HomeMy WebLinkAboutPhase 3 Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
Iowa City-North Liberty
Commuter Rail
Conceptual Feasibility
Study
Final
July 31, 2020
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | i
Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... vi
1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Existing CRANDIC Corridor Right-of-Way Assessment ..................................................................... 2
2.1 CRANDIC Corridor Service Area, Intersections, and Connectivity ........................................... 2
2.2 CRANDIC Corridor History ........................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Present General CRANDIC Corridor Characteristics ................................................................ 8
2.3.1 Railroad Timetable Stations ......................................................................................... 8
2.3.2 Railroad Track Configuration ....................................................................................... 8
2.3.3 Existing Railroad Track Characteristics ..................................................................... 11
2.3.4 Railroad Bridges and Drainage Structures ................................................................ 11
2.3.5 At-Grade Roadway/Railroad Crossings ..................................................................... 15
2.3.6 Railroad Wayside Signaling and Wayside Asset Protection Devices ........................ 17
2.3.7 Fiber and Utility Infrastructure .................................................................................... 18
2.3.8 Right-of-Way .............................................................................................................. 18
2.3.9 Current Railroad Method of Operation, Owner, and Operator ................................... 20
2.3.10 Current Railroad Operations ...................................................................................... 20
3 Conceptual Economic and Social Impact and Benefit Assessment.................................................. 21
3.1 General Benefits of Utilizing the CRANDIC Corridor Right-of-Way for Alternative
Transportation Use .................................................................................................................. 21
3.2 Qualitative Assessment of Economic and Social Impacts and Benefits ................................. 22
3.2.1 Population Growth Trends ......................................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Sustainability .............................................................................................................. 22
3.2.3 Mobility ....................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.4 Accessibility ................................................................................................................ 23
3.2.5 Reliability .................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.6 Efficiency and Capacity .............................................................................................. 23
3.2.7 Safety ......................................................................................................................... 24
3.2.8 Multimodal Connectivity ............................................................................................. 24
3.2.9 Economic and Transit-Oriented Development ........................................................... 24
3.2.10 Community Development ........................................................................................... 25
4 Conceptual Commuter Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasts ....................................................... 26
4.1 STOPS Overview .................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.1 STOPS Inputs ............................................................................................................ 26
4.2 Conceptual Ridership Forecasts ............................................................................................. 28
4.2.1 Commuter Rail Service Parameters ........................................................................... 28
4.2.2 Informal FTA Review and STOPS Sensitivity Check ................................................. 31
4.3 Conceptual Fare Revenue Forecasts ..................................................................................... 33
4.3.1 Peer Review ............................................................................................................... 33
4.3.2 Fare Recovery as a Product of Ridership Forecasts, Fare Estimates, and an
Annualization Factor................................................................................................... 34
4.3.3 Fare Revenue as a Percent of Operations Costs ...................................................... 36
4.3.4 Comparison of Results ............................................................................................... 37
4.4 Advertising ............................................................................................................................... 38
5 Service Plans .................................................................................................................................... 39
5.1 Conceptual Commuter Rail Equipment Plan........................................................................... 39
5.2 Conceptual Commuter Rail Service Plan ................................................................................ 40
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
ii | July 31, 2020
5.2.1 Conceptual Commuter Rail Service Schedule ........................................................... 42
5.2.2 Conceptual Train Crew Plan ...................................................................................... 45
5.2.3 Stations Concept ........................................................................................................ 47
5.2.4 Layover and Maintenance Facility Concept ............................................................... 48
6 Infrastructure and Equipment Requirements and Conceptual Opinion of Probable Cost
Estimates ........................................................................................................................................... 49
6.1 Commuter Rail Capital Cost Estimate Approach .................................................................... 49
6.1.1 Rehabilitation of Structures and Track ....................................................................... 50
6.1.2 Construction of Track Structures and Track .............................................................. 51
6.1.3 Equipment .................................................................................................................. 52
6.1.4 Signaling and Communications .................................................................................. 52
6.1.5 Stations ...................................................................................................................... 52
6.1.6 Layover and Maintenance Facility .............................................................................. 53
6.1.7 Grade Crossing Surface and Approaches ................................................................. 53
6.1.8 Fencing ....................................................................................................................... 53
6.1.9 Professional Services ................................................................................................. 54
6.1.10 Contingency ............................................................................................................... 54
6.2 Commuter Rail Operations and Maintenance Cost Approach ................................................ 54
6.3 Presentation of Conceptual Opinion of Probable Costs Estimate........................................... 56
6.3.1 Conceptual Opinion of Probable Capital Costs Estimate .......................................... 56
6.3.2 Conceptual Opinion of Probable O&M Costs Estimate .............................................. 58
6.4 Alternatives to Infrastructure and Equipment Requirements and Conceptual Cost
Estimate................................................................................................................................... 59
6.4.1 Equipment Procurement Alternative .......................................................................... 59
6.4.2 Bridge Rehabilitation Alternatives .............................................................................. 63
6.4.3 At-Grade Roadway Crossings Alternatives ................................................................ 64
6.4.4 Track Construction Alternatives ................................................................................. 64
7 Federal Regulatory Requirements .................................................................................................... 65
7.1 Federal Transit Administration ................................................................................................ 65
7.2 Surface Transportation Board ................................................................................................. 71
7.3 Environmental Review ............................................................................................................. 72
7.3.1 Assumptions for Environmental Review..................................................................... 72
7.3.2 Review Process .......................................................................................................... 73
7.3.3 Contents of the Environmental Document ................................................................. 73
7.3.4 Impacts of FAST ACT on the Environmental Process ............................................... 74
7.3.5 Permitting and Mitigation Monitoring Plan ................................................................. 74
8 Financial Plan Strategies ................................................................................................................... 74
8.1 Potential Project Funding Sources for Capital Costs .............................................................. 74
8.1.1 New Starts and Small Starts Capital Investments ..................................................... 75
8.1.2 Short-Term Infrastructure Investment Programs ....................................................... 75
8.1.3 Public-Private Partnerships ........................................................................................ 76
8.1.4 Other Forms of Private Sector Participation .............................................................. 78
8.1.5 Special Taxation Districts ........................................................................................... 79
8.1.6 Value Capture Financing ............................................................................................ 80
8.2 Overview of FTA New Starts and Small Starts Programs ....................................................... 80
8.2.1 Project Evaluation Components ................................................................................. 81
8.2.2 Project Justification Criteria ........................................................................................ 82
8.2.3 Local Financial Commitment Criteria ......................................................................... 84
8.2.4 New Starts Versus Small Starts Programs ................................................................ 84
8.2.5 Updates to Program per Iowa DOT ............................................................................ 85
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | iii
9 Commuter Rail Governance and Organization Planning .................................................................. 85
9.1 Summary of Common U.S. Transit Agency Governance Models and Organizational
Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 85
9.2 Potential for Establishment of a RTA or RTD Inclusive of Johnson County, Iowa .................. 88
9.2.1 Summary of Principal Current Johnson County Transit Agencies ............................. 88
9.2.2 Existing Iowa Statutes for Regional Transit Authority and Regional Transit
District Formation ....................................................................................................... 89
9.3 Potential for Establishment of an RTA or RTD Inclusive of Johnson County ......................... 92
9.4 Potential Options for Access and Ownership of a Rail Corridor by a Public Transit
Agency..................................................................................................................................... 93
10 Next Steps ......................................................................................................................................... 95
Tables
Table 1: CRANDIC Division 2 Railroad Timetable Stations and Railroad Milepost Locations in the
Iowa City-North Liberty Corridor ...................................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Railroad Bridges on the CRANDIC Corridor ................................................................................. 13
Table 3: Railroad Drainage Structures on the CRANDIC Corridor ............................................................. 14
Table 4: Inventory of At-Grade Roadway Crossings in the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City
and North Liberty ............................................................................................................................ 16
Table 5: CRANDIC Corridor Method of Operation, Owner, and Operator .................................................. 20
Table 6: STOPS Inputs ............................................................................................................................... 26
Table 7: University Student Linked Trips by Household Vehicles by Trip Purpose .................................... 27
Table 8: MPOJC Population and Employment Growth, 2014 and 2040 .................................................... 28
Table 9: Conceptual Travel Time Comparison: Local Bus and Commuter Rail ......................................... 29
Table 10: Commuter Rail Boarding Estimates by Station and Mode of Access, 2019 ............................... 30
Table 11: Commuter Rail Boarding Estimates by Station and Mode of Access, 2027 ............................... 30
Table 12: Commuter Rail Boarding Estimates by Station and Mode of Access, 2042 ............................... 31
Table 13: Peer Agencies General Information ............................................................................................ 33
Table 14: Peer Agency Fare Structure ....................................................................................................... 34
Table 15: Existing Transit Services Ridership (2018) ................................................................................. 35
Table 16: Projected Fare Revenue in 2019, in 2019 Dollars ...................................................................... 35
Table 17: Estimated Projected Fare Revenue in 2027, in 2019 Dollars ..................................................... 35
Table 18: Estimated Projected Fare Revenue in 2042, in 2019 Dollars ..................................................... 36
Table 19: Peer Agency Average Weekday Ridership (2015-2018) ............................................................ 36
Table 20: Peer Agency Fare Recovery Rates ............................................................................................ 37
Table 21: Possible Fare Revenues Based on Recovery Rate, in 2019 Dollars ......................................... 37
Table 22: Range of Potential Fare Revenues, in 2019 Dollars ................................................................... 38
Table 23: Peers and Advertising ................................................................................................................. 38
Table 24: Conceptual Daily Southbound Commuter Train Schedule – North Liberty to Iowa City ............ 43
Table 25: Conceptual Daily Northbound Commuter Train Schedule – Iowa City to North Liberty ............. 44
Table 26: Conceptual Opinion of Probable Capital Costs Estimate – Iowa City to North Liberty
Commuter Rail Service Implementation (2019 Dollars) ................................................................. 56
Table 27: Conceptual Opinion of Probable Annual O&M Costs – Iowa City to North Liberty
Commuter Rail Service (2019 Dollars) .......................................................................................... 58
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
iv | July 31, 2020
Table 28: Conceptual Cost Estimate for the Procurement of Three, Two-Car Pop-Up Metro Class
230 Trainsets for the Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Implementation ............................. 61
Table 29: Conceptual Cost Estimate for the Procurement and Reconditioning of Three Budd RDC
Cars for the Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Implementation ............................................ 63
Table 30: FTA - New Starts Project Planning and Development Checklist ................................................ 68
Table 31: Most Common Transit Agency Governance Models, Authority for Creation, and
Example U.S. Agencies ................................................................................................................. 87
Figures
Figure 1: Early CRANDIC Interurban Service at North Liberty ..................................................................... 4
Figure 2: CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City, North Liberty, and Cedar Rapids .................................... 5
Figure 3: High-Speed Interurban Car on the CRANDIC at Iowa City ........................................................... 6
Figure 4: CRANDIC Passenger Service Timetable, October 1946 .............................................................. 7
Figure 5: Curvature and Grade on the CRANDIC Corridor at Iowa Avenue in Iowa City ............................. 9
Figure 6: Proximity of the CRANDIC Corridor to Public Roadways at First Avenue in Coralville ............... 10
Figure 7: Proximity of CRANDIC Corridor to Waterways – Along the East Bank of the Iowa River
in Iowa City ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 8: CRANDIC Corridor Main Track Structure near Rocky Shore Drive in Iowa City ......................... 11
Figure 9: Iowa River Bridge in Iowa City ..................................................................................................... 12
Figure 10: Typical Circular Concrete Culvert (CCP) ................................................................................... 13
Figure 11: Typical CRANDIC Corridor Active Grade Crossing at Forever Green Road in North
Liberty............................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 12: Typical CRANDIC Corridor Passive Grade Crossing at Old Hospital Road in Oakdale ........... 16
Figure 13: Fiber Optic and Electric Utility Infrastructure in the CRANDIC Corridor in North Liberty .......... 18
Figure 14: Typical CRANDIC Corridor Right-of-Way Width – 10th Street in Coralville .............................. 19
Figure 15: Constrained CRANDIC Corridor Right-of-Way Width in Urban Area – Dubuque Street
in Iowa City ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 16: Typical Two-Car Trainset of New FRA Compliant DMU Equipment ......................................... 40
Figure 17: Potential Commuter Rail Stations .............................................................................................. 42
Figure 18: Typical Station Site Layout Concept .......................................................................................... 47
Figure 19: Typical Station Platform Concept .............................................................................................. 48
Figure 20: Typical Two-Car Pop-Up Metro Trainset ................................................................................... 60
Figure 21: Typical Two-Car Trainset of Secondhand RDC DMU Equipment ............................................. 62
Figure 22: FTA Project Development Process for New Starts Projects ..................................................... 81
Figure 23: Evaluation and Rating Process .................................................................................................. 82
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | v
This page is intentionally left blank.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
vi | July 31, 2020
Executive Summary
The purpose of this Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study (the Study)
is to incorporate previous work performed between 2015 to 2017 that considers the potential for
commuter rail service implementation between Gilbert Street in Iowa City, Iowa, and Penn Street in
North Liberty, Iowa – a 9.1-mile long, active freight railroad corridor over which no passenger rail
services are offered at present. The Study examines the conceptual feasibility of a commuter rail
service over the Cedar Rapids and Iowa City Railway (CRANDIC) Corridor and provides a more
detailed understanding of the potential benefits, costs, funding, and oversight for development,
operation, and maintenance of a commuter rail service.
CRANDIC, the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) Bureau of Rail, and the Metropolitan
Planning Organization of Johnson County, Iowa (MPOJC) selected HDR as its consultant team for
the Study. The railroad, Iowa DOT, MPOJC, and other local project stakeholders participated in,
contributed to, and informed the development of the Study through coordination with HDR during the
life of the project.
The Study was divided into the following general tasks, which culminated in this report:
• Background – Describe the background of recently completed and ongoing study of the
feasibility passenger rail implementation in the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way.
• Existing Corridor Conditions – Describe the existing conditions and infrastructure within
the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way.
• Conceptual Economic and Social Impact and Benefit Analysis – Qualitatively describe
potential conceptual economic and social impacts and benefits associated with the
implementation of a daily commuter rail service operating on 30-minute headways in the
CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way between Dubuque Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in
North Liberty, based on recent best planning practices and the general experience of recent
rail transit implementation in the U.S. and in concert with current and anticipated future land
use in Johnson County, Iowa.
• Conceptual Commuter Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasts, including a University
of Iowa On-Board Survey – Describe the preparation of the Federal Transit Administration’s
(FTA) Simplified Trips on Software (STOPS) model and the collection of a supplementary
special survey data to understand the University of Iowa student travel market for the
development of conceptual ridership and revenue forecasts.
• Conceptual Equipment and Service Plan – Describe the general characteristics of the
mode and frequency of passenger rail service and equipment selected by stakeholders and
its applicability to service in the CRANDIC Corridor.
• Conceptual Opinion of Probable Cost Estimate – Develop the conceptual opinion of
probable capital and operations and maintenance costs for the selected mode of passenger
rail service assessed for potential implementation on the Corridor, and identify potential
alternatives that could reduce the capital cost to implement the service.
• Federal Regulatory Requirements – Describe the basic federal regulatory requirements for
the implementation of passenger rail service selected for potential implementation on the
CRANDIC Corridor.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | vii
• Financial Plan Strategies – Describe the federal capital project funding programs and other
strategies that may be used to fund planning, design, construction, and implementation of a
proposed passenger rail project like that under study for the CRANDIC Corridor, including
public-private partnerships, special taxation districts, and other approaches.
• Commuter Rail Governance and Organization Planning – Describe common commuter
rail organization and governance models that are used by U.S. rail transit agencies and
could potentially be used for system ownership, management, procurement and
construction, and operations and maintenance of a potential commuter rail service on the
CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way between Iowa City and North Liberty.
Conceptual Equipment and Service Plan
In the previous Iowa City and North Liberty Commuter Rail Study, the commuter rail transit self-
propelled Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) railcar equipment was selected by the stakeholder group as the
preferred equipment type. Equipment for the potential commuter rail service implementation would
include six new, self-propelled DMU coach railcars, which will be used to assemble three trainsets of
two railcars each to accommodate the Iowa City-North Liberty passenger rail service. The six DMU
cars would be designated as FRA Compliant, meaning they would meet the current Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) safety regulations that are generally built around specifications providing the
structural integrity to withstand a crash between passenger trains and freight trains on shared-use
passenger and freight rail corridors. While the Study assumes that the CRANDIC Corridor between
Iowa City and North Liberty would be designated passenger rail only, the acquisition of FRA
Compliant passenger cars could potentially be required later by FRA, if CRANDIC decides to restore
its common carrier obligation and host freight rail operations on this segment in the future.
The Study’s conceptual Service Plan for the Iowa City-North Liberty commuter rail service assumes
the following:
• Potential commuter rail service schedule would operate 26 total revenue trains each way
daily (for a total of 52 revenue trains) in the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City (Dubuque
Street) and North Liberty (Penn Street), with train departures on 30-minute headways from
these terminal points from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m.
• The CRANDIC Corridor between Gilbert Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty
would be passenger rail only, with the potential for redevelopment as a shared-use corridor
with freight trains, if the need for freight rail service arises in the future.
• The CRANDIC Corridor between Gilbert Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty
would have Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) as its Method of Operation, allowing a
CRANDIC dispatcher or manager in Cedar Rapids to remotely control train traffic.
• Commuter trains would be operated as a push-pull turnaround service, with one commuter
train operating from each of the terminal points in the Corridor at a time. It is assumed that
meet-pass events for commuter trains would routinely occur at roughly the approximate mid-
point of the Corridor at a new siding located in between First Avenue and Seventh Avenue in
Coralville. Meet-pass events and trainset staging (for periods of non-operation) could also
occur on stub-ended station tracks at the Iowa City (Dubuque Street) and North Liberty
(Penn Street) terminal points.
• Maximum commuter train speed of 50 mph assumed and average commuter train speed of
30 mph assumed.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
viii | July 31, 2020
• Operating headways (departures) of 30 minutes are assumed from terminal points.
Schedules of approximately 25 minutes running time between Dubuque Street in Iowa City
and Penn Street in North Liberty, including the time necessary for stops at five intermediate
stations and one meet-pass event between commuter trains at Coralville, are assumed. Time
necessary for a train crew to change ends (reverse direction) at the Iowa City and North
Liberty terminals is assumed to be 5 minutes.
• Level boarding would be provided at the seven potential stations locations identified by
CRANDIC, MPOJC, and other local stakeholders for the Study (see Figure ES-1), including:
o Dubuque Street (Iowa City) – Southern Terminus
o Downtown Iowa City/University of Iowa (Burlington Street)
o VA Hospital
o Coralville
o Oakdale
o Forever Green Road
o Penn Street (North Liberty) – Northern Terminus
Figure ES-1: Potential Commuter Rail Stations
Source: HDR and Google Earth
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | ix
Implementation and Operating and Maintenance Costs
Per the service plan identified above, a conceptual probable opinion of capital costs estimate to
implement passenger rail service between Iowa City and North Liberty, and an associated
conceptual probable opinion of probable annual Operations & Maintenance (O&M) costs were
developed for the Study.
The conceptual opinion of probable capital cost for implementation of a passenger rail service
between Iowa City and North Liberty is based on other recently implemented commuter rail corridors
and rail industry projects in the U.S. and a conceptual level analysis of the CRANDIC Corridor. The
conceptual capital cost is estimated at $49.0 million, in 2019 dollars. The conceptual opinion of
probable annual O&M costs for the first year of passenger rail operations are expected to be $4.8
million, in 2019 dollars, largely driven by a more robust service operating on 30-minute headways
and the enhanced infrastructure required, the need for two passenger train consists operating
throughout the day, and the resulting increase in train mileage and labor requirements when
compared to previous feasibility studies. Both opinions of probable cost summaries are shown in
Table ES-1 below.
Table ES-1: Conceptual Opinion of Probable Costs Summary for Passenger Rail
Implementation on the CRANDIC Corridor (Iowa City-North Liberty) in 2019 Dollars
Cost Component Total (in 2019 Dollars)
Conceptual Capital Cost to Implement Passenger Rail Service on the
CRANDIC Corridor
$49.0 million
Conceptual Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs on the CRANDIC
Corridor
$4.8 million*
* This is an opinion of probable annual cost for operations and maintenance of the proposed service. This annual cost
may fluctuate year-to-year due to changes with respect to inflation and market conditions related to fuel, labor rate,
etc.
Commuter rail service in the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty could be
considered for implementation in the future by stakeholders, based upon need for the service and
the availability of funding for construction and implementation. Value planning alternatives to the
conceptual capital cost estimate were developed during the Study, which may potentially reduce the
upfront capital cost experience for passenger rail implementation. The acquisition of reconditioned
secondhand equipment could potentially lower the capital cost for procurement of equipment, if
available. Conceptual capital costs could potentially be reduced further by phasing some
improvements to track and bridge infrastructure.
Conceptual Ridership and Revenue Forecasts
Initial ridership forecasts show that the conceptual commuter rail service between Iowa City and
North Liberty would transform the regional transit market. The travel time and reliability benefits from
the commuter rail service would both attract riders currently using other modes as well as new transit
riders.
In consultation with the FTA, conceptual ridership forecasts for the proposed commuter rail line were
prepared using the FTA’s STOPS model and the collection and integration of a special survey
needed to understand the University of Iowa student travel market.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
x | July 31, 2020
The potential commuter rail service would operate every 30 minutes between Dubuque Street in
Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. Traveling at an average of 30
miles per hour, the 9.1-mile trip would require 25 minutes. Park-and-ride locations at several stations
may likely divert some commuters from existing shuttle service on the University of Iowa campus.
Travel forecasts also show the conceptual service attracting new riders to the regional system,
potentially reducing the number of automobiles commuting on regional roads.
The STOPS application estimated 5,282 average weekday boardings for the conceptual Iowa City-
North Liberty commuter rail service in 2019. It shows that many riders would make short trips along
the line. For example, 63 percent of passengers boarding at Penn Street would only travel as far as
Coralville. More than 75 percent of passengers boarding at Coralville would travel into Iowa City.
Table ES-2 shows the origin-destination estimates from the STOPS application for the seven
proposed commuter rail stations.
Table ES-2: Average Weekday Station Utilization by Project Trips, 2019
Origin Station/
Destination
Station
Penn
Street
Forever-
green
Road
Oakdale
Commuter
Coralville VA
Hosp.
Downtown
Univ. of
Iowa
Dubuque
Street
Total
Penn Street 366 223 156 37 263 85 1,130
Forevergreen
Road
366 34 19 28 116 9 572
Oakdale
Commuter
223 34 15 82 127 11 491
Coralville 156 19 15 109 361 128 789
VA Hospital 37 28 82 109 256 105 617
Downtown
Univ. of Iowa
263 116 127 361 256 111 1,235
Dubuque
Street
85 9 11 128 105 111 448
Total 1,130 572 491 789 617 1,235 448 5,282
In 2027, the STOPS model forecasted average weekday boardings to grow to 6,140, and by 2042
average weekday ridership may grow to 7,730. See Tables ES-3 through ES-5 for commuter rail
0boarding estimates below.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | xi
Table ES-3: Commuter Rail Boarding Estimates by Station and Mode of Access, 2019
Station Walk KNR PNR XFR All
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 986 37 106 0 1,130
Forevergreen Road* 274 65 233 0 572
Oakdale Commuter* 256 38 108 90 491
Coralville* 357 81 322 29 789
VA Hospital 556 17 0 44 617
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,001 9 0 225 1,235
Dubuque Street 378 19 0 51 448
Total 3,808 266 769 439 5,282
Notes: KNR – Kiss-and-Ride; PNR – Park-and-Ride; XFR - Transfer
* Park-and-ride location
Table ES-4: Commuter Rail Boarding Estimates by Station and Mode of Access, 2027
Station Walk KNR PNR XFR All
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 868 35 104 0 1,009
Forevergreen Road* 605 92 279 0 976
Oakdale Commuter* 197 45 105 70 418
Coralville* 422 96 412 31 962
VA Hospital 1,118 18 0 155 1,291
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,364 12 0 201 1,577
Dubuque Street 445 18 0 44 507
Total 5,019 316 900 501 6,740
Notes: KNR – Kiss-and-Ride; PNR – Park-and-Ride; XFR - Transfer
* Park-and-ride location
Table ES-5: Commuter Rail Boarding Estimates by Station and Mode of Access, 2042
Station Walk KNR PNR XFR All
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 1,033 42 124 0 1,200
Forevergreen Road* 807 126 360 0 1,292
Oakdale Commuter* 196 59 123 75 453
Coralville* 422 114 464 28 1,028
VA Hospital 1,217 21 0 201 1,439
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,506 12 0 220 1,738
Dubuque Street 511 19 0 48 578
Total 5,692 393 1,071 572 7,728
Notes: KNR – Kiss-and-Ride; PNR – Park-and-Ride; XFR - Transfer
* Park-and-ride location
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
xii | July 31, 2020
To complement the conceptual ridership forecasting analysis, a peer review was performed to
understand typical fare rates, structure, and recovery ratios of similar services to help determine the
revenue forecasting. Six representative transit agencies were selected for analysis based on similar
corridors, system lengths, and area population, with a primary objective of understanding the base
fares of peer markets. Similar to other peer markets of similar size and length, it was decided that a
fare rate of $1.50 per trip would be used for the potential commuter rail service fare structure.
As this project is not yet built and is without data, fare recovery was identified using two best practice
methodologies:
1. Fare recovery as a product of ridership forecasts, fare estimates, and a calculated
annualization factor
2. Fare recovery as a portion of projected operations costs.
The two methodologies produced different results, from fare revenues as low as $0.48 million (10
percent fare rate recovery; with respect to a $4.8 million annual O&M cost) to as high as $2.1 million
(44 percent fare rate recovery; with respect to a $4.8 million annual O&M cost). Based on the
projected ridership, the CRANDIC Corridor could potentially be a transformative transit service for
the region and draw ridership from those currently using other modes and also attract many new
customers. A 44 percent fare recovery rate seems unlikely, but the analysis suggests the fare
recovery rate could be on the high end or exceed the average for small corridor/system fare
recovery rates in the U.S.
Table ES-5 details the fare revenue projections by station relative to plan year 2019. The total
forecasted revenues equate to a 44 percent fare recovery rate. Table ES-6 and Table ES-7 show
projected fare revenue estimates for 2027 and 2042, respectively.
Table ES-5: Projected Fare Revenue in 2019, in 2019 Dollars
Station Weekday Ridership in 2019 Fare Revenue, $
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 1,130 $449,000
Forevergreen Road* 572 $227,000
Oakdale Commuter* 491 $195,000
Coralville* 789 $314,000
VA Hospital 617 $246,000
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,235 $493,000
Dubuque Street 448 $179,000
Total 5,282 $2,103,000
Table ES-6: Estimated Projected Fare Revenue in 2027, in 2019 Dollars
Station Weekday Ridership in 2027 Fare Revenue, $
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 1,009 $401,000
Forevergreen Road* 976 $388,000
Oakdale Commuter* 418 $166,000
Coralville* 962 $382,000
VA Hospital 1,291 $513,000
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,577 $627,000
Dubuque Street 507 $202,000
Total 6,740 $2,679,000
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | xiii
Table ES-7: Estimated Projected Fare Revenue in 2042, in 2019 Dollars
Station Weekday Ridership in 2042 Fare Revenue, $
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 1,200 $477,000
Forevergreen Road* 1,292 $514,000
Oakdale Commuter* 453 $180,000
Coralville* 1,028 $409,000
VA Hospital 1,439 $572,000
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,738 $691,000
Dubuque Street 578 $230,000
Total 7,728 $3,073,000
Next Steps
This Study represents the culmination of various phases of conceptual study by local and state
stakeholders to determine the feasibility of passenger rail implementation on the CRANDIC Corridor
within the context of a rapidly growing metropolitan area and the need for more robust multimodal
transportation options that complement existing and proposed land use. It is anticipated that the
outcomes of this Study are to provide inputs that can be used by local and state stakeholders to
determine next steps for the potential development and implementation of a commuter rail service in
Johnson County, Iowa.
