Amtrak California Zephyr Improvement Plan

PRIIA Section 210 FY10 Performance Improvement Plan

California Zephyr

September 2010

Cover: The California Zephyr travels through the sloping mountains of Spanish Fork Canyon, Utah.

TThhee CCaarrddiinnaall

PRIIA Section 210 Report California Zephyr Performance Improvement Plan (PIP)

September 2010 Section 210 Core Team Marketing & Product Development Operations Policy & Development Finance Government Affairs

This page intentionally left blank

California Zephyr PRIIA Section 210 Performance Improvement Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

PRIIA Overview ............................................................................................................... 1

II.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ 3 A. Background.................................................................................................................... 4 B. The Customer Service Excellence Program............................................................... 6 C. Implementation ............................................................................................................. 7 D. PRIIA Section 210 Performance Improvement Plan Criteria.................................. 8 E. Financial and Operating Measures............................................................................. 9

III.

The Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) ................................................................ 10 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 10 B. History .......................................................................................................................... 10

IV.

The Customer Service Excellence Program................................................................ 11 A. Goals and Measures.................................................................................................... 13 B. Customer Service Excellence Program Costs.......................................................... 15 C. Marketing Support Plan............................................................................................. 15

V.

Measuring Customer Service with Performance Metrics ........................................ 17

VI.

Other options reviewed during the PRIIA process................................................... 20

VII.

On-Time Performance (OTP) ....................................................................................... 22

VIII.

Implementation .............................................................................................................. 22

IX.

Appendix A: PRIIA Section 207 Performance Metrics ............................................ 23

X.

Appendix B: The Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) Process.......................... 24

XI.

Appendix C: Customer Complaint History (FY08 – FY10)..................................... 25

XII.

Appendix D: Customer Experience Research........................................................... 28

XIII.

Appendix E: CSPMI Dashboard and Sample Reports............................................. 32

XIV.

Appendix F: Financials – Last 12 months.................................................................. 35

XV.

Appendix G: Schedule.................................................................................................. 36

This page intentionally left blank


I.

PRIIA Overview

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) is transforming the way that Amtrak manages and reports on its intercity passenger rail services. Two key sections of PRIIA are driving this change: 

Section 207 lays the groundwork for a series of comprehensive new financial, operating, customer service, and other service quality metrics with aggressive standards that Amtrak must achieve by FY 2014 – it also states that Amtrak must report quarterly to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) on achievements. Section 207 metrics include:  Financial / Operating o Cost Recovery o Loss per Passenger-mile o Passenger-miles per Train-mile  On-Time Performance (OTP) and Train Delays o Effective Speed o Endpoint OTP o All Stations OTP o Host and Amtrak Train Delays  Customer Satisfaction o Overall o Personnel o Communications o On-Board o Station o Sleeping Car Experience Please see Appendix A for a complete list of the metrics and the standards.



Section 210 requires Amtrak to embark on a comprehensive program to improve its longdistance services. Starting in FY10 with the five worst performing routes, Amtrak formed cross-departmental Performance Improvement Teams to explore every aspect of the routes’ operations. By the end of the fiscal year, Amtrak will make recommendations based on indepth analyses of the long-distance routes in nine key areas. These areas are:  On-time performance  Scheduling, frequency, routes, and stops  Feasibility of restructuring the route into connected corridor services  Performance-related equipment changes and capital improvements  Onboard amenities and service including food, first class, and sleeping car service  State or other non-Federal financial contributions  Improving financial performance  Anticipated Federal funding of operating and capital costs  Other aspects of Amtrak’s long-distance passenger rail routes that affect the financial, competitive, and functional performance of service on Amtrak’s longdistance passenger rail routes.

-1-


FY11

FY10

CR

Avg.

Auto Train

84%

82%

88%

84%

Empire Builder

82%

69%

66%

72%

Southwest Chief

79%

65%

53%

66%

City of New Orleans

78%

62%

53%

65%

Coast Starlight

79%

61%

49%

63%

Silver Meteor

74%

66%

49%

63%

Crescent

76%

67%

46%

63%

Palmetto

72%

52%

61%

62%

Lake Shore Ltd.

70%

58%

44%

57%

Silver Star

75%

45%

43%

54%

Capitol Ltd.

77%

33%

48%

53%

California Zephyr

77%

30%

45%

51%

Texas Eagle

70%

18%

46%

44%

Cardinal

66%

31%

35%

44%

Sunset Ltd.

75%

27%

24%

42%

Top Third

OTP

Middle Third

FY12

CSI

Bottom Third

Amtrak ranked the long-distance routes using a composite score, which includes customer satisfaction (CSI), on-time performance (OTP), and cost recovery (CR). Fiscal year 2008 is the performance baseline for the scores. The following chart shows Amtrak’s ranking of long-distance services for purposes of PRIIA Section 210. The dates at the left show the years in which Amtrak will perform the work.

The program commenced in FY 2010 with analysis of the five worst performing routes (the bottom third) and will continue for the next two years with the middle third and top third of the routes. Amtrak must publish the Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) on its web site, and begin implementing the plans thereafter.

