Stephen Gardner, Vice President, Policy and
Development
SCORT Meeting, March 14, 2011
The Amtrak System
Cascades
Long distance routes
connect major hubs
and corridor services
California
corridors
Chicago Hub
Northeast
Corridor
(NEC)
1
Record Ridership and Revenue
• Record Ridership in FY10
• YTD FY11 Continues record pace
– 28.7 million riders in FY 10
– increased public appeal and popularity of rail travel
– 7 of last 8 years have been records
– continued high gasoline prices which are trending
higher
– 37% growth since 2000
• Record revenue of $2.5 billion in FY 10
– Covered 85% of operating cost
– Our FY 10 farebox recovery was 76% highest recovery in US
– general consumer dissatisfaction with air service
– continued strong Acela business travel with the valueadd of Wi-Fi service
October-February FY11
Ticket Revenue ($ millions)
Service
FY11
FY10
% Change
Ridership (millions)
FY11
FY10
% Change
Amtrak Total
$736.9
$662.0
+11.3
11.81
11.15
+6.0
NEC Spine
$394.0
$355.5
+10.8
4.32
4.15
+4.0
Acela
$197.8
$171.8
+15.1
1.39
1.26
+9.7
Northeast Regional
$195.9
$183.2
+6.9
2.93
2.89
+1.5
Other Short Distance
$164.4
$148.6
+10.6
5.72
5.32
+7.6
Long Distance
$178.6
$157.9
+13.1
1.77
1.68
+5.6
2
FY10 Revenue and Ridership Breakdown
Ticket Revenue by Business Line
Long
Distance,
$446m,
26%
State
Corridors,
$390m,
23%
Acela,
$435m,
25%
NEC
Northeast
Regional,
$458m,
26%
Ridership by Business Line
Long
Distance,
4.5m,
16%
Acela,
3.2m,
11%
NEC
State
Corridors,
13.8m,
48%
Northeast
Regional,
7.2m,
25%
• NEC makes up over half of Amtrak revenue and requires
most of Amtrak capital funding
• State Corridors make up nearly half of Amtrak ridership
• Long Distance trains require bulk of Federal operating
subsidy
3
Continuing Focus on Cost Control
Core Cost Recovery Ratio
(Farebox & State Revenues)
Core Expenses per Seat Mile
$0.25
100%
$0.21
$0.20
$0.20
80%
$0.15
60%
$0.10
40%
$0.05
20%
$0.00
0%
Jan YTD FY10
Jan YTD FY11
73.0%
Jan YTD FY10
79.9%
Jan YTD FY11
Source: Page A-22, Amtrak January 2011 Monthly Performance Report, amtrak.com
4
am
O en
ak to
l a -S
nd a
-B n J
Lo
B
a o
s
An os t k e s e
ge on rs fi
M les -Po e ld
i lw -S rt
au an l an
N ke D d
ew e- ie
g
Yo Ch o
Ph S r ic a
i la ea k -A go
W d el ttle lba
a s ph -P n y
hi i a or
ng -H tl a
a
n
t
N on- rri s d
ew N b
e ur
C Yo w Y g
hi rk
ca -B ork
go os
-S to
t. n
Lo
ui
s
Sa
cr
Air-Rail Market Share
FY10 Air-Rail Shares – Top Ten Corridors
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% 100 100 100 97 92
81
40%
73 67 69
30%
53
20%
25
10%
0%
Air
Rail
Route
5
FY11 YTD (Oct – Feb) Market Share
• Due to the weak economy and high unemployment, particularly in the northeast, the total size
of the intercity travel market for all modes combined (rail, auto, air, and bus) has shown some
erosion;
• However, consistent with ridership trends, Amtrak market shares have grown due to
service/product improvements, continued television and print advertising, and high gasoline
prices;
• The national market share for Amtrak increased by 42 percent between 2006 and 2011, rising
from a share of 1.4 to 2.0 percent, while Amtrak’s NEC market share increased sharply
against other travel modes
----------------------Market Shares---------------------------National----------Northeast Corridor--2009
2011
2009
2011
%
%
%
%
Amtrak
Car
Air
Bus
1.7
67.0
29.0
2.0
2.0
69.0
27.0
2.0
16.0
69.0
9.0
6.0
22.0
58.0
12.0
7.0
6
The Near-Term Funding Situation
• Amtrak and HSIPR grants:
– FY 11:
- House-passed CR cut Amtrak to $1.413B – slightly more than FY 08 –
and eliminates HSIPR funding
- Sessions amendment to further cut to $966 million defeated on
bipartisan vote
– FY 12:
- Amtrak requested $2.2B – right around the authorized funding level
- Detailed discussion on this budget won’t start for some time – but will
be protracted
- If FY11 baseline is lower, FY12 increases will be harder
• Surface Transportation Reauthorization:
- Administration proposes merging Amtrak/HSIPR into new
consolidated rail program:
- $4 billion for System Preservation (initially Amtrak)
- $4 billion for Network Development (competitive)
- Hinges on ability to raise revenues
7
State Partnerships…
• States are vital partners for Amtrak and together, we form a
cooperative system
• States provide:
- Service initiatives and planning
- operating funds - $191 million annually, or 23% of total costs (with
revenues and state payments, 76% of fully allocated costs)
- Capital investments (stations, equipment, etc)
- Intermodal integration
- Service focus and innovation
• Amtrak provides:
- ~25% of fully-allocated costs of all corridor services
- Railroad access
- Liability arrangement
- Major systems (reservations, etc)
- Equipment & facilities
- Service planning
8
….. are Amtrak’s Future
• trains less than 750 miles, most in
partnership with 15 states
• Are only service at 203 of Amtrak’s 528served stations
• 220 daily trains – more than half our total!
