MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL EN BANC MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 
	AND COUNTY COMMISSION



				Wichita, Kansas,  May 27, 1997

				        Tuesday, 10:08 a.m.

 

			The City Council and Sedgwick County Commission 
met in special en banc session with Council Members Cole, Ferris, Kamen, Lambke, 
Rogers, and Mayor Knight; present.  County Commissioners Gwin, Hancock, 
Schroeder, and Chairman Winters; present.  County Commissioner Miller absent.

	



	SELECTION OF CHAIR PERSON



	Mayor Knight asked that Chairman Winters chair the en banc 
session.  




	WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY RAILROAD BYPASS ALTERNATIVES.

	

	The purpose of the joint meeting between the Wichita City 
Council and the Sedgwick County Commission is to discuss possible options for 
dealing with increased train traffic in the Wichita metropolitan area.  
Preliminary findings from the Railroad Alternative Analysis Study will be 
presented.  The phase of the study presented focuses on by-pass options around 
the community.



Bill Stockwell	City of Wichita Chief Planner reviewed the Railroad Study.



	The Study, performed by Howard, Needles, Tammen and 
Bergendorf (HNTB), was an outgrowth of a meeting which was convened on March 25, 
1997, in Topeka, Kansas, by Governor Graves.  Others attending the meeting were 
Sedgwick County Commission Chairman Winters, Lieutenant Governor Shearer, Chief 
Executive Officer of the Union Pacific Railroad Richard Davidson, and Mayor Bob 
Knight.



	The Surface Transportation Board has decided that the Board 
will not study new construction involving bypasses.  The only thing the Board has 
looked at has been bypasses that involve trackage rights (opportunities for the 
Union Pacific Railroad to run on the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks through 
the Flint Hills, or other alternatives such as that).  The Board will not look at 
anything that involves new construction.  An important part of what to do about 
the rail traffic has been omitted from the Surface Transportation Board's study.



	There is a companion study going forward, being done by a 
different set of consultants out of Washington, D.C., hired by the Surface 
Transportation Board and paid for by the Union Pacific Railroad, which studies 
all aspects of how to mitigate the environmental damage done by the proposed 
merger's (Union Pacific and Southern Pacific) new trains that will run through 
this area.



	One of the purposes of the Railroad Alternative Analysis 
Study was to have the results and cost estimates ready for comparison of the 
costs of a by-pass to the costs to mitigate the problems of increased U.P. 
Railroad traffic through the center part of the City.



	The Surface Transportation Board Study figures will be ready 
by July, and the Railroad Alternative Analysis Study must be completed by near 
the same time in order that the cost estimates can be considered in the final 
report compiled by staff of the Surface Transportation Board.



	Phase I of the HNTB Railroad Alternative Analysis Study was 
to look at all feasible alternatives on the east side and west sides.  Phase II 
is to be the continuation of the study once the alternatives have been narrowed 
to just two alternatives.



Tom Skinner	Vice president of HNTB presented the alternatives, advantages, and disadvantages 
from the Railroad Alternative Analysis Study.






	The following was the general criteria which was met in the 
examination of four by-passes on the west side and five by-passes on the east 
side of Wichita:

	

	1.	Stay away from existing development and other obstacles 
such as television 	station antennas, if possible.



	2.	Utilize, where possible, existing railroad corridors.



	3.	Utilize, where possible, other existing corridors such 
as high-voltage power 	lines.



	4.	Minimize the length of the corridor (minimizing 
construction, maintenance, 	and operating costs).



	5.	Try to provide for 150 feet of right-of-way to allow 
for high-tonnage 	double-track trains all along the by-pass.



	6.	Curves with a minimum radius of 5,730 feet.



	7.	Slope of .6 percent (for every 100 feet of horizontal 
travel, elevation can 	be changed about seven inches).



	8.	Grade separations at all State, U.S., and Interstate 
Highways.



	9.	Grade crossing separations at all roads within the 
County where there are 	2,000 vehicles per day, or more.

	 

	10.	Railroad bridges at all rivers and major streams.



	The following alternatives were developed:



	1.	Alternative W-1:



	Begins in the northeast corner and runs north of Kechi and 
Park City, turns south and runs along the Big Ditch and ties in with the Union 
Pacific (U.P.) Railroad, continues south to a point in Mulvane where the 
Burlington and Santa Fe (B & S.F.) will continue to the southeast.



	This option has the advantage of trying to utilize an 
existing corridor but the Corps of Engineers has advised that there can be no 
construction upon the levee.  The Corps of Engineers has said they would 
"consider" building adjacent to the levee on new property parallel to the levee.



	The disadvantages are that there is a lot of fill area or 
borrow pits which were constructed to build the levee.  The borrow pits would 
have to be crossed and filled in.  There are also significant commercial and 
residential areas.  The intersection and grade separations at Zoo Boulevard and 
at Kellogg would also be difficult.



	The advantages are that the corridor does try to use 
existing Big Ditch area and right-of-way; requires the fewest possible grade 
crossings with other streets; gives the opportunity to eliminate some of the 
short lines from the northwest, west, and southeast; requires a minimum 
additional mileage of the western alternatives; and is located entirely within 
Sedgwick County.

		

	The estimated cost of Option W-1 is $202 million.



	2.	Alternative W-2:	

	

	Alternative W-2 starts at the same point north of Kechi and 
Park City and runs directly northwest to Maize, crosses K-96 and turns south, and 
exits at Mulvane.



	The advantages are that a minimum of additional right-of-way 
(of the western alternatives) is required and is located primarily in undeveloped 
agricultural ground; it is located entirely within Sedgwick County; the 
topography in the area is relatively flat; and it provides the opportunity to 
eliminate some of the short-line railroads.



	The disadvantages are that about 14 additional miles of 
railroad track will be required; it is located within the path of future 
development (especially Kechi and Park City if they grow to the north); it 
requires three major river crossings; and it requires 54 grade crossings. 



	The estimated cost of Option W-2 is $197 million.





	

	3.	Alternative W-3:



	Alternative W-3 moves the by-pass farther to the western 
side of Sedgwick County and is pulled to the north.  This alternative runs to the 
southwest, north of Colwich and between Andale, turns south and goes west of 
Goddard, and then southeast and exits at Mulvane.



	The advantages are that, primarily, Park City and Kechi are 
no longer bound from growth; it is located entirely within Sedgwick County; the 
topography in the area is, basically, fairly flat; grade separations and building 
the track would be easy to do; the area is mostly undeveloped; and it provides an 
opportunity to eliminate some of the short lines.



	The disadvantages are that this is the longest and most 
expensive of the alternatives; requires 21 additional miles of U.P. track, and 16 
additional miles of S.F. track; requires three major crossings of rivers; and it 
has about 60 grade crossings.



	The estimated cost of Option W-3 is $215 million.



	4.	Alternative W-4:



	Alternative W-4 goes to the north of Park City and Kechi; 
goes between Colwich and Maize; leaves the U.P. tracks and heads directly west; 
goes southwesterly and crosses K-96 north of Maize; runs east of Colwich south 
between Goddard and the growth of western Wichita; continues to the southeast and 
exits.



	The advantages are that this alternative is still located on 
mostly agricultural ground; is located entirely within Sedgwick County; the 
topography is level; and it provides a very good opportunity to eliminate some of 
the short-line tracks.



	The disadvantages are that 14 additional miles of track are 
required for the U.P. and 11 additional miles of track for the B.N.&S.F.; it is 
located somewhat in the path of future development of western Wichita; it 
requires three major river crossings; and it requires 55 grade crossings.



	The estimated cost of Option W-4 was not given.



	5.	Alternative E-1:



	Alternative E-1 crosses K-254 and goes through the east side 
of Wichita in a highly developed and planned area; continues south and ties back 
in to the B.N.&S.F.; crosses to the west and the U.P. exits to the south at 
Mulvane.



	The advantages to Alternative E-1 are that the cost is 
approximately $10 million less than the rest of the alternatives; requires a 
minimum additional trackage for the railroads; is located entirely within 
Sedgwick County; requires 32 grade crossings; and requires only one major river 
crossing.



	The disadvantages are that there is planned development area 
and is probably not a recommended plan; there are several displacements along 
Kellogg; and there would probably be significant community opposition. 



