AmtrakerBx
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Messages
- 44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunn looks ahead,
maps five-year plan
By Wes Vernon
Washington Correspondent
As Amtrak begins its first full calendar year of the David Gunn era, several long-range policy goals are falling into place.
True “high-speed” service in the Northeast Corridor (NEC) ideally should put Amtrak on a timetable to achieve its original projection of three hours from Boston to New York and less than two-and-a-half hours from New York to Washington, hopefully within the next two to three years. The states on the NEC spine will be asked to kick in for the cost of upgrading the infrastructure. NEC operations, on the other hand, are paid for out of the fare box.
Other goals include the states outside the NEC served by short to medium distance corridor service being asked to pay for operating losses in direct proportion to their benefit. Further, Amtrak need not, though likely will be, the sole provider of such state-dictated upgrades.
Other major goals include getting damaged cars repaired and out on the road, and continue at a steady pace; maintaining a “national passenger rail network” which will remain “a federal responsibility,” and thus the multi-state overnight long distance trains will be underwritten from Amtrak’s general budget.
The Wall Street Journal on January 21 reported that in pursuit of these goals, Amtrak – while seeking $1.2 billion for the current fiscal year – will need much more next year – $1.5 billion to $2 billion – to start working on the long neglected capital needs on the NEC and elsewhere. That figure will be needed each year for the next five years, for fiscal year 2004 up to fiscal 2009.
$1.2 billion for 2003 was originally put on the table by Amtrak’s previous management. Although Gunn goes along with it for this year only because it was already in the budget pipeline on Capitol Hill, he believes $1.2 billion is inadequate. The Senate backs it, while the House has approved $762 million and the Bush administration is willing to allow $521 million. As of D:F’s Friday deadline, House and Senate conferees were to reconcile the House and Senate figures.
This is no spending binge. Amtrak says this is what it takes to provide the service that Amtrak customers expect. It is a no frills, real-world plan.
“Mr. Gunn is pretty conservative in the way that he works with numbers,” Amtrak spokesman Dan Stessel told D:F on Friday. “There isn’t much room for error. For the first time, we’re looking at a five-year plan now.”
The aim is to keep the NEC “functioning,” with current high-speed service and make an attempt to improve it where that can be done. The Northeast corridor is the one route where operations – not to be confused with capital or infrastructure expenses – break-even through passenger ticket sales.
There is a huge need for infrastructure improvements, and Gunn is proposing that those needs be paid for in a cooperative effort with the states that would be divided up with 80 percent federal money, 20 percent from the state. That works well in mass transit projects. Gunn reasons it can work just as well with the NEC, given that in some ways, that line in the nation’s most densely populated area serves as a de facto transit system.
On the NEC, the Gunn management aims to see to it that the Acela comes closer to its potential “high-speed,” a goal that is currently not achieved on most of the Boston-Washington Amtrak-owned line because of long neglected infrastructure needs.
For example, much of the infrastructure on the “south end” between New York and Washington dates back to 1910 when the old Pennsylvania Railroad built it. The catenary is in excess of “thirty, forty, fifty” years old, dating back to the Pennsy’s big electrification project which went forward in the ’thirties despite the Great Depression of that era, and is in need of replacement.
The first two years of the five-year plan are aimed at maintaining the current level of service, not only through catenary replacement, but also by upgrading track roadbed and the tracks themselves. Because of “the years of neglect,” the first order of business is to “reverse the deterioration and maintain [the quality of infrastructure],” Stessel explained.
Also taking top priority are the “life-safety concerns” with tunnels in Baltimore and New York. D:F was the first media outlet to spotlight the dangerously deteriorated tunnels in Baltimore and New York. Better ventilation, better lighting, and better access are among the improvements needed. The repair work has been ongoing on an incremental basis. Given the urgency of “safety first,” Gunn aims to speed up the timetable.
“On a conservative basis, we would like to get down to a three-hour trip time between New York and Boston, and certainly coming under two-and-a-half hours between Washington and New York,” Stessel said. Beyond that, who knows? Anything is possible with money.
Infrastructure is key, even though the high-speed line also accommodates the slower trains, commuter operations up and down the NEC, and freight traffic. It is not like your typical mainline European or Japanese high-speed trains that operate on dedicated track.
Nonetheless, within that “delicate balancing act,” there are some things that can be done.
Take the speed limits in the Baltimore tunnels, for example, currently at 30 mph. If that were to be doubled to 60 mph, that could boost trip times by as much as 10 minutes. All these “little steps” can add up to a big difference. The “little steps” can make advertised “high-speed” r-e-a-l high-speed.
To hear Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) floor speeches on Amtrak, you would think Amtrak’s long distance trains are bleeding the treasury.
Actually, the long-distance runs “are not the problem. They’re not what causes Amtrak to need money from the federal government,” Stessel said. “That is one of the myths Mr. Gunn” has confronted. In fact, the amount of money that Amtrak would save by canceling the long distance routes is “not significant.”
A big reason for that is Amtrak does not invest in the capital expense of the long distance routes, which operate on the infrastructure of the freight railroads.
Yes, Amtrak pays the Class I carriers for that, Stessel acknowledged, but “we’re not paying for construction of track, we’re not paying for – in many cases – the stations or anything like that.”
Amtrak’s own NEC, on the other hand, “is a huge, huge capital expense to keep that running.”
Beyond the NEC, the Gunn administration at Amtrak has proposed “a mechanism for funding Amtrak going forward that involves greater state support for corridor service,” i.e. generally for routes of less than 500 miles.
New York State, for example, operates its Empire Corridor between New York City, Albany, Buffalo and Niagara Falls. It includes 13 trains a day between Albany and New York in each direction. As a service, that benefits solely New York State.
“The approach going forward will be to ask the states to pay the operating loss for the services within their boundaries.” For the Empire Corridor, that means New York State pays the operating loss.
Another example? Currently, the state of Maine pays for the losses for the Downeaster from Boston to Portland. However, perhaps 10 years down the line, when Amtrak is soliciting money to operate the Downeaster from Maine to Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would be assessed for “the loss incurred within the boundary of that state.”
The same principle applies on the West Coast to the Cascades operating between Oregon and Washington State. Those two states contribute to the operating loss of those trains.
The states would have greater control over the level of service operated on corridors, taking into account, of course, freight operations on a given route. The state governments, however, would have greater say on schedules, fares, meal service, type of equipment used.
It is important that the federal government agrees to allow states to use part of some of their transportation dollars for intercity passenger rail. Presumably, that would involve funding allocated in the giant T-21 bill up for reauthorization later this year.
Here, Stessel showed how Amtrak, under Gunn, is breaking new ground.
“That would allow the states [to put that money] in Amtrak’s direction or put it in the direction of another operator, if they so choose.”
Given that Amtrak has the already existing expertise and experience, an alternate operator may not be that easy to find for a corridor operation. Nonetheless, this opens the door for breaking the Amtrak monopoly on intercity rail corridor service – no small event in Amtrak’s history.
Just so there’s no confusion here. This is by no means an endorsement either of the Bush Administration’s proposal to split the operations from the infrastructure on the NEC or its companion plan to “franchise” out segments of the long-distance routes – an idea rejected not only by Amtrak, but by the freight railroads as well.
In the first place, “The private sector isn’t exactly dying to take over our [passenger rail] services,” Stessel explained, recalling Amtrak was formed in the first place because the private railroads were begging to be allowed to get out of their money-losing passenger business.
That is the irony of the situation. There are those who seriously believe that the federal government can make a profit out of the rail passenger business when those same profits eluded the private sector. Pure fantasy, said Stessel.
The NEC infrastructure, non-NEC operations involve Parts 1 and 2 of Amtrak’s proposed funding mechanism.
Part number 3 is the long-distance trains. Amtrak is committed to maintaining a national passenger rail system. In that spirit, given the fact that most of the long-haul trains operate through “six, seven, eight states,” getting them to agree on a level of funding and how it would be divided up would be “nearly impossible.”
“It is our position that maintaining the national network of long distance trains is a federal responsibility,” declared Amtrak’s Stessel, “We will look to the federal government to take care of the operating loss of those trains.”
Again, to sum it up: States on the NEC would kick in for infrastructure upgrades on a federal-state transit-like split of 80 percent and 20 percent. NEC operations pay for themselves. Outside the NEC, states would pay operating losses reflecting their benefit from corridor schedules. A non-Amtrak operator may be selected. Long-distance trains remain a federal responsibility. Damaged cars are heading back to the road from the repair shops.
