Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations (2014)

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.

12 C H A P T E R 2 2.1 Introduction As noted, this guidebook’s research team discussed issues surrounding line capacity and oper- ations assessments with public and private rail planners. The goal of the effort was to understand how these planners approach shared-use opportunities and to discover if there were any com- mon themes and/or concerns in line capacity planning. The team sought to interview a broad spectrum of shared-use stakeholders, composed mostly of Class I freight railroads (carriers with annual carrier operating revenues of $433.2 mil- lion or more) hosting large scale passenger operations, state Departments of Transportation sponsoring passenger services, and commuter rail agencies. Intercity passenger service pro- vider Amtrak and the industry regulator, the FRA, were interviewed as well. The interviews occurred during the summer of 2012. The interviews were conducted either face-to-face or via conference call. The guidebook’s research team developed a series of interview questions which were sent 2 to 3 weeks in advance of the actual interviews. The questions were customized according to the circumstances of each target interview group; they were developed to frame the stakeholder dis- cussions and to draw out common themes. The team was provided detailed, thoughtful feedback by all survey participants. Common themes and particular concerns are summarized herein. The questions were customized according to the circumstances of each target group. The surveys were developed to frame the stakeholder discussions and to draw out common themes rather than tabulate results from various groups. The team was provided detailed, thoughtful feedback by all survey participants. Common themes and particular concerns are summarized herein. In the discussion that follows are references to operations simulation, often just called model- ing. These references pertain to computer programs that mimic train operations on track seg- ments shared by two or more trains. Operations simulations and the computer programs that perform them are detailed in Chapter 3. It is becoming standard practice in the railroad industry to perform operations simulation when planning for introduction of new passenger services on freight railroad tracks. Indeed for federal support of such new passenger service implementation, operations simulation is a requirement of the FRA. 2.2 What Is “Rail Capacity” and Why Is It Important? Railway “capacity” has no value in and of itself. What is of value to rail stakeholders is the capability of a given set of facilities, along with their related management and support systems, Synthesis of Stakeholder Input

Synthesis of Stakeholder Input 13 to deliver acceptable levels of service for each category of use. What is deemed “acceptable” varies widely even within broad user categories: • High speed passenger train operations in Japan are flagged as “off-schedule” when delays exceed 30 seconds for trains arriving and departing terminals. • Amtrak considers trains to be “on-time” if they are within 10 minutes of schedule. • Many carload freight shippers consider “day of delivery” to be an acceptable service definition. • Dedicated intermodal trains operate to within 60-minute standards and carry “just in time” freight on a wholesale basis for major motor carriers. The scale and configuration of the fixed physical plant sets the upper boundaries for service delivery. Within those boundaries, however, a variety of management, operations practices, and support system elements determine the effective service delivery capability of a given corridor. In addition, several other factors must be incorporated into any serious assessment of “rail capac- ity.” They include: • Dispatch performance, including the “style” of an individual dispatcher and the support sys- tems provided to the dispatchers in delivering movement instructions. One freight road in particular noted an “optimistic” bias for operation simulation modeling in multiple main track territories thanks to an assumption that dispatchers are more comfortable in arranging overtakes and “reverse running” than is actually the case. The biggest impact of dispatch “style” relates to the willingness of a given dispatcher to make use of all technically described available routes within a given corridor to expedite traf- fic. For example, dispatchers who insist on a greater buffer between trains than is required by safety rules and signaling systems may reduce the effective capacity of an alignment below that described by a modeling tool such as Rail Traffic Controller (RTC). • Train length and horsepower/ton ratios for different classes of train service. • Communications protocols and support systems. • Reliability of train operations beyond the physical boundaries of the shared-use corridor. • Recovery resources to move operations back to a “normal” status following unplanned events such as: equipment failures, derailments, severe weather, and grade crossing incidents. • Track maintenance and capital renewal strategies. • Determining the level of infrastructure or systems redundancy appropriate to mitigate the risk of unplanned events (equipment failures, grade crossing incidents, track defects, etc.) is equal parts art and science, and is at the root of many conflicts over the required level of corridor investments. Modeling of specific incidents or inclusion of random events in train service performance simulation is an approach that will better define system robustness and service recovery capabilities. It is extremely important to develop early consensus on the scenarios to be modeled. A clear and unambiguous technical definition of “success” will serve to narrow the range of feasible infrastructure solutions, straightening the path to a formal agreement for needed investments. For illustration the targets for a given facility might include: • Intercity passenger operations within 10 minutes of schedule 92% of the time, provided trains are “in slot” at the time of entry into the service corridor. • Commuter rail operations within 5 minutes of schedule 95% of the time. • Intermodal freight operations within 1 hour of schedule 90% of the time provided trains are “in slot” at the time of entry into the service corridor. • Manifest and bulk commodity trains—no deterioration of average train speeds or increase in average minutes of delay.

