National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Summary." 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 1
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Summary." 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 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Summary." 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 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Summary." 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 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Summary." 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 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Summary." 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 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Summary." 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 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Summary." 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 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Summary." 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 9

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.

Research Objective A. Over the past decade, highway and urban congestion have garnered the attention of com- muters as well as government entities. Facility joint-use, by expanding public transit using existing rail corridors, is one approach to solving the constellation of problems occurring as offshoots of congestion. Such routes are especially attractive because they appear to have available capacity and utilize an existing connection between high trip generating origins and destinations. The potential and feasibility of shared use of rail corridors, between light rail vehicles (associated with public transit) and freight railroads, to function compatibly are still being investigated, even as current “near shared-track” operations are evolving. B. A number of operating issues need to be addressed, including the relative safety of shared- track, and practicality of the operational concept. Other questions that remain to be answered include: • How to mitigate joint use risks? What accommodations are necessary to make com- mingled shared-track workable in a variety of situations? • What are the viable business models? • How would shared use affect a current freight carrier and the rail corridor operations? Can track sharing be made attractive to the freight operator? • What are its advantages to the public? • How do public agencies develop policies and strategies to enable the use of an existing freight track for public transit? • What are the capital, maintenance, and insurance costs elements? • Finally, the most significant unknown is determining what is necessary to satisfy the FRA to obtain approval for this mode of operation. C. The intent of the research project is to initiate a pragmatic investigation whose end product is a guidebook for transportation and other practitioners, and to assist them in finding answers to the questions raised above. Part of the goal is pedagogic: to pro- vide a means to expand knowledge and understanding of strategies to ensure safety in rail transportation. The information and analysis should form a basis for informed dis- cussion, analysis, and decisions in the environment of shared-track of infrastructure, including approaches to an assessment of benefits and costs; and demonstrate current practical processes and applications of different scopes. D. Valuable and cost-effective projects of opportunity are available in some of the larger urban and suburban areas in the United States. Consequently, a secondary goal is to for- malize and standardize an American approach to concurrent shared-track operations. 1 S U M M A R Y Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner’s Guide

Summary of Research Tasks The research program was divided into a series of tasks. The results of these task efforts were assembled and condensed for this final report. Phase I Tasks 1–5 describe current and state-of-the-art technology and vehicles, and inventory the status of shared-track projects in North America. This narrative forms the context for the anticipated guidelines to commence a shared-track operation. A requisite preliminary was a literature review, data collection, and analysis. Identification of relevant information helped to focus on the most critical issues, avoided duplication of previous efforts, built on that prior work, and ensured access to the most current knowledge and thinking. The Task 6 Report summarizes the results from Tasks 1–5. (1) Command and control (C&C) systems are a cornerstone of FRA approved safety procedures used on freight railroads to avoid collisions, and their principles are sig- nificant to development of any shared-track operations involving noncompliant rail transit vehicles. Techniques and technologies of the three major branches of C&C— train control, communications and Rules and Procedures—underscore the goals of redundancy and other measures to ensure a fail-safe environment. (2) Information on current and new classes of railcar equipment was assembled and sup- plemented with descriptions of special attributes, such as crashworthiness and enhanced braking capabilities, needed in shared-track. Emphasis is on those features that will compensate for vehicle structural deficiencies. Such features will be part of any success- ful Waiver Petition and a small wedge towards gaining FRA acceptance for “equivalent safety” decisions. (3) North American shared-track operations and programs have been identified and inven- toried to provide a reference resource. The findings, exposition, and analysis contained in the earlier tasks make a coherent case for Phase II, development of analysis tools and products to further future shared- track operations. Phase II Tasks 7–12 examine characteristics of freight railroads, financ- ing, and parameters and metrics for a business model, a business case template, a risk analysis template and a demonstration project recommendation. Task 13 encompasses the findings and analyses of Tasks 1–5 and 7–12 to prepare a comprehensive final report and guidebook for the practitioner. Report Output The report contains examples of North American shared-track operations and describes progress to date. A business case template illustrating the use and interpretation of busi- ness case data, including sample worksheets, is included, as is a risk analysis template and an explanation of how the results impact the business case and ultimately project viabil- ity. Incremental steps to move beyond “rigid temporal separation” are reported as evi- dence of evolutionary progress in shared-track operations. Finally, concrete actions are proposed to help project planners develop a shared-track operation with a freight railroad. Ultimately the research suggests ways to increase the interest and potential of shared-track systems: • A list of possible candidates and preferred conditions for a demonstration project; • Highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of shared-track to broaden its service and practical economic appeal; and • Reflection on the barriers and obstacles to adoption of the shared-track concept. 2 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner’s Guide

