Attachment A

Amtrak On-Time Performance: FY 2008
Fiscal Year-to-Date (YTD) Totals through July 2008

Test 2:
Constant or
Test 1: Better
¥ Indicates Higher Percent On Time Effective
YTD - July 2008 vs. YTD - July 2007 Speed
both tests Change in
were met % Proposed | % Variance MPH from
for OTP | Fy08 % Change Target | fromFY08 | October 2007
Progress | On Time | from FY07_| for FY08 Target Baseline
Northeast Corridor Service (Goat proposed for FY 2012: 95%)
Acela 83.5% (4.4%) 89.2% (5.7%) (0.5)
Regional Service 15.7% (2.3%) 81.4% (5.7%) (0.3)
Other Corridor Services (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 90%. Minimum target proposed for FY 2008: 70%)
Adirondack v 44.9% 33.0% 70.0% (25.1%) 18
Blue Water 29.0% (4.4%) 70.0% (41.0%) 0.0
Capitols v 84.8% 11.2% 71.1% TAG 0.8
Carolinian v 38.1% 10.3% 70.0% GB1.9%) LS
Cascades 65.1% 7.8% 70.0% (4.9%) (1.3)
| Downeaster TLT% | 13%) [80.4% (8.7%) {  (O8)
Empire Service 73.0% 0.7%. 75.4% (2.4%) 1)
Ethan Allen Express 33.6% (4.0%) 120.0% (36.4%) 0.5
Heartland Flyer v 54.1%} 25.4% 10.0% 5.9%) 24
Hiawatha 87.0% (4%) 89.3% (2.3%) (0.7)
Hoosier State v 43.0% 3.6% 70.0% (27.0%) 0.3
Mi ae 50.3% | (20.5%) | 73.2% | (22.9%) (2.0)
Illinois Zephyr v 78.3%. 14.8% 10.2% 8.1% 13
Keystone v 87.7% 3.7% 86.3% 1.4% 0.5
Lincoln Service 41.7% 1.1% 70.0% (28.3%) (0.3)
Maple Leaf v 43.6% 7.6% 70.0% (26.4%) 09
Missouri Services 19.2% C1.1%) 70.0% (50.8%) (0.2)
Pacific Surfliner v 76.6%. 0.4% 77.8% U.2%) 0.0
Pennsylvanian v 88.2% 17.3% 75.2% 13.0% 1.0
Pere Marquette 24.6% 2.4% 10.0% (45.4%) (0.4)
Piedmont 73.9% (0.4%) 77.5% (3.6%) (0.1)
San Joaquins v 84.0% 16.6% 72.4% 11.6% 1.6
Vermonter 31.6% (37.0%) 70.0% (38.4%) (1.0)
Wolverines 28.4% (5.5%) 70.0% (41.6%) (0.5)
Long Distance Trains (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 85%. Minimum target proposed for FY 2008: 60%)
Auto Train v 79.8% 215% 66.7% 13.1% Ll
California Zephyr v 35.1% 30.5% 60.0% (24.9%) 3.1
Capitol Limited v 35.8% 18.1% 60.0% (24.2%) L8
Cardinal 34.1% 3.6%) 60.0% (25.9%) (1.0)
City of New Orleans 66.9% | (19.8%) | 85.0% (8.1%) (0.8)
Coast Starlight ¥ 65.6% 45.4% 60.0% 5.6% 14
Crescent v 68.0% 27.1% 60.0% 8.0% 09
Empire Builder 66.7% (5.9%) 75.1% (9.0%) (0.2)
Lake Shore Limited v 57.6% 27.5% 60.0% (2.4%) 2.6
Palmetto ¥ 49.8% 24.3% 60.0% 0.2%) 3.2
Silver Meteor v 65.4% 24.5% 60.0% 5.4% 18
Silver Star v 42.3% 18.1% 60.0% 7.7%) 0.5
Southwest Chief. v 64.9% 3.7%. 65.1% (0.2%) 0.0
Sunset Limited v 22.6% 7.6% 60.0% GB74%) L4
Texas Eagle 19.2% (8.8%) 60.0% (40.8%) (0.8)



speed) in FY 2008 through July. Of those routes experiencing OTP improvement, eight have met
or surpassed the FY 2008 OTP target.

In terms of the 14 routes identified thus far for performance improvement plans, nine
experienced an improvement in OTP through July FY 2008. Among the group, the Carolinian
and Adirondack were the only corridor-type routes (out of six) with improved OTP, while the
City of New Orleans was the only long distance train (out of eight) with a decline in OTP, from
its relatively high performance base in FY 2007. There are two trains within this group, the Auto
Train and Silver Meteor, which have met or surpassed their modest FY 2008 OTP targets.

Looking ahead, the FRA will continue to analyze and refine its methodologies and data
presentations regarding OTP, in cooperation with Amtrak and other stakeholders to the extent
possible. We will also continue to actively pursue our efforts to drive OTP improvements
through joint actions by the freight railroads and Amtrak.



@

U.S. Department Administrator 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
of Transportation Washington, DC 20590
Federal Railroad

Administration

1S ong

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd
Chairman

Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Appropriations Act, 2008 (Division K of Pub. L. 110-161) requires the Federal Railroad
Administrator to “submit a report, 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.”

I am pleased to submit the third 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.

