Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study - - Twin

Cities Corridor " " .

1

Final Report Appendices

Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc.

February, 2000

TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

OVERALL TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ......

CHAPTER :Z. TECHNOLOGY .••...... •....••.••...... •..••...••...••..•..•....••...•...... ••.••.•....•..•.•....•..•..••.••.•..•..•..••••.•

CHAPTER 3. ROUTE ASSESSMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW......

CHAPTER 4. DEMAND FORECAST...... ; ••• ,......

CHAPTER 5. OPERATING PLAN ..•.•.•.•.•.••..•..••.•.••.•••••••.•••..•••••.••...•...... •..•.•...... •...•.•..•....•.•.••....•.••..•...•••..•..•..•..•••

CHAPTER 6. OPERATING REVENUES AND OPERATING AND CAPITAL COSTS......

CHAPTER 7. FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS......

CHAPTER 8. FUNDING ALTERNATIVES .••..•...... ••.•••.....••.••..••.•••••.•..••..•..•.•.•.••..•••..••.•...... ••.••...... •.•...•...... •••.•.•.••

CHAPTER 9. INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS••..••.•..••...... •...••.••..•.•..••.•.••.•...... ••••..•..•..•.•.•..•••••...... •••.•.••.••....••..••••••

CHAPTER 10. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN......

GLOSSARY......

I L .. f

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. TOC-1 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX 2.J. TECHNOLOGY ISSUES ......

APPENDIX 2.2. STUDY REFERENCES ......

APPENDIX 3.1 TRACK ASSESSMENT BY SEGMENT......

APPENDIX 3.2. URBAN AREA ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS......

APPENDIX 3.3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW......

APPENDIX 4.J. ZONE DETAIL ......

APPENDIX 4.2. SOCIOECONOMIC FORECAST BY ZONE......

APPENDIX 4.3. BASE YEAR TRIP DETAIL ......

APPENDIX 4.4. STATED PREFERENCE SURVEY DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLE SURVEY......

APPENDIX 4.5. COMPASS' PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ......

APPENDIX 5.1. TIMETABLE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE PATTERN......

APPENDIX 6.1. INFRASTRUCTURE UNIT COSTS ......

APPENDIX 6.2.1. INFRASTRUCTURE DETAIL: (BASE CASE) RIVER ROUTE IJO MPH ......

APPENDIX 6.2.2. INFRASTRUCTURE DETAIL: B-lROCHESTER ROUTE 110 MPH ......

APPENDIX 6.2.3. INFRASTRUCTURE DETAIL: B-2 ROCHESTER ROUTE 150 MPH ......

APPENDIX 6.2.4. INFRASTRUCTURE DETAIL: C-2 ROCHESTER ROUTE NEW ALIGNMENT 150 MPH.

APPENDIX 6.2.5. INFRASTRUCTURE DETAIL: D-3 ROCHESTER ROUTE ELEVATED URBAN 185 MPH

APPENDIX 6.3. INFRASTRUCTURE COST BY CATEGORY......

APPENDIX 6.4. CONCEPTUAL ENGINEERING BRIDGE PLANS......

APPENDIX 6.5. INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ......

TRANSPORTATION ECONONICS & MANAGENENT SYSTEMS, INC. TOC-2 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Append.ix 2.1 Technology Issues Appendix 2-1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

APPENDIX 2.1

TECHNOLOGY ISSUES Train operation in excess of 79 mph requires a combination of advanced design and higher right-of-way (ROW) standards. Super-elevations that go above three inches on freight railroad rights-of-way will generally require higher levels of maintenance to maintain proper rail alignment, and may encounter freight railroad resistance. In many cases technology solutions, such as steerable and tilt, can be applied to maximize speed in curves.

Tangent Track On tangent track, the train' s performance and the class of track are key limiting factors to train speed. Maximum achievable train speed on straight and level or tangent track is determined by the locomotive's power and the technology used. A technology's speed is primarily determined by its power to weight ratio, gear ratio and its axle weight, particularly its unsprung mass, i.e., the weight on the locomotive's and traction motors. The typical axle weight for North American is 25-36 tons, whereas the typical European passenger train' s axle weight is around 17 .5 to 18 tons. Lighter locomotives therefore have a speed advantage, all other factors being equal.

The maximum train speed achievable m commercial operation is dependent on the interaction of the train and the track. The top speed a technology can achieve on a section of track is related to the condition of the track. The FRA has set track classes based on maintenance levels and signaling systems. The speeds shown in Exhibit 2. 1. 1 are the maximums allowable for passenger service.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2.1-1 Appendix 2-1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

Exhibit 2.1.1 FRA Track Classification

Track Class Maximum Speed Class III 60mph Class IV 80mph Class V 90mph Class VI 110mph Class VII 125 mph

Speeds in excess of 125 mph will require a new classification under the current FRA system. This is currently being reviewed as part of the proposed upgrading of the North East Corridor. In Europe and Japan, to attain speeds in excess of 150 mph, it has been considered necessary to build new track and road bed specifically for the TGV. This separate ROW permits steeper grades than a normal railway. An average railroad designed for freight operations will typically operate with grades of I degree to 4 degrees, while steeper grades of 5 degrees to 8 degrees are common for TGV lines, due to available horsepower. At the same time, curvature is dramatically reduced on a TGV line, and there is little or no at-grade interface with other rights of way or highways.

Train Speed on Curved Track Apart from the degree of curvature, there are a number of factors that influence the train' s I speed in a curve and dictate how speed can be maintained. These factors include: Super-elevation Unbalance Steerable bogies Train tilting Lateral acceleration Each of these terms is discussed in detail below.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2.1-2 Appendix 2-1 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

Super-elevation and unbalance are key factors in determining speed and comfort as well as safety in negotiating a curve. Super-elevation represents a physical alteration to the track to accommodate increased speed (similar to banking on a highway), while unbalance is the uncompensated degree of lateral force exerted on the passenger and the track on curves. Steerable bogies and train tilting represent alterations to the train technology itself to accommodate higher speeds and a more comfortable ride on curves.

Lateral acceleration indicates the horizontal force felt by the passenger in a curve, as well as the lateral force being applied by the wheels on the track. Acceleration forces are usually stated in terms of percentages of the force of gravity (e.g., 7 percent g). Lateral acceleration forces are a function of the train speed and the degree of curvature of the track.

Super-elevation

To allow a train to go faster through a curve, super-elevation (i.e., banking) can be provided. This raises the outside rail elevation above that of the inside rail. Super­ elevation is typically measured in inches. The greater the super-elevation, the higher is the speed at which at train can negotiate a curve. There is a point, however, at which super-elevation can pose a danger of tipping over or derailing to slower moving freight .

For the current study, super-elevation is not increased above 3 inches for the 110 mph and 150 mph scenarios, maintaining compatibility with existing freight operations. Modifications to existing track within this limit will be proposed where appropriate.

In addition to modest infrastructure solutions to increase speed in curves, the current study proposes alternatives to super-elevation. These alternative and complementary strategies encompass unbalance, steerable bogies and tilting systems.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2.1-3 Appendix 2-1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

Unbalance (Cant deficiency) An alternative approach to achieving higher speeds on curves for a passenger train is to incorporate a degree of unbalance, also referred to as cant deficiency. Unbalance is the term used to indicate that a train traveling through a curve at a given speed theoretically requires more track banking or super-elevation to retain equilibrium conditions (i.e., no horizontal force felt by passengers or on the track). In addition to operating factors, lateral acceleration also affects passenger sensation. With unbalance, a horizontal force is exerted on the passenger as well as the track. The cant deficiency plus the maximum track cant (super-elevation) determine the maximum speed at which a train can round a curve. Standards for unbalance are established to ensure that the actual horizontal force at a given speed for a particular curve does not exceed specified passenger comfort levels

\ or train safety. I

The level of unbalance is traditionally measured in inches. On standard gauge 4 foot 8½ inch track, one inch (25 mm) of cant is the same as I degree of cant. British Raii2' allows 4.2 inches of unbalance, equal to a gravity or "g" force of 7 percent g, which is well within a passenger's normal tolerance for movement, and is due to the relative high speed of both passenger and freight trains. The North American standard unbalance has traditionally been only 3 inches for passenger trains. Freight trains operate at 4.5 inches to 2.25 inches of unbalance.

The 3 inch passenger unbalance restriction either limits speeds through curves or requires major infrastructure changes to accommodate it. For example, to go through a curve of !degree 30 minutes at 100 mph, a super-elevation of 7 inches would be required at 3 inches of unbalance. Unfortunately a 7 inch super-elevation or track cant is not compatible with most freight equipment in North America, which in many places is designed for maximum speeds of 60 mph in curves. As noted above, for this study, super-elevation is limited to 3 inches. However, if the unbalance is raised to 9 inches for the passenger train, a super-elevation of 2.5 inches is required to achieve 100 mph in the

• Note: Superscript numbers refer to the references at the end of Chapter 2.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2.1-4 Appendix 2-1 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibility Study curve. The super-elevation of 2.5 inches can easily be negotiated by a standard freight train. (Note that the unbalance of 9 inches for a passenger train can be partially compensated through tilt and steerable bogies, discussed below.)

In summary, to avoid the problems of higher super-elevations and associated higher maintenance costs on mixed-use track, unbalance can be raised to compensate for the level of super-elevation. and BNSF have agreed to raise the level of unbalance to five inches as of May, 1998, following extensive testing in the summer of 1997 at levels as high as seven inches. An unbalance level of 4 inches is gradually becoming the passenger train standard in North America, compared to the more conservative traditional North American standard of 2.5 to 3 inches. In Europe2 4.5 inches to 6 inches is the standard.

Steerable Bogies In order to reduce the force that the wheels exert on the track in a curve a steerable bogie has been developed. This is called a 'radial steering' bogie, 'soft' bogie, or 'self steering' bogie. Similar bogies have operated successfully for a number of years in Europe. The self-steering capability results in significantly lower rail-wheel interaction, which reduces wear rates on both wheels and track. This enables higher levels of unbalance to be utilized by equipment fitted with such bogies. The typical level of unbalance 3 can be as high as 9 inches from a physical wear perspective. The steerable bogie can thus increase the unbalance by as much as 5 inches, however, if the train is to operate at more than JOO mph, the train will also need to employ tilt to maintain passenger comfort.

Tilting Systems Moving passengers through a curve at high speed, even on super-elevated track, results in levels of unbalance that reduce passenger comfort. Levels of cant deficiency of 6 degrees are noticed by a passenger, especially if he/she is standing. One way to counteract this effect is to use tilt. Tilt refers to the physical angle of the train relative to the track and is

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2.1-5 Appendix 2-1 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

measured in degrees. Tilting the body of the train essentially offsets the effect of unbalance on the passenger and provides a more comfortable passenger ride. Tilt is valuable in maintaining passenger comfort on routes that, unlike the French TGV or Japanese trains, are not specifically laid out for high-speed operation. Tilt is required to balance the lateral acceleration and deceleration forces. Passenger trains can have an acceleration force of as much as 10 percent g (% gravity), and a deceleration force of 7-9 percent g. In a curve, such a lateral acceleration would be far beyond passenger comfort levels, therefore railroads set lower levels of permissible gravitational force to be experienced. For example, British Rail (BR) sets a maximum of7 percent g; 2 and French Railways' (SNCF) standard is 8.6 percent g .

Tilt has developed over time as a means to run at higher speeds while preserving I passenger comfort, sometimes instead of and sometimes in addition to super-elevating the track. The early passive tilting trains such as the Spanish Railways (RENFE) had a relatively modest tilting capability, e.g. 3 .5 degrees, and suffered from a slow response rate. The slow response time associated with the Taiga's passive tilt system on entering a curve was solved by the development of an active system. By the 1970's the development of active tilt resulted in tilt capabilities of 8 degrees to 10 degrees and much faster response times. These trains2 were the British Rail APT with maximum 9 degrees tilt, Italian Railways (FR) Fiat with a maximum of 10 degrees tilt, and Swedish Railways (SJ) X2000 with 8.5 degrees tilt. Various systems are used but generally the first bogie has an activating sensor that provides the lead-time for the other coaches' tilt systems to work.

For the early active tilt systems, extreme levels of tilt and the effect of going through

2 reverse curves caused nausea • Thus, it has become standard practice to only compensate for 70 percent of unbalance and let the passenger feel some lateral acceleration.

J

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2.1-6 Appendix 2-1 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibility Study

Steerable Trucks Combined With Tilt Technologies A recent development has been to blend the benefits of a steerable bogie with an active tilt system. Such a system reduces track wear and preserves passenger comfort, without extensive freight track modifications. At the present time, tilting trains in Europe operating at speeds up to 125 mph are limited to 7 and 9 inches of unbalance, which is made up of 4.5 inches unbalance and 3-5 degrees tilt. The Fiat Pendolino ETR450 is designed to run at IO degrees tilt plus 4.5 inches 2 unbalance giving a total of 14.5 inches unbalance in the extreme curves • Setting the standard at 8 inches through the combined use of tilt and unbalance makes it possible to increase speeds on large curves by 20-25 percent compared to conventional equipment.

The speed on a curve, relative to safety and railway dynamics, depends mainly on the resistance characteristics of the track and the dynamic quality of the equipment. As a result, the implementation of tilt systems is dependent on maintaining an appropriate track quality, and the use of low axle weights, steerable bogies, super-elevation and unbalance to maximize speed. The tilting only has an effect on the lateral force, which affects the passenger comfort, it does not offset the lateral forces of the wheels on the track itself, and cannot therefore increase the level of unbalance permitted for safe train operation.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2.1-7 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 2.2 Study References APPENDIX 2. 2 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 2.2

References

Published Sources

"160-250," Manufacturer's Literature, September 1995, GEC Alsthom, Hawthorne, NY. "250-320," Manufacturer's Literature, GEC Alsthom, Hawthorne, NY, September, 1995

Discussions between ABB and TEMS, November, 1994. "Driven By Speed," Manufacturer's Literature, March 1998, Bombardier, Bensalem, PA. Dunlevy, D.M., "Economical Marine Gas Turbines," Solar Turbines Conference Papers, 1994 Fast Ferry International Conference, London ,UK. "Entering a New Era," Modem Railways. February 1998, Vol. 55, No. 593, p.104. "Flexliner IC3D," Manufacturer's Literature, March 1997, Adtranz, ABB Daimler Benz Transportation, Pittsburgh, PA. Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation, 49 CFR Part 216, Passenger Equipment Safety Standards, Subpart C 238 Tier 1, Subpart E 238 Tier 2. "IC3 A New Dimension in Train Technology," Manufacturer's Literature, June 1990, ABB Review, ABB Scandia A/S Denmark. Informed Sources VP185: "Paxman's New Diesel Engine," Modern Railways, March, 1994, Vol. 51, No. 546. pl41. Informed Sources: "Tilt World Turned Upside Down," Modern Railwavs, June, 1995, Vol. 52, No. 561, p330. "IR4 Regional Electric Train," Manufacturer's Literature, March 1991, ABB Review, ABB Scandia A/S Denmark. "State of the Art, Tilting Trains: A Mature Technology," Modem Railways, March, 1995, Vol. 52, No. 558, pl59. "Talgo Pendular Train-Sets," Manufacturer's Literature, July 1997, Talgo Inc, Bellevue, WA. "TGV SNCF," SNCF International Affairs Department, , , September 1990.

"Turbine Electric 3600," Manufacturer's Literature, Seneca Group, Arlington, TX.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & Ml!NAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC, 2.2-1 JlJ?PENDIX 2 . 2 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Interview Sources

Telephone interviews were conducted with the following manufacturers:

Metz, Raymond E., Vice President Main Line, Adtranz, ABB Daimler Benz Transportation, 1501 Lebanon Church Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-1491, (412) 655-5360

Davila, Philip R., Principle, Seneca Group, 1901 Stadium Oaks Court, Suite 102, Arlington, TX 76011, (817) 801-3111

Gonzalez, Gustavo, CEO, Talgo, Inc, l 0900 NE 4th St., Suite 1100, Bellevue, WA 98004, ( 425) 990-5180

Lochte, William D., Vice President, Marketing & Business Development, Mass Transit­ North America, Bombardier, 3684 Marshall Lane, Bensalem, PA 19020, (215) 639- 7966

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 2.2-2

TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 3.1 Track Assessment by Segment

I

( l ; t Appendix 3.1 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibility Study

APPENDIX 3.1

Segment: Milwaukee to Watertown ( Milepost 85.93 to 131.2)

The route from Milwaukee Union Station (MP86) to Watertown (MP131) is on track owned by CP Rail. The track is in good condition and has continuous welded rail (CWR) on the eastward main from C&M milepost 85.7 to C&M milepost 104.4 and the westward main from C&M milepost 85.7 to 97.6 and on the single main from C&M milepost 104.4 to milepost 131.2. The westward main from C&M milepost 97.6 to 104.4 is jointed rail. The track appears to be well-maintained. Exhibits 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 are the speed profile for 110 MPH and 150 MPH operations in this segment.

Exhibit 3.1.1

Speed Profile .. Chlcaga to St. Paul •IC3-,.T

100

"

,,______.______-,.1..1

85.93 ...., 100.93 11)5.93 Ho.93 115.0l 120,9:l 125.ln 130.91 Mllepott ·-M.t::unumAto,,4tlleSpffd ! Uulmum Altainatll S«)OO(l!

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3. 1-1 Appendix 3. 1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

Exhibit 3.1.2

Speed Profile~ Chicago to St. Paul • Am Flyer ""

140·

120

100

I~ .. i:. 0 .. " ,. • .. .. 100 105 110 115 ,,. 125 ...... !-Ml:x!mum Allowlt>le"' Speed ! '-Ma:rinun AUa!Mbkl Spood:

Segment: Watertown to Madison at SR30 (Waterloo Spur Subdivision milepost 131.2 to 163.8)

From Watertown (MP131) to the Madison area (MP163) near the intersection of the track of the Waterloo Subdivision with State Route 30, the route is the right-of-way of the Waterloo Subdivision owned by CP Rail but leased to Southern Railway. This single track is in very poor condition and is limited to a maximum speed of 10 mph, albeit the track charts list the track as a Class II structure. The visual inspection indicated the right-of-way was usable for high-speed rail operations. Exhibits 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 are speed profiles for 110 and 150 MPH operations along the alignment of the Waterloo subdivision. The speed profile reveals that the alignment of the right-of-way, although fairly tangent, has three areas where the curvature is not suitable for 110 MPH operations on this segment. These curves are near Sun Prairie. However, the curvature is severe enough in this segment to restrict 150 MPH technology to slower speeds.

------TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3.1-2 Appendix 3.1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

Exhibit 3.1.3

Speed Profile-Chicago to Sl Paul• IC3--T

120

100 ..

le g~ u ... il w ..

20

0 m m 1 .. 151 1'8 101 1.. "'' Milepott --Maldtnum NIOW3it«I Spc,c(! i .--Maximum1 Attainable Speed!

Exhibit 3.1.4

Speed Ptofll& • Chicago to SL Paul • Am Flyer

160

1'0

120

100 le ~ f .. wil 60

"'

20

0 131 1,0 141 1.. 151 156 101 Ml'-port !--Maximum AIIO'Wllble Spi:,ed I 1-J.taxrmum.AnlJMble Speed i

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3. 1-3 Appendix 3. 1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

Segment: Madison Connection (Proposed Airport Subdivision milepost 3.0 to 0)

The alignment for the proposed route is along the northern edge of SR30 between Commercial Avenue and SR30. The route will utilize Commercial Avenue right-of-way. Some commercial business near the track of the Waterloo Subdivision and residences bordering Commercial Avenue need to be acquired for the right-of-way. At the interchange of Highway 151 and Highway 39, it will be necessary to construct an extension of the Highway 151 bridge over Route 30 to accommodate an over-bridge for the new track. It will also be necessary to construct two over-bridges for the on and off ramps of Highway 151. The proposed alignment will proceed northward through a commercial area to a train station proposed near the track of the Madison/Portage subdivision and the Dane County Airport Terminal. Right-of-way will be required for eastward and westward tracks.

Segment: Madison to Portage (Madison/Portage Subdivision milepost 30.9 to·0)

The Madison/Portage subdivision between the Dane County Airport and Portage has 31 miles of track. The track charts indicate that this route is FRA Class III that allows speed between 40 and 60 mph. An inspection of the track determined that the entire track infrastructure needs replacement for high- speed rail operations. Exhibits 3.L5 and 3.1.6 are the speed profiles for 110 and 150 MPH operations on the alignment of this segment. The speed profiles indicate that the alignment is poor for optimum speeds. Consequently, substantial realignment on new right-of-way is required.

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3.1-4 Appendix 3. 1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

Exhibit 3.1.5

Speod Profile. Chic.ago to St. Paul • IC3•T ""

,oo

" "t I .. m .. ,.

0 ,.. 17< ,,. ... ,.. ,.. "'Mlltim:t --ummum Allclw3:blo Speed 1 Ua.xlmum Attaln.blo Spoed !

Exhibit 3.1.6

Sp&fd Profile. Chica.go to St Paul • Am Flyer

100

140

120

100 :;;- 1 ~l .. w ..

40 ,.

0 ,.. ,,. 18' ,., ,.. 199 "' Mli.post ::::::-M-.,.-m-,m-All-""'-..-Spood-; -Ma.itimum AtUliMblQ Spocd i

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3. 1-5 Appendix 3. 1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

Segment: Portage to Lacrosse ( milepost 178.2 to 288.0)

An inspection of the track from Portage to LaCrosse indicates that it is in fair to excellent condition. The track is on right-of-way owned by CP Rail. The track is well maintained. The track is continuous welded rail on the single main from Tomah milepost 178.2 to 246.4, and the eastward main from Tomah milepost 246.4 to 257.1 and again on single main from Tomah milepost 257.1 to 288. The westi.vard main from Tomah milepost 246.4 to 257.1 is jointed rail. Exhibits 3.1.7 and 3.1.8 are the speed profiles for 1 IO MPH and 150 MPH operations on this segment. The profile reveals that the 110 MPH technology will operate at near optimum speed, whereas, the 150 MPH technology will be restricted in this segment.

Exhibit 3.1.7

Speed ProRle • Chicago to St. Paul .. IC3•T

100

"'

oJ-----L------~-..,______,, 202 202 ,oz

1--All-•-1-Ma:dmumAltainab!e speed I

------TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3.1-6 Appendix 3.1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

Exhibit 3.1.8

Speed Profile .. Chicago to St. Paul ... Am Flyer 160------~

1 ◄0

120

100 .. ... "' o-!-----'------'------,-1 223 263 283 "" 1-MaximumAlllM&tlleSpeed"" i -MaxlmumAttall'lable Speed!

Segment: Lacrosse to St Paul (River Subdivision milepost 288 to 407.4 and Merriman Park Subdivision milepost 407.4 to 410.2)

The track in this segment is in good to excellent condition and is well maintained by CP Rail. The single main track is continuous welded rail from River milepost 288 to 385.9. The #1 main or westward track is continuous welded rail from River milepost 385.9 to 391.2. The #2 main eastward track is jointed rail from River milepost 385.9 to 388.0 and continuous welded rail from River milepost 388.0 to 391.2. The single main track is continuous welded rail from River milepost 391.2 to 392.4. The #1 main or westward track is continuous welded rail from River milepost 392.4 to 402.4. From River milepost 402.4 to 407.4, the track is shared track owned by Burlington Northern and is continuous welded rail. The #2 main or eastward track is continuous welded rail from River milepost 392.4 to 402.4 and is shared track owned by Burlington Northern. The #2 main or eastward is continuous welded rail from River milepost 402.4 to 407.4. In the Merriman Park subdivision, the westward and eastward main track is continuous welded rail from Merriman milepost 407.4 to 410.2 with the #1 main or westward owned by Burlington Northern from Merriman milepost 407.4 to 408.9. Exhibits 3.1.9 and 3.1.10

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3. 1-7 Appendix 3.1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study show the profiles for 110 MPH and 150 MPH operations. The speed profile reveals that the optimum speed for both technologies is near 90 MPH.

Exhibit 3.1.9

Speed Profile .. Chicago to St. Paul • lC3•T 120,------,

"'"

80

20 oL------'------'------...JJ :l05 365 385 "" ,--Maximum Allowable Sl)et

Speed Profile • Chic.ago to SL Paul - Am Flyer ""

1<0 ""

100

~ "s 80 u: w~ ,.80

20

0. ,., 365

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEME:IIT SYSTEMS, INC.· APPENDIX 3.1-8 Appendix 3.1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

Segment: Winona to Rochester (DM&E Subdivision Oto 33.0)

The beginning milepost for the Detroit, , & Eastern Railroad (DM&E) is north of Winona at a junction with CP Rail. The alignment crosses under Minnesota State Route 61 and from Minnesota City it proceeds in a southwestern direction curving through the Stockton Valley. The excessive curvature of the track between DM&E mileposts 0 and 18.0 limits the potential of high speed operations. Exhibit 11 shows the speed profile for the 110 MPH technology. Exhibit 12 shows the severe restriction of this alignment on the 150 MPS technology. In addition to the poor alignment, the track structure is not sufficient to support high-speed rail operations. Approximately four miles west of St. Charles, high-speed rail operations depart the DM&E track onto a new alignment to the Rochester Airport and northerly to St. Paul.

Exhibit 3.1.11

Speed Profile--Winona to Ocu - JC3.T ,,.

"'

80

:.- .s~ ~ ! "' w .. "''

• 60 ' " " :-UD!mumMowab!oSpeed"' ""'"'°" ,_MnlmumAttainatlle SPt'Cd'

------TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEME"NT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3. 1-9 Appendix 3.1 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibility Study

Exhibit 3.1.12

Speed Profile -Wlnona to Rochester- Am Ayer GT

'"'

100 .. ..

•'------..J_--...J,0 0 10 •• "' 60 Muimum Allowa!)I~ Speed ! !-Mu.1m11tn.Atllffllbl~st,eed:

Segment: La Crosse to St. Paul

The topography in Minnesota is difficult for the planning of a new alignment for high­ speed rail operation for speeds of 150 MPH and beyond. The elevation immediately west of the is approximately 1,280 feet. was constructed to take advantage of the topography. High-speed rail systems do not have this luxury since it is imperative to maintain the alignment with minimum curvature of O degrees, 45 minutes for 150 mph operations with tilt technology. The proposed alignment for the 150 MPH and the 185 MPH options in Minnesota begins at the exit from the new Mississippi River Bridge immediately north of the intersection of Highways 14 and 90. The alignment follows the Dakota River valley from an elevation of 700 feet to an elevation of approximately 1,200 feet, an increase in grade of 500 feet in 3 .6 miles at an average grade of 2.6%. A bridge over the Dakota River and separate bridges over east bound and west bound lanes of Interstate 90 are required. The alignment follows south of Interstate 90 for approximately 7 miles from the Mississippi River then crosses Interstate 90 to the north side. It follows the north side of Interstate 90 to a location south of Witoka then crosses and continues in a northwesterly direction for a short distance near Centerville.

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3. 1-10 Appendix 3.1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

The alignment curves to a westerly direction and crosses Interstate 90 to the north side immediately west of Wilson. The alignment again crosses Interstate 90 through the southern area near Shelton Hill and continues westerly toward the Rochester Airport crossing Highway 52 and Interstate 90 near Simpson. After crossing Highway 63, it then proceeds towards Dodge Center and then northerly towards Rosemount onto the track of the Union Pacific. Using the Union Pacific tr1,1ck, there are two potential routes into the St. Paul Union Station. The route used in this study requires the construction of a new bridge in the vicinity south of the Metropolitan Water Treatment Facility to carry the track onto the existing CP Rail line from Hastings to Union Station. Since the alignment is new, optimum speeds are attained from near the Mississippi River to Rosemount. Exhibits 3.1.13 and 3.1.14 detail the speed profile for this alignment. The alternative alignment proceeds adjacent to the western boundary of Holman Field and across the Mississippi River directly into Union Station.

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3.1-11 Appendix 3. 1 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

Exhibit 3.1.13

Speed Profile• ROCHESTER to St Paul Union Stn •IC3-T

120

100

80

~ ...., I .. I.

20

0 ,.. .., 370 300 410 430 ... ◄70 --li.Uxmlm~S~i"" --MmnwTIA:talnablt:SJ'.)Mdi Exhibit 3.1.14

Speed Profile .. Rochester to St Paul Union Stn ~Am Flyer GT

160

1<1<>

120

100 '/ { s l .. - =~ .. ' ., .., ...

20

0 "" 360 370 380 300 400 , 410 421) 430 ...... :.--Mao-n:imAloriWb&eSpeed I •--M:a,,imum~Speed

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3. 1-12

TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 3.2 Urban Area A1ternative A1ignments APPENDIX 3. 2 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL Ji'EASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX 3.2

URBAN AREA ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS

Twin Cities Airport Access

The airport access alignment departs the right-of-way for existing Union Pacific track and proceeds along the east side of County Road 71 over State Highway 3 and onto an abandoned railroad right-of-way near the western boundary of the right-of-way of State Highway 149. The alignment then follows this abandoned railroad right-of-way through the interchange of Interstates .494 and 35E and State Highway 55 across State Highway 13 and across the Minnesota River Basin and State Highway 5. This alternative alignment utilizes abandoned railroad right-of-way as much as possible. This study did not determine the owner of this abandoned right-of-way or the jurisdiction. A field inspection revealed that a large portion of this railroad right-of-way has not been commercialized. The airport access alignment requires the construction of either a long-span bridge over the Minnesota River Basin and State Highway 5 or a tunnel under the river basin. Based on the engineering assessment of the alternative airport access route, the cost of infrastructure improvements needed to efficiently operate high­ speed passenger rail service to the airport was developed. The detailed cost estimate is included in Appendix 6.2.6. Construction of this airport access would add approximately $165 Million to the cost of implementing 150 mph service from Chicago to St. Paul via Rochester.

Madison Access Alternatives

The alignment for high-speed passenger rail service through Madison must be planned to support the 110 mph, 150 mph, or 185 mph technologies. For 110 mph, a single main track with right­ of-way for the second track is planned; for the 150 mph and 185 mph, a double track for east and west bound traffic is planned. As previously detailed within this report, the study alignment begins at the intersection of the Waterloo Subdivision track and State Highway 30 and connects to the Madison/Portage Subdivision (milepost 30.9) near the existing airport terminal. The alignment proceeds along the northern edge of State Highway 30 between Commercial Avenue and State Highway 30, then follows the Commercial Avenue right-of-way. At the interchange of U.S. Highway 151 and State Highway 39, the bridge carrying U. S. Highway 151 over State Highway 30 needs to be extended to the north to accommodate an over-bridge for tl1e high-speed

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 3.2-1 APPENDIX 3. 2 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEAsIBILITY STUDY passenger rail service. Two RR over-bridges for the "on" and "off' ramps of U. S. Highway 151 will also be needed. The proposed alignment then proceeds northerly through a commercial area to a station planned near the track of the Madison/Portage subdivision in the vicinity of the Dane County Airport terminal. Several RR under-bridges are planned between the intersection with U.S. Highway 151 and the proposed train station.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation, in association with the Dane County Regional Planning Commission in a 1992 study, considered a second alternative alignment along the eastern boundary of the Dane County Airport. The proposed alternative departs the track of the Waterloo Subdivision at latitude north 43 degrees, 9.91 minutes west, 89 degrees, 14.21 minutes. The alignment follows a right-hand curve, 0 degrees, 42 minutes crossing over U. S. Highway 151. The alignment follows a left-hand curve of O degrees, 42 minutes paralleling Hoepker Road crossing under Interstate 90/94 to a right-hand curve O degrees, 30 minutes connecting into the existing Madison Portage Subdivision north of the Airport. This alignment carries the route north of the American Family Development. This alternate will require a new station near either U.S. Highway 151 or Interstate 90/94.

A third alternate follows the track of the Waterloo Subdivision under State Highway 30, paralleling St. Paul Avenue into an area bounded by the Yahara River, U. S. Highway 151, Baldwin Street, and Williamson Street. This alternate connects onto the track of the Madison/Portage subdivision in this vicinity.

A fourth alternate follows the alignment of the third alternate but departs the track of the Waterloo Subdivision north of South First Street, crosses under U.S. Highway 151 and connects with the track of the Madison/Portage subdivision near the intersection of Highway 113 and East Johnson Street.

The alignment for the 150 mph and 185 mph technologies from Milwaukee creates a fifth alternate alignment through Madison. This alignment would require a major RR over- or RR under-bridge at the interchange ofI-90, I-94 and State Highway 30. This alignment then follows

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 3.2-2 APPENDIX 3. 2 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEAsIBILITY STrJDY on the north side of State Highway 30 along a route between Commercial Avenue and State Highway 30 under U.S. Highway 51 and onto the alignment of the study alternative.

Milwaukee Alternative

An alternative routing into Milwaukee Amtrak Station through West Allis was considered. This alignment is known as the "Air Line" from Elm Grove through the former shopping area east of Layton Boulevard and into the passenger station. This alignment bisects the Veteran's Hospital. A field view determined that it would be very difficult to provide safe passage through the grounds of the Veteran's Hospital area without significant infrastructure improvements such as an elevated structure or a depressed alignment allowing for pedestrian passage. This alignment was not within the scope of work of this study.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 3.2-3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 3.3 Environmenta1 Review APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ...... 1

GENERAL ...... l Associated Reports Reviewed ...... : ...... 1 DEVELOP ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERJA AND CHECK LINE ...... l PHYSICAL IMPACT ...... 2 Water Quality ...... 2 Air Quality ...... 4 Wetlands ...... 5 Historical and Archeological Resources ...... 6 Noise ...... 7 Energy ...... 8 Visual Impacts ...... 9 BIOLOGICAL lMPACT ...... 10 Shrinking Biological Diversity and Fragmentation ofNatural Habitat ...... 10 Endangered Species ...... 11 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ...... 11 LAND USE ...... 12 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ...... 13 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ...... 14 Air Quality ...... 14 Construction Noise ...... 14 Water Quality ...... 15 Temporary Access ...... 15 ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS ...... 15 Clean Air Act (CAA) and Subsequent 1990 Amendments (CAAA) ...... 15 lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (JSTEA) ...... 16 Regulatory Agencies ...... 16

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Environmental Review

General

An environmental review was performed to identify potential environmental issues relating to passenger rail alignments. The review studied issues that could impact implementation of the high-speed rail service and presented a broad-scale evaluation of the impact within the Milwaukee-Twin Cities corridor. This environmental review did not provide a level of analysis consistent with an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment. It does recognize environmental issues that might be associated with high-speed rail operations in this corridor. This was accomplished by reviewing environmental information from previous high­ speed rail reports, as well as a general assessment of relevant data from studies performed in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

I Associated Reports Reviewed

The River Route (Base Case) was previously identified (in general) as the "South Route Modified (Study Route No. 4)" in the Technical Report 3, Tri-State Study of High Speed Rail Service, TMS/Benesch for the Tri-State Steering Committee, November I 6, 1990. In addition, Chicago-Milwaukee Rail Corridor Study - Task Six Phase II - Environmental Evaluation presented to WisDOT and IDOT, Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., March, 1994 was also reviewed. The information contained therein was used to develop the Environmental Criteria presented below. The following review applies to all routes in the study with exceptions noted.

Develop Environmental Criteria and Clteck Line

A review of the existing reports and an expanded analysis for this corridor have resulted in identifying the following Environmental Criteria:

• Physical Impact: Water Quality (Sediment, Nutrients, Toxins, Oil & Grease); Air Quality; Wetlands; Historical and Archeological Resources; Noise; Energy; Visual Impacts • Biological Impact: Shrinking Biological Diversity and Fragmentation of Natural Habitats; Endangered Species

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-1 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

• Socioeconomic Impact

• Land use

• Transportation and Traffic Impact

• Construction Impacts: Air Quality; Construction Noise; Water Quality; Temporary Access

• Environmental Laws: Clean Air Act (CAA) and subsequent 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA); Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); Regulatory Agencies

Executive Order on Environmental Justice 12898 ("Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations") relating to community or residential impact of high-speed rail needs to be evaluated. A study of communities affected by the proposed action, including a demographic analysis, needs to be conducted.

Physical Impact

Water Quality

Water quality can be affected by the construction of a new rail corridor primarily through the introduction of non-point source pollution. Stormwater management facilities, while designed to reduce erosion and sedimentation pollution, invariably impact the quality of downstream water resources. Although stormwater detention basins are designed to manage the rate (volume per unit of time) of runoff such that post-development runoff is less than or equal to the pre­ development runoff, the total volume of runoff will nonetheless increase. Runoff that previously infiltrated undeveloped and vegetated terrain will now be conveyed by developed land cover that is less pervious. In addition, the quality of the post-development runoff will be affected during construction by silt-laden runoff that cannot be completely mitigated by erosion and sedimentation pollution control (E&S) measures. Once the disturbed areas have been stabilized with mature vegetation, this impact will be minimized.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-2 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Sediment - This is the largest runoff pollutant by volume. Unmitigated sediment can smother fish egg beds, tear at the fragile gills of newborn fish, envelope spawning areas, and block light to developing submerged aquatic vegetation, a critical habitat in aquatic ecosystems.

Nutrients - Nutrients originate from agricultural, as well as residential land use. The fertilizers used to encourage growth of crops and well-kept lawns are carried by runoff to riverine systems. Once a low-gradient section is reached, the quiescent environment could result in algae blooms. The uncontrolled growth of algae depletes the oxygen content in the water body critical to the fish habitat and also blocks sunlight to the submerged aquatic vegetation.

Toxins - Stormwater runoff can contain two basic forms of toxin: industrial heavy metals such as cadmium, arsenic and mercury, and organic compounds such as DDT, PCBs and pesticides. The sources of these pollutants are largely due to illegal disposal of household hazardous wastes such as paint thinners, preservatives, pesticides, appliances, etc. Toxins do not biodegrade, but rather bioaccumulate. As toxins are ingested by an organism low on the food chain, they are ingested by a higher-level organism feeding on the contaminated subject. The lingering effects result in malignancies and reproduction system failure.

Oil and Grease - The most common toxin found in developed runoff, oil and grease drippings from vehicles and machinery have the same lingering effects as the toxins noted above. Additionally, they present an aesthetic problem once a slow-moving water body is encountered and an oil sheen results.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-3 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STO'l:)Y

Air Quality

The implementation of high-speed rail (HSR) service has direct and indirect impacts on air quality. Diesel locomotives (a potential HSR technology) bum fossil fuels that result in the emission of pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), unburned hydrocarbons (HC), nitrous oxide (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). However, HSR diesel technology will result in less petroleum-based fuel consumption per passenger mile than private automobiles, thus reducing some types of air emissions. Additionally, studies in the Boston-New York corridor show that HSR trains produce less air emission than slower moving conventional locomotives. These studies have shown HSR service, in combination with estimated diversions of private automobiles, resulted in significant reductions in CO emissions.' Impact on NOx and HC emissions (ozone precursors) was found to be negligible. The referenced studies did not derive emissions for PM and SO2. The study concluded that implementation ofHSR technology would result in an aggregate corridor-wide reduction in air emissions of less than one percent. However, it notes that even one-half of ode percent of an air quality improvement contributes substantially toward the Clean Air Act Amendments.

Should electric HSR locomotives be employed, locomotive-generated air emissions would be completely eliminated. If electricity is generated by fossil-fuel burning plants within the corridor, some added air emissions will result. However, since most power plants have heavy­ duty scrubbers installed, emissions from power plants are generally cleaner than motor vehicles.

Exhibit 3.3.1 shows the positive impact HSR has on air emissions (specifically CO and HC). Note that table comparisons assume various train/traffic volumes and year 2000 conditions.

1 Chicago-Nfi/waukee Rail Corridor Study- Environmental Evaluation, presented to WisDOT and !DOT, submitted by Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., March I 994.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-4 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Exhibit 3.3.1 Air Emission Comparisons in Chicago/Milwaukee Corridor

Emissions in Tons Per Year

Emission Source Train/Traffic NO, co HC PM S02 Volume Proposed HSR Service2 24 trains per day +234 +13 +8 +8 +69 Elimination of Existing 14 trains per day -163 -39 -5 -5 -40 Conventional Service3 Projected Auto Diversion• 5 160,000 auto trips -52 -175 -18 NIA NIA annually Change in emissions due to +19 -201 -15 NIA NIA HSR Service6

Derived from Chicago-Milwaukee Rail Corridor Study - Environmental Evaluation, presented to WisDOT and !DOT, submitted by Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., March 1994.

Wetlands I The loss of native wetlands resulting from the construction of transportation facilities has an adverse impact on water resource quality. Wetlands provide water resource protection through their ability to act as a groundwater recharge area, remove pollutants, nutrients, toxins and sediment from runoff, mitigate peak runoff flow rates, and provide endangered species habitat. Most wetland losses associated with the construction of transportation facilities are mitigated through the mandatory re-creation of restoration of the impacted wetlands.

Section 404 Permits will have to be obtained from the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency when wetlands are impacted. Likewise, each affected state agency will require water quality certifications for the impacted wetlands.

2 Emission data based on operation ofF-69 diesel powered train sets at 80% power in Boston-New York Corridor. 3 Emission data based on operation ofF-40 diesel electric locomotive powered train sets at 80% power. 4 Diverted auto volume based on 175;000 passenger trips annually with average vehicle occupancy of 1.1. 5 Emission data derived from MOBILE Sa model assumes year 2000 conditions, average speed of 60 rn.p.h. use of refonnulated gasoline, summer minimum and maximum temperatures of61° F and 81° F and no vehicle inspection and maintenance program. Calculated by subtracting Amtrak and auto diversion emission fonn HSR emissions.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-5 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Historical and Archeological Resources

Whenever historical and archeological resources are anticipated, state and federal guidelines require that the resources possibly affected by construction must be studied and mitigation plans prepared to avert adverse impacts. Archeological resources require studies and preservation before construction.

The Mississippi and Wisconsin Rivers were important historic trade/travel routes and places for hunting, trapping, gathering and settlement. Accordingly, land near these rivers can be expected to be rich in historic and archeological resources. Likewise, the Dakota Valley of Minnesota (near the LaCrosse crossing of the Mississippi) is also reported to be rich in these resources.

Impact on historic and archeological resources can be limited when a proposed route follows an existing railroad right-of-way. Where it appears that additional right-of-way will be needed for the construction of new roadway grade separation structures such as overpasses and underpasses, the potential exists to impact historic and archeological sites. Site-specific mitigation measures can be evaluated once the location and size of these structures is known.

St_ate Historic Preservation Officers are concerned with properties and sites listed (or with the potential to be listed) on the National Register of Historic Places. When federal funding or permitting is involved, research is required to locate any historic sites that could be impacted by the project. This research entails document and field research for building and archeological sites.

The National Parks Service (NPS) will be specifically concerned with the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (Mississippi NRRA) and the Ice Age Trail, in addition to some general areas of concern.

The Pigs Eye Lake area of the Mississippi NRRA is an important nesting habitat for a variety of wading birds and includes a major heron nesting site. The NPS is concerned with any intrusions on the visual landscape of the Mississippi NRRA.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-6 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

The Ice Age Trail is a trail network that follows the important edges of the Wisconsin age glacier. It roughly follows the leading edge of the terminal moraine between St. Croix Falls and Janesville and back northeast to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin.

The NPS is generally concerned with fenced right-of-way that would destroy vegetation, be a visual intrusion, block the movement of wildlife, and result in the clogging of streams during periods of high runoff.

Noise

HSR trains generate noise attributable to locomotive engines, wheels on rail and horn use, and are measured in units of decibels ( dB). Like all train noise events, HSR-generated noise occurs in short duration and is typically infrequent.

I A stationary diesel locomotive's noise level, measured 100 feet away, is approximately 73 dB. This stationary noise would occur at train stops and is comparable to a medium truck parked 25 feet away or loud orchestral music. Pass-by noise of HSR trains operating between 80-110 mph, measured 100 feet away, is approximately 76-80 dB. This is similar to conventional Amtrak trains but due to the speed of the HSR trains, would be shorter in duration. Some HSR train manufacturers indicate that HSR trains operate with less noise at 125 mph than conventional trains at lower speeds. The Doppler effect and other variables affect pass-by noise.

As would be expected, station and pass-by noise levels diminish as distance from the track increases. Tests conducted with transit train operations indicate that wayside noise is reduced by one-half as the distance from the noise source increases from 50 feet to 300 feet. The noise is reduced again by one-half at a distance of 1,000 feet. Thus disruptive noise impacts will not extend more than 500 to 1,000 feet from the tracks.

The duration of HSR noise events tends to be very short. At 90 to 125 mph, noise impact per train lasts about 30 seconds. On an average day, if 12 HSR trains operate in each direction, total wayside noise duration would amount to 12 minutes per day. There typically will not be HSR trains running after 10 p.m. or before 7 a.m.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-7 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Horn use, required most often when approaching at-grade crossings, is regulated by the FRA and will be of the same intensity as existing conventional trains. Since HSR service in existing railroad rights-of-way usually eliminates at-grade crossings, total horn use is reduced.

In summary, the implementation of HSR service will not have a significant impact on the generation of noise in the corridor. The infrequency and short duration of train events and the elimination of at-grade crossings with the accompanying horn use all contribute to a nominal impact as a result of noise generated by HSR service.

Energy

It is well known that mass transportation modes such as trains and buses are more fuel-efficient and consume less energy per passenger mile than the private automobile (See Exhibit 3.3.2). Auto user diversion to HSR service results in energy savings of approximately 3,200 BTUs per passenger mile (one gallon of gasoline has an energy value of 125,000 BTUs).

At the above energy consumption figures, a diversion of 1.9 million passengers from private autos to HSR service (110 mph technology over 287 miles) would result in total energy savings of 1.75 trillion BTUs or the equivalent of 13.9 million gallons of gasoline annually.

During construction of grade crossings for HSR service, construction activity should consume approximately 1.3 million gallons of gasoline or diesel fuel (one month's auto diversion savings).

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-8 111?PENDIX 3 . 3 TRI-STAXE II HIGH SPEED RAIL EEASIBILIXY STUDY

Exhibit 3.3.2 Energy Intensity of Selected Modes of Travel BTU Per Passenger Travel Mode Average Load Mile Automobile t.!7 5,560 Inter-City Bus NIA 965 Airlines 89.5° 4,814 Inter-City Train (Amtrak) 20.5 8 2,462 Commuter Rail 34.510 3,155 HSR 33 10 2,340

Derived from Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 11, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Table 2.13.

Visual Impacts

The visual impact that a developed rail corridor has on the surrounding landscape varies by location and vantage point of the viewer. Where the proposed route of HSR service is along an existing railroad right-of way, the obtrusive nature of railroad infrastructure should be minimized. However, when new cross-country right-of-way is developed with the construction of grade-separation structures, the surrounding viewscape is impacted.

From the vantage point of a rail or automobile passenger, the viewscape impacted by the development of the rail corridor would be limited to the time passengers choose to look out their window and their total visual experience (less than an hour). Residents and employees within sight of the corridor, however, do have long-term exposure to the impacted viewscape. Residents in immediate proximity to the corridor and its structures would be subject to permanent visual exposure. Employees, visitors and commuters will have less exposure, but if they find the impacted viewscape objectionable, they may alter their traveling patterns to avoid the view.

Grade-separation structures (underpasses and overpasses to carry the intersecting street above or below the railroad) are potentially substantial in size, extending more than 20 feet above or below grade, with embankments extending in either direction to meet the existing grade. In rural

7 Passengers per vehicle or aircraft. 6 Passengers per coach.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MllNAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-9 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

settings, these structures are readily assimilated into the surrounding landscape. In urban settings, however, substantial structural work (concrete retaining wall systems, stormwater management, fencing, etc.) has the potential to be obtrusive and unsightly. Unmitigated, these structures can disrupt access, circulation, light, tranquility, views and visibility of adjacent residents and businesses.

Railroad stations in urban areas have traditionally become city landmarks, not only the focal point of intermodal service, but also a reflection of civic values. New intermediate stations will be emphasized less and will have little visual impact on the surrounding area.

Should the HSR service become electrified, catenary structures will be required to carry the electric lines above the railroad tracks. They can be potentially obtrusive but again can be mitigated by appropriate design treatment.

Biological Impact

Shrinking Biological Diversity and Fragmentation of Natural Habitat

A basic tenet of ecology is that a diverse ecosystem is a healthy ecosystem. As transportation corridors are developed through ecosystems, natural habitats are "fragmented." The smaller, fragmented habitats may be below a minimum critical size needed to sustain certain plant and animal species, thus adversely affecting the native diversity of the ecosystem. The less diverse the ecosystem, the more susceptible it is to natural and man-made disturbances. Fragmentation is especially noticeable in the woodlands and wetlands of southern and western Wisconsin. Likewise, the high-quality grasslands have been fragmented statewide. This might apply to the "cross-country" segments of Routes C and D. Additional information concerning the diversity and fragmentation of natural habitats is discussed in more detail in tl1e preliminary environmental review of TRANS LINK 21.

The development of a high-speed rail corridor along existing rights-of-way poses another threat to endangered plants. Since existing rail corridors were most likely constructed prior to the widespread development of countryside, these corridors are repositories of valuable native prairie plants. The expansion of transportation facilities in these rights-of-way will require careful reconstruction and management of these plant reservoirs.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-10 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Endangered Species

Impacts on endangered and threatened species can only be identified through additional investigation. In Minnesota, there are 59 endangered animal species (5 federally-listed) and 138 endangered plant species (4 federally-listed), in addition to many special concern and non-listed species. In Wisconsin, there are 101 endangered species of animals and 138 endangered species of plants. Some of these species may be impacted by the construction and/or operation of a high­ speed passenger rail system in the Milwaukee to Twin Cities corridor. More detailed environmental studies need to be completed in order to assess potential impacts on these species.

Socioeco11omic Impact

The economic base and primary source of employment in the upper mid-west has been shifting steadily since 1980 from manufacturing to services, retail trade, finance, insurance and real estate. In Milwaukee County, employment in manufacturing decreased by 32 percent, while finance, insurance and real estate increased by 36 percent, services by 36 percent, and retail trade by 3 percent. It is forecasted that this trend will continue, albeit at a slower pace.

HSR service will result in more productive use of travel time. The cost and efficiency savings will benefit the finance, insurance, real estate and service industries. The downtown areas of the corridor's major cities will recognize the greatest benefits. Tourism and retail sales will be the greatest beneficiaries of this improved transportation mode.

HSR will also result in improving access to important markets and suppliers between Minneapolis and Milwaukee. A reliable, higher-speed passenger rail service will make the terminal and intermediate cities more attractive locations for business, providing an urban location without the higher land, labor and housing costs found in Chicago.

Dane County Airport, on the northeast side of Madison, will likely attract additional passengers if an HSR rail station is built nearby. Commuters may find the improved accessibility and reduced congestion of the airport preferable to a congested O'Hare Airport in Chicago.

Intermediate station communities may also derive economic benefits. The location of branch offices and other supporting activities may be desirable in proximity to the intermediate stations.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-11 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Commuting patterns will be favorably impacted since the major cities will be within a more reasonable commuting time than presently exists. The corridor will become more interdependent in terms of employment and residential opportunities.

Land Use

Historically, the evolving-railway corridor through a countryside led to the development of communities along the route. Many cities, towns and communities can trace their heritage to the railway. Rail access was, and still is, essential for many industrial centers, commercial uses and residential communities housing employees. However, the development of a new or expanded rail corridor has the potential to adversely affect a community's surrounding land use.

Industrial and commercial land uses are readily compatible with the railway corridor. Agricultural land uses are usually affected for the short term during construction of the new railway, but assimilate over the long term. Railway planners must be wary of incompatible land uses that include sensitive classes, such as residential developments, tranquil open space, hospitals, nature conservation areas, nursing homes and schools. Society seems to have evolved to the point where residential development is not necessarily incompatible with an adjoining railway use. Realtors have responded to inquiries in the past and have stipulated that home sales bordering proposed railway right-of-way have not been adversely impacted.

Development of HSR service along an existing railway right-of-way has the benefit of being introduced to an area that presumably has become accustomed to a rail presence. Sensitive uses over the years have probably avoided the rail corridor. Therefore, HSR service should not significantly impact the surrounding land use, except in areas of heavier construction such as grade crossings and terminal stations. The land use surrounding the location of terminal stations normally results in a higher density land use, typically commercial in form to address the needs of the commuter.

Historically, the greatest concerns of local land use planners in the planning of HSR service included safety and treatment of at-grade crossings. Typically, they favored grade separation and opposed the termination of crossings that would truncate community movement patterns.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-12 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Much of Wisconsin's best agricultural land is located in the south and west of the state, often very near urban centers. The development of a high-speed rail corridor will likely place these agricultural areas under pressure to be converted to urban uses and uses associated with transportation facilities.

By and large, the locations of terminal stations have the greatest potential to impact local land use. Wherever terminal stations are proposed, local governments should take measures to prepare updated land use plans to address the socioeconomic changes brought about by the railway. If left unchecked, a community could fall prey to the deleterious effects of urban sprawl.

Transportation and Traffic Impact ·1 l The implementation of HSR service will have the most impact on regional transportation plans near HSR train stations where the true "intermodal" nature of a regional transportation system occurs. The stations will be comprised of long and short-term parking, automobile and transit access, and multi-modal interfaces. The degree of these impacts will vary depending on the size of the HSR travel demand area, the existing highway and transit infrastructure, and the final location of the train station.

Travel demand for HSR service is expected to be greater in urban versus rural environments. Therefore, the following minimum requirements for an urban train station are greater than for a similar station in a rural setting:

• A station structure incorporating passenger loading and unloading areas, passenger waiting area, ticketing, and other amenities

• Facilities for long-term and short-term parking • Primary highway access should consist of a minimum of four signalized lanes with left and right-tum lane provisions

• Bus transit access, off-road bus waiting and loading areas and circulation needs

• Other intermodal interfaces with commuter rail, light rail or other fixed guideway systems

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-13 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

• Taxi/limousine loading and queuing areas

• Rental car facilities.

In a rural environment, the minimum requirements proposed for a HSR train station include:

• A station structure incorporating passenger loading and unloading areas, passenger waiting area, ticketing, and other amenities

• Smaller facilities for long-term and short-term parking

• Primary highway access consisting of a minimum of two signalized lanes with left and right-tum lane provisions

• Smaller off-road bus waiting and loading areas and circulation needs

• Combined taxi/limousine loading and queuing areas and rental car facilities.

Construction Impacts

Construction of a new rail line will have immediate but short-term impacts on the environment as described in the paragraphs below.

Air Quality

The most visible impact of construction at a site is due to fugitive dust resulting from the construction activity ( earthwork and truck traffic), with the heaviest where existing rail bed is widened or structures are built. Dust mitigation using water sprinkling minimizes this impact.

Nominal air quality impact is also contributed by carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions from construction vehicles.

Construction Noise

Heavy construction equipment will produce noise, which may impact local land use and activities. Since most of the new construction is located in rural settings, these impacts are expected to be minimal. Typical Department of Transportation standard specifications require all machinery to be equipped with adequate mufflers and all construction within 1,000 feet of a receptor to be limited to a period between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-14 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Water Quality

Water quality impact due to erosion and sedimentation pollution is to be expected but will be mitigated by the installation of control measures. These impacts will be short-term in nature and will subside once disturbed earth is stabilized with temporary and permanent vegetation. Erosion control measures will be specified in the construction documents and will be subject to the individual state's earth disturbance regulations.

Since the total area of land to be disturbed will exceed five (5) acres, the project will be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for storm water discharges from a construction site. The NPDES permit application will require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to identify potential sources of pollution and propose pollution control practices to mitigate the water quality impact.

Temporary Access

Measures should be specified in the contract documents to minimize the inconvenience to adjacent properties. Access can be maintained by constructing temporary access roads.

Environmental Laws

Clean Air Act (CAA) and Subsequent 1990 Amendments (CAAA)

This federal law regulates air quality issues. Southeastern Wisconsin is classified as a non­ attainment area for ground level ozone.

The CAAA requires a system of stringent control measures and milestones aimed at improving air quality in non-attainment areas, including regulation of stationary sources and transportation measures. A 15% smog reduction mandate is contained in the CAAA. The CAA and CAAA require reductions in auto use and traffic congestion and encourage enhancement of public transportation.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-15 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)

ISTEA requires transportation project planning to assess the impact on future traffic patterns, the environment, and adjacent land use. Incentives are provided to aid in the reduction of congestion and sprawl and to encourage private developments to be integrated into transportation strategies.

Regulatory Agencies

In addition to the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Justice executive order and the requirements ofISTEA and its successor, TEA-21, there are numerous federal, state, and local agencies with regulatory authority over environmental issues impacted by HSR operations. This review identified certain agencies and their regulatory authority, as further described in Exhibit 3.3.3. This listing is not all-inclusive. An environmental assessment or impact study is needed to identify and address all agency requirements affected by HSR operations in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Exhibit 3.3.3 Federal, State, and Local Regulatory Agencies

Agency Authority Comments U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit 404 (33 U.S.C.) U.S. Environmental Protection Clean Water Act Jointly administers 404 Permit with Agency U.S. Army Corps U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 33 CFR 320.4© Given permit review responsibilities relative to Corps Permit applications Federal Emergency Management 44CFR No permit required but requires a Agency map revision to be on FIRM map (after construction) Natural Resources Conservation 7 CFR 658.4(c)(2) Review Agency for agricultural Service (SCS) Part of Farmland impact. Protection Policy Act State Historic Preservation Officer 36 CFR 800, Section I 06 Administers national historic (SHPO) Review preservation program at state level. Wisconsin Department of Natural Clean Water Act, Section Chapter 30 Permit Resources 401 State Historical Society of Wisconsin Statutes, State agency regulating preservation Wisconsin (SHSW) Chapter44 of American, Midwest and Wisconsin history.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-16 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Agency Authority Comments Office of Environmental Analysis National and Wisconsin State Agency to review and (OEA) Environmental Policy Acts approval environmental documents Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Statutes, Reviewing agency for agricultural Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Chapters 93-100 impacts Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Wisconsin Statutes, Regional clearinghouse given Planning Commission (SEWRPC) Section 66.945 authority to research, analyze and Minnesota Department of Natural Minnesota Statutes, Protects threatened and endangered Resources (MinnDNR) Section 84.0895 species. MinnDNR Minnesota Statutes, Prohibits pollution of fishing Chapter 97C habitats. MinnDNR Minnesota Statutes, Authorizes Soil and Water Chapter 103C Conservation Districts to review E&S Plans. MinnDNR Minnesota Statutes, Regulates drainage systems and Chapter 103E construction of drainage projects. MinnDNR Minnesota Statutes, Regulates floodplain mgrnt., Chapter I 03F shoreland development, wi.ld & scenic rivers, Mississippi Headwaters, soil erosion, Reinvest in Minn. Resources Act, wetland preservation, Clean Water Partnership, lake preservation and protection and wetlands. .. MinnDNR Minnesota Statutes, Defines public waters designation, Chapter 103G wetlands, streams, Miss. Headwaters lakes. MinnDNR Minnesota Statutes, Regulates groundwater protection. Chapter 103H MinnDNR Minnesota Statutes, Provides civil remedies to protect Chapter l 16B air, water, land & other natural resources from pollution. MinnDNR Minnesota Statutes, Requires Environmental Impact Chapter l l 6D Statement.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-17 APPENDIX 3. 3 TRI-STA!!'E II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Agency Authority Comments Minnesota State Historical Society Minnesota Statutes, State agency regulating preservation Chapter 138 of American, Midwest and Minnesota history. MinnDNR Minnesota Statutes, Regulates railroad prairie rights-of- Section 2 I 9.99 way; requires identification of management practices (mp) to control vegetation along r/w; assess impact ofmp's on prairie lands w/in r/w; DNR/railroad jointly develop voluntary Best management Practices for prairie land w/in r/w. MinnDNR Minnesota Statutes, Regulates eminent domain in Chapter 473H agricultural preserves.

TRllNSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 3.3-18 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 4.1 Timetab1e Deve1opment Service Pattern A!?PENDIX 4-1 TRI-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX 4.1

The timetable criteria discussed in Chapter 4 outlines characteristics on daily frequencies in relation with the trip length and corridor demand. The following provides a more detailed service plan for each scenario, including service patterns, rolling stock and maintenance facility requirements.

Timetable Development Service Pattern

110 mph Along River

The service pattern for the '110 mph Along River' Scenario includes four daily Chicago - St. Paul express frequencies, two daily Chicago - St. Paul local service trains, and four daily Madison - Chicago commuter hour frequencies. Four Milwaukee - Chicago local trains are also added, to provide a total of 14 daily frequencies between Milwaukee and Chicago.

Chicago - St. Paul express trains would cover the 434 miles in five hours nineteen minutes, averaging just under 82 mph, with stops in Milwaukee, Madison, and LaCrosse. Chicago - St. Paul local service trains would travel over the distance in six hours, three minutes, averaging nearly 72 mph, with stops in Glenview, IL, General Mitchell Field, Milwaukee, Brookfield, Madison, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah, LaCrosse, WI, Winona, Red Wing, and Hastings, MN.

Hastings, MN is added to provide a stop at the outer terminal of the proposed St. Paul light rail system. Brookfield, WI is added to provide direct service to the western Milwaukee suburbs. A stop at General Mitchell Field is initiated to facilitate air/rail transfers for travelers originating or terminating their trips beyond Milwaukee.

Trains between Madison and Chicago would cover the 169 miles in as little as two hours, six minutes, averaging just over 80 mph, with a stop in Milwaukee. Other Madison - Chicago services would make up to five intermediate stops, including Brookfield, Milwaukee, General Mitchell Field, Sturtevant (Racine), and Glenview, making the trip in two hours, twenty-seven

Transportation Economics & Mi!1Jlagement Systems, Inc. Appendix 4 .1-1 APPENDIX 4-1 TRI-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY minutes, averaging 69 mph. Nonstop trains between Milwaukee and Chicago would cover the 86 miles in as little as 63 minutes, averaging 82 mph. Other Chicago - Milwaukee trains would stop in Glenview and Sturtevant.

110 mph via Rochester

The service pattern for 'll O mph via Rochester' sterns from 'll O mph Along River' with the same frequencies and express/full stopping patterns as far as Winona. Between Winona and St. Paul, both express and full stop trains travel an extra twenty miles to Rochester and St. Paul. Chicago - St. Paul express trains would cover the 454 miles via Rochester in five hours twenty­ six minutes, averaging just under 84 mph. Chicago - St. Paul local service trains would cover the distance in five hours, fifty-eight minutes, averaging 76 mph.

150 mph via Rochester

'150mph via Rochester' would offer a substantial increase in frequencies and a modest increase in speeds over those proposed for the 110 mph technology. The Option Cl service pattern would consist of ten daily express Chicago - St. Paul frequencies (up from four) and eight daily local service Chicago - St. Paul frequencies (up from two). In addition, an early morning departure from Madison to Chicago and a late evening return would be offered. A total of 19 daily trains would operate in each direction between Chicago, Milwaukee, and Madison.

The Chicago - St. Paul express trains would cover the 454 miles in as little as four hours, 49 minutes. Certain business hour departures and arrivals would also stop in Glenview, IL and Brookfield, WI. Chicago - St. Paul local service trains would cover the distance in five hours, 33 minutes, averaging over 82 mph, and making stops in Glenview, Sturtevant, General Mitchell Field, Milwaukee, Brookfield, Madison, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah, Lacrosse (Onalaska), and Rochester.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 4.1-2 APPENDIX 4-1 T.RI-STAXE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

150 mph via Rochester (New Alignment)

The Rochester route (with a new alignment) has the same express/full stopping patterns as the '150 mph via Rochester' with further increases in speeds. The Chicago - St. Paul express trains would cover the 430 miles in as little as four hours, 14 minutes, averaging over 101 mph. Chicago - St. Paul local service trains would cover the distance in four hours, 42 minutes, averaging over 91 mph.

185 mph via Rochester (Elevated)

'185 mph via Rochester (Elevated)' would offer a substantial increase in frequencies and speeds over those proposed for the 110 mph and 150 mph technologies. The service pattern would consist of fourteen daily express Chicago - St. Paul frequencies (up from ten for the 150 mph options) and nine daily local service Chicago - St. Paul frequencies (up from eight). A total of 23 daily trains would operate in each direction between Chicago, Milwaukee, Madison, and St. Paul.

The Chicago - St. Paul express trains would cover 430 miles in as little as three hours, 11 minutes, averaging over 135 mph. Certain business hour departures and arrivals would also stop in Glenview, IL and Brookfield, WI. Chicago - St. Paul local service trains would cover the distance in three hours, 4 7 minutes, averaging over 113 mph, and making stops in Glenview, Sturtevant, General Mitchell Field, Milwaukee, Brookfield, Madison, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah, LaCrosse (Onalaska), and Rochester.

Rolling Stock Requirements

'110 mph Along River' and '110 mph via Rochester'

The 110mph technology schedules includes 28 daily trains, of which six do not operate one day a week. Ten active Flexliner trainsets and two protect sets are required. The 28 daily trains

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 4 .1-3 APPENDIX 4-1 TRI-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

generate 2,486,988 train miles annually in Option A. Since all trainsets cycle through all train assignments in a ten-day cycle, the active trainsets average 248,699 annual miles per set if only active trainsets are utilized. If the two protect sets are cycled through all train assignments on the same basis as the active trainsets, the average annual miles per trainset declines to 207,249 miles per set.

Using six-car Flexliner trainsets (which can be divided into two three-car sets, as needed) provides a maximum of 304 seats per six-car set. Both Madison - Chicago and Milwaukee - Chicago local service trains are provided which allows the number of frequencies (and seats) to be varied in response to local demand.

Passenger miles for the entire corridor range from 556,472,000 in 2010 to 763,195,000 in 2030 and are accommodated by consist arrangements, which vary from six to eight cars per train. By varying frequencies and cars per train by route segment, the trains' load factors remain relatively constant and average 70% despite the different sized markets served and their differing passenger generation capabilities.

The same service pattern via Rochester incorporates 20 miles more in travel for 12 out of the 28 daily trains, which moderately increases the annual trainmiles to 2,557,916. Cycling only active trainsets would increase the mileage per train slightly to 249,067. If the two protect sets are cycled through all train assignments on the same basis as the active trainsets, the average annual miles per trainset decline to 207,556 miles per set.

Passenger miles for the Rochester corridor decline slightly and range from 523,656,000 in 2010 to 748,324,000 in 2030. The same consist arrangements are used with a slightly lower load factor of 67% due to the decline in demand.

'i '150 mph via Rochester (Existing Alignment)' and '150 mph Rochester (New Alignment)'

The 150 mph technology existing alignment schedule includes 38 daily trains, 18 of which do not operate one day a week. Seventeen active American Flyer trainsets and two protect sets

Transportat:ion Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 4 .1-4 APPENDIX 4-1 :!'RI-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY would be required. The 38 daily trains generate 5,673,450 annual train miles and average 318,800 annual miles per train with 17 active trainsets. If two protect sets are added, the 19 trainsets would average 301,089 train miles per year.

Using American Flyer trainsets comprised of two fossil-fuel power cars, four 65-seat coaches, one 44-seat premium service car, and one bistro car provides 304 seats per train. All trains, except for one Chicago - Madison round trip, would operate between Chicago and St. Paul. Due to the articulated nature of American Flyer trainsets, the trains cannot be resized en route to vary capacity by route segment. Between 2010 and 2030, 890 million to 1.265 billion projected passenger miles will be generated by 38 daily trains, which would carry an average of 183 passengers per train producing a load factor of 60 percent.

The same service pattern with a new alignment is 24 miles less in travel for 36 out of the 38 daily trains, which decreases the annual trainmiles to 5,378,672 and decreases the number of active trainsets to 16 with three protect sets. By moving set assignments between loops and utilizing the three protect sets, annual miles per trainset could be reduced to an average of 301, 7 I 8 miles per set.

The 150 mph service pattern with a new alignment incorporates trainsets comprised of two fossil-fuel power cars, five 65-seat coaches, one 44-seat premium service car, and one bistro car. This provides 369 seats per train, to accommodate increased passenger demand. Passenger miles range from 1.08 billion to 1.54 billion between 2010 and 2030. Passengers per train average around 228, which produces a load factor of 62 percent.

185 mph via Rochester (Elevated)

The 185mph technology schedule via Rochester (Elevated) includes 46 daily trains, 20 of which do not operate one day a week. Sixteen active trainsets and five protect sets are required. The 46 daily trains generate 6,752,720 annual trainmiles. By moving set assignments between loops and utlizing the five protect sets, annual miles per trainset average 345,592 miles per set.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 4 .1-5 APPENDIX 4 -1 TRI-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

The 185mph technology adopts the TGV characteristics with two electric power cars, one end trailer with 77 coach seats, 4 coaches seating 236 passengers, one 44-seat premium service end car, and one bistro car , for a total seating capacity of 3 57. All trains would operate between Chicago and St. Paul. Due to the articulated nature of TGV Thalys trainsets, the trains cannot be resized en route to vary capacity by route segment. Passenger miles increase from 1,354,600,000 to 1,924,800,000 between 2010 and 2030, which would result in an average of 227 passengers per train producing a load factor of 64 percent.

Maintenance Facilitv Locations and Requirements

110mph Flexliner Maintenance Facility Location and Requirements

The 110mph service pattern indicates use of ten active six-car sets and two six-car protect sets. For the 110mph technology, Chicago was chosen as the most appropriate heavy overhaul and maintenance facility location for Option A since all trainsets originate or terminate runs in Chicago at least once a day. Madison and St. Paul would have supplementary service and inspection facilities sized to the number of trainsets overnighting at these locations.

• Galewood Yard, Chicago was selected as a representative of available sites in Chicago. The capital requirement for the Galewood Yard facility in Chicago is a 15 acre service and overhaul facility, including: a 500 ft by 100 ft prefabricated steel Butler building; four 500 foot outside storage tracks with concrete vehicle access lanes and a car washer; three 500 foot interior service tracks with inspection pit carjacks, wheel truing machine, drop table, and concrete flooring.

