Home
Past Issues
Submissions
Subscribe
About Us
Livin' the Vermont Way Magazine |
100 Years of Aviation in Vermont
 |
Vermont’s Greatest Pilot?
 |
Protect Our Children and Environment
 |
Political Nicknames
JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2008
By Steve Ames
Commuter Rail Failures
Vermont’s money pit
Click here for the opposing viewpoint

In many parts of Vermont, saying something bad about the railroad is akin to criticizing cows for damaging the landscape, or inferring Ben and Jerry make bad ice cream. It is something that just isn’t done.

The reality is though, no matter how romantic it might be, the day of commuter rail transportation being effective in Vermont has passed. The sooner this is realized, the easier it will be to pull off the bandage, so to speak.

As of 2006, the subsidy the state of Vermont pays to keep two Amtrak trains running in the Green Mountains has risen to about $4 million. At this same time, while ridership has increased slightly during this past year, during the five previous years ridership dropped eighteen percent, from a total of 115,113 to 93,890.

Let’s not just stop with Vermont though. As an example the Downeaster train is billed as being one of the greatest rail successes in recent history. It runs from Portland to Boston and transports about 320,000 passengers a year. Sounds good enough until you consider the capital costs were all paid by taxpayers, and the train thought of as a “Great Success” requires a $7 million per year subsidy, which equates to about $20 per ticket.

It would seem that these failures do little to entice commuters to leave their cars at home, and I can’t help but think that without subsidies, Amtrack would be forced to flourish or fold and make way for a company that knew how to succeed.

If that is considered a success, I would hate to look at a failure. Unfortunately, we don’t need to go far to find one. Perhaps you remember the $18 million Champlain Flyer which ran between Burlington and Charlotte along Route 7. The short-lived commuter rail’s capital costs were more than double projection, operating costs about 250 percent of projection, and ridership only 40 percent of projection. Sadly, this story has been the same around the country, in fact, 90 percent of all commuter rail projects in the country cost far more than “projected.”

Sadly with the Charlotte Flyer, in 1997 other options were presented to alleviate congestion on Route 7, including a lane designated for carpooling. Who knows how successful this may have been but it begs the question: can many of the fine things commuter rail attempts to address be found by keeping an open mind?

For instance, if getting commuters off the highway is the main goal, then let’s look at the bus.

OK, to be honest buses carry a different set of connotations than the train, but they ultimately do the same job, they get people from point A to point B. In neighboring New Hampshire, a project to extend commuter rail to Nashua and Manchester is currently being considered. The capital investment required is projected to be more than $100 million, with operating costs projected around $8.5 million, with $2.4 million from fares and the $6.1 million subsidized by the taxpayers.

To provide another option, Concord Trailways started the Boston Express which serviced the same target audience as the commuter rail would. Capital costs were far less than the $100 million projected for the rail, in fact taxpayers spent $1 million ($82,000 of state taxes) for a few buses, (purchased mainly because the company knew the state was planning on building its own competing service on the rails). Instead of a $6 million operating subsidy, the private bus company doesn’t get a penny and manages to be profitable and more efficient.

Sadly in Vermont, the company that fathers our commuter rail service, Amtrak, doesn’t seem to be able to get out of its own way. Recently, when I went to pick up a friend at the train station I was told by an employee that the train usually arrives 45 minutes to an hour late. It would seem that these failures do little to entice commuters to leave their cars at home, and I can’t help but think that without subsidies, Amtrack would be forced to flourish or fold and make way for a company that knew how to succeed.

It is easy to forget that “Federal” money is actually our money. It was money we ultimately earned which was taken from us, and our ability to decide what it is spent on is extremely limited. Each project that involves federal money has to compete against other projects. Money spent on rail improvements can’t be spent on highway improvement, social security, or your child’s Christmas presents.

Steve Ames is a regular contributor to Livin’ Magazine.

4 Responses to “Commuter Rail Failures”

  1. Christopher Parker Says:
    January 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    We subsidize travel in all forms — the bus gets the benifit of billions of money “wasted” on interstates. Is it really a waste, or just the choice that people want? Sure, if we do what Steve Ames wants and eliminate all subsidies for highways and airports and ports and bike paths . . . and railroad lines — then you’d see railroads clean up, since they are in fact a superior transportation form. But Steve disclosed his true agenda when he said he’d rather spend the rail money on subsidizing global warming and asmah creating blights on the landscape and public safety . . .

