CR 99-173 RR Blocking Operations
September 17, 1999 :a> Council Report 99-173
o P K \ ~
RAILROAD STUDY, BLOCKING OPERATIONS
. Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption ofthe following motion: Move to approve Resolution 99-091 adopting a
position on the installation of a switch for train blocking pm:poses on the CP rail line in West Hopkins.
Adoption of this motion will result in additional discussions about the installation of a switch that would
allow nighttime blocking operations in the City ofBopkins.
Overview
The neighboring communities of S1. Louis Park and Minnetonka have been studying for a period of
months and years, the issue of railroad operations in residential areas of their communities. As part of
their analysis, a noise study was conducted that studied the impacts of rail operations on noise levels.
Hopkins participated in this study.
Discussions between the three communities have focused on finding a long-term solution to moving
railroad-blocking operations out ofthe three cities. Discussions have also addressed the potential of a
short-tenn solution that would lower the disturbances in the residential neighborhoods by moving some of
the operations to Hopkins in a non-residential setting.
Minnetonka and S1. Louis Park are now considering the installation of a switch in the City of Hopkins and
are asking for concurrence on this issue with the City of Hopkins. The attached resolution would allow
for continued discussions in this direction.
. Primary Issues to Consider
. What are the impacts of moving the switching to Hopkins?
Hopkins already has some switching operations taking place in town. By moving the operations
to the non-residential area on the west side of town the noise impacts should be minimal. The
noise study indicates that noise standards should not exceed state requirements, but also points out
that intermittent noise does not fall under current standards.
. Should Hopkins wait for the long-term solution?
A long-term solution to the noise issues could result in a solution within two to three years,
wherein all blocking and yard operations would be moved outside the three communities. For this
to occur, the three communities would likely have to work together to accomplish that goal. By
accepting the short-term solution, we are assisting the neighboring communities with a current
problem while continuing to work with them on a long-term solution.
Supporting Documents
. Memorandum dated September 10, 1999, Railroad blocking operations
. Diagram of "blocking" process
. Resolution 99-091
. ~ )-_C>
~
Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
-.---
. I Office of the City Manager ]
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
Date: September 10, 1999
Sub,iect: Railroad Blocking Operations-Update Discussion
In May of this year, the City Council authorized participation in a noise study of railroad
operations. Attached to this memo is a copy of an excerpt from the study. The study
was done to compile information helpful to the cities of Hopkins, Minnetonka, and S1.
Louis Park in trying to determine how to deal with a potential short-term solution to the
noise issues facing both the cities of Minnetonka and S1. Louis Park.
. Long Term Discussions
When previously discussing this issue, the Hopkins City Council indicated they may be
supportive of a short-term solution to the railroad problems experienced in Minnetonka
and S1. Louis Park. By agreeing to have some of the railroad operations currently being
conducted in residential neighborhoods moved to the industrial parts of Hopkins. At
that time, the Council stated that a long-term solution must be part of any acceptance of
short-term solutions.
To date, the long-term solution appears to be moving railroad yard operations out of the
three cities to a location west of the metro area, most likely Glenco, Minnesota.
Discussions have not culminated over this alternative, although indications are that the
alternative could be successful although it may take up to two years to accomplish.
The question of finances also has not been resolved for the long-term solution and
therefore, at this time it needs to be stated that a long-term solution has not been
conclusively found.
The short-term solution of sharing the blocking operations between the three cities has
been extensively studied, and is a viable option for relieving some of the issues in
Minnetonka and S1. Louis Park. There is also the potential for some benefits to
Hopkins, should the short-term solution be implemented.
The current discussion surrounding a short-term solution is to construct a switching
. area near the Minnetonka/Hopkins border, wherein trains of about 60 cars in length
would be "blocked" before moving to customer locations both in and outside this area.
For definitional purposes, blocking refers to the practice of moving the railroad cars into .
the proper order for dropping off at various customer locations. The noise study
indicates that the blocking operations in the proposed location would have negligible
impacts on Hopkins properties, while having significant improvements in the other
areas. Hopkins staff has contended that Hopkins would not consider accepting all of
the blocking operations, but may be willing to consider a sharing of the blocking
operations by, potentially, accepting all of the nighttime operations with daytime
operations being held in the residential locations of 81. Louis Park and Minnetonka. We
have also asked the consultant to look for some positive improvements to the Hopkins
system as part of this arrangement. For instance, is it possible to make alterations to
the train operations to reiieve traffic blockages that currently exist on Fifth Avenue and
Excelsior Boulevard. Currently, train operations can block traffic movements for 10 to
15 minutes, including rush hour periods. A movement of the blocking operations to the
westerly side of Hopkins may be able to relieve the city and the traveling public of that
disruption.
Financially, Hopkins has also maintained that any short-term solutions must be borne
by others, and that Hopkins would not participate financially. It is estimated that the
cost of making the short-term improvements is $60,000 to $80,000, and 81. Louis Park
and Minnetonka are conversing over how they would share that cost responsibility
should they proceed.
A representative of RLK will be in attendance at the work session to share their study e
information and to discuss the current status of both the short- and the long-term
solutions. If there is any specific information Council members would like prior to the
work session, please contact Steve Mielke.
mayorccrrblocking
.
.
--.-. --
Railroad Noise Monitoring
and
___ T__".. Analysi~~tudy
. August 26, 1999
Prepared By:
SSP As~ociatesJ Inc. . ~~---
Consulting Services
3914 Randall Avenue Minneapolis, MinnesotCl 55416 (612) 927-9012 Fax: (612) 788-8186
~
RLK Engineering. Planning Surveying. Landscape Architecture
( KUlJSISTO LTD )
. ~ Offices: Hibbing . Minnetonka . St Paul . Twin Ports
(612) 933-0972 . 6110 Blue Circle Drive. Suite 100 . Minnetanka, MN 55343 . FAX (612) 933.1153
.
Executive Summary
SBP Associates, Inc. conducted testing and analysis to detennine the impacts of existing
and proposed rail blocking operations at locations in Minnetonka, Hopkins, and St. Louis
Park, Minnesota.
