commuter rail feasibility study · 22-02-1991 · commuter rail system at 835 commuters. this...

FINAL REPORT

COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY

for

STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION

submitted by

R.L. Banks & Associates, Inc. Transportation Economists and Engineers

in conjunction with

JHK & Associates

February 22, 1991


Table of Contents

Paqe

Executive Summary and Conclusions ............................... E- 1

Task I . RidershipIPatronage Estimate/Analysis ................ 1-1

Task 11 . Inventory of Available Routes ........................ 11-1

Task I11 . Commuter Rail Operations Planning .................... 111-1

Task IV. Commuter Service Cost Estimates ...................... IV-1

Task V . Coordination. Funding and Other Anci 1 lary Issues ..... V- 1

Tables

Operating Cost. Ridership and Subsidy by Route ....... Capital Cost by Route ................................ Estimated AM Peak Period Ridership ................... Estimated Peak Period Ridership by Origin Zone ....... Estimated AM Peak Period Ridership by Destination Zone

1988 Zonal Demographic & Employment Data .......*..... Commuter Rail Station Zone Coverage .................. Vermont Commuter Rail Service Schedule ............... Vermont Commuter Rail Fare Schedule .................. Comm~~terRai1 Market Segment ......................... Estimated AM Peak Period Revenue ..................... Operating Costs Summary .............................. Operating Cost Calculations .......................... Capital Cost Calculations ............................

R.L. BANKS &ASSOCIATES. INC .


Table of Contents (Concluded)

Fiqures

Paqe

1-1.

1-2

11-1.

111-1

Zone System .......................................... Network System ....................................... Essex Junction and Vicinity, Central Vermont Railway . Vermont Commuter Rail Service, Sample Schedule .......

1-5

1-6

11-6

111-15

- i i -

R.L. BANKS &ASSOCIATES, INC.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The feasibi 1ity of commuter rai 1 service has been proposed for study on

three routes serving Burl ington and neighboring communities:

Montpelier Junction - Essex Junction - Burlington,

St. Albans - Essex Junction - Burlington, and

Middlebury - Burlington - Essex Junction.

Determination of proposed commuter rai 1 service feasibi 1ity is a four step

process, incorporating the following successive assessments:

Is the proposed service physically and operationally feasible?

What patronage might the service attract?

What would the service cost?

Is the service sufficiently attractive to warrant the expenditure of pub1 ic funds from a cost-effectiveness standpoint or on the basis of community goals and objectives?

This report addresses the first three of the four above assessments,

leaving to the interested governmental and development entities the final

decision as to whether investment and operation of such a service is

warranted.

Phvsical and Operational Feasibilitv

The Central Vermont Railway (CV) 1 ine from Montpelier Junction to Essex

Junction to St. Albans is in good condition, presently handles daily

Anitrak passenger trains and needs only station and layover faci 1 ities to

be ready to accommodate commuter service.

R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

The CV Winooski Subdivision, between Burlington and Essex Junction, needs

substantial improvements to sustain time-competitive commuter service.

This segment would be used by trains serving each of the three proposed

routes. Recommended rail and tie replacement, track surfacing and tunnel

clearance improvements would cost an estimated $1.7 million.

The Vermont Rai lway (VTR) 1 ine between Middlebury and Burl ington needs

rail and tie replacement and track surfacing prior to initiation of

commuter service. These projects are estimated to require an expenditure

of $3.9 million.

Commuter service would be feasible from an operational perspective on all

of the routes and segments studied. Existing operations are of a volume

and pattern which should present no obstacle to overlaying a commuter

service of the scope contemplated. Officers of both CV and VTR expressed,

informally, that they would cooperate or welcome commuter service which

contributes its fair share to operating and maintenance expenses.

Patronaqe and Service Cost

Ridership estimates and estimated annual service costs, revenues and

subsidies are summarized in Table E-1 at the conclusion of this summary.

Likewise, capital costs are condensed in Table E-2. Ridership estimates

were developed using a mode split model based upon state and local ly

provided data and calibrated in the course of other commuter studies.

Cost estimates are based upon upgrading the segments described above to


Table E - 1

t% 6 -r 4 L - V ) C7.I- a, E'F -O W U O

E a rh L -aC,oa,

a, w L IU- cn w w =a- C L' t V) m'I- a,C r u mU r n - l - - ( O m- vlY-a a,L - L aZ O C I r n LC,clcua,r

( O w > O cc L E U 0 0 g.r" 2;E O a - m o-ua, m .C a, -3C,P C, V) C 5a , -0CIa , -e v l C O E C .-cIUECZo P w o .r.-~ a a ,u a *0 x u o C T m U w a - a, U

n 0h a m w a-r > LE;a .r a, .I-0 U nCI

L m a r V) 2.io O L ' t a m

CI l t rcU 0 - m o o U C .C u (OC - C ra,

'I- m o (0 V)- E c-- I>

a,'P--w C C m w a 0 C,0 Q) 'I- C

W Y U L E L Q ) a a a L C EQ. w - a,aJ m u m = L C X a -3 a a L w a, -0 a, V)v)\ m c r r c

W 'ra,

E:

Cmz=0 l A L E 3 ,

L E= L L w a a w 0 crr 7 a, V) C - r Qw - 0 aJ a * E c a + u U 0 '-7 O) E .- E U

U Y 5 Y 7 a t u c m 3 +

.C .- a, 0 0 C,cl 0 X

-0s E= 7 U -----E a a,

V) V) 3'- U a z v l o o r E E W CZ

3 2 m C -\ c L 3

0 0 Cl u U

-vl U .C

w ul .r L a, C, U ( O . L m 5 C s .r 0 V

C m =I C 0 .?- L C, 5 0 L U aJ LI a,0 3

-a.-


Table E-2

N >-I m

W I-

W V )20 m u e

E O a J I V Q, Ere,E o v o e u a+-'7 0 o 3 1 0 v

E-4 R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

support fast, comfortable service using proven commuter equipment,

including new coaches and locomot ives remanuf actured for commuter service.

Estimates are del iberately conservative, as is appropriate to the

feasibi1 ity evaluation process. Implementation planning may identify

opportunities for expenses reduct ion, such as acquisition of used coaches

or more favorable wage rates, but prudent feasibi 1 ity analysis cannot rest

on assumptions that used or heretofore unproven equipment will be

available or desirable or that labor arrangements more favorable than

those hypothesized wi 1 1 be attainable.

Conclusions

Commuter service is feasible from engineering and operating perspectives,

however, a1 though projected patronage is not insignificant, ridership

levels are not sufficient to capitalize upon the potential efficiencies of

commuter rai 1 service. The entire projected ridership would represent

only one or two trainloads for many present commuter services. Operating

one and two car trains for peak period service is expensive and

inefficient. If the demand were present, passenger levels several times

higher than projected could be accommodated at modest cost increments by

adding coaches to the projected service, with a resu 1tant dramatic

improvement in system economic performance.

Notwithstanding the project's technical feasibility, it is the

consu1tant ' s opinion that the proposed service is not economical ly

feasible. This conclusion is intuitively evident in the low ridership and

low number of riders per train; in adddition, it is supported by


comparison of the estimated farebox recovery ratio (total passenger fares

divided by total operating expenses) with that of existing coommuter rail

services. Burlington service is projected to recover 15 percent of

operating costs annually; in contrast, seven existing operations reported

farebox recovery ratios ranging from 35.6 to 56.5 percent, with an overall

47.9 percent recovery (1990 Transit Operatinq and Financial Statistics,

American Pub1 ic Transit Association). The required capital expenditure of

$27 million calls for careful consideration in the light of the limited

ridership and in the absence of compel1 ing considerations such as

congestion or energy conservation.

Next Steos

Despite the consultant's opinion concerning economic feasibi 1 ity, the

decision as to whether to proceed with commuter rai 1 service development

must be made in the context of local transportation and community

priorities and with consideration of available alternatives; that decision

must be made by the citizens and governmental entities affected. Although

Burl ington service may not be as cost-effective as other commuter

services, because of relatively low ridership, it still may compare

favorably with transportation options not included in this analysis, such

as highway improvements, other transit technologies, etc.

If a decision is made not to proceed with service implementation at this

time, the status of the involved rail lines should be monitored since

future changes in employment and residential patterns and fuel costs could

cause significant increased service demand. Most of the potential

E-6


commuter trackage has sufficient freight or intercity passenger traffic

that neither abandonment nor significant downgrading appears likely at

present, however, rationalization of railroad physical plant is a

continuing process and few lines are absolutely immune. One segment which

should receive particular attention is the link between CV and VTR in

downtown Burlington. Neither railroad has indicated that this link is in

jeopardy and it is the sole freight interchange point between the two

carriers. Nonetheless, it should be monitored because of its key role in

potential commuter service and the difficulty and expense of acquiring and

restoring right-of-way in urban areas.

E-7

R.L.BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Task I

RIDERSHIP/PATRONAGE ESTIMATEfANALYSIS

The patronage analysis estimated AM peak period ridership for the Vermont Commuter Rail System at 835 commuters. This estimate include 650 riders that are expected to walk from their station to their finaldestination. These trips are called "walk egress" trips. An additional 185 commuters are expected if feeder bus services are provided to major employment sites. These trips are called "bus egress" trips. The bus

services could be provided by the employer or involve special coordination with the public transit system. Table 1-1shows in detail the patronage estimates for each of the three commuter lines listed below:

St. Albans-Essex Junction-Burlington Line

Montpelier Junction-Essex Junction-Burlington Line Middlebury-Burlington-EssexJunction Line

Tables I-2A and I-2B sllmmarize these commuter trips by origin and destination zone

respectively. The modeling/analytical approach, basic input data, and assumptions used in developing the patronage estimates are described in detail as follows.

The study area was defined to include the towns and cities in Chittenden,

Franklin, Addison, Lamoille, and Washington counties. The study area was

disaggregated into 64 zones with boundaries following todc i ty limits. The zone system

is shown in Figure 1-1.

The highway network, shown in Figure 1-2, includes those roadways which run

parallel to the rail lines, and feeder or access links to both the road and rail system.

The network model was designed to properly represent both the commuter rail path, and

the potential auto routes that individuals compare when making mode choice decisions.