14 Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations 2.3 A Building Block for Project Execution Those who have completed major rail projects and federal oversight agencies such as the FRA have noted the importance of a robust operations and capacity assessment. The operations and capacity assessment creates the link between the infrastructure and operating plans, and informs an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for approval of federal funding participation. The analysis also serves to define project phasing and puts into context short or intermediate term investments that are ultimately required as part of the long term service plan. Without this context it may be difficult for sponsoring agencies to gather political support for investments that may be essential to the long term vision but that fail to deliver, on their own, tangible service benefits in the short term. A particular case study, discussed in Chapter 4, was responsive to this point. The 2010 LOSSAN Corridor Strategic Assessment was aimed at illustrating for public sponsors the types of public investments required over a 15-year time period to improve passenger train performance and attract more riders; and at the same time preserve service quality for the freight railroads on the corridor. 2.4 Transparency of Modeling Inputs A recurring theme from all public sector stakeholders is the need to improve the level of transparency associated with capacity simulation inputs and outputs. On corridors they own, freight carriers fully control the technical assessment of the operations for proposed and exist- ing shared-use territories even when the passenger rail sponsor underwrites the cost of such an analysis. Knowledgeable independent consultants can be valuable in helping a passenger rail agency and a host railroad reach a mutually acceptable agreement regarding capacity enhancements needed to meet specific train frequency and trip time requirements. The freight railroad is assured that its operating constraints and requirements are properly understood, and the passenger rail agency has assurance that it is not being expected to agree to unreasonable conditions. In most cases Amtrak is also a party to the negotiations, as the proposed operator of the passenger service, and brings wide experience of capacity analysis. This noted, public sponsors in some instances have pulled back from performing independent assessments with their own in-house or consulting experts after discovering that the work is eventually re-done by the host freight road in any case. While the FRA prefers to see independent, third-party consultants involved, the approach to performing the technical analysis is ultimately negotiated between the host carrier and the sponsoring state or agency. The trend with respect to simulations transparency has been to provide greater access to the process for passenger rail sponsors. All freight carriers emphasize the need to protect sensitive commercial data and will not share client or commodity-specific information beyond some broad commodity categories (viz., merchandise carload freight, bulk commodities, and inter- modal). In some cases host carriers provide full disclosure of current and anticipated physical volumes while other roads allow sponsors to “view” the results of a simulation but not to record any details of the modeling inputs. Host freight carriers are called upon by the FRA to justify freight growth projections that vary widely from assumptions embedded into the “Freight Analysis Framework” from the Federal

Synthesis of Stakeholder Input 15 Highway Administration (FHWA) which foresees a general, year-over-year growth trend of 1.5%-2.0%. Discrete additions above the general trend may be explained by the dominance of identified, high-growth commodities or special facility and corridor initiatives such as those that target domestic intermodal freight. Other inputs, such as assumptions on track maintenance levels and train schedules, can vary widely. What is key is that stakeholders in an operation simulation buy-in to the input assump- tions, and transparency of inputs facilitates such buy-in. 2.5 Doing the Homework No stakeholders brought forward examples of shared corridor proposals that were undeserv- ing of formal, detailed capacity and operations assessment. Freight railroads and the FRA cau- tion sponsors of new services to withhold judgment and to avoid public articulations of service speed and frequency goals until such time as a formal assessment can take place. In general host carriers would prefer to have a conversation at the earliest possible phase of consideration of a new service in order to provide feedback on whether or not a given service lane is even feasible to pursue at a reasonable level of investment. Carriers’ willingness to invest time and energy in ongoing discussions of passenger rail service hinges in part on an assessment of the resources available to the project sponsor. As a general rule the passenger service sponsor is required to underwrite the cost of the associated technical operations and capacity assessment. If funding is not available for this purpose the host carrier may be expected to turn its attention to other priorities. The size and complexity of some projects may warrant the assignment of a “dedicated” rail carrier employee to the public agency project. Typically the sponsoring agency would underwrite the salary and direct expenses associated with that role. In considering such an arrangement the passenger service sponsor should consider the additional expense in the context of: • Greater flexibility and management discretion for evaluation of multiple service scenarios. • Easier scheduling of meetings and public outreach activities. • Other project elements uniquely associated with publicly funded projects. The time (and cost) required for a technical RTC-based corridor capacity analysis is a product of the following: • Track network complexity. • Train operations complexity. • Number of alternative operations and track upgrade scenarios to be evaluated. A simple assessment for a modest commuter operation over a medium density freight cor- ridor might be done in a couple of months for $70,000 to $100,000. At the opposite extreme, a complex, multi-phase corridor upgrade program such as the Chicago-Saint Louis project might require six to eight months of modeling work and cost several hundred thousand dollars. While this is a considerable sum, it is certainly not out of scale with the overall project investment of over $1 billion and should be considered an investment in the proper allocation of scarce capital funds for a long term service infrastructure. It should also be recognized that a modeling platform lives on as a management tool for future projects and potential service changes, provided the model is refreshed and updated as physical plant changes occur.

16 Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations 2.6 The Long View The FRA, host freight carriers, and many state DOT’s emphasize the need to first define the long term (minimum 20-year) service scenario for a new passenger operation and to then work backward to define logical steps of investment and service speed/frequency associated with reaching that goal. The advantages to such an approach include: • Consideration of discrete project investments as contributing to a long term operations and infrastructure configuration. Avoidance of “cheap” fixes that do not allow for future growth. • Early identification of the limits of “shared-use” and, where appropriate, the establishment of benchmarks for segregated infrastructure. • Preservation of abandoned or lightly used rail alignments as required in protecting the long term service vision. • Creation of a more stable planning environment for public agencies and private carriers alike, narrowing the range of uncertainties that accompany the regular political cycle. With a long view in mind, capacity-enhancing projects may be implemented far more quickly if and when funding is made available as described in the “Phasing” discussion below. 2.7 Phasing Finesse Public rail funding programs are in their infancy in many jurisdictions, giving rise to rail project proposals that are just that—projects—rather than positioning the rail mode as an integral part of a long term multimodal transport improvement regime. States that have a longer history of state rail investment for passenger operations, such as California, Washington State, Illinois, Maryland, and North Carolina, have learned the advantages of longer term planning for rail. These long term plans can best be progressed through collaborative analysis of service goals and associated investments, with capacity and operations simulations tools used to define the discrete projects that make possible each new level of passenger service improvement. Three examples of successful long term planning are highlighted herein. 2.7.1 California Corridor Services Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) corridor improvement projects are directly managed by a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) consisting of the relevant transportation authori- ties in the San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn Capitol Corridor alignment. San Joaquin train service in the Central Valley and the Pacific Surfliner along the Central and Southern California coasts will evolve into similar management structures. Planning for rail programs statewide is managed, however, through Caltrans’ Division of Rail at Caltrans head offices in the state capital, Sacramento. • Caltrans officials in Sacramento establish a 25-year statewide vision for service and offer the first communication to potential host freight carriers of the public uses envisioned for various rail corridors. • The official 10-year State Rail Plan is the first articulation of a financially constrained public rail investment program. Development of this plan includes an invitation to the freight railroads to help establish investment priorities for the various alignments, based primarily on the cost-effectiveness of each project in delivering service improvements as articulated in the statewide plan. Participation by the freight railroads at this juncture is uneven, with BNSF more fully embracing a participatory role in the long term planning regime.

