RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Amtrak rally draws 200 people



People attending a rally to save Amtrak service to Rutland wait for the train to leave Monday afternoon after passengers carrying skis and snowboards boarded the train to New York City.

Vyto Starinskas / Rutland Herald

Toolbox

By Peter Hirschfeld and STEPHANIE M. PETERS Herald Staff - Published: January 20, 2009

Amtrak passengers struggled Monday afternoon to maneuver ski bags and bulky suitcases through a throng of more than 100 people gathered in the tiny James M. Jeffords Rail Passenger Welcome Center to rally to preserve the line.

With the Ethan Allen Express in jeopardy as the Legislature contemplates budget rescissions, the juxtaposition of train riders and advocates Monday was confirmation of what the county's business and political leaders have said since the possible cut was announced – the service is vital to the community.

One of many elected officials in attendance, Rep. Steve Howard recalled Sen. Jeffords' fight to hold the state to its promise that if the region did not get an interstate, it would get train service.

"This is about jobs today and about jobs tomorrow," he said. "Nobody understood that better than Sen. Jeffords."

Eight-year-old Ian Suddarth, a second-grader at Barstow Elementary School and the youngest member of the Rutland Railway Association, earned the loudest cheers from the crowd when he shared his train-riding experiences.

"Every time I get on a train it feels like I'm starting a new adventure," he said, as he intermittently peeked over a "Save the Ethan Allen" sign nearly as tall as he is.

The rally was organized by the Vermont Action Rail Network as a build up to a Wednesday evening public hearing before the Legislature, when all are invited to share their thoughts on the Douglas Administration's proposal to trim $1.4 million from the Fiscal Year 2010 transportation budget by replacing Rutland's train service with an Amtrak-operated bus route.

For Carl Fowler, a member of the Vermont Rail Advisory Council and general manager of the Rail Travel Center, a company that books tours by train, the state's proposal to cut passenger rail service comes at an odd time. Ridership on the Ethan Allen Express, which connects Rutland and New York City via Albany, grew by 17.5 percent in Fiscal Year 2008. The recent spike caps 39 months of uninterrupted growth in passenger numbers on the 241-mile Amtrak route.

Fowler has advocated that the state could realize offsetting revenue increases with an increase in Amtrak ridership.

"If they could get 30 more passengers a day on the Ethan Allen, that alone generates enough revenue to accomplish the Governor's cost-saving target," Fowler said. And getting more people on the bus, he said, could be as easy as revising bus schedules. "I have been advocating for an extended period of time that the state ought to look at coordinating train service in the state with surviving bus lines," Fowler said.

He said a modest increase in the train's marketing budget would also reap measurable returns.

"A weekly ad in daily newspapers simply carrying a schedule of the train and a quick summary of round-trip fares would make an incredible difference in utility. People know the trains exist, but they have no idea where the hell they go," he said.

The Rail Advisory Council, a committee formed to steer rail policy in Vermont, recently came out 9-to-1 against the proposed cut. Its disapproval underscores the nearly unanimous opposition against Amtrak cuts among elected leaders and economic officials in Rutland.

"I'm amazed at the unity on this issue," said Tom Donahue, head of the Rutland Region Chamber of Commerce. "It crosses party lines, it crosses demographics. There's just total agreement that this is a bad idea."

Donahue said the Administration's proposal needs a fuller vetting before lawmakers agree to the plan. He questions the accuracy of the figures contained in the Agency's proposal, and said the "bustitution" may prove more costly than current estimates project.

"I think the important part now is to point out that the state might not even save any money doing this," Donahue said. "If it turns out that this isn't going to save anything, and may even cost money, then I can't believe there would be any further support for it."

Mobilization against the cuts – participants at the rally Monday will head to the Statehouse on Wednesday evening for a four-hour public hearing on the matter – reflects deep consternation in Rutland over the proposal.

Numerous organizations and businesses in Rutland have also voiced concern over the plan. A spokesperson for the Rutland Regional Medical Center said the train represents a key element in its recruiting efforts.

"The more disconnected you look from the world, it doesn't necessarily entice folks to want to come to the area," said Joe Stuhlmueller, public relations coordinator for Rutland Regional. "It's bad enough we don't have major airport. If you take away the only major mass public transit service away, you're not doing the region any justice."

Robert Ide, head of the rail division at the Agency of Transportation, said passenger rail service along the western corridor remains a top priority in the Agency's long-range plan. He said the state hopes to deploy more than millions in federal money for track upgrades, possibly as soon as this construction season, pending the provisions of the federal stimulus package.

The interim bus service, Ide said, would work to build ridership in advance of an extended train route, which would ferry passengers from New York City to Rutland and on to Burlington.

