Portland Maine Passenger Stations

[gokeefe]

Cowford,

I agree that there are safety issues and Oakland had come to my mind as well. I was also wondering where the station would go.

I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned before but the new Ocean Gateway being constructed in Portland presently (supposedly scheduled to open in May 2011) is expected to result in further increases to cruise traffic. The new pier will be large enough to accomodate the largest cruise ships afloat today. While that certainly doesn't mean that there will be a huge new influx of cruise ship traffic in the summer I do think it will support continued growth. It will also at least open the possibility that there will be more (but not necessarily regular) traffic in the summer from the largest ships. I understand that the schedule at present can't support cruise ship travelers however given the changes that are in progress right now I don't expect that schedule to stay the same. This is especially true if NNEPRA does in fact move to downtown Portland (whether it be at Center Street or W. Commercial Street). Given a) a new station location close to (if not in) the Old Port, b) a new schedule with supporting frequencies (through adjustments to current fleet utilization) , c) a new marine passenger terminal (presently under construction), and d) direct marketing efforts by NNEPRA including onship availability of reservations for travel to Freeport etc. I think its realistic to say the Downeaster would see an increase in ridership from cruise ship traffic.

There are still plenty of other issues to be resolved including how to ensure present traffic is unaffected. At the end of the day they may just decide to go with modifications/improvements to the PTC. The West Commercial Street location also has the advantage of allowing them to build something more or less from scratch with substantial additional space for parking.

The study is looking at the entire line Boston-Portland not just a possible relocation of the Portland rail station. Although I know we all hate the costs of these things they are a critical test of NNEPRAs competence and ability to demonstrate preparedness for further state and federal funding. Without empirical evidence and careful engineering the whole enterprise is just hearsay. I'm reluctant to take a guess at how much a new station in Portland would cost because of the unknown cost of new station trackwork. That alone may become the strongest point in favor of renovations and additions to the PTC.

The funding won't be there for any new station in the forseeable future.
In case you missed it, there are new "gangs" in Augusta and Washington.
IMO, we will be lucky to keep the existing service and run to Brunswick.

Dick,

While there certainly has been a big change I'm very reluctant to group the new majorities & governor in Augusta with the new crowd in Washington. Politicians of any stripe in Maine always seem to be different from their more homogenous bretheren in 'the District'. They tend to be far more likely to act independently of their party and instead focus on the interests of their constituents. To me the real question is, "What is the opinion of the people of Maine in regards to this service?" The most recent elections in November were by no means a referendum on rail passenger service. Frankly, given the popular support for rail passenger service as seen through public meetings and support for the Brunswick extension (and the anger in Lewiston-Auburn at being -temporarily- bypassed) I would say there's plenty of support in Maine for passenger service.

In terms of the railroad station in Portland, in my mind Washington doesn't figure into the equation because the federal government doesn't typically fund passenger rail stations on state supported service. The local and statewide consensus for rail passenger service is quite strong therefore I don't think there will be problems getting a new station in Portland. The city in particular may very well fund some large portion of the construction costs making it even easier for the state to help with matching funds, potentially as part of the next transportation bond.

[markhb]

Do you feel that the previous presence of the railroad would mitigate this [non-marine waterfront-development political firestorm]?

(Even if passenger operations have never occurred on these tracks previously)

Well, if we take the extremely long view, passenger operations have occurred on these tracks; witness the original Commercial Street Station that was seen on the map linked to back on Page 1 of this thread, in the neighborhood of the former International Ferry Terminal. But beyond that, I don't see the "political firestorm" I referred to as so much a zoning / officialdom issue as an activism issue.... However, as I think about it more clearly, the Beach St. area location could dodge some of that fire for two reasons: there are no "working waterfront" wharves there, and PAR may not even own the waterfront strip between the proposed station location and the low water mark; I think Unitil owns the frontage as well as their gas works. Middle St., however, is indisputably "working waterfront" area as well as being, as Cowford pointed out, dangerous.

Street running isn't quaint; it's dangerous. Railroads, pedestrians and automobiles don't mix.

