Developing State-Amtrak Agreements
Stephen Gardner
Vice President, Policy and Development
March 8, 2010
2
PRIIA/ARRA: The blueprint
• PRIIA (October 2008)
– Reauthorized Amtrak ($2 billion annually)
– Federal matching grant program for intercity/HSR capital investments
– FRA, states and Amtrak work in partnership to establish new/improved passenger services
- Amtrak operates national network; partners with states to design and operate services and improve NEC
- States plan rail service role and provide operating/capital funding- FRA provides capital funding and integrates state planning into a national
system
– Collaboration among states, US DOT, Amtrak, transit agencies, host railroads, suppliers, and others key to success
• ARRA (February 2009)
– $8 billion for intercity/HSR capital grants to states
– No state match required
3
Existing Amtrak-State Collaboration
• State-supported corridor services: Partnerships with 15 states
• NEC Master Plan process underway since 2006
• 9 commuter services on Amtrak infrastructure
• Numerous Shared capital investments (examples)
– Infrastructure (Keystone Corridor)
– Maintenance Facilities (Seattle)
– NEC Joint Benefit Agreements
– Stations (Wilmington)
– Equipment (Pacific Surfliner)
4
PRIIA/ARRA: Amtrak’s role to-date
• Amtrak partnered with more than 25 states to support over 100 projects and corridor applications in the first round of grant requests
– Stakeholder agreements
– Service development plans
– Ridership/revenue estimates
– Project scope
– Planning assistance
– Application assistance
5
First Round Grant Announcements
• Announced projects will benefit at least 13 existing Amtrak routes– Higher speeds/reduced trip times
– Increased frequencies
– Improved stations
– Increased reliability
• Funds new/extended services – Downeaster extension (Portland – Brunswick, ME)
– Ohio “3C” Corridor (Cleveland – Columbus – Cincinnati)
– Hiawatha extension (Milwaukee – Madison, WI)
• $3.5 billion for “Greenfield” HSR projects in California & Florida
• Planning grants, funded with 2009 appropriations, to help develop future applications
• Additionally, several “TIGER” grants will benefit Amtrak stations and services
6
Amtrak Network and ARRA HSIPR Awards
7
Amtrak’s role for grant implementation
• To complete grant agreements and fully fund projects, FRA will likely want
- Concrete funding/spend plans - Fully developed of budgets/scope/schedules- Refined operating/investment plans and costs- Compliance with state and Federal requirements/laws- Completed agreements and contract negotiations
• Many different types of activities may require Amtrak-State collaboration and agreements
- Investments on Amtrak-owned/operated infrastructure- Investments on host railroad infrastructure- New/extended services- Additional services on existing routes- Station investments- Schedule changes- Facilities improvements- Fleet acquisition/assignment/utilization- Identifying Amtrak manpower and resource requirements
8
Amtrak Agreement Considerations
• Maintenance responsibility for equipment-related grants
• In general, existing agreements should satisfy Amtrak’s commitment to operate service until improvements are completed
• Use existing agreements when possible and use as model for new agreements
• Flow-downs
• Operating support
• Look for opportunities where other federal funds can supplement FRA grants
9
Amtrak/State/Host Collaboration for New and Expanded Routes
• For service-related grants, state, Amtrak and host railroad should agree up-front on service outcomes, in particular
– Amtrak train trips per day
– Amtrak train trip time
– Maximum delay minutes per Amtrak train trip
• Amtrak, state, and host then design an infrastructure to support these agreed-upon outcomes
– Avoid unreasonably impairing freight operations
– Practical improvements, not “gold plated”
• Public sector provides funding to “build it right” and host railroads make enforceable commitment to “run it right”
– Hosts commit to provide service, not just build infrastructure
• Grant-funded projects need to be coordinated with existing/on-going Amtrak and Host services, projects, initiatives, and priorities (e.g., Amtrak’s station ADA plan) and recognize regional impacts of simultaneous projects
10
Preparing for Future Funding Rounds
• States and Amtrak should again work together to identify/advance projects fundable under $2.5 billion FY2010 appropriation and in future funding rounds
– Early Amtrak/state engagement
– Clear identification of goals/needs
– Service planning (Sec. 207), preliminary ridership/rev #’s
– Amtrak participation in state discussions with host railroads
– Environmental guidance
– Equipment needs
– Application development and review
– Joint applications?
– Recognition of Amtrak resource needs
• Adapt organizational structures/processes to new environment – Amtrak
– FRA
– State DOTs
11
Amtrak-State Agreements: Equipment
• Whatever happens, we all need fleet!
• Average passenger car 24 years old, older than ever
• Comprehensive fleet plan for all Amtrak business lines
– Total fleet procurement over a 30-year period will include
2,500 cars and 700 locomotives = 100 cars annually
– Total anticipated cost (2009 dollars)- $11 billion through 2023, $23 billion through 2040- Not including needs for projected state-supported corridor frequency increases and new services
– Designed for baseline 2% ridership growth on existing services
– Procurement model scalable for higher growth (options and retirement rate)
– Fleet design to be coordinated with Sec. 305 process/specs as much as possible to create common designs/subsystems/parts/processes across entire system
– Creates sustainable domestic manufacturing capacity
12
Looking ahead: state activities
• Participation in PRIIA-initiated processes
– PRIIA 209 (state corridor pricing) – joint responsibility
– PRIIA 210 (long-distance trains) – work with Amtrak on opportunities to better integrate LD routes and corridor services
– PRIIA 212 (NEC Infrastructure & Operations Advisory Committee) – joint undertaking among DOT, NEC states, and Amtrak
– PRIIA 305 (equipment pool) - joint undertaking among DOT, NEC states, and Amtrak
• Future grant rounds will require
– State capital match (at least 20%) beginning in FY10
– Operating funds
– Completion of state rail plans
• Section 207 compliance
– Working together to meet standards and raise train performance
• Building support to sustain and grow HSIPR program and Amtrak
13
Looking ahead: Amtrak’s objectives
• Support the expansion, improvement and establishment of intercity and high-speed passenger rail service
• Rebuild planning and development capacity after years of neglect and turmoil
• Develop new business processes, resources and policies to support growth
• Improve service delivery
• Become a better, more nimble partner for state customers (customer surveys and interviews)
• Integrate new and improved services into a seamless national network with enhanced intermodal connectivity
• Provide leadership role in equipment acquisition/planning
• Facilitate partnerships among states, host/commuter railroads and Amtrak
All this requires people and $$
14
Policy considerations: implementation & next round• Long-term dedicated funding for HSIPR and Amtrak
• Defining relationships
– State-Amtrak, State-DOT, Amtrak-DOT
• PTC – costs and grant eligibility
• Pricing/cost allocation policies
– State corridor service costs (PRIIA 209)
– NEC shared infrastructure/services (PRIIA 212)
– Commuter/host railroad benefits vs. contributions
• Equipment - roles and responsibilities for funding/financing, acquisition, ownership
• Standards
– Application evaluations
– Ridership, cost, benefit, projections
– Sec. 207 Metrics and Standards
• Environmental process and requirements (Categorical Exclusion, etc)
• Flow-downs and tax implications – dealing with the hosts
15
Amtrak-State Agreements: National rail plan issues
• What will the National Plan mean for future grant projects?
• Should projects have to be in the plan? Will there be a map?
• When should compliance with state rail plan requirement return for grants?
• Sec. 207 Metrics and Standards and National Plan integration?
• Should differences among state perspectives/levels of commitment affect National Plan?
• How does the Amtrak system fit into the National Plan?
• What funds the National Plan?