The zone and network system, together with the commuter rail service

characteristics, and household and employment data described below, served as the basic

inputs to a sequence of standard travel demand estimation techniques used in this study

to develop a 64 x 64 AM Peak Period Home-Based Work Person Trip Table. The model parameters were based on the parameters of the 1989 Chittenden County Regional

Travel Demand Model used by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission

TABLE 1-1

ESTIMATED AM PEAK PERIOD RIDERSHIP

WALK EGRESS BUS EGRESS T O T A L

STATION ON OFF LOAD ON OFF LOAD ON OFF LOAD

ST. ALBANS LINE St .Albans Georgia Milton Colchester Essex Jct. Winooski Burlington

Subtotal

MONTPELIER JCT. LINE Montpelier Jct. Middlesex Waterbury Bolton Richmond Essex Jct. Winooski Burlington

Subtotal

MIDDLEBURY LINE Middlebury New Haven Vergennes North Ferrisburg Charlotte Shelburne Burlington Winooski Essex Junction

Subtotal

TOTAL RIDERSHIP:

To Burlington To Winooski To Essex Junction

Systemwide

TABLE I-2A

ESTIMATED AM PEAK PERIOD RIDERSHIP BY ORIGIN ZONE

Zone Town Walk Bus Total 1 Zone Town Walk Bus Total

Egress Egress I Egress Egress

I 1 Bur l ington 27 7 34 ( 34 Calais 1 2 South Bur l ington 16 5 21 ( 35 Wolcott 5

3 Uinooski 5 0 15 65 1 E Lmore

4 Essex Junct ion 20 4 24 I Cabot

5 Colchester 106 32 138 1 Uoodbury 6 Essex 26 6 32 1 Marshf ield

7 M i l t o n 43 13 56 1 36 Warren 24 8 Uestford 7 3 10 1 Roxbury 9 Georgia 8 2 10 1 Hancock 10 Fair fax 4 1 5 I Granvi 1 l e

1 1 Fletcher 2 1 3 1 37 Wai ts f ie ld 4 12 Cambridge 9 2 1 1 ( 38 Nor th f ie ld 3 13 S t . Albans 21 6 27 1 39 Bert i n 2 14 F a i r f i e l d 2 1 3 ( 40 Montpelier 10 15 Bakersf ie ld 1 0 1 1 41 East Montpelier 1 16 Swanton 8 2 10 ( 42 Barre 13 17 Sheldon 1 0 1 ( 43 P l a i n f i e l d 0 18 Enosburg 2 0 2 1 44 Shelburne 46 19 Montgomery 5 2 7 1 45 St. George 4

Richford 1 46 Charlotte 30 Berkshire I 47 Hinesburg 22 Frankl in 1 48 Ferr isburg 5

20 W i l l i s t o n 19 5 24 1 49 Monkton 1 21 Jericho 17 8 25 1 50 Starksboro 7 22 Underhi 11 1 1 5 16 I Lincoln

23 R ichmond 17 6 23 I Buels Gore 24 Bolton 2 1 3 1 51 Panton 0 25 S towe 24 7 31 1 52 Vergennes 4

26 Johnson 26 7 33 1 53 Waltham 0

Belvidere 1 54 New Haven 1 Eden 1 55 B r i s t o l 5

Waterv i l le 1 56 Addison 1 Hyde Park 1 57 Weybridge 0 Morristown 1 58 Middlebury 5

27 Huntington 2 8 ( 59 R ipton 0 28 Duxbury 0 1 1 60 Br idpor t 0 29 Waterbury 2 9 1 61 Cornwall 1 30 Worcester 0 " I Sat isbury 31 Fayston 1 4 1 62 Shoreham 0 32 Moretown 0 2 1 63 Whiting 0

33 Middlesex 0 1 1 64 Goshen 0

TABLE 1-26

ESTIMATED AM PEAK PERIOD RI.DERSHIP BY DESTINATION ZONE

Zone Town Walk Bus Total I Zone Town Walk Bus Total


I Burl ington 498 1 34 Calais

South Burt ington 25 1 35 Wolcott

Winooski 99 1 E Lmore

Essex Junction 112 I Cabot

Colchester 5 1 Woodbury

Essex 76 1 Marshfield

M i l t o n 1 1 36 Warren

Westford 0 1 Roxbury

Georgia 0 1 Hancock

Fai r fax 0 I Granvi 1 l e

Fletcher 0 ( 37 U a i t s f i e l d

Cambridge 0 1 38 Nor th f ie ld

S t . Albans 0 ( 39 B e r l i n

Fa i r f i e l d 0 1 40 Montpelier

Bakersf ield 0 ( 41 East Montpel

Swanton 0 ( 42 Barre

Sheldon 0 1 43 P l a i n f i e l d

Enosburg 0 1 44 Shelburne

Montgomery 0 1 45 S t . George

R ichf ord 1 46 Char lot te

Berkshire I 47 H inesburg

Frankl in 1 48 Ferr isburg

W i l l i s t o n 0 1 49 Monkton

Jericho 0 1 50 Starksboro

Underhi11 0 I L incoln

Richmond 5 1 Buels Gore

Bol ton 2 ( 51 Panton

Stoue 0 1 52 Vergennes

Johnson 0 ( 53 Waltham

Belvidere I 54 New Haven

Eden 1 55 B r i s t o l

Waterv i l le I 56 Addison

Hyde Park I 57 Weybr idge

Morristown I 58 Middlebury

Huntington 0 1 59 R ipton

Duxbury 0 ( 60 Br idpor t

Waterbury 0 ( 61 Cornua 1 1

Worcester 0 1 Sa 1 isbury

Fayston 0 1 62 Shoreham

Moretoun 0 1 63 Whiting

Middlesex 0 1 64 Goshen

North Ferrirbur

-Commuter Rail Station

Figure 1-1. Zone System

1-5

North Ferrirb

@ - Zone Number -Commuter Rail Station

Figure 1-2. Network System 1-6

(CCRPC). This trip table was input to a mode choice model that was formulated based on models used in commuter rail ridership forecasting efforts in other cities and adapted to Vermont local conditions.

Demographic data, shown in Table 1-3, for each of the 64 zones was collected

from the 1988 census information presented in the Vermont Economic-Demographic Profile Series Report published by the Vermont Department of Employment and Training (VDET). The potential ridership estimates were performed using the 1988 data.

The network characteristics such as roadway functional classification, speed, number of lanes, lane capacity, and distance were based on map and network model

information from the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) and CCRPC. A number of model parameters were based on CCRPC's travel demand model.

These include daily trip generation rates which averaged 7.66 tripshousehold; home-

based work trips at 25 percent of total daily trips; a home-based work PM peak hour production to attraction (PA) factor of five percent, and attraction to production (AP)

fador of 95 percent. In this study, the zonal trip rates of CCRPC were directly used; the AM peak hour factor was estimated at ten percent; and, the AM PA and AP factors

were 95 and five percent, respectively. These values were used to estimate the AM peak hour home-based work zonal trip productions and attractions, which were then used as inputs to a trip distribution procedure that generated the trip table.

C O m E R R46L SERVICE kWUWZllIONS

The station locations are shown in Figure 1-2. Each zone is assigned to the station that is most likely to be used by potential patrons. Table 1-4 shows the zonal

coverage of each of the stations. The assumed train schedules by commuter line are shown in Table 1-6. The

train schedules were formulated based on inter-station distance, average operating speed,

and station dwell time. The average passenger wait time for the commuter train was

set at five minutes. This wait time implicitly assumes that the commuter train service

could reliably adhere to its published schedule, so that commuters would tend to arrive

at the station shortly before the scheduled train departure in order to minimize their

wait time at the station.

TABLE 1-3 1988 ZONAL DEMOGRAPHIC & EMPLOYMENT DATA

Zone Town Population Housing Employment

Uni ts

Bur l ington

South Bur l ington

Uinooski

Essex Junction

Colchester

Essex

M i l t o n

Uestf ord

Georgia

Fai r f a x

Fletcher

Cambridge

St. Albans

F a i r f i e l d

Bakersf ie ld

Swanton

Sheldon

Enosburg

Montgomery

Richford

Berkshi r e

Frankl in

W i 11 i s t o n

Jericho

tlnderhi1 l R ichmond

Bol ton

Stowe

Johnson

Belvidere

Eden

Wate rv i l l e

Hyde Park

Morristown

Huntington

Duxbury

Waterbury

Worcester

Fayston

Moretown

Middlesex

I Zone

I I 1 34 1 35 I I I I 1 36 I I I 1 37 1 38

1 39 1 40 1 41

I 42 1 43 I 44

1 45 I 46 1 47 1 48 1 49 1 50

I I I 51

1 52 1 53

1 54

1 5 5 1 56

1 57

1 58 I 59 I 60 1 61 I I 62

1 63 I 64

Town

Calais

Wolcott

E Lmore

Cabot

Uoodbury

Marshf ield

Warren

Roxbury

Hancock

Granvi 1 l e

Wa i ts f ie ld

Nor th f ie ld

B e r l i n

Montpelier

East Montpel

Barre

P l a i n f i e l d

She1 burne

S t . George

Charlotte

Hinesburg

Ferr isburg

Monkton

Starksboro

Lincoln

Buels Gore

Panton

Vergennes

Waltham

New Haven

B r i s t o l

Addison

Weybridge

Middlebury

Ripton

Br idpor t

Cornwa 1 1

Sal isbury

Shoreham

Whiting

Goshen

Population Housing Employment Un i t s

TABLE 1-4

COMMUTER RAIL STATION ZONE COVERAGE

Stat ion Zone Stat ion Zone

Name No. Town Name No. Town

Bur l ington Burl ington Middlesex Fayston

South Burl ington Moretown

Uinooski Winooski M idd l esex

Essex Junct ion Essex Junction Hancock

Essex ~ r a n v ill e

Cambridge Montpelier Jct. Worcester

Ui l l i s t o n Calais

Colchester Colchester Wolcott

M i l ton M i l t o n Elmore

Uestf ord Cabot

Fairfax Woodbury

Fletcher Marshf ield

Georgia Georgia Roxbury

S t . Albans S t . Albans N o r t h f i e l d

F a i r f i e l d B e r l i n

Bakersf ield Montpelier

Swanton East Montpelier

Sheldon Barre

Enosburg P l a i n f i e l d

Montgomery Shelburne Shelburne

Richford Char lo t te Char lo t te

Berkshi r e Hinesburg

Frankl in North Ferr isburg Ferr isburg

Richmond Jericho Monkton

Underhi1 1 Vergennes Panton

Richmond Vergennes

Huntington Waltham

S t . George New Haven

Bol ton Bolton B r i s t o l

Waterbury Stone Addison

Johnson Weybridge

Belvidere New Haven Starksboro

Eden L incoln

U a t e r v i l l e Buels Gore

Hyde Park Middlebury Middlebury

Morristown Ripton

Duxbury Br idpor t

Waterbury Cornwa 1 1

Warren Sal isbury Wai ts f ie ld Shoreham

Whiting

Goshen

--------------- ------------- -------------

TABLE 1-5

VERMONT COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE SCHEDULE

St. Albans - Burlington Line AM PM

Station Read Down ----------- ---- ------------- Read U p ------------- St. Albans Lv. 6:30 7:30 Ar. 6:24 7:24 Georgia 6:45 7:45 6:09 7:09 Milton 6:50 7:50 6:04 7:04 Colchester 7:Ol 8:Ol 5:55 6:55 Essex Jct . 7:06 8:06 5:50 6:50 Winooski 7:12 8:12 5:44 6:44 Burlington Ar. 7:22 8:22 Lv. 5:34 6:34

