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

[Cowford]

Sorry fellas in diverting the conversation into airport discussions (but interesting dialogue, nonetheless).

Most of the freight coming into NY/NJ isn't for domestic consumption... it is re-distributed through out the country.

By "domestic", I assume you mean local. If so, rail's market share of international traffic thru NY/NJ should be correspondingly high, correct?

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.

No need to disagree, because that is exactly my point. Base (local) demand gives a port economies of scale and greater service options, which can (but not always) serve as a springboard to competitively serve inland locations. In other words, success breeds success. The difference in our opinions (as I interpret yours) is that your contention is a "build it and they will come" approach. It's not that simple; we can use your port of Boston reference as an example:

Boston used to have two container terminals. The Moran Terminal in Charlestown was quite small and slowly fell into disuse due to high operating costs and extremely limited expansion capability. It's now an auto facility. Just as well, as impractical-to-remedy air and water draft restrictions render anything upriver of the cross channel tunnels as inappropriate for ever-larger cellular vessels. Container operations were consolidated at Conley terminal in South Boston. That terminal opened in the 60s and never had rail service. The original planners can be forgiven for not foreseeing the import boom which was to happen 20-25 years later, let alone stack trains, etc. I also doubt, even if they were extraordinary visionaries, that getting rail into that facility would have been politically/operationally/economically practical in the 60's. It has slowly evolved into an impossibility. It's not that Massport didn't "develop their port infrastructure like NY/NJ did", they couldn't. Again success breeds success, and Boston area shippers/receivers can often get better cost/service options via NY/NJ thanks to the port's scale, even when the additional inland handling cost is added in.

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

Two questions: Where and could you define "huge"?

[gokeefe]

Two questions: Where and could you define "huge"?

Fair question in my mind too. It's not as if we're talking about building the next Singapore in Searsport. Or even Halifax. Or at least "so I am led to believe".

Regardless, I'm interested.

[CN9634]

Sorry fellas in diverting the conversation into airport discussions (but interesting dialogue, nonetheless).

Most of the freight coming into NY/NJ isn't for domestic consumption... it is re-distributed through out the country.

By "domestic", I assume you mean local. If so, rail's market share of international traffic thru NY/NJ should be correspondingly high, correct?

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.

No need to disagree, because that is exactly my point. Base (local) demand gives a port economies of scale and greater service options, which can (but not always) serve as a springboard to competitively serve inland locations. In other words, success breeds success. The difference in our opinions (as I interpret yours) is that your contention is a "build it and they will come" approach. It's not that simple; we can use your port of Boston reference as an example:

Boston used to have two container terminals. The Moran Terminal in Charlestown was quite small and slowly fell into disuse due to high operating costs and extremely limited expansion capability. It's now an auto facility. Just as well, as impractical-to-remedy air and water draft restrictions render anything upriver of the cross channel tunnels as inappropriate for ever-larger cellular vessels. Container operations were consolidated at Conley terminal in South Boston. That terminal opened in the 60s and never had rail service. The original planners can be forgiven for not foreseeing the import boom which was to happen 20-25 years later, let alone stack trains, etc. I also doubt, even if they were extraordinary visionaries, that getting rail into that facility would have been politically/operationally/economically practical in the 60's. It has slowly evolved into an impossibility. It's not that Massport didn't "develop their port infrastructure like NY/NJ did", they couldn't. Again success breeds success, and Boston area shippers/receivers can often get better cost/service options via NY/NJ thanks to the port's scale, even when the additional inland handling cost is added in.

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

Two questions: Where and could you define "huge"?

Are we talking about the same transportation planners who worked on the big dig project? Then yes, they definitely couldn't have created a successful container port with rail access But I don't buy that, if the transportation planners in Boston at that time couldn't have foreseen the upcoming trends, they weren't good transportation planners then were they? Boston had plenty of opportunity to develop a rail port, containerization had a slow but firm start in the 50's and grew through out the next two decades. CP was actually quite a pioneer in this.

Huge in my mind would be at least 50,000 TEUs annually. Of course, for others that is a small port figure, but I come from small port background and only recently was exposed to the big port. I think the Port Saint John project is an excellent example of what I'm trying to say, the population centered port development model is no longer the only model.

Now I could try to throw in a counterpoint (to my own point) but I myself don't believe it could work in the US. This would be the European Short-Sea Port model. I don't believe it to work in the US because of railroads primarily focused on freight operations, unlike Europe where they are much smaller trains focused on passenger.... Also the geographic differences of Europe and the surrounding area make it more necessary for the short sea model. The US has some short-sea options that work, but not many (See Alaska, Hawaii). Even then, I believe most of them are out of necessity because better options don't/can't exist....The counterport for the Short-Sea Model is that they do serve the local population, but once again only out of necessity.

[Cowford]

Big Dig planners? I was talking about the original Conley terminal. And the Sumner/Callahan tunnels and Tobin bridge pre-date containerization. I'm curious as to where you think a larger terminal could have been sited.

50K TEUs annually isn't small, it's tiny. That's just over half the throughput of Saint John and a quarter of Boston. It simply wouldn't have enough mass to be successful as a gateway to competitive inland points. Which is why, when ME DOT put out their Sears Island Container port RFI, no-one responded.

[CN9634]

Big Dig planners? I was talking about the original Conley terminal. And the Sumner/Callahan tunnels and Tobin bridge pre-date containerization. I'm curious as to where you think a larger terminal could have been sited.

Sorry a joke saying that Boston city planners across all boards were.... not the best

[quote='Cowford]50K TEUs annually isn't small, it's tiny. That's just over half the throughput of Saint John and a quarter of Boston. It simply wouldn't have enough mass to be successful as a gateway to competitive inland points. Which is why, when ME DOT put out their Sears Island Container port RFI, no-one responded.[/quote]

A lot of ports handle less than 50K TEUs globally. The 50K metric is enough where you can begin to see some consistent rail traffic, and onward up towards 100K TEUs where you approach a dedicated train. (Assuming 50FEUs per train per business week) Once you've reached a point where you are utilizing consistent rail traffic where I would say huge. You asked what I considered to be huge and that is it. Not talking about 1M TEUs annually, look at my last post where I sound '...of course, for others that is a small port figure, but I come from a small port background..."

Maine could probably have had a 50K TEU port at Portland if they built it in the 70s and 80s. Having not been around then, I can only tell you what I've heard, but from what I've heard the State of Maine did not support CN's operation (being all Canadian) and was very pro-Guilford (and I probably would have been the same way). Look how that turned out. I also spent some time with the former LURC Commissioner who told me they had the chance to build Halifax container port at Searsport and the State screwed that up. Just saying what I heard, from people who were there. And no, I'm not naming names.

[CN9634]

Big Dig planners? I was talking about the original Conley terminal. And the Sumner/Callahan tunnels and Tobin bridge pre-date containerization. I'm curious as to where you think a larger terminal could have been sited.

Sorry a joke saying that Boston city planners across all boards were.... not the best

50K TEUs annually isn't small, it's tiny. That's just over half the throughput of Saint John and a quarter of Boston. It simply wouldn't have enough mass to be successful as a gateway to competitive inland points. Which is why, when ME DOT put out their Sears Island Container port RFI, no-one responded.

A lot of ports handle less than 50K TEUs globally. The 50K metric is enough where you can begin to see some consistent rail traffic, and onward up towards 100K TEUs where you approach a dedicated train. (Assuming 50FEUs per train per business week) Once you've reached a point where you are utilizing consistent rail traffic where I would say huge. You asked what I considered to be huge and that is it. Not talking about 1M TEUs annually, look at my last post where I sound '...of course, for others that is a small port figure, but I come from a small port background..."

Maine could probably have had a 50K TEU port at Portland if they built it in the 70s and 80s. Having not been around then, I can only tell you what I've heard, but from what I've heard the State of Maine did not support CN's operation (being all Canadian) and was very pro-Guilford (and I probably would have been the same way). Look how that turned out. I also spent some time with the former LURC Commissioner who told me they had the chance to build Halifax container port at Searsport and the State screwed that up. Just saying what I heard, from people who were there. And no, I'm not naming names.

[Cowford]

Assuming a receptive PAR/NBSR, Maine would be a lot better served focusing on their own version of an I-95 rail corridor initiative improving connections and commerce between the Maritimes and the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic US. For a start, $6 million in track rehab would have benefited Maine industry if invested in places other than Windham, and working to place Maine within a freight/transportation corridor sure beats Maine remaining as a far-flung corner of the US.