Enclosures


October 1, 2008

Third Report on Amtrak On-Time Performance
Submitted by the Federal Railroad Administrator
Under Division K of Public Law 110-161

This report includes two sections: (1) an update on recent Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) efforts to catalyze improvements in Amtrak’s on-time performance (OTP); and (2) in
keeping with our July 14, 2008 OTP report, an update on Amtrak OTP results and performance
against FRA established goals.

(1) Update: Recent OTP Improvement Actions

Southeast Corridor. Amtrak continues to benefit from reduced freight train interference as a
result of the Southeast (I-95) Corridor Performance Improvement Plan, which the FRA required
of Amtrak management as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Grant Agreement between the FRA
During FY 2008 through July, C. i > delays affecting _
rridor long distance trains fell to wi rain miles, thus
contributing to OTP improvements on these routes. The Auto Train’ 's endpoint OTP has
improved by 21.5 percentage points year-over-year, while the OTP of the other Southeast
Corridor long distance trains has improved by 19.3 percentage points. Further OTP
improvements on the Southeast Corridor will continue to depend on CSX’s ability to reduce slow
order delays, which are 20 percent higher than a year ago. At present, slow orders along the
corridor amount to 3.5 miniites of delay per 100 train miles.

California Zephyr. The Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Amtrak continue to implement their
agreement reached last year to decrease slow orders on the California Zephyr. Although the
slow orders on the route have been reduced, Amtrak’s OTP is still below the agreed-upon
standard as a result of freight train interference in Colorado. The eastbound Zephyr in particular
has been affected by these delays as its current average lateness at stations in Colorado (64
minutes) is twice as high as the average lateness at stations from California through Utah (32
minutes).

Additional Performance Improvement Programs. In keeping with Secretary Mary E. Peters’
request of April 16, 2008 (described in our May 8, 2008 OTP report), Amtrak and the host
railroads have refined the list of routes identified for OTP improvement as follows:

= CSX: Southeast Corridor (the Carolinian, Auto Train, Palmetto, Silver Meteor,
and Silver Star - an ongoing initiative, described above)

* Norfolk Southern (NS): Chicago—Porter, Indiana (a segment affecting the Blue
Water, Pere Marquette, Wolverine, Capitol Limited, and Lake Shore Limited)

. Canadian Pacific (CP): Adirondack (Schenectady, New York—Rouses Point, New
York)!

= Canadian National (CN): Chicago—Carbondale, Illinois (the //ini and a portion
of the City of New Orleans)

' Other than the CP's Schenectady-Rouses Point segment, the Adirondack's New York City-Montreal route makes
use of other host railroads.


= Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF): California Zephyr (the Chicago-Denver
portion of the route”)

= UP: Still in negotiations; the Coast Starlight and Chicago-St. Louis corridor are
among the possible selections.

To further advance the Secretary’s initiative, Amtrak, FRA staff, and management
representatives of the host railroads (up to the Vice President/Executive Vice President level)
convened in Washington, D.C. on August 19, 2008 for a discussion of procedures and timelines
for Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) for the identified routes. The PIPs are foreseen as
collaborative ongoing efforts, between Amtrak and the host railroads, to identify attainable (1)
operational improvements, e.g., dispatching changes, (2) slow order reductions, and (3) future
possibilities for capital investments, in that order, together with their respective impacts on route
performance. Periodic meetings wilt occur, both bilaterally between Amtrak and host railroads,
as well as jointly with all stakeholders, to track the development and implementation of the PIPs
and work through any needed adjustments. The action items identified in the PIPs will help
Amtrak and the host railroads work toward the FRA‘s Fiscat Year 2012 OF P targets of 95% for~
the Northeast Corridor (NEC), 90% for other corridor services, and 85% for long distance routes.
Thus far, Amtrak has had initial bilateral PIP meetings with host railroads CSX, BNSF, and CP,
and anticipates meetings with the remaining hosts in the near future.

The intensifying activity in the realm of OTP is beginning to show encouraging results across the
Amtrak system, particularly among the long distance routes. In FY 2008 through July, the
overall OTP for Amtrak’s long distance routes improved by 14.4 percentage points over the
same period in the previous year. While these long distance routes still have a meager average
OTP of 54.6 percent, the significant year-over-year improvement is promising as an overall
gauge of the freight railroads’ and Amtrak’s collective response to heightened Congressional,
FRA, and public interest in Amtrak OTP.

OTP Report by the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General. On
September 8, 2008, the Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) submitted to the
Appropriations Committees a report entitled “Root Causes of Amtrak Train Delays” (OIG
Report Number CR-2008-076). Examining in depth the reasons for the unsatisfactory
timekeeping that characterizes so many of Amtrak’s routes, the report constitutes a useful
addition to the literature on intercity passenger rail OTP. The FRA’s detailed comments on the
OIG’s recommendations appear in an appendix to their report and are summarized, with the
OIG’s responses, on pages 26 through 28. The report is accessible from the OIG’s web site,
www.oig.dot.gov.

(2) Goals and Route Performance

Attachment A contains updated OTP statistics for all routes in keeping with the approach
presented in the FRA’s July 14, 2008 OTP report. In terms of route performance in FY 2008 to
date versus the same period in the prior year, there have been no significant changes in route
performance since our last report. As the attachment illustrates, just over half the routes (22) had
improvements in OTP (in terms of both improved percent on time and no decrease in effective

* On the segment of the California Zephyr between Denver and the San Francisco Bay Area, the UP is the host
railroad: OTP efforts on the UP segment are described further above.