BURLINGTON-MONTPELIER, VT COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBIITY REPORT

This paper presentation at the Canadian Transportation Research Forum Annual Conference in Windsor, ON June 1-4, 2014 reproduced below includes the following revisions from the “as published” document: (1) page size, font and related formats for ease of reading; (2) addition of English units of measure (gallons, miles, etc.) in addition to the original metric measures; and (3) if present, any photo material except Map 1.

COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY FOR BURLINGTON, VERMONT—A SMALL METRO

                                                            CASE STUDY

        Tony Redington

Introduction This Burlington-Montpelier-Charlotte Commuter Rail Passenger Service (BMC Commuter Rail Service) study examines a small metro commuter rail service feasibility for Vermont.  The concept dates from a 1989 report followed by a number of further analyses and actual service 2000-2003 on a portion of the route.  Market potential for commuter rail becomes measurable with more confidence after a decade of commuter bus data and successful demand management experience.

The “Link” commuter buses started 2003 and in 2014 total 60 each workday to and from Burlington along four corridors. The rail route analyzed here includes the 68 km (42 mi.) east-west segment between Burlington and the Vermont State House in downtown Montpelier and the 19 km (12 mi.) segment south from Burlington to Charlotte, the 2000-2003 Champlain Flyer commuter route. The overall 87 km (54 mi.) route evaluated, Map 1, extends from Charlotte via Burlington to State House with 12 stations, eight in town and city centers.

U.S. and Canada Commuter Rail The twenty-five United States and three Canadian commuter rail passenger systems reveal an underdeveloped facet of North American surface transportation. A historic transportation travel change away from the auto in the U.S. includes: (1) the current seven year downturn of vehicle miles of travel (FHWA 2013); time in car travel dropping among all population groups (FHWA 2011, Figure 5), and perhaps most significant, the proportion of under-age-30 eligible with driver licenses dropped about 10% since 1995 (Sivak and Schoettle 2011). These factors call for reexamining commuter rail feasibility even in small metropolitan areas. Commuter rail constitutes an important part of overall public transportation. The U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) reports yearly data on 15 public transportation types with commuter rail accounting for 17.4 billion passenger kilometers (19.0 billion passenger miles) or 21% of all kilometers (FTA 2011). Three of fifteen service types account for 91% of public transportation passenger kilometers totaling 84.7 billion (52.6 billion passenger miles) in 2010: (1) bus 33.2 billion (22.6 billion passenger miles), 39%; (2) heavy rail (subways, etc.) 26.4 billion (16.4 billion passenger miles), 31%; and (3) commuter rail 17.4 billion (10.8 billion passenger miles), 21%.  Other service types include cable car, demand services, and monorail.

U.S. public transportation 2013 ridership marked a 50-year high (APTA p 11). U.S. public transportation passenger kilometers 2007-2013 grew 5.1% while motor vehicle travel kilometers dropped 1.9% 2007-2013, remaining below the 2007 record (FHWA 2014). The

2013 84.7 billion public transport kilometers (52.6 billion transport miles) of travel compares to the 2007 record 4.88 trillion vehicle kilometers (3.03 trillion vehicle miles) of travel (FHWA

Table 1: United States Commuter Rail Systems Data

                                                All 25 Systems                               10 Lowest Ridership

                                                Range               Median                   Range               Median

Weekday riders                    1,000-334,100  12,200                   1,000-5,400     2,700

Ridership/km (/mi.)                  31.3-477.3        139.9                      31.3-129.3       54.4

 

Lines                                            1-13                    1                            1-1                  1

Stations                                       5-240                 17                            5-15                7

Route km                                  24-1530             143                          24-270               65.2

Route miles                              15-951                   89                        15-168              40.5       

Sources: FTA (2006) p 2; APTA (2013, Table 36, p 40); and Wikipedia (2014).

2014).  The characteristics of U.S. and Canadian commuter rail services in Tables 1 and 2 show a wide range of ridership, stations, and route kilometers. The majority of systems

starts—15 of 25 in the U.S. and one of three in Canada—date from 1990 forward. For U.S. systems (Chicago and the Long Island Railroad services date from about 1900) ten began before 1990, seven 1990-1999, five 2000-2009, and three 2010-2013. All ten lowest ridership systems date from 1990.  Ten U.S. systems have more than one line, and nine of those also rank in the top ten in ridership.  For the lowest ten ridership systems: (1) all operate a single route; (2) serve 5 to 15 stations; and (3) operate route lengths 24 to 278 kilometers (15-168 miles). These ten lowest ridership systems set a yardstick in assessing feasibility new commuter rail services like this case.

Vermont Rail Involvement Vermont’s direct rail investment began in 1961 following the Rutland Railroad bankruptcy when the State bought the bulk of the rail properties then leased them to private operators.  Vermont, second smallest U.S. in population, continues a six-decade commitment to maintain and invest in the rail mode. Vermont passenger rail service ended in the mid-1950s except the international Montreal-Washington service, itself undergoing a hiatus from 1966 until restored by Amtrak in 1972. That service continues in a truncated form, now a State supported “Vermonter” Amtrak train St. Albans, VT-Washington. The State supports a second Amtrak service, the Ethan Allen, Rutland, VT -New York City begun in 1997.

In this historic context an unsolicited 1989 report, “VermonTrain,” by former rail passenger administrator and advocate Eugene Skoropowski (Skoropowski 1989) outlined a commuter service along three corridors out of Burlington employing self-propelled rail diesel cars

Table 2: Canada Commuter Rail Systems

Toronto          Montreal        Vancouver

Daily Ridership (2013)       185,000         73,900           11,000

Route kilometers                        390              214                 69

Route miles                                 242               133                43                                               

Note: Ontario Province started Toronto 1965; Société de transport de la communauté urbaine de Montréal first public Montreal operator 1982; and Vancouver’s West Coast Express began in 1995.

operable in two-or-more units (diesel multiple-unit or DMUs) configuration. That report along with two other major studies preceded service, the Champlain Flyer, undertaken through the leadership of Governor Howard Dean along a 19 km (12 mi.) corridor between Burlington and Charlotte 2000-2002.  Auto Decline and Public Transport Growth Skoropowski’s study arrived at the end of Vermont’s last burst of vehicle kilometers of travel growth—57% 1980-1990. Growth collapsed to 16% 19902000 in the six New England States (FHWA Series). Total New England kilometers vehicle travel then slid to a 3% increase 2000-2010, and a decline is possible this decade.

Vermont car commuters—solo and car-share--dropped 2.5% from 87.1% to 84.6 2000-2010 (U.S Census). Public transit commuting increased 72% and bicycle 107%. As documented elsewhere, median wages and household income in the U.S. remain only slightly higher

than 1980.  Households view housing and transportation, upwards of half the typical household expenditure, as a single expenditure and work to minimize the combined impact of these two budgetary items (Redington 1999).

BMC Commuter Rail Service builds on the estimated 240 commuters being served by the Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) Montpelier Link on 18 bus runs each workday (CCTA 2013). The 240 commuters served on the Link Burlington-Montpelier corridor account for the majority of commuters on four corridors followed by St. Albans corridor second, 80, Middlebury third, 70, and the new Jeffersonville service.

BMC Rail Service parameters The following outlines parameters employed for estimating BMC Commuter Rail Services passengers:

1. Estimated workdays each year: 250

2. Estimated “commuters” and “commuters served”: Divide passenger trips per workday day by two to obtain “commuters.”  Multiply “commuters” by 1.1 to obtain “commuters served”—a commuter during a 250 workdays year takes about 25 days without using commuter rail or about 10% of all workdays in leave (vacation, sick, family, etc.), work at another site, travel, etc.

3. Journey-to-work Each U.S. Census reports sample journey-to-work data by (1) destination of a jurisdiction residents to other jurisdictions worksites by jurisdiction and (2) origin for a jurisdiction’s worksites by originating jurisdiction.

4. Non-commuter passenger trips: Except for a study of extending the Champlain Flyer service from Burlington to Essex Jct., non-commuter trips are not included (RL Banks 1999, Table 7). The commuter and non-commuter 742 daily boardings from this study (371 individual passenger roundtrips) are allocated as presented along stations from Charlotte to Essex Junction with one minor change.

Base Commuters Estimate Methodology In reaching total workday commuters, 1,110, Table 3, three data and performance sources were utilized: (1) 2010 U.S. Census journey-to-work data; (2) actual commuter trip data for travel from Montpelier to Burlington from

CCTA records; and (3) the RL Banks 1999 study of passenger trips estimated from an extended Champlain Flyer service to Essex Jct.  The total estimate of 1,110 base numbers of “commuters” each workday means about 1,200 individual “commuters served.”

The actual Montpelier to Burlington Link data in combination with journey-to-work numbers establishes an empirical base to calibrate the commuter rail market potential as all boarding Link buses from Montpelier commute to a Burlington worksite. And journey-to-work

Census data on total Montpelier workers commuting to Burlington are combined with three adjacent towns commuter numbers to Burlington to define the “Montpelier market.” The Link daily commuters from the “Montpelier market” to Burlington then results in a 23% “market share” for 2012-2013 for the Link. For purposes of analysis here 25% of commuters in a given station town paired with another station town comprises the core of the passenger estimates.

Exceptions are: (1) excluding any Colchester data because the station location far from most of the Town population; (2) using a 20% factor for South Burlington pairs, again because of the station at the City’s edge; (3) pairing all towns west of Waterbury to all four of the “Montpelier market” towns; and (4) in the case of “Montpelier market”-Waterbury considering only Montpelier to Waterbury commuters. Also for the 59 Bolton outbound commuters a 30% share factor used reflects the Town lacking ready interstate access and therefore a likely higher rail commuter share. Again, for all inter-station trips between Charlotte and Essex Jct. the RL Banks study 371 roundtrips a day was utilized (RL Banks 1999, Table 7; Redington 2013 pp 19-24).

The Champlain Flyer service with a $1 one-way fare averaged 42 commuter roundtrips daily (all dollars in this report are US). Onboard passenger counts totaled 62 roundtrips daily (Vermont Joint Fiscal Office 2003). Note the 1999 RL Banks report estimated Montpelier commuters boarding to Burlington on an extended Champlain Flyer service to Montpelier of four versus the first full week numbers 2014 of 100 daily Link boardings (CCTA 2014).

