Appendix A

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement Appendices

April 2021

Appendix A 

Engineering and Operations 

Memorandum 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
This page left blank intentionally.
 

 

 

Final 

2016 Revised Operational Analysis 

Report 

Revised: October 18, 2016 

Prepared by: David Evans and Associates, Inc. and 

Mainline Management 
This page left blank intentionally.
 

Contents 

1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 

Primary Conclusions for the Revised Simulations .....................................................................2 

2. Revised Alternative 1...........................................................................................................3 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................3 

Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) Operating Modifications.................................................................3 

Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) Network Modifications ...................................................................4 

Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) Brooklyn Subdivision Results........................................................4 

Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) Brooklyn Subdivision Velocity Comparison...................................5 

Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) Portland to Vancouver Results......................................................6 

3. Revised Alternative 2...........................................................................................................7 

Reduced Amtrak Cascades Schedules between Portland and Vancouver ...............................7 

Alternative 2 Velocity Analysis...................................................................................................8 

Brooklyn Subdivision .................................................................................................................9 

PNWR OE (Oregon Electric) District .......................................................................................10 

4. All Revised Simulation Graphics......................................................................................11 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Revised Base Case 

Appendix B: Revised No Action 

Appendix C: Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) 

Appendix D: Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) 

Appendix E: Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Operations on Alternative 1 (3+1) Infrastructure 

Appendix F: 2035 No Action Minimum 

Appendix G: Updated Schematics with Infrastructure Improvements 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) on 4+1 Infrastructure...........................................................5 

Table 2. Brooklyn Subdivision Alternative 2 Train Velocities ........................................................8 

Table 3. PNWR OE District Alternative 2 Train Velocities.............................................................9 

Table 4. Brooklyn Subdivision Alternative 2 Train Velocities vs. Revised No Action Alternative ..9 

Table 5. PNWR Velocities for OE District....................................................................................10 

Table 6 Summary Table of Delays by Type ................................................................................18 

Table 7 Table of Infrastructure Improvement by Case ................................................................20 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Freight Delay Min/10 mi Operated ...............................................................................12 

Figure 2. Daily Freight Only Delays Exceeding 30 Minutes (D>30) ............................................12 

Figure 3. UP Average Freight Only Daily D>30 Causes .............................................................13 

Figure 4. UP Average Freight Only Daily D>30 Causes .............................................................13 

Figure 5. UP Average Freight Only Daily D>30 Locations ..........................................................14 

Figure 6. UP Average Freight Only Daily D>30 Locations ..........................................................14 

Figure 7. Average Daily D>30 Delays, Portland to Vancouver....................................................15 

Figure 8. Initial Cause of D>30 Delays, Portland to Vancouver ..................................................15 

Figure 9. Revised Alternative 1 Stringlines – Day 1-3.................................................................16 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page ii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) requested that the simulations previously 

performed for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 of the Oregon Passenger Rail project be revised to 

standardize certain aspects of simulated passenger and freight operations. The initial 

simulations were performed in 2013 and 2014. The Alternative 1 simulations focused passenger 

operations on Union Pacific Railroad’s (UPRR’s) Brooklyn Subdivision between Eugene and 

Portland, OR, and on BNSF’s Fallbridge Subdivision between Portland, OR, and Vancouver, 

WA. The Alternative 2 simulation focused on a route that was mainly a greenfield route along 

the Interstate (I-5) corridor with some operations on the Union Pacific Railroad’s Brooklyn 

Subdivision north of Oregon City. Although the simulation network ended at Vancouver, WA, the 

Amtrak Cascades trains actually continue to Vancouver, British Columbia. 

2035 freight volumes were developed from previous project experience and discussions with 

Class 1 Railroads. It was determined that an increase of 1.7% for domestic intermodal and 1.5% 

for manifest traffic and international intermodal an appropriate growth target for this project. 

Growth was projected using a compounded annual rate of 1.5 to 1.7% for the through freight 

movements. UP and BNSF intermodal and manifest trains were also increased using this 

method. Union Pacific unit train growth was projected based on anticipated growth of new 

classes of traffic. Projected growth of oil and grain trains to California from the upper Midwest 

and Canada drove this growth. Two to three loaded trains per day (and their associated empty 

trains) were included to represent the potential traffic levels in this corridor. 

The alternatives analyzed are briefly summarized below: 

 Base Case Alternative is modeled for the current year, with existing freight traffic and 

passenger rail service and schedules. 

 No Action – the No Action Alternative is modeled for the 2035 year and assumes 

increase in freight traffic of 1.5-1.7% compounded annually and no change in passenger 

rail service. 

 Alternative 1 - Alternative 1 generally follows the existing Amtrak Cascades route, along 

or near the Union Pacific Railroad line between Eugene-Springfield and Portland. It 

crosses the Willamette River in Portland near Union Station before continuing north, 

either on or near existing BNSF tracks, to Vancouver, Wash. 

 Alternative 2 - Alternative 2 runs along or near Interstate 5 from Eugene-Springfield to 

Keizer, then follows the Oregon Electric rail line from Keizer to Wilsonville, follows I-5 

and I-205 between Wilsonville and Oregon City, where it merges with the existing 

Amtrak alignment. 

In the 2013 and 2014 analyses, the number of Amtrak Cascades round trips between Portland 

and Vancouver were varied between simulations. Base and No Action train volumes included 

two Amtrak Cascades and one Amtrak Coast Starlight round trip per day (2+1); in other 

simulations, three, four and six Amtrak Cascades round trips were analyzed (3+1, 4+1 and 

6+1). 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For this latest round of revised simulations, the following aspects were standardized between 

the runs: 

1. All passenger operations between Portland and Vancouver, WA, were standardized to 

six Amtrak Cascades round trips per day, one Coast Starlight round trip per day and one Empire 

Builder (Spokane/Portland Section) round trip per day. This schedule will be referred to as the 

6+2 passenger schedule. 

2. Operations at the Eugene Amtrak Station were also standardized in the revised 

simulations. In the Revised Base and Revised No Action simulations, the existing infrastructure 

configuration for the station was left in place and operations reflected that configuration. In the 

Amtrak Cascades growth simulations, a new infrastructure configuration for the station was 

included (Option 4) and passenger operations were modified accordingly. 

3. The configuration of Eugene Yard was also standardized in all simulations to better 

reflect actual operations. The configuration that was utilized is described later in the report and 

is shown in the schematics that are associated with each simulation network. 

4. Track improvements that UPRR has recently completed were also included in the 

Revised Base simulation; in previous work, these improvements were not known and therefore 

were not included in the Base simulation. The track upgrade improvements were included in all 

of the subsequent simulations of alternatives that were performed in 2013 and 2014, and were 

also included in all of the revised simulations. 

5. Improvements included between Portland and Vancouver primarily were the planned 

upgrade improvements at North Portland Junction (NPJ)/Peninsula Junction and Willbridge 

Junction to allow 25 mph operations. Both projects are under development for PE/NEPA and 

were assumed to be constructed by 2035 for this analysis. The No Action and Base Case 

scenarios are the only simulations that did not include the improvements. 

It should be noted that a newer version of the RTC model was used for the 2015 

analyses than was used for the 2013 and 2014 analyses. Berkeley Simulation Software updated 

the model based on issues that had been identified over time with previous versions of the 

model. Once a new version is released, all license holders are expected to upgrade to that 

version, and support for previous versions is discontinued. 

Primary Conclusions for the Revised Simulations 

 All three of the expanded passenger service cases for Alternative 1 (3+1, 4+1 and 6+1) 

over the Brooklyn Subdivision between Portland and Eugene showed an improvement in 

freight operations compared to the No Action alternative, based on the assumptions 

used in the revised simulations. Because the 4+1 and 6+1 alternatives used the same 

network, and the 3+1 alternative is a subset of that network, infrastructure will not be 

wasted under any alternative if an incremental approach is considered. 

 The improvements at Peninsula Junction and NPJ (increasing the speeds to 25 mph for 

freight traffic) proved to be very beneficial to all rail operations in North Portland on 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UPRR’s and BNSF’s networks in the area of the connection track under the six Amtrak 

Cascades, Coast Starlight and Empire Builder (6+2) passenger schedules. 

The main alternatives for this study—Alternative 1 (revised), Alternative 2 and the No Action 

with Minimums Alternative—are detailed in the body of this report. Other Alternative 1 options 

that vary by schedule and infrastructure were run through the modeling software and analyzed. 

Although these other options are mentioned throughout this report in comparisons, the 

description of these options and the results of their analysis are included in the supplemental 

material attached to this report (see Appendices A–F). 

2. Revised Alternative 1 

Introduction 

Alternative 1 (6+1) was revised to standardize the assumptions that were included in the 

analysis. Like all of the revised analyses, the number of passenger trains between Portland and 

Vancouver were standardized at six Amtrak Cascades round trips, and the station configuration 

at Eugene was standardized to the Option 4 configuration. In addition, between Portland and 

Vancouver, the planned track and the turnouts at NPJ/Peninsula Junction and Willbridge 

Junction were assumed to be upgraded to allow 25 mph operation. 

In addition, six Amtrak Cascades round trips were included between Portland and Eugene in the 

Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) analysis. However, a major difference between the initial 6+1 case 

and the Revised 6+1 case was the infrastructure, which was included in an attempt to mitigate 

the impacts of the additional passenger trains. In the initial 6+1 analysis, a second main track 

was included for the entire distance between Portland and Eugene. This configuration was 

found impractical because of the cost to improve certain locations, including those portions 

going through cities and across major rivers. Instead, the Alternative 1 (4+1) network was 

utilized in the analysis for the Revised Alternative (6+1). The Analysis Team was asked to utilize 

this network for the analysis in order to determine whether the improvements associated with 

the 4+1 network(s) would accommodate six Amtrak Cascades round trips while still improving 

UPRR’s operations over the Revised No Action alternative (for which no additional round trips 

and no improvements would be added). 

Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) Operating Modifications 

The only freight modification made on either UPRR’s Brooklyn Subdivision or on BNSF’s 

Fallbridge Subdivision was the addition of the Albina Yard to Lake Yard Local. All other 

projected freight traffic, including growth traffic, was carried over from the Revised No Action 

simulation, the Revised 3+1 simulation or the Revised 4+1 simulation. 

Portland to Eugene Amtrak Cascades round trips were increased to six per day. At the same 

time, Portland to Vancouver (and north) Amtrak Cascades round trips were reduced from 12 in 

the initial 6+1 analysis to six in the Revised 6+1 analysis. No other operating modifications were 

made in this revised Alternative 1 (6+1) case. 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) Network Modifications 

As described previously, the Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) case utilized the Revised Alternative 1 

(4+1) improvements that are listed in Appendix D for UPRR’s Brooklyn Subdivision. The 

schematic included in Appendix D for the Revised 4+1 network also reflects the improvements 

made along the Brooklyn Subdivision that were included in the analysis for the Revised 6+1 

case. 

Between Portland and Vancouver, the same planned improvements that were included in the 

Revised 4+1 network were also included in the Revised 6+1 network, primarily the track and the 

turnout improvements at NPJ/Peninsula Junction and Willbridge Junction to allow 25 mph 

operation. 

Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) Brooklyn Subdivision Results 

The premise that the improvements associated with the Alternative 1 (4+1) network could 

support up to six Amtrak Cascades round trips was correct. The results of the analysis showed 

that the delay minutes per 10 miles operated were 3.0 for the Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) case. 

This level of delay remained more than 20% below the delay minutes associated with the 

Brooklyn Subdivision under the 2035 Revised No Action alternative (see Figure 1, below). 

That level of delay minutes per 10 miles operated indicates that the Brooklyn Subdivision was 

running efficiently under the Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) case on the 4+1 network. Analysis of 

the major delays and their locations confirms this conclusion. 

The Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) case had 3.3 delays per day that exceeded 30 minutes (see 

Figure 2, below). As Figure 3 below shows, most of those delays were the result of Amtrak 

meets or freight meets. There were some delays associated with on-line switching, and there 

were also delays that occurred around various rail yards. 

The 6+1 passenger schedules created meets that varied widely over the course of a day. Unlike 

the 4+1 case, under which most meets occurred between Clackamas and East Milwaukie, the 

6+1 meets occurred in five different locations. These were: 

 Between Steel Bridge (MP770) and East Milwaukie (MP765) 

 Between Coalca (MP750) and Canby (MP746) 

 Between Salem (MP718) and Renard (MP714) 

 Between Marion (MP704) and Albany (MP690) 

 Between Halsey (MP672) and Shedd (MP666) 

Analysis of the meet/pass data showed that only one or two freight trains per day were delayed 

in a single location near where two passenger trains met. This analysis was confirmed by the 

data on the number of delays exceeding 30 minutes that were caused by Amtrak trains: In the 

Revised 6+1 analysis, there were only 1.3 such delays per day (see Figure 3, below). Because 

essentially the same number of delays that exceeded 30 minutes per day could be attributed to 

freight meets, passenger-passenger meets were not a major cause of repetitive delays in the 

Revised Alternative (6+1) case analysis. 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Analysis Team believes that the amount of second main track that was included in the 4+1 

network protected freight traffic from the passenger meets. Many of the passenger-passenger 

meets occurred in a segment that featured a second main track, allowing the two trains to pass 

each other quickly and without a major impact to following or opposing freight traffic. This same 

benefit was observed on the 4+1 network when only four Amtrak Cascades round trips were 

included in the Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) case analysis. 

Figure 5 also confirms that there was no systematic issue with any single location along the 

Brooklyn Subdivision. The delays that occurred were spread relatively evenly between Portland 

and Eugene. 

The delays associated with on-line switching occurred at Labish and Albany. As in a previous 

case, the Labish delay was caused by two trains that had on-line switching duties arriving 

simultaneously, causing one train to wait. At Millersburg, a train working the industries around 

Albany (picking up or delivering cars) blocked the Millersburg train from entering Albany Yard. A 

Portland & Western Railroad (PNWR) train also contributed to this particular conflict. That train 

had to wait on UPRR’s main line for traffic at PNWR’s Millersburg Yard to clear. The PNWR 

train could not leave the Brooklyn Subdivision until switching at that yard ceased, which created 

additional congestion around Albany on UPRR’s track. 

Finally, there were some delays associated with entering and exiting yards. One such conflict 

occurred around Eugene when a single southbound train trying to enter the yard at Irvin was 

delayed by two northbound trains departing the yard at that same location. As was discussed 

previously, this is a feature of Eugene Yard that is likely to create additional conflicts as traffic 

volumes increase. 

The other yard conflict occurred at Albany when two southbound trains arrived as a northbound 

train arrived, and another train tried to depart the yard. The model held the departing train in the 

yard to clear the through traffic, which led to the delay. 

Even with the isolated delays that occurred, the Analysis Team believes that, based on the 

analysis, the 4+1 network efficiently accommodated the 2035 projected freight volumes with the 

six Amtrak Cascades round trips. 

Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) Brooklyn Subdivision Velocity Comparison 

The following table provides the velocity of the various train classes on the Brooklyn Subdivision 

for the Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) case analysis. 

Table 1. Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) on 4+1 Infrastructure 

Group Delay Dwell 

Elapsed 

Time Miles Del/10* 

Total 

Elapsed 

Velocity 

Velocity

Minus Delay 

and Dwell 

Passenger 2:44:47 11:33:57 103:47:00 5273.8 0.3 50.8 58.9 

PNWR 2:29:27 14:48:00 26:09:44 463.3 3.2 17.7 52.2 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UP 

Expedited 8:12:11 7:36:09 76:30:35 2413.9 2.0 31.6 39.8 

UP Local 9:10:37 60:26:04 95:41:49 699.6 7.9 7.3 26.8 

UP Manifest 19:51:33 68:24:10 210:35:31 4313.3 2.8 20.5 35.3 

UP Unit 12:31:18 21:01:11 111:35:48 2609.1 2.9 23.4 33.4 

Total 

Freight 52:15:05 172:15:34 520:33:26 10499.2 3.0 20.2 35.5 

*Delay/10 = delay minutes per 10 miles operated. 

Passenger trains continued to operate at a high velocity using the Revised 6+1 network. Both 

total elapsed, and elapsed minus delay and dwell velocities were slightly greater than the 

velocities for the Revised No Action alternative and Revised 4+1 case. The Analysis Team 

believes that meets that occurred primarily on two main tracks as well as the higher number of 

passenger trains contributed to this result. 

Similar to the results of unit train velocity in the No Action alternative analysis versus the Base 

analysis, there were additional passenger trains in the Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) case 

analysis. Since these additional passenger trains added miles where trains were operating at 

higher speeds, the average velocity of all passenger trains in the network was increased. 

Freight velocity was also greater than for the Revised No Action alternative; however, it was 

slightly lower than for the Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) case. The freight velocity numbers were 

very similar to those of the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) case, and, not surprisingly, the delay 

minutes per 10 miles operated for the Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) and (3+1) cases were very 

similar as well. 

Based on these results, it appears that network configurations used in the Revised Alternative1 

(6+1) analysis and the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis provided approximately the same 

additional freight capacity with the varied passenger train volumes. 

Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) Portland to Vancouver Results 

Delays exceeding 30 minutes (D>30 delays) associated with the Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) 

case analysis were the same as the D>30 delays in the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) and (4+1) 

cases. For all of these cases, the delays were notably reduced from the Revised No Action 

alternative simulation. With the same amount of freight traffic on the segment, the number of 

delays was reduced to 1.3 per day from 4.7 per day in the Revised No Action alternative (see 

Figure 7, below). As described previously, the number of Amtrak Cascades and Amtrak round 

trips (Cascades and Empire Builder) remained the same between the two cases. 

As with the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) and (4+1) cases, the main contributor to the improved 

performance was the increased speed on UPRR’s connection between Peninsula Junction and 

NPJ, along with the upgraded turnouts at each end of the connecting track. Movements that 

could continue from BNSF’s Fallbridge Subdivision onto the UPRR connection track at 25 mph 

cleared the area much more quickly, thus reducing delays for UPRR traffic and BNSF traffic 

operating in the area. 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, as in the previous cases, the local train working between Willbridge Yard and Lake Yard 

experienced delay in the Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) case analysis. As previously described, 

this is a timing issue rather than a specific capacity issue. 

The results of the Revised Alternative 1 (6+1) case again support the conclusion that Brooklyn 

Subdivision passenger and freight operations have little to no effect on Fallbridge Subdivision 

operations (and vice versa), under the assumptions that were used for these revised analyses. 

3. Revised Alternative 2 

Two aspects of the Alternative 2 simulation that was performed and analyzed in 2013 were not 

consistent with other analyses of the various track and train configurations between Vancouver, 

WA, and Eugene, OR. These two aspects were: the number of passenger trains between 

Portland and Vancouver (continuing on to Seattle or Spokane) and an analysis of train velocity 

over the Brooklyn Subdivision. 

Reduced Amtrak Cascades Schedules between Portland and Vancouver 

At the time the original Alternative 2 analysis was performed, the Analysis Team was directed to 

include 12 Amtrak Cascades round trips in addition to one Coast Starlight round trip and one 

Empire Builder (Spokane Section) round trip between Portland and Vancouver. These numbers 

of round trips were based on Washington Department of Transportation’s long-range projection 

of passenger round trips that potentially would operate between Portland and Seattle. In 

subsequent simulations, the Analysis Team was instructed to reduce the number of Amtrak 

Cascades round trips between Portland and Seattle to six, and to keep the Coast Starlight and 

Empire Builder round trips the same (one each). 

This reduction of Amtrak Cascades round trips was tested in multiple scenarios that focused on 

Portland to Eugene passenger trains using the Brooklyn Subdivision (as described in other 

sections of this report and in the appendices), but was never tested for the Alternative 2 

network. The results from the multiple Brooklyn Subdivision simulations with the reduced 

Amtrak Cascades operations between Portland and Vancouver were very similar: the reduced 

number of passenger trains improved the operation of freight traffic between Vancouver and 

Portland, and had little impact on freight operations south of Portland. 

The Analysis Team strongly believes this same result would be seen if the number of Amtrak 

Cascades round trips in Alternative 2 was reduced from twelve to six. The main support for this 

belief is that the track improvements and operational modifications that were used in all of the 

subsequent Brooklyn Subdivision simulations were also included in the Alternative 2 simulation. 

The Alternative 2 network included the planned track improvements at NPJ/Peninsula Junction 

and near Willbridge Yard between Portland and Vancouver. These improvements were critical 

in the simulated operations in all scenarios, with or without the reduced Amtrak Cascades 

operations, because they allowed freight traffic to operate at higher speeds between Portland 

and Vancouver. Along with reduced passenger operations in the corridor, freight trains 

encountered fewer conflicts with both passenger and other freight operations, which led to 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

improved performance for all freight traffic. The Analysis Team believes that this effect would be 

replicated in the Alternative 2 simulation if the Amtrak Cascades round trips were reduced to six. 

Additionally, in the Alternative 2 analysis, PNWR trains running from Albany to Vancouver were 

routed via Beaverton, Banks, United Junction and Willbridge Junction rather than via Labish, 

Willsburg Junction and the Steel Bridge. This rerouting of PNWR trains improved operations 

around Portland Union Station in subsequent simulations, whether the Portland to Eugene 

passenger trains were routed via the Brooklyn Subdivision or via the Alternative 2 network. The 

Analysis Team has no reason to believe that this improvement in operations would not occur, or 

would be different, if the number of Amtrak Cascades round trips between Portland and 

Vancouver were reduced in the Alternative 2 scenario. 

Therefore, although the Alternative 2 simulation was never tested with only six Amtrak 

Cascades round trips between Portland and Vancouver, the Analysis Team is confident that a 

simulation that reduced the number of round trips would show results similar to the other five 

scenarios for which the reduced passenger volumes were used. For this reason, the decision 

was made to not rerun the entire Alternative 2 simulation, but to rerun only that portion that 

would provide the velocity output needed for further comparisons. 

Alternative 2 Velocity Analysis 

The second analysis that was not included in the initial Alternative 2 simulation is a comparison 

of train velocity of various train groups over the Brooklyn Subdivision. Velocity was not analyzed 

during the initial Alternative 1 and 2 simulations; it was added in later simulations as an 

additional comparative analysis to complement the delay analyses that were performed. 

The Analysis Team conducted the velocity analysis for the Alternative 2 simulation to 

standardize the analysis of all simulations. The statistics were available in the output of the 

model; therefore, with some additional breakout of train types, the velocity figures could be 

developed. The following tables include those velocity figures and a brief analysis of how they 

compare with the velocities from the other simulations. 

Table 2. Brooklyn Subdivision Alternative 2 Train Velocities 

Group Delay Dwell Elapsed Time Miles Del/10 

Total 

Velocity 

Elapsed 

Velocity 

Minus Delay 

and Dwell 

Passenger 0:00:00 5:39:00 23:22:46 738.6 0.0 31.6 41.7 

PNWR 2:04:11 13:18:00 25:29:21 463.3 2.7 18.2 45.8 

UP 

Expedited 6:53:47 6:06:08 66:03:22 2125.2 1.9 32.2 40.1 

UP Local 7:00:22 60:19:04 91:22:41 693.3 6.1 7.6 28.8 

UP 

Manifest 29:23:08 79:54:03 270:46:04 5680.7 3.1 21.0 35.2 

UP Unit 10:02:13 11:00:04 68:33:01 1513.7 4.0 22.1 31.9 

Total 

Freight 55:23:41 170:37:19 522:14:29 10476.1 3.2 20.1 35.4 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. PNWR OE (Oregon Electric) District Alternative 2 Train Velocities 

Group Delay Dwell Elapsed Time Miles Del/10 

Total 

Velocity 

Elapsed 

Velocity 

Minus Delay 

and Dwell 

Passenger 0:54:54 1:12:00 16:10:09 1096.2 0.5 67.8 78.0 

PNWR / 

Total 

Freight 59:08:23 215:03:15 441:08:43 3588.4 9.9 8.1 21.5 

Brooklyn Subdivision 

In the following table, the last two columns of Table 2 above have been recreated using the 

same last two columns from the Revised No Action alternative analysis. The Revised No Action 

alternative analysis is the simulation that is most similar to the Alternative 2 simulation with 

respect to infrastructure and train volumes on the Brooklyn Subdivision. 

Table 4. Brooklyn Subdivision Alternative 2 Train Velocities vs. Revised No Action 

Alternative 

Group 

Alternative 2 Revised No Action 

Total Velocity Elapsed 

Velocity

Minus Delay 

and Dwell Total Velocity Elapsed 

Velocity

Minus Delay 

and Dwell 

Passenger 31.6 41.7 47.9 56.9 

PNWR 18.2 45.8 18.3 46.0 

UP Expedited 32.2 40.1 31.6 39.9 

UP Local 7.6 28.8 7.4 27.4 

UP Manifest 21.0 35.2 19.6 34.9 

UP Unit 22.1 31.9 22.4 33.2 

Total Freight 20.1 35.4 19.7 35.2 

As can be seen in the comparison of the two analyses, the velocities of the various freight train 

types are similar. This result was expected in the Alternative 2 analysis, because most of the 

Brooklyn Subdivision was left as a single-track railroad with sidings in the simulation, which was 

the same configuration that was used in the Revised No Action alternative simulation. 

There was a slight improvement in velocities of the Expedited, Local, and Manifest freight 

categories in the Alternative 2 analysis, because, in the Revised No Action simulation, there 

were two Amtrak Cascades round trips and a Coast Starlight round trip that continued to 

operate between Portland and Eugene. In the Alternative 2 simulation, the increased passenger 

trains operated on the Brooklyn Subdivision only between their layover facility and the I-5 

connection in Eugene (approximately 1 mile), and between Oregon City and Portland Union 

Station. The rest of the subdivision saw no passenger trains, which created fewer conflicts for 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the freight traffic between Oregon City and Eugene Yard, thus leading to slightly higher 

velocities over the entire route between Portland and Eugene. 

The differences in the passenger velocities stem from the different locations where the 

passenger trains operated in the Alternative 2 simulation compared to the Revised No Action 

alternative simulation. As mentioned previously, in the Alternative 2 simulation, the passenger 

trains were on the Brooklyn Subdivision only between Portland Union Station and the 

connection just south of Oregon City, whereas in the Revised No Action alternative simulation, 

the two existing Amtrak Cascades round trips and the Coast Starlight round trip operated over 

the entire distance between Portland and Eugene. The maximum track speeds between 

Portland and Oregon City were generally lower than across other locations of the Brooklyn 

Subdivision, which is why the passenger velocities in the Alternative 2 simulation were less than 

the passenger velocities in the Revised No Action alternative simulation. 

