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.

68 5.1 Introduction This guidebook concludes with a discussion of recent and ongoing planning for the Chicago- Saint Louis high speed rail implementation on the UP and CN line. This line will host high speed trains in the near term, along with increasing amounts of freight and conventional passenger services. It is included in the guidebook because its planning effort has embodied many of the themes for successful shared-use corridor planning that were uncovered in the stakeholder out- reach effort discussed in Chapter 2. Namely: • The necessity of building trust between the host freight railroad and the public agency sponsor; • The importance of taking a longer term view to account for changing rail operating patterns; • The need to look for factors affecting corridor operations that may reside well outside of the corridor itself; and, • A highly detailed, rigorous operations simulation testing the robustness to proposed track configurations given differing assumptions for train mix and operating patterns. Relative to the case studies already presented, the Chicago-Saint Louis rail planning effort represents the next level of shared-use corridor planning employing capacity analysis. 5.2 Background Passenger rail service between Chicago and Saint Louis has a long and colorful history, being the product of a state initiative in the early 1850s. Illinois’ first major carrier, the Illinois Central Railroad (IC), was chartered in 1851 and by 1856 was operating over 750 miles of track. It was the nation’s largest rail carrier in that year and linked Chicago to points south while encourag- ing settlement of downstate areas, including East Saint Louis. (Reference: Chicago Historical Society). Abraham Lincoln was IC’s most famous lawyer, and his early exposure to rail no doubt influenced his championing of the nation’s first transcontinental rail link even in the midst of the Civil War. In modern times Chicago-Saint Louis service survived the massive, nationwide service reductions that accompanied Amtrak’s creation in 1971 and the exit of most private carriers from the business of moving people. Amtrak service between the two cities has continued, unabated even as much of the underlying trackage has changed hands (three times) and even survived a bankruptcy challenge. Today most of the corridor is owned and operated by Union Pacific Railroad. In 2006 the passenger service frequency was increased from three to five round trips per day. Modern day interest in improving rail service between Chicago and Saint Louis extends back to 1979 with a formal assessment of true, electrified high speed rail service on a dedicated alignment. C H A P T E R 5 Taking Shared-Use to the Next Level: Chicago–Saint Louis High Speed Rail

Taking Shared-Use to the Next Level: Chicago–Saint Louis High Speed Rail 69 The outcome of that study was a judgment that such an infrastructure approach was too expensive and that efforts should instead focus on upgraded speeds and frequencies using existing, shared alignments with freight carriers. The 1994 IDOT Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail Financial and Implementation Plan put forward a corollary architecture for improved service involving diesel- powered trains operating at 110–125 mph. The USDOT formally designated the 284-mile Chicago-Saint Louis corridor as part of the “Chicago Hub” high speed rail corridor in 1992. The “Chicago Hub” plan served as the foun- dation for what was to become, in 1996, the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI). The MWRRI constitutes the overall planning framework for intercity passenger service improve- ments across nine Midwest states and 3,000 miles of higher speed rail service. The current Chicago-Saint Louis high speed rail improvement project is a combination of track section upgrades: • A 37-mile, single track segment from Joliet to Dwight is being upgraded by virtue of monies released from cancelled ARRA-funded rail improvement projects in Ohio and Florida. Sid- ing and double track improvements will alleviate the most severe capacity constraints on the entire Chicago-Saint Louis route and are proceeding on the basis of “categorical exclusions” insofar as the EIS process is concerned. • Track between Dwight and Saint Louis is undergoing major upgrades as described in a 2004 favorable FRA/FHWA Record of Decision (ROD). This ROD was based on an EIS study conducted by Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to assess service and infra- structure upgrades south of Dwight to permit three daily round trip trains to operate reli- ably at 110 mph speeds. A pair of slower, conventional speed trains and the long-distance Texas Eagle will continue to ply the same route. The possession of a completed, formal ROD served the state particularly well in the competition for ARRA funds; environmental clearances and other approvals were in hand as needed to launch “shovel ready” elements of the project. Improvements between Joliet and Chicago proper will come as part of a later phase of work. A recent federal announcement specified the former Rock Island/Metra alignment as the preferred routing for improved intercity services between Joliet and downtown Chicago. Current service is provided over UP between Dwight and Joliet and then Canadian National Railway (former Illinois Central) tracks northward into Chicago proper. The change in route will also shift the Chicago terminus from Union Station to Chicago LaSalle Street when trains move to the new alignment. A graphical representation of the corridor appears as Figure 5-1. The funding for the line improvements has included significant contributions from the Illinois Department of Transportation and the federal government. 5.3 Freight Carrier Perspective Union Pacific views the Joliet-Saint Louis corridor as a key traffic lane for intermodal freight service, anchored by the expansive Center Point intermodal facility in Joliet. Center Point will have a throughput capacity of 700,000 trailers and containers per year. UP’s perspective on the corridor includes a need to protect all existing rail freight service capacity on the alignment while insisting on levels of investment that are capable of delivering the high-quality service levels expected by passenger service sponsors. The capacity assessment and contracts for construction of new facilities were developed pur- suant to “arm’s length” negotiations between the parties as mandated by FRA for projects funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

