8.4. SR 05-21-2012REQUEST FOR ACTION
TO ITEM NUMBER
Ma or and Ci Council 8,4
AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
General Business Ma 21, 2012 Tina Allard, Ci Clerk
ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By
Resolution Supporting Passenger Rail Service From Chicago to Cal Portner, Ci Administrator
St. Cloud REVIEWED BY
ACTION REQUESTED
Council should discuss whether they would like to adopt the attached resolution of support for passenger
rail service from Chicago to St. Cloud.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Mayor Dietz received a letter from Sherburne County asking fox a resolution of support in regards to
passenger rail service from Chicago to St. Cloud. Attached is some background information provided by
Sherburne County.
If you would like to read more about passenger rail around the state, visit the Mn/DOT website at:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passen erg rail/
ATTACHMENTS
^ Resolution
Letter from Sherburne County Commissioner Felix Schmiesing Along with Background
Material
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
N:\Public Bodies\City Council\Council RCA\Passenger Rail.docx ~~
RESOLUTION 12-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ADDITION OF A STATE-
SPONSORED PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE BETWEEN CHICAGO AND
THE TWIN CITIES, EXTENDING TO ST. CLOUD
WHEREAS, MNDOT, through its Office of Passenger Rail, is engaged with the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) in a feasibility study of the provision of
additional state-sponsored intercity passenger rail service in the Chicago-Minneapolis-St.
Cloud Corridor; and
WHEREAS, according to the MNDOT State Rail Plan, the St. Paul/St. Cloud corridor
has the highest ridership numbers of any corridor in the state, and is exceeded only by the St.
Paul to Chicago Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the addition of service to St. Cloud would be of direct benefit to the City of
Elk River and its residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the St. Cloud terminus would provide similar benefits to the region, to
Northstar ridership, and to airport service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Elk
River, Minnesota is strongly in support of this service extending to St. Cloud.
Passed and adopted this 215L day of May 2012.
John J. Dietz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tina Allard, City Clerk
N:\Public Bodies\Ciry Council\Resolutions\Resolution Support for Passenger Rail.docx
~F,VRNE CD ea.
y r'~1 !
L1./
1 "d ~ '~ ~ ' . `. . .
May lo, zolz
John Dietz, Mayor
City of Elk River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River, MN 55330
Dear Mayor Dietz,
13550 r~iigrrw~y 10 ]Nest
13330 Business tenter Drive
~tk F,'iver, il/i,~l155330-4501
(753) 241-270 9 ,~ 1-800-433-5223
(763) 241-2707 FaX (Within Minnesota)
Wehsite: www. co. Sherburne. rnn. c;s
Currently the MNDOT office of Passenger Rail and Amtrak are undertaking a feasibility study for the
addition of state-sponsored passenger rail service between Chicago and the Twin Cities, possibly
extendng_to_St._Cloud. There is no guarantee however-, that this run would-extend to St. Cloud.-T-he-
support of the St. C]oud area is critical to this conversation.
I am enclosing the resolution passed by the Sherburne County Board of Commissioners on May 8, 20] 2
and some background information for your reference. I am asking if each of your respective boards
would consider passing a similar resolution of support within the next few weeks. Should you wish to
support this effort, please forward a copy of your resolution to Luci Botzek at 13880 Business Center
Drive NW, Elk River, MN 55330 or email to luci.botzek@co.sherburne.mn.us.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter of most importance to our part of the state.
Sincere] ,
Felix chmiesing
Commissioner, District 4
Enclosure
cc: Brian Bensen, Administrator -Sherburne County
Luci Botzek, Deputy Administrator- Sherburne County
Dave Craning, Mayor -City of Becker
Monty Headley, Administrator-Benton County
Lori Kampa, Mayor -City of Big Lake
Dave Kleis, Mayor -City of St. Cloud
John Kramer, CEO -Greater St. Cloud Development Corp.
DeWayne Mareck, Board Chair -Stearns County
Scott Mareck, AICP, Executive Director - St. Cloud Area Planning Organization
Warren Peschl, Board Chair -Benton County
George Rindelaub, Administrator -Stearns County
Bill Winter, Board Chair - St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce
Distr'sct 1 District 2 District 3
LARRY FARBER EWALD PETERSEN JOHN RIEBEL
19404 Norfolk St. NW 18040 Mwy. 10 18866 - 75th Street
Etlc River, MN 55330 Big Lake, MN 55309 Becker, MN 55308
(763) 913-8809 (763) 263-307$ (763) 263-2056
District 4
FEL(X SGMMlES1NG
5672 - 115th Avenue
Clear Lake, MN 55319
(320) 743-2441
District 5
RACHEL LEONARD
27655 - 112th Street
Zimmerman, MN 55398
(763) 856-2497
EXHIBIT 1
SCOPE OF WORK
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") will conduct a feasibility study of
the provision of additional state-sponsored intercity passenger rail service in the Chicago, IL
-Milwaukee, Wl - St. Paul, MN -Minneapolis, MN - St.Cloud, MN corridor for the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "MNDOT") as follows.
