Today Amtrak President Joseph Boardman testified at the House Transportation Committee that Amtrack intends to become the nation's number one passenger choice for intercity travel in the nation. In a strong statement describing Amtrak's reorganization Boardman pointed out that Amtrack's passenger count has increased in 9 of the last 10 years, explained how Amtrak has become more responsive to passenger needs and how the new reorganization with further strengthen Amtrak's achievements.
A brief description of the testimony is in the link below to Amtrak's news release. There is a link in the release to Boardman's complete statement:
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/1/699/Amtrak-America's-Top-Intercity-Travel-Choice-ATK-12-122.pdf
The hearing was called by Committee Chairman John Mica. Bill Schuster, slated to become chairman on January 1, was absent.
Not being handled like a piece of baggage by TSA before getting onboard is another nice reason
Have fun with your trains
John WR Today Amtrak President Joseph Boardman testified at the House Transportation Committee that Amtrack intends to become the nation's number one passenger choice for intercity travel in the nation. :
Today Amtrak President Joseph Boardman testified at the House Transportation Committee that Amtrack intends to become the nation's number one passenger choice for intercity travel in the nation. :
What fatuous nonsense! Other than the Northeast Corridor his organization's share of the intercity travel market approximates the rounding error in the statistics. To materially change that would require massive investments in rolling stock, fixed facilities and host railroad trackage. Something on the scale of the Manhattan Project would be needed.
I intended to win last night's Powerball drawing. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to make it happen. Mr. Boardman and I have a lot in common.
Dakguy201 John WR Today Amtrak President Joseph Boardman testified at the House Transportation Committee that Amtrack intends to become the nation's number one passenger choice for intercity travel in the nation. : What fatuous nonsense! Other than the Northeast Corridor his organization's share of the intercity travel market approximates the rounding error in the statistics. To materially change that would require massive investments in rolling stock, fixed facilities and host railroad trackage. Something on the scale of the Manhattan Project would be needed. I intended to win last night's Powerball drawing. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough to make it happen. Mr. Boardman and I have a lot in common.
No! You aren't testifying before Congress.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Lots of nice happy talk. Seems a lot of their re-org is by adding more mgt positions. If you aren't running more trains, why do you need more mgt. positions? Perhaps the problem is TOO MANY mgt positions. Funny they don't mention doing any benchmarking.....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Dakguy201What fatuous nonsense!
Guy,
Bear in mind that Joe Boardman was testifying at a hearing called by John--Holy Jihad against Amtrak--Mica. Exactly how should he respond to that kind of language? I for one am happy he did not choose to like down and play dead.
John WR Dakguy201What fatuous nonsense! Guy, Bear in mind that Joe Boardman was testifying at a hearing called by John--Holy Jihad against Amtrak--Mica. Exactly how should he respond to that kind of language? I for one am happy he did not choose to like down and play dead.
How about a realistic assessment of what Amtrak is able to achieve under his stewardship with resources he is requesting from Congress?
Why do people in the advocacy community, and now the head of Amtrak, believe that they have to engage in exageration and weakly supported claims in order to advance the cause of Amtrak?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic Why do people in the advocacy community, and now the head of Amtrak, believe that they have to engage in exageration and weakly supported claims in order to advance the cause of Amtrak?
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
Paul MilenkovicWhy do people in the advocacy community, and now the head of Amtrak, believe that they have to engage in exageration and weakly supported claims in order to advance the cause of Amtrak?
Because, Paul, you ain't holdin' the hearing. Congressman MIca is. And the Congressman has made his position abundantly clear.
Agreed that Mica is just showboating. But I fail to see how a such a ludicrous statement by the head of Amtrak helps. Frankly he just lost whatever credibility he had.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John WR Paul MilenkovicWhy do people in the advocacy community, and now the head of Amtrak, believe that they have to engage in exageration and weakly supported claims in order to advance the cause of Amtrak? Because, Paul, you ain't holdin' the hearing. Congressman MIca is. And the Congressman has made his position abundantly clear.
