Joe Boardman questions current Amtrak's managements motives

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.
DSS&A said:
Anderson KILLED local management of the Eagle and it has dropped from the No. 1 position in re enue to No. 14. The Railway Age article has a lot of good information about the BAD things Anderson is doing to sabotage and kill long distance trains.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/the-folly-of-discarding-long-distance-passenger-trains/
Click to expand...
When was the Texas Eagle #1 in revenue?

As for the link, I think this is merely another example of what I provided in response to DA's question a few days ago.
 
I also could not figure out what was the basis of that Texas Eagle claim. But then again there have been many claims for which I cannot find much basis. So what's new?
default_unsure.png
 
Yeah, isn't the Texas Eagle one of the least cared about or significant routes in the system? Since when was it anywhere near the top in revenue? And it's a short train that generally doesn't run full (at least from what I've seen), as well as having cheap fares, so how would it bring in so much revenue? Sorry DSS&A, you lost me.
default_wacko.png
 
DSS&A said:
Anderson KILLED local management of the Eagle and it has dropped from the No. 1 position in re enue to No. 14. The Railway Age article has a lot of good information about the BAD things Anderson is doing to sabotage and kill long distance trains.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/the-folly-of-discarding-long-distance-passenger-trains/
Click to expand...
TEMPO (the organization overseeing the Texas Eagle) is very much alive and well. I am not sure where that claim comes from. The more probable reason for the Eagle's decline is the UP's poor treatment of it instead. It has become highly unreliable.
 
The Railway Age article has a lot of good information about the BAD things Anderson is doing to sabotage and kill long distance trains.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/the-folly-of-discarding-long-distance-passenger-trains/

TEMPO (the organization overseeing the Texas Eagle) is very much alive and well. I am not sure where that claim comes from. The more probable reason for the Eagle's decline is the UP's poor treatment of it instead. It has become highly unreliable.
I have edited and corrected my post above based on your posting. Thanks for the correct information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DSS&A said:
bretton88 said:
DSS&A said:
Anderson KILLED local management of the Eagle and it has dropped from the No. 1 position in re enue to No. 14. The Railway Age article has a lot of good information about the BAD things Anderson is doing to sabotage and kill long distance trains.https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/the-folly-of-discarding-long-distance-passenger-trains/
Click to expand...
TEMPO (the organization overseeing the Texas Eagle) is very much alive and well. I am not sure where that claim comes from. The more probable reason for the Eagle's decline is the UP's poor treatment of it instead. It has become highly unreliable.
Click to expand...
I have edited and corrected my post above based on your posting. Thanks for the correct information.
Click to expand...
You still didn’t correct the false statement that the Texas Eagle was in first place in revenue, and further erroneously added that it was first in ridership as well, and that somehow this fall from grace occurred in three months.
 
Plenty of wiggle room. "Continuous" only applies to the NEC and there's no frequency requirement. There are also different ways of reading the definition. One might interpret it as locking in the long and short distance routes as they were in 2008. But another way to read it is simply as a permissive scoping statement, i.e. all those things may be part of the system, and not as a requirement.

Would you read it as requiring Amtrak to continue operating the Capitol Corridor if Caltrans pulled its funding? If not, then it isn't a hard lock in of routes – there's no difference in that regard between the short and long distance language.

To be sure, you'll find lawyers willing to argue either side of it in court. For a price.
default_wink.png


jis said:
If Anderson really means that he will follow the law, it would seem that he'd have a lot of 'splaining to do if he breaks up the national network.

Look at these pieces of the law:

49 U.S. Code § 24701 - National rail passenger transportation system

Specially, look up the definition of national rail passenger transportation system

It will be time to take him to the courts if it comes to that.

No wonder no one will even mention the possibility in any official forum.
Click to expand...
 
TiBike said:
Would you read it as requiring Amtrak to continue operating the Capitol Corridor if Caltrans pulled its funding? If not, then it isn't a hard lock in of routes – there's no difference in that regard between the short and long distance language.
Click to expand...
Of course not. That is precluded by PRIIA 2008. That has absolutely nothing to do with how the clause about national LD service is interpreted, taking into account the legislative history in addition to the specific words of the clause. Also note that no one is pulling the funding for LD National Network. Indeed more funding has been appropriated than was authorized by the FAST Act, and same is the case for the proposed 2019 Appropriation from THUD.

To be sure, you'll find lawyers willing to argue either side of it in court. For a price.
default_wink.png
Click to expand...
I was merely sharing opinions shared with me by a few people who make it their profession to handle such legal cases in the federal court system. Ultimately the only way to resolve such an issue is to run it through the court system and that is what will happen if matters come to a head. The first issue will be whether there is enough in the language and legislative history to get an injunction, and many believe there is.
 
