Comments
DrToadley OP t1_j6jljqn wrote
Totally agree. That is one place where new track would need to be laid down. It would certainly be an engineering challenge, but considering that investments in rail are some of the very best investments society can make in terms of ROI, I think it would be well worth it.
HomeOnTheMountain_ t1_j6jozzx wrote
Oh I agree, but it would be a huge project. When was the last time we made a mountain rail line?
HillRatch t1_j6k4qyx wrote
Knowing absolutely nothing about engineering this sort of thing, I also wonder if a tunnel/series of tunnels might be the better solution.
cbospam1 t1_j6kbtk6 wrote
Tunnels are expensive. A quick search indicated $250 to $500 million per mile in Europe and more in the US. We are a rural state, transit tunnels make zero sense.
There is an rail tunnel in Burlington between winooski and the waterfront but it is 350 feet long and was built by hand in the 19th century.
mervmonster t1_j6kc1rp wrote
The cost of tunneling is dropping drastically with each decade too. I was wondering if we would get a railway/interstate from Rutland to white river after tunneling gets sufficiently cheap and the traffic gets bad enough. I-92 was supposed to go that route but was never built. It’s one reason there is an interstate like route near Bennington.
mervmonster t1_j6kb6br wrote
It was planned with routes laid out at one point. Parts of the white river to Woodstock railroad right of way and grade are still visible. They tried to continue to Rutland but it wasn’t viable at the time.
As someone that seems to be a fellow rail enthusiast, do you happen to know what All Earth Rail’s planned route is?
MatthewGeer t1_j6kcgmj wrote
There used to be a rail line on that corridor. The bridge that caries US 4 over the Queechee Gorge, just west of WRJ, was built as a railroad bridge in 1911, and was converted to a highway bridge in 1933. I don’t think much infrastructure or right-of-way remains, at least not much that hasn’t been repurposed.
cjrecordvt t1_j6jz1bf wrote
I just have no idea where you'd physically put it in Sherburne Pass. What's not already road is either steep or wet. Or both.
cbospam1 t1_j6kcbpz wrote
Beyond that, how do you get the right-of-way for a commercial line? You’d have to shell out a ton before you laid any track.
I wish rail travel was more feasible here but I often see these proposed rail maps that do t take into account much beyond “it would be nice if there was a train from here to there”
cjrecordvt t1_j6kdj2b wrote
Yep. I would honestly consider murder for faster transit out of Rutland, especially ones where I don't have to drive. But we have a rather gorgeous logistical nightmare in the middle of the state.
SmashesIt t1_j6mpvwj wrote
That line would be pretty hard to do from Killington to Woodstock. Barely enough room for route 4
builtforcameron t1_j6jj210 wrote
This is awesome, VT is surprisingly well suited for train commuting. Would be funny to see people in Brandon reactions to trains station being built 😂
numetalbeatsjazz t1_j6jnvtt wrote
Won't be as much bitching as when they ripped up the whole town and installed 2 traffic lights. I worked retail in town when that was happening and the amount of people bitching about a fucking traffic light was astounding. The same people will complain about gubmint spending on "unnecessary things" while they get into their Ford F350 they use to get back and forth from their house on Union Street to Hannaford's.
builtforcameron t1_j6lixtz wrote
I'll never forget taking lovers lane to bypass the construction
HillRatch t1_j6k4gbm wrote
Brandon has been actively trying to get a whistle-stop train platform for a while now. There's already a viable spot for it on Union that wouldn't badly impact traffic through town. If it were realistic to hop on the train just to run errands in Rutland or Middlebury for a few hours, I think a decent number of people would do it (I would be first among them).
builtforcameron t1_j6littg wrote
I know the exact spot you're talking about, I had no idea they were actually trying to get one put in that's awesome
HillRatch t1_j6mw91y wrote
It's a slow process because the state gov and Amtrak don't want one there as it would potentially slow down service. If we had a dedicated light rail system, it would be less of an issue, I think. The political will is definitely there in town (though there'd certainly be the gripers you mention--there always are).
EmeraldAlicorn t1_j6jq8bv wrote
After living in Japan for a period of time I would be thrilled to see Vermont enter the 21st century before the majority of the US. It's really astounding how much quality of life improves with walkable cities and public transport everywhere.
DrToadley OP t1_j6jdpgc wrote
This is my proposal for where Vermont could look toward expanding its passenger rail system within the next couple decades. With a few notable exceptions, it largely utilizes existing track and right-of-ways, which could reduce costs associated with building up the network. I tried to both include connections to major cities not served by Vermont's existing network (Montreal and Boston) as well as new stations for regions poorly served by existing rail and Vermont's interstate highway system. I marked existing stations in black and new stations in color, and used OpenStreetMap!
KITTYONFYRE t1_j6jxcxk wrote
I'm a train believer but is this anything besides lines on a .jpg? Seems like you've got BILLIONS of dollars of work on this map right now, and I don't really see that happening in the next century
DrToadley OP t1_j6jygfi wrote
Compared to some of the other proposals I've done, I think this is pretty feasible!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_Allen_Express
The Ethan Allen Express expansion, a very real network expansion that happened last year, was a pretty BIG project. However, since it utilized existing track it only ended up costing $26 million, a far cry from billions of dollars. Of course, that track is state-owned, which not all of this is, so that would incur additional costs. However, a lot of what I've constructed here also includes other states and cities, including economic centers like Montreal and Boston, which would appreciate a direct connection so not all of the funding would fall on Vermont's back.
Other commenters have discussed federal money being required, which would make sense. As climate change gets worse, though, I think that getting ahead of the curve now before oil prices skyrocket, resources become more scarce, and our environment generally gets ruined would be ideal.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j6k0ltc wrote
fair enough, but still, is there anything being done with this proposal? like, are you writing up things to go with it and sending it somewhere, or just reddit? I'd love to support it elsewhere!
> The Ethan Allen Express expansion
this is kind of a disappointment. as a Rutlander, I was excited to be able to take a train to Burlington. I would be willing to pay 50% more to go 20 minutes slower, but having my only option be depart at 8pm arrive at 10pm makes the service completely unusable. I wish I could use it, to send the message "I want this!" and have service be expanded, but getting there that late makes it worthless to me. Plus, no possibility of day trips.
But I'm just whining with no solution or helpful advice here, lol.
SkiingAway t1_j6kszv9 wrote
One of the things that makes it a relatively cheap service to operate is running it essentially as an extension of an Albany-terminating NY Empire Service schedule - and that gets NY to pay the subsidy for the NY portion of the run, not VT.
The problem with that is, you can only get away with doing that cheaply with timeslots that work for NY + operational considerations.
What they're currently doing is taking advantage of the overnight to reduce the amount of additional equipment/crew that has to be dedicated to make the service happen.
If you wanted an earlier northbound train, there are two problems:
-
There's not much in the schedule to work with - the only Albany-terminating train that's earlier is 3hrs earlier. Still not much of a day trip if you get in at 5pm. The earlier trains are heading West after Albany.
-
It'd likely be sitting idle for more hours that a train is usually operating. If the Northbound train pulls into Burlington at 5pm, now it's stuck there for the night given the >7hr running time to NYC.
