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.

F-1 Summary Increased demand for intercity rail travel and funding availability for rail projects have stimulated interest in intercity passenger rail among state, regional, and local public agencies. Regulatory requirements and policies found in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), for example, have required public agencies to assume greater roles and responsibilities for passenger rail development, such as the development of a state rail plan. In many cases, public agencies lack the expertise and resources to perform many of these roles. FRA, public agencies, and industry organizations have created myriad resources to assist with developing intercity passenger rail service. Additionally, comprehensive research studies expected to be generated by the NCRRP, as well as existing studies from other TRB Cooperative Research Programs, have examined or are expected to address many topics of pressing importance to the practice. Public agencies and private entities involved with planning and implementing intercity passenger rail service have developed creative solutions or innovative practices that improve the efficiency of service delivery or increase ridership. Many of these innovative best practices are only documented anecdotally. Even though the body of knowledge supporting intercity passenger rail service and develop- ment has expanded in recent years, there is no existing unified compendium of information documenting available resources and best practices for intercity passenger rail planning and development. The goal of NCRRP Project 03-01 was to generate a comprehensive guide describing the resources, strategies, analytical tools, and techniques used by public agencies and private entities to support planning and decision-making in the development of intercity passenger rail service. The guide developed in this research allows for wide dissemination of these valuable resources into practice. Some topics have limited or no coverage within the published literature. Some best practices that offer valuable insight into successful implementation of passenger rail service exist within public agencies and private entities. Therefore, existing resources were supplemented with limited new research in the form of targeted syntheses on select topics where substantial gaps exist within the knowledge base (these are included in NCRRP Report 6 as Appendixes A through E). These activities led to the creation of a user-friendly comprehensive guide that outlines strategies, tools, and techniques that can be used by public agencies and private entities to support planning and decision-making in the development of intercity passenger rail service. The guide is a valuable document to support intercity passenger rail service planning and development activities and can be put into use immediately by the passenger rail practitioner community. A p p e n d i x F Contractor’s Final Report

F-2 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development Chapter 1: Introduction Scope The scope of NCRRP Project 03-01 was to generate a comprehensive guide describing the resources, strategies, analytical tools, and techniques used by public agencies and private entities to support planning and decision-making in the development of intercity passenger rail service. While a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for intercity passenger rail service develop- ment, a comprehensive guide describing existing resources and best practices is nevertheless valuable to support the intercity passenger rail service planning and development across the United States by various organizations. The guide developed during this research allows for wide dissemination of these valuable resources into practice. Some topics have limited or no coverage within the published literature. Some best practices that offer valuable insight into successful implementation of passenger rail service exist within public agencies and private entities. However, some of these best practices have not been formally documented. Therefore, existing resources were supplemented with lim- ited new research in the form of targeted syntheses on select topics where substantial gaps exist within the knowledge base (these are included in NCRRP Report 6 as Appendixes A through E). Objectives As stated in the original project problem statement, the objective of NCRRP Project 03-01 was to develop a guide to assist public and private organizations as they plan, develop, and manage intercity passenger rail services. In order to achieve that objective, the following activities were completed: 1. Conduct of a comprehensive review of existing resources (policies, guidance documents, research studies, analytical tools, best practices, and other resources) used by public agencies and private entities to support intercity passenger rail service planning and development activities. 2. Identification and collection of feedback from potential users of the NCRRP 03-01 guide to determine topics where substantial gaps exist in the knowledge base. 3. Conduct of limited new research in the form of targeted syntheses of selected topics in inter- city passenger rail service and development to complement existing resources. 4. Generation of a user-friendly comprehensive guide outlining the strategies, tools, and tech- niques used by public agencies and private entities to support planning and decision-making in the development of intercity passenger rail service. The guide is designed to support intercity passenger rail service planning and development activities and is a resource document that can be put into immediate use by the passenger rail practitioner community. Approach NCRRP Project 03-01 consisted of five tasks: • Task 1—Conduct Literature Review. The objective of Task 1 was to review existing literature to compile resources (policies, guidance, research studies, analytical tools, and best practices) used by public agencies and private entities involved with planning and implementing inter- city passenger rail service. This task generated a matrix describing available resources by type and function in the intercity passenger rail service and development process. • Task 2—Conduct Outreach to Potential Guide Users. The objective of Task 2 was to identify and perform outreach to potential users of the guide. It was essential for the centerpiece

Contractor’s Final Report F-3 product from the NCRRP 03-01 project, the guide, to be as responsive as possible to the needs of its target audience. Feedback from potential guide users in terms of the technical content as well as format and layout of the guide was critical to the success of the final product. • Task 3—Identify Potential Synthesis Topics, and Submit Draft Annotated Guide Outline and Interim Report. The objectives of Task 3 were to develop a list of potential synthesis topics to be examined in Task 4, submit the draft annotated guide outline for panel review and approval, and submit the interim project report for panel review and approval. Potential synthesis topics were developed based on the results from Tasks 1 and 2. • Task 4—Conduct Targeted Syntheses of Specific Topics. The objective of Task 4 was to con- duct up to six targeted syntheses of specific topics in intercity passenger rail service planning and development in order to address gaps in the existing resources. The targeted syntheses were conducted to provide information on important topics but where the comprehensive resources or documentation that exists for other, better-documented subjects was not available. • Task 5—Prepare Final Guide and Final Report. The objective of Task 5 was to prepare the final intercity passenger rail service and development guide and the final report for NCRRP Project 03-01. This appendix presents the method used to develop the guide; information is provided in the following chapters: • Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter presents the research objective along with an overview of the tasks completed to develop the guide. • Chapter 2: Literature Review. This chapter presents the approach undertaken to document the existing resources available on the various intercity passenger rail service planning and development topics. • Chapter 3: Outreach to Potential Guide Users. This chapter summarizes the outreach plan undertaken to achieve the objectives of Task 2 and presents the findings of the outreach efforts. • Chapter 4: Targeted Syntheses. This chapter presents the background and summary of the targeted syntheses (provided as Appendixes A through E) created to provide information on topics that are critical to intercity passenger rail service planning and development but lacking within existing resources. • Chapter 5: Summary. This chapter summarizes the work performed for the NCRRP Proj- ect 03-01. Chapter 2: Literature Review This chapter describes the efforts to identify and document existing literature in order to com- pile resources (policies, guidance, research studies, analytical tools, and best practices) that are used by public agencies and private entities involved with planning and implementing intercity passenger rail service. The approach to document existing resources was to develop a matrix outlining the steps required for intercity passenger rail service development and the resources available for each step. Framework of Existing Resources Given the scope of NCRRP Project 03-01, content was generated primarily from existing resources. The types of resources used to support planning and decision-making for intercity rail service and development included • Existing policy and legal frameworks for intercity passenger rail in the United States, defined under the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), as well as appli- cable federal and state laws and regulations related to intercity passenger rail.

F-4 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development • Guidance documents issued by FRA, other government agencies, and industry organizations (e.g., AASHTO Standing Committee on Rail Transportation [SCORT], APTA, or the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association [AREMA]) to support rail service development by interpreting statutory requirements or documenting best practices. • Completed, ongoing, or pending research studies sponsored by the TRB Cooperative Research Programs, federal or state agencies, or independent entities. • Comprehensive or sketch-level analytical tools developed by public or private entities to provide quantitative support for planning and decision-making. • Best practices or specific case studies of successful approaches or tools used by public agencies and private entities throughout the intercity passenger rail industry that have limited or no documentation describing their effects. Such resources also include procedures or checklists established by states or other operators to ensure service quality standards are being achieved. By extension, identification of best practices also encompasses an assessment of what not to do or other practices that have been shown to not be effective at achieving rail passenger service goals. The level of public accessibility and depth of topical coverage of these existing resources can be characterized as follows: • Comprehensive documentation exists or is forthcoming. • Existing resources are adequate, but some knowledge gaps exist or existing resources are limited to specific topics not immediately applicable to passenger rail issues. • Best practices exist in the industry; however, documentation is limited. Using this framework to understand and inventory the existing body of knowledge allowed for an objective evaluation of existing resources to allocate project resources to focus on the most critical areas of need. Intercity Passenger Rail Service Development Process The three major phases of the process of planning and development for intercity passenger rail service are planning, design and construction, and operations. Table F-1 shows an outline of these three phases and major subtasks typically undertaken within each phase. In addition Planning Design & Construction Network Design/Route Selection Right-of-Way Design Environmental Analysis/Public Outreach Right-of-Way Acquisition Ridership & Revenue Forecasting Fleet Design Economic Analysis Fleet Planning/Procurement Shared-Use Corridor Issues Cost Estimating Station Planning Safety Issues Service Development Planning Grade Crossings Strategic/Business Planning Construction Issues Build Consensus/Public Support Operations Ongoing Program Management Operation of Passenger Rail Service State Rail Plan Maintenance of Right-of-Way Funding & Finance Maintenance of Equipment Institutional Arrangements Fare Policy/Ticketing Legal Issues Revenue Management Performance Management Passenger Services & Amenities Contracting Marketing & Outreach Risk Management Table F-1. Steps and major subtasks in service development.