Based on this Study’s analysis, inclusive of the conceptual ridership and revenue forecasts and the
opinion of probable capital and operations and maintenance costs, a positive business case is
emerging as it relates to the concept of implementing commuter rail service on the CRANDIC
Corridor between Gilbert Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty.
Project stakeholders will ultimately determine the feasibility of further study and the potential for
commuter rail service implementation on the CRANDIC Corridor. The purpose of these successive
feasibility studies is to inform the stakeholders on the likely pathways of implementing passenger rail
service on an existing and functioning railroad corridor, as well as provide likely paths forward if
capital funding for the implementation of passenger rail service is pursued from the FTA capital
investment grant program and its various requirements for engineering, operations,
revenue/ridership, safety, and so on. The project would also require environmental clearance
through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in order to advance to the construction
phase.
More detailed future analysis and study could be performed to include a comprehensive operating
plan (supported by rail operations modeling), conceptual station designs and infrastructure
engineering, environmental fatal-flaws analysis and screening, and the potential for subsequent
phased implementation of commuter rail service including the potential extension of commuter
services north to the Eastern Iowa Airport in Cedar Rapids, and into Downtown Cedar Rapids.
Below are some potential next steps highlighting an approach for advancing the development of
commuter rail on the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty:
• Develop Consensus Regarding Conclusions from the Recent Iowa City-North Liberty
Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study and Stakeholder Outreach
• Confirm Lead Agency for Potential Development of Commuter Rail on the CRANDIC
Corridor
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
xiv | July 31, 2020
• Establish CRANDIC Corridor Commuter Rail Study and Implementation Committee
• Consider Potential for Pilot Commuter Rail Service on CRANDIC Corridor
• Conduct Additional CRANDIC Corridor Right-of-Way Study
• Identify and Pursue Preferred Funding and Financing Options for Implementation of
Commuter Rail on the CRANDIC Corridor
• Determine Potential Phased Implementation of Commuter Rail on the CRANDIC Corridor
Based on Local Priorities and Funding Availability
• Develop a Plan for Development of Commuter Rail on the CRANDIC Corridor
• Evaluate Potential Impacts of Commuter Rail on Existing Ridership of Area Transit Agencies
See Section 10 for more detail.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 1
1 Background
The potential for preservation and repurposing some or all of the Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway
(CRANDIC) Corridor right-of-way between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for alternative
transportation use, has been the subject of ongoing feasibility studies and discussions by state and
local stakeholders since 2015.
The Iowa City – Cedar Rapids Passenger Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study Project (Phase 1)
completed in 2015 by the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT), CRANDIC, Metropolitan
Planning Organization of Johnson County, Iowa (MPOJC), and other local stakeholders explored the
conceptual feasibility of a passenger rail service operating in the existing 20.5-mile CRANDIC
Corridor between Gilbert Street in Iowa City and the Eastern Iowa Airport in Cedar Rapids. The
Study and a workshop enabled stakeholders of the proposed passenger service to identify likely
potential types and modes of passenger rail service for the Corridor, and to understand the general
capital and operating maintenance costs, service frequencies, service capabilities, and the
regulatory and funding environment for a passenger rail service in the Corridor. Stakeholders
decided to pursue an additional phase of feasibility study for an initial phase of passenger rail
service implementation between Iowa City and North Liberty, Iowa.
The Iowa City – North Liberty Passenger Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study Project (Phase 2)
completed in 2016 by Iowa DOT, CRANDIC, and MPOJC explored the feasibility of an initial phase
of passenger rail service implementation in the existing CRANDIC Corridor between Gilbert Street in
Iowa City and Forever Green Road in North Liberty, a distance of approximately 7.1 miles. The
Study provided stakeholders with a conceptual assessment of existing corridor conditions,
conceptual passenger rail equipment and service plan, probable conceptual capital and operations
and maintenance costs, potential alternatives that could reduce the capital cost to implement the
service, and a summary description of the federal regulatory requirements for the implementation of
passenger rail service.
The Impact of Alternative Modes on Interstate 380 Technical Memorandum completed
independently by Iowa DOT in 2017 examined the long-term potential for commuter rail and/or
automated bus transit as a component of an enhanced multimodal transportation network for
growing communities in the Iowa City-Cedar Rapids Corridor. The Technical Memorandum was
developed concurrently with the broader Iowa DOT Interstate 380 Corridor Planning and
Environmental Linkage Study (I-380 PEL Study) that evaluated safety, capacity, and infrastructure
deficiencies on the principal roadway between the two cities and made recommendations for
improvements to increase regional mobility in the near-term horizon. In terms of exploring alternative
transportation use of the parallel CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way to supplement capacity on I-380,
and to provide additional modal options to the public during a longer-term horizon, Iowa DOT:
• Conducted additional public outreach;
• Developed a conceptual short-term and long-term vision for CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way
alternative uses;
• Conceptually explored the feasibility of four different alternative use scenarios that involve
some or all of the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way between Iowa City and the Eastern Iowa
Airport at Cedar Rapids which included conceptual ridership forecasts, probable conceptual
cost of implementation, and general findings and recommendations; and
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
2 | July 31, 2020
• Presented next steps for potential study, preservation of the corridor right-of-way, and
alternative transportation implementation in the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way.
Based on a favorable public benefits assessment and ridership forecasts for commuter rail
implementation between Iowa City and North Liberty, as determined during development of this
Technical Memorandum in 2017 and reinforced by other previous studies developed during 2015-
2016, project stakeholders, Iowa DOT, CRANDIC, and MPOJC decided to pursue an additional and
more comprehensive phase of feasibility study for an initial phase of commuter rail service
implementation between Iowa City and North Liberty. That additional and more comprehensive
phase of feasibility study will developed by HDR through consultation with project stakeholders.
This report, for the Iowa City – North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
Project (Phase 3), by Iowa DOT, CRANDIC, and MPOJC, explored the feasibility of an initial phase
of commuter rail service implementation in the existing CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way between
Gilbert Street in Iowa City, Iowa, and Penn Street in North Liberty, Iowa, a distance of approximately
9.1 miles. An additional 2 miles of alignment, from Forevergreen Road to Penn Street in North
Liberty, were added to this phase of study, as the previous Iowa DOT I-380 PEL Study indicated
stronger potential ridership through the North Liberty Area, making Penn Street a logical ending
point for this phase of analysis. The study will incorporate or reference the work developed in the
ongoing study of alternative transportation use of the CRANDIC Corridor during 2015-2017 as
outlined above, and will provide a more detailed understanding of the potential benefits, costs,
funding, and oversight for development, operation, and maintenance of a commuter rail service.
At the request of CRANDIC and Iowa DOT, a supplemental special survey was conducted to better
understand the potential University of Iowa student travel market for commuter rail in the Iowa City-
North Liberty Area based on previous Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recommendations for
development of preliminary ridership forecasts for this project. Through on-going coordination
with local transit providers and the City of Iowa City, the study sought to understand existing travel
patterns and the current and potential future availability of student travel and survey data, in order to
understand the potential ridership (and revenue) of the proposed commuter rail service.
The outputs from this study will enable project stakeholders to consider next steps for future
implementation of commuter rail service between Iowa City and North Liberty.
2 Existing CRANDIC Corridor Right-of-Way
Assessment
This section describes existing conditions of the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way between Iowa City
and North Liberty, including the current condition of the CRANDIC railroad infrastructure,
demographics and geographic characteristics of the service area, and other connecting
transportation infrastructure and services. It includes a brief history of previous passenger rail
transportation services in the CRANDIC Corridor.
2.1 CRANDIC Corridor Service Area, Intersections, and
Connectivity
The CRANDIC Corridor connects Iowa City and North Liberty, in Johnson County, Iowa. According
to U.S. Census data, the Iowa City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes Iowa City,
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 3
Coralville, North Liberty, and outlying areas in Johnson and Washington counties, was estimated to
have a population of 171,491 as of July 1, 20171. The Iowa City MSA is one of the State of Iowa’s
fastest growing metropolitan areas. The nearby Cedar Rapids MSA adjoining the Iowa City MSA on
the north, was estimated to have a population of 270,293 as of July 1, 2017.
The north-south CRANDIC Corridor, and the parallel Interstate 380 Corridor, sit astride growing
residential, commercial, and light industrial development – particularly in Iowa City, Coralville, and
North Liberty.
The Iowa City-North Liberty segment of the CRANDIC Corridor intersects or is near to:
• Universities – including the University of Iowa in Iowa City and the University of Iowa
Research Park at Oakdale.
• Employment – including access to several major area employers.
• Shopping Destinations – including downtown Iowa City, the Iowa River Landing in
Coralville, Coral Ridge Mall in Coralville, and other local shopping centers in Coralville and
North Liberty.
• Recreation and Entertainment – including University of Iowa sporting and cultural events,
and access to parks and multi-use trails.
• Hospitals – including the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City Veterans
Administration Hospital, and Mercy Hospital in the Iowa City Area.
Commuter rail service in the CRANDIC Corridor could potentially relieve vehicular congestion and
improve traffic safety on parallel Interstate 380 between Iowa City and North Liberty and on
connecting Interstate 80 between Coralville and Iowa City, and also provide a transportation
alternative to driving for students, workers, business and leisure travelers, retail shoppers, the
elderly, and hospital patients. Commuter rail service in the CRANDIC Corridor could also reduce
travel times and provide a transportation alternative for current and potential future area commuters
who drive to Iowa City and the University of Iowa facilities from North Liberty, Oakdale, Coralville,
and other outlying locations. Many of these commuters are presently transit dependent, as they drive
to Iowa City and park their vehicles in parking lots (some free and others for a fee) and then continue
their commute on local transit buses and trails.
Commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty could also
potentially provide intermodal connectivity with existing and future rail, transit, intercity bus services,
and trails in the area, as generally described below.
Intercity Passenger Rail – Implementation of a twice-daily intercity passenger rail service between
Chicago and Moline, Illinois (Quad Cities of Illinois and Iowa), and Iowa City is presently under study
by Iowa DOT and the Illinois Department of Transportation (Illinois DOT). Commuter rail service on
CRANDIC could terminate at Dubuque Street, one block south of a potential Iowa City station for the
intercity passenger rail service, which would provide a transfer point between the two services.
1 U.S. Census, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 – United States
– Metropolitan Statistical Area; 2017 Population Estimates; U.S. Census website:
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/PEP/2017/GCTPEPANNR.US24PR); accessed
September 20, 2018
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
4 | July 31, 2020
Public Transit – Commuter rail service on the CRANDIC could potentially provide access to and
enhance existing and future connecting public transit systems in the Corridor. Potential connections
could be made with Iowa City Transit buses at Iowa City; University of Iowa CAMBUS network at
Iowa City; and Coralville Transit buses at Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty2. On October 1,
2018, 380 Express began providing express bus service from the Cedar Rapids Ground
Transportation Center to the Iowa City Court Street Transportation Center, with intermediate stops at
education facilities and hospitals within the area 3.
Intercity Buses – Burlington Trailways serves the Court Street Transportation Center on Court
Street in downtown Iowa City, which is located in close proximity to the CRANDIC Corridor.
Megabus serves the Coralville Transit Intermodal Facility on Quarry Road in Coralville, which is
located in close proximity to the CRANDIC Corridor.
Trails – Commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor could potentially provide access to the
area’s recreational trail network for pedestrians and bicycles, including the Iowa River Trail, North
Ridge Trail, North Liberty Trail, and other trails.
2.2 CRANDIC Corridor History
The CRANDIC Corridor – inclusive of a linear right-of-way – was constructed as a high-speed
interurban rail line between its namesake cities by the Iowa Railway & Light Company during 1903
and 19044. The railroad provided electrified passenger (interurban) and freight service over the 27
miles between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids via North Liberty starting on August 13, 1904. Interurban
trains operated on city streets within downtown areas in Iowa City and Cedar Rapids, in much the
same manner as streetcars, while the rest of the route was located within private right-of-way.
Figure 1 below presents a circa 1910 view of early CRANDIC interurban service at the depot in
North Liberty. The map in Figure 2 below shows the route of the CRANDIC Corridor and its proximity
to other rail lines in the region today. The bold red line identifies the CRANDIC Corridor Study Area
between Iowa City and North Liberty.
Figure 1: Early CRANDIC Interurban Service at North Liberty
2 Iowa Commuter Transportation Study; Iowa Department of Transportation, December 2014
3 380 Express, Flyer; https://www.380express.com/flyer.pdf; September 27, 2018
4 Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway (CRANDIC) website; www.crandic.com; July 27, 2016
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 5
Source: HDR (Christian J. Goepel Collection)
Figure 2: CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City, North Liberty, and Cedar Rapids
Source: HDR
The height of CRANDIC interurban operations began when the railroad upgraded its passenger car
fleet in 1939, via the acquisition of second-hand high-speed electric interurban cars, and the
initiation of faster and more efficient service5. Figure 3 below shows a southbound high-speed
interurban car operating from Cedar Rapids to Iowa City crossing the Iowa River Bridge at Iowa City.
5 Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway (CRANDIC) website; www.crandic.com; July 27, 2016
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
6 | July 31, 2020
Figure 3: High-Speed Interurban Car on the CRANDIC at Iowa City
Source: CRANDIC (William D. Middleton Photo)
By 1944, CRANDIC operated 17 interurbans each way daily, which provided almost hourly service
between Iowa City and Cedar Rapids, from approximately 5 a.m. until midnight6. In 1945, CRANDIC
reached the zenith of ridership, carrying a record 573,307 passengers7. Figure 4 below shows
CRANDIC’s station locations and frequent interurban service offerings in the Corridor, as they
existed in October 1946.
6 Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway (CRANDIC) website; www.crandic.com; July 27, 2016
7 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 7
Figure 4: CRANDIC Passenger Service Timetable, October 1946
Source: HDR (Christian J. Goepel Collection)
Owing to the surging popularity of the automobile and the dominance of hard-surfaced roadways in
Iowa during the immediate post World War II era, CRANDIC ridership declined markedly by the early
1950s, and passenger rail service was discontinued altogether on May 30, 19538. The full
dieselization of the remaining freight railroad operations immediately followed.
The CRANDIC’s freight service, network, and franchise grew considerably in the ensuing years,
largely through the acquisition of two other railroad lines between Cedar Rapids and South Amana,
Iowa, and between Iowa City and Hills, Iowa, in the 1980s. CRANDIC and its parent company,
Alliant Energy, currently have offices in and manage the CRANDIC from Cedar Rapids.
In 2014, the short line railroad had approximately 54 route miles and continued to provide direct
access to several large industries and multiple connections with other railroads in the Cedar Rapids
area. CRANDIC carried 99,334 carloads of freight during 2014, and freight volumes have continued
to grow into 2018.
The CRANDIC’s former Iowa City-Cedar Rapids interurban line – today known as CRANDIC Division
2 – once served as a primary artery for considerable volumes of freight rail traffic originating in
8 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
8 | July 31, 2020
Cedar Rapids, that was interchanged to the Iowa Interstate Railroad (IAIS) at Iowa City for
furtherance to the Quad Cities of Iowa and Illinois; Chicago and Peoria, Illinois; and Council Bluffs,
Iowa. The interchange of freight rail traffic between the carriers was shifted from Division 2 and Iowa
City, west to South Amana, Iowa, and over another CRANDIC line in 2001.
Today, the CRANDIC’s former interurban line is still used by CRANDIC to serve one rail shipper in
North Liberty and a considerable industrial base for additional shippers within Cedar Rapids. The
CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way also has a non-transportation purpose, as it hosts infrastructure for a
fiber optic line and various other utilities. Additional details about present rail operations within the
CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty can be found in Section 2.3.10 of this
Study.
2.3 Present General CRANDIC Corridor Characteristics
The segment of the CRANDIC Corridor under consideration for potential implementation of
commuter rail service in this Study includes the segment of CRANDIC Division 2 between Gilbert
Street in central Iowa City (Milepost 25.8) and Penn Street (Milepost 16.7) on the north side of North
Liberty (Milepost 16.9), for a total of 9.1 miles. This section contains an assessment of the present
general characteristics and conditions of the CRANDIC Corridor, as noted during desktop analysis of
available aerial imagery and a field observation conducted in cooperation with CRANDIC and Iowa
DOT in September 2018.
2.3.1 Railroad Timetable Stations
Railroad timetable stations on CRANDIC Division 2 and their railroad milepost location within the
CRANDIC Corridor are listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1: CRANDIC Division 2 Railroad Timetable Stations and Railroad Milepost
Locations in the Iowa City-North Liberty Corridor
Railroad Timetable Station CRANDIC Railroad Milepost
Iowa City, Iowa 25.1
Coralville, Iowa 22.9
Great Lakes, Iowa 22.3
Oakdale, Iowa 19.8
North Liberty, Iowa 16.9
Source: CRANDIC (September 2018)
2.3.2 Railroad Track Configuration
The CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty is comprised of a single railroad main
track with sidings to accommodate meet-pass events between trains, switching of online freight
customers, and to stage and store rail cars. Short sidings exist on the Corridor at Iowa City and
Coralville.
CRANDIC does not maintain yards for classifying, staging, and meeting trains on the Corridor.
The profile of the Iowa City-North Liberty Corridor is characteristic of the standard of construction
employed to develop electrified interurban railroads in Iowa in the early 20th century. Main track
grades up to 2.06 percent and curve sharpness (curvature) up to 14 degrees exist on the CRANDIC
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 9
Corridor. Segments of the Corridor in Iowa City and Coralville closely parallel public roadways and
waterways.
Figure 5 below demonstrates a typical interurban railroad profile on the CRANDIC Corridor, with a
6.5 degree curve and 1 percent grade over the Iowa Avenue overpass in Iowa City (Milepost 24.7).
Figure 5: Curvature and Grade on the CRANDIC Corridor at Iowa Avenue in Iowa City
Source: HDR
Figure 6 below demonstrates the proximity of the CRANDIC Corridor to public roadways at First
Avenue in Coralville (Milepost 23.1).
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
10 | July 31, 2020
Figure 6: Proximity of the CRANDIC Corridor to Public Roadways at First Avenue in
Coralville
Source: HDR
Figure 7 below demonstrates the proximity of the CRANDIC Corridor to waterways. Pictured is the
CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way along the east bank of the Iowa River in Iowa City (Milepost 25.4).
Figure 7: Proximity of CRANDIC Corridor to Waterways – Along the East Bank of the Iowa
River in Iowa City
Source: HDR
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 11
2.3.3 Existing Railroad Track Characteristics
The CRANDIC Corridor main track between Gilbert Street in Iowa City (Milepost 25.8) and Penn
Street in North Liberty (Milepost 16.7) consists primarily of 90 to 112 lb./yd. jointed rail. Rail in
sidings is 100 lb./yd. rail or smaller. Timber ties and crushed rock ballast are used on main tracks
and sidings9. Track curves are constructed with superelevation, which is the difference between the
heights of track. Superelevation is typically employed on railroad curves to allow trains to operate at
higher speeds than would otherwise be attainable if the railroad profile was flat or level. The
minimum track superelevation in the CRANDIC Corridor Study Area is 0.25 inch. Track unbalance
refers to the amount of superelevation that would be necessary for a train to reach a balanced
condition through a curve. CRANDIC operates with no track unbalance, as operating speeds are low
enough in the Corridor at present that current track curvature and elevations meet FRA-approved
superelevation requirements. Main track switches to sidings and industrial trackage are mostly No. 9
or smaller hand-throw turnouts.
A recently rehabilitated section of CRANDIC main track west of Rocky Shore Drive in Iowa City
(Milepost 23.8) is shown in Figure 8 below.
Figure 8: CRANDIC Corridor Main Track Structure near Rocky Shore Drive in Iowa City
Source: HDR
2.3.4 Railroad Bridges and Drainage Structures
There are 24 known railroad bridges and drainage structures that have been identified on the
CRANDIC Corridor Study Area between Gilbert Street in Iowa City (Milepost 25.8) and Penn Street
in North Liberty (Milepost 16.7), including 7 bridges and approximately 17 culverts, as estimated by
9 Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway Track Chart
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
12 | July 31, 2020
CRANDIC 10. Bridge superstructure types vary and include through-plate girders (TPG), deck-plate
girders (DPG), beam spans, and reinforced concrete spans. The majority of bridges have open
decks. Track culverts vary in size and condition, but mostly act to convey local drainage through the
railroad embankment. Track ditches are also present along the majority of the Corridor. A typical
track ditch consists of a swale located near the ballast shoulder that matches the grade changes of
the rails, effectively allowing ballast and subgrade drainage to occur. There are some areas along
the Corridor where ditches are filled in and will require cleaning to improve local site drainage. There
are no rail tunnels on the CRANDIC Corridor; however, two reinforced concrete box culverts do act
as pedestrian tunnels.
The most prominent bridge on the Corridor is shown in Figure 9 below – the four-span deck plate
girder Iowa River Bridge in Iowa City (Milepost 24.5).
Figure 9: Iowa River Bridge in Iowa City
Source: HDR
A typical culvert on the Corridor is shown in Figure 10 below – 36” Diameter Circular Concrete
Culvert (CCP) near Coralville (Milepost 21.4).
10 Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway Bridge and Structures Inventory, 2015-2016
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 13
Figure 10: Typical Circular Concrete Culvert (CCP)
Source: HDR
An inventory of bridges and known drainage structures in the CRANDIC Corridor are identified and
described by type in Table 2 and 3, respectively.
Table 2: Railroad Bridges on the CRANDIC Corridor
Railroad Milepost
Superstructure
Description Deck Type Crossing Feature Crossing Name
17.50 1-14'-6" TPT, 1-13'-
10" TPT, 1-13'-4"
TPT, 1-14'-3" TPT
Open Water Muddy Creek
23.30 1-43' SBM, 4-50'-8"
SBM, 1-31'-9" SBM
Ballast Water Clear Creek
23.80 1-35'-9" TPG Open Roadway Rocky Shore Drive
24.60 1-22' SBM, 1-34'-6"
SBM, 1-24'-6" SBM
Open Roadway Riverside Drive
24.70 4-74'-6" DPG Open Water Iowa River
24.80 1-14' TPG, 1-24'-9"
TPG, 1-20'-3" TPG,
1-24'-6" TPG, 1-17'
TPG
Open Roadway Iowa Avenue
24.90 1-19'-6" RC, 1-20'-
10" RC, 1-19'-6" RC
Ballast Pedestrian University Library
pedestrian
underpass
25.75 3-24'-8" SBM Open Water Ralston Creek
Source: CRANDIC
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
14 | July 31, 2020
Railroad Bridge Type Notes:
• DPG – Deck Plate Girder
• RC – Reinforced Concrete Span
• SBM – Steel Beam Span
• TPG – Through Plate Girder
• TPT – Timber Pile Trestle
Table 3: Railroad Drainage Structures on the CRANDIC Corridor
Railroad Milepost Culvert Description Crossing Type Length (feet)
16.70 1st: 1-3' CCP
2nd: 1-2.5’ CCP
1st: Water
2nd: Water
1st: Water
2nd: Water
16.90 1-2' CMP Water Water
17.75 1-3'x8' CA Water Water
17.80 1-5.5' CCP Water Water
18.00 1st: 1-3.5' SSP
2nd: 1-2.5’ CCP
1st: Water
2nd: Water
1st: Water
2nd: Water
18.30 1-3' CCP Water Water
18.90 1-1.25' CCP Water Water
19.30 1-1.5' VCP Water Water
19.50 1-3' CCP Water Water
20.00 1-0.67' CCP Water Water
20.50 1-1.5’ VCP Water Water
21.35 1-2' SSP Water Water
21.40 1-3' CCP Water Water
21.41 1-1.5' CMP Water Water
21.60 1-2' CCP Water Water
21.75 1-6' CCP Water Water
22.00 1-4' CMP Water Water
22.30 1-2' CMP Water Water
22.33 1-1.5’ SSP Water Water
22.40 2-4' CCP Water Water
24.45 1- CCP (Unknown
diameter)
Water Water
24.69 1-8'x8' RCB Pedestrian Pedestrian
24.71 1-5'x7' RCB Pedestrian Pedestrian
Source: CRANDIC
Railroad Drainage Structures Notes:
• CCP – Circular Concrete Pipe
• CMP – Corrugated Metal Pipe
• SSP – Smooth Steel Pipe
• VCP – Vitrified Clay Pipe
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 15
2.3.5 At -Grade Roadway/Railroad Crossings
At-grade roadway/railroad crossings with the CRANDIC include public roadways which are typically
protected by active warning devices and private crossings which are typically protected by passive
warning devices. A total of 27 at-grade roadway/railroad crossings have been identified in the
CRANDIC Corridor between, and including, Gilbert Street in Iowa City (Milepost 25.8) and Penn
Street in North Liberty (Milepost 16.7), as noted by CRANDIC11.
Public crossings are typically protected by active warning devices, including crossbucks, flashing
light signals, and bells. Some public crossings with active warning devices also include gates.
Pedestrian sidewalk protection is minimal in the Corridor.
Private crossings are typically protected by passive warning devices, including crossbucks only or
crossbucks and stop signs.
Grade crossing surfaces are typically concrete pads or hot-mix asphalt (HMA) on public crossings
and HMA, timber, or gravel on private crossings.
Figure 11 below shows the typical active warning devices and concrete grade crossing surface used
on the CRANDIC Corridor. Pictured is the Forever Green Road grade crossing in North Liberty
(Milepost 18.8).
Figure 11: Typical CRANDIC Corridor Active Grade Crossing at Forever Green Road in
North Liberty
Source: HDR
Figure 12 below shows the typical passive warning devices and timber/HMA grade crossing surface
used on the CRANDIC Corridor. Pictured is the Old Hospital Road grade crossing in Oakdale
(Milepost 19.87).
11 Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway Grade Crossing Inventory; 2016-2018
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
16 | July 31, 2020
Figure 12: Typical CRANDIC Corridor Passive Grade Crossing at Old Hospital Road in
Oakdale
Source: HDR
An inventory of the existing location, type, and signal infrastructure for each at-grade
roadway/railroad crossing in the CRANDIC Corridor is shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Inventory of At-Grade Roadway Crossings in the CRANDIC Corridor between
Iowa City and North Liberty
Roadway
Railroad
Milepost
FRA Grade
Crossing
Number Type of Crossing
Existing Grade Crossing
Infrastructure
Gilbert Street 25.78 607299C Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing
light signals
Lafayette Street
Alley
25.70 Not Assigned Passive (Private) Crossbucks
Dubuque Street 25.66 607300U Passive (Public) Crossbucks
Clinton Street 25.59 840196P Passive
(Public)
Crossbucks
Capitol Street 25.50 840192M Passive (Public) Crossbucks
Court Street 25.15 840191F Passive (Public) Crossbucks and stop sign
Burlington Street 25.10 840190Y Active (Public) Crossbucks, bells, and flashing
light signals
University Library
Access
25.00 909194Y
Passive (Public) Crossbucks and stop sign
Kings Material
South Entrance
23.21
Not Assigned Passive (Private) No signage
Kings Material North
Entrance
23.20 840182G
Passive
(Private)
No signage
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 17
Roadway
Railroad
Milepost
FRA Grade
Crossing
Number Type of Crossing
Existing Grade Crossing
Infrastructure
First Avenue (Iowa
River Power House
Entrance)
23.06
840181A
Active
(Public)
Crossbucks, bells, and flashing
light signals
Quarry Road 22.92 840180T Passive (Private) Crossbucks and yield signs
First Avenue 22.90 840179Y Active
(Public)
Crossbucks, bells, and flashing
light signals
Seventh Avenue 22.30 909184T
Passive (Public) Crossbucks and stop signs
Tenth Street 21.80 840177K
Active
(Public)
Crossbucks, bells, and flashing
light signals
Twelfth
Avenue
20.70 840173H Active
(Public)
Crossbucks, bells, and flashing
light signals
Lynncrest Drive 20.30 909032W Passive
(Public)
Crossbucks and stop signs
North Ridge Trail 20.15 840262A Passive
(Public)
Crossbucks and stop signs
Substation Tiffin-
Tharp
19.95 Not Assigned Passive (Private) No signage
Postal Road 19.80 840261T
Passive (Public) Crossbucks and yield signs
Oakdale Boulevard 19.70 840260L Active
(Public)
Crossbucks, bells, and flashing
light signals
University Parkway 19.27 840259S Active
(Public)
Crossbucks, gates, bells, and
flashing light signals
Forever Green
Road
18.70 840258K Active
(Public)
Crossbucks, gates, bells, and
flashing light signals
Golf View Drive 17.68 840256W Active
(Public)
Crossbucks, gates, bells, and
flashing light signals
West Zeller Street 17.18 840255P Active
(Public)
Crossbucks, bells, and flashing
light signals
Cherry Street 16.95 840254H Active
(Public)
Crossbucks, bells, and flashing
light signals
Penn Street 16.67 840252U Active
(Public)
Crossbucks, bells, and flashing
light signals
Source: CRANDIC (September 2018)
2.3.6 Railroad Wayside Signaling and Wayside Asset Protection
Devices
The CRANDIC Corridor is not equipped with a railroad wayside signal system or wayside asset
protection devices.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
18 | July 31, 2020
2.3.7 Fiber and Utility Infrastructure
A fiber optic line exists within the length of the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way. Several utilities exist
within, parallel to, or cross the Corridor, including electric utility infrastructure and pipelines for water,
wastewater/sewerage, natural gas, and other products. The proximity of the fiber and electric utility
infrastructure to the railroad is shown in the view of the CRANDIC Corridor near North Liberty in
Figure 13 below.
