Responses to Rail Comments – December 11, 2015 Comment
The Caretakers along with Amtrak Marketing Department and the VT Department of Tourism with some leadership from the Rail Division could collaborate to provide a better “face” to the traveling public and provide real customer service, alleviating some of the inconvenience factor of Amtrak travel for the Last Mile for passengers that don’t have it handled.
Recommendations:
1. Consistency – a) caretakers at all stops have the same set of training, guidelines, resources and recognition as the “official” at the stop (similar to the name tag/uniform appearance aspect of ambassadors at welcome centers, including the ambassador training – done inexpensively with a train the trainer type methodology), and general safety training – expectation in and around a platform, knowledgeable about FRA safety regulations to convey that information when
necessary, and with a customer friendly method such as Operation Lifesaver, and b) station signage and information for services, resources etc. have the same look and feel and functionality
2. Communication and Planning ‐ Facilitated collaboration between community groups (Chamber, Designated Downtown Group, Town Planning and Zoning offices and Amtrak Marketing and VT Dept of Tourism – passengers/visitors feel secure deboarding in a strange town – a) well lit, other people around, if it is at night and there are no services (bus/taxi) passengers will know it is an issue at this stop when they purchase a ticket because of collaboration between Amtrak Marketing and VT Dept of Tourism and Caretakers (coordinated through?), and, there will have been communication with the passenger about resources available if they plan ahead and "how to” plan ahead details for each stop developed and maintained from collaborations with Downtown Groups and Chambers and visitor/tourist related businesses that
collaborate/coordinate to formulate strategies for this
3. Longer Term ‐ Deepening the vertical integration of Vermont Brand products, promotions and travel packages on the Vermonter ((especially as the Montreal connection and Boston high‐ speed connection come on‐line) and Ethan Allan developed by collaborations amongst state agencies, non‐profit community organizations and private business.
Response
VTrans fully supports coordination among Amtrak, state agencies, and local caretakers of Amtrak facilities to improve the traveler experience. The Agency looks forward to such collaboration, and will actively participate and assist in these efforts.
Comment
Citizens for Responsible Railroads – this petition was signed by 95 residents
Vermont's 2015 Draft Rail Plan would bring four times as many trains and twice as much freight cargo with hazardous materials travelling through our communities at speeds up to 79 mph. The national
trends in safety concerns about the rail transportation of hazardous materials are alarming: the US Department of Transportation has predicted 10 major hazmat derailments a year and billions of dollars in damage over the next 20 years, and the United States has had 6 major hazmat train derailments and 47 deaths already this year.
Vermont’s Draft Rail Plan aims to link our Western Rail Corridor to the national rail network via Albany, NY. Albany is right next door‐‐ and it is now the nation’s 3rd‐largest oil transportation hub, where the volume of Bakken crude oil shipments‐‐ the same volatile oil that caused the train disasters in Lac Megantic, Quebec and around the US‐ has quickly increased to more than 2 billion gallons a year. The county of Albany just joined the growing list of communities, first responders, and environmental groups around the country who are in legal actions against railroads and the federal government to hold them accountable for the damages from unsafe hazmat rail transportation practices. Vermont needs to consider these alarming trends while taking another close look at our 2015 Draft Rail Plan.
We need a Rail Plan that makes public safety the No. 1 priority. The state of Vermont has plenty of room to do this: the Draft Rail Plan and budget will be funded by our taxpayer dollars, and the state owns the Western Rail Corridor and most of the railroads in Vermont. We therefore urge the Vermont
Transportation Agency (VTrans) to improve Vermont’s Draft Rail Plan by addressing these 6 priority areas:
1. APPLY LESSONS FROM NATIONAL TRENDS AND STATE INITIATIVES. Recent initiatives in a number of states, including New York state, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington state to protect the public and the environment from rail hazmat disasters should be applied to strengthen the Draft Rail Plan so that we can reduce the risk of having a rail disaster in Vermont.
2. PUT SAFETY FIRST. New York state and other states in the US are working to require more frequent rail and train inspections, and to ensure slower train speeds at public and private crossings, and near homes and businesses close to the rails. Vermont’s Rail Plan should do the same, and also ensure that enough of our taxpayer dollars are allocated to the budget for appropriate training, prompt notification of hazmat trains and all train derailments, and the supplies and equipment first responders need in order to prepare for and respond to any rail disasters.
3. FUND DESIGNATED RAILYARDS FOR STORAGE OF HAZMAT TANKERS. Storing hazmat freight tankers on side rails near homes, businesses, farmland and wetlands puts the public and our environment at risk. We need to put a stop to this practice. In the Draft Rail Plan, over four times more taxpayer dollars are being invested in side rails than in rail yards along the Western Rail Corridor. Revise the budget so that our tax dollars are used to prioritize railyards for the Western Rail Corridor.
4. TAKE MORE TIME FOR REAL DIALOGUE WITH OUR TOWNS AND MUNICIPALITIES. While
VTrans has held some public meetings, many Towns and citizens along the Western Rail Corridor are not even aware of the Draft Rail Plan and have not yet been sufficiently engaged to make sure that this Plan supports and protects our communities.
5. FUND RAIL SYSTEM MAINTENANCE TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES. Railroads rely heavily on herbicides for weed control, the least expensive method. Reliance on herbicides alone contaminates water and air, harms citizens and wildlife, and promotes weeds that are resistant to herbicides. Vermont’s Rail Plan needs to include alternative rail maintenance systems, including those in other
countries, such as Switzerland, and invest in more environmentally‐friendly methods to keep the railroads safe by removing soil and control weeds on the tracks.
6. DESIGNATE CLEAR ACCOUNTABILITY, RESPONSIBILITY, AND LIABILITY FOR PUBLICSAFETY. Vermont must take a proactive stand that will not leave families and communities financially bankrupt in the event of a train derailment or a hazmat rail disaster. VTrans needs to work with other state agencies to clarify the accountability and responsibility of the state of Vermont and the private railroads for the safety of our human and natural communities, and to describe these clearly in Vermont’s Rail Plan. With the dramatic increase in train numbers, train speed, and hazmat freight travelling through our
communities, Vermont's Rail Plan must address liability issues, and how compensation for homes, businesses and property that are too close to tracks will be handled.
