Portland to Conway Ski Trains?

[spring_mountain_high]

back on topic, i love the idea of ski trains, but if they can't make the denver-winter park ski train work, i don't think it would work anywhere...that is one awesome ride too

 

[BenedictGomez]

You're seriously characterizing a system that moves about a third of our nations freight, and close to half a billion passengers almost exclusively within the Northeast, as unimportant?

No.

A) AMTRAK isnt freight, it's passenger travel
B) I already stated that the train makes sense in the NE cooridor

Complete privatization isn't feasible on any major pieces of infrastructure. You will always need to draw from public money to get large capital projects done. Amtrak already covers operating expenses at the farebox on the NEC, its rehabbing one hundred year old track and wire that you need the grants for.

Disagree; - again, specifically on the Washington DC to Boston through NYC route. IIRC, that route pulls down something like a few hundred million dollars in profit per year. It absolutely would be profitable even after maintenance, labor, and all track costs and other operating expenses, etc.. If you could boot the Unions in a restructuring agreement and pay realistic benefits, which admittedly probably isnt realistic given the route goes through some of the most Union-dependent government states in America (DC, MD, NJ, NY, MA), it would be even more profitable. AMTRAK's labor costs are through the roof, not from the salaries, but from the bennies. I'm sure you could squeeze out a TON of efficiency improvements if it was completely privately run as well. Remember that famous story a few years ago that the AMTRAK snack bar was losing close to $100 MILLION per year? :-o Yeah, that aint happening if it sinks or swims on private $$$.

 

[SIKSKIER]

I find it hard to believe that in this current world of having the convience of your car at your disposal,that very many people would opt for being at the mercy of getting around without it after their arrival by train.I think there are very few people today that dont mind being confined to one place or else have to rent a car or other public transportation to explore outside a walking or trolley served village.I include myself.

 

[deadheadskier]

I find it hard to believe that in this current world of having the convience of your car at your disposal,that very many people would opt for being at the mercy of getting around without it after their arrival by train.I think there are very few people today that dont mind being confined to one place or else have to rent a car or other public transportation to explore outside a walking or trolley served village.I include myself.

I must be in the minority. When I travel, I prefer going to locations where I don't need a car.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I must be in the minority. When I travel, I prefer going to locations where I don't need a car.

All inclusive resorts? Major cities?

 

[deadheadskier]

All inclusive resorts? Major cities?

Both.

One of my favorite things about the AZ summit at Sugarloaf is not needing a car for all three days and getting around perfectly fine on the shuttle or walking.

 

[Bostonian]

Boy I don't know...there is a lot of work to do on the line between Portland and Conway, and then from Crawford's Notch onward. I also don't understand why they think this is viable considering that there is already a very strong and competitive line from Portland to Montreal (the St. Lawrence and Atlantic) that goes through Berlin and Island Pond. Les Otten ran ski trains from Portland to Sunday River for a few years before axing it.

Where are they getting the money? Railroads take a TON to build and maintain.



$60 million is a lot to raise.

That said, there are few east-west routes for traffic in Northern New England. Hell, the roads aren't really that good. And I also read that they are going to build train stations too? Wow...better add a bit more coin to the amount.

Would love to see it but it seems pretty ambitious.

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble but a ski train is not viable. Working in the transit biz, let's just say $60M is way too little for three states to do rail upgrades and installation. For the Fitchburg upgrades taking place, that is costing over $225M dollars. This does include new stations, double tracking, bridge repairs and etc... Furthermore, the ridership probably would not sustain the line as driving is economically cheaper for people looking to head north.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Furthermore, the ridership probably would not sustain the line as driving is economically cheaper for people looking to head north.

Same for NYC to Vermont. When I lived in Manhattan I looked into taking the train to ski, I thought it might be a cool experience taking it to Essex Junction or Saint Albans and not driving. That idea soon changed when I realized the AMTRAK train made a 6 hour drive on $50 gas about a 10 hour trip costing more than twice as much money. Yuck.

 

[Bostonian]

Same for NYC to Vermont. When I lived in Manhattan I looked into taking the train to ski, I thought it might be a cool experience taking it to Essex Junction or Saint Albans and not driving. That idea soon changed when I realized the AMTRAK train made a 6 hour drive on $50 gas about a 10 hour trip costing more than twice as much money. Yuck.

Part of the problem is the route and the track infrastructure and track usage rights. Would I love a train from Boston to North Conway? Yes! But the reality is that the costs are prohibitive, the ridership couldn't sustain it and freight usage I am sure would interfere with it. We need rail systems similar to to Europe but, due to finance, politics and community protests - it isn't gonna happen any time soon.

 

[SIKSKIER]

I must be in the minority. When I travel, I prefer going to locations where I don't need a car.

