RailForum.com
TrainWeb.com

RAILforum Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

» RAILforum » Passenger Trains » Amtrak » Big problem for David Gunn?? » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
amtrakk_flyers
Member # 3738
 - posted
http://www.narprail.org/Annual%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf


Looks like Bush' croneys on Amtraks board are going head to head with Gunn. I find it interesting that David Gunn did not send the main report to congress this year instead it was David Laney who like everyone else left on the board was appointed by Bush (this includes Mineta too). Reading the two reports it seems Laney is more willing to go along with Bush's proposals then Gunn. Why else would there by two seperate reports submitted by Amtrak if there wasnt a disagreement between Gunn and the Board?

Also how come they did not submit a Budget request for 2006? Gunn has been very clear the number is somewhere between 1.6-1.8 billion. Why are they just now studying the numbers unless they are going to submit a NEC budget only? A NEC budget that will have a low ball number making LD routes look bad?

If anyone can take on this fight its Gunn, but it makes things 1000X more difficult if Amtraks board doesnt want to run a national system. I hope I'm reading more into this then there is.
 
Mr. Toy
Member # 311
 - posted
I'm reading the letter a little differently. He's saying Bush's budget of zero, is not necessarily a bad thing as an attention getter, but he also says it is the wrong approach to reform.

Laney says that adequate funding is essential, and that strategic planning coordinated between DOT, Amtrak, the freight railroads and other interested parties is essential. That's something I have been saying for some time now.

He goes on to say that the threat of bankruptcy might make a good incentive to get their house in order, but he notes that the effect of bankruptcy would ultimately be counterproductive to the cause of reform.

The letter also praises David Gunn for his efforts, and its importance in getting Amtrak's house in order.

So I don't see any conflict between David Gunn and the board in this letter.

As for why they don't have a budget request yet, the five year "state of good repair" plan has to be adjusted after the recent passage of the '05 request, which was less than needed to continue with this year's portion program. I suspect the request for '06 may actually ask for an increase over what was originally planned to compensate for this year's shorfall.
 
amtrakk_flyers
Member # 3738
 - posted
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20amtrak.html

Here we go...the fight begins.
 
notelvis
Member # 3071
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by amtrakk_flyers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/politics/20amtrak.html

Here we go...the fight begins.

WRITE THOSE LETTERS.

Ask your friends to write those letters.

Those of you in Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida or wherever, come visit with us for a few hours Tuesday at the Charlotte Amtrak Station. (11:00am would be a good time) Bring your signs and comfortable walking shoes.

First time I've felt like an activist in 20 years!

Thanks,
David
 



Contact Us | Home Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2




Copyright © 2007-2016 TrainWeb, Inc. Top of Page|TrainWeb|About Us|Advertise With Us|Contact Us