Chittenden County and The Western Vermont Rail Corridor

I. Chittenden County Freight Status

Chittenden County imports over twice the amount of freight into the region than is exported. An estimated 4 million tons of freight is imported annually, where less than half of that is either exported or internally transported freight (-Transearch Freight Market Data, 2000, Reebie Associates, Inc.).
In addition to the high ratio of imported vs. exported freight, Chittenden County has a number of issues hindering its freight infrastructure:

Vermont's truck network is inadequate for 53' and double 28' trailer operations, which limits access to Chittenden County and hurts the region as national carriers move towards larger trailers and use of multiple trailer sets.

Vermont does not have a truck/rail intermodal ramp.

US 7 and VT 22A are insufficient as a North/South highway in Western Vermont.

Marginal Highway connections to New York. (-Chittenden County Freight Stakeholders Forum in 2000).

Rail freight represents 8% of freight tonnage in VT (-Transearch Freight Market Data, 2000, Reebie Associates, Inc.).

Freight flows moving into, out of, and within Chittenden County are forecast to triple up to 20.4 million tons in 2020 (based on economic forecasts developed by Standard & Poor's DRI).

II. Western Vermont Rail Corridor

A solution may lie within proposed improvements for the rail infrastructure along the Western Vermont Rail Corridor. Only two local urban-area projects are underway to address the renown transportation capacity limitations of US 7 road infrastructure from Bennington to St. Albans (the Bennington bypass and the Shelburne Road expansion in South Burlington). Not much else has been done to increase this capacity. Whilst considering the western side of Vermont will not see an Interstate within the near future, government policy should support developing other multimodal options to alleviate congestion in the corridor.
This leads to the idea of improving the rail line running directly parallel to US 7, which could accommodate increasing freight, and passenger service throughout western Vermont and the state at large. This effort already includes the major stakeholders along the western corridor who wish to explore and potentially implement an improved rail transportation system to supplement the amount of road capacity.
The primary stakeholder has been the City of Rutland. However, other municipalities, such as the City of Burlington, Middlebury, as well as the State of Vermont, and major users of rail from the private sector, such as; Vermont Railway (VTR), OMYA, Fuel distributors have been actively involved in the dialogue.
Discussions are underway with the Vermont Congressional Delegation, the Vermont Legislature, VTrans, FHWA, and others as to defining a funding source to support the project.

III. Current Facilities along Western Vermont

The Western Vermont Project includes improvement to the 126 mile rail line from Bennington to Burlington, 8 miles of rail line from Burlington to Essex, and improvements as required from Essex Junction to St. Albans (a stretch of about 25 miles of rail). The project also includes the relocation of the Rutland Rail yard, a Connector Bridge from the Clarendon & Pittsford Railroad and the Vermont Railway in Rutland Center, the St. Albans access road, and the Middlebury Rail Spur (intended to cater to long-term demand of extraction from a calcium carbonate quarry, whilst reducing truck traffic on US 7 in Brandon).
As regard to the Chittenden County region: VTR operates passenger and freight service through Charlotte and Burlington, whist the New England Central Railroad (NECR) operates rail freight service through Milton to Bolton and from Burlington to Essex Junction. These railroads are the two larger operating railroads in Vermont. VTR operates excursion passenger service from Middlebury to Burlington and the NECR operates AMTRAK through Chittenden County. The VTR also operates AMTRAK into Rutland, Vermont.
The Essex to Burlington corridor presently has 2 outstanding congressional earmarks pending for a total of 7 million dollars.

IV. Staff Recommendation

After a review of the "Stakeholder Identified Programmatic & Policy Actions" and "Stakeholder Identified Capital Projects" listings from the 2001 CCMPO Regional Freight Study, only two projects offer any significant enhancement for greater implementation of rail freight.

1. Relocate the Burlington Railyard to a more accessible location and expand the facilities.

2. Identify and develop sites for transload and container ramp facilities.

The potential implementation of an transload intermodal facility located within Chittenden county will likely yield positive results in alleviating congestion along US 7, VT 22A, and I-89. This may allow transfer of a greater amount of Chittenden county destined freight to move by rail instead of truck, thereby decreasing road congestion and air pollution from large trucks. Truck delivered freight offloaded from major rail transload facilities in bordering states (e.g. Albany, NY, Springfield, MA, & Montreal, Canada) could be shifted to the short-line rail system destined to Vermont, via "piggyback" or TOFC. This would offer relief to the Highway and road system transporting some 90% of Chittenden County's freight movement (-Transearch Freight Market Data, 2000, Reebie Associates, Inc.).
A number of steps would need to be taken in order to initiate progressive dialog with Chittenden County communities on this issue. Some of the following steps might be suggested:

1. Develop a feasibility concept paper (in cooperation with Vermont Railroad companies), listing impacts of a new intermodal facility.

2. Acquire Waybill data for the study from the Railroad companies.

3. Modify the trip table to accommodate trucks within the CCMPO travel-demand model, making it possible to illustrate the impact of a new intermodal facility.

4. Propose locations based on the Railyard Study and further feedback from local municipalities. We may want to study the difference between the impact of a footprint of a new Railyard site in tandem with a new transload facility, and a transload facility alone. Further, the construction of the Circ. Highway may offer some sound site possibilities in Williston.

5. Outline the incentive for railroads to accommodate a tighter/frequent schedule. Study estimates of Class I rail freight destined for Chittenden County, offloaded and transferred on to truck from the aforementioned intermodal terminals. Additionally, studying estimates of outbound Chittenden county truck freight shipped to those same ports may indicate the level of empty backhaul, and thus highlight freight movement opportunities for the short line rail industry in Vermont.

V. Funding

S.1072 Section 1203, Sec. 325. "Freight transportation gateways“ of the SAFETEA of 2003 States:

(A) to facilitate and support multimodal freight transportation initiatives at the State and local levels in order to improve freight transportation gateways and mitigate the impact of congestion on the environment in the area of the gateways;

(B) to provide capital funding to address infrastructure and freight operational needs at freight transportation gateways;

(C) to encourage adoption of new financing strategies to leverage State, local, and private investment in freight transportation gateways;

(D) to facilitate access to intermodal freight transfer facilities; and

(E) to increase economic efficiency by facilitating the movement of goods.
(1) USE OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS:

A State may obligate funds apportioned to the State under section 104(b)(3) for publicly-owned intermodal freight transportation projects that provide community and highway benefits by addressing economic, congestion, system reliability, security, safety, or environmental issues associated with freight transportation gateways.
(2) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS:

(A) May include publicly-owned intermodal freight transfer facilities, access to such facilities, and operational improvements for such facilities (including capital investment for Intelligent Transportation Systems), except that projects located within the boundaries of port terminals shall only include the transportation infrastructure modifications necessary to facilitate direct intermodal access into and out of such port.

(B) May involve the combining of private and public funds.

H. R. 2725 Section 2, Ch. 223. "Capital Grants for Railroad Track " of the Railroad Track Modernization Act of 2003 States:
(A) ESTABLISHMENT

The Secretary of Transportation shall establish a program of capital grants for the rehabilitation, preservation, or improvement of railroad track (including roadbed, bridges, and related track structures) of class II and class III railroads. Such grants shall be for rehabilitating, preserving, or improving track used primarily for freight transportation to a standard ensuring that the track can be operated safely and efficiently, including grants for rehabilitating, preserving, or improving track to handle 286,000 pound rail cars. Grants may be provided under this chapter—

(A) Directly to the class II or class III railroad; or
(B) With the concurrence of the class II or class III railroad, to a State or local government.

VI. Conclusion

Rail infrastructure development may be the most viable option to road capacity building for the purpose of moving rail freight and passengers along the western corridor. Rail Passenger service from Manhattan, NY to Burlington, VT in six plus hours would potentially have a benefit on tourism and business in Chittenden County and the surrounding region.

For further information, contact Daryl Benoit at 802.660.4071 x12.