Synthesis of Stakeholder Input 17 • The Caltrans 5-year rail plan (revised bi-annually) coincides with the state’s general budget cycle and gives rise to development of specific public-private partnership contracts, funding appropriations and project start-ups. Caltrans has sponsored passenger rail service for decades. Its sponsorship of the San Joaquin service began in 1976. It began funding of the San Diegan service in 1979; the train was rebranded the Pacific Surfliner in 2000. The state has funded the Capitol Corridor trains since their introduc- tion in 1991. 2.7.2 Cascades Services The Washington State Cascades Service enjoys a long term history of support that has enabled the state to take full advantage of funding opportunities as they arise. In 1993 BNSF and WSDOT began collaboration on development of a detailed operations simulation/capacity modeling platform that enabled tests of alternative investment approaches. The long term service goal for Seattle-Portland trains is 13 daily round trip frequencies with a 2 hour 30 minute total transit time. The detailed simulation work revealed that the state’s goals could most cost effectively be met through construction of a dedicated, passenger-only third main track between Tacoma and Vancouver, WA, on the Columbia River. The dedicated track provides not only additional train movement capacity, but enables passenger trains to move at higher average speeds through improved track geometry and increased super-elevation (banking) in curves. A plan that includes more modest, incremental investments to improve speeds and frequency serves to kick-start corridor improvements if and when funding opportunities arise. Five trains per day currently ply the Seattle-Portland route. A sixth frequency will be made possible by construction of a passenger-dedicated “Point Defiance Bypass” that will serve to segregate pas- senger from freight operations in the congested Tacoma waterfront area. Segregation of freight and passenger service in this area will support higher maximum service speeds for the Cascades and improve schedule integrity by moving passenger trains away from the congested Port of Tacoma terminal area. The Cascades formally began, with sponsorship of the states of Oregon and Washington, in 1999. 2.7.3 North Carolina Services North Carolina DOT sponsors intrastate passenger rail service in the Piedmont/Carolinian Corridor, connecting the major population centers of Charlotte, Greensboro, and Raleigh through operations over a combination of Norfolk Southern and state-owned North Carolina Railroad right-of-way. As in Washington State, a long history of collaboration and joint planning with NS has produced a multi-phase road map for further improvements in speed and frequency. Long term infrastructure assessment has identified new capacity and urban bypass requirements for upgrades in service frequency. Longer term improvements incorporate upgrades in speed associated with eventual extension of high speed rail operations northward to Virginia and a connection to the Northeast Corridor. One element of improving service capacity and reliability that has gained national recognition is NCDOT’s “sealed corridor” highway-rail at-grade crossing improvement program that has dramatically reduced grade crossing incidents in the Piedmont Corridor between Charlotte and Raleigh. Sealed corridor investments have also served to increase service capacity and schedule integrity, giving planners in other states some valuable, real-world data on the impact of grade crossing improvements and elimination. With support from both Amtrak and the North Carolina DOT, the Carolinian service began in 1990, and the Piedmont service began in 1995.

