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.

65 The intercity passenger rail implementing agency will have activities and concern areas as ongoing matters during all phases of operation. The level of state or implementing agency involvement in these matters may vary. The research in this project found that agencies that were more involved in these types of decisions and details had more successful operations, higher overall ridership, and more satisfied customers. State legislation may limit the degree to which the implementing agency invests in “owning” its corridor service and remaining involved in these types of operational and financial decisions. This chapter discusses the following: • Fare policy and ticketing • Revenue management • Passenger services and amenities • Marketing and outreach • Expanded/extended service considerations • Ongoing funding and financial monitoring • Multiple intercity services management • Ongoing legal/risk issue management • Station operations and amenities Fare Policy and Ticketing Issues surrounding fare policy and ticketing services can often become part of the contract negotiations between a sponsoring agency and the service provider. Although they are related topics, a more meaningful discussion on operational fare policy and ticketing procedures can be provided by covering each area separately. Fare Policy Debate about and understanding of fare policies for short-distance, state-sponsored intercity passenger rail services have been evolving since the early days of Amtrak 403(b) services. Histori- cally, and throughout the early years of such services, fares tended to be simple, distance based, and typically consisted of a relatively low boarding fee added to a cents-per-mile charge. In that era, a fare for a given city pair was a fixed, preset price. Sample fares (or even the whole fare matrix) were printed in the timetable. A few routes began to venture into variable, but still preset, pricing by offering lower off-peak and higher peak fares. For simplicity of message and the desire to offer unreserved (i.e., fully C h a p t e r 7 Operations and Maintenance: Ongoing Service Management

66 Guidebook for Intercity passenger rail Service and Development interchangeable/non-train-specific) tickets for their services, a small number of highly successful PRIIA Section 209 routes still offer a single preset price for each city pair. Notable among these services are two of the most heavily patronized California short-distance services, the Sacramento– Oakland–San Jose Capitol Corridor and the Santa Barbara–Los Angeles–San Diego Pacific Surfliner. The former offers only one class of service, so it has a simple fare policy, while the latter offers both coach and business class seating, where premium seats are priced roughly $10 above their coach counterparts. Most of the other current Amtrak-operated, state-sponsored services use an effective, if somewhat complicated, variable pricing yield-management system, which is only possible in conjunction with an all-reserved-seats policy. Patterned after the earlier successful application of all-reserved service on its own formerly unreserved NEC trains, this system require reservations and purchase for a specific train in advance of departure, with fares for a given O/D set at a wide range of prices or “fare buckets.” Fares generally purchased far in advance or on lightly traveled sections of routes are priced much lower than fares for the same O/D purchased closer to departure or on almost full segments. Some NEC trains and most state-sponsored trains offer a walk-up (or even onboard purchase) fare equal to the current price in effect for that particular train on that day. Surcharges may exist for onboard transactions. Ticketing The discussion of yield management provides a logical transition to the related topic of ticketing practices. At its beginning, Amtrak offered traditional computer-printed (or even handwritten) tickets for its own and state-sponsored trains. The next advancement, almost 20 years ago, was the introduction of automated, computer-assisted ticket vending machines (TVMs), marketed as Quik-Trak machines. The current generation of these machines can also create reservations and print out previously reserved (or prepaid) tickets, using a credit/debit card for identification of the customer and payment. Quik-Trak TVMs have been important for state-sponsored services to be able to sell (vend) tickets at the many unstaffed stations and reduce staffing requirements at staffed stations. Several of the more recently introduced state-sponsored services have been able to lower their station costs by designing stations to be unstaffed stations, with only janitorial or station-host assistance for most of their smaller, intermediate stations. There are even examples where the less populous endpoint station of a route is unstaffed. The most recently introduced (and well-received) Amtrak ticketing advancement is eTicketing, in which the actual revenue value of the ticket is electronically stored and then cancelled when used. This new system works for both printed paper eTickets and virtual (i.e., paperless) tickets that can be displayed by customers using a square barcode on their smartphone. Amtrak conductors can now quickly and easily scan the barcode square of a passenger’s paper eTicket or smart device using a customized network-integrated iPhone, replacing the cumbersome task of onboard staff punching a paper ticket and then collecting it and turning it in for revenue accounting after the end of the trip. Because the revenue value is effectively treated as point of sale and the value cancellation is performed electronically (rather than by punching and counting paper tickets), this sys- tem has improved productivity and reduced labor costs for Amtrak and its state-sponsoring customers. In less than 2 years, Amtrak has transitioned all of its ticketing, including complex long-distance train tickets, to this eTicket process. Most of the prototyping and early develop- ment of the high-tech approach to revenue collection occurred on state-sponsored routes that volunteered. These routes may offer opportunities for testing additional technologies in the future.