• In Madison, capital requirements include four 500 foot storage and servicing tracks, with two center island platforms with high intensity lighting, and three trackside service vehicle access lanes, with HEP outlets, potable water supply, toilet dumping facilities, etc., to overnight four trainsets and to allow resizing of trains in Madison.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 4 .1-6 APPENDIX 4-1 TRI-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

• In St. Paul, service facility capital needs comprise three 500 foot servicing tracks (with one center island platform and two trackside service vehicle lanes) including high intensity lighting, HEP outlets, potable water supply, toilet dumping facilities, concrete platforms, etc. to overnight and service three trainsets.

110mph Flexliner Maintenance Facility Capital Requirements

Gatewood Yard, Chicago $7,000,000 International Drive, Madison 400,000 Bridge Point Park, South St. Paul 300,000 Contingency/Land Acquisition 400.000 Total Maintenance Facility Costs $8,100,000

150mph American Flyer Maintenance Facility Location and Requirements

The 150mph technology's service indicates 16 active nine-car American Flyer trainsets (including two power units per set) and three protect American Flyer trainsets and power cars. The service pattern calls for eight American Flyer trainsets to overnight in St. Paul, seven sets to overnight in Chicago and one set to overnight in Madison. These three locations are the logical candidates for the main American Flyer maintenance and heavy overhaul facility.

In contrast to the 110mph technology, St. Paul was chosen as the most appropriate maintenance and heavy overhaul facility for American Flyer trainsets; not only because eight of the active sets overnight there, but also because no trainset spends more than three nights per week between overnight stays at St. Paul. Chicago would have a supplementary service and inspection facility sized to the number of trainsets and locomotives overnighting there. Madison would receive a layover track with minor servicing capabilities.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 4. 1-7 APPENDIX 4 -1 =-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

The main heavy overhaul and maintenance facility could be located at the University of Minnesota's Rosemount Research Facility with smaller tum, service, inspect facilities located in Chicago and Madison.

• The capital requirements for the Rosemount Research Facility yard include: a 240,000 sq ft overhaul shop and power car servicing facility, offices, a 20,000 sq ft component warehouse, eight 900 foot fully equipped overnight service and storage tracks with platforms, three 900 foot shop tracks, inspection pits, carjacking pads, wheel truing machines, trainwasher, drop tables, concrete floor, and 50 ton overhead crane.

• In Chicago, the satellite maintenance and servicing facility capital requirements include: two interior 900 foot maintenance and servicing tracks with drop tables, auxiliary component storage area and offices, and six 900 foot storage tracks, fully outfitted, including concrete platforms, HEP outlets, potable water, and toilet dumping facilities, to overnight and service seven trainsets and their locomotives.

• In Madison, capital needs consist of one 900 foot servicing track with high intensity lighting,

) I fully equipped with HEP, potable water outlets, toilet dumping facilities, etc., to overnight and service one trainset.

150mph American Flyer Maintenance Facility Capital Requirements

Rosemount, MN Research Facility Yard $ 60,000,000 Galewood Yard, Chicago 20,000,000 International Drive, Madison 800,000 Total Maintenance Facility Costs $ 80,800,000

Estimates for maintenance facility capital requirements do not include land acquisition costs, which can be expected to vary considerably depending on location and acreage to be acquired.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 4 .1-8 APPENDIX 4 -1 TRI-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

185mph TGV Maintenance Facility Requirements

The 185mph technology's service pattern indicates use of 16 active TGV trainsets and five protect TGV trainsets and power cars. The main overhaul and maintenance facility would be located at the University of Minnesota's Rosemount Research Facility with a smaller maintenance facility located at Galewood Yard in Chicago.

The service pattern for the TGV would require a 100 acre site, including: a 240,000 sq ft overhaul shop and power car servicing facility, offices, a 20,000 sq ft component warehouse, nine 900 ft fully equiped overnight service and storage racks with platforms, three 900 ft shop tracks, inspection pits, carjacking pads, wheel truing machines, trainwasher, drop tables, concrete floor, and a 50 ton overhead crane, to overnight, service and maintain trainsets.

In Chicago, the satellite maintenance and servicing facility capital requirements include: two interior 900 ft maintenance and servicing tracks with drop tables, auxiliary component storage area and ·offices, and nine 900 ft storage tracks, fully outfitted, including concrete platforms, HEP outlets, potable water, and toilet dumping facilities, to overnight, and service, and maintain ten trainsets and power cars.

185mph TGV Maintenance Facility Capital Requirements

Rosemount, MN Research Facility Yard $93,200,000 Galewood Yard, Chicago $37.280.000 Total Maintenance Facility Costs $130,480,000

Estimates for maintenance facility capital requirements do not include land acquisition costs, which can be expected to vary considerably depending on location and acreage to be acquired. The infrastructure analysis assumes a total of $162 million for maintenance facilities with land acquisition.

Exhibits 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 show pictures of the chosen locations for maintenance facilities in Chicago and St. Paul. Following these exhibits are sample operating timetables for each technology, to illustrate potential travel times and frequencies.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, ·rnc. Appendix 4. 1-9 APPENDIX 4 -1 TRI-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Transport:at:ion Economics & Management: Systems, Inc. Appendix 4 .1-10 APPENDIX 4 -1 TRI-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUVY

Looking east from Central A venue, with Chicago Skyline and Sears Tower (across from Union Station) in background

Looking west, toward Narragansett A venue, CP Rail storage tracks on right.

Looking west, showing Double track METRA line and commuter stop, CP Rail Double track, and three tracks.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 4.1-11 APPENDIX 4 -1 TRI-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITl' STUDY

Exhibit 4.1.2 South St. Paul Yard Site (Bridge Point Business Park)

Looking upriver toward St. Paul along Hardman Avenue.

I Looking east with Union Pacific line to Albert Lea in backgound.

Looking downriver. UP line in backgound.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 4. 1-12 APPENDIX 4-1 TRI-STATE HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Exhibit 4.1.3 Rosemount Yard ( University of Minnesota Rosemount Research Center)

View toward the East. bowing only a part of the 7,500 acre site.

View toward the North. Note fonner World War II era defense factory smoke stacks.

Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. Appendix 4.1-13 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 5.1 Zone Detai1 Appendix 5.1 - Zone Detail

Exhibit 5.1.1

Zones by State

Number of Zones Midwest Tri-State II By State I Rail Initiative Study Illinois (Chicago region only) 11 12 Minnesota 27 37 Wisconsin 43 54 Total 81 103 External Zones NIA 16

Major cities in each state, as defined for model development, are presented in Exhibit 5 .1.2. The zone numbers comprising the downtown area refer to the zone numbers in the consolidated zone map that follows (Exhibit 5.1.3). The increased zone detail for Minnesota primarily relates to the Twin Cities and the Rochester area. The added zone detail in Wisconsin is found in Milwaukee and Madison.

Exhibit 5.1.2

Zone Definitions of Key Cities

City I State Map I Zone Numbers Chicago Illinois 92,93,95 Madison Wisconsin 57,58 Milwaukee Wisconsin 43,44,45,46,47 Rochester Minnesota 4,5 Twin Cities Minnesota 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Exhibit 5.1.3 Zone Map

~Tun ...... 0 .;:J c,_ 22 'o\l"'l WITl2', &bc~, .. 1 bct:al.u -· 0 , .. ,., ~~ l'.ir:t!t' W11t.:~~ ....,.. ~tl'll' IC:nt. fli 21 r.1.1 ~2 f'::: :lt~T-~ !•rr.:" r.... o.

""" >G:n-~- 1"1::: Ch•~i;:- C;,1"'~ 1H) $7 S1 ~uC1~-,']9 ''"'

91

l'.;IC\.'ll'I,! 4t -z l,t.W.lr .,,. C.i<'!llow ~ ,.,,., ... ..,.,42

L:::- L...... r-7tli:f~, *

' i i TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 5.2 Socioeconomic Forecast by Zone

' i i I Population

Zone Name 1990 1996 2000 2010 2020 2040 1 Caledonia, MN 18500 18612 19067 19601 20586 22449 2 Preslon, MN 20800 20969 21658 22371 23448 25605 3 Winona, MN 47800 50334 52953 57100 61207 68562 4 Rochester, MN 70729 75638 79199 88850 99680 125460 5 Eyola, MN 106500 113153 119584 130072 140138 158481 6 Theilman, MN 19700 20042 20621 21519 22567 24876 7 Red Wing, MN 40700 42379 44352 47299 50419 56184 8 Apple Valley, MN 187755 227039 243540 299400 352540 399882 9 Shakopee, MN 57800 63234 67978 76381 83775 95744 10 Waconia, MN 47900 52440 56372 63278 69354 78998 11 Lake Elmo, MN 145900 156830 166941 183656 199144 225951 12 St. Paul, MN 485800 510392 536781 577921 619448 650301 13 Long Lake, MN 1032400 1095395 1157913 1259921 1358339 1434961 14 Minneapolis, MN 368383 · 364382 370500 383500 388500 392653 15 Bloomington, MN 209476 220004 228680 235000 239570 246210 16 Maple Lake, MN 68700 74435 79584 88632 96765 109942 17 Coon Rapids, MN 243688 278531 291210 322540 353170 380377 18 Almelund, MN 30500 33149 35440 39629 43263 49389 19 Cambridge, MN 25900 27392 29015 31533 34016 38346 20 Orrock, MN 41900 44170 46528 50388 54052 60796 21 St Cloud, MN 149000 156358 164454 177158 189676 212603 22 Brainerd, MN 132200 135902 141242 148608 157311 174256 23 Moorhead, MN 142000 145410 150775 157770 166338 184328 24 Thief River Falls, MN 143800 146174 150983 157024 164907 181901 25 Grands Rapids, MN 98900 100131 103107 107062 112397 124139 26 Mora, MN 52800 54546 56787 59976 63739 70625 27 Lake/Cook County border, M 14300 14523 15026 15553 16403 18081 28 Duluth, MN 198200 198710 203624 208265 217088 238935 29 Montevideo, MN 351600 361454 375643 395010 417883 463915 30 Willmar, MN 57700 58092 59688 61680 64400 70746 31 Hutchinson, MN 48200 49570 51502 54330 57354 63708 32 Mankato, MN 70900 71900 76124 81744 90090 113038 33 Albert Lea, MN 31700 32369 33471 34942 36878 40652 34 Owatonna, MN 17700 17464 17720 17790 18494 20022 35 Worthington, MN 191800 194373 200412 208158 218519 240877 36 Austin, MN 15100 14845 15026 15021 15412 16503 37 Northfield, MN 21300 21452 22072 22691 23668 25969 Sum: Minnesota Zones 5008031 5261791 5505572 5921374 6340540 6905466 38 Kenosha, WI 128200 130193 134657 140981 149652 167704 39 Racine, WI 175000 179781 187087 198124 211626 238374 40 Elkhorn, WI 75000 78362 82331 88877 95799 108543 41 Janesville, WI 139500 143812 150023 159743 171014 193076 42 Monroe, WI 30300 31353 32808 35165 37719 42576 43 Milwaukee, WI 628088 642127 666640 702783 748745 844864 44 Glendale, WI 68351 69879 72546 76480 81481 91941 45 Wauwatosa, WI 172714 176575 183315 193254 205893 232324 46 Greenfield, WI 90230 92247 95768 100961 107563 121372 47 Waukesha, WI 175584 188204 200183 220925 241079 276368 48 Delafield, WI 129116 138396 147205 162458 177278 203228 49 Jefferson, WI 67800 70082 73298 78263 83894 94681 50 Watertown, WI 19142 20800 22027 25420 29340 39080 51 Dodgeville, WI 20100 20734 21699 23157 24923 27971 Population

Zone Name 1990 1996 2000 2010 2020 2040 52 Fredonia, WI 72800 76988 81500 89091 . 96801 110895 53 West Bend, WI 95300 100102 105483 114500 123949 140846 54 Beaver Dam, WI 67029 67000 68826 70592 73452 78730 55 Wyocena, WI 45100 46708 48796 52104 55855 62997 56 Portage, WI 45100 46708 48796 52104 55855 62997 57 Madison, WI 190766 197630 208981 228110 247479 282139 58 Monona, WI 176334 191202 202184 220691 239430 272963 59 Baraboo, WI 47000 50289 53572 59287 64868 74384 60 Wisconsin Dells, WI 15700 15576 15885 16189 16912 18689 61 Easton, WI 15700 15576 15885 16189 16912 18689 62 New , WI 21700 23251 24710 27339 29930 34160 63 Sheboygan, WI 103900 106757 111089 117824 125841 · 141465 64 Fond Du lac, WI 90100 92993 97074 103457 110709 124633 65 Montello, WI 12300 12856 13497 14581 15688 17699 66 Manitowoc, WI 80400 81912 84823 89520 95354 107058 67 Chilton, WI 34300 35142 36545 38810 41391 46412 68 Oshkosh, WI 140300 145644 152411 163173 175131 197779 69 Sturgeon Bay 44600 46905 49419 53819 58414 66339 70 Green Bay, WI 194600 202808 212731 228464 245785 278722 71 Appleton, WI 140500 148297 156563 170249 184366 210032 72 Stevens Point 118700 125286 132269 143876 155882 177357 73 Wausau, WI 115400 119732 125209 134120 144088 162629 74 Tomah, WI 36600 38746 41010 44814 48623 55076 75 La Crosse, WI 97900 103265 108909 118360 128066 145921 76 Black River Falls, WI 16600 16725 17234 18011 19026 21164 77 Whitehall, WI 25300 26677 28240 30769 33491 37873 78 Modena, WI 13600 13823 14327 15224 16245 18070 79 Eau Claire, WI 85200 90146 95309 103994 112823 128593 80 Chippewa Falls, WI 52400 53499 55545 58644 62531 70052 81 Menomonie, WI 35900 36855 38310 40525 43282 48393 82 River Falls, WI 39900 42211 44747 49102 53407 60769 83 New Richmond, WI 50300 53575 56791 62396 67872 77354 84 Rice Lake, WI 152700 158617 166115 178183 191710 216344 85 Balsam Lake, WI 34800 36792 38829 42348 45952 52106 86 Rhinelander, WI 114500 120111 126351 136800 147760 167827 87 Owen, WI 50500 51885 53884 57143 61085 68319 88 Shawano, WI 144600 148607 154799 164245 175576 197160 89 Berlin, WI 84200 88695 93647 102278 111043 126366 90 Platteville, WI 81300 83561 87107 92844 99471 111637 91 Richland Center, WI 43100 43969 45474 47601 50514 56314 Sum: Wisconsin Zones 4946154 5139667 5382464 5773959 6208577 7029053 92 Chicago North, IL 1439308 1480428 1518175 1601337 1700427 1898158 93 Chicago South, IL 1439308 1480428 1518175 1601337 1700427 1898158 94 Arlington Heights, IL 915391 941543 965550 1018440 1081460 1207217 95 Maywood, IL 741922 763118 782575 825443 876521 978446 96 Homewood, IL 588765 606306 622235 657248 698450 780125 97 Waukegan, IL 516400 554005 582081 642774 700968 798835 98 Wheaton, IL 781700 868874 932753 1068653 1185931 1369804 99 Joliet, IL 39400 40774 41890 44462 47368 52648 100 Kankakee, IL 357300 374195 388088 417965 448765 505188 101 DeKalb, IL 578600 612830 640543 700981 759399 858582 102 Rockford, IL 283700 294083 303394 324355 347047 388415 103 Dixon, IL 80400 82652 84897 89966 95811 106480 Sum: Chicago Area Zones 7762194 8099235 8380357 8992961 9642574 10842057 Population Growth by Zone 1990· 2000- 2010- 2020· Cum.1996· Zone Name 1996 1996-2000 2010 2020 2040 2040 1 Caledonia, MN 0.6% 2.4% 2.8% 5.0% 9.1% 20.6% 2 Preslon, MN 0.8% 3.3% 3.3% 4.8% 9.2% 22.1% 3 Winona, MN 5.3% 5.2% 7.8% 7.2% 12.0% 36.2% 4 Rochester, MN 6.9% 4.7% 12.2% 12.2% 25.9% 65.9% 5 Eyota, MN 6.2% 5.7% 8.8% 7.7% 13.1% 40.1% 6 Theilman, MN 1.7% 2.9% 4.4% 4.9% 10.2% 24.1% 7 Red Wing, MN 4.1% 4.7% 6.6% 6.6% 11.4% 32.6% 8 Apple Valley, MN 20.9% 7.3% 22.9% 17.7% 13.4% 76.1% 9 Shakopee, MN 9.4% 7.5% 12.4% 9.7% 14.3% 51.4% 10 Waconia, MN 9.5% 7.5% 12.3% 9.6% 13.9% 50.6% 11 Lake Elmo, MN 7.5% 6.4% 10.0% 8.4% 13.5% 44.1% 12 St. Paul, MN 5.1% 5.2% 7.7% 7.2% 5.01.Yo 27.4% 13 Long Lake, MN 6.1% 5.7% 8.8% 7.8% 5.6% 31.0% 14 Minneapolis, MN -1.1% 1.7% 3.5% 1.3% 1.1°/o 7.8% 15 Bloomington, MN 5.0% 3.9% 2.8% 1.9% 2.8% 11.9% 16 Maple Lake, MN 8.3% 6.9% 11.4% 9.2% 13.6% 47.7% 17 Coon Rapids, MN 14.3% 4.6% 10.8% 9.5% 7.7% 36.6% 18 Almelund, MN 8.7% 6.9% 11.8% 9.2% 14.2% 49.0% 19 Cambridge, MN 5.8% 5.9% 8.7% 7.9% 12.7% 40.0% 20 Orrock, MN 5.4% 5.3% 8.3% 7.3% 12.5% 37.6% 21 St. Cloud, MN 4.9% 5.2% 7.7% 7.1% 12.1% 36.0% 22 Brainerd, MN 2.8% 3.9% 5.2% 5.9% 10.8% 28.2% 23 Moorhead, MN 2.4% 3.7% 4.6% 5.4% 10.8% 26.8% 24 Thief River Fails, MN 1.7% 3.3% 4.0% 5.0% 10.3% 24.4% 25 Grands Rapids, MN 1.2% 3.0% 3.8% 5.0% 10.4% 24.0% 26 Mora, MN 3.3% 4.1% 5.6% 6.3% 10.8% 29.5% 27 Lake/Cook County border, M 1.6% 3.5% 3.5% 5.5% 10.2% 24.5% 28 Duluth, MN 0.3% 2.5% 2.3% 4.2% 10.1% 20.2% 29 Montevideo, MN 2.8% 3.9% 5.2% 5.8% 11.0% 28.3% 30 Willmar, MN 0.7% 2.7% 3.3% 4.4% 9.9% 21.8% 31 Hulchinson, MN 2.8% 3.9% 5.5% 5.6% 11.1% 28.5% 32 Mankato, MN 1.4% 5.9% 7.4% 10.2% 25.5% 57.2% 33 Albert Lea, MN 2.1% 3.4% 4.4% 5.5% 10.2% 25.6% 34 Owatonna, MN -1.3% 1.5% 0.4% 4.0% 8.3% 14.7% 35 Worthington, MN 1.3% 3.1% 3.9% 5.0% 10.2% 23.9% 36 Austin, MN -1.7% 1.2% 0.0% 2.6% 7.1% 11.2% 37 Northfield, MN 0.7% 2.9% 2.8% 4.3% 9.7% 21.1% Sum: Minnesota Zones 5.1% 4.6% 7.6% 7.1% 8.9% 31.2%

38 Kenosha, WI 1.6% 3.4% 4.7% 6.2% 12.1% 28.8% 39 Racine, WI 2.7% 4.1% 5.9% 6.8% 12.6% 32.6% 40 Elkhorn, WI 4.5% 5.1% 8.0% 7.8% 13.3% 38.5% 41 Janesville, WI 3.1% 4.3% 6.5% 7.1% 12.9% 34.3% 42 Monroe, WI 3.5% 4.6% 7.2% 7.3% 12.9% 35.8% 43 Milwaukee, WI 2.2% 3.8% 5.4''/o 6.5% 12.8% 31.6% 44 Glendale, WI 2.2% 3.8% 5.4% 6.5% 12.8% 31.6% 45 Wauwatosa, WI 2.2% 3.8% 5.4% 6.5% 12.8% 31.6% 46 Greenfield, WI 2.2% 3.8% 5.4% 6.5% 12.8% 31.6% 47 Waukesha, WI 7.2% 6.4% 10.4% 9.1% 14.6% 46.8% 48 Delafield, WI 7.2% 6.4% 10.4% 9.1% 14.6% 46.8% 49 Jefferson, WI 3.4% 4.6% 6.8% 7.2% 12.9% 35.1% 50 Watertown, WI 8.7% 5.9% 15.4% 15.4% 33.2% 87.9% 51 Dodgeville, WI 3.2% 4.7% 6.7% 7.6% 12.2% 34.9% Population Growth by Zone 1990- 2000· 2010- 2020- Cum.1996- Zone Name 1996 1996-2000 2010 2020 2040 2040 52 Fredonia, WI 5.8% 5.9% 9.3% 8.7% 14.6% 44.0% 53 West Bend, WI 5.0% 5.4% 8.5% 8.3% 13.6% 40.7% 54 Beaver Dam. WI 0.0% 2.7% 2.6% 4.1% 7.2% 17.5% 55 Wyocena, WI 3.6% 4.5% 6.8% 7.2% 12.8% 34.9% 56 Portage, WI 3.6% 4.5% 6.8% 7.2% 12.8% 34.9% 57 Madison, WI 3.6% 5.7% 9.2% 8.5% 14.0% 42.8% 58 Monona, WI 8.4% 5.7% 9.2% 8.5% 14.0% 42.8% 59 Baraboo. WI 7.0% 6.5% 10.7% 9.4% 14.7% 47.9% 60 Wisconsin Dells. WI -0.8% 2.0% 1.9% 4.5% 10.5% 20.0% 61 Easton, WI -0.8% 2.0% 1.9% 4.5% 10.5% 20.0% 62 New Lisbon, WI 7.1% 6.3% 10.6% 9.5% 14.1% 46.9% 63 Sheboygan. WI 2.7% 4.1% 6.1% 6.8% 12.4% 32.5% 64 Fond Ou Lac, WI 3.2% 4.4% 6.6% 7.0% 12.6% 34.0% 65 Montello, WI 4.5% 5,0°/o 8.0% 7.6% 12.8% 37.7% 66 Manitowoc. WI 1.9% 3.6% 5.5% 6.5% 12.3% 30.7% 67 Chilton, WI 2.5% 4.0% 6.2% 6.6% 12.1% 32.1% 68 Oshkosh, WI 3.8% 4.6°/o 7.1% 7.3% 12.9% 35.8% 69 Sturgeon Bay 5.2% 5.4°/o 8.9% 8.5% 13.6% 41.4% I 70 Green Bay, WI 4.2% 4.9% 7.4% 7.6% 13.4% 37.4% I• 71 Appleton, WI 5.5% 5.6% 8.7% 8.3% 13.9% 41.6% 72 Stevens Point 5.5% 5.6%, 8.8% 8.3% 13.8% 41.6% 73 Wausau, WI 3.8% 4.6% 7.1% 7.4% 12.9% 35.8% 74 Tomah, WI 5.9% 5.8% 9.3% 8.5% 13.3% 42.1% 75 La Crosse, WI 5.5% 5.5% 8.7% 8.2% 13.9% 41.3% 76 Black River Falls, WI 0.8% 3.0% 4.5% 5.6% 11.2% 26.5% 77 Whitehall, WI 5.4% 5.9% 9.0% 8.8% 13.1% 42.0% 78 Modena, WI 1.6% 3.6% 6.3% 6.7% 11.2% 30.7% 79 Eau Claire, WI 5.8% 5.7% 9.1% 8.5% 14.0% 42.6% 80 Chippewa Falls, WI 2.1% 3.8% 5.6% 6.6% 12.0% 30.9% 81 Menomonie, WI 2.7% 3.9% 5.8% 6.8% 11.8% 31.3% 82 River Falls, WI 5.8% 6.0% 9.7% 8.8% 13.8% 44.0% 83 New Richmond, WI 6.5% 6.0% 9.9% 8.8% 14.0% 44.4% 84 Rice Lake, WI 3.9% 4.7% 7.3% 7.6% 12.8% 36.4% 85 Balsam Lake, WI 5.7% 5.5% 9.1% 8.5% 13.4% 41.6% 86 Rhinelander, WI 4.9% 5.2% 8.3% 8.0% 13.6% 39.7% 87 Owen, WI 2.7% 3.9% 6.0% 6.9% 11.8% 31.7% 88 Shawano, WI 2.8% 4.2% 6.1% 6.9% 12.3% 32.7% 89 Berlin, WI 5.3% 5.6% 9.2% 8.6% 13.8% 42.5% 90 Platleville, WI 2.8% 4.2% 6.6% 7.1% 12.2% 33.6% 91 Richland Center, WI 2.0% 3.4% 4.7% 6.1% 11.5% 28.1% Sum: Wisconsin Zones 3.9% 4.7% 7.3% 7.5% 13.2% 36.8% 92 Chicago North, IL 2.9°/o 2.5% 5.5% 6.2% 11.6% 28.2% 93 Chicago South. IL 2.9% 2.5% 5.5% 6.2% 11.6% 28.2% 94 Arlington Heights. IL 2.9% 2.5% 5.5% 6.2% 11.6% 28.2% 95 Maywood, IL 2.9% 2.5% 5.5% 6.2% 11.6% 28.2% 96 Homewood, IL 3.0% 2.6% 5.6% 6.3% 11.7% 28.7% 97 Waukegan, IL 7.3% 5.1% 10.4% 9.1% 14.0% 44.2% 98 Wheaton, IL 11.2% 7.4% 14.6% 11.0% 15.5% 57.7% 99 Joliet, IL 3.5% 2.7% 6.1% 6.5% 11.1% 29.1% 100 Kankakee. IL 4.7% 3.7% 7.7% 7.4% 12.6% 35.0% 101 DeKalb, IL 5.9% 4.5% 9.4% 8.3% 13.1% 40.1% 102 Rockford, IL 3.7% 3.2% 6.9% 7.0% 11.9% 32.1% 103 Dixon, IL 2.8% 2.7% 6.0% 6.5% 11.1% 28.8% Sum: Chicago Area Zones 4.3% 3.5% 7.3% 7.2% 12.4% 33.9% Employment

Zone Name 1990 1996 2000 2010 2020 2040 1 Caledonia, MN 7512 7958 8620 9225 9425 9930 2 Preston, MN 10713 11206 12069 12870 13050 13738 3 Winona, MN 28011 30305 33296 36559 37820 40671 4 Rochester, MN 75242 82668 91484 101362 105607 114939 5 Eyota, MN 75242 82668 91484 101362 105607 114939 6 Theilman, MN 9413 9886 10668 11389 11600 12378 7 Red Wing, MN 23119 24725 26939 29156 29966 32101 8 Apple Valley, MN 64951 77227 90435 107570 119130 134496 9 Shakopee, MN 24700 27922 31465 36103 38304 42167 10 Waconia, MN 20889 23720 26831 30864 32745 36046 11 Lake Elmo, MN 52282 58991 66270 75623 79991 88007 12 St. Paul, MN 286835 306720 322300 353550 366800 385291 13 Long Lake, MN 510815 570618 666375 770771 812079 890974 14 Minneapolis, MN 278438 288822 290000 292800 297500 301466 15 Bloomington, MN 127759 153816 163200 179400 187730 202851 16 Maple Lake, MN 26450 29508 32973 37356 39391 42983 17 Coon Rapids, MN 81132 92926 100690 118320 126240 137911 18 Almelund, MN 12990 14732 16594 19020 20179 22308 19 Cambridge, MN 9976 10980 12176 13439 14137 15235 20 Orrock, MN 12890 14649 16594 19247 20541 22716 21 St. Cloud, MN 86171 94843 105277 117421 122645 133166 22 Brainerd, MN 61187 65403 71334 77217 79145 84742 23 Moorhead, MN 66480 70479 76722 82343 84341 89639 24 Thief River Falls, MN 71277 75311 81679 87126 88932 94536 25 Grands Rapids, MN 40799 43541 47520 51137 52562 56313 26 Mora, MN 23646 25373 27801 30181 31054 33326 27 Lake/Cook County border, MN 6466 7064 7758 8428 8821 9522 28 Duluth, MN 96930 102696 111527 119129 121678 130174 29 Montevideo, MN 185240 197207 214541 230741 236106 252866 30 Willmar, MN 33166 34734 37391 39406 40237 42575 31 Hutchinson, MN 26618 28277 30710 33256 33954 36318 32 Mankato, MN 37408 38709 41637 43290 43898 45989 33 Albert Lea, MN 18680 19792 21443 22778 23200 24756 34 Owatonna, MN 9457 9765 10452 10820 10996 11562 35 Worthington, MN 108482 114551 124027 132454 135090 143640 36 Austin, MN 7600 7735 8297 8542 8458 8841 37 Northfield, MN 10712 11226 12176 12756 13050 13738 Sum: Minnesota Zones 2629677 2866752 3140760 3463009 3602009 3872851 38 Kenosha, WI 51024 53086 57221 60502 61703 66129 39 Racine, WI 86691 92883 101702 110806 114732 124616 40 Elkhorn, WI 38880 41891 46100 50533 52540 57099 41 Janesville, WI 70993 76352 83780 91899 95549 103917 42 Monroe, WI 19108 20367 22348 24292 25170 27229 43 Milwaukee, WI 399568 417005 454143 489539 504279 546954 44 Glendale, WI 44752 47441 51667 55693 57370 62225 45 Wauwatosa, WI 113082 119878 130555 140730 144967 157236 46 Greenfield, WI 59077 62627 68205 73521 75734 82144 47 Waukesha, WI 104380 117487 132081 151145 160744 178045 48 Delafield, WI 76756 86394 97126 111145 118204 130926 49 Jefferson, WI 36970 39578 43293 47210 48996 53070 50 Watertown, WI 8750 7894 8601 9299 9612 10368 51 Dodgeville, WI 11696 12488 13711 15011 15518 16810 52 Fredonia, WI 34218 37945 42430 48012 50951 56265 Employment

Zone Name 1990 1996 2000 2010 2020 2040 53 West Bend, WI 43506 47614 52794 58898 61826 67657 54 Beaver Dam, WI 24734 16155 17436 18448 18878 20144 55 Wyocena, WI 23746 25484 27963 30595 31768 34454 56 Portage. WI 23746 25484 27963 30595 31768 34454 57 Madison. WI 131590 145044 161349 181020 190418 209067 58 Monona. WI 121468 133887 148938 167096 175771 192985 59 Baraboo, WI 30254 33379 37139 41824 44109 48346 60 Wisconsin Dells, WI 4156 4387 4750 5042 5132 5557 61 Easton, WI 4156 4387 4750 5042 5132 5557 62 New Lisbon. WI 10776 11797 13064 14553 15273 16671 63 Sheboygan, WI 59097 62729 68341 73909 76243 82244 54 Fond Ou Lac, WI 48956 51987 56573 61190 62925 67935 65 Montello. WI 4684 5016 5506 5959 6109 6668 66 Manitowoc. WI 39823 41733 45237 48356 49607 53348 67 Chilton, WI 15379 16449 17922 19594 20283 21811 68 Oshkosh, WI 81143 87458 96195 105535 109722 119198 69 Sturgeon Bay 25026 27066 29906 32887 34334 37371 70 Green Bay, WI 116472 126845 140245 155380 162384 177686 71 Appleton. WI 87113 95309 105588 117566 123163 134897 72 Stevens Point 69347 74868 82376 90409 94083 102388 73 Wausau. WI 63408 68391 75143 82503 85774 93219 74 Tomah. WI 19790 21301 23428 25782 26759 28897 75 La Crosse, WI 65493 72079 80109 89607 94205 103500 76 Black River Falls, WI 6984 7331 7881 8479 8675 9308 77 Whitehall, WI 13651 14621 15979 17417 17961 19450 78 Modena, WI 6357 6641 7234 7677 7942 8474 79 Eau Claire, WI 49792 54274 60136 66690 69768 76270 80 Chippewa Falls, WI 25347 27109 29690 32543 33723 36537 81 Menomonie, WI 16152 17180 18786 20397 21016 22645 82 River Falls, WI 18089 19555 21485 23605 24681 26674 83 New Richmond. WI 21807 24039 26775 30022 31524 34454 84 Rice Lake, WI 72036 77265 84751 92701 96160 104194 85 Balsam Lake, WI 15279 16347 17814 19365 19916 21534 86 Rhinelander. WI 57369 61852 68017 74367 77343 84050 87 Owen, WI 25463 26967 29366 31626 32379 34870 88 Shawano, WI 63761 67967 74171 80440 83208 89885 89 Bertin. WI 42188 45586 50203 55346 57671 62794 90 Platteville, WI 42453 45405 49663 54314 56327 60850 91 Richland Center, WI 20525 21546 23428 25095 25659 27507 Sum: Wisconsin Zones 2767062 2965850 3261055 3581208 3725688 4056582 92 Chicago North, IL 1059334 1120556 1179477 1280425 1321690 1427026 93 Chicago South, IL 1059334 1120556 1179477 1280425 1321690 1427026 94 Artington Heights, IL 411836 435637 458544 497789 513832 554783 95 Maywood, IL 333792 353083 371648 403457 416459 449650 96 Homewood, IL 264887 280195 294928 320170 330489 356828 97 Waukegan, IL 278190 307975 333078 380650 404898 447411 98 Wheaton. IL 471049 547006 604989 718474 778019 871741 99 Joliet, IL 13169 13755 14392 15435 15946 16952 100 Kankakee, IL 118295 128536 137446 153695 161197 176174 101 DeKalb, IL 281952 307870 329891 370433 389530 425503 102 Rockford, IL 162775 174293 184632 203477 211809 229508 103 Dixon, IL 39807 42507 45027 49348 51421 55551 Sum: Chicago Area Zones 4494419 4831969 5133530 5673776 5916979 6438155 Employment Growth by Zone 1990· 1996· 2000- 2010- 2020- Cum.1996· Zone Name 1996 2000 2010 2020 2040 2040 1 Caledonia. MN 5.9% 8.3% 7.0% 2.2% 5.4% 24.8% 2 Preston. MN 4.6% 7.7% 6.6% 1.4% 5.3% 22.6% 3 Winona.MN 8.2% 9.9% 9.8% 3.5% 7.5% 34.2% 4 Rochester, MN 9.9% 10.7% 10.8% 4.2% 8.8% 39.0% 5 Eyota. MN 9.9% 10.7% 10.8% 4.2% 8.8% 39.0% 6 Theilman, MN 5.0% 7.9% 6.8% 1.9% 6.7% 25.2% 7 Red Wing, MN 6.9% 9.0% 8.2% 2.8% 7.1% 29.8% 8 Apple Valley, MN 18.9% 17.1% 18.9% 10.7% 12.9% 74.2% 9 Shakopee, MN 13.0% 12.7% 14.7% 6.1% 10.1% 51.0% 10 Waconia, MN 13.6% 13.1% 15.0% 6.1% 10.1% 52.0% 11 lake Elmo, MN 12.8% 12.3% 14.1%, 5.8% 10.0% 49.2% 12 St. Paul, MN 6.9% 5.1% 9.7% 3.7% 5.0% 25.6% 13 Long Lake, MN 11.7% 16.8% 15.7% 5.4% 9.7% 56.1% 14 Minneapolis, MN 3.7% 0.4% 1.0% 1.6% 1.3% 4.4% 15 Bloomington, MN 20.4% 6.1% 9.9% 4.6% 8.1% 31.9% 16 Maple Lake, MN 11.6% 11.7% 13.3% 5.4% 9.1% 45.7% 17 Coon Rapids, MN 14.5% 8.4% 17.5% 6.7% 9.2% 48.4% 18 Almelund, MN 13.4% 12.6% 14.6% 6.1% 10.5% 51.4°/ct 19 Cambridge, MN 10.1% 10.9%1 10.4% 5.2% 7.8% 38.7% 20 Orrock, MN 13.7% 13.3% 16.0% 6.7% 10.6% 55.1% 21 St. Cloud, MN 10.1% 11.0% 11.5% 4.4% 8.6% 40.4% 22 Brainerd, MN 6.9'% 9.1°/o 8.2% 2.5%, 7.1%,. 29.6% 23 Moorhead, MN 6.0% 8.9% 7.3% 2.4% 6.3% 27.2% 24 Thief River Falls, MN 5.7% 8.5% 6.7% 2.1% 6.3% 25.5% 25 Grands Rapids, MN 6.7% 9.1% 7.6% 2.8% 7.1% 29.3% 26 Mora, MN 7.3% 9.6% 8.6% 2.9% 7.3% 31.3% 27 Lake/Cook County border, MN 9.2% 9.8% 8.6% 4.7% 7.9% 34.8% 28 Duluth, MN 5.9% 8.6% 6.8% 2.1% 7.0% 26.8% 29 Montevideo, MN 6.5% 8.8% 7.6% 2.3% 7.1% 28.2% 30 Willmar, MN 4.7% 7.6% 5.4% 2.1% 5.8% 22.6% 31 Hutchinson, MN 6.2% 8.6% 8.3% 2.1% 7.0% 28.4% 32 Mankato, MN 3.5% 7.6% 4.0% 1.4% 4.8% 18.8% 33 Albert Lea, MN 6.0%, 8.3% 6.2% 1.9% 6.7% 25.1% 34 Owatonna, MN 3.3% 7.0% 3.5% 1.6% 5.1% 18.4% 35 Worthington, MN 5.6% 8.3% 6.8% 2.0% 6.3% 25.4% 36 Austin, MN 1.8% 7.3% 2.9% -1.0% 4.5% 14.3% 37 Northfield, MN 4.8% 8.5% 4.8% 2.3%, 5.3% 22.4% Sum: Minnesota Zanes 9.0% 9.6% 10.3% 4.0% 7.5% 35.1% 38 Kenosha, WI 4.0% 7.8% 5.7% 2.0% 7.2% 24.6% 39 Racine, WI 7.1% 9.5% 9.0% 3.5% 8.6% 34.2% 40 Elkhorn, WI 7.7% 10.0% 9.6% 4.0% 8.7% 36.3% 41 Janesville, WI 7.5% 9.7% 9.7% 4.0% 8.8% 36.1% 42 Monroe, WI 6.6% 9.7% 8.7% 3.6% 8.2% 33.711/o 43 Milwaukee, WI 4.4% 8.9% 7.8% 3.0% 8.5% 31.2% 44 Glendale, WI 6.0% 8.9% 7.8% 3.0% 8.5% 31.2% 45 Wauwatosa, WI 6.0% 8.9% 7.8% 3.0%1 8.5% 31.2% 46 Greenfield, WI 6.0% 8.9% 7.8% 3.0°/c 8.5% 31.2% 47 Waukesha, WI 12.6% 12.4% 14.4% 6.4% 10.8% 51.5% 48 Delafield, WI 12.6% 12.4% 14.4% 6.4% 10.8% 51.5% 49 Jefferson, WI 7.1% 9.4% 9.0% 3.8% 8.3% 34.1% 50 Watertown, WI -9.8% 9.0% 8.1% 3.4% 7.9% 31.3% 51 Dodgeville, WI 6.8% 9.8% 9.5% 3.4% 8.3% 34.6% 52 Fredonia, WI 10.9% 11.8':J/o 13.2% 6.1%, 10.4% 48.3% Employment Growth by Zone 1990- 1996- 2000- 2010- 2020- Cum.1996- Zone Name 1996 2000 2010 2020 2040 2040 53 Wesl Bend, WI 9.4% 10.9% 11.6% 5.0% 9.4% 42.1% 54 Beaver Dam, WI -34.7% 7.9% 5.8% 2.3% 6.7% 24.7% 55 Wyocena, WI 7.3°/o 9.7% 9.4% 3.8% 8.5% 35.2% 56 Portage, WI 7.3% 9.7% 9.4% 3.8% 8.5% 35.2% 57 Madison, WI 10.2% 11.2% 12.2% 5.2% 9.8% 44.1% 58 Monona, WI 10.2% 11.2% 12.2% 5.2% 9.8% 44.1% 59 Baraboo, WI 10.3% 11.3% 12.6% 5.5% 9.6% 44.8% 60 Wisconsin Dells, WI 5.5% 8.3% 6.1% 1.8% 8.3% 26.7% 61 Easton, WI 5.5% 8.3% 6.1% 1.8% 8.3% 26.7% 62 New Lisbon, WI 9.5% 10.7% 11.4% 5.0% 9.2% 41.3% 63 Sheboygan, WI 6.1% 8.9% 8.1% 3.2% 7.9% 31.1% 64 Fond Du Lac, WI 6.2% 8.8% 8.2% 2.8% 8.0% 30.7% 65 Montello, WI 7.1°/o 9.8% 8.2% 2.5% 9.2% 33.0% 66 Manitowoc, WI 4.8% 8.4% 6.9% 2.6% 7.5% 27.8% 67 Chilton, WI 7.0% 9.0% 9.3% 3.5% 7.5% 32.6% 68 Oshkosh, WI 7.8% 10.0% 9.7% 4.0% 8.6% 36.3% 69 Sturgeon Bay 8.2% 10.5% 10.0% 4.4% 8.8% 38.1% 70 Green Bay, WI 8.9% 10.6% 10.8% 4.5% 9.4% 40.1% 71 Appleton, WI 9.4% 10.8% 11.3% 4.8% 9.5% 41.5%t 72 Stevens Point 8.0% 10.0% 9.8% 4.1% 8.8% 36.8% 73 Wausau, WI 7.9% 9.9% 9.8% 4.0% 8.7% 36.3% 74 Tomah, WI 7.6% 10.0% 10.0% 3.8% 8.0% 35.7% 75 La Crosse, WI 10.1% 11.1% 11.9% 5.1% 9.9% 43.6% 76 Black River Falls, WI 5.0% 7.5% 7.6% 2.3% 7.3% 27.0% 77 Whitehall, WI 7.1% 9.3% 9.0% 3.1% 8.3% 33.0% 78 Modena, WI 4.5% 8.9% 6.1% 3.4% 6.7% 27.6% 79 Eau Claire, WI 9.0% 10.8% 10.9% 4.6% 9.3% 40.5% 80 Chippewa Falls, WI 7.0% 9.5% 9.6% 3.6% 8.3% 34.8% 81 Menomonie, WI 6.4% 9.3% 8.6% 3.0% 7.8% 31.8% 82 River Falls, WI 8.1% 9.9% 9.9% 4.6% 8.1°/o 36.4% 83 New Richmond, WI 10.2% 11.4% 12.1°/o 5.0% 9.3% 43.3% 64 Rice Lake, WI 7.3% 9.7% 9.4% 3.7% 8.4% 34.9% 85 Balsam Lake, WI 7.0% 9.0% 8.7% 2.8°/o 8.1% 31.7% 86 Rhinelander, WI 7.8% 10.0% 9.3% 4.0% 8.7% 35.9% 87 OWen, WI 5.9% 8.9% 7.7% 2.4% 7.7% 29.3% 88 Shawano, WI 6.6% 9.1% 8.5% 3.4% 8.0% 32.2% 89 Bertin, WI 8.1% 10.1% 10.2% 4.2% 8.9% 37.7% 90 Platteville, WI 7.0% 9.4% 9.4% 3.7% 8.0% 34.0% 91 Richland Center, WI 5.0% 8.7% 7.1% 2.2% 7.2% 27.7% Sum: Wisconsin Zones 7.2% 10.0% 9.8% 4.0% 8.9% 36.8% 92 Chicago North, IL 5.8% 5.3% 8.6% 3.2% 8.0% 27.3% 93 Chicago South, IL 5.8% 5.3% 8.6% 3.2% 8.0% 27.3% 94 Arlington Heights, IL 5.8% 5.3% 8.6% 3.2% 8.0% 27.3% 95 Maywood, IL 5.8% 5.3% 8.6% 3.2% 8.0% 27.3% 96 Homewood, IL 5.8% 5.3% 8.6% 3.2% 8.0% 27.3% 97 Waukegan, IL 10.7% 8.2% 14.3% 6.4% 10.5% 45.3% 98 Wheaton, IL 16.1% 10.6% 18.8% 8.3% 12.0% 59.4% 99 Joliet, IL 4.5% 4.6% 7.2% 3.3% 6.3% 23.2% 100 Kankakee, IL 8.7% 6.9% 11.8% 4.9% 9.3% 37.1% 101 DeKalb, IL 9.2% 7.2% 12.3% 5.2% 9.2% 38.2% 102 Rockford, IL 7.1% 5.9% 10.2% 4.1% 8.4% 31.7% 103 Dixon, IL 6.8% 5.9% 9.6% 4.2% 8.0% 30.7% Sum: Chicago Area Zones 7.5% 6.2% 10.5% 4.3% 8.8% 33.2% Employment

Zone Name 1990 1996 2000 2010 2020 2040 1 Caledonia, MN 7512 7958 8620 9225 9425 9930 2 Preston, MN 10713 11206 12069 12870 13050 13738 3 Winona, MN 28011 30305 33296 36559 37820 40671 4 Rochester, MN 75242 82668 91484 101362 105607 114939 5 Eyota, MN 75242 82668 91484 101362 105607 114939 6 Theilman, MN 9413 9886 10668 11389 11600 12378 7 Red Wing, MN 23119 24725 26939 29156 29966 32101 8 Apple Valley, MN 64951 77227 90435 107570 119130 134496 9 Shakopee, MN 24700 27922 31465 36103 38304 42167 1 O Waconia, MN 20889 23720 26831 30864 32745 36046 11 Lake Elmo, MN 52282 58991 66270 75623 79991 88007 12 St. Paul, MN 286835 306720 322300 353550 366800 385291 13 Long Lake, MN 510815 570618 666375 770771 812079 890974 14 Minneapolis, MN 278438 288822 290000 292800 297500 301466 15 Bloomington, MN 127759 153816 163200 179400 187730 202851 16 Maple Lake, MN 26450 29508 32973 37356 39391 42983 17 Coon Rapids, MN 81132 92926 100690 118320 126240 137911 18 Almelund, MN 12990 14732 16594 19020 20179 22308 19 Cambridge, MN 9976 10980 12176 13439 14137 15235 20 Orrock, MN 12890 14649 16594 19247 20541 22716 21 St. Cloud, MN 86171 94843 105277 117421 122645 133166 22 Brainerd, MN 61187 65403 71334 77217 79145 84742 23 Moorhead, MN 66480 70479 76722 82343 84341 89639 24 Thief River Falls, MN 71277 75311 81679 87126 88932 94536 25 Grands Rapids, MN 40799 43541 47520 51137 52562 56313 26 Mora, MN 23646 25373 27801 30181 31054 33326 27 Lake/Cook County border, MN 6466 7064 7758 8428 8821 9522 28 Duluth, MN 96930 102696 111527 119129 121678 130174 29 Montevideo, MN 185240 197207 214541 230741 236106 252866 30 Willmar, MN 33166 34734 37391 39406 40237 42575 31 Hutchinson, MN 26618 28277 30710 33256 33954 36318 32 Mankato, MN 37408 38709 41637 43290 43898 45989 33 Albert Lea, MN 18680 19792 21443 22778 23200 24756 34 Owatonna, MN 9457 9765 10452 10820 10996 11562 35 Worthington, MN 108482 114551 124027 132454 135090 143640 36 Austin, MN 7600 7735 8297 8542 8458 8841 37 Northfield, MN 10712 11226 12176 12756 13050 13738 Sum: Minnesota Zones 2629677 2866752 3140760 3463009 3602009 3872851 38 Kenosha, WI 51024 53086 57221 60502 61703 66129 39 Racine, WI 86691 92883 101702 110806 114732 124616 40 Elkhorn, WI 38880 41891 46100 50533 52540 57099 41 Janesville, WI 70993 76352 83780 91899 95549 103917 42 Monroe, WI 19108 20367 22348 24292 25170 27229 43 MIiwaukee, WI 399568 417005 454143 489539 504279 546954 44 Glendale, WI 44752 47441 51667 55693 57370 62225 45 Wauwatosa. WI 113082 119878 130555 140730 144967 157236 46 Greenfield, WI 59077 62627 68205 73521 75734 82144 47 Waukesha, WI 104380 117487 132081 151145 160744 178045 48 Delafield, WI 76756 86394 97126 111145 118204 130926 49 Jefferson, WI 36970 39578 43293 47210 48996 53070 50 Watertown, WI 8750 7894 8601 9299 9612 10368 51 Dodgeville, WI 11696 12488 13711 15011 15518 16810 52 Fredonia, WI 34218 37945 42430 48012 50951 56265 Employment

Zone Name 1990 1996 2000 2010 2020 2040 53 West Bend, WI 43506 47614 52794 58898 61826 67657 54 Beaver Dam, WI 24734 16155 17436 18448 18878 20144 55 Wyocena, WI 23746 25484 27963 30595 31768 34454 56 Portage, WI 23746 25484 27963 30595 31768 34454 57 Madison, WI 131590 145044 161349 181020 190418 209067 58 Monona, WI 121468 133887 148938 167096 175771 192985 59 Baraboo, WI 30254 33379 37139 41824 44109 48346 60 Wisconsin Dells, WI 4156 4387 4750 5042 5132 5557 61 Easton, WI 4156 4387 4750 5042 5132 5557 62 New Lisbon, WI 10776 11797 13064 14553 15273 16671 63 Sheboygan, WI 59097 62729 68341 73909 76243 82244 64 Fond Du Lac, WI 48956 51987 56573 61190 62925 67935 65 Montello, WI 4684 5016 5506 5959 6109 6668 66 Manitowoc, WI 39823 41733 45237 48356 49607 53348 67 Chilton, WI 15379 16449 17922 19594 20283 21811 68 Oshkosh, WI 81143 87458 96195 105535 109722 119198 69 Sturgeon Bay 25026 27066 29906 32887 34334 37371 70 Green Bay, WI 116472 126845 140245 155380 162384 177686 71 Applelon, WI 87113 95309 105588 117566 123163 134897 72 Stevens Point 69347 74868 82376 90409 94083 102388 73 Wausau, WI 63408 68391 75143 82503 85774 93219 74 Tomah, WI 19790 21301 23428 25782 26759 28897 75 La Crosse, WI 65493 72079 80109 89607 94205 103500 76 Black River Falls, WI 6984 7331 7881 8479 8675 9308 77 Whitehall, WI 13651 14621 15979 17417 17961 19450 78 Modena, WI 6357 6641 7234 7677 7942 8474 79 Eau Claire, WI 49792 54274 60136 66690 69768 76270 80 Chippewa Falls, WI 25347 27109 29690 32543 33723 36537 81 Menomonie, WI 16152 17180 18786 20397 21016 22645 82 River Falls, WI 18089 19555 21485 23605 24681 26674 83 New Richmond, WI 21807 24039 26775 30022 31524 34454 84 Rice Lake, WI 72036 77265 84751 92701 96160 104194 85 Balsam Lake, WI 15279 16347 17814 19365 19916 21534 86 Rhinelander, WI 57369 61852 68017 74367 77343 84050 87 Owen, WI 25463 26967 29366 31626 32379 34870 88 Shawano, WI 63761 67967 74171 80440 83208 89885 89 Bertin, WI 42188 45586 50203 55346 57671 62794 90 Platteville, WI 42453 45405 49663 54314 56327 60850 91 Richland Center, WI 20525 21546 23428 25095 25659 27507 Sum: Wisconsin Zones 2767062 2965850 3261055 3581208 3725688 4056582 92 Chicago North, IL 1059334 1120556 1179477 1280425 1321690 1427026 93 Chicago South, IL 1059334 1120556 1179477 1280425 1321690 1427026 94 Arlington Heights, IL 411836 435637 458544 497789 513832 554783 95 Maywood, IL 333792 353083 371648 403457 416459 449650 96 Homewood, IL 264887 280195 294928 320170 330489 356828 97 Waukegan, IL 278190 307975 333078 380650 404898 447411 98 Wheaton, IL 471049 547006 604989 718474 778019 871741 99 Joliet, IL 13169 13755 14392 15435 15946 16952 100 Kankakee, IL 118295 128536 137446 153695 161197 176174 101 DeKalb, IL 281952 307870 329891 370433 389530 425503 102 Rockford, IL 162775 174293 184632 203477 211809 229508 103 Dixon, IL 39807 42507 45027 49348 51421 55551 Sum: Chicago Area Zones 4494419 4831969 5133530 5673776 5916979 6438155 Employment Growth by Zone 1990· 1996· 2000- 2010· 2020· Cum.1996· Zone Name 1996 2000 2010 2020 2040 2040 1 Caledonia, MN 5.9% 8.3% 7.0% 2.2% 5.4% 24.8% 2 Preston, MN 4.6% 7.7% 6.6% 1.4% 5.3% 22.6% 3 Winona, MN 8.2% 9.9% 9.8% 3.5% 7.5% 34.2% 4 Rochester, MN 9.9% 10.7% 10.8% 4.2% 8.8% 39.0% 5 Eyota, MN 9.9% 10.7% 10.8% 4.2% 8.8% 39.0% 6 Theitman, MN 5.0% 7.9% 6.8% 1.9% 6.7% 25.2% 7 Red Wing, MN 6.9% 9.0% 8.2% 2.8°/o 7.1% 29.8% 8 Apple Valley, MN 18.9% 17.1% 18.9% 10.7°/o 12.9% 74.2% 9 Shakopee, MN 13.0% 12.7% 14.7% 6.1% 10.1% 51.0% 10 Waconia, MN 13.6% 13.1% 15.0% 6.1% 10.1% 52.0% 11 Lake Elmo, MN 12.8% 12.3% 14.1% 5.8% 10.0% 49.2% 12 SL Paul, MN 6.9% 5.1°/o 9.7% 3.7% 5.0% 25.6% 13 Long Lake, MN 11.7% 16.8% 15.7% 5.4% 9.7% 56.1% 14 Minneapolis, MN 3.7% 0.4% 1.0% 1.6°/o 1.3% 4.4% 15 Bloomington, MN 20.4% 6.1% 9.9% 4.6% 8.1% 31.9% 16 Maple Lake, MN 11.6% 11.7% 13.3% 5.4% 9.1% 45.7% 17 Coon Rapids, MN 14.5% 8.4% 17.5% 6.7% 9.2% 48.4% 18 Almelund, MN 13.4% 12.6% 14.6% 6.1% 10.5% 51.4% 19 Cambridge, MN 10.1% 10.9% 10.4% 5.2% 7.8% 38,7% 20 Orrock, MN 13.7% 13.3% 16.0% 6.7% 10.6% 55.1% 21 St. Cloud, MN 10.1% 11.0% 11.5% 4.4% 8.6% 40.4% 22 Brainerd, MN 6.9% 9,1% 8.2% 2.5% 7.1% 29.61.Yo 23 Moorhead, MN 6.0% 8.9% 7.3% 2.4% 6.3% 27.2% 24 Thief River Falls, MN 5.7% 8.5% 6.7% 2.1% 6.3% 25.5% 25 Grands Rapids, MN 6.7% 9.1% 7.6% 2.8% 7.1% 29.3% 26 Mora, MN 7.3% 9.6% 8.6% 2.9% 7.3% 31.3% 27 Lake/Cook County border, MN 9.2% 9.8% 8.6% 4.7% 7.9% 34.8% 28 Duluth, MN 5.9% 8.6% 6.8% 2.1% 7.0% 26.8% 29 Montevideo, MN 6.5% 8.8% 7.6% 2.3% 7.1% 28.2% 30 WIiimar, MN 4.7% 7.6% 5.4% 2.1% 5.8% 22.6% 31 Hutchinson, MN 6.2% 8.6% 8.3% 2.1% 7.0% 28.4% 32 Mankato, MN 3.5% 7.6% 4.0% 1.4% 4.8% 18.8% 33 Albert Lea, MN 6.0% 8.3% 6.2% 1.9% 6.7% 25.1% 34 Owatonna, MN 3.3% 7.0% 3.5% 1.6% 5.1% 18.4% 35 Worthington, MN 5.6°/o 8.3%, 6.8% 2.0% 6.3% 25.4% 36 Austin, MN 1.8% 7.3% 2.9% ~1.0% 4.5% 14.3% 37 Northfield, MN 4.8% 8.5% 4.8% 2.3% 5.3% 22.4% Sum: Minnesota Zones 9.0% 9.6% 10.3% 4.0% 7.5% 35.1% 38 Kenosha, WI 4.0% 7.8% 5.7% 2.0% 7.2% 24.6% 39 Racine, WI 7.1% 9.5% 9.0% 3.5% 8.6% 34.2% 40 Elkhorn, WI 7.7% 10.0% 9.6% 4.0% 8.7% 36.3% 41 Janesville, WI 7.5% 9.7% 9.7% 4.0% 8.8% 36.1% 42 Monroe, WI 6.6% 9.7% 8.7% 3.6% 8.2% 33.7% 43 Milwaukee, WI 4.4% 8.9% 7.8% 3.0% 8.5% 31.2% 44 Glendale, WI 6.0% 8.9% 7.8% 3.0% 8.5% 31.2% 45 Wauwatosa, WI 6.0% 8.9% 7.8% 3.0% 8.5% 31.2% 46 Greenfield, WI 6.0% 8.9% 7.8% 3.0% 8.5% 31.2% 47 Waukesha, WI 12.6% 12.4% 14.4% 6.4% 10.8% 51.5% 48 Delafield, WI 12.6% 12.4% 14.4% 6.4% 10.8% 51.5% 49 Jefferson, WI 7.1% 9.4% 9.0% 3.8% 8.3% 34.1% 50 Watertown, WI -9.8% 9.0% 8.1% 3.4% 7.9% 31.3% 51 Dodgeville, WI 6.8% 9.8% 9.5% 3.4% 8.3% 34.6% 52 Fredonia, WI 10.9% 11.8% 13.2% 6.1% 10.4% 48.3% Employment Growth by Zone 1990- 1996- 2000- 2010- 2020- Cum.1996- Zone Name 1996 2000 2010 2020 2040 2040 53 West Bend, WI 9.4% 10.9% 11.6% 5.0% 9.4% 42.1% 54 Beaver Dam, WI -34.7% 7.9% 5.8% 2.3% 6.7% 24.7% 55 Wyocena, WI 7.3% 9.7% 9.4% 3.8% 8.5% 35.2% 56 Portage, WI 7.3% 9.7% 9.4% 3.8% 8.5% 35.2% 57 Madison, WI 10.2% 11.2% 12.2% 5.2% 9.8% 44.1% 58 Monona, WI 10.2% 11.2% 12.2% 5.2% 9.8% 44.1% 59 Baraboo, WI 10.3% 11.3% 12.6% 5.5% 9.6% 44.8% 60 Wisconsin Dells, WI 5.5% 8.3% 6.1% 1.8% 8.3% 26.7% 61 Easton, WI 5.5% 8.3% 6.1% 1.8% 8.3% 26.7% 62 New Lisbon, WI 9.5% 10.7% 11.4% 5.0% 9.2% 41.3% 63 Sheboygan, WI 6.1% 8.9% 8.1% 3.2% 7.9% 31.1% 64 Fond Du Lac, WI 6.2% 8.8% 8.2% 2.8% 8.0% 30.7% 65 Montello, WI 7.1% 9.8% a.2°10 2.5% 9.2% 33.0% 66 Manitowoc, WI 4.8% 8.4% 6.9% 2.6% 7.5% 27.8% 67 Chilton, WI 7.0% 9.0% 9.3% 3.5% 7.5% 32.6% 68 Oshkosh, WI 7.8% 10.0% 9.7% 4.0% 8.6% 36.3% 69 Sturgeon Bay 8.2% 10.5% 10.0% 4.4% 8.8% 38.1% 70 Green Bay, WI 8.9% 10.6% 10.8% 4.5% 9.4% 40.1% 71 Applelon, WI 9.4% 10.8% 11.3% 4.8% 9.5'% 41.5% 72 Stevens Point 8.0% 10.0% 9.8% 4.1% 8.8% 36.8% 73 Wausau, WI 7.9% 9.9% 9.8% 4.0% 8.7% 36.3% 74 Tomah, WI 7.6% 10.0% 10.0% 3.8% 8.0% 35.7% 75 La Crosse, Wt 10.1% 11.1% 11.9% 5.1% 9.9% 43.6% 76 Black River Falls, WI 5.0% 7.5% 7.6% 2.3% 7.3% 27.0% n Whitehall, WI 7.1% 9.3% 9.0% 3.1% 8.3% 33.0% 78 Modena, WI 4.5% 8.9% 6.1% 3.4% 6.7% 27.6% 79 Eau Claire, WI 9.0% 10.8% 10.9% 4.6% 9.3% 40.5% 80 Chippewa Falls, WI 7.0% 9.5% 9.6% 3.6% 8.3% 34.8% 81 Menomonie, WI 6.4% 9.3% 8.6% 3.0% 7.8% 31.8% 82 River Falls, WI 8.1% 9.9% 9.9% 4.6% 8.1% 36.4% 83 New Richmond, WI 10.2% 11.4% 12.1% 5.0% 9.3% 43.3% 84 Rice Lake, WI 7.3% 9.7% 9.4% 3.7% 8.4% 34.9% 85 Balsam Lake, WI 7.0% 9.0% 8.7% 2.8% 8.1% 31.7% 86 Rhinelander, WI 7.8% 10.0% 9.3% 4.0% 8.7% 35.9% 87 Owen, WI 5.9% 8.9% 7.7% 2.4% 7.7%, 29.3% 88 Shawano, WI 6.6% 9.1% 8.5% 3.4% 8.0% 32.2% 89 Berlin, WI 8.1% 10.1% 10.2% 4.2% 8.9% 37.7% 90 Platteville, WI 7.0% 9.4% 9.4% 3.7% 8.0% 34.0% 91 Richland Center, WI 5.0% 8.7% 7.1% 2.2% 7.2% 27.7% Sum: Wisconsin Zones 7.2% 10.0% 9.8% 4.0% 8.9% 36.8% 92 Chicago North, IL 5.8% 5.3% 8.6% 3.2% 8.0% 27.3% 93 Chicago South, IL 5.8% 5.3% 8.6% 3.2% 8.0% 27.3% 94 Arlington Heights, IL 5.8% 5.3% 8.6% 3.2% 8.0% 27.3% 95 Maywood, IL 5.8% 5.3% 8.6% 3.2% 8.0% 27.3% 96 Homewood, IL 5.8% 5.3% 8.6°/o 3.2% 8.0% 27.3% 97 Waukegan, IL 10.7% 8.2% 14.3% 6.4% 10.5% 45.3% 98 Wheaton, IL 16.1% 10.6% 18.8% 8.3% 12.0% 59.4% 99 Joliet, IL 4.5% 4.6% 7.2% 3.3% 6.3% 23.2% 100 Kankakee, IL 8.7% 6.9% 11.8% 4.9% 9.3% 37.1% 101 DeKalb, IL 9.2% 7.2% 12.3% 5.2% 9.2% 38.2% 102 Rockford, IL 7.1% 5.9% 10.2%, 4.1% 8.4% 31.7% 103 Dixon, IL 6.8% 5.9% 9.6% 4.2% 8.0% 30.7% Sum: Chicago Area Zones 7.5% 6.20/ci 10.5% 4.3% 8.8°/o 33.2% Population e 150% ~ 140% =""" -=" 0 130% u "' " "' 120% .l:;; - ;; 110% e u= 100% 1990 to '96 to 2000 to 2010 to 2020 to 2040 Year

I-+- Minnesota --Wisconsin Chicago Area !

Employment

5 ~ 150% g, 140% = _g Q 130% u "' }: ;:: 120% ;; ;; 110% § 100% u 1990-96 -2000 -2010 -2020 -2040 Year

I-+- Minnesota --Wisconsin Chicago Area I

Per Capita Income

170% 160% 150% 140% 130% 120% 110% 100% 1990-96 to2000 to 2010 to 2020 to 2040 Year

I-+- Minnesota --Wisconsin Chicago Area I TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 5.3 Base Year Trip Detai1

.J

I ' i Appendix 5.3 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi2ity Study

Exhibit 5 .3 .1 identifies trips within the study area by trip purpose.

Exhibit 5.3.1 Base Year City-to-City Annual Trips within the Study Area by Trip Purpose

Total Total Non- Total Ratio Business Business Business Origin Destination Name Name to Total Trips Milwaukee Chicago 2,292,401 2,568,349 4,860,750 47% Milwaukee Madison 1,544,246 2,341,621 3,885,867 40% Twin Cities Chicago 959,124 1,242,934 2,202,058 44% Rochester Twin Cities 708,226 1,318,904 2,027,130 35% Madison Chicago 451,232 721,333 1,172,565 38% Milwaukee Green Bay 375,740 497,630 873,370 43% Twin Cities Milwaukee 269,590 517,070 786,660 34% Twin Cities Madison 113,278 237,784 351,062 32% Madison Green Bay 138,031 143,100 281,131 49% Rochester Chicago 94,140 157,574 251,714 37% Green Bay Chicago 99,482 145,727 245,209 41% Rochester Milwaukee 55,505 88,601 144,106 39% Twin Cities Green Bay 42,995 90,878 133,873 32% Rochester Madison 33,037 49,697 82,734 40% Rochester Green Bay 5,349 8,366 13,715 39% City Sum Internal 7,182,373 10,129,570 17,311,943 41% Zones Total Trips Internal 147,069,555 413,806.488 560,876,043 26% Zones (Including short trips)

The most significant points from Exhibit 5.3.1 are the varying proportions of business and non-business travelers. Business travelers comprise from about one-third to almost half the market, depending on the city pair. Business and non-business travelers are very different in terms of expectations and preferred trade-offs between price and travel time, and in the typical number of travelers for a given trip. For example, business travelers generally place a higher value on time and on the ability to travel at the last minute, and are therefore willing to pay a higher fare for a faster trip. Non-business travelers in a small group are more likely to use auto, if available, rather than a public mode, due to

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SrsTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5. 3-1 Appendix 5.3 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

shared-ride economies. Individual non-business travelers are more likely to plan in advance and take advantage of discounted fares. Therefore the ridership and revenue patterns between cities will vary depending on the mix of business and non-business travelers.

Exhibit 5.3.2 presents the market share by mode for trips within the corridor.

Exhibit 5.3.2 Market Share by Mode for Base City-to-City Trips within the Study Area

Market Share: All Modes Origin I Destination I Auto Air Bus Rail Name Name I I I Milwaukee Chicago 92.9% 0.8% 1.5% 4.7% Milwaukee Madison 98.5% 0.0% 1.5% Twin Cities Chicago 51.5% 46.6% 0.3% 1.6% Rochester Twin Cities 99.4% 0.5% 0.1% i Madison Chicago 96.0% 2.3% 1.7% Milwaukee Green Bay 99.6% 0.0% 0.4% Twin Cities Milwaukee 80.4% 18.1% 0.7% 0.9% Twin Cities Madison 92.7% 6.8% . 0.5% Madison Green Bay 99.8% 0.0% 0.2% Rochester Chicago 89.4% 10.3% 0.3% Green Bay Chicago 93.2% 5.8% 0.9% Rochester Milwaukee 98.9% 0.7% 0.4% Twin Cities Green Bay 89.1% 10.2% 0.6% Rochester Madison 99.6% 0.1% 0.3% Rochester Green Bay 97.3% 2.1% 0.6% City Sum Internal Zones 89.7% 7.7% 1.0% 1.6% Total Trips Internal Zones 99.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% (Including short trips)

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INC. APPENDIX 5 . 3-2 ------I Appendix 5.3 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

1. Key among the aggregate fmdings is that auto, as in most areas, is the dominant mode in the corridor, representing almost 90 percent ofregional intercity trips. Air carries less than 8 percent of travelers among cities in the region. Rail, currently available in only three of the major cities, carries less than two percent of the travelers. However, rail still carries more travelers than bus, which carries only one percent of travelers, despite bus' broad geographical coverage. 2. For the Milwaukee-Chicago corridor, rail currently carries about five percent of that intercity market- more than double air and bus combined. 3. Also noteworthy is the relatively high share of air traffic between Twin Cities and Chicago ( 47 percent), compared to Twin Cities and Milwaukee (18 percent), Twin Cities and Green Bay (10 percent) and Rochester and Chicago (10 percent). All represent distances greater than 250 miles (approximately 275 to 400 miles), but the availability and price of connecting air service varies greatly.

------TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5 • 3-3 Appendix 5.3 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

Exhibit 5.3.3 details the shares of the current "public" markets, eliminating the large influence of the automobile on market shares for purposes of comparison. Exhibit 5.3.3 Market Shares for Public Modes for Base City-to-City Trips within the Study Area

IMarket Share: Public Modes I Origin I Destination Rail Name Name Air I Bus Milwaukee Chicago 11.6% 21.7% 66.7% Milwaukee Madison 1.0% 99.0% Twin Cities Chicago 96.0% 0.6% 3.3% Rochester Twin Cities 75.8% 24.2% Madison Chicago 57.1% 42.9% Milwaukee Green Bay 3.7% 96.3% Twin Cities Milwaukee 92.1% 3.4% 4.5% Twin Cities Madison 93.2% 6.8% Madison Green Bay 4.9% 95.1% Rochester Chicago 97.4% 2.6% Green Bay Chicago 86.5% 13.5% Rochester Milwaukee 65.8% 34.2% Twin Cities Green Bay 94.2% 5.8% Rochester Madison 33.7% 66.3% Rochester Green Bay 78.1% 21.9% City Sum Internal Zones 74.7% 10.1% 15.3% Total Trips Internal Zones 64.0% 23.1% 12.9% 1. Rail commands two thirds of the public mode travel ( air, bus and rail) between Milwaukee and Chicago. People respond favorably to speed of travel, frequency of service and price. 2. The high modal shares for bus from Green Bay to Milwaukee and Green Bay to Madison suggest the high potential for rail due in part to inadequate air service.

Although rail currently connects only three of the major cities represented in the corridor, because of its success with Milwaukee it carries more passengers than bus among all the major cities. Wherever rail competes directly with bus in this corridor, it clearly claims a

------TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MA1IAGEMEN:r SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5.3-4 Appendix 5. 3 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

much larger share of the market. And, in the case of Milwaukee-Chicago, it carries three times more passengers than bus and almost six times more passengers than air.

