Amtrak 2014 Budget Request

According to Bloomberg:

Amtrak, the U.S. intercity passenger railroad supported by taxpayers, today will ask Congress for 16 percent less in operating assistance for next year after recording its smallest annual loss in 38 years.

Amtrak will seek $373 million in operating support, compared with the $443 million it’s getting this year. It didn’t specify how much it will seek for capital improvements. The Washington-based railroad will submit to Congress today its budget request for its 2014 fiscal year, said Steve Kulm, a spokesman.

Click to expand...

You can read the whole article here.

Good political ploy on their part. Get the news of a requested reduction in the operating grant out as the lead news for the day, then follow it up with a large request for capital grant funding. If Amtrak is submitting their FY14 budget request to Congress today, the cover letter and documents will likely get posted to the website in the next day or two. Curious to see how much they ask for total capital, Gateway, rolling stock.

It's a good political move, I agree. It's also probably necessary...if Amtrak's operating situation gets too far outside its operating grant (even on the "good" side), that's probably going to be embarrassing in its own right.

Besides they just offloaded a bunch of costs onto the states for 2014 per PRIIA Section 209. It would be absurd to claim that in spite of that they need more or even the same operating subsidy as the previous year. So it is not like they could get away with asking for equal or more anyway.

Well, did not have wait very long to get a breakdown and summary of the FY14 budget request. Amtrak has posted a news release with the budget request letter to Congress. It answers a question I was going to post on how much in additional subsidy funds in total are they expecting from the states in FY14: $85 million. That will cover the drop to $373 million. Which Amtrak will not get, they are probably aiming for $350 million or so, because that is enough of a drop from FY13 to temper the House Republicans.

The letter provides what the budget numbers are for FY13 after the CR,budget bumps, Sandy Operating grant relief, and the sequestration: Operating Grant: $473 million, General Capital $582M, ADA Program $50M, NEC Gateway $15M, Debt Service $258M (ok, which looks to have been subject to sequestration), total $1,378M.

The breakdown of the FY14 budget request is as follows:

Operating Grant: $373 million

General Capital: $1,271 million

ADA Program: $75 million

Rolling Stock Acquisition: $356 million

Equipment Lease Buyouts: $196 million (previously covered by the US Treasury)

NEC Gateway: $167 million

Debt Service: $212 million

Total: $2,650 million.

Thoughts?

What exactly is the rolling stock cash supposed to be for if Viewliners and ACS-64 are already funded via other means?

Paulus said:

What exactly is the rolling stock cash supposed to be for if Viewliners and ACS-64 are already funded via other means?

Click to expand...

Remember there's an option for another 70 single-level cars from CAF. Since the 25 diners are all going to replace Heritage diners, there's none at all for the least little expansion, like a daily Cardinal or a diner on the Adirondack, or have a diner to split off at Jacksonville and run down the FEC to Miami with a few other cars, etc. So figure at least $150 million for that 70-car option.

And we're nearing the season for a fleet renewal program version 4.0 or something like that. One of these days they need to actually order some cars. The latest plan, subject to change, was to order 100 single-level coaches a year for six years or more and 100 bi-level coaches a year. So could we get 100 coaches, one or the other, at $2 million each, or $200 million?

Paulus said:

What exactly is the rolling stock cash supposed to be for if Viewliners and ACS-64 are already funded via other means?

Click to expand...

Acela II pre-acquisition? For a CAF option order? Start of Amfleet II replacements? Start of P-42 replacement process? The letter to Congress does not get that specific. There will be more information in the submitted FY14 budget document and the next update of the Fleet Strategy Plan when they are released.

The letter to Congress has a discussion of the need for a more stable year to year funding source. This is obviously tied into the Amtrak re-authorization bill as Boardman is making his case for a dedicated multi-year operating and capital funding approach, something like the Highway Trust Fund. How far that concept gets with the House remains to be seen.

This article also appeared on bloomberg today (Note that it is the same reporter for both articles):

"Amtrak, in a letter today to Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker John Boehner, asked for $2.1 billion in U.S. funds for its capital budget and $212 million for debt service for the 2014 fiscal year. In the 2013 fiscal year, Amtrak is receiving $905 million for those expenses."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-27/amtrak-asks-u-s-for-2-1-billion-to-buy-trains-improve-tracks.html

On the Viewliner IIs:

Actually, those 25 diners are replacing an active roster of about 20 (15 in use, 5 spares), so you're getting a net expansion of 3-4. Basically, there's room in there for a daily Cardinal to get a diner. The breakdown at the moment is:
Meteor (4)

Star (4)
Crescent (4)

LSL (3)

25 ordered plus 8400 gives 26; accounting for spares, you've got at least 3-4 more that could be used.

On the rolling stock acquisitions: That looks almost too big for an Acela II order startup. I'm thinking it's some mix of Viewliner II options and something else.

