Loading...
Memo- St Louis Park/Minnetonka Railroad Studies . I Public Works Department I Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ,/'; /j'l -; From: Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director ~.~ Copy: Steven C. Mielke, City Manager Date: March 4, 1999 Subject: Cities of 81. Louis Park and Minnetonka Railroad Studies Backoround In the Fall of 1998 the City of St Louis Park hired RLK - Kuusisto, Ltd., with Dick Koppy . as project manager, to perform a railroad study. The study is broad-based but includes investigating and reporting on current and future railroad operations, gathering input from neighborhoods affected by nearby rail operations and identifying alternatives to the current operations within St Louis Park. One desire of the City of St Louis Park is to eliminate rail car "blocking" and to limit rail operations within their city to through movements only. Rail car blocking is the moving of rail cars to sort them into an order that is determined by their destination. There is tremendous noise created by this operation due to the empty cars banging into each other, the revving of engines to accelerate and the braking. Shortly after the St Louis Park study began the City of Minnetonka also retained RLK-Kuusisto to study alternatives to rail operations there. The City of Minnetonka desired to move current blocking activity from the Dominick Drive area. The St. Louis Park study includes options to be considered for railroad improvements in the short term. One of these options is to move the blocking operations from St. Louis Park residential areas to the west. One these west locations is within Hopkins, the second location is in Glencoe (about 30 miles west of Chaska). The Hopkins location is considered an alternative to the Dominick Drive blocking area, as well. The Hopkins location is west of 5th Avenue South to the western city limit. In May, 1997 Hopkins City Council passed a resolution expressing opposition to . moving train switching operations into Hopkins from St. Louis Park. e Current Status RLK-Kuusisto has completed the railroad studies and the two cities are considering the report findings and recommendations. The final S1. Louis Park report will be discussed at their March 8th City Council Meeting. Future actions from the cities of S1. Louis Park and Minnetonka may include additional public input, an action plan, discussion on how the three cities could work together on a rail operations plan and discussion with Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company. Staff discussed the issue of moving these rail operations with Mr. Robert Swanson, Director of Railroad Administration in the MnDOT office of Freight, Railroads, and Waterways. Mr. Swanson stated that the Office of the Commissioner of Transportation (OCT) would have no clear authority to act on where TC&W might move these blocking operations. Rather, he said the OCT would act in a facilitative role to help ensure productive negotiations between the cities and the railroad. He cited a recent example from South S1. Paul where the Union Pacific Railroad wanted to expand its existing rail yard. The negotiations started out very adversarial but eventually both sides backed down enough to allow a compromise. Union Pacific eventually made less extensive improvements to its rail yard. The Hopkins City Attorney will discuss this example with the South S1. Paul City e Attorney to help determine our rights should our neighboring cities end up concluding that a Hopkins location is the preferred alternative for TC&W blocking operations. Purpose of Worksession Discussion Staff wants City Council to fully understand what's happening in our neighboring cities regarding these railroad studies and operations. To that end, Mr. Dick Koppy, RLK- Kuusisto, will make a presentation to further explain the study and answer questions. In addition, staff will provide an opinion from the City Attorneys office regarding legal authority of the city to influence rail operations. Staff would then like to discuss different approaches or strategies to include working with the cities of S1. Louis Park and Minnetonka on this issue. Attachments S1. Louis Park Railroad Study Executive summary and selected excerpts from this several hundred page report. e . . St. Louis Park , . . Railroad Study , '- , I BACKGROUND REPORT . Historical Overview . Railroad Infrastructure . . Current Operations . Future Projections . Potentially Affected Interests . NL/Golden Auto Site Redevelopment, . Identijic,ation of Alternatives January, 1999 , , Prepared By: -, , - '. - ._ r_ ,,~ ., - ... '. . '- '. . 'RIK' . , - , 'L . - . - , '. .' ,"'~ KUUSI~TO LTD) ,', , " . , -'-~" , " , - , . . . .' ' . ,. . ' , .-.. ""- . - "- - -, .- - , , _~.._ ~ u__. _ _ . _ __ ____...._..__.. _ . _ __ __.__. _ .. _Cu __ _ _ __.~L . . _~ - ,., , . --- --- - --- - .- ; . . : ST. LOUIS PARK RAILROAD STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . During the Fall of 1998 the City of St. Louis Park retained Richard Koppy, RLK- 1 Kuusisto, Ltd. to manage the railroad study. His assignment is to manage the tasks associated with the ongoing railroad program in St. Louis Park. The tasks that were involved in the Scope of Activities are as follows: . 0 Manage the ongoing activities associated with the railroad program that is articulated thoroughly in the agreement that was approved in April, 1998; ~ 0 Reconnect with potentially affected interests in neighborhoods of St. Louis Park; ,;; Prepare baseline information regarding the railroads in St. Louis Park and how they 0 relate to the regional transportation needs; -e 0 Review the future of railroad transportation in the St. Louis Park area; 0 Determine the economic and physical redevelopment opportunities and constraints i of the Golden Auto Site; . 0 Identify alternatives and preliminary cost estimates - Provide scope of services for an environmental study of the impacts of any proposed railroad improvements. - The primary objective of the City is to reduce the impact of train movement through St. Louis Park. It has been written by some of the constituents that this refers to minimizing the time that trains are in the City. Thus, through traffic movements are a primary ~ objective. Additionally, it is clear that the predominate group of affected property owners - do not expect to see the train traffic eliminated. The goal of residents that have spoken on the railroad issues is articulated very well by the language of the Task Force on Railroads '- composed of representatives from each of the neighborhoods: - .:. It is the intent and goal of the Neighborhood Task Force that all rail traffic I within the City run smoothly and efficiently as through traffic. This goal J should be accomplished by eliminating all types of switching operations '- within the City while assuring there is no increase in rail traffic on the north- -. south route. ... ~ l I - -- ------- . Over the past few months the project manager has reviewed the files of the City and County on the railroad situation in St. Louis Park. Significant energy has been expended working toward short-term solutions to mitigate the railroad impacts. Additional background information was obtained through: . Public meetings with the neighborhood residents; . A questionnaire was distributed to residents; . A questionnaire was distributed to business owners/operators; . Voice mail and E-mail hotline were established for input; . Newsletter articles were published and mailed; . Many other meetings were held with governmental agencies and railroad companies. This report contains background information on data that has been reviewed. Its' primary objective is to build a foundation from which the City Council can began to formulate policy concerning the transportation issues specifically focussing on the railroads. I The introduction section gives a brief explanation of each section of the report. An appendix contains several documents and reports that provide additional background on a specific topic. Throughout this document, reports and documents are referred to that elaborate on the information contained herein. If the reader wishes to view one of the documents referred to in this report, they are available through the City Manager's office. e Conclusions Up to this point a considerable amount of data has been reviewed that represents thousands of hours of energy expended on this subject by many different people. Some involved in government agencies, some representing the railroads, and some representing the neighborhoods and businesses that are directly impacted by the railroads. This report is not intended to serve as a decision document, but rather a background report that organizes the data. Several conclusions are presented in this executive summary. These conclusions are intended to form a basis for discussion that will ultimately lead to a decision on the direction this community will take. 1) A tremendous amount of energy that has been expended by a number of individuals and agencies dating back to early 1996. Everyone involved is anxious to develop a plan to deal with the future of rail transportation in St. Louis Park. 2) The basic goal is to develop a plan to work with an industry that is growing its business on the railroad infrastructure that impacts the community. The fact that the railroad industry operates under the jurisdiction of a Federal agency makes this a difficult task. How can we come out of this project where our control is minimal and arrive at a "Win- Wm" solution for all? It appears that all the work to this date has been gaining momentum moving in the correct direction. However, the problem is complex. Not because it is technologically difficult to comprehend, but rather, there are so many entities involved. Truly, this is a public - private situation that requires a . partnership to provide the best results possible of all of our efforts. 2 .-, V' ....---,- --- ... ..._- '- -- ~-_.. p- -- i i ;=. . 3) Many neighborhoods have different objectives, but they all have a common denominator of minimizing railroad time and noise in the City. In fact, the Kenwood ~ neighborhood in Minneapolis would share these objectives as well. - 4) Strong efforts have been made to develop alternatives that will create an acceptable co-existence of railroads with the community. Most solutions reviewed by the City -. Council have been short term in nature. When all the issues involved in the railroad program are reviewed, however, both a short term and long term scenario emerge. As the City Council decides how to proceed on the short term options, it is recommended "-" they consider the long term scenarios, as well. Conclusions for short and long term options are as follows: 1 Short Term Options: 1-6 years in duration, to the year 2005 - The work with Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority needs to be completed as a - precursor to become eligible to use the Environmental Response Fund. All options associated with this work should be decided upon and implemented in this time frame. It will not be easy to achieve the results that everyone would like to see, but if each option .- is studied with the facts in hand, an effective action plan can be the result. Each of the = options below are explained more thoroughly in the report and include cost estimates. The short term options which will lead to the achievement of the City neighborhood's ~ goal include the following construction activities: - . East-west line-rail connection to the north across the NL/Golden Site; -. . Redevelopment of the NL/Golden site; - . East-west line connection to the south; . Construction of the "iron triangle" con'1ection at the Canadian Pacific (CP) and 11II;.;; Burlington Northern Railroad (BNSF) interchange; ~ . Removal of the "wye" in the Oxford/Elmwood area; . Eliminating switching and blocking from the residential 'areas of St. Louis Park. Goal ~ is to minimize the time spent by trains as they pass through 81. Louis Park; - An operations agreement that will be signed by all of the railroads who operate . - through St. Louis Park; . Close streets where they intersect with railroad tracks or install signalized - crossing - guards. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has indicated there ~ are 3 intersections that should be closed and 7 signals that should be installed; - . Analyze vibration problems reported by adjacent owners; . A review of noise proofing homes that are close to the tracks; - Noise reduction and aesthetic improvements through berming and landscaping; . . Rail bridges need to be properly maintained and upgraded where appropriate. - These options should be discussed to determine which could be reasonably completed in - the short term time period. The discussion should result in development of a Railroad .- Capital Improvement Program with an implementation schedule and funding plan. The -. cost estimate for these items has been estimated at nearly $20 million dollars. It will be difficult in the short term to find funds to complete all of these items. - - -,. 3 " - v ---- ... j -- --- i . I I Lone Term Options: 6-20 vears in duration. to the vear 2020 As all of the data is reviewed beyond the issues on the short term option list, there is little doubt a long term program that should also be considered. Light Rail Transit: Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority has been purchasing railroad segments throughout the County in anticipation of a regional commuter transportation system. Within this report we have commented on the Light Rail Transit (LRT) system that has been conceptually developed. A main leg of this system comes out 29th Street from Minneapolis, into S1. Louis Park along the south side of TH 7, crosses 1R 100 and continues through the City on the east-west CP rail line into Hopkins. From this alignment, a spur line may go north on the CP line at the Milwaukee