DOCSLIB.ORG

East Metro Rail Capacity Study October 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
East Metro Rail Capacity Study October 2012 EAST METRO RAIL CAPACITY STUDY OCTOBER 2012 PREPARED FOR: IN PARTNERSHIP WITH: PREPARED BY: East Metro Rail Capacity Study Prepared for Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority in partnership with Red Rock Corridor Commission By the Study Team of: TranSystems Corporation Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Rani Engineering The 106 Group Ltd. American Engineering Testing, Inc. LTK Engineering Services David Simpson Consultants HAD-Rail Consulting Services David Evans and Associates, Inc. Table of Contents Definitions Abbreviations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 Study Background and Purpose .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Project Partners ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Scope of Study .............................................................................................................................. 6 2.0 Study Process ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Project Development Process ....................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Study Partner Roles ...................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Study Partner Involvement Process ............................................................................................. 9 Project Management Team Meetings and Stakeholder Workshops/Meetings ........................... 9 Freight Railroads ......................................................................................................................... 10 Public Open Houses and Neighborhood Meetings ..................................................................... 11 3.0 Other Studies and Projects Relevant to the Study Area ............................................................. 12 3.1 Past Studies ................................................................................................................................. 12 3.2 Current Projects .......................................................................................................................... 16 4.0 Project Understanding ................................................................................................................ 20 4.1 Study Outcomes ......................................................................................................................... 20 Maintain On-Time Performance and Hold Freights Whole ........................................................ 21 Allow for Freight and Passenger Rail Growth ............................................................................. 21 Conceptual Engineering Completed on Agreed-To Capacity Improvements ............................. 22 4.2 Project-Specific Agreements ...................................................................................................... 22 4.3 General Rail Operations .............................................................................................................. 24 Facilities and Track Ownership ................................................................................................... 24 i Through Movements .................................................................................................................. 27 Yard Operations and Interchange ............................................................................................... 28 Train Volumes ............................................................................................................................. 32 4.4 Physical Constraints .................................................................................................................... 37 Drainage/Stormwater ................................................................................................................. 37 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 41 Geotechnical ............................................................................................................................... 44 Environmental ............................................................................................................................ 47 Right-of-Way ............................................................................................................................... 49 5.0 Study Requirements and Assumptions ....................................................................................... 50 5.1 Study Requirements ................................................................................................................... 50 Accommodate Freight and Passenger Trains ............................................................................. 50 Mitigate Excessive Mainline Occupancy ..................................................................................... 50 Provide Multiple Rerouting Opportunities ................................................................................. 50 5.2 Study Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 50 General Operating Assumptions................................................................................................. 50 General Routing Assumptions .................................................................................................... 51 Signaling Assumptions ................................................................................................................ 51 Freight Traffic Volumes Existing and Growth Over Time ........................................................... 52 Passenger Volumes - Existing and Growth over Time ................................................................ 53 6.0 Concept Development ................................................................................................................ 53 6.1 Infrastructure Options/Potential Improvements ....................................................................... 53 Scheduling/Dispatching .............................................................................................................. 