A dynamic, world-class County delivering excellence every day

Providing the foundation of a great community by protecting and improving the health, safety and general well-

being of Olmsted County residents; improving economic and environmental conditions; and promoting equality of opportunity

OLMSTED COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY

MEETING

AGENDA

September 25, 2012

4:00 PM

1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. CALL TO ORDER

3. AGENDA

a. Minutes: April 24, 2012 (1-2) b. Amendment: No. 1 to MnDOT Agreement - Southern Rail Corridor Feasibility

and Alternatives Analysis Study (3-14) c. Update: Southern Rail Corridor Feasibility and Alternatives Analysis Study (15) d. Consultant Agreement: Rochester-Twin Cites Passenger Rail Corridor

Investment Plan (16-17) ADJOURN

Proceedings of the Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority held on April 24, 2012, at 4:15 PM in the Council/Board Chambers at the Government Center.

The Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority met on the above date with the following Commissioners present: Brown, Wilson, Flynn, Bier, Perkins, and Ohly, and Secretary Devlin.

Chairperson Brown called the meeting to order. Call to Order

Bier moved; Wilson seconded, to approve the February 21, 2012 meeting minutes. MOTION: Ayes 6, Nays 0

Appr minutes 02/21/2012

Gary Smith, President of Rochester Area Economic Development, Inc. (RAEDI), recently retained a consultant to evaluate the potential for economic growth as a result of the passenger rail program. He presented the summary of this Preliminary Economic Impact Analysis of the Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Program. A full report can be viewed on RAEDI’s web site at www.raedi.com

Update: RAEDI- Econ Grwth

Chuck Michael, Project Manager, presented to the Board an update on the Southern Rail Corridor Feasibility and Alternatives Analysis, a partnership between Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT).

Update: MnDOT & OCRRA Feasib. Study and Analys

Wilson moved; Perkins seconded, to approve the release and publication in the State Register of the Consultant Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Rochester- Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan. The project will be funded by a $2,000,000 grant, provided through MnDOT’s Intercity Passenger Rail Program, and $300,000 in local funds provided by the Olmsted County Rail Authority. Motion: Ayes 6, Nays 0

Appr Release & Pub RFP for Roch-Twin Cty Pass Rail Corr Invstmnt Pln

Perkins moved; Ohly seconded, to adjourn at 4:35 PM until the next meeting date is announced. MOTION: Ayes 6, Nays 0

Adjourn

OLMSTED COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

___________________________________________

Ken Brown, Chair

ATTEST: __________________________________ Richard G. Devlin Secretary

PAGE 3

REQUEST FOR REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ACTION

AGENDA DATE: September 25, 2012

REQUESTED BY: Charles R. Michael, PE, Project Manager STATE ITEM OF BUSINESS WITH BRIEF ANALYSIS AND ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COUNTY RAIL AUTHORITY: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Partnership Agreement between Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority for the Southern Rail Corridor Feasibility and Alternatives Analysis. BACKGROUND: On October 25, 2010 the Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority approved the Partnership Agreement between Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Rail Authority. This Agreement had an expiration date of October 31, 2012. Funding for the project is provided by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Rail Authority. MnDOT has requested, and FRA has approved, an extension of the contract expiration date to June 30, 2013. This time extension was requested by MnDOT to allow for additional public meetings, public information, and public outreach activities. As a result of this time extension, two additional public meetings will be held during the course of the project. There is no cost adjustment as a result of this Amendment No. 1. COUNTY RAIL AUTHORITY ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Partnership Agreement between Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority for the Southern Rail Corridor Feasibility and Alternatives Analysis. Reviewed With Additional Material Provided: County Administrator

 

Kimley-Horn an

160519013 

P

 

Prepared fo

Prepared by

nd Associates, Inc.

