Commuter Rail to New Hampshire?

[FrankLloydMike]

Re: New salem mbta CR station

Sorry for continuing on this--it probably belongs in a different thread.

NH Seacoast is an oddity in that state in that it's been fairly consistently pro-rail while the rest of the state has deadlocked itself in an ideological cripple fight (i.e. "I support X position because it humiliates my arch-nemesis", "car vs. rail...one must defeat the other!" rather than rational pros/cons advocacy). It's the most self-defeating possible way to approach it.

I'm not sure about the history, but that's at least no longer true. A UNH survey last year showed overwhelming support for commuter rail (specifically the Capitol Corridor) in the state, with majorities in favor across all geographic areas, political philosophies and political parties. A 2007 poll found similar overall support (87%). Not surprisingly given the focus on the Capitol Corridor, Hillsborough Country (Manchester & Nashua) and the Central/Lakes (Concord) showed the highest rates of support (75% both), followed by the Seacoast at 69%.

I completely agree with what you said about the "car vs. rail" argument--it's ridiculous; the point is choices, diversity, and complementary modes of transportation. I also think it's a one-sided argument--I never hear rail proponents portraying it as "car vs. rail", and in New Hampshire, I think the argument is still limited to a very small minority of residents, but an unrepresentatively large number of the current legislators. The state is cheap--and that becomes self-reinforcing as tax-dodgers move right over the border to parts of the state that would benefit most from commuter rail, but consistently elect the most anti-investment legislators in the state--but I think the current legislature is a fluke.

I don't think you can make a great demographic case for putting any corridor ahead of Nashua-Manchester-Concord for in-state CR. Which is unfair to Portsmouth, which wants it and would utilize it well, but unfortunately that's NH's quandry. It's self-defeating for their meager resources to build out their transit out-of-sequence when the Capitol Corridor is such a fat target unparalleled by any other.

Agreed--and as a New Hampshire native, it's embarrassing and frustrating to see a metropolitan area as big as Manchester-Nashua-Concord so close to Boston still discussing commuter rail. If those cities hope to be competitive and desirable in the future, they need to make sure they don't elect the sort of people who will vote against their interests. The mayor of Nashua, and the chambers of commerce in Nashua and Manchester have been some of the most vocal advocates for commuter rail, but the town councils in heavily Republican suburbs like Bedford and Merrimack have also been supportive. While I'm sure most riders would be commuting to and from Boston, this is the only area in northern New England that seems well-positioned to benefit relatively significant numbers of in-state commuters.

They would be interested in the Eastern Route straight up to Portsmouth because the I-95 diversions have significant impacts on MA in Seabrook all the way up. Same reason they're happy as clams to be operator to Concord along Route 3 or anywhere in Rhode Island along 95. But there's no parallel highways on the Western Route. They want ticket profits out out of these out-of-state deals, not simply to have costs subsidized for them at no net-gain. ... Use that for route-priming for 8 years while they initiate formal planning to bring the Eastern Route back up there for a bona fide high-density commuter trip.

You obviously know a lot more about this than I do, and those are all excellent points. While Exeter sees 90,000 boardings a year on the Downeaster, most of which I assume are commuters, there are almost certainly more potential commuters in the Amesbury, Seabrook, Hampton areas, especially given the connection to I-95, and probably more opportunities for TOD.

NH is doing heavy public input for the revamp of its State Rail Plan, last revised in '01. I think the final-draft document comes out for all to read by year's end or very early 2013. ... For a state like NH the freight loads and need to upgrade that capacity are the real drivers for their rail investments, so the document may help calm some of the ideological shouting by showing where freight revenue can lead passenger investment by the nose.

I saw this, and it sounds like the NH Rail Transit Authority (NHRTA) has been stressing how improving rail for transit also benefits freight rail, and vice versa. Again, I think their challenge is going to be in convincing legislators (or informing voters for 2012) more than the general population.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I just posted on LivableMHT about the Executive Council vote tomorrow on whether to approve the contract to study the Capitol Corridor project. Not only will the study not cost the state any money (not that it should be averse to investing money on economic development or greater livability), but it will also be conducted by an in-state contractor. If you're a New Hampshire resident (or even if you're not), please contact the Executive Councilors (their contact info is in the post) today.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Executive Council voted 3-2 not to accept funds for the study. Incredibly disappointing, but hardly surprising. The mayor of Nashua, as well as the former chair of NHRTA, have said they will look into whether any other group/agency can accept the funds and conduct the study. Here's the scoop.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Executive Council voted 3-2 not to accept funds for the study. Incredibly disappointing, but hardly surprising. The mayor of Nashua, as well as the former chair of NHRTA, have said they will look into whether any other group/agency can accept the funds and conduct the study. Here's the scoop.

