The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 22-79

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 22... ... 22 3.1 Introduction Prior to conducting case studies on intercity passenger rail service, the NCRRP Project 07-02 research team developed a conceptual framework of the process for implementing intercity passenger rail service. This conceptual framework outlines the various roles and responsibilities necessary to complete all phases of project delivery from visioning through to operations and maintenance. Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... Case Studies 23 3.3 Selection of Case Studies The purpose of the case studies was primarily to identify examples of best practice that might ultimately lead to recommendations that are supported with evidence from the field. Rigorous case study design requires a good sense of the overall approach (that is, how the pieces fit together) Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... 24 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs The final list of recommended case studies was selected based on the following four criteria: 1. Demonstrated experience with case study focus issues identified in the conceptual framework for implementing intercity passenger rail programs, e.g., joint vehicle procurement and maintenance, joint service provision, cost sharing, etc. Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... Case Studies 25 Table 3. (Continued) Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... 26 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs the research team considered whether the study's strategic advisors or focus group participants were direct participants in the passenger rail effort and thus could provide direct institutional knowledge as well as connections to other appropriate individuals and resources not publicly accessible. Criterion 3: Degree of Transferability. Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... Case Studies 27 regions. The Midwest has established Chicago as the clear hub for intercity passenger rail efforts. Read the entire page →
From page 28... ... 28 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Table 5, these criteria are listed in the column heads. The number of marks in a particular cell indicates the degree to which a potential case study meets that criterion (with five marks indicating the strongest correspondence between a candidate case study and the criterion and fewer marks indicating a weaker correspondence) Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... Case Studies 29 Beginning in 1996, nine state transportation agencies -- Illinois DOT, Indiana DOT, Iowa DOT, Michigan DOT, Minnesota DOT, Missouri DOT, Nebraska Department of Roads, Ohio Rail Development Commission, and Wisconsin DOT -- initiated the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI) to help meet future regional travel needs through improvements to the level and quality of regional passenger rail service. Read the entire page →
From page 30... ... 30 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs articulated by the MWRRI, each state retains sovereignty, and the ultimate implementation of the projects is the responsibility of the states. In response to the potential for funds for high-speed rail from the ARRA of 2009, eight states and the mayor of Chicago signed an MOU where each signee agreed to • Establish a high-level, multi-state steering group with a representative from each signatory to the MOU. Read the entire page →
From page 31... ... Case Studies 31 important details of work needed to initiate the analysis of high-speed passenger rail between Chicago, Illinois, and Iowa City, Iowa. This AIP can be found in Appendix B Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... 32 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs • Unlike the NEC, which is owned entirely by public entities, most of the railroad network in the Midwest is owned by private freight railroads whose primary concern is preservation and expansion of their freight service and not development of a robust and expansive passenger rail network. Lessons Learned • Developing agreements involves a great deal of time and effort. Read the entire page →
From page 33... ... Case Studies 33 Focus Issue Multi-State Entities (Visioning and Planning Phases) Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission Midwest High-Speed Rail Steering Group (2009 MOU for Implementation of High-Speed Rail Passenger Service and Connections Involving Corridors Linking Cities in Partner States) Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... 34 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Modal Competition Strategy MWRRS envisioned a network of feeder bus routes to connect smaller communities to high-speed rail lines in theMidwest.Decision-Making Process Commission members have equal voting rights. Commission to meet annually at minimum. Read the entire page →
From page 35... ... Case Studies 35 Liability Issues If a compacting state is to withdraw from this compact, the withdrawing state is liable for any obligations which it had incurred prior to the effective date of withdrawal.Procurement Procured consultant support for study,administered by Amtrak.Contractual Arrangements Legal agreement serves contract between the participating states and governing documentation for the Commission. Blank cells indicate no correspondence with the focus issue. Read the entire page →
From page 36... ... 36 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Focus Issue 2010 AIP between the Iowa DOT and Illinois DOT (Visioning, Planning, and Design and Construction Phases) Stakeholders Iowa DOT and Illinois DOT. Read the entire page →