PNWR OE (Oregon Electric) District 

Unlike previous simulations that were focused on the Brooklyn Subdivision, passenger 

operations in the Alternative 2 simulation utilized the PNWR’s OE District between Wilsonville 

and Keizer (North Salem). Therefore, in the Alternative 2 simulation, velocity was calculated for 

PNWR OE District freight traffic as well as for the UPRR’s Brooklyn Subdivision freight traffic. 

However, in the previous velocity analyses, no OE District traffic was analyzed, because 

passenger operations did not operate over the District, nor did they affect OE District freight 

operations. Therefore, the Analysis Team revisited the Revised No Action alternative simulation 

and calculated the PNWR freight velocity over the OE District, which provided some comparison 

to the Alternative 2 velocity that is shown Table 5, below. 

The following table compares the PNWR Alternative 2 velocity with the Revised No Action 

alternative velocity for PNWR’s OE District: 

Table 5. PNWR Velocities for OE District 

Group 

Alternative 2 Revised No Action 

Total Velocity Elapsed 

Velocity

Minus Delay 

and Dwell Total Velocity Elapsed 

Velocity

Minus Delay 

and Dwell 

Passenger 67.8 78.0 n/a n/a 

PNWR 8.1 21.5 8.2 20.5 

Total Freight 8.1 21.5 8.2 20.5 

As can be seen in Table 5, the PNWR Alternative 2 total elapsed velocity was essentially equal 

to the Revised No Action alternative total elapsed velocity. However, the Alternative 2 velocity 

minus delay and dwell was higher than the Revised No Action alternative velocity. The 

explanation for these results is provided by examining the area that the passenger trains 

operated over. 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are multiple industries that PNWR serves between Keizer and Wilsonville. In the model, 

these are simulated by having a local (or multiple locals) stop at the appropriate locations and 

dwell for a period of time. This was done in both the No Action alternative and the Alternative 2 

simulations. 

In addition, there was some delay to PNWR trains that had to wait for passenger trains entering 

or exiting the section between Keizer and Wilsonville. Both the dwell for industry work and the 

occasional delays at Keizer or Wilsonville are included in the total velocity elapsed statistics. 

When total elapsed velocity is considered with the stoppages and delays, the increased track 

speed that was associated with introducing the passenger operations had little impact on the 

velocity of PNWR’s freight operations. However, when the delays and dwells were removed 

from the calculations, the increased freight operating speed is apparent. Because only the 

portion of the OE District between Keizer and Wilsonville was upgraded for the passenger 

trains, the rest of the OE District remained at existing track speeds. The Analysis Team believes 

that is why there is only a small increase in velocity. 

It is also interesting to note that the average passenger velocity over the PNWR in the 

Alternative 2 simulation is 78.0 mph when dwell at the proposed Wilsonville station is removed 

from the calculation. This velocity is very close to the maximum track speed of 79 mph that was 

assigned to the PNWR track that hosted the passenger trains. The loss of 1 mile per hour is 

likely due to the acceleration and deceleration of the passenger trains from the Wilsonville 

station stop. 

There was no passenger operation in the Revised No Action alternative simulation on PNWR’s 

OE District; therefore, there is nothing to compare that velocity to in any other simulation 

scenario. 

4. All Revised Simulation Graphics 

The following section contains the revised graphics referenced in this report for all of the revised 

simulations, including those in the appendices. 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 11 
Figure 1. Freight Delay Minutes/10 miles Operated 

 

 

Freight Delay Min/10 mi Operated 

2.4 

3.2 

2.5 

3.0 

3.7 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4

Avg. Minutes of Delay 

UP Brooklyn Sub 

Revised Base Rev Alt 3+1 Rev Alt 4+1 Rev Alt 6+1 Rev No Action 

Figure 2. Daily Freight Only Delays Exceeding 30 Minutes (D>30) 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report 

Page 12 

October 18, 2016 

 

 

 

 

Daily Freight Only Delays Exceeding 

30 Minutes (D>30) 

2 

7.3 

2.3 

3.3 

8.3 

0 

5 

10

Avg. Number of Delays 

Revised Base 

UP Brooklyn Sub 

Rev Alt 3+1 Rev Alt 4+1 Rev Alt 6+1 Rev No Action 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. UP Average Freight Only Daily D>30 Causes (3+1, 4+1, 6+1) 

 

Figure 4. UP Average Freight Only Daily D>30 Causes (Revised Base, Revised No Action) 

 

 

Page 13 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. UP Average Freight Only Daily D>30 Locations 

 

Figure 6. UP Average Freight Only Daily D>30 Locations 

 

 

Page 14 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7. Average Daily D>30 Delays, Portland to Vancouver 

2.3 

1.3 1.3 1.3 

4.7 

0.0 

1.0 

2.0 

3.0 

4.0 

5.0 

Revised Base Rev Alt 3+1 Rev Alt 4+1 Rev Alt 6+1 Rev No Action 

Avg. Daily D>30 Delays, Portland to Vancouver 

No. of Avg. Daily Delays 

Figure 8. Initial Cause of D>30 Delays, Portland to Vancouver 

1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 2.0 

1.3 

0.5 0.7 0.7 

2.7 

Rev Base Rev Alt 

3+1 

Rev Alt 

4+1 

Rev Alt 

6+1 

Rev No 

Action 

0.0 

2.0 

4.0 

6.0 

8.0 

10.0 

Amtrak Freight 

Initial Cause of D>30 Delays, Portland to Vancouver 

No. of Avg. Daily Delays 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 15 
Figure 9. Revised Alternative 1 Stringlines – Day 1-3 

Day1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Day 2 

Color Passenger Trains 

Red - Amtrak Cascades trains 

Reddish Brown – Amtrak Coast Starlight 

Freight Trains 

Gold – (Z trains) High priority containers for intermodal 

Black – Unit Trains 

Blue – (Q trains - Doublestack) Priority Intermodal 

Green – Local and Merchandise trains 

 

 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 16 
Day 3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Color Passenger Trains 

Red - Amtrak Cascades trains 

Reddish Brown – Amtrak Coast Starlight 

Freight Trains 

Gold – (Z trains) High priority containers for intermodal 

Black – Unit Trains 

Blue – (Q trains - Doublestack) Priority Intermodal 

Green – Local and Merchandise trains 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Summary Table of Delays by Type 

Delay/10 Miles Alternative 1 

(Minutes) Base No Action Rev 3+1 Rev 4+1 Rev 4+1 No Action 

On 3+1 Net Minimum 

Passenger 0.6 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.6 

PNWR 1.3 2.5 3.6 1.4 1.4 1.7 

UP Expedited 1.5 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.4 

UP Local 5.2 7.2 10.2 6.1 5.9 8.3 

UP Manifest 1.7 4.2 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.1 

UP Unit 6.9 3.9 3.0 2.3 3.0 3.2 

Total Freight 2.4 3.7 3.2 2.5 2.5 2.6 

Avg. Velocity Alternative 1 

(mph) Base No Action Rev 3+1 Rev 4+1 Rev 4+1 No Action 

On 3+1 Net Minimum 

Passenger 47.9 47.9 43.8 49.3 48.6 48.3 

PNWR 11.3 18.3 17.7 19.0 19.2 18.9 

UP Expedited 34.5 31.6 32.4 32.2 33.7 33.1 

UP Local 7.7 7.4 7.1 7.5 7.6 7.4 

UP Manifest 19.7 19.6 20.6 20.7 21.0 21.0 

UP Unit 20.3 22.4 23.4 24.2 23.4 23.0 

Total Freight 17.6 19.7 20.2 20.7 20.8 20.6 

Velocity minus Alternative 1 

Dwell and 

Delay Base No Action Rev 3+1 Rev 4+1 Rev 4+1 No Action 

(mph) On 3+1 Net Minimum 

Passenger 57.0 56.9 59.1 58.5 58.3 58.2 

PNWR 22.3 46.0 46.0 54.7 47.5 46.6 

UP Expedited 41.8 39.9 40.4 40.1 40.9 40.3 

UP Local 28.9 27.4 27.3 27.2 27.6 27.7 

UP Manifest 35.0 34.9 35.5 35.6 35.5 35.0 

UP Unit 32.9 33.2 33.8 34.1 34.0 33.5 

Total Freight 34.2 35.2 35.7 35.9 35.9 35.4 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 18 
 

 

 

Delays > 30 min Alternative 1 

Base No Action Rev 3+1 Rev 4+1 Rev 4+1 No Action 

On 3+1 Net Minimum 

Passenger 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

PNWR 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 

UP Expedited 0.7 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.0 0.3 

UP Local 0.0 0.7 2.7 0.3 1.0 0.7 

UP Manifest 0.3 4.3 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 

UP Unit 1.0 1.7 1.3 0.3 2.7 1.3 

Total Freight 2.0 8.3 7.3 2.3 4.7 3.0 

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 19 
This page left blank intentionally.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Table of Infrastructure Improvements by Case, Alternative 1 

Infrastructure Improvements By Case Scenarios Included In 

Project Name 

Existing 

Passing 

Track 

Begin 

MP 

Existing 

Passing 

Track 

End MP 

Existing 

Passing 

Track 

Length 

(ft.) 

Road 

Crossings 

on 

Existing 

Passing 

Track 

New 

Passing 

Track 

Begin 

MP 

New 

Passing 

Track 

End MP 

New 

Passing 

Track 

Length 

(ft.) 

New Track 

Construction 

Length (ft.) 

New 

Track on 

Existing 

Roadbed 

(ft.) 

New 

Track on 

New 

Roadbed 

Undergrade 

Bridges for 

New 

Roadbed 

Culverts 

on for 

New 

Roadbed 

Road 

Crossings 

on New 

Track 

No 

Action 

with 

Mins 

4+1 on 

3+1 , 

Revised 

3+1 

Revised 

6+1, 

Revised 

4+1 

Judkins Siding Extension 644.6 645.68 5702.4 0 644.6 660.06 81628.8 75926.4 5390 70536.4 6 3 21   

Alford Siding Extension 666.1 667.6 7920 1 666.1 670.32 21489.6 13833.6 0 13833.6 3 1 3 

Halsey New Passing track 670.32 674.07 19800 19800 5096 14704 1 3 4  

Hallawell Extension 687.2 688.8 8448 1 683.5 687.28 19958 20064 4753 15311 4 4 4 

Hallawell to Albany Extension 687.28 690 14361.6 1108.8 0 1108.8 2 1 1  

Millersburg Extension 694.33 696.12 0 693 697.5 23760 23760 0 23760 2 3 2 

Marion Siding Extension 704.2 705.8 8448 0 701.17 705.8 24446.4 16843.2 0 16843.2 5 0 3  

Marion Siding Extension II 0 705.8 706.95 6072 6072 0 6072 - - 2 

Reynard Siding Extension 713.93 715.5 8289.6 0 713.93 716.76 14942.4 6758.4 0 6758.4 1 0 1  

Labish Siding Extension 720.4 721.8 7392 2 719.5 727.5 42240 35323.2 8117 27206 1 1 8  

Gervais Siding Extension 732.3 733.8 7920 0 732.3 738 30096 22492.8 5733 16759 1 3 5 

Coalca Siding Extension 750.1 751.89 9451.2 0 746.48 751.89 28564.8 20380 0 20380 1 3 5  

Clackamas/ Brooklyn Yard Extension 758.21 765 35851.2 35851.2 0 25757.25 2 1 5   

Clackamas/ Brooklyn Yard New Passing Track 765 770.17 27297.6 27297.6 10094 27297.6 2 0 11  

Oregon Passenger Rail FINAL 2016 Revised Operational Analysis Report October 18, 2016 

Page 20 
This page left blank intentionally.
 

Appendix A – Revised Base Case 

Revised: October 18, 2016 
This page left blank intentionally.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revised Base Case 

The initial Base Case simulation was performed in 2013. The existing track network at the time was 

included in the model; as discussed below, that network was revised for the latest Base Case simulation. 

Traffic data for the initial Base Case was gathered from various internet sources as well as local 

knowledge and developed into the simulation. There were only minimal modifications to those train 

files that were made in the Revised Base Case as noted below. 

Revised Base Case Operational Modifications 

Two operational modifications were made to the Revised Base Case. The first was the addition of an 

Amtrak Cascades dead head movement between the Eugene Station and Eugene Yard. The move was 

made each night and morning to represent storing the last Amtrak Cascades train set in Eugene Yard 

overnight and repositioning it back to the station for the first movement out in the morning. 

The second operational change was inclusion of a Union Pacific local from Albina Yard to Lake Yard and 

return to handle BNSF interchange traffic. All other trains remained the same between the Revised and 

initial 2013 Base Cases. 

Since a Base Case reflects current operations, but current operations will change between Portland and 

Vancouver in in 2017, the 2+1 passenger schedule was utilized between Portland and Eugene and the six 

Amtrak Cascades round trips were included between Portland and Vancouver, WA in the Revised Base 

Case.. 

Revised Base Case Network Configuration Modifications 

The Revised Base Case network featured two major modifications from the original 2013 Base Case. The 

first was the inclusion of increased track speeds that UP provided ODOT. These track speed increases 

affected high priority intermodal trains and passenger trains. The freight trains’ maximum speeds were 

increased from 60 mph to 70 mph and speed zones were set to UP proposed limits for freight and 

passenger. 

The second improvement was the reconfiguration of UP’s Eugene Yard. In the original Base Case, a

simplified yard was included because the Analysis Team did not have current track schematics of the 

yard. Once those schematics were acquired, the yard was updated in all subsequent ODOT/Amtrak 

Cascades simulations. Upon revising the Base Case, Eugene Yard was reconfigured to match all other 

simulation cases. 

The new configuration of the yard provided more arrival and departure tracks and an additional route to 

enter or depart the yard. This eased congestion in the Eugene area in the Revised Base Case analysis. An 

updated schematic representation of the yard and the Eugene Station is shown on the last page of the 

Base Analysis Network track schematic that is included below. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Freight train counts over various segments have also been included on the schematic; they have been 

broken into Local movements and Through movements. A Local movement included road switchers that 

returned to the station they originated from and were responsible for serving local industry along a 

section of the route. A Through movement ran from one station and terminated at another station, 

regardless of how far apart those stations were. 

As a general rule, train counts are provided on either side of a yard or terminal. Counts are provided 

north and south of Eugene, Albany, Salem and Brooklyn Yard. Counts into Albina, across the Steel 

Bridge and from the Graham Line to/from the south are also included. Passenger train counts have 

been excluded because those numbers vary by scenario and are described in the Introduction to each 

scenario. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

3 
 

 

 

620 625 630 635 640 645 650 

Judkins 

Amtrak 

647.3 

Coos 

Bay 

648.3 

Eugene Detail Below 

Judkins MP644 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 13 tpd 

620 625 630 635 640 645 650 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

Base Analysis Network 

 

4 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

650 655 660 665 670 675 680 

Irving 

650.3 - 653.4 

Swain MP657 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 12 tpd 

Halsey Industry 

672.6 - 673.8 

Shedd 

677.7 - 679.2 

Swain 

Harrisburg 

664.5, 665.1 

Industry 

657.3 - 657.7 

Alford 

650 655 660 665 670 675 680 

Eugene Detail Below 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

Base Analysis Network 

5 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

680 685 690 695 700 705 710 

Toledo Wye 

and Santiam 

Lead to PNWR 

Jefferson MP700 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 12 tpd 

Hallawell MP686 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 12 tpd 

Tangent 

684.6 

Hub City Ld 

690.03 

Albany & 

Eastern Albany Yard 

690.9 - 692.1 

Millersburg 

Jefferson 

699.5 

Marion 

Hallawell 

680 685 690 695 700 705 710 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

Base Analysis Network 

6 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

710 715 720 725 730 735 740 

Brooks MP725 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 12 tpd 

Renard MP712 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 12 tpd 

PNWR @ 721.3 

Salem Yard 

716.7 - 717.8 Brooks 

726.9 

Woodburn 

735.2 

WVR wye 

Renard Labish Gervais 

710 715 720 725 730 735 740 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

7 

Base Analysis Network 

October 18, 2016 Fin al
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 

Clackamas MP758 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 12 tpd 

E. Milwaukie MP763 

Local 0 tpd 

Through 12 tpd 

MP769 

Local 0 tpd 

Through 14 tpd 

Hito 

740.9 - 742.6 

Canby -

Oregon Pacific 

746.8 

Oregon City 

754.4 - 755.5 

Industry only 

Clackamas 

759.3 - 760.8 

Willsburg Jct. 

765.2 

Brooklyn Yd 

Oregon Pac 

PNWR 

Coalca 

Reed 

MP 766.6 To/Fm Albina 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 11 tpd 

745 750 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

755 760 765 770 

Base Analysis Network 

To/From Steel Bridge 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 3 tpd 

Graham to/from South 

Local 0 tpd 

Through 0 tpd 

740 

October 18, 2016 Final 

8 
 

 

640 645 650 655 

Judkins 

644.7 

Amtrak 

647.3 

Coos 

Bay 

648.3 

6500 ft 

tracks 

6000 ft 

tracks 

Irving 

650.3 - 653.4 

640 645 650 655 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

Eugene Detail 

 

9 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revised Base Case Brooklyn Subdivision Results 

Per the attached track schematic, the Revised Base Case configuration remained a single track railway 

with sidings from Natron (MP 616) to East Milwaukie (MP 765). There was a second main track from 

East Milwaukie to the Steel Bridge (MP 770). As was seen in the initial Base Case analysis, this long 

section of single track resulted in multiple meet or overtake (meet/pass) delays as trains had to stop in 

sidings to allow other trains to pass. 

There was a reduction in D/10 delay minutes between the initial Base Case and the Revised Base Case. 

In the initial case, D/10 was 3.3 minutes/10 miles operated as compared to 2.4 minutes/10 miles in the 

revised case. This suggests the line was operating efficiently under the Revised Base traffic levels. 

At the same time, delays exceeding 30 minutes were reduced from seven per day to two per day 

between the initial and the Revised Base Cases. Analysis of the results indicated that there were two 

reasons that the Revised Base Case experienced a reduction in delays and delay minutes. The first was 

the speed increases that UP provided and the second was the updating of the Eugene track network and 

yard configuration. The most prominent reductions occurred in two areas; between Clackamas (MP 

760) and Salem (MP 718) and between Hallawell (MP 687) and Natron. 

As previously mentioned, the speed increases affected the passenger trains and the highest priority 

intermodal trains. Those speed increases reduced delays to other UP traffic that was waiting for either 

of those train types. Overtakes by the faster trains required less time than in the previous model 

because of the track speed increases. Also, meet delays with higher priority trains were reduced 

because of the increased speed of the approaching trains. 

This was particularly evident between Clackamas and Salem. In the initial Base Case, there were four 

delays per day that exceeded 30 minutes. In the Revised Base Case, that number dropped to 0.7 per 

day. The increase in speeds changed the timing of trains over the entire Brooklyn Sub network, and with 

those changes, some of the longer delays were reduced. 

It also appeared that the new version of the model did not hold freight trains as far away from meet 

points with Amtrak trains as did the previous model version. There were fewer Amtrak/freight meets 

that exceeded 30 minutes in the Revised Base Case as compared to the initial Base Case. 

Another factor was the modification of the Eugene Yard complex to better represent movements into 

and from the yard. In the initial 2013 Base Case, there were 2.5 delays per day that exceeded 30 

minutes in the general area of the Eugene Yard. Based on analysis, it appeared that many of those 

delays were associated with entering or exiting the yard because of the simplified infrastructure 

configuration that was used. In the Revised Base Case, the yard infrastructure configuration was 

expanded to better represent the actual track lay-out, and that reduced the D>30 to no occurrences in 

the three days of the most recent simulation. 

Revised Base Case Portland to Vancouver Results 

In the Revised Base Case, the line segment between Portland and Vancouver was operating efficiently. 

There were 2.3 delays per day that exceeded 30 minutes during the 2015 simulation. 

Review of the delays showed there was a split between the initial causes of the delays. Just under half 

the delays that exceeded 30 minutes were caused by passenger train conflicts, while just over half were 

caused by freight conflicts. 

The delays initiated by freight movements occurred in two particular locations. The first was in the area 

of North Portland Jct. and involved UP operations. Since the Revised Base Case did not feature the 

improved connection between Peninsula Jct. and NPJ, UP trains operated into and over that segment at 

speeds below 10 mph. This created delays to UP traffic moving from BNSF’s Fallbridge Sub to Peninsula 

Jct., and to BNSF movements trying to leave from the Port of Portland’s T6 facility.

October 18, 2016 Final 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other location that experienced repetitive freight initiated conflicts was in the area of Willbridge 

Yard. A local switch engine that had to work at Lake Yard was regularly held at Willbridge because 

another switch assignment was already working in Lake Yard. The second main track could not be used 

because of an Amtrak Cascades train departing from Portland towards Seattle at the same time. 

Therefore, the second local movement had to wait until both the Amtrak Cascades train and the switch 

engine cleared before being able to advance. 

Delays initiated by Amtrak trains occurred in multiple locations ranging from Vancouver Yard to 

Willbridge. The timing of the freight movements and the 6+2 Amtrak Cascade/Coast Starlight/Empire 

Builder (Spokane/Portland Section) schedules determined where many of the delays occurred. The new 

local that was added that operated between Albina Yard and Lake Yard (and return) was not affected by 

either passenger or freight operations in the simulation. 

Graphs comparing the Revised Base Case statistics with other cases are included later in the report. 

Revised Base Case Brooklyn Sub Velocity 

The following table breaks down the velocity of traffic types that operated over the Brooklyn Sub in the 

Base Case. Velocity of each train group was calculated using the miles that the group operated divided 

by either 1) the Elapsed Time for the group or 2) the Elapsed Time minus the Delay and Dwell totals for 

the group. The Total Freight velocity is the same calculations using a sum of all freight mileage, Elapsed 

Time, Delay and Dwell. 

The Portland & Western (PNWR) statistics included in the table refer to only PNWR operations that 

occurred on UP’s Brooklyn Sub. Other PNWR operations on PNWR’s OE District or on the Westside

District were not analyzed or included in the velocity calculations that are included in this report. 

Alternative Revised Base Velocity Velocity 

Total minus Delay 

Group Delay Dwell Elapsed Time Miles Del/10 Elapsed and Dwell 

Passenger 2:08:21 5:36:21 48:35:48 2330.0 0.6 47.9 57.0 

PNWR 0:52:43 16:25:00 34:50:56 392.1 1.3 11.3 22.3 

UPExp 4:05:49 4:02:05 46:23:04 1599.1 1.5 34.5 41.8 

UPLocal 6:03:42 61:08:51 91:28:21 700.1 5.2 7.7 28.9 

UPMani 7:46:46 54:00:33 141:38:27 2794.0 1.7 19.7 35.0 

UPUnit 4:47:57 3:00:02 20:24:54 414.6 6.9 20.3 32.9 

Total Freight 23:36:57 138:36:31 334:45:42 5899.9 2.4 17.6 34.2 

October 18, 2016 Final 

11 
 

Base Case Stringlines 

Day 1 

Color Passenger Trains

Red - Amtrak Cascades trains

Reddish Brown – Amtrak Coast Starlight

Freight Trains

Gold – (Z trains) High priority containers for intermodal

Black – Unit Trains

Blue – (Q trains - Doublestack) Priority Intermodal

Green – Local and Merchandise trains

Day 2 

October 18, 2016 Final 

12 
 

Day 3 

Color Passenger Trains

Red - Amtrak Cascades trains

Reddish Brown – Amtrak Coast Starlight

Freight Trains

Gold – (Z trains) High priority containers for intermodal

Black – Unit Trains

Blue – (Q trains - Doublestack) Priority Intermodal

Green – Local and Merchandise trains

October 18, 2016 Final 

13 
 

Appendix B – Revised No Action 

Revised: October 18, 2016 
This page left blank intentionally.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2035 Revised No Action Alternative 

Introduction 

Under the 2035 Revised No Action simulation, the existing Base Case track infrastructure was used, 

however freight traffic was increased to projected 2035 freight growth levels. This scenario represented 

the level of service that UP and BNSF would be expected to experience if no further action was pursued 

to expand passenger operations. 

2035 Revised No Action Operational Modifications 

Freight growth was added to the 2035 Revised No Action Case. Growth was projected using a 

compounded annual rate of 1.5 to 1.7% for the through freight movements. UP and BNSF intermodal 

and manifest trains were increased using this method. 

Union Pacific unit train growth was projected based on anticipated growth of new classes of traffic. 

Projected growth of oil and grain trains to California from the upper Midwest and Canada drove this 

growth. Two to three loaded trains per day (and their associated empty trains) were included to 

represent the potential traffic levels in this corridor. 

The local between Albina Yard and Lake Yard was also added to the 2035 Revised No Action Case. 

Portland to Eugene passenger traffic was not modified in this analysis. Two Amtrak Cascades round trips 

and the single Coast Starlight round trip (2+1) were included in the simulation over the Brooklyn Sub. 

Portland to Vancouver passenger operations continued to use the 6+2 schedule of the Revised Base 

Case as well. This was a reduction of passenger traffic in this corridor from the initial No Action Case, 

which included 13 Amtrak Cascades round trips between Portland and Vancouver (and continuing north. 

2035 Revised No Action Infrastructure Modifications 

There were no infrastructure modifications between the Revised Base Case and the 2035 Revised No 

Action alternative along the Brooklyn Sub. There were also no improvements made to the network 

between Portland and Vancouver on either BNSF’s Fallbridge Sub or on UP’s connection track between

Peninsula Jct. and NPJ. 

Freight train counts over various segments have again been included on the 2035 Revised No Action 

schematic, which has been included below. As with the Base Network Schematic, the train volumes 

have been broken into Local movements and Through movements, which are described above. The 

locations of where the train counts were taken are the same as in the Base Network, so a comparison of 

growth can be made from location to location. 