Operations and Maintenance: Ongoing Service Management 67 Revenue Management Some successful, high-frequency, high-volume corridors have chosen to provide open, unreserved seating, giving passengers more flexibility to switch from one train to another and avoid the incremental contracted cost for reserved seats. The downside of open seating is the potential for an individual train to be oversold, resulting in standees or, denied boarding, coupled with the potential loss of demand pricing. Demand pricing based on yield management can offer a range of prices for a seat on a particular train. Examples of unreserved state-sponsored cor- ridors include the Sacramento–San Jose Capitol Corridor, the San Francisco–San Diego Pacific Surfliner, and the Chicago–Milwaukee Hiawatha Service. On several specific services, especially in corridors where there is good potential for business or other upscale travel, a business class service is provided, either in half of a split coach/cafe/business section car or, in a few cases, using an entire dedicated car (e.g., San Francisco–San Diego Pacific Surfliner; Eugene–Portland–Seattle–Vancouver Cascades service; or the New York–Washington, DC–Raleigh–Charlotte Carolinian). Besides somewhat more spacious seating, most business class services include small additional amenities (e.g., free newspapers and free, self-service, non- alcoholic beverages; on the Pacific Surfliner, the service includes an attractive, distinctive snack package that includes several small nonperishable food items). Because of the perceived high labor cost of a dedicated attendant, none of the state-sponsored, business class services include an extra onboard service attendant. The lack of an attendant prevents the provision of higher yielding, more elaborate parlor cars or special first-class services like the NEC Acela Express First Class program (which offers hot food, at-seat service, and alcoholic beverages)—services provided on select short-distance corridor routes in the past. Passenger Services and Amenities Various basic passenger services and optional amenities can be incorporated into a state- sponsored intercity passenger program. In almost all cases, the trade-off is whether a particular service addition will generate additional revenue value versus the cost of its provision. For most PRIIA Section 209 services, this decision is further affected by states’ perception that Amtrak’s allocated cost for extra amenities is relatively high and, hence, often greater than the probable additional attracted revenue value. Most typical state-sponsored, Amtrak-operated passenger services offer the basic service of all-reserved coach-class seats and a simple, self-service cafe car staffed by one attendant who offers snacks, light meals, and various beverages. After initial deployment on select routes, free onboard Wi-Fi is becoming the nationwide standard for short-distance, Amtrak-operated corridors. This addition is important on a competitive basis because most of the highly rail- competitive intercity curbside bus companies have been providing free Wi-Fi since their begin- ning a few years ago. In recent years, in response to state desires to reduce costs, a few of the short (2-hour or less one-way trip) corridors now operate with coaches only and no food service car (e.g., New York–Albany short-turn Empire service trains; Chicago–Milwaukee Hiawatha service trains). The same is true for some longer distance trains (e.g., the Indianapolis–Chicago Hoosier State, whose trip is nearly 5 hours long with only four round trips per week). The unique new (and initially successful) contract that Indiana DOT has implemented with IPH (Iowa Pacific) for private provision of rolling stock, onboard service, and marketing (while Amtrak continues to maintain the basic T&E/contract railroad access elements) has now restored full food and beverage service to the Hoosier State train. Feedback indicates that the onboard amenities offered by Iowa Pacific are much more attractive and numerous than those offered on comparable Amtrak OBS-provisioned trains.

