turmoil within the Amtrak organization

[afigg]

and for having a moribund and lethargic outlook on expanding trains with Superliner IIIs.

You're person #1,532,452,895 that apparently has not read Amtrak's fleet plan. Again, these cars don't build themselves, the specs don't write themselves, and let me give you a cliff notes version of the fleet plan: Place the order for equipment most desperately needed first (replacing the heritage cars, life-expired electric locomotives, and expanding the miniscule eastern sleeper fleet), the pace the equipment orders in order to maintain a consistent supply chain. The thing you don't want to do is order a whole bunch at once, spending twice as much (or more) in production set-up costs, only to stop production after the initial large batch and do nothing for 30 years again, letting the supply chain go away, and then facing a bunch of cars that are life-expired all at once again.

Meanwhile, they have designed the specification on which a Superliner III order could be based, and the supply chain will start up in a couple of years once the states place their orders for new corridor cars.

You simply don't place orders for your entire fleet at once. Doing so is a big mistake.

+1 on this. Although your person # count is probably a tad high. :lol: Many people on here have also not read the 5 year Financial Plan or the FY business plan that shows how Amtrak is going to pay for new equipment. There are many who want to see large equipment orders placed all at once, ignoring that has created the supply chain problems you mention in the past.

Amtrak and Boardman got a break with the Florida returned HSR funds because that provided the FRA the opportunity for a rethink and re-allocation to provide enough funding to buy 120 bi-levels, a large enough order to cover the NRE and start-up cost to start a production line. Now Amtrak can wait and place Superliner III orders in manageable increments to keep that production line running for Superliner IIIs over many years. If additional LD services are someday restored with Congressional backing, then Amtrak can look at re-starting the service with the spare capacity they have while ordering the quantity of Superliner IIIs needed to maintain the LD train in the longer term.

I predict that when we do see the first Amfleet II replacement and Superliner III orders, that many on here will complain and find hidden threats of LD service cuts, because Amtrak won't be placing orders for 100s of cars all at once. The Amfleet II replacements, very likely Viewliner IIs, may be a large order so Amtrak can go to all Viewliner II consists for the LD and medium distance corridor trains that have Amfleet II cars to cut costs. But the Superliner III order could be a more modest 2-3 year production run size which people will read as a plan to cut most of the Superliner LD fleet.

 

[afigg]

In my opinion, the cost-cutting goal here is not meeting budget in 2012. Despite the belief to the contrary, Amtrak will receive more operating assistance in 2012 than they used in 2011. The problem is more fundamental. The central issue was touched upon in the reply above: the loss of the VRE operating contract (and later the loss of the Caltrain operating contract in the San Francisco Bay Area). Amtrak, for the first time, is facing competition – real competition. The loss of these contracts has opened their eyes to the fact that they are not competitive with other operators.

The big prize, and the big risk for Amtrak, is the operation of the intercity trains in California. There is nothing that prevents Caltrans from bidding out the operation of the Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, or the Surfliner routes to a private vender. After the political and PR debacle with VRE, Amtrak threw everything they had into winning the Caltrain contract. They still lost badly. Caltrans already has a working relationship with the Union Pacific (arguably a better one than Amtrak), and there is no reason to think they could not do the same with BNSF. Large portions of the Surfliner route uses public lines. It is a genuine fear at Amtrak HQ that Caltrans will put operation of one or more of the California routes up for bid. If that were to happen today, Amtrak knows their cost structure is too high, their overheads are crushing, and they would lose. The California lines represent nearly 20% of all Amtrak ridership. The stakes are high.

Turning Amtrak from a bloated government entity into a nimble, competitive organization will not be easy. I think starting down that road is a primary goal with this round of cost cutting. From Amtrak’s perspective, the barbarians are at the gate, and they have to do something or they will eventually be relegated to being the operator of last resort for lines not attractive to anyone else.