-2-


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Glenwood Springs

California Zephyr Current Route Map

This report describes the recommendations of the California Zephyr Performance Improvement Team. The California Zephyr provides daily coach and sleeper service between Chicago and Emeryville, California (San Francisco area). The train operates through some of the most scenic areas in the American west, most notably through canyons and the Colorado Rockies. The California Zephyr is Amtrak’s longest currently operated route, serving 34 communities, covering 2,438 miles in 51 hours and 20 minutes, and moving more than 345,000 passengers in FY09 (See Appendix G for current schedule). From an operational perspective, it is also Amtrak’s most challenging long distance route. The California Zephyr serves a diverse set of markets between Chicago and Emeryville; nearly three quarters of the passengers are spread among dozens of smaller markets each with less than 3% of the total FY09 California Zephyr Ridership Breakdown by Market ridership. Five larger markets served the 2.7% remaining 25% of the 2.4% Chicago-Denver riders and each has Denver-Glenwood Springs 2.3% unique characteristics. Reno-Sacramento 2.2% 3.1% Chicago-Emeryville The largest, Chicago – 2.0% 4.3% Emeryville-Reno Denver, accounting for Chicago-Sacramento 4.3% Denver-Grand Junction about 9% of the ridership, 74.3% Chicago-Osceola frequently sells out 4.9% 62.7% Chicago-Omaha Denver-Emeryville during the peak summer Others (under 2%/mkt) months. To ease the 9.1% capacity constraints Amtrak adds an additional sleeper when equipment is available. Because of Glenwood Springs, Colorado’s proximity to many of Colorado’s popular ski destinations, Amtrak must limit sales in its second most popular

-3-


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Denver-Glenwood Springs market to ensure availability to longer distance travelers. Reno, Nevada is also a popular destination for California travelers, especially during the winter months, when driving can be dangerous. Like Glenwood Springs, Amtrak limits sales in these markets, because demand outstrips supply. Only 4% of the ridership travels end-to-end between Chicago and Emeryville, which is the route’s fourth largest market.

A. Background In early 2010, Amtrak formed a cross-departmental team to develop a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for the California Zephyr. This effort included front-line employees from all crafts whose work supports this train, as well as management representatives from eight departments. While operationally challenging, the California Zephyr does not have the scheduling and operational inefficiencies of the other routes studied in FY10. On those routes, the PIPs directly focused on removing operating deficiencies with customer satisfaction indirectly addressed. That is, customer satisfaction is expected to improve as a result of better schedules, routes, and connections. On the California Zephyr, the team recommended that Amtrak should focus directly on improving customer satisfaction. By implementing a Customer Service Excellence program, customer satisfaction would be driven higher while financial performance would indirectly benefit. This program is multi-dimensional; it will focus on all areas affecting customer satisfaction: personnel performance, as well as equipment and food service areas.

Low

Customer Praise

High

Available data show that Amtrak delivers a good customer service experience much of the time, but there are too many occurrences where the service delivery level is Train Personnel Complaints & Praise inadequate. Onboard Services (OBS) are the primary customer-facing By Crew Couplet personnel on the train. These food service workers, coach attendants, and sleeping car attendants interface with customers throughout their trip. On the California Zephyr, fourteen distinct OBS teams serve the train in 14-day cycles. The chart to the right plots OBS train personnel complaints and praise by team for a recent FY10 sixmonth period. The top left quadrant is the most desirable for Amtrak, indicating fewer complaints received compared to praise. The bottom right Low High reflects undesirable team results, as it reflects higher complaints and lower Customer Complaints praise. The chart shows that some teams on the California Zephyr are

-4-


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY doing an excellent job, while others need improvement.

Overall CSI

This service inconsistency is likely one factor holding Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) scores flat for the California Zephyr. The chart to the right shows Overall CSI for Comparable Long Distance Routes by Fiscal Year Overall CSI scores for the past 86% three fiscal years for the 84% California Zephyr and two other 82% comparable routes. At 83%, 85% California Zephyr Overall CSI 80% 81% 83% 84% falls short of PRIIA’s 90% 80% 78% 83% 79% 82% standard that the Route must 76% achieve by FY14. 77% 74%

72% Service inconsistency has an California Zephyr Empire Builder Southwest Chief adverse impact not only on customer loyalty, but FY08 FY09 FY10 to Jul ultimately on future revenue and ridership performance. The core recommendation of this PIP will focus on eliminating these service inconsistencies as well as improving the dissemination of customer feedback to drive these scores higher.

FY14 PRIIA Standard

Amtrak measures customer satisfaction across many customer experience areas. Some of these are driven by personnel CSI Scores by Category for FY10 through July actions, and, in the 100 chart to the right, are 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% % shaded orange. Other Overall CSI measures provide Overall Experience in Coach Car Overall Experience in Sleeper Car Value of Amtrak Service for Price Paid insight on a customer’s Trip Info Prior to Boarding Train Comfort of Coach Seat experience with Comfort of Sleeping Compartment Smooth/Comfortable Ride equipment (comfort, Air Temperature Overall Cleanliness of Train cleanliness, and Cleanliness of Train Windows Restroom Cleanliness restroom odor), OTP, Restroom Odor Info Given on Services/Safety and food. Info Given on Problems/Delays Clarity of Announcements On-Time Performance Friend./Helpful. of Train Conductors Availability of Food in Café/Lounge Car Friend./Helpful. of Café/Lounge Car Personnel Quality/Freshness of Food in Café/Lounge Car Variety of Food Items in Café/Lounge Car Overall Experience in Café/Lounge Car Friend./Helpful. of Dining Car Personnel Variety of Menu Choices in Dining Car Quality/Freshness of Food in Dining Car Overall Experience in Dining Car

The chart to the right shows the CSI scores for FY10 (through July) for the California Zephyr for each measurement area. The green line Personnel driven shows the FY14 standard required by PRIIA. In FY10, no score exceeds the FY14 PRIIA Standard.

-5-

Driven by other factors


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B.

