posted
Joe Boardman is planning to retire next September after almost 8 years as head of Amtrak. There have been many improvements at Amtrak during the Boardman years, thanks mainly to the arrival of ARRA money. There's also much that could be improved in the future. Boardman seems to have either lucked out and not had to face any huge crisis during his term or he had enough money available to take care of the most pressing problems.
from Boardman's letter to the Amtrak workforce:
quote:The Board has asked me to work closely with them in the selection of the new CEO. I am confident that the time I have given the Board they can achieve the goal of selecting a good leader for this company and provide a level of transition that a company like Amtrak deserves.
Eight years is a long time to head a company like Amtrak. Staying in touch with operations in 46 states while keeping Congress happy isn't a job I would seek.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The timing couldn't be more interesting. Hang around until the 45th president raises his/her right and you risk being fired. If he and the sitting Board have someone of their choice at the throttle by the Inauguration, then the new "all the President's men (and women)" would look "not too bright" to fire that CEO after a month or so on the job.
At this time, even if some here feel adverse considering the marginalizing of the LD's, I think that Boardman will be considered Amtrak's second most effective CEO (WGC #1).
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume those initials refer to Graham Claytor, who headed Amtrak when I first started traveling in 1986. I believe the Superliners and later the Viewliner sleepers came on line during his tenure. What was your opinion about David Gunn?
Posts: 127 | From: Worcester, Massachusetts | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He didn't know how to play the game".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What will Joe Biden be doing in a year or so? Would it be too big of a comedown for him to have this job?
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Mike, I could think of many a worse selection than "Amtrak Joe". He certainly knows his way around Congress, has been a paying Amtrak passenger, and just might be some varietal of a "closet railfan".
But we have a little problem if Joe were to resign the Vice Presidency during September to take the reins. The 26th Amendment does not provide for any order of succession for the VP beyond the language of President appoints and then both houses must confirm with a simple majority.
I doubt if anybody could be confirmed in those two whacko dens inside that building with the big dome atop.
However, TRAINS Newswire thinks he should be considered.
Fair Use:
Joe Biden, U.S. Vice President, Amtrak aficionado
Why Biden? He’s the kind of respected Washington insider who could lead a charm offensive against curmudgeonly Congressional budget cutters. As a long-time commuter from Delaware during his U.S. Senate service, he has passion to hire good operations people and wants to see the railroad succeed. And he almost ran for President of the United States. Amtrak’s top job is at least as challenging, right? — SS
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vincent206 --- Effective? How? By being the CEO of a major passenger-carrying railroad -- for 8 years -- that he allows to continue operate while apparently having NO plans in place on how to handle a major derailment with multiple fatalities? Or allowing his employees to send out trains pulled by unreliable locomotives that all too often fail en route? BTW -- these locomotive failures can be dangerous to passengers’ health and safety. Example: the time a locomotive failed, and in such a way that the HEP also failed, and the train came to a stop -- in a place where the outside temperature was around 100 F - and the passengers had to stay on board for hours, when the interior temperature was over 100 F. People can get sick and die from heat stroke in conditions like those! Another example: Boardman allowed his subordinates to send out trains into known areas of massive flooding -- thus endangering the passengers on those trains. One WB CZ was 35 hours late into Emeryville!
I also don’t understand what improvements you could be referring to that Boardman has made. Would you please share some of those with us? Thanks!
Gil Norman --- Why do you believe that Boardman will be seen as Amtrak’s second most effective CEO? What, specifically, has he done in the past 8 years that led you to say that? TIA!
To all --- Perhaps Boardman’s biggest problem is that he agreed to be the CEO of Amtrak when its equipment was too old and too poorly maintained to be reliable. (The Superliners are now much older than the streamliner-era equipment Amtrak inherited when it began.) And he has apparently made NO effort to support the LD trains - thus telling those of us who live outside the NEC that we do not matter at all to him For shame! He has adamantly refused to do what he could to see to it that bad employees were transfer or fired. He has also allowed his subordinates to send trains out into known danger areas -- such as the massive floods I referred to above.
I never thought about Biden as a possible Amtrak CEO. I think he actually might be a good one --- well, if he would commit to working very hard to convince Congress that it should approve much more funding for Amtrak. And if he would agree to strongly support LD trains and to commit to working hard to try to get Amtrak’s aging equipment replaced.
But the sad fact is that Congress bears almost all of the responsibility for Amtrak’s many problems, because they have consistently and adamantly refused to approve sufficient funding for Amtrak.
FYI -- Amtrak’s entire annual subsidy is to the annual federal budget what $1.40 is to $4,000!! Really! To look at it another way, the annual US budget is 2,857 times as big as Amtrak’s entire annual subsidy! It is so darn small that it is extremely far from being even a rounding error!
