One of the biggest hurdles in rail planning is that public agencies and their private railroad partners often misunderstand each other’s perspectives, leading to wasted time and dollars. This usually comes from competing conceptions of the good: Passenger agencies serve the community through competitive and consistent service, while freight rail prioritizes competitive and consistent service.
The differences lie in the customers, where good service and reliability mean very different things for people traveling for work or leisure vs. mass goods moving safely at economies of scale. Both serve the community in different and meaningful ways. However, from the eyes of the technical analyst, extensive, detailed studies still always boil down to the common theme: If we don’t get everyone on the same page early, nobody wins.
Drawing on lessons from multiple service plans and rail simulation studies conducted across the industry, the following takeaways will help you understand the playing field, sound like a technical analyst, and get us all on the same page faster.
As a fellow technical analyst, we focus on data-driven aspects of capacity, cost, and human emotion. Yes, the last one has data, too.
Capacity: In the Eyes of the Beholder
Capacity is generally conveyed as the number of X trains or units across a distance for a certain period. You may have heard the phrase, “This corridor can move X trains per day.” Here’s the thing: Which type of train? Intermodal? Intercity passenger? Unit coal or grain? Regional/commuter? Capacity is not a neat number. It’s a moving target, shaped by train types, track conditions, different schedules, and how you define “success” (like on-time performance vs. maximum throughput).
Let’s take a hypothetical railroad with a single unit grain train operating at 50 mph. We want to add a passenger train moving in the same direction at 79 mph. This appears like one additional train’s worth of capacity, right? Not so. From the freight rail perspective, the passenger train can be seen as taking more capacity because the it moves much faster than the grain train, covering more distance in the same amount of time. Conversely, the passenger rail perspective would say that the grain train, which is far longer and operates at much lower speed, takes up relatively more capacity because it uses more time for the same distance traveled. The story changes based on which train is the baseline. Now, inject multiple types and differing directions, and it can get complex!
To address the differing perspectives, many rush to use simulation tools that spit out exact-sounding metrics: —delay-minutes per train or number of trains per hour. These metrics can be helpful but must be addressed with caution. The real world rarely follows a perfect model, and the parties should generally agree on how to measure capacity. It’s like forecasting the weather: A rough idea is good enough to grab an umbrella, but you don’t plan an entire outdoor event based on a single day’s rain prediction. So, how do you address it?
- Discuss the metrics. You cannot align with what you don’t understand. This seems directed to public agencies but applies to all parties involved. The success metrics, expected operating behaviors and how they relate to project outcomes should be discussed.
- Discuss the study approach. If the parties take the time to explain the approach, there will be more trust in using the umbrella (the simulation tools).
- Map capacity to an operating plan. In reference to the example above, capacity is typically the maximum volume of train traffic that can operate at expected service levels based on the train-type mix and the operating rules you run them by. So, it’s important to know the mix and the operating rules.
Cost: It Needs to Be Worthwhile
Transit agencies often don’t realize that, from the railroad’s viewpoint, running extra passenger trains can feel like a burden unless there’s some upside—monetary or otherwise. This is hardly an extension of typical business practice. Imagine someone wanted to make a deal with you, and they said, “We’d like to do something here. It’ll take 5-10 years of collaboration and time only to get about as good as you have today.” Doesn’t sound so appealing, right?
Rail stakeholders want to be good public partners, but not at the detriment of their service, safety or time. It even applies to the study and construction phase. A common phrase they may say is, “For every study we conduct for a hypothetical shared-corridor service, there is a study not conducted on our own operational goals.”
Rail stakeholders must remind themselves of the real opportunities of a strong partnership. Many passenger projects occur in capacity-constrained locations that are difficult to expand. The assistance of a joint project could unlock capacity, help with community outreach, or bolster safety benefits (i.e., crossing closures) that may be too difficult to complete for each party alone. Building trust and understanding each other’s business models goes a long way and can benefit everyone.
