We expect strong indifference will follow, no doubt immediately. ========================================
To: John Melrose; Bruce VanNote;
Charles Large; Mary Anne Hayes
cc: Patricia Quinn; Sen. Bill Diamond;
Rep. Andrew McLean; Office of the Governor (Thomas Abello)
From: P. C. Schaeffer
Subject: Comments on NNEPRA Board
Governance and Meeting Conduct
Date: 22 January 2020
=======================================================
I've recently attended a number of
regularly scheduled NNEPRA Board Meetings, and have read numerous
Board Meeting packets over the years, each of which usually includes
minutes of the prior Board Meeting. (Additionally, I have obtained
numerous documents detailing various aspects of NNEPRA operations via
Freedom of Access requests. These requests span five years at
least.)
Upon reflection, my conclusion is that
the “Public Session” in each Board Meeting is largely a
perfunctory exercise, reviewing budget status and ridership
statistics, and only rarely departing from a pro-forma update of the
prior month's report.
Since members of the public are
excluded from Executive Sessions, which regularly begin every Board
Meeting, I have no knowledge of just how forthcoming NNEPRA Staff is
at reviewing the details of the complex passenger rail operation for
which they are responsible. Nor is there visible indication that
Staff relies on the Board to provide direction and oversight in
policy and execution of responsibilities. The impression one gets
from seeing only Public Sessions is that the Board plays a mostly
superficial and ceremonial role.
If these impressions are correct,
significant changes and upgrades in NNEPRA governance are called for.
NNEPRA and its Board are entities of Maine State Government, and
residents and taxpayers have a right to expect best efforts and
practices in all things they undertake.
Operational Considerations
It's obvious to those of us who have
tracked and studied such operations for years that there are subject
areas of real significance that should be rigorously overseen by
NNEPRA Staff as part of their professional responsibilities, and that
more importantly, should be reported regularly in detail to the
Board. Without such knowledge, the Board cannot fulfill its
fiduciary obligation to act as the taxpaying publics'
representatives, ensuring that Maine's passenger rail operation is
overseen and managed to the highest standards.
NNEPRA is a third party agent in the
operation of the Downeaster. It negotiates and oversees operating
agreements with Amtrak, PanAm Railways, the MBTA, Concord Coach
Lines, station communities, and various other providers of equipment,
facilities, and services that are part and parcel of the Downeaster
operation. NNEPRA is, in effect, the general contractor for the
Downeaster, and it engages a number of sub-contractors that must
seamlessly integrate into the totality of passenger rail service
offered to the public.
Paramount among these providers are
Amtrak, which provides the actual train sets that comprise the
Downeaster, and Pan Am Railways and the MBTA, which own the rail
systems upon which the train sets operate. It is important to note
that the MBTA operates passenger rail service, and as such, is bound
by FRA passenger service obligations for track inspection and
maintenance, while Pan Am Railways operates only freight services,
and has no inherent obligations to comply with passenger level track
standards, other than as imposed via agreements with NNEPRA.
Since NNEPRA's largest operating
expense is for Amtrak equipment, operating staff, and related
maintenance and supplies, and this equipment is among the oldest and
least technically advanced in the Amtrak inventory, regular detailed
reporting on its inspection, care, and operation should be the
highest priority for Staff and Board tracking and reporting.
Note that the original 20 year
operating agreement between The National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak) and NNEPRA expires in December 2021, and it
would seem prudent to have plans and strategy for a successor
agreement as a top Staff and Board priority. Especially since there
is significant chatter in Washington about restructuring Amtrak
operations, especially as they relate to curtailing shorter routes.
Nothing seen so far in Board packets indicates that attention is
being given to this critical item.
As to conditions of the track upon
which the Downeaster operates, FRA regulations require twice weekly
inspections. The results of these inspections, which directly affect
safety and schedule compliance, as well as service interruptions and
initiating necessary repairs, should similarly be reported in detail
to the Board as a matter of course.
Slow orders are a regular part of track
inspection and maintenance, and are meant to directly govern train
set operations in real time “in the cab.” They are vital to
guaranteeing safe operations of the Downeaster.
Slow orders, in my understanding, exist
in two categories. The first is permanent, where track geometry,
impaired visibility, and other cautionary factors necessitate
reduction in operating speeds. These reduced speeds vary from order
to order.
The second type of slow order is
temporary; it stays in effect until such time as the deficiency is
remedied and inspection certifies that maximum speed for that track
span can be resumed.
Simply put, the slow orders in effect
at any juncture, and constant attention to their remediation, are
absolutely vital to safe and reliable operation of the Downeaster.
In the past, I have requested and received summary data for slow
orders in effect. The data I received was voluminous and
substantially redacted as to location and details, so it was hard to
generalize as to the overall system status they depicted.
