Guidebook for Intercity Passenger Rail Service and Development (2016)

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.

D-1 This appendix describes original research performed by the NCRRP 03-01 research team on performance measurement and quality assurance techniques for intercity passenger rail service and development activities. This appendix includes the following specific topic areas: • Overview of the performance-based transportation planning process. • Performance measurement applications for statewide planning activities for intercity passenger rail service and development. • Performance measurement applications for intercity corridor planning activities for intercity passenger rail service and development. • Quality control/quality assurance tools and techniques for the ongoing management of existing intercity passenger rail services. • Recommended performance management strategy for an intercity passenger rail program. Performance-based planning and management techniques can be applied at any point along the spectrum of activities associated with intercity passenger rail service and development. Examples of performance measurement used for intercity passenger rail service and development activities in the United States are presented in this appendix. Benefits of using a performance-based process are also presented throughout as applicable. Not covered in this appendix are the performance metrics and measurement issues for agree- ments between intercity passenger rail operators and the host railroads that own the infrastructure over which most U.S. passenger rail services operate. Readers interested in these topics are referred to NCHRP Report 657: Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors and NCHRP Report 773: Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations for a detailed discussion of strategies for developing performance metrics for host railroad agreements in shared-use corridor operations. Performance-Based Transportation Planning In recent decades, many transportation agencies have adopted a performance-based strategy for developing and supporting decisions related to transportation planning. This section summarizes the performance-based transportation planning process and potential applications of performance- based practices in intercity passenger rail service and development activities. The U.S. FHWA Performance-Based Planning and Programming Guidebook (FHWA 2013) provides guidance to transportation agencies on implementing a performance-based transportation planning process. A p p e n d i x d Performance Measurement and Quality Assurance Techniques

D-2 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development Overview of Performance-Based Transportation Planning Process FHWA defines performance management as a strategic approach that uses performance data to support decisions to help achieve desired performance outcomes (FHWA 2013). In the context of transportation planning, a performance-based process refers to the application of perfor- mance management techniques within the transportation planning and programming process to achieve desired performance outcomes for the transportation system. Figure D-1 shows a framework for a performance-based planning process. Key elements of a performance-based planning process and the broad questions considered in each element include the following: • Strategic Direction—Where do we want to go? • Planning Analysis—How are we going to get there? • Programming—What will it take to achieve the vision? • Implementation and Evaluation—How did we do? Developing a strategic direction involves setting a vision for the transportation system element under study and developing goals and objectives to support that vision. A goal is a broad state- ment that describes a desired end state, while an objective is a specific, measurable statement that supports the achievement of a goal. A planning analysis is undertaken to identify performance trends and targets for each performance measure and to develop a list of investment priorities based on the established strategic directions. A target is a specific level of performance desired to be achieved within a certain timeframe. Programming involves selecting specific investments to include in a formal transportation plan, such as a state rail plan. During the implementation and evaluation phase, performance data are monitored and analyzed to determine the progress toward each performance target that was expected to be influenced by the specific investments. Reporting of the outcomes is also an important task. FHWA reports the following benefits of using a performance-based approach to transportation planning and decision making (FHWA 2013): • Improved investment decision making • Improved return on investments and resource allocation Figure D-1. Performance-based planning process framework (FHWA 2013).

