to look at passenger rail needs outside the 

Willamette Valley. In order to meet the state's planning goals of 

reducing VMT and building compact communities, a viable alternative 

to cars is needed. A serious state-wide investment in passenger rail is 

only logical.

This comment is beyond the scope of the DEIS, 

but please refer to ODOT's complementary work 

outlined on its passenger rail website: 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/Pages/Pa

ssenger-Rail.aspx

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Docu

ments/OSRP.pdf

I-106 Josh Mars I favor the no-build option in the DEIS. The present demand for 

passenger rail doesn't exist to justify the mammoth cost of this petproject, regardless of where the funding is sourced. There is a greater 

demand for improved and expanded roadways for passenger vehicles 

which should be the focus of ODOT. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative as it 

meets the agreed-upon purpose and need per 

the federal NEPA process. 

I-107 Cindy Massaro I appreciate all the work that has been done, and will continue to be 

done, by ODOT. 

I fully support improvements to the Amtrak Cascades system. 

Of the 3 Alternatives offered I strongly support Alternative #2, a new 

route following I5.

My second choice is Alternative #1, improvements to existing route.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 7 4

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I do not support Alternative #3, no changes/improvements.

Thank you!!

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-108 Geoffrey McCarth This is a huge investment for a minimal gain in travel time. At 120mph, 

only 30min faster than present Cascades? Why is there not an overt 

goal of <2h, or about 75mph average speed. 2nd world speeds, 

disappointing. Example: From London Kings Cross to Peterborough is 

about 90 miles, max speed 125, average speed non-stop 104mph, last 

time I rode. UK does not have true high speed, but engineers very 

good average speeds nonetheless. We need to emulate them!

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership, frequency, reliability, and 

population demands (High Speed Rail Concept 

Vision Report, ODOT, September 2014). 

Alternative 1 is an important step toward 

building ridership as the population increases 

and can serve as the backbone of a passenger 

rail network. 

I-109 Ben McCune My family and I would love for service to continue and improve in 

Oregon City. We prefer Alternative 1 as it primarily serves us here in 

the downtown, thus preserving historic stations and giving an option 

(hopefully faster) for those of us who wish to travel in style. Thanks!

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-110 Kay McEwen I received two notices in the mail today re public hearings on this 

matter. I already responded to this in person the last time you had a 

public hearing on this matter...how long ago? I would have thought 

you'd be finished with the project by this time instead of continuing to 

study it and have more public hearings. 

 As I said before--Route #2--the West Woodburn route. Woodburn is 

already so noisy that my granddaughter from Portland (3 years old) 

wakes up in the middle of the night crying that it is so noisy that she 

can't sleep!! I've complained about that too, having moved from 

Salem when ODOT "improved" the Market Street exit to a quieter 

neighborhood in Woodburn, but then the traffic "improvements" and 

the train are so loud that it assaults my elderly ears! I thought it was 

just because I was getting old, but when my 3-year-old granddaughter 

awakens, crying, and has to sleep with a pillow over her head, I know 

something is intrinsically wrong! Noise pollution!

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with implementation of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 7 5

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

 I also think you should run a commuter train on the Union Pacific 

tracks between Woodburn>>Mt. Angel>>Silverton, Does that line also 

go to Stayton and Scio? A Mt. Angel man told me that they've already 

spent $50,000 conducting a study on that matter, but that Union 

Pacific blocked the implementation because "they run freight on that 

line," and they can't mix freight and commuters. Really???

 Please--get the job done! No more $$$ spent on "studies." Get it 

done in my lifetime! We've been talking about this since I moved to 

Oregon in 1952!!! THANK YOU!!!

I-111 Don McFarling Alternative Won! (1) 

Now let's find and secure a reliable and adequate source of funding to 

increase frequency and reliability! 

We have spent far too much time and money with far too little 

progress. 

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with incremental implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative, which will consist of 

improvements on the existing route to 

adequately support increased intercity 

passenger rail service. 

I-112 Chris McLaughlin Choose which ever track is financially feasible to upgrade to a high 

speed rail system. We need something to bring the Oregon and the 

U.S. into the modern times like other countries. A high speed rail 

would excite the public again into using train system as the current 

system we have is much slower than even traveling by car. This would 

allow for travel for both tourism and also for employment commutes. 

Look at the new Hong Kong high speed rail line as an example of the 

positive impacts it would have on the statewide economy and 

lowering the traffic congestion on I-5. We can't keep using our 

antiquated systems expecting to experience increases in ridership. We 

have to adapt and embrace the future if we want to move forward as 

a community and a nation. That's why I feel even out of all the options 

posted the most important is the one not mentioned. Please consider 

the great economic benefit of having the first high-speed rail line in 

the Pacific Northwest would have for us. We can't afford to be stuck in 

the last century.

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a 

passenger rail network. 

I-113 Seaton McLennan

Former Mayor of Tangent

1. Using the current rail line along 99E for high speed rail will

negatively impact the current communities: Tangent, Shedd, Halsey,

Harrisburg, especially with any closures to achieve the higher speed

Alternative 1 has been selected as the Preferred 

Alternative; it provides greater improvements in 

ridership and minimized environmental impact. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 7 6

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

rating. 

2. Response time for the Tangent Rural Fire Dept. will be increased.

3. Using the I-5 corridor will achieve a higher speed rating.

Development of infrastructure, businesses and other financial

improvements will be good for the state economy.

Future infrastructure investments will consider 

grade-separated crossings where practical and 

feasible. Very few at-grade crossings were 

identified for closure with the proposed Project. 

Grade-separations will have a positive effect on 

community mobility as passing trains will no 

longer interdict traffic. Grade separations can 

also allow for faster train speeds in some 

situations.

I-114 Vicky Mello I support Alternative 1 to build new capacity along the existing 

passenger rail route. I am very opposed to Alternative 2 as proposed. 

I do not support building new bridges across rivers nor do I support 

routing rail lines through natural areas like Eastgate Woodlands in 

Springfield. The cost of Alternative 2 is excessive and I think limited 

resources can be used along the existing route. I look forward to 

seeing final designs for Alternative 1.

With the publication of this FEIS and FRA's 

pending Record of Decision, ODOT will be able 

to move forward with incremental 

implementation of the Preferred Alternative, 

which will consist of improvements on the 

existing route to adequately support increased 

intercity passenger rail service. 

I-115 JR Merrick For the short term option 1 makes sense as it serves existing centers 

and stations and improvements can be made incrementally. 

A double track for the entire length should be part of the plan and the 

ask for funding. The primary use of the second track would be for 

passenger service.

We need to plan for a tunnel from the Brooklyn yard into Union 

station or work on a freight tunnel to bypass the central east side. 

Either way 10mph speed and the land use constraints in this area are 

unacceptable when looking to the future.

While more detailed engineering and 

environmental work is needed and will be 

conducted in future Project development, FRA 

and ODOT developed the Preferred Alternative 

to operate with more frequency, higher speed, 

and greater reliability than the existing Cascades 

service; the improvements will attract more 

riders as described in the DEIS. The Preferred 

Alternative would share track with freight trains, 

and the operational analysis resulted in 

additional track, associated track infrastructure

and technology enhancements to increase 

passenger rail reliability measured as on-time 

performance. 

Multiple tunnel concepts under the Willamette 

River were considered early in the process as 

part of the corridor concept screening (see 

Section 2.2 of the DEIS). The tunnel concepts in 

the Portland area were screened out because 

they could not be constructed in a manner that 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 7 7

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

would avoid substantial regulatory hurdles 

and/or avoid or minimize substantial community 

and natural environmental impacts. A tunnel 

between the Brooklyn Yard and Union Station 

would need to pass beneath the river. It would 

be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the 

needed depth of the tunnel and to increase the 

grade to serve Union Station at ground level.

I-116 Cecilia Mihaylo Alternative 1 is the one that got my attention. I really would like that 

to become a reality. Driving from Albany to Portland is a veritable 

nightmare at certain times of the day. I have the dream that one day 

going to the Portland airport would be something as easy as it is to do 

it in San Francisco. I hope I will get to see it. Oregon truly needs a good 

alternative to driving I-5 between Eugene and Portland. Thank you for 

you efforts. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. One 

purpose of the Project is to “integrate with 

existing and planned transportation networks," 

and ODOT will continue to explore ways to 

enhance connectivity with transit in Portland 

and other communities that the Project will 

serve. 

I-117 Mary Sharon Moore I depend on local transit - not car. 

Corvallis not included - is there a demand for rail connection Corvallis 

with Eugene and Portland? 

With Greyhound now moved from Eugene to Springfield, what does 

"multimodal" mean for the Eugene rail station? 

One purpose of the Project is to “integrate with 

existing and planned transportation networks” 

which includes local and intercity transit within 

and between communities including between 

Albany and Corvallis and between Eugene and 

Springfield. Additionally, travel demand 

between Corvallis and Portland, and Corvallis 

and Eugene continue to grow. However, ODOT 

and FRA eliminated the preliminary alternative 

that would directly serve Corvallis from further 

consideration, because it increased travel time 

between Eugene and Portland and reduced 

ridership as result of the increased travel time. 

The OPR decision does not preclude potential 

future enhanced transit connections to Corvallis 

and Springfield. 

I-118 Mike Morrison This is a worthy project. Alternative 1 offers the most realistic solution 

to Oregon's needs. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. One 

purpose of the Project is to “integrate with 

existing and planned transportation networks," 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 7 8

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

and ODOT will continue to explore ways to 

enhance connectivity with transit in Portland 

and other communities that the Project will 

serve. 

I-119 Deborah Neel Verbal testimony: 

I live in West Linn. So I used to commute from Salem to Portland in a 

van pool. And I decided after sitting in traffic for an hour and a half 

between Wilsonville and Portland, downtown Portland, each way, that 

it was not productive. There had to be a better alternative and it 

meant moving, so I moved from Salem to West Linn.

Now that I'm in West Linn, I still have an issue with access to public 

transportation because there isn't any. I can take a bus. The No. 35 

bus takes approximately an hour and a half and arrives in downtown 

Portland, and doesn't go across the river. I happen to work at the 

Lloyd Center so then I have to get on the MAX and take an additional 

leg. So my commute time each way is two hours, which I might as well 

have stayed in Salem for.

So my question is if the City of Portland is looking at extending the 

MAX line from Portland down to Tualatin, and they think that's a 

feasible alternative, why is the railroad not looking at that same 

corridor? Why are they telling me that tunnels are too expensive or 

that politics are not in favor of it? I don't think either one of those 

arguments stands a chance if the MAX line obviously refutes both 

those arguments by saying that's going to be their new track line. So I 

find that there's insufficient study of that option.

And the option to go down 205 and cross the river and go into the 

congested Oregon City rail line area could be the death of that option 

completely. Because, you know, it's a very tight corridor up on that 

side. It's just as tight as going from Tualatin north along route 5. So I 

would challenge the choice of Alternative 1, and say that it's not very 

far forward thinking.

If you want to look at the future of transportation in this area decades 

Thank you for your comments. As you’ve noted, 

Metro is leading a planning effort for the 

Southwest Corridor Project, which would bring 

light rail from Tualatin to central Portland. The 

light rail tracks that would be used in the 

Southwest Corridor cannot accommodate the 

Cascades service, which uses heavy rail and does 

not have overhead catenary. 

The Preferred Alternative would continue to 

share track with freight rail. Because passenger 

and freight trains operate on the same track 

owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR, the host 

railroad) passenger rail's on-time performance 

often depends on how UPRR handles 

dispatching passenger trains. Priority dispatching 

of Amtrak trains operating on shared tracks 

remains established federal law. To further 

avoid disruption to freight rail operations and 

improve reliability of passenger trains, the 

Preferred Alternative will add track and other 

rail infrastructure improvements.

Regarding the delays spent on sidings between 

Salem and Oregon City, additional infrastructure 

is planned in this section to alleviate crowding. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 7 9

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

from now, then you need to look at the most realistic achievable 

route, but also the most efficient route that's going to alleviate 

commuter traffic from the south of Portland through Portland going 

north. Because commuter traffic combined with shipping, freight 

traffic is the problem. And when you add local traffic to that, it's a 

nightmare. There's no way around it. There's no alternative. There's 

no relief.

A train system that effectively worked from north to south would 

really make a difference on the route 5 corridor load that it's carrying 

for vehicle traffic. I have family that frequently come from Salem to 

Oregon City by train. They often wait 20 to 35 minutes for their turn at 

the tracks to come down to Oregon City because they're a passenger 

train and they don't have priority on the freight line. And I don't think 

adding a line in that corridor is going to completely change that issue. 

Especially if the freight -- if the railroad companies that do the freight 

lines control that real estate.

So again, I think there's some real obstacles on that route that could 

torpedo the whole effort in the near term. So I just wanted to voice 

my opinion.

I-120 Cynthia Noblitt, business 

owner/operator, Deep 

Woods Distillery

I believe Alternative 1 is the best option, as long as service 

improvements include a stop in Oakridge OR. I am a strong supporter 

of rail transportation, but I do not think a new route is necessary, and 

if it is done in order to allow for so called high speed trains, I don't 

think that expense is worth the extra few minutes gained.

Thank you for your comment. This Project

addresses the corridor between Eugene and 

Portland; destinations south of Eugene are 

served by the Coast Starlight are not directly 

addressed in this study. ODOT and WSDOT

published a station stop policy that addresses 

the process for adding stops on existing routes. 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20

Document%20Library/HB2918-LegislativeReport-2017.pdf and 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm

I-121 Jennene Norblad

Umpqua Bank

I was unable to attend in person the presentation of the three options, 

but in reviewing the information it appears that the proposal design 

process did not have significant input from citizen prior to the 

Thank you for your comments and participation 

in the public hearings for the DEIS. ODOT has led 

public engagement processes for the Project

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 8 0

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

evaluate stage and was done in a slow, vacuum-like of perspective of 

ODOT. 

As a result, it appears that none of the three proposals have a phased 

or hybrid approach to making improvements. Also the design 

approach process doesn't appear to consider many of the changes in 

the economy of Oregon, generational changes and even current 

congestion issues in the solutions.

I've been using the Amtrak Cascades line for over 15 years, having 

gone the full span of the track from Eugene to Vancouver with more 

frequent travel between the other stops. In the early days, when I've 

commented in the past to Amtrak about possible improvements, it has 

been focused on time, speed, and reliability. These fronts have greatly 

improved in recent years, especially in terms of perspective to 

automobile routes that have become increasingly dangerous and time 

consuming. In a very short time, the 2.5 hour train trip from Eugene to 

Portland, has gone from "too long" to perfectly acceptable and often 

times less time consuming and more reliable than driving. Now, the 

things that I wish the rail service would provide are more connectivity 

to other mass transit (connect to MAX?, Free Park and Ride, buses, 

bicycle storage/transport, etc.), stops near other major cities/junctions 

(Wilsonville, Tigard/Lake Oswego, Woodburn, Keizer, connectivity to 

Washington County), better marketing to expose more users to the 

rail options and to really consider long-term fast passenger rail 

solutions. 

While the simulations in the designs are very important work, it seems 

like all of the designs seem to leave out the opportunity to engage the 

local transportation and local governments to also elevate their game 

and work together. In the short time of this proposal being advertising 

via media outlets it seems like I've seen a lot of truly great out ideas 

come out of friends and family, that aren't even remotely on the radar 

of these designs. This is a HUGE missed opportunity, but I can't tell if 

this is due to the scope of what the state is able to do or because we 

aren't trying to actually prepare for the future need and/or address 

the immediate needs. 

over several years, as outlined in Chapter 5 of 

the DEIS. Activities included work with the 

Governor-appointed Leadership Council, 

Community Advisory Groups, the Corridor 

Forum and multiple public meetings and 

outreach efforts. Responses to each of your 

four specific suggestions follow. 

1. Regarding better bike storage, ODOT will work

with Amtrak to improve the bike storage at the

existing stations. There are currently bike lockers

in Albany and Salem. ODOT will consider further

investments in bike storage capacity. ODOT

supports and encourages bicycling and will

continue to accommodate bicycles on Cascades

trains and at stations while also exploring ways,

in partnership with other local agencies, to

increase convenience and access for bicyclists to

use intercity passenger rail.

Additionally, Portland’s Union Station is directly 

adjacent to a Max stop; most Oregon stations 

have free parking and bus connections. Portland, 

Salem, and Eugene now have bike share facilities 

adjacent to the station. 

2 and 4. ODOT and WSDOT published a station 

stop policy that addresses the process for adding 

stops on existing routes. You can find the station 

stop policy here: 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20

Document%20Library/HB2918-LegislativeReport-2017.pdf and 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm

3. ODOT has worked with hotels and the

University of Oregon in past marketing efforts

when budget for marketing was available. Travel

to and from home games on the Amtrak

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 8 1

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Additionally, it appears that in this evaluate stage, there are no space 

for the public comment to improve the options, only to decide 

between the three options - which have been proposed in a classic, 

too little, moderate, and too much, so that we as a public will fall for 

not even considering high-speed rail due to cost, and then land on the 

do nothing or barely doing anything options. 

Using more advanced design thinking techniques, we should have 

seen this public outreach much earlier in the process. We should have 

seen a broader diversity in the leadership committee of the project, 

that included citizen and actual train users of different ages. And most 

importantly, the evaluate stage shouldn't feel like the end of the road 

to creating better ideas or options to adjust to the changing 

environment and needs of Oregon. 

I'm in full agreement with Governor Brown that the rail system in 

Oregon is one of the most underutilized transportation options we 

have. I hope that ODOT, the leadership committee, and program 

coordinators for this effort are committed to actually improving the 

state of the rail system in the Willamette Valley and will consider a 

broader array of solutions from improvements. 

Please at a minimum, consider:

1. Better bicycle storage/transport for Amtrak riders, where they can

transport their bicycles in their own storage containers and where

locked long-term bicycle parking is available at each station.

2. A stop and connection on the south end of the Portland-metro area

that could connect to existing or future MAX lines.

3. Private-public or inter agency partnerships to improve existing

ridership, including:

a. building alliances between local hotels and Amtrak for shuttle pickups/advertisement, etc.

b. Coordination between University of Oregon and Amtrak to provide

packaged incentives to event attendees travelling between Portland

and Eugene for UO personnel and special events - such as Duck

Football games.

c. discussion with local transportation groups to find additional ways

to improve the user experience from Amtrak to other modes to get

Cascades can be difficult due to the fact that 

kick-off times are not announced in sufficient 

time to allow for a schedule change, and the 

schedule often does not align with the kick-off 

time. ODOT is currently developing a marketing 

plan for the Cascades service. ODOT continues 

to collaborate with local jurisdictions and transit 

agencies to support transit and rail service in 

Oregon.

5. A high-speed rail concept vision was

developed, as part of the OPR EIS process, which

examined true high-speed rail for the Eugene-toPortland segment. Based on Leadership Council

and stakeholder desire to consider “true” highspeed rail—generally meaning speeds of

125 mph on an exclusive rail (new) alignment—

the study outlined the necessary steps to

progress including ridership and population

demands (High Speed Rail Concept Vision

Report, ODOT, September 2014). Alternative 1 is

an important step toward building ridership as

the population increases and can serve as the

backbone of a passenger rail network.

ODOT, along with WSDOT and British Columbia, 

are exploring ultra high-speed rail from Portland 

to Seattle to BC. 

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/studies/ult

ra-high-speed-travel/ground-transportationstudy

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 8 2

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

around the cities. 

4. If maintaining the existing line, a station stop in Woodburn or other

passed by cities to allow for additional flexibility in train travel.

5. If a decision is made for the least costly option, there needs to be a

plan to start planning for the inevitable need for high-speed rail in

some part of the state, even if it is between the The Dalles/Bend,

instead of the Willamette Valley as a test project. We have got to

make a serious investment in our future transit needs in order to stay

competitive in the next century. A 'No' to high speed rail, cannot be a

'No' forever.

I-122 Phillip Norman, Owner, 

Attic Access

The demand that plans are consistent with those in California and 

Washington, means highest hopes everywhere must prevail. A 50% 

boost in ridership on slow trains is not wanted. We need rail service to 

far surpass auto and air transportation, for example between Salem 

and Olympia. We need ridership to increase by orders of magnitude 

for the plan horizon. The horizon must extend past 2035 and must be 

guided by achievements in Europe. Swiss engineers are ready to help, 

fully trained in high speed rail opportunities met and now ended. 

Available NOW. Not in twenty years.

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a 

passenger network. 

I-123 Sigh O'Nara I'm excited that this plan is being talked about and considered. I hope 

Alternative 1 doesn't actually use the rail that Amtrak runs on, since 

that rail is also used by the freight lines which actually own the lines 

and have higher priority.

Purely selfishly I hope any high-speed/direct rail will start in Eugene 

rather than Springfield.

The Preferred Alternative would continue to 

share track with freight rail. Because passenger 

and freight trains operate on the same track 

owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR, the host 

railroad) passenger rail's on-time performance 

often depends on how UPRR handles 

dispatching passenger trains. Priority dispatching 

of Amtrak trains operating on shared tracks 

remains established federal law. To further 

avoid disruption to freight rail operations and 

improve reliability of passenger trains, the 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 8 3

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Preferred Alternative will add track and other 

rail infrastructure improvements.

I-124 Pat [no last name 

provided]

More priority to passenger service ...currently the rail service puts the 

freight trains first with some delays to passenger (Amtrak) service

The Preferred Alternative would continue to 

share track with freight rail. Because passenger 

and freight trains operate on the same track 

owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR, the host 

railroad) passenger rail's on-time performance 

often depends on how UPRR handles 

dispatching passenger trains. Priority dispatching 

of Amtrak trains operating on shared tracks 

remains established federal law. To further 

avoid disruption to freight rail operations and 

improve reliability of passenger trains, the 

Preferred Alternative will add track and other 

rail infrastructure improvements.

I-125 Dr. Patrick ArdronHudsonComment filed alphabetically with “A” comments, between I-2 and I-3 N/A

I-126 Kenneth Peters To make Alternative 1 work a major revamping of the right of way 

near the Salem station will have to be done. The current situation is 

much like Defiance Point Tunnel in Tacoma, it only differs in that 

downtown Salem is desirable rather than near Lancaster Drive (I-5). 

While more detailed engineering will be done 

through future Tier 2 studies, the Preferred 

Alternative does not require additional right-ofway at the Salem station.

I-127 Madeline Phillips Please provide reliable service between Springfield and Portland to 

help alleviate traffic impacts of drivers and freight traffic on I-5. 

Current passenger rail to Portland is not reliable enough to meet 

current needs, and will have to provide greater reliability in order to 

generate the demand and regular users. 

Alternative 2, providing a separated track would show: 

- vision for future Oregonians,

- enhance the State's ability to serve a growing population/economy,

- develop an alternative for single-occupancy trips (reduce VMT), and

- establish Oregon as a partner to the CalTrans high-speed corridor.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-128 Leslie Polson Stupid, expensive alternative to run by I-5, change stations after 

expensive investments away from central core. Albany and Salem 

biggest dumb new locations. Connectivity in Oregon City is bad. One 

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 8 4

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

mile away from TriMet stop. No covered shelter in Salem. Greyhound 

in Springfield is only location where it makes sense. Corvallis 

connectivity is still a problem. 

forward with incremental implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative, which will consist of 

improvements on the existing route, and in 

coordination with local jurisdictions and transit 

agencies to adequately support increased 

intercity passenger rail service. ODOT and FRA 

eliminated the preliminary alternative that 

would directly serve Corvallis from further 

consideration, because it increased travel time 

between Eugene and Portland and reduced 

ridership as result of the increased travel time. 

However, the OPR decision does not preclude 

potential future enhanced connections to 

Corvallis. 

I-129 Julia Pommert I see benefits in both routes. I would like to see investment in 

passenger rail service.

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with implementation of the Preferred 

Alternative, which will include incremental 

improvements of service on the existing route. 

I-130 Sharon Posner I would like to encourage the renewal of the 9 am Cascades train to 

Portland which originated in Eugene. That time is just perfect for a 

meeting in Salem or a day in Portland and definitely beats catching the 

5:30 am train. I think you would see a major uptick in passenger travel.

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with implementation of the Preferred 

Alternative, which will include incremental 

improvements of service on the existing route, 

including future train schedules that optimize 

ridership. 

I-131 Robert Poulsen Usually I am in favor of more ambitious public projects. In this case, 

Alternative 2 makes no sense. Alternative 1 is best due to lower cost, 

less environmental impact, and more service to city cores. Also: 

please include Corvallis in your planning, including highly-dependable 

bus shuttle service from Corvallis to Albany Station, coordinated with 

exact arrivals and departures of trains -- including allowing for delays, 

with notification to Corvallis residents, perhaps via app or online.

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with incremental implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative, which will consist of 

improvements on the existing route. ODOT will 

take actions in coordination with local 

jurisdictions and transit agencies (including 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 8 5

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

transit service between Corvallis and Albany) to 

adequately support increased intercity 

passenger rail service between Eugene and 

Portland. 

I-132 Douglas Quirke

Eugene, OR

541-686-3027

Section 2.2.3 ("Transportation Modes and Train Technologies") lists 

five locomotive technologies at the top of page 2-9; the more detailed 

discussion of technologies (under 2.2.3.2 ("Technologies") about 

halfway down page 2-9) discusses only four of the five technologies--

electric is not discussed for some reason. Electric technology is then 

dismissed from further consideration on page 2-16 via the following 

statement: 

"Electric propulsion technology would not be compatible with service 

provided or planned in Washington State." The basis for this 

statement is not clear--is Washington truly locked into non-electric 

technology going forward, especially in light of what appears to be 

near-daily reports revealing the increasingly dire nature of climate 

change (for example, last Thursday's report from the Oregon Global 

Warming Commission, which concludes that "Oregon’s GHG goals are 

not likely to be met with existing and currently planned actions"). The 

Rail Division of the Oregon Department of Transportation issued a 

report in June of 2009 entitled "Passenger Rail Solar Electrification: A 

Primer." 

According to this document, "Green house gas (CO2) emissions from 

six diesel roundtrips per day would equal 8,851 tons per year. If 109 

miles of the 120-mile corridor was electrified with solar power, 

greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced to 767 tons per year, a 91 

percent reduction." Additionally, "If service grows to six roundtrips per 

day, 1 million gallons of diesel and $3 million in fuel costs will be saved 

each year." Given advances in solar in the nine years since this 

document was produced, I'd think that solar electrification is even 

more promising now than it was at that time. The DEIS appears to 

ignore the 2009 document, and appears to dismiss dual mode 

technology without addressing the significant reduction in GHG 

emissions discussed in the 2009 document. The DEIS also fails to do an 

updated analysis of possible GHG reductions associated with electric

or dual mode technology in light of technological advances that have 

taken place since 2009.

Washington State has no adopted plans to 

change the propulsion technology of Amtrak 

Cascades intercity passenger trains. The OPR 

Project considered the ODOT 2009 "Primer," 

along with additional information about electric 

and dual-mode train set propulsion to inform 

the study and Preferred Alternative 

recommendation. Section 2.4.3 of the DEIS, 

“Evaluation of Transportation Modes and Train 

Technologies”, describes that the dual 

mode/power technology was found to require 

electrification of the rail line (typically through 

an overhead catenary) at an added cost. Unless 

substantial portions of the alignment were 

electrified, the technology would not achieve 

the benefit of higher speeds compared to the 

existing diesel technology. Further, the 

electrification of the line would require 

increased overhead clearance on existing and 

proposed rail alignments due to the overhead 

catenary lines.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 8 6

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Thank you,

Douglas Quirke

I-133 Carleen Reily What is the relationship between Oregon Passenger rail and Union 

Pacific? Will we still be put on the side rails to let freight go through? 

Because passenger and freight trains operate on 

the same track owned by Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR, the host railroad) passenger rail's ontime performance often depends on how UPRR 

handles dispatching passenger trains. Priority 

dispatching of Amtrak trains operating on 

shared tracks remains established federal law.

I-134 Marilyn Ripley Excellent! For two 2-years periods I was a weekly rider from Eugene to 

Portland. I appreciate the service and agree that Alternative 1 is also 

my preference. Thanks for all the dedicated, thoughtful work. 

Most important issues to me:

1. Increasing scheduled trains choices

2. Timeliness

3. Lower or create a discounted ticket option for family groups.

As a senior the fare is a good value for me, but I think it would 

increase ridership for group families if there was a better/lower fare 

for a family group. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

ODOT and FRA appreciate your comment on 

fare structures and have shared your comment 

with the ODOT Passenger Rail Project Manager. 

In addition to offering special pricing for seniors, 

children qualify for reduced rate tickets on the 

Amtrak Cascades. For more information see: 

https://www.amtrakcascades.com/specials 

I-135 Mark Robinowitz After many years of delay, ODOT has finally released a long overdue 

Draft EIS on better train service between Eugene and Portland. The 

proposal would increase Amtrak Cascades frequency to six round trips 

a day by 2035, which would bring service back to 1940 levels (when

there were also six round trips daily).

Six trains a day nearly two decades from now would not be 

noteworthy in most of the industrialized world, but in Oregon this is 

an unprecedented initiative.

It would be nice to have choices of departure times from Eugene to 

Portland beyond 5:30 am, lunch time (when the Coast Starlight is 

Thank you for your comments. 

With the publication of this FEIS and Record of 

Decision, ODOT will be able to move forward 

with implementation of the Preferred 

Alternative, which will include incremental 

improvements of service on the existing route, 

including future train schedules that optimize 

ridership. ODOT understands that many of their 

customers, and potential customers, would 

value increased service and improved reliability.

The Tier 1 EIS is being completed as the major 

component of the FRA and ODOT-led Oregon 

Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan. A 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 8 7

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

approximately on time) or late afternoon. I have friends who have 

lived in Eugene and worked at the State Capitol and Salem who 

regretted they were unable to use Amtrak to commute despite living 

and working walking distance from each train station.

As every Amtrak frequent rider knows, the train schedule can be 

unreliable due to freight congestion and the lack of double tracked 

sections that force trains to wait in sidings. The DEIS would address 

some of this, but does not detail why some single track sections would 

be added to and others would not be. Some of the train lines through 

towns would require substantial community disruption for double 

tracking, but other segments that would remain single track are in 

rural locations that would not bulldoze homes or wetlands with 

endangered species.

There does not seem to be any money appropriated beyond funding 

this study. Contractors who create NEPA documents are spendy, but 

laying down rail, buying train sets, installing new crossing gates, rail 

bridges over waterways, grade separating roads over rail lines are 

much more expensive.

Meanwhile, the region, the country, global civilization is facing the 

start of intensifying climate change and the end of the fossil fuel boom 

due to depletion. Both of these interconnected problems need 

consideration for future transportation and economic planning.

Revised Purpose and Need

The next stage of the NEPA process needs to consider physically 

possible scenarios for transportation demand and funding of 

maintenance and construction. Primary among considerations would 

be the expected availability of finite concentrated fossil carbon, since 

expensive oil and/or rationing would make existing projections moot.

Service Development Plan will also be 

completed to determine the incremental 

implementation of the Preferred Alternative, 

including scheduling additional intercity 

passenger rail trains to support optimal 

ridership. 

Revised Purpose and Need: Limited fossil fuels 

Thank you for raising the question about fossil 

fuels and the relationship to transportation. The 

Tier 1 EIS addresses a 20-year planning horizon; 

major shifts in energy availability are not 

anticipated during that time. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 8 8

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

“New Circumstances” will require a Supplemental Draft EIS

If a final EIS is prepared and published without consideration of energy 

descent, an SDEIS would be needed to address the “new 

circumstances” of energy shifts that will change the assumptions in 

the study.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a revision to 

the Environmental Impact Statement to address the new information 

about Peak Oil and climate change. 