Translating passenger trips to passenger kilometers/miles, trips are divided into two categories--“long trips” and “short trips”--“long” trip 64 km (40 mi.) and a “short” trip 29 km (18 mi.). These estimates take into consideration the destination of the two highest station boardings, Burlington and Montpelier, and examining shorter distance commutes, particularly

Bolton located about mid-route. Bolton trips in any direction, trips between Charlotte and Richmond in the west, and Waterbury-Montpelier trips–all receive “short” designation.

Table 3: Estimated commuters, Passenger Trips, Passenger Kilometers (Miles)

Annual Passenger Trips Subgroup of Commuters

Short Trips—29 km (18 mi.) Average

185,500         Charlotte-Burlington-Essex Jct. Estimate of 742 boardings, 371 roundtrips each workday (RL Banks 1999, Table 7)

18,000           Montpelier to Waterbury U.S. Census 25% journey-to-work Montpelier to Waterbury only, 36 roundtrips

29,500           Commuting from Bolton to Burlington/Essex/ Winooski/Shelburne/Charlotte and Waterbury/ Montpelier 30% of journey-to-work commuter town pairs, roundtrips 59

Sub-total Short Trips: 466 Commuters 233,000 Annual Trips

6.750 Million Passenger Kilometers (4.194 Million Passenger Miles)

Long Trips-64 kilometers  (40 miles) average

267,500         Commuting between Burlington/Winooski/Essex Junction/IBM Technology Park/Richmond and Waterbury/Montpelier 25% journey-to-work town pairs (for example, “Montpelier market”-Burlington “Montpelier market”-Winooski, etc., roundtrips 535 (“Montpelier market” composed of Montpelier, Barre, Berlin, and Barre Town)

54,500           Charlotte/Shelburne and Waterbury/Montpelier 25% journey-to-work commuter town pairs, 25 roundtrips; 20% between South Burlington and Montpelier/Waterbury, 84 roundtrips

Sub-total Long Trips: 644 commuters, 322,000 Annual Trips

20.728 million passenger kilometers (12.88 million passenger miles)

Total passenger trips annually: 550,000

Total individual roundtrips daily: 1,110

Total annual million passenger kilometers: 27.48 (17.08 million passenger miles)

Translating passenger trips to passenger kilometers/miles, trips are divided into two categories--“long trips” and “short trips”--“long” trip 64 km (40 mi.) and a “short” trip 29 km (18 mi.). These estimates take into consideration the destination of the two highest station boardings, Burlington and Montpelier, and examining shorter distance commutes, particularly

Bolton located about mid-route. Bolton trips in any direction, trips between Charlotte and Richmond in the west, and Waterbury-Montpelier trips–all receive “short” designation.

The 1,110 base daily commuter roundtrips translate to 555,000 individual passenger trips annually. As of mid-year of 2013-2014 Montpelier-Burlington Link service (January 2014) numbers grew 20%. If this trend continues through June 2014, the rate of about 540 daily trips serving almost 300 commuters reaches a level equal to a quarter of the 1,100 base daily commuters.

Role of demand management Since 2000 Burlington’s Campus Area Transportation Management Association (CATMA) demand management programming reduced workers solo journey-to-work trips by about 14 percent, about 1,000 of the sponsoring three institutions’ workers (CATMA 2013). CATMA and demand management programming constitute a major element in the success of commuter rail reaching the estimates outlined here. Formed by the

University of Vermont, Champlain College and Fletcher Allen Health Care—CATMA serves their 10,000 employees in Burlington (32% of the City’s employment) and 16,000 full-time students. The yearly benefit to the commuter switching from solo driving to Link service can exceed $8,000. For example, comparing the U.S. federal personal car use reimbursement rate per kilometer of $0.35 ($0.655 per mile) (January 2014) versus the $0.062/km ($0.10/mi.) transit fare ($4.00 one way) for the 64 km (40 mi.) one-way commute between Montpelier and Burlington over 225 workdays—the total yearly commuting cost differential is over $8,000 yearly. Considering the median income household in Vermont of $51,300 in 2013 (U.S. Census), $8,000 represents a 16% increase in income for the commuter. The BMC Commuter Rail Service projects slightly higher fares than Link, $0.078/km ($0.125/mi.) or $5.00 for the 64 km (40 mi.) Montpelier-Burlington commute one-way.

Table 4: BMC Commuter Rail Service: Trains, Annual Train Kilometers (Miles), Passenger Kilometers (Miles), and Passengers Per Train Kilometer (Mile)

Service Level: 14 trains a day composed of three peak roundtrips a.m., three peak roundtrips p.m., and one roundtrip mid-day. Total one-way Charlotte-Burlington-Montpelier Kilometers: 87 (54 mi.)