performance Measurement and Quality Assurance Techniques D-3 • Improved system performance • Increased accountability and transparency • Demonstrated link between funding and performance. Applications for Intercity Passenger Rail Service and Development A performance-based process for planning and decision making for transportation has been established for other modes since the early 1990s and reinforced with numerous pro- visions for performance-based planning found in the 2012 surface transportation bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) (FRA 2013). As support for intercity passenger rail service and development increases, state DOTs and other public agencies supporting rail services must consider how to prioritize investments and choose projects that support a shared vision for passenger rail service. Additionally, decision making for investments involving the use of taxpayer funds should be transparent, and a clear link between the use of public resources and progress toward a shared vision for passenger rail service should be demonstrated. A performance-based planning process as described in the previous section can support a wide range of activities associated with planning and decision making for intercity passenger rail service and development, including the following: • Statewide Rail Planning. A performance-based approach to statewide planning for inter- city passenger rail service can support the development of an SRP document incorporating a vision for rail service in the state, a performance-based evaluation of rail service, and a program of projects to achieve the stated vision. Some states have established performance targets and data reporting mechanisms independent of the state rail plan. Finally, states may use a performance-based approach to prioritize intercity corridors for passenger rail development. • Rail Corridor Planning. Generally, a broad range of performance measures related to the financial, operational, and service quality of existing intercity passenger rail routes is regularly available from Amtrak (or another service operator). These metrics can be used for corridor- specific planning and decision-making purposes, or to report information about route performance to the general public. Additionally, some states conduct passenger surveys at regular intervals to gather information about passenger characteristics, satisfaction, and pref- erences. Such surveys have been helpful in supporting planning and development activities for rail services. • Ongoing Service Management. With respect to daily management of intercity passenger rail services, numerous metrics are available on the performance of the rail service from the perspective of the customer. Additionally, some states have adopted innovative approaches for quality assessment of passenger rail services. These measures and approaches can be used for maintaining accountability for service operators and corrective actions for deficiencies in the service delivery. Performance Measurement for Statewide Rail Planning At the statewide level, a performance-based planning process can be used to support tasks including developing SRP documents, goal-setting and reporting of performance data for pas- senger rail service in a state, and decision making for corridor investment strategies. Various statewide planning activities for intercity passenger rail could benefit from a performance- based approach. One of the key benefits of incorporating a performance-based planning pro- cess in completing an SRP is that the process allows for all stakeholders to provide input on the vision, goals, and objectives for the state’s railroad system, including intercity passenger rail

D-4 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development services operating in the state. The performance evaluation requirements for SRPs offers states the opportunity to (1) undertake a comprehensive and detailed evaluation of passenger rail services in the state and (2) link the performance of the state’s passenger rail system to the estab- lished goals and objectives. Linking a passenger rail development strategy with performance targets established in an SRP can benefit a state rail program by supporting improved decision mak- ing and more efficient allocation of resources. Performance evaluation can be used by states to establish performance targets for intercity passenger rail services operating in the state or track progress toward already-established performance targets. Additionally, the evaluation can assess the contribution of passenger rail toward meeting statewide performance objectives. Making performance data available to the public is also a key element of a performance-based approach to support transparency and accountability. Several options for reporting performance data are discussed in the following subsections. A performance-based approach can also be used to conduct a high-level analysis of statewide intercity corridors to determine which corridor(s) should be targeted for additional investment in passenger rail. The following section describes performance-based applications for statewide intercity passenger rail planning activities. Performance Analysis in State Rail Plan Documents The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) established a national policy and planning framework for intercity passenger rail service and development. Section 303 of PRIIA requires that states develop SRPs to establish a statewide rail policy and address a broad range of issues related to freight and passenger railroad services in the state. The PRIIA requirements for SRPs direct that states should complete a performance evaluation of pas- senger rail services operating in the state, including possible improvements to those services and a description of strategies to achieve those improvements (FRA 2013). The performance evaluation should include all passenger rail services operating in the state, including inter- state and intrastate services. As part of the performance evaluation, states have incorporated basic passenger rail performance measures such as ridership, revenue, on-time performance, and delay metrics. PRIIA Section 207 Performance Metrics Section 207 of the PRIIA legislation required FRA and Amtrak to jointly develop performance metrics and minimum standards for measuring the performance and service quality of intercity passenger train operations. On May 12, 2010, FRA and Amtrak jointly issued Final Metrics and Standards under Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 to comply with the Section 207 requirements (FRA 2010). Section 207 outlined several required metrics and also provided FRA and Amtrak with the option to add new measures as necessary. The final metrics were jointly developed by FRA and Amtrak after extensive consultation with the STB, rail carriers, states, Amtrak employees, labor groups, and rail passenger organizations. The metrics include specific measures associated with the financial performance of rail services, on-time performance, train delays, service quality, and public benefits. The FRA State Rail Plan Guidance notes that the performance evaluation requirements for SRP development should, at a minimum, use the PRIIA Section 207 metrics as part of the evaluation (FRA 2013). States that have completed SRPs since the release of the PRIIA Section 207 metrics have incorporated the metrics into the SRP performance evaluation. Additional details on the PRIIA Section 207 per- formance metrics and quarterly reports from FRA and Amtrak on the performance of Amtrak routes are available from the FRA website (FRA 2010).