53 Train Routing .............................................................................................................................. 54 Lower Cost Capital Improvements ............................................................................................. 55 Higher Cost Capital Improvements ............................................................................................. 55 6.2 Options Considered for Further Study ....................................................................................... 55 OPTION 1.5: Northern Upgrades ................................................................................................ 55 ii OPTION 2.0 River Route along BNSF Mainline / OPTION 3.0 Highway 61 Route along CP Mainline ...................................................................................................................................... 64 OPTION 4.0/OPTION 5.0 St Croix – Hastings Improvements ...................................................... 72 6.3 Operations Analysis .................................................................................................................... 79 Model Input ................................................................................................................................ 79 Model Layout and Analysis Scenarios ........................................................................................ 81 Network Configurations and Performance Measures ................................................................ 84 Analysis Results and Stakeholder Input ...................................................................................... 85 Follow-Up Analyses..................................................................................................................... 88 Results Summary ........................................................................................................................ 89 Growth Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 95 6.4 Role of Stakeholders in Concept Development .......................................................................... 99 7.0 Concept Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 99 7.1 Conceptual Engineering .............................................................................................................. 99 7.2 Cost Estimates .......................................................................................................................... 103 7.3 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 105 7.4 Ranking of Improvements .......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Atlantic City Line Master File
    Purchasing Tickets Ticket Prices know before you go Station location and parking information can be found at njtransit.com tickets your way how much depends on how frequently & how far Accessible Station Bus Route Community Shuttle Travel Information Before starting your trip, Ticket Vending Machines are available at all stations. visit njtransit.com for updated service information LINE Weekend, Holiday and access to DepartureVision which provides your train on-board trains track and status. You can also sign up for free My Transit Train personnel can accept cash avoid Atlantic City Philadelphia and Special Service alerts to receive up-to-the-moment delay information only (no bills over $20). All tickets the $5 on your cell phone or web-enabled mobile device, or purchased on-board trains (except one-way one-way weekly monthly one-way one-way weekly monthly those purchased by senior citizens surcharge STATIONS reduced reduced Philadelphia Information via email. To learn about other methods we use to International PHILADELPHIA communicate with you, visit njtransit.com/InTheKnow. and passengers with disabilities) are buy before Atlantic City … … … … $10.75 4.90 94.50 310.00 30TH STREET STATION subject to an additional $5 charge. Airport you board Absecon $1.50 $0.75 $13.50 $44.00 10.25 4.65 86.00 282.00 414, 417, 555 Please note the following: Personal Items Keep aisleways clear of Please buy your ticket(s) before tic City ANTIC CITY obstructions at all times. Store larger items in boarding the train to save $5. There is Egg Harbor City 3.50 1.60 30.00 97.00 10.25 4.65 86.00 282.00 L the overhead racks or under the seats.
    [Show full text]
  • At Tonight's Open House, the GCL Project Team Will Update You on The
    Welcome At tonight’s open house, the GCL Project Team will update you on the work completed to date and where we are in the environmental review process. This is a great opportunity to ask questions: • What is the project? • What phase is the project in now? • What work have we completed? • What comes next? • How can I be involved? Learn more about the project by interacting with the Project Team and viewing the numerous information boards that are on hand. Project Purpose & Goals The purpose of the GCL is to improve transit service along the Glassboro to Camden corridor in Southern New Jersey, with a focus on increasing mobility and improving links between established communities and activity centers. GCL Goals Goal 1: Provide More Transit Choices and Improved Quality of Service Goal 2: Develop a Transit Network that Improves Links between People and Activity Centers Goal 3: Reduce Highway Congestion with Competitive Transit Investments Goal 4: Maximize Existing Transportation Assets and Minimize Impacts to the Environment Goal 5: Support State and Local Planned Growth Initiatives Goal 6: Promote Economic Development and Improve Quality of Life Moorestown ¨¦§676 !( Line City Atlantic NJT 15-16th & Locust 8th & Market !( !( 12-13th!( & Locust City Hall 9-10th & Locust !( ¤£130 !.!( NJT River Line The GCL Corridor Walter Rand Transportation Center !. Cooper - Campbell §295 Camden ¨¦ Philadelphia !. !( Ferry Ave ¨¦§76 South Camden PATCO Collingswood • 18-mile corridor along existing How much will the GCL cost and !( UV70 how many people will use it? !( Westmont ¤£30 Haddon Cherry Hill Township Conrail freight ROW Haddonfield The 2009 Alternatives-Analysis ¨¦§95 !( ¨¦§76 Gloucester City !.
