Amtrak Downeaster in trouble?

[JimboJones]

Downeaster in danger

Impeccable Amtrak line faces derailment despite success

With a short honk of its horn, the Amtrak Downeaster train pulls away from the platform, passing between snow-covered sidings on its way from Portland, Maine to Boston.

It will make seven stops during the 2-1/2-hour journey, before rolling into North Station ? a trip it makes five times a day.

By almost every measure, the service is a resounding success. Ridership and revenue have each grown by 20 percent this fiscal year, some of the highest rates in the nation. Customer-satisfaction ratings are regularly the highest in the Amtrak system, where the Downeaster is seen as a model for expanding rail service elsewhere in the country. Proposed extensions of service farther up the Maine coast have the backing of state lawmakers and Maine Gov. John Baldacci.

Yet the popular train still loses money ? and may stop running altogether within two years, when a federal grant expires.

?Pretty soon it?s going to be 2009 and the money isn?t going to be there to keep the train running,? says Wayne Davis, of TrainRiders/Northeast in Portland, which advocates rail service. ?It needs permanent funding.?

The Downeaster?s plight reflects the challenges to efforts to expand intercity passenger rails in the United States. Even in a favorable political climate rail operations face an uphill battle to secure scarce resources and to convince decisionmakers that they are a wise use of taxpayers? money.

?We live in an environment where some people think the maximum public benefit is always to have minimum taxation,? says John Spychalski, a transportation expert at Pennsylvania State University. ?Among elected officials, there?s enormous ignorance about the benefits of railroad transport and of the situations where it?s less costly in the longer run to develop a rail system than not to do so.?

As a practical matter, the only way the Downeaster can keep running is if Maine lawmakers increase the state?s annual contribution from $1.5 million to nearly $8 million. Further federal support is unavailable, and New Hampshire and Massachusetts don?t contribute to the train?s operation, even though a third of its riders travel entirely within or between those states.

By neglecting intercity rail, the US is shooting itself in the foot, agrees Vukan Vuhic, a professor of transportation systems engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. ?Our investments in passenger rail are among the lowest in the world ? including developing countries,? he says. ?We call highways investments ? which they are ? but with Amtrak they call it a subsidy.?

Source: BostonNOW, December 26, 2007 (warning, .pdf)

 

[BigRock]

The problem with the Downester is that it doesn't go fast enough.

The trip time from Boston to Portland should not exceed 1 hour. Anything slower like it is now will not generate enough ridership. The current 2 1/2 hour trip time is way too long.

It is only 100 miles from Portland to Boston, and the service should be traveling at a minimum of 100 miles per hour.

 

[Lrfox]

It shouldn't exceed driving time which is approx. 1.5-2hrs. so if service could get into that range, they would be better off. If NH and MA aren't contributing, cut out some of their stops. Maybe one NH stop and cut out a few of the MA stops along the commuter rail lines. I can also say that one or two of the Maine stops are Unneccessary as well. the Old Orchard (summer seasonal) and Saco stops are within 4 miles of each other... cut one out and make the other full-time year round. This could cut some costs and time.

A faster train would be better, but High Speed Rail is not exactly feasable when the state can't afford the cheaper rail service to begin with. You would have to upgrade right of ways, bankings, and lots of other parts of the infrastructure and considering the length and locations of the route (Passing through Boston suburbs, Lowell, Lawerance, Haverhill, Southern NH, Biddeford, Saco, OOB, and Portland, ME) there are few locations where a high speed train could reach speeds upwards of 100mph (this is the problem with Acela from NY to Boston).

 

[TheBostonian]

So far two of my four Downeaster trips have had 20-30 minute delays. But you can't beat the price (< $13 when buying 6 tix at student rate), comfort (more space, smoother, cafe car and electric outlets) and nostalgic thrill of riding a train through three states.

 

[Lrfox]

But you can't beat the price (< $13 when buying 6 tix at student rate).