performance Measurement and Quality Assurance Techniques D-5 Other Performance Metrics in SRPs Some states may have additional specific requirements for performance evaluation in the SRP. For example, the California State Rail Plan notes that the California State Government Code Section 14036 requires a performance evaluation of state-supported passenger rail routes. The statute outlines specific content requirements for the SRP and lists specific analysis require- ments for revenue-related performance measures, expenses, ridership, and fare policies of the state-sponsored intercity passenger rail routes and feeder bus services. Additional details can be obtained from the California State Rail Plan, Section 5.3 (AECOM 2013). Statewide Performance Targets and Reporting One common application of a performance-based transportation planning process at the statewide level is developing specific goals, objectives, and performance targets for the state’s transportation system. Some states have used a performance-based approach to develop perfor- mance measures and performance targets for intercity passenger rail as a component of the state’s transportation system. This section presents three examples of states that have used performance measures for intercity passenger rail as part of a statewide performance reporting framework. Washington State DOT (WSDOT) Gray Notebook Since 2001, WSDOT has published a quarterly performance report, The Gray Notebook. The Gray Notebook is a nationally recognized performance reporting mechanism used by WSDOT to maintain accountability and transparency and provide updates to the public on key initiatives in the state (WSDOT n.d.). The Gray Notebook reports several performance statistics and pro- vides quarterly updates for the Amtrak Cascades route, a state-supported intercity passenger rail corridor between Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, with extensions to Vancouver, British Columbia, and Eugene, Oregon. Figure D-2 depicts an excerpt from the November 2014 edition of The Gray Notebook showing the performance trends and targets for the on-time performance of the Amtrak Cascades (WSDOT 2014). The summary report shows the perfor- mance measure for the previous and current reporting periods as well as the goal (80% on-time performance, in this example). An indication of whether the goal has been met, the 5-year perfor- mance trend, and the desired trend are also given graphically, rather than numerically, for ease of understanding. WSDOT uses the on-time performance metric as an indicator of how passenger rail supports mobility and congestion relief in the state. Michigan DOT (MDOT) Systems Performance Measures Report MDOT publishes a system performance measures report to provide data on the condition and performance of Michigan’s publicly owned transportation system. The report was first published as a web-based interactive report in 2007 and is updated at least twice annually. MDOT clarifies that publicly owned refers to assets owned, maintained, or financed (in whole or in part) by MDOT. MDOT’s involvement with intercity passenger rail includes financing the operation of three Amtrak routes (Wolverine, Blue Water, and Pere Marquette) and recent acquisition of a portion of the rail corridor between Kalamazoo and Dearborn along the Chicago–Detroit corridor. MDOT’s “2014 System Performance Measures Report” incorporates goals for intercity passenger rail service in the state and associated performance measures (MDOT 2014). MDOT reports that the goal for passenger rail service in the state is to “preserve existing intercity passenger rail transportation services” and provides the number of daily train miles and total annual ridership as two measures to evaluate progress toward this goal. For total annual ridership, the performance target is to maintain ridership trends on Michigan’s state-supported

D-6 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development trains consistent with national ridership trends, defined as within 10% of national ridership trends. MDOT reports progress toward this goal as depicted in Figure D-3. Missouri DOT (MoDOT) Tracker MoDOT uses a tool known as the MoDOT Tracker to report performance of the agency and assess progress toward service delivery. The MoDOT Tracker is built around seven tangible results statements developed by the agency, describing the outcomes that the public expects to see from MoDOT activities (MoDOT 2015). Intercity passenger rail performance is tracked under the tangible result, “Operate a Reliable and Convenient Transportation System,” and the specific indicator of use and connectivity of modes of transportation including aviation, rail, ferries, and urban transit. The purpose of the measure is to track the passenger use of modes other than highways in Missouri. For intercity passenger rail, total ridership and ridership by quarter for the St. Louis–Kansas City Missouri River Runner route is tracked. Figure D-4 shows an excerpt from the October 2014 MoDOT Tracker performance report of intercity rail passengers (MoDOT 2014). Performance Measurement for Rail Corridor Development In states where there is no or limited existing intercity passenger rail service, an important task in developing a statewide intercity passenger rail program is the selection of intercity corridors for passenger rail investments. In general, this process involves analyzing major Figure D-2. Excerpt from WSDOT’s The Gray Notebook performance report, November 2014.

performance Measurement and Quality Assurance Techniques D-7 Figure D-3. Excerpt from MDOT “2014 System Performance Measures Report”. Figure D-4. Excerpt from MoDOT Tracker report, October 2014.

D-8 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development statewide travel corridors using high-level screening and prioritizing techniques. Such analysis is typically supported by broad performance measures selected to assist with identifying cor- ridors where implementing intercity passenger rail may support broader statewide goals for mobility and/or ease of implementation. This section discusses two examples of the use of performance measures in the screening and prioritizing process for intercity passenger rail corridors on a statewide basis. Minnesota As part of the 2010 “Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Freight and Passenger Rail Plan,” the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) conducted a performance assessment of intercity corridors around the state to determine the needs and focus areas for passenger rail projects (MnDOT 2010). With consultant support, MnDOT developed a comprehensive list of performance measures for passenger rail corridor evaluation, from which a smaller list of measures was selected for use in the rail plan performance assessment (Cambridge Systematics Inc. 2009). As part of the performance assessment, 11 distinct intercity corridors were evaluated for poten- tial for intercity passenger rail service. Figure D-5 shows the performance metrics MnDOT used in developing its passenger corridors performance assessment. The measures reported reflect the performance of intercity passenger rail toward several broad categories of performance for the rail system, overall connectivity, impact on the environment, and financial performance. Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used. The performance assessment reported the estimated performance levels of each of the 11 cor- ridors with respect to the established criteria in tabular format. MnDOT also reported the results of the performance assessment in graphical format using three metrics: capital cost, ridership, and farebox recovery percentage. Figure D-6 is a graph of the performance assessment for the base scenario as defined by MnDOT. Graphs of performance for three indicators of success reveal clusters of intercity corridors that perform similarly on the assessment. In the MnDOT example, the two corridors to Chicago are expensive to implement but generate significant rider- ship and farebox recovery. The corridor to St. Cloud is relatively lower cost and could generate strong ridership and farebox returns. The two corridors to Duluth and Rochester are expensive to implement but provide good ridership, albeit with limited farebox recovery. The remaining corridors in the bottom left of the chart are relatively inexpensive but also do not generate sub- stantial ridership and financial performance. Figure D-5. Corridor performance assessment variables, 2010 MnDOT state rail plan.

performance Measurement and Quality Assurance Techniques D-9 Texas (TxDOT) TxDOT sponsored a research study to examine the potential development of an intercity rail or express bus passenger transit system in the state. The study was conducted by researchers at the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) through the TxDOT annual statewide research pro- gram (Morgan et al. 2010). The project identified 18 intercity travel corridors across the state and developed a performance-based ranking analysis to prioritize the corridors in terms of suit- ability for further development of passenger rail or express bus service. Researchers developed metrics incorporating corridor-level measures of population, potential intercity travel demand, and intercity travel capacity. Table D-1 lists each criterion used in the Texas corridors evaluation. The criteria listed were analyzed using a weighted sum analysis, and an overall score for each of the 18 corridors was Figure D-6. Graphical display of performance assessment, 2010 MnDOT state rail plan. Category Criteria Population & Demographics (P) Number of core-based statistical areas (CBSAs) along corridor. Total population of CBSA counties along corridor, 2000. Growth in total population of CBSA counties along corridor, 2000–2040. Total population per mile of the corridor, 2000. Percent of total corridor population age 65 and older, 2040. Total employees, 2005. Total enrollment at public or private universities along corridor, Fall 2006. Intercity Travel Demand (D) Average corridor AADT, 2006. Percent annual growth in average corridor AADT, 1997–2006. Air passenger travel between corridor airports, 2006. Percent annual growth in air travel between corridor airports, 1996–2006. Intercity Travel Capacity (C) Average volume-capacity ratio on subject highways in corridor, 2002 Average percent trucks on subject highways in corridor, 2002. Load factor on corridor flights, weighted by boarding passengers, 2006. Average number of corridor flights per day, 2006. Table D-1. Evaluation criteria used in TxDOT intercity corridors prioritization study.