Major cities in the corridor are also closely linked to the rest of the Midwest. Approximately 49 million trips per year are generated from the cities in the corridor to other Midwestern cities. Although approximately 81 percent originate or terminate in Chicago, the remaining 19 percent represents 7 .9 million trips per year. Milwaukee is responsible for about 10 percent of the trips outside the region, while Minneapolis-St. Paul generates about 5 percent.

Exhibit 5.3.4 presents the top five destination cities or areas outside the study area for each major city within the study area. Detroit ranks among the top five cities in every case. The north- south orientation of travel is also represented. Note that Chicago, Green Bay and Twin Cities all number Indianapolis among the top five, and Twin Cities and Rochester both number St. Louis among the top five destination cities outside the study area.

------TRANSPORTATION ECONOMJ:CS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPE1IDIX 5 . 3-5 Appendix 5.3 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

Exhibit 5.3.4 Base Year External Destination Trips by Mode

Total Total Total All Origin Destination Auto Air Bus Rail Non- Business Modes Business Chicago Gary, IN 10,049,992 16,641 3,049 2,395,958 7,673,724 l0,069,682 Chicago North Indiana 6,432,790 23,594 870 22,140 1,489,800 4,989,594 6,479,394 Chicago Detroit, Ml 1,967,674 1,342,649 5,269 121,872 1,212,508 2,224,956 3.437,464 Chicago South Michigan 3,194,564 25,154 485 173,236 762,604 2,630,835 3,393,439 Chicago Indianapolis, lN 2,250,790 377,396 6,194 4,570 870,173 1,768,778 2,638,950 Chicago All External Zones 34,951,715 3,992,543 50,997 745,367 10,992,305 28,748,317 39,740,622 Green Bay North Indiana 50,908 750 131 13,531 38,258 51,789 Green Bay Detroit, MI 30,557 18,710 308 16,189 33,386 49,575 Green Bay South Michigan 34,112 1,201 101 9,200 26,214 35,414 Green Bay Gary, IN 29,846 217 8,155 21,908 30,063 Green Bay Indianapolis, IN 22,755 1,475 229 7,413 17,046 24,459 Green Bay All External Zones 294,964 31,025 2,248 94,931 233,307 328,238 Madison North lllinois 189,127 189 13,187 176,129 189,316 Madison North Indiana 181,262 910 182 50,893 131,461 182,354 Madison Gary, IN 128,418 736 37,057 92,097 129,154 Madison Detroit, Ml 91,821 31,726 940 37,938 86,549 124,487 Madison South Michigan 113,153 938 226 31,713 82,604 114,317 Madison All External Zones 1,220,362 56,450 5,903 346,831 935,884 1,282,715 Milwaukee North Indiana 793,106 448 696 1,404 207,560 588,094 795,654 Milwaukee Gmy,IN 660,062 5,001 231 178,938 486,356 665,294 Milwaukee South Michigan 468,665 842 1,007 9,956 122,786 357,685 480,470 Milwaukee Detroit, MI 354,170 l06,088 3,189 4,726 144,005 324,168 468,173 Milwaukee North Illinois 387,037 420 5,603 113,565 279,494 393,060

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEM>:l/T Sl:STEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5.3-6 Appendix 5.3 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

Exhibit 5.3.4 (continued) Base Year External Destination Trips by Mode

Origin Destination Auto Air Bus Rail Total Total Total All Business Non­ Modes Business

Milwaukee All External Zones 4,524,380 240t020 24,798 40,082 1,401,393 3,427,887 4,829,280 Twin Cities Detroit, Ml 138,239 283,995 1,099 182,578 240,755 423,333 Twin Cities North nlinois 363,291 12,502 438 82,973 293,258 376,231 Twin Cities St.Louis, MO 107,994 180,127 880 85 137,346 151,740 289,086 Twin Cities North Indiana 181,542 13,851 285 43 45,152 150,569 195,721 Twin Cities Indianapolis, fN 86,754 90,777 758 12 68,433 109,868 178,301 Twin Cities All External Zones 1,556,100 814,683 7,151 1,380 798,201 1,581,113 2,379,314 Rochester North Illinois 68,874 500 20,880 48,494 69,374 Rochester North Indiana 32,062 749 28 10,540 22,299 32,839 Rochester Detroit. Ml 22,668 6,188 112 10,051 18,917 28,968 Rochester South Michigan 22,958 603 22 7,399 16,183 23,583 Rochester St.Louis,MO 19,409 3,055 84 8,959 13,588 22,548 Rochester All External Zones 277,214 15,993 740 99,591 194,356 293,947 Major City External Zones 42,824,735 5,150,714 91,838 786,829 13,733,251 35,120,864 48,854,116 Sum All City Pairs External Zones 62,008,204 5,980,371 147,594 942,496 18,948,025 50,130,640 69,078,665

Exhibit 5.3.5 presents the modal shares for external trip: trips from within the study area to cities and zones outside the study area. Full detail is available on diskette by request. Of note in this exhibit is the correlation between availability and frequency of public modes and increases in modal share. Note, for example, that rail gamers two percent of all trips between Milwaukee and Southern Michigan compared to 0.2 percent for air, and a full 84 percent of public mode trips. In similar fashion, frequent air service between Chicago and Detroit claims thirty-nine percent of the total travel market. Rail claims a respectable four percent of the same market.

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMJ:CS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5.3-7 Appendix 5.3 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

Exhibit 5.3.5 Market Share by Mode for Base Year External Destintion Trips Market Shares: Public Market Shares: All Modes Modes Percent of Origin Destination External Amo Air Bus Rail Air Bus Rail Trips Chicago Gary, IN 99.80% 0.00% 0.17% 0.03% 0.00% 84.51% 15.49% Chicago North Jndiana 99.28% 0.36% 0.01% 0.34% 50.63% l.87% 47.51% Chicago Detroit, Ml 57.24% 39.06% 0.15% 3.55% 91.35% 0.36% 8.29% Chicago South Michigan 94.14% 0.74% 0.01% 5.11% 12.65% 0.24% 87.11% Chicago Indianapolis, IN 85.29% 14.30% 0.23% 0.17% 97.23% l.60% 1.18% Chicago All External Zones 81.35% Green Bay North Indiana 98.30% 1.45% 0.25% 0.00% 85.10% 14.90% 0.00% Green Bay Detroit, Ml 61.64% 37.74% 0.62% 0.00% 98.38% 1.62% 0.00% Green Bay South Michigan 96.32% 3.39% 0.28% 0.00% 92.27% 7.73% 0.00% Green Bay Gary, IN 99.28% 0.00% 0.72% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Green Bay Indianapolis, IN 93.03% 6.03% 0.94% 0.00% 86.56% 13.44% 0.00% Green Bay All External Zones 0.67% 89.86% 9.45% 0.68% 0.00% 93.24% 6.76% 0.00% Madison North Illinois 99.90% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% 0.00% 0.00% I Madison North Indiana 99.40% 0.50% 0.10% 0.00% 83.31% 16.69% 0.00% .I Madison Gary, IN 99.43% 0.00% 0.57% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% Madison Detroi~ Ml 73.76% 25.49% 0.75% 0.00% 97.12% 2.88% 0.00% Madison South Michigan 98.98% 0.82% 0.20% 0.00% 80.62% 19.38% 0.00% Madison All External Zones 2.63% 95.14% 4.40% 0.46% 0.00% 90.53% 9.47% 0.00% Milwaukee North Indiana 99.68% 0.06% 0.09% 0.18% 17.58% 27.32% 55.10% Milwaukee Gary, IN 99.21% 0.00% 0.75% 0.03% 0.00% 95.59% 4.41% Milwaukee South Michigan 97.54% 0.18% 0.21% 2.07% 7.13% 8.53% 83.34% Milwaukee Detroit, MI 75.65% 22.66% 0.68% 1.01% 93.06% 2.80% 4.15% Milwaukee North Illinois 98.47% 0.11% 0.00% 1.43% 6.97% 0.00% 93.03% Milwaukee All External Zones 9.89% 93.69% 4.97% 0.51% 0.83% 78.72% 8.13% 13.15% Twin Cities Detroit, Ml 32.65% 67.09% 0.26% 0.00% 99.61% 0.39% 0.00% Twin Cities North Illinois 96.56% 3.32% 0.00% 0.12% 96.62% 0.00% 3.38% Twin Cities St. Louis, MO 37.36% 62.31% 0.30% 0.03% 99.47% 0.49% 0.05% Twin Cities North Indiana 92.76% 7.08% 0.15% 0.02% 97.69% 2.01% 0.30% Twin Cities Indianapolis, IN 48.66% 50.91% 0.43% 0.01% 99.16% 0.83% 0.01% Twin Cities All External Zones 4.87% 65.40% 34.24% 0.30% 0.06% 98.96% 0.87% 0.17% Rochester North Illinois 99.28% 0.72% 0.00% 0.00% 100.0% 0.00% 0.00% Rochester North Indiana 97.63% 2.28% 0.09% 0.00% 96.40% 3.06% 0.00%

______Tru!NSJ?ORTATION ECONOMICS & MAllAGEMEm' SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5. 3-8 Appendix 5.3 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

Market Shares: Public Market Shares: All Modes Modes Percent of Origin Destination External Auto Air Bus Rail Air Bus Rail Trips Rochester Detroit, Ml 78.25% 21.36% 0.39% 0.00% 9822% 1.78% • ft', Rochester South Michigan 97.36% 2.56% 0.09% 0.00% 96.56% 3.44% 0.00% Rochester SL Louis, MO 86.08% 13.55% 0.37% 0.00% 97.33% 2.67% 0.00% Rochester All External Zones 0.60% 94.31% 5.44% 0.25% 0.00% 95.58% 4.42% 0.00% Total External Zones 86.66% 10.54% 0.19% 1.16% 85.43% 1.52% 13.05%

------TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5 • 3-9 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 5.4 Stated Preference Survey Description and Samp1e Survey Appendix 5.4 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

Appendix 5-4 Stated Preference Survey Description and Sample Survey Forms

Survey Process An attitudinal survey using "stated preference" techniques was undertaken in November 1997 to identify travel behavior characteristics of individuals in the Tri-State corridor. This appendix describes the process, the rationale, and the sample groups surveyed.

Stated Preference Survey Procedures: The Tri-State II Stated Preference Survey was conducted using a quota sampling approach. A quota survey collects information on the socioeconomic profile of respondents which is then used to factor the survey data to overall populations, e.g., to the travelers in a particular corridor. The expansion of the quota survey is achieved by applying readily available census data on population and income to the travel information (e.g., mode, purpose of travel, travel distance, etc.) collected for the study. Quota surveys provide the advantage of being relatively inexpensive to implement while providing much greater coverage and more statistically significant results than simple random surveys.

The trade-off information collected by this quota survey consists of information on travel options that are relevant to the issues and concerns being assessed. For improved rail service programs, the questions relate to the "general" trade-offs between travel times and costs for existing modes and those associated with the improved rail service, i.e., faster journey times and higher fares.

Development of the Stated Preference Quota Sample: In developing the stated preference quota sample, consideration was given to the three critical factors that determine travel behavior. As shown in previous studies, the response given by any individual within any given trade-off will vary depending on the purpose of the trip (business versus non-business), the mode of travel being used, and the length of the trip

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5. 4-1 Appendix 5.4 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

(short-distance versus long-distance). The market was therefore segmented into these groups, illustrated in Exhibit 5.4.1.

Exhibit 5.4.1 Quota Groups by Mode and Trip Length

Mode Trip Distance Business INon- I I Business Air Long X X Bus Long NIA X Medium NIA X Short NIA X Rail Long X X Short X X Auto Long X X Short X X NIA means not an aoolicable quota group

Since the population in a segmented travel market may not have a normally distributed ("bell curve") value of time (e.g., the majority of auto non-business travelers in the survey may tend to choose the lower values), a minimum sample in each travel market segment is required to ensure statistical confidence. By applying the statistical Central Limit Theorem, it has been found that a sample size of 40 to 60 is large enough to ensure the statistical validity of each quota sample. For the Tri-State IT Stated Preference Survey, a minimum quota of 40 interviews per trip purpose/travel mode was established, while the desired quota target was set at 80 to 100 interviews. Exhibit 5.4.3 displays the survey achievement for the major quota groups.

Questionnaire Design: The survey questionnaire design took into account the travel characteristics of the station zone pairs in the Tri-State II region. The questionnaire was divided into three major sections to capture specific information: general transportation

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5. 4-2 Appendix 5. 4 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

data, demographic data, and stated preference responses. Each section 1s explained below. Sample forms are provided at the end of this appendix.

General Transportation Data: The first part of the survey questionnaire collected general data to establish the origin and destination of the trip the respondent was making and other travel characteristics of the trip. It included questions on:

• Origin and destination of the trip, as defined by the nearest intersection or landmark. • Primary residence, with zip code. • Purpose of the trip, i.e., business (defined by being paid for by their employer), commuter, or other (education, social, personal business, leisure travel, etc.). • Trip frequency, i.e., daily (3 days per week or more), weekly, monthly, or annually. • Access to a car, i.e., yes or no.

Demographic Data: The last part of each questionnaire asked for socioeconomic background information on the respondent, such as age and household income.

Stated Preference Questions: Ten separate questionnaires were designed for the Stated Preference Survey portion of the questionnaire to ensure its relevance to the choices travelers faced in using each mode and for business and non-business travel purposes. In developing the specific trade-off questions for each survey questionnaire, an analysis was first made of the likely range of Value of Time (VOT) and Value of Frequency (VOF) responses that individuals might make. Current airline, rail and bus fares and schedules were used as a general guide to obtain the most suitable range of fares and times for use in designing the questionnaires.

Having established the potential range of VOT and VOF responses, five VOT and VOF questions for each of the questionnaires were formulated to ensure that the appropriate

------TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5 . 4 -3 Appendix 5. 4 Tri-State II High Speed Rail Feasibility Study

range of answers was effectively incorporated in the surveys and that each trade-off question represented a consistent change in the VOT or VOF value. To allow individuals a range of choices for any given trade-off, respondents were able to choose one of five levels of preference to indicate the degree to which they liked or disliked the choices given in the trade-off question.

The essence of the stated preference technique is to ask the traveler to make a series of trade-off choices based on different combinations of travel time, frequency and cost.

The use of a series of questions allows individuals to understand the process and provide improved responses, and also provides consistency and rationality checks for the responses given. The procedures used in trade-off analysis can be briefly described as follows: • Travel options are organized in a format that enables respondents to consider j .I trade-offs between desirable travel attributes. The trade-offs, which include a range of service options (e.g., level of service, cost, speed, etc.), are presented in such a way as to induce individuals to give a realistic response to the options. This is the key to the successful use of trade-off analysis and requires considerable expertise and knowledge to obtain a realistic and balanced response from interviewees. • Travel attributes and choice factors are then analyzed using trade-off analysis procedures to provide a ranking that describes the individual's behavior within the trade-off. These rankings are applied to a simulation of the transportation market at different service levels to give quantitative estimates of travel choice. In this way, specific elasticities and cross-elasticities are derived to provide the basis for estimating behavior. These elasticities are then used for different service and accessibility conditions to provide estimates of regional travel demand and market shares.

------TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5. 4-4 Appendix 5.4 Tri-State II High Speed Raii Feasibiiity Study

The stated preference technique: • requires data that are simple to collect and are thus suitable for hand-out questionnaires or direct interviews. • quantifies consumer preferences and provides a mathematical utility measurement of the different options available to travelers and, thus, enables the impact of a range of new facilities/levels of service to be tested. This includes biases and elasticities. • gives an overall picture of the feasibility of any given improvement and suggests ways of promoting the new facility/service in terms of different levels of service, facilities, and charges. • avoids the usual difficulties of attitudinal research in which there are incentives for individuals to support the provision of facilities and services they have no intention of regularly using. The problem of reconciling "saying" and "doing" is overcome. • provides a means for relating travel behavior to different travel options and socioeconomic factors. • provides input to operating/engineering studies in that the response to different costs and levels of service can be quantified in terms of demand. This creates a number of cost/demand options from which preferred engineering, operating, and marketing solutions may be derived.

Survey Implementation: The Tri-State II Stated Preference Survey was conducted via self-administered survey forms handed out on location with trained personnel available to answer questions about the form. The on-location nature of the survey required the survey team to obtain permission from relevant airport, rest stop, and bus station management so that the survey could be conducted on their premises. Surveys were conducted during November 1997.

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS li MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5. 4-5 Appendix S. 4 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

The surveys were administered as follows:

Exhibit 5.4.2 Survey Implementation

Mode Location I Dates I Days I (November) of\Veek Air Minneapolis-St. Paul IO, 12, 13, 14 M, Tu, Th,Fr International Airport General Mitchell 16, 17 Sunday,Monday International Airport Wednesday, Rail Chicago-Milwaukee 19,20,22 Thursday, () Saturday

Chicago-Minneapolis/St. Paul 8, 15 Saturday, Saturday (Emoire Builder) Monday through Bus Downtown Minneapolis 10, 11, 12, 13, Friday Greyhound Bus Station 14 (Tuesday Veteran's Dav) Monday through Downtown Milwaukee 17, 18, 19, 20, Friday Greyhound Bus Station 21 Rest stops between Auto Portage and Wisconsin Dells 18 Tuesday (I-90/94) Rest stops between Wednesday, 19,20,21 Madison and Portage (I-90/94) Thursday, Fridav

Air passenger interviews took place in the departure lounges and public concourses of the airports. Survey hours were arranged to coincide with passengers' pre-boarding times. Rail passenger surveys were conducted on board trains. Bus passenger surveys were conducted in the terminals. The surveys of auto users were undertaken at expressway rest areas.

Survey Sample Results: Findings from the stated preference surveys concerning the values of time and frequency are described in the body of the report, Chapter 5. The

------TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MilNAGEMEm' SYSTEMS, INC. APPENI>IX 5. 4 -6 Appendix 5.4 Tri-State II High Speed Rai1 Feasibi1ity Study

number of valid surveys collected by mode, trip purpose, and trip length is provided in Exhibit 5.4.3.

Exhibit 5.4.3 Surveys by Mode, Trip Purpose and Trip Length

Mode Trip Length Busmess. I BNon- . I usmess I Total Air Long 349 241 590 Bus Long 17 219 236 Medium 12 172 184 Short 12 106 118 Total Bus 41 497 538 Rail Long 45 222 267 Short 194 364 558 Total Rail 121 311 432 Auto Long 23 104 127 Short 25 63 88 Total Auto 48 167 215 Total All Modes 559 1216 1775 * Numbers in italic indicate that the subset does not constitute a statistical quota group.

______TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. APPENDIX 5. 4-7 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 5.5 COMPASS@ Program Description APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Basic Structure of the COMPASS@Model The COMPASS'"Multimodal Demand Forecasting Model is a flexible demand forecasting tool used to compare and evaluate alternative network and service scenarios. It is particularly useful in assessing the introduction or expansion of "minor" transportation modes such as air, rail or bus into new markets. It builds from an existing travel network, and tests the sensitivity of future travel demand to such parameters as elasticities, Values of Time, and Values or Frequency. Specific Values of Time and Frequency are developed for the model from the results of the Stated Preference surveys conducted in the study region, as discussed above. Stated Preference market analysis techniques provide an accurate assessment of individual travelers' likely choices when faced with trade-offs between time and money, or frequency and money.

The COMPASS@Model structure incorporates two principal models: a Total Demand Model and a Hierarchical Modal Split Model. These two models are calibrated separately for each trip purpose, e.g., business, commuter and "other" (personal, social, and tourism). In each case, the models are calibrated for origin-destination trip-making internal to the region. The Total Demand Model provides a mechanism for replicating and forecasting the total travel market. The total number of trips between any two zones for all modes of travel, segmented by trip purpose, is a function of(!) the socioeconomic characteristics of the two zones and (2) the travel opportunities provided by the overall transportation system that exists ( or will exist) between the two zones. Typical socioeconomic variables include household income, employment, and population. The quality of the transportation system is measured in terms of total travel time, travel cost, and worth of travel by all modes for a given trip purpose.

The role of the COMPASS© Modal Split Model is to estimate relative modal shares of travel given the estimation of the total market by the Total Demand Model. The relative modal shares are derived by comparing the relative levels of service offered by each of the travel modes. Three levels of binary choice are typically calibrated. The first level of the hierarchy separates "private" auto travel, with its perceived spontaneous frequency, low access/egress times, and highly personalized characteristics, from the "public" modes, i.e., bus, rail and air. The second level of the structure separates air, the fastest and most expensive public mode, from the rail and bus surface modes. The lowest level of the hierarchy separates rail, a potentially faster, more reliable, and more comfortable mode, from the bus mode. The model forecasts changes in riders, revenue and market share based on changes in each mode's travel time, frequency and cost.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOAUCS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-1 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Compass Model System and Results The COMPASs° Model System is a flexible multimodal demand forecasting tool that provides comparative evaluations of alternative socioeconomic and network scenarios. It also allows input variables to be modified to test the sensitivity of demand to various parameters such as elasticities, values of time, and values of frequency.

The COMPASSr;; Model System is structured on two principal models: a Total Demand Model and a Hierarchical Modal Split Model. For this study, these two models were calibrated separately for two trip purposes, i.e., business and nonbusiness (commuter, personal, and social). Moreover, since the behavior of short distance trip-making is significantly different from long distance trip-making, the database was segmented by distance and independent models were calibrated for long trips and short trips. For each market segment, the models were calibrated on origin-destination trip data, network characteristics, and base year socioeconomic data.

The models are calibrated on the base data. In applying the models for forecasting, an incremental approach known as the "pivot point" method is used. The "pivot point" method preserves unique travel flows present in the base data, which are not captured by the model variables by applying model growth rates to the base data observations. Details on how this method is implemented are provided in this Appendix.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-2 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Total Dema11d Model The Total Demand Model, shown in Equation 1, provides a mechanism for assessing overall growth in the travel market.

where Tijp = Number of trips between zones i and j for trip purpose p SEijp = Socioeconomic variables for zones i and j for trip purpose p Uijp = Total utility of the transportation system for zones i to j for trip purpose p /Jop, fJ Ip, fJ 2p = Coefficients for trip purpose p

As shown in Equation 1, the total number of trips between any two zones for all modes of travel, segmented by trip purpose, is a function of the socioeconomic characteristics of the zones and the total utility of the transportation system that exists between the two zones. For this study, trip purposes included business and nonbusiness, and socioeconomic characteristics included population, employment, and per capita income. The utility function provides a logical and intuitively sound method of assigning a value to the travel opportunities provided by the overall transportation system.

In the Total Demand Model, the utility function provides a measure of the quality of the transportation system in terms of the times, costs, reliability and level of service provided by all modes for a given trip purpose. The Total Demand Model equation may be interpreted as meaning that travel between zones will increase as socioeconomic factors such as population and income rist! or as the utility (or quality) of the transportation system is improved by providing new facilities and services that reduce travel times and costs. The Total Demand Model can therefore be used to evaluate the effect of changes in both socioeconomic and travel characteristics on the total demand for travel.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. ]NC. 5.5-3 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Socioeco11omic Variables The socioeconomic variables in the Total Demand Model show the impact of economic growth on travel demand. The COMPASS- Model System, in line with most intercity modeling systems, uses three variables (population, employment, and per capita income) to represent the socioeconomic characteristics of a zone. Different combinations were tested in the calibration process and it was found, as is typically found elsewhere, that the most reasonable and stable relationships consists of the following formulations:

Trip Purpose Socioeconomic Variable Business EiEj(Ii+Ij)/2 Nonbusiness PiPj(Ii+Ij)/2 where E = Employment I = Per capita income P = Population

The business formulation consists of a product of employment in the origin zone, employment in the destination zone and the average per capita income of the two zones. Since business trips are usually made between places of work, the presence of employment in the formulation is reasonable. The nonbusiness formulation consists of a product of population in the origin zone, population in the destination zone and the average per capita income of the two zones. Nonbusiness trips encompass many types of trips, including social, tourist and personal business travel, but the majority are home-based and thus, greater volumes of trips are expected between zones with higher incomes and population.

Travel Utility Estimates of travel utility for a transportation network are generated as a function of generalized cost (GC), as shown in Equation 2:

where GCijp = Generalized cost of travel between zones i and j for trip purpose p Because the generalized cost variable is used to estimate the impact of improvements in the transportation system on the overall level of trip-making, it needs to incorporate all the key

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. INC. 5.5-4 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY modal attributes that affect an individual's decision to make trips. For the public modes (rail, bus, air), the generalized cost of travel includes all aspects of travel time (access, egress, in­ vehicle times), travel cost (fares, tolls, parking charges), schedule convenience (frequency of service, convenience of arrival/departure times) and reliability.

The generalized cost of travel is typically defined in travel time (i.e., minutes) rather than dollars. Costs are converted to time by applying appropriate conversion factors, as shown in Equation 3. The generalized cost (GC) of travel between zones i and j for modem and trip purpose p is

calculated as follows: where TTifm = Travel time between zones i and j for modem (in-vehicle time + station wait time + connection wait time+ access/egress time+ interchange penalty), with waiting, connect and access/egress time multiplied by a factor (greater than 1) to account for the additional disutility felt by travelers for these activities TCifmp = Travel cost between zones i and j for modem and trip purpose p (fare+ access/egress cost for public modes, operating costs for auto) VOTmp = Value of Time for mode m and trip purpose p VOFmp = Value of Frequency for modem and trip purpose p VORmp = Value of Reliability for modem and trip purpose p = Frequency in departures per week between zones i and j for mode m = Convenience factor of schedule times for travel between zones i and j for modem OTPifm = On-time performance for travel between zones i and j for modem OH = Operating hours per week Station wait time is the time spent at the station before departure and after arrival. Air travel generally has higher wait times because of security procedures at the airport, baggage checking and the difficulties of loading a plane. Air trips were assigned wait times of 45 minutes while rail trips were assigned wait times of 30 minutes and bus trips were assigned wait times of 20 minutes. On trips with connections, there would be additional wait times incurred at the connecting station. Wait times are weighted higher than in-vehicle time in the generalized cost formula to reflect their higher disutility as found from previous studies. Wait times are weighted

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-5 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

70 percent higher than in-vehicle time for business trips and 90 percent higher for nonbusiness trips.

Similarly, access/egress time has a higher disutility "than in-vehicle time. As verified by numerous studies, access time tends to be more stressful for the traveler than in-vehicle time because of the uncertainty created by trying to catch the flight or train. Based on current stated preference findings, access time is weighted 30 percent higher than in-vehicle time for air travel and 80 percent higher for rail and bus travel.

TEMS has found from previous studies that the physical act of transferring trains (or buses or planes) has a negative impact beyond the times involved. To account for this disutility, interchanges are penalized time equivalents. For both air and rail travel, each interchange for a trip results in 40 minutes being added to the business generalized cost and 30 minutes being added to the nonbusiness generalized cost. For bus travel, the interchange penalties are 20 minutes and 15 minutes for business and nonbusiness, respectively.

The third term in the generalized cost function converts the frequency attribute into time units. Operating hours divided by frequency is a measure of the headway or time between departures. It is this measure on which tradeoffs are made in the stated preference surveys resulting in the value of frequencies. This function represents the convenience of journeys rather than waiting time, and is therefore unique and distinct from the station wait time in the first term of the generalized cost function. Although the impact is measured as a function of the headway for convenience, it is not the headway time itself that is being added to the generalized cost. The third term represents the impact of perceived frequency valuations on generalized cost.

The convenience of the departure/arrival times was modeled only for the rail mode. It is incorporated in the generalized cost as a factor (Cum) multiplying the frequency. The factor is based on assigning each departure and arrival time in the timetable a desirability index corresponding to the graph shown in Exhibit 5.5.1. This graph was derived from responses given by rail passengers about preferred arrival and departure times in the 1993 Illinois Rail Passenger Survey. Note that the peak times are 8 AM to 9 AM and about 5 PM. The product (Fijm x Cijm) can be interpreted as an effective level of service. The modeling of schedule times is more important for rail than the other modes because current timetables result in trains, especially · long-distance trains, arriving (or departing) from some stations in the very early morning (1 AM to 5 AM). To explain the lower ridership from these stations, the schedule time must be considered in addition to the frequency of service. One such station currently is Cleveland where the two daily trains are scheduled to stop at 3:01 AM, 3:16 AM, 4:09 AM, and 6:17 AM.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-6 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Exhibit 5.5.1 Modeling Convenience of Schedule Times

,., ,.•

'-'

l.l ~ ~ .E :;, :a .,,• .., ~ ::, ,., ,.,

O.?

0 I ? ) ~ S 6 7 & 9 tO 11 12 tl t4 15 16 l7 lS 19 W 21 2:? !l l4 Arrival or Departure Time {hour or day}

The fourth term of the generalized cost function is a measure of the value placed on reliability of the mode. Reliability statistics in the form of on-time performance ( fraction of trips considered to be on time) were obtained for the rail and air modes only. The negative exponential form of the reliability term implies that improvements from low levels of reliability have slightly higher impacts than similar improvements from higher levels of reliability.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-7 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Calibration oftlte Total Demand Model In order to calibrate the Total Demand Model, the coefficients are estimated using linear regression techniques. Equation 1, the equation for the Total Demand Model, is transformed by taking the natural logarithm of both sides, as shown in Equation 4:

This provides the linear specification of the model necessary for regression analysis.

The segmentation of the database by trip purpose and trip length resulted in four sets of models. Trips which would cover more than 160 miles on the road are considered long trips. This cutoff was chosen because travel behavior switches significantly around this level with travellers considering faster modes such as air and high speed rail over the automobile. In the base data, the average trip length for the short distance model is approximately 80 miles while the average trip length for the long distance model is about 310 miles. The results of the calibration for the Total Demand Models are given in Exhibit 2.

In evaluating the validity of a statistical calibration, there are two key statistical measures: !­ 2 statistics and R • The t-statistics are a measure of the significance of the model's coefficients; values of 1.95 and above are considered good and imply that the variable has significant explanatory power in estimating the level of trips. The R2 is a statistical measure of the "goodness of fit" of the model to the data; any data point that deviates from the model will reduce this measure. It has a range from 0 to a perfect 1, with 0.4 and above considered good for large data sets.

Based on these two measures, the total demand calibrations are excellent. The !-statistics are very high, aided by the large size of the Midwest dataset. There are about five times as many long distance observations as short distance observations, resulting in higher !-statistics for the long distance models. The R2 values imply very good fits of the equations to the data.

As shown in Exhibit 5.5.2, the socioeconomic elasticity values for the Total Demand Model are close to 0.7, meaning that each one percent growth in the socioeconomic term generates approximately a 0. 7 percent growth in trips. Since each component of the socioeconomic term will have this elasticity, a one percent increase in population (or employment) of every zone combined with a one percent increase in income will result in a 2.1 percent growth in trips.

The coefficient on the utility term is not exactly an elasticity but it can be used as an approximation. Thus, the transportation system or network utility elasticity is higher for short

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-8 APPENDIX 5 . 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY distance trips than long distance trips, with each l percent improvement in network utility or quality as measured by generalized cost (i.e., travel times or costs) generating approximately an 0.7 percent increase for long trips and 1.1 percent increase for short trips. The higher elasticity on short trips is partly a result of the scale of the generalized costs. For short trips, a 30 minute improvement would be more meaningful than the same time improvement on long trips, reflecting in the higher elasticity on the short distance model.

Exhibit 5.5.2 1 Total Demand Model CoefficientsC >

Long Distance Trips (more than I 30 miles driving distance) R2 Business log(Tripsoo) - 12.9 + 0.75 Ut + 0.69 log[EoEo(Io=Io)/2] R2=0.91 0.86 (39) (60)

where U, = log(exp(-0.8+0.79 Urublic)+ exp(-0.0050 GC,u,0))

Nonbusiness log(Tripsoo) - 12.+ 1.00 Ut + 0.68 log [POPD(IO+ID)/2] 0.76 (47) (62) where U, = log(exp(-0.75+ 0.68 Urublic) + exp(-0.0046GCAuto))

Short Distance Trips.( 130 miles driving distance) R2 Business log(Tripsoo) - 6.16 + 0.94 Ut +0.65 log[EoEo (Io+Io)/2 0.63 0.63 (23) (31) where U, = log(exp(-5.4 + 1.16 Urubiic) + exp(-0.0200 GCauto))

Nonbusiness log(Tij) = - 5.5 + 1.12 Ut + 0.64 log[PoPo(Io+Io)/2)] 0.57 (15) (20) where U1= log(exp(-6.5 + 0.96 Urub!ic) + exp(-0.0211 GC,u1o))

{J)•Statistics in parentheses

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, ]NC. 5.5-9 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

The utility functions are functions of the generalized costs of the modes of travel. In deriving the total utility term, a special "logsum" approach is used in which utilities are built up from individual modes in a recursive fashion. Thus, the total utility is derived from car generalized cost and the public mode utility which itself is derived from the generalized costs of its constituent modes (i.e. air, rail, bus). The exact form for the public mode utility function is determined from the calibration process for the modal split models to be described in the next section.

I11creme11tal Form oftlte Total Demand Model The calibrated Total Demand Models could be used to estimate the total travel market for any zone pair using the population, employment, income and the total utility of all the modes. However, there would be significant differences between estimated and observed levels of trip­ making for many zone pairs despite the good fit of the models to the data. For example, travel to summer cottages in the Michigan Upper Peninsula cannot be explained well by the socioeconomic measures used. To preserve the unique travel patterns contained in the base data, the incremental approach or "pivot point" method is used for forecasting.

In the incremental approach, the base travel data assembled in the database are used as "pivot" points and forecasts are made by applying trends to the base data. The total demand equation as described in equation ( 1) can be rewritten into the following incremental form which can be used for forecasting:

1 1 T ijp =(SE ijp f,, tf1,/ut,,- o',,! T\p SE\p where Tifp = Number of trips between zones i and j for trip purpose p in forecast year = Socioeconomic variables for zones i and j for trip purpose p in forecast year = Total utility of the transportation system for zones i to j for trip purpose p in forecast year Variables with superscript b refer to base year values.

In the incremental form, the constant term disappears and only the elasticities are important.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, !NC. 5.5-10 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Modal Split Model The role of the Modal Split Model is to estimate relative modal shares, given the Total Demand Model estimate of the total market. The relative modal shares are derived by comparing the relative levels of service offered by each of the travel modes. The COMPASS° Modal Split Model uses a nested logit structure, which has been adapted to model the intercity modal choices available in the study area. As shown in Exhibit 5.5.3, three levels of binary choice were calibrated.

Exhibit 5.5.3 Hierarchical Structure of the Modal Split Model

Total De\lland

I I Public Auto Modes Mode

I I I Air Surface Mode Modes

I I I Rail Bus Mode Mode

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & AfANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5. 5-11 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

The main feature of the Hierarchical Modal Split Model structure is the increasing commonality of travel characteristics as the structure is descended. The first level of the hierarchy separates private auto travel (with its spontaneous frequency, low access/egress times, low costs, and highly personalized characteristics) from the public modes. The second level of the structure separates air (the fastest, most expensive, and perhaps most frequent and comfortable public mode) from the rail and bus surface modes. The lowest level of the hierarchy separates rail, a potentially faster, more reliable, and more comfortable mode, from the bus mode.

Form ofthe Modal Split Model To assess modal split behavior, the logsum utility function, which is derived from travel utility theory, has been adopted. As the modal split hierarchy is ascended, the logsum utility values are derived by combining the generalized costs of travel. Advantages of the logsum utility approach are, one, the introduction of a new mode will increase the overall utility of travel and, two, a new mode can readily be incorporated into the Modal Split Model, even if it was not included in the base-year calibration.

As only two choices exist at each level of the modal split hierarchical structure, a Binary Logit Model is used, as shown in Equation 5:

PiJmp =

where Pijmp = Percentage of trips between zones i and j by mode m for trip purpose p Uijmp, Uijnp = Utility functions of modes m and n between zones i and j for trip purpose p p = nesting coefficient

In Equation 6, the utility of travel between zones i and j by mode m for trip purpose p is a function of the generalized cost of travel. Where modem is a composite mode (e.g., the surface modes in the third level of the Modal Split Model hierarchy, which consist of the rail and bus modes), the utility of travel, as described below, is derived from the utility of the two or more modes it represents.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-12 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Utility of Composite Modes Where modes are combined, as in the upper levels of the modal split hierarchy, it is essential to be able to measure the inclusive value of the composite mode, e.g., how the combined utility for bus and rail compares with the utility for bus or rail alone. The combined utility is more than the utility of either of the modes alone, but it is not simply equal to the sum of the utilities of the two modes. A realistic approach to solving this problem, which is consistent with utility theory and the logit model, is to use the logsum function. As the name logsum suggests, the. utility of a composite mode is defined as the natural logarithm of the sum of the utilities of the component modes. In combining the utility of separate modes, the logsum function provides a reasonable proportional increase in utility that is less than the combined utilities of the two modes but reflects the value of having two or more modes available to the traveler. For example: suppose Utility of Rail or Uran = o. + PGCran

Utility of Bus or Ubus = yGCbus then Inclusive Utility of Surface Modes, or U,urfacc = log( + eUbus)

It should be noted that improvements in either rail or bus will result in improvements to the inclusive utility of the surface modes.

In a nested binary logit model, the calibrated coefficients associated with the inclusive values of composite modes are called the nesting coefficients and take on special meaning. If one of these coefficients is equal to 1, then that level of the hierarchical model collapses and two levels of the hierarchy essentially become one. At this point, the Modal Split Model is a multinomial logit model that is analyzing three or more modes, i.e., all the modes comprising the composite mode as well as the other modes in that level of the hierarchy. If one of the coefficients is greater than l, then the hierarchy has been incorrectly specified and counterintuitive forecasts will result. Because of the assumptions behind the Modal Split Model, the coefficients must decrease as the modal split hierarchy is ascended or counterintuitive results will occur. Thus, the coefficients provide a check on whether the Modal Split Model hierarchy has been specified correctly.

Calibration ofthe Modal Split Model Working from the bottom of the hierarchy up to the top, the first analysis is that of the rail mode versus the bus mode. As shown in Exhibit 5.5.4, the model was effectively calibrated for the two trip purposes and the two trip lengths, with reasonable parameters and R2 and t values. All the

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-13 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY coefficients have the correct signs such that demand increases or decreases in the correct direction as travel times or costs are increased or decreased, and all the coefficients appear to be reasonable in terms of the size of their impact. Rail travelers are more sensitive than bus travelers to time and cost. This is as expected, given the general attitude that travelers, and in particular business travelers, have toward the bus mode. The higher coefficients on the short distance models are partly due to the scale effect where the same time or cost improvements would be more meaningful on shorter trips.

Exhibit 5.5.4 Rail versus Bus Modal Split Model CoefficientsC1l

Long Distance Trips (more than 160 miles driving distance) R2 Business log(T Ran/T Bus) = 2.9 - 0.0033 GCRail + 0.0029 GCsus 0.44 (5.2) (5.2) (6.2)

No11busi11esslog(TraiilTBus) = 2.9 0.0034 GCRail + 0.0023 GCBus 0.40 (4.6) (5.4) (5,7)

Short Distance Trips ( 160 miles driving distance)

Business log(TRail/T Bus) = 2.4 0.0050 GCRail + 0.0038 GCaus 0.50 (3.6) (4.4) (3.5)

No11b11si11ess log(Tail!Tbus) = 1.3 0.0049 GCRail + 0.0034 GCeus 0.40 (2.0) (4.5) (3. I)

(IJ I-statistics are given in parentheses.

The constant term in each equation indicates the degree of bias towards one mode or the other. Since the terms are positive in all the market segments, there is a bias towards rail travel that is not explained by the variables (times, costs, frequencies, reliability) used to model the modes. As expected, this bias is larger for business travelers who tend to have very negative perceptions of intercity bus.

TRANSPORTATION ECONO/.UCS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-14 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

For the second level of the hierarchy, the analysis is of the surface modes (rail and bus) versus air. Accordingly, the utility of the surface modes is obtained by deriving the logsum of the utilities of rail and bus. As shown in Exhibit 5.5.5, the model calibrations for both trip purposes are all statistically significant, with good R2 and t values and reasonable parameters. As indicated by the air coefficients, short distance travelers are less sensitive to changes in the air costs than long distance travelers. One explanation is some short distance air trips are special trips responding to personal or business emergencies and are thus, cost insensitive. As indicated by the constant terms, there is a large bias towards air travel for long distance trips. However, for short trips, there is only a small bias towards air for business travelers and for nonbusiness travel, the bias, which is large, is actually towards the surface modes.

Exhibit 5.5.5 1 Surface versus Air Modal Split Model Coefficients< J

Long Distance Trips (more than 160 miles driving distance) R2 Business log(TsurfacJP=TAir) = -6. 7 + 1.09 Usurfacc + 0.0104 GCAir .063 (14) (13) (12)

where Usurfacc = log(exp(2.9 - 0.0033 GCRail) + exp(-0.0029 GCau,))

Nonbusiness log(Tsurfac,!T Air) = -4.1 + l.04Usurfacc + 0.0072 CAir .44 (13) (14) (27)

where Usurfacc = log(exp(2.9 - 0.0034 GCRail) + exp(-0.0023 GCau,)]

Short Distance Trips.( 160 miles driving distance)

Business log(Tsurfacc!T Air) = -0. 7 + 1.19 Usurfacc + 0.0029 GCAir 0.57 (0.8) (5.8) (1.9) where Usurfacc log(exp(2.4 - 0.005 GCRan) + exp(-0.0038 GCeus))

Nonbusiness log(Tsurt!TAir) = 1.6 + 1.29 Usurfacc + 0.0037 GCAir 0.58 (4) (12) (6) where Usurfacc = log(exp(l.32 - 0.0049 GCRaii) + exp(-0.0034 GCau,))

(I! t-statistics are given in parentheses.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-15 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II .HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

The analysis for the top level of the hierarchy is of auto versus the public modes. The public modes are comprised of air and the surface modes (rail and bus). The utility of the public modes is obtained by deriving the logsum of the utilities of the air, rail, and bus modes.

As shown in Exhibit 5.5.6, the model calibrations for both trip purposes are all statistically significant, with good R2 and t values and reasonable parameters in most cases. The R2 value for the nonbusiness, short distance model is a bit low and marginally acceptable. Part of the reason for the poor fit is that local transit trips are not included in the public trip database causing some of the observations to deviate significantly from the model equation. The constant terms show that there is a bias towards the auto mode with the bias increasing with shorter trip length.

Exhibit 5.5.6 Public versus Auto Modal Split Model Coefficients<1l

Long Distance Trips (more than 160 miles driving distance) R2 Business log(Tutffauto) = -0.8 + 0.79UPublic + 0.0050 GCAuto 0.69 (3) (21) (31)

where UPublic = log(exp(-6.7 + 1.09 Usu,facc) + exp(-0.0104 GCAir))

Nonbusiness log(TPut!T Auto)= -0.8 + 0.68 UPublic + 0.0046 GCAuto 0.63 (12) (24) (39)

where Urublic= log(exp(-4.l + 1.04 Usurfacc) + exp(-0.0072 GCAir))

Short Distance Trips ( 160 miles driving distance)

Business log(TPublic/TAuto} = -5.4 + 1.16 UPub!ic +0.200 GCAuto 0.51 (16) (8) (8) where Urublic = log(exp(-0.7 + 1.19 Usurfacc) + exp(-0.00380 GCAir))

Nonbusiness log(T PubliJTAuto) = -6.5 + 0.96 Urublic + 0.0211 GCAuto 0.40 (26) (10) (10) where UPub!ic = log(exp(l.6 + 1.29 Usurfacc) + exp(-0.0037 GCAi,)) f!J I-statistics are given in parentheses.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-16 APPENDIX 5. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Incremental Form ofthe Modal Split Model Using the same reasoning as described in Section 3.1.4, the modal split models are applied incrementally to the base data rather than imposing the model estimated modal shares. Different regions of the corridor may have certain biases toward one form of travel over another and these differences cannot be captured with a single model for the entire Midwest Corridor. Using the "pivot point" method, many of these differences can be retained. To apply the modal split models incrementally, the following reformulation of the modal split models is used:

(pf A) I (I"' A)= ell/Ger,- GC:,) + rlGcr,. Ge!',) pf B p" B where PA = Percentage of trips using mode A in the forecast year GcfA = Generalized cost for mode A in the forecast year /3,y = Estimated coefficients Variables with superscript b refer to base year values.

For modal split models that involve composite utilities instead of generalized costs, the composite utilities would be used in the above formula in place of generalized costs. Once again, the constant term is not used and the drivers for modal shifts are changes in generalized cost from base conditions.

Another consequence of the "pivot point" method is that extreme changes from current trip­ making levels and current modal shares are rare. Thus, since very few short distance commuter trips are currently being made on Amtrak, the forecasted growth in these trips will be limited despite the huge auto market.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 5.5-17 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 6.1 Infrastructure Unit Costs Appendix 6.1

Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Stud\' Unit Costs

Sourco used for Unit Costs Source Legend Chicago to St. Louis H;ah Soeed Rail Caoital Cost Estimates of 1993 C/Sll Chicaao/Milwaukee Rail Corridor Study of 1997 C/M Midwest Regional Rail Initiative MRRI Charles H. Quandel & Associates, LLC CHOA Illinois Department of Transportal!on !DOT

Tri State II 1993 Indexed Owner ConsLrucUon Item Unit Unit Cost Unit Cost lnnation (2%) CM=4% GEC=3% Mgt=2% Cos! (1998) Source 1.0 Trackwork thousands 1998 $ 1.1 HSR on Existing Roadbed per mile $873 725,520 801,047 32,0421 24,031 16,021 873,141 C/Sll 1.2 HSR on New Roadbed lExislinQ ROW) per ml!e $932 774,308 854,913 34,197 25,647 17,098 931,856 C/SIL 1.2A HSR on New Roadbed (New ROW) per mile $1,376 CHQA 1.2B HSR on New Roadbed (Double Track} per milo $2,308 CHQA 1.3 Timber & Surface w/ 33% Tie replacement per mile $136 112,670 124,399 4,976 3,732 2,488 135,595 C/Stl 1.4 Timber & Surface w/ 66% Tie Replacement per mile $224 185,987 205,348 8,214 6,160 4,107 223,830 C/SlL 1.5 Relay Track w/ 136# CWR oer mHe $329 273,353 301,809 12,072 9,054 6,036 328,972 C/Stl 1,6 Sidina per mile $802 666,440 735,816 29,433 22,074 14,716 802,040 C/SIL 1.7 Fencing oer mile $49 40,080 44,252 1,770 1,328 885 48,235 C/Sll 1.8 Electrificalion per mile $991 CHQA 1.9 Other Track Work Chicago to Milwaukee LS $212,917 Table 1 C/M 1.10 Land Acauisition Madison per mile $5,000 CHQA 1.11 land Acquisition Urban oer mile $294 CHOA 1.12 Land Acquisition Rural 1oermue $9B CHOA

Table 1 ChicaaoJMifwaukoe Rail Corridor Study of 1997 Computation of Chicago.Milwaukee Infrastructure Costs from page 13 of Final Repor 1995 dollars Infrastructure Improvements Track Bridges Crossinas Statfons Signals Total Trackwork 98,231 98,231 §!JH1E!!E.f!.EX_Stem 44,174 44,174 Fencing 4,708 4,708 Rail Bridges 91,549 91,549 Rail Highway Crossinas 67,386 67,386 Station Improvements 19,250 19,250 ROW Acquistions 41,600 41,600 CM &Cantinoencies 56,099 56,099 Total 200,638 91,549 67,386 19,250 44,174 422,997 Inflation 2% per vear 212,917 97,152 71,510 20,428 46,877 448,884

Tri-State HSR II Unit Cost Appendix Appendix 6.1

Page 2 Unit Unit Cost 2.0 Stalions thousands 2.1 Full Service - New each $1,000 MRRI 2.2 Full Service - Renovated each $500 MRRI 2.3 Terminal - New each $2,000 MRRI 2.4 Terminal - Renovated each $1,000 MRRI 2.5 Maintenance {110 MPH technolonv) each $10,000 CHQA 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technology) each $86,000 CHQA 2.5B Maintenance (185 MPH technologyJ each $162,000 CHQA 2.6 Stations Chicaao to MIiwaukee LS $20.428 CIM

Tri Slate 11 1993 Indexed Owner Construction Unit Unit Cost Unit Cost Inflation {2%) CM=4% GEC=3% Mot=-2% Cost (1998) Source 4.0 Turnouts thousands 1998$ 4.1 New #33 - 136# High Speed each $555 460,787 508,755 20,350 15,263 10,175 554,543 CISIL

Tri State II 1993 Indexed Owner Construction Item Unit Unit Cost Unit Cost Inflation (2%) CM=4% GEC=3% Mgt=2% Cost (1998) Source 5.0 Bridges- Under thousands 1998 $ CHQA 5.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each $4,848 Table 2 4,447,388 177,896 133,422 88,948 4,847,653 CHQA 5.2 Four Lane Rural Exoresswav each $4,036 Table 2 3,702,578 148,103 111,077 74,052 4,035,810 CHQA 5.3 Two Lane Highway each $3,062 Table 2 2,808,806 112,352 84,264 56,176 3,061,599 CHQA 5.4 Rall each $3,062 Table 2 2,808,806 112,352 84,264 56,176 3,061,599 CHQA 5.5 Mlnor river each $812 Table 2 744,810 29,792 22,344 14,896 811,843 CHQA 5.6 MaJor River each $8,118 Table 2 7,448,100 297,924 223,443 148,962 8,118,429 CHQA 5.7 Mississiopi River LS $234,000 Table 2 214,654,242 8,586,170 6,439,627 4,293,085 233,973,124 CHQA 5.8 Interstate 90 Dakota Rvler Valley Structure LS $74,000 Table 2 67,889,432 2,715,577 2,036,663 1,357,789 73,999.480 CHQA 5.9 Elevated Structure Milwaukee per mlle $39,000 Table 2 35,655,544 1.426,222 1,069,666 713,111 38,864,543 CHQA 5.10 Elevated Struclure St Paul per mlle $39,000 Table2 35,655,544 1,426,222 1.069,666 713,111 38,864,543 CHQA 5. 11 Elevated Structure Chicago to Milwaukee per mile $39,000 Table2 35,655,544 1,426,222 1,069,666 713,111 38,864,543 CHQA 5.12 Bridges Chicago lo Milwaukee LS $97,152 Table 1 CIM

Tri-State HSR 11 2 Uni! Cost Appendix Appendix 6.1

Page 3

Table2 Bridpe Under Unit Costs Tola/ Type of Bridqe Lenath Width cost/sf Bridge Approaches Gen Cond Conlingency Engineerinu 1998 $ Urban mufti lane 400 37 150 2,220,000 1.094000 331,400 546,810 . 255 178 4,447,388 Rural Mulfi lane 300 37 150 1,665 000 1,094,000 275,900 455,235 212,443 3,702,578 Two Lane Highwav 180 37 150 999,000 1,094,000 209,300 345,345 161,161 2,808.806 Railroad 180 37 150 999,000 1,094,000 209,300 345.345 161.161 2,808,806 Major River 1000 37 150 5.550 000 0 555,000 915 750 427,350 7,448,100 Minor River 100 37 150 555,000 0 55,500 91,575 42,735 744 810 Mississipni River 28820 37 150 159,951,000 0 15 995,100 26,391,915 12,316,227 214,654,242 Interstate 90 Dakota Rvier Vaffev Structure 9115 37 150 50,588,250 0 5,058,825 8,347.061 3,895,295 67,889,432 Elevated Structure Milwaukee 5280 37 136 26,568,960 0 2,656,896 4,383,878 2,045,810 35 655,544 Elevated Structure St Paul 5280 37 136 26,568,960 0 2,656,896 4,383,878 2,045,810 35,655,544 Efovafod Structure Chicago to Milwaukee 5280 37 136 26,568 960 0 2,656,896 4,383 878 2,045,810 35,655,544

Definitions General Conditions: 10% Conlin_qency; 15% _fi,n!]ineering : 7% .

Tri State II 1993 Indexed Owner Construction Unit Cost Unit Cost Inflation (2% l CM=4% GEC-3% Mgt=2% Cost (1998) Source 6.0 Bridges - Over thousands 1998 $ 6.1 Four Lano Urban Expressway each 10,516 Table 3 9,648,126 385,925 289.444 192,963 10,516,457 CHOA 6.3 Two lane Highwav each 1,971 Table3 1,808,040 72,322 54,241 36,161 1,970,764 CHQA 6.4 Rall each 6,572 Table 3 6,028,020 241,121 180,841 120,560 6,570,542 CHQA 6.5 Viaducts - Major river each n/a 6.6 Tunnel (East and West Bound) per LF 10 Table 3 9,394 376 282 188 10,239 CHOA

Tri~State HSR 11 3 Unit Cost Appendix ··-~·

Appendix 6.1

Paae4

Table 3 Bridge Under Unit Costs Tola/ Tvpe of Bridoe Length Width cost/sf Bridge Earthwork Gen Cond Contingency Engineering 1998 $ Four Lano Urban Expresswav 200 96 240 4,608,000 1,250,000 2,050,300 1,186,245 553,581 9,648.126 Two Lane Highway 100 48 150 720,000 420,000 342,000 222,300 103,740 1,808 040 Rail 120 60 400 2,880,000 780,000 1,281,000 741,150 345,870 6,028,020 Tunnel (East and West Bound) 7,000 700 1155 539 9,394

Definitions General Conditions: 30% ConUnaencv: 15% Enf!lneen·ng : 7%

Tri State II 1993 Indexed Owner Construction Unit Cost UnllCost lnOalion (2%} CM=4% GEC=3% Mgt-2% Cost(1998) Source 7.0 Crossings thousands 1998 $ 7.1 Private Closure each 60 50,000 2,000 1,500 1,000 54,500 MRRI 7.2 Rural w/ Quadrant Gales each 274 216,179 238,683 9,547 7,160 4,774 260,165 C/SIL 7.4 Full Width Barrier each 550 500,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 545,000 IDOT 7.5 Crossings Chicago to Milwaukee LS 71,510 Table 1 C/M

Tri State II 1993 Indexed Owner Construction Unit Cos1 UnllCost lnflallon (2%) CM=4% GEC=3% Mgt=2% Cost (1998) Source 8.0 Signals thousands 1998 $ 8.1 High Speed Turnout each 1,098 912,664 1,007,672 40,307 30,230 20,153 1,098,363 C/StL 8.2 System lnstallallon forHSR (110MPH) per mile 150 MRRt 8.2A System Installation for HSR {150MPH} per mile 350 CHOA 8.2B System Installation for HSR (185MPH) per ml!e 980 CHOA 8.3 Signal Costs Chicago to Milwaukee LS 46,877 Table 1 C/M

Tri State II 1993 Indexed Owner Construction Unit Cos1 UnllCost lnllalion (2%) CM-4% GEC=3% M_gt=2% Cost (1998J Source ~· 9.0 Curves thousands 1998 $ 9.1 Elevate & Surface Curves per mile 42 34,880 38,511 1,540 1,155 770 41,977 C/SlL 9.2 Curvature Reduction per mile 284 235,606 260,133 10,405 7,804 5,203 283,545 C/Stl 9.3 Elastic Fasteners per mile 59 49,332 54.467 2,179 1,634 1,089 59,370 C/Stl

Tri-State HSR II 4 Unit Cost Appendix Appendix 6.1

Page 5 UNIT TRACK COST ESTIMATE #1.1

CONSTRUCTION ONE TRACK MILE OF NEW HSR MAIN TRAC~ ON EXISTING ROADBED $ 725.520

Raili115# - CWR- New Standard) 1 TM@ $121,200/TM $ 121.200 Mainline Crossties (7"x9"x8'-6" New} 3,200/fM@ $27.35/ea. $ 87.520 Tio Plates (13"0S. New) 6.400ffM@ $5.10/ea. $ 32,640 Rail Anchors {115#- New Unil}G,400/TM@ $.85/ea. $ 5.440 Track Spikes (New) - 25,600!TM (W $.31/ea. $ 7,936 Too Ballast-12" Deplh Under Tie AREA-#4 Granlto 4224 cy/TM x 1.23 NT/cy@ $15/NT $ 77.933

Subtotal Material $ 332,669

Labor $ 85,500 Overhead (85.34% of Labor) $ 72,966 Equipment {30% of Labor) $ 25.650 Plant Welds• 128/TM@ $40/ea $ 5,120 Field Welds 18/TM @ $400/ea. $ 7,200 Roadbed Preparalion 5,280/TF 1w $3.00/TF $ 15,840 Subballast In Place 6"x25 ft. x 5,280 fl.@ $10/cy X 115% $ 28,111 Drainaae $5,000fTM I $ 5,000 Material Handlina and Distribution (5% or Subtotal Material) jl 16633

Subtotal Installation $ 262,020

Subtotal $ 594,689

Engineering (7%) $ 41,628 Contingencies (15%) $ 89.203 Source: Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail Capital Cost Estimates I £nvirodyne Engineers, Inc .. 1993 I I I I I

Tri-State HSR II 5 Unit Cost Appendix Appendix 6.1

I I I UNIT TRACK COST ESTIMATE #1.2 I I I CONSTRUCT ONE MILE TRACK OF NEW HSR MAIN TRACK ON NEW ROADBEI $ n4,Joa

All Costs Shown Above in Estimate #2 $ 725,520 Plus Sile Clearing~ 5,280 ft x 35 ft.@ $2,800/AC $ 11,879 Subballasl in Place 6" x 25 ft. x 5,280 ft.® $10/c x 115% !Ii 28,111 . Subtotal $ 39,990

Engineering (7%) $ 2,799 Conlinoencies f15%l $ 5,999

Source: Chicago-St. Louis Hiah Speed Raif Capital Cost Estimates I Envirodvne Engineers, Inc.. 1993

UNIT TRACK COST ESTIMATE #1.3

TIMBER AND SURFACE ONE TRACK MILE OF MAIN TRACI USING 33% TIE REPLACEMENT I I $ 112,670 I I Mainline Crossties (7" x 9" x 8' ~ 6" New) 3,200rrM x 33%, - 1,056 @ $ 27 .35/e $ 28,882 Track Scikes 8,488ffM@ $.31/ea. $ 2,619 Ballasl 1,200 NTfTM (ii) $15/NT li 18,QQQ

Subtotal Material $ 49,501

Labor $ 18,750 Overhead {85.34% of labor) $ 16.001 Equipment (30% of labor) $ 5,625 Material Handling and Distribution f5% or Subtotal Material} li 2,4.?5

Subtotal Installation $ 42,851

Subtotal $ 92,352

Engineerin2 (7% l $ 6,465 Contingencies (15%1 $ 13,853

Source: Chicaao-St. Louis High Speed Rail . Capital Cost Estimates Envirodvno Enoineers, Inc.. 1993

Tri-Slate HSR II 6 Unit Cost Appendix Appendix 6.1

I UNIT TRACK COST ESTIMATE #1.4

TIMBER AND SURFACE ONE TRACK MILE OF EXISTING SIDIN~ UPGRADE TO MAIN TRACK USING 60% TIE REPLACEMENl $ 185,987

Malnline Crossties (7" x9* x 8' -6" New) 3,200ffM X 60%-1.92Q__ l,9:!: 27.35/ea. $ 52,512 Track Spikes 15,360/TM@ $.31/oa. $ 4,762 Ballast 1.200 NT/TM@ $15 NT li 18 000

Subtotal Material $ 75,274 labor $ 34,091 Overhead l 85.34% of labor) $ 29,093 Suipment (30% of Labor) $ 10,227 Material HandHna and Distribution (5% of Subtotal Material) li -- _3,76~ Subtotal lnslallatlon $ 77,175

Subtotal $ 152,449

Engineerina (7%) -$ 10,671 Contingencies {15%} $ 22,867 Sourco: Chicago-SI. Louis High Speed Rail Capital Cost Estimates tnvirodyno tnaineers, Inc .. 1993

Tri-State HSR II 7 Unit Cost Appendix Appendix 6.1

I UNIT TRACK COST ESTIMATE #1.5 I RELAY ONE TRACK MILE WITH NEW 115# CWR $ 273,353 I labor and Equipment to Pickup One Track Mile or Existina Jointed Rall and OTM $ 10,000

Salvage Credit 112# Relav Qualitv Rail -187 NTffM 1m $250/N $ (46,750 13" DS no Platos - 6,400/TM @ $2.50/ea. $ (16,000 36" Joint Bars - 270 prs.lTM @ $8.00/pr. $ (2. 160) Scrap OTM • 19 NT @ $89/NT $ (1,691)

Subtotal Salvage Credit $ (66,601) lnslall New 115# CWR Rail (115# CWR • New Standard\· 202 NT/TM (!)l $600/NT $ 121,200 Tie Plates (13"DS - Newl - 6.400/TM@ $5.10/oal $ 32,640 Rail Anchors (115# • Now Unit). 6,400@ $.85/ea. $ 5.440 !r.~ck Spikes (New)• 25,600f!~-~-~~~~.~=~.~---·- $ 7,936 ·-- --- ··--· ---"·-·-·· --·--•--- -··· .. ______,, ______. ------... -····-----·---····· -·-·· --·----- ... 'fi"UblOtai"f~fatertar·-- .. ,...... ··-· - . $ 167,216 -·--·--·-·--·-·-·-·· .•.. - -·-··-·-----·--··---- ··-·~-- ~•••••w~••-•""'-·-• •~•• ------· L8b0r -·--·-----·---·------··•o- $ 37,500 Overhead (85.34% of Labor~ ··--·--•-.-•----·· . $ -···· 32,003· .. ·--- Equipment (30% of Labo·rl .. - . ______,,. $ 11,250 Plant Welds - 128/TM@ $40/ea. ------•--,•·------·------··-·--- $ 5,120 Field Welds • 1 Bmf(jil $400/ea. $ 7,200 •e- •-••~~~~•~•,.--• • Material Handling and Distribution (5% of Subtotal Material) $ 8,361

Subtotal lnstallal!on $ 101,434

Subtotal Pickup, Material & Installation $ 278,650

Engineering (7%) $ 19,506 • •--w•••----••-• ---•·······---~--·- ---·· --··---- Continaendes {15%) $ 41,798

Source: .Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail Capital Cost Estimates Envirodyne Engineers, Inc .. 1993

Tri-State HSR II 8 Unit Cost Appondix Appondix 6.1

UNIT TRACK COST ESTIMATE# 1.6

UPGRADE ONE.TRACK MILE OF EXISTING SIDING~ $ 219,884

Rail (112# Reial CWR) 187 NT/TM@ 250/NT $ 46,750 Plant Welds 294/TM @ $40/ea. $ 11,760 13" OS Tie Plates - 6400/TM@ 2.50/ea. $ 16,000 Rail Anchors (112#- New Unit) 6,400ffM r,.-., $,85/ea. I $ 5.440 Track sr:ikes fNew}-25,600fTM rn1 $.31/ea. I I 7,936 I Subtolal Material $ 87,886

Labor $ 37,500 Overhead f85.34% of labor) $ 32,003 Equipment {30% of Labor) $ 11,250 Field Welds - 18/TM @ $400/ea. $ 7,200 Material Handlinq and Oistrlbulion (5% or Subtotal Material} I ""' 4,391

Subtotal lnstallal!on $ 92,347

Subtotal $ 180,233

Engineering (7%) $ 12,616 Conllnoencies (15%) $ 27.035

Tri-Slate HSR 11 9 Unit Cost Appendix Appendix 6.1

_CONSTRUCT ONE TRACK MILE OF FREIGHT SIDING ON NEW ROADBED USING RELAY MATERIAL $ 666,440

AU Material Shown In Above Estimate #12 $ 87,886 Plus Mainline Crosslles (7" x 9" x 8'6" New) 3,200/TM \1l) $27.35/ea. $ 87,520 Top Ballast - 12~ Oeoth Under Tie - Area #4 Granite 4,224 cy/TM x 1.23 NT/cv ,m $15/NT l; 77,933

Subtotal Material $ 253,339

Labor $ 85,500 Overhead (85.34% of Labor\ $ 72,966 Equipment (30% of Labor) $ 25,650 Flold Welds 18/TM@ $400/ea. $ 7,200 Roadbed Preoaration 5,280 TF @ $3.00ffF $ 15,840 Subballast in Place 12~ x 25 ft x 5,280 ft@ $10/cy x 115°/tt $ 56,222 Sile Clearing 5,280 ft x 35 ft@ $2,800/AC I $ 11,879 Drainaoe $5,000ffM I $ 5,000 Material Handlino and Distribution {5% of Subtotal Material} l; 12,667

Subtotal Installation $ 292,924

Subtotal $ 546,263

,!:nnineering (7%) $ 38,238 Contingencies 115%\ $ 81,939 Source: Chfcago-St. Louis High Speed Rail Capital Cost Estimates I Envirodvno Enoinoers, Inc .. 1993

Tri-Slate HSR 11 10 Unit Cost Appendix Appendix 6.1

UNIT TRACK COST ESTIMATE #4.1

INSTALL NEW #33 • 136# HIGH SPEED TURNOUT $ 460,787

Swilch Package, OTM, Rail, Concrete Ties and Field Welds $ 250,000 Ballast 753 NT@ $15/NT $ 11,295 FIiier Fabric 850 sy@ $2/sy ~ 1,700

Subtotal Material $ 262,995 labor $ 42,000 Overhead (85.34% of labor\ $ 35,843 Equioment $ 23,706 Material Handling and Distribution (5% of Subtolal Material) $ 13150

Subtotal Installation $ 114,699

Subtotal $ 377,694

En~ineering (7%-) $ 26,439 Contingencies {15%} $ 56,654 Source: Chicago.st. Louis High Speed Rail Capital Cost Estimates Envirodyne Ef!J!fneers, Inc .. 1993 I UNIT COST ESTIMATE #9.1

ELEVATE AND SURFACE CURVES FOR HIGH SPEED RAIL OPERATION! PER FOOT COST . $ 6.61 . Ballasl 1,200 NT/TM@ $15/NT I $ 18,000 ~aterial Handling and Distribution (5% of M~~r!~I) ______$ 900 . --·------·--- . Labor ...... $ 4,500 Overhead (85.34% of Labor) $ 3,840 ------·- ~-- ··-·· E_quipment {30% of Labor) .... ______,. __ - -- 1,350 ··---- . -··· ---···-·-·-·---· $ --·--·- ---·----· ------Subtotal $ 28,590 Engineering (7%) $ 2,001 Continaencies (15%\ $ 4,289

Total $ 34,880 Source: Chicag_o•St. Louis Hig_/1 Soeed Rail Capital Cost Estimates Envirodyne Engineers, Inc .. 1993

Tri-State HSR II 11 Unit Cost Appendix Appendix 6.1

UNIT TRACK COST ESTIMATE #9.2

REALIGN TRACK• PER FOOT COSl $ 44.62

Mainline Crosstles Renewal 3,200 x 50%@$27.35/ea. $ 43.760 Track Spikes 12.800/TM @$.31/ea. $ 3,968 Top Ballast 4,224 cy/TM x 1.23 NT/cy@$151NT li 7Z 933

Subtotal Material $ 125,661

Labor $ 28,409 Overhead (85.34% of Labor) $ 24,244 Equipment (30% of Labor) $ 8,523 Material Handling and Dislribullon (5% of Subtotal Material) li "~" s,~a.3_ Subtotal Installation $ 67,459

Subtotal $ 193,120

Enalneerina l7% \ $ 13,518 Contingencies {15%) $ 28,968

Total Track Cost $ 235,606 Source: Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail Capital Cost Estimates Envirodyne Engineers, Inc., 1993

Tri-State HSR II 12 Unit Cost Appendix Appendix 6. 1

I I UNIT TRACK COST ESTIMATE #9,3 I INSTALL ELASTIC FASTENERS ON ONE MILE OF EXISTING TRACK $ 81,142

Salvage Credit Tie Plates (Relay) - 6400/TM ,m $2.50/ea. $ (16,000) Rail Anchors (Relay) - 6400/TM @ $.13/ea, !! (8321

Subtotal Salva o Credits $ 116,832)

Tie Plales - 6400/TM@ 5.73/ea, $ 36,672 Lock Spikes - 25,600/TM ,w $.60/ea. $ 15,360 Elastic Hold Down C!ip-12,B00fTM@ $1.75/ea. !! 22400

Subtolal Material $ 74,432

Labor $ 1,000 Overhead {85.34 11/o of Labor) $ 853 Equipment (30% or Labor) $ 300 Material Handling and Distribution (5% of Subtotal Material) !! . ·~~· ~.iii

Subtotal Installation $ 5,875

Subtotal Material and Installation $ 80,307

' Engineering (7% of Subtotal M & I) $ 5,621 Contingencies ( 15% of Subtotal M & I) $ 12,046

Tri-State HSR II 13 Unit Cost Appendix '---·

Appendix 6.1

I UNIT TRACK COST ESTIMATE #13A I INSTALL ELASTIC FASTENERS ONONE MILE OF TRACK BEHIND CWR INSTALLATION $ 49,332

Avoided Cost $ (32,640) Tio Platos (Now)• 6400/TM@ $5.10/oa. $ (5,440) Rail Anchors (New) - 6400/TM uu $.85/ea. i (7,936) Track spikos (New) - 25,600/TM@ $.31/ea. Subtotal Avoided Cost $ 146,016)

Tie Plates. 6400/TM raJ $5.73/ea. $ 36,672 Lock Spikes - 25,600/TM@ $.60/ea. $ 15,360 Elastic Hold Down Clio - 12,S00!TM@ $1.75/ea. li 22,400

Subtotal Material $ 74,432

Materla! Handling and OlslribuUon (5% of Subtotal Material) i 3 722

Subtotal $ 78,154

Engineering (7% or Subtotal} $ 5,471 Cont~~~encies (15% of Subtotan $ 11,723

Sourco: Chicaao-St. Louis Hiah Speed Rall Capital Cost Eslimales Envirodyne Enaineers, Inc .. 1993

