New Amtrak President on the Crescent

[AmtrakBlue]

Rider poles somehow gave me visions of riders pole dancing

You've been locked up in your shuttered home too long. :giggle:

 

[DSS&A]

I hope that Mr. Moorman will have better success with Congress. Better food quality and choices will help as well as reversing Congress' cost analysis and allow the Amtrak to operate like 3 other private companies (free dinners for sleeping car passengers), which some Republicans keep repeating.

Many successful hotel corporations offer free WiFi, free continental breakfasts, or even big FREE breakfast buffets for people staying at their hotels and not EVERY hotel guest uses these offerings. However, I don't here Congressmen protesting that this practice is "unfair" to the hotel customers that do not take advantage of these "free" offerings. Congressmen might loose support and campaign contributions if they protest against Embassy Suites, Hilton, Marriott and others.

Amtrak doesn't offer "free food" to anybody. For sleeper passengers, meals are included in the price of the ticket (or more specifically, the price of the accommodation.) Nor do hotels offer "free" wifi or breakfasts or whatever, the costs are included in the room rate. If the hotel can fill its rooms without offering anything, the management will be more than happy to do so. But, believe me, if you are offered anything "free," you are paying for it one way or the other.

If Amtrak can fill the trains without providing food, why should they provide food? We'll have to see how the "experiment" with the Silver Star works out. It's possible that they can fill more sleeper berths with cheaper, no-food-included fares than with the former system. And this business of including meals with sleeper accommodations is a relatively recent thing in the US passenger rail world, anyway. And also remember, that most Antrak passengers don't travel in the sleepers, they travel coach or business class. Many of them don't have a need for food service beyond a cafe car, because they're traveling relatively short distances, even on "long distance" trains,

Passenger rail service is about providing people with transportation, not feeding them. Food service is only necessary as a means to attract (some) passengers. I agree that the current food service (including the cafe cars) has deteriorated, and some sort of fix is needed. However, I think that Amtrak's real challenges are more on the order of maintaining and expanding service, increasing reliability, and renewing (and expanding) the fleet. And if the company expects the taxpayers to subsidize this (which I think we should), it should be providing rail service that most meets the public interest, which is probably more corridor service, although additional LD frequencies that allow daylight service to cities on the line (such as the proposal in the Amtrak futures subforum to run a second train on the LSL route that serves Ohio cities during the day) are also worth considering.

What the new leadership has to do is to somehow divert the obsession of certain members of Congress for accounting trivia over the food service and focus on the larger issue of the role passenger rail can play in improving our national transportation system (alternative to driving and short flights, reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, reduction of traffic congestion, public transportation alternative to some rural communities, etc.) An then, while they're debating the important stuff, the new leadership can quietly fix the problems with the food service.

MARC, I agree with you completely. I know "free items" are actually items covered in buried costs. Amtrak does need more funding on the serious topics of state of good repair, expanding the system routes & frequencies and new equipment for both of these issues. Instead of increased funding, Amtrak received requirements to carry guns and small pets.......

 

[Acela150]

Rider poles somehow gave me visions of riders pole dancing

Sadly I'm guilty as well lol!

 

[Thirdrail7]

Rider poles somehow gave me visions of riders pole dancing

Sadly I'm guilty as well lol!

That would probably bring in additional revenue.

 

[railiner]

Rider poles somehow gave me visions of riders pole dancing

Sadly I'm guilty as well lol!

That would probably bring in additional revenue.

It does...for the dancer's.

If you want proof, just ride the NYC subways any afternoon, when it's "Showtime"....

 

[GaSteve]

Commentary on Moorman's task: http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/blogs/frank-n-wilner/wicks-winter-of-discontent.html

 

[railiner]

That was a pretty depressing read...with no solutions offered. Sort of gives the impression that Moormans's job is "Mission: Impossible"...

 

[Acela150]

I haven't had a chance to read it yet. But if that's the case. Wick can thank Joe.

 

[jis]

I haven't had a chance to read it yet. But if that's the case. Wick can thank Joe.

