
COMMISSION AGENDA – Action Item No. 10e Page 3 of 4
Meeting Date: September 12, 2023
Template revised June 27, 2019 (Diversity in Contracting).
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
Alternative 1 – Maintain the current condition.
Cost Implications: None.
Pros:
(1) No additional cost to the Port.
(2) No trail closure during construction.
Cons:
(1) Existing safety issues remain which could present the Port with potential Liabilities.
(2) Existing accessibility issues remain which limit usability and access to some users.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 2 – In addition to the proposed alternative, move the west fence three feet six inches
(3’-6”) at the southern pinch point to achieve a full 10-foot (10’-0”) paved width with 2-foot
(2’-0”) buffers on each side.
Cost Implications: $4,000,000 - $7,000,000
Pros:
(1) Trail segments will meet minimum design standards to the full extent, including at the
southern pinch point.
Cons:
(1) The rail spur would need to be shifted which would add considerable cost, extend the
construction duration, and cut off all rail access to the Port during construction.
This is not the recommended alternative.
Alternative 3 – Remove the existing pedestrian/bicycle bridge and replace with an on-grade path
meeting minimum design standards and widen the existing pinch point south of the
pedestrian/bicycle bridge as much as feasible per an easement with BNSF Railways.
Cost Implications: $1,525,000
Pros:
(1) Improves safety and accessibility.
(2) Limited project scope will facilitate a shorter construction period and impact to daily
users from the trail closure.
Cons:
(1) Due to the existing constraints of the existing rail lines on both sides of the trail, the full
standards design width with buffers cannot be achieved at the southern pinch point and
therefore tree planting is limited.
(2) Does not include time-intensive sustainability and equity elements, lighting installation,
or waste receptacles.
This is the recommended alternative.