Fred Frailey's article in the latest Trains regarding what's ahead for Amtrak left me with more questions than answers.
The article contains general comments regarding pending equipment purchases, NEC improvements, short corridor funding challenges, and threats to the long distance trains, including a rehashing of how Boardman mishandled the Sunset Limited issue.
Frailey slammed Boardman, sometimes directly and sometimes with faint praise. Claiming that the CEO of a large organization, who is implementing a re-organization plan of his own doing, doesn't appear to know how it will play out is really ripping the guy. If this scenario, to the extent that it is correct, had played out in the Fortune 250 corporation that I worked for, the CEO would have been gone. If I were Boardman, Mr. Frailey would not be welcome at the corporate headquarters or anywhere else on the property.
I am interested to hear what others got out of the article.
I didn't get my trains maz for july yet. I can't wait to read about Amtrak.
conrailman I didn't get my trains maz for july yet. I can't wait to read about Amtrak.
Sign up for the digital version, and you will get it the first of every month. That's how I get mine and, as I have posted in another thread, I love it. Took an issue or two to get use to the format and how to navigate it, but it is a winner. I canceled the chopped tree version.
Here is another benefit if you have young children or grand children. They will think that you are absolutely cool if you read it on-line.
Sam1 conrailman: I didn't get my trains maz for july yet. I can't wait to read about Amtrak. Sign up for the digital version, and you will get it the first of every month. That's how I get mine and, as I have posted in another thread, I love it. Took an issue or two to get use to the format and how to navigate it, but it is a winner. I canceled the chopped tree version. Here is another benefit if you have young children or grand children. They will think that you are absolutely cool if you read it on-line.
conrailman: I didn't get my trains maz for july yet. I can't wait to read about Amtrak.
I sometime spend too much time on the Computer, i don't want to read a 70 pg plus maz.. I love the Paper stuff in my hands every month in the mail.
I think those of us who have known Boardman were very excited and expected a lot from him. He is capable, very capable. But what I was afraid of Frailey alludes to for Boardman and others: having to deal with Congress. Boardman, perhaps, understands that you can't plan but rather must react because of Congress. He doens't have a plan because he knows he can't have one and not get bogged down with political assults that would slow down if not erase any program. By Frailey's own statements, Boardman has had many successes, his plans are working. The other half of Congress is the Republican business wing in the form of big business railroads like UP, CSX, etc. Boardman is playing their game as well. If it is not discussed, planned, or otherwise in public, then nothing can be said or done to negate it. I get the impression that Boardman is playing his cards extremely close to the vest, something both big business and Washington is not used to doing nor not used to seeing in a D.C. based job. In a world of micromanagers and millions of opinions, I think Joe Boardman is working the crowd(s) very well after all. And I think Frailey gives him is just due. Boardman is probably the first Amtrak president to not make headlines, thus he does not make many waves. Frailey lists his accomplishment and his program, all a lot more than I had been led to believe by newsmedia and political statements. Boardman's accomplishments, so far, appear to be more in line with what I expected than what I have been told they are. And I don't think Boardman hold any ill toward Frailey nor can he. As for Frailey himself, I must congratulate him on writing a very fair and balanced article, something most American don't see very often in any medium.
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.
I have not yet read the article, perhaps it will come today, but I think you have given a fair and accurate appraisal. I also think Boardman is doing the very best job possible under very difficult circumstances, considering the possibility of Romney as President and what he has said about Amtrak. (Amtrak may not be the major issue in determining whom I vote for, and I do not wish this to become a political discussion. I just wish to remind everyone that if Romney should become President, hopefully Boardman will be able to educate him as to some facts about Amtrak, specifically that the subsidy for Amtrak on the per journey basis is far less than any other rail passenger service in North America and less than the vast majority of urban bus systems as well.) I think if that case, passenger advocates may consider ourselves lucky it is Boardman that has to deal with the situation.
