alternatives analysis rpt jan2016
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
1/166
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
2/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page iJanuary 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
PREFACE .................................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 1
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 3
NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................ 6
PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................................. 6
SCREENING PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 8
PURPOSE AND NEED RATIONALE REVIEW ......................................................................... 8
IDENTIFICATION OF CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ................................................................ 9
LEVEL 1 SCREENING OF CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES .......................................................12
TWIN CITIES SUB- AREA CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................... 13
Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 13
Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 14 MSP AIRPORT TO COATES ......................................................................................................................... 24
Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 24 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 24 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 25
UNION DEPOT TO COATES .......................................................................................................................... 34 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 34
Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 34 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 37
COATES TO ROCHESTER – HIGHWAY 52 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 52 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 52 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 52 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 53
COATES TO ROCHESTER – HIGHWAY 56 ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 63 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 63 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 63 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 63
COATES TO RST AIRPORT – HIGHWAY 52 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 67 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 67
Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 67 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 68
COATES TO RST AIRPORT – HIGHWAY 56 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................... 75 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 75 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 75 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 76
ROCHESTER TO RST AIRPORT ................................................................................................................... 84 Corridor Definition ................................................................................................................................ 84
Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 84 Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 84
LEVEL 2 SCREENING PROCESS ...........................................................................................89
UNDERSTANDING THE SCREENING PROCESS .............................................................................................. 90 DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED CORRIDORS ............................................................................................ 91
Corridors 1.1 to 2.4 .............................................................................................................................. 91
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
3/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page iiJanuary 2016
Corridors 2.3 and 2.4 ........................................................................................................................... 91 Corridors 3.1 to 5.4 .............................................................................................................................. 92 Corridors 3.3, 3.4; Corridors 4.3, 4.4; Corridors 5.3, 5.4 ..................................................................... 92
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MEASUREMENT ............................................................................................ 92
SUMMARY OF SELECTED CORRIDORS .............................................................................139
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW AND EVOLUTION OF ALTERNATIVES ... 149
NEXT STEPS .........................................................................................................................150
SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.................................................................................................................. 150 SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................ 150
ABBREVIATIONS
BNSF BNSF Railway
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CP Canadian Pacific Railway
CR County Road
CSAH County State-Aid Highway
DM&E Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad
DNR Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
DSDD Draft Scoping Decision Document
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EQB Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FSDD Final Scoping Decision Document
HSR High-Speed Rail
LRT Light Rail Transit
MAC Metropolitan Airports Commission
MEPA Minnesota Environmental Policy Act
METRO A network of transitways operated by the Metropolitan Council
MnDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation
mph miles per hour
MSP Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
OCRRA Olmsted County Regional Railroad Authority
ROCOG Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments
RST Rochester International Airport
SDP Service Development Plan
SEE Social/Economic and Environmental Impacts
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TPC Train Performance Calculations
UP Union Pacific Railroad
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
4/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page iiiJanuary 2016
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
Figure 1 – Zip Rail Project Study Area ........................................................................................1
Figure 2 – Environmental Review Process Flow ......................................................................... 3
Figure 3 – Alternatives Analysis Process ....................................................................................5
Figure 4 – Project Purpose and Need .........................................................................................7
Figure 5 – Universe of Corridor Alternatives .............................................................................. 11
Figure 6 – Corridor Alternative IA-1 ........................................................................................... 15
Figure 7 – Corridor Alternative IU-1 ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 8 – Corridor Alternative IU-2 ........................................................................................... 17
Figure 9 – Corridor Alternative IU-3 ........................................................................................... 18
Figure 10 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix IU Series ............................................................... 19
Figure 11 – Corridor Alternative AU-1 ....................................................................................... 20
Figure 12 – Corridor Alternative AU-2 ....................................................................................... 21
Figure 13 – Corridor Alternative AU-3 .......................................................................................22
Figure 14 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix AU Series .............................................................. 23
Figure 15 – Corridor Alternative AC-1A ..................................................................................... 26
Figure 16 – Corridor Alternative AC-1B ..................................................................................... 27
Figure 17 – Corridor Alternative AC-2A ..................................................................................... 28
Figure 18 – Corridor Alternative AC-2B ..................................................................................... 29
Figure 19 – Corridor Alternative AC-3A ..................................................................................... 30
Figure 20 – Corridor Alternative AC-3B ..................................................................................... 31
Figure 21 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix AC Series .............................................................. 32
Figure 22 – Corridor Alternative AC-4 ....................................................................................... 33
Figure 23 – Corridor Alternative UC-1A ..................................................................................... 39
Figure 24 – Corridor Alternative UC-1B ..................................................................................... 40
Figure 25 – Corridor Alternative UC-1C .................................................................................... 41
Figure 26 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix UC-1 Series .......................................................... 42
Figure 27 – Corridor Alternative UC-2A ..................................................................................... 43
Figure 28 – Corridor Alternative UC-2B ..................................................................................... 44
Figure 29 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix UC-2 Series .......................................................... 45
Figure 30 – Corridor Alternative UC-3A ..................................................................................... 46
Figure 31 – Corridor Alternative UC-3B ..................................................................................... 47
Figure 32 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix UC-3 Series .......................................................... 48
Figure 33 – Corridor Alternative UC-4A ..................................................................................... 49
Figure 34 – Corridor Alternative UC-4B ..................................................................................... 50
Figure 35 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix UC-4 Series .......................................................... 51
Figure 36 – Corridor Alternative CD52-1A ................................................................................. 54
Figure 37 – Corridor Alternative CD52-1B ................................................................................. 55
Figure 38 – Corridor Alternative CD52-2A ................................................................................. 56
Figure 39 – Corridor Alternative CD52-2B ................................................................................. 57
Figure 40 – Corridor Alternative CD52-3 ................................................................................... 58
Figure 41 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix CD52 Series 1 ....................................................... 59
Figure 42 – Corridor Alternative CD52-4 ................................................................................... 60
Figure 43 – Corridor Alternative CD52-5 ................................................................................... 61
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
5/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page ivJanuary 2016
LIST OF FIGURES, continued PAGE
Figure 44 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix CD52 Series 2 ....................................................... 62
Figure 45 – Corridor Alternative CD56-1A ................................................................................. 64
Figure 46 – Corridor Alternative CD56-1B ................................................................................. 65