As he exits the Chairmanship of the committe when this session closes -
BaltACD John WR Paul MilenkovicWhy do people in the advocacy community, and now the head of Amtrak, believe that they have to engage in exageration and weakly supported claims in order to advance the cause of Amtrak? Because, Paul, you ain't holdin' the hearing. Congressman MIca is. And the Congressman has made his position abundantly clear. As he exits the Chairmanship of the committe when this session closes -
Schuster replaces him. Things won't change much. It's like replacing a bit bull with a German shepherd.
Also, these hearings are like magic shows. There is no dialog, just diatribe. The only things you can learn are from listening to what's NOT said.
If you want truth, watch what they do, not what they say.
I don't have a problem with Boardman standing up to Mica. He should. He needs to stand up like that when he gets back to his office, too. That's where the trouble is.
Yes, the Republicans term-limit their committee chairs so as has been pointed out, Mr. Mica won't be holding those hearings for long either.
And yes once more, Congressman Mica has made a position critical of Amtrak if not anti-Amtrak quite clear. So how does that answer my question?
It is encouraging that there are advocates of passenger trains who are intensely dedicated to the cause . I and two close friends saved our lawn-cutting and paper-route money to be dues paying members of NARP when we were 11 years old. But when I was a child, I believed in trains as a child, I reasoned as a child, I advocated for trains as a child. But over 40 years later, I seek to put the ways of childhood behind me and advocate for trains on a solidly factual and plausible basis.
Paul MilenkovicBut when I was a child, I believed in trains as a child, I reasoned as a child, I advocated for trains as a child. But over 40 years later, I seek to put the ways of childhood behind me and advocate for trains on a solidly factual and plausible basis.
schlimm Agreed that Mica is just showboating. But I fail to see how a such a ludicrous statement by the head of Amtrak helps. Frankly he just lost whatever credibility he had.
It really makes him sound like he has no clue. For a little perspective, in 2011 Amtrak carried just over 30 million people, Southwest Airlines carried 104 million.
http://www.southwest.com/html/about-southwest/history/fact-sheet.html
An "expensive model collector"
Paul Milenkovic But when I was a child, I believed in trains as a child, I reasoned as a child, I advocated for trains as a child. But over 40 years later, I seek to put the ways of childhood behind me and advocate for trains on a solidly factual and plausible basis.
But when I was a child, I believed in trains as a child, I reasoned as a child, I advocated for trains as a child. But over 40 years later, I seek to put the ways of childhood behind me and advocate for trains on a solidly factual and plausible basis.
Let me try again to answer you, Paul.
Certainly Joe Boardman knows the House of Representatives has a Republican majority and they can zero out Amtrak any time they want and Amtrak would then be driven to bankruptcy. But I think he is giving us his vision for Amtrak to stand against John Mica's vision. And I think that we have to choose between those two visions of Amtrak.
You would not express yourself this way and neither would I but we are not politicians. Politicians are elected to make policy. Joe Boardman is trying to do that. I prefer that he try and fail rather than not try at all.
(I don't expect Amtrak to take us to glory. If it gets us around the United States that will do).
John
Actually Joe Boardman was brought to Washington by a Republican President to manage the FRA before moving over to Amtrak. Before D.C. he worked a the pleasure of several New York State Governors as head of the DOT here, including George Pataki. Joe has overseen a lot of public transportation agencies and operations for many year, in all levels of government and with all persuasions of political bents. One of the strong points for Boardman, in fact, is his knowledge of politics and politicians coupled with his transportation experience.
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.
