Will the DownEaster be extended to Augusta and Bangor (Portland: buying, property tax)

[Adi from the Brunswicks]

Just a quick thing that came to my mind. I was reading up on cities in coastal Maine out of interest quickly and came to realize that there was rail service to Boston (Never knew that ), but only from select major cities. I find it odd that the State capital of Augusta was left out when they reinitiated rail service in Maine a decade or so ago. That's odd , wonder why Amtrak made such a decision . Do you think its worthwhile to extend the Downeaster to The state capital of Augusta and perhaps even further to the City of Bangor. I hear ridership levels are increasing rapidly, and a major cities like Augusta and Bangor could seek to improve the ridership levels. But will costs outweigh the benefits to rebuild track from Augusta to Brunswick (I believe is the last stop).

Regardless, the Downeaster looks like a fun train ride to take. I have never been to Maine, but love forests and beaches. Seems like a good place to visit this summer. Love your summer & fall pics . Hoping to hear your inputs soon fellas.

[beltrams]

It's all about money. The Downeaster is run for a group called Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority using subsidy money from the Commonwealth of MA and the State of Maine. (Note that New Hampshire hasn't contributed.) There is talk of extending the train to Augusta (and someday maybe Bangor, but a LOT of track work needs to be done as well as purchase more train sets.

[Adi from the Brunswicks]

Originally Posted by beltrams

It's all about money. The Downeaster is run for a group called Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority using subsidy money from the Commonwealth of MA and the State of Maine. (Note that New Hampshire hasn't contributed.) There is talk of extending the train to Augusta (and someday maybe Bangor, but a LOT of track work needs to be done as well as purchase more train sets.

So, how is NNEPRA Running the Downeaster as an Amtrak service. Cant they use their own name for this train and operate trains as a separate entity similar to NJ transit. Is there some sort of binding contract one must sign with Amtrak for intercity rail.

Amtrak, as a whole has always been in the red zone .

[KEVIN_224]

The Maine stops on the Downeaster are Wells, Saco, Old Orchard Beach (seasonal), PORTLAND, Freeport and Brunswick. The Wells stop can be out of the way for some. It's actually at the junction of ME Route 9/109 with I-95/Maine Turnpike and not US Route 1 with its downtown.

[beltrams]

Originally Posted by Adi from the Brunswicks

So, how is NNEPRA Running the Downeaster as an Amtrak service. Cant they use their own name for this train and operate trains as a separate entity similar to NJ transit. Is there some sort of binding contract one must sign with Amtrak for intercity rail.

Amtrak, as a whole has always been in the red zone .

I am not sure how it's done exactly, but I do know that Amtrak runs trains for several states in places like Wisconsin, Oregon, and some of the intra-state trains in California. Contracts are put out, and Amtrak usually ends up running them. (But not always. In Boston, the MBTA Commuter Rail used to be run by Amtrak, but is now run by another consortium, soon to be replaced by yet another company.) Sometimes Amtrak's name is prominently on the equipment, sometimes not. When Amtrak ran the Boston Commuter Rail, the only place one saw "Amtrak" was on the conductors' name pins.

As for running in the red, trains around the world all run in the red, excepting some busy, dense routes like the Northeast Corridor.

Most all transportation systems run in the red and get subsidies. If airports had to build their own airports and pay property tax on them, like RR's used to pay on their right of ways and stations, if roads had to pay taxes, if airports didn't get free, state police policing, if trucks actually paid the true cost of the wear and tear that a 80,000 pound truck really puts on a road (yes, I know trucks pay more taxes than cars - it still isn't enough), and so on, none of these transportation systems would pay their way either and don't even get me started on things like how waterways are run below cost for things like the Intracoastal Waterway, the Mississippi navigation lanes, and so on.

[Adi from the Brunswicks]

Originally Posted by beltrams

I am not sure how it's done exactly, but I do know that Amtrak runs trains for several states in places like Wisconsin, Oregon, and some of the intra-state trains in California. Contracts are put out, and Amtrak usually ends up running them. (But not always. In Boston, the MBTA Commuter Rail used to be run by Amtrak, but is now run by another consortium, soon to be replaced by yet another company.) Sometimes Amtrak's name is prominently on the equipment, sometimes not. When Amtrak ran the Boston Commuter Rail, the only place one saw "Amtrak" was on the conductors' name pins.

As for running in the red, trains around the world all run in the red, excepting some busy, dense routes like the Northeast Corridor.

Most all transportation systems run in the red and get subsidies. If airports had to build their own airports and pay property tax on them, like RR's used to pay on their right of ways and stations, if roads had to pay taxes, if airports didn't get free, state police policing, if trucks actually paid the true cost of the wear and tear that a 80,000 pound truck really puts on a road (yes, I know trucks pay more taxes than cars - it still isn't enough), and so on, none of these transportation systems would pay their way either and don't even get me started on things like how waterways are run below cost for things like the Intracoastal Waterway, the Mississippi navigation lanes, and so on.

beltrams, I see rail as an investment in the future . Infrastructure is not for making profit, but an investment to create profits and spur socioeconomic changes. If these socioeconomic changes have a positive impact on residents of the state living at an individual and collective level to a point it offsets the costs of infrastructural development, then such an investment is worthwhile. Else, its questionable to pursue the project. That's at least the way I look at things. I am a Railfan, who supports reintroducing trains wherever viable.

[Mark S.]

I'd love to see the train go all the way up to Montreal. But I don't see it happening any time soon. Not unless we go into a major economic boom.

[Adi from the Brunswicks]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

I'd love to see the train go all the way up to Montreal. But I don't see it happening any time soon. Not unless we go into a major economic boom.

Montreal is nowhere near this route. Maximum I see an extension towards is Bangor. Montreal can only be reached via Burlington and Montpelier in Vermont or through Plattsburgh in NY State. Neither of which associate themselves with Maine.

[beltrams]

Originally Posted by Adi from the Brunswicks

beltrams, I see rail as an investment in the future . Infrastructure is not for making profit, but an investment to create profits and spur socioeconomic changes. If these socioeconomic changes have a positive impact on residents of the state living at an individual and collective level to a point it offsets the costs of infrastructural development, then such an investment is worthwhile. Else, its questionable to pursue the project. That's at least the way I look at things. I am a Railfan, who supports reintroducing trains wherever viable.

I completely agree with this.

I know some in Maine think the Downeaster is a boondoggle, but I think it's smart. Meanwhile NH is still fighting trains and trying to widen 93 to 3 or 4 lanes, creating a sprawl landscape from the past that young people are not attracted to. (Young people are not buying cars nor getting their drivers licenses nearly as fast as they used to.) We in Maine lament how young people are leaving the state, but I think when one looks at how young people are flocking to more urbanist living situations, I think we are doing something that NH will regret not doing later on.

(The other place some young people are flocking to is farms, as we recently saw in some articles detailing how Maine has witnessed an increase in both numbers of farms, as well as acreage in farming, along with a decrease in the average farmer age.)

[Adi from the Brunswicks]

Originally Posted by beltrams

I completely agree with this.

I know some in Maine think the Downeaster is a boondoggle, but I think it's smart. Meanwhile NH is still fighting trains and trying to widen 93 to 3 or 4 lanes, creating a sprawl landscape from the past that young people are not attracted to. (Young people are not buying cars nor getting their drivers licenses nearly as fast as they used to.) We in Maine lament how young people are leaving the state, but I think when one looks at how young people are flocking to more urbanist living situations, I think we are doing something that NH will regret not doing later on.

Its easy to realize that NH is the only new england state with less than 20 miles of operational passenger rail . Maine is doing the right thing by not focusing excessively on road development and attempting to promote denser living within towns and cities. Because guess what excessive dependence on road development eventually leads to, loss of natural habitat and sprawl. I wouldn't want all those pristine shores and mystic forests to be razed and covered by vast tracts of individual housing developments.