	The estimated cost of Option E-1 is $191 million.



	6.	Alternative E-2:



	Alternative E-2 begins farther east; heads southeast where 
the U.P. and the B.N.&S.F. would be on joint trackage; proceeds southeast across 
K-254 to a point east of Andover and west of Augusta; by-passes Rose Hill; and 
continues south.



	The advantages to Alternative E-2 are that most of the 
alignment is located on undeveloped land; by-passes the Rose Hill area; and 
requires only one major river crossing.



	The disadvantages are that the Butler County line is crossed 
which requires more coordination; requires two grade separations; it is located 
in the path of future development of Andover; and it requires 47 grade crossings.



	The estimated cost of Option E-2 is $196 million.






	7.	Alternative E-3:



	Alternative E-3 begins (for the B.N.&S.F.) close to Newton, 
goes down the east side of Newton; ties back in near Whitewater; and heads back 
along the same north-south corridor as Alternative E-2 and by-passes Rose Hill to 
the south.



	The advantages to Alternative E-3 are that it is located 
primarily on undeveloped agricultural land; by-passes Rose Hill; and it uses 
about 10 miles of abandoned railroad track between Newton and Whitewater.



	The disadvantages are that the Butler and Harvey County 
lines are crossed; two major grade crossings; it is the longest of the 
alternatives; and it requires 61 grade crossings.



	The estimated cost of Option E-3 is $215 million.



	8.	Alternative E-4:



	Alternative E-4 begins with the B.N.&S.F. and runs north of 
Park City and Kechi; it then ties in with the U.P. and heads toward and ties into 
an existing B.N.&S.F. track; heads southeast, makes a loop, and runs along a 
transcontinental.



	The advantages to Alternative E-4 are that seven miles of 
existing track are used; it runs parallel to the existing B.N.&S.F. main line for 
about 12 miles; and it requires just one major river crossing.



	The disadvantages are that it is located partially in the 
adjacent county; passes through undeveloped areas north of Andover; passes 
through Rose Hill; requires 17 additional mile of track for the U.P. and about 16 
additional miles for the B.N. &S.F.; and it requires about 45 grade crossings.



	The estimated cost of Option E-4 is $179 million.



	9.	Alternative E-5:



	Alternative E-5 is similar to E-4.  Alternative E-5 begins 
north of Park City, heads southeast through the north side of Andover, heads 
directly south across the transcontinental, and then exits.  Instead of going 
farther, close to Augusta, the agricultural corridor is used and money is saved.



	The advantages and disadvantages of Alternative E-5 are 
nearly the same as for Alternative E-4 with the exception that Alternative E-5 
has a slightly lower cost.



	The estimated cost of Option E-5 is $167 million.



	Within the railroad structure, maintenance for trains run 
through the City is fairly economical because the trains are run at low speed 
with low impact.  When trains run outside the City, additional mileage is added 
to the tracks at high speed and maintenance and operating costs increase.  The 
only way maintenance and operating costs can be off set is with improved 
efficiency (higher speed and faster).  That trade-off is why a by-pass would be 
used.



	A decision needs to be made on which option is considered 
most viable.  When that decision is made, a train analysis will be run by 
actually putting the trains on the corridor to find out how operations are 
affected.  Operating costs and maintenance costs can then be determined in order 
to calculate a net loss or gain.



Bill Stockwell	Chief Planner, responding to questions, confirmed that the railroad does not have to 
use a selected alternative even if the alternative has been approved and built.  
The railroad has eminent domain on their tracks that run through the City and can 
use the tracks.  If the alternative is built and it turns out to be to their 
advantage to run on the alternative, the railroads certainly would do so.



	The through traffic lines, with longer trains, are the 
railroad money makers.  "My personal opinion, as an engineer, is that would be an 
advantage to them because speed is everything on the railroad."



	There are two phases of the Study.  Phase I is to look at an 
array of by-passes and, from that, to pick a viable alternative to do a more in-
depth study, to develop quantities, to put in a listing of grade separations and 
crossings.  Phase II compares Phase I findings to the central corridor 
improvements that may be required.






