NCRRP Developing Multi-state Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs. Michael D. Meyer, Ph.D. Parsons Brinckerhoff

Transcription

1 NCRRP Developing Multi-state Institutions to Implement Intercity Passenger Rail Programs Michael D. Meyer, Ph.D. Parsons Brinckerhoff

2 Goal Create practical models for multi-state institutional arrangements for developing and providing intercity passenger rail networks and services. 2

3 Issues Existing and evolving legal, financial, and administrative requirements; Competing federal, regional, state, and local responsibilities and interests; Balancing potentially competing needs of intercity passenger, commuter, and freight rail in shared corridors; Eligibility and flexibility to receive and invest public and private funds; Evaluating and sharing costs, benefits, and risks among multi-state institution participants; 3

4 Issues (cont d) A framework for setting project priorities; Overall management responsibility for corridor operations and services; facilitating project delivery; Enabling seamless connections to other modes; and Identifying and resolving jurisdictional overlaps among multi-state institutions and other affected entities. 4

5 Research Design 5

6 Conceptual Framework 6

7 Conceptual Framework System concepts: considers how intercity passenger rail interfaces with other modes within the transportation network. Network components: develops the core infrastructure of the intercity passenger rail service, such as vehicles, tracks, and ancillary facilities. Administrative structure: how an intercity passenger rail service or program is managed Partnerships/stakeholders: identifies the parties involved in project planning and delivery Finance: how capital and ongoing operating and maintenance costs are funded Governance concepts: considers the structure for roles and responsibilities across the various stakeholders. 7

8 Candidate Case Studies Regional Efforts Midwest: MWRRI, MIPRC, Midwest High-Speed Rail Steering Group Northeast: Northeast Corridor Commission, NEC Master Plan Working Group Demonstrated experience with Case Study Focus Issues Data/ information availability Degree of transferability Tier Tier 1 Overall contribution Southeast: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Tier 2 Coalition Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study Tier 2 Stakeholder Group Gulf Coast: Southern High-Speed Rail Tier 2 Commission Corridor/Corridor Segment Efforts Chicago-St. Louis Tier 1 Twin Cities-Milwaukee Tier 2 Chicago-Detroit Tier 2 Chicago-Quad Cities Tier 3 Chicago-Omaha Tier 3 Albany-Rutland Tier 1 Boston- Portland (NNEPRA) Tier 1 New Orleans-Atlanta Tier 3 New Orleans-Mobile Tier 3 New Orleans-Houston Tier 3 Portland-Seattle (Cascades) Tier 1 Tulsa-Oklahoma City-South Texas (South Central) Tier 2 DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte (Southeast HSR) Tier 1 Victorville-Las Vegas (XpressWest) Tier 2

9 1) Northeast Corridor 2) Midwest Region Case Studies 3) Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor 4) Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor 5) Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority & the Downeaster Service 6) South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor 7) Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor Project 8) The Appalachian Regional Commission 9) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 10)Brussels-Paris-London High Speed Rail Service 11) Midwest Real-Time Vehicle Procurement 12) Appalachian Regional Commission 9

10 Case Study Methodology 1. Describe the institutional arrangements your agency participates in relating to intercity passenger rail services. 2. What are the administrative, legal, and financial requirements associated with this arrangement? Who has overall management responsibility for corridor services? Planning? Project delivery? Procurement? Project priorities? 3. Have you had to balance competing needs of intercity passenger, commuter, and freight interests in your particular case? If so, what strategies or policies did you adopt to provide such balance? 4. What were the federal, regional, state and local responsibilities that had to be faced in developing your institutional arrangement? What strategies were used to deal with these competing responsibilities? 10

11 Case Study Methodology (cont d) 5. What have been some of the most important challenges in developing your institutional arrangement? Spending funds across state lines? Negotiating with the railroads? Legal constraints of individual states? Coordinating the timing of funding? The distribution of costs and benefits? Setting project priorities among different agencies? 6. How has risk for different participants in the arrangement been identified and dealt with? 7. To what extent has the issue of seamless connections to other modes been an issue? 8. How have overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities been resolved? 11

12 Case Study Methodology (cont d) 9. What lessons have been learned by your experience that would be of interest to others interested in establishing a multi-jurisdictional institutional arrangement for providing intercity passenger rail service? 10. Are there reports or internal memoranda that we could obtain to provide more background on this project/arrangement? 12

13 Pilot Case Study: Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor 1. Introduction 2. Description of the Strategy/Program/Initiative 3. Strategy Participants 1. Agency/Organization Descriptions 2. Role in the Strategy/Program/Initiative 3. Specific Actions Taken by Each Agency/Organization to Implement the Strategy 4. Description of the Implementation Process 1. Step-by Step Description of the Implementation Process 2. Barriers/Challenges Faced in Implementing Strategy/Program/Initiative 3. Strategies Used to Overcome Barriers/Challenges 5. Interpretation and Synthesis 1. Key Aspects of the Case with Respect to Research Objectives 2. Key Lessons Learned 3. Degree to Which Results are Transferable 6. References 13