70 Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations 5.4 A Timely Example The study team believes the Chicago-Saint Louis project provides valuable insights for those considering major passenger rail corridor upgrades, on shared track, in other corridors. When completed it will be the only example of a freight carrier-dispatched and owned alignment with a high number freight trains as well as 110 passenger mph trains. Other project elements to be noted include: • Implementation of advanced train control and other safety appliances (such as four-quadrant gates) simultaneous with the rollout of upgraded passenger service. • “Nesting” of a funded, medium-term improvement plan within the context of an as yet unfunded 20-year service vision. Upgrades underway to permit increased speeds for existing trains are carefully configured to minimize re-work when the full double track configuration is finally put into place. • Unique provisions for accrual of public capital renewal funds and for allocation of costs asso- ciated uniquely with the higher-standard FRA Class VI infrastructure. These are described in Section 5.10. 5.5 Project Vision—Illinois DOT Improvements to Illinois passenger rail service have enjoyed strong, bipartisan support at the state level for over two decades. A high profile 2009 meeting between Senator Dick Durbin and then-UP Chairman Jim Young set the stage for the most recent efforts, signaling the strongest possible commitment to delivering a quality product that delivers benefits to all stakeholders. Source: Union Pacific Railroad/Illinois Department of Transportation Figure 5-1. Chicago–Saint Louis high speed rail corridor.

Taking Shared-Use to the Next Level: Chicago–Saint Louis High Speed Rail 71 The official Illinois vision statement for the project is as follows: “More than 90 percent of the over 35 million corridor trips have origins or destinations in Chicago or St. Louis. A more balanced transportation system in the corridor would provide travelers with greater mobility options. To achieve this, either a new transportation mode must be introduced, or improvements to an existing, less frequently used intercity passenger rail mode must be made. Reduced travel time, increased service reliability, and enhanced safety would attract travelers from automobile and air travel to a new or improved rail mode of transportation.” (Reference: Illinois DOT High Speed Rail website, www.idothsr.org.) 5.6 Project Environment The Chicago-Saint Louis project was spearheaded by the State of Illinois, consistent with fed- eral guidance under the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) of 2008 that assigns the primary leadership role in development of new intercity services to the states. While a small portion of the corridor at the Saint Louis end of the line is in Missouri, the current project is for most purposes an Illinois project. Illinois elected to first pursue improvements on that portion of the corridor where placement of the long term alignment is clear and engineering issues are straightforward. Upgrades to the Dwight-East Saint Louis portion of the corridor had received federal green light in a favorable 2004 Record of Decision in response to an IDOT Environmental Impact Study of service upgrades. Detailed prior planning south of Dwight positioned the state very well to take advantage of high speed intercity passenger rail (HSIPR)-dedicated stimulus funding consistent with the “shovel ready” objectives of the stimulus program. In January 2010 the Federal Railroad Administration announced $1.1 billion in funding for the Dwight to Saint Louis corridor improvements; upgrades to this portion of the alignment are planned to be substantially completed in 2015. Photos of improvements are shown in Figure 5-2 and Figure 5-3. 5.7 Corridor Analysis and Development of the Upgrade Program The architecture of the current (Phase One) upgrade program was first developed pursuant to a detailed operations assessment and modeling exercise in 2002. The 2002 technical assess- ment informed the 2003 EIS submission which led to the Record of Decision noted above. Line Figure 5-2. Improvements at Odell siding. Photo by Parsons Brinckerhoff