Let just hope for the best for Amtrak.
daveklepper I just wish to remind everyone that if Romney should become President, hopefully Boardman will be able to educate him as to some facts about Amtrak, specifically that the subsidy for Amtrak on the per journey basis is far less than any other rail passenger service in North America and less than the vast majority of urban bus systems as well.) I think if that case, passenger advocates may consider ourselves lucky it is Boardman that has to deal with the situation.
I just wish to remind everyone that if Romney should become President, hopefully Boardman will be able to educate him as to some facts about Amtrak, specifically that the subsidy for Amtrak on the per journey basis is far less than any other rail passenger service in North America and less than the vast majority of urban bus systems as well.) I think if that case, passenger advocates may consider ourselves lucky it is Boardman that has to deal with the situation.
Are we going to educate Mr. Romney that .1 percent of U.S. passenger miles take place on Amtrak and that if Amtrak were gone, rather than the apocalypse of pollution and congestion that few would notice its absence?
This thing about educating politicians is that the case in favor of trains is not self-evident and an immediate near-term crisis if we don't have them. The favoring of trains vs the not favoring of trains involves values, and in advocating for trains, I think there needs to be some recognition that not everyone shares our values with respect to the metrics by which we assign importance to trains. We can speak to the advantages of trains, why we like trains, make the public aware of trains, but there will be people who don't much care for them: such people are not evil, the are not stupid, and in many cases they are not ignorant; they simply assign different values to different things.
When I worked literature tables at model train shows in advocacy of passenger trains, people would come up to me, people with enough interest in railroading to spend bucks to get into the model train exhibition, and tell me of their opposition to trains. I didn't argue, I didn't scold, I didn't attempt to educate. I thanked them for expressing their views on the matter and explained that part of what I was doing was promoting public awareness of passenger trains as a public choice, and that both sides, pro and con, needed to be heard as part of the political process because yes, getting the train would require public money.
So why am I arguing, scolding, attempting to educate advocacy people? It is because I believe that the advocacy community is stuck in neutral advancing the cause of passenger trains.
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, I think I understand your frustration...but it isn't going to go away until we stop thinking our father's and grandfather's choo choo's. To replicate the past is suicidal in so many ways. We've got to learn and educate in modern terms of usablity, economics, envornment, and stress management understanding over congestion of roads, high costs of fuels (and their scarceties), best land and air usage, enviornmental impact on land and water and inhabitants other than human. The view of what rail services, especially passenger services, is skewed by memory and tourist lines, unfortunately. I laud the saving of a line or an engine or car or station or what have you. But when masked men pull up on horses and invade the cars and take the loot; when grandpa waxes nostalgic of the good old days, when every sentence begins with, "Trains used to..." or "We used to..." or "The way it used to be..." I cringe knowing that railroads, trains, especially passenger trains, are being put in the trash barrel of the past and not the recyle barrel of the present and future; it make it difficult for planners and politicians to make their case for the train. Advocacy people get it as wrong as the 30 year old who never rode a train and takes his five or ten year old on a toursit line ride. We don't teach progressive history...if there even is such a thing...but history as something we did or happened in the way distant past and should be forgotten.
The ability to see North America in comfort for internal and foreign tourism, the need for a back-up transportation system, and retention of the ability of the handicaped and elderly to access the continent remain, for me, the best argumentns for retaining long distance trains. C orrdior investment and subsidy are other matters and pay off in reducing the need for additional land and additional construction to expand highways and airports. A national route structure should give a sence to all Americans, even those that never use the trains and consider them only as emergency back-up, a snesse that they are getting something for their subsidy dollars. These are arguments for today, not for nostalgia.
I agree he damned him with faint praise, for sure.
The re-org, the Sunset deal, the lack of gumption in trying to reduce labor costs.
He also made it sound like he worsened moral in an organization that wasn't very motivated to begin with. His description of how and why Amtrak lost commuter contracts - basically Amtrak local mgt. just didn't care - was particularly telling.