Junction servicing the central and northern portions of 81. Louis Park. There are no plans for this system to be implemented in the next decade. However, the Hiawatha Corridor from the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport to DowntoMl Minneapolis has already entered a planning and design stage. With the imminent construction of the Hiawatha Corridor, the fIrst entry may already be underway. Following the Hiawatha corridor, there are other links that are higher on the priority list than St. Louis Park. However, planning needs to begin now, as we study our short term e options for the freight rail situation. Commuter Rail: MnDOT is currently studying Commuter Rail Transportation in the metro area. Through a bill that passed the State Legislature in 1997, a very complex and encompassing study has been initiated. Over the last year" MnDDT has reviewed 19 railroad corridors throughout the Twin Cities metro area and has narrowed their list of potential project routes down to six. Two of the six fmal routes pass through the City on north-south and east-west routes. Contained in this report is a fairly succinct, yet complete description of the Commuter Rail report. Expected early this year is a decision from MnDOT to narrow this list down to three fmalists. Advanced information from MnDOT has it that at least one of the two routes through St. Louis Park will be a fmalist. Long term options that should be addressed by the City Cotlllcil as they review the railroad program include the following related transportation improvements. Each of these are probably beyond the short term time frame discussed in the earlier section of this executive summary. . LRT most likely will be implemented outward from Minneapolis in the next decade. Long term plarming should be an integral part of the short term railroad program discussion. . Commuter Rail and the implications of the routes that are proposed through St. Louis . Park are currently on the front burner of MnDOT. St. Louis Park is one of the key it 4 -- - cities involved in the favored routes. The routes that pass through St. Louis Park are . summarized in this report. . 111 100 will be reconstructed during the next decade through St. Louis Park. Railroad transportation could be considered along this route as the other routes reach their capacity, safety and environmentallimitatiollS. . Major redevelopment will continue to happen in St. Louis Park, one of the most attractive first ring suburbs in the Twin Cities. The current rail discussions present an excellent platform from which to continue long range planning efforts for transportation involving the movement of people and products. . The current north-south railroad corridor through St. Louis Park has been in place for decades. It can continue to handle the freight and business service traffic that presents itselfin 1999. However, the current route will have a very difficult time handling the growth of freight rail traffic coupled with Commuter Rail and LRT. Nor is the corridor correctly zoned or guided for this purpose. Therefore, in the long term, , consideration should be given to mOVIng or redeveloping the corridor. Redevelopment could take the form of creating open space to allow more room to buffer the railroad property from the remainder of the neighborhood. . Removal of the s\Vitching and blocking of rail traffic movements from the residential areas is one of the strongest improvements that can be made to the community. Unfortunately, it is not as easy as simply telling the railroad to move its operation. Over the long term, the cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka, in addition to Minneapolis, have a lot of common ground to share when railroads are the subject. . It would be a good idea to form a stronger relationship between the cities, possibly a partnership, similar to the transit one already in place. The same railroad companies affect each of the cities with freight rail traffic, whistle blowing, and the creation of disturbances to the residents. Additionally, a serious rail problem could very easily involve more than one City's resources. Finally, in the long term, the cities of this area may wish to become pro-active like cities betwee~ Anoka and St. Cloud have done to secure a commuter rail transit program. How do we move forward from here? The discussion of the St. Louis Park railroad issues needs to be focused \Vith the City Council. Decisions on the short term options need to be made so that action plans can be initiated during the next few months. It is recommended that the following steps be considered after you have had an opportunity to thoroughly review this report: I) This report should be shared with the neighborhood groups and their input considered during the next couple of months. Especially, where it comes down to their position on the short term improvement options. 