Results of the testing and analysis found that the blocking operations generate noise
levels that are within the noise standards established by the State of Minnesota for the
daytime hours, but exceed the State standards for nighttime hours, These noise levels are
generated by both steady and intermittent noises that occur over a one-hour time interval.
SBP ia un<l\vare of any meritorious standards that address impulsive noises. Therefore,
attempts to regulate the impulsive noises generated from the banging of rail cars cannot
be substantiated by in-place noise ordinances,
The non-residential segment analyzed for the potential relocation of blocking operations
appear to be appropriate for trains of less than 60 cars in length, Twin Cities and Western
Railroad presently is operating approximately 90 percent of its trains with lengths greater
than 80 cars during the river navigation season (March to November). During the winter
months (November to March) approximately 50 percent of the trains arc greater than 60 e
cars in length,
It was determined during the demonstration that regardless of train length, the noise
impacts from potential blocking to the residential areas in Hopkins closest to the potential
blocking segment were minimal.
Conversely, trains exceeding 00 cars in length introduce substantial noise impacts to the
residences located in east Minnetonka on the south side of the railroad right of way and
east of Shady Oak Road,
.
.. Study Background
Twin Cities and Western Railroad (TC&W) is a regional rail carrier that serves clients
along its mainline track which extends westward from the Twin Cities just into eastern
South Dakota (see Figure I). The company ships agricultural products into the Twin
Cities. Loaded cars are dropped at one of three terminals (Camden in North Minneapolis,
Pigs Eye/Daytons Bluff in St. Paul, Or CargilllBungee in Savage).
i TC&W also picks up rail cars at the Twin Cities terminals to return to clients in western
Minnesota and South Dakota. Some cars are loaded, but many are empty cars that are
left for their clients to fill for future shipment.
The three tcnninals in the Twin Cities are owned by other railroad companies or agents.
TC&W trains operate within those yards according to lease arrangements. Therefore,
TC&W trains pick up their cars in random order, as they are available. Their track right
arrangements do not pennit them to sort their cars into the appropriate sequence in the
rail yards. TC&W does not own a rail yard at which to store cars or to sort cars.
Since the entire TC&W mainline west of the Twin Cities is a single track, the operators
must sort the westbound rail cars into the proper sequence according to the order in
which they are dropped. This process is called "blocking". Eastbound cars are picked up
. in sequence and are not required to be blocked.
The blocking process is described in the appendix of this report. There are three
locations where TC&W can physically perform their blocking operations. These sites are
illustrated in Figure 2. All three of the existing locations are adjacent to residential areas.
The operation generates a considerable amount of noise and the process can last several
hours. This noise has generated a number of complaints and is the subject of this study.
RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. has been working with the Cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and
Minnetonka to identify solutions that will minimize the n<~ise impacts on the residential
communities. A track segment with non residential adjacent land use was identified that
could be used for blocking with minimal constmction efforts.
Study Objectives and Procedures
The following noise study has two primary objectives. First, to quantify the noise levels
at the existing blocking locations and compare the findings to applicable State and local
noise ordinances. Secondly, to determine the expected noise levels from the potential
blocking segment and to perform similar analysis.
SBP Associates, Inc. (SBP) was retained by the three impacted Cities to monitor the
noise generated by the blocking operations. Noise levels were recorded with sound level
. analyzers at each of the three existing locations. In addition, TC&W railroad participated
in the process by staging a simulated blocking process along the potential blocking
segment. SBP took similar noise measurements during the simulation.
--------" ----'
--
-.-........ ------~---------~
\"~~~CO"'"~~~"".""~~"" ~""."-~-~~~ ..,""-^-,~~' "-,~" " ""_.~~--- - -,~--- -"-~-- ==
, w
, a::
\ :J ,..-
<5
1; ~~.
I ~
\ I
. LLl~
-r-:li c:
, '" \
\ ~
~ Q., \'
'" E
~
0
cr;
- ~- 0 >-
\ ,,-B l) Z
.~ '. -. l <(
~ \W~ = M 0-
ii'm "'Q :::;
l 0", Z
0'"
-~ f..-y C\1
.0, 0
D
~ .c- o L 0
0
~~ \... 0
\ ro'"
._- fu S. --. <(
- '" "....
"" ~ 0
tt: ct.
..-J
E ~
~ Z
~ ix:
"'
fl. rt.n W
s r-
iii 1:.: ~
_C1__ -
~. (f)
\% _, l~ C
~ W
,e:. Ql
Iii 5:
ro Q)
~ <fl
ul-' ~ oil :c ~
0 01
U) ';;:
!J)- Q) <lJ (f)
(J) ....
(\) <3 01 ill
(Il
c "Q.\ c .:.:
'-' t:
- .~ I'll
t: .... l- {:: 0
.- ~
'"' Ul ~ .. ...... I' Z
Cl :l; 0
G '"
:2. ~
'0 ~
I.
I c:
'" " ...,
;:;; ~
~ !
'.
'0 I
'c. i
c~
I. I ",
.c-
o N
\ ~
_...____. _. __l.--.-.--- ~
f?
J: tY.i
ot-" '" .....
"""' 0 In
"
I :J -;;;.
I ~" \ :;s:. 0 .....
-' \\;.,\,' 0 0
" ,S' ca ro
O-:~:..~:;":/ l J;~ (f) 0
5 ~
~ '" (~:
"" ~
0'1 ;;'
'" ,-
'c.
___ _~_ _~.,,_.~.~.....:--:=.~=c._=_=_~ ~""e.:.-.c .;-~.-:.-",.." =.-~' ,--,---,,~,,--, _-.:o.-,--...-=-=-=----~--',...."'--'------ --_..--~.
I~""--~"
.
The sound tests for this study were conducted using the fast-response setting on the sound
level analyzer. This is designed to simulate the human ear. As a result, the readings do
not record the highest level of very sharp sounds.
Criteria
Steady and Intermittent Noise
Minnesota Rule Chapter 7030 provides the Minnesota standards for noise. These
standards describe the limiting levels of sound established on the basis of present
knowledge for the preservation of health and welfare. These standards are
designed to be consistent with sleep, speech, annoyance, and hearing conversation
requirements for receivers within arcas grouped according to land use activities.