Contractor’s Final Report F-5 to these three phases, ongoing management of a passenger rail program (which could include projects in any of the three phases) is also an important component of the process. The range of available resources for intercity passenger rail service and development reflects a broad spectrum of technical needs, unique circumstances, and service characteristics associated with the many different intercity passenger rail services in the United States. The resources avail- able to support intercity passenger rail service and development have increased in recent years as interest in intercity passenger rail and other forms of rail transit has increased. In many subject areas, the depth of topical coverage within the existing resources has grown, providing users with comprehensive coverage of some issues. The role of NCRRP Project 03-01 in developing a uni- fied guide to the resources available for public agencies and private entities to use in planning, developing, and operating intercity passenger rail service is essential to preserve this knowledge base and provide a foundation on which to build future efforts. Table F-2 lists examples of the different types of published resources and analytical tools available to support intercity passenger rail service development planning. Topics in the most pressing areas of need have been the subject of comprehensive studies via TRB research programs or collaborative efforts among FRA and the states. These studies have generated documentation of the most critical issues, potential solutions, and best practices. For example, many existing and proposed intercity passenger rail services operate on freight railroad–owned tracks in a shared- use environment. It is not surprising, therefore, that comprehensive resources have been devel- oped (e.g., NCHRP Report 657 and NCHRP Report 773 or several recent NCRRP reports) to assist Resource Type: Policy & Legal Frameworks PRIIA Section 209: State-Supported Routes—Cost Methodology FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts Americans with Disabilities Act 49 CFR Part 238: Passenger Equipment Safety Standards Resource Type: Guidance Documents Final State Rail Plan Guidance (FRA 2013) Station Area Planning for High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (FRA 2011) Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans: A Guidance Manual (FRA 2005) HSIPR Best Practices: Ridership and Revenue Forecasting (United States Department of Transportation [USDOT] Office of Inspector General [OIG] 2011) State Rail Planning Best Practices (AASHTO 2009) AREMA Manual of Railway Engineering (AREMA 2011) Guidance on Pedestrian Crossing Safety at or near Passenger Stations (FRA 2012) Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail (FRA 2009) High-Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy (FRA 2009) Estimating Maintenance Costs for Mixed High-Speed Passenger and Freight Rail Corridors (FRA 2004) Resource Type: Research Studies NCHRP Report 657: Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors (TRB 2010) NCHRP Report 773: Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations (TRB 2014) TCRP Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations (TRB 2012) Amtrak Fleet Strategy: Building a Sustainable Fleet for the Future of America’s Intercity and High-Speed Passenger Railroad (Amtrak 2010) High Speed Railway System Implementation Handbook (International Union of Railways [UIC] 2012) Resource Type: Analytical Tools or Notable Practices/Procedures/Checklists FRA CONNECT Tool—Network Ridership and Cost Analysis Tool (FRA 2014) Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Models (Various) Economic Impact Assessment Models (Various) On-Board Passenger Surveys, Customer Satisfaction Surveys/Indices (Various) Table F-2. Examples of existing resources by resource type.

F-6 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development planners and decision-makers with various aspects of shared-use corridor matters. Comprehensive guidance on best practices for state rail planning programs has also been developed by AASHTO, and additional NCRRP projects are expected to address specific issues in funding and financing as well as multi-state governance of passenger rail programs. The role played by individual states (through the state DOT rail division or other regional- or state-level passenger rail agency) in developing resources to support intercity passenger rail service and development cannot be overstated. Some states, for example, have several decades of experience with planning intercity passenger rail services and have developed strong practices in the areas of service planning, project delivery, and program management. State-led innovations have been critical to generating ridership growth on Amtrak’s state-supported corridor route segment. Many of the innovative practices developed at the state level have been documented in existing guidance and research studies; however, many best practices have limited supporting documentation. Beyond the contributions of individual states, states have collaborated to produce essential resources for passenger rail service and development. These collaborations have resulted in progress in areas such as operating cost methodology, stakeholder agreements for passenger rail service, and fleet design and procurement. Outside of innovations being developed at the state level, another major factor influencing the availability and adequacy of existing resources is the organization(s) most responsible for leading each task. FRA has taken the lead in developing guidelines for safety and environmental impacts to address broad issues in those areas. Passenger rail operators, including Amtrak and other private operators, have expertise in the operational aspects of intercity passenger rail service. Industry organizations such as AASHTO SCORT, APTA, AREMA, and the Association of Ameri- can Railroads (AAR) are also critical sources of valuable resources. The consulting community has been integral in developing resources and expertise for passenger rail service and develop- ment, with notable contributions in ridership and revenue forecasting, right-of-way design, cost estimating, and construction matters. Finally, the research community (via TRB’s Cooperative Research Programs and other programs) has emerged as a useful source of objective and timely information to support rail planning and development. An essential role of the NCRRP Project 03-01 guide is to serve as a tool for the dissemination of these existing resources and tools. Resource Matrix The approach to documenting existing resources was to develop a matrix outlining the steps required for intercity passenger rail service development and the resources available for each step. The matrix lists resources according to the three major phases of the process of planning and development for intercity passenger rail service. These phases and subtasks are summarized in Table F-1. For each phase and subtask, the resources are divided according to the resource type. The full matrix is in the annex, with a sample provided in Table F-3. Chapter 3: Outreach to Potential Guide Users This chapter documents the findings from the outreach efforts undertaken for the NCRRP Project 03-01 guide. The purpose of the outreach task (Task 2) was to obtain feedback from potential NCRRP Project 03-01 guide users on various topics related to the content and format of the guide to ensure that the guide meets the current needs of potential guide users. The NCRRP Project 03-01 guide user outreach plan consisted of three parts: (1) direct outreach to potential guide users at a major industry conference, (2) an Internet-based survey of potential

Contractor’s Final Report F-7 guide users, and (3) in-person interviews with a subset of appropriate officials of those entities that are potential guide users. In the original work plan, only the outreach at the conference and the interviews were envisioned and planned. The Internet-based survey was added during the project to solicit more input from potential guide users. This chapter discusses these three efforts and the resulting findings. Outreach at Industry Conference The first part of the outreach plan consisted of direct outreach to potential NCRRP Project 03-01 guide users at the 2013 AASHTO SCORT Annual Meeting, September 22–25, 2013, in Columbus, Ohio. The direct outreach took place as a workshop during the regularly scheduled meeting program. The workshop consisted of two parts: an initial presentation from the research team to the full group of workshop attendees followed by an opportunity for attendees to discuss specific items of interest and needs with members of the research team. The initial workshop presentation given by the research team included an overview of • The NCRRP 03-01 project goals and work plan • Existing documents and resources already identified by the research team • The kind of information being sought from the workshop participants The presentation included instructions on how each attendee could submit comments during the remainder of the workshop. After the initial workshop presentation, the workshop attendees were asked to write their comments down and take them to one of four topically defined stations where they could inter- act with research team members and put their comments on poster-type presentation boards. The station input was used to gather the following information from attendees: • Assessment of any pertinent resources that might need to be added or that had been missed by the research team • Identification of any in-house resources, tools, or checklists used by potential guide users Development Steps Policy & Legal Frameworks Guidance Documents Research/Consultant Studies Analytical Tools Notable Practices/ Procedures/Checklists Planning Environmental Analysis/Public Outreach FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (Federal Register Notice) FTA Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (Federal Register) FRA HS Ground Transportation Noise/Vibration Assessment FRA HSIPR NEPA Guidance UIC High Speed Railway System Implementation Handbook Guidance for Implementation of FTA’s Categorical Exclusions (23 CFR §771.118) Guidelines on the Use of Tiered Impact Statements for Transportation Projects NCRRP Report 3: Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes TCRP Synthesis 89: Public Participation for Transit UIC HSR Energy and Emissions UIC Energy Consumption and CO 2 Emission of World Railway UIC Railway Noise in Europe NCHRP 25-25 (80): Potential Use of Social Media in the NEPA Process FRA Categorical Exclusion Worksheet FRA Noise/Vibration Model FRA Horn Noise Model FRA Review Checklist NCHRP 25-25 (80): Social Media Tools Matrix SEHSR Illinois DOT Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study California High- Speed Rail All Aboard Florida Northern Lights Express Desert Express NY Empire Corridor Table F-3. Sample of the resource matrix.

F-8 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development • Identification of possible topics where original research or additional documentation of best practices would be needed as part of the guide The attendees were given large blue index cards on which to indicate their employer/affiliation type and their preferred format for delivering the information contained in the NCRRP Project 03-01 guide. Figure F-1 is an example of the NCRRP Project 03-01 SCORT workshop blue index card questions. The first question on the SCORT blue index card related to the participants’ type of employer— there were ten different categories and an option to specify a category not included. The second question asked participants which format they would prefer for the NCRRP Project 03-01 guide- book. Both questions resulted in multiple answers by some participants. The main purpose of the first question was to document the diversity of backgrounds of those participating in the workshop. Overall, 55 blue cards were collected during the workshop. Each employer type category was represented, with the highest response being public agency (currently sponsors passenger train service), at 14 responses. Public agencies not currently spon- soring passenger train service and consultants were the next highest responses, with ten selections each. Table F-4 shows the number of responses broken down by employer type. NCRRP 03-01 SCORT Workshop Survey Which of the following best describes your employer? Public Agency (Currently Sponsors Passenger Train Service) Public Agency (Does not Sponsor Passenger Train Service) Public Agency (Direct Operator of Passenger Train Service) Private Operator of Passenger Train Service Freight Railroad Federal Railroad Administration Consultant Supplier Academic/Research Organization Trade Association Other (Please Specify): ____________________________________________ What format would you prefer for the NCRRP 03-01 passenger rail service and development guidebook? Bound Hard Copy of Guidebook Downloadable PDF Guidebook Loose-Leaf Hard Copy for Binder Interactive Web-Based Guidebook Figure F-1. SCORT workshop blue index card. Employer Type Selections* Public Agency (Currently Sponsors Passenger Train Service) 14 Public Agency (Does Not Sponsor Passenger Train Service) 10 Public Agency (Direct Operator of Passenger Train Service) 1 Private Operator of Passenger Train Service 1 Freight Railroad 4 Federal Railroad Administration 3 Consultant 10 Supplier 5 Academic/Research Organization 1 Trade Association 3 Other: Attorney, Military, Union, Insurance Broker for Railroad Contractor, and Information Service for Railroad Contractor 7 Total Selections 59 *Some respondents selected more than one option. Table F-4. SCORT workshop blue index card employer type.