That would be the same law that tasks the FRA with developing "objective methodologies for Amtrak to use in determining what intercity passenger routes and services it will provide, including the establishment of new routes, the elimination of existing routes, and the contraction or expansion of services or frequencies over such routes", and proposes as possible fixes for "the worst performing third of routes currently served by Amtrak" the elimination of those services (by withholding funds) and "the feasibility of restructuring service into connected corridor service". And makes allowances "for Amtrak employees who are adversely affected by the cessation of the operation of a long-distance route".

Like much (most, I'd say) federal legislation, the 2008 act is a dog's breakfast of mandates that congress gave to executive agencies, leaving them with the job of interpretation and implementation.

I don't make my living in the federal courts, but the way in which the federal courts review decisions made by executive agencies does have an impact on my business. What I've seen is that federal courts give agencies the maximum possible leeway, short of "arbitrary or capricious" behavior, so long as their actions are arguably within the scope of the law.

I have no doubt that lawyers and other "people who make it their profession" to practice or advocate within the Beltway believe they will prevail, whatever the situation or issue. Victory is much rarer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Boardman is chiming in again and he's not pleased.

Amtrak: Number-crunching doesn’t do it justice

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/amtrak-number-crunching-doesnt-do-it-justice/

Please allow a brief fair use quote:

While it is important that Amtrak focus on numbers—as must any organization with limited budgets, payrolls to meet and vendors to pay—a pure focus on statistics, as Stephen Gardner did in his December 19 op-ed, doesn’t accurately tell Amtrak’s story. Limiting the narrative to financials and comparative statistics is unbalanced—for both Amtrak’s supporters and detractors. It also is a hollow excuse to avoid the societal role and importance of Amtrak.

Amtrak is really about the value it brings to our nation, states, communities, employees and passengers—the forgotten stakeholders when one focuses solely on cold statistics.
Click to expand...
He raises a valid point. Pure numbers will never tell the true tale, particularly when the numbers aren't transparent and easily manipulated (right sizing, anyone?)
 
Well, I hope Coscia passed my letter to Anderson.  My main point was that you can't make business decisions based on totally bogus numbers, and Mr. Anderson needs to either get real numbers or ignore the bogus numbers (preferably, get real numbers).
 
bretton88 said:
I find this funny because accounting was not really any better under his watch.
Click to expand...
I find Boardman's entire approach mainly to be targeted towards post facto trying to cover his own hiney. That of course does not invalidate many of the valid points he makes. To bad he did not bother to act much on any of them as long as his retirement benefits was in jeopardy. Then again, I probably wouldn't have either if, heaven forbid, I found myself in his position :unsure:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jis said:
I find Boardman's entire approach mainly to be targeted towards post facto trying to cover his own hiney. That of course does not invalidate many of the valid points he makes. To bad he did not bother to act much on any of them as long as his retirement benefits was in jeopardy. Then again, I probably wouldn;t have either if, heven forbid, I found myself in his position :unsure:
Click to expand...
Hence why, basically, nobody (qualified) wants the top job at Amtrak.
 
I don't recall Mr. Boardman weaponizing the numbers in order to justify operating one train over another. Indeed, he only really started hacking at the F&B service when Congress starting making a the major issue of it.
 
I was speaking in the context of the accounting mess. I could not figure out why he simply did not go ahead and publish the incremental costs and revenues of trains in addition to whatever garbage the FRA and Volpe wants published.

One could say that Boardman's distinguishing feature was creative inaction but that would be unfairly unkind perhaps. But would explain the gentle disappearance of the PIPs without action and many other such observed developments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thirdrail7 said:
I don't recall Mr. Boardman weaponizing the numbers in order to justify operating one train over another. Indeed, he only really started hacking at the F&B service when Congress starting making a the major issue of it.
Click to expand...
How many times did the now beloved "Mr. Boardman" boast that the NEC was "profitable:" to Congress, to the media, to anyone who would listen?  To do that he used the same accounting "tricks" he now derides to polish his image. Rewriting history.
 
PRR 60 said:
How many times did the now beloved "Mr. Boardman" boast that the NEC was "profitable:" to Congress, to the media, to anyone who would listen?  To do that he used the same accounting "tricks" he now derides to polish his image. Rewriting history.
Click to expand...
I believe it was stated that the NEC is profitable "above the rail," but I still don't see the relevance to what I ask: When did he use the ridership figures or "voodoo economics" accounting to publicly undermine other routes or justify cuts in service (amenities, not withstanding?)

I'm not saying it didn't happen but I seriously don't recall it happening. 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was a famous presentation by Boardman to Congress pointing out that the avoidable costs of the so-called long-distance trains were quite low.  Sadly, it was a one-off.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top