68 Guidebook for Intercity passenger rail Service and Development Marketing and Outreach Approaches to marketing of intercity passenger rail services vary from state to state and depend on how involved the implementing agency is in overseeing and managing the service. State DOTs involved in intercity passenger rail for a long time may have trained staff that handle marketing or work with Amtrak or other private operators providing the service to promote its use to the public. Some states have hired outside marketing professionals (on a contract basis) to assist with this task—especially during the initial launch of a new service or service frequency expansion in an existing corridor. Other state DOTs and implementing agencies depend solely on Amtrak or an alternative operator to provide marketing to encourage increased ridership. These tasks (and performance measures for acceptable fulfillment of them) are generally outlined in detail in the contract for service between the implementing agency and the operations service provider. Marketing by a new state DOT just becoming involved in intercity rail service may be minimal or limited by funding availability. On the other end of the spectrum, implementing agencies focused solely on intercity passenger rail provision (e.g., NNEPRA, CCJPA) are most likely to be hands-on in both providing ideas and instituting actions to promote and market their service. In all cases, tech- niques for soliciting and managing customer feedback and using customer feedback to improve the quality of service must be developed. Some techniques for using passenger surveys and other customer feedback methods are discussed further in Appendix D. Expanded/Extended Service Considerations For short-distance corridors on which there is an existing (presumably governed by PRIIA Section 209) intercity passenger rail service, the issues surrounding planning and implementation of service expansion (i.e., increased frequency) or service extension (i.e., new service beyond existing endpoints) involve many of the same challenges. In general, depending on the service agreement in place, it may be less challenging, and likely require much less lead time, to only increase frequency rather than extend onto (presumably) freight-only territory. To help set the framework and recognize some likely challenges, the following narrative will first address frequency increase and then discuss service extension. Service Expansion/Frequency Increase If Amtrak is the current contract service provider, the state sponsor will likely seek guidance directly from Amtrak on the estimated fixed-facility capital cost requirement for increased use of host railroad capacity and the anticipated increase in annual operating subsidy payment. Although Amtrak has indicated its preference to perform such studies for its existing (and potential) state- sponsor customers, some states have preferred to seek the assistance of a consultant, in the expectation this might present more unbiased results. In the final analysis, the nature and level of new infrastructure investment will need to be defined through a tri-party consensus involving the host corridor owner, Amtrak, and the public funding agencies. Depending on current and planned future equipment use, the frequency increase might also require dedication of one or more additional sets of rolling stock (locomotive and cars). If Amtrak is the current equipment provider for the service, it will assign more cars and locomotives as necessary from its pool (if available) and charge the state accordingly. If the state owns or leases its own equipment, it will have to take steps to purchase or lease additional rolling stock, if necessary. In contrast to other transportation modes, vehicles available for lease or purchase over the short term are limited in supply. Service sponsors are well advised to plan 3 to 5 years in advance of intended deployment schedules for such rolling stock.

Operations and Maintenance: Ongoing Service Management 69 One of the most significant challenges in providing increased passenger rail frequency on any shared-use, host-freight-railroad-owned corridor is negotiating the (likely) non-negligible cost of infrastructure capital improvements to provide capacity for the added service. Because of the recent dramatic increase in freight traffic on almost all major Class I lines, most freight carriers have become even more protective of their existing capacity (even if there is some room for freight growth). Notwithstanding these ever-present challenges, several of the highly visible and successful state-sponsored, Amtrak-operated, short-distance corridors have succeeded in incre- mentally adding multiple frequencies to their routes over the years. Among those with the largest number of frequency improvements are the three intra-California corridors: the Sacramento– Oakland–San Jose Capitol Corridor, the Oakland–Sacramento–Fresno–Bakersfield San Joaquin service, the Santa Barbara–Los Angeles–San Diego Pacific Surfliner service; and the Oregon and Washington State DOT-sponsored Eugene–Portland–Seattle Cascades corridor. Investment in new service capacity associated with a planned increase in service frequency is best handled through an initial, multiphase, fixed-plant and service capacity analysis. A thorough, multiphase analysis that establishes a public record defining needed investments at different service levels will save time, smooth the political process, and speed up private-sector negotiations as service improvements are rolled out. The host railroad capacity issues are likely to become much more complex if speed improve- ments are requested in conjunction with a proposed frequency increase. A couple of the larger ARRA/HSIPR-funded HrSR construction projects encountered extreme difficulty in reaching successful multiparty agreements (state/Amtrak/FRA/host railroad) over the FRA-mandated stipulation to include quantitative performance measures in the capacity/speed investment com- mitment. Many of the complex issues of negotiating access and capacity agreements are