HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08142006 - C.50 TO: Board of Supervisors �a - SA
. - � � =•
FROM: Transportation, Water a Contra
,d Infrastructure Committee Costa
(Supervisor Federal Glover, Chair) Costa
Count
DATE: August 14, 2006 ` y
SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR AMTRAK FUNDING REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FY 2007
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ADOPT Resolution 2006/477 supporting Amtrak's$1.6 billion funding request for Federal FY 2007
and AUTHORIZE staff to send the resolution to the County's congressional delegation, as
recommended by the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT
NONE to the County.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Amtrak seeks support from local(governments and other interested parties for its funding request
for the Federal Fiscal Year 2007, budget. Amtrak has requested $1.6 billion, an amount Amtrak
believes is the minimum necessary to keep its trains and facilities in working order and perform
necessary m Intenance and rehabilitation of aging facilities around the country. Amtrak's budget
for Federal FY 2006 is $1.3 billion. As in past years, the Administration is proposing $900 million.
The House of Representatives Jsupports $1.1 billion. The Senate proposal had not yet been
developed as this Board Order was written.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMEN • X YES
RECOMMENDATION OF OUN Y DMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
I
SIGNATURE Sue ' Ne'edl Pie ho Su ervisor Federal D. Glover
ACTION OF BOARD ON a-doL APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
/6 UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: John Greitzer (9251335-1201)
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED �4 a�
JOHN C LEN, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
G:\Transportation\TWIC\2006\Board Orders\Amtrak budget support Aug 14.doc BY,4 ,,& �1Z��—_ , DEPUTY
c5lr
AMTRAK BUDGET REQUEST FY 07
AUGUST 14, 2006
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued)
The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee received the Amtrak budget request from
the County's Ad Hoc Intercity Rail Advisory Committee (AIRAC)with a recommendation of support.
AIRAC reviewed and recommended support for the budget request at its July 14 meeting. The
Board of Supervisors has supported Amtrak's budget requests in past years.
Contra Costa County is served by 18 daily roundtrips of passenger service each day, all involving
Amtrak.They are the Capital Corridortrains that run between the Bay Area and the Sacramento area
(12 roundtrips daily, soon to increase to 16), the San Joaquins that link Contra Costa and Alameda
Counties with the Central Valley ((four roundtrips daily), the Coast Starlight from Los Angeles to
Seattle (once a day), and the Zephyr from the Bay Area to Chicago (once a day).
Impacts of Amtrak budget reaue t on Contra Costa passenger service
The Capital Corridor and San Joaquin trains in particular help reduce the number of vehicles that
would otherwise be on Interstate 80 and State Route 4, respectively. Therefore there could be
traffic impacts on these highways if Amtrak receives substantially less funding than it is requesting
and has to reduce its services.The following information provided by Amtrak outlines the possible
negative impacts on Contra Costa intercity rail service.
Subsidy impacts for Capitol Corridor and San Joaguins. Amtrak jointly shares in funding the
operating loss of these two services with the State of California. Reduced funding for Amtrak may
reduce its ability to help cover the operating losses for these routes. This in turn would increase
the State's portion of the operating subsidy, which the State may not be able to absorb. Should this
occur, service cuts likely will resul It.
Impacts on long-distance trains.Amtrak fully funds the long-distance trains that serve Martinez(the
Coast Starlight and the Zephyr). Reduced funding may result in a loss of service. Staffing on the
trains, train servicing and customer amenities may be reduced.
Operation of Amtrak's Oakland Maintenance Facility. Some funding included in Amtrak's budget
request will go to the Oakland'Maintenance Facility where the Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, and
Zephyrtrains all are.serviced. Decreased funding may negatively affect Amtrak's ability to service
these trains.
Impacts on other rail capital projects. There are a number of state- and freight railroad-funded
capital projects in the works thaf will increase the system's capacity and improve reliability in the
East Bay that will affect Amtrak services. While Amtrak does not contribute monetarily to all of
these projects, it often serves as project manager or assists in implementing these capital projects.
Any shortfall in funding that affects Amtrak's ability to perform these functions could in turn affect
service levels or service quality iln Contra Costa County.
Impacts on marketing. Reduced funding may result in a cut to Amtrak's marketing and sales budget,
which may in turn affect ridership and revenue. Benefits of Amtrak ridership include taking cars off of
the roads and bringing dollars into downtown centers near the Martinez and Richmond train stations.
Attached is a resolution of support, followed by the full text of Amtrak's funding request to
Congress for Federal Fiscal Year 2007,which begins on October 1,2006.Amtrak's budget request
of$1.6 billion includes$730 million for capital needs, $498 million for operating costs, $295 million
for debt service, and $75 million for working capital as described more fully in the attached Amtrak
document.
The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee will discuss this recommendation at its
August 14 meeting. If there is any modification to this recommendation, it will be announced by the
Committee Chair at the Board of Supervisors meeting on August 15.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Resolution on August 15, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: 12
.
NOES. "�.._
ABSENT: /�tlti-R-- �v'• ''� ;:' �4
ST'4 co
ABSTAIN:
SUBJECT: ) Resolution No. 2006/477
SUPPORT FOR AMTRAK BUDGET REQUEST )
FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2007 )
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has some of the Bay Area's most congested highways in
Interstate 80, Interstate 680 and State Route 4; and
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors supports the development and
expansion of alternative modes of travel wherever feasible to provide relief from highway
congestion and vehicle-borne emissions; and
WHEREAS, Amtrak provides pal senger rail services with 18 daily round trips serving Contra
Costa County, through its own routes and its partnership with state rail services and the
Capitol Corridor Joint Powers A i thority; and
WHEREAS, these passenger rail services provide an important alternative to the automobile
on the County's congested freeways; and
WHEREAS, Amtrak has survived on less-than-adequate funding in recent years to provide the
necessary degree of service, maintenance, rehabilitation, and security of its facilities; and
WHEREAS, Amtrak has had to defer numerous capital improvement projects in recent years
due to inadequate funding levels; and
WHEREAS, Contra Costa jurisdictions have made substantial investments in their passenger
rail facilities through construction of the Martinez Intermodal Station, improvements to the
Richmond and Antioch stations,1 and a planned new station in Hercules;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
supports Amtrak's request for $1.6 billion in funding for Federal Fiscal Year 2007.
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an
action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors on the date shown
ATTESTED: August 15,2006
John Cullen, erk of the Board of Supervisors
And Coun dministrator
By ty
cc: Community Development Department
RESOLUTION 2006/477
CLERK'S CERTIFICATE
Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Contra Costa, hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a
resolution duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of said County duly
and regularly held at the regular f eeting place thereof on August 15, 2006, of which meeting
all of the members of said Board of Supervisors had due notice and at which a majoritythereof .
were present; and that at said meeting said resolution was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Uilkema,Piepho,DeSaulnier,Glover and Gioia
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
An agenda of said meeting was posted at least 72 hours before said meeting at 651 Pine
Street, Martinez, California, a location freely accessible to members of the public, and a brief
general description of said resolution appeared on said agenda.