Frailey did a good job of explaining Amtrak's current economic condition, showing, once again, the problem of the LD trains.
A good leader would lay out for the employees exactly what the company is, what it's trying to do, and how it plans on getting there. There some of this going on, but is sounds rather scattershot and isolated.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Here in Chicagoland CSX has been running ads promoting the facts that it is cheaper to ship by Train
and very few gallons of fuel are used per mile traveled. Also what we need to look at are why the
the Europeans support their rail services and it seems so natural for them to take trains in their
travels both business, leisure, and holiday. Whenever I visit in Germany, Italy, England and France
I always come away excited asking myself why we don't do it here in "The States'. We have so much
potential. I think it would be good to look at what is being done right in Europe and what is
going on here. I don't understand why the (R's) do what they can to destroy rail travel I don't get it>
I think the power of "The Unions"and its gangster like stranglehold on commerce and the
the transportation system in the USA has something to do with it
Aside from vast geographical differences between the US and Europe, the key reason seems to be an unwillingness to use tax money to build up a modern network of rail services and to continually support it. Subsidies for trains are regarded as "un-American" or even "socialistic", whereas subsidies for airports and highways are truly "American" - whatever this is.
Yes, I agree to you - the US have a great potential for state-of-the-art trains , but it requires a change in thinking and politicians with a slightly longer vision then just 4 years.
Sir Madog Aside from vast geographical differences between the US and Europe, the key reason seems to be an unwillingness to use tax money to build up a modern network of rail services and to continually support it. Subsidies for trains are regarded as "un-American" or even "socialistic", whereas subsidies for airports and highways are truly "American" - whatever this is. Yes, I agree to you - the US have a great potential for state-of-the-art trains , but it requires a change in thinking and politicians with a slightly longer vision then just 4 years.
For the amount of tax money Amtrak receives, the taxpayers get very little value - and Amtrak's mgt does not seem to care much. In fact, they seem to spend quite a bit of time trying to shore up their entrenched position rather than actually improve or provide needed service.
oltmannd Any way you'd like to count it, the subsidy per passenger for the long distance trains is obscene - and Amtrak has never been particularly motivated to do anything about it. The only time the do or try anything is when Congress gets on their back. For the amount of tax money Amtrak receives, the taxpayers get very little value - and Amtrak's mgt does not seem to care much. In fact, they seem to spend quite a bit of time trying to shore up their entrenched position rather than actually improve or provide needed service.
Any way you'd like to count it, the subsidy per passenger for the long distance trains is obscene - and Amtrak has never been particularly motivated to do anything about it. The only time the do or try anything is when Congress gets on their back.
Not trying to be a smart aleck, Don, but I'd really like to know what Amtrak could have done differently (aside from all those new baggage and baggage-dorm cars!).
Amtrak has neither the political power to abandon the long-distance routes (as some here advocate) nor the money to increase frequencies over the routes and provide a real "service" (as others want). I suppose it could shed the sleepers and go back to sandwiches and plastic in the dining cars, but then you're running buses on rails and still losing money, if not quite so much.
This being an imperfect world -- "What the heck, I'll take it anyway," as Hobbes said to Calvin, in the comic strip -- I'll take Amtrak as it is, warts and all. Its cost? Give me a break. Washington spills more than that 365 days of the year -- before noon.
b[quote user="SantaFeJoe"]
Here in Chicagoland CSX has been running ads promoting the facts that it is cheaper to ship by Train CSX, BNSF, and NS do advertise on radio, tv, and papers nationally and escpecially in markets where there are key businesses or key congressional seats.
going on here. You can put most of Europe into the Northeast corner of the US, it is compact, cities close together, and a variety of geography to match. Rail and high speed rail is often a better choice for travel than air and even for highway. There are four lanes like our Interstate system but not as dense.