The big cut for Amtrak funding in FY12 was the operating grant which went from FY11 $562 million to FY12 $466 million. The total capital and debt service grant was bumped up a little. The operating grant is what is driving the Amtrak personnel cuts. It becomes apparent when one reads the monthly, the various PIP, and financial reports that Amtrak's overhead and maintenance costs are pretty high.

Besides cutting the management and support staff size, the current moves to E-ticketing, electronic point of sale systems for the food services, and electronic reports and database integration into the maintenance system should cut costs. These are steps the airlines and other companies took some years ago, Amtrak is catching up here. Reducing maintenance cost and improving fleet reliability by ordering new equipment and upgrading the maintenance facilities is a major part of getting to a more competitive organization.

I agree with the possible threat of losing the California corridor services. Don't know if Caltrans is actively thinking along these lines, but if Amtrak's operating costs are too high, eventually Caltrans will have to consider their options. I would venture that the threat becomes greater when the new Surfliners are delivered. If CA has enough Surfliners to run all their trains, so Amtrak is not providing Amfleets, Horizons, or some Superliner coach cars to fill in the gaps, Caltrans is not dependent on the Amtrak national system to run their trains.

 

[NE933]

I have read the fleet plan, and do agree to the idea of stretching out orders so as to keep some kind of supply base going in this country. But let's get started!

 

[Ryan]

But let's get started!

That's exactly what the VLII and ACS-64 order is.

 

[Trogdor]

I agree with the possible threat of losing the California corridor services. Don't know if Caltrans is actively thinking along these lines, but if Amtrak's operating costs are too high, eventually Caltrans will have to consider their options. I would venture that the threat becomes greater when the new Surfliners are delivered. If CA has enough Surfliners to run all their trains, so Amtrak is not providing Amfleets, Horizons, or some Superliner coach cars to fill in the gaps, Caltrans is not dependent on the Amtrak national system to run their trains.

Off topic, but I should note that even "Caltrans" isn't going to have much say in things in the future.

The official body in charge of the Capitol Corridor is the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, which is a separate governing body (I believe made up of various transit agencies in northern California, but I don't know the specifics off the top of my head). They do receive some funding from Caltrans, but CCJPA makes all decisions regarding the operation of the Capitol Corridor, not Caltrans staff.

In Southern California, the locals are working on a plan to form a similar JPA for the Pacific Surfliner, which would take that route out of the hands of Caltrans as well. That would leave Caltrans with only the San Joaquin under their direct control.

It is CCJPA (and, eventually, the LOSSAN JPA down south) that would make the ultimate decision on whether or not Amtrak would continue to be the operator of the respective services.

It doesn't change anything regarding whether or not Amtrak's costs are too high, but that's the setup out there.

 

[AlanB]

I do think he missed an opportunity when Obama first was elected to get more money from stimulus funding to upgrade NEC track, purchase locomotives quicker, etc... with Biden as VP, Amtrak had a window of opportunity they did not avail themselves of. Agree that it takes time to do designs and specifications, but that's as true of track work as it is road work. It did seem like the election and political environment caught Amtrak flat footed, and it's a bit of a miracle in my mind that they funding for rehabbing wrecked cars took place, as if it was more pushed in from outside than thought up inside Amtrak.

Amtrak couldn't apply for any monies from the initial $8 Billion in HSR funding granted under the Stimulus package. It was precluded from apply for those funds by law. The rules got changed after that point so that Amtrak could apply for some of the returned monies. I'm not sure if Amtrak could have gotten plans ready fast enough to apply for any of the first round of funding, but again that didn't matter since they couldn't apply for any funds.

As for the wrecked cars, I'm not real sure just how that all came about, although it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Mr. Biden had his staff ask Amtrak what they needed most and that was one of the items selected. Amtrak did also get some other monies besides the wreck repair monies, outside of the HSR funds in the Stimulus package. Some of that funding went to various stations for ADA work, some went to electrical work on the corridor, and I think some went to a bridge in CT. I seem to recall an amount of around a Billion going to Amtrak for various purposes, including wreck repairs.

