Rail & Post-Indus. Economy in Maine. Return to 19th Cen.?

[NH2060]

You could open one textile factory after another up here right now and have little difficulty at all finding people willing to do the work for less than average wages.

With the minimum wage debate being what it is I doubt they will be willing to work for just that. If the cost of living is relatively inexpensive in one town or another then perhaps a "certain" less-than-average wage could be enough to live on(?)

Furthermore, you would face none of the uncertainty that you have in the developing world were the electrical supply is unreliable, the water is dirty, the safety codes unenforced, labor laws non-existent and public officials are all profoundly corrupt. Have a problem in one Maine town? Don't worry there are several dozen others more than happy to line up with competent and well-executed permitting and planning processes to expedite the opening of a new business.

Hmm in theory you could have towns actually "bid" on a prospective business to set roots

[gokeefe]

I think you would be stunned at how many people up here would be willing to work for wages at just above the minimum if they knew the employment was full time with benefits (healthcare, paid time off, 401k etc).

[Cowford]

You could open one textile factory after another up here right now and have little difficulty at all finding people willing to do the work for less than average wages.

Textiles are a great example as they ARE being onshored... in GA and SC. I'm reminded of an old joke about an economist and his friend walking down the street. They spy what appears to be a $20 bill on the ground. The friend says, "Aren't you going to pick it up?" The economist replies, "No. If it was real, someone would have already taken it."

If Maine really was that attractive a place to set up a business, then it would already be happening.

Interesting article in the BDN today about Searsport and the debate they are having on their economic future. Really highlights the ingrained resistance to moving forward. Thinking about textiles and Searsport residents' concerns that heavy industry and "quaintness" can't coexist; perhaps the town officials should take field trips to places like Halifax, Charleston and Savannah. I dare say that Charleston ranks higher on the charm scale than Searsport, and they also welcome heavy industry/large-scale economic development. It takes effort and planning, but you can have both.

[NH2060]

Well when you throw in all the perks, etc. (which are not easy to come by as they don't come cheap, but regardless) well yeah then that changes it In fact throw in a "no college degree required" clause and I say ca-ching ca-ching!

But in all seriousness no believe me I know that a lot of people nowadays will work for whatever they can get. Which really explains just how bad things are throughout a good portion of the country (or for that matter how there appears to be a lack of dignity in the working wage). If Maine really can attract new business just on the basis of "clean air, clean water, inexpensive rent/costs" imagine what they could advertise with a spiffed up rail network. Freight and passenger. Doesn't mean a web of Downeaster flanks from Portland to points north and east, but just a single reliable service to Bangor, etc. with enhanced bus connections where feasible.

[ferroequinarchaeologist]

IMHO (well, maybe not so H), the fate of all New England ports north of Boston was sealed with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. No longer was it necessary to cross Maine to a port on the US coast to ship Canadian goods to Europe. Concurrently, the fate of the Canadian rail lines transiting Maine was only a matter of time. Canadian trade with Europe now goes through Halifax or Saint John, extra land mileage not withstanding.

The little bright spot is that Europe has realized that Maine is closer than New York or more southerly locations as a port for importation for goods into the US, being a shorter distance across the ocean. Politicians from Maine to New York, however, seems to be oblivious to this fact, and are doing little to encourage the development of cargo handling facilities on the New England coast or the improvement of railroads to those facilities, such as is currently underway at St. John, NB.

None of this is news, except that New England seems interested only in becoming a place where New Yorkers go on vacation.

PBM

[CN9634]

IMHO (well, maybe not so H), the fate of all New England ports north of Boston was sealed with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. No longer was it necessary to cross Maine to a port on the US coast to ship Canadian goods to Europe. Concurrently, the fate of the Canadian rail lines transiting Maine was only a matter of time. Canadian trade with Europe now goes through Halifax or Saint John, extra land mileage not withstanding.

The little bright spot is that Europe has realized that Maine is closer than New York or more southerly locations as a port for importation for goods into the US, being a shorter distance across the ocean. Politicians from Maine to New York, however, seems to be oblivious to this fact, and are doing little to encourage the development of cargo handling facilities on the New England coast or the improvement of railroads to those facilities, such as is currently underway at St. John, NB.

None of this is news, except that New England seems interested only in becoming a place where New Yorkers go on vacation.

PBM

No.

[gokeefe]

If Maine really was that attractive a place to set up a business, then it would already be happening.

There are two fundamental reasons why I think it isn't. First, other states are out-competing us on business incentives. Second, I think a lot of people who make these decisions simply don't like the climate (weather, not business).

Sure, Maine is a union state and that might be in the "minus" column against us, but there are a whole host of others issues which are in the "plus" column for us. So in general I see Maine's problems as related to marketing, outreach, and in some cases balanced business relocation incentives.

[ferroequinarchaeologist]

>>No.<<

CN9634, I do appreciate brevity, but some supplementary commentary may possibly be considered desirable in this case.

