Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

headgasketidiot t1_izsa94p wrote

I just want to point out that all these suggestions aren't just attainable - they're actually incredibly modest. It's not a fantasy to get to Boston and Montreal in 90 min from Burlington. In fact, we should be mad that we can't. Something happened to our society that we can barely maintain the infrastructure that previous generations actually had to go out and build, much less imagine a world where we expand it. It's really sad to see how small our dreams have become. We've settled so low that when asked to fantasize disregarding cost, our responses are basically "any train would be nice."

The Swiss have much rougher terrain than us, and their train system will take you to some of the most podunk towns from Geneva in an hour. Spanish high speed rail will take you to the capital from any other major metro area in a few hours tops through more mountainous country. Quito, Ecuador is currently building a subway - a country with nowhere near the wealth we have can break ground on public transit. Meanwhile, we can barely imagine replacing our trains that are 10 years past their service date.

edit grammar

169

somedudevt t1_izu44zk wrote

Here is the problem with your complaint against our society:

SIZE, you are ignoring size. Switzerland has 9 million people, in an area the size of roughly 2x VT. Burlington to Is the equivalent of crossing the furthest 2 places in Switzerland (~190 miles as the crow flies) NYC to BT is 260 miles as the crow flies.

The distances are greater and the populations are smaller. If you look at a Swiss rail map you will see that most of the network is in the northern part of the country, which makes up the vast majority of the population. The southern part of the country is very sparsely serviced by rail. And if you take the southern part of Switzerland it still has a greater population than Vermont.

The reality is passenger rail doesn’t work in low density places where you don’t have demand. And trying compare a place that is 10x higher population density to VT is crazy.

Dreaming big is fine, but to say that our region and society is somehow wrong for not having robust rail is just missing economics.

2

giraffehugger t1_izvc0np wrote

Let’s not forget that that rail line has to travel a contiguous line, and it only takes a handful of land owners in the middle between say Burlington and Boston to ‘not see the value’ of having train tracks run through their land, or the tracks running to close to the breeding ground of the Black-capped Chickadee to kill a project or tie it up in endless red tape. What

1

reidfleming2k20 t1_izvawe3 wrote

Yes, because money isn't a thing.

You know there are only ~40K people in Burlington, and that its median income is only ~$21K, right?

0

ChocolateDiligent t1_izt3orv wrote

I don't think its the dreaming that is small, rather the budget this state has to do anything about it.

−3

headgasketidiot t1_izt72zx wrote

Another great example of what I'm talking about. The entire point of the thread is to disregard budget, and here we are still saying we can't afford it. We are so trained to respond with "how will you pay for it" to anything that we can't not do it, even when not doing it is the whole point of the discussion. The dreaming is so small that we can't even tell there's anything beyond it.

27

Eagle_Arm t1_izua5ti wrote

You're shitting on them for speaking reality to your comment, when you said your comment was reality and not fantasy?

So they spoke reality to what you said was reality. They didn't respond with fantasy to what was a supposed reality comment. I'm not sure where the disconnect is.

−1

JanglesMontgomery t1_izvhbmf wrote

Ita not reality becausethings like this should be being actively and aggressively funded by the federal government. The same way they funded and built the interstate system

4

Eagle_Arm t1_izwqreh wrote

In the hypothetical, they said it was reality.

Government is there to not make a profit, but to break even or take a slight loss. I don't see how the train system is anything but a major loss or how it's even possible with private property. How much imminent domain will have to be claimed for this to occur?

−2

JanglesMontgomery t1_izx5ff4 wrote

I imagine there were people who had the exact same concerns when the interstate was being built. But look at what that has done for pur nation. Could you imagine life without it?

1

Eagle_Arm t1_izx7ls9 wrote

Not even close to the same level of development then compared to now.

Let's just look at Vermont. What cities does the interstate run through or are they outside cities?

So want to smack a train station in Burlington...point anywhere on a map where a station could be build and then where any lines could run.

−1

Dr_L_Church t1_izsk0gw wrote

I think you greatly underestimate the time, infrastructure, and cost of converting our existing rail lines or building new ones to accommodate high speed passenger rail. The railroads in the us were built for freight. They go to places where there are freight customers. There is no straight path between 2 points. Burlington to Boston just doesn’t exist. The best connection would be BD to St Albans to white river to Springfield MA to Bos. And most if not all of that is single track lines. No way you are making that in 90 minutes regardless of how fast they can go, even if they don’t have to stop and wait for a passing train. BD to Montreal would be more attainable, but unlikely as there is already a train that runs from Essex to St. Albans. More likely for the Vermonter to be extended to Montreal (there are tracks that go that direction) than to have the Ethan Allen extended to Montreal (tracks between Burlington and St. Albans are not suited for passenger service). Though I could also see the benefit of passenger service from NYP to Montreal. No matter what you are not getting there in 90 minutes without billions of investment in infrastructure.

−15

headgasketidiot t1_izsn44j wrote

See, this is what I'm talking about. Why do we dream so small?

>No matter what you are not getting there in 90 minutes without billions of investment in infrastructure.

Yes, let's do that! This is what I want to do! Let's invest billions of dollars in infrastructure.

Let's reduce car usage, make our towns walkable, cut down on polluting air travel, and generally improve our quality of life. I've lived in Switzerland and let me tell you: the trains fucking rule. Being able to go to almost any small town from Geneva while barely having to plan in a quiet, comfortable train is incredible. Everyone loves it. Even rich people use it because it's faster and more convenient than a car.

25

reidfleming2k20 t1_izvbqsa wrote

If we (ie. the US) invest billions of dollars in this kind of project, IT WILL NOT INVOLVE BURLINGTON. Burlington is small and poor. There is very little high-dollar industry in or around Burlington. There is no conceivable reason to build an approaching-trillion-dollar rail line to accommodate it.

−1

Dr_L_Church t1_izsoz1j wrote

But the problem is their rail lines were designed with passengers in mind from the get go, ours were designed for freight. You can’t get there from here. Not without buying hundreds if not thousands of people out of their homes to build new more direct rail lines. I’m all for investing in rail infrastructure and expanding passenger routes, but we need to be realistic about what is and isn’t possible. Routes from Burlington to Montreal or Boston are possible, but 90 minutes would require direct routes with high speed rail. Hell, 290 takes 90 minutes to get to Rutland from Burlington, only marginally faster than a car.

−2

ButterscotchFiend t1_izsy6tb wrote

Look, what 'isn't possible' is maintaining our current level of automobile dependency.

The carbon emissions they create are literally destroying the planet's atmosphere. Within the next decades, our car-oriented infrastructure and lifestyle will flood Bangladesh and Java, starve India and Pakistan, and the refugee crisis there and elsewhere will overwhelm the rest of the world.

As for electric cars, they're a lot better, but it until a game-changing innovation in their batteries occurs, our electric grid will not be able to handle charging them assuming we are still driving at the same rate. That's also assuming we can convert most of our national fleet, which frankly is probably even more difficult a pill to swallow than the challenges you've exaggerated regarding the deployment of passenger rail.

We don't have a choice. It's either stop going from place to place, or finding a better way to do so. If we keep up our current car addiction, we're finished.

Look- this isn't that outlandish. There was a time- 1920s and 30s- when passenger rail was all across New England and America at large. The car and oil companies hastened the demise of these interurbans, but the precedent is there.

A rail revolution would be a monumental step forward for our country on so many fronts. It would be great for economic inequality, because of the regressive effect that the necessity of cars has on income. It would be great for community development, encouraging urban density and tighter rural communities, in contrast to the way that cars enabled the proliferation of the suburbs.

15

Dr_L_Church t1_izt7nmh wrote

What do I know, I just work for the railroad 🤷‍♂️. Once again I’m all for investing in rail infrastructure and expanding passenger routes, however, to call it a modest proposal for a 90 minute train ride from Burlington to Boston shows a level of ignorance in how our rail infrastructure is built in this country. The tracks just don’t go there. Also, if you were to construct new tracks from Burlington to Boston in a complete straight line, ignoring all obstacles such as private property, waterways, mountains, other infrastructure, it is a distance of 180 miles. That would require a train capable of traveling 120+ miles per hour. Amtraks Acela can travel that fast, but once again the cost to build, maintain, and operate are extraordinary and no small task. Hell, Amtrak is spending 117 billion dollars to upgrade and maintain the northeast corridor (Acela trains) over the next 15 years, and that route is already there, the rails and the signals and the sidings and the double main tracks are all already built. The cost of building a direct route capable of traveling from Burlington to Boston in 90 minutes would be hundreds of billions if not a trillion dollars and take decades to build, that is if it didn’t get hung up by act 250 and NIMBYism holing up the project left right and center. So while I would love that kind of high speed rail project in our little state, I think our money would do better to improve our existing rail network and build reliable intracity service access across Vermont.