discussed in NCHRP Report 657: Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger Freight Corridors. Substantial additional information on the technically complex issue of capac- ity modeling is discussed in NCHRP Report 773: Capacity Modeling Guidebook for Shared-Use Passenger and Freight Rail Operations. Service Extension (Beyond Existing Endpoint) Similar to the situation involving frequency increase, if Amtrak is the current provider, the state sponsor may seek guidance directly from Amtrak on the ability to access the new route segment for the extension and the estimated fixed-facility capital cost for its use. Amtrak, the state itself, or an outside consultant may estimate the forecast revenue/ridership gain, incremental operating cost, and anticipated increase (or possibly decrease) in annual operating subsidy. Depending on equipment use, the route extension may require dedication of one or more additional sets of rolling stock (locomotive and cars). A couple of successful short-distance corridor extensions were premised largely on the recognition that the existing equipment was sufficient to meet the needs of the extension, improving overall use and producing more revenue from the same fleet. Two noteworthy examples of state-sponsored service extensions possible with existing equipment are NNEPRA’s (relatively recent) extension of the Boston to Portland Downeaster to Brunswick, Maine, and Michigan DOT’s past extension of the Chicago to Detroit Wolverine Service to Pontiac, Michigan. In some cases, additional equipment may be necessary for the extension. If Amtrak is the current equipment provider, it might be able to assign more cars and locomotives from its pool, if available, and charge the state accordingly. If the state owns or leases its own equipment, it will have to purchase or lease additional rolling stock. Geographic service extensions raise most of the same capacity and service issues with host freight carriers as increases in frequency. If a given extension merely lengthens the run of trains over lines

70 Guidebook for Intercity passenger rail Service and Development without major intermediate terminals or freight rail clients, the estimates of needed new capacity may be fairly straightforward and can rely on revisions to the technical modeling tools used in the baseline service analysis. If the proposed lines of the extension involve major urban centers, freight rail terminals, or online freight rail clients, the complexity of the negotiation and the associated new capital investments may prove to be a bigger challenge for the passenger service sponsor. Recent unplanned increases in energy-related rail traffic and the associated disruptions to the freight rail service network have made carriers even more wary of new passenger service introductions. In most cases, service sponsors may expect freight corridor owners to demand that the service sponsors fully absorb the capacity investment costs of new train services, regardless of the current intensity of use for a given line. An exception to this principle is the use of light-density branch line or regional freight corridors typically operated by smaller freight rail carriers. Such freight rail operators may welcome new passenger operations as a means of tapping public funds for infrastructure upgrades. Generally, such operators can service their freight clients by exploiting the normal diurnal falloff of passenger service demand during overnight periods. Ongoing Funding and Financial Monitoring NCRRP Report 1 presented alternative funding and financing mechanisms for passenger and freight rail programs in detail, so the discussion in this section will be limited to specific examples of ongoing funding challenges facing long-standing or more recently introduced state-sponsored passenger rail services. As described in the Funding Intercity Passenger Rail Programs section of Chapter 2, under PRIIA 209, once a new short-distance, intercity passenger rail service is established, it is the full responsibility of state DOTs directly (or their designated organizing/purchasing entities within a state or multiple states, such as CCJPA in California or NNEPRA in Massachusetts and Maine) to fund the net losses of these services. Most legacy rail service states (or related entities) that have been operating (and hence subsidizing) intrastate passenger rail for many years, going back to the co-subsidized 403(b) programs, typically have well-established internal programs and sufficiently staffed departments to administer and monitor ongoing funding. A new significant challenge in many cases, however, is the relatively recent requirement to cover 100% of the allocated losses (Amtrak-allocated operating costs less route revenues) rather than a specified or negotiated percent of the total, as was the practice until implementation of PRIIA 209. As a result of this PRIIA 209-mandated 100% subsidy requirement, and the recently adopted revised Amtrak route cost allocation formula (discussed in greater detail in Appendix B), even some states with long-standing agreements for service have experienced difficulty in gaining commitments from their legislatures (or whatever other funding source they have historically used) to meet the full amount required. In the funding development plans for FY 2016 service, at least two of the largest and best-established state-sponsored programs are facing serious challenges in obtaining full budget commitments to maintain the current levels of service and may be forced to reduce service. Similar challenges are being faced by some of the newer, smaller state-sponsored operations, which from startup have been required to provide funding for the full loss of their service. A few of these states have limited staffing available to manage and monitor the funding, but more importantly they do not have the internal human infrastructure to adequately defend the case to justify continued (or in some cases cost-formula-based increased) budget authority for their service(s). In some cases, states have initially relied on short, if multiyear (i.e., 2- or 3-year), pre-committed budgets. When the initial budget authority runs out, there is a risk of serious

Operations and Maintenance: Ongoing Service Management 71 frequency reduction or outright termination of service if new (future-year) appropriations cannot be provided by their legislatures. Multiple Intercity Services Management Many new implementing agencies face a tough transition in management when growth in intercity transportation demand or ridership leads to the need to provide additional service along another line or in another part of the state. When this happens, the two lines may com- pete against each other for resources from the implementing agency/state DOT or at the state legislative level. As a result, the complexity of the implementing agency’s planning responsibilities will increase to include making sure that both the established and new services are planned and managed properly. Conditions (e.g., shared corridor on one line but not on the other) may require that one line be operated or staffed in a differing manner—making this task even more difficult. Managing more than one service may also mean that the implementing agency staff (and associated personnel costs) must increase to handle the additional workload. Within a defined region, it is generally best for two or more lines serving the same market to be operated as a system and share resources between lines rather than be operated independently. One corridor service might bring additional ridership to the other, leading to overall system health, even though the new segment may be operating at a loss when considered independently. This may not be true in all cases, however. Where a new service might threaten an established service’s financial health, care must be taken to ensure that financial measures are in place to keep the initial service whole. Care must be taken to ensure that any new service additions are fully studied and that all potential scenarios are considered. Ongoing Legal/Risk Issue Management Legal and risk issues run the gamut of the entire spectrum of railroad operations. An attorney working for a passenger railroad operator becomes involved with countless issues (e.g., real estate, injury and death claims, advertising copy review, contract negotiation, commercial litigation, and labor relations). If the carrier has its own police department, the lawyers also become involved in the field of criminal law. Usually, managing this work is in the hands of the responsible agency’s general counsel. He or she is responsible for the legal affairs of the company or agency. Some organizations use outside law firms for most legal work, while others develop an in-house legal staff with the necessary skills to handle most activity. Use of in-house staff generally is more economical than retaining outside lawyers and offers the advantage of a staff known to and trusted by the various internal departments with whom they must work. Their familiarity with the rail operations and practices minimizes the learning curve for review of a problem. The personal injury claims function often is carried out by a separate department reporting to the general counsel. That department needs a staff capable of investigating claims and negotiating settlements with the hope of avoiding litigation. Once a lawsuit is instituted, both the legal and claims staffs must work together to marshal the railroad’s case and protect its interests. Station Operations and Amenities As with all passenger rail services, station operations and overall image for state-sponsored, short-distance services are an important contributing element to success because the station creates the first actual impression of the service and may also be an auxiliary marketing tool to

72 Guidebook for Intercity passenger rail Service and Development non-travelers accompanying a passenger. Depending on size of city, frequency of service, and average anticipated passenger volume, state-sponsored passenger rail stations can range from a minimum of a short platform, signage, lighting, and possibly an external shelter but no formal enclosed structure, to a large, staffed, multi-room, climate-controlled building with ticket win- dows, possibly staff office space, a small restaurant or at least substantial food vending machines, other small tenants, and so forth. Where possible and appropriate, several states or cities along state-sponsored routes have expanded these stations into multimodal transportation centers, frequently co-served by intercity bus, local transit bus, other fixed guideway transit (LRT or streetcar), and so forth. For these larger stations, several states with long-standing state-sponsored short-distance service programs (e.g., Illinois, Michigan, New York, California, Oregon, and Washington) have invested substantial capital in upgrading old or building new stations for their service. Depending on size and location, amenities added to older, legacy railroad-operated historic stations or provided in new stations include modern climate-control systems, improved lighting, more comfortable seating, modernized rest rooms, and new or improved parking. Few state-sponsored passenger rail stations provide in-station Wi-Fi service, even though many of the services provide full onboard train Wi-Fi capability. In fact, other than at key NEC stations, few Amtrak stations provided Wi-Fi at the time of this publication; however, this service is likely to be added over the next few years. One of the critical amenity/cost trade-offs for states to consider is whether the station will be formally staffed, namely by agreement-covered Amtrak employees for live ticketing and infor- mation. Because of the relatively high cost of maintaining live ticketing, except for the largest volume stations, many states have chosen to only provide Amtrak self-service Quik-Trak TVMs and then rely on non-labor-agreement-covered, lower-paid custodial staff to open and close and maintain the station. Another cost-containment option used in some specific locations is to only provide live, staffed ticket agents