I live in one of 2(?) states without Amtrak service. Therefore, it’s not something that affects me much. We all know of the controversy of Gunn, and his departure. What can you tell me about past leaders of Amtrak? Who did it right? Who got some things done? What got done?Etc…
In my mind I’d have to cite W.G. Claytor and Mr. D. Gunn as being active and knowledgeable of railroad matters and diligently worked to improve the service. As for what they got done requires research and for now I’m just making the above comment.
Paul Reistrup could also be numbered among the Amtrak CEOs that made some positive accomplishments. He got the program going to replace the “heritage” locomotives with the F-40s.
Jay
…Yes, I agree with that evaluation…Is he still available to come back and do it again…but then, I suppose it would do no good as his hands would be totally tied.
Folks, I think we may be flogging a dying mule here.
Sound rational leadership for AMTRAK is not what the Transportation Sec.
[ Norman Mineta] wants, he seems to be about “rationalizing” AMTRAK. Hold on to the high traffic, high ridership and politically visible Northeast Corridor, by privatizing that area. Then dump pretty much the rest of the system. Letting local juristictions manage their commuter rail infrastructures. AMTRAK might be allowed to survive as a management/ operational and consultant capacity in that arena only.
Look at the high speed rail project in California, Schwartzenegger is about to put a financial harpoon in that plan, by not funding the agency overseeing it. While the federal gov’t will probably only provide funds if the State will co-fund with matching money. And it is not funded in the proposal for the next ten year plan.
Not to mention, that the freight railroads seem to have no interest in passenger business, except where it has been forced on them.
Just my opinion on this.
Thanks, Sam
Sam: I know what you’re saying, and the current Amtrak issue has been beaten to death. On that we agree. I was more interested in learning about the PAST leadership and direction of Amtrak. Thanks
My two pence - Amtrak has NEVER had effective leadership, in so much as the entity known as Amtrak was not designed to be successful.
Stay with me on this folks…
If Amtrak was designed to fail (and many Amtrak supporters have stated such), what use is it if those appointed to lead Amtrak are doing so within the predicated constraints of that failure template? Who cares how much actual leadership talent past Amtrak presidents have had if they are only accelerating Amtrak into it’s eventual demise by stubbornly adhering to Amtrak’s 1930’s logistical vision?
It’s like putting Einstein in charge of alchemy. We all know it’s impossible to convert base metals into gold, so if Einstein tried to stay that course, all his intellectual brilliance would have been wasted no matter how much he put into it. Only if that Einstein made it clear from the start that alchemy is bullocks would he have actually exhibited any real leadership in that situation.
Amtrak needs to be converted into a national rail passenger oversight agency whose purpose is to foster for willing participants the right of access to the nation’s freight railroad grid in an interconnected medium haul rail passenger network. That’s the only way passenger rail can be viable in today’s world of Interstates and airliners. We’ve all known this for the last 35 years since Amtrak’s inception, yet no so-called “leaders” of Amtrak past or present have been willing to take it down the only path that presents a hopeful future for the idea of passenger railroading.
Or to directly answer Murphy’s question, no one has yet got it right.
My friend has a PhD in chemistry and tells me we can turn base metals into gold. However, no one does it because the cost of doing so is exponentially larger than the money gained from the conversion–ergo, no one does it.
…Even then, and if your scenario is correct…and the system will still be running on rails, we’ll need some learned leaders such as the ones we’ve mentioned above to lead and operate it.
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe
My friend has a PhD in chemistry and tells me we can turn base metals into gold. However, no one does it because the cost of doing so is exponentially larger than the money gained from the convers
Sen. Robert Byrd of WV sure knew how to build highways and keep some rail transportation through his area…
Amtrak,as originally set up, was not supposed to succeed.That is why the first president,Roger Lewis,was an ex airline executive.At the time, no one could forsee the 1973 energy “crisis” when people would rediscover trains.Amtrak’s second president was Paul Riestrup(sp?),who was brought in from ICG. He took a hands on aproach,and did quite a bit of good.
BTW, There are three states with no Amtrak service.
South Dakota,Alaska,and Hawaii.
It is my view that today’s energy concerns as they pertain to transportation have no real influence on the percieved viability of rail passenger concepts.
(1) No matter how high fuel costs rise, the time advantage of air travel will always trump conventional rail travel. We all have a perception of how much our time is worth, so if it takes three times as long to travel by conventional rail vs air (say, 24 hours vs 8 hours as an example), that extra 16 hours will probably amount to more value lost than the added cost of higher ticket fares due to fuel surcharges.