The Minnesota standards are as follows:
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m
LlO Lso Lro Lso
NAC~ I (Residential) 65 60 55 50
NAC-2 (Commercial) 70 65 70 65
NAC-3 (Industrial) 80 75 80 75
. LIO is defined as the sound level that is exceeded for 10 percent of the time for a
one-hour period. LSD is defined as the sound level that is exceeded for 50 percent
of the time for a one-hour period. Sound levels are expressed in dBA. A dBA is
a unit of sound level expressed in decibels and weighted for the purpose of
detennining the human response to sound.
Impulsive Noise
The Minnesota standards are not designed to control impulsive noises. A noise
level must be exceeded for 10 percent of anyone-hour period to impact the
standard. Additionally, SBP is unaware of any meritorious environmental
standards for impulsive noise. OSHA has an occupational impulsive noise
restriction of 140 dB, but this is designed to prevent hearing damage and is not
applicable to this situation since the impulsive levels are much lower.
The Minnesota standards, adopted in 1974 and modified in 1986, clearly state that
"these standards do not, by themselves, identify the limiting levels of impulsive
noise needed for the preservation of public health and welfare."
Although the peak readings resulting from the short duration sounds are not
specified in this study, or specifically controlled by the Minnesota standards they
are included in both L10 and L50 analysis.
.
Test Results .
Test Locations
SBP has conducted testing during actual Twin Cities and Western blocking
operations along the Dominick Drive, Minnehaha Creek blocking segments (see
Figures 3 and 4). No tests were performed at the Bass Lake Yard (see Figure 5)
location since adequate data to meet the study objectives was obtained at the
previously mentioned blocking sites. Additionally, SBP conducted testing during
two blocking simulations along the potential blocking segment that runs through
western Hopkins and eastern Minnetonka (see Figure 6).
Specific testing locations arc illustrated on Figures 3, 4, and 6. Sites were
selected to measure typical noise levels experienced in the residential areas
adjacent to the blocking segments. Additionally, test locations were varied to
determine the affects of the latera! location (parallel to the tracks relative to the
switch location) and the distance measured perpendicular from the tracks.
The Iatcrallocations were categorized in two segments. Each of these segments is
subject to differing noise sources:
'" Coupling Segment: This segment is located east of the switch. The primary
noise source in this segment is the banging which occurs when the cars are re- e
coupled. Screeching from brakes also occurs within this segment. During the
process, the enginc(s) maneuver within the segment west of the switch, so
engine noise, is minimal.
C-J Headway Segment; This segment is locateu west of the switch. The primary
noise source in this segment is the engine exhaust and noise from the
locomotive. Screeching from breaks also occurs within this segment. As the
train stops, noise is also generated hy the trailing cars banging when they
compress together.
Existing B loclking Segrncnt Results
Test data for the Dominick Drive and Minnehaha Creek locations has been
analyzed and summarized as follows:
","c ,,~_~ __ "., .."'_.~'~~'=""T"'""".______",,,,,,,,,,,,,".__,,,-__~~___._,,~_, ~~~____~~,_~"p~,~'.,"~~'r-=--===="="=="'~ . ."",,~~..... ~"II"",''-'''''=~.c' ~__R"""""""_~~
Test Location Test lDaternmc 1,10 Lso LClJ
~~~~_._..._... --.- "'dlbO"oo,~"" u_
(A) Dominick Drive 6/ 14/99 66.0 dBA 54.5 dBA 66.1 dBA
(Coupling Segment) 8: 12 p.m. ~ Y: 14 p.m.
(B) Dominick Drive 6/3/99 65.0 dBA 53.0 dBA 64.3 dBA
(Headway Segment) S:47 p.m. - 9:44 p.lll.
rC) Minnehaha Creek (J/2/99 65.0 dBA 54.5 dRA 61.4 dBA
(Coupl ing Segment) RAO p.n! - C):4 i p.111.
(Cl Minnehaha Cret'k 5/27lq9 66.0 <.lBA '):1.0 dBA 64.0 dBA .
~ - (Coupling Segment) l):~O p.m.- l):59 p.m.
.-
:------ --------
~ ~
0 \
~ u:-
rl) T~'---""
JLt~ <D ---
....~\=
0 o<="
~
(;l., s:;
~) 0
(l.) 0=
aC
e
r-
~
tl=:-
- emll" r~-
~,~~~
tOS>-
--------~_.~
-~
~/'t
(D (f)
,~
,o::r~~ Z
ro
0
-
'4.
:c .~ 0,
0 () "0 0'\
eft) .((t: \\ ~\ ~\ .J\
,~ '~-\: ~> l:z:"_ft'~
-;, :~,:..~ ~\
" l....':i
r::};~..1 -r.(f) 'Z :.
. \0 ~}{~l ~m ~\
e;;::"1 ~~ ()\
~~ 01
. '".~e~~l ~, :2.0 Ul ..J
.l';;:~_" c.~_-C''''--' ?;:
CO 1
ct. \
~j \---1-l -- t9 \
--~- --~.~ j-----~ Z
~ () -
~-' ,~L.. zG ~
--- J!s ~t:
5<
-0.. 0 > u.1
r Loom
T,
'\ "----->'\ ~j .."
\.~
r \ "='
/~ ,=
~ (U
~~
z (~-,
'::d..=
i e-~'
~-.;I
~5 0"
"'
"~ '"'0
W\- '\ IJJ
\-- ,p;.-:?
os. ~';:,.:J.
.JC"~
o....(J) \._::::;l~l
"",,(If'''''.}
6';
'lv
C~
.,.,.
C':,
I"'~;
\ j~-::;'\
?
=.::;..-......:::..:;
I
, W
a::
-, ,
Cl
G::
;:'.::z;1O~~
.
\,-:"
\
, . L
JC
CJ
~=
1
5:1
en '
tU '
>
,
;
~ , ---.
~[
u:
- (
Z(
~,
o
Cl
,
," .
,'., ,I'
'1 'J~ ,;:; ~,,\~ ,," '
~ r.::-~7:'i=r'::L]
'~~~~?~~:;" :. . .f\' .... /~~'
., ...'" ,. . ,'" .. (I"
",,'/:'~:~X,l, ,.;,j~'. '.:'~I \>.~ .
_..._~_., -;;;;-:;'';-.L~-,p.' :..-~~-:. ~/~jl,~N'/ .il. ~. '
.:::,,-;;-T~'::::~" ~__L..-::=,t\..'.~_. :1, "'.~=-===-~_ ,--.:;:~:.:."'::.~_~
-
w
a::
=> ""i
<::I
G:
-
:c
0
I-
~ a
if) Q
~ (J
W u
:::.
ill <
ct: -
tI
() (J
<
<( (]
J: =
<( <
0
:c 0
w c.
Z
Z
-
:2:
,
I
-
(~
-
r=-..=-....:;.-="::"-,
W
a::
::J u::
(!)
G:
~.
0
0 0
n:: (J
.<( u
::,
>= <;
-
(J
')
~
:J IJ
-.
(f) <;
c
(f) :;
<( "
00 Il
C
(
.
r==
(~l
L-=--'--;~
-------
----..~....
-'
-
-
w
oc
~ Ci
(.')
W G:
~ -
0
(J)
0
l-
I-
0
Z
Z
0
-
~
()
0
...J
(9 .
Z l
2 (
.
() ~
0 .
;:
...J C
co (
...J
~
I-
Z
W
I-
0
Q..
.
-
(~
-
Testi!lg was dune bet\vecn 100 and 200 feel from the tracks, consistent with the .
location 01 sensitive receptors along the tracks.
Other nuise sources noted during the testing included air traffic, trees rustling,
automobile traffic, and lawn mowers.
Complete graphic presentations of the monitoring results are provided in
Appendix A.
Simulated Operations
Results of the monitoring done at the residential locations in Mionetonka and
Hopkins along the potential new hlocking segment arc as follows:
... ~-
Test !Location Test Dateffime LlO Lso
~- - ~ -
(D) Hopkins (East End) 7/1199, 5: 18 p.m. - 6: 10 p.m. 60.0 dBA 54.0 dBA
(E) Minnetonka (Beachside) 7/1/99,5:12 p.m. - 5:33 p.m. 52.0 dBA 50.0 dBA
(F) Hopkins (Westbrook) 711/99, 5:4~ p.m. - 6:05 p.m. 54.5 dBA 48.0 dBA
(F) Hopkins (Westbrook) 7/22/99,8:40 p.m. - 10:31 p.m. 47.0 dBA 46.0 dBA
(U) Minflctonka(Across Lake) 7/22/99, S :58 p.m. - 9: 17 p.m. 59.0 dBA 50.0 dBA
(H) Minnelonka{Dominick Dr) 7/22/99,9:28 p.m. - 9:52 p.m. 56.0 dBA 50.5 dBA
!(E) M innctonka (Bcachside) 7/22/99,10:11 p.rtl.-l0:13 p.m. 72.0 dBA 63.5 dBA e
'------"---.... - . -~~-
Simulation on July 1, 11.)99 consisted of approximately 60 cars. Simulation all
July 22. [999 consisted of approximately YO cars.
CUl!ld!J.!s[cms
Nighttime ys. [)ayt!'11e Operations
Minnesota nighttime ~aandards afC enforced by the Minnespta Pollution Control
Agency. The established nighlliOlc standards were based on the noise levels that
would interfere with sleeping with bedroom windows partially open. The
nighttime standards arc in effect from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
It was determined that the noise levels generated by tbe blocking operations were
at or near the allowable daytime standards, but well above the allowable nighttime
stambrds.
n~otential Blocking Segmell1t
Based on observations during two blocking simulations performed by Twin Cities
and Western Railroad Cumpany (TC&W), lhe following conclusions were drawn:
,:) Bl\ld.ing [1cTformcd ror trains I lr 60 cars or less within the "Potential Dlocking
Segment" generated noises well within both daytime and nighttime noise .
standards in all adjacent re:siclcntial areas.
. e The noise generated by blocking trains exceeding 60 cars in length had
significant noise impacts for residential areas in east Minnetonka. Trains
exceeding 80 cars in length actually present a higher level of noise to the
residents east of Shady Oak Road than the residents west of Shady Oak Road
are currently subjected to from the Dominick Drive switch.
e Regardless of train length, the noise impacts to the residential areas within the
City of Hopkins are relatively small. Both simulations generated noise levels
within both daytime and nighttime standards.
Impulsive Noise
SBP is not aware of any meritorious standards by which to judge the significance
of the noise levels produced by short impulsive events such as two cars banging
together. However, it is obvious from our observations that impulsive noises
generated by the blocking process can be startling and disturbing in the vicinity of
the blocking segments.
Headway Segment vs. Coupling Segment
Notable from the test results is that there is little difference between results from
testing at the headway segment and results from testing at the coupling segment
area at Dominick Drive. This is likely true for locations relatively near the
. switching areas because they receive intermittent noise from the locomotive and
from the cars.
.
.
- ~ ,~" .. -.::.'-".::'11 t1 :. .",- ~'I '.' ,
il1l ~~,' , < 7,n. '. ,.-.J.JJX'~~7'".4:':;~-.,'~)' ..-: ;, ! I~ . _! L.,._ _"
i j: '\ . Ii .-.. -----1,
--- " '--_'::if~"~,:~ ,-..
',) I)
i I!
I"
I' .--l~ -. . -', ~.~, ',~:,._-..: 'j
1'1 '.:\' l_ 'Ii;
" '. .--
O'I;J,', .\
li( I ..:\\
:,! ! ~ I' !:,'1' '..':.: ~,..
'i' \
IT I";) ! <I
'r:':.
'I' .':7!1: / / ;~-L~. " }}~
I'; 'i 'il! ._'I;i":," -,ii
1:;1 ',L. '.i r,' .' ~',~'
/li/" - .- . ----:.~-~- ,. - ~ \ ._'c' __-.- ,I}
,I ~ i I :' "; i .n) li ' I
ii;i. /" ,1< I' .f~' Ii ,;\
" .- ~:'~,~i\:I~~~~~
y ~ I ' ~ ' I I;
fl!! .) ~
, - \ h._, II
~ ~ I , t1 j; -- I
il"
ilil I i c: I
~i . '--,. -~.
