Vermont Rail Action Network

    The ETHAN ALLEN is a successful and growing service: Patronage on the
ETHAN ALLEN has been growing every month for most of the last two
years. Overall ridership in FY 2008 climbed 17.5%, with revenues up
13.6%. It is completely counter-productive to squander this gain with
a "bustitution" that will not work. Rather we can enhance the train
with a properly-designed bus connection and gain added revenues higher
than the projected savings from the train-off proposal.

    Once gone there is little chance the train will ever return: The last
passenger service before the ETHAN ALLEN on the
Albany-Whitehall-Rutland route closed in 1937, 59 years before the
ETHAN ALLEN began in 1996. The last service on the more direct line
from Troy to Bennington, Rutland and Burlington was lost in 1953.

    If the ETHAN ALLEN is canceled Amtrak is certain to reassign its
equipment, as the company is already desperately short of cars. Once
the cars are gone Vermont will have to buy new cars in order to
restore service. Even at today's prices this would cost us at least
$3,000,000 per car and probably more by 2013.

[Published in the Times-Argus, and the Rutland Herald]
Used with Permission.

It was very disturbing to see the recent piece in the Free Press
suggesting that the Vermont Agency of Transportation was flirting with
massive cut-backs in Vermont's Amtrak services. This comes just as we
have a new administration in Washington strongly committed to rail and
after our Congressional delegation got language into the new Amtrak
authorization making future Vermont/Amtrak capital projects like the
purchase of new diesel multiple unit cars potentially eligible for 80%
Federal funding. Most particularly it is alarming in the face of the
unprecedented recent ridership gains on our trains.

According to the latest edition of the Transportation Energy Data Book from Oak Ridge National Laboratory's website (edition 26):

In 2005, domestic airlines on average consumed 20.5% more energy per passenger-mile than Amtrak, while cars consumed 27.2% more than Amtrak. Looked at the other way round, Amtrak consumes 17.0% and 21.4% less energy per passenger-mile than airlines and cars, respectively. [One passenger-mile is one passenger traveling one mile.]

Those percentages are derived from these Oak Ridge figures (British Thermal Units or BTUs per passenger-mile, 2005 data), organized here most to least efficient:

Amtrak: 2,709
Commuter rail: 2,743
Rail transit: 2,784
Certificated air carriers: 3,264 (excludes international services)
Cars: 3,445

notes of interest:

Amtrak consumed 14.6 trillion BTUs in 2005, which was 8.2% less than 15.9 trillion in 2003 and 19.3% below Amtrak's peak year of energy use (2001, with 18.1 trillion BTUs).
Amtrak in 2005 consumed 65,477,000 gallons of diesel fuel and used 531,377,000 kilowatt hours. [Both figures exclude consumption by commuter railroads for which Amtrak provides services.]
This indicates that 62.3% of Amtrak energy is diesel fuel vs. 37.7% electricity.
[Note that about half of Amtrak's ridership is on the more efficient electric powered routes in the Northeast.]

The tables from this document you may find most useful are:
Table 2.12 Passenger travel and energy use, 2004
Table 2.13 Energy intensities of highway passenger modes, 1970-2005
Table 2.14 Energy intensities of nonhighway passenger modes, 1970-2005
Table 9.10 Historical Amtrak figures including car-miles, train-miles, etc.
Table 9.11 Summary statistics for commuter rail operations, 1984-2005
Table 9.12 Summary statistics for rail transit operations, 1970-2005
Table A.15 Intercity Rail Fuel Use
[Note: Table 2.12 has 2004 data because 2005 data is not yet available for some modes. As the relevant footnotes explain, the airline statistics in Table 2.12 include "1/2 of international scheduled services" whereas those in Table 2.14 do not include any international services. This report also has considerable freight data.]

The "What's New" page for Edition 26 reports that, "The transportation share of U.S. energy use reached 28.4% in 2006 which is the highest share recorded since 1970."

======================= 

Several comments regarding what is the most energy-efficient way to travel . . . [By Christopher Parker]

First, the decisions are different if you are an INDIVIDUAL or a society. For us individuals, if we travel on something that's already going there, we are using NO fuel and causing NO pollution - unless we displace someone else who then has to drive.

