Commuter Rail to New Hampshire?

whighlander said:
I'd make Lowell a local Hub with small trains (such as the new CNG & electric budliner) coming in to Lowell from points N and W and even possibly E then the people cross platform NorthStation Orange-Green style to a high frequency (20 minute headways) Express to Boston stopping only at Rt-128 (Anderson RTC) -- travel time under 30 minutes
Click to expand...

I have no idea about the logistics/feasibility of this, but it could be interesting. Obviously, whether people are willing to make a commuter rail transfer would depend on ease and timing--if it could really be a matter of switching right across the platform "Orange-Green style" with little waiting, and followed by an express, high-frequency ride into Boston, I think it could be pretty palatable. And there's something nice about the idea of a Merrimack Valley hub like that.

Small trains (the LEV2, specifically) were used in the 1980-1981 commuter rail pilot study between Concord and Boston, which had decent ridership considering it ran only twice per day. I think something bigger than the LEV2 would need to be used to accommodate ridership (just look at how packed the commuter buses on I-93 are), and to make it attractive. Obviously, a full-scale CR train would be needed running the whole length, but as feeder service to Lowell, a train somewhere between might work. Are you thinking of something like this?

whighlander said:
Of course in the modern context -- you need to have ample parking at the stations as the walk-up, bike-up, Segway-up (Home of the) crowd is insufficient
Click to expand...

I always cringe when the Segway (home of, sadly) comes up. A couple months ago, Dean Kamen (inventor of) came up with a much better idea in my mind--a trolley loop through downtown Manchester and the Millyard, which is still in the conceptual phases, but has garnered a lot of interest from the local business and planning community. Something like that would only be successful (and would complement nicely) a local commuter rail stop, so that people would know they could easily get around the city center without a car.
 
FrankLloydMike said:
But the only way that the Capitol Corridor is going to happen is if New Hampshire funds it--it's not going to happen if New Hampshire tries to "leech off" Massachusetts. And because of that--and perhaps unlike some in-state commuter rail projects like Greenbush--I don't think it's going to take resources away from "high ridership urban rapid transit" in Massachusetts. By the way, I agree in general that the projects like the Green Line extension should take precedent over Greenbush.

But New Hampshire isn't going to fund a Green Line extension, just as Massachusetts won't fund commuter rail in New Hampshire. Both states stand to benefit from the Capitol Corridor--more trains going between Lowell and Boston, track and signal upgrades in Massachusetts, and New Hampshire finally gets commuter rail restored since 1967, except for a pilot study cancelled by Ronald Reagan in the 1981. And both states benefit from upgrading the first phase of tracks for the proposed Boston-Montreal high-speed rail line. If I understand correctly, that's why New Hampshire is pushing for Concord-Boston and not just Nashua-Boston, because Concord and the high-speed rail corridor is what gets the FRA, not just the FTA involved.

I don't expect--and really, I don't think anyone in New Hampshire does either--Massachusetts to build, fund and operate commuter rail into New Hampshire. So I don't see a conflict between projects like the Capitol Corridor and the Green Line extension.
Click to expand...

Montreal's the other thing that's shortsighted--by decades--about this ideological snit. They don't seem to realize they don't have a monopoly on HSR corridors linking Boston to Quebec by mid-century. There's another route called the Patriot Corridor that would be a studied #1b alternative to the old NH Mainline route Concord-White River Junction. That pretty map put out by the Obama Admin. is just a conceptual sketch, not a final alternative. The Pan Am mainline is already getting heavy freight investment, and with proper curve-straightening (such as eliminating the 5-mile Ashburnham hairpin with a new crow-flies track cut) it can achieve comparable travel time cutting west to meet up with the Vermonter. While also having robust freight revenue economy-of-scale that the NH boonies wouldn't have. Say you've got HSR-level electrification on the Lowell Line to Lowell and the Downeaster. Branch at North Chelmsford Jct. down the Stony Brook Branch to the Fitchburg Line at Ayer...straighter, fewer grade crossings than the whole Fitchburg main, more population centers hit with Anderson/Woburn, Lowell, and Fitchburg on the same route, better re-use of existing trunkline infrastructure that would already be at tip-top speed for a future HSR Downeaster and whatever exists past the state line. Then blaze out west from Fitchburg on the existing track with the necessary speed realignments, going express to Greenfield with maybe only some token limited intermediate stop in Athol/Route 32 or something so north-central MA isn't total flyover country.

It doesn't set foot in NH. NH doesn't get a dime. NH residents will have to transfer on a cold platform at Lowell to get to that weekend getaway or business trip in MTL. There will never be 50 miles of rehabbed abandoned railbed or HSR grafted onto the I-89 median to develop the western part of the state that currently has nothing but 89 going for it. And there is no other route that would ever be considered through there once an alternative is exercised because it's too much of the sticks to go through and their rail network is too shredded by abandonments to link central, eastern, western, and northern parts of the state. But Massachusetts, Vermont, and Pan Am Railways will be berry berry happy with that bonanza.


Gamble away, guys. You don't seem to realize that this is a 21st century investment for the long haul across generations, not an 11/6/2012 stump speech.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
It doesn't set foot in NH. NH doesn't get a dime. NH residents will have to transfer on a cold platform at Lowell to get to that weekend getaway or business trip in MTL. There will never be 50 miles of rehabbed abandoned railbed or HSR grafted onto the I-89 median to develop the western part of the state that currently has nothing but 89 going for it. And there is no other route that would ever be considered through there once an alternative is exercised because it's too much of the sticks to go through and their rail network is too shredded by abandonments to link central, eastern, western, and northern parts of the state. But Massachusetts, Vermont, and Pan Am Railways will be berry berry happy with that bonanza.


Gamble away, guys. You don't seem to realize that this is a 21st century investment for the long haul across generations, not an 11/6/2012 stump speech.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. NHRTA and rail advocates in NH know this, too--they know that if the state doesn't get its act together and pony up, the HSR will go around it. They've said repeatedly that people aren't going to wait for them, and that development will go around the state if they don't act soon.
 
It looks like the political backlash against the Executive Council vote is beginning to build. Obviously, it won't be clear how great that backlash is until November, but I hope that Nashua or some other entity is able to accept the study in the meantime.

Former, three-term Councilor Deb Pignatelli was prompted to run for her old seat in part by the rail vote:

Pignatelli said that rail is not a partisan issue and has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans. “It is an important economic development measure that could expand transportation alternatives in an age of increasing gas prices,” Pignatelli said.
Click to expand...

Pignatelli admits that she'll have a tougher time, now that the district that includes Nashua is being redrawn to protect the incumbent Republican, while shifting the district now held by Dan St. Hilaire of Concord (another vote against the study) to being a solidly Democratic band running across the middle of the state. Still, in a non-wave year (potentially the first in NH in some time), it should be an interesting race to follow.

Nashua Alderman Brian McCarthy was also prompted to write a letter formally inviting Councilor Wheeler, who represents Nashua, to address the aldermen and explain his rationale for rejecting the study, and offering his vision for the future of the region. The letter has so far gone unanswered, but it was noted that Wheeler didn't even bother to attend the public meeting on the state's rail plan held two days before the Executive Council vote.

Rail will hardly be the only issue on the minds of voters this November, but given the overwhelming public support for rail and the amount of press this vote is getting, I think voters will at least know where candidates stand on the issue this year.
 
czsz said:
To go slightly off topic and comment again on the libertarians in NH who aren't really libertarian, here's a nice little piece that calls out both "progressives" and libertarians for their hypocrisy with regard to urbanism and the way it's harming cities:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2012/03/mixed-politics-urbanism/1525/
Click to expand...

Great find. My dislike of the proposed building on Thayer St in Providence aside, I definitely would not consider all developers to be bad, by any means. I think the last few paragraphs sum it all up very nicely:

The reality is that Americans want to move to the urban core. Not all Americans. Perhaps not even most Americans. But more Americans than live there currently.

That’s why housing is so expensive in the major coastal metropolises and also in the core downtown areas of lower-cost midwestern cities. The appropriate policy response is to stop disparaging apartment buildings as tenements and stop preventing developers from building them. People should by no means be “forced” to stop owning and driving cars, but there’s no reason for regulations to incentivize these activities. Progressives and urbanists need to move beyond their romance with central planning and get over their distaste for business and developers. Conservatives need to take their own ideas about economics more seriously and stop seeing all proposals for change through a lens of paranoia and resentment. Lastly, politicians of both parties who like to complain about “regulation” and “red tape” ought to spend some time looking at the specific area of the economy where red tape and regulation are most prevalent.

The question, ultimately, is not whether suburbs deserve to be valorized or disparaged. It’s to recognize that over the long run, quasi-forced suburbanization disadvantages the majority of people, including suburbanites, by needlessly driving costs up and economic opportunity down.
Click to expand...
 
