Haircuts, oil, and other little things

Yesterday morning, we awoke early enough to head over to Leo’s Sustainable, Organic barber shop before the appointed opening hour.  This time, we were first in the parking lot, and we spent just under an hour on premise, if you count waiting time and clipping time, which is a modern day record for us.

              

As punishment for our early arrival, we had to endure a bit more verbal abuse from the proprietor than usual, but we dished it back pretty good.

The most painful part of our experience was when Leo told us he had just taken delivery of a load of heating oil for $3.00 a gallon.  Wow, we thought, since just a day or two earlier we had a delivery of our own, on our ‘fixed price’ delivery plan at a price 23% per gallon higher!

This is the gamble you take when going with a contract for a year.  Sometimes you make out, sometimes you don’t.  It’s like haircuts.  This time, we had far less growth for Leo to shear off, but he had the unmitigated nerve to charge us just as much as he did last time. And he laughed as he did.

We got home and checked cash oil prices on the internet, and sure enough, heating oil is widely available at $3.00 a gallon at this very moment.  So if you’re in a position to do so, you might consider phoning a local supplier ASAP and filling your tank(s) at this almost unheard of price in recent years.

The money you save might help offset the increase in your property taxes. 

As we’ve learned over the years here in our perfect little town, if one clip job doesn’t get you, another one will.  You might as well relax and enjoy it.

Technorati Tags: oil,taxes,haircuts

In The Maine Wire: Downeaster-“Obama on Wheels”

                       

Silly gooses that we are, those engine windshields remind us of other ‘see-through’ panels we glimpse all too often these days.

                           

The ‘rose colored glasses’ caption only heightens the analogy.

And so it is that we submitted a treatise on this theme to The Maine Wire, which published the item today.  You can read it here: http://wp.me/p4YzlB-2iv

We hope these excerpts will inspire you to read the entire column at the link provided:

For those who aren’t aware, in spite of its name, NNEPRA is a creature of Maine State Government, defined statutorily in 1995 during the Angus King administration. The law mandates that NNEPRA create passenger train service in Maine, bypassing any thought of analyzing public transit needs, and then synthesizing and proposing a publicly driven approach, if indeed one was warranted.

In December of last year, The Maine Wire published an article I wrote with a friend, “Why Obamacare is Off the Rails.” This connection with railroads was a bit of editorial whimsy. Especially in contrast to the hypothesis I offer here: that the Downeaster and its ‘administration’ embody the very essence of Obama the man, and the establishment that surrounds him.

We begin with this comment in a Wall Street Journal column: “’Nudge’ is a favorite Obama slogan for government encouraging citizens to do what government thinks is best for them.” Speaking bluntly, the Downeaster has been forced upon we citizens from the very beginning, without regard to underlying viability or sustainability, because government knows best. “Push” seems more accurate than “nudge.”

In a recent Weekly Standard article, we read that for Obama, things were going fine, and “like a burst of bad weather, the winds blew, the skies opened, and things went to hell. Mysterious forces conspired against him, terrible setbacks occurred for no reason, “ etc. This fits perfectly; like the failure to capture competitive federal grant funding in 2012 and 2013 (and maybe this year?), and the ‘unexpected’ realities of New England winters, which reeked havoc upon rails and ties on which $70 million or more had been spent in recent years, and for whose fitness for Amtrak use NNEPRA is responsible. Regardless, in an article this spring, Patricia Quinn, NNEPRA’s Executive Director, was reported on this way:

Addressing the authority’s board of directors on Monday at a meeting in Portland, Quinn said that Pan Am Railways, which owns the tracks between Brunswick and the Massachusetts border, has been replacing 2,000 rail ties. The ties were damaged due to age and the repeated freeze-thaw cycles that occurred during this year’s extended winter.

“The railroad was not left in good shape after the winter,” she said

Note the passive voice. Given a regulatory mandate to inspect the track a minimum of twice a week, you’d think ‘someone’ might have noticed problems before a crisis could sneak up on the system.

- See more at: http://www.themainewire.com/2014/09/schaeffer-amtrak-downeaster-obama-wheels/#sthash.kEHDHWzV.dpuf

We hope you’ll give the column a full read.  What else are you gonna do on a chilly fall evening that could be as amusing?

Technorati Tags: Maine Wire,Amtrak,Downeaster

An article worth reading….about circumstances similar to what Brunswick faces

             

An interesting article crossed our desk today.  While not exactly the same circumstances as in town Brunswick residents face as NNEPRA plans to construct their huge MLF just over their back fences, it certainly provides relevant insights into what others have experienced, especially as compared to what they were promised.

As such, it should give pause to those who think critically on plans and rhetoric attending to such publicly funded projects.

We’re simply going to post it here, without further commentary.

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

Eagle Tribune

Some relief for train station neighbors in Haverhill

Noisy trains to be replaced, other changes in Bradford studied

By Mike LaBella

mlabella@eagletribune.com | Posted 4 days ago

HAVERHILL — After years of complaints, neighbors of the Bradford train station hope to see changes that will eliminate noise and fumes which make their families uncomfortable.

Neighbors said the problems, which began in the late 1980s when the layover station began operating, have never been adequately addressed over the years, despite many promises made by train officials and local leaders.

At a meeting on Thursday with commuter rail officials and city leaders, neighbors said the ultimate solution is to move the layover station out of Bradford. However, they said they were happy with some of the changes proposed by the MBTA and officials from Keolis Commuter Services, which handles maintenance of the trains.

One short-term solution offered involves removing as many as four “screamer” trains that park overnight at the Bradford station. Officials said these particularly noisy F40 diesel locomotives create a screaming sound when started up and during idling. The officials said these noisy trains will be immediately replaced with newer models that are less noisy and emit fewer pollutants.

To reduce noise and emissions even further, MBTA officials said they plan to put as many as four new locomotives into service in Haverhill next spring. The new units would even less noisy and replace the trains that replace the “screamer” units.

State Sen. Kathleen O’Connor Ives and state Reps. Linda Dean Campbell and Diana DiZoglio scheduled Thursday’s meeting so neighbors could directly discuss their concerns with commuter rail officials.

Campbell, D-Methuen, who also represents part of Bradford, said she planned to formally ask the MBTA to look into moving the layover station out of Bradford and into an industrial area in the Merrimack Valley.

“We want to look at other layover options,” Campbell said. “I don’t think we should overlook that from a fresh perspective with regional planning.”

Keolis signed a contract on July 1 with the MBTA to begin operating the commuter rail system. The system was previously operated and maintained by the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Rail Company.

Neighbors Bert LaCerte Jr., Mary Zappala and her son Joseph Zappala attended the meeting.

Bradley Kesler, chief railroad officer for the MBTA, presented a short PowerPoint presentation outlining what times of day and how long trains are allowed to idle at the Bradford station. It triggered an immediate response from LaCerte, who along with other neighbors have been battling the MBTA for years in hopes of reducing train idling times and emissions.

“The site is inappropriate. It’s so close to homes,” LaCerte said. “Because it’s in the wrong place, it creates an enormous problem for the neighborhood.”

LaCerte told Kesler that the city should never have allowed the Bradford layover station to be created.

Joseph Zappala, whose backyard on Front Street overlooks the layover station, said the idling times indicated in Kesler’s presentation are not always adhered to.

“Some operators leave the engines on high idle when they pull into the station and let off passengers,” he said.

Gerald Francis, deputy general manager for Keolis, referred to his company as “the new kids on the block” and told neighbors that part of the process is to involve residents in finding solutions. He invited Joseph Zappala to be part of a team looking for those solutions.

City Councilor William Macek praised Keolis officials for responding to neighbors’ concerns.

“I’m glad there’s a new group here,” Macek said. “We didn’t get any satisfaction for 20 years.”

Joseph Zappala said the most disruptive times for train idling are at 1 a.m., when trains pull into the layover station for the night, then again at 4 a.m., when they start engines in preparation for morning runs into Boston. He said the idling lasts two hours or more on many weekday mornings between 4 and 7 a.m. and causes noise and fumes.