"I don't think it's the right time in this economy," said Councilor Dan St. Hilaire, R-Concord. "We made the decision to expand I-93, and not rail. We need to be consistent."

This logic belongs in a museum...stuffed by a taxidermist and put in a glass kiosk...and marveled at by third graders on a field trip.

 

[Kahta]

This logic belongs in a museum...stuffed by a taxidermist and put in a glass kiosk...and marveled at by third graders on a field trip.

The destinations of NH commuters don't align with rail-- highway was the right choice.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The destinations of NH commuters don't align with rail-- highway was the right choice.

People don't drive on Route 3 between Concord, Manchester, Nashua, Lowell, and Boston?

"Consistency" in dumping money they can't afford in one mode means what "in this economy"? As in...this has nothing to do with money and why stop with the 93 widening when we can keep digging that hole even deeper on every highway? Because it's the familiar thing to do?



Really...I want to follow this guy around for a day and watch his decision-making prowess at work balancing his own checkbook or shopping for groceries knowing he has to lose a few pounds. For my own amusement. His whole daily thought process must be morbidly fascinating to watch in action.

 

[found5dollar]

this is why i am moving out of new hampshire. Everything is going in the wrong direction. for gods sake there aren't even sidewalks in my town.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

this is why i am moving out of new hampshire. Everything is going in the wrong direction. for gods sake there aren't even sidewalks in my town.

Not even on Major roads , I would think thats common place in New England?

 

[Nexis4jersey]

The destinations of NH commuters don't align with rail-- highway was the right choice.

But the Population growth does , it matches up nicely with the Proposed Rail line.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

The destinations of NH commuters don't align with rail-- highway was the right choice.

Are you kidding me? This is exactly the sort of misinformed mindset that is polluting the legislature in Concord right now!

The proposed Capitol Corridor would connect the three largest cities in New Hampshire (including the two largest in northern New England) with each other and their suburbs in the second largest metropolitan area in northern New England (and much denser than the massive Portland metro land area), as well as with the major city of Boston. On top of that, the commuter rail would link those cities and Boston (and its northern exurbs) with Manchester Airport.

It may be true that most "commuters" in Salem and the surrounding towns would not benefit from commuter rail, since they are mostly commuting from New Hampshire suburbs along I-93 to Massachusetts suburbs along I-93. But the commuter rail would link Manchester, Concord and Nashua to Lowell and the existing commuter rail network. It would allow someone in Concord or Lowell to fly out of Manchester as or more easily than out of Logan. It would allow commuters in Merrimack to get to jobs in Woburn and Medford without sitting in traffic on Route 3. And probably most important, it would make it more attractive for businesses to move to (or stay in) downtown Manchester and Nashua, and it would make living in those cities more desirable for young people (who, like myself, currently leave the state in overwhelming numbers for jobs and urban lifestyles elsewhere).

You can follow the lead of people like Councilor Dan St. Hilaire--who was only elected in the unprecedented (and unlikely to be repeated) Republican wave of 2010--but please realize that you are resigning New Hampshire to a future of being passed by by its neighbors. The state--and especially its Merrimack Valley cities (and the airport)--can not compete as long as close-minded radical individualists remain in power. Fortunately, I think their days in control are limited.

What really kills me about this whole thing, though, is that even with St. Hilaire's ridiculously pathetic excuse for voting against this, he was voting basically to block his ears. This wasn't a grant to build commuter rail--it was a grant to study it! It would have cost the state nothing, and it would have addressed questions about cost, feasibility, viability and alternatives to commuter rail. If St. Hilaire and others (only 5% of residents according to UNH study last year) really believe that commuter rail is wrong for the state, then they should have the courage and confidence to approve a study that would have evaluated that. Of course, they probably know that the 75% of residents who support commuter rail are right, and that it would benefit the state, but they're too afraid to find that out for sure.

 

[Riverworks]

Let NH residents continue to grovel over MA borders for rail service ... What happened to the NH Rail Authority? What a waste.

NH doesn't even pay for the Downeaster service (all three stations). They just make repairs to their section of the corridor as parts break down.

