Amtrak ridership up, Illinois to fund more trains

[jeaton]

Mission statements are great... for those who are too dense to grasp the obvious.

By the way, the host of initiatives were begun quite some time before David Hughes became Amtrak's acting president.

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Mission statements are great... for those who are too dense to grasp the obvious.

By the way, the host of initiatives were begun quite some time before David Hughes became Amtrak's acting president.

Yeah. I didn't think it was a big deal either, because to me there aren't any missions for Amtrak other than the obvious. I guess having it stated for the record makes some people feel more secure.

Actually, speaking as an Amtrak passenger and taxpayer, I thought David Gunn was doing just fine. His running Amtrak without proper funding is like putting handcuffs on a person and then telling them to play the piano. It can be done, but not very well.

[jeaton]

Poppa_Zit As an aside, I pick up bits and pieces here and there, and this is the way I connect the dots. Contrary to the statements the Amtrak Board, Gunn was not just holding for the status quo. In addition to the "initiatives" mentioned in the article, the Grant Request for 2007 clearly follows the pattern started by Gunn.

It is my view that the origin of the move to fire Gunn was the White House Office of Management and Budgets. It is certainly clear that OMB has had Amtrak on its hit list, and Gunn was a formidable obstacle to the OMB's goal to get Amtrak off the Federal dole. Key congressional members on both sides of the isle held him in high regard and were willing to pu***he funding level well beyond the Administration's request.

I'm not saying that he brought it up, but it is most likely that Josh Bolten did see that word got out to the Amtrak Board which, as you know, was then and is currently made up of Bush appointed Republicans quite loyal to the Administration. The Board asked Gunn to resign, he refused and said if they wanted him out they would have to fire him. They did, and then paid $40,000 to the outside PR firm which used the return "released". With a chuckle, Gunn will say that "released" does sound better than "fired".

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

The Board asked Gunn to resign, he refused and said if they wanted him out they would have to fire him. They did, and then paid $40,000 to the outside PR firm which used the return "released". With a chuckle, Gunn will say that "released" does sound better than "fired".

jeaton, you'd have to look at his contract, but with most standard employment versions if you resign, the employer is not obligated to pay any remaining balance. By being fired, though, perhaps Gunn at least made Amtrak pay off the full amount of the contract. If I was him, I wouldn't let those hired guns do me, either. I'd take the firing, and be carried off on my shield a hero. Which IMHO, he did.

BTW, by being fired Gunn also became eligible to collect unemployment. LOL

[jeaton]

You may find this hard to believe, but Gunn did not have a contract, and I don't think there was any "goodby" money. The action did precipitate a hearing by the House Transportation Sub-Committee on Railroads and Gunn was able to refute some of the allegations made by Board Chairman Laney and the DOT attorney that sits in for Mineta.

[Anonymous]

Ok, the thread has managed to degenerate down to garbage with the introduction of that loser Gunn. Started off nicely about the Great State of Illinois and ended with the introduction of an debate about an idiot.

Can we please get back on topic here.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Poppa_Zit

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Mission statements are great... for those who are too dense to grasp the obvious.

By the way, the host of initiatives were begun quite some time before David Hughes became Amtrak's acting president.

Yeah. I didn't think it was a big deal either, because to me there aren't any missions for Amtrak other than the obvious. I guess having it stated for the record makes some people feel more secure.

Actually, speaking as an Amtrak pasesenger and taxpayer, I thought David Gunn was doing just fine. His running Amtrak without proper funding is like putting handcuffs on a person and then telling them to play the piano. It can be done, but not very well.

''safe, reliable intercity passenger service in an economically sound manner that will exceed customer expectations."

I guess Warrington couldn't see the obvious. Very little of what happened under his watch fits this mission statement.

Downs tried to do the "economically sound" part, but forgot about the "customer expectations" part (which wrecked the economics along the way!)

The big open item in this mission statement is: "who is Amtrak's customer?" Is it the NEC business traveller? Is it would-be passengers who would ride new corridors if there was service? Is it upper middle class vacationers? Is it rural citizen w/o access to alternatives? All of the above? Just the existing riders of the existing network? Who gets served first and how?

