Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
TRANSIT TCRP REPORT 130 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide

OCR for page R1
TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* SELECTION COMMITTEE* CHAIR OFFICERS Robert I. Brownstein AECOM Consult, Inc. CHAIR: Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka VICE CHAIR: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley MEMBERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board Ann August Santee Wateree Regional Transportation Authority John Bartosiewicz MEMBERS McDonald Transit Associates J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY Michael Blaylock Jacksonville Transportation Authority Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg Linda J. Bohlinger John D. Bowe, President, Americas Region, APL Limited, Oakland, CA HNTB Corp. Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson Raul Bravo Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Raul V. Bravo & Associates Gregory Cook Norfolk, VA Veolia Transportation William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles Terry Garcia Crews David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond StarTran Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Nathaniel P. Ford, Jr. Charlottesville SF Municipal Transportation Agency Kim R. Green Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN GFI GENFARE Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC Jill A. Hough Will Kempton, Director, California DOT, Sacramento North Dakota State University Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City Angela Iannuzziello ENTRA Consultants Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of John Inglish Technology, Atlanta Utah Transit Authority Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington Jeanne W. Krieg Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority David A. Lee Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City Connecticut Transit Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Clarence W. Marsella Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR Denver Regional Transportation District Rosa Clausell Rountree, Consultant, Tyrone, GA Gary W. McNeil Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO GO Transit Michael P. Melaniphy C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Motor Coach Industries Texas, Austin Frank Otero Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNXCentral Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando PACO Technologies Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR Keith Parker Charlotte Area Transit System Jeffrey Rosenberg EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Amalgamated Transit Union Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC Michael Scanlon San Mateo County Transit District Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA Beverly Scott Paul R. Brubaker, Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, U.S.DOT Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York James S. Simpson University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC FTA James Stem Sean T. Connaughton, Maritime Administrator, U.S.DOT United Transportation Union Clifford C. Eby, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT Frank Tobey LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the First Transit Interior, Washington, DC EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC William W. Millar John H. Hill, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT APTA John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Robert E. Skinner, Jr. Officials, Washington, DC TRB John C. Horsley Carl T. Johnson, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT AASHTO David Kelly, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Thomas J. Madison, Jr. Sherry E. Little, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT FHWA Thomas J. Madison, Jr., Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Louis Sanders Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT APTA Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, SECRETARY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC Christopher W. Jenks TRB *Membership as of November 2008. *Membership as of January 2009.

OCR for page R1
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 130 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide Booz | Allen | Hamilton Newark, NJ Jacobs Edwards & Kelcey Boston, MA ICF Consulting Kittery, ME New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark, NJ Subject Areas Public Transit Rail Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2009 www.TRB.org

OCR for page R1
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 130 The nation's growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, Project A-27 and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current ISSN 1073-4872 systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand ISBN: 978-0-309-11769-2 service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve Library of Congress Control Number 2009900079 these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to 2009 Transportation Research Board adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro- duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions COPYRIGHT PERMISSION to meet demands placed on it. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report published or copyrighted material used herein. 213--Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the Administration--now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success- any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes from CRP. research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran- sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, NOTICE facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research administrative practices. Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- Board's judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act purposes and resources of the National Research Council. of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the the Transit Development Corporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- Council, the Transit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS (sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or Committee defines funding levels and expected products. manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting. Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state- ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni- cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro- grams since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi- Published reports of the nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran- sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- are available from: ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for Transportation Research Board workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure Business Office that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 practitioners. The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively and can be ordered through the Internet at address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 130 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Gwen Chisholm Smith, Senior Program Officer Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Margaret B. Hagood, Editor TCRP PROJECT A-27 PANEL Field of Service Operations David Phraner, Edwards & Kelcey, Inc., Morristown, NJ (Chair) Michael Allegra, Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, UT Lewis Ames, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, San Francisco, CA William M. Browder, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC David J. Carol, Charlotte Area Transit System, Charlotte, NC Christina Messa, Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC, Evergreen, CO Jeffrey G. Mora, Consultant, Washington, DC Larry Phipps, Rail Consult, Inc., Tucson, AZ Paul F. Schneider, New Jersey DOT, Trenton, NJ Walt Stringer, North County (CA) Transit District, Oceanside, CA Joseph R. Walsh, Joe Walsh Consulting, Portland, OR Walter E. Zullig, Jr., Ossining, NY Venkat Pindiprolu, FTA Liaison Arthur L. Guzzetti, APTA Liaison Eloy Martinez, Other Liaison Christopher F. Schulte, Other Liaison Thomas Tsai, Other Liaison Elaine King, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under TCRP Project A-27 by Booz Allen Hamilton, in association with Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey, ICF Consulting and New Jersey Institute of Technology. Mr. Paul K. Stangas, P.E. was the Principal Investigator; other authors and co-Principal Investigators are Mr. David Nelson, Director of Transit Planning, Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey; Mr. Alex Lu, Planner II, Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey; Dr. Alan Bing, ICF Consulting Group Inc.; and Dr. Rachel Liu, New Jersey Institute of Technology.

OCR for page R1
FOREWORD By Gwen Chisholm Smith Staff Officer Transportation Research Board TCRP Report 130: Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Tran- sit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide includes a business case for the shared use of non- FRA-compliant public transit rail vehicles (e.g., light rail vehicles) with freight operations and offers a suggested business model for such shared-use operations. The Guide also iden- tifies the advantages and disadvantages of shared-use operations and the issues and barriers that can arise in the course of implementation. The Guide includes a section that identifies and evaluates available and emerging tech- nology, operating procedures, and techniques that could be used to minimize the risks asso- ciated with sharing of track between non-FRA-compliant public transit rail vehicles and freight railroad operations. Finally, the Guide includes descriptions and sources of real- world examples of these applications. This Guide will be helpful to transit managers, transit operations planners, transportation consultants, state safety oversight agencies, and federal rail and transit oversight agencies. There are two methods by which railroad corridors can be shared between public transit and freight rail operations. The first consists of public transit rail vehicles using existing rail- road corridors, but not sharing the same track. The second method involves public transit rail vehicles sharing the same track with freight rail operations. The focus of this research is on the second method of shared-use, solely as it relates to sharing track with lighter public transit vehicles (e.g., light rail vehicles) that do not meet current Federal Railroad Admin- istration (FRA) crashworthiness regulations. This "co-mingled" use of track has enormous potential for public transit expansion because freight rail corridors that crisscross the nation often provide the only transportation corridors left to connect suburban development to many urban communities. Each prospective shared-use corridor will give rise to a unique set of operating issues that requires development of new techniques, operating rules, and technology applications to allow the safe sharing of privately owned corridors that are becoming increasingly attractive as a latent community asset. In other instances, transit agencies have acquired rail corridors but are required to maintain pre-existing freight ser- vices, or public transit operators have been able to reach shared-use agreements (under "temporal separation" restrictions) with existing railroads. In either case, the FRA main- tains jurisdiction and oversees use of the corridors based on regulations, laws, and policies developed during a century of safety oversight of the railroad industry. To assist in the development of the Practitioner's Guide, the research team identified and evaluated the suitability of existing train-control applications for promising shared-use opportunities. Also, the research team evaluated the effectiveness of available and emerging technologies, operating procedures, and other techniques that could be used to address

OCR for page R1
signals, grade crossing warning systems, and corridor intrusion detection appropriate for "co-mingled" shared-use train control. Based on this evaluation, the research team devel- oped a baseline of common communications and control elements that would enhance the safety for applicable shared-use operations. The Practitioner's Guide is intended as a tool-kit and handbook for identification of can- didate corridors and implementation of a cotemporaneous shared-track operation. The report develops analytical techniques, notably a business model and business case, and strategies to overcome the barriers of safety standards and regulatory restraints.

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 1 Summary 1 Research Objective 2 Summary of Research Tasks 2 Report Output 3 Findings 3 Alternative Approaches to New Starts 3 Business Model 3 Business Case 5 Train Control Technology 6 Technologies for Achieving Fail-Safe Train Separation 6 Grade Crossing Hazards 7 Integrating Technology for Effective Command and Control 7 Requirements for Concurrent Shared-Track Operations 8 Practical Shortcuts 9 Barriers to Implementation 9 Advancing the Shared-Track Concept 10 Chapter 1 Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research 10 Introduction 11 Defining Shared-Track 11 Reader's Guide to the Final Report 12 Research Effort 12 Scope of Work for Project A-27 13 Research Approach 14 Shared-Track--The Operating Environment 14 Characteristics of a Shared-Track Corridor 15 Freight Operations Perspective 17 Chapter 2 Shared-Track: Laying the Foundation-- Policy and Strategy 17 Introduction 17 Why Share Track? 18 Creating a Strategic Foundation 18 The Business Model 19 Business Model Structure 20 The Business Case 21 Shared-Track--A Practical Business Case Structure 23 The Safety Case 23 FRA--Obtaining a Federal Waiver 23 Role of the Designated State Safety Organization 24 Methods for Risk Analyses