“The idling is for an extremely long time,” he said. “Why can’t they just shut it down?”

Wood School area neighbor Dominick Pallaria, holding several documents in his hand, told officials that health issues are also a big concern and that tests show high levels of pollutants in that area of the city.

“There’s an impact to people’s health in that area,” he said.

City Councilor Melinda Barrett and Mayor James Fiorentini asked train officials what they could to do reduce the impact of noise on neighbors, such as installing sound deadening mats or a sound wall.

Kesler told them that he does not have anyone on his staff who is an expert in this area, but that “we can work on keeping the screamers out.”

Neighbors said that in addition to the noise caused by idling trains, vibrations cause their windows to rattle.

Steven Adkins, director of maintenance for MassDOT’s Rail & Transit Division, told neighbors that commuter trains are following regulatory guidelines in terms of train idling times. But he said from what neighbors told him, he wanted to get to the bottom of the problem.

“This is an awakening for me,” he said. “I’ll want a detailed understanding of who is working and when and who is idling. I want facts.”

City Councilor Mary Ellen Daly O’Brien said regulatory rules aren’t the issue and that neighbors want their concerns about noise and pollution addressed.

“To think that it’s taken this long is discouraging,” she said.

Mary Zappala told officials that their promises sounded much like those that were made 20 years ago and questioned whether any significant changes will happen. She said if neighbors were told years ago that a layover station was going to be created near their homes, she would have laid down on the tracks in protest.

“We have lived under terrible conditions in our own homes,” she said. “Do we have hope? No. Do we feel something will be done? No.

“I’m 85... I can’t wait another 20 years for the trains to leave that station,” she said.

Thomas Mulligan, general manager for Keolis’ Boston Commuter Operations, told Zappala that following the meeting he and other officials planned to do a visit the Bradford station to inspect it.

“If you really want to get rid of the noise, you have to move the noise,” Mulligan said.

Following the meeting, LaCerte and Joseph Zappala said the changes proposed were encouraging, but they will wait and see what happens.

Zappala said that in the past, he’s been put in contact with railway officials, but that over time those officials end up being relocated and communication with them ends.

“We’re going to be in the loop this time and hopefully these guys won’t be shuffled around,” Zappala said.

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

You can find the article here: http://m.eagletribune.com/news/local_news/article_1468e0f2-0048-5f46-bf3a-ac4706258ee9.html?mode=jqm

Technorati Tags: MLF,Layover facility,Amtrak,Downeaster,Haverhill

Downeaster Ridership: a quick question (or more)

There appears to be a much confusion in reporting on ridership statistics for the Downeaster operated by NNEPRA.  Even reports in the ‘mainstream media’ contain conflicting figures, and cast doubts upon the methods used to accumulate and officially report on public support of the service.

    

The concern of course is that ridership is the single metric used to trumpet success of the service.  NNEPRA and their lobbying group love to hype the numbers in every public setting they can.

So we have a question or two to pose.

First, if we purchase a round trip ticket between Brunswick and Portland, but don’t use it, do we he have an effect on ridership totals?

Second, if we do use it, how do we affect ridership totals?  Do we represent an increase of two in total ridership: one for the trip from Brunswick to Portland, and one for the trip back to Brunswick?  Or do we represent an increase of four: one departing Brunswick, one arriving Portland, one departing Portland, and one arriving Brunswick?

We hope, of course, that we don’t represent an increase of six total, the four just mentioned, plus a rider at the Freeport station in each direction.

We have no doubt that the system and NNEPRA are highly motivated to maximize the ridership totals, and their ‘growth.’  But until the same rigor and discipline is applied to ridership figures certified accounting methods required of financial reporting, we simply can’t be sure.

                  

Especially since there is virtually no public disclosure of PRECISELY how ridership information is collected and reported.

Technorati Tags: NNEPRA,Downeaster,Amtrak,TrainRiders Northeast

Eldridge selected as new Town Manager

                             

Brunswick now has a new “Mr. Manager.”

John Eldridge won the job in a 5-3 vote, with Councilor John Richardson absent due to ‘another commitment.’  Suzan Wilson, Jerry Favreau, and Dave Watson voted against Eldridge.

