Amtrak’s CEO says rail system will change slowly
Lindy Keast Rodman/Times-Dispatch
There are “lots of expectations” surrounding high-speed rail service to Washington, said Amtrak’s Joseph Boardman.
Passenger trains could speed travelers from Richmond to Washington at 135 mph, Amtrak's president and CEO says.
But, said Joseph Boardman: "Don't expect it next week."
Boardman spoke yesterday to about 200 people at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland as part of a Greater Richmond Chamber meeting focused on transportation issues.
Fast, reliable transportation is a top concern for the Richmond area's business community, and high-speed rail service to Washington -- 98 miles away as the crow flies -- is high on its wish list.
"There are lots and lots of expectations," Boardman said. "Managing those expectations is the toughest thing I have to do."
But the issue is a key one for the region, said Greater Richmond Chamber President and CEO Kim Scheeler.
"The impact for business is knowing that you can get to D.C. in a certain time," he said. "That's critical."
When bad weather or highway incidents slow traffic on Interstate 95 between Richmond and the nation's capital, "you know it will be a four-hour journey to Washington," chamber Chairwoman Katherine Busser said.
Depending on which train a rider takes, Amtrak trips from Main Street Station in Richmond to Washington are scheduled to take about three hours, and from Staples Mill Station in Henrico County, trips run 2¼ to 2½ hours.
Faster rail service could cut that to two hours or a shade less.
Amtrak's Staples Mill Station was the national passenger rail service's busiest stop in Virginia, handling 275,479 passengers in 2008. Main Street Station saw 19,360 passengers in 2008, and the Ashland stop had 16,497 passengers.
Because of the number of affected interests -- passengers, taxpayers, Amtrak, private railroads, unions, states, localities and the federal government -- change in the American rail system will come only incrementally, Boardman said.
Even though the federal stimulus package has put $9.3 billion into the U.S. rail system, Boardman said, "I don't see that as a large amount." As New York state transportation commissioner, he managed a $5 billion capital budget.
"One way to go fast is not to go slow," Boardman said. "Many places on our system, we're down to 10 miles an hour, 20 miles an hour."
Fixing those choke points, he said, in some cases would cost only "a few million dollars."
It's not enough to go fast, Boardman said. Trains also have to operate reliably.
"Amen," a voice responded from the audience in Randolph-Macon's Blackwell Auditorium.
Contact Peter Bacqué at (804) 649-6813 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
A dedicated high speed rail track/train to Washington would have you there in about 40 minutes and on to NYC in less than two hours. Down to Charlotte in less than an hour and Atlanta in two.
200 mph on dedicated tracks. Must sound expensive and exotic to some. All those airplanes and cars and highways seem expensive to me.
Eisenhower must have seemed pretty crazy 50 years ago when he pushed the interstate highway act through. It helped spark the most affluent period this nation has ever known. Now it is time to move on to the next step….... HSR
(see also: Erie Canal, TVA, Baltimore and Ohio RR, Hoover Damn, Illinois and Michigan Canal, Transcontinental Railroad, Panama Canal, etc…)
Read along for what more advanced countries have already accomplished:
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2018.html
http://info.korail.com/ROOT/cambo-view.cambo?programid=12&boardid=824&lang=eng
http://www.raileurope.com/train-faq/european-trains/tgv/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/realestate/04iht-retrain.1.8583903.html
Wurd~
Jason, I don’t see a difference between rail and passenger transportation that justifies a taxpayer-provided subsidy for the latter.
Interesting that you brought up sprawl. Michael Paul Williams had a column on high speed rail in Saturday’s edition. He mentioned the benefit of having a means to get betwen Washington and Richmond in 90 minutes, which gave me a vision of Richmond as a suburb of DC. You can bet that the people escaping that area are not likely to be looking for another urban environment, but would, most likely contribute to the growth of sprawl in Richmond.
Nice to participate in a reasonable exchange here—many on the RTD site are not. I don’t think, however, that freight and passenger rail can be easily compared. Totally different businesses, even if they use the same technology. It’s been widely shown that if drivers in the U.S. paid the true cost of driving cars (not counting air pollution, other environmental effects, wars fought to secure cheap oil, etc) we wouldn’t be able to afford it. If you’ve driven on the I-95 or most Richmond streets lately it’s pretty obvious that the tax money devoted to highways doesn’t pay for what it really costs to maintain them (and the problem is not just gov’t inefficiency—it’s that they can’t keep up with it). And it’s not just the highways that have been subsidized directly or indirectly, it’s the whole system of auto transportation—from the fuel to the roads and the suburban sprawl development that depends on them.
A question for Pete and Jason: If the freight that is moving on rails of this nation pays its way, why shouldn’t passengers traveling those same rails pay their way? As I said earlier, I don’t care whether Amtak makes a profit, I just want it to pay its operational and capital costs.
In the same vein, I’m willing to pay my share of the costs of the highway system, which are, or should be, recovered by gas and excise taxes. Regarding toll roads, their tolls not only pay operations and maintenance, but also service the bonds that were sold to construct the roads.
Thank you Jason for your kind remarks. Let’s for a moment examine Amtrak total direct subsidy since its inception in May 1971. All toll in 38 years it’s about $37 billion dollars, which let’s face it is “chump change” in comparison to many other public investments. This year alone the Federal investment in highways will be about $34 billion, NOT include stimulus funds. Yet the Tories scream bloody murder about Amtrak’s $1.5 billion annual payment. Let’s see approximately $37b in 38 years for Amtrak vs. $34 B in FY 2008 for highway—hmmm-seems Amtrak uses a lot less Federal dollars when actualized over time. Also Amtrak operates a National system.
Jason you are right on asking when will highways make a profit? In short they won’t in the traditional sense and never will. Toll roads may cover a portion of their costs but tolls fund maintainence and repair. It may interest this forum to know that despite a massive Federal investment in roads over 41.8% of costs for roads come from other State and local sources. But where’s the profit? :)
Thanks for the reasonable points and information, pete. We might also ask when the federal highway system ever made a profit. Or the public works system for that matter. Sure, we should expect them to not waste money, but that’s different from expecting a profit from what is really a part of the public infrastructure (and one that, as the chamber folks point out, has a big impact on the economy). I’m also surprised that no one is talking about the huge COSTS of various kinds that come from thinking cars and highways are the best way for everyone to travel. It’s been known for years that we cannot build our way out of traffic congestion and toxic air by adding extra lanes or freeways. What’s the most practical alternative? Rail.
Miket,
I congratulate you on your eloquence.
Oh yeah Pete, God forbid we ask the train to be profitable! After all, we’ve already flushed so many billions in taxpayer money down the toilet in this boondoggle over the years that it makes Obama look like a spendthrift. Yeah, profit is definitely not important.
dimwit
Darn Yankee Let me remind you that SNCF is a State run organization and that its profit is primarily freight. The TGV services are profitable, but local and regional services are at best marginal. Still unlike here they are regarded as social costs.
As for Amtrak its revenus to cost ratio (amount taken at the fare box—if you will) is about 79%. Much higher than many traditional public agencies of this type. But, again why is profit the motive so important transportation is a social cost.
Pete: I don’t care whether AMTRAK makes a profit, but I do think that passengers should pay the cost of their ride, as should every public transportation rider.
Regarding the “subsidies” for highways, in may cases, those subsidies are actually the return of fuel and excise taxes that are paid by motorists.
The government made a decision to control air traffic and airports, so that is why the air transport system is “subsidized.“ Of course, the alternative would likely be chaos, but to rebut your arguement, I would be happy to see the feds add an excise tax on airline passengers to pay for the cost of that system.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement