The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.a. MIRTS� � 4 . . . . �� . . . . CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR DISCUSSION COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 AGENDA ITEM: MIRTS AGENDA NO. PREPARED BY: THOMAS D. BURT, CITY ADMII�TISTRATOR T�� ' � _� ATTACHMENTS: MIRTS FEASIBILITY STUDY, DRAFT RESOLUTIONS Staff is seeking direction from the City Council on MIRTS.'There is momentum building MnDOT and the Metropolitan Council to see MIRTS become a reality. It is important that the City Council take a official position on MIRTS as it will provide the direction to staff on what position to take in future meetings. MIRTS will have a significant impact on Rosemount with increased truck traffic,train traffic and drastically change the image of the city.The desired location for the MIRTS facility is south of County Road 42 on the University property.The site chosen on the U of M land is the old arsenal.Where it would be a positive to have that specific site cleaned up,the impact it will have on the University's plans for agricultural research may also be adversely affected. The idea of MIRTS is a good idea from a regional economic and planning view,however,careful consideration on siting this facility must be considered. Presently Dakota County has an under designed east west highway system that is not efficient. Lack of expressways and MIRTS adding additional heavy truck traffic to these inefficient roadways will only increase problems on County Road 42 and future County Road 46.Future taxes will increase to improve these roadways,and as we know, federal and state funds are disappearing for road construction. The greatest benefit to Rosemount is that the diagonal track that travels east west from 145`'' Street to Koch could be eliminated.This does not eliminate the at grade crossing on County Road 42,as the north south track that heads to Eagan will remain. MIRTS promises to bring related businesses and new economic growth;this must also be carefully looked at. The types of business most commonly located near these facilities are trucking terminals, large asphalt parking lots with sma1120,000 to 50,000 square foot buildings not bringing in much tax base for the amount of land needed.The relationship to MIRTS and where these buildings will be located is also an issue. If the university does not sell the land and only leases the land,there is no tax base. 'The idea of lift charges has been discussed but there are no guarantees. The MIRTS facility on the University site will also effect the Port Authority's business park.The new track alignment will come very close to the southern edge of the business park. A change of design will be needed to avoid at grade crossings in the business park. The relocation also adds an additional at grade crossing on Biscayne Avenue. This will require Rosemount residents' taxes to increase to cover the cost of constructing at grade crossings and future maintenance cost associated with the crossings. The MIRTS facility will also bring more than twice the amount of trains through the city. The increased traffic will impact existing housing and proposed housing developments near Chippendale Avenue. As I prepare this memo it is clear that the overall impact of MIRTS leans towards the negative side. Attached are draft resolutions, one for and one against MIRTS. Council needs to weigh the pros and cons and further advise those working on the project.We will also send letters to State representatives,MnDot,Met. Council and the University president. RECOMMENDED ACTION NOTES: � CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA� RESOLUTION 1997- A RESOLUTION AGAINST THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MINNESOTA INTERMODAL RAILROAD TERMINAL WHEREAS,the Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Study(MIRTS)was formed in 1993 to evaluate the need for a new or expanded intermodal railroad terminal facility in the Twin Cities; and WHEREAS, a feasibility study report was completed by MIRTS that identified two sites in Rosemount that met six criteria and five requirements for being feasible for operations and access; and WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Council approved two actions on February 27, 1997, including (1) its facilitation ofpartnerships to construct an intermodal terminal facility in Rosemount by the year 2000; and(2) its coordination with Mn/DOT and the effected governmental units to study by year-end 1998 investrnent priorities and funding strategies for rail crossing and intersection improvements; and WHEREAS,the City of Rosemount desires to inform the Metropolitan Council of its views concerning MIRTS. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby make the following conclusions: 1. The terminal is expected to greatly increase truck traffic within Rosemount with assumed local impacts ranging from noise levels to further congestion. 2. The status of existing CSAH 42 and future CSAH 46 is uncertain in relationship to functional classification and their use for terminal truck traffic. 3. The terminal is expected to greatly increase train traffic within Rosernount with assumed local impacts ranging from noise levels to traffic delays. I 4. Although a relocated train track may provide benefits by decreasing traffic across , CSAH and other streets, it may adversely impact the current design of the Rosemount ' Business Park area south of CSAH 42. 5. The terminal is expected to use significant land acreage without the benefits of higher commercial/industrial property taxes. Most peripheral land uses are also expected to include very low building-to-land ratios. Furthermore,no evidence has been provided by MIRTS that a local host community fee will be imposed in lieu of property taxes. , r ' � i 6. The Ros emount om C rehensiv e Guide Plan desi ates the ro osed sites for the P � P P terminal as a combination of Agriculture, Conservancy and Institutional. An amendment will need to be addressed in the upcoming 1998 amendment process to identify these sites as most appropriate for an industrial land use. 7. Although the eastern portion of Rosemount,commonly referred to as Pine Bend, includes significant industrial uses,the city's residents want Rosemount to retain a rural character that includes substantial agricultural and open space land uses. 8. No support has yet been expressed by the property owners of the two existing sites, namely Koch Industries and the University of Minnesota. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby declares the adverse impacts from a proposed intermodal terminal are of significant concern and must be addressed jointly with the City of Rosemount. ADOPTED this 9th day of September, 1997. Cathy Busho,Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Motion By: Second By: Voted in Favor: Voted Against: Member{s) not present: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT �, DAKOTA COUNTY,MINNESOTA I RESOLUTION 1997- �� A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ' MINNESOTA INTERMODAL RAILROAD TERMINAL ' WHEREAS,the Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Study(MIRTS)was formed in 1993 to evaluate the need for a new or expanded intermodal railroad terminal facility in the Twin Cities; and ' WHEREAS,a feasibility study report was completed by MIRTS that identified two sites in Rosemount that met six criteria and five requirements for being feasible for operations and access; and ' WHEREAS,the Metropolitan Council approved two actions on February 27, 1997, including (1) its facilitation of partnerships to construct an intermodal terminal facility in Rosemount by the year 2000; and(2) its coordination with Mn/DOT and the effected governmental units to study by year-end 1998 investment priorities and funding strategies for rail crossing and intersection improvements; and WHEREAS,the City of Rosemount desires to inform the Metropolitan Council of its views concerning MIRTS. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby make the following conclusions: 1. The terminal is expected to increase truck traffic which will include needed improvements to highway intersections 2. The terminal is expected to increase train traffic which will include beneficial rail relocations to reduce train traffic across CSAH 42 and other streets. 3. The terminal is expected to increase the level of cornmerciaUindustrial property taxes due largely to peripheral land development. Furthermore,the city expects that a local host community fee will be impased as part of the terminal operations cost. 4. The Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan designates the proposed sites for the terminal as a combination of Agriculture,Conservancy and Institutional. An amendment will need to be addressed in the upcoming 1998 amendment process to identify these sites as most appropriate for an industrial land use. .. - . . . .. ... �. .. . ._. .:a 5. The eastern portion of Rosemount, commonly refereed to as Pine Bend, includes significant industrial uses. In addition,the University of Minnesota's arsenal st�e has the potential of being cleared up as part of the terminal project BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby declares that positive impacts from a proposed intermodal terminal are of significant and should be addressed jointly with the City of Rosemount. ADOPTED this 9th day of September, 1997 Cathy Busho,Mayar ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Motion by: Second by: Voted in favor: Voted against: Member(s)not present: ' ,� �,� � �a��s. �+xr�,� i6..,. �,,�. " ,,,�,:x'' ` ti ,�°,�r�s 3,r. "" � r` � � x9 '� �`��',�'� ` � � ��s-,,..r.�. a.`,'��4�°� +,,.. « .r�k'�'"` ��'� � � ��, �y,nv.Tr'-" 4Yx 1:��3' °�tfr� •� � �.�. . � +� ��..�tr} c .�*.,��. .-+�i[��.� �.' �.��sa ,�•�"y= - '��bu�yd � r�� I�I,._'"f�� S 'S' °�'N�t^��Y�� . .�R�A k. . '7' '.J +'a t,, r � "�"^ �� r., . � �.��s �t��1"�' r `�f � r '^ �.,J`R\'�`};.� +j +� � K ,t��' ,�'1� si ° ; F. �4 � / �,��y �� s� � &� f �, ��, r �./' 1�F'\ Jw} .�,¢. � ^.. � ~••�.. '.. . . ... �' ,F A ,. .i. .� . �a" � . 2`:'.y. L,. �� a ''� F � - . t�, '� ,.�,�,. "��! �� ..�+'��. •f�� Y . aP. r-. � a � �4 �, � ��•� � �� _ 1�:; � �:? i �`' , . � 't_ ��.. E ;� '� j � _ ;:;�, �_ „�,, , ' Fro � i�; ,� � t, 1 3 --„_^ (F}�z ' � � i� �- .; . I i _ .�'�.,, ` �� $:.:�.... ��s�`� '" 4 '"^"e -'� �ii� � � H �� „"�:�r ,<F . - � - .'�",.� I,. � � � �� +. �, �.. � - ,'#�,.ry✓ ,t-✓�'�y� x `-.:., ., - ._, � . ��+'�d � � ��.�� s�' ly,tl��Y�ti.'�� r.p�: .`. . ... ,�,. �. _ ,. .,. .v... ...� � � � I � I + II • • � � T �� + ■ �� • �� ■ � Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Feasibility Study -s�: �. � � � Acknowledgments � r The 1996 �Iinn�sotci f►u�•rmocictl Railroud Terminnl FtRsibilitv Suidv ��•as prepared b�� he � NIIRTS 5teering Committee �vith guidance from a juint ad�•isory committee: � For more r information: MIRTS Steering Committee Members r If you have any ques- Minnesota Department of Transportation � tions regarding the R.John Anderson � info�mation in this Donna Lindberg � report contact: CecilSelness � Metro olitan Council � Cecil Selness, P � MIRTS Chair Jim Barton � Minnesota Department � of Transportation Burlington Northern Santa Fe Phone: (612) 297-7860 John Ackerman � F�: (612) 296-6599 Doug Rodell �` � R.John Anderson Canadian Pacific Railway � MIRTS Project Manager Greg Jones � Minnesota Department Judy Mitchell � ' of Transportation Susan Wieb er � Phone: (612) 582-1388 � Fax: (612) 582-1368 Union Pacific Railroad � Jerry Panning � Jim Barton Ben Shelton � Senior Transportation � Planner � Metropolitan Council M�RT$ 14C�vi5ot'�/ COmmi1'tee Membet'S � Phone: (612) 229-2735 � Fax: (612) 229-2739 Clark Arneson Jerry Hatfield � Ciry of Bloomington Schneider National Gene Bakke Janna King � For additional copies oF Ford Ntotor Compan�- Economic Deeelopment Services � this report, please Fred Beier Sherrg Munyon � Uni��ersity of Ltinnesota Minnesota Chamber of Commerce � contact: James Bonfig Norm Piatti « Murphy Warehouse 3�1 � Donna Lindberg Tom Burke David Piggott �c MIRTS Public Affairs Trimodal, Inc. East vtetro Development Corporation Minnesota Department Thomas D. Burt Chip Smith « oE Transportation City� oE Rosemount T�vin :vfodal « Phone: (612) 782-1366 Jerry Flaherty John Tschida « Fax: (612) 582-1368 United Parcel Ser��ice Trimodal Inc. « Richard Gabrialson Craig Waldron « Target Stores City oE Oakdale « Cov��r ph„a,hv .`'ralr �un v�s,. Dan Jerik Duane Ward « 5� r�aul r��m�er r�rc<� Mercury Dispatch Trucking Yeltuw Freight Systems inc. « « _ � « Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Feasibility Study « � ___ _ � ' � � � � � Ta e o Contents �. �. �. � �. � �► Page � Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Terminal Structure/Organization . . . . . . . . 10 Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l3 Siting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Railway and Highway Access . . . . . . . . . . 17 Impacts/Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Findings/Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 APPendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Feasibility Study � ----------- -�� '� --._ � - -- . � � �; � . � � � � -�: �_, � . � . I ntro uc tion : � � It is not MIRTS' The �Iinnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Stud�� (N[IRTS) w�as Formed in June oE � 1993 to evaluate the need for new or espanded intermodal terminal facilities in the � intent to be the Twin Cities metropolitan area. i�tIRTS is a public/private partnership originatly made up � owner or builder of of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Canadian Pacific Railwa}' (CP), the r the terminal or to Minnesota Department oE Transportation (Nin/DOT) and [he Metropolitan (i�tet) � Council. Union Pacific Railroad (UP)joined later in anticipation of ertending their ser- S designnte n speciflC vice to [he Twin Cities area. preferred site. This � '' MIRTS completed a study in February 1995; concluding that the region needs to more � I� report will help the than double its intermodal terminal capacity. This would require construction of ne�v � appropriate parties facilities. MIRTS then investigated the feasibility of creating a joint facility large enough � understctnd what it to meet the Twin Cities' intermodal shipping needs to the year 