why is joe boardman known for favoring the nec?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The NEC is where most of Amtrak's revenue is generated. It operates at (or near) a profit and functions well because Amtrak owns the tracks. Amtrak serves in excess of 50% of the total passenger traffic from NYC -PHL-BAL-WAS making it a very important and popular route.
 
A lot of focus has been on the North East corridor including congressional legislation to use profits to fund those routes. Long distance routes get less priority. The truth is the North eastern corridor has serious deficiencies even today. The Forest Hills fire incident in Massachussets still is leading to delays unfortunately and apparently Amtrak will be doing work as of next week as per MBTA schedules. So hopefully they can get that resolved as a more permanent repair is being put into place. Amtrak has a lot of issues to be dealt with but the North eastern corridor is where attention should be focused and it is.

Amtrak is not cancelling out Long Distance routes and will get congressional funding for those which are generally at a loss. Profits need to be accelerated on the north eastern corridor first. Boardman is just authorizing control and support of the Northeastern corridor as priority and the congress and Amtrak are exactly right in this.

North eastern corridor itself has loads of issues not even taking into account issues on the longer haul routes where other issues exist.

New York's Moynihan station will see Amtrak starting in Jan 2016 with a new entrance way and Miami Florida will see Amtrak at the new station in 2016 so while North East corridor gets priority don't think that long haul routes aren't getting improved as well along with new train cars and the like. Its just really a symmantics issue but also most issues are in the north eastern corridor as well.
 
I hope rural/non-coastal members of this board can understand that the demand for rail travel, when you count city (subways and metros), regional/commuter (VRE/MARC/SEPTA/NJT/MNRR/CDOT/MBTA) and intercity (NER and Acela, plus eastern LD routes), is orders of magnitude larger than it is elsewhere in the country. I won't speak for the West Coast but the western states each have championed their own services too (and ridership reflects it).

Part of is a challenge of geography - the south, non-coast west and rural areas in general have low population densities which are really really bad for rail systems. This occurs at both a regional level (i.e. Kentucky doesn't have many people), and at a city level (i.e. many Southern cities have sprawling suburbs at the expense of city populations, which makes the "first mile" of a rail trip challenging. Compare that to here, where I can take public transit and be at two Amtrak stations - ALX and WAS - in 35 minutes or less for <$3.00). Frankly, I doubt the geography challenge will ever be overtaken.

While I support a national network, you need to understand that a large (overwhelming?) majority of Amtrak's ridership doesn't give a crap about it. Your median Amtrak patron is probably taking the NER from WAS to NYP and will fly if they need to go to Chicago, LA, or Seattle. They're going to look at the prices and times for the trips and immediately switch over to Google Flights. Hence, while rail ridership has a tremendous base of support in the Northeast, the LD routes per se don't. (I'm not counting Auto Train which is it's own animal, in a good way).

I wish it weren't true but that's just the case. I would tell western rail supporters to try to get regional/commuter rail to their cities (ala Denver and Salt Lake City), as that's something they can control at the state level.

---

TLDR - If the Amtrak is biased in favor of the NEC, that isn't necessarily all that bad. Best bang-for-the-buck clearly.
 
The NEC is where most of Amtrak's revenue is generated. It operates at (or near) a profit and functions well because Amtrak owns the tracks. Amtrak serves in excess of 50% of the total passenger traffic from NYC -PHL-BAL-WAS making it a very important and popular route.
It only operates at a profit ABOVE the rail, per Joe Boardman himself. Now all he has to do is get somebody else to pay for the infrastructure the trains need to operate there.

jb
 
Ah the old canard about maintenance of trackage.

Last I checked, US taxpayers pay for highways. UPS and FedEx are all too happy to make a profit "above the road" and let the taxpayers pay for the road. Besides, at least NEC makes profit above the rail, as opposed to losing money above the rail...
 
The feds have been building roads and other public utilities since the old National Road of our country's earliest days. There's nothing wrong with breaking out utility construction/maintenance and revenue operation.
 
i have read quite a lot in the past few years(trains magazine, train orders and probably on this board)where the writer says that boardman favors the nec at the expense of ld routes. is this so? why?
Joe Boardman is not the one who makes those type of decisions. He implements the directions of the Amtrak Board of Directors.
 
Tough to answer a question based on a false premise.

"Why do some railfans think Joe Boardman has a NEC bias" would be a better question.
as usual, i find your cute little replies less than enlightening. my question was "does boardman favor the nec at the expense of ld routes?" and ,if so, why? most replies have said that he does favor the nec but that this is justifiable given the population of the nec and amtrak ownership of infrastructure.
 
Mr Boardman lives in upstate New York, which is considered the Empire Corridor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tough to answer a question based on a false premise.