Figures on energy efficiency are different, depending on if you measure seat-miles or people-miles. Airlines do better than Amtrak at cramming every last seat full of people. Automobiles are typically occupied by one person - so they get twice as efficient if two people are in them.

Much of the environmental impact of driving comes when building the car in the first place, which is added on top of the figures above. There is a lot of value in going car-free, and for society, in enabling people to be car-free. Thus renting a car every weekend is preferable to owning one.

Another measure, not often talked about, is the amount of land required. On this railroads are much superior to roads. I'm not sure if airports (which are very big) have enough footprint to cancel not needing any land at all once you are in the air.

In 2007, eleven railroad companies operate or have trackage rights in Vermont. There are approximately 600 miles of operating rail line in Vermont's rail system of which some 305 miles are owned by the State. An addition 148 miles is rail banked, most of which are “rail trail”.

The rail system in Vermont is part of a regional, national and international transportation network. Most railroad activity in Vermont is freight traffic; although, interstate, intrastate and excursion passenger services are also important to rail operations and the Vermont economy.

Scheduled passenger service includes one north and one south bound daily Amtrak trips that connect Vermont cities and towns (St. Albans, Essex Junction, Waterbury, Montpelier, Randolph, White River Junction, Windsor, Bellows Falls and Brattleboro), stops in Massachusetts and Connecticut, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. (Vermonter) and one north and one south bound daily Amtrak runs connecting Rutland and Fair Haven, Albany, N.Y. and New York City (Ethan Allen Express).

Seasonal Vermont Rail System tourist excursion trains include the Green Mountain Railroad

Explained below is the procurement process that led to its selection of Colorado Railcar DMUs and in a separate, but related RFP called the “Corridor Partial Competition Pilot Program” its award of $2,000,000 to Vermont. The RFP is quoted below.

“In 2005, Congress directed a demonstration of potential state corridor route competition under PL-108-199 and set aside $2.48 million for a pilot competitive state route project. In its April 2005 Strategic Reform Initiatives, Amtrak agreed to work with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to advance such a pilot project. Pursuant to its FY06 Grant Agreement with the FRA, Amtrak is now soliciting proposals for a pilot trial of State and/or private participation in the provision of intercity passenger rail service requested by a State that can be demonstrated to reduce the cost to Amtrak and to the State of providing that service and/or improve the quality of that service. Except for providing the locomotive engineer for a proposed pilot program train, all services provided directly by Amtrak shall be considered eligible under this RFP.”

Amtrak had 2.48 million dollars to conduct a test of improved operations on a selected corridor. The proposal we submitted to do this test indicated a willingness to use the new DMU technology which Amtrak has selected ultimately for use nationwide on secondary lines. $2,000,000 of this money was awarded to Vermont. A critical section of our response to the Amtrak RFP is quoted below.

“In the fall of 2005, Vermont Agency of Transportation entered into discussion with Amtrak about the current Vermont state supported services. Driven by the Amtrak board’s decision to bring all states up to a level of contract funding that covered all direct cost incurred by Amtrak, the parties agreed that if current levels of service were to continue, some significant changes to the service would need to be made. Gil Mallery, VP of Planning & Business Development, arranged a meeting with Charlie Miller from VTrans, Mark Yachmetz from the Federal Railroad Administration and Arthur Rader from Colorado Rail Car to discuss opportunities for purchase of equipment that would better fit the Vermont model for intercity passenger service. Amtrak had been working with Colorado Rail Car on the development of an equipment specification for a “Rail Diesel Car”. It was obvious to all the parties at the meeting that equipment under development by Colorado Rail Car would meet the anticipated use in corridors such as the Vermonter and Ethan Allen Express.

Shortly after this meeting Gil Mallery and Jeff Mann made a proposal to Agency Secretary Dawn Terrill and Deputy Secretary David Dill on the benefits of moving from Vermont’s current equipment situation to utilization of the new DMU technology. Based on a review by the Amtrak planning department, Vermont could actually increase the frequency on the Vermonter to two trains daily for the approximate cost of the current service”.

Completely separate from the Route Test RFP was Amtrak’s internal procurement process that selected the new DMU technology. Amtrak selected the Colorado Railcar DMU only after a full-scale and completely proper internal procurement review, including the opportunity for competitive bidding. The winner of the Amtrak equipment bid process was the Colorado Railcar DMU.