72 Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations capacity modeling, using the Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) operations simulation program, was performed after loading the infrastructure data and train service specifications that are stan- dard for use of the RTC program. The current funded plan includes installation of a total of 31 miles of double track over four line segments, 15 rebuilt sidings, one new siding, fencing, signaling upgrades and grade crossing rebuilds. Siding reconstruction includes widening the space between track centers to 20 feet, allowing trains on adjoining lines to proceed at full track speed during periods of track renewal. A substantial share of the Phase One capital investment is occurring to support the long term Phase Two build-out. A general upgrade of existing track facilities—cross ties, rail, and higher-standard rail appliances—is also required to support the 110 mph passenger operation. When Phase One is complete there will be no change in the number of trains that ply the route today (five round trips). However, trip time reductions will occur as a result of the increased maximum speed to 110 mph from 79 mph. The Phase Two operations and infrastructure assessment took place in 2009. A dedicated team of railway operations, simulation, and engineering experts set out to update the 2002 RTC analysis. The goal was to determine the required investments needed to support nine total daily passenger round trips between Joliet and Saint Louis, including the long-distance Texas Eagle. Phase Two will add four daily express round trips and will also increase the maximum speed to 125 mph. The long-distance Texas Eagle is unlikely to see maximum speeds increased from today’s 79 mph under either Phase One or Phase Two. The timing of the project was excellent for the project sponsors in that expert resources were readily available to support technical planning and construction activities. The North American rail industry has a long history of boom and bust construction cycles depending on economic and modal competitive conditions. Most of the Saint Louis-Chicago project work was initiated after Photo by Parsons Brinckerhoff Figure 5-3. Station improvements at Normal.

Taking Shared-Use to the Next Level: Chicago–Saint Louis High Speed Rail 73 the conclusion of a two-decade period of industry expansion where even basic track materials were often priced at a premium and in short supply. A UP modeling expert was dedicated, at IDOT expense, to work solely on the Saint Louis service alignment along with two external consultants approved jointly by UP and IDOT. Dedi- cation of the UP expert to this project ensured significant focus on the project needs and schedul- ing control by IDOT for attendance at meetings, etc., on short notice. Total cost of the modeling exercise is estimated at around $450,000, a considerable sum to be sure but not out of scale with the expected $3 billion total project investment. A structured communications protocol along with a web-based project status site kept all participants in the loop as the analysis progressed. Conference calls took place weekly, with face- to-face meetings (in Chicago) on a quarterly basis. It should be noted that this communications approach supported both the Phase Two analysis and the ramp-up of Phase One construction activity as the project moved forward. By early 2010 the Phase Two capacity assessment and sim- ulation work was largely complete. Construction agreements for Phase One work were signed by IDOT and UP in July 2010 and March 2011. Restrictions on out-of-state travel for IDOT employees limited their ability to meet with UP officials in Omaha. A single, full day meeting in late 2009 included IDOT and FRA officials. Simulations were shown that reflected the nine daily round trip passenger frequencies along with the 16 daily UP freight trains projected to use the alignment. Detailed performance metrics for the passenger operation were also provided. Once there was agreement on the service definitions the capacity assessment, testing of con- figurations and simulation proceeded smoothly. Analysis start-up challenges included reaching agreement on the level of resources required for the analysis, selection of third-party consultants, and meeting the timing requirements of the ARRA funds used for the project. 5.8 Translation of the Corridor Analysis into the Engineering and Investment Program In July 2010 and March 2011 IDOT and Union Pacific entered into construction agreements to perform the corridor upgrades between Joliet and East St. Louis, IL. Specifications and costs of the upgrade program were developed by UP in consultation with IDOT and consistent with the 2002-2003 capacity assessment. Union Pacific secured dedicated outside legal counsel to help manage the many dozens of agreements required to execute the project. UP has noted that the dedicated legal staff was essential in meeting the aggressive timing requirements of ARRA. 5.9 Service Outcomes Agreement A particular challenge for all sponsors of new intercity passenger rail services has been the development of specific “Service Outcomes Agreements” (SOAs) that spell out the obligations of host carriers and service operators following the completion of line upgrades, along with specific remedies to employ if and when service targets are not met. These SOAs are a common require- ment for approval of federal funding support as overseen by the FRA, and are designed to ensure public value and benefit from public investment in private rail facilities. The UP/IDOT-Amtrak-FRA SOA was negotiated over a period of approximately nine months and was formally signed in December 2010. SOAs have proven challenging to negotiate in that host carriers are required, for the first time, to provide specific service guarantees for passenger

