Memo- Railroad Blocking Operations-Update Discussion
I Office of the City Manager I
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Steven C. Mielke, City Manager
September 10,1999
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 St.
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 St. 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 St. 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 St. 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 St. 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 relieve 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 St. 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
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
~'I,
Railroad Noise Monitoring
and
Analysis Study
August 26, 1999.
Prepared By:
SSP Associates, Inc.
Consulting Services
3914 Randall Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
(612) 927-9012
Fax: (612) 788-8186
~
RLK
( KUUSISTO LTD )
~
Engineering. Planning. Surveying. Landscape Architecture
Offices: Hibbing . Minnetonka . St. Paul . Twin Ports
(612) 933-0972 . 6110 Blue Circle Drive. Suite 100 . Minnetonka, MN 55343 . FAX (612) 933-1153
Executive Summary
'j
J
SBP Associates, Inc. conducted testing and analysis to determine the impacts of existing
and proposed rail blocking operations at locations in Minnetonka, Hopkins, and St. Louis
Park, Minnesota.
~~1
1
"1
I
I
1
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 unaware 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 are greater than 60
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 80 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.
!
Executive Summary
SBP Associates, Inc. conducted testing and analysis to determine the impacts of existing
and proposed rail blocking operations at locations in Minnetonka, Hopkins, and St. Louis
Park, Minnesota.
-1
~
1
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 unaware 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 are greater than 60
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 80 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 EyelDaytons Bluff in St. Paul, or CargilllBungee in Savage).
'''"'1
,
j
J
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 terminals 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 permit 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 nqise impacts on the residential
communities. A track segment with non-residential adjacent land use was identified that
could be used for blocking with minimal construction 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.
Ow
Q) 0
"c:
o r+
r+;::r
Q)
1JI
a
o
,..
:r
CQ
II>
~)
(
t
f
t
t
QI
I [g
-9~
If
/1'-
QI
Q
~
S
Cr,
~
~.
I::l
~
QI
~
'"
~
o
I 6i ~
I~
is
'"'0
QI
ij;I!!l'
~ID
",,,,
C"'l
~
~Qi
"'C"'l
lIl"'"
",C';"
c~
.:;;ts'
-
-.
.
,
.
,
..
.
..
,/
~
5'
Q
ii'
(j)
r:lO
::E
CD
tJl
.....
CD
.,
:l
g-
~
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
iil
n
'"
III
to
(1)
.,
ii'
:l'"
.....
tJl
s:::
~-I m
~
Z
()
=i
m
(j)
Qo
~
m
en
--I
m
:xl
Z
~
r-
:xl
o
)>
o
()
o
s:
-U
)>
Z
-<
---
...,
(;)
c
;u
fTl
-'"
0<
~
'"
<D
'"
0'
<:::J
~
so
U,
15
..
:::..
Q
i
I
,
I
--\
~~
,
r--.......~...~
en
o
s::
.....
:r
0'
~
*
[)
"t
"1" ',.----:';:,#.
~ - "ir"'-'''I"-\~ -:
;a -0
-' <g I ~
3 ,
~ I
0- ":
I
~~
~~fb
,~
r
: I
Lle-;
IT1 I
i
OJ
a
o
...
S'
lC
III
Ql
(DI~
~~
",,,,
o
~
~Qi
=>C)
!~
0~
"t_o
-'C
.
......
I"
,
.
,
.
.
.
.r "'<<~ ~;.
i
:;'
n
::0:
iii'
Ul
QO
::E
(1)
Ul
-
(1)
...
::l
",--, ~
=, m
<n-
o
~
!!:
...
-
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
-l
...
Dl
(')
^
Dl
co
CD
...
cC'
:T
en
~)
~
Z
()
....f
m
(J)
(to
~
m
(j)
-I
m
;0
z
~
r
;0
o
)>
o
()
o
s:
\J
)>
Z
-<
:!l
(;)
C
;;0
f'T1
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.
, 1
~ <~
i
, j
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 areas grouped according to land use activities.
The Minnesota standards are as follows:
NAC-l (Residential)
NAC-2 (Commercial)
NAC-3 (Industrial)
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
LlO Lso
65 60
70 65
80 75
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 8.m
LIO Lso
55 50
70 65
80 75
LIO is defined as the sound level that is exceeded for 10 percent of the time for a
one-hour period. Lso 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
determining 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 LIO and Lso analysis.
Test Results
c,
.!
~~ ,~(
J
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).
Y:'j
'1
j
c,
Specific testing locations are 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 lateral location (parallel to the tracks relative to the
switch location) and the distance measured perpendicular from the tracks.
The lateral locations 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-
coupled. Screeching from brakes also occurs within this segment. During the
process, the engine(s) maneuver within the segment west of the switch, so
engine noise, is minimal.
. Headway Segment: This segment is located 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 by the trailing cars banging when they
compress together.
Existing Blocking Segment Results
Test data for the Dominick Drive and Minnehaha Creek locations has been
analyzed and summarized as follows:
j
~
j
Test Location Test Dateffime LIO Lso Leq
(A) Dominick Drive 6/14/99 66.0 dBA 54.5 dBA 66.1 dBA
(Coupling Segment) 8: 12 p.m. - 9:14 p.m.
(B) Dominick Drive 6/3/99 65.0 dBA 53.0 dBA 64.3 dBA
(Headway Segment) 8:47 p.m. - 9:44 p.m.
(C) Minnehaha Creek 6/2/99 65.0 dBA 54.5 dBA 61.4 dBA
(Coupling Segment) 8:40 p.m. - 9:41 p.m.
(C) Minnehaha Creek 5/27/99 66.0 dBA 53.0 dBA 64.0 dBA
(Coupling Segment) 9:30 p.m. - 9:59 p.m.
Test Results
._,
!j
i
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 are 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 lateral location (parallel to the tracks relative to the
switch location) and the distance measured perpendicular from the tracks.
The lateral locations 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-
coupled. Screeching from brakes also occurs within this segment. During the
process, the engine(s) maneuver within the segment west of the switch, so
engine noise, is minimal.
. Headway Segment: This segment is located 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 by the trailing cars banging when they
compress together.
Existing Blocking Segment Results
Test data for the Dominick Drive and Minnehaha Creek locations has been
analyzed and summarized as follows:
Test Location Test Dateffime LIO Lso Leq
(A) Dominick Drive 6/14/99 66.0 dBA 54.5 dBA 66.1 dBA
(Coupling Segment) 8: 12 p.m. - 9: 14 p.m.
(B) Dominick Drive 6/3/99 65.0 dBA 53.0 dBA 64.3 dBA
(Headway Segment) 8:47 p.m. - 9:44 p.m.
(C) Minnehaha Creek 612/99 65.0 dBA 54.5 dBA 61.4 dBA
(Coupling Segment) 8:40 p.m. - 9:41 p.m.
(C) Minnehaha Creek 5/27/99 66.0 dBA 53.0 dBA 64.0 dBA
(Coupling Segment) 9:30 p.m. - 9:59 p.m.
~
"
i
UIYJ
(.. ~",""
--
'-)
d
o
C
~,
r --'
G)
o
~
~
CD
:J
-
--
'-,
OJ
~
-
CD
~
[if
~'
f6""';,
~ it ~,9
-~U i"'"'?
roO
~~~ r
,~O
c
~.
en
~>~
;o^en ~
omen ~
.......R
:J
:J
CD
0)
v
o
--
=::,... l
(j)
(J)"1J
~O
--I
-1m
Oz
I-I
)>
r
Z
m
~
<
,~
"""'" "
:::J
:::J
CD
,;=y,.
o
~
7-:
0)
eno
:;EO
-s:
-1_
Oz
::r:-
(')
^
o
;:0
<
m
m
a.
CO
:J
==
\J
""'Ii
~
~.
~,
(t}
::0
..... .
o
::r
--h
....... .
CD
-
0...
-
~)
-
m
><
en
-I
Z
G>
OJ
r
o
()
2S
z
G>
r
o
()
~
-
o
z
(J)
"'TI
C5
c
;:0
I'T1
t
~~
IjJ '~Jii~ ' ,'~
.,,1.",*' '<~,
i/~" ,
-
~)
.-
:<
im
1C/)
~<
,:5
-I
()
:r
-
:!!
G)
c
;;0
ITI
-
'11
"
-
'j . , vf~
~ 'J'~~
if:'-' "
~:~~
0~.
-
~)
.............
o
o
3:
-
z
o
^
o
~
<
m
en
~
-
--I
(')
:I:
:!!
G)
c
;u
IT1
-
.::;;;,
-
~)
-
'.
~....
3::
-
z
z
m
:r:
)>
J:
)>
(')
;0
m
m
^
(J)
~
-t
(')
J:
-
......
~ g
:::0
ITl
-
)
IJ
IJ
>
D
>
"
"
-
~)
-
)
J
oaJ
~)>
-00
200
-
."
G5
:J1 c
:;u
IT1
-
-
~)
-
OJ
)>
(J)
(J)
~
^
m
~
;0
o
-
."
(5
:.n c
:;0
I'TI
-
)
J
I)
>
I)
>
D
>
"
"
>
"
n
f)
!2
o
I'
,
l
4
z
o
-I
-I
o
rn
~
r
m
-
~)
-
.
)
!
,
.
)
.
J
1
.
-
~
(5
c
:;0
1"'1
I)
-
'1J
o
~
m
z
~
)>
r-
OJ
r-
o
()
2S
z
G)
r-
o
(')
~
-
o
z
)
.4
:~
...,~
i
e.t:lr~
~..~~
'.0
QC1
ill
Testing was done between 100 and 200 feet from the tracks, consistent with the
location of sensitive receptors along the tracks.
Other noise 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 Minnetonka and
Hopkins along the potential new blocking segment are as follows:
Test Location Test Dateffime LIO ..
(D) Hopkins (East End) 7/1199,5: 18 p.m. - 6: 10 p.m. 60.0 dBA 54.0 dBA
(E) Minnetonka (Beachside) 7/1199,5: 12 p.m. - 5:33 p.m. 52.0 dBA 50.0 dBA
(F) Hopkins (Westbrook) 7/1199,5:48 p.m. - 6:05 p.m. 54.5 dBA 48.0 dBA
< .-~..
V') Hopkins (Westbrook) 7/22/99,8:40 p.m. - 10:31 p.m. 47.0 dBA 46.0 dBA
(G) Minnetonka(Across Lake) 7/22/99,8:58 p.m. - 9: 17 p.m. 59.0 dBA 50.0 dBA
(H) Minnetonka(Dominick Dr) 7/22/99,9:28 p.m. - 9:52 p.m. 56.0 dBA 50.5 dBA
(E) Minnetonka (Beachside) 7/22/99, 10: II p.m.-1O:33 p.m. 72.0 dBA 63.5 dBA
.
Simulation on July 1, 1999 consisted of approximately 60 cars. Simulation on
July 22, 1999 consisted of approximately 90 cars.
Conclusions
Nighttime vs. Davtime Operations
Minnesota nighttime standards are enforced by the Minnespta Pollution Control
Agency. The established nighttime standards were based on the noise levels that
would interfere with sleeping with bedroom windows partially open. The
nighttime standards are in effect from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
It was determined that the noise levels generated by the blocking operations were
at or near the allowable daytime standards, but well above the allowable nighttime
standards.
Potential Blocking Segment
Based on observations during two blocking simulations performed by Twin Cities
and Western Railroad Company (TC&W), .the following ~onclusions were drawn:
.. Blocking performed for trains of 60 cars or less within the "Potential Blocking
Segment" generated noises well within both daytime and nighttime noise
standards in all adjacent residential areas.
Testing was done between 100 and 200 feet from the tracks, consistent with the
location of sensitive receptors along the tracks.
Other noise 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 Minnetonka and
Hopkins along the potential new blocking segment are as follows:
, ' ~" >'
Test Location Test Dateffime Llo Lso
(D) Hopkins (East End) 7/1/99,5: 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) 7/1/99, 5:48 p.m. - 6:05 p.m. 54.5 dBA 48.0 dBA
(F) Hopkins (WestbroOk) " 7/22/99;'8:4b'{i.m. ~rb:31 p:'in. 47.bdBA " 46.0 dBA
(G) Minnetonka(Across Lake) 7/22/99,8:58 p.m. - 9:17 p.m. 59.0 dBA 50.0 dBA
(H) Minnetonka(Dominick Dr) 7/22/99,9:28 p.m. - 9:52 p.m. 56.0 dBA 50.5 dBA
(E) Minnetonka (Beachside) 7/22/99, 10: II p.m.-1O:33 p.m. n.o dBA 63.5 dBA
Simulation on July I, 1999 consisted of approximately 60 cars. Simulation on
July 22, 1999 consisted of approximately 90 cars.
Conclusions
Nil!httime vs. Daytime Operations
Minnesota nighttime standards are enforced by the Minnespta Pollution Control
Agency. The established nighttime standards were based on the noise levels that
would interfere with sleeping with bedroom windows partially open. The
nighttime standards are in effect from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
It was determined that the noise levels generated by the blocking operations were
at or near the allowable daytime standards, but well above the allowable nighttime
standards.