If the train had spent the same amount of time as a Southbound to NYC from Albany and pulls into NYC at 5pm, it'd likely be headed out for at least one more service that night.
The current time-slot with a 10PM Burlington arrival + 10AM departure allows pretty full utilization of the "normal" travel hours with minimal down-time. 12hrs off probably also means they've only got a single crew to have to lodge overnight/pay.
If the service got faster, more possibilities would potentially open up for better scheduling.
The other point is that all or most of the existing service is really tailored towards longer-distance travel. This makes sense for a very infrequent train - you're more likely to tailor your schedule to the train when it's already going to be a "big trip" occupying much of the day, and timings on the NYC end of the train are pretty ideal for maximum traveler appeal with a 2:19PM NB departure/5:46PM SB arrival.
KITTYONFYRE t1_j6kuqis wrote
You're right, and it makes sense why it's like that. It just sucks.
> Still not much of a day trip if you get in at 5pm.
Actually, 5 pm arrival in Burlington would be perfect for a weekend with friends. Like, if I had a magic wand of when arrivals got into Burlington, I'd choose 5 pm.
cbospam1 t1_j6kgnfx wrote
If a $26 million dollar project using existing track is a pretty BIG project, you’re proposal is nowhere near feasible.
Dr_L_Church t1_j6ku206 wrote
And that price doesn’t include the middlebury tunnel project as they got that funded through vtrans
Dr_L_Church t1_j6ktlrc wrote
That $26 million price tag is disingenuous in this conversation as it does not include the cost of the middlebury tunnel project. Some of your other proposed improvements are ludicrous. Rd-Wj will never happen. No existing right of way and very heavy grade territory especially if you want a stop at the top of Killington. You will never be able to secure funding for that project when there is already an existing route RD-BF-Wj. And none of this is going to work with existing freight service on these lines. For viable commuter rail on any of the existing lines you would need considerable amount of double main track installed or a lot more passing sidings (not filled with storage cars).
Edit: it’s the same reason why All Earth Rail failed. Blittersdorf bought a bunch of passenger cars without any thought of how or when or where they would operate and how the existing railroads operate. He wanted to run passenger service between Montpelier and barre… Dangerous heavy grade territory that is FRA excepted (illegal to run passenger service on).
DrToadley OP t1_j6lah3s wrote
Looks like we have a lot of work to do before a lot of these lines are feasible. Thank you for that reality check! I think we need to focus on the lines which would be obviously sound economic investments (Montreal to Boston being #1). However, I also don't want to dream too small, either, especially in a theoretical Reddit thread.
landodk t1_j6khxj3 wrote
Is that why the purple line does its little jag west? And no WRJ- STJ
DrToadley OP t1_j6ks1ee wrote
No WRJ-STJ was a huge oversight by me, hahaha. But yes, that is why the purple line does the jag.
JavyLopez t1_j6k8x9p wrote
This is so awesome. Do the tracks in Manchester currently connect to any of these? Shame on me living there and not knowing ha. A lot of these seem reasonable to use existing or previously used track with some maintenance.
tbdsniper t1_j6kpxnz wrote
As someone who is proponent of more passenger rail, I really want to like this idea.
There are a few issues that will need to be overcome. Unfortunately they will be very hard.
To start I actually work in the rail industry in the state. The biggest hurdle would be getting freight companies to actually go along with such a proposal. The NECR for example hosts The Vermonter from St. Albans to East Northfield. Currently the NECR does not need to implement PTC or positive train control in its locomotives. If you were to increase the frequency of passenger trains from the current two per day, PTC would need to be installed. Freight railroads are not going to want to pay to install PTC, it's expensive and can take years to implement properly.
This leads into the next point. When you add more train frequencies you have to have places to put freight trains in order to make train meets. Typically a passenger train holds the main while a freight train takes the siding. For larger freight trains this can be time consuming and actually limits where a train can go. So you can expand current railroad sidings , add new ones , or implement controlled switch sidings. All of the above cost lots of money. Which again a short line railroad like the NECR does not have the money to implement nor do I think they would want to.
I think continuing to support the expansion of The Vermonter into Montreal is still our best bet for now.
Lundgren_pup t1_j6mslqj wrote
The Vermonter to Montreal would be life changing. The idea of zipping to Waterbury for an early morning train up to the city, and grabbing an after dinner return ride would be INCREDIBLE.
DrToadley OP t1_j6kshq3 wrote
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree that the Vermonter to Montreal is the top priority for now, but it is unfortunate to hear the setbacks that exist to upgrading frequency. Hopefully they can be overcome in the future!
StudlyMcStudderson t1_j6jp9sr wrote
is there existing track on the Stowe line? I'm not sure the residents there are going to appreciate train noise, and they have the money to do something about it.
DrToadley OP t1_j6jpp19 wrote
No, but after seeing the video of the traffic jam posted here recently toward Stowe, I thought a skiing train would be a fun (and novel for those tourist $$$) inclusion! I imagine the residents would appreciate their roads being a little less clogged during ski season, and if the train were electric it would be pretty quiet.
There used to be a rail line but it didn't go all the way to the mountain and was paved over as Route 100.
BackgroundCat t1_j6jt5px wrote
Also a foliage season train wouldn’t go amiss.
sharklar t1_j6k2bjn wrote
I love to travel by train , and was so happy about the downeaster from Boston to Portland Maine when it actually happened. Taking trains all around Vermont would be so beautiful anytime of year
BackgroundCat t1_j6l5zwm wrote
This is a great trip! My daughter and I took Dartmouth Coach to Boston to catch Amtrak for a weekend in Portland. Two things would have made it even better: the ability to readily get from South Station bus terminal to North Station, where the northern Amtrak departs, and the train station in Portland proper, vs. outside the city. I believe it used to be? Otherwise, a fun trip that I’d do again.
DrToadley OP t1_j6l6ddu wrote
Wish the Coach had a North Station stop! (Or better yet, if the MBTA ever built that North-South rail link...)
sharklar t1_j6lkqso wrote
It's a hike but the walk between south and north Station is my welcome to Boston tour. Yes drinks are involved hence taking the train . 😉
landodk t1_j6khuh3 wrote
Denver has a ski train!
2q_x t1_j6jzmlc wrote
Did you ask the good people of Woodstock if they would like regional rail in their backyard?
DrToadley OP t1_j6k0ju1 wrote
If Shelburne, Middlebury, and Wellesley, MA can put up with it, I'm sure Woodstock could manage.
Gnascher t1_j6l2lzb wrote
Modern welded rail is practically silent, even if the locomotives still burn diesel.
I live maybe 200 yards from a commuter rail line in MA, hardly ever even hear it
JodaUSA t1_j6l0768 wrote
Oh Heaven forbid the train noise… I think any reasonable person would realize it’s worth it for the extreme economic gain of easy transport.