Tri-State HSR II 14 Unit Cost Appendix

TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 6.2.1 Infrastructure Detail: (Base Case) River Route 110 mph I Quandel Associates, LLC

Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 19-Jan-99

A-1 River Route 110 MPH Item Unit Unit Costs Quantity Amount 1.0 Trackwork 1.1 HSR on Existing Roadbed per mile $873 33 $28,809 1.2 HSR on New Roadbed (Existing ROW) per mile $932 40 $37,280 1.2A HSR on New Roadbed (New ROW) per mile $1,376 12 $16,512 1.2B HSR on New Roadbed (Double Track) per mile $2,308 1.3 Timber & Surface w/ 33% Tie replacement per mile $136 244 $33,184 1.4 Timber & Surface w/ 66% Tie Replacement per mile $224 1.5 Relay Track w/ 136# CWR per mile $329 1.6 Siding per mile $802 60 $48,120 1.7 Fencing per mile $49 331 $16,219 1.8 Electricfication per mile $991 1 .9 Other Track Work Chicago to Milwaukee LS $212,917 1 $212,917 1.10 Land Acquisition Madison per mile $5,000 3 $15,000 1.11 Land Acquisition Urban per mile $294 1.12 Land Acquisition Rural pemile $98 8 $784

Total Track Costs $408,825

2.0 Stations 2.1 Full Service - New each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.2 Full Service - Renovated each $500 5 $2,500 2.3 Terminal - New each $2,000 2 $4,000 2.4 Terminal - Renovated each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.5 Maintenance (110 MPH technology) each $10,000 1 $10,000 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technology) each $86,000 2.5B Maintenance (185 MPH technology) each $162,000 2.6 Stations Chicago to Milwaukee LS $20,428 1 $20,428 Total Station Cost $38,928

4.0 Turnouts 4.1 New#33-136# High Speed each $555 20 $11,100 Total Turnout Cost $11,100 Quandel Associates, LLC

Page2 A-1 River Route 11 0 MPH Item Unit Unit Costs Quantity Amount 5.0 Bridges - Under 5.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each $4,848 0 $0 5.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each $4,036 5.3 Two Lane Highway each $3,062 3 $9,186 5.4 Rail each $3,062 5.5 Minor river each $812 6 $4,872 5.6 Major River each $8,118 1 $8,118 5. 7 Mississippi River LS $234,000 5.8 Interstate 90 Dakota Rvier Valley Structure LS $74,000 5.9 Elevated Structure Milwaukee per mile $39,000 5.1 0 Elevated Structure St Paul per mile $39,000 5.11 Elevated Structure Chicago to Milwaukee per mile $39,000 5.12 Bridges Chicago to Milwaukee LS $97,152 1 $97,152 Total Bridges - Under Costs $119,328

6.0 Bridges - Over 6.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each 10,516 1 $10,516 6.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each 2,630 6.3 Two Lane Highway each 1,971 6.4 Rail each 6,572 6.5 Viaducts - Major river each 6.6 Tunnel (East and West Bound) per LF 10 Total Bridges Over $10,516

7 .0 Crossings 7 .1 Private Closure each 60 151 $9,060 7 .2 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates each 274 246 $67,404 7 .3 Urban w/ Quadrant Gates each 341 0 $0 7.4 Full Width Barrier each 550 7 .5 Crossings Chicago to Milwaukee LS 71,510 1 $71,510 Total Crossings Cost $147,974

8.0 Signals 8.1 High Speed Turnout each 1,098 10 $10,980 8.2 System Installation for HSR (11 0MPH) per mile 150 348 $52,200 8.2A System Installation for HSR (150MPH) per mile 350 8.2B System Installation for HSR (185MPH) per mile 980 8.3 Signal Costs Chicago to Milwaukee LS 46,877 1 $46,877 Total Signals Cost $110,057

9.0 Curves 9.1 Elevate & Surface Curves per mile 42 9 378 9.2 Curvature Reduction per mile 284 9 2,556 9.3 Elastic Fasteners per mile 59 9 531 Total Curve Upgrade Cost 3,465

Total Upgrade Cost $850,193

Quandel Associates, LLC

Tri-Stale Phase II HSR Feasibility Study I f j 1 1 ! j ! I

1.1 HSR on Existir.n Roadbed pet milo i $873 331 $28.609 \ 33 l 28.809 • l . 33 i S 28,809

1.2 on Roadbed (Exis0 1 -4-___ HSR New ti on~o'cR~O+V~'1'----,'P::.~l~is"s+-b+-r-'~l"-,l"ls"-s~b~,"-'o,;S"1~o"a~u~l-+Ti=o,_t~all---i-c--~--I E't·OTS~t~a"lio~o"'l--~------l-,-----+1____ ~1----!-----l------'+IO~u~a~o"t:t~v_ Amount QuantitL.. Amount /Ouanlilv Amount Ouanlilv Amount Quanlilv /Amount Quan1ilv !Amount Quantitv IAmoun1 Quan!itv Amount 2.1 Fu!! Service· New each i St.COOi 1) S1.000 f ··t==~--tl== f-1 ==~t'i==~-r==-t==~+.c==-t==~-p==-t=="-:,r 1'""1°'.o°'oc-0-F==-;==~-+=="'c, +.5==c,cc,Oc=OO,-! f-2'c.2;cF.'·u"ll~S;=cc;N'-'lc7e,_-~R"-on~oic,""~•,,d ______Fo"-ac"h;-_!-! -~,,_S50s::,0+l __-"5+1 __Ss,2cc,5e,0c,D+-----+l---+----+1 __ _!.1+1--"S"'0"0+i---+-----il ___ -fl--=+----i---+--'2+1-~1,~00~0'+--~2+-+-l--'1.~00~0+l __ ~5'-+-S,.-_2,_,~50~0 01 f-2~.3~T~e,.r~m~i."~·'c;'-•~N"e~w-c-c------f•"o,_,~h1---ji---'S?2",0~0~011---"2~1--"S4~,"00~0'+----+i___ +---l-'-----l-'--=+---+----+! __ _c1'+-"2~,0~D,,_O+---t' ____ 11-----+- '---l----~•~l---'2~,"00~0e_,.i__ _,2,_irS"-_ 24~,0~0"-0~ 2.4Tormina1-Renovaled each i S1.000, H $1,000 i t ! 1,000 i I I I i ! I 1 S 1.000 2.5Maintenance{110MPH1ochnolom,i oach I $10.000\ t! S10,GOO I I ! 1 I i I 11 10,000 1 $ 10.000 f,2c,.5c,Acil°"•,1,,ai"'ot"'e""oa"o~c~c.,_{1"-5"'0-"Me;P~ll"t°'e,=:h"-,~ol,,o0o,y,,l __-l'e"'n',"h'---l--l~Sc,1"00,o.,c00~0'+1 ___,!, ____ J- ____ 1___ +---+---',----+---t-l---t----+----t-l ___ i-i ___ t----ci ___ +l---t-----l----·+-z$ ____ 1 2.5BMaintenance(185MPHtechnolog1'.),____ 21c"'n"Ch"----''-"S~16~,2~,"-00~0~Jl ___ -+i----+-----l-----l-----l-----/l----+----l--l----l----+----l'------l'----+---.!'----•'---+----+---+S~----I 1 ;L? Stations Chicago,_t"o~t"',li"-hv.. ,.. u"'kc"e~----.!l"L"S __ l-i-~S~2~0".4~2~8+-l ___!,1.!! __c,Sf.Q.~"~'-+------''--t--~'~"~-',-2~8+----+---=+----t------+l----+--=-lt-----+-'---;------a----+l----+-----+---'-+~S-~2~0,_.4~2~8_, Tota! Station Cost ! ! 1 $38.928 i 20.428 1 1,500 ! I 2.000 I ! I ! 2.000 i 13.GOO Is 38,928 Qu;:mdel Associates, LLC

1 ~9e2 f I l 1 T i j 1 I J ( i ! I I T --~-·- j I I I I - j j I i j l I j I j I j A-1 River Rouie 110 MPH t ! i I -~eqment 1 Senment 2 I Segment 3 I Segment 4 l Segment 5 1 Segment 6 1 Seg.ment 7 ) 1Hem )Unit !Unit Cosis Ouanlit" [Amount l Chic.:iqo to Milwaukee Milw to W.:i!ertown I Water 10 H~/ 51 i Airport Track 1 Madison to Portc1a~ Por1aoe to fv1!ss br 1 Miss br to Sty<1ul l Total 14.0Tumouts I i [ I· l Ouan!ilv ~Amount Ouanm'-'. iAmount lo,.wntity ~Amount !Ouanlity J~mount IOuanlily 1Amount IOuantity [Amount !Ouan!ilv !,'\mount 1 Quan!il" i Amount 14.1 New#33· 1361tHighSpeed each I $555, 20. SJ.!.,_1007 I ! 4, 2.220 I . --1.__L_ 1,110 i 2T 1,119 I ~- 2.220 I 4 1 2,220_! 41 2,22Q_) 20 ! $------11,_100 ~-~T I I I _1._ ,- -1- ___! I I I ,- I _L __I jTota1TumoutCost i -!-· I $11,1001 I ! ____ j 2.2201 I 1,1101 l u10j· l 2.:2201··· j 2.2201 i 2,2201 IS 11,1001 ' i I --~ I I I I I 1 · l - ! I Setii:!:!£~.!. Se"rnenl 2 I Senmenl 3 1 Segment 4 j Segment 5 I Scgmunt 6 . Seq.men! 7 j t I Chic.1no to Milwau\<.eo Mi!w to \Natertown 1 Weller to H!_\'Y. 51 ! Airport Tmck i Madison to Portane Po~Qge lo Miss br rMiss br t :> SI paul 5.0 Bri~ges. Under I I !Quantity !Amount Quantitv !Amount 1g_u_i!~_.. ,1Amoun! jQuanl:lv JAmour,I~ jOuan~itv !Amount ·louantitv iAmounl !Ouan!i!y__ lAmount I 5.1 Four Lano Urban E)(nresswa'-' leach S4,848 I so i i I I I i j · I j T I 5.2 Four lane Rural Ell:pmsswav leoch __S'!_.036 1 _j -·---! -! i ·- l l 1 5.JTwolaneHichwa eoch i 53.062 31 $9.t861 1 " ,...,,,,,9,186 I '11<: u1m,1 5.4 Rail each S3.0£2 1 t :-4,872 ' T 4~872 5.5Minorriver ___leach $812 . _6 $4,872 ! l B ! ~ 1 8,1180 0 1 1 5.6 Maior River leach I SB.118! 11 :58.~_l,B_L .. _ .. _ 1 t -·--J- ... --.... -.. , , : • • 1 i S 8.118 I ! 1 5.7 Mississi""i River -LS I $234,000! I -r I ! ! I i --, 5.8 lnlerstale 9-0 Dakota Rvier Val!ev Structure ,LS I S74,000l I I I i I I ! -! 5.9 Elevated Structure Milwaukee 1per mile I s_;rn,0001 1 I I I I 1· ·· I I-~ ?J.Q...§.1£.Yaled Structure St Paul !oer m:!e 1 $39,000 I ! ! ! I _j I ! 5.11 Elevated Structum Chic.1go 10 Milwaukee /per mile i $39,000 I l I ! I ! 5.12 Brid_g£sChicaootoM:lwaukee !LS $97,152 1 S97,152 I 1 97,1521 I 1 __I I ! ! ! ] S1 H,).328! _I___QZ_,_ 152 • ! 12.990 1 9,1861 I !_o.tnl Btidaes • Under Costs t I -- I ! I I =+--+---'- ~---:i - \ $ 119,328 I 1 I 1-l-- , __I j I i----+---+------,----+·s~e~o~m~e~,~•~•==--,--I Sagmenl 2 l Segment 3 I Segment 4 f0S~,~9~"~--~--~----=-: .,ent ~-----1·~-~-s•-~·~-~-~--~:+----+""'""'°'"'--'c----+~--+----!5 ! l Chica oto Milwaulme Milw lo Waterlown 1 Water lo H~ 51 i Airport T,ack I Madison lo Portag~--_Porta e lo Miss br Miss brio S\. .£Q.':lL __ ]. Tol~a~I-+----! ,-- -1-- ! l !Quantity Amount Ouanlil !Amount 10uan!il' Amour.I IOuantit Amount IOuantit !Amount IOuantity !Amount Quant:! _j_AmauD_I __I Quanlit" Amount $ __ 1_i!c516 .... , , ...... , .. ...,,,_ ., •.., ...... ~., ...... ~. ln;i.ch I 10.srn10.516 l 1 s10.srn I I I 1 1 _J_Q,_516 I i J _____1 I i 1 "'"', V'-''.'c""" '"'"" ... ~.,,.,..,.... .,. ·----·!n:.r.h 2.6302,630 l ! j l ___j ! _j ___I I I tJ,.,}fWVl..<'''-'"''!l••~•<>~ !':!'"'.'.h 1,97t1Q711 T! ! i j I ! j u ... """ ,.,.,....la<>rh 6,572R '>77 I I _ _J I -- i I f""1t.h _I__ _ 1~ ••• "'"""""" ·•"" "'"' I I I I I ---' u,u_,'-'HH'-'_\I,.._...,_~••'"'""""'''-•"-'""". perLF -r------,o·I i ! I I i I I ____I ! I I I 7 j $10516) I 10.51§_ 1 I I 7 1 I s_ 10_,_517 Total Bridgos•Over Costs ____j I _$J_Q,_516J ! I Ounr.del Associates, LLC

I I I I I I I !Unit !Unit Costs lOuanti!y iAmoun\' I I I i I ' each ! 60 each I 274 45 I 12,330 I 21 I 5,754 each I 341 I I I each ' 550 i I I i I ' LS i 71,510 1 $71,510 1 I 71.510 I I I i ! I I I I I I I I $147.974 i 71.510 13,050 I 7,674 I I \ 7,724 I 23.584 1 24.432 l S 147,974 I I I I ' I I I I I I I I \ Seoment 1 Secmenl 2 ! SeGment 3 t SMment4 \ Seqment 5 Seqmen\ 6 ( Sen.men! 7 ! I i Chicaoo to Milwaukee Mi1w to VVatertown I Waler lo Hwv 51 Airoort Track Madison to Portane Por1ar.e to Miss br J Miss br to St paul ! Total 8.0 Signals i !Ouantitv_.. -4~mou111="'-- ➔Q=""~"~l!!Y. !Amount 1Ouan1i1v IAmount Quan1ity !Amount Quantitv !Amount OuanHlt_ IAmount !Ouantlly !Amount I Ouar.li~v.'c'~A~m=ou~o~t=c-1 8.1 Hinh $peed Turnout 10\ $10,980 ! I 2 i 2,196 ! 1 1,098 1 I 1.098 2 \ 2,196 2 ! 2,196 ! 2 ! 2.196 I 10 $ 10,980 8.2 Svslem lnsla!latlon for HSR r110MPHl 348' $52.200 I 46 6,900 ! 32 4,600 ! 6 900 . 31 f 4 650 111 l 16,sso l 122 ! 18.300 348 s s2.200 8.2A Svstem lnsta!la\lon for HSR C150MPHl I ! ! \ I I ! I S ---·- 8.28 System Installation for HSR /185MPH\ ! I I I I s 8.3 Signal Costs Chicago to Milwaukee 1 $46,877 1 46,877 I I 1 s 46,877 I I I I !_olal Signals Cost $110,057 46,877 9,096 I 5,898 t 8 I I 6,646 i ! 18,846 I 20.496 $ 110.057 i I l I I I ! l Seomenl 1 Seamen\ 2 \ Secment 3 ! Seomeot 4 SeQment 5 Seamen! 6 Seg,menl 7 Miss br lo St eau! l Tota! Quanllt~ !Amount IOuanlil~ Amount I s 378 9 I 2,556 2 I 568 ! I t I l ! 7 I 1,988 9 s 2,556 9 531 ! 2 i 118 I I ! ! i 7 ! 413 9 s 531 I I I I Total Curve Uoorn:de Cost 3.465 \ 770 I i I \ ! 2,695 $ 3,465 I I I I i Tola! Unorade Cost $850.193! ! $448.884 $43.845! $76.634/ S35,1731 I S61.605! j $78,394! I $105,658 $650,194

Quandel Associates, LLC

A-1 River Route Trackwork Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 85.7 90.57 4.87 Watertown Sub 90.57 98.40 7.83 7.83 7.83 Watertown Sub 98.40 104.20 5.80 5.80 5.80 Watertown Sub 104,20 131.20 27.00 27.00 27.00 Waterloo Spur 131.30 163.85 32.55 32.55 32.55 Airport 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3 Madison/Portage 0.00 30.90 30.90 22.30 8.60 30.90 8 Watertown Sub 2 176.90 178.20 1.30 Tomah 178.20 179.00 0.80 Tomah 179.00 180.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tomah 180.40 243.40 63.00 63.00 63.00 Tomah 243.80 246.30 2.50 2.50 2.50 Tomah 246.30 257.10 10.80 10.80 10.80 Tomah 257.10 280.00 22.90 22.90 22.90 Tomah 280.00 283.00 3.00 Tomah 283.00 284.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tomah 284.40 288.00 3.60 3.60 3.60 River 288.00 288.05 · 0.05 0.05 0.05 River 288.05 306.60 18.55 18.55 18.55 River 310.80 312.80 2.00 2.00 2.00 River 312.80 369.30 56.50 56.50 56.50 River 369.30 371.50 2.20 2.20 2.20 River 371.50 372.70 1.20 1.20 1.20 River 372.70 376.30 3.60 3.60 3.60 River 376.30 · 389.80 13.50 13.50 13.50 River 389.90 391.10 1.20 1.20 1.20 River 391.10 407.40 16.30 16.30 0.00 16.30 Merriman Park 407.40 408.90 1.50 1.50 Merriman Park 408.9 410.2 1.30 0 1.30 Total 340.55 32.55 39.80 11.60 243.83 330.58 . Quandel Associates, LLC

Page2 Definition of Units 1.1 HSRex High Speed Rail trackwork on Existing Roadbed with a unit cost of $873,000 per mile 1.2 HSRnew High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (Existing Right of Way) with a unit cost of $932,000 per mile 1.2AHSR High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (New Right of Way) with a unit cost of $1,376,000 per mile 1.2BHSR High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (Double Track) with a unit cost of $2,308,000 per mile 1.3T&S33 Timber and Surface with 33% Tie Replacement with a unit cost of $136,000 per mile 1.7Fence Fencing of High Speed Rail Route on both sides with a unit cost of $49,000 per mile Land Miles of Land required for construction of a high speed rail route at specifed unit costs

Segment #2 Milwaukee to Watertown Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne11.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 85.7 90.57 4.87 Watertown Sub 90.57 98.40 7.83 7.83 7.83 Watertown Sub 98.40 104.20 5.80 5.80 5.80 Watertown Sub 104.20 131.20 27.00 27.00 27.00 Total 45.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.63 40.63

Segment #3 Watertown to Highway 51 Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Waterloo Spur 131.30 163.85 32.55 32.55 32.55

Segment #4 Airport Track . Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Airport 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3

Segment #5 Madison to Portage Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Madison/Portage 0.00 30.90 30.90 22.30 8.60 30.90 8 Quandel Associates, LLC

Page 3 Segment #6 Portage to River Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 2 176.90 178.20 1.30 Tomah 178.20 179.00 0.80 Tomah 179.00 180.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tomah 180.40 243.40 63.00 63.00 63.00 Tomah 243.80 246.30 2.50 2.50 2.50 Tomah 246.30 257.10 10.80 10.80 10.80 Tomah 257.10 280.00 22.90 22.90 22.90 Tomah 280.00 283.00 3.00 Tomah 283.00 284.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tomah 284.40 288.00 3.60 . 3.60 3.60 Total 110.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 105.60 105.60 0.00

Segment # 7 River ot St Paul Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land River 288.00 288.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 River 288.05 306.60 18.55 18.55 18.55 River 310.80 312.80 · 2.00 2.00 2.00 River 312.80 369.30 56.50 56.50 56.50 River 369.30 371.50 2.20 2.20 2.20 River 371.50 372.70 1.20 1.20 1.20 River 372.70 376.30 3.60 3.60 3.60 River 376.30 389.80 13.50 13.50 13.50 River 389.90 391.10 1.20 1.20 1.20 River 391.10 407.40 16.30 16.30 0.00 16.30 Merriman Park 407.40 408.90 1.50 1.50 Merriman Park 408.9 410.2 1.30 0 1.30 Total 117.90 0.00 17.50 0.00 0.00 97.60 117.90 0.00 . Quandel Associates, LLC

Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 19-Jan-99

A-1 River Route 110 MPH Proposed Station Modifications and Maintenance Facilities

Station Type Recommended Action Cost ($000) Milwaukee Union Station Terminal Renovation $ 1,000 Brookfield/Watertown Full Service Renovation $ 500 Madison Terminal New $ 2,000 Wisconsin Dells Full Service Renovation s 500 Tomah Full Service New $ 1,000 Lacrosse Full Service Renovation $ 500 Red Wing Full Service Renovation $ 500 Hastings Full Service Renovation $ 500 St Paul Union Station Terminal Major Renovations $ 2,000

Maintenance Facility 110 MPH Technology New $ 10,000

Summary 2.0 Stations 2.1 Full Service - New each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.2 Full Service - Renovated each $500 5 $2,500 2.3 Terminal - New each $2,000 2 $4,000 2.4 Terminal - Renovated each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.5 Maintenance (110 MPH technology) each $10,000 1 $10,000 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technology) each $100,000 2.5B Maintenance (185 MPH technology) each $162,000 2.6 Stations Chicago to Milwaukee LS $20.428 1 $20.428 Total Station Cost $38,928 Quandel Associates, LLC

Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 19-Jan-99

A-1 River Route 110 MPH Recommended Action for Bridges Under and Bridges Over I Segment #3 Watertown to Hwy 51 Name North West Type of Bridge Crawfish River 43.19433 88.87683 Major Maunesha River 43.18017 89.00800 Minor Maunesha River 43.17883 89.03333 Minor Maunesha River 43.17833 89.03550 Minor Maunesha River 43.18083 89.07733 Minor Maunesha River 43.18167 89.08333 Minor Maunesha River 43.18217 89.08850 Minor

Segment #4 Airport Track Name North West Type of Bridge Highway 51 43.10733 89.33867 4 Lane UrbanExpressway - Over Anderson 43.12117 89.35233 2 Lane Under Pankrantz 43.12150 89.35233 2 Lane Under International Lane 43.12250 89.35300 2 Lane Under

Summary 5.0 Bridges - Under 5.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each $4,848 0 $0 5.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each $4,036 5.3 Two Lane Highway each $3,062 3 $9,186 5.4 Rail each $3,062 5.5 Minor river each $812 6 $4,872 5.6 Major River each $8,118 1 $8,118 5. 7 Mississippi River LS $234,000 5.8 Interstate 90 Dakota Rvier Valle LS $74,000 5.9 Elevated Structure Milwaukee per mile $39,000 5.10 Elevated Structure St Paul per mile $39,000 5.11 Elevated Structure Chicago to per mile $39,000 5.12 Bridges Chicago to Milwauke LS $97,152 1 $97,152 Qwndel Associates, LLC

Total Bridges - Under Costs $119,328 page 2 A-1 River Route 110 MPH Recommended Action for Bridges Under and Bridges Over 6.0 Bridges - Over 6.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each 10,516 1 $10,516 6.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each 2,630 6.3 Two Lane Highway each 1,971 6.4 Rail each 6,572 6.5 Viaducts - Major river each 6.6 Tunnel (East and West Bound) per LF 20 Total Bridges Over $10,516 Quandel Associates, LLC

Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 19-Jan-99

A-1 River Route 110 MPH Recommended Action for Bridges Under and Bridges Over

Segment #3 Watertown to Hwy 51 Name North West Type of Bridge Crawfish River 43.19433 88.87683 Major Maunesha River 43.18017 89.00800 Minor Maunesha River 43.17883 89.03333 Minor Maunesha River 43.17833 89.03550 Minor Maunesha River 43.18083 89.07733 Minor Maunesha River 43.18167 89.08333 Minor Maunesha River 43.18217 89.08850 Minor

Segment #4 Airport Track Name North West Type of Bridge Highway 51 43.10733 89.33867 4 Lane UrbanExpressway • Over Anderson 43.12117 89.35233 2 Lane Under Pankrantz 43.12150 89.35233 2 Lane Under International Lane 43.12250 89.35300 2 Lane Under

Summary 5.0 Bridges - Under 5.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each $4,848 0 $0 5.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each $4,036 5.3 Two Lane Highway each $3,062 3 $9,186 5.4 Rail each $3,062 5.5 Minor river each $812 6 $4,872 5.6 Major River each $8,118 1 $8,118 5. 7 Mississippi River LS $234,000 5.8 Interstate 90 Dakota Rvier Valle LS $74,000 5.9 Elevated Structure Milwaukee per mile $39,000 5.10 Elevated Structure St Paul per mile $39,000 5.11 Elevated Structure Chicago to per mile $39,000 5.12 Bridges Chicago to Milwauke~LS $97,152 1 $97,152 · Ooandel Associates, LLC

Total Bridges - Under Costs $119,328 page 2 A-1 River Route 110 MPH Recommended Action for Bridges Under and Bridges Over 6.0 Bridges - Over 6.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each 10,516 1 $10,516 6.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each 2,630 6.3 Two Lane Highway each 1,971 6.4 Rail each 6,572 6.5 Viaducts - Major river each 6.6 Tunnel (East and West Bound) per LF 20 Total Bridges Over $10,516 Quandel Associates, LLC

A-1 River Route 110 MPH Technology Grade Crossings Segment #2 Milwaukee to Watertown Subdivision Milepost Cost ($000) Recommended Action Watertown sub 93.80 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 95.10 S274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 95.30 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 97.40 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 98.40 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 99.40 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 100.50 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 101.50 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 102.20 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 102.40 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 102.50 $60 Closure Watertown sub 104.30 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 105.20 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 105.75 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 106.20 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 106.80 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 108.20 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 109.80 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 110.01 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 111.30 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 113.10 $60 Closure Watertown sub 114.50 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 114.80 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 115.50 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 115.90 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 117.40 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 117.70 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 117.80 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub· 117.90 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 118.05 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 118.20 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 118.30 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 118.70 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 119.50 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 122.50 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 123.20 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 123.70 $60 Closure Watertown sub 123.77 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 124.60 $60 Closure Watertown sub 125.00 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 125.45 $60 Closure Watertown sub 125.50 $60 Closure Watertown sub 125.85 $60 Closure Watertown sub 126.30 $60 Closure Watertown sub 126.40 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 127.30 $60 Closure Watertown sub 127.60 $60 Closure Watertown sub 128.20 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Quandel Associates, LLC

Page2 Subdivision Milepost Cost ($000) Recommended Action Watertown sub 128.80 $60 Closure Watertown sub 129.10 $60 Closure Watertown sub 129.40 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 129.50 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 129.95 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 130.10 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 130.40 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 130.60 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 130.99 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates

Summary Segment #2 Unit Cost Quantity Amount Private Closure $60 12 $720 Rural w/Quadrant Gates $274 45 $12,330 Total Grade Crossinas $13,050 Quandel Associates, LLC

I Page 3 Segment #3 Watertown to Hwy 51 Subdivision Milepost Cost (SOOO) Recommended Action Waterloo Spur 132.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 133.45 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 133.50 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 133.60 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 133.95 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 134.45 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 134.65 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 134.80 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 135.45 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 135.85 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 136.20 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 136.71 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 136.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 137.30 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 137.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 138.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 138.40 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 139.00 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 139.45 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 139.65 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 139.90 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 140.80 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 141.70 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 143.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 144.00 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 144.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 144.35 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 144.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 144.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 144.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 145.30 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 145.61 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 145.90 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 146.30 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 147.00 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 148.00 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 148.40 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 149.60 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 150.45 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 150.85 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 152.40 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 152.90 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 154.40 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 154.90 $60 Closure Waterloo Sour 155.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 155.75 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Sour 156.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Quandel Associates, LLC

Page4 Subdivision Milepost Cost ($000) Recommended Action Waterloo Spur 157.60 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 157.80 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 158.30 S60 Closure Waterloo Spur 159.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 159.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 161.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates

Summary Segment #3 Unit Cost Quantity Amount Private Closure $60 32 $1,920 Rural w/Quadrant Gates $274 21 $5,754 Total Grade Crossinas $7,674 Quandel Associates, LLC

Page 5 I Segment #5 Madison to Portage Subdivision Milepost Cost ($000) Recommended Action Madison-Portag 30,85 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 30.40 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates Madison-Portag 28,70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 27,90 $60 Closure Madison-Portag 27,15 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 26,50 $60 Closure Madison-Portag 26,30 $60 Closure Madison-Portag 25,70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 25,55 $60 Closure Madison-Portag 25.40 $60 Closure Madison-Portag 25,30 $60 Closure Madison-Portag 25,20 $60 Closure Madison-Portag 24,80 $60 Closure Madison-Portag 24.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 24.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 23.75 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 23.10 $60 Closure i Madison-Portag 22.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 22.40 $60 Closure Madison-Portag 22.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 21.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 20,15 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates • I Madison-Portag 19.40 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates I 17.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates i .I Madison-Portag Madison-Portag 16.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 14,20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 10.40 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gales Madison-Portag 9.40 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates Madison-Portag 8.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 7.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 7.20 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates Madison-Portag 6.50 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates Madison-Portag 3.45 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 2.20 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates Madison-Portag 0.45 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 0.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales

Summary Segment #5 Unit Cost Quantity Amount Private Closure $60 10 $600 Rural w/Quadrant Gates $274 26 $7,124 Total Grade Crossinos $7,724 Quandel Associates, LLC

Page 6 Subdivision Milepost Cost ($000) Recommended Action Tomah, CPSoo 180.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 180.90 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 181.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 182.70 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 183.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 184.50 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 185.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 186.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 187.00 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 190.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 191.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 191.90 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 193.80 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 194.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 197.75 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 200.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 200.50 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 201.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 203.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 203.65 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 203.75 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 204.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 204.75 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 205.10 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 205.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 205.80 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 207.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 208.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 209.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 210.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 210.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 212.75 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 212.90 S274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 214.10 S274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 214.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 214.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 214.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 214.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 214.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 214.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 215.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 215.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 216.10 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 216.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 218.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 218.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 219.95 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 220.40 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 220.75 $60 Closure Quandel Associates, LLC

Page 7 Subdivision Milepost Cost ($000) Recommended Action Tomah,CPSoo 221.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 221.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 222.20 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 222.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 223.40 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 223.95 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 224.01 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 224.50 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 225.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 226.10 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 227.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 227.65 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 228.95 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 229.50 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 230.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 231.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 231.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 233.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 237.50 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 239.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 239.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 240.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 240.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 241.20 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 242.60 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 242.80 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 243.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 247.20 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 249.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 251.80 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 252.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 254.05 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 254.60 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 255.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 256.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 256.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 256.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 257.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 258.20 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 258.80 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 259.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 260.40 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 260.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates I Tomah, CPSoo 261.50 $60 Closure j Tomah, CPSoo 261.75 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 262.50 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 263.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 265.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 266.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Quandel Associates, LLC

Page 8 Subdivision Milepost Cost ($000) Recommended Action Tomah, CPSoo 266.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 266.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 267.01 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 267.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 267.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 268.10 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 268.50 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 268.70 S60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 268.90 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 269.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 269.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 270.90 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 271.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 271.40 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 271.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 274.40 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 274.90 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 275.90 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 279.70 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 279.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 280.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 28"1.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 282.40 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 284.80 $60 Closure

Summary Segment #6 Unit Cost Quantity Amount Private Closure $60 46 $2,760 Rural w/Quadrant Gates $274 76 $20,824 Total Grade Crossinos $23,584 Quandel Associates, LLC

Page 9 Subdivision Milepost Cost ($000) Recommended Action River, CPSoo 288.16 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 288.20 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 288.31 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 288.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 288.65 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 288.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 288.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 289.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 289.98 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 293.10 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 293.90 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 294.70 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 295.20 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 295.60 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 295.70 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 295.80 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 296.05 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 296.57 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 297.40 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 297.50 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 297.90 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 301.05 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 302.90 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 303.10 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 303.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 303.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 306.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 307.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 307.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 308.00 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 308.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 308.48 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 308.75 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 308.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 309.05 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 309.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 309.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 309.55 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 309.65 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 309.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 310.11 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 310.75 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 311.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 312.10 $274 Rural w/Quaclrant Gates River, CPSoo 312.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 313.30 $274 Rural w/Quaclrant Gates River, CPSoo 314.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 314.55 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 314.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Quandel Associates, LLC

Page 10 Subdivision Milepost Cost ($000) Recommended Action River, CPSoo 314.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 319.85 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 320.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 325.40 S60 Closure River, CPSoo 327.85 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 329.00 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 329.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 331.30 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 332.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 333.65 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 334.20 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 334.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 335.22 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 336.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 339.60 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 340.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 341.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 342.01 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 342.30 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 343.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 345.20 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 351.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 353.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 353.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 354.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 354.70 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 355.02 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 355.65 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 357.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 357.50 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 357.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 359.01 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 359.50 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 359.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 360.01 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 360.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 360.50 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 360.85 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 363.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 365.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 365.75 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 365.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 366.28 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 366.62 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 366.83 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 367.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 370.63 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 370.69 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 371.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Quandel Associates, LLC

_Page 11 Subdivision Milepost Cost ($000) Recommended Action River, CPSoo 377.45 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates River, CPSoo 378.12 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 378.59 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 379.99 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 380.23 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 380.90 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 381.50 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 382.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 383.05 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 384.10 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 385.85 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 386.55 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 387.10 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 387.74 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 388.70 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 389.51 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 390.20 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 391.02 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 391.09 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 395.94 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 396.05 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 396.77 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 397.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 398.70 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 399.61 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 401.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 402.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 403.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 404.30 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 404.60 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 405.80 $60 Closure

Summary Segment #7 Unit Cost Quantity Amount Private Closure $60 51 $3,060 Rural w/Quadrant Gates $274 78 $21,372 Total Grade Crossings $24,432

Total Summary 7 .0 Crossings 7 .1 Private Closu each 60 151 $9,060 7.2 Rural w/ Qua each 274 246 $67,404 7.3 Urban w/ Que each 341 0 $0 7.4 Full Width Ba each 550 7.5 Crossings Cl LS 71,510 1 $71,510 Total Crossings Cost $147,974

I I I CURVES I Curves that require increased elevtion, reduction of curvature, and installation of elastic fasteners are as follows: I Actual Proposed Reduction I Subdivision MP Range Direct Curvature Elev Curvature Elevation Description Watertown sub 109.30 109.60 Left 2' 0' 3.000000" 1* O' 3.000000" curvature reduction Watertown sub 111.40 111.80 Left 1' 30' 2.500000" 1* 7' 2.500000" curvature reduction Watertown sub 177.10 177.40 Left 3' O' 3.000000" 1' 0' 3.000000" curvature reduction Watertown sub 177.60 177.70 Right 1' 50' 0.500000" 1' 7' 2.500000" curvature reduction

I Tomah, CPSoo 178.50 178.55 Right 3' 0' 1.000000" 1* O' 1.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, CPSoo 178.70 178.75 Right 2* 47' 1.000000" 1* 7' 2.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, CPSoo 178.75 178.80 Right 2' 0' 0.250000" 1* 01 2.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, CPSoo 178.80 178.85 Right 2' 33' 0.250000" 1* 7' 2.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, CPSoo 178.85 178.90 Right 1* 42' 0.500000" 1* 7' 2.000000" curvature reduction . I Tomah, CPSoo 192.75 192.99 Right 2' 0' 3.000000" 1* O" 3.000000" curvature reduced Tomah, CPSoo 193.80 194.00 Left 1' 58' 3.000000" 1· 7' 3.000000" curvature reduced Tomah, CPSoo 194.20 194.40 Right 2· o· 3.000000" 1' 0' 3.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, CPSoo 195.40 195.50 Right 2* 30' 4.000000" 1* 7' 2.500000" curvature reduction Tomah, CPSoo 195.60 195.75 Left 2* 0' 3.000000" 1· o· 3.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, CPSoo 196.50 196.75 Left 1* 30' 2.500000" 1* 7' 2.500000" curvature reduction Tomah, CPSoo 196.85 197.20 Right 2* O' 3.000000" 1' 7' 3.000000" curvature reduction I Tomah, CPSoo 227.60 227.70 Left 2* O' 3.000000" 1* O' 3.000000" curvature reduction I Tomah, CPSoo 271.60 271.80 Left 1· 30' 2.500000" 1' 15' 2.500000" curvature reduction I Tomah, CPSoo 277.10 277.40 Left 2* 0' 3.000000" 1"' O' 3.000000" curvature reduction TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 6. 2. 2 Infrastructure Detail: B-1 Rochester Route 110 mph Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 12-Jan-99 Route: Option B-1 110 MPH technology

Item Unit Unit Costs Quantity 1 .0 Trackwork per mile 1 .1 HSR on Existing Roadbed per mile $873 49 $42,777 1.2 HSR on New Roadbed (Existing ROW) per mile $932 22 $20,504 1.2A HSR on New Roadbed (New ROW) per mile $1,376 116 $159,616 1.2B HSR on New Roadbed (Double Track) per mile $2,308 1.3 Timber & Surface w/ 33% Tie replacement per mile $136 165 $22,440 1.4 Timber & Surface w/ 66% Tie Replacement per mile $224 1 .5 Relay Track w/ 136# CWR per mile $329 1.6 Siding per mile $802 60 $48,120 1.7 Fencing (Milwaukee to St. Paul) per.mile $49 354 $17,346 1 .8 Electricfication per mile $991 $0 1.9 Other Track Work Chicago to Milwaukee LS $212,917 1 $212,917 1.10 Land Acquisition Madison LS $5,000 3 $15,000 1.11 Land Acquisition Urban per mile $294 10 $2,940 1.12 Land Acquisition Rural per mile $98 110 $10,780 Total Track Upgrade Cost $552,440

2.0 Stations 2.1 Full Service • New each $1,000 1 $1,000 2 .2 Full Service • Renovated each $500 3 $1,500 2.3 Terminal - New each $2,000 3 $6,000 2.4 Terminal - Renovated each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.5 Maintenance (110 MPH technology) each $10,000 $10,000 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technology) each $86,000 2.58 Maintenance (185 MPH technology) each $162,000 2.6 Stations Chicago to Milwaukee LS $20,428 $20,428 Total station Upgrade Cost $39,928

4.0 Turnouts 4.1 New #33 • 136# High Speed each $555 12 $6,660 4.2 New #20 • 136# Panel each $105 4.3 New #1 O - 136# Panel each $61 Total Turnout Upgrade Cost $6,660 Page 2 Route: Option B-1110 MPH technology 5.0 Bridges - Under 5.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each $4,848 4 $19,392 5.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each $4,036 15 $60,540 5.3 Two Lane Highway each $3,062 3 $9,186 5.4 Rail each $3,062 3 $9,186 5.5 Minor river each $812 20 $16,240 5.6 Major River each $8,118 2 $16,236 5.7 Mississippi River LS $234,000 5.8 Interstate 90 Dakota Rvier Valley Structure LS $74,000 5.9 Elevated Structure Milwaukee per mile $39,000 5.10 Elevated Structure St Paul per mile $39,000 5.11 Elevated Structure Chicago to Milwaukee per mile $39,000 5.12 Bridges Chicago to Milwaukee LS $97,152 1 $97,152 Total Bridge Under Upgrade Cost $227,932

6.0 Bridges• Over 6.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each $10,516 2 $21,032 6.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each $2,630 $0 6.3 Two Lane Highway each $1,971 1 $1,971 6.4 Rail each $6,572 2 $13,144 6.5 Viaducts - Major river each 6.6 Tunnel each Total Bridges Over $36,147

7 .o Crossings 7 .1 Private Closure each $60 215 $12,900 7.2 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates each $274 320 $87,680 7.3 Urban w/ Quadrant Gates each $341 $0 7.4 Full Width Barrier each $550 1 $550 7.5 Crossings Chicago to Milwaukee LS $71,510 1 $71,510 Total Crossing Upgrade Cost $172,640

8.0 Signals 8.1 High Speed Turnout each $1,098 6 $6,588 8.2 System Installation for HSR (11 0MPH) per mile $150 366 $54,900 8.2A System Installation for HSR (150MPH) per mile $350 8.2B System Installation for HSR (185MPH) per mile $980 8.3 Signal Costs Chicago to Milwaukee LS $46,877 1 $46,877 Total Signals Upgrade $108,365

9.0 Curves 9 .1 Elevate & Surface Curves per mile $42 9 $378 9.2 Curvature Reduction per mile $284 9 $2,556 9.3 Elastic Fasteners per mile $59 9 $531 Total Curve Upgrade Cost $3,465

Total Upgrade Cost $1,147,577 Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 19-Jan-99

B-1 Rochester Route Route 110 MPH Proposed Station Modifications and Maintenance Facilities

Station Type Recommen, Cost ($000) Milwaukee Union Station Terminal Renovation $ 1,000 Brookfield/Watertown Full Service Renovation $ 500 Madison Terminal New $ 2,000 Wisconsin Dells Full Service Renovation $ 500 Tomah Full Service New $ 1,000 LaCrosse Full Service Renovation $ 500 Rochester Terminal New $ 2,000 St Paul Union Station Terminal Major Reno· $ 2,000

Maintenance Facility 110 MPH Technology New $ 10,000

Summary 2.0 Stations 2 .1 Full Service - New each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.2 Full Service - Renovated each $500 3 $1,500 2.3 Terminal - New each $2,000 3 $6,000 2.4 Terminal - Renovated each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.5 Maintenance (110 MPH technology) each $10,000 1 $10,000 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technology) each $86,000 2.58 Maintenance (185 MPH technology) each $162,000 2.6 Stations Chicago to Milwaukee LS $20,428 1 $20,428

Total Station Cost $39,928

~.e2 1 ~---·-·-~------4------4------1--· I Segment 1 I Segment~ ISe mont j ISegment I Segment~ _s_:_-eg-,n-10nl ~ ---rseg.mei7-- : I I Chica o to Milwaukee I Milw to Watertown Wntcr to H'>•:y 51 I Airp..9,!:!_Jracf\.. Madison to Portage Portm o IO Miss br ! Miss br to ~I p~•~"~'~-~!~T~•~la~l~--+~----I 9 0 8 9 t~·-~~~-~~~-=- i':is'i(H1:·ii" s each s555 ·-·-.. -·---1::r -- --·-ss]"60 -··---- "_,, __ iq~-~!!l:L ... ~!!.1.2.. IJfl.L __iQuanuty 2 r'':].'?i·.~\{f IQl;)_§!lji_ty_2 tmo~~1\o i -IJ" ·;~~y .... r!TIQ!!'.,'.! ...... ~~-r!!l!Y.. _,1 !:!)QIJ!'.~-- Q_t,!§l_f!!~~~ 2· 1'°:'!JlO_r:~\6" tq~_!!!!~IIY ...tflf'!'DP.~.5~:fa(f 7- ..t!~I!!!!f f: ~moun!.660

!O.\§ILii,i~~!?.tJ.1_9~§L_.. ______,,, S6J~?Q __ ) ··-····-_I_, .!,11_0+- --1~11.~"t ------H ··:--·--""'"'' l" t,110 3,330 L==-15- ...§,?6 .. 0 0 I ~ -----··"---·- 1···········. -·t-----1 ------+~~~~ri~\~-~1Ttwauk·ee_ J ·f1r~~~~~~fofiO\;;,n· ' ·~~~~~!-~~;;}~---- -~tr~.~J~_!r~ck·-·---~ '" -r~1~~7~~~\~~~o·rta9;;--. -~~Tt~~~.. ~liiil>i .. :· ..:)1.,~s;l(~;t paul -- -~-TO"tai-~----i__,_ .. ____ ,___ ,_ 5.0 ~.!:l.d es. Under --~+--==+--.... - 1Quanti! 1Amount ~£noun! IQuanhtL___jAm □~!. _ q~~~~!Y._ !Amount louanllt !Amount Quantity jAmo?_flL.._;9_!:!_~~!Y 'Amount ! Ou<1nh\y__ -~~ 5.1 Four la.rm Urban Exr.resswa each 54,848 4 1 $19,392 1 ! _,, __ .. ,--~- I 4 i 19,392 ! 4 S 19,392 5.2 Four Lane Rural Expresswa each $4,036 15 1 S60,540 I ! ! 15 1 60,540 ' 15 S 60,540 I5.3TwoLaneHi hwa !each $3,062 3 $9,186 __I 1 1 I I 3; 9,1861 -----··--.. ----'---+::=====~====~:.L-~-· '. 3jS 9.166 I~~ ~~f~~~;~;, ------;;;~ ··=~~~tt: z~ --;!ill··· ·i I i .. - I •-I~ i'~~h -·- +·- I --·· I - -·- ····- _ i 3 9186 ... -zg l·Jiiii Hi~f:7~~r:WK~oia R,ioCValle siruc:u,e t~ 1-~m,gg~1 I . - I I ; +~ 1 t~'t~1~~_!1t¼J{Tr-~~i!'.~~;~-j~--·---- !?~~-~~; ·- ·--- --;;~:~·iiJ --- ·- ··-·--+--- ____ ..1 ____ ... '""---+-- I~·=·-=-~~" !·--········-· :·l{ 5.11 Elevated Structure Chica o to Milwaukee er mile $39,000 l +-----'- • ! S §_)2 Bridg,!_}sC~ica_ otoMi!waukce lLS 597,152 1 $97,152 . 1 i 97.152 1 i ------.rTT 97,1521 Total Bridges - lJ_ndcr Costs ! ! S?21,_932 i ______9_7, 152 ! 1 ~' 186 I 109,41§_ • I S 227,932 i i ---~---·J----1 I I I . I I __L -·--·I I i I -+-----ir- . - ·-.. -·J :-g~~~~;;!1.~·i.Tii~i\J'ke'C-·~-~~1:;1~-~;tertown !-~~:~~~-¾¾-iry51- ~-;fn~~~~;ck j -~t~~~-~~\~·po~ng·e· ·-1-~~~~~~i~-i::il'SS'-b"r·· ... -~,z;~1;~f~;fi)aui ""''·--l-To1a1--- -+---.. ---~----· l!:H:rt~~E,~~:;p.,~,,"" r::~:· I -~~ti .~t $~~:;;: I i-- J~ ---1- I --·-1 - i - I --~·1·---·•-1--- ~-r- ,~~~n· -; :; _,~:;;: 6.5 Viaducts • Major river leach I l I ' i 6.6 Tunnel {East and West 6~!2£) per LF 20 I j I j I I I ! __ I 3_§_,_147 Total Bridges-Over C_o_s_!§_ $:J§-J47 [ 10,516 I 25,6}1 ~ _j S B:28 Sy_stem _Installation for i:;_sR _{1~_?:r;~PH) _.. _____ e~r_fl}_l!~ I 980 -~ _ $ _. 1 ______. _.. .. ___ _ _.. ,,_j _~_ .. ______1 _ ·-·-· + __ _ --+------______, ______,,____ 1 1 - ,,ss______- -~-----! ____ 1 j------__ ,-- __ __ 1 1 1 46 877 1 4 6 877 I 1 1 1 46 8 77 8.3 Signal Costs Ct:ic~g,o~to~l~,l~i!v~,~au~k~•~•c_ ___ pl~S'---•-.. -l-·- _4_60"·,~·8_i_i"_,_ __~-r-~~-ir-~=~=----i---e'- 1 Tola! Signals Cost --·-----·------"'" ---t-··-·. .. / ______f $108,365, / 46,877 ~ 7.998 i ) 5.898 ; ,: 450 J ·------1-.. -.. 4_,650 ______17,748 \ 24,744 I$ 108,3~5_ 1 1 ! ! ~~9£12!lnl 1 !-Sef}ITIITTll2 Seoment 3 I Segment 4 Segment 5 I Segment 6 i Sea ,men! 7 I i i------jl----1,-----t-----;-----+------➔i~Chicago to MIiwaukee ! Mi!w to Walertown Waler to Hwv 51 I Alroort Track Madison to Portage Portage lo Miss br i Miss br to Stpaul I Total 9.0 Curves ! , !Ouanli\v !Amount :Quantitv Amount Quantity \Amount )Quantilv ·Amounl _1aua_1-!!!!t 1AmouAmount lQuantitv !Amounl !Ouantltv \Amou~n-,----ol~Q~u~a~n-u-,,-1-Am-o_u_n_t _ _, 9.1 Elevate & Surface Curves jpur mile i 42 9 S378 ! 2 84 1 t 7 294 / / • ! 9 $ 378 l,9~.2,-;,C~"~rv~a~tl;cn~e~R~•~d~u~ct~lo~n'------j

Tri State 110 MPH Technology B-1 Rochester Route Trackwork Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 85.7 90.57 4.87 Watertown Sub 90.57 98.40 7.83 7.83 7.83 Watertown Sub 98.40 104.20 5.80 5.80 5.80 Watertown Sub 104.20 131.20 27.00 27.00 27.00 Waterloo Spur 131.30 163.85 32.55 32.55 32.55 Airport 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Madison/Portage 0.00 30.90 30.90 22.30 8.60 30.90 8.60 Watertown Sub 2 176.90 178.20 1.30 Tomah 178.20 179.00 0.80 Tomah 179.00 180.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tomah 180.40 243.40 63.00 63.00 63.00 Tomah 243.80 246.30 2.50 2.50 2.50 Tomah 246.30 257.10 10.80 10.80 10.80 Tomah 257.10 280.00 22.90 22.90 22.90 Tomah 280.00 283.00 3.00 Tomah 283.00 284.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tomah 284.40 288.00 3.60 3.60 3.60 River 288.00 288.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 River 288.05 306.60 18.55 18.55 18.55 River 306.60 308.50 1.90 DM&E 0.00 33.00 33.00 16.00 17.00 33.00 17.00 Minnesota 42.00 117.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Union Pacific 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Union Pacific 10.00 11.60 1.60 1.80 1.80 Merriman Park 407.40 408.90 1.50 1.50 Merriman Park 408.9 410.2 1.30 0 1.30

Total 365.55 48.55 22.30 115.40 0.00 164.83 353.88 113.60 Page2 I I I Definition of Units 1.1 HSRex High Speed Rail trackwork on Existing Roadbed with a unit cost of $873,000 per mile 1.2 HSRnew High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (Existing _Right of Way) with a unit cost of $932,000 per mile 1.2AHSR High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (New Right of Way) with a unit cost of $1,376,000 per mile 1.2BHSR High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (Double Track) with a unit cost of $2,308,000 per mile 1.3T&S33 Timber and Surface with 33% Tie Replacement with a unit cost of $136,000 per mile 1.7Fence Fencing of High Speed Rail Route on both sides with a unit cost of $49,000 per mile Land Miles of Land required for construction of a high speed rail route at specifed unit costs

Segment #2 Milwaukee to Watertown Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne' 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 85.7 90.57 4.87 Watertown Sub 90.57 98.40 7.83 7.83 7.83 Watertown Sub 98.40 104.20 5.80 5.80 5.80 Watertown Sub 104.20 131.20 27.00 27.00 27.00 Total 45.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.63 0.00 40.63 0.00 0.00

Segment #3 Watertown to Highway 51 Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Waterloo Spur 131.30 163.85 32.55 32.55 32.55

Segment #4 Airport Track Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Airport 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Segment #5 Madison to Portage Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne11.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Madison/Portage 0.00 30.90 30.90 22.30 8.60 30.90 8.60 Page3 Segment #6 Portage to River Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 11.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 2 176.90 178.20 1.30 Tomah 178.20 179.00 0.80 Tomah 179.00 180.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tomah 180.40 243.40 63.00 63.00 63.00 Tomah 243.80 246.30 2.50 2.50 2.50 Tomah 246.30 257.10 10.80 10.80 10.80 Tomah 257.10 280.00 22.90 22.90 22.90 Tomah 280.00 283.00 3.00 Tomah 283.00 284.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tomah 284.40 288.00 3.60 3.60 3.60 Total 110.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 105.60 0.00 105.60 0.00 0.00

Segment #7 River to St. Paul Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land River 288.00 288.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 River 288.05 306.60 18.55 18.55 18.55 River 306.60 308.50 1.90 DM&E 0.00 33.00 33.00 16.00 17.00 33.00 17.00 Minnesota 42.00 117.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Union Pacific 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Union Pacific 10.00 11.60 1.60 . 1.80 1.80 Merriman Park 407.40 408.90 1.50 1.50 Merriman Park 408.9 410.2 1.30 0 1.30 Total 142.90 16.00 0.00 103.80 18.60 0.00 141.20 102.00 0.00 Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibilit~ Study I I I ' i 19-Jan-99 i I ,· •a-~- •-•----- BRIDGES ' I B-1 Rochester Route 110 MPH ! I I Recommended Action for Bridges Under and Bridges Over! I I I I I Segment #3 Watertown to Hwy 51 I I T vpe of Bridge I Name North iWest I . ···-~- Crawfish River 43.19433! 88.87683 Major ' I I Maunesha River 43.180171 89.00800 Minor r·. ··- Mauncsha River 43.17883! 89.03333 Minor I ~-,1aunesha River 43.17833! 89.03550IMinor I ' Maunesha River 43.1808:jf 89.07733IMinor I ! I Maunesha River ' 43.18167! 89.08333 Minor ··-r- .. Maunesha River 'I 43.18217' 89.08850IMinor I I I l ------.•.• I Summary _Brid~es Under !Unit Cost Quantity Amount I I Minor River ' $812 5 I ·-·-- Major River I $8,118 1l ;!:~~~l Total $12,178 I I I I ' l· I Segment #4 Airport Track ! I Name INorth iWest Type of Bridge I ~ighway 51 I 43.107331 89.33867 4 Lane UrbanExpressway - Over Anderson 43.121171 89.35233 2 Lane Under !' Pankrantz 43.121501 89.35233 2 Lane Under I International Lane 43.122501 89.35300 2 Lane Under i I I I Summary Bridges Under I !Unit Cost JQuantity !Amount I I ! 2 Lane Under $3,0621 3! S9,186, I "M ___"<~ i I ·-· Summary Bridges Over (Unit Cost Quantitv Amount I I 4 Lane Urban Exoresswav I I 10,516 1 $10,5161 I I ~~-·

Pagc2 I I Segment 7C .. ,~o~m~ I ... Minnesota City to St Charles I River/Creek North Lat ni~-· West Long min Recommended Action I ~.

RR I 44.877831 52.67 92.02400 1.44 1Railroad Under I Pages I I I I Segment 70 ' I Summary Bridges Under :Unit Cost Quantity Amount ! 4 Lane Urban Exoresswav $4,848 4 $19,3921 I ! ··~"· I 4 Lane Rural Expressway I $4,036 12 $48.432 Minor River I $8121 10 $8, 1201 I ' $8,118. M~jor River ' $8,1!~! ' --···----·-·- - i Rail $3,0621 $9,186 I ' ·····j-· ~I I Total Bridges Under Segment 70 I $93,248, I ' ' I I I ----~----~ Defintion of Seomen!s I I I I ~gment 7A: Mississie pi River Bridge to Winona l l -··--· ~_gment 78: Winona lo Minnesota City ' l Segment 7C: Minnesota City to St Charles I I ?cgment 70; St Charles to St Paul ! ! I ! I I I Quantity Summary Bridges Under of Segment 7 River to St Seg7A Seg7B Seg7C Seg7D Total I 4 Lane Urban Expressway I 0 0 0 4 4 4 Lane Rural Expressway l 0 0 31 12 15 Minor River I 0 0 S' 10 15 Major River I 0 DI 0 11 1 Rail I' 0 01 0 3! 3 ,· I I I Summary of Brid~es Under for Segment 7 !Unit Cost IOuantily Amount I I 4 Lane Urban Expressway ! $4,8481 4 $19,392 I I 4 Lane Rural Expressway I $4,036I 15 S60,54ol I 2 Lane I $3,062, 01 $01 I ' , ___

Rail I $3,062 3 $9,186, I ,., Minor River I $812 151 $12,180 I . I Maior River $8,118 1 $8,118 ' Total ' $109.4161 i I' I I 1· ~~_gmcnt70 I I --- Bridges Over St Charles to St Paul I I Description North GPS iLat Min !WcstGPS Long Min IRecommended Actiorl I SR 52 44,80050! 48.031 92.039001 2.3414 Lane Urban Expressway I Union Pacific Rail 44,79450! 47.671 92.044501 2.67 Rall '' ~---·--« Union Pacific Rail 44,91067! 54.64 92.05033I 3.02 Rail +-·~- .. 44,85350' 51.21 92.019831 1.19 2 Lane i Cr 24 ' I 1-494 I 44.88033! 52.82 92.024331 1.4618ridge Over with acceptable horizontal clearance ... I I -~--·~t Summary of Bridges Over for SC£!!:)ent 7 I Unit Cost Quantity Amount I ' 4 Lane Urban Exoressway ' 10,516 1 $10,516 I I ' I 4 Lane Rural Expresswav i 2,630 $0 I ' 2 Lane 1,971 1 $1,971 i I Rail 6,572 21 $13,144 ' I I Total S25,6311

~:isllNGs ..s;1.R.o.che~t•r ~oute110MPHTechnllogy .~.+l_.···_··_···_··_··_·_·'~-·---l••············••i••-···-······'---·-1 §!'!l.ment 1/2 Milwaukee to Watertown _L___i~~~-1-----+----~-----+------+---I Subdivision fMlleoost Cost ($000 Recommended Action 1 Walerlown sub ·-···-· 93.80 ···--·- .. .S=2~7~4"-R~u~r=•l~'="·=Q=u=a=d~ra~n=l~G=a=le~s--+----+------+--·---•---+-. -··-·-· Watertown sub i 95.10 $274 Rural w.Quadranl Gates Watertown sub ! 95.30 $27 4 Rural w.Quadrant Gates \l\latertown sub i 97.40 $274 Rural w.Ouadranl Gales Watertown sub i 98.40 $274 Rural w.Quadranl Gales Watertown sub i 99.40 $274 Ruralw.Q=u=a=d~ra~n~l~G~a=le~s'-+-----+-----+--•--1----'----• Walertown sub l ·-·- 100.50 $274 Ruialw.Quadr_,,a-"n'--1G=at,_,e=s-1-----+-----+----•--I----'··· ··- ....1 Watertown sub..... 101.50 $274 Rural.w.OuadranlGates.. --········ Watertown sub 102.20 $274 Rural w.Quadra=n=t _,,G=a~te=s-+----l--··---'-'---·>----~····-·- ----··•-I \1\1!'.l~rtown _su_b 102.40 ....•.... $274 Rural w,Ouadrant Gale.s i-··········· -+·······-. / ·····--· _ Watertown sub i 102.50 ...... ___ $60 Clo.sure ...• 1 -----+----+-----+----1----;-----l Watertown sub 104.30 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates i Watertown sub 105.20 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates 1 Watertown sub 105.75 $274 Ruralw.O~u~a~d~ra~n~t~G~a.~le_s'-+----+1! ___-+ ___..., ----+----1 Watertown sub 106.20 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gales Watertown sub 106.80 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates I .

Watertown sub 108.201 $2.,_7241'-R"u"-ra""l'-'w-".°'Q"'u"a"'d"'ra"-n"-I°'G"'a"'le,_,s'--'-i ___-+i -----'-----+-----'----! Watertown sub 109.80[ $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates ! I Watertown sub 110,01! $274 Rural w.Ouadrant Gates Watertown sub 111.301 $274 Rural w.Quadranl'-G=-a=t=•=s-+---.;---··-·-+----·-·-f----'--·-- .. 1 \1Vate_rt9v.,n sub 113.10 $60 Closure ... · .J ... -·- __ ···- ·--•···--···- ·-··•··---l········- -·· __ +-··· -··-·-··'-····-·····--· Watertown sub 114.50 $274 Ru.ral w.Quadranl Cla=t=e=s-+-----+----1---·----•l----;____ 1 Watertown sub 114,.80_ ··-·-···. $274 Rural w.Quadranl Gates_·····--··-···-·· ! ...... 1____ • _ ····-·-·· i ···•--• Watertown sub i 115.50 S274 Rural w.Qua~r_a,,nl,_G=at,.,e=s+----!,~··_·-___ 1___ _.c,_ 1 ___ -+---·· Walertown sub l 115.90 $2741Rural w.~O=u=a=d~ra=n=t~G=a=te~s'-1·----+l ____...,_i ----+---~1 ____ 1 Watertown sub! 117.40 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gales i ! Watertown sub i 117.70 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub i 117.80 S274 Rural w.Quadrant Gales Watertown sub i 117.90 $274!Rural w.Ouadrant Gates Watertown sub i 118.05 $274 Rural w.O,=u,:a,,dr"'a"'n"-t:c:Gc::ao:te"sc+---+-----1-----+1 ___ __;_ ____ 1 Watertown sub i 118.20 $274 Rural w.Ouadrant Gates Watertown sub i 118.30 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub i 118.70 $27~ Rural w.Quadrant Gates .. 1----+-·---·---l---·······--···-'----+----I Watertown sub .i ..•...... 119.50 _ ___ $274 ls~ralw1Cluadrant_G__ al~s .. Watertown sub ! 122.50 ______$274 Rural w.Ouadrant Gates.1------1-----l-----'--·---____, ~:::;:~:~i~~i· ~;;:~i _ ~;~; ~fu!~::Cl~ld!a~tQ~tes_ I····-·······-····''··········· .. -I··-····--··-. \1\1.atertown sub i 123.77 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub i 124.60 $60 Closure Watertown sub i 125.00 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub i 125.45 $60 Closure Watertown sub t 125.50 $60 Closure Watertown sub i 125.85 $60 Closure Watertown sub i 126.30 $60 Closure Watertown sub : 129 .1 Oi $60 Closure Watertown sub--:- 129.40! $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub' 129.50; $274 Rural w.Quadranl Gates Watertown sub i 129.95! $274 Rural w.Quadranl Gales

Watertown sub i 130.60 $274 Rural w.Quadranl Gates \f/~_ler[~,~~-s.lJ_b i 130.99 $27_ -•••.--- .. - .. $60 ... ,...... ,., ------Waterloo Spur ;__ 136.20 .,___ ,$60 Closure Waterloo Sour i --136.711- $60 Closure i Waterloo Sour 136.90 $274 Rural w/Ouadrant Gates I Waterloo Sour ! 137.30 $60 Closure i ! Waterloo Sour 137.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales i I I Walerloo Sour 138.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ' ! Walerloo Sour 138.40 $60 Closure i ' Waterloo Sour 139.00 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gales Waterloo Sour 139.45 S60 Closure I I Waterloo Sour 139.65 $60 Closure i I Waterloo Sour 139.90 $60 Closure ------·- --·-······· -- --· ••~~-m•• --··------·-- Waterloo Spur 140.80 _, __ .,_,_,_,_, $60 Closure $60 \ValerlEur ' 144.35 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates i i Waterloo Sour 144.501 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates t ' Waterloo Spur I 144.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates 1 I I Waterloo Sour 144.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates i i ! Waterloo Sour 145.30 $60 Closure . Waterloo Sour ' 145.61 $60 Closure Walerloo Sour 145.90 $60IC1osure ·------· Waterloo Spur ______.. ,_.146.30 ___ ,,, ______$60 Closure ., ___ .. , .. ______,,,, ··-- ········-· --··------·······-·····-·-··· __ ---·----. $60 Closure l y\'aterloo Sour 147.00 --··--··· W_aterloo _$pur _ 148.00 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ------·------_,, ···--- -- $274 - 148.40 $60 ClosUre·,, ' ' " Waterloo Spur ~-- -··· Waterloo Sour 149.60 $60 Closure Waterloo Sour ' 150.45 $60 Closure ' I i ' 150.851 $60 Closure ! Waterloo Sour l ' ··-··-· Waterloo Sour l 152.40 $60 Closure I ' i Waterloo Sour i 152.90 $60 Closure 1 i Waterloo Sour ! 154.40 $60 Closure f l Waterloo Sour 154,90 $60 Closure ' Waterloo Sour I 155.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates 155.75 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales Waterloo ~P-1::'.!: I .,... .. " ..,,,- .. --. Waterloo Sour I 156.80 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gales ~_agc4 ... J...... _ __ L ---··------·----- ______J ____ '" _____ "___ _, ____ -!------··· --!.-- Subdivision L'YU.1.~_f?_()_S.t ... ].g_q~_t(f9AQ) Rocomm_end~d Action,. ._____ ,, __ .." ... __

1 1 ~:::;:~~ ~~~; ;;;:~~: i~~ ·1---i·----·,----+-----+-----+-----,I g:~i~;:- ! I Waterloo Si,ur t. 158_3_Ql --·-····· $60 Closure~~--~---+-- i i Waterloo Spur 1 159.401 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ! i I Waterloo Spur 159.701 5274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates I i Waterloo Spur 161.80! $274 Rural w/Quadrant~----~------;-----+----+----, Gates

i - i

Madison-Portag 30.40' $27 4 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ! Madison-Portag' 28.?0i $274 Rural v..-/Quadrant Gales ! ! ' Madison-Portag' 27.90] $60 Closure , I Madison-Portag 27.151 S274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates i i Madison-Portagl 26.50' $60 Closure i ! Madison-Portag'. 26.30 $60 Closure I lv!adis"n:P~liigj 25. 70 $27.4 Rural w/Quadran_t_G_a_te_s_,_ ___ ~-~~l!~2.n~.E.CJ~t-~gr·· 25.55 ______._ .. ., $~0 Closure ,-·--·· -· --········-·I····~---.,____ L 1 ········- ...... "···-···-" Madison-Portag, __ ····- 25.40 ·-·- .... $60 Closure_··-··f----·-···-J---·-- ·--- __ -·····--··· 1 -········--·1 ·-·-·····- ···-···--···· Madison'.Portag'. . _ 25.30 __ ...... S§Q C::losure. .. ··- .. -· ··- _ -· _ i ...... •.•L. ···-- .L.. _. -· T _ . Madison-Portag· 25.20 $60 Closure I I Madison-Portag' 24.80 S60 Closure Madison•Portao 24.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag' 24.20 $274 Rural w/Ouadrant Gales·+----+---~---+----~---, i i Madison-Portag 23.75 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates I l Madison•Portag 23.10 S60 Closure I Madison-Portaq1 22.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales Madison-Portaa 22.40 S601Closure I Madison-Po_r:t_,ig' 22.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison•Portag' 21.70 $274 Rural.w/Quadrant Gates . ---+----i~---+--········c---· Madison-Portag'--·-·- 20.15 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gales Madison-Portag'-·. 19:40 =. .S274,Ruralw/QuadrantGa:.:t="s=-····-t,-··· __--i- ___-+---·+·---+---·-··--t Madison-Portagl ·-·- 17 40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portagl 16.30 ...... $274 Rurai w/C!uadrani Gates Madison-Portag: --··i4.20 $27.~4.~Rc'u"-r=al~·w'"/"Q"u~a"'d'-'ra"-n~l"G~a"-te"s'-+ ___~ ___+-----+----+-----t Madison-Portag 10.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portag 9.40 $27 4 ...R...,u~r...,at_w...,1...,O'-'u~a...,d...,ra_n...,t ...,G...,a...,te-is... +-----+----+---+-----i' ___ _, Madison-Portaa: 8.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portaq' 7.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates 1 Madison-Portag· 7.20 $27 44 -iR~u-ira~I ~w...,/Q=ua~d~r~a-inl-iG~a0 .t-ie~s-1----...,-----i-----+-----t----·r Madison-Portao' 6.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Madison-Portagi 3.45 $274 Rural W:..:1O=.u:::a:.:dc:.r:canc.ctc.;G:cacct.e=-=-s+---+----+----J-----;-----f Madison'.Portag!__ __. 2.20 $274 Rural""1_Q~~_d_r§11t_G_,il