My dad, who happens to live and work in Nashua (for a car dealership), once told me that NH residents "move up here to do whatever they want and not be bothered." Even though it was a shortsighted comment, I take it to be true. Commuter rail is a long ways away from creeping over the border.

 

[found5dollar]

Not even on Major roads , I would think thats common place in New England?

the immediate down towns around here do, but get more than a quarter mile out and there are none to be found. I live about a 20 minute walk from my downtown, but cant walk it because it is literally too dangerous to do so. I have to drive. The people in charge here don't seem to realize that cars are not the way most people want to get around. Give us more variety.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

They just make repairs to their section of the corridor as parts break down.

No they don't. Pan Am Railways, a private freight company, does that. (and in turn they're getting paid by Amtrak)

NH isn't dropping a dime into it, just leaching.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

No they don't. Pan Am Railways, a private freight company, does that. (and in turn they're getting paid by Amtrak)

NH isn't dropping a dime into it, just leaching.

Not on their lone Vermonter stop either. VTTrans is having to pay more for its in-state miles so the host RR, NECR, could divert more of its share of the track/speed upgrade proceeds to floating the cost of all the running miles in NH solo. And it was Massachusetts and the T deal for the GLX land that secured the passenger rights deal to Concord on NH's behalf, because every time the local yokels got in the same room with Pan Am things got all slappy and they couldn't be trusted with that simple task anymore.

If there's any problems with station upkeep on the 4 freebies they've got and they flip Amtrak, the host RR's, or the adjoining states the bird over some political stunt...Amtrak's got no problem doing an outright skip of Claremont on the Vermonter or one or more of Exeter, Durham, and Dover on the Downeaster. And compensating with another VT stop, or adding Lawrence and another ME station to the DE.

Flyover country: this is what you want, this is what you get, Warriors o' Concord.



EDIT: But this is the scariest part of that "consistency" statement: endless highway expansion is donated by free money too. Because...because! Just a matter of time...somebody will write the check for us, I'm sure of it.

This is what politicians actually believe up there.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

My dad, who happens to live and work in Nashua (for a car dealership), once told me that NH residents "move up here to do whatever they want and not be bothered." Even though it was a shortsighted comment, I take it to be true. Commuter rail is a long ways away from creeping over the border.

This is part of the problem--the southern tier towns along I-93 and Route 3 are the most Republican parts of the state, in large part because relatively affluent cheapskates jump the border for lower taxes and then elect people who vote against the interests of the state. Just look at House Majority Leader DJ Bettencourt of Salem or Speaker Bill O'Brien from Mont Vernon for examples. The only two councilors who supported this were those from Manchester and the North Country, the last place to benefit from commuter rail but also the one with the most New Hampshire-born residents.

For several years until 2010, New Hampshire was making real progress on the rail situation--a governor and legislature that supported commuter rail, and the creation of the NHRTA. Since 2010, a group of rail-hating, mostly born-out-of-state (not that it matters until people start throwing around "yokel" terms) people have been leading the legislature against the economic interests of the state and the overwhelming preference of the public.

Part of the problem is that O'Brien's sideshow of passing bills to rescind insurance coverage of contraception (a bill that has no chance of surviving a veto) takes attention away from issues like the Executive Council playing politics with commuter rail. While 75% of New Hampshire residents support commuter rail, I bet the percentage of people aware of the BS that passed as policy yesterday is in the single digits. Unfortunately, the circus is in town at least until November.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

the immediate down towns around here do, but get more than a quarter mile out and there are none to be found. I live about a 20 minute walk from my downtown, but cant walk it because it is literally too dangerous to do so. I have to drive. The people in charge here don't seem to realize that cars are not the way most people want to get around. Give us more variety.

Sadly this seems to be the case in small cities (and of course rural areas) throughout New England. New Hampshire's cheapness--I mean, frugality--accentuates it no doubt, but I don't think many cities of 16,000 people in New England have sidewalks very far outside of the downtowns. Obviously, I'd like that to change, but that's one issue that I don't think is unique to New Hampshire.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Another story about yesterday's debacle in today's Union Leader (you can almost hear Joe McQuaid's smug, destructive smile):

Rail study rejected as pricey, pointless

Nashua mayor objects:
She hopes city can find way to pay for study.

By PAULA TRACY

New Hampshire Union Leader

CONCORD — Executive councilors derailed a $3.65 million study of a Concord-to-Boston rail line through Nashua, saying it was too expensive and might compete with the widening of Interstate 93.