I further certify that I have carefully compared the same with the original minutes of said
meeting on file and of record in my office; that the foregoing resolution is a full, true and
correct copy of the original resolution adopted at said meeting and entered in said minutes;
and that said resolution has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the date of its
adoption, and the same is now in full force and effect.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the County of Contra Costa this 15th day of August, 2006.
John Cullen, County Administrator and
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
[SEAL]
By:
Deputy Clerk
RESOLUTION 2006/477
FY07 Grant and
Legislative Request t
+s 9Y t
Y A
v�
REBUILDING AMERICA'S
PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM
A RC H 2 11 .
Lk AAT'F8 A Rte°
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
AMTRAK FY07 Grant and Legislative Request
I. Introduction....:................................................................... 1
1
II. FY07 Funding Needs ......................................................... 3
CapitalProgram.................................................................. 4
Operating I Budget............................................................... 8
Working Capital/Restructuring .......................................... 10
Strategic Investment Options............................................. 12
Debt Service/Refinancing................................................... 15
III. Reauthorization Issues ...................................................... 17
Capital Matching Program for States ................................. 17
Federal Platform for Competition....................................... 18
Station Accessibility............................................................ 18
Security .............................................................................. 19
Funding Tables
Summary ........................................................................... 4
Lines of Business ............................................................... 12
i
I . Introduction
2006 marks the beginning of a new era at Amtrak. It has been an exceptionally
productive year. Building on the blueprint published a year ago in the April 2005
Strategic Reform Initiatives (SRI), we have either begun or completed the review
of virtually every major facet of Amtrak's operations. Correspondingly, we have
launched a broad range of reform actions aimed at reducing our operating deficit
and its burden o federal taxpayers, while positioning Amtrak and passenger rail
for the prospect of a resurgence of interest in passenger rail.
There will, of co Irse, always be more to do; but to have accomplished more by
way of reform than we have during the past year would be hard to imagine. More
importantly, we need to see the initiatives through to their targeted outcomes and
we will need continued Congressional support in 2007 to do so. Those outcomes
will mean considerably less federal financial support in later years.
It is premature tl gauge with accuracy the financial impact of Amtrak's reform
initiatives, and we will have more reliable projections later this year. It is not
unrealistic, however, to expect the combination of revenue enhancements and cost
reductions to improve Amtrak's annual operating results by $500 million or more
over the next three to five years (before consideration of inflation). Whatever the
precise financial results, we are confident that the outcome of our SRI efforts will
be a dramatic reduction in Amtrak's future need for federal operating support. It is
important to note, however, that we do not believe that our efforts will eliminate
the need for some level of continued financial support for operations and capital
needs. A more detailed multi-year financial plan will accompany the updated
strategic plan to Ibe released later this year.
Each of the reform initiatives requires fundamental changes in the way Amtrak has
traditionally done business, and none of them will be easy. With an operation
stretched as thin as Amtrak is, there is a balance to be maintained between
urgency of reform and imprudence. The balance we have struck maintains
passenger and employee safety as well as organizational stability as priorities.
Nonetheless, Amtrak has never in its history instituted so pervasive a reform effort
so aggressively.
As this document reflects, our FY2007 funding request reflects the initial benefits
of our reform efforts, reducing what would otherwise be our federal operating
support request by over $40 million. But as with any turnaround, the success of
our efforts cannot be fairly measured in the first year of progress; similar efforts in
many companies regularly generate greater losses in their early years. The test of
our reform efforts will be in our ability to implement substantial, sustainable
change that deliver not only ongoing financial improvement, but a new
environment for passenger rail that moves us past the stalemate of the last 35
years. At this time, continued federal financial support and maximum operating
flexibility are essential for Amtrak to continue these improvements.
Key Reform Initiatives
While Amtrak co tinues to operate without a guiding authorization statute,
legislative proposals, recent appropriations laws, and reports from oversight
agencies such as the GAO and DOT IG, confirm the Board's and management's
1
objective of progress through methodical change. We have charted a course that
will, over time, fundamentally recast the way intercity passenger rail is delivered:
• Cost efficiencies. Building on the initiatives laid out last April, we are
continuing to review, prioritize and invest capital and manpower to reform the
Corporation, ranging from our internal business model, outsourcing and
strategic partnering, improved management systems and reporting, to all forms
of services. Initial areas of focus are: food & beverage services, equipment
maintenance land deployment, reservations and sales, crew utilization and
overhead functions, among others — all aimed at reducing the unit costs of
delivering selvice.
• Revenue and customer service. The company is aggressively pursuing revenue
management to improve load factors and grow revenues. Sustainable
increases in [revenue, however, will require renewed focus on the product we
deliver and the service we provide. The company has talked about customer
service for years, but has been unable to make noticeable strides in improving
the quality of that service, particularly on time performance. The Board and
management have made this issue a top priority, and are pursuing several
strategies to make the passenger experience truly more dependable,
comfortable and convenient, including the use of technology, employee
training, new measurements and lines of accountability, the piloting of entirely
new service models, and more reliable equipment.
• Labor reform. More than 80 percent of our passenger revenues are consumed
by labor and Ibenefit costs alone. Moreover, operational flexibility is severely
constrained by work rules established during the steam engine era that are not
suited to modern railroad operations. These constraints need to change.
Making simple, but fundamental reforms will result in a more flexible, efficient,
and higher skilled workforce.
• Corridor ser l ice funding. As Amtrak and others have suggested, development
and service decisions around corridor services should fundamentally be a state
responsibility. States should have the ability to determine the role of rail
corridors in their transportation policy mix, the level of services offered, and
the providers of those services. In return, they should bear the responsibility
for funding the operations of those services. Therefore, we have proposed to
begin transitioning state funding for all corridor services to full operating cost
recovery plus an equipment charge over four years starting in FY08. For this
approach to be effective, a federal capital matching program of 80-20 federal-
state funding should be in place.
• Infrastructure planning and funding. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor
infrastructure is a complicated, joint use asset that must be brought up to a
state of good repair and managed efficiently for the benefit of all users. We
believe that this requires a more collaborative planning effort and a fair sharing
of costs among users. Amtrak is the only high-speed end-to-end user
representingl60 percent of train miles, and owns most of the corridor, and
therefore should bear the basic responsibility for coordinating and managing
the infrastructure. But we must do so in the context of a jointly developed
master plan, and operational practices that protect the rights and contributions
of all users.