If Amtrak’s next CEO cannot pull a lot of rabbits out of a lot of hats, then he or she will just be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
[Talk about hugely mixed metaphors! LOL!]
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MargaretSPfan: Gil Norman --- Why do you believe that Boardman will be seen as Amtrak’s second most effective CEO? What, specifically, has he done in the past 8 years that led you to say that? TIA!
Margaret; Amtrak "did OK" out of the ARRA09 (Stimulus) legislation. Of course funds were wasted with likes of "HSR through Kansas??", but solid improvements were made with equipment repairs and Corridor infrastructure.
Boardman has effectively used the RRIF initiative to get the new equipment he has without having to beg to Congress for additional direct funding and has established that "a B and more" will be coming Amtrak's way "where it belongs" - buried deep in an Omnibus spending bill.
Amtrak operates more train miles, as well as a few more route miles, than when he took office - I think that is called expansion.
And there has been no "pruning" of LD routes on his watch.
But Boardman will leave office with "a big black eye" - Frankford Jct. Here was an Amtrak train, comprised solely of Amtrak equipment, operated by Amtrak employees, over Amtrak ROW. There are not too many, if any, other parties to which blame can be spread - and there are some $165M of claims expected (fortunately, most will be covered by insurance).
That's why I give WGC "best", but I still think JRB is "2nd".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to Amtrak's "more train miles" that is solely due to state efforts with all the Amtrak people in Washington saying, "duhh, what is happening"
As to Amtrak Joe: Look to everything west of Harrisburg to disappear. He is simply one more Northeasterner to whom everything west of Harrisburg and Albany is simply "Flyover Country" or still populated by Cowboys and Indians or ignorant rednecks who won't get out of their pickup trucks.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Harris, the only cost effective new routes are short distance multi frequency. I think there is a word for that -Corridors.Those by law must be largely supported at Local level.
Even if there is much sentiment at this Forum for additional LD routes, the fact remains that they lose "heap big wampum" and provide, except for fans and leisure travelers, much in the way of meaningful transportation. The existing system and frequencies of such are serving theira in purpose - and that is to garner funding for what is needed known as Corridors.
Mr. Boardman has clearly recognized what 21st century railroad passenger service is all about - and that is NOT what many around here hold to be same.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman --- How can you say that "it is a fact that they [LD trains] lose "heap big wampum""?
That is not true. What are you comparing Amtrak's annual LD operating losses to? Certainly not to the entire annual federal budget.
Are you implying that Amtrak must make a profit on operating its LD trains? If so, why? Does everything the federal government pays for have to make a profit? If so, why? Why should anyone demand that any or all essential human services make a profit for their operators?
Amtrak's entire annual subsidy amounts to only $4.36 per person -- hardly "heap big wampum".
Amtrak's annual subsidy or LD operating losses must be looked at in the context of the entire annual federal budget, of which they are only an extremely tiny fraction.
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Margaret, I knew that as soon as I first read your mature and respectful posting to this topic, there would be disagreement between us.
By any measurement chosen, the LD's are losers. The cost of operating them far exceeds their revenues - even considering their bargain basement rates to access the railroad's ROW and the "King's Ransom" Sleeping Car fares. But yet they survive owing to their place of garnering Federal funds for supporting various regional operations about the land through high density population areas. Those operations, aka Corridors, are nearly self supporting and have Local level funding to boot. That "$4.36 per person" noted supports the LD's and, I'd dare say, the bloated "administrative and support" functions inherent to any bureaucracy.
Finally, so long as there is no other reasonable and practical means to garner the Federal level support for "what counts" and so long as the Class I roads accept they made that "Faustian pact with the devil", I support the continued existence of the present LD system.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, as far as the LD trains not providing "meaningful transportation", isn't that because there are far, far too few LD trains now? People cannot ride trains that do not exist. And there is far, far too little track for LD trains to run on because the railroads have, for the past 40 to 50 years, been ripping up thousands of miles of track -- so there is no longer enough track to run more trains on that would truly give people meaningful choices as to where they can go.
Amtrak is but a pale shadow of what it could and should be -- IF it were properly funded and operated.
And no one should ever demand that any government services make a profit. Government services are provided by the government, and not private companies, because those services cannot make a profit, but are essential to provide.
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Margaret, if Amtrak gets what they ask, give or take $100M or so, then there are enough LD'S out there.
Advocates of LD'S seem to universally hold that, first, the industry has some "obligation" to host whatever LD'S Amtrak might want, and. Second, that if there are more, their costs would decline.
I will not dispute that "two a day" in place of one, allows fixed costs, such as stations, to be allocated over more trains. But lest we forget, those tracks are investor owned, and hosting Amtrak trains is "not exactly" a profit center (don't we just love those '70's buzz words ).
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
