Long/Medium Distance Maine Amtrak Service

There is no way that I believe passenger trains between Portland, Maine and Montreal will ever be practical nor will they
return.
As for the rest of the State of Maine, I have doubts on this too. I understand the politics of it, the people in Northern Maine
are upset at state resources going in to passenger service between Portland and Boston and they see no benefit. This might
be overcome by state support to keep freight operations going in Northern Maine where business is presently terrible.
Even back in the 50's the Maine Central ran good passenger service between Portland and Bangor and many pictures show
these trains with only one or two coaches. Nobody can say that the Bangor and Aroostook did not try to make it work, they
kept the train on for the mail and passengers for some period of time after the train lacked a train connection at either end.
Again the train was one coach and head end cars.
Maine is a beautiful place but I simply do not think there is enough potential business in most of the state to support any
rail passenger service. Maybe as far as Bangor but you already have good highways up there today and there is simply not
enough population to support service. There is no justification for the existing five round trips north of Portland, maybe one
or two but that would probably be it. The presence of a couple big college towns helps the potential but still it comes in
waves from these places and it is a lot of territory with sparse population. The Bangor and Aroostook finally even gave up
on their bus operation and when a bus can't make it, how can a train?
Let's see what happens but I would not want to be paying for this with my tax dollars.
Noel Weaver

Noel,

Thanks for the thoughts...

Here is the Big Question as I see it, in relation to the points you made..

Can we be certain that the transportation dynamics and demographics that caused rail passenger service to fail in the past are still in place today?

Bus service between Bangor and Portland currently seems quite sucessful. Concord Trailways and Greyhound both run seven days a week several times a day. I see the Greyhound departure from Augusta around 8:00AM quite often and it is usually 50% full or better. Obviously numbers like that don't translate into a screaming necessity for rail service but then again we have to ask ourselves whether or not this is a modal choice by the public which may not trust/like the bus. Concord Trailways has a significantly better reputation in this regard than Greyhound. I really don't know what their ridership looks like.

In regards to population densities I have been following/reading the North Coast Hiawatha thread in the Amtrak forum. I have been very surprised to learn of the ridership vs. area population served of the Empire Builder. Although this model clearly does not apply between Augusta and Bangor, perhaps on a micro scale this model might apply in some way to service to Aroostook County. I don't think this is something that should be a 'high' priority. What I have found is that careful reflection on the realities of passenger rail service in Maine has strengthened my belief that in certain parts of the state, including some not already served by the Downeaster, rail passenger service might in fact succeed.

To put it a different way, unlike October 1, 1960, it is no longer by any means a certainty that any passenger rail service in Maine would fail. Yes, at least for now the subsidies required to run it may be more than people, including myself, would like to see. However, the Downeaster has consistently grown over the past eight years, and this continued growth in ridership, although never eliminating the need for some type of subsidy, should help reduce it.

In my opinion the above factors represent a drastic change in conditions which requires reconsideration of past assumptions and understandings.

Happy new year GO'K (and Noel!) - some responses to your points:

- On an operational basis the Downeaster is very sucessful and routinely recovers about 40% of operational costs at the farebox
Depends on your definition of success. The Downeaster gets very high marks for customer satisfaction, and has shown growth over time (primarily between NH and MA), but a 40% recovery rate on OPERATING COSTS is terrible. Think of this: the state could provide bus service FOR FREE and not spend as much money.

- Many skeptics, perhaps rightly so, did not believe the Downeaster would ever be a sucessful service
see above

- The idea that rail service can't be sucessful in Maine may be a holdover of the automobile age, and the railroads that wanted to end money losing, ICC required service, and doesn't take into account changing demographics and the economics of auto travel
adjusted for inflation, auto travel is probably significantly cheaper today than it was in the 50s. What demographic changes in Maine favor rail?

- Ridership estimates and studies appear to have significant difficulty precisely estimating ridership in Maine, possibly because of the prolonged absence of passenger rail as a modal choice
I don't buy that. Rider estimates are likely hidden as they are not favorable.

