National Academies Press: OpenBook

Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide (2009)

Chapter: Chapter 1 - Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research

« Previous: Summary
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14220.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14220.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14220.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14220.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14220.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14220.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14220.
×
Page 16

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Introduction The focus of this investigation is shared use of track by lighter weight rail transit vehicles (e.g., light rail vehicles) that do not meet current FRA crashworthiness regulations with standard freight railroad rolling stock. “Commingled” use of track has significant potential for public tran- sit expansion because rail freight corridors that crisscross the nation often provide the only trans- portation corridors to connect suburban development around urban communities. In the con- text of this research the terms “shared use or shared-track” imply cotemporaneous and/or concurrent use of a track by both freight and these lighter, non-FRA-compliant public transit vehicles. Transportation planners may view an existing freight rail corridor as a potential commu- nity asset with a prospect for shared-use. Each corridor has a unique set of operating issues. Whether publicly or privately owned, to realize this potential each requires development of new techniques, operating rules, and technology applications. For example, transit agencies have acquired rail corridors but are required to maintain pre-existing freight services, or pub- lic transit operators have been able to reach shared-use agreements with existing railroads. In either case, the FRA maintains jurisdiction and oversees use of the corridors based on reg- ulations, laws, and policies developed during a century of safety oversight of the railroad industry. Research is essential to create a better understanding of the business case for shared-track by public transit and freight operations, to develop suitable business models for shared used, and to understand how technology, operating procedures, and techniques can be applied to address the key risks associated with these shared-track operations. This Final Report (originally designated as Task 13 of the work program) was prepared using the results of Tasks 1 through 5, the approved version of the Interim Report, and results of Tasks 7 through 12 (listed below). Further detail and in-depth analysis for specific inquiries may be available in one of the task reports prepared as part of this research. A summary description of each research task is in Appendix 3 “TCRP A-27 Research Task Descriptions.” – Task 1 and 2 Consolidated Report—Current and Emerging Train Control Technologies – Task 3—Command and Control Systems – Task 4—Light Rail Passenger Vehicles for Shared-track – Task 5—Shared Track Operations and Appendix – Task 6—Phase I Interim Report – Task 7—Freight Railroad Characteristics – Task 8—Business Model – Task 9—Business Case and Practical Guide 10 C H A P T E R 1 Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research

– Task 10—Hypothetical Case Study – Task 11/12 Consolidated Report—Demonstration Program and Recommended Practices As mandated, the report includes the output of the project tasks, synthesizes prior research on related topics, and describes advantages and disadvantages of shared-track operations, and fulfills the project objectives: 1. Provides a business case for shared use of non-FRA-compliant public transit vehicles (e.g., light rail) with freight operations; 2. Suggests business models for such an operation; 3. Identifies and evaluates available and emerging technology, operating procedures, and tech- niques that could be used to minimize the risks associated with sharing of track between non- FRA-compliant public transit rail vehicles and freight railroad operations; and 4. Serves as a guide for identifying the issues that may be faced by new project sponsors of a shared use operation. This Practitioner’s Guide is designed to be accessible to a variety of users of diverse exper- tise, background, responsibilities, and interests. The reader is supplied with a “to-do” list of specific actions and guidelines that can serve as a “primer” for the development of a transit system that shares track with a freight operator. A checklist includes advantages and disadvan- tages of different options and notes the constraints, barriers and pitfalls that might impede progress. Defining Shared-Track The focus of this research is “shared-track”. This phrase implies cotemporaneous use of the same track and corridor by light rail transit vehicles and conventional freight equipment. The terms “shared use” and “shared corridor” are apt to be used interchangeably, but “shared-track” and “shared use” will be utilized here to describe concurrent train operations with these two dif- ferent categories of equipment. In the context of this research the terms incidental corridor or route sharing is implied also, but the defining characteristic is true commingled operation of these two types of equipment on the same track. Reader’s Guide to the Final Report The guide below is intended as a tool to assist in locating or selecting specific topics and issues for review. The work program task products are condensed and organized into five sections. This portion of the report is preceded by an Executive Summary, which concentrates and highlights the key findings. The Appendices, which contain specific information, or details that illustrate or expand on report content, follow the report itself. Information is displayed in five major groups: background for the research effort, institutional elements, the technological and opera- tional facets, a practitioner’s guide, and suggestions on advancing the concept. Chapter 1—Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research Introductory and background material. Includes this “Reader’s Guide”, followed by brief contextual information about shared-track. The section defines the operational concept, dis- cusses the typical freight characteristics and lists attributes that make a route an attractive can- didate for shared-track operation. A description of the research approach recounts its aims and focus, and the results of the team effort to identify, obtain, and organize the information used to prepare this handbook. The preparatory work includes a literature search; contacts with vendors and operators; and surveys and interviews with operators, suppliers, and regulators. Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research 11

