MOUNTAIN DIVISION RAIL STUDY REPORT ON POTENTIAL USES AND IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Maine Department of Transportation Office of Freight Transportation Prepared by: HNTB Corporation DECEMBER, 2007 Mountain Division Rail Study Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION E-1 II HISTORICAL CONTEXT E-1 III CURRENT STATUS AND USE OF THE MOUNTAIN DIVISION E-2 IV EXISTING CONDITION OF RAILROAD (Portland to North Conway – 60 miles) E-2 A. Track and Roadbed E-2 B. Bridges and Major Culverts E-3 V. FREIGHT OPPORTUNITIES E-4 VI. PASSENGER OPPORTUNITIES E-8 A. Summary E-8 B. Commuter Rail Service E-8 C. Rolling Stock Options and Costs E-10 D. Tourist/Excursion Service E-11 E. Capital Cost Summary for Excursion/Tourist to Conway, NH E-13 F. Excursion Service Operating Cost and Revenue E-15 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS E-15 CHAPTER 1 – HISTORICAL BACKGROUND I. HISTORICAL CONTEXT 1 A. A Difficult Passage 1 B. The Lure of the Lakes 2 II. THE PORTLAND AND OGDENSBURG, A DREAM NEVER FULFILLED 4 A. The Grand Trunk Railroad 4 B. The Portland and Ogdensburg 5 C. Later History of the Three Components of the Portland and Ogdensburg 8 III. BRANCHING NORTHWARD 9 IV. OVERVIEW OF RAILROAD ISSUES THAT FAVORED MOUNTAIN DIVISION OPERATION UNTIL 1983 12 A. Division of Revenue 12 B. Canadian Differential 13 V. CURRENT SITUATION IN THE NORTH COUNTRY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AND VERMONT 14 VI. HISTORIC TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON MOUNTAIN DIVISION AND ST. JOHNSBURY INTERCHANGE 15 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 1 – PAST FREIGHT TRAFFIC VOLUMES 17 CHAPTER 2 – RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDITION REPORT I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Roadbed 2 B. Ballast 2 Maine Department of Transportation HNTB Corporation Office of Freight Transportation Page TC-1 December, 2007 Mountain Division Rail Study Table of Contents C. Tie Condition and Assessment 3 D. Rail 6 E. Other Track Material (OTM) 7 F. Turnouts 8 G. Grade Crossings 11 H. Sidings and Passing Tracks 13 I. Geometrics 14 CHAPTER 3 – BRIDGE CONDITION REPORT I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. BRIDGE INSPECTION FINDINGS 1 III CULVERTS 13 IV. BRIDGE RATINGS 15 V. ESTIMATED REHABILITATION COST 15 CHAPTER 4 – COST ESTIMATES – TRACK & ROW I. INTRODUCTION ` 1 II. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 2 A. Field Inspections 2 B. Comments on Condition Related to Costs and Cost Summary 2 C. Tie Condition Issues 4 D. Rail and Joint Bars 4 E. Grade Crossings 4 F. Automatic Highway Crossing Warning Systems 5 G. Bridges 6 H. Rail Anchors 6 I. Tie Plates 6 J. Rail 6 K. Net Salvage Value 6 III. ESTIMATE TABLES 7 Estimate Tables for Class 1, 2 and 3 Main Line Track Rehabilitation - Following Page 7 CHAPTER 5 – FREIGHT RAIL OPPORTUNITIES I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Past Local Traffic on the Mountain Division 1 B. Realities of Rail Freight in New England 2 C. Current Statistical Data on Maine Railroads 5 II DETERMINATION OF POTENTIAL FREIGHT TRAFFIC OPPORTUNITIES 6 A. Options for a Potential Freight Operator 6 B. Methodology of Search for Potential Freight Shippers and Consignees 7 C. An Existing Model for Operation of the Mountain Division as Short Line RR 8 III. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL FREIGHT TRAFFIC OPPORTUNITIES Maine Department of Transportation HNTB Corporation Office of Freight Transportation Page TC-2 December, 2007 Mountain Division Rail Study Table of Contents AND DETERMINATION OF VOLUMES AND REVENUES 10 A. Commodity and Volume Estimates 10 B. Quantifying the Potential Freight Operation 16 C. Freight Volume and Revenue Estimates 17 D. Anticipated Operating Costs 19 IV. OTHER COSTS REQUIRED FOR FREIGHT ONLY OPERATION 22 A. Assumed Freight Operation 23 B. Additional Facilities Required 24 C. Current Rail Trail 25 V. COST SUMMARY OF FREIGHT-ONLY OPERATION 25 CHAPTER 6 - PASSENGER RAIL OPPORTUNITIES I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Commuter Rail – A Good Choice for Many Cities 1 II. ASSESSING COMMUTER RAIL RIDERSHIP 3 A. Fundamental Criteria for a Commuter Rail Service 3 B. Demographics of Mountain Division Corridor versus Other Commuter Rail Operations 3 C. Brief Description of Other Commuter Rail Operations Used for Comparison 5 D. Comparison of Demographic and Commuting Demographics. 