• We are dedicated to working with states to:
• Improve current services
• Develop plans for the future
• Pursue joint processes (Sec. 209 & 305)
• Support and pursue investment opportunities
(HSIPR)
• 2011 Partner Satisfaction Program:
• Annual survey of partner satisfaction
• Integrated local teams to focus on partner top
priority issue
• Responsiveness and empowerment
9
Corridor Trains are the Key to System Growth
Top Ten Performers – Ridership Growth
Top Ten Performers – Revenue Growth
Piedmont
+46%
Piedmont
+39.1%
Blue Water
+18.7%
Cascades
+31.6%
Vermonter
+16.5%
Missouri River Runner
+24.4%
Missouri River Runner
+14.4%
Vermonter
+19.1%
Alb-N Falls-Toronto
+13.8%
Carolinian
+17.9%
Adirondack
+13.4%
Chicago-St. Louis
+17.6%
Chicago-St. Louis
+13.1%
Hoosier State
+17.5%
Cascades
+13.0%
Blue Water
+15.3%
Heartland Flyer
+11.1%
Adirondack
+14.0%
Carolinian
+11%
Heartland Flyer
+13.5%
10
$2.4 B: Re-award Process
• Secretary LaHood announcement on Friday (3/11)
• $1.6B is ARRA funds (no match), $800M is FY10 (20% match)
• We want to work with you
–Update ridership data, develop agreement in principle (AIP)
–Work with host railroads on service outcome agreements before
applying
• Amtrak may apply directly
• Applications due April 4
11
Partnerships with Host Railroads
• Most Amtrak train-miles (70+%) run on freight railroads
– We have longstanding relationships with all Class I carriers
– Work with them on grant agreements, as well as daily service issues
• All Amtrak trains on host railroads rely on Rail Passenger Service
Act access authority to any US railroad:
– Amtrak gets access in exchange for host railroads not having to offer
passenger service
– Basis for entry is contractual – but a host railroad cannot simply refuse to
permit:
- new or additional trains
- higher speeds
– Can’t insist unilaterally on dedicated tracks as long as Amtrak and states willing
to make improvements needed for safe and practicable service
• Access is at incremental cost not market rates
• Passenger trains receive preference over freight
• Hosts increasingly seeking to modify arrangement based on
concern over freight growth and capacity.