74 Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations operations as a condition of new public investment in their facilities. While a detailed descrip- tion of the negotiations process is beyond the scope of this study, it may be noted that the areas of greatest challenge have proven to be: • Measurement of service performance. Traditional Amtrak “conductor delay reports” document delays in service from the perspective of an on-board train observer. Such reports are unable to capture the contribution of various network service elements in creating a service shortfall. A specific delay may be caused by a mechanical failure of another train (freight or passenger), freight or passenger terminal operations, and/or dispatch decisions of the host carrier. • Root cause analysis procedures. A formal structure to codify and assign root causes for system- atic service shortfalls is needed to properly assign responsibility and ensure optimal targeting of new capital investments. • Prescription of remedies. Patterns of service shortfalls require a response from the service pro- vider, the host carrier, or some combination thereof. 5.10 Track Maintenance Agreement A track maintenance agreement specifying terms for funding and maintaining the shared track was signed in March 2012. While agreements of this type are common in the rail industry, the Chicago-Saint Louis alignment is unique in that it will be the first such facility maintained to FRA Class VI standards while simultaneously handling large volumes of freight. Some unique features of the agreement include: • Mechanisms for accrual of capital renewal funds to provide stable financial flows in support of major, cyclical investments that are inherent in the operation of main line rail infrastructure. A relatively stable annual public contribution is to be escrowed in anticipation of major capital renewal program requirements beginning in years 12 to 15 after completion of the initial upgrade. • Allocation and tracking of capital and maintenance obligations associated with FRA Class VI infrastructure standards on an alignment with significant freight volumes. IDOT will be responsible for those engineering expenses specifically associated with the higher standards. The “baseline” UP cost responsibility is defined according to historic experience of the carrier in moving analogous volumes of freight along with the existing Amtrak passenger trains over a traditional FRA Class IV main track infrastructure. 5.11 Next Steps In late fall 2010 IDOT began work on a corridor-wide Phase Two, Tier I EIS to describe the next phase of service improvements and associated infrastructure upgrades. This new phase will incorporate full double tracking of the corridor, generally incorporating the improvements defined in the Phase Two capacity analysis described above. It also defines the specific preferred alignments for service north of Joliet and consolidation/realignment of service through the Springfield metro area. Finally, improvements will be described for the approach into St. Louis through Metro East region, including bridge improvements over the Mississippi River. The IDOT Phase Two, Tier I EIS was approved by the FRA in December 2012. The Record of Decision generally approves the infrastructure plan as supported by the simulation and capacity work described above. Also included in the ROD are freight service consolidation and alignment improvements in Springfield as well as the selection of the Rock Island/Metra corridor as the pri- mary intercity service route north of Joliet. Table 5-1 shows the times for high speed rail service appearing in the 2004 Record of Decision. This schedule of five round trips (three operating at high speed) will be in effect at the completion of the Phase One improvements (2015), and will be the basis from which Phase Two improvements will be implemented.