Montpelier Junction - Burlington Line AM PM

Station Read Down --------------- ------------- Read U p ------------- Montpelier Jct. Lv. 6:30 7:30 Ar. 6:32 7:32 Middlesex 6:37 7:37 6:25 7:25 Waterbury 6:44 7:44 6:18 7:18 Bolton 6:55 7:55 6:07 7:07 Richmond 7:04 8:04 5:58 6:58 Essex Jct . 7:18 8:18 5:44 6:44 Winooski 7:24 8:24 5:38 6:38 Burlington Ar. 7:34 8:34 Lv. 5:28 6:28

Middlebury - Burlington - Essex Junction Line AM PM

Station Read Down Read U p

Middlebury Lv. 6:38 7:38 Ar. 6:26 7:26 New Haven 6:50 7:50 6:14 7:14 Vergennes 7:OO 8:OO 6:04 7:04 North Ferrisburg 7:09 8:09 5:55 6:55 Charlotte 7:15 8:15 5:49 6:49 Shelburne 7:24 8:24 5:40 6:40 Burlington 7:38 8:38 5:26 6:26 Winooski 7:48 8:48 5:16 6:16 Essex Junction Ar. 7:54 8:54 Lv. 5:lO 6:lO

Table 1-6 shows the fare schedule by commuter line. A distance-based fare

structure was assumed with a rate of six cents per mile and a minimum of 75 cents in

the 1986 dollars required by the calibrated model relationships. Using an inflation rate

of 4% per year, the fares were adjusted to the 1991 level with a factor of 1.21 which

results in a 1991 structure of 7.3 cents per mile with a minimum of 90 cents. The fare assumption is designed to maximize ridership. Compared to commuter

rail systems in other cities, a 1991 fare of 7.3 cents per mile is at the low end of the range. The fare structure for the new Virginia Rail Express ranges from 7 to 14 cents per mile. Metro in Seattle is considering fares between 5 and 10 cents per mile for a

new commuter rail service. The commuter rail fares in New York and Chicago average

about 10 cents per mile. Considering the relative incomes of potential patrons in Vermont to these metropolitan areas, a 1991 fare of 7.3 cents per mile with a 90 cent

minimum could be considered reasonable.

The access to the commuter rail station is generally by auto which could be either kiss-and-ride or park-and-ride. Parking spaces for park-and-ride access were

assumed to be available and free of charge at all stations except downtown Burlington.

The average parking cost in downtown Burlington was estimated to be $2.50 per day.

The majority of the commuter rail patrons will walk from the rail station to their place of employment. The average walk time from the station to the trip destination averaged ten minutes.

For the AM ridership estimates that include "bus egress" trips, feeder bus service

is assumed to be available as an AM egress and PM access option at the Burlington and

Essex Junction stations. The assumed feeder bus service is coordinated with the train

schedule to enable timed-transfer. A feeder bus fare of 60 cents was included in the cost on which the ridership estimates are based. The average wait time for the feeder bus was assumed to be five minutes.

The market segment in each zone from which the commuter rail system can draw

potential commuters is defined based on the following major factors: (a) relative location

of the commuter station and the trip origins and destinations; and, (b) the geographical

and temporal coverage of the access and egress modes. The first fador was taken into

----- --------- ---------

------------------ --------- ---------

TABLE 1-6

VERMONT COMMUTER RAIL FARE SCHEDULE

St. Albans - Burlington Line

ORIGIN TO BURLINGTON STATION Distance Fare

(miles) (1991 $ 1

St. Albans 31.80 2.32 Georgia 21.80 1.59 Milton 18.80 1.37 Colchester 11.60 0.90 Essex Jct . 8.00 0.90 Winooski 3.00 0.90

Montpelier Junction Line


(miles) (1991 $1

Montpelier Jct. 39.90 Middlesex 35.20 Waterbury 30.40 Bolton 23.20 Richmond 17.20 Essex Jct . 8.00 Winooski 3.00

Middlebury - Burlington - Essex Junction Line


(miles) (1991 $ 1

Middlebury New Haven Vergennes North Ferrisburg Charlotte Shelburne

TO ESSEX JUNCTION Middlebury 42.00 3.07 New Haven 35.00 2.55 Vergennes 29.00 2.12 North Ferrisburg 24.00 1.75 Charlotte 20.00 1.46 Shelburne 15.00 1.10 Burlington 8.00 0.90 Winooski 5.00 0.90

consideration by examining land use maps for each todcity. The land use maps

showed the spatial distribution of the origin and destination sites relative to the station location.

At the commuter's point of origin, auto access is assumed to be available, and so the service area covers the entire zone. However, at the commuter's destination,

walk and feeder bus are the only egress modes available. Therefore, the service area

is limited by the extent of feeder bus services, and the maximum distance that

commuters are willing to walk. It was assumed that potential riders will walk a

maximum distance of half a mile, and that feeder bus services would provide 50 percent

coverage for each of the group of contiguous zones which they serve. Based on these

assumptions and the information from the land use maps, the commuter rail market

segment for each zone were dehed in terms of a percentage of total trips destined to ' the zone. These percentages are shown in Table 1-7. The AM peak hour home-based

work trip table was multiplied by the percentages in order to derive the market segment

for potential commuter rail trips. The adjusted trip table was used as input to the mode

split model.

The mode split model used in this study is a logit formulation with parameters

borrowed from models calibrated for existing commuter rail markets. A close

examination of calibrated models fkom various regions has shown that the basic

relationships of travel time, waiting time, and cost are consistent between models. The

model used for this study includes these basic relationships and is defined by the

following equations:

Transit Probability = Transit Utility 1 Total Utility

where,

Total Utility = Transit Utility + Auto Utility

Auto Utility = Em(-0.015 * Auto Travel Time

-0.005 * Parking Cost + 0.5) Transit Utility = Em(-0.015 * Rail Travel Time

-0.005 * Cost

-0.06 * Waiting Time

-0.004 * Access & Egress Time)

TABLE 1-7

COMMUTER RAIL MARKET SEGMENT

(Percentage of T r i p Dest inat ions)

Zone Town Walk Bus Total I Zone Town Walk Bus Total


I Bur l ington 30 1 34 Calais

South Bur l ington 20 1 35 Wolcott

Uinooski I E Lmore

Essex Junct ion 80 1 Cabot Colchester 10 1 Uoodbury

Essex 50 1 Marshf ie ld

M i l ton 30 1 36 Warren

Westf o rd 0 I Roxbury

Georgia 30 1 Hancock

Fai r fax 0 1 Granvi ll e

Fletcher 0 1 37 Wa i ts f ie ld

Cambridge 0 ( 38 N o r t h f i e l d

St. Albans 60 1 39 B e r l i n 10 Fa i r f i e l d 0 1 40 Montpelier Bakersf ie ld 0 1 41 East Montpelier Swanton 0 1 42 Barre Sheldon 0 1 43 P l a i n f i e l d Enosburg 0 1 44 Shelburne Montgomery 0 ( 45 S t . George Richford 1 46 Char lo t te Berkshi r e 1 47 H inesburg

Frank1 i n 1 48 Ferr isburg W i l l i s t o n 0 1 49 Monkton

Jericho 0 I 50 Starksboro Underhi 11 0 1 L incoln Richmond 70 1 Buels Gore Bolton 60 1 51 Panton

Stowe 0 1 52 Vergennes Johnson 0 1 53 Wal tham Belvidere I 54 New Haven Eden 1 55 B r i s t o l Waterv i l le 1 56 Addison Hyde Park I 57 Ueybr idge Morristown I 58 Middlebury Huntington 0 ( 59 R ipton Duxbury 0 1 60 Br idpor t Waterbury I 61 Cornwall Worcester 0 1 Sal isbury Fayston 0 1 62 Shoreham Moretown 0 1 63 Whiting Middlesex 15 1 6 4 Goshen

Each component of the utility equations described above were calculated by using a

computer program which took as inputs the road and commuter rail network model and

characteristics described earlier in this report. The calculated utilities were then used to derive transit probabilities for each zone-pair. These transit probabilities were applied to the corresponding elements of the potential commuter rail market segment of the AM peak home-based work person trip table. The AM peak home-based work commuter rail

trips were loaded to the commuter rail network to produce ridership and revenue by line

(shown in Table 1-8). Most of the revenue figures were generated by multiplying the

number of passenger miles by 7.3 cents per mile. On sections that included passengers

that paid the minimum fare of 90 cents, the cost per mile for these passengers was determined by dividing the 90 cent fare by the length of the trip to the end of the line.

This rate was averaged with the 7.3 cents per mile based on the number of passengers ' on the section from each fare category.

