Augusta Lower Road

I see something similar to the Crescent Corridor (Public/private partnership) from Albany to Saint John (Patriot Corridor, D2/D1, CMQ/NBSR) being much better. Of course you might not get a match of private money from PAR and I don't believe that you should 100% fund such a project with public money.

No reason to upgrade Searsport line, it is already good for 25MPH. Bucksport is only 30 miles and has no large traffic source anymore... no need for that. Rumford branch is 44 miles and could use minimal work but at 10MPH it works fine. Focus on the primary artery line in Maine which is District 1.

What I would like, is State of Maine and/or Federal money being used to fix bridges (for 286K) and raise clearances to accommodate double stack. PAS will get the tunnel situated in a few years for full double stack so why wouldn't you clear your entire line from Saint John to Ayer using public money? You also open up the potential for auto exports via Portland (Eimskip in containers) and Saint John (via container or ro-ro ramp).

I see no reason to expand passenger services in the State of Maine at this time. I find it hard to believe that it would be a viable transportation option for those living outside of Portland, which does work because of the strong connections with Boston. Amtrak shouldn't be expanded past Brunswick but if for some reason someone is awarded money to do so it should go to Augusta to at least attempt to capture freight dual use. The ship has already said on an expansion that should have gone to Auburn (And no way they should use the Lewiston Lower) not Brunswick. That was a mistake.

CN9634 wrote:I see something similar to the Crescent Corridor (Public/private partnership) from Albany to Saint John (Patriot Corridor, D2/D1, CMQ/NBSR) being much better. Of course you might not get a match of private money from PAR and I don't believe that you should 100% fund such a project with public money.

No reason to upgrade Searsport line, it is already good for 25MPH. Bucksport is only 30 miles and has no large traffic source anymore... no need for that. Rumford branch is 44 miles and could use minimal work but at 10MPH it works fine. Focus on the primary artery line in Maine which is District 1.

What I would like, is State of Maine and/or Federal money being used to fix bridges (for 286K) and raise clearances to accommodate double stack. PAS will get the tunnel situated in a few years for full double stack so why wouldn't you clear your entire line from Saint John to Ayer using public money? You also open up the potential for auto exports via Portland (Eimskip in containers) and Saint John (via container or ro-ro ramp).

I see no reason to expand passenger services in the State of Maine at this time. I find it hard to believe that it would be a viable transportation option for those living outside of Portland, which does work because of the strong connections with Boston. Amtrak shouldn't be expanded past Brunswick but if for some reason someone is awarded money to do so it should go to Augusta to at least attempt to capture freight dual use. The ship has already said on an expansion that should have gone to Auburn (And no way they should use the Lewiston Lower) not Brunswick. That was a mistake.

FWIW...Back Road Danville-Waterville and Lower Road Brunswick-Waterville have roughly equal number of overhead bridges. Brunswick Branch's overpasses send the tally a little higher for the Lower because Yarmouth-Danville is already clear for 21', but given how tall some of those Kennebec River road crossings already are over the Lower where it hugs the river bank the actual number of structures to modify for getting DS to Waterville is probably cost-neutral either way. 286K ends at Danville on the Back Road, Brunswick on the Lower.

So...really, the die is already cast on which thru route to Waterville is going to survive and which route isn't. Every Amtrak extension comes with 286K track, and they've locked themselves onto the Lower for any more passenger expansion that'll get a shred of fed funding interest. Augusta closes half the remaining distance to Waterville. Maybe Brunswick was the wrong initial decision for a consolidated route, but there's no going back now. If there is movement to take passengers to Augusta, that will become the load-bearing freight route by virtue of being first to 286K and easiest for PAR to self-fund 286K the remaining distance to NMJ. And the freight considerations up the priority of fed funding for an 'ostensibly' passenger extension. Max stakeholders makes it justifiable in funding world even if you're not totally sold on the Portland-Brunswick-Augusta passenger potential in the real world.