Dont necessarily think your in the minority per say,I'm saying in the northeast I think most skiers want to be able to move about and come and go at their will without being tied to another means of transportation.

 

[Domeskier]

Dont necessarily think your in the minority per say,I'm saying in the northeast I think most skiers want to be able to move about and come and go at their will without being tied to another means of transportation.

If I were within an hour's distance of decent skiing, I'd prefer to drive. Anything significantly over that and I would substantially prefer a train (or even a bus).

 

[Smellytele]

The issue I have is that when I travel on a vacation I am not doing it alone but either with friends or family. A train becomes more and more expensive with the more I travel with. A car on the other hand becomes cheaper with the more I travel with. If going alone I might consider it but that is almost never. Economy of scale -while it would be beneficial if a train was full for the train company it isn't for the individuals unless they are always full.

 

[Newpylong]

AFAIK, the NE Corridor is AMTRAK's only profitable route (or at least it used to be). AMTRAK is a money-sucking taxpayer-funded disaster (resisted the urge to use the term, "trainwreck").

You're right that the short work routes are much better than the completely illogical uber-wasteful long-haul routes though. So while I know nothing about the Downeaster, I'd speculate: A) Unions B) Debt bomb are the most likely reasons for why it's financially failing.

Ridiculous to expect a money making operation, why do you think the freight railroads ditched passenger?

 

[BenedictGomez]

Ridiculous to expect a money making operation

No, it's ridiculous to keep money losing routes IN operation.

To the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars per year (literally).

 

[VTKilarney]

I can appreciate losing money on infrastructure that has an overall greater economic benefit. I doubt, though, that a ski train to North Conway would provide such a benefit. At least the funding is supposedly private.

But take the Downeaster, for example. Is there really a need to maintain the passenger operation AND the interstate highway that parallels it? Yes, that stretch of highway is extremely busy on a summer weekend, but as a general proposition it is not overly used. The train also assumes that you could not add more buses on the route. I wonder if any buses were eliminated as a result of the train? I am sure that some people would ride the train but not a bus, but for those few people it seems to be a huge investment.

 

[Newpylong]

No, it's ridiculous to keep money losing routes IN operation.

To the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars per year (literally).

How Jeffersonian.

We sped $150 billion a year on the US highway system - only a portion of which is recouped via tolls and gas tax. Do you drive? We don't close "non profitable" roads.

Pick your poison. Transportation has to be subsidized to a degree or no one could use it because it would cost too much.

 

[Newpylong]

I can appreciate losing money on infrastructure that has an overall greater economic benefit. I doubt, though, that a ski train to North Conway would provide such a benefit. At least the funding is supposedly private.

But take the Downeaster, for example. Is there really a need to maintain the passenger operation AND the interstate highway that parallels it? Yes, that stretch of highway is extremely busy on a summer weekend, but as a general proposition it is not overly used. The train also assumes that you could not add more buses on the route. I wonder if any buses were eliminated as a result of the train? I am sure that some people would ride the train but not a bus, but for those few people it seems to be a huge investment.

Adding buses to I-95 won't help because they just sit in traffic. That's why the Downeasters are full coming into North Station. People will pay a little more for a ticket than sit in traffic. The HOV is only 3 miles long coming into Boston on 93.

 

[bobbutts]

We went all in with cars/roads and allowed the rail infrastructure to crumble. I feel like it may be that the rail ship sailed a long time ago. Our rail service is now so poor that people familiar with it don't like it. I took the Acela and also Standard Amtrak to NJ a few times and it was slow, uncomfortable, bad service, overpriced. The drive is a pain, but it still beats Amtrak. I've been to EU a few times and used and loved the rail service there, but I don't really see how the USA can get from where we are now to having a great rail system.

 

[VTKilarney]

Adding buses to I-95 won't help because they just sit in traffic. That's why the Downeasters are full coming into North Station. People will pay a little more for a ticket than sit in traffic. The HOV is only 3 miles long coming into Boston on 93.

That may be convenient for the people who ride Amtrak from Maine into Boston, but my concern was whether or not the millions of dollars spent on that service results in an equal or greater economic benefit. I'm not convinced that it does.

 

[VTKilarney]

We went all in with cars/roads and allowed the rail infrastructure to crumble. I feel like it may be that the rail ship sailed a long time ago. .

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Our biggest problem with growing rail ridership is that we have a whole freaking infrastructure that was built around the automobile. Even if rail is an attractive option to get from point A to point B, except for major cities you are pretty much stranded unless you have access to a car upon arrival.

In Europe, we have taken the train on numerous occasions to smaller towns and villages. We've never felt the need for a car upon arrival. This is not to say that Europe has no sprawl. It's just that in Europe the situation is much more conducive to train travel.