Gunn on Amtrak: Here come the Train Offs

[Anonymous]

From Railway Age website

November 9, 2005
David Gunn: “I did the honorable thing”

When he came out of retirement to accept the position as Amtrak’s President and Chief Executive Officer little more than three years ago, David L. Gunn—a highly respected career railroader with more than 40 years’ experience operating freight trains and running transit systems in the U.S. and Canada—said he didn’t need the job, and if his superiors didn’t like the job he was doing, they could fire him. He’d return to his home in Nova Scotia.

That’s exactly what happened earlier today, when Amtrak’s four-person, Bush-Administration-appointed Board of Directors (only one of which—Chairman David M. Laney—has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate), released Gunn, saying that Amtrak “needed to intensify the pace and broaden the scope of its reforms.” He was reportedly let go because of “philosophical differences” with the Board, most likely a clash over the Board’s vote in September to authorize splitting off the Northeast Corridor, an idea backed by the Bush Administration. That apparently was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Chief Engineer David Hughes has been named Acting President and CEO, and the Board “has launched a national search to find the railroad’s next leader.”

“The Board members came in this morning and asked me to resign. I refused, so they fired me,” Gunn said in an interview this afternoon with Railway Age Editor William C. Vantuono. “I feel at least that I did the right, honorable thing. I wasn’t going to abandon our people.” He said that the Bush Administration’s people wanted to implement their plan, “which is destroying Amtrak.” “I stood in their way,” he said. “That’s why they fired me.”

Gunn, a veteran of the Santa Fe and Illinois Central railroads who made his mark in transportation by turning around transit systems in Boston, New York City, Washington D.C., and Toronto, spent the past three-plus years streamlining Amtrak’s management structure, improving financial controls, and implementing many state-of-good-repair programs on plant and equipment. “If you want an example of getting fired for producing good numbers, this is it,” he said. “It’s an upside-down world we live in.”

The biggest question: Who will want Gunn’s job? Presumably, it will have to be someone willing to be more aggressive in carrying out the Administration’s plans for “reforming” Amtrak and intercity passenger rail.

“David Gunn has helped Amtrak make important operational improvements over the past three years,” said Laney in a prepared statement. “Amtrak's future now requires a different type of leader who will aggressively tackle the company’s financial, management, and operational challenges. The need to bring fundamental change to Amtrak is greater and more urgent than ever before. The Board approved a strategic plan in April that provides a blueprint for a stronger and more sustainable Amtrak. Now we need a leader with vision and experience to get the job done.”

“I have known David Gunn many years and respect the work he did to help streamline and stabilize Amtrak,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said in a prepared statement. “However, it is the job of Amtrak’s Board to make decisions that are in the best interest of Amtrak. I am confident in the Board’s judgment and its belief that different leadership is needed to address the serious challenges facing the company. The U.S. Department of Transportation stands ready to support Amtrak as it reforms its long distance services, upgrades the Northeast Corridor, and establishes new fiscal accountability measures and will continue to work with Congress to ensure the future of intercity passenger rail.” (Just two days ago, following a highly critical General Accountability Office report, Mineta said that Amtrak needs to “clean up its act and become more accountable to taxpayers and the traveling public.”)

“Anything they’ll tell you is bulls_t,” Gunn told Railway Age in his characteristically frank, shoot-from-the hip manner. Citing the 93-6 vote in the Senate approving an Amtrak reathorization bill earmarking nearly $12 billion in mostly capital investment over the next few years, Gunn said “it doesn’t compute. The Administration is serious about taking this place apart.”

Gunn’s ouster has prompted a flurry of mostly angry reactions:

“Today’s decision to fire David Gunn is wrong, ill-advised, and further proof that the Bush Administration doesn’t want Amtrak to succeed,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), a former Amtrak Board member. “Strangely, this decision comes just a week after the Senate overwhelmingly approved an Amtrak reform bill in one of the most pro-Amtrak votes I’ve ever seen. Ninety-three senators are now on record supporting a meaningful and thoughtful Amtrak reform bill. It’s unfortunate that the Administration, through the Board, would rather play games with Amtrak’s management than engage Congress on how to make Amtrak stronger. Today’s action was taken by a weak Board with questionable legitimacy. It is just one in a long line of poorly thought-out proposals to come out of the Bush Administration. Earlier this year, the Administration proposed to eliminate all funding for Amtrak and reform it through the bankruptcy courts. Then they proposed splitting off the Northeast Corridor. Now they’re firing someone who’s actually made real progress at bringing some much-needed change to Amtrak.”

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (d-N.J.) cosponsored the successful Amtrak reathorization bill, called the Amtrak Board’s action “a step backward.”