2) An environmental study should be initiated to study the impacts and feasibility of the environmental mitigation measures. This environmental study can form the basis of an EA W for the project components that are approved. A Scope of Services for . 5 5 T ___. . - . ~ . . - --~ - -"- . - - .-- ~-~----~--~- .- ---~-- environmental studies is included in the Identification of Alternatives section of this . report. This future study would focus on the Railroad Capital Improvement Plan. 3) A second environmental study, specifically focused on the NL/Golden site, should be initiated. It will address the remediation plan that is required for construction of the railroad north connection over the contaminated site. It will also form the environmental remediation strategy for the complete redevelopment of this site. Information is available to form the scope of services to begin the search for an environmental consultant(s) within the Identification of Alternatives section of this report. 4) An engineering feasibility report should be authorized on each of the alternatives that the City Council determines are worth of pursuing. A funding plan should be an essential component of the feasibility studies. 5) Prior to adopting a short term railroad improvement plan, public meetings should be held for the purpose of sharing the information reported in the feasibility reports. The objective should be to fairly seek input on the residents' response to the report and to achieve development of their consent to move forward with the Capital Railroad Improvement Plan. 6) The City Council should develop an action plan and prepare a new agreement with Hennepin County that will focus on the implementation of the improvements and the funding plan. 7) St. Louis Park should form a three party team (consisting of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and Minnetonka) to review the details of the railroad improvements that suggest e shifting the blocking and switching areas away from The residential areas. Minnetonka has already joined the team. Hopkins is aware of the situation and has met with the project manager. Although the local approval of Hopkins is not required to move blocking locations, it would be beneficial to long term relationships and public relations if these cities work together toward a common goal. . 6 / G> -, T . ~_...--~ - . .----.--- - -~ , _.... ~- - .....-"'......-.-- - - . ----.--... --- -~--- ~- -- ._. ---'--c ~-t _,_______ _ _ ___ -- - --.-.----"P-- .__. __n_____ _ __ . Blocking Operation Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company is the only railroad company that performs "blocking" operations within the 51. Louis Park/HopkinslMi nnetonka area, As previously stated, TCWR performs this operation to sort the train cars into an order that is determined by their destination. TCWR picks up cars at rail yards in S1. Paul, Savage, and North MilUleapolis to deliver to customers in Western MilUlesota and Eastern South Dakota. Generally, the cars are picked up in a random order, as they are available. Once all cars are collected, the train drives west to an available "blocking" location in the S1. Louis Park/Hopkins/MilUletonka area (see Figure 4.10 - see also Figures 4.11 to 4.13). Since the TC& W mainline west of I -494 is single track, there are no other locations available for sorting the cars. Train cars that are to be dropped first, are situated closest to the engine. As trains reach the customers, this arrangement allows the operator to stop the train before the switch, and split the train. The trailing cars for clients further west are left on the mainline. The engine takes the leading cars, proceeds beyond the switch, and reverses onto the client's service track. The engine then leaves the site and reconnects with the remaining train. To block the train, the train is stopped so that the lead car is just east of the switch, The . train is then split with the engine taking the last dropped cars and backing them onto the sidetrack, leaving the first dropped cars at the front of the cars left on the mainline. The engine drops the cars on the sidetrack and pulls forward onto the mainline, reverses, and connects to the first dropped cars. The process is repeated as many times as required, A 30 car train can be blocked in less than an hour, but trains approaching 80 to 100 cars can take as long as tlrree to four hours. Figure 4.9 