Article: VT: Passenger train routes may be cut

John_Perkowski wrote:Brief excerpt from the article:

Each year the state provides a nearly $5 million subsidy to operate Amtrak’s two Vermont lines: The Vermonter, which runs between St. Albans and Washington, D.C., and the Ethan Allen Express, which runs between Rutland to New York City.

Where does Vermont find the money? The economy just shed half a million jobs in one month.

Everything a State pays for is about to take a hit. Education, health, transportation, law enforcement, tourism development, agriculture. They're all going to take a hit.

As Matthew said farther down, where exactly are we headed if we DON'T pay for this stuff? More and more people being laid off, fewer and fewer people able to buy anything, and fewer and fewer outfits able to make money with no consumers. Got to break the cycle somewhere.

hi55us wrote:Rather than cutting the distance of this train why not decreace it's frequency. Have it operate every day but Tuesday and Thursday, or whatever day's it is lighter.

I've heard if you're not going to run a train once a day, you might as well not really bother as the ridership will never be what it needs to be to justify the expense. I think we see that with some of the currently thrice-weekly trains.

ryanov wrote:

hi55us wrote:Rather than cutting the distance of this train why not decreace it's frequency. Have it operate every day but Tuesday and Thursday, or whatever day's it is lighter.

I've heard if you're not going to run a train once a day, you might as well not really bother as the ridership will never be what it needs to be to justify the expense. I think we see that with some of the currently thrice-weekly trains.

Today's vermonter, that hit a pedistrian only had 42 people on it, justifies my argument to axe it on tuesdays and thursdays.

We may find out late tomorrow or on Thursday if Amtrak's going to see any changes as a result of the budget deficit...

http://www.wptz.com/news/18239870/detail.html

Fingers crossed......

Vermont will continue to subsidize Amtrak service

Vermont's rail program manager said Tuesday his state plans to continue subsidizing Amtrak service.

This from a story in the Times Union.

Someone was wondering about mid-week passenger loads, and how light they must be. Well last night (Tues) a man walked in front of the northbound Vermonter in Amherst and was killed. According to Amtrak, there were 42 passengers aboard. Only 42 riders (2/3 of a long distance Amcoach) headed into Vermont. That's a heavy subsidy for a few dozen people.

It's probably good to take a close look at this service. Providing local service to Vermont is akin to serving Montana with its own train. Only the long-distance nature of the Empire Builder makes it possible to also serve Montana's small towns. This is why the Montrealer, even with it's odd hours, probably worked better for Vermont.

Doug

hi55us wrote:

ryanov wrote:

hi55us wrote:Rather than cutting the distance of this train why not decreace it's frequency. Have it operate every day but Tuesday and Thursday, or whatever day's it is lighter.

I've heard if you're not going to run a train once a day, you might as well not really bother as the ridership will never be what it needs to be to justify the expense. I think we see that with some of the currently thrice-weekly trains.

Today's vermonter, that hit a pedistrian only had 42 people on it, justifies my argument to axe it on tuesdays and thursdays.

Which would further reduce passengers on other days as some would want to travel one of the two directions on tuesdays or thursdays.

By way of example, on my trip last year from Newark, NJ to Lamy, NM I wanted to take the Cardinal at least one way and was able to fit it into my schedule only because it happened to be the day I wanted to travel. I did not want to extend or shorten my vacation by a day. For those where the Cardinal is the only train, that issue could lead them to fly.

CSX does not treat the Vermonters very well, especially the Southbound. It is just 15 miles from Palmer to Springfield MA on the single track. The Vermonters actually use the CSX yard lead track to get from the NECR to the CSX #2 main track. This yard lead track is under the control of the CSX yard office in Springfield and the Vermonters have to call that office on Channel #2 for permission to use the track. I have been at Palmer several times, where there seems to be a delay on the part of CSX answering the radio. This may be alieved somewhat now, with the use of cell phones. If the southbound Vermonter is late, it apparently loses its slot on CSX, even though I don't see that portion of the "Boston" line operating a huge number of freight trains during the daytime through that area. Still, the Vermonter will sit there for either a westbound or eastbound freight on many occasions. Most Vermonter passengers already realize that the speed of the Vermonter is no match for the Interstate Highways, but I am sure they are less than happy to sit at Palmer for as much as an hour on occasion. Even on a slow train, it is better to keep moving ahead.