“The manner in which Mineta has handled this is disgraceful,” said one industry observer. He described the Secretary as “widely regarded in the railway industry as little more than a Bush Administration puppet.” Mineta’s pronouncements on Amtrak, particularly, the FRA awarding grants to Amtrak only if it “demonstrates that it has reformed its acquisitions practices,” have sounded like “the petulant parent who threatens to punish a misbehaving child by cutting off his allowance.”

David Laney was previously on record as opposing Administration plans to break up Amtrak. He “is now seen as a part of that effort,” said the National Corridors Initiative. “Many people believe that the Administration will attempt to sell off the Northeast Corridor to a consortium of private interests. Administration officials are reportedly in the process of meeting with the private-sector organizations involved.”

Other sources have told Railway Age that a possible scenario would involve retaining federal ownership of the NEC but placing operations under the auspices of a public/private partnership that would include a federal/multi-state consortium. That model, Gunn maintains, won’t work, given a railroad’s unique (compared to other transportation modes) need for fully integrated operations and infrastructure.

What happens next? “The Administration is running out of time,” Gunn told Railway Age. “They have to do a lot of the dirty stuff this year, because next year is an election year, and what they’ve got in mind will be very unpopular.” Gunn predicted that, within the next few months, “there will be a lot of train-offs and other service cutbacks.”

[Anonymous]

Maybe I could apply for the job. I have no experience, know nothing about the real world of railroading, and can suckup with the best of them. Hmmm, maybe I can even get into government someday.....

[CSXrules4eva]

I think I'm going to have to agree with Senator Tom Carper here in terms of the board members getting rid of Gunn in order to institue a plan that involves Amtrak being broken up into individual ownerships in which, the states will seperatly govern, fund, and control the nations passenger rail, all except for the NEC. I can see why the government, in particular the Bush Administration wants to get rid of Amtrak, to them it's a torn in their side, all except for one division the NEC, which happens to be the center of Amtrak's revanue.

Now all we can do is see how Mr. David Hughes does in runing Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

I believe this article is "right on the money". As I said in Modelcar's thread the other day we must stand up now for Amtrak or this administration will kill it. If you have not written, called, or emailed your congress people DO IT NOW.

Do not allow this administration to trash Amtrak. We must stop the splitting up of Amtrak also and we must voice our opinion NOW.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by equinox

Maybe I could apply for the job. I have no experience, know nothing about the real world of railroading, and can suckup with the best of them. Hmmm, maybe I can even get into government someday.....

Well, you've already got Mineta beat then [:D]. Maybe you oughta go for his job too,,, LOL[8D].

[Modelcar]

...Expecting States to control, fund and govern the daily efforts of Amtrak might as well not even be started...It won't work. Mr. Gunn has layed out the many reasons over time why it won't. If politics weren't in it...It would boggle one's mind why a knowledgeable railroader manager such as Gunn would be fired...

[Anonymous]

Hey L C

Perhaps the time has come for an Amendment to the Constitution to fund a National Rail Passenger Service (Amtrak).

What do you think about this?

I, for one, would support it.

I know the freight railroads probally would not like it. But the government funded many of the original railroads by land grant so it would be fair to ask for a little something back. Of course the passenger side should help pay for some of the expenses for running on fright railroads. But having a better passenger rail system could be part of a national energy program, and that is something this country desperately needs.

[Anonymous]

The Future of Amtrak never looked brighter. Now it can finally be moved forward into the 21st century and not backwards into the 19th.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

Hey L C

Perhaps the time has come for an Amendment to the Constitution to fund a National Rail Passenger Service (Amtrak).

What do you think about this?

I, for one, would support it.

I know the freight railroads probally would not like it. But the government funded many of the original railroads by land grant so it would be fair to ask for a little something back. Of course the passenger side should help pay for some of the expenses for running on fright railroads. But having a better passenger rail system could be part of a national energy program, and that is something this country desperately needs.

Jim -

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I also am not sure that a Constitutional Amendment would be the way to go given the constraints and long time horizons inherent in that process. Besides, I think that Sen. Lott and others have the Congress motivated to do what is necessary to fund Amtrak at a sustainable level.

At this point the problem seems to be more that Bush and Mineta have decided to dismantle Amtrak and firing Gunn was a way of halting progess now that Congress has agreed to provide the money. (As a side note, the House conferees have now been instructed to accept the Senate's $11+Billion funding proposal for the final bill.)

If you haven't already, you should consider the proposal by former Amtrak President Paul Reistrup (who was later a V.P. at CSX) for the privatization of Amtrak. What is happening now is almost a page from that text. For a look at his ideas, they are mentioned at length in this months (Dec) under the Capitol Lines column on page 28. Essentially, he is favoring the split infrastructure and operating company model. Given Reistrup's history in the industry and connections to CSX (can you say "Snow"?) I can't help but wonder if he might be involved in efforts to start a private firm to take over the operations once Bush has put the nail in Amtraks coffin.

Food for thought...