illustrates the blocking process. For TCWR's longest trains, the blocking process is performed over a total track length of over two miles. TCWR has stated that the blocking segment (east of the switch) must have capacity for at least 80 cars (4800 feet), and a headway (west of the switch) capacity of 100 cars (6000 feet). The blocking segment can be made up of several parallel sidetracks, in fact, more segments expedite the process. The headway can be a single track mainline. Many residents complain about the loud noises that are generated by the blocking process. The following described the noise generated over each segment in the process: . Blocking Segment: The loudest noise created by this operation is generated east of the switch, The noise is primarily attributed to the empty cars banging into each other, but also results from the revving of the engine to accelerate, and the braking. . Headway Segment: Lower noise levels are generated west of the switch. In this region, noise is generated by revving of the engine to accelerate, then braking when . the train has cleared the switch. As the train stops, noise is also generated by the trailing cars banging when they compress together. 4 - 17 'f . Preference of Blocking Locations MINNEHAHA SWITCH: For shorter trains, the Minnehaha switch is the preferred blocking location. The grades are flat, and there are no at-grade crossings for shorter trains. At this location, however, headway only accommodates 35 cars. Longer trains block Blake Road, which is a county road with high traffic volumes. The sidetrack east of the switch measures 6000 feet to the first at-grade crossing at Wooddale Avenue, which would accommodate even the longest trains (See Figure 4-11). DOMINICK ROAD SWITCH: Longer trains requiring more headway are typically blocked at the Dominick Road switch. This switch also has flat grades, but is not used for shorter trains because the sidetrack only has capacity for 8 cars before blocking Dominick Road. Despite the fact that frequent moves are required to allow cars to pass by during blocking operations, this area is the only one practical for longer trains (See Figure 4.12). BASS LAKE YARD: Bass Lake Yard has two sidetracks, one 5500 feet and one 6500 feet in length. Including the mainline, this three-track arrangement provides a more efficient track arrangement for blocking; however, two at-grade crossings present problems, Wooddale Avenue to the west limits the headway to 2400 feet, or 40 cars, and sidetracking to the east measures only 1800 feet or 30 car lengths before blocking Belt . Line Blvd. Both intersections carry heavy traffic volumes. Steeper grades in the Bass Lake switching area also were said to present problems by making braking and acceleration more difficult. Typically this location is used only when the other two areas are occupied (See Figure 4.13). All three locations are used depending on track availability. TC&W has the contractual right to use any and all of the sidetracking along the CP track to perform these operations, provided they keep the mainline open for through traffic. Rail Car Storage Since TCWR does not have a switching yard, they often use the sidetrack located along the CP Rail Bass Lake Spur throughout the St. Louis Park/ Hopkins/Minnetonka area to store rai 1 cars. Typically the storage is short-term such as between crew shift changes, overnight or over a weekend or holiday, Occasionally, cars are stored for longer periods. This is typically attributed to clients not being prepared to receive the cargo or the empty cars that are picked up from the Twin Cites terminals. Cars that have de-railed or have other mechanical problems may also be stored for extended periods of time, In the case of a de-rail, the entire train must be "hospitalled" to a sidetrack location and left until all cars are inspected and repaired, if . required, 4 - 18 Y> I ~ c O' - in STEP 4; " 05:- ~ r ' I ) .,~~. -...~~t. lJ e STEP 2: Train is split, engine takes trailing cars leaving lead car at front on mainline ~, ':of/~ -...",,~~~ "'-" ~ Q) , I '- -, 1 STEP 3: Switch is thrown, engine reverses pushing STEP 6; trailing cars onto the sidetrack ,8/ "BLOCKING" PROCESS / FIGURE lei MINNEHAHA CREEK SIDE TRACK 4.9 " \ '-h:1!~' il' :::> "I""" G " ~ " # .\ " \r ,!if.-",. I ~ -1~~ , ......0"'... ";~t~'~, ,j , .-,., wvOC .' .'0 "f', ,:.,/'C"~~;,;",,, ,,~ : ~.I. ~) ~ "', " ~, "<~~) L:'; - ~:~~ \,._L__,.J.:~~.~~~,:S~ <~':_,c< ~ " I ',. ""L'(:~,.",,,~,,,. "",", ""~"''''''P~::L;i ",=~" ':1 ~} i-. l- '";"'-J, o " ;:(; en J. ~ i '/.:'-" '\.- '--, -"" Z .~ ~j :r: % ,'-', 0 ~! ',,[I )j"" 0 ~' - ,V?' ,- \I'i~' }..:t. t: ~ I- " l': ~ "",., "1=' ' -....