U R P O

SoFre

or:

y:

O S E A

outheeight

Feasibilit

A N D

easteRail

ty and Alte

 

N E E D

ern MCapaernatives

D S T A

Minneacity Analysis

A T E M

esotay Stud

Study

 

E N T

a dy

Julyy 2012

Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study Purpose and Need Statement

 

July 2012 i Revision 4

Revision History

Revision Number  Date  Description 

0  5/31/2012  Initial draft to Project Management Team for comment 

1  6/11/2012  Project Management Team comments integrated 

2  6/15/2012  Technical Advisory Committee comments integrated 

3  6/29/2012  Project Advisory Committee comments integrated 

4  7/16/2012  FRA and public comments integrated; Project name changed 

 

Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study Purpose and Need Statement

 

July 2012 ii Revision 4

List of Acronyms

AA  Alternatives Analysis CP  Canadian Pacific DM&E  Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad FAQ  Frequently Asked Questions FEIS  Final Environmental Impact Statement FRA  Federal Railroad Administration MnDOT  Minnesota Department of Transportation NEPA  National Environmental Policy Act OCRRA  Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority PAC  Project Advisory Committee PMP  Project Management Plan PMT  Project Management Team PRB  Powder River Basin SDIC  Systematic Development of Informed Consent SEIS  Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement SRC  Southern Rail Corridor STB  Surface Transportation Board TAC  Technical Advisory Committee 

 

Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study Purpose and Need Statement

 

July 2012 iii Revision 4

Table of Contents

Revision History .................................................................................................................................... i 

List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. ii 

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ iii 

1.  Reason for the Study .................................................................................................................. 1 

2.  Context ....................................................................................................................................... 2 

2.1.  Project Area ..................................................................................................................................... 2 

2.2.  Project History ................................................................................................................................. 3 

3.  Project Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................... 5 

3.1.  Project Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 5 

3.2.  Need for Action ................................................................................................................................ 5 

4.  Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................. 6 

    

Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study Purpose and Need Statement

 

July 2012 1 Revision 4

1. Reason for the Study

On December 16, 2009, Congress directed funds under the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement program for the Southern Rail Corridor project, referred to herein as the Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study. The Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study is a freight rail planning project proposed by Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority (OCRRA) to evaluate the need and feasibility to mitigate and/or relocate the existing Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad (DM&E) freight rail line in Rochester to accommodate a potential increase in train traffic and address capacity, environmental, and safety concerns associated with the current route through the city’s downtown. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has been designated as the grantee of these funds. 

The project is intended to advance the study of reasonable and feasible alternatives, including improvements to existing infrastructure and consideration of a bypass around Rochester, through completion of an initial environmental analysis of all alternatives. In order to qualify for future federal and state funding, the study must be conducted in accordance with Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines. MnDOT, in coordination with OCRRA and FRA, will complete a series of technical reports and analyses that can be included in subsequent environmental documentation as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) compliant environmental review process, and will result in the milestones indicated below as noted in the FRA approved Statement of Work: 

i. Scoping 

Development of a purpose and need statement 

Identification of the corridor study area 

Facilitation of scoping meetings with the public, stakeholders, and other agencies 

Preparation of a scoping report 

ii. Feasibility Study/Initial Alternatives Analysis: 

Development of evaluation criteria that address: o The purpose and need for the action, including scenarios of varied 

possible/potential rail traffic levels based on industry trends and passenger rail planning 

o Engineering feasibility and conceptual costs o Preliminary environmental analysis 

Comprehensive evaluation of all reasonable alternatives that avoid or minimize adverse effects on the environment, including: 

o No Build alternative with and without increased rail traffic o Mitigation of current route through Rochester with and without increased rail traffic o Proposed Southern Rail Corridor (SRC) Alternative o All other reasonable alternative bypass routes 

Preparation of a Feasibility Report and an Initial Alternatives Analysis Report that will result in the recommendation of further NEPA compliant review of the set of reasonable and feasible alternatives 

 

Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study Purpose and Need Statement

 

July 2012 2 Revision 4

2. Context

2.1. Project Area

The Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study project area is located in southeastern Minnesota within Dodge and Olmsted counties. The area is generally bound by Dodge Center to the west, I‐90 to the south, Dover to the east, and the Olmsted County line to the north. The existing DM&E rail corridor between Dodge Center and Dover covers approximately 40 miles and runs through downtown Rochester.  

