Richard Anderson replacing Wick Moorman as Amtrak CEO

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
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.
Amtrakfflyer said:
Keep the full Sunset 3x weekly and an appropriate corridor or two the other 4x a week. Everyone wins the corridors get covered daily and the whole route gets covered 3 times a week for through passengers or passengers going to Podunkville:). Economics of the Sunset improve dramatically as well.
Click to expand...
I don’t get what allure is to a bunch of stub trains over the long distance route. More costs, more small maintenance facilities. No thanks, we’re not compromising on the daily Sunset. That is the goal of the advocates here in Arizona, and we’re not going to rest until it gets done. And back through Phoenix as well. If you want you’re milk runs, be my guest. I have no problem with the concept of a daily Texas Eagle. But daily is non negotiable.
 
I agree but Anderson has proven at least up til this point he doesn’t have a grasp on the issues and isn’t willing to compromise. Unfortunately under Anderson a total discontinuation of the Sunset is more likely then daily service. We’re on the same page though a daily Eagle would be the best bet under competent management. That battle will have to wait however.
 
This still gets to the root of a problem that I have which is there isn't a coherent plan for expansion beyond just making the two tri-weekly trains daily. No offense, but it's really easy to say no to such small expansions. It's the same thing with most things in politics, small changes eventually die and bigger ones stand a better chance of winning. And I for one think it's time advocates push for something bigger. And something bigger needs to be a full national plan with corridors, day trains, long distance and maybe even seasonal trains with the feds kicking in money. It would be a different game if your pushing for nationwide expansion instead of adding service in a state a committee chair or member isn't from or doesn't care about. Why would a representative from Georgia care about adding service in Arizona when there is nothing in it for them? Its a different ask when something is in it for them and theirs.
 
I believe the reason the Sunset Limited doesn't enjoy the political support most other LD trains do is because the train doesn't run daily, which dramatically suppresses ridership potential. Daily service on the Sunset could mean far more political support from the districts it runs through. That's because running the train daily will mean double the ridership from what the train sees now, according to the 2010 PIP. Since 2010, (when the massive ransom Union Pacific Railroad asked for to make the train daily was made), the railroad has double tracked much of the route themselves. To find the equipment needed for daily service, make the Capitol Limited a single-level train, and reassign the Superliners currently used on that train to the Sunset Limited.
 
sttom said:
No offense, but it's really easy to say no to such small expansions. It's the same thing with most things in politics, small changes eventually die and bigger ones stand a better chance of winning. And I for one think it's time advocates push for something bigger. And something bigger needs to be a full national plan with corridors, day trains, long distance and maybe even seasonal trains with the feds kicking in money. It would be a different game if your pushing for nationwide expansion instead of adding service in a state a committee chair or member isn't from or doesn't care about. Why would a representative from Georgia care about adding service in Arizona when there is nothing in it for them? Its a different ask when something is in it for them and theirs.
Click to expand...
President Obama made a big push for increased federal passenger rail spending at the beginning of his first term. These expansions were met with unwavering resistance and zero compromise from some of the very states that were in line for federal funding. For instance, Rick Scott refused funding for an HSR project in Florida and Scott Walker made killing commuter rail projects in Wisconsin a cornerstone of his platform. Even if another round of funding was eventually secured by a pro-rail president and pro-rail congress it would still risk being killed at the state level or by the next anti-rail president or anti-rail congress. Big projects take a long time to complete and have a long window for being attacked and eventually killed. That's why smaller under-the-radar expansions make more sense in today's hyper-partisan scorched earth environment.
 
Last edited:
Devil's Advocate said:
President Obama made a big push for increased federal passenger rail spending at the beginning of his first term. These expansions were met with unwavering resistance and zero compromise from some of the very states that were in line for federal funding. For instance, Rick Scott refused funding for an HSR project in Florida and Scott Walker made killing commuter rail projects in Wisconsin a cornerstone of his platform. Even if another round of funding was eventually secured by a pro-rail president and pro-rail congress it would still risk being killed at the state level or by the next anti-rail president or anti-rail congress. Big projects take a long time to complete and have a long window for being attacked and eventually killed. That's why smaller under-the-radar expansions make more sense in today's hyper-partisan scorched earth environment.
Click to expand...
Counters are as follows:
(1) Obama put in for a lot of money but scattered a large portion of it into either half-projects (Orlando-Tampa) or studies. I don't think that Orlando (airport) to Tampa was ever a viable stand-alone without at least a Sunrail connection.
(2) Obama held off announcing a lot of the funding until the last minute before the midterms, guaranteeing it would become a political football in a few races while contracts were hard to put in place in time.

Putting this differently, if the funding had been announced in the summer and the agreements inked by Labor Day, the response to those campaigns could easily have been "sucks to be you". Instead the mess got wrapped up in a campaigns (particularly in WI).
 
Anderson said:
Counters are as follows:
(1) Obama put in for a lot of money but scattered a large portion of it into either half-projects (Orlando-Tampa) or studies. I don't think that Orlando (airport) to Tampa was ever a viable stand-alone without at least a Sunrail connection.
(2) Obama held off announcing a lot of the funding until the last minute before the midterms, guaranteeing it would become a political football in a few races while contracts were hard to put in place in time.

Putting this differently, if the funding had been announced in the summer and the agreements inked by Labor Day, the response to those campaigns could easily have been "sucks to be you". Instead the mess got wrapped up in a campaigns (particularly in WI).
Click to expand...

Not sure what you consider "last minute," but Wisconsin was awarded the money for Milwaukee-Madison in January 2010, long before the summer and the midterms.
 
Anderson said:
Counters are as follows:
(1) Obama put in for a lot of money but scattered a large portion of it into either half-projects (Orlando-Tampa) or studies. I don't think that Orlando (airport) to Tampa was ever a viable stand-alone without at least a Sunrail connection.
(2) Obama held off announcing a lot of the funding until the last minute before the midterms, guaranteeing it would become a political football in a few races while contracts were hard to put in place in time.
Putting this differently, if the funding had been announced in the summer and the agreements inked by Labor Day, the response to those campaigns could easily have been "sucks to be you". Instead the mess got wrapped up in a campaigns (particularly in WI).
Click to expand...
Spreading the funds around is precisely how some projects still made progress while other projects were being attacked and undermined. Wisconsin's funding appeared to be past the "sucks to be you" point and Walker simply broke the contracts and mothballed the trains at great expense after the fact. Combining all funds into a single large project that required good faith participation of anti-rail politicians would have risked achieving nothing at all.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
Spreading the funds around is precisely how some projects still made progress while other projects were being attacked and undermined. Wisconsin's funding appeared to be past the "sucks to be you" point and Walker simply broke the contracts and mothballed the trains at great expense after the fact. Combining all funds into a single large project that required good faith participation of anti-rail politicians would have risked achieving nothing at all.
Click to expand...
Actually, Walker didn't break the contracts. When Walker beat the incumbent governor, the incumbent declined to proceed (and, to be fair, Walker had made it a major campaign issue where...I know Scott didn't do so in FL*, but I don't recall if a peep was uttered in OH or not). Obama had only awarded the money in the previous month or two, IIRC.

*As I've said, probably the most dubious of the three projects that got nixed.
 
Anderson said:
Actually, Walker didn't break the contracts. When Walker beat the incumbent governor, the incumbent declined to proceed (and, to be fair, Walker had made it a major campaign issue where...I know Scott didn't do so in FL*, but I don't recall if a peep was uttered in OH or not). Obama had only awarded the money in the previous month or two, IIRC.

*As I've said, probably the most dubious of the three projects that got nixed.
Click to expand...

You recall incorrectly. Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida all had funding announced in January 2010. Obama even referenced the groundbreaking of Tampa-Orlando in his 2010 State of the Union address.
 
The thing that was missing before some of the awards were finalized is a comprehensive discussion with the respective DOTs, at least in the case of Florida. Tossing money every which way without any indication of any commitment towards funding the necessary follow through is a bit weird IMHO.

While the intention behind disallowing any grants to the NEC initially may have been laudable, in effect all that did was tick off some folks in NEC-land and delay the inevitable by four years, while winning very few friends in the states which rejected the funds eventually. It was a total mess at the end of the day, even though the intention was otherwise. We are still living with the consequences of that unfortunate miscue.
 
Last edited:
Anderson said:
Actually, Walker didn't break the contracts. When Walker beat the incumbent governor, the incumbent declined to proceed (and, to be fair, Walker had made it a major campaign issue where...I know Scott didn't do so in FL*, but I don't recall if a peep was uttered in OH or not). Obama had only awarded the money in the previous month or two, IIRC. *As I've said, probably the most dubious of the three projects that got nixed.
Click to expand...
Walker broke some contract terms and backpedaled around others. Some of this went to court but both Talgo and taxpayers alike got hosed by Walker's meddling. I've noticed that you keep moving the goal posts and nitpicking minor details while repeatedly ignoring the greater point being made. You've already informed us that presidents who seek to decimate passenger rail funding don't phase you in the slightest, yet a president who endeavors to expand passenger rail funding receives unending criticism and petty grievances for not doing so in the precise manner you would have preferred. How do you explain this continuing disconnect?
 
Last edited:
tricia said:
In addition to running only three times a week, the Sunset Ltd doesn't have a same-day connection with ANY other train in NOL. NONE of Amtrak's three trains that terminate in NOL connect with ANY of the others without an overnight stay. Making the SL daily, and adding a second frequency for all three of those trains, would be a huge help in increasing ridership.
Click to expand...
That would be ideal. In the end, more service is better.
 
Anderson said:
Counters are as follows:
(1) Obama put in for a lot of money but scattered a large portion of it into either half-projects (Orlando-Tampa) or studies. I don't think that Orlando (airport) to Tampa was ever a viable stand-alone without at least a Sunrail connection.
(2) Obama held off announcing a lot of the funding until the last minute before the midterms, guaranteeing it would become a political football in a few races while contracts were hard to put in place in time.

Putting this differently, if the funding had been announced in the summer and the agreements inked by Labor Day, the response to those campaigns could easily have been "sucks to be you". Instead the mess got wrapped up in a campaigns (particularly in WI).
Click to expand...
I was in Wisconsin, and the dithering by the Obama administration in awarding the funds facilitated Walker killing the expansion which would have been amazingly successful. I’ve never seen the theory that the money was held to get midterm advantage. It totally backfired. I thought it was FRA incompetence, but the political explanation makes sense. It backfired horribly and set passenger rail in Wisconsin back by 20 years or more.
 
Devil's Advocate said:
Walker broke some contract terms and backpedaled around others. Some of this went to court but both Talgo and taxpayers alike got hosed by Walker's meddling. I've noticed that you keep moving the goal posts and nitpicking minor details while repeatedly ignoring the greater point being made. You've already informed us that presidents who seek to decimate passenger rail funding don't phase you in the slightest, yet a president who endeavors to expand passenger rail funding receives unending criticism and petty grievances for not doing so in the precise manner you would have preferred. How do you explain this irrational disconnect?
Click to expand...
It was all Walker. Walker threatened Doyle with all kinds of investigations and liability if he didn’t suspend performance on the contracts. The contracts weren’t canceled by Doyle, just suspended. The killing of Amtrak expansion in Wisconsin was all Walker and cost Wisconsin taxpayer over $60 million in damages, and a loss of the $800 million that would have built the whole system. A really sad development courtesy of Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers.
 
toddinde said:
It was all Walker. Walker threatened Doyle with all kinds of investigations and liability if he didn’t suspend performance on the contracts. The contracts weren’t canceled by Doyle, just suspended. The killing of Amtrak expansion in Wisconsin was all Walker and cost Wisconsin taxpayer over $60 million in damages, and a loss of the $800 million that would have built the whole system. A really sad development courtesy of Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers.
Click to expand...
toddinde said:
It was all Walker. Walker threatened Doyle with all kinds of investigations and liability if he didn’t suspend performance on the contracts. The contracts weren’t canceled by Doyle, just suspended. The killing of Amtrak expansion in Wisconsin was all Walker and cost Wisconsin taxpayer over $60 million in damages, and a loss of the $800 million that would have built the whole system. A really sad development courtesy of Scott Walker and the Koch Brothers.
Click to expand...
Anthony V said:
I believe the reason the Sunset Limited doesn't enjoy the political support most other LD trains do is because the train doesn't run daily, which dramatically suppresses ridership potential. Daily service on the Sunset could mean far more political support from the districts it runs through. That's because running the train daily will mean double the ridership from what the train sees now, according to the 2010 PIP. Since 2010, (when the massive ransom Union Pacific Railroad asked for to make the train daily was made), the railroad has double tracked much of the route themselves. To find the equipment needed for daily service, make the Capitol Limited a single-level train, and reassign the Superliners currently used on that train to the Sunset Limited.
Click to expand...
This is the right answer and easy to implement. Longer term, if Amtrak were to purchase the Wellton Cutoff from UP, and upgrade it to 110 mph, it would support the return of the Sunset to Mesa, Tempe and Phoenix, and facilitate development of a Tucson - Phoenix - LA corridor. But a daily Sunset with convenient Thruway connections to Phoenix are a great step in the right direction.
 
