Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

headgasketidiot t1_izsa94p wrote

I just want to point out that all these suggestions aren't just attainable - they're actually incredibly modest. It's not a fantasy to get to Boston and Montreal in 90 min from Burlington. In fact, we should be mad that we can't. Something happened to our society that we can barely maintain the infrastructure that previous generations actually had to go out and build, much less imagine a world where we expand it. It's really sad to see how small our dreams have become. We've settled so low that when asked to fantasize disregarding cost, our responses are basically "any train would be nice."

The Swiss have much rougher terrain than us, and their train system will take you to some of the most podunk towns from Geneva in an hour. Spanish high speed rail will take you to the capital from any other major metro area in a few hours tops through more mountainous country. Quito, Ecuador is currently building a subway - a country with nowhere near the wealth we have can break ground on public transit. Meanwhile, we can barely imagine replacing our trains that are 10 years past their service date.

edit grammar

169

somedudevt t1_izu44zk wrote

Here is the problem with your complaint against our society:

SIZE, you are ignoring size. Switzerland has 9 million people, in an area the size of roughly 2x VT. Burlington to Is the equivalent of crossing the furthest 2 places in Switzerland (~190 miles as the crow flies) NYC to BT is 260 miles as the crow flies.

The distances are greater and the populations are smaller. If you look at a Swiss rail map you will see that most of the network is in the northern part of the country, which makes up the vast majority of the population. The southern part of the country is very sparsely serviced by rail. And if you take the southern part of Switzerland it still has a greater population than Vermont.

The reality is passenger rail doesn’t work in low density places where you don’t have demand. And trying compare a place that is 10x higher population density to VT is crazy.

Dreaming big is fine, but to say that our region and society is somehow wrong for not having robust rail is just missing economics.

2

giraffehugger t1_izvc0np wrote

Let’s not forget that that rail line has to travel a contiguous line, and it only takes a handful of land owners in the middle between say Burlington and Boston to ‘not see the value’ of having train tracks run through their land, or the tracks running to close to the breeding ground of the Black-capped Chickadee to kill a project or tie it up in endless red tape. What

1

reidfleming2k20 t1_izvawe3 wrote

Yes, because money isn't a thing.

You know there are only ~40K people in Burlington, and that its median income is only ~$21K, right?

0

ChocolateDiligent t1_izt3orv wrote

I don't think its the dreaming that is small, rather the budget this state has to do anything about it.

−3

headgasketidiot t1_izt72zx wrote

Another great example of what I'm talking about. The entire point of the thread is to disregard budget, and here we are still saying we can't afford it. We are so trained to respond with "how will you pay for it" to anything that we can't not do it, even when not doing it is the whole point of the discussion. The dreaming is so small that we can't even tell there's anything beyond it.

27

Eagle_Arm t1_izua5ti wrote

You're shitting on them for speaking reality to your comment, when you said your comment was reality and not fantasy?

So they spoke reality to what you said was reality. They didn't respond with fantasy to what was a supposed reality comment. I'm not sure where the disconnect is.

−1

JanglesMontgomery t1_izvhbmf wrote

Ita not reality becausethings like this should be being actively and aggressively funded by the federal government. The same way they funded and built the interstate system

4

Eagle_Arm t1_izwqreh wrote

In the hypothetical, they said it was reality.

Government is there to not make a profit, but to break even or take a slight loss. I don't see how the train system is anything but a major loss or how it's even possible with private property. How much imminent domain will have to be claimed for this to occur?

−2

JanglesMontgomery t1_izx5ff4 wrote

I imagine there were people who had the exact same concerns when the interstate was being built. But look at what that has done for pur nation. Could you imagine life without it?

1

Eagle_Arm t1_izx7ls9 wrote

Not even close to the same level of development then compared to now.

Let's just look at Vermont. What cities does the interstate run through or are they outside cities?

So want to smack a train station in Burlington...point anywhere on a map where a station could be build and then where any lines could run.

−1

Dr_L_Church t1_izsk0gw wrote

I think you greatly underestimate the time, infrastructure, and cost of converting our existing rail lines or building new ones to accommodate high speed passenger rail. The railroads in the us were built for freight. They go to places where there are freight customers. There is no straight path between 2 points. Burlington to Boston just doesn’t exist. The best connection would be BD to St Albans to white river to Springfield MA to Bos. And most if not all of that is single track lines. No way you are making that in 90 minutes regardless of how fast they can go, even if they don’t have to stop and wait for a passing train. BD to Montreal would be more attainable, but unlikely as there is already a train that runs from Essex to St. Albans. More likely for the Vermonter to be extended to Montreal (there are tracks that go that direction) than to have the Ethan Allen extended to Montreal (tracks between Burlington and St. Albans are not suited for passenger service). Though I could also see the benefit of passenger service from NYP to Montreal. No matter what you are not getting there in 90 minutes without billions of investment in infrastructure.

