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 R1
TRANSIT
TCRP REPORT 130
COOPERATIVE
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
Sponsored by
the Federal
Transit Administration
Shared Use of Railroad
Infrastructure with Noncompliant
Public Transit Rail Vehicles:
A Practitioner's Guide
OCR for page R2
TCRP OVERSIGHT AND PROJECT TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
SELECTION COMMITTEE*
CHAIR OFFICERS
Robert I. Brownstein
AECOM Consult, Inc. CHAIR: Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka
VICE CHAIR: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
MEMBERS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
Ann August
Santee Wateree Regional Transportation Authority
John Bartosiewicz MEMBERS
McDonald Transit Associates J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY
Michael Blaylock
Jacksonville Transportation Authority Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg
Linda J. Bohlinger John D. Bowe, President, Americas Region, APL Limited, Oakland, CA
HNTB Corp. Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson
Raul Bravo Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation,
Raul V. Bravo & Associates
Gregory Cook
Norfolk, VA
Veolia Transportation William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles
Terry Garcia Crews David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond
StarTran Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia,
Nathaniel P. Ford, Jr. Charlottesville
SF Municipal Transportation Agency
Kim R. Green Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN
GFI GENFARE Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC
Jill A. Hough Will Kempton, Director, California DOT, Sacramento
North Dakota State University Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City
Angela Iannuzziello
ENTRA Consultants Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of
John Inglish Technology, Atlanta
Utah Transit Authority Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington
Jeanne W. Krieg Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority
David A. Lee
Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City
Connecticut Transit Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
Clarence W. Marsella Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR
Denver Regional Transportation District Rosa Clausell Rountree, Consultant, Tyrone, GA
Gary W. McNeil Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO
GO Transit
Michael P. Melaniphy C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of
Motor Coach Industries Texas, Austin
Frank Otero Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNXCentral Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando
PACO Technologies Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR
Keith Parker
Charlotte Area Transit System
Jeffrey Rosenberg EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Amalgamated Transit Union Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC
Michael Scanlon
San Mateo County Transit District Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA
Beverly Scott Paul R. Brubaker, Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, U.S.DOT
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York
James S. Simpson University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC
FTA
James Stem
Sean T. Connaughton, Maritime Administrator, U.S.DOT
United Transportation Union Clifford C. Eby, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT
Frank Tobey LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the
First Transit Interior, Washington, DC
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
William W. Millar John H. Hill, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT
APTA John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Robert E. Skinner, Jr. Officials, Washington, DC
TRB
John C. Horsley
Carl T. Johnson, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT
AASHTO David Kelly, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Thomas J. Madison, Jr. Sherry E. Little, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT
FHWA Thomas J. Madison, Jr., Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT
TDC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
Louis Sanders Robert A. Sturgell, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT
APTA Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General,
SECRETARY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Christopher W. Jenks
TRB
*Membership as of November 2008. *Membership as of January 2009.
OCR for page R3
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
TCRP REPORT 130
Shared Use of Railroad
Infrastructure with Noncompliant
Public Transit Rail Vehicles:
A Practitioner's Guide
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Newark, NJ
Jacobs Edwards & Kelcey
Boston, MA
ICF Consulting
Kittery, ME
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Newark, NJ
Subject Areas
Public Transit · Rail
Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2009
www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 130
The nation's growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, Project A-27
and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Current ISSN 1073-4872
systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must expand ISBN: 978-0-309-11769-2
service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency to serve Library of Congress Control Number 2009900079
these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating problems, to © 2009 Transportation Research Board
adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to intro-
duce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative
Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by
which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions COPYRIGHT PERMISSION
to meet demands placed on it. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report
published or copyrighted material used herein.
213--Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation
publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
Administration--now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,
Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of
solving research. TCRP, modeled after the longstanding and success- any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission
ful National Cooperative Highway Research Program, undertakes from CRP.
research and other technical activities in response to the needs of tran-
sit service providers. The scope of TCRP includes a variety of transit
research fields including planning, service configuration, equipment,
NOTICE
facilities, operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and
The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative Research
administrative practices.
Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the
TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Pro- Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing
posed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was autho- Board's judgment that the project concerned is appropriate with respect to both the
rized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act purposes and resources of the National Research Council.
of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement out- The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and to review
lining TCRP operating procedures was executed by the three cooper- this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration
for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions
ating organizations: FTA, the National Academies, acting through the expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and
Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical panel, they are not
Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research orga- necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council,
nization established by APTA. TDC is responsible for forming the the Transit Development Corporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S.
Department of Transportation.
independent governing board, designated as the TCRP Oversight and
Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel according to
procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive
Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically but Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research program by identi- Council, the Transit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit Administration
fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS (sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not endorse products or
Committee defines funding levels and expected products. manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are
considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the project reporting.
Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel, appointed
by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare project state-
ments (requests for proposals), select contractors, and provide techni-
cal guidance and counsel throughout the life of the project. The process
for developing research problem statements and selecting research
agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooperative research pro-
grams since 1962. As in other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve
voluntarily without compensation.
Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail to
reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on dissemi-
Published reports of the
nating TCRP results to the intended end users of the research: tran-
sit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
of research reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other support- are available from:
ing material developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for Transportation Research Board
workshops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure Business Office
that results are implemented by urban and rural transit industry 500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
practitioners.
The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively and can be ordered through the Internet at
address common operational problems. The TCRP results support and http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 130
Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Gwen Chisholm Smith, Senior Program Officer
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Margaret B. Hagood, Editor
TCRP PROJECT A-27 PANEL
Field of Service Operations
David Phraner, Edwards & Kelcey, Inc., Morristown, NJ (Chair)
Michael Allegra, Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, UT
Lewis Ames, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, San Francisco, CA
William M. Browder, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
David J. Carol, Charlotte Area Transit System, Charlotte, NC
Christina Messa, Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC, Evergreen, CO
Jeffrey G. Mora, Consultant, Washington, DC
Larry Phipps, Rail Consult, Inc., Tucson, AZ
Paul F. Schneider, New Jersey DOT, Trenton, NJ
Walt Stringer, North County (CA) Transit District, Oceanside, CA
Joseph R. Walsh, Joe Walsh Consulting, Portland, OR
Walter E. Zullig, Jr., Ossining, NY
Venkat Pindiprolu, FTA Liaison
Arthur L. Guzzetti, APTA Liaison
Eloy Martinez, Other Liaison
Christopher F. Schulte, Other Liaison
Thomas Tsai, Other Liaison
Elaine King, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under TCRP Project A-27 by Booz Allen Hamilton, in
association with Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey, ICF Consulting and New Jersey Institute of Technology.
Mr. Paul K. Stangas, P.E. was the Principal Investigator; other authors and co-Principal Investigators
are Mr. David Nelson, Director of Transit Planning, Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey; Mr. Alex Lu, Planner II,
Jacobs Edwards and Kelcey; Dr. Alan Bing, ICF Consulting Group Inc.; and Dr. Rachel Liu, New Jersey
Institute of Technology.
OCR for page R7
FOREWORD
By Gwen Chisholm Smith
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
TCRP Report 130: Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Tran-
sit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide includes a business case for the shared use of non-
FRA-compliant public transit rail vehicles (e.g., light rail vehicles) with freight operations
and offers a suggested business model for such shared-use operations. The Guide also iden-
tifies the advantages and disadvantages of shared-use operations and the issues and barriers
that can arise in the course of implementation.
The Guide includes a section that identifies and evaluates available and emerging tech-
nology, operating procedures, and techniques that could be used to minimize the risks asso-
ciated with sharing of track between non-FRA-compliant public transit rail vehicles and
freight railroad operations. Finally, the Guide includes descriptions and sources of real-
world examples of these applications.
This Guide will be helpful to transit managers, transit operations planners, transportation
consultants, state safety oversight agencies, and federal rail and transit oversight agencies.