You learn some interesting things in Augusta.  Like when to be in Rockland.

Congratulations to Mr. Eldridge.

An update:

     

In what surely ranks as one of the finest examples of chutzpah ever uttered by town councilors, the Ostrich report on the Eldridge vote contains this passage:

Wilson and Councilor David Watson said their votes in opposition were because they said the full council ought to have been present during the vote.

We’re beside Side’s selves on this one.  Shirley that’s the way the votes will be seen by those in the know. 

                               

Note that this time, Bert didn’t echo Ernie; they voted the same, but used different reasons for their stance.

 

Technorati Tags: Brunswick,Town Manager

Breaking News….well, not really.

                   

We have ‘breaking news’ for you, at least in one sense.  But ‘breaking’ is not the same as ‘surprising.’

Several days ago, we posted an item that looked like this:

Breaking News: NNEPRA fails to win 2014 TIGER 6 Grant

A little over a month ago, we posted these two items:

http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/08/sausage-letters-and-other-pork-related.html

http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/08/gravy-trains-business-of-year-capitol.html

in which we went to some length giving you background info on NNEPRA’s application for a 2014 TIGER 6 Grant.

The basics are shown in this table from the Grant Narrative document:

To refresh you, the overall context here is the “Downeaster Service Optimization Project,” with a total project estimate of $30 million.  As you can see, NNEPRA took the position that they already have $16 million in hand, and applied for $14 million as their Grant Request to complete the funding profile.

In an announcement here http://www.dot.gov/tiger dated today, September 12, 2014, the 2014 awards have been announced, and NNEPRA was not among the winning applications.

The ‘breaking news’ is that more than a week after the announcement, no media outlet, as we’ve already said, finds the loss of $14 million in funds on a $30 million project newsworthy.

We’re reminded, strangely enough, of the story about the $247,000 totally forgivable loan to Brunswick Taxi.  A story that was broken on these pages, and only appeared in ‘mainstream media outlets’ weeks later.  Because they were so damned busy carrying other stories that were far more important to local readers, and there’s a shortage of newsprint and ink.

                                  

So thanks, Yogi.  You’re a great American.

    

And to the conventional media outlets guarding our freedoms and our interests, time for you to give us the ball and head for the showers. 

You’ve lost your “stuff.”  And we’re worried you might soil your bed.

Technorati Tags: The Press,TIGER Grants,NNEPRA

Sidely’s “Believe it or not……”

Many in our midst consider us an incorrigible anti-government type, and wonder why we come to the discussion table with an instinctive distrust of spending by government authorities, whether at the municipal, state, or federal level.  Or by those sketchy and vaporous entities known as ‘quasi-governmental agencies.’

Look no further for an explanation than this news report we came across today.  It turns out that MRRA, the “Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority,’' has won a $1.5 Million grant to construct a new, 6,500 sf storage facility for snow-removal equipment.

MRRA, we need to remind you, is in the same category as the Maine Turnpike Authority, the Maine State Housing Authority, and lest we forget, the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority.  Which is to say it is an organization with virtually no legitimate oversight or accountability, and which is praised at every turn for its ‘remarkable contribution to economic development.’  As if the massive funds it expends come from someone else other than you and your neighbors.  And Side.

In other words, it subsists on OPM: “other people’s money.”  Which leads to a particularly cavalier understanding of the term ‘value.’

If you’re the type who keeps a calculator nearby, you might be offended by the fact that a 6,500 sf shed could cost $1.5 Million, or $230 per square foot.  At that rate, a commodious 2500 sf  house would cost nearly $600,000.  That house, of course, would include windows, a basement, plumbing, a kitchen, and any number of other complicated aspects of a family domicile.

Shocking as this all may seem, the worst is yet to come.  And remember, we’re talking here about a place to park snow removal equipment under a roof.  (We feel obliged to tell you that we keep our convertible John Deere lawnmower/snow blower in a shed on the order of 200 sf, along with all our other yard maintenance paraphernalia.)