During busy periods, such as Thanksgiving and other holidays, Amtrak often sells out the Vermonters between NYP and New Haven and Springfield. Of course, when a prospective passenger in Vermont tries to book a seat, the train will show sold out, unless the passenger plans to detain at Springfield or north of there. The Ethan Allen also had a similar issue over Thanksgiving, as it showed sold out several times between Fort Edward and points south. It's somewhat unfortunate that they built the new Whitehall NY station north of the connection to the Rutland line. Otherwise, Whitehall would have a second train, besides the Adirondack and maybe the charges by Amtrak to Vermont would be lower. New York state does subsidize the Adirondack. I do not know if Vermont has to foot the bill for the Ethan Allen all the way to Albany or not. Getting back to the Vermonter, the stops at Claremont Jct. NH and Amherst MA are not subsidized by either NH or MA, so I assume that Vermont pays for the train all the way to/from Springfield. Of course, NH pays nothing toward the Downeaster service and I don't think MA is paying anything toward the Lake Shore or the south from Springfield service.

Perhaps some better coordination of the remaining small amount of inter-city bus service in Vermont, with the stops being made at or adjacent to the rail stations and maybe enticing some rental-car companies to located at the White River Junction and Essex Junction and Rutland stations would help to increase ridership on the Vermont Trains. And, as has been mentioned previously, at least a dedicated bus connection between St. Albans and Montreal is needed.

My two cents today.

Dick

Dick H wrote:Getting back to the Vermonter, the stops at Claremont Jct. NH and Amherst MA are not subsidized by either NH or MA, so I assume that Vermont pays for the train all the way to/from Springfield. Of course, NH pays nothing toward the Downeaster service and I don't think MA is paying anything toward the Lake Shore or the south from Springfield service.

Vermont does pay for the run north of Springfield, and Massachusetts and New Hampshire don't. Amherst is one of the busier stations on the route thanks to the college students, so not stopping there would be counterproductive. Claremont Junction was not a stop for the original Amtrak Montrealer in 1972, but was added in 1989 when the train was restored after the hiatus occasioned by the problems with track conditions on the Connecticut River Line. I always figured that was an attempt, long before the Downeaster service, to add New Hampshire to the Amtrak route map and perhaps win a vote or two from the local congresscreatures.

Massachusetts does not sponsor the Boston section of the Lake Shore, which is part of the national intercity network like the rest of the route. The Springfield Line is part of the Northeast Corridor and like the rest of the NEC is not directly subsidized by any of the states it passes through, although before the US economy collapsed there was talk of adding some commuter trips on the line that would have been underwritten by Connecticut.

Do anyone know/know how to find out the per-trip (or daily operating) cost of the Vermonter?

Safe...........

http://www.wcax.com/global/story.asp?s=9502687

Well I'm glad to hear VT is keeping thier service but, I can't help but feel that it should have been cut to running on select days.

Kaback9 wrote:Well I'm glad to hear VT is keeping thier service but, I can't help but feel that it should have been cut to running on select days.

Which will only further decrease ridership and therefore increase the needed subsidies.

If we want increased ridership then we need to increase frequencies and track speeds, both of which should eventually lead to lower subsidies.

railaw wrote:Do anyone know/know how to find out the per-trip (or daily operating) cost of the Vermonter?

Well through August, the 11th month of the past fiscal year, it cost $22,191.78 per day to run the Vermonter for the first 11 months of the year. That number includes attributed costs and shared costs, which many have debated for years about whether Amtrak correctly and fairly accounts for those costs.

If we take those costs out and just work with operating costs, things look better. That comes in at $16, 712.33 per day and the revenue generated actually covers that amount with about $300,000 left over to apply to the other expenses.

Greetings from the Vermonter tuesday was a quiet day going N/B however today it looked like about 50 people got on in White River JCt alone. We have been running about 5-15min early into every stop!!! The train in CT is now Packed... at this rate being on-time I'll see if i can connect to the Metro-North Local from New Haven that leaves at 424 I think and get in a little early to Stamford ...