(2) No matter how high fuel costs rise, the flexibility of highway travel will always trump conventional rail travel. In line with the statement above regarding the value of time, even if we are paying $5.00/gallon for gas or diesel the time savings of not having to adhere to a railroad’s schedule is probably valued more than the fuel savings (assuming the passenger/mile fuel savings of rail are actually passed on to the customer).
What rail passenger advocates need to do is to fit both #1 and #2 into a passenger rail offering to make it more appealing to travelers. As has been stated elsewhere, time is somewhat irrelevant when we are asleep or dining, or when we are performing work on our own. Commuter advocates will point to the fact that commuters can work on their laptops etc while in transit from city to suburb. And if air travel also involves the need to stay overnight at a hotel, that is one area that rail travel can sell itself by providing both the
It effects Illinois Politics alot Amtrak has over 2,000 Emplyoees in Illinois, they comtribute over $100 Million to the state economy it would be devistating to the Illinois Economy plus some of Amtrak biggest Supporters are from Illinois.
Again the discussion misses the huge subsidy highway transportation gets from real-estate-tax free land use, the need for a national passsenger rail system for the handicapped and elderly who cannot fly or spend large amounts of time in autos, and the need to provide a civilized approach to tourism. I think the annual subsidy for Amtrak has been cheap, a bargain, for the good it has done the USA, and I think under David Gunn it would have been reduced even more and that most of the ideas for other approaches either remove Amtrak’s benefits or would resuilt in increased, not decresed, subsidization.
I think Mineta is grossly incompetent, not only regarding Amtrak but also his reactions (none to speak of) during Mineta.
I think Mineta should be fired and David Gunn rehired.
…Most observations above are meaningful to subject…and we all have plenty…but no leader good or bad will now be successful with the made up mind of our President…with Mineta or without…President Bush has decided he wants Amtrak or whatever it will be called…to cease to exist in or near it’s present form and no matter who is it’s CEO it will not continue. Only something devised to serve the NEC and not much else…Time will have to pass until sometime later and then if some organization is successful to get some form of rail transportation started…which I doubt, we’ll have none…and no leader will be neaded.
And the Anti-bush crowd jumps in with mis-information and lies yet again.
Now that we’ve deflated the narrowminded, let’s get back to the topic. Amtrak was concieved to save rail travel for the 25-30% of americans that could not afford air travel. As time went on, Air travel has gotten cheaper and the number of Americans now requiring Rail service has decreased to less than 2%, up until 9-11, the federal Government saw no real ru***o improve the rail systems in the country.
The 9-11 Commission, the president, The congress all agreed that there needs to be a better national rail system in place to handle the Possibility of air liners being grounded enmass again. Congress is deep into building a national Transportation logistics bill, but it is always overshadowed by other stupid things. part of that bill dictates how amtrak should be overhauled to fit into a complete national transportation system.
This is an ongoing process, and many ideas have been tossed out, from Amtrak being decentralized and made into regionals, corpratized, high speed between airline hubs only, and a multitude of other options. Amtrak will live on, it just now needs a leader that will look forward and make it fit into the national transportation system better. If toy have inpit, it is
…“lies”…? Have a good day.
If I may give my opinion,
VIA rail is largely successful. Why is that? What does VIA rail have that Amtrak doesn’t? VIA certainly doesn’t have near as much ridership potential nor does it have the equipment to really out perform Amtrak but is manages to somehow be better?
I think maybe a little more investigation into VIA’s model is a good idea. I know we have different countries and such but really, we live so close together that as far as citizen’s hatred for high taxes and funding etc; we aren’t all THAT different. The question is how is it working for us and how could it work for the U.S if the people want it to?
The theory that time and convenience trumps the effect of gasoline costs on transportation choices only works if oppurtunity to earn money is lost while riding on the slow mode of transportation. The notion that gasoline costs had no impact on Amtrtak ridership goes against one fact. Ridership on Amtrak increased in 2005. Are we to assume that came from improved service? More amenities? Lower fares?
If the choice to support rail transportation is left to the individual states, a good many, including Idaho will drop out. I don’t think that is much of a problem, because folks from Idaho don’t seem to want to go anywhere anyway. Of course, if left up to states alone, coordination between states will be iffy. And given that each state in the program will need a managment structure to run their operation, the prospect of an overall efficiency in management costs seems dim.
Discussions on this forum as to what constitutes good leadership and who may have filled the roll are useless, as some people wouldn’t recognize the difference between a leader that get the work done and someone who thinks that the ideology itself will do the job.
Every Amtrak president had to start with the hand that was dealt. Some discarded aces and tried a bluff, some played smart cards and won a few hands. Gunn did the latter, but also suggested that the hands were being dealt from a stacked deck.