MarkVII88 t1_j6nywck wrote
Don't underestimate the NIMBY ability of Vermonters. If the noise argument doesn't work, they'll find some endangered Aphid, or a wetland that nobody previously cared about, to use as leverage to prevent this kind of development.
valuemeal2 t1_j6lmzv7 wrote
I’d take train noise over F35s myself.
hunny_bun_24 t1_j6jibrd wrote
Good luck making this happen. This is impossible (not physically but politically and cost wise). I appreciate your enthusiasm tho.
DrToadley OP t1_j6jitfs wrote
Why? The Ethan Allen Express was expanded to Burlington just last year, and Amtrak is currently planning an expansion of the Vermonter to Montreal as well. A Montreal to Boston rail connection seems like a no-brainer too, and then that only leaves a few more nice-to-have lines.
patsboston t1_j6jjryk wrote
It would never happen in a million years. Vermont would not add any other lines since it wouldn't make sense economically for the state. Our population is too small to support so many lines, especially when there are much more populated areas in the country without rail coverage.
contrary-contrarian t1_j6jnt0i wrote
Not with your attitude...
Europe is covered in train lines in rural places. It works there and it would work here, but too many people refuse to open their eyes and believe it.
headgasketidiot t1_j6k6qc2 wrote
Americans 150 years ago: We are destined by god to expand our dominion throughout the entire continent.
Americans today: building a modest rail network in Vermont could not happen in a million years.
Note: Manifest Destiny was genocidal and bad. I'm just poking fun at how small our collective vision for what is possible has become.
patsboston t1_j6k7xpu wrote
I would love to have it happen. What is the recent precedent? How would there be funding for this considering it would need bipartisan approval in congress?
patsboston t1_j6jpqyz wrote
It's called being realistic (which takes into account public sentiment). If this project would come into reality, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. When would that ever get approved? Look at the Concord to Lebanon line. That is about 60 miles between them. At current costs of building tracks, that would cost well over 100 million dollars. That doesn't include other costs related to it. It just doesn't make since in this environment to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in a place as rural as Vermont. We should always shoot for the stars but we need to be realistic.
contrary-contrarian t1_j6jqbvh wrote
It would have to be a federally backed project (like our highways).
I can totally see it being approved when gas is $12 a gallon
patsboston t1_j6jr4u5 wrote
How would we get federal funding for that when there is currently no line between Houston and Dallas? Nashville and Atlanta? Las Vegas and LA? Cincinnati to Cleveland? Rural lines in Vermont would be like 200th on the list.
The places that would get funding first would be higher population areas and areas with higher economic output.
patsboston t1_j6k7lnm wrote
Not sure why I am downvoting for mentioning the current state of rail funding in the US.
contrary-contrarian t1_j6jsowz wrote
Gotta start somewhere! I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, but if there is political will in the state, and our federal reps are up for it, we can get that money.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but Vermont received 1.25 billion dollars in coronavirus relief funds (actually more than that if you count other programs). Despite being a small state, we have a decent amount of influence and could be a pilot project for the rest of the country.
goldenlight18 t1_j6jwkac wrote
This was really a one time funding coupled with Leahy's seniority in the senate pulling weight. With him retiring it will be a while before we have that influence again.
contrary-contrarian t1_j6jz241 wrote
This is mostly true, but it shows that large investments in small states is possible.
We could cut military spending by 1/64th and have enough funding to build light rail in most of the country...
cbospam1 t1_j6kfya0 wrote
From what I could find only Wyoming received less in Covid relief funds than Vermont, so while we got a lot of assistance it’s not much as all in context.
The govt will never dump big money into a rural mountainous state to build rail. If they won’t do it in Texas or California it’s not happening here.
helios_the_powerful t1_j6kdjis wrote
It might not make sense for Vermont alone, but that Concord to Lebanon line for instance would allow for direct travel from Montreal to Boston, which are much bigger market.
SkiingAway t1_j6lp62y wrote
If you want to do Boston-Montreal, realistically you're just going to run it out through Springfield and then north on the existing Vermonter/Valley Flyer route, letting you get more value out of planned/intended investments on those corridors for other services, higher/more useful frequencies, and valuable connectivity at the expense of an indirect routing.
The old line wasn't particularly fast when it did exist and while a BOS-SPG-WRJ-MTL routing won't be faster than the historic timetables had for the old line (which were ~2hrs WRJ-Concord, ~4hrs WRJ-Boston on an express making very few stops), it won't be a lot slower either.
patsboston t1_j6kie3f wrote
Of course I would love that. How big of a priority would that be. Just the tracks alone (not including any other expenses) would be over 100 million (based on the 1-2 million dollar estimates for cost per mile). Is there enough squeeze for that when there is already a Boston to Montréal proposal going through Maine?
helios_the_powerful t1_j6l2j4s wrote
Let's be honest, that proposal through Maine is juste a pipe dream. It might happen, but it's nowhere near a priority for any of the states it goes through.
However, this corridor might have more momentum then you think it has. Amtrak has already identified the Boston-Concord corridor as a potential corridor to invest in. Mass. is invested in expanding the MBTA and upgrade the lines all over the state. On the other side, New England states have made a top priority to extend the Vermonter to Montreal and double its frequency. Work is on the way for preclearance facilities at Montreal Central Station.
$100M isn't that much, really. If they manage to build enough ridership on each side of that gap, that would repay itselft really quickly. The only serious obtacle would be New Hampshire, which is notoriously opposed to passenger rail.
DrToadley OP t1_j6l55tj wrote
I'm really hopeful WRJ to Concord happens because it would both be the most direct route between Montreal/Burlington and Boston as well as hitting the most number of smaller cities along the way. Going through Maine or western Massachusetts would be slow and would also not serve communities which are presently poorly served by rail. Of all that this map proposes, I'm most hopeful that that line is built someday. Heck, build it in the I-89 median to avoid right-of-way problems - I know interstate median rail isn't ideal but if it gets it to happen, it's better than nothing.
NonDeterministiK t1_j6kw9x7 wrote
The Vermonter used to be called the Montrealer. The line is still there, and yet it still ends in St Albans after 2 decades. Why is it taking so long to reopen the last short leg to Montreal? This would greatly increase the ridership on the Vermonter, which is now basically empty once it exits Burlington.
BackgroundCat t1_j6l6r7t wrote
Giving up that rail corridor between White River and Concord, et als in favor of a rail trail was so short-sighted. Anybody have any idea what the ownership of that looks like today? Is reinstalled rail even an option?
DrToadley OP t1_j6l8rm2 wrote
Didn't even know this existed. I really do hope so!
Willie_the_Wombat t1_j6llvvy wrote
Yeah, the problem here is that Vermont is obviously a rural state with no real cities. As a consequence almost everybody who has somewhere to go already has a car. Those folks who are already necessarily paying for a car along with all the associated costs aren’t going to want to pay for railways they aren’t going to use. Especially when those cost would be coming out of funds that go to the relevant departments/agencies that already can’t maintain the roadways to serviceable standards.
greenmtnfiddler t1_j6kpzxs wrote
How likely is the Montreal extension, and how soon?
I'd be SO freaking happy to see it in my lifetime.
DrToadley OP t1_j6ks4nq wrote
Amtrak has it on their website as a planned expansion!
greenmtnfiddler t1_j6kvbo4 wrote
Well, yeah...it's been there a while. I was hoping you'd been to a planning meeting and heard something a little recent/hopeful.