Figure 13: Fiber Optic and Electric Utility Infrastructure in the CRANDIC Corridor in North
Liberty
Source: HDR
2.3.8 Right-of-Way
As determined through coordination with CRANDIC and via a conceptual analysis of available right-
of-way mapping from CRANDIC and current Google Earth imagery, the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-
way between Gilbert Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty generally varies from 50 to
100 feet in width and accommodates an active railroad line and utility infrastructure. Some sections
of the CRANDIC right-of-way within urban areas in Iowa City and Coralville, however, are
constrained and can be as narrow as approximately 40 feet in width. Figure 14 below shows typical
CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way width at 10th Street in Coralville and Figure 15 below shows
constrained CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way width in an urban area at Dubuque Street in Iowa City.
CRANDIC also owns some additional adjacent property in Iowa City and other locations.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 19
Figure 14: Typical CRANDIC Corridor Right-of-Way Width – 10th Street in Coralville
Source: Google Maps
Figure 15: Constrained CRANDIC Corridor Right-of-Way W idth in Urban Area – Dubuque
Street in Iowa City
Source: HDR
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
20 | July 31, 2020
Right-of-way fencing through urban sections of the Corridor is no longer complete. The right-of-way
in urban areas is frequently crossed by pedestrians at locations other than roadway grade crossings.
2.3.9 Current Railroad Method of Operation, Owner, and Operator
The limits and type of railroad Method of Operation in effect for the CRANDIC Corridor, as well as
the ownership and operator of the CRANDIC Corridor are identified in Table 5 below.
Table 5: CRANDIC Corridor Method of Operation, Owner, and Operator
Limits Owning Railroad
Operating
Railroad
Railroad Line
Designation
Railroad Method
of Operation
Iowa City at Gilbert Street
(Milepost 25.8) – North
Liberty at Penn Street
(Milepost 16.7)
Cedar Rapids &
Iowa City Railway
Cedar Rapids &
Iowa City Railway
CRANDIC Division 2 Yard Limits;
Track Permit
Source: CRANDIC (September 2018)
Freight railroad operations in the CRANDIC Corridor are made at slow speeds. Maximum authorized
speed for trains over the Corridor’s main tracks operated by CRANDIC is 10 mph for freight trains,
except where operating conditions and track geometry require lower speeds. CRANDIC yard
managers in Cedar Rapids authorize main track authority over CRANDIC Division 2 between Iowa
City and North Liberty via track permit.
No locomotive number-of-axle restriction is in place on the CRANDIC Corridor’s main track between
Iowa City and North Liberty. Tonnage restrictions include a maximum allowable gross weight of
286,000 lbs. per railcar between Iowa City and North Liberty and 263,000 lbs. per railcar within Iowa
City. No vertical clearance restrictions were identified on the CRANDIC Corridor by CRANDIC.
2.3.10 Current Railroad Operations
The current volume and frequency of typical freight train operations in the CRANDIC as of
September 2018 is described in this section.
The portion of the CRANDIC Corridor operated as its CRANDIC District 2 between Iowa City
(Milepost 25.8) and Penn Street in North Liberty (Milepost 16.7) does not presently have any active
online rail customers. CRANDIC uses as a short siding south of Cherry Street (Milepost 16.95) in
North Liberty (within the Study Area) as a runaround track for serving one customer north of Penn
Street in Iowa City (outside of, and to the north of, the Study Area) approximately once weekly.
CRANDIC also stores “frac” sand and other railcars at North Liberty, Coralville, and other locations
in the Corridor, as required.
CRANDIC did not identify any likely future freight services or activities that would be performed on
the CRANDIC Corridor between Gilbert Street in Iowa City (Milepost 25.8) and Penn Street in North
Liberty (Milepost 16.7).
Passenger trains do not presently operate over any segment of the CRANDIC Corridor.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 21
3 Conceptual Economic and Social Impact
and Benefit Assessment
Below is a qualitative summary of potential conceptual economic and social impacts and benefits
associated with the implementation of a daily commuter rail service operating on 30-minute
headways in the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way between Dubuque Street in Iowa City and Penn
Street in North Liberty, based on recent best planning practices and the general experience of recent
rail transit implementation in the U.S.
3.1 General Benefits of Utilizing the CRANDIC Corridor
Right-of-Way for Alternative Transportation Use
The CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way has been a catalyst for development of the region since
CRANDIC rail service was inaugurated in 1904, and today it is the only remaining direct and
continuous rail corridor between the Iowa City and Cedar Rapids MSAs that has the potential to be
adapted for future alternative use. Development of a new, similar linear corridor for alternative
transportation use between the two cities would likely be cost prohibitive and time consuming.
The population concentration in Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty is generally situated along
the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way. Owing to its location, the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way has
high potential for multimodal connectivity, as well as high potential for transit-oriented and other
related economic development in Johnson County, if it is adapted for alternative transportation use.
In addition, the redevelopment of the CRANDIC Corridor for commuter rail use will improve overall
livability for users.
Other commuter passenger rail services in the large and small U.S. transit markets have produced
the following benefits:
• Enhanced quality of life
• Creation and retention of jobs, opportunities, and wage growth
• Adjacent local economic development, small business development, and transit-oriented
development
• Enhanced mobility and multimodal connectivity
• Reduced traffic congestion and increased safety due to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled
• Reduced emissions and fuel consumption due to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled
• Reduced roadway maintenance costs due to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled
• Increases to land value and land-use accommodation
• Enhanced access to housing
• Opportunities for enhanced or new local partnerships with multiple public and private
stakeholders (including Public Private Partnerships)
• Changes to local planning and policy
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
22 | July 31, 2020
3.2 Qualitative Assessment of Economic and Social
Impacts and Benefits
3.2.1 Population Growth Trends
According to U.S. Census data, the population of the Iowa City MSA increased from 152,586 in 2010
to 171,941 in 201712. This recent growth of 12.7 percent for the Iowa City MSA was significant, and
larger than the 3.2 percent overall growth for the state of Iowa for the same period13.
Iowa’s 10 most populous counties (including Johnson County, where the Iowa City MSA is located)
are expected to account for 56 percent of the state’s total population by 2045 14. This marked shift
from rural to urban communities will require a planning effort to account for increased congestion
and capacity issues within urban corridors. Additionally, more Iowans are traveling farther for work 15.
There is an immediate need to identify and maintain commuter routes to accommodate the
demographic changes to the Iowa City MSA over the long-term horizon – including a proposed
commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor.
3.2.2 Sustainability
Commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty would
promote local and statewide sustainability by:
• Promoting energy efficient alternative transportation
• Reducing traffic congestion, travel times, and costs for commuters
• Reducing single-occupancy vehicle commuting
• Lowering greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles on roadways within and around the
Study Area
• Minimizing constraints to area parking lot capacity (particularly within and near University of
Iowa and other parking facilities in Iowa City)
• Providing an alternative use that is consistent with the best practices and recent experiences
with adaptation of alternative use in other metropolitan areas with similar populations and
population density
The existing CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way has high potential for enhancing local and statewide
sustainability, as there are many social, environmental, and commercial benefits that would be
realized through a smart design of the existing corridor for alternative transportation use. The
12 U.S. Census, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 – United
States – Metropolitan Statistical Area; U.S. Census website:
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/PEP/2017/GCTPEPANNR.US24PR. Accessed October
4, 2018.
13 U.S. Census, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for the United States, Regions, States, and
Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017; U.S. Census website: https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/popest/tables/2010-2017/state/totals/nst-est2017-01.xlsx. Accessed October 4, 2018.
14 Iowa Department of Transportation, Iowa in Motion 2045, Chapter 2,
https://www.iowadot.gov/iowainmotion/files/Iowa-in-Motion-Chapter2.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2018.
15 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 23
existing linear footprint of the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way provides the unique opportunity to
preserve an existing asset for future alternative transportation use (including commuter rail
implementation) by the public and to avoid any greenfield construction that would be necessary to
accommodate alternative transportation development in a new, parallel corridor.
Proactively coordinating land use and transportation planning is key to creating more sustainable,
vibrant, and well-connected communities. Transit-oriented development will also be important to the
success of this corridor, as transit-oriented development will help to improve the livability and quality
of life of Iowa’s public adjacent to the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way (more about transit-oriented
development is presented in Section 3.2.9 below). Additionally, commuter rail is likely to bolster
sustainability by alleviating some vehicular traffic on local roadways and highways, and will introduce
lifecycle cost savings to local roadway jurisdictions through the decrease in vehicular traffic.
3.2.3 Mobility
The CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way passes through downtown, commercial districts, and residential
neighborhoods in Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty. Development of a proposed commuter rail
service on the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty would serve to enhance
public mobility. Communities along, and in close proximity to, the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way
should continue to develop transportation plans that enhance mobility and better connect the
CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way to the community. This includes making improvements that would
ease the movement of users within the region’s multimodal system, inclusive of a potential
commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty.
3.2.4 Accessibility
A proposed commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor would also provide the maximum
opportunity for access from the communities located along the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way (i.e.,
Iowa City, University Heights, Coralville, Oakdale, and North Liberty) to local destinations and
opportunities for students, workers, business and leisure travelers, retail shoppers, elderly, hospital
patients, and others. Commuter rail stations will be developed to be compliant with the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
3.2.5 Reliability
A proposed commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor would deliver reliable, timely, and safe
all-weather transportation capability for the area. The service would operate on a schedule that
would allow for some variances to travel time for unforeseen events.
3.2.6 Efficiency and Capacity
A proposed commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor would enhance the system efficiency of
the region’s multimodal network. As the Iowa City MSA multimodal transportation network expands
and becomes more complex, there is the potential that challenges for public use and access will
surface, which has the potential to limit the overall transportation network’s efficiency. In this case,
the proposed commuter rail service would provide a transit alternative that would help to improve
traffic congestion within the Iowa City MSA since it will add another efficient transportation option. It
will also supplement and enhance existing capacity on the region’s multimodal network, connect
commercial areas located within the communities, and will offer transportation system redundancy
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
24 | July 31, 2020
and resiliency in the event of a disaster or a catastrophic failure of the primary roadway routes,
which is needed for an efficient overall regional transportation network.
3.2.7 Safety
The overriding goal for all aspects of transportation safety is to reduce injuries and fatalities, thereby
reducing personal and economic losses experienced by families, employers, and communities, and
improving quality of life. A proposed commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor would provide
a safe method of transportation to the traveling public and a safe interface with the intersecting
multimodal transportation network.
COVID-19 is the infectious disease caused by the most recently discovered coronavirus (SARS-
CoV-2). This new virus and disease were unknown before the global outbreak began in early 2020.
COVID-19 is now a pandemic affecting many countries globally at the time of this report16. Owing to
this fact, many existing transit agencies regardless of size or mode have developed best practices,
following the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines and with input from public health experts,
to aid the transit agencies in enhancing existing maintenance, cleaning, and disinfecting programs
for their vehicles and facilities. The CDC also has developed guidelines for users of transit services
to help reduce the transmission of the virus and spread of the disease. As the world continues to
deal with the virus and COVID-19, newer and more effective best practices will be discovered and
applied to all transit services.
3.2.8 Multimodal Connectivity
Iowa’s extensive multimodal and multi-jurisdictional transportation network is a critical component of
economic development and job creation throughout the state, and the system is also a major
contributor to Iowans’ quality of life. Multimodal transportation focuses on the different modal options
that could be utilized to move people and goods from one place to another.
A proposed commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor would enhance or create new
connections with the region’s multimodal transportation network, including existing and potential
future transit routes (i.e., transit and intercity buses, intercity passenger rail, vanpools, car sharing,
hired vehicles, park and ride facilities, and multi-use recreational trails).
3.2.9 Economic and Transit-Oriented Development
A proposed commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor would support economic development,
transit-oriented development (near potential commuter rail stations), and job retention and creation
though area employers. A commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor would be used as a tool
to attract new businesses and residential development to the Iowa City MSA.
Transit-oriented development generally17:
• Catalyzes joint commercial and residential development opportunities (i.e., through air rights,
land leases, etc.)
16 World Health Organization, Q&A on Coronaviruses, https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-
coronavirus-2019/question-and-answers-hub/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses. Accessed July 30, 2020.
17 The National Academies Press, TCRP Report 102 – Transit-Oriented Development in the United
States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects (2004), https://www.nap.edu/read/23360/chapter/1.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 25
• Revitalizes neighborhoods
• Increases land values, rents, and real estate performance
• Increases affordable housing opportunities
• Reduces public infrastructure expenditures
• Increases affordable housing opportunities
• Attracts new investments, businesses, and jobs to the area
A proposed commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor presents an opportunity to introduce
transit-oriented development that promotes mixed land use that would enhance economic activity by
diversifying the types of goods and services readily accessible within the area, as well as providing
access to housing for residents requiring goods and services located along the corridor. Read more
about Portland, Oregon’s success with TOD in the following callout box.
Source: International Economic Development Council, 200618
3.2.10 Community Development
The linear CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way is the backbone of the region and it played an integral
role in developing and linking several communities during its earlier use as a passenger rail line in
the 20th century. The return of passenger rail service to the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City
and North Liberty presents an opportunity to:
• Continue to smartly develop growing communities in a functional and thoughtful manner that
is in concert with land use planning best practices and provides maximum benefits to the
public and a vast array of stakeholders.
• Attract residents to growing communities in Johnson County.
• Increase home and property values in the region.
• Introduce access to more affordable housing.
• Enhance community livability, sociability, and cohesion.
• Provide enhanced access to quality jobs, housing, schools, and other attractions.
18 International Economic Development Council, Economic Development and Smart Growth,
https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/economic_development_and_sg.pdf, 2006.
“Transit-oriented development in Portland, Oregon (population
538,544), has helped the city bring new jobs and investment to the
urban core, while enhancing the city’s transportation network and
improving residents’ and employees’ quality of life. The Portland
Streetcar, which opened in 2001, has generated over $1.4 billion in
development along its 4.7-mile loop.”
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
26 | July 31, 2020
4 Conceptual Commuter Rail Ridership
and Revenue Forecasts
Initial conceptual ridership forecasts show that the proposed commuter rail service between Iowa
City and North Liberty would transform the regional transit market. The travel time and reliability
benefits from the commuter rail service would both attract riders from existing local bus service as
well as new transit riders.
In consultation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), ridership forecasts for the proposed
commuter rail line were prepared using the FTA’s Simplified Trips on Software (STOPS) application.
This section describes the preparation of the STOPS application and the collection of an on-board
survey needed to understand the University of Iowa student travel market.
4.1 STOPS Overview
The STOPS application is a stand-alone ridership forecasting software package developed FTA. The
software applies a set of travel models to predict detailed travel patterns on fixed-guideway systems.
STOPS was specifically developed to support New Starts and Small Starts projects.
The application uses a modified four-step (trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice, and trip
assignment) model structure to quantify total transit ridership by trip type, mode of access, and auto
ownership. STOPS, version 2.5 dated March 25, 2019, was used for this ridership forecast.
4.1.1 STOPS Inputs
STOPS requires data from local, regional, and national sources for implementation:
• Census Data
• On-Board Survey
• Bus Boarding Data
• Population and Employment Data
• Local Street Network
• Highway Skims
• Transit Agency Data
• Additional Inputs
Table 6 identifies the inputs that were used in STOPS for the commuter rail ridership forecasts.
Table 6: STOPS Inputs
Inputs Used Source Source Year
GTFS Files Coralville Transit,
CAMBUS, Iowa City Transit
2019 (April)
University of Iowa On-Board Survey ETC Institute 2019 (October)
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 27
Inputs Used Source Source Year
Bus Boarding Data Coralville Transit,
CAMBUS, Iowa City Transit
2019 (October)
Population/Employment Data MPOJC 2010, 2014, 2020,
2025, 2030, 2035,
2040, 2045
A.M. Peak Highway Skims MPOJC 2014, 2040
University of Iowa On-Board Survey
The FTA STOPS application uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s Census Transportation Planning
Products (CTPP) journey-to-work information to develop a person trip table. As described in its
documentation STOPS uses conventional mode choice models to predict trips using each transit
station and route. In its synthetic mode, STOPS self-calibrates to match CTPP transit shares and
observed ridership counts at the system and route level.
However, STOPS synthetic mode generally does not represent travel markets unrelated to the
worker flows provided by the CTPP. This includes travel by students to university campuses. STOPS
can use data on special market trips to supplement the travel information in CTPP. In consultation
with FTA and Study sponsors, it was determined that a special survey targeting the University of
Iowa was needed to supplement the STOPS model with student travel market information to
estimate ridership for the proposed commuter rail line.
This survey, conducted by the ETC Institute in November 2019, collected 1,486 surveys on the 22
bus routes that serve the University of Iowa campus. Table 7 shows linked university student transit
trips that were used in STOPS to reflect the travel activity of this special market.
Table 7: University Student Linked Trips by Household Vehicles by Trip Purpose
Trip Purpose
Household Vehicles
0 1 2+ Total
Home-Based W ork 641 902 126 1,668
Home-Based Other 6,253 3,361 712 10,326
Non-Home Based 1,256 768 185 2,209
Total 8,149 5,030 1,023 14,203
Bus Boarding Data
CAMBUS, Coralville Transit, and Iowa City Transit each provided bus boarding data for October
2019. Coralville Transit and Iowa City Transit provided route-level bus boarding data. CAMBUS
provided stop-level boarding data.
Population and Employment Data
Table 8 shows the 2014 and 2040 population estimates for the MPOJC.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
28 | July 31, 2020
Table 8: MPOJC Population and Employment Growth, 2014 and 2040
Inputs Used 2014 2040 Difference
Compound
Annual
Growth
Rate (%)
Population 121,000 177,300 56,300 1.6%
Households 52,300 76,000 23,700 1.6%
University of Iowa Employment 28,600 37,200 8,600 1.0%
Other Employment 65,000 92,200 27,200 1.5%
Highway Skims
Highway skims were prepared from the MPOJC travel model for 2015 and 2040 for estimated
morning (a.m.) peak highway travel times.
Transit Agency Data
General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) is a standardized format for public transportation
schedules used by transit agencies throughout the world. GTFS is a collection of text files that,
together, provide data necessary for trip planners, schedules, and mobile phone applications.
STOPS utilizes GTFS for estimating ridership in the existing, no-build, and build scenarios. GTFS
files from October 2018 were as inputs into STOPS. These files were used for calibration and as a
foundation for the no-build and build scenarios.
Additional Inputs
There are several inputs which were also applied for the commuter rail forecasts, including:
• Weekday Unlinked Transit Trips: 26,082
4.2 Conceptual Ridership Forecasts
4.2.1 Commuter Rail Service Parameters
The potential commuter rail service would operate every 30 minutes between Dubuque Street in
Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. Traveling at an average of 30
miles per hour, the 9-mile trip would require 25 minutes. This faster and more reliable train service
will compete directly with local bus service in several travel markets. Park-and-ride locations at
several stations will also divert some commuters from existing shuttle service on the University of
Iowa campus. Travel forecasts also show the conceptual service attracting new riders to the regional
system, potentially reducing the number of automobiles commuting on regional roads.
Table 9 compares local bus and commuter rail morning peak hour travel times between several
stations along the conceptual commuter rail line. These travel times include transfer, walk access,
and walk egress estimates from Google Maps. This comparison shows the faster travel times offered
by the commuter rail service.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 29
Table 9: Conceptual Travel Time Comparison: Local Bus and Commuter Rail
From To Bus Rail
Penn Street (North Liberty) Downtown - University of Iowa 43 min 32 min
Coralville (Iowa River Landing) Downtown - University of Iowa 17 min 11 min
VA Hospital Downtown - University of Iowa 10 min 7 min
VA Hospital Dubuque Street 24 min 12 min
Downtown - University of Iowa Dubuque Street 15 min 5 min
Owing to competition from commuter rail service, the STOPS forecasts show these local bus routes
potentially losing 20 percent or more of their current ridership:
• North Liberty (Coralville Transit)
• Hospital Finkbine Arena (CAMBUS)
• Express (Coralville Transit)
Note that area transit agencies may restructure their service to support commuter rail. Local bus
service may be reconfigured to serve commuter rail stations and provide greater mobility options.
This may offset potential loss of ridership. However, for some existing bus routes, a more efficient
commuter rail trip would result in lower ridership.
For 2019, the STOPS application estimated 5,282 average weekday boardings for the conceptual
Iowa City-North Liberty commuter rail service. It shows that many of the riders would make short
trips along the line. For example, 63 percent of passengers boarding at Penn Street would only
travel as far as Coralville. More than 75 percent of passengers boarding at Coralville would travel
into Iowa City. Table 10 shows STOPS’ origin-destination estimates for the seven proposed
commuter rail stations.
Table 10: Average Weekday Station Utilization by Project Trips, 2019
Origin Station/
Destination
Station
Penn
Street
Forever-
green
Road
Oakdale
Commuter
Coralville VA
Hosp.
Downtown
Univ. of
Iowa
Dubuque
Street
Total
Penn Street 366 223 156 37 263 85 1,130
Forevergreen
Road 366 34 19 28 116 9 572
Oakdale
Commuter 223 34 15 82 127 11 491
Coralville 156 19 15 109 361 128 789
VA Hospital 37 28 82 109 256 105 617
Downtown Univ.
of Iowa 263 116 127 361 256 111 1,235
Dubuque Street 85 9 11 128 105 111 448
Total 1,130 572 491 789 617 1,235 448 5,282
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
30 | July 31, 2020
Table 10 shows the weekday boarding forecasts by station by mode of access for 2019. Park-and-
ride trips accounts for 15 percent of total boardings. STOPS shows that commuter rail may attract
3,500 new weekday riders to the regional system and reduce weekday person miles of automobile
travel by 15,500.
Table 10: Commuter Rail Boarding Estimates by Station and Mode of Access, 2019
Station Walk KNR PNR XFR All
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 986 37 106 0 1,130
Forevergreen Road* 274 65 233 0 572
Oakdale Commuter* 256 38 108 90 491
Coralville* 357 81 322 29 789
VA Hospital 556 17 0 44 617
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,001 9 0 225 1,235
Dubuque Street 378 19 0 51 448
Total 3,808 266 769 439 5,282
Notes: KNR – Kiss-and-Ride; PNR – Park-and-Ride; XFR - Transfer
* Park-and-ride location
The STOPS application estimated that 17 percent of conceptual commuter rail riders will come from
households with zero cars. STOPS model forecasts show by 2027 average weekday boardings
growing to 6,740. By 2042, STOPS forecasts an average weekday ridership of 7,728. See Table 11
and Table 12 below for commuter rail boarding estimates by station and mode of access for 2027
and 2042, respectively.
Table 11: Commuter Rail Boarding Estimates by Station and Mode of Access, 2027
Station Walk KNR PNR XFR All
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 868 35 104 0 1,009
Forevergreen Road* 605 92 279 0 976
Oakdale Commuter* 197 45 105 70 418
Coralville* 422 96 412 31 962
VA Hospital 1,118 18 0 155 1,291
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,364 12 0 201 1,577
Dubuque Street 445 18 0 44 507
Total 5,019 316 900 501 6,740
Notes: KNR – Kiss-and-Ride; PNR – Park-and-Ride; XFR - Transfer
* Park-and-ride location
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 31
Table 12: Commuter Rail Boarding Estimates by Station and Mode of Access, 2042
Station Walk KNR PNR XFR All
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 1,033 42 124 0 1,200
Forevergreen Road* 807 126 360 0 1,292
Oakdale Commuter* 196 59 123 75 453
Coralville* 422 114 464 28 1,028
VA Hospital 1,217 21 0 201 1,439
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,506 12 0 220 1,738
Dubuque Street 511 19 0 48 578
Total 5,692 393 1,071 572 7,728
Notes: KNR – Kiss-and-Ride; PNR – Park-and-Ride; XFR - Transfer
* Park-and-ride location
4.2.2 Informal FTA Review and STOPS Sensitivity Check
STOPS application development is a prescriptive process established by FTA. As such, the results
from this fixed-guideway forecasting tool provide a basis for estimating potential ridership. In order to
provide more confidence in the STOPS forecasts, project sponsors requested an informal review
from FTA of the STOPS model with respect to the special market survey application in January
2020. FTA agreed to review the data and responded with observations and suggestions in February
2020.
Based on FTA’s suggestions and observations, the following changes were made to the STOPS
models:
• Updated the Special Market Model
o Following FTA’s recommendation, the STOPS census geography was subdivided to be
consistent with the MPOJC traffic analysis zone geography. This increased the number
of zones in the census geography which provided better resolution, especially for walk-
access transit trips.
• Reviewed the Park and Ride (PNR) Markets and Updated the Auto Time Factor
o Many commuters to the University of Iowa, the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics,
and the Iowa City Veteran of Affairs (VA) Health Care System drive and park at satellite
lots and transfer to CAMBUS. FTA noted that STOPS does not understand this fringe
parking behavior and suggested that we update the special market university student trip
table to show the home end of these commute trips at the satellite parking lots. In
examining the onboard survey, it was found that there were 933 weekday university
student transit riders driving and parking to access the transit system. About half of these
drive-to-transit trips are to dispersed locations. However, 473 university transit riders
boarded transit at the Finkbine and Arena remote parking lots. These 473 trips were
coded so their home location was the same as the remote parking lot and reran the
STOPS application. This change reduced the commuter rail boarding forecast by 24
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
32 | July 31, 2020
trips. This means that university students using the remote parking lots is a small part of
the potential commuter rail travel market.
o There is still the question of fringe parking by VA Hospital and University of Iowa Health
Care employees. The onboard survey shows this is a larger travel market with 2,761
weekday transit riders driving and parking to access the transit system. Since these are
not university students, they were not included in the special trip table. A system-wide
transit origin-destination survey may help shed light on how this fringe parking travel
market functions.
o The Auto Time Factor is an adjustment used to normalize the peak period highway travel
times from the MPOJC model with the transit schedules. The FTA procedure using
Google Maps drive times was followed, and estimated an Auto Time Factor of 1.5 that
was documented using the FTA methodology.
o Higher auto time factors will make STOPS-simulated car trips slower, making the rail
alternative more attractive. A sensitivity test was ran with a reduced auto time factor
(even though the 1.5 auto time factor was consistent with FTA methods) to see how
sensitive the model was to this parameter. Using an Auto Time Factor of 1.2, which
indicates faster car trip times, total boardings on the proposed rail line decreased to
4,328. While the forecasts are lower, this test provides more confidence that the total
conceptual ridership will still be significantly higher than those peer lines.
• Included a Street Network for Walk Access
o FTA commented that the STOPS application needs more information to understand how
the Iowa River affects transit access, as there are limited pathways across the river. A
local street network was incorporated into STOPS to simulate transit walk access.