40 CFR 1502.9: Draft, final and supplemental statements.

(c) Agencies:

(1) Shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental

impact statements if:

(i) The agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that

are relevant to environmental concerns; or

(ii) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to

environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its

impacts.23 CFR § 771.130 Supplemental environmental impact

statements.

(a) A draft EIS, final EIS, or supplemental EIS may be supplemented at

any time. An EIS shall be supplemented whenever the Administration

determines that: (1) Changes to the proposed action would result in

significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS;

or

(2) New information or circumstances relevant to environmental

concerns and bearings on the proposed action or its impacts would

result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS.

The Peak of global petroleum extraction is a "new circumstance" that 

impacts the purpose and need for any federally funded transportation 

project. 

Supplemental Draft EIS

The Tier 1 EIS addresses a 20-year planning 

horizon; major shifts in energy availability are 

not anticipated during that time. 

As noted in Section 4.17, improved passenger 

rail service has the potential to replace 

automobile, bus, and airplane trips along the 

length of the study area, as well as to generate 

demand for new rail trips. Ridership is projected 

to increase under Alternative 1 compared to 

existing conditions and the No Action 

Alternative. Based on ridership modeling 

completed in 2020, Oregon-supported Amtrak 

Thruway bus and passenger rail ridership in 

2015 would increase by approximately 34 

percent by 2035 under the No Action Alternative 

and would more than double under Preferred 

Alternative. A portion of this increase would be 

attributed to mode shift, including replacing 

Thruway bus trips with passenger rail trips.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 8 9

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

The global peak of conventional oil is now past, and this reality needs 

to be a primary consideration for any study of economics, energy, 

travel demand, financial futures, resource availability and related 

concerns over the next two decades (the timeline of this study).

Energy limits is not something “outside the scope” of this study, but 

fundamental to any consideration of energy in 2035. Obviously a 

precise guess of what will happen on the energy downslope is 

impossible to quantify, but assuming that it will continue as usual is 

likely the most erroneous prediction. Availability of concentrated 

energy is at the core of any transportation demand projection so the 

SDEIS needs to anticipate how Oregonians will continue to travel as oil 

becomes scarcer.

The Obama / Biden administration gave more support to Amtrak than 

any previous administrations. Senator Biden was a frequent Amtrak 

rider between Delaware and Capitol Hill. The main reason is probably 

because that administration understood Peak Oil even if they dare not 

admit it in public. Rebuilding the rails would be required to mitigate 

Peak Oil's transportation impacts. But the soundbite of "High Speed 

Rail" distracts from some inconvenient truths – the appropriation of 

eight billion dollars will only pay for modest fixes to a few lines. Higher 

speed rail for all of the initial corridors would require hundreds of 

billions, and a national network of actual high speed rail would be 

even more expensive -- that would require redirecting funds for more 

freeways and converting military contractors to build trains. It creates 

more jobs per dollar to make trains instead of missiles. On the 

downslope of Peak Energy we need "Transportation Triage" to 

prioritize systems more likely to be useful during the permanent oil 

shock, not new highways built on the assumption traffic levels will go 

up forever. The money the United States spent to destroy Iraq could 

have been used for renewable energy systems to power a real 

national rail network. It would take a lot of fossil fuel inputs to make 

these systems. Steel and concrete need a lot of energy to produce. It 

would be wise to prioritize the remaining fossil and mineral resources 

to anticipate the lower energy future that lies ahead.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 9 0

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Peak energy, limits to growth, depletion

Alaska Pipeline has declined three-fourths, nearing low flow 

shutdown. It powers Cascadia’s motors including food delivery trucks

During the DEIS comment period the Trans Alaska pipeline narrowly 

escaped disruption or destruction due to a Magnitude 7 earthquake 

on November 30, 2018. But even without seismic shocks, the pipeline 

continues to dwindle toward the inevitable low flow shutdown. 

Cascadia is totally dependent on this source of concentrated energy to 

run our motors, including cars, trains, planes, container ships and food 

delivery trucks. It is hard to predict the point when this system will 

close down, but the potential exists for systemic impacts within the 

twenty year planning horizon assumed in this NEPA process, even if 

new drilling is started in northwest or northeast Alaska.

I have had transportation planners from different levels of 

government quietly admit that this is a real concern and ask me how I 

think it could be considered. Perhaps a range of alternatives reflecting 

different scenarios makes sense. There could be the pollyanna “100% 

renewable green growth” future where techno-fixes save the day at 

the end of the oil era. I have personally used solar PV since 1990 and 

enjoy it, although not so much in the wintertime. (I have concluded 

living on our solar budget might be able to power enough things to 

stave off the worst case scenarios, but won’t power ever increasing 

exponential growth and therefore our way of life won’t be solar 

powered.) There could also be an “oil rationing” scenario which 

includes substantially less VMT, a permanent economic recession or 

depression, and more demand for trains and buses to facilitate travel 

(but less ability to pay for those services or rail construction to add 

service). A collapse scenario could also be examined, but in that 

circumstance railroads might be moot as a consideration.

In 2005, the US Department of Energy (Bush administration) 

commissioned a study to examine the economic impacts of peak 

energy. Robert Hirsch was the lead author and the report is popularly 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 9 1

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

known as the Hirsch report. He concluded that we would need two 

decades of preparations to react to the impacts of Peak Oil, or risk 

severe economic shocks. I heard Mr. Hirsch speak at the Association 

for the Study of Peak Oil conferences (ASPO-USA) and asked him if he 

was subtly suggesting that we blew it when our society ignored 

President Carter’s warnings to pay attention to the energy crises. He 

just smiled in response ...

Since the Hirsch report, the US has engaged in a massive expansion of 

unconventional oil and gas to avert the shocks of peaked energy. 

Fracking has been a steep boom for both fuel sources and has enabled 

much of the society to go back to sleep - a snooze button. However, 

fracked wells decline far faster than conventional wells and the early 

fracked fields have mostly peaked and started their declines. When 

the fracking boom tips over into bust, the energy crises are likely to 

return like the passage of the eye of a Category Five hurricane, a 

scenario we are totally unprepared for either logistically or 

psychologically. 

Here is some relevant background on this limiting, fundamental factor 

for any economic and transportation planning in Ore-is-gone.

[Remainder of comment letter comprised of articles, maps and 

attachments. The full submittal is included in this appendix within the 

record of individual comments.]

I-136 Robert Rose ODOT’s designation of Alternative 1 (A1) over Alternative 2 (A2) as the 

preferred alternative is disappointing. A1 does not represent the 

innovation and problem-solving spirit that is needed to address the 

challenges that face our region, and the nation, in the coming 

decades. We are beset with a climate-change outlook that requires 

drastic cuts to carbon emissions in the decades ahead. Some Improved 

service on the existing alignment, the A1 solution, will be an 

improvement for current users of the service; it will do very little to 

encourage potential new users to leave their cars at home and take 

the train.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors.

ODOT developed a high-speed rail concept 

vision as part of the OPR EIS process, which 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 9 2

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I question the use of the slightly higher ridership snapshot projection 

associated with A1 over A2 in 2035 as a justification for A1 as the 

preferred alternative. While likely accurate, does it represent the 

trend for the years and decades beyond 2035? And does it respond to 

where the expected 27% population growth is likely to occur? I’m 

skeptical. 

A2 represents a material improvement in Willamette Valley rail 

transportation. A1 represents more of a tweak that is analogous to a 

bandaid. In addition to a shorter trip and a right-of-way that is by and 

large free of conflicts with freight traffic, A2 provides stations that are 

closer to where people live, or are likely to live. Densely populated 

areas of the Portland Metro region have good transit options to the 

centrally located stations, e.g., Union Station. This is not the case for 

outlying locations. Close proximity to stations in these areas is what is 

needed to entice people to use the train. People will bike, drive, or 

take transit for a short distance to a station near their homes, but 

would not likely use a service that requires them to drive to the 

current centrally located stations of A1. If forced to do the latter, they 

would likely just stay in their cars for the entire trip. 

Finally, in spite of its much lower cost, A1 is more vulnerable to the 

vagaries of political will and opportunistic critique. The fact that it 

could be built incrementally, as long as politicians in power remain 

favorably disposed to a solution, means that its completion could be 

easily curtailed. Portions of an incremental solution are much more 

subject to delay and cancellation than is a bold undertaking that is 

responsive to present and future needs. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Rose

Lake Oswego

examined true high-speed rail for the Eugene-toPortland segment of the Pacific Northwest Rail 

Corridor (PNWRC). The Rogue Valley is not 

within the PNWRC and outside the Project study 

area. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail —generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment. The study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress, 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014); Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a 

passenger rail network.

I-137 Mark Ross More trains, fewer cars Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 9 3

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I-138 Rob Roy I encourage the Oregon Department of Transportation to continue to 

serve bicyclists as it improves inter-city passenger rail service between 

Eugene-Springfield and Portland. I live in Eugene and have traveled 

often on the train with my bike.

• I have traveled often to Portland on the Amtrak Cascades for the day

with my bike, returning to Eugene.

• I have visited my brother in Davis, California, several times with my

bicycle and have taken the Coast Starlight.

• One year, I and three friends took the Amtrak Cascades from

Eugene, OR to Seattle, WA for week of cycling in the San Juan Islands.

We boarded the south-bound Amtrak Cascades train in Mount

Vernon, WA with four bikes, and rode back to Eugene.

ODOT supports and encourages bicycling and 

will continue to accommodate bicycles on 

Cascades trains while also exploring ways, in 

partnership with other local agencies, to 

increase convenience and access for bicyclists to 

use intercity passenger rail.

I-139 Robert Roy I encourage Amtrak to accommodate passengers with bicycles. 

I‘ve ridden on the Amtrak Cascades with my bike many times:

• I ride on the Amtrak Cascades often from Eugene, OR to Portland,

OR, with a bicycle.

• Once, I rode Amtrak Cascades with three friends and our four bikes

to Seattle WA., returning to Eugene, OR from Mt. Vernon, WA.

• I have ridden Amtrak several times with a bicycle to Davis, CA.

ODOT supports and encourages bicycling and 

will continue to accommodate bicycles on 

Cascades trains while also exploring ways, in 

partnership with other local agencies, to 

increase convenience and access for bicyclists to 

use intercity passenger rail.

I-140 Rob Roy Bicycle facilities to match rider projections. ODOT supports and encourages bicycling and 

will continue to accommodate bicycles on 

Cascades trains while also exploring ways, in 

partnership with other local agencies, to 

increase convenience and access for bicyclists to 

use intercity passenger rail.