Those are crucial elements of the Gunn era’s five-year plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunn looks ahead,
maps five-year plan
By Wes Vernon
Washington Correspondent
As Amtrak begins its first full calendar year of the David Gunn era, several long-range policy goals are falling into place.
True “high-speed” service in the Northeast Corridor (NEC) ideally should put Amtrak on a timetable to achieve its original projection of three hours from Boston to New York and less than two-and-a-half hours from New York to Washington, hopefully within the next two to three years. The states on the NEC spine will be asked to kick in for the cost of upgrading the infrastructure. NEC operations, on the other hand, are paid for out of the fare box.
Other goals include the states outside the NEC served by short to medium distance corridor service being asked to pay for operating losses in direct proportion to their benefit. Further, Amtrak need not, though likely will be, the sole provider of such state-dictated upgrades.
Other major goals include getting damaged cars repaired and out on the road, and continue at a steady pace; maintaining a “national passenger rail network” which will remain “a federal responsibility,” and thus the multi-state overnight long distance trains will be underwritten from Amtrak’s general budget.
The Wall Street Journal on January 21 reported that in pursuit of these goals, Amtrak – while seeking $1.2 billion for the current fiscal year – will need much more next year – $1.5 billion to $2 billion – to start working on the long neglected capital needs on the NEC and elsewhere. That figure will be needed each year for the next five years, for fiscal year 2004 up to fiscal 2009.
$1.2 billion for 2003 was originally put on the table by Amtrak’s previous management. Although Gunn goes along with it for this year only because it was already in the budget pipeline on Capitol Hill, he believes $1.2 billion is inadequate. The Senate backs it, while the House has approved $762 million and the Bush administration is willing to allow $521 million. As of D:F’s Friday deadline, House and Senate conferees were to reconcile the House and Senate figures.
This is no spending binge. Amtrak says this is what it takes to provide the service that Amtrak customers expect. It is a no frills, real-world plan.
“Mr. Gunn is pretty conservative in the way that he works with numbers,” Amtrak spokesman Dan Stessel told D:F on Friday. “There isn’t much room for error. For the first time, we’re looking at a five-year plan now.”
The aim is to keep the NEC “functioning,” with current high-speed service and make an attempt to improve it where that can be done. The Northeast corridor is the one route where operations – not to be confused with capital or infrastructure expenses – break-even through passenger ticket sales.
There is a huge need for infrastructure improvements, and Gunn is proposing that those needs be paid for in a cooperative effort with the states that would be divided up with 80 percent federal money, 20 percent from the state. That works well in mass transit projects. Gunn reasons it can work just as well with the NEC, given that in some ways, that line in the nation’s most densely populated area serves as a de facto transit system.
On the NEC, the Gunn management aims to see to it that the Acela comes closer to its potential “high-speed,” a goal that is currently not achieved on most of the Boston-Washington Amtrak-owned line because of long neglected infrastructure needs.
For example, much of the infrastructure on the “south end” between New York and Washington dates back to 1910 when the old Pennsylvania Railroad built it. The catenary is in excess of “thirty, forty, fifty” years old, dating back to the Pennsy’s big electrification project which went forward in the ’thirties despite the Great Depression of that era, and is in need of replacement.
The first two years of the five-year plan are aimed at maintaining the current level of service, not only through catenary replacement, but also by upgrading track roadbed and the tracks themselves. Because of “the years of neglect,” the first order of business is to “reverse the deterioration and maintain [the quality of infrastructure],” Stessel explained.
Also taking top priority are the “life-safety concerns” with tunnels in Baltimore and New York. D:F was the first media outlet to spotlight the dangerously deteriorated tunnels in Baltimore and New York. Better ventilation, better lighting, and better access are among the improvements needed. The repair work has been ongoing on an incremental basis. Given the urgency of “safety first,” Gunn aims to speed up the timetable.
“On a conservative basis, we would like to get down to a three-hour trip time between New York and Boston, and certainly coming under two-and-a-half hours between Washington and New York,” Stessel said. Beyond that, who knows? Anything is possible with money.
Infrastructure is key, even though the high-speed line also accommodates the slower trains, commuter operations up and down the NEC, and freight traffic. It is not like your typical mainline European or Japanese high-speed trains that operate on dedicated track.
Nonetheless, within that “delicate balancing act,” there are some things that can be done.
Take the speed limits in the Baltimore tunnels, for example, currently at 30 mph. If that were to be doubled to 60 mph, that could boost trip times by as much as 10 minutes. All these “little steps” can add up to a big difference. The “little steps” can make advertised “high-speed” r-e-a-l high-speed.
To hear Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) floor speeches on Amtrak, you would think Amtrak’s long distance trains are bleeding the treasury.
Actually, the long-distance runs “are not the problem. They’re not what causes Amtrak to need money from the federal government,” Stessel said. “That is one of the myths Mr. Gunn” has confronted. In fact, the amount of money that Amtrak would save by canceling the long distance routes is “not significant.”
A big reason for that is Amtrak does not invest in the capital expense of the long distance routes, which operate on the infrastructure of the freight railroads.
Yes, Amtrak pays the Class I carriers for that, Stessel acknowledged, but “we’re not paying for construction of track, we’re not paying for – in many cases – the stations or anything like that.”
Amtrak’s own NEC, on the other hand, “is a huge, huge capital expense to keep that running.”
Beyond the NEC, the Gunn administration at Amtrak has proposed “a mechanism for funding Amtrak going forward that involves greater state support for corridor service,” i.e. generally for routes of less than 500 miles.
New York State, for example, operates its Empire Corridor between New York City, Albany, Buffalo and Niagara Falls. It includes 13 trains a day between Albany and New York in each direction. As a service, that benefits solely New York State.
“The approach going forward will be to ask the states to pay the operating loss for the services within their boundaries.” For the Empire Corridor, that means New York State pays the operating loss.
Another example? Currently, the state of Maine pays for the losses for the Downeaster from Boston to Portland. However, perhaps 10 years down the line, when Amtrak is soliciting money to operate the Downeaster from Maine to Massachusetts, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would be assessed for “the loss incurred within the boundary of that state.”
The same principle applies on the West Coast to the Cascades operating between Oregon and Washington State. Those two states contribute to the operating loss of those trains.
The states would have greater control over the level of service operated on corridors, taking into account, of course, freight operations on a given route. The state governments, however, would have greater say on schedules, fares, meal service, type of equipment used.
It is important that the federal government agrees to allow states to use part of some of their transportation dollars for intercity passenger rail. Presumably, that would involve funding allocated in the giant T-21 bill up for reauthorization later this year.
Here, Stessel showed how Amtrak, under Gunn, is breaking new ground.
“That would allow the states [to put that money] in Amtrak’s direction or put it in the direction of another operator, if they so choose.”
Given that Amtrak has the already existing expertise and experience, an alternate operator may not be that easy to find for a corridor operation. Nonetheless, this opens the door for breaking the Amtrak monopoly on intercity rail corridor service – no small event in Amtrak’s history.
Just so there’s no confusion here. This is by no means an endorsement either of the Bush Administration’s proposal to split the operations from the infrastructure on the NEC or its companion plan to “franchise” out segments of the long-distance routes – an idea rejected not only by Amtrak, but by the freight railroads as well.
In the first place, “The private sector isn’t exactly dying to take over our [passenger rail] services,” Stessel explained, recalling Amtrak was formed in the first place because the private railroads were begging to be allowed to get out of their money-losing passenger business.
That is the irony of the situation. There are those who seriously believe that the federal government can make a profit out of the rail passenger business when those same profits eluded the private sector. Pure fantasy, said Stessel.
The NEC infrastructure, non-NEC operations involve Parts 1 and 2 of Amtrak’s proposed funding mechanism.
Part number 3 is the long-distance trains. Amtrak is committed to maintaining a national passenger rail system. In that spirit, given the fact that most of the long-haul trains operate through “six, seven, eight states,” getting them to agree on a level of funding and how it would be divided up would be “nearly impossible.”
“It is our position that maintaining the national network of long distance trains is a federal responsibility,” declared Amtrak’s Stessel, “We will look to the federal government to take care of the operating loss of those trains.”
Again, to sum it up: States on the NEC would kick in for infrastructure upgrades on a federal-state transit-like split of 80 percent and 20 percent. NEC operations pay for themselves. Outside the NEC, states would pay operating losses reflecting their benefit from corridor schedules. A non-Amtrak operator may be selected. Long-distance trains remain a federal responsibility. Damaged cars are heading back to the road from the repair shops.
Those are crucial elements of the Gunn era’s five-year plan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