There are two methods by which railroad corridors can be shared between public transit
and freight rail operations. The first consists of public transit rail vehicles using existing rail-
road corridors, but not sharing the same track. The second method involves public transit
rail vehicles sharing the same track with freight rail operations. The focus of this research is
on the second method of shared-use, solely as it relates to sharing track with lighter public
transit vehicles (e.g., light rail vehicles) that do not meet current Federal Railroad Admin-
istration (FRA) crashworthiness regulations. This "co-mingled" use of track has enormous
potential for public transit expansion because freight rail corridors that crisscross the nation
often provide the only transportation corridors left to connect suburban development to
many urban communities. Each prospective shared-use corridor will give rise to a unique
set of operating issues that requires development of new techniques, operating rules, and
technology applications to allow the safe sharing of privately owned corridors that are
becoming increasingly attractive as a latent community asset. In other instances, transit
agencies have acquired rail corridors but are required to maintain pre-existing freight ser-
vices, or public transit operators have been able to reach shared-use agreements (under
"temporal separation" restrictions) with existing railroads. In either case, the FRA main-
tains jurisdiction and oversees use of the corridors based on regulations, laws, and policies
developed during a century of safety oversight of the railroad industry.
To assist in the development of the Practitioner's Guide, the research team identified and
evaluated the suitability of existing train-control applications for promising shared-use
opportunities. Also, the research team evaluated the effectiveness of available and emerging
technologies, operating procedures, and other techniques that could be used to address
OCR for page R8
signals, grade crossing warning systems, and corridor intrusion detection appropriate for
"co-mingled" shared-use train control. Based on this evaluation, the research team devel-
oped a baseline of common communications and control elements that would enhance the
safety for applicable shared-use operations.
The Practitioner's Guide is intended as a tool-kit and handbook for identification of can-
didate corridors and implementation of a cotemporaneous shared-track operation. The
report develops analytical techniques, notably a business model and business case, and
strategies to overcome the barriers of safety standards and regulatory restraints.