Research 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. Findings Alternative Approaches to New Starts Major investment studies for shared-track systems should reflect trade-offs between the shared-track alternative and other investments that might equally serve mass-transit needs. At a planning level, four types of alternatives are distinguished: • The “Nonrail” Alternative: represents the status quo or nonrail investments including carpooling facilities, bus route rationalization, transit priority lanes, or bus rapid transit investments. • The “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 conventional trains, or uses a highway alignment. • The “Compliant Vehicle” Alternative: can establish commuter rail service on a rail- road. Modernization of signal systems and infrastructure, and new passenger facilities are required. Railroad equipment can share track without restrictions. However, high platforms could cause clearance issues for freight equipment. Downtown street run- ning also may be precluded. • The “Shared-Track” Alternative: entails seeking special FRA approval to allow light rail vehicles (noncompliant) to share track with conventional railroad equipment. The infra- structure requirement can be similar to the compliant alternative, but the resulting ser- vice would be more flexible. Light passenger rail cars can continue off-the-rail alignment onto city streets. Low floor cars avoid conflicts between freight and passenger operations. There are two methods of operations: a. Temporal separation is possible where all freight activity can be constrained to a short overnight period without adversely impacting freight operations; and b. Concurrent operations are required where most freight activity can be moved into the overnight period with some overlap in the fringes of the service day. Occasional mid- day moves may occur in response to shipper needs. Planners and stakeholders can use the “Alternatives Analysis” process to evaluate the pri- mary advantages and disadvantages of a proposed shared-track system (shown in Table 1). Business Model If the advantages lead to the selection of a shared-track alternative, then the business model should guide the subsequent decision making. While there is no standard business model for shared-track operations, there are features and attributes that nearly all shared- track operators exhibit summarized in Table 2. Business Case The business model parameters then can be incorporated and quantified in the business case. In an exercise for this report, the team’s research indicates that shared-track methods may reduce the capital development costs for rail transit system by 40% to 66% when compared Summary 3

4 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner’s Guide Table 1. Shared-track advantages and disadvantages. Advantages Disadvantages Increase accessible passenger market; public transportation available in new, less served areas Conflicts with growth in freight traffic. Temporal separation can be a “zero-sum” game, with winners and losers Potential for route extensions, connections and passenger growth. Flexibility for test services Capacity limitations, not suitable for high density, high volume passenger movements “Walkability” to and from stations Stations require parking and improved highway access; and generate traffic Downtown distribution Noise generated by horn warnings when trains traverse grade crossings Lower cost than light rail Increase in noisy freight movements that will likely shift to night Quieter and with lower emissions than traditional commuter rail A lightly used freight line must exist. The concept is applicable in selective circumstances Induced growth may be economically beneficial to locality Existing freight corridor may not be optimally placed to generate ridership. Growth may be induced where inappropriate or constrained by other factors. Ridership may be induced rather than mode shifted Shorter, faster trains A cooperative freight partner is required Viable in “edge cities” and suburban neighborhoods Extended and complex bureaucratic process; success not assured Additional utilization of an existing railroad asset Requires added systems and technology to protect passenger traffic from freight-based accidents Reduced social disruption construction relocation, and environmental disturbance by using existing facility Route will likely include a large number of grade crossings. Realistic or not, concern is increased with noncompliant vehicles Disparate speeds and weight, structural incompatibility of vehicles increases risk Each incremental change requires approval from the FRA Table 2. Business model for shared-track. Business Issue Transit Agency Freight Railroad Track Ownership Purchase, improve, and assumes control Sell and relinquishes control Track Maintenance Pays all costs and defines standards subject to FRA regulation Identify needs for continued freight service Track Access Manages freight and passenger schedule interactions Perpetual and exclusive trackage rights, subject to per-use fee Liability Assumes all risks over-and-above the old status quo Provides suitable insurance for own employees and operations Capital Financing Uses traditional public transit financing mechanisms Pays for freight-specific improvements on an incremental basis Incident & Emergency Management Leads the incident site and recovery effort Assists as necessary if freight equipment is involved Operating Rules Maintain railroad-like rules for both freight and passenger operations Coordinate with transit agency and FRA to identify rules necessary to preserve and operate freight service Employee Training Trains transit employees and provides cross-training where needed Trains freight employees for operation on transit territory Breakdown Recovery Retrieves disabled passenger equipment and evacuates passengers Quickly retrieves disabled freight equipment to allow resumption of transit service Labor Laws Avoids rail labor laws Operates under railroad labor laws Command and Control Combined command-and-control system with either temporal separation or “fail-safe train separation”