Contractor’s Final Report F-9 A total of 79 responses were received for the second question because participants provided multiple answers. As shown in Table F-5, 64 of the responses indicated electronic or online versions of the guidebook would be desired; 15 responses indicated a hard copy report as the desired report format. The second portion of the workshop interaction with SCORT attendees involved the setup of four stations in which participants could provide written input and discuss the topic with NCRRP Project 03-01 team members. The four stations related to phases of implementation found in developing intercity rail programs: • Planning • Design and Construction • Operations • Ongoing Program Management Each station setup consisted of two presentation boards on easels—one for identified references and resources related to the station topic and a second for comments related to needed guidance. Participants could attach self-sticking notes with comments to provide input on the appropriate board. The most pertinent responses from the workshop stations are presented in Table F-6. Guidebook Format Selections* Bound Hard Copy of Guidebook 5 Loose-Leaf Hard Copy for Binder 10 Downloadable PDF Guidebook 40 Interactive Web-Based Guidebook 24 Total Selections 79 *Some respondents selected more than one option. Table F-5. SCORT workshop blue index card guidebook format. Planning Show locations in process where we will need to negotiate multimodal cooperation. This would be for multimodal facilities or other areas where the process may branch to other agencies. We need a public process for least cost planning, demonstrating the most cost-effective phasing of a project. Get FRA on the team from the beginning, even if they are not a funding partner for the NEPA study. Design and Construction Be prepared to establish a way to pay the railroads to participate early, and it will make the project progress smoother/less adversarial/gain more useful input. Have a “plan warehouse” and communications that track through a single portal for shared documents between the private sector rail companies and public entities. This allows the ability to keep track of who “has the ball.” There are significant differences between track infrastructure (track systems) optimized for freight and that optimized for passenger service. Operations Provide electric outlets on-board trains. Offer bicycle lockers at stations. Provide front line employee training to improve service experience of passengers. Reserved vs. non-reserved service and yield management. Improve tools and software for scheduling. Better explain rail capacity modeling (e.g., RTC)—improve understanding of how it is used and how assumptions affect outputs/capital projects. Ongoing Program Management Tax implications on host railroads. Alternatives for governance of multi-state corridors, operations, and planning—entities, agreements, roles, etc. Performance measurement. Regulatory approval procedures for passenger services. Additional Captured Comments Help state DOTs to come up with “actionable items” in their State Rail Plans. Table F-6. SCORT workshop station responses.

F-10 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development Internet-Based Survey of Potential Guide Users The second part of the outreach plan consisted of an Internet-based survey of potential guide users. The survey solicited information and feedback from a wide range of potential guide users. The survey asked respondents about the following: • Types of resources used for intercity passenger rail service and development • Any in-house resources, tools, or checklists used by potential guide users • Possible topics where original research or additional documentation of best practices would be needed as part of the guide • Preferred formats for delivering the information contained in the NCRRP Project 03-01 guide Recruiting individuals to participate is a challenge with implementing an Internet-based survey. The research team communicated with leaders of several passenger rail-focused organi- zations to solicit their cooperation in distributing the Internet survey to members via an e-mail blast or posting on the organization’s website. Invitations to participate in the survey were dis- tributed to AASHTO SCORT members and TRB’s AR010 Intercity Passenger Rail Committee members and friends. This distribution focused on long-term professionals familiar with the existing regulatory and financial constraints within the intercity passenger rail field. The survey was posted and opened for responses at http://www.railsurvey.org/NCRRP for approximately 4 weeks from July 29 through August 25, 2014. Reminder emails were also sent halfway through the open period seeking additional participation. Content of the survey is discussed below. Internet Survey Questions The Internet survey was divided into several groupings of questions. The initial questions (see Figure F-2) related to the external resources used in performing intercity passenger rail service and development. The first question asked about external resources and how often they are used. A list of resources was provided for review along with the opportunity to write in additional external resources. Figure F-3 contains Questions 4–6, which asked about internal resources used by the respondents. Internal resources were defined as materials created by the respondent’s own agency or company for reference or direction. Following these sets of ques- tions, there were several questions intended to assist in identifying gaps in the available internal and external resources as a means for clarifying needs for the targeted syntheses task (Task 4) of the overall project work plan. Figure F-4 shows the two questions (Questions 2 and 3) that followed the external resources and one question (Question 7) that followed the internal resources set of questions on the content and quality of the existing resources indicated by the respondent. Following the questions related to external and internal resources, three questions focused on the desired characteristics of the guidebook itself. Figure F-5 shows Questions 8–10, which asked for input on how the guidebook could be of value and the preferred format of the guidebook, as well as any additional comments regarding the guidebook. The final three questions asked for participant background information (see Figure F-6). The employer type options provided match the categories collected at the SCORT conference, with the one difference being a split in the freight railroad category into host and non-host railroad categories. Internet Survey Responses/Analysis There were 23 completed online surveys, with each question averaging 22 responses. An Internet-based survey provides more control over whether a respondent can select only one option or multiple options. Many of those surveyed answered each question and selected more than one

Contractor’s Final Report F-11 Figure F-2. Internet survey external resource questions. option. Where applicable, this is noted in the tables and discussions below regarding responses. A dash in any table indicates that no respondents selected that answer. Of the 22 surveys in which the question on employee type and longevity was answered, only six of the employer type categories were represented in the Internet survey. Table F-7 shows these responses by category and the number of years in that role. Twelve of the 22 participants were with public agencies: 7 for agencies that sponsor and manage a passenger train service and 5 for agencies that manage but do not sponsor a service. Table F-7 also provides information on the other survey participant employer type; however, respondents to the survey did not include a participant from a freight railroad. Largely, the participants were experienced in their jobs, with 17 of the 22 respondents listing experience levels greater than 5 years. The public agencies were evenly divided between the lesser experienced participants and those with experience levels greater than 10 years. For all of the other categories, the participants had over 5 years of experience.

F-12 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development Figure F-3. Internet survey internal resource questions. Figure F-4. Internet survey gap analysis questions. Figure F-5. Internet survey guidebook input questions.

Contractor’s Final Report F-13 Figure F-6. Internet survey background information questions. Employer Type Level of Experience* Total 1 to 5 yrs 6 to 10 yrs Over 10 yrs Public Agency (Currently Sponsors and Manages Passenger Train Service) 3 1 3 7 Public Agency (Manages but Does Not Sponsor Passenger Train Service) 2 1 2 5 Federal Railroad Administration – 1 1 2 Consultant – – 5 5 Research & Development – – 1 1 Academic/Research Organization – 1 – 1 Other: State DOT – 1 – 1 Total 5 5 12 22 *Respondents could only select one option. Table F-7. Internet survey employer type and experience. Table F-8 compares the employer type for both the Internet survey and SCORT workshop blue index cards. Between the two efforts, each possible category was represented by responses. The three most represented employer types were public agency (currently sponsors passenger train service), public agency (does not sponsor passenger train service), and consultant. Table F-9 presents the responses to the participants’ position activities, with the question allowing participants to select more than one option. A total of 45 selections were distributed across the four position activity categories. Planning received the most responses with 16, followed by operations with 10, and design and construction and ongoing program management each receiving 7 selections. In terms of experience levels, each category was well represented across the three experience levels.

F-14 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development One of the major purposes of the Internet survey was to identify external sources currently used by potential users of the guidebook. The Internet survey provided a list of 19 sources that were selected by the research team because their content related to the different stages of inter- city passenger rail service development. Table F-10 contains the most used external resources, defined as sources in which respondents indicated they used the external resource frequently or occasionally. The numbers shown in Table F-10 are out of 22 selections per resource. Four of the top seven external resources are products of FRA. Amtrak’s fleet strategy document and AREMA’s design standards also were selected from the list by respondents. The most used external resource was TRB’s Transportation Research Record series. In addition to the resources listed in the survey, respondents could write in other external resources that they use frequently. These included noise/vibration impact assessment studies; Amtrak reports and statistics; various additional FRA reports; and design guides (e.g., AREMA freight rail company design standards). Table F-11 presents a breakdown of the most used resources based on the position activities of each respondent. Employer Type SCORT Blue Card Internet Survey Combined Public Agency (Currently Sponsors Passenger Train Service) 14 7 21 Public Agency (Does Not Sponsor Passenger Train Service) 10 5 15 Public Agency (Direct Operator of Passenger Train Service) 1 – 1 Private Operator of Passenger Train Service 1 – 1 Freight Railroad 4 – 4 Federal Railroad Administration 3 2 5 Consultant 10 5 15 Supplier 5 – 5 Academic/Research Organization 1 2 3 Trade Association 3 – 3 Other: Attorney, Military, Union, Insurance Broker for Railroad Contractor, Information Service for Railroad Contractor, State DOT 7 1 8 Total 59 22 81 Table F-8. Comparison of employer type between Internet survey and SCORT workshop. Position Activities Level of Experience* Total 1 to 5 yrs 6 to 10 yrs Over 10 yrs Planning 4 4 8 16 Design & Construction 2 – 5 7 Operations 2 2 6 10 Ongoing Program Management 3 2 2 7 Other: All of the Above, Environmental Impact Assessment, Funding, Policy Counsel, and Testing 1 1 3 5 Total 12 9 24 45 *Respondents could select more than one option. Table F-9. Internet survey position activities and experience.

Contractor’s Final Report F-15 Three of the Internet survey questions asked respondents about internal resources, including internal processes to assist in carrying out functions, in-house models of passenger rail ridership and/or revenue, and performance management systems to measure performance of services. Table F-12 summarizes the descriptions provided in the survey. These are descriptions of the types of tools that professionals use that are internal to their agencies and in some cases are proprietary. This provides a valuable window into the inner workings of agencies that could be replicated by peers or modified for expanded use. Following the external and internal resource questions, the survey included several questions related to lacking information within external resources and gaps that might exist within external and internal resources. Table F-13 summarizes the discussion from the participants on areas missing within existing resources. As can be seen from the responses, there was great variety, ranging from specific needs to the general comment that every aspect of intercity passenger rail development was lacking informa- tion and needed documentation or guidance. Table F-14 presents the input provided during both surveys on the desired format for the guidebook. As with the SCORT workshop blue index card, over 75 percent of the selections by respondents called for online or electronic formats as part of the desired guidebook formatting. External Resources Frequently or Occasionally TRR Journal 12 FRA Rail Corridor Planning Guidance (2005) 9 FRA State Rail Plan Guidance (2013) 9 Amtrak Fleet Strategy (2012) 7 FRA Station Area Planning for High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (2011) 6 FRA Methodology for Determining the Avoidable and Fully Allocated Costs of Amtrak Routes (2009) 6 AREMA Design Standards 5 Table F-10. Internet survey most utilized external resources. External Resources Planning Design & Construction Operations Ongoing Program Management TRR Journal 8 3 6 3 FRA Rail Corridor Planning Guidance (2005) 6 3 3 3 FRA State Rail Plan Guidance (2013) 7 5 4 5 Amtrak Fleet Strategy (2012) 4 1 4 3 FRA Station Area Planning for High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (2011) 11 4 7 6 FRA Methodology for Determining the Avoidable and Fully Allocated Costs of Amtrak Routes (2009) 6 3 5 3 AREMA Design Standards 4 3 2 2 Table F-11. Internet survey most utilized external resources by position activities.

