Dispatches from TRB: Equipment standards, multi-state corridors, shared-use challenges, accessibility and project financing

Here is a synopsis at some of the presentations on the technical, financial and administrative aspects of passenger rail development that were given at the Transportation Research Board’s Annual Meeting in Washington, DC last month.

Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee approves revised requirements for dual-mode locomotives — Jack Madden, Project Team Leader with the New York State Dept. of Transportation

The committee, consisting of Federal Railroad Administration, state Department of Transportation, Amtrak, and equipment manufacturer representatives, was established in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). It has created a series of standards to be used by the states in the procurement of future locomotives and cars for state-supported short-distance passenger train services. Each standards document is a description of what the purchasing agency wants the vehicle to be able to do.

The committee’s latest product is a revised set of requirements for dual-mode (diesel and electric) locomotives. The original requirements were completed in December 2011. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York State (MTA) spurred the revisions as it wanted to make sure that there was a common platform for a dual-mode locomotive that could use third rail direct current (DC) power for trains into New York Penn Station from upstate New York and Vermont. The section of the line on the east side of the Hudson River between Croton-Harmon and Spuyten Duyvil, owned by MTA’s Metro-North Railroad, uses third rail power, which extends into Grand Central Terminal, but not all the way into Penn Station via the West Side Line in Manhattan. The locomotives will have a shoe that can contact both under-running and over-running third rail, and are expected of have as much commonality as possible with existing diesel-only locomotives.

The standard was revised from requiring the locomotives to achieve a top speed of “up to 125 mph” to “a sustained 110 mph,” as the New York State DOT (NYSDOT) said it will not pursue making the investments necessary to allow trains to exceed 110 mph before 2035. The other change is to require the locomotives to have enough on-board energy to move a stopped train up to 250 feed over a gap in the third rail at no greater than 5 mph without turning on head-end power.

NYSDOT, the Vermont Agency of Transportation and MTA anticipate ordering 120 to 130 dual-mode locomotives over two 10-year periods. Some will likely come out in Amtrak colors and others in Metro-North colors, and it is hoped that the MTA’s Long Island Rail Road will piggyback on the order as well, as it operates in a mix of third-rail and non-electrified territory.

Developing multi-state institutions to implement intercity passenger rail programs — Michael Meyer, Senior Adviser with consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff

The issues being encountered in developing multi-state institutions are existing legal and financial issues, the challenge of coming up with innovative funding, allocating responsibility between different levels of government, balancing the interests of passenger and freight rail, balancing public and private funds, and estimating and sharing costs, benefits and risks across state lines. A conceptual framework is being developed for system concepts, network components, administrative structure, partnerships, and finance.

Eleven case studies  of multi-state state-supported passenger services were chosen, primarily intercity corridors, but also including the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which has federal, state and local participation. One of the biggest challenges these services faced was managing and allocating risk. More research needs to be done as to the optimal type of structure to manage multi-state services, be it a voluntary coalition, an interstate compact, a special multi-state authority (like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey), or a for-profit corporation.

Another challenge is that there is no clear-cut way to manage the ownership and operation of vehicles across state boundaries when not dealing with Amtrak.

FRA gradually accepts more “non-compliant” passenger rail vehicles

In countries like Germany, it is commonplace for commuter and regional trains to run on dedicated rights-of-way shared with intercity passenger and freight trains in the suburbs, then switch to street running in center cities, behaving more like light rail. For much of its history, the Federal Railroad Administration opposed such arrangements in the United States out of an abundance of concern for the impacts of collisions between such vehicles and heavier trains.  Yet, there has not yet been a single fatality (passenger or crew) in the US from a collision between a “non-compliant” passenger rail vehicle and a heavier (compliant) rail vehicle.

The advent of Positive Train Control has also been a turning point that should allow more interoperation of different equipment types on the rail network. Thus, some vehicles that FRA once considered “non-compliant” with its crashworthiness standards are now being considered “alternatively compliant.” For now, however, “alternatively compliant” vehicles will continue to only be allowed to share rights-of-way with compliant vehicles under spatial (dedicated track separated by a fence, wall or earthwork) or temporal (running at different times of day) separation.

US Access Board Rail Vehicle Advisory Committee subcommittees make suggestions — Melissa Shurland, Program Manager at FRA’s Office of Research & Development

This committee was established in 2013 by the Board, an independent federal agency promoting equality for people with disabilities, and has four subcommittees. These subcommittees’ suggestions, which go before the full committee when it meets February 26-27, include:

• 

  An on-board wheelchair lift is used to board a passenger on a Capitol Corridor train at Martinez, CA. Photo by Trains/Bob Johnston.
  Requiring high-level boarding for all light rail and high speed rail equipment, and considering alternative boarding methods for intercity and light rail, such as bridge plates, ramps or on-board lifts. 
• Recommending that the maximum design load that an onboard lift can accommodate be 800 pounds, and that they measure a minimum of 32 by 54 inches.
• If any passenger-carrying rail vehicle cannot meet these requirements and has more than a certain gap between it and the platform, then some sort of filler system will be necessary to permit level boarding.
• Requiring a larger seating area
• Increasing the size of the area reserved for passengers in wheelchairs and requiring two such areas per car
• Requiring vestibules and hallways to be a minimum of 44 inches wide to allow wheelchairs to turn from the seating area into the vestibule for entry and exit.
• Requiring signage and placards to be accessible, including the type of accessibility necessary for each sign type, and stipulating that certain information must be given orally.
• On-board restrooms must have a minimum 60-inch turning circle, a clear floor space measuring at least 32 by 54 inches (larger than the current requirement) to allow people to move around and even have someone help them in the restroom, and power doors with sensor controls.
• Dining cars must have two wheelchair seating areas each, with a certain minimum clearance under the tables. This would only apply to true diners, not cafe cars.
• Sleeping compartment controls must be easily accessible and the lower berth must be no higher than a maximum height.
• Bilevel cars, including lounge cars, must meet these requirements on the lower level. The Committee is still considering whether to require lifts between levels on bilevel cars.

Words of caution on public-private partnerships (PPPs) - Marc-Andre Roy, with the Canadian consulting firm CPCS

PPPs are often mistakenly thought of as funding mechanisms, but they do not in and of themselves provide a stream of funding for a rail improvement project. Rather they are a project delivery mechanism that may have a financing component. The public funding source is always going to provide the lion’s share of the project’s funding, but the private side can help in leveraging the value of the asset. A successful PPP can make it easier to get funding, but does not generate funding on its own. 

In addition, individual projects must be anchored to a broader public policy objective. The objective cannot merely be to increase or improve passenger rail service, but this must be in service of a broader goal such as reducing emissions, saving money, improving mobility, etc. Too many projects lack an explicit public policy objective.

The nagging questions remain: is long-term sustainable funding realistic, and where will the funding come from? Creating standard practices and model partnerships requires a lot of legal work as PPPs are complex. To add to this, host freight railroads require non-Amtrak intercity and commuter rail operators accessing their facilities to take on hefty insurance coverage. This makes it difficult to expand service other than that operated by Amtrak, which has a statutory cap on what it is liable for. Pooled insurance schemes are a possible workaround.

At the end of the day, though, if the project is important enough, the sponsoring agency will find a way to fund it. PPPs are just one tool in this toolbox.