A. Potential Routes:
The potential routes for study were selected by the STATES and included herein as Table
1. With a few moderate exceptions, the routes to be studied essentially follow that of
Amtrak's current Empire Builder trains between Chicago, IL and St. Cloud, MTI. The
study assumes that east of St. Paul, MN station stops for all four alternative routes will be
the same as those of the Empire Builder service. However, within the Twin Cities area
and beyond to St. Cloud, each alternative route will reflect a different combination of
station stops. Exhibit 2, attached, provides maps of the four alternative routes.
TABLE I
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE l
HOST RAILROAD STATION STOP
AMTRAK Chica o Union Station
METRA Glenview, IL
Canadian Pacific CP Milwaukee Ai ort Rail Station
Canadian Pacific (CP Milwaukee, Wl
CP Columbus, W]
CP Porta e, W l
CP Wisconsin Dells, W1
CP Tomah, W1
CP LaCrosse, Wl
CP Winona, MN
CP Red Win , MN
CP St. Paul Union De t
BNSF Minneapolis Transportation Interchange
TI
BNSF St. Cloud, MN
Page 1
TABLE 1 (continued)
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 2
HOST RAILROAD STATION STOP
AMTRAK Chica o Union Station
METRA Glenview, IL
Canadian Pacific CP Milwaukee Ai ort Rail Station
Canadian Pacific (CP Milwaukee, Wl
CP Columbus, WI
CP Porta e, WI
CP Wisconsin Dells, WI
CP Tomah, W 1
CP LaCrosse, W1
CP Winona, MN
CP Red Win , MN
CP St. Paul Union De of
BNSF Fridle , MN
BNSF St. Cloud, MN
Page 2
TABLE 1 (continued)
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 3
HOST RA.II.ROAD STATION STOP
AMTRAK Chica o Union Station
METRA Glenview, IL
Canadian Pacific (CP Milwaukee Ai ort Rail Station
Canadian Pacific CP Milwaukee, Wl
Cp Columbus, Wl
CP Porta e, W1
Cp Wisconsin Dells, Wl
Cp Tomah, W 1
Cp LaCrosse, W 1
Cp Winona, MN
Cp Red Win , MN
CP St. Paul Union De of
BNSF Minneapolis Transporlaiion Interchange
(MTl
Page 3
TABLE 1 (continued)
ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 4
HOST RAILROAD STATION STOP
AMTRAK Chica o Union Station
METRA Glenview, IL
Canadian Pacific CP Milwaukee Ai ort Rail Station
Canadian Pacific (CP Milwaukee, W1
CP Columbus, W1
CP Porta e, WI
CP Wisconsin Dells, Wl
CP Tomah, W1
CP LaCrosse, W1
CP Winona, MN
CP Red Win , MN
CP St. Pau) Union De of
B. Frequency and Schedule:
This study will evaluate the feasibility of adding one daily frequency, 7 days per week,
each way between Chicago and a Twin Cities area station at times that complement
existing Empire Builder and Hiawatha Service departure and arrival times.
Approximate proposed departure/arrival times at terminal stations:
Departure City Departure Time Arrival City Arrival Time
Chicago 8:00-9:00 AM Twin Cities 4:00-5:00 PM
St. Cloud 6:30-7:30 PM
St. Cloud 9:30-] 0:30 AM
Twin Cities 1 l :00 AM -Noon
Chicago 7:00-8:00 PM
Page 4
C. Operating Assumptions:
1. Due to the inability to tum equipment consists at certain of the proposed Minnesota
terminal stations, Alternative Routes I and 3 will require a "push-pull" locomotive
configuration. This arrangement provides for a locomotive unit on each end of the
train.
2. For each of the four alternative routes, schedules, infrastructure requirements,
operating costs, rolling stock, ridership and revenue forecasts will be developed based
on current timetable speeds up to 79 mph, where practical.
3. -T#is study assumes the proposed new frequencies will not accommodate checked
baggage.
4. The equipment consist will include a food service car (cafe, lounge or bistro car) with
food and beverage. service but will not include a full diner.
5. This study assumes .the train consist will-utilize bi-level Superliner-type equipment,
Simi-tar to the Empire Bvifder-consist. A~ntralrrecommends-the evaiuaton~f-sirrgte-
level or non-Superliner equipment be set aside for a more in-depth study in the future.
6. The equipment consist will be coaches plus food service car, but no sleeper cars.
7. Locomotive costs will be based on the use of P42 locomotives. if multiple or push-
pull power consists are required, the equipment will be locomotives only, assuming
there is no availability of Amtrak NPCU (Non-Powered Control Unit) equipment for
use in this service.
8. Assuming the proposed second frequency running time is similar to the current
Empire Builder running time, the study will examine the effects on trip schedule with
the elimination of the extended rest stop in Winona, the addition of a Milwaukee
Airport stop, no multiple stops at a single station, and no checked baggage.
D. The Study
To conduct the study, Amtrak will perform an analysis of the existing railroad
infrastructure along the potential routes and will:
1. Gather background information, review prior studies, and collect demographic
information from available sources for the purpose of providing an overview of the
alternative routes and proposed station stops.
2. Coordinate, schedule, and conduct a field inspection of the potential routes to assess
the existing railroad infrastructure, freight railroad operations, freight railroad traffic
volumes, capacity issues, and local yard and terminal operations.
3. Assess the impact of proposed route station stops on existing freight and passenger
operations and on infrastructure in the vicinity of the stations.
4. Coordinate with host railroads to identify specific issues related to operations,
infrastructure and capacity.
5. Consult with host railroads to determine the need for RTC modeling and the extent of
a capacity analysis. Based on host railroad input and. field inspections, identify
specific required infrastructure improvements along the various alternative routes.
Page S
6. Include in the lump sum study price the costs of any required capacity analysis.
7. Amtrak wil) provide study progress updates on a monthly basis for the stakeholders.
8. Amtrak, working with its consultant, AECOM, shall provide passenger rail ridership
and revenue projections for each alternative route.
E. The Report
Amtrak shall prepare and deliver a report that includes all of the following, and any other
information Amtrak deems appropriate:
1. An assessment of the existing route infrastructure, condition, and railroad operating
and capacity issues for the potential routes.
2. Results of the capacity analysis for each potential route.
3. An estimate of capital and infrastructure regt~irements for each .alternative route.
4. Provisional train schedules, upon which all study analyses are base, _ £or----each
alternative route; these schedules will be reasonable and feasible but not necessarily
optimized due to the limited capabilities of this study.
5. Ridership and revenue forecasts for the proposed service, including the selected
stations, and including the key assumptions used to derive the estimates.
6. Estimated annual operating costs and expense items for the proposed service,
including the key assumptions used to derive the estimates.
7. Estimated annual operating support for the proposed service.
8. Required crewing needs and expenditures for crew costs for the initial start-up.
9. Equipment and train consist requirements and cost estimates, based on results of the
ridership analyses.
10. Required equipment mechanical maintenance and support facilities and assessment of
potential sites for train maintenance.
F. Report Preparation and Review Process
Within 120 calendar days of receipt of an executed contract and study parameters from
MNDOT and background information, such as track charts and employee time tables,
from the host railroads, and upon completion of field inspection trips, AMTRAK will
complete the analysis of data, the preparation of train schedules, the analyses of track
capacity, the identification of infrastructure improvements, and the preparation of
ridership/revenue/cost estimates.
Upon completion of tasks described in the previous paragraph, AMTRAK will require
approximately 30 days to prepare and provide to the host railroads an initial Draft Report
for review and comment. Only those sections of the report that are relevant to the host
railroads will be provided to them. The study schedule assumes comments from the host
railroads will be provided to AMTRAK within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Draft
Report.
Page 6
Following receipt of comments from the host railroads, and, subject to AMTRAK review
and approval, the comments will be incorporated into an updated Drafl Report, which
Amtrak will then provide to MNDOT for review and comment. It is estimated that
AMTRAK will need approximately 30 calendar days to review host railroad comments
and update the Draft Report before forwarding it to MNDOT.
MNDOT shall review the Drafl Report and provide written comments to AMTRAK
within 30 calendar days of receipt of the Drafl Report.
AMTRAK shall provide a Final Report to MNDOT within 30 ealendar days of receipt of
written-comments- from MNDOT, incorporating all relevant comments into the Final
Report. Should AMTRAK or MNDOT take exception to any contents of the Drafl
Repor[, both parties agree to work in an expeditious manner to resolve all issues prior to
the release of the Final Report.
A timely completion of the feasibility study and report will be dependent on the
cooperation of the host railroads as well as completion of all necessary route capacity
analyses, if any.
Page 7