 

[AlanB]

In my opinion, the cost-cutting goal here is not meeting budget in 2012. Despite the belief to the contrary, Amtrak will receive more operating assistance in 2012 than they used in 2011. The problem is more fundamental. The central issue was touched upon in the reply above: the loss of the VRE operating contract (and later the loss of the Caltrain operating contract in the San Francisco Bay Area). Amtrak, for the first time, is facing competition – real competition. The loss of these contracts has opened their eyes to the fact that they are not competitive with other operators.

The big prize, and the big risk for Amtrak, is the operation of the intercity trains in California. There is nothing that prevents Caltrans from bidding out the operation of the Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, or the Surfliner routes to a private vender. After the political and PR debacle with VRE, Amtrak threw everything they had into winning the Caltrain contract. They still lost badly. Caltrans already has a working relationship with the Union Pacific (arguably a better one than Amtrak), and there is no reason to think they could not do the same with BNSF. Large portions of the Surfliner route uses public lines. It is a genuine fear at Amtrak HQ that Caltrans will put operation of one or more of the California routes up for bid. If that were to happen today, Amtrak knows their cost structure is too high, their overheads are crushing, and they would lose. The California lines represent nearly 20% of all Amtrak ridership. The stakes are high.

Turning Amtrak from a bloated government entity into a nimble, competitive organization will not be easy. I think starting down that road is a primary goal with this round of cost cutting. From Amtrak’s perspective, the barbarians are at the gate, and they have to do something or they will eventually be relegated to being the operator of last resort for lines not attractive to anyone else.

The big cut for Amtrak funding in FY12 was the operating grant which went from FY11 $562 million to FY12 $466 million. The total capital and debt service grant was bumped up a little. The operating grant is what is driving the Amtrak personnel cuts. It becomes apparent when one reads the monthly, the various PIP, and financial reports that Amtrak's overhead and maintenance costs are pretty high.

The operating grant really isn't that much of a problem for Amtrak. Someone else did the math in another topic recently and it showed that the $466 will pretty much cover the gap this year if the current revenue levels hold.

It might reduce Amtrak's ability to respond to changing market conditions, or to perhaps consider starting another car order with some extra cash and then hoping for another loan to complete said order.

 

[AlanB]

I agree with the possible threat of losing the California corridor services. Don't know if Caltrans is actively thinking along these lines, but if Amtrak's operating costs are too high, eventually Caltrans will have to consider their options. I would venture that the threat becomes greater when the new Surfliners are delivered. If CA has enough Surfliners to run all their trains, so Amtrak is not providing Amfleets, Horizons, or some Superliner coach cars to fill in the gaps, Caltrans is not dependent on the Amtrak national system to run their trains.

Off topic, but I should note that even "Caltrans" isn't going to have much say in things in the future.

The official body in charge of the Capitol Corridor is the Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority, which is a separate governing body (I believe made up of various transit agencies in northern California, but I don't know the specifics off the top of my head). They do receive some funding from Caltrans, but CCJPA makes all decisions regarding the operation of the Capitol Corridor, not Caltrans staff.

In Southern California, the locals are working on a plan to form a similar JPA for the Pacific Surfliner, which would take that route out of the hands of Caltrans as well. That would leave Caltrans with only the San Joaquin under their direct control.

It is CCJPA (and, eventually, the LOSSAN JPA down south) that would make the ultimate decision on whether or not Amtrak would continue to be the operator of the respective services.

It doesn't change anything regarding whether or not Amtrak's costs are too high, but that's the setup out there.

Amtrak IIRC does more than just loan a few cars to the Surfliner operation. Last I knew that was a joint operation, with Amtrak both owning some of the equipment and accepting some of the loss, while Caltrans owns the rest of the equipment and handling some of the loss.

So I don't think that Caltrans can just pull the rug out from under Amtrak no matter what; not withstanding Trogdor's information which indicates that it could well be Caltrans that sort of has the rug pulled out from under them.

That really only leaves the San Joaquin's, the least utilized service of the 3 which is not to suggest that it is insignificant either, that Caltrans could take away from Amtrak.

 

[afigg]

]Amtrak couldn't apply for any monies from the initial $8 Billion in HSR funding granted under the Stimulus package. It was precluded from apply for those funds by law. The rules got changed after that point so that Amtrak could apply for some of the returned monies. I'm not sure if Amtrak could have gotten plans ready fast enough to apply for any of the first round of funding, but again that didn't matter since they couldn't apply for any funds.

As for the wrecked cars, I'm not real sure just how that all came about, although it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Mr. Biden had his staff ask Amtrak what they needed most and that was one of the items selected. Amtrak did also get some other monies besides the wreck repair monies, outside of the HSR funds in the Stimulus package. Some of that funding went to various stations for ADA work, some went to electrical work on the corridor, and I think some went to a bridge in CT. I seem to recall an amount of around a Billion going to Amtrak for various purposes, including wreck repairs.

Amtrak received about $1.3 billion in stimulus funds, which was spent on a backlog of security projects, maintenanace facility upgrades, bunch of smaller projects along with those you listed.

Of the $10.1 billion in HSIPR stimulus and FY10 grants, around $6 billion went to routes, corridors, equipment purchases that are part of the Amtrak system. I have not tried to add it up, but I figure there is at least another several billion of state matching, state funds, other federal funds (TIGER grants, etc) that will be spent on Amtrak routes and stations over the next few years. Only a small portion of those funds have been spent so far because it takes so long to get projects approved and contracts awarded these days. In addition, Amtrak is getting $420 million in direct funding from the Treasury to close out a bunch of expensive leases from the Warrington era over the next two FYs.

I think many people are overlooking all this when they fret about Amtrak funding. If Amtrak can survive the 2012 election aftermath and the current restructuring process reasonably well, their route system, stations, and equipment roster will be in much improved overall shape in 3-5 years.

 

[PRR 60]

The big cut for Amtrak funding in FY12 was the operating grant which went from FY11 $562 million to FY12 $466 million. The total capital and debt service grant was bumped up a little. The operating grant is what is driving the Amtrak personnel cuts. It becomes apparent when one reads the monthly, the various PIP, and financial reports that Amtrak's overhead and maintenance costs are pretty high.

Besides cutting the management and support staff size, the current moves to E-ticketing, electronic point of sale systems for the food services, and electronic reports and database integration into the maintenance system should cut costs. These are steps the airlines and other companies took some years ago, Amtrak is catching up here. Reducing maintenance cost and improving fleet reliability by ordering new equipment and upgrading the maintenance facilities is a major part of getting to a more competitive organization.

I agree with the possible threat of losing the California corridor services. Don't know if Caltrans is actively thinking along these lines, but if Amtrak's operating costs are too high, eventually Caltrans will have to consider their options. I would venture that the threat becomes greater when the new Surfliners are delivered. If CA has enough Surfliners to run all their trains, so Amtrak is not providing Amfleets, Horizons, or some Superliner coach cars to fill in the gaps, Caltrans is not dependent on the Amtrak national system to run their trains.

Although Amtrak was appropriated a $561.9 million operating subsidy for FY11, they only used $457.5 million of that subsidy (see the September, 2011 monthly report, page A1.2, PDF page 5). Since they ran the system using $457.5 million in operating subsidy in FY11, why would they have to cut back to run it with a $466 million subsidy in FY12? The cut in the operating subsidy appropriation, although often cited as the reason for the cost cutting, is not driving this cost cutting.