Response:
The long‐range buildout includes two intercity passenger trains along the western corridor. In addition, statewide forecasts of freight project that railcar units will double from 142,531 to 241,367 through 2035. This projected growth is attributed to higher levels of intermodal shipments. While the total number of freight trains is a function of business decisions by shippers, the Plan does not project four times more trains.
The projected unit increase in petroleum products (6%) and chemicals or allied products (43%) through 2035 does not translate to “twice as much freight cargo with hazardous materials”.
Also note that current rail freight volumes are significantly lower than they were during the last iteration of the State Rail Plan in 2006. In 2005, there was 10.2 million tons of freight carried by railroads in Vermont. Surface Transportation Board data from 2011 included in this Plan has current rail freight volumes at 6.7 million tons. The projected freight volumes through 2035 (10.4 million tons) will barely catch up to 2005 levels.
Freight trains will not travel at 79mph under this Plan. The Plan has corridor improvements broken down into two phases. Phase I (years 1‐10) will include upgrading the track between Rutland and Burlington from Class II (30mph passenger, 20mph freight) to Class III II (60mph passenger, 40mph freight). Only when this is accomplished, along with the remainder of the western rail corridor, will upgrading track to Class IV (79mph passenger, 60mph freight) be considered. This is envisioned as Phase II and anticipated to take up to 20 years to complete. Neither the short‐term or long‐term phase build‐outs envision freight trains operating at 79mph. Also note that current projects, connecting to our existing passenger rail services, in New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut will raise operating speeds along those track segments up to 110mph.
We have not seen any evidence that the shipping of hazardous materials by rail is less safe than truck shipping. Data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (below) highlights that truck incidents account for the vast majority of all hazardous materials incidents.
There is mention of several states taking initiatives to ensure slower train speeds at public and
private crossings, and near homes and businesses, but no specifics are included. VTrans will conduct research on this topic.
The storage of freight tankers are governed by applicable federal laws, rules and regulations.
The Plan includes $11,126,000 in rail yards projects, and $12,425,000 in siding projects. Please refer to sections 4.6 and 4.7 of the draft Plan.
The Rail Plan has been under development for approximately two years, and has been featured in daily newspapers across the state. Four public meetings were held on the plan (Rutland, Brattleboro, Essex Junction, and White River Junction). These meetings were advertised in local daily newspapers. In addition, meeting notices were posted on the Agency of Transportation website, the Vermont Department of Libraries Public Meetings website, and notice was sent to the state’s Regional Planning Commissions. Planning documents have been posted on the state’s rail website.
Beyond the public meeting notices, the western corridor rail project has been prominently featured in various stories regarding the awarding of an $8 million federal TIGER grant in late 2013, as well as earmark funding to replace rail and improve grade crossings.
Improving the western rail corridor has been state policy for over two decades.
Rail planning is a continuous and ongoing activity. In addition to periodic updates for the Rail Plan, the agency undertakes public comment periods on the Long Range Transportation Plan.
Maintenance activities are the responsibility of railroads, and maintenance concerns should be directed at the appropriate railroad.
Liability issues are governed by applicable state and federal laws.
Comment
Highways in Vermont can only be upgraded to a certain extent. Our Route 7 is at its full capacity. This fact is one of the best reasons for upgrading our rail on the western side of Vermont.
Response
The Rail Plan identifies a buildout for the western corridor, which includes recommended upgrades for passenger and freight rail (please refer to chapters 3 and 4 of the Rail Plan).
Comment
I am concerned that transporting explosive fuels such as propane and oil pose a greater threat to Vermont than our beloved emergency responders are prepared to handle. There has been little communication to the local fire departments to date about the potential situations that these volunteers would have to address, and improving the railways could make Vermont a candidate for highly volatile crude oil.
Response
Federal laws, rules and regulations govern the transportation of commodities along rail lines, including hazardous materials. The Vermont Division of Emergency Management is responsible for allocating its response resources according to their plans.
Comment
While I am aware that rail companies can't deny transport to specific products per Federal Law, we must take every action possible to ensure the safety and health of our communities. The seven points below are the bare minimum we need to add to the Rail Plan before it should move forward.
I would like to see VTrans hold a state‐wide public meeting on the Rail Plan before the final version is issued. The four open meetings were insufficiently publicized, and I don't believe they were
representative of all the towns along the Western Corridor tracks.
1. Require the most up‐to‐date technology for safer rail cars when transporting hazardous materials. 2. Ensure that the Vermont State Rail Plan is compatible with Vermont’s Town and Regional plans. 3. Include reduced speed limits at public and private rail crossings and wait limits for rail so trains cannot block traffic unnecessarily.
4. Perform strict rail inspections. The potential for washouts along rail lines is increasing as the frequency and intensity of rain storms increase.
5. Require state inspections of all trains carrying hazardous materials as they enter Vermont, as New York Governor Cuomo has been doing for crude oil trains in New York State.
5. Invest in safe, secure, and designated rail yards so companies do not store hazardous materials on side rails. The currents plan outlines $800,000 for secure rail yards, but $6 million for new sidings ‐‐ small stops along the tracks where trains are currently being stored that are not secure against vandalism or targeted attacks.
6. Include an emergency response plan that has been approved by local first responders, towns, and state officials. The response plan should account for emergency evacuations and should be subject to public review and input at municipal and regional levels. And once it’s finalized, the general public must have access to it.
7. Address issues of liability and accountability. The State of Vermont owns roughly half of the railroads in the state, meaning it has a significant responsibility to protect residents from rail catastrophe. In the event of a rail disaster or harm to life, property or health, Vermonters need assurances that families and communities will not be left holding the bag. Companies that will profit from moving hazardous
materials through Vermont need to be held accountable for the costs of safeguarding public and environmental health. In other cases around the country, the liability insurance held by the rail companies has run out long before clean‐up has finished‐‐ sometimes bankrupting the rail company before the issue is resolved.
