Commuter Rail to New Hampshire?

Rover said:
If NH wants commuter rail let them pay for it. If they can't or won't, that's their problem.
Click to expand...

It's not "their problem" that the Lowell Line lacks a dedicated layover yard, that's our problem. AFAIK the only proposals to build a yard for the Lowell Line have all been in New Hampshire; Massachusetts would clearly benefit from NH Commuter Rail. I'm not advocating for Massachusetts to pay for NH Commuter Rail, but it's certainly not as cut-and-dry as you keep trying to make it out to be.
 
themissinglink said:
It's not "their problem" that the Lowell Line lacks a dedicated layover yard, that's our problem. AFAIK the only proposals to build a yard for the Lowell Line have all been in New Hampshire; Massachusetts would clearly benefit from NH Commuter Rail. I'm not advocating for Massachusetts to pay for NH Commuter Rail, but it's certainly not as cut-and-dry as you keep trying to make it out to be.
Click to expand...

Agreed. F-Line had some discussion of this in the general topics thread a couple years ago:

F-Line to Dudley said:
The T needs the project simply because Lowell is an outsized cost chew for lacking a layover yard, PAR Nashua Yard is the most logical candidate, and RUR service to Lowell run with acceptable cost recovery basically requires crossing the state line to tap Nashua Yard. The rest of the value proposition for them is simply about diverting the NH plates the sell out Lowell Garage capacity each day at the border @ South Nashua so there's more room for local increases, and expanding outright in-district reach to Vinal Sq. North Chelmsford (LRTA bus diverging point) and UMass-Lowell. Purely selfishly those require crossing the border to accomplish, so the "go it alone" efforts City of Nashua has engaged in to inoculate themselves from getting fucked over by the NH Legislature again are being enacted with *significant* egging-on from south of the border. Lifetime irrevocable MBTA trackage rights to Concord and quid-pro-quo's with PAR for use of Nashua Yard were squared 12 years ago in the GLX land swaps between state and PAR, so the ops side is all set as well as what MA "freight grants" get wink-wink reciprocal PAR self-investment for upgrading the track between state line and Nashua. All they need is somebody in NH to actually fund & design-build the stations and they're otherwise ready to push this over the finish line.
Click to expand...

F-Line to Dudley said:
No...they're taking up parking spots in Lowell garage. That's fact, not supposition, documented to the nines in the studies. This is why there's such purely selfish, in-district motivation for hitting Nashua and why they need the minimal assist for the cross-border stations to make it happen. In-district mobility is tremendously upgraded diverting those NH plates so MA plates have a shot.
Click to expand...

I imagine the pandemic has (temporarily?) alleviated that second problem in part, but it remains a future consideration that the lack of NH service is actively detrimental to MA residents' ability to use the existing CR, not to mention that existing service is limited (and inefficient on cost terms) because of the lack of layover. I'd agree that all of that doesn't necessarily add up to "worth it" for the cost to MA, but it absolutely does have to be factored in.
 
It’s worth noting that NHDOT’s current scope agreement currently has NHDOT paying for the entirety of the project. Literally, their southern limit is given as the North face of Lowell station. Everything from there through to Manchester is currently proposed as a NHDOT project. MA Bridges, interlockings, grade crossings in Chelmsford and Tyngsboro... Right now, it’s NHDOT’s (Federally paid for, admittedly) consultant doing the surveys and work, with the expectation that it’ll be NHDOT picking up the construction tab. Currently they’re basically assuming no MA cost share beyond the “soft costs” and trackage rights that the MBTA already owns.

F03386B5-7DF3-4FBD-B2DB-FDE430206730.jpeg

B7E9FF99-D864-47C5-8651-F49546B14313.jpeg

If even NHDOT can prospectively fund work outside its borders to facilitate a thing they might want, there’s no reason MassDOT can’t do the same. Politically sure it may be dicey, but if it works out that there’s a return on MA’s dollar for something It wants like diverted trips, economic benefit and the layover, the only reason to oppose it would be principle.

For a past example, South Attleboro station was built primarily for Pawtucket RI passengers after RIDOT cut off support - not because it had any particular demand on the Massachusetts side of the border, but because the MBTA wanted the RI source fare revenue. For the right cost-benefit ratio, I can see MA funding a good chunk - which it probably will if this project comes to fruition bc I’m sure they want a layover for the Lowell Line at a minimum.
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
It’s worth noting that NHDOT’s current scope agreement currently has NHDOT paying for the entirety of the project, literally starting at Lowell station, to the state line and through to Manchester. MA Bridges, grade crossings in Chelmsford and Tyngsboro... Right now, it’s NHDOT’s (Federally paid for, admittedly) consultant doing the surveys and work. Currently they’re basically assuming no MA cost share beyond the “soft costs” and trackage rights that the MBTA already owns.

View attachment 22008
View attachment 22009
If even NHDOT can fund work outside its borders, there’s no reason MassDOT can’t. Politically sure it may be dicey, but if it works out that there’s a return on MA’s dollar for diverted trips, economic benefit and the layover, the only reason to oppose it would be principle.
Click to expand...

That's...a really encouraging document. It's nice to know that NH officials weren't too stubborn to walk away from free federal money for this project.
 