2C�12, � would tahe to � In November 1995, MIRTS identified one area in Cottage Grove and t�vo in Rosemount �F develop, own ancl as viable locations for a new multi-user, intermodal terminal in the metro area. MIRTS � operc�te a consulted ��ith staff from the three local railroads and its eighteen-member ad��isory � commit[ee - made up of local manufacturers, shippers, municipalities, academics, crans- � YYlUlti-liSeY, portation professionals and potential users - before making these selections. � intermodal � terminal. This report establishes a model for terminal investment and examines the terminal's pos- � sible eFfect upon local communities and the public highway and pri�ace railroad infra- � struc[ure. � To prepare this report, MIRTS sought input from private and municipal interests who � will live near and use [he facility, including those outside of the truck/rail intermodal � freight business. � � In this report MIRTS has described [he following: � A recommended approach for developing and operating the facility. � Estimated capital in��estment and opera[ing costs for a multi-user facility. � Poten[ial Einancing scenarios. � Connections required from the terminal site areas to the road and rail systems. � The terminal's impact upon land use and economic development. � � It is not M[RTS' intent to be the owner or builder of the terminal or to designate a spe- � cific preferred site. This report will he(p the appropria[e parties understand wha[ it S would take to develop, own and operate a multi-user, intermodal [erminal. � � � � s � ♦ 4 � � . . Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Feasibility Study � � . . . itYr;,,r,r-._ _-------- - --. . � � i T �= � . Execut�ve Summar y In 1993, the �linnesot� Intermoclal Railroa�i Ttrminal �tud�� IIRT�) ��as f��rn�ecl t�> � e�'aluate the need Eor new or elpanded intenn��dal railruad ttrminal (acilities in thc T�t�in Cities metropolitan area. In 199-}, i�tIRTS conduc[ed stttdie� [o Eorecas[ the grt��t�[h in demand for intermodal � � � � � � � shipping in the Twin Cities area �ind to asse�s the capacity of e�isting intermodal termi- , nal facilities to meet the Forecasted demand. In 199�, �lIRTS issued a repurt that �ummari=ed the stud�� results and made recom- mendations based on the stud�� findings: �� Intermodal shipping demand �vill continue to �ro�� steadil��. The group concluded that � the current 2�O,U00 container �unitl "tifts" pzr}-ear at the t��o existing T��in Cities ter- minals would gro��-by� about �.6 percent annuall}- to the y�ear 2002, then at a reduced � rate oE 2.8 percent to the year 201�. Foreca�ted �ro«-th by� th�u }'ear is �30.000 liEts. � � ,� �� TWIN CITIES INTERMODAL TERMINAL CAPACITIES AND PROJECTED CAPf�CITY DEMAND � 800 700 ::�� 0 600 0 o ;:, - y 500 � � � 400 "' �; �,� � �� r � �� '+ � a 300 - WITHBIMPRO EME S ea .r � 2�� - CURRENT YOLUMES 100 - 0 -� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1988 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 YEARS 5 Executive Summary MIRTS � f. . f � f f ItlterrtlOC�el [ntermodai �en•ice in the T��in Cites is constrained by� terminal capacit��. The Burlin�t�n � ' N o r t he r n �a n t a F e (B NS F) h u b i n S a i n t P a u l i s a l r e a d y� o p e ra t ing at i t s pra c t i c a l �a pac i t��. � shipping deniniid � W1II C011C1i111C' CO The Canadian Pacific Rail�va��'s (CP's) 5horeham �ite in �linneapulis has sufficient capac- � gi�ow stenclily. it}� for the railroad's Eoreseeable requirements. � � Iyltef"f110C�Ctl SeYV1Ce The Union Pacific Railroad (liP1 has gained access to �he T�vin Cities b�� purchasin� th� � in the Twin Cities Chicago & �lorthwestern Railroad, but has no terminal facility to ser�•e the market. The � is constrctined by liP is actively seeking a [erminal location to initiate intermodal service. � teYl�lir1L11 CC{ iCit . � p .y Since the release of the 1997 report, the MIRTS partners supported in[erim impro�-e- f ments at the two current facilities. Howe��er, the�� preferred building a ne�v � multi-user facility- as the most effective way to ser��e demand over the long term. � � During the last year, MIRTS has: f ■ Carried out a site selection process and identified three possible terminal location�. � ■ Met with local counties, municipalities, lando�vners and afEected businesses to deter- f mine local impacts and beneFits of a terminal in their area. f ■ Met with local rail, land-use and environmental authorities to determine require- f ments and impacts. � ■ Maintained contact with legislators and local elected officials regarding the VIIRTS f process and how it may affect their constituents. � ■ Worked with independent consultants to create a pro-forma business plan and ter- � minal operating plan. � ■ Identified the rail-system and highway-access issues outside [he poten[ial terminal � site areas. � tn this feasibility report, MIRTS has: � � ■ Recommended that any- new joint terminal be built as a private venture. � ■ Recommended that any new joint terminal be operated by a third parry. � ■ Estimated the cost of de��eloping a multi-user facility. � ■ Identified siting issues. � ■ Determined needed connections from poten�ial sites to road and rail systems. � ■ Considered the impacts and benefits to the region of such a facility; � � � � � � � � � � � � � 6 � � � � Executive Summary MIRTS � � ,_ ... . ._ w � . � � s * T{ie rnilr-vnds hnti�e � Terminal Structure/Organization '* In �rder Eur an}� oE the three participating railroads to mo�•e their uperations tu a ne�v, 1'E'CO�it1�C'[l t{le i� multi-user intermodal [erminal it must: eCU1101?i1C �J�'TlEf 1CS � ■ [ncre�lse their lift capacit}'. � ■ Presen[ clear ad��antages o��er [heir existin` Encili[��: Of Ci�0111C CE i"illitl(1� ■ Operate at a cost that allo�vs [he railroads tu cumpete with lun;haul [rucl;ing rates. O�ef-Citec� �y �i tjtif�� pnrty f�nther thnti n During the research process, the r�ilroads �vere presented �vith three possible scenarios for terminal operations: C011[�0 111 111 1 11ri1 ■ Condominium. fLCCl�1Cy. 1��Olilt ■ Joint-use under third-party o�rnership and operation. tj1tYC�-�ICiY"ty ■ �todified joint-use. - tert�iifial »ieets t)ie The railroads ha��e recognized the economic benefits of a joint terminal operated by a yleEC�S Of t�t� third part�� rather than a condominium facilit�: :�joint [hird-part}' terminal meets the YCi11Y0AC�S fOY needs uf the railroads for regional access, liE[ capaci[y- and operating parameters. r-egiotini nccess, lift Construction costs, financing and le�al Eees are lo�ver for a joint facility because of Ct1�7CiClty C111C� shared facilities and ser�•ices. A modified joint-use scenario would cost even less due to ��i"Litlila the reductions in the number of storage tracks, length oE working and storage [racks and maintenance paths. rJC1YLi111ete1"S. The principal challenge of a joint terminal �vould be the need for cooperation on the part of all participating railroads. Organi�ing and refining terminal operations would be the responsibiliry of a third-party terminal operator. Financing Based upon a set of operating parameters re��ie�ved by the MIRTS member railroads, three approaches to Einancing a joint terminal �c-ere examined; ■ 100% equiry. ■ 100% ta�cable debt. ■ Combined equity and debt. The conclusion drawn Erom the financing anal}•sis and pro-forma business plan is that the terminal should be privarely financed based upon ��olume commitments by the rail- road users. Debt could be privately placed without the use oE public bonding authority�. Im�estment i in off-site rail and highway-access impro�•ements should be dealt with �eparatel��. � Executive Summary M►RTS . �` � � � � 11�11RTS llns not $Itlt19 r gone beyvn� [n tiu��ember of 19y�. �IIRTS identified three possible termin�il l�,cations in the T��in r YeCOii1t11�Y1C1111� CbVO Cities metropolitan area: t��u in Rosemuunt and une in Cottage Gro��e. Recluirements E��r � ' possible terniinnl Eeas�bte s�ce� in<<«ata: � , � locntioiis in tlte ■ Land area that allo�ti-s for continued gro�vth oF lucal intermodal operations. � Rosemotint ctreCl. ■ Reasonable access to the regional highway�s��stem. s ■ Reasonabte oEf-site rail costs. S ?he finnl sitifiQ of � ■ Compa[ible with local land use. S Li rieW Yilliltl-1lSeY, ■ Fit in�vith etisting shipping/train schedules. ` li1 teYyYIOC�Ci1 S For the purpose uf this report, NIIRTS has identified t�vo areas in Rosemount that mee� terminnl wili the criteria and are feasible for operations and access. A terminal in Cuttage Gro�-e � YeC(Ll1Ye Ci would not be as feasible for the following reasons �' finer-grninecl � ■ Land area is too small. � pYOCeSS. ■ Highway access and capacity are not sufficient. All access tu I-494/I-69=+ �vould be E over High�vay 61. �tajor��ork is planned for Highway� 61 and the Wakota Bridge. � ■ The terminal is not compatible with local land use. Large-lot, single-family h�mes � are expected to be built across Highway 61 from the site. The site is too small to �, provide proper buffering [o future residential development. � MIRTS has not gone beyond recommending two possible terminal locations in the � Rosemount area. The final siting of a new multi-user, intermodal terminal will require a � finer grained process in��olving land acquisition, local land-use approvals and en�lron- � mental review. � Railway and Highway Access � In n�t�lition to the Off-Site Rail Access � COSt Of f��til nC[ess It is not enough to de��elop a state-oF-the-art terminal. If the railroads can'[ get to it, it t can't be used. SigniFican� improvements to the existing rait system will have to be made ` t0 ROSEt1101I11�, before a multi-user, intermodal terminal is built. � COilti�ol of t{2is � MIRTS identiEied obstacles and constraints to improving rail access. Depending upon � critiuil nccess ntust � � � � � the scope and phasing of impro��ements, the capital in��estment ma�� be greater than � {JE YtC'gOtlCltFC� may he justified by the benefits of a new�terminal. �his report describes minimum rai1- � � �7e[Ween the access impro��ements [hat are needed a[ opening of the terminaL � cor�ipeting f Off-Site Highway Access E YCiIIYUUC�S. The highway system in the Rosemount area has suEficient capacity to accommoda[e the � intermodal terminal_ (mprovements to inter5ecti��ns on Counry High�va}' =�2 and U.S. � High�vay� 52 �vill need to be made over the cuur-se of the project. The priori�y and tim- ( � � ing ul��hese intersection impro�,�ements nn�st be neg��tiated to accommudate the�phased � � �� builcl �>ut of the terminal. � � f � _ � ! � Executive Svmmary MIRTS � � Impacts/Benefifis The transportation s}�stem benefits of a ne�v, multi-user, intermodal terminal in the T�vin Cities metro area include: ■ Improved intermodal capacity: ■ Better access For the region to gro�r��in; markets on the West Coast, in Latin �merica and the Pacific Rim. A terminal would also have local economic de��elopment benefits that will need to be considered against any impact upon local sen-ices and infrastructure. The local area ��-ould see: ■ Impro��ed transportation ser�-ice [o [he east Rosemoun[ industrial area. ■ Incre�ses in local emplovment �nd taY base. A ne«- terminal facility in [he T`�zn Cities�vould have a strong base oE traffic that would attract further development in the buffer area surrounding the terminal. ?here are three kinds of local de��elopmen[ that could be poten[ial users of a new in[er- modal terminal: the direct uses related to the terminal, the primary•intermodal users and �he potential secondary de�•elopment. Findings/Recommendations MIRTS Eindings for terminal development are: MIRTS will pYOpOSe ■ A joint terminal can be developed pri��atel�-. n worh progrnm ■ The terminal should be developed and operated by a third party with railroads as and contnct local tenants. LiriltS Of ■ The terminal use is consistent with locaUmetro land use strategies in Rosemount. ■ There is enough highway system capacity in the area. The funding and timing of government, lihely , intersection improvements will need to be incorporated into Met Council and teriClYitS CiriC� Otj1eY Minnesota Department of Transportation plans. pOterittCil �ICiYtYleYS ■ Rail access is the critical constraint. The issues of in��estment and operational control must be resolved between the BNSF and liP for the terminal to be developed. by tj1.e S�'IYlrig Of 1997. There is a valid business case Eor BNSF and UP to continue to pursue a new joint [ermi- nal in Rosemount, while CP can continue to operate in its current Eacility Eor the Eore- - seeable future. The NIIRTS par[ners who choose to continue will create a new partnership and proceed wi[h [he next phase to solve rail access issues, address local concerns, define a process for approvals and solicit a privace developer to build the terminal. 9 �� Executive Summary MIRTS � _ �-�—, e�"��'� : �.,,�-�.,.xf„�`t - --�------ - - - - - � � ' � II � _ � � Term�na � � . . � Structure �r a n �zat�on � g � In order for the participating railroads to mo��e their operations to a ne�v, multi-user � intermodal terminal it must: � � ■ Increase their lift capaciry. � ■ Present clear advantages over their eYisting facility. � ■ Operate at a cost that allows the railroads to compete «-ith long-haul trucking rates. � � During the research process, the railroads were presented �vith three possible scenarios � for [erminal opera[ions � ■ Condominium. � # ■ Joint third-parry. � �� s Modified joint-use. � The term "operations" is understood [o encompass the processing of intermodal � (raiUtruck) freight shipments through the faciliry plus the performance of site and � equipment maintenance of the facili[y. � � Condominium Scenario � The condominium operation would require each railroad to provide and maintain its � o�vn discrete Eacilities and seraices, including: � � ■ Working/storage tracks. � ■ Loading/unloading lanes. � ■ Chassis po�L � ■ Trailer/container storage areas. 1� ■ Trailer/container handling equipment. � � � � � � « � � � « � � � o � � � � Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Termina ) Feasibility Study � � ■ Employee welFare facilities. ■ Lucomotive servicing and rail-car repair. ■ Separate utility hook ups and metering. Common areas in the condominium scenario: ■ Gate Facilities. ■ Dri��eways adjacent to the gate. � condominium facility would require three separate administration buildings. This arrangement would afEord each member railroad the greatest degree of control over its terminal operations and services. Ho�vever, they will lose combined terminal efficiency due to some replication of facilities and functions: The condominium structure offers each railroad a higher leeel of discrete control over its terminal operations. To deliver this greater control, railroads will pay more to con- struct and operate in the facility. Joint Third-Party Scenario In the joint third-parry scenario, each participatin� railroad would control: ■ Individual rail cars. ■ On-site supervisory presence. ■ Offices to monitor operations and consult �i-ith customers. All oE the activities now performed by the railroads in their current single-user terminals I would be provided by a third-party terminal operator. These include: I ■ Maintenance of working/storage tracks. �I ■ Loading�unloading lanes. ' ■ Chassis pooL ■ Con[ainer and [railer storage areas. ■ Container and [railer handling equipmen[. ■ Employee welfare facilities. ■ On-site switching locomotive power. ■ Locomotive servicing. ■ Rail-car repair. The joint third-party scenario would require only one administration building. Operation of the facili[y is estimated to be in the range of�7 [o �24 per lift, depending on the actual services, equipment and liabilit}' co��erage to be provided by the terminal operator. Modified Joint-Use Scenario This "hybrid"joint-use scenario recluces the initial capital costs. This scenario ofFers selectively modiEied operating parameters, but can Function on a joint-use basis at the anticipated volume. Track, pa��ing and drainage ha��e been reduced Erom the joint-use facility modeL 11 Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Termina ) Feasibility Study r, � _...__ -•----- - - -------- .,.,..,.��.... , r t r a Summary of Maior Focility Components i. These are che ke}• elements required at upening for the three alternative operating sce- � narios � � Modified Joint Facility Components Condominium Joint Facility i Working Tracks 4 3 3(a) i i Storage Tracks 12 9 6(b) � Gantry Cranes 6 5 5 ; Side Loaders 3 1 T � Switch Engines 3 1 1 � � Maintenance Sites 3 1 1 � Parking Spaces 2300 2300 2300 � � (a) 2 - 5000', 1 - 7000' (b) 4 - 5000', 2 - 7000' � � The rnilronds Terminal Gate Operations � hCive YeCOgnl�eC� � total of eight re�-ersible gate lanes would be required. � the economic � Conclusions s benefltS Of Ci�Oirit The railroads have recognized the economic benefits of a joint terminal operated by a ' � ''� terminnl operntecl third party. All railroads indicated that the increased cost of the condominium scenario � I by � thlY� pnYty. �sn't justified. �joint terminal meets the needs uf the railroads for lift capacity and oper- � ating parameters. Cons�ruction costs and financing�legal fees are much lower for a joint � facilit}�because of shared services. � Reducing the o�•erall size of a joint-use facility�vould reduce the cost further, due to � modifications in number of storage tracks, length of working and storage tracks and � omission of maintenance paths between storage tracks. � E The principal challenge of a joint terminal is the need Eor cooperation on the part of all � participa�ing railroads. Terminal operations �4�ould be the sole responsibility of the ter- � minal operator. E � Findings and Recommendations � ■ M[RTS recommends the joint terminal with a third-party scenario as the preferred � approach to operating a common Eacilit}•. � ■ The scale of initial facility� �joint terminal vs. modified joint terminal) should be !� negotiated bet�veen the de��eloper/operator and the tenant railroads. � E i � � i � � e _ � a Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Feasibility Study � � � � � � • • � F� nanc�n . g � Based upon parameters pro��ided by the railroads, three approaches to [inancing a joint � � [erminal were eramined; , � ■ 100% equiry. I � ■ 100% taxable debt. � ■ Combined equiry and debt. � � � The terminal facility and operating scenarios «-ere defined in the Parsons Brinckerhoff � Operating Plan. They developed a Pro-Forma Bwiness Plan to esplore options for � Einancing the capital costs of a joint Eacilit�: � � CC�PItCI� COStS � This report considers the financial feasibilit}- oE the three construction alternati��es. They are broken down by the capital costs im-ol�-ed ��-hich include all aspects of Eund- � ing, building and operating the entire facility: �t start-up year, these include: � � ■ Land acquisition. p� ■ Initial construction costs. �� ■ FinanciaUlegal costs. Cost estimates are also given for needed reno�-ation and/or expansion of the facility- eight and fifteen years after opening. These inciude: �� ■ Renovation/e�pansion construction costs. � ■ FinanciaUlegal costs. � � Each of the financing scenarios was based upon the ��olume projections, capital esti- � mates and operating costs used in the operating plan. All costs were adjusted For antici- pated inflation. Interest rates were assumed at 10�'0 on debt maturities oF 20 years and � less. A debt ser��ce coverage ratio of 1.5 «-as used. The return on equity assumed for � total or partial equity finance is 25%, a rate oE return consistent ��i[h the market's y� e:cpectations for similar infrastructure projects: � � The foltowing table shows the estima[ed construction and other capital ec�sts occurring � in those three stages. The costs are eYpressed in future inflation-adjusted d��llars fur � each of the planned consmiction years il � I � Alternative Initiel Construction 2nd Phase Construction Full Build out I ier� °� Condominium $125.3 million $30.1 million $101 million ' � Joint Use $ 83 million $36.9 million $ 55.6 million ' � � Modi�ied Joint Use $ 70.9 million $31.6 million $ 45.5 million � .�+ � 3 .� � � � Minnesoto Intermodal Railroad Terminal Feasibility Study � ?�'�?ri ' �. � � � Operating Expenses � The specific scope and cost of the ser�•ices pro�-ided within the terminal must be Eurther ,� re[ined. :�cos� of 51� per lift is assumed in the Pro-Forma Business Plan. .� Financing and Per-Lift Costs � lising 100% taxable debt, assuming consen�ati�•e credit enhancement and debt-ser��ice � coverage, titIRTS consultants provided an engineer's estimate of the turnkey cost per lifc � at �63 to �69. This per-lift cost co�-ers the de��elopment, construction and operation oE ,�c the terminal only and does not include any of the uff-site access improvements. ,S After reviewing the Parsons Brinckerhoff report, the MIRTS railroad parmers h�ve indi- ~ cated that they ha�e seen turnkey per-liEt costs for single-user facilities of similar capaci- � ry in the �38 to �47 range. The per-lift cost cannot push intermodal freight rates � beyond the level the market will bear. ReFining the initial capital cost for the terminal � and the off-site improvements must be done through a competitive bidding process. � $ Findings and Recommendations '� ■ The condusion dra��n from the Einancing anal�-sis and Pro-Forma Business Plan is � that the terminal should be privately financed based upon volume commitments b�• � the railroad users. � ■ Debt could be pri�-ately placed without the usz of public bonding authori[y. '� ■ Investment in ofE-site rail and high��ay�-access improvements should be dealt �vith � separately. � � � � � � � � � � � � ' � � � � � � � � « � � � • � 14 � � . � Minnesoto Intermodal Railroad Terminal Feasibility Study � � �. ._---. .. . .. ._ _ . ,,,;�,�,,,,. �,�,,., �,.�_ , �,,; __ _� �� , _ � ;�s #"' .� �r� , � .� �r • • `� _ � SIt1n � � ,. g Based on the iviIRTS 1995 study, the need for a ne�v multi-user, intermodal terminal [acility large enough to meet the T�vin Cities' intermodal shipping needs to the year 2012 is evident. Since that report was issued, NiIRTS has been conducting a search For I the best possible site locations in the seven counry Metro area. Eighteen sites were iden- '�I tified with enough land Eor a terminal. A set of criteria were developed that sites would I ha�•e to meet in order to qualify as an ideal lacation for a terminal. These included: �, � ■ 16� acres to accommodate 7,000 feet of track plus 585 acres for a 1,000 Eoot buffer ' around the site. ' ■ Level topography or topography correctable�vith grading. ■ Within three miles of a major highway not needing significant capital improvements . Accessible to intermodal shippers throughout the region. ■ Within five miles oE an existing, [wo-way rail line. ■ Existing users can be relocated at minimal cost and time loss. � In November of 1995, MIRTS identified three possible terminal locations in the Twin Cities metropolitan area: two in Rosemount and one in Cottage Grove. Requirements for feasible sites included: ■ Land area that allows for continued gro�vth of local intermodal operations. ■ Reasonable access to the regional highway� system. � ■ Reasonable off-site rail costs. ■ Compatible with local land use. ■ Fit in with existing shipping/train schedules. Comparisons For the purpose of this report, MIRTS has identified two areas in Rosemount that meet � the cri[eria and are Eeasible for operations and access: • North oE County Highway 42. • South of County Highway 42. The two areas in Rosemount are the best possible areas for a new intermodal terminal because: ■ Use is consistent with local land use. ■ Local highway system has [he capaciry to accommodate a terminal Facility. Lucal intersections will need improvements. 15 Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Feasibili #y Study ` '� • � i � � � MIRTS concluded that a terminal in Cottage Gro�-e would not be Eeasible for the Follo�c�- � , ing reasons � ' ■ Constrained site. � � ■ Highway access and capacity - all access to I-=�94/I-694 would be over Highwa}� 61. � ' Major construction is e:cpected on High�c�ay 61 fro'm Cottage Grove through � ', Newport. This work combined with the e:cpansion of the Wakota Bridge would � ', grea[ly restrict access [o a terminal in Cottage Grove for several years. � ' ■ Not compacible with local land use - large-lot, single-family homes to be built across � ' Highway 61 Erom site. The site is too small to provide an adequate buffer between � ', the terminal and residential development. � ' � ' MIRTS has not gone beyond recommending two possible terminal areas in Rosemount. � The final siting of a new multi-user, intermodal terminal will require a finer grained � ! process involving land acquisition, local land-use approvals and environmental re��iew. ,� � For this feasibiliry study, an area, if not a specific site, had to be identified in order to � � determine the needed off-site rail and road improvements, off-site rail costs, compatible � , land use and ho�v i[ might fi[into existing shipping�[rain schedules. � �II Findings and Recommendations � I ■ The terminal use is consistent with locaVmetro land use strategies in Rosemount. E I ■ Par[ners should work wi[hin the Rosemount planning process to determine the actu- � al future terminal site area. �r � N � 94�f- � 35W 55_ �r' � � � E / J � 494�� 52" � 61` !i � � , �10 � � 1 COTTA6E � r �� 35E 3 / GROYE � 1 �'—'-�r ��—� ♦ � � 42 55 �'�''+i p_ � � ` . . J:f P/�` � . � ROSEMOUNT� � ,A � I � � 35 � 52 61 � �` � �-- � i Dakota i � � Co �rnty i • � 3 I ` � � ---� � 1 6 � � iPossible MIRTS � i i � �----------, Terminal Sites « Minnesota Intermodal Railrood Terminal Feasibility Study � � ....�...____ -. ---�� _ � � r.,._. - f _,� � - �% - .� , � � ; � { '' , .° �-, � • • ; ,� Ra � wa an H � wa � y g y � Access .� � .� !'�► Off-Site Rai) Access � � It is not enough to de��elop a state-of-the-art terminal. If the railroads can t get to it, it can�t be used. Significant impro��ements to the esisting rail system witl have to be made before a multi-user, intermodal terminal is built. These improvements are needed ta pro�•ide access across the Llississippi Ri�-er and south to the Rosemount area for the BNSF from their mainline track on the east side vf the ri�•er. UP mainline and industri- al-lead tracks in the Rosemount area � w-ill also require impro�•ements to � accommodate ne�v intermodal traffic. �,�� Rail and bridge access could require � �,�;�,�� -- � more investment by the railroads than �- > �,��`�� --�wg4 ° �e � � � may be justiEied by a new terminal. The ,..i_ �� Parsons Brinckerhoff report describes 35W 55 � .-— � 61 � /� � � FORb1ER � rail access im rovements that are need- ;,� � � �� ' � aocx ista�� P `�_" � � a R.aILRO:�D i� ed at opening of the terminal. Parsons ; � ��,; �� '� BRi°GE � � has estimated the cost of these impro�•e- � � �94 � � 52 � ��p�� ments at a minimum of$20 million. � �� `� - - � � COTTAGE � The scope and cost of these impro�•e- ; �� 35E 3_ :' t GROYE ' � ments must be established in greater � � �f ,,,,;.��..� . � detail with the UP and BNSF engineer- � ` .>v"' .• _ �``^� � ing and oper�[ions scaff. I '= �� __ ___� � -- _- 55 __�_ . �r.�� : � � + R.�ILRO:�D sJpA� � TRACK I ,� ROSEMOUNi �; Most of the improvements will be . i��PRovE�tevrs � req�red on mainline track now o��-ned �35 52 `"EE°E° N~ i � _ by t e UP in order to provide access for �` 61 I the BNSF to get to a terminal in I� " �-- Rosemount from the BNSF inainline j I ��1�(O t A � [rack on the east side oE[he Mississippi � I � ; i County i � Ri��er. There are critical issues of o��-ner- � � � ship and control of the terminal raii ` 3 _—___� � � � access that must be resolved between � _^�� [hese competing railroads in order to I I • � provide a viable route in and out oE I I�a�' �Ci�i e.SS � �----------� Rosemount. i� � � � � � � ;,s _ �. � Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal feasibility Study � _ ..... _ ---�.....�.�_---_r......._...,,... - - --- ...�.��. ' � � � � Off-Site Highway Access � • • �tIRTS has identiEied the need For some impro�•ements to local highway intersections: . ■ 117th Street/1,�.�. High�ti-a}' 72 intersection in In��er Gro�•e Heigh[s. S ■ �1t-grade rail crussin�s on 117th Street. � ■ Cotmty High��a�� -+2 access to High�vay 52 in Rosemount. � ■ Grade separation at railroad crossing of State Highway 3/Highwa}' =F2 in Rosemount. S � None of the intersections and crossings above are in Mn/DOT's twenty�-year construction � program or the titet Council's Draft Transportation System Plan. Affected sections of E Highway �2 are currently budgeted for managemenU preservation only. � � Dakota County has expressed concern over E routing trucks from a terminal onto Highway �. 42, County Road 46 and Highway 3. Trucks � should be directed onto Highway� SZ as directl;,r � H i g hway �m p a e ts as possible. Dakota County and the Ciry of � Rosemount are also concerned about the cur- � rent at-grade rail crossing a[ Highway 3 and � 3 Highwa�• 42 in Rosemount. � 55 52 � � �d, �11 Findings and Recommendations ! d�,. � Inver Grove "� Neights �, ■ There is enough highway sys�em capacity in � d the area. The funding and timing of in[er- � � section irnprovemen[s will need [o be incor- ar ` 5P porated into Met Council and Mn/DOT si plans. � 3 ■ ti1nIDOT, [he Me[ Council and Dakota � �» County need to continue �vorking together � on the interchange improvements in [he � aa a,��o aa Highw�ay 52 corridor as [he project pro- �a .U.A.Railro � . � � Rosemount Pa�;f' k°�n gresses. J�ycn Refm:n; � 42 � ��,E�, � � e � Coates �` s iProp�,scdl � � � � � 3M f 52 � � Ointersection Improvement Needs � • ! 1 � • � � ! ', Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Termino ) Feasibility Study � � a.. _. _ � r � � I m acts Bene �ts p The re�ional econumic impacts related to the de��elupment anci uperation uf a ne�v intcr- m��da( r�il terminal �ti�ould be due tu; � ■ Constructiun �f the terminal and related facilities. They� �vill have subsrantial impacts. btit will be temporar�� in nature. � ■ Im-estments and employment at the terminal and related Eacilities. ■ Induced de��elupment around the terminaL ■ Transportation efEiciency gains to T��-in Cities shippers, other users oE highways and truckers. ■ Pro�•ision of additional gorernmental ser�-ices to the terminaL The transportation ;y�stem �vould benefit because the ne«- terminal would promote the continued de��elopment of good intermodal sen-ice to the Twin Cities and greater t �tinnesota. � Businesses would benefit by ha��in� a ;ood selection oE modes to ship their finished goods and recei�•e ra�v materials. :�ccess to national and international transportation s�•s- tems ��ou1d be impro��ed. The T�cin Cities and `tinnesota are not well located relati�-e [o their major markets. The rail industry has seen strong growth in intermodal traffic in recent years. Opening direct service to California and Te�as w111 require capital investment by- the railroads in additional locomo[ives and rail access to a new terminal with increased capacity. A proactive approach must be taken to pasition the rebion as an attracti��e market for the railroads to invest the internal capital needed to expand sen�ice here. Ma jor Twin Cities intermodal Corridors � �� Pacitic hwest � _ Montreai '✓ _--_�;, , - -- � w--�---__ MplsdSt.�Faul � � � - : l�� - �� 9� �. -- N�ortheastJ � �' —` � - � � California� � � --- � � � � � _, �_ _ . _ � ----- — — -- _ - _ _ � �.\ � �� _ `--� � ��_ Southeast � � � � �� ; �- - -�- � - �:-�-- - .._ _ 3� - Texas _� --. � , __ _ �� , � /� _- � Mexico � —New Corridor � Present Carridor 1 9 � _ � � Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Feasibility Study � -� ,, , �,. r � � The local economic development benefits oE a new intermodal terminal on the hosc `� ; communit}• would be considerable. The business development effects would be due to � the im�estment and employment at the terminal and its related facilities and the induced � de��elopment that �vould likely cluster around [he terminal. This inves[men[ would gen- r erate ta:c re�•enues For the local go��ernments who would also incur costs to provide ser- � vices to the new de��elopments. �n assessment is made oE the potential magnitudes oE t these revenues and costs. ! � A new terminal facility would serve a substantial e:cisting market for intermodal ser�-ice f inal would have a stron base of traffic to in the Twin Cities that would ensure the term g i build on. This base of traffic substantially impro��es i�s attractiveness to further develop- � ment since intermodal service from the terminal �ti-ill be of very high qualiry. r � Potential Loca) Users of a New Infiermodal Terminal � There are three kinds of local development that could be associated with a new inter- � modal terminal: the direct uses related to the terminal, the primary intermodal users � and the potential secondary development. The scale of such developments is based on � industry estimates and comparable developments elsewhere. As such, they are intended � to give an indication of the overall size and composition of developments around an � intermodal facility, rather than to precisely estimate the particular uses: � Directly Related Uses ! � The rail terminal itself would be a major de�•elopment in its own right, together with � the associated activities it requires and generates. � � ■ A rail Eacility oE S00 to 700 acres including buffer areas could be controlled through � I the local land use approval process. E I ■ Trucking and drayage firms could consolidate at one location and streamline opera- � li tions. � ■ Locomotive and rail-car repair, fueling and inspection facilities could be located at � ', the [erminaL � ■ r�consolidated container depot could also be located at the terminal site. � � Primary Intermodal Users � A number of transportation-intensi��e shippers are likely to be attracted to a high-capar- � ity, intermodal faciliry. The potential efficiencies in handling large amounts of freight � will be quite large, especially compared to the dispersed nature of the current situation � in the Twin Ci[ies. Typ��s of users that could ha��e an in[erest in locating in proximity oE � an intermodal facility include: � s ■ Less-than truckload (LTL) operators. ■ Third-parry warehousing and shipping. � • ■ Trucking terminals. � i ! ! �0 � � • � Minnesoto Intermodal Railroad Terminal Feasibility Study � ! Secondary Local Development A iletiv CE'i"111lllLil �tam� companies are likely tu Eind that transp��rtation eEEicienc}• ��uuld be an impurtan� ��Ctltt�� tvOil�C� fac:tor in a luc�tiun decision for a regiunal di�rribution ur light manuFaeturing facility. SeYVE' a substciritinl This kind uf secondar}' de��elopment ma}• uccur in the area arounci the terminal, but is eXlSttltv 111C[i�IZE't fU►" less dependent un being in e�tremeh� close prusimit�� to the actual rail lines themsel��es. lilCEi"f110C�[il SC1�'1CF' 5e��eral major regional retail distributors ba�ed in the T�vin Cities would find an inter- itt t{lE: T�vtti Cltl�'S modal faci(ity attracti�•e. Llany� oE these retailers currentl}' rely on trucks for most of tj1CIt �vOtt�C� E'riS1lYE' their distribution needs. If they�vere to contzmplate using intermudal sen•ices signiFi- cantl��, the railroads and trucking companies ineol�-ed in providing such sen�ice would t�1e CEY1111t1Q� bVUtt1C� ha��e to meet speciEied sen-ice requirements and be price competiti��e. �1CiVe Ci Stf'Otl� �CISE Of �?"CifflC t0 blitlC� l:ar�e Eoud processors would be ��eri� interested in the cost sa��ings that could accrue Erom (ocating at a ne�v intermodal terminal. O:n. � ke�- issue is the relationship bet�veen land v«�nership around a ne�� intermodal [ermi- � nal and the orderl�� de��elopment oE the surrounding buffer area. The potential e�ists for t incompatible land uses to de��elop if control b�- �oning or other means is not suEficient. � Similarl�-, a pri�•ate de�•eloper oE the ne�v intermodal terrninal ma�� not `vish to o�vn the � entire site. A public or quasi-public body� ma}- be better suited. � A Findings and Recommendations � ■ The local economic deeelopment benefits �vill need to be considered against any � impact upon local services and infrastructure. � � � � � � � i� i� t� � i� � � � ' � � ia� i� ' ieA ' � � I � � � � '', 1� — �� ' � Minnesota Intermoda ) Railrood Terminal Feasibility Study � � I' _. _ _ _ .._. _� � , � � � � . . • f F�n �n s Recammen at�ons � g • NIIRTS Eindings Eor �erminal de��elopment are: � � ■ ��1 joint terminal can be der-eloped pri��atel��. � The issues of ■ The terminal should be de��eloped and operated by a third part�- �vith railroads as f lilVeStfl1e11t Ll}1Cl tenants. f I ■ The terminal use is consistent �vith locaUmetro land-use strategies in Rosemount. � oper-ntional control . There is enough highway-system capacity in the area. The Eunding and timing uf S YYlllSt be YeSOlVeC� intersection improvements will need to be incorporated into �tet Council and � ' between the BNSF M�oT ptan5. � ■ Rail access is the critical constraint. The issues of im�es[ment and opera[ional control � nnd UP for t11e must be resol�-ed benti-een the BNSF and UP for the terminal to be developed. � ter�minnt to be � cievelopecl. Findings Specific to the Canadian Pacific Railway � ■ There is no compelling business case for CP to move their intermodal operation to a � join[ terminal in Rosemount. CP operates in the Twin Cities as a niche intermodal � play�er primaril��sen-ing European markets��ia the Por[ of NlontreaL CP's Shoreham � terminal can accommodate the trafCic projected through 2012. � Findings Specific to the Union Pacific Railroad � ■ Business Case Issues: UP has no [erminal serring the region. The railroad is not �, likely to im-esc internal capital to build their own terminal, preferrina to operate as a � tenant. This same choice to preserve capital may crea[e a need to turn rail access � impro�-ements from a capital expense into an operating expense. Estimated costs for � ofE-site raii impro��ements, terminal construction and operation all need [o be refined � Findings Specific to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe � ■ Business Case Issues: tieighborhoud opposition makes expansion of the eYisting � , BNSF terminal in the mid`ti-ay area unlikel}' In��esting in rail access to a joint termi- � nal in Rosemount, negotiating concrol of the access and weighing the po[ential � impact upon ser��ice to customers such as L'�PS must be considered against the alter- � � � � na�i��e of continuing to uperate in a constrained facility in the midway. BNSF has a � history� of o��,�ning and controlling the intermodal terminals [he}' use. The railroad has entered in�� turnkey, third-party lease a�;reements in some cases and �vould con- � sider this approach in Rusemount aEcer a more detailed proposal Eor costs and ser- � vices is de�•eloped. � � ■ Cumpetiti��e [ssues: The propused Eacility is served by track belonging to the BNSF's � principal competitor, the liP Whilc the UP has nu Eaciliry in the Twin Cities to com- � pe[e wi[h [he BVSF on direct ser�-ice t� ports in the�Pacific Northw�est, TeYas and � � � California, B�SFs ahili[}� [o ser��e these m�lrkets is limi[ecl hy the capacity of their � � � micl��i}' hub facility. E � t �� t t ! Minnesota Intermodal Railroad Terminal Feasibility Study � ! � • � r . . � .. ... � . . � � ■ Operations Issues: After revie�vin� the consultants' initial repurts on oFf-site rail The cur-t'E'11t � impro��ements, BNSF representati�-es indicated that �perating out of the Rosemount �1IRTS �nt'titE f�S � terminal ma�� be workable if the primar}• access Eor the BNSF is o��er the Im•er Gro��e Heigh�s bridge. This route would a��oid the 5aint P.iui }•ard area on the east side uE i1tUSt C�ECICIE tf � the ri��er and che L'P yard area in 5outh Saint Paul. Three of fuur 3,000 Eoot set-out tltei►� itt��iti'ic�t�n� !� tracks will be needed un the east side oE the ri��er suuth oE Saint Paul Park to a��oid ;!� ruuting all trains with intermod�il loads ofE the B��F inain tine into Rosemuunt and ttitfi"ESCS [T1'E � back. Intermodal cars �vould be mo��ed from the set-out track to the Rosemount SEf`�'EC� �ly joint terminal �vi�h aswitch engine. �7f"OCEEC�111� wtt�l Findings Specific to the Minnesota Department of Transportation tj1E ilEXt �l{i(15�. ■ �[n/DOT �vill need to modify its construction program to accommodate the intersec- tion impro��ements required as the terminai �-olume increases. Findings Specific to the Metropolitan Council ■ The impacts and benefits of a joint terminai as a re�ional facility must be considered , as the Council re�-ie�vs the Rosemount comprehensi�-e plan and other information � related to transportation and �caste�vater se:-�-ices. ' � � Recommendations ' � NIIRTS partners electing to proceed should form a ne«- partnership and proceed with '� � the following work to set the stage for de�-elopment of a joint terminal: ' � � � ■ Recruit new partners including local public agencies. � ■ Negotiate the scope, investment and control of required oFE-site rail impro��ements. II rs� ■ Define the scope and process for em�ironmental re�•ie�v and land-use appro��als. • ! � ■ Refine costs for terminal constniction and off-site rait access. � ■ Communicate �vith local communities and address their concerns. � ■ Define the process for selecting a de��eloper. � ■ Solicit compe[iti�-e proposals from pri�-ate de��elopers. ,� � '� �'� ,� ,� '�� ',� � ,� ,,� � � � � � �. 23 ,� � � '� Minnesoto Intermodal Railroad Te � minal Feasibility Study � � \ .-...r:�_+i�:'.'��s�. ' .. _� . . _ ..."".'—_....___....W.��'.'...,�_..e....... " �. � ' � � f ' f . A en ix • pp . Supporting Materials f 1. City of Rosemount - Community Assessment as a Site for Rciil/Ti-uch Intermodcif Freight f f Facility,Jim Barton, Nietropolitan Council, December 3, 1996 S 2. Preliminnry Annlvsis of Possible Access Ro«tes,John Stanek, September 1996 f 3. Second Phnse�lnnlysis of Sites and�ccess Roiites,John Stanek, October 1996 � 4. Intermodal Termincil Operctting Plnn and Business Plan - Step Three Finnl Pro-Formn S � Business Plan, Parsons Brinekerhoff Quade d� Douglas, Inc., R.L. Banks ��ss�ciates, � Inc., H�SzM International, October 9, 1996 � 5. Intermodnl Terminctl Opernting Plan and Business P1an - Step Ttivo Opernting P1an, � � Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade 6z Douglas, Inc., R.L. Banks �Associates, Inc.. H&�I � International, October 9, 1996 �6 6. Intermodal Terminni Operating Ptan nnd Business Plc�n - Step One Opernting PnrRmeters, � Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade 6i Douglas, R.L. Banks ��ssociates, Inc.,July 19, 1996 � � 7. Need for Intermodnl Railroad Terminal Fncilities in the Tivin Cities �'�Iehopvlitan�ren, � Minnesota Intermodal Rail Terminal Study, February 1995 E 8. Twin Cities Region Intermodnl Terminal Needs Study, R.L.Banks �tlssociates, Inc., � � I January 1995 � 9. Intcr-modnl Freight, Third Edition, Gerhardt �tuller - IAN�, 1995 � ` � , � � � � � � ' � ; � � � � � � � � � e � 24 � _ . � Minnesota Intermodal Roil �oad Terminal Feasibility Study � � �