From page 37... ... Case Studies 37 in Chapter 2) Read the entire page →
From page 38... ... 38 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs • Competing interests (given the multitude of commuter, intercity, and freight uses of the NEC spine) hinder stakeholders' ability to identify and reach consensus on key issues and have resulted in questions of equity and parity among these entities. Read the entire page →
From page 39... ... Case Studies 39 • A complicated and intricate allocation of risk between owners and operators is often based on the provisions within historic agreements. Liability and indemnity obligations are two of the most contentious issues among parties operating jointly on rail lines. Read the entire page →
From page 40... ... 40 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Focus Issue Entities Involved in NEC Passenger Rail Service (Planning and Visioning Phases) Amtrak NEC Infrastructure Master Plan Working Group (no longer in place) Read the entire page →
From page 41... ... Case Studies 41 Focus Issue Entities Involved in NEC Passenger Rail Service (Planning and Visioning Phases) Amtrak NEC Infrastructure Master Plan Working Group (no longer in place) Read the entire page →
From page 42... ... 42 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Focus Issue NEC Multi-State Agreements (Operations and Maintenance Phase) Metro-North Railroad Service on New Haven Line Metro-North Railroad Service West of the Hudson River SEPTA Service to Wilmington/Newark, DelawareStakeholders Connecticut DOT, MTA, and Metro-North Railroad. Read the entire page →
From page 43... ... Case Studies 43 Focus Issue NEC Multi-State Agreements (Operations and Maintenance Phase) Metro-North Railroad Service on New Haven Line Metro-North Railroad Service West of the Hudson River SEPTA Service to Wilmington/Newark, Delaware Decision-Making Process Joint among Connecticut DOT, MTA, and Metro-North Railroad depending on topic. Read the entire page →
From page 44... ... 44 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Focus Issue NEC Multi-State Agreements (Operations and Maintenance Phase) Metro-North Railroad Service on New Haven Line Metro-North Railroad Service West of the Hudson River SEPTA Service to Wilmington/Newark, Delaware Revenue Sharing Metro-North Railroadmaintains chart of accounts to re�lect costs and revenues; discussion of service revenues, service costs, and operating de�icits. Read the entire page →
From page 45... ... Case Studies 45 Nature of the Partnership Passenger rail service is facilitated through a series of cooperative agreements between NNEPRA, Amtrak, and the host railroads. No state or local governments are directly involved in the development or operation of the Downeaster. Read the entire page →
From page 46... ... 46 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Challenges and Barriers • Access and cost-sharing negotiations with freight railroad. Disputes between NNEPRA/ Amtrak and one of the three host railroads resulted in years of delay in initiating the Downeaster service. Read the entire page →
From page 47... ... Case Studies 47 Focus Issue Downeaster(Planning, Design and Construction, and Operations and Maintenance Phases) Stakeholders NNEPRA, Maine DOT, Amtrak, Pan Am Railways, MBTA.Institutional Relationships NNEPRA established by 1995 Passenger Rail Service Act by the Maine Legislature; agreements between NNEPRA, Amtrak, and Pan Am Railways also govern relationships.Identi�ication of Responsibilities NNEPRA to initiate, establish regularly scheduled passenger rail service between points within Maine and other states.Role of Regulatory Agencies FRA provides oversight of grant funding and reviews environmental documentation.STB served as third-party arbitrator between host railroad and Amtrak.Political Foundation Political and legislative support established through passage of 1991 and 1995 Passenger Rail Service Acts. Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... 48 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs program consists of a series of projects to increase service reliability in the Cascades Rail Corridor, with a goal to expand and improve Washington's Amtrak Cascades service between Eugene, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia. Of the 467 total miles, 300 miles are in the state of Washington, 134 miles are in Oregon, and 33 miles are in British Columbia (see Figure 7) Read the entire page →
From page 49... ... Case Studies 49 Washington State DOT and Oregon DOT have committed to the concept of operating the Cascades service as a single corridor by signing an MOU. Following the MOU, a Cascades Rail Corridor Management Workplan was developed and signed by the two states in January 2013. Read the entire page →
From page 50... ... 50 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Washington State Rail Caucus, involving representation from the state legislature to discuss issues and policy solutions such as the forthcoming station stops policy. Oregon is considering following suit, and, in the future, it is envisioned that a joint rail caucus will be formed with representation from both states. Read the entire page →
From page 51... ... Case Studies 51 Focus Issue Washington State DOT/Oregon DOT MOU (Planning Phase) Cascades Rail Corridor Management Workplan (Planning and Operations and Maintenance Phases) Read the entire page →
From page 52... ... 52 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Focus Issue Washington State DOT/Oregon DOT MOU (Planning Phase) Cascades Rail Corridor Management Workplan (Planning and Operations and Maintenance Phases) Read the entire page →