Fowler said however that cutting train service now jeopardizes any future expansion of rail. "If they take the train off now with a plan to bring it back in five years, as rational as that may sound it's unlikely to be accomplished," Fowler said. "If we lose the five cars assigned to the Ethan Allen Express, they will be reassigned virtually instantaneously."

If history is any guide, Fowler said, once the train goes, it will be exceedingly difficult to get it back. The last time Rutland lost passenger train service, in 1953, the city had to wait 43 years – until 1996 – to get the Ethan Allen Express. John Zicconi, communications director for the Agency of Transportation, said the proposal represents an effort to reduce state expenditures without revoking transit services. The bus route, he said, replaces only a portion of the Rutland-to-New York City line and maintains a transit network that enables passenger movement.

"Clearly a bus is not a train. A bus is not as sexy as a train, and we understand that," Zicconi said. "But for the short term, until we can get passenger service from Burlington all the way down the western corridor of the state, we do feel that the bus is option that keeps everybody whole in the interim and allows us to save $1.4 to $1.5 million."

Zicconi said increases in ridership might make the route more financially viable, but he said boosting passenger numbers in such short order would prove difficult. "Could it work? Theoretically, if you can get the riders," Zicconi said. "How you get riders, and how you get them that quickly, is very difficult to see."

Key lawmakers in the Legislature's transportation committees have thus far been noncommittal on the Administration's Amtrak proposal. Rep. Rich Westman, chair of the House Transportation Committee, emphasized that legislators will have to mine cost savings in the 2010 budget, but said he will withhold judgment on the Amtrak measure until he hears from interested parties at the public hearing Wednesday.

Sen. Dick Mazza, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee and longtime proponent of rail, said he wants to see how the numbers crunch before he makes a decision. "I support the rail and I'm going to do everything I possibly can to keep rail there, but the numbers are going to tell the story," Mazza said. "I'm not ready to throw in the towel (on the Ethan Allen Express), but we've got to look at the financial side too."

Contact Stephanie M. Peters at stephanie.peters@rutlandherald.com.








READER COMMENTS


What Mr. Parker conveniently neglects to tell you is that Monday night was close of MLK holiday ski weekend and one of the very few trips that people actually ride that thing. And that nice round 60 figure? Yeah, right Mr. Parker.
-- Posted by Marginalized Voices on Sun, Jan 25, 2009, 11:01 am EST

report this comment



Appreciate it Stephanie.

I'm not certain of the Ethan Allen's schedule, but if I assume that it runs 365 days a year, then the ridership breaks out to an average of 128 passengers a day (46,881/365); or an average of 64 each way every day on a round trip (which is about how many passengers boarded at Rutland on the day you were covering the rally).

If those numbers are anywhere near accurate, then that's where I would have difficulty justifying the state's appropriation/subsidy of approximately $1.5M to transport 128 folks a day by rail for one year.

The subsidy could be eliminated in its entirety if the riders were willing to pay an average of about $32 more per ticket ($1,500,000/46,881). It's a "value-added" question from there.

I don't know what the current ticket prices are, so I have no idea how large of a percentage increase that $32 would be to a ticket.

I've probably oversimplified things here, but you can see where I'm going with this.

Thanks again.
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 6:18 pm EST

report this comment



Thanks Bill. There are a lot of numbers floating around on this issue and a lot to break down. I'll work on tracking down the cost/revenue per passenger mile and the subsidy.

For now I need to clarify the ridership figures I posted last night. It was pointed out to me that those numbers only represent riders who boarded in Rutland, and that Vermont gets credit for any rider who boards from Albany north since it funds that stretch. That said, the Ethan Allen ridership for FY 08 was actually 46,881.

Thanks to Carl Fowler for clarifying.
-- Posted by Stephanie Peters on Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 1:06 pm EST

report this comment



I'll be retireing this fall. One of the places, I've thought about moving to is Vermont. I really like it. But if you take the trains off. I will no longer consider moving to your state. Buses? What good are they if they can't attract most people? As people get older the're not going to want to drive long distances anymore it's already happening. Most people do not want to ride a bus, no matter what the highway lobby tells you.
-- Posted by Eric None on Wed, Jan 21, 2009, 2:04 am EST

report this comment



Stephanie, thanks. Keep that kind of information coming, because it's a real service to the reader and encourages facts based discussions and truly allows prospective voters to make informed choices. The rider increases are a single metric, but it's not easy to form global conclusions from them. It would be nice to have other key operating metrics, such as cost and revenue figures per passenger mile. It would also be interesting to note what the subsidy breaks out to by passenger, giving us an idea of just how broad the spread is between what a rider pays and what the trip actually costs the government.