  2. Anthony Otis, Railroad ASSoc.f Vermont Says:
    January 6th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Mr. Parker has it right. While the Chittenden County Commuter Rail Project did not live up to expectations, the funding did not simply disappear. Much of the expenditure circulated within the Vermont economy and significant rail infrastructure improvements were made that benefit freight rail.

    Vermont’s rail industry employs approximately 185 Vermonters; pays a variety of taxes to the State; leased rail property earned $620,583.51 in FY 2006, provides a critical transportation service without which certain business activities would not take place in Vermont; transports natural resource products and commodities to and from Vermont at lower rates as compared to other modes of transportation allowing many Vermont businesses to remain competitive regionally and nationally; lowers consumer prices in Vermont for in-bound commodities because of lower transport rates; transports petroleum and gas heating products on a just-in-time basis that could not be delivered by highway transport without large, above ground storage facilities state-wide; offers interstate passenger rail access to Amtrak providing an alternate means of transportation for visitors seeking that transportation experience and for those without automobiles thus enhancing the attractiveness of Vermont as a destination choice and potentially increases tourism visits generating additional economic activity; offers intrastate passenger rail excursion and tourist trains for visitors and Vermonters alike; significantly reduces highway infrastructure cost from diversion of heavy truck traffic from state and national highway systems; reduces/avoids the economic cost of a degraded environment as a less polluting and more fuel efficient transportation choice and by reducing highway congestion that mitigates air pollution, noise and negative aesthetic impacts that threaten the rural character of the Vermont landscape and way of life, qualities that make Vermont an attractive and enjoyable place to live, work, visit and start a business.

    This Association, the Vermont Rail Advocacy Network and the VTrans Rail Program can supply “Livin” and Mr Ames with the latest Amtrak passenger data, when the Governor’s Rail Advisory Council Passenger Rail Subcommittee meets on January 8.

  3. Matthew Sternberg Says:
    January 7th, 2008 at 6:50 am

    The debate over rail gets confusing because all types of rail service tend to get lumped together in the public awareness. To truly understand the issue and make sound decisions, we need to differentiate. The biggest issue is considering the differences between commuter and intercity passenger rail. The former links communities within the state (Champlain Flyer) and the latter connects cities in-state with destinations outside the state, in our case, primarily New York City.

    I believe the potential is in intercity traffic, and the reason the current services are not taking off is because they stop short of providing the traveller a fully competitive product. The Ethan Allen Express coming into Rutland provides one major destination. That will draw a certain number of riders but will only provide for limited growth potential. A line leaving New York and connecting to Bennington, Manchester, Rutland, Middlebury, Burlington, Essex and St. Albans (ABRBE) provides access to multiple destinations, each with its special attributes, and makes a complelling product. The key is keeping the travel time to Mid-town Manhattan shorter than making the trip by car.

    As for commuter rail, I don’t think Vermont has the population base to support a commuter service that isn’t piggy-backed on intercity service. If the train is running from Burlington to New York, you could certainly ride it to Rutland if you wanted. But to simply run the train from Burlington to Rutland would never attract enough riders to be viable.

    Similar distinctions need to be made on the commercial side but the public debate seems to focus on passenger service, so I’ll comment on commercial rail another day.

  4. Aaron Says:
    May 27th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Rail could actually be effective for commuters in Vermont if it goes everywhere said commuters need to travel. Right now, rail only takes you to an isolated train station. This is an aberration caused by our car culture, and even Vermont isn’t immune to this.

    having said that, Vermont is in a better position to bring rail back as a viable transit option for three reasons:
    1. You still have the old, Main Street’ towns where people can walk to goods and services. It hasn’t all been ‘New Hampshired.”

    2. You can encourage dense development by the train stations, in places like White River Junction, where there is a wealth of buildings already in existence, just waiting for development.

    3. You have the nucelear and hydroelectric power to entirely power up the state in this manner.

Leave a Comment on this article
1