Fire Richard Anderson Campaign?

[chrsjrcj]

Someone was selling “Fire Anderson” hats on eBay

 

[Seaboard92]

I know what I've suggested to him and that would be a big no win for Anderson and Gardner. But it's classy and would be great PR for private cars.

 

[Seaboard92]

Someone was selling “Fire Anderson” hats on eBay

If you want them I know the guy. Amtrak made him take them down. But I can hook you up. Same with bumper stickers. No surprise the person doing it owns a private car or five.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

The crew on the Sliver Meteor love my hat.

One thinks there try to protect the Amtrak brand. So we need a hat like Save the Trains Fire Anderson

Not so short and sweet.

.

 

[Acela150]

Someone was selling “Fire Anderson” hats on eBay

If you want them I know the guy. Amtrak made him take them down. But I can hook you up. Same with bumper stickers. No surprise the person doing it owns a private car or five.

Seaboard. I’ll drop you a PM about said hats later today.

 

[fredmcain]

I don't know how significant a development it may be, but the New Jersey ARP has now officially come out calling for Anderson's outsting. I guess I feel like he may have cooked his own goose. He P.O.'d some of the most important people whose support he needs the most. My best guess is that he will be gone within a year - two years at most. Once he finally sees the handwriting on the wall, he'll probably just quit and in doing so will make an attempt of face saving by claiming that Amtrak is "a hopeless basket case".

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

 

[jis]

Yeah, we decided to jump into the fray at the last Board meeting (I am on the Board of NJ-ARP for many years now). Looks like RailPAC also shot off a similar letter at about the same time. One is never sure how much effect these have, but no harm in trying to communicate displeasure the best we can. And the more the merrier.

 

[bretton88]

I support most of what Anderson has done. Amtrak needed to be shaken up and he's doing it. Yes it will upset some people in the process. We need reliable corridors in this country. Of the LD trains, I see the Empire Builder as necessary for rural transportation. A restructured SWC (not as Amtrak has proposed) could fill that role well too. Other things, like meal service, needed to change.

 

[PVD]

The huge unanswered question is to what degree is he filling the bill the board was looking to fill. If he told them what they wanted to hear, and he is marching to the beat of their drum, advancing an agenda that we may not support, but they clearly don't wish to share with the public in its totality, even if they don't have the guts to admit it, if he was cut loose as a sacrificial lamb, the likelihood is the next person would not be radically different.

 

[jebr]

The huge unanswered question is to what degree is he filling the bill the board was looking to fill. If he told them what they wanted to hear, and he is marching to the beat of their drum, advancing an agenda that we may not support, but they clearly don't wish to share with the public in its totality, even if they don't have the guts to admit it, if he was cut loose as a sacrificial lamb, the likelihood is the next person would not be radically different.

This is pretty much it. I'm getting the feeling that the board and Congress weren't too happy with subsidizing the status quo and felt changes were needed. I'll admit that I really can't get my outrage-o-meter on for the dining service changes; I think they're fine for most trips under 24 hours, and if a trip is longer than that I'm probably flying anyways (as would most customers.) The markets Amtrak serves, especially with the long distance trains, while certainly useful, seem to be more of a happenstance of history than a recent evaluation on what markets most need Amtrak or would be the best fit for Amtrak. Frankly, Amtrak hasn't really truly shaken things up in a number of years, and Anderson is probably one of the best people that were both willing to become CEO of Amtrak and could try and disrupt the status quo.

It could certainly go horribly wrong, and the SWC discussions (especially without any corresponding additions to service elsewhere that would suggest they're retooling the network instead of cutting it) certainly worry me. However, and maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, I'm hopeful that Anderson's changes will put Amtrak on a more solid footing and make Amtrak more relevant to more people as a transportation option that's competitive with the air and road markets, instead of being seen as either an option of last resort or a "land cruise" outside of a few corridors.

 

[keelhauled]

Once he finally sees the handwriting on the wall, he'll probably just quit and in doing so will make an attempt of face saving by claiming that Amtrak is "a hopeless basket case".

Who knows, maybe he would even be right.

 

[bretton88]

The huge unanswered question is to what degree is he filling the bill the board was looking to fill. If he told them what they wanted to hear, and he is marching to the beat of their drum, advancing an agenda that we may not support, but they clearly don't wish to share with the public in its totality, even if they don't have the guts to admit it, if he was cut loose as a sacrificial lamb, the likelihood is the next person would not be radically different.

Anderson's contract is based upon incentives for hitting certain targets. I have no doubt that means the board had a certain direction they wanted to pursue and I highly doubt Anderson is carrying out initiatives that would harm his incentives. This is why I have trouble getting outraged or even really concerned, especially when a lot of the outrage is "but this is how we've done it for the last 40 years, how dare they change it." I do think he needs better PR, and I am eyeing the SWC issue because it could indicate whether Amtrak is serious about route improvements (Colorado enhancements combined with a Heartland Flyer extension?) or is just looking to swing the axe.

 

[DSS&A]

I'm wondering why people haven't turned their attention and wrath on the Board Of Directors.

It would be beneficial for Amtrak to have one or two Board members with RAILROAD experience (commuter rail, rail transit or freight rail).

 

[cpotisch]

This is why I have trouble getting outraged or even really concerned, especially when a lot of the outrage is "but this is how we've done it for the last 40 years, how dare they change it."

Actually, a lot of the outrage is "the way they've done it for the last 40 years was better than how they're doing it now." Opposing a new, poorer product does not mean that you just oppose change of any kind.

 

[jis]

Also, there is a general mistrust of leadership, specially when it comes to Amtrak, with very good reasons. Specially those that lived through the dismantling of passenger service are naturally seeing it from that perspective. Younger people do not have that context, so they may find the reaction perplexing. Even I find it somewhat perplexing having not lived through 1971 in this country, but I can understand some of it having lived through Reagan/Stockman.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I support most of what Anderson has done. Amtrak needed to be shaken up and he's doing it. Yes it will upset some people in the process. We need reliable corridors in this country. Of the LD trains, I see the Empire Builder as necessary for rural transportation. A restructured SWC (not as Amtrak has proposed) could fill that role well too. Other things, like meal service, needed to change.

I believe many folks would agree that meal service needed to change but I doubt most would agree that reducing selections from an already tiny menu and removing special dietary requests is a genuine improvement. I guess to an Anderson supporter all that really matters is that he changed something, disrupted something, shook something up, and/or hurt someone's feelings. Staunch Anderson supporters don't seem to have a thoughtful plan for success so much as a vague emotional itch begging to be scratched.

I'll admit that I really can't get my outrage-o-meter on for the dining service changes; I think they're fine for most trips under 24 hours, and if a trip is longer than that I'm probably flying anyways (as would most customers.) The markets Amtrak serves, especially with the long distance trains, while certainly useful, seem to be more of a happenstance of history than a recent evaluation on what markets most need Amtrak or would be the best fit for Amtrak.

Can you point to any event that actually moved your ho-hum-o-meter so we can understand what gets your attention? Even a permanent service gap in the SWC doesn't seem to be enough to generate more than a tepid gosh darn it. Amtrak's current network is anything but a product of happenstance. Nearly every route and stop was fought for by someone who cared enough to spend their time, money, and/or political capital in defense or promotion of something they cared about. Your casual indifference to Amtrak's past ignores decades of activism and mocks the efforts those who cared enough to take action.

However, and maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, I'm hopeful that Anderson's changes will put Amtrak on a more solid footing and make Amtrak more relevant to more people as a transportation option that's competitive with the air and road markets, instead of being seen as either an option of last resort or a "land cruise" outside of a few corridors.

Even an eternal optimist would still be expected to explain how the things Anderson is actually doing are going to help Amtrak in the future. Instead many Anderson supporters seem to treat his stewardship like an opaque equation with known inputs leading to an end result which cannot be known until after Anderson declares victory or the board declares defeat. If history is any guide the time to act is when a service you consider important is threatened by someone in a position to actively undermine it. By the time such service is in the process of being undermined it's too late to worry about bringing it back again.

 

[jebr]

Can you point to any event that actually moved your ho-hum-o-meter so we can understand what gets your attention? Even a permanent service gap in the SWC doesn't seem to be enough to generate more than a tepid gosh darn it. Amtrak's current network is anything but a product of happenstance. Nearly every route and stop was fought for by someone who cared enough to spend their time, money, and/or political capital in defense or promotion of something they cared about. Your casual indifference to Amtrak's past ignores decades of activism and mocks the efforts those who cared enough to take action.

I'm willing to concede that the routes we have left are the ones that had the most political support and advocacy during each round of cuts. That certainly helps to show support for a route, but I'm not convinced that, should we have the chance to build something from scratch with equivalent route-mileage that the current route miles would be the best pick for a holistic national system. I know that's not realistic, but I'm willing to consider the option of trading route-miles if the swap makes sense. It doesn't help that most of the leaked information regarding the SWC, at least initially, seems to come from the same people that have outraged at every change that Anderson has made, including many I agree with, which mixed with the lack of "official" information makes me wonder what information, if any, isn't being shared. (As an example, has a reroute onto the transcon through Amarillo been floated as a possibility?)