18 Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations 2.8 Communications and Capacity Assessment States and agencies with longer term rail support programs as described above also noted the development, over time, of greater levels of technical collaboration and trust in assessing the service capacity of targeted corridors. Investment scenarios are vetted through the host railroad’s local and regional field operations managers as well as the host carrier’s service design staff. Service improvement scenarios are discussed informally in the course of routine corridor review sessions that track and manage current shared operations. Typically such joint review mechanics include a day-long monthly or quarterly meeting, a report on key metrics, and problem solving to address chronic patterns of service shortfalls. Participants include the service operator (Amtrak, a public transit agency, or contract operator); the ser- vice sponsor (a state or local government); the host freight carrier; local municipalities; and facilities owners. By the time a formal service change proposal is released, the broad outlines of an initiative are well known to the affected stakeholder groups. Freight carriers in particular have noted the damage that “surprise” service announcements can have on the development of long term part- nerships with the public sector. 2.9 The Wide View Host rail freight carriers have long insisted that assessments of operations from a new pas- senger operation take into account the network service impact that may extend well beyond the geographic limits of the passenger rail operation itself. Railroad freight train operations typically extend many hundreds of miles, and carriers are unwilling to bear the disruptions associated with an embargo of freight operations over a shorter section of track during, for example, com- muter rush hour periods. One approach to mitigating such impacts is to protect the same level of freight service capac- ity in the area of passenger operations as had existed previously. This “replace what you use” philosophy has been practiced for all recent projects reviewed by the research team; the exis- tence of “latent” freight capacity at the time passenger service is initiated appears to have little impact on the total capital investment required. Protection of “latent capacity” has become the de-facto standard for the “arms length” corridor agreements negotiated between state sponsors and host freight carriers; it is not related to the “unreasonable delay” standard for freight opera- tions incorporated in the governing statutes that guarantee Amtrak access to the lines of freight carriers (49 USC 24308). Crewing and dispatch procedures require that the operational assessment extend at minimum to the geographic limits of the crew district(s) in question or (rarely) to the second crew change point in a given alignment. Protecting the service integrity of freight service may occasionally be most effectively addressed by incorporating infrastructure improvements that are well removed from the area slated for new passenger operations. Funding to allow a recent expansion of service in the Capitol Cor- ridor includes track upgrades for Union Pacific in the mountainous Donner Pass area as the most cost-effective mitigation for the impact of new passenger operations west of Sacramento. The same approach has been used on several occasions by Maryland Transit Administration’s MARC investing in “off-line” improvements for host railroad CSXT to improve commuter rail operations. Such scenarios most often come to play where the area of new passenger service is in a congested urban environment or where topographic challenges are severe and very costly to address.

Synthesis of Stakeholder Input 19 2.10 Railways Are Not Highways Persons who are unfamiliar with railway operations and infrastructure are often unfamiliar with the far more restrictive conditions that govern the movement of trains. Long stopping dis- tances, restrictive engineering specifications, and a general lack of routing and diversion options mean that impacts on a modest section of track can have far-ranging network service implica- tions. Appendix A attempts to describe some of the more common elements that directly play into the ability of a given corridor to support reliable train service. A major aim of this guidebook is to arm users with a better understanding as to why detailed technical analysis is essential in planning of shared corridor operations. The limitations of a typi- cal rail corridor are in sharp contrast to the flexibility and routing options available to users of the highway network. Some observers would like to see a “hierarchy of improvements” defined that would list, in order of effectiveness, the investments that best deliver increases in capacity and service quality. Unfortunately, no such list exists. The unique physical characteristics of each corridor dictate the most cost-effective order of investments. As an example, simple, parametric corridor modeling might indicate the addition of a passing siding to be the best initial improvement, but on-the-ground conditions in a more populated area often preclude the construction of sidings due to grade crossing obstruction or right-of-way limits. Finer calibration and spacing of train control signals may improve the density of traffic, but the benefit of such improvements will be limited where long, heavy trains with long stopping distances dominate the alignment. At the end of the day there are no major shortcuts to perform- ing the “real” assessment of service capacity for the corridor under consideration. 2.11 What the Models Leave Out As noted above, the service capacity of a given service alignment is a product of far more than the scale and configuration of the fixed physical plant. Stakeholders identified a number of ele- ments that should be taken into account that are not automatically included in a technical capacity modeling exercise: • Access and egress timing and congestion at freight terminals; adequacy of yard leads to accom- modate the longest trains now in service. Carriers have taken advantage of distributed power technology to dispatch longer trains than were deemed feasible even 10 years ago, but fixed plant infrastructure around terminals has not, in many cases, been adjusted to accommodate the longer train lengths. • Service recovery capabilities. The FRA suggests that a number of random events should be inserted into the simulation exercise to reflect derailments, grade crossing incidents, equip- ment failures, severe weather impacts, etc., in order to test the network’s capability, over time, to return to normal operations. • Routing alternatives. Parallel diverging routes through an interlocking provide flexibility in case of unplanned events and support service recovery efforts as described above. A simple simulation may give no credit to such features as part of the base infrastructure configuration. • Capital and maintenance practices. Simulation modeling is generally configured to assess “nor- mal” operations and is poorly suited to contrasting the impacts of alternative maintenance and capital renewal strategies. Greater constraints on track time availability in shared-use cor- ridors increase the value of a disciplined, well planned approach to maintaining and renewing the physical plant. Development of clear strategies to address each of these elements will support the formal requirements of FRA in approving applications for new service as well as the corollary project

