Public Outreach Summary January 31, 2013 Open House Events Six - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Public Outreach Summary

January 31, 2013

Open House Events

• Six open house events in January: Albany,

Oregon City, Portland, Salem, Springfield, Tualatin

• Total of 330 attendees at the events
• 160 comment forms were submitted
• 231 participants in the Goals

Prioritization activity

Open House Events

Online Participation:

• 1,200 unique visitors to the open house
• 145 map comments
• 187 online comment forms have been

submitted

• 103 goal exercise entries

Milwaukie Briefing:

• 58 people attended a community briefing in

Milwaukie

Goals & Objectives: public input

• Most comments supported or stressed importance of

certain goals.

• Few or no comments made to add or significantly

alter any of the goals.

• Mix of support for a long-term high speed vision vs.

making incremental improvements to the current system now.

• Reliability and frequency of service are most

important, with better coordinated travel times to meet traveler needs.

Goals & Objectives: public input

Continued…

• Passenger rail must connect well to local transit in
• rder to be viable.
• Rail improvements should promote economic

development and protect existing investments.

• Some concern of burden on local taxpayers and

subsidized rail system.

• Passenger rail should serve the highest population

centers.

Goals Exercise Results

770 336 439 574 377 383 349

Goal 1 mobility & accessibility Goal 2 protect freight-rail Goal 3 cost- effectiveness Goal 4 affordability & equity Goal 5 compatibility with Washington Goal 6 community health & quality of life Goal 7 protect environment

Number of responses Goals

Objectives: public input

• Open house participants chose the seven
• bjectives they felt were most important.
• The most highly ranked include:

– 1B – Provide reliable and frequent passenger rail

• service. (74%)

– 1A – Provide a viable alternative to auto, air, and bus travel between Eugene, OR and Vancouver, WA. (73%) – 5A – Provide passenger rail service to meet the existing and future passenger rail demand for an interconnected system in the PNWRC. (65%)

Screening: public input

• 79% of participants said that they agree with the

preliminary results of the corridor concepts screening.

• Very few comments suggesting that any screened out

alternatives be reconsidered.

• Stations:

– Support for existing stations, serving downtown centers, and linking with local transit. – High support for new station in Corvallis, and some support for new station in Woodburn. High support to maintain Oregon City station.

Screening: public input

• Blue (existing UP) Alignment

– Most supported with very few negative comments. – Support for using existing resources.

• Red (I-5) Alignment

– Mix of positive and negative comments. – Comments that this would allow for true-high speed rail, and minimize community/environmental impacts. – Concern that this would be too expensive and disrupt vehicle traffic.

Screening: public input

• Purple (OE) Alignment

– Split support; about half support and half do not support OE line. – Concern about community impacts on Milwaukie, Tualatin and Lake Oswego. – More support for southern portion (Eugene to Albany

• r Salem).

– Support for using state-owned right of way.

• Yellow (west) Alignment

– Mostly positive support for the southern portion (Eugene to Corvallis/Albany).

Goals Exercise: Corridor Forum

29% 15% 13% 14% 12% 12% 7% 24% 10% 14% 18% 12% 12% 11% Goal 1 mobility & accessibility Goal 2 protect freight-rail Goal 3 cost- effectiveness Goal 4 affordability & equity Goal 5 compatibility with Washington Goal 6 community health & quality of life Goal 7 protect environment

Number of Responses Goals

Goals: Corridor Forum Input

• Discussion following exercise:

– Compared to public: Freight higher; Environment and Affordability lower. – Environment, low because regulations will be followed regardless; should it be higher? – Freight: rail owners will protect anyway; should it be lower? – Should the weighting reflect the difference the goal would make or the importance of that value overall?

Local Discussions: Corridor Forum Input

• Have local business and economic development

at the table

• Station locations all need local discussion
• Tap into existing groups
• Small cities need to see benefits if no station; at

least provide connectivity to rail

• Community Advisory Groups will be an important

education opportunity as well as input gathering

Eugene/Springfield, Lane County

• Eugene/Springfield CAG, sample issues:

– Station location(s) – Crossing the Willamette – Alignment to meet future ridership

• Work separately with small cities

– Safety

• Need info on value/impacts of going to

Corvallis

Local Discussions: Corridor Forum Input

Albany/Linn County

• One CAG for Albany/Corvallis?

– Station – Increased crossing challenges if it goes through Corvallis – Transit service to make connections

• Small city forum

– High speeds division of communities and impact on transportation system – Connection to stations

Local Discussions: Corridor Forum Input

Salem to Woodburn

• One CAG for Salem/Keizer, sample issues:

– How it goes through neighborhoods and by schools – Station location – Quiet zones

• Potential CAG for Woodburn area &/or City

Council

– Potential for future station – Crossings and/or elevated section

Local Discussions: Corridor Forum Input

Portland Metro area, sample issues:

• Clackamas County, address gap in participation

particularly regarding I205-based options

• Community groups already sensitive to rail
• Potential CAG: Hayden Island/West Hayden

Community, crossing the Columbia

• Getting through south Metro area to

Downtown (CAG? Existing groups?)

Local Discussions: Corridor Forum Input

Next Corridor Forum Meeting

Date: March 6th (Location TBD) Purpose: Corridor Forum will weight the

• bjectives to be used for the evaluation