Passenger rail expansion in Maine

MEC407 wrote:

PeakVT wrote:2006 Downeaster boardings + alightings

• Portland 139,519
  Old Orchard Beach 8,419 (seasonal stop)
  Saco-Biddeford 22,896
  Wells 32,513
  Dover 39,080
  Durham-UNH 50,255
  Exeter 58,872
  Haverhill 18,330
  Woburn 11,272
  Boston-North Station 294,686

I think these numbers prove that the population of a given city or town can have little or no bearing on that city or town's potential train ridership.

Wells has a year-round population of 10,000 people -- about the same as Old Orchard Beach, and only one quarter as many as the twin cities of Saco and Biddeford (approx. 45,000 people combined) -- and yet we can clearly see that Wells has much higher ridership than Saco-Biddeford or OOB. Therefore, I would suggest that the folks who would dismiss Freeport and Brunswick based solely on their year-round population numbers need to take a deeper look at all of the factors that combine to give a city or town good ridership numbers.

The only reason Wells has an artificially high passenger count (vs its population) is because of it's location on the Maine Turnpike, and hence the role it plays as a commuter lot. Not many people are going to be commuting from Freeport to Boston...

roberttosh wrote:

MEC407 wrote:

PeakVT wrote:2006 Downeaster boardings + alightings

• Portland 139,519
  Old Orchard Beach 8,419 (seasonal stop)
  Saco-Biddeford 22,896
  Wells 32,513
  Dover 39,080
  Durham-UNH 50,255
  Exeter 58,872
  Haverhill 18,330
  Woburn 11,272
  Boston-North Station 294,686

I think these numbers prove that the population of a given city or town can have little or no bearing on that city or town's potential train ridership.

Wells has a year-round population of 10,000 people -- about the same as Old Orchard Beach, and only one quarter as many as the twin cities of Saco and Biddeford (approx. 45,000 people combined) -- and yet we can clearly see that Wells has much higher ridership than Saco-Biddeford or OOB. Therefore, I would suggest that the folks who would dismiss Freeport and Brunswick based solely on their year-round population numbers need to take a deeper look at all of the factors that combine to give a city or town good ridership numbers.

The only reason Wells has an artificially high passenger count (vs its population) is because of it's location on the Maine Turnpike, and hence the role it plays as a commuter lot. Not many people are going to be commuting from Freeport to Boston...

There wouldn't be many commuting from Freeport to Boston, but with the right infrastructure, I'd bet a fair number would commute to Portland. The right infrastructure would mean a reliable system for commuters to get about Portland. (LRV, DMU, bus, subway maybe?). The Portland metro area has been growing, and it would be easier to establish a system now compared to much later. Portland would be best served by a commuter rail line to Brunswick and a second towards Fryeburg over the Mountain Division while using Amtrak to service to Boston and north to Lewiston.

I just want to touch on the subject of buses vs. trains for a moment.

Back in the mid-'90s, a bus company -- can't remember the name, but it was one of the bigger ones in the area, possibly Concord or C&J -- tried to run a bus service between Wells, Portsmouth, and Boston. It was a miserable failure. The schedule was convenient and the prices were reasonable, but hardly anybody used it.

Fast forward to 2001 and the Downeaster, and we can clearly see that quite a few folks in the Wells/Kennebunk/Sanford/Berwicks/York area are very happy and willing to take the train to Boston, and one can safely assume that many of these people were the same ones who had absolutely no interest in the mid-'90s bus service.

Buses are a great option, but not everybody likes to take the bus. A lot of people would much rather take a comfortable train, and they are willing to pay a little bit extra and get there a few minutes later.

I actually like buses -- you could call me a "busfan" I suppose -- but in terms of getting from here to there, I'd definitely rather take a train than a bus.

Having spent a fair amount of time traveling on buses, I can say that given the choice, I would never take the bus as an option to travel. I have found that in buses, the seats are crammed so tightly together that anyone who is anywhere close to being 6' tall doesn't have a bit of leg room, and being 6' 3, this is a major annoyance for me. Trains, and even planes aren't anywhere close to being as cramped as a bus. Being jammed shoulder to shoulder with a group of random people for hours isn't a way I would want to travel. I'd take my car instead.

Just my 2 cents.

railroadManager wrote:

NRGeep wrote:The Downeaster certainly offers more comfortable seats and leg room than the bus and you can actually sit at a cafe table when you drink your coffee...some folks are willing to pay a little extra for that option especially at those times when the publicly subsidized Maine Turnpike is congested and slow.