 

[PRR 60]

Interestingly, here is a portion of a message sent yesterday (12/7/11) from Joe Boardman to Amtrak employees concerning the cost cutting and the Amtrak Strategic Plan:

...Amtrak costs continue to climb with additional direct salaries and wages, and while some revenue from ridership is up, other revenue like federal operating assistance, is down and that is part of the reason we must make cuts and adjustments to improve our bottom line. But frankly, that is not the primary reason. We must operate a more competitive company and it must reflect the realities of the competitive environment today. We have global competitors coming into our backyard and convincing members of Congress, state and commuter officials and others that they can do a better job than Amtrak. We also are in competition for federal assistance across transportation modes — airlines through the Federal Aviation Administration; highways and the intercity buses through the Federal Highway Administration; transit, commuter rail and buses through the Federal Transit Administration. We also have to compete with the funding for U.S. DOT safety programs, which comes out of the same appropriation funding.

 

[jis]

Interestingly, here is a portion of a message sent yesterday (12/7/11) from Joe Boardman to Amtrak employees concerning the cost cutting and the Amtrak Strategic Plan:

...Amtrak costs continue to climb with additional direct salaries and wages, and while some revenue from ridership is up, other revenue like federal operating assistance, is down and that is part of the reason we must make cuts and adjustments to improve our bottom line. But frankly, that is not the primary reason. We must operate a more competitive company and it must reflect the realities of the competitive environment today. We have global competitors coming into our backyard and convincing members of Congress, state and commuter officials and others that they can do a better job than Amtrak. We also are in competition for federal assistance across transportation modes — airlines through the Federal Aviation Administration; highways and the intercity buses through the Federal Highway Administration; transit, commuter rail and buses through the Federal Transit Administration. We also have to compete with the funding for U.S. DOT safety programs, which comes out of the same appropriation funding.

I was about to post the same excerpt! It is good that for once Amtrak management is taking on the issue of actually being competitive. In general the voerall message from Boardman seems very reasonable to me, and reads almost like the message we got from our new CEO in the company that I work for, which is nowhere near as dire a strait as Amtrak, in that it has been continuously profitable in all its BUs for the last 10 or so years. The issue there is releasing resources to invest in more R&D, not just gussy up the bottom line.

Even though due to accounting system change allegedly, Amtrak has not been publishing RASM (Revenue per Available Seat Mile) and CASM (Cost per Available Seat Mile) data, one can estimate some of those from the data that is published, and what is truly alarming for the likes of the Amtrak Board and Mr. Boardman, is that in the last 6 months it appears that CASM has actually gone up faster than RASM. That is not a good trend, specially where the better performing airlines are managing to keep CASM in check and being able to increase RASM. Amtrak needs to be at the same place financially to survive long term. Passenger transportation companies ultimately have to get the right balance between CASM and RASM to survive long term. Noticed yesterday that the CEO of Southwest Airlines sent a missive to its employees pointing out that their Costs are out of line with their competition's and they will have to make amends to the way they do business to survive long term! And as you all know American is already into Ch 11 bankruptcy to try to bring their costs in line with revenues.

 

[afigg]

Although Amtrak was appropriated a $561.9 million operating subsidy for FY11, they only used $457.5 million of that subsidy (see the September, 2011 monthly report, page A1.2, PDF page 5). Since they ran the system using $457.5 million in operating subsidy in FY11, why would they have to cut back to run it with a $466 million subsidy in FY12? The cut in the operating subsidy appropriation, although often cited as the reason for the cost cutting, is not driving this cost cutting.

The Amtrak operating loss for FY11 of $457.5 million was less than the budget because of an additional $88.2 million in revenue above the budget. The total expenses were also $44.4 million more than budgeted due to increased salaries & wages, the category of other, and several other items. If Amtrak had not had a record year for ridership and ticket revenue, the operating loss for the year could have been in the $550 to $600 million range.

It is not hard to see external events that could cause the US economy to go into another recession - European and euro-zone financial crisis boils overs as bail-out deals collapse, major crisis in the Middle East causes oil prices to spike to $160 a barrel. This could cause ridership and revenue to drop, while diesel fuel costs go way up. Since Amtrak will keep the trains running for the time being keeping the costs up, Amtrak operating loss for the FY would go well above the $466 million. The $466 million provides little margin for bumps in the road.

The message that Congress is sending is that the operating losses have to be reduced. They are willing to provide capital, ADA compliance, and debt service funding at levels matching FY11, but the operating grant subsidy is a big high profile target for future cuts. The FY13 operating grant could be $400 million as the states are supposed to be providing subsidies for the state corridor services. Boardman and upper management are reading the political situation and know that they have to take steps to cut overhead and expenses. Hopefully while not hurting the revenue and service side of the business.

 

[afigg]

I was about to post the same excerpt! It is good that for once Amtrak management is taking on the issue of actually being competitive. In general the voerall message from Boardman seems very reasonable to me, ...

For those interested in seeing the full message from Boardman to the Amtrak employees, it is available at trainorders.com in the Passenger Trains section, posted 12/07/11 under Pearl Harbor Day advisory from Boardman. I am not a member of trainorders and not sure what the rules are here for posting direct links to another RR forum, so I'm an not going to post a link. People should be able to find it with this info.

Another relevant line in his message is "Before I get into the changes that I’m seeking, I want you to know that there are no planned or expected service reductions anywhere."

 

[CA RailFan]

In my opinion, the cost-cutting goal here is not meeting budget in 2012. Despite the belief to the contrary, Amtrak will receive more operating assistance in 2012 than they used in 2011. The problem is more fundamental. The central issue was touched upon in the reply above: the loss of the VRE operating contract (and later the loss of the Caltrain operating contract in the San Francisco Bay Area). Amtrak, for the first time, is facing competition – real competition. The loss of these contracts has opened their eyes to the fact that they are not competitive with other operators.

The big prize, and the big risk for Amtrak, is the operation of the intercity trains in California. There is nothing that prevents Caltrans from bidding out the operation of the Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin, or the Surfliner routes to a private vender. After the political and PR debacle with VRE, Amtrak threw everything they had into winning the Caltrain contract. They still lost badly. Caltrans already has a working relationship with the Union Pacific (arguably a better one than Amtrak), and there is no reason to think they could not do the same with BNSF. Large portions of the Surfliner route uses public lines. It is a genuine fear at Amtrak HQ that Caltrans will put operation of one or more of the California routes up for bid. If that were to happen today, Amtrak knows their cost structure is too high, their overheads are crushing, and they would lose. The California lines represent nearly 20% of all Amtrak ridership. The stakes are high.

Turning Amtrak from a bloated government entity into a nimble, competitive organization will not be easy. I think starting down that road is a primary goal with this round of cost cutting. From Amtrak’s perspective, the barbarians are at the gate, and they have to do something or they will eventually be relegated to being the operator of last resort for lines not attractive to anyone else.

In order for that to happen, the California Legislature and the Governor would have to change the law. State law currently states the Caltrans must contract with Amtrak to run the 3-state supported trains. Here is the exact language:

14035. (a) The department may enter into contracts with the

National Railroad Passenger Corporation under Section 403(b) of the

Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 to provide commuter and intercity

passenger rail services. The contracts may include, but are not

limited to, the extension of intercity passenger rail services or the

upgrading of commuter rail services.

(b) The department may contract with railroad corporations for the

use of tracks and other facilities and the provision of passenger

services on terms and conditions as the parties may agree.

© The department may construct, acquire, or lease, and improve

and operate, rail passenger terminals and related facilities that

provide intermodal passenger services along the following corridors:

the San Diego-Los Angeles-Santa Barbara corridor, the San

Francisco-San Jose-Monterey corridor, the Los Angeles-Riverside-San

Bernardino-Calexico corridor, the San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Reno

corridor, the Los

Angeles-Bakersfield-Fresno-Stockton-Sacramento-Oakland corridor, and

the Los Angeles-Santa Barbara-Oakland-Sacramento-Redding corridor.

(d) The department may enter into a contract with the National

Railroad Passenger Corporation to provide additional trains over the

San Joaquin route running between Bakersfield and Oakland and to

extend the existing route to Sacramento.

(e) The Transportation Agency of Monterey County may be a party to

any contract entered into under this section between the department

and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for passenger rail

service along the San Francisco-San Jose-Monterey corridor.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I was about to post the same excerpt! It is good that for once Amtrak management is taking on the issue of actually being competitive. In general the voerall message from Boardman seems very reasonable to me, ...

For those interested in seeing the full message from Boardman to the Amtrak employees, it is available at trainorders.com in the Passenger Trains section, posted 12/07/11 under Pearl Harbor Day advisory from Boardman. I am not a member of trainorders and not sure what the rules are here for posting direct links to another RR forum, so I'm an not going to post a link. People should be able to find it with this info.

Another relevant line in his message is "Before I get into the changes that Im seeking, I want you to know that there are no planned or expected service reductions anywhere."

Sounds like Mr. Boardman and 60 Mass have, for once, a plan in place which has been needed for several years! Of course with the current Political Situation, 2012 and beyond is a guessing game and a crapshoot! (come on, how many people with a Mind Seriously consider Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Mr. Bankrupt Billionaire/TV Show Host Donald Trump(et) SERIOUS Contneders for the Presidency! :wacko: )

Its good to see the statement about no Planned or Expected service Reductions anywhere, but as we all know, this leaves wiggle room "just in case" things change! (ie the Economy tasnks, Congress Meddles and the Waffle in the White House waffles!)If the T-Pubs happen to pull off a "Miracle Win". all bets are off and Canada here I come!!VIA will still be runnning ^_^ and they have Nationalk Health Care! No-where is it mentioned about any "New" or Re-instated or Expanded Service, we dreamers and Lovers of Amtrak will have to continue to discuss and propose these on this and other Train sites!

 

[Trogdor]

In order for that to happen, the California Legislature and the Governor would have to change the law. State law currently states the Caltrans must contract with Amtrak to run the 3-state supported trains. Here is the exact language:

14035. (a) The department may enter into contracts with the

National Railroad Passenger Corporation under Section 403(b) of the

Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 to provide commuter and intercity

passenger rail services. The contracts may include, but are not

limited to, the extension of intercity passenger rail services or the

upgrading of commuter rail services.

(b) The department may contract with railroad corporations for the

use of tracks and other facilities and the provision of passenger

services on terms and conditions as the parties may agree.

© The department may construct, acquire, or lease, and improve

and operate, rail passenger terminals and related facilities that

provide intermodal passenger services along the following corridors:

the San Diego-Los Angeles-Santa Barbara corridor, the San

Francisco-San Jose-Monterey corridor, the Los Angeles-Riverside-San

Bernardino-Calexico corridor, the San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento-Reno

corridor, the Los

Angeles-Bakersfield-Fresno-Stockton-Sacramento-Oakland corridor, and

the Los Angeles-Santa Barbara-Oakland-Sacramento-Redding corridor.

(d) The department may enter into a contract with the National

Railroad Passenger Corporation to provide additional trains over the

San Joaquin route running between Bakersfield and Oakland and to

extend the existing route to Sacramento.

(e) The Transportation Agency of Monterey County may be a party to

any contract entered into under this section between the department

and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for passenger rail

service along the San Francisco-San Jose-Monterey corridor.

First of all, nothing in the act says "must." It says "may."

Secondly, Caltrain (which is a commuter agency operating the San Francisco-San Jose service) already dumped Amtrak and went with a different operator. Section (b) seems to indicate that they can make agreements with other parties for the provision of passenger services.

Third, "Section 403(b) of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970" hasn't beeen in effect for 15 years. State-supported services have operated under different rules since the late 1990s.