Figure 47 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix CD56 Series .......................................................... 66
Figure 48 – Corridor Alternative CA52-1 ................................................................................... 69
Figure 49 – Corridor Alternative CA52-2 ................................................................................... 70
Figure 50 – Corridor Alternative CA52-3 ................................................................................... 71
Figure 51 – Corridor Alternative CA52-4 ................................................................................... 72
Figure 52 – Corridor Alternative CA52-5 ................................................................................... 73
Figure 53 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix CA52 Series .......................................................... 74
Figure 54 – Corridor Alternative CA56-1A ................................................................................. 77
Figure 55 – Corridor Alternative CA56-1B ................................................................................. 78
Figure 56 – Corridor Alternative CA56-2A ................................................................................. 79
Figure 57 – Corridor Alternative CA56-2B ................................................................................. 80
Figure 58 – Corridor Alternative CA56-3A ................................................................................. 81
Figure 59 – Corridor Alternative CA56-3B ................................................................................. 82
Figure 60 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix CA56 Series .......................................................... 83
Figure 61 – Corridor Alternative DA-1 ....................................................................................... 85
Figure 62 – Corridor Alternative DA-2 ....................................................................................... 86
Figure 63 – Corridor Alternative DA-3 ....................................................................................... 87
Figure 64 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix DA Series .............................................................. 88
Figure 65 – Corridor 1.1 ............................................................................................................ 94
Figure 66 – Corridor 1.2 ............................................................................................................ 96
Figure 67 – Corridor 1.3 ............................................................................................................ 98
Figure 68 – Corridor 1.4 .......................................................................................................... 100
Figure 69 – Corridor 2.1 .......................................................................................................... 102
Figure 70 – Corridor 2.2 .......................................................................................................... 104
Figure 71 – Corridor 2.3 .......................................................................................................... 106
Figure 72 – Corridor 2.4 .......................................................................................................... 108
Figure 73 – Corridor 3.1 .......................................................................................................... 110
Figure 74 – Corridor 3.2 .......................................................................................................... 112
Figure 75 – Corridor 3.3 .......................................................................................................... 114
Figure 76 – Corridor 3.4 .......................................................................................................... 116
Figure 77 – Corridor 4.1 .......................................................................................................... 118
Figure 78 – Corridor 4.2 .......................................................................................................... 120
Figure 79 – Corridor 4.3 .......................................................................................................... 122
Figure 80 – Corridor 4.4 .......................................................................................................... 124
Figure 81 – Corridor 5.1 .......................................................................................................... 126
Figure 82 – Corridor 5.2 .......................................................................................................... 128
Figure 83 – Corridor 5.3 .......................................................................................................... 130
Figure 84 – Corridor 5.4 .......................................................................................................... 132
Figure 85 – Description of Corridors Advanced to the Tier 1 EIS ............................................ 139
Figure 86 – Location of Corridors Advanced to the Tier 1 EIS ................................................. 140
Figure 87 – Corridor 1 – MSP to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ........................................................... 141
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
6/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page vJanuary 2016
LIST OF FIGURES, continued PAGE
Figure 88 – Corridor 2 – MSP to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ........................................................... 142
Figure 89 – Corridor 3 – Union Depot/MSP to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ...................................... 143
Figure 90 – Corridor 4 – Union Depot/MSP to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ...................................... 144
Figure 91 – Corridor 5 – Union Depot to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ............................................... 145
Figure 92 – Corridor 6 – Union Depot to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ............................................... 146
Figure 93 – Corridor 7 – Union Depot to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ............................................... 147
Figure 94 – Corridor 8 – Union Depot to Rochester: Tier 1 EIS ............................................... 148
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
Table 1 – Prior Studies ................................................................................................................2
Table 2 – Corridor vs. Alignment Definition .................................................................................4
Table 3 – Level 1 Screening Criteria ......................................................................................... 12
Table 4 – Corridors Evaluated in Level 2 Screening .................................................................. 91
Table 5 – Level 2 Screening Criteria ......................................................................................... 93
Table 6 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix – Level 2 Screening: Series 1 ................................. 134
Table 7 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix – Level 2 Screening: Series 2 ................................. 135
Table 8 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix – Level 2 Screening: Series 3 ................................. 136
Table 9 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix – Level 2 Screening: Series 4 ................................. 137
Table 10 – Comparative Evaluation Matrix – Level 2 Screening: Series 5 ............................... 138
APPENDIX
Appendix A
• Level 1 Screening Matrix – North Study Area
• Level 1 Screening Matrix – South Study Area
• Level 2 Screening Matrix
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
7/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 1January 2016
Preface
The information and data contained in this Alternatives Analysis Report is to be used for
comparative purposes only - to compare various corridor components against alternative
corridor components in allowing for a reduction in the number of potential corridors to be
analyzed in the Tier 1 EIS.
The eight corridors advanced to the Tier 1 EIS were determined through a qualitative analysis
and are estimated to result in fewer impacts to the built and natural environments than those
corridors eliminated from further study. No field measurements were taken and estimates shown
should be used only to compare various corridor components and should not be taken out of
context or interpreted as actual field-verified data.
In addition to analyzing the potential corridor alternatives, the Tier 1 EIS will evaluate the No-
Build alternative as directed by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR1502.14).
Introduction and BackgroundThe Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and the Olmsted County Regional
Railroad Authority (OCRRA), in collaboration with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
have initiated development of the Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment
Plan and Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 EIS) to evaluate the system level
environmental impact of alternative passenger rail corridors between the Minneapolis-St. Paul
Metropolitan Area and the Rochester MN Metropolitan Area. The proposed high speed intercity
passenger rail service between the Twin Cities and Rochester has been branded as the Zip Rail
Project.
The study area is located in the counties ofDakota, Dodge, Goodhue, Hennepin,
Olmsted, Ramsey and Rice (see Figure 1).
This Alternatives Analysis Report
documents the process used to develop
and evaluate the reasonable and feasible
passenger rail corridor alternatives
between Rochester and the Twin Cities as
part of the Zip Rail Project. The purpose of
this analysis was to identify a reasonable
number of alternatives to carry into the Tier1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
study with the intention of identifying either
the No-Build alternative or a preferred
passenger rail corridor alternative for
implementation. The Tier 1 EIS will
analyze overall corridor or System Level
environmental impacts. Subsequent Tier 2
Figure 1Zip Rail Project Study Area
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
8/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 2January 2016
EIS environmental documents will analyze site specific or Project Level impacts.
The conclusions presented in this report are also discussed in the Rochester-Twin Cities
Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 EIS Final Scoping Decision Document
(January 2015).
The concept of a high speed rail connection between Rochester and the Twin Cities has been
the subject of many studies beginning in 1991 (Table 1) culminating in the inclusion of the
Rochester to Twin Cities Corridor in the 2010 Minnesota Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail
Plan as a ‘Phase 1 Project.’ The 2015 State Rail Plan recommends a program of priority
improvements through 2030 that identifies the Rochester to Twin Cities Corridor as a ‘Phase 1
Project in Advanced Planning.’ As a high speed rail project, passenger trains could travel at
speeds of up to 186 mph with a projected end to end travel time of approximately 45-50
minutes.
Table 1Prior Studies
Study Year Findings
Tri-State High Speed Rail Study 1991Evaluated the potential for high speed rail between the Twin Cities
and Chicago, through Rochester and Wisconsin.
Tri-State II High Speed Rail
Feasibility Study2000
Alternatives between the Twin Cities, Rochester and Winona had the
best benefit/cost ratio of those studied and should be implemented
following the incremental upgrading of the existing Amtrak route.
Rochester Rail Link Feasibility
Study2003
A high speed rail link would provide an effective transportation
connection between Rochester and the Twin Cities to help link these
cities to the rest of the Midwest.
Tri-State III High-Speed Rail
Study: Minnesota Segment
Assessment
2009Supported Twin Cities to Rochester on a new alignment as part of a
larger corridor studied.
Minnesota Comprehensive
Statewide Freight and
Passenger Rail Plan
2010
The Rochester-Twin Cities Rail Corridor was identified in the plan as
a Priority 1 corridor in the recommended Minnesota and Regional
passenger rail system.