- .,:': ~ ~!- S ' " ....... " ._,.\~ " <:( (.... 'y j', .., U ,\ c-:::-,' J. :::t: OJ,/ -;1 . :::.::: '_, '" .j ;"-, 'v~' '\ W ~ ':. ~,~ , 0 0 ;: r"'':::;' .....:.-." i: ""7 LLI ,V" C2 . c., :. 1"_ W' . ,,-,. i'" .-I ,J -:-u_ .\ Z. r .c\ " ' , . ..,_' ~ _. rV' r' _,'. '.,.. ,. n t- " \",,~.i ;-:: L~ ' ,," -, .1 , '-wi " _.. _ U' '.' ",?;; () ,/ , .' ,., :.i . ,_,_' ....I \ ~I ,. :r"' ~ ~ ........ ,.r J'";I- \,. Z - ,., \ _\,,- , \ / .. .' ' <{ ." ,-,. (3:; 1'-""'), ,-j/" . \,: ~ ~ (t '._ / !~) #-,,~'1 .~ ~'. .'0" 0 Cl. ~"''''' .:.,.,,==' -4 }r'= e " """" ;" \~ ;,,,:,:"o,,,~,,,,,~,,,:,~/:;,, .""",,": .' 0 ~ ,~"._ ~ ._v'--...,'. . ~ .....J > ~ " , .., ' 0 > ,; .'" ., "., \'\"---' ;.' . :r: co -" l I' ~)-' - ~ . _'g'",:' ...'-, . . z,t ) 0 ~"".," " j I ~({~>=' r~',;"\;~:::"<,,,~~, ,," , ........ ~ ~ '_>,_ ,., \," '~- '7 >< .~ -"\\:,~.' '{-:~ , . '" " UJ r;~'" \.. \....t.~~~ ,~, ' l~ ,,- "'l,' . ,-~'. "... c."...' ~), ~,." \ '-P'" ,,,,' _,': ' \,.. ~.,',,, '. ,.,... r ,'; c, " ;, ~, ' ,." 1: \" ,.'!l-..~:- ..... . ,<, .,.. ':'; ;:,:;,~~.,... .' ""..\' :'~.'."t;~:: ,:::;:,:;:;;:";:";'c:~: ';~-:::.::r_c~,;';;;-;;:7:;-:::::s;,;;~::;;:':~;'1:"':~' 't.';;i:"''''''''' ':i~.". ' '.'> ,.' \ '=-- ~ .- ~~ ~ ",' ;~ ',. ',' ~ . 'l. . ~'/' ,~ ';;" ~ , ' , ' - '-,,-':""'- , ~ , 'I}:;) l.: '" -. J, . ) . ,~," Il- . '- ,,; ..>: <:'~' t l ,.., '::',:"':,: ; ~ ,,<,=:-,~J . ":.: i C "". ..' . ..... _,_ .n. ' ,~~ (~b ,. ; j~, );:. ... ' , ,[ / ;~ - ~ t . Identify alternatives and preliminary cost estimates The options that need to be considered for the railroad improvements in the short term in St. Louis Park are included in this section. The discussion has two components. First, the options are described and cost estimates are included. These estimates are very preliminary and further detailed design work needs to be done to provide an improved margin of reliability. That work is ongoing at present time. The second component of this section is a matrices which will help the City Council understand the apparent positions of each of several groups. Through discussions with the City Council and representatives from the various affected entities, this matrices can be reduced to a very focused document that can be converted in a series of decision packages. Description of the Options Several options have been addressed by the City through the process of holding neighborhood meetings during the past three years. Each are briefly discussed in this section of the report. All of the estimates include right of way acquisition, when appropriate, and include a 30% contingency factor. At this point in the study, these estimates are without a preliminary engineering plan. The basis for each of the cost . estimates is' an estimate of costs and fund plan that was prepared for the City Council in January, 1998. RLK has reviewed the information, and where possible, updated the costs. Additionally, 5% has been added to the figures to update the construction unit cost estimates to a 1999 scale. Therefore, the cost estimates are conceptual and need to be refmed during the engineering feasibility process. (1) Removal of the "wye" in the Elmwood and Oxford area of the City: For this area of the City, this is considered to be the most important improvement items. It is specifically mentioned in the bill that was passed by the State Legislature. It includes the removal of the railroad tracks that are used for organizing rail cars and changing elevations between the east-west line and the north-south line. There is an elevation difference between of approximately 20 feet. The "wye" provides the opportunity to position the railroad for the maneuver. In order to remove the rail, a direct connection between the lower and upper tracks needs to be constructed. Cost Estimate $200,000 (2) Construction of the connection rail from the east-west railroad line to the north- south railroad using a portion of the NL/Golden site for the ramp and the addition of a side track to allow rotation of the engine: . This connection has been discussed at many levels for the past three years. It will eliminate the need for the "wye" connection. Cost estimates range from $1 million to 8 . 1 -7 t,/ . - --.-- j. $2 million. The land for the connection is available via the NL/Golden site. However, remediation 'Will be necessary because of contamination. One of the \ primary difficulties of the connection is the facilitation of the HCRRA right of way j which is currently located on the north side of the overall railroad right of way. A juxtapositioning of this right of way may have to be completed to enable the ramp to ) be constructed and avoid blockage of the HCRRA trail and future LRT position. . 