Tomah, CPSoo 197.751 S274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales Tomah, CPSoo 200.10! $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah. CPSoo 200.50 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo I 201.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo I 203.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo ! 203.65 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo I 203.75 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo: 204.30 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates 1 I Tomah, CPSoo -::~~- 204.75 $60 Closure~.. -:_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::=--1-:.-----.--...- ..-... - ...-:-::.-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_~-::_-::_-::_- ...-_.-_ .... ~c;!~_=. ~.~.~... ~..~.1-::-::-::-::-::-::_-:: 1 Tomah,_CPSoo 205.10! $60 Closure_L_ ... --+-.... ·- ...... J----!-----1-----'----I Tomah, CPSoo 205.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates I Tomah,CPSoo-- :iciS.80 - ····- $60 c:~lo~s~u~r•~-·~···_ _,_l··~·-_.. _·~··~·-·_··_·+----_-_- .. -::_-.,:4.. ,._·-.·_-_·· .. ~~~~~~~~~~-f-f- -_ -_ -_-_---~'_·-·_-·_-·_-_··_·.. ,fl Tomah, CPSoo 1 207.40 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates I Tomah, CPSoo' 208.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ! I I Tomah, CPSool 209.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo ! 210.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo I 210.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSool 212.75 $60 Closure I Tomah, CPSoo I 212.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSooi 214.10 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates :romah, CPSoo_l__ 214.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates I----f----·l-----'l____ +---I Tomah,.CPSoo .... ~.-·214.30!'··---· $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates .. ! Tomah, CPSoo 214.40! ... - $274 Rurat.w/Quadrant Gates__[ ··--· ···- ...... ,_ --- ··----· ···- . - ---- ...... - Tomah, CPSoo ..... 214,50 _____ $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates i ···-·- .. --· ... __--, ...... , ...... T9,n."h, CPSoo .. 214.60 $274 Rural w/QuadranCGates c- ...... ;i_·-_·-_-_ _,_ ___ Tomah, CPSoo 214.70 S274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates i i Tomah, CPSool 215.20 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates i i I<>_mah, CPSoo 215.70 S274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates i Tomah, CPSoo 216.10 $60 Closure i i Tomah, CPSoo 216.40 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gales Tomah, CPSoo 218.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ' Tomah, CPSoo 218.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales Tomah, CPSoo 219.95 $60 Closure i T.omah.,. CPSoo 220.4QI ___7$6"'0tC"'lo.=-su.,.r,,.e_ .. f------l----+I___ ...... f-----l-----:'-·---·· ... - .. I Tomah, CPSoo 220.75 $60 Closure I 1 ~~!::~i~~lt,~:Milep202it~~!~o~t($~g~l ~~;'.'};;;ii5:~~~~nfd~r.~ •1-·-···_···_-_·.._ ... 4.·_-_ .. _.. _~1-i---1..-······ ...... i...... Tomah, CPSoo' 221.90! S2i4 Rurafv,/Quadrant G·ates I i Tomah, CPSoo i 222.20! $60 Cla,,s,,,u,.,re'=-_1_~~--1------+----''---+---l---- Tomah, CPSooT-·" 222.401 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales i Tomah, CPSoo ! 223.40! S60 Closure I I 1 Tomah, CPSoo I 223.95! $2_7<\ Rural w/Ou,,,a,,sde,ra"n,.,_t.'cGcea,.,teees_;_' ---"-----1----'-'---'- ___1 Tomah, CPSoo 224.01 i $60 Closure I I I J:o.'!1~.h, CPSoo 224.50! $60 Closure L...... --+----i----1------'-'______1 Tomah, CPSoo 225. lOi -· $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates i----..I----+----Ll ___ _c_ __ _ Tomah,.CPSoo 226.10j . . $60 Closure ... ___ ! ... -· 1 Tomah, CPSoo ·· · ·227 .21l] $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo i 227.65° _: $.~74 F,uralw/Qu,,idrant 13ales :~: Tomah, CPSoo ! 228.95 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ---+----'---+----+- ______Tomah, CPSooi 229.50 $60 ciosure··-- -·-r Tomah, CPSoo! 230.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo[ 231.20 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSool 231.901 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gales Tomah, CPSoo I 233.601 $274[Rural w/Quadrant Gates i Tomah, CPSoo I 237.501 $60ICIosure ' Tomah, CPSooi 239.201 S274[Ruralw/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo I 239.901 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates I Tomah, CPSoo I 240.101 $274 Rural w/Quadrant.Gat_~e~s~i ____,__ ___~'----,-- --·--·--·-· i ______.. __ . T.01T1ah, (;f:§oc,; __ 24Q._90I _ . _$274 Rural w/Quadranl _Ga.l_es ,,. Tomah, CPSool 241.201 S60 Closure ------'----·------+---· -··l··-···-·-.. --.. -----I To1T1ah,(;f':3oc,:;= 242,60! = =: $60 (;losure______--··· ___ ---·-·-.. ·-· •·• I·--··---· ·---- ·+·------·-+ _ -----·--·-- 1 Tomah, CPSooi 242.80[ $60 Closure -----'------l•----··------+----·-·-·-·------·---- TOITl-a·h, CPSoo ······2·43.5({"- $27 4 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ·- ===-1------'------+-----+----+-----1 Tomah, CPSoo 247.20' $60 Closure f. I Tomah, CPSoo 249.90 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo I 251.801 $60 Closure I Tomah, CPSooi 252.401 S274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales ! Tomah, CPSoo I 254.05 S274 Rural w/Q=ua,:,decra,-,,n_,_,t__,,Gc,a,_,,lee,s'----1------1-----i'------+-----+----- Tomah, CPSoo I 254.601 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo i 255.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates

Tomah, CPSoo 259.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales Tomah, CPSoo 260.40! $60 Closure I Tomah, CPSoo 260.80! $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 261.50! $60 Closure T~mah, CPSoo 261.75! $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 262.50! $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 263.201 S274 Rur"'al~w'!',/~Q_,,_ua"'dc-'r-"-an'!!tc0G~a,~te,,;s4 ___+---i-' ---+------t----1 Tomah,. CPSoo' 265.701 ----·--- $274 Ruralw/Quadrant.Gates _ ------l-----+-----+-----,-- ·-·--· Tomah, CPSoo l 266.30, S274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Page 7_·····-·· ·-·-·-···· ... 1...... ····-········-····..J ·--·---+-- ·············•· ··-· I ··-···· -·- Subdivision _iMHepost Cost ($000) Recommende_d_ll..ct!_"~·-+---+- ·······-···1 ____ ,•----+------I 1 Tomah, CPSoo I 266.70 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gale"s'--l-----+----+-l____ '-----1-----l-----l Tomah, CPSoo I 266.80 $27 4 Rural w/Quadranl Gates Tomah, CPSoo I 267.01 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates Tomah, CPSoo 267.10 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gales Tomah, CPSoo 267.50 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates Tomah, CPSoo 268.10 $601-'C"lo'°s"'u"-'re'------l-----+------+-----l-----'-----~'____ 1 Tomah, CPSoo 268.50 $60 Closure 1 Tomah, CPSoo 268.70 $60 Closure I Tomah, CPSool 268.90 $60 Closure I Tomah, CPSoo L 269.20 ·-··- S.274 Rural w/Quadranl Gales_!_. ·-· Jo.mah, CPSooL. ___ .. J~!l,_5_() $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo 270.90 ··- .. $60 Clo_s~r~_ J ---····-·1------l-----'-··-~-···--· ·-·+·-····-·-· . 1 Tomah,. CPSoo I 271.30 ·-··-- $274 Rura,,_Iw""/""O,,u 7ardrc,ae,n,_tG=at,,e,,_s+---+------+-- .. -·+··--·--···-·'------l Tomah, CPSool 271.401 . $60 ciosure I Tomah, CPSoo l 271.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates , Tomah, CPSoo I 274.40 $60 Closure I Tomah, CPSoo i 274.90 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo I 275.90 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo i 279.70 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo i 279.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Tomah, CPSoo i 280.90 S274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales Tomah, CPSoo. 281.10 $274 Rural w/Quad[ae,n,_tG=al"'e"-s+---l------l-1---·· l--· .. --··-··-•-I-••--·----· Tomah .. CPSoo 282.40 $60 Closure ····-I··-·· ····--+---· ..... --I-·····.. --,-+···-·-····.. - 1··-----1----··· ·····- I2rll_a_ll, CPSoo 284.80 $60 Clos~u~r~•--1------+-----l------+----+-----····-+-··-·-··--··-I --···--· --··· --····- -··-·- ·--.. -~------+------1----+···.. - ----1' ·······-····· ···-1-· ...... 1·· ·· ··· · ··-+-·-·•--· .. -······- .II Summary Segment #6 !Unit .cost Quantit.. !>.mouc'cnt'=d-----1----1----l...... --+------I Private Closure! ! $600 1------=4c'6t--~c"$~2~,7c"6~01------+---+-----+----~---·I Rural w/Quadrant Gates I $274 76 $20,824 ! Total Grade Crossinos I $23,584 River, CPSoo 288.31 i $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 288.40i...... S274ERc'u~r=al~w~/'-'Q~u=a.c;d=ra~n~l"G=a~te~s'-+! ----!·····---+-----+----+----I River, CPSoo 288.65 S274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates .R.. iv_e~r,_C_P_S_o_o_~_2~8_8~.8~0-+---~$~2~74+-R~u~ra~l~w~/Q=u~ad~r~a~n~l G~at~e~s--+---+----+------+----·· River,.CPSo.o ·! .... 2.88.~0 ...... S274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates'---t----,'---+--··.. ·i!•· ...... , ...... 1 River, CPSoo... . 289.10 $274 ~uralw/O.uadra_ntGates , ...... -, ...... ·I···· ...... , ...... ,...... •..... River, CPSoo ...... 289.98 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates River, CPSoo_ ...... 293.10 $60 Clostfre, ...... ···------+----+-- ...... , ...... , River, CPSoo i 293.90 $60 Closure River, CPSoo · ....294.70 S60 Closure 1,...... ~--+----f-----+------+----+-----i------l River, CPSoo 295.20 S60 Closure River, CPSoo 295.60 S60iClosure River, CPSoo 295.70! S60 Closure River, CPSoo 295.B0i $60 Closure River, CPSoo 296.051 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo ' 296.571 S60iClosure River, CPSoo 297.40! $60 Closure River,. CPSoo ...... 29_7.501·-·· ....S60 Closure...... ·+············+·---···--+·····.. ·•··-•·+---·!··---t River,. CPSoo...... 297.90L...... $60 Closure...... 1...... +· ...... 1...... +····-·•···i...... 1 River,.CPSoo ___ .• 301.0Si $60 Closure ...... - ...... River,CPSoo ... .. 302.90' ...... $60 Closure..... J ...... River,CPSoo ':io:i.ioi $60 Closure I River, CPSoo 303.80! $274 Rural======-+-----'---...1....---f-----'----·1 w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo ' 303.9ot $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales i i River, CPSoo ! 306.801 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gales I River, CPSoo i 307.201 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates ! t River, CPSoo 307.501 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates I River, CPSoo ! 308.00: $27 4 Rural w/Quadranl Gates i River, CPSoo ' 308.401 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gales I' ! River, CPSoo 308.48i $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates I '

Segment #78 Winona lo south of Minnesota City I ':r,<>m Winona the DlvlE parallels the CP Rail track to River subdivision mileoost 312.1 I The at grade crossings for the DlvlE and the CP Rail track lo this milepost are the same i Subdivision iMileoost jCost ($000 Recommended Action I I River, CPSoo i 308.75I $27 4 Rural w/Quadranl Gales River, CPSoo 308.80 5274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales River, CPSoo 309.05 S27 4 Rural w/Quadranl Gales River,. CPSoo ...... 309.20 ...... $27.4 Rural w/Quadr:.:a:::nc.l.::G:::a;;,te:.:s,+1---~----+----+----·I----I

River,CPSoo __ 309.50 _ ...... $274 Rural.w/Quadranl Gales.. I ...... 1...... 1 River, CPSoo 309,.~~1...... $274 Rural w/Quadranl G_a.te_s_f-____1..,... ___--+----I ____ ,..... ______River, CPSoo. 309.65! $27 4 Rural w/Quadrant Gales

River, CPSoo 309,7Qc:~..... $274 .R..u.ral w/Quadrant Gat~es.c....; ___...... --+------,------,----1 River, CPSoo .... i.... 310.11 I $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates River, CPSoo I 310.751 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo i 311.S0i $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo i 312.101 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates I i 1

,Summary___ "____ i !U=ni~t-=cct-Q=ua=n~t~itv~~-fl.A~m~o=u=n='t~ Rural w/Quadranl Gales $274. 121 $3,288 P,~9.~. 9___ ------l ___ J_ --··· .... ,J .... ,, .... _ ·--·•"'"-- ! _,. ______i ,.,,._",' .... ,., !5_egme11J_7C Min_nesota Cit•1. to,,St Charles ; .~' _____,L .. _____ .... -.~1--- pescription North Lat min West L£~.9 min Recommended Action I Unnamed 44.08567 5.14 91.76217 45.73 Rural w/Ouadrant Gates Unnamed 44.08083 4.85 91.76400! 45.84 Rural w/Quadranl Gales Unnamed i 44.07317 4.39 91.76600. 45.96 Rural w/Quadrant Gales Unnamed I 44.07000 4.20 91.764831 45.89;Rural w/Quadranl Gales CR 23 ' 44.063501 3.81 91.76100 45.66IRural w/Quadranl Gates Two 6 , 44.05600! 3.36 91.75667 45.40IRural w/Quadrant Gates Twp Rd 8 44.04317! 2.59 91.76150 45.69!Rural w/Quadrant Gates CR 23 44.02983\ 1.79 --~J_._?J_9_1J 46.21 JR~_ral __ yV/(;)u"'a"'d"'ra,.:n::.t..=G:,-ac:,le:::sc___-l---+' ___1 Un,narnec!_. i 44.014171 0.85 .-9,1,79417 ... " ..... 47.65 Rural w/Quadranl Gates .._ ... H"'Y. 25 · ... 44.006001 0.36 91.80917 ·48.55 Rural w/Quadranl Gales 1 TwJ) 12 ...... !.... 44.00133 ...... 0.08 ...... 91.81400 ..... 48.84 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ...... Unnamed ! 43.98367 59.02 91.83667 5..0.,_2-CJ _R~ral.1'1.fOuadranl Gates Twp 1 ··· · ' 43.98333 59.00 91.83933 50.36 Ru,.,ra,,.le,wc,IO:c'u='a""de.,ra,,.n,,.t"'G"'a"teo,Sc___-.j ___+ ___I CR 25 43.98217 58.93 91.85933 51.56 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Golfer's Rd , 43.98417 59.05 91.88083 52.85 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Two 10 43.98117 58.87 91.91950 55.17 Rural w/Quadrant Gates CR 18 43.97783 58.67 91.93983 56.39iRural w/Quadranl Gates CR 33 43.97550 58.53 91.95517 57.31iRural w/Quadranl Gales Utica Two 17 43.974831 58.49 91.959501 57.57IRural w/Quadranl Gales CR 115 ! 43.971671 58.30 91.97967 58.78IRural w/Quadrant Gates CR 37 I 43.96700 58.02 _92.00783 0.47 Rural w/O..,,u=.ad-,,r.-,a"nt,_,G_.a_,l:,:es,-_,, __+----+--·· .. ·-·I CR 37... 43.96683 ...... 58.01 ... 92.00950 0.57 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ...... , ...... , ...... , C:_f3..:L1!l ...... ,.... 4.~.96483 57.89 92.02967 ... 1.78 Rural w/Quadrant Gates

Ric.hland. Ave .... __43.96417 -~ 57.85 _9200§?17 ...... - 30 .7~ "unalv;!CluadrantGates ...... St Charles Ave 43.96650 57.99 92.06650 3.99 Rural w/Quadrant Gates W 11th St 43.96767 58.06 92.06883 4.13 Rural w/Quadranl Gales CR 142 i 43.97033, 58.22 92.07900 4.74 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Connect 142 to i 43.970501 58.23 92.097671 5.86 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Connect 142 to i 43.97033! 58.22 92.103671 6.22 Rural w/Quadrant Gates , I ! I Summary 7C Crossinos ]Unit Quantitv ]Amount Rural w/Quadrant Gates t S274 29! S7,946i I 1 ::~~:~17D St .cha.rles.to st Pau1····· .. ······· I ...... 1 :.·J ...... j crossing ...... iN,;rthG.PS L:atrviln· ...... West GPs .. iLongMTn !Recommended Acti.on .. . CR 42 43.97017 58.21 92.115171 6.91 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 10 ...... 43.96483 57.89 92.13850! 8.31 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates Cr 32 43.95000: 57 .. 00 92.178671 10.72 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 129 43.94817 56.89 92.18800! 11.281Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 136 , 43.94567 56.74 92.198331 11.90!Ruralw/QuadrantGates Unnamed Rd 43.94117 56.47 92.21567! 12.94!Rural w/ Quadrant Gates t,J ..nr1 .. ~.111_~cJ ..Rd 43.93933 56.36 92.2.. ~Z\l~i 15.47!Rura_lw_/_Q=u~a~d_ra~n. 0t~G~a~te~s__ .....;.1 ______CR 129 ...... , ... 43.939671 56.38 .... 92.27800] ...... 16.681Rur;il w/ Quadrant Gates CR 19 .. .. 43.94017 .. 56.41 92.298171 17.89!Rural w/ Qu,.ad ..r,ar11 ..C3,ate,s ...... ,...... 1 75 St_S_E_·,--···-··-• .. -.1~.:~~-Q.IE --·· 56.44 92.32800) 19.68iRura! w/ Q~u.a~d~ra~n~t ~G~a~te~s __~ .. ___0 .. ··-·····---·--- 1 70th Ave SE . 43.94033 56.42 92.33800 20.28),ural w/ Quadrant.C311te~ ...... ! ...... • .. ...

60th St s...E ...... 1, ...... 43.93433 56.06 92.38717 ...... 2. 3... 23.. !.Rura.1.. w./. Qua. drant.Ga.te.. s.. --+-...... !...... CR 1 43.927~31 55.67 92:,foifi'l ...... 24.49!Rural w/ Quadrant Gales ...... CR 16 43.92383! 55.43 92.420501 25.231Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 20 43.91850! 55.11 92.43767! 26.26!Rural w/ Quadrant Gates Unnamed Rd 43.91367 54.82 92.45800! 27.48!Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 8 43.92033 55.22 92.528171 31.691Rural w/ Quadrant Gates 60th Ave SW.. • 43.93167 55.90 92.55767! 33.461Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 126 43.935001 56.10 92.566171 33.97/Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 15 43.93983 56.39 92.57800! 34.68!Rural w/ Quadrant Gates

Unname.. d .. Bcl.. 43.94850 ...... E.6,9,.1 92 .. 59817 .... ~ ..35.89!Rura 0I. 0w,,I.Q.. =ua=d~r=an~t~G~a~te~s~--<---+ ...... CR 17 43 .. 94983 56 .. 99 92.60117 36.07 Rural w/ Quadrant Gales ,...... __ , ,___ ,,_ -·------. '"-" ~ ..,,. ____ ,___ .. ,_ -·------__ ,__ ,_,."."'""--"-""------•··~ ----- CR 3 43 .. 95700 57.42 92.61783 37.07 Rural w/ Quadrant Gales .... '"'""''""""" ., ..,~ ----- ,.,,~ __ _,_ ,,,_ ____,._.,...... ------__, ..,, ...... ---+---.... , CR 150 43 .. 96567 _ 57.94.. 92.63.. 800 38.28 Ruralv.r/_Quadr."nl .. Clal~".. ... _-+-- ...... LJnriame.d .. Bd. i ....4:3,97667 ....- ....58,6.0 ....Jl.2,6_6..3.Q.0 ...... _3_9.7~ .R,ural wj Qua~nmt Gales .. - ...... _1;...... ---+---, CR 25 I 43 .. 98317 58.99 92 .. 67800 40.68 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 15 ! 43.99217 59.53 92.69817 41.89 Rural w/ Quadrant Gales Unnamed Rd 43 .. 99683 59.81 92.71333! 42.80 Rural w/ Quadrant Gales Unnamed Rd 44.00033! 0.02 92.72600 43.56!Rural w/ Quadrant Gales CR 13 44.003501 0.21 92.738501 44 .. 31 !Rural w/ Quadrant Gales CR 10 44 .. 007831 0.47 92.754001 45.241Rural w/ Quadrant Gales CR 13 44.008831 0.53 92.75817, 45.491Rural w/ Quadrant Gales CR 14 44 .. 014171 0.85 92.77833 46 .. 70!Rural wl Quadrant Gales CCR 9 ,... 44.02050' 1.23 92.798671 47.92jRural w/ Quadrant Gales --...... ,...... -...... ; ...... -...... , CR 9 I 44 .. 02783 1.67 92,818671 ...... 49, ..121Rural .. v.r/ Quadrnnt ..Gates g~f5 ~~.. ~ .... :•· ... _ :!:~i~!~ ...... ~ ~:~~ ...... i~:i:~i~!: ~ .. ft!! ~~~~;~~~~~.. ii:;;...... _..... ,.... _...... _...... _...... Unnaniect R,i" .. 1.... -44.10250 ...... 6 .. 15 -il:Z:iissa:r .. -· 51.35 Rural iv/ou..aclrant Gates .... - CR 7/CR 20 i 44.11667 7.00 92.85850 51.51!Rural w/ Quadrant Gates C::fl_2? ...... _ i 44.13850 8.31 92.862671 51. 76/Rural w/ Quadrant Gates Unnamed Rd I 44.16617 9.97 92.868001 52.08iRural w/ Quadrant Gates CR B 44.01748 1,05 92.869501 52.17!Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR B ' 44.18217 10.93 92.871001 52.26 1Rural wl Quadrant Gates CR A 44.19683 11.81 92.873671 52.42!Rural wl Quadrant Gates CR! 44.20417 12.25 92.875171 52.51 'Rural w/ Quadrant Gates Unnamed Rd 44.20633 ...... 1..2 .. ,,l,8. .... 92.87550I 52,53 Rllral. w/_Cluadranl Gales CR 117 44.21833! 13.10 92.877831 52.67 Rural w/ Qlladrant Gates ______! C~n!:ed Rd .. ·, !! ;:~~~f ·]t1i-· :t:::i~1 ...... ;;"~ii~~;!i ..$-~~~~;!~:~:::: - i ...... ~....- ....-_ .. - ....- ....- .. ' E~g~JJ _ _--· ,-1-. .. - ... ,. ... _. ______i______-- i -··-··--······- le···· • ..... L. l [ ~E9_~~_i_!]_9 I North _GPS _Lat Min_~-- _~(~~-L~_PS Lo_ng .. _Min ____ Rccom_fJl_ended_Act_io_n___ ! . ! CR 12 44.26900 16.14 92.88750 53.25 Rural wl Quadrant Gates I I Unnamed Rd I 44.27900 16.74 92.89167 53.50 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates Unnamed Rd l 44.282171 16.93 92.89367 53.62 Rural w/ Qua=drc,a,,nt:..;G:c.a=t,,es"----·~'-----+'---l Unnamed Rd.! 44.28733 17.24 92 .. 89700 53 .. 82 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates

Unnamed Rd 1 44.29767 17.861 92 .. 90350 54 .. 21 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 30 i 44 .. 31967 19.181 92.91983 55 .. 19 Ruralw/QuadrantGates CR 14 I 44.34033 20.42 92 .. 93817 56.29 Rural wl Quadrant Gates Unnamed Rd . 44 .. 34150 20.49 92.93917 56.35 Rural wl Quadrant Gates I

fB.4.4. .. _. 44.35150 ..2.1 0Q9 92.94817 56 .. 89 Rural wl Quadrant Gates I ..... Unnamed Rd 44.364831 21.89 92.95867+1-___5_7 .._5_2, Rural wl Quadmnt Gales ... _ ...- .. .'...... J .. _ .. I CR 49 · ··· 44 .. 370331 ...... 22.22 92 .. 961001 57 .. 66 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates I Unnamed Rd 44.385171 23.11 92.96717 ..... 58 .. 03 Ru.raj',v/QuadrantGates ... _l ...... -· ,..... ··-· CR 24- . 44.4145oi· - 24.87 92.97933 58 .. 76 _Rural wi Qua_cJ~ra~n"-t ~G=accte=s __-+I ---~---I Unnam,i'd-Rd... ·-·44.435671 · ·· 26.14 92.98917 59.35 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates I Unnamed Rd 44.44983! 26.99 92 .. 99583 59 .. 75 Rural wl Quadrant Gates Unnamed Rd 44.47167! 28 .. 30! 92 .. 00633 0.. 38 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates Skiota Trail 44 .. 51167! 30 .. 70i 92.02500 1.. 50 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 88 ! 44.52600! 31.561 92.03117 1.87 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 82 I 44.55833[ 33 .. 501 92.04233 2.54 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates 265th St 44'.565501 33.93 92.04483 2.. 69 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates 250th St 44.58733 35.24 92.05250 3.15 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR 80 44 .. 59483 35 .. 69 92.05500 3.. 30 lsural w/ Quadran_t.C3ates,_ ·--·- CR 79 ..... _, ..i:l,5§6§.I ... 35 .. 80 _92,ot;567 ... _3.34 R!J_ra_l".'i_Qll_a_clra.~!.C3at_es___ ·----l ____ , 230th St E ... _.. 4.1,6.1650 ._.. 36.99 92.06200 3.72 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates CR .. 72...... 44 .. 64483 38,69 .... 92.06250 3.75 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates ...... ---+--- ... , §.t9tio_nTra_il__ , 44 .. 68917 41.35 92.06333 3.80 Rural w/ Qu,icfr,in.t.§=at=e=s ___, ----,----I Unnamed Rd . 44.69500 41.70 92.06350 3.81 Rural w/ Quadrant Gales I 44.703001 42.18 92.06350 3 .. 81 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates

•I 44.71100 42 .. 66 92 .. 06350 3.81 Closure ! ' 16oth St 44.71750 43 .. 05 92.06333 3.80 Rural w/ Quadrant Gales 44.72450 43.47 92 .. 06133 3.68i Closure ! 1 155th St 44 .. 72600 43.56 92 .. 06067 3.64 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates 153rd St i 44.72950 43.77 92.059831 3.59 Closure i , 152nd St 44 .. 73083 43.85 92.05950 3.57 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates

65th St E I 44.85533 51.32 92.02000 1.20 Rural w/ Quadrant Gales I Edwards Ave EI 44 .. 86800 52.08 92 .. 02233 • 1.34 Rural w/ Quadranl Gates I Hardman Avem! 44.87350 52.41 92.02317 1.39 Rural w/ Quadrant Gales Mallbv SI 44.87517! 52.51 92.02350 1.41 Rural w/ Quadranl Gates Hardman Aven~ 44.880001 52.80 92.02433 1.46 Full Widlh Barrier i Armour Ave 44.88700 53 .. 22 92 .. 02550 1.53 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates John Carroll Av/ 44 .. 89433 53.66 92 .. 03050 1.. 831Rural w/ Quadrant Gates Hardman Ave N 44 .. 89533 53.72 92.03167 1.9.o... I'_R.ural w/ Quadrant Gates Ranchnot Rd I 44~91250! 54.75 92.05183 3.11 [Rural w/ Quadrant Gates ;~~~:f,Y_§,~g·ci~~J.TD ·~-~~··· [U-fl-if-~----·-- Qu-arit-ity____ i Amount =-~---· -_-.-_-:_::_:::_::_::_:_·-·_-_ --:i:_::_:_-_--- _-·------;-----i--·---~·-·· Private Closure I $60 100 $6,000 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates ' S274 ·-·- 94 $25,756 I Full Width Barrier·------~------;-----+---~~-1------f------,-----+-----+-----J i $550 1 $550 I Total i ' $32,306 ! I Private Closures is an estimate based on an estimate of_private crossinos for the entire route. f~gc12 ! ! Quantity Summary for Sogment 7 River to St Paul Crossing · !Seg 7A Seg---1------~~--~-,-;------+----+------t 7B Seg 7C Seg 7D iTotal Closure:,.. __ ----cc0:-+-----c-0ct---1-=0-=0c-!__ c-1cc15cii ___ ~,rivale ······-----.__j, __ ----···-·- 15,-----0 __ --+-----+----I Rural w/ Quadr_an_t _Gat.es -· ·- j_ 171 ______._1_,1_~2!···-·-· ·----- '?'"''I·····-- ___ 931 ___ 151!··-····-- ···-i·-··-·-····----·-·i· •. ···-- . _ F_~IWidth Barrie_i: ___ --i_ ------·-·--·: - .... -·- . ------1!----1-t------·-c------,--·--· _____ 1 ~!1-~-~~ry~f..~_C?~.~~--~~Jt!!:l.~.nt 7 River to ~t Paul ··---·- ---+----!~------<------' -•--•----+-----, Crossing Unit Quantit,i:_-fA-"m=o-"u"'n_,_t=-+----+l----+----+-----"-----I Private Closure• S60 115 $6,900 i Rural w/ Quadrant Gates $274 151 $41,374 Full Width Barrier $550 1 i $550 Total Cost Crossina::: ! i $48,824 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 6. 2. 3 Infrastructure Detail: B-2 Rochester Route 150 mph

I Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 12-Jan-99 Route: Option B-2 • 1 150 MPH technology

Item Unit Unit Costs Quantity 1.0 Trackwork per mile 1.1 HSR on Existing Roadbed per mile $873 33 $28,809 1.2 HSR on New Roadbed (Existing ROW) per mile $932 1.2A HSR on New Roadbed (New ROW) per mile $1,376 99 $136,224 1.28 HSR on New Roadbed (double track) per mile $2,308 154 $355,432 1.3 Timber & Surface w/ 33% Tie replacement per mile $136 165 $22,440 1.4 Timber & Surface w/ 66% Tie Replacement per mile $224 1.5 Relay Track w/ 136# CWR per mile $329 1.6 Siding per mile $802 25 $20,050 1.7 Fencing per· mile $49 354 $17,346 1 .8 Electrification per mile $991 $0 1.9 Other Track Work Chicago to Milwaukee LS $212,917 1 $212,917 1.1 O Land Acquisition Madison LS $5,000 3 $15,000 1.11 Land Acquisition Urban per mile $294 10 $2,940 1 .12 Land Acquisition Rural per mile $98 110 $10,780 Total Track Upgrade Cost $821,938

2.0 Stations 2.1 Full Service• New each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.2 Full Service • Renovated each $500 3 $1,500 2.3 Terminal • New each $2,000 3 $6,000 2.4 Terminal• Renovated each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.5 Maintenance (110 MPH technology) each $10,000 so 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technology) each $86,000 1 $86,000 2.5B Maintenance (185 MPH technology) each $162,000 2.6 Stations Chicago to Milwaukee LS $20,428 1 $20,428 Total Station Cost $115,928

4.0 Turnouts 4.1 New #33 • 136# High Speed each $555 4 $2,220 4.2 New #20 • 136# Panel each $105 4.3 New #10 • 136# Panel each $61 Total Turnout Upgrade Cost $2,220 Page 2 Route: Option B-2 - 1 150 MPH technology 5.0 Bridges - Under 5.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each $4,848 5 $24,240 5.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each $4,036 27 $108,972 5.3 Two Lane Highway each $3,062 193 $590,966 5.4 Rail each $3,062 5 $15,310 5.5 Minor river each $812 24 $19,488 5.6 Major River each $8,118 5 $40,590 5.7 Mississippi River LS $234,000 $0 5.8 Interstate 90 Dakota Rvier Valley Struclure LS $74,000 5.9 Elevated Structure Milwaukee per mile $39,000 5.10 Elevated Structure St Paul per mile $39,000 5.11 Elevated Structure Chicago to Milwaukee per mile $39,000 5.12 Bridges Chicago to Milwaukee LS $97,152 1 $97,152 Total Bridge Under Upgrade Cost $896,718

6.0 Bridges - Over 6.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each $10,516 4 $42,064 6.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each $2,630 7 $18,410 ·1 6.3 Two Lane Highway each $1,971 15 $29,565 6.4 Rail each $6,572 2 $13,144 i 6.5 Viaducts - Major river each • I 6.6 Tunnel (East and West Bound) each Total Bridges Over $103,183

7.0 Crossings 7 .1 Private Closure each $60 215 $12,900 7 .2 Rural w/ Quandrant Gates $274 93 $25,482 7.3 Urban w/ Quandrant Gates $341 $0 7.4 Full Width Barrier $550 40 $22,000 7 .5 Crossings Chicago to Milwaukee LS $71,510 $71,510 Total Crossing Upgrade Cost $131,892

8.0 Signals 8.1 High Speed Turnout each $1,098 2 $2,196 8.2 System Installation for HSR (11 0MPH) per mile $150 8.2A System Installation for HSR (150MPH) per mile $350 366 $128,100 8.2B System Installation for HSR (185MPH) per mile $980 8.3 Signal Costs Chicago to Milwaukee LS $46,877 1 $46,877 Total Signals Upgrade $177,173

9.0 Curves 9.1 Elevate & Surface Curves per mile $42 9 $378 9.2 Curvature Reduction per mile $284 9 $2,556 9.3 Elastic Fasteners per mile $59 9 $531 Total Curve Upgrade Cost $3,465

Total Upgrade Cost $2,252,517

Tri-State Phr1sc II HSR FeasibHitv Studv I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 12-Jan-99\ I I I I I I I I i i I I Roule: Ontlon 8-2 • 11·50 MPH technolog" I I I I I Seciment 1 Senment 2 I Segment 3 t Segment 4 ! S~men! 5 Senment 6 Sen,ment 7 I i I I --1-C~~.Q.90 to Milwaukee Mi!w 10 Watertown [ Water lo H'-.:1'. 51 Airnort Track I Madison to Portage ; Portane to Miss br Miss br to St naol Total I Item Unit !Unit Costs !OuttnUI" I 1 Olianlilv Amount Ounn!it:zi i Amount 1 Quanmv Amount Qu;m!it}'. ! Quantity i Amount Quantllv I / Amount ! Amount , Quantlt}'. I Amount Quantity ~lJ:!.OUn\ ~-- 1.0 Trackwork nermi!e I i ' I I I I I I I I I 1.1 HSR on Existinn Roadbed nermile I S873I 33 $28.809 I' • i i • I 33 28,809 I • I I .I -1 . 33 $28,809 1.2 HSR on New Roadbed tExlstinn ROW\ nermi!c I $932! • I I . I · I I . i $0 1,2A HSR on New Roadbed-fNeW ROW\ ner mile I S1,376I 99 $136.224 . I • I I • I 99 I 136,224 99 I $136,224 t28 HSR on New Roadbed (double track' -eer mile i S2.308 154 , $355,432 [ I -1 . 3 6.924 I 31 I 71,548 ! . 120 276,960 154 I $355~432 Iner mile I . 1.3 Timber & Surface w/ 33% T!c renlacemcnt I $136 165 ! $22,44QJ I . ' 41 5,576 I . ' I -I 106 I 14,416 1B I 2,448 165 I $22.440 1.4 Timber & Surface wt 66% T!e Ree!acement Iner mile $224 I I I I • t . . i i • I I -I I . ! so 1.5 Re!avTrnck wl 136# CWR permlle $329 I . • I • I • I I . . • I so l&.?i~.~9- Iner mile $802 25 520,050 I ' 10 8,020 I 15 12,030 I • I i . 25 I $20,050 1.7 Fencinn jner mile $49\ 354 . $17,3461 I ! . 41 ! 2.009 i 33 1.617 31 147 I 31 i 1,519 I 106 5,194 140 6,860 354 l $17.346 1.8 Electrrncation ieermile I $9911 -1 SOI I I ! • I I . ' i -I so 1.9 Other Track Work Chicano 10 Milwaukee LS I $212,917 I 1 $212,917 i ! 1 I 212.917 l i . . I . i I 11 $212,917 1.1 0 Land Acauisition Madison LS I ss,ooo I 3 $15,0001 • I I . . 31 15,000 j . . 3 I S15,000 1. 11 Land Acauisl\ion Urban perml!e i S294 t-· 10 $2.940 • I . • I • I . 10 2,940 10 I S2,940 1. 12 Land Acnuisltion Rural lnermi!e S98; 110 $10,780 I I . I . • I 8 784 . 102 9,996 110 I $10,780 Total Track Upnrade Cos! I I i $821,938 I 212,917 I I 15.605 I I 42,456 I I 22,071 i I 73,851 l 155,834 299,204 I $821,938~ ! ! I I I I I I I I ' I I I ! I ! I Seoment 1 1 Seamen\ 2 Segment 3 Seamen! 4 'Seoment 5 Senment 6 Sen.men! 7 I I ! Chicaao to Milwaukee Mi!w to Watertown Wator to Hwv 51 ! AitPort Track Madison lo Portaqe _!:_or1ane to Miss br Miss br to St naul Tolal I 2.0 Stations I I ! Quantity I Amount Quantity ! Amount Ouan\llv I Amount Quantity ! Amount Quantity I Amount Ouanrnv Amount Ouanlitv I Amount Quanllly Amount 2.1 Full Service• New each $1,0001 1 $1,0001 I i I I I I 1 1,000 1 $1,000 2.2 Full Service. Renovated .each $5001 3 $1,500 I I i 11 500 I I I ' 2 1,000 3 $1,500 2.3 Tenninal • New !each S2.000i 31 S6,000: I I I I 1 I 2,000 I 21 4,000 ! 3 SG.000 2.4 Terminal• Renovated 'each $1,0001 1 S1,000j I I I 1 I 1,000 I ' 1 $1.000 2.5 Maintenance (11 0 MPH techno!ogyi each ! $10.000 . SOI I I I I I • l so 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technol;::~ each $85,000 1 S86.000! I I I 1 86.000 1 I SSG,000 2.58 Maintenance {185 MPH technol0""i ench $162,0001 I I I I . I • I so 2.6 Stations Chicano to Mirwaukee LS I $20.428 \ 1 S20.428 I 11 20,420 I I I I I I 11 S20,428 Total S!alion Cosl I I I I S115.928\ I 20.428 ! I 1.soo I I 2,000 I I I 2.000 I 90,000 $115,928 p~~.. .? .. __ 7 1 i I : l I ! i --1-·- ,, --1 T I i - i i 1 T I Route: Option B·2 ~ 1 150 MPH technology I I I l I SeQment 1 ~ Senment 2 Seoment 3 I Segment 4 j§.eqmenl 5 I Segment 6 1 Seo.ment 7 l j I I j -1 Chicano to Milwaukee 1Milw to Watertown Water to Hwy 51 Airnort Track i Madison to Porta"ne I Portrme to Miss br i Miss br to SI naul Total I 14.0 Turnouts 1 ! Quanlilv 1 Amounl I Oual!filY i Amount Ouanmv I Amount i Oum1titv 1 Amoun: I Ouanti!v j Amount I Quanlitv_J Amount I Quantity I Amount Ow:rnlitv !Amount I4.1New#33-136#HighSneed each j S555 4 S2.220\ ! l 21 1.110 21 .J.1101 I I i I 1_ I I I 4j 52.220 I4.2New#20-136#Panel each i $105 I I ! I i I ! f I I I l 1, I 4.3New#10-136#Pane1 each I -~§ii _l I i I I I !~-_-___! ! ! ____I I J To!n!TumoutU.2_ radoCost 7-- -I- $2,220! ! ___l ___ i 1.110 1,11or-- I i I I T s2.nq l l ! j I I I -----, I \Serrlent1 lse.ment2 iSemcnl3 !Segment4 i_Sement5 Sement6 1Se(,ment7 I l _ \ Chicago lo Mi!waukeo Milw to Watertown J Water to Hwy 51 j A_!!Q2f1 Track j Madison to Portage Port<'.!9(: Jo Miss br ! Miss br to SI pnu! j Total 15.0 Brid_nes. Under 1 I I j fauarlmv Amount I OuanWy Am0unt 1 Quantity 1Amount Quantity I Amount 1 Ouan!ily ~-·I Amount I Ouantitv I Amount I Ouantllv 1 Amount j QuanfoY -!Amount 5.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway leach $4.848 5 l $24,240 l I '. i l • I • l 1 ! 4,8-18 i I I ~ l 19,392 1 5 I S24,240, 1 5.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway leach 1 $4,036 27 l S108,9721 l i 1 4,036 I i I I 6 24.216 ! 6 I 24,216 I 14 1 56.504 1 27 $108,9721 1 i !5.3 Two Lane Hlghwav leach 1 $3,062 193 1 $590,9661 l ! i I 1 3 I 9,186 I 281 85.736 I 88 209,456 74 l 226,588 193 ! $590,966 I I I 1 5.4 Rail leach I $3,0621 5 I $15,310I l ! i I l I l 1 ! 3,062 j 1 I 3,062 I 3 i 9,186 5 i $15,3101 5.SMinorriver teach l $812 24j s,_~488] J J ! _2 _ 1,9~i U_---1,060 i ___I 3) __ ?,436 f ! _J _ __!_±J __ J1.368 j 24 i $19.488 5.6M

7.2 Rural w/ Ouandrant Gates ! \ $274 ! 93 S25,:,;4Bc'2ci. ____ 1____ ,..', ___ 1__ ~2"7'+--''~-3~9,,B_,1 ___-+---+---t------!l----!-'---+----·;-1 ------!--~66 0 _+-l-"18~.0~8~4-+---"'9"3+1----'S"2"5:,:.4'°8~2 "7~.3,.,..U~rt,~a~n~s~,J~Qs=u,~n~d~,can~t~G~a~\~o-,------~f-----,,---~$~34~1+--~+-=· $0 4 j 4 ! I \ I • i $0 7'.4 Full Width Barrier / $550 i 40 I . $22,000 I .1 18 , 9,900 21 11,550 ! I 1 I 550 I 40 \ $22,000 7.5Crossinas Ch~i'o'ctoc-f.~l~ilw'"a"u~k=••~----tl~S~--t-l_S~7~1£.5~1~0-t-l---'+~S~7~1~,5~1=0t----,=-,.=I---~'+- 1_,,11c',Soc1'°'0+----t'-==+----;--,,c-;c;;;-r---t----,--1__ 7 1__ -a,;;;1c----+---,==r---t--,;,c,,;-;--t-1 ___ 1'-t-_-,;'Si,71c',ocs1,,o~ Total Crossing ~9".!cao,de_o_eC,e \ Milw to Watertown I Water lo H~ 51 I Aimort Track I Madison to Portane Portaae to Miss br Miss bt to St oaul0 Tola! I "8"".~~"'971-n-a'",,------!---~,1------+---+----t-----~,~o~,=m=n~ti tt-,.. i_Amount I Ouantity____..l_6m_2.l!!,"!~_j Ouanlltv f A~m~o~u-nt,-hlO~u~an~t~it=v7_~~-.m7o7u.,.n7t-+l~Ofu~a~n7tijy_;--_I"_, ~A~m~o~,~rn~,--t-;o~u~a~n~ti~ltY:"';~A~m=ou"'n"",--t~Q~u~a~n,~H~y_"-il~A m=o=u~n7t-+O~u~a=n~t7ity-~IA7m_o_u_n7t---l 8.1 Hin'",h'cSc'-mo7ed=T-m_n_ou7t------te7a7c'"h-~li--,s~1"",o°'g°'st---,,2+·-~s"2,""'1"95,+-----+=="-ji i f! 1,098 I 1 1,098 ! 1·+-'-'l~~-+c==•- \ --- -f ----· 2 $2,196 8.2 Svstem Installation for HSR f110MPHI _ :per mil(!._41__ _,Sc,1"!-SOe;., __=+-~-=+----../1 ____ \-l---+---=i-~~--:--l'--~,+~==+--~t-'~-c-c--:--il---c-+' -==,·-.;1--=+-==--:--ir--~c-+-~,.,-~\--=cc-t-~=-,..,S"'OI lc8"o.2ccA'-'Sc'y"s"tec,m.clc'n"st"a"'lla"1i"'"-".;>fo~•.cH"!SccR'-'(,.c1"'50~M:,,P,,:H.a}._ _ _,r,0e,,_c-"m"il"e-l,--_,s23o,5ec0t--~3"6"6+-'S"t-"2"8,c,1,c00'+------'il------+1-___cl;---"46"--t-'-'"6"-,1"0=0J 32 11.~9,00,+--~3-tl__ 1~,o~s"o~r'-~'~'-;l __ t~0",8"5~0+-~'~'-'-'-t- 1_"38~,"85"'0'+--'~'"3-l)-~5"0,"0=50'-t'----'3"'6~67!~~Sc.12~8"."10~0, 1 8.28 Svstem Installation for HSR f185MPHl ! □er mile l $980 I I r t I I t I ! I · l SO 8.3 Siona! Costs Chicano to Milwaukee LS ! S46,877 ! 1 $46,877 I 1 I 46,877 I ! J \ ! 1 S46,8i7 TotalS~!sUoorade i ! ! $177,1731 I 46,877 I 17,198 ! 12,298 I 1,050 l ! 10,850 \ 38,850 50,050+----+-~$~1~7-'-7,~1~7301

1------+----<'~---+- ,_!,-~- ! l l i ! I '---+----1------e.,,.---~'---+-e---~c-''! Scoment 1 j Segment 2 ___ 1 Seamen! 3 I Seriment 4 I Senmenl 5 Seoment 6 Sen,menl 7 I Chicano to MIiwaukee ! Mllw to Watertown I Water to H,..,.,.. 51 I Aimort Track I Madison to Portaoe ! Portaoe to Miss br Miss br to SI oaul Total 9.0 Curves t ! / ! Quanlitv i Amount : Quant!lv Amount Ouanti\v Amount LQuanl!!y_+'--IA~m-'-o~u~n-'-t ~!~O-'-u~a-'-n-'-tit~:v-+l-'-A-'-m-'-o~u~n-'-t-+'O-'-u-'-a-'-n~li~ltv~l.cA.cm~o~u~n-'-t~,+~Q~u=•~n<.ci!l'. Amount Ouan1itv Amoun1 9.1 Elevate & Surface Curves oermile f $42[ 9 $3781 I I 2 84 i I ) l 7 294 9 $378 9.2 Curvalure Reduclion 'oer mlle I $284 9 $2,556 I i 2 568 \ ! ! l 7 1,988 9 $2,556 9.3 Elastic Fasteners 'oer mile I $59 9 $531) l j I 2 118 I i ! I 7 413 $531 Tola! Curve Unnrade Cost ! I $3.465 ! I l 770 ! I I 1 1 2,695 I $3,465

! I '====-I l=-=,-~~------1'---+-'----+--~i------+ITo!a!UonradcCost ! ) I I / ~==-..-=-4---+-'==~I $2.252,5171 t S448.884r- I S83.7531 I! $81,512! ·,'-c==+-i$44,823\ ---+'1--==ci----+--==±---+--c=c=±----+--S213.717! 1 S558.253 S821,575. ! S2,252,517

Tri State 150 MPH Technology B-2 Milwaukee/Rochester/St Paul Trackwork Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 85.7 90.57 4.87 Watertown Sub 90.57 98.40 7.83 7.83 7.83 Watertown Sub 98.40 104.20 5.80 5.80 5.80

Watertown Sub 104.20 131.20 27.00 . 27.00 27.00 Waterloo Spur 131.30 163.85 32.55 32.55 0.00 0.00 32.55 Airport 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Madison/Portage 0.00 30.90 30.90 0.00 0.00 30.90 30.90 8.60 Watertown Sub 2 176.90 178.20 1.30 Tomah 178.20 179.00 0.80 Tomah 179.00 180.40 1.40 0.00 1.40 1.40 Tomah 180.40 243.40 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 Tomah 243.80 246.30 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Tomah 246.30 257.10 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 Tomah 257.10 280.00 22.90 22.90 22.90 22.90 Tomah 280.00 283.00 3.00 Tomah 283.00 284.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tomah 284.40 288.00 3.60 3.60 3.60 River 288.00 288.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 River 288.05 306.60 18.55 18.55 18.55 River 306.60 308.50 1.90 DM&E 0.00 33.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 33.00 17.00 Minnesota 42.00 117.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Union Pacific 0.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Union Pacific 10.00 11.60 1.60 0.00 1.80 1.80 Merriman Park 407.40 408.90 1.50 1.50 Merriman Park 408.9 410.2 1.30 0 0 1.3

Total 365.55 32.55 0.00 99.20 153.70 164.83 353.88 113.60 Page2 I I I Definition of Units 1.1 HSRex High Speed Rail trackwork on Existing Roadbed with a unit cost of $873,000 per mile 1.2 HSRnew High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (Existing Right of Way) with a unit cost of $932,000 per mile 1.2AHSR High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (New Right of Way) with a unit cost of $1,376,000 per mile 1.2BHSR High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (Double Track) with a unit cost of $2,308,000 per mile 1.3T&S33 Timber and Surface with 33% Tie Replacement with a unit cost of $136,000 per mile 1.7Fence Fencing of High Speed Rail Route on both sides with a unit cost of $49,000 per mile Land Miles of Land required for construction of a high speed rail route at specifed unit costs

Segment #2 Milwaukee to Watertown Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 85.7 90.57 4.87 Watertown Sub 90.57 98.40 7.83 7.83 7.83 Watertown Sub 98.40 104.20 5.80 5.80 5.80 Watertown Sub 104.20 131.20 27.00 27.00 27.00 Total 45.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.63 40.63 0.00

Segment #3 Watertown to Highway 51 Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Waterloo Spur 131.30 163.85 32.55 32.55 0.00 0.00 32.55

Segment #4 Airpot Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Airport 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Segment #5 Madison to Portage Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land

Madison/Portaqe 0.00 30.90 ✓ 30.90 0.00 0.00 30.90 30.90 8.60 Page 3 Segment #6 Portage to River Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 2 176.90 178.20 1.30 Tomah 178.20 179.00 0.80 Tomah 179.00 180.40 1.40 0.00 1.40 1.40 Tomah 180.40 243.40 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 Tomah 243.80 246.30 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Tomah 246.30 257.10 10.80 10.80 10.80 10.80 Tomah 257.10 280.00 22.90 22.90 22.90 22.90 Tomah 280.00 283.00 3.00 Tomah 283.00 284.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 Tomah 284.40 288.00 3.60 3.60 3.60 Total 110.70 0.00 0.00 99.20 . 0.00 105.60 105.60

Segment #7 River to St. Paul Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land River 288.00 288.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 River 288.05 306.60 18.55 18.55 18.55 River 306.60 308.50 1.90 DM&E 0.00 33.00 33.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.00 33.00 17.00 Minnesota 42.00 117.00 75.00 0.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Union Pacific 0.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Union Pacific 10.00 11.60 1.60 0.00 1.80 1.80 Merriman Park 407.40 408.90 1.50 1.50 Merriman Park 408.9 410.2 1.30 0 0 1.3 Total 142.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 119.80 18.60 141.20 102.00 Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 19-Jan-99

B-2 Rochester Route Route 150 MPH Proposed Station Modifications and Maintenance Facilities

Station Type Recommended Action Cost (SO00) Milwaukee Union Station Terminal Renovation $ 1,000 Brookfield/Watertown Full Service Renovation $ 500 Madison Terminal New $ 2,000 Wisconsin Dells Full Service Renovation $ 500 Tomah Full Service New $ 1,000 Lacrosse Full Service Renovation $ 500 Rochester Terminal New $ 2,000 St Paul Union Station Terminal Major Renovations $ 2,000

Maintenance Facility 150 MPH Technolog_y New $ 86,000 I

Summary 2.0 Stations 2.1 Full Service - New each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.2 Full Service - Renovated each $500 3 $1,500 2.3 Terminal - New each $2,000 3 $6,000 2.4 Terminal - Renovated each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.5 Maintenance (110 MPH technology) each $10,000 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technology) each $86,000 1 $86,000 2.58 Maintenance (185 MPH technology) each $162,000 2.6 Stations Chicago to Milwaukee LS $20,428 1 $20,428 Total Station Cost $115,928 Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 19-Jan-99 BRIDGES B-2 Rochester Route 150 MPH Recommended Action for Bridges Under and Bridges Over

Segment 3 Milwaukee to Watertown Subdivision MP Type Name Recommended Treatment Watertown sub 100.00 Under Fox River Major River Watertown sub 103.50 Over HwyF 2 Lane• Over Watertown sub 104.90 Over Hwy Xing 4 Lane Rural • Over Watertown sub 110.80 Over Campbell R< '2 Lane • Over Watertown sub 112.80 Over Hwy Xing 2 Lane• Over Watertown sub 115.60 Under Hwy 4 Lane Rural • Under Watertown sub 116.30 Under Oconomowo Minor River Watertown sub 116.95 Over Hwy 2 Lane• Over Watertown sub 118.80 Under Oconomowo Minor River Watertown sub 119.40 Over Hwy Br 4 Lane Rural • Over Watertown sub 120.50 Over Hwy Br 4 Lane Rural • Over

Summary - Bridges Under Unit Cost Quantity Amount 4 Lane Rural Expressway $4,036 1 $4,036 Minor River $812 2 $1,624 Major River $8,118 1 $8,118 Total Cost Bridges Under $13,778

Summary • Bridges Over Unit Cost Quantity Amount . 4 Lane Rural I $2,630 3 $7,890 2 Lane $1,971 4 $7,884 Total Cost Bridges Over $15,774 Page2 Segment #3 Watertown to Hwy 51 Name North West Type of Bridge Crawfish River 43.19433 88.87683 Major Maunesha River 43.18017 89.00800 Minor Maunesha River 43.17883 89.03333 Minor Maunesha River 43.17833 89.03550 Minor Maunesha River 43.18083 89.07733 Minor Maunesha River 43.18167 89.08333 Minor Maunesha River 43.18217 89.08850 Minor

Summary. Bridges Under Unit Cost Quantity Amount Minor River $812 5 $4,060 Major River $8,118 1 $8,118 Total $12,178

Segment #4 Airport Track Name North West Type of Bridge Highway 51 43.10733 89.33867 4 Lane UrbanExpressway - Over Anderson 43.12117 89.35233 2 Lane Under Pankrantz 43.12150 89.35233 2 Lane Under International Lane 43.12250 89.35300 2 Lane Under .

Summary Bridges Under Unit Cost Quantity Amount 2 Lane Under $3,062 3 $9,186

Summary Bridges Over Unit Cost Quantity Amount 4 Lane Urban Expressway 10,516 1 $10,516 Page 3 Segment 5 Madison to Portage Subdivision MP Type Name Recommended Treatment Madison-Portage 25.95 Over 1-94 Adequate Clearance Madison-Portage 25.90 Over 1-90 Adequate Clearance

Segment 5 (Madison Airport to connection to CP Rail) Location North GPS Lat min WestGPS Long min Recommended Action Buckley Rd 43.17500 10.50 88.34233 20.54 2 Lane Bridge Under Daentl Rd 43.18333 11.00 88.34200 20.52 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.19100 11.46 88.34167 20.5 2 Lane Bridge Under 1-90 (existing) 43.19150 11.49 88.34150 20.49 4 Lane Urban Expressway Under Hwy19 43.19433 11.66 88.34133 20.48 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under Duraform Lane 43.19950 11.97 88.34167 20.5 2 Lane Bridge Under Sequoia Dr 43.21800 13.08 88.34233 20.54 2 Lane Bridge Under Gray Rd 43.22350 13.41 88.34250 20.55 2 Lane Bridge Under Vinburn Rd 43.23800 14.28 88.34317 20.59 2 Lane Bridge Under Commerce St 43.24633 14.78 88.34150 20.49 2 Lane Bridge Under CRDV 43.24767 14.86 88.34150 20.49 2 Lane Bridge Under Yahara River 43.25017 15.01 88.34133 20.48 Minor River Under CRV 43.25283 15.17 88.34133 20.48 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under Selji Rd 43.27450 16.47 88.34783 20.87 2 Lane Bridge Under CRDM 43.28117 16.87 88.35083 21.05 2 Lane Bridge Under Kleinert Rd 43.28967 17.38 88.35450 21.27 2 Lane Bridge Under Ramsey Rd 43.29600 17.76 88.35767 21.46 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.30183 18.11 88.36050 21.63 2 Lane Bridge Under CR K (intersects w/Goc 43.30850 18.51 88.36317 21.79 2 Lane Bridge Under Prairie Lane 43.31650 18.99 88.36717 22.03 2 Lane Bridge Under Kampen Rd 43.32317 19.39 88.37033 22.22 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed St 43.33583 20.15 88.37583 22.55 2 Lane Bridge Under SR60 43.33767 20.26 88.37683 22.61 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under Richards Rd 43.35233 21.14 88.38350 23.01 2 Lane Bridqe Under Page4 I Location North GPS Lat min WestGPS Long min CRO 43.37917 22.75 88.40267 24.16 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under CRQ 43.38100 22.86 88.40550 24.33 2 Lane Bridge Under Rowan Creek 43.38600 23.16 88.40967 24.58 Minor River Under I McMullen Rd 43.38867 23.32 88.41183 24.71 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under Kent Rd 43.40267 24.16 88.41483 24.89 2 Lane Bridge Under Hinkson Creek 43.41100 24.66 88.41467 24.88 Major River Thompson Rd 43.41717 25.03 88.41483 24.89 2 Lane Bridge Under Bilkie Rd 43.43183 25.91 88.41483 24.89 2 Lane Bridge Under CRB 43.43900 26.34 88.41483 24.89 2 Lane Bridge Under Morse Rd 43.44967 26.98 88.41483 24.89 2 Lane Bridge Under Rocky Run Creek 43.45233 27.14 88.41483 24.89 Minor River Under CRJ 43.45817 27.49 88.41483 24.89 2 Lane Bridge Under Murry Rd 43.48967 29.38 88.41483 24.89 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.50033 30.02 88.41483 24.89 2 Lane Bridge Under SR 51 43.51833 31.10 88.42283 25.37 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under CP Rail 43.53683 32.21 88.43617 26.17 Rail Under

Segment 5 madison to Portage Summary Bridges Under Unit Cost Quantity Amount 4 Lane Urban Expressway $4,848 1 $4,848 4 Lane Rural Expressway $4,036 6 S24,216 2 Lane $3,062 28 $85,736 Minor River $812 3 $2,436 Major River $8,118 1 $8,118 Rail $3,062 1 $3,062 Total Bridges Under Segment 5 $128,416 Page 5 B-2 150 Technology Segment 6 Portage to River Subdivision MP Type Name Recommended Treatment Tomah, CPSoo 180.20 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 180.90 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 181.20 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 182.70 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 183.80 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 184.50 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 185.20 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 186.60 Fl 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 187.00 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 190.40 so Petersen 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 191.20 Fl 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 191.90 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 197.75 Fl 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 200.10 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 200.50 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 201.80 Fl Koval Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 203.10 Fl Industrial Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 203.65 Fl Woodbridge 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 203.75 Fl Wisconsin S 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 204.30 Fl Allen Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 204.75 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 205.10 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 205.50 so HwyXing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 205.80 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 207.40 Fl Springer Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 208.50 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 209.20 Fl 21st Ave 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 210.20 Fl Cemetary Re .2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 210.80 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 212.75 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 212.90 Fl& G 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 214.10 Fl Union St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 214.20 Fl Hickorv St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 214.30 Fl Division St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 214.40 Fl Elm St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 214.50 Fl Hanover St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 214.60 Fl Grove St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 214.70 Fl Martin St 2 Lane Bridge Under Page 6 Segment 6 Portage to River Subdivision MP Type Name Recommended Treatment Tomah, CPSoo 215.20 Fl State St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 215.70 Fl Northern Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 216.10 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 216.40 Fl Sand Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 218.50 Fl Sumiec Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 218.80 Fl Ferdon Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 219.95 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 220.40 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 220.75 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 221.20 Fl Monroe St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 221.90 Fl Allen Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 222.20 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 222.40 Fl Marshall Xin!I 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 223.40 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 223.95 Fl Connor Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 224.01 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 224.50 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 225.10 Fl Orange Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 226.10 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 227.20 Fl W Ashburn E 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 227.65 Fl STH 94 4 Lane Rural Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 228.95 so HwyXing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 229.50 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 230.20 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 231.20 Fl 32nd Lane 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 231.90 Fl 32nd Court 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 233.60 so HwyXing 2 Lane Bridge Under Page 7 i I Segment 6 Portage to River Subdivision MP Type Name Recommended Treatment Tomah, CPSoo 237.50 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 239.20 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 239.90 Fl&G Glen Dale A• 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 240.10 Fl Superior St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 240.90 Fl 24th Ave 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 241.20 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 242.60 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 242.80 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 252.40 Fl 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 254.05 Fl&G Airport Rd 4 Lane Rural Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 254.60 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 255.80 Fl Milwaukee S 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 256.40 Fl Wokott St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 256.60 Fl Walrath St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 256.90 Fl Clifton St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 257.50 Fl S Water St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 258.20 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 258.80 Pvt Closure I Tomah, CPSoo 259.50 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 260.40 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 260.80 Fl 51 st St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 261.50 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 261.75 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 262.50 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 263.20 Fl Rockland Av 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 265.70 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 266.30 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Page 8 Segment 6 Portage to River Subdivision MP Type Name Recommended Treatment Tomah, CPSoo 266.70 Fl 15th Ave 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 266.80 Fl 16th Ave 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 267.01 Fl 18th Ave 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 267.10 Fl 19th Ave 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 267.50 Fl Dulek Crk Xiil2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 268.10 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 268.50 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 268.70 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 268.90 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 269.20 Fl Krueger Rd 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 269.50 so HwyXing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 270.90 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 271.30 Fl Mills St 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 271.40 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 271.60 so Hwy Xing 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 274.40 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 274.90 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 275.90 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 279.70 Pvt Closure Tomah, CPSoo 279.80 Fl 2 Lane Bridge Under Tomah, CPSoo 280.90 Fl Avon St 2 Lane Bridge Under

Summary of Recommended Treatment 4 Lane Rural Bridge Under 2 2 Lane Bridge Under 70 Closure 41 Total 113 Page 9 Widening of Existing Bridges B-2 150 Technology I Segment 6 Portage to River Subdivision MP Type Name Recommended Treatment Tomah CPSoo 204.50 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 213.00 Under 4 Lane Rural Under Tomah CPSoo 213.30 Over 2 Lane Over Tomah CPSoo 214.05 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 220.99 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 227.30 Under C&NW Railroad Under Tomah CPSoo 234.05 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 234.55 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 235.80 Over Hwy Br 4 Lane Rural Over Tomah CPSoo 237.80 Over Hwy Br 4 Lane Rural Over Tomah CPSoo 240.60 Under 4 Lane Rural Under Tomah CPSoo 242.20 Under Ballast Desk 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 252.50 Over Bike Trail 2 Lane Over Tomah CPSoo 253.80 Over 2 Lane Over Tomah CPSoo 256.30 Over Hwy xing 2 Lane Over Tomah CPSoo 257.90 Over Hwy Br 2 Lane Over Tomah CPSoo 260.00 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 262.20 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 263.45 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 265.50 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 266.40 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 266.95 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 271.10 Over Hwy xing 4 Lane Rural Over Tomah CPSoo 272.40 Over City M 2 Lane Over Page 10 I Segment 6 Portage to River . Subdivision MP Type Name Recommended Treatment Tomah CPSoo 274.80 Over 190 4 Lane Expressway Over Tomah CPSoo 274.85 Over I 90 4 Lane Expressway Over Tomah CPSoo 274.90 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 276.40 Under 4 Lane Rural Under Tomah CPSoo 276.90 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 277.10 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 277.50 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 277.70 Under 2 Lane Under Tomah CPSoo 277.95 Under frm xg 2 Lane Under TomahCPSoo 278.50 Over US Hwy 4 Lane Rural Over Tomah CPSoo 278.70 Over Comoco Rd 2 Lane Over Tomah CPSoo 278.95 Under La Crosse R Major River Tomah CPSoo 279.20 Under Hwy xing 4 Lane Rural Under Tomah CPSoo 279.40 Over Hwy Xing 2 Lane Over Tomah CPSoo 279.93 Over Gillette St 2 Lane Over Tomah CPSoo 280.50 Over George St 2 Lane Over

Segment 6 Portage to River Widening of Bridges Summary of Bridges - Under Recommended Treatment 4 Lane Rural 4 2 Lane 18 Railroad 1 Major River 1 Total Bridges Under 24 Page 11 I Summary of Bridges - Over Recommended Treatment 4 Lane Expressway 2 4 Lane Rural 4 2 Lane 10 Total Bridges Over 16

Summary of New Bridges and Widening for Segment 6 Bridge Under New Widening Total 4 Lane Expressway 4 Lane Rural 2 4 6 2 Lane 70 18 88 Railroad 1 1 Minor River 0 Major River 1 1

Segment 6 Portage to River Summary Bridges Under Unit Cost Quantity Amount 4 Lane Urban Expressway $4,848 0 $0 4 Lane Rural Expressway $4,036 6 $24,216 2 Lane $3,062 88 $269,456 Rail $3,062 1 $3,062 Minor River $812 0 $0 Major River $8,118 1 $8,118 Total Bridges Under Segment 6 $304,852

Summary of Bridges - Over Unit Cost Quantity Amount 4 Lane Expressway $10,516 2 $21,032 4 Lane Rural Expressway $2,630 4 $10,520 2 Lane $1,971 10 $19,710 Total Bridges Over $51,262 Page 12 Segment 7C Minnesota City to St Charles River/Creek North Lat min West Long min Recommended Action Rolling Stone Creek 44.09050 5.43 91.75733 45.44 Culvert included within trackwork Garvin Brook 44.08350 5.01 91.76300 45.78 Minor River Garvin Brook 44.07017 4.21 91.76483 45.89 Culvert included within trackwork Garvin Brook 44.03767 2.26 91.76483 45.89 Minor River Garvin Brook 44.03083 1.85 91.76900 46.14 Culvert included within trackwork Garvin Brook 44.02333 1.40 91.78550 47.13 Minor River Garvin Brook 44.01933 1.16 91.78983 47.39 Culvert included within trackwork Garvin Brook 44.01350 0.81 91.79500 47.70 Minor River Garvin Brook 44.00617 0.37 91.80883 48.53 Culvert included within trackwork Garvin Brook 43.99033 59.42 91.81217 48.73 Minor River Comments: The Garvin Brook is a small creek that can be accommodated by culverts. However, five minor river bridges have been planned within the Stockton Valley to accommodate the meandering Garvin Brook.