• Long distance services. Finally, and perhaps most challenging, is the shape of
the long distance network. As outlined in the SRI and in our FY06 grant
agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Amtrak is working
to measure and improve the performance of all routes through a combination
of efficiency and revenue initiatives. We are also in the process of conducting
a long overdue, comprehensive, "clean slate" review of the network to identify
2
a route and service structure that makes sense for the future. We will present
our recommendations later this year, and our plan will match customer needs
and expectations with services we offer.
II . FY07 Funding Needs
Amtrak's funding request for FY07 is $1,598 million. It includes $730 million for
capital, $498 mill lion for operating, $295 million for debt service, and $75 million
for working capital (see table below for a summary).
The FY07 funding request reflects the initial benefits of reform implementation.
While many of the reforms will take several years to fully implement, a number of
the cost and revenue efficiencies will be in place by FY07, and the result is a
reduced operating funding need and a redirected capital program.
This request wound be similar to the FY06 funding level of about $1.3 billion, but
for several extraordinary capital needs:
• Additional investment in legally or regulatory mandated work, such as
environmental, security and Americans with Disability Act (ADA) station
compliance ($43 million);
• Essential rebuilding of major 100-year old Northeast Corridor bridges, electric
traction systems, facilities such as our dispatching center, and other
infrastructure backlog investment ($70 million);
• Investment in strategic initiatives with sustainable operating returns —
including $43 million expected savings in FY07 ($67 million);
• Additional delbt service payments due ($18 million); and
• A one-time minimal infusion of working capital ($75 million).
In the absence of these unique investment requirements, our funding request for
FY07 would be $1,325 million —just over the FY06 federal grant amount.
Additionally, as Bart of this request, Amtrak has outlined a set of strategic
investment options that address national network reliability, state corridor
development, additional ADA station compliance funding, and debt restructuring.
These are issues that are more properly addressed in the context of reauthorization,
but Amtrak believes it is important to advance consideration of these even in the
absence of reauthorization. The total proposed funding for these strategic
investment options in FY07 is $275 million.
It is important to bear in mind that the document we are submitting comes well
before we have completed Amtrak's budgeting process for FY07. The amounts that
we have requested, particularly for the operating and capital needs, are the best
estimates we can make at this time. As the company has done in the past, we will
provide Congress with a revised FY07 budget request later this year once we have
a clearer idea of what our actual FY06 end of year results will be. Therefore while
these numbers may change to some degree over the next few months, they provide
a framework of geed for Amtrak in FY07. Obviously, we will continue to work with
the appropriate committees in Congress as our budget process moves forward.
3
The table following summarizes our FY07 Grant Request compared to FY06.
FY07 Grant Request vs. FY06
($millions) 0.
Plan Budget
Capital
Legal Mandates faJ 145 118 4 155
Infrastructure 483 352 - 441-
Rolling Stolck 221 177 176
Other Services (6) 110 64 68
Business Initiatives - - 67
Non-Federal Funding (172) (215) (177)
Subtotal, CapitalF 730
Operating •560,_ _540 496'
Debt Service - 278
Subtotal, Capital/Operating/Debt 1,625r 1,312 1;523'
Working Capital /Restructuring
Amtrak Federal Grant Request 1 1,5981
Strategic Investment Options
Debt Refinancing 100
Network Reliability 50
State Corridor Match 100
ADA Station Compliance =157
Total Strategic Investment Options ( 275 i
(a)Security fencing,NY tunnels life safety,ADA assessments,mandatory rolling stock inspections,
and en*onmental remediation and pollution control
(b)Information technology,real estate,procurement,and financial systems
Numbers may not add due to rounding
Capital Program
The FY07 capital grant request of $730 million continues Amtrak's investment in
rolling stock and infrastructure. Because rail is a capital intensive industry, the
condition of Amtrak's infrastructure and equipment assets has a major impact on
financial performance. Unfortunately, inadequate investment in prior years has left
Amtrak's rolling stock and infrastructure in unacceptably deteriorated condition.
This, in turn, contributes to higher operating costs and reduced reliability of
services. Although progress has been made over the past several years, more
investment remains. Achieving a state of good repair is essential to helping
stabilize Amtrak's financial performance and providing a platform for future rail
development.
4
While this request represents an increase in funding from the current FY06 enacted
level of $490 million, it reflects the need for investment in deferred projects. The
increase is driven largely by the need to fund the lifetime replacement and
upgrades to critical assets at the same time as the ongoing program investment
toward a state of good repair continues. For example, the FY07 request includes
half of the funding for the replacement of the Thames River Bridge lift span in
Connecticut and the upgrade of the Centralized Electrification and Traffic Control
(CETC) systems. Historically, investment in these areas has been deferred in order
to meet reduced funding levels.
Overview
The specific elements of the capital request are':
• Legal mandates — $90 million. Investment required to address legal and
regulatory requirements, including NY tunnel life safety program,
environmental remediation and pollution control, police and security,
FRA-mandated rolling stock investment, and initial ADA station compliance
work. The need is up from $47 million in FY06 due to additional environmental
and security requirements and ADA work.
• Infrastructure state of good repair — $333 million. Much progress has been
made on Amtrak's infrastructure, but a significant backlog of work remains.
This request includes continued work on track, tunnels, catenary, facilities and
other assets to make ongoing progress in improving reliability and reducing the
cost of maintaining the infrastructure. The request is up from a budget of $214
million in FY06 due primarily to major bridge reconstruction and facility projects,
along with the expected absence of one-time non-federal funding sources that
occurred in FIIY06 (e.g, electrification contract settlement and carryover funds).
The infrastructure section below summarizes the program in more detail.
• Rolling stocky reliability investment— $176 million. The availability of reliable
rolling stock is critical to Amtrak's performance and for states to build their
customer base for future corridor development. This year's program includes
overhauls anId remanufactures of corridor fleet such as Amfleets, Acela and
Horizon cars, along with the long distance Superliner coach fleet. If funded,
over two-thirds of the car fleet and 90 percent of the locomotive fleet would be
back in a good state of repair. The funding request is flat with respect to the
FY06 budgetied levels. The rolling stock section below summarizes the program
in more detail
I
• Business initiatives and other investment— $131 million. Includes
improvements in redesigned food service cars, sales and distribution systems,
mechanical facilities, management information and other technology to reduce
future opera iting requirements. This year's request represents an increase from
FY06 budgeted levels of about $75 million of which $67 million is for
investment related to the initiatives, but will result in a first year benefit of at
least $43 million in operating cost reductions. The business initiatives section
below summarizes the program in more detail.
Infrastructurle
Amtrak owns or (maintains 730 route miles of rail right of way nationwide, including
400 miles of high speed, main line right of way between Boston and Washington.
' These igures exclude non-Federal sources within each of these categories.
5
The Northeast Corridor main line is the most densely utilized rail line in the nation
and suffers from)a lack of capacity on major segments due to commuter growth.
In addition to Amtrak, nine commuter agencies2 operate over portions of the
corridor as well as four freight railroad S3. Including Connecticut and New York
owned territory between New Haven and New Rochelle, as well as the Harrisburg,
Springfield and Albany branch lines, nearly 2,000 commuter and Amtrak trains use
Northeast Corridor (NEC) rail infrastructure carrying nearly 750,000 passengers and
40,000 car miles of freight daily.
Adequate investment in NEC infrastructure, independent of Amtrak's own operating
needs, remains a critical priority for all NEC users. Critical areas that must
continue to be addressed include:
• Major bridges dating to the turn of the century can no longer be
maintained economically or reliably and must be replaced;
• Wood ties on main tracks, through switches and interlockings are difficult
and costly to maintain in a high-traffic environment and must be replaced
with more durable concrete ties;
• Much of jthe overhead catenary system (that supplies environmentally clean
power for NEC locomotives) dates from the early part of the last century
and must be fully rehabilitated or replaced;
• Major poIrtions of the power supply systems, including trunk lines,
frequency converters and transformers are reaching the end of their useful
life and must be replaced to avoid outages stemming from failed
components and increased power demand; and
• InterlockIIings and signal systems must be upgraded.
Amtrak's capital plan recognizes the need to work closely with states and commuter
agencies to develop joint capital plans that return the infrastructure to a state of
good repair and anticipate the need for speed and capacity improvements in the
future. Towards)this end, the grant request includes development of a Northeast
Corridor Master Plan to define long term capital needs for improved services in closer
coordination with states and commuter agencies using the Northeast Corridor.
Rolling Stock — Equipment and Fleet
Amtrak's passenger fleet is old — the average age is 23 years in service, and the
range of age is from 5 years to 55 years (not including our Acela train sets).
Because of financial constraints in the late 1990's through 2002, investment in
major overhaul work on much of Amtrak's 1,700 car passenger fleet was deferred.
Predictably, the reliability of Amtrak services declined as en-route failures mounted
due to deferred investment.
At the same timet, there is a significant demand for updated and in some cases new
equipment — particularly on state corridor routes. Amtrak is currently developing a
Z
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority, Shore Line East (Connecticut), Metro-North
(Connecticut/New York), Long Island Railroad (New York), New Jersey Transit,
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Delaware Transit Corporation,
MARC (Maryland), VRE (Virginia)
'CSX, No folk Southern, Conrail Shared Assets, Providence & Worcester
6
r
detailed fleet plan to address these shifting requirements and reflecting the reform
initiatives outlined above.
Amtrak's FY07 gsal is to continue selective major overhauls to prevent en-route
failures and improve reliability. At the same time, Amtrak's capital plan seeks to
improve the efficiency and utilization of the core fleet while rationalizing facilities
and transitioning to more modern maintenance practices.
The current plan:
• Targets significant improvements to the reliability and availability of
Amtrak's fleet;
• Defers all new equipment purchases pending development of a
comprehensive fleet plan (anticipated in 2006); and
• Includes funding to consolidate and rationalize facilities and transition to
reliability centered maintenance (RCM) practices.
Business Initiatives
Another area leading to the request for increased funding in FY07 is the integration
of the capital graint request with certain'initiatives being implemented as part of
Amtrak's strategic reform effort and designed to reduce costs, improve asset
utilization and financial performance. These include:
Reconfigl ring long distance diner and lounge equipment to reduce
equipment requirements and improve financial performance;
Investing in systems and facilities to reduce costs, increase reliability and
modernize rolling stock maintenance practices; and
• Developing management information systems to improve unit costing of
services,)performance metrics, benchmarking and transfer pricing to states
and Amtrak business lines.
While these investments will yield some immediate benefits in FY07 operating
savings, their value will be measured in long-term and sustainable returns to
business performance. Moreover, they represent a piece of the larger package of
initiatives that have been developed since the company released its Strategic
Reform Initiatives in 2005. The table below highlights the major categories of
initiatives that have been identified for efficiency and revenue improvements over
the next several years.
CORPORATE INITIATIVES
Food & Significantly reduce losses and enhance service flexibility by redesigning food services
Beverage (e.g. fully-prepared meals, multi-purpose food service cars) and outsourcing.
Mechanical Reduce unit costs and increase equipment availability/reliability by adopting reliability
centered maintenance, consolidating facilities and outsourcing.
Stations and Reduce Istation and ticketing unit costs through reduced staffing, increasing utilization
Call Centers of lower cost distribution channels and outsourcing.
Overhead Reduce)unit costs of corporate support functions through selective outsourcing, staffing
Functions reductions, skills development and greater use of technology.
7
CORPORATE INITIATIVES (continued)
Customer Enhance ridership, revenue and customer loyalty by focusing management
Service accountability on train service performance, giving tools and training to employees, and
modernizing ticketing processes.
Service Improve OTP of Acela/NEC trains (Amtrak-owned infrastructure), and seek OTP
Reliability improvements for corridor/long distance trains (host railroad infrastructure) through
operational modifications and targeted investments.
Labor Contracts Update labor contracts to enhance customer service, equipment and service reliability,
provide greater efficiencies, improve skill levels and training, ensure orderly job
advancement, focus on core competencies and reduce unit costs.
Management Improve near-term accuracy and timeliness of financial and performance data to
Information facilitate management and policy decisions (while modernized systems developed).
BUSINESS LINE INITIATIVES
Long Distance Improve performance on all routes (initial focus on worst five) by redefining sub-
brands, restructuring services/routes, selected luxury outsourcing and corporate
initiatives.
NEC Operations Boost financial contribution through improved load factors, adjusted service patterns,
re-launching of brands, trip time investments, and corporate initiatives.
State Corridors Improve competitiveness of state services, establish pilot competition project, and
transition states to full cost recovery, based on unit prices, for all corridor routes
(concurrent with federal capital matching program).
Fleet Maximize load factors, and increase revenues by improving current train consist
efficiency, and retiring or redeploying excess equipment— based on business line
serviceplans.
Infrastructure Develop long-term capital master plan and operate NEC efficiently on behalf of all
users,(while establishing a fair sharing of operating and capital costs among all users.
Operating Budget
Amtrak's grant request for operating support for FY07 is $498 million which
represents 19.5% of its total operating budget. The FY07 grant request for
operating support was developed with reference to the FY06 expected operating
performance, adding and subtracting anticipated business changes. The history
and relevant data points referenced are:
FY06 Appro I wed Operating Budget: On September 22, 2005, the Amtrak
Board of Directors approved an operating budget for the company that
projected a $11586.3 million shortfall between non-federal revenues and
expenses. Board approval of that budget was conditioned upon (a) the
company realizing $46.3 million of unidentified efficiencies and (b) receiving
$540 million Iof Federal operating support. (Note: the ultimate Federa/grant
for operating support was$490 mi//ion, requiring that the company supplement
operations with its own cash balances.)