Operating Workdays Yearly: 250

Trains per year: 3,500 Trains per year less mid-day runs: 3,000. Current Link buses per year (three corridors, 2013): 12,500

Train hours of operation per year: 5,250 (based on 1.5 hour per run between Charlotte and Montpelier)

Daily (Revenue) Train Kilometers (Miles): 1,217 (756)

Annual Train Kilometers (Miles): 304,200  (189,000)

Annual Train Kilometers (Miles) Less Mid-day Run: 260,700 (162,000)

Passenger kilometers (miles): 233,000 “short” passenger trips yearly at 29 Kilometers (18 miles) and 322,000 “long trips” yearly at 64 kilometers (40 miles)--total passenger kilometers (miles): 27.5 million annual passenger kilometers (17.1 million miles)

Passengers per train kilometer (mile): 90 passengers per train kilometer (mile) or about 23.8 passenger kilometers per liter of diesel fuel (DMU assumed to attain 0.26 kilometers per liter)—90 passengers per train mile or about 90 passenger miles per gallon of diesel fuel (DMU assumed to attain one mile per gallon)

Passengers per train: 159 passengers per train (mix of “short” and “long” passenger trips) (current average passengers per Link bus trip Montpelier-Burlington corridor: about 22 on the 18 buses operated each workday (2013)

Schedule and travel times The workday schedule both directions includes three a.m. and p.m. peak trains and one mid-day, 14 trains total. Travel time for Burlington Union Station to State House ranges 60-70 minutes, and Charlotte to Burlington 20 minutes. Figure 1 contains six trains a.m. peak schedule and two mid-day runs. Even though commuter rail makes seven

Map 1 Map of Rail Corridors into Burlington

Table 5: BMC Commuter Rail Service Base Year Roundtrip Boarding Passengers Estimate by Town and Station

Town/Station                                    Estimated Workday Boardings

Charlotte                                                       38

Shelburne                                                     50

South Burlington                                          96

Burlington Union Station                        268

Winooski                                                      76

St. Michael's/Fanny Allen                             7

Essex Junction/Technology

 Park Stations                                           120

Richmond                                                   22

Bolton                                                         59

Waterbury                                                  106

Montpelier                                                268

Total Individual Roundtrip Boardings Daily: 1,110

Note: Actual station boardings certainly to vary significantly because

of use of a mix of estimate methods.

intermediate stops versus two by the Link between Burlington and Montpelier—and five town centers to none for Link--overall time travel times remain about equal between the two anchor cities. Commuter rail furthers the State premier planning goal “to plan development so as to maintain the historic settlement patterns of compact village and urban centers surrounded by rural countryside…” (Vermont Statutes Annotated).

DMUs—speeds, capacity, fuel efficiency The typical DMU—a power car and passenger car—fits Vermont passenger levels well and obtains high fuel efficiency. DMU maximum operating speeds range about 120 to 135 km/h (75 to 85 mph).  Capacity varies considerably depending on seating configuration and space reserved for bicycles and baggage. A two-car DMU carries 125-175 passengers, and an estimated average 95 passengers/km (passengers/mile) for BMC Commuter Rail Service. A test in Florida of the DMU power unit of a Colorado Railcar DMU power unit hauling two coaches attained fuel efficiency of 0.4 liters/km (1 mile per gallon), about a third of the fuel consumption of locomotive hauled passenger cars.

Capital requirements Overall capital requirements for track investments, stations, DMUs, etc., outlined in Table 8 total $58.7 million. Only two small segments of track require substantial upgrade, the 3.2 km (2.0 mi.) between Montpelier Jct. and the State House and 11 km (6.9 mi.) between Burlington Union Station and Essex Jct. The 51 km (32 mi.) Essex Jct.-Montpelier Jct. rail line investments completed in 2012 raised the rating to Class 4 enabling 130 km/h (80 mph) operation with signaling. Capital costs also include a share of Centralized Train Control

Table 6: Populations of Vermont, Chittenden County, Washington County, and Burlington Metro

           

Area Population                   Percent of State

Burlington Metropolitan Area         211,261                                            33.7

Chittenden County (2012)             158,504                                             25.3

Washington County (2010)             59,534                                               9.5

Chittenden and Washington

Counties combined                       218,038                                              34.8

Vermont (2012)                              626,011                                          100.0

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area comprised of the three northwestern counties--Chittenden, Franklin and Grand Isle).

(CTC) installation and crash preventing Positive Train Control (PTC) with the latter costs indeterminate currently. With new American standards for DMU equipment set in 2012 and little recent DMU manufacture to previous North American standards, the acquisition cost by Denton County, TX acquisition of 11 DMU units in 2009 was used for estimating their cost.

Revenues and Operating The fare-box percentage estimate of 37% of the total cost of service (capital and annual costs) for BMC Commuter Rail Service Phase compares to about 33% for all national and Vermont public transit services. Fare-box recovery of train operating costs estimate is 60%. Estimated operating costs of $9.40/train km ($15.00/train mi.) approximate national averages and those of Westside Express Service DMU service along a 24 km route near Portland, OR with its 1,700 passengers per day.

Source of capital financing and operating support The capital and operating costs for BMC Commuter Rail Service may cost less State dollars support than the $7 million State dollars budgeted for FY 2014 for the two Amtrak trains. Table 10 outlines a State and federal sharing of capital and operating support consistent with U.S. programs with base year State annual

share of all costs $879,000. (Note motor vehicle travel receives large subsidies, for example,

about 42% of all U.S. highway capital and maintenance expenditures paid for by mostly general funds and bonding [FHWA Series].)

