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
21 100 mile system,
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
– Carried
C i d 27
27.2
2 million
illi passengers iin FY 2009 ((second
d only
l tto 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)
ƒ 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
by VIA Rail
Grand Rapids
!
Metra
St. Albans
NECR
VTR
Niagara Falls
Port Huron
!
Rutland
Pontiac
Albany
!
!
!
Springfield!
PITTSBURGH
INDIANAPOLIS
!
!
PHILADELPHIA
Charlottesville
BALTIMORE
WASHINGTON
!
OAKLAND!
!
Richmond
!
Buckingham
Branch
!
!
!
ST. LOUIS
!
SACRAMENTO
NEW YORK
!
Harrisburg
!
KANSAS CITY
!
MBTA
!
!
DENVER
BOSTON
Metro
MetroNorth
CLEVELAND
SALT
LAKE CITY
!
!
Portland
Pan Am
!
!
!
CHICAGO
!
!
!
MILWAUKEE
!
TORONTO
Bakersfield
!
!
SCRRA
Newport News
Oklahoma City
!
ALBUQUERQUE
MEMPHIS
!
!
LOS ANGELES
SCRRA / BNSF / SDN
ATLANTA
DALLAS
FT. WORTH!
!
SAN DIEGO
!
HOUSTON
!
!
!
!
JACKSONVILLE
NEW ORLEANS
SAN ANTONIO
R il
Railroads
d
Amtrak
TAMPA!
FDOT
Norfolk Southern
!
Union Pacific
Canadian Pacific
BNSF
Canadian National
CSXT
Other Railroads
MIAMI
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
Ridership (millions)
75
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
FY08
FY09*
FY09*
FY07
FY07
FY06
FY06
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
–Establishes
E t bli h a new partnership
t
hi b
between
t
F
Federal
d l government,
t
states (and Authorities), Amtrak, and host railroads:
ƒ States/Authorities plan rail service
ƒ US DOT integrates state planning into a national system
p
national network,, helps
p design
g and operate
p
ƒ Amtrak operates
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
federal, non
non-profit
profit “co
co-op
op” to facilitate
intercity rail operations and development
gp
planning
g and development
p
capacity
p
y after yyears
• Amtrak rebuilding
of neglect and turmoil (barred from planning new services from
2002-2008 by former Administration)
•A
Amtrak
t k developing
d
l i new b
business
i
processes, resources and
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 recipient/partner
p
p
ƒCan lead or partner with states for funding
ƒCan 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
Amtrak, State, Host Collaboration for New and Expanded Routes
• F
For new or expanded
d d iintercity
t it railil passenger service,
i
A
Amtrak,
t k state,
t t and
d
host must agree up-front on service outcomes, in particular
– Trips per day
– Trip time
– Maximum delay minutes per trip
• Amtrak
Amtrak, state,
state and host then design an infrastructure to support these
agreed-upon outcomes
– Without materially lessening the quality of freight service to shippers
– Practical
P ti l iimprovements,
t nott “gold
“ ld plated”
l t d”
• 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
g 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”
• Substantial trip time
p
improvement
– May require sustained very
high speeds, e.g., 150+ mph
“I
“Incremental
t l Improvement”
I
t”
• Produces a string of small trip
time improvements
– Over time, these accumulate
– Can begin quickly
• High capital cost
– More likely to require
dedicated RofW
• Extensive land use issue
• Takes years (sometimes
decades) to realize, but
builds large market share
– Build ridership and market
share as you go
• Limit capital costs
• Easier integration into
existing
i i passenger railil
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
• 10 intermediate stops, shared ROW for
110mph service w/ Norfolk Southern freight
operations
• Harrisburg-Philly trip cut from 2 hours to 1:45
• Carried 1,183,821 riders in FY 08
• 20.1% ridership growth in FY 07, 19.8%
growth in FY 08
Cost: $145 million
Segovia-Guiomar station
Madrid-Valladolid High Speed Line (Dec 2007)
• 111 mile line
• Constructed a dedicated ROW for 186 mph
service; included a 28 km tunnel
• 1 intermediate stop
• Time cut from 1:30 to 55 minutes
• Carried 825,043 riders in 2008
Cost: $5.9 billion
Harrisburg station
15
Alberto Saviejo photo
How well does an incremental approach work?
• ~100 mph in 1976 (on a good day)
• 125 mph in 1980s
• 135-150 mph in 2000
Washington- New York
Trips by Aircraft and Train
• Northeast Corridor services are a product
of incremental development:
100%
80%
60%
Air
Rail
40%
20%
56% 50% 50% 51% 55% 56% 63%
37% 45%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
• Market share is a product of trip time –
but also frequency, convenience, comfort
and reliability
Fiscal Year/Quarter
Trips by
y Aircraft and Train
Acela service introduced
100%
New York - Boston
80%
60%
Air
40%
Rail
20%
20% 27%
41% 35% 39% 38% 36% 41% 49%
0%
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
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