4.0 Proposed Freight Rail Improvements and Investments (PDF)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
4.0 PROPOSED FREIGHT RAIL IMPROVEMENTS AND INVESTMENTS As noted in CHAPTER 3, the 2010 rail plan included a needs analysis for all freight and potential passenger rail corridors in Minnesota. This process was developed in a manner that allowed for a clear understanding of rail system needs for both current and future (2030) freight and passenger operations. A full needs analysis was not undertaken for the 2015 Minnesota State Rail Plan. Instead, projects identified on freight-only corridors in 2010 were brought forward as a basis for the update, and were complemented with crossing safety improvements and a qualitative description of capacity improvements in the past five years. The latter category incorporates projects recently identified in the 2014 Grade Crossing Safety Report compiled by MnDOT. For the most part, cost estimates presented in this document are general in nature, are reflected in original 2010 dollars and are not detailed engineering cost estimates. Although some corridors provide connections to points beyond the state border, this evaluation only reflects costs for work within Minnesota.60 More detailed information about the cost evaluation can be found in Appendix C, which also contains the detailed project list. This section is organized around previously identified capacity improvements on freight corridors—track, signal and bridge; weight, speed and track restrictions; and other major Class I improvments, followed by discussions of other potential investment areas including major capacity improvements, intermodal service expansion, positive train control, rail service relocation, and hazardous materials. Lastly, grade crossing safety needs across key crude oil corridors are specified. Overall rail needs and improvements are organized by freight rail operator and then by subdivision. The investments are summarized in Table 4.1. Table 4.1: Summary of Freight Investments for 2030 NEED COST TO UPGRADE (MILLIONS) TRACK, SIGNAL, BRIDGE BNSF $68.0 CN $68.0 CP $331.8 UP $35.4 OTHER MAJOR CLASS I IMPROVEMENTS Bottlenecks (incl. in passenger line costs) – Bridges (incl. in passenger line costs, except for $51.0 Roberts Street Bridge) Intermodal Facilities $150.0 WEIGHT, SPEED AND TRACK RESTRICTIONS 286,000 Pound Upgrades $548.0 60 The one exception is the Eau Claire to Twin Cities corridor, which is predominantly in Wisconsin. Including only Minnesota costs and benefits would have been meaningless. MINNESOTA GO STATE RAIL PLAN Draft Plan PAGE 4-1 NEED COST TO UPGRADE (MILLIONS) Bridge and speed restrictions $13.0 FRA Class II to I Upgrades (less 286,000 overlap) $244.0 GRADE CROSSINGS Active Warning Devices (1,400) $280.0 Cost of Upgrades $50.0 10% Engineering/30% Contingency $132.0 Total Cost (shown in 2010 dollars) $462.0 Capacity Needs Capacity needs for all four Class I railroads are summarized by subdivision in Table 4.2. An overview of issues surrounding each operators freight-related capacity needs are discussed below. BNSF BNSF is among the most aggressive Class I railroads in reinvesting in its network in the past several years. This is largely in response to unprecedented demand for rail services across the United States. While Bakken oil shale– related growth in the northern tier receives a lot of publicity, BNSF saw growth across nearly all service areas. The need for capacity expansion led to an annual capital investment programs in excess of $5 billion in recent years, and $6 billion in 2015. In Minnesota, increased Bakken oil shipments and record agriculture harvests put a heavy strain on several of BNSF’s primary main lines since 2010, specifically on the Staples Subdivision from Dilworth to St. Paul and the St. Croix Subdivision from St. Paul to La Crosse, Wisc. Improvements throughout both subdivisions are necessary to avoid ongoing traffic congestion. BNSF has announced plans to invest in safety improvements and add a second mainline track in portions of both subdivisions in the near future. Increasing crop yields and recent record harvests compounded the impact of Bakken-related traffic. These impacts strained BNSF’s network across many regions of Minnesota. As described in the 2010 State Rail Plan, improvements are recommended for the Marshall Subdivision. The Wayzata, Morris and Brainerd subdivisions also are recommended for investment based on congestion and current weight restrictions. Originally the Great Northern mainline between St. Paul and Minneapolis, the BNSF line—now known as the “south main”—is a high-speed alignment historically allowing 70 mph service over the majority of the route. Double track is still in place from the Hoffman Junction wye to St. Anthony Junction, where it joins CP and Minnesota Commercial. The line is grade separated for the majority of its length. From St. Anthony Junction to Minnesota Junction, the line MINNESOTA GO STATE RAIL PLAN Draft Plan PAGE 4-2 involves multiple interlockings and single track, an area requiring significant upgrades. The right of way and bridges are sufficient to allow all needed