My proposal for near-future inter-town/city passenger rail expansions in Vermont! (MAP)patsboston t1_j6jpqyz wrote
Reply to comment by contrary-contrarian in My proposal for near-future inter-town/city passenger rail expansions in Vermont! (MAP) by DrToadley
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments