Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/11/29 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - JointJoint Meeting St. Louis Park City Council and School Board AGENDA City Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m. Monday, November 29, 2010 Outcomes: • To continue to develop a high performing partnership • To exchange updates • To gain a mutual understanding on freight rail studies being conducted by Hennepin County. • Determine Next Steps 1. Introductions and Remarks from the Mayor and School Board Chair (5 minutes) 2. Meeting Rules (5minutes) 3. Broad Overview of Freight Rail Studies (Kevin Locke, 5 minutes) 4. Presentation of two freight rail studies recently completed by Hennepin County (Hennepin County –2 hours) a. Reassessment of 2009 Freight Rail Study b. Kenilworth Corridor/RL Banks Study Question/Answer Session – City Council and School Board 5. Update on ongoing MNS Freight Rail Study (Hennepin County - 30 minutes) 6. Next Steps (15 minutes) 7. Adjournment by 9:30 p.m. Meeting Date: November 29, 2010 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Joint City Council and School Board Meeting - Freight Rail Studies RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested or required at this time. The primary purpose of the joint meeting with the School Board is to receive a presentation, for information and discussion purposes, of two railroad studies prepared by the County on alternative freight routes. These studies, which are discussed further below, involve an analysis by consultant Mark Amfuhr of four alternative routes identified in a 2009 study conducted by the County, and a study conducted by R.L. Banks regarding the viability of locating light rail and freight rail in the Kenilworth corridor. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The presentations and discussion at the joint meeting are the initial steps in digesting the results of the two County freight rail studies and updating the city’s position/policy regarding future routing of TC&W freight rail traffic. Staff and city consultants will review and analyze the studies for a future discussion tentatively scheduled at this time for the City Council Study Session of December 13th. The primary focus of the joint meeting is the two studies noted above. In addition, an update on the status of the MNS Freight Rail study will also be provided. JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD: As stated previously, the purpose of joint meeting is to present the results of the studies to the City Council and School Board. The meeting is not a public hearing or open forum for community comment. There is much interest from the public about these studies and there will most likely be a number of citizens in attendance. Safety in the Park, the MNS Project Management Team (PMT) and neighborhood groups have been reminded that this specific meeting does not include a public input component. Because of the interest in the freight rail subject, the meeting will be broadcast live so citizens can watch the presentations over cable and our web site. The meeting will also be rebroadcast over cable and available via the city’s web site on demand. Given that the completed study reports are not expected to be available until Monday, the reports will also be posted on the city’s web site following the meeting. In the interim, staff has attached the County’s power point presentations which will be used at the joint meeting. Please note that the power point presentations are still in draft form and, to a certain extent, are incomplete and subject to change prior to the meeting. BACKGROUND: Alternative Routes and Kenilworth Corridor On July 6, 2010 the City Council passed Resolution 10-070 and Resolution 10-071 (attached) relating to freight rail issues. Resolution 10-071 requested Hennepin County to more fully evaluate Joint Meeting Study Session of November 29, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Freight Rail Studies the potential routes for TC&W freight trains identified in the 2009 “TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study.” The request included the analysis of routing both freight rail and LRT through the Kenilworth corridor. On July 21 the St. Louis Park Board of Education adopted a resolution which supported the two resolutions adopted by the City Council (see attached). In response the County funded and initiated two studies to address the issues included in the resolution: 1. A study by Consultant Mark Amfuhr to analyze four of the alternative routes