Amtrak 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 Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington as well as the Philadelphia to Harrisburg corridor and segments of the Chicago 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) Includes 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 VIA Rail NECR TORONTO VTR Rutland ! Port Huron Niagara Falls ! Portland Grand Rapids ! ! ! ! Pan Am MILWAUKEE ! Pontiac Albany! Metra 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: States/Authorities plan rail service US DOT integrates state planning into a national system 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 Illinois 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) 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 benefits
• Amtrak has many roles: – Grant recipppient/partner Can lead or partner with states for funding Can 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 Piedmont 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 Keystone Corridor 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 Acela 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