t was very disturbing to see the recent media articles suggesting that the Vermont Agency of Transportation was flirting with massive cuts in Vermont's Amtrak services. Most particularly it's alarming in the face of the unprecedented recent ridership gains on our trains, just as the federal government is making new commitments to support Amtrak. Our congressional delegation just got language into the new Amtrak authorization making Vermont/Amtrak projects like the purchase of new diesel multiple-unit cars potentially eligible for 80 percent federal funding.

Patronage on the St. Albans/Essex Jct. — Washington D.C., Vermonter grew 17.1 percent in fiscal year 2008. The Rutland-New York Ethan Allen grew 17.5 percent. The total ridership of 119,536 for fiscal year 2008 represents over 19 percent of the population of this state.

Even in the off-season month of November, after gas prices dropped, the Vermonter gained 9.6 percent and the Ethan Allen 5.2 percent.

We "invest" in highways and "subsidize" rail, but I submit that both are really the same. When did Vermonters last get a dividend check from I-89? Cutting Amtrak now would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Rather, we should be looking for ways to expand Amtrak. An immediate reinstatement of the St. Albans-Montreal Ambus connection will add a minimum of 30 passengers per day to the train, cover all incremental expenses, and add ridership of 15 percent to the Vermonter route, while increasing rail revenues by at least $500,000 per year, with no increase in train costs. Similarly the state supported bus services from Newport and St. Johnsbury to White River Jct. and Middlebury to Rutland should be routed via the train depots and coordinated with train schedules, with joint ticketing.

Longer-term, a tremendous opportunity exists to cut operating costs, increase service frequencies and enhance Amtrak patronage by completing the project to re-equip the trains with new diesel multiple-unit equipment.

DMUs better than double fuel efficiency, provide a more comfortable ride and can run faster schedules. We already have a $2 million Amtrak grant to help with this project and may now qualify for much greater federal support.

The proposal to reduce services is questionable not only financially, but logistically as well. Cutting back the Vermonter to run only south of White River Jct. is particularly ill-conceived. At least 40 percent of the train's riders originate at stations north of there.

Worse, even if there were some case for dropping all service to St. Albans, Essex Jct./Burlington, Waterbury/Stowe, Montpelier and Randolph, we can't service the train at White River Jct.

The round-house there burned to the ground earlier this year. Because of this, the train would have to run empty nightly from White River Jct. to St. Albans to be cleaned, serviced, fueled and given proper safety checks.

We need to focus on expanding Amtrak, not cutting it. We're seeing the trains grow with virtually no focused marketing.

As a result, Vermonters have better access to public transit, less fossil fuel is being burned by automobiles, and the state is creating long-term financial stability for the rail system. Imagine what we can do if we coordinate our existing services, market within the state and leverage federal funds to enhance our train service.

Now is the time to grow, not cut, Amtrak in Vermont.

(Carl Fowler is vice president/general manager of Rail Travel Center, a Vermont-based operator of tours by train worldwide. This letter reflects his views as a rail service promoter. He is also a member of the Vermont Rail Advisory Council; however, this letter is not a statement of opinion by the Vermont Rail Council. He lives in Putney.)