Good news on the Ethan Allen to Burlington

[neroden]

The last nest of NIMBYs has been bypassed. The Middlebury tunnel project has an EA and a FONSI as of July 21st.

http://vtrans.vermont.gov/projects/middlebury/environmental-assessment-individual-chapters

The money was already in place. The route can open without a Middlebury station if that gets delayed. Burlington needs a high platform, but that's it.

There are now temporary bridges in place, done as an emergency project becuase the old bridges were collapsing. Apparently, now that the paperwork has shut down the NIMBYs, major construction will be 2018 and 2019 and it should be ready to operate in 2020

 

[StriderGDM]

I'm not holding my breath, but definitely sounds hopeful.

For a small state, VT seems to punch above its weight for train service.

And if the Vermonter ends up extending to Montreal, it'll be really impressive.

 

[MattW]

I wish they'd just extend this to St. Albans and combine servicing facilities.

 

[neroden]

Extending the short distance to Essex Junction, allowing change of trains between the Ethan Allen and the Vermonter, is under serious consideration though not funded at this time. (Top priority is getting the train to Burlington. This was delayed for two years by the most recent crop of NIMBYs.)

 

[dogbert617]

I'm not holding my breath, but definitely sounds hopeful.

For a small state, VT seems to punch above its weight for train service.

And if the Vermonter ends up extending to Montreal, it'll be really impressive.

I guess that would be dependent on US and Canadian customs approving such an extension of the Vermonter, crossing the border so that it'd reach Montreal? Anyway, that is a good step and news to hear. Why anyway, did Amtrak directly stop serving Burlington, VT in the first place years ago? I know you can take a ferry at Port Kent, NY across Lake Champlain to Burlington, but this'll be a good improvement whenever Burlington service officially begins.

 

[jis]

Extending the short distance to Essex Junction, allowing change of trains between the Ethan Allen and the Vermonter, is under serious consideration though not funded at this time. (Top priority is getting the train to Burlington. This was delayed for two years by the most recent crop of NIMBYs.)

Extending to Essex Jct. makes sense. However, the only reason to extend to St. Albans would be to use the stabling facilities there. There is relatively little ridership to St. Albans itself. It used to be the US C&I checkpoint for the Montrealer.

I'm not holding my breath, but definitely sounds hopeful.

For a small state, VT seems to punch above its weight for train service.

And if the Vermonter ends up extending to Montreal, it'll be really impressive.

I guess that would be dependent on US and Canadian customs approving such an extension of the Vermonter, crossing the border so that it'd reach Montreal? Anyway, that is a good step and news to hear. Why anyway, did Amtrak directly stop serving Burlington, VT in the first place years ago? I know you can take a ferry at Port Kent, NY across Lake Champlain to Burlington, but this'll be a good improvement whenever Burlington service officially begins.

The plan is to move C&I inspection to Montreal Central station for the Adirondack, and then just add the extended Vermonter to Montreal into the same facility. The extension of the Vermonter will not happen until the C&I facility is up and running at Montreal Central. The old Canadian checkpost that was used a Cantic QC remotely staffed out of LaColle is no more. The route of the Vermonter to Montreal would not take it through LaColle where the Adirondack is inspected by the Canadians.

 

[neroden]

The current delay is that the Canadian Parliament isn't happy with overbearing and unnecessary requests from the tyrannical US government regarding US powers of arrest in the pre-clearance area. Honestly they should be able to pass a preclearance bill which removes the US power of arrest and requires the US officials to hand people back to the Canadians rather than arresting them. (Damn US government.)

If that ever gets resolved, funding from Quebec is still needed.

 

[PVD]

Considering they already have had pre-clearance at the airport in Montreal for many years, it's not like they are breaking new ground on either a national or PQ level.

However, there are some legit questions in the minds of the Canadians regarding the officers needs to be armed when the area is covered by Canadian officers also, and the questions about arrest and detention revolve around rights of Canadian citizens while still in Canada...Lots of people in this country don't trust these people to do things properly, why should another country?

 

[Thirdrail7]

This is an example of More Amtrak being the cure. Nice incremental steps. Are you paying attention Pennsylvania?

 

[ainamkartma]

Considering they already have had pre-clearance at the airport in Montreal for many years, it's not like they are breaking new ground on either a national or PQ level.

However, there are some legit questions in the minds of the Canadians regarding the officers needs to be armed when the area is covered by Canadian officers also, and the questions about arrest and detention revolve around rights of Canadian citizens while still in Canada...Lots of people in this country don't trust these people to do things properly, why should another country?

Does anyone here know the arrest powers situation in the preclearance areas of the Canadian airports?

Thanks,

Ainamkartma

 

[railiner]

I'm not holding my breath, but definitely sounds hopeful.

For a small state, VT seems to punch above its weight for train service.

And if the Vermonter ends up extending to Montreal, it'll be really impressive.

I guess that would be dependent on US and Canadian customs approving such an extension of the Vermonter, crossing the border so that it'd reach Montreal? Anyway, that is a good step and news to hear. Why anyway, did Amtrak directly stop serving Burlington, VT in the first place years ago? I know you can take a ferry at Port Kent, NY across Lake Champlain to Burlington, but this'll be a good improvement whenever Burlington service officially begins.

The original Amtrak Montrealer did not directly serve Burlington, but rather, Essex Junction, a few miles away...Burlington was not on the main Central Vermont Ry line...

 

[PVD]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pre-clearance-border-canada-us-1.3976123

the above is a Canadian piece on the subject. I'm not Canadian, but if I was, I might feel the way some of them do.

 

[railiner]

That whole thing of pre-clearance, is certainly a complicated 'can of worms'.... Convenient, yes....but also very controversial.....When someone enters the pre clearance area, are they in the USA or are they really still in Canada, is that area treated like an embassy---is it considered a piece of US territory.....that is the ultimate answer...if it is not the same...then Canadian law must prevail,,,,

The problem is the ongoing balance of freedom versus security....if it is just becoming too controversial, then the alternative is to end the entire pre-clearance procedute's, and go back to the old way of crossing border's....

 

[PVD]

From the Canadian side of the issue, it sounds like we are asking for somewhat more than we have now. It has been around 30 years since I flew home from Montreal, and I remember clearing US Customs there but back then it was with a drivers license, much has changed.

 

[neroden]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pre-clearance-border-canada-us-1.3976123

I'm afraid I agree 100% with the Canadians. They have to eliminate the unacceptable provisions and send them back to the US, telling the US to eliminate them.

The US requests are tyrannical and overbearing. The core questions are two:

(1) Should someone currently in Canada, who is being harassed by US agents when trying to enter the US, be able to say "to hell with you, US, I'm staying in Canada"? Obviously, yes. This bill would allow corrupt US agents to detain such a person.

(2) Should permanent residents of Canada have the absolute right to enter Canada? Obviously, yes. (This is established in international law.) This bill would apparently maintain that for land entry but eliminate it for air entry, *and worse*, give US officials the ability to prevent Canadians from entering Canada.

These are essentially unacceptable requests which have nothing at all to do with preclearance, and nothing to do with legitimate US customs or immigration procedure. They're police-state overreaches.

Bill C-23 should be amended or killed.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Spot on neroden! Uncle Sam needs to leave our Cousins in the Great White North alone!

 

[jis]

But what is being discussed in that article is a bill presented to the Canadian Parliament by the current Government in Canada. They did not have to do so. No point in blaming Uncle Sam for a decision that was made by the Canadian government. Half of the criticism is about what CBSA can do to Canadian Citizens and Permanent Residents at CBSA per-clearance points in the US if they happen to set such up.

The US Legislature and the President appeared to have no problem adopting a set of laws that treats US Citizens and Permanent Residents like sh*t at US pre-clearance posts (in addition to foreigners, who they treat like sh*t anyway). That is where it is appropriate to criticize Uncle Sam.

 

[MattW]

Yea, the absolute ability to arrest Canadians in Canada needs to go. Beyond that though, I don't see the issue with armed officers. If someone attacks them because they hate Americans or for whatever reason, then they should have the right to defend themselves, subject to Canadian laws on use of force. Just as if another country wanted to setup preclearance at US airports or points of entry (be it Canada, Russia, China, Zimbabwe, Vatican City or Unspecifiedistan), I would have no problem with their officers being armed and subject to US laws on use of force.

 

[PVD]

Not every country looks at gun possession the way it is looked at in the US. Armed Canadian officers are line of sight in pre clearance areas. TSA screeners don't carry guns at the airports in the US, but they are backed up by the police.

 

[neroden]

But what is being discussed in that article is a bill presented to the Canadian Parliament by the current Government in Canada. They did not have to do so. No point in blaming Uncle Sam for a decision that was made by the Canadian government. Half of the criticism is about what CBSA can do to Canadian Citizens and Permanent Residents at CBSA per-clearance points in the US if they happen to set such up.

The US Legislature and the President appeared to have no problem adopting a set of laws that treats US Citizens and Permanent Residents like sh*t at US pre-clearance posts (in addition to foreigners, who they treat like sh*t anyway). That is where it is appropriate to criticize Uncle Sam.

Yeah, there are some serious international law issues there too. It's a requirement in international law that citizens and permanent resident nationals be allowed into their country of nationality; doing otherwise is a severe breach of international law and can lead to very serious international repercussions. The US government actually backed down on some of this after they got the diplomatic warnings.

The reasons for this piece of international law, by the way, have nothing to do with human rights. It's really a matter of "you can't make your people into our problem". Indonesia doesn't want to be stuck with a bunch of US citizens who the US refuses to let come home.

The really unreasonable stuff in bill C-23, allowing US agents to detain people from Canada on Canadian soil, was very clearly inserted at the request of the US government when negotiating the treaty. I have no idea why any Canadian government would have agreed to it since it's a sovereignty violation. Parliament was right to raise complaints about it. It also has nothing to do with preclearance, customs, or immigration procedure. Parliament should really just strip those provisions and pass the bill without them.