Which unfortunately will be hiked up if the line is continued past 2009. I've personally taken the downeaster a few times (the whole length of the route) and it is a fun, comfortable ride. Unfortunately, it's about an hour longer than the driving time and for people who are regular commuters or people who are in a hurry (want the shortest possible method of transportation), the bus is a better option. Each time I've been on the Downeaster, It was just for a brief trip home for a weekend. And I have yet to meet anyone who commutes regularly on it for other than personal or recreational use. Mosts students I know who are traveling to Logan for a flight will take the bus do to more regular service, comparable fares, more reliability, and a shorter commute.

All that being said, It would be a shame to lose the Downeaster because with a few improvements to shorten the route and improve service (reduce delays and such) it could be more than a government subsidized novelty train. That being said, I don't know where the money's going to come from.

 

[Ron Newman]

Old Orchard Beach is a seasonal stop, and a major tourist attraction in season.

 

[ckb]

At one point, the Downeaster claimed that 22% of its ridership was from commuters (those using a pass). http://www.thedowneaster.com/press_release.php?media_id=23&archive=1

For those folks, this is their way to work, making it much more than a "novelty train."

A sustained increase in passenger traffic over the years also suggests that the Downeaster enjoys ridership beyond folks who just like the nice train ride. Moreover, bringing leisure travelers out of their cars and into the train is just as good for highway congestion and environmental concerns as bringing business travelers out of their cars and into the train. Even been stuck in the traffic on I-95 through New Hampshire?

 

[Lrfox]

Old Orchard Beach is a seasonal stop, and a major tourist attraction in season.

I know... I'm at USM right now any my apartment is about 250 yards from the station in Old Orchard. I'm just saying it's so close in proximity to the Saco/Biddeford stop that they could really cut one of them out and open the other one year round. OOB is a major destination in the summer, but one platform could handle the traffic of both stops without question.

**EDIT** listen, I'm not saying that there's no purpose for the train, in fact, i would hate to see it go. I think the more cars we get off the road and more people we get to use mass transit (yes, i've sat in traffic on 90, 93, AND 95) the better and losing this line would add to that traffic. Most people who use it enjoy it, and use it more than once. All i'm saying is that 22% of the riders is not a high percent. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but i'd be willing to bet that if you checked any other Amtrak stretch on the east coast that number will be MUCH higher. 22% would tell the people spending money on this service that they can cut it and those people will use other methods (i.e. the bus).

To add to that, like the article said, many of those riders come from MA and NH (who don't have money involved in the Downeaster). Those riders can use alternate methods to get to Boston (or Portland or anywhere in between for that matter) as well. No question that the train keeps people off the road, and it would be tough to lose a train with ridership like the Downeaster. I just think that there are some cutbacks they could make to lighten the cost (like i've mentioned in previous posts) and increase service time (because as much as people like this line, the service and commute time suck). I don't think High Speed Rail is a feasible option considering the cost of upgrading the infrastructure and the short length of the route. I especially think this isn't a realistic option because if Maine is already $6.5 million short after 2009 (8 million dollars minus the 1.5 they pay now) then they're not going to want to invest the money to make those upgrades for what would likely be a short boost in service time at a high cost.

In a nutshell: Buses are quicker and run more regularly, so they are (in terms of time and to an extent, reliability) a better alternative for regular commuters. It's also easier to add buses to accommodate higher volume than it is to increase trains (especially on a tight budget). I would like to seen train service continued, however, I can't see it happening unless someone else steps in (maybe MA, or NH?). My point was that the loss wouldn't be unbearable.

 

[Corey]

I've taken the train 2 or 3 times I think. It's a very nice trip for a 'tourist' such as myself. My usual mode of transportation to Boston is the Concord Trailways service out of Portland.

 

[cden4]

In a nutshell: Buses are quicker and run more regularly, so they are (in terms of time and to an extent, reliability) a better alternative for regular commuters.

There are some problems with this statement:

* Buses get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else unless you have dedicated bus-only lanes.
* People prefer trains to buses (roomier, smoother, quieter, more relaxing, more scenic, etc)
* Trains also have an economic development effect that buses do not. It's much easier to get walkable, mixed-use development around train stations and a train line than it is around bus stations or bus routes.

