Скачать презентацию Portland Planning Commission Briefing 1 July 10 2007 Скачать презентацию Portland Planning Commission Briefing 1 July 10 2007

68b8118ef7ba16fc8e087b9ad63e8595.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 60

Portland Planning Commission Briefing 1 July 10, 2007 Portland Planning Commission Briefing 1 July 10, 2007

Overview • Purpose and process • Physical description of alternatives • Evaluation of alternatives Overview • Purpose and process • Physical description of alternatives • Evaluation of alternatives • Funding strategies • Next steps 2

Purpose Transit: Develop a transit project that meets future travel demand supports local and Purpose Transit: Develop a transit project that meets future travel demand supports local and regional land use plans, which garners public acceptance and support Trail: Provide connection between the Willamette River Greenway trail at the north end of the corridor and the Lake Oswego Town Center 3

Policy Basis • Comprehensive Plan • Southwest Community Plan • Transportation System Plan – Policy Basis • Comprehensive Plan • Southwest Community Plan • Transportation System Plan – Willamette Shore Line Alternatives Analysis – Macadam/Highway 43 Corridor – Willamette River Greenway Plan • Region’s 2040 Growth Concept and Regional Transportation Plan 4

Process 5 Process 5

Timeline 6 Timeline 6

Willamette Shore Line (WSL) • Built by Portland Willamette River Railroad in 1880 s Willamette Shore Line (WSL) • Built by Portland Willamette River Railroad in 1880 s • Southern Pacific uses it for transit until 1920 s • Use for freight until 1983 • Southern Pacific petitions to abandon the line in 1984 • Consortium buys the line in 1988 for $2 million for potential future transit use • In the 1980 s the line was considered for light rail to Beaverton area • In the 1990 s the line is considered for light rail to Milwaukie 7

Decision Making Process 8 Decision Making Process 8

Public Involvement • Design Charrette - April 2006 • Design Open House - May Public Involvement • Design Charrette - April 2006 • Design Open House - May 2006 • Small group meetings - Sept-Oct 2006 • Meetings with property owners and neighborhoods - Oct-Nov 2006 • Bus Survey - January 2007 • Open Houses 9 • Project website June 2007

Travel Conditions • Bus #35 and #36 • Household growth of 58% between 2000 Travel Conditions • Bus #35 and #36 • Household growth of 58% between 2000 and 2025 • Congested corridor and daily vehicle miles traveled expected to increase by 30% and daily vehicle hours traveled by 75% • Travel times expected to increase by 20% for autos and 42% for transit by 2025 10 • Expansion of Hwy 43 and use of reversible lanes not feasible

Alternatives Evaluated 11 Alternatives Evaluated 11

Alternatives Selected for Further Evaluation • Streetcar options on Macadam and on the WSL Alternatives Selected for Further Evaluation • Streetcar options on Macadam and on the WSL • Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) • Trail 12

Streetcar in John’s Landing 13 Streetcar in John’s Landing 13

Evaluation 14 Evaluation 14

Travel Times and Ridership 15 Travel Times and Ridership 15

- 7 minutes - 18 minutes 16 Times above bars are difference from No-Build - 7 minutes - 18 minutes 16 Times above bars are difference from No-Build

- 9 minutes - 18 minutes 17 Times above bars are difference from No-Build - 9 minutes - 18 minutes 17 Times above bars are difference from No-Build

- 9 minutes - 17 minutes 18 Times above bars are difference from No-Build - 9 minutes - 17 minutes 18 Times above bars are difference from No-Build

19 19

Trail Use • Metro estimated that there is latent demand of about 4, 000 Trail Use • Metro estimated that there is latent demand of about 4, 000 daily users • Methodology used is not as reliable as for transit • Economic benefits of trail 20

Costs 21 Costs 21

22 22

23 23

Cost-Effectiveness Measures 24 Cost-Effectiveness Measures 24

FT A DR 25 FT A DR 25

FT A DR 26 FT A DR 26

FT A DR 27 FT A DR 27

(Re)Development Potential 28 (Re)Development Potential 28

(Re)Development Potential • Using analysis done for Streetcar Loop • Over 3 million sf (Re)Development Potential • Using analysis done for Streetcar Loop • Over 3 million sf of development • South Waterfront/John’s Landing (existing zoning): – Willamette Shoreline 1. 7 million sf – Macadam 2. 2 million sf 29

