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. "Alternatives Analysis." 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
56
bottomleft bottomright
Page
56
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 56
56 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide Alternatives Analysis While the focus of the research is shared use of track (i.e., concurrent operations by light passenger rail cars and freight equipment), the nonconcurrent alternatives must be analyzed. Therefore, a component of the business case is completion of an "Alternatives Analysis that Accompanies a Major Investment Study" (MIS) and as a justification for the choice of shared- track. The MIS will evaluate the costs and benefits of shared-track compared to other alterna- tives, in order to reflect trade-offs between the shared-track and other investment options that could equally serve mass-transit needs. At a planning level, four distinct types of alternatives can be compared. · Nonrail alternative: Likely scenarios range from the status quo to nonrail investments includ- ing carpooling facilities, bus route rationalization, transit priority lanes, or bus rapid transit investments. The FTA often requires a null alternative in the application process for federal funding. · Separate System alternative requires construction of dedicated track for non-compliant rail vehicles. The service uses a new right-of-way, shares a right-of-way (but not track) with con- ventional trains, or uses the median of a highway. · Compliant Vehicle alternative would establish commuter rail service on a railroad using FRA-compliant rolling stock. Modernization of signal systems and infrastructure, and new passenger facilities are required. Compliant equipment can share track without restrictions. However, high platforms could cause clearance issues for freight equipment and potential ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance issues. Downtown street running also may be precluded. · Shared-track alternative entails seeking special regulatory approval to allow light rail vehicles to share track with conventional railway equipment. The infrastructure requirement can be similar to the compliant alternative, but the resulting service would be more flexible. Light rail passenger vehicles can continue off the railway alignment onto city streets. Low floor light rail passenger vehicles also avoid conflicts between freight and passenger operations, whereas high floor cars (and platforms) pose a new clearance constraint for freight operations. Costs for developing a transit service should be compared for the different operating regimes under consideration. The cost and investigation of those alternatives are outside the scope of this research, but planners should be acquainted with the analytical effort. For each operating regime the required plant, equipment, and operating plan must be described. This business case study template guides the analysis and development of capital and operating cost estimates based on physical characteristics. Subsequently, a risk analysis is necessary to show that safety requirements can be achieved for each alternative. Data collection for the cost analysis falls under a number of categories. ­ Physical characteristics of the existing and proposed corridor. ­ Planned service characteristics of the rail transit service. ­ Operating plan and structures. ­ Service comparison of different operations. ­ Cost analysis for signal system alternatives. ­ System capital cost assessment. ­ Ridership impacts. ­ Alternatives evaluation-ridership and cost estimates are used as output measures. ­ Risk analyses & modeling; model inputs. Each of these topics is described in some detail. Worksheet templates can be used to record the results.