Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016

8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016

1/166


2/166

Alternatives Analysis Report Page iJanuary 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

PREFACE .................................................................................................................................. 1

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 1

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 3

NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................ 6

PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................................. 6

SCREENING PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 8

PURPOSE AND NEED RATIONALE REVIEW ......................................................................... 8

IDENTIFICATION OF CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ................................................................ 9

LEVEL 1 SCREENING OF CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES .......................................................12

TWIN CITIES SUB- AREA CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................... 13

Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 13

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 13

Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 14 MSP AIRPORT TO COATES ......................................................................................................................... 24

Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 24 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 24 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 25

UNION DEPOT TO COATES .......................................................................................................................... 34 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 34

Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 34 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 37

COATES TO ROCHESTER – HIGHWAY 52 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 52 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 52 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 52 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 53

COATES TO ROCHESTER – HIGHWAY 56 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 63 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 63 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 63 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 63

COATES TO RST AIRPORT – HIGHWAY 52 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 67 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 67


COATES TO RST AIRPORT – HIGHWAY 56 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 75 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 75 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 75 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 76

ROCHESTER TO RST AIRPORT ................................................................................................................... 84 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 84


LEVEL 2 SCREENING PROCESS ...........................................................................................89

UNDERSTANDING THE SCREENING PROCESS .............................................................................................. 90 DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED CORRIDORS ............................................................................................ 91

Corridors 1.1 to 2.4 .............................................................................................................................. 91


3/166

Alternatives Analysis Report Page iiJanuary 2016

Corridors 2.3 and 2.4 ........................................................................................................................... 91 Corridors 3.1 to 5.4 .............................................................................................................................. 92 Corridors 3.3, 3.4; Corridors 4.3, 4.4; Corridors 5.3, 5.4 ..................................................................... 92

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MEASUREMENT ............................................................................................ 92

SUMMARY OF SELECTED CORRIDORS .............................................................................139

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW AND EVOLUTION OF ALTERNATIVES ... 149

NEXT STEPS .........................................................................................................................150

SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.................................................................................................................. 150 SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................ 150

ABBREVIATIONS

BNSF BNSF Railway

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CP Canadian Pacific Railway

CR County Road

CSAH County State-Aid Highway

DM&E Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad

DNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

DSDD Draft Scoping Decision Document

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EQB Minnesota Environmental Quality Board

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FSDD Final Scoping Decision Document

HSR High-Speed Rail

LRT Light Rail Transit

MAC Metropolitan Airports Commission

MEPA Minnesota Environmental Policy Act

METRO A network of transitways operated by the Metropolitan Council

MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation

mph miles per hour

MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

OCRRA Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority

ROCOG Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments

RST Rochester International Airport

SDP Service Development Plan

SEE Social/Economic and Environmental Impacts

TAC Technical Advisory Committee

TPC Train Performance Calculations

UP Union Pacific Railroad


4/166

Alternatives Analysis Report Page iiiJanuary 2016

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE

Figure 1 – Zip Rail Project Study Area ........................................................................................1

Figure 2 – Environmental Review Process Flow ......................................................................... 3

Figure 3 – Alternatives Analysis Process ....................................................................................5

Figure 4 – Project Purpose and Need .........................................................................................7

Figure 5 – Universe of Corridor Alternatives .............................................................................. 11

Figure 6 – Corridor Alternative IA-1 ........................................................................................... 15

Figure 7 – Corridor Alternative IU-1 ........................................................................................... 16



Figure 10 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix IU Series ............................................................... 19

Figure 11 – Corridor Alternative AU-1 ....................................................................................... 20

Figure 12 – Corridor Alternative AU-2 ....................................................................................... 21

Figure 13 – Corridor Alternative AU-3 .......................................................................................22

Figure 14 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix AU Series .............................................................. 23

Figure 15 – Corridor Alternative AC-1A ..................................................................................... 26

Figure 16 – Corridor Alternative AC-1B ..................................................................................... 27





Figure 21 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix AC Series .............................................................. 32

Figure 22 – Corridor Alternative AC-4 ....................................................................................... 33

Figure 23 – Corridor Alternative UC-1A ..................................................................................... 39

Figure 24 – Corridor Alternative UC-1B ..................................................................................... 40

Figure 25 – Corridor Alternative UC-1C .................................................................................... 41

Figure 26 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix UC-1 Series .......................................................... 42










Figure 36 – Corridor Alternative CD52-1A ................................................................................. 54

Figure 37 – Corridor Alternative CD52-1B ................................................................................. 55



Figure 40 – Corridor Alternative CD52-3 ................................................................................... 58

Figure 41 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix CD52 Series 1 ....................................................... 59




5/166

Alternatives Analysis Report Page ivJanuary 2016

LIST OF FIGURES, continued PAGE

Figure 44 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix CD52 Series 2 ....................................................... 62



Figure 47 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix CD56 Series .......................................................... 66

Figure 48 – Corridor Alternative CA52-1 ................................................................................... 69





Figure 53 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix CA52 Series .......................................................... 74

Figure 54 – Corridor Alternative CA56-1A ................................................................................. 77

Figure 55 – Corridor Alternative CA56-1B ................................................................................. 78





Figure 60 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix CA56 Series .......................................................... 83

Figure 61 – Corridor Alternative DA-1 ....................................................................................... 85



Figure 64 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix DA Series .............................................................. 88

Figure 65 – Corridor 1.1 ............................................................................................................ 94

Figure 66 – Corridor 1.2 ............................................................................................................ 96

Figure 67 – Corridor 1.3 ............................................................................................................ 98

Figure 68 – Corridor 1.4 .......................................................................................................... 100

Figure 69 – Corridor 2.1 .......................................................................................................... 102

Figure 70 – Corridor 2.2 .......................................................................................................... 104

Figure 71 – Corridor 2.3 .......................................................................................................... 106

Figure 72 – Corridor 2.4 .......................................................................................................... 108

Figure 73 – Corridor 3.1 .......................................................................................................... 110

Figure 74 – Corridor 3.2 .......................................................................................................... 112

Figure 75 – Corridor 3.3 .......................................................................................................... 114

Figure 76 – Corridor 3.4 .......................................................................................................... 116

Figure 77 – Corridor 4.1 .......................................................................................................... 118

Figure 78 – Corridor 4.2 .......................................................................................................... 120

Figure 79 – Corridor 4.3 .......................................................................................................... 122

Figure 80 – Corridor 4.4 .......................................................................................................... 124

Figure 81 – Corridor 5.1 .......................................................................................................... 126

Figure 82 – Corridor 5.2 .......................................................................................................... 128