I don't understand why the (R's) do what they can to destroy rail travel I don't get it>
Sorry about the statement about Unions. I didn't want the discussion to to move toward Unions .I do agree they have helped in the past to improve many things for workers and working place safety.
I do challenge you about fuel resources. Are you aware here in the USA we have vast crude oil reserves.
Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years!!!! We have more oil than all of the arab states combined. In addition oil is a renewable resource!!!!!!!! Many of the oil wells that were thought to have been pumped dry have new crude in them. We are awash in oil. It is a great fuel and hundreds of years of resources that can be potentially be used. In that time I am sure we can find alternatives BUT we derive so many benefits from oil that contribute so much to our way of life. Trains lead the way in using continually more fuel efficient engines. We have all kinds of technology that make exhaust emissions almost minimal.
***
I do think gov't has a role in promoting the common good of our nation and it should subsidize railservice to a degree that allows passenger service to exist. Out in California the passenger service that services the state from top to bottom is successful & profitable. TRAINS had an article about it a couple years ago. This last Spring for Spring break I rode it with a couple of my kids and it was great.
Yes we have to promote a rethinking of passenger service. I have always believed in the American "can-Do" spirit. I know we can make our rail service great and I agree there are so many obstacles to overcome. BUT if we approached this like a Manhattan Project or Like the going to the moon project think of all the jobs, and excitement it would create. Not to mention all the technological benefits.
dakotafred Not trying to be a smart aleck, Don, but I'd really like to know what Amtrak could have done differently (aside from all those new baggage and baggage-dorm cars!).
Not Amtrak but the advocacy community. Why does Amtrak run the money-losing long-distance trains? Because of Congress. Why does Congress insist on this? Because the advocacy community lobbies for it.
The comment "I'll take Amtrak as it is, warts and all. Its cost? Give me a break. Washington spills more than that 365 days of the year -- before noon." sums up the main course of opinion in advocacy circles, as I have observed it both in online and bricks-and-morter advocacy circles.
How about this example? The local bricks and morter advocacy group has been advocating for since forever for the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MRRI) in general and a Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago train service or more optimistically a St Paul-Madison-Milwaukee-Chicago train service. Back in the day when the MRRI still enjoyed some measure of bi-partisan political support, Amtrak announced that they were pulling "The Three Rivers", and our group went ballistic -- write to the Amtrak president, write our congressional delegation!
The Three Rivers was largely a creature of the Amtrak initiative to get "express" freight business, and the discontinuance of that train was part of Amtrak deciding to get out of the express business because 1) it didn't make any money either, 2) it annoyed their host railroads, and 3) it tied up passenger trains with the switching in and out of express cars or the loading and unloading of same if the consist was kept intact. But the other thing, if what we were "about" was the MRRI and also getting a train to Madison, why was Amtrak deciding to pull The Three Rivers such a priority item? It wasn't that Amtrak was getting its subsidy cut; it was at the level of Amtrak management deciding how to best use their resources, and we were "about" running interference on that. So Congress is the villain in Amtrak running trains that don't make sense? How about the advocacy community putting pressure on Congress to engage in this kind of micro-management.
It is not about the cost as in "Congress gives us (Amtrak) so little money for trains as who is worried about the cost." It is about whatever amount of money you get, be it the 1 billion+ in annual appropriation that keeps Amtrak limping along or the 8 billion in ARRA money, which many thought was "seed money" for a national HSR network and now looks to be a one-shot deal as to how the politics all worked out. Whatever money you are able to get flowing into Amtrak, there are choices as to what you do with the money, and how many tax-paying passengers and potential passengers you can please with that money, which can lead to more grants down the line.
There is never enough money for anyone to do everything they want. The whole Federal budget is this group over here on a starvation budget and that other group over there being "inadequately funded", and pretty much all of that adds up to Senator Dirkson's "real money." As to all of the money said to be wasted on the military, good luck getting the money from any "peace dividend" if it ever comes to that. There are many other worthy, underfunded activities and trains will have to take a number and stand in line.