identified in the 2009 study. The study looks at: • Chaska Cut-off – from Cologne to St. Paul via Carver, Chaska, Shakopee, Savage, Burnsville, Eagan and Mendota Heights. • Highway 169 – from 169 and Excelsior Blvd. through St. Louis Park via the north Cedar Lake Trail. • Midtown – from west of Lake Calhoun east along the Midtown Greenway • Granite Falls or Appleton – west of TC&W’s current railroad 2. A study by consulting firm R. L. Banks to address the viability of locating both freight rail and LRT traffic within the Kenilworth corridor. The R.L. Banks study evaluated seven different scenarios for how to use the Kenilworth corridor for freight rail, light rail; and maintain the regional trail. For all alignments, the City Council resolution asked for more detailed analysis of the projected costs for each route, including property acquisitions and environmental mitigation. Together the purpose for these studies is to establish whether or not there is a viable alternative route for TC&W freight rail traffic other than the MNS tracks through St. Louis Park. The City has stated consistently since adopting a resolution in 2001 that a key condition for acceptance of rerouting TCW freight rail traffic to the MNS tracks was establishing that there were no other viable routes. This condition was restated in Resolution 10-070 adopted on July 6th. Representatives from the consulting firms for each of the studies will present their reports to the City Council and School Board at the meeting. MNS Study A third freight rail study is currently underway as well. The MNS Freight Rail Study began in July, 2010 and is funded by MNDOT and Hennepin County. The City is a non-funding partner in this study. The purpose of this study is essentially to answer these questions - If TCW trains were to be routed to the MNS tracks, what improvements would be needed to make it happen, what would the impacts be, and what mitigation would be needed to address negative impacts. The study includes preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed route. At the November 10th meeting of the MNS PMT a baseline concept for how freight rail could be rerouted without switching was presented. This concept will be the subject of a public open house on December 16th, at the City’s Rec Center. In January the PMT will continue to meet and the EAW is expected to be completed in March 2011. Once the alternative plan for EAW evaluation has been defined through the PMT process, the defined plan and any dissenting opinions from PMT Joint Meeting Study Session of November 29, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Subject: Freight Rail Studies members will be reported to the City Council and incorporated into the City’s draft action plan/policy development process. It is important to note that these are tentative schedules and descriptions of the MNS Study process moving forward. They are subject to change. Adjustments have been made in the study process and no doubt will continue to be made as circumstances dictate. The goal is meaningful planning allowing flexibility in the timeframe needed in this process and not strictly to be in conformance of schedules. NEXT STEPS ON THE COUNTY FREIGHT RAIL ALTERNATIVE STUDIES As discussed at the City Council Study Session on October 25, what follows are the proposed “next steps” to be undertaken by the City relating to the two studies: 1. Review and Assessment of the Studies. Staff will, with the assistance of our rail consultants, review and evaluate the two County studies and craft a draft course of action and/or policy position for moving forward. Evaluation of the studies would be done in the context of the policy direction set by the resolution adopted July 6, 2010. 2. Study Session Discussion of Draft Action. A City Council study session discussion item is being tentatively scheduled for December 13th to discuss the results of the review of the studies and any proposed policy positions and/or next steps. 3. Community Input. Following the City Council discussion of a draft course of action on December 13th, a process for community input would be initiated. One approach may be a series of neighborhood meetings to discuss the proposed city actions/draft policies. These meetings could incorporate findings from the draft plan from the MNS study as well. 4. City Council Action. The results of the community input process will be reported back to the City Council as a means for the Council to establish its policy position and/or action plan for moving forward. The evaluation of all the information generated from all three freight rail studies will be in the context of the City’s stated policy in support of implementation of SWLRT and identifying the best viable route for TCW freight trains for St. Louis Park. The goal is successful implementation of SWLRT with as little freight rail activity in St. Louis Park as possible; and, complete and effective mitigation of any freight rail negative impacts. The challenge for the City moving forward will be how to achieve its twin goals of minimizing freight rail impacts in the community and supporting the successful implementation of SWLRT. For LRT to proceed, a means of accommodating freight rail will needs to be found, whether it is in St. Louis Park or elsewhere. Joint Meeting Study Session of November 29, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Subject: Freight Rail Studies FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The primary financial impact of the freight rail studies for the City is staff time and consultant expense necessary to review documents and provide input. As we move forward costs will be incurred for consultants to assist the city. The exact amount is difficult to estimate at this time. Funding would come from the Development Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: SWLRT, Freight Rail planning and station area planning are consistent with the City’s strategic vision to be a connected and engaged community; as well as leaders in environmental stewardship. Attachments: City Council Resolution 10- 070 and 10-071 St. Louis Park School Board Resolution PowerPoint Presentation Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager DRAFTPrepared for: Hennepin County Regional Rail AuthorityPrepared By:Kenilworth Corridor: Analysis of Freight Rail / LRT Coexistence Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 2Study PurposeStudy PurposeƒThis study was undertaken in direct response to requests by the St. Louis Park City Council and School Board.ƒIs there a design that would allow freight rail to stay in the Kenilworth Corridor? Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 3Study AreaStudy Area Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 4Seven ScenariosSeven Scenarios1. All three alignments at-grade2. Bicycle Trail relocated3. Bicycle Trail elevated4. LRT elevated5. LRT in tunnel6. LRT/Freight Rail share track7. LRT single track Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 5Evaluation MeasuresEvaluation MeasuresƒSound Engineering –ƒAre the engineering solutions reasonable?ƒFreight rail operations –ƒWill TC&W continue to have a safe, efficient, economical connection to Saint Paul?ƒLRT operations –ƒCan the LRT line function as it is intended? Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 6Evaluation Measures (cont.)Evaluation Measures (cont.)ƒOther Transportation system impacts –ƒWhat are the potential impacts to roads and trails?ƒProperty Impacts –ƒHow many housing units need to be acquired?ƒEnvironmental Issues –ƒParkland (4f)ƒHistoric Properties (6f)ƒWater QualityƒAesthetics Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 7Existing Alignments in CorridorExisting Alignments in Corridor Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 8Freight Rail Cross SectionFreight Rail Cross Section50 feet Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 9LRT Cross SectionLRT Cross Section38 feet Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 10Bicycle Trail Cross-sectionBicycle Trail Cross-section20 feet Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 11Total Width RequiredTotal Width Required94 feet Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 12Scenario # 1 – All Three At-gradeScenario # 1 – All Three At-gradeƒAll three alignments at-gradeƒBicycle Trail – Remains.ƒLight Rail Transit – Constructed at-grade.ƒFreight Railroad – Constructed at-grade. Looking North Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 13Scenario # 1 – All Three At-gradeScenario # 1 – All Three At-grade Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 14•57 Total Housing Units•33 Housing Units TakenPotential Property Impacts Potential Property Impacts Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 154(f) Issues4(f) IssuesƒIdentify any parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites, districts or archeological sites in the project area.ƒIs there a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative?ƒConsult with officials and include all possible planning to minimize harm to 4(f) resource. Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 16Potential Parkland 4(f) ImpactsPotential Parkland 4(f) ImpactsCedar Lake Parkway Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 17Scenario # 1 – Summary All Three Alignments At-grade Scenario # 1 – Summary All Three Alignments At-gradeƒSound EngineeringƒEngineering solution is reasonable.ƒFreight rail operations –ƒFreight rail operations unchanged.ƒLRT –ƒLRT operations maintained. Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 18Scenario # 1 – Summary All Three Alignments At-grade Scenario # 1 – Summary All Three Alignments At-gradeƒTransportation system impacts –ƒFunctionality of Commuter Bicycle trail maintained.ƒProperty acquisition –ƒ33-57 housing units acquired.ƒDisruption of townhouse development.ƒEnvironmental Issues –ƒLikely parkland (4f) impacts to:ƒPark Board propertyƒPotential parkland (4f) impacts to:ƒCedar-Isles channelƒCedar Lake Parkway Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 19Scenario #2 – Trail RelocatedScenario #2 – Trail RelocatedƒTrail moved to another locationƒBicycle Trail – Relocated out of corridorƒLight Rail Transit – Constructed at-gradeƒFreight Railroad – Constructed at-grade Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 20Scenario # 2 – Trail RelocatedScenario # 2 – Trail Relocated Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 21Scenario # 2 – Summary Trail Relocated Scenario # 2 – Summary Trail RelocatedƒSound EngineeringƒEngineering solution is reasonable.ƒFreight rail operations –ƒFreight rail operations unchanged.ƒLRT –ƒLRT operations maintained. Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 22Scenario # 2 – Summary Trail Relocated Scenario # 2 – Summary Trail RelocatedƒTransportation system impacts –ƒCommuter bicycle trail is removed from corridor.ƒProperty acquisition –ƒNo housing units acquired.ƒ(Assumes LRT alignment shifted.)ƒEnvironmental Issues –ƒPotential parkland (4f) impacts to:ƒPark Board propertyƒCedar-Isles channelƒCedar Lake Parkway Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 23Scenario #3 – Trail Over LRTScenario #3 – Trail Over LRTƒTrail on structureƒBicycle Trail – Placed on structure through the corridorƒLight Rail Transit – Constructed at-gradeƒFreight Railroad – Constructed at-grade Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 24Scenario #3 – Trail Over LRTScenario #3 – Trail Over LRTExtent of Trail Structure Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 25Scenario #3 – Trail Over LRTScenario #3 – Trail Over LRTLooking East Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 26Scenario # 3 – Summary Trail Over LRT Scenario # 3 – Summary Trail Over LRTƒSound EngineeringƒEngineering solution is not reasonable.ƒCreates unique or unusual problems.ƒFreight rail operations –ƒFreight rail operations unchanged.ƒLRT –ƒLRT operations maintained. Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 27Scenario # 3 – Summary Trail Over LRT Scenario # 3 – Summary Trail Over LRTƒTransportation system impacts –ƒFunctionality of Commuter Bicycle trail maintained.ƒProperty acquisition –ƒNo housing units acquired.ƒ(Assumes LRT alignment shifted)ƒEnvironmental Issues –ƒPotential parkland (4f) impacts to:ƒPark Board propertyƒCedar-Isles channelƒCedar Lake Parkway Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 28Scenario # 4 – LRT on StructureScenario # 4 – LRT on StructureƒLRT on structureƒFreight Railroad –RemainsƒBicycle Trail –RemainsƒLight Rail Transit –Constructed through corridor on aerial structure.Looking North Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 29Scenario # 4 – LRT on StructureScenario # 4 – LRT on StructureExtent of LRT Structure Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 30Scenario # 4 – LRT on StructureScenario # 4 – LRT on StructureƒThere is insufficient room north of the West Lake Street Bridge for LRT to rise from ground level to full height before reaching the narrow part of the corridor.ƒAn aerial structure for LRT would need to be at full height before crossing the West Lake Street Bridge. Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 31Scenario # 4 – LRT on StructureScenario # 4 – LRT on Structure75 FeetLooking West Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 32Scenario # 4 – Summary LRT on Structure Scenario # 4 – Summary LRT on StructureƒSound EngineeringƒEngineering solution is not reasonable.ƒCreates additional construction, maintenance or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude.ƒFreight rail operations –ƒFreight rail operations unchanged.ƒLRT –ƒLRT operations maintained. Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 33Scenario # 4 – Summary LRT on Structure Scenario # 4 – Summary LRT on StructureƒTransportation system impacts –ƒFunctionality of Commuter Bicycle trail maintained.ƒProperty acquisition –ƒNo housing units acquired.ƒEnvironmental Issues –ƒPotential parkland (4f) impacts to:ƒPark Board propertyƒCedar-Isles channelƒCedar Lake Parkway Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 34Scenario # 5 – LRT in TunnelScenario # 5 – LRT in TunnelƒLRT in tunnelƒBicycle Trail – RemainsƒLight Rail Transit – Constructed through corridor with portions in tunnelƒFreight Railroad – Constructed at-gradeLooking North Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 35Scenario # 5 – LRT in TunnelScenario # 5 – LRT in TunnelExtent of LRT Tunnel Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 36Scenario # 5 – LRT in TunnelScenario # 5 – LRT in TunnelƒCut and Cover alternative impractical because of the weight of freight trains.Looking North Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 37Scenario # 5 – LRT in TunnelScenario # 5 – LRT in TunnelƒCut and Cover alternative also impractical because of Cedar-Isles channel.Looking North Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 38Scenario # 5 – LRT in TunnelScenario # 5 – LRT in TunnelƒA deep tunnel has an unpredictable effect on groundwater.ƒInvites continuing maintenance, safety and security problems.ƒVastly more expensive than other available alternatives.Looking NorthLooking North Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 39Scenario # 5 – Summary LRT in Tunnel Scenario # 5 – Summary LRT in TunnelƒSound EngineeringƒEngineering solution is not reasonable.ƒCreates additional construction, maintenance or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude.ƒFreight rail operations –ƒFreight rail operations unchanged.ƒLRT –ƒLRT operations maintained. Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 40Scenario # 5 – Summary LRT in Tunnel Scenario # 5 – Summary LRT in TunnelƒTransportation system impacts –ƒFunctionality of Commuter Bicycle trail maintained.ƒProperty acquisition –ƒNo housing units acquired.ƒEnvironmental Issues –ƒPotential parkland (4f) impacts to:ƒPark Board propertyƒCedar-Isles channelƒCedar Lake ParkwayƒPotential negative impacts on groundwater flow and water quality. Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 41Scenario # 6 – Shared Track UseScenario # 6 – Shared Track UseƒFreight Rail and LRT share trackƒBicycle Trail – Remains ƒLight Rail Transit – Constructed at-gradeƒFreight Railroad – Shares track with the LRT alignment through the corridorLooking North Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 42Scenario # 6 – Shared Track UseScenario # 6 – Shared Track UseExtent of Shared Track Use Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 43Scenario # 6 – Shared Track UseScenario # 6 – Shared Track UseƒFRA requires temporal separation of freight and LRT operations.ƒLRT operates from 3:30 am to 12:30 am.ƒThe time period available to TC&W would be too restrictive.Looking NorthLooking North Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 44Scenario #6 – Summary Shared Track Use Scenario #6 – Summary Shared Track Use ƒSound EngineeringƒEngineering solution is not reasonable.ƒRepresents a severe economic impact to freight railroad.ƒFreight rail operations –ƒFreight rail operations impaired.ƒLRT –ƒLRT operations maintained. Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 45Scenario #6 – Summary Shared Track Use Scenario #6 – Summary Shared Track UseƒTransportation system impacts –ƒFunctionality of Commuter Bicycle trail maintained.ƒProperty acquisition –ƒNo housing units acquired.ƒEnvironmental Issues –ƒPotential parkland (4f) impacts to:ƒPark Board propertyƒCedar-Isles channelƒCedar Lake Parkway Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 46Scenario # 7 – LRT Single TrackScenario # 7 – LRT Single TrackƒLRT single trackƒBicycle Trail – RemainsƒLight Rail Transit – Constructed at-grade but with only one track ƒFreight Railroad – Constructed at-grade Looking North Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 47Scenario # 7 – LRT Single TrackScenario # 7 – LRT Single TrackExtent of LRT Single Track Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 48Scenario #7 – LRT Single TrackScenario #7 – LRT Single TrackƒSingle Track would subject the LRT line to operating restrictions that would prevent the line from achieving its forecast ridership.