Figure 83 – Corridor 5.3 .......................................................................................................... 130

Figure 84 – Corridor 5.4 .......................................................................................................... 132

Figure 85 – Description of Corridors Advanced to the Tier 1 EIS ............................................ 139

Figure 86 – Location of Corridors Advanced to the Tier 1 EIS ................................................. 140

Figure 87 – Corridor 1 – MSP to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ........................................................... 141


6/166

Alternatives Analysis Report Page vJanuary 2016

LIST OF FIGURES, continued PAGE

Figure 88 – Corridor 2 – MSP to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ........................................................... 142

Figure 89 – Corridor 3 – Union Depot/MSP to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ...................................... 143

Figure 90 – Corridor 4 – Union Depot/MSP to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ...................................... 144

Figure 91 – Corridor 5 – Union Depot to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ............................................... 145




LIST OF TABLES PAGE

Table 1 – Prior Studies ................................................................................................................2

Table 2 – Corridor vs. Alignment Definition .................................................................................4

Table 3 – Level 1 Screening Criteria ......................................................................................... 12

Table 4 – Corridors Evaluated in Level 2 Screening .................................................................. 91

Table 5 – Level 2 Screening Criteria ......................................................................................... 93

Table 6 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix – Level 2 Screening: Series 1 ................................. 134




Table 10 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix – Level 2 Screening: Series 5 ............................... 138

APPENDIX

Appendix A

• Level 1 Screening Matrix – North Study Area

• Level 1 Screening Matrix – South Study Area

• Level 2 Screening Matrix


7/166

Alternatives Analysis Report Page 1January 2016

Preface

The information and data contained in this Alternatives Analysis Report is to be used for

comparative purposes only - to compare various corridor components against alternative

corridor components in allowing for a reduction in the number of potential corridors to be

analyzed in the Tier 1 EIS.

The eight corridors advanced to the Tier 1 EIS were determined through a qualitative analysis

and are estimated to result in fewer impacts to the built and natural environments than those

corridors eliminated from further study. No field measurements were taken and estimates shown

should be used only to compare various corridor components and should not be taken out of

context or interpreted as actual field-verified data.

In addition to analyzing the potential corridor alternatives, the Tier 1 EIS will evaluate the No-

Build alternative as directed by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR1502.14).

Introduction and BackgroundThe Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Olmsted County Regional

Railroad Authority (OCRRA), in collaboration with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

have initiated development of the Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment

Plan and Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 EIS) to evaluate the system level

environmental impact of alternative passenger rail corridors between the Minneapolis-St. Paul

Metropolitan Area and the Rochester MN Metropolitan Area. The proposed high speed intercity

passenger rail service between the Twin Cities and Rochester has been branded as the Zip Rail

Project.

The study area is located in the counties ofDakota, Dodge, Goodhue, Hennepin,

Olmsted, Ramsey and Rice (see Figure 1).

This Alternatives Analysis Report

documents the process used to develop

and evaluate the reasonable and feasible

passenger rail corridor alternatives

between Rochester and the Twin Cities as

part of the Zip Rail Project. The purpose of

this analysis was to identify a reasonable

number of alternatives to carry into the Tier1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

study with the intention of identifying either

the No-Build alternative or a preferred

passenger rail corridor alternative for

implementation. The Tier 1 EIS will

analyze overall corridor or System Level

environmental impacts. Subsequent Tier 2

Figure 1Zip Rail Project Study Area


8/166


EIS environmental documents will analyze site specific or Project Level impacts.

The conclusions presented in this report are also discussed in the Rochester-Twin Cities

Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS Final Scoping Decision Document

(January 2015).

The concept of a high speed rail connection between Rochester and the Twin Cities has been

the subject of many studies beginning in 1991 (Table 1) culminating in the inclusion of the

Rochester to Twin Cities Corridor in the 2010 Minnesota Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail

Plan as a ‘Phase 1 Project.’ The 2015 State Rail Plan recommends a program of priority

improvements through 2030 that identifies the Rochester to Twin Cities Corridor as a ‘Phase 1

Project in Advanced Planning.’ As a high speed rail project, passenger trains could travel at

speeds of up to 186 mph with a projected end to end travel time of approximately 45-50

minutes.

Table 1Prior Studies

Study Year Findings

Tri-State High Speed Rail Study 1991Evaluated the potential for high speed rail between the Twin Cities

and Chicago, through Rochester and Wisconsin.

Tri-State II High Speed Rail

Feasibility Study2000

Alternatives between the Twin Cities, Rochester and Winona had the

best benefit/cost ratio of those studied and should be implemented

following the incremental upgrading of the existing Amtrak route.

Rochester Rail Link Feasibility

Study2003

A high speed rail link would provide an effective transportation

connection between Rochester and the Twin Cities to help link these

cities to the rest of the Midwest.

Tri-State III High-Speed Rail

Study: Minnesota Segment

Assessment

2009Supported Twin Cities to Rochester on a new alignment as part of a

larger corridor studied.

Minnesota Comprehensive

Statewide Freight and

Passenger Rail Plan

2010

The Rochester-Twin Cities Rail Corridor was identified in the plan as

a Priority 1 corridor in the recommended Minnesota and Regional

passenger rail system.

Preliminary Economic Benefit

Analysis of the Proposed

Rochester–Twin Cities High–

Speed Passenger Rail Program

2012

The report presented an estimate of potential economic benefits from

the implementation of Zip Rail. The analysis suggested that the

economic benefits of Zip Rail could easily exceed both the initial

capital cost and the long-term operating cost of the proposed project

and indicated that these benefits and the creation of jobs would occur

with Zip Rail operating as a stand-alone line with the resultingeconomic benefits realized by the entire state of Minnesota.

2015 State Rail Plan 2015

Reiterates the state’s commitment to the Twin Cities to Rochester

Corridor as a Phase 1 Corridor in Advanced Planning in the

recommended Minnesota and Regional passenger rail system.


9/166


The Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 Environmental

Impact Statement is being prepared in compliance with both the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the state

environmental review process governed by the

Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)

(Figure 2). The project team, comprised ofrepresentatives from the MnDOT Passenger

Rail Office and OCRRA, initiated an

alternatives analysis to evaluate the range of

passenger rail corridors and termini options

that exist between Rochester and the Twin

Cities and to identify the corridors that will be

evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS.

The Tier 1 EIS will analyze environmental

impacts for reasonable corridor-level

passenger rail route alternatives between

Rochester and the Twin Cities. The EIS will

incorporate information from the Service Development Plan (SDP), which will provide detail on

operation, ridership, equipment and financial performance, to better determine potential

environmental impacts for each corridor alternative.