D-10 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development calculated, allowing for prioritization of corridors for further analysis. TxDOT used the results from this study to justify the need for additional planning funds for HSR development studies in the highest priority corridors and was awarded more than $20 million from the FRA for planning, environmental, and preliminary engineering activities (FRA 2010). Performance Measurement for Ongoing Service Management On a broader statewide or regional level, a performance-based approach to planning activities for intercity passenger rail service and development can be useful for creating SRPs and other high-level analyses of how intercity passenger rail fits into the picture for a state’s transportation system. On the level of an individual intercity corridor, performance measurement can be used for a broad range of tasks, including corridor-specific planning and decision-making purposes or to report information about route performance to the general public. This section describes metrics that can be used by state DOTs and other sponsors of passenger rail services to evaluate the performance of specific routes and corridors and the application of passenger surveys to collect data to support corridor planning activities. Corridor Performance Measures A broad range of performance measures related to the financial, operational, and service quality of existing intercity passenger rail routes are generally available from Amtrak (or another service operator) on a regular basis. Typical metrics available include ridership, ticket revenue, food and beverage (F&B) revenue, on-time performance, total delay and sources of delay, and customer satisfaction index (CSI) scores. Ridership and revenue data are generally available by city pair, which can be extracted further to estimate the total station activity (boardings and alightings) for each station in a corridor. As previously discussed, Section 207 of the PRIIA legislation required FRA and Amtrak to jointly develop performance metrics and minimum standards for measuring the performance and service quality of intercity passenger train operations (FRA 2010). The metrics include specific measures associated with the financial performance of rail services, on-time perfor- mance, train delays, service quality, and public benefits. Quarterly reports on the performance of the entire Amtrak system and specific routes with respect to the PRIIA Section 207 performance metrics are available from the FRA website (FRA 2010). These reports can provide detailed perfor- mance information for specific routes and can be reported combined with other reports to form a complete picture of the operating, financial, and customer satisfaction performance for individual routes within the jurisdiction of a state DOT or other public agency. For corridor planning purposes, regularly reviewing and analyzing performance data can support activities related to corridor-specific intercity passenger rail service and development activities. Typical corridor planning applications are as follows: • Ridership Data. Monthly data and trends can identify growth in demand for rail services and can be used to estimate when/if additional seats are needed on a route or for specific trains. Station-level activity data can be used to assess the size and adequacy of station facilities (e.g., platforms, waiting areas, and parking/circulation areas). • Revenue Data. Data can be used to identify trends for passenger preferences for different service classes (coach or business class) or if specific product offerings in the F&B services are more popular among certain trains or passenger segments. • On-Time Performance/Delay Data. Data can be used to identify locations along an intercity passenger rail route where delays of a particular type occur frequently. In some cases, delay data will indicate the need for physical infrastructure improvements at certain locations to maintain target levels of reliability. Understanding the on-time performance and delay issues

performance Measurement and Quality Assurance Techniques D-11 for a route can be helpful in identifying specific projects that should be included in a SRP short-term infrastructure program. • Customer Satisfaction. Data can be used to identify specific problems that may exist and initiate corrective action if warranted. For example, if CSI data reveal specific issues with the cleanliness of the seating areas, service sponsors may work with the operator to identify specific facilities that have cleanliness issues or implement new procedures for regular cleaning. Passenger Surveys To supplement the operational and CSI data supplied by the service operator, some state DOTs and other public agencies that sponsor intercity passenger rail services conduct surveys of passengers onboard trains to gather information about passenger characteristics and prefer- ences. Onboard passenger surveys typically collect details about the passenger’s trip origin and destination, mode of travel and travel time to/from the boarding/alighting station, trip purpose, and demographic information. Questions regarding customer satisfaction with onboard services and station facilities are typically included. Additionally, a question about how the passenger might have traveled for the current trip if rail service were not available or did not exist is often included. Such questions, with responses which include “Would Not Make Trip” as a potential option, can provide insight into the contribution of intercity passenger rail toward broader policy goals of reducing congestion in an intercity corridor or providing critical mobility options for corridor residents (Sperry and Morgan 2011). Onboard passenger surveys have been helpful in supporting planning and development activi- ties for intercity passenger rail corridors. One example of the use of onboard passenger surveys to support corridor planning and development activities is the passenger survey program of the Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) used on the Capitol Corridor route in northern California. The CCJPA conducts passenger surveys onboard its trains twice a year to develop ridership profiles and assess the performance of Amtrak as the service provider. CCJPA also posts the key findings and trends from each survey to its website, along with other monthly and annual corridor performance reports (Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Periodic Reports). In its FY 2014–2015–FY 2015–2016 Business Plan Update, the CCJPA used rider profile data and survey responses on alternative travel mode to estimate the automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) removed from regional freeways and the corresponding reduction in carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the Capitol Corridor service (Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Business Plan). Such information can be valuable for corridor planning and to justify requests for financial support made during the legislative budgeting process. A review of state practices involving passenger surveys found that the CCJPA is unique in its approach to conducting quarterly passenger surveys. Other states that regularly conduct pas- senger surveys, notably Michigan and Wisconsin, attempt to obtain onboard passenger surveys once every 4 to 5 years. Such surveys can be funded through regular agency budget or through the state research program as part of a larger research study. This frequency is probably more realistic for most state DOT passenger rail programs; however, frequency of data collection can affect the value and effectiveness of the data obtained through the surveys. Data from onboard passenger surveys can support a wide range of intercity passenger rail planning and service devel- opment activities. Some applications from practice are as follows: • State Rail Planning. Data from passenger surveys on Amtrak intercity passenger rail routes in Oklahoma and Wisconsin were incorporated in subsequent SRPs developed by those states to describe the role and impact of passenger rail in the state. • Economic Analysis. Passenger survey data from intercity passenger rail routes in Maine (Eco- nomic Development Research Group Inc. 2005), Michigan (Taylor, Singh, and Isely 2009; Sperry, Taylor, and Roach 2013), and Oklahoma (Sperry and Morgan 2011) were used to

D-12 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development develop estimates of the economic impacts of rail service in those states. Data used included specific spending patterns and the benefits accrued to passengers by using the train instead of other modes. • Environmental Analysis. Passenger survey data from the Hiawatha service route in Wisconsin were used by the WisDOT as part of the environmental assessment and service development plan for service improvements. • Environmental Justice. Passenger surveys and profile data can identify the proportion of rail passengers from special population groups, including minority, low-income, and/or elderly passengers, and passengers from zero-vehicle households. Survey data can assess how passengers from these groups might travel if rail were not an option and indicate the extent to which passenger rail provides these groups with essential mobility services. Performance Data Reporting A performance-based process includes making data on performance measures and targets available to the public as a way to maintain accountability and transparency in decision making. Amtrak’s monthly performance reports and the quarterly reports required by PRIIA Section 207 are available from the websites of Amtrak and FRA. Some state DOTs and other agencies that sponsor intercity passenger rail service have also developed regular performance reporting mechanisms or data portals where the general public can access corridor-specific performance data. One example previously discussed is the Capitol Corridor performance data reports available from the CCJPA website. Similar reporting exists for performance data for intercity passenger rail services in Washington/Oregon (WSDOT Hiawatha Service Annual Performance Reports) and Maine (NNEPRA Downeaster Annual Reports). MDOT’s Transportation Management System provides a web-based data portal for accessing ridership and on-time performance data for all Amtrak passenger rail services operating in the state (MDOT n.d.). Daily on-time performance data are available by station and individual train. Ridership data can be accessed for each corridor and station on a monthly and annual basis. Data are updated by MDOT staff monthly, with new data available with a 1-month lag. Quality Assurance Programs The mandate of PRIIA Section 209 has resulted in more state DOTs and other public agencies becoming more involved with the daily management of intercity passenger rail services within their jurisdictions. Because the PRIIA Section 209 regulations allow states and other sponsors to unbundle various aspects of passenger rail service and contract with different entities for different service features, additional scrutiny of the quality of contract operations is desired. Some states have adopted innovative approaches for conducting quality assessments for intercity pas- senger rail services. The two states that jointly manage the Amtrak Cascades service, Oregon and Washington, have adopted a service assessment program to maintaining accountability for service operators and corrective actions for deficiencies in the service delivery. Sample service assessment forms were provided to the research team by the NCRRP 03-01 project panel. As part of this research, researchers inquired with the Oregon and Washington State DOT rail offices regarding the application of these forms. Feedback from the state DOTs indicate that the Amtrak Cascades service assessment program consists of state DOT employees riding the trains at least twice a month and viewing the opera- tions and product delivery from the viewpoint of the customer (i.e., the passenger). Rolling stock and station facilities are evaluated for first impressions, cleanliness, and ease of use. The quality of the onboard services, including staff interactions, clarity of onboard announcements, quality of the food and beverage service, restrooms, cleanliness, and Wi-Fi connectivity are also assessed.

