Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Consider comments for the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan 4 ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Regular Meeting: November 3, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: Consider comments for the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and AGENDA �TIQN: Passenger Rail Plan N Vl PREPARED BY: Dwight Johnson, City Administrator AGENDA NO. qa ATTACHMENTS: Proposed comment letter; Summary sheet on two proposed rail routes; APPROVED BY: excerpts from other high -speed rail documents p� RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve a letter from the Mayor to the Minnesota Department of Transportation favoring the Rochester Route for a High -Speed Rail line from the Twin Cities to Chicago. BACKGROUND In 2008, the Minnesota Legislature mandated that MnDot prepare a statewide plan for freight and passenger rail service by the end of 2009. MnDot has been taking public input throughout October. One of the subjects of the statewide plan is possible high speed rail service between the Twin Cities and Chicago. Federal ARRA stimulus funds of about $8 billion have been earmarked for the development of high speed passenger rail service throughout the country. On October 27 the Mayor and several staff members from the City of Rochester organized a meeting with Burnsville, Apple Valley and Rosemount Mayors and staff to discuss the high -speed rail options. Two major options under consideration for high -speed rail service to Chicago include the River Route which would travel through Hastings, Red Wing and Winona and the Rochester Route which would travel through the southern metro suburbs on an existing rail line with a new rail corridor to Rochester. Rochester, Olmstead County and others commissioned a technical study that compares the two routes. The study suggests that the Rochester Route should include a stop in the southern suburbs, probably in the Rosemount area. DISCUSSION Information from the Rochester group, including a table comparing the two routes, indicates that the Rochester Route would serve about twice as large of a population and employment base at an additional expense of about 17 The studies also show that the Rochester Route should have better operating margins and that this route has the future potential for speeds up to 220 mph. The maximum speed along the River Route, even after upgrades, is projected to be about 110 mph. The main arguments for the River Route are that an existing rail corridor could be used and the project could be ready to go to attract some of the currently allocated $8 billion of federal stimulus funding. The concern about the Rochester Route is that it entails a new corridor with acquisition of land and potentially use of eminent domain needed to establish the corridor. This could take time and cause the first round of funding to be missed. The concern about the River Route, however, is that existing freight traffic and the topography along the river will never allow true high speed train travel. It is suggested that this route should continue to retain its current Amtrak service which is more appropriate to the conditions. Rochester representatives are encouraging MnDot to take a longer view, since the high speed rail will last for generations similar to the Interstate Highway system. Some observers believe that more funding for high speed rail will be included in the new federal Transportation Bill next year, especially since high speed rail is clearly a priority for the new Administration in Washington. They also note that most of the new rail corridor would be through open land. Finally, the Rochester Route is said to have more flexibility to serve the airport and Minneapolis in addition to the southern suburbs. Enclosed for the Council use is the executive summary of the Tri -State III High -Speed Rail Study. This study was commissioned by the Southeastern Minnesota Rail Alliance which includes Rochester and Olmstead County. The other information is from MnDot who has prepared various technical memos relating to various freight and passenger rail issues. These memos will be the basis of the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan. Staff has included Section 3.5 from the first technical memo which gives a brief overview of existing and potential passenger rail lines. The entire Passenger Rail System; technical memorandum 3 is also included, although rail information unrelated to the Rochester or River Routes has been omitted. Additionally, the conclusion from the 4th memo has also been attached along with the "tier rankings" of the various routes. While all the routes are listed please note the St. Paul to Hastings and Hastings to Winona (comprising the River Route) are listed as High in Potential Ridership, Fair in Track Condition, and High in Available Capacity. The St. Paul, Owatonna, Rochester routes is rated as Medium in Potential Ridership, Fair in Track Condition and High in Available Capacity. The more direct route from Rochester to St. Paul, through Rosemount, is not specifically included because new track would have to be constructed. All the technical memorandums can be found at http: /www. dot. state. mn. us planning /railplan /resources.html. Additional information about the Southeastern Minnesota Rail Alliance and the full Rail Study can be found at http: /semnrail.org RECOMMENDATION The argument that the Rochester Route would serve twice the population and employment base (including the Mayo Clinic) with only a marginal additional cost seems compelling, as does the argument that more funding will be made available for high speed trains in the future. For Rosemount, having a stop in our area for such an important transportation service would positively influence our long range economic development prospects both at UMore and elsewhere. Rosemount has plenty of relatively open land in the eastern portion of our community to accommodate both a possible rail corridor and a station without negatively affecting existing neighborhoods. Accordingly, a letter has been drafted to support the Rochester Route in the state's plan and staff recommends approval of it. 2 ROSEMOLINT MINNESOTA November 4, 2009 Mr. Dave Christianson Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Freight, Rail Waterways Mail Stop 470 395 John Ireland Blvd Saint Paul, MN 55155 Dear Mr. Christianson: We have recently been informed that MnDot is accepting public comment on the 2009 Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan. We are particularly interested in commenting on the portion of the plan that relates to high -speed rail between Chicago and the Twin Cities. Two main routes through Minnesota have been proposed: the River Route and the Rochester Route. The Rochester Route would entail a new rail corridor dedicated to high speed rail operations with a proposed south suburban stop in or near Rosemount. We understand that there ate good reasons to consider the River Route, but we respectfully request that the Rochester Route be designated as the preferred route in the State plan. The Rochester Route would serve areas of Minnesota with about twice as much population and twice as many employees for an estimated cost that is only 17% more than the River Route. In addition, the Rochester Route would not have conflicts with freight trains and could eventually accommodate speeds up to 220 mph. The River Route will never achieve these speeds due to topographic conditions and freight train conflicts. As a result, net operating margins are expected to be significantly higher for the Rochester Route. As a member of the Transportation Committee of the National League of Cities, the direction of transportation planning at the national level is to separate freight traffic from passenger rail traffic as much as possible in the future, since freight traffic is already clogging many rail lines around the country. Investing over $800 million in the River Route which is shared with freight traffic would be contrary to good long -term planning policy. SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS Rosemount City Hall 2875 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 651-423-4411 TDD /TTY 651-423-6219 Fax 651-423-5203 www.ci.rosemount.mn.us Finally, the Rochester Route with a south suburban stop would serve the heart of the rapidly growing Dakota County which already has a population of nearly 400,000 and is projected to be over 500,000 by 2030. Here in Rosemount, the Rochester Route would benefit future development at UMore Park which is owned by the University of Minnesota. The University Board of Regents has approved a concept plan showing 20- 30,000 additional population in this 5,000 acre tract along with a major new business park near the Highway 52 corridor. The planned UMore Park development is not even included in the overall County growth estimates yet. Please consider these facts as the plan is finalized and consider what is best for the long range future of the State, not just the next few years. On behalf of the Rosemount City Council, which approved this letter at its November 3, 2009 meeting, we believe that these facts point strongly toward the Rochester Route as the preferred alternative for Minnesota. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, William Droste, Mayor City of Rosemount a a) c a) O Q E u) O E O U V! O V) cs N as a) 1 0 a) o 3 O) o U O i "O w O Q m L a•. 0. N C p i m c cn a 0. i) u) u m N L 3 O i N t o 3 a) t� O 3 m- O 4,=•" v H v el o. W C O N) R L O 0 0 m O 0 u, O 0 0 v O 8 y c z n N V 15 a co c m m E as i i. o c m E c n o o cc 'a o f O p M c N et a) O U qr M CC 14'_ c co o co ww++ 0 m a_ m W Q v m 'c o M c _1.. C m 0 :f n m m -v ,C 5 c m m 0 Eo a 03 :,.,3 N a) u 0 4, ci d o as 44.. co 0- 3 v o a c N't ro a a— icsc o c asE E C CI. L R 0 L CL, 0 E R� o m m N a.. C u) O V N m N O Q m W y a an co c to LL1 to m V c c a s N m N m Q} H m E N m TS U a U cA i1 (o m L N Q) T N m m C r .4 p; S a Q L R r CP c=0 •er ca N M O 0 L 0. 3 to m p N rio o m H m ea a oo v ea m R o W 0 CD u v a g w a) N a p o m E i m. 0 O !o 0 0 to 0 s L. 0 O U C) y W; 0 c a a 1 t 0 1 a) v) u) E O a o O E 0 0 o f L L M N a) E -a c ir o m O 0 w co ea �N 4 3 7�. H c°'a a c -4y o a� 19 CO O 2 E E :d' u g d E Q m a 0 0_ 3 y c �C� EE ai E Oct; °o ea o s c Z N O ti M N a 7 U W O O O O O ,Y -0 O ti O N 'I m O co c) 'C a) rt r r r W N .ti- r-- 4A !R e- 2 Ce P-- 0 G a) -a Lf O a) O Z c, u) 1 C C O (C 7 t/3 It 7l ,t71 t7k 1�' L C p o c S m E 0 s- 0 m 0 m c O W C E E w O 3 O to O C o 0 L E E c) N O N 4) a) Q .c u) O O O F c m F .5 too U 3— ci c) CO m m a N N LL N V V O C cn C z F. N i V v d .0 C i Gm L OW R F- CU W C c0 .c CL U O O en c./ LU e m R 0, m o o 8 a N v a. a T 7 T e (n t, PREPARED FOR THE SOUTHEASTERN MINNESOTA RAIL ALLIANCE Ili !H GH. 'IL 'S TUDY .Nivik-ri r uft L,_.-i _$piED [RA till s _EssmENT At. SEGMENT n ;AL_\_. -1/46:_ 4*1 YL.1---.. -"-.4--"Pi --e-,-...,,,,,,,,,,,':,,,---,:,-,i r;t 1 "k I LIM ti .,,,L 7,.=- 7 P i i 1 ,,,...,-;:,ti. --.4...s=;,.....-- ..y I 111111.111111111111111r 6 'J''' ry .L. ,1141:. '111."" j1;=;g=1 ''..afj'. 0 r j... r■.. r 4 r ..t, -01 e .,;r 7, 10 .:''''4,..,' 7 s' '''';'.4- r r 1:1:' .e j i ,.L.. (#11 c t ..41e4 ..0 1 4: ',1,,... L4 e or.L.,,,, ..7 gs., •;:::t A' ::.;‘.1.1‘,•-`47-.L.....'..:::: 3.1* '14 )'"'.:""-'`',7q,,_,Pilikl.j."..* ,-;i4 _.,.4,..,•„„),,,.... la =;tv...erv 177-t4;.;tv ,,,„,•)k,- 0 .4.14:'-' 1 1 ..;•=4,,',4?_...:A•!1, 4....*:;:',...139.4......''''i44i °':•.66-..' ..447"-r...... Al :4, ''...;•44.... la ...e„,ei 4.- .,,A,* oi.7-1 g .„_,.....7„,_ .......„---.4 a, -0-3■-.1 r.:,1;::*°_. 4,4 '1 6 e41.4,:lijoillir.41■4"` '1'..1r.41f f le .4.4 t'i 4" if#4p;%tsritio■ Y 7 °Nr ,,..,p et' ...AL- ,...,0,,,tor,444., .4 -)40i_d': ,,Act:..**,4 11- --;,,,,g4.0:4•4‘' ICtilie`141S- r',.-;-1444" V .1 ,x.ri, -'",;1 6 ,I. A;4411F77:47,,, ict C 1.: s "P',;. ,fr.1 i 1. 0 4- 1 i l, -0:0:0i-iiii-iP,11 .N 4 1 1;0;1 4 4 7' 7 ,f'-' .4,1$ s:..414 ti ...:ra A I 4 ''4k.r.--. ,e,-,...•'si"::!9`,*4 W 4 4 1 1 T -Jr' 0„...F. 4,t ..,,k",-■*-- 0„.-A,....',‘ 0 11 .,e1"1" A #75 livy" L. 7 1 *9*^..:' to i e L .,....:?rPir.t.4,..., ,Vi.. A,' "t. c. 4 4. 4iTe! k.t.....!.:..- _„,„,:r.f.:,4;":,, $`1!:` t,,,■,,,,, 4 __„7,. rifa ei 4 1 4. 7,, ti, Ai A -,,p, .7,, ,;,...,-,trr#,,,v,... vetie-40-1., r 'f r. 41 1r .2var r ..d..4A A 4 4 4 a ?,e A',..'"i AT: yr "r,::: cf ,1.,,,,--:1 jkoz ....7.. -'-"t'L"- ''''''f'74.r*?% A FertA0 21r '6' SEPTEMBER 2009 PREPARED BY TRANSPORTATION E coNomics 8, MANAG SYSTEMS, INC. r r '....1.,:: r: I. .rc'.;;;'...-er ',.L.;,. r ,....:.1 ''r'n' 7,:,;,'1',;',... r.!' :.,:r r'r T r TRI- STATE 111 HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Preparation of the Tri- State III High- Speed Rail Study was commissioned by the Southeast Minnesota Rail Alliance to update the technical analysis of the previous Tri- State II Study'. A key element of this update study is to focus more specifically on the Minnesota segment of the Chicago- Milwaukee- Twin Cities corridor for the purpose of preparing a comparative evaluation of using the existing Amtrak route along the Mississippi River versus a route serving the City of Rochester. The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) has always considered the River Route, while the Tri- State study has always considered both the River and Rochester routes. The scope of the Tri- State High- Speed Rail studies has always been to look beyond the MWRRI and develop the most effective case for high- speed rail development in the Chicago- Milwaukee Twin Cities corridor. This is particularly important for Minnesota where the use of high- speed rail above 110 mph dramatically changes the approach to route development. While the MWRRI provides a vision and justification for the entire eight state corridor system of the Upper Midwest, it has not optimized the routes for each state, leaving it open to each state to identify the most effective route. For example, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, and Missouri have all modified their original routes from the initial city to city corridors identified in order to optimize the system from their state's perspective. In carrying out these modifications, it has been agreed to by the states participating in the MWRRI that Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) evaluation criteria should be used, and that no decision would be made to reduce the overall performance for the entire system. This means that state modifications must at least be equal or better than the original route relative to the initial financial and economic returns identified by the MWRRI. In the case of Minnesota, a question has existed since the original 1991 Tri- State I High- Speed Rail Study, as to whether the best option is to use the River Route to St. Paul Union Station with stops at Red Wing and Hastings, or to develop a route through Rochester to St. Paul Union Station with stops at Rochester and in the south suburban area of the Twin Cities. The south suburban station would serve the highly populated Rosemount /Apple Valley area and, with Rochester, is a much higher population density corridor. In Tri- State III, various route options have been studied as illustrated in the route alignment map on the following page. As in previous studies, multiple types of train technologies were considered: the 1 10- mph diesel train that is planned as the base service for the MWRRI, and a 150-220 mph electric train that would provide a true high- speed option and could significantly alter the regional intercity travel market in the Upper Midwest if it were to be introduced. To carry out this process, TEMS used the same methodology, models and inputs as the MWRRI and previous Tri- State studies, with all study data updated to 2008 values to reflect current socio- economic and transportation conditions for factors such as income levels and fuel prices. As in the previous studies, the methodology reflects that adopted by the FRA for intercity passenger rail analysis. These methods are intended for use in both feasibility and investment- The Tri- State II Study was prepared in 1998 through joint funding from the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation for the purpose of identifying a preferred alignment for the southern corridor recommended for development in the original Tri- State High- Speed Rail Study. Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -1 TRI- STATE 111 HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY level studies, and are clearly superior to high- level sketch planning tools that do not have the level of refinement or robust database to provide accurate estimates. To evaluate the options, the Tri- State III Study reflects market changes that occurred between 1998 and 2008 in the Chicago- Milwaukee- Twin Cities high- speed rail corridor and generates updated ridership and revenue forecasts. The study also updates various cost factors in order to prepare current estimates of operating and capital costs. Finally, financial and economic returns for route alternatives were assessed to see how well each alternative performed in relation to key FRA threshold criteria, such as Operating Ratio and Cost- Benefit Ratio. e� Route Alignments for Tri -State II and III Studies j i 0 ST. PAUL t LEGEND ►41 W W. v# 1 p Greenfield Rafe t�� MSP R4 h W ro te r rY ear River Rou te r DM&E Rafe se. Roe.E unt 1 r. k r J r 7. 01 1 Rochester Int. .6 r ..r Airport L ..,v In this study, as in previous Tri- State studies, it was found that because the Rochester Route serves a significantly larger population and employment base, it will capture a larger share of the market for intercity trips in the Upper Midwest region. Furthermore, this demographic advantage is enhanced because the Rochester Route serves a unique submarket made up of Mayo Clinic patients and visitors estimated at over 2 million persons annually. As a result, the Rochester Route produces the most financially and economically viable high- speed alternative for Minnesota to implement. As a consequence, the Tri- State III Study reaffirms the long- term advantages of the Rochester Route versus the River Route. Changes that have occurred in the last ten years in terms of the regional economy and population growth, as well as changes in travel costs (such as higher fuel prices), and the increase in freight traffic on the River Route, only reinforce the results of these earlier studies. r ,J /'VJV Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -2 TRI- STATE 111 HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Technologies Evaluated in the Tri-State III Study Talgo T -21 fT 76 ',,„4;rii 2, 2,.,..•••.... ,.......-;',7 7,. 7 '_i;; 4 7: 110 mph Diesel Acela Express 1 bur' I i e i I 9 ,.s a ywswaa 1 lit i F 212,7 N i�r. .c�nci .r (4( Y i, 4 [rf. E A i .0 2;T"._.Y ."'s` lief ✓.r•.r.r. «...eY.4 V �stJ =S 150 -220 mph Electric Train Ws/ Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -3 TRI- STATE 11I HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY KEY STUDY FINDINGS The 2009 Tri- State III Study demonstrates that Capital costs for the River Route to implement the base MWRRI diesel passenger train service to St. Paul Union Station are similar to the capital costs to develop the base service on a Rochester route to St. Paul when the infrastructure investment is designed to provide for similar service frequency and reliability. When comparing implementation of the base diesel passenger train service on both routes, the Rochester Route permits faster train speeds to be achieved with slightly lower travel time between St. Paul and outstate destinations such as Chicago, has much higher ridership and revenue yield, and attracts a greater share of interregional travel than the River route. The Rochester Route provides the least conflict with the freight railroads and provides better rail operations, timetables, and reliable service as a result. Using the Rochester Route for passenger service enhances the ability of the River Route to accommodate growing levels of freight traffic. The Rochester Route provides an opportunity for upgrading high- speed rail service in Minnesota to 220 mph, which is impractical on the River Route. For a twenty year analysis period, the Rochester Route is projected to outperform the River Route, providing both a higher financial return (1.52 versus 1.43 Operating Ratio), and a higher economic return (1.86 versus 1.60 Cost Benefit Ratio). Because of the large population and employment base served by the Rochester Route, and its potential to provide direct connections to Minneapolis- St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and downtown Minneapolis, the Rochester to Twin Cities route can be shown to have "independent utility This means it can meet FRA performance criteria on its own, and be constructed in advance of the rest of the MWRRI network. This independent utility for the Rochester Route can be demonstrated at both 110 mph, as well as 220 mph. As a result, FRA financial support to develop a higher speed service in Minnesota as a first step, without the need for 220- mph service through to Chicago, can be justified. This segment, if constructed with a connection to MSP, would serve to implement a vision for connecting the two major airports articulated in the Rochester Rail Link study of 2003 without facing the huge financial costs that would be incurred if the Rochester Route is not incorporated into the MWRRI system. The Rochester Route strengthens the economy of Minnesota by providing direct intercity rail service into two of the strongest growth areas in the state (Rochester and the south metro suburbs) in terms of jobs, income, and tax base. The Rochester Route provides the best economic result for the MWRRI system, adding significant traffic generators at Rochester and the southwest Twin Cities metro area to the system. Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -4 TRI- STATE 111 HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS Travel speed and travel time profiles for the River Route and Rochester Route were developed using the TEMS TRACKMANTM and LOCOMOT!ONt" programs, which interactively assess the impact of design and traffic levels on train speed and travel time. These programs were used for the MWRRI Study, and the Chicago -St. Paul Capacity Study completed with CP Rail. The methods have been peer reviewed and evaluated by nine Midwest states (including Minnesota), and checked against actual train times. The Chicago to Twin Cities segment is one of the longest corridors in the MWRRI system (430 miles compared to an average corridor length of 300 miles), and thus, trains need to be able to maintain high- speed performance to remain competitive with the automobile and air travel. The River Route geometry includes a large number of curves along the La Crosse to St. Paul segment, which limit the top speed achievable in the corridor. There are 176 curves in 1 18- miles of which 84 curves are at least 2 degrees. This limits speeds to 90 mph along the River Route and increases train travel times. The graphic below shows the frequency of curve restrictions in a 4- mile segment through the Red Wing area, which is characteristic of the corridor. River Route Speeds Limited to 90 mph 176 curves in 118 miles from La Crosse to St. Paul (84 curves 2 me Nor se 1.0. lammor 90140110140 uolulsel!$ 3. 2P lP 2P o• lS ag 2-3° curves reduce the effective speed limit to 90 mph even for tilting equipment R., Mug 0 I t River Route speeds are also restricted by the location of the corridor passing through existing cities and towns, which have grown to buffer the rail corridor with development in many locations. In these areas, train speeds would need to be restricted due to the presence of at- grade crossings and other safety issues. While this issue can be addressed with an adequate level of investment, the challenges of constructing grade separations and creating a sealed 7 4(j Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -5 TRI- STATE III HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY corridor to permit higher travel speeds to be maintained is a significant undertaking in these developed areas. This increases the cost associated with using this route. Conversely, the Rochester Route, which as proposed includes significant sections of greenfield development between La Crosse and Rochester and between Rochester and Rosemount, provides the ability to create a route with few curves and limited exposure to fully developed areas, permitting higher speeds to be maintained across long segments of the corridor. As a result, the trip from La Crosse to St. Paul via the Rochester Route is faster than the River Route by some 1 0 to 15 minutes when using comparable 1 10- mph diesel technology. Development of a Greenfield route also makes 220- mph service feasible on the Rochester Route, which would provide a travel time reduction of over 45 minutes between St Paul and La Crosse, and would reduce the Chicago to Twin Cities travel time to just more than 4 hours, compared to the more than 6 hours by the River Route. The following graphic highlights the comparative travel time for different technologies and route alignments. In the 2004 Midwest Regional Rail System Report, which is the most recent update of the MWRRI Plan, the estimated travel time from Chicago to the Twin Cities was 6 hours and 29 minutes. By way of comparison, in this study the Chicago to Twin Cities estimated travel time is 5 hours and 52 minutes using the same 110- mph diesel train service, and could be reduced to 4 hours and 12 minutes, a 35 percent reduction in travel time, if 220- mph electric train service was implemented.' Twin Cities to Chicago Travel Times Rochester Alternatives are Faster 712 La Crosse to St Paul Ixonia to La Crosse 6:00 Chicago to Ixonia 2:11 2:00 4:48 tf 1:13 3:36 224 k. 1 to 1 12 CfLAY Afe 0 0 MWRRI River Route 110 mph via 220 mph via Plan Rochester Rochester 2 The Tri -State III Study estimates that with the proper mitigation needed to adequately serve projected travel demand, the River Route travel time could be reduced to 6 hours and 5 minutes; however, this would require a significantly higher level of investment than identified in the MWRRI Plan. 7 Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -6 TRI- STATE 111 HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An important issue with the River Route is its current capacity. Studies such as the Chicago- St. Paul Capacity Study done for CP Railroad and the 2007 American Association of Railroad "National Rail Freight Capacity Study" showed that capacity is very limited on the River Route, particularly at key choke points. As a result, Amtrak trains often have difficulty meeting their posted schedule, even with built- in slack time of 19 percent (which is up from 16 percent since 1999). A capacity analysis performed for the MWRRI in 2004 identified that more than 150 miles of new track would be needed on the River corridor to support a base frequency of only 6 round trip passenger trains per day. Since this recommendation was never fully reflected in the MWRRI Plan, however, the result is slower average train speeds and additional slack time in the Chicago to St. Paul schedule, resulting in the 6 hour 29 minute trip table. One of the real risk issues with the River Route is that even with extensive mitigation, the interaction with growing freight traffic may well result in significant delays. Additionally, in the current Tri- State III Study, as a result of continued demographic growth and higher fuel prices, the base passenger service demand is expected to increase from 6 to 10 round trips per day. This increase would create severe problems for the River Route, which has very limited capacity where even today Amtrak trains along the River Route are frequently delayed by 40 minutes to an hour. As a result, a decision to use the River Route without adequate capacity mitigation would result in reduced service frequency, reduced train reliability, and poor time keeping. This will limit the use of the train and reduce its contribution to regional mobility and the ability to meet MWRRI financial viability goals. As a result of the need to add passenger train capacity above that found to be needed in prior MWRRI studies, the prior MWRRI- recommended capital investment level for the River corridor is today insufficient. Tri- State III has increased the capacity recommendation to full double tracking with some segments of triple track, plus new Mississippi River bridges at La Crosse and Hastings. This would accommodate the needed 10 daily round trips, the original train speeds, and faster schedules than the MWRRI has planned along the River Route'. However, the maximum speed is still limited to 90 mph due to the numerous curves and speed restrictions along the route. Even with introduction of full capacity mitigation on the River Route, the Rochester Route would provide a slightly faster travel time (5:52 versus 6:05 schedule for 110- mph diesel trains) due to the ability of the Greenfield sections of the corridor to support sustained speeds of 110 mph over longer sections of the route, even though the route is 21 miles longer Considering that the long- term vision desirably would be true high- speed rail, the third column in the figure on page ES- 6 (220 mph via Rochester) highlights the significant improvement in terms of reduced travel time that would occur if 220- mph service were developed on the Minnesota segment and the west half of Wisconsin. This technology would cut the trip time from Rochester to St Paul in half, which is more than competitive with the automobile. It would reduce the overall Twin Cities to Chicago trip by 2 hours, to just more than 4 hours. This would be considerably faster than auto travel times, and competitive with air. 'This study demonstrates that with needed mitigation, a time table of 6 hours and 5 minutes for the Chicago to St. Paul trip could be achieved. 44 N Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -7 TRI- STATE III HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE Ridership and Revenue estimates were developed using the TEMS COMPASS'" model, which is the same model used in prior Tri -State and MWRRI studies. This model was peer reviewed and is consistent with recommended USDOT FRA practice and forecasting procedures. Ridership and revenue generation are directly linked to the characteristics of the market area served by a service such as high- speed rail. As shown in the following graphics (compiled for the study by the Rochester Olmsted Council of Governments from U.S Census Bureau data), the population and employment base within a twenty- mile hinterland of the Rochester Route is almost double the size of market within a twenty- mile hinterland of the River Route. iayN w/o Ramsey With Ramsey ,:*;44 County area County area River Corridor -i fr Population 393,000 422, Market Areas 'i,; rift,. within 20 miles of 1P1. Employment 152"0 167,000 at Hastings River Corridor H tz 4 �1 a! 4 vtlio Illift v Data based on Year 2000 Census w/o Hennepin With Rochester or Ramsey Hennepin Corridor Market— u i areas Ramsey areas „ft!, Population 763,000 1,532,000 Areas within 20 ,n Rosemount iI;Ar64. i Employment 366,000 988,000 miles of Rochester i 1. 4 7 4- 1 -2 1 6 1:111 r Corridor a 111111111111111 1116 Go. 115 Staiii %ir ,,,,0 inalirog mk F 4111a 1 riW�i MP Data based Milliem. on Year 2000 n iirm Census 9 Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -8 TRI- STATE 111 HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Furthermore, this assessment discounts the improved accessibility the Rochester Route would provide to the southwest suburbs of the Twin Cities and South Minneapolis on the north side of the Minnesota River. The south suburban station would link to I- 35W, I- 35E, 1- 494, TH 77 and TH 62, providing easy access to all of the southern suburbs of the Twin Cities. In addition, not shown in this data is the significant submarket consisting of patients who travel to the Mayo Clinic each year, who along with their travel companions are estimated to number 2 million person visits annually or 4 million one- way trips. As a result of the overall growth of the Chicago- Twin Cities intercity market, the frequency of train service now needed as noted in the previous section is not six (as suggested by the MWRRI Study) but ten round trips per day. This is due to both the changing demographics and economic growth in the Minnesota market area, and changing economics, such as higher gasoline prices, which make rail a more attractive travel alternative for intercity trips. The study assumes gas prices will increase in line with projected increases forecast by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which anticipate the likely central case scenario to be $4 per gallon by 2015 and beyond. The study projects the Rochester Route by 2030 would attract more than four hundred thousand more trips annually than the River Route if 110- mph diesel trains were utilized and nearly four million extra trips per year by 2030 if 220- mph electric trains were used. Ridership Forecast by Option River Route— 4.3 5.1 Diesel 110 mph Rochester Route— 4.7 5.5 Diesel 110 mph Rochester Route— 7 7 9 0 Electric 220 mph The revenue implications are equally substantial, increasing revenue by 11 percent for the 110 mph options and by 125 percent for the 220- mph option by the year 2030 if the Rochester Route were developed. Revenue* Forecast by Option River Route— $224 8 $266.0 Diesel 110 mph Rochester Route— $249.4 $295.0 Diesel 110 mph Rochester Route— $515.5 $598.6 Electric 220 mph *Revenues include farebox, onboard sales, and express parcel revenues re p' Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -9 TRI- STATE 111 HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OPERATING COSTS The operating costs used in this study are based on the earlier MWRR1 and Tri-State High -Speed Rail Study adjusted to 2008 dollar values. These costs have been extensively peer reviewed and follow the FRA methodology for estimating train operating costs. Because of the increased passenger traffic now forecast for both the River Route and the Rochester Route and identification of the optimal train service frequency of ten trains per day (as opposed to six trains per day in earlier Tri- State and MWRRI studies), the annual train miles of travel have increased by 65 percent as compared to the 1998 study. Since the Rochester Route is some 21 miles longer than the River Route, its operating costs for factors directly related to distance, such as fuel costs, are higher. In addition, because the Rochester Route generates more riders, the ridership- driven component of operating cost, such as call center, travel agency, and credit card commissions, would also be higher. In total, the Rochester Route costs about 5 percent more to operate for 1 10- mph diesel. For 220- mph electric train service, the operating costs are approximately 70 percent higher, primarily because the much higher ridership associated with this option requires extra trains to be added. Projected Operating Costs by Option River Route— $156.8 $174.4 Diesel 110 mph Rochester Route— $164.0 $182.5 Diesel 110 mph Rochester Route— $268 8 $296.6 Electric 220 mph However, given the higher ridership and revenues that the Rochester Route alternatives would generate, the net operating margin for the Rochester Route will be greater than the River Route even with the higher operating costs. The net operating margin is an important factor since these dollars represent funds that are available for investment and to reduce debt burdens. As shown in the following chart, the net operating margin is approximately 25 percent greater for comparable 110- mph service and 250 percent greater when comparing 220- mph service on the Rochester Route to the maximum 1 10- mph service on the River route. Operating Margin 2030 (Million$) Revenues $266.0 $295.0 $598.6 Operating Cost $174.4 $182.5 $296.6 Net Operating Margin $91.6 $112.5 $302.0 The additional net operating margin for the 110- mph Rochester Route over the River is $20.9 million per year, which would pay for the difference in capital cost in seven years. 7 j/ Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -10 TRI- STATE 111 HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CAPITAL COSTS The methodology used to estimate capital costs is based on prior MWRRI and Tri -State High -Speed Rail studies, which have been extensively peer reviewed and compared to cost Information in rail studies throughout other parts of the country, including The Rocky Mountain High -Speed Rail Study (Construction Costs) The Colorado Freight Bypass Study (Land Costs) The Rochester Southern Rail Corridor Study (Land and Construction Costs) One of the key findings of this update study is that the capital costs for the Rochester Route are comparable (at $973 million) to those of the River Route (at $834 million) for 1 10- mph diesel technology despite the fact that the Rochester Route is 21 miles longer. Capital Cost for La Crosse -Twin Cities Yom` 1 LEGEND ST. PAUL T i a .�Y N• Greenfield Rout* 1.. MSP A k i ommo River Route ti R...40„„, 'i a,:, 1 i ._.._..._..te f 1w '11. I '7"" 1 /r J 7OA r I f jot i *r i i� +1 j J F ice,' r e, .____,O 15 ROCHESTER j Rochester Int. N, ,,A Airport s �i The reasons the capital costs for the two options are so comparable are threefold The higher level of passenger rail traffic projected in this study as compared to earlier Tri- State studies, resulting from demographic growth and changing transport conditions, means that ten trains per day are needed rather than the six planned for in prior Tri- State study work. This requires more capacity and therefore more capital investment to be provided along the River Route if effective timetables are to be maintained. r e. Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -11 TRI- STATE!!! HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The acquisition of the DM &E and IC &E lines by CP Rail has only served to accelerate the growth of freight rail traffic regionally, which will increase the reliance of CP Rail on using the River Route line for freight trains. This growth is faster than originally anticipated, which was studied in the 2004 Milwaukee- Madison EIS Capacity Analysis study for the Tri- State corridor. The findings of the Capacity Analysis work undertaken for the Milwaukee- Madison Corridor Environmental Impact Study was not fully included in the 2004 MWRRI cost estimates. As a result, the MWRRI limited train service to just six trains and increased train timetables to 6 %Z hours rather than the six hours originally planned. Today ten trains are needed and full capacity mitigation is required. As a result, costs for the Minnesota segment alternatives are less than $150 million different at $834 million for the River Route and $974 million for the Rochester Route. Twin Cities to Chicago Alternatives Capital Cost Comparison $7,000 $6,000 $2,075 o, I 1 1r lii z o St Paul -La Crosse w La Crosse Ixonia Ixonia Chicago 34 $974 $3.000 $8 34 $2,000 t ILAN $1,000 z:ta: L' $0 Single Track Diesel River Single Track Diesel Rochester Double Track Electric Rochester One concern with Greenfield route development often voiced is the cost of land acquisition. Typically land costs are a small proportion of overall rail project costs, generally less than 5 percent of total project costs, but they are nonetheless important to local communities and individual land owners. For the purpose of this study, Minnesota farmland and urban area values were estimated using data compiled by the Department of Economics at the University of Minnesota as part of the Minnesota Land Economics database. To account for issues such as property severance, farm business impact, and relocations, it was recognized that a substantial premium would need to be paid to land owners, and estimates were inflated accordingly. re Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -12 TRI- STATE 111 HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The cost of the Rochester Route, while requiring higher upfront expenditures initially, provides potential long- term benefits not available on the River Route, perhaps the most important of which is the ability to upgrade in the future to 220- mph service. To reduce the initial upfront cost to a level comparable to that of the River Route, implementation could be done incrementally, for example, by deferring construction of low- volume grade separations or utilizing the existing DM &E corridor between Rochester and Winona initially. It should be noted that the Rochester Route provides service to areas of the state that have seen the greatest level of growth in the last decade, and which will continue to grow in the next twenty years. Rail service between the Twin Cities and Rochester and the Madison /Milwaukee /Chicago area will help support both regional mobility and economic growth. Finally, if the Greenfield segment between Rochester and Rosemount were extended to Minneapolis- St Paul International Airport, it would help to implement the vision of a high- speed rail passenger and freight link between MSP and Rochester International Airport, further integrating the economy of southern Minnesota with that of the Twin Cities. In the longer term, for high- speed rail to be fully effective in the Twin Cities- Milwaukee Chicago corridor, train speeds need to be increased to 220 mph. This will give a four- hour timetable that will provide a level of service that will integrate the cities of the corridor and connect the Twin Cities more effectively with the rest of the Midwest. To do this, the Rochester Route is the only practical option. A critical issue in building either the Rochester Route or the River Route is implementation time. The MWRRI estimated a five- year implementation for the River Route, while a six- or seven- year period is proposed for the Rochester Greenfield route. However, the risk in both cases is such that either route could take an additional year or two to implement. As such, either route could take seven to eight years to complete. FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC J USTIFICATION The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) evaluation methods for high -speed rail evaluation were used to assess the River and Rochester routes in line with earlier MWRRI and Tri -State High -Speed Rail studies. These methods focus in particular on identifying whether a project will meet minimally accepted thresholds for operating ratio and cost benefit ratio to justify federal investment in a corridor. It can be seen from the results of the financial and economic assessment highlighted in the graphics on page ES- 14 that the Rochester Route provides both a higher financial operating ratio and cost benefit ratio compared to the River Route. Clearly from a corridor, state and federal perspective, the Rochester Route provides the best value for money and offers the greatest potential for developing a very high- speed network in the future. ,A Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -13 TRI- S MINNESOTA TATE 111 HIGH- SEGMENT SPEED A SSESSMEN R AI EXECUTIVE SUM STUDY MARY T Full Sy stem Operating Ratios in 2020 t w $600 4' i i,,,,i; ''''..t'i,:'' k ,i; 4. $500.00 4" ..v.,-,=..... s"_,....,;,-„z...--7. ',=:„1,,,-'=e- r :x' i r z 'l, $400,00 t ✓k+` I c N n Cost f;*, $300.00 4 Re enue t„, 1.43 ,,1 5 r' t plir $200.00 IF $100.00 $0.00 110 -River 110 Rochester 220 Rochester Full- System Cost Benefit Ratios in 2020 f k t p �'f' ,.2 $25,000 .:2,,,,,,,„.„,,,,,. fi n fib, $20,000 ss `�eti a x, 2 ZS 4 ,c r d $15, 000 '�''`r'” R r� t 5z s �t� p ■Total ■Total Costs fits Bene 0 1.60 $10,000 y t $5,000 0 It r $0 110 -River 110- Rochester 220 Rochester 7 Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES 14 TRI- STATE 111 HIGH- SPEED RAIL STUDY MINNESOTA SEGMENT ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGES OF ROCHESTER ROUTE There are many very important benefits to Minnesota that would accrue from developing the Rochester Route Not only will the Rochester Route provide a direct connection to St. Paul Union Station, but the route could be expanded to provide direct service to MSP Airport either as part of the route into St Paul or as part of a route into downtown Minneapolis. This would provide a greater level of integration between the two core cities in the metro area, the MSP Airport, and the rest of the emerging intercity rail network in the Upper Midwest. An analysis was completed of extending the route to provide an MSP Airport connection, which was found to increase both financial and economic returns, while significantly increasing ridership and revenues. If connected to MSP Airport on its way to St. Paul and /or Minneapolis, the Rochester Route has independent utility at either 110 mph or 220 mph and thus, it could be justified for development as a stand -alone route, which would provide a viable first segment for developing a viable true high- speed rail (220- mph) service between the Twin Cities and Milwaukee /Chicago. If 220- mph service were extended to Madison, which is feasible to do, this would make travel to both Milwaukee and Chicago very competitive with air and automobile travel with just more than a 4- hour trip. As already noted, the capital cost for developing the Rochester Route is very comparable to the cost of building the River Route. This initial cost can be considered as a first phase for the development of a true high- speed rail system (220 mph) since the 1 10- mph infrastructure can in the future be upgraded to 220- mph infrastructure. The River Route infrastructure cannot be upgraded due to geometry limitations, restrictions posed by heavy freight traffic, and existing development. Finally, the development of the Rochester- Twin Cities link will provide an opportunity to support regional freight movement and greater integration of the Twin Cities and Rochester Airport facilities for air freight and passenger movements (See the Rochester Rail Link Feasibility Study, January 2003). It will also preserve the rail right- of- way along the River corridor to support future freight capacity expansion, which is the priority service of Canadian Pacific, the current owners of the rail corridor. This is a considerable gain to the Minnesota economy and reinforces the return on investment for a Rochester- Twin Cities High- Speed Rail link. The results of the Tri- State III Rail Study show that there is a very strong case for developing the Rochester Route rather than the River Route for high- speed passenger rail service. This includes not only the better financial and economic case for the Rochester Route over the River Route, but the practical difficulties with the River Route in terms of limited capacity and poor geometry. The Rochester Route provides a more significant economic "stimulus" to the Minnesota economy and in doing so, helps solve other transportation concerns and needs for both freight and passenger traffic in Minnesota. 9We ihr Transportation Economics Management Systems, Inc. September 2009 ES -15 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan 3.5 PASSENGER RAIL Figure 3.16 maps the current passenger rail system in Minnesota. Amtrak's Empire Builder provides intercity service between Chicago, the Twin Cities and points west. The newly developed Northstar commuter rail line will shortly provide commuter service be the Twin Cities and the communities to along the I -94 corridor toward St. Cloud. Figure 3.16 Minnesota Passenger Rail Lines and Services 2009 tk or, m. 7 iiiiir 4,0 it.;,..: 1 y ,.dad s! se s E 494 yAillL LI w 2 17. 6 °1 IMO 4 111411r, t l ti;:',Zi 4 1 Fergus Falls A 4 Ilk EL a 4 IlleIM --„T„Tur i a Z. St Fain admen Hemeph Ave. d Mat afMnaea r 8 '"..4‘11111117111" i gel Wing Marshall New NI, �.,�5 Rod»star Winona 7 Worthington Albin Lea na 4 y w A? i x� 'r te 4 q vy x r p 0 25 50 Miles I, 111M=1 Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. based on Mn /DOT and METRO data. 3 -17 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Figure 3.17 maps passenger rail routes that have been proposed for the upper Midwest and Minnesota. Figure 3.18 shows the volume of annual passenger rail trips along a number of the major corridors. The estimates are preliminary and do not yet cover all possible passenger rail routes. It is expected that the estimates will be revised multiple times over the course of the study. These initial estimates are based on relative sizes of the city pairs, total trip- making between the city pairs, Amtrak ridership data, and air travel volumes between the cities. The estimates do not yet take into account the frequency and quality of the passenger rail services nor the feasibility and availability of feeder bus, commuter rail, or automobile park- and -ride facilities, and the potential aggregation of demand created by an entire system of rail services as compared to individual routes. However, even at this very preliminary stage, the patterns of potential ridership suggest the possibility of providing service between Chicago and the Twin Cities, and then considering phased development of commuter rail and intercity links within Minnesota. Figure 3.17 Potential Minnesota Passenger Rail Routes N w(or chin .1•raeontld Passover RaN Uns Raub* rasp e a Paul Pe. ks. 3Axra �r�i La n vent Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation. 3 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Figure 3.18 Estimated Passenger Rail Ridership by Line Preliminary 4,-* N -1FS5 g s fp A R 4 r dca s 4 Mow van Outir Pd.' Oesvoteler. to 0006 Ital.. MOW a rg' Detroit Lakes Duluth ,11° stapkts Roil U. Ckwd Rush th.: t AIpW a Yetloemt hen lLpbNaw ensr 4 St Paul R.aReec Minneapolis Arronmm�lle 1 m.,,d4.9A.d.. d b.rrW MMreiya tut R.Oenss: fetltls aMrl610 mooch, mew.* Green 8i� 1 two WOO. M sb+r e Rochester none fit/ T t�p l i corain Degs a qs Crosse.,�a 0. To e t) y .M„ad s Roa.r. Y, l eJM� b 1Mh� GW L Rockford❑ Q r Rapids C' ❑D El Des Moines CTN 96j dnaha SoK l IM�Iiti tai Wan: 0 50 100 Mlles 43,.. ti Passenger Ruin Ridership Estimates 0 0 eoria Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. estimates (preliminary). 3-19 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. technical memorandum 3 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System prepared for Minnesota Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400 Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 July 17, 2009 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table of Contents Executive Summary ES-1 1.0 Objective 1 -1 2.0 Methodology 2 -1 3.0 Overview of Findings 3-1 4.0 Operating and Capacity Conditions and Existing Ridership Forecasts for Potential Passenger Rail Corridors 4-1 4.1 CP: Rochester Winona 4-1 4.2 CP: St. Paul -Red Wing Winona -La Crosse 4-3 4.3 BNSF: Minneapolis -Coon Rapids -Big Lake -St. Cloud- Fargo /Moorhead 4 -6 4.4 BNSF: Minneapolis -Coon Rapids Cambridge Hinckley- Superior /Duluth 4-8 4.5 CP: St. Paul- Minneapolis 4-10 4.6 BNSF: St. Paul- Minneapolis 4 -11 4.7 TCWR: Minneapolis Norwood /Young America Montevideo 4-12 4.8 UP: St. Paul Northfield -Des Moines Kansas City 4 -13 4.9 BNSF: Minneapolis Willmar -Sioux Falls 4-14 4.10 UP: Minneapolis- Mankato Worthington -Sioux City 4-15 4.11 BNSF: Minneapolis- Willmar- Fargo /Moorhead 4 -16 4.12 CP /PGR: Minneapolis Northfield 4-17 4.13 UP: St. Paul -Eau Claire 4-18 4.14 Southwest Transitway LRT 4-19 5.0 Development of Synthesized Passenger Rail Forecasts 5 -1 5.1 Methodology 5 -1 5.2 Findings 5 -7 6.0 Conclusions 6-1 Sources Appendix A Assumed Demand Appendix 13 Cost Inputs into Travel Forecast Tool Appendix C Demographic Forecasting Assumptions, 2005 to 2030 Appendix D Forecast Demand by Mode Cambridge Systematics, Inc. i 8171.030 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum List of Tables 2.1 Designated Rail Corridors 2 -2 3.1 2030 Ridership Projections from Minnesota Rail Studies 3 -2 3.2 Inventory of Possible Passenger Rail Corridors 3-4 4.1 Characteristics of CP Rail Line from Twin Cities to La Crosse 4-4 4.2 Characteristics of BNSF R ail Line from Twin Cities to Fargo /Moorhead 4 -7 4.3 Characteristics of BNSF Rail Line from Twin Cities to Duluth /Superior 4 -9 4.4 Characteristics of CP, CNSF, and MNNR Rail Line from Minneapolis to St. Paul 4-11 4.5 Characteristics of BNSF and CP Rail Line from Minneapolis to St. Paul 4-12 4.6 Characteristics of TCWR Rail Line from Minneapolis to Norwood/ Young America and Montevideo 4-13 4.7 Characteristics of UP and CP Rail Line from Twin Cities to Northfield to Minnesota /Iowa State Line 4-14 4.8 Characteristics of BNSF Rail Line from Twin Cities to Willmar to Minnesota /South Dakota State Line 4-15 4.9 Characteristics of UP and BNSF Rail Line fro Twin Cities to Willmar to Minnesota /South Dakota State Line 4-16 4.10 Characteristics of BNSF Rail Line from Twin Cities to Willmar to Fargo /Moorhead 4-17 4.11 Characteristics of UP, CP, and BNSF Rail Line from Twin Cities to Minnesota/ Wisconsin State Line 4-19 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. iii Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum List of Tables (continued) 5.1 Estimated Annual Demand from /to Twin Cities for 2005 5-4 5.2 Projected 2030 Rail Demand to /from Twin Cities under Current Service Conditions 5-8 5.3 Projected 2030 Rail Demand to /from Twin Cities with One Daily Frequency 5 -8 5.4 Projected 2030 Rail Demand to /from Twin Cities with Higher Service Standards 5-10 5.5 Rail Mode Shares to Major City Pairs 5-13 A.1 Assumed Car Demand A -1 A.2 Assumed Air Travel Demand A -2 A.3 Assumed Amtrak Demand A -3 A.4 Assumed Bus Demand A-4 A.5 All Demand Components A -5 B.1 Car Costs B-1 B.2 Air Passenger Costs B-2 B.3 Amtrak Costs B-2 B.4 Bus (Greyhound) Costs B-3 C.1 Assumed Changes in Demographic Data C -1 D.1 Projected 2030 Travel (Current Conditions with No New Rail Corridors) D -1 D.2 Projected 2030 Travel in New Rail Corridors D -2 D.3 Projected 2030 Travel (Expanded Rail Service) D -3 iv Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum List of Figures 3.1 Potential Passenger Rail Corridors 3 -3 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. v Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Executive Summary Mn/ DOT, regional railroad authorities, and local governments have been studying the possibilities of expanded passenger rail service for almost two decades. These studies have involved multiple rail technologies and operating practices, have involved service within the Minneapolis and St. Paul regional area, intercity connections within Minnesota, and intercity connections to cities in nearby states. This technical memorandum will examine passenger rail corridors suggested for possible service and identify relative pas- senger rail demand among those corridors. This memorandum will discuss passenger rail corridors intercity, commuter and light rail, not simply because the general public refers to all such services as "rail." The primary focus of this technical memo is in passenger rail service that serves longer distance city pairs with nonpeak related service. However, some of these intercity corridors will use the same existing rail rights -of -way or tracks that are being implemented or planned for commuter rail operations, so this study will consider the relationships of all planned uses of existing rail property and infrastructure for passenger rail purposes. Therefore, this study will identify various kinds of rail services being suggested within an intercity corri- dor and describe some of the results of previous rail studies. Examination of these corridors also will consider the underlying condition and uses of the freight railroad lines over which almost all of these passenger rail services will expect to operate. Using data collected in the freight rail inventory for this Rail Plan (Technical Memorandum 2A), this Technical Memorandum will highlight elements of the freight rail lines that pose challenges or opportunities for passenger rail service, such as track condi- tion, freight train counts, and numbers of grade crossings. Corridors with more track allowing higher train speeds will require less additional improvements to permit 79 to 90 mph passenger rail services; adding passenger service to freight lines with lower freight train counts will pose less congestion and require less additional track and signal capacity. Because so many of these various rail studies and corridor suggestions have such a variety of information on possible utility of the routes (ranging from detailed ridership forecasts to simpler aspirations), this Technical Memorandum will describe the efforts of the Study Team to provide a common framework for assessing possible passenger demand for vari- ous corridors. Since most of the passenger rail corridors connect to Minneapolis and /or St. Paul, the demand modeling was based on city pairs, including the Twin Cities (see Figure 3.1 for the corridors and city pairs studied). This technical memo and its appendi- ces have detailed explanations of how demand models were created for this study, but it follows these general steps: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-1 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum 1. Intercity travel demand among city pairs under current conditions are estimated for auto, air, bus, and rail. 2. Underlying demographic projections of population and employment growth are used to project growth of total travel demand. 3. A spreadsheet -based demand model is created to estimate total travel demand for all modes for a future date (in this case, 2030) for the city pairs. The model also predicts shares of future travel among various modes, including for proposed new passenger rail services. Based on all of the factors examined in this technical memo, the Study Team concludes additional attention be given to expanding station and track capacity in and between Minneapolis and St. Paul and further finds that the following corridors appear to be ini- tially promising:' River route service to La Crosse, Madison, Milwaukee, and Chicago; Additional planning for the optimal route for 110 mph rail service between Madison and the Twin Cities, which would include study of routes through Rochester and Eau Claire; Incremental passenger rail service improvements to Hinckley and Duluth; and Incremental service improvements in shorter corridors from the Twin Cities to Mankato, Northfield, St. Cloud, and Eau Claire. Subject to future analyses in remaining tasks of the Rail Plan, including application of performance metrics and integration of passenger and freight rail growth potential. ES-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum 1.0 Objective Mn /DOT and other agencies have studied options for passenger rail service in the State. The objective of this task is to identify a Minnesota passenger rail system network by synthesizing and adding value to the available information about the railroad network and passenger rail demand. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1 -1 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum 2.0 Methodology In Section 3.0, we highlight the major findings of the memorandum. In Section 4.0, we describe the operating and capacity conditions along each potential passenger rail corridor based on the consultant team industry knowledge and research, and any ridership fore- casts which have been completed by others for those corridors. The included passenger rail corridors have been suggested through public meetings, proposals from communities or elected officials. This section describes the routes, the origin of their suggestion, and includes information about the condition of the freight lines upon which passenger traffic might travel. In Section 5.0, we present a spreadsheet -based forecasting approach which enables us to make an apples -to- apples comparison of potential ridership demand across all of the cor- ridors, albeit not at the same level of detail developed independently by others for some of the corridors. We also compare these forecasts to actual existing rail demand around the country and to other similar studies. Minnesota has seen two levels of passenger rail studies in the past two decades: 1) transit- oriented routes radiating from Minneapolis and St. Paul; and 2) intercity passenger rail studies that have focused on high -speed rail service. It is useful to distinguish between commuter /urban- oriented service and intercity service by their functions. Transit service, whether commuter rail or light rail, is typically focused on peak period passenger move- ments into and out of the urban core and has relatively shorter distances (60 miles or less) and frequent stops. Intercity passenger rail service is designed for corridors between city pairs 100 to 600 miles apart, focuses on daily movements, and offers longer distances between stops. Transit Studies. The metropolitan planning organization for the seven counties in the Minneapolis -St. Paul metro area, the Metropolitan Council (MetCouncil), has produced a number of transit studies that have identified corridors for transit service using a variety of vehicles: high- occupancy toll lanes, bus rapid transit lanes, light rail, and commuter rail. These corridor studies follow the designation of corridors in studies performed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (the 1999 Twin Cities Metropolitan Commuter Rail Feasibility Study and the 2000 Commuter Rail System Plan). In 1999/2000, the following corridors were designated as priorities as shown in Table 2.1. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table 2.1 Designated Rail Corridors 1999 -2000 Tier One Tier Two Northstar Corridor: Minneapolis to Big Lake Rush Line Corridor: St. Paul to Hinckley along along BNSF existing and abandoned ROW Red Rock Corridor: Minneapolis to Hastings Bethel Corridor: Minneapolis to Bethel and through St. Paul along BNSF and CP Cambridge along BNSF Dan Patch Corridor: Minneapolis to Northfield Norwood -Young America Corridor: Minneapolis to Norwood -Young America along TCWR In 2002, impelled by objections to the Dan Patch Corridor by certain interests along its route, the Minnesota Legislature enacted legislation that prohibited any further study of the corridor by any governmental entity. By the adoption of priorities in the 2030 Transportation Plan in 2004 by the MetCouncil, the Red Rock and Rush Line corridors were still under consideration. In addition, the plan included a Northwest /Bottineau Boulevard transitway study that featured BRT /LRT alternatives along Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Canadian Pacific (CP) rail lines. A number of these light rail and commuter rail corridors use existing or abandoned freight rail lines. In this Comprehensive State Passenger and Freight Rail Plan, we will be highlighting transit services using rail rights -of -way, since such services would affect the use of those corridors for intercity passenger rail (pro and con), but also looking at proposed routes along new or unused corridors. Intercity Passenger Rail Studies. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) identified high -speed rail corridors throughout the nation. At around the same time, the state departments of transportation from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois were completing a Tri -State Rail Study in 1991, outlining routes and rail service and speed alternatives between Chicago, Milwaukee, and the Twin Cities. That study looked at two broad corridors a northern option and a southern option. The Southern Corridor looked at three route alternatives within the corridor, one along the existing Amtrak route, one including Rochester, and another one that included both Madison and Rochester. The Northern Corridor included four alternative routes. By 1996, Minnesota was part of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative MWRRI), which envisioned a high -speed rail network serving the Midwestern states centered around a Chicago hub. In 2000, Minnesota and Wisconsin commissioned the Tri -State Study II. This study showed that a Milwaukee to Twin Cities connection through Rochester, including a route that involved new alignments between the Twin Cities and Rochester and between Rochester and Winona had the best benefit /cost ratio of the alternatives studied and should be implemented as soon as possible following the incremental upgrading of the existing Amtrak route. By 2004, the MWRRI routes showed Milwaukee to Twin Cities through 2 -2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Madison but not Rochester. The Madison -Twin Cities route continued to be studied through subsequent environmental document preparations through 2008. As these studies were occurring, two other intrastate intercity high -speed rail corridors were being examined. The Minneapolis Duluth /Superior corridor, now known as the Northern Lights Express, was studied to restore passenger rail service that was suspended by Amtrak m 1985. In 2000, an initial concept study for intercity passenger rail service was produced. In 2007, a more comprehensive business plan for 110 mph rail ser- vice was prepared for a consortium of counties and regional rail authorities, which led to the creation of the Minneapolis Duluth /Superior Passenger Rail Alliance (a group of county regional rail authorities). Mn /DOT has received FRA funding for preparation of a Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed route along the BNSF rail lines, based on this business plan and feasibility study. High -speed rail in Rochester has been discussed in Midwest high -speed rail studies going back to the 1991 Tri -State Study and in early Midwest Regional Rail Initiative reports. In 2003, Mn /DOT, with the cooperation of the City of Rochester, produced a study on the feasibility of a new route for HSR between the Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport and the Rochester International Airport. In 2009, the City of Rochester and other organi- zations formed the Southern Rail Corridor, advocating a route similar to that suggested in the 2000 Tri -State Study as a freight bypass, with new engineering and travel demand studies to support the new alignment. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum 3.0 Overview of Findings In deriving the Annual Passenger Estimations for the Year 2030 Scenario, an average of the growth rates for various study corridors and segments was analyzed to produce an annual growth rate of roughly two percent. This growth rate is in line with projected traf- fic growth over the planning horizon and was applied to each corridor to derive the 2030 values presented below. One difference in the assumptions between the various lines was the number of annual operating days. For commuter rail corridors, 250 annual operating days were assumed to be the average. Meanwhile 300 annual operating days was assumed for high -speed rail corridors. The values presented below in Table 3.1 provide for an apples -to- apples comparison of the annual ridership forecasts for each of the corri- dors, but do not differentiate between corridor costs. The ridership forecasts for the majority of these corridors were developed at a time when gasoline was reasonably affordable and not anywhere near the prices witnessed in the summer of 2008. It would seem reasonable that as motor fuel prices increase, the transit and rail ridership levels could progress at a rate faster than previously forecasted. In order to keep the analyses consistent, we have not attempted to approximate the effects of fuel price increases on ridership within any of the corridors at this point, but will do so in the future. It should be noted that among the ridership forecasts for these corridors, only that done for Northstar conformed to the more rigorous and conservative Federal Transit Administration (FTA) methodology for Federal New Starts projects. This explains why Northstar may have a lower forecast than some of the other corridors which have not yet been accepted into the New Starts program and hence could use other more expansive ridership forecasting methodologies and assumptions. 2 The Federal Transit Administration approved the use of 290 days for annualizing the Northstar ridership, but in order to make a consistent comparison across the corridors, 250 days is used in the table. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-1 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table 3.1 2030 Ridership Projections from Minnesota Rail Studiesa Projected Annual Passengers in 2030 fl n �x� "W HHigh-SpeeddR Corridors Northern Lights Express 1,344,500 Rochester Rail Link 2,029,100 Midwest High -Speed Rail Minnesota 535,900 Northstar Commuter Railb 1,549,800 Dan Patch Commuter Rail 2,305,900 Red Rock Commuter Rail 1,813,900 Southwest Transitway LRT 9,599,500 Central Corridor LRT 14,965,000 a While many of the existing studies used a 2030 forecast date, for those that had a different fore- cast year, the projections were inflated to 2030 assuming a 1.5 percent annual growth in ridership. b Only project subject to FTA New Starts forecasting methodology. Taking into consideration the demand analysis developed in Section 5.0 of this memo by the project team, and the overall track condition and traffic density of freight lines outlined in Section 4.0, Table 3.2 summarizes information for all of the potential corridors. The first column lists the percentage of track miles that allow passenger train speeds of 79 mph, which is a proxy measurement for the relative track condition improvements that would need to be made to increase train speeds to permit competitive trip times. The sec- ond column includes a measurement of relative train count density the number repre- sents the difference between the corridor's weighted average train count and the overall average across all corridors (18 trains per day), with the lower the number, the fewer trains. Inserting passenger trains on relatively busy freight lines will likely require expen- sive capacity improvements to the freight line. The third column is the 2030 demand in thousands for that city pair for the improved service level as developed and shown in detail in Section 5.0. The fourth column is the resulting forecast overall rail market share. The overall rankings for corridor conditions and city pair demand also are included for relative comparisons across corridors /city pairs. These corridors and those mentioned elsewhere in this technical memorandum are shown in Figure 3.1. 3 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. M ch g4 O 0) d Cl N C u U ,0p w tx t a A p p f a�ic w As a" .s t d C E LIIIrg, h- a V b ;-1 0 2 g W N V X 7 DI c e rl v FF a. w 3 v Cd 2 1;. 61) a I., cc§ 1 '14416. Albillikl =O• G cn cct C aa N a C c E U O gg .r e 111\ls[110 Z VO 0 0 CJ cn e LL CT 2 Or.Agiel \31 le o l 11 A, ,i 1- :a. 1 oo Cla o wit giiiiialia al II i 1 Ci ti Fi v CT N N �O M cc) CNI H H oO e E Ln so ,leu II l� T N �O 'r N N N H 1 N N M .D d i 0 �O N. tf N N M r+ U evC M N rr .O .1 N 00 CO b O O N O, u O� V5 1 1 1 A I N M N O Cr 2 1 Pt 0 y ii 0 44 u'i r4 fV cn lf) O e( fV C C M if) O cfi O CO 3 0 14 V Q H N N m A N ,n��+ N Seri di p-4 g x cc b n a t -0 es E 0 MM 0 CI) 0 g C z N o ctS o es y z i �t O e' Ai E ea c 5 0 V) H L X 0 w b .iy w 0 1...1 °J C en U t4 Xf C cn N v. v g 0 v efi a A b v a' o 0 y H U en ,v b e 01 X b U o y 5 0. T4 11 H wfl .r. a r U �cnw A zzA 3 3in in 6.3w z q a .0 M Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum 4.0 Operating and Capacity Conditions and Existing Ridership Forecasts for Potential Passenger Rail Corridors 4.1 CP: Rochester Winona 4.1.2 Operating and Capacity Conditions This corridor is under consideration as part of a high -speed rail route between Chicago and the Twin Cities. It is an alternative route to the one envisioned by the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative for incremental high -speed service. This route has been studied by the Minnesota and Wisconsin departments of transportation. A portion of this corri- dor currently is being studied by consultants for the Mayo Clinic to look at a "Southern Rail Corridor" that would bypass Rochester to the south. This would move freight off the old "DM &E" line (now CP) running through downtown Rochester. This study covers a 48 -mile corridor roughly 24 miles on each side of Rochester. In addition to conflicts with slower moving freight traffic, one challenge to the implementation of high -speed rail on this corridor is cost associated with new right -of -way, environmental clearance, and new rail line construction. Although existing railroads connect Rochester and the Twin Cities via Owatonna and Northfield, Rochester high -speed rail supporters are requesting a new alignment between Rochester and the Twin Cities. 3 Since much of the route for the proposed Rochester service, as supported by local leaders, is on new, non -rail alignments, there are no details on existing rail facilities provided for the Rochester Winona rail corridor. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum 4.1.2 Rochester Rail Link Feasibility Study The Rochester Rail Link study examined the implementation of the highest speed tech- nology studied among Minnesota corridors. For purposes of comparison, the numbers in Table 3.2 above were for the 150 mph option which was the slowest speed analyzed within the feasibility report. Overall, this corridor would move daily travelers between Rochester and the Twin Cities, specifically by connecting the two airports with Rochester serving as a reliever airport for the Minneapolis /St. Paul International (MSP) Airport. This has occurred to a limited extent with FedEx locating a regional hub at the Rochester International Airport. The analysis presented assumes 300 operating days per year to derive the more than two million annual riders. No major trip generators were presented, including any detailed analysis of the impacts of the Mayo Clinic nor use of the Rochester airport to relieve the MSP Airport. Nevertheless, the corridor projections appeared to rely very heavily on the Rochester airport functioning as a significant reliever airport, without showing cause for why Minneapolis -St. Paul International Airport would need the relief or why Rochester would be the best alterna- tive. Additionally, the corridor ridership relied on a significant diversion of individuals from air travel to train travel. If residents of the Twin Cities are more likely to drive the one to two hours necessary to get to Rochester, and passengers arriving via airplane might not switch modes to a train connection, the overall ridership estimates would be high. The corridor proposed for use within the study relies on right-of-way along highway cor- ridors that have since been rebuilt, and the availability of right -of -way for rail purposes is not well defined. In 2009, the same consultant (TEMS) was retained to update the earlier Rochester study, this time in the context of how Rochester might fit into the MWRRI network. Although a final report had not yet been published, the consultant provided a presentation summarizing the results, and participated in a discussion with the Study Team for this Rail Plan. Technology considered was 110 mph diesel generally operating over existing right -of -way, and a greenfield 220 mph TGV -style electric- powered train service. Two primary route options were evaluated, one bypassing Rochester that follows the existing CP route through Wisconsin and along the Mississippi River, and the other consisting of new construction from the Mississippi River to Rochester and then on to either downtown St. Paul or to the MSP Airport with continuing connections to one of the downtowns. An economic analysis incorporating estimated implementation costs, operating costs and revenue projections was completed for the different options. Not taken into account were the multi-year differences in the time required to implement the various options. Also, as with the prior study, 4 Transportation Economics and Management Systems, Inc. [TEMS] with HNTB. 2003. Rochester Rail Link Feasibility Study. Report submitted to Minnesota Department of Transportation, January 2003. 4 -2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum publicly available rights -of -way would be used for the new alignments when possible, and, where necessary, private land could be acquired for cropland value. The analysis was conducted using TEMS' standard model that was calibrated for MWRRI in 2004, and updated to use 2008 fuel costs and demographics. Special generators, such as the Mayo Clinic, did not appear to be explicitly addressed, other than what already was incorporated into the MWRRI model. Furthermore, use of the Rochester Airport as a reliever facility was not considered. From this analysis, annual ridership in 2020 was estimated to be 1.956 million along the segment between St. Paul and Rochester for the 110 mph option, and 3.539 million with the 220 mph option. Although these volumes bracket the prior study, they include travel along the entire route between the Twin Cities and Chicago, and not just to and from Rochester. 4.2 CP: St. Paul -Red Wing- Winona -La Crosse 4.2.1 Operating and Capacity Conditions This corridor is under consideration for service between Chicago and the Twin Cities as part of the high -speed rail network envisioned by the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. This corridor has been further studied by the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois depart- ments of transportation in two Tri -State Rail studies. The corridor currently serves intercity passenger rail traffic via the Amtrak Empire Builder route between St. Paul and the Wisconsin state line. The Empire Builder operates with once daily service between Chicago and Seattle. This corridor also is part of the planned Red Rock Corridor, which is a commuter rail line from Hastings northward to St. Paul. The Red Rock Corridor study was commissioned by the Red Rock Corridor Commission which is led by the Washington County Regional 5 Railroads and roadways have different design characteristics (grades, curves) because of the performance characteristics of the vehicles in question. Some roadway segments may not be suitable for railroad alignments, particularly higher speed rail that requires straighter, smoother routes. To the extent public rights of way cannot be used, this would occasion more complicated environmental clearance and right of way acquisition, which would expose a rail project to time and cost uncertainties. 6 TMS /Benesch High -Speed Rail Consultants. 1991. Tri-State High -Speed Rail Study: Chicago Milwaukee-Twin Cities Corridor. Report presented to Illinois Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 1991. 7 Transportation Economics and Management Systems, Inc. [TEMS] 2000. High -Speed Rail Feasibility Study: Chicago Milwaukee -Twin Cities Corridor. Report presented to Illinois Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Transportation and Wisconsin Department of Transportation, February 2000. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-3 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Railroad Authority and includes the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA), the Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority (RCRRA), and the Dakota County Regional Rail Authority (DCRRA). One major challenge of this corridor is the potential alignment issues as the tracks follow the river. The ability to reach higher speeds could be difficult in this corridor with its many curves. Amtrak trains currently average about 40 miles per hour with stops between La Crosse and St. Paul, and roughly 55 mph between La Crosse and Chicago. Freight traffic also is relatively heavy on this corridor, and multiple passenger rail services (high -speed and commuter) would introduce additional congestion on the corridor, which could require extensive additional capacity. Another bottleneck would occur at Hoffman Junction in downtown SL Paul, where CP, BNSF, and Union Pacific (UP) all have rail lines. Creating a through movement passenger rail corridor in this area will be difficult. In addition, the RCRRA currently is moving forward with planning for a large intermodal train station at the St. Paul Union Depot. The ability to achieve access to each line in this station will be a challenge for implementing a true intermodal center at the St. Paul Union Depot. Operating statistics for this corridor are shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Characteristics of CP Rail Line from Twin Cities to La Crosse Length Average Grade Segments on Railroad (Miles) Train Counts Crossings Merriam Park Subdivision 2.7 12 3 River Subdivision 119.4 28 70 Tomah Subdivision 4.4 0 1 Corridor Totals /Weighted Means 126.5 27 74 Freight Miles of Track Train Speed at Train Speed 25 0.8 30 5.4 35 0.7 40 2.6 45 3.6 50 0.6 60 3.9 65 59.8 70 12.7 75 8.4 79 23.6 Unknown 4.4 Source: CP data analyzed by CS Study Team, Segments include portions of subdivision along proposed passenger route, totaled from RR segment designations. Train counts are a weighted average of number of daily trains times segment distance. 4-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum 4.2.2 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Since 1996, studies of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, a joint project of the depart- ments of transportation of the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin, had identified the river route from Wisconsin to the Twin Cities as the preferred route for 110 mph high -speed rail from Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Chicago hubs. The market analysis carried out by TEMS as part of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative suggests that ridership between Chicago and the Twin Cities was approximately 50,000 in 2000 (just over 15 percent for business pur- poses and the rest for leisure)$ The 2025 figures for the corridor show nearly 1.5 million passengers between Chicago and Milwaukee, dropping to below 350,000 passengers by the time the train reaches the Twin Cities.' 2020 Origin Destination tables for individual city pairs shows ridership of 219,746 between Chicago and Minneapolis /St. Paul, and 39,648 between Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the Twin Cities. 4.2.3 Red Rock Commuter Rail Corridor The Red Rock corridor primarily serves riders destined for St. Paul Union Depot." This corridor is unique in this regard given that the majority of other corridors are destined for Minneapolis. Seventy -five percent of the patrons in the corridor travel within the St. Paul to Hasting segment of the corridor. It is unclear whether or not the ridership analysis included the implementation of the Central Corridor LRT project, which could diminish commuter rail ridership by 10 percent as the Red Rock and Central Corridor projects can be considered direct competitors for any trip with an origin or destination in Minneapolis. The Red Rock studies suggest that this potential competition has a moderate scope: 15 percent of the trips from the corridor originate in or are destined to Minneapolis. Given the competing routes that are under design in the Red Rock Corridor, it is feasible that after another round of review, the Red Rock Corridor might have the highest annual ridership of any Commuter Rail Corridor. One scenario that would be interesting to test s Transportation Economics and Management Systems, Inc. [TEMS] with HNTB. 2004. Midwest Regional Rail System, Section 4.0: Market Analysis, pages 4-18. Report submitted to Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, September 2004. 9 Transportation Economics and Management Systems, Inc. [TEMS] with HNTB. 2004. Midwest Regional Rail System, Section 4.0: Market Analysis, pages 4 -51. Report submitted to Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, September 2004. 10 Transportation Economics and Management Systems, Inc. [TEMS] with HNTB. 2004. Midwest Regional Rail System, Section 4.0: Market Analysis, Appendix 4, pages 31,161. Report submitted to Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, September 2004. "Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2001. Dan Patch Corridor: Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, page 6-5. Final report submitted to Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority, December 2001. 12 Red Rock Corridor: Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. Final report submitted to Red Rock Corridor Commission, July 2001. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4-5 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum 5.0 Development of Synthesized Passenger Rail Forecasts 5.1 Methodology The first step in developing a consistent forecasting process is to determine reasonable intercity demand targets. There are significant data limitations for estimating targets for travel in Midwest city pairs. Most travel surveys of individual behavior focus on a single metropolitan planning region, generally comprised of multiple counties, in which long distance travel is collapsed into the category of external internal (or even external external) travel. This lack of specificity on long distance travel limits how detailed and comprehensive arty long distance analysis can be. There is one current national -level database that includes long distance records: the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), which was conducted in 2001 on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration. The 2001 NHTS had few long distance travel records with one leg of the trip passing through Minnesota. More problematically, of the records associated with Minnesota, there was only a single rail trip which had been captured, which was clearly insufficient to make reasonable assessments of purpose and mode split from Minnesota to nearby states. Thus, the targets for this study had to be built up indirectly. Since this project focuses on intercity travel, only four modes were considered: auto (with no distinction made between car driver and passenger), air travel, passenger rail and bus. While scheduled intercity bus service (Greyhound and Jefferson lines) dominates the bus mode, it might be possible going forward to include charter bus service provided there was sufficient data. The data limitations and the limited scope of this study made estimation of a full origin destination demand matrix among all city pairs problematic, so the analysis was restricted to demand to and from the Twin Cities, which would cover all of the key corridors under study. 20 In 1995, the long distance travel component was surveyed separately from the 1995 NHTS. This dataset is known as the American Travel Survey (ATS). 21 Since the study is a comprehensive look at passenger and freight rail needs, MnDOT did not contract for independent, traditional four -step modeling for passenger rail corridors for this study, which would have included origin and destination surveys between the Twin Cities and other corridor endpoints. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-1 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Auto demand to and from the Twin Cities was synthesized through the following steps. Driving directions were taken from Google maps. This source also provided typical travel time and distance information, which was used in determining auto costs. The shortest path route was plotted on a series of traffic maps, and the lowest Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along the route was recorded. This was assumed to set a ceiling on the number of cars that could be traveling between the Twin Cities and the city in question. An adjustment factor reduced this number to vehicles specifically associated with travel to and from the Twin Cities. This factor also accounted for occupancy rates and translated vehicles into passengers. The factor ranged from 0.75 for nearby cities (under 100 miles) to 0.5 for cities in other states and over 250 miles. The specific adjustment factors are reported in Appendix A. This approach was followed for cities in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa. For states not contiguous with Minnesota, the AADT approach was not judged suitable. The auto demand was instead factored from total demand, which in turn had been based off of air travel demand. Air travel has the most precise measurement, since the Office of Airline Information of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics requires commercial air carriers to turn in a 10 percent sample of all tickets purchased with at least one stop at a U.S. airport. This data was extracted for all four quarters of 2005. Estimating intercity rail travel was more challenging, as Amtrak releases information on total boardings and alightings at each stop, but no origin destination information (or indeed any indication whether the boardings and alightings are in fact balanced). The Study Team asserted a factor that translated each stop into travel associated with the Twin Cities. The factor ranges from a high of 85 percent for very short trips to approximately 10 percent when the distance to the Twin Cities was over 250 miles. Milwaukee and Chicago are unique cases, in that they have extremely high boardings and alightings, but many of these are associated with a higher- frequency, corridor -type Chicago-Milwaukee service which has commuter rail demand characteristics. In addition, Chicago is Amtrak's Midwestern hub. For Milwaukee, only 2 percent of boardings and alightings were associated with the Twin Cities, whereas this study took the opposite approach and asserted that 60 percent of the St. Paul boardings and alightings were Chicago-bound passengers. nThese may be accessed through the following sites: http: /www.dot.state.mn.us /traffic /data /maps /trunkhighway /2006 /state and_metro /stateflo.pdf; http: /www.dot.wisconsin.gov /travel /counts /maps.htm; http: /www.dot.nd.gov/ road map /pdf /traffic /trafficstate_2006.pdf; and http://www.iowadotmaps.com/msp/traffic/aadtpdf.html. 2 It is worth noting that the database does not cover international travel, so these flights will typically have the "gateway" airport recorded as the While the demand for certain city -pairs appears high or low, the data has been reported as being origin destination based at the ticket level. 24 The Airline Origin and Destination database can be located at the US Department of Transportation TranStats web site. Specifically, the DB1Bticket database is located at: http:// www. tranStats. bts .gov /DL_SelectFields.asp?Table ID= 272 &DB_ShortName Origin %20 and %20Destination %20Survey. 5-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Data on intercity bus travel also was difficult to obtain, though we did have information on scheduled service. We adopted the TEMS approach in asserting that buses would be run with load factors of 60 percent, which translated into 30 bus passengers for every scheduled bus to and from St. Pau1. The derived daily values were annualized using an adjustment factor of 330, which takes account the fact that weekend service was reduced on many of the observed routes. Fortunately, Greyhound and Jefferson Lines use a combined booking system, so service between each city pair only needed to be checked at one site. It is probable that this approach will somewhat overstate bus demand when multiple stops are on the same bus route (passengers may be double counted). This was clearly the case with Kalamazoo, Michigan, so this volume was decreased by 50 percent. Other cities can be reduced on a case by case basis where appropriate. On the other hand, the casino demand served by charter buses is not captured in this approach. This would require a data collection effort, presumably a parking lot survey, which is beyond the scope of this study. However, we did increase the bus demand at Hinckley (site of the Grand Casino Hinckley) by 500 percent, given that it is one of the top attractions in the State. This still left the forecast well below the special attractions demand associated with the casino in the TEMS study, though it should be noted that the casino visitors traveling by car already are captured in the AADT measures, and casino visitors riding on scheduled bus service are few (one Greyhound bus a day in each direction). It is unclear how many visitors take chartered bus service, and a special survey would be needed to answer this question. Given the unavailability of the data, we were not comfortable increasing the bus demand to Hinckley beyond a factor of 5 as mentioned above. 25 Transportation Economics and Management Systems, Inc. [TEMS] with SRF Consulting Group and Krech Ojard Associates. 2007. Minneapolis- Duluth /Superior: Restoration of Intercity Passenger Rail Service Comprehensive Feasibility Study and Business Plan, page 2 -13. Report submitted to St. Louis and Lake Counties Regional Railroad Authority, December 2007. 26 Service frequency and fares were taken from the Greyhound web site: http: /www.greyhound.com /home In 2006, Megabus, an express bus company began service between Chicago and Minneapolis, with additional stops on the route in either Milwaukee or Madison: http: /www.megabus.com /us /stops /index.php. The impact of this service is not reflected in the 2005 base year demand figures, which were imputs into the forecasting tool. Additional information on these passengers, ideally including a survey, is necessary before significant changes are made to the forecasting tool. Our working assumption is that Megabus service, particularly if expanded, will draw primarily from rail mode share when rail speeds remain at 89 mph, but would draw more extensively from auto share when rail speeds reach 110 mph in the corridor. 27 The self reported attendance figures placing Grand Casino Hinckley as the number #3 attraction in the state of Minnesota may be accessed at http:// industry.exploreminnesota.com /wp- content /uploads/ 2007 /07/ top_ attractions _statewide_2005_prelim.pdf. The Study Team was unable to receive annual door count measurements for this Casino or for the Mystic Lakes or Treasure Island casinos for comparison purposes. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5 3 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum These four modal demand inputs were added together to generate total demand between Minneapolis /St. Paul and all other included city origins /destinations as reported in Table 5.1 (for detailed demand calculations see Appendix A, especially Table A.5). Table 5.1 Estimated Annual Demand from/to Twin Cities for 2005 City Total Annual Demand 2005 Bemidji, Minnesota 525,305 v .e.:, Chicago, Illinois 9,731,342 o r i f ti, 477- y°` m r 44. x moo �)r: Des Moines, Iowa 2,913,580 R dl .Sakti ®4N�:+"5nw't ��.,t 6"''"' at, �ti k .v J�'i Detroit, Michigan 1,865,987 V Yrvc Eau Claire, Wisconsin 5,753,730 Grand Forks, North Dakota 2,669,011 u r u sktry }P forp 4 is s -a n•9II,MSri $a;�s ti�atto-�� Indianapolis, Indiana 637,612 v�- Kansas City, Missouri 1,782,201 Madison, Wisconsin 4,238,230 Marshall, Minnesota 612,925 t` q i l atre.„ -t "'4� "t� VF t S .-;..k 4.,�in -E Northfield, Minnesota 1,672,200 Quad Cities, Iowa 1,088,900 Rochester, Minnesota 4,835,215 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 1,657,380 ii i 01 ii? 71 ,,kt hi o pt ai emu; St. Louis, Missouri 610,396 iverF t'ibh� ^Vi) H I,i tp� ui'xin 13 p y em 4 i+4 Y i4lmi M tTtsC1tt�SU Tomah, Wisconsin 1,079,395 ,x a 8 re wr "a" r �P i x�u 'w Winona, Minnesota 856,262 5 4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum As shown, the highest total travel demand to /from the Twin Cities is with Chicago and St. Cloud with 9 to 11 million trips respectively. These two city pairs are followed by a second cluster of city pairs in the 3 -5 million trip range which includes Des Moines, Duluth, Eau Claire, Grand Forks, Hinckley, La Crosse, Madison, Mankato, Milwaukee, and Rochester. These cities encompass most of the intercity rail routes under considera- tion today. Assembling the mode targets for the base year (2005) was the first step in generating new forecasts. The second step was to assemble travel costs and other inputs to the model. Most of these inputs to the costs were gathered at the same time as the targets were developed. For instance, fares were recorded along with daily frequencies to and from the Twin Cities for both the rail and bus modes. Driving times between city pairs were avail- able from Google maps, but driving costs were calculated from distance. The Study Team assumed $0.15 /mile operating cost for car trave1. Given the relative lack of individual -level data, the Study Team believed the model ought to be based on generalized cost, rather than separate time and cost coefficients. The most comparable study was the Wisconsin statewide mode1. These values of time that emerged from the model estimation are $31 /hour for business travel and $12 /hour for personal /leisure travel. These values were used for the forecasting tool. Because the forecasting approach currently does not distinguish between business and personal travel, a single weighted value of time was calculated. The 1995 American Travel Survey (ATS) reported that approximately 50 percent of aviation travel was business related. Personal travel dominated the non aviation modes, at approximately a 90 -10 split. Thus, in the forecasting tool, the final generalized cost term was weighted at 0.9 personal travel and 0.1 business travel for all modes other than aviation, which had equal weights applied to the business and personal generalized costs. Thus, in the aviation utility calculations, the value of time is essentially $21.50 /hour; and for the other modes it is $13.90 /hour. All 28 In this, we followed the general practice of TEMS in the Northern Lights study. Business travel was calculated to cost $0.485 /mile (based on IRS findings) and non business travel was asserted to cost $0.11 /mile (TEMS 2007: 2 -17). The 1995 American Travel Survey and 2001 National Household Travel Survey suggest that, for all non aviation modes, 90 percent of long distance travel (over 100 miles) in the Midwest is for non business travel. Applying these weights to the car costs, we arrived at $0.1475/mile. Assuming no depreciation costs, $0.15 /mile is within a typical range for average car costs. For instance, the 2005 TMIP peer review found that SANDAG had adopted $0.15 /mile for auto cost and had accepted this as reasonable. (See http:/ /tmip.fhwa. dot.gov/ resources clearinghouse /docs /tmip /peer_review /sandag/ #iii.) 29 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and HNTB (Cambridge Systematics 2006). 30 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2006, pages 5-17. 31 The perceived value of time (and the relative weight between purposes) does not change between the base year and future forecasts. It is reasonable to assume that at a higher level of rail service (110+ mph), more business travel would occur and the perceived values of time would increase. The primary effect of this would be to reduce the impact of higher fares on rail share. The forecasting tool in its current form does not account for increased business travel by train. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-5 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum in- vehicle times were translated into generalized costs using the appropriate value of time, then this amount was added to the fares or the calculated auto cost. The key factors in the forecasting tool are generalized cost, university enrollment (for car and rail modes), a Grand Casino Hinckley bus factor term, and select geographic terms, such as long distance (over 300 miles) to estimate total demand between the Twin Cities and other cities in the Midwest. The primary advantage of the forecasting tool is that the same demographic information can be generated for every city (either derived from Census figures or forecasted), allowing all cities to be compared directly against each other. We deliberately tried to keep the mode specific inputs simple typically using only distance, in- vehicle travel time, daily frequency, and fare. For cities that do not have existing rail service, the forecasting tool will generate prospective rail demand once proposed rail fares and rail times are entered. From this base year forecast, demand forecasts then could be developed for 2030. Three growth factors were extracted from available data from a variety of sources, primarily the State of Minnesota population forecasts; the Wisconsin population forecasts; Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) and Northeast Indiana Planning Commission (NIPC) for Chicago forecasts; and Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) for Detroit forecasts. Where detailed forecasts were unavailable or not cen- tral to the analysis, statewide projections were used to generate growth rates; this was 32 Minnesota population forecasts by county are available at http:/ /www. demography. state.mn.us documents/ ProjectionsAgeGender2005- 2035.csv The projected increase or decrease in population at the county level between 2005 and 2030 was applied to any station within that county. In addition to allowing the Study Team to calculate population changes, we took the projected change in the age groups 15 -19 and 20-24 as a proxy for changes in university enrollment. For example, St. Louis County (where Duluth is located) was projected to have a very modest population growth of 1.5 percent between 2005 and 2030. Over the same period, the population aged 15-24 was expected to decline by 21.2 percent. In contrast, Olmsted County (home to Rochester) was projected to increase by 34 percent in total population and increase its college -age population by 19 percent. While Minnesota, like Wisconsin, had reasonable employment projections available through 2016 (http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/oea/employment_projections/employment projections.htm), they did not project employment to 2030. As a proxy, labor force supply in each county was used. The changes in labor force by county may be accessed here: http:/ /www.lmic. state. mn. us datanetweb /php /DemProjection /prj.html 33 The Wisconsin population projections by county can be accessed at: http: /www.doa. state. wi. us /docview.asp ?docid =2014. As with the Minnesota data, age cohorts 15 -19 and 20 -24 were combined to project changes in university enrollment. 34 Revised 2030 forecasts for Chicago and its surrounding counties may be found: http: /www. chicagoareaplanning.org /data /forecast /2030_ revised ENDORSED _2030_forecasts_9- 27 -06.pdf. 35 SEMCOG forecasts through 2035 may be accessed at http: /www.semcog.org /Data /Apps/ regional.forecast.cfm. 5-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum done for North Dakota and Iowa. The total population growth factor from 2005 to 2030 was available from all sources. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Detroit all had projections that included age cohorts. By taking the most appropriate age cohort (typically 18 -24) we substituted the growth (or decline) in this age cohort as a proxy for change in university enrollment. Minnesota and Chicago had projections of employment for 2030, whereas Wisconsin's detailed projections stopped short in 2016 (but the web site of the Wisconsin Office of Economic Advisors indicated that they expected a statewide workforce growth to 2030 of 12.8 percent, so this was used for all Wisconsin cities). When no better infor- mation was available, the population growth factors were substituted for the employment growth factors. (See Appendix C for the individual components to the growth forecast factor.) These growth assumptions can be adjusted going forward to assess the impact of different visions for the future of the region. 5.2 Findings 5.2.1 Estimating 2030 Rail Demand To put the 2030 rail ridership forecasts into perspective, the Study Team looked at the low -end assumption that service would continue as usual, specifically one daily train in each direction, running at a top speed of 79 miles an hour and fares that averaged $0.20 /mile. In the first demand projection shown in Table 5.2, no new corridors are considered. Stations on the current Empire Builder route are considered first, then loca- tions which would require a transfer, typically in Chicago. Note that results in Tables 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 have been rounded to the nearest 500. For full details of these projections, including the projected automobile, aviation and commercial bus shares, see Appendix D. As shown in the table, under current operating conditions to existing cities served by rail, demand would be highest to St. Cloud followed by Chicago. The consistently high demand numbers for St. Cloud reflect its status as a hybrid market with aspects of both intercity and commuter demand, which makes it unique among all of the studied city pairs. All other cities would have much lower overall demand, although cities along the river route like Red Wing and Winona would have rail shares in excess of one percent of total demand. 36 North Dakota's detailed forecasts only went through 2020, so the growth rate derived from the Census statewide projections was used instead. These projections are available at http://www.city- data.com/forum/ general- u- s/468856- census bureaus 2030 population- projections -50- a.html. 37 Again, using workforce growth rates as a proxy for employment growth is not ideal but is the data available at this time. The workforce information can be found on page 3 of http: /dwd.wisconsin.gov /oea /employment _projections /wisconsin /lt summary.pdf. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-7 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table 5.2 Projected 2030 Rail Demand to /from Twin Cities under Current Service Conditions Modeled Results: 2030 Rail Ridership Projected Demand Rail Share Chicago, Illinois 93,500 11,302,000 0.8% rF xa o N e asp r x a Columbus, Wisconsin 500 481,000 2 b iR P� Pd i g rF d4 �{z W La Crosse, Wisconsin 13,000 3,2 16 000 0.4% inona sty, i 14 r 11,5 t �fiY t Red Wing, Minnesota 14,500 1,113,000 1.3% 7 307 000 °k s 6 e Detroit Lakes, Minnesota 7,000 796,000 0.9% 2 1 0 ,9 k Grand Forks, South Dakota 7,000 2,446,500 0.3% Table 5.3 shows the projected rail ridership in 2030 for potential rail corridors, given existing conditions of one train/ day in each direction, top speed of 79 mph and low fares ($0.20 /mile). As in Table 5.2, values in this table have been rounded to the nearest 500. Table 5.3 Projected 2030 Rail Demand to /from Twin Cities with One Daily Frequency Modeled Results: 2030 Rail Ridership Projected Demand Rail Share Eau Claire, Wisconsin 95,000 6,510,500 1.5% 7 xs,..d yn, i,* d z h' i i r t Central Wisconsin (Wausau) 14,000 3,017,000 0 5% t t Pis v us d n Bemidi, Minnesota 1,500 622,500 0.2% 9 Duluth, Minnesota 29,500 3,909,000 0.8% ,Tt Q wwww ai q 041i, �00 ��'fi a. °mo o. a Rochester, Minnesota 79,500 6,084,500 1.3% tonal Falls;,," 500 Mankato, Minnesota 84,500 4,041,000 2.1% Northfield, Minnesota 41,000 2,006,500 2.0% ti �r�;, Wang* t c Des Moines, Iowa 7,000 2,993,500 0.2% i w y nii� EI x; 1 irili �4��yg x� fib u r. Sioux Falls, South Dakota 6,500 1,504,000 0.4% 5 -8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum As shown in the table, for cities without current rail service, the highest potential demand using current operating parameters would be to Eau Claire, Hinckley, Rochester, and Mankato, with mode shares in the one to two percent range. The Study Team then examined the impacts of implementing a much higher standard of service, specifically high -speed rail (HSR) reaching 110 mph and eight trains per day in each direction. While potentially all corridors could eventually reach such Ievels, it seemed most appropriate to consider the most likely scenario where high -speed rail is implemented along the Chicago -Twin Cities (MWRRI) corridor (and extending to St. Cloud). Two MWRRI routings were tested via Red Wing and the existing Amtrak River Route at 79 mph, and via Rochester via a new alignment at 110 mph. With the exception of Rochester and Duluth (discussed below), all other corridors with no service currently were assumed to be served by standard rail service but with expanded frequency (four trains per day in each direction) operating at 79 mph speeds. For Duluth, we also tested the HSR and expanded service options. The HSR option actu- ally lowered ridership relative to the expanded service options due to the higher fare. This outcome probably reflects the demographic characteristics of Duluth combined with the relatively short travel time to the Twin Cities. According to the forecasting tool, ridership in the Duluth Hinckley -Twin Cities corridor is quite price sensitive and conventional service at a lower price will attract more riders. However, increasing frequencies alone for Duluth from four to eight trains/ day absent the speed /fare increase of HSR service did result in higher ridership, and so this service variant was included in the analysis. For Rochester, we first considered two scenarios: where it was on the main trunk line on the MWRRI route and thus had high -speed service; and a second scenario where it had expanded service frequency but not high speed on a branch line. One key difference between the assumptions is that fares for the high -speed rail option were higher at $0.32 /mile, which is consistent with the TEMS analysis. We also looked at Rochester routings via Northfield and Owatonna making use of existing rights -of -way. The TEMS study estimated that a routing through Northfield would add 4 to 9 minutes in travel time at 150 mph. Assuming conventional speeds of 79 mph and HSR speeds of 110 mph, we estimated an increase m travel time of 15 to 20 minutes, respectively. We estimated that a routing through Owatonna would add 25 to 40 minutes in travel time respectively for conventional and 110 mph HSR service. As shown in the Table 5.4, for the HSR option, the highest demand is from St. Cloud (again reflecting the mix of intercity and commuter demand) and Chicago. Red Wing also would have a relatively high -rail mode share (over five percent) and the third highest overall rail demand. It is interesting that the HSR option relative to the expanded service option produces a relatively small gain in ridership for Rochester, perhaps reflecting the relatively short travel distance between Rochester and the Twin Cities whereby the full travel time advantages of higher speed service cannot be realized. Routing Rochester service via Northfield would reduce Rochester ridership by between 10 and 15 percent. However, the increase in ridership at Northfield would be slightly greater. Routing Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5 Minne Compr ehensive Statew Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Pas senger Ra S yst e m Tech Mem orandum Roc service via Owattana would reduce overall ridership by 30 percent due to the long travel time from Rochester. The MWRRI service. routing via Rochester has higher ridership (524,000) Trion' than the routing via Red Wng (387,000), assuming both serve Madison an d Winona. This is simply because Rochester has hig her demand than Red Wing, although there is some loss in Chicago and Wisconsin riders due to th longer (albeit higher speed) routing through Rochester. Even this loss might be made up b trips destined fo Roc hester and the Mayo Clinic, but this_ model can't account for trips w ith intermediate destina i e, other than the Twin ities). The higher ridership of the Rochester routing needs to be measured agai the relative costs, right -of -way acquisition, and general risk an d unce rtainty assoc with the two routings. Am ong cities teste w ith the expanded service option, the highest rider levels are reac hed for Eau Claire, H i n c kley, Rochester, an d Mankato, all with over 200,000 a ride and rail mo shares in the fou to five percent range. Further increasing service frequencies from four to eight trains /day fo H and Duluth does significan tly increase ridership on that route, although as men higher speeds do not increase ri dership. Table 5. Projected 2030 Rail Dema to from Twin Cities with H Serv Standards 2030 Forecasts: Expande Service Serv Rail Projecte Rail Level R idership Demand Share Chica o, Illinois HSRe 299,000 11,302,000 2.6% 5% Columbus, W iscons in HSRe 2,500 48 1 000 0 3% La Crosse, W isconsin HSRa 42,500 236,000 1 �a a M a p s s �:,P 3� 8 16 t.- Red Win; in HSRa 63,000 1113, a, neso I 712 6,. Detroit Lakes, Minnesota Eb 11,500 7796,000 1.4% Grand Forks, North Dakota E 14 2,446,500 0.6% e, isco a E t a r i s 1 5% a R a dison, Wisconsin Eb 83,000_ 4, 978, 0 y 0 y 0 1.5% :Cen ro lit 04 'a 'I''''''' t.} a .a,, f,'!,- '"i` 6 Y k y f 1 �f Oneida /Rhinelander, W i sc onsin Eb 12,500 1,588,500 0 1 Minnesota r�ii i if x" 4 4 x p y Willmar, Minnesota E 53,500 1,543,000 3. uluth, neso h N n W p j Hinckle Mmn Eb 224, 500 361,4!7:510(01 3 5% 44F' ate to �3 a H M i nn esota E8 c 283,000 6,487,500 4.4% 5-10 Cam b ri dge Sy st em atics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table 5.4 Projected 2030 Rail Demand to /from Twin Cities with Higher Service Standards (continued) 2030 Forecasts: Expanded Service Service Rail Projected Rail Level Ridershi Demand Share Rochester (Main Lin HSRa 223 500 6,084,500 3.7% =r4 E Mankato, Minnesota Eb 228,000 4,041,000 5.6% M ars A7 rF t North Minnesota Eb 110,500 2,006,500 .5% 5 Sioux Falls, South Dakota Eb 18,000 1,504,000 1.2% a Eight trains/day, 110 mph and fare $0.32 /mile. b Expanded service (four trains /day, 79 mph and fare $0.20 /mile). c Expanded service (eight trains /day, 79 mph and fare $0.20 /mile). 5.2.2 Comparing Results to Other Studies Comparing these results to previous studies discussed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of this Memo is not always straight forward, given different assumptions and methodologies, not all of which are transparent. The TEMS study of the Northern Lights Express service to Duluth examined HSR ser- vice (110 mph and 125 mph), while this technical memorandum estimates conven- tional but expanded rail service to Duluth at least through 2030. At conventional speeds, TEMS expects ridership to be on the order of slightly under one million riders. Our approach generates approximately 300,000 annual riders from the Twin Cities to Duluth and Hinckley. However, our modeling approach does not directly produce Hinckley to Duluth ridership, which might be between 150 and 200,000 per year. Our modeling approach also does not estimate as large a proportion of casino related trips by rail, as our study lacks a more complete analysis of casino customers' travel pat- terns. These differences in modeling inputs and methods explain part of why our modeling results do not match those in the TEMS study for the Northern Lights Express. Our results in the St. Cloud to Twin Cities market is closer to the previous results, though the demand is less than the total Northstar demand for the entire corridor. Demand for the Northstar commuter rail service is stronger from Big Lake into Minneapolis (this was the reason the initial system was shortened), and the Northstar demand studies were able to use much more detailed regional zone data from the MetCouncil travel demand models. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-11 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum A more dramatic difference in our modeling results from other studies is found in the Rochester studies where our results indicate substantially lower ridership than fore- cast in the other studies. Much of the difference between the two modeling approaches and resulting forecasts are due to the underlying assumptions. The lowest speed tested in the 2003 TEMS study was 150 mph, whereas this is above the top speed of 110 mph analyzed in this technical memorandum. In addition, our treatment of special generators, particularly trips generated by the Mayo Clinic, is more conserva- tive. In the 2000 Tri -State II and 2003 Rochester HSR studies by TEMS, both studies assumed 16 daily frequencies for higher speed rail service (110 mph and various higher speeds), which also will produce higher ridership totals. Our modeling approach, centered on individual city -pair segments from the Twin Cities, does not aggregate total travel demand on the entire MWRRI route from Chicago and Madison through Rochester. The reason for our more conservative operating assumptions was to provide an apples apples comparison across all of the possible routes and city pairs. Taking a broader look at the rail forecasts based on current service conditions, the major- ity of city pairs have a rail mode share of 0.1 -0.5 percent. Cities within approximately 150 miles of the Twin Cities have a higher mode share on the order of 1 -1.5 percent with St. Cloud being a bit of an outlier at 2.4 percent. This is very much in line with the current rail share observed throughout the Midwest in the 2001 National Household Travel Survey. While these mode shares are split by purpose they range from 0.87 percent for business travel, 0.36 percent for personal business travel, and 0.14 percent for pleasure travel, for an aggregate mode share across all purposes of 0.34 percent. This is an overall mode share, and we would expect that within the Amtrak Empire Builder Corridor, the rail mode shares would be higher. Thus, the forecasting tool reproduces current mode shares well under current conditions. The 1.5 -5.5 percent mode shares generally predicted by the Study Team for enhanced ser- vice is slightly lower than the typical HSR mode share modeled in the report High -Speed Ground Transportation for America. The different results are largely due to the much high frequencies assumed in that report typically 15+ HSR trains a day in each direction while this Study Team took a more conservative approach and modeled 8 trains in each direction. Table 5.5 looks at major city pairs in the 1997 study in which high -speed rail continues to be investigated. The base year (1993) conditions include both rail and bus, and are quite comparable to the Study Team's forecast using current Amtrak conditions: even between major cities rail mode share is one to three percent with the exception of Los Angeles to San Diego. 38 This study's modeling results differ from the 2003 Rochester HSR Study and the May 2009 Tri- State III results from TEMS. 39 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2006, pages 5-18 90 High -Speed Ground Transportation for America. Washington, D.C.: Federal Railroad Administration, 1997. 41 See the Statistical Supplement of FRA 1997 for full details. 5 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum When 110 mph HSR is tested, the mode share increases by a factor of roughly 3 to 4, which is consistent with the Study Team's findings, though again the much higher fre- quencies contribute to mode shares well above our top value of approximately 5.5 percent. The move from 110 mph to 150 mph on electrified track does not appear to substantially increase mode share with the partial exception of the San Francisco Bay to Los Angeles route and the Texas Triangle route. Presumably the higher fares largely offset the reduced travel time. The figures in the statistical supplement suggest that MAGLEV would capture 15-20 per- cent of mode share in the Northeast Corridor and 20 -25 percent for SF -Los Angeles -San Diego corridor. This may be the upper limit in terms of mode share that can be expected with advanced train technology, though the specific geography and alignment will cer- tainly impact ridership. The Midwest has a large number of mid -sized and large cities within 500 miles of each other, which will work to increase ridership while at the same time multiple stops along each potential route will work against reaching competitive speeds. Table 5.5 Rail Mode Shares of Major City Pairs Rail -Bus Rail Passenger Rail/Bus Rail Share (2030) Passenger (2030) Millions Share in 110 MPH 150 Electric Miles 1993 Miles 110 Miles 1993 Rail Rail (Millions) MPH Rail 150E Bay Area -Los Angeles -San Diego 2 5.8 7.4 391 1,716 2,581 w r t r s v ;t A 4 �e Chicago Hub 2 7.9 8.3 209 1,313 1,380 v r 0 i "i Chicago-St. Louis 4 10.5 11.9 89 362 417 °�Ar n a o-iiwl��' a "r 7e� V Portland Seattle- Vancouver 1 6.3 6.6 42 482 501 Source: Calculated from Statistical Supplement in High -Speed Ground Transportation for America, FRA 1997. 5.2.3 Passenger Rail Corridor Demand Summary Implementing conventional rail services to most cities within 150 miles of the Twin Cities would generate rail mode shares between 1.5 -2.0 percent. The following cities appear to generate rail demand to and from the Twin Cities on the order of 50,000 100,000 annual passengers: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Eau Claire, Wisconsin; Hinckley, Minnesota; Rochester, Minnesota; and Mankato, Minnesota. The analysis of expanded and improved service offers other important insights. Increasing train frequency to four or eight trains a day results in a significant increase in rail mode share, even at conventional speeds. Implementing high -speed rail at 110 mph also increases mode share, though the expected ridership increases are somewhat offset by the assumption of higher fares. Most city pairs in the analysis of improved service have a rail mode share of 1.5 -5.5 percent. Under the expanded service plan, the following cities are expected to have annual rail rid- ership of 100 250,000 to and from the Twin Cities: Duluth, Minnesota; Hinckley, Minnesota; Northfield, Minnesota; Rochester, Minnesota; and Mankato, Minnesota. The following cities are expected to have annual rail ridership of 250,000+ to and from the Twin Cities: Chicago, Illinois; Eau Claire, Wisconsin; and St. Cloud, Minnesota. 42 At eight trains a day, Hinckley will move into the next higher category. 5 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum 6.0 Conclusions Corridors that appear to be initially promising (subject to future analysis, performance metrics, integration of passenger /freight growth potential in future tasks) include: River route service to La Crosse, connecting to Madison and Chicago. This has rela- tively good track conditions, modest freight density, and good demand levels. Chal- lenges will be increasing train speed along the river route with its curves. Cooperative planning with Wisconsin for the optimal route between Madison and the Twin Cities could address the strong demand in Eau Claire and Rochester and connect to the strong demand for Chicago -Twin Cities rail service. Rochester service is com- plicated by extensive new rights -of -way being recommended by project proponents. Incremental improvements to Hinckley could offer strong demand and take advantage of relatively good track and modest freight density. Extending to Duluth involves expensive infrastructure improvements and modest demand. Incremental improvements to bring intercity service to shorter distance city pairs (not commuter rail service) such as Mankato, Northfield, Eau Claire, and St. Cloud seem to be warranted by demand estimates and possible rail market shares. Each of these city pairs involves infrastructure challenges from heavy freight density to necessary track improvements. Extending some of these corridors to cities in other states may need to wait for corridor funding commitments from other states. Interstate high -speed rail service and additional intrastate passenger rail services will place strains on rail infrastructure in the Twin Cities. Ramsey County has purchased the St. Paul depot for use as an intermodal center for transit and rail services. Northstar service will be using a capacity constrained station at the Target Field ball- park in downtown Minneapolis. Additional analysis in this study and by others will be necessary for high capacity, high- performance rail infrastructure to connect Minneapolis and St. Paul and for additional capacity at stations in both cities that offer the potential for increased train frequencies and connections to other transit services. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6-1 Appendix A Assumed Demand Minnesota Comprehen Statewide ger Rail Freight System Tech and Passen l Mgemorandum er Rail Plan Table A.1 Assumed Car Demand Max AADT Proportion of AADT To/From Allocated to Twin Daily Car Annual Car Twin Cities Cities Org/Dest. Demand Demand Bemidji 1,900 0.65 1,235 450,775 i- e firx Z.. -P 'i. mss ,r 3 3 e 44k4 Columbus, Wisconsin 1,900 0.65 1 ,2 3 5 450,775 1,900 Ik "au t p l.', I ".n il a k '1 e4 ik B. t4 a Y 5 n M t 4s A Detroit Lakes 2,950 0.65 1,918 699,888 ��Dulutll IC 1 ©.7 f 5 Eau Claire 23,600 0.65 15,340 5,599,100 0.v '31'''''''' 3 z ,tk ,r 1 rc fit" Grand Forks 10,500 0.65 6,825 2,491,125 International Falls Minnesota 2,000 0.65 1,300 474,500 'k'b 7" f• ii a tea" f 5 g Y 4 d 7w g«. fi 7 3 Madison 21, 0.5 10,650 3,887,250 �a kato,''r t 00 7'3,- 0.75 I g i t Marshall, Minnesota 2,500 0.65 1,625 593,125 °1 No Mi n 3 6,000 0 s X55 11-__:._ Oneida /Rhinelander, Wisconsin 5,900 0.75 4,425 1,615,125 Rd Wing, li ineso 2S r Rochester 17,100 0.75 12,825 4,681,125 'St. Ut a ^r k 9 g 9 53 0.5 t" Thief Fall Minne 1,850 0.65 1,203 438,913 Willmar,Minnesota 5, 700 tl.75 a A -1 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table A.2 Assumed Air Travel Demand Daily Paired Flights To/From Twin Cities Ann ual Paired Flights International Falls, Minnesota 132 39,600 g M1 f Thief Falls, Minnesota 29 8,830 '5 r ntem i r Oneida County, Wis 180 53,-9- 10 Centr Wiscon 408 122,290 Kalamazoo /Baffle Creek International 132 39, nlpN a Sil fi y k p t '.o a 41R y; Coun 2, r" a Gerald R. Ford I n ter national, Grand Rap 749 224,840 atio Indianapolis International 859 257,570 Chicago 4,158 Quad Cities, Iowa 301 90,400 "Duluth I, a a s Eau Claire 152 45,730 Grand Forks 506 151,840 Ka 751 143,760 La Crosse 479 Rockford, Illinois 0 30 St:``C"loud e y Sioux City, Iowa 245 73,360 F�alis, Dakota 802 t 240, Source: Airline Origin and Destination database, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. A -2 Minnesota Compreheneid Freight d g Passen Stat ger w Rail e System Technical anPassen Mem orandum Rail Plan Table A.3 Assumed Amtrak Demand 2005 Amtrak Annual Boardings/ Share Associated Amtrak Demand: Alightings: 205 with Twin Cities 2005 Milwaukee W 474,808 2 9,4% Portage Wisconsin 6,318 15 948 'a i ��i�st" Art +r i t 1 w;,>r 4 mei�,i a�i �N' Wiry a .�.:R Tomah Wiscons 8,232 30 2,4 Winona Minnesota 20,282 7 5 15,212 St. Paul- Minneapolisa M ,e-s7-ta 132,528 60 79,517 Staples Minnesota 5,287 75 3,965 r i- z b it 4 N z i a r 9 +�4'3 6 �sota 3,482 Y F argo North Dakota 18,812 35 6 ,5 8 4 .v- r i a 4'9 1 7$47 d z Devils Lake North Dakota 6,039 25 1,510 Source: Amtrak FY05 Fact Sheets for Mi Wisconsin, and North Dakota a Sixty percent of the Twin Cities boar dings /Alightings is assum to go to Chicago. A 3 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table A.4 Assumed Bus Demand Buses/Day (St. Paul Daily Annual St. Paul Both Directions) Ridershipa Ridershipb Bemidji, Minnesota 2 60 19,800 4� y4 Chicago, Illinois 11 330 108,900 6 180 Des Moines, Iowa 59,400 Detroit Lak e, Minnesota 1 30 9, Eau Claire Wisconsin 11 330 108,900 Grand Forks, North Dakota 2 60 19,800 i ran' °k k. g an a 2 te. a w 4 i c Hi M innesota 60 19,800 Indiana 8 240 t .t International Falls, Minnesota I f EF i} ,---4), a 441 a ti r ,Y 120 r `F ay Niif -C 3. n i t i ,�'�a i... s :'tt i4 .S L a C rosse, Wisconsin 4 120 Mankato, Minnesota 2 60 19,800 tit 6 0 i a t o tt Milwaukee, Wisconsin 10 300 99,000 1 fi ielc Moiene 0 y Rhine lander, Wisconsin Red n? n e i Cesdtd s J. s Rochester, Minnesota 2 60 19,800 Roc hester ],lln s 3 i' 0.. 0 Sioux Citty�,, Iowa 3 90 29,700 e n io City, Soot Dak i a 9b St. Cloud, Minnesota 7 210 69,300 t 9 27 1 Thief River Falls, Minnesota q e 71 4t isconsinirEi i4r v r' s t t= Willmar, Minnesota 2 60 19,800 n. Source: Greyhound reservations web site: http: /www.greyhound.com /home a Average capacity of 50 passengers with load factor of 60 percent. b Conversion factor of 330 reflects lower service on weekends. A Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table A.5 All Demand Components 2005 Annual Demand (Targets) Car Air Rail Bus Total Bemidj Minnesota ,775 54,730 0 19,800 525,305 N A r Y 450 G y "....0.,,:z a s Y. R!lk Chicago, I ll i n o is 8 ,295,6 65 1, 79,517 108,900 9,731,342 u Columbus a• a r d "'2ti ,,w Des M oi n es, I o w a 2,682,750 171,430 0 59,400 2,913,580 '1 etr n e ta t, 0 t i r a V 6 Y. Detroit, Michigan 967,957 828,730 0 6 1,865,987 Eau Claire, Wisconsin 5,599,100 45,730 0 108,900 5,753,730 i o, Nor ako 4- tip 750 5 n Grand Forks, North Dakota 2,491,125 151,8 6,246 19,800 2,669,011 a u cld Minnesot 5,721,375 0 0 49 x a' Indianapolis, Indiana 300,842 247,570 0 79,200 637,612 ln t e x t o nal lls Minne 474,500' 39,600 0 'k! 0 ti f�- Kansas City, Missouri 1,497,631 225,170 0 59,400 1,782,201 La rosse,TWisconsin 2,792,250 143, 12,199 39,600 98 y Madison, Wisconsin 3,887,250 271,780 0 79,200 4,238,230 `19 i Mars M 593,125 0 0 19,800 612,925 Ma s au cee Wisco n 3,882`,250 386,770 99 v g Northfield, Minnesota 1,642,500 0 0 29,700 1,672,200 On eid a Rl el a n der Wisconsin .,615,125 53,91 .0 0 f 8 Quad Cities, Iowa 949,000 90,400 0 48,500 1,088,900 Red W 8! l o 7 1,012, 0 `8 ,178 0 U' h k, Rochester, Minnesota 4,681,125 134,290 0 19,800 4,835,21 ityr' 7 �r 492,7 73,360, 0 2g,7 a 1 *4 R Sioux Falls,,,S Dakota 10 88 387 24 p 0 29,700 1,657,,380 p t ud, Minne 10,881,563 46,760 9,808': 69;390 ".':.410°:,Y:' St. Louis, Missouri 280,846 240,450 0 89,100 610,396 Thief Riuer" ay ll nesoi t 438.913 8, 830 tf' 0 h Tomah, Wisconsin 958,125 0 2,470 118,800 1, N Minn at 5 1 0 0 1 9 y n Winona, e s 821,250 0 15,212 19,800 856,262 Source: Tables A.1 through A.4. A -5 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Appendix B Cost Inputs into Travel Forecast Tool Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table B.1 Car Costs Car Costs To/From Twin Cities Generalized Cost Distance Operating Time Non- Weighted (Miles) Costa (Minutes) Business Work Average Bemidji 260 39.00 275 181.08 94.00 102.71 u ■11,. Eau Claire 84 12.60 91 59.62 30.80 33.68 yr* n.� p it a z Grand Forks 324 48.60 287 196.88 106.00 115.09 Hinck f 7 11.55 ti zs s, International Falls Minnesota 289 43.35 303 199.90 103.95 113.55 lei a nrt N 's€" R; r a, ':9 `via.' Mankato 87 13.05 109 69.37 34.85 38.30 L b rvv t lee 24.4 0 s3j °d 4 b 6 tea Northfield, Minnesota 44 6.60 52 33.47 17.00 18.65 Re Wing, nneso 45 6.7 56 _35 6 1 l t" Rochester 78 11.70 93 59.75 30.30 33.25 St. Cloud 76 11.40 78 5170. e r-"re' Thief Falls, Minnesota 264 39.60 325 207.52 104.60 114.89 ,0; ,s WillmagIvl#ue§ot# 103 15.45" 12�, "7900 f Oneida /Rhinelander, Wisconsin 233 34.95 240 158.95 82.95 90.55 tral 177 s 26.55 1 80 1155 ix.ii ,rPf Chicago 400 60.00 395 264.08 139.00 151.51 ol.un u� ns; 275 41.25 6 480;75'i 95.25 Madison 262 39.30 262 174.67 91.70 100.00 Des.Moin+ s, Iowa 245 36.75 220 150.42 80.75 Detroit Lakes 231 34.65 220 148.32 78.65 85.62 ..Ka"nsas City, 65.70 390 267.20 3.7(l il Milwaukee 328 49.20 320 214.53 113.20 123.33 d Cities, Iowa: 366 54.00 345 232.25 )23.96 ".r Rockford, Illinois 328 49.20 325 217.12 11420 124.49 S ioux ity, Iow 306. 45.90 305` 203.48- 1 6.90 1 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 271 40.65 240 164.65 88.65 96.25 .Tomah Wisconsin 163 2 4.45 161 167.63 .56.6 4143' ,T Winona 120 18.00 141 90.85 46.20 50.67 a Assumes $0.15 /mile. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-1 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table B.2 Air Passenger Costs Typical Cost -w/ 2 Cost of Generalized cost Business Generalized cost Non -work Direct flight time 1+ weeks (connecting cost time stop flight advance alternative) Nonstop 1 +stop cost bus Nonstop 1 +stop nonwork Bemidji 76 418 457.27 0.00 457.27 433.20 433.20 Central Wisconsin 60 158 189.00 0.00 189.00 170.00 170.00 Chicago 73 115 152.72 0.00 152.72 129.60 129.60 Dane County Regional 64 138 171.07 0.00 171.07 150.80 150.80 Des Moines International 66 450 484.10 0.00 484.10 463.20 463.20 Detroit Metropolitan 100 210 1091 96 1,142.67 204.50 204.50 1,111.00 138.00 138.00 Duluth 47 360 418 295 442.28 481.00 442.28 427.40 367.00 367.00 Eau Claire 46 350 373.77 0.00 373.77 359.20 0.00 359.20 Fargo 57 450 479.45 0.00 479.45 461.40 0.00 461.40 Grand Forks 66 514 548.10 0.00 548.10 527.20 0.00 527.20 Indianapolis International 100 200 434 252 485.67 355.33 355.33 454.00 292.00 292.00 Intemational Falls MN 87 457 501.95 0.00 501.95 474.40 0.00 474.40 Kalamazoo /Battle Creek 190 375 473.17 473.17 413.00 413.00 Kansas City 240 280 404.00 404.00 328.00 328.00 La Crosse 50 195 430 373 455.83 473.75 455.83 440.00 412.00 412.00 St. Louis International 90 185 316 218 362.50 313.58 313.58 334.00 255.00 255.00 General Mitchell (Milwaukee) 70 88 124.17 0.00 124.17 102.00 0.00 102.00 Oneida County, WI 66 450 484.10 0.00 484.10 463.20 0.00 463.20 Quad Cities, IA 70 291 327.17 0.00 327.17, 305.00 0.00 305.00 Rochester 40 180 350 297 370.67 390.00 370.67 358.00 333.00 333.00 Rockford, IL 0.00 0.00 9,999.00 0.00 0.00 9,999.00 Sioux City, IA 59 1438 1,468.48 0.00 1,468.48 1,449.80 0.00 1,449.80 Sioux Falls SD 57 450 479.45 0.00 479.45 461.40 0.00 461.40 St. Cloud 40 350 370.67 0.00 370.67 358.00 0.00 358.00 Thief Falls, MN 130 457 524.17 524.17_ 483.00 483.00 Source: Expedia website Table B.3 Amtrak Costs Fare to Fare from Scheduled Twin Twin Generalized cost Trains /day time (hrs) Cities Cities Avg. fare Business Leisure Weighted avg. Chicago 1 8.25 74 96 85 340.75 184.00 199.68 Milwaukee, WI 1 6.5 68 89 78.5 280.00 156.50 168.85 Columbus, WI 1 5.5 55 72 63.5 234.00 129.50 139.95 Portage 1 5 54 70 62 217.00 122.00 131.50 Tomah, WI 1 4 41 54 47.5 171.50 95.50 103.10 LaCrosse 1 3.25 31 41 36 136.75 75.00 81.18 Red Wing, MN 1 1.5 10 18 14 60.50 32.00 34.85 St. Cloud 1 1.5 11 11 11 57.50 29.00 31.85 Detroit Lakes 1 3.25 31 31 31 131.75 70.00 76.18 Fargo 1 4.25 38 38 38 169.75 89.00 97.08 Grand Forks 1 5.75 46 46 46 224.25 115.00 125.93 Winona 1 2.5 20 20 20 97.50 50.00 54.75 Source: Amtrak reservations website B Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table B.4 Bus (Greyhound) Costs Fare Avg. Generalized cost scheduled St Paul Inbound Outbound time (mins) Business Non -Work Weighted avg. Bemidji, MN 35 35 405 244.25 116.00 128.83 Wausau, WI 26 26 252.3 156.36 76.46 84.45 Chicago, IL 27 27 547.5 309.88 136.50 153.84 Des Moines, IA 35 37 368.4 226.34 109.68 121.35 Detroit Lake 29 29 360 200.50 86.50 97.90 Duluth, MN 19 18 172.5 107.63 53.00 58.46 Eau Claire, WI 15 15 75 53.75 30.00 32.38 Fargo, ND 24 34 438.15 255.38 116.63 130.50 Grand Forks, ND 42 42 570 336.50 156.00 174.05 Hinckley, MN 16 120 78.00 40.00 43.80 Kansas City, MO 55 57 639.75 386.54 183.95 204.21 La Crosse, WI 24 22 248.25 151.26 72.65 80.51, Madison, WI 31 31 325.65 199.25 96.13 106.44 Mankato, MN 17 17 150 94.50 47.00 51.75 Marshall, MN 32 29 318 194.80 94.10 104.17 Milwaukee, WI 34 34 440.25 261.46 122.05 135.99 Northfield, MN 8.5 8.5 108 64.30 30.10 33.52 Davenport, IA 42 42 756.75 432.99 193.35 217.31 Rochester, MN 16 16 96 65.60 35.20 38.24 Rockford, IL 44 44 614.25 361.36 166.85 186.30 Sioux City, IA 42 42 597 350.45 161.40 180.31 Sioux Falls, SD 37 37 380.25 233.46 113.05 125.09 St. Cloud, MN 9 13 150.15 88.58 41.03 45.78 St. Louis, MO 60 60 1025.25 589.71 265.05 297.52 Tomah 26 26 214.98 124.07 56.00 62.80 Willmar, MN 20 20 214.5 130.83 62.90 69.69 Winona 18 18 147 84.95 38.40 43.06 Source: Greyhound reservation website. Note: fares are two -week advance fares. Missing return fares (in italics) are assumed to be the same as outbound fares. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 13-3 Appendix C Demographic Forecasting Assumptions, 2005 to 2030 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table C.1 Assumed Changes in Demographic Data Change in University travel demand City Population enrollment Employment (equal weights) Bemidji 30.2% 4.1% 21.1% 18.5% Central WI/Wausau 15.3% -7.5% 12.8% 6.9% Chicago 14.8% 14.8% 18.8% 16.1% Columbus, WI 16.1% -9.9% 12.8% 6.3% Des Moines, IA 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% Detroit Lakes 23.8% -1.4% 13.3% 11.9% Duluth 1.5% 21.2% -8.5% -9.4% Eau Claire 20.0% 6.6% 12.8% 13.2% Fargo 8.1% -7.4% 2.3% 1.0% Grand Forks -8.3% -8.3% -8.3% -8.3% Hinckley 26.6% -11.1% 21.8% 12.4% International Falls MN -6.3% -15.0% -16.4% -12.6% Kansas City 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% 8.8% La Crosse 13.9% -1.8% 12.8% 8.3% Madison 27.2% 12.3% 12.8% 17.5% Mankato 16.1% -1.5% 9.3% 8.0% Marshall, MN -1.9% -18.3% -9.9% -10.1% Milwaukee 7.8% 0.7% 10.8% 6.4% Northfield, MN 33.5% 1.5% 24.9% 20.0% Oneida/Rhinelander, WI 5.8% -33.0% 12.8% -4.8% Quad Cities, IA 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% 1.7% Red Wing, MN 19.8% -1.4% 8.7% 9.0% Rochester, MN 34.0% 19.1% 24.5% 25.8% Sioux City, IA 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% Sioux Falls, SD -9.2% -9.2% -9.2% -9.2% St. Cloud, MN 30.9% 0.2% 21.9% 17.7% Thief River Falls, MN 10.7% 2.3% 2.3% 5.1% Tomah, WI 17.6% -9.3% 12.8% 7.0% Willmar, MN 5.9% -8.2% -4.6% -2.3% Winona, MN 2.5% -20.8% -5.3% -7.8% Source:US Census; Minnesota State Demographic Center; Wisconsin Office of Economic Advisors; NIPC; SEMCOG The most reasonable results came from averaging these three growth factors (population, employment, and university enrollment) and then applying this value directly to the estimated total base year demand. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C Appendix D Forecast Demand by Mode Minnes Compr e h ensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technica Memorandum Tables D.1 through D.3 present a more detailed look at forecasted demand across all main modes (auto, air, rail, and commercial bus) in 2030 under the main scenarios, namely if current conditions are maintained (Table D.1), if new corridors open with service comparable to existing Amtrak service (Table D.2) and if service is expanded in terms of either frequency or ru speeds (Table D.3). To avoid large discrepancies in the total demand column the values have been rounded to the nearest 100 rather than to the nearest 500 Tables 5.2 through 5.4, although this should not to be taken as an indication that the pr ecision is any higher in these tables.' Table D.1 Projected 20 Travel Curren Con ditions wit No New Rail Corridors Automobile Air Rail Bus Total Chic 9,602,600 1,350,400 93 500 255,700 11,302,100 �o rr, II I'"" teal y �„ir �I Igo a °x �s �r,, R i d r i i i i 1 r'ZQ '0"',.' 4 4747-* i i kk�- i 1 ''t ':Ii 800 Columbus Wisconsin 480 200 0 600 0 480,8 y y r� k :2,4114 �5,�1�11 ���t� i is -0�� La Cross 3 128,500 13,200 43,500 3,236,100 r 8,1011 r E i. ss 1 0� g m i u t'bt Red Wing, Minnesota 1,098,600 0 14,6 0 1 S Cloud, Miinnesota 12,22 310,,600. i s i Detroit Lakes 772,300 0 6,9 16 7 Fargo ,625, 239,200 1:,700 �r "p i "a Grand For 2, 152,300 2 19 800 7,1 67 2,446,600 Eau Clair ,;W isconsin A227,' ,2 4 900 v 173,604 4 1 Madison, Wisconsi 4,5 18,900 383,500 0 7 f 5,500 ,977,900 1*, er i 4 a s l' O iii9 i I I 1 r 0 X7,504 r ti One Wisc onsin 1,483,30 105,3 0 0 1,588,600 Be idji, Minnes 559.600 47,3 0 1.5 4v i i Willmar, M i nn esota 1,525,6 0 0 17,600 1 5 43,200 D 6 100 14 0 49, 7 00 el i i i Hinckley M innesota Y 6, 0 0 269,000 6,4 87 600 Rochester, M nne ota 5.860 165,140 0 ---58.0° 0 !y i International Falls, Minnesota 407,800 41,700 CI--44.' 0 449,500 an Mi n n esota '0909°0°0 0 0 4 1,3011 r "i ri Marshall, -...,„1 nn esota 541, 0 0 9,3 551,300 North iejd, Minne 1,990,600 0 0 15, i °i Thief Rive Falls, Minn esota 425, 44,6 0 0 470,400 Sic F all s Sout Dak 1 65,100 1000 0 E„ n wT ,,:ii i Des Moines Iowa 2,750,900 183,ON 0 59,400 2,993, Siou City, Iow 535,200 66,300 0 17,500 619,000 1 One i that emerges due to the mec hanis tic nature of the f orecas tin g too when a djusting for higher tra frequ encies is that the res bus shares oft l ook too low. C onversely, bec ause data on p assenge r incom was not available whe d oing mo del estimation, the valu of tim for aviation pas sengers is c o ns id e rably higher than for potentia rail p assengers, m ak i ng i t difficult to move pe ople fr om the aviation mo de to ra comp ared t o the res ults reported in FRA 1997. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. D Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Passenger Rail System Technical Memorandum Table D.2 Projected 2030 Travel in New Rail Corridors Automobile Air Rail Bus Total Eau Claire, Wisconsin 6,183,200 171,000 95,100 61,000 6,510,400 W nsin 1 ,t`P 381 30,800 -yr :LI Central Wisconsin (Wausau) 2,821,300 134,600 13,900 47,200 3,017,000 Oneida/Rhinelander, W onsin 1,47 ,000 105.000 4,600 0 Ez r Bemidji, Minnesota 558,400 47,200 1,400 15,300 622,300 Willmar, Minnesota 1,506 1,506,000 0 19,800 17, Duluth, Minn esota 3,687,900 142,100 29,600 49,300 3,908,900 H inckley M 6,138,800 0 83, 200` 265,60 4 a Rochester, Minnesota 5,784,000 162,900 79,700 58,000 6,084,600 International Falls, Minnesota 407,100 41,600 700 Mankato, Minnesota 3,915,900 0 84,500 40,400 4,040,800 Marshall, MiBposPta 538,500 0 3,500 9,,300 551390 Northfield, Minnesota 1,950,000 0 40,900 15,400 2,006,300 Thief Rivet Falls, Minnesota 425,, 900 0 a 0_00 44,500 arcs sr acre Sioux Falls, South Dakota 1,359,000 104,600 6,700 33,800 1,504,100 Des'Mo es,i6i4ii 2,744,600 182,500 6,900 59,200 2,x#,310, Sioux City, Iowa 534,600 66,300 700 17,500 619,000 D Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statger ewidRail e Freight Tec h and Passennical Memoranger Rail Plan System Table D.3 Projected 2030 Travel Expanded Rail S Service Level Automobile Air Rail Bus Total Chicago HSR 9565,100 1,329,900 298,900 108,100 11,302,100 a a� .a fi r s €f '!9 r o" Columbus, W HSR 478,500 0 2 300 0 480,800 ::-'7:.'1'..r.:''' N �.:r 0 'aN n t v. 9 .b, ,�b 1 rr- 5',. =a.' 1, t t k a fi /-t-7-1:3s se HSR 3,045,600 125,5 42,500 22,500 3 236,100 44f-.--,-;2034(12-4'-''' 0 la St. Cloud HSR 11,976,9 26 712, 0 12,952,10 176 1/ti! t P U 00 Q` z r w. aL27i& a Detroit L Hsi, 773,100 0 11,500 11,500 796,000 h� 3,6 6,700 239, 700 36,60 5 i' C Grand Forks E 2,151,600 220 14,200 60 2,446,600 4 w: 6 6 00. i i 1 71 3 r o 9. t i M E 4,477,900 381,100 83,100 35 4,977,900 trh is t n Wausa 2,815,400 '134,600 37,400 F ltd Oneida /Rhinelander, W i sc onsin E 1,471,300 105,000 12,300 0 1588,600 'Bem�dj E 5 57,800, `47.200 3, n 13,500' Willmar, Minneso E 1,489,700 0 53,600 0 1543,200 Duluth k K E 3,5 r 142,100 0,000 1 1 500 r Hinckley E 6,103, 0 224,700 159 6,487,600 Dul t 3673,200 135,000 '00,800 0 6 Hinc kley E8' 6,0 0 283 1 6,487,6 r` st l3 anch :r, a E"z 5 ,006,400 4 "4 262,900; t m Roch (Main Line) HR 5,713,500 147,500 223 0 6,084,600 In c tionalFalls,•Minn E 'z „705,900 4'1,600~ 2,000 0: 4 Ma nkato, Minnesota E 3,81 2 700 0 22 8,100 0 4,040,800 Mar shaf, M r u E 5 37",000 0 9,500 ,8 N orthfield Minn E'''''''''' 1, 0 110,400 0 2,006,300 =T River Galls, +lin? esota E 423,3 44 500" 2,600 4S 4l ,i Sio Falls, South Dakota E 1 104,600 18,000 2 1504,100 a Expanded service (8 trains /day, 79 mph and fare CO $0.20 /mile). D -3 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 60k d 1,RDYY1 \AX.C6_,CL. l\RULAYLO Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan ----V 4., F ht and Passenger Rail System Planning Technical Memorandum t\e L 006. 5.0 Conclusion Based on the ridership forecasts from the passenger rail technical memorandum and cor- ridor characteristics summarized in this memorandum, the corridors were scored and ranked. The impact of high -speed rail opportunities will be addressed in subsequent tasks as high -speed passenger rail service would likely not share the same track as freight service. The scoring and ranking were conducted as follows. City pairs with comparatively high ridership projections were given three points. City pairs with comparatively low rider- ship projections were given one point, and the remaining city pairs were scored as medium and given two points. Good track conditions consisted of Class W track with average passenger speeds of over 70 mph and were given three points. Passenger speeds for corridors without any existing passenger service were adjusted from the freight speeds based on class of track to yield and apples -to- apples speed comparison. The track condi- tions for remaining Class IV track and Class III track were recorded as fair and given two points. The remaining track was recorded as poor and given one point. Available capac- ity was recorded as high and given three points if the corridor currently was predomi- nantly LOS A or B. Corridors that were predominantly LOS C or D were recorded as medium and given two points. The corridors that were predominantly LOS E or F were recorded as having low available capacity and given one point. The scoring for the three assessments were summed and the corridors were ranked and split into three tiers based on the total assessment. The first tier as shown in Table 5.1 appear to be the most viable corridors due to reasona- bly high ridership, and or the track and signaling would require relatively few improve- ments to accommodate passenger rail traffic. Tiers two and three (Tables 5.2 and 5.3) project lower ridership than tier one and /or more necessary track and signaling improvements. These initial assessments are subject to change based on changes in assumptions related to passenger service frequency and speed. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-1 Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Freight and Passenger Rail System Planning Technical Memorandum Table 5.1 Tier I Existing and Proposed Passenger/Freight Corridors Potential Track Available Corridor Ridership Condition Capacity Coon Rapids Big Lake High Good Medium K a rt -s @.m .0 d r �'r dam. 'i,d, F.; =m �nu+ Minneapolis Willmar Medium Fair High w j n 'y��R+ t T 11'4°4 py z_ d High e t$ R y #g� ipo mniM1St S F) High rtr c 3� Y w' a Minneapolis St. Paul (CP) High Fair Medium is :ai Hastings Winona High Fair High t a� ,n<m'k q rte. Northfield Albert Lea (Kansas City) L Loo w Good High t e �x e� fi t' `i" r .-"S n H P St. Paul- Eau Claire, Wisconsin Medium Fair High Table 5.2 Tier II Existing and Proposed Passenger/Freight Corridors Potential Track Available Corridor Ridership Condition Capacity Minneapolis Coon Rapids High Fair Low Coon Rapids Cambridge Medium Good Low w .ai e r r ai 4 h ow a I� s 1 �.aa 2•«� ttR e`6nYAk b. k Willmar Sioux Falls, South Dakota Low Good Medium d dium r r r...* Minneapolis Owatonna Rochester Medium Poor High 5 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan Freight and Passenger Rail System Planning Technical Memorandum Table 5.3 Tier III Existing and Proposed Passenger/Freight Corridors Potential Track Available Corridor Ridership Condition Capacity Cambridge Duluth Medium Fair Low a' Q ke" tea Minneapolis Norwood /Young America Low Poor High e 9911 e .40 r ����k ♦Nam 8'h a a M Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 5-3