I-141 Paul Sachet Topic: Long term plans for increasing service between Portland and 

Eugene

Good day. My name is Paul Sachet. I reside at 2191 Westwood Ln, 

Eugene, Oregon. Train travel for me pre-dates my earliest memory. 

My father received various soldier assignments in the US, which led to 

steam powered trips for my mother and I to training bases. However, 

for this Beaver State, for the "webs between my toes" and for my 

acquisition of Duck wings I do have also many miles of experience 

Thank you for your comments. Early in the 

planning process, FRA and ODOT established the 

OPR Project Purpose and Need, and Goals and 

Objectives that provided the foundational 

framework to develop, screen initial concepts, 

compare and evaluate preliminary alternatives, 

evaluate a smaller and refined set of 

alternatives, and provide information to support 

selection of a Preferred Alternative. The Project 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 9 4

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

across, and up-and-down, this fine state. In fact, I do remember only 

having 99E and 99W for north and south travels and how lightly 

traveled I-5 was while attending my early childhood education here in 

the Willamette Valley. Contrasting negotiating I-5 today with the 

1950s leaves on shaking over the volume and stress level of 

differences. And, my travels have continued to include train services. 

I have lived in and traveled widely by train in various European 

countries and, as well, am an occasional user of Amtrak service 

between Eugene and Seattle. European service is by-and-large "First 

World" for me. Amtrak is "Second World," at best. The leading 

problem here, while acknowledging progress, is the sufferable sharing 

of tracks with freight service. Then, it is also the road bed conditions 

that impair fast and efficient service. Now I do not need to belabor 

matters over today's service with my own examples. The larger issues 

have been laid out before us. One, to make current roadway better 

and somehow faster. Or, two, to build a new, fast roadway, such as 

along I-5 corridor. I am not sure that a bifurcation of such leads to 

what I would envision. 

Briefly. my thoughts are as follows:

Build for the present and future. Plan for these Objectives: 1. Relieve I5 congestion. 2. Increase travel safety. 3. Reduce our carbon footprint. 

4. Envision routing that best services the population concentrations.

And 5. Plan and fund for service efficiency.

Each on of these objectives should follow with discussion, however in 

the interest of time I will be glad to submit such to the respective 

officials in writing. The gist of my discussion before you today is that I 

do not see the current Eugene-Portland route as adequately 

addressing the population concentrations. It should run from Portland 

west of I-5 to Salem. It should continue to serve Albany. It should be 

routed such that it serves Corvallis. From there is should continue to 

serve Junction City ad then reconnect to Eugene. Furthermore, service 

should not only be more frequent between Eugene and Portland, but 

it should also include frequent intra-regional services with 1-2-3 car 

"commuter" like services between two or three cities. Added to such 

engaged a large and diverse array of 

stakeholders and explored a wide variety of 

ideas, including different routes and station 

locations. The process resulted in the Preferred 

Alternative recommendation provided in the 

Tier 1 DEIS. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 9 5

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

connections should be connections for regional and international 

airports. 

In my lifetime, Oregon's population has grown tremendously and this 

too will not abate. Passenger rail service can be ever more vital and 

popular. I believe that a time for planning and establishing fast and 

efficient service is best established today and while there is less 

pressure for where to place roadways. 

Thank you for your interest and making this opportunity available. 

I-142 Eric Sandoval Alternative 1 provides a healthy growth for this vital transportation 

resource.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-143 Meredith Schreiber Alternative 1 makes good sense. Not having to share tracks with 

freight would be a huge improvement - giving options for travel seems 

essential, less fuel, carbon emissions, affordable housing choices for 

commuters, social justice, quality of life. 

If MAX in Portland can keep expanding, the money should be there, 

competing interest, etc. but I appreciate the excellent work done so

far and hope progress continues. I've been hoping for this for 18 years 

already!

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-144 Richard Scott The displays and oral presentation were very helpful in providing more 

full understanding that the newspaper. 

Alternative 1 seems like a very sound and attainable solution in the 

foreseeable future and I appreciate its potential for additions beyond 

that. 

High speed doesn't seem like a necessary goal at the present. 

Frequent service (without time on sidings) is desirable for now. 

Thanks for the presentation. 

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with incremental implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative, which will consist of 

improvements on the existing route to 

adequately support increased intercity 

passenger rail service. 

I-145 Brenda Scotton Currently Amtrak passenger service is unreliable due to shared time 

with freight traffic using the same time. Would Alternative 1 address 

this conflict? It would be great to increase existing 2 trips daily to 6 

Thank you for your comment. The Preferred 

Alternative would share track with freight rail. 

Because passenger and freight trains operate on 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 9 6

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

trips daily if the reliability of the service became a reality. If Alternative 

1 doesn’t result in schedule efficiency, then Alternative 2 with a new 

track is preferred.

I have a problem with Portland Union Station. It is in some ways 

ideally located next to Greyhound and accessible to regional buses

forming a commuter hub. Security at that location is needed within a 

4-6 block radius so elderly, handicapped or other vulnerable

commuters can safely travel between Amtrak/Greyhound/regional bus

hub to Trimet.

Summary: I want a reliable and safe rail commute.

the same track owned by Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR, the host railroad) passenger rail's on 

time performance often depends on how UPRR 

handles dispatching passenger trains. Priority 

dispatching of Amtrak trains operating on 

shared tracks remains established federal law. 

To further avoid disruption to freight rail 

operations and improve reliability of passenger 

trains, the Preferred Alternative will add track 

and other rail infrastructure improvements.

I-146 Elaine Sedlack I am retired so I don't commute, but want to be able to go to art 

museums. 

I would prefer the plan which follows the existing rails line, as it will 

make it accessible to more people. The 18 minute difference is not 

importance to me. I love taking the train, and would do so much more 

frequently - probably at least twice a month, if not more, if there were

enough trains running to allow going to Portland from Eugene easily in 

one day. I avoid taking the bus so I use the 5:30 AM train when I do go 

to Portland. I refuse to drive to Portland. I also would encourage you 

to be sure to accommodate as many bikes as possible. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1, 

which follows the existing Amtrak Cascades 

route, has been selected as the Preferred 

Alternative. ODOT supports and encourages 

bicycling and will continue to accommodate 

bicycles on Cascades trains while also exploring 

ways, in partnership with other local agencies, 

to increase convenience and access for bicyclists 

to use intercity passenger rail.

I-147 Roberta Sesso I have lived in Wilsonville for 5 years. I don't drive & find public transit 

very limited & difficult to access. Wilsonville is a "transportation 

desert", providing, along with Tri-Met, a very limited access 

geographically. I have to travel by 2 buses into Portland to get to 

Amtrak, or two buses to Salem to get to Amtrak, which I use 

frequently.

I could get on the Cascades in Canby- right across the river from 

Wilsonville; but it doesn't stop there. I watched the Cascades go 

through Canby twice in one day!

Route 1 would require me to keep on doing this, or take 3 buses to 

Oregon City, then a 4th bus to the Amtrak stop!

Therefore, I favor Route 2- this opens up many alternative 

transportation connections, which do not exist now or are too timely 

& arduous. This applies to many people in this "transportation desert", 

One purpose of the OPR Project is to “integrate 

with existing and planned transportation 

networks.” As the Project progresses beyond the 

Tier 1 EIS and Record of Decision, local transit 

providers and ODOT will have the ability to 

improve connections to the service. Regarding 

adding a station in Canby, ODOT and the 

Washington Department of Transportation 

adopted a Station Stop Policy that outlines what 

criteria need to be met before additional stops 

on the Cascade Routes are added to the service 

(see 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm). 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 9 7

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

both in & around Wilsonville- Tualatin north to PDX, east to West Linn, 

south to Canby, Aurora, etc.

This is a large resource of potential passengers, yet has been 

overlooked for many years by transportation planners in this area.

Route 2 gets my vote :)

I-148a Elise Shearer Favor existing route with improvements. Any chance of adding more 

stations is always welcome, but I know it changes travel time & 

interferes with schedules. Thank you for more efficient passenger 

options for travel besides driving & flying.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

Regarding adding stations in the future, ODOT 

and the Washington Department of 

Transportation adopted a Station Stop Policy 

that outlines what criteria need to be met 

before additional stops on the Cascade Routes 

are added to the service (see 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm). 

I-148b Elise Shearer Please keep the Wilsonville station if possible. It serves a lot of 

businesses & a growing population base in South Metro area.

While the Preferred Alternative does not include 

a station in Wilsonville, one purpose of the OPR 

Project is to “integrate with existing and planned 

transportation networks.” As the Project

progresses beyond the Tier 1 EIS and Record of 

Decision, local transit providers and ODOT will 

have the ability to improve connections to the 

service. 

I-149 Mark Siddall

Resident of Albany

(541) 929-0021

Advocating for continued use of Albany station as the location of 

passenger rail service to the Albany, Corvallis, Lebanon, Sweet Home, 

Newport communities.

Double tracking and consequent more frequent departures is most 

important to increase of passenger rail. 

To further avoid disruption to freight rail 

operations and improve reliability of passenger 

trains, the Preferred Alternative will add track 

and other rail infrastructure improvements.

I-150 Mark Siddall Verbal testimony:

Basically it's because I'm a consumer of rail passenger service. Stacy 

and I were discussing things which actually turned out to be quite 

parallel to what -- from her position as an ODOT, Oregon Department 

of Transportation person, what services can rail perform that's 

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with incremental implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative, which will consist of 

improvements on the existing route to 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 9 8

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

economical and safe and appropriate for people like myself, who are 

consumers of the service. 

And more specifically, how does our -- my consumer's point of view 

align with the point of view of national, state, and local -- did I get that 

right?

-- services align. And it's surprising -- it is surprising to me, anyway, 

that there's a great deal of correspondence of interest. It's got to be 

fast -- I mean, from the time I'd like to go to when I'm there is 

important, particularly in competition with airline and automobile. 

And safe, particularly with respect to automobile safety and pleasant.

So I've used rail service a number of places in Europe and here, and I 

do so quite often. Now that I'm fully retired, I use rail services a lot 

more even. In the past when I was on vacation time, I used rail 

services in Europe a lot. And as a bicyclist, which is the other factor, I 

look for both speed and safety and convenience as a factor too. That's 

not just vacation.

I was describing when my late wife was requiring medical at OHSU in 

Portland, I was identical to the many other commuters I found on the 

Cascades from here to Portland. So it was important to me that I was 

able to get to the hospital in time for their opening at 8:00, and that I 

was able to find a train home. And that when I got on the train, it was 

important that I could find something to eat, and to be in safe 

surroundings and be in a pleasant place. You know, read and do other 

work I had to do, which includes Internet connectivity and the like. It 

needed to be affordable. It's no big deal, but it matters.

