Take the B-Train; and someday soon, the A-Train?

A loyal reader recently told us about this breaking news item: http://www.pressherald.com/2014/12/12/augusta-council-inclined-to-back-rail-service-study/

We’re filing it under shorts; fried.

And we’re here to tell you that if you thought there was no such thing as a Kool-Aid train,  you would be wrong.  We admit to being a bit surprised ourselves, but it looks like our friends to the north broke the code some time ago.  But our story here is about the A-Train, not the K-Train, though one could advance a theory that the K-Train is the progenitor of them all.

We find ourselves a bit breathless from all the hot buttons this story presses on our master control panel. so we’re simply going to give you the ‘highlights,’ and comment briefly after we do.  Emphasis is ours.

=================================================================

Augusta council inclined to back rail service study

A rail enthusiast says trains could bring money and development, as well as passengers, to the state capital.

AUGUSTA — With rail advocates saying Augusta is well-positioned for an eventual return of passenger train service, city councilors say they plan to approve a proposal to look into the idea.

Richard Rudolph, a director of the nonprofit rail advocacy organization Maine Rail Group, told city councilors Thursday that trains bringing passengers to and from Augusta could bring money and development to the city. That’s especially true of the area surrounding the city-owned former Statler mill on the city’s east side, which Rudolph suggested could become the station at the end of the line and a regional transportation hub.

Randolph told councilors that wherever rail lines go, transit-oriented development follows.

“So I suspect if in fact train service went over the bridge to east Augusta, onto the property the city owns, that would be a huge economic generator. And I think there is enough land over there you could certainly have a railroad station along with whatever else would be put in.”

…………………….

The resolution would not obligate the city to take action, or even apply for grant funding. But it would provide an official show of support for the return of passenger rail to the city, which is something Rudolph said is needed for the process to move forward.

The council resolution will suggest that a federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant be sought to fund detailed planning.

Rudolph said he believes the proposal has a good chance of winning funding in part because it is multimodal, meaning it would involve several forms and uses of transportation serving the region.

…………………………………………

A consultant hired to examine potential uses for the Kennebec Lockes site concluded that it could be redeveloped as a mixed use commercial, residential and retail site, with a passenger train station included.  (A consultant hired by who, with whose money, we think it’s fair to ask!)

Rudolph said the city could have a small train stop downtown and have the former Statler site be home to a larger station serving the region, meaning trains would run through downtown and cross the river on a trestle.

………………………………………….

The approximately 34 miles of inactive track between Augusta and Brunswick is owned by the state. Amtrak’s Downeaster line to Boston ends in Brunswick. The run, which previously stopped in Portland, was extended in 2012.

Rudolph said passenger rail came probably generated $50 million to $60 million in economic development in Brunswick, including a new hotel.

However, it has also generated complaints from some Brunswick residents concerned about a proposal to build a train layover facility where trains would be kept overnight. Neighbors fear that noise from idling trains might bother them.

=======================================================================

Yessir, yessir three bowls full, though Kool-Aid traditionally comes in pitchers and glasses.  Perhaps bobbing for dollars in a tub of Kool-Aid would be a more appropriate image.

                      

Did you drink fully of the standard phraseology of contemporary big government spending with no factual basis or due diligence?  If not, let us help you drink from that grail:

Rail enthusiasts, rail advocates (see TrainRiders Northeeast); otherwise known as elite minorities looking to revive past glories, regardless of economic and physical realities.

Regional transportation hub (see Brunswick Downtown Association); grandiose but unsupported visions aimed at increasing the infusion of OPM.

Transit oriented development follows (see, Brunswick, Town of); note especially that ‘development’ preceded arrival of the transit, aided measurably by a variety of tax breaks and other incentives granted to favored ‘parties.’

Huge economic generator (hollow claims, which no one in officialdom is willing to validate); see Brunswick; ask about Portland.

                       

Grant funding (as long as we’re out of funds, and printing more currency to deal with it, why shouldn’t we get our share?)

TIGER Grants (of which NNEPRA has lost the last three application cycles; proposals typically exceed ‘available’ funds by nearly ten to one)

Consultants (most of whom claim direct access to free money from external sources; see Grants, TIGER; see Howard; Scott)

         

Or, you could just summarize things by seeing Entitlement Syndrome; civic variety.

We’re reminded of two other specifics.  First, Dale McCormick, former ED of the Maine State Housing Authority, former state treasurer, and bona-fide big government groupie and true believer, especially when it comes to grants and other forms of free money, is a member of the Augusta City Council.  They deserve her, and you can take that any way you wish.

We have half a mind (watch it, smarty pants) to fire off a communiqué to the Augusta City Council, but we only have time to bang our head on so many walls.  Still, we might decide to have a little fun with this.

=========================================================

Then there was a recent opinion item published in the Topsham Town Cryer, in which a so-called transit expert opined about the wonders of rail travel, as if we never had passenger rail service before in this country.  His thoughts were embraced by Saint Wayne Davis of TRNE, who happens to live in the same town.

We won’t bore you with a detailed assessment here.  Suffice it to say that anyone who lives in Topsham and works in Boston is not one you should listen to on almost anything, but especially in matters of transit.

Said individual appears to have graduated from the “Downtown Association” School of glowing and unsubstantiated platitudes.  He also seems not to grasp the not-so-subtle differences between freight and passenger rail, and how their business models differ in ever so significant ways. 

Best we can surmise, he’s making a living in that quasi-governmental cloud of promotional schemers that get local agencies all atwitter with the possibilities of making their little corner of the world an economic whirlwind. 

Professionals, consultants, whatever.  A few finely tuned PowerPoint charts here, lots of buzzwords there, and next thing you know, the dollars start flowing, and nothing in the way of a return is required to earn them.  Think terms like ‘reinvention,’ ‘youthful packs of bright, ambitious change makers,’ and soon the vapors take the place of common sense.  Before you know it, you’re convinced that Maine is just a train or two away from becoming the New York metropolitan area.

Want proof?  Just look how our own Portland has been transformed in the twelve years or so since the Downeaster has been servicing the city.  Why it’s almost unrecognizable, don’t you think?

We rest our case.  And our invoice is on its way.

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,Augusta,Consultants,rail advocates,Downeaster

“Maine Leads?” Not always in the best ways, Pilgrim.

          

Maine’s state motto is ‘Dirigo,’ which we’re told, means “Maine Leads.”  Shirley most of the time we choose to take this in the best possible sense.  But the word ‘leads’ in and of itself is neither negative or positive.  It’s quite possible to lead in embarrassing ways, such as leading in property tax levies, which is not an honor to be sought or bragged about, at least in our humble view.

Friends of ours with great curiosity recently came upon a ‘consent decree’ that relates to diesel engine idling and operating in the nearby great state of Massachusetts, which is one of the states that our very own Downeaster operates in.  The material below, taken from a US EPA web site, summarizes the decree. 