The Nashua Telegraph is running a follow-up on the invitation from that city's aldermen for Councilor Wheeler to explain the rationale for his vote against the Capitol Corridor study.

Here are a few excerpts:

Executive Councilor David Wheeler, R-Milford, said he’s happy to meet with Nashua officials but has no plans to change his mind about opposing a popular commuter rail project.

Nashua officials haven’t been shy in expressing their disappointment with the Executive Council’s 3-2 vote to reject a $3.7 million federal and state grant to explore the feasibility and financing of linking a commuter rail line from Boston through Nashua and on to Concord.

Wheeler said state officials are weighing options such as a $1.9 million study to run the line only to Nashua or simply to update an environmental assessment done in 2004 on bringing trains over the Massachusetts line into Nashua.
Click to expand...

Despite the strong support of Gov. John Lynch, Nashua Mayor Donnalee Lozeau and the Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce, Wheeler opposed the project, saying it was too expensive and much less an infrastructure priority than widening Interstate 93 from Salem through Manchester.

“There was $400,000 in state funds I believe was going to have to be found for that study, and the state doesn’t have it,” Wheeler said. “There isn’t just $300 million lying around to do this, and past studies have shown, even with some pretty high fares, the taxpayer would have to be on the hook for this to the tune of multiple millions a year.”
Click to expand...

Pignatelli said rail is not a partisan issue and has been supported by Democrats and Republicans. “It is an important economic development measure that could expand transportation alternatives in an age of increasing gas prices,” she said.

Wheeler said it’s a matter of priorities and noted that the commuter bus service to Boston is very popular and on a path to paying for itself with no government subsidy.
Click to expand...

Lozeau has said she’s exploring other options including having the city rather than the state accept the federal grant.

Democratic National Committeeman Peter Burling, a founding member of the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority, said he has spoken with Gov. John Lynch about having the Obama administration run the grant itself since the project all the way to Concord is a two-state regional initiative.
Click to expand...

Wheeler's arguments exhibit a particularly excruciating form of idiocy.

First of all, if the House hadn't demanded huge budget cuts in a state that already has structurally unsustainable revenue sources, spending $400,000 on a popular and critical study wouldn't be a big deal. Then, Wheeler neglects to mention that private businesses and cities had stepped up to pay most--if not all--of the state's portion of the study.

Similarly, he quotes a $300 million figure to build the rail project--of course without a study, that number is just a guess. Second, the reason the state was pursuing the study of a rail line beyond Nashua and all the way to Concord, in addition to benefiting more of the state and preparing the way for the HSR line to Montreal, was that it would involve the FRA and FTA and be eligible for up to 90% federal financing. Even with Wheeler's guestimation, that would leave the state spending around $30 million on the rail line.

His argument that the success of commuter buses somehow shows that commuter rail is unnecessary or unwanted is hard to understand. Doesn't its success and continued growth show a demand for greater, easier, more comfortable and quicker service? Similarly, I don't buy the argument that the bus service is on a path toward unsubsidized service. I don't have the data on that, so whether its an accurate claim and how long that path is unclear. Still, that service never would have grown without state investment (which like rail, constitutionally cannot come from the state gas tax), without the state spending money on highways, and without the state building the park-and-ride facilities and bus terminals that they utilize.

His concern about needing tax money to subsidize rail operations is also overblown. A few million dollars in a state of 1.3 million is not asking much, especially given the economic development it would spur, as alluded to by his opponent, former Councilor Deb Pignatelli. If the the rail line brings more travelers to Manchester Airport, spurs real estate development in downtowns and around rail stations, and brings more visitors to dine and shop in New Hampshire, it's a simple case of spending money to make money for the state economy and budget.
 
The $300M figure is also bullshit because it had grafted on a totally non-sequitur rehab of the Hillsborough Branch freight line that runs west from Nashua Jct. Pan Am sued the Milford & Bennington shortline RR that operates the outer half of that line for breach of contract (I believe M&B was found liable as charged). Pan Am was threatening to abandon the line because M&B could very well have gone out of business if it had to repay the money it skimmed, as they're not a very reputable outfit. The branch doesn't have much reason to exist if Pan Am isn't getting the interchange traffic, so that would've been yet another NH rail line lost to abandonment. They bootstrapped the freight rehab on the commuter rail proposal to make the bad thoughts go away while this whole legal dispute was raging. A clusterfuck of a way to solve a clusterfuck, no?

It's very convenient for opponents to have that nice $300M round number to bludgeon when the actual project was never that high to begin with. The excesses alone on the CR deal don't add up to that, but try finding anyone who'll challenge how high it's pricing out. But the freight branch inclusion was a poison pill thrown in to make it self-defeating. What does a shady shortline on a branch that'll never have passengers have to do with commuter rail to Concord? This cynicism from the Councilors is not a new thing by matter of years. They rigged it to either get a free-money payout from the feds to buy ponies for a whole bunch of unrelated things...or to wait for the moment when the political tide was in their favor to make it an ideological punching bag.

The game has to be un-rigged for rational discussion to take place. That's why it's time for Nashua to go rogue with the rest of the state and turn south to MA and the MBTA to get MA's leg, largely unencumbered by the yahoos in Concord and the Union Leader newsroom, done. Their own divide-and-conquer trump move, as it were. Don't think the councilors don't know this. They'll take the flak now to cripple the Nashua local gov't before they start exercising independent thought and action on this whole issue. What we've just seen is the ideologues circling the wagons against that threat.
 
Nashua, at least, is taking steps toward commuter rail. The city is currently considering purchasing property for a downtown station:

Cabinet maker may furnish a future downtown rail station for Nashua under proposal
By PATRICK MEIGHAN
Wed., April 11, 2012

NASHUA – The city hopes to fashion a park and ride lot out of the home of a custom cabinet manufacturer.

A parking lot isn’t the city’s ultimate hope for the Crown Street site, however. The location has been tagged for the city’s downtown commuter rail station, if commuter rail ever makes its way to southern New Hampshire.

Under a resolution that was scheduled to be presented Tuesday to the Board of Aldermen, the city would purchase the 25 Crown St. property of Armstrong Cabinets.
According to the city’s website, the parcel consists of 5.88 acres assessed at $1.21 million.

The cabinet manufacturer would remain at the location until 2013, leasing its space from the city, under the proposal. Immediately, the city could use part of the site as parking spaces for a park and ride bus stop, said Tom Galligani, the city’s economic development director.

The proposal is to buy the location for $1.425 million. The money would be part of a larger Congestion Mitigation Air Quality grant the city received five or six years ago to develop a site for a rail station in south Nashua, Galligani said.

Those plans were put on the slow track, as the site never was developed and plans for commuter rail met with hostile forces in state government.

But when the Armstrong site came on the market, “We jumped at the opportunity,” he said.

The state grant was revised before the Nashua Regional Planning Commission to include development of a rail station on Crown Street, he said.

The site is perfect as a downtown rail station because it lies along 800 feet of straight railway, Galligani said.

That’s unusual, as railroad tracks twist and curve as they wind through the downtown area, he said.

Even as Armstrong remains at the site as a tenant, part of the location could be used as a parking lot immediately, Galligani said.

“They don’t use the whole site,” he said of the cabinet-maker.

Less certain is what happens down the road, if and when the site is converted to a rail station. Galligani noted there’s a large warehouse in the back of the property that could be razed. It remains to be seen whether the main building would be renovated or razed, he said.

Also uncertain is what would happen to Armstrong after 2013. The location lies in a cramped area a block south of East Hollis Street. Galligani wasn’t sure if Armstrong was looking to expand at another location, and a manager for the company didn’t immediately return a phone call Tuesday morning.

“Long term, we’d like that to be our downtown station. Getting there will take many steps,” Galligani said.

The first step was scheduled to happen Tuesday in the aldermanic chamber, where the proposed legislation for the city to buy the land would have its first reading. After that, it will be assigned to at least one aldermanic subcommittee, where the resolution will be vetted before returning to the full board for a final vote.
Click to expand...

dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls
 
Last edited:
Oh joy, a parking lot. And then when they want to redevelop the parking lot, commuters will complain about how unfair that is to them, to take away their boondoggle. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic.
 
Matthew said:
Oh joy, a parking lot. And then when they want to redevelop the parking lot, commuters will complain about how unfair that is to them, to take away their boondoggle. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic.
Click to expand...

Marhew -- Cheer-up -- there's got to be a " aldermanic subcommittee" to deal with the commuters complaining about how unfair it is to take away their bus park-&-ride lot.
 