Segment 7C Roadway Bridges Under Roadway North GPS Lat Min WestGPS Long Min Recommended Action Hwy14 44.02450 1.47 91.78283 46.97 4 Lane Rural Expressway CR30 43.98400 59.04 91.86950 52.17 4 Lane Rural Expressway Hwy74 43.96567 57.94 92.06500 3.90 4 Lane Rural Expressway

Summary of Bridges Under DM&E Unit Cost Quantity Amount 4 Lane Rural Expressway $4,036 3 $12,108 Minor River $812 5 $4,060 Total $16,168 Page 13 Segment 7D Bridges - Under St. Charles to St Paul Roadway North GPS Lat min WestGPS Long min Recommended Action CR42 43.97017 58.21 92.11517 6.91 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 10 43.96483 57.89 92.13850 8.31 2 Lane Bridge Under Interstate 90 43.95500 57.30 92.17133 10.28 4 Lane Urban Expressway Bridge Under Cr 32 43.95000 57.00 92.17867 10.72 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 129 43.94817 56.89 92.18800 11.28 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 136 43.94567 56.74 92.19833 11.90 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.94117 56.47 92.21567 12.94 2 Lane Bridge Under CR7 43.93700 56.22 92.23800 14.28 4 Lane Rural Expressway Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.93933 56.36 92.25783 15.47 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 129 43.93967 56.38 92.27800 16.68 2 Lane Bridge Under CR19 43.94017 56.41 92.29817 17.89 2 Lane Bridge Under 75 St SE 43.94067 56.44 92.32800 19.68 2 Lane Bridge Under 70th Ave SE 43.94033 56.42 92.33800 20.28 2 Lane Bridge Under l-52/65th Ave SE 43.93967 56.38 92.34783 20.87 4 Lane Urban Expressway Bridge Under 1-90 43.93783 56.27 92.37150 22.29 4 Lane Urban Expressway Bridge Under 60th St SE 43.93433 56.06 92.38717 23.23 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 1 43.92783 55.67 92.40817 24.49 2 Lane Bridge Under CR16 43.92383 55.43 92.42050 25.23 2 Lane Bridge Under CR20 43.91850 55.11 92.43767 26.26 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.91367 54.82 92.45800 27.48 2 Lane Bridge Under SR63 43.90883 54.53 92.48017 28.81 4 Lane Urban Expressway Bridge Under CR8 43.92033 55.22 92.52817 31.69 2 Lane Bridge Under 60th Ave SW 43.93167 55.90 92.55767 33.46 2 Lane Bridge Under Fort Zumbro River 43.93200 55.92 92.55833 33.50 Culvert included in Trackwork CR 126 43.93500 56.10 92.56617 33.97 2 Lane Bridge Under CR15 43.93983 56.39 92.57800 34.68 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.94850 56.91 92.59817 35.89 2 Lane Bridge Under CR17 43.94983 56.99 92.60117 36.07 2 Lane Bridge Under Page 14 I Segment 7D I Roadway North GPS Lat min WestGPS Long min Recommended Action CR3 43.95700 57.42 92.61783 37.07 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 150 43.96567 57.94 92.63800 38.28 2 Lane Bridge Under Salem Creek 43.97217 58.33 92.65267 39.16 Minor River Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.97667 58.60 92.66300 39.78 2 Lane Bridge Under CR25 43.98317 58.99 92.67800 40.68 2 Lane Bridge Under CR15 43.99217 59.53 92.69817 41.89 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.99683 59.81 92.71333 42.80 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.00033 0.02 92.72600 43.56 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 13 44.00350 0.21 92.73850 44.31 2 Lane Bridge Under CR10 44.00783 0.47 92.75400 45.24 2 Lane Bridge Under CR13 44.00883 0.53 92.75817 45.49 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 14 44.01417 0.85 92.77833 46.70 2 Lane Bridge Under CCR9 44.02050 1.23 92.79867 47.92 2 Lane Bridge Under RR 44.02633 1.58 92.81417 48.85 Rail Bridge Under CR9 44.02783 1.67 92.81867 49.12 2 Lane Bridge Under 1-14 44.03000 1.80 92.82417 49.45 4 Lane Rural Expressway Bridge Under Airport Rd N 44.03533 2.12 92.83883 50.33 2 Lane Bridge Under North St NE 44.03717 2.23 92.84350 50.61 2 Lane Bridge Under Dodge Center Creek 44.05033 3.02 92.84583 50.75 Culvert included in Trackwork Dodge Center Creek 44.05250 3.15 92.84633 50.78 Culvert included in Trackwork Dodge Center Creek 44.06017 3.61 92.84783 50.87 Culvert included in Trackwork CR 7 44.06983 4.19 92.84967 50.98 2 Lane Bridge Under S. Branch Middle Fork 44.07933 4.76 92.85200 51.12 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.10250 6.15 92.85583 51.35 2 Lane Bridge Under Milliken Creek 44.11250 6.75 92.85783 51.47 Minor River Bridge Under CR 7/CR 20 44.11667 7.00 92.85850 51.51 2 Lane Bridge Under CR22 44.13850 . 8.31 92.86267 51.76 2 Lane Bridge Under Page 15 I I Segment 70 I Roadway North GPS Lat min West GPS Long min Recommended Action CR24 44.15300 9.18 92,86533 51.92 4 Lane Rural Expressway Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.16617 9,97 92.86800 52.08 2 Lane Bridge Under Middle Fork Zumbro Ri 44.16700 10.02 92.86817 52.09 Minor River Bridge Under CRB 44.01748 1.05 92.86950 52.17 2 Lane Bridge Under CRB 44.18217 10.93 92.87100 52.26 2 Lane Bridge Under CRA 44.19683 11.81 92.87367 52.42 2 Lane Bridge Under N. Branch Middle Fork 44.20167 12.10 92.87467 52.48 Culvert included in Trackwork CR! 44.20417 12.25 92.87517 52.51 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.20633 12.38 92.87550 52.53 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 117 44.21833 13.10 92.87783 52.67 2 Lane Bridge Under CR23 44.24017 14.41 92.88183 52.91 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.25450 15.27 92.88483 53.09 2 Lane Bridge Under Spring Creek 44.26550 15.93 92.88683 53.21 Culvert included in Trackwork CR 12 44.26900 16.14 92.88750 53.25 2 Lane Brid!;Je Under Unnamed Rd 44.27900 16.74 92.89167 53.50 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.28217 16.93 92.89367 53.62 2 Lane Bridge Under SR60 44.28350 17.01 92.89450 53.67 4 Lane Rural Expressway Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.28733 17.24 92.89700 53.82 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.29767 17.86 92.90350 54.21 2 Lane Bridge Under N. Fork Zumbro River 44.30217 18.13 92.90650 54.39 Minor River Bridge Under CR30 44.31967 19.18 92.91983 55.19 2 Lane Bridge Under CR14 44.34033 20.42 92.93817 56.29 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.34150 20.49 92.93917 56.35 2 Lane Bridge Under Little Cannon River 44.35083 21.05 92.94750 56.85 Minor River Bridge Under CR44 44.35150 21.09 92,94817 56,89 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.36483 21.89 92.95867 57.52 2 Lane Bridge Under CR49 44.37033 22.22 92.96100 57.66 2 Lane Bridge Under Page 16 I Segment 7D I Roadway North GPS Lat min WestGPS Long min Recommended Action Unnamed Rd 44.38517 23.11 92.96717 58.03 2 Lane Bridge Under CR9 44.40667 24.40 92.97600 58.56 4 Lane Rural Expressway Bridge Under CR24 44.41450 24.87 92.97933 58.76 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.43567 26.14 92.98917 59.35 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.44983 26.99 92.99583 59.75 2 Lane Bridge Under Prairie Creek 44.47083 28.25 93.00583 0.35 Culvert included in Trackwork Unnamed Rd 44.47167 28.30 93.00633 0.38 2 Lane Bridge Under SR56 44.47950 28.77 93.00983 0.59 4 Lane Rural Expressway Bridge Under 320th St W 44.48617 29.17 93.01300 0.78 4 Lane Rural Expressway Bridge Under Spring Creek 44.49333 29.60 93.01650 0.99 Culvert included in Trackwork Skiota Trail 44.51167 30.70 93.02500 1.50 2 Lane Bridge Under Cannon River 44.51600 30.96 93.02733 1.64 Minor River Bridge Under RR 44.52200 31.32 93.02967 1.78 Rail Bridge Under Chub Creek 44.52300 31.38 93.02983 1.79 Minor River Bridge Under CR88 44.52600 31.56 93.03117 1.87 2 Lane Bridge Under CR86 44.54383 32.63 93.03750 2.25 4 Lane Rural Expressway Bridge Under CR82 44.55833 33.50 93.04233 2.54 2 Lane Bridge Under 265th St 44.56550 33.93 93.04483 2.69 2 Lane Bridge Under 250th St 44.58733 35.24 93.05250 3.15 2 Lane Bridge Under CR80 44.59483 35.69 93.05500 3.30 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 79 44.59667 35.80 93.05567 3.34 2 Lane Bridge Under 230th St E 44.61650 36.99 93.06200 3.72 2 Lane Bridge Under S. Branch Vermillion Ri 44.61800 37.08 93.06217 3.73 Minor River Bridge Under SR50 44.63033 37.82 93.06217 3.73 4 Lane Rural Expressway Bridge Under CR 72 44.64483 38.69 93.06250 3.75 2 Lane Bridge Under CR66 44.65950 39.57 93.06283 3.77 4 Lane Rural Expressway Bridge Under Vermillion River 44.67033 40.22 93.06300 3.78 Minor River Bridge Under Page 1T I Segment 7D I Roadway North GPS Lat min WestGPS Long min Recommended Action Station Trail 44.68917 41.35 93.06333 3.80 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.69500 41.70 93.06350 3.81 2 Lane Bridge Under CR58 44.70300 42.18 93.06350 3.81 2 Lane Bridge Under 165th St 44.71100 42.66 93.06350 3.81 Closure I 160th St 44.71750 43.05 93.06333 3.80 2 Lane Bridge Under

156th St 44.72450 43.47 93.06133 3.68 Closure I . 155th St 44.72600 43.56 93.06067 3.64 2 Lane Bridge Under 153rd St 44.72950 43.77 93.05983 3.59 Closure I 152nd St 44.73083 43.85 93.05950 3.57 2 Lane Bridge Under 151st St 44.73233 43.94 93.05900 3.54 Closure I CR42 44.74067 44.44 93.05667 3.40 4 Lane Rural Expressway Bridge Under CR38 44.74400 44.64 93.05583 3.35 2 Lane Bridge Under CR38 44.74750 44.85 93.05467 3.28 2 Lane Bridge Under 135th St 44.75467 45.28 93.05283 3.17 Closure I 117th St 44.78017 46.81 93.04817 2.89 2 Lane Bridge Under 105th St 44.79733 47.84 93.04300 2.58 2 Lane Bridge Under Inver Grove Trail 44.80350 48.21 93.03467 2.08 2 Lane Bridge Under 65th St E 44.85533 51.32 93.02000 1.20 2 Lane Bridge Under Edwards Ave E 44.86800 52.08 93.02233 1.34 2 Lane Bridge Under Hardman Avenue S/Riq 44.87350 52.41 93.02317 1.39 2 Lane Bridge Under Maltby St 44.87517 52.51 93.02350 1.41 2 Lane Bridge Under RR 44.87783 52.67 93.02400 1.44 Rail Bridge Under Armour Ave 44.88700 53.22 93.02550 1.53 2 Lane Bridge Under John Carroll Ave 44.89433 53.66 93.03050 1.83 2 Lane Bridge Under Hardman Ave N 44.89533 53.72 93.03167 1.90 2 Lane Bridge Under Ranchnot Rd 44.91250 54.75 93.05183 3.11 2 Lane Bridge Under Mississippi River 44.91800 55.08 93.05083 3.05 Major River I Page 18 I Segment 7D St Charles to St Paul Summary Bridges Under Unit Cost Quantity Amount 4 Lane Urban Expressway $4,848 4 $19,392 4 Lane Rural Expressway $4,036 11 $44,396 2 Lane $3,062 74 $226,588 Rail $3,062 3 $9,186 Minor River $812 9 $7,308 Major River $8,118 1 $8,118 Total Bridges Under Segment 7D $314,988

Defintion of Segments Segment 7A: Mississippi River Bridge to Winona . Segment 7B: Winona to Minnesota City Segment 7C: Minnesota City to St Charles Segment 7D; St Charles to St Paul

Quantity Summary Bridges Under of Segment 7 Seg7A Seg 7B Seg 7C Seg7D Total 4 Lane Urban Expressway 0 0 0 4 4 4 Lane Rural Expressway 0 0 3 11 14 2 Lane 0 0 0 74 74 Rail 0 0 0 3 3 Minor River 0 0 5 9 14 Major River 0 0 0 1 1 Page 19 Summary of Bridges Under for s, Unit Cost Quantity Amount 4 Lane Urban Expressway $4,848 4 $19,392 4 Lane Rural Expressway $4,036 14 $56,504 2 Lane $3,062 74 $226,588 Rail $3,062 3 $9,186 Minor River $812 14 $11,368 Major River $8,118 1 $8,118 Total $331,156

Segment 7D Bridges Over St Charles to St Paul · Description North GPS Lat Min West GPS Long Min Recommended Action SR52 44.80050 48.03 92.03900 2.34 4 Lane Urban Expresswa· Union Pacific Rail 44.79450 47.67 92.04450 2.67 Rail Union Pacific Rail 44.91067 54.64 92.05033 3.02 Rail Cr24 44.85350 51.21 92.01983 1.19 2 Lane . 1-494 44.88033 52.82 92.02433 1.46 Bridge Over with acceptable horizontal clearance

Summary of Bridges Over for Segment 7D Type Unit Cost Quantity Amount 4 Lane Urban Expressway 10,516 1 $10,516 4 Lane Rural Expressway 2,630 $0 2 Lane 1,971 1 $1,971 Rail 6,572 2 $13,144 Total $25,631 I I I I I CURVES I Curves that require increased elevtion, reduction of curvature, and installation of elastic fasteners are as follows: I Actual Proposed Reduction I Subdivisior, MP Range Direct Curvature Elev Curvature Elevation Description Watertown 109.30 109.60 Left 2• O' 3.000000" 1• O' 3.000000" curvature reduction Watertown! 111.40 111 :80 Left 1· 30' 2.500000" 1· 7' 2.500000" curvature reduction Watertown 177.10 177.40 Left 3* 01 3.000000" 1* O' 3.000000" curvature reduction Watertown 177.60 177.70 Right 1· 50' 0.500000" 1* 7' 2.500000" curvature reduction I Tomah, C 178.50 178.55 Right 3* O' 1.000000" 1' O' 1.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, C 178.70 178.75 Right 2' 47' 1.000000" 1* 7' 2.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, C~ 178.75 178.80 Right 2• O' 0.250000" 1* O' 2.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, CA 178.80 178.85 Right 2* 33' 0.250000" 1* 7' 2.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, Cfl 178.85 178.90 Right 1· 42' 0.500000" 1* 7' 2.000000" curvature reduction I Tomah, C 192.75 192.99 Right 2* O' 3.000000" 1* 011 3.000000" curvature reduced Tomah, C 193.80 194.00 Left 1' 58' 3.000000" 1* 7' 3.000000" curvature reduced Tomah, C 194.20 194.40 Right 2' O' 3.000000" 1* O' 3.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, CA 195.40 195.50 Right 2* 30' 4.000000" 1* 7' 2.500000" curvature reduction Tomah, C 195.60 195.75 Left 2* O' 3.000000" 1* O' 3.000000" curvature reduction Tomah, C 196.50 196.75 Left 1* 30' 2.500000" 1* 7' 2.500000" curvature reduction Tomah, C 196.85 197.20 Right 2* O' 3.000000" 1* 7' 3.000000" curvature reduction I Tomah, C 227.60 227.70 Left 2* O' 3.000000" 1* o· 3.000000" curvature reduction I Tomah, C, 271.60 271.80 Left 1* 30' 2.500000" 1* 15' 2.500000" curvature reduction I Tomah, C, 277.10 277.40 Left 2* o· 3.000000" 1* O' 3.000000" curvature reduction

CROSSINGS 8-2 Rochester Route 150 MPH Technolog~----'-----+----+----I i'.."9C 1 i i ,Segment#2Milwaukeeto Watertown I i \- ··-·-·-····-·-·- Subdi.visio_n ... ____ .___ 11V1i.1ElpC>st_ .. JC:C>~tj$()0£f1TI.1n.c.n_d.ed_.l'\.<:tjC>n ·····'· __ _ VVE1t_e_rto_,11n__ s_ub 93.801 $2!±iB~ral w.Quadra~.tC3c1tes _ I ___ ··- \---·- Watertown sub 95.101 $2741Rural w.Quadrant Gates ' ··r Watertown-sub·••···· . 95::foi - $274.Rural w.Quadra-ni-Gates··· . ••·· ,- -- Watertown sub 97.40[ $274 Rural w.Ouadrant Gates I

Watertown sub 104.301 $550 Full Width Barrier Watertown sub 105.201 $550 Full Width Barrier VVate_rt(),~n ___s._LJlJ_ ____ 105. 75i $550 Full W::'id"cth~B""a"-rr,.::ie"--r----+I ---+----1----I VV_ate._rtown sub 106.20, $550 Full W_id_th_B_a_rr_ie_r __-+1-----+-- ··----····I----I VV_a_~ertown sub ._106.80i $::.:5.;50"-l'cF"'-u"-11.:.,W=ccidc-t:..:.h~B.,,a.-.crrc-ie"--r __--1.l ___+----+------Watertown sub 108.20 i $550 Full Width Barrier i Watertown sub 109.801 $550!Full Width Barrier Watertown sub 110.01 i $550IFull Width Barrier

Watertown sub 117.40! $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 117.70! $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub 117.80' $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates VVcitE!rt()l'JD_~ub 117 .90 ! $27 4 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub -·· 118.051 S274 Rural w.Quadrant-c'---==-=c...... ;----+----+----1 Gates Watertownsu_b_ .• __ ·-····-··-·118.20! $2.!± Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub I 118.301 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub ' 118.70 $274 Rural w.Ouadrani Gate'-=s-t----+--•--•·-·······'········--···· -•-I Watertown sub , 119.50 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub , 122.50 $274,Rural w.Ouadrant Gates Watertown sub I 123.20 $2741Rural w.Quadrant Gates Watertown sub ' 123.70 _____,S60!Closure f-1 =_~_~_-_-_--+------,,----+----I Watertowr1sub ...... 123.771 $274 Ruraiw.Ouadrant Gates . - ...... Watertown sub ...... ······••·• 124_50 .. $60 Closure ! _ .. ... ·--r-·-- Watertown sub .. - .. 125.00 - -·5;:z74 Rural w.QuadrantGaiesi ...... ·- Watertown sub 125.45 $60 Closure ! _c..--'-,----+-----l----l Watertown sub 125.50 $60 Closure ! Watertown sub 125.85 $60 Closure I Watertown sub'---+-- 126.30 $60 Closure I Watertown sub 126.4 □ ·· $274 Ru~r-~al~w~_-Q-u~ad-r-an_t_G_a_t-es-'---······ · $60 1 Watertown sub ··-- ···· i 2ijo ciosure , ······-····'-----+---- 127 .60 · $60 Closure Watertown sub ---!I···----+ · ····-· · -··· ••I-••--·····•·· · Watertown sub 128.20 $274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates l"ilge 2.·'-c-cc----,--"-~~~-~---.;_~-ccc---l---~----+----1 Subdivision ··---·---• M ileJJOS t IC ost (;c.$0=-0=-CccRccec.ccc.coc.cmcccm=e'-'nde-e=-dc.c.Ac.ccccti-"-o'-'n--+-----+-----+----I Wat.e_rt_oym sub ...... ·•- 128,B0l. $60IC1osure ---+---- ···•-··- Watertown sub 129.101 $60iClosure ! Watertown sub - . 129.40i $2741Rural w.Quadrant Gates I Waterto""n-~ub . jz~siJJ .$274J~.ural1V,Ouadrant<3ilte_s_.~t-···- Watertown sub 129.951 $2741Rural w.Quadran~tG=a~le~s-+---~-----+------1 Watertown sub 130.10i $274 Rural w.Quadrant•==~=~..----'------C----1 Gales ! Watertown sub •·····-· 130.40: $274 .Rural w.O.ua.d.ccra"-n'-'t-'G=-a"-le=-s'---1----'--- Watertown sub 130.60' $274 Rural w=.Qc-cu:ca:cd"'ra°'n.ccl...cG=-a'-'le=-s'-1-----+---

...... Watertown ·······"'··--·- sub 130.99 ·---•------1---·------···T"'''-········-··"'·""$274iRural w.Ouadrant Gates ,,_.,_,_,.. '""··-····•··· ...... ; ......

Summary Segment #2 Unit Cost louantity .... JAmouni PrivaleClosure ' $601 .. 121'---~=----'-----+----• $720 Rural w/Ouadrant~G~a=-l~e~s ----1-----'$:027 4 27 i $7,3981'-___f- ___, ____ 1 Full Width Barrier $550 ·fo: $9,900 Total Grade Crossings $18,018

---~·------.. :5~gment #3 WatertC1\,\'ntol:fy,y. 51 ·-········ ..... '·------+---·····••l••---·+----I :5.ulJ_cl.iyis.ion ... . Jlv1ihipost_ . C:c,,;t ($~O0Recommen.d.e_d_A_ct_io_n_;----, ·---1----I \JVaterloo Spur .1}?.1 O $:2_7.4 Rural w/Qua~r~11_1G__.ac:t=-es~--+--·_j----l-- ·····- I Waterloo Spur 133.45 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gales Waterloo Sour 133.50 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 133.60 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 133.95 $60 Closure \JVaterloo.Spur . , 134.45 $274 Rural w/Quadranl Gates \JVatEirloc,Spur .. . 134,65 :· $§() Ciosure J - L \JVatEirlc,oSpur ...... 134,801 •. $(JO Closure .... __ ...... _; Waterloo Spu_r 135.45! S274 Rural w/Ouadrant Gales Waterloo Spur-··-· 135.851 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 136.20' $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 136.71 i $60 Closure Waterloo Spur .136.90 ...... $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates I WaterlooSpur ····-· .1_3.Z,~0 _ $60 Closure•·• . _j ___--l-----1·-··········-······1 Waterloo Spur 137.70 $274 Rural w/Quadrant GE!.l"'e.,_s-+-----+------'··-·········----· Waterloo Spur...... 1}8.30 $?74 Bural_lV/Ouadrant_<3atEis_., ...... ,...... ·----I Waterloo Spur 138.40 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 139.00 $274 Rural w/Ouadrant Gates \1\/.aterloo Spllr . 139.45 $60 Closure Waterloo Spur 139.65 $60 Closure WaterlooSpur . 139.9() $60 C~lo~s~u~re~•-1------WalerlooSpur ;:~:~~ ··~~~ g:~~~i: ..... i T- ~:::i:66 ~~~i ·· 143~10! s2i4 Rura1w1ouac1rantGaies ,--- ··· ····-···· Waterloo Spur 144.00i $60\Closure Waterloo Spur 144.30 ! $27 4 i Rural w/Ouadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 144.351 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates WaterlooSpur 144.50 $274 Rural w/Ouadrant.Gates ... \JVaterlClo.Spllr.. 144.60 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ~:):;}~~~~~; .... \...... ;:~:;~ $~~6~~=~~i6uadrant Gates Waterloo Spur 145.61 $60 Closure 1 Waterloo Spur 145.90! $60iClosure !:_~g,-=-e~3------+-~----+--~~~------+-----+----~'---+'----I Subdivision Mlleoost 1Cost ($00[Recommended Action Waterloo Spur 146.30i $60:Closure __ '·-·-- ...... i ...... 1____ 1 .__ _ VVaterloCJSpur ___ ...... 147.00i .... __ S601Closure .. J ...... _ .. 1 ...... _ _ ... ___ _ Waterloo Spur_ .. 148.001 $2741Rural w/QuadraritGates ...... ···-- -'----- 1------I ____c ____ Waterloo. Spur. _ 148.40 i $60 !Closure , ...... 1 1 Waterloo Spur 1- 149.60! S6o)"c1osure==---1-----'------1-----'-----I Waterloo Spur 150.451 S60IC1osure ,~·"'==,;;:t""----+----'-"-"'=f----'E'""-!-""-"=~--f------'------1--·------+------IWaterloo Sour 150.85 S60iClosure Waterloo Sour 152.40 $60 IClosure I/Vc1tll_rloo_§pur ___ 152.90 $60IC1osure ______I/Vaterl90Spur__ - 154.40 ········-·· $60\Closure- - 1/VaterlClCJSpllr 154.90...... $6O:Closure .... _ __ -+---···_-·_····_-_·--+---- ...... VVaterloo Spur 155.60 $27 4 l Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Sour 155.75 $274:Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo SE)ur 156.80! S2741Rural w/Quadrant Gates Waterloo Sour 157.601 $60 Closure Waterloo Sour 157.801 $60 Closure=--+-----'------1------+-----I ! 1.c.c==c...=1=--1---===+---===c.=...~i_-----'-----I·------·------·--Waterloo Sour 158.301 $60 Closure 1 ·---•··· ...... Waterloo Spur 159.40 1 $27 4 IRural w~g"u=.::ad~r-=a:.:.ntf--Gcca::.,t:=:es"--ii-----1----+---I _Waterloo S1,ur 159.70 $274 Ruraf--1w"'/c:Q:.=u:=:a~dr.=a:.:.n:.t. Gcca=t:=:e::.s_,,...' ---+----f-----l Waterloo Spur 161.80 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ! i i Summaiy_~ll_gment #3 Unit CCl~ __t_ C\t1<1r1!Jtv~..,i-'--A"'m""occuc;.n:.:.t~-+----+i-----+------I Private Closure I $60 321 $1,920 Rural w/Quadrant Gates .. _ ...... $_274,._ ...... 21j $5-'-',-=-7=54=-t_-----+-----1------1 $7,674 Total Grade Crossings ___ I 1 ~eqmentils Madls~nio Portag,.::e_=-...._·-=,~-:.~~:,=-----·.Ll;--·_·--~·--~·-·_·~···~---_.~-_--._---+.+--·_--.:-_··--_ ..- ___ -.:-_--+··l--·-=-:=--:=--=: .. :·_··-·_··---_ .. -... _ ..- .. _:,.._ .. -._ ... 1 Subdivision Milepost !Cost ($00CRecommended Action Madison-Portag 27.901 $60iClosure Madison-Porta □ 26.501 S60 Closure Madison:f'()_rtag 26.301 $60 Closure ----+-----if-----+---- Madison-Portag_-+-----'2"-'5-".5=5"-I ---=S-=-60:c+=Cc.:lo=.cs:.=uc.:re'----1------1-----l-----·I------I Madison-Porta □ 25.40 i $60 Closure Madison-Portag 25.30i $60 Closu-re--+----+,-----c-----+------· ·--···I ""'~'• ,, ... ~,------'----.. ~·-·,.--·· ··--···-···-··· --- Madison-Porta □ 25.20 i $60 Closure i Madison-Porta □ 24 .80 I $60 Closure Madison-Portag 23.10! $60 Closure Madison-Porta a 22.40 I $60 Closure Pag<> 4 --·----'______--; ____ +------+----+----+------1 §.El.gment 6 , I

. ~lle~°ari.so ~~;:~i~i;00 C:ost(\i%d~~t~~~n[:ecJP.ctior1 j Tornah,C:Ps_oo 182J0' ...... •.... $60 Closure ...... i i Tomc1h, CPSoo .L 184.50, $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 187.00 $60 Cfosure Tomah, CPSoo 191.90! $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo _J9}.fl0 I $60 Closure

Tomah, CPSoo I 200.50: $60,.cC~lo:..sc.cucc.re~___, ·------t-----,-----;____ 1 1~;_:~.: ... ~~~-~~----·-" .. 'L. ~····· ~~:: ;~; ... ,.,.,_,: ... :.-J;:rjJ¢;_~:~i.::.·: __ :-·_ ,------··············· ...... 1-·········-·· ·•· ., ······- . -:,························· I Tomah, CF'§oo _ __ .205,80i $60iClosure Tomah,_CPSoo 212.75: ... . $60]Ciosure_····_···-;------+----+-----;----, Tomah,CPSoo 216.10: $60iClosure Tomah, CPSoo 219.95i $60'Closure · : Tomah, CPSoo 220.40 $60IC1osure Tomah,CPSoo .??l)J~ ----·-. S60!Closure Tomah, CPSoo 222.20 $60iClosure Tgmah, CP§o_Cl ___ .: 223.40 ...... $60iClosure Tomah, CPSoo 224.01 $_6() ClosurEJ__--+------;-----+----1----, Tomah, CPSoo 224.50 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 226.10 $60 1-'--=~--+-----;---~----+----lClosure Tomah, CPSoo ...22fl,5_(l $60 Closur~e---+------+----+-----+----, Tomah, CPSoo 237.50 $60 Cio.~s~u~re--;--+-----t----;------+----I Torru,i~,C:P:SoC) 241 :20 $60 Closure ...... Tornc1~,C:F'SO() _ .,, 2_42,60 seo!Closure ,, .. , _ Tomah, CPSoo_ _ 242.801 $6DiClosure Tomah, CPSoo 247.201 $60TClosure Tomah, CPSoo 251.801 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 254.60 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 258.20 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo_ 258.80 .. _$60 Closure. Tornah,CPSoo 260.40 _ $60Closur.e Tomah,CPSoo 261.50 $60 Closure Tomah,CPSoo -- ___ 2§1J5 $_6() C:IOSU[El __ .,, ,,-----+-----~---, Tomah, CPSoo 262.50 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 268.10 $60 Closure Tomah, CPSoo 268.50 $60 Closure : Tomah, CP_Soo 268.70 $60 Closure

Tomah, CP$_oo 268.90 $60 Closure ·~i'·-····-· ....., ....• , ...... ,___._...... T9rn

______...... River,CPSoo 288.20' $60'-'!C"'loc.csc=u'-'re'---_,I _____, ____+- ___ 1 1 River,CPSoo · ···· - 288.3,1\__ $274!'-'R"'"u'-'ra,._l-"w'--'/Q"'uc:ca==d"-'ra"'n~t. __cGc.caccte°'s'-1·----I···--·-··-·--···--·--+· ...... River, CPSoo 288.40! $274iRural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 288.65! $274!Rural w/Quadrant Gates F

River, CPSoo ____ .... : ..... 289.10; $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates_ 1...... ····+-- .... 1...... River,cfil90_ ...... ! __ 28£1,98 ..... $_2_74 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ,...... ·-··-· ·+--··-··· ·····1--· ..• ""'"""""" River, CPSoo !..... __ 293._1_0 .... $60 Closure...... ··-· ·····--1-----1----, River, CPSoo i 293.90 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 294. 701--__$~6~0,,_C=lo~su~r~e--1------'------'-----1-----l River, CPSoo 295.20 $60 Closure River, CPSoo 295.60 $60!Closure River, CPSoo ?fl:3JQ. "'-$6"-'0'-+[-"C"'lo=s=ur'-=e'-----+----+-----1----~-----l River, CPSoo 295.80 $60\Closure==---'-----~----+----+-----l River, CPSoo ···-- 296.05 S::_27,_4'"i'-'R""urc:a::_I:.,W:..;IO,,,u==ac:d"-'ra::.n,_._t-=G,.-a,,,te""s'-'-----+----+----I River, CPSoo 296.57! $60\Closure I River, CPSoo 297.40! S60!Closure i River, CPSoo 297.50! $60iClosure River, CPSoo 297.90! $60iClosure River, CPSoo 301.05! S60IClosure River, CPSoo ...... 302.90 ...... ~ C:I0Sllrtl_ ...... River, CPSoo ______--+__ 303.10 . $60 Closur~e_-1-___ River, CPSoo___ I 303.80 ...... __ $271 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ...... --····· River, CPSoo i 303.90 1 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo i 306.80' $27 4 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo : 307.20\ $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo I 307.50 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates I River, CPSoo ....i 308.00 1 $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates I 1 River, CPSoo 1 308.40! $274 Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo I 308.48! $274rRu~ra=l...;w~/~Q=u~ad=r~a~nt-G~a~t-es__, ___-+---...;,----,

I ···--··· ' 'I Summary Segment #7A !Unit Cost Quantltv !Amount Private Closure I ; $60 151 $900 i j Rural w/Quadrant Gates ' $274 17! $4,658 Total Grade Crossinqs ! i $5,558 f'_C!,Oe 6 i Segment 1/7B Winona to south of Minnesota City I i From Winona the DMEparaUels .th.e.CP Rail. t.rack to River subdivision milepost 312.1 !.h.El._at.griide,grossi11gs .. for the[) ME and it,~·cPRaii triick tC> .. t1.1.is_,.111.ilElJ)1111ne_11dC!(i_f<_c!(e>_ll .... __ -· .... . ~iv_er,,QF'Soo .. 308.75i $274 1Rural w/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo .. .. 308.801 ...... $274TRuralw/Quadrant Gates River, CPSoo 309.05' $274\Rural w/Quadrant Gates

