Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 77

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



OCR for page 76
76 Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Noncompliant Public Transit Rail Vehicles: A Practitioner's Guide Practical Shortcuts For Shared-Track One goal of this research is to identify means to safely permit a limited cotemporaneous opera- tion via a combination of technology and procedures. To be acceptable, a concurrent operation of light rail passenger cars and freight cannot increase risks or hazards to the operation, employees, passengers or the public, above those experienced in an operation served by compliant passenger and freight equipment. The team's research indicates that shared-track methods may reduce the capital costs to develop a rail transit system by 40% to 66%. Concurrent shared-track light rail operations provide a mechanism to offer a higher frequency of service than commuter rail, while keeping the capital costs affordable and enhancing urban freight rail service. Valuable and cost-effective projects of opportunity are available in some of the larger urban and suburban areas in the United States. The underlying principle is that all measures and technology applied to shared-track operations should enhance safety, and be verifiable and achievable. The following guidelines are practi- cal and defensible, and condense the results of this research. The list below can be construed as a checklist for project implementation success. 1. The main reason to consider noncompliant equipment is the improved flexibility it offers. Constraints in curvature radius, grades, clearance envelopes, limits of acceleration, and deceleration make a lighter rail vehicle a superior choice for a regional service that traverses both urban and suburban environments. 2. A willing freight partner is essential. 3. Pursue near compliance wherever possible. The system has to look, feel and sound like a rail- road to the FRA, while applying transit technology and most important, assume that an FRA waiver will be necessary. 4. Control of movement authority is the key to safety and regulatory compliance. Consider that the choice of a train control system can contribute to a positive review of the Waiver Petition, improve the freight operation, and provide a faster, safer passenger operation. 5. A fail-safe train separation system with the capacity to override the train operator is neces- sary to prevent a potentially catastrophic collision and essential for concurrent operations. Cab signals can provide speed enforcement and reduce risk. 6. Where possible, incorporate CEM features on rail cars to reduce risk of potential injuries and fatalities. 7. Temporal separation, while adequate, limits both parties and can be unacceptable for freight customers and restrict special services for transit. It also is more difficult to schedule MOW windows on a temporally-separated system. 8. A strong oversight function and negotiation skill is essential. 9. Analyze nature of freight traffic and the physical configuration of track, modify track sep- aration and/or elevations to protect against derailment accidents where possible. 10. Local governments should deal with the railroads as peers in negotiations and in busi- ness transactions. However, state or local authorities may have the right of first refusal if abandonment is proposed by the freight owner. 11. As the project evolves, a transit agency should contemplate and pursue incremental progress and take small steps that maintain a successful track record, building FRA confidence in the operation. All planned improvements should benefit both the freight and passenger operator.