Corridor 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 (PRIIA)

• High 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 service – Operates a 21 ,100 mile system , serving 527 stations – Owns and operates the between Boston and Washington as well as the Philadelphia to Harrisburg corridor and segments of the to Detroit corridor – Carr ie d 27. 2 m illion passengers in FY 2009 (secon d on ly 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) ƒIncludes state-supported services as well as system corridor trains

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

2 Amtrak Route System Track Ownership Excluding Terminal Railroads

VANCOUVER !

! SEATTLE ! Spokane

! ! MONTREAL PORTLAND ! ST. PAUL / MINNEAPOLIS Operated ! St. Albans by NECR TORONTO VTR Rutland ! Port Huron Niagara Falls ! Portland Grand Rapids ! ! ! ! Pan Am MILWAUKEE ! Pontiac Albany! Springfield! BOSTON ! CHICAGO! Metro- ! CLEVELAND MBTA SALT LAKE CITY North ! PITTSBURGH ! ! NEW YORK ! INDIANAPOLIS Harrisburg ! ! ! PHILADELPHIA DENVER KANSAS CITY ! ! ST. LOUIS ! BALTIMORE ! ! Charlottesville WASHINGTON SACRAMENTO ! ! Richmond OAKLAND !

Buckingham ! Newport News Branch

! Oklahoma City ! Bakersfield ! ! MEMPHIS SCRRA ALBUQUERQUE ! ! LOS ANGELES ATLANTA SCRRA / BNSF / SDN DALLAS ! FT. WORTH! ! SAN DIEGO

! JACKSONVILLE HOUSTON ! ! ! NEW ORLEANS SAN ANTONIO

RilRailroad s TAMPA! Amtrak Norfolk Southern FDOT ! MIAMI Union Pacific Canadian Pacific BNSF Canadian National CSXT Other Railroads

3 Amtrak Update

Hiawatha 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)

8.0 FY08 757.5

FY08 FY09* 7.0 FY09* FY07 (millions)

6.5 FY07 FY06

Ridership FY06 6.0

5.5

5.0 Q1 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)

• NEC business travel will mature, market size will become generally fixed. Significant ridership growth will be achieved only thru market share growth due 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 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 –EtblihEstablishes a new par tners hibthip between FdFedera l governmen t, states (and Authorities), Amtrak, and host railroads: ƒ States/Authorities plan rail service ƒ US DOT integrates state planning into a national system ƒ Amtrak opp,pgperates national network, helps design and operate 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 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 Zephyr –Safety and performance standards –Administers grant program –Facilitates among partners – states, Amtrak, freights

8 Evolving into our New Roles

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

• Amtrak rebuildinggp plannin g and develo pment ca pacit y after years of neglect and turmoil (barred from planning new services from 2002-2008 by former Administration)

• AtkdAmtrak deve lop ing new bus iness processes, resources an d 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) ƒ Funds the PRIIA vision and grant programs ƒ Funding flexibility acknowledges different stages of development ƒ Grants require enduring state leadership and commitment - operating and capital funding ƒ Grant competition demands results = public benefits

• Amtrak has many roles: – Grant recipppient/partner ƒCan lead or partner with states for funding ƒCan help bridge multiple state projects – Service planner – Liaison between other partners – Service provider (an umbrella term that can cover a lot of responsibilities)

10 Amtrak, State, Host Collaboration for New and Expanded Routes

• FddititiliAtkttdFor 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 agreed-upon outcomes – Without materially lessening the quality of freight service to shippers – PtiliPractical improvemen ts, no t“ldltd”t “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 trains – Number of passenger trains – Relative speeds – Train size and weight

12 Successful Collaboration and Expanded/New Partnerships

Now:

• Washington: Seattle-Vancouver 2nd Frequency

• Virginia: NEC Regional trains to Lynchburg & Richmond

Planned and soon to be implemented:

• North Carolina: Additional frequency

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

• Maine: Brunswick extension

• Wisconsin: Madison service

• Florida: FEC service

13 Different approaches to high speed rail (HSR)

“The Big Bang” “Increment al I mprovement”

• Substantial trip time • Produces a string of small trip improvement time improvements – May require sustained very – Over time, these accumulate high speeds, e.g., 150+ mph – Can begin quickly • High capital cost – Build ridership and market – More likely to require share as you go dedicated RofW • Limit capital costs • Extensive land use issue • Easier integration into • Takes years (sometimes exiiisting passenger ra il decades) to realize, but builds large market share network(s)

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

14 A quick comparison

Amtrak Improvements (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 Madrid-Valladolid High Speed Line (Dec 2007) 110mph service w/ Norfolk Southern freight operations • 111 mile line

• Harrisburg-Philly trip cut from 2 hours to 1:45 • Constructed a dedicated ROW for 186 mph service; included a 28 km tunnel • Carried 1,183,821 riders in FY 08 • 1 intermediate stop • 20.1% ridership growth in FY 07, 19.8% growth in FY 08 • Time cut from 1:30 to 55 minutes

Cost: $145 million • Carried 825,043 riders in 2008

Cost: $5.9 billion

Harrisburg station 15 Alberto Saviejo photo How well does an incremental approach work?

• Northeast Corridor services are a product of incremental development: Washington- New York 100% • ~100 mph in 1976 (on a good day) 80% and Train and 60% Air • 125 mph in 1980s 40% Rail 56% 56% 63% 45% 50% 50% 51% 55% • 135-150 mph in 2000 20% 37% 0% Trips by Aircraft • Market share is a product of trip time – 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Fiscal Year/Quarter but also frequency, convenience, comfort and reliability service introduced

New York - Boston 100%

80%

60% Air 40% Rail

Aircraft and Train 49% yy 20% 41% 35% 39% 38% 36% 41% 20% 27% 0%

Trips b Trips 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Fiscal Year/Quarter

MOW equipment on the North End of the NEC Acela service, electrification, and 125 mph Regional service introduced

16 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 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)

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

17 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