DOT IG FYO6 Baseline Operating Budget: On January 5, 2006 the
Inspector General for the Department of Transportation (in compliance with
Amtrak's FY016 Congressional appropriation) adopted a "baseline" for Amtrak's
FY06 operatilg funding requirement of $586 million. The requested operating
8
support for FY07 is $42 million below the approved FY06 budget and $88
million below the DOT IG baseline operating budget. This requested level
represents asignificant stretch goal for Amtrak. This baseline was to be used
to measure efficiency improvements the company might realize during FY06 in
order to access funds held back by the Department of Transportation.
Current FY06 Forecast: On January 27, 2006, the company completed its first
quarterly forecast for FY06, incorporating three months actual and nine months
forecast performance and capturing many of the efficiencies anticipated by the
Board when they approved the FY06 Budget. The forecast reflects revenue gains
and expense reductions actually realized (and expected). It is this $553.4 million
forecast, as well as other business initiatives that management will pursue over
the balance of the year, that has been used as the basis to develop the FY07
grant request for operating support.
FY07 Inflationary Assumptions
To develop the projected financials for an operating grant request for FY07, certain
assumptions, such as ticket revenue growth, inflation and the anticipation of costs
associated with taking over maintenance of high speed rail equipment were all
factored into our projections.
The net impact of all these assumptions was to reduce the baseline FY07 operating
support requirement from the base of $553.4 million to $541.7 million, excluding
settlement of outstanding labor agreements. .
FY07 Business Initiative Benefits
Besides the assumptions described above, the FY07 budget has attributed the
benefits of revenue enhancement and/or cost reduction associated with a variety of
strategic initiatives developed by the company, approved by the Board and planned
for implementation during FY06 and FY07. In total, these initiatives are expected
to reduce next year's required Federal operating support requirement by $43.3
million. These be reduce the FY07 Base operating support requirement from
$541.7 million to $498 million.
Summary
In summary, the table below illustrates the development of the FY07 Operating
support grant request. As stated, the FY06 current forecast was inflated to FY07
and the benefits of approved initiatives were then applied:
$ millions
Base (FY06 Forecast) $553.4
Ticket revenue growth due to price adjustments, yield
improvements, and economic growth (40.5)
Other revenue growth including commuter and ancillary business (18.0)
Average inflationary impact 46.8
FY07 Inflated Budget before initiatives $541.7
Benefits of Business Initiatives (43.3)
FY07 Operating Funding Requirement $498.0
9
While Federal support for operations is critical, as the chart below illustrates,
Amtrak's total opierating budget is derived from many sources, not just the Federal
appropriationsprocess. Amtrak is able to internally generate about 80% of its
total operating needs requiring about 20% to be derived from Federal support.
Other sources include: ticket revenue, food and beverage, state support for
operations, ancillary businesses such as commuter contracts, commercial
development such as real estate and retail activities, and other transportation and
reimbursable revenues.
FY07 Estimated Operating Revenue Sources
Federal State Support
Support for for
Operations
Operations 6/o
20%
Other
Transportation
Revenue
8%
Ancillary Passenger
Business related
10% 56%
Working Capital/Restructuring
The request for wol king capital and restructuring support is the minimum necessary to begin
to restore the company's level of cash reserves commensurate with the level of business risks
common to a $3.0 billion company and to fund a labor settlement and work rule changes. It
should be noted that$75 million amounts to only about 2.5 percent of the company's annual
operating budget,and is an essential funding requirement.
The company understands the Federal funding constraints that led to the operating
grant for FY06 ($490 million plus a contingent holdback of $31 million) and the
Congressional expectation that the company would supplement that grant with
beginning-of-year cash balances. In all likelihood, however, this strategy will
reduce Amtrak's Ievel of cash reserves to an imprudent level for managing any
variety of business risks. Last year's operating problem with the Acela braking
system jeopardized the company's cash position and it is important for any
company to provide some margin for unanticipated business risks.
Although $75 millionin funding represents approximately ten days of cash
expenditures, no Icompany the size of Amtrak would reasonably allow its cash
balances to.decline below this amount without assured prospects of new funding.
Leaving Amtrak with too little cash presents very high liquidity risks for all Amtrak
stakeholders. As we have observed in the past, a prudent level of cash reserves is,
in part, dictated by the fact that the company has no access to a working capital
line of credit (to cover unexpected costs and for short term only).
10
Summary by Business Line
Amtrak operates What can logically be thought of as a number of distinct lines of
business. Specif6lly, as outlined in last year's Strategic Reform Initiatives,
Amtrak's business lines are broken down as follows:
Infrastructulre Management. Maintenance, capital construction and
management on Amtrak owned/maintained infrastructure. including:
• Boston-Washington main line (excluding Metro-North owned /
maintained between New Haven, CT and New Rochelle, NY) —
400 route miles
• Philadelphia-Harrisburg — 104 route miles
• New Haven-Springfield — 61 route miles
• Empire Corridor — Portions between New York City to Albany —
29 route miles
• Michigan line — Porter, IN to Kalamazoo, MI — 96 route miles
• Maintenance yards and terminal track in several other locations,
including Chicago, Lorton, VA, various Florida locations, New Orleans,
Los AIngeles, and Seattle.
Northeast Corridor (NEC) Operations. Train operations on the NEC main
line from Boston to Washington (primarily Acela and Regionals).
State Corridor Operations. Train operations on all other short distance
corridors (generally less than 500 miles), some of which are currently state-
supported and others that for historical reasons, are "system" segments that
are not currently state supported.
Long Distance Operations. Train operations on routes of more than
750 miles, currently including 15 trains.
Ancillary Businesses. Often referred to as "non-core" businesses, including
real estate, commercial, reimbursable and commuter services, all of which are
intended to make a contribution to other Amtrak operations.
Unallocated System. Shared functions such as accounting and legal services
that are handled more economically on a central basis and are not easily
assignable to specific business lines.
In the future, Amtrak will also have a separate business line for Fleet Management'
so that its costs can be separately identified and managed.
This breakdown hIas already proven highly useful for Amtrak's business
management, even while the company moves to a more robust activity based
accounting system. The table on the following page identifies Amtrak's federal
grant request by business line.
