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 54
54 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide
A. NJ Transit River LINE. Although 19,440 freight carloads move over the line per year (average
of 78 carloads per day based on annual non-holiday weekdays), Conrail was concerned about
the need to divert trains on to the line in the event of a blockage. NJT was planning to operate
passenger service later into the night, with the last trains running until 1 AM, instead of the
current 10 PM. The 16/8 hour split between passenger and freight operations satisfied neither
NJT nor Conrail. NJT is preparing to request a waiver allowing freight and passenger trains
to share a 3,000 ft. single-track segment providing access to Pavonia Yard and would make
signaling improvements to provide the safety equivalent to the procedures permitted on the
Newark City Subway's shared-track segment.
B. San Diego Trolley. Because of the length of the shared segment and increasing traffic, freight
trains require more than the four hours of exclusive freight operations allotted to them. The
20-hour passenger period required by SDTI has contributed to the urgent need to obtain
special waivers to allow limited nighttime joint operation.
C. NJ Transit Northern Branch. Here, the freight operational patterns placed the onus on pub-
lic officials to develop a strategy for commingling. As a result, compliant DMU rail vehicles
are being considered (as opposed to noncompliant electric light rail trains) to permit flexible
freight operations. This proposed change in the vehicle mode will result in less passenger con-
venience, requiring an additional transfer at the North Bergen Station, instead of a one-seat
ride on a through route via connection to the existing HBLR service.
D. NJ Transit Newark City Subway.* Freight density is not significant on this line. In this case
the freight line that serves one customer about once a week was ideally located for a service
extension, hence the desire to share track. The shared section of track was sufficiently short
to permit the entire segment to be designated as one interlocking. Specialized signaling
equipment fulfills the fail-safe train separation requirement while allowing freight trains
to operate between light rail trains, under the supervision of the Transit Authority.
E. Austin, Texas Commuter Rail. Transit service may be suspended mid-day to allow freight
services to operate. Overnight freight operations are not acceptable to the communities along
the line. While viable, this approach limits operational flexibility, passenger convenience, and
growth potential.
5) Public Transit Agencies Are Interested in Avoiding
Shared-Track Arrangements
In some cases, especially where the freight line is not currently active, transit agencies have
expressed a desire to disallow freight operations as part of a line sale agreement. Transit oriented
developers tend to see a freight operation or the future possibility of a freight operation as an
impediment to successful property redevelopment.
A. MARTA Belt Line. The lone customer (an urban sand and gravel plant) on the potential
shared-track freight line is under pressure to relocate due to transit oriented development
considerations.
B. BART State Route 4. Although the freight line is currently in disuse, the railroad continues
to seek an easement for development of future freight services along that corridor. However,
the transit agency has expressed a desire to avoid the possible future restoration of freight
service, since such easement may ultimately affect the vehicle technology and development
options available for the corridor.
6) Transit Operators Choosing to Avoid Commingling Sacrificed
Service Quality and Efficiency
Designers of all systems choosing to avoid commingling initially considered the use of non-
compliant equipment. Planners of three systems (Orlando, FL, northern NJ, and Oakland-