to a new and entirely separate system. Concurrent shared-track light rail operations provide a mechanism to offer a higher frequency of service than commuter rail, while keeping the capital costs affordable and enhancing urban passenger and freight rail service. Where shared-track is the preferred option, the business case should consider: 1. The main reason to consider noncompliant equipment is the improved flexibility it offers. Constraints in curvature radius, grades, clearance envelopes, limits of acceleration and deceleration make a lighter rail vehicle a superior choice for a regional service that traverses both urban and suburban environments. 2. A willing freight partner is essential. 3. Temporal separation while adequate, limits both using parties, and can be unaccept- able for freight customers, and restrict special events services for transit. It is also more difficult to schedule maintenance-of-way (MOW) windows on a temporally-separated system. 4. A strong oversight function and negotiation skill is essential. 5. Local governments should deal with the railroads as peers in negotiations and in business transactions. However, state or local authorities may have the right of first refusal if the freight operator proposes abandonment. 6. All planned improvements should benefit both the freight and passenger operation. A business case for improved technology is more easily made where risk to passengers can be significantly reduced. A freight operation also receives benefits, but the business case for the use of state-of-the-art technologies on a freight branch line is not particularly strong. Train Control Technology Systems to back up the operator have existed for over 100 years. The rapid development of new processor and communications technologies has vastly increased enforcement options, and more importantly, safety capabilities. Conventional signal systems rely on train opera- tors correctly observing and conforming to wayside signals, plus applicable radio messages and written operating rules, timetables and bulletins for safe train separation. Modern signal systems, standard to many high-density transit systems, employ different ways in which sig- nal aspects and other instructions can be transmitted to the train and enforced, even if the operator fails to observe these instructions. The most important factor in choosing a train control system is to ensure an adequate level of collision safety. However a shared-track train control system that permits progress beyond “rigid temporal separation” and allows a true concurrent train operation should incorporate other desirable features and capabilities: • Short block lengths; • Multiple signal aspects; • Automatic train stop to override operator error and prevent rail vehicle collisions; • Prevent/protect track to track crossing conflicts and siding roll outs; • Accommodate different performance characteristics of passenger and freight equipment; • Provide for operator alerts and a visual transition zone when going from signaled track to street running territory; • Provide hazard warning and avoidance systems; and • Accommodate equipment that may not be recognized by the train control system on the line. A shared-track operation requires no advanced or exotic technology to provide adequate safety when the preceding guidelines are applied. The benefits and advantages of the latest Summary 5

technology may reduce operating costs, or provide life cycle savings, but well thought-out and appropriate applications of common train control technologies can furnish acceptable safety and fail-safe train separation. Conventional intermittent or audio frequency cab sig- nals are sufficient for a new installation. Technologies for Achieving Fail-Safe Train Separation The single most important requirement in a shared-track system is to provide active safety. An active safety system is fail-safe, in that an inevitable human operator failure should not result in catastrophic consequences. Two currently available classes of train control tech- nologies can meet that requirement. 1. Inductive warning system with stop enforcement. Inductive warning systems provide intermittent wayside-to-train communication via a series of electro-magnets or transpon- ders installed at periodic intervals in the right-of-way. The train speed or warning can be acknowledged, but the system must slow down or stop the train regardless of whether the warning was acknowledged. 2. Coded-track circuit cab signal with speed enforcement. Coded track circuit systems provide continuous wayside-to-train communication via a pulse code or an audio fre- quency signal. The on-board microcomputer restricts train speeds and issues brake commands automatically based on the maximum permissible speeds or stop, indicated by the code. Operating rules govern the movement of equipment with failed train control apparatus. Typically, movement is not permitted without on-site supervision. Movement of conven- tional trains with failed train control apparatus would not be permitted except under tem- poral separation. Intrusion accidents and derailment risks are a threat to safety. Intrusion risks are greater in areas of close clearance. Derailments could lead to intrusion accidents. To provide safe- guards against these accident scenarios, designs featuring wider track centers and downward sloping industrial sidings should be adopted where possible. Active detection also may be necessary: 1. Proven railroad technologies: hot bearings, high-and-wide equipment, and brittle wire detectors; 2. Hazard detection technologies: optical or newer laser technologies for intrusion detec- tion and other temperature sensing devices for hot bearings; 3. Interlocked derails: prevents runaway loose cars from fouling mainlines; and 4. Electric locks and switch position indicators: minimizes facing-point derailments. Together, these technologies provide a safe operating environment. Application of these tech- nologies to mitigate identified hazards would be viewed with favor by regulatory authorities. Grade Crossing Hazards Grade crossing collisions with highway vehicles are a serious problem for all passenger and freight rail operations and some light rail systems. Crossing accident risks are not changed by either concurrent or temporally separated shared-track. Waiver applicants should emphasize the crossing safety benefits of lower vehicle mass, shorter trains, lower speeds and more powerful brake systems of light passenger rail cars compared with con- ventional commuter trains. There can be no objective technical justification for applying a higher grade crossing safety standard to shared-track than to light rail operations. 6 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner’s Guide