3

OddTransportation121 t1_izuulv2 wrote

We already had a train to Montreal, for years. It was discontinued. See my previous comment.

1

Dr_L_Church t1_izuw8aw wrote

From Essex / St. Albans. Not from Burlington. And it didn’t get there in 90 minutes.

2

OddTransportation121 t1_izuz99e wrote

True. I thought I would mention that we had one, for those who were unaware. Also I doubt your 90 minute wish can be fulfilled crossing an international border. Border agents pretty much have carte blanche time-wise when checking u through.

1

Dr_L_Church t1_izv0lwf wrote

That’s the point I have been trying to make, Burlington to Boston or Burlington to Montreal in 90 minutes is never going to happen.

2

reidfleming2k20 t1_izvbzvn wrote

It's fucking insane that a factual, level headed comment like this gets so many downvotes.

1

banannastand t1_izs1iep wrote

  1. Burlington to Montreal. I would like to take no more than 1hr to get to the city.

  2. Fast rail Burlington to Boston, same to NYC.

  3. Bring people to the ski mountains, Greater Chittenden County to Stowe/Smuggs/Sugarbush, train down to Killington.

  4. Light rail around Chittenden county

129

phred14 t1_izs2vqg wrote

I've taken rail in England, both the tube in London and longer distance rail. The longer distance rail was really nice - preferable to air travel for the distance we were going. I would welcome that in the US.

35

TheScandinavianFlick t1_izs7p39 wrote

My vote as well. I'd add that Montpelier is perfectly located as a central hub; run light rail (or maglev, no budget after all) from there to the corners (Brattleboro, Bennington, Newport, St. Albans). You can finagle those routes to hit the Burlington area, St. J, Upper Valley, and others.

33

ClarenceWith2Parents t1_izshm7z wrote

Im staying in the Barre area now - I would live out the rest of my life & die in this state if even a small version of this plan was implemented. It would change everything about this state.

15

chloecoolcat t1_izsihsy wrote

It would also be cool to see light rail connecting these areas individually with a second hub around Rutland!

Like a Newport > Brattleboro that runs alongside 91 and hits all the major towns and branches into minor towns with a another branch that splits off at White River/West Leb and goes to Rutland. Also would be cool to see a Newport > Sherbrooke > Quebec City

Once you reach Brattleboro you can get to Rutland by servicing the southeast quadrant of the state, or a faster direct line to Bennington.

From Bennington, a route that follows RT 7 with major stops in Rutland, Burlington, St Albans, up to Swanton and on to Montreal also servicing small towns.

From Rutland, a higher speed line to Albany, and from Burlington a faster route to Plattsburgh with a branch connecting the isles. Also a direct Montpelier to Rutland line and something that services Johnson/Morrisville to Stowe so you can take that route year round.

And then, in the North a St. Albans > Newport > Johnson loop with connection to the aforementioned Stowe line with a direct over-the-mountain connection into Montpelier.

It would also be cool to see trains that summit the mountains to connect adjacent towns like Northfield > Waitsfield > Starksboro or Stowe > Underhill since Budget isn't an issue

9

mediumeasy t1_izs3xy5 wrote

burlington to montreal!

89

here_f1shy_f1shy t1_izsggx7 wrote

It would be pretty amazing to hop on a train up to Montreal, go see a Montreal Canadians game and take the train back and not have to drive or anything. Hopefully sssooooonnn.

39

Corbeau_from_Orleans t1_izskc2l wrote

You can see why, during prohibition, the train to Montreal was so popular!

Mind you, it wasn’t Burlington-Montreal but rather from Boston, crossing the international border just east of Richford.