LC

[Jack_S]

QUOTE: Originally posted by equinox

Maybe I could apply for the job. I have no experience, know nothing about the real world of railroading, and can suckup with the best of them. Hmmm, maybe I can even get into government someday.....

For that matter I think my cat, Claude Le Mew, could do the job the Bushiites really want done. He does "warm and fuzzy' really well and is a good lap ornament. He purrs better than any other applicant I know.

[conrailman]

I think Amtrak should Bring them Back Trains Silver Palm to FL and Three Rivers that amtrak Cut?

[Philcal]

Guess it's official now. Amtrak certainly needs some major improvements, and David Gunn had the guts to try to implement some of them. Bottom line, if Amtrak didn't exist, it would have to be invented.

[vsmith]

“Anything they’ll tell you is bulls_t,” Gunn told Railway Age

no additional comment needed

[Anonymous]

LC

What can "WE the People" do to stop Bush and his puppet Mineta from harming Amtrak until the next election. That is other than what I have already urged our forum member to do, that is call, write, or email their congress people.

What can be done to continually fund Amtrak at levels where it can actually add routes and improve its service? What can be done to keep future presidents from doing what Bush is trying now to do?

There are valid questions that need attention not only from forum member but Congress as well.

[Junctionfan]

It's interesting to note that the government of Canada plans on investing billions instead of millions it orginally planned into VIA Rail. They finally are going to use their thinking cap and develop the Windsor Corridor.

As for Bush and Mineta, last time I check opinion poles, over 50% of the people don't trust Bush (think he is a liar) and I hear lots of jabs about Mineta in general. Those guys were elected however so you did get what you voted for so if over 50% of the people think Bush is a liar then to them I say "told you so". Amtrak is just a latest development in Bushism stupidity.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

LC

What can "WE the People" do to stop Bush and his puppet Mineta from harming Amtrak until the next election. That is other than what I have already urged our forum member to do, that is call, write, or email their congress people.

What can be done to continually fund Amtrak at levels where it can actually add routes and improve its service? What can be done to keep future presidents from doing what Bush is trying now to do?

There are valid questions that need attention not only from forum member but Congress as well.

Jim -

Interesting questions. In the short term I would suggest applying as much pressure as possible on governmental representatives at ALL levels. Congress needs to hear that good Amtrak service is important to their constituients. State representatives are also good targets. Pressure from State DOTs that provide matching funds to Amtrak can't hurt. Perhaps one more letter or e-mail to the President himself is worthwhile just to let him know he will step on more toes with his anti-Amtrak position. It may not change his position, but it will make it harder for him to pull the plug. Join a state advocacy group or NARP or other national passenger lobbying group and give a few bucks to them for lobbying. If you are a railroader in a union, encourage your union to support Amtrak, most already do as they stand to lose members and the loss of Amtrak as a railroad employer will seriously hurt the Railroad Retirement Fund.

LC

[robscaboose]

On the White House Website you can send a positive or a negative e-mail to the President. However, the negative e-mails don't go through. I tried it about 8 times over a 2 day period. My wife suggested I send a positive one & it went right through.

Looks like "W" approval is pretty high

Rob

[swknox]

Hey Junctionfan -

Please refrain from saying anything bad about the republicans or in general George W. Bush... in the last thread about the firing of David Gunn I posted my [2c] and {GASP} there was two people out of 50 who stood up for W and his "friends" and swore he had nothing two do with Mr. Gunn being let go from amtrak. I agree with you when I say "I told you so" . Did anyone hear about the two towns in the midwest where one had 90% of the population voted for George W. - 9000 people but the town only had a population of 3000 to start with, and two the town where over 1000 dead people all voted for George W. some have been dead since the late 1800's. Swear its true saw it on the news while watching my Direct TV.

[kenneo]

Congress can fund all it wants and authorize all it wants, but if the administration does not release the funds, nothing happens. Bush's recess appointments to the AMTK Board (all but Mineta and the Chairman) expire Sine Die and then all "W" needs to do is to make new recess appointments to continue the excersize.

However, one possibla action mentioned above - the one about the various States and Regional Compacts, probably would work since that is one of the cornerstones of the Bush reorg of AMTK. In fact, that may be the only thing that would work.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Congress can fund all it wants and authorize all it wants, but if the administration does not release the funds, nothing happens. Bush's recess appointments to the AMTK Board (all but Mineta and the Chairman) expire Sine Die and then all "W" needs to do is to make new recess appointments to continue the excersize.

However, one possibla action mentioned above - the one about the various States and Regional Compacts, probably would work since that is one of the cornerstones of the Bush reorg of AMTK. In fact, that may be the only thing that would work.