1 f Total cost estimates are very difficult to complete 'Without more detailed plans. Cost Estimate $1,500,000 -1 ) j (3) Construction of southerly connection from the east~west railroad: - ) This improvement could replace the northerly connection and eliminate the "wye" 1. connection. It entails more right of way expense than the former and does not involve - , remediation of the NL/Golden site, but does have a positive response by the railroads. Cost Estimate $1,500,000 j ~ (4) Remediate the NL/Golden site including the potential northwest railroad connection property: - The site has been delisted. MPCA and the VIC program need to be involved through - the clean-up process. Capping the site with any construction activity is preferred at _c. this time. A lower cost estimate is being used because it is assumed that paving the site for development purposes will solve part of the capping problems. This cost will be borne by the development activities. Excavating for building structures will be the - difficult process. It is assumed the excavated contaminated material can be placed in ~ the fill for the railroad ramp for the northwest connection. Cost Estimate $500,000 - - (5) Construct the rail connection at the BNSF rail line (iron triangle): Land is available for this construction; in fact, the original railroad embankment is I still partially in place. Apparently, the CP owns the predominate share of the land -, necessary for the connection. It may be possible to reduce the radius involved with this railroad connection design. This option includes the construction of a 2000 L.F. - noise wall separating the track from the adjacent residential dwellings. Cost Estimate $500,000 - :* (6) Move switching from the residential area behind South Oak Hill to the west There are several options to the west for this relocation. Two locations are in Hopkins and another is in Glencoe, the headquarters of the T.C. & W. operation. This estimate does not include land acquisition in Hopkins, but does in Glencoe. The =. option must be closely coordinated with T.C. & W. and CP RR. Cost Estimate $150,000 in Hopkins Cost Estimate $600,000 in Glencoe I ./") ~ ! - 8-2 - . (7) Rail improvements north and south of the Milwaukee Junction: The nature of these improvements must be coordinated with MnDOT and the Federal Railroad Authority. This cost estimate does not include any maintenance on the bridges along the route. Cost Estimate $2,350,000 (8) Street closures: Within this estimate, five street closures with the railroad tracks are included. Specific locations will be laid out in the engineering feasibility reports based on I consultation vrith the police, fire departments and the neighborhood residents. Cost Estimate $250,000 t (9) Rail Crossings (estimate from MnDOT): MnDDT performed a review of the street ! ; crossings in St. Louis Park and recommended that 8 locations be upgraded with new railroad signals electrically interconnected and outfitted vrith crossing arms. Additionally, the new crossing improvements include street reconstruction and new crossing pads. The addition of the rail crossings and street closures will allow the City to focus on a "whistle blowing" ordinance that the railroad companies will respect. Cost Estimate $1~50,000 . (10) Landscaping and Berming: Aesthetic improvements and noise mitigation at several locations within the railroad right of way where adequate elevation and setback is available. Cost Estimate $500,000 (11) Noise Mitigation: The combination of sound proofing of homes adjacent to the railroad tracks and the placement of strategically located noise walls have been previously estimated. This activity includes sound proofing for 245 residences and noise walls that encompass approximately 3500 Lineal Feet. The environmental study that is planned for the near future will include an analysis of the benefit - cost of this expenditure and an update to the cost estimate. Cost Estimate $7,000,000 (12) NL/Golden site acquisition Cost Estimate $4,000,000 Total Cost Estimate for the Implementation . of the Options from items 1 thru 12 >> Cost Estimate $20,300,000 8-4 , Ll ~ -- --~. w a::: M :::l . <9 ('I') G: Z 2 0 I- 0 :z ~ i:! - u " ., " I.U ,:2 I I -, _"J I 0 I ~l ----~- 'ItN1i~ / I . I I ~ :e , I , I (f) ~ >- UJ I OJ ~ , Z I (/1 ~ 0 - :?E G -J 2.: I ~ , I ...:( <( "' 0 , ~ , r.c ~ r- ,:2 <( I l5 , '" f" 0 I E ,,.' , G .....' a: 0:: , <( ! '~.{ --1 L: ~ 0 : e::: I- LU C!> :E Z I- U) >< W ~. IJ.J Z , <l Z f" , u , l- I 0 -;;J> U ~ Cd .~ 0 ;;; <I) ~ G =- r -- ~-- --- -- ---- - I .2 I - (~r~ ---'--..-- - -----~, ----~-"- -.----. , / l'