Voting to oppose the contract were Executive Councilors David Wheeler of Milford, Chris Sununu of Newfields and Dan St. Hilaire of Concord. Ray Wieczorek of Manchester and Ray Burton of Bath supported the rail study.

The federal government would have paid 88 percent, or about $3.2 million, of the cost, with the state picking up the tab for about $400,000.

Gov. John Lynch and Transportation Commissioner Chris Clement supported the measure, with Clement insisting the project would not compete with I-93 widening.

Nashua Mayor Donnalee Lozeau also spoke in favor of the study, and noted private donations of $120,000 would support it.

After the vote, she said she was not giving up, and would look into whether Nashua could take on the state portion of the study costs.

The two-part study by the URS Corp. of Salem and San Francisco would have included an alternative analysis for rail and transit in the Lowell-Nashua-Manchester portion of the corridor and a service development plan for inter-city passenger rail in the corridor between Boston and Concord.

'This is going to tell us if this is an idea that is feasible or should be abandoned,' Wieczorek said. “I like what I see.”

Clement agreed.

“It will look at whether both rail and bus could survive, and at what point is one or another or neither economical,” he said.

But Wheeler said the study is “too much money. We are spending money we don’t have for a project we can’t afford,” he said.

He added: “We have been successful in Nashua with buses ...it has been very successful to the point it is no longer subsidized.”

St. Hilaire said the estimated cost of I-93 widening is $365 million. He pointed to a 2008 study that estimated rail service have a $300 million price tag.

“I don’t think both projects can compete with each other,” St. Hilaire said.

Clement said those numbers for rail could be off and the study would tell what the costs would be. Asked if it would mean the widening of I-93 would be cancelled, Clement said: “Absolutely not. I-93 is a very important project. We need to get that done.”

After the vote, state rail advisory committee member Peter Hoe Burling of Cornish, a former state legislator, blamed “New Hampshire politics” for nixing the study.

 

[FrankLloydMike]

I also just wanted to add how incredibly disappointing Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas has been regarding the Capitol Corridor commuter rail. He's done nothing to support or advocate for the project, or even the study.

As a Republican and a mayor of the state's major city, Gatsas is in a unique position to convince his Republican colleagues in the state legislature and Executive Council of the importance of issues like that to the city. If Gatsas saw the importance of rail, he might have been able to swing one of those votes the other way.

Former Republican mayor and current Executive Councilor Wiezcorek, who voted for the study, understands that importance, and even Frank Guinta supported commuter rail went he was mayor! If the mayor of Manchester can't even see the benefits of commuter rail for the city (and the airport!), then I really question his ability to craft (or see someone else's) vision for the city.

 

[whighlander]

Frank -- I think that NH is worried that the focus will be taken off widening I-93

I-93 is the Aorta of NH with Rt-3 a close second, and I-95 along the coast also important -- all the rest of the highways and rail are secondary

In times of limited resources you have to prioritize

By the way -- there is nothing that is "free" that is worth having -- if Federal money is paying then Federal bureaucrats will mandate what they want and the outcome will be given by the Golden Rule of public policy -- aka -- "he who gives the gold makes the rules"

If this project is so vital to NH and MA -- let the taxpayers of the two states bite the bullet and pay for it

 

[FrankLloydMike]

Frank -- I think that NH is worried that the focus will be taken off widening I-93

I-93 is the Aorta of NH with Rt-3 a close second, and I-95 along the coast also important -- all the rest of the highways and rail are secondary

In times of limited resources you have to prioritize

By the way -- there is nothing that is "free" that is worth having -- if Federal money is paying then Federal bureaucrats will mandate what they want and the outcome will be given by the Golden Rule of public policy -- aka -- "he who gives the gold makes the rules"

If this project is so vital to NH and MA -- let the taxpayers of the two states bite the bullet and pay for it

This study would not divert attention or funding from I-93. A properly functioning state (which, admittedly, NH is not right now) can handle two things at once. Rail would not replace highways--it would complement them. This isn't even an issue of prioritizing one over the other--it's about studying rail! I highly doubt it, but the study may have even come to the same conclusion you have.

And the study isn't "free"--it's paid for with a federal grant (NH gets only 71c for every $1 they contribute in federal money--only three states get less). And "federal bureaucrats" will not mandate what they want--the study would be conducted by a private consultant for the state. The federal grant is just a rare example of New Hampshire actually getting something back from the money it sends to Washington. Of course, the current legislators and executive councilors are doing all they can to make sure that New Hampshire gets even less money back.