AmtrakCorridor Development in Era of PRIIA/ARRA

Jeff Mann

Sr. Director, Policy & Development

Hampton Roads TPO

High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Meeting

Overview

• Background and FY08/FY09 review

• Impact of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act• Impact of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA)

• High Speed Rail and Approach to Corridor DevelopmentHigh Speed Rail and Approach to Corridor Development

1

Background

• Amtrak is the national intercity passenger rail provider– Began operation in 1971 to relieve freights of common carrier obligation to

provide passenger serviceOperates a 21 100 mile system serving 527 stations– Operates a 21,100 mile system, serving 527 stations

– Owns and operates the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington as well as the Philadelphia to Harrisburg corridor and segments of the Chicago to Detroit corridorC i d 27 2 illi i FY 2009 ( d l t FY 08)– Carried 27.2 million passengers in FY 2009 (second only to FY 08)

• Services fall into three categories:– Northeast Corridor (largely, but not entirely, Amtrak-owned infrastructure)– Long distance trains (over 750 miles)– Short distance trains (under 750 miles)

Includes state-supported services as well as system corridor trains

• 70% of our train-miles run on railroads other than Amtrak

2

!

! !

VANCOUVER

SEATTLE Spokane

Amtrak Route SystemTrack Ownership Excluding Terminal Railroads

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

ST. PAUL / MINNEAPOLISPORTLAND

SEATTLE

CLEVELANDCHICAGO

MILWAUKEE

TORONTO

BOSTON

MONTREAL

Grand Rapids

Spokane

Springfield

Rutland

AlbanyPontiac

Port Huron Niagara Falls

St. Albans

PortlandVTR

NECR

Pan Am

MBTAMetro-

Metra

Operatedby VIA Rail

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!OAKLAND

SACRAMENTO

DENVER KANSAS CITY

SALT LAKE CITY

MEMPHIS

CLEVELAND

INDIANAPOLIS

ST. LOUIS

NEW YORKPITTSBURGH

BALTIMOREWASHINGTON

PHILADELPHIA

Bakersfield Oklahoma City

Harrisburg

Charlottesville

Newport News

Richmond

MBTAMetroNorth

BuckinghamBranch

!

!

!!

!!

! !

!

!

!

SAN DIEGO

LOS ANGELES

HOUSTON

SAN ANTONIO

DALLASFT. WORTH

ALBUQUERQUE MEMPHIS

ATLANTA

NEW ORLEANSJACKSONVILLE

SCRRA

SCRRA / BNSF / SDN

R il d !

!

TAMPA

MIAMI

FDOT

Railroads

Amtrak

Union Pacific

BNSF

CSXT

Norfolk Southern

Canadian Pacific

Canadian National

Other Railroads

3

Amtrak UpdateHiawatha service

• 2008 was an great year for Amtrak

– Record ridership and revenue

– An unmistakable demonstration of rail’s relevance in the age of congestion and rising fuel prices

• 2009 will not be quite as strong as FY 08

– Recession, along with lower gas prices has affected our ridership, revenues

– Should still be 2nd highest year ever, showing service value

• Tough economic conditions occurring in a favorable policy environment

4

Amtrak Ridership, (FY2006-FY2009)

7 5

8.0

FY08

7.0

7.5

(mill

ions

)

FY09*

FY08 FY09*FY07

6.0

6.5

Rid

ersh

ip

FY07FY06

FY06

5.5

5.0Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

* FY09 Q4 Estimated

5

The Shape of Intercity Demand

• Amtrak Market Share

• Leisure travel will continue to experience modest growth (represents about half of Amtrak ridership)growth (represents about half of Amtrak ridership)

• NEC business travel will mature, market size will become generally fixed. Significant ridership growth will be achieved only thru market share growthdue to service improvements.

• Market size growth expected in: southeast corridors (DC-Richmond-Charlotte), California, and Chicago. In these corridors, significant ridership growth is achieved thru market growth and market share increasesand market share increases

• Service improvements – both hard (frequencies and trip time) and soft (on-board amenities) – are necessary to grow market share.

6

PRIIA is a blueprint for fundamental change

–Clear vision for Amtrak and intercity passenger rail within the national transportation scheme

E t bli h t hi b t F d l t–Establishes a new partnership between Federal government, states (and Authorities), Amtrak, and host railroads:

States/Authorities plan rail service

US DOT integrates state planning into a national system

Amtrak operates national network, helps design and operate p , p g p

services

–PRIIA grant programs to support intercity passenger rail have been funded by $8 billion in ARRA stimulus money

7

Evolving into our New Roles

• States will be lead partnersStates will be lead partners

–Create rail plans

–Function as federal grant recipient

–Provide operating and capital funding for Amtrak services-Under PRIIA, Amtrak must treat short,distance routes uniformly

-States who do not fund their routes today must begin to do so by 2013

• FRA leads national policy

–National rail plan Amtrak’s Illinois Zephyr

–Safety and performance standards

–Administers grant program

8

–Facilitates among partners – states, Amtrak, freights

Evolving into our New Roles

• Amtrak is essentially a federal non profit “co op” to facilitate• Amtrak is essentially a federal, non-profit co-op to facilitate intercity rail operations and development

• Amtrak rebuilding planning and development capacity after years g p g p p y yof neglect and turmoil (barred from planning new services from 2002-2008 by former Administration)

A t k d l i b i d• Amtrak developing new business processes, resources and policies to become corridor-service focused and more transparent, consistent, and nimble

9

ARRA – High-Speed Rail and Intercity Rail Investment

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)

Funds the PRIIA vision and grant programs

Funding flexibility acknowledges different stages of development

Grants require enduring state leadership and commitment - operating and capital funding