I,! I ..:.~ I' ,- "--' .- ..-..
I,;! i
:.:1 . I. I ',I, I ~:' r I
;!,!] . . : L:_ '..-- ", 1 .-__k~,-:.:-
-..- -, -- 'h _ " I "'__~_,___" ~ ~~..~ ~._..,
.. .- - "_:.-:~--:..:..--:~---:-::~~:..-::-::.- ::.- ~.:~, .-- --'"r r ----r I" '-'--l \--,..
I
STEP 1: Train stops east of switch with cars in STEP 4; Engine drops trailing cars on sidetrack &
random order returns to mainline to con nect to leading
cor plus trailing cars
1<< -" - _: .., :;..~1. .~~:';:: 11'-'" .~~'~L.. .~-~ :,:::.::: : i .,,::,:,~\;
',1>' ,_'. l~ ' '". --,>.,-:;,.I:'~./i:~(i;.c.:.:'.''c-.:..: .J:. ,::T"i-(-7L;_~
';;']1)1"-- -, ~\... " .', t . "~,,, c i 'I'YI
',: !III 1.' !,\ . .. ~ -;, ; I . .'
. ~ I I "YI "'\J
~ iI i n ".: .~ f-:'~ :;~L~~' . _'.:. . 'I _._ J)F"c:',,!,.,,_. .:. \\:~~ \\,'..
1,1
liij: I' .,,!'i: nli. \1,--'..-
I 0 ~ ( : -..1.: .. : 11:11 I ~1
I jl!i n
,I,' ':':,',' \ ! 1 ~; --- ':(1.::
. -~:~. "l~\
.1". -- iL!i. .""
1,":",-
iJ!! ., ":".\',
:;':: ',"\
-- - '. ,_~'l: ll'!! . , ,'~ i.\._.
- '.,1' 'r:.'
~'LY "f'r : i ! ~ ,I:'L,
~ ;, ,- " iJli.)
, .~; .;, . ; ! ,~! '~ . :~:I "II,
'. ,I;"',"" ;i .1" I! . '-:l,,:. ~,;" , ,i"'" ~" l ~ ',Ii
I': II..
I:i, ':0 1:
,I'I." I,
Ii .- ~ i 11 .-; \1 l,\
,Ii;:; Ii: ,..', :~ ,.
, " h 'I:
I,' ji "
']i1
I i i ~ ! ill
'.1 -- --
'!II ._n. .,c~ ./ :,:'f!~C~~ . ,..::,~-
1::'[ _.- -
--
STEP 2: Train IS split, engine ta kes trailing STEP 5; Engine drops trailing cars on sidetrack
cars
leaving lead ca r at front on mainline but keeps lead car attached and returns
to mainline to pick up the next car
~ii'll --- .~~~::c~~:~~!_,:,:.1 c.~. ,_ -.:\' . -'. ~-,...~......... .~~ "":-~';:'~'~-=-l::'=S=~:---::!, ~ J"'~_',.----,: ~~ -' _~ ~~:~:J j
. ~ 'I' .';1' '"JIL_' .,"'" \','
", 'i ! i : I~ \' ~"o' ,;'~,,'~. l'l,
ii ,-;i ~ r
III, . \', '~~, ,,'-
;" d I.: -- ~ '.'l
~ : : I ' "
!j I . i. ;~: n ~
I!i' -, ""
',I; ! l ~ i
,'~ I.'
, !':: ~..Ii'!!-,-.,
,! J :',~ ' .:, -..
r,:!!
_ __ -, L. : j ~ 1 - . '~.~,'- i
,:"1
".,', ~ III 1 ,
',17":'; i
, i.I.t.: , ii '<I
_~'1 : '.._ ' . ..~ i:1 '_l1.:~;:'..
'I Ii ,.- c:,~~;~..'c~=-:i-. -~.-
I" , 'tt
" f: ~,,~,,'l ~;' !! Ii,
" ii 1'-:
: ,j 1-" -=- .", ,~ : r, ~ ~ - ;
, " U 1\" ;~..
I' I. ,....
I " r I 'l ~
,,'
, I JcJJt.~..
,..: -;!
,.1
I' ( , '~ L)
"
I' "_.-- - -".. ..- -i1 -II
STEP 3: Switch 13 thrown, engine reverses pushing STEP 6: Process IS repeated, switching cars bae
trailing cars onto the sidetrack & forth, splitting & reconnecting until
cars are in the appropriate order.
~'-~=~... .. ---
~)~ I IIBLOCKING" PROCESS I FI GU RE I
~'~.;;,) ..
'.~~ SHOWN AT MINNEHAHA CREEK SIDE TRACK 6
CITY OF HOPKINS
. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 99-091
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONS FOR ACCEPTANCE
OF A RAILROAD SWITCH ON THE CP RAIL LINE IN HOPKINS
WHEREAS, residential neighborhoods within the cities ofMinnetonka and St. Louis Park are
experiencing railroad operations noise problems; and
WHEREAS, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and St. Louis Park all find reason to find solutions to railroad issues;
and
WHEREAS, studies have been conducted by the three cities, looking for long-term solutions to railroad
disruptions; and
WHEREAS, discussions have found a potential short-term solution to the residential neighborhood issue
by installing a switch in a non-residential portion of Hopkins; and
WHEREAS, noise studies have been conducted to determine the impact of adding a switch in Hopkins
and have found the likelihood of disruptive impacts to be minimal; and
. WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins wishes to work with its neighboring communities to resolve these noise
Issues.
NOW~ THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Hopkins, that the City of
Hopkins will not object to the installation and use of a switch for train blocking purposes on the CP rail
line in the area east of the HopkinslMinnetonk:a border, subject to the following conditions:
1. The use of the switch is limited to a two-year period from the installation completion date. The City of
Hopkins may grant an extension beyond the two-year limit if, in the sole discretion of the City of
Hopkins, significant progress is being made to move all blocking operations to a location outside the
City of Hopkins.