TABLE 1-8

ESTIMATED AM PEAK PERIOD REVENUE (1991 S)

I LINE SEGMENT (DISTANCE I I I i I 1 (mi les) I WALK EGRESS I BUS EGRESS I TOTAL i 1st. A lbans-Bur l ing ton L ine I I I I i 1 FROM TO I ( Passengers Passenger Revenue I Passengers Passenger Revenue I Passengers Passenger Revenue I I I I M i l e s I Mi l e s I M i l e s i 1st. Albans Georgia I 10.0 I 40 400.0 $29.20 I 11 110.0 $8.03 I 51 510.0 $37.23 ( IGeorgia M i l t o n 1 3.O 1 48 144.0 $10.51 1 13 39.0 2 . 8 5 I 61 183.0 513.36 1 lMi l t o n Colchester 1 7 -2 1 103 741.6 554.14 1 31 223.2 $16.29 1 134 964.8 $70.43 1 (Co lchester Essex Jc t . 1 204 734.4 $55.37 1 63 226.8 $16.56 1 267 961.2 $71.93 1) e 6 1

IEssex Jc t . Uinooski 1 5 - 0 1 199 995.0 $79.701 37 185.0 $13.50 1 236 1180.0 $93.20 1 JUinoosk i B u r l i n g t o n 1 3.0 1 185 555.0 $55.61 ( 43 129.0 $9.42 1 228 684.0 $65.03 ( I Subto ta l 1 31.8 1 3570.0 $284.53 / 913.0 $66.65 1 4483.0 $351.18 1 I I I I I 1 IMon tpe l i e r Junc t i on -Bu r l i ng ton L ine ( P I I 1

H I I FROM TO I I I I 1

I-'0 IMontpel i e r J c t . Middlesex 1 4 - 7 1 28 131.6 $9.61 ( 7 32.9 $2.40 1 35 164.5 $12.01 1 (Middlesex Waterbury I 4 . 8 1 31 148.8 $10.86 I 7 33.6 $2.45 1 38 182.4 $13.32 1 IUaterbury Bo l t on 1 7.2 1 114 820.8 $59.92 1 30 216.0 $15.77 1 144 1036.8 $75.69 1 I B o l t o n R ichmond 1 6 -0 1 114 684.0 $49.93) 31 186.0 $13.58 1 145 870.0 $63.51 1 1Richmond Essex J c t . I 9 - 2 1 163 1499.6 $109.47 1 53 487.6 $35.59 1 216 1987.2 $145.07 1 (Essex Jc t . Uinooski 1 5-O 1 163 815.0 $66.59 1 33 165.0 $12.05 1 196 980.0 $78.63 1 [U inoosk i B u r l i n g t o n 1 3 - 0 1 159 477.0 $49.99 1 38 114.0 $8.32 I 197 591.0 $58.31 I I Subto ta l 1 39.9 ( 4576.8 $356.37 1 1235.1 $90.16 1 581 1 -9 $446.53 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 IMiddlebury-Burlington-Essex Jc t L i n e I I I I 1 I FROM TO I I I I 1 JMiddlebury New Haven 1 7-O 1 6 42.0 $3.07 1 0 0.0 $0.00 ( 6 42.0 $3.07 1 lNew Haven Vergennes 1 6 -0 1 18 108.0 $7.88 1 2 12.0 $0.88 I 20 120.0 $8.76 1 1 Vergennes Nor th Fe r r i sbu rg 1 5.0 1 21 105.0 $7.66 1 3 15.0 $1.10 I 24 120.0 $8.76 1 [No r th Fe r r i sbu rg Cha r lo t t e 1 4 - 0 1 26 104.0 $7.59 1 4 16.0 $1.17 1 30 120.0 $8.76 I I C h a r l o t t e Shel burne 1 5 - 0 1 68 340.0 $24.82 1 14 70.0 $5.11 I 82 410.0 $29.93 I (Shelburne B u r l i n g t o n 1 7 - 0 1 91 637.0 $46.50 1 25 175.0 $12.77 1 116 812.0 $59.28 1 l B u r l i n g t o n Uinooski 1 3 . 0 1 57 171.0 $17.92 1 17 51.0 $3.72 1 74 222.0 $21.64 1 IU inoosk i Essex Junct ion 1 5-O 1 26 78.0 $10.62 1 21 105.0 $7.66 1 47 235.0 $18.29 1 I Subto ta l I 42 1 1585.0 $126.07 ( 444.0 $32.41 ( 2081 -0 $158.48 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 0 T A L 1 113.7 1 9731.8 5766.97 1 2592.1 5189.22 1 12375.9 $956.19 1

Task I1

INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE ROUTES

The three potential commuter routes (from St. Al bans, Montpel ier Junction

and Middlebury to Burl ington) are best analyzed and are presented in this

section as three line segments:

Middlebury - Burlington;

Burlington - Essex Junction; and

St. Albans to Essex Junction to Montpelier

Middleburv - Burlington (Vermont Railway)

Characteristics The Vermont Railway (VTR) 1ine between Middlebury

and Burlington has a maximum gradient of one percent northbound and

maximum curvature of three degrees. Maximun authorized freight speed is

40 mph, however the portion between MP 92-105 is slow ordered for 30,

although much of that portion actually is adequate for 40 mph. The line

is not equipped with a signal system.

There is no passenger service on the 1ine, therefore VTR does not publish

passenger train speed 1imits. Existing freight train speed 1imits

correspond to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Class 2 (25 mph) and

Class 3 (40mph). The FRA permits maximum passenger train speeds of 30

mph on Class 2 track and 60 nlph on Class 3. Although it is correct to

conclude that passenger train speeds of 30 and 60 rnph on the 1 ines'

11-1


Class 2 and Class 3 trackage, respectively, would be permitted under FRA

standards, it does not necessarily follow that the track would sustain

comfortable, desirable commuter service.

Operations Track occupancy is control led by means of an absolute

block system ad~ninistered by a dispatcher at Burlington. A single

dispatcher position presently is staffed only 12 hours per day. When the

dispatcher's shift ends, the sole freight train scheduled to work is

authorized to use all necessary blocks. No other use of the tracks is . . . .. . ,.. . .

permitted until the dispatcher is again on duty.

The daily freight is called at Burlington for about hour 2000, departs at

2200 and makes a round trip to Rutland, returning in about 12 hours or

being re-crewed on 1 ine by the Burl ington yard crew. The through freight

operates six nights per week, excluding Saturday night. At present,

erratic Delaware & Hudson (D&H) interchange del iveries have a1 tered the

operating pattern, frequently causing the through train to reach

Burl ington between mi d-morni ng and noon.

The Bur 1 ington yard crew works industries in the Burl ington-She1 burne and

Burl ington terminal areas. CV crews operate through the VTR Burl ington

yard and interchange at a recently-upgraded interchange track south of the

yard at MP 120. No other regular jobs work the commuter segment. Stone

is loaded at Burl ington Yard and, prospectively, at New Haven starting in

1991, in season; except for that used as ballast by VTR, the stone is


taken south and interchanged to the D&H. Since a1 1 loading is now done on

sidings off of the main 1 ine and the stone cars are handled on the regular

night freight trains, the stone business presents no obstacles to daytime

comniuter operat ions.

There is no Amtrak passenger service on this segment. The 1ine's previous

owner, the Rutland Railroad, did offer passenger service; in 1950, three

daily trains in each direction were scheduled over the line.

. - . Condition Drainage and ballast are generally good. Surface is

adequate for existing use or better. Improved rail is the greatest need;

some original 90# rail has been replaced with 100# and the remainder is

gradually being changed to state-funded 105# Dudley. By the end of 1991,

over half of the rail in the commuter segment will be 100# or 105#. All

rail is jointed and most main line switches are new 100# RE rail. Rail is

tested annually in the Spring for defects by a Sperry Car. The 1990 test

revealed about 30 defects in the commuter segment, about 90 percent of

which were in the 90# rail.

Tie condition is the next greatest deficiency. Existing ties are adequate

for the 25/40 mph freight speeds, but no better. l'he lack of good ties

makes it hard to hold surface and maintain ride qu~lity. Tie condition is

such that some ties must be replaced along the entire 1ine each year,

unless a major program installs enough new ties to get ahead for a while.


The State is responsible for maintenance of a1 1 VTR bridges over water.

With the exception of the Seymour Street Bridge at Middlebury, bridges do

not limit operations. Operations on that bridge are limited to one of two

existing tracks. It is scheduled for replacement in 1991 by the State and

town. Speed is restricted to 30 mph over Brooksvil le Bridge, three miles

north of Middlebury. This, by itself, is not a severe handicap and it is

possible that a higher speed 1imit for passenger trains may be feasible

subsequent to a thorough bridge inspect ion.

. .. . - . .

Facilities A potential layover yard site would be at Middlebury

just north of the station and overpass and south of the grain elevator.

Existing, but retired, tracks could be re-built and turnouts installed,

enabl ing storage of two or three sets of commuter equipment.

Former passenger station buildings exist at Middlebury, New Haven and

Vergennes. All have been converted to other uses.

Sidings exist at Burl ington (69 car capacity), Charlotte (40 car capacity)

and Shelburne (20 car capacity). The main 1ine bisects the Burlington

yard, which is VTR's only yard on the subject segment.

Several private crossings exist around MP 116-117. Expensive homes along

the lake west of the track are accessed by crossings, each of which serves

several homes or a development.

11-4


One location with available parking and room to develop more is the

She1 burne Museuni at MP 114.4. The VTR track is readily accessible from the

parking lot.

At Burlington, MP 121.5, is the former Union Station. The structure's

exterior is in good condition. A garage or utility building has been

constructed in the former platform area. A single track passes through

the station, linking the VTR and the CV.

Burlinston - Essex Junction (Central Vermont Railwav)

Characteristics CV's wye track at Essex Junction and the eight-mile

Winooski Subdivision between Burl ington and Essex Junction would be a

necessary component of any service between St. Albans or Montpelier and

downtown Burlington or between Middlebury and the IBM plant. (See

Figure 11-1.) The line has a maximum effective gradient of about one

percent and maximum curvature of five degrees. Maximum authorized freight

speed is 25 mph, however the portion from MP 0 to and including the tunnel

(MP 1.15) is slow ordered to 10 mph, primarily account of the difficulty

of maintaining track surface inside the tunnel.

Operations The only service on the segment is provided three days

per week by a local freight from St. Albans. VTR interchange traffic and

inbound wood chips for the City of Burl ington generating plant constitute

the bulk of the line's traffic. Service could increase to five days per

week if the power plant's wood chip consumption increases.


F I G U R E 11-1

ESSEX J U N C T I O N AND V I C I N I T Y CENTRAL VERMONT RAILWAY

N o r t h

T o S t . Albans

11-6


The Subdivision has no signals. Movements are control led by the

dispatcher at St. Al bans by means of a Manual Block System.

Condition The north leg of wye is in good condition, but the south

leg is in poor shape. All three wye switches are hand-throw, requiring

movements to stop while an employee aligns the switch and then, following

movement through the switch, to wait while it is restored to proper

position.

Rail on the branch is a mixture of 100# and 90# of different ages and

types. Most of the rail has been removed from heavier main 1ine service

and installed on this lightly used branch. The line is not subject to

Sperry rail defect inspections.

CV restricts passenger cars at the tunnel located at MP 1.15. Due to

close clearance, especial ly near car top level, most passenger cars must

be operated at very slow speed and closely observed through tunnel.

Detai led tunnel clearances were requested from CV; further informat ion

concerning tunnel improvements necessary to permit commuter operations is

presented in the following Task 111 report.

Several grade crossings have restrictions noted in the timetable related

to the crossing protection.


St. Albans to Essex Junction to Montpel ier

Characteristics The portion of CV' s Roxbury Subdivision between St.

A1 bans, Essex Junction and Montpel ier Junction has a maximum effective

gradient in both directions of about one percent and maximum curvature of

four degrees, except for a six degree thirty minute curve at Essex

Junction. Maximum authorized speed is 59 mph for passenger trains and

40 mph for freight trains.