I'm old enough to remember when it last existed, was actually planning my first trip when it stopped, so I'm cynical :(
tbdsniper t1_j6kzbg9 wrote
Track upgrades have been completed between St. Albans and the Canadian border. It is now up to both governments on how to handle the border crossing. Within the last few years it was decided to have a port of entry in Montreal without having to stop at the border.
DrToadley OP t1_j6kzzjr wrote
Wish we had an EU-type agreement with Canada! Ah well...
cbospam1 t1_j6kewet wrote
Those expansions didn’t require totally new track. They run on existing track owned by freight companies.
listen_youse t1_j6ju1e8 wrote
costwise? peanuts compared to the highway system that got built no matter the cost.
Ernst_ t1_j6k0bmk wrote
Yes please! Going west to east in Vermont takes forever
cbospam1 t1_j6kgynz wrote
There is a reason there aren’t any train lines doing that.
Norse-Gael-Heathen t1_j6keh2k wrote
Your Rutland to Bellows Falls line already exists - the Green Mountain Flyer. What it needs is regular, scheduled service.
DrToadley OP t1_j6ksmol wrote
That's true! (Also needs to be added to Apple Maps if frequency is made regular.)
FourteenthCylon t1_j6lms1w wrote
Besides the other drawbacks that have already been mentioned, most notably the phenomenal cost, once you arrive at your destination, there's no usable public transportation anywhere except in Burlington and Montpelier. How are people who live more than a mile or two from the train stations in Lyndonville, Newport, Hillsboro and all the other dots on your map going to get from their houses to the train and back, especially with everything they bought in their shopping trip to Burlington? There's no buses, Uber or Lyft where I live. There is an unreliable local taxi company, which is an old geezer and his minivan, but I can drive all the way to Burlington for way less than the taxi fare between my house and the nearest train station on your map. Sorry, but if this extensive of a passenger train network to serve a state with this low of a population density was a good idea, someone would already be making a profit doing it.
Corey307 t1_j6nyesl wrote
Well said, I would be 100% for trade or light rail service around the state except I don’t see a lot of people using it if they then have to walk miles to get to their destination or destinations. Even if rail was paired with a robust bus system it’s still much slower than driving And the state already has a severe lack of blue-collar workers so finding hundreds of people to drive trains and buses is a problem.
Same_Blackberry_7433 t1_j6jghxc wrote
Would it be feasible to connect WRJ and STJ?
DrToadley OP t1_j6jgt98 wrote
They are connected by freight rail as is, actually! I debated their inclusion only because I-91 exists already and it has pretty low traffic volume. However, if the rest of this is built, they should probably be included as well.
Yobro_itsfroyo t1_j6jqbse wrote
Yes please for the inclusion of the wrj > st j line! The towns along the ct would greatly benefit from the traffic and accessibility ( Thetford, fairlee, Bradford, etc) we’re always talking about how nice it would be to have those train stations reinvigorated!
JodaUSA t1_j6l1gdb wrote
Ideally train lines would be replacing highways. Highways are terrible investments. Economically entirely unfeasible.
Aol_awaymessage t1_j6jjooe wrote
NYC to Albany, Albany to Wilmington, then Moover to West Dover. I could dream.
sbvtguy34567 t1_j6juuyp wrote
The only way this could even be practical would be if the population went up 10 fold. Even if everyone in the state used this daily it wouldn't work, too rural and population too small.
cbospam1 t1_j6khplp wrote
Agree. Not to mention how are the right-of-ways going to be achieved? Would require massive eminent domain action, like when the highways were built.
DrToadley OP t1_j6ks7sh wrote
Lots of what I suggested has already been built, just needs to be revitalized and upgraded.
landodk t1_j6ki849 wrote
All about the tourists and second home owners
sbvtguy34567 t1_j6kozmh wrote
Their aren't that many, look at amtrak, it goes to NYC and DC, they drive. Rich people don't use mass transit
SkiingAway t1_j6knaw8 wrote
This would cost an insane amount of money that Vermont quite literally does not have, and would in many cases be incredibly slow.
You keep using the Ethan Allen Express extension as an example of something cheap. It only achieves it's "cheap" status, by being slow, extremely infrequent, and on track that already exists, was fairly straight, and was already in fairly tolerable shape.
VT estimates it'll be another $250m just to upgrade the two existing services to FRA Class 4 track (79mph). Which does not mean the average speed of travel will be 79mph, to be clear - because that doesn't mean the many, many curves limiting speeds are all going away.
Building rail lines that have never existed through valuable property in topographically difficult terrain, will be billions of dollars. VT could vote for the highest taxes in the country and somehow acquire the highest % of federal spending in the country, it's still never going to have the money to build it, and certainly won't have the $ to maintain it.
Rebuilding lines that once existed but haven't in a long time is only very slightly more plausible (and will also piss off a lot of people who enjoy the rail trails they've often become)....and doesn't change that even in the peak of rail many of those lines were very slow.
As reminder, the historic criteria for getting people to ride a train was "is this service better than walking or riding a horse". Because that was the competition. That is not the competition today for getting people to ride a train.
Many of these routes can't even generate enough public transit demand to make a bus pencil out very well on ridership - and that's with the bus going a lot quicker than the train likely would.
I would pretty much throw the whole idea away and replace with investing every dollar VT has or can acquire into:
-
Continued speed improvements on the two existing services + extension to Montreal.
-
Attempt to partner with other states on extending more trains into VT for more frequencies on those lines. Extending Springfield/Valley Flyer runs to WRJ (or Burlington/MTL) or Empire Service runs Rutland/Burlington is the most obvious.
If we ever manage to hit 5x+ a day and/or actually decent travel times, maybe then you can re-examine something new. The state's plans are for Albany-Bennington-Rutland(or Burlington) as the most likely future expansion beyond MTL.
(And the state rail plan basically agrees with me, as this is more or less their listed priorities).
Transit ridership is: speed, frequency, convenience. I don't see the scatterbrained approach as going to achieve any of them.
DrToadley OP t1_j6ktbid wrote
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. As someone who both enjoys trains and wants to see them (and Vermont) thrive, my foremost goal is to improve upon what we have so far, and part of the reason why I put my idea out into the world in the first place is so I could understand its shortcomings. Your criticisms make a lot of sense. I just hope that people in Vermont aren't too afraid to dream a little bigger when it comes to transit.
SkiingAway t1_j6l7w9g wrote
Re-reading, I suppose that sounds harsher than intended - so I do apologize for that.
I'd love to see VT dream bigger when it comes to transit, to be clear. I just think it's best bets on that are the incremental work to improve services/expand services on the best/most cost-effective corridors it has to work with.
There's a reason it's (for example) a pain in the ass to go East-West across VT even by car - it's hard to build through there even for a road, building a decent rail line would be exceptionally high $.
I also do think that the economics are immensely difficult even if you are fine with large subsidies for many of these proposals and the realistic ridership they could achieve.