The Customer Service Excellence Program

The introduction of Customer Service Excellence comes just as Amtrak is completing two critical elements of the program. Without these elements, the program would not be possible. These elements are as follows: 

Customer Experience on the Front Line is a just-completed research effort on what Amtrak is doing right and what customers want it to do better. This study concludes the Customer Experience Research Program yearlong Amtrak Customer Experience Research Program that included five  Part I: The Total Amtrak Experience separate focus group studies conducted in  Part II: Customer Feedback on Passenger Equipment Interior Design Issues key Amtrak markets (New York, Washington, DC, Chicago, and Los  Part III: Food and Beverage/Café/Lounge Research Angeles) among Acela customers as well as customers on short distance trains and  Part IV: The Cleanliness Barometer  Part V: Customer Service on the Front Line long distance trains. The research highlights numerous areas for improvement – two of which are directly applicable to this plan.  Elevate Customer comfort on-board the train o Personal comfort is a prime reason travelers choose train travel.  Develop a culture of customer service o Amtrak only performs as well as its employees. Customers want to be treated as though they are important. The Customer Service Excellence program is designed to achieve a major shift in the culture of on-board service delivery. Please see Appendix D for additional information on this study.



Customer Service Performance Metrics Integrator (CSPMI) is a sophisticated new business application that collects key customer service related data and uses dashboards, scheduled reports, and ad hoc queries to provide management with new insights into customer service performance. From the dashboard, users can drill down to the source document of a Customer’s actual comment. Amtrak is currently enhancing the system to expand its capabilities. By the second quarter of FY11, CSPMI will consolidate customer complaints and praise, CSI scores, on-time

-6-


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY performance, ridership and revenue, crew and equipment assignments, and employee observations in a single integrated data warehouse. For executing Customer Service Excellence, CSPMI is more powerful than CSI scores alone, because it tracks data down to the departure and crew level. With a program focus on reducing service inconsistency and improving the quality of the travel experience, CSPMI’s granularity tracks departure-level service experiences, departure-level equipment issues, and departure-level food issues. Amtrak believes that reducing complaints and increasing praise will drive CSI scores higher. With these two elements, Amtrak now has the foundation to implement an effective Customer Service Excellence program. Other elements of the program include:  A comprehensive labor/management partnership to give employees more autonomy in exchange for a higher employee commitment to customer service,  Specialized training focused on developing high performance work teams,  A labor council to address personnel issues,  Use of ARASA (American Railway and Airway Supervisors Association) supervisors as coaches and mentors to OBS teams,  Management & labor review of all customer complaints,  An employee incentive and recognition program, and  Joint pre-departure and post-arrival inspections by OBS and Mechanical personnel. Customer Service Excellence represents the most comprehensive customer service effort ever undertaken at Amtrak. This program will achieve an unprecedented level of customer service at all touch points of the service experience. The collaborative labor-management teams will use CSPMI to define and generate the necessary performance metrics to measure true customer experience improvements. Amtrak will use these metrics to drive employee incentive and recognition programs. Joint pre-departure and post-arrival inspections and CSPMI equipment complaint reports will pinpoint equipment issues for resolution by Amtrak’s Mechanical department. Through these efforts, achievement of Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) targets of 90% in all components by 2014 will become a realistic goal. The Customer Service Excellence program will define the processes, standards, employee training, and performance measures to close the gaps and deficiencies identified in the research. The team will fully develop this program on the California Zephyr in FY11, and roll it out system wide after the successful California Zephyr implementation.

C. Implementation Amtrak will begin to implement the Customer Service Excellence program during the first half of FY 2011. In preparation for the program, initial meetings with management and labor representatives occurred in August 2010, and broader Town Hall meetings took place in early September 2010. This is an on-going process and FY2011 will bring continuous quality improvements.

-7-


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The California Zephyr will serve as the pilot to create the Customer Service Excellence program that will be migrated to Amtrak’s other routes.

D.

PRIIA Section 210 Performance Improvement Plan Criteria

The following chart lists the PRIIA Section 210 Performance Improvement Plan Criteria and the activities the team will undertake to satisfy them. While this PIP document focuses on the Customer Service Excellence program, this chart highlights other activities the team will undertake throughout FY11. Performance Improvement Plan Criteria

California Zephyr – Plan Activities

On-time performance

-

Scheduling, frequency, routes and stops Feasibility of restructuring service into connected corridor services

-

Performance-related equipment changes and capital improvements On-board amenities and service, including food, first class and sleeping car services State or other non-Federal financial contributions Improving financial performance

Anticipated Federal funding of operating and capital costs Other areas affecting financial, competitive, and functional route performance

Improve coordination with host railroads directed toward consistent on-time performance to avoid delays Review existing Amtrak standard station signage to determine needs

-

Analyze opportunities for the California to Reno corridor to increase capacity during peak travel periods

-

Not applicable

-

Improve customer experience as a result of Customer Service Excellence Program Improve the menu in diner and lounge cars Institute checked baggage handling at Galesburg, IL

-

Not applicable

-

Measure the relationship between customer service improvements and increased revenues to use for predicting outcomes on other routes

-

No capital funding required in FY 2011 No increase in Federal operating subsidy

-

Measure the relationship between customer service improvements and increased customer satisfaction scores to use for predicting outcomes on other routes

-8-


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E.

Financial and Operating Measures

Last 12 months The chart to the right summarizes the key financial 358.6 Ridership (000s) and operating metrics for the Cost Recovery Ratio (based on 44% California Zephyr for the last Direct + Shared Costs) twelve months. This plan does ($0.20) Loss / Pasenger Mile not set any revenue or cost Pass Miles / Train Mile 163.0 projections for the improved ($56.6) Direct Loss ($ millions) service levels, but rather sets numerical targets for key CSI improvements consistent with PRIIA 207 standards (See Appendix F for Full Financials).

California Zephyr near Donner Pass, CA

-9-


III. The Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) A. Introduction The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), and specifically Section 210 of the act, requires Amtrak to conduct a comprehensive financial and operational analysis to improve the performance of its long-distance network. In compliance with this requirement, Amtrak has developed this Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for the California Zephyr service.