• Transit Boarding Data
o The Coralville and Iowa City transit systems do not currently have stop-level boarding
and alighting data. This information, if available, would improve the STOPS application
forecasts.
• Reasonableness Check of the Socioeconomic Data along the CRANDIC Corridor to assess
some high walk access trips in the northern part of the Corridor.
o U.S. Census 2010 reported more than 7,000 people living within one mile of the
proposed Penn Street Station in North Liberty. The Census Bureau’s Longitudinal
Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data available at onthemap.ces.census.gov
shows that most of the 9,000 workers living in North Liberty and commute to Coralville
and Iowa City. This information helps explain both the high number of Penn Street
boardings and the shorter trips between North Liberty and Coralville.
o While the MPOJC’s population and employment data is a direct input into the STOPS
model, it is not used to estimate existing transit trips. STOPS uses the system and route-
level boarding data together, along with the special market trip table, to build a table of
existing transit trips. STOPS does use the MPOJC population and employment
projections to estimate future transit trips. STOPS’ regional transit trip growth was
reviewed and found it consistent with the population and employment growth in the
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 33
MPOJC socioeconomic data 19. The STOPS inputs match the MPOJC model population
and employment values. One thing that stands out is the fact that the CRANDIC Corridor
is a high-growth corridor, as evident by the on-going development and construction along
the Corridor.
4.3 Conceptual Fare Revenue Forecasts
4.3.1 Peer Review
Prior to calculating conceptual fare revenue forecasts, the consultant team conducted a peer review
to understand typical fare rates, structure, and recovery ratios. Nine agencies were selected based
on similar corridor/system lengths and area population. The agencies and their general information
are provided in Table 13. Drawing direct comparisons between the commuter rail services described
here and the proposed Iowa City-North Liberty service can be potentially challenging. Many of these
services only operate during the morning and evening commuter peaks. In contrast, the proposed
Iowa City-North Liberty service would operate in both directions throughout the day, seven days a
week.
Table 13: Peer Agencies General Information
City Agency/Operator Line Length No. of
Stations Population
Beaverton, OR TriMet WES Commuter
Line 14.7 mi 5 97,500
Denton, TX DCTA A-Train 21 mi 6 138,500
Nashville, TN NRTX Music City Star 32 mi 7 1,931,000
San Rafael, CA Sonoma-Marin Area
Rail Transit SMART 45 mi 12 177,600
New Haven, CT ConnDOT Shore Line East 90 mi 15 862,500
Albuquerque, NM NMRX New Mexico Rail
Runner 97 mi 15 905,000
Norfolk, VA Hampton Roads
Transit The Tide Light Rail 7.4 mi 11 243,000
Oceanside, CA North County Transit
District SPRINTER 22 mi 15 176,193
Seattle, WA Sound Transit LINK Light Rail 22 mi 22 724,745
A primary objective of the review was to understand base fares. Of the agencies reviewed, the A-
Train line in Denton had the lowest fare at $1.50 for a single trip, and SMART in San Rafael had the
highest fare rate at $11.50 for a one-way ticket. SMART, Shore Line East, and New Mexico Rail
Runner all use a zone or distance based fare, but are also the largest systems reviewed. Notably,
the WES Commuter Line and A-Train, which are most similar to the CRANDIC Corridor in terms of
length, have the lowest and third lowest base fares ($1.50 and $2.50, respectively). Table 15 shows
the peer agency fare structure.
19 Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County, 2018.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
34 | July 31, 2020
Table 14: Peer Agency Fare Structure
City Line
Fare Structure
Single Fare All Day Fare Reduced Fare
Beaverton, OR WES Commuter Line $2.50 $5.00 $1.25
Denton, TX A-Train $1.50 $3.00 $0.75
Nashville, TN Music City Star1,2 $5.25 N/A $2.00
San Rafael, CA SMART² $3.50-$11.50 $23.00 $1.75-$5.75
New Haven, CT Shore Line East² $3.25-$10.25 N/A $1.50-$5.00
Albuquerque, NM New Mexico Rail Runner² $2.00-$10.00 $3.00-$11.00 $1.00-$5.00
Norfolk, VA The Tide Light Rail $2.00 $4.50 $1.00
Oceanside, CA SPRINTER $2.50 $6.00 $1.25
Seattle, WA LINK1 Light Rail $2.25-3.00 $4.50-6.00 $1.50
1 Advanced fare available
2 Distance or zone based fare
Fare recovery is the percentage of commuter rail operating and maintenance (O&M) costs that are
paid for by passenger fares; see Section 6.3.2 for the conceptual O&M costs breakdown. For
established agencies, using existing operations and fare data can produce trends and inform
forecast efforts. As this project is not yet built and is without data, fare recovery was calculated using
two best practice methodologies:
1. Fare recovery as a product of ridership forecasts, fare estimates, and an
annualization factor
2. Fare recovery as a portion of projected operations costs.
The following sections describe the methodologies and resulting fare recovery forecasts in greater
detail.
4.3.2 Fare Recovery as a Product of Ridership Forecasts, Fare
Estimates, and an Annualization Factor
As described above, the CRANDIC Corridor would have an estimated 5,282 average daily riders in
2019 STOPS model. In addition to ridership, a fare cost and annualization factor were also required
in order to calculate fare revenue.
Given the similarities between the CRANDIC Corridor, the WES Commuter Line, and the A-Train, as
well as considering the Iowa City – North Liberty existing transit service fares, a base fare of $1.50
was selected for this analysis.
The annualization factor was calculated by examining the region’s existing services’ weekday,
Saturday, and Sunday ridership. The three existing services include Coralville Transit, Iowa City
Transit, and CAMBUS (University of Iowa). Table 15 summarizes 2018 ridership for the three
agencies.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 35
Table 15: Existing Transit Services Ridership (2018)
Existing Transit Services Weekday Saturday Sunday
Coralville 1,734 460 0
Iowa City Transit 5,601 1,300 0
CAMBUS 14,029 2,232 1,765
Total 21,364 3,992 1,765
Source: NTD, 2018
The total number of weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays in 2018 were then determined and used in
combination with the region’s ridership to calculate an annualization factor of 265. Conceptual fare
revenues were then calculated using the formula:
Table 16 details the fare revenue projections by station relative to plan year 2019. The total
forecasted revenues equate to a 44 percent fare recovery rate. Table 17 and
Table 18 show projected fare revenue estimates for 2027 and 2042, respectively.
Table 16: Projected Fare Revenue in 2019, in 2019 Dollars
Station Weekday Ridership in 2019 Fare Revenue, $
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 1,130 $449,000
Forevergreen Road* 572 $227,000
Oakdale Commuter* 491 $195,000
Coralville* 789 $314,000
VA Hospital 617 $246,000
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,235 $493,000
Dubuque Street 448 $179,000
Total 5,282 $2,103,000
Table 17: Estimated Projected Fare Revenue in 2027, in 2019 Dollars
Station Weekday Ridership in 2027 Fare Revenue, $
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 1,009 $401,000
Forevergreen Road* 976 $388,000
Oakdale Commuter* 418 $166,000
Coralville* 962 $382,000
VA Hospital 1,291 $513,000
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,577 $627,000
Dubuque Street 507 $202,000
Total 6,740 $2,679,000
Fare Revenue = Ridership x Fare x Annualization Factor
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
36 | July 31, 2020
Table 18: Estimated Projected Fare Revenue in 2042, in 2019 Dollars
Station Weekday Ridership in 2042 Fare Revenue, $
Penn Street (North Liberty)* 1,200 $477,000
Forevergreen Road* 1,292 $514,000
Oakdale Commuter* 453 $180,000
Coralville* 1,028 $409,000
VA Hospital 1,439 $572,000
Downtown-University of Iowa 1,738 $691,000
Dubuque Street 578 $230,000
Total 7,728 $3,073,000
4.3.3 Fare Revenue as a Percent of Operations Costs
Fare recovery was calculated using the traditional methodology of fare revenue as a percent of
operations and maintenance costs, as is common practice, and because the above calculated
revenue recovery uses ridership forecasts that, while possible, are higher than anticipated. For
example, the WES Commuter Line and A-Train had 1,600 and 1,500 average weekday riders in
2018, while the CRANDIC Corridor STOPS model forecasts nearly 5,300 average weekday riders in
2019. Table 19 summarizes the peer agencies’ average weekday ridership from 2015 to 2018. The
Oceanside Sprinter, Sound Transit’s LINK light rail, and Hampton Roads Transit Tide light rail
operate all-day service. These services have both higher boardings and higher fare recovery rates
than traditional commuter rail lines, like WES.
Table 19: Peer Agency Average Weekday Ridership (2015-2018)
City Line
Average Weekday Ridership
2015 2016 2017 2018
Beaverton, OR WES Commuter Line 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,600
Denton, TX A-Train 1,900 2,000 1,600 1,500
Nashville, TN Music City Star - 1,200 1,100 1,100
San Rafael, CA SMART* - - - 2,500
New Haven, CT Shore Line East 2,000 1,900 - 1,800
Albuquerque, NM New Mexico Rail Runner 2,900 2,700 2,600 2,500
Norfolk, VA The Tide Light Rail 3,700 4,300 4,100 4,600
Oceanside, CA SPRINTER 8,900 8,500 8,600 7,500
Seattle, WA LINK Light Rail 1,800 1,900 4,800 5,500
Source: APTA Ridership Reports 2015-2018
*SMART opened in 2017
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 37
Additionally, the 2018 Maricopa County Association of Governments (MAG) Commuter Rail Study
found that while the national average fare recovery for commuter rail systems was approximately 52
percent in 2016; the result includes a range in fare recovery from 15 percent fare recovery, up to 70
percent fare recovery. The study found that large systems often see higher fare recovery rates,
usually above 50 percent, while smaller agencies typically have lower fare recovery rates 20. As
outlined in Table 20, the agencies reviewed have significantly lower fare recovery rates than
described in the MAG Commuter Rail Study. Overall, the median peer agency average fare recovery
in 2018 was 13 percent, a significant 31 percent lower than the conceptual fare recovery rate
calculated for CRANDIC using the ridership forecast.
Table 20: Peer Agency Fare Recovery Rates
Fare Recovery
City Line 2015 2016 2017 2018
Beaverton, OR WES Commuter Line 8% 7% 7% 6%
Denton, TX A-Train 6% 6% 5% 4%
Nashville, TN Music City Star 17% 17% 22% 22%
San Rafael, CA SMART* - - - 14%
New Haven, CT Shore Line East 8% 8% 8% 7%
Albuquerque, NM New Mexico Rail Runner 9% 8% 8% 6%
Norfolk, Virginia The Tide Light Rail 14% 11% 12% 15%
Oceanside SPRINTER 19% 18% 17% 14%
Seattle LINK Light Rail 16% 14% 14% 13%
Source: NTD Reports 2015-2018
*SMART opened in 2017
With an understanding of fare recovery rates among the peer agencies, a range of recovery rates to
the projected operating cost were applied. Table 21 summaries the range of possible fare revenues
based on the projected $4.8 million annual operating cost. Note that the annual operating costs will
likely change year to year due to inflation and other factors, such as market value for fuel, labor, and
other input costs.
Table 21: Possible Fare Revenues Based on Recovery Rate, in 2019 Dollars
Operating Budget Fare Recovery Rate Projected Fare Revenue, $
$4,800,000 10% $480,000
$4,800,000 15% $720,000
$4,800,000 20% $960,000
$4,800,000 25% $1,200,000
$4,800,000 30% $1,440,000
4.3.4 Comparison of Results
The two methodologies produced different results, from fare revenues as low as $480,000 to as high
as $2,103,000. Table 22 summarizes the range in fare revenues.
20 Source: MAG Commuter Rail Study, 2018
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
38 | July 31, 2020
Table 22: Range of Potential Fare Revenues, in 2019 Dollars
Methodology Fare Recovery Rate Projected Fare Revenue
As percent of operating cost 10% $480,000
As percent of operating cost 15% $720,000
As percent of operating cost 20% $960,000
As percent of operating cost 25% $1,200,000
As percent of operating cost 30% $1,440,000
Annualized based on ridership 44% $2,103,000
Based on the projected ridership, the CRANDIC Corridor could potentially be a transformative transit
service for the region and not only draw ridership from the existing transit customers, but also attract
many new customers. A 44 percent fare recovery rate seems unlikely, but the analysis suggests the
fare recovery rate could exceed the average for small corridor/system fare recovery rates.
4.4 Advertising
As a way to enhance asset utilization, supplement revenue, and to reduce dependence on subsidies
for operations and maintenance, transit agencies nationwide are increasingly examining
opportunities to increase revenues through advertising. Many transit agencies are working with
agents to sell advertising space on and in trains, stations, shelters, timetables, maps, other agency
property, and so on, to generate this revenue. Transit agencies in pursuit of this opportunity often
develop an advertising program that considers legal, operational, safety, and aesthetic issues
associated with these activities, as well as consistency with the agency’s values 21. The table below
illustrates what some examples of advertising opportunities pursued by various transit agency peers.
Table 23: Peers and Advertising
City Line Advertising Notes
Beaverton, OR WES Commuter Line $3.7 million (FY18 TriMet system) Budget
Denton, TX A-Train None N/A
Nashville, TN Music City Star $35,000 (FY19) Budget
San Rafael, CA SMART* Has advertising Advertising policy
New Haven, CT Shore Line East Unknown N/A
Albuquerque, NM New Mexico Rail Runner Has advertising;
$75,000 in FY15
Advertising link
Norfolk, Virginia The Tide Has advertising Advertising sheets;
Advertising policy
Oceanside SPRINTER Has advertising Advertising policy
Seattle LINK Has advertising Advertising policy
21 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tsyn32.pdf
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 39
Based on this review, any operator of the proposed Iowa City-North Liberty commuter rail service
should consider any potential to generate revenue from advertising.
5 Service Plans
In the previous Iowa City-Cedar Rapids Passenger Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study, the service
characteristics of streetcar, light rail transit, and commuter rail transit modes were identified and
described and were considered for their applicability for a passenger rail service on the CRANDIC
Corridor. During development of that study, and subsequent project coordination, stakeholders
identified the Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) equipment of the commuter rail transit mode as a potential
option for a Phase 1 passenger rail service between Iowa City and North Liberty. This DMU
equipment and an associated potential commuter rail service plan in the Iowa City-North Liberty
Corridor are the subjects of this section.
5.1 Conceptual Commuter Rail Equipment Plan
Equipment for the potential commuter rail service implementation would include six new self-
propelled DMU coach railcars, which will be used to assemble three trainsets of two railcars to
accommodate the Iowa City-North Liberty passenger rail service. Two trainsets would be required to
protect potential scheduled operations of the commuter rail service between Iowa City and North
Liberty as outlined in the conceptual Service Plan presented later in this Study and the third, or
spare, two-car trainset would be used to accommodate regular equipment maintenance schedules at
the CRANDIC Shops outside of the Corridor at Cedar Rapids.
The new DMU commuter train consist would operate in a push-pull configuration, which allows the
train to be operated from control cabs at either end, thus eliminating the need to turn trains at
terminal points in Iowa City and North Liberty. Typical new DMU railcars are 85 feet in length and
have a seating capacity of 75 to 85 on average, including accommodations for disabled persons in
wheelchairs, and often include bicycle storage and a lavatory. Each two-car trainset would therefore
be approximately 170 feet in length and have a seating capacity of 150 to 170 on average.
The six DMU cars would be designated as FRA Compliant, meaning that they would meet the
current Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) safety regulations that are generally built around
specifications providing the structural integrity to withstand a crash between passenger trains and
freight trains on shared-use corridors. While the Study assumes that the CRANDIC Corridor
between Iowa City and North Liberty would be designated passenger rail only, the acquisition of
FRA Compliant passenger cars could potentially be required later by FRA, if CRANDIC decides to
restore its common carrier obligation and host freight rail operations on this segment in the future.
A typical two-car trainset of new FRA Compliant DMU equipment recently constructed by Nippon
Sharyo and the Sumitomo Corporation and to be operated in revenue service by Sonoma-Marin
Area Rail Transit (SMART) in the San Francisco Bay Area of California beginning in 2016 is shown
in Figure 16 below22. Passenger rail equipment of this type and configuration is what has been
explored in this Study for potential implementation on the CRANDIC Corridor.
22 Nippon Sharyo, SMART, https://www.n-sharyo.co.jp/business/tetsudo_e/pages/zsmart.html.
Access February 20, 2020.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
40 | July 31, 2020
Figure 16: Typical Two-Car Trainset of New FRA Compliant DMU Equipment
Source: Nippon Sharyo
5.2 Conceptual Commuter Rail Service Plan
This section presents a conceptual Service Plan for operation of a daily commuter rail service using
DMU equipment on the 9.1-mile CRANDIC Corridor between Dubuque Street in Iowa City and Penn
Street in North Liberty.
The Study’s conceptual Service Plan for the Iowa City-North Liberty commuter rail service assumes
the following:
• Potential commuter rail service schedule would operate 26 total revenue trains each way
daily (for a total of 52 revenue trains) in the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City (Dubuque
Street) and North Liberty (Penn Street) and with train departures on 30-minute headways
from these terminal points from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m.
• The CRANDIC Corridor between Gilbert Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty
would be passenger rail only, with the potential for redevelopment as a shared-use corridor
with freight trains, if the need for freight rail service arises in the future.
• The CRANDIC Corridor between Gilbert Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty
would have Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) as its Method of Operation, allowing a
CRANDIC dispatcher or manager in Cedar Rapids to remotely control train traffic in blocks,
which is relayed to the commuter train crew via wayside signal aspect. Implementation of a
Positive Train Control (PTC) overlay of the CTC system will not be required, as would be the
case for a shared-use corridor with passenger and freight trains.
• Commuter trains would be operated as a push-pull turnaround service, with one commuter
train operating from each of the terminal points in the Corridor at a time. It is assumed that
meet-pass events for commuter trains would routinely occur at roughly the mid-point of the
Corridor at a new siding located in between First Avenue and Seventh Avenue in Coralville
that would be controlled by the dispatcher. Meet-pass events and trainset staging (for
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 41
periods of non-operation) could also occur on dispatcher-controlled stub-ended station tracks
at the Iowa City (Dubuque Street) and North Liberty (Penn Street) terminal points.
• Maximum commuter train speed of 50 mph assumed and average commuter train speed of
30 mph assumed.
• Operating headways (departures) of 30 minutes are assumed from terminal points.
Schedules of approximately 25 minutes running time between Dubuque Street in Iowa City
and Penn Street in North Liberty, including the time necessary for stops at five intermediate
stations and one meet-pass event between commuter trains at Coralville, are assumed. Time
necessary for a train crew to change ends (reverse direction) at the Iowa City and North
Liberty terminals is assumed to be 5 minutes.
• Level boarding would be provided at the seven potential stations locations identified by
CRANDIC, MPOJC, and other local stakeholders for the Study (see Figure 17), including:
o Dubuque Street (Iowa City) – Southern Terminus
o Downtown Iowa City/University of Iowa (Burlington Street)
o VA Hospital
o Coralville
o Oakdale
o Forever Green Road
o Penn Street (North Liberty) – Northern Terminus
(See Figure 17 on next page).
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
42 | July 31, 2020
Figure 17: Potential Commuter Rail Stations
Source: HDR and Google Earth
During hours of non-operation, the two in-service commuter trainsets would layover, be refueled
using Direct Truck to Locomotive (DTL) fueling, and receive routine light maintenance and interior
cleaning at the North Liberty Station (Penn Street). It is assumed that the in-service commuter
trainsets would be deadheaded empty between North Liberty Station, the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar
Rapids (which is located outside of, and to the north of, the Iowa City-North Liberty Corridor), and
the North Liberty Station, as a means of facilitating equipment rotation and maintenance cycles at
Cedar Rapids, once weekly. In this process, one of the in-service trainsets would be swapped out
with the spare trainset staged at the CRANDIC Shops to create the next week’s in-service trainsets.
The deadhead between North Liberty Station and the CRANDIC Shops at Cedar Rapids is
approximately 16 miles on CRANDIC Division 2 each way, is estimated to take 2 hours each way,
and would not carry any passengers.
5.2.1 Conceptual Commuter Rail Service Schedule
A conceptual commuter train schedule for the CRANDIC Corridor based upon the Service Plan
assumptions listed in the section above has been created for this Study, which also takes into
account potential transportation needs for the public during peak hours and the benefits of adopting
a “memory schedule” with departure times from terminal points at easy to remember intervals.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 43
Additional stakeholder coordination would be required in the future to determine a schedule best
matched to the needs and demands of the traveling public.
Conceptual southbound commuter train schedules between Penn Street in North Liberty and
Dubuque Street in Iowa City and conceptual northbound commuter train schedules between
Dubuque Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty are shown in Table 24 and Table 25
below, respectively. Note that the schedule includes deadhead moves to position trainsets at the
appropriate terminals to accommodate the commuter train schedule and to stage equipment during
periods of non-operation. The schedule also includes a 35-minute layover at the Iowa City and North
Liberty terminals to accommodate a midday train crew change and light cleaning of equipment.
Table 24: Conceptual Daily Southbound Commuter Train Schedule – North Liberty to
Iowa City
Commuter Train Number Depart Penn Street (North Liberty) Arrive Dubuque Street (Iowa City)
Trainset Deadhead
(No Passengers)
5:25 a.m. 5:50 a.m.
1 6:00 a.m. 6:25 a.m.
3 6:30 a.m. 6:55 a.m.
5 7:00 a.m. 7:25 a.m.
7 7:30 a.m. 7:55 a.m.
9 8:00 a.m. 8:25 a.m.
11 8:30 a.m. 8:55 a.m.
13 9:00 a.m. 9:25 a.m.
15 9:30 a.m. 9:55 a.m.
17 10:00 a.m. 10:25 a.m.
19 10:30 a.m. 10:55 a.m.
21 11:00 a.m. 11:25 a.m.
23 11:30 a.m. 11:55 a.m.
25 12 Noon 12:25 p.m.
Mid-Day Layover/Train
Crew Change
12:25 p.m. 1:00 p.m.
27 1:00 p.m. 1:25 p.m.
29 1:30 p.m. 1:55 p.m.
31 2:00 p.m. 2:25 p.m.
33 2:30 p.m. 2:55 p.m.
35 3:00 p.m. 3:25 p.m.
37 3:30 p.m. 3:55 p.m.
39 4:00 p.m. 4:25 p.m.
41 4:30 p.m. 4:55 p.m.
43 5:00 p.m. 5:25 p.m.
45 5:30 p.m. 5:55 p.m.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
44 | July 31, 2020
Commuter Train Number Depart Penn Street (North Liberty) Arrive Dubuque Street (Iowa City)
47 6:00 p.m. 6:25 p.m.
49 6:30 p.m. 6:55 p.m.
51 7:00 p.m. 7:25 p.m.
Table 25: Conceptual Daily Northbound Commuter Train Schedule – Iowa City to North
Liberty
Commuter Train Number Depart Dubuque Street (Iowa City) Arrive Penn Street (North Liberty)
2 6:00 a.m. 6:25 a.m.
4 6:30 a.m. 6:55 a.m.
6 7:00 a.m. 7:25 a.m.
8 7:30 a.m. 7:55 a.m.
10 8:00 a.m. 8:25 a.m.
12 8:30 a.m. 8:55 a.m.
14 9:00 a.m. 9:25 a.m.
16 9:30 a.m. 9:55 a.m.
18 10:00 a.m. 10:25 a.m.
20 10:30 a.m. 10:55 a.m.
22 11:00 a.m. 11:25 a.m.
24 11:30 a.m. 11:55 a.m.
26 12 Noon 12:25 p.m.
Mid-Day Layover/Train
Crew Change
12:25 p.m. 1:00 p.m.
28 1:00 p.m. 1:25 p.m.
30 1:30 p.m. 1:55 p.m.
32 2:00 p.m. 2:25 p.m.
34 2:30 p.m. 2:55 p.m.
36 3:00 p.m. 3:25 p.m.
38 3:30 p.m. 3:55 p.m.
40 4:00 p.m. 4:25 p.m.
42 4:30 p.m. 4:55 p.m.
44 5:00 p.m. 5:25 p.m.
46 5:30 p.m. 5:55 p.m.
48 6:00 p.m. 6:25 p.m.
50 6:30 p.m. 6:55 p.m.
52 7:00 p.m. 7:25 p.m.
Trainset Deadhead
(No Passengers)
7:30 p.m. 7:55 p.m.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 45
Source: HDR
Railroad operations modeling would be required in the future to confirm the feasibility of the
conceptual passenger train schedules identified above and to determine passenger train arrival and
departure times at intermediate stations in the Corridor.
5.2.2 Conceptual Train Crew Plan
The conceptual Service Plan developed for this Study assumes that four regular train crew
assignments (each requiring one engineer and one conductor from CRANDIC, or from another entity
if the commuter rail service is not operated by CRANDIC) would be necessary to protect the
conceptual daily commuter train operating schedule between Iowa City and North Liberty identified
in the section above, as follows:
Morning Crew 1 (On Duty 4:00 a.m.)
• Comes on duty at the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar Rapids at 4 a.m. and participates in job and
safety briefing with management and Morning Crew 2.
• Deadheads by CRANDIC crew vehicle or taxi service from the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar
Rapids to North Liberty Station (Penn Street), arriving 5 a.m. Shares deadhead vehicle with
Morning Crew 2.
• Operates a deadhead movement with one trainset from North Liberty (Penn Street) to Iowa
City (Dubuque Street), leaving North Liberty at 5:25 a.m., and arriving Iowa City at 5:50 a.m.
• Operates the first daily scheduled northbound departure from Iowa City at 6 a.m. to the time
of the scheduled 12:25 p.m. southbound arrival at Iowa City.
• Participates in crew change and light equipment cleaning from 12:25 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
• Deadheads by CRANDIC crew vehicle or taxi service from Iowa City Station (Dubuque
Street) at 1 p.m. and goes off duty at the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar Rapids at 2 p.m.
• Approximately 10 hours on-duty time.
Morning Crew 2 (On Duty 4:00 a.m.)
• Comes on duty at the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar Rapids at 4 a.m. and participates in job and
safety briefing with management and Morning Crew 1.
• Deadheads by CRANDIC crew vehicle or taxi service from the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar
Rapids to North Liberty Station (Penn Street), arriving 5 a.m. Shares deadhead vehicle with
Morning Crew 1.
• Operates between North Liberty and Iowa City from the time of the first daily scheduled
southbound departure from North Liberty (Penn Street) at 6 a.m. to the time of the scheduled
12:25 p.m. northbound arrival at North Liberty (Penn Street).
• Participates in crew change and light equipment cleaning from 12:25 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
• Deadheads by CRANDIC crew vehicle or taxi service from North Liberty Station (Penn
Street) at 1 p.m. and goes off duty at the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar Rapids at 2 p.m.
• Approximately 10 hours on-duty time.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
46 | July 31, 2020
Afternoon Crew 3 (On Duty 11:00 a.m.)
• Comes on duty at CRANDIC Shops in Cedar Rapids at 11:00 a.m. and participates in job
and safety briefing with management and Afternoon Crew 4.
• Deadheads by CRANDIC crew vehicle or taxi service from the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar
Rapids to North Liberty Station (Penn Street), arriving at 12:01 p.m. Shares deadhead
vehicle with Afternoon Crew 4.
• Participates in crew change and light equipment cleaning from 12:25 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
• Operates between North Liberty and Iowa City from the time of the daily scheduled
southbound departure from North Liberty (Penn Street) at 1:00 p.m. to the time of the last
scheduled northbound arrival at North Liberty (Penn Street) at 7:25 p.m. Secures trainset for
overnight staging and servicing.
• Deadheads by CRANDIC crew vehicle or taxi service from North Liberty Station (Penn
Street) at 8:15 p.m. and goes off duty at the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar Rapids at 9 p.m.
Shares deadhead vehicle with Afternoon Crew 4.
• Approximately 10 hours on-duty time.
Afternoon Crew 4 (On Duty 11:00 a.m.)