Wash said:
It's nice to know that NH officials weren't too stubborn to walk away from free federal money for this project.
Click to expand...

Have they done that in the past? I got the general impression they didn't want to spend their own money but didn't mind if someone else wanted to pay for things.
 
Brattle Loop said:
Except political reality includes the understanding that voters are capable of understanding policies and issues at a level of complexity beyond ten words. (Whether or not the electorate bothers to do so tends to vary.) In this example, the easy counterargument that any pro-rail politicians could make to criticisms like yours is that projects like this would benefit Massachusetts. I don't have data, so I'm not trying to get into the question of whether that argument is valid in this specific example. Hypothetically, however, it would be eminently possible for studies to demonstrate that the economic benefit (i.e. tax revenues, but also benefits such as reduced use of roads, fewer emissions, fewer New Hampshire cars clogging up Lowell's CR parking lot) would outweigh the cost to the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Unless the extension goes to the Manchester airport, I really don't see how an NH commuter rail extension would benefit MA residents outside of the [very local problem of] freeing space at the Lowell CR station. If the goal is to get cars off the road to free up congestion, I'd rather get MA cars off the roads by improving the rail network and frequencies within the state rather than giving NH residents a massive boon and hoping the benefits trickle down to the ones who actually paid for it.

It's not like there are a lot of reverse-commuters from MA to NH either. If Manch or Nashua became larger employment centers, then maybe it would make sense for MA to fund the extension.

Brattle Loop said:
Agreed. F-Line had some discussion of this in the general topics thread a couple years ago:

I imagine the pandemic has (temporarily?) alleviated that second problem in part, but it remains a future consideration that the lack of NH service is actively detrimental to MA residents' ability to use the existing CR, not to mention that existing service is limited (and inefficient on cost terms) because of the lack of layover. I'd agree that all of that doesn't necessarily add up to "worth it" for the cost to MA, but it absolutely does have to be factored in.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a good reason to extend to Nashua, but not further north.
 
Brattle Loop said:
Have they done that in the past? I got the general impression they didn't want to spend their own money but didn't mind if someone else wanted to pay for things.
Click to expand...

Yes, they have done that in the past. https://www.planetizen.com/node/860...ies-federal-funding-boston-concord-rail-study

With such a restricted tax base, people in NH are very aware of and protective of their property tax rates and amounts. Anything that could lead to the need for a future increase is viewed with skepticism. Just such an issue led to no funding for sports or extracurricular activities in my high school in the early 1990's. While the trend is towards more acceptance of social and common good, it's slow progress, especially as different parts of the state face very different economic circumstances. e.g. Why should less well off communities in the north and away from the I-93 corridor pay for something that mostly benefits the more well off communities that are probably full of MA carpetbaggers looking to get to MA jobs?
 
That's messed up thinking because its not the north that makes the money, it's the carpetbaggers. Simple math and the rural electrification surcharge on my electric bill shows that a remote town cannot afford modern infrastructure without a subsidy
 
It’s probably worth noting that the Boston CBSA includes a couple of counties in NH, stretching up to Carroll county.
 
Blackbird said:
Unless the extension goes to the Manchester airport, I really don't see how an NH commuter rail extension would benefit MA residents outside of the [very local problem of] freeing space at the Lowell CR station. If the goal is to get cars off the road to free up congestion, I'd rather get MA cars off the roads by improving the rail network and frequencies within the state rather than giving NH residents a massive boon and hoping the benefits trickle down to the ones who actually paid for it.

It's not like there are a lot of reverse-commuters from MA to NH either. If Manch or Nashua became larger employment centers, then maybe it would make sense for MA to fund the extension.



This sounds like a good reason to extend to Nashua, but not further north.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that it's not likely to be the best use of state transportation dollars in terms of net-benefit, which would put such an idea way down on the priority list. Again, I'm not saying this is something they should do given that NH really should pay for it, just making an argument as to how it could be worth it to the state.
 
Realistically, it only happens if NH has some skin in the game (even as Fed pass through funding). But nevertheless, it's a benefit to Massachusetts, which has really been the point of suggesting it should be built even if NH sucks.
 
NH: A proposed spending ban could stop commuter rail in its tracks

Infuriating.

Layon warned opening this project to using state dollars could cause many to reconsider moving here from other high-tax states.

"If we end up funding this, we are going to lose the advantage for the people who find their home here and work in Massachusetts," Layon said.
Click to expand...

How else can we possibly operate if not to parasite off of our more prosperous neighbor!?
 
JeffDowntown said:
Sounds like it is time to get toll plazas approved for Route 3 and I 93 just inside the MA line.

There is more than one way to tax a commuter to an MA job.
Click to expand...

Fairly confident that's illegal. Cutting Rt. 3 down to 1 lane between the border and Lowell on the other hand....
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-4
KCasiglio said:
Fairly confident that's illegal. Cutting Rt. 3 down to 1 lane between the border and Lowell on the other hand....
Click to expand...
They require approvals, but those have been happening of late in other areas. Feds relaxed the rules in general about a decade ago.

The "it's illegal" dodge is a politician not wanting to go to bat for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top