Commuter Rail to New Hampshire?

[fatnoah]

The bill's sponsor represents Rochester, NH. So I'm sure he'll soon propose a bill to block the state from providing 60% of the funding needed for a new school in that town, since the vast majority of state residents won't be able to benefit from that.

 

[fatnoah]

I'll politely ask you for a source on this claim. Obviously I understand if you don't have a hard-and-fast source -- you may be speaking based on local knowledge and personal experience, which definitely is a valid part of this conversation.

I don't think OP was speaking against the viability or necessity of passenger rail, but demonstrated actions by the State of NH. About $770M on the recent I-93 widening, and a planned $157.8M on the Everett Turnpike.

People living north of Concord have an economic stake in the ability for people to get into and out of the state, but rail does not solve their particular economic concern. Vacationers will not be using trains to visit the Lakes Region or the mountains. The northern, rural part of the state requires an automobile.

I grew up "north of Concord" in a city that has a beautiful train station on this line. I still travel there frequently and would absolutely use the train if it existed because I could walk from the station to my destination. Outside of that, there is a last mile problem that getting from place-to-place requires an automobile. Getting daytrippers to/from destinations like skiiers to Gunstock, Waterville, Loon, Cannon, etc. would be an "easy" first step. Getting people to/from random destinations over the course of a vacation week is another matter.

 

[stick n move]

You are failing to recognize that rail benefits the people who don’t use it. The mode shift of people in the catchment area of rail frees up space on the road for those who live further North. Adequate rail service negates the need for highway expansion. Highway expansion will inevitably induce more traffic.

This. People who drive should be the biggest rail advocates, the more people in trains the less ppl crowding the highways. They never think of it this way though.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

New Hampshire has decided to prioritize modernizing the southern portion of Rte. 93 and the Everette Turnpike not from lack of imagination but for obvious political reasons: far more people will use the highways than the rail. People living north of Concord have an economic stake in the ability for people to get into and out of the state, but rail does not solve their particular economic concern. Vacationers will not be using trains to visit the Lakes Region or the mountains. The northern, rural part of the state requires an automobile. It is true that a great many NH residents who live south of Concord are employed in Mass., but that's not the same as working in Boston. Many work along the 128 belt and places north that are more expediently accessed by car, and workers can easily share a ride. Then, finally, there's the most environmentally friendly way for NH residents to deal with their employment in Massachusetts: telecommuting. These points don't mean that NH is forever closed off from investing in commuter rail, just not now. When the ten-year transportation plan is updated and revised next year, commuter rail isn't likely to appear even in the out years. That means that in 2026 if rail is added to the plan it will have to bounce out other projects or be paid for by a tax increase. People from New Hampshire aren't dumb. They have different priorities based on different needs.

If New Hampshire doesn't want to do Commuter Rail, they can debate that from the results of the federally-funded study and ultimately reach a "no" conclusion. That would be a perfectly valid outcome. That's not what's going on here. The Executive Council overreached to cancel the study...citing spurious grounds of cost cost cost when the study wasn't costing them anything...to throw the study results into so much disarray that no conclusion could be drawn from them one way or the other. The Legislature now is overreaching by trying to booby-trap the system so there is never a possibility or mechanism of funding Commuter Rail (and let's be clear...only passenger rail and no other fundable mode was singled out) should sentiment actually favor the build. And given that public comments are running 10-to-1 against this bill, I would say public sentiment is clearly not in favor of this action. What they're doing is not "not now", it's "never ever if I can poison-pill it so". Important distinction.

It's anti-democratic, weaponizing ideology to rig the playing field. And that's hella hella dumb.

 

[ceo]

Commuter rail to Concord means that those tracks will be rehabbed up to snuff for speedy passenger use. Rehabbing an additional 25 miles of track up to Laconia allows you to connect to the Plymouth & Lincoln Railroad, which runs heritage services in the White Mountains and along Lake Winnipesaukee (and which I believe owns tracks all the way up to Lincoln and Franconia Notch State Park). From an infrastructure perspective, that opens the door to a Downeaster-style service that can serve:

• tourists going to the Lakes Region or the mountains
• north-of-Concord residents who want to travel to Boston and points south
• in-state commuters destined for Concord, Manchester, or Nashua

Speaking as someone who drives up to the White Mountains regularly, for both hiking and skiing, this sounds lovely but I can't imagine it actually working. First, there's no way you can make the old White Mountain Division even remotely time-competitive with I-93, and that matters for people going up for day trips (and there's also the time spent getting to a station). Second is the old last mile problem. I assume the ski areas could run shuttle buses to Lincoln, which would add yet more time, but good luck providing service to all 100 or so trailheads in the WMNF.

 

[NHMaples]

Let me clarify my statement about voters using and prioritizing the highways over rail. I am trying to explain how we got to where we are at the moment and emphasize that people have been making rational self-interested decisions albeit shortsighted. To some extent people support highways because we already have highways and they are already using them. Because we don't have rail, it is easy to perceive rail as something extra, a frill, that will benefit the people living near the stations in two or three cities. Every two years the ten-year transportation plan is updated and as people fight for funding for their projects the arguments against rail are repeated every other year like an echo. The highway versus rail debate has persisted all through the decade long 93 expansion project. The momentum stayed with the highway because we already had a highway, and it was obviously congested. If you own a tourist-oriented business in the northern part of the state, you want to make sure that your weekend customers are not stuck in traffic on a Friday night. While that overlaps the issue of how people get back and forth to work, it is much easier to perceive a wider highway as the solution -- especially where there's the potential of the commuter rail ending up being underutilized leaving the highways congested after the money was already spent on rail. The same arguments for widening 93 were then transferred to the Everette Turnpike, and that expansion will have a prominent place for the next four years of the current ten-year plan. The good news is that it is much easier to make changes to the latter half of the ten=year plan and the highway expansion being already complete will no longer be sucking up the same dollars that would be devoted to rail. It kind of takes that highway versus rail debate off the table.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Every two years the ten-year transportation plan is updated and as people fight for funding for their projects the arguments against rail are repeated every other year like an echo. The highway versus rail debate has persisted all through the decade long 93 expansion project. The momentum stayed with the highway because we already had a highway, and it was obviously congested. If you own a tourist-oriented business in the northern part of the state, you want to make sure that your weekend customers are not stuck in traffic on a Friday night. While that overlaps the issue of how people get back and forth to work, it is much easier to perceive a wider highway as the solution -- especially where there's the potential of the commuter rail ending up being underutilized leaving the highways congested after the money was already spent on rail. The same arguments for widening 93 were then transferred to the Everette Turnpike, and that expansion will have a prominent place for the next four years of the current ten-year plan. The good news is that it is much easier to make changes to the latter half of the ten=year plan and the highway expansion being already complete will no longer be sucking up the same dollars that would be devoted to rail. It kind of takes that highway versus rail debate off the table.

Well...this is the problem. NH is addicting itself to add-a-lanes as a catch-all solution, and that's not going to subside once the Everett Turnpike is finished. It'll immediately pivot to NH 101 and the rest of Spaulding Turnpike "needing" more lanes too. It's a negative feedback loop that always leads to more induced demand, and thus more dollars shoveled at lane capacity. And NH can't afford that. The I-93 widening raided NHDOT's bridge repair fund because of all the $$$ that had to be transferred from one ledger to another to feed the beast. That's going to disproportionately hurt the people who live outside highest-priority Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Rockingham counties when their falling-apart roads and bridges can't be repaired. This is why states like Maine which also have stressed and/or declining tax bases outside their most populous counties, are pivoting away from induced demand feeding and trying to more flexibly get cars off the road with things like passenger rail investment. NH is bullheadedly set against that, to the detriment of its own sustainability. And the nihilists in the Council and Legislature are seeking to pour cement over that mentality and kick the can on the consequences to a future generation "I got mine"-style. It's profoundly stupid.

 

[Highwayguy]

The I-93 widening raided NHDOT's bridge repair fund because of all the $$$ that had to be transferred from one ledger to another to feed the beast.

Doubly stupid when you consider how much of that $$$ was spent widening / shifting the entire freaking alignment through Windham to accommodate 8 lanes… which immediately reduces to 6 at the border (AKA where everyone is going). The only thing accomplished over a 6 lane cross section was letting drivers race to Salem, to hit the same amount of delay if it was spread out along the entire corridor; Traffic Engineering 101 tells you the total delay time isn’t going to change no matter what you do upstream of a bottleneck.

Now the same thing will happen on Everett, except drivers can race to Billarica to hit the back of queue for the 3/128 interchange.
—
(Side note, why did MA spend $$$ on the Big Wide to not touch that interchange, same logic applies)
—

NH’s fixation on Highway widening is so puzzling given how many abysmally timed signals NHDOT owns with literal hours of loss time (half of which are on the highway offramps!). Since those are the actual bottlenecks, timing changes could actually ease congestion. For less than the cost of 1 lane mile of widening they could retime every intersection in the state. Instead they just keep brute forcing LOS by adding lanes to the approaches… Truly baffling.

Back on topic, I can almost see the opposition to funding rail service North of Nashua, but the only logic against even studying a Nashua extension is Trains=Socialism=BAD!

