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.

3 Ongoing expansion and development of intercity passenger rail service in the United States continues to face challenges. Since 1970, intercity passenger rail services in the United States have been operated by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). Although much progress has been made in modernizing the U.S. intercity passenger rail network, Amtrak relies on annual Congressional appropriations for its continued existence. In contrast, other modes of transportation—highways, transit, and aviation—have established federal roles and dedicated funding mechanisms for new construction, capital renewal, or operations. Until recently, no clear federal role in, or long-range plan for, developing a national intercity passenger rail network has been defined. Consequently, programs to develop new intercity passenger rail services have been initiated primarily by states or groups of states that have committed financial and other resources toward establishing passenger rail service on major travel corridors within their juris- dictions. Many successful passenger rail programs exist today as a direct result of these state-level initiatives. Many states, however, lack the resources and/or legislative mandate to conduct any type of planning activities for intercity passenger rail. Outside of the Northeast Corridor (NEC), intercity passenger rail services in the United States operate primarily on infrastructure owned by private freight railroad carriers, presenting unique challenges for the planning and development of publicly owned intercity passenger rail services. The passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) estab- lished a new policy structure for developing intercity passenger rail in the United States. This act instituted mechanisms for the USDOT to establish partnerships and share funding of new rail services with states that want to sponsor such activities. Additionally, PRIIA created new requirements for states to develop formal plans for passenger and freight rail and obtain input from the general public, local governments, and freight railroads in developing the plans. Actual funding of new passenger rail projects began in earnest as a feature of the 2009 federal economic stimulus legislation and subsequent appropriations. This guidebook is the most recent effort undertaken through TRB to provide user-friendly, nontechnical direction for state officials, rail service advocates, and other interested parties to the best sources of guidance on the wide range of issues associated with expanding or building a new passenger operation. It follows on the publication of two related guidebooks completed under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP): NCHRP Report 657: Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors (2010) and NCHRP Report 773: Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations (2014). Additional TRB reports on rail transportation topics, including intercity passenger rail, are under way or recently have been published as part of NCRRP, which sponsored development of this guidebook. NCRRP reports on related topics of interest are referenced herein, as appropriate, as more thorough examinations of several of the areas briefly discussed. For ongoing NCRRP projects, project numbers are referenced. C h a p t e r 1 Introduction

4 Guidebook for Intercity passenger rail Service and Development Purpose of This Guidebook This guidebook documents best practices for those seeking to initiate or improve intercity passenger rail service. Detailed technical studies have been performed on many of the elements enumerated in this report so, where possible, the authors have provided links to reference docu- ments and websites that offer the most current guidance. U.S. experience in developing modern rail service lags behind that of most of the developed world; technical guidance and policies are still evolving. This guidebook is designed to steer those seeking to develop intercity passenger rail service away from dead ends and policy cul-de-sacs so that energies expended can advance the state of efforts to build modern intercity passenger rail service in North America. Planning and developing intercity rail service is different from transit rail services, which can range from light or heavy rail within the urban area to commuter or regional passenger rail service that primarily connects suburbs to the central business districts (CBDs) of major urban areas. This guidebook does not specifically address rail transit; however, many of the policies and practices (e.g., public outreach and environmental clearance requirements) may be similar. In most cases, rail transit is administered by either a local transit agency or a regional metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Although some state DOTs may be involved in such planning, intercity rail planning and development will be treated as a separate process in this guidebook. Current federal funding structures assign state DOTs the primary leadership role for developing new intercity passenger rail services. Few states have the resources to carry out this task; most have just completed (within the past 5 years) their first formal statewide rail plans for service development initiatives. Traditional DOT staffing is weighted to the engineering discipline and the highway mode, reflecting the seven-decade emphasis of U.S. transportation investment in developing the highway system. Rail transportation, meanwhile, has been largely considered a private-sector function with the exception of the existing Amtrak intercity passenger rail system. Additionally, most recent knowledge and experience in developing and operating passenger rail service in the United States has focused on commuter rail or urban transit rail (light or heavy rail service) within or serving urban areas, rather than intercity passenger rail. Although these forms of passenger rail service share some aspects, significant differences in planning, funding, and operat- ing intercity passenger rail service exist. These differences warrant the creation of this guidebook focusing on intercity passenger rail service. The re-emergence of intercity passenger rail as a major target of public investment is a process less than a decade old. Readers should expect major changes in the next few years as state and federal agencies gain experience from implementing the first round of federally assisted projects and service rollouts under PRIIA and projects funded by grants from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The effects of these projects are just beginning to be seen at the time this guidebook is being published. Follow-up legislation to replace the expiring PRIIA has also been introduced for consideration by Congress. It is unknown which policies related to intercity passenger rail will be continued or expanded in the next several years. Why Should Intercity Passenger Rail Development Be Considered? Traditionally, intercity passenger rail has received far less emphasis in the surface transportation planning and investment history of the United States than other modes of intercity travel. There are many reasons for this—some cultural, some political, and some reflecting the long-standing preference of Americans to own and operate private motor vehicles. This guidebook does not enumerate the many contributors to this history or prescribe policy changes that would lead to a greater emphasis on rail transportation. However, the biggest institutional contrast between the United States and other western countries that have invested in and continue to invest at much