−15

headgasketidiot t1_izsn44j wrote

See, this is what I'm talking about. Why do we dream so small?

>No matter what you are not getting there in 90 minutes without billions of investment in infrastructure.

Yes, let's do that! This is what I want to do! Let's invest billions of dollars in infrastructure.

Let's reduce car usage, make our towns walkable, cut down on polluting air travel, and generally improve our quality of life. I've lived in Switzerland and let me tell you: the trains fucking rule. Being able to go to almost any small town from Geneva while barely having to plan in a quiet, comfortable train is incredible. Everyone loves it. Even rich people use it because it's faster and more convenient than a car.

25

reidfleming2k20 t1_izvbqsa wrote

If we (ie. the US) invest billions of dollars in this kind of project, IT WILL NOT INVOLVE BURLINGTON. Burlington is small and poor. There is very little high-dollar industry in or around Burlington. There is no conceivable reason to build an approaching-trillion-dollar rail line to accommodate it.

−1

Dr_L_Church t1_izsoz1j wrote

But the problem is their rail lines were designed with passengers in mind from the get go, ours were designed for freight. You can’t get there from here. Not without buying hundreds if not thousands of people out of their homes to build new more direct rail lines. I’m all for investing in rail infrastructure and expanding passenger routes, but we need to be realistic about what is and isn’t possible. Routes from Burlington to Montreal or Boston are possible, but 90 minutes would require direct routes with high speed rail. Hell, 290 takes 90 minutes to get to Rutland from Burlington, only marginally faster than a car.

−2

ButterscotchFiend t1_izsy6tb wrote

Look, what 'isn't possible' is maintaining our current level of automobile dependency.

The carbon emissions they create are literally destroying the planet's atmosphere. Within the next decades, our car-oriented infrastructure and lifestyle will flood Bangladesh and Java, starve India and Pakistan, and the refugee crisis there and elsewhere will overwhelm the rest of the world.

As for electric cars, they're a lot better, but it until a game-changing innovation in their batteries occurs, our electric grid will not be able to handle charging them assuming we are still driving at the same rate. That's also assuming we can convert most of our national fleet, which frankly is probably even more difficult a pill to swallow than the challenges you've exaggerated regarding the deployment of passenger rail.

We don't have a choice. It's either stop going from place to place, or finding a better way to do so. If we keep up our current car addiction, we're finished.

Look- this isn't that outlandish. There was a time- 1920s and 30s- when passenger rail was all across New England and America at large. The car and oil companies hastened the demise of these interurbans, but the precedent is there.

A rail revolution would be a monumental step forward for our country on so many fronts. It would be great for economic inequality, because of the regressive effect that the necessity of cars has on income. It would be great for community development, encouraging urban density and tighter rural communities, in contrast to the way that cars enabled the proliferation of the suburbs.

15

Dr_L_Church t1_izt7nmh wrote

What do I know, I just work for the railroad 🤷‍♂️. Once again I’m all for investing in rail infrastructure and expanding passenger routes, however, to call it a modest proposal for a 90 minute train ride from Burlington to Boston shows a level of ignorance in how our rail infrastructure is built in this country. The tracks just don’t go there. Also, if you were to construct new tracks from Burlington to Boston in a complete straight line, ignoring all obstacles such as private property, waterways, mountains, other infrastructure, it is a distance of 180 miles. That would require a train capable of traveling 120+ miles per hour. Amtraks Acela can travel that fast, but once again the cost to build, maintain, and operate are extraordinary and no small task. Hell, Amtrak is spending 117 billion dollars to upgrade and maintain the northeast corridor (Acela trains) over the next 15 years, and that route is already there, the rails and the signals and the sidings and the double main tracks are all already built. The cost of building a direct route capable of traveling from Burlington to Boston in 90 minutes would be hundreds of billions if not a trillion dollars and take decades to build, that is if it didn’t get hung up by act 250 and NIMBYism holing up the project left right and center. So while I would love that kind of high speed rail project in our little state, I think our money would do better to improve our existing rail network and build reliable intracity service access across Vermont.

3

OddTransportation121 t1_izuulv2 wrote

We already had a train to Montreal, for years. It was discontinued. See my previous comment.

1

Dr_L_Church t1_izuw8aw wrote

From Essex / St. Albans. Not from Burlington. And it didn’t get there in 90 minutes.

2

OddTransportation121 t1_izuz99e wrote

True. I thought I would mention that we had one, for those who were unaware. Also I doubt your 90 minute wish can be fulfilled crossing an international border. Border agents pretty much have carte blanche time-wise when checking u through.

1

Dr_L_Church t1_izv0lwf wrote

That’s the point I have been trying to make, Burlington to Boston or Burlington to Montreal in 90 minutes is never going to happen.

2

reidfleming2k20 t1_izvbzvn wrote

It's fucking insane that a factual, level headed comment like this gets so many downvotes.

1