 

[Teban54]

Quoted from the article:

“The reality today is that commuting patterns and work patterns are changing. There is extensive data showing ridership on commuter rail is decreasing. This is not a burden we should be placing upon New Hampshire taxpayers, especially when the demand is not there.”

Erica Layon (R-Derry) echoed Ankarberg’s statement, quoting recent media reports about the increase of remote work reducing the need for mass transit between New Hampshire and Boston [...]

She also responded to a question from Barry Faulkner (D-Swanzey) regarding differences in salaries between employees at companies in Boston and companies in the suburbs of Boston by stating that several companies have moved their headquarters out of Boston, adding that being in Boston harmed those companies’ recruitment efforts.

So if work patterns are changing and people don't need to commute to Boston anymore, especially with the "remote work" quote, it should mean highways should also become less congested due to WFH, right? Then why even add lanes on those highways?

“The proposed Capitol Corridor Project from Manchester to Nashua would only service a few towns in the southern part of the state. However, residents of towns like Rochester would be forced to foot the bill for something that does not benefit them,” said Ankarberg.

What about towns that do not benefit from upgraded highways?

 

[themissinglink]

If you own a tourist-oriented business in the northern part of the state, you want to make sure that your weekend customers are not stuck in traffic on a Friday night.

If someone owns a tourist-oriented business in the northern part of the state (or any part for that matter), they ought to support the Commuter Rail extension if they actually care about their customers not being stuck in traffic.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Quoted from the article:

So if work patterns are changing and people don't need to commute to Boston anymore, especially with the "remote work" quote, it should mean highways should also become less congested due to WFH, right? Then why even add lanes on those highways?


What about towns that do not benefit from upgraded highways?

This is tribal political warfare, nothing more. Like Highwayguy said, "Trains=Socialism=BAD!" Getting angry about an invented boogeyman and brandishing the big stick against perceived enemies is the whole point. The fact that it's incoherent doesn't mean anything to people impervious to logic. Being LOUD about something is what it's all about.

 

[mass88]

Doubly stupid when you consider how much of that $$$ was spent widening / shifting the entire freaking alignment through Windham to accommodate 8 lanes… which immediately reduces to 6 at the border (AKA where everyone is going). The only thing accomplished over a 6 lane cross section was letting drivers race to Salem, to hit the same amount of delay if it was spread out along the entire corridor; Traffic Engineering 101 tells you the total delay time isn’t going to change no matter what you do upstream of a bottleneck.

Now the same thing will happen on Everett, except drivers can race to Billarica to hit the back of queue for the 3/128 interchange.
—
(Side note, why did MA spend $$$ on the Big Wide to not touch that interchange, same logic applies)
—

NH’s fixation on Highway widening is so puzzling given how many abysmally timed signals NHDOT owns with literal hours of loss time (half of which are on the highway offramps!). Since those are the actual bottlenecks, timing changes could actually ease congestion. For less than the cost of 1 lane mile of widening they could retime every intersection in the state. Instead they just keep brute forcing LOS by adding lanes to the approaches… Truly baffling.

Back on topic, I can almost see the opposition to funding rail service North of Nashua, but the only logic against even studying a Nashua extension is Trains=Socialism=BAD!

Could the reason be that those making the decision have some sort of ulterior motive? Maybe there is political gain in widening the highway and using certain contractors that handle that sort of work versus spending the money on expanding rail infrastructure. Multiple posters in this thread have laid out clear and easy to follow arguments for the justification of expanding rail. I am sure a legitimate study would only provide further detail and rationale as to why it is a good idea and makes sense. Something tells me in these situations there are outside forces at work preventing it from happening.

Would such a study also touch upon the needs of those potential riders? Someone that wants to go up to NH to ski for the day, or for the week, may find it cumbersome to carry their skis and gear on the train for example. At the same time some may also find sitting back on the train and being able to relax after a day of skiing instead of needing to drive would find clear benefit.

 

[Brattle Loop]

Could the reason be that those making the decision have some sort of ulterior motive? Maybe there is political gain in widening the highway and using certain contractors that handle that sort of work versus spending the money on expanding rail infrastructure. Multiple posters in this thread have laid out clear and easy to follow arguments for the justification of expanding rail. I am sure a legitimate study would only provide further detail and rationale as to why it is a good idea and makes sense. Something tells me in these situations there are outside forces at work preventing it from happening.

I suppose it's possible, but ideology is a powerful drug in and of itself.

 

[fatnoah]

Could the reason be that those making the decision have some sort of ulterior motive?

I'm pretty sure Hanlon's Razor applies here.