The number of such orders issued and in
effect are a fundamental descriptor of rail system condition, and the
changes from month to month are indicative of system dynamics –
from decay to remediation. While the data can be overwhelming to
review and absorb, it is incumbent upon staff to develop effective
monitoring and reporting formats. Without such information, how can
the Board be expected to ensure that swift and efficient action is
prioritized and under way to ensure safety and optimization of
Downeaster operations? Certainly no one further up the chain of
command in Augusta has any specific interest or better view into
these conditions. In particular, the Joint Standing Committee on
Transportation is inattentive and uninformed as to such details.
Coupled with regular reporting on the
state of the leased Amtrak equipment, I can't imagine any two higher
priorities for regular reporting and examination by Board members,
and the public should be extremely interested as well. The
Downeaster is, after all, a public conveyance, and is subsidized to
the tune of $10 million a year in taxpayer funds.
We have no way of knowing what is
covered in the regular Executive Sessions with the Board. Having
reviewed the statutory language for such exceptions though, I can see
no passage that would provide for reporting on the items just
mentioned in sessions closed to the public. So I conclude that these
items are not reported on at any level to the Board, and if they
were, it would be in violation of applicable statute.
In summary, while seeing monthly
ridership totals, on time performance, and performance to budget may
have relevance to NNEPRA's top-line operation, it amounts to
superficial, in the rear-view mirror reporting about which nothing
much can be done.
And it is a poor substitute and
distraction for what should be the real priorities of Board oversight
– the effectiveness, safety, and reliability of Downeaster system
operations, and Staff focus on the underlying factors that influence
them.
Policy Considerations:
The foregoing treats issues of
Downeaster operation. There are, of course, policy issues that
should be of interest to NNEPRA's Board as they represent the
interests of Maine taxpayers and residents who gave birth to and
sustain NNEPRA and its passenger rail operations.
Perhaps the most obvious of these
policy concerns is why neither New Hampshire or Massachusetts State
Governments subsidize Downeaster operations on a fair share basis
with Maine State Government. These states are arguably the greatest
beneficiaries of the Downeaster since stations in their states are
typically the most active from a passenger count basis. Does anyone
really believe that the Downeaster could survive as a Brunswick to
Kittery passenger rail service? Does anyone believe that Brunswick's
economy has derived benefit from the service, especially when
compared to the Consultant projections paid for to justify beginning
the service? Does anyone think that the Brunswick extension is vital
to the service provided to our two neighbor states to the south?
Accurate reporting of station pair
traffic counts would go a long way towards clarifying utilization of
the Downeaster, but these statistics, occasionally provided in the
past, have disappeared from public view.
Capital Projects
It appears from published data that the
Royal Junction Siding Project has been slipping regularly as to
meeting commitment dates. Does the Board conduct oversight via
Project Review in such matters? If so, it is not apparent. If such
reviews are masked by review in Executive Session, why is this so?
Public money is being spent, and the public should be able to tell
whether those it expects to oversee the projects are capable of doing
so effectively and rigorously.
The
Royal Junction Siding completion is at least one year beyond the
original schedule. If it was so necessary for 5 round trips to
Brunswick, which began more than a full year ago, how could this even
be possible? How can the schedule survive such problematic
situations? The answer is that the premise of the project was
unworthy from the get go, and a detailed look at schedules shows that
the possibility of conflict of northbound and southbound Downeasters
is nearly non-existent, and in the one case per day where it could
happen, other existing passing options could serve the purpose.
As to service expansions, any of which
would involve enormous capital outlays and years to create, why
doesn't the Board establish as standard practice that before
contemplating any such expansions, motor coach service should be
employed on a pilot run basis to validate rider demand? Expanding
Downeaster service from Portland to Brunswick cost in excess of $60
million in non-recurring costs, and by all accounts adds to operating
losses on a recurring basis. The projected economic benefits of the
expansion are virtually negligible in comparison to the huge amounts
projected by consulting “professionals.”
Conclusions and Recommendations
As a matter of respect to the attending
members of the public, the regularly scheduled Executive Sessions
should be held after the public session of the Board Meeting, when
all other business has been completed. Placing them at the start of
the meeting may well discourage public attendance. Given that
NNEPRA's main constituency is the full compliment of taxpayers who
fund it, not just the relatively few Mainers who ride it, anything
that encourages public attendance at meetings should be SOP.
Board Meetings should receive regular
status reports on train set status and maintenance issues, and
detailed track system condition. In particular, slow order
adjudication should be a primary reporting items at each meeting.
The Board should embrace its obligation to be fully cognizant of
these vital aspects of NNEPRA stewardship, and be ready to intervene
when appropriate attention is lacking.
Accordingly, I implore you to change
the operating model of the Board and the regular Board Meetings to be
more in line with the needs and interests of Downeaster riders and
the taxpayers that subsidize it. Make your positions on the Board as
meaningful as they should be. Do all you can to ensure that the
meetings are actually productive management events, instead of
falling into the trap of routine dog and pony shows.
Recognize and act upon your primary
position in authority and governance of the Downeaster passenger rail
service.
No comments:
Post a Comment