10

OddTransportation121 t1_izuucdk wrote

Used to have this trip available. I went to Montreal 2x in the 1980s. Boarded the train at Essex Junction. It was called the Montrealer.

7

linuxdragons t1_izs3ike wrote

Burlington -> Montpelier-> Littleton -> White Mountains -> Fryeberg -> Portland

83

gmgvt t1_j0311y1 wrote

This one, except I'd also extend it further south from Portland (following the existing Amtrak route from there toward Boston).

1

BackgroundCat t1_izs4ukt wrote

White River Junction to Boston. TWO Amtrak trains south and north to NYC daily, instead of one, on the eastern side of the state. Fix the damned customs issue so we can go the entire way into Montreal on the train. And back. Beyond that, just having the ability to travel anywhere with more connection options. More often than not, train routes just don’t talk to each other.

33

Otto-Korrect t1_izt1ypl wrote

When I got married in 1985, we took Amtrak from Brattleboro to Montreal. The train just stopped for 30 minutes at the border while customs officers walked through.

It's hard to believe we've gone so far backward since then. US/Canada should be an open border like many EU countries have.

9

CountFauxlof t1_izscbfh wrote

it would also be nice to have high speed rail service. NYC service is awesome, but it’s a lengthy ride.

8

woolsocksandsandals t1_izsdiin wrote

Might as well have it start in St. J.

St. J, Wells river, Bradford, white river, Claremont, Keene and maybe another stop in Mass that’s not covered by MTA.

7

icwhatudiddere t1_izsotl7 wrote

The “damned customs issue” would require a lot more inspectors on both sides of the border and facilities for the inspections. It’s not going to be on any political radar unless there’s real money to be made. I don’t see a huge net influx of tourists coming from Canada happening anytime soon given the current global economy.

−1

Otto-Korrect t1_izt282j wrote

Or... hear me out, it would require a lot less fear and paranoia. Many EU countries have fully open borders and ours almost got there before 9/11

6

icwhatudiddere t1_izt45sy wrote

I could only imagine what certain political parties would do if that happened. Letting “communist” Canadians freely cross the border with their legalized devils cabbage! The horror. CuckerTarlson would be asking a lot of questions.

5

Otto-Korrect t1_izt5v9r wrote

And worse, Americans could freely cross for drugs/Healthcare that won't bankrupt them?? Unacceptable!

8

Practical-Intern-347 t1_izs0xzu wrote

My house (Dummerston) to my office (Brattleboro). The rail bed is already there. I’m sure that would be much slower than driving, but it would be fun and a nice mental break between work and home. Right up and down the West River.

Also, Brattleboro to BOS or BDL.

29

TwoNewfies t1_izs5ltl wrote

The Windham County historical society did a bus tour of the old rail line. Let's do Jamaica to Newfane to Brattleboro, then on to Boston or New York - or New Haven for Pepe's and IKEA.

8

Rich_Swing_1287 t1_izs2sc8 wrote

  1. Brattleboro to Boston South Station for sure.
  2. Burlington to Boston North Station.
  3. More than 1 NB/SB train per day.
26

BookSquid_87 t1_izs9i2m wrote

Are dirigibles out of the question?

https://preview.redd.it/bzgc0ymrfb5a1.jpeg?width=3954&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=508191fd656db3145b09ee4aa728b5320950f65c

22

headgasketidiot t1_izsayqi wrote

I have so many questions! Did you make that? If not, where did you find that delightful illustration?

3

BookSquid_87 t1_izsmegv wrote

This is a postcard that someone found for me online...they had it made into a metal wall art print as a gift!

6

headgasketidiot t1_izsnuvr wrote

It's such a good example of what I'm talking about in my top level comment. Look at that wonderful vision and imagination! Whoever drew that would be so disappointed seeing the state of Randolph today, and people who live here now would laugh at the idea of being able to take a trolley from Randolph Center to Randolph or a subway to Braintree. What a delightful postcard. Thanks for sharing.

3

chachicka22 t1_izse1n6 wrote

Albany > Bennington > Brattleboro > Boston

22

nosehairblue t1_izs3091 wrote

Newport to Montpelier (and beyond)

13

nosehairblue t1_izs41vk wrote

Continuing north to Sherbrooke and Quebec City would be a dream.

12

Wired0ne t1_izs8qlb wrote

ANY transit that would go between Albany and Burlington and run in a constant loop (I'd want it to go down Rt. 7 to Rutland). Folks that work evening shifts or night shifts are left out of any transit entirely. Light rail would be a bonus.

11

shaytotten t1_izs9sdj wrote

Burlington to Montreal/Quebec City

Burlington to Montpelier to White River (I mean technically you can do this from Essex Jct.)

Montpelier to St. Johnsbury then through NH to Downeast Maine (Acadia Nat'l Park)

11

Emmydyre t1_izs9k8e wrote

Bring back the inter-town trolly networks! And more frequent and faster Vermonter service.

10

numetalbeatsjazz t1_izs76y4 wrote

Commuter line from Rutland to Burlington stopping at midd, vergennes, shelburne, and south Burlington along the way. Then Burlington east to Montpelier and barre. A line from Rutland to wrj would be nice and help me out. Could then connect it to the non existent commuter lines in the upper valley. This would go through killington and give people a better way to get to the resorts.

9

GumpMTB t1_izs65lk wrote

I’d love a rail line that connects some of the population centers to various trailheads. It would be great if people didn’t have to own a car and drive to go hiking, mountain biking, skiing, snowshoeing, etc

8

BedraggledMan t1_izt2004 wrote

Some of the old Long Trail Guides actually have recommendations to hop freights and tell the engineer you are headed for the trail. Evidentially they would slow to walking speed to let you hop off where the trail crossed. That just sounds like an awesome first leg to a hike.

4

TillPsychological351 t1_izs7tj2 wrote

A light rail extension from Waterbury to Stowe, with several stops on the way to the resort. Something similar to the Zugspitzbahn in Garmisch-Partenkirchen or the system of rack railways that transport skiers from Interlaken to the various mountain towns in thr Berner Oberland.

8

gmcg_abidesII t1_izsp9ng wrote

Waitsfield-Bristol rail tunnel. I rest my case.

8

AllyEmmie t1_izt5p1q wrote

Please!! That mountain road is absolutely terrifying!

5

Amplify_Love4715 t1_iztgxpf wrote

Truth! Even in the summer on a rainy day it’s white knuckle driving on that damn road!

5

LeadfootYT t1_izss44k wrote

Route 7 corridor, currently served by a bus line at the most inopportune times. The freight system already runs that entire length, and it’s the perfect use case for passenger service. Bennington to St Albany, passing through Arlington, Manchester, North Clarendon, Rutland, Brandon, Middlebury, Vergennes, Williston, Burlington, St Albans. If Chittenden County wants to actually get revenue outside their area, it makes so much sense.

8

[deleted] t1_izsjcyj wrote

Green Mountain Railroad owns tracks between Bellows Falls and Rutland Vermont that passes through several town which would benefit greatly from passenger rail.

This would connect the Amtrak Vermonter with a significant portion of southern Vermont and serve several ski areas such as Okemo and Jackson Gore in Ludlow, and Pico And Killington in Rutland. I believe it would be a very popular ski train for all the folks who are served by the Amtrak Vermonter train, which goes all the way through NYC to Washington DC. There are a lot of people who live along that route who do not own a car who would love to be able to vacation in Vermont.

Also, public transportation in the towns along route 103, that this rail service would serve is abysmal. The bus companies who are supposed to be serving this region are doing a pretty terrible job at connecting these towns. It is not practical to travel along this route by bus, even though they claim to be serving this route. The buses are just for transporting ski area workers in the wee hours of the morning and a return trip in the early evening. The only bus route on Google maps from Bellows Falls to Rutland is a ten hour ride going the opposite direction.

This passenger rail route would also service Rutland Airport for all the folks who live along route 103, which would be wonderful. No more having to beg a ride from family and friends, or hire an expensive car to get to the airport. Even grocery shopping for all of these towns would become something folks could do without a car, which would be a really big deal for many. There are other benifits too, but I think I have gone on long enough here.

7

Johnny9Toes t1_izs6wb1 wrote

If we could just add a second departure time from Rutland to Burlington (and NYC) each day, that would be cool. But, connecting Rutland to Montreal would be cool too.

6

advamputee t1_izso3jj wrote

I’d do three rail lines. Double track and electrify the whole system — the state already owns all of the rail right-of-way in Vermont, which should bring cost down.

Electrify from Bennington to St Albans, and from Newport to Brattleboro, with a connector line from WRJ to Burlington. Use busses to connect smaller communities to the rail system. Build out solid pedestrian / bike infrastructure in all towns.

6

historycat95 t1_izsg995 wrote

Middlebury, killington, Woodstock Brattleboro

Middlebury, Vergennes (more than once a day) Charlotte, Shelburne, S. Burlington, Essex, Williston. Departs each hour and takes 45 minutes, cost $4.50 a day. People would use it all the time.

There really needs to be commuter rail along 7 and 2 in order to equalize home values and decrease the need for cars.

5

Slimslade33 t1_izsh959 wrote

A train from my house in Maine to Pine st, Burlington with stops at all the breweries!

4

listen_youse t1_izthjkj wrote

Most people who live in big cities and own a car say the only reason Is for out of town trips. Believe me most would prefer to take a train to Vermont. Build a whole new tourist economy around that- bike tours, hiking, camping, glamping, skiing. With the right marketing they will pay for a chance to do farm chores.

4

DaddyBobMN t1_izsh6td wrote

If you are going to say budget isn't an issue the answer is all of them. Rail access from every town and city with more than 1000 people and connections to all major regional areas outside of VT.

3

Cananbaum t1_izskq9a wrote

Boston to Albany, to Burlington then Montreal

3

haruspex t1_izsm0bu wrote

Hardwick to Montpelier to Burlington would be great, with some stops along the way for commuters.

3

ADinosaurNamedBex t1_izswcdy wrote

I would love a commuter rail between counties that runs at work commute times. When the NYC train opened, I looked to see if I could take it to Middlebury but the timing is a nonstarter.

3

molyholycannoli t1_izt126c wrote

Bennington to Albany and Saratoga would be nice. And Bennington to Burlington. And to NYC.

I'm tired of Bennington County being left out of the game so often. There's a lot of great going on in the county and it would be nice to see it be connected for more people to visit and visit other places by train when they don't have a car.

3

siltanator t1_izt2o8i wrote

Train from Burlington to the ski resorts, no parking issues and drink as much as you like at the bar after.

3

pooticlesparkle t1_izsy7u0 wrote

Something from Plattsburgh, Albany, NYC, Boston, DC, Portland, to Burlington. Basically connect BTV to cities in surrounding states. Plattsburgh because the volume of daily commuters both to and from has to be a lot. If ur going to take a rail it needs to drop u in places that are walkable, have public transit, or reliable and active uber/lyft or taxis.

2

Cyber_Punk_87 t1_izt9ibt wrote

Rail in the NEK would be amazing...Newport -> Barton -> Lyndonville -> St. J and from there could branch off South, East, and West. Getting out of the NEK (especially if you're headed west) is so time-consuming and such a pain, especially in the winter...

2

mrmiffles t1_iztvg28 wrote

  1. Manchester VT to Manchester NH
  2. Link down and over into the Amtrak Downeaster line
  3. Burlington to Montreal
  4. Burlington direct to Boston
2

_Ludus t1_izu6dj3 wrote

  1. TRAIN TO MONTREAL FFS
  2. Train to Boston
  3. While were at it, make the Ethan Allen Express actually express, and skip all stops between Albany and NYC.
  4. Make the trains faster.
  5. Add some DMU's to provide service within VT on the vermonter and ethan allen.

As a reminder, this would certainly be cheaper than building roads.

2

zombie_donkey13 t1_izunmbv wrote

White mountain to green mountain expressway

2

Cold_window t1_izvaflf wrote

Boston to Montreal through St J with special accommodations for bikes. Kingdom Trails and the rail trail are in the area.

2

Cold_window t1_izvb5fr wrote

I also think St J should have a roller skating rink that is designed to be a pleasant inside place for folks to walk and chat with friends in the winter. Guest DJ's, roller derby... Just in case anyone was wondering...

1

Ernst_ t1_izwun1j wrote

I don't really care about any towns in particular, but having some West-East rail lines would be so nice. It takes forever to get from one side of VT to the other.

2

2q_x t1_izt18a2 wrote

It doesn't cost much to do a little preliminary transportation engineering.

I'd get out a map of existing RoWs that still exist, either as rail lines, or trails, or unmaintained tracks. This is the most expensive part, that was done long ago. It's hundreds of millions of dollars sitting there if you can rehab an existing RoW.

Next, it'd be expensive to run a single Amtrak train once a day to, say, Montreal. And the capacity would get saturated very quickly, like the recent service to Burlington. And it's not something you could plan a day trip around, and you're competing with high-speed air. So you'd almost immediately be more expensive, slower, and more difficult to plan a trip around than high-speed air. Then when demand plateaus... the bonds come due.

Rather than doing that, look at your population centers, attractions, and current vehicle traffic volumes and start asking questions.

Are there enough people that want to take a light rail into downtown Burlington from the surrounding suburbs? How many people would take a light-rail to Montpelier if it ran 10 times a day? How many people would be skiing at Stowe if it was possible to get there without parking their car for a few hours between the resort and Waterbury? There are a lot of places in Vermont that will basically become impossible to drive to with just a very moderate increase in vehicle traffic. That makes light rail somewhat imperative, unless most people are just priced out of going anywhere.

1

Galadrond t1_iztifdt wrote

There’s basically no reason why we shouldn’t have reasonably speedy Rail lines connecting population centers throughout the state and even branching out directly to Boston and Montreal. I know it would be great if I could take a train from Brattleboro to Burlington in less than the time it takes to drive there.

1

greenmtnfiddler t1_iztnqvq wrote

Brattleboro -> Keene -> Concord -> Manchester/airport -> Boston

1

CuzImAMermaid t1_izugpnm wrote

Brattleboro to Burlington - opposite corners.

1

reidfleming2k20 t1_izvaozb wrote

It's fun to have fun but this is about as likely as "suppose you could sprout wings and fly"

1

ThoroughbredDom t1_izw93uc wrote

The thing is it is an issue. There’s only one each way to the city on existing track

1

khegobier t1_j01fxgv wrote

All of them.*

No, seriously... I'm a huge proponent of mass transit options and have always loved trains especially. If I could be an old-school 1800's railway tycoon in the modern world and run passenger rails across the whole country I would. Something about the scenery and community on trains just seem to make life better.

1

Shortysvtdad t1_j01o681 wrote

Rail is an inefficient method to move people except in densely populated areas. And high speed rail is not compatible with high population density.

What about high speed buses? Raise the speed limit on 89/91 to 80. Drops you at the last stop on the T or at Amtrak in Albany

1

RAPENAZI t1_j038e83 wrote

Extend the commuter line from Springfield MA to Brattleboro

1

mysticcoffeeroaster t1_j044d9w wrote

A direct route from Boston to Brattleboro then continue up to Windsor, Burlington and Montreal.

1

Ej1992 t1_j04thvq wrote

That's cool history to run by

1

vtddy t1_izsyzvz wrote

None

0

edrny42 t1_izvbfdt wrote

Hyperloop along the 89 and 91 and routes 2 and 7.

​

edit: not exactly rail, I just got carried away with dreaming

0

SilentUnicorn t1_izsurg0 wrote

A wall at the southern border- Mass. would pay for it...

−2

JoshIroning t1_izsj8xq wrote

Unpopular opinion but none. Vermont lacks the population density for rail to make any sense. I know this because even our bus system seems to run empty much of the time.

For an unlimited budget, let's give everyone an electric car. The cool thing about cars is they take you anywhere you want to go on your own schedule and whims. Alternatively we all put steel wheels on our cars and put tracks down every road...

The only way we could kinda make rail work is if we all agreed to move our houses within a half mile of a train station, and convince our workplaces to do that as well..?

That being said, for longer routs that could compete with flying or a 4 hour drive, now I'm going to be interested. I'd do a drive to Burlington if a train could woosh me to Boston or NYC!

−7

Loudergood t1_izv19sh wrote

The thing is it used to make sense everywhere. What changed?

2