1. OVERVIEW

   The funding crisis for Amtrak is focusing almost entirely on the overall structure of the nation’s rail passenger service. This paper is about what a national corporation (Amtrak) or a group of regional carriers could do at a reasonable cost, on an aggressive schedule, to make a phased set of improvements that would begin soon (so as to produce visible results) and to dramatically improve rail passenger service. As such it is the answer to the question "now what?" if a national policy is adopted.

   The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have demonstrated that the nation’s transportation infrastructure must provide viable options and thereby be made more redundant and reliable. Our nation’s near-total reliance on air travel is questionable due to security protocols and infrastructure constraints. These will result in higher costs and slower service for air travel. Providing a viable nation wide alternative to air transport leads to the conclusion that long distance corridors are equally as valuable as short corridors. Long distance trains generate huge numbers of passenger miles and comparable revenues as compared to short corridor trains; they should not be shunned due to selective editing of cost and revenue figures.

   Amtrak has been legislated into a position of failure (mandated to meet mutually exclusive goals of social service and profitability); however there is now a tremendous opportunity to include an enhanced rail passenger transportation component in the nation’s infrastructure. Driving forces for this change include the recognition that neither air nor rail modes are "profitable" in a classic business sense, increasing demand for transportation in an environment where highway and airport infrastructure is prohibitively expensive and difficult to environmentally clear, loss of time advantage for short flights, the higher cost of all air transport, a more mature national transportation policy, and passenger perception of airline safety and inconvenience of airport security measures.

   There is a strong precedent for enhancing rail passenger infrastructure to mitigate the loss of other capacity, for example, after the January, 1994 Northridge California earthquake a major loss of highway capacity was mitigated by a dramatic increase in commuter rail service to north Los Angeles County.

   The debate about the "Future of Amtrak" is focused on the national level of regional vs. long distance service, privatization vs. a government corporation, and operations only vs. infrastructure ownership. This paper is not intended to answer those questions, except to note that the privatization experiment in Great Britain has gone badly, and that the best quality of service in the US is generally where the operators have control over both the infrastructure and the train operations.

   The strategy proposed herein covers five timed phases outlined in II) below and detailed in the following sections. It is based on the strategy of keeping Amtrak as a national rail carrier, however the elements of this plan would apply quite well to regional segments of a rail system. This is a practical approach that includes elements of added capacity, increased reliability, and increased safety to serve the traveling public by attracting and retaining riders. Many of the improvements in the early stages would draw upon the expertise of the staff of Amtrak and the related agencies now operating the system, thus saving time and cost (as opposed to an approach that requires consultants to study and plan these first, simple steps.) These improvements will also improve the safety and reliability of rail freight transportation and the safety of the public at large. These far reaching benefits must be communicated to legislators, stakeholders, and the public to ensure they are realized.

   There is a robust group of emerging commuter rail services, state sponsored (Section 403b) regional rail services, and a modest group of state-sponsored High Speed Rail (HSR) projects. These are (or will be) vital components to a nationwide system. They feed passengers to the longer corridors, provide vital local transportation resources, and provide a growing visibility for the viability of rail transportation in the national transportation system. Elements of the improvements described in this paper will no doubt be accomplished by these groups. However, a nationwide system is required to address the needs for a national transportation resource.

2. SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF PHASED IMPROVEMENTS

   1. FIRST MONTH

      Same network of services, add staff and cars to attain 120% of present capacity, begin planning, design, and contracting.

   2. FIRST EIGHT MONTHS

      Longer trains, better timekeeping, better connections, some station and infrastructure improvements, begin recovering deferred maintenance, to attain 140% of present capacity.

   3. FIRST EIGHTEEN MONTHS

      More trains, some more routes, North East Corridor (NEC) centenary & signals, some infrastructure added, to attain 180% of present capacity.

   4. FIRST THREE YEARS

      Higher quality (reliability & speed), more trains, several corridors brought to moderately high speed, add some restored and new corridors, major NEC improvements, beginning Positive Train Separation (PTS), to attain 250% of present capacity.