F-16 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development Internal processes to assist in carrying out functions Contract procurement to document control to invoice and budget control Design guidelines and policies Environmental review checklists (online) Forecasting demand and public benefits (in-house and proprietary) Standard data request forms for rail projects that help to start with modeling environmental effects Recent updates and expansion of passenger service quality assurance efforts In-house models of passenger rail ridership and/or revenue Proprietary passenger/commuter/high-speed rail model that generates a predicted revenue stream over 10 years Proprietary ridership, and ridership/passenger-mile based economic benefit forecasting models High-level ridership and operations simulations to make basic verification checks Industry standard model Custom ridership/revenue models Considerable amounts of analyzing ridership, revenue, and other performance and financial operational data that could be utilized for estimating future operational conditions Performance management system to measure performance of services Delay minutes per 10,000 miles ridership and passenger miles compared to various data metrics Track monthly revenue, ridership, customer satisfaction, city pairs, etc. in database Industry adopted measures of performance and largely must rely on Amtrak for much of the data Ridership and on-time performance Table F-12. Internet survey internal resource responses. Lacking Information and Gaps Every aspect Step-by-step process to start an intercity passenger rail service Needs to indicate how not to invalidate the process with FRA/DOT Planning for intercity passenger rail if not a state DOT Guidelines throughout the process for resources (people, effort, etc.) required for different sized operations Challenges associated with Amtrak operating on freight rail lines (terms, conditions, and corresponding costs) Detailed operating cost data and methods for identifying operating expenses Funding options Process/checklist for preliminary evaluation of potential passenger rail routes and extension proposals (first cut tool) Table F-13. Internet survey lacking information and gaps responses. Guidebook Format SCORT Blue Index Card* Internet Survey* Combined Bound Hard Copy of Guidebook 5 5 10 Loose-Leaf Hard Copy for Binder 10 8 18 Downloadable PDF Guidebook 40 18 58 Interactive Web-Based Guidebook 24 13 37 Total Selections 79 44 123 *Respondents could select more than one option. Table F-14. Guidebook format for Internet survey and SCORT conference.

Contractor’s Final Report F-17 In-Person Interviews with Officials of Entities That Are Potential Guide Users The third part of the outreach plan was a series of in-person and/or conference call inter- views with appropriate officials from stakeholders in the intercity passenger rail planning and development process by one or more members of the research team. These in-person interviews occurred over several months between December 2013 and March 2014 and included organizations such as freight railroads, federal regulatory agencies, state DOTs, and operators of passenger rail services. Each interview was guided by a set of questions developed by the research team prior to the interview and provided to the interviewees. The following sections summarize the major discussion points for each question presented to railroads and intercity passenger rail service providers/implementation agencies. The content within the tables is presented to give an idea of the responses without identifying the persons interviewed or their affiliation so as to protect confidentiality. More detailed responses were available to specified research team members for analysis and to those who conducted the interviews. The comments included in the following tables reflect the experiences and opinions of the interviewees. Any adverse or negative opinions of regulating agencies, specific freight railroads, or other intercity passenger rail stakeholders do not reflect the opinions of the research team, the panel, TRB, or NCRRP. The opinions of interviewees have been provided as information to potential guide users and served as a resource in developing the guidebook and selecting targeted synthesis topics. The responses reflect the opinions at the time of the interviews for this project in 2014 and may have changed since then. Railroad Briefings/Responses The research team had interviews with four operating railroads for the research study. Table F-15 presents generalized responses for each question. To maintain confidentiality, responses are presented as bullets with specific identifiers removed from the responses. Intercity Passenger Rail Service Providers/Implementation Agencies Briefing/Responses Four intercity passenger rail service providers, prospective intercity passenger rail service pro- viders, and implementation agencies engaged in providing intercity passenger rail service were briefed on the project and asked for input on various questions. Table F-16 presents the generalized statements/responses to each question. To maintain confidentiality, responses are presented in bullets with specific identifiers removed. Chapter 4: Targeted Syntheses This chapter documents the identification and selection of the targeted synthesis of topics. The targeted syntheses were conducted to provide information on critically important research topics for which comprehensive resources or documentation are lacking. The final synthesis topics were identified by the panel as being those of most importance at the time of this project. These synthesis topics were deemed important so that a guide user with little or no experience, one starting from scratch, could have a better feel for gaps in established guidance and “know what they don’t know.” The synthesis information allows the users to avoid reinventing the wheel in the areas that are covered in the selected research/guidance topics. Some topics lack documentation by virtue of being new—e.g., new legislation, new situations/conditions, etc.— while others are areas where practitioner experience has not been summarized. The developed

F-18 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development Question 1. Interest in development of new passenger rail services has grown considerably over the past 10 years. Generally the USDOT expects the states to play the leading role in developing new services. In your experience, what could states do better in their discussions with your company concerning potential shared use of your lines? Contact the railroad early in the process. One railroad has modified their thinking about the discussion process and now believes it to be a mistake to not be involved in the earliest phases of consideration of a new rail service. They used to wait for a more formal project definition and sponsor, only to then expend considerable energy explaining the limits of their network capabilities and ruling out unpalatable options. They now distribute passenger rail policy guides to all of the states within their service territory in an effort to provide some early framing of possibilities for new services. Understand the complexity of railroad liability and indemnification issues. States, in general, fail to understand the concepts, costs, and level of exposure borne by host carriers in participating in a passenger service operation. Statutory limits are required to provide carriers sovereign immunity akin to that enjoyed by public agencies. Absent such provisions, carrier exposure to punitive damages, in particular, is a significant deterrent for consideration of new shared-use scenarios. Public agencies within a state should speak with one voice when exploring joint use of a given segment of track. The railroad has no interest (and is poorly positioned) to arbitrate the best or most qualified passenger rail service partner. In most circumstances, the state DOT will be best positioned to assume the consolidated role. In some states, commuter agencies, counties, MPOs, and the state all vie for capacity on common alignments. State DOTs need to staff their offices with railroad professionals. Highway planners are poorly positioned to understand railway service issues. Freight carriers often waste considerable time and energy educating DOT staff on the basics of railway infrastructure and service. Absent such staffing, qualified railroad consultants can play a mitigating, if imperfect, role. Become educated on the ongoing operations and cost obligations associated with passenger rail service. Although rail assets are relatively long-lived, they wear out, and the public agency sponsor should program necessary asset replacements as a service is carried out. Also recognize the need for program management resources to ensure appropriate levels of interface and problem-solving investments that may arise as a service is implemented. Develop mode-neutral asset investment protocols that enable alternative modal investment alternatives to be evaluated on a concurrent and equal basis, allowing the rail mode to play its most natural and cost-effective role. Some rail investments are layered on top of a traditional highway investment program, leading to unnecessary duplication of facilities. Public agencies should come to the table with realistic expectations about the ability of a freight host carrier to facilitate high service levels for passenger trains. Railroads need incentives to cooperate in both project development and service delivery. If there is no financial upside for the freight railroads, a real partnership is unlikely to develop. Question 2. To date Amtrak has been the principal U.S. provider of intercity passenger rail services. How are discussions organized concerning prospective rail services between your railroad, Amtrak, state sponsors, and the Federal Railroad Administration? Are the roles of each party clear? What improvements in project coordination would you suggest for future such efforts? FRA should be more hands on with Amtrak in creating a common set of technical requirements. Current arrangements are working well. FRA, in particular, has advanced in the 5 years since they became responsible for project funding and oversight. Project coordination is working well, and some states have matured in their understanding of rail network issues. Good personal relations between key stakeholders are essential to facilitate communication, develop trust, and improve the ability of all parties to understand the multiple perspectives involved in optimizing key project elements. FRA has advanced in their program management and funding role. Their traditional role in overseeing safety has proved to delay projects regularly; specific project decisions are taking far too long. Roles of state sponsors and FRA have become clearer over time. Many of the projects funded under ARRA had been in development for many years, so the development of specific PRIIA (Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008) guidance came mid-stream and tended to cause a lot of re-work. FRA should either engage further upstream in the project development discussions or issue more specific technical guidance to avoid re-work of project details. Table F-15. Questions and summarized responses from the railroad briefings.