• Comes on duty at CRANDIC Shops in Cedar Rapids at 11:00 a.m. and participates in job
and safety briefing with management and Afternoon Crew 3.
• Deadheads by CRANDIC crew vehicle or taxi service from the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar
Rapids to Iowa City Station (Dubuque Street), arriving at 12:25 p.m. Shares deadhead
vehicle with Afternoon Crew 3.
• Participates in crew change and light equipment cleaning from 12:25 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
• Operates between Iowa City and North Liberty from the time of the daily scheduled
northbound departure from Iowa City (Dubuque Street) at 1:00 p.m. to the time of the last
scheduled southbound arrival at Iowa City (Dubuque Street) at 7:25 p.m.
• Operates a deadhead movement with one trainset from Iowa City (Dubuque Street) to North
Liberty (Penn Street), leaving Iowa City at 7:30 p.m. and arriving North Liberty at 7:55 p.m.
Secures trainset for overnight staging and servicing.
• Deadheads by CRANDIC crew vehicle or taxi service from North Liberty Station (Penn
Street) at 8:15 p.m. and goes off duty at the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar Rapids at 9 p.m.
Shares deadhead vehicle with Afternoon Crew 3.
• Approximately 10 hours on-duty time.
It is assumed that an extra crew (one engineer and one conductor) based in Cedar Rapids would be
required once weekly to deadhead one of the empty in-service commuter trainsets between North
Liberty Station (Penn Street), the CRANDIC Shops in Cedar Rapids, and the North Liberty Station
(Penn Street), as a means of facilitating equipment rotation and maintenance cycles at Cedar
Rapids. The deadhead between North Liberty Station (Penn Street) and the CRANDIC Shops at
Cedar Rapids on CRANDIC Division 2 is approximately 16 miles each way and is estimated to take
approximately 2 hours each way.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 47
Crew rotation and extra board labor requirements to protect labor vacancies and other
considerations for the four regular CRANDIC train crew assignments described above were not
considered in this estimate. This estimate is for planning purposes only and would be subject to the
CRANDIC labor and union agreements and/or other labor and union agreements if the commuter rail
service is operated by an entity other than CRANDIC. There is also the potential that a train crew
base could be established at Iowa City or North Liberty (rather than Cedar Rapids), if the commuter
rail service is operated by an entity other than CRANDIC.
5.2.3 Stations Concept
The conceptual Service Plan developed for this Study assumes that potential passenger rail stations
for the Iowa City-North Liberty Corridor would include platforms, platform canopy (over one-half the
length of the platform), lighting, signage, and ticketing machine, as would be typically constructed for
commuter rail services in the U.S. Concrete platforms are elevated for level boarding with passenger
rail equipment, comply with ADA requirements, meet recent American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) design requirements, and are single-face and 300 feet in
length. Potential future station buildings, parking facilities, and land acquisition for station
development were not included in this Study.
In consideration of the 9.1-mile length of the Corridor, the typical spacing of stations on other
passenger rail corridors hosting commuter rail service, and inputs received from stakeholders in
previous study of the Corridor, seven stations were assumed. The following general locations
identified by CRANDIC, MPOJC, and other local stakeholders could potentially host a station:
• Dubuque Street (Iowa City) – Southern Terminus
• Downtown Iowa City/University of Iowa (Burlington Street)
• VA Hospital
• Coralville
• Oakdale
• Forever Green Road
• Penn Street (North Liberty) – Northern Terminus
Based upon the assumptions identified above, a typical station layout concept for potential
implementation in the Corridor is shown in Figure 18 below.
Figure 18: Typical Station Site Layout Concept
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
48 | July 31, 2020
Source: HDR
Based upon the assumptions identified above, a typical station platform concept for potential
implementation in the Corridor is shown in Figure 19 below.
Figure 19: Typical Station Platform Concept
Source: HDR
Precise station locations, requirements, and amenities in the Corridor would be identified through
future coordination with project stakeholders.
5.2.4 Layover and Maintenance Facility Concept
The conceptual Service Plan developed for this Study assumes that incorporation of a layover and
maintenance facility to accommodate the potential passenger rail service on the Iowa City-North
Liberty Corridor. A layover and maintenance facility is where passenger rail rolling stock is
maintained and staged between scheduled operations and is also used as a train operations base
that accommodates the transit system workforce and all administrative, management, and control
functions (including train dispatching). A layover and maintenance facility typically includes:
• Combined shop and office building for use as an equipment maintenance and train
operations and administration base
• Parking for vehicles
• Track(s) to stage and maintain equipment
• Track access pad(s)
• Potable water and general utility services
• Electrical service for standby power, as required
• Perimeter security fencing
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 49
• Site lighting
This project assumes that the existing CRANDIC Shops and offices in Cedar Rapids (outside of the
CRANDIC Corridor, and located approximately 16 miles north of the proposed commuter rail station
at Penn Street in North Liberty) will be used to maintain commuter rail equipment and to provide a
location for an operations base (including facilities for managers, dispatchers, and train crews going
on and coming off duty); therefore, development of a new layover and maintenance facility for a
commuter rail service in the CRANDIC Corridor was not considered.
As outlined earlier in the Service Plan section, it is assumed that the in-service commuter rail
trainsets will layover at the North Liberty Station (Penn Street) in periods of non-operation and that
DTL fueling, routine light maintenance, and car cleaning can be facilitated at this location. A small
utility building is assumed at the North Liberty Station (Penn Street) to support these requirements
and to provide a facility for train crews. The conceptual Service Plan assumes that one of the two in-
service commuter rail trainsets will be swapped out with the spare trainset staged at the CRANDIC
Shops and receive heavy maintenance and cleaning at the existing CRANDIC Shops in Cedar
Rapids, and that a deadhead move once weekly between Cedar Rapids and North Liberty would be
required to facilitate this equipment rotation.
6 Infrastructure and Equipment
Requirements and Conceptual Opinion
of Probable Cost Estimates
This section identifies infrastructure and equipment requirements and associated conceptual opinion
of probable capital and O&M costs for the mode of potential commuter rail service identified in
Section 5 and potential applicability of that mode to the 9.1-mile CRANDIC Corridor between Gilbert
Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty.
The requirements of the Iowa City-North Liberty service and the related cost experience is
representative of other commuter rail projects, and is largely dependent on the use of the existing
CRANDIC freight railroad infrastructure within the Corridor.
6.1 Commuter Rail Capital Cost Estimate Approach
The conceptual capital costs presented in this section are applicable to the potential commuter
service mode identified in the previous section, for the implementation of commuter rail service on
the Corridor. The quantities developed for the estimate are based upon conceptual level analysis of
the CRANDIC Corridor and application of typical U.S. railroad industry standard approaches and
typical costs on other U.S. rail projects. The conceptual capital cost includes the rehabilitation of
CRANDIC infrastructure and construction of new infrastructure in the Corridor, as appropriate. This
section includes the methodology and assumptions for deriving the capital costs and potential
infrastructure and equipment requirements for each category. Estimated capital costs for right-of-
way acquisition, easements, site preparation, and potential earthwork are not included in this
estimate. This Study assumes that CRANDIC presently owns the right-of-way in the CRANDIC
Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty and some adjacent property at locations along the
CRANDIC Corridor.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
50 | July 31, 2020
Potential rehabilitation and construction of CRANDIC infrastructure in the Corridor to accommodate
implementation of commuter rail service is described below.
6.1.1 Rehabilitation of Structures and Track
The Corridor’s existing track structure, which at present hosts only minimal local freight railroad
operations, would require track and track structures components to be renewed or upgraded to
support the implementation of commuter rail service. This is necessary to meet federal regulations
for passenger rail services, to provide for adequate safety, reliability, and ride quality for the
commuter rail mode, and to reduce regular and capital maintenance program costs after operation
commences.
Bridge rehabilitation is primarily centered on the conversion of existing open-deck bridges to ballast-
deck bridges to provide for passenger ride quality and reduce future maintenance costs. For the
CRANDIC Corridor, the estimate assumes converting open-deck bridges to ballast decks. This
concept is consistent with bridge infrastructure improvements made on other commuter rail corridors
in the U.S. Additionally, the two bridge replacements proposed within the estimate are consistent
with previous structures replacements on CRANDIC’s network. Other nominal bridge improvements
and conditional work are also included in this estimate.
In terms of track rehabilitation, current tie condition and main track rail size warrant the replacement
of track ties and rail along the CRANDIC Corridor. Presently, CRANDIC does not make any through
freight traffic moves through the Iowa City-North Liberty Corridor that would impede construction
crews. Instead, these crews can work under complete curfew, or without interruption from train
traffic. In order to keep capital costs down, it is recommended that crews incrementally construct the
track via wood crosstie and continuous welded rail (CWR) construction. Ballast dumping and track
surfacing can occur after the track has been constructed. The use of new 115 lb./yd. CWR, which
has been used on other U.S. passenger rail corridors, was assumed to eliminate existing legacy
jointed rail in the Corridor, enhance track reliability, provide better passenger ride quality, and to
realize long-term maintenance cost savings. It is assumed that CRANDIC or a potential commuter
rail operator will replace any wood ties and relay rail through routine maintenance cycles in future
years.
In addition, this part of the CRANDIC Corridor is located within an urban environment, and will
require multiple access points to deliver track materials, crews, and equipment. Owing to this fact,
there may be additional permitting and easement agreements necessary to complete the track
rehabilitation work. These ancillary costs were not looked at as part of this Study, and subsequently
not accounted for in the construction estimate.
The assumed rehabilitation scope is identified below:
• Five bridge deck conversions from existing open-deck bridges to ballast-deck bridges at
CRANDIC Milepost 17.5, Milepost 24.6, Milepost 24.7, Milepost 24.8, and Milepost 25.75
• Miscellaneous bridge repairs
• Miscellaneous culvert repairs and replacements
• Ditching and drainage work
• Track undercutting at other spot locations, as needed
• Track surfacing over the entire Corridor
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 51
Potential construction of infrastructure in the CRANDIC Corridor is described below.
6.1.2 Construction of Track Structures and Track
New infrastructure construction and upgrades are typically required when implementing passenger
rail service on a freight only corridor. Main track rail replacement is assumed to be 115 lb./yd. CWR.
Track derails are also included in the estimate, as a means to physically separate the passenger rail
only Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty from CRANDIC’s connecting freight only network.
The assumed construction scope is identified below:
• Two new bridges:
o Milepost 23.8 – previously considered for replacement in past passenger rail study of
the Corridor, per CRANDIC
o Milepost 24.9 – this structure is a candidate for replacement in order to reduce
maintenance costs and enhance pedestrian traffic flows
• Three culvert replacements (including removals) to enhance site drainage and minimize
long-term maintenance costs:
o Milepost 20.50
o Milepost 21.40
o Milepost 22.33
• Main track rail replacement (9.1 miles) – 115 lb./yd. CWR and wood ties on 24” spacing
• Removal and disposal of 10.0 miles of existing rail and wood ties, including yard tracks
• CWR joint elimination (welds CWR ribbons, panels, and existing rail together)
• Two new stub-ended station tracks at Dubuque Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in North
Liberty (including bumping posts at the ends of the two tracks)
• Four new main track derails
o Two near Gilbert Street in Iowa City and near Penn Street in North Liberty, for
physical separation of the passenger rail only Corridor from the rest of CRANDIC’s
freight-only network (south from Iowa City to Hills and north from North Liberty to
Cedar Rapids)
o Two at stub-ended tracks at the Iowa City and North Liberty terminal stations
• Removal and disposal of 12 existing track turnouts
• Four new powered turnouts (POTO)
o 2 – No. 11 POTO at the Iowa City and North Liberty stub-ended station tracks
(located at Dubuque Street and Penn Street, respectively.
o 2 – No. 15 POTO for the Coralville Siding, to accommodate 30 mph diverging train
movements into and out of the siding from the main track.
The estimate includes a potential credit for scrapping existing rail and other unneeded “other track
materials (OTM)” to offset construction costs, resulting in a credit of approximately $0.60 million
toward construction costs.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
52 | July 31, 2020
6.1.3 Equipment
This cost includes procurement of six new self-propelled FRA Compliant DMU coach rail cars
required to operate the Iowa City-North Liberty commuter rail service (four cars to assemble two in-
service trainsets to protect scheduled operations and two cars to assemble one spare trainset to
protect maintenance cycles) based upon the conceptual Service Plan presented previously in
Section 5, and is based upon a recent industry transaction in which Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
in the San Francisco Bay Area of California procured similar DMU equipment for use on its
commuter rail network 23.
6.1.4 Signaling and Communications
Passenger rail corridors in the U.S. typically include active warning signal equipment at all public at-
grade crossings to enhance safety and limit the potential for collisions and other accidents with
vehicles and pedestrians. This category includes the cost of at-grade crossing automatic warning
devices (with constant warning time devices), where applicable. Cost for equipment at public at-
grade crossings assumes the rehabilitation of and upgrade of existing active warning signal
equipment, as appropriate, to include crossbucks, bells, flashing light signals, and gates. Cost
includes all signal materials and any corresponding power drops, along with labor necessary for
construction. Cost includes an intertie for preemption of traffic signals at three grade crossings in the
Corridor, but traffic signal costs are not included in this estimate and are assumed to be the
responsibility of the municipalities. Cost assumes private at-grade crossings, which are not open to
the public and typically host minimal volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, will include passive
warning devices, including crossbucks and stop signs.
It is assumed that the CRANDIC Corridor between Gilbert Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in
North Liberty will be passenger only, with two commuter trains typically operating on the line at a
time, meet-pass events between commuter trains to occur at a siding in Coralville near the midpoint
of the Corridor (or, alternatively at stub-ended station tracks inclusive of the terminal station at
Dubuque Street in Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty), and a Method of Operation to include
Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) allowing a CRANDIC dispatcher or manager in Cedar Rapids to
remotely control train traffic via wayside signal aspect. Under CTC, train movements will be
controlled by wayside ground signals, track circuits, and dual power operated switch machines. Note
that implementation of a Positive Train Control (PTC) overlay of the CTC system will not be required,
as would be the case for a shared-use corridor with passenger and freight trains. Wayside asset
protection devices (e.g., dragging equipment detectors, hot-box detectors, etc.) are also not
required, and therefore also not included in the estimate. In addition, it was assumed that
CRANDIC’s existing radio system would provide road channel coverage over the Iowa City-North
Liberty Corridor and that no additional radio upgrades would be required.
6.1.5 Stations
The cost to construct seven potential commuter rail stations identified by stakeholders for the Iowa
City-North Liberty Corridor includes platforms, platform canopy (over one-half the length of the
platform), lighting, signage, and ticketing machine as would be typically constructed for U.S.
commuter rail services and as is necessary to support the conceptual Service Plan in Section 5 of
this Study. Other station systems included ticket vending machines, security cameras, real-time
23 http://www.nipponsharyousa.com/tp101216.htm
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 53
information displays, public address, emergency telephones, and an uninterrupted power supply
(UPS).
Concrete platforms are elevated for level boarding with passenger rail equipment, comply with ADA
requirements, meet recent AREMA design requirements, and are single-face and 300 feet in length.
Conceptual cost for a potential future station building, parking facility, and land acquisition for station
development were not estimated in this Study.
6.1.6 Layover and Maintenance Facility
The conceptual Service Plan developed in Section 5 of this Study assumes that the existing
CRANDIC Shops and offices in Cedar Rapids (outside of the CRANDIC Corridor, and located
approximately 16 miles north of the proposed commuter rail station at Penn Street in North Liberty)
can be used to maintain commuter rail equipment and to provide a location for an operations base
and that the in-service trainsets would layover and would be fueled, cleaned, and receive routine
servicing at the North Liberty Station (Penn Street) during periods of non-operation. Therefore, the
capital cost to develop a new layover and maintenance facility for a passenger rail service in the
CRANDIC Corridor was not estimated.
Additional workstations and servers, at the Operations and Control Center in the CRANDIC Shops
and offices are included in the estimate, and will support the management of related station systems
components (e.g., ticket vending machines, security cameras, real-time information displays, public
address, emergency telephones, etc.).
6.1.7 Grade Crossing Surface and Approaches
This section’s cost is applicable to the replacement of timber and asphalt crossing surfaces, with
concrete panels (i.e., private crossings), and for other roadway surface and approach improvements
at existing at-grade road/rail crossings, in order to enhance safety, improve component reliability,
and to realize long-term maintenance cost savings. The estimate assumed the reuse of existing
concrete panels at crossings presently equipped in the Corridor. The estimate assumed that track
will be built up to all existing concrete grade crossings and that track under existing concrete grade
crossings, as well as the grade crossing approach surface, is in good condition due to previous
recent investment by CRANDIC.
It should be noted that grade crossing improvements at Burlington Street in Iowa City and First
Avenue in Coralville were not included in this estimate due to complex traffic patterns and traffic
densities at these locations. In addition, the First Avenue crossing panels, surface, and active
warning devices were recently upgraded in 2018 as part of a street widening project.
6.1.8 Fencing
This cost is applicable to construction of new fencing in the right-of-way through the urban sections
of the Corridor to discourage trespassing, encroachment, and dumping on railroad property;
enhance railroad and public safety and security; and to reduce the likelihood of accidents involving
trespassers.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
54 | July 31, 2020
6.1.9 Professional Services
This cost includes preliminary and final design, environmental review and permitting, and project
management for design and construction of a passenger rail service in the Corridor. It also includes
the professional services cost for equipment procurement and associated project management.
NEPA clearance/preliminary engineering could range from $1.5 million to $4 million in cost, and is
largely dependent on the level of effort required for the alternatives analysis as required by FTA. It
was assumed that NEPA clearance cost would run approximately 53 percent of the total construction
cost.
6.1.10 Contingency
Contingency was applied to the estimated conceptual cost by line item within each category to
account for potential cost variability. In instances when costs were better understood, based upon
other recent railroad industry projects and subject to less variability, a lower contingency was
applied.
Contingency was not applied to Professional Services costs for the construction and equipment
segments of the project.
6.2 Commuter Rail Operations and Maintenance Cost
Approach
The conceptual opinion of probable annual O&M costs presented in this section are applicable to the
potential commuter service mode identified in Section 5, which includes commuter rail transit with
DMUs. The conceptual costs developed for this estimate are based upon conceptual level analysis
of the CRANDIC Corridor and application of typical U.S. railroad and transit industry standard
approaches and typical O&M costs on other projects. This section identifies what is included and
what is not included in the annual O&M costs for each category.
Annual O&M costs typically cover all aspects of daily commuter rail service delivery and
maintenance, including:
• Equipment operation
o Fully burdened operating department labor consisting of six qualified full-time
engineers and four qualified full-time conductors.
o Assumes $170,000/year (burdened at 2.0) for each train service employee.
• Fuel for equipment operation based on:
o Train miles to protect the regular operating schedule between Iowa City and North
Liberty (179,361 miles/year) and equipment rotation once weekly between North
Liberty and Cedar Rapids to accommodate maintenance cycles (1,664 miles/year).
o Fuel consumption rate of 3 mpg for operation of a two-car DMU trainset.
o An estimated multiplier of $3.12 per gallon24.
24 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Average Monthly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices (December
2018), https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_m.htm
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 55
• Routine vehicle maintenance
o Fully burdened qualified mechanical department labor consisting of one full-time
electrician, one full-time laborer, and one full-time railcar/facility cleaner.
o Assumes $35/hour for electrician or $145,600/year fully burdened at 2.0
o Assumes $25/hour for laborer or $104,000/year fully burdened at 2.0
o Assumes $20/hour for railcar/facility cleaner or $83,200/year fully burdened at 2.0
o Capital spare parts including diesel engine parts, wheel sets, etc.
o Assumes $5,000/month as an industry average.
o Consumables including brake shoes, filters, air hoses, seat covers, etc.
o Assumes $5,000/month as an industry average.
• Routine track, bridge, and right-of-way maintenance at $741,000 per year, including:
o Replacement of curve-worn rail.
Assumes 528 feet per year, although this will not be needed in the short-term
horizon.
o Track tie replacement.
Assumes 50 concrete ties per year, although tie cycles would not likely be
needed in the short-term horizon.
o Track surfacing
o Track undercutting
For mud spot removal or other fouled ballast.
o Track inspection
o Grade crossing maintenance
Assumes one grade crossing surface per year.
o Routine bridge maintenance, inspections, and repairs
Footwalk and handrail securement
Drift removal
o Culvert inspections, cleaning, and repairs
• Track ditch cleaning
• Brush cutting, weed spraying, and other vegetation removal
• Maintenance of signal and communications infrastructure at $500,000 per year, including:
o Crossing equipment inspections, testing, and routine repairs
o Traffic control center expenses
The annual O&M cost developed for this Study does not include:
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
56 | July 31, 2020
• Operating, Maintenance-of-Way, Mechanical, and Signal Department Management –
existing CRANDIC management team assumed adequate to accommodate the needs of the
passenger rail service in the Corridor.
• Extra Board Operating Department Labor – necessary to protect vacancies on regular train
crew assignments.
• Maintenance-of-Way and Signal Department Forces – existing CRANDIC departmental
forces assumed adequate to accommodate the needs of the passenger rail service in the
Corridor.
• Station Maintenance – assumes that municipalities, public agencies, private entities, and
other local partners along the Corridor would be responsible for the cost to maintain stations
and station facilities, which would also include utilities, landscaping and snow removal,
cleaning, and security.
• Other Costs – for insurance, overhead, marketing, advertising, and police.
6.3 Presentation of Conceptual Opinion of Probable
Costs Estimate
This section presents the conceptual opinion of probable capital costs estimate for the construction
and implementation of commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor between Dubuque Street in
Iowa City and Penn Street in North Liberty and an opinion of probable conceptual annual O&M costs
to support the service.
6.3.1 Conceptual Opinion of Probable Capital Costs Estimate
The conceptual opinion of probable capital costs estimate to implement commuter rail service on the
Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty is approximately $49.0 million. The capital cost
estimate is identified by category and line item in 2019 dollars, in Table 26 below. Alternatives to the
capital cost estimate presented below and associated potential cost savings are discussed in
Section 6.4.
Table 26: Conceptual Opinion of Probable Capital Costs Estimate – Iowa City to North
Liberty Commuter Rail Service Implementation (2019 Dollars)
Description Contingency Total Estimated Cost (in 2019
Dollars)
10 - TRACK STRUCTURES & TRACK
10.1 - Track Structure: Bridge Repairs 15% $2,198,000
10.2 - Track Structure: New Bridges 15% $627,000
10.3 - Track Structure: Culverts and Drainage Structures 15% $167,000
10.4 - Track Structure: Miscellaneous 15% $59,000
10.5 - Track: New Construction 10% $9,882,000
Total for Category 10 - TRACK STRUCTURES & TRACK $12,932,000
20 - STATIONS & TERMINALS
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 57
Description Contingency Total Estimated Cost (in 2019
Dollars)
20.1 - Stations 15% $2,464,000
20.2 - Platforms 15% $2,696,000
20.3 - Canopy 15% $1,161,000
20.4 - Signage and Lighting 15% $1,012,000
Total for Category 20 - STATIONS & TERMINALS $7,334,000
30 - SUPPORT FACILITIES
30.1 - Maintenance Facilities (New Utility Building) 25% $64,000
30.2 - Maintenance Facilities (Tools and Equipment for DMU
Railcar Maintenance)
25% $255,000
Total for Category 30 - SUPPORT FACILITIES $319,000
40 - SITEWORK
40.1 - Corridor Fencing 10% $1,215,000
Total for Category 40 - SITEWORK $1,215,000
50 - COMMUNICATIONS & SIGNALING
50.1 - Grade Crossing Protection 15% $5,513,000
50.2 - Communication Infrastructure 15% $11,531,000
Total for Category 50 - COMMUNICATIONS & SIGNALING $17,044,000
60 - GRADE CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
60.1 - New Concrete Crossing Panels 10% $372,000
60.2 - Crossing Surface and Approaches for New Concrete
Crossing Panels
10% $294,000
Total for Category 60 - GRADE CROSSING
IMPROVEMENTS
$667,000
70 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (CONSTRUCTION)
70.1 - Preliminary Design/NEPA 5% $1,678,000
70.2 - Final Design 5% $964,000
70.3 - Project Management for Design and Construction 5% $402,000
70.4 - Construction Administration and Management 5% $804,000
Total for Category 70 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(CONSTRUCTION)
$3,848,000
80 - EQUIPMENT
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
58 | July 31, 2020
Description Contingency Total Estimated Cost (in 2019
Dollars)
80.1 - Equipment Procurement 20% $5,508,000
80.2 - Equipment Reconditioning N/A N/A
Total for Category 80 - EQUIPMENT $5,508,000
90 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (EQUIPMENT)
90.1 - Professional Services: Equipment N/A $115,000
Total for Category 90 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
(EQUIPMENT)
$115,000
Total Capital Costs: Category 10 - 90 $48,981,000
Source: HDR
6.3.2 Conceptual Opinion of Probable O&M Costs Estimate
The conceptual opinion of probable annual O&M costs to support daily commuter rail service on the
Corridor, is approximately $4.8 million. The O&M estimate is identified by line item in 2019 dollars, in
Table 27 below. Note that factors such as inflation or market changes to fuel, labor rates, etc. may
change the annual O&M costs year-to-year.
Table 27: Conceptual Opinion of Probable Annual O&M Costs – Iowa City to North Liberty
Commuter Rail Service (2019 Dollars)
Category Line Description Total Estimated Cost
(in 2019 Dollars)
100 Maintenance
100.1 Track Structure: Bridge Repair $102,000
100.2 Track Structure: Culverts and Drainage Structures $26,000
100.3 Track Structure: Miscellaneous $231,000
100.4 Track: New Construction $37,000
100.5 Track: Rehabilitation - Ballast and surfacing $323,000
100.6 Track: Rehabilitation - Component Replacement $37,000
100.7 Maintenance Facilities $3,000
100.8 Wayside Signaling $128,000
100.9 Traffic Control and Dispatching $128,000
100.10 Communications $255,000
100.11 Labor $2,420,000
100.12 Equipment O&M Costs $314,000
Category 100 Contingency (20%) $801,000
Total for Category 100 Maintenance $4,805,000
Source: HDR
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 59
6.4 Alternatives to Infrastructure and Equipment
Requirements and Conceptual Cost Estimate
This section identifies alternatives to the infrastructure and equipment requirements and the
associated conceptual capital cost estimate presented above, which may potentially reduce upfront
capital costs for commuter rail implementation and allow for a varied equipment procurement
strategy and a phased plan of infrastructure improvements for the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa
City and North Liberty.
6.4.1 Equipment Procurement Alternative
The conceptual capital cost estimate developed for this Study assumed that six new self-propelled
DMU railcars (for three trainsets of two cars apiece) would be procured for implementation of
passenger rail service on the Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty. Alternative equipment
procurement could provide another option besides acquiring new equipment and provide a capital
cost savings. Two potential alternative equipment procurements approaches are identified and
described in this section.
Procurement of Vivarail Class 230 (Pop-Up Metro) DMU Equipment
Potential procurement of reconditioned rapid transit equipment converted to DMUs for use in
commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor could provide an alternative to acquiring new
equipment and provide a capital cost savings. The technical specifications of this DMU equipment
and the potential conceptual capital cost for its procurement are described in this section.
Vivarail in the United Kingdom (in partnership with shareholder Railroad Development Corporation
[RDC] based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) has acquired 200 former London Underground subway
cars and has been converting them to diesel-electric, battery powered, hybrid, and fuel cell self-
propelled DMUs called the Vivarail Class 230 (or Pop-Up Metro) since 201725. These converted cars
have been cleared for main line operation in the U.K., and would not be considered fully FRA
compliant in the U.S., thus requiring a shared-use waiver issued by the FRA based on temporal
separation. Vivarail anticipates bringing its Class 230 equipment to the U.S. for demonstration
purposes in 201926.
The cars are placed in a two or three-car trainset (known as a Class 230 train), accelerate quickly
like a typical rapid transit vehicle, have average operating speeds of 45 mph, and are designed to be
well suited for operation on corridors with close station spacing27. The Class 230 trainsets require
level boarding platforms at stations28.