Grant competition demands results = public benefitsGrant competition demands results public benefits

• Amtrak has many roles:

– Grant recipient/partnerp pCan lead or partner with states for fundingCan help bridge multiple state projects

– Service planner p

– Liaison between other partners

– Service provider (an umbrella term that can cover a lot of responsibilities)

10

responsibilities)

Amtrak, State, Host Collaboration for New and Expanded Routes

F d d i t it il i A t k t t d• For new or expanded intercity rail passenger service, Amtrak, state, and host must agree up-front on service outcomes, in particular

– Trips per day

– Trip time

– Maximum delay minutes per trip

• Amtrak state and host then design an infrastructure to support these• Amtrak, state, and host then design an infrastructure to support these agreed-upon outcomes

– Without materially lessening the quality of freight service to shippers

P ti l i t t “ ld l t d”– Practical improvements, not “gold plated”

• Public sector provide funding to “build it right”

• Host railroads make enforceable commitment to “run it right”

• A well-functioning service is a credit to us all

11

Need must determine investment solutions

• Analysis of market needs must determine trip time and top speed requirements

• Similarly, analysis of route characteristics determines infrastructure needs– Number of freight trainsg

– Number of passenger trains

– Relative speeds

– Train size and weight

12

Successful Collaboration and Expanded/New Partnerships

Now:Now:

• Washington: Seattle-Vancouver 2nd Frequency

• Virginia: NEC Regional trains to Lynchburg & Richmond

Planned and soon to be implemented:

• North Carolina: Additional Piedmont frequency

• Illinois/Iowa: Rockford/Dubuque and Quad-Cities/Iowa City

• Maine: Brunswick extension

• Wisconsin: Madison serviceWisconsin: Madison service

• Florida: FEC service

13

Different approaches to high speed rail (HSR)

“The Big Bang” “I t l I t”“The Big Bang”

• Substantial trip time improvement

“Incremental Improvement”

• Produces a string of small trip time improvementsp

– May require sustained very high speeds, e.g., 150+ mph

time improvements– Over time, these accumulate

– Can begin quickly• High capital cost

– More likely to require dedicated RofW

– Build ridership and market share as you go

• Extensive land use issue

• Takes years (sometimes

• Limit capital costs

• Easier integration into i i ilTakes years (sometimes

decades) to realize, but builds large market share

existing passenger rail network(s)

14

Amtrak has the expertise to make both approaches work – so let’s take a look at them

A quick comparisonAmtrak Keystone Corridor Improvements

(2006)(2006)

• 104 mile line (Philadelphia-Harrisburg)

• Restored existing electrification, improved track and signals for 110 mph service

Segovia-Guiomar station• 10 intermediate stops, shared ROW for

110mph service w/ Norfolk Southern freight operations

• Harrisburg-Philly trip cut from 2 hours to 1:45

Madrid-Valladolid High Speed Line (Dec 2007)

• 111 mile line

• Constructed a dedicated ROW for 186 mph service; included a 28 km tunnel

• Carried 1,183,821 riders in FY 08

• 20.1% ridership growth in FY 07, 19.8% growth in FY 08

Cost: $145 million

service; included a 28 km tunnel

• 1 intermediate stop

• Time cut from 1:30 to 55 minutes

• Carried 825,043 riders in 2008Carried 825,043 riders in 2008

Cost: $5.9 billion

15Harrisburg station

Alberto Saviejo photo

How well does an incremental approach work?

60%

80%

100%

and

Trai

n

Washington- New York• Northeast Corridor services are a product of incremental development:

• ~100 mph in 1976 (on a good day)

37% 45% 56% 50% 50% 51% 55% 56% 63%

0%

20%

40%

60%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Trip

s by

Airc

raft

Air

Rail• 125 mph in 1980s

• 135-150 mph in 2000

• Market share is a product of trip time –Fiscal Year/Quarter

Acela service introduced

New York - Boston

Market share is a product of trip time but also frequency, convenience, comfort and reliability

41% 39% 38% 36% 41% 49%20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

y A

ircra

ft a

nd T

rain

Air

Rail

New York - Boston

20% 27%41% 35% 39% 38% 36% 41% 49%

0%

20%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fiscal Year/Quarter

Trip

s by

16

Acela service, electrification, and125 mph Regional service introduced

MOW equipment on the North End of the NEC

The diminishing marginal returns problem

• Beyond some point, you get less output for each additional unit of capital– The real question: where is the sweet spot?

• The South End of the Northeast Corridor (DC-NYC) is a good example:– Trimming fifteen minutes off current trip time, when combined with necessary

state-of-good repair projects will cost a total of $6.5 billion in infrastructurestate of good repair projects will cost a total of $6.5 billion in infrastructure investment

• These are useful gains, no question – but multiple billions could:– Bring the whole Amtrak system in compliance with the ADA (~$1.6 billion)

– Raise top speed between Chicago and St. Louis to 110 mph (~$2 billion)

– Build 110 mph dedicated rail line between Raleigh, NC and Petersburg, VA (~$4 billion)

– Improve Charlotte-Raleigh line to 90 mph (~$1.01 billion)

17

It’s not a question of what we can do – it’s a question of what we can afford to do

The way ahead

• FRA’s Vision for High-Speed Rail states Administration commitment to a program of incremental development

• PRIIA gives the FRA administrator authority to facilitate the process of coordination

• All involved parties have needs:– Hosts need to retain capacity for future expansion

– Passenger carriers need access, and accommodation of service at higher speeds on existing RofW

– Public has an interest in seeing returns for investment

18