11
FY07 Grant Request by Business Line
Estimated Operating Sources and(Uses)of Funds*
($millions)
NEC State Corridor •Distance OEM=
infrastructure Ancillary Unallocated
Opeyations Operations Operations Train S stem Management Businesses SystemTotal
Operations
Operating Revenue 798.0 299.0 407.0 1,504.0 173.0 262.8 (87.0) 1,852.8
State Supported Train Revenue - 145.0 - 145.0 - - - 145.0
Federal/(Internal)Operating Support 244.0 94.2 438.2 288.4 69.0 77.1 217.7 498.0
Total Revenues 554.0 538.2 845.2 1,937.4 242.0 185.7 130.7 2,495.8
Efficiency Initiatives 13.4 2.0 26.8 42.2 1.5 0.3 (0.7) 43.3
Total Operating Expense 567.4 540.2 872.0 1,979.6 243.5 186.0 130.0 (2,539.1)
Operations Funded by Internal Sources -
Capital
General Capital Needs (83.0) (52.0) (84.0) (219.0) (530.0) (16.0) (75.0) (840.0)
Efficiency Initiatives (26.0) (11.0) (24.0) (61.0) (4.0) (1.0) (1.0) (67.0)
State/Other Funding - - - - 173.0 4.0 - 177.0
Federal Capital Support 109.0 63.0 108.0 280.0 361.0 13.0 76.0 730.0
Capital Funded by Internal Sources I - -
FY07 Grant Request by Business Line(Estimated)
($millions)
• r National
......... •• •�• Train S stem Total
Federal/(Internal)Operating Support (244.0) •94.2 438.2 288.4 69.0 - (77.1) 217.7 498.0
Federal Capital Support 1109.0 63.0 108.0 280.0 361.0 13.0 76.0 730.0
Total Federal Support for Operating and
Capital 135.0 157.2 546.2 568.4 430.0 64.1 293.7 1,228.0
Mandatory Debt Service 295.0
Working Capital/Restructuring 75.0
Subtotal Debt Service and Working Capital 370.0
Total Federal Grant Request 1,598.0
Business line numbers should not be construed as distinct grant requests that can be funded separately;not all business line costs are
eliminated if a line is eliminated. Estimates are preliminary and are subject to refinement. Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Strategic Investment Options
In addition to Amtrak's basic system requirements, there are a number of
additional needs for intercity passenger rail, including national network reliability
and growth in corridor services. These are issues that are more appropriately
addressed in the context of reauthorization, but Amtrak believes it is important to
advance this disclussion even in anticipation of reauthorization.
Network Relil lbility
Approximately 70% of Amtrak's train-miles are operated on tracks owned and
operated by private, for-profit freight railroads and by commuter railroads ("host
railroads"). For Amtrak trains operating on host railroads, the hosts are the largest
single factor affecting Amtrak on-time performance (OTP). The six host railroads
with the most Amtrak train-miles are consistently responsible for 75% to 80% of
the delay minutes per Amtrak train-mile operated on their lines, and almost all of
the variability in (delays. Over the last five years, Amtrak-responsible delays have
decreased slightly, while host railroad responsible delays have increased
dramatically as illustrated in these charts.
12
Delays per 10,000 Train-Miles by Responsibility
Amtrak Trains on BNSF, CN, CPR, CSXT, NS, and UP
H FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05
2,500
S
S
~ 2,000
0
0
c 1,500
Z
1,000
A
d
O
e 500
m
d
-+Total Delays —Host RRs Amtrak -•-Third Parry
All Delays per 10,000 Train-Mlles on BNSF, CN, CPR,
CSXT, NS, and UP
FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
2,400
0 2,300
c 2,200
d
` 2,100
g g 2,000
a-
m$r 1,800
c
1,800
O�F
a 1,700
1.600
f 1,500
1,400
.1to�bs`sssa�itto�d+a3sa;;notaacsY3;3ttofa+saYs't;ItBf&a
Month
High delays and poor OTP are route-specific: some Amtrak routes on host railroads
operate well, while others operate at OTP levels unsatisfactory to both Amtrak and
its passengers. Routes with poor OTP often carry increasingly high volumes of ,
freight traffic which in some cases approach or exceed a line's capacity (see chart
below). As a res It, the main causes of Amtrak delay on host railroads are
constrained track capacity and high freight train traffic involving: freight train
interference, speed restrictions, and signal delays. These three causes alone
account for 60% of all delay minutes per 10,000 Amtrak train-miles operated on
the six major host railroads. Delays to our long distance trains cost Amtrak tens of
millions of dollars each year.
13
Millions of Class 1 Ton-Miles Per Mile of Road Owned
18
i6
4120 14 -
12 -
0
8
6
4
2
0 `
1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004
Source: AAR
Many of these delays could be reduced by carefully targeted capital investments.
However, Amtrakldoes not control host railroad dispatching, maintenance, or
capital investment decisions. If, or when, a host makes investments on a line to
improve performance of its trains, as well as Amtrak trains, is outside Amtrak's
direct control. However, lower-cost capital could be made available to host
railroads for investments tied to demonstrable improvements in Amtrak transit time
or on-time performance.
Keeping these issl es in mind, Amtrak believes states, railroads, and other sources
of private capital'I are poised to accelerate investment in rail improvements if proper
legislative and fiancial incentives are put in place. That said, Amtrak also believes
that any legislativie initiatives to provide incentives for rail infrastructure
investment should provide a joint benefit to both passenger and freight operations
with a measurable improvement to OTP for passenger trains.
Specifically, Amt rl k recommends a capital matching program of $50 million that
would augment operating incentive payments to freight railroads. It could come
through Amtrak, the FRA and/or states. This program would:
Fund joint benefit investment targeted to network chokepoints and linked
to thresh Id performance improvements in intercity passenger rail OTP;
• Prioritize investment to areas that offer the greatest benefit to corridor
services with the highest passenger volumes;
• Amtrak, states and FRA, working with host railroads, would work together
to identify the projects and develop the criteria for funding.
State Corridor Development Grants
Amtrak, the FRA and states are currently working to advance planning and
development of corridors through several cooperative efforts including:
14
• Development of a route competition pilot in which state(s) would develop a
proposal Ito bring additional private sector participation into the delivery of
corridor services; and
• Development of common specifications for next generation corridor
equipment to reduce development and acquisition costs of new rolling
stock.
While these are important steps, the key to spurring corridor development is the
establishment of a federal matching capital program. In order to jump-start such a
program, Amtrak is proposing that $100 million of capital matching funding be
included in FY07, even in advance of reauthorization. This grant money could be
made available through the FRA directly to states for infrastructure and equipment
grants on a federal-state matching basis. Eligible corridors — existing and new -
would have to meet criteria demonstrating sufficient market demand and
development of comprehensive corridor development plans.
Debt Service/Refinancing
$295 million is needed for FY07 debt service payments, including some
contractually required lease buyouts.
Amtrak proposes to begin a restructuring program for a portion of its long-term
equipment lease debt to achieve a significant reduction in future debt service
requirements. The cost would require an added appropriations increment of up to
$100 million. The restructuring is intended to achieve savings of $45 million,
above the initial $100 million cost, and a rate of return of 14.8% per year.
Amtrak's total long-term debt is $3.6 billion, of which almost $0.9 billion is pre-
funded or "defeased" (i.e. future debt service payments are met with the proceeds
from existing, dedicated cash and security balances). The remaining long-term
debt, $2.7 billion accounts for Amtrak's annual requirement for Federal funding for
debt service ($295 million in FY07 for principal and interest).
Of the unfunded ebt, $2.2 billion was originally structured as long-term
sale/leaseback agreements. All such leases stipulate a fixed number of years
during which Amtrak must make lease payments (comprised of principal and
interest) and provide an opportunity (but not an obligation) for Amtrak to
repurchase the leased equipment for its fair market value (FMV) at the end of the
lease. Most lease agreements have an early buyout option as well as early
termination schedules that provide the economic cost (to Amtrak) and reward (to
the lessor) of an early lease termination.
All Amtrak equipml ent lease agreements are unique and must be evaluated
individually, but Amtrak believes that there are immediate and significant
opportunities to restructure a number of lease agreements that would reduce
future Federal funding for debt service requirements. In order of restructuring
priority, the individual leases provide a diversity of opportunities:
(1) High Benefit - Recommended for Restructuring: Some leases cover
equipment that is currently surplus to Amtrak needs, but readily salable. In these
cases, Amtrak would offer a lessor a payment that would:
15
(a) attempt to obtain a discount off the otherwise stated termination cost,
(b) eliminatel future lease payments (principal and interest),
(c) avoid all future obligations associated with storage and maintenance of the
equipment to the satisfaction of the lessor, and
(d) regain ownership of the leased equipment, creating the opportunity to
promptly sell the equipment and receive an up-front cash benefit.
(2) Moderate Benefit - Recommended for Restructuring: Some older leases
cover equipment that is foreseen as integral to Amtrak's operations in the future.
In these cases, Amtrak would offer a lessor a payment that would:
(a) attempt to obtain a discount off the otherwise stated termination cost,
(b) eliminate future lease payments (principal and interest), and
(c) regain ownership of the leased equipment, avoiding the need to pay the
lessor FMV to repurchase the equipment when the lease matures just a few
years from now.
(3) Low Benefit - Not Recommended for Restructuring: Some leases cover
equipment that is surplus to Amtrak needs, but not readily salable. In these cases,
unless a sale opportunity arises, Amtrak intends to allow the leases to run their
course and forgo the opportunity to repurchase the equipment when the lease
matures. Additionally, some newer leases cover equipment which is integral to
Amtrak's operations but may not be economically restructured at the present time.
In these cases, Aimtrak intends to allow the leases to run their course until an
economic opportunity to restructure arises.
If Amtrak were a I propriated $100 million in FY07 for the purpose of debt
restructuring, ou I first targets would be those leases affording a high restructuring
benefit. The expected economic benefits from a restructuring outlay of $100
million are estimated at $145 million: $35 million up-front from the sale of surplus
equipment and discount off the early termination costs; and $110 million over the
remaining life of the leases from the elimination of interest, principal, storage and
maintenance costs. The transactions could demonstrate a payback period of
4.3 years and an internal rate of return of 14.8%. Specific initial target leases
related to surplus and salable equipment (High Benefit option) are listed in the
chart below.
($millions) Lease Lease
Example Example
A B Combined
Early Termination Costs:
Current Principal Balance $ 22.00 $ 58.20 $ 80.20
Early Repayment Premium* 5.40 14.40 19.80
Gross Termination Cost $ 27.40 $ 72.60 $ 100.00
Potential Salvage Value (5.00) (30.00) (35.00)
Potential Net Termination Cost $ 22.40 $ 42.60 $ 65.00
Annual Ben fits(for the next 8.6 years:
Eliminate Debt Service $ 4.00 $ 10.00 $ 14.00
Eliminate Storage/Maintenance 0.30 0.70 1.00
ToialAnnua/Benel7ts $ 4.30 $ 10.70 $ 15.00
' *Early Repayment Premium represents
(a)future fregone interest premium,
(b)stipulated equipment repurchase price and(c)"make whole"for lessors'tax losses.
16
III . Reauthorization Issues
After several years of debate, Congress is now poised to find consensus and reach
closure on the longstanding issue of Amtrak reauthorization and the future of
intercity passenger rail in the United States. Since Amtrak's authorization expired
in 2002, the lack jof a comprehensive federal passenger rail policy has led
policymakers to address Amtrak`reform' issues in the annual federal appropriations
process. The result has been piecemeal rather than comprehensive in its approach
to change. We have identified two of the key issues that should be addressed in
the context of Amtrak reauthorization and they are also the basic principles upon
which Amtrak's SRI was developed. They include:
• Establishment of a predictable multi-year capital funding program,
including federal capital matching funds available to the states to improve
intercity rail service; and
• An end tol Amtrak's virtual monopoly on intercity rail service with the
introduction of increased competition into the industry to spur efficiency,
productivity and performance improvements.
Capital Matching Program for States
There is considerable agreement in the transportation planning community that
traffic congestion)and urban sprawl present significant economic and environmental
challenges for our growing cities and suburbs. These problems have existed for
years, but now approach a point in the development of transportation policy at
which intercity passenger rail service must be positioned on comparable footing
with more conventional transit, highway and aviation programs, particularly when it
comes to federal funding. Intercity passenger rail corridor development between a
number of large metropolitan areas presents a worthwhile option for state
transportation planners and for millions of travelers.
Unlike passenger rail, other modes of passenger transportation—highways, transit,
aviation—currently enjoy a federal capital matching program ranging from 50-
100%. Passenger rail, however, has never benefited from such a long-term,
committed capital match program that attracts states into the funding mix—an
essential element of the future of passenger rail. Today, if a state or local agency
is interested in addressing a transportation need, they have a choice of: (1)
investing in transit, highways or airports and leveraging their dollars as much as
nine to one; or (2) investing in rail and receiving no federal match. The demand is
clearly present as a number of states have begun developing rail corridors in spite
of this imbalance) but the lack of a federal match has severely retarded state and
local investment. A serious effort to establish rail as part of the strategy for
addressing this country's transportation needs will require modal equity in capital
matching support.
In other words, as federal match programs have demonstrated with other modes of
transportation, state and private industry will only find investments in rail
attractive with a federal program commitment; without that commitment,
unleveraged investment coupled with the risk that without federal support
passenger rail might cease to exist at all, simply make investment in passenger rail
infrastructure, equipment and operations too risky for many states and most
private investors. Time is of the essence in establishing such a matching program.
17
r
Amtrak's SRI requires that starting in FY08 all states with corridor passenger rail
service will begin to phase in to 100% coverage of Amtrak's fully-allocated
operating losses.
Therefore, Amtrak agrees with the Administration and every other responsible
proposal for passenger rail reform that the federal government should create a
capitalfunding match program for rail corridors (Amtrak believes that match should
be 80% 20% federal- state). The bottom line is this: a dedicated funding source
for passenger rail is absolutely essential if it is to succeed as a viable
transportation alternative in the 21St century.
Federal Platform for Competition
The introduction of competition across many industries, from telecommunications
to transportation((including the airline industry), has generally resulted in lower
prices, higher quality and more options for consumers. Currently, there is little
competition in the intercity passenger rail industry. Amtrak believes that in order
to grow intercity passenger rail in the future, a greater level of competition and
private sector participation is essential.
Amtrak's SRI outlines a series of legislative initiatives intended to foster
competition in passenger rail — initiatives that would need to be addressed by
Congress. For ouir part, Amtrak is currently identifying opportunities for private
participation and competition for services and functions. For example, we are
evaluating alternative food service providers and other potential options for
outsourcing — particularly in areas where Amtrak is not, or is unable to become,
the most cost-effective or highest quality provider of a service.
These are compleIx issues for which there are no simple remedies. Open,
competitive operaitor/supplier markets are vital to the future of intercity passenger
rail and Amtrak is committed to working with all stakeholders to arrive at an
approach that can bring about fair competition.
Station Accessibility
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires Amtrak to make all stations for which
it is a "responsible person" readily accessible to passengers with disabilities by no
later than July 261, 2010. Except for stations that are more than 50% owned by a
public entity, Amtrak has either sole or shared responsibility for accessibility
improvements necessary to meet this statutory requirement at 425 of the 517 rail
stations which it currently serves. The definition of stations includes platforms.
Insufficient time Ind funding are likely to prevent full compliance at all station
stops by this deadline. Based on partial surveys performed to date, Amtrak
estimates the projected cost for necessary ADA improvements to exceed $200
million. Platforms represent 75% of the accessibility costs at stations. However,
uncertainty in the regulatory framework applicable to the height of station
platforms will further complicate timely implementation of actual work. The
Department of Transportation issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on February
27, 2006 to address, in part, ADA platform requirements. This rulemaking will
address the uncertainties in the current regulations and will hopefully resolve
disputes that have arisen over the current interpretation of the platform height
requirement. The rulemaking process, itself, is likely to take many months to
complete. Until the platform height issue is definitively resolved, proceeding with
18
platform work is, at best, risky, and at worst, a wasteful expenditure of public
funds. Accordingly, Amtrak requests an extension of time to meet the statutory
obligation until at least 5 years after promulgation of final regulations by the
Secretary addressing platform requirements.
Even after clarification of platform obligations, Amtrak will not have sufficient
funding to complete the statutory mandate. Amtrak's base request above includes
$22 million for station accessibility design work in FY07, but significant additional
funding will be needed from a combination of sources to ensure full compliance.
For this purpose we request an additional $25 million in FY07.
Security
Congress needs to fully address rail security needs either as part of an Amtrak
reauthorization or separately. In the meantime, Amtrak continues its aggressive
campaign of improving and re-engineering security across the corporation.
Executive and senior level management involvement in security issues through the
Executive Security and Regional Security Coordinating Committees has helped in
developing a security consciousness among employees. The Vice President,
Security and Chief of Police have instituted a reorganization of the Police and
Security Department that includes a more concentrated focus on counter-terrorism
policies and initiatives and a commitment toward establishing interagency law
enforcement relationships to build partnerships that will improve support and
assistance for the national rail passenger service. In addition, Amtrak continues to
work closely with federal agencies, including Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and FRA, to ensure that rail security efforts are effectively channeled and
coordinated.
Amtrak has made other important strides on the rail security front. In 2005,
employees completed a Security Awareness Training program that stressed security
is everyone's responsibility. The Police and Security Department utilized new
deployment methods to increase police presence and visibility by creating the
Tactical Intensive Patrol program and by having police officers perform train-riding
assignments on a regular basis. In a first for Amtrak, a DHS security grant was
awarded in fiscal year 2005 for over $6.3 million. Amtrak is using these grant
funds to increase explosive detection canine teams, deploy explosive resistant
trash cans, chemical detection systems and various other counter-terrorism devices
as well as to promote passenger awareness and to conduct a full scale emergency
exercise.
A part of the grant program allowed Amtrak to have a risk assessment of the
Corporation's Northeast Corridor and Chicago area conducted by a DHS contractor
who will also help Amtrak prepare a five (5) year security plan. These security
products will form the basis of future security funding requests and will help shape
and prioritize Amtrak's security needs through detailed analysis and assessment of
identified risks and vulnerabilities. Through this process, Amtrak identified $15
million in its capital funding request for FY07. It also anticipates additional grant
funds from DHS to expand upon security programs and to begin a risk assessment
of Amtrak's western service area.
19
AMTRAK°
Amtrak is a reg stered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
RESOLUTION NO. 1.13-06
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DRAINAGE AREA FEE COLLECTION, RIGHT
OF WAY, AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF OAKLEY AND THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of Oakley s (City) incorporation resolution, identified specifically as
County Resolution Number 981390 and IAFCO Resolution 97-17 contains the following
provision:
"36 (b)To the extent authorized by law, upon incorporation the City shall support
Contra Costa Flood District approved drainage fee increases and other drainage
area ordinance revisions designed to repay any existing debts to the Flood
Control District, Further,to the extent authorized by law, drainage area fees shall
continue to be collected by the new City for the District in the same manner as
the County presently does."
"36 (c) To the extent authorized by law, the new City shall accept transfer of
future District rights of way and maintenance of completed drainage area storm
drain improvements."
and,
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2000 the City Council adopted Resolution Number
22-00 accepting certain real property from the Contra Costa County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District(District); and
WHEREAS, the City has been collecting drainage area fees on behalf of the
District since July 1, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City is interested in owning additional drainage facilities:then
what was described In the LAFCO resolution, specifically the Laurel Crest detention.
basin, the Laurel Ballfields detention basin, and the Freedom.Soccer Fields detention
basin; and
WHEREAS, the City of Oakley and Contra Costa County Flood Control and
"Water Conservation District have negotiated an agreement regarding the collection of
drainage area fees, acquisition of rights of way for planned flood control projects,
maintenance responsibilities for flood control facilities, and the transfer of specific .
drainage facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY OF OAKLEY DOES RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Resolution No. 113-06 Page L
1. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the Drainage Fee Collection,
Right of Way, and Maintenance Agreement for Drainage Areas 29C, 29D,
29E, 29G, 29H, 30A, 30B, 30C, 521), and 56 subject to City Attorney's
approval
2. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to transmit all previously
collected drainage area fees to the District subject to District executing the
fee collection agreement. .
3. The City Engineer shall be designated as the City Official designated to
determine and collect the fees referred to by the fee collection agreement.
4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 10 day of August, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Anderson, Conneliey, Nix, Romick
i
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: Rios
APP
MAYOR
i
ATTEST:
LER
Resolution No.113-06 Page 2