ƒThis is inconsistent with the stated Purpose and Need of the project.Looking North Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 49Scenario # 7 – Summary LRT Single Track Scenario # 7 – Summary LRT Single TrackƒSound EngineeringƒEngineering solution is not reasonable.ƒCompromises the LRT project Purpose and NeedƒFreight rail operations –ƒFreight rail operations unchanged.ƒLRT –ƒLRT operations maintained. Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 50Scenario # 7 – Summary LRT Single Track Scenario # 7 – Summary LRT Single TrackƒTransportation system impacts –ƒFunctionality of Commuter Bicycle trail maintained.ƒProperty acquisition –ƒNo housing units acquired.ƒEnvironmental Issues –ƒPotential parkland (4f) impacts to:ƒPark Board propertyƒCedar-Isles channelƒCedar Lake Parkway Kenilworth Corridor – Analysis of Freight Rail/LRT Coexistence 51SummarySummary1All Three At-Grade2Trail Moved3TrailAbove4LRT Above5LRTBelow6Shared track7LRTSingleTrackSound EngineeringYesYesNoNoNoNoNoFreight RailOKOKOKOKOKNoOKLRTOKOKOKOKOKOKNoTrailOKNoNoOKOKOKOKHousing Units33-570000004(f) ImpactsLikelyMaybeMaybeMaybeMaybeMaybeMaybeAesthetic ImpactsNoNoYesYesNoNoNoGroundwater Impacts NoNoNoNoLikelyNoNo Thank YouKenilworth Corridor: Analysis of Freight Rail / LRT Coexistence TCWR Route Alternatives Study St. Louis Park Presentation November 29, 2010Mark AmfahrAmfahr ConsultingDRAFT VERSION FOR REVIEW Study Purpose• To identify all routes that are potentially  viable to support TCWR’s operations to/from  the Twin Cities.• To provide additional information on the  Chaska Cut‐off, Midtown and Hwy 169  alternatives in response to St. Louis Park City  Council Resolutions 10‐070 and 10‐071. • To ensure that evaluation criteria and cost  factors are applied consistently across the  alternatives being studied. Evaluation MeasuresSound Engineering• Grades, curves & clearances to allow for efficient railroad operation.Freight Rail Operations• Safe, efficient, & economic connection to St. Paul.Transportation System Impacts• Potential impact to roads, trails, and transit.Acquisitions/Displacements• Number, type and estimated cost.Estimated Costs (2010$)• Construction costs including contingency factors.Environmental Issues• Potential for adverse impacts upon critical environmental resources. Implementation Factors• Elements affecting implementation (agreements, permits, etc).• Route must be acceptable to TCWR. “Western Connection” optionsPossible  connectionpoints Overview of Twin Cities  area rail networkCologneSavageYard ACamdenSt. Paul YardNorthtown YardShoreham YardWestern Ave.  Yard Overview of Chaska       Cut‐off alignmentChaska Cut-off Alternative Carver / Chaska DetailChaskaShakopeeCarver!!!Chaska Cut-off Alternative Chaska photo 2Former right of way west of CarverChaska Cut-off Alternative Chaska photo 3Former right of way in CarverChaska Cut-off Alternative Existing track through  ChaskaChaska Cut-off Alternative Minnesota River crossing; MNDOT Hwy 41 Study ChaskaShakopeeCarver Chaska Cut‐Off EvaluationSound Engineering • Route can meet freight rail industry standards for operations.• Westbound grade would be a limitation for TCWR vs. existing  operation.  • Requires 11 miles of new trackage including a new crossing of the  MN River.Freight Rail Operations• Additional distance vs. other routes would increase TCWR’s operating costs.• TCWR would have to own & maintain additional trackage.• TCWR would need to operate over UP trackage.• TCWR could serve a new customer in Chaska (United Sugars).Transportation System Impacts • 6 new at‐grade crossings.• No impact to trails.• No impact to existing or planned transitways. Chaska Cut‐Off EvaluationAcquisitions/Displacements• X single family & X units of multi‐family.• Cost = $X million.Estimated Costs (2010$)• Cost = $X million (includes 30% contingency).• Major elements include new track, grade‐separated crossings, &  Minnesota River bridges.Environmental Issues• MN River crossing likely requires an Environmental Impact  Statement.  Estimated time to complete is 3 to 8 years. • Existence of wetlands and other protected areas. Chaska Cut‐Off EvaluationImplementation Factors• Principal constraint is the Minnesota River crossing. Environmental  documentation & permitting are significant.  Construction would  require approvals/permits from the US Army Corps of Eng., FRA, US  EPA, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Dept. of Interior, MN DNR, MN PCA,  MN SHPO & local watershed districts.• TCWR must agree to own & maintain new trackage.• TCWR must obtain trackage rights from UP.• MnDOT must agree to crossing over TH212.