Response
The Rail Plan has been under development for approximately two years, and has been featured in daily newspapers across the state. Four public meetings were held on the plan (Rutland, Brattleboro, Essex Junction, and White River Junction). These meetings were advertised in local daily newspapers. In addition, meeting notices were posted on the Agency of Transportation website, the Vermont Department of Libraries Public Meetings website, and notice was sent to the state’s Regional Planning Commissions. Planning documents have been posted on the state’s rail website.
Beyond the public meeting notices, the western corridor rail project has been prominently featured in various stories regarding the awarding of an $8 million federal TIGER grant in late 2013, as well as earmark funding to replace rail and improve grade crossings.
Rail car specifications are regulated by federal laws, rules, and regulations.
While towns and the state undertake various planning initiatives, these cannot supersede federal laws, rules, and regulations governing railroad operations.
In Vermont, responsibility for rail inspections lies with the federal government.
The storage of freight tankers are governed by applicable federal laws, rules and regulations. The plan includes $11,126,000 in rail yards projects, and $12,425,000 in siding projects. Sidings are also a necessary component for passenger rail as passenger trains operate as faster speeds. Please refer to sections 4.6 and 4.7 of the draft Plan.
Emergency plans fall under the jurisdiction of the Vermont Division of Emergency Management. Access to documentation is governed by applicable state and federal laws.
Liability issues are governed by applicable state and federal laws.
Comment
Given recent disasters around the country and in Montreal with trains transporting highly flammable fuel, I can't understand why Vt trans would consider allowing oil and gas to be brought through and throughout our state. It is clear that proper safety measures and training for potential spills haven't been taken and I'm not sure there is any way to make such a plan safe!
Response
The transportation of commodities by rail is governed by federal laws, rules, and regulations. Vermont cannot limit the types of freight coming to or through the State.
We have not seen any evidence that the shipping of hazardous materials by rail is less safe than truck shipping. Data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (see data towards the top of this document) highlights that truck incidents account for the vast majority of all hazardous materials incidents.
Comment
I would like to see as many trucks removed from the roads as possible, support our current industry, and attract additional industry to Vermont.
Response
Both economic development and congestion mitigation are major benefits of rail.
Comment
I also applaud efforts to enhance passenger service, although I am a bit skeptical that the population density can support two trains. I believe continued improvements to the VERMONTER (schedule connections, improved infrastructure in VT / CT) would be more cost‐effective than investing in the Western corridor.
Response
There are major population centers along the western corridor (Burlington, Rutland,
Bennington, etc.) that will benefit for passenger rail service. Much of the ridership along both current services arrives from or is destined to New York, and the western corridor provides the more time‐competitive option. These stations are anticipated to attract among the highest ridership levels in the state.
Comment
First, It is a no brainer that Ethan Allen Rail services should be available for passenger service to
Burlington ASAP. Chittenden County and surrounding counties have the largest population in the state as well as a huge tourist industry.
Second, freight service is an environmental must since 22A and Route 7 both mostly 2 lane roads are the only routes along the western side of the state thus tractor trailer volume is huge and it is a know fact that they cause a lot of wear and tear on the roads.
Response
Along with the Vermonter extension to Montreal, the Ethan Allen Express extension to Burlington is the highest passenger rail priority identified in the Plan.
Both economic development and congestion mitigation are major benefits of rail.
Comment
I would and have taken the train inter‐county and to CT, NYC & DC where I have family but it is very difficult. I end up taking the bus which is not as comfortable but it is faster which is the inverse of what it should be.
Response
The Plan calls for increasing passenger rail speeds up to 79mph, which will render the service more time‐competitive with other modes. Both Massachusetts and Connecticut are undertaking projects to improve operating speeds along the Vermonter up to 110mph, which will further improve time‐competitiveness.
Comment
Re‐think rail links to get people around this state and to make connections with bus lines. The rail bed abuts my property along the CT River. I would like to take it north and south for meetings and to visit friends but I can't do it. I think the light rail that was attempted in the Burlington area needs to be revisited and incentivized.
Response
There is a legislative study underway to determine the feasibility of commuter rail along the I‐89 corridor between St. Albans and Montpelier. The results of this study will shed light on the feasibility of commuter rail in other places.
Comment
Spend tax dollars wisely and invest in rail. I would like to also see a rail along Route 89. The current situation is truly pathetic. When my 82 year old mother would rather drive than take the train to see me is very sad. Her reason it is it takes too long.
Response
The Vermonter includes stops in Montpelier, Waterbury, Essex Junction, and St. Albans. There is also a legislative study underway to determine the feasibility of commuter rail along the I‐89 corridor between St. Albans and Montpelier.
Comment
I am particularly interested in improved passenger rail connections to Boston, Montreal, and Albany, and support any portions of the plan that would improve the frequency, speed and reliability of those connections.
Response
The Plan includes an extension of the Vermonter to Montreal, and well as extending the Ethan Allen Express to Burlington, providing a connection to Albany. There is also a high‐speed rail study underway to develop service concepts for a service to Boston.
Comment
I looked at the federal documents and saw virtually no mention of freight. It was all about improving passenger service. Which I support ‐ the goals are aggressive but appropriate.
Response
The Rail Plan includes significant freight components. Recent federal rail authorizations have focused on passenger rail. However, there are discretionary funding programs that allow funds to be used for freight rail.
Comment
I feel like I'm holding the bag financially. Vermont has been left holding the bag on several topics (VT Yankee, Lake Champlain clean‐up) or perhaps the state has developed too much reliance on a federal government. Rail is headed in the same direction. With all those bridges that need repair / upgrade, and the tens of millions you outline in the report for other upgrades, I don't see how Vermont can upgrade every section of rail in the state to accommodate heavy freight. This is a case of the citizens shouldering yet another load. Until VT gets its financial house in order with regard to water quality, health care, schooling, and mental health treatment, there is simply NO money to achieve visions related to rail traffic.