Regarding plenty of these ideas: Do the cheap trial. Contract to run a bus under the Amtrak thruway bus program or something, and/or beef up the local public transit schedules linking parts of the state, too.
Yeah, a train is nicer than a bus and would get more people using it - but if the bus ridership is shit even with efforts to get people to use it/make it decent, the train's unlikely to be some big winner either.
To pluck an example, I'll pick that Route 9 corridor.
SEVT Transit/MOOver currently runs 2 buses a day each way on Route 9 Brattleboro-Bennington and it takes about 1:20, not much worse than driving yourself.
Looking at VT's AADT data, we can also see that there are a couple thousand people a day moving across that corridor, probably less than ~4k actually on the corridor for a decent length of time other than the brief overlap with Rt 100.
Even if you want to imagine the hypothetical train might achieve some unrealistically high mode-share....there are simply not a whole lot of people traveling this path to move today, and it's probably not because they just don't own cars.
In contrast, you can look at something like I-91, and you can see that up through WRJ/I-89 and you're pulling ~10-20k on the corridor.
But if you want to run a trial for a few years - go make that hourly or half-hourly service or something. If you're not getting some solid ridership, spending huge sums on a train isn't likely to fix it.
DrToadley OP t1_j6l9dvh wrote
Very well-reasoned and realistic thinking. I do believe with the right frequency and really good branding, buses could be more successful in Vermont, which could bring more trains.
Really, I believe what it comes down to is that I think Vermont needs to start seriously building lots and lots of high-density housing in its cities and major town centers NOW. No more single-family housing - way too cost-ineffective and bad for the environment. The state is uniquely situated to be far ahead of the curve on the climate crisis, and if it had ample housing, it could see both a huge population and economic boom with tons of benefits for all of its current residents. Then, connect it all via trains - boom, now we've maintained all of the state's natural beauty and made it more livable while everywhere else will be struggling (although they could do the same thing...). This I do believe to be the real pipe dream, though.
SkiingAway t1_j6llqiq wrote
I think "high-density" is a bridge too far for VT, but larger areas of "medium-density" is perfectly realistic and arguably the only real solution to VT's housing crisis. The local downtown is not going to be harmed by a couple more blocks of 3-6 story buildings....like the ones that are already in the part of the downtown area as it is.
They're also the only places in VT that typically have the utilities in place to really support significant amounts of housing.
And yes - having more people living in town centers also makes transit as normal transportation choice more viable. "Last-mile" is a big issue otherwise.
DrToadley OP t1_j6lm39n wrote
"High-density" in the context of VT, haha. Agreed on all counts.
tradesman6771 t1_j6lbulz wrote
Train station in a town of 2000? Then you… catch the city bus?
contrary-contrarian t1_j6jnfle wrote
Honestly this would be so brilliant. How friggin convenient would it be to just hop on a train between towns.
BrendanTFirefly t1_j6jtb9c wrote
Vermont retirees: "That would make a lovely bike path, it runs right past my AirBnB properties"
BWayMarshall t1_j6jzzvd wrote
Got my vote!
greenmtnfiddler t1_j6kqlc9 wrote
What do you see as the most likely upgrade in local resources , to make getting around w/out one's personal vehicle feasible once at your destination?
I can see the ski slopes and major hotels/upscale bnb's/breweries running shuttles, but what about "normal" towns?
Good train platform - to residence - to attractions - to trailheads options don't exist yet on any meaningful, dependable scale - what's being discussed at the planning level?
DrToadley OP t1_j6ktut0 wrote
Generally, for trains, "if you build it, they will come" seems to apply. In my opinion, improving buses (and mostly making people aware of how and when buses are actually running - most of the problem with buses is the advertising and ease of use) and certainly increasing bike lanes will be the most cost-effective. However, I definitely need to get more involved in the planning aspect!
Corey307 t1_j6o1h65 wrote
The vast majority of people do not commute my bike and do not want to commute by bike. You would need a robust bus system for this to work we have nothing of the sort plus we have a severe lack of blue-collar labor in this state. You’re talking about needing hundreds of blue-collar workers to drive trains and buses and considering how poor the wages are in the state on average I doubt a lot of people are going to move here to drive a bus.
DrToadley OP t1_j6oe8nh wrote
Whoa there. My advocacy for scary things like bike lanes and improved bus service does not imply turning Vermont into Amsterdam overnight and forcing everyone to throw their cars out. I just think that providing people with more options, including a modestly improved rail system that doesn't only go to Burlington from New York City, some more bike lanes in town centers, and better-advertised buses would be worth looking into.
Corey307 t1_j6oqfk7 wrote
Except you’re not, you’re talking about building a great deal of infrastructure which will cost a fortune and not achieve much ridership. The vast majority of people have no interest in traveling by bike and the vast majority of people have no interest in doubling or tripling their daily commute just so they don’t have to drive.
Pristine_Tension8399 t1_j6kbuo5 wrote
Vermont has nowhere near the population density for any of this.
Galadrond t1_j6keodw wrote
Yet. The Climate Crisis will incentivize people to move to the Northeast by the tens of millions.
Commercial_Case_7475 t1_j6jg33a wrote
This would be great if it could compete with driving in terms of cost and time. Not sure it could do that though, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if it did.
contrary-contrarian t1_j6jnma2 wrote
If we subsidized it at the same level we subsidize driving, it would absolutely compete.
cbospam1 t1_j6kgrkt wrote
Who subsidizes driving?
contrary-contrarian t1_j6lgul5 wrote
Great question!
Drivers cover around 51% of road maintenance and construction.
The other 49% is paid for by the general tax payer (many of which don't drive by the way).
Road maintenance and construction costed $416 billion in 2014 alone.
This doesn't account for the massive externality of the pollution cars create, traffic deaths, inflation of construction and housing costs, etc. A recent study showed that the lifetime cost of owning a small car is ~690,000 and society subsidizes $275,000 of that cost.
Keep in mind that these are conservative estimates of the subsidies society provides to cars.
Gas subsidies alone account for $16 billion a year from U.S. taxpayers.
Meanwhile in the U.S., passenger rail is subsidized at $1.4 billion a year.
So yeah... cars get massive subsidies compared to rail... and rail is way better for reducing traffic, pollution, deaths, and increasing quality of life, health, and walkable cities and towns.
Seems like we could make the switch.... we already have the transportation funding... the auto industry just has our representatives (and apparently much of the populace) completely brainwashed.
AmputatorBot t1_j6lgvuk wrote
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2022/02/04/lifetime-cost-of-small-car-689000-society-subsidises-this-ownership-with-275000/
^(I'm a bot | )^(Why & About)^( | )^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)
WikiSummarizerBot t1_j6lgw5v wrote
>Many countries offer subsidies to their railways because of the social and economic benefits that it brings. The economic benefits can greatly assist in funding the rail network. Those countries usually also fund or subsidize road construction, and therefore effectively also subsidize road transport. Rail subsidies vary in both size and how they are distributed, with some countries funding the infrastructure and others funding trains and their operators, while others have a mixture of both.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
CorpusculantCortex t1_j6lp62l wrote
Not to be contrarian, but this is a bit of a gross oversimplification, no?