"Why do some railfans think Joe Boardman has a NEC bias" would be a better question.
as usual, i find your cute little replies less than enlightening. my question was "does boardman favor the nec at the expense of ld routes?" and ,if so, why? most replies have said that he does favor the nec but that this is justifiable given the population of the nec and amtrak ownership of infrastructure.
Perhaps you can add some meat to your assertion by pointing out how you think it is that Boardman favors the NEC over the LD network rather than just parrot what other people say.
 
Tough to answer a question based on a false premise.

"Why do some railfans think Joe Boardman has a NEC bias" would be a better question.
as usual, i find your cute little replies less than enlightening. my question was "does boardman favor the nec at the expense of ld routes?" and ,if so, why? most replies have said that he does favor the nec but that this is justifiable given the population of the nec and amtrak ownership of infrastructure.
Perhaps you can add some meat to your assertion by pointing out how you think it is that Boardman favors the NEC over the LD network rather than just parrot what other people say.
i made no assertion. merely asked a question, based on what i have read, in my original post
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In addition to the points made above about population concentration, NEC benefited from the investments both PRR and NH made long ago. As the railroads waned in the pre 1990 era, tremedous capacity disappeared nationwide, but not on the NEC. Tattered at times yes, and even today, but it was still there.
 
Everyone here knows that I get rubbed by RyanS the wrong way just about as much as everyone else. But the topic to this thread IS "why is joe boardman known for favoring the nec?"

I understand that your question in the post is more inquisitive and less absolute in your premise. Most rational adults would have dismissed the idiosyncrasies of the written word, but I'll go ahead and throw my hat up onto the tree of calling out every unnecessary misunderstanding.

But I think, as you have, that the question has been answered. Joe Boardman does operate at the direction of the Board of Directors, but let's not forget that he is not only a member of that board, but the chairman.

The NEC carries not only the bulk of Amtrak's annual passengers, but the majority of recurring passengers. These are the ones you don't want to irk off because if you lose one individual, you lose around 400 rides (one pax, commuting 200 days/year).

The NEC carries a HUGE market share of all types of folks traveling between WAS and BOS and all points between. The population density supports a successful rail business model.

But as any corporation would, Amtrak gets frustrated that it can't spend the money it generates on the NEC to make THAT service better. Rather, it has to support the strangled step children that move folks beyond the NEC on tracks that it doesn't own, with equipment that is constantly damaged by thoughtless people driving into them, and maintained with a pittance of a stipend.

So, if you were doing the best you could with the resources you had to make the most money to please the people that give you that little bit more so you can stay afloat, where would your attention be?

Amtrak, as we ALL know and understand, is an enigma. Mandated to exist, created to serve, designed to fail - and it just won't.

There is HUGE room for improvement to the NEC to get a better-than-Acela, but not Maglev, dedicated corridor between WAS and BOS.

As much as I have touted about how great the Japanese system is, there are a lot of things that I LOVE about the NEC that DON'T compare to Japan.

First, Unless you're on the 300 KPH (180 MPH) bullet train, you're on a 120 KMH (75 MPH) MAX commuter long distance train. There is no single seat ride that can take you from Tokyo to Hakata, and if you don't take the Shinkansen, it'll take multiple trains and nearly 3x the time to get there.

I really think that the problem with Acela is that there isn't enough to distinguish it from the Northeast Regionals. But, move it to a dedicated ROW, triple the train capacity, double the frequency, and you'll have something special. I take that back. Keep what's on the NEC going. A new ROW could supplement the existing NEC. Perhaps Maglev would be the way to go if a new ROW is to be constructed, but I don't think the Return on Investment is there.

There is no way to get the LD trains to break even above rail. If it goes away, a handful of railfans (including myself) will be sorely disappointed, much like when the N&W dropped the fire from their last 2-6-6-4s in the late 50s - incidentally also for economic reasons. But the country won't fall apart. Folks won't be left stranded to die in the vast open plains of Kansas. A portal into a time less harried will be lost in our hearts, but the country will still chugg along.

So what does Boardman think? Unless you quote his words, I don't think we'll know for sure. But he's responsible for bailing a ship that just won't sink and he's going to focus his time and energy on what 27 million of Amtrak's 30 million annual riders care about the most - the NEC.
 
So what does Boardman think? Unless you quote his words, I don't think we'll know for sure. But he's responsible for bailing a ship that just won't sink and he's going to focus his time and energy on what 27 million of Amtrak's 30 million annual riders care about the most - the NEC.
I would argue that the focus is not only on the NEC, but working on extending it via the more successful (measured by farebox recovery) state supported routes, like the Empire, Virginia Services, and Keystones. These improvements do help the perception of LD train travel, just like improvements in commuter rail lines help improve the perception of Amtrak (the vast majority of people don't know or care about the difference between SEPTA and Amtrak, they are both trains that stop at the same stations).