Contractor’s Final Report F-19 Federal agency roles seem somewhat muddled between FTA and FRA and should be streamlined. One example is safety oversight for commuter and intercity trains which is led by the two agencies separately, despite obvious areas of overlap in both functional jurisdiction and physical facilities. Amtrak’s role is counter-productive; they do not have the mindset to play a constructive, consultative role in developing new services. Amtrak layers on demands for project features but brings no funding to the table. Question 3. Under PRIIA, states are required to develop and periodically refresh statewide rail plans. Are you satisfied with your level of involvement in developing these plans? Do the plans influence your internal strategic planning? What is the impact of the statewide plans on your own stance regarding intercity passenger rail proposals? States are frequently frustrated with the current mandatory planning regimen. Class I freight carriers are unwilling to discuss most elements of their network strategies, thereby frustrating efforts to develop a holistic rail strategy document for the state. Specific project initiatives are what drive the interest in statewide rail plans, with the corollary interest in ensuring eligibility for federal rail grants in support of those projects. One railroad plans to use the formal planning process to push the concept of evaluating potential public rail investments in the broad context of potential modal tradeoffs for both freight and passenger mobility challenges. Statewide rail plans have no influence on railroad corporate strategies or priorities. The official plan exercise has become a ritual intended to ensure federal funding eligibility for future projects; funding identification and prioritization of projects is often lacking. As most intercity rail projects are multi-state in nature and rely heavily on federal funding, it appears to be a force fit to have these initiatives be primarily vetted through a state-by-state process. A true federal rail service plan is needed. One railroad sees no value in the current state rail planning process. Planning exercises fall into two categories; in the first, direct input from the freight carrier is not sought. Some planners do engage with the railroads, asking intrusive questions and seeking detailed data that railroads consider proprietary and are unwilling to share. Statewide plans are developed to ensure qualification for FRA funding, but fail to set priorities in a manner that would inform the freight carriers or the public at large. Question 4. What is your experience with FRA guidance on new intercity passenger rail projects? Is the content and mode of delivery of such guidance appropriate? How might it be improved to facilitate project delivery for future rail initiatives? FRA should develop formal project principles to inform all stakeholders of the federal policy priorities and frame the project-specific technical guidance that will be required for project execution. FRA should engage earlier in the project development process to avoid re-work or explanations of technical project decisions further downstream. FRA guidance and project management capabilities have improved in recent years. FRA is also much more sophisticated in their understanding of what various stakeholders are in a position to commit to as part of a full funding agreement. One thing FRA could give to states would be a more explicit description of the project delivery process so that states and other sponsors could start with realistic expectations as to the timing and level of effort associated with bringing a new service to fruition. States would also benefit from a fuller understanding of the range of technical personnel and resources that must be engaged to ensure the safety and success of even a short-term or trial service initiation. Continuing confusion exists between FTA and FRA roles. Role reconciliation is required. Safety and reliability reviews are far too slow and result in project delays. The FRA role in ensuring level-of-service capabilities, while legitimate, is seen as far too detailed and into the weeds beyond what is productive. Federal procurement practices should be revised to streamline processes and position project procurement managers to take advantage of existing host railroad scale and cost efficiencies. Requiring that elements of the federally funded track upgrades be purchased separately escalates the cost of such purchases. Permitting delays also are having a significant impact on project durations and cost. Table F-15. (Continued). (continued on next page)

F-20 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development boundaries of the project itself. The same is true in the highway planning environment. For this reason, all parties should have an open mind about service standards and expectations and be willing to re-visit same once an operation has been up and running for a period of time. The best approach is to provide incentives for excellent service and bring a problem-solving approach to review meetings. Amtrak’s penalty-based system is seen as the worst example, in part because causes of delay are seldom subject to rigorous analysis and secondly because there is no real upside for providing excellent service. Service incentive payments are so small as to have no influence on a railroad’s dispatch policies. It is important that passenger rail sponsors have access to resources that may contribute to necessary fixes when service problems arise. For one railroad, current, internal coordination works reasonably well and might imply that fee-for-service arrangements, managed by host railroads could provide some advantages, provided all parties respected the importance of both the freight and passenger elements of the network operations. Develop strong partnering and collaboration protocols that appropriately recognize host carrier issues and approach service challenges from a problem-solving perspective. Resource dedication and proper staffing is key to that success. Question 5. What are the best models for ongoing coordination and monitoring of service delivery? How have these evolved and what improvements for the future might you suggest? Coordination mechanisms vary widely according to the nature of a specific service and the complementary processes of the relevant sponsoring agency. It is also challenging to predict the effect of a new investment on network rail service given that the improvement and new train operations will reset the nature of the network operation far beyond the geographic Table F-15. (Continued). Question 1. Interest in expansion or development of new passenger rail services in the US has grown considerably in the last decade with the USDOT (FRA) designating states to lead the role of planning and funding these expanded/new services. Notwithstanding the potential for other operators and alternate delivery mechanisms, Amtrak remains the principal US provider of these intercity passenger rail services. Do you feel there are identifiable areas for improvement in the Amtrak-State DOT interactions and can you discuss them? One entity believes that there is room for improvement in Amtrak’s transparency in costing information; flexibility in scheduling for special circumstances/events; and provision of more disaggregated (i.e., train/station-specific) on-time performance (OTP) information. There are always opportunities for improvement, most especially in the area of refined and more disaggregated cost data. There is a wide range of staffing levels and degree of understanding of critical issues across states. Some of the most challenging circumstances occur in working with states that are new to the concept of contracting for intercity passenger rail service. One problem observed is that states attempt to do their own studies with under-prepared in-house staff, by hiring consultants, or even going directly to host railroads without having the ability to fully understand or critique the results. This can lead to states either being turned off by excessively high consultant or railroad estimated costs or the equally frustrating outcome of states moving full speed ahead in the false expectation that costs will be much lower than they are. Question 2. In the context of planning and implementing new Intercity Passenger Rail services, could you comment on the several existing documents and tools our research team has identified in the NCRRP 03-01 Resources Matrix which may have been supplied to you in advance of today’s discussions? Specifically are there any existing useful resources of which you are aware that we have omitted? Also, are there any particular tools you believe would be a useful addition to help resolve/expedite planning of new services? Two potential tools would be helpful in planning, managing, and modifying passenger service. The first would be a more granular, i.e., disaggregated, zero-based costing formula for use in budgeting new or expanded service. This tool would allow Amtrak to provide its state partners with better, more detailed information as they consider which service elements to purchase from Amtrak vs. other potential providers. The second tool which could help contracting states improve reliability would be more detailed and timely station/train-specific OTP data from host railroads, to provide early warning of potential problems and help suggest opportunities to remedy. Table F-16. Questions and summarized responses from the intercity passenger rail service providers/implementation agencies.

Contractor’s Final Report F-21 Question 3. During your recent (2013) intense negotiations with the 17 state partners for cost sharing of PRIIA 209 short-distance services, were there any lessons learned or specifically any identifiable potential better tools to help in future similar negotiations? The implementation of PRIIA 209 state cost sharing is a work in progress, to address relatively new legislation, and the degree of sophistication in state partners varies widely. It is anticipated that state understanding and preparedness will improve with each consecutive year. One of the problems observed is turnover of state representative staffs, necessitating education and re-training in the specifics of dealing with passenger rail contracts. The biggest single issue observed in these recent negotiations was continuing dissatisfaction among states with Amtrak’s provision of sufficiently detailed variable costs associated with proposed service level options. Notwithstanding the introduction of the new Amtrak Performance Tracking (APT) cost allocation system replacing the old Route Profitability System (RPS) cost allocation system, several states were still not pleased. This was challenging if a state asked Amtrak to estimate costs for a specific frequency, staffing level, or station change, and the resulting estimated cost did not appear to be adjusted proportionally. One of the biggest challenges in the recently completed negotiations between Amtrak and the several state partners was the relatively limited ability of Amtrak to provide detailed cost variability information to reflect what-ifs as states considered changes in frequency, level-of- service, or carving out elemental components of the service package. Amtrak tried to use their existing systems to the best of their ability, but appear to need a more definitive variable cost-estimating/allocating model. It was observed that even the newer APT Cost Model that replaced the legacy RPS Cost Model is still largely an allocation-oriented rather than a true bottom-up cost forecasting model. Question 4. Under PRIIA states are required to develop and periodically refresh statewide rail plans. Are you satisfied with your participation and level of involvement in development of these plans? Do the plans influence your own internal strategic planning? Is your entity typically invited to comment on Drafts of these plans before publication? The state rail planning process tends to be more of a general visioning exercise than one with the development of a detailed service development plan (SDP) for existing or potential passenger rail service. There is a wide range of levels of detail in long-range passenger rail planning from one state to another. One entity believes that FRA might set more stringent (suggested minimum) standards defining the level of detail on passenger rail that states should include in rail plans/updates. One entity feels the state has effective interactivity with them and its other related contracting entities as it expands and updates its State Rail Plan. It always includes the planned growth of the state’s several passenger rail corridors in its plan. Amtrak’s Ridership Forecasting Model is an excellent tool for estimating intercity demand (revenue/ridership/yield) in the current US travel marketplace. For estimating capacity, the licensed Berkeley “Rail Traffic Controller” (RTC) is a useful tool. The Amtrak “Train Performance Calculator” (TPC) model is useful in stringing accurate schedules and related timetables, including speeds, geometry considerations, specific rolling stock and locomotives, etc. Amtrak maintains a library of Infrastructure Capital Costs that includes examples of a wide variety of (largely state-sponsored, FRA co-funded) rail improvement projects. It can use these examples to better estimate and calibrate costs for future projects. Some STB-related resources may exist that are not included in the matrix. One of the potential issues of interest is the degree to which there is a difference in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) requirements (alignment/engineering standards/public feedback process/etc.) for a fully privately funded project vs. the more typical publicly funded passenger rail projects. Several recently crafted “Multi-party Service Outcome Agreements” (SOAs) have been reached (after extended debate and negotiation in some cases). Generally in support of FRA HSIPR or TIGER Grants, these SOAs, involving FRA, Amtrak, states, and Host RRs (and specific to an individual FRA-funded project), provide a wealth of information on the challenges (and successful resolutions) of host railroad performance commitments to Amtrak and state(s) in trade for accepting FRA funding for substantial infrastructure/capacity upgrades. Table F-16. (Continued). (continued on next page)

