Commuter Rail to New Hampshire?

[found5dollar]

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.

Yas! Burrito Me! I lived in Laconia for a handful of years and ate there on it's opening day! The people that run it are fabulous and I will claim they make the best burrito in New Hampshire. Sue me.

 

[fatnoah]

Yas! Burrito Me!

Las Pinatas, a restaurant that preceded Burrito Me in that location was also fabulous and run by a great family. It's nice to see the downtown area coming back to life in a way that I haven't seen since my childhood. Of course, in true NH fashion, the city spending money restoring theater that has become the new downtown anchor was a very controversial topic.

 

[NHMaples]

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

I wish I had written this because it captures the NH anti-rail sentiment so succinctly. One additional point I would add is that the MBTA is perceived as dysfunctional. Bad news travels quicker and further than good, and whether it's snow disruptions, braking issues, deferred maintenance, or MBTA management controversies, those issues (really only the headlines) enter the discussion up north. Oh, and yet another point I would offer is that "the mindset that self-evidently more lanes reduce congestion" is encouraged by the fact that they do. As the 93-widening progressed northerly year by year the evidence was clear. As soon as a driver reached the completed portion with additional lanes, congestion decreased and safety increased, and once the entire project was done, after driving down 20 miles of brand-new highway, crossing the state line, and finding oneself on a poorly maintained, crumbling, overburdened length of road, it became almost impossible not to reach the obvious conclusion that Massachusetts really needs to get with the program and make things right. The same rationale could be made over on the Everett Turnpike. Massachusetts widened Route 3 south of Nashua; it must be logical that widening the highway north of Nashua up to Manchester makes sense. Provincialism prevents one from recognizing that only so many automobiles can be pushed into a metropolis with limited roadway space. The fact that a problem which shows itself in Massachusetts must be fixed in New Hampshire isn't easy to stomach, especially for people who are disinclined to eat such food to begin with.

 

[Equilibria]

is that "the mindset that self-evidently more lanes reduce congestion" is encouraged by the fact that they do. As the 93-widening progressed northerly year by year the evidence was clear. As soon as a driver reached the completed portion with additional lanes, congestion decreased and safety increased, and once the entire project was done, after driving down 20 miles of brand-new highway, crossing the state line, and finding oneself on a poorly maintained, crumbling, overburdened length of road, it became almost impossible not to reach the obvious conclusion that Massachusetts really needs to get with the program and make things right. The same rationale could be made over on the Everett Turnpike. Massachusetts widened Route 3 south of Nashua; it must be logical that widening the highway north of Nashua up to Manchester makes sense. Provincialism prevents one from recognizing that only so many automobiles can be pushed into a metropolis with limited roadway space. The fact that a problem

All of those are pretty good observations, though of course I think they're misconceptions.

 

[jklo]

In fact, it appears that the most popular destination city in MA for Merrimack & Hillsborough residents after Boston is actually Lowell, which of course would be extremely accessible via a commuter rail extension.

It's unrealistic to think you would be able to get NH residents who work in Lowell to take the CR. Driving is probably easy enough. Anderson CR stop is probably a tad too far from where the Burlington jobs are to get interest.

 

[Highwayguy]

As the 93-widening progressed northerly year by year the evidence was clear. As soon as a driver reached the completed portion with additional lanes, congestion decreased and safety increased, and once the entire project was done, after driving down 20 miles of brand-new highway, crossing the state line, and finding oneself on a poorly maintained, crumbling, overburdened length of road.

All true!
In a vacuum, adding lanes to a limited access facility does increase capacity. 100% fact.

However, the consensus in the Traffic Engineering field is that design year congestion will not improve in a healthy metro area due to induced demand unless the section widened was a bottleneck (See LA and it’s crazy freeway lane miles per capita vs congestion). Yes more vehicles are being moved, but that is a function of a wider ‘pipe’ so to speak, not the velocity of the fluid in the pipe increasing. When freeway capacity is added, land use and travel patterns will adjust to take advantage of the increased mobility; eventually those additional trips will be more than the 1900 vph additional capacity of the added lane, and the relative amount of congestion will return to about the same equilibrium as pre widening. Given the relative low capacity of freeway lane miles relative to their construction (and societal!) costs, in most instances widening is a low benefit/cost way to increase regional mobility.

I don’t judge non traffic engineers for advocating for more lanes since (most of us) only accepted this fact within the last 20 years or so.