There's also a lot of issues that are larger personal priorities for me than non-local Amtrak routes. With the number of other things that are happening in DC on a regular basis (mainly non-passenger rail related) it's hard to feel like even something as drastic as replacing a large portion of the SWC with a bus is worth much of my political time and energy. (That's not to say it isn't worth other people's time and energy; I still advocate for local transit/rail projects, and I fully support people advocating for the multimodal transportation options that matter to them.)

Even an eternal optimist would still be expected to explain how the things Anderson is actually doing are going to help Amtrak in the future.

Hearing reports that maintenance has been given additional funds/labor is a positive sign, especially when it appears to be paired with accountability to try and keep equipment road-worthy and reduce delays and failures en-route. I'm also okay with the idea that private cars should only be attached when it doesn't delay the schedule. Anderson does seem to be focusing on OTP, at least what factors he can easily control, and finding ways to make Amtrak's on-time performance adequate for passengers who care about a schedule will do more for me to take Amtrak than almost anything else.

 

[GBNorman]

I have to wonder how anyone can make a cogent argument that there is an economic case to be made for continuation of the Long Distance trains.

I guarantee you that as one who has followed industry affairs for now over sixty yesrs, I can't.

Obviously I hold that LD trains simply have no economic and very little social impact in twenty first century USA. I also hold that they represent a "taking" in that they hardly pay their full economic rent to the Class I industry.

Our economy is presently at full employment, and as such, the impact upon any employees will be minimized. Will there be "pain" from displacement for some Amtrak employees?, yes but "C'est la Vie". Is there legislated or collectively bargained relief for those adversely affected employees? YES. Is there assistance for displaced employees such as Station Agents who would need to relocate to exercise their seniority? Pretty sure there would be under New York Dock.

Will the "little old lady" from Williston, ND have to find another way to get to the Specialist physician in Minneapolis she needs to see? Yes. If there is enough social outcry for relief in these situations, the "pain" could be alleviated for far less than the $400M I hold leaves the cookie jar in support of the LD's by means of establishing subsidized bus routes along those of the discontinued trains. Lest we not forget, there is NO Amtrak station inaccessible by highway.

Will those who find the journey part, if not most, of the travel experience be adversely affected with their pastime lost? Yes; "sorry 'bout that". After all, does Delta Air Lines operate "nostalgia flights" with DC-6's, "Stews"; young and unmarried serving First Class meals (complete with the complimentary pack of three cigarettes to give me a headache), and with TSA formalities being waived? "Uh, don't think so".

Now the "wild card"; uh those 535 of "our finest wo/men, and so we elect them again and again" who dwell "under the Dome"? At present, I think the sentiment has been developed that they are prepared to fund rail passenger service infrastructure that is relevant to 21st century needs - and around here we all know what that is - and what it aint'. However, we all know how the climate in that building can change "just like that", but at the moment, get that Requisition into Procurement for some fifty Adios drumheads.

 

[jis]

GBN, can you make a cogent argument for any passenger trains? I would like to hear one for any that you can come up with. [emoji57]

 

[Thirdrail7]

GBN, can you make a cogent argument for any passenger trains? I would like to hear one for any that you can come up with. [emoji57]

I have to agree with everything DA stated above and this post from Jis. What exactly is the argument for passenger rail when you consider this:

I have to wonder how anyone can make a cogent argument that thete us an economic ca to be made for continuation of the Long Distance trains.

Will the "little old lady" from Williston, ND have to find another way to get to the Specialist physician in Minneapolis she needs to see? Yes. If there is enough social outcry for relief in these situations, the "pain" could be alleviated for far less than the $400M I hold leaves the cookie jar in support of the LD's by means of establishing subsidized bus routes along those of the discontinued trains. Lest we not forget, there is NO Amtrak station inaccessible by highway.

Well, if that is our attitude, the NEC should be the VERY fist thing to go. This is taken from the Railpac letter to Amtrak Chair Coscia thread:

I love this part:

Over the years the National Network of overnight trains has been blamed for Amtrak’s deficits. We disagree. The National Network generates more passenger miles and revenue than the Northeast Corridor and is mostly hampered by being starved of investment and freight railroad issues for at least two decades. You and your Board should remember that the NEC was not part of the original Amtrak and that it was dumped on the company in 1976, because no other agency wanted to take on the crippling backlog of infrastructure repairs. With $300 – $400 million in yearly maintenance costs and $30 to $50 Billion in state of good repair and capacity needs, it’s the NEC that is the burden on Amtrak, not the National Network.