toddinde said:
I was in Wisconsin, and the dithering by the Obama administration in awarding the funds facilitated Walker killing the expansion which would have been amazingly successful. I’ve never seen the theory that the money was held to get midterm advantage. It totally backfired. I thought it was FRA incompetence, but the political explanation makes sense. It backfired horribly and set passenger rail in Wisconsin back by 20 years or more.
Click to expand...

What even are you talking about? The midterm/political advantage theory has no basis because Anderson's timeline is completely off. Not only were the funds awarded long before the election, but Wisconsin actually got every single dollar it asked for. Work was starting, contracts were being signed, trains were ordered, in fact rail was even placed on the ground at some spots adjacent to the
old rail corridor that was due to be refurbished.

The stimulus act was signed in February, the FRA plan was released in April, applications for funding were submitted in the summer and fall, and the money was awarded in January. That's less than a year for what was essentially a brand new project that had no organizational or process structure in place, in a federal government that often moves slower than molasses on these things (by point of comparison, Metrolink is taking longer from bid submission deadline to contract award just to decide which company will run the same trains with more or less the same employees that are currently running the service).

I honestly don't think there was much of any dithering at all. They wanted that project to go as fast as it could.
 
Trogdor said:
You recall incorrectly. Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida all had funding announced in January 2010. Obama even referenced the groundbreaking of Tampa-Orlando in his 2010 State of the Union address.
Click to expand...
The Wisconsin project was hardly dubious. Madison is a large city over 200,000 in population, fast growing, with a huge university of 50,000 students, many of whom live in the Milwaukee and Chicago areas. It was an expansion of the uber successful Hiawatha corridor. It had been planned and thoroughly engineered over a twenty year period, with broad, bipartisan support. The Wisconsin project was killed because it would be so successful. As for the 3C corridor in Ohio, I don’t know much about it. But logic suggests it would have been successful, although, unlike Wisconsin, it didn’t build off an already successful corridor.
 
Trogdor said:
What even are you talking about? The midterm/political advantage theory has no basis because Anderson's timeline is completely off. Not only were the funds awarded long before the election, but Wisconsin actually got every single dollar it asked for. Work was starting, contracts were being signed, trains were ordered, in fact rail was even placed on the ground at some spots adjacent to the
old rail corridor that was due to be refurbished.

The stimulus act was signed in February, the FRA plan was released in April, applications for funding were submitted in the summer and fall, and the money was awarded in January. That's less than a year for what was essentially a brand new project that had no organizational or process structure in place, in a federal government that often moves slower than molasses on these things (by point of comparison, Metrolink is taking longer from bid submission deadline to contract award just to decide which company will run the same trains with more or less the same employees that are currently running the service).

I honestly don't think there was much of any dithering at all. They wanted that project to go as fast as it could.
Click to expand...
 
There was a long delay in evaluating projects for award. The Wisconsin project was, in fact, shovel ready. My criticism is that there was a severe recession, and the funds needed to be awarded quickly. Wisconsin had already demonstrated commitment by funding the Hiawatha and and luring Talgo. That project was absolutely ready to go. There is no question that FRA took an unreasonable amount of time to get the projects evaluated, and that delay allowed Walker to cancel the project. I was there, involved in the passenger rail community and politics in Wisconsin and I watched it unfold. I am correct.
 