Taking Shared-Use to the Next Level: Chicago–Saint Louis High Speed Rail 75 In Phase Two nine round trips, including the five above and four additional round trips, will travel each direction daily. Limited stop high speed express trips would take 3 hours and 50 min- utes from Chicago to St. Louis, while additional, all-stops high speed trains would add 20 minutes to this schedule in consideration of six additional stops en route. Maximum speeds would also be increased to 125 mph from the 110 mph maximum prescribed in the current phase of work. Tier II EIS studies began in 2013 for Phase Two improvements, including more detailed opera- tions analyses. The timing of the Phase Two upgrades is linked to funding availability, and is unclear at the time of this writing. Table 5-2 identifies the schedules for passenger trains on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor when Phase Two operations are implemented. Staon Mile 301 303 21 305 307 HS Standard Lincoln Service Texas Eagle HS Standard HS Standard Chicago 0 07:00 09:25 13:45 17:15 19:00 Summit 12 07:23 09:48 17:37 19:22 Joliet 37 07:45 10:15 14:40 18:00 19:45 Dwight 74 08:12 10:49 18:27 --- --- 20:12 Ponac 92 08:28 11:06 15:27 18:43 20:28 Normal Bloomington 124 08:53 11:39 16:04 19:08 20:53 Lincoln 156 09:19 12:10 16:37 19:34 21:19 Springfield 185 09:44 12:50 17:14 19:59 21:44 Carlinville 224 10:14 13:28 17:49 20:29 22:14 Alton 257 10:42 13:59 18:22 20:57 22:42 St. Louis 284 11:10 15:00 19:21 21:25 23:10 Note: Train Number 301 was labeled HS Express in the 2004 Record of Decision. It is amended above as it reflects stops at all intermediate staons. Source: 2004 Record of Decision. Table 5-1. Phase one schedule for the Chicago-St. Louis high speed rail service. Staon 501 571 573 503 505 21 507 575 577 HS Express HS Standard HS Express HS Express HS Standard Texas Eagle HS Express HS Express HS Standard Chicago 05:40 07:00 08:40 10:30 12:00 13:45 14:05 17:30 19:00 Summit 07:22 12:22 --- 19:22 Joliet 06:25 07:45 09:25 11:15 12:45 14:40 14:50 18:15 19:45 Dwight 08:12 13:12 --- 20:12 Ponac 08:28 13:28 15:27 20:28 Normal- Bloomington 07:22 08:53 10:22 12:12 13:53 16:04 15:47 19:12 20:53 Lincoln 09:19 14:19 16:37 21:19 Springfield 08:09 09:44 11:09 12:59 14:44 17:14 16:34 19:59 21:44 Carlinville 10:14 15:14 17:49 22:14 Alton 09:02 12:02 ------ 15:42 18:22 --- 20:52 --- E. St. Louis 11:00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 14:10 --- 17:45--- 23:00--- St. Louis 09:30 11:10 12:30 14:20 16:10 19:21 17:55 21:20 23:10 Source: 2009 IDOT Service Development Plan for the Chicago-St. Louis HSR operaon, Phase Two. Table 5-2. Chicago-St. Louis high speed rail train service schedule, double track phase—southbound.

76 Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations Finally, it should be noted that a limited portion of 110 mph Amtrak service began in November 2012 over a 14-mile segment between Dwight and Pontiac. IDOT and Union Pacific are carefully monitoring train and signal performance as well as engineering maintenance issues associated with 110 mph operations as providing context for the large scale rollout of higher speeds in the next few years. 5.12 Conclusion A great deal has been learned in developing Chicago-Saint Louis about the institutional and legal challenges of essentially re-building a privately held main track alignment with over $1 billion in public investment. Much is still unknown, however, about the long term costs and operating implications of operating significant numbers of both main line freight and higher speed passenger trains over common FRA Class VI infrastructure with a maximum allowable speed of 110 mph for passenger trains. While freight trains operate regularly over portions of the Northeast Corridor, the overall volumes are small in relation to the passenger activity. Conversely, large numbers of passenger trains operate in high-density freight alignments at “conventional” speeds of 79 mph or less, particularly for commuter service operations. It is always possible to engineer a physical plant capable of handling all classes of trains, if cost is no object. What will be interesting to learn from Chicago-Saint Louis is the long term cost and operations practicality of all the projected services, passenger and freight, operating on a common physical plant. Chicago-Saint Louis may become the de-facto testing ground for the economic limits of shared track access.