Introduction 5 higher rates in rail transportation is that the physical fixed plant of the rail network is held as a public asset in most other countries. Public ownership elevates the profile of rail and provides an automatic seat at the table when public resource allocations are considered for passenger mobility. Highways and airports enjoy this status in the United States; railways, with few exceptions, do not. That private freight rail operators own most of the U.S. rail network produces a unique set of challenges for those proposing new passenger rail operations; many of these challenges are addressed in this guidebook. Growing interest in passenger rail results from various trends; the mix of interests and policy objectives that drive such interest vary corridor by corridor and region by region. Reasons for considering passenger rail are presented below. Those considering an inter- city passenger rail project may draw from this list according to the specific needs and objectives of the stakeholders associated with a given corridor. • Mitigating the Growth of Highway Congestion. Overall levels of service and mobility on the nation’s system of major highways have deteriorated over the past 20 years as growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has outstripped capacity additions to the highway network. Development of intercity passenger service over parallel rail infrastructure could increase capacity and mitigate congestion. • Accommodating Changing Lifestyle Preferences. In recent years, a preference by many young adults for a more urban, walkable lifestyle has been well documented and shows no sign of reversing. The related reduction in vehicle ownership and return to core cities by this demographic bodes well for rail transportation. This return is fostered by rail systems that access urban centers. The change in demand is also affected by access to social media and the Internet and the ability to work while in transit. This change affects patrons’ perception of the value of time—time is used productively, not lost—which affects mode choice. These same features drive increasing use of local transit, as well; taking advantage of the ridership potential of new intercity rail depends on strong connectivity to complementary public transportation modes. • Encouraging Economic Development/Changing the Relationship of Neighboring Urban Centers. Passenger rail service can be developed as a tool to encourage discretionary travel among major cities and second-tier urban centers. For example, the Downeaster rail service between Brunswick, ME, and north Boston, MA, is an excellent example of a recently developed intercity passenger rail option that is supporting economic growth in the rail corridor that it serves. Begun in late 2001, the 145-mile route now supports five daily round trips, with patronage fairly evenly divided between Maine residents traveling south to Boston and Bay State residents and visitors traveling north to the attractions of Portland, Freeport, and Brunswick. Riders all along the route benefit from a new transportation option to either urban attractions or recreational activities. Regular, reliable rail service can increase the attractiveness of smaller communities as residential bases for professionals and other core-city workers who seek more affordable or slower paced living options. Such changes in development or living patterns occur over many years and are the product of confidence that a new service offering will be available for the long term. Ridership models for rail service are not designed to address such effects; it is impossible, at the outset of such a service initiative, to reliably predict the growth of rail service use. In such circumstances, the integration of transportation investment approaches with regional economic development strategies is more important than traditional transportation planning tools that detail the relation- ship of competing surface transportation modes. • Providing Alternatives to Air Service. Interest in rail service as an alternative to flying has grown during the past 15 years. Some reasons for this trend include – Despite the speed of modern jet aircraft, rail travel can often provide time-competitive service between cities in the 200- to 500-mile rail range. Increased security procedures at airports add to the total time an individual traveler must budget for a given journey involv- ing air travel, increasing the distance for which alternative rail service is attractive and time competitive.

6 Guidebook for Intercity passenger rail Service and Development – Rail service is particularly attractive for trips between urban centers, given the location of most passenger rail facilities at the core of major urban markets. This strategic advantage for rail is a direct product of the development history of major cities where legacy railway infrastructure served as the primary intercity passenger transportation mode in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. – Most major airlines have developed service and operations models that focus on a few key hubs that serve as transfer points for passengers traveling to and from second-tier cities. The need to transfer and connect through such hubs adds to total trip scheduled times and increases the risk of delay for air travelers. – Commercial airline service to smaller urban centers has stagnated and, in some cases, shrunk over the past 10 years. The federal Essential Air Service Program has underwritten continued service to many communities threatened with a total loss of service by com- mercial carriers. In 2014, 163 communities saw air service partially underwritten by federal operating support with this program. Rail service to connect such communities to each other and to major regional centers may be a more viable long-term approach to preserve personal mobility. • Meeting Environmental Goals. The carrying capacity of any given passenger rail alignment is a product of train size, speed, and frequency. Dedicated, electrified passenger train align- ments in Asia and Europe routinely move passenger volumes equivalent to those handled by four- and six-lane freeway corridors. The two-track Paris–Lyons–Marseille Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV or high-speed intercity passenger train) alignment in France, for example, moves approximately 100,000 daily riders. Numerous studies (including an ongoing NCRRP study) have attempted to compare energy use for passenger rail with that for motor vehicle and air service modes. Conclusions indicate a strong advantage for rail, but the energy consumption characteristics of a specific route should be considered as part of a specific corridor initiative. Corridor-specific elements that can affect the energy consumption comparison include level-of-service considerations on the corresponding highway network, the spatial distribution of passenger trips (e.g., center city vs. suburban origins/ destinations), and the energy source for electric propulsion if the rail system is electrified. The scalability of passenger rail capacity within a given double-track alignment should not be overlooked. Once established, a train service corridor can continue to build higher and higher ridership without a corresponding consumption of land. Trains can be lengthened and run more frequently, as the need arises, without expropriating an ever-larger swath of the landscape. This is in marked contrast to highway service capacity where lane additions and new construction are considered routine in order to address growing demand and level-of-service issues. Guidebook Users This guidebook is designed for the following users: • Public Policymakers. Policymakers will better understand the role of rail transportation in the context of a multimodal surface transportation system and why intercity passenger rail development should be considered, in particular, along with the policy considerations that have driven increased interest in modern intercity passenger rail investment at the regional or statewide level. • State DOT Planners. Such planners will be able to more quickly identify key elements of each stage of the service development process and use the provided links to obtain more detailed, current sources of guidance for addressing specific technical issues. The guidebook attempts to draw clear comparisons between planning for the rail and highway modes, given the highway background of many DOT personnel.

Introduction 7 • Host Freight Carrier Representatives. Such representatives will gain a fuller understanding of the policy and planning context that guides state and other public-sector agency involvement in passenger rail initiatives. • Rail Service Advocates. Such advocates will better understand the framework for developing new services and potential sources of public and private funding that can be used to make such systems a reality. The Intercity Passenger Rail Service Development Process Using This Guidebook Developing intercity passenger rail service in a corridor lacking such service can be challenging and time-consuming. This guidebook addresses such scenarios and efforts to improve existing rail services; however, the latter generally benefit from the existence of established governance and funding regimes that more easily define the development process. Despite the almost universal embrace of modern passenger rail technology by the developed world, many Americans question the need for investing in such systems in the United States. To address this concern, the guidebook includes a typology to frame the various considerations associated with a decision to plan, fund, and build intercity rail service (see Chapter 2). A national policy of developing new intercity rail service is less than a decade old. Despite the emergence of a federal role in funding and planning for such systems, states play the lead role in identifying, justifying, and funding the operation of intercity rail. This guidebook iden- tifies current best practices for most of the tasks associated with these initiatives, recognizing that practices will evolve as state agencies become more experienced. Included are references to additional detailed technical guidance that may need to be updated in response to the chang- ing environment. The guidebook complements other recent TRB publications dealing with rail service development: • NCHRP Report 657: A Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and Freight Corridors. (2010) • NCHRP Report 773: Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations. (2014) • NCRRP Report 1: Alternative Funding and Financing Mechanisms for Passenger and Freight Rail Projects. (2015) Intercity Passenger Rail Project Timelines There is limited experience on which to base the launch of new U.S. intercity passenger rail operations. Still, some general observations and gross estimates concerning the time required to develop such operations are worth noting. The typical relative timelines are described below and shown in Figure 1-1: • New Passenger Service in a Greenfield Alignment. Securing a greenfield alignment through purchase and condemnation is, by itself, costly, litigious, and time-consuming, often taking a decade or more even after specific decisions are made as to the exact location. While planning and design can occur simultaneously with the corridor acquisition process, another 5 years for procuring fixed-plant construction and systems testing in the U.S. environment should be factored in. • New Passenger Service on an Existing Freight Rail Corridor. Launch of a new service along or on a mainline freight rail corridor will require lengthy negotiations, detailed analysis, and