The ‘worst’ is this passage in the news report:

“The Navy, when it operated the air base on the site, did have a a dedicated snow removal building, but that was found to be larger than needed for civilian use of the airfield.”

To which we reply, in the modern vernacular, AYFKM? 

There is an existing shed for storing such equipment, but it’s TOO BIG?  So you’re going to build a NEW ONE?  For $1.6 MILLION FREAKING DOLLARS?

We suppose that when we eventually sell our home, if the new buyer has a snow blower smaller than our John Deere, he’ll feel it necessary to build a smaller shed, rather than use the one we built.

Could someone please get real?

OK, enough beating on that dead horse; let’s move on to the next one, and see if it stands up and rides off into the sunset.

Nobody, we repeat NOBODY, with the exception of Side, has reported on NNEPRA’s third consecutive rejection of a TIGER Grant Application.  We told you about that in this post: http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/09/breaking-news-nnepra-fails-to-win-2014.html

We set the stage on the TIGER 6 Grant subject in these posts:

http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/08/sausage-letters-and-other-pork-related.html

http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/08/gravy-trains-business-of-year-capitol.html

For the life of us, we can’t understand why not one single media outlet in Maine has reported on this outcome, which renders NNEPRA short of $14 Million in their proposed $30 Million “Downeaster Service Optimization Project,” a capital plan for only one purpose – expanding service between Portland and Brunswick.

Apparently, the Bangor Daily News, the Portland Press Herald, the Brunswick Times Record, the Forecaster, and various others, don’t consider this meaningful news worthy of being reported to the general population.  What a great indication of their ‘government watchdog’ role in service to the general public.

On to the next item.  Even though we’re getting a bit tired at this late hour.

               

We told you of proposals to pilot commuter bus service in communities between Portland and Brunswick in this post: http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/08/other-side-alert-bolo-for-bbt-of-tne.html

Today we came across a news report stating that Freeport’s town council has given ‘strong support’ to the idea.  Not only that, but the numbers are looking better than initially estimated.

So lest you think a passenger train is the only alternative to  personal auto travel (or a horse and buggy for the more traditional among you), be advised that others are at work to compete with the highly subsidized Downeaster rail service.

Fill ‘em up, Pardner!

Alright; now we’re even MORE tired, but we have one more subject to discuss.  The Brunswick Bobbsey Twins, and many others, posting on published news articles, have stood up for NNEPRA’s commitment to complying with each and every environmental regulation associated with operation of the Downeaster.

We’re quick to admit that we’re not subject area experts in such things.  But we’re also not prone to tying our shorts in knots with the cabbage that fell off yesterday’s truck and wrapping them around the axle of the noon balloon as it arrives in Brunswick.

So we can’t help but wonder about this recent photo of a Downeaster engine being refueled at the Cedar Street “Park and Ride” lot just east of the Spring Street overpass, and just steps away from the front door of the MidCoast Hunger Prevention Program building.

Apparently the contractor doing the refueling is a licensed dealer from Massachusetts.  It remains to be seen whether that raises any issues or not.

But could someone please explain to us why a contractor from Massachusetts had to refuel a train at its northern most terminus in Maine, in a Park and RIde lot accessible to the general public, without any obvious means for containing spillage or any other hazardous consequences of such a procedure?

                            

We look first to NNEPRA, which operates the Downeaster.  Perhaps they’d say the train was ‘running on fumes,’ and had to be refueled in order to make it back to Portland.  To which we would say, ‘what; these things don’t have fuel gauges?’  And there are no fuel suppliers in the nearby area?

Even more, given the ‘regular’ schedule for Downeater service, isn’t there a standard operating procedure for seeing that trains are refueled on a predictable basis?

Which leads us to raise a question heard elsewhere recently:  “Is this any way to run a railroad?”

Technorati Tags: Amtrak,NNEPRA,MRRA,government,spending,OPM

Update News Alerts: Tuesday’s edition

As sometimes happens in this business, news can break after the initial story has been filed.  We strive, of course, to keep our efforts as fresh and up to date as we can.

Today we come to you with two such updates.

<p>The first has to do with this post: http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/09/considering-new-municipal-development.html, which we filed just yesterday.