The train counts in the 2035 Revised No Action also represent the train volumes that were included in all 

additional 2035 passenger scenarios. These counts can be referenced for all of the following 

alternatives if train volumes are required. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

2 
 

 

 

620 625 630 635 640 645 650 

Judkins 

Amtrak 

647.3 

Coos 

Bay 

648.3 

Judkins MP644 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 21 tpd 

620 625 630 635 640 645 650 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

No Action Analysis Network 

 

3 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

650 655 660 665 670 675 680 

Irving 

650.3 - 653.4 

Swain MP657 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 24 tpd 

Halsey Industry 

672.6 - 673.8 

Shedd 

677.7 - 679.2 

Swain 

Harrisburg 

664.5, 665.1 

Industry 

657.3 - 657.7 

Alford 

650 655 660 665 670 675 680 

Eugene Detail Below 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

No Action Analysis Network 

4 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

680 685 690 695 700 705 710 

Toledo Wye 

and Santiam 

Lead to PNWR 

Jefferson MP700 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 24 tpd 

Hallawell MP686 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 25 tpd 

Tangent 

684.6 

Hub City Ld 

690.03 

Albany & 

Eastern Albany Yard 

690.9 - 692.1 

Millersburg 

Jefferson 

699.5 

Marion 

Hallawell 

680 685 690 695 700 705 710 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

No Action Analysis Network 

October 18, 2016 Final 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

710 715 720 725 730 735 740 

Brooks MP725 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 24 tpd 

Renard MP712 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 24 tpd 

PNWR @ 721.3 

Salem Yard 

716.7 - 717.8 Brooks 

726.9 

Woodburn 

735.2 

WVR wye 

Renard Labish Gervais 

710 715 720 725 730 735 740 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

No Action Analysis Network 

 

6 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 

Clackamas MP758 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 24 tpd 

E. Milwaukie MP763 

Local 0 tpd 

Through 24 tpd 

MP769 

Local 0 tpd 

Through 22 tpd 

Hito 

740.9 - 742.6 

Canby -

Oregon Pacific 

746.8 

Oregon City 

754.4 - 755.5 

Industry only 

Clackamas 

759.3 - 760.8 

Willsburg Jct. 

765.2 

Brooklyn Yd 

Oregon Pac 

PNWR 

Coalca 

Reed 

MP 766.6 To/Fm Albina 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 13 tpd 

745 750 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

755 760 765 770 

No Action Analysis Network 

To/From Steel Bridge 

Local 2 tpd 

Through 1 tpd 

Graham to/from South 

Local 0 tpd 

Through 8 tpd 

740 

October 18, 2016 Final 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2035 Revised No Action UP Brooklyn Sub Results 

The delay minutes per 10 miles operated (D/10) increased in the 2035 Revised No Action Case compared 

to the Revised Base Case. D/10 was 3.7 minutes per 10 miles operated vs. 2.4 minutes per 10 miles in 

the Revised Base Case (Graph 1 below). This result indicated that while the line segment was more 

congested with the freight growth, the line continued to operate efficiently. 

The increase in delay was not unexpected. 2035 growth projections added additional trains to the line 

segment which created more potential conflicts. Since the line remained a single track network with 

sidings between East Milwaukie and Natron, all meets and passes had to occur at a siding, which caused 

a delay to one of the trains involved. With greater freight traffic levels, more meets or overtakes that 

involved three or more trains occurred. 

Delays that exceeded 30 minutes increased from two per day to 8.3 per day under the 2035 Revised No 

Action Case (Graph 2 below). Many of these delays occurred from meets/overtakes that involved more 

than a single train meeting or overtaking another single train. Delays associated with on line switching 

or entering yards also caused some of the delays that exceeded 30 minutes (Graph 4 below). 

With additional freight trains on the route, there was an increase in meets with passenger and other 

freight traffic. As Graph 4 shows, there were many more freight-freight meets that caused delays than 

freight-passenger meets. Since passenger train volumes were not increased in this analysis on the 

Brooklyn Sub, this was not unexpected. Most of the conflicts that led to delays that exceeded 30 

minutes were meets or overtakes by multiple trains; single train meets rarely caused a delay that 

exceeded 30 minutes. 

There were delays caused by on line switching in the 2035 Revised No Action Case. With increased on 

line freight work and through trains, there were more opportunities for one group to be delayed by the 

other group. In some cases, the through trains waited until the on line switching was completed, and in 

other cases, the switching trains were delayed until the through trains completed their operations. 

This was particularly true around Clackamas in the 2035 Revised No Action Case, where there were a 

number of on line switching and meet delays. When multiple trains were switching in the area (the local 

trains switching industry and through trains that were setting out or picking up cars), other through 

trains became blocked. The blocked trains remained between East Milwaukie and the Steel Bridge, or in 

the Coalca (MP 750) and Hito (MP 741) sidings. 

In the evening, a high priority intermodal train from Brooklyn Yard was scheduled to operate to the 

south at the same time that much of the switching was taking place. That train forced some of the 

switching activities to be delayed until the high priority freight was clear of the area. This further 

delayed trains in the sidings or on the second main track on either side of Clackamas. 

Graph 6 shows the location of many of the delays that exceeded 30 minutes. The results reflect the 

delays that were caused by the track configuration and traffic levels around Clackamas. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another location that experienced some delays associated with on line switching was between Eugene 

and Hallawell. Again, a local that was assigned to work at locations between those two points conflicted 

with through traffic moving to or from Eugene. In most cases, RTC delayed the local in the Alford (MP 

666) or Swain (MP 660) sidings until the through train traffic cleared. 

The single track section between the south end of Eugene Yard (MP 649, MP 650) and Natron also 

contributed to some delays that exceeded 30 minutes. Northbound trains waiting in Natron siding for 

trains coming out of Eugene Yard experienced those types of delays. Frequently, the northbound train 

had to wait for at least two southbound trains from Eugene to clear before being able to proceed. In 

many cases, the southbound trains had to run first to clear tracks in Eugene Yard so the northbound 

train had a clear track in which to arrive. 

Judkins Siding is between Natron and Eugene. The siding is only 5,200 feet in length. Since all of the 

through trains in the analysis exceeded 6,000 feet in length, only local trains that were less than 5,000 

feet could utilize Judkins in the model. In reality, some through trains are less than 5,000 feet, so they 

would be able to use that siding which was not reflected in the model. 

Revised No Action Brooklyn Sub Velocity Comparisons 

The following table provides the velocities of the various traffic groups for the 2035 Revised No Action 

analyses. As previously discussed, the PNWR results only reflect PNWR operations that occur on UP’s

Brooklyn Subdivision. 

Alternative Revised No Action Velocity Velocity 

Total minus Delay 

Group Delay Dwell Elapsed Time Miles Del/10 Elapsed and Dwell 

Passenger 2:04:34 5:36:21 48:38:18 2330.4 0.5 47.9 56.9 

PNWR 1:55:29 13:18:00 25:17:51 463.3 2.5 18.3 46.0 

UPExp 8:15:50 7:46:09 76:34:19 2418.3 2.1 31.6 39.9 

UPLocal 8:21:57 60:26:04 94:17:23 699.7 7.2 7.4 27.4 

UPMani 30:53:49 69:24:11 228:12:45 4466.5 4.2 19.6 34.9 

UPUnit 16:48:57 21:02:05 116:17:54 2608.3 3.9 22.4 33.2 

Total Frt 66:16:01 171:56:29 540:40:11 10656.0 3.7 19.7 35.2 

The velocities in the Revised No Action Case are somewhat mixed compared to the Revised Base Case. 

Passenger velocities are essentially the same between the two cases. This indicates that passenger 

traffic in both cases was treated equally by the model on the Brooklyn Sub. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the freight perspective, PNWR and UP unit train velocities are slightly greater in the No Action 

Case, and UP expedited and UP local velocities are slightly less in the No Action Case. UP manifest traffic 

velocity remained essentially constant between the two cases. 

The overall average velocity (total elapsed time) actually increases in the Revised No Action Case as 

compared to the Revised Base Case. This is because the total velocity of freight trains is a weighted 

average of all trains on the corridor. In particular, the increase in UP unit traffic in the Revised No Action 

Case (2608 miles operated vs. 414 miles operated in the Revised Base Case) created a higher overall 

freight velocity by outweighing the types of trains where velocity was equal or slightly less in the No 

Action Case. The higher velocity for unit traffic in the Revised No Action Case is a function of how this 

category of trains was dispatched, when they ran and the number of conflicts that they incurred in the 

simulation. 

Revised No Action Portland to Vancouver Results 

Similar to the Brooklyn Sub, BNSF’s Fallbridge Sub experienced an increase in delays exceeding 30

minutes in the 2035 Revised No Action Case (Graph 7 below). The number of delays increased from 2.3 

to 4.7 between the Revised Base Case and the 2035 Revised No Action Case. The increase in freight 

traffic in the corridor was responsible for this upsurge. 

As Graph 8 below shows, the breakdown between delays initially caused by passenger trains vs. those 

caused by freight trains indicates that freight traffic initiated a greater number of those delays. There 

were three locations that experienced repetitive freight congestion. 

The first area was Vancouver for southbound trains. Southbound UP and BNSF traffic as well as 

westbound BNSF traffic from the Fallbridge Sub frequently stopped and waited on northbound UP trains 

entering the network at North Portland Junction. The southbound traffic coming from Seattle waited at 

Vancouver until the traffic cleared; the westbound trains from the Fallbridge Sub waited between the 

Columbia River Bridge and McLoughlin until the train traffic cleared. Some of the southbound trains 

also affected switch engines that could not leave BNSF’s Vancouver Yard until the traffic cleared.

North Portland Jct. was another location that experienced multiple delays. Again, since no 

infrastructure improvements were included on UP’s connection between Peninsula Jct. and NPJ, trains

operated at less than 10 mph into, over and through that segment of track. This led to trains being 

stopped on BNSF’s Fallbridge Sub waiting for UP trains coming from Portland via Peninsula Jct. Some of

the trains waiting at NPJ delayed other train traffic in the Vancouver area which was previously 

discussed. 

UP trains also had to wait around Peninsula Jct. for passenger and other high priority north-south traffic 

on BNSF’s Fallbridge Sub at NPJ. The increased traffic flow combined with the slow track speed 

contributed to many of the delays around this area. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

10 
 

Revised No Action Stringlines 

Day 1 

Day 2 

October 18, 2016 Final 

11 
 

Day 3 

October 18, 2016 Final 

12 
This page left blank intentionally.
 

 

 

Appendix C – Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) 

Revised: October 18, 2016 

Prepared by: Mainline Management 
This page left blank intentionally.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Analysis 

Introduction 

A Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Analysis was also performed to standardize assumptions between all 

cases. The analysis featured the inclusion of one additional Amtrak Cascades round trip between 

Portland and Eugene. It also included estimated infrastructure that would likely be required to support 

that additional train. 

In addition to the Amtrak Cascades train and associated infrastructure, the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) 

analysis also included an updated track design at the Eugene Station. The new track design (Option 4) 

would allow for two Amtrak Cascades trains to be staged at the station overnight so they would not 

have to transit to Eugene Yard in the evening and from the yard in the morning. 

Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Operational Modifications 

There were no operational modifications for UP traffic on the Brooklyn Sub in the Revised Alternative 1 

(3+1) simulation other than the projected increase in freight traffic to 2015 levels as previously 

discussed. The Albina Yard to Lake Yard local was added in this case as in the Revised Base and Revised 

No Action cases. No changes were made to BNSF traffic between Vancouver and Portland as well. 

The only operational changes were the additional Amtrak Cascades round trip that was added between 

Eugene and Portland, the staging of the Amtrak Cascades trains within the Eugene Station tracks at 

night. Portland to Vancouver passenger trains continued to operate under the 6+2 schedule as 

described earlier. 

Infrastructure Modifications 

The following is a list of modifications from the initial Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis. These same 

modifications were included in the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Case. 

 Southern Section 

1. Second Main Track (SMT) from Judkins (644.66) to Swain (660.6) 

2. Crossovers from SMT to existing crossovers or yard entrance tracks (MP647, MP648, MP650, 

MP653.2, MP653.5) 

3. Universal crossover MP658.0 

4. SMT from MP 670.0 to MP 674.0. 

5. SMT south end Hallawell (MP 687.3) to Albany Yard (690.9). 

6. Crossover MP 690.1. 

 Central Section 

October 18, 2016 Final 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. SMT MP 701.0 to north end Marion (705.76). 

2. Add new siding at Brooks, MP 725.0 to MP 727.0. 

 Northern Section 

1. Second main track Canby (746.48) to north end Coalca (751.89). 

2. Universal crossovers MP 748.39 

3. Second main track Clackamas (758.68) to East Milwaukie (MP764.5). 

4. Single crossover MP 761.22 

5. Third main track East Milwaukie to Steel Bridge (770.0) 

6. Universal crossovers Reed MP764.41 

7. Universal crossovers MP768.72 

The following schematic shows the improvements that were included in the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) 

analyses. The Alternative 1 (3+1) infrastructure improvements were a subset of the Alternative 1 (4+1) 

analysis that was performed prior to the Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis in 2014. The thin red lines are the 

improvements included in the Alternative 1 (4+1) analysis, while the heavy red lines are the 

improvements that were included in the Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis. The Revised 4+1 analysis will be 

described later in this memo, but the associated improvements have been left on the Revised 3+1 

schematic to assist a reader to understand how the Alternative 1 (3+1) improvements are a subset of 

the Alternative 1 (4+1) improvements. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

3 
 

 

 

 

620 625 630 635 640 645 650 

Judkins 

XO 648.18 

Amtrak 

647.3 

Opt 4 station 

tracks 

XO 647.7 

Coos 

Bay 

648.3 

Eugene Detail Below 

MP 644.66 

620 625 630 635 640 645 650 

Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Network 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

October 18, 2016 Final 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

650 655 660 665 670 675 680 

Irving 

650.3 - 653.4 

Swain 

Harrisburg 

664.5, 665.1 

Halsey Industry 

672.6 - 673.8 

XO 653.49 

Shedd 

677.7 - 679.2 

XO 653.17 

XO 650.09 

Industry 

657.3 - 657.7 

Eugene Detail Below 

MP 660.6 MP 666.04 MP 674.0 

UXO 658.0 

Alford 

MP 670.0 

650 655 660 665 670 675 680 

Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Network 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

October 18, 2016 Final 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

680 685 690 695 700 705 710 

Tangent 

684.6 

Hub City Ld 

690.03 

Albany & 

Eastern Albany Yard 

690.9 - 692.1 

Millersburg 

Jefferson 

699.5 

MP 683.5 MP 687.29 

XO 684.89 UXO 690.1 

Marion 

Toledo Wye 

and Santiam 

Lead to PNWR 

MP 693.0 MP 697.5 MP 701.0 MP 707.0 

XO 704.2 

Hallawell 

680 685 690 695 700 705 710 

Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Network 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

October 18, 2016 Final 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

710 715 720 725 730 735 740 

PNWR @ 721.3 

Salem Yard 

716.7 - 717.8 Brooks 

726.9 

Woodburn 

735.2 

WVR wye 

XO 716.5 UXO 722.59 

MP 713.9 

MP 716.68 

MP 719.5 MP 727.5 MP 732.24 MP 738.0 

Renard Labish Gervais 

710 715 720 725 730 735 740 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Network 

October 18, 2016 Final 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 

Hito 

740.9 - 742.6 

Canby -

Oregon Pacific 

746.8 

Oregon City 

754.4 - 755.5 

Industry only 

Clackamas 

759.3 - 760.8 

Willsburg Jct. 

765.2 

Brooklyn Yd Oregon Pac 

PNWR 

UXO 748.39 XO 761.22 XO 764.69

MP 746.48 MP 751.89 MP 758.68 

XO 764.41 XO 768.72 

Coalca 

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 

Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Network 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

October 18, 2016 Final 

8 
 

 

 

 

640 645 650 655 

6500 ft 

tracks 

6000 ft 

tracks 

XO 647.7 XO 648.18 XO 650.09 XO 653.17 XO 653.49 

MP 644.66 

Judkins 

644.7 

Amtrak 

647.3 

Coos 

Bay 

648.3 

Irving 

650.3 - 653.4 

640645 650 655 

Eugene Detail 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Network 

October 18, 2016 Final 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the capacity improvements that were included between Portland and Eugene, the Eugene 

Amtrak Station was modified to reflect the Option 4 design provided to the Analysis Team. In that 

design, the station platforms were moved from the east side of the station (adjacent to the main track 

and siding) to the west side of the station. One track was connected to the existing tracks at both ends, 

while the second track was a stub track capable of holding an entire Amtrak Cascades train set. This 

modification is reflected by the inverted red “V” with the short stub in the preceding schematic. 

Between Portland and Vancouver, the track and turnout upgrades at UP’s North Portland/Penninsula 

Jct. and upgrades to Willbridge Junction on BNSF’s Fallbridge Subdivision was improved to support 25 

mph movements. This compares to the Revised Base and Revised No Action Cases where trains using 

this connection were limited to 10 mph or less. 

Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Brooklyn Sub Results 

There were 3.2 minutes of delay per 10 miles operated (D/10) for the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) 

simulation. This result was greater than the Revised Base Case, but less than the Revised No Action Case 

(Graph 1 below). Therefore, the additional second main track and sidings that were added improved 

UP’s freight performance as compared to the Revised No Action analysis, even with the inclusion of one 

additional Amtrak Cascades round trip. This was the primary goal of the Revised 3+1 network. 

The results fell within an expected range of results because even with the improvements, the network 

remained primarily a single track network with sidings and some sections of second main track. The 

results of the simulation suggested the network will not be quite as efficient as the existing Brooklyn Sub 

network under assumed existing traffic levels; however the results of the analysis included projected 

freight growth as well as an additional Amtrak Cascades round trip. 

The number of delays that exceeded 30 minutes increased to 7.3 per day in the Revised 3+1 Analysis 

(Graph 2 below). Most of the delays that exceeded 30 minutes were meet/pass delays. There was a 

slight bias towards freight meets and overtakes (Graph 3 below) as compared to passenger meets or 

overtakes. 

The passenger schedules that were utilized and the adjusted network infrastructure dictated where 

many of the longest delays occurred in the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis. Many of the longer 

meet or overtake delays occurred to freight traffic near where passenger trains met other passenger 

trains. In the Revised 3+1 analysis, passenger-passenger meets occurred in Hito Siding, at Salem and 

between Albany (MP 690) and Eugene. These schedules led to many of the longer freight delays 

occurring between Coalca (MP 750) and Salem and between Hallawell and Eugene (Graph 5 below). 

This effect was explained in the initial 3+1 analyses. As discussed, freight trains approaching the location 

of the passenger train meet were stopped to allow the first approaching passenger train to meet or pass 

the freight train. After the first passenger train passed, the freight train remained stopped in the same 

location until the second passenger train passed or met it from the other direction. Waiting for the two 

passenger trains created long delays which were captured by the D>30 analysis. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There were additional repetitive delays that exceeded 30 minutes besides those associated with 

passenger-passenger meets. Some congestion remained around Clackamas because of locals switching 

industry, trains stopping on line for setouts or pickups, and higher priority through freight traffic. 

However, the extended second main track from East Milwaukie to just beyond Clackamas alleviated 

many of the exceptionally congested periods that were observed in the Revised No Action Case. 

Some on line switching delays continued to occur between Halsey (MP672) and Swain (MP660). This 

was a function of local trains needing to hold a main line for industrial switching, trains entering and 

exiting Eugene Yard and passenger operations in or near the area. In multiple cases, lower priority locals 

were not allowed to access the industry locations until after passenger trains had passed. However, 

since other freight traffic was also waiting for the passenger trains to clear, those trains followed the 

passenger trains. The locals then had to wait for some of the freight traffic to clear as well before being 

allowed to access the industrial locations. 

There were no delays between Eugene and Natron in the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis. As has 

been described in the results of previous analyses, the extension of a second main track from Judkins to 

Swain (MP 644 to MP 660) through Eugene provided additional capacity for UP freight operations, 

minimizing conflicts with other freight trains and expanded passenger operations into and from 

Eugene’s Amtrak station.

The new configuration for the Amtrak Cascades layover tracks was operationally effective in the 

Alternative 1 (3+1) simulation. There were no major delays associated with passenger operations into 

or around the Eugene Station. 

Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Brooklyn Sub Velocity Comparison 

The following table provides the velocity of the various train classes on the Brooklyn Sub for the Revised 

Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis. As previously discussed, the PNWR results only reflect PNWR operations 

that occur on UP’s Brooklyn Subdivision.

Alternative Revised 3+1 Velocity Velocity 

Total minus Delay 

Group Delay Dwell Elapsed Time Miles Del/10 Elapsed and Dwell 

Passenger 5:18:02 12:45:12 69:38:09 3047.3 1.0 43.8 59.1 

PNWR 2:47:51 13:18:00 26:10:26 463.3 3.6 17.7 46.0 

UPExp 7:09:06 7:36:10 74:18:46 2407.7 1.8 32.4 40.4 

UPLocal 11:51:07 60:26:04 97:54:09 699.8 10.2 7.1 27.3 

UPMani 20:14:59 68:22:10 210:41:05 4334.1 2.8 20.6 35.5 

UPUnit 13:11:12 21:01:05 111:27:20 2611.0 3.0 23.4 33.8 

Total Freight 55:14:14 170:43:29 520:31:45 10516.0 3.2 20.2 35.7 

11 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Passenger train elapsed time velocity decreased as compared to the Revised No Alternative and Base 

Case levels. The Analysis Team believes the primary reason for this is that four of the meets that the 

eight Amtrak trains experienced were in sidings, rather than on a second main track. When the meets 

occur in sidings, there is some delay to one of the trains. This decreased the elapsed time velocity by 

four mph. 

When delay and dwell were removed from the calculation, the velocity of the passenger trains 

increased. The additional second main track contributed to this improvement. With a second main 

track in place, the passenger trains had more opportunities to meet or overtake freight traffic without 

slowing down. In the previous analyses, the passenger trains did slow because they were following or 

meeting freight trains that were diverging into sidings. 

Brooklyn Sub freight traffic velocity also increased showing an improvement in the Revised Alternative 1 

(3+1) case. It appears that the sections of second main track allowed most types of UP trains to 

decrease their total delay, while running miles remained relatively constant. This led to increased 

velocity over the subdivision. 

Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Portland to Vancouver Results 

Delays exceeding 30 minutes were notably reduced in the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis case as 

compared to the Revised No Action Case. With the same amount of freight traffic on the segment, the 

number of delays was reduced to 1.3 per day from 4.7 per day in the Revised No Action Case. The main 

contributor to the improved performance was the increased speed on UP’s connection between 

Peninsula Jct. and NPJ, along with the upgraded turnouts at each end of the connecting track. 

Movements that could continue from BNSF’s Fallbridge Sub onto the UP connection track at 25 mph

cleared the area much more quickly, which reduced delays for UP traffic and for BNSF traffic operating 

in the area. 

The one location that did see repetitive delay was at Willbridge. The local working at Willbridge was 

repeatedly delayed by a switch engine working at Lake Yard. As previously described, a passenger train 

leaving Portland towards Vancouver contributed to this delay. It appears it is strictly a timing issue; if 

either of the two locals is a little earlier or later, the delay would likely not occur. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

12 
 

Revised Alternative 3+1 Stringlines 

Day 1 

Color Passenger Trains

Red - Amtrak Cascades trains

Reddish Brown – Amtrak Coast Starlight

Freight Trains

Gold – (Z trains) High priority containers for intermodal

Black – Unit Trains

Blue – (Q trains - Doublestack) Priority Intermodal

Green – Local and Merchandise trains

Day 2 

October 18, 2016 Final 

13 
 

Day 3 

Color Passenger Trains

Red - Amtrak Cascades trains

Reddish Brown – Amtrak Coast Starlight

Freight Trains

Gold – (Z trains) High priority containers for intermodal

Black – Unit Trains

Blue – (Q trains - Doublestack) Priority Intermodal

Green – Local and Merchandise trains

October 18, 2016 Final 

14 
This page left blank intentionally.
 

 

 

Appendix D – Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) 

Revised: October 18, 2016 

Prepared by: Mainline Management 
This page left blank intentionally.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Analysis 

Introduction 

Another alternative that was analyzed previously and then revised to standardize all assumptions was 

the Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) option. As implied by the name, the Revised 4+1 option increased the 

number of Amtrak Cascades round trips from two in the Revised Base Case to four. This required a 

different configuration of track that will be discussed later in this section. 

The Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) analysis was standardized by modifying three aspects of the initial 4+1 

analysis. First, Eugene Station was modified to reflect the Option 4 configuration that was developed to 

allow overnight lay over capability for up to two Amtrak Cascades train sets at the station. As previously 

discussed, this eliminated the need to dead head a train set from the station to UP’s Eugene Yard at

night and then return it to the station in the morning. The second modification was to standardize the 

number of Portland to Vancouver (and beyond) Amtrak Cascades round trips from 12 in the initial 

analysis to six in the Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) analysis. The third modification was the inclusion of the 

track upgrades at Peninsula Junction and Willbridge, allowing 25 mph operation for UP traffic. 

Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Operational Modifications 

As briefly discussed, the only freight modification that was made in the Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) 

analysis was the addition of the Albina Yard to Lake Yard local that was added to all of the revised 

simulations. All other projected 2035 UP and BNSF freight operations remained the same, whether on 

UP’s Brooklyn Sub or BNSF’s Fallbridge Sub.

Passenger operations on the Brooklyn Sub were modified to the extent that a fourth Amtrak Cascades 

round trip was added to the Revised 3+1 option (or two round trips were added to the Revised Base or 

No Action options). 

The modification at the Eugene Amtrak station also allowed the dead head (positioning passenger 

equipment to the station for use in the morning) movement to be modified. As briefly discussed, the 

Option 4 configuration allows up to two Amtrak Cascade train sets to be staged at night at the station 

without affecting the main lines. Therefore, no dead head moves to or from Eugene Yard were required 

in the Revised analysis. 

Finally, Portland to Vancouver Amtrak Cascades round trips were reduced from 12 round trips in the 

initial 4+1 analysis to six round trips in the Revised analysis. 

Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Network Modifications 

October 18, 2016 Final 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The initial Alternative 1 (4+1) network was a subset of the initial Alternative 1 (6+1) track configuration. 

The 6+1 configuration was requested by UP; they asked for a continuous additional main track from the 

Steel Bridge to Eugene. This was referred to as the “Alternative 1 Plan”. 

To reduce cost, the number of projected Amtrak Cascades round trips was reduced from six to four, and 

the Analysis Team was instructed to reduce the infrastructure accordingly in an attempt to reduce its 

infrastructure cost. The additional main track was removed from high cost locations such as large 

bridges and through cities such as Salem, Albany and Oregon City. The four round trip Amtrak Cascades 

trains were then operated on the reduced infrastructure to ascertain the impact of those reductions. 