  

Figure 1: BMC Commuter Rail Service--Peak a.m. and Mid-day Schedule

Outbound                                          Inbound

a.m. peak                 mid-day         a.m. peak                  mid-day

Charlotte       5:47    6:27    7:12     11:37             7:08    8:07    8:52   1:41 pm

Shelburne     5:56    6:36    7:21     11:46             6:59    7:59    8:44   1:32

S. Burlington 6:07    6:47    7:30     11:55            6:49    7:49    8:34   1:22

Leave                                                 Arrive

Burlington   6:10      6:50    7:33      11:58            6:46    7:46    8:31   1:19

Winooski       6:16    6:56    7:39      12:04            6:40    7:40    8:25   1:13

St. Michael's/

Fanny Allen   6:20    7:00    7:43      12:06            6:36    7:36    8:21   1:09

Essex Jct.      6:27   7:07    7:50      12:13            6:28     7:28    8:15   1:03 pm

IBM Tech.

Park               6:31   7:11   7:54         12:17           6:23     7:23    8:10   12:58

Richmond      6:37    7:17   8:00       12:23            6:16     7:17    8:02   12:50

Bolton            6:45    7:25   8:08       12:31            6:08     7:08    7:53   12:41

Waterbury     6:56     7:36   8:19       12:42           5:57     6:57    7:42   12:32

                   Arrive                                                       Leave

Montpelier

  State

  House        7:15      7:55   8:38       1:02  5:40    6:40     7:25  12:15 pm

                    Arrive                                                      Leave

Note: The balance of the workday schedule includes three peak p.m. trains in each direction.

Table 7: BMC Commuter Rail Service Capital Cost Estimates Summary: Track and Bridge, Stations, Rail-Highway Crossing Warning, Centralized Train Control and Rail Passenger

Equipment (DMU)

Category                                                        Cost Estimate $ (million)

New Stations (7)                                                 1.4

Centralized traffic control (2/3 share)                  3.3

Track and bridge upgrades                                   8.0

Rail-highway crossing upgrades                           3.6

Rail equipment maintenance facility                     0.5

Subtotal: Track and other physical

             improvements:                                                       16.8

Rail equipment—five two-car DMU sets                            36.6

Contingency (10%)                                                             5.3

           

Total Capital Funding Estimate               $58.7

Table 7: BMC Commuter Rail Service Capital Cost Estimates Summary: Track and Bridge, Stations, Rail-Highway Crossing Warning, Centralized Train Control and Rail Passenger

Equipment (DMU) (concluded)

Notes: 1. Estimates (except as noted) based on past studies with inflation factors applied, and Vermont rail administrators with knowledge of rail infrastructure costs.

2. DMU sets cost based on 2009 Denton County, TX purchase.

3. A shared cost not included here, Positive Train Control for crash prevention, is a certain future requirement.

Table 8: BMC Commuter Rail Service Annual Revenue and Costs Except Capital

                                                                        Estimated $  

Revenue

Total Annual Passenger Revenue                                   2,565,000

Revenue per train kilometer (mile)                                    5.24   (8.45)

Annual Costs Except Capital

Operating costs

Train Operating Costs:

Stations                                                 400,000

Train Operations

($8.08 per train kilometer,

$13.00 per train mile)                         2,460,000

                                           Subtotal: 2,860,000

Shuttles                                                                  250,000

Administrative (including insurance)                   1,150,000  

Total Annual Operating Costs               4,260,000

Annual Operating Cost Deficit                              1,695,000

Operating costs per train kilometer                                 9.40

Operating costs per train mile                                       15.12                                    

Annual cost support per passenger trip                          3.05

Annual cost support per passenger kilometer                0.062

Annual cost support per passenger mile                        0.100

Passenger farebox percentage of total annual costs     60%

Notes: 1. Commuter rail average operation cost per revenue vehicle kilometer $9.32 (per revenue vehicle mile $15.00) (FTA 2011).

2. Revenue per passenger kilometer $0.093 (per passenger mile $0.150)

Conclusion This study finds BMC Commuter Rail service feasible in view of the projected 1,100 commuters daily, comparable to other low ridership U.S. systems. The service capital and operating cost estimates also track near national averages. The recent movement of

Vermont workers away from car commuting, rapid growth of commuters on Link services since 2003, and Burlington demand management programing successes shifting car commuters to bus transit and other modes—all augur well for a successful commuter rail service for the Burlington Metropolitan Area.

Table 9: BMC Commuter Rail Service Support per Passenger Trip and per Passenger Kilometer (Mile)

Passenger Support ($)

Support Category                                        Per Trip     Per Kilometer (Mile)

Dollars per Passenger

     Annual Costs Less Revenue               3.05               0.062 (0.10)

Capital (amortization)                               4.65                0.093  (0.15)

Total support:                                         7.70                0.155  (0.25)

Note: Operating support per base 555,000 annual trips Table 3, and operating and capital outlined in Table 7 and 8.

Table 10: BMC Commuter Rail Service Estimated Total Annual Funding—State and Federal for Operations and Capital

Annual Funding ($ )

Federal Funds (80%)         State Funds (20%)    Total

Operating Support               1,356,000                  339,000                        1,695,000

Capital                                   2,160,000                  540,000                        2,700,000

Total                                       3,516,000                  879,000                       4,395,000

Note: Capital financing, $58.7.4 million, Table 7, amortized over 25 years at 3.0% interest. Federal funding is possible through a number of avenues with no more than a 20% State match.

References

Most Vermont rail studies available at the Chittenden Country Regional

Planning Commission online library: http://www.ccrpcvt.org/studies/

American Public Transportation Association (APTA) (2013) 2013 public

transportation fact book. 64th Edition (APTA: Washington).