during limited hours (e.g., for one shift, presumably when the demand is greatest) and then retain the option of ticket purchase through automated machines for other hours. Although there is a substantial capital and operating cost savings when providing only a minimalist platform/shelter station or even a small, but never staffed, climate-controlled build- ing, there are definite drawbacks from the passenger perspective for limiting services. For those stations with insufficient security to locate an automated TVM, passengers who have not pre- purchased tickets will have to rely on the cumbersome process of purchasing tickets onboard from the conductor. For many of the tech-enabled customers, this has become much less of a challenge in the last few years with the availability of Internet sales, smartphone ticket apps, and so forth. On some of the lesser patronized routes, many of the stations, if not all, are unstaffed, with the sole exception of the main urban endpoint terminal. There is also still a real potential comfort/safety challenge during harsh or severe weather for passengers to wait for a train, especially should the train be delayed. If being dropped off (or even if self-parking and traveling), some customers will seek shelter in their own vehicle while awaiting a train during bad weather. Unfortunately, not all customers have that option (e.g., those being dropped off by a taxi or bus at platform side). Intermodal Connectivity The importance of intermodal connectivity to short-distance intercity passenger rail is not a new concept, but it has gained significant recognition and understanding in the last few years. To improve access to and from passenger rail stations (i.e., the first mile and last mile of a trip), ease and availability of direct connections to other modes is critical. Many state sponsors have worked

Operations and Maintenance: Ongoing Service Management 73 with their respective local and regional transit counterparts to develop good station-related infrastructure-enabling connectivity and with coordinated transit schedules and operations. One of the most important reasons to maintain and expand good intermodal connectivity is that it represents a true win-win opportunity, typically adding more revenue and ridership to both the served intercity passenger route and the local transit operator. The perceived con- venience of the connection (both physical access and frequency/coordination of schedules) in the eyes of the potential user plays a key determining role in the utility of the connection. Unfor- tunate counter examples are those situations in which intercity passenger rail service is infre- quent and the times it does serve an otherwise well-designed and planned facility occur when there is no local transit offered or when the transit schedules are so disparate that the wait time for connecting services renders the connection effectively useless. Northeast Examples Long before the current public assumption of financial responsibility for intercity passenger rail service, there have been many excellent examples of well-designed and -operated intermodal connecting facilities. Boston’s historic South Station and reconstructed Back Bay Station at the far northern end of the NEC both have direct underground connections to local subway service and cross-platform connections to the south portion of Boston’s commuter rail network. Access to the north portion of the commuter rail network requires a subway transfer. South Station also is connected by covered walkways to a large publicly funded intercity bus terminal, located directly above the outer limits of several of the train platforms. New York’s Penn Station has direct underground connections to multiple local subway lines as well as in-station connections to the extensive Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and NJ Transit commuter rail networks. Philadel- phia’s 30th Street Station provides excellent indoor connections from the local SEPTA Regional Rail (frequent electric commuter rail) to a wide range of urban and suburban destinations as well as direct train service to the Philadelphia Airport. Since the inception of the modern DC Metro, Washington’s Union Station enjoys a direct underground connection to an adjacent subway station. Washington, DC’s Union Station also offers good connections to all routes of the two Washington-area commuter rail networks: the Maryland Commuter Rail Train Service (MARC) and the Virginia Railway Express (VRE). As in Boston, with the assistance and cooperation of local planning authorities, Union Station now has a direct link to Washington’s intercity bus terminal, located on one level of the Union Station Parking Garage. West Coast Examples There are also good major infrastructure examples of intermodal connections between intercity rail and transit in the western United States. Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (LAUPT) has gained direct connections to the region-wide, new-start Los Angeles (LA) Metrolink Commuter Rail network. LAUPT also has an underground connection to the LA Metro subway and an attractive indoor, aboveground walkway access to the LA Metro LRT. Furthermore, LAUPT is directly connected to a major bus transit center, located at the adjacent Gateway Plaza serving multiple LA Metro transit local and express bus routes, LA DOT DASH Circulator Shuttle routes, and the nonstop “Fly Away” motor coach express shuttle to Los Angeles International Airport. Seattle’s King Street Station provides direct access to Sound Transit’s Sounder regional commuter trains and nearby access to a station of the Sound Transit LRT System, including sub- way service to Downtown Seattle and elevated service to Sea-Tac Airport. San Diego’s historic Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Station has convenient cross-platform connections to both the North County Transit District’s (NCTD’s) Coaster commuter rail and the LRT network of San Diego’s Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). MTS city buses and airport shuttle routes stop just outside the station.

74 Guidebook for Intercity passenger rail Service and Development Among state-sponsored services, especially in California, Oregon, and Washington, there is a plethora of excellent examples of new intermodal connections, mostly with local/regional bus transit, enabled by expansion or reconfiguration of existing stations and designed as integral elements of new stations. Almost every station on the three California-sponsored Amtrak corridor routes—the Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin service, and Pacific Surfliner service—have some degree of direct connection to locally operated bus transit. Many of these stations also have dedicated loading space and fixed signage to support the extensive Amtrak Thruway Express intercity bus network, which is an integral part of California’s state-sponsored passenger rail network. This bus network is operated under contracts overseen by Caltrans to provide dedicated connections to state-sponsored trains, providing critical links between O/Ds otherwise not possible by rail, or allowing connection service beyond the endpoints of the rail routes, where traffic density or rail infrastructure would not allow for passenger rail service. Midwest Examples The primary passenger rail hub for Midwest intercity passenger routes, Chicago Union Station (CUS), has not enjoyed good local transit intermodal access. Notwithstanding, it provides excellent transfer capability to the several Metra commuter rail lines that use CUS as their Chicago terminus. Although several major, frequent local bus routes operate nearby or terminate in the street outside the entrance to CUS, the nearest subway and elevated railway stations are a few blocks away, with difficult access for those with heavy luggage or any disability. Several facilities under construction are designed to provide significantly improved inter- modal connections in other Midwest cities. In Detroit, the New Center intercity passenger rail station was recently designated as the northern terminus of the M-1 RAIL urban circulator modern streetcar, currently under construction. After many years of planning and design issues, the new St. Louis Gateway Transportation Center is an intermodal passenger rail bus station that is well connected to the local MetroLink LRT transit system. Examples Elsewhere In addition to the facilities highlighted above, intermodal connections between intercity pas- senger rail service and other transit modes are being developed at several new publicly sponsored facilities and stations. Such examples indicate that intermodal connectivity is seen as key in many of the newer services and incorporating these connections is becoming the industry standard. Examples of such development are also spread throughout the south and southwest where rail service has been scarce until recent years. One of the key intermediate stations of the downtown Oklahoma City Streetcar (now under construction) is the former Santa Fe Station, the northern terminus of the state-sponsored Amtrak Heartland Flyer passenger train. At the Heartland Flyer’s southern terminus in Fort Worth, there is a substantial Fort Worth intermodal station, including multiple Fort Worth Transit Authority (The T) local bus routes, a newly introduced bus rapid transit route, connections to the Trinity Rail Express commuter rail to Centreport station (with bus connections to the Dallas–Fort Worth [DFW] Airport) and downtown Dallas, and a planned commuter rail line known as TexRail with service directly to DFW Airport and several northeastern Fort Worth suburbs. At Denver’s Union Station, a key intermediate stop on the Amtrak California Zephyr, both eastbound and westbound schedules provide good times for easy transfer to Denver’s regional transportation district (RTD) local services. These include LRT service; the RTD free-ride 16th Street Bus Shuttle to Downtown Denver; a large express commuter bus terminal located directly under the platforms; and, in the near future, RTD electric commuter rail to Denver International Airport and various suburbs.

Operations and Maintenance: Ongoing Service Management 75 As the cited examples show, making sure that intercity passenger rail service is integrated into the overall transportation system and supported by local transit links is vital to ensuring high levels of ridership. Providing a service without planning these connections is unwise and likely will lead to failed or ineffective service. Planning for and Responding to Adverse Weather Events (Snow, Floods, Etc.) Planning and operations of a successful state-sponsored intercity passenger rail program should include careful consideration of planning for and responding to various potentially serious climate/weather events (e.g., major snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods). Persistent extreme temperatures can also affect rail operations adversely. With extreme heat, the risk for rail thermal expansion rises and may result in the host railroad issuing slow orders for specific tracks or track segments, which could affect operational schedules. In extreme cold, rail breaks could occur due to thermal contraction, resulting in tracks being out of service. Long-term severe cold that freezes the ground below the tracks may also result in additional maintenance requirements if the entire track structure moves when thawing occurs. The current predominant intercity passenger rail service operator, Amtrak, and all of the major Class I host railroads generally already have natural disaster preparation and recovery plans in place. States or other regional/multistate/joint power authority entities that sponsor the larger PRIIA Section 209 passenger rail programs are advised to have their own coordination and com- munication plans for natural disaster periods and good interaction with their primary contract operator and host railroad. Examples of some of the most highly visible and much discussed events of this type in the last few years include: • Flooding of rolling stock storage and maintenance yards and tunnels during Hurricane/Super Storm Sandy. • Significant amounts of snow accumulation and ROW blockages in Massachusetts. • ROW wipeouts and closures due to storm-induced mudslides in the Pacific Northwest. • ROW destruction and closure after tornadoes in the Midwest. Although several of the mentioned events affected both commuter and regional rail services and others affected primarily intercity passenger routes, ultimately, the state-level sponsor of any passenger rail service, most often the DOT, should be prepared to respond to all such occurrences. Based on the successes of some intercity operations and lessons learned from failure in the abovementioned incidents, suggestions for dealing with these types of disasters follow: • Plan Early. When there is a reasonable probability of serious oncoming severe weather, coor- dinate and communicate with the contract operator and/or the involved host railroads as far in advance of the occurrence as possible. • Announce and Market the Plans to the Public. Provide as early and as detailed as possible plans for reduced or cancelled service using all of the traditional methods (i.e., radio spots, TV news, and print news) and more recently available Internet (e.g., web posts), push noti- fications, and social media (e.g., Twitter and Facebook) tools. If the plans need to change, make sure the most current information is available through all channels. Some customers will gravitate to traditional outlets; others (e.g., millennials) rely almost exclusively on the newer social media avenues. • Protect Rolling Stock and Other Movable Assets. Several commuter/regional rail authorities limited locomotive/coach car/EMU flood damage with insightful relocation of sizable pools of

76 Guidebook for Intercity passenger rail Service and Development equipment to higher ground yards or even use of high-ground running tracks for temporary storage rather than risking submerging in flood waters. • Keep Trains Moving (as long as safely possible). In major snow events, most notably in high- frequency corridors with sufficient density of service, one of the best traditional methods to keep a line open is running trains at a frequent enough interval to prevent disruptive snow buildup levels. Because this is less and less possible in the contemporary operating environ- ment (e.g., limited availability of crew and rolling stock and liability risks of getting stranded), the alternative is to safely and as securely as possible lay up the trainsets when no longer operable and have a large and strong enough fleet of rail-based snow removal equipment (as practiced by major western U.S. and Canadian freight railroads) to clear the ROW after the end of the storm. Either approach (or some route-specific combination) should be planned in advance as a key element of the larger weather/snow-preparedness plan. • Prearrange Potential Transportation Alternatives. For those site-specific, relatively short disruptions (e.g., after a severe tornado on a segment of track), it is productive for the state or authority to have prearranged on-demand contracts with local alternate mode providers, most likely intercity motor coach operators (either common carrier or charter). This may help facilitate a much quicker implementation of a bus bridge or temporary, even point-to-point, bus substitute service. • Prepare for the Unexpected. A good operating plan allows for relatively flexible response because each weather emergency is unique, requiring onsite leadership to respond quickly and appropriately, modifying the plan as necessary to address emerging conditions. Following these principles and those highlighted in Appendix C should aid the implementing agency in managing and preparing for event-based and ongoing weather effects to service.