The 49% covered by the taxpayer still benefits the taxpayer as that infrastructure is what supports business, industry, commerce, etc. So it is not a subsidy for drivers, it is a subsidy for transit infrastructure. Which is a subsidy for the effective functioning of society. If we had these rails, we would still need roads for trucks to deliver goods to stores. The fewer drivers on the road, the higher percentage would be paid for by the general taxpayer. (Plus just as a higher order argument, people without children pay for schools. But like that is the point of taxes, to provide for the common good, is it not? We are supposedly a democracy, not an anarcho-capitalist state. It is not 'unfair' to pay for something you don't use through taxes. That is the social contract we have agreed upon, we all adhere to it, that is the definition of equitable. ie fair.)
I'll admit that cars produce more pollution on average than rail per capita of utilization. But the rest of that article is not necessarily translatable as it is based on data from Germany, which has different laws and subsidies, as well as population density. One noted point was designated free parking as a driving subsidy. That is a bit of a stretch, especially in a rural area where land is relatively cheap. And looking at the research itself, I question it a little, though I am not about to do a deep dive into its rigors. But even on the pollution front, EV cars are becoming more prominent, which helps (though electricity is still predominantly produced by burning fossil fuels so not remotely carbon neutral).
Gas subsidies aren't an argument in this context as trains benefit from that as well.. they run on diesel. Almost no major rail systems outside of intercity tram systems in the US run purely electric as the maintenance costs are far in excess of that of maintaining a diesel locomotive.
So to say cars thru gas is subsidized by $16B and rail only at $1.4B is misleading at best. Rail is subsidized thru both programs due to the nature of Diesel engines in the US.
And the whole grouping of last points that it improves traffic, walkable cities, yadda yadda. If this was an urban or suburban state/ region I would agree with you. But it is VT, the second least populous state in the union. We don't need to worry about walkable cities, because, frankly, VT doesn't have any real cities. Burlington is smaller than some MA towns. And it is very walkable. Probably the most walkable city I have been to. Traffic in VT is nearly nonexistent relative to other regions. And while if this rail system existed it would be great, we would still need cars, or at least buses because everything is so spread out here. Where I live it would be an hour bike ride to get to any transit hub. Which to me is a much more costly waste of resources (my time) than 10k per year for my car by that article's estimate. Plus it is simply not feasible with children and families. At least not without a significant reduction in QoL.
These arguments are great for dense urban areas with dense suburban areas in between. Like in Europe, and US megalopolises like the northeast corridor (Boston to DC). For rail systems like this to have an impact on cars, you need layers of transit (buses, then trams, then trains). Layers that would far exceed in cost and personnel the benefit it provides to a population when there aren't enough people.
Granularity matters with science and engineering, and VT is not going to be impacted by transit systems in the same ways that urban areas are.
contrary-contrarian t1_j6lqa56 wrote
Kudos for reading up, but I still disagree that light rail isn't a feasible solution for Vermont despite the small population.
I vehemently disagree that walkable towns and cities aren't a priority. Regardless of population, equality and quality of life dramatically improved when individuals have walkable access to community. Vermont is rural but it is full of small towns that have most of the things one needs in a concentrated area. I live in a small town (around ~4,000 people) but I can walk to the grocery store, restaurants, the post office, the library, etc.
Despite this, car-centric infrastructure detracts from this all the time in ways we have become blind to. Instead of more community or living space we hundreds of free parking spaces smack in the middle of town. We have busy roads that are dangerous to walk or bike on. We have had to install flashing pedestrian crossing signals because people keep getting hit by cars.
These are the subsidies that society pays for cars and car infrastructure.
Public transit, whether it be bus, train, or bike lane are more egalitarian and less impactful than cars.
As you reduce the amount of cars on the road, you also reduce road wear and cost as well.
I'm not saying that every little town can have rail, but the map OP posted is reasonable and doable. 95% of these right of ways already exist . . .
This is not a city-only problem or solution.
ARaoulVermonter t1_j6klgbq wrote
We the People. Try googling "US oil subsidies"
Syncope7 t1_j6le408 wrote
That’s a bit of a stretch, the way that “driving is subsidized”
StarstuffWildflowers t1_j6jk0p2 wrote
Thank you for including Newport! <3
HayMomWatchThis t1_j6kadid wrote
Yea screw you Eden you can walk. /s
Galadrond t1_j6kduv6 wrote
It’s just missing rail lines from White River Junction to St Johnsbury, and from Brattleboro to Manchester. Both of which are feasible because of the Connecticut River valley and the West River Valley respectively.
greenmtnfiddler t1_j6kpktf wrote
I see you've chosen to avoid resurrecting the Thirty Six Miles Of Trouble. :)
Any reason to believe either the BF/Rut or Rut/WRJ won't also be a bit of a PITA?
And holy cats, that yellow line from Albany to Concord - we thinking tunnels outside of Wilmington?
DrToadley OP t1_j6ktl2y wrote
BF/Rut largely exists but needs upgrades. Rut/WRJ does not exist and would be very difficult to implement, but the corridor frankly sucks by car and so I really wish we did have the funds to make it happen. Albany to Concord carries the same reasoning as Rutland to WRJ - it's difficult to get from west to east in New England. Those lines would be more long-term...
Evan_802Vines t1_j6jp5la wrote
Monorail. Monorail. Monorail.
toomuch1265 t1_j6k9guk wrote
200 billion later...
vermontitguy t1_j6kekte wrote
I am as pro-rail as they get, but some of these lines are just not feasible. Bennington to Brattleboro includes two very substantial mountains. I lived on VT 9 in Woodford for a while, and I can tell you trains aren't going over that mountain. And tunneling would dwarf the nearby Hoosac Tunnel which is less that five miles long and took 135 lives during construction. Getting a line through Killington would be similarly challenging.
A more practical line which is absent from your map would run from WRJ through Keene and Winchendon using an abandoned right of way (push that rail-trail to the side) where it could connect to existing MBTA rail in Fitchburg. That gets you the Montreal to Boston connection along with Rutland to Boston. (Sorry, Cape Air.)
Living in Dorset, I'd love to see passenger trains come through Manchester, but some serious infrastructure work would be needed. For example, the line runs through the middle of the r k Miles lumber yard with trucks and fork lifts crossing the line all day. Unless you want passenger trains running at 10mph you're going to need some new grade-separated crossings along the line.
Tricky-Ad8731 t1_j6kh204 wrote
I'd love to see an East-West train across NH and into Maine. Maybe Burlington-Montpelier and then following RT 302 to Portland?
suzi-r t1_j6la59a wrote
Hey folks, KITTYONFYRE is absolutely right—this scheme is well intended but utterly delusional! Do you know the north-south glacial terrain in this region? Have you been around here long enuf to remember the impact on this area and the Keene Valley of New York by Tropical Storm Irene (late Aug 2011)? Do you know what happens during heavy rains along rtes 302, 25, & 2–Barre to St Jay)? RR lines along what you propose would need to be rebuilt every few years, and serviced every year, just to stay functional! It would cost the state billions to launch, and trillions over time! You are incredibly sweet & well meant to put forth a document like this, but perhaps you ought to live here for a handful of tough decades (long enuf to study VT’s history, geology, terrain, climate, weather patterns, etc., and re-think the entire plan. Did you know that VT is the only state with no billionaire residents? I love your altruistic vision. But live here for a few decades and then revise, or develop a more realistic plan. Do we have anything even close to the engineering capacity of Switzerland, Germany, Japan, or China? Probably, but they’re onto more chic & lucrative projects, not wrestling with Vermont’s issues. Do we have the workforce, and the funding to compensate them? Not now…(my dh disagrees with me adamantly, and we’re having a great debate over this tonite.) C’mon, guys…tell me that Kittyfyre & I are wrong! But only after you have tons of study & investigation on your resume.