It is not a question of "taking Amtrak, warts and all", it is a question of the advocacy community having had an active role in shaping Amtrak and being responsible for a lot of the warts.
People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need.
On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
dakotafred oltmannd: Any way you'd like to count it, the subsidy per passenger for the long distance trains is obscene - and Amtrak has never been particularly motivated to do anything about it. The only time the do or try anything is when Congress gets on their back. For the amount of tax money Amtrak receives, the taxpayers get very little value - and Amtrak's mgt does not seem to care much. In fact, they seem to spend quite a bit of time trying to shore up their entrenched position rather than actually improve or provide needed service. Not trying to be a smart aleck, Don, but I'd really like to know what Amtrak could have done differently (aside from all those new baggage and baggage-dorm cars!). Amtrak has neither the political power to abandon the long-distance routes (as some here advocate) nor the money to increase frequencies over the routes and provide a real "service" (as others want). I suppose it could shed the sleepers and go back to sandwiches and plastic in the dining cars, but then you're running buses on rails and still losing money, if not quite so much. This being an imperfect world -- "What the heck, I'll take it anyway," as Hobbes said to Calvin, in the comic strip -- I'll take Amtrak as it is, warts and all. Its cost? Give me a break. Washington spills more than that 365 days of the year -- before noon.
oltmannd: Any way you'd like to count it, the subsidy per passenger for the long distance trains is obscene - and Amtrak has never been particularly motivated to do anything about it. The only time the do or try anything is when Congress gets on their back. For the amount of tax money Amtrak receives, the taxpayers get very little value - and Amtrak's mgt does not seem to care much. In fact, they seem to spend quite a bit of time trying to shore up their entrenched position rather than actually improve or provide needed service.
What different? Tons. Too long a list for now - more later.
Phoebe Vet People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need. On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains.
So, knowing this, Amtrak tried to replicate this success....almost nowhere. California was instigated by the state. The Empire Service improvement of the 1970s and 80s were pushed by the state. Amtrak has been talking about improved corridors but has moved so slowly over the years on Chicago - Detroit and Chicago - StL they might as well not bothered.
The Southeast has grown leaps and bounds since 1971. Other than what NC is doing (mostly on their own) what has Amtrak accomplished in terms of improved service? Nil.
...I'm just getting warmed up.
oltmannd Phoebe Vet: People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need. On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains. So, knowing this, Amtrak tried to replicate this success....almost nowhere. California was instigated by the state. The Empire Service improvement of the 1970s and 80s were pushed by the state. Amtrak has been talking about improved corridors but has moved so slowly over the years on Chicago - Detroit and Chicago - StL they might as well not bothered. The Southeast has grown leaps and bounds since 1971. Other than what NC is doing (mostly on their own) what has Amtrak accomplished in terms of improved service? Nil. ...I'm just getting warmed up.
Phoebe Vet: People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need. On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains.
First, Amtrak can only improve when Congress gives it the money and a program that will make it happen. Say "do it" and not provide the funds or allow for a reasonable program to accomplish any given need means nothing but words. And states have to come to the plate with something on it, too. NC has seen that but the politically conservative states will not. And despite the growth, it is still open country and not megopolis congestion like the Corridor. Either Congress should fund Amtrak with the same amounts of money they fund highway, air, and water, or they should set it up like the Postal Service, or even go so far as to set it up like they did Conrail. Amtrak, by design, moves at the speed of government.
