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 66
66 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide
Under Option 1, expenses are reduced due to higher speed train operations and transfer of
dispatching and maintenance responsibilities to the passenger operation. However, the costs for
supervision, locomotives, and some of the administration functions remain unchanged. The rel-
ative cost impact/benefit of each option on the freight carrier must be assessed. Results may show
little or no change to the prior financial situation (Status Quo).
Under Option 2, costs and activities are similar to the Status Quo. Marginally lower MOW
expenses result from transit-funded track rebuild. The freight operator remains responsible
for dispatching and supervising its own railroad. Under Options 3 and 4, the freight entity
could decrease costs without affecting traffic levels. MOW and dispatching functions are trans-
ferred to the transit operator, and a lower trackage fee takes its place. For the freight operator,
the mechanical, fuel, car hire, and supervision expenses remain the same, while the traincrew
expenses are reduced, due to higher track speeds. Cost savings and retention of previous traffic
result in a markedly healthier freight carrier, lowering the operating ratio to approximately 70%.
Ridership Impacts
Many established methods exist for measuring transit ridership. One method estimates rider-
ship by station and by time-of-day using established survey methods. For temporal separation,
ridership should be adjusted to reflect reduced span of service. The results of a desktop exercise was
performed in the research for Task 10 Hypothetical Case Study, Table 16 shows how the data might
be presented and compared. The principles may be logically extrapolated to similar circumstances.
Temporal separation jettisons a percentage of total ridership by eliminating pre-peak, evening,
and late night service. The research sample results showed that much of the loss occurs in the
morning peak period and in the evening (the "Option 1 Losses" are shown in Table 16 as a rep-
resentation of a likely outcome and were derived from the research calculation). Option 1 could
not serve second shift workers returning home late at night and third shift workers going to work
during the evening. This results in losses of corresponding return trips. About 20% of evening
and late night trips are leisure trips. These riders may be diverted to other parts of the service day.
Alternatives Evaluation
Ridership and cost forecasts are integrated to provide three key performance measures to rank
and evaluate the service options shown in Table 17. They may vary for different circumstances.
Capital cost per weekday inbound passenger. Unless the proposed system is an extension of an
existing shared-track system, virtually all of the forecast riders using the proposed service would be
new. The forecast capital cost to divert these travelers from the highway would range between
$13,000 and $17,000 per rider. This is comparable to the projected performance of similar shared-
track projects currently in the FTA New Starts Program. The Oceanside-Escondido, CA project has
a capital cost per daily boarding of $18,501. The corridor acquisition cost is addressed elsewhere.
Operating cost per passenger trip. Planners should forecast the operating cost per passenger
trip ranges. Typical values between $1.00 and $1.20 per boarding have been estimated in this
Table 16. Ridership impacts of temporal separation.
Option 1 Options 2, 3, 4 Option 1
Time Period In Out Total In Out Total Losses
Pre-Peak 5am-6am NA NA 100%
Morning Peak 6am-9am 8%
Midday 9am-4pm 5%
Afternoon Peak 4pm-7pm 3%
Evening 7pm-10pm NA NA 100%
Late Night 10pm-1am NA NA 100%
Total 17%