    [Show full text]
  • Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options
    Advocacy Sustainability Partnerships Fort Washington Office Park Transportation Demand Management Plan Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options Prepared by GVF GVF July 2017 Contents Executive Summary and Key Findings ........................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 ArcMap Geocoding and Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 6 Travel Times Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 7 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Employee Commuter Survey Results ................................................................................................ 7 2. Office Park Companies Outreach Results ......................................................................................... 7 3. Office Park
    [Show full text]
  • Metrorail/Coconut Grove Connection Study Phase II Technical
    METRORAILICOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 & TECHNICAL DATA DEVELOPMENT Technical Memorandum Number 3 Prepared for Prepared by IIStB Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 METRORAIUCOCONUT GROVE CONNECTION STUDY DRAFT BACKGROUND RESEARCH Technical Memorandum Number 2 Prepared for Prepared by BS'R Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126 December 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 STUDY DESCRiPTION ........................................................................................ 1 3.0 TRANSIT MODES DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 4 3.1 ENHANCED BUS SERViCES ................................................................... 4 3.2 BUS RAPID TRANSIT .............................................................................. 5 3.3 TROLLEY BUS SERVICES ...................................................................... 6 3.4 SUSPENDED/CABLEWAY TRANSIT ...................................................... 7 3.5 AUTOMATED GUIDEWAY TRANSiT ....................................................... 7 3.6 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT .............................................................................. 8 3.7 HEAVY RAIL ............................................................................................. 8 3.8 MONORAIL
    [Show full text]
  • May 22, 2017 Volume 37
    MAY 22, 2017 ■■■■■■■■■■■ VOLUME 37 ■■■■■■■■■■ NUMBER 5 A Club in Transition 3 The Semaphore David N. Clinton, Editor-in-Chief CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Southeastern Massachusetts…………………. Paul Cutler, Jr. “The Operator”………………………………… Paul Cutler III Cape Cod News………………………………….Skip Burton Boston Globe Reporter………………………. Brendan Sheehan Boston Herald Reporter……………………… Jim South Wall Street Journal Reporter....………………. Paul Bonanno, Jack Foley Rhode Island News…………………………… Tony Donatelli Empire State News…………………………… Dick Kozlowski Amtrak News……………………………. .. Rick Sutton, Russell Buck “The Chief’s Corner”……………………… . Fred Lockhart PRODUCTION STAFF Publication………………………………… ….. Al Taylor Al Munn Jim Ferris Web Page …………………..…………………… Savery Moore Club Photographer……………………………….Joe Dumas The Semaphore is the monthly (except July) newsletter of the South Shore Model Railway Club & Museum (SSMRC) and any opinions found herein are those of the authors thereof and of the Editors and do not necessarily reflect any policies of this organization. The SSMRC, as a non-profit organization, does not endorse any position. Your comments are welcome! Please address all correspondence regarding this publication to: The Semaphore, 11 Hancock Rd., Hingham, MA 02043. ©2017 E-mail: [email protected] Club phone: 781-740-2000. Web page: www.ssmrc.org VOLUME 37 ■■■■■ NUMBER 5 ■■■■■ MAY 2017 CLUB OFFICERS BILL OF LADING President………………….Jack Foley Vice-President…….. …..Dan Peterson Chief’s Corner ...... …….….4 Treasurer………………....Will Baker A Club in Transition….…..13 Secretary……………….....Dave Clinton Contests ................ ………..4 Chief Engineer……….. .Fred Lockhart Directors……………… ...Bill Garvey (’18) Clinic……………..….…….7 ……………………….. .Bryan Miller (‘18) ……………………… ….Roger St. Peter (’17) Editor’s Notes. ….…....… .13 …………………………...Rick Sutton (‘17) Form 19 Orders .... ………..4 Members .............. ….…....14 Memories ............. .………..5 Potpourri .............. ..……….7 ON THE COVER: The first 25% of our building was Running Extra .....