A list of the improvements from the initial 4+1 analysis is included below. 

1. Second Main Track (SMT) from MP 644.66 (south end Judkins) to MP 660.6. It utilized the Judkins 

Siding as the south end of the SMT and Swain Siding as north end of the SMT. Crossovers from SMT 

to existing crossovers or yard entrance tracks (MP 647, MP 648, MP 650, MP 653.2, MP 653.5) were 

added. Universal crossovers were added at MP 658.0 +/-. 

2. Single track MP 660.6 to 666.04. 

3. SMT from MP 666.04 to 674.0 utilizing Alford Siding as the south end of SMT. Universal crossovers 

were added at MP 670 +/-. 

4. Single track MP 674.0 to 683.5. Shedd Siding was included per the UP track chart. 

5. SMT 683.5 to 690.1 utilizing Hallawell Siding as part of the SMT. All crossovers remained per the 

Alternative 1 plan (single crossover at MP 684.89 and universal crossovers at MP 687.29). The new 

SMT was connected to the Albany lead track and universal crossovers were added at MP 690+/- so 

northbound freight trains can be operated from either of the main tracks onto an existing single 

main track through Albany. 

6. Single track from MP 690.1 to 693.0 (Albany Yard). All crossovers between the Albany Lead and 

main track as well as the connection to the Toledo Branch were included. 

7. SMT MP 693.0 to MP 697.5 utilizing the Millersburg Siding as part of SMT. 

8. Single track MP 697.5 to MP MP 701.0. 

9. SMT MP 701.0 to MP 707.0 utilizing Marion Siding as part of the SMT. Universal crossovers were 

added at MP 704.2 (existing south end Marion Siding). 

10. Single track MP 707.0 to MP 713.9. 

11. SMT MP 713.9 to MP 716.68 utilizing Renard Siding as south end of SMT. The SMT was connected 

to the Salem Yard Lead at MP 716.68. Universal crossovers were added at MP 716.5 +/- to allow 

northbound freight trains from either track to operate over the existing single main track through 

Salem. 

12. Single track MP 716.68 to MP 719.5. All yard leads and connections through Salem per UP’s track

charts were included. 

13. SMT MP 719.5 to MP 727.5 utilizing Labish Siding as part of the SMT. All other industry tracks at 

Labish were per the Alternative 1 concept which included universal crossovers at MP 722.59. The 

“new” Brooks siding per the Alternative 1 plan was removed at MP722.8.

14. Single track MP 727.5 to MP 732.24. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. SMT MP 732.24 to MP 738.0 utilizing Gervais Siding as the south end of SMT. The “new” Gervais

siding from the Alternative 1 plan (MP732.3) and the universal crossovers at MP 736.74 were 

removed. The industrial siding at Woodburn (MP 734.51) and all of the connections were included. 

16. Single track MP 738.0 to MP 746.48. Hito Siding was included per UP’s track charts.

17. SMT MP 746.48 to MP 751.89 utilizing Coalca Siding as the north end of the SMT. The Canby 

industrial siding at MP 746.60 and all of the connections to and from the industrial siding were 

included, along with universal crossovers at MP 748.39. 

18. Single main track MP 751.89 to MP 758.68. 

19. SMT MP 758.68 to MP 764.94 and a third main track from East Milwaukie at MP 764.94 to the Steel 

Bridge at MP 770.17. All crossovers and connections per the Alternative 1 plan between Clackamas 

and Steel Bridge were included as well as an additional siding and multiple industrial sidings at 

Clackamas (MP 759.23). All connections and the drill track at Willsburg Junction and Brooklyn were 

also included. 

A schematic representation of the improvements follows to provide a visual review of the modifications. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

4 
 

 

 

 

620 625 630 635 640 645 650 

Judkins 

XO 648.18 

Amtrak 

647.3 

XO 647.7 

Coos 

Bay 

648.3 

Eugene Detail Below 

MP 644.66 

620 625 630 635 640 645 650 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

5 Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Network 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

650 655 660 665 670 675 680 

Irving 

650.3 - 653.4 

Swain 

Harrisburg 

664.5, 665.1 

Halsey Industry 

672.6 - 673.8 

XO 653.49 

Shedd 

677.7 - 679.2 

XO 653.17 

XO 650.09 

Industry 

657.3 - 657.7 

Eugene Detail Below 

MP 660.6 MP 666.04 MP 674.0 

UXO 658.0 

Alford 

UXO 670.0 

650 655 660 665 670 675 680 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

6 Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Network 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

680 685 690 695 700 705 710 

Tangent 

684.6 

Hub City Ld 

690.03 

Albany & 

Eastern Albany Yard 

690.9 - 692.1 

Millersburg 

Jefferson 

699.5 

UXO 687.29 

MP 683.5 

XO 684.89 UXO 690.1 

Marion 

Toledo Wye 

and Santiam 

Lead to PNWR 

MP 693.0 MP 697.5 MP 701.0 MP 707.0 

XO 704.2 

Hallawell 

680 685 690 695 700 705 710 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

7 Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Network 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

710 715 720 725 730 735 740 

710 715 720 725 730 735 740 

PNWR @ 721.3 

Salem Yard 

716.7 - 717.8 Brooks 

726.9 

Woodburn 

735.2 

WVR wye 

XO 716.5 UXO 722.59 

MP 713.9 

MP 716.68 

MP 719.5 MP 727.5 MP 732.24 MP 738.0 

Renard Labish Gervais 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

8 Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Network 

October 18, 2016 Fin al
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 

Hito 

740.9 - 742.6 

Canby -

Oregon Pacific 

746.8 

Oregon City 

754.4 - 755.5 

Industry only 

Clackamas 

759.3 - 760.8 

Willsburg Jct. 

765.2 

Brooklyn Yd Oregon Pac 

PNWR 

UXO 748.39 XO 761.22 XO 764.69

MP 746.48 MP 751.89 MP 758.68 

XO 764.41 XO 768.72 

Coalca 

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

9 Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Network 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

640 645 650 655 

6500 ft 

tracks 

6000 ft 

tracks 

XO 647.7 XO 648.18 XO 650.09 XO 653.17 XO 653.49 

640645 650 655 

Eugene Detail 

MP 644.66 

Judkins 

644.7 

Amtrak 

647.3 

Coos 

Bay 

648.3 

Irving 

650.3 - 653.4 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

10 Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Network 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Between Portland and Vancouver, the Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) analysis included the upgraded 

connection between UP’s North Portland/Peninsula Jct. and Willbridge. as well as the upgraded turnout

connections at both of those locations. As has been previously described, this allowed UP trains to 

operate at speeds up to 25 mph as compared to the existing connection which is restricted to 10 mph. 

Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Brooklyn Sub Results 

There were 2.5 minutes of delay per ten miles operated for the Revised 4 + 1 simulation (Graph 1 

below). As the graph shows, this was slightly greater than the Revised Base Case but less than the 

Revised No Action Case. This was the primary goal of the Revised 4+1 configuration. 

The level of delay indicates that the Brooklyn Sub was operating efficiently with the increased Amtrak 

Cascades round trips and the associated infrastructure. The numbers suggest that the projected 

operation was almost as efficient as the existing operation that features far fewer freight and passenger 

trains. The results also indicate that UP’s operation would be notably improved with the additional

passenger trains and infrastructure as compared to the Revised No Action alternative. 

The number of delays per day that exceeded 30 minutes was 2.3 (Graph 2 below). This too is an 

indication of how efficiently the route was operating. Compared to the Revised No Action case, this 

represents a reduction of six major delays per day. 

The causes of the delays exceeding 30 minutes that did occur were spread evenly over the various 

categories (Graph 3 below). Combined, freight and passenger meets were the largest contributor to the 

delays; however there were delays associated with on line switching and yard congestion as well. The 

relatively small number of those occurrences each day suggests that there was not a systematic 

problem. 

Even the location of the delays suggested there was no reoccurring issue with the track configuration. 

Delays were distributed across the line segment, with no one area experiencing a high volume of delays. 

This result confirms that the track infrastructure that was utilized in the Revised 4+1 analysis was 

sufficient to accommodate the increased passenger operations while at the same time maintaining or 

even improving UP’s freight operation.

Under the Revised 4+1 passenger schedules, the Amtrak Cascades and Amtrak trains were scheduled to 

meet between Clackamas and East Milwaukie and between Albany and Alford. The trains met at 

locations where a second main track had been added. There was little delay introduced for passengerpassenger meets in this analysis. 

The locations of the passenger-passenger meets also improved freight operations. Since the meets 

were mostly in locations of second main track, the number of delays to freight traffic waiting for those 

meets to occur and the second passenger train to pass was greatly reduced. The Analysis Team believes 

October 18, 2016 Final 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is one reason why passenger and freight meet delays that exceeded 30 minutes were reduced as 

compared to other analyses. 

The on line switching delays occurred around Labish and Swain in the Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) 

analysis. The delay at Swain occurred when a local was working an industry on one of the main tracks 

while two northbound trains were leaving Eugene Yard. The southbound train following the local had to 

wait for the two northbound trains to pass before being able to go around the local train. 

At Labish, the delay occurred because two trains (one northbound, one southbound) that both had 

“work” at Labish arrived at the same time. Since both could not access the industrial tracks at the same 

time, one of the trains was delayed until the first train finished its operation and departed. 

There was also one delay at Irvin (north end of Eugene Yard). It occurred when a southbound train had 

to wait for two northbound trains to leave the yard at the same location. One flaw in the design of 

Eugene Yard is that all northbound trains must depart the yard at Irvin (because of the yard lead 

configuration), and this is also the only yard access route for southbound trains. Therefore, congestion 

is likely to occur in this location if a high percentage of Brooklyn Sub trains are required to enter the 

yard. 

Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Brooklyn Sub Velocity Comparison 

The following table provides the velocity of the various train classes on the Brooklyn Sub for the Revised 

Alternative 1 (4+1) analysis. As previously discussed, the PNWR results only reflect PNWR operations 

that occur on UP’s Brooklyn Subdivision.

Alternative Revised 4+1 Velocity Velocity 

Total minus Delay 

Group Delay Dwell Elapsed Time Miles Del/10 Elapsed and Dwell 

Passenger 1:53:54 10:20:33 77:25:38 3814.6 0.3 49.3 58.5 

PNWR 1:05:33 14:48:00 24:21:30 463.3 1.4 19.0 54.7 

UPExp 6:59:19 7:36:09 74:39:31 2406.7 1.7 32.2 40.1 

UPLocal 7:08:42 60:26:04 93:19:35 699.6 6.1 7.5 27.2 

UPMani 18:23:12 68:24:10 208:10:38 4318.1 2.6 20.7 35.6 

UPUnit 10:12:14 21:01:10 107:43:54 2609.0 2.3 24.2 34.1 

Total Freight 43:48:59 172:15:33 508:15:07 10496.6 2.5 20.7 35.9 

As the table indicates, the passenger velocities were increased in the 4+1 alternative as compared with 

the Revised 3+1 and Revised No Action alternatives. As described, the Analysis Team believes this is 

because the passenger schedules created passenger-passenger meets on sections of two main tracks 

October 18, 2016 Final 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rather than in sidings. This allows both trains to continue running at track speed, rather than slowing or 

stopping in a siding. 

Freight velocities in the Revised 4+1 alternative were very similar to those in the Revised 3+1 alternative. 

There was a small improvement in the amount of delay local, manifest and unit trains experienced, 

while the expedited category experienced a very slight increase in delay. This affected the velocities of 

the four traffic groups, however, the impact was slight. The overall consequence to freight traffic was 

that velocities were slightly increased in the Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) analysis as compared to the 

Revised 3+1 and the Revised No Action Cases. 

Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) Portland to Vancouver Results 

Delays exceeding 30 minutes were notably reduced in the Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) analysis case as 

compared to the Revised No Action Case, and were the same as the D>30 delays in the Revised 

Alternative 1 (3+1) case. With the same amount of freight traffic on the segment, the number of delays 

was reduced to 1.3 per day from 4.7 per day in the Revised No Action Case (Graph 7 below). As 

described previously, the number of Amtrak Cascades and Amtrak round trips remained the same 

between the two cases. 

As with the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Case, the main contributor to the improved performance was 

the increased speed on UP’s connection between Peninsula Jct. and NPJ, along with the upgraded

turnouts at each end of the connecting track. Movements that could continue from BNSF’s Fallbridge 

Sub onto the UP connection track at 25 mph cleared the area much more quickly, which reduced delays 

for UP traffic and for BNSF traffic operating in the area. 

Also, the local train working between Willbridge Yard and Lake Yard again experienced delay in the 

Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) analysis. As described previously, this is a timing issue with the three trains 

that are involved in the delay. If the locals’ operations were slightly adjusted, the delay would not have 

occurred. Since the model can only use what was included in the input files, the delay is repetitive from 

day to day as well as between analysis cases. 

The similarity in delays between the Revised 3+1 and Revised 4+1 analyses in the Portland to Vancouver 

corridor underscores how separated the two corridors segments are. Even though passenger traffic and 

infrastructure were modified on the Brooklyn Sub, there was no change in the operational patterns 

between Portland and Vancouver. It can therefore be concluded that Brooklyn Sub operations have 

little to no effect on Fallbridge Sub operations, or vice versa using current freight train operations and 

simulated Amtrak schedules provided by ODOT. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

13 
 

Revised Alternative 4+1 Stringlines 

Day 1 

Color Passenger Trains

Red - Amtrak Cascades trains

Reddish Brown – Amtrak Coast Starlight

Freight Trains

Gold – (Z trains) High priority containers for intermodal

Black – Unit Trains

Blue – (Q trains - Doublestack) Priority Intermodal

Green – Local and Merchandise trains

Day 2 

October 18, 2016 Final 

14 
 

Day 3 

Color Passenger Trains

Red - Amtrak Cascades trains

Reddish Brown – Amtrak Coast Starlight

Freight Trains

Gold – (Z trains) High priority containers for intermodal

Black – Unit Trains

Blue – (Q trains - Doublestack) Priority Intermodal

Green – Local and Merchandise trains

October 18, 2016 Final 

15 
 

AppendixE – Revised Alternative 4+1 

Operations on Alternative 1 (3+1) 

Infrastructure 

Revised: October 18, 2016 

Prepared by: Mainline Management 
This page intentionally left blank.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4+1 Passenger Operations on Alternative 1 (3+1) Infrastructure 

Introduction 

The Analysis Team was tasked with simulating a four Amtrak Cascades, one Coast Starlight round trip 

schedule (4+1) on the same Brooklyn Sub track network that was utilized in the Revised Alternative 1 

(3+1) analysis. The goal of this analysis was to determine if additional track infrastructure could be 

reduced while maintaining an efficient freight operation over the Brooklyn Subdivision between 

Portland and Eugene. 

4+1 Passenger Operations on Alternative 1 (3+1) Network Operational Modifications 

The only operational modification that was made in the 4+1 Passenger Operations on Alternative 1 (3+1) 

Network (referred to as “4+1 on 3+1”) was the change in passenger trains between Portland and 

Eugene. The train input files from the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) simulation were utilized except the 

passenger train files for the Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) analysis were substituted into the train input 

files. This was significant because it meant that the freight files were exactly the same between the 4+1 

on 3+1 analysis and the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis. The relevance of having a replicated freight 

train file will be explained in more detail in the Results section below. 

4+1 Passenger Operations on Alternative 1 (3+1) Network Infrastructure Modifications 

The Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Network for the Brooklyn Sub was used in the 4+1 on 3+1 analysis. The 

track infrastructure improvements that were made to the existing Brooklyn Sub network can be 

reviewed in the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) Analysis notes above. There is also a schematic 

representation of the improvements for the 3+1 network in those notes that can be reviewed. 

4+1 Passenger Operations on Alternative 1 (3+1) Network Brooklyn Sub Results 

There were 2.5 minutes of delay per ten miles operated for the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation (Graph 13 below). 

There were also 4.7 delays per day that exceeded 30 minutes (Graph 14 below). This result was less 

than the Revised No Action Case, which was an expected outcome of the analysis. 

However, the D/10 delay minutes and the D>30 delays were also less than the Revised Alternative 1 

(3+1) results, which was an unexpected result. Considering that the track network was the same, the 

freight operations were the same, but the latest simulation had one additional Amtrak Cascades round 

trip, a D/10 that was slightly greater than the Alternative 1 (3+1) result was expected. After detailed 

review of the results output, the Analysis Team believes the reduced D/10 delay minutes outcome 

occurred because of the passenger schedules used in the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation as compared to those 

used in the Alternative 1 (3+1) simulation. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A review of the passenger - passenger meets and where they occurred was undertaken for both the 

Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis and the 4+1 on 3+1 Network analysis. As described in the Revised 

Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis notes above, there were four passenger - passenger meets that occurred. 

These occurred at Hito Siding (two), Renard Siding (one) and Shedd Siding (one). In the 4+1 on 3+1 

Network simulation, six meets between passenger trains occurred because of the additional set of 

Amtrak Cascades trains. The meets occurred near East Milwaukie on second main track (three), 

between Albany and Hallawell on second main track (two) and between Swain and Irvin on second main 

track (one). 

As can be seen, the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation meets occurred on multiple main tracks. As has been 

previously described, when a passenger - passenger meet occurred where there are mostly sidings in 

the area, a freight train in that same area frequently had to wait for the first passenger train to meet (or 

overtake) it, then remain in the siding until the second passenger train overtook (or met) it. The 

simulation results indicated that this is what happened in the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) simulation, 

where the passenger-passenger meets occurred in sidings. 

In the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation, however, with the passenger-passenger meets occurring on sections of 

second main track, there was not the same impact on the freight operations. With a second main track, 

the freight trains only had to intermittently wait for one of the passenger trains, and in some cases, did 

not have to stop at all. This modification in meet/pass resolution also changed the freight train running 

times, which affected other freight meets and passes throughout the simulation. So even though there 

were more passenger-passenger meets in the 4+1 on 3+1 analysis, the impact to freight traffic was 

notably less than in the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis. 

The Analysis Team has included small sections of the time-distance graphs (“string line graphs”) for the 

Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis and the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation to demonstrate this point. As 

described previously, the freight departure schedules were the same in the Alternative 1 (3+1) and the 

4+1 on 3+1 simulations. Also as described, the track network used for the two simulations was identical. 

The only operating change that was made was the modification of the passenger schedules from the 3+1 

configuration to the 4+1 configuration. Therefore, any change in freight operations had to be caused by 

the passenger changes. The time-distance graphs show this effect. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

3 
Revised Alt 1 (3+1), 1200 to 2000 Day 2 4+1 on 3+1 Network, 1200 to 2000 Day 2

Portland

Natron 

Eugene 

Salem 

Albany 

Clackamas 

Portland 

4 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the time-distance graphs, red (Amtrak Cascades) and reddish brown (Coast Starlight) lines represent 

passenger trains as they move between Portland (top of graph) and Natron (bottom of graph) over time, 

which is shown along the horizontal axis at the bottom of each graph. The other blue, green and black 

lines represent different types of freight traffic. Trains are stopped when a line is horizontal; trains are 

delayed when the horizontal line is dotted. 

The change in timing of the passenger trains (the additional pair of trains as well as the departure times 

of the sets of Amtrak Cascades trains) is obvious between the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) time-distance 

graph on the left and the 4+1 on 3+1 Network graph on the right. Additionally it is obvious that the 

passenger train count and schedule modification changed the meet patterns for freight traffic. 

It can be seen that the freight trains begin their trip at Albina Yard (near Portland) or Natron at the same 

times in both time-distance graphs, but the meet patterns change once they interact with the passenger 

trains. In the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) time-distance graph, there are multiple delays to freight traffic 

(dotted horizontal lines) in both of the highlighted areas. The delays all occur to freight traffic operating 

between passenger train movements (red and reddish brown lines). At the same time, in the 4+1 on 

3+1 graph, there are very few delays in those same time periods (almost no horizontal dotted lines). 

These graphs illustrate the impact passenger schedules and meets had on freight trains in the Revised 

Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis as compared to the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation. Similar differences between the 

two analyses occurred on other days of the simulations as well. The Analysis Team believes these 

differences are responsible for the reduction in D/10 delay minutes and D>30 delays between the two 

analyses. 

Even with the change in the location of passenger - passenger meets, some delays continued to be 

caused by passenger and freight meets (Graph 15 below). Many of the delays caused by passenger 

meets occurred when a freight - freight meet took place and then the stopped freight train had to wait 

on a following passenger train. In some of those cases, the delayed freight train was a local waiting to 

switch an on-line industry on single track, so the model could not allow the local switcher out until the 

passenger train had passed. 

The distribution of delays over the line segment continued to indicate that there was no repetitive issue 

with the 3+1 configuration under the 4+1 passenger schedules (Graph 16 below). No one segment of 

the Brooklyn Sub experienced a high number of delays that exceeded 30 minutes, which indicated that 

there was nothing associated with the network track configuration that promoted delays. 

Overall, it appears that the schedule of the projected Amtrak Cascades trains has a notable consequence 

on UP’s freight performance over the Brooklyn Sub. The timing between departures from Portland and 

Eugene as well as where passenger trains meet will have an impact on where capital improvements will 

be necessary to maintain or improve UP’s freight operations as additional Amtrak Cascades roundtrips 

are added. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4+1 Passenger Operations on Alternative 1 (3+1) Network Brooklyn Sub Velocity Comparison 

The following table provides the velocity of the various train classes on the Brooklyn Sub for the 4+1 on 

3+1 analysis. 

4+1 on 3+1 Network Velocity Velocity 

Total minus Delay 

Group Delay Dwell Elapsed Time Miles Del/10 Elapsed and Dwell 

Passenger 1:48:39 11:20:00 78:33:24 3816.0 0.3 48.6 58.3 

PNWR 1:02:35 13:18:00 24:05:58 463.3 1.4 19.2 47.5 

UPExp 5:15:59 7:27:05 71:35:31 2409.6 1.3 33.7 40.9 

UPLocal 6:51:48 59:41:05 91:54:27 699.8 5.9 7.6 27.6 

UPMani 16:18:06 68:24:08 207:41:40 4360.4 2.2 21.0 35.5 

UPUnit 13:10:16 21:31:03 111:30:57 2610.2 3.0 23.4 34.0 

Total Frt 42:38:43 170:21:21 506:48:32 10543.2 2.5 20.8 35.9 

Passenger train velocities are slightly less in the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation as compared to the Revised 

Alternative 1 (4+1) simulation (48.6 mph vs 49.3 mph). Both of these simulations included the same 

number of passenger round trips between Portland and Eugene. The slight reduction in passenger 

velocity was likely because the passenger trains were slowed somewhat by freight traffic that had to 

meet and pass over the 3+1 network, which included fewer track infrastructure improvements than the 

Alternative 1 (4+1) network. 

However, the passenger velocities were notably higher in the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation as compared to the 

passenger velocities in the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) simulation (48.6 mph vs 43.8 mph). This again 

supports the conclusion that the location of the passenger - passenger meets plays a major role in the 

efficiency of a conceptual rail network. As described, the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation featured passenger 

meets on multiple main tracks, while the Revised Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis featured those meets in 

sidings. As has been previously described, when a meet occurs in a siding, one passenger train usually 

has to stop to wait which reduces the velocity of the entire group. 

The average freight velocities were also greater in the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation compared to the Revised 

Alternative 1 (3+1) analysis (20.8 mph vs 20.2 mph). This also reflects the previous discussion about 

how freight traffic did not receive the level of delay in the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation because the passenger 

schedules were less disruptive to freight operations. 

The 4+1 Passenger Operations on Alternative 1 (3+1) Network - Portland to Vancouver Results 

Similar to both the Revised 3+1 and 4+1 analyses, there were few delays between Portland and 

Vancouver under the six Amtrak Cascades, one Coast Starlight and one Empire Builder (6+2) passenger 

October 18, 2016 Final 

6 
 

 

 

 

schedules. The greatest contributor to this development was the track speed modifications to UP’s 

connection between Peninsula Jct. and North Portland Jct., which continued to facilitate more efficient 

freight movements in the Portland - Vancouver corridor. 

The one repetitive delay that was experienced in the 4+1 on 3+1 simulation was at Willbridge Yard. As 

has been noted previously, this appeared to be a timing issue between two locals that are scheduled to 

work in Lake Yard at the same time. This delay has been seen in many of the previous analyses and 

likely would be eliminated with a change in either of the locals’ schedule or a more fully developed Lake 

Yard configuration in the model. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

7 
Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) on (3+1) Infrastructure 

 

October 18, 2016 Final 

8 
 

 

 

 

Day 3 

Color Passenger Trains 

Red - Amtrak Cascades trains 

Reddish Brown – Amtrak Coast Starlight 

Freight Trains 

Gold – (Z trains) High priority containers for intermodal 

Black – Unit Trains 

Blue – (Q trains - Doublestack) Priority Intermodal 

Green – Local and Merchandise trains 

October 18, 2016 Final 

9 
 

 

AppendixF – 2035 No Action Minimum 

Revised: October 18, 2016 

Prepared by: Mainline Management 
This page intentionally left blank.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2035 No Action Minimum Simulation 

An additional simulation that was suggested by FRA to ODOT was to take the 2035 No Action simulation 

and add enough infrastructure to return the delay statistics to within 10% of the Base Case delay 

statistics. The Analysis Team was told this simulation’s results were to be used at some later time. 

The Analysis Team estimated some improvements for a first iteration of the 2035 No Action Minimum 

simulation based on results from previous simulations. At the conclusion of the first iteration, the 

statistics were not within 10% of the Base Case results, so some additional infrastructure improvements 

were added to the simulation network. The final results of the second iteration were within 10% of the 

Base Case statistics, and those results will be described below. 

2035 No Action Minimum Operating Modifications 

There were no freight operating modifications made in the 2035 No Action Minimum simulation as 

compared to the 2035 No Action simulation. All projected 2035 growth was included for UP, BNSF and 

PNWR traffic on the network. 

Similarly, there were no modifications to passenger operations between the two simulations. 2+1 

passenger operations were included between Portland and Eugene (two Amtrak Cascades, one Coast 

Starlight round trip) and 6+2 passenger operations were included between Portland and Vancouver (six 

Amtrak Cascades, one Coast Starlight and one Spokane Section Empire Builder round trip). 

2035 No Action Minimum Network Modifications 

As described, the total track infrastructure modifications that were made in the 2035 No Action 

Minimum simulation were included in two iterations. In the first iteration, there were two areas that 

received additional track. These were between East Milwaukie and Clackamas and between Judkins and 

Swain. 

A second main track was added between East Milwaukie and MP 758.7 (south of the south end of 

Clackamas Siding). A universal crossover was also added at MP 761.2. The purpose of the infrastructure 

improvement was to facilitate traffic flow between Clackamas and Brooklyn Yard. Industry switching, 

access and egress from Brooklyn Yard and heavy traffic flows created delays in this segment in previous 

simulations. The improvements included in the 2035 No Action Minimum first iteration were designed 

to address those conflicts. 

A second main track between Judkins (MP 644.7) and Swain (MP 660.6) was also included in the first 

iteration along with multiple crossovers. The purpose of this track was to create additional routes past 

and to or from Eugene Yard. The configuration between Judkins and Swain used in the 2035 No Action 

October 18, 2016 Final 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minimum network was the same improved configuration that was used in the Revised Alternative 1 

(3+1), (4+1) and (6+1) networks. 

These two areas of infrastructure improvements reduced the first iteration of the 2035 No Action 

Minimum simulation’s D/10 delay minutes from 3.7 minutes per 10 miles operated to 2.9 minutes per

10 miles operated. With Base Case D/10 minutes calculated at 2.4 minutes per 10 miles operated, the 

results did not meet the “within 10%” requirement.

The output from the first iteration of the 2035 No Action Minimum simulation was reviewed and 

multiple repetitive delays were identified around Salem. Therefore, in the second iteration, two 

additional improvements were added and the simulation was rerun. 

The first additional infrastructure improvement that was added was a second main track connecting the 

north end of Renard Siding (MP 715.6) to the south lead track into Salem Yard (MP 716.68). A crossover 

was added at MP 716.5 to allow through trains to enter the single main track through the city. 

The second additional infrastructure improvement was a second main track from MP 719.5 at the south 

end of Labish to Brooks at MP 727.5. A universal crossover was also added at MP 722.6. This 

improvement allowed trains that were switching between Labish and Brooks to stop on a main track, 

while leaving the second main track available for through trains. The crossovers at MP 722.6 further 

allowed through trains to be routed around trains that were stopped for switching. 

Both of the improvements that were added as part of the second iteration of the 2035 No Action 

Minimum simulation were used in the Revised Alternative 1 (4+1) and (6+1) simulations. The following 

schematic represents the modifications that were included in the 2035 No Action Minimum network. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

3 
 

 

 

 

620 625 630 635 640 645 650 

Judkins 

XO 648.18 

Amtrak 

647.3 

Opt 4 station 

tracks 

XO 647.7 

Coos 

Bay 

648.3 

Eugene Detail Below 

MP 644.66 

620 625 630 635 640 645 650 

Revised No Action with Minimum 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

October 18, 2016 Final 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

650 655 660 665 670 675 680 

Irving 

650.3 - 653.4 

Swain 

Harrisburg 

664.5, 665.1 

Halsey Industry 

672.6 - 673.8 

XO 653.49 

Shedd 

677.7 - 679.2 

XO 653.17 

XO 650.09 

Industry 

657.3 - 657.7 

Eugene Detail Below 

MP 660.6 

UXO 658.0 

Alford 

650 655 660 665 670 675 680 

Revised No Action with Minimum 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

October 18, 2016 Final 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

680 685 690 695 700 705 710 

Tangent 

684.6 

Hub City Ld 

690.03 

Albany & 

Eastern Albany Yard 

690.9 - 692.1 

Millersburg 

Jefferson 

699.5 

Marion 

Toledo Wye 

and Santiam 

Lead to PNWR 

Hallawell 

680 685 690 695 700 705 710 

Revised No Action with Minimum 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

October 18, 2016 Final 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

710 715 720 725 730 735 740 

710 715 720 725 730 735 740 

PNWR @ 721.3 

Salem Yard 

716.7 - 717.8 Brooks 

726.9 

Woodburn 

735.2 

WVR wye 

Renard Labish Gervais 

UXO 722.59 

MP 719.5 MP 727.5 

XO 716.5 

MP 713.9 

MP 716.68 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) Revised No Action with Minimum 

October 18, 2016 Final 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 

Hito 

740.9 - 742.6 

Canby -

Oregon Pacific 

746.8 

Oregon City 

754.4 - 755.5 

Industry only 

Clackamas 

759.3 - 760.8 

East Milwaukie 

MP 764.1 

Brooklyn Yd 

Oregon Pac 

PNWR 

Coalca 

Reed 

MP 758.68 UXO 761.22 MP 766.6 

740 745 750 755 760 765 770 

Revised No Action with Minimum 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) 

October 18, 2016 Final 

8 
 

 

 

 

640 645 650 655 

6500 ft 

tracks 

6000 ft 

tracks 

XO 647.7 XO 648.18 XO 650.09 XO 653.17 XO 653.49 

MP 644.66 

Judkins 

644.7 

Amtrak 

647.3 

Coos 

Bay 

648.3 

Irving 

650.3 - 653.4 

640645 650 655 

Eugene Detail 

Heavy black is main line, or passing siding. Thin black is industry track 

or yard. Dotted black is siding that becomes part of second main track. 

Heavy red is new main track or crossovers 

UXO = universal crossover (double XO) Revised No Action with Minimum 

October 18, 2016 Final 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brooklyn Sub 2035 No Action Minimum Results 

The infrastructure improvements that were included in the second iteration of the 2035 No Action 

Minimum simulation reduced the D/10 minutes to 2.6 minutes per 10 miles. This can be compared to 

the 2035 No Action case, which had a D/10 figure of 3.7 minutes per 10 miles and the Base Case, which 

was 2.4 minutes per 10 miles (Graph 9 below). The second iteration of the 2035 No Action Minimum 

simulation met the criteria of reducing the delay to within 10% of the Base Case delay. 

Conflicts remained even with the infrastructure improvements. There continued to be delays where a 

single train met two or more opposing trains; in some of these cases, a passenger train was one of the 

two opposing trains. Also, on line switching continued to delay through trains (or vice versa) in multiple 

locations (Graph 11 below). 

There were two locations that experienced the major delays associated with meeting two or more 

opposing trains. The first location was at the end of the second main track just south of Clackamas (MP 

758.7). In all three days of the simulation, a single freight train met an opposing freight and passenger 

train at this location. Each delay exceeded 30 minutes. 

The second location where a single train met multiple trains was in Hallawell Siding. At that location, 

two freight trains met an opposing freight that was holding in the siding. Again, the delay that resulted 

exceeded 30 minutes. 

The other type of conflict that regularly occurred on the Brooklyn Sub was delay associated with on line 

switching. This occurred at least once per day for all three days of the simulation. The locations varied, 

but the highest percentage occurred between Oregon City and the new second main track at Brooks. 

Local trains and through trains were affected by on line switching delays. In some cases, the model 

dispatched the local onto a single track segment, which caused delays to a through train. In other cases, 

the through train was allowed to proceed and the local had to wait for the area to clear. 

Graph 12 below illustrates the location of many of the longer delays. As can be seen, there were an 

average of two delays exceeding 30 minutes per day between Clackamas and Salem. This result reflects 

the delay that occurred at the end of the second main track south of Clackamas, as well as the on line 

switching delays that occurred between Oregon City and Brooks. 

It appears that multiple segments of second track will be required if 2035 projected growth traffic is 

expected to operate to approximately the same levels of delay as current delay levels on the Brooklyn 

Sub. It is unclear whether UP will attempt to pursue this result. However, if they do, tracks around 

terminal areas and in locations where there appears to be a high level of on line industrial switching 

should be considered to achieve that goal. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Portland to Vancouver 2035 No Action Minimum Results 

There was no track or operational changes made between Portland and Vancouver in the 2035 No 

Action Minimum simulation as compared with the 2035 No Action simulation. Therefore, there were no 

improvements made around North Portland Jct. on either the UP’s connection track between Peninsula 

Jct. and NPJ or on BNSF’s Fallbridge Sub at NPJ.

As expected, the lack of improvement in the NPJ area led to multiple daily delays that exceeded 30 

minutes in the area. Some trains were delayed as far back as BNSF’s Vancouver Yard, while other trains

were delayed between East St. Johns and the Columbia River Bridge. Regardless of where the affected 

trains were held, the lack of improvement at NPJ was the cause of the conflicts. 

There were also some continuing delays around Willbridge Yard in the 2035 No Action Minimum 

simulation. Many of these delays were similar to delays that were previously experienced. At times, 

some of the delays involved Amtrak trains using both main tracks moving to and from Portland Union 

Station. In other cases, other locals working adjacent yards had an impact on some of the delayed 

trains. This type of delay was less common than the delays that occurred at NPJ, but they were still 

evident. 

No Action Minimum Brooklyn Sub Velocity Comparison 

The following table provides the velocity of the various train classes on the Brooklyn Sub for the No 

Action Minimum analysis. 

No Action Minimum Velocity Velocity 

Total minus Delay 

Group Delay Dwell Elapsed Time Miles Del/10 Elapsed and Dwell 

Passenger 2:10:48 6:00:21 48:00:40 2316.6 0.6 48.3 58.2 

PNWR 1:18:53 13:18:00 24:32:50 463.3 1.7 18.9 46.6 

UPExp 5:28:12 7:38:09 72:56:46 2412.4 1.4 33.1 40.3 

UPLocal 9:42:23 59:41:06 94:36:38 699.6 8.3 7.4 27.7 

UPMani 15:25:12 69:03:07 211:20:49 4440.7 2.1 21.0 35.0 

UPUnit 14:03:51 21:32:05 113:39:22 2611.5 3.2 23.0 33.5 

Total Frt 45:58:30 171:12:27 517:06:24 10627.5 2.6 20.6 35.4 

Comparison of the train velocities between the 2035 No Action Minimum simulation and velocities from 

the 2035 No Action simulation shows the value of the three areas of infrastructure improvements. Not 

only was the delay reduced from 3.7 minutes per 10 miles operated to 2.6 minutes per 10 miles 

operated, but the velocity of all freight trains improved from 19.7 mph to 20.6 mph. Every train type 

benefitted from the infrastructure improvements that were included in the 2035 No Action Minimum 

analysis. 

October 18, 2016 Final 

11 
2035 No Action Minimum Graphics 

 

Graph 9 Freight Delay Min/10 mi Operated 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

2.4 

3.7 

2.6

Avg. Minutes of Delay 

UP Brooklyn Sub 

Revised Base Rev No Action Iteration 2 NAM 

 

Graph 10 

Daily Freight Only Delays Exceeding 

30 Minutes (D>30) 

0 

5 

10 

2 

8.3 

3

Avg. Number of Delays 

UP Brooklyn Sub 

Revised Base Rev No Action Iteration 2 NAM 

October 18, 2016 Final 

12 
 

 

Graph 11 

UP Avg. Freight Only Daily D>30 Causes 

0 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 

1.7 

4.7 

1.7 

0.3 

0.7 0.8 1.3 

Avg. No. of D>30 Daily 

0.2

Amtrak Freight On-line Switching Entering/Exiting 

Meet/Pass Yards 

Revised Base Rev No Action Iteration 2 NAM 

 

 

Graph 12

UP Avg. Freight Only Daily D>30 Locations 

0 

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

0.3 

1.3 

0.3 0 0 

4.7 

1 1 1 0.7 0.3 

2.0 

0.3 0.3 0

Avg. No. of D>30 Daily 

Portland - Coalca - Renard - Hallawell - South of 

Clackamas Salem Albany Eugene Eugene 

Revised Base Rev No Action Iteration 2 NAM 

October 18, 2016 Final 

13 
 

No Action with Minimums Stringlines 

Day 1 

Color Passenger Trains

Red - Amtrak Cascades trains

Reddish Brown – Amtrak Coast Starlight

Freight Trains

Gold – (Z trains) High priority containers for intermodal

Black – Unit Trains

Blue – (Q trains - Doublestack) Priority Intermodal

Green – Local and Merchandise trains

Day 2 

October 18, 2016 Final 

14 
 

Day 3 

Color Passenger Trains

Red - Amtrak Cascades trains

Reddish Brown – Amtrak Coast Starlight

Freight Trains

Gold – (Z trains) High priority containers for intermodal

Black – Unit Trains

Blue – (Q trains - Doublestack) Priority Intermodal

Green – Local and Merchandise trains

October 18, 2016 Final 

15 
 

Appendix G – Updated Schematics with 

Infrastructure Improvements 

Revised: October 18, 2016 
This page intentionally left blank.
 

Revised Alternate 1 6+1 and 4+1 

October 18, 2016 Final 

1 
October 18, 2016 Final 

2 
October 18, 2016 Final 

3 
 

4 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

Alternate 4+1 on 3+1 Infrastructure / Revised Alternate 1 3+1 

October 18, 2016 Final 

5 
 

6 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

7 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

8 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

9 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

Revised Alternate 2 

October 18, 2016 Final 

10 
 

11 

October 18, 2016 Final 
October 18, 2016 Final 

12 
 

13 

October 18, 2016 Final 
 

No Action with Minimums 

October 18, 2016 Final 

14 
October 18, 2016 Final 

15 
October 18, 2016 Final 

16 
October 18, 2016 Final 

17 
 

18 

October 18, 2016 Final 
Appendix B 

Capital and Operations Costs 

Memorandum 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
This page left blank intentionally.
D R A F T 

Cost Estimate Methodology 

December 13, 2016 
This page left blank intentionally.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

Section Page 

Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................................ v 

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

2 DEIS Alternatives: Capital Improvements ..............................................................................2-1 

2.1 Alternative 1 .................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Alternative 2 .................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.3 Alternative A-2: Central Albany Option........................................................................... 2-1 

3 Construction and Capital Cost Estimates ...............................................................................3-1 

3.1 Construction Costs........................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.2 Right-of-Way Costs .......................................................................................................... 3-2 

3.2.1 Zoning Category Development........................................................................... 3-2 

3.2.2 ROW Assumptions per Alignment...................................................................... 3-3 

3.3 Other Costs ...................................................................................................................... 3-3 

3.3.1 Non-Construction Costs ..................................................................................... 3-3 

3.3.2 Contingency Cost Estimates ............................................................................... 3-4 

3.3.3 Cost of New Equipment...................................................................................... 3-4 

3.3.4 PE / NEPA Projects.............................................................................................. 3-4 

3.4 Total Cost......................................................................................................................... 3-5 

4 Operations and Maintenance Costs.......................................................................................4-1 

4.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs Calculation Methodology ........................................ 4-1 

5 Conclusions and Next Steps...................................................................................................5-1 

Attachments 

A Maps of Alternatives 

B Design Criteria 

C Unit Cost Estimate Assumptions 

Tables 

1 Construction Cost Categories Used in OPR Cost Estimates.......................................................... 3-1 

2 Non-Construction Cost Categories Used in OPR Cost Estimates.................................................. 3-4 

3 Estimated Capital Costs of Build Alternatives (dollars in millions, 2015 dollars) ......................... 3-5 

4 Operating and Maintenance Costs - Summary ............................................................................ 4-2 

D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 

I I I 
 

Acronyms and Abbreviations BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 

I-205 Interstate 205 

I-5 Interstate 5 

mph miles per hour 

OPR Oregon Passenger Rail 

PNWR Portland & Western Railroad 

PNWRC Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor 

ROW right-of-way 

TF Track feet 

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad 

D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y Dec e m b e r 2 0 1 6 

V 
 

 

CHAPTER 1 

Introduction 

This report identifies the assumptions and methodology used to calculate planning-level cost estimates for 

the DEIS alternatives developed for the Oregon Passenger Rail Project. 

The purpose of this report is to summarize the planning-level conceptual cost estimates for each alternative 

and identify the capital investment requirements, such as new rail lines, roads, bridges, signals and other 

crossing treatments, utility systems, etc. that would be required to construct the project. This documentation 

includes: 

 Anticipated list of improvements necessary to meet the service characteristics assumptions 

 Identification of typical infrastructure improvements and rail equipment cost estimates 

 Basis and assumptions used to develop cost estimates 

The report is divided into 5 sections: 

 Section 1 – Introduction 

 Section 2 – DEIS Alternatives – brief summary of infrastructure assumptions made for each alternative 

and options 

 Section 3 – Cost Estimates – methodology for estimating construction unit costs and quantities, nonconstruction costs (professional services, utility relocation, and mitigation), and contingency costs 

 Section 4 – Operations and Maintenance Costs – presents methods and calculation of anticipated 

operations and maintenance costs for the DEIS alternatives 

 Section 5 – Conclusions and Next Steps – presents brief summary of findings and look forward to 

refinements that would be made in future (Tier 2) project development. 

The attachments provide supporting documentation, including alternative maps, design assumptions, and 

unit cost estimates. 

D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 

1- 1 
 

 

 

CHAPTER 2 

DEIS Alternatives: Capital Improvements 

The DEIS alternatives include new and existing alignments and new and existing station areas. Passenger 

and freight operations were modeled for each of the preliminary alternatives using projected demand for 

2035. The results of the modeling were used to identify where infrastructure improvements were needed 

to maintain operations. The following section provides a brief description of each alternative. Descriptions 

are presented south to north. 

Attachment A contains maps of the alternatives, including assumed stations and Attachment B contains the 

design criteria used by the engineering team. 

2.1 Alternative 1 

Alternative 1 would be constructed parallel to the existing Amtrak Cascades passenger rail route (i.e., the 

Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line) between Eugene and Portland. Sections of mainline track and sidings 

would be added where needed to accommodate additional passenger rail service while maintaining the 

current level of freight rail operations. The route would serve seven passenger rail round trips per day—

six on the Amtrak Cascades and one on the Coast Starlight (a “6+1” schedule). Alternative 1 would serve 

existing stations (Eugene, Albany, Salem, Oregon City, and Portland). Crossovers would be included that 

would allow passenger and freight trains to operation on both existing and new track. 

2.2 Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would involve construction of new mainline track and sidings throughout the majority of the 

route where it would be adjacent to the existing I-5 and I-205 alignments. New mainline track would also be 

added adjacent to the existing Portland and Western Railroad (PNWR) line between Keizer and Wilsonville 

and to the existing UPRR line in Springfield and between Oregon City and Portland Union Station. The route 

would serve seven round trips per day—six on the Amtrak Cascades and one on the Coast Starlight (a “6+1”

schedule). Alternative 2 would serve the existing Portland Union Station, and would have new stations in 

Springfield, Albany, Salem or Keizer, and Wilsonville or Tualatin. For sections adjacent to existing rail lines, 

crossovers would be included that would allow passenger and freight trains to operation on both existing 

and new track. Sections of new mainline away from existing rail lines would be reserved for passenger 

service. 

2.3 Alternative A-2: Central Albany Option 

The Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option would be the same as Alternative 2 except in the vicinity of 

Albany, where the route would diverge from the I-5 area to serve the existing Albany station. New mainline 

track would be build adjacent to the existing Albany and Eastern Railroad and UPRR lines. 

D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 

2- 1 
 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 3 

Construction and Capital Cost Estimates 

This section describes the methods used to develop cost estimates for the alternatives in the DEIS. 

The cost estimates are based on the conceptual designs and thus a number of assumptions were used 

when developing the cost estimates. In addition, a 30% contingency factor was used to account for the 

uncertainty at this stage of the project. This section describes the three components of the total estimated 

cost: construction costs, right-of-way costs, and non-construction costs. 

3.1 Construction Costs 

Using the conceptual designs for each of the preliminary alternatives as described above, the Rail Design 

Team analyzed track characteristics within each 100-foot segment to develop construction cost estimates 

for the proposed track improvements and/or new alignments. 

Using five major construction cost categories and twelve subcategories (see Table 1), the Design Team 

developed quantities estimates for track, sidings, and other improvements proposed within each 100-foot 

segment of the preliminary alternatives. Using these quantities and unit costs (described below), segment 

cost estimates were calculated. When aggregated, these segment estimates form the low end for each 

alternatives’ Design Cost Estimates. The estimated cost of potential new stations was based on the same 

basic cost categories for each potential station (platforms, canopies, ticket kiosks, and an at-grade station 

building with park and ride). The rail design team established “Design Contingency Cost Factors” for each 

Cost Category. These Design Contingency Cost Factors were applied to the low costs to establish the high 

cost. 

Note that ROW costs were tabulated separately and are not included in the Design Cost Estimates 

(see Right-of-Way Cost section below). 

Unit costs were based on previous engineering cost estimates for similar projects and relied on historical 

data, labor indices, equipment, and 2015 construction material costs. A full description of unit cost 

assumptions is included as Attachment C: Unit Cost Estimate Assumptions. 

Table 1. Construction Cost Categories Used in OPR Cost Estimates 

Track Structure and Track At-grade Track 

At-grade Track w/ Earthwork 

Retained Fill 

Elevated/Viaduct 

Open Trench/Retained Cut 

Tunnel 

Railroad Bridges 

Stations, Terminals, Intermodal Stations 

Site work, Land, Existing Improvements Roadway Bridge 

Grade Crossings 

Communications and Signaling Wayside Signaling Equipment 

Note: Attachment C: Unit Cost Estimate Assumptions offers a unit or per-mile cost for each major cost category. 

D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 

3- 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 3 – CONSTRUCTION AND CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 

3.2 Right-of-Way Costs 

The Design Team coordinated with geographic information system (GIS) and right-of-way (ROW) specialists 

to develop a methodology for estimating costs associated with acquiring ROW. The Design Team provided 

“ROW footprint” computer aided design (CAD) design files for each alternative. The footprint for each 

preliminary alternative is location-specific based on anticipated improvements and whether or not the 

alternative is a new alignment or an existing rail corridor. A limited number of ROW widths were assumed 

in the analysis, due to the planning-level design completed to date. These ROW widths are assumed to be 

averages to develop cost estimates, and are expected to vary when project development progresses in 

Tier 2. 

Using a GIS mapping system, these ROW footprints were overlaid onto generalized land use zoning maps to 

identify any new ROW that may be required. The GIS analysis resulted in a calculation of the total square 

footage and acreage of each zoning area within each preliminary alternative’s “ROW footprint.” Using the 

zoning characteristics (described below), the ROW specialist assigned cost per square foot for each of the 

generalized zones, accounting for both improved and vacant sites. The ROW cost estimates were added to 

the design cost estimates for each alternative, thereby forming a total cost estimate. 

3.2.1 Zoning Category Development 

The ROW assessment used generalized zoning categories instead of individual zones within each local 

jurisdiction to show consistency throughout the corridor and to match the level of detail needed at this 

level of analysis. 

Generalized zoning categories were created using the following methodology: 

 Existing zoning districts for all jurisdictions were loaded into GIS; 

 The GIS team analyzed the zoning information to identify generalized zones; 

 Detailed zoning information was aggregated into generalized zoning categorizes to encompass all 

zoning categories along each route. The GIS analysis also differentiated between urban and rural areas, 

as that would have an impact on cost by land use type. 

These generalized zoning categories included: 

 Agricultural 

 Residential, 

 Commercial, 

 Industrial. 

Using the zoning characteristics as a guide, in 2013 a ROW specialist completed a search of recent sale data 

along each preliminary alternative using RealQuest Professional, an online search of sales going back 

two years. The vicinity of the preliminary alternative was used as a starting place for collecting sales data. 

The ROW specialist identified both urban and rural sales data and used the sales data to develop a final 

generalized zoning list that was provided to the GIS team. The final list included: 

 Agriculture > 20 acres 

 Rural residential < 20 acres 

 Residential 

 Commercial – Portland 

 Commercial and Industrial – outside Portland 

In areas of mixed use through small communities, the commercial zoning category was used both for area 

and valuation. 

D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y 

3 - 2 
 

 

CHAPTER 3 – CONSTRUCTION AND CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 

For the value analysis, a minimum of three sales per County, per zoning category (when available) was 

included. Additionally, the value did not include any costs of relocation for the acquisition. The right-of-way 

unit costs are included in Attachment C. 

3.2.2 ROW Assumptions per Alignment 

Due to the variance between each of the alternatives, the Design Team and ROW specialist developed the 

following set of assumptions when developing the ROW cost estimates. 

Alternative 1 ROW Assumptions 

 When proposed track is adjacent to the existing UP line (throughout the route for Alternative 1), a 30-ft 

wide acquisition is assumed (excluding the Portland Eastside industrial area, which assumed a halfblock wide acquisition on average due to the constrained conditions and anticipated need for 

additional track). 

Alternative 2 ROW Assumptions 

 Through greenfields and river crossings, ROW is assumed to require a 100-foot wide acquisition. The 

100-foot ROW take lines are offset 50-ft to each side of the proposed alignment. 

 When the proposed alignment is located in the existing freeway median (I-5 and I-205), it is assumed 

that no additional ROW is required. 

 When the proposed alignment is located in a tunnel (SE Portland), it is assumed that no additional ROW 

is required. 

 In areas where the track follows an existing railroad (the PNWR line between Keizer and Wilsonville), 

ROW is assumed to require a 30-foot wide acquisition. 

 When proposed track is adjacent to I-205, ROW is assumed to require a 50-ft wide acquisition. The 

increased width is due to the double track proposed along this corridor. The 50-ft ROW take line is 

offset to the east of the eastern edge of the alignment. 

 When proposed track is adjacent to the existing UP line (in Springfield and between Oregon City and 

Portland Union Station), a 35-ft wide ROW acquisition is assumed. The increased width was chosen to 

account for potential offset requirements by UP as well as steep terrain that is adjacent to large 

portions of their track. 

3.3 Other Costs 

This section describes the following additional costs: non-construction costs, contingency cost, cost of new 

equipment, and the cost of infrastructure projects pursued independently of the Oregon Passenger Rail 

project. 