Alternatives Analysis Methodology

The goal of the alternatives analysis process was to identify corridors and terminus locations

with the shortest travel times and the least disruption to the natural, built, and cultural

environments. These alternatives were described in the scoping process and identified in the

Final Scoping Decision Document for advancing for further study in the Tier 1 EIS. Theevaluation methodology and criteria used in the two-step screening process were developed to

be compatible with typical FRA evaluation methodologies and were based on the project’s

stated purpose and need. The process for a FRA Tier 1 EIS includes assessing beneficial and

adverse environmental effects associated with a reasonable range of corridor alternatives. The

evaluation criteria were designed to compare corridor alternatives using a common measure

and to advance the most feasible corridor alternatives for further study at the next level,

consistent with the objectives of the FRA Tier 1 EIS process.

At the alternatives development phase a “high level” of analysis was completed, meaning that

data for evaluation among corridor alternatives was collected at a general level for comparative

purposes. At this level, the analysis was used to assess a large number of corridor alternativeswhile keeping the level of analysis manageable and allowing for the identification of any fatally

flawed options. Figure 3 illustrates the alternatives analysis process.

For the purposes of the two-step screening process and for the environmental analysis the

following definitions and parameters were established (Table 2):

Corridor – For this study, a corridor represents a 1-mile wide geographic footprint within

which a final alignment would be located. The 1-mile wide designation allows the

Figure 2Environmental Review Process Flow


10/166


opportunity to adjust the alignment to minimize impacts on land uses and environmental

resources.

Alignment – The alignment is the actual linear location of a transportation facility such

as a road surface or railroad track. Actual alignments will be determined in the Tier 2

environmental documents.

Right-of-way – Right-of-way is the land within which the alignment is placed, which for

high speed rail is approximately 200 feet wide.

Table 2

Corridor vs. Alignment Definit ion


11/166


Figure 3 Alternatives Analysis Process


12/166


No-Build Alternative

In addition to analyzing the potential corridor alternatives the project team evaluated, and will

continue to evaluate, the No-Build alternative as directed by the Council on Environmental

Quality (40 CFR1502.14). The No-Build alternative reflects existing conditions, and includes all

currently programmed improvements in the project area over the next 20 years includinghighway, transit or other investments. The No-Build alternative does not include passenger rail

since passenger rail service does not currently exist within the study area.

The No-Build alternative will be further defined in the Tier 1 EIS based on committed projects

identified in the most recent Minnesota State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The

STIP identifies the schedule and funding of transportation projects. It includes all state and local

transportation projects with federal highway and/or federal transit funding along with 100

percent state funded transportation projects. Greater Minnesota metropolitan planning

organization programs are included in the listing, which will include projects identified by the

Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments. Local projects that are programmed will be

included in the listing.

The No-Build alternative serves as the base of comparison for the potential corridor alternatives.

It will be analyzed to the same level as corridor alternatives in the Tier 1 EIS. The No-Build

alternative will be assessed for its ability to meet the project purpose and need and evaluated

for potential impacts. If implementing the No-Build alternative would result in predictable actions

by others, the effect of those actions would be considered part of the effects of the No-Build

alternative.

Purpose and Need

In the NEPA process the Purpose and Need document is the foundation upon which thealternatives analysis is conducted. The Purpose and Need Statement for this plan was

approved by the FRA and distributed for public comment in June 2013. It was adopted and

published in August 2013 (see: www.goziprail.com).

The purpose of the project is to provide a reliable and safe passenger rail transportation

alternative that will meet forecasted population and economic growth mobility demands in the

Southeast Minnesota corridor between Rochester and the Twin Cities area. The system is to

connect Rochester and the Twin Cities providing convenient and cost effective transportation.

The project is being developed according to the Purpose and Need outlined in Figure 4.

http://www.goziprail.com/http://www.goziprail.com/http://www.goziprail.com/http://www.goziprail.com/


13/166


Figure 4Project Purpose and Need

The development of world-class and internationally recognized medical facilities in Rochester,

along with its agribusiness and high-tech industrial base, make the city a significant economic

engine in the north central United States. The Twin Cities is also a base of high-tech industry

and the main transportation hub in the north central states. These factors mark the significance

of the economic connection between Rochester and the Twin Cities. Transportation connecting

these cities is primarily based on the private automobile with limited commercial transportation

options. In Rochester, Mayo Clinic draws patients and their companions from around the nation

and the world, and constitutes a primary need for transportation options not based on the

private automobile.

The project needs to meet existing and future transportation connectivity demands of the

corridor between Rochester and the Twin Cities in a manner that is competitive with other

modes of transportation. As the population, employment, and visitors grow along the corridor,

especially in Rochester and the Twin Cities, the number of people travelling between these

locations will increase, creating increased demand on the existing transportation network. The

corridor lacks an existing rail modal option and is anticipated to experience capacity needs that

will result from current and future economic growth.


14/166


Screening Process

The Zip Rail project team used a two-step screening process to formulate, evaluate, and refine

the reasonable and feasible corridor alternatives between Rochester and the Twin Cities. The

screening of alternatives was an iterative process. Following initial screening by the project

team, the alternatives were informed by input from an agency meeting, Technical AdvisoryCommittee input and from an initial round of public meetings held in 2013. Each step in the

process was increasingly more comprehensive than the previous step, refining the evaluation

criteria to assess each remaining corridor alternative at a higher level of detail.

Through the process of identifying, analyzing, and screening a range of potential passenger rail

corridors, and based on the public and agency input gathered during the scoping process, the

project team reduced the number of potential corridor alternatives from over 1,200 end-point to

end-point combinations to eight end-point to end-point mile-wide corridor alternatives. The

corridor alternatives resulting from the Alternatives Analysis process were introduced in the

Draft Scoping Decision Document (DSDD), which was distributed to federal, state, and local

agencies and the public on July 7, 2014 and was the subject of a series of three ScopingMeetings held July 29, 30, and 31, 2014 in Rochester, Inver Grove Heights, and Kenyon. A

Final Scoping Decision Document (FSDD) was published in the January 19, 2015

Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor and distributed to the EQB distribution list and other

interested parties.

The FSDD documented the No-Build Alternative and eight end-point to end-point mile-wide

study corridors that will be evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS as described in the summary of this

report.

Purpose and Need Rationale Review

Prior to initiating the Level 1 screening, a purpose and need rationale review was applied to the

universe of corridor alternatives. This review focused on the terminal station options as they

serve as the end points of the corridor alternatives. Non-technical factors were considered in

reviewing terminal options or combinations of terminal options. Two primary factors were

considered in the purpose and need rationale review:

• Purpose and Need – any terminal station or combination of terminal stations that did not

meet the objectives in the purpose and need statement should be removed from further

consideration;

•

Logical Termini/Duplicative Service – any terminal station or combination of terminalstations that did not provide logical termini or would introduce duplicative service should

be removed from further consideration.