SantaFeJoe Sorry about the statement about Unions. I didn't want the discussion to to move toward Unions .I do agree they have helped in the past to improve many things for workers and working place safety. I do challenge you about fuel resources. Are you aware here in the USA we have vast crude oil reserves. But fuel resources are not forever...the line the oil and gas companies have been giving is to get support for fracking (using chemical solutions pumped into the ground to crack shale and release gas and oil while polluting ground, ground water, air, and using precious water). Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years!!!! We have more oil than all of the arab states combined. In addition oil is a renewable resource!!!!!!!! Many of the oil wells that were thought to have been pumped dry have new crude in them. We are awash in oil. It is a great fuel and hundreds of years of resources that can be potentially be used. In that time I am sure we can find alternatives BUT we derive so many benefits from oil that contribute so much to our way of life. Trains lead the way in using continually more fuel efficient engines. We have all kinds of technology that make exhaust emissions almost minimal. *** Here you are talking about states getting involved in solving the problem of moving people and not the Federal Government and Amtrak. This is good, but there are many states who don't have the congestion problem or are very politically conservative, and are not going to get into supporting publicly funded rail passenger projects: I do think gov't has a role in promoting the common good of our nation and it should subsidize railservice to a degree that allows passenger service to exist. Out in California the passenger service that services the state from top to bottom is successful & profitable. TRAINS had an article about it a couple years ago. This last Spring for Spring break I rode it with a couple of my kids and it was great. Yes we have to promote a rethinking of passenger service. I have always believed in the American "can-Do" spirit. I know we can make our rail service great and I agree there are so many obstacles to overcome. BUT if we approached this like a Manhattan Project or Like the going to the moon project think of all the jobs, and excitement it would create. Not to mention all the technological benefits.
I do challenge you about fuel resources. Are you aware here in the USA we have vast crude oil reserves. But fuel resources are not forever...the line the oil and gas companies have been giving is to get support for fracking (using chemical solutions pumped into the ground to crack shale and release gas and oil while polluting ground, ground water, air, and using precious water).
Here you are talking about states getting involved in solving the problem of moving people and not the Federal Government and Amtrak. This is good, but there are many states who don't have the congestion problem or are very politically conservative, and are not going to get into supporting publicly funded rail passenger projects:
Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years
I would love to see where you got THAT statistic.
Phoebe Vet Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years I would love to see where you got THAT statistic.
Based on everything we have been preached by the oil lobby, I certainly doubt this claim...it is too big a turnaround from all that is said..
henry6 Phoebe Vet: Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years I would love to see where you got THAT statistic. Based on everything we have been preached by the oil lobby, I certainly doubt this claim...it is too big a turnaround from all that is said..
Phoebe Vet: Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years I would love to see where you got THAT statistic.
Oh, the claim is true. What's not said is that a big chunk of it isn't economic to get out and most of the rest is beyond current technology at any cost. A very small chunk is being extracted now.
henry6 oltmannd: Phoebe Vet: People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need. On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains. So, knowing this, Amtrak tried to replicate this success....almost nowhere. California was instigated by the state. The Empire Service improvement of the 1970s and 80s were pushed by the state. Amtrak has been talking about improved corridors but has moved so slowly over the years on Chicago - Detroit and Chicago - StL they might as well not bothered. The Southeast has grown leaps and bounds since 1971. Other than what NC is doing (mostly on their own) what has Amtrak accomplished in terms of improved service? Nil. ...I'm just getting warmed up. First, Amtrak can only improve when Congress gives it the money and a program that will make it happen. Say "do it" and not provide the funds or allow for a reasonable program to accomplish any given need means nothing but words. And states have to come to the plate with something on it, too. NC has seen that but the politically conservative states will not. And despite the growth, it is still open country and not megopolis congestion like the Corridor. Either Congress should fund Amtrak with the same amounts of money they fund highway, air, and water, or they should set it up like the Postal Service, or even go so far as to set it up like they did Conrail. Amtrak, by design, moves at the speed of government.
oltmannd: Phoebe Vet: People don't take the train because the train doesn't go where and when they need. On the northeast corridor the trains are fast, frequent, and on time. LOTS of people take those trains. So, knowing this, Amtrak tried to replicate this success....almost nowhere. California was instigated by the state. The Empire Service improvement of the 1970s and 80s were pushed by the state. Amtrak has been talking about improved corridors but has moved so slowly over the years on Chicago - Detroit and Chicago - StL they might as well not bothered. The Southeast has grown leaps and bounds since 1971. Other than what NC is doing (mostly on their own) what has Amtrak accomplished in terms of improved service? Nil. ...I'm just getting warmed up.
So, Amtrak is supposed to sit there like a bump on a rock and do absolutely nothing until some congressman says, "Hey! Lets see about developing the Chicago - Detroit corridor"?
Baloney.
You are Amtrak, you take the lead and lobby to get funding for projects. But, you have to show value and credibility with what you've been given so far.
What Amtrak does is lobby to get protective legislation and negotiate "poison pill" labor deals.
Don, how and why do you thing Amtrak got to be what it is today? Congress has them on a bungee cord or yo-yo and plays with the funding. It will not allow for normal business long term planning and funding. Amtrak does what it can from one Congressional session to the next..
oltmannd henry6: Phoebe Vet: Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years I would love to see where you got THAT statistic. Based on everything we have been preached by the oil lobby, I certainly doubt this claim...it is too big a turnaround from all that is said.. Oh, the claim is true. What's not said is that a big chunk of it isn't economic to get out and most of the rest is beyond current technology at any cost. A very small chunk is being extracted now.
henry6: Phoebe Vet: Just in the North And South Dakota, Montana north Idaho and extending into Canada there is a vast oil reserve which calculated at current consumption is large enough to last us 700 years I would love to see where you got THAT statistic. Based on everything we have been preached by the oil lobby, I certainly doubt this claim...it is too big a turnaround from all that is said..
There are some there who think fracking...hydro fracturing...is the panacea to open all the available petroleum and gas to pass into their bank accounts. But the truth is that the damage fracking does to the environment, ecologoy, geography, and society is far more damaging than the value of the product.
According to the Energy Institute at UT, "to date, oil and gas regulators and other experts in groundwater protection have found little evidence of a direct link between fracing and groundwater contamination, but no comprehensive study of the technology and its effects has been conducted."
UT's studies to date have found some environmental problems with fracing, but in many instances they appear to be similar to the problems associated with the traditional methods of oil and gas exploration, i.e. surface water contamination because of poor well head practices. UT is collaborating with Syracuse University, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the EPA, as well as others, to help determine the long term consequences of fracing. This is their spelling and apparently is interchangeable with fracking. More information can be found at the Institute's website. What this has to do with Amtrak, by the way, escapes me?
I just returned from Alpine, Texas, which is the gateway, at least according to the locals, to the Big Bend country. It is a stop and crew change point for the Sunset Limited. The station has a brand new station platform, which Amtrak had built with a portion of its ARRA funds. It is a dandy. Looks great. But it seems a bit over the top for a thrice a week train.
As I frequently do when I am in Alpine, I just happened to be at the station when Number 2 came through Monday night. Wow, I thought, getting on and off the train will be much better from the new platform. Before it was constructed, people were directed to board the train from the middle of the street, which the train blocks while it is changing crews.
There is a sign on the east end of the new station platform instructing passengers not to board the train beyond the yellow line, i.e. don't go beyond the edge of the platform into the cross street. Not to worry about warning signs. The train crew detrained and entrained the sleeping car passengers in the middle of the street. Just like they did before the new platform was commissioned. So much for the new platform.
As noted in another post, Amtrak's management doesn't seem to get it. Allowing the crew of the Sunset Limited to board sleeping car passengers from the middle of the street is just one example. The real problem with Amtrak lies in the fact that the CEO is bureaucrat who has spent most of his life in a non-competitive agency environment where customer service is pretty low on the totem pole.
The tone for an organization starts at the top. If the CEO doesn't understand competitive markets and customer service, it is not likely to trickle down the organization. Amtrak has some effective employees, but it has too many lackadaisical folks who don't understand customer service. Until that changes, Amtrak does not have a terribly bright future.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.