Preliminary Economic Benefit
Analysis of the Proposed
Rochester–Twin Cities High–
Speed Passenger Rail Program
2012
The report presented an estimate of potential economic benefits from
the implementation of Zip Rail. The analysis suggested that the
economic benefits of Zip Rail could easily exceed both the initial
capital cost and the long-term operating cost of the proposed project
and indicated that these benefits and the creation of jobs would occur
with Zip Rail operating as a stand-alone line with the resultingeconomic benefits realized by the entire state of Minnesota.
2015 State Rail Plan 2015
Reiterates the state’s commitment to the Twin Cities to Rochester
Corridor as a Phase 1 Corridor in Advanced Planning in the
recommended Minnesota and Regional passenger rail system.
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
9/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 3January 2016
The Rochester-Twin Cities Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan and Tier 1 Environmental
Impact Statement is being prepared in compliance with both the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the state
environmental review process governed by the
Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)
(Figure 2). The project team, comprised ofrepresentatives from the MnDOT Passenger
Rail Office and OCRRA, initiated an
alternatives analysis to evaluate the range of
passenger rail corridors and termini options
that exist between Rochester and the Twin
Cities and to identify the corridors that will be
evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS.
The Tier 1 EIS will analyze environmental
impacts for reasonable corridor-level
passenger rail route alternatives between
Rochester and the Twin Cities. The EIS will
incorporate information from the Service Development Plan (SDP), which will provide detail on
operation, ridership, equipment and financial performance, to better determine potential
environmental impacts for each corridor alternative.
Alternatives Analysis Methodology
The goal of the alternatives analysis process was to identify corridors and terminus locations
with the shortest travel times and the least disruption to the natural, built, and cultural
environments. These alternatives were described in the scoping process and identified in the
Final Scoping Decision Document for advancing for further study in the Tier 1 EIS. Theevaluation methodology and criteria used in the two-step screening process were developed to
be compatible with typical FRA evaluation methodologies and were based on the project’s
stated purpose and need. The process for a FRA Tier 1 EIS includes assessing beneficial and
adverse environmental effects associated with a reasonable range of corridor alternatives. The
evaluation criteria were designed to compare corridor alternatives using a common measure
and to advance the most feasible corridor alternatives for further study at the next level,
consistent with the objectives of the FRA Tier 1 EIS process.
At the alternatives development phase a “high level” of analysis was completed, meaning that
data for evaluation among corridor alternatives was collected at a general level for comparative
purposes. At this level, the analysis was used to assess a large number of corridor alternativeswhile keeping the level of analysis manageable and allowing for the identification of any fatally
flawed options. Figure 3 illustrates the alternatives analysis process.
For the purposes of the two-step screening process and for the environmental analysis the
following definitions and parameters were established (Table 2):
Corridor – For this study, a corridor represents a 1-mile wide geographic footprint within
which a final alignment would be located. The 1-mile wide designation allows the
Figure 2Environmental Review Process Flow
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
10/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 4January 2016
opportunity to adjust the alignment to minimize impacts on land uses and environmental
resources.
Alignment – The alignment is the actual linear location of a transportation facility such
as a road surface or railroad track. Actual alignments will be determined in the Tier 2
environmental documents.
Right-of-way – Right-of-way is the land within which the alignment is placed, which for
high speed rail is approximately 200 feet wide.
Table 2
Corridor vs. Alignment Definit ion
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
11/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 5January 2016
Figure 3 Alternatives Analysis Process
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
12/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 6January 2016
No-Build Alternative
In addition to analyzing the potential corridor alternatives the project team evaluated, and will
continue to evaluate, the No-Build alternative as directed by the Council on Environmental
Quality (40 CFR1502.14). The No-Build alternative reflects existing conditions, and includes all
currently programmed improvements in the project area over the next 20 years includinghighway, transit or other investments. The No-Build alternative does not include passenger rail
since passenger rail service does not currently exist within the study area.
The No-Build alternative will be further defined in the Tier 1 EIS based on committed projects
identified in the most recent Minnesota State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The
STIP identifies the schedule and funding of transportation projects. It includes all state and local
transportation projects with federal highway and/or federal transit funding along with 100
percent state funded transportation projects. Greater Minnesota metropolitan planning
organization programs are included in the listing, which will include projects identified by the
Rochester-Olmsted Council of Governments. Local projects that are programmed will be
included in the listing.
The No-Build alternative serves as the base of comparison for the potential corridor alternatives.
It will be analyzed to the same level as corridor alternatives in the Tier 1 EIS. The No-Build
alternative will be assessed for its ability to meet the project purpose and need and evaluated
for potential impacts. If implementing the No-Build alternative would result in predictable actions
by others, the effect of those actions would be considered part of the effects of the No-Build
alternative.
Purpose and Need
In the NEPA process the Purpose and Need document is the foundation upon which thealternatives analysis is conducted. The Purpose and Need Statement for this plan was
approved by the FRA and distributed for public comment in June 2013. It was adopted and
published in August 2013 (see: www.goziprail.com).
The purpose of the project is to provide a reliable and safe passenger rail transportation
alternative that will meet forecasted population and economic growth mobility demands in the
Southeast Minnesota corridor between Rochester and the Twin Cities area. The system is to
connect Rochester and the Twin Cities providing convenient and cost effective transportation.
The project is being developed according to the Purpose and Need outlined in Figure 4.
http://www.goziprail.com/http://www.goziprail.com/http://www.goziprail.com/http://www.goziprail.com/
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
13/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 7January 2016
Figure 4Project Purpose and Need
The development of world-class and internationally recognized medical facilities in Rochester,
along with its agribusiness and high-tech industrial base, make the city a significant economic
engine in the north central United States. The Twin Cities is also a base of high-tech industry
and the main transportation hub in the north central states. These factors mark the significance
of the economic connection between Rochester and the Twin Cities. Transportation connecting
these cities is primarily based on the private automobile with limited commercial transportation
options. In Rochester, Mayo Clinic draws patients and their companions from around the nation
and the world, and constitutes a primary need for transportation options not based on the
private automobile.
The project needs to meet existing and future transportation connectivity demands of the
corridor between Rochester and the Twin Cities in a manner that is competitive with other
modes of transportation. As the population, employment, and visitors grow along the corridor,
especially in Rochester and the Twin Cities, the number of people travelling between these
locations will increase, creating increased demand on the existing transportation network. The
corridor lacks an existing rail modal option and is anticipated to experience capacity needs that
will result from current and future economic growth.
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
14/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 8January 2016
Screening Process
The Zip Rail project team used a two-step screening process to formulate, evaluate, and refine
the reasonable and feasible corridor alternatives between Rochester and the Twin Cities. The
screening of alternatives was an iterative process. Following initial screening by the project
team, the alternatives were informed by input from an agency meeting, Technical AdvisoryCommittee input and from an initial round of public meetings held in 2013. Each step in the
process was increasingly more comprehensive than the previous step, refining the evaluation
criteria to assess each remaining corridor alternative at a higher level of detail.
Through the process of identifying, analyzing, and screening a range of potential passenger rail
corridors, and based on the public and agency input gathered during the scoping process, the
project team reduced the number of potential corridor alternatives from over 1,200 end-point to
end-point combinations to eight end-point to end-point mile-wide corridor alternatives. The
corridor alternatives resulting from the Alternatives Analysis process were introduced in the
Draft Scoping Decision Document (DSDD), which was distributed to federal, state, and local
agencies and the public on July 7, 2014 and was the subject of a series of three ScopingMeetings held July 29, 30, and 31, 2014 in Rochester, Inver Grove Heights, and Kenyon. A
Final Scoping Decision Document (FSDD) was published in the January 19, 2015
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor and distributed to the EQB distribution list and other
interested parties.
The FSDD documented the No-Build Alternative and eight end-point to end-point mile-wide
study corridors that will be evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS as described in the summary of this
report.
Purpose and Need Rationale Review
Prior to initiating the Level 1 screening, a purpose and need rationale review was applied to the
universe of corridor alternatives. This review focused on the terminal station options as they
serve as the end points of the corridor alternatives. Non-technical factors were considered in
reviewing terminal options or combinations of terminal options. Two primary factors were
considered in the purpose and need rationale review:
• Purpose and Need – any terminal station or combination of terminal stations that did not
meet the objectives in the purpose and need statement should be removed from further
consideration;
•
Logical Termini/Duplicative Service – any terminal station or combination of terminalstations that did not provide logical termini or would introduce duplicative service should
be removed from further consideration.
As a result of the purpose and need rationale review, it was determined that MSP and/or Union
Depot provided the most logical termini in the Twin Cities. A direct connection, without
intermediate stops, to Target Field Station was not deemed appropriate as a primary terminal
for this project. A high speed rail connection to Target Field Station in downtown Minneapolis
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
15/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 9January 2016
would very likely require a separate track to be built through a densely developed and highly
traveled urban travel corridor. The probability of a high level of impacts to both natural and built
environments could be rationally assumed. Existing passenger transit service is available to
Target Field Station from both MSP and Union Depot on the Blue Line and the Green Line of
the Metro Transit system, respectively.
Identification of Corridor Alternatives
As noted above, the evaluation of alternative routes is based upon the recognition that at this
level of analysis it is not possible or appropriate to identify specific alignments. What are
referred to herein as ‘corridor alternatives’ are generally described as a ‘path along the ground’
(approximately one mile wide) within which it would be possible to engineer a specific alignment
and to define its corresponding right-of-way. The determination of a final alignment within the
corridor, including the potential use of elevated track, would be evaluated during the Tier 2 EIS
process.
Five potential termini alternatives were initially identified. Two potential termini were identified inRochester and three potential termini were identified in the Twin Cities. They included:
• Rochester
• Rochester International Airport (RST)
• Target Field Station, Minneapolis
• Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP)
• Union Depot, St. Paul
As part of the evaluation process, an intermediate station in Dakota County was introduced for
consideration.
The initial step in the identification of corridor alternatives was the compilation of the ‘universe of
route alternatives’ as shown in Figure 5 that includes a large number of potential route
segments each of which have the potential for supporting a high speed rail alignment that would
connect the termini identified above. These route segments were initially developed based on
previous studies, meetings with project stakeholders and from field observations. A complete
route between the Twin Cities and Rochester would consist of a series of route segments that
would be chained together in a continuous sequence.
An examination of the universe of route segments reveals that the number of unique routes
connecting the two termini is very high. To facilitate the screening process, individual route
segments were combined into a smaller number of corridor alternatives. The corridor
alternatives recommended for study were refined to reflect local planning efforts regarding both
transportation and land use.
The study area was divided into two sub-areas:
• Twin Cities Subarea – this subarea encompassed the portion of the project area north of
Coates.
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
16/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 10January 2016
• Greater Minnesota Subarea – this subarea encompassed the portion of the project area
south of Coates.
Within each sub-area the corridor alternatives were grouped according to common
characteristics, including shared endpoints. As part of level 1 screening, individual corridor
alternatives were compared against other corridor alternatives within that group. The result is a
step-wise process that begins by selecting the most promising corridor alternative amongst
those with similar features.
A nomenclature for identifying corridor segments was established. Each segment was identified
with a geographic description and assigned a multi-letter code. The multi- letter code
represented the termini at each end of the corridor alternative. This nomenclature is detailed
below:
• IA – Target Field Station to MSP Airport
• IU—Target Field Station to Union Depot
• AU – MSP to Union Depot
• UC – Union Depot to Coates, MN
• AC – MSP to Coates, MN
• CD – Coates, MN to Rochester
• CA – Coates, MN to RST Airport
• DA – Rochester to RST Airport
Target Field Station is noted as “I” due to the fact that the naming convention was established at
the beginning of the project when Target Field Station was known as “The Interchange.”
In addition to these groupings, the CA and CD alternatives were further broken down as follows:
• 52 – An eastern route between Coates and Rochester or RST that closely parallels the
existing US 52 corridor.
• 56 – A western route between Coates and Rochester or RST that parallels a former
railroad corridor and the MN 56 corridor to the Dodge Center/Kasson, MN area and then
generally parallels US 14 east into the Rochester area.
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
17/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 11January 2016
Figure 5Universe of Corridor Alternatives
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
18/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 12January 2016
Level 1 Screening of Corridor Alternatives
Forty-six corridor alternatives were advanced to Level 1 screening. The criteria that were
applied in the Level 1 assessment are described in Table 3.
Table 3Level 1 Screening Criteria
Each of the criteria above were analyzed and assigned a three-tiered, color coded ranking
system. Red indicates the highest potential for impacts, yellow for a moderate level and green
for the least potential for major impacts compared to others within the same grouping. The
color coded ranking is shown for each corridor on the following individual corridor map tables;
data source information and complete data tables are located in Appendix A.
The following detailed evaluation is organized around the following categories:
• MSP to Coates
• Union Depot to Coates
• Coates to Rochester
• Coates to RST
The discussion identifies the corridor alternatives that have been defined and provides a
rationale for excluding particular corridor alternatives for further consideration. Those corridor
alternatives that are not screened out at this stage will be reviewed a second time in the Level 2
screening step. In the following text, corridor alternatives that are listed in bold text in the
corridor definition section are those that were carried forward to level 2 screening.
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
19/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 13January 2016
Twin Cities Sub-area Corridor Alternatives
The first group of segments consists of corridor alternatives that would provide connections to
potential project termini within the Twin Cities subarea, including Target Field Station, Union
Depot and MSP Airport.
Corridor DefinitionThe corridors are defined as follows:
• IA-1 – Target Field Station to MSP via the existing Metro Blue Line LRT Corridor
• IU-1 – Target Field Station to Union Depot via Mississippi River crossing at Nicollet
Island and BNSF Midway Subdivision railroad line.
• IU-2 – Target Field Station to Union Depot via Mississippi crossing at Nicollet
Island and existing BNSF and CP railroad l ines (current Amtrak route)
• IU-3 – Target Field Station to Union Depot via the Metro Blue Line LRT right-of-
way, crossing the Mississippi River via the Soo Line Bridge and existing CP
Railroad line• AU-1 – MSP to Union Depot via a new Mississippi River crossing northeast of MSP, the
existing CP (Ford Spur) rail line, and a route in the vicinity of Seventh Street West
• AU-2 – MSP to Union Depot via a new Mississippi River crossing, UP Mankato Sub
rail line and Mississippi River cross ing on an existing railroad bridge
• AU-3 – MSP to Union Depot via the existing Metro Blue Line LRT right-of-way crossing
Mississippi River on the former Soo Line bridge and CP railroad line
Evaluation
These corridor alternatives were identified in the initial universe of alternatives because Target
Field Station was initially considered as an alternative terminal in the Twin Cities area.
However, all of these corridor segments were removed from further consideration as part of thisstudy for the following reasons:
• A review of the purpose and need for the project determined that MSP and/or Union
Depot provided the most logical termini in the Twin Cities.
• Potential corridor alternatives between MSP Airport and Target Field Station would
require a separate track to be built in a densely developed and highly traveled urban
corridor that is already served by light rail transit. The probability of a high level of
impacts to both the natural and built environments could be rationally assumed.
•
Potential corridor alternatives between MSP Airport and Union Depot involve eitherhighly developed dense urban corridors or require crossing the Mississippi River at a
new crossing in a highly sensitive area from both a cultural and environmental
perspective.
• Potential corridor alternatives between Union Depot and Target Field Station primarily
involve existing rail corridors that will be evaluated in the Twin Cities to Milwaukee High
Speed Rail Tier 1 EIS.
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
20/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 14January 2016
A direct connection from the south, without intermediate stops, to Target Field Station was not
deemed appropriate as a primary terminal for this project. Further consideration of Target Field
Station as a primary terminal was eliminated from this study and deferred to the Twin Cities to
Milwaukee study for conclusion about future passenger rail linkages.
SummaryIn summary, none of the alternatives are retained for further consideration in the Zip Rail Tier 1EIS. The following corridors were identified for consideration in future, separate studies.
• IA-1: Target Field Station to MSP via the existing Metro Blue Line LRT Corridor
• IU-2: Target Field Station to Union Depot via Mississippi crossing at Nicollet Island and
existing BNSF and CP railroad lines (current Amtrak route)
• IU-3: Target Field Station to Union Depot via the Metro Blue Line LRT right-of-way,
crossing the Mississippi River via the Soo Line Bridge and existing CP Railroad line
• AU-2: MSP to Union Depot via a new Mississippi River crossing, UP Mankato Sub rail
line and Mississippi River crossing on an existing railroad bridge
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
21/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 15January 2016
Figure 6Corridor Alternative IA-1 (Retained for separate study)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor IA-1: Target Field Station to MSP via the existing Metro Blue Line LRT corridor.
Corridor
Segment1A-1
Length (miles) 11.0
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
28
Redundancy Metro Blue Line
Impacts to Built
Environment
Limited space
available for
additional rail
service within
corridor
Impacts to
Natural
Environment
Potential for
impacts near
Minnehaha Park,
Highway 55/62 and
Fort Snelling
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
22/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 16January 2016
Figure 7Corridor Alternative IU-1 (Eliminate from further study)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor IU-1: Target Field Station to Union Depot via Mississippi River crossing at Nicollet
Island and BNSF Midway Subdivision railroad line.
Corridor
SegmentIU-1
Length (miles) 11.3
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
26
RedundancyExisting HSR Studyand Metro Green
Line LRT
Impacts to Built
Environment
Heaviest freight
traffic on existing
corridor compared
to other IU
corridors
Impacts to
Natural
Environment
Expanded
Mississippi River
crossing in
Minneapolis
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
23/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 17January 2016
Figure 8Corridor Alternative IU-2 (Retained for separate study)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor IU-2: Target Field Station to Union Depot via Mississippi River crossing at Nicollet
Island and existing BNSF and CP railroad lines (current Amtrak route).
Corridor
SegmentIU-2
Length (miles) 12.4
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)26
RedundancyExisting HSR Studyand Metro Green
Line LRT
Impacts to Built
Environment
High volume of
freight traffic on
existing corridor, but
less than the IU-1
corridor
Impacts to
Natural
Environment
Expanded Mississippi
River crossing in
Minneapolis
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
24/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 18January 2016
Figure 9Corridor Alternative IU-3 (Retained for separate study)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor IU-3: Target Field Station to Union Depot via the Metro Blue LRT Line right-of-way,
crossing the Mississippi River via the former Soo Line Bridge and existing CP railroad line.
Corridor
SegmentIU-3
Length (miles) 11.0
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
30
RedundancyExisting HSR Studyand Metro Green
Line LRT
Impacts to Built
Environment
High volume of
freight traffic on
existing corridor,
but less than the
IU-1 corridor
Impacts to
NaturalEnvironment
Expanded
Mississippi River
crossing in
Minneapolis on theformer Soo Line
bridge
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
25/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 19January 2016
Figure 10Comparative Evaluation Matrix IU Series
Corridor Alternatives IU-1, IU-2, IU-3
Recommendation Eliminate from furtherstudy
Retained for separatestudy
Retained for separatestudy
Corridor Segment IU-1 IU-2 IU-3
Length (miles) 11.3 12.4 11.0
Preliminary travel
time (minutes)26 26 30
Redundancy
Existing HSR Study
and Metro Green Line
LRT
Existing HSR Study
and Metro Green
Line LRT
Existing HSR Study andMetro Green Line LRT
Impacts to Built
Environment
Heaviest freight traffic
on existing corridor
compared to other IU
corridors
High volume of
freight traffic on
existing corridor,
but less than the
IU-1 corridor
High volume of freight
traffic on existing
corridor, but less than
the IU-1 corridor
Impacts to
Natural
Environment
Expanded Mississippi
River crossing in
Minneapolis
Expanded
Mississippi River
crossing in
Minneapolis
Expanded Mississippi
River crossing in
Minneapolis on the
former Soo Line bridge
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
26/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 20January 2016
Figure 11
Corridor Alternative AU-1 (Eliminate from further s tudy)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor AU-1: MSP to Union Depot via a new Mississippi River crossing northeast of MSP, the
existing CP (Ford Spur) rail line, and a route in the vicinity of Seventh Street West.
Corridor
SegmentAU-1
Length (miles) 8.1
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
10-12
Redundancy No redundantpassenger rail service
Impacts to Built
Environment
Potential impacts to
residential
neighborhoods in St.
Paul
Impacts to
NaturalEnvironment
Major impacts
associated with new
Mississippi River
crossing; Potential
impacts to parks,federal and historic
properties and Hwy
55/62 vicinity
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
27/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 21January 2016
Figure 12Corridor Alternative AU-2 (Retained for separate study)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor AU-2: MSP to Union Depot via new Minnesota River crossing, UP Mankato Sub rail
line and Mississippi River crossing on existing railroad bridge.
Corridor
SegmentAU-2
Length (miles) 9.6
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
12-14
RedundancyNo redundantpassenger rail
service
Impacts to Built
Environment
Moderate to high
volume of freight
traffic on existing
corridor.
Impacts to
NaturalEnvironment
Potential to use
existing rail
connection over
Mississippi River,
but major impactscould be
associated with
new Minnesota
River crossing
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
28/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 22January 2016
Figure 13Corridor Alternative AU-3 (Eliminate from further s tudy)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor AU-3: MSP to Union Depot via the existing Metro Blue Line LRT corridor, crossing
Mississippi River on the former Soo Line bridge and CP railroad line.
Corridor
SegmentAU-3
Length (miles) 13.0
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
20
Redundancy
No redundant
passenger rail
service between
these destinations
Impacts to Built
Environment
Limited space
available for
additional rail
service within
corridor closer to
MSP
Impacts to
Natural
Environment
Potential for
impacts near
Minnehaha Park,
Highway 55/62 and
Fort Snelling
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
29/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 23January 2016
Figure 14Comparative Evaluation Matrix AU Series
Corridor Al ternatives AU-1, AU-2, AU-3
Recommendation Eliminate from
further study
Retained for separate
study
Eliminate from
further study
Corridor Segment AU-1 AU-2 AU-3
Length (miles) 8.1 9.6 13.0
Preliminary travel
time (minutes)10-12 12-14 20
RedundancyNo redundantpassenger rail
service
No redundantpassenger rail
service
No redundantpassenger rail
service
Impacts to Built
Environment
Potential impacts
to residential
neighborhoods in
St. Paul
Moderate to high
volume of freight
traffic on existing
corridor
Limited space
available for
additional rail
service within
corridor closer to
MSP
Impacts to Natural
Environment
Major impacts
associated with
new Mississippi
River crossing;
Potential impacts
to parks, federal
and historic
properties andHwy 55/62 vicinity
Potential to use
existing rail
connection over
Mississippi River,
but major impacts
could be
associated with
new MinnesotaRiver crossing
Potential for
impacts near
Minnehaha Park,
Highway 55/62 and
Fort Snelling
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
30/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 24January 2016
MSP Airport to Coates
This group of segments consists of corridor alternatives that would provide connections
between the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and Coates, MN.
Corridor Definition
The corridors are defined as follows:
• AC-1A – MSP to Coates via a new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to I-494 for
a portion of its length, then veering northeast to match an abandoned rail segment east
of the river; then along MN 55 and US 52 corridors.
• AC-1B – MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the exist ing
I-494 bridge for its full length, and then along MN 55 and US 52 corridors.
• AC-2A – MSP to Coates via a new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to I-494 for
a portion of its length, then veering northeast to match an abandoned rail segment east
of the river. Then along Dakota County Road 71 corridor (Rich Valley Blvd.), and US 52
corridor.• AC-2B – MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the exist ing
I-494 bridge for its full length, Dakota County Road 71 corridor (Rich Valley Blvd.)
and US 52 corridor.
• AC-3A – MSP to Coates via a new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to I-494 for
a portion of its length, then veering northeast to match an abandoned rail segment east
of the river. Then along existing CP and UP rail corridors, to US 52 corridor.
• AC-3B – MSP to Coates via new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to the existing
I-494 bridge for its full length and existing CP and UP rail corridors to US 52 corridor.
• AC-4 – MSP to Coates via Minnesota 77/Cedar Avenue and Dakota County Road 46
(160th Street) to US 52 corridor.
Evaluation
The alternatives identified above utilize one of two locations for crossing the Minnesota River.
Corridor Alternatives AC-1A/B, AC-2A/B and AC-3A/B assume a crossing of the Minnesota
River valley parallel to the existing I-494 highway bridge, which crosses the river on an east-
west alignment. Corridor Alternative AC-4 assumes a crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent
to the Cedar Avenue Bridge.
I-494 Crossing
For corridor alternatives AC-1, 2 and 3, the proposed alignment crosses the Minnesota River
adjacent to and on the north side of the I-494 Bridge. The exact design and impact of the bridge
would need to be determined in preliminary design but of all the possible crossing points in thisvicinity, remaining adjacent to the existing bridge would minimize environmental impacts on a
very sensitive area that includes the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and other state
and federally protected areas when compared to crossing the river at a location that does not
already have a bridge.
The ‘B’ sub-alternatives remain adjacent to the bridge and continue to parallel I-494 after
crossing the river. However, the ‘A’ alternatives swing northward after crossing the river and
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
31/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 25January 2016
connect to an abandoned railroad right-of-way. While the ‘A’ alternatives have less interaction
with I-494, the impact on sensitive areas along the Minnesota River is far greater.
Therefore, AC-1A, AC-2A and AC-3A are eliminated from further consideration.
Corridors AC-1B, AC-2B and AC-3B follow I-494 after crossing the Minnesota River to the
vicinity of the I-494/I-35E interchange. Corridor AC-1B shifts to State Highway 55, following that
roadway to US Highway 52 and then to Coates. Corridor AC-2B shifts to State Highway 55 and
follows that roadway to County Road 71 (Rich Valley Blvd.) whereupon the corridor follows
County Road 71 to the Union Pacific Railroad, follows the roadway to US Highway 52 and then
to Coates. Corridor AC-3B shifts to a railroad alignment that parallels State Highway 149 and
State Highway 3 to Rosemount where it turns east to intersect with US Highway 52 at Coates.
In comparing the three corridors between the I-494/I35E interchange and Coates, AC-3B is the
longest in distance and the least direct. AC-3B also has significant impacts on the built
environment, particularly in Rosemount.
Therefore AC-3B is eliminated from further consideration.
Cedar Avenue Crossing
Corridor AC-4 crosses the Minnesota River adjacent to State Highway 77 (Cedar Avenue),
following that roadway to Dakota County Road 46 (160th Street), then to US Highway 52 and
Coates. This corridor is longest in distance and least direct of all AC corridor alternatives with
significantly greater travel time. In addition, the Highway 77 corridor is highly developed and
construction of a new rail alignment would have significant impact on residential and commercial
structures. (Redundancy with the METRO Red Line is irrelevant because the high speed rail
line would have no stops along the Red Line and therefore would not be in competition with it.)
Therefore AC-4 is eliminated from further consideration.
Summary
In summary, the following alternatives are retained for further consideration:
• AC-1B: MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the existing I-494
bridge for its full length, and then along MN 55 and US 52 corridors.
• AC-2B: MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the existing I-494
bridge for its full length, Dakota County Road 71 corridor (Rich Valley Blvd.) and US 52
corridor.
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
32/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 26January 2016
Figure 15Corridor Alternative AC-1A (Eliminate from further study)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor AC-1A: MSP to Coates via a new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to I-494 for
a portion of its length, then veering northeast to match an abandoned rail segment east of the
river; then along MN 55 and US 52 corridors.
Corridor
SegmentAC-1A
Length (miles) 18.5
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
20-22
Redundancy
No redundant
passenger rail
service in this
segment
Impacts to Built
Environment
Potential for
impacts to adjacent
residential and
commercial
developments along
MN 55 and US 52
Impacts to
Natural
Environment
Major impactsassociated with new
Minnesota River
crossing and at Fort
Snelling State Park
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
33/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 27January 2016
Figure 16Corridor Alternative AC-1B (Advance to Level 2 Screening)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor AC-1B: MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the existing I-494
bridge for its full length, and then along MN 55 and US 52 corridors.
Corridor
SegmentAC-1B
Length (miles) 18.5
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
20-22
Redundancy
No redundantpassenger rail
service in this
segment
Impacts to Built
Environment
Potential for
impacts to adjacent
residential and
commercial
developments along
MN 55 and US 52
Impacts toNatural
Environment
Impacts associated
with newMinnesota River
crossing are less
than other AC
corridors
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
34/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 28January 2016
Figure 17Corridor Alternative AC-2A (Eliminate from further study)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor AC-2A: MSP to Coates via a new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to I-494 for
a portion of its length, then veering northeast to match an abandoned rail segment east of the
river. Then along Dakota County Road 71 corridor (Rich Valley Blvd.), and US 52 corridor.
Corridor
SegmentAC-2A
Length (miles) 17.6
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
20-21
Redundancy
No redundant
passenger rail service
in this segment
Impacts to Built
Environment
Potential for impacts
to fewer adjacent
residential and
commercial
developments along
Rich Valley Blvd
corridor when
compared to AC-1
corridors
Impacts to
Natural
Environment
Major impacts
associated with new
Minnesota River
crossing and at Fort
Snelling State Park
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
35/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 29January 2016
Figure 18Corridor Alternative AC-2B (Advance to Level 2 Screening)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor AC-2B: MSP to Coates via new Minnesota River crossing adjacent to the existing I-
494 bridge for its full length, Dakota County Road 71 corridor (Rich Valley Blvd.) and US 52
corridor.
Corridor
SegmentAC-2B
Length (miles) 17.4
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
20-21
Redundancy
No redundant
passenger rail
service in this
segment
Impacts to Built
Environment
Potential for fewer
existing property
impacts along Rich
Valley Blvd corridor
when compared to
AC-1 corridors
Impacts to
Natural
Environment
Impacts associated
with new
Minnesota River
crossing are less
than other AC
corridors
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
36/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 30January 2016
Figure 19Corridor Alternative AC-3A (Eliminate from further study)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor AC-3A: MSP to Coates via a new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to I-494 for
a portion of its length, then veering northeast to match an abandoned rail segment east of the
river. Then along existing CP and UP rail corridors to US 52 corridor.
Corridor
SegmentAC-3A
Length (miles) 21.2
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
22-26
Redundancy
No redundant
passenger rail
service in this
segment
Impacts to Built
Environment
Potential for
conflicts with
existing freight rail
operations near
Rosemount
Impacts to
Natural
Environment
Major impacts
associated with new
Minnesota River
crossing and at Fort
Snelling State Park
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
37/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 31January 2016
Figure 20Corridor Alternative AC-3B (Eliminate from further study)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor AC-3B: MSP to Coates via new crossing of the Minnesota River adjacent to the
existing I-494 bridge for its full length and existing CP and UP rail corridors to US 52 corridor.
Corridor
SegmentAC-3B
Length (miles) 20.9
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
21-25
Redundancy
No redundant
passenger rail servicein this segment
Impacts to Built
Environment
Potential for conflicts
with existing freight
rail operations near
Rosemount
Impacts to
Natural
Environment
Impacts associated
with new Minnesota
River crossing are
less than other AC
corridors
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
38/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 32January 2016
Figure 21Comparative Evaluation Matrix AC Series
Corridor Alternatives AC-1A, AC-1B, AC-2A, AC-2B, AC-3A, AC-3B
Recommendation Eliminate from
further study
Advance to Level
2 Screening
Eliminate from
further study
Advance to Level
2 Screening
Eliminate from
further study
Eliminate from
further study
Corridor
SegmentAC-1A AC-1B AC-2A AC-2B AC-3A AC-3B
Length (miles) 18.5 18.5 17.6 17.4 21.2 20.9
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
20-22 20-22 20-21 20-21 22-26 21-25
Redundancy
No
redundant
passenger
rail service in
this segment
No
redundant
passenger
rail service in
this segment
No
redundant
passenger
rail service in
this segment
No
redundant
passenger
rail service in
this segment
No
redundant
passenger
rail servicein this
segment
No
redundant
passenger
rail servicein this
segment
Impacts to
Built
Environment
Potential for
impacts to
adjacent
residential and
commercial
development
along MN 55
and US 52
Potential for
impacts to
adjacent
residential
and
commercial
development
along MN 55
and US 52
Potential for
impacts to
fewer
adjacent
residential
and
commercial
developments
along Rich
Valley Blvd
corridor when
compared to
AC-1 corridors
Potential for
fewer existing
property
impacts along
Rich Valley
Blvd corridor
when
compared to
AC-1 corridors
Potential for
conflicts with
existing
freight rail
operations
near
Rosemount
Potential for
conflicts with
existing
freight rail
operations
near
Rosemount
Impacts to
Natural
Environment
Major
impacts
associated
with new
Minnesota
River
crossing and
at Fort
Snelling
State Park
Impacts
associated
with new
Minnesota
River
crossing are
less than
other AC
corridors
Major
impacts
associated
with new
Minnesota
River
crossing and
at Fort
Snelling
State Park
Impacts
associated
with new
Minnesota
River
crossing are
less than
other AC
corridors
Major
impacts
associated
with new
Minnesota
River
crossing
and at Fort
Snelling
State Park
Impacts
associated
with new
Minnesota
River
crossing are
less than
other AC
corridors
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
39/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 33January 2016
Figure 22Corridor Alternative AC-4 (Eliminate from further study)Evaluation Matrix and Location
Corridor AC-4: MSP to Coates via Minnesota 77/Cedar Avenue and Dakota County Road 46
(160th Street) to US 52 corridor.
Corridor
SegmentAC-4
Length (miles) 22.7
Preliminary
travel time
(minutes)
34
Redundancy
Metro Red Line BRT
serves a portion of
this segment
Impacts to Built
Environment
Potential for major
impacts to existing
commercial
developments along
Cedar Avenue
Impacts to
NaturalEnvironment
Expanded Minnesota
River crossing
adjacent to MN 77
south of MSP
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
40/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 34January 2016
Union Depot to Coates
This group of segments consists of corridor alternatives that would provide connections
between Union Depot and Coates, MN.
Corridor DefinitionThe corridors are defined as follows:
• UC-1A – Union Depot to Coates via existing BNSF and CP rail lines, with Mississippi
River crossing near the former Rock Island swing bridge in St. Paul Park/Inver Grove
Heights onto the UP line west of the Mississippi River
• UC-1B – Union Depot to Coates via exist ing BNSF and CP rail l ines, with
Mississippi River crossing to the UP line near I-494/Newport
• UC-1C – Union Depot to Coates via existing BNSF and CP rail lines, with Mississippi
River crossing to the UP lines south of I-494 in St. Paul Park
• UC-2A – Union Depot to Coates via existing UP rail line, with an existing Mississippi
River railroad crossing near Pig’s Eye Lake• UC-2B – Union Depot to Coates via existing UP rail line, with a Mississippi River
cross ing adjacent to the existing Robert Street railroad bridge
• UC-3A – Union Depot to Coates via existing BNSF and CP rail lines, with a new or
rehabilitated Mississippi River crossing in Hastings and through an abandoned rail
corridor, including a new crossing of the Vermillion River
• UC-3B – Union Depot to Cannon Falls via existing BNSF and CP rail lines, with a
crossing of the Vermillion River and the US 61 corridor to Cannon Falls.
• UC-4A – Union Depot to Coates via the Union Pacific (Mankato Subdivision) line, with
Mississippi River crossing on existing railroad swing bridge, with an intermediate stop in
the vicinity of MSP, then south to Coates on a corridor adjacent to MN 55 and US 52
• UC-4B – Union Depot to Coates via the Union Pacific (Mankato Subdivision) line,with Mississippi River crossing on existing railroad swing bridge, with an
intermediate stop in the vicinity of MSP, then south to Coates near the Dakota
County 71 (Rich Valley Blvd) cor ridor to US 52 corridor
EvaluationThe above described alternatives depart the Union Depot over different existing rail lines
including:
1. BNSF and CP to the southeast,
2. Union Pacific to the southeast,
3. Union Pacific to the southwest or4. Union Pacific to the south.
The alternatives also vary according to where the Mississippi River is crossed including one of
the following:
1. The former Rock Island swing bridge area in St. Paul Park/Inver Grove Heights
2. Near the I-494 highway bridge in Newport
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
41/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 35January 2016
3. South of I-494 in St. Paul Park
4. Existing Union Pacific railroad crossing near Pig’s Eye Lake
5. Existing Union Pacific Robert Street railroad bridge
6. New or rehabilitated Mississippi River crossing in Hastings
7. The existing Union Pacific railroad swing bridge west of downtown St Paul
The location of the Mississippi River crossing determines the route south or west of the River to
Coates.
BNSF/CP to the Southeast – UC-1 Alternatives
The UC-1 alternatives extend from Union Depot southeast over BNSF and CP tracks along the
east side of the Mississippi River then cross to the west side of the Mississippi River and
continue south on the UP line to the US 52 corridor to Coates. A new crossing of the
Mississippi River would be required. The three UC-1 alternatives differ in the location of the
new crossing.
North of a future river crossing, these alternatives utilize active freight lines, which raise issues
of capacity and coordination with freight traffic. On the other hand, this corridor would share thesame track with existing Amtrak Empire Builder service, potential Red Rock commuter rail
service and future high speed passenger rail service between the Twin Cities and Chicago.
Several projects, documented in the East Metro Rail Capacity Study, the Twin Cities to
Milwaukee HSR study and the Red Rock Corridor Study identify new construction through
Dayton’s Bluff/Hoffman yards.
South of a future river crossing, the corridor follows the existing Union Pacific right-of-way south
to the US 52 corridor to Coates.
The principal differentiation between the three alternatives is the location of a potential
Mississippi River crossing:
• UC-1A – The former Rock Island swing bridge area in St. Paul Park/Inver Grove Heights
• UC-1B – Near the I-494 highway bridge in Newport
• UC-1C – South of I-494 in St. Paul Park
All three potential crossings are problematic from an environmental perspective because each
represents a new crossing of the Mississippi River. A new bridge would also need to
accommodate river navigation, suggesting either a swing or lift bridge due to the difficulty of
attaining the requiring height clearance for a railroad bridge. Although the Rock Island Swing
Bridge was formerly used as a railroad bridge, only part of the bridge remains and is now used
as a park, raising 4F concerns. In addition, the Rock Island Bridge formerly entered theproperty of the St. Paul Park refinery; there would be security concerns raised if efforts were
made to construct a new bridge into that area. A bridge crossing near St. Paul Park would
require a longer bridge and a longer stretch of greenfield alignment on the east side of the river
than a new bridge near the I-494 highway crossing. The latter also has the advantage of being
near an existing river crossing, which would presumably reduce the visual impact. Of the three
river crossing alternatives, the location near I-494 is most favorable.
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
42/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 36January 2016
Therefore, UC-1A and UC-1C are eliminated from further consideration.
Union Pacific to the South or Southeast – UC-2 Alternatives
The UC-2 alternatives extend from Union Depot over Union Pacific tracks, cross the Mississippi
River and continue south on the UP line to the US 52 corridor to Coates. In both cases, an
existing crossing of the Mississippi River would be utilized. The two UC-2 alternatives differ in
the location of the existing crossing.
North of a future river crossing, these alternatives utilize active freight lines, which raise issues
of capacity and coordination with freight traffic. However, in contrast to the UC-1 alternatives,
the distance travelled along the existing passenger corridor is much shorter. South of a future
river crossing, the corridor follows the existing Union Pacific right-of-way south to where the
Union Pacific swings to the west towards Rosemount. South of this point, the corridor follows a
path west of the Flint Hills Refinery then southeast to the US 52 corridor to Coates.
The principal differentiation between the two alternatives is the location of the existing
Mississippi River crossing:
• UC-2A – The existing UP bridge near Pig’s Eye Lake
• UC-2B – The existing UP bridge near Robert Street
In both cases, the Union Pacific railroad line is used directly out of the Union Depot. And in both
cases, the proposed passenger service crosses the Mississippi River at the location of an
existing Union Pacific bridge. The difference between the two alternatives is how to get to those
bridges. The path to the southeast is complicated by the necessity of crossing BNSF and CP
railroad tracks to get first to the Union Pacific St. Paul Hoffman yard and then by the necessity
of going through the yard and around the Metropolitan Council’s wastewater treatment facility.
Crossing the Mississippi River directly from Union Depot near the Robert Street Bridge requires
crossing the CP mainline tracks but at this location there is a very low volume and trains do nothave to leave the Union Pacific tracks. The UC-2B alternative would provide access into Union
Depot without the freight congestion associated with the UC-2A alternative through the Dayton’s
Bluff/Hoffman Yards area.
Therefore, UC-2A is eliminated from further consideration.
BNSF/CP to the southeast – Mississippi River Crossing at Hastings – UC-3 alternatives
The UC-3 alternatives extend from Union Depot southeast over BNSF and CP tracks along the
east side of the Mississippi River to Hastings, MN, cross the Mississippi River and proceed to
either Coates or Cannon Falls. A new or rehabilitated crossing of the Mississippi River and a
new crossing of the Vermillion River would be required. The two UC-3 alternatives differ in thepath taken south of Hastings.
North of a future river crossing, these alternatives utilize active freight lines, which raise issues
of capacity and coordination with freight traffic. On the other hand, this corridor would share the
same track with existing Amtrak Empire Builder service, potential Red Rock commuter rail
service and future high speed passenger rail service between the Twin Cities and Chicago.
Several projects, documented in the East Metro Rail Capacity Study, the Twin Cities to
-
8/20/2019 Alternatives Analysis Rpt Jan2016
43/166
Alternatives Analysis Report Page 37January 2016
Milwaukee HSR study and the Red Rock Corridor Study identify new construction through
Dayton’s Bluff/Hoffman yards.
In contrast to the UC-1 alternatives, the UC-3 alternatives parallel the BNSF/CP tracks for a
longer distance. But the East Metro Rail Capacity Study recognized the need for capacity
improvements at least as far as Hastings to accommodate passenger rail service. These
alternatives would utilize infrastructure that would already be carrying high speed passenger
trains.
The principal differentiation between the two alternatives is the path followed south of Hastings:
• UC-3A – This corridor follows an abandoned railroad alignment through the Vermillion
River Valley between Hastings and Coates
• UC-3B – This corridor crosses the Vermillion River and follows the US Highway 61
corridor to Cannon Falls.
South of Hastings, both of these alternatives are problematic. Neither follows an existing