20 Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations funding requests. The FRA specifically requires plans to guarantee a “state of good repair” for the fixed plant as well as “Service Outcomes Agreements” with the service provider, service sponsor, and host railway corridor owner. 2.12 A Model Is Not a Strategy A common caution expressed by stakeholders from each of the major target groups was the danger of simply relying on the technical modeling tools to define investment approaches and timing. Simulation models are “tactical, not strategic” and should be employed as one of several tools to define the best approach for developing a shared-use corridor. The preceding section above summarizes the shortcomings of capacity and simulation techni- cal tools that must be acknowledged and managed as part of the planning for shared operations. Today’s freight rail environment is dynamic, with nearly abandoned lines being brought back into full service and entire new markets emerging from the shift in America’s energy develop- ment priorities. Trade patterns are shifting, and some experts forecast a major repatriation of consumer manufacturing to the U.S. over the next 10 years. Rail intermodal service is viewed as more competitive for domestic freight, owing to rising fuel prices and continuing challenges with long haul truck driver recruitment and retention. Host freight carriers have, in response to these trends, become even more protective of freight service integrity than in the past. Better management tools have highlighted the true network costs of unplanned events and out-of-position resources. Penetration of shorter-haul freight intermodal markets will require more stringent performance standards, with some trains oper- ating at levels of scheduling discipline once exclusively preserved for passenger service. Finally, the rapid emergence of entirely new markets for rail has shaken the traditional, conservative forecasting bias that assumed that rail freight would grow only as a product of freight market segments where the rail mode has traditionally been strong. For passenger service sponsors, the challenges may lie in understanding the underlying infra- structure and service design details that may in turn drive significant changes in the outcome of a capacity/operations assessment for a given line. Speed differentials for passenger and freight, peak period frequencies, and station track configurations may be tested for their impacts on total required new investment. The FRA notes time and again the value of having all stakeholders around the table in develop- ing a new service. Sharing of knowledge, building of trust, and joint exploration of alternatives can get the required partnerships off on the right foot and mitigate the inherent risks associated with the transition into a more complex operations environment. 2.13 Capacity Modeling—The Bottom Line Stakeholders emphasized the need to do specific, detailed capacity and service assessment as a foundation for developing new passenger rail services on a multi-user corridor. While the techni- cal analysis must be specific to the corridor, there remain some common process principles that apply generally to new service assessments: • Obtain up-front, transparent agreement on the technical definitions for service performance by all classes of trains—on-time performance, transit times, service reliability, and the ability for service to recover from unplanned events. • Obtain up-front agreement on the long term volume of trains that each class of users intends to move through the corridor at the end of a 20-year period. The corridor should first be

Synthesis of Stakeholder Input 21 assessed for that 20-year scenario and the analysis then worked backward to determine logical breakpoints for service frequency, speed, and investment. • Appreciate the limits inherent in railway physical plant and the need, more often than not, to extend an analysis to points beyond the physical boundaries of the proposed new passenger operations. • Explore all of the drivers of service capacity rather than focusing exclusively on the fixed physi- cal plant. Dispatch systems and protocol, capital maintenance and renewal practices, and rail terminal fluidity each have a major impact on effective service delivery but are not automati- cally captured in a modeling and simulation exercise. Stress tests can be performed to account for unplanned events, such as extreme weather or other natural events. The chapters that follow elaborate on these principles and show how they have played out in real-world shared corridor situations.