As with the new DMU equipment and conceptual Service Plan described earlier in this Study, the
alternative equipment approach would include six self-propelled secondhand DMU coach railcars,
which will be used to assemble three trainsets of two railcars apiece for the Iowa City-North Liberty
commuter rail service. Two trainsets would be required to protect potential scheduled operations of
the commuter rail service between Iowa City and North Liberty and the third, or spare, trainset would
25 Vivarail Pop-Up Metro Data Sheet; September 14, 2018 (provided by RDC)
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
60 | July 31, 2020
be used to accommodate regular equipment maintenance schedules at the CRANDIC Shops
outside of the Corridor at Cedar Rapids.
The Class 230 train consist would operate in a push-pull configuration, which allows the trains to be
operated from either end, thus eliminating the need to turn trains at terminal points in Iowa City and
North Liberty. The reconditioned Class 230 railcars are each approximately 60 feet in length and 9
feet 4 inches in width at their maximum extent (narrower than typical U.S. passenger rail cars, which
require a car-mounted gap filler at platforms)29. Each two-car Class 230 trainset has a capacity of
approximately 88 seated and 106 standing passengers on average and includes accommodations
for disabled persons in wheelchairs, a lavatory, and bicycle and luggage storage30. Reconditioning of
the former London Underground equipment to Class 230 trainsets generally includes a new or
updated railcar propulsion system (i.e., engines, generators, traction control systems, etc.), air brake
system, modifications required to comply with ADA requirements, interior cosmetic changes and
improvements (i.e., seating, flooring, lighting, and signage), exterior cosmetic changes and
improvements (i.e., color scheme, signage, etc.), and a comprehensive cleaning to the interior and
exterior31. More information about the Vivarail Class 230 equipment can be found at
http://vivarail.co.uk.
A typical two-car Class 230 DMU trainset is shown in Figure 20 below. Vivarail Class 230 passenger
rail equipment of this type and configuration has been generally considered in this Study for potential
alternative commuter rail service implementation on the CRANDIC Corridor.
Figure 20: Typical Two-Car Pop-Up Metro Trainset
Source: RDC
The conceptual cost estimate for acquiring six Class 230 cars (or three two-car trainsets) for
passenger rail service implementation on the CRANDIC Corridor is approximately $0.75 million per
car (diesel)32. The conceptual estimate presented in Table 28 below was provided by RDC for this
29 Vivarail Starter Kit for Developing Metros; April 19, 2018 (provided by RDC)
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Note that this conceptual cost is subject to a confirmed price to Iowa DOT, CRANDIC, and MPOJC
from Vivarail.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 61
Study. Note that a 2.5 percent cost for professional services was applied to the capital cost to
account for the additional coordination with the equipment supplier as it relates to procurement and
project management.
Table 28: Conceptual Cost Estimate for the Procurement of Three, Two-Car Pop-Up Metro
Class 230 Trainsets for the Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Implementation
Category Estimated Cost
(in 2018 Dollars)
Contingency Total Estimated Cost
(in 2019 Dollars)
Equipment: Procurement $4,590,000
(3, 2-car trainsets at
$1,530,000 each)
20%
$5,508,000
Equipment: Professional
Services (Procurement,
Project Management)
$115,000
(2.5% of cost of equipment
procurement)
None
$115,000
Total $5,623,000
Source: RDC
During coordination between RDC/Vivarail and project stakeholders during development of this
Study, it was determined that the Class 230 equipment could be made available on a lease (instead
of solely on a procurement basis) and could also be made available for a potential pilot commuter
rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor.
Procurement and Reconditioning of Secondhand Budd RDC DMU Equipment
Potential procurement of secondhand Budd RDC DMU equipment and reconditioning it for use in
commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor could provide an alternative to acquiring new
equipment and provide a capital cost savings. Secondhand DMU equipment, the potential
conceptual capital cost for its procurement and reconditioning, and likely approach for acquiring
secondhand equipment are described in this section. However, consideration should be made to the
potential for limited availability of such secondhand equipment in the marketplace as of late 2018.
As with the new DMU equipment and conceptual Service Plan described earlier in this Study, the
alternative equipment approach would include six self-propelled secondhand DMU coach railcars,
which will be used to assemble three trainsets of two railcars apiece for the Iowa City-North Liberty
commuter rail service. Two trainsets would be required to protect potential scheduled operations of
the commuter rail service between Iowa City and North Liberty and the third, or spare, trainset would
be staged in Cedar Rapids used to accommodate regular equipment maintenance schedules at the
CRANDIC Shops outside of the Corridor at Cedar Rapids.
The reconditioned secondhand DMU commuter train consist would operate in a push-pull
configuration, which allows the trains to be operated from either end, thus eliminating the need to
turn trains at terminal points in Iowa City and North Liberty. Typical secondhand DMU railcars are 85
feet in length and have a seating capacity of 75 to 90 on average (and variable capacity for
additional standing passengers), including accommodations for disabled persons in wheelchairs.
Some secondhand DMUs may have a lavatory and bicycle storage. DMU trainsets require level
boarding platforms at stations.
Reconditioning of DMU equipment typically includes updates to the railcar’s air brake system,
upgrades to event recorders, modifications required to comply with ADA requirements, interior
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
62 | July 31, 2020
cosmetic changes and improvements (i.e., seating, flooring, lighting, and signage), exterior cosmetic
changes and improvements (i.e., color scheme, signage, etc.), and a comprehensive cleaning to the
interior and exterior.
A typical two-car trainset of reconditioned secondhand DMU equipment (Budd Rail Diesel Cars
[RDCs], in this instance) operated by TriMet on its Westside Express Service (WES) in the Portland,
Oregon, area is shown in Figure 21 below. Budd RDC passenger rail equipment of this type and
configuration has been considered in this Study for potential alternative commuter rail
implementation on the CRANDIC Corridor.
Figure 21: Typical Two-Car Trainset of Secondhand RDC DMU Equipment
Source: TriMet
The conceptual cost estimate for acquiring and reconditioning six secondhand Budd RDC cars for
passenger rail service implementation on the CRANDIC Corridor is approximately $1.66 million per
car. The conceptual estimate presented in Table 29 below was developed from a recent industry
estimate, in which TriMet sought to procure and recondition two secondhand Budd cars from Dallas
Area Rapid Transit (DART) in 201633. Note that a higher 12 percent cost for professional services
was applied to the capital cost to account for the additional coordination with equipment suppliers
and additional inspections of used passenger rail equipment that would likely be required.
33 TriMet wants to buy used trains from Dallas to bolster WES service; The Oregonian; May 23, 2016;
http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2016/05/trimet_wants_to_buy_used_train.html
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 63
Table 29: Conceptual Cost Estimate for the Procurement and Reconditioning of Three
Budd RDC Cars for the Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Implementation
Category Estimated Cost
(in 2018 Dollars)
Contingency Total Estimated Cost
(in 2019 Dollars)
Equipment: Procurement $4,779,720
(6 cars secondhand Budd RDC
cars at $796,620 each)
50%
$7,170,000
Equipment: Reconditioning $1,856,400
(6 cars reconditioning at $265,200
each)
50%
$2,785,000
Equipment: Professional
Services (Procurement,
Project Management)
$797,000
(12% of cost of equipment
procurement and reconditioning
before contingency applied)
None
$797,000
Total $10,752,000
Source: HDR
Based upon the alternative approach presented above, the procurement of six secondhand
reconditioned RDC Budd cars ($10,752,000) versus the conceptual capital cost estimate to acquire
six new FRA Compliant DMU railcars ($5,623,000) could result in a potential cost increase of
$5,129,000.
It is important to note though that the actual and estimated capital cost to acquire and recondition
secondhand Budd RDC cars for use by transit agencies has fluctuated considerably in the last 20
years, and this wide variability should be considered by stakeholders for any similar procurement of
equipment for passenger rail service implementation on the CRANDIC Corridor. For example, Trinity
Railway Express (TRE), in Dallas, Texas, acquired and rehabilitated 13 Budd cars in 1996, for a
capital cost of $1.8 million per car in 1996 dollars34. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit in the San
Francisco Bay Area of California studied the potential of acquiring 14 secondhand reconditioned
Budd cars for use as an interim fleet in 2009, and discovered that total procurement and
refurbishment costs could potentially be $3.5 million to $4.5 million per car in 2009 dollars35.
Note also that the supply of secondhand Budd cars and associated replacement capital spare parts
are likely to be limited now and in the future, and that the time necessary to acquire a matched set of
six Budd cars and appropriate spare parts could be considerable. Secondhand passenger rail
equipment is typically acquired from transit agencies, railroads, and rail equipment sellers. Specific
availability and the actual cost to procure secondhand Budd equipment for use on the CRANDIC
Corridor is subject to future coordination with these parties.
6.4.2 Bridge Rehabilitation Alternatives
The conceptual capital cost estimate developed for this Study assumed that ballast-deck bridges are
best suited for this Corridor owing to consideration of passenger ride quality, while also having the
advantage of better maintaining track geometry, lowering maintenance costs, and extending bridge
34 Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District, Use of Budd RDCs as an Interim Fleet; June 18, 2009
35 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
64 | July 31, 2020
life. For these reasons it was assumed that all existing open-deck bridges would be converted to
ballast-deck bridges, except for the following structures requiring replacement:
• Bridge 23.8 – previously considered for replacement in past passenger rail study of the
Corridor, per CRANDIC
• Bridge 24.9 – this structure is a candidate for replacement in order to reduce maintenance
costs and enhance pedestrian traffic flows
If the preference is not to implement the ballast-deck bridges conversions and to instead replace
open-deck bridge ties (on Bridges 17.5, 24.6, 24.7, 24.8, and 25.75) as an alternative approach,
there would be a potential cost savings of approximately $1.83 million. In addition, if the preference
is not to replace Bridges 23.8 and 24.9 and only perform bridge tie replacement (Bridge 23.8) and
ballast retainer installation (Bridge 24.9), then there would be a potential cost savings of
approximately $0.48 million. If both bridge alternatives were chosen over ballast-deck conversion
and bridge construction, as listed in the base capital cost estimate, the potential cost savings could
be approximately $2.31 million.
6.4.3 At -Grade Roadway Crossings Alternatives
The estimate assumed the replacement of timber and asphalt crossing surfaces, with concrete
panels (i.e., private crossings), and for other roadway surface and approach improvements at
existing at-grade road/rail crossings, in order to enhance safety, improve component reliability, and
to realize long-term maintenance cost savings. The estimate assumed that track will be built up to all
existing concrete grade crossings and that track under existing concrete grade crossings, as well as
the grade crossing approach surface, is in good condition due to previous recent investment by
CRANDIC.
As an alternative, a complete track renewal at existing at-grade crossings can be elected, consistent
with typical Track Renewal Train (TRT) or Track Laying Machine (TLM) practices, with the crossings
being upgraded to concrete ties and 115 lb./yd. CWR. In this approach, existing at-grade crossings
would be renewed by pulling the existing concrete crossing panels, replacing the wood ties with
concrete ties, relaying new rail, replacing the concrete panels, and paving up to 10 feet of feathered
HMA. This would result in a uniform track structure and even replacement tie-cycle through all
crossings. To reduce costs and complexity, the two busiest and most complex crossings in the
Corridor (Burlington Street in Iowa City and First Avenue in Coralville) would be left in place while all
of the other crossings will see the complete track renewal. The expected additional cost for this
alternative is approximately $3.03 million.
6.4.4 Track Construction Alternatives
The conceptual capital cost estimate developed for this Study assumed stick-build installation of 115
lb./yd. CWR on wood cross ties with a 24” spacing (on center). Stick building will achieve cost
savings efficiencies since all the track work will be conducted via a long-term track curfew. This
method will avoid reconstructing some recently upgraded track, which was completed in 2013,
between Milepost 23.2 and Milepost 23.8. The approximately 0.6 miles of new track (wood track ties
on 115 lb./yd. CWR) does not require immediate renewal or replacement. The stick building method
would also avoid upgrading ties and rail through recently upgraded at-grade roadway crossings.
As an alternative, track could be constructed out of 115 lb./yd. CWR on concrete ties with a 30”
spacing (on center). This would be constructed via TRT or TLM. This method would be more
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 65
expensive, but it would result in a shorter construction window due to the machine’s high production
rate. In addition, less construction access would be required since the TRT or TLM can haul
construction and salvage materials within the Corridor. Concrete ties would have a longer expected
life, greater flexural strength (requires fewer ties per mile), and lower maintenance costs. However,
with concrete tie construction, it is recommended that the track under the grade crossing be replaced
in order to maintain a uniform track surface. This would add additional project cost related to
crossing closure and surfacing work. The expected additional cost for this alternative is
approximately $2.68 million in track improvements, plus the $3.03 million in grade crossing
improvements (as listed in the subsection above), totaling $5.70 million.
7 Federal Regulatory Requirements
This section describes the basic federal regulatory requirements of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) for the implementation and operation of a passenger rail service, including
provisions that require future federal approvals if federal funding is obtained. FTA would also have a
role in safety oversight, as well. Safety standards for FTA are located here:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/compendium-transit-safety-standards.
The section also describes the general federal regulatory requirements that are triggered for locating
passenger rail service on an active freight railroad (like CRANDIC), and, if the freight rail services
are no longer required, the requirements for abandonment of common-carrier service. This section
concludes with a description of the general Environmental Review process for permitting,
constructing, and implementing passenger rail service.
A proposed rail passenger service on the CRANDIC Corridor may be impacted by one or more of
two federal agencies, listed below:
• FTA
• U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB)
A third agency, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is generally focused upon the general
railway system, and has no authority over transit or urban rail passenger services operating totally
outside of that system. When a rail passenger service operates within, or crosses right-of-way within
the general railway system, that passenger rail system falls within FRA jurisdiction. Because the
passenger rail service explored in this Study does not meet those conditions, FRA regulations are
not anticipated to apply to the type of service under study on a passenger rail only corridor. In the
future, if a shared-use passenger and freight rail operation is sought for the Iowa City-North Liberty
Corridor, then FRA would have jurisdiction and FRA safety regulations and other requirements
would apply.
The possible role of the FTA and STB in the establishment and operation of a potential passenger
rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor is summarized in the following sections.
7.1 Federal Transit Administration
In its role of providing financial assistance to develop new transit systems and improve, maintain,
and operate existing systems nationwide, FTA oversees several grants provided to states, tribes,
and local public agencies to support public transportation. Grantees have a responsibility to comply
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
66 | July 31, 2020
with statutory and regulatory requirements associated with the management of federally assisted
grants36. These requirements are generally listed below.
FTA monitors grants and federally funded projects to confirm that grantees establish and follow
federally mandated procedures, such as 37:
• Demonstrating legal, financial, and technical capacity to carry out programs and projects
• Providing technical inspection and supervision by qualified professionals of all work in
progress
• Ensuring compliance with procurement requirements, including the Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
• Complying with all applicable civil rights statutes and implementing regulations
• Complying with applicable safety and asset management
The FTA planning requirements would be applied to the project if capital funding for the
implementation of passenger rail service is pursued from one of the four FTA capital improvement
programs/pathways identified below38:
• New Starts: New Starts projects are new fixed guideway projects or extensions to existing
fixed guideway systems with a total estimated capital cost of $300 million or more, or that are
seeking $100 million or more in Section 5309 CIG program funds.
• Small Starts: Small Starts projects are new fixed guideway projects, extensions to existing
fixed guideway systems, or corridor-based bus rapid transit projects with a total estimated
capital cost of less than $300 million and that are seeking less than $100 million in Section
5309 CIG program funds.
• Core Capacity: Core Capacity projects are substantial corridor-based capital investments in
existing fixed guideway systems that increase capacity by not less than 10 percent in
corridors that are at capacity today or will be in five years. Core capacity projects may not
include elements designed to maintain a state of good repair.
• Programs of Interrelated Projects: Programs of Interrelated Projects are comprised of any
combination of two or more New Starts, Small Starts, or Core Capacity projects. The projects
in the program must have logical connectivity to one another and all must begin construction
within a reasonable timeframe.
The discussion in this Study will be limited to the New Starts and Small Starts, as Core Capacity is
not relevant to the potential for passenger rail implementation in the CRANDIC Corridor. Programs
of Interrelated Projects would only apply if New Starts and Smalls Starts are used in parallel to each
other.
36 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/regulations-and-guidance
37 Ibid.
38
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/5309_Capital_Investment_Grant_Fact_Sheet
.pdf
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 67
All New Starts and Small Starts projects must follow a rigorous analysis in order to compete for
funding in this competitive grant program. These programs are described in greater detail in the
previous Iowa City-North Liberty Passenger Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study.
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act ensures there is funding to develop and
operate state safety oversight programs, as it builds on the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21). The Fast Act requires the establishment of Minimum Safety Standards for
safe transit operations, and reinforces FTA’s authority to issue regulations that restrict or prohibit
unsafe conditions or practices that create a substantial risk of death or personal injury. FTA is also
given authority to withhold or direct federal funds for recipients that do not comply with federal law
regarding safety of the public transportation system39.
Any project receiving FTA funding is subject to FTA oversight through project planning, design, and
testing. Although the FTA maintains oversight for the grants that it awards, the grant administration
and project management responsibility is assigned to the grantee. The FTA defines oversight as a
continuous review and evaluation of grantee and FTA processes to ensure compliance with
statutory, administrative, and regulatory requirements. For New Starts projects, this activity is
generally led by a Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC) reporting the FTA regional
office. In this role, the PMOC supplements the FTA technical staff, monitoring the overall schedule,
and budget.
The grantee is required to develop a State Safety Oversight Program,
https://www.transit.dot.gov/state-safety-oversight, and meet FTA compliance standards. The grantee
is also required to develop a Project Management Plan (PMP) that defines in detail how it will
manage the project. FTA provides guidance in development of the manual in FTA Circular 5200.1.
FTA has also developed several documents that may guide the development of the PMP and overall
project management, including:
• FTA Quality Management System Guidelines
• FTA Project and Construction Management Guidelines
• Construction Project Management Handbook
While the grantee has some discretion in establishing its management approach, once the document
is accepted by FTA the grantee cannot deviate from the PMP. The elements of the PMP are
identified below:
• Basis for project (project description, financial plan, and legal authority for implementation)
• Environmental Documentation/Mitigation Plan
• Design Control Plan
• Design Change and Configuration Control
• Project Controls
• Cost Control Procedures
• Schedule Control Procedures
39 https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/FAST-Act-A-Guide-to-Public-Transportation-and-Rail-
Related-Provisions.pdf
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
68 | July 31, 2020
• Risk Control Procedures
• Dispute and Conflict Resolution
• Project Delivery and Procurement
• Labor Relations and Policies
• Construction of Fixed Infrastructure
• System Integration, Pre-Revenue Operations and Revenue Service
• Grantee Technical Capacity and Capability
• Quality Assurance/Quality Control
• Safety and Security Plan
• Real Estate Acquisition and Management Plan
• Fleet Management Plan
Many of the items defined in the PMP are deliverables that must be approved by the FTA before
entry into Final Design. A checklist identifying those deliverables is included in Table 30 below.
Table 30: FTA - New Starts Project Planning and Development Checklist
New Starts Project Planning And Development Checklist Of Project Sponsor Submittals To FTA To Enter
Final Design (FD)
Products
FTA Concurrence
Date
Reference
(Regulations, Guidance, And Other
Resources)
Completion Of Preliminary Engineering -
Project Definition/Scope -
FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 4)
Full Funding Grant Agreements Guidance
5200.1A (Chapter 2)
Project Plans, Drawings, Design Criteria,
Standards and Specifications with refined
project definition for overall project, tracks or
routes, stations, stops and other structures
Master Permitting Plan and Schedule
Geotechnical Baseline Report
Documentation of passenger level boarding
design for all stations and/or satisfactory
determination of infeasibility for one or more
stations and satisfactory alternative plan for
accessibility.
49 CFR Parts 27, 37 & 38
36 CFR 1191 & 1192
DOT Disability Law Guidance, “Full-Length,
Level-Boarding Platforms in New
Commuter and Intercity Rail Stations”
(09/01/05)
Association of American Railroads (AAR)
Clearance Plates A-F, H & L
DoD Strategic Rail Corridor Network
(STRACNET) clearance profile
Project Cost, Schedule and Financial
Plan
- FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapters 3 & 4)
Standard Cost Categories for Capital
Projects
Alternatives Analysis Technical Guidance
(Part II.3)
Capital Cost Estimate and Project Schedule
in Original Format and Standard Cost
Category (SCC) Format (refined and
updated to support final design request)
Summary of O&M Cost
Assumptions/Productivities (if O&M costs
changed since approval to enter PE)
Alternatives Analysis Technical Guidance
(Part II.4)
Reporting Instructions
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 69
New Starts Project Planning And Development Checklist Of Project Sponsor Submittals To FTA To Enter
Final Design (FD)
Products
FTA Concurrence
Date
Reference
(Regulations, Guidance, And Other
Resources)
Financial Plan and Supporting Information
Supporting Final Design Request and
Financial Capacity Assessment
49 CFR 611.11
Financial Capacity Policy Circular 7008.1A
Guidance for Transit Financial Plans June
2000
Reporting Instructions
Guidelines and Standards for Assessing
Local Financial Commitment
Project Development Requirements - 23 CFR 771
49 CFR 622
2006 Guidance on New Starts Policies and
Procedures - May 16, 2006 (Section 1) -
Reference for New Starts Rating
Information in ROD
Final NEPA Documentation (i.e., Categorical
Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact,
or Record of Decision) including description
of required environmental permits and New
Starts Rating Information in ROD if the New
Starts Rating is less than “medium”
Before and After Study Documentation of
Methods and “Predicted” Results and
Identification of Responsible Contractors
Draft Before and After Guidance Available
on Request
2006 Guidance on New Starts Policies and
Procedures - May 16, 2006
TIP and STIP Programming of Final Design
and Construction (and update or
amendment of long range plan, if needed)
Capital Program Circular 9300.1A
Transportation Planning Final Rule
Travel Forecasts (If changed since
approval to enter PE) - Travel Forecasting for New Starts
Proposals (From FTA Workshop)
Alternatives Analysis Technical Guidance
(Part II.5-6)
Reporting Instructions
Documentation of Methodologies and
Assumptions
Summit Reports and Maps
Travel Forecasts Template
Annualization Factor Justification
Project Management Plan (PMP) Update -
49 CFR 633 (Subpart C)
FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 2-4)
Grant Management Circular 5010.1C
(Chapter 1)
Full Funding Grant Agreements Guidance
5200.1A (Chapter 2)
QA/QC Guidelines
Basic Requirements Update -
Project Sponsor Staff Organization
Project Budget & Schedule
Procedures Update -
Document Control Procedures
Change Order Procedures
Material Testing Procedures
Internal Reporting Procedures
Operational Testing Procedures
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
Plans Update -
FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 2 & 3) Contingency Management Plan (identifying
significant areas of uncertainty in scope,
cost and schedule)
Real Estate Acquisition Management Plan
(RAMP)
49 CFR 24
Uniform Act
Real Estate Page of FTA Website and FTA
Real Estate Course
Rail Fleet Management Plan (RFMP) Grant Management Circular 5010.1C
(Chapter 1)
FFGA Guidance 5200.1A (Chapter 2)
Bus Fleet Management Plan (BFMP)
Safety and Security Management Plan
(SSMP)
SSMP Circular 5800.1
Full Funding Grant Agreements Guidance
5200.1A (Chapter 2)
49 CFR 659
FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 2)
Operating Plan FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 3)
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
70 | July 31, 2020
New Starts Project Planning And Development Checklist Of Project Sponsor Submittals To FTA To Enter
Final Design (FD)
Products
FTA Concurrence
Date
Reference
(Regulations, Guidance, And Other
Resources)
Configuration Management Plan FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 5)
Other Project Management Products - Capital Program Circular 9300.1A (Chapter
V)
Grant Management Circular 5010.1C
(Chapter 1)
FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 4)
Value Engineering Analysis Report
Procurement Contract Packages -
FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 4)
Third Party Contracting Circular 4220.1E
Contracting Plan for Final Design Phase
Contracting Plan for
Construction/Procurement (draft policies and
procedures for all proposed contracting)
inclusive of profit strategies and proposed
risk allocation measures
Claims Avoidance Plan for Final Design
FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 3)
Claims Avoidance Plan for
Construction/Procurement Phase
General Conditions (preliminarily drafted for
design, construction and procurement
contracts)
Third Party Agreements - Grant Management Circular 5010.1C
(Chapter 1)
23 CFR 645, Utilities
FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 4)
FFGA Guidance 5200.1A (Chapter 2)
Utility Agreements (negotiated and
completed to the extent possible)
Master, Interagency, Public/Private, Joint
Development, Railroad and Right of Way
Agreements (negotiated and completed to
the degree possible)
FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 4)
New Starts Templates, Certifications, and
Other Reports
-
Reporting Instructions New Starts Criteria Templates and
Certifications
SCC Annualized Cost Worksheets Standard Cost Categories for Capital
Projects
Land Use Supporting Information Reporting Instructions
Guidelines and Standards for Assessing
Transit-Supportive Land Use
Making the Case Document Reporting Instructions
Examples on FTA Website
Administrative Requirements - Capital Program Circular 9300.1A (Chapter
6) Legal Capacity (Authority to undertake
implementation of proposed transit mode)
Authority to pursue and contract with project
delivery method proposed (if not design-bid-
build)
FTA P&CM Guidelines (Chapter 4)
Grantee Letter of Request for FD Initiation
Source: FTA
In addition to meeting FTA requirements for project evaluation, design, and construction, projects
receiving FTA funding must also meet the Buy America requirements outlined in 49 CFR Part 661
and the final policy guidance for Buy America requirements issued by FTA on September 1, 201640.
40 http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/FTA-issues-final-policy-guidance-for-Buy-
America-requirements
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 71
According to the FTA in its final guidance, the domestic content requirement minimum for passenger
rail equipment procurements for Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017 is more than 60 percent and by Fiscal
Year 2020, the minimum will be more than 70 percent41. These requirements have had a significant
impact on the range of rolling stock available for rail passenger services. DMU railcars are now
available for commuter rail implementation that meet these requirements, including new FRA
Compliant DMU vehicles, like those considered for potential implementation on the Iowa City-North
Liberty Corridor.
It is possible that a proposed passenger rail project may fall within both FTA and FRA programs. A
common example would be a commuter rail project sharing tracks with an active freight railroad and
that is also seeking FTA New Starts or Small Starts funding. In this instance, the FRA safety
regulations would apply, along with the FTA project evaluation and project management
requirements. The two agencies have worked together in the past to apply complementary
regulations when appropriate.
7.2 Surface Transportation Board
The STB is generally focused upon the economic regulation of the general railway system in the
U.S., dealing with rail line construction; implementation of new freight or passenger common-carrier
services that expand geographically beyond existing services; rate and service levels, adequacy,
and disputes; acquisition, sale, or merger of private rail freight operators; and abandonments of
common-carrier obligations. The STB generally does not have jurisdiction over mass transportation
provided by a local government authority. The most common STB involvement related to urban
passenger service results from abandonment of an existing freight common-carrier obligation
associated with implementation of new rail passenger service. In addition, STB authority may be
required for implementation of a new commuter rail service if it is jointly marketed or operated with
an interstate passenger rail service. Because the CRANDIC segment proposed for the Corridor is
currently a freight railroad with a common-carrier obligation, STB abandonment procedures may be
required if the selected passenger rail mode, or the characteristics of the passenger service,
preclude or substantially modify the CRANDIC’s ability to provide for its common-carrier obligation.
Railroad abandonment requirements follow a process documented in 49 CFR 1152: Abandonment
and Discontinuance of Rail Lines and Rail Transportation. The Iowa DOT actively participates in the
railroad abandonment process within the state42. The key activities in the railroad abandonment
process are summarized below:
• Filing of a Notice of Intent weekly for three consecutive weeks in a local newspaper in each
county in which any part of the line is located.
• Filing the Abandonment Application with the STB and appropriate State offices. Application
will describe physical condition of the line, financial aspects of the operation, and justification
for the abandonment. Notice of intent to file and offer of financial assistance must be made
within 30 days of the application filing.
