National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

TCRP Report 130: Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide (2009)
Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)

Citation Manager

Transportation Research Board. "The Business Model." TCRP Report 130: Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
18
bottomleft bottomright
Page
18
Front Matter (R1-R12)
Research Objective (1-1)
Report Output (2-2)
Business Case (3-4)
Train Control Technology (5-5)
Grade Crossing Hazards (6-6)
Requirements for Concurrent Shared-Track Operations (7-7)
Practical Shortcuts (8-8)
Advancing the Shared-Track Concept (9-9)
Introduction (10-10)
Reader's Guide to the Final Report (11-11)
Scope of Work for Project A-27 (12-12)
Research Approach (13-13)
Characteristics of a Shared-Track Corridor (14-14)
Freight Operations Perspective (15-16)
Why Share Track? (17-17)
The Business Model (18-18)
Business Model Structure (19-19)
The Business Case (20-20)
Shared-Track - A Practical Business Case Structure (21-22)
Role of the Designated State Safety Organization (23-23)
Methods for Risk Analyses (24-24)
Equal Risks, Equivalent Safety (25-25)
Underpinning the Case for Shared-Track (26-26)
The Role of Command and Control Systems in Shared-Track (27-27)
1) Train Control System Functions (28-28)
2) Train Control System Design Parameters (29-29)
4) Train Control - Emerging Technology - PTC and CBTC (30-30)
System and Integration Testing - Vendor Role (31-31)
8) Issues Unique to Train Control for Shared-Track (32-32)
Auxiliary Safety Critical Systems (33-33)
9) Fail-Safe Train Separation (34-35)
2) Regulatory and Practical Requirements (36-37)
4) Functional Design of a Communications System (38-38)
2) Regulatory Mandates (39-39)
4) The Rulebook (40-40)
5) Rules and Procedures for Shared-Track (41-41)
Background (42-42)
2) Diesel Multiple Units and Electrical Multiple Units (43-43)
2) Crash Energy Management (CEM) (44-44)
3) Propulsion System (45-45)
5) Other Considerations (46-46)
Vehicles for Shared-Track Applications (47-47)
3) Standardization (48-48)
Applying Technology to Shared-Track Operations - A Brief Guide (49-50)
Shared-Track Operations - The North American Experience (51-51)
2) Former Private Freight Railroad Owner Becomes a Privileged Tenant (52-52)
4) Pressure to Commingle Is Heaviest on Lines with Higher Freight Densities* - A Review of Different Solutions (53-53)
6) Transit Operators Choosing to Avoid Commingling Sacrificed Service Quality and Efficiency (54-54)
Business Case Template (55-55)
Alternatives Analysis (56-56)
Reasons to Consider Noncompliant Equipment (57-57)
Service Characteristics to Justify the Choice of a Light Rail System (58-58)
Structures Considerations (59-59)
Cost and Ridership Analyses (60-60)
Cost Analysis for Signal System Alternatives (61-62)
System Capital Cost Assessment (63-63)
System Operating Cost Assessment (64-65)
Alternatives Evaluation (66-66)
Introduction (67-67)
Risk Analysis and Modeling Methodology (68-70)
Results and Risk Analysis Findings (71-72)
Safety Case Findings (73-73)
San Diego Trolley (74-74)
Achievable Incremental Steps (75-75)
Practical Shortcuts For Shared-Track (76-76)
Demonstration Project (77-77)
Application of Risk Analyses Methodology to the Demonstration Project (78-78)
Data Collection Plan (79-79)
San Diego Trolley, Inc. (80-80)
Barriers to Implementation (81-81)
Shared Track - The Potential Market (82-82)
Shared-Track Operation - An Evolving Concept (83-84)
Bibliography (85-86)
Appendix 1 - Abbreviations (87-87)
Appendix 2 - Glossary of Shared-Track Definitions (88-92)
Appendix 3 - TCRP A-27 Research Task Descriptions (93-97)
Appendix 4 - Relative Cost Comparison of Train Control Systems (98-99)
Appendix 5 - Sample Operating Rulebook Table of Contents (100-100)
Appendix 6 - Vehicle Cost Drivers (101-101)
Appendix 7 - Some Examples of Current Production LRV and MU Vehicle Types (102-105)
Appendix 8 - Shared-Track System Status (106-106)
Appendix 9 - Shared-Track Configuration and Operational Alternatives (107-109)
Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications (110-110)

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 18
18 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide 3. A transit or planning agency wants to use an existing radial or conveniently linked branch line connection, where the right-of-way has been `hemmed in' by development and cannot support more tracks than absolutely necessary for a shared freight and light passenger rail service plan. In each case, neither commuter rail nor a stand alone light rail system would be entirely sat- isfactory. A commuter rail operation would result in lower ridership, in unattractive end-to-end transfers, or noise and vibration impacts in the downtown or is simply physically unsuitable for the alignment. A stand-alone light rail system would result in duplicative facilities and thus much higher capital costs, or a poor at-grade alignment choice. There is then a very real possibility that the initial ridership would not justify any construction. Shared-track represents projects of opportunity where a potential transit corridor need occurs along a strategically located, active rail freight branch line. In those cases track sharing offers many advantages over other solutions by: providing interoperability with existing light rail sys- tems; street running to improve proximity to demand generators and contribute to economic revitalization in blighted areas; reducing negative environmental impacts and construction costs; preserving economically important branch line freight service; and offering an intermediate level-of-investment between a stand-alone light rail system and a commuter rail alternative. Creating a Strategic Foundation Track sharing between short or branch line trains and light passenger rail cars serves a niche market between commuter rail and a stand-alone light rail system. Viable operations in North America typically entail allowing a small number of branch line freight trains to operate over a line that is converted for medium-frequency light passenger rail use at limited speeds. To ascer- tain whether shared-track is the ideal or preferred solution, it is necessary to develop effective strategies that work within the confines of existing policy: · Identifies these "projects of opportunity" · Quantifies their costs and benefits · Provides examples of successful projects · Describes a business model and defining a business case · Discusses the safety case · Reviews effective technologies · Examines the role of regulatory agencies The institutional issues are the most complex, but the first step is development of a business model to help guide the approach. The Business Model The research objective clearly expressed the need to prepare a business case and identify the business model for shared-track. The model is the more strategic facet of the two and forms the skeleton of the business case. It is therefore addressed first. The business case is the tactical con- stituent that is applied to a specific situation to analyze and evaluate factors that shape the eco- nomic, technical, and operational decisions. A business model is a guide to the conversion of technology to economic value, and is vital to advancing the concept of shared use: A business model is a conceptual tool that contains a set of elements and their relationships to express the business logic of a specific firm or service. It describes the value of a company to its customers and of the architecture of the firm and its network of partners for creating, marketing, and delivering this value and integrating financial and institutional resources to generate profitable and sustainable revenue streams.