As a result of the purpose and need rationale review, it was determined that MSP and/or Union

Depot provided the most logical termini in the Twin Cities. A direct connection, without

intermediate stops, to Target Field Station was not deemed appropriate as a primary terminal

for this project. A high speed rail connection to Target Field Station in downtown Minneapolis


15/166


would very likely require a separate track to be built through a densely developed and highly

traveled urban travel corridor. The probability of a high level of impacts to both natural and built

environments could be rationally assumed. Existing passenger transit service is available to

Target Field Station from both MSP and Union Depot on the Blue Line and the Green Line of

the Metro Transit system, respectively.

Identification of Corridor Alternatives

As noted above, the evaluation of alternative routes is based upon the recognition that at this

level of analysis it is not possible or appropriate to identify specific alignments. What are

referred to herein as ‘corridor alternatives’ are generally described as a ‘path along the ground’

(approximately one mile wide) within which it would be possible to engineer a specific alignment

and to define its corresponding right-of-way. The determination of a final alignment within the

corridor, including the potential use of elevated track, would be evaluated during the Tier 2 EIS

process.

Five potential termini alternatives were initially identified. Two potential termini were identified inRochester and three potential termini were identified in the Twin Cities. They included:

• Rochester

• Rochester International Airport (RST)

• Target Field Station, Minneapolis

• Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP)

• Union Depot, St. Paul

As part of the evaluation process, an intermediate station in Dakota County was introduced for

consideration.

The initial step in the identification of corridor alternatives was the compilation of the ‘universe of

route alternatives’ as shown in Figure 5 that includes a large number of potential route

segments each of which have the potential for supporting a high speed rail alignment that would

connect the termini identified above. These route segments were initially developed based on

previous studies, meetings with project stakeholders and from field observations. A complete

route between the Twin Cities and Rochester would consist of a series of route segments that

would be chained together in a continuous sequence.

An examination of the universe of route segments reveals that the number of unique routes

connecting the two termini is very high. To facilitate the screening process, individual route

segments were combined into a smaller number of corridor alternatives. The corridor

alternatives recommended for study were refined to reflect local planning efforts regarding both

transportation and land use.

The study area was divided into two sub-areas:

• Twin Cities Subarea – this subarea encompassed the portion of the project area north of

Coates.


16/166


• Greater Minnesota Subarea – this subarea encompassed the portion of the project area

south of Coates.

Within each sub-area the corridor alternatives were grouped according to common

characteristics, including shared endpoints. As part of level 1 screening, individual corridor

alternatives were compared against other corridor alternatives within that group. The result is a

step-wise process that begins by selecting the most promising corridor alternative amongst

those with similar features.

A nomenclature for identifying corridor segments was established. Each segment was identified

with a geographic description and assigned a multi-letter code. The multi- letter code

represented the termini at each end of the corridor alternative. This nomenclature is detailed

below:

• IA – Target Field Station to MSP Airport

• IU—Target Field Station to Union Depot

• AU – MSP to Union Depot

• UC – Union Depot to Coates, MN

• AC – MSP to Coates, MN

• CD – Coates, MN to Rochester

• CA – Coates, MN to RST Airport

• DA – Rochester to RST Airport

Target Field Station is noted as “I” due to the fact that the naming convention was established at

the beginning of the project when Target Field Station was known as “The Interchange.”

In addition to these groupings, the CA and CD alternatives were further broken down as follows:

• 52 – An eastern route between Coates and Rochester or RST that closely parallels the

existing US 52 corridor.

• 56 – A western route between Coates and Rochester or RST that parallels a former

railroad corridor and the MN 56 corridor to the Dodge Center/Kasson, MN area and then

generally parallels US 14 east into the Rochester area.


17/166


Figure 5Universe of Corridor Alternatives


18/166


Level 1 Screening of Corridor Alternatives

Forty-six corridor alternatives were advanced to Level 1 screening. The criteria that were

applied in the Level 1 assessment are described in Table 3.

Table 3Level 1 Screening Criteria

Each of the criteria above were analyzed and assigned a three-tiered, color coded ranking

system. Red indicates the highest potential for impacts, yellow for a moderate level and green

for the least potential for major impacts compared to others within the same grouping. The

color coded ranking is shown for each corridor on the following individual corridor map tables;

data source information and complete data tables are located in Appendix A.

The following detailed evaluation is organized around the following categories:

• MSP to Coates

• Union Depot to Coates

• Coates to Rochester

• Coates to RST

The discussion identifies the corridor alternatives that have been defined and provides a

rationale for excluding particular corridor alternatives for further consideration. Those corridor

alternatives that are not screened out at this stage will be reviewed a second time in the Level 2

screening step. In the following text, corridor alternatives that are listed in bold text in the

corridor definition section are those that were carried forward to level 2 screening.


19/166


Twin Cities Sub-area Corridor Alternatives

The first group of segments consists of corridor alternatives that would provide connections to

potential project termini within the Twin Cities subarea, including Target Field Station, Union

Depot and MSP Airport.

Corridor DefinitionThe corridors are defined as follows:

• IA-1 – Target Field Station to MSP via the existing Metro Blue Line LRT Corridor

• IU-1 – Target Field Station to Union Depot via Mississippi River crossing at Nicollet

Island and BNSF Midway Subdivision railroad line.

• IU-2 – Target Field Station to Union Depot via Mississippi crossing at Nicollet

Island and existing BNSF and CP railroad l ines (current Amtrak route)

• IU-3 – Target Field Station to Union Depot via the Metro Blue Line LRT right-of-

way, crossing the Mississippi River via the Soo Line Bridge and existing CP

Railroad line• AU-1 – MSP to Union Depot via a new Mississippi River crossing northeast of MSP, the

existing CP (Ford Spur) rail line, and a route in the vicinity of Seventh Street West

• AU-2 – MSP to Union Depot via a new Mississippi River crossing, UP Mankato Sub

rail line and Mississippi River cross ing on an existing railroad bridge

• AU-3 – MSP to Union Depot via the existing Metro Blue Line LRT right-of-way crossing

Mississippi River on the former Soo Line bridge and CP railroad line

Evaluation

These corridor alternatives were identified in the initial universe of alternatives because Target

Field Station was initially considered as an alternative terminal in the Twin Cities area.

However, all of these corridor segments were removed from further consideration as part of thisstudy for the following reasons:

• A review of the purpose and need for the project determined that MSP and/or Union

Depot provided the most logical termini in the Twin Cities.

• Potential corridor alternatives between MSP Airport and Target Field Station would

require a separate track to be built in a densely developed and highly traveled urban

corridor that is already served by light rail transit. The probability of a high level of

impacts to both the natural and built environments could be rationally assumed.

•

Potential corridor alternatives between MSP Airport and Union Depot involve eitherhighly developed dense urban corridors or require crossing the Mississippi River at a

new crossing in a highly sensitive area from both a cultural and environmental

perspective.

• Potential corridor alternatives between Union Depot and Target Field Station primarily

involve existing rail corridors that will be evaluated in the Twin Cities to Milwaukee High

Speed Rail Tier 1 EIS.


20/166


A direct connection from the south, without intermediate stops, to Target Field Station was not

deemed appropriate as a primary terminal for this project. Further consideration of Target Field

Station as a primary terminal was eliminated from this study and deferred to the Twin Cities to

Milwaukee study for conclusion about future passenger rail linkages.

SummaryIn summary, none of the alternatives are retained for further consideration in the Zip Rail Tier 1EIS. The following corridors were identified for consideration in future, separate studies.

• IA-1: Target Field Station to MSP via the existing Metro Blue Line LRT Corridor

• IU-2: Target Field Station to Union Depot via Mississippi crossing at Nicollet Island and

existing BNSF and CP railroad lines (current Amtrak route)

• IU-3: Target Field Station to Union Depot via the Metro Blue Line LRT right-of-way,

crossing the Mississippi River via the Soo Line Bridge and existing CP Railroad line

• AU-2: MSP to Union Depot via a new Mississippi River crossing, UP Mankato Sub rail

line and Mississippi River crossing on an existing railroad bridge


21/166


Figure 6Corridor Alternative IA-1 (Retained for separate study)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor IA-1: Target Field Station to MSP via the existing Metro Blue Line LRT corridor.

Corridor

Segment1A-1

Length (miles) 11.0

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

28

Redundancy Metro Blue Line

Impacts to Built

Environment

Limited space

available for

additional rail

service within

corridor

Impacts to

Natural

Environment

Potential for

impacts near

Minnehaha Park,

Highway 55/62 and

Fort Snelling


22/166


Figure 7Corridor Alternative IU-1 (Eliminate from further study)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor IU-1: Target Field Station to Union Depot via Mississippi River crossing at Nicollet

Island and BNSF Midway Subdivision railroad line.

Corridor

SegmentIU-1

Length (miles) 11.3

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

26

RedundancyExisting HSR Studyand Metro Green

Line LRT

Impacts to Built

Environment

Heaviest freight

traffic on existing

corridor compared

to other IU

corridors

Impacts to

Natural

Environment

Expanded

Mississippi River

crossing in

Minneapolis


23/166


Figure 8Corridor Alternative IU-2 (Retained for separate study)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor IU-2: Target Field Station to Union Depot via Mississippi River crossing at Nicollet

Island and existing BNSF and CP railroad lines (current Amtrak route).

Corridor

SegmentIU-2

Length (miles) 12.4

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)26


Line LRT

Impacts to Built

Environment

High volume of

freight traffic on

existing corridor, but

less than the IU-1

corridor

Impacts to

Natural

Environment

Expanded Mississippi

River crossing in

Minneapolis


24/166


Figure 9Corridor Alternative IU-3 (Retained for separate study)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor IU-3: Target Field Station to Union Depot via the Metro Blue LRT Line right-of-way,

crossing the Mississippi River via the former Soo Line Bridge and existing CP railroad line.

Corridor

SegmentIU-3

Length (miles) 11.0

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

30


Line LRT

Impacts to Built

Environment

High volume of

freight traffic on

existing corridor,

but less than the

IU-1 corridor

Impacts to

NaturalEnvironment

Expanded

Mississippi River

crossing in

Minneapolis on theformer Soo Line

bridge


25/166


Figure 10Comparative Evaluation Matrix IU Series

Corridor Alternatives IU-1, IU-2, IU-3

Recommendation Eliminate from furtherstudy

Retained for separatestudy

Retained for separatestudy

Corridor Segment IU-1 IU-2 IU-3

Length (miles) 11.3 12.4 11.0

Preliminary travel

time (minutes)26 26 30

Redundancy

Existing HSR Study

and Metro Green Line

LRT

Existing HSR Study

and Metro Green

Line LRT

Existing HSR Study andMetro Green Line LRT

Impacts to Built

Environment

Heaviest freight traffic

on existing corridor

compared to other IU

corridors

High volume of

freight traffic on

existing corridor,

but less than the

IU-1 corridor

High volume of freight

traffic on existing

corridor, but less than

the IU-1 corridor

Impacts to

Natural

Environment


River crossing in

Minneapolis

Expanded

Mississippi River

crossing in

Minneapolis


River crossing in

Minneapolis on the

former Soo Line bridge


26/166


Figure 11

Corridor Alternative AU-1 (Eliminate from further s tudy)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor AU-1: MSP to Union Depot via a new Mississippi River crossing northeast of MSP, the

existing CP (Ford Spur) rail line, and a route in the vicinity of Seventh Street West.

Corridor

SegmentAU-1

Length (miles) 8.1

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

10-12

Redundancy No redundantpassenger rail service

Impacts to Built

Environment

Potential impacts to

residential

neighborhoods in St.

Paul

Impacts to

NaturalEnvironment

Major impacts

associated with new

Mississippi River

crossing; Potential

impacts to parks,federal and historic

properties and Hwy

55/62 vicinity


27/166


Figure 12Corridor Alternative AU-2 (Retained for separate study)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor AU-2: MSP to Union Depot via new Minnesota River crossing, UP Mankato Sub rail

line and Mississippi River crossing on existing railroad bridge.

Corridor

SegmentAU-2

Length (miles) 9.6

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

12-14

RedundancyNo redundantpassenger rail

service

Impacts to Built

Environment

Moderate to high

volume of freight

traffic on existing

corridor.

Impacts to

NaturalEnvironment

Potential to use

existing rail

connection over

Mississippi River,

but major impactscould be

associated with

new Minnesota

River crossing


28/166


Figure 13Corridor Alternative AU-3 (Eliminate from further s tudy)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor AU-3: MSP to Union Depot via the existing Metro Blue Line LRT corridor, crossing

Mississippi River on the former Soo Line bridge and CP railroad line.