Anyone who believes in such a thing as "obvious" hasn't spent much time with a toddler![:D]

[Poppa_Zit]

First you rip Amtrak by stating numerous times that it lacks a "misson statement."

One -- rather easily found -- is presented to you.

Suddenly, you now change tactics and instead decide to judge how often Amtrak fulfilled that mission statement through recent regimes.You also claim Amtrak lacks "goals." You really don't seem to be willing to discuss the topic, especially after your claims are disallowed. Your agenda seems to be to diss Amtrak, period, and use facts selectively toward that end.

What you need to consider is that without a CLEAR mandate from Congress, Amtrak cannot realistically plan for the future. Why waste time and resources on a long-range plan while struggling to survive the present? THAT is its current goal, and anything beyond would be folly.

An analogy for attempting to plan far ahead now, in Amtrak's current situation, is like trying to sell a retirement plan to an unemployed person who has no money, has maxxed out his credit cards and is just scraping to get through each day.

I'd say there is a superb chance things would be much different at Amtrak if Congress would, say, earmark proper funding -- say $30-40 billion, three or four billion a year for the next ten years -- so that a salient, long-range plan could be designed. But that would first have to happen before anyone begins to speculate on it, and I doubt it would in the current climate.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Poppa_Zit

First you rip Amtrak by stating numerous times that it lacks a "misson statement."

One -- rather easily found -- is presented to you.

Suddenly, you now change tactics and instead decide to judge how often Amtrak fulfilled that mission statement through recent regimes.You also claim Amtrak lacks "goals." You really don't seem to be willing to discuss the topic, especially after your claims are disallowed. Your agenda seems to be to diss Amtrak, period, and use facts selectively toward that end.

What you need to consider is that without a CLEAR mandate from Congress, Amtrak cannot realistically plan for the future. Why waste time and resources on a long-range plan while struggling to survive the present? THAT is its current goal, and anything beyond would be folly.

An analogy for attempting to plan far ahead now, in Amtrak's current situation, is like trying to sell a retirement plan to an unemployed person who has no money, has maxxed out his credit cards and is just scraping to get through each day.

I'd say there is a superb chance things would be much different at Amtrak if Congress would, say, earmark proper funding -- say $30-40 billion, three or four billion a year for the next ten years -- so that a salient, long-range plan could be designed. But that would first have to happen before anyone begins to speculate on it, and I doubt it would in the current climate.

I actually agree with with you. I'm not arguing that Amtrak needs a mandate from Congress, they do, or that it's in tough shape, it is, or that it's been unfairly strung along for a long time.

You are right. Long term planning for Amtrak is, and has been, folly. THAT'S THE PROBLEM! But the root of the problem is, even with all the immediate problems solved, you can't have a long term plan UNLESS YOU HAVE A GOAL. In the 60's, we didn't just throw money at NASA and say "just keep shooting off rockets". The mission was "go to the moon and back in by the end of 1969". We didn't create an interstate highway network by throwing money into construction and saying "make some roads". There was a network map that was the plan.

But nobody, and that includes Congress, the White House and Amtrak itself, has ever made it clear, or tried very hard to make clear, what Amtraks mission is. They are like a sentence without a subject. A MANDATE would be the verb and TRAINS the object, but what's the SUBJECT?

What we've gotten over the years has been a mish-mash with everybody stirring the pot and nobody accountable for anything.

At least, now there is a mission statement. From that can come some goals and from that, hopefully some funding with accountability.

I'd LOVE to see what could be done with $30-40B. But, unless you have some goals that flow from your mission, you might as well just pour the money in a rat hole.

So, what would be some reasonable goals for Amtrak. More frequency on exisiting corridors? More LD train on exisiting routes? More LD routes? Faster trains on existing routes? New corridors? "Glide slope to self sufficiency?" Some of these? All of these? None of these?

The goals come first. Then you go for the money.

[oltmannd]

...and I'm only so hard on Amtrak because I want so much more from them. I want lots and lots of really useful train service everywhere. I am very frustrated by year after year of status quo I want them to LEAD the change. I think you would have seen some of that from Gunn if he'd been allowed to hang around for a few more years.

[Anonymous]

I think we have the Amtrak we have, because voters support the idea of some train service, but not enough to make it truly viable. The politicians act or more accurately react.