Response
Rail is the only mode of transportation that does not receive dedicated federal funding. As such, we are highly dependent on federal discretionary funds to rehabilitate the state’s rail system. Like highways and transit, rail requires significant levels of rehabilitation to remain in a state of good repair.
Comment
I have a real concern about hazmats. In my review of the plan, I saw no mention of them, nor did I see any mention of emergency response teams in the safety section. That's a problem. I see 3 categories or rail traffic: people, material, and hazardous goods. The hazmats need their own category because of the costs associated with emergency response. Who will pay for that? I believe I should have the right to choose whether I want to fund hazmat response teams... if I cannot fund them, because I'm funding all the things I already mentioned, then the solution is not to bring hazmats across my rail lines. This seems to have been entirely avoided or ignored in the draft plan. I find that alarming ‐ I'm not a wealthy Vermonter, but I'm being squeezed so someone else can profit. Not liking that at all.
Response
The transportation of commodities by rail is governed by federal laws, rules, and regulations. Vermont cannot limit the types of freight coming to or through the State.
The Vermont Division of Emergency Management is responsible for allocating its response resources according to their planning efforts.
Comment
Any financing strategy that relies on federal funding over the long term is inherently weak in my
book. The federal government cannot be relied on for funding support, just as industry cannot be relied on to consistently enforce appropriate safety standards.
Response
Rail is the only mode of transportation that does not receive dedicated federal funding. As such, we are highly dependent on federal discretionary funds to rehabilitate the state’s rail system. Like highways and transit, rail requires significant levels of rehabilitation to remain in a state of good repair.
Comment
Storage of hazmat rail cars, even on a temporary basis would also be a problem. If there is no plan in place to monitor the status of hazmat tankers, then I do not welcome them in Vermont, and I do not wish to rely on industry to tell me when an old car needs to be retired. When old tanker cars are retired, what happens to them? I don't believe anyone knows or has even considered this, kind of like disposing of old solar panels. Big problem, and I choose to prevent it from happening.
Response
The transportation of commodities by rail is governed by federal laws, rules, and regulations. Vermont cannot limit the types of freight coming to or through the State.
Comment
Improvement in rail service is an important part of planning for Vermont. I urge you to consider the benefits of providing better service and routes for all who live in or come to visit Vermont. Improving rail service benefits our environment and our economy. Better service will draw many people who prefer not to drive the long Interstate corridors.
Response
The plan outlines a passenger service build‐out for the next 20 years which envisions 4 daily‐ return trains.
Comment
As you know, our western rail corridor is in need of upgrading and of expanding. The plan to take higher speed rail through to Burlington is a good one, and if done carefully, will afford greatly improved service to our people as well as safer transportation of freight. Obviously safety is critical and I trust that the planning and execution of the upgrades takes this in mind. I hope that the plan is put into action at the earliest possible date.
Response
An implementation schedule is included in chapter 5. The ability to continue improving passenger rail services is highly dependent on federal funding.
Comment
Congestion is already happening on some of our highways and cities and the cost of the highway infrastructure is an unknown, due to the lack of systematic maintenance. There is a big bill coming in the future. Rail is the answer.
Response
Congestion mitigation is a major benefit of increased passenger and rail freight.
Comment
I would like to see the priorities tweaked in the following way:
1. Extend Vermonter to Montreal and Ethan Allen to Burlington as you suggest.
2. Increase frequency of Vermonter to 2/day (one morning and one evening) so day trips in either direction are possible. I think this is a better second priority because it would not require additional infrastructure investments and would be an easier sell since the route already exists and has relatively strong ridership (even in its current limited state).
3. Add the Albany to Burlington extension. It may be preferable to start this as a bus service (Rutland to Albany) if it doesn't already exist. This would give you a better feel for interest in the route.
Response
Proving passenger rail along the western corridor is a high priority and several years of incremental investments have rehabilitated the track between Rutland and Burlington to be near service‐ready.
Comment
Having seen what out of control road building has done to locations in other states, and knowing how rail development in both the passenger and freight sectors can reduce road traffic, as well as reduce transportation energy usage overall, I sincerely hope that we can start soon to implement the improvements proposed in the plan.
We have the opportunity in Vermont to avoid the mistakes that other more "advanced" states have made, building exclusively for the car culture. A good rail strategy can be part of what we do to preserve our landscape, and still have economic growth.
Response
Congestion mitigation is a major benefit of increased passenger and rail freight. An implementation schedule is included in chapter 5.
Comment
Rutland is the center of the state and offers convenient access to popular tourist attractions, especially the ski resorts.
As a frequent customer of Amtrak to avoid the growing traffic between NY and VT, the rail line is a wonderful alternative and one which I consistently advocate to my VT friends and neighbors. However, the delays due to inadequate rail conditions and limited timetables are frustrating and are consistently
mentioned as the major disadvantage to using the rail system.
I know the rail infrastructure has not been maintained the way it should be, and service is not always offered at convenient times, but I am all in favor of the 'wish' list of additional rail
services. Nevertheless, before there is action on any supplemental lines, I think a major investment to streamline the current RUT>NY line is essential. It will demonstrate the value of a modern, structurally and technologically updated system to Vermonters and our guests.
Response
Time competitiveness is critical to grow ridership along this line. Recent rehabilitation by Vermont Rail System has increase the operating speed of this service, and New York is also making improvements along sections of this corridor which will result in increased operating speeds.
Comment
I strongly encourage you to take an active role in promoting expanded rail coverage and capacity in Vermont as this will reduce road fatalities, improve the environment with reduced road fuel
consumption, bring more tourists to Vermont, and provide safer transportation for our growing elderly population.
Response
The plan outlines both passenger service and freight build‐outs for the next 20 years. An implementation schedule is included in chapter 5.
