The URL can be used to link to this page

4.1. SR 01-19-1999 rei ~'\). ( ~ IIi< Item # 4 . 1. MEMORANDUM River TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Scott HarJicker, Planning Assistank January 19, 1999 DATE: SUBJECT: Update on Northstar Corridor Project . At the January 7th meeting of the Northstar Corridor Development Authority, discussion included the draft Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. The Authority voted to approve the draft study and move forward with Phase II of the Major Investment Study (MIS). Phase II includes completion of the MIS, the environmental review, preliminary engineering for commuter rail service and negotiations with BNSF. The draft Commuter Rail study is included with the packet. It includes an explanation of the commuter rail system, ridership forecasts, capacity modeling, capital costs, and operation and maintenance information. Data on economic impacts, social and environmental impacts and financial analysis should be completed this month. The Authority also discussed the importance of maintaining contact with representatives in the State Legislature. To that end, a resolution for the Council's consideration has been included. The resolution indicates Elk River's strong support for the Northstar Corridor commuter rail project and the need for continued support from the Legislature. This resolution will be presented to our representatives when we meet with them. . \ \elkriver \sys \shrdoc \planning\scott \ncdajan.doc 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55 30. TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420. Fax: (612) 441-7425 Northstar Corridor Development Authority Agenda Thursday, January 7, 1999 4:30 p.m. Sherburne County Courthouse Elk River, MN Action Requesttd 1. Election of Officers Election a. Chair b. Vice Chair 2. Minutes of December 3, 1998 Meeting'" Approval 3. Executive Committee Report Approval " 4. MIS/Commuter Rail Feasibility a. Draft Report on Commuter Rail Information Technical Feaeibllity* b. Next Steps: Phase II. Information c. Preliminary Finding of Technical Approval Feasibility and direction to staff to develop a scope of work for the completion of the MIS. the environmental review. preliminary engineering and negotiation with BNSF 5. Other a. Meeting Schedule for 1999 f . DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT NORTHST AR CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Re~ular Meetin2: Minutes December 10. 1998 The Northstar Corridor Development Authority met on December 10, 1998, at 3 :00 p.m. at the Sherburne County Government Center, Elk River, Minnesota. The followin~ members. alternates and citizens were present: . Leigh Lenzmeier, Lynn George, David Loch, Tim Yantos, Mary Richardson, Stephanie Eilers, Elizabeth Co born, Ken Stevens, Tom Ryan, Jerry Newton, D.J. Mitchell, Ken Paulson, Carl Yilek, Patrick Cairns, Curtis M. Jacobsen, Scott Harlicker, Lewis Stark, Art Daniels, Jerry Leese, Terry Nagorski, Duane Grandy, Carolyn Brown, Ewald Petersen, John Norgren, Don Jolly, Gerry Donlin, Tom Gamec, Ken Hasskamp, Paul McCarron, Mark Stenglein, Jim Norman, Jay McLinden, Brian Roper, Tom Cruikshank, Ray Friedl, Harlen Owath, Jim Barton, Gabriel Guevara, Dean Michalko, Roger Fraser, Jean Keely, C.D. Stack. John Hovland, Pat Casler, Al Seppelt, Mike Christensen, Stephanie Eiler, Paul Goenner, Bill Kiffmeyer, Gary Hammer, Robert Monk 1. The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 3 :00 p.m. 2. A motion was made by Lewis Stark, seconded by Patrick Cairns and carried unanimously to approve the agenda of December 10, 1998, with no additions and the meeting minutes of November 5, 1998, regular meeting minutes as presented. . . DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Regular Meeting Minutes December 10, 1998 Page 2 3. Tim Yantos introduced the results of the commuter rail feasibility study as follows: Service concept: 66 miles 10 stations (East St. Cloud) 18 daily trains Ridership: Forecast Year 2005: 2.1 million trips/year 7,350 trips/day . Forecast Year 2020: 2.4 million trips/year 8,200 trips/day Capital Cost: $146-175 million (1999 dollars) Operationg Cost: $9.5 million/year The technical team then presented the analysis in more detail. * Tom Mattof, L TK Engineering rnc: service concept options * Ann Ryner, Wilbur Smith Associates: ridership forecast assumptions and fares * David Mahle, BRW, rnc: capacity simulation results * Mike Ringrose, BRW, rnc: capital cost estimates * Phil Boyd, Manuel Padron and Associates: estimate of costs to operate Concept B . . DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Regular Meeting Minutes December 10, 1998 Page 3 A summary of the feasibility analysis will be prepared by the team and presented at the next Northstar Corridor Development Authority meeting. The Authority will be asked at the next meeting to consider the findings and to determine whether the Authority should move forward in developing commuter rail. 4. Northstar Executive Committee Report: a. The Committee agreed by unanimous consensus to instruct staff to put together a legislative program to seek federal funding for the Northstar Corridor and to seek state funding to provide the necessary match. b A motion was made by Ewald Peterson, seconded by Duane Grandy and carried unanimously the recommendation of the Northstar Executive Committee authorizing any Project Management Team and any interested policy makers to tour the California Commuter Rail Systems to prepare for the next phase of work with costs to be borne by the member organization (January 21-24,1999). . c. Discussion and renewal of 1999 contracts: A motion was made by Ken Paulson, seconded by Jerry Leese and carried unanimously to approve the recommendation of the Northstar Executive Committee to amend the BR W contract to extend the term to April 1, 1999. A motion was made by Gerry Donlin, seconded by Tom Ryan and carried unanimously to approve the recommendation of the N orthstar Executive Committee to amend the contract with Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. to extend the term until December 3 1, 1999 to increase the contract amount by $65,000, and to increase the rates to a maximum of$115,000. . . DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Regular Meeting Minutes December 10,1998 Page 4 A motion was made by Paul McCarron, seconded by Mark Stenglein and carried unanimously to approve the recommendation of the Northstar Executive Committee to extend the term of the contract with Ken Stevens until December 31, 1999, increase the contract amount by $20,000 and to increase the hourly rate at a maximum of$105.00. 5. Stephanie Eiler, Anoka County, reviewed the draft MnDOT Phase II Twin Cities Metropolitan Commuter Rail Study. Gabriel Guevara, MnDOT, representing the Twin Cities Metropolitan Commuter Rail Study, was available to answer questions about their findings. 6. The next meeting of the Northstar Corridor Development Authority is scheduled for Thursday, January 7, 1999, at 4:30 p.m. at the Sherburne County Government Center. . 7. The Chairperson declared the meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. Betsy Wergin, Chairperson Dated . dmp\H:\ADMNDA T A \COMMITTE\CORRIDOR\1998\MINUTES\NORTHST A \121 098.DOC c~~-2412707 FROH-RICHARDSON,RITCHER &ASSOC. T-119 P.02/03 F-555 Northstllr Corridor Development Authority . Resolution #99- 1 WHEREAS, the Northstar Corridor Development Authority is a joint powers board comprised of 29 cities, towns, counties, regional railroad authorities and transit authority; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Northstar Corridor Development Authority is to analyze the feasibility and environmental impacts of integrated transportation Improvements along the Trunk HIghway 10 Corridor (the uNon:hstar Corridor") i and , WHEREAS, the Northstar Corridor Development Authority, as a component of a Major Inve~tmQnt Study, has completed the preliminary technical feasibility assessment of commuter rail in the Northstar Corridor, analyzing service concepts, railroad capacity, capital costs/ operating costs and ridership (attached); and WHEREAS, the projected per-mile capital and operating costs/ ridership levels and per passenger operating costs for the Northstar Corridor commuter rail service are within the cost and performance range of comparable new commuter rail services nationwide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Northstar Corridor Development Authority finds that the Northstar Corridor commuter rail service to be a technically feasible component of the transportation solution; and ~ FURTHER, the North.tar Corridor Development Authority ~Il prccQed to the next phase of work on the Corridor and directs the Project Management , Team to 'develop a scope of work for the completion of the Major Investment Study, the environmental review and preliminary enaineering for commuter rail service, and negotiations with BNSF. .' . / TO-2412707 //// / FROH-RICHARDSON.RITCHER &ASSOC. T-119 P.03/03 F-555 I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of 19_ as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. ,. ~.... . CERTIFICATION (name) (name) )l . . Ora it Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study Prepared By: IBRW . "tIMES & MOORE GROUP ClJ#II"N('f . December 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS . 1. Summary 1-1 . Comparison to Other Commuter Rail Systems 1-2 2. Commuter Rail System 2-1 . Corridor Description 2-1 . Commuter Rail System Concept 2-1 . Equipment Concept 2-2 . Example Timetable 2-3 3. Ridership 3-1 . Basic Methodology 3-1 . Data Sources 3-1 . Basic Assumptions 3-2 . Preliminary Ridership Forecasts 3-3 4. Capacity Modeling 4-1 . Simulation Model Methodology 4-1 . Freight Only Capacity Modeling Simulation Analysis 4-1 . Freight and Commuter Rail Capacity Modeling Simulation Analysis 4-2 5. Capital Costs 5-1 . . Introduction 5-1 . Methodology 5-1 . Results 5-2 6. Operations and Maintenance 6-1 . Commuter Rail Operations and Maintenance 6-1 . Feeder Bus Operations and Maintenance 6-2 7. Economic Impacts 7-1 8. Social and Environmental Impacts 8-1 9. Financial Analysis 9-1 . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 Table of Contents . . . . SUMMARY The State of Minnesota's Northstar Corridor consists of nearly thirty cities, towns and counties stretching some 70 miles along the east and north shore of the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and the cities of St. Cloud and Rice. The Northstar Corridor connects the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area (3.2 million persons in 1995) and the St. Cloud metropolitan area (100,000 persons in 1995), and is one of the most rapidly growing urban/suburban corridors in the nation. Among the challenges which this rapid growth poses is the growing need for transportation alternatives. The Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, undertaken in the context of an overall Major Investment Study, is evaluating the potential contribution of a passenger rail service to improved public mobility in the corridor. This interim report summarizes the technical work completed to date. Among the interim conclusions reached by this technical analysis are the following: · A service concept of nine round-trips per weekday in the Corridor (five between Minneapolis and St. CloudlRice, two between Minneapolis and Elk River and two between Minneapolis and Anoka/Ramsey) meets the initial service policy objectives of the Corridor for commute, reverse-commute and non-work trips; . Such a service could be accommodated on the tracks of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway in the Corridor, provided that a package of railroad capacity improvements, to be agreed upon through negotiations between the railroad and the Northstar Corridor Development Authority, could be implemented; · The capital cost of such a system, including the capacity improvements, rolling stock, maintenance facilities, stations, park-and-ride lots and other elements, is in the range of $146 million to $175 million; · The annual gross operating cost of such a system, excluding offsetting fare revenues, is in the range of $9.5 million to $10 million; · Although subject to further refinement, it appears that more than two million trips per year would .be taken on the Northstar Commuter Rail system and that ridership would average 7,000 to 8,000 boardings per day depending upon the year in which ridership was being analyzed; · As shown on the following summary comparison chart, the projected per-mile capital and operating costs, ridership levels and per passenger operating costs which have been calculated to date indicate that the Northstar Corridor rail service would fall well within the cost and performance range of other, comparable new commuter rail services nationwide; . Preliminary evaluation of these characteristics of the projected service strongly suggest that the Northstar Corridor passenger rail service is a feasible transportation solution. Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 1-1 Summary Comparison to Other Commuter Rail Systems A comparison of the Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail system was performed evaluating similar new commuter rail systems throughout the United States. The comparable commuter rail systems are located in metropolitan areas with similar employment, population, and regional growth patterns as well as systems that are similar in length and operating schedule. The most recently developed commuter rail systems used for comparison are located in: San Diego County, California; MiamilFort LauderdalelWest Palm Beach, Florida; Washington, DC and Northern Virginia; and Dallas, Texas. Additionally, a comparable system that is planned to begin operation in 1999 is located in the Seattlerracoma metropolitan area. Comparisons were made to the length of the system, the number of stations along the commuter rail line, the capital cost to initiate service, and the actual number of people riding the train. The table on the following page shows the results of this analysis. Overall, when the planned Northstar Commuter Rail System is compared to existing and planned systems, the results reveal that the technical characteristics of the Northstar system compare favorably to the other systems. Northstar Commuter Rail preliminary capital cost and ridership estimates depict the system would operate at or above the levels of the comparable commuter rail systems. It is important to note that the capital cost and ridership estimates for the Northstar Commuter Rail system are preliminary and are currently being reviewed by Project Management Team technical staff for their reasonableness and accuracy. Therefore, the numbers shown could change as further analysis is completed and additional calculations are performed to refine both the capital cost and ridership estimates. Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 1-2 Summary . . . . . . . Comparison to Existing Similar Commuter Rail Systems and Proposed Regional Commuter Rail -- Existing and Planned Systems Year Length Number 01 Capital Cost Capital Cost per A verage Daily Riders per Route Riders per Station Existing Systems (1) Opened (in Miles) Stations (1999 $) Mile (1999 $) Ridership in 1998 Mile in 1998 in 1998 North Coaster 1995 43 8 $169111 $4m 4,275 100 535 -- San Diego, California Tri-Rail 1989 66 17 $355 m ROW $5 01 ROW 8,470 130 500 -- Miami/Ft Lauderdale/W Palm Beach, Florida $105 m RS&C $2 m RS&C Virginia Railway Express 1992 88 18 $161111 $2m 6,350 70 350 -- Washington, DC Trinity Railway Express 1996 10 3 $76 m $801 1,980 200 660 -- Dallas, Texas Planned System (2) Year Length Number 0 Capital Cost Opening (in Miles) Stations (1999 $) 1999 40 8 $27001 - Year Length Number 0 Capital Cost Opening (in Miles) Stations (1999 $) 2003 67 10 $144 to $164 m Seallle Sounder u Seallle, Washington Northstar Corridor (3) Minneapolis to East Saint Cloud Notes: m = Dollars in Millions ROW = Right-of-Way RS&C = Rolling Stock and Construction Capital Cost per Mile (1999 $) A verage Daily Ridership in 2010 Riders per Station in 2010 Riders per Route Mile in 2010 $7 m 295 1,475 11,800 Capital Cost per I A verage Daily Rider-IRiderS per Route Mile! Riders per Station i Mile (1999 $) ship in 2005/2020 in 2005/2020 I 2005/2020 $2.1 to $2.4 m 7,200/8,050 110 1 120 720 1 805 Sources: (I) American Public Transit Association Commuter Rail Transit Ridership Report, Second Quarter, April to June 1998. (2) Sound Transit, December 1998, Average Daily Ridership forecasts completed by Sound Transit for the Year 2010. (3) BRW, Inc. for Capital Costs and Wilbur Smith Associates for Average Daily Ridership for the Year 2005 and 2020. 12/25/98 COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM . Corridor Description The Northstar Corridor's rail component consists of approximately 70 miles of track connecting downtown Minneapolis with the cities of St. Cloud and Rice. It includes all of the communities and townships along the east and west banks of the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and St. Cloud. These include: Anoka, Becker, Big Lake, Blaine, Clear Lake, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Elk River, Ramsey, Spring Lake Park, Becker Township, Big Lake Township, Clear Lake Township, and Haven Township. The line serves parts of the counties of Stearns, Benton, Sherburne, Anoka, and Hennepin. . The main rail line serving the corridor, and the only line linking the core of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area with St. Cloud, is a transcontinental mainline of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). The BNSF mainline is built and maintained to high standards. The line is equipped with modem Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) signaling between the Northtown Yard (north of Minneapolis) and Coon Creek Junction, in the City of Coon Rapids, and between Big Lake and the west. The intermediate section has Automatic Block Signals (ABS), normally used for single direction operation on each of the two tracks. Just north of the Northtown Yard, the line is double-tracked, except for a ten-mile section between Big Lake and Becker. The line has heavy Class 4 track and for the most has continuous welded rail. Between Coon Creek Junction and St. Cloud, passenger train speeds are 75 miles per hour or greater, with the exception of some crossovers and a few other restrictions. Overall, freight service is heavy on this line, with 35 to 50 trains per day. Commuter Rail System Concept Several service concepts have been proposed for this corridor. The version presented in this Commuter Rail Feasibility Report is being referred to as Concept B. Two additional concepts, A and C, have also been given some consideration, but they provide less service than currently desired. They may however be reconsidered as introductory phases of a complete service. Concept B has been used as the common basis for service evaluation, demand forecasting (patronage estimation), operations costing, capital costing and operations simulation. Concept B provides for nine daily round trips in the Northstar Corridor: five between Minneapolis and St. CloudlRice, two between Minneapolis and Anoka/Ramsey, and two between Minneapolis and Elk River. The higher level of service proposed for the southern end of the line (Minneapolis to Anoka/Ramsey to Elk River) reflects the greater contiguous population found there at the present time, and the higher "commute" demand. However, it is entirely possible that, in future phases, some of these shorter trips could be considered for extension to St. CloudlRice. . Concept B provides for five weekday peak period arrivals in downtown Minneapolis at 30-minute intervals between 6:30 AM and 8:30 AM, and, similarly, five departures at 30- Draft Commuter Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 2-1 Commuter Rail System minute intervals during the evening peak commute period, 4:40 PM and 6:40 PM. Two of the peak period, peak direction trains run through to St., Cloud/Rice, and three run to a . "short" terminus at Elk River or Anoka/Ramsey. In addition, Concept B provides for: · Operation of two southbound morning trips from St. Cloud to Minneapolis, arriving at peak commute times, and two northbound evening trips from Minneapolis to St. Cloud, departing at peak commute times, and · Operation of one through peak period trip between Minneapolis and St. Cloud in the "reverse peak" direction. This feature makes possible an arrival at St. Cloud during typical work start hours, and a departure from St. Cloud during the evening peak commute time. Three round-trips between Minneapolis and St. Cloud/Rice are included on weekends and holidays. Evening service, primarily on Fridays and Saturdays, for various events, such as Twins, Vikings, or Gopher games, are also desirable. While such service is not directly addressed in the concept schedules, it is assumed that extra trains will be operated for special events and an allowance has been made for them in the operating cost estimates. Equipment Concept There are alternative approaches to rolling stock for the corridor, but to permit the analysis to proceed at this stage, it has been assumed that the kind of equipment typically . used in "New Start" commuter rail operations will be used. This will consist of bi-Ievel coaches, operating with locomotives in "push-pull" mode. Two kinds of coaches will be required --, "cab coaches," with a locomotive cab at one end to permit push-pull operation, and straight coaches or "trailers". Depending on seat layout, typical seating capacity ranges from 130 to 135 seats. Four trainsets would be required for this service. The initial estimate is that each would consist of a locomotive, two trailer coaches and one cab coach. Total requirements for the four sets would be four locomotives, eight coaches and four cab coaches, to which would be added one spare of each, for an overall Concept B requirement of: five locomotives, nine coaches and five cab coaches. At this stage in the analysis, the demand forecast and the train-by-train capacity have not been balanced. This will be completed as both ridership and operations are refined and may affect capital and operating costs. The reduced weekend and holiday service can be operated with a single trainset. A maintenance facility for this equipment could be located at either Elk River or the St. CloudlRice end of the line. An overnight layover facility would be required at the alternate location. . Draft Commuter Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 2-2 Commuter Rail System . Example Timetable Based on the assumptions and discussion above, the following diagram illustrates the weekday Concept B service. . . Draft Commuter Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 2-3 Commuter Rail System Northstar Corridor Weekday Commuter Rail Service Service Concept B 18:IOAMI j6:00 AMI9: 10 AMI 6::\0 AM 16:14AMI [6:56 PMI 17:26 PM [7:46 AMi [7:54 AMI 15:16 PM[ 15:24 PMI BRW,Ie . 12/10/98 . RIDERSIDP . Ridership estimates for the Northstar Commuter Rail system are preliminary and are currently being reviewed by Project Management Team technical stafffor their reasonableness and accuracy. Therefore, the numbers shown could change as further analysis is completed and additional calculations are performed to refine the ridership estimates. Basic Methodology The estimation of commuter rail ridership for the Northstar Corridor actually requires two forecasts: 1. A forecast of total person travel within the area served by the commuter rail line - by origin, destination and purpose, irrespective of mode. 2. A forecast of the market share that the proposed commuter rail service will capture relative to competing modes - expressed as a percentage of total travel. . The ridership model structure is a nested logit mode choice model. The commuter rail mode choice model was provided by MnDOT and was used in MnDOT's Twin Cities Metropolitan Commuter Rail Study. The model basically estimates home-based work market shares for auto, bus/light rail and commuter rail. For the transit modes of travel, the model differentiates between walk and drive access. The basic model inputs that are used to estimate potential ridership on the Northstar Commuter Rail System are the following. · The model estimates mode shares for travel between any two zones based on the time and cost of travel for the competing modes, and the propensity of travelers to choose one mode over another. · The time and cost of travel by competing modes is determined using computerized representations of the highway and transit networks. · For this project, the highway and transit networks used for the Twin Cities Regional model were expanded to cover the 15 county Northstar study area. Data Sources Several data sources were used in estimating the ridership forecasts. All data sources were readily available from the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council (Met Council), the St. Cloud Area Planning Organization (APO), and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The data sources used are as follows. . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 3-1 Ridership . Met Council Regional Travel Demand Model - Forecasts total person travel by origin, destination and purpose within the Met Council Region. Includes person travel by auto and public transit. . . St. Cloud APO Regional Travel Demand Model - Forecasts auto person travel by origin, destination and purpose within the St. Cloud Region. Excludes person travel by public transit. . Met Council and MnDOT 1993 External Travel Survev - Defines characteristics of 1993 travel between the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region and places outside the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region. Covers auto trips by origin, destination and purpose. . St. Cloud APO 1996 External Travel Survey - Defines characteristics of 1996 travel between the St. Cloud APO Region and places outside the St. Cloud APO Region. Covers auto trips by origin, destination and purpose. . 1990 Census Journey-To-Work Data - Defines 1990 residence and workplace locations by census tract for households within the 15 county Northstar service area. Also defines the mode of travel on a county-to-county basis. Basic Assumptions . The proposed alignment for the Northstar Commuter rail service is shown in Figure 1. . It extends from downtown Minneapolis to East St. Cloud. There are two possible alternatives from East St. Cloud - to downtown St. Cloud or to the City of Rice. . The proposed service would serve a total of 11 stations including the two terminal stations. The assumed location of these stations is described in Figure 2. . The proposed total rail scheduled time from the downtown Minneapolis station to St. Cloud is 90 minutes assuming the train stops at every station. . Not all trains would serve every station as shown in Figure 2. During the peak periods (AM or PM) and in the peak direction, only two trains would serve the St. Cloud to Big Lake stations while up to 5 trains would serve the stations within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region. . The proposed fare schedule is shown in Figure 3. One-way fares range from a minimum of $2.00 to a maximum of $8.00 based on the distance to the first Minneapolis station. . Parking at commuter rail stations was assumed to be free and unlimited except at the two Minneapolis stations where no parking was permitted. . Feeder bus service serving each station was assumed to be in place. . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 3-2 Ridership . · An easy connection to the LRT service to the Airport and the Mall of America was assumed to be in place. Preliminary Ridership Forecasts · The preliminary rail ridership forecast for the Year 2020 is presented in Figure 4 for the downtown St. Cloud alternative and in Figure 5 for the City of Rice Station alternative. With the proposed feeder bus system and connection to the LRT, the proposed rail system is expected to attract more than 8,000 daily single trips (a round trip from home to work and back to home is counted as 2 trips). The difference between the two alternatives is less than 50 daily trips. · Fifty six percent (56%) of these trips access the rail station by driving and parking at the station of origin (commuter rail or feeder bus parking). · The purpose of 87% of the rail trips is commuting to work. · Reverse commute trips constitute only 3 percent of all the rail trips. . · The preliminary rail ridership forecast for the Year 2005 is presented in Figure 6 for the downtown St. Cloud alternative and in Figure 7 for the City of Rice Station alternative. Ridership for 2005 is estimated to be around 7,400 daily single trips using the same operating assumptions as for 2020. Currently, the start up year for the Northstar Commuter Rail system is the Year 2003. However, Year 2003 ridership forecasts could not be produced since the official Metropolitan Council regional model mid-year forecast is 2005. Therefore, Year 2005 ridership forecasts were produced to represent the Northstar Commuter Rail system start up year of 2003. · Based on current demographic projections, ridership is expected to grow by about 11.5 percent from 2005 to 2020. This corresponds to an annual growth rate of 0.7 percent. · Using an annualization factor of 291.44 (based on similar commuter rail systems in the United States) the daily ridership correspond to approximately 2.1 million riders in 2005 and 2.4 million riders in 2020. . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 3-3 Ridership - Rice I I r \' I ~~ ~ -~~ ~~ Downtown St. Cloud V ( l ~ '\. " ! Northstar Study Area - Fig. 1 ~ 0- ............ ~ j \11 -- - ~) ~ Ramseyf_ J ~ ~aJ ~ .."...! ---- - ""l\ " ~ 'VI l.." /.-r~ ~ 'l~..... r- I _'\............ ~ t......1-t'r k1' ~~ ~~~I; ,("\ ~~ ~-.............c T ~~'"'ic ~"'.... ' lNE Min~eapolis -a;;.l IV- II"~ / 1\.\:1 1\.'\ ~\"'"' r= & Downtown ~" r'i,fb:: Minneapolis :E / -LJ-'fi ~ ~ J;I iT? ~~ \ I-J I~....... !Dm: N f. W ~ 1:~ '\~~ .c-;l1A' .A, ~ / i""-.~ oJ."'--' I .J --.IJ\ ) / t r-~ M.. L... / East St. Cloud 1 Clear Lake I 1Becker " -< - v ~~ J ! t- j~ \ ....., " J } '- - ~ ~~ ----, ~ Big Lake I ;;. Elk River lLL 1 ;;:; ,-' ic. ~r"'\~ 1i'\.~ f" J'/ r - . . . Figure 2 Northstar Corridor Ridership Forecast Assumptions Station Location Figure 3 Northstar Corridor Ridership Forecast Assumptions Commuter Rail Fares (one-way) - Concept B 81. Cloud CBD/Rice I $2.00 $2.00/$4.25 $2.75/$5.00 $4.25/$6.50 $5.75/$7.25 $6.5/$8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 East 81. Cloud $2.00 - $2.00 $2.75 $4.25 $5.75 $6.50 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 Clear Lake I $2.00/$4.25 $2.00 - $2.00 $2.75 $3.50 $5.00 $6.50 $7.25 $8.00 $8.00 Becker I $2.75/$5.00 $2.75 $2.00 - $2.00 $2.75 $4.25 $5.75 $5.75 $6.50 $7.25 Big Lake I $4.25/$6.50 $4.25 $2.75 $2.00 - $2.00 $2.75 $4.25 $5.00 $5.75 $5.75 Elk River $5.75/$7.25 $5.75 $3.50 $2.75 $2.00 - $2.00 $2.75 $3.50 $4.25 $5.00 Ramsey/Anoka $6.5/$8.00 $6.50 $5.00 $4.25 $2.75 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.75 $3.50 Coon Rapids $8.00 $8.00 $6.50 $5.75 $4.25 $2.75 $2.00 - $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Fridley $8.00 $8.00 $7.25 $5.75 $5.00 $3.50 $2.00 $2.00 - $2.00 $2.00 NE Minneapolis $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $6.50 $5.75 $4.25 $2.75 $2.00 $2.00 - $2.00 Minneapolis CBD $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $7.25 $5.75 $5.00 $3.50 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 . . . -- , . Figure 4 Preliminary Rail Ridership Results Northstar Corridor - Concept B to Downtown 81. Cloud Average Weekday Daily Ridership - Year 2020 Southbound to Minneaoolis . Boardinl!s b Station of Orimn (1) Station Work Trip Other Trips AU Trios Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Total (2) (3) (2) (3) (2) (3) Downtown St. Cloud 66 41 3 16 69 57 126 East St. Cloud 64 41 3 16 67 57 123 Clear Lake 20 33 1 13 21 46 67 Becker 8 44 0 17 8 61 69 Big Lake 493 138 22 52 515 190 705 Elk River 576 508 26 192 602 700 1,303 Ramsey/Anoka 615 479 18 105 633 583 1.216 Coon Rapids 1,133 592 39 145 1,172 738 1,910 Fridley 1,244 330 76 132 1.320 461 1,781 NE. Minneapolis 0 436 0 192 0 628 628 Downtown Minneapolis - - - - - - - T otaI 4,219 2,643 188 879 4.407 3,521 7.928 Northbound to St. Cloud - Boardinl!s bv Station of Orimn (1) . Station Work Trip Other Trips All Trios Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Total (2) (3) (2) (3) (2) (3) Downtown Minneapolis 5 10 0 4 5 14 19 NE. Minneapolis 0 3 0 1 0 4 4 Fridley 16 1 1 0 17 1 18 Coon Rapids 5 2 0 1 5 3 8 Ramsey/Anoka 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 Elk River 30 18 I 7 31 25 56 Big Lake 74 30 3 II 77 41 119 Becker 3 I 0 0 3 I 5 Clear Lake 2 II 0 4 2 15 17 East St. Cloud 2 2 0 I 2 3 5 Downtown St. Cloud - - - - - - - Total 142 78 6 29 148 107 256 Notes: (I) For example, a round trip from Anoka to Minneapolis is counted as 2 boardings at the Anoka station. (2) Includes driving to feeder bus station if available. (3) Includes walking to feeder bus station. . Figure 5 Preliminary Rail Ridership Results Northstar Corridor - Concept B to Rice Average Weekday Daily Ridership - Year 2020 . Southbound to Minneapolis - BoardiDIDi bv Station of Oril!in (1) Station Work Trip Other Trips All Trips Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Total (2) (3) (2) (3) (2) (3) Rice 73 2 3 1 76 2 79 East St. Cloud 159 45 7 17 166 62 228 Clear Lake 20 33 1 13 20 46 66 Becker 8 44 0 17 8 61 69 Big Lake 493 138 22 52 515 190 705 Elk River 576 508 26 192 602 700 1,303 Ramsey/Anoka 615 479 18 105 633 583 1.216 Coon Rapids 1,133 592 39 145 1.172 738 1,910 Fridley 1,244 330 76 132 1.320 461 1,781 NE. Minneapolis 0 436 0 192 0 628 628 Downtown Minneapolis - - - - - - - Total 4,320 2,607 193 865 4,513 3,472 7,985 Northbound to Rice - Boardinl!:s bv Station of Oril!in (1) Station Work Trip Other Trips All Trios Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Total (2) (3) (2) (3) (2) (3) Downtown Minneapolis 5 10 0 4 5 14 19 NE. Minneapolis 0 3 0 1 0 4 4 Fridley 15 1 I 0 16 1 17 Coon Rapids 5 2 0 I 5 3 8 Ramsey/Anoka 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 Elk River 26 17 I 6 27 23 51 Big Lake 62 31 3 12 65 43 107 Becker 4 I 0 0 4 1 6 Clear Lake 3 10 0 4 3 14 17 East St. Cloud I 0 0 0 1 0 1 Rice - - - - - - - Total 126 75 6 28 132 103 235 . Notes: (I) For example, a round trip from Anoka to Minneapolis is counted as 2 boardings at the Anoka station. (2) Includes driving to feeder bus station if available. (3) Includes walking to feeder bus station. . . . . Figure 6 Preliminary Rail Ridership Results Northstar Corridor. Concept B to Downtown St. Cloud Average Weekday Daily Ridership. Year 2005 . Southbound to Minneanolis - BoardinlJ'l; bv Station of Orilrln (1) Station Work Trio Other Trios All Trios Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Total (2) (3) (2) (3) (2) (3) Downtown S1. Cloud 71 40 3 15 74 54 128 East S1. Cloud 58 40 3 15 60 54 115 Clear Lake 19 31 1 12 20 43 63 Becker 6 35 0 13 6 48 54 Bil! Lake 418 112 19 42 437 155 592 Elk River 466 408 21 154 487 562 1,049 Ramsey/Anoka 536 386 16 85 552 470 1,023 Coon Rapids 1,075 529 37 130 1,112 658 1,771 Fridley 1.218 327 75 131 1.293 458 1,751 NE. Minneaoolis 0 413 0 182 0 595 595 Downtown Minneapolis - - - - - - - Total 3.867 2,321 174 779 4,041 3,099 7,140 Northbound to St. Cloud . Boardin~s bv Station of Orilrln (1) Station Work Trio Other Trios All Trios Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Total (2) (3) (2) (3) (2) (3) Downtown Minneapolis 9 10 0 4 9 14 23 NE. Minneapolis 0 5 0 2 0 7 7 Fridley 14 I I 0 15 1 16 Coon Rapids 4 I 0 0 4 1 6 Ramsey/ Anoka 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 Elk River 18 II I 4 19 15 34 Big Lake 51 19 2 7 53 26 79 Becker 2 I 0 0 2 1 3 Clear Lake 2 8 0 3 2 11 13 East S1. Cloud I I 0 0 I 1 2 Downtown S1. Cloud - - - - - - - Total 105 57 5 22 110 79 188 Notes: (I) For example, a round trip from Anoka to Minneapolis is counted as 2 boardings at the Anoka station. (2) Includes driving to feeder bus station if available. (3) Includes walking to feeder bus station. Figure 7 Preliminary Rail Ridership Results Northstar Corridor. Concept B to Rice Average Weekday Daily Ridership. Year 2005 . Southbound to Minneapolis. Boardin2S by Station of Orh!in (1) Station Work Trip Other Trips All Trips Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Total (2) (3) (2) (3) (2) (3) Rice 71 2 3 1 75 2 77 East St. Cloud 158 41 7 15 165 56 221 Clear Lake 18 32 1 12 19 45 63 . Becker 6 35 0 13 6 48 54 Big Lake 417 112 19 42 436 155 591 Elk Ri ver 466 408 21 154 487 562 1,049 Ramsey/Anoka 536 386 16 85 552 470 1,023 Coon Rapids 1,075 529 37 130 1,112 658 1,771 Fridley 1,218 327 75 131 1,293 458 1,751 NE. Minneapolis 0 413 0 182 0 595 595 Downtown Minneapolis - - - - - - - Total 3,966 2,285 178 765 4,145 3,050 7.194 Northbound to Rice. Boardinl!s by Station of Oril!in (1) Station Work Trip Other Trips All Trips Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Drive Access Walk Access Total (2) (3) (2) (3) (2) (3) Downtown Minneapolis 9 10 0 4 9 14 23 NE. Minneapolis 0 5 0 2 0 7 7 Fridley 13 I 1 0 14 1 15 Coon Rapids 4 1 0 0 4 1 6 Ramsey/Anoka 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 Elk Ri ver 16 9 1 3 17 12 29 Big Lake 47 23 2 9 49 32 81 Becker 2 1 0 0 2 1 3 Clear Lake 2 9 0 3 2 12 14 East St. Cloud 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rice - - - - - - - Total 97 59 4 22 101 81 183 . Notes: (l) For example, a round trip from Anoka to Minneapolis is counted as 2 boardings at the Anoka station. (2) Includes driving to feeder bus station if available. (3) Includes walking to feeder bus station. . CAPACITY MODELING . Simulation Model Methodology Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad is determining line capacity requirements for increased traffic by using a computer simulation model that replicates the operation of the railroad over a given territory. This model simulates a one-day period with twelve- hour startup and cool down periods on either side. Because of the one-day simulation period, a heavy traffic day is used to insure that results cover all traffic levels. The capacity of a given territory is defined by the number of trains that can be accommodated while maintaining the required schedules and priorities of each type of train involved. Improvements to capacity can come in the form of increased track and or turnout speeds, improved signaling systems, and the addition of sidings, crossovers, and or multiple tracks. Schedule changes can also be made to avoid conflicts between higher and lower priority trains, assuming that these changes can be done without impacting the customer requirements associated with the particular train. There are two key measures that BNSF is analyzing to determine the impacts of changes in train density and the improvements brought about by capacity additions: . Freight delay per 100 train miles . · Freight elapsed or transit time per 100 train miles These numbers are looked at in total for the system and can also be reviewed on a train class basis. Freight Only Capacity Modeling Simulation Analysis The BNSF completed three base simulations for the NCDA corridor including: · Year 1998 traffic level case (Scenario 1998) · Year 2003 traffic level with current operating practices case (Scenario 2003A) · Year 2003 with a revised operating plan which has intermodal train fueling and 1,000 mile inspection moved from the Northtown Yard to Minot (Scenario 2003B) The Year 1998 simulation included 123 various trains, switch moves, locals, and foreign line movements. Both Year 2003 cases added 20 trains. After review with BNSF, these increases appear reasonable. . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 4-1 Capacity Modeling As stated earlier there are two key measures BNSF uses in their impact analysis. The table below displays the results. . Scenario 1998 Base 2003 A 2003 B Freight Delay per 100 Train Miles 27 minutes 36 minutes 33 minutes Freight Elapsed Time per 100 Train Miles 388 minutes 389 minutes 361 minutes It is important to note that all delay and transit or elapsed time references are due to freight movements only. The reduction in elapsed time for Scenario 20003B is because of the change in inspection and fueling point to Minot. It is the BNSF position that they do not need to add capacity in order to accommodate Year 2003 traffic. After review of the statistical data it was agreed that this position is reasonable. The Scenario 2003B results define the freight standard to which the system should come close to operating at with the addition of the commuter trains. Freight and Commuter Rail Capacity Modeling Simulation Analysis Once the Scenario 2003B base case was established, eighteen trains (Concept Service Plan B) were added to determine the effects on BNSF freight operations. Initially it became apparent that there were several problems with the proposed commuter schedule. 1. Northstar Commuter Rail #2 train's departure from Elk River at 5:48 AM created a conflict with the Amtrak service, which is due in Elk River at 5:56 AM. The fix for this problem was to move the Northstar #2 train start time to 5:40 AM. . 2. Another overall problem was that the train performance calculator results did not support the 85-minute schedule for commuter trains from St. Cloud to Minneapolis. This problem was solved after equipment type and number of trains were verified and it was decided to lengthen the commuter rail schedule to 90 minutes for the St. Cloud to Minneapolis trip. Elk River and Ramsey commuter rail schedules were then amended to 46 and 36 minutes, respectively. Once the schedule changes were made an initial simulation was completed with the commuter trains added to the system without any capacity upgrades. Through an iterative process, BNSF made improvements to the system by adding trackage and improving signal systems. These improvements were made in several upgrade "packages" indicated in Table 1 and shown in the attached figures. At this point, it is the BNSF position that Upgrade 7 may be adequate, however there is a concern about the increase in delay in Upgrade 7 compared to the Base Case. It is the position of the NCDA technical staff that Upgrade 2 provides significant benefits and should be combined with the additions in Upgrade 6 and changes in Upgrade 7 to determine overall results. . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 4-2 Capacity Modeling . Further, it is apparent to NCDA technical staff that Upgrade 1, west of the Northtown Yard has little impact on the system by itself and thus should be minimized. There are also some concerns about the length of crew change times, especially for unit trains, handling of taconite trains through the terminal, and the possibility of changing some of the local switching work to avoid the morning commuter trains. These issues will be addressed at a meeting in early January with BNSF staff. It is not expected that agreement from BNSF will be attained at this meeting but rather a commitment to continue testing Year 2003 alternatives. Currently, BNSF is completing the Year 2020 case and is planning to have the freight only base case completed in late December. At that time NCDA technical staff will advise BNSF staff of the changes to the commuter schedules, which will be adding cars to the existing trains with no additional train starts. . . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 4-3 Capacity Modeling TABLE 1 NCDAlBNSF CORRIDOR SIMULATION STATUS SERVICE CONCEPT B SIMULATION FREIGHT FREIGHT MAP SCENARIO TRANSIT DELAY KEY DESCRIPTION TIME (minI TIME (minI ---------~ -~--~--- .._~_.__. _._.___._.__._.... ________._u -- 2003B BASE 360.9 32.5 Openin!lyear_~~~raffic wil~_!l~_ commuter rail service --------.- -----~----- ------------~--,_. _.'_....__..__ _ _____..__u__ -- -------_.~ --~-,-_.- ----~-_.__.- ._-'. -------~,--~-- ._----~------~-- NO UPGRADE 383.3 53.5 <:)pening yea~_!~! traffi~ wi!!!.~ommut~~!ail service _._--_._._-,._--~ -----------.-.-- -- ----- .--- ----- ~----~- -- ------------- ------- -- -- ---- -- --------..-- ------------- - - UPGRADE 1 379.2 52.1 A ~uble !!"~~~ Becker to _~~ La!<~__________~___~_________~___________~_____ -------_._- ..--.---------- -------..--....-....-..---- _u_ B CTC Big Lake to Coon Creek ------------.... -~---_._--_.- - ---.------------.-.-. _."___n_.._ _______._ ..__. ---------~-,~--_._- C Double crossovers at Becker, MP 51.2 and MP 45.1 ----..----.------.-,. .-----.- M___.____._____________ ~--_._------_..- --..-- ---- --- --- ---------~ --- --------. -------- D Double crossovers at Elk River, MP 32.9 and Ramsey -~------ ~------------- - - ------.~-----~- ---~ UPGRADE 2 368.5 39.8 E Double track 43rd Ave to 35th Ave (Northtown Yard) -- ---~--~-- ~-----------"_.__.._-----~ .-.- F Double track west leg of wye at Minneapolis Junction -~----------- ---------- .. ----------~ G Double track Minneapolis Junction to Union Yard -------- -- ------- --..----------- -------- ~________ _ _ _ __m______ H Upgra~~siding betwee~ Harrison St and Holden St to second main track ______.____._ u._____~_ ----~------- ----~-------- ~-_._--_..__. --- ----. ---- ------"---- B CTC Big Lake to Coon Creek --~~---- ------ --"----.-.-.----- -.--.----------------- I CTC Harrison St to Holden St -~---_.- - .- ---.--------..--- ---.--- ----------. D Double crossovers at Elk River, MP 32.9 and Ramsey ----~ -------- --------- __"_"__ .____m___ J Double crossover at 43rd Ave ----- ---- -~-~-_._-- -----...----.------ ~--------- --.-.-- K Single crossover at MP 11.3 on Wayzata Sub -~_.__._--~-- L Upgrade turnout at MP 11.7 on Wayzata Sub --------.--- M Upgrade double crossovers at MP 11.3 on Midway Sub to 30/25 mph --- N Upgrade mainline between 35th Ave and Minneapolis Junction to 70/45 mph UPGRADE 3 - 366.0 37.8 Combination of UPGRADE 1 and UPGRADE 2 -~-_._----------- UPGRADE 6 --------- ._----~--~--------- 361.5 34.0 UPGRADE 3 with the following revisions: ---------" -.-----.-...----------------.-------.----- 0 Add sidings at Anoka and Coon Creek for local trains to work off of main line UPGRADE 7 360.1 34.3 UPGRADE 6 with the following revisions: -------.--------.-.------.-..-- J No double crossover at 43rd Ave --..---. K No single crossover at MP 11.3 on Wayzata Sub --.--------------------- N Upgrade mainline between 35th Ave and Minneapolis Junction to 45/45 mph (not 70/45 mph) No Double track west leg of wve at Minneapolis Junction - upgrade to 20 moh, including two switches ------ ----- ------ .. F DJM/. . . 12/21/98 . . '1'''N 95 Benton ~ Sherbur?e Becker Township Isanti ,- I Hennepin N w.. s . Potential Station Location @ Capacity Improvement (see attached list) . *NOR11fSTAR CORRIDOR December 3, 1998 Potential Commuter Rail Capacity Improvements St. Cloud/Rice to Coon Rapids I~~-- . Maple Grove Brooklyn Park v O'l V O'l ..l. to ..... . N w.' . Potential Station Location @ Capacity Improvement (see attached list) s *NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR December 3, 1998 . Potential Commuter Rail Capacity Improvements Coon Rapids to Minneapolis I~~....- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CAPITAL COSTS Capital cost estimates for the Northstar Commuter Rail system are preliminary and are currently being reviewed by Project Management Team and BNSF technical stafffor their reasonableness and accuracy. Therefore, the numbers shown could change as further analysis is completed and additional calculations are performed to refine the capital cost estimate. This is especially true as capacity modeling results get completed and are analyzed for reasonableness. Introduction The purpose of this section is to summarize the methodology, assumptions and results of the preliminary capital cost estimate for the Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail system Concept B system plan. This preliminary capital cost estimate is intended for use in the context of a corridor feasibility study, and does not represent the result of a comprehensive engineering design process. The preliminary capital cost estimate includes the following segments of the Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail System: Segment A - Minneapolis CBD to Northeast Minneapolis Segment B - Northeast Minneapolis to Fridley Segment C - Fridley to Coon Rapids Segment D - Coon Rapids to Anoka/Ramsey Segment E - Anoka/Ramsey to Elk River Segment F - Elk River to Big Lake Segment G - Big Lake to Becker Segment H - Becker to Clear Lake Segment I - Clear Lake to East St. Cloud Segment J - East St. Cloud to St. Cloud CBD Segment K - East St. Cloud to Rice Methodology The approach to estimating capital costs for the commuter rail system involves identifying and quantifying the various system elements, then developing and applying approximate unit costs. In addition, the capital cost elements are segregated into the following three categories: · Commuter Rail Basic Elements - This category is intended to include all items that are exclusively part of the commuter rail system. Examples of commuter rail basic elements include commuter rail stations, locomotives and coaches, and maintenance and storage facilities. Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 5-1 Capital Costs . Potential Capacity Improvements - This category includes any items that are required to meet the capacity and level-of-service objectives for commuter rail and freight service along the railroad corridor. These elements are identified through the railroad dispatch simulation task. . . Additional Capital Improvements - This category includes any other capital costs associated with the commuter rail project that are not covered by the first two categories. Examples of this category would be roadway grade crossing improvements, grade-separation of existing roadway grade crossings, and other potential corridor enhancements. Within these three categories, the overall capital cost estimate was developed by considering both individual corridor segment costs and common system element costs: . Segment Costs - Segment costs are the costs associated with individual corridor segments. Segment costs include individual commuter rail stations, trackwork, civil/structural work, railroad signal/communication systems, and additional right-of- way. . Common System Element Costs - Common system element costs are those costs that do not necessarily apply to individual corridor segments. Common system elements include locomotives and coaches, central maintenance and operations facilities, terminal trackwork and lay-up facilities, and the Minneapolis CBD station. . The unit costs used in this preliminary capital cost estimate were developed using a combination of recent data from similar projects in other locations and information on local construction cost trends. All unit costs are adjusted to reflect Year 1999 dollars. Results The results of the preliminary capital cost estimate for the Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail System are shown in the attached tables. Specifically, the estimate represents service concept B, with-the western terminus at either downtown St. Cloud or Rice. . The total estimated cost for the basic elements between Minneapolis and East St. Cloud is $114 million, with an additional $2.3 million to the St. Cloud CBD or $2.1 million to Rice. . Because the conclusions from the service concept B capacity modeling have not been finalized, the cost of the potential capacity improvements cannot be determined. Based upon initial modeling results, the estimated cost for this category is $30 to $50 million from Minneapolis to East St. Cloud, with an additional $1 to $2 million to the St. Cloud CBD or $3 to $5 million to Rice. . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 5-2 Capital Costs . . At this time, no specific additional capital improvements have been identified for service concept B. . Based upon these preliminary results, the current estimated grand total for the Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail system concept B, in 1999 dollars, is $144 to $164 million between Minneapolis and East St. Cloud, with an additional $3.3 to $4.3 million to the St. Cloud CBD or $5.1 to $7.1 million to Rice. . Final capital cost estimates will be finalized after discussions with BNSF. . . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 5-3 Capital Costs NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM -- SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL GRAND TOTAL COST ELEMENT BASIC ELEMENTS CAPACITY CAP IT AL (1999 DOLLARS) IMPROVEMENTS. IMPROVEMENTS MINNEAPOLIS CBD TO EAST ST. CLOUD CORRIDOR SEGMENTS SEGMENT A - MINNEAPOLIS CBD TO NE MINNEAPOLIS 2,086,000 - - - SEGMENT B - NE MINNEAPOLIS TO FRIDLEY 3,220,000 - - - SEGMENT C - FRIDLEY TO COON RAPIDS 3,696,000 - - - SEGMENT 0 - COON RAPIDS TO ANOKNRAMSEY 7,602,000 - - - SEGMENT E - ANOKNRAMSEY TO ELK RIVER 4,354,000 - - - SEGMENT F - ELK RIVER TO BIG LAKE 2,828,000 - - - SEGMENT G - BIG LAKE TO BECKER 2,156,000 - - - SEGMENT H - BECKER TO CLEAR LAKE 2,156,000 - - - SEGMENT I - CLEAR LAKE TO EAST ST. CLOUD 2,212,000 - - - SUBTOTAL 30,310,000 . - - VEHICLES 42,875,000 . - - CENTRAL FACILITIES 18,760,000 . . - TERMINAL TRACKWORK & LAY-UP FACILITIES 12,208,000 - - - MINNEAPOLIS CBD STATION 9,800,000 - - - MINNEAPOLIS TO EAST CLOUD TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) $114 million $30 - 50 million - $144 - 164 million EAST ST. CLOUD TO ST CLOUD CBD TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) $2.3 million $1.0 - 2.0 million - $3.3 - 4.3 million EAST ST. CLOUD TO RICE TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) $2.1 million $3.0 . 5.0 million - $5.1 .7.1 million . Estimated range of capital costs for potential railroad capacity improvements. BRW,. [ID V IP 'IT con-b-01.XISISUMMI12/04/98 . . . - NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM 00 SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) COMMON SYSTEM ELEMENTS COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENT UNIT UNIT BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS COST COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY VEHICLES LOCOMOTIVES EA 2,700,000 5 13,500,000 - 0 - - COACHES EA 1,300,000 9 11,700,000 - - - - CONTROL COACHES EA 1,820,000 5 9,100,000 - - - - ENGINEERING, ETC. (15%) 5,145,000 - - CONTINGENCY (10%) 3,430,000 - - SUBTOTAL 42,875,000 0 0 CENTRAL FACILITIES TRACKWORK & INCIDENTALS LS 5,000,000 1 5,000,000 - - - - CENTRAL SHOP & EQUIPMENT LS 6,000,000 1 6,000,000 - - - - OPERATIONS CONTROL CENTER LS 2,100,000 1 2,100,000 - - - - PROPERTY ACQUISITION LS 300,000 1 300,000 - - - - ENGINEERING, ETC. (20%) 2,680,000 - 0 CONTINGENCY (20%) 2,680,000 - - SUBTOTAL 18,760,000 . 0 TERMINAL TRACKWORK & LAY-UP FACILITIES TERMINAL TRACKWORK & LAY-UP FACILITIES EA 4,300,000 2 8,600,000 - 0 - - PROPERTY ACQUISITION LS 60,000 2 120,000 - - - - ENGINEERING, ETC. (20%) 1,744,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 1,744,000 - - SUBTOTAL 12,208,000 0 . MINNEAPOLIS CBD STATION MINNEAPOLIS CBD STATION LS 7,000,000 1 7,000,000 - - - - ENGINEERING, ETC. (20%) 1,400,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 1,400,000 - - SUBTOTAL 9,800,000 0 0 BRW, Inc. [Q)~&l?lf Con-b-01.xls[COMMON] 12/04/98 NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM -- SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SEGMENT A - MINNEAPOLIS CBD TO NE MINNEAPOLIS APPROX. LENGTH (MI): 3.0 COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENT UNIT UNIT BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST STATION (NE MINNEAPOLIS) PLATFORM, SHELTER, LIGHTING, FURNISHINGS, ETC. EA 375,000 2 750,000 - - - - TICKET VENDING MACHINE EA 115,000 2 230,000 - - - - PUBLIC ADDRESS & VMS EA 105,000 2 210,000 - - - - SITE DEVELOPMENT /INCIDENTALS EA 300,000 1 300,000 - - - - SURFACE PARKING SPACE 2,500 - - - - - - PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACRE 180,000 - - - - - - SUBTOTAL 1,490,000 - - TRACKWORK TRACK 136# RAIL/CONCRETE TIES (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 623,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 170,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 185,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 345,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 378,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SURFACE (NEW/UPGRADE) FT 675 - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - CIVIL I STRUCTURES EARTHWORK / STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - MODIFY STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - SYSTEMS SIGNALlNG/CTC (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 75,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 1-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 563,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 2-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 703,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 4-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 849,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SIGNALS (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 270,000 - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY SF 4.00 - - - - - - CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 1,490,000 . - ADD-ONS ENGINEERING, PROJ MGMT, ADMIN, START-UP, INSURANCE (20%) 298,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 298,000 - - TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) 2,086,000 - - BRW,. [Q)~&[?L1 . Con-b-01.xls[SEGA] 12/04/98 . . . . NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM - SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SEGMENT B . NE MINNEAPOLIS TO FRIDLEY APPROX. I-ENGTH (MI): 6.0 UNIT COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENT UNIT COST BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST STATION (FRIDLEY) PLATFORM, SHELTER, LIGHTING, FURNISHINGS, ETC. EA 375,000 2 750,000 . . . . TICKET VENDING MACHINE EA 115,000 2 230,000 . - - - PUBLIC ADDRESS & VMS EA 105,000 2 210,000 . - . . SITE DEVELOPMENT /INCIDENTALS EA 250,000 1 250,000 - . - - SURFACE PARKING SPACE 2,500 200 500,000 - . . - PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACRE 180,000 2 360,000 . - - . SUBTOTAL 2,300,000 . - TRACKWORK TRACK: 136# RAIL/CONCRETE TIES (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 623,000 - . . - . . TURNOUT: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 170,000 - - - - - . TURNOUT: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 185,000 - - . - - . CROSSOVER: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 345,000 - - . - - - CROSSOVER: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 378,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SURFACE (NEW/UPGRADE) FT 675 - - - - - . SUBTOTAL - - . CIVIL / STRUCTURES EARTHWORK / STRUCTURES LS 2,000,000 - - . - - - MODIFY STRUCTURES LS 3,000,000 - - - . - - SUBTOTAL . - . SYSTEMS SIGNALlNG/CTC (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 75,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 1-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 563,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 2-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 703,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 4-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 849,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SIGNALS (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 270,000 - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - . - RIGHT-OF-WAY SF 4.00 - - - - - . CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 2,300,000 - - ADD-ONS ENGINEERING, PROJ MGMT, ADMIN, START-UP, INSURANCE (20%) 460,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 460,000 - - TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) 3,220,000 - - BRW, Inc. [Q)~&[?IJ Con-b-01.xls[SEGB] 12/04/98 NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM - SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SEGMENT C - FRIDLEY TO COON RAPIDS APPROX. LENGTH (MI): 5.0 COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY' ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENT UNIT UNIT BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST STATION (COON RAPIDS) PLATFORM, SHELTER, LIGHTING, FURNISHINGS, ETC. EA 375,000 2 750,000 - - - - TICKET VENDING MACHINE EA 115,000 2 230,000 - - . - PUBLIC ADDRESS & VMS EA 105,000 2 210,000 - - - - SITE DEVELOPMENT / INCIDENTALS EA 250,000 1 250,000 - - - - SURFACE PARKING SPACE 2,500 300 750,000 - - - . PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACRE 180,000 3 450,000 - - - - SUBTOTAL 2,640,000 - - TRACKWORK TRACK: 136# RAIL/CONCRETE TIES (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 623,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 170,000 - - - - - . TURNOUT: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 185,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 345,000 - - - - . - CROSSOVER: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 378,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SURFACE (NEW/UPGRADE) FT 675 - - - - - . SUBTOTAL - - - CIVIL I STRUCTURES EARTHWORK/STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - MODIFY STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - SYSTEMS SIGNALlNG/CTC (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 75,000 . - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 1-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 563,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 2-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 703,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 4-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 849,000 - . - - . - CROSSING SIGNALS (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 270,000 - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY SF 4.00 - - - - - - CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 2,640,000 - - ADD-ONS ENGINEERING, PROJ MGMT, ADMIN, START-UP, INSURANCE (20%) 528,000 . - CONTINGENCY (20%) 528,000 - - TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) 3,696,000 - - BRW, Inc. . [Q)~&[?LJ . Con-b-01.xls[SEGC) 12/04/98 . . . . NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM -- SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SEGMENT D. COON RAPIDS TO ANOKAlRAMSEY APPROX. LENGTH (MI): 9.0 UNIT COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY. ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENT UNIT COST BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST STATION (ANOKAlRAMSEY) PLATFORM, SHELTER, LIGHTING, FURNISHINGS, ETC. EA 375,000 2 750,000 - - - - TICKET VENDING MACHINE EA 115,000 2 230,000 - - - - PUBLIC ADDRESS & VMS EA 105,000 2 210,000 - - - - SITE DEVELOPMENT /INCIDENTALS EA 300,000 1 300,000 - - - - SURFACE PARKING SPACE 2,500 1,000 2,500,000 - - - PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACRE 180,000 8 1,440,000 - - - - SUBTOTAL 5,430,000 - - TRACKWORK TRACK: 136# RAIUCONCRETE TIES (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 623,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 170,000 - - - - - TURNOUT: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 185,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 345,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 378,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SURFACE (NEW/UPGRADE) FT 675 - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - CIVIL / STRUCTURES EARTHWORK/STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - MODIFY STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - SYSTEMS SIGNALlNG/CTC (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 75,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 1-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 563,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 2-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 703,000 - - - . - - CONTROL POINT: 4-SWITCH(NEW/UPGRADE) EA 849,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SIGNALS (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 270,000 - - - . - - SUBTOTAL - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY SF 4.00 - - - . - - CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 5,430,000 . - ADD-ONS ENGINEERING, PROJ MGMT, ADMIN, START-UP, INSURANCE (20%) 1,086,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 1,086,000 - - TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) 7,602,000 - - BRW,lnc. [Q)~&[?IJ Con-b-01.xls[SEGD] 12/04/98 NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM -- SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SEGMENT E - ANOKAlRAMSEY TO ELK RIVER APPROX. LENGTH (MI): 9.0 COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENT UNIT UNIT BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS COST COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY STATION (ELK RIVER) PLATFORM, SHELTER, LIGHTING, FURNISHINGS, ETC. EA 375,000 2 750,000 - - - - TICKET VENDING MACHINE EA 115,000 2 230,000 - - - - PUBLIC ADDRESS & VMS EA 105,000 2 210,000 - - - - SITE DEVELOPMENT /INCIDENTALS EA 200,000 1 200,000 - - - - SURFACE PARKING SPACE 2,000 500 1,000,000 - - - - PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACRE 180,000 4 720,000 - - - - SUBTOTAL 3,110,000 - - TRACKWORK . TRACK: 136# RAIUCONCRETE TIES (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 623,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 170,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 185,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 345,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 378,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SURFACE (NEW/UPGRADE) FT 675 - - - - . - SUBTOTAL - - - CIVIL I STRUCTURES EARTHWORK/STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - MODIFY STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - SYSTEMS SIGNALlNG/CTC (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 75,000 - - . - - - CONTROL POINT: 1-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 563,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 2-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 703,000 - - . - - - CONTROL POINT: 4-SWI.TCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 849,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SIGNALS (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 270,000 - . - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - RIGHT -OF-WAY SF 4.00 - - . - - - CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 3,110,000 - - ADD-ONS ENGINEERING, PROJ MGMT, ADMIN, START-UP, INSURANCE (20%) 622,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 622,000 - - TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) 4,354,000 - - BRW,. [Q)[m&[?V . Con-b-01.xls[SEGE] 12/04/98 . . . . NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM - SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SEGMENT F - ELK RIVER TO BIG LAKE APPROX. LENGTH (MI): 9.0 COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENT UNIT UNIT BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST STATION (BIG LAKE) PLATFORM, SHELTER, LIGHTING, FURNISHINGS, ETC. EA 375,000 2 750,000 - - - - TICKET VENDING MACHINE EA 115,000 2 230,000 - - - - PUBLIC ADDRESS & VMS EA 105,000 2 210,000 - - - - SITE DEVELOPMENT /INCIDENTALS EA 150,000 1 150,000 - - - - SURFACE PARKING SPACE 2,000 200 400,000 - - - - PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACRE 140,000 2 280,000 - - - - SUBTOTAL 2,020,000 - - TRACKWORK TRACK: 136# RAIL/CONCRETE TIES (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 623,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 170,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 185,000 - . - - - . CROSSOVER: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 345,000 - - - - - . CROSSOVER: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 378,000 - - - . . - CROSSING SURFACE (NEW/UPGRADE) FT 675 - - . - - - SUBTOTAL - - - CIVIL I STRUCTURES EARTHWORK / STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - MODIFY STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - SYSTEMS SIGNALlNG/CTC (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 75,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 1-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 563,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 2-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 703,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 4-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 849,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SIGNALS (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 270,000 - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY SF 4.00 - - - - . - CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 2,020,000 . - ADD-ONS ENGINEERING, PROJ MGMT, ADMIN, START-UP, INSURANCE (20%) 404,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 404,000 - - TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) 2,828,000 - - BRW, Inc. [Q)~&[?LJ Con-b-01.xls[SEGF] 12/04/98 NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM - SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SEGMENT G . BIG LAKE TO BECKER APPROX. LENGTH (MI): 8.0 COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENT UNIT UNIT BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST STATION (BECKER) PLATFORM, SHELTER, LIGHTING, FURNISHINGS, ETC. EA 375,000 2 750,000 - - - - TICKET VENDING MACHINE EA 115,000 2 230,000 - - - . PUBLIC ADDRESS & VMS EA 105,000 2 210,000 - - - - SITE DEVELOPMENT / INCIDENTALS EA 100,000 1 100,000 - - - - SURFACE PARKING SPACE 1,500 100 150,000 - - - - PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACRE 100,000 1 100,000 - - - - SUBTOTAL 1,540,000 . . TRACKWORK TRACK: 136# RAIL/CONCRETE TIES (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 623,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 170,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 185,000 - - - - . - CROSSOVER: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 345,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 378,000 - - - - - CROSSING SURFACE (NEW/UPGRADE) FT 675 - - - - . - SUBTOTAL - . . CIVIL I STRUCTURES EARTHWORK / STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - MODIFY STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - SUBTOTAL . - - SYSTEMS SIGNALlNG/CTC (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 75,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 1-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 563,000 - - . - - - CONTROL POINT: 2-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 703,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 4-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 849,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SIGNALS (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 270,000 - - . - - - SUBTOTAL - - . RIGHT -OF-WAY SF 4.00 - - . - - - CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 1,540,000 - - ADD-ONS ENGINEERING, PROJ MGMT, ADMIN, START-UP,INSURANCE (20%) 308,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 308,000 . - TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) 2,156,000 - - BRW,. [ID 00& [?[j . Con-b-01.xls[SEGG) 12/04/98 . . . . NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM -- SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SEGMENT H - BECKER TO CLEAR LAKE APPROX. LENGTH (MI): 7.0 COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENT UNIT UNIT BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST STATION (CLEAR LAKE) PLATFORM, SHELTER, LIGHTING, FURNISHINGS, ETC. EA 375,000 2 750,000 - - - - TICKET VENDING MACHINE EA 115,000 2 230,000 - - - PUBLIC ADDRESS & VMS EA 105,000 2 210,000 - - - - SITE DEVELOPMENT /INCIDENTALS EA 100,000 1 100,000 - - - - SURFACE PARKING SPACE 1,500 100 150,000 - - - - PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACRE 100,000 1 100,000 - - - - SUBTOTAL 1,540,000 - - TRACKWORK TRACK: 136# RAIL/CONCRETE TIES (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 623,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 170,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 185,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 345,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 378,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SURFACE (NEW/UPGRADE) FT 675 - - - . - - SUBTOTAL - . . CIVIL I STRUCTURES EARTHWORK / STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - MODIFY STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - . SYSTEMS SIGNALlNG/CTC (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 75,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: l-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 563,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 2-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 703,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 4-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 849,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SIGNALS (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 270,000 - - - - - SUBTOTAL . - . RIGHT-Of-WAY SF 4.00 - - - - - - CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 1,540,000 - . ADD-ONS ENGINEERING, PROJ MGMT, ADMIN, START-UP, INSURANCE (20%) 308,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 308,000 - - TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) 2,156,000 - - BRW, Inc. [Q)~&[?'U' Con-b-Ol.xls[SEGH] 12/04/98 NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM 00 SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SEGMENT I - CLEAR LAKE TO EAST ST. CLOUD APPROX. LENGTH (MI): 11.0 COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY' ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENT UNIT UNIT BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST STATION (EAST ST. CLOUD) PLATFORM, SHELTER, LIGHTING, FURNISHINGS, ETC. EA 375,000 2 750,000 - - - TICKET VENDING MACHINE EA 115,000 2 230,000 - - - - PUBLIC ADDRESS & VMS EA 105,000 2 210,000 - - - - SITE DEVELOPMENT /INCIDENTALS EA 100,000 1 100,000 - - - - SURFACE PARKING SPACE 1,500 100 150,000 - - - PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACRE 140,000 1 140,000 - - - - SUBTOTAL 1,580,000 - - TRACKWORK TRACK: 136# RAIL/CONCRETE TIES (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 623,000 - - - - - TURNOUT: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 170,000 - - - - - - . TURNOUT: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 185,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 345,000 - - - - . - CROSSOVER: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 378,000 - . . - - - CROSSING SURFACE (NEW/UPGRADE) FT 675 - - . . - . SUBTOTAL 0 - - CIVIL / STRUCTURES EARTHWORK/STRUCTURES LS - - - . - . - MODIFY STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - - SYSTEMS SIGNALlNG/CTC (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 75,000 . - . - - - CONTROL POINT: 1.SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 563,000 - . - - - - CONTROL POINT: 2-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 703,000 - - - - - . CONTROL POINT: 4.SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 849,000 - . - - - - CROSSING SIGNALS (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 270,000 - - - - - . SUBTOTAL 0 - - RIGHT-OF-WAY SF 4.00 . . . - - - CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 1,580,000 - - ADD-ONS ENGINEERING, PROJ MGMT, ADMIN, START-UP, INSURANCE (20%) 316,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 316,000 - - TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) 2,212,000 - - BRW,. [ID~&[?IJ . Con-b-01.xls[SEGI] 12/04/98 . . . . NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM -- SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SEGMENT J - EAST ST. CLOUD TO ST. CLOUD CBD APPROX. LENGTH (MI): 1.0 COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY. ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENT UNIT UNIT BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST STATION (ST. CLOUD CBD) PLATFORM, SHELTER, LIGHTING, FURNISHINGS, ETC. EA 375,000 2 750,000 - - - - TICKET VENDING MACHINE EA 115,000 2 230,000 - - - - PUBLIC ADDRESS & VMS EA 105,000 2 210,000 - - - - SITE DEVELOPMENT / INCIDENTALS EA 100,000 1 100,000 - - - - SURFACE PARKING SPACE 2,000 100 200,000 - - - - PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACRE 180,000 1 180,000 - - - - SUBTOTAL 1,670,000 - - TRACKWORK TRACK: 136# RAIL/CONCRETE TIES (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 623,000 - - - - - TURNOUT: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 170,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 185,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 345,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 378,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SURFACE (NEW/UPGRADE) FT 675 - - - - - - SUBTOTAL . - - CIVIL I STRUCTURES EARTHWORK / STRUCTURES LS - - - - - . . MODIFY STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - SUBTOTAL . - . SYSTEMS SIGNALlNG/CTC (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 75,000 . . - - - - CONTROL POINT: 1-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 563,000 - . - - - - CONTROL POINT: 2-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 703,000 - - - - . . CONTROL POINT: 4-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 849,000 - . - - - - CROSSING SIGNALS (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 270,000 - . . - - - SUBTOTAL - - . RIGHT-Of-WAY SF 4.00 - - . - - - CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 1,670,000 . - ADD-ONS ENGINEERING, PROJ MGMT, ADMIN, START-UP, INSURANCE (20%) 334,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 334,000 - - TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) 2,338,000 - - BRW, Inc. [IDl:m&[?lj Con-b-01.xls[SEGJ] 12/04/98 NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY COMMUTER RAIL SYSTEM -- SERVICE CONCEPT B PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (1999 DOLLARS) SEGMENT K - EAST ST. CLOUD TO RICE APPROX. LENGTH (MI): 15.0 COMMUTER RAIL POTENTIAL CAPACITY ADDITIONAL CAP IT AL COST ELEMENT UNIT UNIT BASIC ELEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS COST COST QUANTITY QUANTITY COST QUANTITY COST STATION (RICE) PLATFORM, SHELTER, LIGHTING, FURNISHINGS, ETC. EA 375,000 2 750,000 - - - - TICKET VENDING MACHINE EA 115,000 2 230,000 - - - - PUBLIC ADDRESS & VMS EA 105,000 2 210,000 - - - - SITE DEVELOPMENT /INCIDENTALS EA 50,000 1 50,000 - - - - SURFACE PARKING SPACE 1,500 100 150,000 - - - - PROPERTY ACQUISITION ACRE 100,000 1 100,000 - - - - SUBTOTAL 1,490,000 - - TRACKWORK TRACK: 136# RAIUCONCRETE TIES (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 623,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 170,000 - - - - - - TURNOUT: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 185,000 . - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #20 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 345,000 - - - - - - CROSSOVER: #24 (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 378,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SURFACE (NEW/UPGRADE) FT 675 - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - - . CIVIL I STRUCTURES EARTHWORK/STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - MODIFY STRUCTURES LS - - - - - - - SUBTOTAL . - - SYSTEMS SIGNALlNG/CTC (NEW/UPGRADE) MI 75,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 1-SVvITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 563,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 2-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 703,000 - - - - - - CONTROL POINT: 4-SWITCH (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 849,000 - - - - - - CROSSING SIGNALS (NEW/UPGRADE) EA 270,000 - - - - - - SUBTOTAL - . - RIGHT-OF-WAY SF 4.00 - - - - - - CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL 1,490,000 - - ADD-ONS ENGINEERING, PROJ MGMT, ADMIN, START-UP, INSURANCE (20%) 298,000 - - CONTINGENCY (20%) 298,000 - - TOTAL (1999 DOLLARS) 2,086,000 - - BRW" @~&[?1f . Con-b-01.xls[SEGK] 12/04/98 . OPERA nONS AND MAINTENANCE . This section presents the preliminary annual operating and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for the Northstar Commuter Rail System and the associated Feeder Bus System. Overall, the Northstar commuter rail system annual O&M cost estimate in 1999 dollars is $9,527,000 and the Northstar feeder bus system annual O&M cost estimate in 1999 dollars is $576,000. The total annual O&M cost estimate in 1999 dollars is $10,103,000. Commuter Rail Operations and Maintenance The Commuter Rail O&M cost estimates are determined from input statistics consisting of physical attributes and annual operating characteristics, which in turn, are defined by the commuter rail system's operating plan. Key assumptions reflected in the Northstar Commuter Rail system input statistics are as follows. · Operating Schedule - this schedule is based on the Concept B Commuter Rail System plan as written in the commuter rail system section of this summary. . · Train-Hours - the revenue train hours are calculated from the commuter rail timetable provide in the service plan and are based on Burlington Northern Santa Fe's (BNSF) operational simulations. For the Concept B system plan, there are 21.8 revenue train- hours of service each weekday and 11.6 revenue train-hours of service each weekend or holiday. · Train Length - the ridership forecasts are used to determine the train lengths for each of the peak trains. The Concept B system plan requires four "in-service" trainsets during the peak weekday operations (4 locomotives and 12 passenger cars). · Train-Miles and Car-Miles - the train-miles are calculated from the Concept B system plan according to the track mileage between each train trip's origin- destination city pair. For Concept B, there are 858.8 train-miles of service each weekday and 390 train-miles of service each weekend day or holiday. The car-miles are calculated assuming the preliminary train consist of three passenger cars for each train. · Railroad Route-Miles - in Concept B, it is assumed that the system plan will require maintenance and use of the double tracks between Minneapolis and Elk River due to the additional trainsets running between these stations. Therefore, the Concept B railroad route-miles are 95.1 miles. · Annualizing Factors - train trips, revenue train-hours, train-miles, and car-miles are annualized using factors of 250 weekdays per year and 115 weekend days and holidays per year. . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 6-1 Operations and Maintenance The O&M cost model was run for the Northstar Commuter Rail Concept B system plan and the overall results are shown below. All costs are in FY 1999 dollars. The annual total and line item detail O&M costs are shown in Table 1. Included in the table are indications of cost-effectiveness (e.g., cost per train-hour). . Commuter Rail Annual Operatinl! and Maintenance Costs (in FY 1999 Dollars) . Train Operations and Maintenance . Track Maintenance and Use .. Operating Agency (Station Maintenance, Diesel Fuel, Insurance, Staff, etc.) $3,854,000 1,818,000 3,855,000 Total for Commuter Rail $9.527.000 Feeder Bus Operations and Maintenance The feeder bus network that was developed to provide service to the Northstar Commuter Rail system is detailed in Table 2. The bus operations plans reduce Metro Transit bus service frequencies on existing express routes that duplicate the commuter rail service. Existing bus route alignments are modified to connect to commuter rail stations, and service frequencies are modified on some routes to provide strong bus connections to the commuter rail service. Table 2 summarizes the Concept B feeder bus plan and annual O&M costs. Metro Transit's operation in the corridor would decrease by four peak buses and $36,000 in annual operating costs. Anoka County's operations would increase by six peak buses and . $297,000 in annual operating costs. The River Rider operations would increase by five peak buses and $225,000 in annual operating costs. The Tri-Cap operations would increase by 2 peak buses and by $90,000 in annual operating costs. St. Cloud MTC's operational changes would be made without increasing the existing budget. The proposed plan would operate approximately 19,000 net annual bus-hours at a net annual O&M cost of $576,000 in the Northstar Corridor, including the reductions in service that would be realized by the Metro Transit. However, it is assumed that Metro Transit's service reduction of 4 peak buses would not be available to the other Northstar Corridor transit operators. Therefore, a total of 13 peak buses would be required in the corridor for Concept B. Feeder Bus Annual Operatinl! and Maintenance Costs (in FY 1999 Dollars) . Metro Transit . Anoka County . River Rider . Tri-Cap ($36,000) $297,000 225,000 90,000 Total for Feeder Bus $651.000 The feeder bus component of the Northstar Corridor Rail System is part of the overall transit plan for the corridor and will be addressed in the financial analysis. . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 6-2 Operations and Maintenance TABLE 1 - CONCEPT B . NORTHSTAR. DIESEL COMMUTER RAIL O&M COST MODEL Une Item Detail (Model Table 2) : DEPT , # LINE ITEM DEP"Ji COSI1 BASELINE EXPENSE PROD'TY FACTOR DRIVING STAFF ESTIMATED VARIABLE (FTEs) COST . OPERA TlNG AGENCY EXPENSES 100 Director of Operations Labor Professional Services Miscellaneous 200 Budget & Finance Labor Office spacelEquip. ,etc. Revenue Servicing Other Professional Services Miscellaneous Insurance (Risk Management) 300 Marketing & Customer Service Labor Pnnt/Promo. Matis/Postage Professional SeMces Media PlacemenUSpec Event Miscellaneous 400 Technical Services Labor Materials & Supplies-Facilrties TVMIPA Field Maintenance Fare Inspection Communications Diesel Fuel Yard/Lead Track Maintenance Station & Parking Lot Maintenance Other Servrces Utilities - Stations Utllrties - Yard Miscellaneous Subtotal Operating Agency 5165,230 $135,000 $16,000 $175,200 5143,950 5352.000 $30.000 54,700 51,800,000 5313,210 5104,000 S205,100 5252,000 S14,500 0.021 F+PKCAR 1.0 582,615 (1) $2,813 PKCAR 533,750 (1) 58,000 #100 FTEs 58,000 S124,365 (1l 0.021 F+PKCAR 2.0 5116,800 (1) 57,576 #100-400 FTEs 590.916 (2,5) 519,556 STATION 5215 111 (2) 5625 PKCAR 57,500 (1) 51,567 #200 FTEs 53,133 (1) 5117 CARMILE 5955,754 51,389,215 (3) 0.001 F+ TRIPS 5.0 S261,008 517 TRIPS 589,960 S34 TRIPS S177,412 S42 TRIPS S217,980 S2.417 #300 FTEs S12083 S758.443 S411,380 0.104 F+PKCAR 4.0 S205,690 S42.500 52,237 STATION+YARD S26.842 S40.000 S2,222 STATION S24,444 Assumed to be handled by Conductors aboard trains and other agencies S138,500 S17,313 PKLOCO S69,250 S2.06 TRAINMI S560,090 S20,000 YARD+L YARD S60,000 S38,889 STATION S427,778 56.19 TRAINHR 544,102 55,556 STATION 561,111 S32,333 YARD+L YARD S97,000 51,750 #400 FTEs S7,000 CONTRACT OPERA TOR FUNCTIONS 500 Train Operations Lacor - Engineers Labor - Conductors Train Crew Expenses Standby Electncty 600 Equipment Maintenance D..ect services & ShOp Expenses Matenal. Parts & Handling Services Subcontracts 700 Contract Operator Fees Tra~s Supervision & Gen /Admlr Overhead & Manage,,",en! Fee Performance Payme~ts Subtotai =ontract Operator PA YMENTS TO RAILROAD SuG ;;3:1< Maintenance 8. \Jse Fee TOTAL COST S60,OOO S700,OOO S70,000 5100,000 S97,OOO 514,000 12.0 51,583,308 S3,855,331 (1) (1) (2) (2) (1l (1) (1) (1) (1) (3) (2) (2) (1) (4) (2) (1) rJOT!::S -- Costs are In FY . SS9 dollars -- Moael general:y cased on VR!:: FY 1999 budget supplementec by Tn-Ra:: & CalTra,n FY 1997-1998 budgets -- FTE (In column r.eadlng) IS aobrevlat,on of Full-Time EqUlvaler":s -- Line Item ior Ass,s:ant Conductors In calibration run only 2 man crews ass...med for Northstac . ProductIVIty fa::ors & ...n,t costs based on VR<: unit costs : Untt costs based on modlfiea VR<: unit costs UnJI costs basec on VRE a"ld Tn-Rail unit costs ~ Unit costs basec o~ Tn-Rail unl! costs - Office rent estlroated at S18/SF and 225 SF/person ~ Based on VR::: contract operator salanes ana pcoductlVlty - Unit cost basea on Caltraln ana VRE costs UnJI cost basea on Caltraln costs . :-reparec 0', Manuel Padrcr, & ASSOCiates S80,452 940 PRODHRS S643,617 (6) 568,740 940 PRODHRS S549,921 (6) S122,OOO S3,389 #500 FTEs S54,222 (2) S60,OOO S30,COO LYARD S60.000 S1,307,761 (2) S2336.800 S1.52 CARMILE S1.240782 (7) S648.220 SO 42 CARMILE S344.188 (7) 5554 180 S11545 PKCAR S138.545 S1.723,515 (7) Subtotal Contract Operator $ = $3031276 7 2% of Subtotal Contract Operator S $219585 (2) 8 0% of Subtotal Contract Operator S S242 502 (8) 5437 0::5 5' ~~ Ti<AINMI S360 461 S822,548 (1) , ~- $3 853. 