I'm going to stand partially corrected. There was a grant volley announced in January 2010 (surrounding the SOTU). However, there was also a second volley that was announced on October 28, 2010:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120306063332/https://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/press-releases/227.shtml
https://web.archive.org/web/2011081...ds/Summary_of_FY10_Selected_Projects_1010.pdf

Specifically, the money thrown at Iowa (to extend the Quad Cities project), Florida, and Michigan smelled funny to me at the time (October 28 being, you know, five days before the midterms; there's no way anything announced close to the midterm elections like that doesn't at least smell funny in passing). NB Florida was a supplemental $800m (I remembered that much) but that didn't affect me scratching my head at the project (it always was a poor IOS option, particularly if Orlando-Miami wasn't guaranteed to happen).

But I am corrected that Wisconsin wasn't in that batch, and even at the time that got lost in the fog of war of "what happened". And yes, I agree that January-October/November should have been enough time to get things sorted out (whereas anything going "out the window" on five days' notice on something being announced before an election is contributory negligence on the part of the grant-makers). It was Iowa that was the big screw-up there (Branstad threw the brakes on the project, but I'm pretty sure he didn't have a contract to disrupt), and that's also one I was confused about since...er...Iowa City did not strike me as a logical terminus vs Des Moines...but I was not happy about that project getting screwed up, either (it felt like the funding there was somehow half-assed). The Michigan project did make sense to me (and rumor has it that we're finally going to get a better timetable in MI soon...).

I've also never quite understood why Walker chucked the Talgos instead of just putting them on the Hiawathas once he was stuck with them other than "he was an ass" (in the case of Scott Walker, this is a perfectly sufficient explanation), but...well, if you want a discussion about why I was quite willing, in particular, to take Trump over Kasich [and Walker, though the latter flamed out much earlier] in '16? That whole affair is why.

(Another correction to my thinking: I had thought that the upgrades to Amtrak in NJ [the 160 or 165 MPH tracks] that have been incessantly delayed were part of one of the two rounds of funding...but apparently not...)
 
Anderson said:
.....I've also never quite understood why Walker chucked the Talgos instead of just putting them on the Hiawathas once he was stuck with them other than "he was an ass" (in the case of Scott Walker, this is a perfectly sufficient explanation), but...well, if you want a discussion about why I was quite willing, ....
Click to expand...


Not sure this goes here in the thread about Richard Anderson, but....

I have never heard a good reason. However I recall that if someone were to buy the two Talgo sets in the first few years after Wisconsin lost the breach of contract. That Wisconsin would recover some of the funds. Which was at the time, possibility that the 2 Wisconsin set would find a home in the Pacific Northwest. Into delays and derailment occurred.
 
Personally, I think it would be better if in an ideal state, Amtrak was allowed to use the capital and operating funds to build what it sees as necessary if the state's decides to be intransigent. Amtrak is still technically a corporation, it should be allowed some flexibility. Amtrak needs someone willing to fight for growth, growth that isn't chained to the good graces of anti rail states or politicians.
 
Anderson said:
I've also never quite understood why Walker chucked the Talgos instead of just putting them on the Hiawathas once he was stuck with them other than "he was an ass" (in the case of Scott Walker, this is a perfectly sufficient explanation), but...well, if you want a discussion about why I was quite willing, in particular, to take Trump over Kasich [and Walker, though the latter flamed out much earlier] in '16? That whole affair is why.
Click to expand...

Walker was unable to get the legislature to fund the maintenance facility (originally planned for Madison, then switched to Milwaukee) for the Talgos which was required by the agreement with Talgo. No maintenance facility, no Talgos on the Hiawatha.
 
Eric S said:
Walker was unable to get the legislature to fund the maintenance facility (originally planned for Madison, then switched to Milwaukee) for the Talgos which was required by the agreement with Talgo. No maintenance facility, no Talgos on the Hiawatha.
Click to expand...
Ok, that's...actually a valid problem (particularly if he at least asked for the money to avoid a breach). And of course, as noted, the possibility of limited damages if MI, WA, or CA bought the trains (each was rumored at some point) also likely affected the equation (I'll admit that I can see being willing to pay some damages rather than eating a multi-decade maintenance contract for what would otherwise be "goofball" equipment in the area).
 

Latest posts

Back
Top