Corridor

SegmentAU-3

Length (miles) 13.0

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

20

Redundancy

No redundant

passenger rail

service between

these destinations

Impacts to Built

Environment

Limited space

available for

additional rail

service within

corridor closer to

MSP

Impacts to

Natural

Environment

Potential for

impacts near

Minnehaha Park,

Highway 55/62 and

Fort Snelling


29/166


Figure 14Comparative Evaluation Matrix AU Series

Corridor Al ternatives AU-1, AU-2, AU-3

Recommendation Eliminate from

further study

Retained for separate

study

Eliminate from

further study

Corridor Segment AU-1 AU-2 AU-3

Length (miles) 8.1 9.6 13.0

Preliminary travel

time (minutes)10-12 12-14 20

RedundancyNo redundantpassenger rail

service

No redundantpassenger rail

service


service

Impacts to Built

Environment

Potential impacts

to residential

neighborhoods in

St. Paul

Moderate to high

volume of freight

traffic on existing

corridor

Limited space

available for

additional rail

service within

corridor closer to

MSP

Impacts to Natural

Environment

Major impacts

associated with

new Mississippi

River crossing;

Potential impacts

to parks, federal

and historic

properties andHwy 55/62 vicinity

Potential to use

existing rail

connection over

Mississippi River,

but major impacts

could be

associated with

new MinnesotaRiver crossing

Potential for

impacts near

Minnehaha Park,

Highway 55/62 and

Fort Snelling


30/166


MSP Airport to Coates

This group of segments consists of corridor alternatives that would provide connections

between the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and Coates, MN.

Corridor Definition

The corridors are defined as follows:

• AC-1A – MSP to Coates via a new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to I-494 for

a portion of its length, then veering northeast to match an abandoned rail segment east

of the river; then along MN 55 and US 52 corridors.

• AC-1B – MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the exist ing

I-494 bridge for its full length, and then along MN 55 and US 52 corridors.



of the river. Then along Dakota County Road 71 corridor (Rich Valley Blvd.), and US 52

corridor.• AC-2B – MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the exist ing

I-494 bridge for its full length, Dakota County Road 71 corridor (Rich Valley Blvd.)

and US 52 corridor.



of the river. Then along existing CP and UP rail corridors, to US 52 corridor.

• AC-3B – MSP to Coates via new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to the existing

I-494 bridge for its full length and existing CP and UP rail corridors to US 52 corridor.

• AC-4 – MSP to Coates via Minnesota 77/Cedar Avenue and Dakota County Road 46

(160th Street) to US 52 corridor.

Evaluation

The alternatives identified above utilize one of two locations for crossing the Minnesota River.

Corridor Alternatives AC-1A/B, AC-2A/B and AC-3A/B assume a crossing of the Minnesota

River valley parallel to the existing I-494 highway bridge, which crosses the river on an east-

west alignment. Corridor Alternative AC-4 assumes a crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent

to the Cedar Avenue Bridge.

I-494 Crossing

For corridor alternatives AC-1, 2 and 3, the proposed alignment crosses the Minnesota River

adjacent to and on the north side of the I-494 Bridge. The exact design and impact of the bridge

would need to be determined in preliminary design but of all the possible crossing points in thisvicinity, remaining adjacent to the existing bridge would minimize environmental impacts on a

very sensitive area that includes the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and other state

and federally protected areas when compared to crossing the river at a location that does not

already have a bridge.

The ‘B’ sub-alternatives remain adjacent to the bridge and continue to parallel I-494 after

crossing the river. However, the ‘A’ alternatives swing northward after crossing the river and


31/166


connect to an abandoned railroad right-of-way. While the ‘A’ alternatives have less interaction

with I-494, the impact on sensitive areas along the Minnesota River is far greater.

Therefore, AC-1A, AC-2A and AC-3A are eliminated from further consideration.

Corridors AC-1B, AC-2B and AC-3B follow I-494 after crossing the Minnesota River to the

vicinity of the I-494/I-35E interchange. Corridor AC-1B shifts to State Highway 55, following that

roadway to US Highway 52 and then to Coates. Corridor AC-2B shifts to State Highway 55 and

follows that roadway to County Road 71 (Rich Valley Blvd.) whereupon the corridor follows

County Road 71 to the Union Pacific Railroad, follows the roadway to US Highway 52 and then

to Coates. Corridor AC-3B shifts to a railroad alignment that parallels State Highway 149 and

State Highway 3 to Rosemount where it turns east to intersect with US Highway 52 at Coates.

In comparing the three corridors between the I-494/I35E interchange and Coates, AC-3B is the

longest in distance and the least direct. AC-3B also has significant impacts on the built

environment, particularly in Rosemount.

Therefore AC-3B is eliminated from further consideration.

Cedar Avenue Crossing

Corridor AC-4 crosses the Minnesota River adjacent to State Highway 77 (Cedar Avenue),

following that roadway to Dakota County Road 46 (160th Street), then to US Highway 52 and

Coates. This corridor is longest in distance and least direct of all AC corridor alternatives with

significantly greater travel time. In addition, the Highway 77 corridor is highly developed and

construction of a new rail alignment would have significant impact on residential and commercial

structures. (Redundancy with the METRO Red Line is irrelevant because the high speed rail

line would have no stops along the Red Line and therefore would not be in competition with it.)

Therefore AC-4 is eliminated from further consideration.

Summary

In summary, the following alternatives are retained for further consideration:

• AC-1B: MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the existing I-494

bridge for its full length, and then along MN 55 and US 52 corridors.

• AC-2B: MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the existing I-494

bridge for its full length, Dakota County Road 71 corridor (Rich Valley Blvd.) and US 52

corridor.


32/166


Figure 15Corridor Alternative AC-1A (Eliminate from further study)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor AC-1A: MSP to Coates via a new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to I-494 for

a portion of its length, then veering northeast to match an abandoned rail segment east of the

river; then along MN 55 and US 52 corridors.

Corridor

SegmentAC-1A

Length (miles) 18.5

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

20-22

Redundancy

No redundant

passenger rail

service in this

segment

Impacts to Built

Environment

Potential for

impacts to adjacent

residential and

commercial

developments along

MN 55 and US 52

Impacts to

Natural

Environment

Major impactsassociated with new

Minnesota River

crossing and at Fort

Snelling State Park


33/166


Figure 16Corridor Alternative AC-1B (Advance to Level 2 Screening)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor AC-1B: MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the existing I-494

bridge for its full length, and then along MN 55 and US 52 corridors.

Corridor

SegmentAC-1B

Length (miles) 18.5

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

20-22

Redundancy


service in this

segment

Impacts to Built

Environment

Potential for

impacts to adjacent

residential and

commercial

developments along

MN 55 and US 52

Impacts toNatural

Environment

Impacts associated

with newMinnesota River

crossing are less

than other AC

corridors


34/166





river. Then along Dakota County Road 71 corridor (Rich Valley Blvd.), and US 52 corridor.