The response to this story has exceeded all expectations, and we can tell you now with confidence that Freeport and Brunswick want this dump built.

Those words may sound a bit familiar, but it’s probably just your imagination.  We do trust that cognizant authorities will give the views of Freeport the consideration they deserve. </p>

Now for the second story, which relates to this post: http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/09/breaking-news-nnepra-fails-to-win-2014.html

In the post, we told you how NNEPRA had failed to win a $14 million TIGER 6 Grant from DOT, and how that would complicate their plans for a $30 million Service Optimization Project that deals with capital improvements between Portland and Brunswick, including the Maintenance and Layover Facility adjacent to the Bouchard Drive neighborhood.

According to other sources, however, this don’t make no never mind.  We read today in a posted comment by Benet Doneit to an article published yesterday in the PPH that:

“They have the funding secured through other sources.
Build it there, build it now.”

We’re not familiar with Mr. Doneit, but the name somehow rings a bell.  That aside, he appears closely connected to NNEPRA authorities and inside information.  Either that, or Mr. D has a lot of guile.

If Doneit is right, we can’t help but wonder whether NNEPRA has some legal exposure for not revealing their other funding sources in the TIGER application to DOT.  We’ll leave that to the attorneys to figure out.  We know they have several available to them for pro bono work.

Though some could be occupied on other ‘landmark’ legal cases.

Technorati Tags: Update,NNEPRA,dumps,Benet Doneit

<p>Officials considering new municipal development on Pleasant Hill Road

If you follow things here on Side, you know that Cape Brunswick is long on glorious opportunities to undertake major capital projects, and in the process, lift community pride to ever loftier levels.  One of those opportunities has to do with the rapidly expiring viability of the town dump (or ‘landfill,’ to those who call swamps ‘wetlands’ and puddles ‘vernal pools.’)

Relishing the irony of it all, we understand from one of our sources that town leaders are preparing to advance a proposal that a new dump to replace our aging and déclassé ‘land-fill’ be constructed in the vast open spaces along Pleasant Hill Road, just hundreds of yards from it’s intersection with Maine Street.

While you may not be aware of the specifics, our insider status affords us access to behind the scenes details, which we’re all too happy to share with you here.  Beginning with this artist’s concept for a ‘pleasant hill’ on Pleasant Hill Road.

According to early cocktail napkin sketch plans filed with the town planning office, the new project would be located on Pleasant Hill Road just west of Baribeau Drive, making it convenient to the major arterial intersection with Maine Street.  Some might wonder if Casella Waste Systems has a hand in this plan, but Side has no evidence of such.

“This has always been a defining intersection in Brunswick’s character” said JP1 and JP2, “and we think it’s time to bring the most important elements of our infrastructure right back to where we can savor them on a daily basis.”

The site has been used as a dumping location since the 1800’s, so it clearly qualifies as a historic dump site, according to one town official.  “What we’re proposing is entirely consistent with this historic use, and frankly, reaffirms Brunswick’s commitment to it’s unique heritage as preservationists and conservators of all that is important in our heritage.”

“We see no reason to desecrate pristine lands that serve as vital passage ways for native wildlife, when we have the resources right here close in to residential areas to replace our distant facility” said one local environmental advocate.

She added that the site along Bouchard Drive, much closer in town, would have been a perfect location for the new dump, but the tracks installed there get in the way.  “We wish it were the other way around,” she said, “that the dumps could be built along Bouchard, and the MLF could be built at Pleasant Hill and Maine.”

“But we understand that dreams can’t always come true.”

“We lobbied with the most powerful members of the town council,” our source told us, “but they were insistent that the reduction in carbon footprint resulting from an in town dumps” was enough to sway them.

Those who live in the Pleasant Hill neighborhood, especially those close to the Maine Street and Baribeau intersections, are expected to oppose the plan.

But others said those homeowners should have known better; that this is a classic NIMBY reaction.

 

“If you buy a home near a historic and vacant dumping field, you should know that it could easily become a major industrial dumping facility for the common good.”

“Suck it up for the greater advantage of Brunswick,” one local curmudgeon said.  “What makes her think her concerns should influence what goes on around here?”

One other resident said that in spite of assertions in the press, the fact that she owns property in the effected area does not expose her to ‘conflict of interest’ charges. 

All of which leaves us very confused, so we’ll be watching for the Bobbsey Twins to clarify things. </p>

Technorati Tags: MLF,NNEPRA,Amtrak,Bouchard Drive,Pleasant Hill

Looniness unending: a TrainLover’s ‘solution’ to the zombie economics of passenger rail

                

The more public discourse on passenger rail, particularly the Downeaster, carries on, and the more the dreamers sense that the dream is increasingly at risk, the greater the degree of looniness on display.  There are, to be sure, some leering leaders of the loudest loonies.

Just a few weeks ago, we posted this item as a prime example, in which one of the usual suspects attempted to fly without the benefit of wings.

Looniness unending: “the most successful train in the nation”

You may not have seen an article that appeared in the Portland paper over the weekend, but no matter. The article concludes with these words:

Wayne Davis, head of Trainriders/Northeast, a rail advocacy group that gathered 90,000 signatures in 1989 for a petition asking the state to restore passenger rail service in Maine, said the group historically avoids politics because it views train service as a nonpartisan issue.

But he said the LePage administration’s sudden strong interest in the permitting process for the layover facility might cause his group to organize rail activists to campaign against LePage in the governor’s race.

“We are not powerful, but it would be enough to put a bump in the road for someone who wants to get re-elected,” he said, adding that he thinks LePage is “tinkering with the most successful train in the nation.”

We quickly sliced and diced the assertion that the Downeaster is as he says; go back to the post to find out why his claim is ludicrous, and should relegate the speaker to a back bench position with all speechifying privileges summarily revoked.  Not to mention, of course, that the speaker seems to be advocating that relevant law be ignored and/or circumvented with a ‘most favored party waiver.’  No politics there, of course. or in threats of electioneering by the ‘non-profit’ organization he heads.

                            

Given the recent flurry of print media items related to Downeaster and NNEPRA circumstances, and the option to comment on line on these items, there has been no shortage of other examples of looniness, almost all from those lovesick with devotion to passenger rail travel.  The rest, with rare exception, are comments of the “you’re getting exactly what you deserve, you crybabies’' variety.

One of the former types caught our eye this week in discussion of an editorial in the Portland newspaper declaring the LePage administration is ‘off track’ on the MLF location issue in Brunswick.

A reader named Alan Burden, obviously a staunch supporter of passenger rail, was engaged in a bit of back and forth with another reader who questioned his claims of economic worthiness for passenger rail.  You’ll have to read the entire conversation to absorb it all, but this comment of Burden’s in particular seemed particularly loon-worthy.  We’ll quickly parse it for you here.(Emphasis, where present, is ours.)

“First, your arguments also apply to airplanes; yet we subsidize them. So NO, I'm not buying that nonsense from you. Sorry!”

Any mention of Amtrak/Downeaster subsidies almost always results in a “but Mom, everybody is doing it!” response.  As in distraction from the issue at hand.

“Next, I'm well aware of the standards. Guilford; now PanAm's tracks went from permitting 40 MPH freight train running to 60 MPH freight train running. So that is indeed a boon to freight movement, as it now moves faster and more trains can use the tracks. The more trains is due in part to the higher speeds, but also the increase in passing sidings that were built to accommodate the Downeaster.”

Grasping for straws to validate the massive Downeaster capital investment to date, with perpetual subsidy requirements.   More trains?  Care to back that up?  Freight trains running at 60 mph?  None of the freights we’ve seen running in the local area come anywhere close to such speeds.

“As for the amounts, consider that those improvements will last for many years. Far longer than the lanes on our highways will last at their much higher cost and much higher replacement values.”

Grasping at straws again, not to mention comparing the economic utilization of the highways to that of the rail trackage.

“And the Downeaster in 2013 carried just shy of 560,000 rides. That's "not claimed" but actual ticket sales.”

Ticket sales, for reasons explained in numerous prior citations, do not equate reliably to ridership.  That is part and parcel of the game played to maximize the PR value of the reported stats.