Comment
Will the railroad traffic affect the light railroad traffic that passes right in front of our property in Barton between our house, the highway, and Crystal Lake?
Response
We cannot forecast freight volumes for individual line segments. These are business decisions driven by shippers and railroads.
Comment
I don't believe the population of Vermont will support multiple departures but the travel time could stand major improvement. For example, why does the Vermonter require 2 hours for but 60 miles between Brattleboro and Springfield on supposedly improved track with an 80 mph limit? Obviously,
there are bottlenecks impairing expeditious time that should be removed. Will they be removed? And what about 20 and even 30 minutes of time spent in Springfield and New Haven? Here is close to an hour waisted. Why not employ dual mode locomotives to eliminate the time spent changing them in New Haven? Just running at reasonable speeds south of Brattleboro and eliminating the time waisted sitting in stations waiting for time could save an incredible 2 hours of travel time with minimal cost for the Vermonter.
Response
Track upgrades are being undertaken in Massachusetts and Connecticut. This work will be completed soon, at which point significant improvements to travel times are anticipated.
Comment
With regard to extending service to Montreal, I found the Montrealer's morning arrival attractive. I could spend the day and return that evening without the time or cost of a hotel. Or two full days could be spent with but one night in a hotel. Extending the Vermonter to Montreal with late night arrivals and early morning departures will not be attractive to Vermonters and will only duplicate the Adirondack to New York. It could hardly be expected to generate any ridership.
Response
Train schedules for the extended service have not yet been set but this service is financed by Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, and will need to meet the needs of all three states. The Adirondack serves a completely different market.
Comment
I think we should consider extending a presently operating evening Washington to Springfield train north to Montreal as a reconstituted Montrealer. With rationalization of customs delays at the border an attractive service to Montreal could be ours once more.
Response
An evening train will make it difficult for Vermont residents to access the service.
Comment
My family travels in many different ways, walking, biking, riding transit, riding in motor vehicles and driving motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are by far the most dangerous part of this transportation system. Railways and transit have a far better safety record than the general motoring population, with a level of regulation and culture of safety far beyond the average driver. I want to see a grand displacement of
traffic, both people and freight, from the road system to the rail system to improve safety for all travelers.
Response
Safety and congestion mitigation are major benefits of rail.
Comment
I very much want to see statewide passenger rail service. I want my family to be able to ride by bike down to the train station, roll on the train and ride to our destination then roll off. I live in Burlington and today it is impractical to take public transit to see my father in Leicester or my friend in Rutland, but these should be easy day trips by train.
Response
The Plan includes extending the Ethan Allen Express to Burlington as a top passenger rail priority.
Comment
So, if there is a claim that rail is more polluting than cars, please keep this graph handy .... and thank you for your service.
Response
We agree that there are definite energy and air quality benefits from rail.
Comment
As a Bennigton homeowner we feel strongly that support for increased rail transportation benefits our area and will improve job opportunities, economic growth and real estate values.
Response
We agree that the expansion of rail is associated with economic development opportunities.
Comment
Currently only one train a day connects NJ to Brattleboro. On holiday weekends that train is often sold out. It would be wonderful if there were more frequent service and if the tracks were to be improved enough to complete the trip in less time. I'd use the service more often if those improvements would be made and I'm sure many others would too. I'd much rather be a train passenger than a driver on the super highways.
Response
The Plan calls for an additional frequency along this route. Both Massachusetts and Connecticut are working on projects to increase speeds along their portion of the corridor, and we anticipate improved operating speeds as a result.
Comment
I think there would be much greater use of the rail system if the Vermonter would be routed all the way to Montreal. Even Vermonters would probably make use of that route.
Response
The Plan calls for an extension of the service to Montreal as a top passenger rail priority.
Comment
After a brief review of the Draft Vermont State Rail Plan, I see scant attention paid to the issue of tank car safety and the transport of other volatile/toxic materials through the state ‐ and proximal to areas of human habitation.
Please include consideration of the following issues:
1) Aggressive implementation of the newer DOT ‐ 117 tank car standard for cars traveling through Vermont ‐ sooner than federal guidelines require if possible.
2) A further mandated standard reduction in speed for all trains carrying volatile and/or toxic materials in all areas ‐ whether rural or residential below currently allowed speeds.
3) Enhanced reporting of volatile/toxic/dangerous materials through communities and greater
collaboration with risk management/emergency management/safety planning operations to reduce and mitigate dangers.
4) Increased railroad safety training for rail operators, and State and local emergency management personnel paid for by railroad operators utilizing Vermont track
Response
The State does not have jurisdiction in the areas of railroad operations, safety, and rail car specifications. Federal laws, rules and regulations govern the transportation of commodities along rail lines, including hazardous materials. The Vermont Division of Emergency Management is responsible for allocating its response resources according to their plans.
Comment
I believe it is vitally important for swift‐moving passenger and freight service to be restored as quickly as possible through the western Vermont corridor, linking the relatively isolated southeastern portion of our state south to the northeastern and mid‐Atlantic corridor, and north to the commercial hub of our state‐‐Burlington—and on to the major metropolitan region of Montréal.
Response
This is envisioned in the Plan for both passenger rail service (connections to Burlington and Albany, NY), and freight (286,000 lbs. improvements to connect with Class I railroads in adjacent states.
Comment
From a business perspective, passenger rail service is an extremely important asset to the business community. My staff travels extensively up and down the northeast, and train service to and from Brattleboro is vitally important.
Response
The Plan calls for an additional frequency along this route. Both Massachusetts and Connecticut are working on projects to increase speeds along their portion of the corridor, and we anticipate improved operating speeds as a result.
Comment
I want to make just a few comments about why the new State Rail Plan deserves support.
# 1‐ It is far sighted and reasonable to encourage more use of Vermont's rail network to transport freight and passengers.
# 2‐ Rail is the safest and most environmentally friendly method to transport freight and passengers within and through our state.
