Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NOVEMBER 2014
The Southwest Corridor Plan is a package of transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian solutions that can help reduce congestion, improve circulation and enhance quality of life in this corridor. The Southwest Corridor Plan defines investments to help realize the local land use visions adopted by each community in the area. These visions include the City of Portland’s Barbur Concept Plan, the Tigard High Capacity Transit Land Use Plan, Linking Tualatin and the Sherwood Town Center Plan. A major component of the Southwest Corridor Plan is the analysis and evaluation of both Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit travel modes for several potential route alignments to link Central Portland, Southwest Portland, Tigard and Tualatin.
The Plan is being researched and developed by a group of partners consisting of the agencies involved in funding, constructing and operating the transportation investments chosen and the
Southwest Corridor Plan Key Issues: Tigard
Executive Summary, September 4, 2015
jurisdictions in the project area. A steering committee consisting of elected leaders and appointees from these partners is leading the planning process. Past decisions of the Southwest Corridor Steering Committee include:
• In 2013, the committee recommended a Shared Investment Strategy that prioritizes key investments in transit, roadways, active transportation, parks, trails and natural areas.
• In 2014, the committee recommended a narrowed set of high capacity transit design options being considered and directed staff to develop a Preferred Package of transportation investments to support community land use goals.
The project partners are working together to develop a Preferred Package by spring
What is a Southwest Corridor Key Issues memo?The Southwest Corridor project partners are taking a place-based approach to understanding the key issues as they relate to local concerns and community aspirations. The Tigard Key Issues memo is part of a series of memos and technical information on key places throughout the corridor that the public and steering committee can review before giving input and making recommendations on major project decisions.
The full Tigard Key Issues memo is available at www.swcorridorplan.org and includes an overview of the decision-making process, description of the proposed high capacity transit alignments to serve Tigard, summary of technical information and description of key issues for decision-makers and the public to consider. Appendices contain supplemental information including maps and project lists of Shared Investment Strategy roadway, bike and pedestrian projects being considered for the Tigard area, a discussion of general transit mode considerations and maps highlighting demographic factors in the study area.
A summary of stakeholder feedback and findings from additional technical analysis will be incorporated into a draft recommendation document that will be available prior to the December 2015 steering committee decision.
2016 that addresses the needs and aspirations of Southwest Corridor residents and businesses. The Preferred Package will include the following components:
• High Capacity Transit Preferred Alternatives: Preferred high capacity transit alignments to study further in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, including travel mode, alignments, terminus, and associated roadway, bicycle and pedestrian projects
• Corridor Connections: Potential funding source and timeframe for each of the roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian projects identified in the Shared Investment Strategy
• Land use and development strategy: Partnership agreements and other pre-development work to activate land use and place-making strategies identified in local land use visions.
Defining a Preferred PackageIn December 2015, the steering committee will make recommendations for public review on continued study of high capacity transit alignment options in Tigard and Tualatin, the preferred high capacity transit terminus, and whether bus rapid transit or light rail is the preferred high capacity transit travel mode.
Steering committee members and the public will have several months in early 2016 to discuss the draft Preferred Package resulting from these 2015 decisions. The final Preferred Package is anticipated to be adopted in spring 2016. Comprehensive environmental review of the Preferred Package would likely begin in 2017; design and construction of the high capacity transit line could begin as early as 2021.
October 2015: Major decisions for Tigard
• Will a high capacity transit tunnel to serve PCC Sylvania continue to be studied, which could include a tunnel exit portal in the Tigard Triangle?
December 2015: Major decisions for Tigard
• Which high capacity transit alignment options in downtown Tigard should be advanced for further study?
• Is bus rapid transit or light rail the preferred mode to be studied in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement?
• What is the timeframe for designing and implementing local transit service improvements to enhance connections to and through downtown Tigard to link to the high capacity transit project?
• What is the best implementation approach for roadway, bike and pedestrian projects that are not included as part of the high capacity transit project but are defined in the Shared Investment Strategy for Tigard?
Tigard findingsDeliberation and decision-making will be driven by how well each element of the proposed project meets the Southwest Corridor Plan’s overarching goals, including improved mobility and safety for all users and modes of transportation, efficient and reliable transportation choices, wise use of public resources, improved access to key places and equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens of
transportation and land use development.
