Amtrak Prez to get fired - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

maleficent · 11-09-2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Amtrak's board called a meeting for Wednesday and plans to fire President David Gunn, according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York.

Gunn has clashed with the Bush administration since assuming the post in 2002. He has said Amtrak can't survive without federal subsidies while the administration has pushed to eliminate them.

The board scheduled a meeting for 2 p.m. and plans to fire Gunn, Schumer told The Associated Press, citing "a very high and reliable source."

Schumer called Gunn's removal "a crushing blow to Amtrak's hopes for success and reform," and praised him as "a brilliant manager."

Gunn, who came to Amtrak after having headed transit systems in New York City, Washington and Toronto, could not be reached to comment. A call to Amtrak's chairman David Laney was not immediately returned.

In September, Amtrak's board approved a resolution authorizing splitting off the Northeast Corridor, which accounts for the largest share of the railroad's ridership. That region could be operated by a federal-state consortium.

The Bush administration favors the idea, but critics say it will destroy Amtrak.

Amtrak has never made money in its 34-year history and an operating loss of more than $550 million was expected for the fiscal year that ended September 30. The railroad has a debt of more than $3.5 billion.

The White House has called for an end to subsidies for Amtrak, but the House has approved an appropriation of nearly $1.2 billion for this budget year.

In recent months, Amtrak has been besieged by problems up and down the line, from equipment breakdowns to big-ticket budget woes.

Earlier this year, Amtrak suspended all high-speed Acela service between Washington, New York City, and Boston, due to cracks discovered in the brakes.

A report issued last week by the Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of Congress, said the company needs to improve the way it monitors performance and oversees its finances in order to reach firm financial footing.

"The company is likely to need outside help in developing a comprehensive approach to address internal control weaknesses and improve the financial information for management and external stakeholders," the report found.

The GAO recommended that the transportation secretary direct the Federal Railroad administrator to: require Amtrak to submit a plan laying out specifically how it will improve its financial operations; provide Amtrak with direction on how to do so; and monitor the railroad's performance and report to Congress on Amtrak's progress.

Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta later called the report "unusual, if not unprecedented, in the scope of its review and the severity of its indictment." He urged the board to "stop and take a fresh look on how to proceed in the face of this nonpartisan, objective report of systemic failure."

I almost feel bad for the guy, he pretty much walked into a no-win situation. Amtrak's never made money... and I guess he's not playing the game he's supposed to be playing...

Living in the Northeast, if I needed to get to DC or Philly (which was quite often) the train was the only way to go.... it beat the hell out of flying, and I know that the northeast corridor could be profitable (well, except for all the problems they had with the Acela trains) ... Would splitting off the northeast corner service finish off Amtrak for the rest of the country? Probably...

What's the solution for the rails. the country does need rail travel. Should the government continually give subsidies to businesses...

Redlemon · 11-09-2005, 08:53 AM

The airlines woudn't survive without their government subsidies either, right? Train travel is so much more comfortable and civilized. I hope that Connecticut to DC is still running at New Year's, I have a trip planned.

pandafaye · 11-09-2005, 10:50 AM

I live in Maine. It's too expensive to fly or drive anywhere! Looks like trips to Boston are out...

denim · 11-09-2005, 10:54 AM

During the time the airlines were out after 9/11, trains and buses were the only way. And they want to get rid of the trains, it seems to me.

snowy · 11-09-2005, 01:39 PM

As a long-time Amtrak rider...this isn't by any means the first scare they've had regarding funding/shutting down service. There are only a few areas in the country that are really profitable for Amtrak: the NE corridor, the PacNW corridor, and California. What hurts Amtrak are the longer runs like the Empire Builder (Seattle-Chicago). The train, unlike an airline, will run if it's half-full...people expect it to be there. That's not a good business strategy, but it is a good strategy for a public service. So we have to decide WHAT precisely Amtrak is--is it a business or a public service? Seems to me we've decided the airlines are a public service by arranging to bail them out time after time to the tune of billions of dollars. Why not Amtrak?