2. That resolutions be adopted by Saint Louis Park and Minnetonka committing themselves to the
continued efforts to find a long-term solution to the blocking operations that will result in removal of
the operations from the three cities.
3. Prior to the installation of the switch, the cities of Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Saint Louis Park
together with TC&W will agree upon and approve an operational plan that describes the methodology
and usage of the blocking operations in the three cities. It is assumed in this resolution that the new
switch is used for blocking operations primarily during the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., and that
blocking operations during other time periods be shared between Minnetonka and Saint Louis Park. It
is also assumed that the switching operations in Hopkins are limited to 60 cars in length. The
operational plan will address how the operations will improve traffic disruptions at Excelsior
. Boulevard and 5th Avenue South. A letter of commitment from the Twin Cities and Western Railroad
Company (TC&W) indicating it's agreement and commitment to this clause shall be received by the
City of Hopkins prior to installation ofthe switch.
4. The City of Hopkins reserves the right to monitor the rail operations and to require the removal of the
switch by the cities of Minnetonka and/or Saint Louis Park or TC& W should the operations be found
to not be in compliance with the operational plan. Removal can also be required ifthe operations .'
consistently exceed State of Minnesota Noise standards or consistently results in levels of impulsive
nOIse that the City of Hopkins finds to exceed the level necessary to preserve public health and
welfare.
5. The cost of the switch installation will not be borne by The City of Hopkins.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hopkins City Council directs the City Manager
and the City Attorney's office to work with the communities of Minnetonka and St. Louis Park to
complete an operations plan and to implement the conditions authorized in this resolution.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 21st day of September, 1999.
By
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
AUest:
Teny Obermaier, City Clerk
.
.
;
"1" Y
\ 0
U ,<-
. ..
,
October 29, 1999 Council Report 99a202
. -$- ""
o P K \ <:lo
OPERATIONS AGREEMENT-RAILROAD SWITCH ADDITION IN HOPKINS
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve the contractual
agreement for purchase of materials and labor for installation of a new crossover and
revisions to the Twin Cities and Western Railroad blocking procedures within the cities
of Minnetonka. Sf. Louis Park. and Hopkins.
Adoption of this motion will result in the probable construction of a railroad switch in
Hopkins this year.
Overview
At the September 21, 1999 City Council meeting, City Council authorized the City
Manager to negotiate an operations agreement for a railroad switch on the CP rail line
in Hopkins.
The staff has been working with the cities of Minnetonka and Sf. Louis Park to form an
agreement along with the operator of the rail line, TC&W.
. Attached is a copy of the resolution passed by the Council in September, as well as a
copy of the proposed agreement that discusses the arrangements for the use and
discontinuance of the switch.
Staff is recommending approval of the agreement. The City Attorney's office is currently
reviewing the agreement and will provide comments prior to the Council meeting.
Primary Issues to Consider
. What are the operational components of the agreement?
Supporting Documentation
e Resolution 99-091
. Contractual agreement
~~~ ---
/-
. -
Steven C. Mielke
City Manager
CITY OF HOPKINS
. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 99-091
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONS FOR ACCEPTANCE
OF A RAILROAD SWITCH ON THE CP RAIL LINE IN HOPKINS
WHEREAS, residential neighborhoods within the cities of Minnetonka and S1. Louis Park are
experiencing railroad operations noise problems; and
WHEREAS, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and S1. Louis Park all find reason to find solutions to railroad issues;
and
WHEREAS, studies have been conducted by the three cities, looking for long-term solutions to railroad
disruptions; and
WHEREAS, discussions have found a potential short-term solution to the residential neighborhood issue
by installing a switch in a non-residential portion of Hopkins; and
WHEREAS, noise studies have been conducted to determine the impact of adding a switch in Hopkins
and have found the likelihood of disruptive impacts to be minimal; and
. WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins wishes to work with its neighboring communities to resolve these noise
issues.
NOW9 THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Hopkins, that the City of
Hopkins will not object to the installation and use of a switch for train blocking purposes on the CP rail
line in the area east ofthe HopkinslMinnetonka border, subject to the following conditions:
1. The use of the switch is limited to a two-year period from the installation completion date. The City of
Hopkins may grant an extension beyond the two-year limit if, in the sole discretion ofthe City of
Hopkins, significant progress is being made to move all blocking operations to a location outside the
City of Hopkins.
2. That resolutions be adopted by Saint Louis Park and Minnetonka committing themselves to the
continued efforts to find a long-term solution to the blocking operations that will result in removal of
thc operations from the three cities.
3. Prior to the installation of the switch, the cities of Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Saint Louis Park
together with TC& W will agree upon and approve an operational plan that describes the methodology
and usage ofthe blocking operations in the three cities. It is assumed in this resolution that the new
switch is used for blocking operations primarily during the hours of 8 :00 p.m. and 6 :00 a.m., and that
blocking operations during other time periods be shared between Minnetonka and Saint Louis Park. It
is also assumed that the switching operations in Hopkins are limited to 60 cars in length. The
operational plan will address how the operations will improve traffic disruptions at Excelsior
. Boulevard and 5th A venue South. A letter of commitment from the Twin Cities and Western Railroad
Company (TC&W) indicating it's agreement and commitment to this clause shall be received by the
City of Hopkins prior to installation of the switch.
4. The City of Hopkins reserves the right to monitor the rail operations and to require the removal of the
switch by the cities of Minnetonka and/or Saint Louis Park or TC& W should the operations be found .
to not be in compliance with the operational plan. Removal can also be required if the operations
consistently exceed State of Minnesota Noise standards or consistently results in levels of impulsive
noise thai the City of Hopkins finds to exceed the level necessary to preserve public health and
welfare.
,- The cost of the switch installation will not be home by The City of Hopkins.
.J.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hopkins City Council directs the City Manager
and the City Attorney's office to work with the communities ofMimletonka and St. Louis Park to
complete an operations plan and to implement the conditions authorized in this resolution.
Adoptt:d by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 21st day of September, 1999.
r "~('
, ",
: r . \ \
By~_~"~>~J ~-~~~1 ',--~ ~
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor c\
,
.
e
-----
10;27;99 ~5:47 FAX 6129331153 RLK-KlT'SI510 I4J 002
.