River, CPSoo I 312.10 $27 4 Rural w/Quadrant Gates

,~----,,,..,,,_,.: •••-••~•••• --+'----+-----+'-----+-"~-•- ••••'-i ___.L, __ _

~~~f~RluadrantG1tes ... . 1Unit_$274 Quantity 12 Amou~k2asi ____.;.,i __ ..., .. ~--=- ...... J .. ,..... -__·_···_··_·-~1 ----f-----+-----~ 1...... =::=== .. ··-----1 Se_gment 7C Minnesota City to St Charles 1 Descriotion North Lat min West Long min I Recommended Action Unnamed 44.08567 5.14 91.76217 45.73\Rural w/Quadrant Ga~te~s ___, Unnamed 44.08083 4.85 91.76400 45.84\Rural w/Quadrant Gates Unnamed 44.07317 4.39 91.76600 45.96,Rural w/Quadrant Gates Unnamed ...... 44.07000 ...... 4,2() 91.76483 ...... 45:a§TRural w/Quadrant Gates ......

TwoCR 23 6 ············•·· 44.0560044,06350 i8i3.36 :91.7610091.75667 ___45:40Ruralw/Quadrant"Gaies························4_5.66IRuraiw/QuadrantGates···· Twp Rd 8 44.04317 2.59 91.76150 45.69 Rural w/Quadrant_C,§t~es~-- CR 23 44.02983 1.79 91.77017 46.21 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Unnamed 44.014171 0.851 91.79417 47.65 Rural w/Quadrant Gates Hwy 25 ' 44.00600! 0.36i 91.80917 48.55 ..Rural w/Quadr.c1ntC,a=.ct=es~--- !""P 12 i 4;f60133i 0.08!_.91.81400 48.84 Rural w/Quadrant Gates ...... Unnamed 43.98367! 59.021 91.83667 50.20 Rural w/Quadrant Gates TWJ) 1 ······· ·· ··· !" 43.98333' 59.00 91.839331 50.36!Rural w/Quadrant Gates CR 25- ·· ······· ;· 43.98217i ····•···· 58.931--.c.9"'1.c.=8=59~3~3+'! ___5~1"-.5~6c+i~R~ur~a"-I ~w~,o~u~a~d~ra-n~t ~G~a~te_s_ -· ...... Golfer's Rd 43.984171 59.05 91.880831 52.851Rural w/Quadrant Gates Twp 1.0 43.981171 58.87 91.91950 ·-·- 55.17iRural w/Quadrant Gates CR 18 i 43.977831 58.67 91.93983 56.39/Rural w/Quadrant Gates CR 33 43.975501 58.53 91.95517 57.31 Rural w/Quadrant Gates...... Qiicafv,p17 43.9'j483f 58.49 91.95950 = 57.57 Rural w/Quadrant Gates c;R_ 115, ...... ~3,9_7161J ... sB,3Q _ 91 ... 97967 .. jls.1s R~r..aii1auadran1Gates .. ~-: CR 37 43.96700! 58.021 92.00783 0.47 Rural w/Quadrant Gates CR 37 43.96683! 58.01 92.009501 0.57 Rural w/Quadrant Gates CR 119 43.96483! 57.89 92.02967 1.78:Rural w/Quadrant Gates Richland Ave 43.964171 57.85 92.06217 3.731Rural w/Quadrant Gates St Charles Ave 43.9§_65,0 57.99 92.06650 3.991R_u_rc1lv,/Quadrant C,at".5 .. ___ _

\J\l ..11t~ .. §t ...... , 43._9_678_! ...... _58_ 00..8- _92,0§88~ __ 4.13 I Rural w/Quadrant Gates <::i=< 142 , 43.97033 ...... 58.22 ..... 92.07900 ...... 4.741Rural w/Quadran'-tG:::::a::.:tccesc.._ __ Connect 142 to 14 1 43.97050 58.23 92.09767 5,8_6_ Rural w/Quaclrant(,atEas Connect 142 to 14 ·: 43.97033 -- 5.8'.22 ··e2:16:foi 6.22 Rural w/Quadrant Gates --

Summa!)' 7C Crossings Rural w/Quadrant Gates !"age 7 i §_!!.gment 7D St Charles to St Paul Crossing ...... iNorthGPS Lat Min West GPS LongMin !Recommended Action ... .. 65th St E ...... i 44.85533 51.32 92.02000 ...... 1,20iRural w/ Quadrant .. Gates ...... Edw.ards.Ave .. E ....J 44.86800 52.081 92.02233 ...... 1 ..34.iRural w/ Quadrant Gac.ctecc.csc..-._ ...... J:,ardrn.an Avenu..e ..§/i 44.873501 52.41 i 92.02317 ...... 1:3 ..9JBt1ra!'Nj_Quadrant(;11 .. te"-s,, __ _ Maltbv St 44.87517 52.51 i 92.02350 1.41 IRural w/ Quadrant Gates Hardman Avenue Si 44.88000 52.801 92.02433 1.46!Full Width Barrier Armour Ave 1.. _44.88700 53.22 92.02550 1.53iB_IJ_r_llL'N_/__9_tJ_adrant Gates John Carroll Ave...... 44.89433 53.66 92.03050 1.83 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates Hardman Ave N : 44.89533 ...... 5.3,72 ... 92.03167 1.90 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates Ranchnot Rd 44.91250 54.75 92:os1a3 ...... ,.. 3.ii Ruralw/QuaclrantGates'----I.. ·1 ----., ...... f --- ......

Rural w/ Quadrant Gates , $27 4 8 $2,192 Full Width Barrier ' $550 1 $550 i ,:c,1a1 i.. i $8,742! __ ---'----f----l l'riya\e Closures is ,~::=.. ~ate brsed ..

Rural w/ Quadrant Gates i $274! 66! $18,084 Full Width Barrier i $550 i 1 I $550 i Total Cost Crossinas ! i ! $25,534i

TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 6. 2. 4 Infrastructure Detail: C-2 Rochester Route New Alignment 150 mph

I Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 12-Jan-99

C-2 Rochester Route 150 MPH Item Unit Unit Costs Quantity Amount 1.0 Trackwork 1.1 HSR on Existing Roadbed per mile $873 29 $25,317 1.2 HSR on New Roadbed (Existing ROW) per mile $932 $0 1.2A HSR on New Roadbed (New ROW) per mile $1,376 $0 1.28 HSR on New Roadbed (Double Track) per mile $2,308 310 $715,480 1.3 Timber & Surface w/ 33% Tie replacement per mile $136 29 $3,944 1.4 Timber & Surface w/ 66% Tie Replacement per mile $224 $0 1.5 Relay Track w/ 136# CWR per mile $329 so 1.6 Siding per mile $802 $0 1.7 Fencing per mile $49 339 $16,611 1.8 Electricfication per mile $991 $0 1.9 Other Track Work Chicago to Milwaukee LS $212,917 1 $212,917 1.10 Land Acquisition Madison per mile $5,000 3 $15,000 1.11 Land Acquisition Urban per mile $294 10 $2,940 1.12 Land Acquisition Rural per mile $98 293 $28,714 Total Track Costs $1,020,923

2.0 Stations 2.1 Full Service - New each $1,000 2 $2,000 2.2 Full Service - Renovated each $500 2 $1,000 2.3 Terminal - New each $2,000 3 $6,000 2.4 Terminal - Renovated each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.5 Maintenance (110 MPH technology) each $10,000 $0 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technology) each $86,000 1 $86,000 2.58 Maintenance (185 MPH technology) each $162,000 $0 2.6 Stations Chicago to Milwaukee LS . $20,428 1 $20,428 Total Station Cost $116,428

4.0 Turnouts 4.1 New #33 - 136# High Speed each $555 Total Turnout Cost Page 2 C-2 Rochester Route 150 MPH

5.0 Bridges - Under 5.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each $4,848 15 $72,720 5.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each $4,036 42 $169,512 5.3 Two Lane Highway each $3,062 285 $872,670 5.4 Rail each $3,062 15 $45,930 5.5 Minor river each $812 42 $34,104 5.6 Major River each $8,118 10 $81,180 5.7 Mississippi River LS $234,000 1 $234,000 5.8 Interstate 90 Dakota Rvier Valley Structure LS $74,000 1 $74,000 5.9 Elevated Structure Milwaukee per mile $39,000 5.10 Elevated Structure St Paul per mile $39,000 5.11 Elevated Structure Chicago to Milwaukee per mile $39,000 5.12 Bridges Chicago to Milwaukee LS $97,152 1 $97,152 Total Bridges - Under Costs $1,681,268

6.0 Bridges - Over 6.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each 10,516 2 $21,032 6.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each 2,630 3 $7,890 6.3 Two Lane Highway each 1,971 5 $9,855 6.4 Rail each 6,572 2 $13,144 6.5 Viaducts - Major river each 6.6 Tunnel (One track) per LF 10 10600 $106,000 Total Bridges - Over $157,921

7.0 Crossings 7 .1 Private Closure each 60 190 $11,400 7 .2 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates each 274 22 $6,028 7.3 Urban w/ Quadrant Gates each 341 7.4 Full Width Barrier each 550 19 $10,450 7 .5 Crossings Chicago to Milwaukee LS 71,510 1 $71,510 Total Crossings Cost $99,388

8.0 Signals 8.1 High Speed Turnout each 1,098 8.2 System Installation for HSR (110MPH) per mile 150 8.2A System Installation for HSR (150MPH) per mile 350 343 $120,050 8.2B System Installation for HSR (185MPH) per mile 980 8.3 Signal Costs Chicago to Milwaukee LS $46,877 1 $46,877 Total Signals Cost $166,927

9.0 Curves 9.1 Elevate & Surface Curves per mile 42 9.2 Curvature Reduction per mile 284 9.3 Elastic Fasteners per mile 59 Total Curve Upgrade Cost

Total Upgrade Cost $3,242,855

Tri-Sla1ePhasellHSRF1n1sibi!i!yS!u~y---.,_l___ -+l ____,l ___ __, _____li------!li------+'----i------+l---+---~l ____ ~l ___-jl ____ , ___i--- _____ll----i---l ____ i---l __ 1____ --+1 ___-+l------l 1 4 12.Jan.99 I ! ! I l I ! ! i [ i ! ' l ! I ! I i ! Seamen\ 1 Seomenl 2 l Seomenl 3 I Sggment 4 I Secment 5 Seoment 6 Seo,ment 7 l 7 7 7 7 7 ~C~-~2~R~o~ch=,e~s;1,~,~R:o~u=l•:~15~0~1;,1:P~H======!1~======~I=~=;===: ,:======ti ======1t======~~Cth:ic~a~n~o~to~M i!w_a_u_k_e_o+cl,'c1i!~w~,~,~,,~,~,ia--i---,~,~,a"nia=,o~H~'"-"' 51--li-A~imort Track Madison to laCfOsse Miss. River Basin River to SI Paul Total ! Tota! Item iUnil !Unit Costs lOuanhtv Amount Quanlily f Amount ! Ouanlitv Amount ! Ouantitv A~m=o~un~•~~l~O~u~•~n~lil~v~A=m~o~un~l--t~Q~u~a~n~tit,:v Amount Ouan!i1v -f'A~m=o"~"~'-+"Q~u~•~nl~i!V~f'A~rn=ou~n~l__ f'O=u•~n~t:~tv, ~A~m~o~u~o~l--+ 1.0 Trackwork ! / r==~-r==~:------t==~- I 0 I 4

1.1 HSR on Exislinq Roadbed Iper mile i 5873! 29 s2,0s~.3~1~7+-----+----i------'+----'2~9+__,2~5~.3~1~7+---+----~'-----+---+---~!____ -+I ___ +i -----l----+----+--~'~9+1 _ _,2~5~,3~1~7 !:-2_1:i§R on New Roa(1~b~,,~,~i1E~,-,s-li 7no_R_07W_l_l _ __,!crn~o~, m~ile~•1--,--~,~9~3~2 71 --~+-~ SO ! I i t t f - I 4 1.2A HSR on New Roadbed (New ROW\ Iner mile I S1.376i SO \ t t I 1 I • i 1-c'c;·'ccB,'H~St-R~o',n';N,'e'-;w~Rcco~a~d'cboccdcc('cO"'o=ub~l•'c-'-T,~a=ck~)---+£='~'"'ccc'lo,__t--~Scc2c=.3'cOB:C,l!,__~3°'10cr~$~7cc1'c5.','4780,t-----'-+---+I---+--ccc-i1---=c=+--'~0 0 /-_9~2~,3~2~071__ ~3-t-~6~.9~2~4+--·1~3~6 4i_~3~13~,~88~8'-/-___/- __--,f--_~13~1-t-_~3~02~.~3'~8+-~3,c.10;+i -~7~1'c5cc.4 780,-l 1.3 Timber & Surface wt 33% Tio reolacement ;oer mile $136 29 $3,944 I 29 3,944 ! I i 29 1 3.944 1.4 Timber & Surlncc w/ 66'% Tio Replacement por mile $224 I $0 i I 11~.5~R7o~ia~y_T_m~c~k_w~l_1_3_6~•~C_W_R______,1per mi1C:._ ... ,...._~S~3~2~9Cf----i-----~$~0~[------+---+'----+---+---~'----+-----+'-----+----11----i---i-----+----+------l----+----+---+-----I ;c'-~6~S~id"in0,a,~------i~P='~'m=ile~+--~s~•~02+i--=~1i--~~~s~o~t------+----+--'---·➔1--~+--cc=~t __--cc+--c-cc;,c-i!---,-+--=~+--'-=:c-+'---..,,=-;-i'----+-----+--=+--'----c:=+-----c=+----,==-I L7 Fendna 'oer mi!e $49! 339 $16,611 I I 29 1,421 40 1,960 i 3 147 ! 136 l 6.664 · i 131 6,419 339 16.611

,1~.•~E~le~c~tri~c~fica=ti~on~------+'permi!e -+l--='9~9~1~1----+---'=00 ,l,__ ___--+---~!--_--,1----~'---+---~l ____ +l---+---+'----l;------r-----i----i-----;------+----·+----.....-< 1.90thorTrackW01kChic.1901of.1i!waukee LS t $212,9171 1 $212.917 1 i 212.917 ! I I I 1 ! 212.~.E.. 1.10LandAcnuisitlonMadlscn permi!e ! $5.000 3 $15,000 l l - 3 15.000 1 l I 3 l 15.000 1.t1 LandAcnuis!UonUrban nermi!e I $294 10 S2,940 ; i • t I 10 1 2,940 10 2,940 1 1.12landAcouisitionRura! oermi!c ! S98 293 $28,714 •I 40 3,920 i 13SI 13,328 I 117 11.456 293 28,714 Tota! Track Costs I ! $1,020,923 212,917 i 30,682 98,200 22.071 ! 333.880 l ! 323,173 1.020.923 I I i i I r I I I ! SeQmenl 1 Seqment 2 Seqmenl 3 ! Setimcnl 4 Senment 5 I Scoment 6 l Seq.men! 7 l------+----l-l---+----i------+----+'c"h~lca"',=o,o~lo-'-c-M~il_w_a_uk-o-,+,",1i"1w'"",o-'-1~,o~n~ia----+ Ixonia to H 51 ! Aimort Track Madison to Lacrosse I Mlss. River Bosin River to St Paul Total Tot.i.l 2.0 Stations : - I Quantilv [ Amount Quantitv ! Amount , Ouantitv Amount .. I Quantilv I AmOU,"11 Quantitv J Amount I Ouantilv ! Amounl Qunntilv t Amount Quanmv Amount 2.1 Full Service - New teach I S1,000I 2 $2.000 ! ! 1 i I 21 2,000 I I i 2 2,000 2.2 Full Service• Renovaled leach I S500l 2 $1.000 I t 500 i l 1 i 500 i ! 2 1,000 _2.3 Terminal• New leach f S2,000\ 3 $6.0001 1 2,000 I i [ 2 4,000 3 6,000 ~2';.4c;T':;o",,m:';i"'na:"l'c•.cR,,.o,,no7•,'ica"le:\'.d===-----:c----ll"'"ac":h'-~tr-,'Hs1""qQ~i---~•,...._--s.,_1,"'o~oo'-l-----f..----i-''---+---''-l--'~·o,,o,,o+----+l~---!l---+------11----il----+---i-i---+----+'-----+---''--f------''"'''"'oo"--j ~2~.S~l~J~a~in~le~n";a~nc~o::,(~1~1~0~1,~IP;;Hi;-;'lo~c~hn~o~,1='3'•,·~''':;----f'~'~c~h __f-l_S~1~0~,0 2oSO~,--___-;l--,;;:;--;c$~0Si------j----+'-----jl----t---+----t--·---J-----j----j--'-·-~·l-----t----!'1------t----cl'----==-c-il---- 7·+------1 f.2~.5~A~•~••~•~'"~'"~"~•~nc~o~(~175~0~1,~1P~H=1o~c1~m~o~10~,"="'---+'~•~c~h--+--~S~B~6~.o~o~o"f---1---"'l--"$8~6~,0~0~0~l------l---+l ___---li----+---+---+----i------+---t-1--__.,~-----+----+-'---+--~'c----"'~"-~o=oo.;.---~1~1~· ---- ➔ 2.SBMainlenancet185MPHtechnoloo}'._~)__ 1 o~•~c~h __i---l~S1~6~2~.0~0~0"f---l--~i---=~~$ 70~1----i------+'-=-cc-c-ll---+---+---+----+----+---~1___ -+- ____-t-_---+-'---+--- 1;____ 7 ___~·;-1--..,cc-=c-l 2.6S1<1HonsCt:.!caootoMi!wa.ukee LS I $20.4281 1 $20,428 i 11 20,428 I i ! ! I I t 11 20.428 Total Station Cost l I t i S116.428 ! 20.428 i 1,500 l j 2,000 I 1 2.500 I I 90.000 ! I 116,428 ~e 2 -,-- l __ I l I C·2 Rochester Route 150 MPH ! I 1 Se ment 1 Se ment 2 1,§_~gmen! 3 j Segment 4 Semnent 5 Segment 6 J..§_eg.ment 7 J I Chicago to Milwaukee Milw io Ixonia I ixonia to Hwy 51 Airport Track ! Madison to _l,~Cmsse AILss, Rlver Basin 1River to St Paul I Tot.ii I Total 14.0Turnouts l i j I l Quantitv Amount I Ouan!ilV I Amount I_Ouantitv I Amount - l Quanlil" Amount I Ouanlil" Amount Ouanlil" I Amount l_auantity Amount I Ouantit I Amount !4.1 New #33 • 136# High Speed leach I S555I I I i I I I l _ I ! [ I I !TolBITumout Cos! i I I i I I I I I I ! l I I i ' I __J _l __I I I J I ----- J ! _ - ! I I i I -,--- ..__ - i Senrnent 1 ! Segment 2 I Senment 3 l Senment 4 i Senrmmt 5 Segment 6 I Seg.menl 7 i I I i ! j Chicas? to Milwaukee 1 M:lw !o lxo~~

Tri Stale 150 MPH Technology I C-2 Milwaukee/Rochester/St Paul Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne, 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 85.7 90 4.30 Watertown Sub 90.00 119.00 29.00 29 29 29 Madison 0.00 40.00 40.00 40 40 40 Airport 0.00 3.00 . 3.00 3 3 3 Wisconsin 0.00 135.70 135.70 135.7 135.7 135.7 Minnesota 0.00 117.00 117.00 117 117 117 Union Pacific 0.00 10.00 10.00 10 10 10 Union Pacific 10.00 11.60 1.60 1.6 1.6 Merriman Park 407.4 410.2 2.80 2.8 2.8

Total 343.40 29.00 0.00 0.00 310.10 29.00 339.10 305.70

Definition of Units 1.1 HSRex High Speed Rail trackwork on Existing Roadbed with a unit cost of $873,000 per mile 1.2 HSRnew High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (Existing Right of Way) with a unit cost of $932,000 per mile 1.2AHSR High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (New Right of Way) with a unit cost of $1,376,000 per mile 1.2BHSR High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (Double Track) with a unit cost of $2,308,000 per mile 1.3T&S33 Timber and Surface with 33% Tie Replacement with a unit cost of $136,000 per mile 1.7Fence Fencing of High Speed Rail Route on both sides with a unit cost of $49,000 per mile Land Miles of Land required for construction of a high speed rail route at specifed unit costs

Segment 2 Milwaukee to Ixonia Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 85.7 90 4.30 Watertown Sub 90.00 119.00 29.00 29 29 29 Total 33.30 29.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 29.00 0.00

Segment 3 Ixonia to Hwy 51 Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne• 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Madison 0.00 40.00 40.00 .. 40 40 40

Segment 4 Airport Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Airport 0.00 3.00 3.00 3 3 3 Page 2 Segment 5 Madison to Lacrosse Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Wisconsin 0.00 135.70 135.70 135.7 135.7 135.7

Segment 6 Missisippi River Basin Mileage included within the Minnesota subdivision

Segment 7 River to St Paul Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne11.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 1.7Fence Land Minnesota 0.00 117.00 117.00 117 117 117 Union Pacific 0.00 10.00 10.00 10 10 10 Union Pacific 10.00 11.60 1.60 1.6 1.6 Merriman Park 407.4 410.2 2.80 2.8 2.8 Total 131.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 131.40 0.00 131.40 127.00 '--"--~

Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 19-Jan-99

C-2 Rochester Route Route 150 MPH Proposed Station Modifications and Maintenance Facilities

Station Type Recommended Action Cost ($000) Milwaukee Union Station Terminal Renovation $ 1,000 Brookfield/Watertown Full Service Renovation $ 500 Madison Terminal New $ 2,000 Wisconsin Dells Full Service Renovation $ 500 Tomah Full Service New $ 1,000 Lacrosse Full Service New $ 1,000 Rochester Terminal New $ 2,000 St Paul Union Station Terminal Major Renovations $ 2,000

Maintenance Facility 150 MPH Technology New $ 86,000

Summary 2.0 Stations 2.1 Full Service - New each $1,000 2 $2,000 2.2 Full Service - Renovated each $500 2 $1,000 2.3 Terminal - New each $2,000 3 $6,000 2.4 Terminal - Renovated each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.5 Maintenance (110 MPH technology) each $10,000 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technology) each $86,000 1 $86,000 2.5B Maintenance (185 MPH technology) each $162,000 2.6 Stations Chicago to Milwaukee LS $20,428 1 $20,428 Total Station Cost $116,428 Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study fg:Jan-991 --- ····--·-,··--·· BRIDGES --·-·····+··· c:.:2 Rochester Rouiej~SOMPH r .L•. • Recommended Action for Bridges Under and Bridges Over I i i ·------~------·------~ ~------~-----)------Segment 2 Milwaukee to Ixonia . Subdivision !MP :Type !Name Recommended Treatment··+ 1 Watertown sub 100.00[:Q~

ISummary- Brid es Under Unit Cost Quantity !Amount ·········---i----l 4 Lane Rural Expressway $4,036 1 $4,036 Minor River $812 _ $1,624 Major River $8,118' 1 $8,118! ··/ Total Cost Bridges Under , $13,7781 r······.. ••·· ······•···················· ··-···· •...... •...... ,...... I

Summary - Brid(IEJs__Qver ...... lJ__11it.C:()s;!__ !Quantity_ . ,A,ITl_o.u_n_t _...... ; 4 Lane Rural •...•... S2,6301 3 $7,890 1 2 Lane $1,971 I 4 $7,884 Total Cost Bridges Over I I $15,7741 . . .. ············-········, ······- ·········1 !"_age 2 _ i Segment 3 Ixonia to Madison ------+------~----~I Location - - - - North GPS Lat min !West GPS !RecommendeifAction Reese Lane 43-14fa3 - s:48i 88.60283! 36.17i2Lane Bridge Under , Stream 43.14133 --- -8.4~L 88.62iool - 37.26iMinor_Riyer -r ---- i RockvaleRoad 43.14133 8.481 88.636331 38.18!2 Lane Bridg~e,U~n_d_er__ ;------,------1 1 1 1 Oconomowoc River 43.14117 8.47J 88.643171 38.59 Major River I ~•--1-----+------1 CR P 43.141171 8.471 88.645831 38.75i2 Lane Brid_g_e Under CR E ' 43.141171 8.47 88.64717 38.83 2 Lane Bridge Under I Hwy P i 43.14117! 8.47 88.65117 39.07 4 Lane Rural ExpresswayUnder

CR P _ _I 43.14100! 8.46 88.65617 39.37 2 Lane Bridge Under l Spooner Rd - -- -- 43.141001 8.46 88.67533 40.52 2 Lane Bridge _Under _____ ' -, CR D 43.14100! 8.46 _ 88.68517 41.11 2 Lane Bridge Under I Little Coffee Rd , 43.141001 8.46 - ··a'ii'.'i6s33 :: - . 42'.32 2 LaneBrfctge Under i ·----- Johnson Creek 43.14100 8.46 88.70833 42.50 Minor River I ICR X i 43.14100 8.46 88.71550 42.93 2 Lane Bridge Under l ___ 1 Airport Rd 43.14083 8.45 88.73100 43.86 2 Lane Bridge Under 1-26 - __ . _ L 43.14()13~j 8.451 88.73517 44.11 4t,a11"_F~) ____ 4~ 113833 8.30 88.96117 57.67 2 Lane Bndgfl_U11~"r_ ··t== i Stony Brook Creek 43.13750 8.25 88.97717 58.63 Minor River f ! Newville Rd i 43.13717 - 8.23 88.98550 59.13!2 Lane Bridge Under - -·-r F'age 3 .....~~---- .. ·r-----·········L······· Location North GPS Lat min West GPS J Recommen_d_e_d_A_c_ti_o_n ____~_ .. __ CR O 43.13667 . 8.20 88.99200! 59.52 2 Lane Bridge U_nder , Boxelder Rd 43.13550 ..... 8.13 ··aifof483, 0.89 2 Lan·e.. Bridge Under . I • ------·-·-···-··--1-~-cc -~------·-•---- . ----•····• ------, . .,.. ------Tower Line Rd 43.13417 8.05 89.04083! 2.45 2 Lane Bridge Under Missouri Rd 43.13350 8.01 89.05083• 3.05 2 Lane Bridge Under

Spring Creek 43.13250 7.95 89.06800! 4.08 Minor River I • .,______·· • .,,., , • ., •• , •• .,.,_. _____ ,,_ •• <,. SR 73 43.13233 7.94l 89.072171 4.33 4 Lane Rural Exoresswav Under Oak Park Rd ···· 43.13117 7.87 89.09617! 5.77!2 Lane Bridge Under ··· ·· ...... Ridge Rd 43.12933 7.76 89.13033' 7.82i2 Lane Bridge Under , ...... Pierceville.Rd 43.12800 7.68 89.15367i 9.22 2 Lane Bridge Under l CFfff···· ...... ······· 43.12750 7.65 89.16717i 10.03 2 Lane Bridge.Under i I 1 Koshkonong Creek 43.12650\ 7.59 89.18350 .... 11.01 Minor River .. ! __.. I...... ' ...... 1 CR N 43.12583! 7.55l 89.198501 11.91 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under CRT 43.11883 7.13i 89.242501 14.55!2 Lane Bridge Under ; Thorson Rd 43.11800 7.08! 89.24617! 14.7712 Lane Bridge Under ' i Forest Oak Dr 43.11633 6.98 89.25333!.. 15.20/:l•Lane Bridge Under ' ...... Reiner Rd i 43.11333! 6.80 89.26583! 15.95'2 Lane Bridge Under FeUand Rd· · •• ············ ··········•···· 43.111001 6.66 89.27583 •···. · ··.·· · 16.55 '2Lane Bridge Under·. ············ ...... Plo· . 43.10867 652i 89,28617; 17.17 4 LaneU,tianJxiiressv,~ytJnder . ··················.·.·.··.· Fairview Drive 43.10800 6.481 89.28933! 17.36 2 Lane Bridge Under ' · Eagle Drive 43.10750 6.45! ..89.29067' 17.44 2 Lane Bridge Under I N:-Thompson Drive 43.10583 6.35! 89.30067! 18.04 2 Lane Bridg_e_U_n_d-er--,~,---~,----1 Nakoosa Trail ! 43.10700 6.42 89.31867i 19.12\2 Lane Bridg.c.e=U"'n"'d-'-er__ -+----+----..J 1-51 ' 43.10683 6.41 89.31650! 18.99 4 Lane Urban Expressway Under i RR Waterloo Spur 43.10683! 6.41 89.32350! 19.41 Rail Under i

Summary Bridges Under !unit Cost Quantity Amount 1-----'-1___ ..,_ ___ , 4 Lane Urban Expressway I i $4,848 2 $9,696 4 Lane Rural Expresswal'. i l $4,036 5!c-__$_2_0~,1_a_o+-----+----1----t---- 2 Lane i S3,062l 39! $119,418 Rail I . S3,062i -·--2-,--~$~6,~12-4-+-----+·······... -~,------< Minor River I · · · $812l 7, $5,6841 rvlajor River [ - $8, 118l . 3[ ... $24,354' . .. .. , ·····•···· '; <•••·············· , •...••. Total Bridqes Under Seqment 3 i i $185,4561 Page 4 I '"·•·-·· -·=-~--l Segment 4 Airport Track . "m••-•-•" ,._, •~" Name North West 'Type of Bridg~ .. . . i ... HJgl1\1/_i,;- 51 43.10733 89.3386714 Lane UrbanExpressway - Over w••-- ---·•"•~•~•--m-••m-. Anderson 43.12117 ·• 89.3523312 Lane Under j ------I Pankrantz . . i 43.12150 89.3523312 Lane Under 1 International Lane j 43.12250 89.35300 2 Lane Under .. I ! Summary_Bridges Under l Unit Cost iQuantity Amount ! 2 Lane Under $3,062 3 $9,186 -···· ,,,.,,_" __ ... "'"'""""")' -- , --- ! ! •~--·•-• ····------Summary Bridges Over Unit Cost l : Quantity .... Amount ,.,, .., ... -, ... 4 Lane Urban Expressway ' 10,516 I 1 $10,516 i ' ,_., j I• . ! i ! . Segment 5 Madison to Mi_s;_s_is;s;i[lpi River Basin ' l Location !North GPS Lat min iWestGPS Recommended Action Buckle)' Rd 43.17500 ....•.. _10.5oL 89.342331 20.54 2 Lane Bridge Under Daentl Rd 43.18333 ------.. _,, ___ 11.001 89.34200! 20.52 2 Lane Bridge Under i Unnamed Rd 43.19100 11_461 .. 89.34167! 20.50!2 Lane Bridge Under i~90 /existi11_g) 43.19150 11.49 89.341501 20.4914 Lane Urban Expressway Under - ,.. ---·~--~-- -'•·-~-- Hwy19 ! 43.19433 11.66 89.34133 _2_():..48 Lane Rural Expressway Under J3: ------Duraform Lane 43.19950 11.97 89.34167 20.50!2 Lane Bridge Under ,.__,_ Sequoia Dr 20.54!2 Lane BridgJ Under ___ ! 43.21800 13.08! 89.34233 ------·"· Gray Rd 43.22350! 13.41 I 89.34250 20.5512 Lane Bridge Under ""-.. -- !..... --- "''~"-- Vinburn Rd .,.,_, 43.238001 14.28! 89.343171 20.59f2 Lane Bridge Under Commerce St i -···-~- 43.24633! 14.781 89.341501 20.491 __2 Lane Bridge Under .. CRDV 43.247671 14.861 89.34150! 20.49 2 Lane_Bridge Under ' . i' Yahara River 43.250171 15.01 I 89.341331 20.48 Minor River I CRV ··-·-·· 43.252831 15.171 89.34133 20.48 4 Lane Rural Expressway~nder Se!ji Rd 43.27450' 16.47! 89.34783 20.87 12 Lane Bridge Under --" • CRDM ------· 43.281171 16.871 89.35083 21.05.12 Lane Bridge Under Kleinert Rd 43.28967! 17.38i 89.35450 ! ---· ..... -.. ~·------·-•-s- . 21.27!2 Lane Bridge Under _ ... RamseyRd 43.29600 1 17.76! 89.35767 21.4§]2 Lane Bri~getJ11cl_er ·· • ' ------""' - ...... , ... _...... _,. ······•· Unnamed Rd 43.301831 18.11 i 89.36050 21.63i2 Lane Bridge Under ------~,- i·- ·---- -~------.. ·-·, CR K (intersecisw/Goosepond Rd) 43.30850! 18.51 i 89.36317 21.79!2 Lane Bridge Under Prairie Lane 43.316501 18.99r·~a9.361111 22.0312 Lane Bridqe Under ~~5 1 I L·ocation North GPS-iLat min. WestGPS l Recommended Action Kampen R.d .. 4.3 .. 32317' 19.39 89.37033! 22.22 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed si 43::33583 20.15 89.37583' 22.55 2 Lane Bridge Under I --,----.... - - §R60 ..... _ ····--····· .. 43.33767 20.26 89.37683! :Z:Z,61 '!Lane Rur131El

1-90 . .. .. 43.76167 1 45.701 89.97500, ..... 58.50!4 Lane Urban ExpresswayUnder _i CR N , 43.76183! 45.71 j 89.958501 57.51 !2 Lane Bridqe Under.... . --,--....., ~~ge7______'""" -~-----~-----"--- -··- .... ;' -·---~·'"·"·J ...... ~---" Location lNorth GPS 'Lat min ;West GPS !Recommended Action . 55th Stre_e_t _____ 43.76700' 46.02!-. 89,98233 . 58.94f2Lane Bridge Under ...... • Unnamed Rd . --·~------~·---43--,--76--9--.1-7! ··· ··· 46.15[ 89.9853;31 59.12!2 Lane Brid(JeUnder C:ollnty H':')'N ..... - --•- ,i~:ii4oo! .... 46.44! 89.9920ili 59.52!2 Lar1,a~ricl(!Ea ynci~r Lemonweir~1y,ar 43.78617; 47.17i 90.00883! _(),~.3.i.tv1.a1orR1ver_. __ .L --•·-- '----I 19th Ave I 43.794331 47.66 90.01983' 1.19i2 Lane Bridge Under 1-82 , 43.796171 47.77 90.02233l 1.34!4 Lane Rural Expressway Under ·· ·- CR G i 43.803501 48.21 90.03250! 1.9512 Lane Bridge Under ... 17th Ave ..... i 43.80533! 48.32,.. 90.034831 2.09!2 Lane Bridg~_Under ~:--..- .....- ...-.. '---=-=-=---I 15th Ave ' 43.82000i 49.20i 90.05517i 3.31 !2 Lane Bridge Under 47th St ...... - i 43.82950. 49.77! 90.06800! 4.0812 Lane Bridge Under ··· · · ; ---- CR O I 43.83217l ········ ·4§:931 90.071831 4.3114 Lane Rural.Express,vay Under ----·-·-- Prairie Rel .. ·-·- -- 43.84683! - .50.81 i 90.091831 . . ... ·s.s1!2iane Bridge Under . I Meredith Rd 43.86217; 51.73i 90.111671 6.7012 Lane Bridge Under 42nd St 43.876671 52.601 90.130331 7.8212 Lane Bridge Under N. GermantownRd·- ·- I 43.88533' 53.12' 90.14150! 8.49 2 Lane Bridgi,Tinder .... ~~80 :: . , 1;::it~~i ~;:!;i ~~: i1:~~i . ::~li~fu~~rf"'Irer~s~viaytinct~;: ·1 --· tia91slai,ci kiliat11Ave · 43.ae3soi 53.611 90.15250 e.15 21..aiie sr1diJeOncJe, CR ii -·-········ .. ·········· 43.90783l 54.47! 90.17750 . 10.65 4 i..aneRuraiExpressway,_u=-·"-ndccec.cr_~--- 7'il, Ave 43.911831 54.711 90.19167. . 1TsojiianeBridgeOnder I 8th Ave 43.91733! 55.041 90.21150! ____ - · 12:i§§i2 Lane Bridge Under· ·- - ·; · CR C ----·-. 43.920171 55.21 i 90.22150! 13.2912 Lane Bridge Under ____ ---t Unnamed 43.926001 55.56! 90.24300! 14.5812 Lane Bridge Under CRH . 43.93783 . 56.27! . 90.28333! .. 17.0012 Lane Bridge Under -' ... . RR . - 43.93800 .. --·si,::zaf 90.28367:.. 17.02iRail Under· --- . -· Kieichinger Rd .. - . 43.94200 .. - ·--sil:s2r 90.29650!. . 17.79jRail Under 33rd Lane 43:9:i250 55.951 90.31883' .. ···•··•·· 19.13,Rail Under 32nd Court __l 43.95833-, --57.SOI--90.34750 20.85!Rail Under , , 1 Allen Creek i 43.96150! 57.69! 90.35767 21.46iMinor River I , CR PP 43.96683! 58.01 l 90.37433 22.46!4 Lane Rural Expressway Under Indian Creek --- 43.97117, 58.27 .. 90.38800 23.28iMinorRiver I i ·--······ Field Rd ..... - 43.9748j!.. ... ·s1J:49 90.39933 23.96!2 Lane Bridge Under Bear Creek ··-··. 43.975oor~•- -58.50 90.39983 23.99iRail Under ·r· . .. --·-•·- -·•--•- '"----~----· - ----· .. --~""-~·---- -~""·j-~-- .. ,~ "·--·----····"· ··------CR N 43.976001 58.56 90.40300 24.18,2 Lane Bridge Under i 1--90 43.97617! 58.57 1 90.41517 24.91 i4 Lane Urban Expressway Under Page 8 i Location !North GPS Lat min West GPS Recommended Action ==r CP Rail I 43.97367 58.42 90.42567 25.54 Rail Under I .. -·---f !SR 12 43.972831 58.371 90.42900! 25.74 2 Lane BridgeUnder _ 28th Ct 43.972001 58.321 90.43183 25.91 4 Lane Rural Ex. ressway Under I .I Center St 43.96967 58.18 90.44167 26.50 2 Lane Bridge Under ' 1Krever Creek 43.96450 57.87 90.46283 27.77 Minor River ! ' ··I··· .... CR C 43.96367 57.82 90.466171 27.97 2 Lane Bridge Under ..... ·I Cinder St 43.95700 57.42 90.49383! 29.6312 Lane Bridge Under Council Creek 43.95550 57.33 90.49967! 29.98:Minor River.-]--. ···' SR 131 43.95417 57.25 90.504831 30.2914 Lane Rural E. xpres. sway.Under I ·I CRM 43.94617 56.77 90.537671 32.26 2 Lane Bridge Under ' Lemonweir River .... 43.94517j 56.71 90.54233 32.54 Minor River_ } i i Cinder Ave ...... 43.943171 56.59 90.55233 33.14 2..Lane Bridge· Under i ! ·I 21 st Ave -···· 43.94050! !5_6~:I~ 90.57233 ...... 34.34 2 Lane Bridge Under , ·.···.( _ . Cliff Ave I _ 43.94000! ____ 5§.40 .. 90.57633 .. ·-· 34.58 2 Lane Bridge Under ... 1 .! .. CRT 43.93983 56.39 90.57767 34.6612 Lane Bridge Under , i ChybC::reek 43.93967 56.38 90.57817 34.69iMinor.F

,Little La Crosse River 43.91817 55.09 90.85967 51.58 Minor River ... i...... ___ _<::ypress Avenue ·~··----L 43.91400 54.84 90.88067 52.84 2 Lane Bridge.Under . 1 lCR J ' 43.90683 54.41 i 90.92050 55.23 2 Lane Bridge Under , Page 9 ______. ______...... ' Location -ifforth GPS !Lat min -[we,£GPsT· -·· - - - -lRecommencled·~A-c_ti_on ···-···-······~·--- . : . : ·1 ··•-·· ··------.- ---,----1 Fish Creek 43.905331 54.321 90.928331 55.70!Minor River i CR U 43.90317! 54.19 90.941331 .. 56.48'2 Lane Bridge Under Fuchs Rd ------, 43.90000 . 54.00 90.9.6067! ...... sf:5,i\z Lane Bridg_e_U_n_d_er--t--- ··-· La Crosse River 1· 43.89817'. sisii .... 9(5:97200' ···-··· .. siU12!Minor River .... ~~~~~reek - - --· 1r~~~~~i ~;:;r :~:~:~~~: ;:::;:~~~~eR~~ral E?resswaxlJ11d~r ··-·-···-· !unnamed Rd ...... •.....• - : 43.897171 53.83 91.01483! 0.8912 Lane Bridg_e_U_n_d_er__ -_··---+--- Shorewood Court ! 43.899671 53.98 91.04483! 2.6912 Lane Bridge Under Tilson St -·····--·- -···-- 43.90567' 54.341 91.07233' 4.34!2 Lane Bridg_e_U_n_d_e,-----· SR16 ::== 43.908501 54.51 I 91.08117' 4.87i4 Lane Ru-ral Expressway lJri_cl,ar 1 1::a Crosse River ... ··-··-·-·-----; 43.908501 54.51 i 91.09367 •••••• _____ !5,fl:ZJfvl.in_or River I · CR M ______, 43.908001 54.48! 91.10133 1 6.0812 Lane Bridge Under , Giiis.Rd ...... ····- ... -·--- 43.91200! 54.721 91.12133' 7.28'2 Lane·s·ridge Under - ·- ---·--1 Evenson Rd 43.91350' 54.81! 91.12850 7.71l2 Lane Bridg.e Under · __ _ Gills Coulee Rd 43.917171 55.03! 91.14650'. .. . . 8.7912 Lane Bridge _u_nd_e_r ______Tunn.El.l_Starts 43-,_9_1_9!5() .. §5,17' 91_._19_1_17~;_·-_- · ·•11.47 :runn_e_l_-_··_-······ 1 1 Tu1111el Enes · 43._9_1783 1 .. 55.Q?i ... 91.14967i 8.98;Tunnel ! ...... fvlississippiRiv_er_Brid.ge starts •.....• ~3,_91§~~! .. _ . 5!i,~6, 91.23200! 13.92!Mississippi River Bridge ! Koss Rd 43.91917! 55.15! 91.18800 11.28!2 Lane Bridge Under ·····--···-·! ___ CountvHwyS 43.91933! 55.161 91.19667.... 11.80i2LaneBridg13lJn_cl~r. •-·· ... : MODS Dr 43.91933! 55.16! 91.21167 12.7012 Lane Bridge Under ,-----'--- Cedar Creek Lane 43.91917! 55.151 91.22567 13.54'2 Lane Bridge Under : I _____, ___ i___ «•7· i i,-S_u_m_m_a_ry___ B_r_id__g_e_s_U_n_d_e_r ___-+---.- ....- ....-_~.L-U-11·-,!.-C:- ..'!_-s.-t ..-;_ 9'!?11!it)' Amount___ ~ :=:: : ::·· -· ·••:•·r-.·.: 4 Lane Urban Expressway ··-·······-+--- $4,848 1. $19,392! _ __! ---·· .. 4 Lane Rural Expressway 1 $4,036 231 $92,828! ' 2c;;,:;,; · , s3.062' 115 s3s2, 1301 , Rail .$3,062! 10 $30,620, i ! 1 1 rvl.inor River -····----- ·--· ·-- -·- · $812i 19. $15,428i i---···•····i ···1···-·-··-···•··--·· MajorRiver . ~--~ $8,118! 4! $32,472! ,-- ! Total Bridges Under Segment 5 $542,870 --- - ...... =-~ •-•··················-···· , I ··-············•·· ;---.~.~·~·~·~======+·-··---·-··-•--.-.-~---~=.- __-_11 Segment 6 Mississippi River Basin . . i - . _\ -- :Unit Cost jouantlty. ]Amount . 1 Mississippi River Bridge $234,000: 1 i $234,000! Interstate 90 D§J_k.9~ci_l3yi_e.r\/cil~!a)' Structure $74,000! 1 [ S!4;,_D_D0j Total Cost ! $308,000 1 Page 10 Segment 7 River to St Paul C-2 150 MPH Rochester Route ------··- _l\lc,r!h_ Lat min ·rwest Long!Tlifl __ jF 25 43.91850 55.11 91.58533 35.12!.2 Lane Bridge Under i ! I CR 12 43.92033 55.22 91.60750 36.45!2 Lane Bridge Under , 1-90 43.92033 55.22 91.60900 36.54i2 Lane Bridge Under I I Money Creek 43.92067 55.24 91.61317 36.79lCulvert included in trackwork i CR17 l 43.92600 55.56! 91.62033 37.2212 Lane Bridge Under _ -- · ·1 -- Money Creek i 43.92667! 55.60! 91.62100 37.26!Culvert included in trackwork Wiscoy Twp 4 i 43.93017! 55.81 l 91.62583 37.55i2 Lane Bridge Under i , 'unnamed Creek I 43.934171 56.05 . 91.63100. . 37.86!Culvert included-intrackwork , - .. - Wilson Twp-- . -··-- 11 -··· --- .,I 43.941331-- 56.48 - 91.6<1017; 38.4112 Lane Bridge--·----· Under ·----· ...... •, - -- i. -·- .. --1 Unnamed Creek . . . ; 43.94950! 56.97 91.658671 39.52 12 Lane Bridge Under . . . , CR 19 - - ·-·· -- .. 43.95300i 57.18 91.675171 . ....

.Twp 21 43:.94317' 56.59 91.810171 48.6112 Lane Bridg~0e:c..=.U'-'-nd"'e'-'-r-.....c. ___-'----- 1 !Unnamed Rd . 43.94350! 56.61 91.82033' 49.2212 Lane Bridge Under .... : Twp 19 (.,'13.94400! 56.64 91.83950• 50.37,;1LflneB~t:lge Under 1 1 Rush Creek? ___········-- 43.944331 56.66 91.850501 . .!5.1/l:l!~Lnor River L...... CR 25 _____ 43.94450 56.67 91.8593_:l( 51:!56J~J_<1ne~ri~ge,lJnde,r .L CR .2.9...... 43.94500 5flJQ fl1.?7}ll_3i 52.37'4 Lane Rural Expre_s_s'A'aytJnder Rush Creek 43.94500 56.701 91.874331 52.46iMinor River TWEJ 9 .....•...... 43.9

LJ_n~arn9-dRd .4.4~16617!- __ 9:97 -.9?,~~8QQ .. 52 0Q8 2Tane Bridg_e_U_n_d_er__ ,__ __ _ Middle Fork Zumbro River 44.16700! 10.02 92.86817 52.09 Minor River [ CR ..B I 44.01748,.. __ ·-·T1fs" 92.86950 52.17 2 Lane Bridg_e_U~n_d_e_r_~--- ...... CRB- 44.182ii""" 10:93 92.87100, . 52.26;2[aneBridg~e~U~n~d~e-r _,_____ . ·- - I

CRA I 44.19683 . -· "ii1li 92.87367; - --· s:D.f2i2LaneBridg~e_U_n_d_e_r-~----!-----1 N. Branch Middle Fork Zumbro River I 44.20167: 12.10 92.87467! 52.48:Culvert included in trackwork CR! 44.204171 12.25 92.87517! 52.51:2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.20633: 12.38 92.87550! 52.53!2 Lane Brid e Under . C:f\117 44.21833! 13.1 O 9?,87]_83j 5?.67J?Li!!11_e B_riclge Under · · · I CR 23 44.24017[ 14.41 . 92.88183! . 52.91;2 Lane Bridge Under. Unnamed Rd - . . 44.25450! 15.27 .. 92.88483, - . 53.09j2 Lane Bridge Under-.-.-... ~.---.--.... - ·--·-···- Spring Creek .... -- 44.26550! 15.93 92.88683; 53.21 lCulvert includedin-trackwork ...... -• . 1 CR1"2 44.26900! 16.14 92.887501 53.2512 Lane Bridge Under == · I Unnamed Rd 44.279001 16.74 92.89167: 53.50;2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.282171 16.93 92.89367 53.6212 Lane Bridg~e~U~n=de~r-~----·-· .. SR 60 44.283501 17.01 92.89450 53.6714 Lane Rural Ex ressway under. ··.... · ...... , Unnamed Rd ___ 44.28733i 17.24 92.89700 53.8212 Lane Bridge Under I Unnamed Rd 44.29767! 17.86 92.90350 54.21 !2 Lane BridgeUnder ...... ---1 N. Fork Zumbro River 44.302171 18.13 92.90650 ... 54.13,!JiMinor River ; CR 30 1 44.319671 19.18 92.91983! 55.19l2 Lane Bridge Under CR 14 44.340331 20.42 92.938171 ...... 56.2912 Lane Bridge Under i 1 --- Unnamed Rd 44.34150! 20.49 92.93917! 56.35!2 Lane Bridge Under '. Little Cannon River 44.35083! 21.05 92.947501 56.85 Minor River I I CR 44 _44.35150i _21J)_9_! _g2.~-i13_17j ...... 5~,13_~ .2 Lane Bridge Under , , ---1 Unn.amed Rd . . 44.364831 21.891 92.958671 57.52 2 Lane Bridge Under ,.. I CR49 · ·· .. . . --· 44.370331 ..... 22.22! 92.96100 . 57.66 2 Lane Bridge Under .. ; . . .. !--- Unnamed Rei''...... 44.385171 23.111 92.96717 ...... 58.03 2 Lane Bridge Under ·r ······· ···•-•' 1 CR 9 ...... 44.406671 24.401 92.97600 513_.56 4 Lane Rural Expressway under ____ 1 CR 24 44.414501 24.87! 92.97933 58.76 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed-Rd...... : 44.435671 · 26.1·4f"'"§2.98917 59.35 2 Lane Bridqe Under ··1 '--····

!'~ge 14 ---·•---••·•~--~ \•<>••• ••---•• ,_,,_., _ • .,.,.J_,_,,,,m•'"- ' Location North GPS Lat min WestGPS ! !Recommended Action j Unnamed Rd 44.44983 26.99 92.99583' ...... _5!3,75!2 Lane Bridge Under 1-...... Prairie Creek 44.47083 28.25 93.00583' 0.35;Culvert included in trackwork .. 1 Unnamed Rd 44.47167 28.30 93.006331 0.38!2 Lane Bridge Under . ~·- 1·•······· SR56 44.47950 28.77 93.009831 0.5914 Lane Rural Expressway under ______! 320th St W 44.48617 29.17 93.013001 0.78!4 Lane Rural Expressway under ··------··---·· i §Ering Creek 44.49333 29.60 93.01650 0.99;Culvert included in trackwork Skiota Trail ' 44.51167 30.70 93.02500 1.50 2 Lane Bridge Under ------Cannon River 44.51600 30.96 93.02733 1.64 Minor River -•• -•mv•m •-·•,- RR .... .,,_,. .. 44.52200 31.32 93.02967 1.78 Rail Under i ------·------❖-- Chub Creek 44.52300 31.38 93.029831 1.79!Minor River •-•m..-s--•••- • ..... _ ' . CR88 44.52600 31.56 93.031171 1.87 2 Lane Bridge Under .•••..• ' CR 86 44.54383 ... 32.63! 93.037501 2.25 4 Lane Rural Expressway under CR 82 44.55833 33.50' 93.042331 2.54 2 Lane Brid_ge Under ··- ·-- . 265th St 44.565501 33.9_3. 93.044831 2.69!2 LaneBridge Under j 250th St . 44.58733) 35.24 93.052501 ----~~·~3.15 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 80 44.594831 35.69 93.055001 3.30 2 Lane Bridge. Under ! ------.. ···-- -" -- ···---·-· ..... ··- ---r-• •------··· -- CR79 ' 44.59667 35.801 93.055671 3.34 2 Lane Bridg~Under_. ... , _ ...... • ----•------···-····-··--· ' ...... ""' 230th St E -1 44.61650 36.991 93.062001 3.72 ·---- 2 Lane. Bridge Under .... ! .. _ L. S. Branch Vermillion River 44.61800 37.081 93.06217! 3,?.?. Minor River i SR50 44.63033 37.821 93.06217 .. • ·-····-··· __ _3.7_~]4, ~fine Rural Expresswayunder . .. , ... -----·- ,..... CR 72 38.691 .93.06250 ' 44.64483 3.7512 Lane Bridg."..!J~der CR66 ' 44.65950 39.571 93.06283 3.77 4 Lane Rural Expressway under Vermillion River Minor River 1· ·-·-·· . · ! ' 44.67033 40.22L.... 93.063oo 3.78 i Station Trail ! 44.68917 41.35 93.06333 3.80 2 ..~ane Bridg".__U_f!t!_er .•...•L. Unnamed Rd 44.695001 41.70 93.06350 3.81 2 Lane Bridg".__llrider L • ! CR 58 44.703001 42.18 93.06350 3.81 '2 Lane Bridg"._ll_f!der i 165th SI 44.711001 42.66 93.063501 3.81 iClosure I i ! 1601h St 44.71750 43.05! 93.06333j 3.8012 Lane Bridge Under l 1561h SI 44.72450 43.471 93.061331 3.68iClosure j - - ··---- 155th SI . 44.72600 43.561 93.06067! 3.64[2 Lane Bridge Under 153rd St ! ______,.,,""~"-----.. ----~------· 44.72950 43.771 93.05983 .. .. _ .3.,~!'lLC:lgs_ure J ...... -- ...... j., ..... 152nd St ! 44.73083 43.851 93.05950 3.57!2 Lane Bridge Under . ' 93.05900 ·--- . - 3.54 IClosure .. ~j' . . I 151st St .. ,.. _ --•-•s----•-· ., .. 44.73233 43.94' CR42 44.74067 44.44[ 93.05667 3.40!4 Lane Rural Expressway under ... ···-'·· . -· _ ... CR 38 44.74400 ---44.641 93.05583 3.35 i2 Lane Bridg"._lJ_!lder ,-... , ... :.,. •. ,., •..• "'·-•-~ -----1--- ...... ,_, __ .. , CR 38 44.74750 44.851 93.05467 3.28!2 Lane Bridge Under ' I 135th St 44.75467! 45.28! 93.05283 3.17 IClosure I i Page 15 I . I , , , ,, i.:o'cation- !North GPS Lat min West GPS !Recommended Action ' I I '11.?th. S.t . ·······-. . 44.78017 46.81 93.04817! . 2.. 8. 9. 2 L.ane Bridge Under I I ·· 105th St 44.79733 47.84 93.043001 2.58 2 Lane Bridge Under I I 1 ~ierGroveJra~ ... ::::~~~~: :~:~;· ·~ti~:~~l ····~•lJ!lf;T\J~!l~dge,·rnder : .I -.,, ······"··· ., ... MLssi_s~f>pi River 44.91800'_,.,.. 55.08 93.050831 3.05 Major River 1---~ I ...... ·- - i l ...... ··--·~···J Summary. .EJ.,:i.ct.ges Under Unit Cost Quantity (Amount 4 Lane Urban Expressway $4,848 9 $43,632 4 Lane Rural Ex2~re~s~s~w~a~y____ _ $4,036 13 $52,468 <::;q nR?_ 2 Lane v~,w• 128 $391,936 1 I Rail ... ~;;,uo2-- •• 3!° $9,186 M~R~ f"~.,' $812 141 $11,368 M~R~ I $8,118 2! $16,236 I $524,8261 Total Bridges- Under Segment 7 "'t·•-••!~ .. --•m•,s•-••••-.---

Elriclges O'J"~ . __i · ,____ .·-····· ...... L .. o_,,s_cription. !North GPS !L,a_t Mill llf1e,_s!QPS .. L()ng.fllliri Recommended Actiofl ___ 1 §_R_ 52 -· .. ·······-··· ...... 44.80050! '1~11}3\ 92.03900 2.34 4 Lane Urban Expr<,_ss"'ayi Union Pacific Rail 44.79450! 47.67! 92.044501 2.67 Rail · Union Pacific Rail 44.91067[.. 54.641 92.05033[ 3.02 Rail 1 Cr 24 I 44.85350! 51.21 I 92.01983\ 1.1912 Lane I 1-494 I 44.88033L_~_52.82! 92.02433! 1.461Bridge Over with acceptable horizontal clearance

Summary of Bridges Over for Segment 7 Iype ··· I Unit Cost Quantify !Amount '1_L_aDe_lJrban_Ex.pr<,sS'IJflY I 10,516 11 $10,516 .. 4 Lane Rural Expressway I I 2,630 I $0 2 Lane ...... ! 1,971 1 $1,971 6 572 2 ~~;~I Bridges OveriorSegment 7 : .....,. ' ;~~:!~~T ...... I Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility~tud~-----'-----+------!-----+------1·----c-----· 19-Jan-99i

~~,~~~;ester Route 150 MPH 1 i ...... J ___~.. · · j.. ·-----,- Recommended Action for BridJJeS Under and B~i.d.ges Over.~----~----~-----,----+--- 1 •. ! Segment 2 Milwaukee to Ixonia i ! ' Subdivision MP·-· !Type [Name !Recommended Treatment I I Watertown sub 100.00!Under !Fox River !Major River -+----, Watertown sub 103.50iOver !Hwy F !2 Lane - Over i __,___ ·.:~_···_···__ Watertown sub ·-- 1Q_4J)()[()ver _;f:l_vd~8fr11i: · /4 Lane Rural - Over _ .. :~----- __ _ _ Watertown sub 110.80iOver !Campbell Rc2 Lane - Over i ----'--- :, ___ Watertown sub ...... -. ······· ·· · ·· 112.80iOver [HW\' Xing l2 Lane - Over i ············i ~-1 Watertown sub 115.60IUnder [Hwv [4 Lane Rural- U.nder --l----....:...-----1---....j Watertown sub 116.30IUnder IOconomowdMinor River Watertown sub 116.95 Over Hwy !2 Lane - Over ! 1 Watertown sub 118.80 Under Oconomowd Minor River Watertown sub I 119.40 Over IHwy Br 14 Lane Rural - Over \l\li3tertown su~ .••. 120.50 Over Hwy Br ~L_arie.Rural - ~ver I ,___ __j ____ I

Summaf)'__:__f3_ri_dges Under ·- !Unit Cost iOuantity_ _J4,m.:.:o::.;u:.:n.:.:tc....._.c.i _____+---- ·------'---- 14 Lane Rural Ex ressway i S_'l:,CJ:3.§i 1 j $4,036' Minor River $812 I 2 i $1,624 Major River I I $8,1181 1 i $8,118 Total Cost Bridges Under I I ! $13,778! 1 ..... ---·-·1 i . ---- I -- Summary_:_13_riclges Over I Unit Cost !Quantity iAmount -~----+-----'----- __ J ___ 4 Lane Rural I S2,630i 3i $7,890. __ i I _2 Lane i $1,971i 41 $7,884 I 1 Total Cost Brid.ges Over____ _ i .... ···--··' $15,7741 Page 2 I •··-•·· . ··-· §!l_gment 3 Ixonia to Madison ...... ---·-....J..------.----._.;___ __J_ ___ ,

Location North GPS flat min !West GPS i ___ -"R""e.. c.. o~m 2 mcceccnccd.. e"'dc.cA""cccf ..10~n'--'----.J---- Reese Lane --.. j 43.141331 BAB] 88.60283: 36.17 2 Lane Bridg,_.e:.:U~n"'d.. e::__r _ _;_ ___ Stream 1 43.14133! 8.481 88.62100' 37.26iMinorRiver I Rockvale Road 43.1413:f 8.481 88.63633i 38~ia!2LaneBridgeLU-nd_e_r--~- '§'con~mowocI:\ive_r_-·--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-~-'-.-.-4-=-3,I41]7i 8.47] 88.64317' 38]~1ryiajorf§'iv_ei~] : - -- I CR P 43:14117! 8.471 88.645831 38.75'.2 Lane Bridge Under CRE ·- ____ _ I 43.14117' 8.47! BB,13_'17.1!i 38.8312LaneBrkfgeUnder I Hwy P ______, 43.141171 8.4T 88.65117' 39.07!4 Lane Rural Expressway Under CR p- -- · ; 43.141001 8.46! 88.65617 39.37!2 Lane Bridge Under-- -

Spoon·e,-Rd- - 1 43.14100\ 8.46i 88.67533 .. 40.52,2 Lane Bridg,--'e'-U"'n-"d.. e'-r _ __j____ -"'-----' CR D ·1 43.14100! 8.461 88.68517 41.11 i2 Lane Bridge Under Little Coffee Rd 43.14100! 8.46! 88.70533, 42.3212 Lane Bridge-Under Johnson Creek 43.14100: 8.46! 88.70833! 42.50!Minor River ·-·1 CR X I 43.14100! 8.46] 88.71550 42.93i2 Lane Bridge Under Airport Rd ___ __ ~ 43.14083! 8.45! 88.73100 il~:!313_;:?.har,_e_B_,:istg_e_U_n_d-er--.-_1-,-- ···-· 1 1:26 _ ·------1- .il~.140831_.. 8.45: 88.73517 4il,1_1A Lane Rural Expresswa)' Under I High Rd _ 43.14067: 8.44! 88.73767 _ 44.26i2 Lane Bridge Under ' i1'

F

CR O ______i 43.13667 _ 8.201 _88.99200 .... 59.52 2 LaneBridge Under __ _ Boxelder Rd i 43.135501 8.13 89.01483 0.89 2 Lane Bridge Under ___ --+----I Tower Line Rd i 43.13417! 8.05 89.04083 2.45 2 Lane Bridge Under- T Missouri Rd ' 43.133501 8.01 89.05083 3.05 2 Lane Bridge Under le----+----, Spring Creek i 43.132501 7.95 89.06800 4.08 Minor River i ' SR73 l 43.132331 7.94 89.072171 4.33 4 Lane Rural Exeresswav Under , Oak Park Rd l 43.131171 7.87 89.09617j 5.77 2 Lane Bridge Under ; --· ______.flic:lge Rd 43.129331 7.761 89.13033 _].82!2 La.n~Brklge Under ' ______.. ______Pierceville Rd 43.128001 7.68 89.15367 9.22 2 Lane Bridqe Under i CR TT 43.12750! 7.65 89.16717 ------f0.03 2 Lane Bridge Under , ------_-_.,. ____, Koshkonong Creek 43.12650 7.59 89.183501 11.01 Minor River ! l i CR N 43.12583 7.55 89.19850 11.91 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under i CRT 43.11883 7.13! 89.24250 14.55 2 Lane Bridqe Under --~i------~ Thorson Rd 43.11800' 7.081 89.24617 14.77 2 Lanel3_ric:lg_e_U~n_de_r_~'-+---•---- Forest Oak Dr 43.116331 6.981 89.25333 15.20!2 Lane Bridae Under Reiner Rd 43.113331 6.801 89.26583 15.9512 Lane Bridge Under i Felland Rd 43.11100! 6.66 89.27583 16.55]:? Lane Bridge Under --'>---- 1-90 43.10867! 6.52 89.28617 17.1714 Lane Urban Expressway Under · ···-•·••"·~~••l·"""~"------~-··-· -,-... """'"""-·" •••.•. iL --~•-·--• Fairview Drive 43.10800! 6.48 89.28933 17.3612 Lane Bridge Under I __ _I Eagle Drive ------+--43.10750 ---- 6.45 89.29067 --- -- 17.44!2 Lane Bridge Under ------i_--_--_--_ __, N.Thompson Drive 43.10583 6.35 89.30067 18.0412 Lane Bridge Under - l Nakoosa Trail 43.10700 6.42 89.31867 19.1212 Lane Bridge Under ' ! 1-51 43.10683! 6.41 i 89.31650 18.99!4 Lane Urban Expressway_U_n_d_e_r _ _,_ ___ 1 RRWaterlooSpur _____ 43.106831 6.411 89.323501 19.41 Rail Under '-----+-----+------1

SummaryBridgesUnder - - -~-- ____ JU nit Cost Quantity Amount ---

4 Lane Urban Expressway ------+---- i_-----C:$cc4~,8cc4cc8_,______,2ci-_-ccc$-cc9,'c6-cc9cc6!-----t----+-----,------______1 4 Lane Rural Exoresswav i $4,036: 5 $20,180 ' i 2 Lane ---- $3,0621 39 $119,418 , Rail $3,062 2 __ $6,124 ______1 Minor River $812 7 $5,684 ' Major River $8,118 3 $24,354 __ ! Total BridaesUnder Seamen! 3 i i $185,456 ------i----- F'age4 Segment 4 Airport Track .· : Name . ; North West ... Type oTBridge-.--- . . : ··---··- Highway 51 ...... • 43.10733 89:33867 4 Lane Urban Expressway ~ Over -·---- -I Anderson· ... ___ 43.12117 89.35233 2 Lane Under . -- -••"••~•, -~M """" <<0•"-S H~- Pankrantz _ 43.12150 89.35233 2 Lane Under , International Lane 43.12250 89.35300 2 Lane Under I i , I ' ;~~n:a~~ges Under Unit ~~.~~ Qu_a}'_!ity __ i!".11loun~ ~---· I 3 9 2 1 ' Summary Bridges Over Unit Cost Quantity iAmount 4 Lane Urban Expresswav 10,516 "Tl $10,516 ...... I . ··········•••••••••••• ...... ·····: ...... ·-···· I :--··-···-

Segment 5 Madison to Mississippi River Basin Location •.. [N_o_rt_h_G~P~S--l-a-1 -m-·i~n-~iW_e_s_t ~G~P~S--t-----~R-ec_o_m_m_e_n_d_e~d_A_c-ti_o_n_~_ --~ '

·~·~.~~IT~~d .... I.··· :;:~;~~~L- ~~:~~ ¾~:~:~BBi· · ~~~~i1~ t:~~-~;:~~=~~a:L Unnamed Rd __ 43.19100! 11.46 89.34167! 20.50!2 Lane Bridge Under j~go (existing) ...... 4i19150l 11.49 89.341501 20.49!.4 Lane Urban Expressway Under Hwy 19 . 43.19433: 11.66 89.34133, 20.4814 Lane Rural Expressway Under Duraform Lane i 43.199501 11.97 89.34167J . 20.50[2 Lane Bridge Under Sequoia Dr : 43.218001 13.08 89.342331 20.5412 Lane Bridge Under Gray Rd . .. 43.223501 13.41 89.34250 20.5512 Lane Bridge Under Vinbum Rd ...... ·• 43.238001 14.28 89.34317 20.5912 Lane Bridge Under I Commerce St_ ...... _. _...... 43.24633! 14.78 89.34150 20.49!2 Lane Bridge Under ======: CR DV 43.24767: 14.86 89.34150 20.49!2 Lane Bridge Under Yahara River ··•····· 43.250171 · 15.01. 89.34133 20.48,Minor River I i··-········ CR V 43.25283J 15.17j 89.34133 20.4814 Lane Rural Expressway Under Selji Rd ...... I 43.27450 16.47i 89.34783 20.87 2 Lane Bridge Under I 1 CR OM f 43.28117 16.87 89.35083 21.05 2 Lane Bridge Under Kleinert Rd - 43.~8_!)_67_ ...... _1_7_.3!3 89.354Sct·· ...... 21.27 2 Lane Bridg~e~_U_n_.d_e_r ______-_ -- ,.. Ra111sfly~d _ ...... ,'.1_3,?!3.~Q0 17.76 89.35767 21.46 2 Lane Bridge U_n_de_r_----s---~-- Unn.amed Rd ...... __ .... __ fl3_.30.183 18.11 89.36050 21.63 2 Lane Bridge Under 1 CR__l<_(intflrs_El_ctsw/Goosepond.~_~) 43.30850 18.51 89.36317 21.79 2 Lane Bridge Under Prairie Lane i 43.31650! 18.99 89.36717 22.03 2 Lane Bridge Under Pagrt ______i I ' 1 -- Recommended Action · Location North GPS Lat min WestGPS ' Kampen Rd 43.32317 19.39 89.37033 22.22 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed St 43.33583 20.15 89.37583 22.55 2 Lane Bridge Under SR60 43.33767 20.26 89.37683 22.61 4 Lane Rural Exp!essway_Under Richards Rd 43.35233 21.14 89.38350 23.01 2 Lane Bridge Under --·· •. l 89.40267 24.16 4 Lane Rural Expressway_ Under CRO 43.37917 22.75 ·---·-· CRQ 43.38100 22.861 89.40550 24.33 2 Lane Bridge Under I I 1 I' Rowan Creek ! 43.38600 23.16, 89.40967 24.58 Minor River I McMullen Rd l 43.38867 23.32i' _89.41183 24.71 4 Lane Rural Expressway_ Under ' Kent Rd 43.40267 24.16 89.41483 24.89 2 Lane Bridge Under ' Hinkson Creek 43.41100 24.66 89.414671 24.88 ryi3 jor River I l ------

ThompsonRd .. 43.41717! 25.03 89.41483! 24.89!2 Lane Bridge Under ...... _ .... ,.... _. ·•··--"-· .. - --- ·- --- ··-·-· Bilkie Rd 43.43183; 25.91 89.41483! 24.8912 Lane Bridge Under

CR B 43.43900: 26.34 89.41483! 24.89!2 Lane Bridg_e Under ...... Morse Rd 43.44967! 26.98 89.41483 24.89 _2 Lane Bridge Under --- Rocky Run Creek 43.45233! 27.14 89.41483 . 24.89 Minor River I 'i CRJ i 43.45817! 27.49 89.41483 24.89 :1. Lane Bridgia Under ..... "-·--·---- -s••····- Murrv Rd ' 43.48967 29.38 89.41483 24.89 2 Lane Bridge Under ' Unnamed Rd 43.50033 30.02! 89.41483 24.8912 Lane Bridge Under :

SR 51 43.51833 31.101 89.42283! 25.3714 Lane Rural Ex[JresswayUnder ••-•••••.S•M,-, ••••••••>- CPRail 43.53683 32.21! 89.43617! 26.171Rail Under I ···•~·· ,- Ontario St 43.54033 32.421 89.43783! 26.2712 Lane Bridge Under RR 43.54300 32.58 89.439671 26.38!Rail Under ! Wauona Trail i 43.54500 32.70 89.44100! 26.4612 Lane Bridge Under RR 43.54683 32.81 89.442171 26.53[Rail Under I ______Sueerior Street 43.54750 32.85 89.44250 26.55!2 Lane Bridge Under , SR 33 & Aoencv House Rd 43.549001 32.94 89.44350 26.61 !4 Lane Rural ExpresswaiUnder E Albert Street ! 43.549671 32.98 89.44417 26.65!2 Lane Bridge Under ____ 2 Lane Bridge Under i Hamilton Street i 43.56133 33.68! 89.45467! 27.28 ----·-··· SR 51 43.56217 33.731 89.46950! 28.17 4 Lane Rural Exeressl'lay Under ' • W. Wisconsin & Portage Rd 43.56317 33.791 89.486671 29.20 2 Lane Bridge Under i ! SR39 43.56333 33.B0L_ 89.48800! 29.;?_~ 4__ Lane Rural Expressway Under ----~«.S'- """·----- ······-·-.-- .. --··••,s··-.. --,., ·'"' SR 127 43.56350 33.81 I 89.492171 29.53 4 Lane Rural Exeressway_ Under__ __ Klapp~tein Rd 43.56650 33.99i 89.540171 - - 32.41 2 Lane Bridge Under Schultz Rd 43.57467 34.48i 89.58450i 35.07 2 Lane Bridge Under Weyh Rd ! 43.57817i 34.69i 89.599671 35.98 2 Lane BridQe Under Page 6 ______, ----,- --~---- i Location iNorth GPS]Lat m.in _··-· WestGPs·r -·· .· ....•. .JRecommen_de_d_A_c_t_io_n~---~ 'i\'Cllpram Rd ~~----- _4:3,581;331 35.12 .~fl:§.29_3:3j 37.76!2 LarieBridge_Under __ [ Lewiston Station Rd 43.588331 35.30 89.64133: 38.48:2 Lane Bridge Under Ne,v Haven Rd ------43,60000: 36.00 89.689331 41.3612 Lane Bridge Under Peterson Rd- 43.60217[ 36.13 -89.-699501 41.97i2 Lane Bridge.l.lnder . i CRO- ··- .. 43.607001 36.42 89.719171 43.15i2 Lane BridgeUnder . : · - 1-16, 1-127 & Winnebago Rd.. ---, 43.61200· 36.72: 89.739331 44.3614 Lane Rural Expressway Under .. Lynch Rd 43.61600i 36.96! 89.756331- 45.38!2 Lane Bridge Under r· Bowman Rd 43.618331 37.101 89.76633! 45.9812 Lane Bridge Under ·-•-·-----..-·-··--··,·" ""~~ ----~------·1·- -~•~• T • ·~~--~------Veteran Drive .... 43,15.2:ZO.OL 37.32;_.~9.77300i 46.3812 Lane §ricJge Under. ..L... ·--·--··-·.' ...... _ Minnesota Avenue 43.624001 37.44i 89.775501 46.53'2 Lane Bridge Under · · · Fi~~~ii'a.~},y"riue, - 43.62683! ····:37:51 i 89.77883i 46.73!2 Lane,Elridge Under - _ _ ,Rt 13 43.62750' 37.651 89.77967! 46.7814 Lane Rural Expressway Under 'Wisconsin River 43.62767, 37.66: 89.78000, ···--· 46.80,Major River 1 Unnamed Rd 43.62883! 37. 731 89. 781331···· --4cc6"'".8""8'-+i'='2~L"an~e~B.crid~g-e-'Uc..n_d~e-r--'-----,------· IPioneer Drive 43.62983; ...... 37,!'1j __ 89.78233! . - 46.9412 LaneBridge u_~d~:r _ • .... , .•... ·•··· Unnamed Rd , 43.63150! . 37.89' 89.78467! 47.08:2 Lane BndgeUnder . , , Commercial Avenue .. r- 43.63483! - -38.-091 .... ag:-1aii33r- 47 .30'2 Lane Bridge Under ...... c·RA - . - .... 4":f5355oj·. 3s.'19j" ..39j·9050J 47.43!2 Lane Bridg_e.. Llnder , ~OihSt 43.65383i 39.23i 89.81150 48.69i2 Lane Bridge Under ==J f.90 43.654671 39.281 89.81267 48.76:4 Lane Urban Expressway Under

Dees Rd 43.67867! 40.72 89.84400 50.6412 Lane Bridgce..;Uccn.;.cdcce.,__r. _ _;_ ____j_ __ ....J RR 43.68067 40.84 89.84500 50.70,Rail Under Gilmore Creek I 43.68150 40.89!--89.84600[ · 50.76!Minor River I ' Southern Rd I 43.69900 ...•...41_,,JLI_ ·: 89.86883 . ·-··s2:{J!2 Lane Bridge,llricle,~- --===:: :r=:. __ 1 Industrial Ave i 43.70617 42.37 89.88133 · 52.8812 Lane Bridge Under. t Honeyaire St 43.71367! .. j~Jg 89.89417 ...... 53.6512 Lane BridgeQn~e.L .. r- ~:~I" _...... CR RR 43.71450: 42.87! 89.89567 53.74,4 Lane Rural Exoressway Under Unnamed St 43.717171 43.03[ 89.90050 54.03!2 Lane Bridge Under · ...... W. Limits Rd ! 43.72167! 43.30! 89.90817 54.49!2 Lane Bridge Under ~~~~a~~:r\:re~~--- 1 :~:;;~6~ -~~,¥~i-~~'.~}H~ -- ...... =;{~~l~:~~i~l~:i·---1- .. ···· J ··· ...... 24thAvenue ...... ·r 43.73300 43.981 89.92833 55.70 2 Lane Bridge Under . Unnamed Rd ...... 1 43.748i>Oi 44.91[ ... s.~.,9.5~1?.. :SI3f ;i"t,.a~e.~~~g~Under .i ...... 1-90 i ... 4.3/6.. 1§!\ 45.70! 89.975001 58.50 4 Lane Urban Expressway Under 1 CR N 43.76183, 45.711 89.95850, 57.51,2 Lane Briclf!e Under Page 7 ' I-····- Location North GPS Lat min WestGPS l Recommended Action ! i 55th Street 43.76700 46.02 89.982331 58.94 2 Lane Bridge Under -· -· ""~"-·· 1·•· •• - • V -•--•-m--- Unnamed Rd 43.76917 46.15 89.985331 59.12 2 Lane Bridge Under ..• Count)' Hwy N 43.77400 46.44 89.992001 59.52 2 Lane Bridge Under i ··E ! Lemonweir River 43.78617 47.17 90.008831 0.53 Major River l 19th Ave 43.79433 47.66 90.019831 1.19 2 Lane Bridge_(,!11der ·- -·-·-·-··-- 1-82 I 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under I 43.79617 47.77 90.022331 1.34 ' CRG 43.80350 48.21 90.032501 1.95 2 Lane Bridge Under '•~ """''"'""•' "'m•• 17th Ave 43.80533 48.32 90.03483! ______,,_ . 2.09 2 Lane Bridge Under I ",mv•• 15th Ave 43.82000 . .. 49.20 90.055171 3.31 l2 Lane Bridge Under ...... i ; 47th St '""+ 43.82950 49.77 90.068001 4.08 2 Lane Bridge Under i ' CRO l' 43.83217 49.93 90.071831 4.31 4 Lane Rural Expresswa. Under Prairie Rd I 43.84683 50.81 90.091831 5.51 2 Lane Bridge Under I Meredith Rd i 43.86217 51.73 90.111671 6.70 2 Lane Bridge Under I 42nd St 43.87667 52.60 7.8212 Lane Bridge Under I 90.130331 ' . --~--~---"', N. Germantown Rd 43.88533 53.12 90.14150! 8.49 2 Lane BridQe Under i -·-·"-"'' SRB0 43.88717 53.23 90.14400 8.64 4 Lane Rural Expresswa)' Under -- --~------'""""'"- RR 43.89083--~----·-- - 53.45 90.14883 8.93 Rail Under i 43.89350 53.61 90.15250 9.15 2 Lane Bridge Under i Hog Island Rd/Bt.tJ../\y"···· ...... ,. ' ... CRM 43.90783 54.47 90.17750 10.65 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under 7th Ave 43.91183 54.71 90.191671 11.50 2 Lane Bridge Under l ,w,v•v 8th Ave 43.91733 55.04 90.211501 12.69 2 Lane Bridoe Under CRC 43.92017 55.21 90.22150! 13.29 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed 43.92600 55.56 90.24300! 14.58 2 Lane Bridge Under : CRH I ------43.93783 56.27 90.28333! 17.0012 Lane Bridge Under RR 43.93800 56.28 90.28367 17.02 Rail Under Kleichinger Rd 43.94200 17.79 Rail Under -·=···-···-~-· 56.52 90.29650 33rd Lane 43.93250 55.95 90.31883 19.13 Rail Under l 32nd Court 43.95833 57.50! 90.34750 20.85!Rail Under »s-w••w•v Allen Creek 43.96150 57.69i 90.35767 21.46iMinor River i CRPP 43.96683 58.011 90.37433 22.4614 Lane Rural Expressway_Under

Indian Creek -- "'.. ,..,_,.______. .,,_, ___ 43.97117 58.27i 90.38800 23.28 IMinor River i Field Rd 43.97483 58.491 90.39933 23.96 2 Lane Bridge_ Under ______j ... ------"' ' Bear Creek 43.97500 58.501 90.39983 23.99 Rail Under I •V- ••••~----•••- H CRN 43.97600 58.561 90.40300 24.18 2 Lane Bridge Under i 1-90 43.97617 58.571 90.415171 24.91 !4 Lane Urban Expressway Under Page 8 i i ' _1___I----'----'------Location ·- North GPS i Lat min ,west GPS :·Recommended Action CP Rail 43.97367! 58.42! 90.42567 ·- ...... ··2s:s

28th Ct 13_,9?2QQj --·--58.32 90.43183! 25.91 :4 Lane Rural ExJJr,es_s,vaylJnde,r ----·-----·----- Center St , 43.96967! 58.18 90.44167! 26,50!2 Lane Bridge Under Krever Creek [ - 4396450: 57.87! 90.46283' · 27.fiilviinor River '=1==---'--- CR C :·- 43.96367]--- 57.82! 90.4661?1-- 27.97i:z"Lanel3ridge Under Cinder St____ , i 43.95700! 57,i:i] 90.49383' 29.63!2 Lane Bridge.lJDcfe.r ··· - - Council Creek l 43.95550! 57.331 90.49967i 29.98lMinor River ! I S1'1_131...... -~ ..:::-· 43.95417] 57.251 · 90.50483! 30.29;4 Lane Rural Ex ressway Under CR M • 43.94617; 56.77 90.53767! 32.26!2 Lane Bndg,.,.ec.;U:-,-n.:.:d,--e.,_r_---'-----'--- ~~::::~ ~i~e.r · --- - - 1;:::~;;; :::;! .:i~:!!;;;i ;;:~:!~~:~eR;r~~ge ~nder I 21_st Ave 43 94050! 56.43 90.57233! 34.34!2 Lane Brid• e Under .. 1 Cliff Ave 43.94000!.. 56.40 90.57633; 34.58!2 Lane Bridge Under CRT ---- 43.93983! · 56.39! 90.57767' 34.66!2 Lane Bridge Under Chub Cree~ .. __ ___ i 43.939671 56.38! 90.5781!L. 34.6'1\rvlin<2rRi\/_er ------'------. --~ ·-- 19th Ln .. . i 43.93717! 56.23! . 90.59717.i .. 35.83!2 Lane Bridge Under. 16th Dr .. . - --,- 43.93467! .. 56.0.8 eff66217l - 39.73'2 Lane Bridge Under ·······-.- gi3!-,"'' ...... - .. 43.935171 - . sil:H. 90.68500! 41.10!4 Lane Rural Expresswa I 14th Dr 43.93550' 56.13 90.70000! 42.00:2 Lane Bridg,_e_U_n_d_e_r_-.---•------Cliff Court i 43.936001 56.16 90.714331 42.86!2 Lane Bridge------'------Under Unnamed 43.93617' 56.17! 90.71733! 43.04!2 Lane Bridge Under 13th Dr 43.93617! 56.17! 90.72017 43.21 :2 Lane Bridge Under , Sanitary Landfill Rd 43.93650! 56.19]"-90.76533 ---····-···· 45.92 2 LaneBrldge Under ·-! ..... , ..... Cliff Ct . 43.93467! 56.081 90.77500 46.502 Lane BridgetTri'der··- T" .... 1-90 .. T ... 43.93400! 56.04\ 9i:f"f77i,'i --- . 46.66 4 Lane Urban°E.xoresswa Under - SR71 .... _T 43.93350,--·-·sii.01! 90.78067 46.84A Lane Rural Expressway Under Farmer's Valley_ Creek 43.932831 55.97i _Jl0.78_431] _. __ 47.06iMinor River _ I Jollr1§tj9th St) .. ,__ 43.93050' 55.83i 90.79583! ... 4?J§:~ Lane_f3~clgelJnder S. Water St . ___ 43.92767! 55.66' 90,8106T . 48.64i2 Lane Bridge Under SR 27 ...... 43.92567' 55.54! ... 90.82050!...... 49.23i2 Lane Bridgei.Jnd:c::e:::.r_----'----+--- 8th ct 43.924s:f 55.49: 90.82483! -- --,E1:4e:2 i..ane sr1dgeUncier IUnnamed Rd 43:92267!. . - 55.36!. 90.83567 ...... 50.14!2 ···• L.ane ..... - Bridgei.Jnciei...... ,...... - ...... Little La Crosse River 43.91817! 55.091 90.85967 ·---...... 51.58!Minor River I l,g:tpress Avenue .... __43.914001 54.84, 90.88067 52.8412 Lane Bndg'-"e__,Uc.c.n"'d.c.er'---'----"---1 CR J 43.906831 54.411 90.92050, 55.23!2 Lane BridQe Under Page 9 [_ l 1in __ _IWe_s_t ~econ:1.mended Action ...... No~_h -~~~_I Lat m _ ?!'..~_I ____ 1 t-1sn t,;reeK 4J.Buo;,;;;14.'1, "ii l:"'l."'l.",I !'14,;j;l51.1, .",/1 9U.9ltl33'-111 ~/1">.''L",1 :,:, Ill 1vmmr M:IVPf 43.90317 54.194.19[ 90.9413390.94133[ 56.48\2 Lane BridgeUnder .. _J ·· 1---~~'--=~------1----'=.c.=..c=1-----=-=4.00[43.90000 c 90.96067[ 57.6412 Lane Bridge Under I 43.89817 53.893.89[ 90.97200[90.97200 58.32[Minor River l__ _j

_~-- 43.89533 53.723.721 90.9908390.990831 59.45 4 Lane Rural Ex~ressway_U~n~d~er0 43.89550 53.733.73[ 90.9925090.99250[ 59.55 Minor River i ,.,, nn,.-c"7 Unnamed Rd j 43.89717! "3.83E".) O".ll 91.01483n-1 n-t Ao'JI non!-, 1 --- n~:..1-- 1 '---'-.. _.3,98 91.04483 Shorew.ood Court I 43.899671::::·::::::::1 E--.. --.-1 - --- , •--1 -·--:.- __ ,. __ ,._"_ -··--· I Tilc::nn C::t ,1.q on~fi.7 ::4.~"c: · - • Q1- • 07?~q----- • - .. - ' ..... ' r ,;~:~~~~~I ~4:~1! ~1:~~iifl ~:~!14_L;~;_R~;:i~-E~;-~-;e--~-sw-ay--ecU-nd7 e-r-.. ······ 1 ____ : La Grosse K1ver i 43.9Utl5UI 54.511 91.U93oi r.R M 4'.'\ QOROOI 54.48_ .. ·- Cl1_ ... 1nn'.'\ _. __ -·-- _ --··- ----~.~•. - ·_·-,..--·--,----..,------; 7 43.912001 S4.7254.72 91.12133 7.28 2 Lane Bridg~e~Uccn=d~er__ ~---+----1 4.81 91.12850 7.71 2 Lane Bridge Under i , l-.!ll<.::l.n111£.:IQl-,'n Ll~'"l"l/"1/1~~-~~~:~) .. · ~~-~3r·g11A11~n',-,-,.,.., ,.,...... ,..,.,.. ····· ,.. ... ,..i,.,, - · ...... , .. ,-.. ~ ••---•--- r· -,-..,_..., ,, ,, I ..., • L • 43.91950[ 55.17!~;::;1 91.91: 19111 11:41ITu-;~~ - .. -~--~--.._-_-• __ ,___ i 43.917831 55.071 91.14967! l 43.91933 ;;:~~ ~~:~i;~~ 1~::~:~~~~:~ippiRiv~rBridge , ...... ~.· k'nc:<::: Rri ! .d'=l.,..,_.., Q1Q17l ..... '' ,....,,55.15! ,,.,, 91.188001... , . ,..,..,...,..,, , ...... ;._ ...... ,,.., .... ,, ... :::,_ ..... cc-cc."-cc-cc.'_--,----+----l 43.919331 55.165.16 91.19667 11.80!2 Lane Bridge.Under 43.919331 55.165.16 91.21167 12.70!2 Lane Bridge U-nd_e_r__ ·· I I 43.91917 I c5.15 I 91.225671 13.54J2 Lane Bridge~nder ==:.=

I I I .. ~•~-"" Summary_Bricfges Under 1... Unit Cost [Quantitl/..... !."'.mount 4 Lane Urban Expresswa~ ! $4,848! 4 $19,392 i 4 Lane Rural Expressway i $4,036! 23 $92,828 ; 2 Lane i $3,062i 115 ·· · $352,130 Rail I $3,062! 101 $30,620 ··•···· t. Minor River I $8121 19 $15,428 MajorBiver I I $8,118! 4[ $32,472 1 Total BridgeasUnderSegment 5 J $542,870! i I I §1,gment 6 MississltJpi River B~~Et==- - ...- ....+L- ..-.- ....-.- ..- ....- ...-, .. -....- ....- ..- ...- ...- .....- ... -...~.- ....- .....- ..- .. ===-=--=-:.-.-_-_----, ...... [ ,~~------··-.. ·· .. j jUnit Cost iOuantity,_JAmount I Mississippi River Bridge ' ! $234,0001 1 I $234,000 I Interstate 90 Dakota Rvier Vallev Structure $74,000! 11 $74,000 Total Cost I I $308 ,ODD! l"i3ge 10 j ~.egment 7 River to St Paul I. C-2 150 MPH Rochester Route I !North !Lat min West Long min 'Recommended Action ..... i l+!}Rd 29 ' 1;::;~!;i- .;;:;; ;; :;;~~~ ···· ;;:~~i~ ~:~: ~~i~~:~xnl:~s.vayunder . , 1?~r1.~~32 ······~- 1 1;::;!~6: lll1 :;:;:~~~: ~;:~~:~ ~:~: :~~~: ~~~=~ -·••· ! Unnamed Rd i 43.92483 55.49 91.40067 24.04!2 Lane Bridge Under · ···· Dakota Creek ·············- ······· ······: 43.92483 55.49 91.41900 25.14iMinorRiver ·T 1 Q<1k_Clla Creek i 43.92500. 55.50 91.40283_ ...... 24.17IMinorRiver i ·· ' , 1 1·90 43.92550: 55.53! 91.40683: 24.41 !.i. Lane Urban E.xflr<'lSSVll13Y. under Dakota.Creek ___ 43.92650!. 55.59!. 91.41400! 24.84!Major River ! .. , l~~~Jrout Creek - · ·:~:~~!~6r .. ;;:~;: ·:; :!~~-~~! -····· ;~:;;:;~Z~: ~r~~~~e~~~!~ackwork ...... • - -- CR 104 - 43.92233! 55.34! 91.44350! 26.61 ,2 Lane.Bridge Under ,CR 125 --· __ 43.92250! 55.35! 91.47083! 28.25 2 Lane Bridg

1-90 ·:...... _ 43.95250: 57.15[ 91.69850 41.91 [4 Lane Urba11Exer~s5.v,ayu~der - 1 CR 12 43.95250[ 57.15' 91.70300 42.18!2 Lane Bridge Under i Unnamed Rd 43.95100 1 57.06, 91.72017 43.21 12 Lane Bridge Under Pa_ge 11 I ,_m'"-1 I 1 -·•~··--··-·- Location North GPS ilat min ,West GPS Recommended Action ' i Unnamed Rd 43.945671 56.74l 91.74033 44.42 2 Lane Bridge Under I """_.,_ ·••···------·-· l Twp9 43.94283! 56.57' 91.760331 45.62 .?. Lane Bridge Under i i ------•·· ····----•---... i Twp11 43.942171 56.53! 91.78017 46.81 2 Lane Bridge Under i i ·-···-···· ··•·• --- ~,,.,_,., .. 43.94250! CR25 56.55! 91.79050 47.43 2 Lane Bridge Under - ---- ! Unnamed Rd 43.94300l 56.581 91.80033 48.02 2 Lane Bridge Under i i -·------·-·- Twp21 43.94317 56.59! 91.81017 48.61 2 Lane Brid!!le Under i Unnamed Rd 43.94350 56.611 91.82033 49.22 2 Lane Bridge Under -•~--M • •·•a-• Twp19 43.94400 56.64[_ 91.83950 50.37 2 Lane Bridge Under ------·····-'"·"·--"··-··--- '"~•w,••·-- Rush Creek? 43.94433 56.66i 91.85050 51.03 Minor River I CR25 -----·-· 43.944501 56.67! 91.85933 51.56 2 Lane Bridge Under CR29 56.70! 91.87283 52.37 4 .Lane Rural Expressway under ...•..... ············•·· ...... 43.94500[ - ...... ,. _,_ .. _ Rush Creek 43.94500! 56.70' 91.87433 1 52.46 Minor River i I --·-····1 Twp9 43.94533! 56.72! 91.889501 53.37!2 Lane Bridge Under i ''""""""" Creek? i 43.94367' 56.621 91.901671 54.10IMinor River I I ''"''-"'' Twp13 43.941331 56.481 91.919501 55.17]2 Lane Bridge Under . I i •-•-••"m"--•-~·•·•

Twp15 43.93867 ,,.,, _____ 56.321 91.939671 56.38i2 Lane Bridge Under · •••••••••••• •SN .. •••-• 1---•••••• •- •--•-•••••,.•••~·••~•-••••w-•'"•-••~-•- '

CR 33 .,,,______---- 43.93617 56.17' 91.95650l 57.39,2 Lane BridfJe Under ! 1-90 43.93517 56.11 i 91.964831 57.8914 Lane. Urban Expresswa,- under ••• rn•••·••-.•~•-•-~• "'""'"- •••--•~~•••• ! St. Charles Twe 3 43.93350 56.011 91.97767i 58.66!2 Lane Bridge Under ... ! Pine Creek 43.93133 55.88 91.99283i 59.57 Culvert included in trackwork i CR35 43.92983 55.79 92.00433! 0.26 2 Lane Bridge Under ' I CR 117 43.92817 55.69 92.019501 1.17 2 Lane Bridge Under !

St. Charles Twp 15 __ ._,..• 43.92583 55.55 92.039331 2.36 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.92517 55.51 92.045171 2.71 2 Lane Bridge Under SR 74 43.92283 55.37 92.065331 3.92 4 Lane Urban Expressway under ....•.. - ----~ ... ,... _ Unnamed Rd 43.92250 55.35 92.069831 4.19 2 Lane Bridge Under ·~···--·---- Unnamed Rd 43.922331 55.341 92.09350l 5.6112 Lane Bridge Under CR 130 43.922671 55.361 92.117501 7 .05 2 Lane Bridge Under l - ss-•,,»m i CR30 43.923501 ·-- ... 55.41 i 92.138501 8.31 2 Lane Bridge Under CR10 43.927501 55.651 92.168501 10.11 4 Lane Rural Expressway under CR32 43.92883 55.73l 92.17850! 10.71 2 Lane Bridge l)nder __ ·:· ··-···"'" ...... ,..... -,--,-,-~-- Cr136 43.93167 . 55.90 1 92.19817 11.89 i2 Lane Bridge. Under ----·····-~·---··· --····~··-·------••>-• ...... ---- CR7 43.93700 56.22] 92.23800 14.28 4 Lane Rural Expressway under ..• . . . ------Unnamed Rd I 43.93933 56.36i 92.25783 15.47 2 Lane Bridge Under I "·- CR 129 I 43.93967 ...... 56.381 92.27800 16.68 2 Lane Bridge Under ··--·---·-·· ---- .. ·------················ ·t· . 43:94017 CR 19 56.41'·- 92.29817! 17.89 2 Lane Bridg.e._. Under 75 St SE 43.94067 56.441 92.32800 1 19.68 2 Lane Bridqe Under !'9_ge 12 __ i I ..-1 Location ______North GPS Lat min !West GPS !Recommended Action • i ?iiili"AveSE ------· ... 43E4033 56.42' 92.33800 20.28!2 Lane Bridge Under .I.. ' -- --- l-52/65th Ave SE ___ .. _ 43.93967 _ 56.38! 92.34783 ...... 2_0.87!4 Lane Urban Exp,-€!e;~w_ay under 1-90 __ ...... 43.93783 56.27! ... 9_2.37150! 22,2_~14 [,ane lJrb