Regards,
PBM

[CN9634]

IMHO (well, maybe not so H), the fate of all New England ports north of Boston was sealed with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. No longer was it necessary to cross Maine to a port on the US coast to ship Canadian goods to Europe. Concurrently, the fate of the Canadian rail lines transiting Maine was only a matter of time. Canadian trade with Europe now goes through Halifax or Saint John, extra land mileage not withstanding.

The little bright spot is that Europe has realized that Maine is closer than New York or more southerly locations as a port for importation for goods into the US, being a shorter distance across the ocean. Politicians from Maine to New York, however, seems to be oblivious to this fact, and are doing little to encourage the development of cargo handling facilities on the New England coast or the improvement of railroads to those facilities, such as is currently underway at St. John, NB.

None of this is news, except that New England seems interested only in becoming a place where New Yorkers go on vacation.

PBM

The Canadian RRs are really, reallllllllly bad at the intermodal game. Its like the past 10 year they just decided to give up or something, I'm not sure. NS and CSX have made huge stride to win over traffic and formed strong bonds with UP, BNSF and KCSM. So now with many more intermodal terminals open, the port-to-port (intermodal terminals are now largely considered ports even if inland) options are much greater. So, driving port growth is 1.) The port infrastructure itself (does it have large enough capacity to handle bigger ships?) but 2.) the lanes. I use this term a lot, lane but I do so because it's a the key part of intermodal these days. Actually, you used to be able to run TOFC off actually ramps to almost any major yard because they all had ramps... but now you have full blown intermodal terminals and a lot of them, but you have to keep in mind that not all terminals are linked.

So for example, we have stuff that runs through one ramp of ours that is actually further away from our customer than another one of our ramps. So I'm always wondering why? The service lane to the first ramp fits the need of the customer, and to route it through the closer ramp has a new cost implication because it will require a inter-rail move (taking off one train to another). We saw this a lot with Maine traffic... they wanted to go Southeast to NYC, DC, Savannah, or Florida. Okay no problem except the train goes from Maine to Chicago. Then you gotta put it on another train to go back from Chicago south. But oh look, this ramp in Mass offers as southern routing for a better price with a direct connection, although its a longer dray.

Also there is a new trend in intermodal, or even rail as whole... it is avoid Chicago. Chicago is like a freight void these days, where things just get lost or delayed. Like, it's really bad for real. Well, most Canadian ports offer a direct connection with other carriers at Chicago. Now they need to connect elsewhere. CN does go South but CP doesn't really have as good of options as NS/CSX and UP/BNSF/KCS.

The abridged version of what I just said is this: Geographically closer does not equal cheap in this day and age. That's not how the game works anymore. Maine squandered away any hope of a real port because they never put in the big time $$ to build a port that could handle huge volumes and they never established good rail partnerships with the best Class I railroads. Essentially, Pan Am is second the issue, as they have the best connections with CSX and NS for Maine.

[Cowford]

With respect, that is backwards and too rail-centric. Big ships and port capacity don't drive port growth. What drives one port's growth vs another is its ability to provide the lowest delivered cost and superior service options relative to the other. Demand* drives big ships (or vessel calls, or both) which, in turn require port capacity. (To use an analogy: The Portland Jetport isn't expanding to accept 777's; the demand isn't there to require them.) And generally speaking, the port closest to the points of consumption will gain the biggest share of the business. NY/NJ is not the biggest port on the East Coast because of its intermodal lane options.

*and operational cost realities. High bunker fuel prices have actually been a bigger driver of dramatic change in vessel sizes.

[CN9634]

With respect, that is backwards and too rail-centric. Big ships and port capacity don't drive port growth. What drives one port's growth vs another is its ability to provide the lowest delivered cost and superior service options relative to the other. Demand* drives big ships (or vessel calls, or both) which, in turn require port capacity. (To use an analogy: The Portland Jetport isn't expanding to accept 777's; the demand isn't there to require them.) And generally speaking, the port closest to the points of consumption will gain the biggest share of the business. NY/NJ is not the biggest port on the East Coast because of its intermodal lane options.

*and operational cost realities. High bunker fuel prices have actually been a bigger driver of dramatic change in vessel sizes.

There has been a lot of plans to expand Portland runway with many figures provided to support the expansion. No $$ for it has ever surfaced is the reason for it not happening.

Of course this is rail centric, large volume international intermodal is integrated with hub & spoke domestic Intermodal service. The Door-port-port-port-Door model is alive as much as the Door-port-port-Door model. NY/NJ developed because of the population base, but continued growth because it had such a good start. Most of the freight coming into NY/NJ isn't for domestic consumption -- it's for warehouses close by, who then crossdock/transload it to rail cars, 53' domestic containers and dry vans. From there, it is re-distributed through out the country.

My point was its cost driven but the population aspect no longer rules the cost competitive portion. Your point is that it is cost driven (like mine) but because there is a large population there. I disagree (respectfully) and say the cost is lower because historically population drove growth and as a result of that growth the infrastructure was there to distribute far and wide, as they now do.

Replicate your model with the Port of Boston and tell me why there isn't huge container volume there with most of their freight going through NY/NJ? Because they didn't develop their port infrastructure like NY/NJ did, even though they had the population in the local area to sustain its own port. Now without adequate rail connections, the isn't a cost competitive option in Boston, with MSC being practically the only game in town and dropping their top row boxes on the way to NYC for the local market in Boston. If you have access to PIERS, I can compare figures for you that will prove what I'm saying.

[MEC407]

There has been a lot of plans to expand Portland runway with many figures provided to support the expansion. No $$ for it has ever surfaced is the reason for it not happening.

We're getting slightly off-topic, but I'm involved with a couple of committees related to PWM (in addition to being an abutter), so I'd like to comment on this.

Runway 11-29 — the primary runway — has been expanded twice since it was constructed in 1957. The first extension was in 1966 and allowed larger (for that time) jet aircraft such as the DC-9 and 727. The second extension was in 2004 and was done to meet FAA safety standards.

Runway 18-36 — the secondary/crosswind runway — was constructed in 1969 and extended in 2012-2013. That extension was also done in order to meet FAA safety standards.

Runway 11-29 is 7,200 feet in length. Maine Mall Road, Johnson Road, and the Maine Turnpike are all located at the 11 end. Long Creek, the Fore River, and Interstate 295 are located at the 29 end. Further expansion of this runway is very limited due to those obstacles.

Runway 18-36 is 6,100 feet in length. South Portland's Brick Hill neighborhood, Long Creek, and I-295 are all located at the 36 end. Portland's Stroudwater neighborhood and the Fore River are both located at the 18 end. Further expansion of this runway is, again, extremely limited due to those obstacles.

PWM, in its current configuration, is already capable of handling large narrowbody and small to midsize widebody aircraft, such as A321, 737-900, 757, 767, A300, etc. These types of aircraft typically seat between 150 and 250 passengers, far surpassing current demand, and handily meeting projected demand 20 years from now. PWM's forecast for the year 2035 shows that 15% of the fleet mix will be 140-159 seat aircraft (e.g. A320, 737-700, MD-88, etc). Only 1% is expected to be in the 160-179 seat range (e.g. 737-800, 737-900, A321, MD-90), and they do not project anything larger than that on the passenger carrier side. The rest of the mix — 85% — will be aircraft that seat 120 or fewer passengers (e.g. A319, 717, Embraer 190, CRJs, etc.) They're actually forecasting the possibility of smaller aircraft on the cargo side: the 757 (FedEx's primary bird at PWM) is no longer in production, so the cargo carriers may eventually switch to slightly smaller aircraft such as 737 or A320 as those are retired by the passenger carriers and converted for freight. They can still fly their small to midsize widebodies here during peak periods (Christmas), just as they do now.

To summarize: PWM is not currently constrained by either of its runways. They are, in fact, more than adequate for what we need today and what we'll need 20 years from now.

[gokeefe]

To summarize: PWM is not currently constrained by either of its runways. They are, in fact, more than adequate for what we need today and what we'll need 20 years from now.

I would strongly concur with the caveat that this scenario absolutely presumes that there will not be major shifts in the development paradigms of the area. I think there will be and I feel strongly that South Portland is the likely location for this to happen.

One of the trends that I feel is becoming more and more apparent in development strategies is the use of ultra high density mixed use developments. In some parts of the world these have been taken to extremes that are utterly mind boggling, such as in Dubai with the Burj Khalifa (pre-construction name: Burj Dubai). In Maine I feel very strongly that one of the major economic development strategies of the next 100 years will be the process of "infilling" lower density light commercial development (strip malls with large parking lots) with much higher density mixed use development. In South Portland I could anticipate building heights of 40-60 stories and changes very similar to those I witnessed in Bethesda, Maryland when I was growing up and watching all of the tall buildings slowly creating the new skyline there.

South Portland, unlike Portland has the major advantage that most of the current buildings are not nor will they ever qualify for "historic" status. That makes the opportunities for redevelopment far greater, especially in the Maine Mall area. Taking this hypothesis a step further were the State of Maine to pass special zoning and permitting laws relating to high density mixed use development in areas such as these (with concurrent designations for similar parts of Bangor, Brunswick, Lewiston, Augusta, Waterville, Ellsworth and Presque Isle) I think we would in fact see some very new opportunities materialize in Maine that would greatly alter the traffic projections for PWM and, of course other transportation options, such as the Downeaster.

[MEC407]

Interesting thoughts. If something like that were to happen, PWM still has quite a bit of capacity thanks to its ability to handle aircraft in the 250-passenger category... e.g. 767. Even if the population of the Greater Portland metro area increased to 750,000 people or perhaps even 1 million people, such aircraft would easily be able to meet the demand.

[gokeefe]

Interesting thoughts. If something like that were to happen, PWM still has quite a bit of capacity thanks to its ability to handle aircraft in the 250-passenger category... e.g. 767. Even if the population of the Greater Portland metro area increased to 750,000 people or perhaps even 1 million people, such aircraft would easily be able to meet the demand.

I completely agree. Which in some senses is very good news because it means PWM is likely "built out" to the extent necessary for quite some time. Frankly I doubt very much that any new designs in the next 20-30 years will require more runway. If anything some of the greatest advances in technology for airliners would probably be to allow them to land with less space.