On the operating request:
What someone needs to be doing is pointing out "Within the operating grant of [insert year here], we could add the following services if we had the equipment and access..."

For a quick thought, per Amtrak's 2009 reports, $70m gets you:
-The NCH ($39m)
-The CONO to ORL ($12m)
-Daily Cardinal ($2m)
-Desert Wind ($15m)

Or you could exchange the Pioneer in the place of the NCH ($33m vs. $39m), or arrange some other mix-and-match operations as politics might dictate. To put that number in perspective, for the same operating request as last year you could "add service on four trains serving twenty four states and the District of Columbia" (for the NCH option, assuming you count all the states on the CZ in the formula as getting extra cars due to the run-through). I think that makes a nice NARP soundbyte for an easily digested and relatively quickly achievable proposal, don't you?

Anderson said:

On the Viewliner IIs:Actually, those 25 diners are replacing an active roster of about 20 (15 in use, 5 spares), so you're getting a net expansion of 3-4. Basically, there's room in there for a daily Cardinal to get a diner.

...

25 ordered plus 8400 gives 26; accounting for spares, you've got at least 3-4 more that could be used.

On the rolling stock acquisitions: That looks almost too big for an Acela II order startup. I'm thinking it's some mix of Viewliner II options and something else.

Click to expand...

The $356 million may not be to be all spent in FY14, but to establish a baseline grant level for rolling stock. If Amtrak could get Congress to agree to provide $350 million a year, say, for the next 6-8 years for equipment acquisition, that could be leveraged to buy much of what they need to. Combine the baseline grants with capital charges from the eastern states, operating surplus from the Acelas and Regionals, and the remainder with loans, FRA RRIF or commercial loans, and acquire so many units per year. The goal would be to keep the debt load at manageable levels. We will see what their plans are to deal with the challenge of funding the large amount of new equipment they need. Just not feasible to ask Congress to provide a billion plus a year for rolling stock at the peak order levels laid out in the V3.1 Fleet Strategy plan.

Anderson said:

For a quick thought, per Amtrak's 2009 reports, $70m gets you:-The NCH ($39m)

-The CONO to ORL ($12m)

-Daily Cardinal ($2m)

-Desert Wind ($15m)

Click to expand...

Problem is the considerable track upgrade and station costs for restoring services like the NCH, New Orleans to Orlando, DW. And lack of Superliner equipment. On the operating grant, what will be critical is what the grant funding level stabilizes at after FY14.

Obviously Amtrak is not going to get the total amount they are requesting because they never do. If Amtrak could get the $196 million for lease buyouts back to direct transfers from Treasury so it goes off the visible budget line, and ends up with a total appropriations funding of $1.6 to $1.8 billion, that would realistically be a win given the political situation.

Anderson said:

On the Viewliner IIs:Actually, those 25 diners are replacing an active roster of about 20 (15 in use, 5 spares), so you're getting a net expansion of 3-4. Basically, there's room in there for a daily Cardinal to get a diner. The breakdown at the moment is:

Meteor (4)

Star (4)

Crescent (4)

LSL (3)

25 ordered plus 8400 gives 26; accounting for spares, you've got at least 3-4 more that could be used.

On the rolling stock acquisitions: That looks almost too big for an Acela II order startup. I'm thinking it's some mix of Viewliner II options and something else.

On the operating request:

What someone needs to be doing is pointing out "Within the operating grant of [insert year here], we could add the following services if we had the equipment and access..."

For a quick thought, per Amtrak's 2009 reports, $70m gets you:

-The NCH ($39m)

-The CONO to ORL ($12m)

-Daily Cardinal ($2m)

-Desert Wind ($15m)

Or you could exchange the Pioneer in the place of the NCH ($33m vs. $39m), or arrange some other mix-and-match operations as politics might dictate. To put that number in perspective, for the same operating request as last year you could "add service on four trains serving twenty four states and the District of Columbia" (for the NCH option, assuming you count all the states on the CZ in the formula as getting extra cars due to the run-through). I think that makes a nice NARP soundbyte for an easily digested and relatively quickly achievable proposal, don't you?

Click to expand...

I think it would be more useful to have additional trains over the existing routes before adding more routes to the network. One wonders just how much more ridership there would be if there simply were more trains along a given route. The other thing I would add to the list would be upgrading the tracks through Madison, WI, and then sending the Builder through Madison -- though I would have to figure out some way of getting the funding past WI State Legislature members of a certain party.

WICT: I agree that "doubling up" is a major priority. Honestly, off the top of my head, the biggest candidates for an additional train are:
-The LSL

-The Cap

-The ex-Broadway

-The Builder (though the NCH would duplicate key parts of the route and likely relieve some stress on others)

Certain segments of the Zephyr also cry out for an additional train, but SLC-RNO in particular doesn't. However, with that said IMHO the Pioneer or Desert Wind could be used to "backdoor" an additional CHI-DEN train into service (and thereby reduce or eliminate the "City of Everywhere" syndrome that the combined train often suffered).