“As for the subsidies, first your number is too high.”

So Burden is informed enough to know that the subsidy figures cited were ‘too high,’ but doesn’t know enough to say what the correct numbers are. 

                 

“Second, get drivers to start paying more of their costs and NNEPRA will be able to raise fares and maintain current ridership levels, as driving won't appear falsely cheaper to people, and the subsidies will go down. Raise the fuel taxes enough and there will be no need to subsidize the Downeaster at all. It will cover its expenses via the fare box.”

Read this passage, and then read it again.  This man of the people asserts that the solution to this economic conundrum is to use government to elevate the price of bus, auto, and truck transport to levels that cause users to look for other options, and then, then…..raise the price of the rail based option to eliminate subsidies while ‘maintaining current ridership levels.’  We’re not sure whether Burden is a Professor of Economics at an esteemed academic institution, or a candidate for governor, congress, or president.

What a great solution.  Raise the price of every option through centralized state control of the market variables.  Readers seeing this must be truly grateful for his innovative thinking.

Amtrak's Northeast Corridor already does cover operating costs thanks to higher congestion levels and the hassles of getting to/from the airports miles outside of the city centers vs. the train station right downtown.

Perhaps Mr. Burden should check the fares between Philadelphia and Union Station DC, a distance roughly comparable to the Downeaster span. Suggesting that the transportation circumstances and needs along the Downeaster corridor are even remotely akin to the Northeast Corridor is simply incredulous. There's a reason you don't see or hear 'up to the minute' traffic reports in Maine.

In conclusion, the commenter and his fellow TrainLovers want to increase the utilization of ‘undead’ passenger rail service.  While there may be major metropolitan areas where passenger rail makes sense as one component of the overall transportation mix, the Downeaster corridor and the towns it serves are most assuredly not in that category.

Think of how many places you’ve had to run errands to this week in the course of your normal day to day life.  Can you imagine getting by without ready, efficient, and affordable personal auto transit?  Think about how many places you can fly to from nearby airports like Portland in the course of one day.  Can you imagine passenger rail competing with this mode of transit?

Think about international travel.  Passenger rail is not even remotely in the cards.

      

Let’s face it.  The era of widespread passenger rail travel is long gone, and for good reason.  It’s viability at this point in history is limited to making hobbyists happy, and providing a relief valve in urban mass transit.

Supporters will say that the age of HISPR is upon us….High Speed Passenger Rail.  Assuming that is, massive, and we mean massive, government infusion of speculative funding. 

We, on the other hand, feel obliged to remind you that the era of self-driving vehicles appears to be upon us.  What, pray tell, will be the effect of that evolution upon the overall tradeoffs in the economics and desirability of various modes of personal transportation?

                   

While we can’t be sure, we’re pretty confident it won’t drive ever greater demand for passenger rail service, which is what the most vocal loonies want us to believe.

Technorati Tags: Amtrak,Downeaster,train lovers

Breaking News: NNEPRA fails to win 2014 TIGER 6 Grant

A little over a month ago, we posted these two items:

http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/08/sausage-letters-and-other-pork-related.html

http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2014/08/gravy-trains-business-of-year-capitol.html

in which we went to some length giving you background info on NNEPRA’s application for a 2014 TIGER 6 Grant.

The basics are shown in this table from the Grant Narrative document:

To refresh you, the overall context here is the “Downeaster Service Optimization Project,” with a total project estimate of $30 million.  As you can see, NNEPRA took the position that they already have $16 million in hand, and applied for $14 million as their Grant Request to complete the funding profile.

In an announcement here http://www.dot.gov/tiger dated today, September 12, 2014, the 2014 awards have been announced, and NNEPRA was not among the winning applications.

We don’t know what specifically will follow this announcement, but on the face of things, the plan for funding the “Optimization Project,” including the Brunswick MLF, has been OBE’d, as we used to say in our business.

We’ll watch the news on your behalf to see how NNEPRA and TrainLovers/Northeast react.

Technorati Tags: TIGER Grants,NNEPRA,Brunswick,MLF,Downeaster