    [Show full text]
  • Your Ticket Andy Gitzla! of Washington County 651-430-4338 Or by E-Mail to the Southeast Metro [email protected] Planning Future Stations
    RED ROCK PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE CORRIDOR The Red Rock Corridor has seen population growth at a rate more than twice the state’s average. In the next 20 years, the southeast suburbs of the COMMISSION metropolitan area are projected to add more than 100,000 new residents. is a Joint Powers Commission of the following county rail PART OF A SYSTEM The Red Rock Corridor connects the southeastern suburbs with the entire authorities, corridor communities Twin Cities metro. Originating in Hastings, the corridor spans through and stakeholders: downtown St. Paul and on to downtown Minneapolis. Dakota County With a stop at the Union Depot in St. Paul, the Red Rock Corridor will seamlessly connect with Metro Transit buses, taxis, intercity buses, Central Hennepin County Corridor LRT, high-speed passenger rail from Chicago, Amtrak’s Empire Ramsey County Builder and future connections to both the Gateway and Rush Line Corridors. At the Minneapolis Interchange Station, Red Rock will connect Washington County to buses, taxis, Southwest LRT, Hiawatha LRT, Northstar commuter rail and Goodhue County* other planned future transitways. Newport St. Paul Park Minneapolis Hastings CP Railway* 3-FOR-1 Cottage Grove INVESTMENT The proposed high-speed rail line St. Paul connecting the Twin Cities to Chicago Denmark Twp. will share tracks with the Red Rock Corridor. Improvements to track Red Wing* 1 FREIGHT capacity and safety upgrades, including Prairie Island Indian Community* 2 lights, crossing gates, and additional COMMUTER RAIL tracks for a 3-for-1 investment in the corridor. *Non-voting members 3 HIGH-SPEED RAIL WWW.REDROCKRAIL.ORG Contact: Your Ticket Andy Gitzla! of Washington County 651-430-4338 or by e-mail to the Southeast Metro [email protected] Planning future stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee
    Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee September 26, 2016 The Goal . Implementation Plan that Outlines: . Detailed technical elements . Service plan, stations, vehicles, etc. Station area plans . Schedule and costs of staged investments . Partner responsibilities through 2040 . Stakeholder buy-in and detailed resolutions of support 2 Implementation Plan – Committee Structure TAC B-CAC RRCC Technical Business and Red Rock Advisory Civic Advisory Corridor Committee Committee Commission Staff from MnDOT, the Staff and leaders from Staff and elected officials Metropolitan Council, Metro businesses and civic from the cities and counties Transit, and the cities and organizations along the along the corridor counties along the corridor corridor 3 Bus Rapid Transit Alignment 4 Potential BRT Phases . Frequency: 15 minutes (30 minutes 7pm-12am) . Span: 5am-12am . BRT station amenities . Potential Phases: 1. To Cottage Grove w/o Gateway Stations 2. Add Gateway Stations 3. To Hastings Depot 4. Add last two Hastings Stations Evaluation of BRT Phases Ridership In-Service Daily PPISH Year PPISH* Increase Hours Boardings Target Needed BRT Phase 1 2024 92 1,070 12 114% ≥25 (To Cottage Grove) 2040 92 1,240 14 85% BRT Phase 2 2024 96 1,550 16 55% (add Gateway ≥25 Stations) 2040 96 1,800 19 33% BRT Phase 3 2040 114 2,000 18 ≥25 43% (to Hastings) BRT Phase 4 (final 2040 135 2,200 16 ≥25 54% Hastings stations) Red Line 2040 73 4,700 65 ≥25 ----- *Passengers per In-Service Hour = daily boardings divided by in-service hours 6 Ridership Increase Needed to Meet Regional Target . BRT Phase 2 (to Cottage Grove with Gateway Stations) is the best performing option in 2040 .