Also, remember that improvements on the NEC (and extending it south) improve a number of LD routes that take passengers from the NEC outward.
 
As a matter of fact during the Day on the Hill I made a fervent plea to the Congressmen and Senators from NJ that for the sake of their constituents they should keep in mind that many of them do use the Long Distance trains to Florida and to Chicago and New Orleans. For their sake they should support and fund the LD network, in addition to just worrying about the NEC. All of them were receptive to the idea, both Republicans and Democrats, and asked us to provide more details, which of course we are providing to their staff.

So yes, while NEC in and of itself needs a lot of work, its various extensions, which BTW are currently primarily under the control of various states (New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia) can only add to the convenience of passengers and success of the overall agenda of passenger trains both Medium Distance and Long Distance.
 
The notion of chopping up Amtrak is fundamentally flawed for so many reasons.

The solution to Amtrak's problems is more Amtrak, not amputations and dismemberment.

For example. The Palmetto, the Silver Star and Silver Meteor, the Crescent, the Cardinal, and the Lake Shore Ltd. all start out in the Sunnyside Yards in NYC. So do the Ethan Allen, the Adirondack, the Maple Leaf, the Empire Service, the Pennsylvanian, and the Carolinian. So do the many Regionals and the Virginia trains. Don't they all use the same equipment pool for electric locomotives etc? How could things possibly be more efficient if the equipment were divided among LD trains, NEC trains, and corridor trains? How could things possibly work better if a separate LD trains company subleased or subcontracted from Sunnyside?

And to buy new equipment, two different companies would seek bids for electric locomotives to carry their trains down the NEC? Oh, please.

+++++++++++++

We have also all heard whiners angrily claiming that Boardman favors corridor trains over LD trains. Not sure I can recall any specifics for this claim, maybe because they were too flimsy to stick in my mind.

But in reality, stronger corridors make stronger LD routes.

When the schedule for the Wolverines Pontiac-Detroit-Dearborn-Ann Arbor-Kalamazoo-Chicago is cut by 50 minutes after the upgrades now underway, those trains will see a couple of hundred thousand more riders get off in Union Station, and some of them will be new customers for connecting trains to places like Milwaukee and L.A.

When the schedule for the Lincoln Service Chicago-Springfield-St Louis is cut by 40 or 50 minutes after the upgrades now underway, the Texas Eagle is sure to benefit. Timekeeping will improve. The customers' "mindshare" for trains on this route will soar. And while Amtrak and the UP have not made a deal for faster times, I'd expect to see 30 minutes or more saved.

The South of the Lake project being planned, to get trains from Union Station to the point in Indiana where the existing Amtrak-owned 110-mph section begins, should cut 50 minutes out of the run time of the Michigan trains. It will also cut 50 minutes out of the times for the Lake Shore Ltd and the Capitol Ltd. This almost-an-hour savings won't be enuff to get daylight service to Cleveland, but it could help the two LD trains enjoy better departures and arrivals at Chicago, or perhaps in D.C.

To get daylight service to Cleveland from the LD trains -- and better times at Toledo and Pittsburgh -- 110-mph corridor Chicago-Cleveland would be transforming, slashing two or even three hours out of the Lake Shore and Capitol schedules.

Even out West, the best way to improve the LD trains is with more corridors. Chicago-Twin Cities for the Empire Builder, Chicago-Des Moines-Omaha-Denver for the California Zephyr, Seattle-Portland-Eugene for the Coast Starlight, Dallas-Ft Worth-Austin-San Antonio for the Texas Eagle, New Orleans-Houston-San Antonio for the Sunset Ltd, etc.

So what we need is more Amtrak -- more corridors with frequent service to improve the times of the LD trains. Nothing is gained by splitting things apart or setting one group of Amtrak's users against another.
 
There is no way to get the LD trains to break even above rail
I'm gonna dispute that with my usual caveat. There's no way to get the *western* LD trains, which run through prairie and desert and mountains, to break even above the rail.
It may be possible, however, for NY-Chicago and NY-Florida, where some are already profitable before overhead (overhead is huge).

I would argue that the focus is not only on the NEC, but working on extending it via the more successful (measured by farebox recovery) state supported routes, like the Empire, Virginia Services, and Keystones.
Well, I've argued that those (the NEC branches) should be a very high priority. I don't know if that's the focus but I hope so!
Anyway, there's no point in breaking up the train system. Railroads thrive on economies of scale and therefore on centralization. Even the Metro-North/LIRR/NJT/SEPTA balkanization is causing a lot of trouble.

There's a reason there are basicallyd two freight class I railroads in the east and two class Is in the west and two class Is in Canada (ignoring KCS), and there would be only one in each area if it weren't for antitrust law. Economies of scale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top