• Carver County must agree to crossing over CR 40. St. Louis Park Area  OverviewTo CologneMN&SHwy  169MidtownSt. Louis    ParkKenilworth Hopkins / St. Louis Park  area detailHighway 169 Alternative Hwy 169 photo 1Former right of way under Highway 7Highway 169 Alternative Hwy 169 photo 2Former right of way north of Highway  7Highway 169 Alternative Townhomes along right of wayHighway 169 Alternative Hwy 169 EvaluationSound Engineering • Route can meet freight rail industry standards for operations.• Requires new bridge over Minnehaha Creek and 2.7 miles of new trackFreight Rail Operations • TCWR would most likely own & maintain the new track• TCWR would need additional trackage rights from BNSF • TCWR would reach Savage via the existing St. Louis Park connection or via  a new BNSF connection to the MN&S route.Transportation System Impacts • Would require TH 169 / Excelsior Blvd interchange to be reconfigured.• 6 new at‐grade road intersections (2 in Hopkins & 4 in St.Louis Park).• Requires reconstruction and/or relocation of recreational trail.• No impact to existing or planned transitways. Hwy 169 EvaluationAcquisitions/Displacements• Requires acquisition of X units of multi‐family housing & X industrial  properties• The estimated acquisition costs are $X million (2010$)Estimated Costs (2010$)• $ X million total cost of project.• Major cost elements include significant acquisitions/displacements and  the reconfiguration of the Hwy 169 / Excelsior Blvd intersection.Environmental Issues• Impact of bridge over Minnehaha Creek would need to be assessed. Hwy 169 EvaluationImplementation Factors• TCWR must agree to own and maintain the 2.7 miles of new track.• TCWR must obtain trackage rights from BNSF on the Wayzata Subdivision.• MnDOT & FHWA must agree to modifications to Hwy 169.• Hennepin County must agree to impact to Excelsior Blvd.• Minnehaha Creek Watershed District must approve bridge construction  over Minnehaha Creek. Midtown Corridor DetailH iawath a  C o rrid o r Lake Street Midtown photo 1Former right of way through  “The Trench”Midtown Alternative Midtown photo 2Former right of way –east endMidtown Alternative Former right of way at  Hiawatha crossingMidtown Alternative Sabo Bridge –crossing of Hwy 55Midtown Alternative Midtown EvaluationSound Engineering • Route would require significant modifications to meet freight rail  industry standards for operations.• Requires excavation of 6 feet of former rail bed to meet clearance  requirement of 23 feet.• TCWR shifted operations from the Midtown Corridor to Kenilworth  in1998, a result of Hiawatha Corridor reconstruction.• Quality of bridge over Mississippi River is questionable.Freight Rail Operations• TCWR must assume responsibility for ownership & maintenance of  4.2 miles of new track.• TCWR must secure trackage rights from CP for section from  Hiawatha Ave. east to St. Paul.• TCWR would need to continue using the connection at St. Louis  Park and the MN&S route to reach Savage. Midtown EvaluationTransportation System Impacts• Would require a reconfiguration of the TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue  and 28th St. intersection –both routes would be elevated.• Would result in 4 new at‐grade road crossings & closure of the 5th Ave. at‐grade crossing.• Would result in the removal of recently opened Sabo Trail Bridge over TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue.  • Would require reconstruction of the Hiawatha LRT line from 31st St.  to 26th St.  • Both the LRT line and TH 55 would experience closures and/or  disruptions during construction, negatively impacting users.• Freight rail operation in this corridor would directly conflict with  the proposed Midtown Streetcar project.Acquisitions/Displacements• A single building  just east of TH 55 would be displaced. Midtown EvaluationEstimated Costs (2010$)• $X million total project cost.Environmental Issues• Unknown soil and subgrade conditions along the Midtown Corridor.• Midtown Corridor is on the National Register of Historic Places.• Dean Parkway & Lake of the Isles bridges are located on parkland. Midtown EvaluationImplementation Factors• TCWR must agree to maintain additional trackage.• TCWR must obtain trackage rights from CP east of Hiawatha.• Significant modifications needed to the transportation system at TH  55 / Hiawatha Ave.• MnDOT & FHWA must agree to reconstruction of TH 55/Hiawatha  Ave.• MPRB or Minneapolis & FHWA must agree to reconstruction or  removal of Sabo bridge.• Met Council & FTA must agree to reconstruction of Hiawatha LRT. Comparison of Alternatives( TABLE TO BE INSERTED )