When its budget allocations permit Amtrak plans to order a full fleet of these cars (initially 17 and potentially up to 40 cars), but in the short-term it wants to facilitate a Federal/State partnership to test if the new technology can seriously improve operations and financial performance on at least one appropriate route. As the DMUs are intended for rural and branch-line conditions the VERMONTER route was an ideal candidate. We were awarded the $2,000,000 to conduct this test. Amtrak legitimately expects that we do it using the technology we described in our bid and which Amtrak approved.

Ø Amtrak wants new, rather than rebuilt equipment, as they want to test new generation cars. As I mentioned, Amtrak has a perfectly legitimate interest in trying to simplify its fleet by operating only equipment of a fairly standardized form, which does not require, as 1950s RDCs would, the actual recreation in machine shops of many parts. Amtrak had a very bad experience in the 1970s operating RDCs, which even then were suffering from advanced age-related maintenance issues.

Ø Amtrak granted Vermont $2,000,000 of the 2.48 million total available for the partnership test program—a very generous response indeed!

Ø But tied to the two million dollars was the expectation that we would carry out the intended test using the equipment which Amtrak had selected and based on the service plan that we had outlined. This included use of the new DMUs.

Ø If we don’t conduct the route experiment using the new DMUs we should clearly understand that we will not get the $2,000,000.

Ø We would be VERY unlikely to get rebuilt RDCs approved for use in this test, because for better or for worse the RDC is a long-established technology.

[Adopted from a memo to the Vermont State legislature by Carl Fowler]

[The following is adapted from a memo to the Vermont State Legislature by Carl Fowler, of Rail Travel Center. Since the time of writing, Vermont Transit has been fully absorbed into Greyhound lines and local management laid off.  The advice still stand though.]

 

Vermont Transit, in a very real sense, is already made its own fate. As I noted, the marketing philosophy of VT parent Greyhound Lines nationally has changed from providing service to small towns to emphasize service only from regional centers, running as directly as possible to large cities and hub airports, with as few enroute stops as possible. As a result VT has already dropped all service to many towns that it still passes through, such as St. Albans, Waterbury, Killington and Woodstock. Moreover entire routes have vanished which had no Amtrak competition at all. Gone are all trips from Burlington to Middlebury, Rutland, Manchester, Bennington and Albany and from Rutland to Bellows Falls, Brattleboro and Boston.

Ø The best thing the state can do for VT is to encourage it to coordinate its services with Amtrak and local transit. Throughout the country this has worked dramatically to the benefit of both carriers. The most immediate example in the east is the Boston-Portland “Downeaster” joint bus/rail service. There are four daily DOWNEASTER train frequencies (soon to grow to five), but far from dying, bus patronage there has jumped dramatically. Concord Trailways now operates no less than 21 trips per day, each way, over this line, far more service than before the rail initiative. On top of that VT also serves this route with an additional 5 buses each way per day! The buses and trains offer a seamless coordinated service and both benefit from the integration.

Ø Concord Trailways, VT and Amtrak share the stations in Portland and Boston. The buses actually go to the bus bays at the main train station in Boston—South Station—while the trains serve North Station.

Ø At Woburn the DOWNEASTER trains meet closely coordinated buses to Logan Airport, while at Portland train passengers can connect at the same station to buses for Bangor, Ellsworth, Augusta and in the summer to Bar Harbor and Acadia National Park. These can all be ticketed by any Amtrak agent or travel agency.

Ø The DOWNEASTER corridor is the fastest growing new Amtrak route ever instituted in the east and both bus and rail have benefited overwhelmingly.

Ø This situation could and should be replicated in Vermont. VT schedules between Burlington-White River Jct. and Springfield should be adjusted to compliment the enhanced train service. If Amtrak leaves White River Jct. at 655AM there is an ideal slot for VT at 835AM.

Ø As noted earlier, the state should help VT to cover the costs of a restored St. Albans-Montreal VERMONTER “Ambus” connection. In the northbound direction at least the former train connection bus still runs, but no longer serves St. Albans at all.

Ø The state-supported local bus services from Newport, St. Johnsbury, Ludlow, Chester and Wilmington should be coordinated to connect to the trains.

Ø VT services from White River Jct. to Boston can offer yet another bus/rail alternative if they served the train station.