Ayer-Portland double-stack is next on tap after PAS gets it...that's not in any doubt as all 3 states have earmarked it as the next #1 freight priority after the Patriot Corridor is done, and going to Portland with DS's settles up DS's to the SLR interchange. So which Waterville route gets the DS investment will be the one that is already furthest along at getting 286K investment. That's going to be the Lower. In the time it takes to get DS clearances all wrapped up to Portland where they can start planning the next round of clearance fixes...that 286K rail may already be in the ground up to Augusta. If the clearance work to Waterville is cost-neutral on either route...follow in the footsteps of the rail weights. And then...sorry, there's just going to be no thru freights between Leeds and Waterville. It'll become another one of those embargoed MEDOT holds puchased for 10 cents on the dollar where they dicker about not ripping the rails up and hoping against hope they can come up with some other use. No for-profit freight carrier would look at that rail map and say "Nah...I really need the slow, 263K, totally duplicate route with no potential for on-line customers ever and make it take 10 years longer to get help with DS funding because we can't decide." No. Yarmouth-Danville and the "super-extended" Rumford Branch for what has to go there, a Class 4 trip to Augusta and bank the self-investment cost savings for everything that has to go to Waterville, NMJ, and the Canadian Maritimes. I don't see any reality where it's going to work out a different way. To work out a different way means pulling the plug on Brunswick passenger, which isn't--and shouldn't be--happening.


Maine's a three-mainline state: PAR main (pick only one), SLR main, the trans-Canadian (CMQR/Irving) main...and the fingers that touch them together (Brownville-NMJ-Searsport, Danville-Yarmouth). With a shortlist of *healthy* and adequately supportable branches (Rumford, the Sappi mill stubs, the strongest of the extreme-north Irving branches). Fully-developed existing port facilities (Portland both sides of the river, Searsport, Portsmouth/Kittery) before having any fever dreams about Bucksport or Eastport. And due diligence support of the tourist lines (esp. ever-versatile Maine Eastern) without getting too desperate for gifting them new territory to justify the existence of otherwise dead lines. And be selective about preservation...yes, the Mountain and Calais are probably better off kept mothballed instead of trailed because connecting routes are more valuable railroad preservations than stub branches. But learn to let go: if it takes 100% state charity to reopen Madison or Bucksport or keep serving 1 not-real-reliable customer in Lisbon and at the beans factory, then reality is plainly speaking. Smart state rail policy is an efficient rail network and high-ROI projects with diversified return, not the "most" rail network or the most stop-loss maneuvers (i.e. MEDOT's mentallity that "technically active is the best kind of active!"). It just doesn't work. Maine can't maintain enough good rail service because it's too preoccupied maintaining the most rail service. And that extends to NNEPRA's wandering attention span thinking it can re-create the Virginia NE Regionals network 20 miles north of Portland. Lack of focus is one reason why the state economy is staying stagnant and there's such wide perception that the transportation network isn't helping matters.

Ayer-Portland double-stack is next on tap after PAS gets it...that's not in any doubt as all 3 states have earmarked it as the next #1 freight priority after the Patriot Corridor is done, and going to Portland with DS's settles up DS's to the SLR interchange.

I have to challenge that: The ME DOT 2014 Integrated Freight Strategy document states no such priority. In their usual naive and misguided fashion, they pin their hopes on the CMQ East-West Corridor for rail intermodal. In fact, it calls for the state to "strongly partner" with the [CMQ] to ensure it grows and strengthens its east-west connections" (PG ES-12). It also calls to upgrade only state-owned rail lines to 286K (PG ES-13). Apparently, the fact that NOBODY showed interest in their Sears Island container terminal concept wasn't enough to turn them off to the idea.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

CN9634 wrote:I see something similar to the Crescent Corridor (Public/private partnership) from Albany to Saint John (Patriot Corridor, D2/D1, CMQ/NBSR) being much better. Of course you might not get a match of private money from PAR and I don't believe that you should 100% fund such a project with public money.

