Comment on “State looking at impacts as it charts passenger rail growth” 

RUTLAND TOWN — A forum on the future of rail transport in Vermont outlined the state’s goals to boost ridership, expand commuter service and complete long-anticipated passenger lines connecting Rutland, Burlington and the eastern Vermont rail corridor with Montreal.

The forum Thursday at the Holiday Inn in Rutland Town was one of several being held by the Vermont Transportation Board, which will report to the Legislature in January about what the public has to say. Previous hearings were held in Vergennes and Newport.

“We are charged by the Legislature to go out and gather public opinion,” said John Zicconi, the board’s executive secretary. “We want to hear from you.”
Click here to read more

4 thoughts on “Comment on “State looking at impacts as it charts passenger rail growth””

  1. The capital cost of upgrading and maintaining tracks and signaling systems for trains that would serve at the very most 1000 passengers a day by 2020, it a pipe dream; it is completely nuts.

    A dozen electric buses with TESLA-style batteries could provide 14-hr back and forth services on existing roads. They would be charged at night during the other 10 hours.

    A Proterra 40-foot Catalyst XR with 8 NMC Li-ion battery packs, holding 257 kWh of energy. Average speed was 30 mph (48 kph), which is fairly realistic for a bus, and average energy consumption was 0.8 kWh/mile, which is very good for a vehicle of that size carrying this many people.

  2. Note the study for commuter rail from St. Albans to Montpelier. This is an area already served by the Interstate, while Western Vermont has a beautiful corridor from Bennington to Burlington that needs commuter rail. It would invigorate the entire western side of the state’s economy. But a legislator with a special interest in not driving got the study of the St. Albans to Montpelier route done. More evidence of the “Burlington/Montpelier bubble” that is doing serious harm to the economy of the rest of the state.

    1. Annette,

      There are some backwards people who are into rail, but have not yet caught on to the future.

      They are as backwards as those spending $20 million (tax money) for a wood chip fired district heating plant that has MUCH MORE CO2 than fuel oil, and costs a lot more to staff, maintain, and operate, and refurbish.
      The plant is used to heat energy hog buildings.
      It is operating at a loss of at least $250,000/y.
      All of it is totally idiotic.
      Had that been a privately financed plant, it would lose $2.5 million per year.

      Please don’t encourage rail.
      It would be very expensive.
      Much better to use electric buses and existing roads.
      See my comment and URL.

      Below are my articles:

      1. Addition:

        Regarding the district heating plant, that money should have been spent to upgrade the connected buildings.

        That would have been much wiser, as it would have reduced CO2 for at least 40 years, or more, instead of increasing it, PLUS it would have reduced energy bills.

        Advocating for energy efficient buildings would be much better for the economy of Vermont

Your Comments are Welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s