Integrating Technology for Effective Command and Control • Freight carriers and passenger operators must be able to communicate when using the same track. This is fundamental to joint operation regardless of the type of railroad equip- ment in service. This capability is relatively easily served by conventional technology, at an acceptable cost. • Regardless of the choice and capabilities of train control and communications technolo- gies, these will have to be integrated with Rules and Procedures to complete the frame- work of C&C. Both the freight and passenger operator need to use a unified rulebook and receive movement authority from one control center, preferably the passenger operator. • The current variety of vehicle choices necessitates that each new or unique vehicle must be analyzed from a safety perspective, increasing overall system deployment costs. Stan- dardization can facilitate the incorporation of Crash Energy Management (CEM) features by avoiding or limiting the structural and risk analysis necessary for each railcar. Further reduction of the number of standardized vehicle categories and models will contribute to lower unit costs and facilitate acceptance by agencies and regulators. Requirements for Concurrent Shared-Track Operations Under the current North American regulatory framework, each shared-track operation must be approved by a waiver exception. Each such shared-track operation must incorpo- rate measures that are safe, verifiable, and achievable when regulatory exceptions are sought. Detailed engineering or safety criteria allowing routine approval of standard shared-track system designs appear unlikely in the near future. Analysis and research experience to date indicates that shared-track operations that meet the following criteria have an elevated like- lihood of achieving approval in the federal process. 1. Light Density Freight Operation (less than 1.5 million gross tons per annum) 2. Medium Density Transit Operation at Limited Speeds (no more than 20 minutes off peak headway, and at speeds of less than 60 mph) 3. Adoption of Railroad-like Rulebook for Transit Operations 4. Fail-Safe Train Separation Technology for Both Light Passenger Rail Cars and Freight train consists (variance from 49 CFR Parts 234 and 236 must be justified) 5. Common and Shared Communications Network 6. Full FRA Compliance and Reporting, Except: a. Transit Vehicle Design (49 CFR Parts 221, 223, 229, 231, 238, 239) b. Transit Operators are not FRA Engineers (49 CFR 240) c. Minor Variance on Hours of Service (49 CFR 225, 228) Waivers: The waiver process puts the applicant at the whim of authorities that may iden- tify additional requirements due to unforeseen local circumstances or new lessons learned from novel accident scenarios. FRA may require specific risk analyses for the proposed oper- ations. However, planners should be confident that if the proposed operation meets these requirements, the risk of regulatory stall is much reduced. Equipment: Given the disparity in structural capabilities and weights of light passenger rail cars and conventional railroad equipment, the light rail cars cannot be expected to provide pri- mary passive protection in an accident. A dominant role for train control clearly emphasizes crash avoidance over crashworthiness. Command and Control: From the outset the train control system should be designed with concurrent shared-track in mind. This allows the designer to account for high service braking rates of the light passenger rail car and design appropriate block lengths and signal aspects. Summary 7