Operations Regular operations over the segment of interest have the

following pattern:

Southbound through freight train departs St. Albans between 1:30 and 4:00 p.m., normally 2:30 p.m.

Northbound through freight train usually arrives Montpelier Junction after 4:00 p.m.

Burl ington local works St. Albans to Essex Junction, Burl ington and returns three days per week. Departs St. A1 bans about 9:00 a.m., often working 12 hours a day. No local works between Montpelier Junction and Essex Junction.

A day shift yard crew works at St. Albans.

Amtrak northbound #60 due Montpelier Junction at 6:15 a.m., St. Aqbans 7:35 a.m.

Amtrak southbound #61 due to arrive St. Albans 7:10 p.m., departs St. Albans 8:00 p.m., departs Montpelier Junction 9:15 p.m.

The 1ine is unsignal led, with the exception of switch indicators for

dispatcher-control led switches in the vicinity of St. Albans Yard.

Movements are controlled by the dispatcher at St. Albans by means of a

Manual Block System.

11-8


Condition The line handles Amtrak passenger service and the track

qual ity is appropriate. Ride qual ity is very good, as observed from

hi-rail inspection and from riding Amtrak both directions over the

segment. Rail is 115# jointed (not welded). Drainage, subgrade and

ballast are very good. Tie condition is appropriate for the passenger

speeds and better than required by FRA Class 3 standards.

Facilities The yard and shop at St. Albans offer obvious

possibilities as layover and equipment servicing facilities. In addition,

the intermodal facility at St. Albans, presently idle but formerly used

for trai ler-on-f latcar (TOFC) loading, would make an excel lent layover

and/or commuter boarding site. CV indicates that it isplanning to

reinstitute TOFC service soon, which would render this site unavailable.

Existing tracks at the same location on the opposite (west) side of the

main track could be rehabilitated for layover use.

The Amtrak station at Essex Junction houses a bank and city bus

stoplterminal in addition to Amtrak. It is located along the main line

approximately 0.5 miles north of the wye, and thus is not appropriately

located for convenient use by trains using the south leg of the wye, for

example Montpel ier-Burl ington or Middlebury-IBM trains.

Space is available at Essex Junction for a layover site for a limited

number of trainsets, and some existing trackage also may be usable for

that purpose.

11-9


Amtrak stops at the Waterbury station at MP 89. The buildivg also houses

a retail shop. Little adjacent parking is available.

Aintrak also stops at Montpelier Jct., MP 76.5. This location is also the

connection with the Washington County Railroad and downtown Montpelier

(about 1.7 miles away). Open space inside the wye trackage is likely

available as a layover yard site. A portion o f the Washington County

interchange trackage also may be available. Parking for about 40 cars

exists at present, more could be developed.

11-10


Task I11

COMMUTER RAIL OPERATIONS PLANNING

Phvsical Plant Suitability

The first step toward feasibi 1ity determination is assessing the

capability of the subject lines to support commuter operations. That

issue is addressed in three parts:

Does the track configuration of the routes permit operation of commuter trains? Track configuration includes the arrangement of tracks, switches and signals as we1 1 as the 1ine's gradient and curvature.

Is existing track condition sufficient for commuter operations? Condition incorporates rai 1 , tie and switch component condition along with subgrade condition and track surface and a1 ignment.

Wi11 other rai lroad services conf 1 ict with commuter operations?

Findings concerning these three issues are summarized below, followed by

more detailed discussions concerning each of the three segments described

in Task 11.

Svnopsis One significant configuration problem exists which has the

potential to affect service implementation. CV restricts movement of

certain standard passenger car types through its tunnel at MP 1.15 on the

W inooski Subdivision between Bur 1ington and Essex Junction. Other

necessary or desirable configuration improvements, including the obvious

requirement to provide layover faci 1ities for commuter equipment, do not

threaten to hinder implementation.

111-1


Necessary standards of condition are more a matter of judgement than are

questions of configuration. FRA track standards prescribe " initial

minimum safety requirements" and do not represent track standards which

are adequate for commuter service. Commuter service should not be

implemented without an express commitment to maintain tracks in a

condition which supports safe, reliable and comfortable service. To do

otherwise wi 1 1 doom the service to a short and unpopular existence.

Improvements which reduce ongoing maintenance expense may be identified in

this report or in further study; since the agency sponsoring commuter

service should expect to compensate the railroads through a track access

charge which includes a1 1 incremental maintenance costs, these

improvements should be given serious consideration in pre-implementation

planning.

The CV 1ine between St. A1 bans and Montpelier Junction is in excel lent

condition and would support commuter service without improvement. Rai1,

tie, ballast and surfacing work would be required on CV's Winooski

Subdivision (Burlington-Essex Junction) and on VTR's line to enable the

higher operating speeds necessary to provide time-competi tive rai 1

commuter service at acceptable levels of passenger comfort.

Potential conf 1icts with freight or Amtrak services can be resolved

through coordinated schedule planning and do not threaten service

feasibility.

111-2


Middleburv - Burlinqton (Vermont Railwav)

Conf iqurat ion The 1 ine' s existing configuration requires only

the addition of a layover facility and grade crossing circuit modification

to be adequate for service implementation. Existing, retired trackage at

Middlebury offers a suitable potential layover site, if upgraded. The 40

car passing track at Charlotte provides sufficient operating f lexibi 1ity

should any freight operations be conducted concurrent with com~iiuter

service. Additional platform track or sidings at the Burlington Union

Stat ion may be required under some operating scenarios.

Grade crossing protection signal circuits would have to be modified to

provide adequate warning because of the increase in commuter train speed

over that of existing freight trains. In addition, crossings located

adjacent to commuter stops may warrant motion-sensing devices to permit

safe movement of highway traffic while commuter trains are stopped.

Improvements The VTR trackage to be used, presently a mixture of

FRA Class 2 and Class 3, should be brought up to a standard exceedinq

Class 3. Class 3 standards permit passenger operation at 60 mph, however

in the absence of a signal system, FRA regulations would restrict

passenger trains to a maximum of 59 mph. With respect to ties and

surface, a level exceeding Class 3 is recommended to enhance commuter

comfort and hence the attractiveness of the service. VTR would 1ike

500-1,000 ties per mile to upgrade for commuter service; based on field


inspection, 1,000 per mile would be adopted as a reasonable, conservative

planning figure. This is a desirable upgrade which would improve track

qual ity, provide satisfactory ride qual ity and support efficient

maintenance practices.

A Sperry rai 1 defect inspection should be made no more than six months

prior to start-up and all defects remedied. (Sperry inspections are

presently conducted annually, in the spring.) Although VTR is willing to

consider commuter operations over the 90# rail fol lowing adequate tie and

surface work, the remainder of the 90# rai 1 should be changed out in favor

of 105# or larger rail to support commuter operation. Preferably, this

should be done prior to starting service. In addition, all rail purchased

and installed due to commuter operations should be shop or field welded;

consideration should be given to cropping and welding existing 100# and

105# rail as well. Following rail and tie work, the line should be

ball asted and surfaced.

Conflicts Freight conflicts would be minimal at initial commuter

service levels. VTR' s present operating pattern schedules through freight

service at night, thus minimizing potential conflicts. The siding at

Charlotte provides a place for a freight train which may be delayed into

the commuter period to clear the main line . Potential conflicts with

local service and switching requirements may be avoided through careful

freight scheduling and ordinary dispatching practices.

111-4


Burlinqton - Essex Junction (Central Vermont Railwavl

Configuration Except for necessary improvements to the tunnel

and grade crossing protect ion changes, configuration of the Winooski

Subdivision is adequate to support initial levels of service. Track

through the tunnel should be removed, the floor lowered through excavation

and new ties, welded rail and ballast installed to provide additional of

vertical clearance and to improve horizontal clearances at equipment tops.

Grade crossing detection circuits would have to be modified to provide

adequate warning consistent with the increase in commuter train speed over

that of freight trains.

An optional , but desirable improvement which should receive further

consideration in subsequent pre-implementation studies is instal lation of

remote control switch machines activated by commuter engineer from on

board the train on any of the three Essex Junction wye switches which must

be thrown in the course of commuter operations. This would avoid the

delay required for a crew member to a1 ign switches prior and subsequent to

use b y each train and expedite passage of commuter trains

Condition This segment should be brought up to a standard

exceedinq FRA Class 3, which would permit passenger operation at speed up

to 60 mph. (FRA standards are minimum safety standards; track which meets

FRA requirements may not provide a comfortable ride at desired speed,

hence some standards such as track surface should exceed the FRA minimum.)


A tie program encompassing replacement of 1,000 ties per mile should be

undertaken over the entire Subdivision. Commuter operation at 40 mph

would require replacement of about half of the segment's rail and

operations at or near 60 mph would require total rai 1 replacement.

Ballast and surface work would be required subsequent to tie and rail

replacement.

Increased speed would require adding super-elevation on curves and

reworking and extending spirals on each end of each curve. As a result,

continuing slow speed freight operation would accelerate rai 1 wear on the

inside rail. CV 1ikely would expect compensation for the increased wear,

although if welded rail is installed on the entire line, higher freight

operating speeds would probably be authorized and the rai 1 wear problem

largely mitigated.

Conf1icts At initial levels of commuter operations, freight

service and maintenance of way conf 1icts may be avoided by scheduling of

those activities around commuter operations.

St. Albans to Essex Junction to Montpelier

Conf iquration Track configuration is adequate for commuter

operations, requiring only the provision of layover facilities at the end

points.

111-6


Condition Condition also is adequate for reliable, comfortable

commuter service. This is demonstrated, and undoubtedly influenced, by

Amtrak 's dai ly passenger service over this route.

Conflict The most serious potential conflict occurs in the

morning involving Amtrak s train number 60. The more serious conf 1icts

would arise between St. Albans and Essex Junction (or IBM) among

southbound commuter trains and the northbound Amtrak passenger train.

Amtrak may insist upon its trains receiving preference, which is its

statutory right. Careful scheduling of commuter trains can minimize, or

possibly avoid, any delay to commuter trains resulting from an Amtrak

train operating on schedule, however, a late Amtrak train would 1ikely

disrupt morning service even though Oakland and Milton sidings are

available for train meets.

A lesser, but significant , potential conf 1ict occurs between Montpel ier

Junction and Essex Junction among northbound commuter trains and the same

northbound Amtrak train. Again, schedul ing of commuter trains can

potentially avoid delay to commuter trains resulting from an Amtrak train

operating on schedule. A late Amtrak train would probably cause some

delay because operating passenger trains closer than approximately ten

minutes apart is impractical under the prevai 1ing Manual Block System.

These potential Amtrak conf 1icts should be explored in subsequent

implementation studies, first with CV to examine Amtrakls on-time


performance over the segment of interest and to obtain its recommendations

and, second, with Amtrak to discuss scheduling and priority. Amtrak may

consent (as it recently did in Florida) to a "first come, first served"

dispatching pol icy which would establish equal priority for commuter and

Amtrak trains. These potential conflicts have important ramification in

service schedul ing and performance, however, they are operational issues

which can be managed such that they do not represent an insurmountable

obstacle to commuter service implementation, particularly if Amtrak were

to be selected to operate the commuter service.

Additional Crossinq Protection

Initiation of commuter rail service over either VTR or CV tracks may

affect the need for automatic warning devices at grade crossings which are

not so equipped at present. Although additional warning devices would not

necessarily be required solely due to the presence of commuter trains, the

service would result in increased train levels. On CV1s Winooski

Subdivision and the VTR, high speed passenger service would be

superimposed upon lines which now host only lower-speed freight

operations. Pre-implementation planning should, in conjunction with

appropriate state, county and municipal highway departments, examine a1 1

grade crossings to be used and make appropriate improvement plans. The

cost of recommended improvements should not be entirely attributed to the

commuter, which would be an incremental user.

111-8


Locomotives and Passenqer Equipment

Planninq and Market Considerations

Demand for commuter railcars in North America generally is high and the

market is active, fueled both by emerging commuter operations and fleet

expansion or replacement by existing services. New equipment

manufacturers general ly have substantial back orders, yet add-on orders,

options to increase orders and maneuvering for higher priority among back

orders are a1 1 common. Used equipment occasional ly becomes avai lable,

but, if in reasonable condition, usually does not long remain on the

market. Arntrak's equipment needs and its lack of funding, downsizing of

Canada's VIA intercity passenger service, entry and exit from the

equipment market of short 1 ine railroad and excursion companies as well as

residual interests of funding agencies, such as UMTA, all tend to

complicate the equipment situation.

It is critical in a new-start commuter operation that equipment meet

pub1 ic expectat ions and support re1 iable operation or ridership wi 1 1

plummet. The importance of satisfactory cars and the uncertain

avai labi 1 ity of acceptable used equipment mandate that a feasi bi 1 ity study

such as this plan on use of new cars as the basis for evaluation. Should

the proposed commuter service enter the implementation phase, a window of

opportunity wi 1 1 be available to examine used equipment which may become

available. This window would start when the commuter agency is empowered

and will ing to commit funds and end at the last feasible date to order new

equipment without delaying service implementation. Nonetheless, it is


imprudent to assume that suitable commuter cars would be available at an

acceptable time and planning must revolve around acquisition of new

equipment.

The situation is different with respect to locomotives, in that a viable

alternative to the purchase of new passenger locomotives is 1 ikely to

exist when desired. Several companies remanufacture freight locomotives

for use in commuter service and the uti 1ity, if not the economics, of such

rebuilt locomotives is on a par with that of new units. Accordingly, both

new and remanuf actured locomotives are viable a1 ternatives at this

feasibility stage.

Passenqer Equipment

Push-pull operations, which predominate in commuter operations and short

intercity corridors, would be adopted for Burl ington service. This

requires that each train be equipped with a cab control car (one that has

engineer's controls permitting operation from that car with the locomotive

pushing the train from the other end).

Bi- level and gal lery passenger cars are el iminated from consideration by

the restricted clearance of the tunnel on the CV's Winooski Subdivision

between Burl ington and Essex Junction. Bids to supply single level

equipment might be submitted by Bombardier, Nippon Sharyo, Mitsui or other

firms. Bombardier cars asserr~bled in nearby Barre are typical, offering

111-10


seated capacities between 118 and 131 passengers and crush load capacities

between 177 and 196. A reasonable cost estimate for an order including

the necessary cab cars and coaches would be $1.0 mi 11ion per car.

Locomotives

The most recent entry into the new comniuter locomotive market, EMD's

F59PH, would a1 so probably be el iminated from considerat ion by tunnel

clearances, a1 though it cou 1d be reconsidered once engineering design for

tunnel improvements were completed. EMD' s F40PH has been the standard

North American passenger locomotive over the past decade. That model has

operated through the tunnel under close observation, and it is anticipated

that recommended tunnel improvements would a1 low regular operat ion. This

locomotive would cost an estimated $2.0 million each. No other

appropriate passenger locomotives are present 1y manufactured in North

America.

Commuter locomotives rebui 1t from freight engines are employed by or on

order for several pub1 ic transportat ion agencies, including Metro North,

NJ Transit and the Virginia Railway Express. Such locomotives offer a

viable means of implementing service at less cost than for new

locomotives. Peak period, relatively low mi leage operations such as those

contemplated for the Burl ington area are particularly we1 1 suited for

rebui1t locomotives. Remanufactured 1ocomotive proposals cou 1d be

expected from several, or numerous, sources, potentially including

Morrison Knudsen, Republic, VMV, EMD and General Electric. $1.1 million


is a reasonable estimate of the cost of a remanufactured locomotive

including head end power for commuter service, however, prices tend to

fluctuate more widely in this market than those of new equipment.

Rail Diesel Cars or Rai 1 Busses

Self-propelled railcars, known as Rail Diesel Cars (RDC's) are

self -contained diesel -powered passenger cars which may be operated singly

or coupled to others as a multiple-unit consist operated by a single

engineer. The RDC is a descendant of the gas01 ine-electric cars of the

19201s, which were designed to provide 1 ight-densi ty passenger service at

a cost less than that of operating a complete, locomotive-hauled train.

The RDC served the same function, but its multiple-unit capability

provided greater f lexi bi 1 ity and increased its appeal to commuter and

passenger operators. RDC 's were manufactured by the Budd Company between

1949 and 1962. Its successor, the SPV-2000, was commercial ly manufactured

between 1979 and 1981. Due to changed market conditions, mechanical

problems and high price, only 30 SPV-2000 units were sold.

RDC's or other self-propel led railcars are often suggested when new,

1 ight-densi ty passenger or commuter service is proposed. Almost 30 years

have elapsed since completion of Budd's last RDC; assembly of an adequate

fleet of those cars in sound condition is unlikely. Self-propelled

passenger equipment is corrlmon in many European countries, however none is

manufactured or has recently been placed in regular service in the U.S. or

Canada. A new commuter operation would be at risk to base its entire

111-12


service on a technology never employed in commercial service in North

America. A large com~uter operation with adequate reserve roll ing stock

could test such equipment without jeopardizing service; however,

Burlington service would face a total shut-down should a manufacturing or

maintenance problem emerge fol lowing commencement of revenue operat ions.

This is a financial risk, and, more importantly, a threat to the very

existence of the service.

The Railbus concept adapts bus technology to rail use in an effort to

provide a vehicle which can economically handle an even smaller passenger

load than the RDC. Some Railbus models may be operated in multiple-unit

consists in the same manner as RDC's. Although there have been several

in-service tests, no Railbusses have been used in continuing revenue

service in this country. The same reasons which compel rejection of rail

car technology which is new to this country apply equally to Railbus

equipment. Additionally, the Rai 1bus is designed to handle small

passenger demand such as off-peak or feeder service; should peak period

demand for a Bur 1 ington service be so small that it may be accommodated by

a Railbus, then the entire concept manifestly would not justify the

required investments in infrastructure and overhead and other a1 ternat ive

should be sought.

Recommended Equipment: Summary

Feasibility analysis of Burlington commuter service should be based upon

use of remanufactured locomotives and new, single- level coaches and cab


cars. Pre-implementation planning could revisit the questions of used

passenger cars based upon market considerations. Railcar or Railbus

technology also could be reconsidered if either establishes a record of

successfu 1 revenue service.

Schedule Development

Ridership estimates were based upon a service scenario consisting of two

trains on each of the three routes. If only a single train were to be

operated on each route, estimated ridership would drop by approximately 35

percent. Accordingly, feasibility planning has retained the two-train

concept and the sample schedule, set out in Figure 111-1, projects

operation of two trains on each route. Figure 111-1 represents one

feasible schedule based upon existing Amtrak operat ions, recommended

infrastructure improvements. It takes into considerat ion recommended

equipment types and permits each train to serve both Burlington and Essex

Junction directly. Scheduling will require more attention should the

project move into an implementat ion phase. Schedules should be tai lored

to match predominant working hours. In addition, Amtrak and freight

operations are adjusted frequently and may be different than at present.

These changes may ease or complicate schedule development.

As detai led implementat ion planning proceeds, opportunities for improved

equipment uti 1 ization or operational efficiency may surface. One

possibility would be to unload a1 1 passengers at Essex Junction off the

first train from Montpelier Junction. Passengers bound for Winooski or

111-14


Figure 111-1

VERMONT COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE SAMPLE SCHEDULE

ST. ALBANS - ESSEX JUNCTION - BURLINGTON

MORNING EVENING STATION READ DOWN READ UP --------------- ...................... ...................... ST. ALBANS 06:30AM 07:30 AM 06:24 PM 07:24 PM GEORGIA 06:45 AM 07:45 AM 06:09 PM 07:09 PM MILTON 06:50 AM 07:50 AM 06:04 PM 07:04 PM COLCHESTER 07:Ol AM 08:Ol AM 05:55 PM 06:55 PM ESSEX JCT 07:06 AM 08:06 AM 05:50PM 06:50PM W INOOSKI 07:12 AM 08:12 AM 05:44 PM 06:44 PM BURLINGTON 07:22 AM 08:22 AM 05:34 PM 06: 34 PM

MONTPELIER JUNCTION - ESSEX JUNCTION - BURLINGTON

MORNING EVENING STATION READ DOWN READ UP --------------- ...................... ...................... MONTPELIER JCT. 06:30 AM 07:30 AM MIDDLESEX 06:37 AM 07:37 AM WATERBURY 06:44 AM 07:44 AM BOLTON 06:55 AM 07:55 AM RICHMOND 07:04 AM 08:04 AM ESSEX JCT 07: 18 AM 08: 18 AM W:[ NOOSK I 07:24 AM 08:24 AM BURLINGTON 07:34 AM 08:34 AM

MZDDLEBURY - BURLINGTON - ESSEX JUNCTION

MORNING EVENING STATION READ DOWN READ UP --------------- ...................... ......................

MIDDLEBURY NEW HAVEN VERGENNES N. FERRISBURG CHARLOTTE SHELBURNE BURLINGTON WZNOOSKI ESSEX JCT


Burlington would transfer to the first train from St. Albans (which would

arrive simultaneously at Essex Junction) for the completion of their

journeys. The empty equipment from Montpel ier Junction would run non-stop

to St. Albans and would protect the second inbound train from there.

Evening outbound operations could be simi larly structured, thereby

reducing system locomotive requirements by one and, probably, cab car and

coach requirements as well. This is only a single operating alternative,

many others may emerge. Trade-offs of equipment uti 1ization and passenger

convenience, i .e., the extra transfer at Essex Junction, may be accurately

evaluated only as part of detailed implementation planning and thus are

not incorporated into feasibi 1 ity planning.

Railroad Institutional Issues

Contacts with VTR and CV were deliberately low-key and explicitly did not

seek a formal commitment to permit or operate commuter service over their

1ines; seeking such commitment would have been inappropriate at this

conjectural stage. In the case of the larger CV, high level opposition

might have been aroused and given time to harden into pol icy.

Contacts with both railroads were positive in tone and both conveyed the

message that a commuter operation which paid its fair share would be

welcome. Based upon this favorable reception and recognizing that

rai lroad management cannot make commitments unti 1 the operational and

financial arrangements are well developed, it is recommended that

additional promises not be sought unti 1 the project advances to

pre-implementat ion planning.

111-16

R.L.BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

It is 1 ikely that commuter operations using a two-person crew might be

arranged on both railroads, although on CV this is not presently permitted

by existing labor agreements (except for single self-propel led cars) and

thus would require negotiation between management and labor union

representatives.


TASK IV

COMMUTER SERVICE COST ESTIMATES

OPERATING COSTS

Expected annual operating costs of the Burl ington commuter rai 1 service

are summarized in Table IV-1. Costs presented provide a reasonable basis

from which to make a preliminary judgement of feasibi 1ity, however they

should not be construed as the whole set of costs that such an operation

incurs. Cost estimates are based upon upgrading the segments described

above to support fast , comfortable service using proven commuter

equipment, including new coaches and locomotives remanufactured for

commuter service. Estimates are del iberately conservative, as is

appropriate to the feasibility evaluation process. Implementation

planning may identify opportunities for expenses reduction, such as

acquisition of used coaches or more favorable wage rates, but prudent

feasibility analysis cannot rest on assumptions that used or heretofore

unproven equipment will be available or desirable or that labor

arrangements more favorable than those hypothesized wi 1 1 be attainable.

Table IV-1 sumniarizes those operating costs estimated to occur during a

nornial year of service. These costs are grouped in the table between line

specific and joint use costs. Joint use costs are those costs that are

expected to be incurred regardless of the number of routes or which routes

that are operated, whereas line specific expenses will result only if the

particular route is operated. The various elements of line specific and

joint use operating costs are calculated in Table IV-2.


TABLE 1

I v-2


TABLE IV-2 OPERATING COST CALCULATIONS

Crew and Fuel Costs

Unit Number Unit Cost ( $ ) Unit(s)

Crew Cost: Middlebury: Road Engineer ea. Road Conductor ea.

Total Middlebury

Montpelier: Road Engineer ea. Road Conductor ea.

Total Montpelier

St. Albans: Road Engineer ea. Road Conductor ea.

Total St. Albans

Total Crew Cost

Fuel Cost: Middlebury GallonslTM - 3.0225 36,307 Montpelier GallonslTM - 3.0225 42,626 St. Albans GallonslTM - 3.0225 34,058

Total Fuel Cost

Source: Operating Characteristics, Task 111; Accompanying Text Legend; TM - Train Miles

page 1 of 3

Total Cost

109,738 128,836 102,940

TABLE IV-2 Page 2 of 3 OPERATING COST CALCULATIONS

Maintenance Cost

Locomot ive Coach & Cab Cars Number Unit Tota 1 Unit Tota 1

Unit Unit(s) Cost (S) Cost ( S ) Cost ( $ ) Cost ($)

Middlebury: day mile

Total

Montpe 1 ier: day mile

Total

St. Albans: day mile

Tota 1

Joint Use (Spares):

Unit Number Tota 1 Unit Cost ($) Unit(s) Cost (S)

Middlebury: Locomotive ea 53,592 2 107,185 Coach & Cab Cars ea 32,018 2 64,035 Stat ions ea 3,000 5 15,000

Total Middlebury 186,220

Montpel ier: Locomotive ea Coach & Cab Cars ea Stat ions ea

Total Montpel ier

St. Albans: Locomotive ea Coach & Cab Cars ea Stations ea

Total St. Albans

Joint Use (Spares): Locomotive ea Coach & Cab Cars ea Stations ea

Total Joint Use

Source: Accompanying Text

IV-4


TABLE IV-2 OPERATING COST CALCULATIONS

Depreciation Cost

Expected Cost ($ ) L i f e (years) Salvage

Middlebury: Locomotive Coach Car Cab Car Track Work:

Ties 1.190.000 Rai l 1.896.000 Ba l las t 163.200 Surface 170,000 Xing protect ion 440,000 Xing surface 82.500

Total Track 3,941.700 Stat ion 289,600 Layover Faci li t y 212.000

Total Middlebury

Montpel ier : Locomotive 1.100.000 Coach Car 1,000,000 Cab Car 900,000 Stat ion 284,400 Layover Faci 1 it y 212.000

Total Montpelier

St. Albans: L o c m t ive 1.100,OOO Coach Car 1,000,000 Cab Car 900.000 Stat ion 461,600 Layover Faci 1it y 100.000

Total St. Albans

Jo in t Use: Locomotive Coach Car Cab Car Track Work:

Ties 240,000 Ra i l 960,000 Bal l a s t 44,800 Surface 40,000 Xing pro tec t ion 240,000 Xing surface 45,000 Tunne 1 lowering 125.000

Total Track 1,694.800 Stat ion 288,400 Layover Faci 1 i t y 312.000

Total Jo in t Use

Grand Total Source: Acconpanying Text

-Legend: nlap not applicable: Xing - Crossing

I V-5


Page 3 of 3

Annua 1 Units Depreciation

nlap 39.667 n/ap 28,440 n/ap 23.314 n/ap 28.333 n/ap 11,000 nlap 4.125

134.879 n/ap 14.480 n/ap 10.600

285.959

2 66.000 2 60,000 2 53,333

nlap 23.080 n/ap 5,000

207,413

nlap 8,000 nlap 14,400 nlap 6,400 nlap 6,667 nlap 6,000 n/ap . 2.250 nlap 6,250

49,967 nlap 14,420 nlap 15,600

172.987

Line Specific

Line specific operating costs have been defined as those costs directly

associated with operation of commuter service on a specific route, such as

train and engine crew expenses.

Crew Costs: Expected operating characteristics prescribe two crew

members, both a Road Engineer and Conductor. Crew wages, including

benefits and administrative costs, were projected based on a review of

Amtrak 's agreement with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation

Authority. Representative estimates are Road Engineer: $84,182; and

Road Conductor: $80,224.

The commuter rail sponsor should recognize that, in the event service

is discontinued either in whole or on any segment, a labor protective

obligation may exist. Such obligations are corrlmon in the rail

industry, triggered by events which reduce employment, such as service

discontinuance, abandonment or merger. This 1iabi1 ity may arise from

terms of the operator's labor agreements (if any) or from then-current

ICC practice or precedent, and thus cannot be accurately forecast.

Recent payments have ranged from $50,000 to five year's wages per

employee. Any potential service operator is likely to ask the sponsor

to accept the liability for labor protection, which would be a matter

of negotiation between the sponsor and the operator; it is possible

that the sponsor may avoid any 1iabil ity. Because of this

IV-6


uncertainty, 1abor protect ion has not been incorporated into the

operating cost estimate, but it remains a matter for attention in

subsequent planning and implementation.

Fuel: Fuel expense has been estimated from actual fuel consumption

reports provided by Metra, the Chicago area commuter rail operation,

which experienced a diesel fuel consumption rate of 4.03 gallons per

train mile. Diesel fuel costs, somewhat unpredictable at this time,

were estimated to be $.75 per gallon, resulting in a projected fuel

cost of $3.0225 per train-mile. Train miles operated are based on

operating scenarios depicted in Task 111.

Access Fee: The commuter operator would be required to pay each

railroad an access fee to compensate the railroad for its incremental

maintenance of way expense related to commuter operations, a

dispatching fee, miscel laneous expenses and overhead costs including a

prof it or return on investment component. An access fee of $5.11 per

train-mi le, including an overhead additive of 25 percent was estimated

based on comparative commuter access charges and should provide a

reasonable basis for this purpose; however, in the event service is

implemented, this fee would be the result of negotiation.

Maintenance: Based on estimates developed in studies of other

commuter rail services, the current costs of maintaining locomotives,

cars and stations are projected on page 2 of Table IV-2. One

locomotive unit and one car on each of two Middlebury trains; one


locomotive unit and two cars operating on each of two train sets of

equipment serving Montpelier Junction and St. Albans; and one spare

locomotive unit and two spare cars would generate the equipment

service units shown in the Table.

Depreciation: Capital costs, developed in Table IV-3 below, were

depreciated on a straight line basis. Equipment lives and salvage

values were calculated based on equipment specifications and our

experience in valuation and appraisal efforts.

Joint Use Costs

Joint Use costs are operating costs which cannot be attributed to a single

route. These costs, such as those associated with spare equipment and

track improvements for the Essex Junction - Burlington segment, are shared

by each 1ine. Should service over only one 1 ine be deemed feasible, these

cost will be attributable solely to its operations.

General and Administrative: General and Administrative (G&A) category

includes management-associated costs. Such costs are not directly

assignable to a single route and occur regardless of the routes chosen

as feasible.

Labor: Labor associated with administration of the commuter

rail service consists of a director, responsible for day to

day operations, contracts and purchases and an

IV-8

R.L.BANKS &ASSOCIATES, INC.

administrative assistant. Their respective salaries, shown

below, include a 25 percent benefit additive.

Commuter Director $63,000

Administrative Asst. 34,000

Lease: Convenient office space is available at the

Bur1 ington Union Stat ion. Currently owned by Alden

Waterfront Corporation, Union Stat ion off ice space rents for

approximately $12.50 per square foot, including uti 1ities.

It was determined that approximately 900 square feet would

accommodate two management personnel described above.

Off ice Equipment: Equipment, including two personal

computers and a copier, was estimated to cost approximately

$10,000 with a useful life of 5 years, resulting in a $2,000

annual cost. Rented office furniture is expected to cost

approximately $250.00 per month, based on discussion with an

off ice furniture rental company.

InsuranceIRisk Manaqement: The commuter rail system's

approach to risk management and the resultant expense wi 1 I

be predicated on state law and pol icy, operator selection

and negotiations and contracts developed with the rai lroads

over which service is provided. The state, existing


transportation bodies or other governmental agencies may

have risk management programs in which the commuter service

may participate. Should commercial insurance be purchased,

its cost would be based upon the implementing arrangements,

the operating plan and detai led actuarial estimates beyond

the scope and timing of. this feasibi 1 ity determination.

Participation in an existing state or other public program

would 1ikely be far less expensive than commercial

insurance. The volatility of the insurance market in recent

years and the variety of possible approaches to risk

management make it difficult to estimate this cost with

confidence. An estimate of $100,000 per year (predicated on

participation in a state or regional program, perhaps

supplemented by commercial insurance) was included in the

operating costs, however greater reliance on commercial

insurance could increase this figure by three or four times.

The critical nature of risk management planning and the

potential impacts and variance of the risk expense should be

careful ly considered in further service design.

Miscellaneous: Office supplies such as paper, telephone

etc. are included in this category. Such was estimated to

be 1 percent of the total G&A expense.

Continsencv: A five percent a1 lowance was made for operating cost

contingencies.

IV-10


CAPITAL COSTS

Table IV-3 (pages 1-4)detai 1s expected equipment and infrastructure

capital costs associated with needed improvements and purchases described

in Task 111. Unit costs reflect current market conditions assessed during

recent appraisal efforts on behalf of several financial institutions as

well as commuter and light rail planning done on behalf of authorities in

Southern California, Northern Virginia and Baltimore.

Many of these capital costs are relatively straight forward and need

7ittle explanation; however, one aspect of capital improvement which

deserves specific attention is parking at commuter stations. Parking is

critical to attracting commuter rai 1 passengers. On commuter 1 ines with

limited parking, it often becomes the critical constraint limiting

ridership growth. Because of the importance of parking, projected Stat ion

Improvements include provision of parking for 75 percent of projected

riders boarding at each station. The remainder are assumed to carpool, be

dropped off or reach the station by public transit or other means.

Despite the critical importance of pa.rk-irrg, the service contemplated in

this study potentially may be instituted without immediately incurring the

full $1.0 million estimated for parking improvements. During

implementation planning, a survey of existing parking near station sites

should be made and consideration given to lease or cooperative use

agreements. Some parking lots may initially be gravel instead of paved,

subject to local ordinances.


TABLE IV-3 Page 1 o f 4

. . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rl O r l- . m. d h l m Q,

rl

.. CI

al k ld

V) (0 a V) w m al V).. :, LC *.5 LC Z a l "5 k

LC.d (d V) 07.4 m V) -4 cd m WJJU k G U U k a l U U L C .4 0 (d (do (d2 g e u z g e u g i g . " a v ma 4 u ma c) u m~C r o o m o o m G o o a 6 J U U 4 0 0 - 4 J U U s 4J 0

V1 '7

IV-12


TABLE IV-3 Page 2 of 4 CAPITAL COST CALCULATIONS

Track and Right-of-way Capital Improvements

Units Total cost ( $ 1 Miles Per Mile Units PerUnit Cost($) Total ( $ )

Middlebury (Vermont RWY): Ties 34 1,000 34,000 35 1,190,000 Rail 15.8 120,000 1,896,000 Ballast 34 600 20,400 8 163,200 Surface 34 34 5,000 170,000 Upgrade Xing protection 11 40,000 440,000

R Upgrade Xing surface 11 7,500 82,500 I-

m D Total Middlebury (Vermont RWY) z X V, Joint Use (CV-Winooski Sub.): ZrO Ties z Rail V,0 2 Ballast 2 1-I Surface5 Upgrade Xing protection rn V, -

Upgrade Xing surface z Tunnel lowering 0

Total Common Use (CV-Winooski Sub.)

Grand Total

Source: Accompanying Text Legend: RWY - Railway; Xing - Crossing

TABLE IV-3 CAPTIAL COST CALCULATIONS Station Capital Improvements

Page 3 of 4

Stations Cost Boardings

7 5 2 Parking

Parking Space

$ 2 . 0 0 0

Platform Platforms

$ 1 4 , 4 0 0

Station Lighting

$ 1 7 . 0 0 0

Station Shelter

$ 5 . 0 0 0 Total

7 r m D z X V)

Q=

% g 2

I9 --I rn 0)

Middlebury: Middlebury New Haven Vergennes N. Ferrisburg Charlotte Shelburne

Total Middlebury

Montpelier: Montpelier Junction Middlesex Waterbury Bolton Richmond

Total Montpelier

St. Albans: St. Albans Georgia Milton Colchester

Total St. Albans

Joint Use: Essex Junction Winooski Burlington

Total Joint Use

Subtotal (excluding parking and land) Subtotal Parking (excluding land)

Grand Total

Source: Accompanying Text

TABLE I V - 3 Page 4 o f 4

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m o o o o o o o 4J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4J U c -4 3 +J r-, c U

0 6 h & m . . + J Z i L I a J c a J w r - ,3.4 c a m c

P d - r p D . 4 x m a 4 d a J

4 Q . 4 4 J L I m ' 0 4 J c 5 m

- 4 !a W: L o z z m r ,

IV-15

R.L. BANKS 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.

Land acquisition costs have not been included in this analysis; such

projections are better made by those with local insight. Many commuter

and transit services leave land acquisition, and other stat ion related

cost responsibi 1i ties, with the appropriate local government.


Task V

COORDINATION, FUNDING AND OTHER ANCILLARY ISSUES

As part of the initial feasibility study of commuter rail service for

Burlington, it is appropriate to identify the many activities required to

implement service. Consider the following list of activities for VTAOT

(steps 1-4)and the regional governmental entity created to implement

service:

1. Complete in-depth feasi bi 1ity or planning study in preparation for seeking voter approval of the venture.

2. Determine the most appropriate form of governmental entity to create and manage the service; that is, Regional Transit Authority, Regional Transit District or other entity. Since the powers of Authoritys and Districts differ [based on Chapter 127. Mass Transit Authorities of the Code (T.24 Section 5101)], which would further differ with another entity that may be established, this determination wi 1 1 require establ ishing a number of parameters of governmental action including whether the entity will need the following:

(a) to exercise power of eminent domain;

(b) to enter into management contracts;

(c) to borrow money and issue evidence of indebtedness;

(d) to develop transportation plans to be coordinated with those of other regions, municipalities, and agencies in the state;

(e) to appoint a transit director and other personnel ;

(f) to contract to furnish transit service with a municipality not already a member of a district;

(g) to be exempt from sales, purchase and use taxes;

(h) to determine (other than by formula) contributions to be requested from jurisdictions and other sources; and

(i) to have liability protection.


3. Prepare prel iminary implenientat ion plan and other informational materials to be presented to voters, including draft budget and long range plan for the proposed Authority or District.

4. Hold special public meetings seeking voter approval for creating Authority or District.

5. Final ize budget and long range plan, including apportionment formula among the participating municipalities for sharing costs.

6. Appoint Transit Director and retain staff (as appropriate over time) (if necessary).

7. Develop operating plan for the commuter rail service, including complete detai led estimates of ridership, revenues and capital and operating costs. Include identification of all property required to operate the service.

8. Complete engineering design for a1 1 rai1 1 ine rehabi 1 itation work, stations, parking lots and maintenance faci 1ities in two phases ( prel iminary and final ) .

9. Determine the most appropriate strategy of gaining access to properties required for the service, and identify extent to which eminent domain will be required, if any.

10. Develop plan for financing capital costs and arrange financing.

11. Identify agreements with railroads necessary to operate the service. Draft agreements and negotiate with carriers.

12. Evaluate alternative types of equipment and select and order commuter cars and locomotives.

13. Procure and evaluate proposals and select operator for the service. Determine whether operator will be constrained by any provisions of the VTR's lease with the State and renegotiate if necessary.

14. Rehabilitate track and other rail facilities as necessary.

15. Construct stations, parking lots and other facilities as necessary including maintenance shops and layover yards.

16. Establish service schedules and fares and obtain public service board approval.

17. Obtain necessary 1 iabi1 ity insurance.


18. Establ ish feeder bus and other local transportation services.

19. Negotiate with various employee organizations as necessary.

20. Advertise and otherwise market the com~iiuter rai 1 service.

While implementation of commuter rai 1 service wi 1 1 require carrying out

all of these activities, some will be more crucial than others to timely

implementat ion and/or successful operation of the service. For instance,

the type of governmental entity that should be establ ished to implement

and manage the service should be careful ly weighed to ensure that the

selected entity wi 1 1 have powers sufficiently broad to encompass those

substeps 2(a) through 2(i) that would not be delegated to another entity.

While Authorities have been most commonly established to implement and

manage rapid transit and commuter rail services, Districts (with no taxing

powers) have been established in California and Virginia.

Since commuter services do not generate sufficient revenues to cover

capital and operating costs, the forniula for apportioning the deficits

among the participating jurisdictions (step 5) is politically sensitive.

Obtaining approval of the various jurisdictions of an apportionment

methodology, a1 beit equitable, is often time consuming.

The operating plan (step 7), including estimates of ridership, revenues

and costs, should be developed with the utmost care. Overestiniation of

ridership and revenues and/or underestimation of capital and/or operating

cost will, of course, drive deficits above estimated levels, which at best

could precipitate a loss in credibility and at worst render the service

economical ly impractical .

v-3


Negotiation of an agreement for use Vermont Railway or CV lines between

Montpelier Jct. and Burlington and between St. Albans and Burlington may

possibly require numerous arm's length negotiating sessions (step 11).

While owners of freight rail lines may express willingness to cooperate in

the establishment of commuter rail service on the lines, negotiation of

contract terms acceptable to both sides (owner and prospective commuter

entity) are often lengthy and arduous. The wi 1 1 ingness to cooperate

expressed by CV should not lull VAOT into a false sense of expectation of

negotiating an agreement with CV over a short time frame.

While the commuter entity will be in a more comfortable position in

negotiating with prospective operators of commuter rai 1 service (step 13),

which have monetary incentive and a desire for an agreement, the time from

initiation of the effort to execution of a contract may stretch into

several months.

In negotiating agreements with rail line owners and commuter service

operators (step 17) , developnient of a risk management plan (liability

insurance, self insurance funds or a combination of such alternatives)

acceptable to all parties may be the overriding issue, which could require

as much time to negotiate as the remaining terms of the contract combined.

Study and planning of feeder bus service in areas of low population

density should be analyzed thoroughly before adopting implementation

plans. As population density decreases, cost per passenger rises and may

reach a level in some areas to render feeder service economically

infeasible.

v-4 R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

commuter rail feasibility study · 22-02-1991 · commuter rail system at 835 commuters. this...

Documents