John WR Let me try again to answer you, Paul. Certainly Joe Boardman knows the House of Representatives has a Republican majority and they can zero out Amtrak any time they want and Amtrak would then be driven to bankruptcy. But I think he is giving us his vision for Amtrak to stand against John Mica's vision. And I think that we have to choose between those two visions of Amtrak. You would not express yourself this way and neither would I but we are not politicians. Politicians are elected to make policy. Joe Boardman is trying to do that. I prefer that he try and fail rather than not try at all. (I don't expect Amtrak to take us to glory. If it gets us around the United States that will do). John
Yes, you are correct. I am a research engineer and not a politician or political leader, so I don't know how this "game" is played.
But a scientist of much greater professional accomplishment than I once remarked about another nationally funded transportation system contemporaneous with Amtrak:
"Reality must take precedence over public relations, because nature cannot be fooled."
Paul,
But congress can be fooled for decades if not centuries. Physics is a place with real consequences. In politics the consequences usually show up after those who voted for it are out of office AND a constituency has developed to protect the status quo, which by definition gives someone an advantage they would not otherwise have. That advantage is alway at the expense of the tax payers or rate payers and is seldom rational public policy.
Mac
Perhaps Joe Boardman's statement about Amtrak becoming the top choice for intercity travel was about public relations rather than a realistic assessment of the situation. And perhaps ultimately his statement will backfire and the general public will see his statement as ridiculous. But I doubt it.
There is a saying in politics: "Say whatever you want about me. Just be sure you spell my name right." I think Amtrak is in a situation were the problem is in getting the general public to spell its name right, to know that it even exists and can be used. I am not an engineer. But I do know that powerful objective arguments can be made for passenger trains, especially for distances of up to 500 miles. But in America we have a problem that people can and do whatever they want to as long as they can pay the bill for it. Even when much larger costs are evaded. Costs like polluting the air we all need to breathe. We all know that many people make irrational decisions in their own life. Yet there lives usually go on. How then do we persuade people to act rationally in a lot of areas? That is a rhetorical question; I don't expect that you have an answer any more than I have an answer. But remember, we are a country where increasing numbers of people don't want to vaccinate their children against childhood disease and prefer the advice of a former porn star to the advice of their own physicians.
"But in America we have a problem that people can and do whatever they want to as long as they can pay for it."
A problem? I am under the impression that the founders of our republic believed that the people should decide, within reason, what is in their best interest, and that their doing so is not a problem. Their informed judgments are the cornerstone of our republic.
I have never bought into the notion that the demise of public transport (passenger trains, streetcars, etc.) was brought about by a conspiracy of greedy industrialists and conniving politicians. Oh, they played a minor role in the total scheme of things, but the major driver behind the changes were superior technologies and changing lifestyle needs.
Transportation options should be placed on a level platform, although the probability of that happening is remote, given the current political environment, and the people should decide what is in their best interest.
Too many self-appointed experts believe that they know what is best for the people. And if the people don't get it, it needs to be laid on them. This is not my view.
Amtrak is a good fit in a few areas, i.e. relatively short, high density corridors. It is not now or is it likely to be the number one choice of Americans for intercity travel. The car and the airplane are likely to be the modes of choice for most Americans for intercity travel, whether it is fifty miles down the road or across the country.
I went back and changed the offending sentence, Sam, because the problem with cars is that there are costs economists call externalties and the car owner does not pay these costs except for a tiny part. The whole society pays these costs. We agree on one thing: "Transportation options [and all options] should be placed on a level platform." Technologies certainly have changed. I'm not sure the new ones are necessarily superior. Today in my state, New Jersey, we now have more cars than people. Do we really need all those cars?
There are approximately 223 million Americans over the age of 18. According to National Transportation Statistics, there are approximately 210 million motorists in the U.S., which means that most Americans over 18 have a driver's license. They pay for personal vehicles, roadways, insurance, traffic accident investigations, etc. Ultimately, they even pay for the environmental damage done by their vehicles. But they don't see the full cost of driving at the pump. I have argued that they should, but it is a political non-starter.