B.

History

The original California Zephyr service began in 1949 under the operational control of three railroad companies over the following route segments:   

Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad --- Chicago to Denver; Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad --- Denver to Salt Lake City Western Pacific Railroad --- Salt Lake City to Oakland

Service west of Salt Lake City ended in 1970. Starting with its creation in 1971, Amtrak operated the San Francisco Zephyr on a route that largely was a hybrid of the former California Zephyr route and that of another train, the City of San Francisco. In 1983, the name California Zephyr reappeared and the route changed to the current profile. This route is the same as the 1949-1970 service, except that west of Winnemucca, Nevada, the route is that of the former City of San Francisco (via Reno). At various times, Amtrak offered connections and/or through cars at Denver, Salt Lake City, or Ogden from Chicago to Las Vegas and Los Angeles (Desert Wind) or to Portland and Seattle (Pioneer), both of those services ended in 1997. Due to mergers and acquisitions that have taken place in the freight railroad industry, today’s California Zephyr route has now come to two major host railroads. East of Denver, the BNSF Railway owns, operates, and maintains most of the route the train currently operates over; while, west of Denver the tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad host this Amtrak train.

- 10 -


IV. The Customer Service Excellence Program Overall CSI scores for the California Zephyr have averaged 83% for all of FY09 and FY10 (through July). One of the standards of PRIIA Section 207 is the attainment of a 90% Customer Satisfaction score by FY14 in select customer service areas. The following table shows the PRIIA Standards areas and the corresponding Customer Service Excellence Focus Areas: Customer Service Excellence Focus Areas Personnel EquipFood PRIIA Section 207 CSI Metric Overall Service Amtrak Personnel Information Given On-Board Comfort On-Board Cleanliness On-Board Food Service Overall Station Experience (future metric) Overall Sleeping Car Experience (future metric)

OBS

Station

ment

Service

Stations

  

  







    

 



The following highlights each Customer Service Excellence Focus Area.

Personnel Improving the levels of customer service Amtrak’s personnel provide requires the cooperative effort between labor and management. The following describes some key elements of the program: A. Targeted training for all front-line employees that focuses on developing an onboard culture of teamwork. The training will directly address how high-performance teams can prevent or quickly resolve items that create customer dissatisfaction. B. Utilization of American Railway and Airway Supervisors Association (ARASA) supervisors on an as-needed basis, to provide leadership and coaching skills for each onboard service team of employees. C. Engaging labor representatives and designated employees in addressing employee performance issues. Amtrak will examine on board runs as a balance. D. The implementation of an employee incentive and recognition program that is coordinated with Amtrak’s Labor Relations and Finance Departments to reward top

- 11 -


performing teams. The recognition programs help institutionalize outstanding customer service as the new norm. E. A joint team of management and labor to review all customer complaints. Using root cause analysis, with the primary purpose of determining how to prevent each complaint on future trips, the team will make recommendations for change. F. CSPMI will begin delivery of crew briefing reports and crew performance reports to front line management. For station personnel, CSPMI will begin providing station personnel complaints to divisional management.

Equipment A. Implementation of joint OBS/Mechanical pre-departure and post-arrival inspections to identify and correct equipment deficiencies before the equipment is put into revenue service. B. Development of Equipment defect reports based on customer complaint information. With the release of CSPMI 2.0 in the second quarter of FY11, CSPMI will include the car numbers with customer complaints.

Food Service A. CSPMI will provide Amtrak’s Food & Beverage Department (F&B) with daily reports citing customer issues with food. F&B will use these reports as part of its research in provisioning the service and developing new menus. B. At some point during FY11, CSPMI will provide F&B with reports on food utilization and spoilage by crew team normalized to ridership. This will enable F&B to be more efficient in planning the amount of food to stock on a departing train.

Stations A. Amtrak has several initiatives underway to bring all stations into ADA compliance. There is also an initiative to improve station signage and information displays.

The starting date for implementation of this plan is October 1, 2010, and there is no end date. Rather, the program is to be a permanent effort on this train. Once the program is stable on the California Zephyr, Amtrak will roll it out to other long and short distance trains.

- 12 -


A. Goals and Measures The following table lists the front-line customer service personnel-driven CSI measures. The Customer Service Excellence program will focus on driving improvements in these eleven areas. Annual Year-End Targets Personnel-Driven CSI Metrics Overall CSI Overall Experience in Coach Car Overall Experience in Sleeper Car Overall Cleanliness of Train Overall Experience in Dining Car Trip Info Prior to Boarding Train Info Given on Services/Safety Info Given on Problems/Delays Friend./Helpful. of Train Conductors Friend./Helpful. of Café/Lounge Car Personnel Friend./Helpful. of Dining Car Personnel

FY10 83% 79% 78% 69% 79% 88% 69% 73% 84% 83% 81%

FY11 85% 83% 82% 76% 83% 89% 76% 79% 86% 85% 84%

FY12 88% 86% 86% 83% 86% 89% 83% 84% 88% 88% 87%

FY13 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Average Annual Change 2.3% 3.7% 4.0% 7.0% 3.7% 0.7% 7.0% 5.7% 2.0% 2.3% 3.0%

These annual targets contribute to and support achievement of the overall PRIIA standards. The tools needed to identify problem areas will come from CSPMI and other systems. Amtrak does not propose that it will set goals such as “xx complaints / thousand riders”, but will instead use these as drivers to improve CSI scores. Personnel related drivers would compare a team’s results against others to identify issues. CSPMI categorizes customer complaints to give the teams better insight into the issues customers face. The chart to the right shows the breakdown of personnel complaints for FY10 on the California Zephyr.