• Public involvement for 45 days following the application filing for persons who oppose the
application. An oral hearing may be requested. Notarized comments must be sent to the STB
and the railroad/representative filing the application.
41 Ibid.
42 Railroad Abandonment, Iowa Department of Transportation, Revised March 25, 1997
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
72 | July 31, 2020
• Applicant’s reply or rebuttal to opposition within 60 days of application filing.
• Deadline for STB decision on merits of case within 110 days of filing.
• Offers of financial assistance to preserve service must be made within 10 days of STB
decision.
A carrier may file for a Notice of Exemption if it can certify that:
• No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years
• Any overhead traffic on the line can be rerouted over other lines
• No formal complaint filed by the user of rail service on the line is pending or has been
decided in favor or the complainant within two years.
The STB must find that the line is not necessary to carry out the rail transportation policy of the U.S.
Government as established in Title 49 USC 10101, and the line is of limited scope and continued
regulation is unnecessary to protect shippers from abuse of market power before the abandonment
can be approved.
Parties seeking a public use condition in an abandonment proceeding must file a written request for
public use condition with the STB no later than 45 days after the application is filed. If successful
negotiations are not completed within 180 days, the railroad company is free to accept any other
offer.
The Study anticipates that the CRANDIC Corridor between Gilbert Street in Iowa City (approximately
Milepost 25.8) and Penn Street in North Liberty (approximately Milepost 16.7) would be passenger
rail only, and that CRANDIC would maintain physical connections to its existing contiguous freight
only network at those locations. If in the future CRANDIC desires to reinstate its common-carrier
obligation and provide freight rail service over the Iowa City-North Liberty segment, which would
establish a shared-use passenger and freight rail corridor, it would be required to file with the STB.
7.3 Environmental Review
This section summarizes the general environmental requirements for construction and
implementation of a passenger rail corridor and service between Iowa City and North Liberty.
7.3.1 Assumptions for Environmental Review
The process for environmental documentation review for a passenger rail project in the CRANDIC
Corridor assumes the following:
• The document will analyze the environmental impact(s) of a passenger rail service in the
Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty.
• The FTA is the Lead Agency for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with
cooperation from the STB and other federal agencies.
• The Iowa DOT or one or more local Iowa jurisdictions will be the Grantee, and if Iowa DOT is
not the Grantee, it may be the Lead Agency.
• Based upon the characteristics of the Iowa City to North Liberty Corridor and the range of
alternatives, the environmental class of action is anticipated to be either an Environmental
Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 73
7.3.2 Review Process
The Lead Agency and Grantee for the project will conduct scoping to determine major project issues
and additional studies that may be needed in accordance with FTA requirements. The findings will
be documented in memoranda and ultimately the NEPA document. Based on the conclusions of the
scoping process, a class of action recommendation for FTA review and a Project Work Plan, which
specifically includes a project schedule and detailed scope of work, will be submitted. The FTA will
decide if the class of action for the project is an EA or an EIS. This step may be delayed until
completion of additional environmental analysis.
If it is determined that the appropriate environmental class of action is an EIS, the Lead Agency will
issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) to advise agencies and the public about the preparation of an EIS. The
NOI will invite the public to comment on the scope of the document, purpose and need of the project,
alternatives to be considered, impacts to be evaluated, and methodologies to be used in the
evaluation.
The Lead Agency and Grantee will prepare technical studies and appropriate documentation in
accordance with FTA’s environmental procedures. The analysis will include typical impacts
associated with passenger rail projects including noise, traffic, cultural and historical resources,
wetlands, and other waters of the U.S., threatened and endangered species, and other components.
If the class of action was not determined prior to the technical studies, it would be determined using
the results of the technical studies.
A Public Involvement Plan (PIP) will be developed which identifies various private and public
stakeholders. These will include, but are not limited to agency partners, community groups,
advocacy groups, business groups, potential riders of the passenger rail service, freight railroad
hosting the service, and potential passenger rail service providers. The PIP typically includes
strategies for the receiving and processing public input.
The Lead Agency and Grantee will complete an FTA-approved EA or EIS for construction of the
project. For an EIS, a draft environmental document will be circulated and a public hearing for public
input will be held. The FTA will complete a Final EIS document and a Record of Decision (ROD). For
an EA, the environmental document will be circulated and a public meeting for public input will be
held. If an EA is required, the FTA will complete a decision document, either a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI), or recommendation for completion of an EIS. The Grantee will identify
all necessary mitigation and permits required for project construction and implementation.
The environmental process may potentially take between 12 months and 36 months to complete,
depending upon the environmental class of action and the review process, as well as public support
or opposition to the project.
7.3.3 Contents of the Environmental Document
The EA or EIS will include, but is not limited to, the following:
• Project Description including a description of existing conditions in the Corridor.
• Purpose and Need for the project.
• Identification and environmental analysis of project build alternatives.
• Assessment of impacts of the proposed action and alternatives and necessary mitigation for
impacts.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
74 | July 31, 2020
7.3.4 Impacts of FAST ACT on the Environmental Process
The FAST Act revised the process for preparing an EIS in Draft and Final formats. After the Draft
EIS has been prepared by the Grantee and approved by the Lead Agency, the FAST Act provides
for the preparation of the Final EIS during Project Development by attaching errata sheets to the
Draft EIS if certain conditions are met. In addition, the USDOT allows Grantees to develop a single
document that combines the Final EIS and the ROD.
Once the Lead Agency approves the Grantee’s request to enter into Project Development (including
project Environmental Analysis and Preliminary Engineering), FAST Act requires that the Grantee
submits the Final EIS within two years of entry.
7.3.5 Permitting and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Environmental documentation will include identification of the permits required for the project. Permit
applications will need to be developed and all mitigation and associated conditions incorporated into
the construction plan. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) will be developed that details mitigation
monitoring measures to be implemented during construction of the project. The MMP provides the
plan to maintain compliance, when to obtain permits, and identification of the agencies responsible
for issuing permits. The MMP will identify and describe adverse and beneficial effects of the project,
identify specific measures to mitigate the adverse impacts, and list parties that are responsible for
ensuring compliance.
8 Financial Plan Strategies
This section identifies the federal capital project funding programs that may be applied to a proposed
rail passenger project like that under study for the CRANDIC Corridor, and summarizes the
application and review process for the predominant funding sources for fixed-guide way transit
projects – Section 5309 New Starts and Small Starts programs.
8.1 Potential Project Funding Sources for Capital
Costs
Federal grants have traditionally been a prime source of capital funding for many new transit
systems in the U.S., as well as a source of some operating funds. Federal transit funds are
distributed under the provisions of Title 49, Chapter 53, of the United States Code. Transit funds are
distributed through both formula and discretionary programs. Following Congressional appropriation
of funds, specific amounts that are available for states and urbanized areas under formula programs
(as established by federal legislation, i.e., FAST Act) are published in an apportionment notice in the
Federal Register, as well as amounts for allocated programs. Allocated program funds that are
otherwise distributed by Congress are made available to the FTA for “discretionary” distribution. All
federal transit funds are categorized as grants, regardless of if they are discretionary or formula-
based.
Grant recipients must submit a grant application to the FTA to receive federal transit funds, typically
on an annual basis. When FTA approves the grant, the funds are “granted” or obligated to the
applicant agency and applied in support of a specific procurement process or as reimbursement for
expenditures that have already been made. Transit funds can be used for a variety of expenditures
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 75
as defined in laws that authorize individual spending programs. Eligible expenditures fall into two
general categories: capital expenditures (for which most federal funds may be used), and other
expenditures limited to specific programs.
A number of grant programs are available to provide federal funding for transit services, primarily
addressing capital needs, but others support planning and design, and in some limited cases,
operations and maintenance. Funding programs include traditional FTA programs, opportunities to
“flex” funds to transit from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and other “non-traditional”
funding opportunities from other agencies such as the FRA, Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The primary federal transit funding opportunities are presented in the categories of FTA Formula
Grant Programs, USDOT Flexible Funds, FTA Discretionary Grant Programs, USDOT Discretionary
Grant Programs, federal loan programs (e.g., Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
Act [TIFIA] program), and other federal Funding Opportunities. The following paragraphs highlight
those sources that are most likely to be relevant to the development of passenger rail projects,
including the potential for a passenger rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor.
8.1.1 New Starts and Small Starts Capital Investments
The FTA New Starts and Small Starts (Section 5309 Major Capital Investments) are a highly
competitive discretionary grant programs. The federal capital share (in both New Starts and Small
Starts) typically does not exceed 50 percent of the total project capital cost, and the federal share
has been declining over time. Local entities typically need to identify 50 percent or more of the match
to federal funds. The New Starts program has been funded under the various omnibus
Transportation Funding authorization bills, the most recent being the FAST Act. Funds are
authorized under these programs, but are still subject to annual Congressional appropriations. Once
a bill, such as FAST Act has been authorized, annual appropriations must be made by Congress to
fund the programs identified in the legislation.
8.1.2 Short-Term Infrastructure Investment Programs
The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development, or BUILD Transportation Discretionary
Grant program, provides a unique opportunity for the USDOT to invest in road, rail, transit, and port
projects that promise to achieve national objectives. Previously known as Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER Discretionary Grants, Congress has dedicated nearly
$7.9 billion for eleven rounds of National Infrastructure Investments to fund projects that have a
significant local or regional impact.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 made available $1.5 billion for BUILD grants through
September 30, 2020. For the current round of BUILD Transportation grants (2020), the maximum
grant award is $25 million with no more than $100 million awarded to a single state, as specified in
the FY 2018 Appropriations Act. At least 50 percent of funds must be awarded to projects located in
rural areas.
In each competition, USDOT receives hundreds of applications to build and repair critical pieces of
our freight and passenger transportation networks. The BUILD program enables USDOT to examine
these projects on their merits to help ensure that taxpayers are getting the highest value for every
dollar invested.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
76 | July 31, 2020
Very few projects selected for grant funding are commuter rail transit related, most of them involving
streetcars, light rail, or improvements to passenger rail stations and facilities on existing systems.
Commuter rail type projects are competing with project entries under many other modes, including
bus, road, rail, ports, pedestrian, bike, and multi-modal projects, and a significant portion of funds
are reserved for rural locations. In order to be competitive, application requests have to be $25
million or less. It is unclear whether there will be any additional rounds of funding under any of these
programs beyond the current competition.
Most recent competitive BUILD project awards have been in the $10 million to $22 million range and
represent less than 50 percent of total project costs. However, chances of a project receiving funding
from multiple federal sources decreases as the total proportion of federal funding in the project
increases. For example, if a project is already receiving a significant amount of federal funding under
another federal grant program, such as New or Small Starts, its chances of getting substantial, if
any, BUILD funds seem to decrease, based on a review of past awards experience.
Several other federal grant programs have been used by other cities as a source of limited “fill-in”
funds to help fund capital costs of commuter rail lines. These programs include the Congestion
Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program, Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds, and possible
inputs of Economic Development Administration (EDA) and FHWA funding. CMAQ funds are federal
funds allocated to the states which must be used for transportation projects that result in reduced
traffic congestion and air pollution, such as traffic signalization, bus replacements, and other transit-
related projects. In these programs, the amounts of funding are typically limited and are focused on
specifically targeted project elements or objectives: for example, use of FHWA funds for street and
streetscape improvements associated with the reconstruction of a major street into a multimodal
transit corridor. In Cincinnati, Ohio, $4 million of regional CMAQ funds were allocated to a streetcar
project. A streetcar project in Kansas City, Missouri, includes $17 million in STP and CMAQ funds as
part of the overall funding package for its $102 million total cost.
8.1.3 Public-Private Partnerships
Background
A public-private partnership (also known as PPP or P3s) is a contractual arrangement between a
public agency and a private entity that allows for private participation in the delivery and operation of
an infrastructure project, facility, or service 43. P3s are an approach or mechanism that can be utilized
to move the funding process from a single strategy of governmental aid (i.e., through grants to
regional and local authorities), to a more diversified approach involving private capital markets and
investors44. Common P3 applications within the transport sector, involves one or more aspects of the
funding, financing, planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of a transportation
facility45.
43 USDOT, Public-Private Partnerships, https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/programs-
services/p3
44 American Public Transportation Association (APTA), Public-Private Partnerships In Public
Transportation: Policies And Principles For The Transit Industry,
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/apta_ppp_white_paper_final.pdf
45 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 77
Additionally, P3s may be specific to a project (e.g., developing a new type of service or constructing
a rail line) or a mechanism that can be applied system wide (e.g., procuring new equipment or
bidding out all or defined portions of operations and maintenance)46. Whatever the application for
using public-private partnerships, it is important to note that the underlying contractual arrangement
transfers certain risks and confer certain financial opportunities to the private partner, and in
exchange the public agency partner realizes a defined blend of lowered cost for prescribed services,
improved service quality, efficient deployment of new technologies, innovative or cost-effective
business practices, reduction of financial risk, and increased management expertise and depth47.
For projects with the potential for transit development and operation, P3s have been used to fund:
1. Project development with direct financial contribution from private sector participants
2. Project delivery and operation, with shared risk among public and private participants
3. Private investment in transit-supportive development.
P3s should be viewed as one of a number of techniques and mechanisms for funding, delivering,
and sustaining transit facilities and services. However, P3s should not be viewed as an ultimate
funding solution in the absence of other resources, but as a complement to existing and traditional
sources of funding for service expansion, modernization, and infrastructure investment.
Examples of P3s
While more popular in Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America, there have been relatively few
transit development programs in North America that have utilized direct private financial contribution
and/or asset ownership. Some U.S. projects that have recently been named as demonstration
programs under the FTA’s Public-Private Partnerships Pilot Program (“Penta-P”) represent the most
innovative forms of private risk capital investment in current U.S. practice48. These include49:
• Houston - Metro has pursued private ownership of public transportation assets, and has
entered into long-term lease agreements with private entities to build and operate rail and
busway facilities
• Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) District in California – BART invited participation and
investment by the private sector into its new connection between Oakland Airport and the
BART Coliseum Station
• Denver - Regional Transportation District (RTD) has determined that private investment in
three new rail corridors will be undertaken using a design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM)
model including private investment.
In the U.S. and Canada, communities such as Portland, Vancouver, Charlotte, Toronto, Washington
DC, San Diego, Miami, and Atlanta – among many others – have benefited from private participation
in transit-oriented development (TOD). Virtually all new rail transit systems, and many that have
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
78 | July 31, 2020
existed for years, are working closely with developers to assure that private investment in station
areas and along rail and bus routes will benefit transit ridership.
Private Investment Project Procedures (PIPP)
On May 30, 2018, FTA issued a Private Investment Project Procedures (PIPP) Final Rule allowing
FTA grantees considering capital projects to seek a waiver or modification of a FTA regulation,
policy, procedure, or guidance that may impede the use of a P3 or private investment in that
project 50. PIPP encourages project sponsors to seek modifications of federal requirements to spur
private participation and investment in project planning, development, finance, design, construction,
maintenance, and operations. The new procedures will accelerate the project development process,
attract private investment, and lead to increased project management flexibility, more innovation,
improved efficiency, and/or new revenue streams.
The Private Investment Project Procedures Final Rule can be found here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/30/2018-11385/private-investment-project-
procedures
8.1.4 Other Forms of Private Sector Participation
The FTA also encourages the consideration of the private sector in the development and
implementation of transportation improvements (49 U.S.C. 5315). Early involvement with the private
sector can bring creativity, efficiency, and capital to solve the transportation and funding problems
that many public agency experience. In addition to P3s, other methods of private sector participation
are Joint Development, Capital Leasing, and Third Party Contracting51.
A summary of each of these mechanisms are provided below.
Joint Development
Joint development is a form of value capture, as a transit agency captures some of the economic
value created by its transit system and uses the funds to help finance expenses52. Joint development
projects can involve the integrated development of transit and non-transit improvements, with transit
projects physically or functionally related to commercial, residential, or mixed-use development 53.
Joint development would occur when a transit agency partners with a developer to lease property
owned by the transit agency near a transit station to build office space or residential units, thereby
raising revenue for the transit system in the process54.
50 Federal Transit Administration, Private Section Participation, https://www.transit.dot.gov/PIPP
51 Ibid.
52 Federal Transit Administration, Joint Development, https://www.transit.dot.gov/JointDevelopment
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 79
Capital Leasing
According to the FTA, capital leasing is a contractual agreement in which a grantee acquires the
right to use a capital asset for a specified period of time without obtaining full ownership55. This is in
exchange for a periodic payment regardless of the tax status of the transaction 56. A capital lease is
an eligible activity under FTA’s 49 USC, Chapter 53 grant programs and can be used to leverage
limited funds more efficiently than if the capital assets were purchased or constructed.
Common benefits associated with capital leasing are 57:
• Improves agency cash flow
• Reduces agency maintenance and replacement costs
• Allows for competitive pricing
• Allows for cost savings for removable power sources
Third Party Contracting
Third Party Contracting refers to a recipient’s contract with a vendor or contractor, including
procurement by purchase order or purchase by credit card, which is financed with federal assistance
awarded by FTA.
Typical areas where third party contracting is involved are:
• Capital Contracts for equipment, supplies and services, including construction and rolling
stock
• Preventive Maintenance Contracts
• Operations Contracts
• Revenue Contracts
• Legal and Associated Services
• Employment Contracts (for temporary services)
FTA’s “Best Practices Procurement Manual” (BPPM) provides suggested procedures, methods, and
examples to advise a recipient how it might conduct its third party procurements in compliance with
Federal laws and regulations and FTA Circular 4220.1F guidance.
8.1.5 Special Taxation Districts
Special taxation districts (also referred to tax allocation districts or local taxing districts) are created
to finance a wide range of projects, including public transportation and assess an extra levy on
property owners within a district in order to finance special projects. Revenue can be generated
through sales tax and earmarked for transportation projects, such as the proposed commuter rail
service.
55 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Capital Leasing, https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/funding-
finance-resources/capital-leasing/capital-leasing
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
80 | July 31, 2020
Should a special taxation district be implemented to finance the construction or
operations/maintenance of the proposed commuter rail service, the potential users of this service will
likely reside within the special taxation district boundary, thus taxes collected for the proposed
commuter rail service will be independent of other taxpayers (and likely non-users) outside of the
special taxation district boundary.
8.1.6 Value Capture Financing
Value capture is the public recovery of a portion of increased property and other value created as a
result of public infrastructure investment. Capturing a portion of that value to fund transit projects is
an increasingly viable and desirable option.
Value capture is the public recovery of a portion of increased property value created as a result of
public infrastructure investment. Common value capture mechanisms are:
• Impact fees
• Joint development
• Land value taxation
• Negotiated exactions
• Parking fees
• Sale or leasing of air rights
• Sales tax and special assessment districts
• Station naming rights
• Tax increment financing (TIF)
8.2 Overview of FTA New Starts and Small Starts
Programs
The FTA New Starts and Small Starts are the primary funding sources for new rail projects. The FTA
program applies a standard set of evaluation criteria to facilitate comparison of projects nationally
“on a level playing field.” The evaluation measures have changed over time to reinforce consistency
in project analysis and to simplify the project rating process. The nature of these changes has
tended to favor projects with many short trips (streetcar, Bus-Rapid Transit, some light rail) at the
expense of projects with a small number of long trips, such as commuter rail.
The FTA New Starts Program includes three major steps listed below and as shown in Figure 22
below:
• Project Development, which allows up to two years for the completion of planning,
preliminary engineering, and approval of a project’s environmental document.
• Final Design/Engineering, during which design and engineering continue and commitments
for project funding are established.
• Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA), which moves the project into construction.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 81
Figure 22: FTA Project Development Process for New Starts Projects
Source: FTA
While the boxes appear to show distinct boundaries for activities by phase, there is some overlap
between the phases. As noted earlier, the Small Starts process is somewhat abbreviated because
the projects tend to be of a smaller scale. The project evaluation criteria and rating system is
extremely precise, and has evolved considerably during the FTA discretionary program. The most
recent update of the evaluation process is described in Proposed Interim Policy Guidance, Federal
Transit Administration Capital Investment Program, June 2016.
FTA approval is necessary to enter the Project Development phase. That approval is based upon a
brief description of the project outlining project participants and roles, identifying the financial
resources available to complete Project Development, and summarizing the characteristics of the
proposed project. The FTA New Starts Evaluation is then applied at the end of the Project
Development and engineering phases as outlined below, leading to a Full Funding Grant Agreement
committing federal funding for project implementation. The Small Starts program is streamlined to
facilitate implementation of smaller, lower cost projects. The process is similar to New Starts except
that the engineering phase is combined with Project Development, eliminating the FTA approval step
between Project Development and engineering. The Small Starts criteria are applied initially at the
end of the combined Project Development. A recommended project is then eligible for an Expedited
Grant Agreement (EGA) to fund project implementation.
8.2.1 Project Evaluation Components
The current project evaluation process is documented in FTA’s “Reporting Instructions for Section
5309 New Starts Criteria, June 2019” and “Reporting Instructions for the Section 5309 Small Starts
Criteria, June 2019.” This guidance provides prospective project applicants with information on how
the FTA evaluates and rates projects applying for New Starts and Small Starts funding. The rating
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
82 | July 31, 2020
established by the FTA is the combination of two, equally weighted summary ratings: Project
Justification and Local Financial Commitment.
A minimum of a “medium” rating on both the project justification and on the local financial
commitment is necessary in order to earn an overall medium or better project rating. These
summary ratings are further broken down by individual evaluation criteria. Each of the evaluation
criteria are rated on a five point scale, from low to high. At the conclusion of the assessment, all the
scores are combined to produce an overall project rating. Figure 23 below presents an overview of
the rating process and associated weighting of criteria.
This guidance will be subject to changes that are implemented from the “Proposed Interim Policy
Guidance Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Program, June 2016.”
Figure 23: Evaluation and Rating Process
Source: FTA
8.2.2 Project Justification Criteria
The FTA evaluates all potential projects seeking New Starts funding against six, equally weighted
project justification criteria. These are described in detail below.
• Mobility Improvements – This criterion considers the project’s total number of trips, with a
heavier weighting for those trips that would be made by transit-dependent persons. These
persons are defined by FTA as those within a household who do not have access to a car.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 83
The calculation is determined by adding together the estimated number of transit trips on the
project taken by non-transit dependent persons and the number of transit trips on the project
taken by transit dependent persons multiplied by a factor of two.
• Economic Development – The evaluation process for this criterion examines a number of
topics: transit supportive plans and policies within the project area, the demonstrated
performance of those plans and policies, and the policies and tools in place to preserve or
increase the amount of affordable housing in the project corridor.
• Environmental Benefits – The environmental benefits measure for New Starts projects is
the sum of the monetized value of the benefits resulting from the changes in air quality and
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, energy use, and safety divided by the same annualized
capital and operating cost of the project as used in the cost-effectiveness measure
(described in the next bullet). The FTA multiples the resulting ratio by 100 and expresses the
environmental benefit measure as a percentage. The measure is similar for Small Starts;
however, the benefits are divided only by the annualized FTA capital grant amount instead of
the total annualized capital cost and operating cost. This provides a rating advantage for
Small Starts projects under this criterion since the denominator in the equation (annualized
cost) is limited to the FTA capital cost contribution. No operating costs are included,
providing another rating advantage for Small Starts projects. Both the New Starts and Small
Starts are rated using the same set of evaluation thresholds.
• Cost-Effectiveness – The FTA measures cost-effectiveness of a project submitted for New
Starts evaluation and rating by calculating the annual capital and operating and maintenance
cost per passenger on the project. As with environmental benefits, the Small Starts
calculation considers only the annualized FTA grant amount instead of the total annualized
capital cost and operating cost. The FTA evaluation thresholds applied in this measure differ
between New and Small Starts projects, however, which largely offsets the Small Starts
annualized capital cost advantage. The cost limitation to the FTA grant amount (omitting
operating costs) provides the opportunity for Small Starts projects to increase ridership by
improving service without impacting the cost element of the rating. This would enhance the
cost-effectiveness rating, although the additional costs associated with expanded service
may impact the financial viability of the project.
• Land Use – The land use measure for New Starts projects includes an examination of
existing corridor and station area development; existing corridor and station area
development character; existing station area pedestrian facilities, including access for
persons with disabilities; existing corridor and station area parking supply; and proportion of
affordable housing. Potential changes to the affordable housing evaluation are outlined in the
Proposed Interim Guidance distributed by FTA for review in April 2015.
• Congestion Relief – The FTA has not applied a measure for congestion relief at this time.
Therefore, FTA has assigned a medium rating for this criterion for all projects. A proposed
approach to measure congestion relief is documented in the Proposed Interim Guidance,
and will likely be applied in the future.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
84 | July 31, 2020
8.2.3 Local Financial Commitment Criteria
The FTA evaluates all potential projects seeking New Starts funding against three Local Financial
Commitment criteria. These are described in detail below.
• Current Capital and Operating Condition (25 percent of Local Financial Commitment
Rating) – The evaluation of this measure is based upon the average feet age (if applicable),
bond ratings if given within the last two years, the current ratio of current assets to current
liabilities, and recent service history including whether there have been significant cuts in
service. In arriving at a current condition rating, the majority of the emphasis will be placed
on the feet age and current ratio. The bond rating and service history will have less
emphasis.
• Commitment of Capital and Operating Funds (25 percent of Local Financial Commitment
Rating) – The evaluation of this measure will be based on the percentage of funds (both
capital and operating) that are committed or budgeted versus those considered only planned
or unspecified. If there are significant private contributions, such involvement would increase
the commitment of funds rating one level. The FTA will determine on a case by case basis
whether private contributions are significant based on the unique arrangements that may be
presented. Private contributions can include outside investments that result in cost-effective
project delivery, financial partnering, and other public-private partnership strategies.
• Financial Capacity and Reasonableness of Assumptions (50 percent of Local Financial
Commitment Rating) – The evaluation of this measure will be based upon whether capital
and operating planning assumptions are comparable to historical experience, the
reasonableness of the capital cost estimate of the project, adequacy of meeting state of good
repair needs, and the project sponsor’s financial capacity to withstand cost increases or
funding shortfalls.
8.2.4 New Starts Versus Small Starts Programs
The main advantage of the New Starts program over the Small Starts program is the ability to
pursue federal funding at the 60 percent level regardless of the total project capital cost. The
allowable ratio is actually 80 percent; however, competition has driven the maximum feasible federal
request to 50 percent or less.
Projects with a total capital cost of under $300 million that request $100 million in Section 5309
funds can benefit in several ways. Ideally, the total project cost would be $180 million or less so that
the federal share can still reach 50 percent. As noted earlier, Small Start projects can be
implemented more quickly, partially because the federal process is somewhat less rigorous. This
provides quicker realization of project benefits and reduces the impact of inflation on project capital
costs.
Also noted earlier, the FTA evaluation process has evolved in a manner that favors projects with a
large number of short trips over those with a smaller number of longer trips. This effectively makes
longer systems with commuter rail operating characteristics less attractive. The Small Starts projects
can offset this bias to some extent since the environmental benefits and the cost effectiveness
consider only the federal capital request rather than the total cost, and do not include the operating
costs. This allows Small Starts projects to increase service frequency (and operating costs) in order
to attract higher ridership without increasing the cost component of the evaluation. The financial plan
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 85
must still consider the total costs, however. It may be prudent to evaluate projects that are eligible for
Small Starts under both Small and New Starts scenarios.
See the FTA’s Fact Sheet for Fixed Guideway Capital Investment Grants, Chapter 53 Section 5309:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/5309_Capital_Investment_Grant_Fact_Sheet.
pdf
8.2.5 Updates to Program per Iowa DOT
The FTA’s Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, is a discretionary grant program whereby
projects are selected for funding based on eligibility and merit. The FTA bases its discretionary
funding allocation decisions for the CIG program on a variety of factors including the extent of the
local financial commitment, project readiness, and geographic diversity, and considers the extent
value capture, private contributions, and other innovative approaches to project development and
delivery are used, including public-private partnerships.