OCR for page R1
25 Achieving Safety Equivalence 25 Equal Risks, Equivalent Safety 26 Underpinning the Case for Shared-Track 27 Chapter 3 Enabling Shared-Track: Technology, Command, and Control 27 Introduction 27 The Role of Command and Control Systems in Shared-Track 28 Train Control Technology 28 1) Train Control System Functions 29 2) Train Control System Design Parameters 30 3) Train Control Technology--Conventional Systems 30 4) Train Control--Emerging Technology--PTC and CBTC 31 5) Train Control Technology--The Supply Side 31 6) Proving the Train Control System 31 Basic Testing Requirements 31 System and Integration Testing--Vendor Role 32 7) Practical Considerations For Shared-Track 32 8) Issues Unique to Train Control for Shared-Track 33 Auxiliary Safety Critical Systems 34 Interoperability of Freight Trains in Shared Territory 34 9) Fail-Safe Train Separation 36 Command and Control: Communications 36 1) Communications--Information Processing 36 2) Regulatory and Practical Requirements 38 3) Purpose of a Communications System 38 4) Functional Design of a Communications System 39 5) Communications Systems for Shared-Track 39 Command and Control Systems: Rules and Procedures 39 1) Purpose 39 2) Regulatory Mandates 40 3) Rules and Procedures--Practical Considerations 40 4) The Rulebook 41 5) Rules and Procedures for Shared-Track 42 Technology: Rail Vehicles for Shared-Track Applications 42 Introduction 42 Background 43 Review of Suitable Candidate Rail Vehicles 43 1) Light Rail Vehicles 43 2) Diesel Multiple Units and Electrical Multiple Units 44 Features Preferred for Shared-Track Operations 44 1) FRA Compliance 44 2) Crash Energy Management (CEM) 45 3) Propulsion System 46 4) Superior Car Braking Performance 46 5) Other Considerations 47 Vehicle Cost Drivers 47 Vehicles for Shared-Track Applications 48 1) Selecting the Optimal Vehicle 48 2) Regulatory Approach 48 3) Standardization

OCR for page R1
49 Recommended Vehicle Research 49 Applying Technology to Shared-Track Operation--A Brief Guide 51 Chapter 4 Shared-Track: A Handbook of Examples and Applications 51 Shared-Track Operations--The North American Experience 52 1) Public Ownership and Control 52 2) Former Private Freight Railroad Owner Becomes a Privileged Tenant 53 3) Risks Are Managed by the Transit Agency 53 4) Pressure to Commingle Is Heaviest on Lines with Higher Freight Densities*--A Review of Different Solutions 54 5) Public Transit Agencies Are Interested in Avoiding Shared-Track Arrangements 54 6) Transit Operators Choosing to Avoid Commingling Sacrificed Service Quality and Efficiency 55 Business Case Template 56 Alternatives Analysis 57 Physical Characteristics 57 Reasons to Consider Noncompliant Equipment 58 Service Characteristics to Justify the Choice of a Light Rail System 59 Overview of Shared-Track Options--Operating Plan 59 Structures Considerations 60 Service Comparison 60 Cost and Ridership Analyses 61 Cost Analysis for Signal System Alternatives 63 System Capital Cost Assessment 64 System Operating Cost Assessment 66 Ridership Impacts 66 Alternatives Evaluation 67 Business Case Findings 67 Risk Analyses Template 67 Introduction 68 Risk Analysis and Modeling Methodology 71 Results and Risk Analysis Findings 73 Safety Case Findings 74 Results of the Sample Case Study 74 The Business and Safety Cases--What Works in the Real World 74 San Diego Trolley 75 NJ Transit Newark City Subway 75 NJ Transit River LINE 75 Achievable Incremental Steps 76 Practical Shortcuts for Shared-Track 77 Chapter 5 Shared Use: Progress and Evolution 77 Demonstration Project 78 Collision Safety of the Demonstration Project 78 Collisions Between Light Passenger Rail Cars and Conventional Equipment 78 Application of Risk Analyses Methodology to the Demonstration Project 79 Data Collection Plan

OCR for page R1
80 Suggestions for Demonstration Projects 80 San Diego Trolley, Inc. 81 NJ Transit River LINE 81 Barriers to Implementation 82 Shared Track--The Potential Market 83 Shared-Track Operation--An Evolving Concept 85 Bibliography 87 Appendix 1 Abbreviations 88 Appendix 2 Glossary of Shared-Track Definitions 93 Appendix 3 TCRP A-27 Research Task Descriptions 98 Appendix 4 Relative Cost Comparison of Train Control Systems 100 Appendix 5 Sample Operating Rulebook Table of Contents 101 Appendix 6 Vehicle Cost Drivers 102 Appendix 7 Some Examples of Current Production LRV and MU Vehicle Types 106 Appendix 8 Shared-Track System Status 107 Appendix 9 Shared-Track Configuration and Operational Alternatives