   5. TEN YEAR PLAN

      Expanded network and schedule density, moderately high speed on many corridors, true HSR under construction, complete PTS, to attain 3-400% of present capacity.

3. KEYS TO SUCCESS

   A major change to national transportation policy requires new thought processes and changes that may threaten existing political and business interests. The public is probably ahead of the "leaders" in this regard; with the proper information there should be broad "grass roots" support for these changes. Even with this mandate, the following key steps will still be needed to achieve these changes:

   1. A Federal policy (with complementary State programs, many of which are quite mature) that expanded rail passenger transport is in the nation’s interest. This may be considered as mitigation to the damage to mobility caused by the loss air transport flexibility, recognition that air and highway infrastructure cannot keep up with transportation demand, or simply as a prudent investment in the nation’s economic future.
   2. The environmental review process must be reasonable, but expedited. Quick decisions are essential. Many of the proposed projects are very simple and predictable (e.g. expanded parking lots and new sidings in existing RR right of way) and with careful public outreach, should not be unreasonably delayed by NIMBY reactions. True environmental stewardship of our nation’s resources will recognize that failure to act on a national rail policy will drive transportation to further reliance on highways; at a higher cost of fuel, pollution, congestion, traffic danger, and time wasted.
   3. Labor should be brought in as a strong advocate. The infrastructure changes will create a better working environment for all employees in the rail industry and more jobs in construction, manufacturing, and operations. To the extent that this program strengthens the nation’s transportation infrastructure, more economic development and jobs should follow. Labor may be more willing to support a national corporation like Amtrak than an array of privatized operations.
   4. Freight railroads, which own most of the infrastructure, have to be convinced that the added infrastructure more than balances the traffic demands of added passenger trains. Two specific changes that could be perceived as benefits to them would be PTS and the "recovery" of the present Amtrak Mail and Express (M&E) business. The railroads are reluctant to invest in PTS, however within an Amtrak program it may be mandated and subsidized to an acceptable extent. While Amtrak perceives M&E as diverted from highways, it may be wise to let the freight railroads "win" by reducing the amount of this "freight" carried by Amtrak in exchange for other considerations.
   5. The airline industry will perceive this policy as a threat to their regional services; this is essentially true. This service is already under threat as it ties up the air infrastructure with unproductive flights. They must recognize that there are many air routes with no realistic rail competition and that their now-reduced capacity should be directed to the longer, non-rail competitive routes. A tough sell.

   6. To the extent that the funding for the project is controlled by Federal or State agencies, their early buy-in and prompt approval of individual project expenses is essential to deliver these improvements in a timely manner.

4. DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FIVE STAGES

   1. FIRST MONTH

      1. QUICKEST ADDED CAPACITY: ADD STAFF

         More reservation agents, ticket clerks, assistant conductors, car and locomotive maintenance staff, infrastructure maintenance staff, car attendants, dining car staff, and supervisors will maximize the efficiency of the present organization. Many of these positions have recently been eliminated; the skilled employees are probably available for recall. Many of these positions are entry-level and stepping-stones to higher levels of employment. Adding this staff now builds the core of future expansion.

      2. EXPEDITE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING ROLLING STOCK

         For reasons of cost containment, many cars and locomotives are held out of service due to accident damage and normal wear. Funds should be provided to rapidly restore rolling stock to service, including overtime for prompt repairs.

      3. ADD CARS TO TRAINS AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE

      4. PLAN WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS

         The freight railroads, 403b States, other state DOTs, Canada (as VIA or Transport Canada), local transit operators, commuter districts, labor, Federal DOT and FRA, and station cities should be brought into a planning process. At the one-month stage there won’t be a lot to tell, however this would be a good time to establish the network of communication and to listen to these stakeholders. Airports are another potential planning partner, but probably in a future phase.

      5. ADVERTISE

         Two messages: Amtrak is here to help you. We’re working to a much expanded, faster, and more reliable system in the future. These messages would be both the subject of press releases and speaking engagements by Amtrak and other agencies, and the subject of paid advertising.