Potential Blockine Segment
Based on observations during two blocking simulations performed by Twin Cities
and Western Railroad Company (TC&W), the following conclusions were drawn:
iD Blocking performed for trains of 60 cars or less within the "Potential Blocking
Segment" generated noises well within both daytime and nighttime noise
standards in all adjacent residential areas.
I
1
)
. 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.
"1
"
, 1
\
. 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. "
,
j
,
"j
"j
!
.
~~ - -- ~_~..J L ~ ~Jl~../'" ~~ 'P'''':~~ i\~ l~ur- - ~"J '-' -- -, ~Iv':;"'~ ij;\\\\'~ ~',.". ~ \ ~
I ........../";.,-~ ~?o ,..r,./\\"t ,(-C \. (i I, k:) ~';/" :a.) \ ~ \\\\,
';""_EPlll<" n ". .--~ ~'l">~/"/ )~' (I"""U;-.-"'" I - - l\._-'~~' "" //' .~'" 't '" ~
"\ I ---, -------:-::::-,. ,r :t-:;:;-::~. 0"" >> - r.""Bi'L~50.-"' "~;.---~ 'i. .,sr.-~:/ \"( 'I,^,e'l-'
! ~/ ~ '{. Po.~ .... I ----, ...--:,.-.... ~~ ) \ I! 'J<"J.< >>
)1,\11 -.J / )::~;:'''~~t ~-'\~, ~--/: ~ %'.( ~)i Jv ~<.:<.:~ /_;:><.,~ ~--;/ \~J; ~0\;:'
1"1 ~ (' ,\ '~~~ j'';:' ----/--:; ,',~ III - ~";;::;-""'~' ~\\'-;:;?' ~\./ ~ /;~~\~
nt! ... ';;\\ \~\ '~~~.~,J3i{!-~ /~:.. ,'III ;;:?,~\ t,\ ~t(~;t:,/;:q~ /~-;:::::-~/ "'~
Ht.,,.,, '~.'v:::~ / \ ~ /' ~'" 't\\ ":.' Ii> v~ ~i-Y ...-: .y
~-'-'~ ' \li~:k-./ ~ v ' Ilr~. I '~\\ ~'c ~ ' : y.'~ .r
" I fp~ :;.-- * r---' 1J:l.1~ I i ~, I '~;;::.:.:-./ r .," .~ ~- lIM,
\ /_~..----- ~"". ,'I-!. I \. '''': i \ \ I '- ~;~:.---", I ....." c,
~ -,-~ \. ;(=",,/)' ~,~[r; ) "'1'\ "" II ~ ,."JIJ--~------" \ /f'~-:--~.n"'< g;~t J' '~I '"
........... . -.l~f~~k,' ..J ! ~ V '..... ~ {OlftV~)t.r ~ ~
! 1M I r' "'-'. 1.jl''----- ----"'-"'-\~/ ,;; Il ,.-:::------_-=-~l."\....-...-----J::~~~'!.'-'_____', -'j
I ~ 'f iff (( ~ I (, ... "n. ! " /5 ;
.. v:: I I & ,~ 1 t --, V; (I ^'.' ;) I
11\ ~'I 1\. "F...r()"""')W"!"'S'JI''---><:^l~',. ,l~ r/. { I' _.%~) ",,
Ii< 115' "'"'' ",,,..:.---:;,:::-,~ III V f: '!"' 1J,)~""",q.~ ~..I IL'c::--"'~I'""t.
