I cannot disagree at all....I've seen Joe rise from local transportation and bus agencies through the ranks of NY transportation politics into the D.C. arena. I have not always agreed with him and things he did, but, he has handled himself well and, I think, in the long run, is setting a good course for Amtrak.
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.
henry6What I mean is that Joe, more than any Amtrak President, has the experience and ability to handle daily operations and daily political BS with aplomb better than any one else so far.
Henry
Going back to Fred Frailey's Amtrak article (I think it was in June), Joe Boardman knows he will leave Amtrak to retire. At this point he's not looking to go anywhere else. So he is free to, as you so well point out, "handle daily operations and daily political BS with aplomb better than any one else." No body is perfect in this world. But I think we will go far before we get a better Amtrak President than Joe Boardman. And I suspect you do not entirely disagree.
John
What I mean is that Joe, more than any Amtrak President, has the experience and ability to handle daily operations and daily political BS with aplomb better than any one else so far. It is why he is still there..here?
henry6It is this mixture that makes him aloof, confusing, unconventional, yet effective and still there.
I don't find Joe Boardman all that confusing, Henry. His overlapping ring diagram showing the parts of the society Amtrak takes direction from. I didn't see any labels but I bet the groups are Congress, Amtrak riders and the public at large. And what it is really about is that fact that any policy about anything can be explained in terms of one of those rings and there is almost no policy that cannot be linked to a ring. That is typical of government explanations.
By reducing the Federal operating subsidy he defuses Congressional objections. At the same time he realizes that within Congress there is a real purpose to pork barrel spending and it has always been with us. For Amtrak this is called capital improvements. If you follow the history of the Interstates the very existence of the system provides the justification for more pork for more highways. This is the example Joe Boardman is following because historically it has worked.
The problem is not that there is too much subsidy for Amtrak. The problem is that there is not nearly enough. More subsidies breed still more subsidies and he well knows this.
oltmanndThe FEDERAL operating subsidy... The 88% includes the money from states, but that's okay. it at least allows the attempt to pivot the debate.
Exactly. But I don't hear any states calling for a "Holy Jihad" against Amtrak.
Of all the Amtrak Presidents, Joe is the only one with no railroad employment or private enterprise operating experience. He has, however, managed bus and transit operations and more importantly has been involved in the political or government aspects of transportation rising from county commissioner to state transportation commissioner, to head of the FRA to Amtrak. If there has ever been one who can walk the edge crust of the government bread slice knowing how and when to butter which side, he is the one. He is not hung up on how trains were run on this or that railroad and knows how not to get hung by politics when trying to make things happen. It is this mixture that makes him aloof, confusing, unconventional, yet effective and still there..
John WRHowever, I agree that Joe Boardman is focused here on capital expenses. Perhaps this is because he has reduced the operating subsidy significantly.
The FEDERAL operating subsidy... The 88% includes the money from states, but that's okay. it at least allows the attempt to pivot the debate.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I think that in any large operation, public or private, capital vs operating expenses is a constant dialogue. Part of it is that the line between them is not clear so in fact you can move some (but not all of them) fairly easily. However, I agree that Joe Boardman is focused here on capital expenses. Perhaps this is because he has reduced the operating subsidy significantly.
My own thoughts about the "lines on a map" argument is that he tries to show how important the west of the Missippi lines are by showing the map with and without them. Without them Amtrak is limited to the eastern US and a few lines on the west coast. He believes the long distance lines are important to the system. He supports his argument by presenting data about the large decline in interstate bus service in rural parts of the country.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/high-performance/amtrak-california-and-fra-team-up-for-new-hsr-gear.html?channel=54
I'm referring to the part where the emphasis will be on collision avoidance rather than car body strength. This allows light weight - near off the shelf equipment - at least in spots. Should help reduce capital and operating costs.
And....
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/401/881/Amtrak-CEO-Boardman-House-T&I-testimony-Mar-05-2013.pdf
The encouraging part here is the Amtrak appears focused on reducing FEDERAL operating subsidies. (The 88% is money from fares PLUS state subsidies). If they can stick to this mantra and turn the conversation - which appears they are trying to do - they might be able to get Congress to focus on getting them some capital for expansion.
The Boardman presentation does pay some homage to the "lines on the map" folk, though. I think that is appeasement to some alluded to on slide 3 (the circles....)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.