For CIG projects, such as New Starts, Small Starts, Core Capacity, awards of federal grants
currently cannot exceed 51 percent of the project’s cost. For projects with an estimated construction
cost exceeding $50 million, federal loans such as Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (TIFIA) or Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) are a funding
option; however, federal loans (TIFIA and RRIF) previously counted as non-federal sources, but are
no longer counted as part of the local share of a project cost, and must be considered part of the
overall federal contribution. Future projects that budget TIFIA for non-federal local match, will be
affected by this change. The Small Starts that are larger than $50 million, are eligible to use TIFIA
for a funding option.
9 Commuter Rail Governance and
Organization Planning
This section provides a general summary of the common commuter rail organization and
governance models that are used by U.S. rail transit agencies and that could potentially be used for
system ownership; management; procurement and construction; operations; and maintenance of a
potential commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way between Iowa City and North
Liberty. The summary identifies and describes typical organizational methods and governance
structure currently employed by U.S. commuter rail system agencies and considers the general
operating basis and implications of each method. The discussion in this section also considers the
potential for establishment of a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) or Regional Transportation
District (RTD) inclusive of Johnson County, Iowa.
9.1 Summary of Common U.S. Transit Agency
Governance Models and Organizational
Considerations
Commuter rail operators can either operate over a network of privately owned rail corridors (owned
by a public transit agency or state or local agency, for example) or can operate by agreement over
rail corridors owned by a host freight railroad. Many commuter rail carriers (transit agencies) operate
through partnerships with a government agency or transportation authority.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
86 | July 31, 2020
Governance methods are used by transit agencies to define system ownership, management,
procurement (e.g., passenger rail locomotives and cars, etc.), construction, operations, and
maintenance of a commuter rail or other rail transit service. While establishment of governance and
related organizational models must be custom-tailored to the characteristics, needs, and
opportunities for a given region and rail transit service and through considerable coordination
between stakeholders, this section identifies and describes the five most common governance
models that are used by U.S. transit agencies and various organizational considerations to better
address growing regional transit demand and transportation planning and operations needs. Note
that several U.S. transit agencies operate commuter rail and/or other rail transit services using these
methods below 58.
• State Transit Agency – Entity created by a state government; transit operations owned,
funded, and managed by the state 59.
• General Purpose Transit Authority or District – Entity usually with a funding mechanism
that is created under state law via the joint approval of leaders and voters in multiple local
jurisdictions60.
• Special Purpose Regional Transit Authority or District – Entity created by a special act of
the state legislature that applies only to a specific single region in the state 61.
• Municipal Transit Agency – Assumption of transit services by an existing local government
as part of its municipal functions, and without special state legislation62.
• Joint Exercise of Power or Joint Powers Authority – Entity created from agreements
between two or more existing local governments to create a new transit agency by jointly
exercising the powers they each possess to build or operate transit63.
Table 31 describes the five most common governance models in the context of the authority for
creation and provides examples of transit agencies in the U.S. that are currently using each
governance model.
58 Regional Organizational Models for Public Transportation (Final Report); Transit Cooperative Research
Program, 2011
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 87
Table 31: Most Common Transit Agency Governance Models, Authority for Creation, and
Example U.S. Agencies
Governance Model Authority for Creation U.S. Transit Agency Examples
State Transit Agency State powers • Maryland
• Massachusetts
• New Jersey
• Rhode Island
General Purpose Transit Authority
or District
General state law or enabling
statutes, coupled with local initiative
• Texas (metropolitan, urban,
rural)
• Washington State Public
Transit Benefit Areas
• Ohio Transit Authorities
(Cleveland, Akron, Cincinnati,
Toledo, Columbus, OH)
• Florida County Transit Districts
• New Mexico RTAs (e.g., North
Central New Mexico Regional
Transportation Transit District)
Special Purpose Regional Transit
Authority or District
Special statutes (i.e., special act of
state legislature) • BART (San Francisco Bay
Area, CA)
• WMATA (Washington, DC)
• UTA (Salt Lake City, UT)
• RTD (Denver, CO)
• CTA, Pace, Metra (Chicago, IL)
Municipal Transit Agency Existing local government (City,
County) powers
• Honolulu Transit (City of
Honolulu, HI)
• CATS (Charlotte, NC)
• City of Phoenix Public Transit
Department, AZ
• SF Muni – City and County of
San Francisco, CA
• King County Metro (Seattle,
WA)
Joint Exercise of Powers or Joint
Powers Authority
Local arrangements • JPB/Caltrain (Santa Clara, San
Mateo, San Francisco
Counties, CA)
• TRE (DART and Fort Worth
Transit)
• VRE (Northern Virginia and
Potomac and Rappahannock
Transportation Commissions)
Source: Regional Organizational Models for Public Transportation (Final Report); Transit Cooperative Research
Program, 2011
For the five most common governance models described above, the following organizational
components for public agencies operating commuter rail service in the U.S. have been identified 64:
• System Ownership – Commuter rail system is often owned by a state, regional, or local
agency. Note that the rail corridor over which the commuter rail service is operated can be
owned by a state, regional, or local agency; host freight railroad(s); or other parties.
64 NCHRP Report 657 (Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and
Freight Corridors); National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2010
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
88 | July 31, 2020
• System Management – Commuter rail system is often managed by a state, regional, or
local agency. Commuter rail agencies are often led by a commission or board and a
management staff overseeing multiple components of the day to day operation of the
commuter rail service.
• System Construction – Commuter rail system capital (construction) projects are often led
by a state, regional, or local agency. On a shared-use corridor owned by a host freight
railroad, the commuter rail agency will often contract with the freight railroad to complete
capital projects (e.g., rail and signal replacement).
• System Procurement – Commuter rail system procurement (e.g., locomotives, passenger
cars, rail, etc.) is often led by the state, regional, or local agency managing the commuter rail
system, and can also be facilitated through a third-party contractor. Note that commuter rail
agencies can own or lease their passenger rail equipment.
• System Operations and Maintenance – Commuter rail system operations and
maintenance (e.g., train operations; equipment maintenance; dispatching; track, bridge, and
signal maintenance; etc.) are often contracted out to the host freight railroad or a third-party
contractor. Note that all O&M functions may be bundled and contracted out to a single
contractor or contracted out as separate functions to two or more contractors.
9.2 Potential for Establishment of a RTA or RTD
Inclusive of Johnson County, Iowa
In the context of a potential governance and organizational model that could be used for system
ownership; management; procurement and construction; operations; and maintenance of a potential
commuter rail system on the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way between Iowa City and North Liberty,
this section considers the potential for establishment of a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) or
Regional Transportation District (RTD) solely for Johnson County, Iowa. The potential of Johnson
County to establish a joint RTA or RTD with adjacent Linn County, Iowa, will also be considered.
9.2.1 Summary of Principal Current Johnson County Transit
Agencies
There is at present no RTA or RTD inclusive of Johnson County, Iowa. Fixed-route public transit
services are instead operated independently by various agencies in Johnson County, Iowa, area.
Those agencies currently operating transit services in Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty and the
in the vicinity of the Iowa City-North Liberty CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way under study for
commuter rail implementation include:
• Iowa City Transit – Owned and operated by the City of Iowa City with policy direction from
the City Council. Operates fixed-route bus transit service within Iowa City and University
Heights and contracts out ADA paratransit service to Johnson County SEATS65.
• University of Iowa CAMBUS – Owned and operated by the University of Iowa. Operates
fixed-route bus transit service within in the University of Iowa campus and select areas of
65 Iowa Commuter Transportation Study, Iowa Department of Transportation (December 2014)
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 89
Iowa City, University Heights, and Coralville and a demand-response door-to-door ADA
paratransit service through the Bionic Bus66.
• Coralville Transit – Owned and operated by the City of Coralville and governed through a
City Administrator to the Transit Manager. Operates fixed-route bus transit services within
Iowa City (primarily in Downtown and to the University of Iowa Hospitals), Coralville, and
North Liberty and contracts out paratransit service to Johnson County SEATS67.
None of the transit agencies listed above have operated or currently operate commuter rail service
or other rail transit services in Johnson County.
9.2.2 Existing Iowa Statutes for Regional Transit Authority and
Regional Transit District Formation
There are presently two primary statutes in the State of Iowa Code that provide for the formation and
operation of Regional Transit Authorities or Regional Transit Districts that could potentially provide
for an agency to operate a commuter rail service – Iowa Code Chapter 28E (Joint Exercise of
Governmental Powers) and Iowa Code Chapter 28M (Regional Transit Districts)68. These statutes
are described in the following sections.
Relevant Sections of Iowa Code Chapter 28E (Joint Exercise of Governmental Power)
The Joint Exercise of Governmental Powers provided in Chapter 28E of the Iowa Code is used by
various government entities to provide services for several functions statewide. Generally, Chapter
28E allows any government agency to jointly conduct any activity with another government agency
provided that each agency has the power to undertake the particular activity. Sections of Iowa Code
Chapter 28E that are particularly relevant to the formation of a public transit agency are identified in
this section.
Iowa Code Chapter 28E Section 4 (Agreement with Other Agencies)
Iowa Code Chapter 28E.4 specifically grants authority for public agencies of the state to enter into
an agreement with each other69. Agreements developed in this manner have been used across Iowa
to provide services through public agencies, such as fire protection, law enforcement, fire protection,
city utilities, libraries, and public transit (including transit agencies in the Des Moines Area and
Ames). These agreements contain information about the powers of the public agency; its roles and
responsibilities; and how it is organized, managed, and overseen.
Iowa Code Chapter 28E.4 states 70:
“Any public agency of this state may enter into an agreement with one or more public or private
agencies for joint or cooperative action pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, including the
creation of a separate entity to carry out the purpose of the agreement. Appropriate action by
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 2016 Corridor MPO (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) Transit Study – Existing Conditions and Recommendations;
July 2016
69 https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/chapter/28E.pdf
70 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
90 | July 31, 2020
ordinance, resolution or otherwise pursuant to law of the governing bodies involved shall be
necessary before any such agreement may enter into force.”
Iowa Code Chapter 28E Section 17 (Transit Policy – Joint Agreement – City Debt)
Iowa Code Chapter 28E Section 17 offers details related to inter-governmental agreements for the
provision of public transit services, as stated below 71:
1. It is the public policy of this state to encourage the establishment or acquisition of urban
mass transit systems and the equipment, maintenance, and operation thereof by public
agencies in cooperation with, and with the assistance of the urban mass transportation
administration of the United States department of transportation, pursuant to the provisions
of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, Title 49, U.S. Code section
5301 et seq., which requires unification or official coordination of local mass transportation
services on an area-wide basis as a condition of such assistance.
2. An agreement between one or more cities and other public agencies for this purpose may
be made and carried out without an election and the agency created thereby may jointly
exercise through a board of trustees as provided by the agreement all the rights, powers,
privileges and immunities of cities related to the provision of mass transportation services,
except the authority to incur bonded indebtedness.
3. a. A city which is a party to a joint transit agency may issue general corporate purpose
bonds for the support of a capital program for the joint agency in the following manner:
(1) The council shall give notice and conduct a hearing on the proposal in the
manner set forth in section 384.25. However, the notice must be published at least ten days
prior to the hearing, and if a petition valid under section 362 is filed with the clerk of the city
prior to the hearing, asking that the question of issuing the bonds be submitted to the
registered voters of the city, the council shall either by resolution declare the proposal
abandoned or shall direct the county commissioner of elections to call a special election to
vote upon the question of issuing the bonds. Notice of the election and its conduct shall be in
the manner provided in section 384.26.
(2) If no petition is filed, or if a petition is filed and the proposition of issuing bonds is
approved at the election, the council may proceed with the authorization and issuance of the
bonds.
3. b. An agreement may provide for full or partial payment from transit revenues to the cities
for meeting debt service on such bonds.
3. c. This subsection shall be construed as granting additional power without limiting the
power already existing in cities, and as providing an alternative independent method for the
carrying out of any project for the issuance and sale of bonds for the financing of a city’s
share of a capital expenditures project of a joint transit agency, and no further proceedings
with respect to the authorization of the bonds shall be required.
71 https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ico/chapter/28E.pdf
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 91
Relevant Sections of Iowa Code Chapter 28M (Regional Transit Districts)
Iowa Code Chapter 28M offers specific details about RTDs related to their creation, bonding
authority, powers and commission membership, tax levy, and other considerations72.
The primary eligibility criteria for development of an RTD by a county or by two or more contiguous
counties relates to county population as outlined in the excerpt of Iowa Code Chapter 28M.2
below 73:
1. A county with a population in excess of one hundred seventy-five thousand and participating
cities may create, by chapter 28E agreement, a regional transit district in the county pursuant to
this chapter. Two or more contiguous counties and participating cities may create, by chapter
28E agreement, a regional transit district pursuant to this chapter if one of the counties has a
population in excess of one hundred seventy-five thousand. A district shall consist of the
unincorporated area of any participating county and the incorporated area of any city in the
county that does not have an urban transit system. However, a city without an urban transit
system may decline, by resolution forwarded to the board of supervisors, to participate in a
regional transit district.
Iowa Code Chapter 28M also provides the following additional details about RTDs 74,75:
• RTDs possess the same powers and rights of other county government agencies in Iowa.
• RTDs have the power to issue revenue bonds or general obligation bonds to establish,
construct, reconstruct, repair, equip, remodel, extend, maintain, and operate works, vehicles,
and facilities.
• RTDs are not created by voter approval, although public input is a critical component of RTD
development.
• RTDs are managed and governed by an appointed commission; RTD commission members
are appointed by participating member communities.
• RTDs have the responsibility and power to develop annual budgets, establish fare schedule,
and collect fares, and control and tax revenues paid to RTD.
• RTD can levy taxes annually not exceeding 95 cents per $1,000 of the assessed value of all
taxable property in the RTD. Taxes are to be used for operations and maintenance of the
RTD, payment of debts, and creation of a reserve fund.
At present, the first RTA and the only RTD in the State of Iowa is Des Moines Area Regional Transit
Authority (DART). The authority is located in Polk County – the most populous in the state and with a
population in excess of the 175,000 threshold required to establish an RTD. DART used the rights
and powers of Iowa Code 28E agreements and Iowa Code 28M to create and maintain the RTD76.
72 https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/iowa/ia-code/iowa_code_chapter_28m
73 https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/iowa/ia-code/iowa_code_28m-2
74 2016 Corridor MPO (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) Transit Study – Existing Conditions and Recommendations;
July 2016
75 https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/iowa/ia-code/iowa_code_chapter_28m
76 2016 Corridor MPO (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) Transit Study – Existing Conditions and Recommendations;
July 2016
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
92 | July 31, 2020
9.3 Potential for Establishment of an RTA or RTD
Inclusive of Johnson County
This section considers the potential for establishment of a Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)
or Regional Transportation District (RTD) solely for Johnson County, Iowa, as well as the potential of
Johnson County to establish a joint RTA or RTD with adjacent Linn County, Iowa. A new or
expanded RTA or RTD in the area could support the development of a commuter rail service on the
CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty.
At present, the only RTD in the State of Iowa is Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART).
The authority is located in Polk County – the most populous in the state and with a population in
excess of the 175,000 threshold required to establish an RTD. The only other Iowa county with a
population of at least 175,000 is Linn County, which includes the Cedar Rapids Area. Public fixed-
route bus transit services in the Cedar Rapids Area are operated by Cedar Rapids Transit and Linn
County LIFTS operates paratransit services77. Cedar Rapids Transit has not operated and is not
currently operating commuter rail service or other rail transit services in Linn County. The Corridor
Metropolitan Planning Organization (Corridor MPO) inclusive of Cedar Rapids is currently
considering the establishment of an RTA for Linn County, and the creation of an RTA would see the
transfer of ownership of all property (including transit vehicles) from the City of Cedar Rapids to the
new public agency78. This move is expected to help expand bus services in the region and realize
other public benefits.
Phase 1 of the RTA Feasibility Study in Linn County resulted with a conclusion that no RTA would
be established at this time, but that the local jurisdictions may work together in the future, as needed.
According to U.S. Census data, the population of Johnson County was 130,882 in July 2010, and
was estimated at 149,210 in July 201779. The county is one of the fastest-growing regions in the
State of Iowa, yet does not currently meet the required 175,000 population threshold for
establishment of an RTA or RTD according to the Iowa Code. Projections for population growth in
Iowa suggest that Johnson County is anticipated to reach a population of 175,000 – and thus reach
this minimum threshold – between 2025 and 203080.
Absent any short-term changes to Iowa Code that would lower the minimum population threshold,
Johnson County has the option of deferring the establishment of an RTA or RTD solely for Johnson
County until its population reaches 175,000 or it can consider entering into an Iowa Code 28E
agreement with Linn County to establish a joint RTA or RTD that would include Johnson and Linn
counties.
This joint agency could:
• Provide for a broadening of and greater coordination of current regional services operated by
existing transit agencies in Iowa City, Coralville, and Cedar Rapids to deliver more efficient
77 Iowa Commuter Transportation Study, Iowa Department of Transportation (December 2014)
78 https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/cedar-rapids-eyes-possibility-of-regional-transit-
authority-20171128
79 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/johnsoncountyiowa
80 https://www.iowadatacenter.org/datatables/CountyAll/co2010populationprojections20002040.pdf
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 93
and seamless service offerings that match the changing needs of the traveling public in the
rapidly growing areas of Johnson and Linn counties.
• Provide for potential administrative, operating, maintenance, and procurement synergies
between existing transit agencies in Johnson and Linn counties.
• Support the development of an initial phase of commuter rail service implementation on the
CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty in Johnson County (as identified
and described in this study).
• Support a potential future commuter rail service extension from North Liberty north into Linn
County and Cedar Rapids on the CRANDIC Corridor.
• Support the development of potential future express and local bus services and other transit
services in Johnson and Linn counties that would connect the broader Iowa City/Cedar
Rapids region to commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor.
9.4 Potential Options for Access and Ownership of a
Rail Corridor by a Public Transit Agency
This section provides general background on potential options for access to and ownership of a rail
corridor by a public transit agency (which could be an RTA or RTD, or another agency type based on
the five most common governance models presented earlier in this section), based on typical U.S.
transit agency experience.
Commuter rail agencies must negotiate access with the owner of the rail corridor over which the
service is planned, essentially purchasing the rail line capacity required for the service or purchasing
the rail corridor required for the service. While several approaches have been employed by
commuter rail agencies in the U.S., the three principal approaches are generally identified below81.
Note that use of any of these approaches by a commuter rail agency or other public agency for
gaining access to (or acquiring ownership of) the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way between Iowa City
and North Liberty would be subject to future coordination and negotiation between the CRANDIC,
public agencies, and any other involved parties and could involve approval from the STB.
Commuter Rail Agency Purchases Right-of-Way from Freight Railroad
This approach is often employed when the commuter rail agency anticipates its service to be the
primary rail corridor user and the freight railroad and other corridor owners, if any, are willing to sell
the corridor to the commuter rail agency82. In many instances, the freight railroad would maintain
some type of operating rights over the shared-use corridor to exercise its common carrier obligation
to provide freight rail service to online shippers and/or operate through freight trains, often during
defined windows that do not interfere with scheduled commuter rail operations. Operating rights and
access fees for the freight railroad, as well as conditions with regard to capital investment in and
maintenance of infrastructure (e.g., track and bridges/structures, wayside signal system, and
81 NCHRP Report 657 (Guidebook for Implementing Passenger Rail Service on Shared Passenger and
Freight Corridors); National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2010
82 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
94 | July 31, 2020
dispatching), liability, and other considerations, are specified in agreements between the parties83.
Note that in some instances any such agreement may include multiple railroad owners.
In some instances, the rail corridor would be commuter rail only (rather than a shared-use
arrangement) and no common carrier freight service would be offered by the former freight railroad
corridor owner or any other freight railroad under contract. In this case, conditions with regard to
capital investment in and maintenance of infrastructure, liability, and other considerations would be
the sole responsibility of the commuter rail agency84.
Commuter Rail Agency Negotiates Access to a Freight Railroad Corridor
This approach is often employed when a freight railroad desires to retain its ownership in a corridor
owing to any number of factors typically related to freight railroad commercial, network, and
competitive strategies; preservation of mainline and terminal capacity for current and anticipated
future freight railroad operations and volumes; maintenance of freight rail service access to current
and anticipated future freight shippers; and other proprietary considerations.
In an instance when a freight railroad does not wish to sell a corridor, commuter rail agencies must
negotiate access to the corridor with the freight railroad via an agreement. In this case, the
commuter rail agency is often responsible for the capital cost of the additional infrastructure to
enhance the network capacity required to accommodate the commuter rail trains and to minimize
any impacts on existing and anticipated future freight railroad trains in the shared-use corridor 85.
Commuter rail agencies will also typically pay access fees to the freight railroad that can be applied
to various operating, infrastructure maintenance, and other costs in the corridor 86. Additional
conditions dictating liability and other considerations, are specified in agreements between the
parties87.
Commuter Rail Agency Develops Parallel Operations in a Right-of-Way Shared with a Freight
Railroad
In this approach, a commuter rail agency typically purchases or leases its own right-of-way within the
existing corridor right-of-way from the freight railroad and operates largely (or completely) on a rail
line separate from the freight railroad88. While the commuter rail line and freight rail line are
separate, both exist within the same right-of-way, and therefore agreements are often developed
between the parties with regard to select infrastructure safety and maintenance considerations
where the lines cross or at locations where the parallel rail lines cross a roadway at-grade 89.
Additional conditions dictating liability and other considerations, are specified in agreements
between the parties90. This approach is not feasible for rail corridors with narrow right-of-way width
or other site constraints, although adjacent right-of-way can be acquired to accommodate parallel
operations, if available.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
90 Ibid.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 95
10 Next Steps
The next steps outlined below suggest one approach for advancing potential development of
commuter rail on the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty. Specific details about
the process outlined below are subject to ongoing project stakeholder coordination and approval.
Step 1: Develop Consensus Regarding Conclusions from the Recent Iowa City-North
Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study and Stakeholder Outreach
MPOJC, Iowa DOT, CRANDIC, and other stakeholders should come to a consensus on
recommendations for the preservation and promotion of the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way
between Iowa City and North Liberty as an asset for potential alternative transportation use
(including commuter rail), as informed by applicable study in the region and this Study, related
stakeholder outreach, and a general understanding of the current and potential future transportation
needs of Johnson County within the context of future transportation planning and community and
economic development for the region.
Step 2: Confirm Lead Agency for Potential Development of Commuter Rail on the
CRANDIC Corridor
Any future efforts to develop commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and
North Liberty would be the responsibility of a lead local agency. This local agency would be
responsible for providing continuous leadership, maintaining preliminary coordination and
communication between stakeholders and with the public, and working with state and local
stakeholders and CRANDIC (via the CRANDIC Corridor Commuter Rail Study and Implementation
Committee identified in Step 3 below) to pursue next steps and maintain momentum. The lead
agency could potentially be an existing local agency or a new agency could be created. Confirmation
of the lead agency is a priority.
Step 3: Establish CRANDIC Corridor Commuter Rail Study and Implementation
Committee
A CRANDIC Corridor Commuter Rail Study and Implementation Committee would be organized to
support the local lead agency to coordinate future activities and to galvanize support for the potential
development of commuter rail on the CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty.
The Committee would include several local stakeholder agencies, companies, organizations, and
jurisdictions in Johnson County. These stakeholders would include MPOJC, regional planning
affiliations, current right-of-way owner and freight railroad operator Cedar Rapids & Iowa City
Railway (CRANDIC) and its parent company Alliant Energy, municipalities, state agencies (including
Iowa DOT), county agencies, universities and colleges, chambers of commerce, economic
development agencies, major companies and employers, citizens’ groups, and others. Participation
by representatives of these entities would be subject to internal approval within each entity. The
committee would coordinate at established regular intervals to maintain momentum, and would
support the lead local agency on any future implementation activities. While future study and
potential commuter rail implementation would be led by stakeholders at the local level and under the
direction of an existing or potential future local public agency, it is anticipated that Iowa DOT would
continue to support these efforts at the state and regional levels.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
96 | July 31, 2020
Step 4: Consider Potential for Pilot Commuter Rail Service on CRANDIC Corridor
In order to test proof of concept and gauge public interest in commuter rail service over the
CRANDIC Corridor between Iowa City and North Liberty, a pilot commuter rail service (operating on
longer 60 or 90-minute headways and with minimal temporary station facilities) could be operated for
a trail period of up to one year. The CRANDIC Corridor Commuter Rail Study and Implementation
Committee, MPOJC, CRANDIC, and other local stakeholders could lead coordination with potential
service providers to operate the service.
Step 5: Conduct Additional CRANDIC Corridor Right-of-Way Study
The CRANDIC Corridor Study and Implementation Committee, in partnership with a broad array of
public and private stakeholders in the region, would conduct preliminary study necessary to design,
permit, and construct commuter rail implementation on the CRANDIC Corridor. The scope of future
activities could include the development of additional supporting documentation for FTA funding
opportunities; conceptual engineering for infrastructure and facilities; comprehensive capital and
operations and maintenance cost estimates; environmental review and related documentation; final
operating plan and equipment plan; maintenance plan; financial plan; benefit-cost analysis; and
other efforts. These study components would likely be eligible as supporting documentation for any
future federal or state grant applications to secure funding for implementation of alternative use in
the CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way. Subsequent CRANDIC Corridor right-of-way study should
inform, and be informed by, and be integrated with other local, county, regional, and state planning
initiatives and programs.
Step 6: Identify and Pursue Preferred Funding and Financing Options for Implementation
of Commuter Rail on the CRANDIC Corridor
The local lead agency, in cooperation with the CRANDIC Corridor Commuter Rail Study and
Implementation Committee, would coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies and local
private partners to determine the potential for public-private partnerships and funding availability to
support development of commuter rail on the CRANDIC Corridor. In order for the project to be
eligible to receive federal funding, a public agency (which is often the lead agency) may need to be
identified or a new agency created to administer and manage the funding. It may be preferable to
expand an existing Regional Transit District (RTD) or establish a new RTD or similar mechanism to
manage funding, if awarded in the future, and to spearhead design, permitting, construction, and
operations and maintenance of a commuter rail service on the CRANDIC Corridor.
Step 7: Determine Potential Phased Implementation of Commuter Rail on the CRANDIC
Corridor Based on Local Priorities and Funding Availability
Demand for commuter rail service and the initial eligible federal, state, and local funding sources
may or may not be sufficient to fully develop service operating on 30-minute headways over the
CRANDIC Corridor between Dubuque Street in Iowa City and the Penn Street in North Liberty in a
single project phase. Phased implementation of a commuter rail service could be employed to match
demand and available funding to design and construct it, and also to bolster local support for
broader implementation in the CRANDIC Corridor. A first phase of implementation with less frequent
service (every 60 or 90 minutes), which would require less passenger train equipment and
potentially diminished infrastructure investment may be considered. Subsequent implementation
phases could allow for additional commuter train frequencies (to the 30-minute headways sought)
and/or stations, as demand increases in the future. Passenger rail equipment procurement and
select infrastructure improvements could also be phased, as funding becomes available.
Final
Iowa City-North Liberty Commuter Rail Conceptual Feasibility Study
July 31, 2020 | 97
Step 8: Develop a Plan for Development of Commuter Rail on the CRANDIC Corridor
In consideration of the recommendations, established priorities, and the outcomes of ongoing study;
preliminary information on funding needs, availability, and eligibility; and the potential for phased
implementation, a comprehensive implementation plan should be developed that specifically lists the
steps to implement preferred alternative use on the CRANDIC Corridor. The plan will be developed
by the lead agency with support from the CRANDIC Corridor Commuter Rail Study and
Implementation Committee through the analysis of potential strategies for design, funding, and
implementation of the commuter rail service. The implementation plan should be in concert with
other local, county, regional, and state planning initiatives and programs.
Step 9: Evaluate Potential Impacts of Commuter Rail on Existing Ridership of Area
Transit Agencies
A subsequent study could be conducted to examine how commuter rail may potentially impact
ridership of area transit agencies. This analysis could potentially be completed by the regional
MPO(s) and Iowa DOT, with support from the local transit agencies, so that the study methodology
and aggregate data are controlled in order to effectively measure the overall regional impact on the
systems.