Cross Border Rail Passenger Service Transportation Border Working Group Buffalo, New York – April 8, 2014

1 Presentation Outline Partners Background Cross Border Ridership Montreal Business Case Construction at Niagara Falls Vancouver Questions

2 An International Team Effort – In addition to Amtrak: Governments Vermont Agency of Transportation New York State Department of Transportation Quebec Ministry of Transportation Washington Department of Transportation Others Agence metropolitaine de transport VIA Rail Canada City of Niagara Falls, NY Niagara Falls Bridge Commission

3 Background Lack of Process for Border Security  No standard process  Agency Issues with On-Board Inspection  Amtrak Issues with Enroute Off-Board Inspection Characteristics of Two Cross-Border Route Types  Single Canadian Station where a sterile environment is feasible  Multiple Stops on Both Sides of the Border Current International Rail Passenger Services  New York – Montreal “Adirondack”  New York – Toronto “Maple Leaf” jointly with VIA Rail Canada  Portland – Seattle – Vancouver “Amtrak Cascades” Potential Future International Services  Northeast Corridor – Vermont – Montreal  Chicago – Michigan – Ontario - Quebec

4 Cross Border Ridership – Fiscal Years 2002 through 2013

5 Montreal Business Case In response to a request by DHS Assistant Secretary Bersin, the partners have prepared preliminary draft business case Currently incomplete due to missing information and delays in getting it; and now out of date requiring rework Preliminary draft mostly addressing the “Adirondack” includes:  Anticipated facility construction cost $6.2 to 6.4 million  Trip time in each direction reduced by over an hour  “Adirondack” ridership increase 27,000; Passenger revenue increase of $1.6 million  Reduces deficit by approximately $1 million/year  Greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 270 tons/year  Introduces same day Amtrak/VIA Rail Canada interline connections  An extended Vermonter would carry roughly 40,000 more riders/year Missing elements include computation of tourism benefits to the partners and concurrence with conceptual plan by CBP so that payback and return on investment can be determined MTQ Border – Montreal right of way study is complete

6 Construction at Niagara Falls Due to intermediate station stops between the border and final destination, and unlike Vancouver and Montreal, it is not feasible to perform customs and immigration in Toronto Customs and immigration now done on both sides of the border at Niagara Falls  In New York, primary done on board and secondary in the station  In Ontario, all passengers and their baggage must get off the train City of Niagara Falls, NY, is conducting three phase facilities project  Phase 1 Complete – Rehabilitation of the historic customs building  Phase 2 Complete – Construction of a new bridge over Main Street  Phase 3 Contract to be awarded mid-April – Construction of a new station building to replace the current ex-freight house facility  Full project completion expected May 2016 Opens the possibility for CBSA to do preclearance for passengers bound for Canada in the United States

7 Vancouver Most advanced of the three border crossings  Full customs and immigration processing by CBSA for inbound passengers to Canada  Immigration document pre-inspection and agriculture inspection for passengers to the U.S. are done by CBP in Pacific Central Station although customs inspections remain on board at Blaine, WA Second largest city pair in “Amtrak Cascades” corridor service Highest cross border frequency with two round trips per day Estimated annual economic impact for Vancouver, BC, is $14M Goal is full preclearance for rail passengers Full preclearance would eliminate current customs inspection on trains to the U.S. saving at least ten minutes of trip time

8 Questions