Nashua is getting $6.5 million to construct park-and-ride facilities, one of which will likely become the downtown rail station eventually:

Nashua plans park-and-ride facilities with federal money


By SIMÓN RÍOS

Union Leader Correspondent

NASHUA — The Board of Alderman voted unanimously this week to accept $6.5 million in federal air quality funds, a move that will allow the construction of two parkand- ride facilities and complement the city’s wish to see passenger rail here.

“It’s not necessarily prorail, it’s pro-park-and-ride and pro-air quality, and that in turn could have a benefit of working in conjunction with rail if that ever would come to the region,” said Tim Roache, assistant director at the Nashua Regional Planning Commission, who was part of the process to get the grant.

The funds will allow the city to construct park-and-rides and accessory facilities at up to two Nashua locations to support car pooling, intercity bus and passenger rail.

The first one is likely to be in the Crown Hill neighborhood, and the second could be built in South Nashua near Spit Brook Road, Roache said.

Both of these sites have also been scouted for commuter rail stations.

As the second piece of the initiative, an aldermanic committee is now deciding whether to acquire the $1.4 million Armstrong Cabinet property where the Crown Hill parkand- ride would go, according to Tom Galligani, the city’s economic development director.

“We saw an opportunity to acquire a site that could be used in the future for a rail site, and it’s the only site in that part of the city where a station could physically be located,” he said. Galligani said the $6.5 million could be used to purchase the property and make any changes to the land that could result in an array of options relative to the grant’s requirements.

The money comes from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, which has provided state governments with nearly $9 billion in funding since 2005. CMAQ allows for a variety of projects — from provisions for bicycles to archaeological research to transportation museums — though the usage of the money by municipalities depends on contracts with the New Hampshire Department of Transportation.

Tim Roache said Southeast New Hampshire does not meet federal standards on ozone levels, and the parkand- rides would signify a step towards reducing those levels. Rail supporter James Vayo recently purchased a home in the Crown Hill neighborhood. He said he’s excited by the prospect of having alternative transportation facilities nearby.

“By the city buying this land they’re making a commitment to the future of rail in the city, sort of an inevitable future,” said Vayo.

“Anywhere within a 15-minute walk from Dr. Crisp School to the Henry Hanger building to Armory and Temple Streets, all that land would be viable for livable, walkable, neighborhood- style development.”

Vayo said though he may never be a Boston commuter, being in a community that will see growth as a result of access to Boston will be beneficial for him.

“I think a smart investor would start investing (in Crown Hill) now,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
“I think anybody with any brains can realize a park and ride shouldn’t be in the city, it should be close to a highway if people want to commute,” resident Bob Burgess said.
Click to expand...

Excellent thinking. Will they listen?
 
Matthew said:
Excellent thinking. Will they listen?
Click to expand...

The last revision of the proposal got the Pheasant Lane Mall developers backing a Tyngsboro/Route 3 stop at Exit 26 at the literal state line to serve as the highway P&R lot. That's an about-face for the Mall, which wasn't keen on doing that before. That Crown St. spot downtown has got to be the terminus because the T can get cheap-cheap layover space from Pan Am by renting the unused backside of the freight yard...without the usual NIMBY screaming that's slowing them down in Wachusett and slamming the brakes on Plaistow. And it would put a platform before the first grade crossing so the trains would have no impact to street traffic.

Downtown P&R's probably going to get well-utilized by Hudson, Windham, and Londonderry residents coming over the bridge via Routes 111 and 102. Not so much the Nashua townies or anyone on 3 who's got a far easier drive going to the Mall stop. They'll need quite a few spaces. Just as long as they don't go crazy with it.
 
some pieces of NH rail trainsit news. Some new, some we missed, all from this year.

1) NH Capitol Corridor Rail & Transit Alternatives Analysis was released in march. http://www.nhrta.org/fullpanel/uplo...--public-scoping-meeting-2014-03-05-7--1-.pdf

2) new website for the capital coridor form march. http://www.nhcapitolcorridor.com/

3) They have released the three alternatives for the Plaistow Commuter Rail stop this week. http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailt...ents/Plaistow_publicmtg_notice_100914_mtg.pdf

4) new website for the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority released just a few days ago. It includes all the projects they are developing. http://www.nhrta.org/nh-rail-projects/plaistow-commuter-rail-extension/

have fun looking at all this!
 
Last edited:
elemenoh said:
I would love to see the Plaistow station come online in my lifetime, but I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

Take special note of layover yard Option #1. That's the T's official out to decouple themselves from this NIMBY shitshow if this last sales pitch doesn't take. The yard's about 50 feet over the MA side of the state line off Hilldale Ave., with only an access driveway touching Live Free or Die soil (and from the looks of it, even that can probably be kept entirely in MA if they have to).