3.3.1 Non-Construction Costs 

Non-construction costs have been grouped into three major categories: professional services, utility 

relocation, and environmental mitigation. Table 2 outlines the sub-categories and the assigned percentages 

that were uniformly applied to the total estimated construction cost: 

D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 

3- 3 
 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 3 – CONSTRUCTION AND CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 

Table 2. Non-Construction Cost Categories Used in OPR Cost Estimates 

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Item Total Category Total 

Design Engineering 10% 

Insurance and Bonding 2% 

Program Management 4% 

Construction Management & Inspection 6% 

Engineering Services During Construction 2% 

Integrated Testing and Commissioning 2% 

Sub-total Professional Services 26% 

UTILITY RELOCATION 

If route is through Urban Areas (% of sub-total construction 

elements) 

6% 6% 

If route is outside of Urban Areas (% of sub-total construction 

elements) 

3% 3% 

ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 2.5% 2.5% 

3.3.2 Contingency Cost Estimates 

The construction and non-construction costs were summed for each alternative, and then a 

30% contingency was applied to develop a total estimated cost. The 30% contingency provides the 

recognition that there are uncertainties and provides the necessary placeholder until more information is 

available to identify and differentiate risks for the project. The 30% value is reasonable at this stage of 

development. 

3.3.3 Cost of New Equipment 

ODOT estimates that two additional passenger rail trainsets would be needed to accommodate increased 

service between Eugene/Springfield and Portland. A trainset is composed of passenger cars and service cars 

(e.g., dining car, baggage car) that would serve the passenger line. The cost of procuring each new trainset 

is assumed to be $20 million, which would account for a FRA-compliant DMU trainset or a locomotive 

hauled trainset. If DMU technology is used for future increased passenger rail service, this EIS assumes that 

the entire fleet would not be converted to that technology; instead, the new DMUs would be used 

alongside the existing locomotive fleet. This mixed-use approach would require different maintenance 

procedures and associated training than used for the existing diesel locomotive hauled technology. 

3.3.4 PE / NEPA Projects 

The operations modeling for the OPR Project assumed that three PE/NEPA projects currently under 

separate development would be constructed by the time the OPR Project is fully constructed. However, 

construction funding has not been identified for those projects. Therefore, construction costs for the 

PE/NEPA projects are included in the OPR Project cost estimate to ensure they will be constructed by the 

time the OPR project is fully built. Construction cost for Alternative 1 includes estimated cost of three 

PE/NEPA: Willbridge: $8.1 million; Penn Junction $4.1 million; Eugene Stub Tracks $23.4 million. Funding for 

the North Portland project ($13.2 million) has been identified via a Connect Oregon grant and matching 

funds from UPPR. 

D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y 

3- 4 
 

 

 

CHAPTER 3 – CONSTRUCTION AND CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 

Construction cost for Alternative 2 and Alternative 2 with Central Albany Option include estimated cost of 

the Willbridge and Penn Junction PE/NEPA projects as described above. 

3.4 Total Cost 

Initial planning-level capital costs for each of the build alternatives are provided in Table 3. As described 

above, the capital cost estimates for each build alternative include the cost to construct infrastructure 

improvements along the route, including track and station improvements, ROW costs, the cost to buy train 

equipment and a contingency factor of 30 percent. 

Note that in Table 3, the construction cost for Alternative 2 is an estimate of the cost to build that 

alternative all at one time. If Alternative 2 were built in phases, the Amtrak Cascades trains would continue 

to use parts of the existing UPRR alignment. To add more daily round trips before full build-out, ODOT 

would have to construct improvements to the UPRR alignment to accommodate the increased passenger 

trips. The cost of those improvements would depend on which phase of Alternative 2 was built first and the 

number of new round trips that were added. With a phased construction of Alternative 2, all improvements 

to the UPRR south of Oregon City would be abandoned by passenger rail service when Alternative 2 was 

fully built. 

Table 3. Estimated Capital Costs of Build Alternatives (dollars in millions, 2015 dollars) 

Section 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 

with Central Albany Option 

Low High Low High Low High 

Train Overhaul $5 $12 $5 $12 $5 $12 

Construction Cost $870a, b $1,025a, b $3,622c $4,442c $3,657 $4,537 

Trainsets (2)d $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40 

Totale $915 $1,077 $3,667 $4,494 $3,702 $4,599 

a Total cost to construct improvements to accommodate both increased passenger service and estimated freight growth in 

2035. ODOT estimates that the construction of improvements to accommodate increased passenger service would cost 

between $695 million and $801 million. 

b Construction cost for Alternative 1 includes estimated cost of the PE/NEPA projects identified in the operational modeling 

for the project. Willbridge: $8.1 million; Penn Junction $4.1 million; Eugene Stub Tracks $23.4 million. 

c Construction cost for Alternative 2 includes estimated cost of the PE/NEPA projects identified in the operational modeling 

for the project. Willbridge: $8.1 million; Penn Junction $4.1 million 

d Trainset costs are based on ODOT’s recent purchase of two Talgo Series 8 trainsets.

e Numbers may not sum because of rounding. 

D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 

3- 5 
 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 4 

Operations and Maintenance Costs 

Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs have been approximated for the two build alternatives for the 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project. These alternatives evaluate increasing the number of daily Amtrak Cascades 

roundtrips between Eugene/Springfield and Portland, Oregon from two daily roundtrips to six daily 

roundtrips. These daily roundtrips are in addition to the Amtrak Coast Starlight which has one daily 

roundtrip. Oregon currently shares the O&M costs of the Amtrak Cascades with Washington. The actual 

split between Oregon and Washington will be developed through negotiations between ODOT, WSDOT, 

Amtrak and the host railroads based on the conditions at the time of the negotiations. The numbers 

developed here stem from high level O&M costs and maintenance costs on the 2 Oregon-owned train sets 

contained in a passenger rail briefing developed by the ODOT Rail Division dated Jan 5, 2015. They are 

intended to be a reasonable approximation of those costs. The O&M costs in this document are in 2014 

dollars. A summary table is provided at the end of this section. 

4.1 Operating and Maintenance Costs Calculation 

Methodology 

The current operating costs for existing Amtrak Cascades service for Oregon’s two daily roundtrips is 

approximately $12 million per year. Alternative 1 will add four additional round trips in the full build out 

essentially tripling the operating costs to $36 million per year. Train maintenance cost on the two train sets 

currently owned by Oregon is approximately $5.27 million per year. It is anticipated that two additional 

train sets will be required in order to accommodate the increased schedules which effectively doubles the 

train maintenance costs to $10.54 million per year. The operating and train maintenance costs will be the 

same for Alternate 2 as it also will consist of six round trips and a total of four Oregon-owned train sets. 

ODOT also pays the host railroads, through Amtrak, for maintenance costs associated with Amtrak 

Cascades passenger service use of the track. Currently those costs are approximately $525,000 per year. 

Basing this cost on the number of train miles used the cost per mile would be: 

$525,000 / (123.9 miles of host railroad x 4 trips per day x 365 days/year) = 

$525,000/180,894 train miles per year = $2.90 per train mile 

Increasing the round trips for Alternative 1 to six roundtrips and using the $2.90 per track mile as a base 

unit cost the shared maintenance of way cost calculates out to: 

123.9 track miles x 12 trips per day x 365 days per year x $2.90 per train mile = 

$1,573,778 per year 

Alternate 2 carries approximately 41.1 miles of shared track. Using the same unit cost for the shared track 

as was used for Alternative 1, the shared maintenance of way cost for Alternative 2 calculates out to: 

41.1 train miles x 12 trips per day x 365 days x $2.90 per train mile = 

$522,052 per year 

Alternative 2 also has 80.1 miles of ODOT owned track. According to Chicago-Detroit Tier 1 EIS, a 

conservative estimate of $58,438 / mile was used as a unit cost for maintaining a mile of track to FRA 

Class 6 standard. Applying this unit cost to the ODOT owned track: 

80.1 miles x $58,438 = 

$4,680,884 for maintenance of ODOT owned track. 

D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 

4- 1 
 

 

CHAPTER 4 – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS 

Table 4. Operating and Maintenance Costs - Summary 

Current (2+1) Alternative 1 (6+1) Alternative 2 (6+1) 

Operating Costs 12,000,000 36,000,000 36,000,000 

Train Maintenance Costs 5,270,000 10,500,000 10,500,000 

Shared Costs 525,000 1,573,778 522,052 

Maintaining FRA Class 6 0 0 4,680,884 

Total 17,795,000 48,073,778 51,702,936 

D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y 

4- 2 
 

 

CHAPTER 5 

Conclusions and Next Steps 

This analysis developed high level cost estimates based on limited project development and are primarily 

intended for comparison of the two build alternatives. These costs are not intended to represent the actual 

cost to build, maintain, or operate either build alternative. If a build alternative is selected through the 

Tier 1 EIS, subsequent projects would develop detailed capital cost estimates. In addition, actual O&M costs 

would be negotiated with Amtrak, Washington DOT, and the appropriate host railroads. 

D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 

5- 1 
 

Attachment A 

Maps of Alternatives 
This page left blank intentionally.
PORTLAND

5

2 Crossings

12 Crossings

3 Crossings

3 Crossings

6 Crossings

26

84

99E

5

99E

99W 224

205

5

217

Columbia River

Willamete River

W illame t e River

5

84

PORTLAND

Willamete

River

2 Crossings

3 Crossings

3 Crossings

12 Crossings

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

�������

Tunnel

������㄀

VANCOUVER

PORTLAND

Milwaukie

WASHINGTON

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

0 1 2 3

Miles

Build Alternatives

Routes and Improvements

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure 3-2

(Map 1 of 7)

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternatives 1 and 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Amtrak Station

Potential Train Station

Urban Growth Boundary

Rural Residential Area

LEGEND
3 Crossings

12 Crossings

2 Crossings

3 Crossings

5

26

99W

5

205

205

99E

224

212

213

99E

551

99E

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

OREGON

CITY

Milwaukie

Wilsonville

Canby Barlow

Aurora

Donald

Willamete River

Oswego Lake

Willamete River

Molalla Ri v er

Pudding

River

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

0 1 2 3

Miles

Build Alternatives

Routes and Improvements

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure 3-2

(Map 2 of 7)

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternatives 1 and 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Amtrak Station

Potential Train Station

Urban Growth Boundary

Rural Residential Area

LEGEND

Tualatin
3 Crossings

5 Crossings

Keizer

Gervais

Woodburn

West

Woodburn

Hubbard

Donald Aurora

Barlow

Brooks

5

5

219

214

214

211

99E

99E

551

Willamete River

Pu dd ni g R vi er

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

0 1 2 3

Miles

Build Alternatives

Routes and Improvements

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure 3-2

(Map 3 of 7)

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Amtrak Station

Potential Train Station

Urban Growth Boundary

Rural Residential Area

LEGEND

3 Crossings

8 Crossings

2 Crossings

Millersburg

ALBANY

Jefferson

Tangent

Lebanon

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

S. Sa ntam Ri ver

Santam River

Willa m ete

River

Cal apooia River

5

99W

20

20

99E

34 34

Millersburg

ALBANY

�������

Albany Opton

20

20

2 Crossings

8 Crossings

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

0 1 2 3

Miles

Build Alternatives

Routes and Improvements

Alternatives 1, 2, 2-Central Albany Option

Figure 3-2

(Map 5 of 7)

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Amtrak Station

Potential Train Station

Urban Growth Boundary

Rural Residential Area

LEGEND
3 Crossings

2 Crossings

99E

99E 99W

228

Harrisburg

Halsey

Shedd

Brownsville

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

Wil l am

ete

River

Calapooia

River

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

0 1 2 3

Miles

Build Alternatives

Routes and Improvements

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure 3-2

(Map 6 of 7)

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Amtrak Station

Potential Train Station

Urban Growth Boundary

Rural Residential Area

LEGEND
2 Crossings

12 Crossings

3 Crossings

2 Crossings

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

Areas where

improvement/

new track would

be needed

Springfield EUGENE

Willam e te

River

Mc Kenzie Ri ver

Willamete River

5

99E

99W

569

99

126

126

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Amtrak Station

Potential Train Station

Urban Growth Boundary

Rural Residential Area

LEGEND

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

0 1 2 3

Miles

Figure 3-2

(Map 7 of 7)

Build Alternatives

Routes and Improvements

Alternatives 1 and 2

Juncton City
This page left blank intentionally.
 

Attachment B 

Design Criteria 

D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 
This page left blank intentionally.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memorandum 

To Jim Cox, ODOT Major Projects 

John Schnaderbeck, ODOT Major Projects 

From Jim Ellerbroek, David Evans and Associates, Inc. 

Date 2/12/2013 

Subject Oregon Passenger Rail Environmental Impact 

Statement Project – PA #28370 WOC #3 – 

Task 6.3 Phase 2 Conceptual Design Criteria 

Narrative – DRAFT 

This memorandum describes the Conceptual Engineering Design Criteria to be 

considered during development of alternatives. These criteria will be utilized in 

preparation of conceptual engineering and in evaluation of alternatives in Phase 3, 4, 

and 5 of the Environmental Impact Statement Project. The alternatives developed will 

provide information for environmental, operational, and other assessments for the 

project. 

The criteria address the following: 

I. General design criteria 

II. Track with shared freight and passenger rail operations, including freight-only track 

modified or added. 

III. Track for passenger-only operations. 

IV. Vehicle roadways, including at-grade or grade-separated crossings, and modified 

roadways. 

I. General design criteria – For the purposes of conceptual design, the following criteria 

will be used to prepare planning-level alignments and other improvements. 

A. Train Speeds 

1. Speeds will be grouped by Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Class of 

track for passenger and freight trains. The Design Criteria Tables (see 

below) will be used as the basis for the speeds on a given segment of track. 

B. Horizontal Alignment 

1. Horizontal curves will be based on those listed in the Design Criteria Tables. 

In general, the degree of curve (and the resulting curve radius) for each 

speed in the table is based on the maximum superelevation. 

2. Superelevation of tracks is limited to no greater than 5 inches and shall be no 

less than 3⁄4 inch. The superelevation of curves will be based upon the 

formulae: 

S = ((E + U) / 0.0007 * D)^1⁄2 

E = 0.0007*D*S^2-U 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where: 

S = velocity in mph 

D = degree of curve in decimals 

U = unbalanced elevation in inches 

The unbalanced elevation (U) will be a maximum of: 

 Freight trains: 2 inches 

 Conventional (non-tilting) passenger trains: 3 inches 

 Tilting passenger trains: 5 inches 

3. Minimum curve lengths in feet shall be based on five times the train speed in 

miles per hour (5*V, i.e., 5*79 mph = 395 feet) to allow for spirals in later 

design phases. 

4. Minimum tangent lengths in feet shall be the greater of 100 feet or five times 

the train speed in miles per hour (5*V, i.e., 5*79 mph = 395 feet). 

C. Station Platforms 

1. For the platforms on tracks that include freight service, the Oregon 

Administrative Rules (OAR) will be followed; specifically, they will be no 

higher than 8 inches above the top of the rail being served, as allowed under 

the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA) level boarding guidelines 

(http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L03698). For the platforms on tracks that 

serve only passenger trains, level boarding will be provided, the height of 

which will be determined based on the equipment selected. 

2. Platforms will be located on tangent track. 

II. Track with shared passenger rail operations – The existing passenger rail operation 

utilizes track owned by several private railroads and other public or private entities. 

Train speeds, curvatures, gradients, turnout sizes, superelevation, and other criteria 

for alternatives in the study must be consistent with the host railroad’s standards and 

compatible with the existing rail network. The two Class I railroads in the corridor, 

BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), are primary owners of the 

existing mainline track. If affected, the numerous shortline, port, and private 

industrial track will utilize the standards of the serving Class I railroads. Where joint 

service exists, the more restrictive of the Class I standards will be used. 

A. BNSF Railway (BNSF) – BNSF criteria will be utilized for alternatives that affect 

the current route from Portland Union Station north to Vancouver, Washington, 

and portions of what is known as the Oregon Electric (OE) line. Unless 

otherwise noted, engineering shall comply with BNSF Railway Mainline Design 

Guidelines for Track Projects. 

1. Turnout Size and Type – The minimum size for mainline turnouts is No. 11. 

See BNSF standards Appendix L Standard Plans for No. 11, 15, 20, and 24 

turnout details. Turnouts will not be placed within a vertical curve or, if 

possible, on structures. The Design Criteria Tables list the maximum speeds 

through the diverging side of turnouts. 

Conceptual Design Criteria Narrative 2/12/2013 

Page 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Track Spacing – Track centers for parallel mainline tracks shall be 25 feet 

minimum. 

3. Track Curvature – The maximum degree of curvature allowed for mainline 

track is generally 3 degrees. In locations where existing curves are tighter 

than 3 degrees, that curve will be the minimum. The minimum tangent 

between curves is 200 feet. No turnouts may be placed in curves or within 

200 feet of a curve. 

4. Superelevation – In accordance with BNSF standards Appendix C, Design 

Superelevation for Freight Trains/Spiral Lengths. The maximum unbalanced 

superelevation will be 5 inches. Note: For conceptual engineering, spirals 

will not be designed, although the tangent, curve, and other geometry will be 

designed to allow for final design of required superelevation/spirals. 

5. Vertical Curvature – The “V/L” values for crest and sag vertical curves shall 

be a minimum length of 100 feet with V/L not to exceed 0.05 for sags and 0.1 

for crests, where V is the difference of grades and L is the length of curve in 

stations. 

6. Maximum Gradient – 1% for mainline track. 

7. Materials – All materials for rail, ballast, ties, and OTM (other track material) 

shall conform to BNSF standards. See Appendix A Standard Plan for 

Roadbed/Ballast Section. The minimum acceptable mainline rail shall be new 

136 lb. rail or greater. 

8. Control Points – In accordance with BNSF standards Appendix J Signal 

Design and Standard Construction Specification and Combined BNSF/UPRR 

and UPRR Signal Standard Drawings. The design shall allow for 

implementation of PTC or CTC controls. 

9. Horizontal Clearances – Horizontal clearances shall comply with OAR 741-

310-0010 and OAR 741-310-0020 and with BNSF standards for clearances 

found in Appendices G, H, and I Minimum Clearances. In general, the 

required clearances are: 

a. Tangent Track: 8.5 feet from centerline 

b. Curved Track: 8.5 feet plus (+) 1.5 inches per degree of curvature 

10. Vertical Clearances – All vertical clearances are measured from the highest 

rail at any given point along the length of the overhead obstruction unless 

noted otherwise. See also BNSF standards for clearances found in 

Appendices G, H, and I Minimum Clearances. In general, the required 

clearances are: 

a. Obstructions: 23 feet and 4 inches 

b. Overhead Wires: 27 feet 

11. Industry Track – BNSF Design Guidelines for Industrial Track Projects. Track 

centers for sidings and industry track shall be 15 feet minimum to comply with 

OAR 741-315-0010(a). 

Conceptual Design Criteria Narrative 2/12/2013 

Page 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. Structures – Structure criteria are: 

a. Culverts shall comply with the BNSF Railway Mainline Design Guidelines 

for Track Projects and American Railway Engineering and Maintenanceof-Way Association (AREMA), where noted by BNSF. 

b. Bridges shall be designed to E80 loading and utilize BNSF Standard 

Bridge Plans and structure types. 

c. Shoring structures shall comply with the Joint BNSF-UPRR Guidelines for 

Temporary Shoring and AREMA where noted by BNSF. 

d. Grade-separated structures shall comply with the Joint BNSF-UPRR 

Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects. 

e. Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Standard Bridge Drawings 

and Specifications. 

13. Utilities – In accordance with BNSF standards Appendix F Utility 

Accommodation Policy. 

B. Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) – UPRR criteria will be utilized for alternatives 

that affect the current route from Portland Union Station south to Springfield, 

Oregon, and portions of what is known as the Tillamook Branch line. Unless 

otherwise noted, engineering shall comply with UPRR Mainline Design 

Guidelines for Track Projects. 

1. Turnout Size and Type – The UPRR minimum size for mainline turnouts is 

No. 11, per UPRR Standard Drawing 0080D Standard Turnout Applications. 

No. 24 turnouts and crossovers shall be utilized for high-speed passenger 

operations. Turnouts will not be placed within a vertical curve or, if possible, 

on structures. 

2. Track Spacing – Track centers for parallel tangent mainline tracks will be 20 

feet. 

3. Track Curvature – The maximum degree of curvature required by UPRR is 

based on the superelevation and train speed. A minimum tangent length 

between curves of 200 feet will be used wherever possible. No turnouts may 

be placed in curves or within 300 feet of a curve. 

4. Superelevation – Horizontal curves and superelevation shall comply with 

UPRR Standard Drawings 0019A, 0020B, 0021C, 0022C, and 0023C for 

superelevation of curves. 

5. Spirals – In accordance with UPRR Standard Drawing 0019A Superelevation 

of Curves. Note: For conceptual engineering, spirals will not be designed, 

although the tangent, curve, and other geometry will be designed to allow for 

final design of required superelevation. 

6. Vertical Curvature – The “V/L” values for crest and sag vertical curves shall 

comply with UPRR Standard Drawing 0016 Vertical Curve Design. UPRR 

requires a minimum length of 100 feet and V/L not to exceed 0.06 for sags 

and 0.1 for crests, where V is the difference of grades and L is the length of 

curve in stations. 

Conceptual Design Criteria Narrative 2/12/2013 

Page 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Maximum Gradient – 1% for mainline track. 

8. Materials – All materials for rail, ballast, ties, and OTM (other track material) 

shall conform to UPRR Standard Drawing 0001A Roadbed Sections for Track 

Construction. The minimum acceptable rail shall be new 136RE rail or 

greater. Continuously welded rail and concrete ties will be used. 

9. Control Points – The design shall allow for implementation of PTC or CTC 

controls. 

10. Stations – In accordance with UPRR Network Planning – New Passenger 

Station Guidelines. 

11. Horizontal Clearances – Horizontal clearances shall comply with OAR 741-

310-0010 and OAR 741-310-0020 and UPRR Standard Drawings 0035 and 

0038F Standard Minimum Operating Clearances. 

a. Tangent Track: 9.5 feet from centerline 

b. Curved Track: 9.5 feet plus (+) 1.5 inches per degree of curve where 

facility is located within 80 feet of turnout or curve limits 

12. Vertical Clearances – All vertical clearances are measured from the highest 

rail at any given point along the length of the overhead obstruction, unless 

noted otherwise. See UPRR Standard Drawings 0035 and 0038F Standard 

Minimum Operating Clearances. 

a. Obstructions: 23 feet and 4 inches 

b. Overhead Wires: 27 feet 

13. Industry Track Criteria – In accordance with UPRR Industrial Track Standards 

found at http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/operations/specs/track/index.shtml. 

14. Structures – Structure criteria are: 

a. Culverts shall comply with the UPRR Mainline Track Standard Drawings 

and AREMA, where noted by UPRR. 

b. Bridges shall be designed to E80 loading and utilize UPRR Standard 

Bridge Plans and structure types. 

c. Shoring structures shall comply with the Joint BNSF-UPRR Guidelines for 

Temporary Shoring and AREMA, where noted in the shoring guidelines 

found at 

http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/operations/specs/shoring/index.shtml. 

d. Grade-separated structures shall comply with the Joint BNSF-UPRR 

Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects found at 

http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/operations/specs/attachments/grade_separ 

ation.pdf. 

e. ODOT Standard Bridge Drawings and Specifications. 

15. Utilities – In accordance with UPRR, local, federal, and state standards; see 

http://www.uprr.com/reus/pipeline/install.shtml for UPRR utility guidelines. 

Conceptual Design Criteria Narrative 2/12/2013 

Page 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III. Track for passenger-only operations – The American Railway Engineering and 

Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering, 2012, 

will be generally followed for alternatives located on new alignments that do not 

interact with freight rail operations. In general, this includes “greenfield” routes or 

those adjacent to, but not in, existing freight railroad rights-of-way. 

1. Turnout Size and Type – In accordance with AREMA Chapter 5 Part 3.4 and 

Chapter 11 Part 3.5.11. Turnouts will not be placed within a vertical curve or, 

if possible, on structures. 

2. Track Spacing – Track centers for parallel mainline tracks shall be 15 feet 

minimum to comply with OAR 741-315-0010(a). 

3. Track Curvature – In accordance with AREMA Chapter 5 Part 3 Curves. 

4. Superelevation – In accordance with AREMA Chapter 5 Part 3 Curves. 

5. Spirals – In accordance with AREMA Chapter 5 Part 3.1 Spirals. Note: For 

conceptual engineering, spirals will not be designed, although the tangent, 

curve, and other geometry will be designed to allow for final design of 

required superelevation. 

6. Vertical Curvature – In accordance with AREMA Chapter 5 Part 3.6 Vertical 

Curves. 

7. Maximum Gradient – In accordance with AREMA Chapter 5 Part 3.7 

Compensated Gradients. 

8. Materials – All materials for rail, ballast, ties, and OTM (other track material) 

shall conform to AREMA Chapter 1 Roadway and Ballast and Chapter 4 Rail. 

9. Control Points – In accordance with AREMA Chapter 11 Part 3.2.9 Signal 

Systems and Part 3.5.9 Signal Considerations. 

10. Horizontal Clearances – Horizontal clearances shall comply with OAR 741-

310-0010 and OAR 741-310-0020. 

a. Tangent Track: 8.5 feet from centerline 

b. Curved Track: 8.5 feet plus (+) 1.5 inches per degree of curvature 

11. Vertical Clearances – All vertical clearances are measured from the highest 

rail at any given point along the length of the overhead obstruction, unless 

noted otherwise. 

a. Obstructions: 23 feet and 4 inches 

b. Overhead Wires: 27 feet 

12. Crossings – In accordance with AREMA Chapter 5 Part 8 Highway/Railway 

Grade Crossings and ODOT standards. 

13. Industry Track – See applicable BNSF or UPRR standards for industry track. 

Conceptual Design Criteria Narrative 2/12/2013 

Page 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14. Structures – Structure criteria are: 

a. Culverts shall comply with AREMA Chapter 4 Track. 

b. Structures shall comply with AREMA Volume 2 – Structures. 

c. ODOT Standard Bridge Drawings and Specifications. 

15. Utilities 

a. In accordance with AREMA Chapter 5 for pipelines. 

b. In accordance with utility agency standards as applicable. 

IV. Vehicle roadways, including at-grade or grade-separated crossings, and modified 

roadways 

A. At-grade vehicle crossings of railroads – In accordance with Railroad-Highway 

Grade Crossing Handbook, 2007, USDOT Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) Crossings, BNSF standards Appendix Q Requirements for Standard 

Road Crossings, and ODOT standards. At-grade crossings shall comply with 

UPRR Standard Drawing 0304E Installation of Road Crossing with Precast 

Concrete Panels and ODOT standards. 