      6. VENDOR NEGOTIATION

         At this stage contacts should begin with vendors of rolling stock, infrastructure materials, consultants for planning, design, and business planning, and construction contractors (as design-build projects). These contracts should be framed out in general so that when decisions are reached during the following phases regarding the detailed scope of work, the contracts can be executed and work begun.

      7. CONCEPTUAL PLANNING OF ELEMENTS C) and D)

         Amtrak and the stakeholders should begin the process of identifying what the future network and infrastructure should be, and prepare scopes of work for design of these elements. Amtrak staff should identify the simple improvements needed in the first months and arrange for execution of that work (e.g. station clean-up, lighting, parking, platforms) under local contracts.

      8. CHANGES TO M&E

         Mail & Express has been embraced by Amtrak as a revenue source, however it has three adverse effects on the primary passenger role:

         1. It adds to the running time of trains as it is switched off and on enroute
         2. It adds to the length and weight of trains, making them slower to operate (e.g. longer to clear sidings, slower to accelerate, and more difficult to stop precisely)
         3. It is a safety concern because the momentum of the cars on the rear of the train will compound damage to derailed passenger cars.
         4. It adds to station spotting, sometimes requiring a second or third stop.
         At this first stage, M&E should be confined to the end points of trains and as many of the M&E cars as practicable should be on the front of the trains. Offering this M&E business to the freight RRs may aid negotiations for more trains and better handling.

      9. PREPARE SPECIFICATIONS AND BID PACKAGES FOR MORE PRESENT-DESIGN ROLLING STOCK

      10. BEGIN FINAL DESIGN FOR ELEMENTS IN THE 18-MONTH PLAN

      11. BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH FREIGHT RAILROADS AND OTHER TRACK OWNERS

          These negotiations will continue through all the phases as infrastructure needs are agreed upon. The basic agreement may need a congressional mandate. The basic agreement must recognize Amtrak’s right to operate as a public convenience and necessity, a cost basis for using the private and public owned infrastructure, liability, ride quality, a priority agreement for passenger operations, a distinction between freight and "M&E" that satisfies all parties, and coordination on PTS and other rules and operating protocols.

   2. FIRST EIGHT MONTHS (Plus continue A) above)

      1. INCREASED SERVICE

         1. Capacity Goal: 140% of September 2001 seat miles
         2. Quality Goal: 83% on time (all riders)
         3. Time Goal: 95% of Sept. 2001 running time
         4. Added cars to existing trains
         5. Off peak, night, and weekend services added with existing equipment
         6. Added Thruway bus connections
         7. Passenger amenities enhanced

      2. PLATFORM EXTENSIONS AT STATIONS

         At present, many train schedules are impacted by the need to "double spot". This problem will only get worse as cars are added to trains. Temporary (and later, permanent) platform extensions are a cheap way to increase service quality (speed and reliability). These modest investments should be planned in the first month and constructed within the next few months. Upon their completion, schedules can be adjusted to begin speeding up train service.

      3. STATION IMPROVEMETNS

         Restrooms, security, parking, communications, signage, paint, decor, furnishing, and lighting can quickly be improved using simple maintenance and service contracts to increase passenger perception of quality and safety. These improvements continue through all stages, at increasing levels of investment and municipal buy-in, and complementing higher passenger expectations of a total quality transportation experience.

      4. COORDINATION WITH LOCAL TRANSPORTATION

         Increased auto rental, training of station agents to coordinate with local public transit, establishment of shuttles to traffic generator, hotel "hot lines" and other steps to complete the total trip.

      5. PROCURE ROLLING STOCK

         At this stage, off-the shelf rolling stock designs may be available to supplement the fleet.

      6. EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE YARDS

         Temporary, followed by permanent

      7. BEGIN FINAL DESIGN AND BID PACKAGES OF 18-MONTH AND 3-YEAR PLAN ELEMENTS

      8. BEGIN CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS FOR 10-YEAR PLAN ELEMENTS

      9. CLOSE MASTER TRACK AGREEMENTS WITH FREIGHT RAILROADS

         The details of specific improvement projects will continue to be developed over the several years of these phases, however the master agreement that addresses operations, payment, etc, should be in place by this phase.