Emphasis is ours, and we use it to highlight the reference to a federally enforceable state regulation, which seems to be the crux of the decree.  Apparently Maine has no such regulation, and at least in this case, “Massachusetts Leads.”

We can’t help but wonder why NNEPRA and other concerned authorities, all of whom tout the great benefits of the Downeaster in getting filthy polluting autos off our byways and highways, haven’t pressed for such a regulation.  Or taken it upon themselves to voluntarily behave as if we did have one, without being told to do so.

This seems like a perfect opportunity for someone in state government to grab the bull by the tail and face the situation, as we often say.  Anyone who successfully does so will earn a “Maine Catches Up” award from Other Side.  And earn the undying gratitude of many in the process.

For the nonce, we wonder whether NNEPRA could have exposure in this matter on the basis of federal guidelines and regulations alone, and whether relevant Environmental Assessments and other efforts in the past somehow ignored these factors.  Only The Shadow knows, wherever he is.

=======================================================================

MBTA to Spend Millions to Reduce Commuter Train Emissions in Clean Air Act Settlement

Release Date: 08/04/2010
Contact Information: EPA, David Deegan, (617) 918-1017 DOJ, (202) 514-2007

Joint News Release
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Regional Office
Department of Justice

(Boston, Mass. – Aug. 4, 2010) – In response to a federal enforcement action for excessive train engine idling, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Company (MBCR) will spend more than $2 million to reduce diesel locomotive emissions throughout the MBTA’s commuter rail system, the Justice Department and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today.

Under a consent decree lodged in federal court, MBTA and MBCR will spend over $1 million on anti-idling equipment at all end-of-line stations and maintenance facilities, and will spend another $1 million on ultra-clean diesel fuel for all trains in the commuter rail system for two years.

These emission-reducing measures are the result of a federal enforcement action brought by the Justice Department on behalf of EPA in response to MBTA’s and MBCR’s excessive locomotive idling at the Widett Circle layover facility in South Boston and the Greenbush line station in Scituate, Mass. Neighboring residents have complained of excessive train idling at both locations.
To settle the enforcement action, MBTA and MBCR will:

- Install or upgrade electric plug-in stations as anti-idling equipment to supply all commuter locomotives with electric auxiliary power to prevent excess idling during train layovers;
- Switch to cleaner burning, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel for all trains on the MBTA’s commuter rail lines for a two year period at an estimated cost of $1 million;
- Install new, less polluting auxiliary engines on fourteen commuter locomotives by no later than December 2012; and
- Pay a $225,000 fine.

The anti-idling measures, clean diesel fuel switch, and new auxiliary engines required by the federal settlement will have significant clean air benefits. For example, a reduction in commuter locomotive idling by even one hour per day per locomotive, together with the fuel switch and new engines, could result in yearly carbon dioxide emission reductions of an estimated 800 tons, nitrogen oxides reductions of nearly 170 tons, carbon monoxide reductions of about 80 tons, particulate reductions of 23 tons, and sulfur dioxide reductions of 1-2 tons.

MBTA owns 80 commuter locomotives used on 13 commuter rail routes in Eastern Massachusetts. Since 2003, MBCR has managed and operated the commuter train system for the MBTA. The system includes 14 layover facilities where the locomotives and passenger cars are parked and serviced between runs. Electric plug-in stations at these facilities supply the trains with electric power for lights and ventilation. If a plug-in is not available, a train on layover idles its auxiliary diesel engine to supply any needed electric power.

Under today’s settlement, which must be approved by the court, commuter train layovers will only be allowed at locations where there are sufficient electric plug-in stations for all trains.

The Massachusetts locomotive idling regulation, a federally-enforceable state regulation, prohibits all unnecessary diesel locomotive idling for more than 30 minutes. According to a 2008 notice of violation issued by EPA, MBTA and MBCR committed 33 violations of this regulation at Widett Circle and Greenbush in three months. At Widett, the average idling time during the violations was just under four hours (234 minutes).

“This precedent-setting, multi-million dollar settlement for train idling is appropriate in light of the defendants’ conduct,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The settlement will provide immediate and lasting environmental benefits to the residents of Eastern Massachusetts, particularly those in environmental justice communities.”

“It is imperative that anti-idling laws are followed, given the proximity of these layover facilities to densely-populated communities and environmental justice neighborhoods,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England Office. “Diesel pollution can be very harmful, especially to sensitive populations such as the young, elderly and people who suffer from asthma.”

Diesel emissions contribute to a number of serious air pollution problems such as smog, acid rain and increased carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. Diesel exhaust contains fine particles that can cause lung damage and aggravate respiratory conditions, such as asthma and bronchitis. Based upon human and laboratory studies, there is also considerable evidence that diesel exhaust is a likely carcinogen.

Since 2002, EPA has brought more than a dozen federal enforcement cases to stop diesel engine idling violations in Mass., Conn. and R.I. Most of the cases have involved diesel truck and bus idling, including a judicial settlement announced in July 2010 against National Car Rental for shuttle bus idling at two airports. Only Massachusetts and Rhode Island have federally-enforceable locomotive idling regulations, and today’s action marks the first time EPA and DOJ have sued a railroad for excessive idling violations.

More information:
The consent decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court, will be subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the federal court. Once it is published in the Federal Register, a copy of the consent decree and instructions on how to comment will be available on the Justice Department Web site at (http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html).
Fact Sheet on MBTA Settlement: http://www.epa.gov/region1/enforcement/air/pdfs/CAA-MBTA-MBCR-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Diesel exhaust and anti-idling guidelines (www.epa.gov/ne/eco/diesel)

===================================================================

The above materials are found here:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6d651d23f5a91b768525735900400c28/b89a1cd70da60b968525777500615ce7!OpenDocument&Highlight=2,national,car,rental

See also http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/diesel/, which contains these words:

Highlights

• Diesel exhaust contains fine particles which can aggravate asthma and cause lung damage as well as premature death. Diesel Engines last a long time (20-30 years).
• EPA has classified diesel particulate matter as a likely human carcinogen.
• All six New England states have childhood asthma rates above 10 percent.

What is EPA Doing?

To reduce diesel pollution and help ensure that New Englanders have cleaner air, EPA has set stringent emission standards for new diesel engines and diesel fuel. These national standards reduce diesel pollution from new diesel engines by 90 percent. To reduce diesel pollution from existing diesel engines, EPA is implementing voluntary local and regional initiatives. In addition, EPA is encouraging schools, businesses, institutions and communities to develop anti-idling policies.

Since 2002, more than 10,000 engines operating in New England have been or are being retrofitted with pollution control technology.

We’re not subject matter experts, but we recall hearing over the last few years that the engines pulling the much beloved Downeasters are not retrofitted with pollution control technology as referred to here.  That would mean NNEPRA is “voluntarily” not implementing the cleaner air initiative.  But we’ll look to involved officials to correct us if we’re wrong.