Chapter 2—Shared-Track: Laying the Foundation—Policy and Strategy Policy and strategy. This section explains the policy and strategic underpinnings of a shared-track operation. It discusses the broader institutional aspects including the busi- ness model, the outline of a business case and the safety case. It reviews the FRA Waiver process, the role of State Safety Oversight, and the contribution of Risk Analysis to the safety case. Chapter 3—Enabling Shared-Track: Technology, Command, and Control Technical elements. This is a straightforward summary of train control technology, commu- nications, Rules and Procedures and current and new vehicle designs, and how each con- tributes to a viable shared-track operation. It notes the influence of each on safety and the practical application and integration with both the passenger and freight operation. The influ- ence of technology on the safety case is described. Chapter 4—Shared-Track: A Handbook of Examples and Applications Practitioner’s guide to shared-track. This section serves as the practical manual. It is an account of North American shared-track operations and progress to date. A business case template illustrating the use and interpretation of business case data (sample worksheets are included) follows next. The guide contains a risk analysis template and an explanation of how the results impact the business case and ultimately project viability. Incremental steps to move beyond “rigid temporal separation” are reported as evidence of evolutionary progress in shared-track operations. Finally, concrete guidelines are suggested to help project planners develop a shared-track operation with a freight railroad. Chapter 5—Shared Use: Progress and Evolution Future directions for the shared-track service concept. What realistic approaches can be employed to increase the interest and potential of shared-track systems? Candidates and appropriate conditions are recommended for a demonstration project. The advantages and disadvantages, and their effect on the potential market are reviewed. This segment points out barriers and impediments to broader application and acceptance of this mode of operations. Finally it suggests area or research and efforts likely to enhance the practical appeal of this operational concept. Bibliography Appendices 1) Abbreviations 2) Glossary 3) TCRP A-27 Research Task Descriptions 4) Relative Cost Comparison of Train Control Systems 5) Sample Operating Rulebook Table of Contents 6) Vehicle Cost Drivers 7) Some Examples of Current Vehicle Production LRV and MU Vehicle Types 8) Shared-Track System Status 9) Shared-Track Configuration and Operational Alternatives Research Effort Scope of Work for Project A-27 TCRP issued its Research Project Statement for Project A-27, “Shared Use of Railroad Infra- structure with Non-FRA-Compliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles” on March 29, 2005. Thirteen tasks broken into two phases (summarized previously and shown in the Appendix) constituted the scope of work and defined the research effort. The principal aim of the investigation, reiter- ated here, is taken from the Project Statement. 12 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner’s Guide

The objective of this research is to develop a guide for practitioners that (1) provides a business case for the shared use of non-FRA-compliant public transit rail vehicles (e.g., light rail) with freight operations; (2) suggests business models for such shared-use operations; and (3) identifies and evaluates available and emerging technology, 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. The research program was not conducted in isolation, and was complicated by the need to be coordinated with a parallel program sponsored by the FRA. This was titled, “Intelligent Trans- portation Systems Technologies for Integrated Rail Corridors” (No document reference num- ber because it is not published at this time) and was under the auspices of the USDOT Joint Pro- gram Office. Representatives of the FRA, FHWA, and FTA made up the panel for that project. Their objective, while similar, was not entirely the same in approach, scope, and deadlines; nor was the audience they wished to reach. Additionally this report had to incorporate information generated by previous research including TCRP Report 52: Joint Operations of Light Rail Transit or Diesel Multiple Unit Vehicles with Railroads, TCRP Research Results Digest Number 43 and TCRP Research Results Digest Number 47, and build on those efforts to advance the breadth of knowledge and adapt it for prac- tical application. The unwritten element guiding the research was its audience. The immediate audience con- sists of the review Project A-27 Panel, assisted by the TCRP Program Manager. The second and ultimately larger audience comprises the transportation professionals, consultants, regulators, vendors, advocacy groups, public or government agency officials, private sector representatives and academic specialists who are professionally interested or simply curious about this novel approach to transit services. The A-27 Panel’s makeup was intended to represent a cross-section of the larger audience to assure that a broad perspective and differing views were considered in pursuit of the objectives. Research Approach The team’s first effort was to identify the most important issues to define and focus the research. They also examined prior work and documentation and selected the most valuable out- puts for use in the project. Once this was accomplished members went on to establish and pri- oritize the primary obstacles to true shared operations. Information acquired for each task involved conventional research methods. • Literature survey and review of available research and internet search; • Surveys of supplier/vendor representative and Operating Agencies; • Interviews with supplier/vendor representatives and Operating Agencies; and • Site visits, inspections, and discussions with Operating Agencies. Although primary interest lies in true shared-use operation of track and infrastructure, the team had to review parallel operations on adjacent tracks and operations on same track with tem- poral separation to establish characteristic operating categories and parameters. These categories were confined chiefly to shortlines and low-speed and low-density routes rather than to high- volume and high-speed freight corridors where risk assessment and mitigation would be extremely difficult. Finally, the products of the research were used and then integrated into a risk assessment process along with a business case and a business model. This could then be packaged and rolled out to the transit industry as a practical guide on planning and implementing a shared-track operation. Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research 13

All work was reviewed by the A-27 Panel: Submission of each of the 13 Task Reports to A-27 Panel for review and comment. Each report was sub- mitted as a draft. The Panel members provided comments that were forwarded to the team. The revised Task report was then resubmitted to the A-27 Panel. Panel meetings. The team met with the Panel members on two occasions, to review progress, brief them on available results or issues requiring guidance and to receive direct comments regarding the Task reports. This report reflects those efforts; however, the insights and conclusions are tempered by first- hand experience gleaned from preparation of an FRA Waiver Petition and direct involvement in all aspects of initiating a shared-track operation. Shared-Track—The Operating Environment Currently mixed operations of light rail transit vehicles and conventional freight trains are permitted only under restrictions established by the FRA using the principle of “temporal sepa- ration”. Ironically this is how railroads were run back in the early to mid-1800s, before the advent of electrical train control systems. Characteristics of a Shared-Track Corridor A route that reflects most of these general physical or operating characteristics is an attractive candidate for shared use: • It is a light density short line used by freight. The freight operation is a small, relatively self- contained operation with limited volumes of traffic, not a far-flung system with connected facilities and traffic in many states and the technical systems and infrastructure to support such an enterprise; • Freight traffic is a mixture of short through trains and some switching operations, with some delivery schedule flexibility; • Highway/rail grade crossings and industrial or customer freight sidings are present; • The route is presently dark territory or has very few signals, and no centralized traffic control (CTC), with simple radio communications between a freight dispatcher and train or MOW crews; • The route is end-to-end and has the potential for downtown distribution via exclusive light rail passenger car street running on at least one end; or possibly an intermediate street run- ning segment; • Dedicated passenger and freight crews familiar with route physical characteristics are available; • Light rail passenger car performance is the same for all cars and consists do not exceed two cars. The passenger equipment is “captive” and dedicated; • Passenger service frequency is no greater than 10-minute headways in peak and 30 minutes in off-peak. Freight operations may have an exclusive operating window for 4 to 6 hours after midnight and before the start of the morning rush hour; • Relatively low top speeds (not exceeding 60 MPH) are feasible for passenger equipment with limited requirements for civil speed enforcement; reduced freight speeds possible; • Existing operating rule books, practices, and procedures are tailored to freight operations; • Upgrades to the infrastructure such as improved track, train control, C&C system, stations, and the like, suitable for a light rail passenger operation, are feasible. Presence of the characteristics outlined above can guide a planner towards a potential shared track project. However, multiple or extreme deviations from these characteristics may justify closer scrutiny of the plan, or render a true shared-track operation infeasible. 14 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner’s Guide