So with regard to tonight's meeting decision it occurred to me that it 

would be less desirable for me to have to go to a high-speed rail 

terminal than to utilize one that's already there, but with more 

frequent service. But it doesn't necessarily have to be fast, because 

from the point of view of the user, it's not how fast you go. We were 

talking about the Channel Tunnel, my present wife, she decided to 

take a nap and woke up in France 20 minutes later. It's not necessarily 

scenic because you can't even see the scenery above 200 hundred 

miles an hour. It's kind of like two trains, you pass another train and 

it's a blur. The scenery was a blur out to about a quarter mile or half 

adequately support increased intercity 

passenger rail service. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 9 9

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

mile so it's not scenic.

What actually mattered is could I get up in the morning, you know, I 

had to be there 6:10 or 6:11 on the early train. And her ICU closed at 

8:00 and I couldn't sleep on the -- I was, for a while, in her room 

sleeping and I didn't need the train. But in the last month, I had to 

have someplace to sleep. Well -- or taxi or keep a car and go down to a 

motel. But what I found was if I take the cynicular (ph) down from 

OHSU, take the streetcar over to Portland Union Station and jump on 

the, what was it, 5 or 6:00 train, I guess. Oh, no, it was closer to the 

8:00 train.

It was aligned perfectly for me then. Nowadays it's not quite as good. 

Anyway, then I was able to go right straight to the bistro car and get 

dinner. I'd go to sleep and I'd wake up early enough to get the 6:10, 

and I did that for several months. She eventually passed away.

Well, I did notice that I wasn't alone. There are a lot of people who 

commuted. That was their lifestyle. And it's kind of an important one if 

you have to commute. It's a much better one, in my opinion. I have 

commuted to Portland from here, and it's -- when you can only drive, 

you can't sit and catch up on email or whatever. So do you have to 

have Internet connectivity.

I know this is not all new to you, but the only thing I'm pointing out is 

in my opinion, it would be less convenient for me to have out-of-town, 

high-speed interface. I've used them. And in Europe particularly, there 

are -- just last week I mentioned we went up to Everett from Albany 

for Thanksgiving. Well, it worked out perfectly because we were able 

to get the 6:10 and avoid rush hour through Portland and Seattle and 

go right up to Everett. They were booked up so they had to give us a 

taxi, well, nothing's perfect. And my daughter- in-law picked us up. 

And same story second verse coming home, beautiful, much easier 

than commuting by car, much more pleasant.

Yeah, the frequency. That was from the user's point of view, it's 

frequency more than velocity.

I explained to him the difference between Alternative 1 and 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 100

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

Alternative 2, and that Alternative 2, you get there a little bit faster.

Let me describe the trip from -- we were up in northern England in the 

Lake District and my grandson was attending Prep school, college I 

guess you call it. And then we went down to Paris. So Sir William 

Branson has a fast train that goes through Manchester down to the 

Midland Station, I think it is. And you get there quick, but you really 

don't see anything. So if I were a sightseer, it really wouldn't be of any 

interest.

But I had to tailor everything else to match that bullet train. Now they 

do travel more frequently than here, but the point I was making is it 

was really more important to a have frequency of starting times than 

the maximum velocity while traveling. So the experience for me, the 

user, maybe looks similar, but it's really different from that point of 

view of maximizing velocity. And to maximize velocity, you've got to 

have some open space. I realize that but it's better to have localized, 

centralized mass transit available places to depart -- arrive and depart 

from than it is to maximize the velocity through a linear straight line, 

point-to-point destination.

So that's all I wanted to say is just simply keep the old station here and 

to do your best to straighten up the line just a few pinch points around 

here. You know, when you come down past -- from the south, you 

may need to put in some overpasses or some traffic detours or a little 

something. If I describe European travel, it's like that. They've got 

corridors that keep oxcarts from coming --

Yeah, exactly so. Off grade.

And then, Lydia, to let you know, the Albany station here -- you might 

know this --

Back in the day when I did run that part of the Albany bike 

commission, and we worked with Peter DeFazio at the time. And we 

were able -- we had a grand title for our station -- Mass Transit --

anyway. It is that, effectively. Taxis, buses from other communities, 

each of which would like a high-speed station but which don't happen 

to be geographically located. We decided the best thing was to simply 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 101

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

maximize the connectivity at the interface. So Albany station is a hub. 

We used to call this town a hub city when rail travel was predominant.

I-151 Robert Siegwarth Alternative 2 is the best. More ambitious and faster. Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-152 Lin Sime I strongly support alternative 1, and I would think businesses in all 

affected cities, would, too. I would take many more trips to Portland if 

we had this, and Portland businesses should help in the funding.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-153 Ellen Singer Alternative 1 makes the most sense. Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-154 James Smith 1. There should be a direct rail line from UofO to OSU (Eugene to

Corvallis), then on to Salem. OPR should serve the needs of these

academic communities.

2. The "kinks" should be taken out of the route. Example: no detour to

Oregon City (it should be served by MAX).

3. For safety and speed, eliminate train-car/truck intersections.

4. Back to the drawing board: Alternative 1 is basically the status quo,

Alternative 2 is worse.

5. What ever happened to bullet trains? This is embarrassing!

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 102

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

increases and can serve as the backbone of a 

passenger rail network. 

ODOT, along with WSDOT and British Columbia 

are exploring ultra high-speed rail Portland to 

Seattle to BC. 

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/studies/ult

ra-high-speed-travel/ground-transportationstudy

I-155 Randall Smith Verbal testimony:

It's Randall Smith, R-A-N-D-A-L-L, Smith. It's Dr. Smith, PhD.

So I am affiliated with Portland State University Department of 

Geology but my testimony is not related to Portland State University 

or the Department of Geology.

I had a concern that the limited scope of the DEIS -- and I know it's 

related to the alternative plans, but there are several adjacent freight 

lines which could, say in an emergency, be used as either alternative 

lines or areas of growth for the rail system. So at present everything is 

sort of aligned on the high speed rail, the standard line with 

improvements and stuff, but there's very little said about relations 

with adjacent freight and other rail. And I think that's a general 

weakness to the plan because the gap in rail traffic is so large. People 

are just unfamiliar with using rails, you know, in a routine way, and so 

it limits the ability to grow.

So if you had spur line, let's say to Corvallis, maybe alternative trains 

going to Albany, Corvallis even to Lebanon where an existing freight 

line occurs. And even I think it goes to Mill City. So there are other 

things that could be in the future plan to expand rail service, not just 

to the central corridor but other lines.

I think that's all I need to say because that's -- yeah, that part is really 

not discussed. And it appears that it wasn't discussed very much in the 

beginning. Everything really has narrowed very quickly to the 

alternative plans without looking at expansion of railroad to spur 

Thank you for your comment. The focus of the 

study was on intercity rail service, rather than 

the use of existing rail infrastructure for 

emergency service. The study does not preclude 

ODOT from considering the provision of spur 

service in the future. ODOT planning documents 

can be accessed on its website: 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Pages

/Plans.aspx

ODOT and FRA eliminated the preliminary 

alternative that would directly serve Corvallis 

from further consideration, because it increased 

travel time between Eugene and Portland and 

reduced ridership as result of the increased 

travel time. However, the OPR decision does not 

preclude potential future enhanced connections 

to Corvallis.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 103

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

areas, like Corvallis, and even beyond Eugene up to -- what's the city 

beyond Eugene? Oakridge. Like you go up to Oakridge as a 

recreational site. Nor does it address future connections to the coast, 

say to Florence, Coos Bay from -- maybe beginning from Eugene and 

so forth. Okay. That's all I have.

I-156 Kayla Smith While it would be great for passenger rail to not compete with freight 

rail and for it to be more dependable, the cost is out of reach. I would 

think ridership would be higher if Amtrak could figure out how to be 

on time AND if riders didn't have to take a bus to return home.

The Preferred Alternative would continue to 

share track with freight rail. Because passenger 

and freight trains operate on the same track 

owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR, the host 

railroad) passenger rail's on-time performance 

often depends on how UPRR handles 

dispatching passenger trains. Priority dispatching 

of Amtrak trains operating on shared tracks 

remains established federal law. To further 

avoid disruption to freight rail operations and 

improve reliability of passenger trains, the 

Preferred Alternative will add track and other

rail infrastructure improvements to 

accommodate four additional daily passenger 

rail round trips that will increase service and 

reliability.

I-157 David Sonnichsen Strongly favor the Preferred Alternative. If Alternative 2 had been 

selected I would oppose it due to its conversion of Willamalane Park 

and Recreation District parkland just east of I-5, using an example 

from my local area. Federal regulations make taking parkland for 

transportation purposes difficult and invite litigation. Further, the 

necessity of building two additional bridges over the Willamette River 

immediately east of the I-5 Whilamut Passage Bridge would degrade 

the view shed along the Willamette River corridor. If such a 

monumentally expensive project was chosen I would favor tunneling 

under the Willamette and Willamalane's parkland (part of the 

Whilamut Natural Area of Alton Baker Park, shared by Springfield and 

Eugene). The price tag of Alternative 2 is simply prohibitive as it has 

been outlined. It is therefore encouraging that ODOT favors enhancing 

the existing rail corridor and serving so many communities historically 

linked to rail transportation

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 104

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I-158 Pamela Spettel I heartily support this transportation infrastructure investment. The 

opportunities for business expansion and general day travel would be 

ready for what is to come. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-159 Jessie Spillers Verbal testimony:

Jessie: The Alternative 2, now that's the one that's going to require 

more construction of new track, correct?

Tracie: Yes. 

Jessie: Okay. I'm in favor of that because, you know, you always hear 

about, you know, infrastructure, oh, it needs to be replaced. It's falling 

apart. Which, Alternative 1 was basically older track; is that correct?

Tracie: Correct. Existing plus some improvement to the existing. 

Jessie: Okay. Whereas, Alternative 2 being newer track. So I think in 

the long run for maintenance issues, that's the way to go.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-160 Tina Springer I like alternative 1 and will definitely take advantage of it.

Any chance we could get rail service to La Grande after the Eugene to 

Portland

Project is completed?

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. La 

Grande is not within the Pacific Northwest Rail 

Corridor (PNWRC) and outside the Project study 

area, but this comment has been shared with 

the Passenger Rail Program Manager.

I-161 Adam Stallsworth, District 

Operations Coordinator

Is this funding being gathered through state wide taxes or through 

local levies?

It is anticipated that the Preferred Alternative 

will be implemented in phases, as funding 

becomes available. Currently, funding for 

advancing the Preferred Alternative has not 

been identified. ODOT anticipates seeking a 

combination of Federal and State funding into 

final design and construction. 