12
PRIIA Section 212: Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and
Operations Advisory Commission
• Members include
- Amtrak
- USDOT
- NEC States’ Governor-designees
- Non-voting freight RR reps
• Statutory Requirements
- Goals for future of NEC
- Cost allocation
• Progress to Date
- 2 organizational meetings
- Next meeting – March 23
- New state members (NY, DE) and new non-voting reps (VT, NH, ME,
potentially VA)
- Soon to have staff to drive statutory requirement work products
13
PRIIA Section 305 Next Generation Equipment Pool
Committee
Ken Uznanski
Amtrak
Policy and Development
SCORT Washington Meeting
Washington, DC
March, 14, 2011
14
Section 305 Next Generation Equipment Committee
• Purpose:
– To design, develop specifications for, and procure standardized next
generation corridor equipment
• Functions:
– Determine number of different types of equipment required
– Establish a pool of equipment for use on routes funded by participating
states
– Subject to agreement, utilize Amtrak-provided services to design,
maintain and remanufacture equipment
• Cooperative Agreements
– Amtrak and participating states may enter into agreements for funding,
procurement, remanufacture, ownership and management
– May apply to current or new equipment
– May establish a corporation to perform these functions
• Participants
– Amtrak, States, FRA, host railroads, equipment manufacturers, other
operators as appropriate
15
Section 305 Executive Committee
• Executive Committee Membership
– Amtrak
– Federal Railroad Administration
– States (CA, GA, IA, LA, MD, MO, NC, NY, WA, WI)
• Officers
– Bill Bronte, California - Chair
– Mario Bergeron, Amtrak - Vice-Chair
– DJ Stadtler, Amtrak - Treasurer
– Rod Massman, Missouri - Secretary
• Subcommittees/Task Forces
– Financial
– Technical
- Heavy involvement from industry
– Administrative
16
Section 305 Deliverables
• Committee established January 2010
• Year One Work Plan
– Complete Single Level specifications for corridor services
– Complete Bi-Level Specifications
– Diesel Locomotive Specifications
– Develop ownership and organizational structures
– Determine appropriate procurement strategies
– Fleet management strategy
– Be prepared for initial procurements
• Rolling stock procurements using federal funds will be
subject to “Buy America” requirements
17
Section 305 Current Activities
• Executive Committee has met five times in Washington DC and
additionally via webinar
• FRA has provided $2 million grant for Section 305 activities
– Grant agreement between Amtrak and FRA
– Amtrak administered under direction of NGEC Executive Board
• AASHTO providing Support Services to NGEC and working groups
– Minutes, Action Items, Logistics,
– Section 305 Website www.highspeed-rail.org
• Sub-Committees have been established and meet regularly
– Administrative Task Force
- Development of polices and procedures
- Issues associated with liability, intellectual property
- Alternative methods of organization/incorporation
– Financial Subcommittee
- Exploring funding mechanisms
- Gaining better understanding of potential markets
18
Section 305 Technical Subcommittee
• Technical Subcommittee has performed bulk of the work to date
• Specification Development
– Established working groups from the industry, states, FRA, and Amtrak
- Structural, Mechanical, Electrical, Vehicle/Track Interface, Interiors
- An intensive Effort
- Draft Specification is reviewed by Executive Board Review Panel and
Independent Assessment before Executive Board consideration
– PRIIA 305 Bi-Level Specification approved by Executive Board August 31, 2010
– PRIIA 305 Single Level Car Specification approved by Executive Board February 15,
2011
– PRIIA 305 Diesel Locomotive Specification under final Executive Board Review
– THOUSANDS of cooperative, collaborative work hours from the industry
• States must use these specifications if obtaining new equipment with
federal funds
19
Section 305 Next Steps
• February 15, 2011 NGEC Annual Meeting held at USDOT
– States, Amtrak, FRA and Industry
– Milestones
- Single Level Car Specifications approved
- Work Plan and Budget Development for upcoming year
- Discussion(s) on Standardization
- Systems Engineering
• Ongoing Work (Year Two)
– Financing recommendations
– Structure/Incorporation Opportunities
– Single Level Trainset Specification to be completed summer 2011
– Potential Dual-Mode Locomotive Specification
– System Engineering
– Standardization
– Business Plan Development
20
PRIIA Section 209 Update
John Bennett
Amtrak
Policy and Development
SCORT Washington Meeting
Washington, DC
March, 14, 2011
21
Brief Review of Section 209 requirements: (a) General
(a) IN GENERAL.—Within 2 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Amtrak Board of
Directors, in consultation with the Secretary, the
governors of each relevant State, and the Mayor of
the District of Columbia, or entities representing
• Passed Oct 16, 2008:
2 years = Oct 16, 2010
– Amtrak and States have
agreed to continue working
until at least April 16, 2011
those officials, shall develop and implement a
single, nationwide standardized methodology for
establishing and allocating the operating and
• Amtrak Board of Directors’
responsibility
capital costs among the States and Amtrak
associated with trains operated on each of the
routes described in section 24102(5)(B) and (D) and
section 24702 that—
• “in consultation with”:
collaborative process
• Single, nationwide,
standardized methodology: all
corridors treated equitably
22
Brief Review of Section 209: (a) (1) & (2)
(1) ensures, within 5 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, equal treatment in
the provision of like services of all States and
groups of States (including the District of
Columbia); and
(2) allocates to each route the costs
• Passed Oct 16, 2008:
5 years = Oct 16, 2013
– Transition period
• “allocates” – Amtrak
Performance Tracking (APT)
incurred only for the benefit of that route and a
proportionate share, based upon factors that
reasonably reflect relative use, of costs incurred for
the common benefit of more than 1 route.
