Vermont Amtrak Ridership on the Rise

[henry6]

Yes, running times have to be improved as much as possible on those trains.  Let's face it, the Vermonter has to move all the way down the CT River instead of going to Palmer, that should save at least an hour with proper track.  Entire system needs some track upgrades but would only be cost effective if there are more trains.  An interesting idea extending some trains up to Saratoga Springs or Glens Falls or even Whitehall,  Again improving track would add quality to the service.  And I must say VT and most of NE state do a fairly good job with roads except in the midst of storms, so a well coordinated highway/rail system could work very well..

[oltmannd]

The number work out to 64 passengers for every Ethan Allen and 101 for every Vermonter. That's probably pretty decent market share, but it's a pretty tiny market. Certainly not enough to justify the existence of a train.

[oltmannd]

henry6

I believe at least a pair of trains  added Rutland to Essex Jct and St Albans to connect with trains Rutland to Albany and NY would be very successful. 

You can make a decent case for extending some of the existing NYP - Rensselaer trains up to Saratoga Springs and/or Glens Falls - the northern Capitol District suburbs, but that's about it.

[oltmannd]

henry6

Ever driven in Vermont?  There are two north/south corridors with the Green Mts. seperating them  I91 runs the CT river while VT 7 is a limited access, divided two lane road from Bennington to just above Rutland, it may be Manchester.  If you travel any other roads, in the mountains or the valleys, you cannot make any time...25 to 30 mph at best through many small  villages, maybe up to about 55 on some rural stretches but they are few and far between.  So a bus ain't gonna get you in, out, or through Vermont in any kind of hurry.  So, train is the best alternative.  More frequent and convenient services would build a better passenger base and, as practice such as DownEast in nearby Maine has proven, be successful.  I believe at least a pair of trains  added Rutland to Essex Jct and St Albans to connect with trains Rutland to Albany and NY would be very successful.  More St. Albans to D.C service is a stretch, but why not St. Albans to Springfield, MA several more times a day?  Utilize the corridors to the fullest and the adjacent corridors will help create a long distance service.  Even using the airline model of changing numbers at each terminal before moving on. If it works, then do it!

A bazillion times! Up, down, across, top to bottom, side to side. That's how I know about all those cows! From Rutland - US 4 to Northway, cut over on NY 7 (limited access freeway) to I-787, exit to Rensselaer which dumps you right at the train station. Zoom! 2:20 hours vs.3:10 by train. There are 13 trains a day from A-R to NYP, so you have the possibility of faster and more frequent service using a Thruway bus connection than you do with the once-a-day Rutland train. For the Vermonter, I-89/91 runs parallel to the rail route +/- alittle so the train isn't going anywhere not served as well by highway . Time from St. Albans to Springfield by highway 3:40. Time by train 6:10!! Six trains a day from Springfield, so the point of letting the Vermonter poke along the I-89/91 corridor once a day is??? If ever there were states that were tailor made for Thruway bus connections to existing rail service, Vermont and NH are it!

[henry6]

Ever driven in Vermont?  There are two north/south corridors with the Green Mts. seperating them  I91 runs the CT river while VT 7 is a limited access, divided two lane road from Bennington to just above Rutland, it may be Manchester.  If you travel any other roads, in the mountains or the valleys, you cannot make any time...25 to 30 mph at best through many small  villages, maybe up to about 55 on some rural stretches but they are few and far between.  So a bus ain't gonna get you in, out, or through Vermont in any kind of hurry.  So, train is the best alternative.  More frequent and convenient services would build a better passenger base and, as practice such as DownEast in nearby Maine has proven, be successful.  I believe at least a pair of trains  added Rutland to Essex Jct and St Albans to connect with trains Rutland to Albany and NY would be very successful.  More St. Albans to D.C service is a stretch, but why not St. Albans to Springfield, MA several more times a day?  Utilize the corridors to the fullest and the adjacent corridors will help create a long distance service.  Even using the airline model of changing numbers at each terminal before moving on. If it works, then do it!

[Phoebe Vet]

Amtrak does not meet the three things that would make it useful transportation:

Fast

Frequent

On time

I, like others I know, would use it more if it went to the places that we want to go.

[schlimm]

Phoebe Vet

bogus argument

Phoebe Vet

long distance red herring

 

Long distance train routes simply aren't competitive.  If you don't believe the current statistics, try a trip through nostalgia:

In the 1940's, in the heyday of long distance train travel, there were more than 30 trains scheduled between Chicago and New York on multiple routes, 14 on the NYC/MC alone. Some trains ran in 2-5 sections!  Even in the early 60's, there were 16. Now there are only two?  If long distance rail travel were in such demand as you suggest, surely we would see more traffic.

[blue streak 1]

Phoebe Vet

Let's choose one corridor and do it right.  After that corridor proves the concept then one at a time we can add others.  States could be encouraged to add feeder routes via rail and / or bus to connect it to the small towns.

Al-la- California's success?

 

[blue streak 1]

Phoebe Vet

Let's choose one corridor and do it right.  After that corridor proves the concept then one at a time we can add others.  States could be encouraged to add feeder routes via rail and / or bus to connect it to the small towns.

Al-la- California's success?

 

[Phoebe Vet]

Since the long distance red herring bothers so many naysayers, let's do this:

We'll run a train from Boston to Philadelphia.  Then, like the airlines do, we will use the same train, just changing the train number, to run from Philadelphia to DC.  Then we'll use the same train, with yet another number, to run from DC to Charlotte.  Then we'll use the train, with another number, to run from Charlotte to New Orleans.  Then after a maint layover of let's say 12 hours, we'll reverse those trips.

That way we don't have to worry about the bogus argument that very few people want to take a train from Boston to New Orleans.

Let's choose one corridor and do it right.  After that corridor proves the concept then one at a time we can add others.  States could be encouraged to add feeder routes via rail and / or bus to connect it to the small towns.

[oltmannd]

Phoebe Vet

If you read the posts under that article you will see, in the second one, a major part of Amtrak's problem.

The number of trains and the number of destinations are both inadequate.  To most travelers, one train a day in only two directions is just unlikely to meet their transportation needs.

We're talking about Vermont! More cows than people! There's no "there" there. No reason that Vermont shouldn't be served by Amtrak Thruway buses connecting at Albany-Rensselaer and Springfield. It would give them, on the whole, faster trips and much more frequent departures. And, it would probably be a much smaller drain on the treasury.

[schlimm]

Phoebe Vet

The number of trains and the number of destinations are both inadequate.  To most travelers, one train a day in only two directions is just unlikely to meet their transportation needs.

 

Given the finite amount of funding, that is why many believe to have a real passenger rail network, high-speed or not, we need frequent services on realtively short routes ~500 miles maximum) to be competitive with air.

[Phoebe Vet]

If you read the posts under that article you will see, in the second one, a major part of Amtrak's problem.

The number of trains and the number of destinations are both inadequate.  To most travelers, one train a day in only two directions is just unlikely to meet their transportation needs.

[Anonymous]

From the Burlington (VT) Free Press:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20091014/NEWS02/91013022&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL