Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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

2

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.

1