14 Characteristic Discussion 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) Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Steering Committee) Phase of Project Visioning/Planning Visioning/Planning Visioning/Planning Development Stakeholders States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin. City of Chicago States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin. Amtrak. FRA Institutional Relationships Established through Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Compact Established through 2009 MOU entitled Voluntary working group Implementation of High-Speed Rail Passenger Service and Connections Involving Corridors Linking Cities in Partner States (signed by 8 Midwestern states and the City of Chicago) Identification of Responsibilities Role of Regulatory Agencies Compact identifies responsibilities: to advocate for funding and authorization necessary to make passenger rail improvements a reality for Midwest; seek to develop ways states can form partnerships with rail industry and labor to implement improved passenger rail; develop long-term interstate plan for high-speed passenger rail service; and cooperate with other agencies, regions and entities to ensure Midwest adequately represented into national plans for passenger rail development MOU requires parties to cooperate to the maximum extent to ensure projects are developed in full compliance with Federal and state requirements. MOU states partnering with FRA is key requirement No formal agreement but Steering Committee, composed of key staff from each state agency and Amtrak, provided oversight and direction to the consultant team retained to conduct the study. Wisconsin DOT served as Secretariat for the Steering Committee. Amtrak provided administrative support and administered contracts. FRA for oversight, environmental reviews, provide capital funding Coalitions Political Foundation Participation in Compact demonstrates support by state legislature Participation in MOU demonstrates support at gubernatorial level Steering Group comprised of State DOT representatives, not elected officials. Why Compelling Need? Compact formed to help the Midwest Coordinating and documenting Meet future regional travel needs

15 Synthesis Arrangement Working Definition NCRRP Case Study (Mechanism for Implementation) Single State Agency Contracting with and on behalf of Other States Voluntary Coalition / Partnership Special Authority For-Profit Corporations Federally Chartered Corporations Where an existing or newly created public agency of a single state addresses multi-state interests through contracts Where stakeholders convene in a forum to collaborate for a common interest on a voluntary basis Where an independent entity, often a distinct governmental body, delivers a limited number of public services within defined boundaries. Services are generally provided within a single state or 2 to 3 states Where a privately held company develops infrastructure or operates services on a for-profit, limited liability basis Where a corporation is established by Congress to provide a public Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor (Memorandum of Understanding) Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (Single state legislation) MTA Metro-North Services in CT and NJ (bi-state operating agreements) SEPTA services to Wilmington/Newark, DE (bi-state operating agreement) MBTA Service to Providence, Warwick and Wickford Junction, Rhode Island (operating agreement) Midwest High Speed Rail Steering Group (Memorandum of Understanding) I-95 Coalition (voluntary, no formal agreement) CONEG (voluntary, CONEG Policy Research Center, Inc. is non-profit arm for program activities) Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (Memorandum of Understanding) Amtrak Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan Working Group (voluntary, no formal agreement) NEC Future (voluntary, no formal agreement among stakeholders) WMATA (interstate compact) London-Paris-Brussels HSR Network (Eurostar) Amtrak (Federal legislation)

16 within a single state or 2 to 3 states For-Profit Corporations Where a privately held company develops infrastructure or operates services on a for-profit, limited liability basis Federally Chartered Where a corporation is established Corporations by Congress to provide a public service. Generally set-up with federal subsidies at the outset but often intended to become financially selfsustaining over time Federal-State Where a body of federal, state, and, Commission sometimes, local leaders organized to address a critical need, which often includes the distribution of federal funds among multiple states Multi-state Commission Where 2 or more states establish a common agency to execute a specific function. Does not include a direct role for the federal government. Coordinated State Efforts Where 2 or more states enter into an agreement to coordinate efforts within their respective states London-Paris-Brussels HSR Network (Eurostar) Amtrak (Federal legislation) Appalachian Regional Commission (Federal legislation) Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission (Federal legislation) Southeast High Speed Rail Project VA-NC (interstate compact) Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (interstate compact) Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (Memorandum of Understanding/ Cascades Rail Corridor Management Workplan) South Central: Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (Bi-state agreement)

17 Case Study 1 Case Study 2 Case Study 3 Case Study 4 Case Study 5 Case Study 6 Case Study 7 Case Study 8 Case Study x Lessons Learned Institutional Configurations Operations Arrangements Funding Arrangements Visioning/Planning/Project Development/Operations Focus Group Input Institutional Environment 11 Multi-state Governance Model 1 Multi-state Governance Model 2 Institutional Environment 31 Multi-state Governance Model 3 Institutional Environment 21

18 Discussion Questions? 18