BRW et al (1996) Burlington area tri-center transit study final report. (Vermont

Agency of Transportation (VAOT): Montpelier, VT).

Campus Area Transportation Management Association (CATMA) (2013) Data from

CATMA periodic surveys of employee and student commuting patterns. (CATMA:

Burlington, VT).

Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) (2014) Planning section

provision of ridership data. Burlington, VT.

LS Transit Systems et al (1993) Vermont rail feasibility study. Final Report. (VAOT:

Montpelier, VT).

Redington T (2013) An action outline for Vermont commuter rail passenger services along three corridors out of Burlington, Vermont. 64 p Unpublished paper by Tony

Redington, Burlington, VT.

Redington T (1999) Impacts of the modern roundabout on North American traffic circulation, modal choice, sustainable development and land use. Proceedings of the

34th Annual Conference Canadian Transportation Research Forum, pp 441-455

(CTRF: Woodstock, ON).

RL Banks and Associates (1991) Commuter rail feasibility study: final report.

(VAOT: Montpelier, VT).

RL Banks et al (1999) Burlington-Essex passenger rail feasibility report and corridor analysis. (Vermont Agency of Transportation: Montpelier, VT).

Sivak M and Schoettle B (2011) Recent changes in age composition of drivers in 15 countries. P 2 UMTRI-2011-43 (University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute: Ann Arbor).

Skoropowski, E (1989) VermonTrain: A plan for cost-effective regional rail service in northern Vermont using diesel multiple unit [DMU] railcars. Unsolicited study submitted to the VAOT. (VAOT: Montpelier, VT).

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2014) American Community Survey (ACS).

An interactive public data base providing annual/multi-year samples of demographic factors, including means of travel to work, reportable by town, county, state, and national. https://www.census.gov/acs/www/

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) (2009) National household travel survey. (USDOT: Washington).

U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (Series) Highway statistics. Series

(FHWA: Washington).

U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2013) Traffic volume trends November 2013. p 2 Series (FHWA: Washington).

U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2001) Our Nation’s Highways 2000 Table: average annual miles per driver by age group. PL-01-1042 (FHWA:

Washington). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm

U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (2011) Summary of Travel Trends:

2009 National Household Transportation Survey. FHWA—PL-11-022 (FHWA:

Washington). Web: http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf

U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (2006) Commuter rail safety study. p 3

(FTA: Washington).

U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (2011) National Transit Database (FTA: Washington). Web: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/data.htm

Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) (1992) Light rail transit in Burlington,

Vermont: an analysis of viable routes and construction costs. Assisted by Pacific

Transit Management Corporation (VAOT: Montpelier, VT).

Vermont Joint Fiscal Office (2003) Audit of Champlain Flyer commuter rail service.

(Vermont Legislature: Montpelier, VT). Web:

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/reports/Flyer%20Report%2002-2003.pdf

Vermont Statutes Annotated Volume 24 Section 4302 Vermont Planning and

Development Goals (State of Vermont: Montpelier, VT).

Wikipedia (2014) U.S. commuter rail systems, Canada commuter rail systems.

Worthen, B (2003) Vermont passenger rail study: final draft. (Vermont Transportation

Authority: Montpelier, VT).

  

Tony Redington

Burlington, VT 05401

TonyRVT99@gmail.com

Blog: TonyRVT.blogspot.com

May 2014

A BURLINGTON VERMONT CORRIDOR STUDY DECLARES MODAL EQUALITY AND HIGHEST SAFETY FOR ALL--JULY 1 2014

 

The shape of the North Avenue corridor plan completed with Advisory Committee actions Tuesday certainly represents the first Vermont full corridor cycle track plan combined with a road diet and pathed-for-cyclist roundabouts at key intersections. It may be the first such plan in the nation. 

The plan which goes to the Burlington City Council for acceptance later this year will join at least two other corridors of roundabouts with bike and/or walk facilities awaiting funding by the State--Depot Stret in Manchester Center and Putney Road in Brattleboro. 

Below please find a summary of the Advisory Committee's meeting Tuesday.

    

      Summary of North Avenue Advisory Committee Work Completed July 1

The North Avenue Corridor Study Advisory Committee on Tuesday July 1 declared its own independence endorsing a corridor design insuring the opportunity to reach the stated adopted vision goal “achieve a world class transportation corridor with quality service and highest safety for those who walk, bicycle and travel by motor vehicle or transit.”

In a series of votes the Advisory Committed set the final shape of the plan calls for a short term pilot of a “road diet” from Shore Rd./Heineberg Rd. intersection to VT 127 reducing four lanes to three lanes with the center lane for turns.  The other major short term betterment within three years, in part taking advantage of roadway freed up by the road diet, marks bike lanes on each side existing roadway from the north end of the corridor at Plattsburgh Ave. to Washington St. near Burlington College, a distance of about two-and-a-half miles.  The short term “pilot” approach to afford the North Avenue community to “try it before you buy it” also removes little used parking along the Washington St.-Plattsburgh Ave. segments.  Part and parcel of the bike lanes marking involves installation along at least on corridor segment of “cycle track”, a protected bike lane, accomplished through a series flexible bollards.  The bollards would be removable during the snow season. 

