Partnership Planning for the Northeast Corridor

Partnership Planning for the Northeast Corridor

Donnie Maley, Director, Planning Northeast Corridor Commission

APA 2017 National Planning Conference, New York City Session #9107305

Learning Objectives • Facilitating consensus-driven decision-making • Creating tools to share information and collaborate across

agencies • Communicating complex technical information to decision-

makers Speakers • Donnie Maley, Northeast Corridor Commission • Rich Andreski, Connecticut Department of Transportation • Alex Flemming, Amtrak • Bryan Rodda, Federal Railroad Administration

2

Partnership Planning for the NEC

3

What is the NEC?

51 million people 17% US population, 2% US land area

4 of the nation’s 10 largest cities

$3 trillion in annual economic output 20% of US GDP

5th largest economy in the world Ahead of France, behind Germany

4

What is the NEC?

40,000 daily Amtrak riders 50% of Amtrak riders

149 daily Amtrak trains 65% of Amtrak trains

5

What is the NEC?

780,000 daily commuter rail riders

2,000 daily commuter rail trains

6

What is the NEC?

$50 billion commuting workforce

More intercity travel within the region than all airlines combined

Connecting east coast ports to Midwestern manufacturers

7

What is the NEC?

$38 billion state-of-good-repair backlog $26 billion major bridges and tunnels $12 billion basic infrastructure assets

$500 million lost annually to delays

$100 million potential loss per day B&P Tunnel - 1873

Hudson River Tunnel - 1910 Walk Bridge - 1889

8

Who has a stake in the NEC?

9


4 Infrastructure Owners

10



20+ Station Owners

11



20+ Station Owners

9 Passenger Rail Operators

12



20+ Station Owners


9 States

13



20+ Station Owners


9 States

1 Federal government

14



20+ Station Owners


9 States


2 Modal administrations

15



20+ Station Owners


9 States


2 Modal administrations

5 Congressional committees

16

What is the Commission?

Non-voting representatives • Freight Railroads • Connecting States • Commuter Agencies

One Member Each

Four Members

Five Members

17


Operator Cost Sharing

Collaboration, Transparency,

and Accountability

Federal-State Funding Partnership for

State-of-Good-Repair Backlog

Partnership Framework

18


Five-Year Plan One-Year Plan Annual Report

http://nec-commission.com

19

What Have We Learned About Collaboration?

Communicating Internally

Stakeholders needed to understand each other’s plans

• Isolate data relevant to your topic

• Standardize data across stakeholders

• Streamline data collection and sharing

• Package information in digestible pieces

Stakeholders can weigh in on each other’s plans

20



Making Decisions

Stakeholders had complex/ unclear roles and responsibilities

• Establish explicit goal of consensus

• Formalize committee/working group structure

• Take meeting preparation seriously

• Engage in proactive meeting facilitation

Stakeholders have an equal opportunity to participate and decisions carry the full weight of the group

21



Making Decisions

Stakeholders preferred to craft their own messages

• Define purpose narrowly and explicitly

• Put audience first

• Balance parochial needs with shared needs

Stakeholders communicate messages that carry the full weight of the group

Communicating Externally


Rich Andreski, Bureau Chief, Public Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation

APA 2017 National Planning Conference, New York City Session #9107305


Bryan Rodda, Community Planner Federal Railroad Administration

APA 2017 National Conference, New York City Session #9107305

May 9, 2017

5/22/2017

FRA – Office of Railroad Policy and Development

Moving America Forward

F E D E R A L R A I L R O A D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

FRA’s involvement in the Northeast Corridor

Administer and oversee

• Capital and operating funding to Amtrak

• Amtrak planning and project delivery activities

• Compliance with federal regulations, including: • Environmental regulations • Americans with Disabilities Act and Civil Rights • Passenger rail safety

Voting member of NEC Commission

Not a direct owner or operator

5/22/2017




Federal membership in the NEC Commission

Composition and roles

• Five voting members, with one member serving as NEC Commission Co-Chair

• At least one member each from the following USDOT offices and administrations:

Agency Typical Commission Member(s) Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)

- Undersecretary for Policy - Chief Financial Officer

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

- Administrator / Deputy Administrator - Chief Counsel

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - Administrator / Deputy Administrator

5/22/2017




How USDOT partners with the NEC Commission

Contribute to committees and working groups

Offer Federal perspectives and resources

• Alert for potential pressure points between stakeholders

• Ensure consistency in messaging and approach toward cross-jurisdictional projects

• Guide and advise on USDOT goals or Congressional objectives

Cost Allocation Planning Operations & Performance

5/22/2017




Learning and collaboration

• Spur USDOT effort to harmonize some cross-agency requirements

• Focus attention on large-scale NEC issues, including both major

projects and on-going policy issues

Leverage the Commission’s products

• Cost Allocation Policy

• Cost sharing impact on budget and federal grant programs

• Reporting and transparency provisions

• Reports and Research

• Represents blend of diverse viewpoints

• Provides common data and facts for NEC

• Generates recommendations for action

How does the Commission help USDOT?

5/22/2017




Collaborative planning overview

Planning cycle Prior to NEC Commission Today

Short-term (< 2 years)

• Independent agency processes

• No systemic collaboration

• Collaborative, annual One-Year Implementation Plan

Medium-term (5+ years)

• Independent agency processes

• No systemic collaboration

• Collaborative, annual update to Five-Year Capital Investment Plan

Long-term (20+ years)

• Last corridor-wide planning effort dates from 1970s • NEC FUTURE

Federal lead role

5/22/2017




Previous long-term planning had an impact

Safety and system upgrades

Infrastructure renewal projects made some progress • Upgraded track quality, replaced or rehabilitated bridges, and realigned curves • Electrified 155-mile New Haven-Boston section (in 1990s), enabling high-speed service

• Eliminated remaining DC-NYC grade crossings and reduced remaining number in CT

• Consolidated dispatching operations and

upgraded train control systems Photo credits, from top left: 1) Amtrak; 2) Michael Kurras (user Shreder 9100 at English Wikipedia), used under Creative Commons; 3) Niiantic River Bridge Replacement, Amtrak; 4) Garg Engineering (link); 5) NEC Commission

http://www.gargengineering.com/new-haven-ct-to-boston-ma-rail-electrification---amtrak.html

5/22/2017




NEC metro area population

Growth demands a new long-term vision

Since 1970s, train movements have increased…

1,250

2,150

Daily Trains on the NEC, 1975 and 2016

1975

2016

growth in intercity trips since 2005

>750k 34%

daily commuter trips in 2016

…and the region’s population and economy have grown.

…as has ridership

+72%

One-fifth of US economy, more than $3 trillion in annual output

Sources: Amtrak, NEC Commission, US Census Bureau

1970 2010

5/22/2017




Examining the role for passenger rail

• Comprehensive investment plan for the Northeast Corridor

• Long-term vision, incremental implementation

• Integrated approach to corridor-wide environmental and

service planning

• Extensive stakeholder, agency, and public involvement

10

Purpose: upgrade aging infrastructure and improve the reliability, capacity, connectivity, performance, and resiliency of passenger rail service on the NEC for both intercity and regional trips, while promoting environmental sustainability and economic growth.

Purpose and Need

Aging Infrastructure

Connectivity Capacity Resiliency

Sustainability

Economic Growth

Performance

Key Needs:

5/22/2017




Our approach to NEC FUTURE

Close agency coordination

• CEQ pilot partnership

• Established early partnership with resource

and regulatory agencies

• Regular and continual coordination since

2012 to facilitate future compliance and

permitting

Public outreach at every step

• Dialogues, open houses, public meetings,

comment periods, webinars, email list

Structured, guided decision-making

5/22/2017




Public involvement throughout process Public & Agency Scoping 2000 + comments

Agency & Stakeholder Coordination Public workshops

Market Analysis Review RR Capital Plans

Ridership Model Service & Operations Modeling Initial Environmental Analysis

98 Initial

Concepts

15 Preliminary Alternatives

3 Alternatives (Tier 1 DEIS)

Stakeholder & Public Feedback

Selected Alternative

(ROD)

3-Month Comment Period 11 public hearings, 8000 + comments

Preferred Alternative

(Tier 1 FEIS)

Environmental Analysis Review of Benefits, Impacts & Costs

Technical analysis

Service & Operations Modeling

5/22/2017




Structured decision-making

Preferred Alternative

FRA Policy Objectives

Stakeholder and Public Comments

Tier 1 Draft EIS Evaluation

• Technical evaluation: What does the

evaluation of the Alternatives show? What are

impacts and benefits?

• Policy: How well do the Alternatives address

USDOT and FRA goals?

• Comments: What did we hear from the public

about the Alternatives? What do stakeholders

want from NEC FUTURE’s outcomes?

A blend and balancing act between three distinct inputs

5/22/2017




Process Benefits

Enables subsequent work

• Project-level studies able to use guidance and data from NEC FUTURE as inputs

• Stakeholders identified, aware and involved

• Projects advance incrementally, but consistent with an overall vision

Tier I NEPA One-Year

Implementation Plan

Five-Year Capital

Investment Plan

Corridor-wide Service

Planning

Long-term Medium-term Short-term

NEC FUTURE NEC Commission

Connects to NEC Commission’s collaborative planning process

5/22/2017




Recap

Mutual benefits of NEC Commission

Collaborative planning at several time scales

Value in long-term planning

PARTNERSHIP PLANNING ON THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

Alex Flemming, AICP Infrastructure Planning Manager Amtrak Planning, Technology and Public Affairs

May 9, 2017 APA National Conference New York City

Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor

Session # 9107305

2 | Amtrak Planning, Technology and Public Affairs

Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor A Look Back – Amtrak and the NEC

• Amtrak formed as the nation’s intercity rail operator in May, 1971 - Rail Passenger Service Act (1970).

• Current ownership of the NEC stems from the bankruptcy of the Penn Central Transportation Company (Penn Central) in 1970

• Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 provided funding for Amtrak to purchase, among other assets, NEC territory and facilities that had not already been acquired.


Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor NEC – a system of components


Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor Aging Basic Infrastructural Assets


Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor A Legacy of “Avoidable Costs”

Ex-Parte 417 (1983) ICC determined that the appropriate compensation standard was based on avoidable, or incremental, costs. Avoidable cost standard premised on a dominant user (Amtrak) and a minority user(s) – commuter rail operator - and assigns to the minority user only those costs that could be directly avoided “but for” the existence of the minority user.


• Ex-Parte 417 meant that Amtrak services were cross- subsidizing Commuter services.

By many measures – especially territorially – Amtrak is not the dominant user.

Commuter services have grown far more significantly from 1983 onwards.

• State and Commuter Agencies did contribute to capital projects during this period.

However, contributions were largely ad hoc, negotiated and voluntarily.

Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor

An Inequitable Situation…


Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor NEC WEEKLY TRAIN COUNTS (1975-2016)


Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor PRIIA (2008) – Section 212 & Cost Allocation Policy

Northeast Corridor Commuter and Intercity Rail Cost Allocation Policy – effective October 1, 2015

Framework for a fiscally sustainable future

• Standardized allocation formula for use of the Northeast Corridor

• No cross-subsidization between intercity and commuter services.

• Consistency and transparency

across all owners and operators


Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor Equity – the Base Capital Charge (BCC)

1. Divide territory into Six Capital Segments 2. For each Capital Segment: Calculate annual Normalized Replacement (NR) need 3. Baseline Capital Charge (BCC): Allocate annual replacement need among operators by relative use

New Haven Line CT

Keystone Line

Empire Conn.

NHL NY

Amtrak owned / maintained NEC Spine

Annual Cost of Replacing Existing Basic

Infrastructural Assets

User A Share of Use User B User C User D

Shares of Use Based on Operating Statistics

User A BCC User B BCC

User C BCC

User D BCC

Springfield Line


Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor Transparency – through Collaborative Planning & Reporting

NEC One-Year Implementation Plan (OYIP) • One-year projection of capital spending so operators can

have knowledge of projects occurring in upcoming year.

• Each Operator’s BCC can generally only be spent in their territory, and on assets they use.

Project Delivery Reporting • Quarterly Reporting against One-Year Implementation Plan

(OYIP).

• Objective is to anticipate, inform and account for variances from the OYIP.

• User BCCs allocations to individual projects are disclosed in the End-of-Year Report.


• Territorial application of User BCCs is sometimes hard to achieve.

Requires overhaul on how Amtrak does Capital Planning and Reporting.

• Major Backlog & Improvement Projects – outside of BCC Program.

Each requires a individual equitable cost sharing agreement.

Permanent Methods are currently being developed by NECC Committee.

Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor Lot of progress … but lots left to do.


Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor Still a Need for Federal Role & Investment

• The backlog needs – $38 billion – of the NEC are far beyond the ability of Amtrak and State / Commuter Railroads to fund independently.

• FAST Act (December,

2015) - Amtrak included in the Federal Surface Transportation Act for the first time

• NEC Future – Federal Government ultimately has the mandate to decide the long-term future of the NEC.


Capital Cost Allocation on the Northeast Corridor A Solid Foundation for Capital Planning & Investment

Conclusions Like the planning profession – PRIIA 212, and the resultant

NEC Commission Cost Allocation Policy are founded on the fundamental principles: Equity and Transparency.

Partnership and collaboration are key to success.

Greater commitment from all NEC partners inevitably leads a greater role for all in decision-making.


THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME

Documents

Partnership Planning for the Northeast Corridor