8 E. Population Density Demographics 13 F. Employment Density 15 G. Estimating Potential Commuter Rail Ridership on the Mountain Division 16 III. ASSESSING TOURIST/EXCURSION POSSIBILITIES 18 A. A Significant Tourist Destination on the Mountain Division 18 B. The “Land Cruising” Concept 18 C. Requirements for Tourist Oriented Rail Trips 19 D. Initial Excursion Options on the Mountain Division 19 IV QUANTIFYING COST OF POTENTIAL PASSENGER RAIL OPTIONS 21 A. Potential Operating Schedules 21 B. Schedule Samples 22 C. Defining a Commuter Rail System 25 D. Stations and Layover Facilities 26 E. Passing Sidings 28 F. Additional Automatic Highway Crossing Warning Systems 29 G. DTMF Remote Control Turnouts and Switch Heaters 29 H. Layover Facility and Maintenance Shops 29 I. Current Rail Trail 29 V. CAPITAL COST SUMMARY FOR COMMUTER RAIL OPERATION 30 VI. CAPITAL COST SUMMARY FOR TOURIST/EXCURSION SERVICE TO NORTH CONWAY, NH 31 VII. ROLLING STOCK OPTIONS AND COSTS 32 VIII. COMMUTER RAIL OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUE 33 A. Operating Costs 34 Maine Department of Transportation HNTB Corporation Office of Freight Transportation Page TC-3 December, 2007 Mountain Division Rail Study Table of Contents B. Estimated Revenues 35 IX. EXCURSION SERVICE OPERATING COST AND REVENUE 35 CHAPTER 7 – EXTERNAL BENEFITS AND FUNDING SOURCES I. EXTERNALITIES OF TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS 1 II. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES 2 III. QUALITY OF LIFE 2 IV. PUBLIC FINANCE OPTIONS 3 A. Introduction 3 B. Public Funding Sources 4 C. Other Federal Programs 5 D. Public/Private Partnerships 5 Maine Department of Transportation HNTB Corporation Office of Freight Transportation Page TC-4 December, 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mountain Division Rail Study Executive Summary I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Report is to investigate the present condition, potential use of and probable implementation costs for freight and/or passenger services on the 50 mile Mountain Division Rail Corridor within Maine and a 10 mile segment within New Hampshire, to Intervale, within the town of Conway. The essential findings of the Report and summaries of potential implementation costs are included in this summary. II. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The Mountain Division name came to be in the early years of the 20th century when the railroad came under the control of the Maine Central Railroad. Prior to that time, the Mountain Division was known as the Portland and Ogdensburg Railroad, chartered in Maine in 1867 with construction starting in 1869. The original concept of the P&O was never fully realized. Insufficient funds, other railroads that blocked completion of key sections in northwestern Vermont and across the northern reaches of Lake Champlain, and the fact that Ogdensburg never became a major port; all conspired against realization of the ambitious plan. The route did exist, but never under the control of a single carrier. By the early part of the 20th century, the expanding Maine Central Railroad absorbed the P&O between Portland and St. Johnsbury, Vermont, a distance of 131 miles, together with a line branching north from Whitefield, New Hampshire deep into Quebec. At St. Johnsbury, the Maine Central connected to the St. Johnsbury and Lake Champlain RR west across the top of Vermont (a piece of the original P&O concept) and a north-south route of the Canadian Pacific RR. The Canadian Pacific had leased this line from the Boston & Maine in 1926 with purchase in 1946. The CP line north out of St. Johnsbury turns west after exiting the top of Vermont, passes through Montreal and then west with connections back into the U. S. in the Detroit area. History now informs us that the CP route was the major outlet for the Mountain Division freight traffic, not the original conceived route west from St. J. The Mountain Division from Portland to St. Johnsbury seems to purposely avoid any major population or industrial centers. As a result, there never was significant freight or passenger traffic1 generated along the line. Instead, the Mountain Division functioned mostly as what is known as a “bridge” or “overhead” route for freight traffic in and out of Maine to the U. S. Midwest. Volume levels of this overhead traffic actually increased over time reaching a peak in the 1970’s and holding up fairly well to 1982, the last full year of operation of the Mountain Division. The relatively high volume (about 16% of total Maine Central carloads in 1972) of overhead traffic using this difficult route was due mostly to two factors: 1. The Maine Central got a longer haul and better division of revenue on cars routed this way rather than interchanging to the Boston & Maine at South Portland (Rigby Yard). 1 Except during the last half of the 19th century and early 20th century when in summer, large numbers of patrons came to and from the White Mountain resort hotels on passenger trains. Maine Department of Transportation HNTB Corporation Office of Freight Transportation Page E-1 December, 2007 Mountain Division Rail Study Executive Summary 2. For many years, there existed a “Canadian Differential”; that is a lower cost freight charge on some volume of rail freight moving in and out of Canada. So Maine shippers enjoyed a lower freight rate using this slower route to and from the U. S. Midwest via Canada. Local freight traffic along the line was always very minimal, the exception being the Portland/Westbrook end, a small paper mill in Gilman, Vermont and interchange to the Boston & Maine Railroad at Whitefield, mostly for traffic to and from the paper mills at Berlin and Groveton. From the mid 1940’s till the end of passenger service in April of 1958, passenger service was limited to a single round trip from Portland to St.