The figures below illustrate the project area, highlighting key facilities including highways, the existing DM&E freight rail corridor, and Mayo Clinic facilities. Additional points of reference include Rochester city limits and the previously proposed bypass alternatives. 

 

Figure 1 ‐ Project Area Overview 

 

Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study Purpose and Need Statement

 

July 2012 3 Revision 4

Figure 2 ‐ Rochester Overview 

 

 

2.2. Project History

In 1998, DM&E filed an application with the Surface Transportation Board (STB) to construct and operate a 281‐mile rail line into the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming. If completed, the expansion would generate as many as 34 one mile long loaded and empty unit coal trains per day on the existing rail corridor through downtown Rochester (Power River Basin Expansion Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, Surface Transportation Board, pg. 9‐4, 2001). To mitigate the effects of this increase in train traffic through downtown, a 34‐mile bypass alternative (referred to as Alternative R‐4, see Figure 1), selected from five potential grade separation and alignment options, was compared to a scenario involving the rehabilitation of existing facilities (referred to as Alternative R‐2). Due to the cost of new construction and the risk associated with karst geology along the bypass alternative, the STB’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) recommended the rehabilitation of existing facilities in conjunction with several mitigation measures: 

Installation of a train location monitoring system in the Rochester emergency‐response center to allow for the display of train location information and the position of grade crossing warning signals to facilitate coordination of train movements and emergency vehicles. 

Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study Purpose and Need Statement

 

July 2012 4 Revision 4

Installation of two grade separated crossings prior to transporting more than 50 million tons of coal annually through Rochester, including one grade separated crossing prior to transporting more than 20 million tons of coal annually through Rochester, at two of the following grade crossings in Rochester or another mutually acceptable location: 

o East Circle Drive/CSAH 22 East o 2nd Avenue Northeast/West Silver Lake Drive  o Broadway Avenue o 6th Avenue Northwest 

Installation of additional grade crossing protection devices at Broadway Avenue prior to transporting 50 million tons of coal annually through Rochester. 

Coordination with Mayo Clinic to determine how to best minimize project‐related impacts on the Clinic. 

During the EIS process, MnDOT conducted an analysis of the impacts of increased train traffic on all grade crossings within 10 southern Minnesota counties, including both Dodge and Olmsted. In addition to providing various recommendations on general guidelines for safety improvements at all remaining at‐grade crossings, the study identified a total of seven grade separation candidates within the City of Rochester under a full build scenario. The final report recommended the installation of five additional grade separated crossings within Rochester once train traffic levels reached 37 trains per day, likely selected from 11th Avenue Northeast, 11th Avenue Northwest, and the four crossings identified within the FEIS (Southern Minnesota Corridor Safety Plan, MnDOT, pg. 14, 2000). While the technical data from the MnDOT study were used in the EIS, the final recommendations were significantly modified. 

Following a court challenge to the STB’s 2002 approval of the DM&E line (Mid States Coalition for Progress v. STB, 345 F.3d 52, 8TH circ. 2003), the STB issued a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The SEIS reimposed all 147 mitigation conditions documented in the FEIS over the entire DM&E line and included one additional recommendation that DM&E community liaisons provide assistance to communities interested in developing quiet zones. No additional mitigation conditions were recommended, and construction of the DM&E line was reapproved in 2006. 

In 2009, Mayo Clinic released an independent evaluation of the potential impacts of increased train traffic through downtown in advance of the construction of the PRB line. Simulations conducted as part of this study indicated that in‐town improvements, including a second mainline through the study area and new sidings, might not be sufficient to support 28 or more daily coal trains in addition to six other freight trains per day (DM&E Rail Alternative Analysis and Cost Study Task 3 Report, Mayo Clinic, pg. 13, 2009). The report presented a revised 48‐mile bypass alternative to allow through freight traffic to avoid downtown Rochester, indicating that the associated geological and environmental concerns identified in the STB environmental analysis could be addressed.  

Concurrent with these studies, OCRRA and MnDOT have been actively studying a high‐speed passenger rail connection to the Twin Cities. Zip Rail, the name and brand adopted for a high‐speed passenger rail corridor by the Southeast Minnesota Rail Alliance in 2011, is listed as a Tier I corridor in the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan. Access to downtown Rochester is conceptually planned using the existing DM&E freight corridor, joining at a yet to be determined point west of downtown. Zip Rail will be the subject of a separate and independent study.   

Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study Purpose and Need Statement

 

July 2012 5 Revision 4

At present, the PRB line in Wyoming has not entered construction despite STB approval. DM&E, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Canadian Pacific (CP) Railway, has recently implemented several improvements within the project area, including the installation of a defect detection system, bridge improvements at the Zumbro River crossing, as well as track upgrades to continuous welded rail through downtown Rochester.  

 

3. Project Purpose and Need

3.1. Project Purpose

The purpose statement defines the fundamental reasons why the project is being proposed.   

The  purpose  of  the  proposed  action  is  to  provide  the  future infrastructure required to serve current and long term rail demand while addressing  public  health,  safety,  and  accessibility  issues  within  the project area.  

 

3.2. Need for Action

The needs statement outlines the specific need for action that any project alternative must address in order to satisfy the purpose for the project.    

The project  is needed to effectively address rail capacity, public health, safety, and accessibility needs associated with current and long term rail demand within the project area.  

 Four primary factors contribute to the need for the project:  

Projected increase in freight traffic on the existing DM&E line – DM&E has approval to construct and operate a 281‐mile rail line into the PRB coalfields of Wyoming.  This action has the potential to generate as many as 34 one mile long loaded and empty unit coal trains per day through Rochester on the existing route in addition to the three trains per day currently operating.  The project is needed to address the current and potential long term freight shipping trends and rail capacity needs within the project area.  

Potential capacity issues with future passenger rail traffic along existing DM&E corridor – Current plans identify the existing DM&E corridor as part of a potential alignment for a passenger rail route between the Twin Cities and Rochester, with passenger trains entering the corridor at a yet to be determined point west of downtown.  The project is needed to address the long term rail capacity and safety needs associated with commingling of freight and passenger rail within a portion of the existing DM&E right‐of‐way. 

Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study Purpose and Need Statement

 

July 2012 6 Revision 4

Accessibility considerations at grade crossings with increased rail activity – Increased rail activity along the existing DM&E corridor has the potential to increase delay at grade crossings, impacting pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, commercial activity, and emergency vehicle response times.  Without the construction of additional grade separations, travel patterns may change in response to unreliable travel times.  The project is needed to address pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle accessibility considerations associated with increased rail activity. 

Public health, safety, and environmental considerations relative to increased rail activity – Delay increases at grade crossings may lead to additional collisions, hazardous grade‐crossing behavior, as well as increases in emergency vehicle response times.  Long queues during peak hours may generate additional collisions at surrounding intersections and degrade the pedestrian environment in some areas. Increased rail activity in commercial and residential areas may also contribute to a variety of environmental issues such as noise and vibration impacts, reductions in air quality, as well as heightened risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials. The project is needed to address health, safety, and environmental considerations associated with increased rail activity. 

 

4. Goals and Objectives

The project aims to address the issues associated with the identified needs. The establishment of goals and objectives articulates the desired benefits of the project and establishes a foundation for the definition of evaluation measures including quantitative and qualitative criteria to be used in comparing the performance of the alternatives.  

The following goals and objectives have been developed to serve as a framework to evaluate the alternatives. 

Goal 1 ‐ Provide sufficient rail capacity through the project area 

o Objective 1 ‐ Minimize train delay associated with increased rail activity 

o Objective 2 ‐ Maximize rail travel time reliability within the project area 

o Objective 3 ‐ Preserve freight rail access for shippers and maintain access for freight business growth in the area 

 

Goal 2 ‐ Maintain acceptable traffic conditions at grade crossings within the project area 

o Objective 1 ‐ Maintain acceptable levels of service at grade crossings 

o Objective 2 ‐ Minimize peak queue lengths at grade crossings 

 

   

Southeastern Minnesota Freight Rail Capacity Study Purpose and Need Statement

 

July 2012 7 Revision 4

Goal 3 ‐ Provide appropriate accessibility for emergency response vehicles within the project area 

o Objective 1 ‐ Maximize emergency response time reliability 

o Objective 2 ‐ Minimize emergency vehicle delay associated with grade crossings 

 

Goal 4 ‐ Address health, safety, and environmental issues relative to increased rail activity within the project area 

o Objective 1 ‐ Minimize total collisions at grade crossings 

o Objective 2 ‐ Minimize collision severity at grade crossings 

o Objective 3 ‐ Support a safe crossing environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non‐vehicular traffic 

o Objective 4 ‐ Minimize or mitigate environmental impacts associated with increased rail activity including related capital improvements 

o Objective 5 ‐ Minimize risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials 

PAGE

REQUEST FOR REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ACTION

AGENDA DATE: September 25, 2012

REQUESTED BY: Charles R. Michael, PE, Project Manager STATE ITEM OF BUSINESS WITH BRIEF ANALYSIS AND ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COUNTY RAIL AUTHORITY: Project update on the Southern Rail Corridor Feasibility and Alternatives Analysis. BACKGROUND: Olmsted County is partnering with Mn/DOT and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to conduct an alternatives analysis of freight rail impacts and potential corridor and mitigation alternatives along the DM&E/Canadian Pacific railroad in Rochester. The study will identify reasonable options that could be advanced for further study and selection of a preferred alternative in an Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of this study is to conduct an FRA-compliant analysis of alternatives sufficient to qualify the program for future federal funding of any capital improvements, should they be required. These improvements may be incremental and ultimately substantial, with sources of funding not readily available and thus far not identified. Federal programs provide funding assistance for such improvements. In order to be eligible, the program must comply with federal funding requirements. The project was initiated by MnDOT in April 2012 with the selection of the project consultant, Kimley-Horn & Associates. The initial consultant task has been to develop a FRA-compliant Purpose and Need Statement. The “purpose statement” defines the fundamental reasons why the project is being proposed, and the “needs statement” outlines the specific need for action that any project alternative must address in order to satisfy the purpose for the project. Representatives from MnDOT and Kimley-Horn & Associates will be present to discuss the Purpose and Need Statement and provide an update on the project progress. COUNTY RAIL AUTHORITY ACTION REQUESTED: Information only. No action is requested. Reviewed With Additional Material Provided: County Administrator

PAGE

REQUEST FOR REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ACTION

AGENDA DATE: September 25, 2012

REQUESTED BY: Deb Palmer, Olmsted County Director of Purchasing, Charles R. Michael, Project Manager STATE ITEM OF BUSINESS WITH BRIEF ANALYSIS AND ACTION REQUESTED OF THE COUNTY BOARD: Request Olmsted County Regional Rail Authority (OCRRA) approval to award a contract to Parsons Brinckerhoff for the Rochester –Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan. (Contract No. 138P). BACKGROUND: Requests for Proposals were published in the State Register and posted to the OCRRA website on June 11, 2012. We received the following six (6) proposals on July 11, 2012: Parsons Brinckerhoff HDR Kimley-Horn ARUP AE COM R.L Banks & Associates Proposals were evaluated by the project team and scored on a weighted value method. Parsons Brinckerhoff received the highest score. They were also the lowest price. Staff recommends that the OCRRA approve a contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff for the Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan in the amount of $ 1,992,907.18 plus a not to exceed amount of $68,277 for reimbursables. Staff also requests approval for a not to exceed contingency in the amount of $43,463.18 which shall be controlled by the OCRRA. The approved funding for this project is $2M from the MnDOT grant fund and a not to exceed amount of $300,000 from Olmsted County. The contract award is contingent upon reaching an agreement on contract terms and conditions which are currently being reviewed. We hope to have a contract ready for signature by September 25, 2012. Staff will be present to respond to questions. REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY ACTION REQUESTED: Award a contract to Parsons Brinckerhoff in the amount of $1,992,907.18 plus a not to exceed amount of $68,277 for reimbursables for the Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan. Also request approval for a not to exceed contingency in the amount of

$43,463.18 which shall be controlled by the OCRRA. Reviewed With Additional Material Provided: County Administrator