OCR for page R9
CONTENTS
1 Summary
1 Research Objective
2 Summary of Research Tasks
2 Report Output
3 Findings
3 Alternative Approaches to New Starts
3 Business Model
3 Business Case
5 Train Control Technology
6 Technologies for Achieving Fail-Safe Train Separation
6 Grade Crossing Hazards
7 Integrating Technology for Effective Command and Control
7 Requirements for Concurrent Shared-Track Operations
8 Practical Shortcuts
9 Barriers to Implementation
9 Advancing the Shared-Track Concept
10 Chapter 1 Shared-Use: Background and
Rationale for the Research
10 Introduction
11 Defining Shared-Track
11 Reader's Guide to the Final Report
12 Research Effort
12 Scope of Work for Project A-27
13 Research Approach
14 Shared-Track--The Operating Environment
14 Characteristics of a Shared-Track Corridor
15 Freight Operations Perspective
17 Chapter 2 Shared-Track: Laying the Foundation--
Policy and Strategy
17 Introduction
17 Why Share Track?
18 Creating a Strategic Foundation
18 The Business Model
19 Business Model Structure
20 The Business Case
21 Shared-Track--A Practical Business Case Structure
23 The Safety Case
23 FRA--Obtaining a Federal Waiver
23 Role of the Designated State Safety Organization
24 Methods for Risk Analyses
OCR for page R10
25 Achieving Safety Equivalence
25 Equal Risks, Equivalent Safety
26 Underpinning the Case for Shared-Track
27 Chapter 3 Enabling Shared-Track: Technology,
Command, and Control
27 Introduction
27 The Role of Command and Control Systems in Shared-Track
28 Train Control Technology
28 1) Train Control System Functions
29 2) Train Control System Design Parameters
30 3) Train Control Technology--Conventional Systems
30 4) Train Control--Emerging Technology--PTC and CBTC
31 5) Train Control Technology--The Supply Side
31 6) Proving the Train Control System
31 Basic Testing Requirements
31 System and Integration Testing--Vendor Role
32 7) Practical Considerations For Shared-Track
32 8) Issues Unique to Train Control for Shared-Track
33 Auxiliary Safety Critical Systems
34 Interoperability of Freight Trains in Shared Territory
34 9) Fail-Safe Train Separation
36 Command and Control: Communications
36 1) Communications--Information Processing
36 2) Regulatory and Practical Requirements
38 3) Purpose of a Communications System
38 4) Functional Design of a Communications System
39 5) Communications Systems for Shared-Track
39 Command and Control Systems: Rules and Procedures
39 1) Purpose
39 2) Regulatory Mandates
40 3) Rules and Procedures--Practical Considerations
40 4) The Rulebook
41 5) Rules and Procedures for Shared-Track
42 Technology: Rail Vehicles for Shared-Track Applications
42 Introduction
42 Background
43 Review of Suitable Candidate Rail Vehicles
43 1) Light Rail Vehicles
43 2) Diesel Multiple Units and Electrical Multiple Units
44 Features Preferred for Shared-Track Operations
44 1) FRA Compliance
44 2) Crash Energy Management (CEM)
45 3) Propulsion System
46 4) Superior Car Braking Performance
46 5) Other Considerations
47 Vehicle Cost Drivers
47 Vehicles for Shared-Track Applications
48 1) Selecting the Optimal Vehicle
48 2) Regulatory Approach
48 3) Standardization
OCR for page R11
49 Recommended Vehicle Research
49 Applying Technology to Shared-Track Operation--A Brief Guide
51 Chapter 4 Shared-Track: A Handbook of Examples
and Applications
51 Shared-Track Operations--The North American Experience
52 1) Public Ownership and Control
52 2) Former Private Freight Railroad Owner Becomes a Privileged Tenant
53 3) Risks Are Managed by the Transit Agency
53 4) Pressure to Commingle Is Heaviest on Lines with Higher Freight
Densities*--A Review of Different Solutions
54 5) Public Transit Agencies Are Interested in Avoiding Shared-Track
Arrangements
54 6) Transit Operators Choosing to Avoid Commingling Sacrificed Service
Quality and Efficiency
55 Business Case Template
56 Alternatives Analysis
57 Physical Characteristics
57 Reasons to Consider Noncompliant Equipment
58 Service Characteristics to Justify the Choice of a Light Rail System
59 Overview of Shared-Track Options--Operating Plan
59 Structures Considerations
60 Service Comparison
60 Cost and Ridership Analyses
61 Cost Analysis for Signal System Alternatives
63 System Capital Cost Assessment
64 System Operating Cost Assessment
66 Ridership Impacts
66 Alternatives Evaluation
67 Business Case Findings
67 Risk Analyses Template
67 Introduction
68 Risk Analysis and Modeling Methodology
71 Results and Risk Analysis Findings
73 Safety Case Findings
74 Results of the Sample Case Study
74 The Business and Safety Cases--What Works in the Real World
74 San Diego Trolley
75 NJ Transit Newark City Subway
75 NJ Transit River LINE
75 Achievable Incremental Steps
76 Practical Shortcuts for Shared-Track
77 Chapter 5 Shared Use: Progress and Evolution
77 Demonstration Project
78 Collision Safety of the Demonstration Project
78 Collisions Between Light Passenger Rail Cars
and Conventional Equipment
78 Application of Risk Analyses Methodology
to the Demonstration Project
79 Data Collection Plan
OCR for page R12
80 Suggestions for Demonstration Projects
80 San Diego Trolley, Inc.
81 NJ Transit River LINE
81 Barriers to Implementation
82 Shared Track--The Potential Market
83 Shared-Track Operation--An Evolving Concept
85 Bibliography
87 Appendix 1 Abbreviations
88 Appendix 2 Glossary of Shared-Track Definitions
93 Appendix 3 TCRP A-27 Research Task Descriptions
98 Appendix 4 Relative Cost Comparison of Train Control Systems
100 Appendix 5 Sample Operating Rulebook Table of Contents
101 Appendix 6 Vehicle Cost Drivers
102 Appendix 7 Some Examples of Current Production LRV
and MU Vehicle Types
106 Appendix 8 Shared-Track System Status
107 Appendix 9 Shared-Track Configuration and Operational
Alternatives