expansion.61 The CP line is single tracked for its entire length, but originally was double tracked and capable of 50 mph speeds over the majority of the route. The right of way and all overpasses are still sufficient for relaying double track, with the exception of two single track rail bridges over Snelling and Prior Avenues. The City of St. Paul is attempting to condemn part of the right of way for trail use, which would severely damage the ability to restore the speed and capacity of this route. The Minnesota Commercial portion of the route contains two sharp 7-degree curves, one of which can be eased completely in Commercial’s “A” yard, and one that could be moderately eased just north of Prior Avenue. As noted with the BNSF route, the track from St. Anthony Junction to Minneapolis Junction will need double tracking and upgrades. While much of the line is grade-separated, there are six at-grade crossings on the CP segment in St. Paul that will require upgrading. Freight improvements are noted within this corridor, with most investment going towards St. Anthony and Minneapolis Junction upgrades for both BNSF and CP railways. CANADIAN NATIONAL The CN’s Minnesota network is concentrated primarily in the northeast between Duluth and International Falls, with some segments in the Twin Cities area and near the Iowa border, plus a transcontinental line in the far northern part of the state. Three freight-only corridors demonstrate an immediate need for improvement, two in the Duluth region and one east of the Twin Cities. The Rainy Subdivision, which connects Duluth to International Falls and Ontario, shows an elevated volume-to-capacity ratio, due primarily to lack of modern signalization. Additionally, both the Dresser and Osage subdivisions have weight restrictions that necessitate investment. At present, CN is investing in its freight capacity between Duluth and International Falls. CANADIAN PACIFIC The CP’s rail operations generally run southeast to northwest across the state, with Minnesota acting as a linchpin between CP’s major operations on Canada’s west coast and its operations in the Midwest and Montreal. In fact, a CP train could enter the far southeastern tip of the state near Minnesota Slough on the Marquette Subdivision, which is owned by a CP-affiliated railroad, and exit into Canada at Noyes in the far northwest. The Bass Lake Spur Subdivision between Minneapolis and Hopkins is proposed to be modified and improved with the construction of the METRO Green Line Extension Project. Several new bridges and new mainline track are proposed to be constructed on the Bass Lake Spur and the tracks where Twin Cities & Western Railroad operates in Minneapolis. This infrastructure will be financed by METRO Green Line Extension Project monies. Due to the Bakken oil boom and record crop yields, the Paynesville Subdivision between Glenwood and Minneapolis saw increased traffic and requires safety and capacity improvements. CP plans to upgrade track in the Paynesville Subdivision. 61 In January 2015, BNSF announced a capacity expansion project between Minneapolis Junction and the St. Paul intermodal yard that entails installation of second main track and reconfiguration of several interlockings along most of this route. Work on these improvements is anticipated to be substantially completed in 2015. MINNESOTA GO STATE RAIL PLAN Draft Plan PAGE 4-3 Five CP subdivisions demonstrated a need for investment in the 2010 State Rail Plan. The two corridors demanding immediate needs, Bemidji and MN&S, had improvements since 2010 and additional improvements are planned. UNION PACIFIC In Minnesota, UP’s service is concentrated in the state’s south, with connections to Iowa, Nebraska, Chicago and points beyond. UP also has invested heavily in its eastern connection to Chicago through Wisconsin. Four UP subdivisions demonstrate a need for immediate improvement and all four lines are lightly used collection/distribution routes where various restrictions are found. The Hartland, Montgomery, Rake and Winona subdivisions share many similarities. All are short in length, ranging from the 1.8-mile Winona Subdivision to the 21-mile Montgomery Subdivision, and all are used as branch lines. Table 4.2: Twin Cities Core Freight Totals NEEDS COST TO UPGRADE ( MILLIONS) BNSF Browns Valley $54.6 KO $0.5 Marshall $6.2 P-Line $1.0 St. Croix $1.4 St. Paul $4.2 Cost of BNSF Freight Upgrades $67.9 CN Dresser $13.1 Osage $20.6 Rainy $34.0 Cost of CN Freight Upgrades $67.7 CP Bemidji $29.6 Detroit Lakes $84.0 Elbow Lake $38.5 MN&S $24.4 Noyes $28.2 Paynesville $48.2 DM&E Waseca $77.5 ICE Owatonna $1.4 Cost of CP Freight Upgraes $331.8 UP Hartland $18.7 MINNESOTA GO STATE RAIL PLAN Draft Plan PAGE 4-4 NEEDS COST TO UPGRADE ( MILLIONS) Montgomery $10.4 Rake $4.1 Winona $2.2 Total UP Freight Upgrades $35.4 TOTAL FREIGHT UPGRADE COSTS (IN 2010 $502.8 DOLLARS) Crossing Safety Improvements In December 2014, MnDOT released a Grade Crossing Safety Report that identifies sites where safety can be improved by reducing public exposure to derailments, spills and fires in areas with the highest risks for personal injury and property damage.