The Advisory Committee also approved two ground breaking recommendations for the long term, the first ever in City studies: protected cycle track from end-to-end of the 2.8 mile corridor with roundabouts installed at key intersections which promises increased safety and service for all modes.The cycle track long term will be one-way built either on the roadway level or the sidewalk level as decided in the future. In addition the roundabouts re-enforce the speed management  as the Committee committed to a 25 mph level during the “pilot” period.  The decrease called for by  the Committee, a decease from the 30 mph speed limit in the central part of the corridor, accords with the City speed limit policy of 25 mph with part of this North Avenue corridor currently one of less than of a handful of exceptions to that policy today.

Roundabouts recommendations included the intersections of Plattsburgh Avenue, Ethan Allen Parkway, VT 127 and Burlington High School (Institute Road).  The votes for Plattsburgh Ave. and Ethan Allen Parkway were by narrower margins.   The discussion of roundabouts included emphasis that each intersection be carefully evaluated as part of scoping studies that will take some years hence, that traffic trends may well allow single lane roundabouts (the safest treatment, particularly for those who bike and walk), and that further study employ firms with proven experience in roundabout evaluation and design (not available for corridor study).   Burlington’s (and Chittenden County’s) first busy street roundabout on Shelburne Street at Locust St./South Willard St., a single lane design, involves traffic numbers above that of the two high traffic North Avenue intersections today at VT 127 and Ethan Allen Parkway.

The next steps in the Corridor plan involves write-up of the draft plan reflecting the Advisory Committee decisions followed by review by the City Council committee on Transportation, Energy and Utilities chaired by Councilor Maxwell Tracey, then the City Council.  Further, separately public involvement continues at each stage of the plan implementation.

The “North Avenue declaration” comes a few weeks after the Burlington Walk Bike Council “Burlington Declaration”  calling for investments in quality walking bicycling infrastructure—particularly cycle track and roundabouts—and supporting considering of these measures in the North Avenue corridor study.  Local Motion also undertook initiatives to support inclusion of quality walk and bike “infra” in the North Avenue plan. 

While improved transit was not specifically addressed a consensus has existing in the planning process for improved frequency and hours of service for Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) routes serving North Avenue, better connectivity to other routes in the City, and at least examining the feasibility of light rail extending from Flynn School south to the Marketplace and beyond (trolley service after about four decades from downtown reaching Ethan Allen Park ended in 1929 ).

WINOOSKI'S TRAFFIC CIRCLE (A ROUNDABOUT...NOT!)

WHEN IS A ROUNDABOUT NOT A ROUNDABOUT?  WHEN IT IS THE WINOOSKI TRAFFIC CIRCLE!

WCAX-TV ran a story on the Winooski, VT city center traffic circle, erroneously titling the piece “roundabout” as the huge 500 by 200 foot circle could easily contain three to four normal size roundies.  The story outlines efforts to improve walk mode safety by discontinuing the signals mid-oval crossing and improving crosswalks.  Unfortunately this is less than a halfway measure—my comment on the story posted today:

First, the story describes the traffic status circle well--the WCAX newsroom with the block letters on the circle photo "ROUNDABOUT" completely fouled up.  The Winooski traffic circle is just that--a traffic circle which some regional planners call a "traffic circulator."  Second, a roundabout--like those in downtown Middlebury, Montpelier and soon on Burlington's Shelburne Street (all one laners) are 120 feet in diameter or less compared to the 400-plus feet top to bottom and about 200 foot-plus width Winooski circle, a size easily containing all three of the Middlebury/Montpelier/Burlington roundies with lot of room to spare.  Unfortunately, serious and probably fatal injuries at the large Winooski facility will continue--the only answer is to reconfigure the entire central area, install two normal size roundabouts, and allocate the large amount of additional space for use by businesses, wider walkways, and greenspace at the perimeter.   Those who walk now be forewarned of the continued danger at the current circle.

Kissing Off 15,000 to 20,000 Bys Travelers in Vermont

VERMONT REFUSES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION TO ITS BIGGEST EXPORT CUSTOMER—CANADA

While the Yorkers and Quebecois merrily travel Amtrak daily between Montreal and several stops in New York along the way to New York City, Vermonters and their brethren to the north face expensive forced in second class busing right now with no connections to Vermont’s two Amtrak trains which terminate in New York City and Washington.  When the Montreal bus connection to Amtrak at St. Albans got severed some years ago about 10,000 riders disappeared traveling on a Vermont supported train, adding to the deficit Vermont taxpayers continue to anti up to this day.

The lesson learned at a transportation research conference held this June across the river from Detroit at the center of Canadian auto industry was that stifling trade  caused by inferior transportation facilities or unnecessary red tape and poor cross-border services costs tens of thousands of jobs on each side of the international border.  It just cuts business transactions for both nations.  The  current lack of a Montreal-St. Albans bus connection to our Amtrak trains represents an example of one such “stifle.”  Sure both sides of the border agree to re-establish the rail connection St. Albans-Montreal but meanwhile the positive economic benefits to both—and perhaps 15,000-20,000 potential travelers yearly goes untapped.

The lack of a Montreal-St. Albans-Amtrak connection represents an even more important fact of life—it is part of the larger export market process between our State and our largest customer, Canada, the destination of about 40% of our total exports.

