neroden
Engineer
Nope! No news since *2012*. (I've been impatiently keeping an eye on this one myself.)
Last edited by a moderator:
When Vermonter to Montreal?
- Thread starter penfrydd
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
FreeskierInVT
Lead Service Attendant
Just saw this article from last week:
http://vtdigger.org/2014/10/27/first-step-toward-cross-border-rail-service/
http://vtdigger.org/2014/10/27/first-step-toward-cross-border-rail-service/
jamesontheroad
OBS Chief
That's something, I suppose. Thanks for sharing.
It's frustrating given that just a few miles from Montreal Gare Centrale is a fully functioning and staffed USBP pre clearance facility at Dorval Airport (YUL). It could be argued that opening a facility for rail passengers increases the value for money afforded by the US tax payer subsidising American officials stationed in the city
If this major investment could be secured, the Adirondack could post a much shorted journey time (improving connections at both ends), the Vermonter could return to Montreal and - just maybe - the case could be made for a new service to/from Boston. After all, once the various agencies involved have invested in such a pre clearance facility, for once the argument can be made that to make it more cost effective more train should be run.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
NYerTrainFan
Guest
The Ethan Allen up to Burlington will be huge if they can do 2x a day i bet ridership soars. i bet we see ridership on the vermonter take a huge hit when the Ethan Allen is connected.
For pre-clearance in Montreal i know we all hope this can get resolved and rolling. They really need to improve the tracks between plattsbugh and montreal they have to be the slowest on amtrak the train barely moves.
Basically amtrak really needs to get speeds to be competitive with driving times that doesn't seem unrealistic goal for 2020 does it?
For pre-clearance in Montreal i know we all hope this can get resolved and rolling. They really need to improve the tracks between plattsbugh and montreal they have to be the slowest on amtrak the train barely moves.
Basically amtrak really needs to get speeds to be competitive with driving times that doesn't seem unrealistic goal for 2020 does it?
N
NYerTrainFan
Guest
Until the pre clearance is done, the vermonter to montreal seems unrealistic. I though the numbers to montreal were always super low compared to the adirondack
The Davy Crockett
Engineer
The agreement between the US and Canada to speed border crossings has been signed. This should help towards extending the Vermonter to Montreal.
Tres bon!
Tres bon!
Good news Scott! Does mean the Adirondack will now have all the Border Crossing rig-a-morale done @ the Station in Montreal like the Cascades in Vancouver@ Pacific Central?
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
No this means now the construction of the facilities at Montreal Gare Centrale for the C&I facility can begin. The first step would be issuing RFP etc. to put the bulding contract in place.
The C&I rigmarole can move to Montreal only after the facilities have completed construction and are put into operation.
I'm not sure if this agreement evens means they can advance to construction of a CBP facility at Gare Centrale. The agreement that was signed was a broad agreement on preclearances across all transportation modes. It may be necessary to reach and sign a separate agreement and terms with the specifics for a custom facility at Montreal.
DHS press release: United States and Canada Sign Preclearance Agreement
Senator Leahy press release: Leahy Hails U.S.-Canada Pre-Clearance Agreement That Brings Closer The Goal Of Restoring Vermont-To-Montreal Passenger Rail Service. I found a press release on this at Senator Leahy's website, but not Senator Schumer (yet). Leahy's office beat Schumer's office to getting this in front of the press for positive press coverage? How did that happen?
Anyway, Leahy's press release supports the notion that yet more negotiations are ahead before they can even start work on a facility at MTR.
The agreement is a big step and one that has been a long time coming, considering Schumer and other NY/VT Senators asked to speed up the process towards a customs facility in May, 2012. Almost 3 years ago.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
This is the big "treaty update" that was talked about.
Unfortunately, I believe this agreement has to be approved by the legislature in both countries. I have not seen any announcement that such has been addressed by the Congress in the US yet, and when it involves Congress, .... well ....
After that step, the rest of it should be relatively easy. But of course time will tell....
Unfortunately, I believe this agreement has to be approved by the legislature in both countries. I have not seen any announcement that such has been addressed by the Congress in the US yet, and when it involves Congress, .... well ....
After that step, the rest of it should be relatively easy. But of course time will tell....