8 Guidebook for Intercity passenger rail Service and Development sizable public rail capacity investments in order to avoid adverse effects on the service capability of the freight franchise. A 5- to 10-year horizon for launch of operations is a reasonable goal. • New Passenger Service on an Existing, Lightly Used Rail Corridor. The best physical scenario for the launch of a new service is one in which an existing, lightly used rail corridor suitable for infrastructure upgrade to accommodate the passenger operations is under consideration. Cor- ridor owners in such situations are often anxious to see injections of new capital improvements and may be able to tailor rail freight operations to occur outside the principal passenger service hours. Given adequate funding, it may be possible to launch such an operation in 3 to 4 years. • Upgrade of Existing Intercity Passenger Rail Service. The time required to upgrade exist- ing intercity passenger rail service varies widely, but it can be reasonably short if the specific improvements have previously been evaluated and prioritized as the product of a detailed, multiphase, long-term plan. A 2- to 3-year service target after funding is committed to the corridor owner (i.e., freight rail company) may serve as a reasonable target. Much of the time included in these estimates accounts for conduct of required planning, environmental, and engineering studies—not just negotiations and construction. Each phase is discussed in more detail later in this guidebook. Key Participants in the Development Process Key participants in most intercity passenger rail development projects are often as follows: • State DOTs. Under current federal policy, state DOTs are required to play the leading role in developing and managing new intercity services. This structure can be a challenge where states have little or no history in planning or managing rail passenger service and/or where a specific intercity alignment crosses state lines. • Rail Corridor Owners. Most proposals for intercity service involve potential use of privately owned rail freight corridors. Complex management, capacity investment, and liability issues dominate negotiations for terms of access for passenger rail service providers. • Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). FRA is the administering agency for any federal project funds and also must approve the safety elements and regulatory conformance for proposed services. Rail safety regulation is a federal responsibility, so FRA must be involved, even for intrastate projects that do not rely on federal funding. Figure 1-1. Typical relative timelines for intercity passenger rail project types.

Introduction 9 • National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). Amtrak is the dominant provider of intercity passenger rail service in the United States, leveraging its unique statutory right of access to a significant part of the U.S. freight rail system. As a result of its statutory role, Amtrak also often serves as the front-line service design negotiator with host freight carriers as new services are considered. • Rail Service Advocacy/Promotional Groups. Various groups of individuals and organizations advocate for developing improved passenger rail services in a broad range of geographic areas. One such group, the National Association of Rail Passengers (NARP), includes state and regional chapters that organize specific initiatives—through the political structure—that support supplemental programs and projects to develop rail service. Other groups exist at state and local levels to promote the general development of alternative travel modes or to advocate for specific initiatives or projects. • Third-Party Technical Experts. Many state DOTs and other project sponsors lack the techni- cal expertise and experience to plan and implement developing intercity passenger rail services. Third-party organizations (including private consulting firms, university-based researchers, and other experts) participate in the development process by assisting with planning and implementation activities or serving in a review or oversight role, as appropriate. • General Public. Providing avenues for public involvement is important for building consensus, promoting transparency, and developing a shared vision for the transportation system. Sponsors of intercity passenger rail projects should include opportunities for the general public to review and provide feedback on initiatives and proposals. Specific instances where public involvement may be required or beneficial to the development process are noted in this guidebook. Other state and federal agencies and/or private entities may also be included in the process, depending on the particular circumstances; state or federal legal requirements; and specific conditions related to the physical or operational characteristics of an individual intercity pas- senger rail service. For example, a service that crosses from one state into another may have to meet additional requirements. NCRRP Report 5: Developing Multi-State Institutions to Imple- ment Intercity Passenger Rail Programs documents how such projects can be implemented most efficiently. Organization and Use of This Guidebook Detailed technical guidance on development of intercity passenger rail has been and continues to be developed. This guidebook provides a general description of the development process and directs users to sources of additional information on specific intercity passenger rail service development topics. Given the evolving efforts to develop intercity passenger rail service, realis- tically, there will be a need to update these sources. The guidebook begins with a discussion of the initial steps to develop intercity passenger rail programs. It also addresses feasibility and environmental issues, service development requirements, and operational phases. This guidebook will be useful to various agencies, including those entering the intercity passenger rail arena for the first time as well as those that have a longer history in planning for and providing intercity passenger rail and are further along in their development process. The guidebook is built for use as a reference on an as-needed basis, and it refers the user to other existing studies. Users should consult FRA/TRB and other sources for future versions of regulations and guiding authority that may be promulgated. The guidebook has the following chapters: • Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter summarizes the scope and purpose of the guidebook, and its appendixes, which includes the final report and a table of existing published resources.