Having spent a number of hours within hundreds of feet of idling Downeasters, if they have been retrofitted, the technology, in a word, sucks.

We hear so often that Maine is all about ‘pristine environments,’ so we ask ‘where’s the beef?’  Or for those readers so inclined, ‘where’s the kale?’

On the other side of the ball, there are known ailments caused by breathing too deeply and too purely, as certain local residents remind us from time to time.

       

Technorati Tags: NNEPRA,Brunswick,DEP,MA,Maine

An Ostrich Op-Ed, challenging Brunswick “leadership”

       

As we told you before, we’re into the holiday season break.  So take this offering plain and simple; the Ostrich ran it a day ago (Friday, 12 December).

=================================================================

Afraid of Downeaster Truth?

BY PEM SCHAEFFER

The Amtrak Downeaster has been operating between Portland and Boston for more than 10 years; the extension between Portland and Brunswick has been in operation for two years.

The service to Brunswick has received glowing praise for its “great benefit” to our local economy. While no objective data can be found to support that claim, Brunswick taxpayers directly subsidize the service to the tune of $100,000 a year, or $2,000 a week. Community leaders are bursting with glee at plans to increase service to Brunswick from two round trips a day to five.

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, the state agency that operates the Downeaster, was created by Maine State Law in 1995 during the King administration.

The law mandated creation of the agency, directed that it establish passenger rail service and obtain the funds to do so by whatever means it could find. The law did not call for assessment beforehand of public transportation needs; nor analysis of alternatives for meeting any credible needs; nor the creation of a viable, sustainable economic model for implementing and operating this service.

It simply directed that passenger rail service be established, without benefit of due diligence. As such, NNEPRA and the Downeaster are a perfect example of government decreeing a solution, and then sending it off in search of a problem that may or may not exist.

Brunswick is home to Bowdoin College, a respected, highly selective institution with an Economics department. They are committed to service learning and engagement with the community. Brunswick is proud of its relationship with the college, which among other things, resulted in the McLellan building becoming our town hall.

The absence of objective economic benefit data for the Downeaster provides an opportunity for a win-win town-gown collaborative effort. College economics students could evaluate the local economy, and Brunswick could gain economic insights to substantiate future decisions about Downeaster related policy and spending.

Accordingly, I proposed a collaborative ‘town-gown’ economic study of local Downeaster consequences. I drafted a ‘framework’ for the study, even suggesting tailored parameters that might apply.

Points to consider in such an effort include these: l Many local businesses offer no attraction to visitors, and would seldom if ever benefit from their travel here on the Downeaster. I doubt anyone comes to town on the train to do banking, get their hair done, their shirts laundered, their eyes tested, or their health tended to at a walk-in clinic.

• Claims by local businesses of meaningful patronage from train-riders must be balanced by the fact that no-one can measure the offsetting opportunities lost when area residents take their patronage out of town. There is, surely, a suction effect carrying dollars south, but identifying the specifics is uncomfortable, if not impolitic.
• Someone coming to town on the train does not mean they come to town because of the train. Diversion from one travel mode to another yields no economic benefit.
• Lack of specificity in ridership reporting is troubling. Virtually every rider is on a round-trip, some originating here, and some originating at points south. One traveler shows up as two in ridership figures.
• Downeaster effect on Concord Coach ridership is unknown. This service began long before Amtrak came to town. The bus service is far more economical, flexible, convenient, versatile, and environmentally friendly than the train.

My hope was to make the proposal a formal agenda item for council consideration and a vote. I spoke with four councilors about the possibility of sponsoring a motion so it could come before the council and the public. None signed on to do so. One spoke with a Bowdoin faculty member, who suggested grants would be necessary, it could not get underway before next summer, etc. This typifies bureaucratic inclinations to turn simple questions into grand pursuits, creating a ‘too hard’ perception.

Hence, the proposal is a ‘dead letter,’ and I can’t hep but wonder why. Are those I spoke to unwilling to face what could be disappointing realities? Has too much personal and taxpayer capital been invested in the groundwork for Maine Street Station and the Downeaster service? Are they fearful of offending various town leaders, of both the official and unofficial sort? Are they worried that developing a factual basis for future policy and funding could cause NNEPRA to discontinue service here? Is there a council Svengali who nixed the idea?

More to the point, is official Brunswick afraid of the truth? Or that such a study could not be conducted objectively? If so, what a sad story that tells about elected leadership, and what a pall it casts upon other discussions of governance that come before this body. Not to mention the perceived academic integrity of Bowdoin.

In closing, as someone said recently, lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, and this situation may be as simple as that.

Pem Schaeffer is a retired Defense Industry Business Development Leader. He blogs at http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com.

===============================================================

Technorati Tags: Amtrak,Brunswick,Downeaster

“Blog Interrupted,” and a Betke bon-bon.

                               

OK; let’s be honest with each other.  We’ve been AWOL for….well….it looks like two weeks.

Now it’s your turn to be honest.  We’re guessing you barely noticed, and even if you did, you really didn’t much care, or were at least grateful for the break from our usual inanities.  Thanks for being frank with us.  If not chance or shirley.

The truth is the holiday season, and this year, the early foul weather, have taken their usual toll on our priorities.  For the first time in several years, we had the whole clan here for Thanksgiving.  Only to be surprised by an 11” snow before hand, when we hadn’t yet converted our yard tractor to snow blower configuration!   Just a week before, we’d made our last mulching pass over accumulated fallen leaves.

We’re still out of sync with the chores of the seasonal transition, but we won’t bore you further.  Suffice it to say that from here on out through the end of the year, our ‘reporting’ level will be severely diminished because of life getting in the way.  And we’re glad it does.  We hope it does the same for you.

Moving on, we want you to read and absorb a column of a few weeks ago by George Betke, a transportation professional and guest columnist here on Other Side a few months back.  It appeared in the BDN, and we’re posting it here because we presume George would give us his permission to do so.

Amtrak’s Brunswick boosters should focus on cutting losses, not grandiose schemes

By George C. Betke Jr., Special to the BDN

Posted Nov. 18, 2014, at 1:26 p.m.

                                 

George Danby | BDN

No Maine politician was in full campaign mode this fall more than the longtime head of TrainRiders/Northeast, the advocacy group for Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, which continues to extol the presumed virtues of extended Amtrak rail service beyond Boston and Portland. Its sole standard of success appears to be Downeaster ridership, which has been “gradually increasing over the years” but not lately, either for all trains or those serving the Brunswick extension, now ending its second year of operation.

Just as politicians obfuscate facts and create distractions, so does this organization of enthusiasts enamored with the notion that a widespread rail renaissance is worthy of massive public investment and ongoing subsidies. Its vision, acute so long as federal funding and compliant public officials are available, is nonetheless backward looking to an era predating the interstate highway system and modern airline network. States pay a heavy premium to extend passenger rail service to sparsely populated outlying areas.

TrainRiders’ true colors were revealed at its recent annual banquet in mid-October.

“It all depends on money, but there will be grants available,” its chairman declared while promoting a new, “seamless” route to New York. “After the election, there will be all kinds of new little surprises,” he said referring to the role of politics in such matters.

Special interest wish lists too often lead to bad public spending — politicians say “investment” — decisions. An airplane is faster, bus cheaper and both are more frequent. So why should the many underwrite a train for the few who would use it?

The comparable Vermonter route — St. Albans, Vermont, to New York in 9 hours, 26 minutes — covered only 43.7 percent of its direct operating expenses in 2012, according to Amtrak. TrainRiders seems oblivious to Amtrak’s dire need to right-size an overextended national passenger network that is increasingly dependent on subsidies for 29 routes from 18 participating states.

The opening paragraph on the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority’s website describes “a public transportation authority created in 1995 by the Maine State Legislature to develop and provide passenger rail service between Maine and Boston and points within Maine.” The operation is acknowledged to require substantial federal and state support, but there is no mention of the expense side of the financial equation. In the minds of some, Amtrak simply should run more trains to accommodate whatever demand may exist at various times of day, regardless of the inescapable need for greater public subsidy. An inter-city passenger train is a string of costly vehicles that must be well patronized to minimize losses, for direct operating expenses vary negligibly with seat occupancy.

We’ve been conditioned to believe the Downeaster is a great thing for Maine and Brunswick, even though the primary benefit accrues to out-of-staters at Maine’s net expense. The Portland Press Herald reported in September that 63 percent of patrons boarding or leaving the four daily Brunswick trains during the fiscal year ended in June did so at stations in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, where the schedule is convenient for Boston commutation. “The popularity of the train in the southern end of the route makes it hard to fill the train in Brunswick,” the Press Herald reported, paraphrasing the authority’s executive director. “So a prospective customer who wants to board in Brunswick and travel to Boston may not be able to reserve a seat because all the available seats for that train are reserved by passengers who will board farther down the line.”

The translation of that statement is, “absent more substantial and consistent demand at Maine stations, we must fill otherwise empty seats with regular down-line commuters and occasional travelers attracted by a variety of promotional discounts.” Without their revenue contributions, continued Downeaster service could not be assured. The low-fare Haverhill passholder ($6.64 each way for a 21-weekday month) can preempt an occasional Brunswick patron paying significantly more ($14.50 with a round-trip “value” ticket).

Adding midday Brunswick trains is an unlikely remedy for disappointing revenue production there, however, because out-of-state seat occupancy should be considerably lower outside of normal commutation hours. Either way, persistent claims that the Downeaster is overwhelmingly successful are suspect when it diverts far more traffic from highways in states other than its principal subsidizer.

When will we learn that small and/or seasonal markets cannot support grandiose schemes? Initiatives like the Nova Star international ferry, the Montreal hotel train and the Downeaster to New York are expensive transportation niceties, not necessities, viable only so long as politicians authorize speculative public outlays to establish, operate and maintain them.

No knowledgeable person expects light-density Amtrak service to be profitable, even without attributing capital charges. Maine taxpayers should, however, expect the authority to focus on minimizing losses rather than extravagant empire building to the Empire State.

George C. Betke Jr. is president of Transport Economics, Inc., a Newcastle consultancy.

Here’s the link to the item as it appeared in that paper:

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/11/18/opinion/contributors/amtraks-brunswick-boosters-should-focus-on-cutting-losses-not-grandiose-schemes/

Be sure to see the posted comments, which are highly revealing.  The thinking of those most supportive of passenger rail service is laid bare, so to speak.  Hardly any mention the difference between freight and passenger rail.  Virtually none mention that today’s buses are ultra clean, and far more environmentally friendly than a passenger train.  Especially one running with so few passengers.

As to comments about “all modes of transportation being subsidized,” suggesting that it’s perfectly fine to shovel millions per year (that we don’t actually have) into operating the Downeaster, we take exception.

As an example, we cite the Maine Turnpike.  We pass along this input from an authoritative source:

MTA (Maine Turnpike Authority) is paying its own way.  There has never been $1 of tax money of any kind spent on the Turnpike.  It is 100% funded by tolls and borrowings by investors (bonds.)  I have been on the board for three years and haven't seen the MTA's finances in better shape than now.

We defy anyone associated with the Downeaster (and Amtrak, for that matter) to even hint at such a thought. 

                   

Not that devoted and thoughtful supporters won’t try.                

Technorati Tags: Amtrak,blogging,Downeaster

We could say….but it’s getting old, don’t you think?

http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/11/we-could-say-we-told-you-sowe-told-you.html

Remember that recent winner, posted 8 days ago?  On Saturday, November 15th?

It featured this passage:

Wouldn’t you just know it?  Look what we just found on the NNEPRA web site:

PRIORITY ALERT: Track work to cause Downeaster delays

Due to continuing track maintenance work, all Downeaster trains are experiencing delays of approximately 20-30 minutes. Please check your particular train's status by using the Train Status tab or by calling 1-800-872-7245 and say "Train status".

PRIORITY ALERT: Track Maintenance November 17th to 21st

Weekday trains 683 and 686 will be cancelled during this time frame. Trains 681 and  684 will run on a modified schedule and will not service all stations. All other trains will run according to the regular schedule. For details please got to www.AmtrakDowneaster.com/ConstructionAlert.

All trains WILL  run Thanksgiving week Nov. 22 to 30

You can trust them on that last assurance; this time will be different.  So book your travel for that week now. 

You turkey, you.

                                   

We’re almost embarrassed to report that our friend, shown above, has once again proven to be reliable in such things.

As proof, we came across this posting on the NNEPRA Amtrak page over the weekend:

PRIORITY ALERT: Track work to cause some Downeaster delays

Due to track maintenance work, delays are anticipated. Please check your particular train's status by using the Train Status tab or by calling 1-800-872-7245 and say "Train status".

As we see it, this announcement applies to Thanksgiving Week, November 22 to November 30, and who knows how many weeks beyond that.  Progressive disclosure is the norm, as you should be well aware by now.

You can also decide how deeply to parse the official words to guess whether ‘anticipated delays’ could also include any cancellations.  At some point, what does it matter?  Your carefully laid plans get messed up either way.

Oh, that’s right.  It matters for NNEPRA official reporting purposes.  Putting the best face on things is the name of the game when you’re heading an operation that runs at a 50% loss or thereabouts.

Maybe they should double all the fares, and see how that affects reliable, on-time performance.

Even if ridership declines just a little.

Technorati Tags: Delays,cancellations,NNEPRA,Downeaster,Amtrak

Reprise: Oysters, immigration, political language abuse, and broken things.