- 13 -


Equipment related drivers will provide the Mechanical Department with customer and employee identified issues and the associated pieces of equipment. The chart to the right shows the top categories of equipment complaints for FY10. The second pie chart to the right further categorizes the restroom complaints by reason.

F&B and Station issues will be communicated to their respective departments to alert them to new issues.

- 14 -


B.

Customer Service Excellence Program Costs

Amtrak will incur minimal, if any, additional costs for implementing Customer Service Excellence, since much of the work can be done using existing budgets. The potential cost areas fall into the following categories: 

Initial and ongoing training. These costs are expected to be covered by the existing training budgets for the route.



Employee incentive payments. Amtrak has budgeted for an agreement employee incentive program starting in FY11. The incentive payments for the California Zephyr service excellence program will come from this budgeted amount.



ARASA supervision. The consensus of the team (including many front-line employees) was that Amtrak should be willing to take some risk and show a high level of confidence in the ability of the employees to achieve service excellence without additional supervision. Amtrak’s Central division and its OBS teams agree that some form of self-directed teams will be most effective. Therefore, Amtrak expects that there will be no additional cost for ARASA supervision, as they will only ride the California Zephyr on occasions when situations require their support. These costs will not exceed the current budget.

C. Marketing Support Plan As part of the PIP plan, Amtrak will identify opportunities and review existing programs. Advertising Amtrak will advertise the California Zephyr in various newspapers throughout the region. The key markets are Denver, Sacramento, Chicago, Galesburg, and Reno. Assuming national television, the markets of Chicago and San Francisco will have an Amtrak branded spot that will promote the everyday low fares along the route of the California Zephyr. Amtrak will utilize the numerous regional and local publications to advertise the benefits of train travel on the California Zephyr. In addition, the Amtrak.com database and social media tools such as Facebook and Twitter will promote the benefits of riding on Amtrak. Price Along with revenue management, the fare structure will be assessed to ensure that Amtrak is at the optimal fare structure. The evaluation will include both the coaches and the accommodations. In addition, special pricing will be promoted online to encourage travel for the weak segments of the train. (i.e., markets west of Denver). These fares will be promoted on Amtrak.com and through targeted regionalized messages on the home page of Amtrak.com.

- 15 -


Promotions Amtrak will continue to work with partners along the route to encourage train travel. Amtrak will target the local sports partners (i.e., Stockton Thunder Hockey team in California), local events (i.e., Sacramento Gay Pride Festival), and local Convention and Visitors Bureaus (i.e., Denver CVB). In addition to local efforts, Amtrak will sponsor a spring online promotion to encourage travel on the California Zephyr. Amtrak Guest Rewards will promote the train by offering special bonus offers to those who travel on the California Zephyr and will promote the train in various communications. Amtrak Vacations will create packages that are specifically focused on the California Zephyr that will include the National Parks. In an effort to reach the youth segment, Amtrak will showcase the California Zephyr through both Student Advantage and the International Students Identity Card (ISIC). Travel Partners Amtrak will continue to work and review our programs with the National Accounts and tour operators on promoting the California Zephyr. There will be a special offer that will be created for all the National travel agency partners. Amtrak will target our tour operators and offer them special fares and marketing opportunities on promoting the California Zephyr. Tour operators will have special ski fares to Colorado and Utah for promoting the route in the offpeak periods. Travel/ Trade Shows Amtrak will target national and regional trade shows to promote the California Zephyr. Amtrak participates in both major consumer (i.e., AARP) and trade (i.e., National Business Travel Association) shows and in all instances, the California Zephyr will be promoted.

- 16 -


V.

Measuring Customer Service with Performance Metrics

Customer Service Performance Metrics Integrator (CSPMI) CSPMI is Amtrak’s customer service, business intelligence system. CSPMI gives Amtrak managers timely insight into customer feedback on the service Amtrak provides. Currently, CSPMI integrates unsolicited customer feedback (i.e., complaints and praise), on-time performance (OTP), and historical revenue and ridership. By capturing and indexing customer comments each night, managers have the ability to extract the specific customer service-related information that they need on the following day. As an example, Amtrak’s Transportation department uses dashboards and reports to view train personnel-related complaints and praise at the crew or departure level. The following is a screen shot of the Daily Dashboard for the California Zephyr.

The ridership and OTP data integration enable managers to normalize the data to gain additional insights. As part of Amtrak’s Enterprise Data Warehouse, CSPMI users soon will have additional capabilities in the second quarter of 2011. These areas include crew & equipment assignments, employee feedback, station OTP, CSI, and booking information. With

- 17 -


this information, Amtrak will be able to provide stakeholders with more details surrounding a customer’s comment (e.g., car number for equipment complaints). To complete the vision, a number of additional data areas will be added in 2011 and beyond. The following diagram highlights Amtrak’s vision for CSPMI.

Corporate Data OTP - Rev/Rid Crew Assignments Equipment Assignments Food & Beverage Booking

Customer Feedback

Dashboards & Reports

• Unsolicited • Customer Satisfaction (CSI) • Advisory Councils

CSPMI Integrated Customer Service Measures

Employee Feedback • Manager Observations • Mystery Rider • Trip Reports

Executive Level

Manager Level

Employee Level

Customer Service Scorecard

Weekly Route Reports

Daily Crew Briefing

Once CSPMI Release 2.0 is available in the second quarter of FY11, the CSPMI team will begin its three-tiered program of customer service metrics. This plan has discussed many of the Employee Level or tactical reports that put the details into the hands of the people who need it. Dashboards and reports such as the Daily Crew Briefing, Station Complaints, and Equipment Issues reports are focused on getting the individual complaint details to the teams as quickly as Amtrak receives the data, usually the next day. Second tier reports give mid-level managers and superintendents new insights about how various routes perform relative to each other. The Weekly Top Route Report gives managers information on the routes with the highest normalized complaint levels against a prior period. The third tier reports provide trend information aimed at mid and senior-level management. The Customer Service Scorecard will include such metrics as On Time Customer Management, Complaint Index, Customer Inconvenience Index, Complaint Cost Index, On Time Customers, CSI, and Employee Observations Index. These will be drillable to the Business Line and route levels and published quarterly.

