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 58
58 Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors
The content of each of the three agreements shown in Figure 4-2 must be consistent with each
other and in combination include all the elements needed to ensure a successful passenger rail
service. The specific contents of the agreements are described in the following paragraphs.
4.3.2 Inputs to and Preparations for Finalizing the Agreements
Chapters 2 and 3 have discussed preparations for negotiations with Amtrak and the host rail-
roads and the main points of negotiation that must be addressed. In addition, Chapter 3 describes
the types of analysis of train performance, rail corridor capacity, and capital O&M costs that may
be needed to support negotiations and capital investment decisions. The key points covered in
previous sections are summarized in the following subsections.
Long-Term Vision Plan
The passenger rail agency should have a long-term vision plan for the development of rail-
road services in the state or region. Ideally the plan should include both freight and passenger
rail services and have been prepared by the agency in consultation with other state agencies
having an interest in transportation, as well as with providers of rail and related services of all
types. With regard to passenger service, the plan should describe the long-term goal for pas-
senger rail developments and the principal steps in developing services between the present
and the goal. The PRIIA now requires state agencies to prepare such a plan as a precondition
to accepting capital grants for intercity passenger rail service under the various programs
administered by the FRA.
Feasibility Study
A thorough feasibility study for the proposed intercity passenger rail service should be prepared
in cooperation with Amtrak and preferably the host railroad(s) on the corridor. As noted previ-
ously, some host freight railroads prefer to be deeply involved in feasibility studies to make sure
that their concerns are addressed early in the process, while others prefer only limited involve-
ment. The feasibility plan differs from the vision plan in that it focuses on one corridor and ser-
vice, rather than a whole state or region, but both should be long term, covering a period that
reflects the service life of infrastructure investments. Almost all passenger rail projects involve
investment in railroad infrastructure, including ROW, track and signal improvements, station
and terminal investments, and sometimes purchase or lease of the ROW. These investments have
a service life of at least 20 years, and the long-term plan is essential to ensure that benefits from
the investments are fully realized.
The feasibility study starts with the goals for the service at each stage in its development, such as:
· Target journey times, station locations, and train departure times.
· Desired number of daily trips.
· Planned accommodations on train.
The results of the study are the actions needed to accomplish the planned service at each
development stage, including:
· Proposed physical infrastructure investments (track upgrades, sidings and double track, signal
systems, etc.).
· Estimated cost of infrastructure investments.
· Expected service performance.
· O&M requirements and the associated costs, including where specific maintenance activities
are required to ensure planned service quality.
· Passenger car and locomotive requirements, and plans for acquisition and maintenance of
suitable equipment for the planned service.
OCR for page 59
Content of Shared-Use Access and Operating Agreements 59
Because there will be considerable uncertainty regarding markets for passenger and freight rail
services and the availability of funding for passenger rail capital and operating expenses, the plans
must be flexible and structured to respond to unexpected developments. Provision for regular
reviews and updates is essential.
The penalties for not planning ahead can be substantial. Focusing on just the short term--
thinking "just get the service started and then worry about the long term later"--can lead to
missed opportunities. When further development is needed to meet increasing patronage, agen-
cies without a basic long-term framework agreed upon with the host and other users have found
it very difficult or costly to take the next step.
Making Access Agreements and Contracts Detailed, Unambiguous,
and Consistent with Long-Term Plans
As illustrated in Figure 4-2, a three-way set of agreements must be put into effect for Amtrak
intercity service on a rail corridor. Each of these agreements should embody the same service spec-
ification as developed in the feasibility study and as further negotiated with Amtrak and the host
railroad(s). The agreements must provide a long-term framework to give all parties assurance that
their future business and service development will not be compromised and that benefits from
infrastructure investments can be fully realized. Because the future is inherently unpredictable, the
agreements must include a process by which service changes can be negotiated to accommodate
changes in performance and traffic levels, within agreed-upon limits. For example, if the long-term
plan envisions starting with four round trips per day for a given passenger service, increasing to
twelve round trips as demand grows and funding becomes available, then the agreement should
reflect that and agree on what investments are required to make service increases possible. If the
freight operator wants to assure the availability of a given capacity at different points over the term
of the agreement, then the agreement should specify what passenger service levels are consistent
with meeting that goal, what investments are needed to make this possible, and how the costs will
be shared.
Experience has shown it is unwise to leave some matters for future discussion or agreement or
to accept verbal assurances that, for example, additional passenger trains can be accommodated at
some point in the future. Negotiators who meet for a later round of discussions are unlikely to be
different from those that negotiated the original agreement. Any understandings or assurances that
were not explicit in the original agreement will not be enforceable, and changes in personnel, pol-
icy, or external circumstances could mean that non-binding assurances have been forgotten or will
no longer be honored.
Experience also has shown that the agreements should be highly explicit and cover all aspects of
operating needs of corridor users. Lower-probability scenarios should be considered and provided
for in the agreements, if possible. For example, one passenger authority purchased a rail corridor
from a freight railroad, which retained trackage rights for freight service on the corridor. Fifteen
years later, the passenger authority is now facing difficulties because the freight railroad wants to
operate more freight trains than either party envisioned when the original agreement was signed.
The original agreement lacks any provision to address this situation, thus a broad renegotiation of
the agreement is required.
Flexibility, Renegotiation Periods, and Dispute Resolution
All agreements should contain procedures both for periodic revision or renegotiation of
contracts and a mechanism to resolve disputes. Given the inherent uncertainties in demand
for freight and passenger rail service and in funding availability for passenger rail develop-
ments, many agreements provide for renegotiation on request by either party. Other agree-
ments provide for reviews at regular, often 5-year intervals with provisions for intermediate