My main gripe with the 93 widening is the 4 lanes. As there are 4 lanes feeding it from the North and 3 from the South, there is at least a reasonable argument that a 3 lane per direction facility would be removing a bottleneck and the costs could be justified due to the transit hostile land use of the corridor. The fourth lane doesn’t accomplish anything other than eating costs since 98% of the volume is crossing the state lane and necking down to three lanes.

If anything, the 4th lane may increase overall congestion by inducing more trips on the 3 lane segment in MA.

 

[clam]

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.

Unfamiliar with these projects, it seems insane that NH dropped a billion on these? Where are all those cars going if not the Lowell/Boston area served by commuter rail? Wonder what a billion in commuter rail would look like for NH

 

[jklo]

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.

Same problem Western Mass has... no job opps, even worse weather. Why bother.

 

[bigeman312]

Unfamiliar with these projects, it seems insane that NH dropped a billion on these? Where are all those cars going if not the Lowell/Boston area served by commuter rail? Wonder what a billion in commuter rail would look like for NH

All costs are based on publically available estimates, where possible, and inflation-adjusted to 2023 dollars. Otherwise, they are estimated:

Project	Cost
Nashua-Manchester Commuter Rail (Capitol Corridor)	$576m
Extension of Commuter/Regional Rail from Manchester to Concord	$79m
Branch off the Downeaster to Rochester	$93m
Branch off the Haverhill Line to Derry via Salem (rail-with-trail)	$260m

Some of the price estimates may be off, but I did my best. It gives you a rough idea of what $1b would get you in terms of passenger rail in New Hampshire. It would bring passenger rail to New Hampshire's eight most populous municipalities, when currently there is only rail transit in one of those municipalities.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Unfamiliar with these projects, it seems insane that NH dropped a billion on these? Where are all those cars going if not the Lowell/Boston area served by commuter rail? Wonder what a billion in commuter rail would look like for NH

The 2 major CR projects for NH are Capitol Corridor all the way to Concord, and Eastern Route reactivation to Portsmouth. Those are the ones that serve the Big 3 counties and Big 3 highway corridors most directly. Third project would be instituting CR frequencies on the Western Route from Haverhill-Dover (like existed into the early MBTA era) with a couple infill stops and more double-tracking, as that would glom cheaply onto the existing Downeaster infrastructure. All told, probably a near-wash on cost to the highway widenings thus far, and less long-term than the highway widenings yet to come (Spaulding Turnpike, NH 101) from all the induced demand the current lane addictions are going to generate.

 

[FK4]

Why doesn't Mass. just slap a fat toll on anyone crossing from NH to MA on I-93? Might make all those lanes on I-93 not seem like the perfect solution. Most of those NH residents are driving into MA for work, anyway, putting wear and tear on Mass DOT roads, and MA ought to have some say in that, too.

 

[jklo]

Why doesn't Mass. just slap a fat toll on anyone crossing from NH to MA on I-93? Might make all those lanes on I-93 not seem like the perfect solution. Most of those NH residents are driving into MA for work, anyway, putting wear and tear on Mass DOT roads, and MA ought to have some say in that, too.

Tax free shopping

 

[Highwayguy]

Why doesn't Mass. just slap a fat toll on anyone crossing from NH to MA on I-93? Might make all those lanes on I-93 not seem like the perfect solution. Most of those NH residents are driving into MA for work, anyway, putting wear and tear on Mass DOT roads, and MA ought to have some say in that, too.

States are unable to unilaterally erect tolls on interstates… half of the reason why is to prevent tolls at the border like this.

 

[millerm277]

Why doesn't Mass. just slap a fat toll on anyone crossing from NH to MA on I-93? Might make all those lanes on I-93 not seem like the perfect solution. Most of those NH residents are driving into MA for work, anyway, putting wear and tear on Mass DOT roads, and MA ought to have some say in that, too.

Federal law.

Short of an exception it's absolutely not going to get, MA would probably need to pay back the feds every federal dollar paid to build and maintain I-93 in MA from it's inception until now, with interest. And wouldn't receive any further federal $ for it.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Federal law.

Short of an exception it's absolutely not going to get, MA would probably need to pay back the feds every federal dollar paid to build and maintain I-93 in MA from it's inception until now, with interest. And wouldn't receive any further federal $ for it.

The Federal highway apportionment formula was changed in 2012. No longer any issue with applying tolls (under one of the Fed DOT programs). No impact on federal funding.