B. Grade-separated crossings – Grade-separated structures shall comply with the 

Joint BNSF-UPRR Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects and ODOT 

Standard Bridge Drawings and Specifications. 

C. Roadways – In accordance with A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets, 6th Edition, 2011, AASHTO, ODOT Highway Design Manual (HDM), or 

applicable design criteria set forth by the local road authority. 

List of Referenced Standards 

 BNSF Railway Mainline Design Guidelines for Track Projects including Appendices 

A, C, F, G, H, I, J, L 

 BNSF Design Guidelines for Industrial Track Projects 

 Joint BNSF-UPRR Guidelines for Temporary Shoring 

 Joint BNSF-UPRR Guidelines for Railroad Grade Separation Projects 

 The Association of Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association 

(AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering 

 AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 

 ODOT Highway Design Manual (HDM) 

 FHWA Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook 

 Oregon Administrative Rules 741-310-0010 and 741-310-0020 

 ODOT Standard Bridge Drawings and Specifications 

 UPRR Industrial Track Standards 

 UPRR Signal Standard Drawings 

 UPRR Mainline Design Guidelines for Track Projects 

 UPRR Standard Drawings 0001A, 0080D, 0019A, 0020B, 0021C, 0022C, 0023C, 

0304E, 0035, and 0038F 

 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

Level Boarding Guidelines 

Conceptual Design Criteria Narrative 2/12/2013 

Page 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Design Criteria Tables Design Criteria Summary Tables 

Horizontal Design Criteria Table - UPRR Shared Freight / Passenger Rail 

For speeds up to 79 mph 

Speed = ((Super + Imb)/(0.0007D))0.5 

Max. 

Speed 

with 5" 

Imb 

Passenge 

r 

Max. 

Speed 

with 1" 

Imb 

UPRR 

Freight 

Track 

Class 

Superelevatio 

n 

(5" Max.) 

Degree of 

Curve 

D 

Radius 

R 

Min. 

Tangent for 

Rev Curves 

(Includes

Spirals) 

Minimum Size 

Turnout 

169 79 5 2.75 0.5 11,459.1 

9' 618 

120 79 5 5.00 1.0 5,729.65' 829 

98 75 5 4.50 1.5 3,819.83' 940 

85 65 5 5.00 2.0 2,864.93' 880 

72 55 4 4.25 2.5 2,292.01' 576 

65 50 4 4.25 3.0 1,910.08' 551 24 

61 45 4 5.00 3.5 1,637.28' 512 24 

53 45 3 4.25 4.0 1,432.69' 552 24 

50 40 3 5.00 4.5 1,273.57' 488 20 

48 40 3 4.25 5.0 1,146.28' 512 20 

46 35 3 4.75 5.5 1,042.14' 315 20 

44 35 3 3.75 6.0 955.37' 337 20 

42 35 3 4.00 6.5 881.95' 348 20 

40 35 3 4.50 7.0 819.02' 370 20 

39 30 3 4.75 7.5 764.49' 315 15 

38 30 3 5.00 8.0 716.78' 326 15 

36 30 3 4.00 9.0 637.27' 337 15 

32 25 2 4.50 10.0 573.69' 304 15 

Conceptual Design Criteria Narrative 2/12/2013 

Page 8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horizontal Design Criteria Table - BNSF Shared Freight / Passenger Rail 

For speeds up to 90 mph Freight 

Speed = ((Super + Imb)/(0.0007D))0.5 

Max. Speed 

with 5" Imb 

Passenger 

Max. 

Speed 

with 2" 

Imb 

BNSF 

Freight 

Trac 

k 

Clas 

s 

Superelevatio 

n 

(5" Max.) 

Degree of 

Curve 

D 

Radius 

R 

Min. Tangent 

for Rev 

Curves 

(Includes 

Spirals) 

Minimu 

m Size 

Turnout 

130 90 5 0.88 0.5 11,459.19' 280 

112 90 5 3.75 1.0 5,729.65' 600 

96 80 5 4.75 1.5 3,819.83' 660 

84 70 4 4.88 2.0 2,864.93' 600 

73 60 3 4.38 2.5 2,292.01' 495 

67 55 3 4.38 3.0 1,910.08' 520 

61 50 3 4.13 3.5 1,637.28' 430 20 

60 50 3 5.00 4.0 1,432.69' 500 20 

55 45 2 4.50 4.5 1,273.57' 425 20 

50 40 2 3.63 5.0 1,146.28' 370 20 

49 40 2 4.25 5.5 1,042.14' 390 20 

48 40 2 4.75 6.0 955.37' 420 20 

44 35 2 3.63 6.5 881.95' 360 15 

43 35 2 4.13 7.0 819.02' 380 15 

42 35 2 4.25 7.5 764.49' 380 15 

42 35 2 4.88 8.0 716.78' 410 15 

37 30 2 3.75 9.0 637.27' 360 15 

37 30 2 4.38 10.0 573.69' 390 15 

Conceptual Design Criteria Narrative 2/12/2013 

Page 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horizontal Design Criteria Table - AREMA 

For High Speed Passenger-Only Rail 

Speed = ((5" Max Super + Imb)/(0.0007D))0.5 

Max. Speed 

with 5" Imb 

Passenger 

Track 

Class 

Degree of 

Curve 

D 

Radius 

R 

Min. Tangent for 

Rev Curves 

(Includes Spirals) 

Minimum 

Size 

Turnout 

169 9 0.5 11,459.19' 845 

120 7 1.0 5,729.65' 598 

98 6 1.5 3,819.83' 488 

85 5 2.0 2,864.93' 423 

76 4 2.5 2,292.01' 378 

69 4 3.0 1,910.08' 345 

64 4 3.5 1,637.28' 319 24 

60 3 4.0 1,432.69' 299 24 

56 3 4.5 1,273.57' 282 24 

53 3 5.0 1,146.28' 267 24 

51 3 5.5 1,042.14' 255 24 

49 3 6.0 955.37' 244 20 

47 3 6.5 881.95' 234 20 

45 3 7.0 819.02' 226 20 

44 3 7.5 764.49' 218 20 

42 3 8.0 716.78' 211 20 

40 3 9.0 637.27' 199 20 

38 3 10.0 573.69' 189 15 

Conceptual Design Criteria Narrative 2/12/2013 

Page 10 
 

Attachment C 

Unit Cost Estimate Assumptions 

D R A F T O P R C o s t E s t i m a t e M e t h o d o l o g y D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 
This page left blank intentionally.
G n ral 

Bid Bid Conditions 

It m D scription Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total (15%) Subtotal OH&P (15%) Grand Total 

1001000 10.01 AT RADE TRACK 

1001010 10.01.01 SGL TRACK - BALLASTED 1.0 RM $2,059,000 $2,059,000 $308,850 $2,367,850 $355,178 $2,723,000 

1001020 10.01.01.01 1.0 RM $62,000 $62,000 

1001030 10.01.01.02 1.0 RM $329,000 $329,000 

1001040 10.01.01.03

1001050 10.01.01.04

1001060 10.01.02 

1001070 10.01.02.01

1001080 10.01.02.02

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - S L TRACK 

SUBBALLAST - S L TRACK DBL TRACK - BALLASTED 

BALLAST - S L TRACK 

S L TRACK INSTALL - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 1 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

RM 

RM 

RM 

RM 

RM 

$348,000 

$1,320,000 

$4,012,000 

$77,000 

$598,000 

$348,000 

$1,320,000 

$4,012,000 

$77,000 

$598,000 

$601,800 $4,613,800 $692,070 $5,306,000 

1001090 10.01.02.03

1001100 10.01.02.04

1002000 10.02 

1002010 10.02.01 

1002020 10.02.01.01

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - DBL TRACK 

SUBBALLAST - DBL TRACK AT RADE TRACK W/ EARTHWORK BALLAST - DBL TRACK SGL TRACK - BALLASTED 

DBL TRACK INSTALL - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 1 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

RM 

RM 

RM 

RM 

$697,000 

$2,640,000 

$2,795,000 

$616,000 

$697,000 

$2,640,000 

$2,795,000 

$616,000 

$419,250 $3,214,250 $482,138 $3,696,000 

1002030 10.02.01.02 1.0 RM $182,000 $182,000 

1002040 10.02.01.03

1002050 10.02.01.04

1002060 10.02.01.05

1002070 10.02.02 

1002080 10.02.02.01

1002090 10.02.02.02

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - S L TRACK 

 UIDEWAY EARTHWORK - S L TRACK 

SUBBALLAST - S L TRACK DBL TRACK - BALLASTED 

BALLAST - S L TRACK 

S L TRACK INSTALL - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 1 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

RM 

RM 

RM 

RM 

RM 

RM 

$329,000 

$348,000 

$1,320,000 

$4,825,000 

$632,000 

$258,000 

$329,000 

$348,000 

$1,320,000 

$4,825,000 

$632,000 

$258,000 

$723,750 $5,548,750 $832,313 $6,381,000 

1002100 10.02.02.03

1002110 10.02.02.04 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - DBL TRACK 

1.0 

1.0 

RM 

RM 

$598,000 

$697,000 

$598,000 

$697,000 

1002120 10.02.02.05 1.0 RM $2,640,000 $2,640,000 

1003000 10.03 RETAINED FILL 

1003010 10.03.01 SGL TRACK, BALLASTED, 15' AVE WALL HEIGHT 1.0 RM $11,428,000 $11,428,000 $1,714,200 $13,142,200 $1,971,330 $15,114,000 

1003020 10.03.01.01 1.0 RM $62,000 $62,000 

1003030 10.03.01.02 1.0 RM $182,000 $182,000 

1003040 10.03.01.03 1.0 RM $9,187,000 $9,187,000 

1003050 10.03.01.04 1.0 RM $329,000 $329,000 

1003060 10.03.01.05 1.0 RM $348,000 $348,000 

1003070 10.03.01.06 1.0 RM $1,320,000 $1,320,000 

1003080 10.03.02 DBL TRACK, BALLASTED, 15' AVE WALL HEIGHT 1.0 RM $13,457,000 $13,457,000 $2,018,550 $15,475,550 $2,321,333 $17,797,000 

1003090 10.03.02.01 1.0 RM $77,000 $77,000 

1003100 10.03.02.02 1.0 RM $258,000 $258,000 

1003110 10.03.02.03 1.0 RM $9,187,000 $9,187,000 

1003120 10.03.02.04 1.0 RM $598,000 $598,000 

1003130 10.03.02.05 1.0 RM $697,000 $697,000 

1003140 10.03.02.06 1.0 RM $2,640,000 $2,640,000 

1004000 10.04 ELEVATED/VIADUCT 

1004010 10.04.01 SGL TRACK, DF, 30' T/R 1.0 RM $38,726,000 $38,726,000 $5,808,900 $44,534,900 $6,680,235 $51,215,000 

1004020 10.04.01.01 1.0 RM $24,000 $24,000 

1004030 10.04.01.02 1.0 RM $36,960,000 $36,960,000 

1004040 10.04.01.03 1.0 RM $1,742,000 $1,742,000 

 UIDEWAY EARTHWORK - DBL TRACK 

SUBBALLAST - DBL TRACK 

BALLAST - DBL TRACK 

DBL TRACK INSTALL - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 1 

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - S L TRACK 

 UIDEWAY EARTHWORK - S L TRACK 

 RETAININ WALL (FILL) 

 SUBBALLAST - S L TRACK 

 BALLAST - S L TRACK 

 S L TRACK INSTALL - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 1 

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - DBL TRACK 

 UIDEWAY EARTHWORK - DBL TRACK 

 RETAININ WALL (FILL) 

 SUBBALLAST - DBL TRACK 

 BALLAST - DBL TRACK 

 DBL TRACK INSTALL - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 1 

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - S L TRACK 

 AERIAL STRUCTURE - S L TRACK 

 DF S L TRACK - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 136# C 
G n ral 

Bid Bid Conditions 

It m D scription Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total (15%) Subtotal OH&P (15%) Grand Total 

1004050 10.04.02 DBL TRACK, DF, 30' T/R 1.0 RM $82,709,000 $82,709,000 $12,406,350 $95,115,350 $14,267,303 $109,383,000 

1004060 10.02.02.01 1.0 RM $24,000 $24,000 

1004070 10.02.02.02 1.0 RM $79,200,000 $79,200,000 

1004080 10.02.02.03 1.0 RM $3,485,000 $3,485,000 

1005000 10.05 OPEN TRENCH/RETAINED CUT 

1005010 10.05.01 RETAINED CUT - SGL TRACK, BALLASTED, 20' AVE DEPTH 1.0 RM $14,934,000 $14,934,000 $2,240,100 $17,174,100 $2,576,115 $19,750,000 

1005020 10.05.01.01 1.0 RM $62,000 $62,000 

1005030 10.05.01.02 1.0 RM $532,000 $532,000 

1005040 10.05.01.03 1.0 RM $12,672,000 $12,672,000 

1005050 10.05.01.04 1.0 RM $348,000 $348,000 

1005055 10.05.01.05 1.0 RM $1,320,000 $1,320,000 

1005060 10.05.02 RETAINED CUT - DBL TRACK, BALLASTED, 20' AVE DEPTH 1.0 RM $16,983,000 $16,983,000 $2,547,450 $19,530,450 $2,929,568 $22,460,000 

1005070 10.05.02.01 1.0 RM $77,000 $77,000 

1005080 10.05.02.02 1.0 RM $897,000 $897,000 

1005090 10.05.02.03 1.0 RM $12,672,000 $12,672,000 

1005100 10.05.02.04 1.0 RM $697,000 $697,000 

1005110 10.05.02.05 1.0 RM $2,640,000 $2,640,000 

1006000 10.06 TUNNEL 

1006010 10.06.01 CUT & COVER BOX - 1 TRACK / 1 BOX (45' AVG. EXC. D 1.0 RM $91,009,000 $91,009,000 $13,651,350 $104,660,350 $15,699,053 $120,359,000 

1006020 10.06.01.01 1.0 RM $62,000 $62,000 

1006030 10.06.01.02 1.0 RM $3,299,000 $3,299,000 

1006040 10.06.01.03 1.0 RM $85,536,000 $85,536,000 

1006050 10.06.01.04 1.0 RM $2,112,000 $2,112,000 

1006060 10.06.02 CUT & COVER BOX - 2 TRACK / 1 BOX (45' AVG. EXC. D 1.0 RM $128,165,000 $128,165,000 $19,224,750 $147,389,750 $22,108,463 $169,498,000 

1006070 10.06.02.01 1.0 RM $77,000 $77,000 

1006080 10.06.02.02 1.0 RM $4,536,000 $4,536,000 

1006090 10.06.02.03 1.0 RM $121,440,000 $121,440,000 

1006100 10.06.02.04 1.0 RM $2,112,000 $2,112,000 

1006110 10.06.03 BORED SGL TRACK TUNNEL 30FT ID IN SOFT ROCK (POOR) 1.0 RM $119,475,000 $17,921,250 $137,396,250 $20,609,438 $158,006,000 

1006120 10.06.03.01 2.0 EA $21,695,000 $4,339,000 

1006125 10.06.03.02 10.0 RM $29,040,000 $29,040,000 

1006130 10.06.03.03 2.0 EA $29,158,000 $5,831,600 

1006140 10.06.03.04 10.0 RM $37,182,000 $37,182,000 

1006150 10.06.03.05 1.0 EA $57,584,000 $5,758,400 

1006152 10.06.03.06 10.0 EA $9,000,000 $9,000,000 

1006153 10.06.03.07 21.0 EA $6,000,000 $12,600,000 

1006155 10.06.03.08 53.0 EA $0 $0 

1006156 10.06.03.09 10.0 RM $13,600,000 $13,600,000 

1006160 10.06.03.10 10.0 RM $2,124,000 $2,124,000 

1006170 10.06.04 BORED DBL TRACK TUNNEL 50FT ID IN SOFT ROCK (POOR) 1.0 RM $246,984,000 $37,047,600 $284,031,600 $42,604,740 $326,636,000 

1006180 10.06.04.01 2.0 EA $35,195,000 $7,039,000 

1006185 10.06.04.02 10.0 RM $39,600,000 $39,600,000 

1006190 10.06.04.03 2.0 EA $40,648,000 $8,129,600 

1006200 10.06.04.04 10.0 RM $138,120,000 $138,120,000 

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - DBL TRACK 

AERIAL STRUCTURE - DBL TRACK 

DF DBL TRACK - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 136# C 

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - S L TRACK 

 UIDEWAY EARTHWORK - S L TRACK 

RETAININ WALL (CUT) 

BALLAST - S L TRACK 

S L TRACK INSTALL - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 136# CWR 

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - DBL TRACK 

 UIDEWAY EARTHWORK - DBL TRACK 

RETAININ WALL (CUT) 

BALLAST - DBL TRACK 

DBL TRACK INSTALL - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 136# CWR 

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - S L TRACK 

 UIDEWAY EARTHWORK - S L TRACK 

CUT & COVER BOX STRUCTURE - S L TRACK 

DF S L TRACK - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 136# CWR 

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - DBL TRACK 

 UIDEWAY EARTHWORK - DBL TRACK 

CUT & COVER BOX STRUCTURE - DBL TRACK 

DF DBL TRACK - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 136# CWR 

TBM PURCHASE 

TUNNEL LINER PURCHASE 

LAUNCH SHAFT 

BORED S L TRACK TUNNEL - 30FT ID 

EXTRACTION SHAFT 

EMER ENCY ACCESS SHAFT 

VENTILATION SHAFT 

CROSS PASSA ES 

MECH/VENT/ELECT ALLOWANCE 

DF S L TRACK - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 136# CWR 

TBM PURCHASE / SET UP 

TUNNEL LINER PURCHASE 

LAUNCH SHAFT 

BORED TUNNEL - 50FT ID 
G n ral 

Bid Bid Conditions 

It m D scription Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total (15%) Subtotal OH&P (15%) Grand Total 

1006210 10.06.04.05 1.0 EA $57,584,000 $5,758,400 

1006212 10.06.04.06 10.0 EA $9,000,000 $9,000,000 

1006213 10.06.04.07 21.0 EA $6,000,000 $12,600,000 

1006215 10.06.04.08 53.0 EA $0 $0 

1006220 10.06.04.09 10.0 RM $22,300,000 $22,300,000 

1006240 10.06.04.10 10.0 RM $4,437,000 $4,437,000 

1007000 10.07 RAILROAD BRID ES 

1007010 10.07.01 

1007020 10.07.01.01

SGL TRACK BRIDGE - BALLASTED, UP TO 300' LONG 1.0 

300.0 

EA 

TF 

$2,559,000 

$1,200 

$2,559,000 

$360,000 

$383,850 $2,942,850 $441,428 $3,384,000 

1007030 10.07.01.02 300.0 TF $7,000.00 $2,100,000 

1007040 10.07.01.03 300.0 TF $330.00 $99,000 

1007050 10.07.02 

1007060 10.07.02.01

DBL TRACK BRIDGE - BALLASTED, UP TO 300' LONG 1.0 

300.0 

EA 

TF 

$5,058,000 

$1,200 

$5,058,000 

$360,000 

$758,700 $5,816,700 $872,505 $6,689,000 

1007070 10.07.02.02 300.0 TF $15,000.00 $4,500,000 

1007080 10.07.02.03 300.0 TF $660.00 $198,000 

2001000 20.01 STATIONS 

2001010 20.01.01 

2001020 20.01.01.01

STATION BUILDINGS: PRIMARY (500 PARKING SPACES) 1.0 

1.0 

EA 

EA 

$5,891,000 

$1,890,000 

$5,891,000 

$1,890,000 

$883,650 $6,774,650 $1,016,198 $7,791,000 

2001030 20.01.01.02 1.0 EA $538,000 $538,000 

2001040 20.01.01.03 1.0 EA $213,000 $213,000 

2001050 20.01.01.04 1.0 LS $3,250,000 $3,250,000 

2001100 20.01.02 

2001110 20.01.02.01 

STATION BUILDINGS: SECONDARY 

STATION BUILDIN S: SECONDARY 

1.0 

1.0 

EA 

EA 

$250,000 

$250,000 

$250,000 

$250,000 

$37,500 $287,500 $43,125 $331,000 

3001000 30.01 

3001010 30.01.01

LAYOVER FACILITY 1.0 

1.0 

EA 

LS 

$5,000,000 

$1,000,000 

$5,000,000 

$1,000,000 

N/A $5,000,000 N/A $5,000,000 

3001020 30.01.02 1.0 LS $3,000,000 $3,000,000 

3001030 30.01.03 1.0 TF $1,000,000 $1,000,000 

3002000 30.02 HEAVY MAINTENANCE FACILITY 

3002010 30.02.01 

3002020 30.02.01.01

MAINTENANCE FACILITY 1.0 

1.0 

EA 

LS 

$23,000,000 

$2,000,000 

$23,000,000 

$2,000,000 

N/A $23,000,000 N/A $23,000,000 

3002030 30.02.01.02 1.0 LS $20,000,000 $20,000,000 

3002040 30.02.01.03 1.0 TF $1,000,000 $1,000,000 

4001000 40.01 ROADWAY BRID E 

4001010 40.01.01 

4001020 40.01.01.01

ROADWAY OVER RAILROAD - UP TO 200' 1.0 

1.0 

EA 

LS 

$4,283,000 

$360,000 

$4,283,000 

$360,000 

$642,450 $4,925,450 $738,818 $5,664,000 

4001030 40.01.01.02 15,920.0 SF $58 $923,000 

4001040 40.01.01.03 200.0 LF $15,000 $3,000,000 

4002000 40.02 RADE CROSSIN S 

4002010 40.02.01 

4002020 40.02.01.01

GRADE CROSSING - UP TO 4 LANES OF TRAFFIC 1.0 

60.0 

EA 

TF 

$356,000 

$750 

$356,000 

$45,000 

$53,400 $409,400 $61,410 $471,000 

4002030 40.02.01.02 60.0 TF $600 $36,000 

4002040 40.02.01.03 1,000.0 SF $75 $75,000 

4002050 40.02.01.04 1.0 EA $200,000 $200,000 

4002060 40.02.02 GRADE CROSSING - MORE THAN 4 LANES OF TRAFFIC 1.0 EA $558,800 $558,800 $83,820 $642,620 $96,393 $739,000 

 EXTRACTION SHAFT 

 EMER ENCY ACCESS SHAFT 

 VENTILIZATION SHAFT 

 CROSS PASSA ES 

 MECH/VENT/ELECT ALLOWANCE 

 DF DBL TRACK - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 136# CWR 

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - S L TRACK 

AERIAL STRUCTURE - S L TRACK 

AERIAL S L TRACK - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 136# CWR 

 UIDEWAY PREPARATION - DBL TRACK 

AERIAL STRUCTURE - DBL TRACK 

AERIAL DBL TRACK - TIES/RAIL/FASTENERS - 136# CWR 

AT- RADE SIDE PLATFORM - 2 VEHICLE 

AT- RADE SIDE PLATFORM - CANOPIES 

AT- RADE STATION - TICKET KIOSKS 

AT- RADE STATION PARK & RIDE 

EARTHWORK & PREPARATION 

BUILDIN S & AMENITIES 

YARD/STORA E TRACK 

 EARTHWORK & PREPARATION 

 BUILDIN S & AMENITIES 

 YARD/STORA E TRACK 

 EARTHWORK & PREPARATION 

 RETAININ WALLS (FILL) 

 AERIAL STRUCTURE 

 EARTHWORK & PREPARATION 

 RADE CROSSIN S L TRACK INSTALLATION - 136# 

 STREET MODIFICATIONS 

 ATED CROSSIN SI NALS 
G n ral 

Bid Bid Conditions 

It m D scription Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total (15%) Subtotal OH&P (15%) Grand Total 

4002070 40.02.02.01 84.0 TF $750 $63,000 

4002080 40.02.02.02 84.0 TF $1,200 $100,800 

4002090 40.02.02.03 1,600.0 SF $75 $120,000 

4002100 40.02.02.04 1.0 EA $275,000 $275,000 

5001000 50.01 WAYSIDE SIGNALING EQUIPMENT 1.0 LS $1,898,000 $1,898,000 N/A $1,898,000 N/A $1,898,000 

5001010 50.01.01 TRAIN CONTROL (ETCS L2), WAYSIDE PTN SYS, FO BACKB 1.0 RM $1,898,000 $1,898,000 

6003000 60.03 TRACTION POWER DISTRIBUTION: CATENARY AND THIRD RA 1.0 LS $1,842,900 $1,842,900 N/A $1,842,900 N/A $1,842,900 

6003010 60.03.01 TRACTION POWER DISTRIBUTION CATENARY 1.0 RM $1,842,900 $1,842,900 

 EARTHWORK & PREPARATION 

 RADE CROSSIN DBL TRACK INSTALLATION - 136# 

 STREET MODIFICATIONS 

 ATED CROSSIN SI NALS 
Right- f-Way Unit C sts, 2013 

Pr perty Type Land & Imp Unit 

Agricu tura > 20 ac $6,000 AC 

Rura Residentia < 20 ac $4.00 SF 

Residentia $35.00 SF 

Commercia Port and $130.00 SF 

Commercia (outside Port and) $35.00 SF 

Industria Port and Area $21.00 SF 

Industria (outside Port and) $13.00 SF 
This page left blank intentionally.
Appendix C 

At-Grade Railroad Crossing Locations 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
This page left blank intentionally.
1 

Oregon Passenger Rail – At-grade Crossing for Alternatives 

Crossing ID Operating 

Railroad Location Street Name Tracks Device Type AADT County

Functional 

Classification 

(Generalized)