F-22 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development Question 6. What are the best models and tools for ongoing coordination and monitoring of service performance of the Host Railroads? Can you comment on the various types/formats of incentive elements and related data requirements in current Amtrak-Host Railroad agreements? This is a complex area. Effective monitoring and tracking of host railroad performance is critical to improving actual passenger train performance and central to the fundamental agreements between host railroads and the service provider. It is difficult to develop an effective monitoring/incentive program for OTP when there are multiple operators in a short route, each with their own separate dispatching and responsibilities. Specific service OTP measurements can allow for customized incentives based on the corridor’s performance. To ensure early recognition of any potentially developing performance problems, regular meetings between the service provider, local Amtrak management (if applicable), and a locally focused railroad representative can review performance and identify any problems. Proposed solutions and recommended actions can be mutually agreed upon. One of the recent developments in OTP reporting and tracking is real-time delay report inputting by train conductors, using a sophisticated, new iPhone app, allowing them to report the length/cause of delay virtually as it happens. Question 7. Do you believe that the current PRIIA language (and practical application) provide sufficient guidance and mechanisms to truly allow “alternate delivery” of short- distance passenger rail service (where technically feasible) either directly by a host railroad or a fully-qualified 3rd party provider? Are any additional planning tools necessary to help enable this concept (where applicable)? As costs increase each year, especially with the new PRIIA 209 full state payment requirements, it is always worthwhile to explore all means of controlling cost, including alternate providers. As the ability to unbundle service provision is improved (especially if Amtrak could provide better variable cost information on each category) it could be a good idea to find individual functions to out-source and save costs. From the discussions with other states and corridors during recent PRIIA funding negotiations, it would seem that the most useful new tool would be a viable Budget Planning (i.e., cost-estimating) tool with better ability to vary cost than current Amtrak methodology. Both a screening level tool for broad analysis (e.g., varying frequency or route) and a detailed, disaggregated level for estimating specific adjustments (e.g., train slots or varying amenities) would be helpful to the contracting states. Question 5. What is your experience and degree of satisfaction with existing FRA guidance on new intercity passenger rail projects? Is the content and mode of delivery of such guidance appropriate? How might it be improved to facilitate project delivery for future rail initiatives? Are there any specific “gaps” that your entity could suggest we explore in our ongoing work? The FRA should clarify and provide more specific guidance on what needs to be included in a Passenger Rail SDP. One suggestion would be to offer proposed formats/levels of detail that differentiates the effort in proportion to the size of the proposed new/expanded service. It is suggested that creative right-sizing of SDPs could save resources, while still providing appropriate levels of information for the particular service in consideration. One entity indicates it has more experience with FRA guidance on improving/expanding intercity passenger rail projects, as exemplified in the several recent HSIPR-funded upgrade programs. In these programs the guidance and delivery have worked reasonably well. The biggest single challenge has been the FRA mandate for a 20-year commitment by a host railroad for the multi-party SOAs. FRA in the last few years has been fortunate to be able to administer multiple large capital grants including the PRIIA, TIGER, and HSIPR Programs. Initially, FRA did not have sufficient staff to manage the distribution and oversight of such large projects but has made major strides recently. FRA was not well prepared to establish and oversee the Environmental Review and Approval Process, and ended up developing its own EIS Guidelines, largely similar to, but not identical to those employed by FHWA and FTA. This has resulted in quite a large amount of time- consuming work for the recipient states. Although, over time, the FRA EIS Guidance and related direction has been refined, there is still room for streamlining and improvement. Table F-16. (Continued).

Contractor’s Final Report F-23 syntheses are incorporated within the guide either as supplemental information to a topic or as stand-alone topic briefings. The research team and project panel selected synthesis topics using an iterative process. Based on the conclusions from the literature review and the outreach efforts, the research team developed a list of six potential topics. • Liability/Insurance Requirements—examine the liability issues associated with differing structures of intercity passenger rail operations, insurance requirements of host railroads, and potential problem areas/needs prior to and during service start-up. • State/Rail Authorities’ Desire for More Granularity in Breakdown of Costs/Distinct Service Menu Options under PRIIA Section 209—provide additional guidance and under- standing on the pricing policies/principles/process under which individual service item costs are provided; document ongoing negotiations to provide more information on each service component and its disaggregated, zero-based cost. • Process and Costs for Adding Frequencies/Special Event Services—explain processes and expected costs associated with adding a new frequency or special event (non-routine) service; cover both planning needs and service costs (e.g., operations and staffing). • Access Costs/Shared ROW Issues/Host Railroad Service Performance Tracking Tools— explain host railroad access cost structure and operational needs, as well as flexibility and priority in scheduling over shared track/right-of-way; examine methods of tracking host rail- road performance and use of incentives to increase on-time performance. • U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) Role/Requirements for Intercity Passenger Rail— describe and explain the emerging role of the STB in regulation and oversight of new intercity passenger rail services, as well as when, how, and why STB approval must be sought in both planning initial service and making operational changes after service begins; outline existing statutes. • Detailed Service Development Plan Guidance—provide more detail on what is required for FRA SDP requirements for varying service proposals, recommending establishment of general and/or specific requirements under most recent planning guidance for a given type of intercity passenger rail service (i.e., not one-size-fits-all). During the June 24, 2014, panel meeting, the proposed topics were discussed, and five final topics were selected: • Liability/Insurance Requirements—examine the liability issues associated with differing structures of intercity passenger rail operations, insurance requirements of host railroads, and potential problem areas/needs prior to and during service start-up. • State/Rail Authorities’ Desire for More Granularity in Breakdown of Costs/Distinct Service Menu Options under PRIIA Section 209—provide additional guidance and under- standing for guide users of the pricing policies/principles/process under which individual ser- vice item costs are provided to include access and other costs from host railroads for service; document ongoing negotiations to provide more information on each service component and its dis aggregated, zero-based cost. • Processes for Ensuring Redundancy/Resilient Service and Capacity for Special Event Services—explain processes associated with providing robust intercity passenger rail service that is redundant/resilient enough to recover from adverse events and/or for adding new frequencies or special event (non-routine) service as needed; cover both planning needs and service costs (operations, staffing, etc.). • Performance Measurement/Quality Assurance—describe existing and emerging tools, methods, and metrics for guide users to track and document performance of intercity passenger rail programs at the state/regional level to include performance tracking of both the host railroad

F-24 Guidebook for intercity passenger Rail Service and development and/or service operator as well as methods of tracking and promoting high-quality, customer- service-based, best-practices-driven oversight/feedback/service improvement techniques by the state/rail authority. • U.S. Surface Transportation Board Role/Requirements for Intercity Passenger Rail— describe and explain the emerging role of STB in regulation and oversight of new intercity passenger rail services, as well as when, how, and why STB approval must be sought in both planning initial service and making operational changes after service begins; outline existing statutes; discuss the inclusion of STB in the PRIIA §209 implementation process. Chapter 5: Summary Intercity Passenger Rail Service and Development Guide The chapters are presented progressively from initial consideration of establishment of an intercity passenger rail program or service, to service planning and design, to operations and ongoing maintenance of the project. This structure generally follows the progression steps shown in Figure F-7, as outlined in NCRRP Project 07-02, which lists four major stages as the conceptual framework for intercity passenger rail project development. Chapters of the guide describe phases under each stage as they relate to overall program development. The guide is organized into the following stages and corresponding chapters: • Visioning: – Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an overview of the need for the guide and overview of the passenger rail service development process. – Chapter 2: Initial Intercity Passenger Rail Program Establishment Phase. Presents an overview of the activities to undertake in the initial program establishment phase. • Planning: – Chapter 3: Service Planning Phase—Feasibility/Service Development. Addresses the tasks associated with the service planning phase. – Chapter 4: Planning Phase—Environmental Requirements. Provides an overview of the tasks necessary to address environmental requirements in the planning phase. • Design & Construction: – Chapter 5: Design & Construction Phase. Discusses projects and considerations addressed during the design and construction phase. • Operations & Maintenance: – Chapter 6: Operations Phase—Ongoing Service Operation. Summarizes activities and tasks associated with the ongoing service operations. – Chapter 7: Operations Phase—Ongoing Service Management. Summarizes activities and tasks associated with the ongoing service management. – Appendices—Targeted Syntheses. Includes full targeted synthesis discussions for the five areas selected by the panel. Figure F-7. Stages in NCRRP 07-02 conceptual framework for intercity passenger rail.

Contractor’s Final Report F-25 Research Findings The scope of NCRRP Project 03-01 was to generate a comprehensive guide describing the resources, strategies, analytical tools, and techniques used by public agencies and private entities to support planning and decision-making in the development of intercity passenger rail service. While a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for intercity passenger rail service devel- opment, a comprehensive guide describing existing resources and best practices is valuable to support intercity passenger rail service planning and development across the United States by various organizations. The research team approached the creation of an intercity passenger rail service and development guide primarily as an effort to create a comprehensive collection of existing resources related to intercity passenger rail service and development. Many existing resources provide comprehensive coverage of certain topics related to intercity passenger rail planning and development, and it was the intent of the research team to ensure that the resulting guide allows for wide dissemination of these valuable resources. The researchers also recognized that some topics have limited or no coverage within the published literature. Furthermore, although some best practices that offer valuable insight into successful implementation of passenger rail service exist within public agencies and private entities, some of these best practices have not been formally documented in a research study or other resource. Therefore, existing resources were supplemented with limited additional research in the form of targeted syntheses on select topics where substantial gaps exist within the knowledge base. These activities led to the creation of a user-friendly comprehensive guide that outlines strate- gies, tools, and techniques that public agencies and private entities can use to support planning and decision-making in the development of intercity passenger rail service. The guide is a valuable document to support intercity passenger rail service planning and development activities and serves as a resource that can be put into use immediately by the passenger rail practitioner community.

Development Steps Policy & Legal Frameworka Guidance Documentsb Research/Consultant Studiesc Analytical Toolsd Notable Practices/ Procedures/Checklistse Planning Network Design/Route Selection • PRIIA Section 208: Methodologies for Amtrak Route and Service Planning Decisions • FRA Rail Corridor Planning Guidance (Section II) • AASHTO State Rail Planning Best Practices Guide (Chapter 8) • UIC High Speed Railway System Implementation Handbook • Air Rail Links • ACRP 118 Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning • TTI/TxDOT 6467: Identification of Priority Rail Projects for Texas • TTI/TxDOT 5930: Potential Development of an Intercity Passenger Transit System in Texas • MWRRI Route Studies • SEHSR Route Studies • UIC Optimal Speed Study • FRA Network Analysis Model • FRA Sketch-Planning Capacity Analysis Model • FRA CONNECT Model • NCFRP 27: Web-based Screening Tool for Shared-Use Corridors • ACRP 118: Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning—Air/Rail Diversion Model Environmental Analysis/Public Outreach • FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (Federal Register Notice) • FTA Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (Federal Register) • FRA HS Ground Transportation Noise/Vibration Assessment • FRA HSIPR NEPA Guidance • UIC High Speed Railway System Implementation Handbook • Guidance for Implementation of FTA’s Categorical Exclusions (23 CFR §771.118) • Guidelines on the Use of Tiered Impact Statements for Transportation Projects • NCRRP Report 3: Comparison of Passenger Rail Energy Consumption with Competing Modes • TCRP Synthesis 89: Public Participation for Transit • UIC HSR Energy and Emissions • UIC Energy Consumption and CO2 Emission of World Railway • UIC Railway Noise in Europe • NCHRP 25-25 (80): Potential Use of Social Media in the NEPA Process • FRA Categorical Exclusion Worksheet • FRA Noise/Vibration Model • FRA Horn Noise Model • FRA Review Checklist • NCHRP 25-25 (80): Social Media Tools Matrix • SEHSR • Illinois DOT • Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (ongoing) • California High-Speed Rail • All Aboard Florida • Northern Lights Express • Desert Express • NY Empire Corridor Ridership & Revenue Forecasting • OIG HSIPR Best Practices: Ridership and Revenue Forecasting • UIC Demand Forecasting Guidelines • UIC High Speed Railway System Implementation Handbook • Desert Express Draft EIS— Appendix B Ridership Forecast Review • CAHSR Ridership and Revenue Forecasts • Review of “Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study” • NCRRP 03-02: Intercity Passenger Rail in the Context of Dynamic Travel Markets • UK Comparing Rail Forecasting Approaches • Network Rail Long Term Planning Process: Long Distance Market Study Draft for Consultation • TCRP 166: Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode • Amtrak Ridership Model • FRA Ridership Models • Third-Party/Consultant Models • In-House Ridership Models • FRA CONNECT Model • TCRP 167: Making Effective Fixed- Guideway Transit Investments: Indicators of Success • FTA STOPS model • ACRP 118: Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning—Air/Rail Diversion Model • Checklists in OIG Best Practices: Ridership and Revenue Forecasting • California HSR Peer Panel • Other Peer Review Panels Economic Analysis • 49 U.S.C. §22701: State Rail Plans—Definitions • FRA Methodology for Determining the Avoidable and Fully Allocated Costs of Amtrak Routes • USDOT B/C Analysis Guidance • USDOT Value of Time Guidance • UIC High Speed Railway System Implementation Handbook • OIG HSIPR Best Practices: Public Benefits Assessment • OIG HSIPR Best Practices: Operating Costs Estimation • Ohio Hub PR Economic Impact Study • CAHSR Economic Impact Analysis Report • California High-Speed Rail Economic Benefits and Impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area • Economic Impacts of Amtrak Intercity Passenger Rail Service in Michigan • Measuring the Benefits of Intercity Passenger Rail: A Study of the Heartland Flyer Corridor • FRA HSIPR B/C Guidelines • Public Benefits Checklists in USDOT OIG Best Practices: Public Benefits Assessment AnnEx: RESOURCE MATRIx Note: Many of the resource documents listed here include hyperlinks to the actual document on the Internet.

Development Steps Policy & Legal Frameworka Guidance Documentsb Research/Consultant Studiesc Analytical Toolsd Notable Practices/ Procedures/Checklistse Shared-Use Corridor Issues • PRIIA Section 212: Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Improvements—Allocation Formula • FTA Safe Transit in Shared Use • TxDOT 0-5022-P1 Passenger Rail Sharing Freight Infrastructure Primer • APTA Commuter Rail New Start Handbook • NCHRP 657: Shared-Use Implementation Handbook • TCRP Report 130: Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles • TCRP 52: Joint Operation of LRT or DMU Vehicles with Railroads • TCRP RRD 43: Supplementing and Updating TCRP 52 Joint Operations of LRT or DMU Vehicles with Railroads • TCRP RRD 47: Germany's Track- Sharing Experience • TRB EC058: Shared-Use Corridors • TCRP 145: Reinventing the Urban Interstate • Best Practices in Shared-Use High- Speed Rail Systems (Mineta) • NCHRP RRD 313: Cost-Allocation Methods for CR, IPR, and Freight Rail Operations on Shared-Use Rail Systems and Corridors • UIC Operating High-Speed Lines Carrying Mixed Traffic • TxDOT 0-5022-1: Public Support of Passenger Rail Sharing Freight Infrastructure • Economic Effects of Vertical Separation in the Railway Sector • GAO-09-282: Many Factors Influence Liability and Indemnity Provisions, and Options Exist to Facilitate Negotiations • GAO-04-240: Information and Guidance Could Help Facilitate Access Negotiations • NCHRP 773: Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations • RTC Model for Shared Use Corridor Capacity • NCFRP 27: Web-Based Screening Tool for Shared-Use Corridors • CCJPA: Amtrak/UP • NNEPRA: Amtrak/Pan Am • WA/OR: Amtrak Cascades/BNSF • IDOT: Amtrak Illinois Station Planning • Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990 • ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities • ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) • Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way • FRA Rail Corridor Planning Guidance (Section II-A) • FRA Station Area Planning • FRA Pedestrian Crossing Safety • Amtrak Guidelines for Stations • Network Rail Guide to Station Planning and Design • UIC Toolbox for the Design and/or Renovation of Major Interchanges • TCRP 153 Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations • TCRP 175 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Services • GAO-15-70: Multiple Factors Influence Extent of Transit-Oriented Development • HSR/ICPR TOD Reports • WSDOT’s Handbook for Corridor Capacity Evaluation • TCRP 153: Station Access Planning Tool • Downeaster • Other State Practices • FRA Station Area Planning Summary Checklist • Caltrans Station Guidelines • Amtrak Great American Stations Website Service Development Planning • FRA HSIPR Notice of Funding Availability: FY 2010 Service Development Programs—Appendix 2 Additional Information on Stages of Project Development • UIC High Speed Railway System Implementation Handbook • APTA Commuter Rail New Start Handbook • Florida East Coast Amtrak Service Development Plan • NEC Future Rail Investment Plan • SEHSR SDP • Ohio Statewide Rail Plan— Appendix B: Commuter Rail Checklist Strategic/Business Planning • PRIIA Section 210: Long-Distance Routes • Amtrak Annual Business Plans • RMRA High-Speed Rail Feasibility Study Business Plan • TCRP 166: Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode • CCJPA Business Plan • California HSR Business Plans • Other State Practices

Development Steps Policy & Legal Frameworka Guidance Documentsb Research/Consultant Studiesc Analytical Toolsd Notable Practices/ Procedures/Checklistse Build Consensus/Public Support • AASHTO State Rail Planning Best Practices Guide (Chapter 3) • APTA Inventory of Criticisms of High-Speed Rail • APTA Case for Business Investment in High-Speed Rail • Amtrak Government Affairs Publications • NARP Guidance on Support- Building • TCRP Synthesis 89: Public Participation for Transit • Advocacy Group Practices Design & Construction Right-of-Way Design • 49 CFR Part 213: Track Safety Standards • AREMA Design Standards • Freight Railroad Design Standards • UIC Design of HSR Lines for 300+ km/h State of the Art • Standards in FRA-Funded HSIPR Right-of-Way Acquisition • 49 CFR Part 1152: Rail Line Abandonment • 49 CFR Part 1180: Railroad Acquisition, Control, Merger, Consolidation Project, Trackage Rights, and Lease Procedures • Alaska Statute 42.40: Alaska Railroad Corporation Act • STB Overview: Abandonments & Alternatives to Abandonments • NCHRP Synthesis 374: Preserving Freight and Passenger Rail Corridors and Service • TCRP LRD 1: Strategies to Facilitate Acquisition and Use of Railroad ROW • TTI/TxDOT 6268: Abandoned Rail Corridors in Texas • TCRP LRD 6: Requirements That Impact the Acquisition of Capital- Intensive Long-Lead Items, ROW, and Land for Transit • North Carolina (NCRR) • New York (CSX) • Michigan (NS) • California (SP/UP) • Texas (RI/SP) Fleet Design • PRIIA Section 305: Next Generation Corridor Train Equipment Pool • FRA Accessibility Standards Applying to Passenger Rail Cars • 49 CFR Part 229: Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards • 49 CFR Part 238: Passenger Equipment Safety Standards • PRIIA Section 305 Next Generation Equipment Committee Report— Equipment Ownership, Maintenance, and Management • Amtrak Fleet Strategy • FRA Technical Criteria and Procedures for Evaluating Crashworthiness of Alternatively Designed PR Equipment for Use in Tier 1 Service • FRA Passenger Train Emergency Systems: Review of Egress Variables and Egress Simulation Models • Equipment Manufacturers Materials • California Designs • Wisconsin Talgo Designs • California/Amtrak Joint HSR • New Amtrak Individual HSR Procurement Fleet Planning/Procurement • State-Level Statutes for Passenger Rail Equipment Ownership • 49 CFR Part 238: Passenger Equipment Safety Standards • NCRRP LRD 1 Buy America Requirements for Federally Funded Rail Projects • Amtrak Fleet Strategy • FRA High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Testing Strategy • Network Rail Network RUS Passenger Rolling Stock • North Carolina • California • Midwest/California • Washington/Oregon Talgo • California/Amtrak Joint HSR Cost Estimating • PRIIA Section 209: State-Supported Routes—Cost Methodology • OIG HSIPR Best Practices: Operating Costs Estimation • OIG HSIPR Best Practices: Operating Costs Toolkit • FRA Methodology for Determining the Avoidable and Fully Allocated Costs of Amtrak Routes • FRA Rail Corridor Planning Guidance (Section IX) • AREMA Cost Standards • UIC HSR Costing Standards • FRA Mixed-Use Corridors Maintenance Costs Study • TTI/TxDOT 4723: Funding Strategies and Project Costs for State- Supported Intercity Passenger Rail • JRC Estimating Maintenance Costs for Mixed Higher Speed Passenger and Freight Rail Corridors • UIC Relationship between Rail Service Operating Direct Costs and Speed • NCHRP RRD 313: Cost-Allocation Methods for CR, IPR, and Freight Rail Operations on Shared-Use Rail Systems and Corridors • Third-Party/Consultant Data • Checklists in OIG HSIPR Best Practices: Operating Costs Toolkit Safety Issues • 49 CFR Part 213: Track Safety Standards • 49 CFR Part 236 Subpart I: Positive Train Control Regulations • 49 CFR Part 238: Passenger Equipment Safety Standards • FRA System Safety Program (Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) • FRA HSR Safety Strategy • FRA Collision Hazard Analysis Guide for Passenger Rail Service • Formulating a Strategy for Securing High-Speed Rail in the United States • Promoting Security and the Feeling of Security vis a vis Third-Party Violence in the European Rail Sector • Volpe Center HrSR/HSR Studies • APTA Manual for the Development of System Safety Program Plans for Commuter Railroads • TTCI Test Facility Reports • Safety Review Checklists