The NEC carries the most riders but it also costs a great deal...no matter who finances it.

That is a lot of money for an area that is replete with highways, airports, regional railways and bus lines.

For those that cry shake up, if you're interested in modifying the system and expanding the reach, that is one thing. If you're going to do this by eliminating the existing, skeletal system, that is not something that should be condoned. Value is subject. Whay should "your train" trump "my train?"

Corridor services can exist in tandem with the the LD network. Indeed, it should. However, the states clearly do not want to finance them. Cutting the existing network into corridor service will likely doom the existing network.

A permanent source of funding and Amtrak showing it can actually handle the funding without blowing it should be the goal.

PS: I'm still interested in knowing what would happen if a campaign to oust Mr. Anderson succeeded. It is quite clear not many people actually want this job. We could get stuck with much worse.

 

[cirdan]

Lest we not forget, there is NO Amtrak station inaccessible by highway.

The same can probably be said of all airports.

Let me turn your thinking around?

If Amtrak were to be totally discontinued, how much money would that save?

And where would that money go? Would the alternative be more worthwhile than what we have now?

Probably more congressional fact finding missions, lawyers, red tape.

If you're thinking more teachers or something like that, you're probably mistaken

Probably just a drop in the ocean. Once gone, never to be recovered. Nothing to show for it.

If you look at not just the cost but also the value, Amtrak is pretty much there among the best things the government is doing for you.

In a time that more and more people are losing faith in government, isn't it just accelerateing that if government is actively cutting back on the things people actually appreciate?

 

[user 1215]

Can anyone verify if the IG report on waste from like 2004 has been fully addressed and corrected?

I get Anderson's mission and charter. I don't approve of the means. If the IG report of still valid, go after that rather than the customer experience.

There have been more OIG reports detailing over charging by employees, corrupt contracts and more up to today. Clean these up and perhaps one can enjoy a steak between Chicago and Boston.

 

[fredmcain]

This is why I have trouble getting outraged or even really concerned, especially when a lot of the outrage is "but this is how we've done it for the last 40 years, how dare they change it."

Actually, a lot of the outrage is "the way we've done it for the last 40 years is better than how they're doing it now." Opposition to a new, poorer product is different from merely opposing change of any kind.

Yes! Or, to quote a very old cliché, we shouldn't be blindly opposed to change but opposed to blind change. Change for the sake of change alone is of no benefit to anyone if it doesn't provide a better product.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

 

[fredmcain]

<snip> However, and maybe I'm just an eternal optimist, I'm hopeful that Anderson's changes will put Amtrak on a more solid footing and make Amtrak more relevant to more people as a transportation option that's competitive with the air and road markets, instead of being seen as either an option of last resort or a "land cruise" outside of a few corridors.

This "land cruise" stuff is a perception that I have always felt is WAY off base. Kinda like, Amtrak should be done away with because the trains are always empty. Phooo! I have taken many, many long-distance, cross-country train trips and I have always found it interesting talking to people on there and finding out why they took the train. Indeed, there is a market niche for a "land cruise" and this can be a selling point that Amtrak should market aggressively. But there are many, many patrons on the L-D trains who are on there for other reasons.
I talked with an elderly couple one time who was in my sleeping car from Denver to Omaha, I think it was. The guy was NOT a train fan. He told me that that the sleeping car fare was about half the air fare 'cause it was a corridor that the airlines didn't want to mess with. I have met many college kids going home for Christmas who were sick and tired of flying and wanted to see the country at ground level. One time I met a guy with his wife who had a "family tradition" of taking the train every year at Christmas from Detroit to L.A. (Yes, the Chief) and they had been doing that since end of the Santa Fe days in the late 1960s.

Then you have small cities like Elko, NV or Grand Junction, CO that do not have a lot of transportation options other than the automobile. There are folks like the elderly or the Amish who simply do not/can not fly. One time I met a guy on his way to Brownsville, TX whose doctor told him he cannot fly for medical reasons. He was unhappy that someone had to drive all the way to San Antonio to pick him up 'cause Amtrak does not serve Brownsville directly. (Perhaps it should but that's a different topic).

So, you see, it's not all "land cruise" customers. There are lots of different kinds of people on those trains and throughout most of the year they are also full.

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

 

[cirdan]

I was chatting to a guy, I think it was on one of the Silvers. I think he was from Florida. He told me he had been on a plane that had been shot down and had crash landed in the Vietnam War. As a result he had a recurring trauma and couldn't go near a plane again.

But such stories aside, I don't think it's right to have to defend Amtrak too strongly on the basis of special groups and special needs. Rather, Amtrak should be there for everybody and that's how we should pitch it.