To me, they deserve it, and dammit, I love my trains.

djtestudo · 11-09-2005, 01:41 PM

They were talking about Amtrak on local radio a few weeks ago, and I actually had a brainstorm. Why can't thy copy the NE Corridor in other places? I would be willing to bet that high-speed trains between San Francisco and San Diego, and possibly along the Great Lakes and Southeast regions, would be profitable enough. Anywhere there is a series of major cities they could do it.

snowy · 11-09-2005, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

They were talking about Amtrak on local radio a few weeks ago, and I actually had a brainstorm. Why can't thy copy the NE Corridor in other places? I would be willing to bet that high-speed trains between San Francisco and San Diego, and possibly along the Great Lakes and Southeast regions, would be profitable enough. Anywhere there is a series of major cities they could do it.

Because Amtrak doesn't own the rail in those areas. In other parts of the country, they are dependent on rail owned by freight companies. That rail does not meet the safety requirements necessary to run high-speed trains. Until Amtrak somehow gets more money and manages to build their own rail, it won't happen.

In the PacNW, the Amtrak Cascades (short-run passenger train, Eugene-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver) is run by a partnership between ODOT, WSDOT, and Amtrak. WSDOT ponied up a bunch of money to fix up the track that Cascades runs on, including improvements such as banking the track. But even so, the top speed of that train (and they're running Spanish Talgo cars, capable of high speeds) is 70mph for safety reasons.

Until either the safety laws change (they're really rather unnecessarily strict) or Amtrak gets more help from individual states ala Washington, developing more advanced corridors will be difficult at best.

SecretMethod70 · 11-11-2005, 06:05 AM

djtestudo is right though...the key to the future of rail travel in the US is high speed. Our rail system is pathetic compared to many other developed countries and I have full confidence that if rail travel times were drastically cut, people would be much more willing to take advantage of them.

Like others have pointed out, the government holds up the airline industry, why is rail less useful for the public? (In fact, I'd argue it's more useful - those people afraid to fly, etc.) If the government is going to subsidize travel, then do it. Or don't do it for either of them.

shakran · 11-11-2005, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

They were talking about Amtrak on local radio a few weeks ago, and I actually had a brainstorm. Why can't thy copy the NE Corridor in other places? I would be willing to bet that high-speed trains between San Francisco and San Diego, and possibly along the Great Lakes and Southeast regions, would be profitable enough. Anywhere there is a series of major cities they could do it.

The trouble is that Amtrak doesn't own most of the track it uses. The freight guys own it. And since freight doesn't need to go 200mph like highspeed passenger rail would, the tracks aren't built well enough to handle trains moving at that speed. Plus most of the road/rail crossings are grade level in the US. A 200 mph train crossing on a road rather than above or below the road is a certain recipe for major disaster.

So until Amtrak builds its own rails, they're screwed, and they'll never build the rails because they barely have enough cash to run their trains, much less add infrastructure. Now, considering airline tickets are about to skyrocket (airlines declaring bankruptcy, going out of business, and fuel costs too high) train tickets might become attractive - but not when it takes 2 days to go from minneapolis to missoula - a trip that's a few hours by air.

The trouble is that unlike european governments, our government hasn't stepped up to the plate and said, yeah, it's expensive, but it's vital transportation infrastructure and we need to fund it.

snowy · 11-11-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

The trouble is that Amtrak doesn't own most of the track it uses. The freight guys own it. And since freight doesn't need to go 200mph like highspeed passenger rail would, the tracks aren't built well enough to handle trains moving at that speed. Plus most of the road/rail crossings are grade level in the US. A 200 mph train crossing on a road rather than above or below the road is a certain recipe for major disaster.

So until Amtrak builds its own rails, they're screwed, and they'll never build the rails because they barely have enough cash to run their trains, much less add infrastructure. Now, considering airline tickets are about to skyrocket (airlines declaring bankruptcy, going out of business, and fuel costs too high) train tickets might become attractive - but not when it takes 2 days to go from minneapolis to missoula - a trip that's a few hours by air.

The trouble is that unlike european governments, our government hasn't stepped up to the plate and said, yeah, it's expensive, but it's vital transportation infrastructure and we need to fund it.

Obviously someone didn't take the time to read my post...

shakran · 11-11-2005, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

Obviously someone didn't take the time to read my post...

Someone missed the first line of it because someone is tired and probably just a little stupid

Sorry

(but i did point out grade level crossings, which at least added SOMETHING original to the thread. . . at least there's that!)