DrToadley OP t1_j6lb1da wrote
I in fact have lived here for a few decades. I admit that I am dreaming big, but I believe starting with a big idea and then whittling it down to what's most realistic is the best approach. We already have to rebuild our roads every few years and seem to have the budget for that...
suzi-r t1_j6ldeaq wrote
Guess I think that starting simple, correcting small mistakes, & then building out from there is a better approach for our region with its many issues and low budget. Small scale, imho, works better for VT because of the gnarly features I pointed out in my long first post. Thanks for being civil. Are you a civil engineer? 🌝
Corey307 t1_j6o0whg wrote
That’s because the vast majority of people would still use the roads. Let’s say I live in Saint Albans, I don’t but I think it’s a good example. It’s about 35 minutes from Saint Albans to the airport, it’s a similar amount of time to most of Burlington and South Burlington. If I hop in my car 40 to 45 minutes before I start work I’ll generally be fine. Now if I’m commuting by rail I have to get to the rail station whenever there’s a train that will get me to work on time and it’s unlikely for most people but that time will be convenient. I will then need to transfer onto a bus or more likely more than one bus to get where I’m going. So not only am I at the mercy of whenever the train is running I have to assume that the buses will be on time plus I will still have to walk since my job being on the bus route is no guarantee. Then all of this Hass to be done in reverse and again the buses and trains will likely not sync up with a lot of peoples start and end times. I don’t know about you but the last thing I want to do when I’m done working is spend an hour or two trying to get home when I could’ve done so in 35 minutes. I’m tired, my feet are tired and having to walk to a bus stop then stand outside in the cold hoping the bus comes by is not something I want to do.
suzi-r t1_j6lc1ya wrote
Now you are making sense, Dr T! A rail service to Boston would be helpful; it would take much daytripping traffic off the ‘pikes. We used to have that. NH geology is quite different and much easier than VT. A line from WRJ to Boston might work.
AKBigDaddy t1_j6lk5ox wrote
I would love this. I live in NH not far from WRJ, I would 1000% take a train to boston far more often than I drive. Bonus points if it goes right to south station. Trips to fenway, Microcenter, dinner, etc would be far more doable if we could ride down, do our shopping, catch a ball game, and then ride home without having to drive.
Corey307 t1_j6o17ax wrote
Rail service to Boston has a lot more utility than rail service in Vermont. BTV doesn’t have a direct flight to Boston anymore and the last time they did it was a nine seat prop plane that canceled more often than it flew, could not fly in bad weather or cold weather plus it wasn’t even cheap. Between the hassle of getting through an airport and wondering if your flight is going to leave on time or be canceled the train starts to make sense for shorter trips.
Greenlettertam t1_j6k6k81 wrote
Please bring the rail to VT. It would be a gift to so many.
DirtyBirdNJ t1_j6k72ff wrote
Is there a petition I can sign? What kind of support do you need my dude this is absolutely incredible. Ive seen your posts before and it keeps getting better
Beyond the thoughtful ideas about rail travel in our state I am just geeking out at the beauty of a VT rail map.
I have a process that I use to draw maps with pens, if you were willing to send me some of your map data I would love to render it in multicolor pen ink. Send me a DM if your interested
Borkton t1_j6n94dl wrote
Vermont Rail Action Network. They're more "art of the possible" than this long-term vision, though.
DirtyBirdNJ t1_j6njkz0 wrote
I cannot over stress how important those visualizations of what's possible are. Even in the face of overwhelming facts in it's way. It's not about "it has to be exactly like this" to me it's how far can we go, how much is even possible. Any improvement in rail infrastructure will benefit VT.
We will never improve our state if we are too afraid to take bold action.
Art helps people see the vision. Art is essential.
DrToadley OP t1_j6p0tgi wrote
Couldn't agree more!
KotzubueSailingClub t1_j6kj3y7 wrote
If there was a state that would spearhead a passenger rail system focused on the needs of the state, it would be Vermont. If there was a state whose citizenry would be viciously opposed the development of a passenger rail system focused on the needs of the state, it would be Vermont.
Darkroastgmcr t1_j6krnn3 wrote
The most practical you’ll see is St Albans to Montreal.
However, the East Alburg bridge stands in the way. Freight crawls over it. A new bridge is easily 15 years-out. Current steel work and the volume of wood on this years plan isn’t even keeping up with its state.
New York wouldn’t want to stop Amtrak into Whitehall, state of vermont is pitching in funds for cwr in the fair haven area to replaced some badly warn jointed (105 I think) rail.
JodaUSA t1_j6l0og8 wrote
Ok think the main thing to overcome here in terms of making such a plan viable is the private nature of most of Americas train lines. Private train lanes are never going to expand into rural vermont on their own, and the government giving them money to do it is a sure fire way to waste millions.
I could see this being viable through the public sector though. I have daydreamed about similar ideas for years; vermont is honestly just begging to have some good train lines to turn the state into a economic power punching far beyond its weight!
love from rail city Lmao ❤️
Borkton t1_j6n7wth wrote
All of Vermont's rail-lines, except for a little bit in the north up around St Johnsbury, have been owned by the state since the 1950s and apart from Brightline, which only started a few years ago, all the passenger service in the US is provided by public agencies.
vermontitguy t1_j6paw0g wrote
Kudos to Vermont for having the vision to preserve these lines. I grew up in North Jersey where so much irreplaceable row is lost forever and sorely needed now.
awky_raccoon t1_j6l3gh7 wrote
While we’re dreaming, can we add a stop in Wallingford on the way down to Manchester?
DrToadley OP t1_j6l3jk1 wrote
It is done (in my imaginary plan)!
erokmoney t1_j6l4qs0 wrote
These will make great rail trails in 30 years.
aja09 t1_j6ldvn6 wrote
Are there even enough people in Vermont to make this worth the investment…
Corey307 t1_j6nyow9 wrote
There might be enough people if most people were using it but most people wouldn’t use it because it’s inconvenient and in many situations cost far too much time. If I’m reading the map right the closest stop to Burlington is north of the airport and both Burlington and South Burlington are quite large so unless you had a dozen buses running you’re going to have to walk miles to your destinations including the airport. You have to wait for the train then wait for a bus and then still have to walk and that that is not going to work for a lot of people. Sure it might reduce stress from driving a little bit but if I can get to the airport from Milton in 22 minutes, Saint Albans in 35 minutes or Montpelier in 50 and not have to worry about rail schedules and bus schedules versus a minimum hour and a half to two hours between rail and bus and worrying that everything doesn’t run perfectly I would rather drive. Using rail and bus makes some sense if those routes fit your daily commute but they won’t work for a lot of people.