Motorists pay income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, fuel taxes, license fees, etc. These monies go to a dedicated fund, i.e. fuel taxes to highway funds, or they go to a general fund. To the extent that the fuel taxes don't cover the cost of driving, monies are withdrawn from the general fund(s) to cover the shortfall. Although federal and state highways are funded for the most part by fuel taxes, license fees, vehicle taxes, sales taxes, etc., local streets and county roads are funded for the most part from property taxes, sales taxes, etc., which are paid directly or indirectly by practically everyone.
Car owners pay the costs of driving. Given the numbers of motorists, as a percentage of the population, where do those who argue that they don't pay the cost of driving think that the money comes from? Ultimately, its comes from the majority of the people who own and operate personal vehicles. However, there is a form of cross subsidy in motoring.
In FY09, which is the latest year for complete IRS data, 46 per cent of Americans filing a federal income tax return did not pay any federal income tax. Accordingly, they did not contribute any monies to the general fund from which funds were drawn to cover the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. The monies for the general fund(s) came from those who paid federal income taxes, with a significantly higher percentage coming from those with Adjusted Gross Income of more than $100,000. Moreover, as an example, high income people pay more in most other taxes, i.e. property, sales, excise, etc., than folks who are not so well off. This is the reason they are subsidizing driving for lower income people, i.e. more money for local streets, county roads, traffic policing, etc. And yes, more money for cleaning up the environmental damage caused by the pollution generated from vehicles.
Certainly, Sam, we agree that most of us drive and all of us pay for the costs of driving. But we do not pay proportionally. Some people drive a lot and pay little; some drive a little and pay a lot and a few don't drive at all but still pay. Shouldn't each of us pay his or her actual costs of driving? Isn't that what you mean by "level platform?"
John WR Certainly, Sam, we agree that most of us drive and all of us pay for the costs of driving. But we do not pay proportionally. Some people drive a lot and pay little; some drive a little and pay a lot and a few don't drive at all but still pay. Shouldn't each of us pay his or her actual costs of driving? Isn't that what you mean by "level platform?" John
As I noted, upper income motorists subsidize lower income motorists. If the full cost of driving were reflected at the pump, the price of fuel would increase significantly. A significant portion of the cross subsidization of driving would be eliminated. Many lower income people probably could not afford to drive, or at least drive as much, and would look for alternative modes of transport. It probably will never happen.
John WR the problem with cars is that there are costs economists call externalties and the car owner does not pay these costs except for a tiny part. The whole society pays these costs. We agree on one thing: "Transportation options [and all options] should be placed on a level platform."
the problem with cars is that there are costs economists call externalties and the car owner does not pay these costs except for a tiny part. The whole society pays these costs. We agree on one thing: "Transportation options [and all options] should be placed on a level platform."
Are we even close to agreement on that one thing, that transportation modes "should be placed on a level" playing field?
The view that the Highway Trust Fund largely pays for highways through the gasoline tax "user fee" arguably gives a "low ball" estimate of the public cost of providing that mode.
On the other hand, one of our forum participants sharpened a fistfull of pencils and came up with a more realistic cross-subsidy figure for the more sparsely traveled rural interstates and hence more capital-intensive-per-vehicle-mile roads that are the main alternative to Amtrak. That number also added the "cleanup of broken cars and broken people" for medical expenses as something to add to the highway side of the balance sheet. That number came out to about 11 cents per vehicle mile, which I reasoned works out to about 8 cents per passenger mile.
So, are we in the advocacy community and especially on this forum all OK with a reduction in the Amtrak subsidy to about the 500 billion to 750 billion/year range? President George W Bush floated that "offer" for Amtrak funding as part of a much large government cost cutting measure. I am sure that number wasn't pulled "out of thin air" but was arrived at by considering the level of subsidy and cross-subsidy in other parts of the transportation system?
We would have been OK with that "deal", no? It would have leveled the playing field, putting the Amtrak subsidy at the same rate as our figures for the highway subsidy? I even think that Congressman Mica or Congressman Schuster could embrace that compromise as well?
