|
Index to recent news postings 2001 news archives Photo gallery Contact us Site map Rail Travel News is a twice-monthly print publication, published since
Dec 10, 1970.
|
AMTRAK AND THE THREE DAVIDS
The three Davids are on the minds of most rail advocates these days: the fired Amtrak President David Gunn, Amtrak Board Chairman David Laney, and Gunn's temporary replacement as President, David Hughes. They form a big question mark in advocates' minds because of lack of outside information about their activities, plans and motives. The first question is why was David Gunn fired? It was widely recognized that he was the best thing that had happened to Amtrak in its existence. Even if his firing would not have an effect upon the future course of Amtrak operations, it seemed unwise from a public relations standpoint because of the appearance of Amtrak being cavalier in discarding such an effective leader. David Laney indicated by statement and implication that Gunn was not fired because of his operational policies, but because of personnel reasons. Apparently he did not relate well to Laney and the Board. One can speculate that his open criticism of the Bush policies toward Amtrak did not sit well with the three Board members who are openly allied with Bush. They represent at present the entire Board with the possible exception of Laney. One can speculate that the three insisted upon Gunn's firing. Laney seems to be steering a difficult course of moderation between the Gunn aims of real improvement and expansion of Amtrak and the Bush people's aim of diminishing and slowly killing off Amtrak. NARP said that Laney is "setting a direction that is independent of the Administration's destructive agenda." One might guess that Laney would not have supported firing Amtrak without the three votes of the Bush representatives. The appointment of David Hughes as interim President is viewed by NARP as a not unfavorable sign. Hughes is reportedly an experienced person who would have the interests of rail passsenger service uppermost in his mind. NARP feels that he would not be one to "reverse course" from the path that Gunn was following. The next big question is what kind of person will the next Amtrak President be? Undoubtedly the three Bush people on the Board would want one who would follow the "Administration's destructive agenda." While Hughes seems to be a "good guy", he is only a temporary President, and quite possibly one not as outspoken as Gunn. (Gunn, himself a Republican, nevertheless strongly opposed the Bush plans for Amtrak and spoke out against them more strongly than any previous Amtrak President, all of whom have been faced with Executive Branch hostility or at least apathy.) When the present Congress adjourns soon, two Bush appointees on the Board will forfeit their positions, leaving only Laney and the DOT representative. Who will replace them is another question. One would hope that they will be fair-minded people with experience in transportation. With the Bush Administration presently in a highly weakened position, it may be possible that he would be forced to suggest appointees who are not necessarily strong supporters of the Administration's anti-Amtrak policies. It is clear that the DOT has failed in its headlong attack on Amtrak. There are signs that the DOT is being forced to find other tactics to reduce the federal tax "burden" required to support rail passenger service. One such tactic is the DOT demanding that the commuter railroads of the Northeast pay Amtrak higher fees for the use of Amtrak's Northeast infrastructure. This would require the states involved to pay more, but the federal tax contribution would be reduced somewhat. The Administration is not averse to higher state tax expenditures, as long as the federal portion is reduced. Another tactic is for the DOT to micromanage Amtrak by dictating cost-cutting for food service, by restricting Amtrak's ability to discount fares at lower-use times, and even by cutting out sleeping car service. These tactics are aimed at discouraging and eventually killing off service. There are many questions in the air about the future management of Amtrak.
However, it appears most likely that Amtrak will limp along as before with
barely enough money to survive. The rising use of rail service in the face
of high gasoline prices could put more pressure upon legislators to support
Amtrak. However, in the past--in the first energy crises in the 1970s--Washington
did not respond to the people's requirements and the Amtrak budget was
cut and routes discontinued regardless of need.
|
Subscribe today! For new subscribers Renewing subscribers To subscribe by US Mail Request sample copy Browse train station posters Click here
Join or donate to the National Association of Railroad Passengers.
|