      10. CLOSE AGREEMENTS WITH FRA ON PTS AND HIGH SPEED SEGMENTS

          This is an ambitious schedule, however to implement service at speeds above 79 MPH, a system architecture must be agreed upon in this phase. This will require consensus between railroads, manufacturers, and the FRA.

          This agreement would also address the general outline of existing mixed-use corridors to be operated at higher speeds, and any pure HSR routes.

      11. RAILROAD AND RIGHT OF WAY SECURITY

          Signage, fencing, enforcement, awareness, clearance of brush and trash, graffiti control…. (Make the railroad right of way environment like an airport?)

      12. ENHANCE CELL PHONE COVERAGE

          Most passengers will expect to maintain phone and other wireless contact as they travel, cell companies must be induced to add towers to cover most routes.

      13. MOST M&E OFF LONG DISTANCE TRAINS (Note 4)

      14. BEGIN TRACK and SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

          Several types of simple track improvements that can increase service quality can be made without long lead times for design or procurement. These include restoring sidings to service, increasing speed at slow orders and in sidings, restoring storage tracks to service, and staffing second-shift signal maintenance to cover the bulk of the travel periods.

   3. FIRST 18 MONTHS (plus continue prior work)

      1. ADDED SERVICE

         1. Capacity Goal: 180% of September 2001 seat miles
         2. Quality Goal: 88% on time (all riders)
         3. Time Goal: 93% of Sept. 2001 running time
         4. Add to regional corridor schedules: Acela, California, Midwest, etc.
         5. All trains daily
         6. Add FEC
         7. Close Gaps: Pioneer, Desert Wind, Colorado front range, Dallas-southeast, etc.
         8. Customer Care: Easy to do business, simple timetables, quality guarantee

      2. INCREASED TRAIN SPEEDS & RIDE QUALITY

         1. Begin changing most routes to CWR
         2. Ride quality measurement systems on all routes
         3. Additional surfacing to achieve ride quality
         4. Enhanced signals: crossing warning times, eliminate pole lines, add CTC, add more second shift track and signal maintenance in key areas
         5. Minor line changes to reduce curves, speed up junctions
         6. Longer sidings and higher speed turnouts
         7. Added crossovers
         8. Upgrade highway crossings: surface, visibility, warning devices

      3. CONSTRUCT NEW EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FACILTIIES

      4. DESIGN AND BID OUT 3-YEAR ITEMS

      5. SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS

         1. Crossing closures, grade separation accelerated (Note 2)
         2. Hardening the infrastructure: stormwater protection, replace timber bridges and tunnel linings with concrete, barriers at highway conflicts, rockfalls stabilized
         3. Safety Detectors added
         4. Right of way security enhancements continue from prior stages

      6. ADDITIONAL DISPATCHER COVERAGE

         Amtrak (National Policy?) subsidizes more intense supervision and expediting of train operations by all RRs (Note 3)

      7. ONLY VERY LIMITED M&E ON PASSENGER TRAINS

      8. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE FOR 10-YEAR PLAN ELEMENTS

      9. ADOPTION OF NATIONWIDE PTS POLICY, BEGIN CONSTRUCTION

         1. Three years: dense corridors
         2. Six years: all passenger routes, freight routes over 8 MGT

   4. FIRST THREE YEARS (plus continue prior work)

      1. ADD MORE SERVICE

         1. Capacity Goal: 250% of September 2001 seat miles
         2. Quality Goal: 94% on time (all riders)
         3. Time Goal: 88% of Sept. 2001 running time
         4. Added routes: network is to be filled in, perhaps beginning with Thruway bus links but as trains as promptly as practicable
         5. Denser schedules: evenings, counterflow, some long distance routes get a second train about 12 hours off the present schedule

      2. MULTIPLE TRACKS, SIDING CONSTRUCTION

      3. MORE LINE CHANGES FOR INCREASED SPEED

      4. MORE TRACK QUALITY IMPROVBEMENTS

      5. MAJOR CAMPAIGN TO CLOSE GRADE CROSSINGS, BUILD SEPARATONS

         This effort would have three elements. First, the formula for funding these grade separations must be reinforced through highway use taxes as a corollary to grade separating highway routes (e.g. freeway interchanges). Second, many areas need a corridor approach to rationalize the number of crossings, closing many and separating the rest. These corridors may need local enhancements such as landscaping and parallel trails to be acceptable to communities. Third, separation design must be "sold" as an environmental improvement due to lessened noise and risk of accident.

      6. PTS IMPLEMENTATION WELL UNDER WAY

         By this stage some routes and most locomotives are equipped with PTS.

   5. TEN YEAR PLAN

      1. SERVICE GOALS

         1. Capacity Goal: 3 - 400% of September 2001 seat miles
         2. Quality Goal: 96% on time (all riders)
         3. Time Goal: 82% of Sept. 2001 running time
         4. Add to regional corridor schedules: Acela, California, Midwest, etc.
         5. True "European" HSR started on several routes (CA, FL, TX, ?)
         6. Additional routes to fill in the network
         7. Multiple schedule options on all important routes
         8. Customer Care: Equal or exceed the best airports, close integration with airports, local transit, transportation demand centers

      2. SECURITY

         1. Major reductions in grade crossing exposure
         2. PTS Nationwide (exceptions for small freight operations)
         3. Right of Way secure and enforcement against trespass
         4. Infrastructure "Hardened" against disaster

      3. QUALITY/CAPACITY ENHANCEMENTS COMPLETED

         1. Line Changes for speed improvements
         2. Added tracks, crossovers
         3. PTS and other train control systems
         4. Track maintained to "ride quality" standards
         5. Stations are integrated, safe, high capacity
         6. Regional Corridors close to goal of no grade crossings
         7. Many new regional corridors, network filled in

      4. MAJOR INVESTMENTS

         1. NEC: New tunnels at New York
         2. NEC Extensions: Pittsburgh, Albany, Richmond
         3. Los Angeles to Bakersfield: new electric route
         4. Equipment maintenance facilities to match the plan

      5. PROTECT THE INVESTMENT

         1. Budgets for rehabilitations and replacements of rolling stock and infrastructure
         2. Attention to quality, workforce involvement, customer care

      6. PRODUCTIVITY

         With faster and more reliable trains, the productivity of employees and equipment is greatly increased.

Note 1: This paper is the product of Michael E. McGinley, P.E. as a personal statement of suggested changes to the national rail passenger system, with some edits by associates in the rail transportation profession. It does not represent the position of his employer, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority. It is the product of working in the railroad industry since 1966, including establishment of Commuter Rail service in Southern California and many cross-county Amtrak trips including some immediately before and after 9/11/01.

Note 2: Grade crossing accidents are a very serious safety and liability problem. A national railroad passenger service consensus may clarify the need for funding grade separation as a matter of prudent public investment out of the highway funding sources. Grade crossing accidents were a basic reason behind the financial failure of the private Auto Train venture.

Note 3: The addition of supervision may be the most cost effective way to add capacity to rail lines. Private railroads tend to manage their dispatching so as to minimize dispatching costs, regardless of the impacts to service quality. Commuter operators tend to have sufficient dispatchers to maximize the output of the infrastructure, which often appears to be "too many dispatchers" or "too few miles per dispatcher", but it works well. To overcome this conflict, the passenger operators have, and may need to do more, payment for additional dispatching personnel by the freight railroads.

Note 4: The M&E conflict with quality passenger service may also be resolved by operating secondary trains that are focused on the M&E product line, with limited coach and snack car service for passengers. These trains could cover different times on the same routes as premier trains, do M&E work on dense corridors, and possibly to open new routes to test markets. This approach would "keep" the M&E business as opposed to letting it go to the freight carriers.