Fed DOT now allow tolling in four use cases:

General tolling for new construction (Section 129)

HOV Lanes (Section 166)

Rehabilitation programs (which virtually every interstate needs) (ISRRPP)

Value-based Pricing (congestion tolling) (VPPP)

 

[Smuttynose]

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.

I think we should be careful about conflating 'People from New Hampshire' with the New Hampshire legislature. New Hampshire's legislature is enormous, but it's essentially a very time-consuming volunteer endeavor. It pays $100 a year. In the past this model may have worked well, but as partisanship nationwide has intensified, Concord has become a more partisan environment. Running for these positions really appeals chiefly to partisans. And this issue becomes less an honest disagreement about ridership/financial projections and a balance of costs and benefits and more about emotion and conspiracy theories. Too many legislators see this as a communist plot to urbanize the state and hurt rural communities (to put it lightly). In terms of popular support, I don't know if it's been polled lately but the idea of expanding passenger rail to NH is broadly popular among 'people from New Hampshire' --

Poll Shows 75.5 percent of NH residents support rail expansion to NH
https://manchesterinklink.com/poll-shows-75-5-percent-of-nh-residents-support-rail-expansion-to-nh/

 

[jklo]

Poll Shows 75.5 percent of NH residents support rail expansion to NH
https://manchesterinklink.com/poll-shows-75-5-percent-of-nh-residents-support-rail-expansion-to-nh/

That's probably why the votes to kill the funding. It polls well, but when it comes to actually using it, they won't.

 

[dhawkins]

That's probably why the votes to kill the funding. It polls well, but when it comes to actually using it, they won't.

Is there a reply emoji for "reluctantly agree"?

 

[dshoost88]

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 someone who not only worked as a transportation planner in NH for 2.5 years but has since coordinated the Massachusetts State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for the last 4 years at MassDOT, I feel professionally and personally compelled to acknowledge and confirm this entire statement.

What truly saddens me about NH, however, is the disconnect between decision-makers and their constituents: in survey after survey, public meeting after public meeting, written comment after written comment, a very clear majority (like 8 out of 10 people) say they crave non-vehicular transportation options. Yearn for them. In growing circumstances, depend on them... NH has the 3rd highest share of population over 65 years of age (and growing) in the entire country, a segment of the population that is uncomfortable driving at night and is more inclined to face vision impairments that affect their ability to drive at all. This coupled with concentrations of young, often foreign-born, residents living in Manchester and Nashua--persons often at lower incomes who are unable to afford a car or are without a drivers license--really illustrates the broader problems that could be addressed if non-vehicular transit investment was legitimately supported by NHDOT and GACIT (Governor's Advisory Committee on intermodal Transportation).

Where Massachusetts spends ~7-8% of its federal aid program in an average year on bicycle and pedestrian investments (for example), NH spends <0.5%. That is not a typo: less than zero point five percent. The same State that advertises bike-riding and trail-hiking in the White Mountains in Boston MBTA subway station platforms spends 15x less than its federal share of transportation funds on the modes its promoting compared to MA.

 

[millerm277]

The Federal highway apportionment formula was changed in 2012. No longer any issue with applying tolls (under one of the Fed DOT programs). No impact on federal funding.

Fed DOT now allow tolling in four use cases:

General tolling for new construction (Section 129)

HOV Lanes (Section 166)

Rehabilitation programs (which virtually every interstate needs) (ISRRPP)

Value-based Pricing (congestion tolling) (VPPP)

Those all require federal approval. Federal approval which is IMO unlikely to be granted if a neighboring state has major objections, especially for a proposed toll which can likely be proven to disproportionately affect that state's residents. Said state would probably even have a Commerce Clause claim in federal courts if it did get approved by regulators.

Most of those programs other than VPPP also look to be tough at best to apply to the situation.

-----

I will also point out that Rhode Island just had it's tolls on trucks declared unconstitutional in federal court because (among other reasons) of how heavily they target out of state users/commerce - and the stated rationale of that decision would seemingly add further doubt to the premise that some kind of "border toll" would hold up either.

If you did get permission to implement more general tolling, I would suspect the tolls charged would need to be fairly distributed along the entire corridor, used only on the corridor + aligned to the costs of that portion of the corridor to hold up in court, assuming that decision stands.

In terms of congestion-based, I don't think you'd have any success saying I-93 needs congestion tolling from the NH state line to 495 or 128 only. If you're going to toll it all the way from NH to Canton, maybe. But that won't be the "NH tax" some are envisioning in terms of who/where most of the money comes from.