Roark · 11-12-2005, 05:24 AM

Working for the railroad i've never understood why we subsidize the airlines and bail them out time and time again as well as funneling all this money into DOT but when it comes to getting money for rail it's like pulling teeth.

I don't know if it's special interests or what but anyone who thinks that reliable and fast means of mass transit won't play a key part in our future is crazy. Granted I know Amtrak in most area's doesn't exactly fit this bill and due to funding all it's really been doing is limping along for the past 20 years but it's a start.

sailor · 11-12-2005, 06:02 AM

I'd love to see the government step up and fund a large highspeed national rail system. It'll never come anywhere as close as what Europe has--the US is just too big--but for many trips, rail just plain kicks the crap out of flying or driving. I love travelling by rail--there's nothing like showing up to the station 5 minutes before the train leaves, walking on, reading your book for a few hours, and stepping off at your destination. So hassle free, and generally fast, too.

Of course, we have all sorts of other things that seem to be more important, like funding oil wars and spending billions on "security" that does nothing more than annoy people

11-09-2005, 08:53 AM	#2 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	The airlines woudn't survive without their government subsidies either, right? Train travel is so much more comfortable and civilized. I hope that Connecticut to DC is still running at New Year's, I have a trip planned. __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

11-09-2005, 01:39 PM	#5 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	As a long-time Amtrak rider...this isn't by any means the first scare they've had regarding funding/shutting down service. There are only a few areas in the country that are really profitable for Amtrak: the NE corridor, the PacNW corridor, and California. What hurts Amtrak are the longer runs like the Empire Builder (Seattle-Chicago). The train, unlike an airline, will run if it's half-full...people expect it to be there. That's not a good business strategy, but it is a good strategy for a public service. So we have to decide WHAT precisely Amtrak is--is it a business or a public service? Seems to me we've decided the airlines are a public service by arranging to bail them out time after time to the tune of billions of dollars. Why not Amtrak? To me, they deserve it, and dammit, I love my trains. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

11-09-2005, 01:41 PM	#6 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	They were talking about Amtrak on local radio a few weeks ago, and I actually had a brainstorm. Why can't thy copy the NE Corridor in other places? I would be willing to bet that high-speed trains between San Francisco and San Diego, and possibly along the Great Lakes and Southeast regions, would be profitable enough. Anywhere there is a series of major cities they could do it. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

11-11-2005, 06:05 AM	#8 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	djtestudo is right though...the key to the future of rail travel in the US is high speed. Our rail system is pathetic compared to many other developed countries and I have full confidence that if rail travel times were drastically cut, people would be much more willing to take advantage of them. Like others have pointed out, the government holds up the airline industry, why is rail less useful for the public? (In fact, I'd argue it's more useful - those people afraid to fly, etc.) If the government is going to subsidize travel, then do it. Or don't do it for either of them. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

11-12-2005, 06:02 AM	#13 (permalink)
sailor beauty in the breakdown Location: Chapel Hill, NC	I'd love to see the government step up and fund a large highspeed national rail system. It'll never come anywhere as close as what Europe has--the US is just too big--but for many trips, rail just plain kicks the crap out of flying or driving. I love travelling by rail--there's nothing like showing up to the station 5 minutes before the train leaves, walking on, reading your book for a few hours, and stepping off at your destination. So hassle free, and generally fast, too. Of course, we have all sorts of other things that seem to be more important, like funding oil wars and spending billions on "security" that does nothing more than annoy people __________________ "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." --Plato

11-09-2005, 10:50 AM	#3 (permalink)
pandafaye Tilted Location: Maine	I live in Maine. It's too expensive to fly or drive anywhere! Looks like trips to Boston are out...

11-09-2005, 10:54 AM	#4 (permalink)
denim Banned Location: Massachusetts, USA	During the time the airlines were out after 9/11, trains and buses were the only way. And they want to get rid of the trains, it seems to me.

11-12-2005, 05:24 AM	#12 (permalink)
Roark Insane	Working for the railroad i've never understood why we subsidize the airlines and bail them out time and time again as well as funneling all this money into DOT but when it comes to getting money for rail it's like pulling teeth. I don't know if it's special interests or what but anyone who thinks that reliable and fast means of mass transit won't play a key part in our future is crazy. Granted I know Amtrak in most area's doesn't exactly fit this bill and due to funding all it's really been doing is limping along for the past 20 years but it's a start.