# 3‐ Improving the Vermont rail network is cost effective (cheaper than) constructing new highways. # 4‐ Rail freight and passenger traffic does not mix with pleasure cars on our highways...especially the State Police described “ high rollers “ going over a hundred miles per hour.
# 5‐ A single railway track itself is much less invasive on the natural beauty of our state than a two or four lane highway.
#‐6‐ The freight and passenger railroads across our country are now working on new signaling systems that will enhance the safety of the already safest mode of transportation in the US.
# 7‐ Rail is the most energy efficient method of transportation. Response
Many of the benefits described here are detailed in the Plan.
Comment
I write to express my concern that the state might back off its various rail improvements ‐‐ especially the Western Corridor ‐‐ in this time of budget tension. For older persons like myself, and especially for my wheelchair‐bound wife, rail is by far the best way to get around.
Response
While we cannot predict budgets at the state or federal level, Amtrak services and associated investments have enjoyed continued support in the last two decades.
Comment
Please put people first. Please do not let profits cloud your judgement when it comes to using the rails to transport hazardous materials for big companies through small or isolated towns in our beautiful state of Vermont, where there may be little or no disaster response plan for a potential disaster of that magnitude. Please consider the people ,animals, and natural habitats you could be putting in the path of destruction here. without a response plan ,or even with one, it would only be a matter of time before something terrible happened here , and for what? So a few people somewhere else can get richer. Response
The transportation of commodities by rail is governed by federal laws, rules, and regulations. Vermont cannot limit the types of freight coming to or through the State.
Comment
I’m writing to express my concern about spending any time or money on rail transport of fossil fuels. It’s necessary to move away from burning oil and gas to have a chance at protecting our air, water and land now and in the future. It isn’t financially wise or healthy for the earth to invest in fossil fuel
infrastructure at this time. I hope VTrans will focus on sustainable uses of the rail system and let go of serving an obsolete industry.
It is also risky to transport explosive substances by rail. The cost of accidents or spills would be extreme…. financially, environmentally and regarding public health.
Please amend the draft to focus on a plan that prioritizes the health of future generations and not on the dangerous and dying oil industry.
Response
The Plan does not recommend any commodity‐specific projects. The transportation of commodities by rail is governed by federal laws, rules, and regulations. Vermont cannot limit the types of freight coming to or through the State.
We have not seen any evidence that the shipping of hazardous materials by rail is less safe than truck shipping. Data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (see charts in this document) demonstrates that much higher incidents from truck shipping.
Comment
It's working towards a cleaner, more efficient, and higher speed system for both passenger and rail. This is what the future of our region needs, and recognizes the need to reduce carbon emissions. I'm
Allen Express to Burlington. This encourages use of rail, instead of more expensive air or truck transport.
Response
The Rail Plan is consistent with the State’s Comprehensive Energy Plan.
Comment
I really don't think we should be investing in an infrastructure to allow fuel trains to go through our towns. Safety of our communities must come before corporate greed. Our firemen are not prepared to handle an oil train derailment and the contamination it would cause. We as a State have pledged to get off fossil fuels and become more reliant on renewable energies. It makes no sense to build up rails for the transportation of an obsolete fuel.
Response
The transportation of commodities by rail is governed by federal laws, rules, and regulations. Vermont cannot limit the types of freight coming to or through the State.
Comment
We need, if not a high‐speed rail system in this country (indeed, we do need it), at least faster speeds and more frequent schedules. The plan to have the “Vermonter” and the Ethan Allen Express (extended to Burlington) run two trains a day each way would be a great boon to the state and its citizens. If the trains are there with reasonable frequency and cost, the people will flock to them, as has been proven again and again by ridership statistics in many parts of the country when that service is offered. We would not have to continue building larger, longer, and wider highways, at greater and greater expense, if we expanded our rail system. Rail is greatly more efficient and cost effective.
Response
The Plan calls for a doubling of frequencies along both corridors. In the long‐run, passenger rail operating speeds could reach 79mph.
Comment
As you probably know, the Town of Brighton has been supporting the efforts of M. Francois Rebello of Quebec, who has been working on trying to get G&W to permit passenger service on their Montreal to Portland line. We understand that the state has no opposition to the idea, but cannot support
However, words are not expensive, and it would be great if there was some way to insert some recognition into the Rail Plan that this effort is being made, and to recognize the potential economic development impact passenger service to and from population centers would bring us, given our location in the heart of the Great Northern Woods.
Response
The agency has been approached by different businesses with various ideas on passenger services. However, until such proposed services are developed beyond the conceptual level, we cannot include them in the Rail Plan.
Comment
I would like to submit immediately, before there’s been open acknowledgement of the intention to transport explosive fuels, that I am deeply opposed to transporting such products by rail through the state. Not only is it an extreme safety hazard along the route, as I hope you have heard from our first responders, but it is folly to engage in the transportation of crude oil, especially. This state should not spend tax dollars to improve a rail line in order to equip it to serve an industry that will soon be
obsolete, furthers our dependence on fossil fuel, and contributes disproportionately to climate change.
This is an issue that requires input from the greater public, and I ask that you organize and widely publicize another public hearing to get public feedback. The public must be properly heard on this one, or there is going to be ferocious blowback throughout the project, which will be detrimental to the positive aspects of the plan to improve the rail lines, which I for one would like to support.
Response
The Plan does not recommend any commodity‐specific projects. The transportation of commodities by rail is governed by federal laws, rules, and regulations. Vermont cannot limit the types of freight coming to or through the State.
The Rail Plan has been under development for approximately two years, and has been featured in daily newspapers across the state. Four public meetings were held on the plan (Rutland, Brattleboro, Essex Junction, and White River Junction). These meetings were advertised in local daily newspapers. In addition, meeting notices were posted on the Agency of Transportation website, the Vermont Department of Libraries Public Meetings website, and notice was sent to the state’s Regional Planning Commissions. Planning documents have been posted on the state’s rail website.
Beyond the public meeting notices, the western corridor rail project has been prominently featured in various stories regarding the awarding of an $8 million federal TIGER grant in late 2013, as well as earmark funding to replace rail and improve grade crossings.
Improving the western rail corridor has been state policy for the past two decades.
Rail planning is a continuous and ongoing activity. In addition to periodic updates to the Rail Plan, the agency undertakes public comment on the Long Range Transportation Plan.
Comment
That only other suggestion is to strongly suggest including an upgrade of the NECR Essex Jct‐Burlington branch to Class Three (passenger) standards and 286 weight standards be made a priority following only after the extension of the ETHAN ALLEN to Burlington and the extension of the VERMONTER back to Montreal. This integrates the two passenger networks, opens up new potential routings/terminals and also improves freight inter‐connectivity.
Although ultimately it would be desirable to lower the floor in the Burlington Tunnel to allow the use of double‐stack container cars (and double‐decker/dome passenger cars) the cost of this is so high that it ought not to be a part of an immediate project. Track conditions overall are much more critical and containers could still reach Burlington without restriction from the south once the Middlebury Tunnel work is done. Better to open up the line soon for regular passenger and heavier freight use than to wait for maximum funding. The demand for double‐stack in Vermont is simply not all that great and, as noted, options already exist (or will momentarily).
Response
This was added to the plan as a second priority.
Comment
Speaking as a citizen who is a member of Burlington's Conservation Board and employed in energy analysis and planning, including a project modeling achievement of the State's 90% by 2050 total energy goal, my biggest critique of the plan is that it is too modest. Transportation is a large portion of our state's capital and ongoing spending, emissions, and safety. Investing in a more efficient and safer alternative is a clear step forward. But the urgency of climate change would suggest more drastic steps. That urgency is reflected in the total energy goal but not in this plan. For example, returning service to Burlington is a start. Connecting it to the Vermonter and other lines not currently used for passengers, and increasing the service from Burlington to NYC to the six or so trains a day it has in the past be could be the goal in an aspiration plan.
Response
The Rail Plan has set a passenger rail service targets consistent with the Comprehensive Energy Plan. There would be serious funding and capacity constrains to having six daily trains. Beyond
the high cost of providing such services, that many trains would require significant capacity upgrades along existing rail.
Comment
We are in dire need of rail infrastructure in order to complete our rail system which is and has been so very important for safe travel.
I shutter to think what our forefathers would feel to how we have left our rails in such bad repair forcing slower travel most especially from the New York border to Vermont....Often I have been asked to go to Albany to pick up friends & family and bring them in to Rutland, because they feel the track is not safe on this side...
We have too many vehicles on the roadway now and this is a great opportunity for us to lighten that load on our highways and have a more efficient system.
Response
Congestion mitigation and economic development are major goals of this Plan.
Comment
So I took the time to read the proposal. Here are my comments‐ actually I will quote yours: Proposed Plan:
Pg 13. " Volumes shipped on the VT rail network have fallen dramatically in recent years, by about 40% between 2000 and 2011" "Passenger rail has grown by 60% from 2004 to 2013"
(Your plan seeks to accommodate heavier trains when your growth area is passenger trains)
Pg 71. The chart showing " Employment by Major Industry" shows a ‐.4% annual decrease in
Transportation and Utility jobs, between 2010 and 2040 ( How are the investments under your proposed plan helping Vermonters? Why isn't the State investing in industries that create jobs?)
Analysis of VT Rail Line Ownership:
Pg 2. "VRS has the right to terminate the lease without cause with 60 days notice. There is no indication that the State can similarly terminate without cause." (It's very unusual in a proper business agreement that both parties don't have equal rights, someone should look into why this is so.)
Pg 3. "VT typically receives $1 Million in lease payments per year on State owned lines."
Pg 4. "Theoretically, if the State were to sell its State‐ owned lines, the new owners would take responsibility for capital program maintenance. Upgrades, crossing improvements and economic development projects such as new rail sidings would likely be funded by the State."
( VT MUST TAKE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS DECISIONS!!! Property taxes are so high homes languish on the market, but the State continues to approve initiatives that devalue homes i.e.. solar and wind farms and rail cars parked near downtowns. Who is watching out for VT Citizens??!!!)
Response
We do not view rail investments as devaluing property values.
Comment
Transporting explosive fuels such as propane and oil pose a greater threat to my town than our emergency responders are prepared to handle. There has been little communication to the local fire departments to date about the potential situations that these volunteers would have to address, and improving the railways could make Vermont a candidate for highly volatile crude oil.
Response
The transportation of commodities by rail is governed by federal laws, rules, and regulations. Vermont cannot limit the types of freight coming to or through the State.
Fire Departments should contact the Division of Emergency Management to learn more about coordination efforts.
Comment
It has come to my attention that some (how many?) of the volunteer firefighters' companies of our state do not believe they have the capacity to deal with fires/oil spills that may occur as transport expands for oil, gas, and tar sands products as trains move those volatile materials through our precious Vermont landscape. Please heed the concerns of those environmental groups that are reaching out to you with suggestions for appropriate regulations.
Response
The transportation of commodities by rail is governed by federal laws, rules, and regulations. Vermont cannot limit the types of freight coming to or through the State.
Comment
I applaud the State of Vermont for improving our rail infrastructure. But right now, the draft rail plan leaves Vermont communities deeply vulnerable to oil train derailments and the catastrophic damage they cause.
The Agency of Transportation needs to ensure that the Rail Plan is compatible with Vermont’s Town and Regional plans and establishes strong rail safety measures. These include reduced speed limits at public and private rail crossings and wait limits for rail so trains cannot block traffic unnecessarily. Additionally, Vermont should perform strict rail inspections and invest in safe, secure, and designated rail yards so companies do not store dangerous freight on side rails.
A responsible Rail Plan must include an emergency response plan that has been approved by local first responders, towns, and state officials. The response plan should account for emergency evacuations and should be subject to public review and input at municipal and regional levels. And once it’s finalized, the general public must have access to it.