I applaud you for monitoring this forum and being responsive to the readership!

I think many of us are searching for greater objectivity from news outlets today, from which we can have respectful debates over the merit of the issues and perhaps avoid some of the vitriol that has crept into public debate across the political spectrum. Sort of recalls the days of a past Vermont where citizens would encounter one another at the General Store or the Feed and Grain Store and have time for a civil discussion on the pressing matters of town, state, or nation. They might not agree with one another, but they were going to part as friends and give their all to making their community a stronger, better place to live.

Thanks again. I hope your editor acknowledges your conscientious work!
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 11:59 pm EST

report this comment



Bill O. Rights,

I've been following the comments and would like to answer a few of your questions because we do have this information - unfortunately there were two versions of this article, a later one containing additional stats that apparently did not make it online. And while this article didn't include the exact Amtrak ridership statistics, I have reported it before.

Here are the numbers for you:

2006 - 17,731
2007 - 18,835
2008 - 19,314

Tom Donahue of the Rutland Region Chamber of Commerce was at the Board of Aldermen meeting tonight and also mentioned that for first quarter of FY '09 (Oct., Nov., Dec.) Ethan Allen ridership is up 7 percent. Sorry, I do not have the exact count for you there.

As for ridership on the two trains that left the station during the rally Monday afternoon, Amtrak reported there were 60 riders. The Vermont Rail Action Network reported 160 signatures on the petitions it circulated during the event, and a head count of about 200 people during the course of the event.

I expect more information as to the train savings vs. bus cost to come out of Rob Ide's testimony tomorrow afternoon.

Hope this helps.
-- Posted by Stephanie Peters on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 10:13 pm EST

report this comment



Just wish we could get some facts to base a decision on. The Herald is no help. They parrot a few statistics from a representative of the Vermont Rail Advisory Council --"Ridership on the Ethan Allen Express, which connects Rutland and New York City via Albany, grew by 17.5 percent in Fiscal Year 2008." However, I notice that actual numbers associated with the passenger load is conspicuously avoided. Even the photo caption only stated that "...after passengers carrying skis and snowboards boarded the train to New York City." How many were there? Not nearly the same number as were demonstrating to support the train. It might have been a bolder statement if all 100 or so of those folks who were demonstrating boarded the train and took a round trip to NYC.

It's also been stated that "That train brings revenue to Vermont." Again, how much revenue? I sincerely doubt that it is enough to significantly alter the business landscape of Rutland. But I don't have those stats either, so the subject remains up for debate until some real facts are presented.

If you can save $1.4M by using a bus(es) instead of a train, then that is the most affordable course of action and should be adopted during pressing economic times. When and if AMTRAK's rail model becomes more affordable or self-supporting (we wish), then rail service can be reinstituted.

I appreciate the nostalgia and other emotional attachments a lot of the people feel for rail service. It would be nice to keep it, but I don't see it as absolutely essential now, particularly when there are less expensive options available.
-- Posted by Bill O. Rights on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 8:36 pm EST

report this comment



Since becoming legally blind in 2006 I have become dependent on public transportation. I live in rutland and the bus service is adequate for getting around, for chores, appointments and getting to classes as I work on myMBA. I was required to give up my driving priveledges for safety concerns, for you and me. Now the budget cutsd are causing havoc with services, including trains. I am a flatlander and periodically I return to visit family and friends, to do this I use the train. It is ecomonomically available where flying is not. The current Administration says that Vermont needs to keep people in Vermont, and have tried to encourage them to stay offering money for education, then from the other side of their mouth they are saying cut transportation services to save. They want the youth of Vermont to stay but make it as difficult as they can to make it happewn. If you stay Vermont will be a nice place to live, but if you don't have a car and can legally drive that car then you might as well leave because we, Vermont, have no place, nor need, for you.

The trains are important for us to get away as much as they are important to bring folks in.
-- Posted by Michael Sheeky on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 1:46 pm EST

report this comment



How much more do they expect the taxpayer to subsidize????? The train station couldn't sustain operation and has been closed.. If people are so concerned about people getting to Killington to ski, why doesn't Killington subsidize the train with their money as they do the Bus?????
Actually, here's two examples of taxpayer funded entities pumping carbon without any accounting of generating revenue to the Rutland area.. As was stated in an article yesterday, when the train gets to Rutland the city is all boarded up and closed. If anyone does get off they must be going to Killington to spend money, because they can go to Wal-Mart and Price Chopper in New York.........
-- Posted by None None on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 8:02 am EST

report this comment



That train brings revenue to Vermont. Keep it running.
-- Posted by noozereeder on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, 6:49 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout