Not sounding like an temporary, here's what Amtrak's new prez had to say:
"[L]et me be very clear: I am here because I believe in Amtrak," Boardman told Amtrak employees in a letter two weeks after he came on the job. "Splitting off the Northeast Corridor or separating the NEC infrastructure from operations are absolutely not in my plans. I not only want to preserve our coast-to-coast, interconnected system, but also want to see it prosper…I plan to build on the many opportunities we have to show how critical passenger rail is to the economy and mobility of America." Boardman, whose appointment has come under criticism from some unions, also said: "A couple of things you should know about me: I’m a former member of IBEW and Teamsters. I am a straight shooter, so you'll know where I stand on things. I listen closely and rely on the strengths of well-qualified people to give me their recommendations. I strongly believe that collaboration is a necessity in our business, and I don't have much time for those who stand in its way."
Comments? Plain meaning? In between the lines meaning?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
IBEW has 750,000 members
UAW has 640,000 members
Teamsters has 1,400,000 members
Amtrak has 24,600 workers
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Joe Boardman is one of the most prepared Presidents Amtrak has ever had. Some of his former posts indlcuded supervising transit operations, head of NYS DOT, and FRA chief. He is knowledgable about operations, concepts, marketing, engineering, business, and politics as all have been part of his experiences. I knew him some 30 years ago when he was Broome County NY Commisioner of Transportation and ran the area bus system. I have watched his work in NYS and with the FRA and have been impressed with his accomplishments. After not seeing him for almost 30 years we met with a very brief conversation following a public hearing a few years ago and I was impressed with his firm beliefs, commitment, and integrity, and understanding transportation issues. The statement posted above can be believed by all those who read it and especially by those who recieve their paychecks from Amtrak. If ever there was the right man in the right place at the right time, this is it.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
"In an attempt to maintain the momentum at Amtrak, while finding a permanent CEO candidate, the board has appointed Mr. Boardman for one year, but will conduct a search in the coming months for a permanent CEO," said Board Chairman Donna McLean.
One year! He will be a caretaker of the status quo at best. He will not be able to implement his or anyone else's vision for Amtrak. He'll be gone just about the time he gets a grasp of the ropes.
I spent more than 40 years in management with Fortune 250 organizations. They are complex. I don't care how much experience Mr. Boardman has; it will take him at least six to nine months to figure out what is going on and what needs to be changed.
The Amtrak Board members, as well as his direct reports, will be lukewarm in their support of Mr. Boardman. The board will say all the right things, i.e. we support you, but they will be busy looking for his replacement. And his direct reports will probably keep their distance waiting for the permanent CEO to come along. He will have a tough time building a committed team. Oh, he will get compliance; it is the nature of the corporate beast, but there is a huge difference between compliance and commitment.
Too bad! Amtrak needs a tough CEO, like Jack Welch, to develop a rational business model, i.e. focus on quick, frequent, reliable, comfortable, and economical corridor trains, get out of the long haul business, implement a pricing model that covers at least the operating expenses, streamline management, force the unions to improve productivity, etc.
Don't worry! As long as Amtrak remains a political creature, which it will, there will be no meaningful changes. Irrespective of what Mr. Boardman says! Moreover, someone like Jack Welch would not waste his time with Amtrak.
Sam1 "In an attempt to maintain the momentum at Amtrak, while finding a permanent CEO candidate, the board has appointed Mr. Boardman for one year, but will conduct a search in the coming months for a permanent CEO," said Board Chairman Donna McLean. One year! He will be a caretaker of the status quo at best. He will not be able to implement his or anyone else's vision for Amtrak. He'll be gone just about the time he gets a grasp of the ropes. I spent more than 40 years in management with Fortune 250 organizations. They are complex. I don't care how much experience Mr. Boardman has; it will take him at least six to nine months to figure out what is going on and what needs to be changed. The Amtrak Board members, as well as his direct reports, will be lukewarm in their support of Mr. Boardman. The board will say all the right things, i.e. we support you, but they will be busy looking for his replacement. And his direct reports will probably keep their distance waiting for the permanent CEO to come along. He will have a tough time building a committed team. Oh, he will get compliance; it is the nature of the corporate beast, but there is a huge difference between compliance and commitment. Too bad! Amtrak needs a tough CEO, like Jack Welch, to develop a rational business model, i.e. focus on quick, frequent, reliable, comfortable, and economical corridor trains, get out of the long haul business, implement a pricing model that covers at least the operating expenses, streamline management, force the unions to improve productivity, etc. Don't worry! As long as Amtrak remains a political creature, which it will, there will be no meaningful changes. Irrespective of what Mr. Boardman says! Moreover, someone like Jack Welch would not waste his time with Amtrak.
I could not agree more that what is needed is someone like Jack Welch. I have read every book on this man and have them in my library. What he did at GE is a model for any major Corp. to follow. And for anyone not paying attention he made there aircraft engine division #1 in the world after for years being a distant second to Pratt & Whitney. He made GE locos #1 in the world over GM. GE Financial is weathering the financial crisis at the present in very good shape and Jack has been gone for a number of years. Probably the best thing Jack Welch did for GE was the molding young Executives into his image for the future of GE, and as it has turned out many have gone on to successful careers with other major firms. GE under Jack Welch's tutoring became the darling for Corporate raiding. This never seemed to bother GE as there was others just as good or better employed there.
But you are right he would not come to Amtrak or any other organization or company controlled in part by Government. He is enjoying his well earned retirement and who can blame him.
Al - in - Stockton
Sam1 "In an attempt to maintain the momentum at Amtrak, while finding a permanent CEO candidate, the board has appointed Mr. Boardman for one year, but will conduct a search in the coming months for a permanent CEO," said Board Chairman Donna McLean.
I think what surprised me most about the quote was that he didn't sound like a one year lame duck. I wonder if he's bucking for the full time gig?
I certainly agree wiht you about the lack of commitment he'll get. Everyone will hedge their bets.
I also agree that it will be nearly impossible to find a proven replacment. There just aren't many "true beleivers" with credentials out there who'd take such a terrible, dead end job. There may be some younger guys out there on the class one frt RRs who'd be worth a shot.
Add to Joe Boardman's credentials is being on the Board of Amtrak while with the FRA. He also had a lot of interaction (lets leave it at that) with Amtrak while NYDOT Commisioner.
As for it (Amtrak) being a political animal: yes, by all means. The short term appointment coupled with the often heard remarks that Sen. Biden's son...also a member of the Amtrak board...has a bead on the Presidency does not give give Boardman, Biden, or anyone else a clear track to the post.
It's much more than just "politics." Politicians answer to their constituents by working with industry to ensure jobs. Any government official who does NOT do this does not belong in office.
Of course, it is not easy to reconcile "jobs" with competing concerns such as global mandates to reduce carbon. It is almost impossible to reconcile auto industry jobs with an environmentally efficient, socially equitable transportation system. Add AFL-CIO (10.5 million members) to the tally in my post above, and Amtrak makes up one in five hundred Union jobs. Now, even increasing that to two in five hundred would be a brave move. But we mustn't be too brave -- our transportation system is driven by profit, not efficiency. It would be bad business to build train cars that last thirty years instead of automobiles that last ten. It would be bad for construction jobs to base our transportation on two four-foot-eight-inch wide systems as opposed to a six-lane-wide system.
Meanwhile, we "outsource" environmentally neutral service jobs (such as call centers) to other nations. China will have the world's longest high-speed railway, financed by America's unbridled appetite for bric-a brac and kitsch. This does not make sense.
Clearly, the only way the USA will see any progress is if the Federal Government makes some bold moves and changes its 200-year old view that a "free market" can work in the modern age. And remember, carbon reductions are not a subject of debate -- they are an international mandate and a challenge to our security.
Sam1"In an attempt to maintain the momentum at Amtrak, while finding a permanent CEO candidate, the board has appointed Mr. Boardman for one year, but will conduct a search in the coming months for a permanent CEO," said Board Chairman Donna McLean. One year! He will be a caretaker of the status quo at best. He will not be able to implement his or anyone else's vision for Amtrak. He'll be gone just about the time he gets a grasp of the ropes. I spent more than 40 years in management with Fortune 250 organizations. They are complex. I don't care how much experience Mr. Boardman has; it will take him at least six to nine months to figure out what is going on and what needs to be changed. The Amtrak Board members, as well as his direct reports, will be lukewarm in their support of Mr. Boardman. The board will say all the right things, i.e. we support you, but they will be busy looking for his replacement. And his direct reports will probably keep their distance waiting for the permanent CEO to come along. He will have a tough time building a committed team. Oh, he will get compliance; it is the nature of the corporate beast, but there is a huge difference between compliance and commitment. Too bad! Amtrak needs a tough CEO, like Jack Welch, to develop a rational business model, i.e. focus on quick, frequent, reliable, comfortable, and economical corridor trains, get out of the long haul business, implement a pricing model that covers at least the operating expenses, streamline management, force the unions to improve productivity, etc. Don't worry! As long as Amtrak remains a political creature, which it will, there will be no meaningful changes. Irrespective of what Mr. Boardman says! Moreover, someone like Jack Welch would not waste his time with Amtrak.
I agree that Mr Boardman will serve as caretaker. He also seems to have qualifications for the post - unusual for a lame-duck administration appointment. The next Board might do worse than retain Mr Boardman.
Will the Board be looking for Boardman's replacement or their own next gig? Is their tenure fixed; or are they expected to resign with the change in administration? I'm not so concerned with Amtrak's staff support as the current Board's to get anything done beyond housekeeping.
Maglev It's much more than just "politics." Politicians answer to their constituents by working with industry to ensure jobs. Any government official who does NOT do this does not belong in office. Of course, it is not easy to reconcile "jobs" with competing concerns such as global mandates to reduce carbon. It is almost impossible to reconcile auto industry jobs with an environmentally efficient, socially equitable transportation system. Add AFL-CIO (10.5 million members) to the tally in my post above, and Amtrak makes up one in five hundred Union jobs. Now, even increasing that to two in five hundred would be a brave move. But we mustn't be too brave -- our transportation system is driven by profit, not efficiency. It would be bad business to build train cars that last thirty years instead of automobiles that last ten. It would be bad for construction jobs to base our transportation on two four-foot-eight-inch wide systems as opposed to a six-lane-wide system. Meanwhile, we "outsource" environmentally neutral service jobs (such as call centers) to other nations. China will have the world's longest high-speed railway, financed by America's unbridled appetite for bric-a brac and kitsch. This does not make sense. Clearly, the only way the USA will see any progress is if the Federal Government makes some bold moves and changes its 200-year old view that a "free market" can work in the modern age. And remember, carbon reductions are not a subject of debate -- they are an international mandate and a challenge to our security.
Oh, my! This is a batting practice pitch for greyhounds or even Limited Clear. Wonder if they'll chime in...
Maglev Clearly, the only way the USA will see any progress is if the Federal Government makes some bold moves and changes its 200-year old view that a "free market" can work in the modern age. And remember, carbon reductions are not a subject of debate -- they are an international mandate and a challenge to our security.
There have been several comments in the past few posts which are not really on topic I suppose, but are natural continuations of the discussion. And the above paragraph is one. First, based on several of Maglev's comments if not his name, it should be assumed that he is an advocate of Magnetic Levatation being applied to mass transportation needs. He is thus "thinking outside the box" like those who insist in "high speed rail" as a panacea for mass transit and other transportation needs. While I don't feel either mag lev or high speed rail should be the ultimate goal or a major part of our transportation policy the ingoring of both to great extents underscores the fact that today's government philisophy is hand in hand with today's railroad management in maintaining the satus quo of what has been "railroading" since 1830 something: 4 ft 8 and one half inches to handle bigger and bigger loads and more capacity faster. While I don't believe that the maximum has been reached, I also believe that all sides have to open thier minds to what can be or what has to be to meet the future transportation needs be it mag lev, 6 or 8 foot guage tracks, or whatever.
As for the "free market" comment, we have been through a very intense several decades of "investment enterprise" where the greatest emphasis of any company is to increase income by saving money rather than produce and improve the product or service at hand. Thus there has been a trimming of work forces leading to either a poorer product or service or a shortage of such product or service; if the demanded return on investment is not met, then the product or service is removed from the market. Much work has been moved off shore with only the financial matters being taken care of on the papers in our counting houses; very little labaor is being performed in this country. Only the investors are earning money while the economy fails. But I believe it is the swinging of the pendulum of enterprise which has gone far to the right and is now set to swing back to center then left only to be repeteated in decades to come.
Amtrak, high speed bullet trains, mag lev propulsion. Their future, I hope, will be side by side by side during this next swing of the pendulum.
China will have the world's longest high-speed railway, financed by America's unbridled appetite for bric-a brac and kitsch. This does not make sense.
What are you calling bric-a brac and kitsch? I just got a call from my LHS that my order for the Rapido Trains HO TurboTrain just came in. This product was envisioned, designed, marketed, and distributed by self-professed nut-case TurboTrain-enthusiast Jason Shron, and it is manufactured in, yes, you guessed it, China. What is an HO train model when you think of it, it is essentially a grown man's toy, a cheaply-made expensive collectable, a piece of bric-a brac from a utilitarian perspective, kitsch from a cultural perspective -- a toy train, for gosh sakes, for a 50-something guy.
But I collect HO model trains, and someone else collects Chinese-made plastic unicorns, but that free people are allowed to spend their surplus money on things of personal importance instead of what self-appointed moral scolds deem important is called the free market, only we can't have any of that, we must put "free market" in scare quotes.
Yes, call shame on me that I am spending money on a toy train that could be taxed from me and spent on a real train. Just goes to show you how the advocacy community has gone around the bend in terms of dictating how the rest of the country needs to live.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
henry6 While I don't believe that the maximum has been reached, I also believe that all sides have to open thier minds to what can be or what has to be to meet the future transportation needs be it mag lev, 6 or 8 foot guage tracks, or whatever.
While I don't believe that the maximum has been reached, I also believe that all sides have to open thier minds to what can be or what has to be to meet the future transportation needs be it mag lev, 6 or 8 foot guage tracks, or whatever.
Forgive me for throwing gasoline on the fire, but many minds seem to have decided that what meets future transportation needs is rubber tires on asphalt or concrete and airplanes.
Hopefully we will get a balanced transportation system that uses the best modes for each situation. I am biased towards trains, and expect that most posters here are too.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
gardendance Forgive me for throwing gasoline on the fire, but many minds seem to have decided that what meets future transportation needs is rubber tires on asphalt or concrete and airplanes.
I hope you stand back when you throw the gasoline on the fire as it will blow up in your face! Today's tansportation planners...and those over the past decade or so...are big advocates of rail vs rubber and asphalt or airplanes. Crowded land, congested highways and polluted air in many places (especially urban areas on the east and west coasts) have dictated the end of highway construction in these areas and more than suggested rail as the alternative for both freight and passenger services. Air services have been advocated in larger but more remote (from innercity) airports served by super jets in the air and passenger trains on the ground.
Good morning! I'm still unemployed, so am back here pounding the keyboard in favor of a massive public investment in transportation and clean energy...
I am mystified by Mr. Boardman's comments concerning labor unions. I assume they refer to internal labor bickering at Amtrak, but we all know that Amtrak is only a significant mode of transportation in a few corridors. The collective bargaining issues Amtrak workers face are inisgnificant compared to threats of automobile industry problems. Is Mr. Boardman saying he will answer to unions, whose members from other industries outnumber Amtrak workers at least 500 to one?
Until the Teamsters, IBEW, UAW, etc. allow PUSH FOR major changes in American industry, we will continue on our course of inadequate, high-pollution intercity public transportation.
At least we know that Maglev is not averse to union-busting.
"At least we know that Maglev is not averse to union-busting."
I support labor unions, and wish Amtrak workers all the best in getting fair compensation. I support all those who work for a living, even if they are doing something environmentally destructive. It is often not their choice. People take the jobs that are available.
A massive restructuring of our public transportation system would require changes to industry and thus involve labor unions. Unions should oppose changes that mean losing jobs, and should support any plans which result in strengthening our economy. Indeed, labor unions have the power over industry to force the changes this country needs to prosper in the new millenium.
(...need to comment on bric-a-brac and kitsch, before Kalmbach boots me outta here. Americans waste money on cheap things, including toy trains from certain manufacturers, which break easily and get thrown away. If I ever find a thousand bucks just lyin' around collecting dust, I will invest in an HO-scale brass locomotive; and I will not care about where it was made.)
gardendance henry6 While I don't believe that the maximum has been reached, I also believe that all sides have to open thier minds to what can be or what has to be to meet the future transportation needs be it mag lev, 6 or 8 foot guage tracks, or whatever. Forgive me for throwing gasoline on the fire, but many minds seem to have decided that what meets future transportation needs is rubber tires on asphalt or concrete and airplanes. Hopefully we will get a balanced transportation system that uses the best modes for each situation. I am biased towards trains, and expect that most posters here are too.
What (or who) determines when the balance point is reached?
Perhaps yours is a rhetorical question and I am being pedantic about supplying an answer.
"Balanced transportation system" is a 40-year-old NARP talking point. I am hard pressed that anybody ever talked that way before Anthony Haswell coined the expression for use in his newsletter and press releases.
The concept is that we should not depend on only two major modes of passenger transportation (highway and air), or pehaps three modes of passenger transportation (private auto, common carrier bus, air), but we also need passenger trains as a transportation option. To talk in terms of balanced transportation is an admission that rail will never become the dominant mode of transportation in any market, but that passenger rail is to be made available as a supplement to the other modes. So perhaps to speak of a need for balanced transportation when one means to say "I want trains" is a concession that highways and airports are here to stay, but that a minority will patronize trains.