This is Commercial Street in Portland, Maine; you left out bowsprits. It was at one time (long before I came along) known as the only street in the world where one could get hit by a car, a train or a boat! In fact, in the 80's when MDOT finally took the tracks out, Guilford pressured them to upgrade Danville Jct. as Commercial was also ostensibly a junction & interchange point between MEC and the Grand Trunk. (For those who never had the pleasure of riding or driving on Commercial as it was, you had to avoid getting your tires caught up in the tracks which ran everywhere, the then-warehouses on the inland side of the street usually had semi-trailers backed up to their front loading doors, sticking straight out into the street, and there were no traffic lights or lane markings (not even the yellow stripes down the middle of the street) because it frankly made no sense even to try.) But beyond that, I agree with your safety argument and am also highly skeptical of potential cruise ship traffic. So far as overnighting the trains at either location, my thoughts are that NNEPRA would either retain the current Thompson's Point area as a service location (it's not like the bus company can use the rails for anything), or one of the articles has mentioned that they are thinking of moving the overnight / servicing location to Brunswick.

The city in particular may very well fund some large portion of the construction costs making it even easier for the state to help with matching funds, potentially as part of the next transportation bond.

Yes, the city is curiously immune from "new gang in town" syndrome. In fact, after some of our City Councilors railed against the new County Charter as it gave some bonding ability to the County Commissioners without going to referendum, they turned around and authorized a shiny new package of municipal bonds, armed with an opinion from the city's attorney that since none of the individual projects exceeded the referendum cutoff amount in the City Charter, they didn't have to send any of it to the voters regardless of what the aggregate amount was. So, if they support a new station, I am sure they'll find a way to come up with the money.

One other thing that comes to mind: MDOT said that they frowned upon the IMT parking lot location for the new station as they plan to make substantial freight-handling upgrades to the area. I would think/hope that freight rail access would be a desired trait for a cargo facility, and so hopefully the plans for a new station don't get in the way of or complicate extending the rails the extra distance under the bridge.

[piker]

Trying to pin down figures for cruise visitors and what they spend and came across this http://www.umaine.edu/soe/files/2009/09 ... -Final.pdf study . According to them "In recent years, the cruise industry has seen remarkable growth in Portland, Maine. The city hosted an estimated 47,841 cruise ship passengers in 2008, a 45 percent increase above the 33,000 passengers who visited in 2003." In this Bangor Daily News Piece http://pressrelease.bangordailynews.com ... wth-stage/ they project "70-thousand cruise ship passengers and 22-thousand crew members from 69 ships will visit Portland Harbor this year" Do we need a graph? In addition the UMaine study notes that (2008 figures) "Cruise ship passenger survey results show that the average respondent spends a combined total of $109.68 on cruise-line sponsored tours, and goods and services while in port. Excluding the money paid to cruise lines for organized tours, we find that the typical passenger spends $80.51 in the Portland region. The results from an economic impact model show that cruise ship passengers generate an estimated impact, including multiplier effects, of between $5.8 million and $8.0 million in sales revenue, and support between 69 and 96 full- and part-time jobs." Also "Of those passengers that took a shopping tour, the average respondent spent $146.60 in Freeport. In some cases, the amount spent in Freeport represented the entire amount the passenger spent while in port."
For myself I'm not sure I would be happy about this in my town but its good steady money into a region that relies on money from away. Doesn't matter what I think, looks like they're on their way to visit you, better think of something for them to do.
Any idea what the final capacity of the port is as in projected visits?
Can anyone from around the area comment on how the cruise business has affected the character and traffic downtown so far?

[MEC407]

Can anyone from around the area comment on how the cruise business has affected the character and traffic downtown so far?

I wouldn't say that it has really changed the character much, if at all. In terms of vehicle traffic, the only difference is that there are a few more tour buses than usual. In terms of pedestrian traffic, there are noticeably more people wandering around on days when a really big ship is in port... but if the ship itself wasn't visible, I imagine that most of us wouldn't know the difference and would think it was just another busy day in the Old Port.

[Cowford]

Allow me to focus on the cruise traffic for a bit.

"I think its realistic to say the Downeaster would see an increase in ridership from cruise ship traffic."

With all due respect, GO'K, this is easy to say... it gets much harder to accept when realities are considered:

Ship locations: The piers are 1/2+ mile from the proposed Center St site, 1 mile from yard 1. Making anyone, leave alone 70-year old ladies walk 1/2 -1 mile each way seems a bit unreasonable, so how will these passengers get to the train and how long would that transfer take?

Ship schedules and call frequencies: I don't know that industry at all, but I suspect these vessels are on some sort of regional rotation and frequent the New England market due to optimal climate conditions on land and sea, i.e., pleasant cruising weather around Maine, hurricane avoidance in the Carribean. I can't imagine that cruise demand would spike due to a rail connection to Freeport, as the existing cruises probably already offer a 25-30 min bus connection there. (Yes, no?) It's far-fetched to suggest that riders will make a go/no-go decision on an Atlantic cruise based on availabity of train service between Portland and Freeport. And even if demand did increase (for that or any other reason), it's a very short season, and any increase would be stifled by ship capacity requirements elsewhere. (The cruise industry will not build a church for Easter Sunday.) And if Portland's spending all this money on cruise ship traffic, wouldn't the city want to keep those cruisers spending money IN PORTLAND when they are in port?

Now again, about those schedules. The ships typically arrive between 7-9am. Folks have breakfast and go about their business... having to be back at the boat by 5-6pm. Figure they've got about four - six hours, because they'll also want to wander around the Old Port, maybe take a city tour, right? With buses, you can easliy offer a variety of dockside departure and arrival times, with a one-hour RT transit time. Add in queuing for the bus/loading, and you'll get ~45mins each way. Train will require a shuttle from dock to station, which requires queuing/loading/drive to the station... call it 15 mins. Train loading we'll call 15 min. Transit time would be ~45 mins. So that's 1:15. In other words, the train would consume an additional hr of the cruise rider's precious land time. Why would a cruiser WANT to take rail... the DE is not a palace on wheels. Transit would trump relative comfort.

Flexibility: Not everyone has the same enthusiasm for shopping, some would be happy with one-two hours, for others, three or four hours are not enough. Buses offer the flexibility of mulitple departure times. I challenge anyone to figure out a schedule that would provide the flexibility attractive to a cruise passenger (at least two departure choices each way), without negative affect to the other Downeaster service. Add train sets to your hearts delight - you'll need a boatload, because you'll also need seat capacity (see next para). And watch that farebox recovery stat drop squarely into the toilet.

Capacity: Consider in that the fact that those cruisers would be riding on regular trains, seat capacity of which will be taken by masses supposedly riding between POR-BRU. Buses are much more flexible and adding capacity with advance planning. How would a rail option add capacity for these two months?

Cost: Do I need to go there? : )

So why is this a good idea, and how would it work?

[Cowford]

Piker, somehow I missed your post yesterday before my last one... the economic impact study you linked is very insightful. The findings indicate that 5% of Portland cruisers go to Freeport. I'd suspect that part of the reason for this low number is the high average age (62)... more elderly people would rather sightsee than shop.

The port of Portland's website has the schedule for vessel calls in 2011 (which I have touched on earlier). I should have considered the schedule a little more closely, as saying that large vessels are calling on the Port only two months/year is not framing properly the potential. There are 34 large vessel calls. On one date (9/29), two vessels are in port on the same day. That said, there are large vessel calls only 33 days/year. The aggregate passenger capacity of those vessels is ~90,000. Apply the 5% factor and that's 4,500 Freeport visitors/year, or 136 per vessel-in-port day. Two charter buses running in round-robin shuttle service could more than handle that ridership.

Why do I suspect that there's a sinister idea lurking out there: Let's make the argument that the reason the DE doesn't have more traffic is station location. Once a Commercial Street station is open, then we can make an argument that the only reason we don't have more traffic is that we don't go all the way to India Street. Then once that is built, we can make the argument that the only reason we don't have more traffic is that we can't run over Back Cove trestle. Then once that is (re)built...

[MEC407]

Then once that is (re)built...

Onward to Montreal! LOL

[Hamhock]

I'd settle for no trestle, but a multi-platform Commercial Street station that connects the Downeaster and eventual commuter rail with a light-rail/trolley loop around the peninsula perimeter (goodbye, Narrow Gauge railroad; hello, station stops: Commercial Street, East End Beach, Back Cove trail, Hadlock Field)

[piker]

Cowford
I think the cruise industry is expecting and the city is trying to provide, a variety of saleable attractions. I think that the goal here would be to design a rail centered entertainment product that segues from the cruise experience. The grannies want to go for a train ride, could be the Mountain route but doesn't even matter where. The clever folks at NNEPRA probably have plans to cover Freeport with the DE so somewhere out in the country Got to be all easy access with no curbs or steps. It doesn't have to be new or fast, funky old gear is fine as long as its clean and comfortable. Lots of nice conductors in oldtimey hats. hour and a half out, hour and a half or two to shop and eat somewhere and return five hours max. So heres where we play passenger rail poker. I'll open. So lets say your assured somehow to get a minimum 200 seats a day at $50 filled on your granny train 100 times over a season of 4/12 months, sustainable long term, looks like ten thousand per train and a million bucks gross.I don't know, I'm asking, is anyone in the railroad industry going to be interested in taking that and if not, what is the price point where it is interesting?

No question the further east you go the more headache but it would make for a busy, interesting downtown. Rebuilding the Back Cove trestle would be Disneyesque. Now thats sinister....

[markhb]

Why do I suspect that there's a sinister idea lurking out there: Let's make the argument that the reason the DE doesn't have more traffic is station location. Once a Commercial Street station is open, then we can make an argument that the only reason we don't have more traffic is that we don't go all the way to India Street. Then once that is built, we can make the argument that the only reason we don't have more traffic is that we can't run over Back Cove trestle. Then once that is (re)built...

I honestly don't think that's the case at all, because, unlike (I think) GO'K, I don't believe that potential synergy with the cruise industry is a driver for the station relocation. I think NNEPRA feels that their schedule on trains that run POR-BRK will suffer due to the backup move required to get to or from Thompson's Point; they've made the point in many articles in the past that they don't want to stay there. IIRC, going back to the launch of the service (by which time the extension to BRK had already been floated), they were viewing the current location as temporary space. The city, OTOH, has always wanted to have the station on the peninsula; if I had to surmise an ulterior motive on their part, it might be that the pedestrians they actually want to have access are the various self-consciously car-free residents of the West End, who would be able to walk to a Commercial Street station more easily than they could Thompson's Point. The Exit 5 I-295 complex is widely viewed as a pedestrian barrier.

[Cowford]

Oh man, Piker. I'm all-in on that one. You're bluffing as if you had six aces! $50 a head? The cruise lines can probably charter buses for less than $10 per head. This is not a cruise train - seriously, how many people would opt for a 1 hr shuttle bus-train operation over a 1/2 hr bus direct ride? And really, how many cruise passengers shun the Old Port, Portland Head Light, etc, in favor of hopping on a train for a 2hr each way "rail cruise" through dull scenery to N. Conway. (Take note of BML's success, or lack thereof.)

[MEC407]

Even as a railfan who enjoys train rides just for the sake of being on a train, I have to agree with all of that, Cowford.

[hh660]

As I begain reading this discussion, it occured to me that someone on the original station location selection committee had suggested locating the station in/near yard 8. It was rejected because of the need of a reverse move.
I did a search of this discussion on this forum and lo and behold, I found this quote dated August 31, 2006-by me!

During the preliminary location selection for the amtrak station, it was suggested that the east end of yard 8 would be a great spot- it it would have been right next to the international ferry terminal! The north side of commercial street, next to yard 8 was considered, this is vacant land, once the location of a yard where I remember portland terminal storing their hoppers. This is owned by Guilford as well, so the price would be high, I'm sure. These two locations were eliminated because they said that they didn't want amtrak to have to make a reverse move when service was extended to brunswick. This was a poor excuse in my opinion-they would have to make a reverse move now if service were to be extended. (unless they move the station to bayside). My guess is that the city wanted the international ferry terminal to move to the eastern part of the wateerfront way back then and didn't want to make the yard 8 location too successful by allowing the train to directly feed the ferry-no cabs, no bus, simply walk from the train to the boat. I guesss that would be way too simple. This location would have been very convienient to the old port as well. prior to tearing up the tracks that ran to the old port down the middle of commercial street, they could have easily allowed a real trolley to shuttle people from the ferry/train terminal quite easily.
The ferry terminal presently is used for container loading and unloading to small ships or barges. Maybe 10 to 20 perweek at the most. The crane the city helped buy is busy about 5 hours a week. I would love to know how much it costs the city to maintain this facility on a per container basis-I don't believe the rent from the shipping company paysfor the electrical costs for the yard lights!

This discussion is like deja vu all over again.
The ferry service I refered to was the daily car/truck/passenger ferry to Yamouth, N.S., not to be confused with cruise ships, although lots of people refered to the trip as a cruise. The ferry service has been dicontinued.
S

[Cowford]

Thanks 407. Mark, I agree with you on the primary drivers behind the relo. Totally valid points. I think that having the station on Comm St would attract inbound ridership. How much is the question. It would essentially be a seasonal play. Portland's walking-based attractions are limited: Old Port's fine, but if you can't walk to Portland Head Light, Two Lights, stop by Kittery or Cabelas on the way up, etc. It would otherwise be incrementally attractive only to a very small subset of out-of-staters (folks in, say, Andover, would typically opt for a 1.5hr drive rather than a 2.5+hr home-to-Old Port trip with limited departure options; Folks from NYC will be coming up for longer periods, so will drive or fly... and if they were prone to rail, I'd doubt that present station location would deter them, as their first order of business will be taxi to hotel or grab a rental car.) And,aside from the Center Street option, the options are hardly walkable for the elderly. And with regard to the Maine-based traffic, won't the converse be true? Probably 1% of Maine-based riders live within walking distance of Comm St. Moving the station will be less convenient for the other 99% (save some from S Portland and the Cape) and may jeopardize present ridership levels.

About the Brunswick extension: If BRK service was not in the cards, the weak argument for relocation would be made significantly weaker. Despite the hype, this service has a pretty reasonable probability of failure. (That probability will depend on NNEPRA's ability to absorb the incremental loss from operations.) The extension reaches a TINY, seasonal market. Add to that lousy, equipment-based schedules. So what if the service fails?

Keep the facility as is, improve tourist connections to the Old Port, and ensure the most efficient process for back-up moves. (Not ideal, but Amtrak does it at other stations.) It's a responsible strategy; continued investment of tens of millions is reckless.

Yeah, I know: "Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood..." This is "a bridge too far."

[markhb]

Tangentially related: an article in the upcoming Forecaster regarding MDOT's plans for the International Marine (ex-Scotia Prince) Terminal.

State looks for Portland's OK to expand marine terminal
PORTLAND — The state is asking the city to approve $5 million in upgrades to the International Marine Terminal, a move it says will attract more cargo and container shipments.

Maine Department of Transportation representatives are due before the Planning Board Feb. 8 to pitch the project, which will be funded with federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER, grant money.

The state believes the improvements will make the West Commercial Street facility more efficient.

"It will make it easier to handle more containers," MDOT project manager Paul Pottle said.

Related background materials should be posted to the City's website this Friday; the article doesn't mention rail access at all.

This is "a bridge too far."

Do you really think the station and track rehab to get to it, for sake of argument to the Yard 1 location, is going to cost tens of millions? The articles I've read had the "tens of millions" as a lump sum that encompassed the broader rehabs to get POR-BON down to 2:15 or 2:00 running time.