Tom Skinner	HNTB Consultant said that, regarding the final product in terms of cost estimates 
for the internal rail corridor, it should be remembered that the consultants to 
the Surface Transportation Board are going to come up with a minimal number of 
separations to be considered.  Whereas, HNTB has been told that what is wanted is 
the maximum number of separations which, at times, has been as many as ten 
separations (including one at Haysville).  Nine separations is a different cost 
of mitigating the environmental impact than looking at two or three separations 
which may be the result of the Surface Transportation Board (STB) Study.  It 
appears the STB may not likely come up with as many separations as HNTB.



Chairman Winters	Chairman Winters stated that a detailed comparison of the Central Corridor Study 
along with one or two of the by-pass options is needed.  



	This phase needs to move on rather swiftly so HNTB can catch 
up with the STB Central Corridor Study.



Bill Stockwell	Chief Planner clarified that the HNTB Study is also looking at the Central Corridor 
which includes ten grade separations.



	Regarding additional train traffic through Butler County, 
the Chief Planner said he did not know of problems the County Officials have with 
additional train traffic through Butler County.



Chairman Winters	Chairman Winters suggested the Consultant be asked, along with local technical 
people that have been working on this project, to select one or to of the routes 
for further detailed study.  "I guess I base that on the fact that if they say 
that there is a major technological construction problem at, say, one of these 
intersections or one of these crossings, just because I may or may not like that, 
I do not know that I have the expertise to say this is the one that I want you to 
go ahead and study."  



Commissioner Schroeder	Commissioner Schroeder stated that, because of the enormous cost of the projects, 
he was unsure how far he wanted to go with the project if it is felt the project 
is too expensive or unaffordable.  "I just want to make sure that we do not put 
more time and effort and money into this than we need to."



Mayor Knight	Mayor Knight said he had heard others voice concerns with the costs associated with 
the projects.  The costs are enormous.  "I would challenge everyone, however, to 
give careful consideration to the costs of not considering it carefully - to this 
City and to neighbors of ours on the north and the south.  I think this is a 
perfect opportunity to get a very clear analysis as to how we by-pass Wichita 
with through trains.  Again, I take the position I take because it will not be 
five and one-half trains.  I think common sense tells you it is going to be many 
more than that in the future; and I think it has enormous consequences and 
implications for Wichita and, certainly, Kechi and Haysville, to name a few."



	Mayor Knight spoke in support for the consultants to take 
all factors of consideration into account and bring back a preferred route.  That 
determination should be based on the merits being evaluated absent the political 
side.



Council Member Rogers	Council Member Rogers said he would like Phase II to include something to the 
effect of the impact of any of the alternatives on the highest areas of density 
that the route would travel through.  It would also be reasonable to have some 
financial analysis, in terms of what any of the options realistically would cost 
over a thirty-year bond period.



Mayor Knight	Mayor Knight stated that if there is a possible value well into the next century, 
some idea will have to be given in terms of values and costs.  Some of the things 
being looked at on the railroad issue - to say that money is being saved by doing 
this or that is false economy.  



Tom Skinner	HNTB Consultant, answering a question, said the Study is just looking at what an 
engineering solution might be to relieve some of the pressure if the trains were 
to continue through Wichita.



Bill Stockwell	Chief Planner stated that the Consultants hired by the the Surface Transportation 
Board have the responsibility of looking at how to handle emergency medical, 
fire, ambulance, etc., situations - how to assure public safety. 



Council Member Kamen	Council Member Kamen said he hoped the Study would include the zoning or type of 
development that might take place around some of the by-passes.






Bill Stockwell	Chief Planner stated that it is possible that the two alternatives could be fairly 
well detailed and the Item could be brought back for final consideration in early 
August.  The Surface Transportation Board consultants are on a time table to 
start drafting their report some time in mid July and to have the first draft 
report circulated, starting in August, for thirty days.



Motion --	Winters moved that the Consultant and Staff, lead by Chief Planner Stockwell, be 
directed to select the options to be studied in greater detail.  

       -- carried		City Council carried 7 to 0.

		County Commission carried 4 to 0.  (Miller absent)



ADJOURNMENT	The En Banc meeting adjourned at 11:03 a.m.





	Kathy Pewewardy

	Deputy City Clerk

	



COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS

JOURNAL 163                               MAY 27, 1997                            Page 1