, " L ':,~I---' ~Il p"'''" j( '>-1"" if L_ ~l--, i!;1 '" :I;;;,~ Irt/- -""'t-"=~'
II II ~ ~~' d-:-=I::::"Jr.:-:~ JII i" ~ ~"L -.:,_~~..:o,-:.=_~_
...--- J j v ~ I ~~I-'------ I f-J v- ~ .~7P---=:::=~~
It,... \ ,'t! I ~ ~;:/~'i} vj II (j J~-: :"'-1 :.~~~.,.:::-l
I I _~_. ~~:.~~;;6:{6-:Ul' - V ~i 3) ~: L.o:~;:,~~~~3~>' 11
Ll___._-=_-.-----lr 1\ I' . I ----------=I---lr"~J."-' - ,
_ --- J I I I .. '.--:::7,-====-.:::::=.----------.- I I I ) 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 connect to leading
car plus trailing cars
rs=: ~ 100-' ~' \' '"'/ ~/ E..l l;1ot'1~) ,
Fj~~ . -. -, . "--l~- ~._- -- I }J,~/, -;t':'i_ '~~;; \~ ~I{r~ .o--~ -~-~~lr .. l. '-II .t~..- '"' ~'{" \ '9~:;;>>
] "'V\mtl'.,.-,(~'L.~p/\\$~~ \~:( ((~~) !I \1 __.....J~'A"B>'l!!!iLI!:.. .. >~.-\\'~ ,~~/"..-'\\;" (?....,~;~.,
~:;r- ~ \,..... ~ -? "f(.ond ...' --l ./ ~..-._--- --...:.::..- \ ~/.-"" \ , ')(.0'< OJ
" ....t9>\),/;'~\v:~ ...... ,.,.--\( ~'/';:/ ~~ \\)v;.:~ }) j / .... or ./__:.~r ..> ?'" ~i. /;:/.-' v~~:.....},-~ \\'\,./-;
-' ~.../~.. !"(.\'~ .,...."',,-" \\ .//<;ll"-" ...-' -\", II ~/ ':~~ /-- \,' -~/"\\ ....' ..._~ .',.l ",,'
-~V:~-~\ ~~\;;:?'/ ~~;:,;:',-.. /'-:::-~~'\ 1 ;-,,;,:::;,~-;\\ '{;~:~.;;;;;:::-/ \\/~ ~...~:<'C)~:~
~..:::--'-,,\\\ ,~\\ "'f>\,\70. ~<~l~\ /..-:::",,/ I:,:;;': lilt ..~.~\ '(-,1\ ':j.\'\-; // \~ ..-<'::/ c"~,
,L. "7\\ N\" ~''Yr.,.~ .......-:::/ I ~ '''\' t\ ..~\ ";:",",,,," ?
',-\\, 't.., , ~l'-<\1'--I.'" n' ~// 1m,1 .. "'" \ ~z~\ ~t. \:<=:..;.,,'1 " ~
\' ,,\./~ t .N:: ..r :->. 'if(. \ :':1 \ ~ .- !~"' / n .0
,';'>\, ~\_.:>....... I~.; ..,~ "',\.- i( ..- -- . ;'" ...
; '~~\/;::./-' .r I I'~ I ~, :;:........-.......; ~ ..../ ~
II "'\ I~"'" .&- -. -----.... LC!UlS i I ~ I.~ ".;,,~:::'/
_,_- .--:>-- ""N'""'>.l I ,\..1 1'1, 'I "I' ~, ~ '/
I '" "r "~..-',,. ':;u:.'\!TQ: I I \ /..-.~--~;j ~...... oJ"/ ./
! I~ ........,.. . 0 ~':. ;(.',IT.R I' \ "g ,,,,; ~- \ /?'" "
i'" '" ,~Ii;:;nz.,,,,f.', ..\i I,;'; ....._~l:'/ -,r' // __....r .:N'<' j
..~ '''::/ h Ij~O.:.~O'" / -, J I Ill'> I' "- 1 i ",n, ,," - '" I, /
II ~ I "'rr~:='ll ----- ~,- ~(/ I'll'!:; /';::=." =-~f"'-~~\_., //
III " f/ I' ""J ,S' \ \ I ., "'f il 1J:h Iff I
II ~ 1!l Ill:: ~j, ~;'8'-"" 't,{ )~'!'5:"f!:-"'-_ I" ~ ~ri j1l" " lO"'J"~C<-;'1" ~Ii l~:~~~wl~
'._ ~1"1 -, ~ I '.- 5C_ Pq,rc-< " L_ ~l-, 2\ ~ ~ r ~(',..- -lCc;,~~~':.