• “costs incurred only for the
benefit of that route” = Direct
Costs
• “costs incurred for the
common benefit of more than
1 route” = Shared Costs
23
Brief Review of Section 209: (d) Chapter 244 Funds
(d) USE OF CHAPTER 244 FUNDS.—Funds
provided to a State under chapter 244 of title 49,
United States Code, may be used, as provided in
• Chapter 244, Title 49:
– Capital grants can be used to
pay capital charges
that chapter, to pay capital costs determined in
accordance with this section.
• Amtrak and State Working
Group (SWG) are exploring
options for obtaining Federal
support for capital charges
• SWG will be working with
State partners to consider and
develop these options
24
Current Financials and Section 209 Intent
• Currently 15 States provide ~$190 million per year to support 22
routes (74 weekday trains)
• 5 routes (36 weekday trains) currently unsupported by States
• PRIIA Section 209 establishes a policy whereby Amtrak will
allocate in a fair, equitable, and consistent manner to the affected
States the operating expenses and capital charges to support all
110 weekdays trains on these 27 routes
– The current 36 trains (historically paid by Amtrak) will become Statesupported trains in a manner consistent with the other 74 State–
supported trains.
• Section 209 State Working Group established to develop this
policy with Amtrak: (CCJPA, NNEPRA, NCDOT, VDRPT, WSDOT,
AASHTO)
25
Segmentation of Amtrak’s National Train Service
Amtrak National
Train Service
Total State
Supported Routes
Single State
National
System Routes
Northeast Corridor
Routes
NEC Base Increment
(single and multi-state)
Multi-State (non NEC)
Empire Service
NYP-ALB
Ethan Allen Express
NYP-RUD
Heartland Flyer
FTW-OKC
Vermonter
SPG-SAB
Lincoln Service
CHI-STL
Maple Leaf
ALB-BUF-TWO
Cascades
EUG-PDX-SEA-VAC
New Haven – Springfield
NHV-SPG
Illini/Saluki
CHI-CDL
Downeaster
BON-POR
Adirondack
NYP-MTR
Keystone Service
PHL-HAR
IL Zephyr/Carl Sandburg
CHI-QCY
Hiawatha
CHI-MKE
Blue Water
CHI-PTH
Lynchburg Service
WAS-LYH
Pacific Surfliner
SAN-LAX-SBA-SLO
Wolverines
CHI-DET-PNT
Hoosier State
CHI-IND
Washington-Newport News
WAS-NPN
Capitols
SJC-OAK-SAC-ARN
Pere Marquette
CHI-GRR
Pennsylvanian
PHL-PGH
San Joaquins
OAK-BFD
Carolinian
WAS-CLT
River Runner
KCY-STL
Piedmont
CLT-RGH
Some service not currently paid by states
No service currently paid by states
26
SWG Pricing Concept Proposal
• Former method:
– ‘Top-down’ exercise
– Start with fully-allocated costs
and subtract
• SWG proposed method:
– ‘Bottom-up’ definition of Route
Costs: costs that States can
see and touch on the route
– Incorporate identifiable
management charges as
Additives (% of Route Costs)
– Include Third Party Costs (Host
RR, fuel) as actuals
– In States’ view, shift from Amtrak cost recovery to Amtrak charging
States for specific services
– SWG/States believe this approach will encourage Amtrak to control nonroute (shared) costs that are less visible/measurable by States
• SWG and Amtrak general consensus that capital charge is:
– Limited to route-specific assets
– Reduced by amount of past State investments
– Reserved for future investments jointly programmed with States
27
General Acceptance of SWG Pricing Concept Proposal
• Amtrak Board of Directors has reviewed and accepted the pricing
concept policy approach—subject to agreement on the specific
values/rationales in the policy statement
• March 4, 2011: State Working Group and Amtrak jointly presented
“additive approach” to AASHTO Leadership Group
– Audience: State Secretaries of Transportation or other CEO level State
transportation officials
– State Working Group pricing concept proposal widely accepted at the meeting
– Appreciation from SCORT for Amtrak’s willingness to collaborate with States
and jointly develop a Section 209 policy approach
28
Amtrak Next Steps
• Conduct due diligence to develop appropriate additive/overhead rates for
operating costs
– Internal review/discussion regarding Route Cost and Additives definition and values
– Route-specific Additive values
• Evaluate/develop capital cost estimation procedures and concepts for
reinvestment of proceeds into route improvements
– Linkage to Federal capital investment programs
• Design standard contract outline and specific language as an adjunct to final
Section 209 Policy
• Review and response to outstanding issues
• Letter to STB requesting two-month extension
29
Thank you
Questions and Comments?
30