Freight Operations Perspective Project planners are encouraged to concede a legitimate interest by freight operators to ser- vice customers. That service may support local business enterprises that contribute to economic vitality in the region. The planner should understand the perspective of the freight operator. In this way, the freight operator’s objections can be anticipated and respected, and perhaps certain needs can even be accommodated. It is essential that the public sector representatives be capa- ble of asking the right questions and appreciating the response. Railroads in North America are primarily privately financed, owned, and maintained. For- profit concerns have focused capital investments in the most profitable traffic lanes and ratio- nalized unprofitable track. Branch line tracks have low traffic density and high per-unit fixed costs. There are 545 short-line or regional railroads in the U.S., with in excess of 50,000 miles or 30% of the network. Such smaller railroads only account for 9% of the industry’s revenue. These railroads are assets that offer opportunities for future passenger rail and freight railroad growth. Class I railroads generally operate long distances over a multi-state network and on corridors with high traffic densities. Shortlines provide feeder or distribution service to or between Class I, other railroads, customers, and suppliers. There are four major types of ownership arrangements for these shortlines: Class I, shipper, government, or private ownership. Shipper and government owned lines typically contract their operation to a designated freight rail operator who may be one of the large holding companies that operate a variety of multiple shortline holdings. Of the private shortlines, some are owned by national holding companies, some are established regional roads, but a significant proportion of shortlines are truly small and independent. These lines are at higher risk for abandonment if the traffic base becomes unstable. To operate light density lines, the shortlines need to lower their unit-costs to below Class I lev- els. The typical shortline expends about 70% of its revenues on above-the-rail expenses. This leaves 30% for fixed-plant (infrastructure) maintenance, overhead, and return-on-investment. In 2004, the shortline industry expended $264 million in maintenance. The annual track main- tenance costs turn out to be between $5,000 and $10,000 per mile. There are limited federal pro- grams for funding the rail freight industry. The Short-Line Tax Credit provides up to $3,500 per mile to qualified railroads. Railroads generally finance their operations and their capital needs using revenue derived from operations. Shortlines tend to be the sole track user and are usually centrally dispatched via radio. Car- loads are the dominant type of shipment on shortlines. Carload shipments are typically less “urgent,” but require consistent timing. Temporal separation is often unacceptable for freight customers who demand specific car delivery, pick-up and spotting times. It is also more difficult to schedule MOW windows on a temporally-separated system. The FRA “Intelligent Transportation Systems Technologies for Integrated Rail Corridors” [unpublished; ITS Technologies for Integrated Rail Corridors, FRA Office of Research and Development Contract No. DTFR53-01-D-0030 (2006)] concluded that local transportation officials should be encouraged to work with the owners of urban low density freight lines to share facilities and infrastructure, creating synergies in urban passenger and freight mobility that would not be possible without cooperatively sharing scarce transportation resources. Preserva- tion of urban rail freight service offers economic development and congestion mitigation oppor- tunities not otherwise possible. The shortline rail industry provides an alternative to highway based urban freight services, while allowing some business operations to remain viable in con- gested urban areas. In summary: 1. Low density branch lines are an important part of the nation’s freight system; 2. Low density branch lines are low speed, low volume operations; Shared-Use: Background and Rationale for the Research 15

3. Insufficient revenue to cover fixed costs (maintenance of plant) is a continuous and ongoing threat to the sustained operations of low density freight lines; and 4. Shared-track provides a mechanism to defray fixed cost expense over more units of traffic, or provide an incentive for sale of the right-of-way that enables the preservation of the shortline and improves its financial position. The first two points underlie the appeal of shared-track. The last two points are primary incen- tives for a freight operator to consider shared-track. 16 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner’s Guide

Next: Chapter 2 - Shared-Track: Laying the Foundation Policy and Strategy »
Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 130: Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner’s Guide examines a business case for the shared use of non-Federal Railroad Administration-compliant public transit rail vehicles (e.g., light rail vehicles) with freight operations and highlights a business model for such shared-use operations. The report also explores potential advantages and disadvantages of shared-use operations and the issues and barriers that can arise in the course of implementation.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!