The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill passed by the Senate last week includes a measure that would require Amtrak to spend profits from its Acela and Northeast Regional service on critical capital and safety improvement projects in the Northeast Corridor (NEC).
The bill calls for $1.42 billion for Amtrak, a $30 million increase from last year's spending bill. That amount would include $345 million for a new NEC account and $1.075 billion for Amtrak's national network, according to a press release issued by U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy's (D-Conn.) office.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Legislation-would-require-Amtrak-to-spend-NEC-profits-on-the-corridor--48345
What are the implications of this bill should it pass and become law?
That Amtrak has to plan for capital expenditures for the NEC , and has to show the below rail costs? I can only hope.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Knowing how much of Amtrak's capital costs are attributable to the NEC would be interesting. Whether making the information public would serve a useful purpose is debatable.
Several respondents to the article indicated that they know, at least by implication, that Amtrak allocates a disproportionate amount of its overheads to the national network as opposed to properly rooting them in the NEC. Unless they have access to Amtrak's accounting records - they don't - they don't know what they are talking about.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1 Knowing how much of Amtrak's capital costs are attributable to the NEC would be interesting. Whether making the information public would serve a useful purpose is debatable. Several respondents to the article indicated that they know, at least by implication, that Amtrak allocates a disproportionate amount of its overheads to the national network as opposed to properly rooting them in the NEC. Unless they have access to Amtrak's accounting records - they don't - they don't know what they are talking about.
True. Those claims have been made without any sourcing. When that occurs, some sort of self interest may be inferred.
Since Amtrak is a quasi-government corporation, there should be more transparency since it belongs to us as taxpayers.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Victrola1What are the implications of this bill should it pass and become law?
I was expecting schlimm, of all knowledgeable posters on this general topic, to identify a different "likely consequence", but he hasn't done so explicitly yet in his response.
That is -- if (and this is looking more or less at only above-the-rail cost) much of the existing revenue from NEC operations is reallocated for 'earmarks' associated strictly with NECIP issues ... what happens to LD train operations that are no longer being effectively 'subsidized' by the higher revenues from the Corridor operations?
That would put more teeth and more authority in whatever Mica-style operational 'austerities' and 'reforms' (insert your euphemism of choice here, or call a spade a shovel in plain language if so inclined) would be imposed on 'the rest' of Amtrak, now that the effective subsidy amount outside the Corridor has been -- I think dramatically -- reduced in practice.
I also see some potential consequences for those high-speed corridors and other services that are partly state-subsidized, if the now-scarce resources are directed toward shoring up the pure LD service (which end-to-end has little individual state support...)
schlimm JPS1 Knowing how much of Amtrak's capital costs are attributable to the NEC would be interesting. Whether making the information public would serve a useful purpose is debatable. Several respondents to the article indicated that they know, at least by implication, that Amtrak allocates a disproportionate amount of its overheads to the national network as opposed to properly rooting them in the NEC. Unless they have access to Amtrak's accounting records - they don't - they don't know what they are talking about. True. Those claims have been made without any sourcing. When that occurs, some sort of self interest may be inferred. Since Amtrak is a quasi-government corporation, there should be more transparency since it belongs to us as taxpayers.
Government transparency is equal to the best one coat covers paint, totally opaque.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD schlimm JPS1 Knowing how much of Amtrak's capital costs are attributable to the NEC would be interesting. Whether making the information public would serve a useful purpose is debatable. Several respondents to the article indicated that they know, at least by implication, that Amtrak allocates a disproportionate amount of its overheads to the national network as opposed to properly rooting them in the NEC. Unless they have access to Amtrak's accounting records - they don't - they don't know what they are talking about. True. Those claims have been made without any sourcing. When that occurs, some sort of self interest may be inferred. Since Amtrak is a quasi-government corporation, there should be more transparency since it belongs to us as taxpayers. Government transparency is equal to the best one coat covers paint, totally opaque.
Unfortunately all too true. But it should be far more open. National Security concerns are often just CYA moves.