- Wasteful and absurd proposals for services abound including the Mountain Division restoration effort or proposed connections to Eastport
AMEN!!

- The political consensus in favor of rail service funding in Maine will eventually collapse if service is not extended steadily northward to viable locations
A statement that can be too easily twisted to justify rail service to the hinterlands.

- Increased rail passenger service appears to have exceptional benefits for post-industrial redevelopment of Central Business District areas that have been vacated as a result of the movement of manufacturing and textile industries out of state or overseas, this is an anti-blight feature of rail service that is especially attractive to both local and state planners
Perhaps you could provide evidence of this. I know of nothing significant associated with Downeaster. Saco Island has been mentioned in the past, but the train was never a primary driver.

Cowford wrote:Happy new year GO'K (and Noel!) - some responses to your points:

- On an operational basis the Downeaster is very sucessful and routinely recovers about 40% of operational costs at the farebox
Depends on your definition of success. The Downeaster gets very high marks for customer satisfaction, and has shown growth over time (primarily between NH and MA), but a 40% recovery rate on OPERATING COSTS is terrible. Think of this: the state could provide bus service FOR FREE and not spend as much money.

Interestingly the state already has high frequency bus service in conjunction with the Downeaster, that costs them very little if anything to provide. Why then do more people, in particular, at least it seems, commuters, take the train instead?

Cowford wrote: - The idea that rail service can't be sucessful in Maine may be a holdover of the automobile age, and the railroads that wanted to end money losing, ICC required service, and doesn't take into account changing demographics and the economics of auto travel
adjusted for inflation, auto travel is probably significantly cheaper today than it was in the 50s. What demographic changes in Maine favor rail?

Specifically I'm referring to increases in population densities along the I-95, I-295 interstate corridors, York and Cumberland counties in particular, and the aging of the population here which means there are more people who are less likely to feel safe driving on the interstate or who perhaps may not even be allowed to drive at all. Bus service is also not ADA accessible which for some people, regardless of age, is a serious problem.

Cowford wrote: - Ridership estimates and studies appear to have significant difficulty precisely estimating ridership in Maine, possibly because of the prolonged absence of passenger rail as a modal choice
I don't buy that. Rider estimates are likely hidden as they are not favorable.

I think in general Maine DOT is very transparent about their planning processes, when the Mountain Division study came out with the famous '7 passengers in Windham' estimate for commuter volumes the figure was published even though at times MDOT appears to have an bias in favor of spending money on the Mountain Division.

Cowford wrote: - The political consensus in favor of rail service funding in Maine will eventually collapse if service is not extended steadily northward to viable locations
A statement that can be too easily twisted to justify rail service to the hinterlands.

I do not support some kind of passenger service revival to Calais. I am not a 'restorationist' that thinks everything would be just dandy 'if only we could bring back the streamliners'. I do believe that there is some potential for service to places north of Portland. As I mentioned previously and as you hint at the viability of such services is questionable. It is very clear however that legislators from elswhere in the state are growing tired of subsidizing this service in the wealthiest and most prosperous corner of the state.

Cowford wrote: - Increased rail passenger service appears to have exceptional benefits for post-industrial redevelopment of Central Business District areas that have been vacated as a result of the movement of manufacturing and textile industries out of state or overseas, this is an anti-blight feature of rail service that is especially attractive to both local and state planners
Perhaps you could provide evidence of this. I know of nothing significant associated with Downeaster. Saco Island has been mentioned in the past, but the train was never a primary driver.

In articles from the Portland Press Herald in early November of 2009, the comparison to the favorable location of the Saco Island Mill is mentioned in a discussion of possibilities for the old Stenton Trust Mill in Sanford. Possible developers felt that the mills in Saco had a big advantage. Having actually looked at condominums on Saco Island for use as a primary residence I can say with a great deal of certainty that the rail service connection is marketed extensively now.

I believe that many of these benefits were foremost in the minds of town planners in Brunswick when they decided that they were going to build a train station for extended service without service guarantees from Amtrak/NNEPRA. They too like Saco have lots of old mill square footage just waiting for deep pocketed developers to snap up.

Noel and Cowford, as a Maine resident AND taxpayer, your comments are most welcome on my computer. A 40% recovery rate is unacceptable. And Baldassy is insistant that the train WILL run to Brunswick. He's been in government too long. He has yet to be learned that money dosen't grow on trees. The money they want to spend on other rail projects is unbelieveable as well.

I was under the impression that a 40% recovery rate is far above the norm for other Amtrak services in the country. So are we really arguing against the economic viability of rail passenger travel in general? It may be true that money doesn't grow on trees, but it does grow from a sustained investment in infrastructure and locally-oriented growth strategies. As both a resident AND a taxpayer in Brunswick, Maine I can attest that expansion of the DE to my community will pay dividends far into the future!
Does anybody remember the price of gas a year and a half ago?! Does anybody really believe those prices were just a fluke? It won't take very long after paying $5 a gallon that the public will be screaming for mass transit options!... again...

Baldy, what is particularly galling is that MDOT immediately expanded their moronic rail expansion plans as soon as there was the possibility of federal support... like pigs to a trough.

GO'K -

Your first point is an interesting one: Just why DO people take the train rather than the bus, when it costs more and is slower. With regard to the Portland folks, I'd assume the answer is comfort (no argument that the train is more comfortable). An additional (minor) point is that the train does stop at places the bus doesn't. Not sure what you mean by it "cost them very little." Those buses aren't subsidized.

On demographics... beyond York and Cumberland counties, there hasn't been much growth in the state for years... example: Knox County: population 1900: 30,000; 2010: ~40,000. Not exactly explosive growth. And studies show that elderly travel declines significantly with each year of age.

I'm not familiar with the "7 passengers in Windham" estimate, but the state has obscured a lot of information in their submissions for Eastport and Mountain Sub projects.

Regarding collateral development benefits... no doubt train service can be a plus for development, but it needs to be kept in perspective. To see a fine example of complete bullcrap, visit:

http://www.amtrakdowneaster.com/userfil ... pacts2.pdf

On page four, it's implied that the Downeaster is responsible for nearly $170 million in development. Take the OOB bullet point... so all that development wouldn't have been built without the train, when passenger volume is about 6,000 passengers/yr? Dang, you could put a funeral home within a mile of a station and they'd claim credit.

Then again, maybe they should: MDOT just kills me!

Cowford wrote:Not sure what you mean by it "cost them very little." Those buses aren't subsidized.

Absolutely correct to my knowledge. I should have made it clear I really meant $0.

Cowford wrote: On demographics... beyond York and Cumberland counties, there hasn't been much growth in the state for years... example: Knox County: population 1900: 30,000; 2010: ~40,000. Not exactly explosive growth. And studies show that elderly travel declines significantly with each year of age.

Also correct but beyond York and Cumberland counties isn't where rail service currently exists right now. I can also safely say that I don't think Knox county is a candidate for rail service anytime in the next 50 years. Nor for that matter are Franklin, Somerset, Waldo, Washington, and most of Piscataquis, Aroostook, Oxford, Hancock, and Lincoln counties. I still support the thesis that the interstate corridors, have excellent potential for consideration of service. In fact, with the possible exception of service to Montreal, the interstate corridors are among the only places that even merit serious study of service.

So, yes, I agree that population growth outside of Southern Maine and Portland has been flat at best in some places. However until 20 years ago places like Falmouth, Yarmouth and Freeport were little more than fishing villages with large numbers of summertime seasonal residents. Today they are bedroom, read 'commuter' communities for Portland. I understand Falmouth and Yarmouth are so close that most of their resident population wouldn't necessarily contribute to ridership gains on the DE, however Freeport, Brunswick and their local areas certainly would.

Cowford wrote:I'm not familiar with the "7 passengers in Windham" estimate, but the state has obscured a lot of information in their submissions for Eastport and Mountain Sub projects.

Upon further review it appears I was overly skeptical in my memory of the estimate commuter potential on the Mountain Division, however the traffic levels of passengers apparently would never justify the cost. PDF page 10/19 has all the relevant details.

http://www.maine.gov/mdot/freight/docum ... ry_001.pdf

I still strongly remember one of the Mountain Division studies coming up with a number of something like 7 passengers a day, perhaps from Westbrook, into Portland. It was so absurd as to have stuck in my mind. If I find it I'll post the link.

Personally I believe Portland is an excellent candidate for some type of tram/street car service. The question then arises why bother when you can just have a bus? The answer is that rail, being more permanent, has been consistently shown to encourage different and more permanent types of urban development because the traffic flows can be counted on more so than a bus service which can be cancelled on a whim. It's like the difference between a town laying hoses in the streets and selling water and actually developing a public water system, with pipes buried under the street.

Cowford wrote:Regarding collateral development benefits... no doubt train service can be a plus for development, but it needs to be kept in perspective.

I agree that NNEPRA's marketing of economic development benefits may initially have appeared to claim credit for developments that may or may not have taken the train's existence into account. However, this is not the case in Brunswick, and Freeport. Development is taking place in both of those towns that without the promise of future rail service would have never happened. The development in Brunswick in particular appears to have been done in such a way as to add substantial value to the town's historic CBD.

Not sure what you mean by it "cost them very little." Those buses aren't subsidized.

As far as I know the buses aren't subsidized with respect operating costs, but operators like C&J trailways do get state and federal grants and in the case of New Hampshire, the state purchases the buses used on at least some of the routes. I'm not sure if a similar situation exists in Maine as informtion about this is difficult to find.

In any case, expanding service to sparsely populated regions doesn't seem to make much sense. It seems like a better use of funds would be to establish multiple bus routes to Portland or other transportation hubs that feed into connecting buses and trains from there.

I'm all for trains and believe that establishing routes now (and bearing the costs) is essential for growth, but all modes should work together. In areas where population is spread out or in smaller population centers, it makes far more sense to establish a number of bus routes than one train route, especially if the distances travelled are shorter anyway.

I can also safely say that I don't think Knox county is a candidate for rail service anytime in the next 50 years

We are in complete agreement here, but I was under the impression you supported Rockland branch service.

However, this is not the case in Brunswick, and Freeport. Development is taking place in both of those towns that without the promise of future rail service would have never happened.

If you review local public meeting minutes for both Freeport and Brunswick, there is no promise of future service and regardless, no-one expects this service to start anytime soon. In fact, at a Brunswick EDC meeting on May 6, 2009, MDOT reported that, "it may be five years before the necessary funding [for extended passenger service to Brunswick] is secured." And that's funding, not service start-up! It's unreasonable to submit that any large-scale developments now in progress in those towns hinge on rail service that may be 6-7 years away, if at all.

I believe the reference was to the $25 Million Dollar privately own Maine Street Station project built in Brunswick. There has also been talk of Freeport building it's own train station very soon. And while yes, it is a multi-use facility (Multiple buildings), it still stands the fact that it was built in the worst economies in the past half century, a project that most likely would not have been possible without the idea of Brunswick rail service. This initiative itself goes to help the MDOT's case that it has presented to the Feds to apply for funding. Yes funding may come in six to seven years but that's only if the MDOT doesn't receive stimulus funding (Which we will know in February). If MDOT does recieve funding then they can start construction this summer. So worst case scenario is six to seven years of alternative funding.


http://mssbrunswickme.blogspot.com/
http://www.maine-street-station.com/

It's unreasonable to submit that any large-scale developments now in progress in those towns hinge on rail service that may be 6-7 years away, if at all.

Speaking as a current resident of Brunswick I can attest that the above statement is absolutely untrue! The general impression about town (as can be readily observed in any issue of The Forecaster) is that the MAINE STREET STATION development absolutely hinges on the arrival of passenger rail service. The station (as the name implies) is the centerpiece of the development, and serves as the main attraction. This is what they've been telling the businesses that have relocated to the site, whether its true or not.
Lets not forget that extending freight rail service to the soon-to-be former BNAS site was also a major consideration in the decision to fund the upgrade of the line.
To try to claim that rail doesn't play a central role in redevelopment plans for Brunswick is just plain false!

Let me get this straight: Maine Street Station is moving full steam ahead. People are planning to move in and restaurants/shops are opening NOW on a bet that rail service will come... rail service that the MDOT stated in 2009 may be 6-7 years away, if at all. And if rail doesn't come, the whole thing'll fold up?

4266, you sum it up perfectly by saying "This is what they've been telling the businesses that have relocated to the site, whether its true or not." It's simply marketing hype.

Here's a telling fact: The Maine Street Station Master Plan has a traffic impact study. It states that 4,400 one-way vehicle trips will occur daily once fully developed (someone driving in, shopping and leaving counts as two trips). According to the report, once train service starts, they would expect and additional 1-200 trips per day. Since everyone thinks this is going to be a big commuter marvel, one must assume that there's no more than two one-way passenger trips for every two vehicle trips. (Some vehicles may bring more than one person, but others will be dropped off and picked up, creating four trips for one rail round trip.) There's only 122 units in the development, so that may give you, say 10 additional commuters... tops. Then you have Bowdoin (seasonal and cyclical - few students are traveling during the week)... and some folks that arrive by foot or bus. All told, it seems to add up to about about 75-90 folks each way on a typical weekday. Fridays would be heavier with Bowdoin, of course. You run three trains each way... you'll average 30 or fewer riders per train... at, say $6 per one-way, BRU-POR ticket, that's $180 of revenue per train! Economically unsustainable and environmentally disgraceful.

Maybe I'm all wet. I've never seen a ridership study on POR-BRU service. If one's been done, maybe someone can post it.

4266, further to your comment on BNAS-related freight opps being a major consideration in upgrading rail... I reviewed the BNAS Reuse Master Plan. According to the report, 190 acres appear to be set aside for rail-oriented business... more accurately they call it the "Business and Technology Industries District." That acreage is segregated into four parcels. Here's the bizarre part: The proposed rail spur does not reach ANY of the parcels (it dead ends in the "Aviation-Related Business District" for some reason), and due to the layout, it appears that only the parcel closest to the proposed spur (by far the smallest of the "BTID" parcels) would have any chance of attaining a rail connection. It's also no small point that the parcel is bordered on two sides by "Community Mixed-Use District" parcels, which would include day care centers and housing. (In fact, the plan states that the parcels would only accept "industry" that produced little or no external effects that may be adverse to the surrounding community.) To recap: according to the report, about 10-20 acres could be developed to host rail-oriented businesses, so long as those businesses could operate in a manner acceptable to the abutting neighborhood.

Paper mill? Too big, noisy, stinky. Intermodal terminal? Wrong location. Asphalt plant? Too stinky. Recycling transload? Too noisy, stinky, dusty. Bulk products transload? Too dangerous. At best (and this is a stretch), warehousing would be about the only possibility, but warehousing what? And significant truck traffic associated with a warehouse may be considered an adverse external effect worthy of exclusion.

My opinion: the BNAS developers are using rail the same way the Maine Street Station folks are - as marketing hype. If I'm wrong, perhaps someone could advise what rail-oriented businesses are under consideration for locating at the former base.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4974946/BRU ... WICK-MAINE

We're getting a little off-topic, but on the subject of NAS-Brunswick and rail, there was an article a few months ago which mentioned that Morristown & Erie / Maine Eastern was considering the possibility of starting up a railcar and locomotive refurbish/rebuild center there. Whether or not such a venture would be successful is another topic for another thread, but I figured it was worth mentioning.