For those of us who are vocabulary challenged:

Sine Die -- without a day specified for a future meeting or without a date fixed

Now, question, if Congress authorizes funds how can the president keep the allocation from going through? Can he veto an allocation? If so, then Congress can override his veto. My American Government class was a few [;)] years ago and I am a little forgetful. I know the president at one point approves the budget he submits to the Congress. Is this how he can withhold funding?

[kenneo]

He withholds the funding by not authorizing the actual release of the monies. The congress can appropriate, but the executive disburses. The executive can withhold appripriated funds if it wants to.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

He withholds the funding by not authorizing the actual release of the monies. The congress can appropriate, but the executive disburses. The executive can withhold appripriated funds if it wants to.

Doing so would amount to a defacto line item veto. Does the executive branch have the right to decide WHICH programs to disburse funds to or just to administer the fund according to the legislation enacted by Congress. e.g. could the executive branch decide not to fund a ship building program authorized explicitly by Congress?

There'd likely be a pretty serious argument over something like that.

[Modelcar]

....And in my opinion...there should be.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

....And in my opinion...there should be.

Should be what? Line item veto or a serious arguement?

The problem with a line item veto, is, that your pork is just pork, but mine is "the other white meat"!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

He withholds the funding by not authorizing the actual release of the monies. The congress can appropriate, but the executive disburses. The executive can withhold appripriated funds if it wants to.

Doing so would amount to a defacto line item veto. Does the executive branch have the right to decide WHICH programs to disburse funds to or just to administer the fund according to the legislation enacted by Congress. e.g. could the executive branch decide not to fund a ship building program authorized explicitly by Congress?

There'd likely be a pretty serious argument over something like that.

The constitution is pretty Specific on this, A budget is a law, if passed by the congress, it goes to the president, if he fails to sign it in 10 days, it is law, if he veto's it, it follows the normal veto process to become law.

Nowhere in the constitution does it state that the executive branch can refuse to appropriate the money. This was put in such that the Congress could keep the president from starting a war by refusing to fund the military, thus balancing the powers.

[bbrant]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

The Future of Amtrak never looked brighter. Now it can finally be moved forward into the 21st century and not backwards into the 19th.

I agree with that. Get Amtrak off the corporate welfare program and let them make it on their own which I believe is a real possibility.

Brian

[jchnhtfd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bbrant

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

The Future of Amtrak never looked brighter. Now it can finally be moved forward into the 21st century and not backwards into the 19th.

I agree with that. Get Amtrak off the corporate welfare program and let them make it on their own which I believe is a real possibility.

Brian

Nope. Never has been, never will be. I think this has been covered at length, if not ad nauseam, in various previous threads on Amtrak. Passenger rail service (commuter or long distance) is not profitable. It isn't now, it never has been, with only a very few very special exceptions.

[vsmith]

Can we take the supposedly private sector airline industry off the government corporate subsidies feeding trough at the same time? If Amtrack is expected to sink or swim, shouldnt the same be expected of the airline industry?

As Abe Lincoln once said, "Too many piglets not enough t*ts"[;)]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

QUOTE: Originally posted by bbrant

QUOTE: Originally posted by SteamerFan

The Future of Amtrak never looked brighter. Now it can finally be moved forward into the 21st century and not backwards into the 19th.

I agree with that. Get Amtrak off the corporate welfare program and let them make it on their own which I believe is a real possibility.

Brian

Nope. Never has been, never will be. I think this has been covered at length, if not ad nauseam, in various previous threads on Amtrak. Passenger rail service (commuter or long distance) is not profitable. It isn't now, it never has been, with only a very few very special exceptions.

Moving people, by ANY mode, isn't profitable.

There are a zillion arguments out there for and against Amtrak, but they are just the prelude to the "bottom line", which is, if a majority of Americans want Amtrak and are willing to pay the taxes for the subsidy, then, it's Amtrak we get. No matter anyone's definition of "right", "fair", "prudent" or "useful".

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

Hey L C

Perhaps the time has come for an Amendment to the Constitution to fund a National Rail Passenger Service (Amtrak).

What do you think about this?

I, for one, would support it.

I know the freight railroads probally would not like it. But the government funded many of the original railroads by land grant so it would be fair to ask for a little something back. Of course the passenger side should help pay for some of the expenses for running on fright railroads. But having a better passenger rail system could be part of a national energy program, and that is something this country desperately needs.

Jim, a constitutional amendment is not appropriate for something like Amtrak. Beside, we can't even pass one for a balanced budget.

I don't want to see Amtrak go. When it comes to government programs Amtrak is a "cheap date". This administration is the definition of penny wise and pound foolish.

Personally, I don't think their ulterior motive is financially based. I'm more inclined to believe that the railroads don't want to be bothered with passenger service of any kind, and have asked the president to do something about it. Since he hasn't been successful in getting congress to stop funding, he has resorted to srtongarm tactics which he can control. The money is an easy excuse to cover up that angle.[:(][:(!]