Excerpt from Senate bill
http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-114hr-sc-ap-fy2017-transhud-subcommitteedraft.pdf
NORTHEAST CORRIDOR GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for activities associated with the Northeast Corridor as authorized by section 11101 (a) of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (division A of Public Law 114—20 94), $420,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary may retain up to one-half of 1 percent of the funds provided under both this heading and the National Network Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation heading to fund the costs of project management and oversight of activities authorized by section 11101(c) of division A of Public Law 114—94: Provided further, That in addition to the project management oversight funds authorized under section 11101(c) of division A of Public Law 114—94, the Secretary may retain up to an additional $5,000,000 of the funds provided under this heading to fund expenses associated with implementing section 24905 of title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That of the amounts made available under this heading and the National Network Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation heading, not less than $50,000,000 shall be made available to bring Amtrak-served facilities and stations into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
NATIONAL NETWORK GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation for activities associated with the National Network as authorized by section 11101(b) of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (division A of Public Law 114—94), $1,000,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary may retain up to an additional $2,000,000 of the funds provided under this heading to fund expenses associated with the State-Supported Route Committee established under 24712 of title 49, United States Code.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 150. None of the funds provided to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation may be used to fund any overtime costs in excess of $35,000 for any individual employee: Provided, That the President of Amtrak may waive the cap set in the previous proviso for specific employees when the President of Amtrak determines such a cap poses a risk to the safety and operational efficiency of the system: Provided further, That the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter of the calendar year on waivers granted to employees and amounts paid above the cap for each month within such quarter and delineate the reasons each waiver was granted: Provided further, That the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2017, a summary of all overtime payments incurred by the Corporation for 2016 and the three prior calendar years: Provided further, That such summary shall include the total number of employees that received waivers and the total overtime payments the Corporation paid to those employees receiving waivers for each month for 2016 and for the three prior calendar years.
Talk about micromanagement... now Congress wants to know about every overtime occurance at Amtrak.
Looks like they are wanting to see why labor costs seem inflated by rumored heavy overtime.
schlimm Looks like they are wanting to see why labor costs seem inflated by rumored heavy overtime.
When you don't have enough people to do the job with straight time, you get the job done with overtime.
schlimmLooks like they are wanting to see why labor costs seem inflated by rumored heavy overtime.
Or wanting to humiliate someone by making him mention minute HR failures in a list, person by person, at a top-level briefing.
Personally, having been educated in public policy administration, I find this language both intentional and appalling. But perhaps it isn't bureaucracy-as-usual. I do remember something about some very egregious cases of overtime at Amtrak but not whether they were 'justified' by management decisions under unavoidable constraint. Explaining those at a high-level meeting -- taking each employee's aggregate overtime hours or compensation as a 'single' example -- might be valuable especially if it can establish reasons for systemic or "endemic" overtime that management can't overcome with the tools and powers that have been permitted to it.
But it's still degrading. Not too far off the old joke about the guy who walked up to the Reading Railroad's president's house in suburban Philadelphia and demanded to know the time of a particular train. When the president said he didn't know, the customer was incensed - "Hmmph! you claim to be the president and you don't know the times of your own trains!" Same might be said about the way this law's provisions are written...
Having Amtrak justify waivers of overtime payments to specific employees above $35K does not seem so onerous. Why need it be a secret? University professor's campensation is on the public record. We don't complain.
It's not that it 'should' be a secret, or that it shouldn't be broken out and reported, with full explanations, in written material or reports.
This is only about having the president of the organization get up in front of a possibly hostile (almost certainly hostile-appearing, for 'Schumenthalesque' political theatre or to show proper 'diligence in assuring the public weal') group of people, and have to confess the number of overtime people and give an explanation for each and every one. Doubtless the president will hear plenty of "advice" as to what to do about the situation, and I suspect any explanation he might provide would only reproduce what already should have been in the public record and in the briefing materials for the hearing in question.
Even if Amtrak is 'playing with the numbers' and the information that was reported carefully eases around the actual overtime numbers, that's much better addressed by ordering people responsible for HR decisions to include it explicitly in their reported data. Making someone like Boardman recite a 'wall of shame' list in detail, during a hearing is where I have trouble.