Information in the Tigard Key Issues memo highlights data collected through technical analysis, community knowledge and discussions with partners that will influence this decision, including:
• transit performance ridership, travel time, reliability
• community development station access, redevelopment opportunities
• mobility connectivity, freight movement, safety, traffic, bike and pedestrian access
• cost: initial capital cost estimates
• engineering complexity and risk construction impacts, engineering risks
• community impacts distribution of benefits and burdens, property impacts.
A full copy of the Tigard Key Issues memo and appendices is available at www.swcorridorplan.org.
Steering Committee decisions
www.swcorridorplan.org
@SWCorridor
503-797-1756
CONNECT
The downtown Tigard and Tigard Triangle areas include five high capacity transit options under consideration. Four options for the downtown Tigard area would include a couplet on 68th or 70th Aves. through the Tigard Triangle area and new crossings over OR-217 from Beveland St.
• Downtown Loop runs along Wall St. and in a one-way loop on streets through downtown Tigard
• Commercial Loop runs along Wall St. and in a one-way loop through downtown on a new street extending from and parallel to WES tracks
• Ash Avenue connects to Ash Ave., then runs southeast parallel to WES tracks
• Branch Service runs along Wall St., then alternating transit vehicles would continue parallel to WES tracks either north to downtown Tigard or south to Tualatin
Additionally there is one downtown Tigard option that bypasses the southern part of the Tigard Triangle.
• Clinton Crossing runs on a transit-only structure over OR-217 from Clinton St. in the Triangle to a new street downtown, then turns southeast to parallel the WES tracks
Tiga
rd K
ey Is
sues
– S
epte
mbe
r 4, 2
015
page
8
Dow
ntow
n Ti
gard
sum
mar
y Th
e fo
llow
ing
tabl
e su
mm
arize
s eva
luat
ion
fact
ors,
key
con
sider
atio
ns, a
nd a
naly
sis re
sults
for t
he d
ownt
own
Tiga
rd a
rea.
Key
cons
ider
atio
ns
Eval
uatio
n fa
ctor
s DO
WN
TOW
N LO
OP
COM
MER
CIAL
LOO
P CL
INTO
N C
ROSS
ING
ASH
AVE
NU
E BR
ANCH
SER
VICE
Tran
sit P
erfo
rman
ce
Wha
t are
the
trad
eoffs
to c
onsi
der
betw
een
tran
sit p
erfo
rman
ce o
f the
do
wnt
own
Tiga
rd a
lignm
ents
and
oth
er
fact
ors
such
as c
ost,
trav
el ti
me,
pro
pert
y im
pact
s, a
uto
acce
ss im
pact
s and
co
nnec
tivity
?
2035
new
tran
sit
trip
s
−14
,500
(LRT
) −
7,80
0* (B
RT)
−14
,500
* (L
RT)
−7,
800*
(BRT
) −
15,6
00 (L
RT)
−8,
400*
(BRT
) −
15,7
00 (L
RT)
−8,
400
(BRT
) −
16,7
00 (L
RT)
−9,
000*
(BRT
)
2035
line
ride
rs
−
41,8
00 (L
RT)
−29
,600
* (B
RT)
−41
,800
(LRT
) −
29,6
00*
(BRT
) −
43,6
00 (L
RT)
−30
,900
* (B
RT)
−43
,500
(LRT
) −
30,8
00 (B
RT)
−44
,400
(LRT
) −
31,4
00*
(BRT
)
Trav
el ti
me
in
min
utes
(fro
m P
SU)
LRT:
−
24 to
Tig
ard
−34
to T
uala
tin
BRT:
−
TBD
−
TBD
LRT:
−
24 to
Tig
ard
−34
to T
uala
tin
BRT:
−
TBD
−
TBD
LRT:
−
21 to
Tig
ard
−30
to T
uala
tin
BRT:
−
TBD
−
TBD
LRT:
−
22 to
Tig
ard
−31
to T
uala
tin
BRT:
−
25 to
Tig
ard
−34
to T
uala
tin
LRT:
−
24 to
Tig
ard
−30
to T
uala
tin
BRT:
−
TBD
−
TBD
Com
mun
ity D
evel
opm
ent
Do
any
of th
e al
ignm
ent c
hoic
es o
ffer
sign
ifica
ntly
diff
eren
t red
evel
opm
ent
oppo
rtun
ities
?
Are
loca
l pla
ns su
ppor
tive
of a
n H
CT
inve
stm
ent?