From page 53... ... Case Studies 53 week from Chicago, Illinois, through Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, with its terminus in Los Angeles, California. The full route is approximately 1,305 miles in length. Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... 54 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs • Garnering support for the project from public and elected officials has been challenging because many view the project as unrealistic due to its high capital costs. • There is currently no political or business community champion for SCHSRC project development to offer direction and/or lobby for the project at the state, federal, or local levels (a result of the difficulty in attracting the support of public and elected officials) Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... Case Studies 55 Focus Issue SCHSRC (Visioning and Planning Phases) Stakeholders Texas DOT, Oklahoma DOT; Arkansas not included in formal agreement but Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... 56 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs 3.5.4 Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Background The Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor links Washington, D.C., to Richmond and Petersburg in Virginia and to Raleigh and Charlotte in North Carolina. Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... Case Studies 57 D.C., to Charlotte corridor have been assigned according to the work that falls within a particular state, there are important operational aspects of the proposed service that apply to all of the segments and that thus require close coordination for the implementation of the SEHSR Corridor within each state's borders. The impetus for establishing a formal compact between the states came from key legislators and executive branch staff in Virginia and North Carolina who understood that having lawmakers from both states in leadership positions would enhance the ability of a compact to raise funds and show strong state-level legislative support in the event that federal funds were pursued. Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... 58 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs majority vote of the Commission. In order to promote equity between the states, the chair position is alternately held by each state. Read the entire page →
From page 59... ... Case Studies 59 own state. This was further exacerbated by Section 209 of the PRIIA, which removed federal subsidies for intercity Amtrak services of fewer than 750 miles. Read the entire page →
From page 60... ... 60 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Focus Issue SEHSR Corridor (Visioning and Planning Phases) Stakeholders Commonwealth of Virginia; State of North Carolina.Institutional Relationships Established through bi-state compact between Commonwealth of Virginia and State of North Carolina.Identi�ication of Responsibilities Virginia and North Carolina agree to study, develop, and promote a plan to design construct, �inance, and operate a high-speed rail service through points in Virginia and North Carolina; the partners will advocate for federal funding and coordinate efforts to establish high-speed passenger rail service in the SEHSR Corridor.Role of Regulatory Agencies FRA review and approval of SDP and EIS analysis.Political Foundation Key legislators and executive branch leadership in both Virginia and North Carolina enacted the bi-state High-Speed Rail Compact to show the high level of support in each state.Why? Read the entire page →
From page 61... ... Case Studies 61 3.5.5 Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor Background The Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor was one of five originally proposed high-speed passenger rail corridors designated by the U.S. Read the entire page →
From page 62... ... 62 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs work, but the congested South of the Lake segment is not in Michigan. Project partners must identify ways to address this challenge through a multi-state solution. Read the entire page →
From page 63... ... Case Studies 63 Focus Issue Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor (Visioning and Planning Phases) Stakeholders Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, FRA, host railroads.Institutional Relationships State DOTs of Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois signed MOU for planning work and procurement of consultant services.Identi�ication of Responsibilities Development of service alternatives, Tier I EIS, and SDP.Role of Regulatory Agencies MOU requires partnering with FRA and that parties are to cooperate to the maximum extent to ensure projects are developed in full compliance with federal and state requirements.Political Foundation 2009 Midwest Governors' MOU was signed by the governors of each of the participating states as well as by the Mayor of the City of Chicago.Why? Read the entire page →
From page 64... ... 64 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs programs and policies adopted by the ARC Board. The federal and state government partners split equally the administrative costs of the program support provided by the Executive Director and staff of the ARC. Read the entire page →
From page 65... ... Case Studies 65 competitive opportunity pooled with other funding under the FHWA's Surface Transportation Program (STP) Read the entire page →
From page 66... ... 66 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Focus Issue ARC(Planning and Design and Construction Phases) Stakeholders 13 states of the Appalachian region (Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Virginia) Read the entire page →
From page 67... ... Case Studies 67 3.6.2 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Background WMATA, also known as Metro, provides rail (Metrorail) , bus (Metrobus) Read the entire page →
From page 68... ... 68 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Focus Issue WMATA Collaboration (Visioning, Planning, and Operations and Maintenance Phases) Stakeholders Federal government; Commonwealth of Virginia; Northern Virginia Transportation Commission; State of Maryland; District of Columbia; Washington Suburban Transit Commission; Cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, and Fairfax and Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, and Loudon in Virginia; and Counties of Montgomery and Prince George's in Maryland.Institutional Relationships Established through WMATA Compact, agreed to by signatories 1965–1966.Identi�ication of Responsibilities WMATA and Board of Directors empowered to establish a regional transit authority to plan, develop, �inance, and operate a balanced regional system of transportation; other responsibilities cited in the Compact are to develop a regional mass transit plan, create sound �inancial policies to operate the system,and to develop and operate a transit police force, among many others.Role of Regulatory Agencies WMATA overseen by Board of Directors; representatives from the federal government report to the Government Services Administration; for �inancial oversight, WMATA Compact requires an annual audit by an independent third party; �inancial transactions of the Board are reviewed by U.S. Read the entire page →
From page 69... ... Case Studies 69 Focus Issue WMATA Collaboration (Visioning, Planning, and Operations and Maintenance Phases) Oversight Board of Directors provides oversight of WMATA; �inancial oversight provided by annual independent audit. Read the entire page →
From page 70... ... 70 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs implementation of rail corridor improvements have tended to follow a pattern wherein the state benefitting most from the project takes the lead. This has proven to be an effective partnering method across the Midwest: several corridor-level projects are proceeding under this type of arrangement including the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor. Read the entire page →
From page 71... ... Case Studies 71 creation of the NEC Commission. Interviewees agreed that the NEC Commission has an appropriate mandate and provides an important forum and structure for facilitating decision-making and should be enabled to continue into the future. Read the entire page →
From page 72... ... 72 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs that receive high-speed rail funds. For a comprehensive summary of legal issues related to intercity rail service, see NCRRP Legal Research Digest 2: Railroad Legal Issues and Resources (Thomas, 2015) Read the entire page →
From page 73... ... Case Studies 73 distribution of liability between Amtrak/NNEPRA and Pan Am Railways in the Boston-Portland corridor was a major sticking point in negotiations for reinstating Downeaster service and had to be mitigated with STB involvement. At the planning and visioning phases of project development in the cases studied, agreements containing liability clauses generally made states liable for work and any incidents occurring within their respective boundaries. Read the entire page →
From page 74... ... 74 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs For corridors reliant on state appropriations for funding, several related issues were raised. First, it can be challenging to reconcile the differing approaches to funding projects among state partners. Read the entire page →
From page 75... ... Case Studies 75 For operations and maintenance, the operating agreements in the NEC case study did not outline formal procedures for decision-making, but they did note that decision-making is held jointly among the agreement parties depending on the topic. 3.7.8 Political Foundation What was clear from the case studies is that building and maintaining political support, regardless of the political party in office, is central to successful project development. Read the entire page →
From page 76... ... 76 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs 3.7.10 Relationship with Host Railroad or Other Providers of Service All U.S. passenger rail efforts other than those on the NEC are currently utilizing, or anticipate primarily operating on, rights-of-way owned by private railroads. Read the entire page →
From page 77... ... Case Studies 77 a proportionate set of costs that reflect the route's relative use. The legislation effectively shifted costs previously paid by the federal government to states. Read the entire page →
From page 78... ... 78 Developing Multi-State Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs and NNEPRA's Manager of Passenger Services is charged with handling concerns internally (without Amtrak's involvement) to the extent possible. Read the entire page →
From page 79... ... Case Studies 79 Prioritizing Investments Prioritizing investments is a key underlying objective for NEC FUTURE. Establishing a long-term vision for the NEC alone will not ensure a coordinated implementation approach that nets the greatest benefit from federal and state investments. Read the entire page →

From page 22...

... 22 3.1 Introduction Prior to conducting case studies on intercity passenger rail service, the NCRRP Project 07-02 research team developed a conceptual framework of the process for implementing intercity passenger rail service. This conceptual framework outlines the various roles and responsibilities necessary to complete all phases of project delivery from visioning through to operations and maintenance.