Let's unwind this a bit. This thread reported how Amtrak President Boardman called out Transportation Committee Chair John Mica, with many of us on this thread being heartened by Boardman's tough talk in confronting a main Amtrak critic, others of us asking whether tough talk of this kind really advances the cause of passenger trains and of Amtrak, and the tough talk faction not wanting to back down even a fraction of an inch from "tough talk" being the way to go to advocate for trains.
What if, in some alternative reality and bizarro United States, that Mr. Boardman appeared before Chairman Mica's committee and opened with, "Mr Chairman, I have prepared a list of 10 projects for Amtrak requiring action from your Committee, and you have been given the report in advance and I have some charts to show in my presentation. Each of these 10 projects is demonstrated to be more effective in the use of tax dollars to provide transportation services to the American people in these 10 markets across our great nation, more effective than a highway-construction alternative." In that bizarro United States, public works-happy Republicans (cough "Bud" Schuster cough) might even embrace Amtrak.
Paul Milenkovic {snip} So, are we in the advocacy community and especially on this forum all OK with a reduction in the Amtrak subsidy to about the 500 billion to 750 billion/year range? President George W Bush floated that "offer" for Amtrak funding as part of a much large government cost cutting measure. {snip}.
{snip}
So, are we in the advocacy community and especially on this forum all OK with a reduction in the Amtrak subsidy to about the 500 billion to 750 billion/year range? President George W Bush floated that "offer" for Amtrak funding as part of a much large government cost cutting measure.
{snip}.
I believe Mr. Milenkovic intended to say 500 to 700 million. Sometimes the numbers get so large it doesn't really matter.
I believe that all transportation modes should be placed on a level playing field.
The problem is that the playing field is not level and it never has been level. As Sam has pointed out, when it comes to roads all layers of government have simply taken money from whatever sources they had and used it in various ways. This continues. It means that what the individual road user pays is not related to the amount of road use he or she gets.
I can understand why this happened and I don't want to be a harsh critic of elected officials who do it. For example, a couple of years ago there was a severe snow storm. My town sent plows out to plow the Garden State Parkway, a toll road. In an ideal world Parkway management would have taken care of this but they didn't and the storm was severe, so severe that people actually died in it. So elected officials did what they had to do in the face of a life threatening emergency. In addition all kinds of costs for law enforcement such as police salaries and pensions and court salaries and benefits are strongly related to road operation but they come from other taxes unrelated to road use. Then there are the costs of pollution. That is the way it is and always has been.
If we are going to hold Amtrak accountable then it seems to me we need to develop techniques to quantiy exactly how much of a subsidy we give to roads. If we did that then we could hold Amtrak to the same standard.
If we first knew how much roads actually cost we could actually have car owners pay the true cost of operating their cars. If we did that there is no question in my mind that many would make rational decisions about whether to use public or private transportation. And that would be as it should be.
Paul Milenkovic On the other hand, one of our forum participants sharpened a fistfull of pencils and came up with a more realistic cross-subsidy figure for the more sparsely traveled rural interstates and hence more capital-intensive-per-vehicle-mile roads that are the main alternative to Amtrak. That number also added the "cleanup of broken cars and broken people" for medical expenses as something to add to the highway side of the balance sheet. That number came out to about 11 cents per vehicle mile, which I reasoned works out to about 8 cents per passenger mile.
I'd still wonder if the cost and hence subsidies are properly allocated. I can think of five classes of users for a subsidized rural interstate, one being people who drive from one urban area to another (one set of potential Amtrak customers), a second people who ride a bus between urban areas (also potential Amtrak customers), a third is people who drive to/from rural areas that would not be served by Amtrak, fourth being long distance truckers who driving between urban areas and fifth being truckers who deliver to/from the rural areas. I would contend that the long distance trucker is the one who gets the greatest relative benefit from the rural interstate as well as being the dominant cost driver in setting standards of curvature, gradient and pavement strength for the interstates.
For the previous paragraph, "urban area" is an community with a population larger than 50,000.
- Erik
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.