Additionally, the lower freight speeds on branch lines with shorter train lengths can be accommodated too. • Ultimately the vehicle should be considered one part of an integrated ‘system’ of safety that relies on crashworthiness, train control, training, and Rules and Procedures. • Whatever Command and Control and vehicle technology forms the basis of the shared- track operation, it should provide some capacity for service growth by both the passenger and freight operator. Practical Shortcuts 1. Pursue “near compliance” wherever possible. The system has to look, feel, and sound like a railroad to the FRA, while applying transit technology and most important, assume that an FRA waiver will be necessary. 2. Control of movement authority is the key to safety and regulatory compliance. Consider that the choice of a train control system can contribute to a positive review of the Waiver Petition, improve the freight operation, and provide a faster, safer passenger operation. 3. A fail-safe train separation system with the capacity to override the train operator is nec- essary to prevent a potentially catastrophic collision and essential for concurrent opera- tions. Cab signals can provide speed enforcement and reduce risk. 4. Where possible, incorporate CEM features on rail cars to reduce risk of potential injuries and fatalities. 5. Analyze nature of freight traffic and the physical configuration of track; modify track sep- aration and/or elevations to protect against derailment accidents where possible. 6. Consider measures to mitigate risk: Recognized Risk Parameters • Accident rate variability with volume and type of rail traffic. • Frequency, nature and proximity of freight traffic. • Single or double tracks, yard operations. • Account for the operating speeds of the light passenger rail equipment. • Secondary collisions (effects on standees is a particular concern). • Note reduced fire hazard from less fuel and improved protection for the fuel tank on typical DMU equipment. • The number of cars in the consist. • Collision effects on the articulated joint. • Collision effects on power module or propulsion components. • Number of grade crossings, volume and nature of highway traffic. Potential Risk Reduction Actions • Upgrade the track maintenance class to reduce the likelihood of a derailment. • Lower the operating speeds of freight, time of day track restrictions. • Add intrusion detection and other hazard detection devices. • Failsafe train separation. • Protection from freight siding roll-outs. • Automatic Train Protection. • Grade crossing warning system technology. • Extremely high braking rates and redundancy of brake system on DMUs and LRVs. • Well developed operating rules and procedures with training and enforcement program. • Provision of CEM design including frangible and crush-zone elements in vehicle, in addition to interior features that offer more protection for passengers. • Anti-climber features for carbody and roof. 8 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner’s Guide

Barriers to Implementation Research for this project has highlighted some of the advantages and disadvantages of the shared-track concept. None of the disadvantages is insurmountable, if shared-track is the right fit. Some of the more prominent barriers, however, have subjective elements. These cases require convincing regulators and policy makers that shared-track operations are both pos- sible and advantageous to the public. The tactic requires stronger and more irrefutable objective arguments to overcome the necessarily conservative approach to safety. On one hand, more research on and experience with shared-track operations may be essential to effect a change. On the other, existing impediments are the primary reason that the concept has not been more readily embraced, as evidenced by the number of transit agencies that have opted for conventional rail systems, or other projects that were simply stopped. While there are a number of impediments to broader application of this form of service, risk analysis may be the primary obstacle. The interpretation of risk analysis methodology and results is somewhat esoteric. Validated data to quantify risk is lacking; modeling risk events is a complex affair; some have a natural inclination to dismiss risk concerns while some display a tendency to overstate them. One school of thought places excessive faith in risk management, while another has insufficient faith. The probabilistic aspect does not sat- isfactorily address a “nightmare scenario” event. There is simply less comfort in calculating a one-in-a-billion chance of an accident event every 10 years. Regulators can more easily understand the idea that if an event occurs, passengers are protected. Advancing the Shared-Track Concept Track sharing between mainline trains and light passenger rail cars serves a niche market between commuter rail and a stand-alone light rail system. It is clear that advances in this service concept are contingent upon shared-track operations being affordable, and achiev- able without sacrificing safety. The shared-track transit systems currently operating in San Diego and southern New Jer- sey should be designated as demonstration systems for further development, as templates, for an American approach to shared-track transit operations. Use existing shared-track systems to initiate demonstration or pilot programs for concur- rent operations of light passenger rail car and conventional rail equipment in the United States. A shared-track demonstration project without temporal separation could be useful: • To gain experience in design and implementation of such a system; • To demonstrate the feasibility and safety of such an operation; and • To quantify the benefits of shared-track operations. Results of a demonstration could offer the potential for relief from a significant operating constraint on current temporally-separated operations. Summary 9

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