Attachment A

Amtrak On-Time Performance for FY 2011
Year-to-Date Totals for October 2010 through December 2010

Test 1: Test 2:
v Higher Percent On Time Constant or
Indicates | YTD~- December 2010 vs. YTD -December | Better Effective
2009 Speed
both %
tests % Variance
were met Change | Proposed from Change in MPH
for OTP | ry11% from Target for FY from October 2008
Progress | OnTime | FYI¢ FYU Target Baseline
Northeast Corridor Service (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 95%)
Acela 84.1% 0.7% 93.6% (9.5%) (1.0)
Regional Service 76.6% 1.1% 91.6% | (15.0%) (0.6)

Other Corridor Services (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 90%. Minimam target proposed for FY 2010: 80%)

Adirondack v 78.3% 6.0% 85.0% (6.7%) 0.7
Blue Water v 68.8% 0.9% 85.0% | (16.2%) 2.5
Capitols v 95.5% 2.71% 86.9% 8.5% 17
Carolinian 59.2% 2.2% 85.0% _|_ (25.8%) (0.0)
Cascades TI0% (0.6%) 85.0% (8.0%) 0.5
Downeaster 84.8% | (1.2%) | 87.6% | (2.8%) (03)
Empire Service 83.9% | (1.5%) | 863% | (2.4%) 05
Ethan Allen Express 62.0% | (18.5%) | 85.0% | (23.0%) 04
Heartland Flyer 84.2% (7.6%) 85.0% (0.8%) 3.1
Hiawatha 86.2% (4.5%) 89.8% (3.6%) (0.4)
Hoosier State 59.4% _| (18.5%) | 85.0% | (25.6%) 2.2
Mini v 44.6% 16.5% 85.8% | (41.2%) 24
Mlinois Zephyr 88.6% (5.4%) 85.0% 3.5% 13
Keystone 86.2% | 2.5% | 89.1% | (2.8%) (0.6)
Lincoin Service 64.8% | (13.5%) | 85.0% | (20.2%) 2.1
Maple Leaf 67.4% _| (10.3%) | 85.0% | (17.6%) 0.8
Missouri Services 91.6% (0.8%) 85.0% 6.6% 8.2
Pacific Surfliner T18% Q.A%) 87.0% (9.1%) 0.1
Pennsylvanian 89.7% (1.6%) 86.3% 3.4% 0.0
Pere Marquette v 54.4% 5.5% 85.0% | (30.6%) 2.8
Piedmont v 78.8% 4.3% 86.9% (8.1%) 12
San Joaquins 91.4% (0.5%) 85.6% 5.8% 12
Vermonter 83.2% (2.7%) 85.0% (1.8%) 2.2
Wolverines 41.3% | (24.5%) | 85.0% | (43.7%) 22
Long Distance Trains (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 85%. Minimun: target proposed for F¥ 2010: 72.5%)
Auto Train v 90.2% 2.7% 80.4% 9.8% 0.7
California Zephyr 511% _| (13.6%) | 78.8% | (27.7%) 2.8
Capitol Limited 57.6% | (18.5%) | 78.8% | (21.1%) 1.6
Cardinal AL.8% | (27.8%) | 78.8% | (37.0%) 0.9
City of New Orleans 69.6% (6.0%) 85.0% | (15.4%) Ld
Coast Starlight 78.1% (7.7%) 78.8% (0.6%) 13
Crescent 16.6% (3.3%) 78.8% (2.1%) 0.0
Empire Builder 51.8% | (26.7%) | 82.7% | (30.9%) (0.1)
Lake Shore Limited 69.8% | (15.5%) | 78.8% (8.9%) Ld
Palmetto v 75.5% 3.0% 78.8% (3.2%) 0.2
Silver Meteor v 79.9% 5.4% 78.8% 1.1% 0.3
Silver Star 73.9% (6.5%) 78.8% (4.8%) 1.0
Southwest Chief 83.2% (7.1%) 80.0% 3.1% 0.4
Sunset Limited 89.9% (2.5%) 78.8% 1.1% 3.0
Texas Eagle 70.1% | (10.3%) | 78.8% (8.6%) 29



@

U.S. Department
of Transportation

Federal Railroad
Administration

Administrator 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

APR 15 201

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Chairman

Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Section 154 of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117) requires the Federal Railroad
Administrator to “submit a report on April 1, 2010, and quarterly reports thereafter, to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations detailing the Administrator's efforts at
improving the on-time performance of Amtrak intercity rail service operating on non-
Amtrak owned property. Such reports shall compare the most recent actual on-time
performance data to pre-established on-time performance goals that the Administrator
shall set for each rail service, identified by route. Such reports shall also include
whatever other information and data regarding the on-time performance of Amtrak trains
the Administrator deems to be appropriate.”

Iam pleased to submit the quarterly report in accordance with this requirement. I hope
that the information contained in the enclosed report will assist the Committee in its
work.