WICT106 said:

I think it would be more useful to have additional trains over the existing routes before adding more routes to the network. One wonders just how much more ridership there would be if there simply were more trains along a given route. The other thing I would add to the list would be upgrading the tracks through Madison, WI, and then sending the Builder through Madison -- though I would have to figure out some way of getting the funding past WI State Legislature members of a certain party.

Click to expand...

Adding additional daily LD trains over the existing western routes would require a lot more from the annual operating subsidy. Just not going to happen in the near term (which I mean 5-10 years). LD expansions that have a good chance are a daily Cardinal, maybe a restored Three Rivers/BL if the Pennsylvanian to Capitol Limited run-through cars are a success, perhaps a daily Sunset Limited after UP finishes double tracking LA to El Paso, and maybe some NYP to FL expansion. It will take a major political push by the states on the route to restore the SL route east of New Orleans.

The more viable approach to "double" up LD routes is state supported corridor service over a portion of the route. The Virginia Regional Lynchburger is the prime example of this. The criteria should be large enough cities to support it, competitive trip times over the route, and less than a circa 12 hour route.

In California, looks like the Coast Daylight from San Francisco to LA is going to happen in 3-4 years. California is also studying a LA to Coachella Valley/Palms Springs corridor service. The prospects of a twice daily corridor service over that route are more tentative, but CA has money for passenger rail and a production line starting up for corridor bi-level cars.

In the Midwest, Minnesota may be willing to fund a Chicago to Twin Cities corridor service. They will have a nice new station with a new light rail line connected to it in the next several years. Any money they put into track and capacity upgrades on the route in MN and WI will also benefit the EB.

Another Midwest route that is viable is a Chicago to Cleveland daily corridor service. The western end is getting upgrades in Chicago and Indiana. But the current political leadership in Ohio makes it pretty hostile territory for state supported passenger rail for the time being.

If Florida, the FEC and All Aboard Florida can work out a deal for a Jacksonville to Miami corridor service - whether it is run by Amtrak or not - that should open the FEC for a Silver Star split at Jacksonville with a fast route to Miami.

There are other possible corridor services over portions of LD train routes, which have been discussed here many times. And will be again. But they have to have a state government that is willing to fund the service in annual operating subsidy and track improvements. That puts some states into the No category for now such as OH, IN, GA, SC, Arizona.

BTW, the February 2013 Monthly report has been posted. Amtrak is getting the MPR's out sooner. Someone here may want to post a summary...

On it!

None of this is likely to happen. Amtrak is in the business of moving passengers in the NEC, and long distance trains do not fit in that picture. Recall that Mr. Boardman stated service quality issues such as slow orders and capacity constraints on the NEC were likely with the reduced funding proposed by the house? Don't think for a minute that would happen BEFORE long distance trains suffered cuts. Cuts. Not expansion. I'd love to see the return of the Broadway, the Pioneer and Desert Wind, a Coast Daylight, all of this. But it's a foamer pipe dream. Amtrak is, as always, in its own way to protect their electric trains and the long distance trains will either continue as-is (if we're lucky) or suffer cuts as they always seem to every decade or so. That being said, it's been a while since we lost some train, hasn't it?

RR Realist said:

None of this is likely to happen. Amtrak is in the business of moving passengers in the NEC, and long distance trains do not fit in that picture.

Click to expand...

While Amtrak is certainly most focused on the NEC, the long distance trains are also a vital part of their business picture, especially with their relations with Congress. Amtrak would have much less political support if they only served the NEC. Right now they serve to some extent a large part of the US, and thus are able to gain support from Congressional members.

I don't see LD trains being shrunk anytime soon. That said, I also don't see any expansion soon (though I would love to see it.)

The proposed Coast Daylight service is not an Amtrak-led LD service expansion. Rather, it is a California-proposed addition to the state-supported train network. So, while the return of the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers, Pioneer, Desert Wind, and others may be quite unlikely (without some sort of state support), the Coast Daylight should not be grouped with them.

There really is no 'Amtrak-led' service expansion plan. Regardless of which trains are mentioned in the same sentence, expansion of long distance services doesn't even make the bottom of Amtrak's list. That's the point, and though its disappointing, it's a fact. We won't see anything new anytime soon, if ever. The railroading adage is, once it's gone it's gone for good.

You should try reading the Performance Improvement Plans. Plenty of LD service expansion discussion in them.

Placates PRIIA, nothing more.

You have a point if nothing from the plans ever actually happened.

Since they have, your point is invalid.

Ryan said:

You should try reading the Performance Improvement Plans. Plenty of LD service expansion discussion in them.

Click to expand...

Might you have link(s) to such a document/report/plan you can post here?

There's a bunch of them, check the "Reports" section of Amtrak's website:

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245669222

Thanks.