St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad (SLR/SLQ)

The most obvious choice is PAR, as it goes right through the cities of Lewiston and Auburn,not through the outskirts like the SLR. The infrastructure is already in use and would require only upgrading (same as Boston to Portland and Brunswick). The Lewiston Branch would require much more in resources than it is worth, and would take longer to rebuild.

This is similar to the Portland situation... no-one likes the location, but other options are typically non-starters once you delve into the details... if they're going to put a station anywhere, put it at Danville Jct. Access to both PAR and SLR, only 6 miles from the center of L-A with the ability to for 15-minute transit time bus service, plenty of property for parking, etc..., one mile from the turnpike.

And for the record, the above suggestion does not imply that I'm advocating passenger service here. Just another example of "if you're going to do something stupid, at least do it right!"

Cowford wrote:This is similar to the Portland situation... no-one likes the location, but other options are typically non-starters once you delve into the details... if they're going to put a station anywhere, put it at Danville Jct. Access to both PAR and SLR, only 6 miles from the center of L-A with the ability to for 15-minute transit time bus service, plenty of property for parking, etc..., one mile from the turnpike.

Cowford, I don't know if you've looked at the "Portland Passenger Stations" thread, but I wrote a fairly long post in there discussing what I felt were the pros and cons of various potential station locations in the city. There has been a little bit of discussion regarding NNEPRA wanting to move the station, due both to its relatively remote location and their wanting to be able to add one or more platforms for transfers, which there is no room for currently.

Also, does anyone know offhand where the Auburn platform was for the Sunday River Express? I know that it started off of Presumpscot Street in Portland and ISTR that it also had platforms built in Yarmouth (maybe at Yarmouth Jct.?) and Auburn.

The Auburn location was at the Hotel Rd crossing, across from the contractor's shop. Sat in off the road next to the
parking lot.

"Cowford, I don't know if you've looked at the "Portland Passenger Stations" thread, but I wrote a fairly long post in there discussing what I felt were the pros and cons of various potential station locations in the city."

I did. I thought your thoughts were well presented. One "con" I didn't understand was the fact that the current station space is rented. Nothing wrong with that... in fact, you might argue that it's a plus as it gives the NNEPRA more flexibility should they ever want to relocate. I'm assuming that you mean it's a con from a cost perspective. Not knowing their rent, I can't draw a conclusion, but I can't imagine it would be substantially different from what ownership costs would be.

For those that base a better station selection on the Union branch having value as it could connect to the ex-GT line for commuter service... consider that PAR essentially parallels the GT from Portland to Yarmouth and then up to Danville Jct. At no point are they more than a couple of miles apart. As the PAR line is being rehabbed for the Brunswick Fantasy Express, why would you also need an SLR route out of Portland?

Cowford wrote:For those that base a better station selection on the Union branch having value as it could connect to the ex-GT line for commuter service... consider that PAR essentially parallels the GT from Portland to Yarmouth and then up to Danville Jct. At no point are they more than a couple of miles apart. As the PAR line is being rehabbed for the Brunswick Fantasy Express, why would you also need an SLR route out of Portland?

The ex-GT/ex-SLR track from Portland to Yarmouth is now owned by the state (and possibly/probably the state will eventually own the Yarmouth to Danville section). Presumably there would be some cost savings by using that route, compared to using the Pan Am route.

I think there is also a perception that SLR is "friendlier" toward passenger rail... although I think Pan Am is really quite friendly toward it now. In the '90s they weren't, but a lot has changed since then. They didn't put up any sort of fight when the Brunswick expansion was proposed, which is a huge change compared to when the original Boston-Portland service was proposed.

MEC407 wrote: The ex-GT/ex-SLR track from Portland to Yarmouth is now owned by the state (and possibly/probably the state will eventually own the Yarmouth to Danville section). Presumably there would be some cost savings by using that route, compared to using the Pan Am route.

I believe they did purchase this recently. A few pages back in this thread should show the reference.

Mike

"I think there is also a perception that SLR is "friendlier" toward passenger rail... although I think Pan Am is really quite friendly toward it now. In the '90s they weren't, but a lot has changed since then. They didn't put up any sort of fight when the Brunswick expansion was proposed, which is a huge change compared to when the original Boston-Portland service was proposed."

Of course they are more friendly now that they realize the amount of money that will be spent on rehabilitating their ROW.
And how much they will be paid to do the work. Imagine, the feds buy the material and pay you to put it in.

Cowford wrote:

MarkHB wrote:Cowford, I don't know if you've looked at the "Portland Passenger Stations" thread, but I wrote a fairly long post in there discussing what I felt were the pros and cons of various potential station locations in the city.

I did. I thought your thoughts were well presented. One "con" I didn't understand was the fact that the current station space is rented...

For those that base a better station selection on the Union branch having value as it could connect to the ex-GT line for commuter service... consider that PAR essentially parallels the GT from Portland to Yarmouth and then up to Danville Jct. At no point are they more than a couple of miles apart. As the PAR line is being rehabbed for the Brunswick Fantasy Express, why would you also need an SLR route out of Portland?

Thanks. So far as the "con" regarding the PTC rental, that was something that had been brought up either in the Maine Medium-LD Rail thread or the Downeaster thread (possibly by gokeefe?) and I included it in my list. I'm not sure what the rent is either but since NNEPRA is a public agency it should be able to be determined if someone really wanted to find it.

A lot of the initial discussion around running the train through the city near the Union Branch alignment came from the Portland City Council, back in the first years after the Downeaster started and the extension to Brunswick was no further along than a "we plan to do this." At the time, GRS was still more of an obstacle than a partner to pax rail, and so the idea to rebuild or replace the Back Cove trestle and use the ROW alongside I-295 to run the train on came into being. The city was hoping that running the train along the highway would help showcase and publicize the train, and also a station on Marginal Way would both be more convenient to downtown and help the Bayside recovery effort that was just getting underway then. The advantage to connecting to the SLR was trifold: make the Portland station a through-stop rather than a dead-end, avoid GRS as much as possible, and also try to create commuter rail possibilities from Yarmouth and Falmouth, where the SLR line has placement (close to Route 1) superior to what is now PAR. I believe the state legislature went so far as to approve a potential bond issue to rehab or replace the Back Cove bridge, but I don't know if that went to the voters or died in the Appropriations Committee.

The issue with the Portland Transportation Center goes back to rent. NNEPRA, i.e. the State of Maine has been paying something in the neighborhood of $30,000 per month for rent. The Right of Way is owned at some point by the State of Maine, hence the discussions of 'buying' real estate for construction of suitable layover facilities etc., however the PTC itself is not owned by the State. My understanding of the situation has been that the PTC is either owned by Concord Coach Lines or a different private owner from which both CCL and NNEPRA are renting space.

On an annual basis the rent amounts to about $360,000/year (or so that was what I understood from previous figures). However, NNEPRA operates the parking lot at the PTC and receives very substantial revenue from the parking lot, which partially, if not fully, offsets the costs of renting at the PTC. From an administrative standpoint it would seem likely that some clerical overhead might be reduced if the facility were wholly owned by the same entity. Furthermore, although private property tax contributions are essential to tax revenues the City of Portland might easily break even or better as the owner of a facility that has integrated all ground transportation, including Greyhound, and also has a parking concession from which they receive all the receipts. The operators would profit from this by receiving operating space and low/no rent accomodations, and of course the provision of utilities, custodial services etc.

If located on Commercial Street this facility could also serve as an interface to harbor ferries, water taxies and other water transportation facilities that are operated in Casco Bay.

An article in the sun journal today discussed the meeting they had in Bethel last night to extend service that way. Stops would be in Auburn, South Paris and Bethel and the platforms would have to be built/lengthened to accommodate 5 car trains. The need of a 5 car train was questioned. It was said that this service should be year round and not just in the winter for ski trains. It would also have to be separate from the DE to start if they want to get the project going in a reasonable time frame.

The link to the article BM6569 mentioned: <http://www.sunjournal.com/oxford-hills/story/949431>

I believe Tony Donovan (in the photo at the top of the article) runs the Website for the Maine Passenger Rail Coalition.

The price tag for the study ($183K) is a shocker. I hope the first commenter isn't right: "File it away."

Why would they need longer platforms for longer trains? Most of the platforms along the Downeaster route aren't nearly as long as the train itself. I doubt that most of the stations on Amtrak's long distance routes have platforms that are the same length as those LONG long distance trains.

Going from memory, I'd guesstimate that the platforms in Saco, OOB, and Wells are about one and a half to two car lengths.

*confused*

MEC407 wrote:Why would they need longer platforms for longer trains?

I s'pose whoever did the "study" has a mental picture of a subway train, with all the doors open and people bailing off/on "like their heads are on fire and their ***** are catchin'."

Man, these guys have got to get better at advertising these events... There were two events concerning the proposed passenger service along the SLR corridor last night. One attended by Maine Rail TRANSIT Coalition director Tony Donovan, was held in Bethel, while the other, attended by Patricia Quinn, Wayne Davis, Sue Moreau, other members of MRTC and yours truly, was held in Auburn. Many of the questions posed on this thread and others were answered at the presentation. First off, to the question about platform lengths. Apparently, Federal ADA regulations have gone into effect in the past few years since the DE was built, so now all new platforms must be 400 feet long. Where they come up with these things I'll never know. OOB is perfectly ADA compliant. I wonder if they just dream these regs up for the hell of it...
Other issues addressed... The MRTC has been pushing this DMU commuter rail possibility in a big way. At some point I'll have to break down the interesting politics between the different advocacy groups in Maine but for now I'll stick to SLR line passenger service. When MRTC members brought up the issue of DMUs Patricia Quinn responded in an interesting way. She said that FRA regs prevent most existing DMUs to be used on a line shared by freight trains. The reason involves coupler weight issues and crash worthiness tests. However, NNEPRA is sufficiently interested in DMUs to have applied for consideration of a test site. The line DOES go directly to Montreal, which is where Bombardier is HQed... Just saying...

Now Cowford... I would advise you to check up on a rival organization to MRTC. The Maine Alliance for Sustainable Transportation (MaST) is made up of Bike/Ped hippies, bus advocates, old school conservationists and paid cadres from the League of Young Voters. MaST has been battling the MRTC tooth and nail lately because MaST has been pushing for expansion of the ZOOM bus service between L/A and Portland. Run through the Maine Turnpike Authority ZOOM has wifi, cool logos, comfy seats and all of the amenities that you (Cowford) once advocated as the appropriate mode for Maine commuter service. MaST has been pushing for the ZOOM service as a bridge to rail service but MRTC doesn't buy it. they claim that it'll only lead to more lanes on the interstate. Like I said, I'll get into the politics later, but I like the idea of Cowford actually turning out to be a granola, gore-Tex clad, pony tailed, bike-Ped hippie:). Check em out Cowford... they're your new best friends! You should be able to find them at the local Whole Foods...