Acce
ss
−2
stat
ions
in
Tiga
rd T
riang
le
−1
or 2
sta
tions
w
est o
f OR-
217
−2
stat
ions
in
Tiga
rd T
riang
le
−1
or 2
sta
tions
w
est o
f OR-
217
−O
nly
1 st
atio
n in
Ti
gard
Tria
ngle
(n
orth
) −
1 st
atio
n w
est o
f O
R-21
7
−2
stat
ions
in T
igar
d Tr
iang
le
−1
or 2
sta
tions
w
est o
f OR-
217
−2
stat
ions
in
Tiga
rd T
riang
le
−2
stat
ions
wes
t of
OR-
217
Dow
ntow
n ac
cess
com
para
ble
acro
ss a
lignm
ent c
hoic
es. A
ll op
tions
acc
ess
the
Tiga
rd T
C an
d W
ES.
Rede
velo
pmen
t po
tent
ial
Leas
t red
evel
opm
ent
pote
ntia
l for
the
Tiga
rd
Tria
ngle
D
ownt
own
rede
velo
pmen
t pot
entia
l sim
ilar a
cros
s al
l alig
nmen
ts
Tiga
rd K
ey Is
sues
– S
epte
mbe
r 4, 2
015
page
9
Key
cons
ider
atio
ns
Eval
uatio
n fa
ctor
s DO
WN
TOW
N LO
OP
COM
MER
CIAL
LOO
P CL
INTO
N C
ROSS
ING
ASH
AVE
NU
E BR
ANCH
SER
VICE
Mob
ility
Ca
n hi
gh c
apac
ity tr
ansi
t be
desig
ned
to
min
imiz
e ne
gativ
e im
pact
s to
aut
o,
frei
ght,
bicy
cle
and
pede
stria
n m
obili
ty
and
acce
ss?
Do
the
alig
nmen
ts th
at in
clud
ing
a ro
adw
ay c
ross
ing
of O
R-21
7 pr
ovid
e a
traf
fic b
enef
it?
Do
the
alig
nmen
t opt
ions
resu
lt in
no
tew
orth
y di
ffere
nces
for p
edes
tria
ns,
bicy
clis
ts, f
reig
ht, o
r saf
ety?
Acce
ssib
ility
Tr
ansi
t brid
ge o
ver
OR-
217
coul
d ac
com
mod
ate
all
mod
es.
Busi
ness
acc
ess
impa
cts
alon
g Co
mm
erci
al, H
all,
and
Scof
fins.
Tran
sit b
ridge
ove
r O
R-21
7 co
uld
acco
mm
odat
e al
l m
odes
. Bu
sine
ss a
cces
s im
pact
s al
ong
Com
mer
cial
, Hal
l, an
d Sc
offin
s.
Tran
sit b
ridge
ove
r O
R-21
7 co
uld
acco
mm
odat
e bi
kes
and
pede
stria
ns, b
ut
not a
utos
. W
ould
not
alte
r lan
es
on 6
8th A
ve. W
ould
no
t dev
elop
70th
Ave
.
Tran
sit b
ridge
ove
r O
R-21
7 co
uld
acco
mm
odat
e bi
kes
and
pede
stria
ns, b
ut
not a
utos
.
Tran
sit b
ridge
ove
r O
R-21
7 co
uld
acco
mm
odat
e al
l m
odes
.
Mod
e co
nsid
erat
ions
In
one
-way
loop
th
roug
h do
wnt
own
Tiga
rd:
-U
p to
52
BRT
vehi
cles
per
hou
r in
the
peak
* -
Up
to 2
0 LR
T ve
hicl
es p
er h
our
in th
e pe
ak
In o
ne-w
ay lo
op
alon
g Co
mm
erci
al
Stre
et a
nd W
ES:
-U
p to
52
BRT
vehi
cles
per
hou
r in
the
peak
* -
Up
to 2
0 LR
T ve
hicl
es p
er h
our
in th
e pe
ak*
In e
ach
dire
ctio
n:
-U
p to
26
BRT
vehi
cles
per
hou
r in
the
peak
* -
Up
to 1
0 LR
T ve
hicl
es p
er h
our i
n th
e pe
ak
In e
ach
dire
ctio
n:
-U
p to
26
BRT
vehi
cles
per
hou
r in
the
peak
-
Up
to 1
0 LR
T ve
hicl
es p
er h
our
in th
e pe
ak
At T
igar
d TC
sta
tion:
-
Up
to 1
3 BR
T ve
hicl
es p
er h
our
in th
e pe
ak*
-U
p to
5 L
RT
vehi
cles
per
hou
r in
the
peak
Cost
s Ar
e th
e tr
ade-
offs
cle
ar b
etw
een
cost
and
ot
her f
acto
rs s
uch
as re
liabi
lity,
saf
ety,
ac
cess
and
com
mun
ity d
evel
opm
ent
oppo
rtun
ities
?
How
doe
s cos
t im
pact
the
leng
th o
f the
fin
al H
CT a
lignm
ent?
How
do
oper
atin
g co
sts
com
pare
be
twee
n op
tions
?
Segm
ent c
apita
l co
st e
stim
ates
in
2014
dol
lars
LRT:
−
$442
mill
ion
BRT:
−
TBD
LRT:
−
$442
mill
ion
BRT:
−
TBD
LRT:
−
$353
mill
ion
BRT:
−
TBD
LRT:
−
$399
mill
ion
BRT:
−
TBD
LRT:
−
$388
mill
ion
BRT:
−
TBD
Ope
ratin
g co
st
Slig
htly
hig
her
oper
atin
g co
st th
an
Clin
ton
and
Ash
optio
ns d
ue to
sl
ower
trav
el ti
me
Slig
htly
hig
her
oper
atin
g co
st th
an
Clin
ton
and
Ash
optio
ns d
ue to
sl
ower
trav
el ti
me
Low
est o
pera
ting
cost
du
e to
sho
rtes
t tra
vel
time
Slig
htly
hig
her
oper
atin
g co
st th
an
Clin
ton
optio
n du
e to
sl
ower
trav
el ti
me
Hig
hest
ope
ratin
g co
st d
ue to
in
crea
sed
serv
ice
nort
h of
Tig
ard;
up
to 5
0% m
ore
vehi
cle
oper
atin
g ho
urs
than
oth
er o
ptio
ns
Tiga
rd K
ey Is
sues
– S
epte
mbe
r 4, 2
015
page
9
Key
cons
ider
atio
ns
Eval
uatio
n fa
ctor
s DO
WN
TOW
N LO
OP
COM
MER
CIAL
LOO
P CL
INTO
N C
ROSS
ING
ASH
AVE
NU
E BR
ANCH
SER
VICE
Mob
ility
Ca
n hi
gh c
apac
ity tr
ansi
t be
desig
ned
to
min
imiz
e ne
gativ
e im
pact
s to
aut
o,
frei
ght,
bicy
cle
and
pede
stria
n m
obili
ty
and
acce
ss?
Do
the
alig
nmen
ts th
at in
clud
ing
a ro
adw
ay c
ross
ing
of O
R-21
7 pr
ovid
e a
traf
fic b
enef
it?
Do
the
alig
nmen
t opt
ions
resu
lt in
no
tew
orth
y di
ffere
nces
for p
edes
tria
ns,
bicy
clis
ts, f
reig
ht, o
r saf
ety?
Acce
ssib
ility
Tr
ansi
t brid
ge o
ver
OR-
217
coul
d ac
com
mod
ate
all
mod
es.
Busi
ness
acc
ess
impa
cts
alon
g Co
mm
erci
al, H
all,
and
Scof
fins.
Tran
sit b
ridge
ove
r O
R-21
7 co
uld
acco
mm
odat
e al
l m
odes
. Bu
sine
ss a
cces
s im
pact
s al
ong
Com
mer
cial
, Hal
l, an
d Sc
offin
s.
Tran
sit b
ridge
ove
r O
R-21
7 co
uld
acco
mm
odat
e bi
kes
and
pede
stria
ns, b
ut
not a
utos
. W
ould
not
alte
r lan
es
on 6
8th A
ve. W
ould
no
t dev
elop
70th
Ave
.
Tran
sit b
ridge
ove
r O
R-21
7 co
uld
acco
mm
odat
e bi
kes
and
pede
stria
ns, b
ut
not a
utos
.
Tran
sit b
ridge
ove
r O
R-21
7 co
uld
acco
mm
odat
e al
l m
odes
.
Mod
e co
nsid
erat
ions
In
one
-way
loop
th
roug
h do
wnt
own
Tiga
rd:
-U
p to
52
BRT
vehi
cles
per
hou
r in
the
peak
* -
Up
to 2
0 LR
T ve
hicl
es p
er h
our
in th
e pe
ak
In o
ne-w
ay lo
op
alon
g Co
mm
erci
al
Stre
et a
nd W
ES:
-U
p to
52
BRT
vehi
cles
per
hou
r in
the
peak
* -
Up
to 2
0 LR
T ve
hicl
es p
er h
our
in th
e pe
ak*
In e
ach
dire
ctio
n:
-U
p to
26
BRT
vehi
cles
per
hou
r in
the
peak
* -
Up
to 1
0 LR
T ve
hicl
es p
er h
our i
n th
e pe
ak
In e
ach
dire
ctio
n:
-U
p to
26
BRT
vehi
cles
per
hou
r in
the
peak
-
Up
to 1
0 LR
T ve
hicl
es p
er h
our
in th
e pe
ak
At T
igar
d TC
sta
tion:
-
Up
to 1
3 BR
T ve
hicl
es p
er h
our
in th
e pe
ak*
-U
p to
5 L
RT
vehi
cles
per
hou
r in
the
peak
Cost
s Ar
e th
e tr
ade-
offs
cle
ar b
etw
een
cost
and
ot
her f
acto
rs s
uch
as re
liabi
lity,
saf
ety,
ac
cess
and
com
mun
ity d
evel
opm
ent
oppo
rtun
ities
?
How
doe
s cos
t im
pact
the
leng
th o
f the
fin
al H
CT a
lignm
ent?
How
do
oper
atin
g co
sts
com
pare
be
twee
n op
tions
?
Segm
ent c
apita
l co
st e
stim
ates
in
2014
dol
lars
LRT:
−
$442
mill
ion
BRT:
−
TBD
LRT:
−
$442
mill
ion
BRT:
−
TBD
LRT:
−
$353
mill
ion
BRT:
−
TBD
LRT:
−
$399
mill
ion
BRT:
−
TBD
LRT:
−
$388
mill
ion
BRT:
−
TBD
Ope
ratin
g co
st
Slig
htly
hig
her
oper
atin
g co
st th
an
Clin
ton
and
Ash
optio
ns d
ue to
sl
ower
trav
el ti
me
Slig
htly
hig
her
oper
atin
g co
st th
an
Clin
ton
and
Ash
optio
ns d
ue to
sl
ower
trav
el ti
me
Low
est o
pera
ting
cost
du
e to
sho
rtes
t tra
vel
time
Slig
htly
hig
her
oper
atin
g co
st th
an
Clin
ton
optio
n du
e to
sl
ower
trav
el ti
me
Hig
hest
ope
ratin
g co
st d
ue to
in
crea
sed
serv
ice
nort
h of
Tig
ard;
up
to 5
0% m
ore
vehi
cle
oper
atin
g ho
urs
than
oth
er o
ptio
ns
Tiga
rd K
ey Is
sues
– S
epte
mbe
r 4, 2
015
page
10
Key
cons
ider
atio
ns
Eval
uatio
n fa
ctor
s DO
WN
TOW
N LO
OP
COM
MER
CIAL
LOO
P CL
INTO
N C
ROSS
ING
ASH
AVE
NU
E BR
ANCH
SER
VICE
Engi
neer
ing
com
plex
ity/r
isk
Com
plex
ity a
nd ri
sk a
dd c
ost t
o th
e pr
ojec
t and
cou
ld re
sult
in th
e co
st a
nd
sche
dule
ove
rrun
s.
Wha
t asp
ects
of e
ach
alig
nmen
t add
co
mpl
exity
to th
e pr
ojec
t?
Wha
t asp
ects
of e
ach
alig
nmen
t opt
ion
pres
ent n
otew
orth
y ris
k?
Risk
−
Rest
ricts
left
turn
ac
cess
to
com
mer
cial
bu
sine
sses
−
Requ
ires
reco
nstr
uctio
n of
Ti
gard
Tra
nsit
Cent
er
−Re
stric
ts le
ft tu
rn
acce
ss to
co
mm
erci
al
busi
ness
es
−Re
quire
s re
cons
truc
tion
of
Tiga
rd T
rans
it Ce
nter
−
Assu
med
set
back
fr
om fr
eigh
t rai
l co
uld
be
prob
lem
atic
−Lo
ng ¾
-mile
st
ruct
ure
to c
ross
O
R-21
7 −
OR-
217
brid
ge
wou
ld n
ot
acco
mm
odat
e au
tos
−Co
uld
impa
ct a
w
etla
nd a
rea
−Be
vela
nd C
ross
ing
wou
ld n
ot
acco
mm
odat
e au
tos
−N
ew a
djac
ent a
uto
brid
ge m
ight
not
be
elig
ible
for N
ew
Star
ts fu
ndin
g
−Re
quire
s re
cons
truc
tion
of
Tiga
rd T
rans
it Ce
nter
−
Chal
leng
es in
in
clud
ing
bike
/ped
faci
litie
s al
ong
mos
t of H
CT
alig
nmen
t in
Tiga
rd.
Com
mun
ity im
pact
s Ca
n th
e be
nefit
s and
bur
dens
of a
hig
h ca
paci
ty tr
ansi
t alig
nmen
t be
equa
lly
dist
ribut
ed a
mon
g al
l pop
ulat
ion
grou
ps
in th
e co
rrid
or?
Dis
trib
utio
n of
im
pact
s −
Bise
cts
larg
e tr
acts
in
indu
stria
l are
a −
Com
mer
cial
pr
oper
ty im
pact
s in
dow
ntow
n
−Re
stric
ts tu
rnin
g m
ovem
ents
of
vehi
cles
in
dow
ntow
n
−Bi
sect
s la
rge
trac
ts in
indu
stria
l ar
ea
−Re
stric
ts tu
rnin
g m
ovem
ents
of
vehi
cles
in
dow
ntow
n
−Vi
sual
impa
ct o
f lo
ng s
truc
ture
flyi
ng
over
pro
pert
ies
and
road
way
s −
Com
mer
cial
pr
oper
ty im
pact
s in
do
wnt
own
Cons
ider
able
im
pact
s to
re
side
ntia
l and
co
mm
erci
al
prop
ertie
s
Som
e ac
cess
im
pact
s an
d co
mm
erci
al
prop
erty
impa
cts,
bu
t les
s th
an o
ther
op
tions
*est
imat
ed b
ased
on
rela
ted
mod
el ru
ns
Tigard Key Issues – September 4, 2015
page 31
Southeast Tigard summary The following table summarizes evaluation factors, key considerations, and analysis results for consideration in the study area.
Key considerations Evaluation factors
Adjacent to freight rail Adjacent to I-5
Transit Performance What are the tradeoffs to consider between transit performance of the alignments and other factors such as cost, travel time, property impacts, auto access impacts and connectivity?
2035 new transit trips
− 15,700 (LRT) − 8,400 (BRT)
− 16,000 (LRT) − 8,600* (BRT)
2035 line riders − 43,500 (LRT) − 30,800 (BRT)
− 43,600 (LRT) − 30,900* (BRT)
Travel time (PSU to Tualatin)
LRT: − 31 minutes BRT: − 34 minutes
LRT: − 34 minutes BRT: − 37 minutes*
Community Development What are the main access issues in the area?
Are there significant land use implications between alignment choices?
Access − Better access for neighborhoods
− Need for improved connections
− Better access to 72nd Avenue employment area
− Too far from existing neighborhoods for walk/bike access
− Better access to Kruse Way employment area
Redevelopment potential
No major difference between options
Mobility Can high capacity transit be designed to minimize negative impacts to auto, freight, bicycle and pedestrian mobility and access?
Do the alignment options result in noteworthy differences for pedestrians, bicyclists, freight, or safety?
Accessibility No major difference between options or modes Future traffic operations in this area will perform better with the HCT project than without it
Mode considerations
In each direction: - Up to 26 BRT vehicles per hour in the peak - Up to 10 LRT vehicles per hour in the peak
Capital Costs Are the trade-offs clear between cost and other factors such as reliability, safety, access and community development opportunities?
How does cost impact the length of the final HCT alignment?
Segment cost estimates in 2014 dollars
LRT: − $233 million BRT: − TBD
LRT: − $238 million BRT: − TBD
Tigard Key Issues – September 4, 2015
page 32
Key considerations Evaluation factors
Adjacent to freight rail Adjacent to I-5
Engineering complexity/risk Complexity and risk add cost to the project and could result in the cost and schedule overruns.
What aspects of each alignment add complexity to the project?
What aspects of each alignment option present noteworthy risk?
Risk Both options require negotiations with right-of-way owners and comparable risks related to alignment adjustments to avoid impacts to I-5 access.
Community impacts Can the benefits and burdens of a high capacity transit alignment be equally distributed among all population groups in the corridor?
Distribution of impacts
− Few business access impacts − No residential property
impacts − Fewer commercial property
impacts
− Few business access impacts − No residential property
impacts − More commercial property
impacts
*estimated based on related model runs
The Southeast Tigard area includes two high capacity transit options under consideration:
• Adjacent to Freight Rail runs parallel to WES tracks and Union Pacific railroad tracks, then adjacent to I-5 to a station at Bridgeport Village
• Adjacent to I-5 runs along WES tracks, then turns east and south to run along the west side of I-5 to a station at Bridgeport Village
