posted
Did anybody else catch the PBS debate on the News Hour last night? It was Carmichael vs. Smith with some moderation by Mr. Lehrer. While I do not usually watch this show, I believe the debate sounded off well, but they were both trying to sell their own points. Mr. Carmichael is carrying out the A"R"C's only remaining mission of selling their proposal to Congress, while Mr. Smith answered the questions directly. I believe Mr. Carmichael, while presenting the agenda of the A"R"C clearly, seemed to sidestep some of the questions, such as who in their right minds would want to pick up money-losing long distance trains, and why more management in the passenger rail system would increase profitability. Mr. Smith seemed quite focused on the maintenance of his company and its intercity network, but kept using the word "connectivity." I think there are better ways to say "performing the public service of safe, comfortable, enjoyable (guaranteed) transportation of human beings across our country in an efficient manner." Correct me if I'm wrong; I was obviously viewing the program from my usual pro-Amtrak bias, but I'd say no clear winner, advantage Smith. Did anyone else see this, or should I kick myself for not recording it?
------------------ In memory of F40PH #757099-8 March 29, 1976-November 18, 2001
posted
Hey 207, I also watched (and recorded!) the show. Carmichael did seem to avoid the questions, or gave responses that didn't quite answer them. Smith had good examples to back up his statements, and included many facts (such as: the US spends more money each year cleaning roadkill off the highways, than it does on passenger rail). He also said that we should build a national rail passenger system the same way we built the Interstate system. He asked why we didn't just build highways in the NE and West, instead of draping the country, and reaching smaller regions (or something to that effect). Passenger rail should be designed the same, with cross-country "connections," reaching every part of the nation.
Posts: 553 | From: Flagstaff, AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there was a "winner" or "loser" in this discussion. Both Smith and Carmichael made a number of valid points. But I was very disturbed by Smith's failure to answer Carmichael's question, which is below from the transcript:
Carmichael: "If the old Amtrak company will split itself into divisions and give us good, clean, clear financial statements, I think it can get the money that it needs to run the trains. I don't think the process they used the other day of threatening to stop the trains if they don't get a billion and a quarter... the question is, a billion and a quarter for what? Where are you going to put it?"
Smith: "...we need $1.2 billion. I'll tell you what we're going to do with that, and that was made very clear by George Warrington. $840 million of that $1.2 billion is for capital. $200 million is for running the national long-distance train network"
As I have already pointed out under another topic, Amtrak still hasn't indicated where that $840 million in "capital" will go. Only $200 million, 16 percent, is designated for long distance service. Why won't Amtrak itemize that $840 million????????
Amtrak isn't doing itself any favors by keeping that information to themselves. Threatening to shut down the long distance trains over a measly $200 million (which it will actually get under Bush's budget) makes no sense at all. I don't see the ARC as the "bad guys" and Amtrak as the "good guys." Amtrak needs to learn how to accept constructive criticism when it is presented, instead of dismissing it "out of hand" as Michael Dukakis stated.
Amtrak's financial records are a mess. This is from the National Corridors newsletter of Feb 18th:
"Michael Mates, the ARC's financial officer, said getting financial information from Amtrak was like pulling eyeteeth. The ARC officials had concluded that it wasn't that Amtrak was arbitrarily trying to avoid answering their inquiries, it "was just that they didn't have it."
Amtrak needs to accept the fact that status quo is no longer an option. Yes Amtrak needs a steady source of funding. But Amtrak is fooling themselves if they think they can get that money without re-thinking their management and recordkeeping practices.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
I admit Amtrak's finances are a mess, and this needs to be fixed before they go forward with any restructuring. Part of engineering a solution to a known problem is getting all the details so you know what exactly it is you are dealing with. However, the fact that they cannont immediately account for where that cash goes does not necessarily mean it is falling into a black hole somewhere. I'd like to know where that is going too. Maybe they don't know because of poor bookkeeping, maybe they don't know because they don't want to give the ARC more fuel while they still are testifying before congress. Simple, really. You don't give us full subsidy in '97 like you promised and we won't make with the financial info very easily. I also believe no clear winner in the debate, but Mr. Smith was by far more prepared to support his responses instead of just saying, "It's in our (the ARC's) report." On the downside, shame on you, Amtrak, for the accounting mess. You're a federal agency fighting for cash; you can't just expect it to flow in without some sort of big brother examination into how well you've spent it in the past. Would this information be in an Amtrak Annual Report perhaps?
Posts: 391 | From: Schenectady | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amtrak207: I admit Amtrak's finances are a mess, and this needs to be fixed before they go forward with any restructuring.
That is precisely WHY Amtrak needs restructuring. Amtrak's management has proven to be penny wise and pound foolish in the last five years. All of their money has been invested in the Acela project in the NEC while the rest of the country has fallen apart. The idea was that the NEC would start supporting the rest of the country (a questionable concept in itself), but in fact the exact opposite has happened. Taxpayers from Maine to Hawaii are now being asked to pay for a $5 billion backlog of repairs in the northeast.
Capital for long-distance trains has been frittered away on operations, inhibiting Amtrak's ability to expand. Today 26% of the long-distance fleet is out of service needing repairs while passengers are being turned away. If they had put money into repairs as needed those cars would be in service making money today,
I'm not suggesting that the ARC plan is the best option. As far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on that, Amtrak does do many things well. Others it does very poorly. A proper restructuring will retain theose things which work well, and change those things which don't. But I completely agree with the ARC that the NEC and the national system need to be operated as separate businesses, or at least as separate and distinct divisions of Amtrak,
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Toy: Taxpayers from Maine to Hawaii are now being asked to pay for a $5 billion backlog of repairs in the northeast.
I believe the $5 billion would be for the whole system. Seems like a reasonable price (compared to the amount we spend on other modes of transportation). Please correct me if my information is wrong. Eric
[This message has been edited by Eric (edited 02-21-2002).]
Posts: 553 | From: Flagstaff, AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