What happens next is if this community input clown show continues up there the T purchases this barren industrial property and goes it alone. They move out of the outdated and too-small Bradford layover, giving those residents the air quality and noise mitigation they've long been promised. Haverhill Line gets its capacity increases and can finally increase the somewhat limited schedules on the outer half. And they plow full-steam ahead at building this yard in 3-5 years on assumption that Haverhill's the now-and-forever commuter rail terminus and any presence past the border is just gravy by happenstance.

If Plaistow passes up this opportunity for joint funding...and wants its station later...they can build their station themselves, apply for the grants themselves, shoulder a bigger burden of the funding themselves, and the T will happily run it. If Plaistow wants to scream at clouds and bitch about the commuter traffic on Route 125 rather than ever getting a train station, they can do that too. The T no longer gives a crap which one they choose, the Downeaster keeps screaming past their idyllic little town at full speed, and more urgent needs get settled without being held up by these yokels.


BTW...that PDF linked above wasn't more than a couple days old before the town pols were already bitching in the press that they weren't "involved" enough by the states in this the eleventeenth round of site selection community input. So that more or less sets the over/under on the station's chances.

But at least the T's no longer dependent on it for making Haverhill service a lot more frequent. They've got a viable exit strategy for serving all the in-district communities. Build the damn border fence if too many NH plates keep hogging parking spaces in Haverhill. It's their problem alone if they screw this pooch, not ours.
 
New Rail Study: New Jobs, Up to $256M in Startup Costs

Next stop for New Hampshire commuter rail extension plan: More studying and figuring out on how to pay for the capital, operating costs.

By Tony Schinella (Patch Staff)

The preliminary study by the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail and Transit is out and after two years of looking at extending rail from Massachusetts to Concord, the information available is pretty much what everyone expected: A new rail line might bring “significant” economic benefits to the state of New Hampshire but it’s going to cost a lot to get started.

The report estimates that establishing four commuter rail stops between Nashua, Manchester, and Lowell would add a minimum of about 2,500 new passenger trips per day, would create about 5,600 permanent jobs, and 3,600 new housing units in the area, as well as new jobs and housing annually created after the rail system begins operation in 2020.

Capital costs to upgrade rail beds, construct the stops, and other expenses between Manchester and Lowell would run about $246 million initially with about $11 million in maintenance and operating costs annually.

The system would be an extension to the existing Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) system and would be operated by a vendor bidding to run the service.

Extension into Concord, however, gets a bit tricky.

According to the study, another 946 passenger trips would be added with a potential of another 3,700 jobs created in the capital region. However, only Amtrak – not the MBTA – has access rights to the Pan Am system between Concord and Manchester, meaning that if the rail line were extended to Concord, there would be higher operating and sharing costs because the entire line would have to be run by Amtrak.

The capital costs would be an additional $10 million for upgrades with $8 million additional annual operating and maintenance costs. There would also be fewer trains – about eight trips a day – between Concord and Boston whereas Manchester to Boston would see about 34 trips per day.

The annual cost per rider to the state of New Hampshire would be as low as $10 per rider with just the extension to Manchester to $61 per rider for the extension to Concord, according to the study.

The study is also looking at other options including expansion of express bus service routes and highway shoulder construction, a Nashua loop to Lowell, an MBTA extension from Lowell to South Nashua, and bus lanes along I-93.

“There is simply no economic development opportunity on the horizon that could transform New Hampshire’s economy like the expansion of passenger rail could offer,” said Thomas Mahon, chairman of the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority. “While preliminary, these initial results demonstrate the positive impact rail could deliver to New Hampshire. Once the final report is submitted in December, policy makers will have all the evidence they need to make a choice. We firmly believe that the options are clear – invest in passenger rail or choose the status quo and face the negative consequences associated with our young people fleeing the state while our existing population ages and in-migration continues to decline.”

In a statement, U.S. Rep. Ann McLane Kuster said she was “pleased” by the findings and she looked forward to learning more about various options for rail lines in the future.

“I remain committed to working with my colleagues in Congress to provide support and funding for expanded transportation options across our communities,” she said. “We must continue to invest in our public infrastructure in order to support our local businesses and help our economy grow.”
Click to expand...

Nashua Patch

Here's the report.
 
$246m for some track upgrades and 4 commuter rail stations?

Palaces? WTF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top