Is it perhaps possible that even Joe had a Mission Impossible? Or are you so illogical as to not see that as a possibility? Or have you considered that possibility and have some concrete evidence to nevertheless exclusively support your claim? Just wondering ....

 

[zephyr17]

I haven't had a chance to read it yet. But if that's the case. Wick can thank Joe.

No, Wick can thank Congress.

Also, reading before commenting is typically a good practice.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Benito Mussolini got those trains running on time.

I thought that had been proven to be an urban legend?

That Railway Magazine editorial was depressing...

 

[Steve4031]

Probably the biggest concern imho is that he is stating that neither presidential candidate supports rail. Iirc both candidates did address transportation in their platforms. Not sure how serious either would be about follow through.

 

[jis]

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter a hill of beans what Presidents say because money bills originate in the House. President can just use his bully pulpit. But at the end of the day the House has to act and the Senate has to concur.

 

[Anderson]

Neither candidate has expressed any opposition, there's bipartisan support in Congress, and at least as far as I can tell the candidate from the often anti-rail party has given off plenty of positive noises (albeit with an unusually high signal-to-noise ratio, but I think it points to where his gut instinct goes). Frankly, as much as I wish the Dem candidate was someone named Biden, from a passenger rail perspective we could be doing a frak-load worse.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter a hill of beans what Presidents say because money bills originate in the House. President can just use his bully pulpit. But at the end of the day the House has to act and the Senate has to concur.

This assumes the President is either positive or neutral toward Amtrak. If the President is anti-Amtrak then he can veto the budget and bring everything to a crashing halt unilaterally. Congress can attempt an override but in a heavily partisan anti-compromise tribe focused era that's a relatively rare event.

Neither candidate has expressed any opposition, there's bipartisan support in Congress, and at least as far as I can tell the candidate from the often anti-rail party has given off plenty of positive noises (albeit with an unusually high signal-to-noise ratio, but I think it points to where his gut instinct goes). Frankly, as much as I wish the Dem candidate was someone named Biden, from a passenger rail perspective we could be doing a frak-load worse.

If I had to guess Trump's proposals would probably include making Amtrak "great again" (no idea on when that was) but instructing them to license the name "Trumptrak" at great expense to the American taxpayer. Afterward Trumptrak would be sold off as part of a no-bid contract to a trusted crony. It may sound silly and pointless but it's also one of the few unchanging truths about a man who appears to love his own name more than anything else in his life.

 

[Carolina Special]

There will be a bunch of competing priorities to Amtrak, including propping up commuter rail/subway projects (DC Metro anyone-please?) as well as federal funding for the California HSR which has yet to see any light at the end of the tunnel.

And entitlements (Social Security/Medicare) spiraling up as the Boomers age. As well as Obamacare needing one heck of a bailout over the next couple of years.

No matter which party wins control of House/Senate/Presidency, I would not expect much change to Amtrak funding whatever the new CEO does.

 

[A Voice]

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter a hill of beans what Presidents say because money bills originate in the House. President can just use his bully pulpit. But at the end of the day the House has to act and the Senate has to concur.

The Constitution requires that all bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives. The appropriations process, however, actually starts with the President who proposes a budget to both houses of Congress, where it may be considered separately. The House does not have to pass the budget before the Senate takes it up and, indeed, the final budget documents crafted ("marked up") by each House may bear little or no resemblance to each other nor to the President's proposal. Differences in the legislation must be reconciled and, finally, the bill sent to the President for his signature (or veto).

Of course, in practice - particularly in recent years - the annual budget process is more muddled, and the government is often funded through a series of continuing resolutions. But its not supposed to work that way.

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter a hill of beans what Presidents say because money bills originate in the House. President can just use his bully pulpit. But at the end of the day the House has to act and the Senate has to concur.

This assumes the President is either positive or neutral toward Amtrak. If the President is anti-Amtrak then he can veto the budget and bring everything to a crashing halt unilaterally. Congress can attempt an override but in a heavily partisan anti-compromise tribe focused era that's a relatively rare event.