- 18 -


CSPMI currently generates a number of reports in support of Amtrak’s Customer Service Excellence program. As the California Zephyr Performance Improvement Program gets underway, CSPMI reports will reinforce the work being done and measure the results of the effort. Some of the reports to be used for the program include: 



 



Crew Briefing Report. This report includes recent customer feedback for a specific OBS crew that Amtrak has received since that crew’s last briefing. The timeliness of the reports helps pinpoint the specific issues behind the customers’ comments. Crew Performance Report. This report gives managers two types of information. First, it compares performance of each crew and shows trend information. Second, it pinpoints the types of issues experienced by customers for each crew team (e.g., rudeness, slow service). This information enables managers and supervisors to provide more focused training. Food & Beverage (F&B) Report. This report will include all customer feedback related to F&B. Equipment Complaints Report. This report provides Amtrak’s mechanical department with the actual complaints customers have made about equipment. In early 2011, these reports will include the actual car numbers that ran on that departure. Station Performance Report. This report will give managers timely feedback on our customers’ perceptions of their performance.

Appendix E shows more examples of the dashboards and reports available from the system.

California Zephyr in Nevada

- 19 -


VI. Other options reviewed during the PRIIA process The following describes the other initiatives analyzed during the year. The “Sparks Cars” Initiative and the Chicago-Denver Cut-Off Coaches and Sleepers Initiative are expected to be implemented during FY11.

“Sparks Cars” Initiative The California Zephyr serves a diverse number of markets, which include the highly popular and seasonal Northern California - Reno, Nevada market. During the winter months, particularly on weekends, the demand for coach seats can exceed the entire capacity of the train, requiring restriction of bookings to ensure that “through” seats remain available for passengers traveling longer distances. The result is a missed opportunity to serve more Northern California - Reno customers. The Performance Improvement Team has defined an initiative to address this higher demand. The initiative involves a change in the consist and operating plan for this train. Presently, three coaches operate Emeryville to Chicago, for a total capacity of 206 seats. By establishing Emeryville-Sparks, NV, cut-off cars, Amtrak can increase capacity over this part of the route from 206 to 342 total seats during winter months. The train consist between Emeryville and Chicago is reduced to two coaches during winter months (consistent with lower demand during this period), and the six coaches which are made available with the smaller consist can be reassigned to Emeryville for the high demand winter only Northern California - Reno business. Total equipment requirements for the Zephyr are unchanged. The business case and financials for this initiative will not be ready for the publish date of this plan. If beneficial, Amtrak will implement the initiative as soon as November 2010.

Chicago-Denver Cut-Off Coaches and Sleepers Initiative During the peak summer travel months, demand is highest (particularly for coach customers) over the Chicago-Denver portion of the route. By turning some equipment at Denver, Amtrak can more effectively meet demand with a modest increase in equipment requirements. Amtrak has added equipment to this segment on an ad hoc basis in the past, but would like to make the addition part of the permanent California Zephyr plan. The business case and financials for this initiative are still being worked. Pending the outcome of the business case and equipment availability, Amtrak may implement this new service on a permanent basis during the peak periods.

- 20 -


The following initiatives reflect future options, with no planned implementation date.

Desert Wind Service Addition This initiative would establish a separate section between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles, serving Las Vegas. This would offer through cars between Chicago and Los Angeles that serve Denver and Las Vegas, one of the few major US cities without Amtrak service. The team recognizes that equipment availability and host railroad negotiations preclude pursuing this option in the near-term and that it would require substantial increases in Federal and/or state funding for operating and capital costs, but consider it important to include for long-term consideration. The initial P&L data indicate a significant improvement in cost recovery ratios, overall financial performance, and an additional revenue potential in excess of $15,000,000, but with an increase in the operating deficit.

Operate the California Zephyr as a “Premium” Service train Amtrak markets the Empire Builder and the Coast Starlight as Premium Services. Although those trains use different service models, they offer insights into what Premium Service must include. It was felt that Premium Service on the California Zephyr would require an additional sleeper and a dedicated First Class Lounge car to meet financial targets. The current fleet does not have sufficient cars for this level of expansion, but Premium Service is a logical incremental service improvement for the California Zephyr when equipment availability permits it. Additionally, premium service is dependent on the success of establishing of a “service excellence” program first.

Operate the California Zephyr as a “Green” train service The essence of this plan centered on using as many environmentally friendly products onboard the train as practical, as well as using bio-diesel fuel to operate the locomotive. While there were benefits to Amtrak in testing many new green products, there was a significant increase in operating costs. The increased revenue from the marketing of an environmentally friendly train did not fully offset the increased costs of this option, so the option was dropped. One particular green initiative – restoring china to the diner, rather than continuing with the currently used disposable dishes – is under active consideration.