Alternative

C-690.40 UP Albany Queen Ave 4 Active 16,000 Linn Arterial A1/A2a 

C-689.40 UP Albany 34th Av 1 Active 11,000 Linn Arterial A1 

C-692.04 UP Albany Salem Ave 1 Active 9,000 Linn Arterial A1/A2a 

C-692.30 UP Albany Davidson St 1 Active 1,500 Linn Local A1/A2a 

C-691.60 UP Albany Santiam Rd 1 Active 9,000 Linn Arterial A1/A2a 

C-691.50 UP Albany Main St 1 Active 2,700 Linn Collector A1/A2a 

C-691.96 UP Albany Geary St 1 Active 2,400 Linn Arterial A1/A2a 

C-691.40 UP Albany Madison St 2 Active 1,500 Linn Local A1/A2a 

C-692.10-E UP Albany Burkhart St Ped Xing 1 Passive N/A Linn Local A1/A2a 

C-691.70-E UP Albany Pine St Ped Xing 1 Passive N/A Linn Local A1/A2a 

CLA-690.10 AERC Albany 34th Ave 1 Active 11,000 Linn Arterial A2a 

CLA-690.40 AERC Albany Marion St 1 Active 1,700 Linn Collector A2a 

CLA-691.40-E AERC Albany Columbus St Ped Xing 1 Passive N/A Linn Local A2a 

CLA-691.55 AERC Albany Waverly Dr 1 Active 8,500 Linn Arterial A2a 

C-668.30 UP Alford Powerline Rd S 218 1 Active 350 Linn Collector A1 

C-668.90 UP Alford Cartney Dr224(Bond Butte) 1 Active 149 Linn Local A1 

C-667.50 UP Alford Substation Dr 227 2 Active 84 Linn Local A1 

C-743.20 UP Aurora Ehlen Road (Main Street) 1 Active 8,800 Marion Arterial A1 

C-745.20 UP Barlow Barlow Rd 41025 1 Active 6,950 Clackamas Arterial A1 

3E-51.40 PNWR Broadacres Butteville-Gervais Rd 65 1 Active 2,700 Marion Collector A2 

3E-51.90 PNWR Broadacres Broadacres Rd 417 1 Passive 620 Marion Local A2 

3E-52.40 PNWR Broadacres Hunt Ln Ne 3051 1 Passive 50 Marion Local A2 

C-726.90 UP Brooks Brooklake Rd 609 2 Active 8,600 Marion Arterial A1 

C-725.80 UP Brooks Quinaby Rd 613 1 Active 1,400 Marion Collector A1 

C-728.90 UP Brooks Waconda Rd 602 1 Active 1,140 Marion Collector A1 

C-727.60 UP Brooks Tacoma St NE 608 1 Active 250 Marion Local A1 

C-746.90 UP Canby Ivy St 2 Active 8,902 Clackamas Arterial A1 

C-746.60 UP Canby Elm St 2 Active 5,482 Clackamas Collector A1 

C-746.80 UP Canby N Grant Street 2 Active 4,400 Clackamas Collector A1 

C-747.50 UP Canby NE Fourth Ave (N Fair St) 2 Active 3,286 Clackamas Collector A1 

C-748.70 UP Canby Territorial Rd 31010 1 Active 3,250 Clackamas Local A1 

C-747.90 UP Canby N Redwood St 31017 1 Active 430 Clackamas Collector A1 

C-760.80 UP Clackamas Lawnfield Rd 22004 3 Active 10,250 Clackamas Collector A1/A2 

3E-46.00 PNWR Curtis Arndt Rd 11 1 Active 2,420 Marion Collector A2 

3E-44.70 PNWR Curtis Denbrook Rd(Ehland)(Yergen) 1 Passive 50 Clackamas Local A2 
2 

Crossing ID Operating 

Railroad Location Street Name Tracks Device Type AADT County

Functional 

Classification 

(Generalized)

Alternative

3E-48.40 PNWR Donald Ehlen Rd 96 1 Active 7,580 Marion Arterial A2 

3E-49.10 PNWR Donald Donald Rd 10 (Main St) 2 Active 1,300 Marion Collector A2 

3E-50.90 PNWR Donald Wiseacre Ln 437 1 Passive 440 Marion Local A2 

3E-50.00 PNWR Donald Fellers Rd 433 1 Passive 390 Marion Local A2 

3E-50.40 PNWR Donald Miller Rd 3057 1 Passive 20 Marion Local A2 

C-648.20 UP Eugene Van Buren St 2 Active 9,700 Lane Collector A1 

C-647.05 UP Eugene High St At E 5th 1 Active 4,800 Lane Collector A1 

C-647.68 UP Eugene Washington St 2 Active 4,100 Lane Collector A1 

C-647.61 UP Eugene Lawrence St 2 Active 3,300 Lane Local A1 

C-647.84 UP Eugene Madison St 2 Active 2,300 Lane Local A1 

C-647.92 UP Eugene Monroe St 2 Active 2,300 Lane Local A1 

C-647.76 UP Eugene Jefferson St 3 Active 1,950 Lane Collector A1 

C-647.50 UP Eugene Lincoln St 2 Active 550 Lane Local A1 

C-646.68 UP Eugene 8th Ave & Hillyard St 1 Active 99 Lane Arterial A1 

C-653.20 UP Eugene (Irving) Irvington Dr 3195 2 Active 3,500 Lane Collector A1 

3E-46.70 PNWR Fargo Bents Rd 425 1 Active 800 Marion Collector A2 

3E-47.00 PNWR Fargo Fargo Rd 426 1 Passive 500 Marion Local A2 

C-731.96 UP Gervais Douglas St Ne 1 Active 2,600 Marion Collector A1 

C-732.20 UP Gervais Ivy Ave 72 1 Active 2,200 Marion Collector A1 

C-730.00 UP Gervais Concomly Rd 526 1 Active 480 Marion Local A1 

C-731.00 UP Gervais Keene Rd 524 1 Active 440 Marion Local A1 

C-758.12 UP Gladstone Edgewater Rd At 82nd Drive 1 Active 268 Clackamas Local A1/A2 

C-687.90 UP Hallawell Ellingson Rd 350 2 Active 1,836 Linn Arterial A1 

C-687.10 UP Hallawell Beta Rd 351 1 Passive 10 Linn Local A1 

C-686.60 UP Hallawell Griffith Rd 352 1 Passive – upgrade 

planned 10 Linn Local A1 

C-674.10 UP Halsey OSH 228 1 Active 5,000 Linn Arterial A1 

C-672.10 UP Halsey Lake Crk-Brownsville Rd 23 1 Active 431 Linn Collector A1 

C-673.80 UP Halsey H St 2 Active 127 Linn Local A1 

C-671.10 UP Halsey Twin Butte W Dr 29 1 Passive – closure 

planned 70 Linn Local A1 

C-673.10 UP Halsey Seefeld Rd 504 2 Active 68 Linn Local A1 

C-676.10 UP Halsey Oak Plain Dr 212 1 Passive – upgrade 

planned 10 Linn Local A1 

C-664.70 UP Harrisburg La Salle St 1 Active 5,010 Linn Collector A1 

C-665.10 UP Harrisburg Territorial St 1 Active 3,666 Linn Arterial A1 

C-665.00 UP Harrisburg Smith St 1 Active 1,230 Linn Local A1 

C-740.60 UP Hito Grim Rd 441 1 Active 1,600 Marion Collector A1 

3E-63.10 PNWR Hopmere Brooklake Rd NE 609 1 Active 7,610 Marion Arterial A2 

C-738.90 UP Hubbard D St 1 Active 3,816 Marion Collector A1 

C-738.70 UP Hubbard G St 1 Active 3,003 Marion Collector A1 

C-739.00 UP Hubbard A Street 1 Active 1,460 Marion Collector A1 
3 

Crossing ID Operating 

Railroad Location Street Name Tracks Device Type AADT County

Functional 

Classification 

(Generalized)

Alternative

C-652.20 UP Irving Irving Rd 3268 2 Active 5,400 Lane Arterial A1 

C-654.00 UP Irving Awbrey Ln E 3440 1 Active 1,050 Lane Collector A1 

C-655.70 UP Irving Meadow View Rd E 3446 1 Active 380 Lane Collector A1 

C-699.10 UP Jefferson Main St 1 Active 4,300 Marion Collector A1 

C-699.40 UP Jefferson Hazel St 1 Active 1,670 Marion Collector A1 

C-697.90 UP Jefferson Cnty Rd 33 (Scravel Hill Road) 1 Active 408 Linn Collector A1 

C-699.80 UP Jefferson N Cemetery Hill Rd (North Av) 1 Active 300 Marion Collector A1 

C-699.30-E UP Jefferson Third St Ped Xing 1 Passive N/A Marion Local A1 

C-660.30 UP Junction City First Ave E 3100 2 Active 4,400 Lane Arterial A1 

C-658.63 UP Junction City Prairie Rd 3470 1 Active 3,450 Lane Collector A1 

C-660.60 UP Junction City 6th St (Main) 1 Active 2,650 Lane Collector A1 

C-660.90 UP Junction City 10th Ave W 1 Active 950 Lane Collector A1 

C-660.50 UP Junction City 4th Ave W 2 Active 250 Lane Local A1 

C-661.30 UP Junction City 18th Ave E 3475 1 Active 220 Lane Collector A1 

3E-66.25 PNWR Keizer Chemawa Rd 1 Active 13,793 Marion Arterial A2 

C-725.30 UP Lake Labish Perkins St NE 615 1 Active 520 Marion Local A1 

C-706.00 UP Marion Duck Flat Rd 929 1 Passive 614 Marion Local A1 

C-704.12 UP Marion Marion Hill Road 1 Active 99 Marion Local A1 

C-702.20 UP Marion Libby Lane 933 1 Passive 90 Marion Local A1 

C-762.40 UP Milwaukie SE Harmony Rd At Linnwood 1 Active 15,500 Clackamas Arterial A1/A2 

C-764.30 UP Milwaukie Harrison St 1 Active 10,500 Clackamas Arterial A1/A2 

C-764.10 UP Milwaukie Oak St 1 Active 9,500 Clackamas Collector A1/A2 

C-763.90 UP Milwaukie 37th Ave 1 Active 6,800 Clackamas Collector A1/A2 

C-755.70 UP Oregon City 10th St 1 Active 12,300 Clackamas Arterial A1 

C-755.79-E UP Oregon City 11th St Ped Xing 1 Passive N/A Clackamas Local A1 

C-757.30 UP Park Place Forsythe Rd (First St) 1 Active 375 Clackamas Local A1/A2 

2A-0.30 UP Portland NW Front Ave 2 Active 12,130 Multnomah Arterial A1/A2 

C-768.50 UP Portland SE 11th Ave 2 Active 10,040 Multnomah Arterial A1/A2 

C-768.43 UP Portland SE 12th Ave 2 Active 9,340 Multnomah Arterial A1/A2 

C-769.24 UP Portland SE Clay St 2 Active 5,630 Multnomah Collector A1 

C-768.68 UP Portland SE 8th Ave 4 Active 4,500 Multnomah Collector A1/A2 

C-769.73 UP Portland SE Washington 2 Active 4,470 Multnomah Local A1 

C-769.78 UP Portland SE Stark 2 Active 4,350 Multnomah Collector A1 

C-769.58 UP Portland SE Belmont 2 Active 3,740 Multnomah Local A1 

5D-0.60 PTO Portland NW 15th Near NW Front Ave 2 Active 3,500 Multnomah Local A1/A2 

C-769.48 UP Portland SE Taylor 2 Active 2,900 Multnomah Collector A1 

C-769.53 UP Portland SE Yamhill 2 Active 2,600 Multnomah Collector A1 

7A-0.29 PTO Portland NW 9th Av 2 Active 2,398 Multnomah Collector A1/A2 

5D-1.20 BNSF Portland NW 21st Av 2 Active 2,345 Multnomah Collector A1/A2 

5D-1.29 BNSF Portland NW Nicolai St 3 Active 2,130 Multnomah Collector A1/A2 

C-769.68 UP Portland SE Alder 2 Active 1,500 Multnomah Local A1 
4 

Crossing ID Operating 

Railroad Location Street Name Tracks Device Type AADT County

Functional 

Classification 

(Generalized)

Alternative

C-769.63 UP Portland SE Morrison 2 Active 1,400 Multnomah Local A1 

C-769.29 UP Portland SE Hawthorne 2 Active 1,300 Multnomah Local A1 

C-769.33 UP Portland SE Madison 2 Active 1,300 Multnomah Local A1 

C-769.38 UP Portland SE Main 2 Active 1,140 Multnomah Local A1 

5D-0.80 BNSF Portland NW 17th 2 Active 1,007 Multnomah Local A1/A2 

C-769.43 UP Portland SE Salmon St 2 Active 500 Multnomah Local A1 

2A-0.32-E UP Portland Willamette Greenway Path 2 Active N/A Multnomah Arterial A1/A2 

3E-64.20 PNWR Quinaby Quinaby Rd 613 1 Active 1,280 Marion Collector A2 

3E-64.70 PNWR Quinaby Perkins St 615 1 Passive 620 Marion Collector A2 

C-716.20 UP Salem Madrona Ave Se 1 Active 18,849 Marion Arterial A1 

C-719.40 UP Salem Market St 1 Active 17,990 Marion Arterial A1 

C-720.30 UP Salem Silverton Rd 1 Active 16,710 Marion Arterial A1 

C-721.79 UP Salem Hyacinth St 3 Active 15,540 Marion Arterial A1 

C-718.76 UP Salem Center St 1 Active 13,555 Marion Arterial A1 

C-717.10 UP Salem McGilchrist Street 2 Active 11,327 Marion Arterial A1 

C-718.52 UP Salem State St 1 Active 10,550 Marion Arterial A1 

C-718.60 UP Salem Court St 1 Active 9,350 Marion Arterial A1 

C-718.83 UP Salem Marion St 1 Active 9,185 Marion Arterial A1 

C-719.20 UP Salem D St 1 Active 7,270 Marion Arterial A1 

C-717.80 UP Salem Hines St Se 2 Active 5,110 Marion Collector A1 

C-720.00 UP Salem Sunnyview Rd (Tile) 1 Active 4,160 Marion Arterial A1 

C-718.30 UP Salem Mill St SE 1 Active 3,320 Marion Collector A1 

C-718.67 UP Salem Chemeketa 1 Active 2,900 Marion Collector A1 

C-720.10 UP Salem Woodrow St 2 Active 2,350 Marion Local A1 

C-722.70 UP Salem Blossom Drive NE 1 Active 2,320 Marion Collector A1 

C-719.80 UP Salem Madison St 1 Active 2,250 Marion Collector A1 

3E-66.80 PNWR Salem Keizer Rd At Ridge Rd Ne 1 Passive 261 Marion Local A2 

C-676.60 UP Shedd Linn-West Rd 26 1 Active 896 Linn Collector A1 

C-679.10 UP Shedd Boston Mill Dr (Mr 13) 2 Active 402 Linn Collector A1 

C-681.20 UP Shedd Bell Plain Dr 419 1 Active 100 Linn Local A1 

C-677.60 UP Shedd Pugh Dairy Dr (421) 1 Passive – upgrade 

planned 50 Linn Local A1 

C-680.90 UP Shedd Sprenger Rd 433 1 Passive 50 Linn Local A1 

C-679.00 UP Shedd C St (Public Rd) 3 Passive – closure 

planned 43 Linn Local A1 

CF-620.70 UP Springfield 2nd St 2 Active 2,307 Lane Collector A2 

CF-620.50 UP Springfield 5th St 1 Active 1,732 Lane Collector A2 

CF-621.40 UP Springfield Jct 19th Ave E 2 Active 950 Lane Collector A2 

3E-57.40 PNWR St. Louis St Louis Rd 7 1 Active 1,180 Marion Collector A2 

3E-58.40 PNWR St. Louis Keene Rd 524 1 Passive 390 Marion Local A2 

C-657.30 UP Swain Milliron Rd E 3450 1 Active 500 Lane Local A1 
5 

Crossing ID Operating 

Railroad Location Street Name Tracks Device Type AADT County

Functional 

Classification 

(Generalized)

Alternative

C-684.80 UP Tangent Tangent Dr Mr 22 1 Active 1,079 Linn Collector A1 

C-684.60 UP Tangent Bird Foot Dr 401("B" St) 1 Active 835 Linn Collector A1 

C-685.90 UP Tangent Old Hwy 34 (Frontage Rd) 1 Active 400 Linn Collector A1 

C-683.20 UP Tangent Driver Rd 418 1 Active 114 Linn Local A1 

C-711.00 UP Turner Delaney Rd Se 1 Active 2,800 Marion Arterial A1 

C-710.70 UP Turner Chicago St ("C" St) 1 Active 1,018 Marion Collector A1 

C-706.90 UP Turner Hunsaker Rd SE 940 1 Active 520 Marion Local A1 

C-709.40 UP Turner Hennies Rd SE 927a 1 Active 400 Marion Local A1 

3E-54.60 PNWR W Woodburn Hillsb-Silverton Hwy 219 2 Active 4,300 Marion Arterial A2 

3E-53.60 PNWR W Woodburn Crosby Rd 505 1 Active 1,080 Marion Local A2 

3E-53.00 PNWR W Woodburn Sleepy Hollow Rd 419 1 Passive 410 Marion Local A2 

3E-55.90 PNWR W Woodburn Lebrun Rd 518 1 Passive 200 Marion Local A2 

3E-61.30 PNWR Waconda Waconda Rd 602 1 Passive 880 Marion Collector A2 

3E-59.50 PNWR Waconda Concomly Rd 526 1 Passive 360 Marion Local A2 

3E-42.60 PNWR Wilsonville Wilsonville Road 1 Active 19,000 Clackamas Arterial A2 

3E-42.10 PNWR Wilsonville Barber St 1 Active 6,400 Clackamas Collector A2 

3E-43.00 PNWR Wilsonville 5th St (Nutting Rd) 1 Passive 100 Clackamas Local A2 

C-735.50 UP Woodburn Hardcastle Street 1 Active 4,100 Marion Collector A1 

C-735.29 UP Woodburn Lincoln St 2 Active 3,670 Marion Collector A1 

C-735.16 UP Woodburn Young St 3 Active 3,638 Marion Arterial A1 

C-735.05 UP Woodburn Cleveland St 2 Active 3,271 Marion Collector A1 

C-734.50 UP Woodburn Boones Fy Rd 38 & Front St 1 Active 2,779 Marion Arterial A1 

Shaded rows indicate passive crossings. Three crossings (shaded orange) are planned for upgrades by ODOT and included in the No Action Alternative. Two crossings, shaded in peach, are planned for closure by ODOT and 

included in the No Action Alternative. 
This page left blank intentionally.
Appendix D 

Map Book 

Oregon Passenger Rail Project Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
This page left blank intentionally.
26

84

99E

5

99E

99W

5

217

W A SHI N G T O N

26

405

5

Columbia River

WillameƩe River

Vancouver

WASHINGTON

MULTNOMAH

Portland

Beaverton

Alternative 2

Cut-and-Cover Tunnel

Willamette River Water Trail

Multi-Use Trail

Trails

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternatives 1 and 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

Pedestrian Bridge

Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

State Line

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Highway

Arterial

Collector

Roadway Classification

Agriculture

Commercial/Retail

Industrial

Mixed use

Public

Residential

Exclusive Farm Use

Forested

Land Use Designations

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Transportation/Land Use

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-1

(Map 1 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 Eligible

5 Listed 7 Eligible

3 Eligible

21 Eligible

WillameƩe River

Oregon City

Milwaukie

MULTNOMAH

CLACKAMAS

West Linn

Canemah

Historic District

99E

224

99E

212

26

205

205

5

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Special Lands and Historic Resources

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-2

(Map 2 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles

Parks & Open Space

Parks

Historic District

Contributing to a Historic District

NHRP Listed

NHRP Eligible

Historic Resources

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternatives 1 and 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification
Aurora Colony

Historic District

Canemah

Historic

District

21 Eligible

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Parks & Open Space

Parks

Historic District

Contributing to a Historic District

NHRP Listed

NHRP Eligible

Historic Resources

Willam eƩe River

Molalla River

Canby

Pudding

River

TualaƟn River

Wilsonville

Tualatin

Barlow

Aurora

Oregon

City

West Linn

Canby

Wilsonville

Tualatin

Barlow

Aurora

Oregon

City

West Linn

99E

5 551

5

CLACKAMAS

MARION

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Special Lands and Historic Resources

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-2

(Map 3 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles
 
5

22

5

22

99E

213

W il al meƩe

River

POLK

MARION

Keizer

Salem

Parks & Open Space

Parks

Historic District

Contributing to a Historic District

NHRP Listed

NHRP Eligible

Historic Resources

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Special Lands and Historic Resources

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-2

(Map 5 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles
5

5

MARION

LINN

LINN

POLK

Salem

Jeferson

Turner

Millersburg

22

164

N. S anƟam

River

SanƟa m River

P O L K

Parks & Open Space

Parks

Historic District

Contributing to a Historic District

NHRP Listed

NHRP Eligible

Historic Resources

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Special Lands and Historic Resources

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-2

(Map 6 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles
Albany

Millersburg

Tangent

20

20

5

5

99E

34

Calap

oo ai R vi er WillameƩe

River

BENTON

LINN

Hackleman

Historic

District

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Special Lands and Historic Resources

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-2

(Map 7 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles

Parks & Open Space

Parks

Historic District

Contributing to a Historic District

NHRP Listed

NHRP Eligible

Historic Resources

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 2-Central Albany 

Option

Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 2-Central Albany

Option

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification
LINN

99E

228

5

5

Calapoo ia River

WillameƩe

R vi

er

Parks & Open Space

Parks

Historic District

Contributing to a Historic District

NHRP Listed

NHRP Eligible

Historic Resources

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Special Lands and Historic Resources

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-2

(Map 8 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles

Tangent

Halsey

Brownsville
LINN

Harrisburg

Junction

City

LANE

5

5

99E

99E

WillameƩe

R

vi er

Parks & Open Space

Parks

Historic District

Contributing to a Historic District

NHRP Listed

NHRP Eligible

Historic Resources

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Special Lands and Historic Resources

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-2

(Map 9 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles
4 Eligible

4 Eligible

Eugene Springfeld

Coburg

5

5

105

569

126

99

99

126

Wil al meƩe

R iver

McKenzi e River

LANE

Parks & Open Space

Parks

Historic District

Contributing to a Historic District

NHRP Listed

NHRP Eligible

Historic Resources

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Special Lands and Historic Resources

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-2

(Map 10 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives
26

84

99E

5

99E

99W

5

217

W A SHI N G T O N

26

405

5

Columbia River

WillameƩe River

Vancouver

Portland

Beaverton

Alternative 2

Cut-and-Cover Tunnel

MULTNOMAH

WASHINGTON

26

Environmental Justice

High Concentration of Minority

High Concentration of

Households below Poverty

High Concentration of

Minority and Households

below Poverty

Ozone Maintenance Area

CO Maintenance Area

Air Quality

Social Resources

Place of Worship

School

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternatives 1 and 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

State Line

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Built Environment/Social

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-3

(Map 1 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles
2

MULTNOMAH

W

CLACKAMAS illameƩe River

Oregon City

Milwaukie

West Linn

99E

224

99E

212

26

205

205

5

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Built Environment/Social

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-3

(Map 2 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternatives 1 and 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Ozone Maintenance Area

CO Maintenance Area

Air Quality

Social Resources

Cemetery

Community Center

Law Enforcement

Museum

Place of Worship

School

Environmental Justice

High Concentration of Minority

High Concentration of

Households below Poverty

High Concentration of

Minority and Households

below Poverty
Environmental Justice

High Concentration of Minority

High Concentration of

Households below Poverty

High Concentration of

Minority and Households

below Poverty

Ozone Maintenance Area

CO Maintenance Area

Air Quality

Social Resources

Cemetery

Law Enforcement

Museum

Place of Worship

School

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Willam eƩe River

Molalla River

Canby

Pudding

River

TualaƟn River

Wilsonville

Tualatin

Barlow

Aurora

Oregon

City

West Linn

Canby

Wilsonville

Tualatin

Barlow

Aurora

Oregon

City

West Linn

99E

5 551

5

CLACKAMAS

MARION

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Built Environment/Social

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-3

(Map 3 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles
 
5

22

5

22

99E

213

W il al meƩe

River

POLK

MARION

Salem

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Environmental Justice

High Concentration of Minority

High Concentration of

Households below Poverty

High Concentration of

Minority and Households

below Poverty

Social Resources

Cemetery

Library

Museum

Place of Worship

School

Ozone Maintenance Area

CO Maintenance Area

Air Quality

Keizer

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Built Environment/Social

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-3

(Map 5 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles
5

5

MARION

LINN LINN

POLK

Salem

Jeferson

Turner

Millersburg

22

164

N. S anƟam

River

SanƟa m River

P O L K

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Environmental Justice

High Concentration of Minority

High Concentration of

Households below Poverty

High Concentration of

Minority and Households

below Poverty

Social Resources

Fire Department

Ozone Maintenance Area

CO Maintenance Area

Air Quality

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Built Environment/Social

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-3

(Map 6 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles
Albany

Millersburg

Tangent

20

20

5

5

99E

34

Calap

oo ai R vi er WillameƩe

River

BENTON

LINN

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Built Environment/Social

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-3

(Map 7 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles

Environmental Justice

High Concentration of Minority

High Concentration of

Households below Poverty

High Concentration of

Minority and Households

below Poverty

Social Resources

Cemetery

Fire Department

Place of Worship

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 2-Central Albany 

Option

Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 2-Central Albany

Option

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification
LINN

99E

228

5

5

Calapoo ia River

WillameƩe

R vi

er

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Built Environment/Social

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-3

(Map 8 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles

Tangent

Halsey

Brownsville

Environmental Justice

High Concentration of Minority

High Concentration of

Households below Poverty

High Concentration of

Minority and Households

below Poverty

Social Resources

None

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification
LINN

Harrisburg

Junction

City

LANE

5

5

99E

99E

WillameƩe

R

vi er

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Environmental Justice

High Concentration of Minority

High Concentration of

Households below Poverty

High Concentration of

Minority and Households

below Poverty

Social Resources

Cemetery

Fire Department

Museum

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Built Environment/Social

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-3

(Map 9 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles
Eugene Springfeld

Coburg

5

5

105

569

126

99

99

126

Wil al meƩe

R iver

McKenzi e River

LANE

PM 10 Maintenance Area

CO Maintenance Area

Air Quality

Environmental Justice

High Concentration of Minority

High Concentration of

Households below Poverty

High Concentration of

Minority and Households

below Poverty

Social Resources

Cemetery

Law Enforcement

Place of Worship

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Areas of Improvement

Existing Train Station

Potential Train Station

Existing Track

LEGEND

E

P

E

City Limits

Urban Growth Boundary

County Boundary

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Interstate

Major Road

Minor Road

Roadway Classification

Tier 1 DEIS Alternatives

Built Environment/Social

Alternatives 1 and 2

Figure D-3

(Map 10 of 10)

0 123

NORTH Miles