Development Steps Policy & Legal Frameworka Guidance Documentsb Research/Consultant Studiesc Analytical Toolsd Notable Practices/ Procedures/Checklistse Grade Crossings • 49 CFR Part 234: Grade Crossing Signal System Safety and State Action Plans • FRA Train Horn/QZ Rules • 49 CFR Part 222: Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway- Rail Grade Crossings • ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities • ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) • Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way • FHWA Grade Crossing Handbook • FRA HSR Grade Crossing • FRA Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices • FRA Guidance on Pedestrian Crossing Safety at or Near Passenger Stations • FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) • SCCRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossings: Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual • TCRP 175 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Services • NCDOT Sealed Corridor Studies • NCHRP 755: Comprehensive Costs of Grade Crossing Crashes • Priority Index Calculation Tools • FRA GradeDec • FRA Quiet Zone Calculator • Grade Crossing Review Checklists • Illinois DOT Grade Crossing Plan (Chicago-St. Louis HrSR) • Utah DOT Pedestrian Grade Crossing Flow Charts and Diagnostic Team Check List seussI noitcurtsnoC • UIC High Speed Railway System Implementation Handbook • State Best Practices Operations Passenger Rail Service Operation • Amtrak • 49 CFR Parts 209-223, 225-229, 231-244: FRA Rail Safety Requirements • PRIAA Sect. 217: Access To Amtrak Equipment and Services • UIC High Speed Railway System Implementation Handbook • OIG HSIPR Best Practices: Operating Costs Estimation • NCHRP 773 Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations • ACRP 118 Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning • FRA Work Schedules and Sleep Patterns of Train and Engine Employees in Passenger Operations • Iowa Pacific • All Aboard Florida • X-Train (LVS/LAX) • Z-Train (LVS/LAX) • WSDOT’s Handbook for Corridor Capacity Evaluation • Commuter Rail Contracting Right-of-Way Maintenance • 49 CFR Part 213: Track Safety Standards • AREMA Standards • Amtrak NEC ROW Standards • UIC Guidelines for the Application of Asset Management in Railway Infrastructure Organisations • FRA Mixed-Use Corridors Maintenance Costs Study • UIC Maintenance of High Speed Lines • UIC Monitoring Track Condition to Improve Asset Management • UIC Relationship between Rail Service Operating Direct Costs and Speed • Illinois • CCJPA/UP Maintenance Equipment Maintenance • Amtrak Maintenance of Equipment Standards Documents • UIC Relationship between Rail Service Operating Direct Costs and Speed • FTA Managing Railcar Maintenance • State-Specific Procedures • CCJPA Fare Policy/Ticketing • Amtrak • Amtrak Studies on E-ticketing Implementation • ACRP 118 Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning • TCRP Synthesis 96: Off-Board Fare Payment Using Proof-of-Payment Verification • Downeaster • CCJPA Revenue Management • SNCF Yield Management Plan • SNCF “Lo-Cost” HSR TGV • Revenue Management Tools • State Best Practices • TEMPO—Texas Eagle • Acela Express (Cpy Cnstr) Passenger Services & Amenities • PRIIA Sections o 208: Methodologies for Amtrak Route and Service Planning Decisions o 209: State-Supported Routes o 213: Passenger Train Performance o 222: On-Board Service Improvements • Amtrak OBS Guidance Documents • UIC OBS Stds • TCRP Synthesis 104: Use of Electronic Passenger Information Signage in Transit • TCRP Report 92: Strategies for Improved Traveler Information • TCRP 166: Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode • State Best Practices • Amtrak Interactive Train Locator Map hcaertuO & gnitekraM • TCRP Synthesis 99: Uses of Social Media in Public Transportation • TCRP Synthesis 105: Use of Market Research Panels in Transit • State Best Practices Ongoing Program Management State Rail Plan • 49 U.S.C. §227: State Rail Plans • FRA State Rail Plan Guidance • FRA Notice of Availability of Final State Rail Plan Guidance • AASHTO State Rail Planning Best Practices Guide (Full) • TTI/TxDOT 6467: Identification of Priority Rail Projects for Texas • FRA Samples in National Rail Plan Documents • State Best Practices

Development Steps Policy & Legal Frameworka Guidance Documentsb Research/Consultant Studiesc Analytical Toolsd Notable Practices/ Procedures/Checklistse Funding & Finance • Alaska Statute 42.40: Alaska Railroad Corporation Act • AASHTO State Rail Planning Best Practices Guide (Chapter 9) • Virginia Senate Joint Resolution 63 (now Senate Document 14) • Virginia 2008 Statewide Rail Resource Allocation Plan • Virginia Funding Strategies for State Sponsored Intercity and High Speed Passenger Rail • APTA HSR Tax Credit Paper • TTI/TxDOT 4723: Funding Strategies and Project Costs for State- Supported Intercity Passenger Rail • NCRRP 07-01: Alternative Financing Approaches for Passenger and Freight Rail Projects • NCRRP 07-03: Inventory of State Passenger and Freight Rail Programs • MI DOT Passenger Rail Plan • CalTrans State-Sponsored Service Plans • CCJPA • NNEPRA • WA/OR Cascade Corridor Institutional Arrangements • PRIIA Sections o 203: Establishment of Improved Financial Accounting System o 204: Development of 5- Year Financial Plan o 205: Restructuring Long- Term Debt and Capital Leases o 206: Establishment of Grant Process o 207: Metrics and Standards o 208: Methodologies for Amtrak Route and Service Planning Decisions o 209: State-Supported Routes o 214: Alternate Passenger Rail Service Pilot Program • 49 U.S.C. §21: Alaska Railroad Transfer • Alaska Statute 42.40: Alaska Railroad Corporation Act • FRA Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study • NCRRP 07-02: Developing Multi- State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs • NCRRP 07-03: Inventory of State Passenger and Freight Rail Programs • MWRRI Study • NCHRP 657: Shared-Use Implementation Handbook • NCHRP RRD 313: Cost-Allocation Methods for CR, IPR, and Freight Rail Operations on Shared-Use Rail Systems and Corridors • Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Compact • WSDOT-ODOT Amtrak Cascades Partnership Contracts Legal Issues • Rail Passenger Service Act (“Amtrak Statute”) • ICC Termination Act of 1995 (establishes STB and its jurisdiction) • Federal Employers’ Liability Act • Railroad Retirement Act • Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act • Railway Labor Act • Numerous Railroad Safety Laws (Hours of Service Act, etc.) • Americans with Disabilities Act • Other Federal Statutes • Alaska Statute 42.40: Alaska Railroad Corporation Act • NCHRP 657 Shared-Use Implementation Handbook • NCRRP LRD 1 Buy America Requirements for Federally Funded Rail Projects • NCRRP 12-01: Legal Aspects of Rail Programs • TCRP LRD 39: Competition Requirements of the Design/Build, Construction Manager at Risk, and PPP Contracts • GAO-04-240: Information and Guidance Could Help Facilitate Access Negotiations • Decisions of Courts, ICC, and STB • Applicable FRA Regulations • Amtrak and Commuter Rail Contracts Performance Management • PRIIA Section 207: Metrics And Standards • PRIIA Section 213: Passenger Train Performance • Via Rail PM White Paper • Oregon DOT—Transportation Performance Measures for Outcome Based System Management and Monitoring • Amtrak Performance Tracking • On-Board/Customer Surveys • Customer Satisfaction Index • Amtrak Status Maps • NNEPRA Performance and Ridership Spreadsheets • WSDOT & ODOT Amtrak Cascades Service Assessment Forms

Development Steps Policy & Legal Frameworka Guidance Documentsb Research/Consultant Studiesc Analytical Toolsd Notable Practices/ Procedures/Checklistse Contracting • 49 U.S.C. §24403: Intercity Passenger Rail Service Corridor Capital Assistance—Project Management Oversight • SHRP2-R16-RR-1: Improving Project Agreement Process • TCRP LRD 43: Contractual Means of Achieving High-Level Performance in Transit Contracts • GAO-06-820R: Active Commuter Rail Agency Service Contracts • GAO-09-282: Many Factors Influence Liability and Indemnity Provisions, and Options Exist to Facilitate Negotiations • GAO-04-240: Information and Guidance Could Help Facilitate Access Negotiations • Commuter Agency Outsourcing Procedure Tools • DBE/Local Contractor Requirements Risk Management • 49 U.S.C. §28103: Law Enforcement—Limitations on Rail Passenger Transportation Liability • 49 U.S.C. §28504: Commuter Rail Mediation—Applicability of Other Laws • Various State Laws Purporting to Limit Tort Liability for Public Agencies • OIG HSIPR Best Practices: Operating Costs Estimation • FRA Methodology for Determining the Avoidable and Fully Allocated Costs of Amtrak Routes • TCRP Report 130: Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles • Managing Risk on the Railway Infrastructure • Risk Assessment for Rail Transportation Projects • Amtrak and Commuter Rail Operating Agreements a Existing policy & legal framework for intercity passenger rail in the U.S., currently defined under the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, as well as numerous other federal statutes and regulations applicable to intercity passenger rail. State laws and regulations also apply to some aspects of the service. b Guidance documents issued by the FRA, other government agencies, and industry organizations (e.g., AASHTO SCORT, APTA, or AREMA) to support rail service development by interpreting statutory requirements or documenting notable practices. c Completed, ongoing, or pending research/consultant studies sponsored by the TRB Cooperative Research Programs, federal or state agencies, or consultants on behalf of proposed intercity passenger rail projects. d Comprehensive or sketch-level analytical tools developed by public or private entities to provide quantitative support for planning and decision-making. e Notable practices or specific case studies of successful approaches or tools used by public agencies and private entities throughout the intercity passenger rail industry that may have limited or no documentation describing their impacts. Such resources also include procedures or checklists established by states or other operators to ensure service quality standards are being achieved. By extension, identification of “notable practices” also encompasses an assessment of “what not to do” or other practices that have been shown to not be effective at achieving rail passenger service goals.