They also make it a lot more difficult to do things besides go to work. Say I want to go to target and shop before work and then go to Hannaford‘s before I head back home, if I have my car stuff from target goes in the trunk in the morning and groceries go in the trunk in the evening. Not only would I have to expect a significant amount of time getting to these locations I would have to wait for a bus each time to get me back to the train station or to get me closer to work. Then I’m lugging around several bags of crap and that’s not fun.
CorpusculantCortex t1_j6lkesj wrote
I mean, it is a nice idea, but let's be real VT fails to keep its roads in good condition, and when it comes to development nothing of consequence ever happens or at least never completes in a reasonable amount of time. Not high enough investment in the future, too much pushback from those who just want to maintain the VT they know.
And this? This would be billions in development costs, require thousands of rights of way agreements from as many people, and require the cooperation of dozens if not 100+ town governments. The largest city in the state can't even incentivize the completion of a commercial development project on prime real estate downtown after the demolition was already completed in... going on 6 years? A municipal project of this scale would never fly, VT is beautiful and I love so much about it, but it is a bit stagnant development-wise.
Sea_Drama_5958 t1_j6og7ly wrote
This would cost an incredible amount of money to serve a small population. Not a good use of tax dollars for a state that isn’t exactly swimming in revenue
blogpog t1_j6k5q83 wrote
Looks more like a Ski Tram than one that functions for work commuters.
DrToadley OP t1_j6ksjho wrote
Other than the Stowe line, I don't see how?
blogpog t1_j6l156j wrote
You leave out commuters up and down the west river valley between Manchester and Bratt. Plus no stop for Springfield.
suzi-r t1_j6lc6j1 wrote
A mix of passenger & freight…
valuemeal2 t1_j6ln4en wrote
Don’t tease me :(
ceiffhikare t1_j6m71n7 wrote
I would love to see the nightmare this would be in modern times if it was sim'd out in like Cities Skylines or something like it. VT looks perfect for rail for a reason, It built this state when it was the best option. My father and grandparents rode the rails for the last few decades of their use up here.
Others have pointed out some issues so i wont do more than touch on them in passing. It would def. take Elon or Bezo's kind of FU money to revitalize light/passenger rail in any effective way. It would also take a huge increase in population OR migration to make it viable $-wise. The infrastructure to move all those people doesnt stop at the railstation, they need last mile transport, hospitality services for a few hours or longer sometimes, and run-times that work for both white and blue collar workers.
TBH if starting from scratch id go underground straight from Newport to a split just north of Ben. and Brat. Id split off from that to the county seats and build out the second string infrastructure from there. Yeah.. prob looking..30B? and a whole lot of court actions,lol.
somedudevt t1_j6mj2vx wrote
This keeps getting posted with different iterations. It’s dumb. We don’t have the population density needed to have trains. There is a reason the current amtrac trains struggle to expand service. No one uses them.
Trains need people. We don’t have that, there isn’t a viable business model where we build out a network at a cost of billions, to provide 40 people commuting from Burlington to montpelier or vice versa a rail line alternative to the FREE and often empty bus service.
I get that your grand theory is that you can reduce emissions by using a means of transit that can be fully electrified, and take cars off the road. But you would put out far more emissions building this than you would save with it.
All that said, rail is a cool way to travel. It’s just not practical
vermontitguy t1_j6penvp wrote
While much of what's proposed here is just fantasy and not feasible, you're wrong about the current Amtrak service in Vermont. It's heavily used. In fact, the trains typically sell out on peak travel days. As of right now (Tuesday), the southbound Ethan Allen Express for this Friday is 70% full. With very modest improvements like adding a second daily run to the Ethan Allen and Vermonter lines, ridership would soar because added flexibility in travel times would make rail more practical for day trips and connecting to other long distance lines. Extending the Vermonter to Montreal might double ridership on at least some segments of the line. These upgrades would not cost billions because the lines already exist.
Commuter rail in Vermont isn't likely to work in most of the state, but running Budd RDCs between Montpelier, Barre, BTV, and Essex Jct. would surely attract more than 40 people. Even a Rutland-BTV shuttle to augment the Ethan Allen would be a winner because it would make day trips possible.
MarkVII88 t1_j6nhtwq wrote
Regardless of the merits of expanding comuter rail throughout VT, and regardless of the costs of building even a portion of this network, I think such an endeavor will fail by pure virtue of the BANANA NIMBYs across VT that will, no doubt, object to and try to prevent this project in a myriad of ways.
- Noise concerns
- Safety concerns
- Environmental concerns
- Impacts on local vehicle traffic
- Taking/buying/using public or private property for creating/enlarging right-of-way
- Impacts on local wildlife
There would be no end to the opposition. It's the VT way.
they_have_no_bullets t1_j6nyjr0 wrote
Why?
blipblapblorp t1_j6o7r34 wrote
I lived in Randolph for a year and would have stayed much longer if I could have reliably commuted to WRJ via train. It's such a nice little town.
[deleted] t1_j6l2mlb wrote
[deleted]
Borkton t1_j6n7fxk wrote
All the haters on this sub saying it won't work for whatever reason are 100% wrong. They don't know jackshit about public transportation, railroads, or the whole century plus where train travel was the main way to get around the state. Admittedly, that puts them in with around 80 or 90 percent of North American transit planners, for whom acknowledging that Asia or Europe exist, or that rail doesn't have to cost $500 million or more a mile is absolute heresy.
Odd-Philosopher5926 t1_j6p0nlb wrote
Middlebury to Randolph would suck. Almost as bad as driving currently
haikusbot t1_j6p0oyd wrote
Middlebury to Randolph
Would suck. Almost as bad as
Driving currently
- Odd-Philosopher5926
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^Learn more about me.
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
StudlyMcStudderson t1_j6jp29b wrote
I'd label your dark blue line Springfield/Hartford/New Haven instead of NYC.
DrToadley OP t1_j6jpebp wrote
My dark blue line is actually just the Vermonter, haha. I wanted to include the existing lines as well to get a picture of the complete network. Yes, it would still go to all of those places.
[deleted] t1_j6kjnoa wrote
[deleted]
alienwarezftw t1_j6k1f5k wrote
please no on light rail...
DrToadley OP t1_j6ksip3 wrote
Heavy rail baby
HomeOnTheMountain_ t1_j6jlbgc wrote
That Rutland to WRJ line would be one of the biggest developments for the state and (likely) would be a massive boon to both those cities and surrounding areas. That would be one of the few rail lines bridging either sides of the Hudson based lines (and their respective giant communities on either side of the river.)
Otherwise you have to pick your train line down in the city because they diverge from there with only bus service connecting across the Hudson. That tiny piece of track would effectively create a loop with NYC, open E<>W train travel mid way through the state + give the ability to go further into New England or Canada
I'd be ok diverting some of that Fed grant money that Burlington sops up to the Rutland area.