10 Guidebook for Intercity passenger rail Service and Development • Chapter 2: Visioning: Intercity Passenger Rail Program Establishment. This chapter sum- marizes the steps for establishing an intercity passenger rail service program and the potential structures/guidance for doing so. • Chapter 3: Planning: Project Feasibility/Service Development. This chapter summarizes key studies and other issues associated with determining the feasibility of intercity passenger rail services. • Chapter 4: Planning: Environmental Requirements. This chapter presents intercity passen- ger rail planning issues associated with implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for passenger rail projects and describes current processes. • Chapter 5: Design and Construction. This chapter summarizes key measures taken during the design and initial construction of an intercity passenger rail project. • Chapter 6: Operations and Maintenance: Service Planning. This chapter summarizes contracting practices, working with host railroads, right-of-way (ROW) preservation and maintenance, and other planning issues that may be faced once intercity passenger rail service begins. • Chapter 7: Operations and Maintenance: Ongoing Service Management. This chapter describes issues such as fare policy and ticketing, station operations, weather effects, and other factors affecting daily operations that are of interest to the intercity rail planning agency. • Appendixes—Targeted Syntheses and the Contractor’s Final Report. Appendixes A through E are targeted syntheses on topics not well documented. The topics were selected by the proj- ect panel based on input from the literature review, initial interviews of implementing agency personnel, and a survey of potential guide users. Appendix F describes the actions and methods used to gather information for the project and includes, as an annex, a table of existing and available reports identified during the literature review, which users may find useful as further reference into the areas discussed in this guidebook. Active hyperlinks to the referenced docu- ments are included and should be accessible via the PDF of the report available on the TRB website. Clarification of Terms A few terms used throughout the guidebook are defined here to avoid confusion in later discussion: • Intercity Passenger Rail. There is often confusion between commuter rail service in and around urban areas and intercity passenger rail service. Making a formal technical distinction between intercity and commuter rail service is difficult because some commuter rail services operate between multiple suburban cities to bring commuting passengers to the urban core. Commuter rail, for this guidebook, generally operates at distances of less than 100 miles, typically features peak travel periods during morning and evening rush hours, and is primarily patronized by those traveling regularly to and from their places of employment. Intercity passenger rail services are those normally used by people traveling to another urban center for visits of 1 or more days and may be seen as competitive with long-distance auto travel or air service. From a funding perspective in the United States, commuter rail projects draw from FTA funding programs in competition with other forms of bus and rail transit public trans- portation. Intercity passenger rail projects, on the other hand, are typically funded through appropriations (irregular to date) for handling by FRA under the terms of the 2008 PRIIA. • High-Speed Rail (HSR). Use of the term high-speed for U.S. passenger rail initiatives has proven confusing, given the wide breadth of interpretation for labeling intercity passenger rail service speeds around the world. New, world-class rail service startups in the developed world generally include operating speeds of at least 250 km/hour (155 mph) and range up to 350 km/hour (220 mph). These are sometimes called “true HSR” or “world-class HSR.”

Introduction 11 Only two recent U.S. rail service initiatives, California High-Speed Rail and the Texas Central Railway project (Dallas–Houston) contemplate service speeds in this range. Amtrak’s current Acela Express service in the NEC operates on a few segments at speeds up to 135 mph and on limited sections of ROW at 150 mph in revenue service. As a result, Acela is considered HSR by both its operator, Amtrak, and the regulatory agency, FRA. State-sponsored services in Michigan and Illinois both have limited but rapidly expanding sections of 110 mph and are considered excellent U.S. examples of what is termed “higher-speed rail (HrSR).” Amtrak has announced plans to speed up additional sections of the NEC to operate more closely with international HSR standards when necessary enabling infrastructure improvements can be funded. On most conventional or shared-use corridor services, tracks and/or ROWs are shared with mainline freight rail operations, and passenger service speeds beyond 90 mph are generally considered impractical. Large U.S. rail freight operators typically resist any proposals above this speed. When the term high-speed rail is used, be aware that it can have various connotations. • Positive Train Control. PRIIA requires rail carriers or service sponsors to install an opera- tions safety overlay system, known as positive train control (PTC), on most passenger service routes. PTC prevents over-speed conditions by slowing the train automatically if it exceeds track speeds, provides warnings and enforces stop requirements should an engineer violate a track clearance signal, and protects track worker safety zones irrespective of train operator error. Development and installation of the new systems have been plagued by technical chal- lenges, which prompted railroad infrastructure owners to seek a delay of full implementation beyond the original December 31, 2015, deadline in PRIIA. Legislation passed in October 2015 extended this deadline to December 31, 2018, to give more time to Class I railroads and intercity and commuter railroads to complete their PTC system design and implementation on required tracks. PTC system requirements will add to the cost of new service initiation in corridors not already equipped with such technology.