824 53 346 COO 519120 RTMiLE S1818312 51818312 (2) $9,527,466 Cost per Train-Hour S1338 Cost per Train-Mile 534.96 .Cost per Car-MI~e 511.65 12/18/98 TABLE 2 CONCEPT B -- FEEDER BUS SERVICE FOR COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE TO ST. CLOUD New route from Bethel - CR station via 237th, Rt65, Rt14, Rt51, Foley. Eliminate 6 AM SB trips (Iv. Foley @ 6:10, 6:24, 7:10, 7:25, 7:30, 8:00). Eliminate 5 PM NB trips (Iv. 7th/3rd @ 4:19, 4:37, 4:58, 5:03, 5:40). Reroute via Woodcrest, 99th Ave., Foley, CR stalion, Foley, TH10. Increase AM, PM peak period frequency to 30 minutes. _ __.JI.~~ka_.. ~~1.._ __-'Increase AM, PM peak period frequenc.Yto?O"!iI111t~s,--.____. _ Anoka/Ramsey (VoTech) Anoka 890 Anoka 891 Big Lake--- River R 902 Becker.-.-.--- Tri-CAP 903 ClearLake' S. SI. ~~:~dR. _9o.~ - ----..f~~w. ..r~!JJ.e f!o .m.K...imb._.a. ~~~I1~a._..n9~.le___~lea~~~~~':"~C~-~~~.i~ l1_vl'!_~L2_,!-__._ MTC Eastside Provide transfer at station; no reroute necessary. Tri-CAP Rice New route Rice - CR station - MTC Transit Center via TH1 0, R1.23. SI. 'Cloud CBD .---- .. ..-,---- - ." - . -.-- ------.---.-----.--- .---------. MT~~!!.____ Ex1~nd a!L~T~~0.Llt!!~.serv!!:l9 :r.!~sit C~r:!~!~~.B.s.!.'!~on. STA.lAGENCY/RTE. NEMmn.(Broadwiiy)' Metro 10 Metro 18 Metro 24 Metro 29 NE Minn~([(iwry Option)' Metro 18 Metro 32 Fridley (6151 Ave.) Metro 10A,X,F,U Metro 24 24 Metro 879 Coon RiiPlds(Foley) Anoka 889 Metro 27 Anoka 805 Elk River---.~.-- River R. 901 DESCRIPTION Provide transfer at station; no reroute necessary. Reroute Washington SI. branch via Broadway, Quincy, 15th Ave. Provide transfer at station; no reroute necessary. Provide transfer at !5tation;~l:I rerou.IE!.I'l~~~~~ry,______._ _ Reroute Washington SI. branch via 22nd Ave., 6th SI., Lowry. Provicte transfer at station; no rerout!! necesscuy:___ Route via 61 st Ave. to station. Route via 61 st Ave. to station. Eliminate 4 AM Express SB trips (Iv. N'town @ 6:18,7:22,7:52,8:22). Eliminate 4 PM Express NB trips (Iv. 7lh/3rd @ 3:40, 5:10, 5:45, 6:10). New route from Brookdale - CR station - Apache Plaza via Shingle Creek Pkwy, 1-694, Unive~sity, CRJ O~,M~lrl ~t'.L~!~t,-U_nJyer~itY,~I!~:.__ New route fm SI Francis - CR Sta via Rt47, Industry, Ramsey Blvd., TH10. New STV circulator via CR station, VoTech, Industry Ave., Nowthen, _.. ~a~~y),!lv9., 15?t~,V~~loJ~l!,_!~!~!,-~~mstr~g~lvd., TH1Q, New route from Princeton - CR station - Albertville - SI. Michael via TH169, __t~Jst,lH10, IH_!6~! BL3JLRUL____ New route from Buffalo - Monticello to CR station via R125. ...-.. ---~.__.- . .--.-..-.--.--.---..- New rout~ from Foley to CRstalionyi~J~125, T1-I10. NO.IE..S..; "NC" refers to no change from existing. "NA" refers to not operated during time period. Weekday service only is assumed at 250 days per year. " . " refers to Metro peak bus requirements not included in total. Costs per bus-hour are Metro: $72, MTC: $40, Anoka: $33, RiverRlderfTricap: $30. Costs are in FY 1999 dollars. . Prepared by Manuel Padron & Associates . SERVICE HEADWAY PEAK BASE PEAK BUSES NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC -3 30 NA +2 ------'- ---.- 60 NA +1 NC NC -3 30 30 +1.5 30 30 +1.5 - -----.---.--.---..-- --.---..--- 60 NA +1 60 NA +1 -_. 60 NA +3 NC NC NC NC ANNUAL ANNUAL BUS-HR. O&M COST NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC -- - ---- --.- NC NC NC NC (1,500) ($108,000) 3,000 $216.000 ---- - 1,500 $49,500 (2,000) ($144,000) 2,250 $74,250 _?~?O_ __Eic25O 1,500 $49,500 1,500 $49,500 4,500 $135,000 NC NC 60 ..-:!:!_LJ290 _.J45,~_ _ ::-l-::-F:-:: .. -------- -_._-- - -,---.. ----- NC NC NC NC NA +1 1.5Q.O,!45,9DO NC NC~C NC TOTAL: +13 . 19,~OL !576,OOO __.._.~...-tJ~ _ 60 NC 60 NC . ECONOMIC IMPACTS . Work on the economic impacts of the Northstar Commuter Rail system is currently being completed. The main areas of focus with regard to economic and development implications will be from the following four perspectives. 1. Economic Efficiency - the efficiency (productivity) gains attributable to the commuter rail will be quantified (in terms of money). 2. Economic Development - the ability of the commuter rail to make the corridor and its communities more attractive as places to live and work will be quantified in terms of jobs, population size and dollars (value added). 3. Station Area Development - prospects for development and redevelopment near the stations, including land uses, will be evaluated. 4. Policies to Enhance Transit-Oriented Development - policies will be developed that support and enhance transit-oriented development. Results will be forthcoming in January 1999. . . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 7-1 Economic Impacts . SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Work on the social and environmental impacts of the Northstar Commuter Rail system is currently being completed. Key features of the BNSF railroad corridor which may be impacted by implementation of commuter rail service will be identified. Social and environmental impacts that will be analyzed include the following. · Proposed station areas, where land acquisition and traffic impacts could be anticipated, and community development patterns could refocus around commuter rail passenger service. · Constructing additional rail tracks along the Northstar Corridor. · Traffic conflicts resulting from increased track usage at rail/roadway crossings. · Noise from increased track usage, including potential whistle use at rail/roadway crossmgs. · Construction impacts. Results will be forthcoming in January 1999. . . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 8-1 Social and Environmental Impacts FINANCIAL ANALYSIS . Work on the financial analysis of the Northstar Commuter Rail system is currently being completed. A financing plan will be developed which makes use of existing funding sources (including local, state, and federal funding for both capital and operating assistance) and new and additional sources of funding that could be developed in the future. Capital and operating cash flow estimates will be developed for the commuter rail system. The annual cash flow analysis will cover the period between groundbreaking and the Year 2020. Operating cash flows and capital cash flows will be treated separately. Results will be forthcoming in January 1999. . . Draft Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 1998 9-1 Financial Analysis . RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER STATE FUNDING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUTER RAIL IN THE NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR Whereas, Trunk Highway 10 from Minneapolis to St. Cloud is a transportation corridor that runs through the fastest growing area of the state and such growth has created significant transportation, safety and land use issues; and Whereas, the City of Elk River is member of the NorthStar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA), which is a multi-jurisdictional authority established to consider transportation alternatives and improvements along the Highway 10 Corridor; and . Whereas, the NCDA authorized the preparation of a Major Investment Study (MIS). The MIS is required for projects seeking federal funding and its purpose is to build a consensus on actions to address transportation issues and meet the transportation needs of the corridor; and Whereas, the MIS has identified the development of the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line from St. Cloud to Minneapolis as a viable alternative to address the transportation needs of the Highway 10 corridor; and Whereas, the development of commuter rail within the Northstar Corridor will benefit cities, townships and counties within the corridor as well as other nearby communities in the St. Cloud and the metro regions; and Whereas, the NCDA has secured federal and state funding to complete the MIS and for the administration of the NCDA through 1999; and Whereas, in order to remain on the Federal Transit Authority's list for funding, additional funds from the State will be required to match future Federal funding. Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, That: . The City of Elk River strongly supports the development of the Northstar Corridor commuter railroad extending from Minneapolis to St. Cloud and requests the State Legislature continue authorizing the needed funding so the project can be completed. . Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River, Minnesota, this day of , 1999. Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor ATTEST Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk . . w ~ . RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER STATE FUNDING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUTER RAIL IN THE NORTHSTAR CORRIDOR Whereas, the Northstar Corridor from Minneapolis to St. Cloud is a transportation corridor that runs through the fastest growing area of the state and such growth has created significant transportation, safety and land use issues; and Whereas, the City of Elk River is member of the NorthStar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA), which is a 29 member, multi-jurisdictional authority established to consider transportation alternatives and improvements along, the Northstar Corridor; and . Whereas, the NCDA has spent the last 18 months studying the feasibility of commuter rail and developing a Major Investment Study (MIS). The MIS is required for projects seeking federal funding and its purpose is to build a consensus on actions to address transportation issues and meet the transportation needs of the corridor; and Whereas, the MIS has identified the development of the Northstar Corridor commuter rail line from St. Cloud to Minneapolis as a viable component to address the transportation needs of the Northstar Corridor; and Whereas, the development of commuter rail within the Northstar Corridor will benefit cities, townships and counties within the corridor as well as other nearby communities in the St. Cloud and the metro regions; and Whereas, Congress has appropriated to the NCDA $350,000 for federal fiscal year 1998 and $6,000,000 for federal fiscal year 1999 and in 1998 the Minnesota Legislature authorized $1,500,000 to provide the required state/local match for the $6 million; and Whereas, Congress must act in 1999 to appropriate $10,000,000 for federal fiscal year 2000 and in order to remain on the Federal Transit Authority's list for funding, the State Legislature will be required to match future Federal funding. . Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, That: . . . '. .. .. The City of Elk River strongly supports the development of the Northstar Corridor commuter railroad extending from Minneapolis to St. Cloud and requests the State Legislature continue authorizing the needed matching funding so the project can be completed. Be It Further Resolved, That: The City of Elk River supports the Mn/DOT finding that the Northstar Corridor should be the first commuter rail corridor to be implemented in the State of Minnesota. However, the City of Elk River believes the termini of the Corridor should be Minneapolis and the St. Cloud Area. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Elk River, Minnesota, this day of , 1999. Stephanie Klinzing, Mayor ATTEST Sandra A. Peine, City Clerk