Guess again. The Maine Turnpike if financed by bonds issued by the Maine Turnpike Authority. These bonds are backed by toll revenue. Therefore, it is not publicly subsidized, it is paid for from user fees collected from motorists. Even roads aren't getting a free ride like what people here want you to think, gasoline taxes pay for maintenance of the road, since a majority of gasoline is used for driving, it can be viewed as a user fee for roads.

The gas tax is a subsidy paid by many folks who will never use the Maine Turnpike (or the Big Dig for that matter) and factor in the subsidies for state police to patrol the interstates and turnpikes and the DMV public funding in addition to the property taxes which go towards highway funding and you're looking at several subsidies for buses that contribute a disproportionate amount of wear and tear to the roads.

Guess again. The Maine Turnpike if financed by bonds issued by the Maine Turnpike Authority. These bonds are backed by toll revenue. Therefore, it is not publicly subsidized, it is paid for from user fees collected from motorists. Even roads aren't getting a free ride like what people here want you to think, gasoline taxes pay for maintenance of the road, since a majority of gasoline is used for driving, it can be viewed as a user fee for roads.

Just to clarify: It's capital projects that are financed by revenue bonds issued against anticipated toll revenue AND backed by the financial good standing of the Turnpike Authority, along with the implicit understanding that if the TA went under the State of Maine would assume it's debt load (indeed in many states it isn't uncommon for state government to assume the payment of debt service for independent authorities). Operations of the turnpike are paid for by toll revenue. No healthy company or authority or government would ever pay for its operational costs by issuing bonds (see New York City in the mid 1970s).

The gas tax is an even more dubious user fee-- it pays mostly for federal highways. Your local state roads are paid for by the general funds of state and municipal governments. So if 90% of your driving isn't on an interstate (which is not far fetched in Maine), that gas tax isn't all that fair as a user fee.

The real question, I think is should fairness be the determining factor in our public decisions? Personally, I think that need, not fairness, should be the yardstick by which we measure public works programs.

To the poster who said that Brunswick is a small town-- small compared to what? Here are the top 12 cities and towns by population in the state (according to the 2000 census):

Portland (64,249)
Lewiston (35,690)
Bangor (31,473)
South Portland (23,376)
Auburn (23,203)
Brunswick (21,172)
Biddeford (20,934)
Sanford (20,806)
Augusta (18,559)
Saco (16,822)
Westbrook (16,142)
Waterville (15,605)

You can see from these figures where the big state population centers are: Portland-South Portland-Westbrook and Lewiston-Auburn. Brunswick is between the two and will continue to play a critical role in the state's economy as Bowdoin College expands and the Naval Air Station is converted for industrial, research, and other uses.

The state is also looking at (or maybe those wheels have already begun turning since I left Maine) widening I-295 from Portland to Brunswick, which to me would be a travesty. Nobody, not citizens and not state officials, seems to realize the extent of the sprawl problem, which will only be exacerbated by a widened highway, and which to me makes an aggressive public transit program critical. Some facts from the last Maine Census:

-While Maine's population has been largely flat over the last 20 years, many small towns in Sagadahoc, Lincoln and Knox counties have grown by as much as 1/3rd. Cushing grew by more than 1/3 in the 1990s, Scarborough by 36%, while Portland, Bath, and Rockland all lost population.

-In the 1990s, greater Portland's population grew by 17% but rural land converted to urban use (residential, commercial, or industrial development) grew by 108%

-During the 1980s, Maine's population grew by 10%. Total number of miles driven in the state increased by 600%

When folks who have lived in Maine for all their lives wonder where the old ways are going, these figures usually drift through my mind. To me the essence of Maine was never about being able to drive your car anywhere you wanted or build your house where you wanted, or about being self reliant enough not to have to rely on a train or a bus-- it was about being a steward of the most beautiful and bountiful lands on God's green earth.

Now the world has come to Maine and Mainers-- people who care about the state and their towns and their neighbors and their children-- have to start preserving their state, and not allow it to be exploited-- by developers, by out of staters looking to build a third McMansion, by those who would put their own comforts and desires ahead of three hundred years of Maine tradition. I'll say what I think we all know: in our current economic climate a passenger train in Maine will never ever pay for itself. But I think there is a greater good at stake.