I'm fundamentally against the whole idea of show trials for 'wrecking' in the first place. There's a place for adversarial or prosecutorial methodology, and there's even a place for 'attack journalism' when you have active misfeasance or fraud that can't be illustrated or stopped any other way. But I for one am sick and tired of courtroom rhetoric posing as 'fact-finding' when the actual facts and discussion (and solution determination and remediation) should take place via very different methods in a very different context.
the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter of the calendar year on waivers granted to employees and amounts paid above the cap for each month within such quarter and delineate the reasons each waiver was granted: Provided further, That the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2017, a summary of all overtime payments incurred by the Corporation for 2016 and the three prior calendar years: Provided further, That such summary shall include the total number of employees that received waivers and the total overtime payments the Corporation paid to those employees receiving waivers for each month for 2016 and for the three prior calendar years.
Note that the law does not actually specify that the President of Amtrak must appear before a committee, just a report summary. Quite a different animal. But given the predilictions of the GOP, a 'show trial' might be the outcome. However, most of those have been seen by the public as the farces run by the incompetent comedians they are.
To be honest, I was thinking that the language conventions here are the same as when NTSB or DOT says 'the Secretary of Transportation shall' this or that, when it's obviously the staff that's going to do the work, compile and provide the reports, etc. So in 'normal-speak' the requirements quoted in the new law may be no different from 'compile a specific report showing the overtime, and explain each instance in detail' -- a job any competent Weberian bureaucracy is specialized to prepare and knock out in minimum time, bearing the head honcho's imprimatur.
And just such a report is precisely what is needed, and perhaps made public just as it comes from the GPO, so that "we" can assess what is happening and what reasons were claimed for it.
schlimmBut given the predilections of the GOP, a 'show trial' might be the outcome.
I think it's been Democrats more than Republicans that have manipulated railroad issues for personal attention, specializing in finding people to castigate and blame rather than proposing effective and permanent solutions. But that's not to say 'conservatives' wouldn't enjoy finding ways to make Amtrak look bad, or excuses to chop out funding "needed" for other purposes, or that could be saved 'to help balance the budget' or whatever. I'm thinking that we shouldn't give either party the opportunity or the tools -- let alone the audience or the attention -- to do things that way.
I'm a bit surprised Dave Schanoes hasn't analyzed the whole Mica 'phenomenon' in more detail -- guess he has less interest in passenger issues than core railroad operations.
Keep in mind this bill just went to the House. Mica and them could add more provisions, like count all the coffee beans in the commissary.
Another excerpt:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, $23,274,000: Provided, That the Inspector General shall have all necessary authority, in carrying out the duties specified in the Inspector General Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 3), to investigate allegations of fraud, including false statements to the government (U.S.C. 1001), by any person or entity that is subject to regulation by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Provided further, That the Inspector General may enter into contracts and other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other services with public agencies and with private persons, subject to the applicable laws and regulations that govern the obtaining of such services within the National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Provided further, That the Inspector General may select, appoint, and employ such officers and employees as may be necessary for carrying out the functions, powers, and duties of the Office of Inspector General, subject to the applicable laws and regulations that govern such selections, appointments, and employment within the Corporation: Provided further, That concurrent with the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2017, the Inspector General shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a budget request for fiscal year 2017 in similar format and substance to those submitted by executive agencies of the Federal Government.
wanswheelAnother excerpt: NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
I don't think there's anything 'new' here -- haven't we already recognized in some threads here that Amtrak has one of the better-conducted IG 'departments' (compared to other "government" divisions)?
RME wanswheel Another excerpt: NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL I don't think there's anything 'new' here -- haven't we already recognized in some threads here that Amtrak has one of the better-conducted IG 'departments' (compared to other "government" divisions)?
wanswheel Another excerpt: NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Yes. Both Amtrak IG and GAO reviewers/auditors are pretty competent, at least as our resident accounting person has indicated in reviewing their reports in the past..
No, not a haircut, just a trim.
Excerpt from Senate committee recommendation
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-114srpt243/pdf/CRPT-114srpt243.pdf
The Committee recommends $23,274,000 for the Amtrak Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is equal to the budget request and $1,225,000 less than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level…
Happy now?
schlimm the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter of the calendar year on waivers granted to employees and amounts paid above the cap for each month within such quarter and delineate the reasons each waiver was granted: Provided further, That the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2017, a summary of all overtime payments incurred by the Corporation for 2016 and the three prior calendar years: Provided further, That such summary shall include the total number of employees that received waivers and the total overtime payments the Corporation paid to those employees receiving waivers for each month for 2016 and for the three prior calendar years. Note that the law does not actually specify that the President of Amtrak must appear before a committee, just a report summary. Quite a different animal. But given the predilictions of the GOP, a 'show trial' might be the outcome. However, most of those have been seen by the public as the farces run by the incompetent comedians they are.
The text emphasized in bold sounds like more than just a summary.
MidlandMike schlimm the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter of the calendar year on waivers granted to employees and amounts paid above the cap for each month within such quarter and delineate the reasons each waiver was granted: Provided further, That the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2017, a summary of all overtime payments incurred by the Corporation for 2016 and the three prior calendar years: Provided further, That such summary shall include the total number of employees that received waivers and the total overtime payments the Corporation paid to those employees receiving waivers for each month for 2016 and for the three prior calendar years. Note that the law does not actually specify that the President of Amtrak must appear before a committee, just a report summary. Quite a different animal. But given the predilictions of the GOP, a 'show trial' might be the outcome. However, most of those have been seen by the public as the farces run by the incompetent comedians they are. The text emphasized in bold sounds like more than just a summary.
Yeah? Well the text in bolded red sounds like... a summary!
the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2017, a summary of all overtime payments incurred by the Corporation for 2016 and the three prior calendar years...such summary shall include the total number of employees that received waivers and the total overtime payments the Corporation paid to those employees receiving waivers for each month for 2016 and for the three prior calendar years.
In addition to the summaries, they have to delineate the reasons for each overtime waiver. That is what is meant by "more than just a summary"
So even if it is a bit "more than a summary" what of it? It's about time Amtrak was held to account more precisely. After all, it is not a privately-held organization.
I have no problem with Amtrak being held to account more precisely. It's just that Congress does not seem to know how to do it in some meaningful way, so they have these show hearings on high profile minutia, such as overtime.
My only experience with an actively kneeling bus came in Detroit eight years ago when my wife and I had to take a bus to get within about half a block of the hotel we were going to stay in (the taxi we were riding in from Windsor developed water cooling problems a little distance from the hotel). That the driver caused the bus to kneel made a geat difference for my wife.
This spring, I noticed that two of the buses that I rode going Washington to Bristol and back had indication that they were courteous--but the drivers let me haul myself up and lower myself back to the ground, using my cane to assist me. There was a portable step on board, and some times it was put on the ground. As it was, I had no real problem. I did notice that one passenger had great trouble in getting up to the floor of the bus once she was inside the door..
Johnny
MidlandMike they have these show hearings on high profile minutia, such as overtime.
I recall some discussion a few years ago on here that showed that Amtrak had a significantly higher percentage for labor out of total costs and expenses than freight lines. Perhaps excessive use of overtime has something to do with that.
I agree that congressional hearing tend to be show trials (for PR benefits). However, Amtrak is not very transparent in its accounting records so it becomes the only way.
schlimmI agree that congressional hearing tend to be show trials (for PR benefits). However, Amtrak is not very transparent in its accounting records so it becomes the only way.
One wonders why Congress doesn't put a stop to the problem by specifying exactly how Amtrak should keep its books, and order its public records.
If they can pass a disaster like Sarbox, it should be easy. (My CPA confirmed my opinion that reporting can be done in a straightforward manner if some fairly simple things are done with the financial records and data structures.)
Of course, that assumes that Congress and other stakeholders will be responsible with the transparent records and disclosures. That many of them aren't and probably never would be might account for the perpetuation of 'confusion and delay'.
Sarbox a disaster? Only to some. The FEI, IIA, Chris Cox and Alan Greenspan, among others have praised it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.