There is no line-item veto at the federal level; The President must accept or reject the budget "bill" in whole. No matter how ideologically opposed some politicians are to Amtrak, no executive is going to veto the budget and risk shutting down the government (again...) solely over the nearly insignificant Amtrak appropriation.

 

[Palmetto]

The fact of the matter is it doesn't matter a hill of beans what Presidents say because money bills originate in the House. President can just use his bully pulpit. But at the end of the day the House has to act and the Senate has to concur.

Truer words were never spoken. The pre-election rhetoric of presidential candidates is worthless unless the legislative branch goes along with them.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Keep in mind that the Republicans have controlled Congress (the House) for the past Six years and can't even pass a Budget,( the Senate has) which is their ##2 responsibility! (After Job #1, getting Re-elected!!!)

Both candidates have the usual Boiler plate in their Platforms about Jobs, Transportation and Infrastructure, but there are no details or cost factors.

As we've discussed before, Platforms aren't worth the paper they're written on, so we'll see, starting in January, if the "Lame Duck" Congress doesn't pass a Budget or decides to shut the Government down Again!

Edited to Clarify, Thanks George!

 

[George K]

Keep in mind that the Republicans have controlled Congress for the past Six years and can't even pass a Budget, which is their ##2 responsibility! (After Job #1, getting Re-elected!!!

 

[Hytec]

And entitlements (Social Security/Medicare) spiraling up as the Boomers age.

Minor side-bar correction here. Neither Social Security nor Medicare are Entitlements, they both are Savings Accounts. We All, you and I, pay into each account with every pay check or other income source, even if you are self-employed. Each of us then withdraws from these accounts, Social Security, 62 for early retirement, or 66 currently for full retirement, and Medicare at 65. You may be required to continue to contribute to both these accounts after retirement depending on your income regardless of source, pension, dividends, IRAs, etc.

 

[Carolina Special]

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system and has been ever since Ida May Fuller collected her first check. She put in $25 in contributions into the system and got back over $20k over her lifetime. We should all be so lucky.

Social Security and Medicare are invested in "trust funds". If/when those run out with fewer workers supporting each retiree each year, benefits will have to be reduced no matter what your statement says. Or Congress will have to support the benefits from the general fund, leaving less money for transportation spending and other things.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Interesting comments about Social Security and Medicare.

There's plenty of political blather around from both parties, most of it total BS.

Unfortunately when it comes to Economists and "Stats", as the Late Great Mark Twain said: "..There's three kinds of "Liars, Liars,Damn Liars and Statistics."..

The truth is that the whole financial system will melt down and we'll have a depression that will make the 1930s seem like "Happy Days" unless Congress and whoever is President doesn't roll up their sleeves and get to work on solving this issue and the other really serious ones facing this country, not just posturing about the Sexual habits of disgusting pols. (Both parties have them, always have!)

 

[Ryan]

If/when those run out with fewer workers supporting each retiree each year, benefits will have to be reduced no matter what your statement says. Or Congress will have to support the benefits from the general fund, leaving less money for transportation spending and other things.

Start by removing the cap on withholding, and the situation gets much, much better.

 

[dlagrua]

As said before , we wish Wick Moorman well in keeping Amtrak afloat but the more I read peoples posts here, the more that I wish for private passenger rail. In other words the contracting of routes to the private railroads, and by providing a fair subsidy such as the airlines receive. Many states contract out their regional rail so why count not that scheme work on the LD routes. Could it be much worse than having to endure lower amenities, steadily raising prices, and riding in old worn out equipment where some of the help could care less?. I am convinced that Amtrak is too much of a political animal to ever be successful. I am glad that we still have passenger rail but if the money to keep things moving forward is just not there, you end up with the same ole same ole story. Government can't even get CAF to deliver badly needed product. I predict that privatization w subsidies is the path that Amtrak is on but I could be wrong as there might not be many takers.