J~;\~;;e~r::k - .. ··········-·-·· ::;~;;~ . ~. :i;:. -~;::;~~~1 . .;;.:!11~7~;~e;~!tge ynder ··-···-·.= -1·=····•·····~·················· ... cR 7/CR 20 44.11667 _ -· _}.:QCll !:)_2.85850,_ ··-- .....!5.1 .. 51 2 Lane Bridge Under __ ...... 1 ICR 22 44.13850 8.31 I 92.86267' 51.76 2 Lane Bridge Under .•. . ICR 24 44.15300 9.18 92.86533 51.92 4 Lane Rural Expresswa',' under Unnamed Rd , 44.16617 9.97 92.86800 •. 52.08 2 Lane Bridge Under I .. ___ 1 Middle Fork Zumbro River j 44.16700 10.02 92.86817 52.09 Minor River I CR B ..... l 44.01748 1.05 92.86950 52.17 2 Lane Bridge Under ...... ' -~---I CR B i 44.18217 10.93 92.87100 52.26 2 Lane Bridge Under ' CRA . i 44 .. 19683 11.81 92.87367 52.422LaneBridgeUnder _.__ .... N. Branch Middle Fork Zumbro River i 44.20167 12.101 92.87467 52.48 Culvert included in trackwork ' CR! I 44.204171 12.25I 92.87517 -- 52.51 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd··-- · I 44.20633! 12.38 92.87550 52.53 2 Lane Bridge Under i - CR 117 i 44.21833! 13.10 92.87783 52.67 2 Lane Bridge Under ·r· c·i:C23 ······-···· I 44.24017! 14.41 92.88183 52.91 2 Lane BridgeLJnde,----- Unnamed Rd --- I 44.254501 15.271 92.88483 53.09 2 Lane Bridge Under Spring Creek I 44.265501 15.93! 92.88683 53.21 Culvert inciudeci"intrackwork CR 12 44.269001 16.141 92.88750 53.25 2 Lane Bridge Under , Unnamed Rd I 44.279001 16.741 92.89167 53.5012 Lane Bridge Under ' Unnamed Rd 44.28217l 16.93! 92.89367 53.6212 Lane Bridge Under SR 60 . 44.283501 17.01 l 92.89450 53.67!4 Lane Rural Expressway under Unnamed Rd... . - I 44.28733; 17.24! 92.89700 53.8212 Lane Bridge Under-- . Iunnamed Rd --· -- ., -44.29i6ii .. __ 1.7.86! __ 92.90350 _54.2112 Lane Bridge Under N. Fork Zumbro River 44.30217! 18.131 9?,!lQ~:iQ ____ 54.39iMinor River I __ ...... CR 30 I 44.31967! 19.18! 92.91983 55.19 2 Lane Bridge Under _ ·------j I CR 14 44.340331 20.421 92.93817 56.29 2 Lane Bridge Under · · Unnamed Rd ___ 44.34150j __... 20.49[ 92.93917 56.35 2 Lane BridgeJLnder __ =====----1 Little Cannon River 44.35083! 21.051 92.94750 56.85 Minor River I CR 44 . i 44.35150 21.09 92.94817 56.8912 Lane Bridge Under . Unnamed Rd - ...... --- ... 44]6483 - 21 :ae 92.95867 57.5212 Lan-eBridgeUnder -- ---·----- ··- -·--· .. --- .. -· ······~·~"-«""•---••-·------• ···--·· ..• _.. ____ " __ ••- ·--·-··-·-.. .,... __ •. .,...... - ····""",. ---- -I CR 49 44.37033 22.22 92.96100 57.66!2 Lane Bridge Under --·1---~1 Unnamed Rd 44.38517 23.11 92.96717 58.03!2 Lane Bridge Under CR 9 44.40667 24.40 92.97600 58.56 4 Lane Rural Expressway nder._ ---'----1 cR 24 44.41450. 24.87 92.97933 58.76 2 Lane Bridge Under i 1 Unnamed Rd 44.43567, 26.14 92.98917 59.35 2 Lane Bridge Under ' Page 14 i.ocation !North__ §P.SJLat min West GPS C ... · ····.··Recommended Action , .... 1 Unnamed Rd 44.44983! 26.99 92.99583; 59.75 2 Lane Bridge Under 0 ~~~;:;~e~~.= ...... i•· •·· ~=~~l~~~d-e:-.~-?--~-::_:_:_:~~-:d_e_r_ 1 11'.¼}iif ··.1;:~; ·•.•··••~t~~!t!I ···· ···~:~~ :f ,320th St w···· ...... ··•• 44.48617!= .• 29.17 93.01300! 0.78 4 Lane Rural E:l.4]Minor River I ·· RR 44.52200 31.321 93.02967 1.78[Rail Under I ,Chub Creek ...... •.. 44.52300 31.38 93.02983 ·• ..!:7~/vilnor River •.. L .,.----1 CR 88 44.52600 . 31.56 93.03117 1.87 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 86 44.54383 -- .. 32.63. 93:03750 2.25 4 Lane RuralExpresswaYunder· . ! .. . CR. 82 44.55833 33.50 93.04233 2.54 2 Lane Bridge Under--·· ·•·-----, · 265th St 44.56550 33.93 93.04483 2.69!2 Lane Bridge Under · 250th St 44.58733 35.24 93.05250 3.15l2 Lane Bridge Under CR 80 . ·······.. ··.. •···--······ ...... 44.59483 35.69 93.05500...... 3.30!2 , Lane. Bridge Under -·---1 CR 79 ...... 44.59667 35.80[ 93.05567 3.34!2 Lane Bridge Under. 2:16111 st E...... ! 44.61650 ...... 36.99 .. .93.oi3200 ...... 3.72i2TaneBricige, .. -T· Under ...... -- S. Branch Vermillion River ! 44.61800 ___ ...... 37.08. 93.06217 3.73[Minor River , SR 50 44.63033 37.82 93.06217 3.73:4 Lane Rural Expressway under CR 72 44.64483 38.69 93.06250 3.75!2 Lane Bridge Under · CR 66 44.659501 39.57l -· 93.0628:,; _ . 3.77,4 Lane Rural Expressway under \/e.rr:>1il.ttgn River ...... ___ . 44.67033 40.22 93.0630CJ __ ...... 3.78 Minor River j_ . ' .__ ___ §t.atiCJnirail . _ ...... 44.68917 41.35 93.06333 •....•••.:i,?Q 2 Lane Bridg.~lJrider ' ~· ___1, Unnamed Rd . 44.69500 41.70 93.06350 3.81 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 58 ...•.• - 44.70300 42.18 93.06350 3.81 2 Lane Bri'dge Under ····• . ··-- •····•···• ...... •...•.• -- • 1 ,.,, .•.... 165th St 44.71100 42.66 93.06350 3.81 _Closure , ! ;... ___ 1 160th St 44.71750 43.05 93.06333 3.80 12 Lane Bridge Under · 156th St 44.72450! 43.47[ 93.061331 3.68[Closure ! 155th St 44.726001 43.56[ 93.06067 3.64!2 Lane Bridge Under 153rd St 44.72950! 43.77! 93.05983! 3.59[Closure ··r · ··· -·-·~-~·-····------·-----~--1---~~~----+---~'-'-, --·----··----·--,-----"""'""""""''"""""-·•·.,---.~···J~-.- 152nd St . --~ 44.730831 43.85 93.05950 3.57!2 Lane Bridge Under , 151si si ... ~·· I 44.73233! .4i94T 93.059oQ ·• 3.54iClosure I -- ...... • g: ~~ ...... , ...... :::;:~~~: :::::: :;:~;~~~ ;:~~ ~ t:~=-~~a'i!D~desr~v;ay ~nder -~ ··.'--:--.-_----- 1 C::!3..}8,._ ...... ! 44.74750! 4_4.85l 93.05467 3.28 2 Lane Bridge Under ' ' 135th St i 44.754671 45.28! 93.05283 3.17 Closure i Page 15 · -,- --·- Location North GPS l Lat min 'West GPS ----~R~e-co_m_m--e-n~d-ed'c-cA-c~ti-on-+-- -- . 117th St 44,7801.7 46.81 I 93.04817 2.89 2 Lani:aBr.i

4 Lane Rural Expressway $4,036 13 1 $52,468 2 Lane $3,0~I _ __ 128J $39_1,936 1--M~in_o_r~R-iv_e_rRail ...... ___ ...... -----·~$8-1~2+------14_,$3,062 3 ___ $~1-1~,3~6~8,-----i--l-----,----I $9,186 ,

Major River i .$8, 118 2 $16,236 --······· f_,;l§~f3__ricJge,,;.LJn<1e.r.§egrnent_?.. ___ $524,826 _ _ _ _ -1

!3r~g_!l_tS_(),,,er ······· ___ , - - - - . l- . .L...... --- ' Description ---~i_N_orthG.P§. L,itfv1i_n... !\JV,a,;tGPS .Long Min. !Recommended Action . _ 1 l~~i;~ Pacific Rail- ----: :::~~~;~ - ::=Jf'.~ti:=·¾~:~~~~j -. ;::ilt;i~ne Urban Expressway, Union Pacific Rail 44.91067 54.64! 92.05033 1 3.02 Rail , 1Cr24 --44:85350 - 5-.L:ziT -92.01flB3! 1.19 2 Lane · - ·' _ 1 11-494 44.88033 5?;821 92.02433! 1.46 Bridge Over wilh acceptable horizontal clearance

S.um. mary of Bridges Over for Segment 7 . '. . . .. Iy~e I Unit Cost 1Ouant1ty !Amount , 1 1 4 Lane Urban Expressway I 10,516 I 1 $10,516 '"-···~--- 4 Lane Rural Expressway 2,630 i $0 12 Lane .... --···--- ·····-······ 1,971 1 $1,971 ·-----·-· .•. ::: Rail . 6,572 2 $13,144 I Total Bridges Over for SeiJ'ment 7 .. , $25,631 ·,----·

CROSSINGS C-2 Rochester Route 150 MPH Technolony_-+i-----1------'I___ -+----+-~--+ J>,ige 1 .. . ·····-··"···-·······--+-----.i. ----+---···········1-·········-·········'----·1···-················ Segment #2 Milwaukee.to Ixonia Subdivision MileO.OSt-· ·· ·cost 1$000\ Recommended Action

Watertown sub I 98.40 S274 Rural w.Quadrant Gates Walertown sub ' 99.40 $550 Full Width Barrier·····--··--+-----+-----+----- Walertown sub 100.50 $550 Full Width Barrier "W~at~e~rt~ow=n~s~u~b _____ ·-·'--.c.1:e.0.,c1,"'5"'0l----'$"5...,5,,.o...,F_,u"llc.:W=id.,.th=Bc-a.,crr"'iec.r___ 4 ____ 4-I ----i.' ___ _ Watertown ..sub...... L. 102.20 •... $550 fllllv\lidlh_Barri

Summary Segment #2 ___-+i ____-JY.n_i.!_.C:ost Quantitv Amount Pri~aJ

!3u111111ary Segment 3 Private Closure for ..S_egl1l~_n.t ..5.,.M.acli_sgnto ~af.r~~~",J.h.Ea.number of private closure_s_;~as__~ssumed toll" si111il~r_t<>_tl1.e .. L_ .. ·--+----; MadisontoPortage segment and. t~e Portage to River segmentdetermined for the B-2 150 ~PH .. technology·····-t----l

~-~~~ ·······--+---- f------+----+----······f--1----1------1------j ~l_~gment 7 River to St Paul ! Crossing fNo_rt_h_G_P_S-+L_a_t_M_i_n__ -+W-e_s_t G-P-S--1-Lo_n_g_M-in . ~,R_e_c_o_m_m-en~d_e_d_A_c_tio-n~-----J 65th St E 44.85533 51.32 92.02000 1.20_'1'<_u_r.al w/ Quadrant Gates Edwards Ave E 4<1.868QCl ...... 52.08 ..92.02233. . 1.34 Ruralw/.Quadrant.Gates Hardman Avenue S/Richmond St 44.87350 52.41 92.02317 1.39 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates .,_ .. ,--.. ~---· Maltbv St I 44.87517 52.51 92.02350 1.41 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates Hardman Avenue S I 44.88000 52.80 92.02433 1.46 Full Width Barrier I t--A-rm-o-ur_A_v_e------,1··- 44.88700 53.22 92.02550 1.53 iRural w/ Quadrant Gates John Carroll Ave 44.89433 53.66 l 92.03050 1.83 i Rural wiQuadrant Gates · ·········· Hardman Ave N 44.89533 53.7?.i_.92.03167 1.90iRural w/ Quadrant Gates RanchnolRct----·· ...... ·······- ,... 44.91250 54. 75 ...... 92.05183 . . . . }, 11 i Rural ;v/Quadrant_<3a.tes_ --i --·---- 1 Summary Sem=m'-"e"'n,.t'--7_-_-_-_-_-_ -_ -_ ~-',----+U:..:n;.:i,.t --~+Q"-u"'a"'n'-'t"it,__,y-+A-'m=o~u~n~t~~~======..::+- ·_·-::_·_::_::-::_-::_-::_:-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_-::_; Private Closure S60, 100 $6,000 ...... $274 8 ..... ·-$2,192i---·I·············! Rural w/ Quadrant Ga!-'e~s----+----+---······$· $Sso··,,.,.---+---+----! Full Width Barrier 550 1 f"Tc"o'-'ta~I-,~-~--·,,-,,~.,...--~~-~,_,-+--,---······· ...... S8,742~i----+----+----, Private Closures is an estimate based on an estimate or private crossinos for the entire routel I TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 6.2.5 Infrastructure Detail: D-3 Rochester Route Elevated Urban 185 mph Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 12-Jan-99

0-3 Rochester Route 185 MPH Item Unit Unit Costs Quantity Amount 1.0 Trackwork J .1 HSR on Existing Roadbed per mile $873 1.2 HSR on New Roadbed (Existing ROW) per mile $932 1.2A HSR on New Roadbed (New ROW) per mile $1,376 1.28 HSR on New Roadbed (Double Track) per mile $2,308 428 $987,824 1.3 Timber & Surface w/ 33% Tie replacement per mile $136 1.4 Timber & Surface w/ 66% Tie Replacement per mile $224 1.5 Relay Track w/ 136# CWR per mile $329 1.6 Siding per mile $802 1.7 Fencing per mile $49 367 $17,983 1.8 Electricfication per mile $991 428 $424,148 1.9 Other Track Work Chicago to Milwaukee LS $212,917 1.10 Land Acquisition Madison per mile $5,000 3 $15,000 1.11 Land Acquisition Urban per mile $294 108 $31,752 1.12 Land Acquisition Rural per mile $98 317 $31,066 Total Track Costs $1,507,773

2.0 Stations 2.1 Full Service - New each $1,000 2 $2,000 2.2 Full Service - Renovated each $500 2 $1,000 2.3 Terminal - New each $2,000 3 $6,000 f 4 Terminal - Renovated each $1,000 1 $1,000 , .5 Maintenance (110 MPH technology) each $10,000 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technology) each $86,000 2.58 Maintenance (185 MPH technology) each $162,000 1 $162,000 2.6 Stations Chicago to Milwaukee LS $20,428 1 $20,428 Total Station Cost $192,428

4.0 Turnouts 4.1 New #33 - 136# High Speed each $555 Total Turnout Cost Page 2 D-3 Rochester Route 185 MPH

5.0 Bridges • Under 5.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each $4,848 15 $72,720 5.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each $4,036 41 $165.476 5.3 Two Lane Highway each $3,062 282 $863.484 5.4 Rail each $3,062 14 $42,868 5.5 Minor river each $812 40 $32.480 5.6 Major River each $8,118 9 $73,062 5.7 Mississippi River LS $234,000 1 $234,000 5.8 Interstate 90 Dakota Rvier Valley Structure LS $74,000 1 $74,000 5.9 Elevated Structure Milwaukee per mile $39,000 33 $1,287,000 5.1 O Elevated Structure St Paul per mile $39,000 14 $546,000 5.11 Elevated Structure Chicago to Milwaukee per mile $39,000 61 $2,379,000 Total Bridges - Under Costs $5,770,090

6.0 Bridges - Over 6.1 Four Lane Urban Expressway each 10,516 1 $10,516 6.2 Four Lane Rural Expressway each 2,630 6.3 Two Lane Highway each 1,971 6.4 Rail each 6,572 6.5 Viaducts - Major river each 6.6 Tunnel (One track) per LF 10 10,600 $106,000 Total Bridges - Over $116,516

7.0 Crossings 7.1 Private Closure each 60 188 $11,280 7 .2 Rural w/ Quadrant Gates each 274 7 .3 Urban w/ Quadrant Gates each 341 7.4 Full Width Barrier each 550 Total Crossings Cost $11,280

8.0 Signals 8.1 High Speed Turnout each 1,098 8.2 System Installation for HSR (11 OMPH) per mile 150 8.2A System Installation for HSR (150MPH) per mile 350 8.2B System Installation for HSR (185MPH) per mile 980 428 $419.440

Total Signals Cost $419,440

9.0 Curves 9.1 Elevate & Surface Curves per mile 42 9.2 Curvature Reduction per mile 284 9.3 Elastic Fasteners per mile 59 Total Curve Upgrade Cost

Total Upgrade Cost $8,017,527

T1i•Stato Pt1ase U HSR Fe,isibllitv Sludv I I ! I ! I I I I I ,,, ______' l2•Jan-99/ I ·-----j I I I I I I I I ! Sngmen\ 1 se:o'.!'ent 2 Se, men\ 3____! !c-gmont 4 -~---~ ~~nl5___ Seqmen!6 j ~9.menl7 I !?·~ Rl)Cheste; Route 185 MPH --l =- _- -·-·L- . Chicaqo lo 1.-lilwau}(oe Milw lo bonia r Ixonia to liwv 51 Airport Track Madison to Lacrosse - t.t!ss. River Basin I River lo St Paul Tola! ! Total Uam Unit iUnit Costs IOuan!ilV iAmoun\ Quantitv i Amount Ouanrnv Amount i Ouan!ilV ! Amounl I Qvanlllj'. Amount Quanlilv \. Amount Ouanti!z. t Amounl ! Ouan\llv Amount Ouantlly Amount I l.0 Trnckwork I I I I l I I 1.1 HSR on Exislino Roadbed ecrmlle $8731 I I I ----~ 1 :2 HSR on New Roadbed \Existi~g ROWl P~L!_!lila $932 I 'I 1.2A HSR on New Roadbt!d {New ROW) permilo I $1,376 f :' - ---, I 1,2B HSR on New Roadbed IOouWa Trackl eermffe I $2.3081 4281 $937,824 85 196.160 33 76,164 40 92,320 l 3 6,924 136 313,888 131 ! 302,348 428. 987,824 1.3 Timbor & Surface w/ 33"/o Tie replacement ocrmilo I S136 i I - ! I -i 1 A Timber & Surface wl 66% Tie Replacement e:ermile I S224 i I I I I - i 1.5 Rnlaj'. Track w/ 136# CV\!R nermi!e I S329 1 I l -~1---- ! -- : • I . 1-.? ...?~!:iQ permi!e I $802 s~·.9a3 --- i= I I i I I - I 1.7 Fencing per mite S,9 · -3571- .. 24 I 1,176 33 1,617 40 I 1.960 I 3 147 136 I 6,664 r I 131 I 6.419\ 367 17,983 1.8 E!octricficalion locrmile I $991 428! S.i.24.148 as l 8.:.,235 I 33 32.703 40 I 39.640 I 3 2.973 136. 134,776 131 I 129,821 428 424.)_:Q_ 1.9 O!her Track Wmk Ch!caqo 10 Milwaukee LS I $212,917 I I I I 1. 10 land Acnulsilion Madison pcrmi!e ,s.oool 31 S15.000 --·--~ . 3 15,000 ! I 3 15,000 1.11 Land Acguisilion Urban nerml!o s2_gi.f--... ,o,j. 531,752 61 17.934 33 9.702 14 4,116 108 31,752 1. 12 Land Acqulsilion Rural permi!o S98 3t7 S31.066 24 2,352 40 3.920 I 136 13,328 117 11.466 3171 31,066 I Total Track Costs I I I $1,507,7731 i 301,877 120,186 137,840 I 25,044 468,656 ! I 454,170 ! 1,507,773 I I I I I I I I l I : --·- ! I Seamen\ 1 Segmcnt2 Seamen! 3 Segmen!4 Seqmcnt5 Seamen! 6 I Seo!menl 7 i ·--c ChiC.1!'.10 to t,lilwaukce Milw lo Ixonia Ixonia to H-.w 51 Airrnirt Track Madison lo LaCrosso -Miss. River Basin River lo St Paul !Tota! Total 2.0 Sta1ions I -Quanlitv l Amount Quanmv Amount Oua~!i\v Amount Quan!ilv Amount ! OuanU1v I Amount Ouan\itv_J Amount __ -9.!:.~!:.!!!Y ! Amount Ouan:itv Amount 2.1 Full Service - New oach S1.000 21 $2,000 ' I. i 2 2.000 I 2. 2,000 2.2 Full Service. Renovated each ! S50D 21 51,000 1 500 I 1 500 i 2 1,000 2.3 Terminal• New each t s2,ooo 31 S6,000 I 1 2,000 21 4,000 3' 6,000 2.4 Terminal- Ronovaled leach I S1,000 ---· 11 St.ODO 1 1.QOO I 1 i 1.000 2.5 Maintenance (110 MPH technologv\ !each i $10.000 I I I I • I 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technolog~} teach 566,000 i ! i I I 2.58 Maintenance {185 MPH technology} ]each 'I S162,000 11 $162,000 ! I i I 11 162,000 I 11 162.000 2.6 Stallons Chicasio lo Milwaukee ILS I 520.4~~~1-·---·--1t-· 520,428 1 20.428 I I I I 1 20,428 Tc!al Sta1ion Cost I I $192.4281 20,428 I ,.500 I I I 2.000 2,500 I I I 166.000 'l I 192.428 ?age2 -- 1 ------r- T i 1 I i ·1 ---1 i ~ --f 7 0.J Rochester Roule 185 MPH I ___ l I 1 l I I 1 ----..--.J.. i i 1 __ L ______---+------j _,, __.. ,LS,.~gmenl 1 _ ~~~~~----·-·-- ___ -~~9!!1£~!J ______j _~_e_gment 4 _ ..... ,_JJ_c_g!!!~1l!L .. -~~~~,.§E9~.~.!!\JL.~..... ,_,,,_!-~-?.9·ment 7 '... I Total-·-- 4.0 Turnouts -----·- 1 Chicao9 to Milwaukee _ Milw lo Ixonia Ixonia lo Hwy 51 1. Airport Track ---•--t-k'.adison !~ L.iCrosse Miss. River Basin 1R111e~ to St Paul 1 11.um 4.1 N

~ r· 1 , , 1 , , 1 1 1 __ J: __-·-·-- ·- I ! -~-~_9mcnl 1 . SOg_ITl.£_1}12 Sec:m~nt 3 Segment 4 ; Segme':.!_E., ____ ----.. --rs:~~e~lt L,_, _____ -- ...s2.9:..f!l€J1! 7 ···--·-"·--:~------1 Chicano lo Milwaukee Milw to Ixonia lxcnia_to t:t:'!Y 51 Airport Traci< 1 Madison to LaCrosso ! Miss. Rlver Ba~_i1 River lo St Paul Total ! Toto! I 5.0 Bridges• Under I , i Q,a,,litv i Am'""' Qo,ot,lv I Amos"t Qsa"lilY Arnocat Qea"hlY I Amo,ml Ou,rnt,;i, , Am°""' a"'""'' ! Amo'OI Ouac,lilv ! Amouol _O"""'"' i Ammml 5. 1 Fout Lane Urban fapresswa:t !tld!,,11, ___._ ,;,-.,o•,o... f>•'tlJ t5i $72,7201 I I 1 I 2 9.696 I 41 19,392 j ! 91 43.632 15 i 60.540 I····'- O'.< ,v,r 1 5_2 Four Lano _Rural Expressway le~~'.~ : ::·~~~j 411 $1§5,476 I i '. __ s ____ ~Q,16-l!. : 23! __ , 92,828 - ; ___._1~1 52.468 41; 125,542 ·---·· -··-. 5.3 T":(J Lnne Hi_ghway !.. """ , ,;,v,w.;l- ----~~'2.£.:\4.-84 _! I -~...l J 39 119,418 3, ~.186 11~tl~~~l~_(L! ··-·---' __ ,. 1~_s1, ___~a2~s.9 ___ I~~~----?_6_~~i 5.4 Rail it"'-''-"··--·· ' M"""->V,V~ir 14/ $42,66Bi, '' j I j 1 2 6,124 !_ 10, 30.620E 1 21 6.124 UJ 11.368 5.5 Minor river !each $812 401 S32,480r·-- . 1 I I 7 5,684 1 __19_1 __ 15.421!_ t 1 141 __:!_~.36S _ 10_1 324,720 5.6 Maior River each I $8.118i 91 S73,0l.i2!' ! I l I 31 24,354 l I -- 4~ 32.472 J I I 2.i 16,236} 9 ! 2, 1os.ooo 5.7 Misslssl[!Pi R,lver LS S234,QQQ.l 11 S234.000I l I l I 1 I 1 23;l.0Q0 l l 1 I 74,000 1 5,8 lnterslale 90_Dakola R11ier Va!l~y Struclure LS _l_S7't7-..wvl '"'"' ,Y-$.7.;:QQQ!I ___ --·· -j---- .. ----L-.... I ____ j - ______J______J+__.?_~&(!0_1 ______.. _ . ... I . 1_)_,, ___ [~c9.QQ_ 5.9 Eleva!ed Structure Milwaukee r.ermi!e l "''--······.,, .. ~.VCG .. 33~ s1;;~:•~~~i ~ .. _ I 33 1,2B7.000 ; ; i f '. ····-.-:+-- 33 ~ 1,287.000 5.10 Elevated S!ru::tura SI Pav! -lr,c;,eermilo """' .1 ...;,,;;,,.vvu1 ,, ...... ,., ,.,, """'"•"""' I , , , · __ ! I I I t.\;. 546.00Q \ 14 I 546,QQ(t "'"" ""''I 5_ 11 Elova!ed Stmclurn Chlcago to Milwaukee/1.-liiw~-;:;;;:m, JPl.1'permi1o Hliiu '. s:rn,ooo~.511;~I s::.3iS,GCOIs2~~;~:~~~1 j 611 2,379.009. I I l ! i + t ] 61 I 2.379.COO Total Bridges • Under Costs ' I $5.7!Q,Q90G$]7G.CCGI ' 2,379.000 I 1.287,000 I I 185.4561------J___ ",.!"§.11-----~·--l.. - .... ~.?.:~70 j 308.000 j i,058.578_J____ T 5.770.090 1 I . .. 1 l I I I ------I ! _L ·--- 1 1 ! I 1 i Seqmenl 1 Saqmenl 2 J S_egment 3 Segmm,t 4 Segment 5 Seqmenl 6 Sen.m~ml 7 I I I I ~j l rchicngo to Milwaukuo Milw lo Ixonia I 1XOnia lo H.w 51 I Aimcrt Track ~t::fodisoo 1t)"i:8Crosse Miss. Ri,,cr Basin River 10 St Paul I Tota! I Total 6.0 S.ridlJOSll""' •- ,n.,,Over \ j J_____, j Ouan!ity_l Am::::,unl . Quanli!v i Amount l Quar:lilz.Quar:lilv !I Amo_ur,!Amount __ If Ounn!ilYQunn!ilv !.'C'"v""' Amount I,_..,..,,"''(Ounnlilv ,i '"'''"'"~"Amount Ouanhtv 1 Amount Qunntity I Amount I 9~~ri_t_i_!y ! Arn01.1nt 1 6.1 Four Lana Urban Expressway"- , oacn I -----JU.!:llb 11 ----·-$10.516 'I 1• 10.516·--·- 1 i I J l! 10.516 6.2 Four Lano Rural ExprnsSV1£Y_ .. ______each 2,630 I I ·:____ i :-- 6,3 Two Lane ~[lnhwav ench 'I 1,971 - ' l ~~ -1----1 _ :_:: --;_ 6.4 Rad each ! 6.572 1 ! I ,-- I I • i 6 5 Viaducts ~ Major river ench ! f I ,:,;nt: nr,,. I I I • I I 6.6 Tunnel (Ono !rack! leer LF~-'---'"-'--'==1--'''-''~oc~,~nc~c,'-- i '" 10,600 I ___ "----.;----+---~-- --+---f----+------1~J lj 1osooi10600j 100,oco106,0CO I I ! 10.soo i 1oe.ooo Total 8fidges_- Over - I ~-- _l $116.5161 ----'----'----'---~-1-0.5161-- -- I 106.000 i_ -'----'---~ _ --- ' I i I Senment6 - _,,_,_ ..§~g.ment 7 I i Miss. Ri,.,er Basin River to St Paul -1·-----~-----I Total I Tota! ! Ouanll11 I Amcunt QuanUly_ Amount Ouanlllv I Amo~nt each I 60 I I 1001 6.000 188 ! 1{2~. each I 274 I i -1 each I 341f ! I I I ! I I - I leach ! 550 I I I • i ! --,=~c+-1----1-----+---+-----+---+-'-~=cl-'---,'----+----l--'--=cc:-+----+----+---+----cc=c-f----+ I I I 6,000 --woo --t----j·--a••·f-1----it----$~1~1~.2~8~0,II_ __ --1------i----,f-,-----t-----t'--'~•9~2~0 0 ,I ____ ----"·"-l·----,,--~'·~3~60c+---+-----;---~--~=c+---i---~=~I I° I I I I I I Secment 6 Soo,menl 7 I Miss. River Basin Ri'ier lo St Paul Total / Total Quantity__! Am.~~-- OuanUtv Amount Quan~:-t-An:io_(!nl_-. I I • I I -! 8.28 Svslem lns!al!aUon for HSR f185MPH\ oer mile I 980 428 $419,440 i 85 83.300 ' 331 32,340 ! 40 39,200 3 2,940 1361 133,280 i 1311 l28,3B0 '128 ! 419.440 I I I . i I 5419,440 83,300 39,200 i 2,940 133,280 I I 128,380 I .:119.4~0 I t i I I I ! ! ! l SeClrnont 1 Seomont 2 Secment 3 Segment 4 Senment 5 Senmonl 6 ' S=.ment7 I Miss, River Basin Riwr lo St Paul Total I Tota! Ou~ /Amount QuanUlv Amount Ouan!i\v I Amounl I I I I I I 9.3 Elastic Fasleners ra:r mile 59 i I ! l I I I I I I I I Tota!CurvoUp_g,0,a~d~o;-C~o;-s;-1 ______,1 ___4 1_____ ,_ ___ ;-l----+----+-----'-----+---+------i---+---+1---1----i----+---'----'i---+---+---i-----!---+----j 1 1 1 1'T"o7ia,., u",o_o_"_"_'~c",~,,------+---:---1,--- J~-----·+-,---1,· ·sa.011 .s21/----t-:~s~,~.,~8',._ 7so~sl---f-1~s,.,.,.,,~,~.o",~si-+---+I ~s0,s'",-.4~1"6)t------1---~s",""9_"'sa"s+1---+---:-,s71."'25"s~.,cc6'ccf----t!-··s~,"o",."oo"o+.---:!---"'s 17 .s"'1",cc.1"2"'&---+1~,""a°".oc-11"."'s2cJ

'•«·-·"~""

Tri State 185 MPH Technology D-3 Milwaukee/Rochester/St Paul Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 Elevate 1.7Fence Land Chicago 0 85.7 85.70 85 61 24 85 Watertown Sub 85.70 119.00 33.30 0 331 0 33 0 33 Madison 0.00 40.00 40.00 40 40 40 Airport 0.00 3.00 3.00 3 3 3 Wisconsin 0.00 135.70 135.70 135.7 135.7 135.7 Minnesota 0.00 117.00 117.00 117 117 117 Union Pacific 0.00 10.00 10.00 10 10 10 10 Union Pacific 10.00 11.60 1.60 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Merriman Park 407.4 410.2 2.80 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 . Total 429.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 428.10 0.00 108.40 334.10 428.10

Definition of Units 1.1 HSRex High Speed Rail trackwork on Existing Roadbed with a unit cost of $873,000 per mile 1.2 HSRnew High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (Existing Right of Way) with a unit cost of $932,000 per mile 1.2AHSR High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (New Right of Way) with a unit cost of $1,376,000 per mile 1.2BHSR High Speed Rail trackwork on New Roadbed (Double Track) with a unit cost of $2,308,000 per mile 1.3T&S33 Timber and Surface with 33% Tie Replacement with a unit cost of $136,000 per mile 1.7Fence Fencing of High Speed Rail Route on both sides with a unit cost of $49,000 per mile Land Miles of Land required for construction of a high speed rail route at specifed unit costs

Segment 1 Chicago to Milwaukee Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 Elevate 1.7Fence Land Chicago 0 85.7 85.70 85 61 24 85

Segment 2 Milwaukee to Ixonia Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 Elevate 1.7Fence Land Watertown Sub 85.70 119.00 33.30 0 33 0 33 0 33

Segment 3 Ixonia to Hwy 51 Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 Elevate 1.7Fence Land Madison 0.00 40.00 40.00 40 40 40 page 2 I Segment 4 Airport Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 Elevate 1.7Fence Land Airport 0.00 3.00 3.00 3 3 3

Segment 5 Madison to Lacrosse Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 Elevate 1.7Fence Land Wisconsin 0.00 135.70 135.70 135.7 135.7 135.7

Segment 6 Mississippi River Basin Miepost for the basin are included within the Minnesota Subdivision

Segment 7 Mississippi River to St Paul Subdivision Begin MP End MP miles 1.1HSREx 1.2HSRne 1.2AHSR 1.2BHSR 1.3T&S33 Elevate 1.7Fence Land Minnesota 0.00 117.00 117.00 117 117 117 Union Pacific 0.00 10.00 10.00 10 10 10 10 Union Pacific 10.00 11.60 1.60 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Merriman Park 407.4 410.2 2.80 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Total 131.40 0.00 o:oo 0.00 131.40 0.00 14.40 131.40 131.40 Tri-State Phase II HSR Feasibility Study 19-Jan-99

D-3 Rochester Route Route 185 MPH Proposed Station Modifications and Maintenance Facilities

Station Type Recommended Acti Cost ($000) Milwaukee Union Station Terminal Renovation $ 1,000 Brookfield/Watertown Full Service Renovation $ 500 Madison Terminal New $ 2,000 Wisconsin Dells Full Service Renovation $ 500 Tomah Full Service New $ 1,000 Lacrosse Full Service New $ 1,000 Rochester Terminal New $ 2,000 St Paul Union Station Terminal Major Renovations s 2,000

Maintenance Facilitv 185 MPH Technology New $162,000

Summary 2.0 Stations 2.1 Full Service - New each $1,000 2 $2,000 2.2 Full Service - Renovated each $500 2 $1,000 2.3 Terminal - New each $2,000 3 $6,000 2.4 Terminal - Renovated each $1,000 1 $1,000 2.5 Maintenance (110 MPH technology) each $10,000 2.5A Maintenance (150 MPH technology\ each $86,000 2.58 Maintenance (185 MPH technologv) each $162,000 1 $162,000 2.6 Stations Chicago to Milwaukee LS $20,428 1 $20,428 Total Station Cost $192,428

Tri-State Phas~ II HSR Feasibility SttJdy ,----+------;-----+------'----I 19-Jan-99: [ _ _ __ i l BRIDGES_ ! .. I -•--•~•- """"WO"""'°'"'! ••• ••••••••••••-••••••••·-----,--- D-3 Rochester Route 150 MPH ' . -----! Recommen.ded Action for Bridges Under and Bridges Over -,----·-······--·------·-··--r~ . -~------,------·~--·· )~-·-•---- .. ---~·-· I Segment 1 Chicago to Milwaukee , Subdivision___ TBegin MP !End MP !mfles Recommended Treatment

Chicago O 45 ! 45 Elevated Structure Chicago 70 85.7i 16 Elevated Structure ! Total .. i ·- 61 ! ··- _J _ ---- ! l I ! • ! "'"•-•m Summary_Elt:Ldges Under Unit Cost [Quantity Amount !• l ...... Chicago to Milwaukee $39,000! 61 $2,379,000 , I '

Segment 2 Milwaukee to Ixonia Subdivision [Begin MP End MP miles- --!Recommended Treatment Watertown sub ! 86.00 119 ___ . 33f Elevated Structur~ j

Summary Bridges Under Unit Cost Quantity-· Amount 07 Milwaukee to Ixonia $39,000 ":fa---··-c!"'1"",2-=a=7,-=0"'00 ..

- - -,· . I Segment 3 Ixonia to Madison i ' Location !North GPS Lat min ,west GPS Long min !Recommended Action ____ 1 Reese Lane ! 43.14133 ·-· 8.48, ___8~_,60283 36.17!2 Lane Bndg_i;_l.lnder Stream ! 43.14133 8.48! 88.62100 37.26[Minor River ' Rock11ale Road_! 43.14133 8.48) 88.63633 __ 38.1812 Lane Bridge Under !,Oconomowoc R' 43.14117 8.47! 88.64317 38.59!Major River ' 'CR P ,____ '.1:_:l_.14117 8.47! 88.64583 38.75!?.~_ane Bridge Under ~---I CR E ; 43.14117 8.47! 88.64717 38.83!2 Lane Bridge Under . Hwy P ~--- 43.14117 - 8.47! 88.65117 39.07 4 Lane Rur_a__ ' ExpresswayLTricte,····- CR P · 43.14100 8.46 88.65617 39.37 2 Lane Bridge Under !Spooner Rd 4:J:14100 .. . . 8.46 88.67533! .. 40.52 2 Lane Bridge Under CRD 43.14100 ····if46 88~68517 -- 41.112LaneBridgeUnder ---- Giiie-Coffee Rd! 43.14100 8.46 -- 88.70533 42.32 2 Lane Bridge Under Johnson Creek i 43.14100 8.46 88.70833 42.50 Minor River ! f~ge 2 i ·! i Location ,North GPS Lat min West GPS Lon_g_ min !Recommended Action ICR X 43.1'.l,1()0 8.46! 88.715501.. 42,~3.L2~aneB_riqge Under ~--········ Airport Rd 43.140§3...... 8.45: 88.73100; ...... 4.3 ..8~[2._Lan.

Missouri Rd 43.13350 8.01 i _8fJ 00:i0_8;i ...... 30 [):ijfL~6e§ridg~_lJnder __J §pririg_ Creek 43.13250 ... 7.95 ..... 89.068001.. 4.08! Minor River i 1 §_R_?;J _430 13_233 ...... _ _?,94j 89.072171 4.33 4 Lane Rural ExpresswayTUnder 10ak. Park Rd 43.131.l? 7.87' 89.09617; 5.77!.2 Lane Bridge Under . I Ridge Rd 43.12933 7.76! 89.130331 7.8212 Lane Bridge Under !Pierceville Rd 43.12800 7.68i 89.15367( 9.22!2 Lane Bridge Under e<.1ge3 . ·-·-t l' Location North GPS Lat min WestGPS L2_ng min ,Recommended Action CRTT 43.12750 7.65 89.16717 10.0312 Lane Bridge Under .. : Koshkonong Cri 43.12650 7.59 89.18350 ··~·· Tfo1irv11iia, Rive, : ····· · · ···· · CRN 43.12583 7.55 89.19850 11.9114 Lane Rural Expressway Under ·--·-·- " ...• •·-•·"··--·· ..•..... CRT 43.11883 7.13 89.24250 14.5512 Lane Bridge Under Thorson Rd ••43.11800 7.08 89.24617 14.77'2 Lane Bridge Under Forest Oak Dr 43.11633 6.98 89.25333 15.20 2 Lane Bridge Under Reiner Rd 43.11333 6.80 89.26583 15.95 2 Lane Bridge Under Felland Rd 43.11100 6.66 89.27583 16.55 2 Lane Bridge Under --- ,... , .•...... ,, ..•.• ..• 1-90 43.10867 6.52 89.28617 17.17:4 Lane Urban Expres!,_VJay Under Fairview Drive I 43.10800 6.48 89.28933 17.36 2 Lane Bridge Under I E:.a_gle Drive i 43.10750 6.45 89.29067 17.44 2 Lane Bridge .Under ... r· N. Thompson Di 43.10583 6.35 89.30067 18.04 2 Lane Bridge Under Nakoosa Trail ' 43.10700 6.42 89.31867 19.12 2 Lane Bridge Under 1-51 43.10683 6.41 89.31650 18.99 4 Lane Urban Expressway Under RR Waterloo Sp 43.10683 6.41 89.32350 19.41 Rail Under I l t -··· ' Summary Bridges Under Unit Cost Quantity_. Amount ! ··-······-"·""''" 4 Lan.eUrban Expressway $4,848 2 $9,696 . _,,_ ·········---i...... ,_, ___ .,., 4 Lane Rural Expressway ~ $4,036 . . . $20,180 5 ----~---·· .,., ___ 2 Lane I . $3,062 39 $119,418 Rail $3,062 2 $6,124 Minor River $812 7 $5,684 Maior River ' $8,118 $24,354 Total Bridges Under §_i,gment 3 ' . . ... $185,456 Page4 •••-•-•-,sw §~gment 4 Aiq:iort Track Name !North West Tfpe of BridiJ.e ljlghwav 51 ! 43.10733 89.33867 4 Lane UrbanExpresswav. Over Anderson 43.12117 89.35233 2 Lane Under ' Pankrantz 43.12150 89.35233 2 Lane Under l ---- International La( 43.12250 89.35300 2 Lane Under j

' ! SummaryBridges Under Unit Cost Quantity Amount ,,.~-~--". 2 Lane Under i $3,062 3 $9,186 \ Summary_ Bri.cl_ges Over Unit Cost Quantity Amount 4 Lane Urban Expresswav 10,516 1 $10,516 _f'~ge4 ! 1i 0 ----+------~----f------"1-----*• ~---~·-·,. ---1 Location 'North GPS Lat min !West GPS Long min Recommended Action Segment 5 Madison to Mississippi River Basin · · · ·· : · -•-•- -•" . ,••-••dO•N• ••"~••"• ">••• •'-1••••>-NS Location ,North GPS Lat min ,West GPS Recommended Action Buckley Rd 43.17500 10.50' · 89.34233 20.54'2 Lane Bridge Under Daenff Rd 43.18333 Ti.oil' 89.34200[ - - 20.52 2 Lane-BridgeUncier- ---I Unnamed Rd 43.19100 11.46' 89.34167 20.50 2 Lane Bridge Under 1-90 (existing) 43.19150 - - 11.49' 89.34150 20.49 -~-Lane Urban-Expressw~)' Under Hwv 19 j 43.19433 11.66i 89.34133 20.48[4 Lane Rural Expressway Under Duraform Lane i 43.19950 11.97! 89.34167 ____ 20.50·2 Lane Bridge Under ______,. __ Seauoia Dr : 43.21800 13.08! 89.34233 _,____ 20.54 2 Lane Bridge Under Gray Rd . i 43.22350 13.41 i 89.34250 20.55 2 Lane Bridge Under VinbumRd·--r 43.23800 14.28! 89.34:ffi 20.59 2 Lane Bridge Under Commerce St 43.24633 14.78'. 89.34150 20.49 2 Lane Bridge Under CR DV ' 43.24767 14.86i 89.34150 20.49 2 Lane Bridge Under 1. Yahara River 43.25017 15.01: 89.34133 20.48 Minor River i CR V 43.25283 15.17 89.34133i 20.48 4 Lane Rural Exoressway Under §~jif() • - • 28.1714 Lane Rural Expres~"'"LUnder W. Wisconsin & 43.56317 33.791 89.48667 29.20i2 Lane Bridge Under · 1'R 39 43.56333 33.80' 89.48800 ...... • 29.213_!4 Lane Rural Expressway Under ....SR 127 43.56350 33.81,. 89.49217 29.5314. Lane Rural Expressway. --~~-1 Under Klappstein Rd 43.56650 33.99 89.54017 32.4112 Lane Bridge Under Schultz Rd 43.57467 34.48' 89.584501 35.07!2 LaneBridget.i'nder -~··· r -·-··--·~ -••-"•·-~·------• ···----·-· - Weyh Rd_ 43.57817 34.69 89.59967; 35.98!2 Lane Bridge Under f'age 6 . , i ! .. Location 'North GPS Lal min ...... :west GPS !Recomme.11de_<:l.Jlction ...... Wolpram Rd i 43.58533 35.12' 89.62933 37.7612 Lane Bridge Under ...... ••...... • ··················•··•····· ,;················· ..•...... Lewiston Statio~ . 43.58833 35.30' 89.64133i 38A8,.2 Lane Bridge Under NewHaven Rd r· 43.60000, . 36~00 89.68933i . ··.··· 41'36l2Lane Bridge Under Peterson Rd_ : '.ff6021f 36.13' 89.6995_()11 = .• . 4T97i.2Lane Bridge Under ...... CR O . 43.60700 36A2, 89.71917 43.15:2 Lane Bridge Under E1.€i, _1·127 & Wii 43.61200 35j':;(. 89.73933i 44.36i4 LaneRuralExpressway Under L_,'nch Rd : 43.61600 36.96i 89.75633! 45.38!2 Lane Bridge Under Bowman Rd I 43.61833 37.10' 89.76633! . . 45.98j2 Lane Bridge Under . Veteran Drive 43.62200. 37.32' 'ijgj7300 ...... 46.3812 Lane Bridge.Ur1der""··; Minnesota Aven· 43.62400 · 37.44' 89.77550 46.5312 Lane Bridge Under Finnegan Avemi 43.62683 37.61; 89.77883 46.7312 Lane Bridge Under · Rt13 43.62750 37.651 89:'7'7967 ·- 46.7814 Lane Rura!Expresswa~Under - '{IIJ.,;c,c:msin River 43.62767 37.661 89.78000 46.80IMajor River i -;----I Unnamed Rd : 43.62883 37.73' 89.78133 46.8812 Lane Bridge Under Pioneer Drive 43.62983 37.791 89.78233 46.94'2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd .. L ..'l:::l,63150 37:891 89.78467 47 .O!!J? ~fln_e Elri~gE!_Under -+ ·-· C:ommercial Ave 43.63483 38.09, 89.78833 ...... ~!,.::l.0_12 Lane BridgE!_l,)n_~er ~---I CR A 43.63650 38.19! 89.79050 47A3i2 Lane Bridge Under 60th St 43.65383 39.231 89.81150 48.6912 Lane Bridge Under 1·90 43.65467 39.28! 89.81267 .. 48.7614 Lane Urban Expressway-Under Dees Rd 43.67867 40.72i 89.84400 50.64i2 Lane Bridge Under·- , ...... RR 43.68067 40.84i 89.84500 50.701Rail Under I Gilmore Creek 43.68150 40.89 89.84600 50.76 Minor River Southern Rd 43.69900 41.94 89.86883 ..•.. 52.13 2 Lane Brid-ge~Under·· • Industrial Ave I 43.70617 42.37 89.88133-- 52.88 2 Lane Bridge Under Honeyaire St ·· 43.71367 42.82 89.89417 53.65 2 Lane Bridge Under Cff°RR.. 43.71450 42.87 a·il:89567; 53.74 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under Unnamed St I 43.71717 4·3.03 89.900501 54.03 2 Lane Bridge Under W. Limits Rd 43.72167 43.30,. 89.908171 54.49 2 Lane Bridge Under T..@~icreek··- ... 4:J°:72317 4::!.3,i' . 89.911171 54.62 rvlirior_ _F(i~er ;- .. -- Holtzlander Crei 43.72900 43.741 89.92133 55.28\Minor River · 241h Avenue... 43.73300. ..43.98i 89.9283.3 - - 55.70:2 Lane Bridge .Under Unnamed Rd 43.'741356 .. 44.91' . B9.95517 57.31 !2 Lane Bridge Under .... T j:'90 -- - . 43.'76167 45:ioi· 89.97500 .... 58.50,4 Lane· Urban Expressway Under CR N 43.76183 45.71 I 89.95850 57.5112 Lane BridQe Under Pa_ge 7 Location North GPS Lat min iWest GPS ______J Recommended Action 55th Street 43.76700 46.02! -~9.98233 58.94i2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd _ 43.76917 46.15! 89.98533 59.12!2 Lane Bridge U_nder County Hwv N 43.77400 ll§.4±L -8999200 - 59.52!2 Lane Bridg:,;-_Qcider ' I LemonweirRive' 43.78617 47.17! 90.00883 0.53iMajorRiver ! I 19th Ave 43.79433 47.66i 90.01983 1.19i2 Lane Bridge Under I 1-82 ---- 43.79617 47.77, 90.02233 1.34!4 Lane Rural Expressway Under · CR G l 43.80350 48.21 90.03250 1.95!2 Lane Bridge Under 17th Ave 43.80533 48.32 90.031§_3 2.09 2 Lane Bridge Under _ -----1 15th Ave , 43.82000 __ 49.20 90.05517 3.31 2 Lane Bridge Under 47th St ! 43.82950 49.77 90.06800 4.08 2 Lane Bridge Under CR O 43.83217 -- - 49.93 90.07183 4.31 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under __ _ Prairie Rd , 43.84683 50.81 90.09183 5.51 2 LanEJ Bridge Under · Meredith Rd 43.86217 51.73 90.11167 6.7012 Lane Bridg,~e---'U~n---'d~e~r _ _,__ ___ 42nd St 43.87667 52.60 90.13033 7.8212 Lane Bridg'--=e---'U~nccd"'e~r----'----- N. Germantown 43.88533 53.12 90.14150 8.4912 Lane Bridge Under SR 80 43.88717 53.23 90.14400 8.64 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under RR 43.89083 53.45 90.14883 8.93 Rail Under !- : · - --- ':log Island Rd/8 43.89350 53.61 90.152.~Q, _ - 9.15 _?Lane Bridge Under ___ J ___ 1 CR M 43.90783 54.47 - 90.17750 10.65 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under 7thAve i 43.91183 54.71! 90.19167 11.50l2LaneBridgeUnder-- ·: 8th Ave 43.917331 55.041 90.211501 12.6912 Lane Bridge Under CR C ' 43.92017 55.21 ! 90.22150 13.2912 Lane Bridge ------+----

SR 131 ! 43.95417 ···· ·--57.25! 90.50483i 30.29 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under · · cR·M 43.94617...... ~§.!Zl ~0,537671 32.26 2 Lane Bridge Under --~- ~""'.~.nweir Rive; 43.94517 _56.71 ! 90.54233! 32.54 Minor River I Cinder Ave ! 43.94317 56.59' 90.55233 33.1412 Lane Bridge Under

21st Ave i 43.94050 56.43! 90.57233 34.3412 Lane Bridge Under 1 1 Cliff Ave i 43.94000 56.40' 90.57633 34.58J2 Lane Bridg."_LJ11_cl."r_ ...... •...... ·· I CRT 43.93983 56.391 90.57767 34.6612 Lane Bridge Under . I Chub Creek ' 43.93967 56.381 90.57817 34.69iMinor River , -·-'"·-·-·· ...,,.~•->s••·-"··--··--·:··· ----- ~ -·--- - -~--- ' 19th Ln 43.93717 56.231 90.59717 35.8312 Lane Bridge Under 16th Dr ...... , __ 43,9:346.! 56."081__90.66217 39.7312 Lane Bridge Under ·---I. fB A _ 43.93517 56.11 i 90.68500 41.1014 Lan."_B~.':§Lf=.x_{)resswayLJ11d~r ·-1 14th Dr i 43.93550 56.13 1 90.70000 42.00:2 Lane Bridge Under · Cliff Court· .. ·r 43.93600 - 56.16! 90.71433 42.86!2 Lane Briclge.Under , . . Unnamed -43.93617 56.17i 90.71733 43.04\2 Lane Bridge Under · ···• 13th Dr 43.93617 56.17' 90.72017 43.2112 Lane Bridge Under . I ...... Sanitary Landfill 43.93650 56.19 90.76533 45.92 12 Lane.. Bridge"Linder" ·1 .. GITT/Ct 43.93467 --- 56.081 90.77500 46.50 .2 LaneBridgelJncie-r--1 1:90·· ...... ,f:3.°93400 56.04i 90.77767 . 4.f\6§ 4 Lane Urban ExJJress_v,ayLJncJe_r _ SR 71 43.93350 56.01' 90.78067 46.84 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under Farmer's Valley~ 43.93283 - 55.97 1 90.78433 47.06IMinor River John St. (9th§iL 43.93050. 55.83! 90.79583 47.7512 Lane BiieigeUnci"er - ·············1 S. Water St 43.92767·--- 55.66.: __ ,. ···------90.81067.,.------~-r- 48.64!2. Lane Brid,g,~e~U~n~d~e~r_...;.. ___ SR 27 43.92567 55.54: 90.82050, 49.23,2 Lane Bridge Under 8.th Ct .. 43.92483 55.49' --90.82483 49.4912 Lane Bridge Under lJnriamed.f3d .. . . 43.92267 _ 55.36' 90.83567 50.14[~Iani§IidgeQ_riei_er Little La Cross_eL 43.91817 55.09i 90.85967 51.58:Minor River_~!__ _ 1 _c;_~press Avenue 43.91400 54.84' 90.88067 __ 52.8412 Lane Brid,g.~e~U~n~d~e~r-~-----1 CR J 43.90683 54.41< 90.92050, 55.2312 Lane Brid~e Under ~e9 i__ j Location North GPSLatI min iWest GPSRecommendedI I Action Fish Creek 43.90533 54.32! 90.92833 55.70 Minor River i CR U 43.90317 . fi4.19i 90.94133 56.48 2 Lane Bridge Under Fuchs Rd 43.90000 · ·-•-- 54~00\ 90.96067 57.64 2 Lane Bridge Under La Crosse Rive 43.89817 53.89! 90.97200 58.32 Minor River i i SR 162 43.89533 53.72! 90.99083 .. . 59.45 4 Lane Rural Expressway Ur,der·-·-· Dutch Creek 43.89550 53.73! _90.!J.9250 __ 59.55iMinor River i Unnamed Rd i 43.897171 53.83! 91.014831 0.89i2 Lane Bridge Under Shorewood Cou' 43.89967 53.98 91.04483 2.69 2 Lane Bridge Under-~--- Tilson St 43.90567 ____ 54.34 91.07233 4.34 ?l,a!)€lf3[iclgE>Under __~---I SR 16 43.90850 54.51 91.08117 4.87 4 Lane Rural Expressway Under La Crosse Rive~ 43.90850 54.51 91.09367 5.62 Minor River i .. -·-··- ·a CR M ' 43.908001 54.48 91.10133 6.08j2 Lane Bridge Under Gills Rd 43.912001 54.72i 91.121331 7.28i2 Lane Bridge Under Evenson Rd 43.91350 54.81] 91.128501 7.71i2 Lane Bridge Under .

Gills Coulee Rdi 43.91717 55.03i 91.14650_ 8.79i2 Lane Bridge ~nder f 1 Tunnel Starts . 43.9195,() . -~'i:1.7,. ~1J.9.1.1!i_ 11.47!Tunnel \ ······+··-- ...... , Tunnel Enes. __ _[ 43.91783 55.07! 91.14967 8.98iTunnel ; Mississipfli Rivei 43.91933 . 55.16 i 91.23200 13.92 i Mississippi River Bridge Koss Rd . 43.91917. ·ss~i·sr 91.18800 . iT.2812 Lane BridgeUnder ..... Countv Hwvs i 43.91933 55.16! 91.19667 ········--·· 11.80!2 Lane Bridge Uccnc=d.ccer'------+----1 MOOS Or i 43.91933 55.16i 91.21167 12.70!2 Lane Bridge Under _ J Cedar Creek Lai 43.919171 55.15! 91.225671 13.54!2 Lane Bridge Under

Summary Bridges Under Unit Cost Quantity Amount 1 ~ Lane Urban Expressway $4,848 4 $19,392 4 Lane Rural Expressway I $4,036! 231 $92,828 2 Lane ' $3,0621 115 _ $352,130 Rail $3,062, 10 $30,6201 i IMinor River ..... _ $812! 19 $15,4281 MajorRiver $8,118i 4 $32,472! ITotal Bridges Under Segment 5 ---_-_-_-_-_-_-_,----$~5-42~,-87-0~i-----f------+----·I "'""""'•••••,••---••-•.s-•~~::,.,.,_<"<•VA,J '°'"'"''""'<"•••• ..=~~-,::. ,~••• •••••••• ••-.,.,- ,.,,., ...... ,,.,,,, ...... '!,.,. "'' "" •• -••-•••¥•• , ,.,,.,_, Segment 6 Mississiepi River Basin . i ······ ..... · · ··· · · IU11it Co_st _ iOuantity Amount ·· • Mississipei River Bridge I $234,000 1 $234,000l Interstate 90 Dakota Rvier Va( $74,0_()0 1 _. __ $_]4,0_0_QJ Total Cost I J $308,000! Page 10 i !i~gment 7 River to St Paul I C-2 150 MPH Rochester Route 'North Lat min iWest Long min Recommended Action 1:90...... ; ,iiezTi'i •·· . 55.27! 91.37300 ...... 2.:z,~~ fCiijeurbanExpresswaz~11eie~ Twp Rd 29 . 43.92283 55.371 91.38617 . .. 23.17!2 Lane Bridg=e~U~n=d~er~-~--- CR 101 .... 43.92317 55.39i 91.38767 · ...... · :23.26 2 Lane Bridg,--"e-'U"'n-'-'d=e'--r-~--- Twp Rd 32 43.92450 55.47; 91.39833! 23.90 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.92483 55.49] 91.40067! 24.04 2 Lane Bridge Under Dakota Creek 43.92483 ...... 55.49! 91.41900! 25.14!Minor River'-----,!----- IDakota Creek 43.9250(): .... 55.50' 91.40283! 24.1!_rvlin_orRiver ··~~=--· 1-90 43.92550 55.53: 91.40683! 24.41 4 Lane Urban Expressway under Dakota Creek .. 43.92650 55.59' 91.414001 . ·24:a4 Ma·or River ,.. ' . ------,------.- .. ·-·········~---! .. """-' """'""""•----·- •--·"- ...... -...... -.s, ....,;.,... . ' Little Trout Cree 43.92617 55.5T 91.43317! 25.991Culvert included in trackwork CR 12 43.92450 55.47!. _91.43750i 26.25!2 Lane Bridge Under 1 CR 104 43.92233 55.34! 91.44350 26.61 i2 Lane Bridge Un--"d-'--er~_ CR 125 43.92250 55.35' 91.47083 28.2512 Lane Bridge Under CR 104 43.92233 55.34i 91.49100 29.4612 Lane BridgeUndec.r_.....c.. __ 11-90 43.92167 ... 55.301 91A9417 29.65 4 Lane Urban ExJJressway under Unnamed·.. Rd 43.91883 55.13! 91.51050 ...... 30.63 Closure -~i---~--- CR 12 43.91850 55.11i 91.51300 30.78 2 Lane Bridg=e~U~n~d=e~r-~--...... j PH Twp 13 , 43.91583 54.95] 91.52800 31.68 2 Lane Bridge Under PH Twp21 43.91567 54.9{._fl1.55033 33.02 2 Lane Bridg_e Under PH Tw[) 23 43.91650 54.991 91.56083 33.65!2 Lane Bridge Under ~---I PHTwp25 43.91850 55.11 1 91.58533 35.12!2 Lane Bridge Under CR12 .. .43.92033 55.22! 91.60750 36.45!2 Lane Bridge.Under .. --' ··••··••···•··· •. 1-90 43.92033 55.22! 91.60900 36.54 12 Lane Bridge Under Money Creek 43.92067 55.24' 91.61317 36.79!Culvert included in trackwork CR17 43.92600 si{56! 91.62033 37.2212 Lane Bridge Under ..... I Mone)' Creek i 43.92667 55.60 1 91.62100 37.26!Culvert included in trackwork WiscoyTwo4 I 43.93017. 55.811 ___91.62583 37.55[2 Lane Bridge Under -··· ...... Unnamed Creel< 43.93417 56.05! 91.63100 37.861Culvert included in trackwork Wilson Twp 11 43.94133 56.48! 91.64017 38A1 !2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Cree~ 43.94950 5§:fli} 91.. §.5.?~7 :fa:s2i2 Lane.Bridge Under ~---1 CR 19 ' 43.95300 57.18' 91.67517 40.51 !2 Lane Bridge Under \/Vil,s()11i:\/Je_29__ J 43.95267 ·•••·•·•······· · 57 .16: 91.69683. . _4,1,81 zl.arie srictg_e_t.focJe, ·· ~----- i 1·90 · 43.95250 57.15• 91.69850! 41.91 4 Lane Urban Expressway under CFi°12----··-- ,- 43.95250 57.15 1 91.70300' 42.18 2 Lane Bridge Under···-.-- Unnamed Rd ...... 43.95160 57.06' 91.720i°'ti ...... 43.21!2 Lane Brid(Je Under ...... Page 11 Location North GPS Lal min West GPS Recommended Action !Unnamed Rd 43.94567 56.74! 91.74033 44.42i2 Lane Bridge Under jTwp 9 .. 43.94283 ...... 56:~!1 .... ~L7"_6();33 ...... a,ge 12 j I .. - -~-• .. --• i ··-- Location 1North GPS Lat min lwest GPS Recommended Action

..70th -~--, Ave-- ....• .,,.SE ______43.94033 56.42' 92.33800 20.28 ?. Lane Bridge Under l-52/65th Ave SF 43.93967 .. 56.38 92.34783! 20.87 4 Lane.Urban Expressv;1,ytJnd.er _ -- .. . .. -- ...... ·····- ·-· 1-90 .•. _43.93783 56.27! 92.37150! 22.29,4 Lane Urban Expressway under 60th St SE 43.93433 56.06! 92.38717[ . 23.23!'2 Lane BridgeUnde,· .. CR 1 43.92783 55.67' .92.40817! ... 24.49j2 Lane Bridge Under CR 16 43.92383 55.43 1 92.420501 25.23i2 Lane Bridge Under "" CR20 43.91850 55.11 ! 92.43767[ 26.26!2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 43.91367 54.82! 92.45800! 27.4812 Lane Bridge Under SR63 43.90883 54.53! 92.48017! 28.81 !4 Lane Urban Expressway under CR8 43.92033 55.22, 92.52817! 31.69!2 Lane Bridge Under , 60th Ave SW 43.93167 55.90! 92.55767[ 33.46[2 Lane Bridge Under

Fort Zumbro Riv 43.93200 55.92! ... 92.55833!_ ...... •. 33.SOICulvert included in trackwork .,_, ______CR 126 43.93500 56.10' 92.56617! 33.97!2 Lane Bridge Under - ··-·-·-··- . ..• ·~··- "·•------· CR 15 I 43.93983 .•. 56.39 92.578001 34.68i2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 56.91 1--92.59817! 35.89 2 Lane Bridge Under 43.94850 -~--- CR17 , 43.94983 56.99! 92.60117[ 36.07 2 Lane Bridge _Under ······-... CR3 . ! . 43.95700 57.42! 92.61783 37.07 2 LaneBridge Under CR 150 43.96567 57.94' 92.63800 38.28 2 Lane_ Bridge_Under ...... 39.16 Salem Creek 43.97217 58.33! 92.65267 Minor River i i ·~· ···-····-····- Unnamed Rd 43.97667 58.60' 92.66300 39.78 2 Lane Bridge Under -••N~•••-- ' -----,.,« 58.99! 92.67800 40.6812 Lane Bridge Under CR25 ! 43.98317 ' CR15 i 43.99217' 59.53! 92.69817 41.89!2 Lane Bridge Under ••~••m-•ss- Unnamed Rd 43.99683 59.81! 92.71333 42.8012 Lane Bridge Under ! "" ,s•m••'"". Unnamed Rd 44.00033 0.02! 92.72600 43.56!2 Lane Bridge Under I ·••---- .s••••w•---••-• i CR13 44.00350 0.21,,,.,m •• ,,rn,._,•••--92.73850 44.3112 Lane Bridge Under I CR 10 44.00783 0.47' 92.75400 45.24!2 Lane Bridge Under ---·-···· CR13 44.00883 0.53! 92.75817! 45.49[2 Lane Bridge Under CR 14 44.01417 0.85! 92.77833 . _ 46. 7012 LariiU~~cJgEl __lJ_n__der I 1 CCR9 44.02050 1.23 92. 79867 ,._ .. 47.92!2 Lane Bridge Under RR 44.02633 1.58] .. 9i81417 48.85 1Rail Under ' CR9 44.02783 1.67 i 92.81867 .... 4_fl:1:Z[2Lane_ Flri_dg

Page 13 i Location 'North GPS Lat min West GPS --· . .. Recommended-Action ------_GR 7 . 44.06983 4.19 92.84967 50.98 2 Lane Bridg~e~U~n~d~er__ ~--~, S. Branch Mlddli 44.07933 4.76 92.85200 51.12 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd I 44.10250 6.15 92.85583 51.35 2 Lane Bridge Under Milliken Creek i 44.11250 6.75 92.85783 51.47 Minor River -~1------CR 7/CR 20 i 44.11667 7.00 92.85850 51.51 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 22 i 44.13850 8.31' 92.86267 51.76 2 Lane Bridge Under CR 24 i 44.15300 9.181 92.86533 51.92 4 Lane Rural"'E""x~p,re~s-sw_a_y~u-n-de_r__ , Unnamed Rd_ i 44.16617 __ 9.97' 92.86800 52.08 2 Lane Bridge Under_ _ ·: Middle Fork Zun1 44.16700 - -· 10.021 92.86817 52.09 Minor River ! CR B 44.01748 1.051 92.86950 - 52.17 2 Lane B-r-id_g_e~U_n_d_e_r _~----l CR B 44.18217 10.931 92.87100 52.26 2 Lane Bridge Under ' ...... CR A 44.19683 11.81 i 92.87367 52.42 2 Lane Bridge Under ---•- .•. --- N. Branch Middl' 44.20167 12.101 92.87467 52.48 Culvert included in trackwork l""•~.._,_.,.,_.,. , '"~··-···~--···· - - CR! i 44.20417 12.25' 92.87517 _ _ 52.51 2 Lane Bridge_U_n_de_r_--1--- Unnamed Rd 44.20633 12.38f.. 92.87550 ·=· --- -··· 52.53? Lane Bridge Under -- CR 117 44.21833 13.101 92.87783 _ _ 52.67 2Lane Bridg-"-e~U~n=de~r----+~---, CR 23 44.24017 14.411 92.88183 52.91 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44:25450 15.27! 92.88483 • -- 53.09 z·Lane Bridge Under --- i ~f)f_i_~g Creek 44.26550 15.931 - 92.88683 53.21 Culvert included In trackwork CR 12 44.26900 16.141 92.88750 53.25 2 Lane Bridge Under Unnamed Rd 44.27900 16.74! 92.89167 1 53.50 2 Lane Bridge Under ! _ Unnamed Rd 44.28217 16.93 92.89367 53.62 2 Lane Bridge Under SR 60 44.28350 17 .01 92.89450 53.67 4 Lane Rural Expressway under . . Unnamed Rd 44.28733 17.24 92.89700 53.82 2 Lane Bridge Under i Unnamed Rd 44.29767 17.86' 92.90350 --· - .... 54.21 2 Lane Bridgeffnder - ·-····· N. Fork Zumbroi 44.30217 18.131 92.90650 54.39 Minor River ! -- - · CR 30 ' 44,31967 19.18! 92.91983 - 55.19 2 Lane BridgeUnder ~----t-----J CR 14 44.34033 20.421 92.93817 56.29 2 Lane Bridqe Under Unnamed Rd 44.34150 20.491 92.93917 56.35 2 Lane Bridg~e_U_n_de~r----+----1 Little Cannon Ri' 44.35083 21.051_ 92.94750 56.85 Minor River ! CR 44 i 44.35150 21.09' 92.94817 56.89 2 Lane Bridge Under I Unnamed Rd _ 44.36483 21.89! 92.95867 57.52 2 Lane Bridge Under i CR 49 ,-- 44.37033 22.221 92.96100 _57.66 2 Lane Bridge Under ! Unnamed Rd ' 44.38517 23.11; 92.96717 58.03 2 Lane Bridge Under ----T--·-- = CR 9 i 44.40667 24.401 92.97600 58.5614 Lane Rural Exoressway under CR 24 44.41450 24.871 92.97933 58.76[2 Lane Bridge Under ' Unnamed Rd 44.43567 26.14' 92.98917 59.35!2 Lane Bridge Under .f'.a_ge 14 I i '" ' ---·-- Location !North GPS Lat min jWest GPS Long111in Recommended Action Unnamed Rd 44.44983 26.991 ___ 92.99583 59.75 2 Lane BridgeUnder Prairie Creek 44.47083 28.25 1 93.00583 0.35iCulvert included in_track_work _ _ _ __ Unnamed Rd 44.47167 28.30[ 93.00633 ____ 0.38;2 LaneBridge Under ____ J __ .... _ 28.77! 93.00983 0.59!4 Lane Rural Expressway under SR56 44.47950 ·-·-- 32oth StW 44.48617 .. , . 29.17! 93.01300 0.78[4 Lane Rural Expressway under Spring Creek r 44.49333 29.60, 93.01650 0.99!Culvert included in trackwork 1.50i2 Lane Bridge Under Skiota Trail i 44.51167 30.70[ 93.02500 -··--"---~·- j Cannon River 44.51600 30.96[ 93.02733 1.64:Minor River ---·--- RR . 44.52200 31.32i ., 93.02967 1.78JRail Under ·------,-_..,,,,~ ,.•. i... ,.. , Chub Creek ···-1i .. ·· 44.52300 31.38[ ... 93.02983 1.79lMinor River ··"'---··· CR88 44.52600 31.56! 93.03117 1.87l2 Lane Bridge Under ! i ,_.,,,... CR86 44.54383 32.63[ 93.03750 2.25 !4 Lane Rural Expresswa _under CR82 44.55833 33.50i 93.04233 • ... 2.54 i 2 Lane Bridge Under 265th St 44.56550 33.93! 93.04483 2.69l2 Lane Bridge Under --- -- ...... ------250th St - . .- 44.58733 35.24, 93.05250 3.15'2 Lane Bridg~ __Under •••• •t•-M•• •••••••' , •••• CR80 44.59483 35.69[ 93.05500 ...... 3.30[2LaneBridge Under ___ !_____ ~···-· CR 79 44.59667 35.80: 93.05567] _ 3.34!2 Lane Bridge Under . '''""' --·---··· .... -- -- 230th St E 44.61650 36.99! 93.06200[_ _ 3.72 2 Lane Bridge Under ····---···--.. , 93.06217 3.73 Minor River S. Branch \/erm\ 44.61800 37.08i -·- --·--·-··" SR50 ' 44.63033 37.82! 93.06217 3.73 4 Lane Rural Expressway_under. •• CR72 i 44.64483 38.69! 93.06250 3.75 2 Lane Bridge Under . 39.57! 93.06283 3.77 4 Lane Rural Expresswa under CR66 44.65950 ··, Vermillion River! 44.67033 40.22! 93.06300 3.78 Minor River ! Station Trail j 44.68917 41.35! 93.06333 3.80 2 Lane Bridge Under_ i Unnamed Rd i 44.69500 41.70; 93.06350 3.81 2 Lane Bridge Under CR58 44.70300 42.18! 93.06350 3.81 i2 Lane Bridge Under • . ...•...... ____ j i . 165th St 44.71100 42.66/ .93.06350! 3.81 Closure ' 160th St i 44.71750 43.05' 93.06333 3.80 2 Lane Bridge Under 156th St 44.72450 43.47! 93.06133 3.68 Closure I ------' 155th St 44.72600 43.56i 93.06067 3.64 2 Lane Bridge Under _ i 153rd St 43.77! 93.05983 3.59 Closure· . i . 44.72950 "-•---···"'"'"'"'"'____ ----- 43.851 93.05950 ·3:57 2 Lane Bridge Under 152nd St 44.73083 .. --···-- 151st St : 44.73233 43.94! 93.05900 3.54 Closure ! ,.- 93.05583 3.35 2 Lane Bridge Under CR38 44.74400 - "··~- CR38 44.74750 44.851 93.05467 3.28 2 Lane Bridge Under ' 135th St 44.75467 45.28 1 93.05283 3.17 Closure ' Page 15 i I Location !North GPS Lat min West GPS !Long min Recommended Action Start Elevate 44.75467 45.281 93.052831·-·· 3.17 Elevated Structure ' End Elevate 44.91800 55.081 93.050831 3.05 Elevated Structure : Mississippi Rivel 44.91800 ss·.oB! ... 93.050831 3.05 Major River I •• , ---·I ., ' rn<>-L.O,,-'""''"'"~•>O •»••~--, !-" "''°'"'' ""'""'"""~" ,._,,_.,,, -•-•"S-•S"- ,-....----1 i I fc--c----cc---~-c----~·------"------"------j••······· ..... ·---+----+----/ Location of start and end of el.evated structure is approximate. ! . ,._ . ·, .. ·-···~-- ,w·,•--'S--

Summary Bridges Under !Unit Cost Quantit,r Amount i 4 Lane Urban Expressway $4,848 91 $43,632; 4·Lane Rural Expresswa\' . .. . $4,036 13! $52,468/ . .. . 2 Lane ___ $3,062 125j $382,750 , Rail I . 1 $3,062 21 $6,124 . Minor River ,· ········· ···· ····•· $812 · ··· 14! ······· $11,368 ··· ~~-+---·-+-----1 Major River $8,118 2 i $16,236 Total.Bridges Under Segment 7 i ' $512,578

1 ' Summary ofB.r.idges O_ver.torSeg.tn_en_t_7+;----+-·----- Type ...... , ..•...... • ...... •... :unit Cost Quantity iA_m_o_u_n_t __+ ...... ,. ____ , 4 Lane Urban Expressway . , .. 10,516 1 I $10,516 4 Lane Rural Expressway . . ········- ...... ,.. - ·•· 2,630 r .. .. . :·_· _· _··_·· ·_··_··_··~$~0-'-·---_····______, 1 2 Lane 1,971 1 I $1_,971,~-~-,+----+-----; Rail 6,572 21 $13,144 Total Bridges Over for Segment 7 ; $25,631

i j ' Summary Brid es Under Unit Cost !Quantity Amount i St Paul $39,000i 14 $546,000I

CROSSINGS 0·3 Rochester Route 185 MPH Technology Page 1 Segment 2 Milwaukee to Ixonia

Segment 2 is elevated. Therefore, no action is required for crossings.

For Segment 3, Ixonia to Hwy 51 the number of private closures was assumed to be simt1ar to the Waterlown to Hwy 51 segment determined for the 8-2 150 MPH technology

Summary Segment 3 Unit Cost Quantity Amount Private Closure $60 32 $1,920

Far Segment 5, Madison to Lacrosse, the number of private closures was assumed to be similar to the Madison to Portage segment and the Portage to River segment determined for the B-2 150 MPH technology

Summary Segment 5 Unit Cost Quantity Amount Private Closure $60 10 $600 Private Closure $60 46 $2,760 Total 56 $3,360

I Summary Segment 7 Unit Quantity Amount ! Private Closure $60 100 $6,000

Private Closures is an estimate based on an estlmate of private crossings for the entire segment.

TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 6. 3 Infrastructure Cost by Category Appendix 6.3

COSTS BY CATEGORY

Option: A-1 110 MPH River route Item Trackwork Bridges Crossings Stations Signals Total 1.0 Trackwork 392,785 $392,785 2.0 Stations 38,928 $38,928 4.0 Turnouts 4,440 $4,440 5.0 Bridges- Under - 119,328 $119,328 6.0 Bridges - Over 10,516 $10,516 7.0 Crossings 147,974 $147,974 8.0 Signals - 103,469 $103,469 9.0 Curves 3,465 S3,465 Total Upgrade Cost 400,690 129,844 147,974 38,928 103,469 $820,905

Option: B-1 110 MPH Rochester Route Item Trackwork Bridges Crossings Stations Signals Total 1.0 Trackwork 552,440 $552,440 2.0 Stations 39,928 $39,928 4.0 Turnouts 6,660 $6,660 5.0 Bridges- Under - 227,932 $227,932 6.0 Bridges - Over 36,147 $36,147 7 .0 Crossings 172,640 $172,640 8.0 Signals 108,365 $108,365 9.0 Curves 3,465 $3,465 Total Upgrade Cost 562,565 264,079 172,640 39,928 108,365 $1,147,577

Option: B-2 150 MPH Rochester Route Item Trackwork Bridges Crossings Stations Signals Total 1.0 Trackwork 821,938 $821,938 2.0 Stations 115,928 $115,928 4.0 Turnouts 2,220 $2,220 5.0 Bridges- Under 896,718 $896,718 6.0 Bridges - Over 103,183 $103,183 7.0 Crossings 131,892 $131,892 8.0 Signals 177,173 $177,173 9.0 Curves 3,465 $3,465 Total Un □ rade Cost 827,623 999,901 131,892 115,928 177,173 $2,252,517 Appendix 6.3

Page 2

Option: C-2 150 MPH Rochester New Alignment Item Trackwork Bridges Crossings Stations Signals Total 1.0 Trackwork 1,020,923 $1,020,923 2.0 Stations 116,428 $116,428 4.0 Turnouts $0 5.0 Bridges- Under 1,681,268 $1,681,268 6.0 Bridges - Over 157,921 $157,921 7 .0 Crossings 99,388 $99,388 8.0 Signals 166,927 $166,927 9.0 Curves $0 Total Upgrade Cost 1,020,923 1,839,189 99,388 116,428 166,927 $3,242,855

Option: D-3 185 MPH Rochester New Alignment Item Trackwork Bridges Crossings Stations Signals Total 1.0 Trackwork 1,507,773 $1,507,773 2.0 Stations 192,428 $192,428 4.0 Turnouts $0 5.0 Bridges- Under 5,770,090 $5,770,090 6.0 Bridges - Over 116,516 $116,516 7.0 Crossin,is 11,280 $11,280 8.0 Signals 419,440 $419,440 9.0 Curves $0 Total LJnnrade Cost 1,507,773 5,886,606 11,280 192,428 419,440 $8,017,527

TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 6. 4 Conceptual Engineering Bridge Plans

Not Available

I u l

TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix 6. 5 Infrastructure Improvements

. I J ] APPENDIX 6. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY

STUDY

APPENDIX 6.5

Track Improvements

An inspection of the track from Milwaukee to St. Paul was conducted during a series of visits in 1998. The purpose of the inspection was to determine the present condition of the trackage, assess its suitability to accommodate joint rail freight and passenger operations based on FRA regulations and track safety standards, and gather sufficient data to identify needed infrastructure improvements. The track inspection included the main line of CP Railway from Milwaukee to St Paul, the \Vaterloo Spur subdivision between Watertown and Madison, the Madison/Portage subdivision between Madison and Portage, the DM&E right-ot:.way between Winona and Rochester, and the Union Pacific track in the St. Paul area. The inspection was accomplished by walking short segments of the track at several locations. The physical condition of the following were reviewed during the field inspection:

• Cross Ties Average number of defective ties per mile • Rail Pattern weight Age Jointed or welded Condition (bent, battered, wear) • Rail Anchors Type Number per rail Effectiveness • Grade Crossings Number Condition Type crossing surface Type of crossing protection

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 6.5-1 APPENDIX 6. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Approximate length • Bridges General conditions • Surface and Alignment Low joints ln-egular cross level and/or alignment Profile deficiencies • Ballast Section Full or lean Type ballast (gravel, limestone, granite) Condition (clean or fouled) • Industrial Side Tracks Number Active or inactive Location • Railroad Company Side Tracks Type (storage track or passing track) Approximate length Condition (ties, rail, other track material, etc.) Location • Connections Between the Various Lines Existing Required

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEJ,JENT SYSTEMS, INC. 6.5-2 I J APPENDIX 6. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

In assessing track condition, particular consideration was given to ballast, cross ties, and rail joints. The definition and importance of these elements to the integrity of the track strncture are as follows:

Ballast: Ballast supports the track on the roadbed. Generally it consists of crushed rock or similar material which will transmit and distribute the load of the track and railroad rolling equipment to the roadbed. It must provide adequate drainage for the track and maintain proper track cross level, surface, and alignment.

Cross Ties: Cross ties are made of a material to which the rails can be fastened and which support the rails on the ballast. Cross ties can be made of wood, concrete, or steel. Each 39-foot rail segment shall have the following:

I. A sufficient number of cross ties which (in combination) provide effective support to hold the gauge and maintain alignment within prescribed limits.

2. The minimum number and type of cross ties specified, effectively distributed to support the rail segment.

3. At least one cross tic of the type specified located at a rail joint (where two rails are jointed together).

The number of cross ties per 39-foot rail segment that must be in good condition varies by class of track (five cross tics for Class 1 track to 14 cross ties for Class 6 track). In addition, Class 1 and Class 2 track must have one cross tie whose centerline is within 24 inches of the rail joint location, and Classes 3 through 6 shall have one cross tie whose centerline is within 18 inches of the rail joint location.

Rail Joints: Any mismatch of rail ends at rail joints must not be more than ¼" for Classes I and 2 track, and not more than 1/8" for Classes 4, 5, and 6 track. lf a joint bar (joining the ends of rails at a rail joint) on Classes 3 through 6 track is broken,

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 6.5-3 APPENDIX 6. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

cracked, or because of wear allows vertical movement of either rail when all bolts are tight, it must be replaced. In case of conventional joined track, each rail must be bolted with at least two bolts in Classes 2 through 6 track, and with at least one bolt in Class I track.

Alignment

Route alignment is important to the physical condition of the track structure. Curves restrict speed and increase timetables. For high-speed rail operations, it is essential to minimize the effect of the route curvature on the operations. This can be accomplished by reducing the curvature, increasing the super-elevation, increasing unbalance, and/or the use of tilt technology.

The Tri-State Il route for I IO MPH operation will operate on CP Railway trackage. Freight and passenger trains operate over the same trackage at different speeds. Therefore, it is not possible to attain an equilib1ium speed for a given curve.

Curve Improvements

Maintaining curves to accommodate both freight and passenger trains operating at different speeds should be considered when selecting the most appropriate speed of operation. For this study, curvature reduction and change in super-elevation was minimized. Any proposed change in super-elevation should be coordinated with CP Railway. The use of passenger equipment with car body tilting technology was assumed for the technology options. An active body tilting system tilts the car body towards the center of the curve via hydraulic cylinders positioned on both sides of the coach. This system allows trains to operate at higher speeds with no increase in super-elevation.

Recommended Track Improvements

The recommended track improvements for each route/technology option are detailed in Appendix 6.2. Generally, the condition of the main line of CP Railway trackage is sufficient to permit increases in speed to 110 mph with minimal improvements to the track infrastructure, such as some tic replacement and ballast renewal. [t is anticipated that speeds of 110 mph can be

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS I INC. 6.5-4 APPENDIX 6. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY attained in Wisconsin. Due to the rail alignment along the Mississippi River, speeds will be restricted to 90 mph. lt is assumed concrete tics will be installed for construction on new alignments.

The track of the DM&E right of way, Madison/Portage subdivision, and Waterloo Spur subdivision is not suitable for high speed rail operation and would need to be completely rebuilt. Exhibits 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and 6.5.3 (respectively) display pictures representative of the condition of the infrastructure in these three sections.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 6.5-5 APPENDIX 6. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Exhibit 6.5.1 DM&E Track

Exhibit 6.5.2 Madison-Portage Subdivision

J

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 6.5-6 J APPENDIX 6. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY

STUDY

Exhibit 6.5.3 Waterloo Spur Subdivision

Stations

The recommended treatment of each station for each route/technology option ts detailed in Appendix 6.2. Based on the technology selected, considerable improvements arc required to make platforms compatible with the technology, in addition to substantial improvements in station amenities. Adequate parking is also needed. The engineering assessment (Chapter 3) addressed each station and its requirements. An allowance for improvements developed in the MWRRI was included in the estimate of improvement costs (Appendix 6.2).

Bridges Under

A complete bridge inventory developed for each route/technology option 1s contained in Appendix 6.2. In order to estimate the cost of new crossings required for new routes or bridge replacements, conceptual engineering· plans were developed (Appendix 6.4) for a bridge to carry either single or double tracks over highways, streams, valleys, and rivers. The unit cost basis for these structures is contained in the final unit costs in Appendix 6.1.

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 6.5-7 APPENDIX 6. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

Bridges Over

There are several locations where the construction of a bridge over will be neccssmy. The most notable is the Highway 151 bridge in Madison. The basis of the unit costs is contained in Appendix 6.1.

Crossings

The unit cost for improving public crossings used in this study was $274,000. An evaluation of each crossing was not within the scope of the study. Therefore, a weighted average unit cost was dctem1incd that considered the level of improvement associated with public crossings to be related to an existing protection system. For example, if a crossing had signals and gates recently installed, the cost to improve this crossing differed from a crossing that only had signals as protection, or sometimes no protection. An inventory of crossings for each route and a given technology is contained in Appendix 6.2. For crossings on existing track, the crossings identified on the track charts were used to maintain consistency with other categories and may vmy slightly from the state lists. Numerous grade crossing issues were addressed in this study and the accepted FRA guidelines are as follows:

Public Crossings - 80 mph to 110 mph

Eliminate redundant or unnecessmy crossings and install the most sophisticated traffic control/warning devices compatible with the location; e.g., median ban-iers, special signing (consider active advance warning signs), four quadrant gates. Automated devices should be equipped with constant warning time.

Public Crossings - 111 mph to 125 mph

Protect rail movement with full-width barriers capable of absorbing the impact of a highway vehicle. Include a fail-safe vehicle dptection capability between baniers. Notify approaching trains of warning device or barrier failure or an intruding vehicle in sufficient time for the train to ] stop short of the crossing without resorting to emergency brake application. J TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, Iuc. 6.5-8 ] APPENDIX 6. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY

STUDY

Private Crossings - 80 mph to 110 mph

Close, grade separate, or provide a secured barrier or automatic device; the device or barrier should extend across the entire highway on both sides of the track, and should normally be closed and opened on request if no train is approaching, for a period of time sufficient to cross the track.

Private Crossings - 111 mph to 125 mph

Protect rail movement with foll width barrier or gate, normally closed and locked, capable of absorbing impact of a highway vehicle. Gate lock or control should be interlocked with train signal and control system and released by a railroad dispatcher. A fail safe vehicle detection or video system should monitor the area between the barriers. The crossing should be equipped with a direct link telephone to the railroad dispatcher.

Private Crossings -Above 125 mph

Close or grade separate all private rail crossings. The unit cost used for grade crossings is shown in Appendix 6.1. The unit costs compare favorably with the construction cost to install several full quadrant gates in North Carolina.

Signals and Communications

State-of-the-art signal and communications systems arc necessary to successfully implementing high-speed technology in the Tri-State Corridor. It is necessary to properly coordinate freight and passenger operations in order to permit joint service to share the same track. Several studies arc cmTently underway in the Midwest to evaluate different technologies. The lllinois Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the FRA and the AAR, are developing a Positive Train Control system on a 120-mile segment of the Union Pacific corridor between Chicago and St. Louis. This project will require four years to complete at a cost of $60 million. The project will involve using the Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System to automatically locate each train. Additionally, the U.S Department of Transportation through the FRA, Michigan Department of Transportation, and Amtrak undertook a $23 million project in

TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 6.5-9 APPENDIX 6. 5 TRI-STATE II HIGH SPEED RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

I 995 to implement a High Speed Positive Train Control System on a 71-mile portion of the Chicago to Detroit corridor between Kalamazoo and Grand Beach, Michigan. The Illinois project uses the Automated Train Control System (ATCS), whereas the Michigan project uses the Incremental Train Control System (JTCS). The selection of a system for the Tri-State corridor has been deferred until the results of these studies are finalized. Conservative per mile unit costs have been developed based on discussions with representatives of the various state Departments of Transportation in the Midwest, Amtrak, and equipment manufacturers.

I c.J

l J TRANSPORTATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 6.5-10 ]