Changing Our View on Portland’s Amtrak Station
The Urbanist Coalition of Portland has previously spoken in favor of building Portland’s new Amtrak station closer to Congress Street behind Union Station Plaza (Site 2), or to leave it where it is rather than moving it further down Saint John Street (Site 3). We have written articles and spoken up at city meetings to this effect. However, after a presentation from NNEPRA and a vigorous discussion, we have changed our position to support NNEPRA’s proposed relocation to Site 3.
We still believe a completed station at Site 2 would be better located than a station at Site 3. However, the discussion made clear that the obstacles to construction at Site 2 require additional negotiations, collaboration, and funding to address. The timeline for making Site 2 viable is unclear, and a feasible solution may never materialize. Meanwhile, the benefits of moving the station to the main line are significant. We cannot afford to wait and hope that a better project appears instead of saying yes to the project we can get started with today.
Relocating Portland’s station to the main line is important for the overall improvement of the Downeaster. It will save time, money, and open the door for future improvements to frequency and speed. Moving the station immediately makes the train to Brunswick time-competitive with driving. Longer term improvements, including additional trains each day, cannot begin while the system is dealing with the operational problems of the existing Portland Station. The primary beneficiaries of the move may not be Portlanders taking intermittent regional rail trips, but all of us will benefit when more employees commute to two of our region’s biggest employers – MaineHealth and Mercy Hospital – by train, leaving their cars at home and easing traffic and parking demands within Portland. Time is of the essence, and NNEPRA believes that there is a limited window to secure federal funding for this project with a letter of support from the City required by February 6.
Both Site 2 and Site 3 would deliver on these improvements, but Site 3 is more feasible today. Even if NNEPRA were to move forward with a station at Site 2, Union Station would not be restored. We would get a tiny station tucked behind a parking lot and strip mall. A true urban station at Site 2, integrated with housing and commercial space, will not happen by convincing NNEPRA to build at Site 2. Rather, we would need NNEPRA to give up on their project entirely and wait for a new proposal. A proposal originated by someone other than NNEPRA, and complete with funding.
The additional analysis presented by NNEPRA showed that even this small version Site 2 would cost around $20 million more than Site 3. Site 2 also requires land negotiations between the County Jail on one side and Maine Health on the other, which adds to the time and cost. If the City of Portland is serious about building a quality station at Site 2, the Urbanist Coalition would like to see a plan from the City describing how they will drive and fund this process. We would love an excellent station at Site 2, but we can’t wait any longer without a material commitment from the City.
We instead want to focus on ensuring that the station at Site 3 is as good as it can be. The proposed station is small and may not be ready to handle a big growth in ridership. We would like to see longer and full-height platforms, a larger waiting area, covered bike parking, and dining options like a small cafe or a designated food truck spot with electrical hookup to improve rider experience. The station design is not finalized, and we are confident improvements can be made during the process.
During the ReCode process, we advocated for rezoning the industrial parcels around Site 3 for mixed use, including housing. ReCode did not include this rezoning, but this change will be essential if the station is built on Site 3. Nearby housing and businesses will set the station up for success. If Maine Health is going to redevelop Union Station Plaza, we should push for mixed-use housing development; the people living in these new homes will still be able to walk to the station.
As difficult as it is, we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Moving the station onto the main line saves time and improves train service. In the absence of developer interest, property owner cooperation, or funding sources for our ideal alternative of a mixed-use station complex at Site 2, we support NNEPRA’s proposed relocation to Site 3. We can ask for improvements of the station at Site 3 while we improve neighborhood and regional connectivity.