Corridor

SegmentAC-2A

Length (miles) 17.6

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

20-21

Redundancy

No redundant

passenger rail service

in this segment

Impacts to Built

Environment

Potential for impacts

to fewer adjacent

residential and

commercial

developments along

Rich Valley Blvd

corridor when

compared to AC-1

corridors

Impacts to

Natural

Environment

Major impacts

associated with new

Minnesota River


Snelling State Park


35/166


Figure 18Corridor Alternative AC-2B (Advance to Level 2 Screening)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor AC-2B: MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the existing I-

494 bridge for its full length, Dakota County Road 71 corridor (Rich Valley Blvd.) and US 52

corridor.

Corridor

SegmentAC-2B

Length (miles) 17.4

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

20-21

Redundancy

No redundant

passenger rail

service in this

segment

Impacts to Built

Environment

Potential for fewer

existing property

impacts along Rich

Valley Blvd corridor

when compared to

AC-1 corridors

Impacts to

Natural

Environment

Impacts associated

with new

Minnesota River

crossing are less

than other AC

corridors


36/166





river. Then along existing CP and UP rail corridors to US 52 corridor.

Corridor

SegmentAC-3A

Length (miles) 21.2

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

22-26

Redundancy

No redundant

passenger rail

service in this

segment

Impacts to Built

Environment

Potential for

conflicts with

existing freight rail

operations near

Rosemount

Impacts to

Natural

Environment

Major impacts

associated with new

Minnesota River


Snelling State Park


37/166


Figure 20Corridor Alternative AC-3B (Eliminate from further study)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor AC-3B: MSP to Coates via new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to the

existing I-494 bridge for its full length and existing CP and UP rail corridors to US 52 corridor.

Corridor

SegmentAC-3B

Length (miles) 20.9

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

21-25

Redundancy

No redundant

passenger rail servicein this segment

Impacts to Built

Environment

Potential for conflicts

with existing freight

rail operations near

Rosemount

Impacts to

Natural

Environment

Impacts associated

with new Minnesota

River crossing are

less than other AC

corridors


38/166


Figure 21Comparative Evaluation Matrix AC Series

Corridor Alternatives AC-1A, AC-1B, AC-2A, AC-2B, AC-3A, AC-3B

Recommendation Eliminate from

further study

Advance to Level

2 Screening

Eliminate from

further study

Advance to Level

2 Screening

Eliminate from

further study

Eliminate from

further study

Corridor

SegmentAC-1A AC-1B AC-2A AC-2B AC-3A AC-3B

Length (miles) 18.5 18.5 17.6 17.4 21.2 20.9

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

20-22 20-22 20-21 20-21 22-26 21-25

Redundancy

No

redundant

passenger

rail service in

this segment

No

redundant

passenger

rail service in

this segment

No

redundant

passenger

rail service in

this segment

No

redundant

passenger

rail service in

this segment

No

redundant

passenger

rail servicein this

segment

No

redundant

passenger

rail servicein this

segment

Impacts to

Built

Environment

Potential for

impacts to

adjacent

residential and

commercial

development

along MN 55

and US 52

Potential for

impacts to

adjacent

residential

and

commercial

development

along MN 55

and US 52

Potential for

impacts to

fewer

adjacent

residential

and

commercial

developments

along Rich

Valley Blvd

corridor when

compared to

AC-1 corridors

Potential for

fewer existing

property

impacts along

Rich Valley

Blvd corridor

when

compared to

AC-1 corridors

Potential for

conflicts with

existing

freight rail

operations

near

Rosemount

Potential for

conflicts with

existing

freight rail

operations

near

Rosemount

Impacts to

Natural

Environment

Major

impacts

associated

with new

Minnesota

River

crossing and

at Fort

Snelling

State Park

Impacts

associated

with new

Minnesota

River

crossing are

less than

other AC

corridors

Major

impacts

associated

with new

Minnesota

River

crossing and

at Fort

Snelling

State Park

Impacts

associated

with new

Minnesota

River

crossing are

less than

other AC

corridors

Major

impacts

associated

with new

Minnesota

River

crossing

and at Fort

Snelling

State Park

Impacts

associated

with new

Minnesota

River

crossing are

less than

other AC

corridors


39/166


Figure 22Corridor Alternative AC-4 (Eliminate from further study)Evaluation Matrix and Location

Corridor AC-4: MSP to Coates via Minnesota 77/Cedar Avenue and Dakota County Road 46

(160th Street) to US 52 corridor.

Corridor

SegmentAC-4

Length (miles) 22.7

Preliminary

travel time

(minutes)

34

Redundancy

Metro Red Line BRT

serves a portion of

this segment

Impacts to Built

Environment

Potential for major

impacts to existing

commercial

developments along

Cedar Avenue

Impacts to

NaturalEnvironment

Expanded Minnesota

River crossing

adjacent to MN 77

south of MSP


40/166


Union Depot to Coates

This group of segments consists of corridor alternatives that would provide connections

between Union Depot and Coates, MN.

Corridor DefinitionThe corridors are defined as follows:

• UC-1A – Union Depot to Coates via existing BNSF and CP rail lines, with Mississippi

River crossing near the former Rock Island swing bridge in St. Paul Park/Inver Grove

Heights onto the UP line west of the Mississippi River

• UC-1B – Union Depot to Coates via exist ing BNSF and CP rail l ines, with

Mississippi River crossing to the UP line near I-494/Newport

• UC-1C – Union Depot to Coates via existing BNSF and CP rail lines, with Mississippi

River crossing to the UP lines south of I-494 in St. Paul Park

• UC-2A – Union Depot to Coates via existing UP rail line, with an existing Mississippi

River railroad crossing near Pig’s Eye Lake• UC-2B – Union Depot to Coates via existing UP rail line, with a Mississippi River

cross ing adjacent to the existing Robert Street railroad bridge

• UC-3A – Union Depot to Coates via existing BNSF and CP rail lines, with a new or

rehabilitated Mississippi River crossing in Hastings and through an abandoned rail

corridor, including a new crossing of the Vermillion River

• UC-3B – Union Depot to Cannon Falls via existing BNSF and CP rail lines, with a

crossing of the Vermillion River and the US 61 corridor to Cannon Falls.