Last edited by a moderator:
I should have quoted this paragraph in the DHS press release:
If this is legislation and not a treaty, then it would have to pass both the House and Senate. That could take a while, years even, especially if it becomes a bargaining chip over other legislation someone would to block or fight over. The question is whether US and Canadian Customs and the Canadian & Quebec governments would proceed on facility design and working out the details & how to fund it while waiting on Congress to pass legislation, so they could proceed to construction once both countries have passed the needed legislation to enact the agreement. Or does the process stall entirely while waiting on a barely functional Congress?
hboy:neroden
Engineer
It appears that the trouble is caused by the US wanting powers to arrest people in Canada. Riiiight. This is Security State madness; I don't know why they can't do the traditional thing of cooperative countries and keep a Mountie on hand to arrest people as needed.
Anyway, Canada is demanding reciprocity, it appears.
Anyway, Canada is demanding reciprocity, it appears.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Davy Crockett
Engineer
Security state madness is alive and well in Canada too, in the form of Bill C-51.
G
Guest
Guest
Neither the exisitng 2001 agrteement for air preclearance (which is covered by current legislation in both countries) nor the just-signed new treaty gives US CBP the power to arrest in Canada, nor vice versa. The sending country (i.e. the US for a facility in Canada) has powers to inspect, which have been broadened and clarified under the new agreement, but the arrest on Canadian territory would have to be made by Canadian police.
The new agreement does give the sending country's officers the right to bear arms up to the limit of their counterparts in the host country. CBSA officers are armed at land crossings, but not in Canadian airports, though the union is lobbying for the latter.
The new agreement clarifies the jurisdiction for criminal prosecutions against officers of the sending counttry, i.e. if a CBP agents commits a crime in Canada it would be subject tgo US proceedings just like diplomatic immunity.
The preclearance facilirtes at the Port of Vancouver and Pacific Central Station are not covered by current legislation, so these administrative exceptions would be brought under the new legislation.
Finally, both the 2001 agreement and the propsed new agreement are recripocal in that Canada can establish pre-clearance on US tarritory, but to date has chosen not to do so.
The new agreement does give the sending country's officers the right to bear arms up to the limit of their counterparts in the host country. CBSA officers are armed at land crossings, but not in Canadian airports, though the union is lobbying for the latter.
The new agreement clarifies the jurisdiction for criminal prosecutions against officers of the sending counttry, i.e. if a CBP agents commits a crime in Canada it would be subject tgo US proceedings just like diplomatic immunity.
The preclearance facilirtes at the Port of Vancouver and Pacific Central Station are not covered by current legislation, so these administrative exceptions would be brought under the new legislation.
Finally, both the 2001 agreement and the propsed new agreement are recripocal in that Canada can establish pre-clearance on US tarritory, but to date has chosen not to do so.
V
Vermonter Fan
Guest
I just saw a news article on New Hampshire Public Radio web site (WWW.NHPR.ORG) that US can Canada had finalized an agreement for the customs facility at the Montreal rail station.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
But it still needs to be approved by the Congress
neroden
Engineer
Thanks for the clarifications, Guest.
Here's hoping Canada can establish preclearance in Detroit and extend VIA there. (Not likely, I know, but it's nice having a general-purpose agreement.)
Here's hoping Canada can establish preclearance in Detroit and extend VIA there.
(Not likely, I know, but it's nice having a general-purpose agreement.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is the NHPR article: A Step Closer To Train Service From Vermont To Montreal. I think the agreement Vermonter Fan is referring to is the US-Canadian agreement, not a specific agreement for Montreal but that might have been part of the bigger agreement, Anyway, excerpts from the NHPR report:
With support from all the state and Provincial governments involved, he right, it becomes a question of when, not if. But when, could be a while. If Quebec pays for track improvements north of the border, as we have discussed before, the total combined trip time reduction for the Adirondack from the MTR Customs facility, track upgrades in Canada, and upgrades from Albany through Schenectady could be significant.
PS. Posted too soon.
Last edited by a moderator:
neroden
Engineer
Hmm. AMT recently bought the line from Montreal Central Station north through the tunnel. I wonder if AMT or Quebec could buy more of the line.
The only section which is on CN's mainline appears to be quite short; through a wye near a railyard, across the Victoria Bridge, and through a railyard on the other side of the river. Maybe this is what Cole means by "securing train access to the Victoria Bridge"; this may be the most difficult part of the line to get access to.
The only section which is on CN's mainline appears to be quite short; through a wye near a railyard, across the Victoria Bridge, and through a railyard on the other side of the river. Maybe this is what Cole means by "securing train access to the Victoria Bridge"; this may be the most difficult part of the line to get access to.
NS VIA Fan
Conductor
I can’t see any advantage to AMT in purchasing the line to the border. The only sizable community is Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu but it’s also located on a CP line that has AMT service as far a Candiac now. Probably easier to extend a commuter service that already exists the 15 miles to Saint-Jean.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why aren't the existing agreements for the Adirondack not good enough to duplicate? The Canadian side is all the same stations, services, people, etc. What's different is the US customs point in St. Albans.
I'd still like to see service into Windsor from Detroit.
I'd still like to see service into Windsor from Detroit.
Last edited by a moderator:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Actually no. That would have been true if the Canadians continued to use the trailer at Cantic as their border checkpost. They discontinued that and moved the border check for the Adirondack to Lacolle, adjacent to the road border checkpost there. Unfortunately the line from St. Albans does not pass by there. It joins the Adirondack route at Cantic, and of course that is why the checkpost used to be Cantic in the middle of a field with nothing else around.
So to start service from St. Albans, the Canadians will have to re-instate a border checkpost somewhere on that route. hence it won't happen, given that the whole shebang is to move to Montreal Central real soon now (i.e. in a few years).
What I cannot figure out is why CBSA cannot move their inspection to Montreal Central immediately, given availability of funds, and will I suppose. That would not require any treaty and of course it will require discontinuing the stop at St. Lambert. The treaty is required to allow CBP to do their inspection in Montreal Central. For the time being CBP can continue their inspection at Rouse's Point, and if necessary, at St. Albans.
Last edited by a moderator:
A post on the Amtrak Vermonter Facebook group linked to a 6/19/2015 draft of the Vermont State Rail Plan - 2015. Lots of fascinating stuff in the plan, including this discussion of extending the Vermonter to Montreal (3.2.2, p. 95):
Last edited by a moderator:
As I noted in the Ethan Allen extension thread, the Vermont State Rail Plan (draft) is remarkably full of information, data, and specifics.
I wonder if this would really be the case, once service is running to MTR: "However, VTrans estimates that the Vermonter subsidy would increase by $2 million, associated primarily with the cost of cross-border operations, and additional expenses incurred in Canada." Yes, operating costs increase, but ridership would significantly increase along with revenue. They may be underestimating the potential revenue that would come by turnover of seats on 1 run with people travelling between VT and Montreal and others traveling from VT to NYP and the southern NEC.
They expect the Vermonter to cut 50 minutes off of the trip time between VT and New Haven, once the upgrades to the CT River Line & SPG-NHV line are completed. That will boost traffic between VT and NYP-WAS. BTW, when the heck will the first round of trip time reductions for the CT River Line be implemented? I haven't read anything about that in a while.
Another item in the plan is: "As a later initiative, Vermont would add a second Vermonter frequency, although this would require negotiations, not only with Canadian authorities and Amtrak, but also with other New England states."
The maps show the second Vermonter running to NYP and south of it. Since NYC is the dominant market for trips on the Vermonter, one option that would allow for a better schedule offset from the current Vermonter would be to run it just to NYP. But with MassDOT looking at a BOS-SPG-MTR train, the second frequency might be better provided by the Boston-Montreal train. With Springfield becoming a proper hub station, coordinate the BOS-MTR train schedule for transfers at SPG to/from an Springfield or Inland Route Regional.
I wonder if this would really be the case, once service is running to MTR: "However, VTrans estimates that the Vermonter subsidy would increase by $2 million, associated primarily with the cost of cross-border operations, and additional expenses incurred in Canada." Yes, operating costs increase, but ridership would significantly increase along with revenue. They may be underestimating the potential revenue that would come by turnover of seats on 1 run with people travelling between VT and Montreal and others traveling from VT to NYP and the southern NEC.
They expect the Vermonter to cut 50 minutes off of the trip time between VT and New Haven, once the upgrades to the CT River Line & SPG-NHV line are completed. That will boost traffic between VT and NYP-WAS. BTW, when the heck will the first round of trip time reductions for the CT River Line be implemented? I haven't read anything about that in a while.
Another item in the plan is: "As a later initiative, Vermont would add a second Vermonter frequency, although this would require negotiations, not only with Canadian authorities and Amtrak, but also with other New England states."
The maps show the second Vermonter running to NYP and south of it. Since NYC is the dominant market for trips on the Vermonter, one option that would allow for a better schedule offset from the current Vermonter would be to run it just to NYP. But with MassDOT looking at a BOS-SPG-MTR train, the second frequency might be better provided by the Boston-Montreal train. With Springfield becoming a proper hub station, coordinate the BOS-MTR train schedule for transfers at SPG to/from an Springfield or Inland Route Regional.
- Status
