Downeaster maintenance facility gains environmental approval

Comments TRN
1

Join the discussion on the following article:

Downeaster maintenance facility gains environmental approval

2

There should be a way for the tax payers of Maine to achieve a monetary damage charge for the delay and cost increase by these NIMBY’s.

3

Too bad that Amtrak can’t put the names of all the militant NIMBYs on a list perpetually banning them from ever riding the train.

4

This is just so stupid. We spent $38,000,000 to upgrade the tracks and now will spend another $12,500,000 to build this foolish maintenance shed for the 125 passengers that ride the Downeaster extention on a typical day. That’s right. Two round trips with a total capacity of 1,200 people and all they can muster is 125 passengers. Since most people will make a roundtrip it is really only about 65 actual people. There will still have to be a maintenance base in Portland to service the equiment that doesn’t go up to Brunswick which represents 60% of the 5 trains a day. I’ve watched these trains leave with 2 passengers and I’ve watched them leave empty. This route extention has been a collossal failure and the fools at NEPRA like Patricia Quinn refuse to acknowledge that and continue to pump more good taxpayer money into this idiotic scheme to bring passenger rail where it is not needed. By the way, I live in Maine but no where near Brunswick. This just an example of the waste that is Amtrak and the government at all levels. If they are going to spend $50,500,000, spend it somewhere where it is needed.

5

Robert:

Roadways are all over the country that don’t see 65 drivers a day.

6

Mr. McGuire, if you live nowhere near Brunswick, how are you such an expert and purported eyewitness to the daily passenger loads on these trains? And what I have read about this facility is that once it is open then all trainsets will have all their service there, allowing the closure of the facility in Portland. Are you saying this is not true?

7

It has been reported previously that the Downeaster’s extension (Portland to Brunswick segment alone) generated more riders than predicted. Storing and servicing trains in Brunswick will allow more trips to originate in Brunswick, and ridership should really start to take off… Keep in mind that this is a short segment of rail; most rail riders are not going just to Portland from Brunswick–it is about creating more city pairs all along the corridor from Brunswick to Boston.

8

Part of the problem is the piecemeal way in which the service evolves. When all service terminated at Portland, then servicing at Portland made sense. At the moment it makes sense to have a servicing facility in Brunswick, since Brunswick is the end of the line. If Brunswick remains the end of the line, then building the facility in Brunswick will be a good move. But if Downeaster service is extended some day to Lewiston (not on the same rail line from Portland as Brunswick), or to Augusta or Bangor (via either Brunswick or Lewiston), then a terminal facility in Brunswick would be less useful.

If we knew from the start what kind of system we were building, it would be a lot easier to build it in an efficient, logical way. If we are constrained to a “house-that-Jack-built” approach, we’ll continue to muddle along as best we can.

9

Dennis,

I work in Brunswick frequently right across a parking lot from the station platform and have a good view of the comings and goings. As to your second point, the proposal is to increase the number of roundtrips from 2 to 3. But there are 5 roundtrips (when they all run which isn’t often) from Portland to Boston. So, they will still have to have a maintenance base in Portland to serve the two round trips that don’t go to Brunswick or, deadhead the trainsets to Brunswick for servicing. Just what they are trying to avoid by building the unnecesary maintenance base in Brunswick.

10

If the location of this new facility is so awful for these NIMBY’s than why don’t they work with NEPRA officials to find a sight to store and maintain trains? Those who oppose passenger rail are nothing more than small-minded againsters.

11

I love these comments from out of staters who don’t understand the whole picture:

  1. The maintenance facility was rammed through - alternate locations were proposed, but were dismissed without due investigation.

  2. There is a big push on to bring the Downeaster to Lewiston - on the old Maine Central “Back Road”. This would require a backup move to Royal junction, then back up the coast line to the maintenance facility - far less efficient than deadheading to Portland, as is done now. Apparently, NNEPRA has no strategic plan…they’re making it up as they go along, spending our tax money wastefully.

  3. For as long as the Downeaster has been running, there has been no enclosed maintenance facility in Portland…so is this project a need or a want? Why should the facility not be built in Portland at its present location in an industrial area with access to both branches that will potentially serve both rail branches?

  4. Ridership from Brunswick is abysmally low - the schedules, quite frankly, stink. I live in Brunswick and I drive to Portland and take the bus - it’s an hour faster, is ready to go when I am, is cheaper, and delivers me to Logan Airport or South Station for continuing travel.

  5. The Downeaster isn’t reliable - lately, service has been curtailed for track maintenance, due to the bad winters we’ve had - of course bad winters are a “rarity” in Maine, right? When there’s a storm, the Downeaster is the first mode to be cancelled, and passengers are directed to the bus. Just not the same as when the B&M was running.