As we drove back from Portland today, listening to the news reports about what’s going to take place tonight when the President addresses the nation in a ‘prime-time’ address, we told ourselves we need to draft a post about the despicable abuse of plain English so prevalent in today’s political discourse.

          

And then, almost like the movie Ground Hog Day, one of our all time favorites, we remembered that we had voiced our thoughts on the subject before.  So we searched our archives, and we found a post from earlier this year.

So rather than start all over again, we’re going to replay this prior post, because as far as we’re concerned, it’s ‘spot on’ for today…almost as if we had written it knowing this day would come.

So here you are…from Other Side archives:

Oysters, immigration, political language abuse, and broken things.

We don’t know about you, but some things really fry our oysters.  And certain things fry them more than others

We refer here to the discussion of our national immigration system that has been going on for some years now.  Not so much for which side of the argument you might come down on, but because of what it reveals in the way of unashamed, unabashed, blatant abuse of plain English for political and demagogic purposes.

Let us give you an example or two of the bumper sticker level of discourse on this subject:

“Our immigration system is broken!”

What they really mean when they say this is ‘we aren’t enforcing the laws that have been on the books for years, because we don’t really want to, and we’re suffering the consequences of not enforcing them.  They’re just too hard to enforce, so cut us some slack.’

Our ‘immigration system,’ simply speaking, consists of federal agencies and personnel overwhelmingly, with state agencies in a secondary role here and there, and who knows how many thousands of pages of federal law and regulations.  So when one says ‘the system is broken,’ think of that as a euphemism for ‘government is broken.’

We don’t enforce the border, we don’t enforce all sorts of immigration law, including that applying to thousands of employers who flout the law, often with a wink and a nod.

           

And then there’s the seeming stupidity of monitoring our borders, which in two cases we have personal experience with, operate by checking vehicles transiting major interstate highways 50-100 miles North of the US-Mexican border.

Temecula, CA I-15 - Border Patrol Checkpoint; Mile Marker 54 - Checks traffic going north on I-15. It is also right at the end of San Diego county going into Riverside county.

San Clemente, CA I-5 - Border Patrol Checkpoint; Mile Marker 67 -  I-5 San Clemente, California 92674 (760) 430-7029 The San Clemente Border Patrol Station maintains a full-time traffic checkpoint on the northbound lanes of I-5.

Both of these locations are so distant from the border that it seems bizarre when you approach them.  We imagine there are all sorts of bureaucratic justifications for the cost and effectiveness of such check points, but in the internet/social media age, anyone who gets nailed at these check points clearly qualifies for ‘stupid is as stupid does’ status, as Forrest Gump liked to say.

“We need comprehensive immigration reform!”

Translation: ‘since we’re doing a despicable and irresponsible job of enforcing the laws that have been on the books for years, let’s throw them aside and create a whole new set to brag about, campaign on, and hold press conferences to announce.’

                                

‘And we’ll call it comprehensive immigration reform!!!!’

‘Just think how we can come before the public and tell them we found common ground, and how proud we are to stand before them today to announce a new 3,000 page bill that fixes our broken immigration system!’

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There’s only one problem as we see it.  Passing a whole new set of laws that won’t be enforced to fix the problems stemming from non-enforcement of the previously enacted set of laws is not ‘reform.’

It’s cheap, lazy, and opportunistic politicking and pandering.

Which leads us to offer this ‘bumper sticker’ level commentary of our own:

Our government system is broken.

We need comprehensive government reform.

You can take this however you wish, and on whatever terms you prefer.  Our ideas range from the colorful – ‘turn the government inside out and scrub it down with a wire brush’ – to the more practical – immediately reduce federal employee head count by 20%, and eliminate at least 3 cabinet level departments.

              

On a different note, as we were pondering this post, we had a related thought.  The federal government has been operating at a deficit level in the range of $1 trillion per year for some time.  Yet you never hear of any agency or department ‘overrunning’ their budget, and being held accountable for turning their enterprise around and living within their means.  No news about how the State Department, or the Department of Education, or Homeland Security is running a deficit of 10 or 15% a year against their proposed budgets.

Instead, the federal deficit is reported at the top line level: the difference between federal revenues and federal expenditures, with no allocation of deficit responsibility to specific departments or government operations.  No wonder no-one worries about managing the deficit; it’s not ascribed to any leader or any agency, so no-one is responsible or accountable.  The deficit just ‘is.’

Maybe we should demand (good luck with that!) a more definitive and accountable system of budgetary responsibility.  The executive branch of the federal government has 15 major departments.  On a pro-rated basis, when we have an annual $1 trillion deficit, that means each department has about a $67 Billion operating deficit.

Shouldn’t each fiscal year begin by asking each Department, or more specifically, the Cabinet Secretary who heads it, what they will do to eliminate their contribution to the national deficit?  Shouldn’t each be responsible for managing to get their operations back on a break-even basis?

We don’t know why this suddenly occurred to us today, and why it took so long to realize just how fundamentally broken the reporting on the nation’s fiscal management system is.

But once agaiin we conclude what we said just above:

Our government system is broken.

We need comprehensive government reform.

And we mean this in the real, common sense understanding of the English language.  Not the double-speak that passes for ‘we hear you loud and clear’ bluster and bloviation from the ruling class of our era.

That’s about it for today.

                              

So pass the horse-radish, will you Gladys?  And hand us another Guinness.  Tell the chef to stop frying our oysters.  We much prefer them fresh, naked, and tasting of the sea.

Covering them in batter and crumbs ruins the whole idea of doing what comes naturally.

Technorati Tags: Oysters,immigration,language abuse,reform

Downeaster Economics vis-à-vis Brunswick: Gruber theory right before your eyes?

Maybe you recognize the individual pictured above, maybe you don’t.  Regardless, based on recent news, we think a very good case could be made that he is the ‘poster child’ for NNEPRA and it’s Downeaster; it’s relationship to Brunswick; and the BDA as well.

The individual pictured, the suddenly very high profile Professor Jonathan Gruber of MIT, embodies several principles that are apparent in our own midst, particularly as it relates to the Downeaster.  One, “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”  Two, the end justifies the means.  Three, the average American is stupid in matters of economics.  Four, if the truth were known, the program could not survive. 

Which, in the notation of Gruber economic theory, can be represented by this expression:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = you’ve been had, and you better like it.

Or symbolically, with this iconic image:

                                     

We could go on and on having fun with this, and we no doubt will before long.  As the hours go by, we’re feeling remarkably blessed that Professor Gruber has surfaced to personify our circumstances so perfectly and succinctly.

The above is by way of introduction to the fact that we spoke to our betters on the Brunswick town council tonight on exactly this subject – the economic consequences of the Downeaster for our local economy.  Herewith the text of our statement:

• Good evening. I'm Mr. Schaeffer.

• I'm here to talk about an idea I had; an idea involving the Amtrak Downeaster, Bowdoin College, and Brunswick

• As background, NNEPRA (Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority), the state agency that operates the Downeaster, was created by Maine State Law in 1995.

• The law mandated creation of the agency, directed that it establish passenger rail service, and obtain the funds to do so by whatever means it can find.

• The law did not call for assessment before hand of public transportation needs; nor analysis of possible methods for meeting any credible needs; nor the creation of a viable, sustainable economic model for implementing and operating this service.

• It simply directed that passenger rail service be established, without benefit of due diligence. As such, NNEPRA and the Downeaster are a fine example of government legislation that creates a solution, and then sends it off in search of a problem that may or may not exist.

• It's almost as if a young Professor Gruber was involved in it's creation.

• The Downeaster has been operating between Portland and Boston for more than ten years; the extension between Portland and Brunswick has been in operation for two years.

• The service to Brunswick has received glowing praise, especially as regards its “great economic benefit” to our local economy. I'm not aware of any objective data to support that assertion. Brunswick residents provide a subsidy for the operation of roughly $100,000 a year on the debit side, or in the range of $300 a day. Various interests and community leaders are bursting with glee at plans to increase service to Brunswick from two round trips a day to five.

• On another dimension, we are the home of Bowdoin College, a respected, highly selective institution with an Economics Department. And a stated commitment to service learning and engagement with the community. Brunswick is proud of its relationship with the College, which among other benefits, resulted in this building becoming our town hall.

• To this observer's thinking, the utter lack of objective economic benefit data for the Downeaster provides an opportunity for a win-win town-gown collaborative effort. College students studying economics could engage in a real world study of the local economy, and the town could gain economic insights to underpin future decisions about Downeaster related policy and spending.

• Points to consider in any such study include these.

  • A significant number of local businesses offer no attraction to visitors, and would seldom if ever benefit from their travel here on the Downeaster. I doubt anyone comes to town on the train to do banking, get their hair done, their shirts laundered, their eyes tested, or their health tended to at a walk-in clinic.

  • That 'long term parking lot,' if used as intended, holds cars of folks taking their discretionary dollars to points south to spend, rather than spending them locally.

  • Claims by any local business that they gain meaningful patronage from train-riders must be balanced by the fact that no-one can measure the offsetting opportunities lost because area residents take their patronage out of town.

  • For example, a local Inn manager says in a recent video that he attributes 400 room nights a year to the train. That's slightly more than one room per night, which is next to nothing. But how many room nights were booked elsewhere because of the same train, by area residents traveling south?

• We're quick to mention dollars wafting in on breezes blowing to the north, but fail to acknowledge dollars leaving the area on winds blowing south. There is, surely, a sucking sound, but identifying the specifics is uncomfortable, if not impolitic.

• Another truism associated with our circumstances is that someone coming to town ON THE TRAIN does not mean they come to town BECAUSE of the train. Diversion from one travel mode to another yields no economic benefit.

• The lack of specificity in ridership reporting only makes things worse. Virtually every rider is on a round-trip, some originating here, and some originating at points south. So to begin with, one traveler shows up as two in ridership figures.

• One wonders what effect the Downeaster has on Concord Coach ridership, a service established long before Amtrak started coming to town. That bus service, by the way, is far more economical, flexible, convenient, versatile, and environmentally friendly than the train.

• Let's get to the punch line. In view of the above, I proposed the idea of a collaborative 'town-gown' economic study effort on Downeaster local consequences; I even made some notes on a 'framework' for the study, and suggested unique parameters that would apply.

• My hope was to make the proposal a formal agenda item for council discussion and a vote. For the first time in all my years coming before you, I talked to four councilors about the possibility of sponsoring a motion so it could come before the council and the public. None signed on.

• So here I am, with a dead-letter idea, left to ponder why. Are those I spoke to unwilling to face what could be disappointing realities? Has too much personal capital been invested in the groundwork for Maine Street Station and the Downeaster service? Are you fearful of offending various town leaders, of both the official and unofficial sort? Are you concerned that developing a factual basis for future policy and funding could cause NNEPRA to discontinue service here?

• More to the point, are you afraid of the truth? Or that such a study could not be conducted objectively? If so, what a sad story that tells about elected leadership, and what a pall it casts upon other discussions of governance that come before this body. Not to mention the perceived academic integrity of Bowdoin.

• In closing, as someone said recently, lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, and this situation may be as simple as that.

• Thank you. And I hope you have a chance to read the brief material added as an Appendix.

Appendix to Statement:

The points below are excerpted from: http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=9664#comments

1. Transportation spending can stimulate economic development only if it generates new travel that didn’t exist before. Transportation projects that merely persuade people to change from one mode to another or one corridor to another might influence where economic development takes place, but will not produce any net additional development.

(A corollary to this rule is that the dreaded “induced travel” that comes from building new roads in congested regions is exactly the kind of desirable result that should come from transportation spending. Such new travel creates new economic opportunities for landowners, employers, and entrepreneurs that are the best indication of whether a transportation project was worthwhile.)

2. Transportation spending will generate new travel only if the project provides transportation that is faster, cheaper, and more convenient than what existed before. Projects that reduce people’s costs (both in hours and dollars) will encourage people to travel more.

3. Most rail transit, and virtually all streetcars and light rail, provide transportation that is slower, more costly, and less convenient than the alternatives. Even if most of the costs are paid by taxpayers, rather than travelers, the higher taxes place a burden on the community that slows economic growth.

4. Even where rail transit is paid for by federal taxpayers (thus relieving local taxpayers of the burden) and carries huge numbers of people (which almost requires that it be subways or elevateds, not light rail or streetcars), any new development stimulated by the transit project will probably be limited to the downtown area (see p. 3). The rest of the region will end up suffering because even if the feds pay for construction, locals will probably have to pay high cost of maintaining the rail line.

            

That’s it for tonight, students.  Make sure your slide-rules are well waxed, so you can follow the next class on precision in economic analysis.  And don’t worry, Professor Gruber has already declined our invitation to be the visiting lecturer.  Seems he was worried he wouldn’t be able to get a seat on the Downeaster because it’s ‘sold our farther down the line.’ 

But he did send along his calling card:

                   

Oh, and if you’re wondering what the reaction from the council was, you can watch the video once it’s posted.  In a word, a perfunctory comment we were already aware of.

Technorati Tags: Gruber,economics,Brunswick,Amtrak,Downeaster,Bowdoin

We could say we told you so…..”we told you so.”

    

One more item for today before we go into chicken fried steak and football mode for the rest of the day.

We refer you back to this recent post:

Même les Français ont des problèmes avec le MLF*

In it, we included these words; in particular, take note of the last paragraph…it begins with “Call us skeptical, but….”

We checked today, and found this update from a few days ago (Monday.)  Once again, attention to detail inspires confidence.

PRIORITY ALERT: Track work to cause Downeaster delays

Due to continuing track maintenance work, all Downeaster trains are experienceing (sic) delays of approximately 45-60 minutes.  Please check your particular train's status by using the button below or by calling 1-800-872-7245 and say "Train status".

PRIORITY ALERT: Track Maintenance extended to November 14th

Updated 11/3/14- Weekday trains 683 and 686 will be cancelled during this time frame. Trains 681 and  684 will run on a modified schedule and will not service all stations. All other trains will run according to the regular schedule. For details please got to www.AmtrakDowneaster.com/ConstructionAlert.

Call us skeptical, but we have a hunch another “PRIORITY ALERT” will be forthcoming somewhere around Friday, November 14.  Progressive disclosure is always appropriate in such circumstances. 

Wouldn’t you just know it?  Look what we just found on the NNEPRA web site:

PRIORITY ALERT: Track work to cause Downeaster delays

Due to continuing track maintenance work, all Downeaster trains are experiencing delays of approximately 20-30 minutes. Please check your particular train's status by using the Train Status tab or by calling 1-800-872-7245 and say "Train status".

PRIORITY ALERT: Track Maintenance November 17th to 21st

Weekday trains 683 and 686 will be cancelled during this time frame. Trains 681 and  684 will run on a modified schedule and will not service all stations. All other trains will run according to the regular schedule. For details please got to www.AmtrakDowneaster.com/ConstructionAlert.

All trains WILL  run Thanksgiving week Nov. 22 to 30

You can trust them on that last assurance; this time will be different.  So book your travel for that week now. 

You turkey, you.

Technorati Tags: Amtrak,Downeaster,NNEPRA

Changing seasons…changing stories; shouldn’t there be protocols to deal with these things?

                        

As Brunswick adapts to a change in governance…one in which John Eldridge is, in fact, “Mr. Manager,” or as we would prefer he be called – “John,” or “Mr. Eldridge,” and Johnny Protocols soon ascends to the position of Governor of Brunswick, it seems only appropriate that a change in stories should be in the mix.

My stories run up and bite me in the leg -- I respond by writing them down -- everything that goes on during the bite. When I finish, the idea lets go and runs off. -Ray Bradbury, science-fiction writer (b. 1920)

We can’t remember when we first came across that quote, but it explains better than we could  why we ‘do what we do.’  Here’s another one we like:

As scarce as truth is, the supply always seems to exceed the demand. Winston Churchill complained, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

The look on Betheda Edmond’s face in the above picture reminds us that this would be a fine time for you to reread our post of a few months back:

Protocols, Backside Awards, voting, not voting, etc…

It’s a cold, cold day here in Perfect, and reminding yourself of the behavior of our betters on the town council should start a fire within your belly that takes the chill off for the rest of the day.

That post, as you know, was about the shenanigans associated with a vote to approve offering the Town Manager job to John Eldridge; how one very influential councilor had obligations elsewhere he couldn’t get out of; and how other councilors present were so flummoxed by his absence they couldn’t see straight, and voted accordingly. 

One of those councilors has since been turned out of office, we presume because the voters involved couldn’t figure out how to vote without GoJo beside them when they marked their ballots. 

You know the old saying: “live by the Protocols, die by the Protocols.”

                       

The fun part of that late September post was this:

Now as to that claim that it was too late to reschedule his commitment to work with the Maine Labor Relations Board on Monday evening in Rockland.  Lucky for you, we have reporters in the field who can look into such things.  One of them contacted the Maine Labor Relations Board office, and surprisingly, they had nothing on the three calendars they maintain for Monday night in Rockland.  Nothing for the Board itself, or the Mediation Panel, or the Board of Arbitration.

That passage refers, of course, to the explanation Johnny Protocols gave as to why he had to miss the council meeting at which the vote was taken.  We offered him an opportunity to correct the record in our little media outlet, but when no correction was submitted, we were sure it was from him.

                                        

Now comes word, via one of the other councilors with a leading role in that post, that the protagonist in this curious caper has proffered a different explanation for his unavoidable absence.  It seems he ‘had to be in court, and couldn’t get out of it.’  You know how lawyers are; they never, ever, ever ask for a postponement, or a continuance.  That would be a breach of their code of honor.

We don’t know if this was at a court in Rockland, or even if there IS a court in Rockland.  But we’ve asked our field correspondent to look into things for us.  You know how we hate having loose ends in our stories.

We just thought you ought to know about this ‘loose end’ flapping around out there in the halls of municipal governance.

We’ll close with this wondrous sentiment from one of America’s treasures:

                 

Of course, if you can barely remember which day it is, or which sock to put on first, it doesn’t matter a whole lot, does it?

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,voting,protocols,GoJo

PS on yesterday’s posts……

First, on this one about the eyes of the school board opening to some of the realities many of the rest of us have been aware of for years, and looking like they may actually grab the bull by the tail, as it were.

We neglected to make a point on this passage from the Forecaster article:

A repair plan proposed by Facilities Director Paul Caron last month called for a $2.5 million annual investment in school buildings.

As we noted, it is not within the realm of possibility for the school board, or the Department, to cut elsewhere to ‘find’ that money to ‘invest.’  Invest, as you know, simply means spend in these circumstances.

So in all likelihood, the Department, with board approval, will propose a $2.5 million increase in the annual budget for this purpose, along with the other usual increases.  At today’s going rate,  $2.5 million a year equates to about an 8% increase in the property tax rate.  Add that to the other increases always in the hopper, and you can’t help but be really excited!

                                   

Right?

Then there’s the second PS, attendant to the post on the Metro Bus possibility.

We wondered to ourselves what $200,000 a year is equivalent to if it was a payment on a bond issue.  So we checked with a competent authority in such matters, and here’s what we can tell you.

Depending on the interest rates, and the amortization term (10, 15, 20 years), $200.000 would ‘service’ bonded debt somewhere in the range of $1.5 to $3.0 million.  So $200,000 is nothing to sneeze at.

As we pondered this, we also wondered why consideration isn’t being given to chatting with Concord Coach, which already runs bus service between Portland and Brunswick (and points north and south of those two end points), to see if they might find interest in expanding their service to meet the same needs.

                         

Hell, who knows; they might even have a way to approach it that doesn’t require direct public subsidy. 

Not that anybody would find merit in such an idea.  After all, community is the name of the game, right?  Shared sponsorship, shared indebtedness, shared payments.

                                                

Gotta love it!  Even the shared pride part.

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,schools,buses,budgets

Brunswick School Department: grabbing the bull by the tail

   

Sometime ago, we had a poster that hung on the back door of our office, so we only saw it when we arrived in the morning and hung up our jacket.  Or when we shut the door for a private meeting with associates or customers or both.  It showed W.C. Fields in a classic pose, with the caption “There comes a time in the affairs of man when he has to grab the bull by the tail and face the situation.”

That image is seared in our mind, and we’re pretty sure we’ve referred to it before here on Side.  It seems especially appropriate to an article appearing in this week’s Forecaster.  We don’t know if you saw it, and to be Frank, you’d probably be happier if you haven’t, though less informed.

We’re not going to dwell at length on it; we’re just going to highlight a few passages we believe corroborate positions we’ve expressed over the years, and exemplify the systemic in- competencies in our school system governance.  Which means ever increasing budgets and taxes, and ever decreasing performance and accountability.

We’ll start here:

The five-point plan, proposed by district officials last month, calls for an annual investment in repairs to existing buildings,…..

Board members Joy Prescott, Corinne Perreault and Janet Connors did not attend the meeting.

(Board Member Rich Ellis) acknowledged that the department needs to take immediate action on several maintenance and repair issues in the town's aging schools…

A repair plan proposed by Facilities Director Paul Caron last month called for a $2.5 million annual investment in school buildings.

Caron said that $500,000 should be reserved to maintain Brunswick High School and Harriot Beecher Stowe Elementary School, the newest buildings, while $1 million should be directed to fix issues at Brunswick Junior High School and Coffin Elementary School. Another $1 million would be set aside in reserve to help pay for future projects.

The plan approved Tuesday calls for staff to develop a long-term financial plan to fund the repairs. According to estimates provided by the department's architects from Portland Design Team, basic repairs for the BJHS and Coffin could cost about $5 million.

Damn; that’s nearly half the article!  We’ve asserted for years that stewardship of Department facilities has been largely non-existent; that the SOP for school departments nationwide is to let facilities fall apart, on the assumption that the taxpaying public is easy prey for replacing ‘worn and crumbling facilities’ with new ones, rather than prizing diligent care of existing ones.

The time frame involved, nominally 40 years, is beyond the cognizance/interest range of the average resident and citizen, so it’s very easy to characterize things as ‘sneaking up on us.’

As we see it, the statements cited above more than confirm our suspicions.  They as much as say that facility maintenance has been, for all intents and purposes, ignored in favor of other spending priorities.  We might add that the same malady infects other areas of our local governance, like buildings, roads, etc.

We should try to give you a laugh at this point, so here are some humorous lines from the article:

"I don't think we want to do short-term facilities planning without some vision of where we're going to be 40 years from now, 20 years from now," McCarthy said. "We've got to do that work, and that work isn't done."

Superintendent Paul Perzanoski said adopting the plan is a necessary step in formulating a longer-term facilities plan.

"There's no way you can do this correctly without doing that," he said.

To which we say, who woke you all up?

Next, let’s consider the capacity issue:

It seemed earlier this year that the board was aiming to construct a new elementary school to help ease the threat of overcrowding.

Overcrowding?  Need we remind you that this very same school board, and Department staff, are the ones that shut down Longfellow School, Hawthorne School, and Jordan Acres School as functioning assets that were much beloved by those whose children attended them? 

The first two are still functioning as useful assets; the last is a perfect example of how benign neglect (not shoveling snow off the roof) can force a community to cough up $25 million or so to replace a facility that had been working just fine a year before.  Unless you didn’t like the design, which adhered to the advice of recognized professional experts of the era in which that building was constructed.

Now for the punch line:

The plan approved Tuesday calls for staff to develop a long-term financial plan to fund the repairs.

Here’s the only possible plan: they spend, we pay.  And the ‘plan’ they devise will not reduce spending anywhere.  It will only add to spending.

They shut down three old schools and replaced them with one new hyper-cost effective one.  How much did spending go down because of that?  Enrolment declined by 1,000 when the base closed; how much did staffing contract, or spending decline because of that shrinkage in the ‘customer base?’

The only solution that lies ahead is symbolized by our long forgotten assistant:

                                    

We might be a bit grumpier than usual tonight, but holding the toe-touch position for extended periods has a way of doing that to us.

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,taxes,school department,school board

The wheels on a bus go blank blank blank…

You may remember that a few months ago, in this post:

http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/08/other-side-alert-bolo-for-bbt-of-tne.html

we mentioned emerging discussions about Metro Bus service running from Portland north to Freeport, with a number of stops in between.

We speculated that the very thought of such service could easily cause hyperventilation, or worse, by our favorite Downeaster supporters, the Brunswick Bobbsey Twins:

                     

As Phate would have it, Chance led us to discover a related new development that could, prepare yourselves, reach as far north as BRUNSWICK!!  Shirley, the very thought of such a possibility must cause palpitations of the most troublesome sort among the choo choo chognoscenti (sick.)

In readying ourselves for a brief statement to the town council this coming Monday, we discovered that the agenda includes this item:

135. The Town Council will discuss the possibility of the Greater Portland METRO Bus providing commuter rides to and from Brunswick, and will determine if any future action is needed. (Chair Pols)

You’ll find the agenda and the associated ‘packet’ with detailed backup info here: http://www.brunswickme.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Agenda-Packet-November-17-2014.pdf

Once you open that document, go to page 64 and the pages that follow, and you’ll find all the exciting details.  Including the fact that without ‘free money’ from elsewhere, the service could cost Brunswick (we taxpayers) $200,000 a year, or about $4,000 per week.

That may sound like a lot, but as you know from being a loyal reader, that’s roughly the amount we suspect Amtrak pays Brunswick Taxi for shuttling crews back and forth between Brunswick and Portland twice a day.  Peanuts, that is, among the governing class.  Come to think of it, why hasn’t Brunswick Taxi submitted a proposal of their own?  BDC stands ready, we assume, to provide whatever ‘seed capital’ is required to make the dream come true.

Note when you read the material how carefully everyone tip-toes around the issue of possibly competing with the Downeaster.  We wouldn’t want market demand and competition to enter into the equation, would we?  Better we should let our betters decide how to serve us, than we ourselves.

          

On the other hand, it’s just a damn bus, for guards sake!

As for us, we immediately take off on flights of fancy when such news surfaces.  Taxpayers are already subsidizing the Downeaster (and Amtrak overall) with vast sums on an annual basis.  NNEPRA’s service alone runs at an operating loss of around $8 million per year.

Under the circumstances, we wonder why the town council isn’t considering $4,000 in weekly subsidies for the gasoline costs of residents.  Or perhaps the construction of a municipally operated carwash to service resident’s vehicles, with a subsidy of the same amount.  We’d really appreciate $2 weekly car washes, courtesy of our benevolent overseers.  Shirley that’s a worthy benefit of choosing to live here in the wealthiest little town in America?  We’d even be willing to drop off our pay per bag trash at the carwash, to save the cost of picking it up.  Synergy; we’re all over it.

We look forward to great frugality and perspicacity being displayed in Monday’s discussion; it’s our right.

Just like $2 car washes and having someone else pay for most of our train or bus ride are our right.

Right?

                             

By the way, the smoking lamp will not be lit at the council meeting, or on board the transit service, no matter who makes THEIR wheels go round with YOUR money.

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,transit,buses,trains