One can say "I want trains because paving over the country side and burning all of that fuel is ruining the environment" or "road and airport congestion is at the breaking point." Well, then one has to make the case that trains actually save meaningful amounts of fuel or substitute electric for oil, or that a passenger rail line will actually carry more passenger in service than a lane of freeway, or that passenger trains could attract enough share of the market to actually make a difference in the total number of people who can avoid crowded highways and airplanes. Perhaps the only place one can make that argument on the entire Amtrak network is for the stretch between Philly and NY, and certainly not for the Sunset Limited by any exercise of the imagination.
Then one could say, "we need a balanced transportation system." I mean who can argue with health science: in addition to having your meat and your starch on the school lunch plate, you need some kind of vegetable, even if it is served in a small portion, paid for by a government subsidy, not particularly well liked except by a few kids who annoy the other kids by proclaiming they are "vegans" and talk all the time about the horrors of meat, and badly overcooked in most cases that the nutritional benefit is in question. Besides, I heard there are some European and East Asian countries where they serve palatable vegetables on those lunches, and it is a national shame that an agricultural country such as ours cannot serve a vegetable on a school lunch that a person doesn't have to choke down.
Paul Milenkovic "Balanced transportation system" is a 40-year-old NARP talking point. I am hard pressed that anybody ever talked that way before Anthony Haswell coined the expression for use in his newsletter and press releases. The concept is that we should not depend on only two major modes of passenger transportation (highway and air), or pehaps three modes of passenger transportation (private auto, common carrier bus, air), but we also need passenger trains as a transportation option.
The concept is that we should not depend on only two major modes of passenger transportation (highway and air), or pehaps three modes of passenger transportation (private auto, common carrier bus, air), but we also need passenger trains as a transportation option.
Although probably not phrased "balanced transportation system" in press releases and such the idea does predate Anthony Haswell, NARP, and Amtrak. And, therefore infact, does not single out passenger services but all transportation services. When NJ imposed higher taxes on rail properties than on other industrial properties while builiding highways on confiscated or upon railroad properties then taxing the railroads for "improvements", the idea of keeping transportation needs for both freight and passenger services in perspective was bantied around if only in a rhetorical and political manner. No, the concept of concrete/asphalt/gasoline, rail, air, and water means of transportation as a balanced transportation system goes back to when canals supplanted roads and rail supplancted canals, when highways supplanted rail, and air (for passengers) supplanted ground forms. In our country there has always been a "throw the baby out with the bath water" mentality when a new technology comes along only to find us trying to ressurrect the bath water and the baby years later. Instead of studying or searching for ways to construct an interactive transportation system by integrating the new we jump aboard the new and cob something, often ineffective, years later. And then we keep on trying. But, no, the concept is not of NARP, Anthonly Haswell, nor Amtrak's making nor is it applied only to moving people.
AS AN EDIT: I believe the older term of reference was "rationalized system" rather than "balanced".
henry6 Today's tansportation planners...and those over the past decade or so...are big advocates of rail vs rubber and asphalt or airplanes.
Today's tansportation planners...and those over the past decade or so...are big advocates of rail vs rubber and asphalt or airplanes.
I don't believe you should talk about planners without also including those who control the purse strings, whether they be officers of private corporations or congress critters. They perform some role which effects transportation progress, even when it involves little planning. When UPS decides to buy 5000 trailer train compatible trailers or containers vs 1 cargo carrying 747 airplane, that effects transportation just as a department of transportation or regional planning commision or university professor figuring the dollars or btu's per ton per mile of rail vs highway vs air freight, or even legislation of x dollars of tax credit for transportation investment.
oltmannd What (or who) determines when the balance point is reached?
CSSHEGEWISCH At least we know that Maglev is not averse to union-busting.
Maglev replied to you, and I hesitate to continue the discussion if he feels he's responded to your comment, but I don't remember reading anything in this thread that implies anything about union busting. All I see are comments saying that unions play a part and must collaborate, and push for changes. I don't see anything that says unions must be busted, that the collaboration must take the form of selling out, or that the changes the unions must push for would necessarily be bad for the unions. Please point me to whatever supports your comment that Maglev is not averse to union-busting.
gardendance Who are these transportation planners of whom you speak? And to what extent do they manifest their advocacy, and how big is their advocacy in relation to whom? I
Who are these transportation planners of whom you speak? And to what extent do they manifest their advocacy, and how big is their advocacy in relation to whom? I
If you have read any industry news or magazines or followed reccomendations and discussions from DOT's, etc. you will find the information and statements.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.