For those advocating commuter rail and not just an extension of the Downeaster, let me point out that there are no active railroad lines within walking distance of downtown Portland. No active lines. Even the previous Union Station was about 1 mile from the center of downtown. The current station is about 2 miles away - but on the other side of a freeway, and without an easy pedestrian route to the city side. For commuter rail to get to downtown, there would have to be some major construction done - a couple of tricky wyes, double-tracking a short spur, some complicated grade crossings (or a tunnel), and a new station.

Here's the view.

More generally, commuter rail in America currently only works where there are enough jobs downtown to support frequent service AND the traffic is bad enough to force people out of their cars. I don't think either factor applies to Portland.

For those supporting just the extension of the Downeaster, I still don't see why ~$50/passenger (and I think I was being generous about the number of passengers) for track-only capital costs (operating subsidies would be on top of this) is a good value. Spending the same amount between Portland and MA would cost only ~$15/passenger for passengers travelling all the way from Portland. Depending on where it is spent the amount could be lower per passenger. Knocking another 15 minutes (or more) off the trip would make the existing service that much more appealing.

I think you're missing a huge part of CR in Maine. Tourism. I think the station is in a great place. You got Hadlock field right there, you go the Old Port just a taxi ride away, the Maine Mall is a bit of a poke but its still within reasonable distance. The Tourists dont want to go to residental areas. And the communters can drive to the station or get a cab. I don't suppose you'd want them to build the station in the middle of Deering? I mean, Forest Ave. is pretty bad as it is. Although I see that would be a beneficial stop for future expansions. I bet a lot of kids would use it to. When I met a bunch of people at college from Mass, the first thing they asked me about Bangor is "Is there a train that we can take places?". These kids are used to hoping on a train, going 5 or 10 minutes in town, spending the day there, and going back. So imagine if you could get on a train from Cumberland, Falmouth or Deering and be in "down town" Portland in a matter of minutes. Then you could take a cab somewhere. I think it's a good idea.

The stations location right now is great as a hub for operations.

You can't please everyone. If the station was downtown, people would complain that it wasn't close enough to the major highways. At least in its current location, it's right smack-dab next to I-295, and only a minute or two away from the nearest I-95 on/off ramps.

Humor me for just one second. How can the DE be expanded north to Brunswick from the current station located on the Mountain Division? I fallowed the tracks northward to Westbrook where there is or use to be a junction (can I safely assume that's where the WN&P joined in with the Mountain Division?) and noticed a track that goes off to the right and heads all the way over to Deering Jct. but the track at Deering Jct. turns to the right again and heads back to Portland. Would there have to be a new station constructed on the line to the east of the current station? The current station would make the train go out and around then make a reverse move at Deering Junction.
I’ll say it again the expansion to Brunswick at this point in time seems to be a bad idea.
Off topic question: The track south of the Portland Amtrak Station makes an “S” curve but at the northern end (West end by way of the Mountain Division) of that “S” curve it looks like there use to be a line that went straight down along the water where Fore River Parkway is now. Was this the original route of the Mountain Division or was this a spur that went to a long gone customer located in the area?

b&m 1566 wrote:Humor me for just one second. How can the DE be expanded north to Brunswick from the current station located on the Mountain Division? I fallowed the tracks northward to Westbrook where there is or use to be a junction (can I safely assume that's where the WN&P joined in with the Mountain Division?) and noticed a track that goes off to the right and heads all the way over to Deering Jct. but the track at Deering Jct. turns to the right again and heads back to Portland. Would there have to be a new station constructed on the line to the east of the current station? The current station would make the train go out and around then make a reverse move at Deering Junction.
I’ll say it again the expansion to Brunswick at this point in time seems to be a bad idea.
Off topic question: The track south of the Portland Amtrak Station makes an “S” curve but at the northern end (West end by way of the Mountain Division) of that “S” curve it looks like there use to be a line that went straight down along the water where Fore River Parkway is now. Was this the original route of the Mountain Division or was this a spur that went to a long gone customer located in the area?