No reason to upgrade Searsport line, it is already good for 25MPH. Bucksport is only 30 miles and has no large traffic source anymore... no need for that. Rumford branch is 44 miles and could use minimal work but at 10MPH it works fine. Focus on the primary artery line in Maine which is District 1.

What I would like, is State of Maine and/or Federal money being used to fix bridges (for 286K) and raise clearances to accommodate double stack. PAS will get the tunnel situated in a few years for full double stack so why wouldn't you clear your entire line from Saint John to Ayer using public money? You also open up the potential for auto exports via Portland (Eimskip in containers) and Saint John (via container or ro-ro ramp).

I see no reason to expand passenger services in the State of Maine at this time. I find it hard to believe that it would be a viable transportation option for those living outside of Portland, which does work because of the strong connections with Boston. Amtrak shouldn't be expanded past Brunswick but if for some reason someone is awarded money to do so it should go to Augusta to at least attempt to capture freight dual use. The ship has already said on an expansion that should have gone to Auburn (And no way they should use the Lewiston Lower) not Brunswick. That was a mistake.

FWIW...Back Road Danville-Waterville and Lower Road Brunswick-Waterville have roughly equal number of overhead bridges. Brunswick Branch's overpasses send the tally a little higher for the Lower because Yarmouth-Danville is already clear for 21', but given how tall some of those Kennebec River road crossings already are over the Lower where it hugs the river bank the actual number of structures to modify for getting DS to Waterville is probably cost-neutral either way. 286K ends at Danville on the Back Road, Brunswick on the Lower.

So...really, the die is already cast on which thru route to Waterville is going to survive and which route isn't. Every Amtrak extension comes with 286K track, and they've locked themselves onto the Lower for any more passenger expansion that'll get a shred of fed funding interest. Augusta closes half the remaining distance to Waterville. Maybe Brunswick was the wrong initial decision for a consolidated route, but there's no going back now. If there is movement to take passengers to Augusta, that will become the load-bearing freight route by virtue of being first to 286K and easiest for PAR to self-fund 286K the remaining distance to NMJ. And the freight considerations up the priority of fed funding for an 'ostensibly' passenger extension. Max stakeholders makes it justifiable in funding world even if you're not totally sold on the Portland-Brunswick-Augusta passenger potential in the real world.

Ayer-Portland double-stack is next on tap after PAS gets it...that's not in any doubt as all 3 states have earmarked it as the next #1 freight priority after the Patriot Corridor is done, and going to Portland with DS's settles up DS's to the SLR interchange. So which Waterville route gets the DS investment will be the one that is already furthest along at getting 286K investment. That's going to be the Lower. In the time it takes to get DS clearances all wrapped up to Portland where they can start planning the next round of clearance fixes...that 286K rail may already be in the ground up to Augusta. If the clearance work to Waterville is cost-neutral on either route...follow in the footsteps of the rail weights. And then...sorry, there's just going to be no thru freights between Leeds and Waterville. It'll become another one of those embargoed MEDOT holds puchased for 10 cents on the dollar where they dicker about not ripping the rails up and hoping against hope they can come up with some other use. No for-profit freight carrier would look at that rail map and say "Nah...I really need the slow, 263K, totally duplicate route with no potential for on-line customers ever and make it take 10 years longer to get help with DS funding because we can't decide." No. Yarmouth-Danville and the "super-extended" Rumford Branch for what has to go there, a Class 4 trip to Augusta and bank the self-investment cost savings for everything that has to go to Waterville, NMJ, and the Canadian Maritimes. I don't see any reality where it's going to work out a different way. To work out a different way means pulling the plug on Brunswick passenger, which isn't--and shouldn't be--happening.