I-162 Andrew Stephenson Alternative 2 would be better, due to its increased speed and 

reliability. However, a combination of the two alignments would be 

preferred, such that the existing urban stations are used (which are 

located centrally in urban areas with public transit connections). But 

the route should be entirely new and dedicated to electrified highspeed rail for trains to travel above at least 100 mph. The route can 

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2 and other concepts with new and 

dedicated alignments considered, to meet the 

Project's goals and objectives. While Alternative 

2 has a faster travel time over the route, the 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 105

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

follow I-5 for direct routes and cost reductions, but most Oregonians 

live in the medium-sized towns away from the freeway.

The study of Portland-Eugene rail comes at an auspicious time when 

ODOT, WSDOT, and British Columbia are working together in a study 

to bring high-speed rail to the Cascadia megaregion. If forwardthinking is prioritized, the route built between Portland and Eugene 

can reliably serve accelerated rail travel between Portland and Eugene 

after Portland-Seattle-Vancouver high-speed rail is complete.

Disclaimer: I live in the Seattle area, but I travel to Portland 

occasionally and would likely use this Portland-Eugene rail to visit 

friends in Corvallis once annually.

other performance attributes favor Alternative 

1. Environmental impact, ridership, and capital

costs were key discriminating factors.

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a 

passenger rail network. 

As you noted, ODOT, along with WSDOT and 

British Columbia are exploring ultra high-speed 

rail Portland to Seattle to BC. 

https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/studies/ult

ra-high-speed-travel/ground-transportationstudy

I-163 Ted Stonecliffe If Oregon is going to be serious about high speed passenger rail for the 

future, we need an alternative that takes the passenger trains off of 

the freight rail tracks. That is alternative 2. I am a transit planner with 

Cherriots, the local transit system for Salem-Keizer and Marion and 

Polk Counties. I know that ridership depends on three main things, 

especially if you are trying to compete with the automobile: 

frequency, reliability, and speed. Alternative 1 is less costly, but there 

is more and more interest in high speed rail in congested corridors 

such as the Willamette Valley, and this is a much better scenario than 

running trains on the existing UP tracks through cities like Salem, 

which have many at-grade crossings. Reliability of the existing 

Cascades Amtrak trains is very low compared to the buses we run on I5 between Salem and Wilsonville (Route 1X express). Therefore, the 

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project’s goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 106

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

state of Oregon needs to request more federal funds to build it right 

the first time. People want a reliable schedule and frequent service, 

and that isn't possible if the system relies on the freight rail network.

I-164 Shawna Stovall I used to ride between Seattle and Portland. My only concern is that 

this project may be a wasted effort towards antiquated system 

upgrades. 

Leon musk is building a high speed rail system in a tunnel, currently 

being tested. Maybe you should network with that dude. The point 

being, improving old technology, or new technology? It is such a 

conundrum.

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a 

passenger rail network. 

I-165 David Strubhar 1) I don't know if this is still possible or not, but it strikes me that a

selective combination of the two Alternatives may serve the traveling

public the best for the Cascades routing (less so for the Coast

Starlight)--e.g., Altern.#1 Eugene to north of Hubbard (Hito area), then

new alignment switching over to the PNWR to travel Altern#2 with its

new stations at Wilsonville and/or Tualatin, etc. This would allow an

easy transfer to/from existing WES service at Wilsonville and the

potential of some shuttle transfer to any new TriMet Light Rail

terminal at Bridgeport, both of which would fan out the rail service

access quite nicely for anyone from the Willamette Valley.

2) As anyone who has tried to travel I-5 during game days at Eugene

and Corvallis can tell you, there would be reason to try to capture

Corvallis in the travel route, although I feel hesitant to go with

Altern#2 there because it feels like it gives up a significant stretch of

higher speed potential routing.

3) With the beauty and significant work put into the Salem station

area, unless the route capacity constraints are too restrictive, stick

1) The Project involved a robust process that

engaged rail planning, design, operations, and

environmental specialists to work through an

extensive range of ideas and possible route

alignments throughout the broad Project study

area that extends between Eugene/Springfield

and the Portland metropolitan area. This process

resulted in recommendation of Alternative 1 as

the Preferred Alternative because of its ability,

compared to all other options to meet the

Project's Purpose and Need, and Goals and

Objectives.

2) ODOT and FRA eliminated the preliminary

alternative that would directly serve Corvallis

from further consideration, because it increased

travel time between Eugene and Portland and

reduced ridership as result of the increased

travel time. However, the OPR decision does not

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 107

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

with the current station. Same with Albany.

4) Perhaps there is reason to consider slight divergence of routings for

the Cascade trains compared to the Coast Starlight, since the focus of

each set is different...

preclude potential future enhanced connections 

to Corvallis.

3) The Preferred Alternative would continue to

use existing stations including in Salem and

Albany.

4) The Project focused on the Amtrak Cascade

service area in Oregon, and considered

alternative routes for Cascade trains.

I-166 Brenda StVincent Alternative 2 looks like the best option. Hits more cities that are apt to 

use it. I like this idea. Very positive outcome.

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-167a Reddit user: u/suffusion From r/Eugene

If the proposal includes getting off of the Union Pacific tracks, I'm on 

board. I hate airline travel and find the train much more comfortable, 

but with slowdowns and delays taking the train takes longer than 

driving. Not the way it works in the Northeast Corridor.

The Preferred Alternative would continue to 

share track with freight rail. Because passenger 

and freight trains operate on the same track 

owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR, the host 

railroad) passenger rail's on-time performance 

often depends on how UPRR handles 

dispatching passenger trains. Priority dispatching 

of Amtrak trains operating on shared tracks 

remains established federal law. To further 

avoid disruption to freight rail operations and 

improve reliability of passenger trains, the 

Preferred Alternative will add track and other 

rail infrastructure improvements to improve 

service frequency and reliability.

I-167b Reddit user: u/Suffusion From r/Eugene

If you read the online open house (linked in another comment), 

Alternative 1 (continue with existing infrastructure) has been 

recommended as the 'preferred' alternative. I'll show up to the open 

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 108

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

house and let them know how ridiculous that is, but I don't expect to 

get anywhere.

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-168 Reddit user: 

u/swarmingblackcats

From r/Eugene

Regardless of which is selected, this seems like a no brainer to me. Our 

existing rail service is a joke.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-169 Emily Taussig I would want Alternative One, along the existing route with 

improvements to track and signals. Alternative Two, even though it 

seems to promise a faster time, does not promise to reach the central 

cities and leaves a larger environmental mark and that is what I do not 

like about Alternative Two, which would build an entirely new route 

along part of the plan.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-170 Blake Thompson I am happy to tell you that Ridesource was chosen for the 2018 

Eugene Awards in the category of City & Regional Planners. The 

Eugene Award was created to acknowledge the best businesses in our 

community.

For additional information please visit us at:

https://eugene.city-recognition.com/MDKM3-UBAZ-MQJJ

If needed for reference - your code is: DKM3-UBAZ-MQJJ 

Congratulations,

Blake Thompson

Eugene Awards

Thank you for your comment. While this 

comment does not pertain to the Tier 1 EIS, it 

has been included in the record. 

I-171 Tom [no last name 

provided]

The most important improvement is to stop sharing rails with freight 

trains. The arbitrary delays caused by freight train precedence has 

soured tons of people off taking Amtrak.

It seems like you could add the Springfield Station as an option to 

Alternative 1.

Will this increase the speed of the trains? It still looks like your travel 

times are slower than car travel times (on a good traffic day), which of 

The Project considered a rail terminus in 

Springfield as part of Alternative 2, but the 

current Eugene station is in a downtown core 

that is more convenient and accessible to more 

people and would attract more passengers. 

Currently, local transit services provide 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 109

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

course means you will be missing out on most of your potential riders.

Would it be possible to add safe bike parking near the Oregon 

stations? right now I either get a cab or a ride, or take my bike on the 

train because there is no way my bike would still be on the bike rack 

after a long weekend's train trip. Quite honestly, this has led to me 

deciding to just drive my car on several occasions.

Finally, it sure would be nice to have a station around Woodburn or so 

to make it easy to link transportation modes to all of those small 

communities around there. It would be great to get one in Harrisburg 

too, but I imagine that's too small of a community for you.

connections between the Eugene train station 

and destinations in Eugene and Springfield.

Regarding bike storage, there are currently bike 

lockers in Albany and Salem; ODOT will consider

further investments in bike storage capacity. 

ODOT supports and encourages bicycling and 

will continue to accommodate bicycles on 

Cascades trains and at stations while also 

exploring ways, in partnership with other local 

agencies, to increase convenience and access for 

bicyclists to use intercity passenger rail. 

Regarding additional stations in Springfield and 

Woodburn, the Station Stop Policy for Amtrak 

Cascades Service, jointly issued by ODOT and 

WSDOT on June 1, 2016, gives the PNWRC 

administrators the responsibility for evaluating 

proposals to add, remove, or skip station stops 

for the Amtrak Cascades service. The companion 

Station Stop Policy Guidance Document that 

ODOT and WSDOT completed in 2016 describes 

the process for evaluating proposed station 

changes. Proposals to add one or more stations, 

such as in Springfield, Woodburn, and 

Harrisburg, beyond the five proposed under the 

Preferred Alternative, would need to be 

considered through future Tier 2 studies with 

adherence to the Station Stop Policy.

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20

Document%20Library/HB2918-LegislativeReport-2017.pdf and 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm

I-172 Greg Tompkins Well are you going to actually do anything about the passenger rail or 

just waste an outlandish amount of taxpayer money for 30 years and 

do absolutely nothing? Shameful how bad our transportation system 

is in Oregon all you guys ever do is piss away outrageous amounts of 

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with implementation of the Preferred 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 110

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

money on studies like you did the bridge to Vancouver and the bridge 

to Salem whatever came about with that? and then do you do 

NOTHING. What do you have to show for any of the money wasted ?

Alternative, which will include incremental 

improvements of service on the existing route.

I-173 Randal Toth for the projected increase in ridership going forward, Alternative 2 

disrupts too much infrastructure including farmland, and costs too 

much to implement. 

Under the existing rail system, the cost of transporting a family of 

three by Amtrak is prohibitive even compared to driving the family 

vehicle getting 15mpg. 

The cost is too great!

Alternative 1 has been selected as the Preferred 

Alternative; it provides greater improvements in 

ridership and minimized environmental impact. 

I-174 Matthew Trecha Please institute Alternative 1 to keep stations near central city--my 

generation (millennial) is moving away from car use, etc. and we need 

to be able to access stations on bike, walking and via public transit.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-175 William Van Vliet [Form submitted included no comments.] Thank you for your interest in the Project. 