So, how do you do it?
- Remember, in the end, it’s a business negotiation. All successful projects begin with a “What’s in it for us?” conversation, ensuring neither side feels blindsided.
- Know what you want before you ask. It means knowing clearly what service you are looking for in operational terms and how it relates to your public policy or business goals. The asks need to be operationally specific—know what service window you want, frequency, station stops, and which of those are negotiable.
- Take the time to understand the other side of the table. Sometimes, unique solutions expedite the process. Both parties will have their asks, but it’s worth getting them out on the table (“What’s in it for us?”) and explaining their why. It will expedite ruling out dealbreakers early on and save time.
- Talk meaningfully and talk often. Conditions will change, even if you do everything perfectly. New regulations, engineering constraints, etc., are all part of project reality. Speaking regularly as partners helps you get ahead of the items you cannot control, so you can value-engineer and adjust without wasting time. Good partners typically speak quarterly in early planning, up to bi-weekly during the study or construction phase.
Human Factor: Keep Your Eyes on the Prize
The perfect analysis won’t matter if the negotiating people miss the focus on the end product—successful delivery of the service. We’ve seen projects fail because a party was closed to new ideas or took things personally. On occasion, parties attempt to use simulation results to bolster preconceived conclusions, and the results can rarely be challenged. The result is damaged relationships and hindering future negotiation.
For agencies wishing to change or expand service significantly, bridging the gap means ensuring the right voices are in the room at the right time. Wait too long to bring in the freight railroad, you’ll burn daylight redoing the analysis. Engage them too early, and they’ll think the idea is half-baked. You at least need to cover the basics before engaging, and every meeting needs a meaningful ask or update. It does cost them time to study and participate in analysis and meetings, from full time analysts, leadership meetings and early engineering coordination. The more time is wasted, the more it can sour the relationship.
For freight rail counterparts, losing sight of the opportunity for a corridor expansion is also a loss. There are multiple examples of success where the freight railroad gained capacity with joint work in areas that were difficult to build due to space or expense. Freight railroads experience wins if they help progress the right projects with their expertise and good faith. Ask for what is needed and support the execution so everyone wins.
The best way to do this is to communicate through mutual goals. Saying “it’s our right-of-way” as an end-all to whatever is asked isn’t productive. Explain your needs, why the asks exist, the metrics, etc. Disagreement comes from misunderstanding. Public transit agencies are not private freight railroads, but they are strategic partners. As for our fellow analysts, it’s nice to talk Big Data, but if you can’t explain your model or your metrics in plain language, it will come across as a hidden agenda.
To summarize the human factor, how do you address it?
- Have the right people in the room. Agencies need to complete the right phases in the right order to maximize their engagement with their partner railroads.
- Communicate more than the data. Everyone has something to gain in these projects, but explaining past the data removes poor assumptions and misunderstandings.
- Indecision is the enemy of progress. We cannot stress this enough. All stakeholders feel frustrated when indecision extends a project to undefined timelines. Both parties need to enter with a level of transparency about their wants and feel comfortable stopping to reassess when projects are delayed or conditions change.
In the end, real collaboration boils down to three things:
A Shared Definition of Success. The success metrics, expected operating behaviors, and how they relate to project outcomes should be discussed.
Respect for Each Stakeholder’s Reality. Remember, in the end, it’s a business negotiation. All successful projects begin with a “What’s in it for us?” conversation, ensuring neither side feels blindsided.
Structured Yet Flexible Agreements. Indecision is the enemy of progress, but the rail environment will change over time, so communicate meaningfully and often. It may sound like a tall order, but it’s necessary if everyone recognizes they’re part of a shared story: —one that moves people, goods and entire economies. So next time you’re in a rail planning meeting, remember to ask, “What’s each stakeholder’s bottom line?” and be ready to adjust your own game plan. Trust us, it’ll save a lot of headaches down the line.