Maine's a three-mainline state: PAR main (pick only one), SLR main, the trans-Canadian (CMQR/Irving) main...and the fingers that touch them together (Brownville-NMJ-Searsport, Danville-Yarmouth). With a shortlist of *healthy* and adequately supportable branches (Rumford, the Sappi mill stubs, the strongest of the extreme-north Irving branches). Fully-developed existing port facilities (Portland both sides of the river, Searsport, Portsmouth/Kittery) before having any fever dreams about Bucksport or Eastport. And due diligence support of the tourist lines (esp. ever-versatile Maine Eastern) without getting too desperate for gifting them new territory to justify the existence of otherwise dead lines. And be selective about preservation...yes, the Mountain and Calais are probably better off kept mothballed instead of trailed because connecting routes are more valuable railroad preservations than stub branches. But learn to let go: if it takes 100% state charity to reopen Madison or Bucksport or keep serving 1 not-real-reliable customer in Lisbon and at the beans factory, then reality is plainly speaking. Smart state rail policy is an efficient rail network and high-ROI projects with diversified return, not the "most" rail network or the most stop-loss maneuvers (i.e. MEDOT's mentallity that "technically active is the best kind of active!"). It just doesn't work. Maine can't maintain enough good rail service because it's too preoccupied maintaining the most rail service. And that extends to NNEPRA's wandering attention span thinking it can re-create the Virginia NE Regionals network 20 miles north of Portland. Lack of focus is one reason why the state economy is staying stagnant and there's such wide perception that the transportation network isn't helping matters.

The State of Maine's focus on passenger rail expansion by far trumps any effort to upgrade freight rail capability within existing line, another example of this State's misguided transportation policy. You can reference their unfinished rail plan to see what types of freight priorities they have.

Why would you want a Double Stack line coming from the West over PAS to meet with the SLR doublestack line which also goes west? Nothing would be routed that way. You have to understand where freight is coming from and going to in Maine and New England.

Does the line through Augusta have a future? Maybe, but it shouldn't be focused on passenger trains exclusively. I would go a step further if you are trying to go to Augusta with passenger rail, try to find more money or strike a deal with Pan Am to upgrade all the way to Waterville. Maine's intermodal future is quite bright actually (As you will all soon find out)

Has a study ever been commissioned (either by PAR/GRS or public authorities) to determine the work needed to clear a route from Ayer to a NB connection (at this juncture it would be No ME Jct) and even north to the County? (No, I'm not suggesting the prospect of stack trains and auto racks to Presque Isle.) I don't think I've ever seen one - just know that at least the old Western Route is not in compliance.

Cowford wrote:Has a study ever been commissioned (either by PAR/GRS or public authorities) to determine the work needed to clear a route from Ayer to a NB connection (at this juncture it would be No ME Jct) and even north to the County? (No, I'm not suggesting the prospect of stack trains and auto racks to Presque Isle.) I don't think I've ever seen one - just know that at least the old Western Route is not in compliance.

Nothing that I'm aware of. However, I believe the issues with the Western Route (B&M to Portland) are minimal. In fact most of the problem clearances are in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

The worst ones I can think of in Maine are in Kennebunk. They might have to revisit the idea of a drawbridge (!) to carry Summer Street over the railroad...

Cowford wrote:Has a study ever been commissioned (either by PAR/GRS or public authorities) to determine the work needed to clear a route from Ayer to a NB connection (at this juncture it would be No ME Jct) and even north to the County? (No, I'm not suggesting the prospect of stack trains and auto racks to Presque Isle.) I don't think I've ever seen one - just know that at least the old Western Route is not in compliance.

I don't think studies have been commissioned looking at freight that can simply move through Maine, much less freight that can specifically move from NB Southern to PAR. No one in Maine seems to have the peripheral vision. In the meantime, the Northwest Passage opening up and the LA/LB strikes are pushing more freight into Canada as we speak.... The Halifax/Saint John connections into New England and the Mid-Atlantic would work great for intermodal service to parallel the i-95 corridor. Sadly, I see no passenger prospects for this type of service, just freight. I also think there is enough freight that you could run a Maine Central style eastbound/westbound system using the Low Road.

CN9634 wrote: The Halifax/Saint John connections into New England and the Mid-Atlantic would work great for intermodal service to parallel the i-95 corridor. Sadly, I see no passenger prospects for this type of service, just freight.

Yeah is there any even potential demand for passenger service beyond Bangor to/from points east and north? I can only see Amtrak or a separate service getting anywhere beyond there when/if the car-free movement gets to a point (in the distant future) that demand for car-free and bus-free travel to/from Eastern/Northern Maine and/or New Brunswick + the Maritimes might warrant an Amtrak extension/MaineDOT operation or joint Amtrak/VIA train.

NH2060 wrote:

CN9634 wrote: The Halifax/Saint John connections into New England and the Mid-Atlantic would work great for intermodal service to parallel the i-95 corridor. Sadly, I see no passenger prospects for this type of service, just freight.

Yeah is there any even potential demand for passenger service beyond Bangor to/from points east and north? I can only see Amtrak or a separate service getting anywhere beyond there when/if the car-free movement gets to a point (in the distant future) that demand for car-free and bus-free travel to/from Eastern/Northern Maine and/or New Brunswick + the Maritimes might warrant an Amtrak extension/MaineDOT operation or joint Amtrak/VIA train.

I would say if the VIA Rail Atlantic comes back (last run 1994, but the Maritime provinces are screaming for it to get front-burnered for restoration in some form or another) then a schedule-coordinated thruway bus from a Downeaster that terminates absolutely no further than Bangor and the nearest Atlantic stop in Brownville or Keag is probably short enough and convenient enough to fetch some transfer ridership. But it probably is only ridership appropriate for a lone connecting bus, not a train. And thus not really germane to the topic. Though I do think for the very modest cost a bus connection is worth going for if VIA brings and it back and if the DE stretches at least as far as Augusta.

Like I said in the previous post, if NNEPRA wants this dizzying array of schedule-diluting forks north-of-Portland of really dubious value, they first have to answer the question of why they haven't pursued thruway bus connections out of Portland and Brunswick to serve the demand they're claiming in coordination with pretty frequent singular Downeaster schedules. It's proven itself on other Amtrak routes, and Amtrak can throw data at them to back it up. Even in the extremely unlikely event that Lewiston/Auburn does blow the lid off demand and merit an eventual train fork, they have to demonstrate first that the real-world demand exists in quantities that oversaturate all other modes except an Amtrak fork. A bus is just such a route-priming tool that can be set up quickly at low-cost, and have useful value even if the train never becomes an option. So NNEPRA kind of has to be called out on the carpet here for not pursuing the obvious long BEFORE foaming at the mouth over fantastical rail routes (other than Brunswick-to-Augusta, which at least has some solid basis for reality-based debate).

CN9634 wrote:

Cowford wrote:Has a study ever been commissioned (either by PAR/GRS or public authorities) to determine the work needed to clear a route from Ayer to a NB connection (at this juncture it would be No ME Jct) and even north to the County? (No, I'm not suggesting the prospect of stack trains and auto racks to Presque Isle.) I don't think I've ever seen one - just know that at least the old Western Route is not in compliance.

I don't think studies have been commissioned looking at freight that can simply move through Maine, much less freight that can specifically move from NB Southern to PAR. No one in Maine seems to have the peripheral vision. In the meantime, the Northwest Passage opening up and the LA/LB strikes are pushing more freight into Canada as we speak.... The Halifax/Saint John connections into New England and the Mid-Atlantic would work great for intermodal service to parallel the i-95 corridor. Sadly, I see no passenger prospects for this type of service, just freight. I also think there is enough freight that you could run a Maine Central style eastbound/westbound system using the Low Road.

MassDOT and the 3 MPO regions from Ayer to Haverhill have inventoried the bridge clearances for the latest edition of the MassDOT State Rail Plan. I can't find any maps of the structures in question, other than Montchusett Region MPO did at one point have a (highly pixilated and hard-to-read) map of all sub-DS clearance structures on PAS from Athol to Ayer, the Stony Brook Branch, and the Worcester Branch. Color-coded by stuff sub-21', sub-19'6", and sub-17'. Obviously since PAS makes up the bulk of that particular MPO region that engineering is already underway. And Worcester Branch is already cleared for 19'6".

2010 State Rail Plan earmarked these freight projects as the highest ROI:
1. PAS double-stack, state line to Ayer + Hoosac Tunnel -- engineering underway
2. PAR main double-stack and 286K, Ayer to NH state line -- 286K nominally complete Ayer-Portland per PAR system map; any lingering speed/spacer/train length restrictions for 286K cars in MBTA territory to be lifted upon completion of Merrimack River Bridge replacement. Unclear what Stony Brook + Lowell Branch upgrades needed for ensuring *reliablity* of 286K transport, or if there's any weight reliability to-do's with NH state line to Portland that Downeaster $$$ didn't pay for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3. PAR Worcester Branch 286K -- System map shows it's already 286K, so might be a reliability-related track work investment.
4. NECR main 286K, state line to state line -- CT just funded state line to New London, and VT state line to Canadian border is 286K...so this is the last gap-filler. Line is 19'6" cleared Canada to Willimantic, CT.
5. PVRR main 286K, Westfield-Holyoke -- to take advantage of the Conn River's now-complete 286K.
6. P&W 286K and full DS, Worcester to CT state line, Worcester to RI state line -- 286K to RI border funded/construction to be completed 2016; 286K in RI is complete. Worcester-Groton main is currently every-other-car 286K due to weak bridges in CT; not sure if there's any bridge work on this line required in MA that P&W hasn't self-funded. Clearances are 19'6" Worcester-Plainfield-Willimantic and Worcester-Central Falls-Davisville.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
7. CSX/MassDOT Framingham Secondary 286K, Framingham-Mansfield -- Walpole-Mansfield will get it if MBTA greenlights Foxboro commuter rail. Framingham-Walpole might be a quid pro quo in the ongoing sale agreement where CSX gets refreshed track in exchange for knocking a few $M off the sale price.
8. MassDOT Mansfield-Attleboro-Taunton, Taunton-New Bedford and Taunton-Fall River 286K -- The NEC Mansfield-Attleboro already 286K after the Acela rebuild. Rest is kind of B.S. political lard to justify the existence of South Coast (FAIL) Rail. The FR & NB branches would get it as normal track renewal for the passenger extensions, and the Middleboro Secondary to Attleboro is just a "Why not?" throw-in for completing the circuit to Framingham. CSX certainly didn't ask for this one.


Of these, #1 and #2 are head-and-shoulders above the rest. #3-4 and #6 are obvious second priorities since they are either: a) maintaining reliability of pre-existing rail weights, b) relatively low-hanging fruit infill of corridors complete/to-be-complete in other states, c) relatively low-hanging fruit of +1' clearance raising on existing 19'6" lines with limited in-state route miles.

#5 is an oddity; I really can't see why that one is so high-ranked. And #7-8 are booby traps inserted by the Patrick Admin. to justify the existence of commuter rail extensions. Llogic justifiable--if sub-ideal--for the Framingham Sec. since the commuter rail portion is very bridge-few and rail would be replaced by heavy CWR regardless...bats**t waste of money on the South Coast. I put odds very low of #8 ever happening.



So...I have no idea how engaged MEDOT and NHDOT are, but MassDOT isn't wasting any time plowing ahead with state line-to-state line capacity makeover for Pan Am. NHDOT has DS on the Western Route outlined in its 2012 State Rail Plan, along with a table of height limits. Of 22 overhead structures on the Western Route 8 are full-DS cleared, 3 are 18'9'-20', 6 are 17'7-17'11", and 3 are 16'8"-17'0. None are < 16'8". Your guess as good as mine their willingness to fund it, but they have fully scoped-out what they have to do and it doesn't look all that expensive with half their bridges either clear or within inches of clear.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Like I said in the previous post, if NNEPRA wants this dizzying array of schedule-diluting forks north-of-Portland of really dubious value, they first have to answer the question of why they haven't pursued thruway bus connections out of Portland and Brunswick to serve the demand they're claiming in coordination with pretty frequent singular Downeaster schedules. It's proven itself on other Amtrak routes, and Amtrak can throw data at them to back it up. Even in the extremely unlikely event that Lewiston/Auburn does blow the lid off demand and merit an eventual train fork, they have to demonstrate first that the real-world demand exists in quantities that oversaturate all other modes except an Amtrak fork. A bus is just such a route-priming tool that can be set up quickly at low-cost, and have useful value even if the train never becomes an option. So NNEPRA kind of has to be called out on the carpet here for not pursuing the obvious long BEFORE foaming at the mouth over fantastical rail routes (other than Brunswick-to-Augusta, which at least has some solid basis for reality-based debate).

I should have clarified this sooner. Thruway connections are already offerred via Concord Coach as far north as Bangor with service in Augusta as well. See amtrak.com for more detail.

Dover has three single level clearance bridges.

Oak St. at the Dover/Rollinsford Line:
Scheduled for replacement/raising to double stacks, engineering FY16, construction FY17
One fly in the ointment here is the town of Rollinsford, as the town line is down the middle of the bridge.
Ten years ago, Rollinsford refused the funding for their share and a patch job was done in lieu of replacement.
I do not know what the Rollinsford funding situation is this time around. Currently a six ton load limit.

Washington St., "Arch Bridge"
This is a stone bridge that supposedly has some historical significance, Replacing it "in kind" would likely double
or more the cost of a steel/concrete structure. While there are no structures immediately adjacent to the Bridge,
there is Arch Street which could involve elevation issues when raising Washington St. The bridge was undercut
many years ago and has ongoing drainage problems during heavy storms.

Spaulding Turnpike Bridge:
This bridge did get some work during the replacement of all the original bridges on the Spaulding Turnpike during
the 2000-2010 time frame. I don't recall any raising of the highway at that time.

The Littleworth Road Rt.9 Bridge was replaced in 2012-2013 and raised to DS standards.

Re: the East Deering line and the Burnham & Morrill bean plant. At least that SLR line has the theoretical possibility of additional delivery customers, as the Presumpscot Street industrial corridor is intact and unlikely to go anywhere. I am not sure why the beer distributors abandoned rail (Nappi and Cumberland and York, which were both in that area, merged and then built a new facility out in Gorham on land that might have had rail service when the Portland and Rochester was intact), but those warehouses are still there. Of course, the real sticking point is getting the city of Portland to act like it actually wants industrial operations in the city.

markhb wrote:Re: the East Deering line and the Burnham & Morrill bean plant. At least that SLR line has the theoretical possibility of additional delivery customers, as the Presumpscot Street industrial corridor is intact and unlikely to go anywhere. I am not sure why the beer distributors abandoned rail (Nappi and Cumberland and York, which were both in that area, merged and then built a new facility out in Gorham on land that might have had rail service when the Portland and Rochester was intact), but those warehouses are still there. Of course, the real sticking point is getting the city of Portland to act like it actually wants industrial operations in the city.

Speaking of distributors......I would almost imagine that the former Associated Grocers facility in South Gardiner might be a good fit for Pine State Trading Company if they ever wanted to move to a different location. Far less traffic, preserves the rail option and could be renovated/rebuilt to whatever standards they prefer. They are boxed in pretty bad on State Street right now and I don't think they're going to be able to ever fix that. The property taxes would be much lower as well.