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study (Started in January 2000) That Would Evaluate the Constraints and Opportunities of Operating Commuter Rail Service in the Red Rock Corridor
    Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary. E-1 1.0 Introduction . 1-1 1.1 Description of Red Rock Corridor . 1-1 1.2 Management . 1-2 1.3 Study Overview. 1-3 2.0 Public Involvement Program . 2-1 2.1 TAC and RRCC Meetings . 2-1 2.2 Open Houses. 2-1 2.3 Land Use Forum . 2-1 2.4 Station Area Planning Workshops . 2-2 2.5 Newsletters. 2-2 2.6 Web Site . 2-2 3.0 Purpose and Need . 3-1 3.1 Corridor Characteristics and Trends . 3-1 3.2 Project Need . 3-1 3.3 Goals, Objectives, and Criteria. 3-3 4.0 Alternatives Analysis . 4-1 4.1 Screening of Technology Options . 4-1 4.2 Summary of New FTA Rules for Major Capital Investments . 4-6 4.3 Definition of A Baseline Alternative . 4-8 4.4 Definition of a Build Alternative . 4-9 4.5 Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Applications . 4-9 5.0 Station Area Planning . 5-1 5.1 Land Use Forum . 5-1 5.2 Station Area Planning Workshops . 5-2 6.0 Commuter Rail Service Plan . 6-1 6.1 Overview . 6-1 6.2 Initial Train Schedule Timetable . 6-4 6.3 Demand Forecast . 6-5 6.4 Rolling Stock . 6-6 6.5 Maintenance and Layover Facilities . 6-7 6.6 Capacity Improvements . 6-7 7.0 Financial Analysis . 7-1 7.1 Capital Costs . 7-1 7.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs . 7-3 7.3 Comparison to Other Rail Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Commuter Rail
    Photo E-2. Snelling CP Site; small park and unimproved area; looking east. Photo E-3. Snelling CP Site; view from Selby Avenue; looking south. Photo F-1. Snelling BNSF Site; terminus of Norris Circle; looking east. Photo F-2. Snelling BNSF Site; commercial parking lot; looking west. Photo F-3. Snelling BNSF Site; commercial parking lot; looking east. Photo G-1. University Site; appear to be grain elevators; looking northeast. Photo G-2. University Site; railroad right-of-way and unimproved area; looking northwest. Photo G-3. University Site; gravel access road and unimproved area; looking east. APPENDIX B Downtown Minneapolis Intermodal Station (Northstar Corridor) APPENDIX C Technology Options and Screening Criteria Detailed Technology Screening – BUS RAPID TRANSIT Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) combines the quality of rail transit and the flexibility of buses. It can operate on exclusive transitways, HOV lanes, expressways, or ordinary streets. The BRT system is based on light rail transit principles, but instead of the required capital investment in trains and track, it utilizes buses in service that is integrated with key components of the existing automobile transportation infrastructure, such as roads, rights-of-way, intersections, and traffic signals. Example Systems: Las Vegas, NV; Orlando, FL; Los Angeles, CA • Fully implemented systems are in existence in many • Metro Transit operates express service from US and International Cities. Cottage Grove to downtown St. Paul and Minneapolis. • Can be run on existing/planned Hwy 61 infrastructure. • Average costs per mile = $13.5 million (Dedicated bus • BRT stops and typical frequency of service is roadway) consistent with travel patterns in the Red Rock • Average costs per mile = $9 million (bus on HOV lane) Corridor.
    [Show full text]
  • November 15, 2017 the Honorable Paul
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp November 15, 2017 The Honorable Paul Torkelson, Chair The Honorable Scott Newman, Chair House Transportation Finance Committee Senate Transportation Finance & Policy Committee 381 State Office Building 3105 Minnesota Senate Building Saint Paul, MN 55155 Saint Paul, MN 55155 The Honorable Linda Runbeck, Chair The Honorable Scott Dibble House Transportation & Regional Governance Policy Ranking Minority Member Committee Senate Transportation Finance & Policy Committee 417 State Office Building 2213 Minnesota Senate Building Saint Paul, MN 55155 Saint Paul, MN 55155 The Honorable Frank Hornstein, DFL Lead The Honorable Connie Bernardy, DFL Lead House Transportation Policy & Finance Committee House Transportation & Regional Governance Policy 243 State Office Building Committee Saint Paul, MN 55155 253 State Office Building Saint Paul, MN 55155 RE: 2017 Guideway Status report Dear Legislators: The Minnesota Department of Transportation, in collaboration with the Metropolitan Council, is pleased to provide the 2017 Guideway Status report as required under 2016 Minnesota Statutes 174.93, subdivision 2. This report updates information for eight guideway corridors currently in operation, construction or design, and thirteen more that are in planning or analysis phase, or that were at the time of the last report in 2015. The capacity analysis looks at regional guideway funding needs and resources related to capital, operations and capital maintenance for the next ten years. If you have specific questions about this report or want additional information, please contact MnDOT’s Brian Isaacson at [email protected] or at 651 234-7783; or, you can contact Met Council’s Cole Hiniker at [email protected] or at 651 602-1748.