Agenda Agenda • ½ hour open house (5:00 ‐ 5:30) ½ h h (5 00 5 30) • ½ hour presentation (5:30 ‐ 6:00) • ½ hour Q&A (6:00 ‐ 6:30) • ½ hour open house (6:30 ‐ 7:00) ½ hour open house (6:30 7:00) Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Stakeholders • Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) is the lead for the Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program in partnership with Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) Federal Railroad Administration • • Host Railroads: – Canadian Pacific Railway Canadian Pacific Railway – Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad – Union Pacific Railroad – Others as required by project alternatives q y p j • Freight/Passenger Rail Operators: – Canadian Pacific Railway – Burlington Northern Santa Fe Burlington Northern Santa Fe – Canadian National Railway – Union Pacific Railroad – Wisconsin and Southern Railroad – Amtrak Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Midwest High ‐ Speed Rail Midwest High Speed Rail • Higher maximum speeds than conventional intercity passenger rail (maximum of 110 mph) passenger rail (maximum of 110 mph) • Diesel/electric locomotive engines • Shared track with existing freight lines Shared track with existing freight lines • Requires infrastructure improvements – Improved Railroad signaling – Track materials and geometry standards – Safety equipment at roadway crossings • Rail stations located at optimal transportation junctions Rail stations located at optimal transportation junctions Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
NEPA Process Overview • Tier 1 EIS for Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities Corridor – Public Involvement Plan – Purpose and Need P d N d – Alternatives Analysis • Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives • Public/Agency Involvement • Public/Agency Involvement • Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives • Public Involvement – Draft Tier I EIS – Public Involvement – Identification of Preferred Passenger Rail Alternative – Final Tier 1 EIS Final Tier 1 EIS – Record of Decision Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Public Involvement Plan • NEPA Public Involvement Process Notice of Scoping Process Notice of Intent to Prepare Draft Tier Availability of Prepare Tier 1 EIS 1 EI S Draft Tier 1 EIS Respond to Public Notice of Public Comments Record of Comments and Availability of Availability of Accepted Decision Prepare Final Tier 1 Final Tier 1 EIS EIS Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Project Purpose and Need Project Purpose and Need • The proposed action is to construct and operate high ‐ speed passenger rail service between Milwaukee and Twin Cities passenger rail service between Milwaukee and Twin Cities • Purpose is to meet future regional travel demand and provide intermodal connectivity to existing and planned transportation systems in Minnesota and Wisconsin • Need is driven by the limitations and vulnerabilities of available travel modes in the corridor to meet future travel available travel modes in the corridor to meet future travel demand Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Project Purpose and Need Project Purpose and Need • The need for the proposed action exists because: – Travel demand is projected to increase within the corridor placing a Travel demand is projected to increase within the corridor placing a significant burden on existing transportation infrastructure; – Competitive and attractive alternative modes of travel do not exist in the corridor; the corridor; – Transportation systems require improved reliability to meet future demand; – Intermodal connectivity between rail and other forms of Intermodal connectivity between rail and other forms of transportation are limited and require further development to meet future travel demand. Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Alternatives Analysis Overview • Objectives: Obj i – Identify universe of routes – Identify potential passenger rail alternatives y p p g – Identify reasonable and feasible passenger rail alternatives • Project Study Area: – Previously identified under the Cooperative Agreement No. DTFR53 ‐ P i l id tifi d d th C ti A t N DTFR53 09 ‐ H ‐ 0009 between the FRA and WisDOT (MWRRI Phase 7) • Universe of Route Alternatives: – Logical termini: • Milwaukee Intermodal Station • Minneapolis Transportation Interchange via St. Paul Union Depot – Project Corridor • 25 Routes between termini – Baseline Route • Milwaukee, WI ‐ Madison, WI ‐ Tomah, WI ‐ La Crosse, WI ‐ Red Wing, MN ‐ St. Paul, MN ‐ Minneapolis, MN Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Project Study Area Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Identification of the Universe of Routes Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Initial Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives • Route Alternatives Development R t Alt ti D l t – Determine Track Segments (34 segments) – Determine Routes from Segment Combinations (25 Routes) Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Initial Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives Passenger Rail Alternatives Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Initial Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives • Evaluation to identify potential passenger rail E l ti t id tif t ti l il alternatives • Evaluation Criteria – Route Distance – Route Population – Route Defects • Compare to baseline route Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Initial Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives g Route Distance Summary Route Population Summary Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Initial Identification of Potential P Passenger Rail Alternatives R il Al i Route Population Sample Map Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Initial Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives P R il Al i Untenable Defects Sample: Elroy, WI Route Description City Segment Numbers Commercial & residential buildings 15, 16, 17, 21, Reedsburg, WI- within the abandoned right-of-way Elroy, WI and 25 Sparta, WI Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Initial Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives Evaluation Matrix Sample Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Initial Identification of Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives Alternatives Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives (Proposed Passenger Rail Alternatives (Proposed Methodology) • Each potential passenger rail alternative is subject to p p g j a more robust and quantitative evaluation • Evaluation criteria: 1. Route Characteristics • Number of Tracks • Horizontal/vertical curvature H i t l/ ti l t • Significant grades • Miles/percent of single vs. double track • Miles/percent abandoned and out ‐ of ‐ service track • Miles/percent Class 1 main vs. regional/shortline Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives (Proposed Passenger Rail Alternatives (Proposed Methodology) • Evaluation criteria: Evaluation criteria: 2. Travel Time • At 110 mph accounting for recovery, dwell and handoffs 3. Market Size • Population centers served • 20 ‐ mile bandwidth • 20 ‐ mile bandwidth • Intermodal stations outside terminal area 4. Capital cost (order of magnitude) • Cost upgrade to HSR • Cost of additional right ‐ of ‐ way • Cost to acquire railroad right ‐ of ‐ way Cost to acquire railroad right of way • Cyclical capital costs Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives (Proposed Passenger Rail Alternatives (Proposed Methodology) • Evaluation criteria: E l ti it i 5. Operating Costs 6 6. Safety Safety • Number of rail ‐ rail crossings • Number of at ‐ grade crossings 7. Reliability • Freight conflicts (yards, etc.) • Shared track use Shared track use • Track handoffs • Train control • Public ownership of Route P bli hi f R Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Identification of Reasonable and Feasible Passenger Rail Alternatives (Proposed Passenger Rail Alternatives (Proposed Methodology) • Evaluation criteria: • Evaluation criteria: 8. System Connectivity • Commuter rail use • Modal connections 9. Potential impact to environmental features • Floodplains Fl d l i • Wetlands • Threatened and Endangered Species • Cultural resources • 4(f)/6(f) protected property • Environmental Justice Environmental Justice • Hazardous Materials Milwaukee ‐ Twin Cities High ‐ Speed Rail Corridor Program
Recommend
More recommend