 

[Lrfox]

There are some problems with this statement:

* Buses get stuck in the same traffic as everyone else unless you have dedicated bus-only lanes.
* People prefer trains to buses (roomier, smoother, quieter, more relaxing, more scenic, etc)
* Trains also have an economic development effect that buses do not. It's much easier to get walkable, mixed-use development around train stations and a train line than it is around bus stations or bus routes.

You're right about that for sure, I was a little unclear in my statement. In general, trains are better than buses in almost all aspects (development, reliability, comfort, etc). However, I was talking specifically about the Downeaster which at 2.5 hours, is a full hour longer than a Portland-Boston bus ride which is about an hour and a half (subject to traffic conditions of course). The Downeaster is frequently not on schedule and as a result is not as reliable as most trains. I don't know anything about the impacts the Downeaster has had on development around its stops (actually, I'd really like to learn about that if anyone has any information). So, in terms of the current Portland-Boston route, The bus is usually a safer bet in terms of reliability and shorter commute time... this is evidenced by the fact that only 22% of the Downeaster's riders are regular commuters.

But you're right, in general, trains are much better in almost every way than buses.

 

[PaulC]

It's important to note that the bus lines had a lot to do with limiting the train service.


Future expansion:
http://downeastriders.us/blog/?p=89

tod:
http://downeastriders.us/blog/?p=76

 

[cden4]

Lrfox, Thanks for clarifying your point. Increasing the speed of the train trip should definitely be a goal.

 

[Lrfox]

Thanks for the links, Paul C. Interesting news in terms of the Saco station, and quite ballsy considering that there might not even be service in under two years. I think it would be a really dumb move by the State of Maine to not try to continue the service.

Obviously it's been established that service time needs to be improved, and there are plenty of ways to do that including improving infrastructure and cutting out a few stops. I don't understand why there are stops in MA along the commuter rail lines (Haverhill, Lowell, Lawrence) and still wish they would consolidate the Saco/ Biddeford stop with the Old Orchard stop (i measured the other day, 4.3 miles from each other). If Saco already plans on building a bigger station (they're already doing some work there, i drove by the other day) then i don't get why they couldn't consolidate to reduce the stop/ layover time. I know OOB is seasonal, but it couldn't hurt to have one fewer stop from May-October. They could even run shuttles from the station to the center of Old Orchard if they wanted to that badly.

Maine should consider improving the right of ways south of Portland to reduce the street-level crossings and increase the cruising speed of the trains in southern Maine before they consider expanding to Brunswick/ Auburn (although expanding to Bangor is a good long-term goal). If they could increase the commute times and reliability, they could increase the number of regular commuters and that would help justify spending tons of money on an expended system.

 

[Ron Newman]

Huh? The Downeaster doesn't stop in Lawrence and doesn't even go through Lowell.

I don't see how a station in Saco would serve OOB in any way. The nice thing about OOB station is you get off the train and you're right at the tourist trap.

 

[Roxxma]

I don't understand why there are stops in MA along the commuter rail lines (Haverhill, Lowell, Lawrence)

It doesn't even go near Lowell and passes through Lawrence without stopping. There are stops in Woburn and Haverhill. Woburn has a large parking lot, conencts to the commuter rail and is within one mile of Route 128, so this makes it a good option for people in the suburbs to take the train without having to go into Boston. Ditto for Haverhill, it gives Merrimack Valley residents an option without driving or taking the train to Boston and is a dstination of sorts as well.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

From my experiences, MBTA buses are much more comfortable then the metro, but more people do ride on the metro because it has more frequency and people think it's faster, when in fact it's pretty slow (plus its much easier to plan your commute with subway lines then bus lines, and it's easier to find subway stations then bus stations, like having to wait 30 min for a bus on the side of the road vs 5 min underground).

 

[Lrfox]

Whoops. The last time I actually took a trip on the Downeaster was summer 2006 so i was going on what i thought i remembered and obviously my memory served me wrong.

Ron, I see your point, there's no question that the OOB stop is convenient to the attractions there (which is why i suggested a free shuttle service from Saco to the beach and back). The reason i think the two stops could be consolidated is because neither experiences super heavy traffic (although, OOB does see steady traffic during the season) and their proximity to one another. Now, the only reason i suggested that Saco be the primary stop (and eliminating the OOB stop) is because according to the last link PaulC posted, Saco is already building up their platform (and work is visibly under way).

It could work even better if OOB was open year round and Saco was eliminated from the route. The only other area mass transit is "ShuttleBus" which serves Saco, Biddeford and OOB and it has stops relatively close to both train platforms so transit to either stop wouldn't change. And because the population of the area is spread out, most people have to drive to the stations anyway (except of course, for many of the OOB tourists) so you wouldn't necessarily be making getting to the station more difficult for anyone.

All it would take is a slightly expanded platform and maybe some more parking (although it's probably not too necessary). This would eliminate a stop (and the resulting wait time) and one station to maintain. Because two of the problems are a somewhat lengthy ride and questions about the state's ability to fund the rail on its own, I don't think one fewer stop and less wait time would have a negative effect. Maybe I'm the only one who sees it that way.

Roxxma, that makes sense, do you have any idea how many people board and disembark at the Woburn stop (I'm not second guessing you, simply curious)? The logic for Haverhill makes sense as well... I'm very unfamiliar with the North Shore.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

Downeaster will be down and out without new funds
Boston Business Journal - by Jesse Noyes Journal staff
Friday, January 25, 2008

David Becker tried big-city life but prefers living in Portland, Maine.

So once a week Becker, who works as a curator three days a week at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, boards Amtrak's Downeaster train service to Boston and typically takes the bus back. The bus is quicker, he said, but you can't beat the reclining chairs, leg room, cafe car and views on the train.

"You feel as if you're on your own little journey," Becker said of the train trip from Portland to Boston.
Becker's sentiments echo those of many of the commuters who depend on the Downeaster train, which makes daily trips back and forth from Portland to Boston, to get from parts of Maine and New Hampshire into work in Boston. But the future of the Downeaster, which is operated by the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority and Amtrak, is up in the air.

The train's ridership and revenue are up, but it operates at a loss. A federal grant worth $6 million will disappear after June 2009 and the service is now depending on receiving between $7 million and $8 million annual aid from the state of Maine to continue the service beyond July 2009.

Some of the state's lawmakers and Gov. John Baldacci have expressed support for the project, but Maine's budget is currently facing a shortfall and additional money could be hard to find.

That would have a negative effect on commuters like Stephen McRae, who works for the Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game and takes the Downeaster five days a week from Durham, N.H., to Boston.

"It would be a huge thing," he said. The Downeaster is "by far the cheapest (mode of transportation), particularly with the price of gas."

His monthly pass costs $255. From Portland, it's $396 for a pass.

Commuters -- as opposed to visitors or tourists -- make up 33 percent of the Downeaster's ridership, said Patricia Quinn, executive director of the NNEPRA. But that figure is based upon the number of passengers who purchase regular passes rather than single one-way or round-trip tickets.

The total ridership on the Downeaster in December was 34,240. Of that number, 24,081, or approximately 70 percent, took the train during weekdays when commuters are more likely to travel.

Additionally, the service's most popular trains are the weekday 680 train, which leaves Portland at 5:55 a.m. and arrives in Boston at 8:25 a.m., and the 685 train, which departs Boston at 5 p.m. and arrives in Portland at 7:25 p.m. During December the 680 train averaged 199 passengers, and the 685 train averaged 234 passengers.

To date in the 2008 fiscal year, which ends June 30, ridership on the Downeaster is up by 25 percent compared with the same period in the previous year, according to Amtrak. Revenue has grown by 27.7 percent to $943,521.

Still, revenue covers only about 55 percent of the Downeaster's cost, Quinn said, and the net loss runs about $12.80 per rider trip. So the train depends on subsidies and needs the additional money from Maine to stay in business. Massachusetts and New Hampshire don't contribute subsidies to the service.

Quinn said if Maine legislators fail to pass the grant for this year's budget she will have a very small window of opportunity to try again next January before the money runs out.

Jesse Noyes can be reached at jnoyes@bizjournals.com.

Article URL:
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2008/01/28/story6.html?b=1201496400^1581178