• UC-4A – Union Depot to Coates via the Union Pacific (Mankato Subdivision) line, with

Mississippi River crossing on existing railroad swing bridge, with an intermediate stop in

the vicinity of MSP, then south to Coates on a corridor adjacent to MN 55 and US 52

• UC-4B – Union Depot to Coates via the Union Pacific (Mankato Subdivision) line,with Mississippi River crossing on existing railroad swing bridge, with an

intermediate stop in the vicinity of MSP, then south to Coates near the Dakota

County 71 (Rich Valley Blvd) cor ridor to US 52 corridor

EvaluationThe above described alternatives depart the Union Depot over different existing rail lines

including:

1. BNSF and CP to the southeast,

2. Union Pacific to the southeast,

3. Union Pacific to the southwest or4. Union Pacific to the south.

The alternatives also vary according to where the Mississippi River is crossed including one of

the following:

1. The former Rock Island swing bridge area in St. Paul Park/Inver Grove Heights

2. Near the I-494 highway bridge in Newport


41/166


3. South of I-494 in St. Paul Park

4. Existing Union Pacific railroad crossing near Pig’s Eye Lake

5. Existing Union Pacific Robert Street railroad bridge

6. New or rehabilitated Mississippi River crossing in Hastings

7. The existing Union Pacific railroad swing bridge west of downtown St Paul

The location of the Mississippi River crossing determines the route south or west of the River to

Coates.

BNSF/CP to the Southeast – UC-1 Alternatives

The UC-1 alternatives extend from Union Depot southeast over BNSF and CP tracks along the

east side of the Mississippi River then cross to the west side of the Mississippi River and

continue south on the UP line to the US 52 corridor to Coates. A new crossing of the

Mississippi River would be required. The three UC-1 alternatives differ in the location of the

new crossing.

North of a future river crossing, these alternatives utilize active freight lines, which raise issues

of capacity and coordination with freight traffic. On the other hand, this corridor would share thesame track with existing Amtrak Empire Builder service, potential Red Rock commuter rail

service and future high speed passenger rail service between the Twin Cities and Chicago.

Several projects, documented in the East Metro Rail Capacity Study, the Twin Cities to

Milwaukee HSR study and the Red Rock Corridor Study identify new construction through

Dayton’s Bluff/Hoffman yards.

South of a future river crossing, the corridor follows the existing Union Pacific right-of-way south

to the US 52 corridor to Coates.

The principal differentiation between the three alternatives is the location of a potential

Mississippi River crossing:

• UC-1A – The former Rock Island swing bridge area in St. Paul Park/Inver Grove Heights

• UC-1B – Near the I-494 highway bridge in Newport

• UC-1C – South of I-494 in St. Paul Park

All three potential crossings are problematic from an environmental perspective because each

represents a new crossing of the Mississippi River. A new bridge would also need to

accommodate river navigation, suggesting either a swing or lift bridge due to the difficulty of

attaining the requiring height clearance for a railroad bridge. Although the Rock Island Swing

Bridge was formerly used as a railroad bridge, only part of the bridge remains and is now used

as a park, raising 4F concerns. In addition, the Rock Island Bridge formerly entered theproperty of the St. Paul Park refinery; there would be security concerns raised if efforts were

made to construct a new bridge into that area. A bridge crossing near St. Paul Park would

require a longer bridge and a longer stretch of greenfield alignment on the east side of the river

than a new bridge near the I-494 highway crossing. The latter also has the advantage of being

near an existing river crossing, which would presumably reduce the visual impact. Of the three

river crossing alternatives, the location near I-494 is most favorable.


42/166


Therefore, UC-1A and UC-1C are eliminated from further consideration.

Union Pacific to the South or Southeast – UC-2 Alternatives

The UC-2 alternatives extend from Union Depot over Union Pacific tracks, cross the Mississippi

River and continue south on the UP line to the US 52 corridor to Coates. In both cases, an

existing crossing of the Mississippi River would be utilized. The two UC-2 alternatives differ in

the location of the existing crossing.


of capacity and coordination with freight traffic. However, in contrast to the UC-1 alternatives,

the distance travelled along the existing passenger corridor is much shorter. South of a future

river crossing, the corridor follows the existing Union Pacific right-of-way south to where the

Union Pacific swings to the west towards Rosemount. South of this point, the corridor follows a

path west of the Flint Hills Refinery then southeast to the US 52 corridor to Coates.

The principal differentiation between the two alternatives is the location of the existing

Mississippi River crossing:

• UC-2A – The existing UP bridge near Pig’s Eye Lake

• UC-2B – The existing UP bridge near Robert Street

In both cases, the Union Pacific railroad line is used directly out of the Union Depot. And in both

cases, the proposed passenger service crosses the Mississippi River at the location of an

existing Union Pacific bridge. The difference between the two alternatives is how to get to those

bridges. The path to the southeast is complicated by the necessity of crossing BNSF and CP

railroad tracks to get first to the Union Pacific St. Paul Hoffman yard and then by the necessity

of going through the yard and around the Metropolitan Council’s wastewater treatment facility.

Crossing the Mississippi River directly from Union Depot near the Robert Street Bridge requires

crossing the CP mainline tracks but at this location there is a very low volume and trains do nothave to leave the Union Pacific tracks. The UC-2B alternative would provide access into Union

Depot without the freight congestion associated with the UC-2A alternative through the Dayton’s

Bluff/Hoffman Yards area.

Therefore, UC-2A is eliminated from further consideration.

BNSF/CP to the southeast – Mississippi River Crossing at Hastings – UC-3 alternatives

The UC-3 alternatives extend from Union Depot southeast over BNSF and CP tracks along the

east side of the Mississippi River to Hastings, MN, cross the Mississippi River and proceed to

either Coates or Cannon Falls. A new or rehabilitated crossing of the Mississippi River and a

new crossing of the Vermillion River would be required. The two UC-3 alternatives differ in thepath taken south of Hastings.


of capacity and coordination with freight traffic. On the other hand, this corridor would share the

same track with existing Amtrak Empire Builder service, potential Red Rock commuter rail

service and future high speed passenger rail service between the Twin Cities and Chicago.

Several projects, documented in the East Metro Rail Capacity Study, the Twin Cities to


43/166


Milwaukee HSR study and the Red Rock Corridor Study identify new construction through

Dayton’s Bluff/Hoffman yards.

In contrast to the UC-1 alternatives, the UC-3 alternatives parallel the BNSF/CP tracks for a

longer distance. But the East Metro Rail Capacity Study recognized the need for capacity

improvements at least as far as Hastings to accommodate passenger rail service. These

alternatives would utilize infrastructure that would already be carrying high speed passenger

trains.

The principal differentiation between the two alternatives is the path followed south of Hastings:

• UC-3A – This corridor follows an abandoned railroad alignment through the Vermillion

River Valley between Hastings and Coates

• UC-3B – This corridor crosses the Vermillion River and follows the US Highway 61

corridor to Cannon Falls.

South of Hastings, both of these alternatives are problematic. Neither follows an existing

Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016

Documents

Transcript of Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016