New Hampshire has a very limited tax base and "property taxes" are always a very hot topic. There's also very much an attitude of "why would I pay for something someone else uses?" in many areas. This is slowly changing as the demographics shift, particularly in the south, towards those expecting the government to provide some services and an acceptance that those things cost money. Throw in the perpetual NH vs. MA tribalism and you've got great conditions for nose removal and face-spiting. I experienced this firsthand, and it's one of the reasons I never moved back after college.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

If someone owns a tourist-oriented business in the northern part of the state (or any part for that matter), they ought to support the Commuter Rail extension if they actually care about their customers not being stuck in traffic.

Especially since the northern part of New Hampshire is one of the most rapidly de-populating areas of New England, with rapidly aging demographics. The tax base up there is evaporating. They're more reliant financially than ever on the out-of-towners to prop up their basic way of life.

Here...population change from 2000-2010 and 2010-2018 by municipality. Look at all that hemmoraging up north and out west, and look at all the increases confined to basically the Big 3 counties with the cities.

 

[fatnoah]

Would such a study also touch upon the needs of those potential riders? Someone that wants to go up to NH to ski for the day, or for the week, may find it cumbersome to carry their skis and gear on the train for example. At the same time some may also find sitting back on the train and being able to relax after a day of skiing instead of needing to drive would find clear benefit.

I live within 20 minutes of Anderson station on the Lowell Line, and my wife spent today driving our teenage child and two friends to Gunstock in NH, which is about 15 minutes from Laconia, NH (which has a lovely train station with good burrito joint in it). Drive to Anderson to drop the kids off for train + shuttle would have been an amazing option for all involved.

 

[Highwayguy]

Could the reason be that those making the decision have some sort of ulterior motive?

As much as l am loathe to defend NH state Pols, l really don’t think theres an ulterior motive. I think NH is just still stuck in the mindset that self evidently, more lanes reduce congestion. Most of the US still thinks the same way. MassDOT is actually one of, if not the most progressive state DOT on that front, which given the proximity really highlights how behind NH is on the current traffic engineering trends.

As far as being anti rail, my sense as someone with a lot of family on the wrong side of the border is its a combination of:

thinking public transport is for the poors,
l personally won’t use it,
its expensive (but roads are free to build/maintain obviously),
seeing the MBTA as a salient of LIBERAL MA intruding into NH’s slice of Real America (TM), something something small government,
it being a physical representation of a big city (which they dislike/ are scared of), ect, ect, ect.

EDIT:
Forgot the biggest one, “MY PROPERTY TAX WILL INCREASE………..





by $5 a year

 

[mass88]

As much as l am loathe to defend NH state Pols, l really don’t think theres an ulterior motive. I think NH is just still stuck in the mindset that self evidently, more lanes reduces congestion. Most of the US still thinks the same way. MassDOT is actually one of, if not the most progressive state DOT on that front, which given the proximity really highlights how behind NH is on the current traffic engineering trends.

As far as being anti rail, my sense as someone with a lot of family on the wrong side of the border is its a combination of:

thinking public transport is for the poors,
l personally won’t use it,
its expensive (but roads are free to build/maintain obviously),
seeing the MBTA as a salient of LIBERAL MA intruding into NH’s slice of Real America (TM), something something small government,
it being a physical representation of a big city (which they dislike/ are scared of), ect, ect, ect.

That first point is a problem that permeates a lot of this country unfortunately.

Construction jobs to build out the rail infrastructure and reduced traffic, what's not to like?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

That first point is a problem that permeates a lot of this country unfortunately.

Construction jobs to build out the rail infrastructure and reduced traffic, what's not to like?

Don't forget reverse commutes, especially with clock-facing Regional Rail operating practices. If it's working with Portland and a handful of Downeaster trips per day a full-slate Purple Line schedule could be mega for the fortunes of Nashua and Manchester. To say nothing of turning around the Airport's sagging fortunes.

Of course, to attract businesses (instead of slowly losing business to MA) NH would have to give a crap about funding basic services (utilities, road upkeep, local buses of any kind, sidewalks).

 

[stick n move]

my sense as someone with a lot of family on the wrong side of the border is its a combination of:

thinking public transport is for the poors,
l personally won’t use it,
its expensive (but roads are free to build/maintain obviously),
seeing the MBTA as a salient of LIBERAL MA intruding into NH’s slice of Real America (TM), something something small government,
it being a physical representation of a big city (which they dislike/ are scared of), ect, ect, ect.

EDIT:
Forgot the biggest one, “MY PROPERTY TAX WILL INCREASE………..





by $5 a year

You nailed it.