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D – Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives
    Appendix D – Engineering Assessment of the Potential Passenger Rail Alternatives: By Route Engineering Assessment for Route 1 ROUTE 1 Introduction Route 1 begins in Milwaukee and utilizes track owned by Canadian Pacific through Watertown and Portage. It continues to use Canadian Pacific through Camp Douglas and La Crosse to Winona and Hastings. Between Hastings and St. Paul Union Depot the route uses track owned by Canadian Pacific, BNSF, St. Paul Union Depot Co., and Union Pacific. Between St. Paul Union Depot and Minneapolis Transportation Interchange, the route uses track owned by St. Paul Union Depot Co., BNSF, Union Pacific, Minnesota Commercial, and Canadian Pacific railroads. See the figure below for a graphical depiction of Route 1. Each of the routes considered consists of several route segments. Within those route segments are track sub-segments. The information in this report is presented by track sub-segment. The table below depicts the segments and sub-segments that comprise Route 1. 2011 ©Quandel Consultants, LLC Route 1 - Page 1 Engineering Assessment for Route 1 Segment Segment Endpoints Sub-Segment Sub-Segment Endpoints Milwaukee-Grand Avenue Milwaukee-Grand Avenue A 1 Junction Junction Grand Avenue Junction- B Wauwatosa Grand Avenue Junction- 2 Watertown C Wauwatosa-Watertown E Watertown-Portage 36 Watertown-Portage K Portage-Camp Douglas 11 Portage-Camp Douglas N Camp Douglas-Sparta 16 Camp Douglas-La Crosse O Sparta-La Crosse R La Crosse-Winona 21 La Crosse-Winona S Winona-Red Wing 24 Winona-Hastings V Red Wing-Hastings 28 Hastings-Hoffman Avenue AA Hastings-St. Paul Junction 29 Hoffman Avenue-Division Street 34 Division Street-St.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives Analysis Final Report
    Alternatives Analysis Final Report Prepared for the Gateway Corridor Commission By February 2013 This page intentionally left blank. Funding Partners This Alternatives Analysis Study was supported by funds from the Regional Railroad Authorities of Washington and Ramsey Counties (WCRRA and RCRRA, respectively), the Metropolitan Council, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Counties Transit Improvement Board. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 2013 FUNDING PARTNERS PAGE III This page intentionally left blank. FEBRUARY 2013 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT PAGE IV FUNDING PARTNERS Acknowledgements Gateway Corridor Commission Mike Huggins, City of Eau Claire, WI Lisa Weik, Chair; WCRRA (alternate) Dean Johnston, Vice-Chair; City of Lake Dean Johnston, City of Lake Elmo Elmo Gary Kriesel, Washington County Rafael Ortega, RCRRA Brian Lamb, Metro Transit Randy Nelson, City of Afton Peg Larsen, City of Lakeland (alternate) Brian Zeller, City of Lakeland Scott McBride, Minnesota DOT Will Rossbach, City of Maplewood Arlene McCarthy, Metropolitan Council Paul Reinke, City of Oakdale (alternate) Kathy Lantry, City of St. Paul Tom McCarty, Eau Claire County, WI Dan Kyllo, West Lakeland Township (alternate) Mary Giuliani-Stephens, City of Harry Melander, Metropolitan Council Woodbury Randy Nelson, City of Afton Ex-Officio Members: 3M, Baytown Rafael Ortega, Ramsey County Township, Oakdale Business and Jackie Pavelski, City of Eau Claire, WI Professional Association, St. Paul Area Lowell Prange, City of Menomonie, WI Chamber of Commerce, Wisconsin Tim Ramberg, St. Croix County, WI Gateway Corridor Coalition, Woodbury Steve Rasmussen, Dunn County, WI Chamber of Commerce (alternate) Paul Reinke, City of Oakdale Regional Railroad Authorities Will Rossbach, City of Maplewood Andy Gitzlaff, Washington County Carmen Sarrack, City of Oakdale Lyssa Leitner, Washington County (alternate) Ted Schoenecker, Washington County Ann Schell, W.
    [Show full text]