Finally, the Rail Plan needs to clearly address issues of liability and accountability. The State owns roughly half of the railroads in the state, meaning it has significant responsibility to protect residents from rail catastrophe. Oil trains are dangerous ‐ I don't want them on Vermont's tracks. But in the event of a rail disaster or harm to life, property or health, Vermonters need assurances that families and communities will not be left holding the bag. Companies that will profit from moving hazardous materials through Vermont need to be held accountable for the costs of safeguarding public and environmental health.
It’s irresponsible to plan for major rail infrastructure improvements without protecting residents, communities, and the environment from disaster. Vermont’s rail plan needs to protect Vermonters and needs to protect our Green Mountains.
Catastrophic consequences of a hazardous cargo derailment between Burlington and Rutland have to be weighed against any perceived probability of an accident. Charlotte and other towns along this route do not have anything close to the means, personnel, or resources to deal with such an event. That is sufficient grounds for imposing the the most stringent safety procedures‐‐including low speeds‐ for all hazardous rail shipments.
Response
Please see responses to similar comments above.
Comment
I'm hugely ‐ ENORMOUSLY ‐ in favor of increasing passenger rail in the state. But I'm very worried that our energency infrastructure can't even begin to support the dangers posed by oil trains.
Not to mention the fact that given the extreme threat posed by climate change, everything we do should be about extracting ourselves from fossil fuels, not making them easier to transport.
While I realize we can't cherry pick what runs along our tracks, I think we need to imbue the new Rail Plan with as much consciousness, safety strategy, and long term thinking as we can.
The Rail Plan needs to clearly address issues of liability and accountability. The State owns roughly half of the railroads in the state, meaning it has significant responsibility to protect residents from rail catastrophe. Oil trains are dangerous ‐ I don't want them on Vermont's tracks. But in the event of a rail disaster or harm to life, property or health, Vermonters need assurances that families and communities will not be left holding the bag. Companies that will profit from moving hazardous materials through Vermont need to be held accountable for the costs of safeguarding public and environmental health.
Response
Please see responses to similar comments above
Comment
First and foremost, Vermont is not equipped to ensure the safety of our residents, wildlife, and natural resources from catastrophic accidents associated with the transport of oil (including tar sands oil), propane, and other hazardous materials. As a rural state, we simply don't have the basics such as fire hydrants or first responders in close enough to our rail system for timely arrival at accident scenes. In the time it would take emergency crews to get to the railway in places like New Haven, irreparable spills and disastrous consequences would be likely as has been seen in similar geographies in the U.S. and Canada.
I would like to see VTrans hold a state‐wide public meeting on the Rail Plan before the final version is issued. The four open meetings were insufficiently publicized, and I don't believe they were
representative of all the towns along the Western Corridor tracks. I personally read the newspaper and try to keep abreast of new infrastructure projects, but I did not see public notice of these meetings anywhere and am disappointed to learn that I missed the opportunity to hear others' opinions and concerns.
Response
Please see responses to similar comments above.
Comment
The Agency of Transportation wants to improve the rail network in the State (which could be a good thing) in order to quadruple passenger traffic (again, this could be good), and double the freight traffic by 2035 (including propane and other explosive hazardous materials‐‐ yikes), and increase the maximum
speed to 79 mph. Personally, I think supporting rail traffic can benefit the people of Vermont and the climate by reducing truck transport, but upgrading the rail network won't automatically help us. In fact, 69% of all freight on Vermont rails is just passing through our state.
Response
A majority of rail freight is does pass through the State, which is also true of truck freight.
Comment
One Vermonter I met recently owns a farm that is bisected by the rail lines. Because she has a private rail crossing, there is no flashing light or gate that warns of an approaching train‐‐ typical for the many private crossings throughout the State. In order to get to her fields, this farmer must get off her tractor to check for trains, then drive the tractor (and whatever else she is pulling) to the other side. It's a slow process. Faster‐moving trains increase the likelihood of a collision, which we would all like to avoid, but which would be monumentally disastrous if the train contained explosive or hazardous materials such as propane or crude oil.
Response
There are passenger trains currently operating at 59mph to 79mph in the State. The long‐term passenger rail build‐out will be designed consistent with federal requirements.
Comment
The steps 350VT has urged make good sense:
1. Require the most up‐to‐date technology for rail cars when transporting hazardous materials. 2. Ensure that the Vermont State Rail Plan is compatible with Vermont’s Town and Regional plans. 3. Include reduced speed limits at public and private rail crossings and wait limits for rail so trains cannot block traffic unnecessarily.
4. Perform strict rail inspections. The potential for washouts along rail lines is increasing as the frequency and intensity of rain storms increase.
5. Require state inspections of all trains carrying hazardous materials as they enter Vermont, as New York Governor Cuomo has been doing for crude oil trains in New York State.
5. Invest in safe, secure, and designated rail yards so companies do not store hazardous materials on side rails. The currents plan outlines $800,000 for secure rail yards, but $6 million for new sidings ‐‐ small stops along the tracks where trains are currently being stored that are not secure against vandalism or targeted attacks.
6. Integrate this part of the rail plan with state, regional and local emergency operations plans. Most local hazard mitigation plans are now addressing manmade disasters, as well as the natural kind, and need more information from the state and rail companies on steps they can take to avoid and lessen future losses from rail disasters.
7. Address issues of liability and accountability. The State of Vermont owns roughly half of the railroads in the state, meaning it has a significant responsibility to protect residents from rail catastrophe. In the event of a rail disaster or harm to life, property or health, Vermonters need assurances that families and communities will not be left covering much of their losses. Companies that will profit from moving hazardous materials through Vermont need to be held accountable for the costs of safeguarding public and environmental health. In other cases around the country, the liability insurance held by the rail companies has run out long before clean‐up has finished‐‐ sometimes bankrupting the rail company before the issue is resolved.
Response
Please see responses to similar comments above
Comment
I am writing to you, to provide public comment on the state's draft state rail plan.
My one suggestion is that the state's rail