Identical letters have been sent to the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, and to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on
Appropriations.

oO
Joseph C. S:
Administrator

Enclosures


April 2011 Report on Amtrak On-Time Performance
Submitted by the Federal Railroad Administrator
Under Section 154 of Pub. L. 111-117

This report includes two sections: (1) an update on recent Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) efforts to catalyze and effect improvements in Amtrak’s on-time performance (OTP); and
(2) in keeping with the FRA’s January 1, 2011 OTP report, an update on Amtrak’s OTP results
and performance against FRA-established goals.

(1) OTP Highlights through March of Fiscal Year (FY) 2011

OTP Benefits of the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program: The FRA continues

to advance projects selected for funding under the FRA’s HSIPR Program.' Through the States,
this program is providing a total of approximately $10.6 billion (appropriations through FY
2010) for incremental upgrades to existing railroads as well as new high-speed rail systems, all
for the purpose of endowing the Nation with a transformative mode of intercity passenger
transportation in heavily populated corridors. As just one example, the FRA and State of
Washington, with the support of the freight host railroad BNSF, recently signed a $590 million
HSIPR grant for a series of investments on the Seattle-Portland corridor that will improve
reliability as a result of betterments to the existing rail and signal infrastructure, in addition to
providing capacity for additional frequencies, incremental speed increases, and reduced trip times
for the Amtrak Cascades service. Similar benefits will accrue from HSIPR investments in many
other corridors.

Publication of Metrics and Standards: Stemming from the May 12, 2010 publication of the final
Metrics and Standards for intercity passenger rail services, which FRA developed jointly with
Amtrak in compliance with Section 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
of 2008 (PRIA), FRA (with Amtrak’s assistance) has published the first quarterly Metrics and
Standards report, available on FRA’s webpage at http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/2165.shtml. This
report provides data on Amtrak’s financial, operational, and service quality performance during
the fourth quarter of FY 2010. A key feature of the operational information is the delay minutes
Amtrak experiences on the host railroads for each route.

Metrics and Standards data collected for the fourth quarter of FY 2010 illustrate the spectrum of
reliability Amtrak experiences across its system, with some Class I railroads exceeding the delay
minutes standard on most, if not all of the Amtrak trains they host. Next to be published in this
series will be the quarterly Metrics and Standards report with data collected for the first quarter
of FY 2011.

Implementation of the Metrics and Standards:
Systemwide, Amtrak has been working with the host railroads to ensure that they are managing

intercity passenger rail performance to the newly implemented Metrics and Standards. On the
Southeast Corridor in particular, operations of the Amtrak Silver Star, Silver Meteor, and

‘Complete lists of selected investments are available at: http://www. fra.dot.gow/rpd/Downloads/hsiprapplist.pdf and
http://www. fra.dot.gov/rpd/downloads/Summary_of_FY 10_Selected_Projects_1010.pdf—for selections under the
American Recover and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Fiscal Year 2010 appropriations, respectively.


Palmetto on host CSX met the standard for host-responsible delays in the fourth quarter of FY
2010. As such, Amtrak and CSX are focusing increasingly on improvements to the Carolinian
and Northeast Regional services. In addition, Amtrak and CSX continue to discuss the removal
of extra recovery time that was temporarily added to the Auto Train schedule in FY 2007.

The FRA believes that over the long term, the ongoing reporting of the quarterly Metrics and
Standards, with their augmented detail, coupled with related provisions in other sections of the
PRIA, will provide additional impetus for the host railroads and Amtrak to emphasize their
collaborative efforts toward OTP improvement.

(2) Goals and Route Performance

Attachment A contains OTP statistics for all Amtrak routes for the first quarter of FY 2011. As
the attachment illustrates, a fifth of the routes (9) had improvements in OTP (in terms of both
improved percent on time and no decrease in effective speed) through December of FY 2011. Of
those routes experiencing OTP improvement, a total of three (one corridor-type and two long-
distance trains) are meeting, or are surpassing, their FRA-defined OTP target for FY 2011. By
contrast, four-fifths of the routes showed declining OTP, declining effective speed, or both.

The OTP across the entire Amtrak system through December FY 2011 was 79.5 percent, which
is a two percentage-point decrease from the previous year. This decline in systemwide
performance is largely attributable to the OTP experience of the long-distance trains, which
declined by 10 percentage-points in the first quarter of FY 2011 compared to the previous year
(for an average endpoint OTP of 69.8 percent). Further highlighting this downturn in OTP, 80
percent of the long-distance trains have experienced a year-over-year decline in on-time arrivals
through December FY 2011.

Amtrak’s short distance routes outside the NEC (i.e. “Other Corridor Services”) experienced a
smaller decline in OTP than the long-distance trains during the first quarter of the fiscal year (for
a year-over-year decline of 2.2 percentage-points) and had an average endpoint OTP of 80.6
percent during the first quarter of FY 2011. However, similar to the long-distance trains, almost
80 percent of the short distance routes had year-over-year declines in on-time arrivals through
December of this fiscal year. With freight rail traffic levels increasing in conjunction with the
improving economy, additional focus and cooperation will be needed between Amtrak and the
freight railroads to safeguard and improve the OTP of intercity passenger rail operations.