- 21 -


VII. On-Time Performance (OTP) OTP is often the result of factors outside Amtrak’s direct control. Amtrak is responsible for the reliability of its locomotives and cars, the timely loading and unloading of passengers, and the operation of these trains over its own rights of way. On the route of the California Zephyr, Amtrak controls the Chicago Union Station terminal and yard tracks. However, many other factors are under the control of host railroads. These factors include dispatching practices and right of way condition including tracks and signals. In 2006, slow orders on the Union Pacific (UP) portion of the route became so severe that the schedule could not physically be met, and Amtrak added approximately three hours to the schedule on a temporary basis while UP removed slow orders. The plan included a contractual commitment by UP to remove the slow orders by particular deadlines and to allow Amtrak to remove the temporary time from the schedule at predetermined intervals. The plan was completed in early 2009. Due to substantial reductions in slow orders and freight train interference delays, performance has improved significantly on the UP. In 2010, there has been an increase in speed restrictions on the Creston and Ottumwa Subdivisions on the BNSF portion of the route. The BNSF has indicated that many of these speed restrictions are related to severe flooding, and that BNSF is working as quickly as possible to repair the affected areas of tracks. Amtrak anticipates that significant reliability and OTP improvements will occur on this segment by early 2011. A sustained commitment from the host railroads will position the California Zephyr for improved reliability and OTP, for all passengers on this route.

VIII. Implementation Amtrak will begin implementation of service improvements in FY 2011. Early in the fiscal year, the Performance Improvement Team will develop a detailed implementation plan to establish individual accountabilities for each requirement specified in this PIP.

- 22 -


IX. Appendix A: PRIIA Section 207 Performance Metrics The following shows the PRIIA Section 207 Metrics on which Amtrak must report to the FRA quarterly. Section 207 Metrics Financial/Operating Short-term avoidable operating cost recovery Fully allocated operating cost recovery Long-term avoidable operating loss per passenger-mile Adjusted loss per passenger-mile Passenger-miles per train-mile

Standard

Reported by

Comment

Route Route Route System Route

Continuous Year Over Year Improvement on an 8 quarter moving average

Route

Equal to or better than the average effective speed during FY08

Excludes capital charges Reported with and without State subsidey included in revenue

On-Time Performance and Train Delays OTP (All tests must be met to pass OTP standard) Change in "Effective Speed" Endpoint OTP* Acela Other NEC routes Other corridor routes Long distance All Stations OTP* Acela Other NEC routes Other corridor routes Long distance Train Delays - Off NEC Amtrak-responsible delays per 10,000 train-miles Host-responsible delays per 10,000 train-miles Train Delays - On NEC Only Acela Other NEC routes

FY10 90% 85% 80% 80% FY10 90% 85% 80% 80%

Route

Route

FY14 95% 90% 90% 85% FY14 95% 90% 90% 85%

Route Route, Host

325 minutes / 10,000 train-miles 900 minutes / 10,000 train-miles

Route, Host

265 minutes / 10,000 train-miles 475 minutes / 10,000 train-miles

Applies for each rolling four-quarter period.

Begins FY12, but must be published immediately

Other Service Quality CSI - Percent of Passengers "Very Satisfied" with: Overall service Amtrak personnel Information given On-board comfort On-board cleanliness On-board food service Overall station experience Overall sleeping car experience For Information Only Equipment-caused service Interruptions / 10,000 train-miles Passenger comment data by category / business line

Route

FY10 82%

FY14 90%

80%

90%

tbd

future metric

Route

-

-

Type of Route

-

-

No standard proposed; Intended to reflect objectively the quality of mechanical maintenance as perceived by the passenger No standard proposed; Presented as supplementary information

Long Distance Route

-

-

No standard possible, improvement could require network changes

Route, System

-

-

No standard possible, improvement could require network changes

tbd

-

-

Future

Public Benefits Connectivity: % of passengers connecting to/from other routes Availability of other modes: % of passengers-trips to/from underserved communities Energy-saving and environmental measures

*OTP (Maximum Minutes of Delay for "On Time Arrival") All Stations Endpoint 251-350 351-450 451-550 All 551 miles miles miles miles Trip Lengths All Routes, exc. Acela Acela

- 23 -

10

15

20

25

30

15

10

na

na

10

na

10


X.

Appendix B: The Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) Process

Amtrak’s Product Development Group had previously developed a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) Process. This process has been adapted to PRIIA primarily by insuring that it addresses all specified areas of analysis and metrics. The process under PRIIA brings together representatives from Amtrak’s Marketing, Transportation, Mechanical, Finance, Government Affairs, and Policy and Development Departments, along with the employees who actually operate the trains and their labor organizations to ensure that the proposed PIP evinces input from all parties with relevant experience. The following diagram provides a graphic overview of the process.

- 24 -


XI. Appendix C: Customer Complaint History (FY08 – FY10) The California Zephyr has been and is a problematic train from the standpoint of customer service. This becomes evident when examining the history of customer complaints over the preceding three-year period.

Total Complaints - California Zephyr The charts to the right show the breakdown of Complaints for Fiscal Year 2010. Over half of the complaints Amtrak received were related to On-Time Performance (“Performance”). One quarter were equipment related and 11% were personnel related.

Train 5 (Westbound)

Train 6 (Eastbound)

- 25 -


Train Personnel Complaints - California Zephyr

The charts to the right show the breakdown of Train Personnel Complaints by year. In 2010, customers complained most of Rude and Slow / Inefficient / Unhelpful employees. Communication related complaints rose from 2009.

- 26 -


Train Equipment Complaints - California Zephyr The charts to the right show the breakdown of Equipment Complaints by year. In 2010, customers complained most about the restrooms, which has been consistent over the past three years. Unsatisfactory / unavailable accommodations made up the next biggest category area.