11 ~ ~'='-l~- II I' /' ~! ~.l-______
II I v I;> I -~~--===::--- i I ~ J1' ~~==:::-.::::-:---
II .-.. ~ I ~I\ ~~.-~ ... --- Ii . !\!:J} ~ ~;;::...~"----------~==:::
\1 ~"V J :J-~,~:s_k~~~'~'" .\- ~. I~'L' CD I~ I " ~ ~f4fif~~~ ~
j _.-_--'-- . ---'r--lr""'l'-~ ' I ,~. ,---~--- ==_--?,r v P
1------:::.::-.::.-,___.__.- - 'I I -'-.--~::::..::::.::::::;::::::-=--=:--l 11 r-il- I
STEP 5: Engine drops trailing cars on sidetrack
but keeps lead car attached and returns
to mainline to pick up the next car
, . ,\ ~! ~<C-_____~_~1~11~ _l~_~ ~::.-Jf 2:! .J~ -p\~ \\.c:r.j;lm..Ol{'....;1I' \'
II ;, c:;:/ ~ ~I~II ------- - - .4i-.-----'..------q ~I!~" '~\'(' \;~\ ,,~,}l \~\\~'l
''\\1 ((;~,;;',,~' . II __!l<..ri'~~_;!. ..J/~"=----/\\~ y;C'1o~y;-.\\~, ~,.,.X~"-'I-. ~
)l~ ~"~^...'~'./ >\;<,ri'l~ll'l --~~ri, ,.,,-...<.~{-' ;:::\(":;'"d ~~\I ,,;v,:,
II ,,/~l\, /--;;:-;;::::...:'\ '~~ I =--~7 ~\ ~~:;.~ \~@~ ,,~~::'f~~~
"-1\ - >--" '~,\\ 7-~\ ....-;Y' "ill'lll ;::. \. \~, ~;;~ ~~'" ~ ','-:
I,..i!~ '?~\ "'~V';::4 ./ h~ ~~\ "~\\ ~~':<W...2' ~.-:;:::::-
l - c.~ I "'1.\\,..-/;/"" ?l",. I 'l--"'~~~':. I ~\\ 1>';;:::- ~ ,/;//
II ~ I -i'';:.:/ <<,'\'v/ .",:> -----, l_a"Io III" ~"~'" I -~.;:-> t1'?/::-/, lev'
I '-, __'_--" }:- ~Utl~;,..l Ie- ", (i I' --',''1i ,'-~/. . -t ..--...._~'G'.,
\9 \,.... /// 'E"",-- \. ~ I \ ------., ~0-'" ,,,'" - "l. !
II a ",-./~/" '\ 1"// f~~; cr~h'gR" ~ I "I S! k /~ ~ .::~\~t, f
I " I' '- (f"~i:c'\:il"'~ ' -<\1 ~l i-1 ~i/ 1(" 1,..1' '-- "iO> ) "
II '..-- .-:::jr'-.-------!~~~ / ~)) II ~ '-~Jlt1"(''''~" ""'"""," / 51\
111!13 I / ;-----r;~l. ,_c' _ _. ,1)/ i ! ~ : /;~'ml-ll'''---------'----''' -- ./ ,x {(Ii
I " ~' / I I -o:~~j ,j \ I ii /" I! I l'~" ,g \ I
I / g I [" ".-_,.",,"&"<:<'1{ "[~ t.' ,- 'C[,1!';>,,,,~,, I ' ~"I I', . ",-"X>\\e. '", '-1(':5 I., I<tJ.
I ~ ~~ "'!'" ",,/--.....~~ I \31' I" ..;,;c~_\. {f~----.-!Q:'""
I r- ,......?,( ~ - / ~ .r,-;-~ ! " I 0: ,."....- '"' k; ......~ ------!';;' -.....:.:
I ",~ I ~ 'k'ff ~ , 'I I. PA<,; ,y,;"-' "'~,
'I -. ,-' II!..]' L_ ""'-1'---; ~Ii .tIlL'
1'~ g ~ I -'"'~~-~ II! II"; ~;I ~~r::.-=:2..==--
~ y ':I ~:;..:::;r -- !oj- ~i' -..:"";::::::'1"----=-:'-'-
J L _-----.-- (~7l~~;;:~ ~#~:;~' ~ III (i2J~.L~_)_;~b~?t~~'" ~ -
.. -~__----- If I! 1i I __ L._~..:::- - --ir 11 'Ii I
STEP 3: Switch is thrown, engine reverses pushing STEP 6: Process is repe'ated, switching 'cars back
trailing cars onto the sidetrack & forth, splitting & reconnecting until
cars are in the appropriate order.
STEP 2: Trai~ is split, engine takes trailing cars
! leaVing lead car at front on mainline
,@,I
"BLOCKING" PROCESS
SHOWN AT MINNEHAHA CREEK SIDE TRACK
FIGURE
I
6
I
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 S1. Louis Park are
experiencing railroad operations noise problems; and
WHEREAS, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and S1. Louis Park all find reason to fmd 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 Hopkins/Minnetonka 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 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 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 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 that the City of Hopkins finds to exceed the level necessary to preserve public health and
welfare.
5. The cost ofthe switch installation will not be borne by The City of Hopkins.
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOL YED that the Hopkins City Council directs the City Manager
and the City Attorney's office to work with the communities ofMinnetonka and 81. 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 of8eptember, 1999.
By
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
Attest:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk