Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 2001Summary Report 19cc2373.0 RAILROAD CAPACITY ANALYSIS3.1 RAILROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND FREIGHT OPERATIONSIn considering the use of the tracks of a freight railroad to operate passenger service, public agenciesneed to keep in mind that the perspectives and priorities of the railroad companies are very differentfrom those of the public agencies themselves. The freight railroads are profit-seeking enterprises thatview their tracks and property as the essential tools in performing an attractive service that can bemarketed to freight customers, generate revenue and ultimately, a profit. Public agencies, on theother hand, are motivated by social objectives rooted in the desired attainment of various mobility,developmental and environmental goals. The accommodation of passenger trains, which have highon-time performance objectives, may be viewed by the railroad companies as a potential obstacle tothe attainment of the revenue goals.However, most railroad companies also recognize that they cannot live in a socio-political vacuum,and that some degree of measured cooperation with local agencies may also be important to theircorporate objectives. In order to be completely certain that in cooperating with local agencies onpassenger issues that they are protected from any potential degradation of their ability to provide acompetitive freight service, agreements are developed between the railroads and the public agenciesthat provide for capital investment in the physical plant of the railroads so that they can meet publicexpectations without sacrificing corporate needs.In general terms, the methodology used to determine the scope of public investment to offset theimpact on freight of a passenger service involves use of a simulation of railroad capacity, thecalculation of delay to freight trains caused by the addition of high-priority passenger service, andthe development of packages of capital improvements intended to add capacity back into the railroadsystem to offset the added delay. This methodology is analogous to the use of highway networkmodels that simulate traffic delay, and the effect of highway programs intended to offset that delay.In the case of the Central Corridor, capacity simulations have been developed for both the BNSFMidway route and the CP Merriam Park route. The capacity analysis identified packages of capitalimprovements for each route intended to mitigate the expected impacts of the passenger service onthe existing and projected freight traffic.3.2 PRELIMINARY CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTSThe capacity analysis clearly demonstrated that, provided adequate capacity improvements weremade, commuter rail service on the scale envisioned in the preliminary service concepts would befeasible over either alignment.Based upon the available data, simulation of the Midway and Merriam Park corridors clearlydemonstrate that it would be feasible to implement commuter operations on either route whileenhancing existing freight capacity. To accomplish this, both routes require capacity improvementsto allow the introduction of commuter trains. This fact makes it clear that the decision as to whichcorridor is chosen will depend on ridership potential, environmental hurdles and the cost of therespective improvements. One must also take into account operational issues associated with eachroute, as well as other issues that affect both routes, before making a final decision.Commuter Rail Technical Feasibility Study December 2001Summary Report 20cc237As indicated previously, this study was undertaken to assess the basic question of feasibility, and toillustrate the requirements and consequences of potential passenger operation in the corridor. Thegoal was not to determine a final and specific list of capital improvements in advance of furtheranalysis undertaken cooperatively with the affected railroads, and negotiations between the railroadsand the public sector. However, illustrative order-of-magnitude capacity improvements wereidentified in the course of the capacity simulation process.The following lists summarize the major capacity improvements identified during the capacityanalysis for this study. The approximate locations of the capacity improvements are shown on Figure8 and Figure 9. These capacity analysis results are not definitive, and are subject to furtherrefinement.BNSF Midway Route:1. Add third mainline track from downtown Minneapolis to the Mississippi River Bridge, andfrom the bridge to Minneapolis Junction.2. Upgrade Minneapolis Junction to 25-30 MPH.3. Construct new double-track mainline from Minneapolis Junction to Union Yard.4. Add second mainline track between Union Yard and St. Anthony Junction.5. Add double crossovers at St. Anthony Junction.6. Add third mainline track from St. Anthony Junction to Dale Street.7. Add double crossovers at Dale Street.8. Upgrade to 25-30 MPH from Seventh Street to Union Depot.9. Add second mainline track from Seventh Street to Union Depot.10. Replace Union Pacific crossing diamonds at Robert Street with switches.CP Merriam Park Route:1. Add third mainline track from downtown Minneapolis to the Mississippi River Bridge, andfrom the bridge to Minneapolis Junction.2. Upgrade Minneapolis Junction to 25-30 MPH.3. Construct new double-track mainline from Minneapolis Junction to Union Yard.4. Add second mainline track between Union Yard and St. Anthony Junction.5. Add double crossovers at St. Anthony Junction.6. Construct new mainline track from St. Anthony Junction to University Avenue.7. Add second mainline track from Merriam Park Junction to Chestnut Street.8. Add double crossovers at Chestnut Street.9. Upgrade to 25-30 MPH from Chestnut Street to Seventh Street.10. Replace Union Pacific crossing diamonds at Robert Street with switches.In the case of the CP route, the addition of a second track between Merriam Park and downtown St.Paul could involve the relocation of a high-pressure steam line that was placed in the right-of-wayafter an existing second track was removed by the Milwaukee Road in the 1970s. As described in thefollowing sections, this one item would represent a very high potential expenditure, and thus willnecessitate additional consideration of the operating plan and capacity analysis results.CC.140/C46TH ST 46TH STHENNEPIN AVEMARSHALL AVE.1 Mile00 1.2 Kilometers1/20.6BNSF Route Capacity ImprovementsDecember 2001Figure 8CC.137/B46TH ST 46TH STRANDOLPH AVEHENNEPIN
View Full Document