BRT: Advantages and Disadvantages 30 BRT: Advantages and Disadvantages 30

Streetcar: Advantages and Disadvantages 31 Streetcar: Advantages and Disadvantages 31

Trail: Advantages and Disadvantages 32 Trail: Advantages and Disadvantages 32

Funding Scenarios Note: Financial Plan is not yet complete – this is a simple Funding Scenarios Note: Financial Plan is not yet complete – this is a simple overview 33

Federal Funding Possibilities • Bus Rapid Transit – Small or Very Small Start – Federal Funding Possibilities • Bus Rapid Transit – Small or Very Small Start – Bus discretionary funding • Streetcar – Small Start – New Start • Trail not fundable through FTA 34

Financial Plan • Will inflate current to future dollars for year of expenditure costs Financial Plan • Will inflate current to future dollars for year of expenditure costs • Will evaluate specific revenue sources • Will have accurate WSL R-O-W costs 35

New Starts All values are in millions of 2007 dollars 36 DR FT A New Starts All values are in millions of 2007 dollars 36 DR FT A

Pending issues • Legal issues – Use of the Willamette Shore Line for trail Pending issues • Legal issues – Use of the Willamette Shore Line for trail use only. – Status of setback in John’s Landing Master Plan for light rail • ODOT has concerns about streetcar operating in Hwy 43 • Role of Macadam area 37 • Funding strategies

Next Steps • LOPAC to decide on Locally Preferred Alternative(s) (LPA) and phasing strategies Next Steps • LOPAC to decide on Locally Preferred Alternative(s) (LPA) and phasing strategies - July 10 • Finalize the funding plan - July • Continue public outreach - July • Steering Committee Hearing – Week of July 16 • Steering Committee LPA Recommendation – Week of July 30 • Local Jurisdiction Resolutions – August/September • Metro Council Decision – Late September 38

EXTRAS 39 EXTRAS 39

Travel Conditions 40 Travel Conditions 40

What We’ve Learned (So Far) 41 What We’ve Learned (So Far) 41

Highway 43 Expansion • ODOT analysis showed expansion not feasible • Reversible lane analyzed Highway 43 Expansion • ODOT analysis showed expansion not feasible • Reversible lane analyzed and found impractical • 2025 demand creates high levels of congestion • Reaffirmed need for transit to provide added corridor capacity 42

Bus Rapid Transit • Analyses to date have proven optimistic: – In 2025, some Bus Rapid Transit • Analyses to date have proven optimistic: – In 2025, some queue jump lanes would need to be 500 to 1, 000 feet long to achieve time savings – impractical – Ridership based on travel time savings that may not be achievable – Capital costs reflect modest queue jump lanes 43

Bus Rapid Transit • Development impact significantly less than Streetcar (approx. 3. 3 million Bus Rapid Transit • Development impact significantly less than Streetcar (approx. 3. 3 million square feet less in Corridor) • Public perception that BRT is winwin because it allows trail on WSL – Trail legal status is an uncertainty – Strong public support for trail • Ongoing operating cost over Streetcar is significant 44

Streetcar – General • Ridership, at 10, 900 similar to Interstate MAX today • Streetcar – General • Ridership, at 10, 900 similar to Interstate MAX today • Peak load experienced in South Waterfront • Single-track sections define capacity • Numerous options to increase capacity 45

Streetcar - General 46 • Adds 3. 3 million square feet of development and Streetcar - General 46 • Adds 3. 3 million square feet of development and redevelopment in the Corridor – very similar to Eastside estimates for Streetcar Loop • Incremental cost to extend line capitalizes on existing operating investment • Streetcar replaces a significant amount of bus service which helps net operating cost

Streetcar - General • Travel time compared to BRT and No-Build is significantly better Streetcar - General • Travel time compared to BRT and No-Build is significantly better • On-time reliability significantly better due to high percentage of exclusive guideway • Would result in travel time savings which has potential to positively influence FTA user benefit criteria 47

Streetcar on WSL in John’s Landing • Proximity impacts to condos • Constrained right-of-way Streetcar on WSL in John’s Landing • Proximity impacts to condos • Constrained right-of-way • Need to double-track to meet demand • Six minutes faster than Macadam Streetcar • More reliable than BRT or Macadam Streetcar 48

Streetcar on WSL in John’s Landing 49 • Cheaper than Macadam by $1. 7 Streetcar on WSL in John’s Landing 49 • Cheaper than Macadam by $1. 7 to $6. 8 million • Mitigation for condo impacts could be Masterplan alignment or variation – traffic access and parking mitigation are issues • In some areas, Streetcar and trail fit within existing R-O-W • Issue of how to fix existing Greenway trail

Streetcar on Macadam • Costs $1. 7 to $6. 8 million more than WSL Streetcar on Macadam • Costs $1. 7 to $6. 8 million more than WSL alignment • ODOT has issues with rails in Highway 43 • Macadam running adds 6 minutes of travel time compared to WSL • More development potential than WSL alignment 50

Streetcar on Macadam • Provides double-tracking which increases capacity over single-track on WSL alignment Streetcar on Macadam • Provides double-tracking which increases capacity over single-track on WSL alignment • Traffic conditions are OK during offpeak, but Streetcar would be caught up in peak delays like all traffic • Macadam operating speed in offpeak could be safety issue for traffic on rails • Opportunity cost to abandoning WSL R-O-W for trail 51

Streetcar on WSL in Dunthorpe • Streetcar with trail extremely difficult and costly • Streetcar on WSL in Dunthorpe • Streetcar with trail extremely difficult and costly • Streetcar alone can fit well with only minor r-o-w required • Crossing protection and access control will be issues • Proximity issues to residences • No single family areas included in redevelopment analysis – neighborhood character protected 52

Streetcar in Lake Oswego • Supports City’s plans for Foothills development to 2040 Town Streetcar in Lake Oswego • Supports City’s plans for Foothills development to 2040 Town Center densities • Lake Oswego track record for downtown redevelopment shows high probability of achieving development goals 53

Streetcar in Lake Oswego • Albertson’s and Safeway have best potential for development and Streetcar in Lake Oswego • Albertson’s and Safeway have best potential for development and redevelopment • All options serve Foothills • Safeway park and ride intercepts eastbound trips before they go through downtown 54

Streetcar in Lake Oswego • Traffic will be issue at park and ride lots Streetcar in Lake Oswego • Traffic will be issue at park and ride lots in all options due to highly congested road system – same as BRT • All options extendable to the south and/or west • Would improve total transit travel time from West Linn to Portland over No-Build 55

Trail • Some segments may be relatively simple, such as Powers Marine Park, and Trail • Some segments may be relatively simple, such as Powers Marine Park, and could advance independently • Connection through Elk Rock Tunnel and environs very costly, difficult • Big public constituency for trail as part of the project – price tag is not an obstacle 56

Trail 57 • Latent demand estimates for use exceed 4, 000 trips per day Trail 57 • Latent demand estimates for use exceed 4, 000 trips per day if entire trail is built. • May be some economic benefits of trail • Legal status is uncertain for trail alone or rail with trail • Strongly impacts costs of Streetcar design • Reality check needed given very high costs

What’s Left? • More synthesis of “story” that is being told by data • What’s Left? • More synthesis of “story” that is being told by data • Completion of Evaluation Report and summary Decision Document 58

Public Involvement Opportunities • Open houses • Public comment period • Public hearing before Public Involvement Opportunities • Open houses • Public comment period • Public hearing before the Steering Committee • Possible Online survey • Newsletter • Local jurisdiction adoptions 59

Schedule • • Lake Oswego City Council Briefing - June 5 Metro Council Worksession Schedule • • Lake Oswego City Council Briefing - June 5 Metro Council Worksession – June 19 Steering Committee – Evaluation Results – June 21 Open Houses – June 27 (US Bank in Lake Oswego. ) – June 28 – (DEA office at River. Place) • • • 60 LOPAC Recommendation – July 10 Steering Committee Hearing – Week of July 16 Steering Committee Recommendation – Week of July 30 Local Jurisdiction Resolutions – August/September Metro Council Decision – Late September