Canada-Vermont trade depends as it does for rest of the U.S. on making cross border travel and rules for goods movement as simple and inexpensive as possible.  Losing the past 10,000 riders a year connecting Montreal to our Vermont Amtrak trains is a clear example of Vermont trading policy gone amok.  Yes Vermont and Quebec governments agree on bringing customs clearance at Montreal’s Gare Centrale but this requires federal action on the part of both nations and there other fish to fry of more importance than duplicating the kind of service provided in Vancouver which more than doubled the Amtrak Portland-Vancouver passenger service numbers.

Restoring the bus link today would surely increase revenues in excess of $1 million over the cost of bus service thereby reducing Vermont tax dollars supporting the two Amtrak trains.  The Amtrak/bus connection to Montreal provides another way for folks to travel in high quality service to and from Burlington’s airport which continues to struggle to maintain its passenger numbers, numbers heavily dependent on a continued infusion of Quebec flyers taking advantage of lower Burlington air fares possible only because of the much higher landing fees charged airlines at Canadian airports.  Easy access by bus/Amtrak from Canada means more potential business for both winter and summer recreation here, and for both Chittenden and Franklin County tourism-oriented businesses.

Most Americans believe China is the U.S.’s biggest trading partner, but exports to China are dwarfed by Canada—always has and always likely will.   For 2013 our exports to Canada were $302 billion, two and a half times that of China, $122 billion.

Wolf concludes his Burlington Free Press column reporting these figures bemoaning the fact that “Vermont firms do not seem to be participating in the global economy as much as are firms elsewhere…” and that this does not “bode well” future Vermont economic growth.

Already this fall after years of construction the major segment of two-lane highway between the Highgate border station and St. Jean, QC will be replaced by four lane divided highway cutting travel time by about 15 minutes between Montreal and the U.S. border with a full corridor of divided highway within a year or so cutting a total of about 20 minutes off the current trip.  This makes the Montreal-St. Albans/Amtrak connection even more economically attractive and effective as an express bus connection not only is shorter in travel time but also assures a more attractive leave and arrival time at Gare Centrale. 

One place State government working just with Quebec could start is through transportation connection improvements to Quebec—and a Montreal-Amtrak at St. Albans service surely can help trade with our northern neighbor as well as make a profit too for our Vermont taxpayers!

More Vermont Seniors--equivalent every two years to a Burlington ward, every three a Montpelier

VERMONT SENIOR POPULTION GROWTH—A CLOSER LOOK

Last decade Vermont Governor Jim Douglas and then UVM President James Fogler regularly referred to the growth of Vermont seniors’ population as the major driving force in Vermont for the foreseeable future—well the future arrived and now and the dimensions of population change for the 2000-2030 period become even more pronounced than expected.  Census estimates 3,215 more seniors each year 2000-2030.

Census described the numbers for Vermont senior growth 2000-2030—doubling their share of total Vermont population to 24% with the 65-and-over age residents rising from  77,510 in 2000 to an estimated 173,930 in 2030, up 124%.  To bring this into perspective this 96,430 Census growth estimate amounts to 3,215 more seniors each year, more than three times the Census growth estimate for the entire state during the three-year period 2000-2013 total of 889.  

The statewide senior population growth every three years tops the total population of Montpelier, or in two years a Burlington ward. 

The senior population growth in Vermont is home-grown, almost exclusively the growth of our existing population in 2000 moving into the senior range, the longer life expectancy thanks to improved lifestyle and medical gains in addition to the key demographic driver, the baby boom population bubble hitting retirement years. 

Meanwhile, changes in the under-65 age population remains dead in the water.  Census probably overestimated the growth of Vermont population overall, 17% to 711,000 2000-2030, in great part because of the “Great Recession” hit in 2008 with the U.S. birth rates dropping to levels not seen since the 1930s Great Depression.

The Vermont senior population bomb-let does not exist in isolation.  A more recent Census 50 year projection extending to 2065 nationally shows an under 65 age population growth of 20% while the over 65 numbers increase 80%

So almost halfway to 2030, Vermont estimated population growth is only 2.9% (2013 Census estimate) versus the projection for 2000-2030 of 17% growth with the State on a trajectory right now of about  a third of the projected rate.  The baby bust and low net migration to the State represent the two key factors of likely small under 65 age population change and right now it is fair to conclude the under 65 age group overall is in decline since 2000.

So what about the population under 65?  Here even the optimistic 30 year estimate of the Census—a likely overestimate—really looks dismal.  The Census estimated under 18 age group dropping 10,564 or 2.4% per decade 2000-2030 with the 2030 projection of 136,959.  The experience of declining school enrollments continues for at least one to two decades if this trend continues.  And the prime working age population 18-64?   Yes, this estimate number does rise by 17,374 2000-2030 but still not very much in the Census estimation—2.3% each decade to 400,968 in 2030.  Again, this number probably represents an over estimation because of the Great Recession and the overall 2000-2013 period when net migration, a source of young and younger working age population growth clearly now remains way behind the assumption in the Census estimated for 2000-2030 calculated in 2005.

The Census projections along with overestimation of the under 65 population suggest careful examination of housing and transportation dieections for Vermont over and above a very startling new expectation of a flatlined labor force for at least two decades to come.