Contractual A2reement
FOR: Purchase of Materials and Labor for Installation of a New Cross-Over and
Revisions to the Twin Cities & Western Railroad Blocking Procedures within the
Cities of Minnetonka, St. LouIS Park, and Hopkins,
--
The following document serves as a contractual agreement between me Cities of
Minnetonka (MTKA), SL Louis Park (SLP), and Hopkins (HOPKINS) (collectively
CITIES); Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company (TCWR); and Canadian Pacific
Railway (CPR).
Project ObJectives
The short-term objective of this project is to reduce the noise levels expelienced by
residems living adjacenr [Q rhe rail segments that are used for blocking opermions by
TCWR. This is to be accomplished withom Increasing noise levels to residents not
cUlTently affecred by the operations, and without obstructing the Fifth Avenue grade
crossing during the operation.
. The long-rerrn goal is to eliminate all blocking operations from the three cities. The use
of the track segment in Hopkins is considered as a temporary improvement whlle a
permanent solution is pursued. The CITIES agree to work together toward a solution tbat
would move all blocking operations OUI these ciries.
Project Description
The agreement provides for the CITIES to purchdse materials from TCWR and labor
from CPR to install a new crossover between the CPR's Bass Lake Spur mainline track
and the parallel sidetrack at a location approximately 3600 feet west of Fifth A venue III
Hopkins, Minnesota_
The agreement requires TCWR to use thB new cross-over to perform its blocking
operations that occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on alJ da.ys of the week, and to
evenly distribute daytime blocking operations using [he three existing blocking locations
1.0 Crossover Materials and Installation
1.1 Equipment Purchase
MTKA and SLP agree to pay TCWR a sum of $40,000 for materials for the
installation of a new CroSSOver. This price includes delivery to {he SHe.. Any
. required materials that are not included in the list below will be considered
incidental and will be provided by TCWR at no additional cost. The turnouts and
connecting [rack shall remain the property of TCWR.
10-27'99 15:1S FAX 6129331153 RLK- KTTS I STO I4J 003
(2) Reconditioned number 9 turn-ours .
.
. Connecting track
. Ballas! (including providing a locomotive to dump ballast)
. Ties. plates. spIkes, and miscellaneous hardware
1.2 Labor for Track Installation
MTKA and SLP will pay CPR a sum of $47,272 (plus provision for up to an
additional 10% for contingencies) for the labor to install the above mal:erials
CPR will provide an itemized invoice to MTKA and SLP upon completion.
1.3 Construction Schedule
TCWR finS! have all material~ delivered to Site by November 15, 1999. The
construction wHl begin Tuesday. November 16, 1999. Project is to be completed
by Wednesday. November 24, 1999.
1.4 Construction Specifications
All track construction will be: performed according (0 AREA specifications
Canadian Pacific Railway will warranty the labor for a penod of one-year
following constructIOn completion.
1.5 Track Maintenance
Maintenance on the new crossover will be pedOlmed by CPR. Maintenance .
resulting from defects in the installation will be the responsibility of CPR.
Maintenance resulting from faulty materials will be the responsibility of TCWR.
The cost of normal track maintenance wi]] also be borne by TCWK
Any costs associated with repair to rail and/or rail cars resulting from a derailment
occurring on (he proposed crossover are the responsibilities of lhe operating
railroad company.
1.6 Payment
MTKA and SLP wi 11 pay TCVv K a sum of $40,000 fOf materials, and CPR a sum
of $47,272 plus contingencies for labor within 30 days from rhe completion date.
Cost-splil is population based CvlTKA - 52,176 (54.3%), SLP - 43,967 (45.7% )).
.MTKA will pay a sum of 547.361.78, Wilh an additional $2,565.41 budgeted for
labor contingency, lOlal responsibility nol [0 exceed $49,927,19. SLP will pay a
sum of $39,910.22, with an additional S2, 16 I 79 budgeted for labor contingency,
total responsibility nOl co exceed $42,072.01.
2.0 Revisions to Blocking Procedures
2.1 Current Blocking Procedure
WeslhoLlnd TCWR trains pick~up rdil cars from the river terminals in North e
Minneapolis or Savag~ or from Class 1 Railroad switching yards in St. Pau] The
cars are picked up In the order that they become available, resulting III a random
10/2i/99 15:48 FAX 6129331153 RLK-Kl1rSISTO I4J 00-1
. ordered train. The cars must be rearranged into an appropriate sequence before
delivering to clients
TCWR uses switches to double track at three different locations (Figure 1). Each
of these locations has adjacent residemialland-use. Trains are split and re-
coupled repeatedly until [he train is sorted into the proper order (Figure 2). A
typical blocking operation duration is 30 minutes to four hours.
2.2 Revised Blocking Procedure
Blocking operations [hat begin after 7:00 a.m. and are completed prior 10 10:00
p.m will continue to be performed as they are at present. TCWR has agreed to
make efforts to evenly distribute the "daytime" blocking operations between the
three existing blocking locations during the daytime hours. The term "even
distribution" is undefined in tem15 of operation hours. Crews will vary the
locations so that each of the three existing blocking locations is receiving an
approximately equal number of blocking operations on a day to day basis. TCWR
will make efforts to avoid using one location for a majority of the blocking during
anyone-week time interval.
For blocking operations that extend beyond 10:00 p.m., or begin between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., TCWR will utilize tbe new crossover in
. Hopkins_
During these hours, TCWR trains of less than 60 cars in length will be blocked
using the new crossover. All blocking actiVities will take place in the segment
between Shady Oak Road and Fifth Avenue_
For trains exceeding 60 cars io length, TCWR will perform blocking operatjons as
follows:
. The train will be split into two segments at some point east of Fifth Avenue
One segment will be left at this point while (he remaining segment wiU be
driven to the new switch west of Fifth A venue where it will be blocked_ Once
blocked, that segment will be driven west beyond the switch west of
Dominick Drive and backed onto the sidetrack between Dominick Drive and
the new switch. The engine will [hen return to the mainline and drive east to
pick-up the second segment. The second segment will then be blocked at ~he
new switch. Once this segment is blocked, the train will be carried west IO
Dominick Drive and connected to the first segment. The entire train will then
be blocked using the Dominick Drive switch. Typically, this will only require
a few cuts, and will minimize the activity within the residential area near
Dominick Drive.
Additional procedure:;; may be considered, but must be accepted in writing by all
parties and added to this docllment as a Contract Amendment.
. Maintaining vehicular [raffie across the grade crossing at Fifth A venue in
Hopkins is crucial. A[ no time during the blocking process may rail cars block
--- - ----- - ---
10/27:99 15:48 FAX 6129331153 RLK-Kl'lISISTO QJ 005
Fifth A venue or approach the street crossing to the point that the crossing gates .
are activJ.ted.
2.3 Anticipated Impads
Land use adjacent to the proposed blocking segment is primarily industnal or
commercial. Based on noise studies of simulated blocking operation::; during the
summer of 1999, noise impacts from the relocated operations will not exceed the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) noise standards to any residential
areas for crains with less than 60 cars.
Longer trains, however, will be required to make their final cms at Ihe Dominick
Drive switch. Since the tram will be composed of two segments that have already
been blocked in the non-residential segment. the duraIion of the operations at
Minnehaha Creek or Dominick Drive will be less than what is currently being
performed at these locations
2.4 Reporting Progress
The following reports will be prepared to assure that this project is achieving its
objectives
1. RLK-Kuusisto, Ltd. will maintain its currenI voice mail hothlle at (612) 922-
8258, ext. 128. ThIS phone number will be distributed to residents, city s1:aff,
and railroad companies to report feedback on {he operation changes. A report .
will be sent to all partIes each month
2. TCWR will k.eep a journal of its blocking operations (for both daytime and
nighttime operaIions). A journal entry will be made for each blocking
operation including a rill] car con~ist list, the location (or procedure for
nighUlme operations of trams exceeding 60 cars), and the start and complc1:ion
time for the opera1:ion. The journal will be <;.ent [0 all parties each month.
3. TCWR will also keep track of any additional operational costs that result from
the revisions in their blocking operations. Trains ofless than 60 cars, or [raim
bloc~-~d between the hours of 7:00 a,m. and 10:00 pm. will not be considertd.
TCWR IS required by law to keep rail Iogs that contain information that may
satisfy one or mQre of the above reporting requiremems. TC\VR will provide a
copy of these reports Lo the CITIES. The CITIES will detelmine.if submitting
reports in the eXlsting fonnat will satisfy the reponing requirements.
2.5 Duration of Operational Changes
This operational change is considered temporary while a pennanent solution is
developed. It is anticipated that the permanem soImion will be completed within
a time period of two years. If significam progress has not been made on a long-
tefln solution by December 1,2001, (he CITIES and TCWR will meet lO
determine how the blocking procedures will be conducted beyond that date.
.
2.6 Project Nonwperformance
lO/2i/99 15:49 FAX 6129331153 RLK-KlJlJSISTO 141 006
.
. The performance of the project will be continually evaluated by the CInES and
by TCWR. Each of these parties reServes the right to abandon the project at any
time if the project is not achieving its objectives.
If the project is abandoned for any reason, TCWR will refund the material
purchase price of $40,000 to MTKA and SLP. In such case, HOPKINS has (he
power to prohibit TCWR from blocking trains at that location.
2.7 Long-term Considerations
The materials and labor costs borne by MTKA and SLP, totaling $87,272 will be
considered as contribution (0 a peJlTlanent solution. It is the intention of all
parties, that the two turnouts and miscellaneous materials be salvaged for use in
conSTruction of a permanent solution.
Material costs exceeding the $40,000, as well as the additional operaTional costs
bome by TCWR to perform the blocking operations defined in this short-term
solution will be considered as a contribution toward a long-term plan_
.
.
10:27'99 15:49 FAX 6129331153 RLK-KlTSl STO G11 007
.
The undersigned understands and agrees to all terms of {his contract.
-- -- .~-~-'-
Canadian Pacific Railway
~ Date:
GaryU, MentJes, Manager Public Warks
-
Twin Cities & \Vestern Railroad Company
Date:
William F Drusch, Presidenl
City of Minnetonka .
~ Dale:
David Childs, City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
Dale.
Charles Meyer, City Manager
.~ ~ ~ -
City of Hopkins
Date:
Steven MIelke, City Manager
.
---'-
. Contract Amendment
In December 1999, the cities ofMinnetonka (MTKA), St. Louis Park (SLP), and
Hopkins (HOPKINS)(collectively CITIES), Twin Cities & Western Railroad
(TCWR) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) entered into an agreement
(AGREEMENT) regarding blocking procedures within the CITIES. The objective
was to reduce noise levels experienced by adjacent residents without shifting noise
to other residents. Several months of experience under the AGREEMENT
revealed that residents not previously affected were being adversely impacted by
the new blocking procedures. Accordingly, it appears appropriate to revise the
procedures to reduce this unanticipated impact.
Therefore, the parties agree that a new paragraph is added to section 2.2 of the
AGREEMENT to read as follows:
If there are adverse noise impacts on residents who did not have
those impacts before the revised blocking procedure, the parties may
agree to modify the terms ofthis section through a memorandum of
. understanding executed by the city managers of the respective
CITIES and authorized representatives of TCWR and CPR.
In all other respects, the AGREEMENT remains the same.
Canadian Pacific Railway
Date:_iP4t
Twin Cities & Western Railroad Company
k(tf'^1'/;:'t'~a-t{ ;1t:'/-; Date: /jf"kL
""'rt~r, Cbai,malHmd C.E.a.
i-/)e~ t'tt~ y-/
.
1
City of lVIinnetonka .
K~~~~~ Date: ./c2 -// -0 (}
Date: /:l~II~o
City of St Lou.
Date: /:2-- - 2-6 C AJ
Date: ;M ,dJu..""
~
City of Hopkins .
~~~ Date: /5J- 6"""- ~
C".",( --~_.._~ Date: / 2- ~.s: -- 00
...--7 -===='=~<- =-~-::;..?
" "=--'---'<- {' - ~~..
Steven Mielke, City Manager
.
2