2010 Restroom Complaints by Sub-Category

- 27 -


XII. Appendix D: Customer Experience Research FY10 Amtrak Customer Experience Research Program Overview In September 2010, Amtrak’s Market Research & Analysis department completed a yearlong indepth customer research program designed to help guide Amtrak’s service quality initiatives and increase customer satisfaction across NEC, Long Distance, and State Corridor business lines. The objectives of this research program were to:  Support the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) target of 90% on all routes by the end of 2013 as mandated by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA);  Provide initial guidance for interior design elements of future passenger equipment procured under Amtrak’s Fleet Plan & Strategy;  Aid in the development of a comprehensive Customer Service Excellence program for front line employees. The FY10 Amtrak Customer Experience Research Program included five separate focus group studies conducted in key Amtrak markets (New York, Washington, DC, Chicago, and Los Angeles) among Acela customers as well as customers on short distance trains and long distance trains.  Volume I: The Total Amtrak Experience  Volume II: Customer Feedback on Passenger Equipment Interior Design Issues  Volume III: Food and Beverage/Café/Lounge Research  Volume IV: The Cleanliness Barometer  Volume V: Customer Service on the Front Line A written report and video were produced for each study.

- 28 -


Customer Experience Research Program Studies  Volume I: The Total Amtrak Experience This research assessed customers’ experiences, needs, and expectations for each stage of the Amtrak travel experience: pre-station, at station, on board, and arrival/post-trip.

 Volume II: Customer Feedback on Passenger Equipment Interior Design Issues This research collected customer input on ways to enhance the interior design, comfort, and functionality of future rolling stock (e.g., design of seating, windows, interior colors/textures, lighting, heating and air conditioning, luggage bins and storage, etc.)

 Volume III: Food and Beverage/Café/Lounge Research This research gauged customers’ reactions to current food and beverage offerings relative to new service concepts (e.g., Bistro/Café/Lounge/Dining car interior design elements, seating configurations, lighting, menus, displays, food preparation, ordering process, etc.)

 Volume IV: The Cleanliness Barometer This research examined customers’ perceptions of actual and desired standards of cleanliness across the Amtrak experience, including on board and station cleanliness, employee grooming/attire, and an in-depth exploration of bathroom cleanliness.

 Volume V: Customer Service on the Front Line This concluding study provides the foundation for developing a Customer Service Excellence program for Long Distance routes, as part of the PRIIA Section 210 initiative.

- 29 -


Customer Experience Research Program Methodology by Study Volume I

Volume II

Volume III

Volume IV

Volume V

The Total Amtrak Experience

Customer Feedback on Passenger Equipment Interior Design Issues

Food and Beverage/Café/ Lounge Research

The Cleanliness Barometer

Customer Service on the Front Line

# of Focus Groups (7-8 customers each)

16

20

20

16

16

# of Focus Groups by Market

4

4-6

4-6

4

4

New York

2 Acela 2 Acela 2 Acela 2 Acela 2 Acela 2 Northeast Regional 2 Northeast Regional 2 Northeast Regional 2 Northeast Regional 2 Northeast Regional 2 single-level long 2 single-level long distance distance

Washington, DC

2 Acela 2 Acela 2 Acela 2 Acela 2 Acela 2 Northeast Regional 2 Northeast Regional 2 Northeast Regional 2 Northeast Regional 2 Northeast Regional 2 single-level long 2 single-level long distance distance

Chicago

Los Angeles

1 short distance 3 long distance

2 short distance 2 bi-level long distance









Fieldwork

Dec-09

Feb-10

Apr-10

May-10

Jul-10

Written Report Issued

Jan-10

Mar-10

Apr-10

Jun-10

Aug-10

Video Released

Feb-10

Apr-10

May-10

Jul-10

Sep-10

- 30 -


Volume 5: Customer Service on the Front Line  This research study was designed to capture explicit and actionable customer feedback across all points of contact with Amtrak’s front line employees – including telephone reservation agents, station ticket agents, conductors, onboard service employees (coach and sleeping car attendants, dining car, and café/lounge car service attendants), Red Caps, etc.  The study provides direction for developing comprehensive service quality programs based on customers’ needs and expectations for improved customer service throughout the Amtrak journey including pre-station (planning and reserving), the at station experience, onboard the train, and arrival/posttrip.  This research concludes the comprehensive FY10 effort to guide service quality initiatives to increase customer satisfaction across all trains, and fulfill the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) mandate of achieving a Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) target of 90% on all routes by the end of 2013.

- 31 -


XIII. Appendix E: CSPMI Dashboard and Sample Reports Daily Dashboard showing personnel complaints

Daily Dashboard showing equipment complaints

- 32 -


Monthly Dashboard showing personnel complaints

Daily Dashboard Detail Report showing comments for a particular departure

Confidential

- 33 -


Monthly Dashboard Detail Report showing daily breakdown of complaints

Crew Briefing Report for Coast Starlight on 9/6/2010

- 34 -


XIV. Appendix F: Financials – Last 12 months California Zephyr REVENUES ($ millions) Ticket Revenue Food and Beverage

38.6 6.0 44.6

Total Revenue EXPENSES ($ millions) Host Railroad Fuel T&E (Labor & Support) OBS (Labor & Support) Commissary (F&B) Yard Ops Operations Management Motor Coach Maintenance of Equipment Stations Amtrak Maintenance of Way Sales and Marketing Commissions Insurance Passenger Inconvenience Police, Environmental, and Safety General & Administrative Total - Direct and Shared Costs

7.6 12.0 17.4 13.5 5.0 2.0 1.5 0.1 16.5 5.6 0.3 5.3 1.1 2.0 0.5 1.5 9.4 101.1

Core Contribution/(Loss)

(56.6)

STATISTICS Total Riders (000s) Total Passenger Miles (millions) Total Train Miles (000s)

358.6 286.3 1,755.8

PRIIA Section 207 Metrics Cost Recovery Loss per Passenger Mile Passenger Miles per Train Mile

44% ($0.20) 163.0

- 35 -


XV. Appendix G: Schedule

- 36 -

Printed by:

Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.