performance Measurement and Quality Assurance Techniques D-13 The forms are completed by DOT personnel and copies are forwarded to the service operator. One DOT rail staff member noted that the service assessment process was effective at identifying needed repairs in the rolling stock and providing corrective action. It was also noted that the service operator was aware of the service assessment activities and it was believed that the service assessment activities were improving the quality of service delivery by providing oversight and holding the operator more accountable for performance. A customer-service focus was noted as an essential requirement for managing a service assessment program. Finally, it was emphasized that the delivery of intercity passenger rail service is dependent on the general public’s perception of the value and the ability to maintain and repeat high standards of service delivery and that the service assessment program was critical to maintaining the high standards. Recommended Performance Measurement Strategy This appendix has summarized the benefits of a performance-based process for planning and managing intercity passenger rail services and has provided examples of performance-based applications in use across the United States. Based on these best practices in use, a framework for the ideal strategy for the collection, reporting, and application of performance data to support an intercity passenger rail program can be formulated. The need for a performance-based approach is more important than ever, given an increased emphasis on accountability and transparency in the expenditure of public resources. Additionally, the requirements of PRIIA Section 209 have resulted in increased management and decision-making responsibilities for state DOTs’ involve- ment with intercity passenger rail routes. A recommended performance-based approach for a state DOT involved with funding or managing intercity passenger rail service should, at a minimum, include the following: • Developing a vision for intercity passenger rail service in the state and selection of performance metrics/targets that will track progress toward achieving the vision. The vision could be devel- oped as part of the SRPs or through a public outreach process allowing for all stakeholders to contribute to the vision. • Developing and publishing monthly and annual statistical summaries of the passenger volumes, financial metrics, and operational performance of intercity passenger rail routes under purview of the agency. Such data are available from Amtrak or another operator. Summaries should be posted to the agency website to allow for general public access. Charts or other figures show- ing trends in key statistics should be developed and presented in the summary. If performance targets have been adopted, progress toward these targets should be clearly noted. Examples of best practices for data reporting and presentation were presented in this appendix. • Ensuring regular quality assurance checks of the passenger rail service by agency staff. Suggested procedures for performing these checks were described previously in this appendix. Agency staff should evaluate the condition of the rolling stock and station facilities and the quality and value of the onboard services. A regular program of quality assurance provides the agency with important information about daily operations of the service and raises the level of account- ability for the service operator. Examples of quality control checks undertaken by state DOT staff in Oregon and Washington were discussed in this appendix. • Conducting regular onboard passenger surveys by the agency sponsoring the passenger rail service. Surveys allow passengers the opportunity to provide feedback on various aspects of the service and the agency to gather information about passenger demographics and other trip characteristics, such as trip purpose and alternative travel mode. Surveys should be conducted once annually at a minimum or quarterly for heavy-traffic routes. Survey data can be used for long-range planning or to communicate the role of passenger rail in an intercity corridor to the general public or elected officials.