The track from Westbrook to Deering Jct was severed by the Maine Turnpike years ago, so there's no connection there. Trains would have to reverse direction from the Portland Station back to the Freight Main to continue on to Brunswick. This was one reason the Bayside connection to East Deering on the SLR was proposed, with a new station around Bayside. Cost estimates for this, which would include a new railroad bridge over Back Cove, are higher than the cost estimates for rehabbing Pan Am's trackage to Brunswick, which may be why we're not hearing about it anymore. Back in the heady days when the DE started, all this was supposed to have been a done deal by 2007.

b&m 1566 wrote:Humor me for just one second. How can the DE be expanded north to Brunswick from the current station located on the Mountain Division? I fallowed the tracks northward to Westbrook where there is or use to be a junction (can I safely assume that's where the WN&P joined in with the Mountain Division?) and noticed a track that goes off to the right and heads all the way over to Deering Jct. but the track at Deering Jct. turns to the right again and heads back to Portland. Would there have to be a new station constructed on the line to the east of the current station? The current station would make the train go out and around then make a reverse move at Deering Junction.
I’ll say it again the expansion to Brunswick at this point in time seems to be a bad idea.
Off topic question: The track south of the Portland Amtrak Station makes an “S” curve but at the northern end (West end by way of the Mountain Division) of that “S” curve it looks like there use to be a line that went straight down along the water where Fore River Parkway is now. Was this the original route of the Mountain Division or was this a spur that went to a long gone customer located in the area?

You could add a line to form a wye where the Mountain division intersects the main line. The trainset could then run north from Boston, use the south leg of the wye to pull into the existing station, and then reverse out and use the north leg to go to Brunswick.

I see two issues that would need to be dealt with. One, a third trainset would be necessary to maintain existing service between Portland-Boston. This is minor. The second is, how many people would actually want to go to Rockland on the Maine Eastern if they had to change trains? Would ridership be higher if Amtrak provided service directly to Rockland (and this way be providing direct service from Boston without a change in train? This leads to another question, is the condition of the Maine Eastern to run Amtrak trains at normal speeds to Rockland.

To be competitive, I would think that passenger service has to be operated at speeds of at least 60 MPH to get many people to ditch their cars.

Population in the area surrounding the Maine Eastern:
Knox County (including Rockland): 39567
Lincoln County (including Wiscasset): 33540
Sagadahoc County (including Bath): 35214
Cumberland County, Portland to Brunswick Corridor: 58011

That means 166,000 people would have direct (or much closer) access to rail. That is a fair number of people to provide service to.

When the Rockland Branch was rehabbed not long ago, MDOT said it would be good for passenger train speeds "up to" 60 MPH. The rails and track structure may actually be good for speeds higher than that, but the line has a lot of curves, and I'm not sure what kind of signal system it has (if any?). So 60 is probably the limit in a best case scenario. The curves alone probably prevent anything faster than that.

With that in mind, anybody who has driven to Rockland during tourist season knows that the traffic is unpleasant, to put it nicely. 60 MPH may not sound very fast, but considering that there's only one major highway between Brunswick and Rockland -- Route 1 -- and that you're lucky to get up to the speed limit of 50 MPH before getting stuck in gridlock, 60 MPH on the rails starts to sound really nice.

From a 1946 timetable the Maine Central Rockland Branch had automatic
block signals from end to end but the maximum passenger train speed
was 40 MPH and there were 14 places where the maximum speed was
less than the above 40. The automatic signals are long gone but the
curves are still there and it is not likely that this could ever be any sort
of a high speed railroad or probably not even higher speed than the
highway along side of the line.
I think the present tourist type train operation is perfect for this line but
I do not think an Amtrak train serving such a small populated area just
would not work especially in the off season.
I think any passenger operation east of Portland by Amtrak and supported by tax dollars would be marginal at best and could be a big financial loser. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it but I do not
think it is really practical at least at the present time.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote:From a 1946 timetable the Maine Central Rockland Branch had automatic
block signals from end to end but the maximum passenger train speed
was 40 MPH and there were 14 places where the maximum speed was
less than the above 40. The automatic signals are long gone but the
curves are still there and it is not likely that this could ever be any sort
of a high speed railroad or probably not even higher speed than the
highway along side of the line.
I think the present tourist type train operation is perfect for this line but
I do not think an Amtrak train serving such a small populated area just
would not work especially in the off season.
I think any passenger operation east of Portland by Amtrak and supported by tax dollars would be marginal at best and could be a big financial loser. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see it but I do not
think it is really practical at least at the present time.
Noel Weaver

Well I'm not going to throw any figures out there, but I've been on the train myself, and they do chug along at a pretty decent pace. Theres signals that are used when approaching the bridge in Bath, and there are dwarf signals that are going to be used eventually in Rockland.
http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?photo ... 630295.jpg