Appendix C-2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APPENDIX C-2 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................ 1-3 1.3 STUDY APPROACH ........................................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................ 1-5 2.1 STATION ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 ZONE SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................................. 2-5 2.3 RAIL SERVICE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 2-6 3.1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 ZONE DEFINITION............................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.3 SOCIOECONOMIC BASELINE AND PROJECTIONS .................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 EXISTING TRAVEL MARKETS .............................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.5 ORIGIN-DESTINATION TRIP INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 3-6 4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE COMPASS™ MODEL .................................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 FUTURE TRAVEL MARKET STRATEGIES ................................................................................................................ 4-3 4.4 RIDERSHIP AND REVENUE FORECAST RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT ROUTES .................................................................... 4-5 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 ROUTE 9 CAPITAL COST EVALUATION ................................................................................................................. 5-4 5.3 ROUTE 11 CAPITAL COST EVALUATION ............................................................................................................... 5-6 5.4 OVERALL CAPITAL COSTS ................................................................................................................................ 5-10 6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 TRAIN SERVICE AND OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................... 6-2 6.3 TRAIN SCHEDULING AND FLEET REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................... 6-6 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page ii NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 7.1 MINNEAPOLIS-DULUTH/SUPERIOR CORRIDOR – VARIABLE OR DIRECT COSTS ........................................................... 7-2 7.2 MINNEAPOLIS-DULUTH/SUPERIOR CORRIDOR – ROUTE FIXED COSTS ...................................................................... 7-5 7.3 MINNEAPOLIS-DULUTH/SUPERIOR CORRIDOR – COST RESULTS .............................................................................. 7-9 7.4 VALIDATION OF COST RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 7-12 8.1 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 8-1 8.2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS ....................................................................................................................................... 8-2 8.3 ESTIMATE OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS .................................................................................................................... 8-3 8.4 BENEFITS TO USERS OF OTHER MODES ............................................................................................................... 8-6 8.5 TYPE OF COSTS ............................................................................................................................................... 8-7 8.6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 8-7 8.7 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 8-9 8.8 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... 8-11 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page iii NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 1-1 NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 1-2 NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 1-3 NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 1 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 1-4 NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) . 2 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 1-5 NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 414,036 222,254 Population 2004 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 2-1 NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 41,520 222,254 Population 2004 16,854 17,130 Cardigan Jct. White Bear Lake Population 2004 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 2-2 NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 24,253 9,458 NorthCardigan Branch Jct. CambridgeWhite Bear Lake Population 2004 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 2-3 NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) 4,031 9,458 Population 2004 Comparison of Station Area Populations Route 9 and Routes 11/11A (15 min drive time) Route 9 Route 11 Route 11A Minneapolis 677,005 Minneapolis 677,005 Minneapolis 677,005 Foley Blvd. 414,036 White Bear Lake 222,254 St. Paul 512,592 Cambridge 24,253 North Branch 9,458 White Bear Lake 222,254 – – North Branch 9,458 Totals 1,115,294 908,717 1,421,309 Prepared by Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. December 2010 | Page 2-4 NLX TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ROUTES 9, 11 AND 11A (LEVEL 2 ANALYSIS) White Bear Lake vs White Bear Lake vs Forest North Branch vs Rush City Cardigan Jct. Lake White Bear Lake is slightly White Bear Lake is larger North Branch larger within Population larger within 7 minutes within 15 minutes drive. 15 minutes drive. drive. Forest Lake has longer trip length but both more than 15 Rush City has longer trip Trip Length to St. Paul or White Bear Lake has longer miles to St. Paul and White length but both more than Minneapolis Trip length. Bear Lake is similar to Foley 40 miles and North Branch Blvd which is 12 miles to is similar to Cambridge. Minneapolis. Quality of Station Site Cardigan Jct. Problematic Both have good potential Both have good potential Both have good Both have Interstate Both have good north/south Interstate Highway access. Cardigan north/south Interstate Highway access - I 35. Jct has east/west access in Highway access - I 35. White Bear Lake also has Access to Highways I 694, White Bear Lake has North Branch also has good east/west access in good north/south access good east/west access in Route 96 to West Ramsey in I 35E. Route 95 to Cambridge. County. Foley Blvd is 12 miles from Cambridge is 45 miles Cardigan Jct only 8 miles Minneapolis which is from Minneapolis which is from St. Paul, White Bear Compatibility with Route comparable with White comparable with North Lake is 12 miles from St. Bear Lake at 15 miles to St. Branch at 42 miles