I think the states are now the doers for rail, because they're feeling the pain, and private business can't provide the service, because it's not profitable.

Illinois is one of the states that has to make it work.

[oltmannd]

Tom-

I think you're right. But with states doing the heavy lifting, it's hard to create a network.

An interesting thing is happening here in Atlanta. There have been plans to do a commuter rail network for over 10 years. Of the 10 or so lines planned, one of the best (as defined by ridership potential vs. cost) has caught the eye of some local developers. They have gotten a group together to push it. They estimate $2B in economic benefit over 10 years for the cost of $380M to build out plus a couple million per year in operating subsidy. The first step was a survey or residents along the line and they found out that 80% support the plan. So, just support of voters is often not enough to make something happen.

It's still along way from a "done deal". Still lots of silly local and state attitudes and polotics to get thru....

[Poppa_Zit]

You could definitely use commuter rail in Atlanta to connect all of the suburbs with the business center. I thought we had bad traffic here in Chicago -- until I experienced the traffic on the loop and thru town down there. What a mess, and at all hours of the day and night, to boot.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Poppa_Zit

You could definitely use commuter rail in Atlanta to connect all of the suburbs with the business center. I thought we had bad traffic here in Chicago -- until I experienced the traffic on the loop and thru town down there. What a mess, and at all hours of the day and night, to boot.

State and local politics here are as bad as the traffic......

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by Poppa_Zit

You could definitely use commuter rail in Atlanta to connect all of the suburbs with the business center. I thought we had bad traffic here in Chicago -- until I experienced the traffic on the loop and thru town down there. What a mess, and at all hours of the day and night, to boot.

State and local politics here are as bad as the traffic......

Harrumph! You, suh, are preaching to the choir here! I'm from Chicago AND Illinois.

Chicago politics? 'nuff said. Illinois? -- the state where five of the last seven governors were convicted of politics-related felonies committed while in office.

Betcha your politicians can't top that! [:D]

And you tell me about Atlanta! If you look up "political corruption" in an encyclopedia, you'll find a picture of our state map. [:D]

[oltmannd]

Somehow, some way, Illinois and Chicago manage to fund METRA, CTA and schools that don't rank 49th in the nation.

In GA, there is NO state funding for transit - only roads. And the schools....

They are not corrupt down here so much as inept, stubborn and sometimes downright stupid.

[jeaton]

Don

If you go to the Amtrak web site and dig up the various reports, you will find a series of highly detailed 5 year plans put out during Dave Gunn's tenure. It not only covers the steps to get the operation to a state of good repair, but also provides much information on the status of development of regionals.

I think it is reasonable to say that he rank regionals at the top of the list as the most useful service expansion. I think there was a suggestion for 80-20 federal state split on the investment side with the states picking up operating deficits. One key thing. He agreed with the idea that Amtrak did not have to be the operator and the states could make the selection of an operator among any business that might be interesting.

Check it out.

Jay

[Poppa_Zit]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

Somehow, some way, Illinois and Chicago manage to fund METRA, CTA and schools that don't rank 49th in the nation.

In GA, there is NO state funding for transit - only roads. And the schools....

They are not corrupt down here so much as inept, stubborn and sometimes downright stupid.

In Atlanta, should the proposed commuter rail system come to pass, would it use existing infrastructure (ROW, trackage, etc.) or would it all be new investment, and require land acquisition? I own real estate near Newnan and that area seems ripe for development. At least for now, the morning rush on I-85 into the city isn't too bad, but how efficient would things be if Newnan, Carrolton and Peachtree City all offered trains to Atlanta?

OTOH, I've stayed in Duluth and Smyrna and would consider a life of crime before doing a daily round-trip to Downtown.

Chicago is criss-crossed with rails and former ROWs. The CTA is a remnant of several privately-owned commuter lines, and Metra uses mostly trackage owned by Class I RRs, although it does own some of its own track -- like the old Wabash line to Manhattan and the old Milwaukee Road north line.

And for the schools, Illinois' rating is not to be believed. Georgia's 49th position may be because of an honest count. Teachers and administrators in Chicago's schools have already been accused of falsifying test scores to get better rankings. Too bad they can't find a way to disguise high school graduates who cannot read or write.