I-176 Karrie Walters It seems clear that simply improving and upgrading our current line 

(alternative 1) has the most benefits (same amount of ridership, only 

15 minutes extra, saves much more money, less environmental 

impacts, meets needs of more cities.). HOWEVER - it won't work if we 

can't have more frequent routes with better, more user-friendly times. 

5:30am Eugene departures for weekdays? That's not a regular 

feasible option for people. I would LOVE to be able to hop on a train to 

Portland around 7:30 or 8:00am in the morning and catch a train back 

either at 6 or at 8pm or so.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

ODOT continues to develop train and bus 

schedules that support riders and also allow 

smooth connections with service north to 

Seattle and Vancouver, BC. 

I-177 Sharon Way I support using Alternative 1 in the Oregon Passenger Rail project. Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-178 Mark Weinrott Keys are frequency of service and on-time performance. Speed is 

secondary. Main impediment now is unreliability, which probably 

implicates Union Pacific more than Amtrak. Aside from providing 

Union Pacific with greater incentive to accommodate passenger 

service, there will need to be additional double-tracking and/or 

sidings. Ultimately, major increase in ridership will require faster 

trains. Short and intermediate goals should be to improve on-timeThank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. The 

Preferred Alternative was developed to include 

rail infrastructure enhancements that would 

reduce delay associated with competing demand 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 111

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

performance by reducing unintended "stops." Alternative 1 is clearly 

the more realistic option. 

between freight and passenger trains, and 

improve reliability.

I-179 Darise Weller Why not a line from Astoria to Eugene, From Vancouver, Wash to 

Hillsboro (connection in Linnton). Could circle the west side of 

Portland, connecting to WES

The Oregon Passenger Rail Project is focused on 

the Oregon portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail 

Corridor (PNWRC), which extends between 

Eugene and Portland, and does not include 

other areas in the State, including Astoria or 

other communities situated west of the 

Willamette Valley. During the screening of 

alternatives, routes through the western portion 

of the Portland region were considered but 

dismissed from further analysis. See Chapter 2 of 

the DEIS, “Alternative Development and 

Screening Process,” for more information on the 

options considered throughout the development 

of the Draft EIS. 

I-180 Jeff Wells Would it be possible to extend Alternative 1 from Eugene to 

Springfield?

The Preferred Alternative would use the five 

existing stations served by the current Amtrak 

Cascades passenger rail service in Oregon, which 

are located in or near Central Business Districts. 

Final decisions on any new stations and specific 

locations would be made in association with 

future Tier 2 studies. The Station Stop Policy for 

Amtrak Cascades Service, jointly issued by ODOT 

and WSDOT on June 1, 2016, gives the PNWRC 

administrators the responsibility for evaluating 

proposals to add, remove, or skip station stops 

for the Amtrak Cascades service. The companion 

Station Stop Policy Guidance Document that 

ODOT and WSDOT completed in 2016 describes 

the process for evaluating proposed station 

changes. Proposals to add one or more stations, 

such as in Springfield, beyond the five proposed 

under the Preferred Alternative, would need to 

be considered through future Tier 2 studies with 

adherence to the Station Stop Policy.

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 112

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/RPTD/RPTD%20

Document%20Library/HB2918-LegislativeReport-2017.pdf and 

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Publications/Manual

s/M3125.htm

I-181 Gabriel Wihtol I agree with officials that alternative 1 is the best option with upgrades 

but maintaining same route. I ride the train 2-3 times a month from 

Eugene to Portland and am very familiar with its travel. Keeping the 

same route but adding improvements will reduce environmental 

impacts associated with making a whole new line, and keep costs 

lower while improving service time mildly. I look forward to seeing 

how this project continues and how I can voice my support further for 

Oregon rail transport.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-182 Telly Wirth, 

owner/operator, Wirth 

Farms

Alternative 1 definitely seems to make more sense. Since it 

incorporates existing infrastructure its impacts to the environment 

and community would be dramatically less. Also the cost savings 

would be great, potentially allowing future money to be used for other 

types of improvement. The obvious concern is how to have no adverse 

affect on freight rail. The freight rail is a vital part of the industries that 

support the region. As long as this concern can be adequately 

addressed alternative 1 is the obvious choice.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. The 

Preferred Alternative was developed to include 

rail infrastructure enhancements that would 

result in no adverse effects to freight rail.

I-183 Peggy Woolsey I'm a frequent railroad passenger to and from Bellingham and 

occasionally southern California. I've enjoyed riding trains in Europe. 

I recognize the recommended route is based on today's needs, 

decreased use of land, and the ability to get more bang for the buck. 

However, building for today is short sighted. None of use have a 

crystal ball for 2035. I believe we need to plan for a more advanced 

future. A straightened, shortened route allowing faster speeds will fit 

that advanced future. As for the reduced ridership predicted for 

Alternative 2, I believe "If you build it, they will come." I live about six 

miles from the station in Salem. A new station near I-5 would not 

change my ability to ride. Especially since cities plan their public transit 

around airports and railroad stations. 

A high-speed rail concept vision was developed, 

as part of the OPR EIS process, which examined 

true high-speed rail for the Eugene-to-Portland 

segment. Based on Leadership Council and 

stakeholder desire to consider “true” high-speed 

rail—generally meaning speeds of 125 mph on 

an exclusive rail (new) alignment—the study 

outlined the necessary steps to progress 

including ridership and population demands

(High Speed Rail Concept Vision Report, ODOT, 

September 2014). Alternative 1 is an important 

step toward building ridership as the population 

increases and can serve as the backbone of a 

passenger rail network. While Alternative 2 has 

a faster travel time over the route, the other 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 113

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

I-184 David Wortman, 

Sustainability Officer, 

State of Oregon

Commenting on own behalf, not for the state of Oregon

I have briefly reviewed the project documents, though admittedly I 

have not delved into them in detail. However, I support Alternative 2. 

While I do not have a hard reference, I have heard that up to 30% of 

state employees in Salem live in the Portland area. For at least the 

Portland to Salem runs, having the train run through the growing 

population centers of Wilsonville and Tualatin makes a lot of sense. 

Plus, connections can be made to both the future MAX line coming to 

Bridgeport Village, as well as the WES terminus in Wilsonville. If we 

really want a more seamless and connected public transit system that 

serves the Willamette Valley and greater Portland area, this alignment 

makes a lot more sense, in my opinion. 

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

Alternative 2 would serve one station in the 

Portland metropolitan area south of downtown 

Portland that could be located in either 

Wilsonville or Tualatin, but not in both 

communities.

I-185 [No Name Provided] I favor Alternative 1 of the alternative identified in the DEIS. It is the 

most effective at the meeting project purposes at least cost. 

Short of large increases in speed which would require infrastructure, I 

believe the most significant improvements to passenger rail service on 

the Portland to Eugene line is increased frequency. 

Thank you for your comment. With the 

publication of this FEIS and FRA's pending 

Record of Decision, ODOT will be able to move 

forward with incremental implementation of the 

Preferred Alternative, which will consist of 

improvements on the existing route to 

adequately support increased intercity 

passenger rail service. 

I-186 [No Name Provided] Alternative 2 serves the population. Low population in Alternative 1. 

Take some time and build it in the right place, population, the first 

time. It will save money. 

Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. One purpose of the OPR Project is to 

“integrate with existing and planned 

transportation networks.” As the Project

progresses beyond the Tier 1 EIS and Record of 

Decision, ODOT will have the ability to work with 

TriMet, SMART, and other transit service 

providers to improve connections to the service. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 114

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I-187 [No Name Provided] Alternative 2 - for $4 billion the train is 18 minutes faster and has 

16,000 less passengers. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-188 [No Name Provided] Disappointed that the 7:20am train from Oregon City on weekends 

was stopped. 

Glad to see a path to improve rail service. I don't think it is advertised 

enough to the public as a good alternative to travel - will help if on 

time emphasis really happens. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

ODOT continues to develop train and bus 

schedules that support an optimal number of 

riders, and that also allow smooth connections 

with service north of Portland to Seattle and 

Vancouver, BC. 

I-189 [No Name Provided] Really got to have more end of workday trains, not buses, from 

Portland to Eugene. It would be a great way to reduce CO and traffic 

on I-5. The buses are a pain without stops - 4:15/4:30 hours versus 

2:15/2:30 hours by train. Please!

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

ODOT continues to develop train and bus 

schedules that support riders and that also allow 

smooth connections with service north to 

Seattle and Vancouver, BC.

I-190 [No Name Provided] Alternative 1 is the only politically and economically realistic 

alternative - California's high speed rail is building on decades of 

improvement in higher speed conventional rail. 

All these studies are paralyzing any progress - go with Alternative 1, 

just as was studied again the 1990s. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-191 [No Name Provided] I support Alternative 1 over 2. My reasons are 1) trains can be added 

incrementally (I would like to see a 9am train daily) 2) it will cost less 

so it will be more likely to be funded and 3) the train between Eugene 

and Portland (the cascades) is usually on time and reliable. The train 

between Portland and Seattle is often delayed en route. I would 

definitely use the train more is morning train schedules were 

improved. 

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

ODOT continues to develop train and bus 

schedules that support riders and that also allow 

smooth connections with service north to 

Seattle and Vancouver, BC. 

I-192 [No Name Provided] While a shorter trip between Eugene and Portland would be nice, 

Alternative 1 seems to make more sense due to the lower cost, 

increased ridership and decreased environmental impact.

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

I-193 [No Name Provided] Prefer alternative 1 (continue service at existing stations in Albany and 

Oregon City), but improved

Thank you for your comment. Alternative 1 has 

been selected as the Preferred Alternative. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environment al Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 115

Comment 

Number Name Comment Response

I-194 [No Name Provided] Why is Eastern Oregon left out of this? Is there something stopping 

expanding passenger rail service to Bend?

The Oregon Passenger Rail Project is focused on 

the Oregon portion of the Pacific Northwest Rail 

Corridor (PNWRC), which extends between 

Eugene and Portland, and does not include 

other areas in the State, including Eastern 

Oregon. Study of improving intercity 

transportation to Bend would need to be 

studied through a separate process.

I-195 [No Name Provided] Prefer alternative 2 Alternative 1 was selected as the Preferred 

Alternative because of its ability, compared to 

Alternative 2, to meet the Project's goals and 

objectives. While Alternative 2 has a faster 

travel time over the route, the other 

performance attributes favor Alternative 1. In 

particular, environmental impact, ridership, and 

capital costs were key discriminating factors. 

O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021 
APPENDIX C

C 1- 116 O r e g o n P a s s e n g e r Rail Project Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

APRIL 2021